HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-24-2021 CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSIONCity Council Study Session Community
W ellness Special Focus Area
May 24, 2021 - 5:30 P M
Virtual
AGE ND A
Watch the meeting L IV E !
Watch the meeting video
Meeting videos are not available until 72
hours after the meeting has concluded.
I .C A L L TO O R D E R
I I .Virtual P articipation L ink
A.Virtual P articipation L ink
The A uburn C ity C ouncil S tudy S ession scheduled for Monday, May 24, 2021 at 5:30
p.m. will be held virtually and telephonically. To attend the meeting virtually please click
one of the below links, enter the meeting I D into the Z oom app, or call into the meeting
at the phone number listed below.
P er Governor I nslee's E mergency P roclamation 20-05 and 20-28 et. seq. and Stay
S afe-S tay Healthy, the City of A uburn is prohibited from holding in-person meetings at
this time.
C ity of A uburn Resolution No. 5581, designates City of A uburn meeting locations for
all Regular, S pecial and Study S ession Meetings of the City Council and of the
C ommittees, Boards and Commissions of the City as Virtual L ocations until
Washington’s Governor authorizes local governments to conduct in-person meetings.
The link to the Virtual Meeting or phone number to listen to the C ouncil Meeting is:
J oin f rom a P C , Mac, iP ad, iP hone or A ndroid device:
P lease click one of the below UR L to join.
Z O O M: https://zoom.us/j/94203285970
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/user/watchauburn/live/?nomobile=1
Or join by phone:
253 215 8782
877 853 5257 (Toll Free)
Webinar I D: 942 0328 5970
B.R oll Call
Page 1 of 199
I I I .A NNO UNC E ME NT S R E P O RT S A ND P R E S E NTAT I O NS
I V.A G E ND A I T E MS F O R C O UNC I L D I S C US S I O N
A.Housing Action P lan (HA P) B rief ing (Tate)(30 Minutes)
The City is preparing a Housing A ction Plan (HA P ) document under a Washington
S tate D ept. of C ommerce grant. On F ebruary 22, 2021 the City consultant,
E coNorthwest, provided an introductory briefing to Council on the existing conditions
influencing housing supply in A uburn. I n follow up, the consultant will describe the
preliminary recommendations that are part of the draft of the Housing Action P lan
issued f or public comment through J une 1
B.S E PA and Environmental Review Series 1 of 6 P resentations (Tate)(30 Minutes)
P lanning Services staf f to provide a presentation on State E nvironmental Policy Act
(S E PA ) rules and implementation
C .Ordinance No. 6816 (Thomas)(60 Minutes)
A n O rdinance amending Section 8.08.180 of the Auburn City Code relating to solid
waste collection charges
D .Ordinance No. 6822 (Thomas)(10 Minutes)
A n O rdinance amending Sections 3.40.010 and 3.41.010 of the Auburn C ity C ode to
restore an inadvertently omitted allocation of tax revenue to an established C ity fund
V.C O MMUNI T Y W E L L NE S S D I S C US S I O N I T E MS
V I .O T HE R D I S C US S I O N I T E MS
V I I .NE W B US I NE S S
V I I I .A D J O UR NME NT
Agendas and minutes are available to the public at the City Clerk's Office, on the City website
(http://www.auburnwa.gov), and via e-mail . Complete agenda packets are available for revi ew
at the City Clerk's Office.
Page 2 of 199
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Housing Action Plan (HAP) Briefing (Tate)(30 Minutes)
Date:
May 18, 2021
Department:
Community Development
Attachments:
HAP Public Review Draft
HAP Appendices
Budget Impact:
Current Budget: $0
Proposed Revision: $0
Revised Budget: $0
Administrativ e Recommendation:
For discussion only.
Background for Motion:
Background Summary:
Housing is a complex issue inf luenced by several f actors and participants. While the housing
supply is inf luenced 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 f or 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).
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 Washington State Dept. of
Commerce (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.
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-prof it single-f amily 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 cost burdened households;
Page 3 of 199
(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, nonprof it housing advocates, and local religious groups;
and
(g} I nclude a schedule of programs and actions to implement the recommendations of
the housing action plan.
Scope of work and phases:
The work ef f ort and contract are generally divided, in two main phases:
1. T he 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 W ay, Kent, Renton, and Tukwila. This collaborative effort collected
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 prof essional consulting f irm with specialized
expertise, EcoNorthwest, to gather information and assist the city in the preparation of
this document. This document was completed in August 2020. This document sets
the stage to evaluate and incorporate appropriate policies, tools, and incentives for
increasing residential capacity.
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 was shared
for February 22, 2021 council meeting.
2. T he second phase
This second phase and main phase builds on the contents of the South King County
Subregional Housing Action Framework document developed in the f irst phase but
Page 4 of 199
focuses specif ically on the City of Auburn. And this phase is independent and
conducted under a separate contract component.
Step A - As a f irst step f or this phase, the City’s consultant prepared inf ormation
specific to the City of Auburn. The consultant prepared a draf t “Auburn Housing Action
Plan Existing Conditions Memorandum which details the current conditions influencing
housing capacity in the City. This document was provided to the City Council in
advance and was the f ocus of the February 22, 2021 Study Session.
This document has the following components:
Intr oduction
Housing Needs Analysis discusses the current housing inventory in Auburn, current
demographics and employment trends for Auburn residents, housing af f ordability
trends and displacement risk, and estimates f uture 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 – f rom 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 f ive 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.
Step B - Continuously throughout this entire phase, the City has actively conducted a
public outreach effort to solicit public f eedback f rom persons with understanding and
experience with housing in Auburn. This has been ongoing while the plan is under
development and then continuously through making the draft plan contents 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 and implemented a public engagement plan consisting of online or virtual
forums for:
Individual stakeholder interviews
Focus/small group discussions
Open houses/community forums (May 12 @12:00pm & May 17 @ 5:30pm))
To counteract the restrictions associated with the COVID -19 pandemic, the city has
also implemented a new on-line tool as an additional method of gathering input. Please
check out the f ollowing website: https://speakupauburn.org/hap See the summary of
key engagement f indings to date, in Part 2 of the Plan.
Page 5 of 199
Step C – A public draft of the Housing Action Plan has been prepared and is being
made available f or public review and comment opportunity through June 1, 2021. An
intr oduction and explanation of this Plan will be the focus of the M ay 24, 2021
Study Session, especially the recommendations. (see Figures 30 and 31 in Part
4 of the plan for a summary table of the recommendations).
This public draf t version of the Plan uses the public input gathered so f ar along with the
research conducted to analyze the current and f orecasted conditions in Auburn and
generate recommendations/implementation strategies for the Housing Action Plan.
This Plan will help the City guide its housing policies and regulations and decisions over
the 2020-2040 (20-year) planning period.
The recommendations offered in this HAP are informed by several components of this
project. In addition to building on the work completed in 2020 f or the South King County
Subregional Housing Action Framework, the recommendations in this plan were
developed using the following components.
1. Data on current and f uture housing needs discussed in the Existing Conditions
Memorandum,
2. Suggestions and ideas generated from the community through the community
engagement process, and
3. A development f easibility analysis and review of Auburn’s zoning code / development
standards to evaluate impacts to the feasibility of new construction.
These three source inputs were used to arrive at the recommendations of f ered in this
plan. More specifically related to this third input, the consultant used a development
feasibility analysis to inform recommendations about the development standards and
affordable housing programs that can support more market rate and af f ordable
housing.
Due to time and expense limitations of this effort, it was not possible to study the entire
city and recognizing the limitations of source data, with help f rom city staf f , the
consultant focused on certain limited geographic areas for more in-depth study. The
study area includes downtown and nearby R-5 and R-7 zoned areas to the east (see
Figure 3).
For the downtown area this focused on the study of “podium type construction” (4-5
stories of wood f rame construction over 1 or 2 concrete base floors) as representing
market rate units and micro-housing units (about 220 square foot living area) as
workf orce housing units. For nearby R-5 and R-7 zoned areas, the development
feasibility f ocused on provision of middle housing. In this analysis, the term “middle
housing” ref ers to duplexes and triplexes as a generally more affordable type of
Page 6 of 199
housing.
They evaluated the development feasibility of several development types (or
prototypes) using development f easibility analysis and sensitivity testing. The analysis
allowed analysis and testing the impacts that result f rom various changes to
development standards and incentive programs.
Plan Recommendations:
The HAP set out to address the f ollowing four city goals:
A. Encourage market rate development in Downtown Auburn: more development
and denser development
B. Encourage the development of below-market workf orce housing in Downtown
Auburn
C. Encourage the development of middle housing types in R-5 and R-7 Zones in
the Study Area (see Figure 3)
D. Prevent displacement and encourage the preservation of existing
af f ordable housing
With these four goals providing the f ramework, the plan identifies several
recommendations or strategies to increase housing capacity and to meet the goals.
The recommendations can be categorized into three types, as follows:
1. Recommendations call for a zoning code or Comprehensive Plan change.
Recommendation can be implemented through the Zoning Code and/or through
Comprehensive Plan update and code amendment processes.
2. Recommendations call for a new program. Implementation will require staf f and or
resources to support new or expanded program operations.
3. Recommendations call for increased partnerships and collaboration.
Implementation will f ocus on enhancing relationships and securing partnerships.
In the coming years, implementing this HAP will require the City to balance and
coordinate its pursuit of actions, funding, and partnerships with its other policy and
programmatic priorities. The recommendations in the HAP will require varying levels of
effort for the City to implement. Each recommendation will require different levels of
staf f time and resources and will have achieve different objectives (see Figures 30 and
31 in Part 4 of the plan for a summary table of the recommendations).
Each of these recommendations lies within the City of Auburn’s inf luence, but work will
span departments and involve meaningf ul contributions from stakeholders such as City
Council, Planning Commission, residents, homeowners, neighborhood associations,
advocates, developers (both affordable and market rate), and many others. Additionally,
some of the actions in the HAP are intended to support enhanced coordination with
Page 7 of 199
government agency and non-prof it partners.
Next Steps
The City will accept public comments on the public draft of the HAP through 5:00pm
June 1, 2021. Staff will evaluate all comments received and make relevant revisions to
the document. To fulfil the grant contract with WA State Dept. of Commerce, the
revised document will be presented to the City Council along with a resolution f or
adopting the f inal Housing Action Plan near the end of June/beginning of July.
While implementation will take several years, one of the first steps will be to develop a
work program and assign tasks. The City will need to assess the varying levels of effort,
allocate resources, and examine technological solutions to develop work programs that
can help complete the needed analysis and initiate important conversations with these
stakeholders.
Rev iewed by Council Committees:
Councilmember:Stearns Staff:Tate
Meeting Date:May 24, 2021 Item Number:
Page 8 of 199
DRAFT Housing Action Plan
City of Auburn
May 2021
Prepared for: City of Auburn
Draft Report
Page 9 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan i
Acknowledgements
ECONorthwest prepared this report for the City of Auburn. ECONorthwest and the City of
Auburn are grateful to the numerous staff, elected officials, and community members who
participated and provided feedback to shape the plan.
City of Auburn
§ Jeff Tate, Director of Community Development
§ Jeff Dixon, Planning Services Manager
§ Anthony Avery, Senior Planner (former)
§ Joy Scott, Community Services Manager
§ Alexandria Teague, Planner II
§ Erika Klyce, Neighborhood Programs Coordinator
§ Kyla Wright, Human Services Program Coordinator
§ Steven Sturza, Development Engineer Manager
§ Jason Krum, Development Services Manager
South King County Housing and Homelessness Partnership (SKHHP)
§ Angela San Filippo, Executive Manager
Consultant Team
Tyler Bump, Madeline Baron, Oscar Saucedo-Andrade,
Justin Sherrill, Michelle Anderson, James Kim, Andrés
Arjona, and Jennifer Cannon.
Andrea Petzel and Valerie Pacino
Ben Webber and Ross Determan
Page 10 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan ii
Page 11 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan iii
Auburn Community Members (alphabetical order)
§ Amie Hudson, Neiders Company
§ Christopher Loving, Eastside Legal Assistance Program
§ Cyndi Rapier, Green River College
§ Debbie Christian, Auburn Food Bank
§ Greg Brown, Auburn School District
§ Isiah Johnson, Auburn School District
§ Jean, Resident
§ Jennifer Hurley, Auburn Senior Center
§ Jenny, Resident
§ Joan, Resident
§ Josh Headley, Revive Church
§ Julie DeBolt, Auburn School District
§ Kacie Brae, Auburn Area Chamber of Commerce
§ Katharine Nyden, Eastside Legal Assistance Program
§ Kathy Powers, Orion
§ Lewis, Resident
§ Melanie Fink, Investment Property Group
§ Terri Herren, Auburn School District
§ Three housing developers
Page 12 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan iv
How this Plan is Organized
This report is organized into five parts:
1. Part 1: Introduction offers helpful background information on this plan, the objectives
driving the work, and the study area.
2. Part 2: Summary summarizes the most important information in Parts 3 and 4,
highlighting key findings from the housing needs analysis, public engagement,
recommendations, and implementation steps.
3. Part 3: Development Feasibility Analysis outlines and summarizes the development
feasibility analysis that was conducted to identify many of the recommendations offered
in Part 2 and Part 4.
4. Part 4: Recommendations & Implementation Steps offers 17 policy and program
recommendations and an implementation roadmap for the City to consider as Auburn
works toward increasing housing supply over the next 20 years.
5. Part 5: Appendices lists technical appendices that support this plan, including the full
Public Engagement Results, Existing Conditions on Auburn’s community and housing
stock, the housing policy review, and the development feasibility proforma
assumptions.
Page 13 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan v
Table of Contents
Part 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................ 1
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 2
What is a Housing Action Plan? ........................................................................................................ 2
How was the HAP Created? .............................................................................................................. 2
Where Did the Plan Recommendations Come From? ........................................................................ 3
What Objectives are Driving the HAP? .............................................................................................. 4
What is the Planning Horizon for the HAP? ....................................................................................... 5
What is the Geographic Study Area for the Plan? ............................................................................. 6
What are the Regulated Income Limits in Auburn? ........................................................................... 8
Part 2: Summary ................................................................................................................... 10
I. Summary of Housing Needs ......................................................................................................... 11
II. Summary of Public Engagement Key Findings ............................................................................. 20
III. Summary of Recommendations & Next Steps ............................................................................ 22
Part 3: Development Feasibility Analysis .............................................................................. 26
Objectives and Focus Areas ............................................................................................................ 27
Development Standards ................................................................................................................. 28
Development Feasibility Methods .................................................................................................. 29
Analyzed Prototypes ...................................................................................................................... 31
Development Feasibility Results ..................................................................................................... 38
Part 4: Recommendations & Implementation Steps ............................................................. 44
Recommendations ......................................................................................................................... 45
Recommendations and Alignment with the Comprehensive Plan ................................................... 67
Implementation Steps .................................................................................................................... 69
Page 14 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan 1
Part 1: Introduction
This Part offers helpful background information on the legislation governing Housing Action Plans,
the plan development process, the City’s objectives driving this work, the planning horizon, the
geographic study area in Auburn, and regulated housing income limits in Auburn.
Page 15 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan 2
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.
In 2019, the state legislature adopted House Bill 1923 (HB 1923), which awarded grants in the
amount of up to $100,000 to various cities to increase residential capacity. The City received a
grant to increase residential capacity through development of a Housing Action Plan (referred
to as a HAP).
What is a Housing Action Plan?
The City of Auburn is growing. Supported by data, community
engagement, a review of policies, and an assessment of housing
development feasibility, this HAP identifies recommendations,
implementation considerations, and actions that can help the City of
Auburn guide its housing policies, regulations, and programs as it
encourages housing needed to accommodate current residents and
Auburn’s growing population. HAP efforts are focused on encouraging
the production of both affordable and market rate housing at a variety
of price points to meet the needs of current and future residents.
This HAP must comply with state guidance, including the adoption of
the grant-funded HAP document 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).
How was the HAP Created?
The City of Auburn hired a team of consultants – ECONorthwest, Broadview Planning, and
SERA Architects – to assist in the development of this HAP. The HAP process has involved
many steps which are summarized in Figure 1. Throughout the entire process, Broadview
Planning has engaged the public to offer input on the community’s vision and housing needs,
to provide ideas and recommendations for how Auburn can increase capacity for more
housing, and to review draft documents before they are finalized and adopted by City Council.
Prior to creating this
Housing Action Plan,
Auburn participated in the
South King County
Subregional Housing
Action Framework, along
with the cities of Burien,
Federal Way, Kent,
Renton, and Tukwila.
This Subregional Housing
Action Framework met
the same Housing Action
Plan requirements but
focused on regional and
subregional strategies that
the South King County
cities could pursue
together.
Page 16 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan 3
Figure 1. Auburn’s HAP Development Process
The Department of Commerce requires that funded HAPs be adopted by each city. In Auburn,
that means that this DRAFT HAP will be presented to city staff for review, revised, and then
presented for public review and to the Planning Commission for a briefing. After reviewing
those comments, a revised, final HAP will be the subject of a briefing, and then presented to
City Council for adoption.
Where Did the Plan Recommendations Come From?
The recommendations offered in this HAP are informed by several components of this project.
In addition to building on the work completed in 2020 for the South King County Subregional
Housing Action Framework, the recommendations in this plan were developed using the
following components. (see Figure 2):
1. Data on current and future housing needs discussed in the Existing Conditions
Memorandum,
2. Suggestions and ideas generated from the community through the continuous
community engagement process, and
3. A development feasibility analysis and review of Auburn’s zoning code / development
standards to evaluate impacts to the feasibility of new construction.
These three sources of input were used to arrive at the recommendations offered in this plan.
The key findings from each of these sources are described in Part 2: Summary.
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 17 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan 4
Figure 2. HAP Recommendations Inputs
What Objectives are Driving the HAP?
The City of Auburn desires a mix of housing types, sizes, and options that serve a wide array of
residents – from seniors and multigenerational housing, to low-income households, to young
workers – and desires this mixture throughout the City. The City understands the importance of
housing affordability and seeks affordable housing options spread throughout the City – options for
buyers and renters, alike. It recognizes that affordable housing options will look different in
different parts of the City to suit the neighborhood context and desires of residents. And,
importantly, the City wants to preserve its existing housing stock, and support landlords in
maintaining existing properties.
For the purposes of this Housing Action Plan scope of work, the City wanted to explore a few
key targeted housing development types and locations, identified below. These specific topics
fit into the City’s larger efforts to create a diverse range of housing options to meet the needs
of a broad range of residents. These objectives were developed as part of the scope of work
for this project to support a broader mix of housing types, housing sizes, and housing price
points across the City that are available to a wider range of current and future Auburn
residents.
Recommendations
Development
Feasibility
Community
Input
Data
Analysis
City’s Housing Objectives C
i
t
y
’
s
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
E
n
v
i
r
o
nm
e
n
t
Page 18 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan 5
While these are not ordered in any rank or priority, they are helpful to organize the
recommendations and support the implementation steps that will be suggested in the final
HAP:
A. Encourage market rate development in Downtown Auburn: more
development and denser development
B. Encourage the development of below-market affordable housing
in Downtown Auburn
C. Encourage the development of middle housing in R-5 and R-7
Zones in the Study Area (see Figure 3 on page 7)
D. Prevent displacement and encourage the preservation of existing affordable housing
One reason the City has highlighted downtown Auburn in this HAP is because it seeks to
ensure that Downtown continues to meet criteria for the Puget Sound Regional Council’s
(PSRC) 2050 designation of a “Regional Growth Center.”1 This designation requires a change
from 18 to 45 activity units per acre minimum and both more development as well as denser
development can help to make that happen.
What is the Planning Horizon for the HAP?
This HAP focuses on the 2020-2040 planning period using data from PSRC. As a regional
planning agency, PSRC produces regional population forecasts for King, Snohomish, Pierce,
and Kitsap Counties. These population forecasts are allocated by each county for their city-
level growth targets.
King County is updating its growth targets and forecasts for the 2017 - 2044 forecast period,
but the formal adoption of these targets will not occur until later in 2021. Auburn’s future
housing needs estimated in the Existing Conditions Memorandum and summarized in Part 2
are based on the acknowledged 2040 population forecast. Since the HAP timing is earlier, a
subsequent effort will be needed to compare results attributable to the end points of the
different forecast periods.
The Puget Sound Regional Council is a regional planning agency overseeing urban growth,
economic development, and transportation planning for King, Snohomish, Pierce, and Kitsap
Counties. PSRC develops policies and guides decision making with over 100 members from the
cities, towns, counties, ports, transportation agencies, and tribal governments in the Puget Sound
area.
1 PSRC Regional Centers Framework, page 4.
https://www.psrc.org/sites/default/files/final_regional_centers_framework_march_22_version.pdf
What is Middle Housing?
In this analysis, the term
middle housing refers to
duplexes and triplexes.
See relevant development
standards on page 28 and
example renderings on
page 36.
Page 19 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan 6
What is the Geographic Study Area for the Plan?
The contents of Auburn HAP are prepared for the purpose of all
evaluating circumstances in and applicability to, all areas of the city
limits of Auburn; as this is where the City has regulatory jurisdiction.
Auburn’s housing-related goals and planning processes are focused
citywide. However, some of the comprehensive plan policy guidance
may also extend to those areas within the City’s few designated
Potential Annexation Areas (PAA) where only the Comprehensive Plan
policies apply.
Due to time and fiscal limitations of analyzing the entire city, certain
geographic areas were selected for a concentrated focus. The Auburn
HAP study areas shown in Figure 3 were selected by City of Auburn
staff to evaluate specific policy and regulatory interventions to
advance the objectives identified above. The Downtown Auburn
Regional Growth Center is identified in the map below as the study area where this analysis
evaluates changes to development standards that support more feasible mixed-income
housing at density levels that meet the PSRC 2050 Regional Growth Center criteria.
The middle housing study area was selected for its proximity to transportation, proximity to
downtown, diversity of built characteristics, representation of other parts of the City, and its
somewhat-regular street grid pattern. The study area is also based on the boundaries of
Census block groups.
This area is not to be interpreted as the only area in which the middle housing
recommendations contained within this plan could apply. This study area was chosen as a
representative area of the city within which to conduct more in-depth analysis of middle
housing regulations that would not be practical to conduct city-wide.
The City may choose to make
zoning code changes in this
study area - testing the
response from the housing
market, developers, and
neighborhood / community
members – before making
changes in other parts of the
City.
The City could also choose to
advance changes to
development standards that
support a broader range of
housing options in single
family dwelling zoned areas
across Auburn.
Page 20 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan 7
Figure 3. Auburn HAP Study Area
Source: ECONorthwest analysis of Auburn Municipal Code
It is important to note that although parts of the City of Auburn extend into Pierce County, this
analysis, and the recommendations herein, focus exclusively on the portions of Auburn located
in King County. Data in the Existing Conditions Memorandum (and summarized in Part 2) do
account for housing conditions and demand in both the King County and Pierce County areas
of Auburn, but the analysis and recommendations herein are focused solely on King County
geographies because there are very few future housing opportunities within the Pierce County
portion of Auburn. These strategies and recommendations still could be applied to city-wide
even though they were not evaluated specifically for the Pierce County portion of the City.
Page 21 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan 8
What are the Income Level Categories Related to Housing in
Auburn?
This HAP regularly refers to affordable housing and housing that is affordable to a certain
segment of the population. This section describes affordability terms and income limits in
Auburn.
Understanding AMI and MFI
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 interchangeably.2 AMI is
used in this report to align with King County’s data and reporting. Auburn is part of the Seattle-
Bellevue, WA HUD Metro Area.
As shown in Figure 4, the Seattle-Bellevue, WA HUD Metro Area MFI was $103,400 for a family
of four in 2018.3 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. Additional income limits (such as
60% or 120%) can be calculated off the 100% income limit to get an approximation of other
affordability thresholds.4
Figure 4. HUD 2018 Median Family Income Limits
for the Seattle-Bellevue, WA HUD Metro Area
Affordability Level: Annual Income Limit (for
a family of 4):
30% of AMI $32,100
50% of AMI $53,500
80% of AMI $80,250
100% of AMI $103,400
Understanding MHI
Because the Seattle-Bellevue, WA HUD Metro Area is so large, it does not account for
differences within the geography. A property developed in Auburn using a 50% AMI limit
would have the same limits as one in Bellevue, despite underlying differences in the incomes of
these cities individually. To capture a more localized consideration of median income, we
calculated Auburn’s median household income (MHI) using 5-year ACS data.
2 Source: HUD. 2018. “FY 2018 Income Limits Frequently Asked Questions.”
www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il/il18/FAQs-18r.pdf
3 The 2018 AMI is referenced to align with the 2018 Census data used in developing the Housing Action Plan.
4 These approximations—and HUD’s official limits—may not be exact fractions of the 100% median income (in the
table, the official 50% income limit for a family of four is slightly higher than half of the 100% limit).
Page 22 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan 9
In the 2014-2018 time period, Auburn’s MHI was estimated to be $68,950. This is much lower
than the $89,400 estimated for King County as a whole, and pretty close to the MHI estimated
for the South King County region ($71,400 using Census PUMS 2018 1-year data).
It is important to note that this MHI is not directly comparable to HUD’s MFI. HUD’s MFI
calculation relies on underlying Census data related to family incomes, and the 100% median is
set for families of four. This MHI is for all households – not just families – and households can
have a wide range of compositions and sizes (e.g., roommates) compared to families. In the
City of Auburn, the median household only has 2.77 people. An area’s MHI is typically lower
than its MFI.
Although MHI does not directly compare to MFI, affordable housing properties in Auburn use
region-wide MFI limits. Meanwhile, Auburn’s MHI is lower than MHI of other cities in the
region. Therefore, these two facts result in a greater likelihood that households and families in
Auburn may have a harder time finding housing that is affordable within their income ranges
(costing less than 30% of gross monthly income).
Page 23 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan 10
Part 2: Summary
This Part summarizes the most important information in Parts 3 and 4, highlighting key findings
from the housing needs analysis, public engagement, recommendations, and implementation
steps.
It has three sections and is intended to provide an overview of all the elements of the Housing
Action Plan required by the Department of Commerce.
§ Section I summarizes housing and population data for the City of Auburn
§ Section II summarizes the results from public engagement conducted throughout the
project,
§ Section III summarizes the recommendations and next steps that are described in more
detail in Part 4.
Page 24 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan 11
I. Summary of Housing Needs
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. About 23 percent of Auburn’s housing
stock is characterized as multifamily, the majority of which was built pre-1960, and in the 1990s
and 2000s.5
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.6
Figure 5. Number of Units Built Per Year, Auburn, 2011-2019
Source: OFM, 2019.
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 and in the 2010s this housing
type was not built.
5 In this report, multifamily housing is defined as five or more units in a given property development.
6 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 25 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan 12
Figure 6. 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. Since 2010 the vast majority of multi-family built was of the 100+ unit type and
saw very few smaller-scale multi-family housing being built.
Figure 7. Scale of Multifamily Housing Built, Auburn, 1960-2020
Source: King County Assessor’s Office, 2020.
Page 26 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan 13
Income Characteristics
Income is one of the key determinants in housing choice and households’ ability to afford
housing. This is because, 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 8).
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 8. Income Distribution by AMI, Auburn, 2012 and 2018
Source: PUMS (2012 and 2018).
Population Characteristics
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, with a larger share of residents under age 19.
In addition, as of the 2014-2018 time period, about 16 percent of Auburn’s residents identify as
Hispanic or Latino of any race and about 57 percent identify as non-Hispanic White.
About 11 percent identify as non-Hispanic Asian, and another 11 percent as non-Hispanic of
Another or Multiple races (including Pacific Islander or Native Hawaiian and Non-Hispanic
American Indian or Alaskan Native). About 5 percent identify as non-Hispanic Black or African
American.
Page 27 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan 14
Figure 9. Population by Race and Ethnicity, Auburn (City), 2014- 2018
Source: ACS (5-year, 2014-2018).
Auburn saw an 86 percent increase in the number of residents who identify as Hispanic or
Latino of any race between 2010 and 2018. In addition, Auburn saw about a 67 percent
increase in the number of residents who identify as being non-Hispanic of Another or Multiple
races (including Pacific Islander or Native Hawaiian and Non-Hispanic American Indian or
Alaskan Native).
Figure 10. Population by Race and Ethnicity, Auburn (City), 2010 and 2018
Source: ACS (5-year, 2006-2010 and 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).
16%57%11%5%11%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Share of Total Population
Hispanic or Latino of Any Race Non-Hispanic White
Non-Hispanic of Another or Multiple Races Non-Hispanic Black or African American
Non-Hispanic Asian
44,302
5,266
6,891
3,816
6,710
44,803
8,782
12,831
3,894
8,800
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000
Non-Hispanic White
Non-Hispanic of Another or Multiple Races
Hispanic or Latino of Any Race
Non-Hispanic Black or African American
Non-Hispanic Asian
Total Population
2018 2010
Page 28 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan 15
Figure 11. Age Distribution, Auburn, 2014-2018
Source: ACS (5 year 2014-2018).
Share of Population
Housing Cost Trends
Similar to much of the Puget Sound, Auburn has 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 12).
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, the 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. 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 12. 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
Housing Cost Burdening
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 13).
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
Page 29 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan 16
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. 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 13. Cost Burdened and Severely Cost Burdened Renters, Auburn, 2018
Source: PUMS (2018).
In Auburn, households of color account for a disproportionate number of households
experiencing cost burdening, compared to their share of total populations (see Figure 14).
Hispanic households of any race accounted for approximately 25 percent of all of the
households experiencing cost burdening (blue bar) in the 2014-2018 period, yet they only
accounted for roughly 16 percent of the Auburn area’s total households (yellow bar). This
means that they are disproportionately cost burdened relative to non-Hispanic White and non-
Hispanic Asian households.
Page 30 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan 17
Figure 14. Cost Burdening by Race and Ethnicity, Auburn Area PUMA, 2014-2018
Source: PUMS (5 year 2014-2018).
Employment & Transportation
Based on data from the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), Auburn’s total employment
grew from 40,070 jobs in 2008 to 45,990 jobs in 2018—an increase of 5,919 jobs or 15
percent.
In 2018, the top four largest industries were: (1) Manufacturing with 8,765 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 jobs.
Between 2008 and 2018, several industries lost employment. The four industries that lost the
greatest share of employees 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 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
Page 31 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan 18
Hunting with a 192 percent increase,7 (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
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 15 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 15. Access to Employment—Travel Shed, 2018
Source: ECONorthwest Analysis of 2018 PSRC Data.
Note: Departing at 8:00 AM, midweek
7 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 32 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan 19
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.
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 8,068 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 16. 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 16 demonstrates, 38 percent of units needed between 2020
and 2040 should be affordable to households earning more than
100% of the AMI (recall the discussion of affordability limits beginning
on page 8). 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.
Underproduction is
calculated from 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
explanation of
methodology in the
Existing Conditions
Memorandum in Part 5
Appendices.
Page 33 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan 20
II. Summary of Public Engagement Key Findings
This section summarizes the key findings and themes from the public engagement conducted
by Broadview Planning throughout the project.
The purpose of the community engagement element of the HAP is to connect with residents,
workers, businesses, non-profit organizations, service providers, and other key stakeholders to
discover qualitative data and stakeholder stories to support and ground truth the HAP’s
quantitative data. As captured in the project’s initial Public Engagement Plan, which was
reviewed and approved by City Staff, the priorities for this work included:
1. Integrate an educational approach to community outreach to build awareness of the
importance of housing needs and types.
2. Gather community input as a key part of creating strategic and intentional policy actions
to address the city’s need to create (and preserve existing) more, and different types, of
affordable housing.
3. Understand community perceptions of density and different housing types.
The public engagement process includes three iterative phases: stakeholder interviews; small,
focused group conversations; and a final community open house (forthcoming in spring 2021).
Due to restrictions from the COVID-19 pandemic, the public engagement process was
conducted entirely through online video meetings or phone calls.
Building on the engagement priorities established by the consultant team and the City, an
inclusive process was designed to maximize the inclusion of a diverse range of voices. Every
effort was made to ensure that underrepresented communities had a voice in this public
engagement process, particularly those at highest risk of displacement from new development,
and those often overlooked in traditional planning processes.
The full public engagement process, list of stakeholders, key themes, community suggestions,
and challenges relating to COVID-19 social distancing protocols are all discussed in Part 5,
Appendices.
Page 34 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan 21
Qualitative Research Methodology
Qualitative data and community stories provide insight and a greater understanding of community
perceptions and experiences with housing and what types of housing choices community members
seek now and in the future. One-on-one and small group interviews allow stakeholder participation
on their own terms and with a sense of empowerment and inclusion. Qualitative research is also
beneficial because it:
§ Supports quantitative data meaningfully and purposefully, allowing for more detailed
understanding of complex issues.
§ Values lived experiences and expresses data in people’s own words, with the capacity to
uncover multiple perspectives or unconventional thinking.
§ Informs and enhances decision-making and adds immeasurably to our understanding of
human, institutional, and systems behavior.
However, the quantitative research process generates a tremendous amount of information that
must be thoughtfully analyzed, edited, and presented. It is also important to remember that a
qualitative research process will never reach all stakeholders, and while participants are
considered “representative,” they are speaking from their own lived experiences. A final note:
analysis is through the lens of the interviewer, and even with an emphasis on neutrality,
interpretation can carry elements of our own biases.
Consistent Themes
After reviewing all stakeholder input from both interviews and group conversations, Broadview
Planning identified the following key themes, which are summarized below. Each theme is
further supported by quotes, insight, and recommendations from stakeholders in their own
words, detailed in Part 5: Appendices.
Consistent themes across interviews, included:
§ While Auburn has changed dramatically over time, people have a strong sense of
community identity, and like the small-town feel. People from Auburn want to stay here.
§ While there’s a perception that housing in Auburn is more affordable than Seattle, it’s
still not affordable for a lot of people living in Auburn.
§ The greatest housing need is for low-income, supported housing.
§ Public safety is an ongoing concern for many stakeholders.
§ Mobile home parks are an in-demand source of affordable housing with low turnover
rates and long wait lists.
§ Stakeholders expressed concern about the conditions of affordable rental units,
including building maintenance and upkeep.
§ There is a sense that middle housing is missing, with stakeholders citing a lack of starter
homes, smaller homes, and options for seniors to downsize. Stakeholders also
expressed a desire for more accessory dwelling units and other types of options for
seniors or kids moving back home to be able to live with family.
Page 35 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan 22
§ There are existing family-sized units (2-4 bedrooms), but still not enough of these types
of units to meet demand.
§ The eviction moratorium has quelled a lot of housing instability, but the real issue is the
loss of jobs/income to pay for rent post-moratorium.
§ There’s a desire for a strong, vibrant, mixed-use downtown area, but there are no
opportunities for home (condo) ownership, and weak support for businesses to thrive as
part of a mixed-use complex.
§ Resource inequities are part of the housing situation, and housing developments should
address the need for easy access to medical services, grocery stores, transportation,
and green space.
III. Summary of Recommendations & Next Steps
Figure 18 on the next page describes 17 recommendations for the City of Auburn to consider
as it encourages more housing production to meet the needs of its growing population. A few
things to keep in mind when reading this table:
§ The recommendations are outlined in greater detail in Part 4, with rationales,
considerations for the City to evaluate, potential next steps, and suggestions for
implementation and prioritization.
§ Many of these recommendations were evaluated via development feasibility testing
which is described in Part 3. The prototypes and development standards referenced in
these recommendations are described in detail in Part 3.
§ These recommendations are grouped by the four objectives driving this HAP (discussed
on page 4).
§ The various types of recommendations are denoted by icons listed in Figure 17 below.
Figure 17. Icons used to denote Recommendation Types
Icon Recommendation Type
Recommendation calls for a zoning or Comprehensive Plan change.
Recommendation can be implemented through the Zoning Code, other city
code, or administrative regulations or through Auburn’s next Comprehensive
Plan Housing Element update.
Recommendation calls for a new program. Implementation will require staff time
and or resources to get a new program off the ground.
Recommendation calls for increased partnerships and collaboration.
Implementation will focus on enhancing relationships and securing partnerships.
Page 36 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan 23
Figure 18. Summary of Recommended Actions
Objective # Recommendation Description Recommendation
Type
Near-Term or
Long-Term Encourage Market Rate Development Downtown A1
Reduce Parking Requirements
to Support Development in
Downtown Auburn
To achieve denser developments, the City needs to reduce
parking requirements so developers can fit more units and
make development feasible. This entitlement can be given
for desired housing types but must be paired with
recommendation A2.
Near-Term
A2
Offer a Density Bonus to
Support Denser Development
and Mixed-Income Housing
To achieve denser developments, the City needs to increase
the maximum residential floor area ratio (FAR) allowed in the
Downtown Urban Center (DUC) zone. This entitlement can be
given for desired housing types but must be paired with
recommendation A1 because FAR bonus without parking
reduction will not yield more units.
Near-Term
A3 Promote Lot Aggregation in
Downtown Auburn
Smaller lots in downtown Auburn will need to be consolidated
if they are to be used for podium (wood-frame over concrete
construction) apartments. Since this is costly and creates
delays, the City should encourage and promote lot
aggregation or allow shared parking between developments.
Near-Term
A4
Explore Fee Waivers for
Targeted Development Types
in Downtown Auburn
The City could explore waiving fees for desired housing types
to reduce the overall cost of development and increase
feasibility. These policies need to balance the public benefit
with the lost fee revenues.
Long-Term Encourage Affordable Housing Downtown B1
Create Policies to Lower the
Cost of Affordable Housing
Development
Explore programs and policies to help lower the costs of
affordable housing development in downtown Auburn.
Near-Term
B2
Consider a Voluntary
Inclusionary Housing Program
Paired with a Density Bonus
Auburn could explore a voluntary inclusionary housing
program that requires affordable units in exchange for a tax
exemption or increases in density allowances.
Long-Term
B3 Reduce Parking Requirements
for Micro Units
Newly developed micro units (small units with some shared
amenities) rent around 50% AMI and can offer affordable
housing options without any public subsidy. However, they
are only feasible with much fewer required parking spaces.
Near-Term
Page 37 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan 24
Objective # Recommendation Description Recommendation
Type
Near-Term or
Long-Term Encourage Middle Housing Options in R-5 and R-7 Zones C1
Allow Duplexes and Triplexes
in Single-Family
Neighborhoods
To encourage the development of duplexes and triplexes, the
City first needs to allow these uses in single family
neighborhoods, including R-5 and R-7 Zones.
Near-Term
C2
Increase Density and Reduce
Minimum Lot Size Per Unit in
R-5 and R-7 Zones
After allowing duplex and triplex uses, the City would need to
increase the allowed residential density and lower the
minimum lot size per unit in the R-5 and R-7 Zones.
Near-Term
C3
Revise Rear Yard Setbacks to
Accommodate Triplexes in R-7
Zones
The rear setback requirements limit building configurations
in typical R-7 lots for triplex development prototypes.
Near-Term
C4 Reduce Parking Requirements
in R-5 and R-7 Zones
Although the current parking requirements can be
accommodated, they create a tradeoff between parking,
open space, and the footprint of duplexes and triplexes.
Near-Term
C5
Consider Minimum Site Size
Requirements Relative to
Homeownership Goals in R-5
and R-7 Zones
The City should consider circumstances under which to
reduce minimum site sizes to support land-divisions as a
strategy to support homeownership opportunities.
Near-Term
C6
Evaluate Site Development
Standards and Infrastructure
Requirements to Support
Middle Housing Development
Site development standards and infrastructure requirements
should be revisited in the context of supporting a wider range
of housing types across Auburn.
Near-Term Prevent Displacement and Encourage the Preservation of Existing Affordable Housing D1 Monitor and Track Un-
regulated Affordable Housing
Expand the data collected on naturally occurring affordable
housing in the City, starting with the City’s rental housing
licensing program.
Near-Term
D2
Create Programs and Policies
to Preserve Naturally
Occurring Affordable Housing
The City should explore programs, policies, and partnerships
to maintain and preserve its stock of naturally occurring
affordable housing.
Long-Term
D3 Monitor and Track Regulated
Affordable Housing
Strengthen partnerships and collect data to monitor the
City’s supply of regulated affordable housing units and
prepare for affordability restriction expirations.
Long-Term
Page 38 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan 25
Objective # Recommendation Description Recommendation
Type
Near-Term or
Long-Term
D4 Identify Opportunities to
Increase Homeownership
Encouraging and expanding access to homeownership is a
solid way to prevent and mitigate displacement because
homeowners are less vulnerable to changes in the market or
the effects of redevelopment.
Near-Term
Page 39 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan 26
Part 3: Development Feasibility Analysis
This Part steps through the development feasibility analysis that was used to arrive at many of the
recommendations offered in this Housing Action Plan.
Page 40 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan 27
To inform recommendations about the development standards and affordable housing
programs that can support more market rate and affordable housing, we evaluated the
development feasibility of several development types (or prototypes) using development
feasibility analysis and sensitivity testing. Development feasibility analysis allows us to analyze
and test the impacts that result from various changes to development
standards and incentive programs. Along with data analysis and public
engagement, development feasibility analysis is the third input to the
recommendations advanced in this HAP.
This section describes the development standards and market-realistic
development examples called prototypes on which the development
standards were tested to understand the impact that these changes
could have on Auburn’s housing goals.
This section also summarizes the development feasibility analysis
methods used to arrive at some of the recommendations in Part 4.
Important information relating to data inputs and development
assumptions can be found in Part 5: Appendices.
Objectives and Focus Areas
As discussed on page 4, this HAP is driven by four objectives aimed at increasing housing
production in a relatively narrow geographic study area. However, the analysis and
recommendations outlined in this HAP fit within Auburn’s larger housing-related goals and
planning processes, which are focused citywide.
Three of the four objectives driving this HAP were evaluated via development feasibility
analysis, as displayed in Figure 19 below. The fourth objective, relating to anti-displacement
efforts and the preservation of affordable housing, is assessed qualitatively in Part 4 beginning
on page 44.
Figure 19. Auburn’s Housing Action Plan Objectives Evaluated via Development Feasibility Analysis
# Objective Geography Relevant Zones Housing Types
1 More Market Rate
Housing
Downtown Auburn Downtown Urban
Center (DUC) Zone
Encourage higher density
developments to produce more
market rate housing.
2 More Affordable
Housing
Downtown Auburn Downtown Urban
Center (DUC) Zone
Regulated to be affordable to
households earning less than
80% of AMI.
3 More Diverse
Housing Options
Specific Study
Area (see Figure 3)
R-5 and R-7 Zones Middle housing types including
duplexes and triplexes.
Development feasibility
analysis helps identify the
regulatory and program
recommendations that
could most effectively
help the City’s encourage
more housing production
of all types.
Auburn will need more
housing units of all types,
sizes, and price points, to
meet its forecasted
population growth and to
and maintain current
residents’ access to a
variety of housing options.
Page 41 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan 28
Development Standards
Auburn’s zoning code specifies the development standards for each zone. Although zoning
determines the allowed uses in each zone, the zoning development standards determine the
actual form of the properties by limiting height, density, or lot coverage, and by requiring
certain amounts of landscaping, parking, and recreational spaces. As
described in the next section, this analysis evaluated development
prototypes that could occur on a wide range of sites across the
study areas evaluated. During this project, the consultant team
engaged with staff from the Building Services and Development
Engineering Services areas of the Community Development
Department to better understand the impact of additional
regulations beyond standards in the development code.
This analysis did not evaluate site-specific infrastructure or other regulatory requirements –
such as sidewalk improvements, street light installation, or utility improvements – that could be
required on a site-specific basis. While site-specific infrastructure is an important consideration
contributing to the cost for each development project, generalizing it in a prototypical analysis
does not produce useful insights because it could vary widely from one development to
another.
Figure 20 below identifies the zoning development standards that are relevant for the structure
of high-density residential properties (both affordable and market rate) in downtown Auburn,
as well as middle housing properties in the R-5 and R-7 Zones.
Figure 20. Select Residential Zoning Development Standards
Source: ECONorthwest Analysis of Auburn Municipal Code
Development Standard DUC Zone R-5 Zone R-7 Zone
Maximum Residential Density Base limit: 2 FAR*
With bonus: 3.5 FAR
5 dwelling units
per acre
7 dwelling units
per acre
Maximum Height 75 ft. 35 ft. 35 ft.
Maximum Impervious Coverage N/A 65% 75%
Minimum Landscape Coverage 0% 0% 0%
Minimum Lot Area Per Dwelling
Unit N/A 4,500 sq. ft. 4,300 sq. ft.
Allowed Residential Uses Multifamily and Mixed-
Use Single Family Single Family and
Duplex
Residential Parking Ratio Min. 1 stall per
dwelling unit
2 stalls per unit for duplexes (4 stalls total)
1.5 stalls per unit for triplexes (up to 2
bedrooms each, round to 5 stalls total)
Retail Parking Ratio Min. 2 stalls per 1,000
sq. ft. of retail space N/A N/A
Restaurant Parking Ratio 0.5 stalls per 4 seats N/A N/A
Structured Parking Requirement None N/A N/A
*Notes: Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is the ratio of total floor area (all floors within the walls of a building) to the total lot size.
Areas devoted to vents, shafts, light courts, loading and unloading facilities, and parking are excluded from the floor area.
What is Middle Housing?
In this analysis, the term
middle housing refers to
duplexes and triplexes.
See example renderings
on page 36.
Page 42 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan 29
The development standards outlined in Figure 20 dictate what can be built. These standards
affect building mass and development footprints in Auburn, and thus impact the overall value
of potential development. For example, reducing the parking ratio (the number of off-street
parking stalls required per unit) allows a developer to increase the value of a property, by using
the space previously dedicated to parking to build and rent more units on a site.
Changes to these standards can increase or decrease the potential
value of a property and thus impact overall development feasibility.
Because of the potential to add value, these changes can be “given” to
developers, typically in exchange for a public benefit or to encourage a
development type that the City desires but the market is not delivering
(e.g., podium construction, or regulated affordable housing).
Infill residential developments in the City of Auburn are also guided by
Chapter 18.25 of the Auburn Municipal Code. It allows added flexibility
in development standards to encourage more development of
underutilized parcels. It applies to R-5 and R-7 Zones, as well as to
other residential zones (i.e., R-10, R-16, and R-20 Zones). However, the
provisions of infill residential standards are not directly evaluated in the
analysis below. Still, the recommendations that follow are relevant and
point to a need to change both residential development standards and
the infill residential standards.
Development Feasibility Methods
We used a financial pro forma model to estimate the impact on the feasibility of development
from hypothetical changes to the City of Auburn’s regulations.
More specifically, this analysis evaluates the residual land value (RLV) to understand
development feasibility and the value that a change to development standards or tax
abatements might provide. RLV is an estimate of what a developer would be willing to pay for
land given the property’s income from leases or sales, the cost of construction, and the
investment returns needed to attract capital for the project. While there are other quantitative
methods for calculating regulatory and incentive changes, such as an internal rate of return
(IRR) threshold approach, all the potential methods share drawbacks regarding the quality of
inputs and sensitivity to those inputs. An advantage of the RLV approach is that it does not rely
on land prices as an input. Rather, observed land prices can be compared with the model
outputs to help calibrate the model and ensure it reflects reality.
Because RLV is essentially a land budget, a higher RLV relative to land prices indicates better
development feasibility. For example, in Auburn, typical land prices are between $45 and $65
per square foot in the DUC Zone. So, prototypes that have an RLV below $45 per square foot
would be unlikely to develop (without free or discounted land, other changes to development
Reducing Parking
Requirements
Reducing parking
requirements can be an
effective way to increase
housing options, improve
affordability, and increase
development feasibility.
However, reductions in
parking requirements
should be considered
along with potential
mitigations such as
Transportation Demand
Management strategies,
on-street parking
management, or flexible
on-site and off-site
parking options.
Page 43 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan 30
standards, or new financial incentives), whereas prototypes that exceed the typical land prices
are much more likely to develop.
Figure 21 demonstrates, for illustrative purposes only, how RLV results are presented and
compared to existing land prices. In this example, each scenario needs to meet or exceed
current land price thresholds (identified in green), for the scenario development to be feasible.
A scenario falling within the green box indicates project feasibility would depend more on the
price of a specific parcel than on other changes to development standards.
Figure 21. Illustration of Residual Land Value Per Square Foot
Source: ECONorthwest
To conduct this analysis, 2019 and 2020 real estate data inputs were gathered8 from multiple
sources including CoStar, Redfin, RS Means, the King County Assessor,9 and various interviews
with local developers and real estate experts. Data include building program assumptions (e.g.,
unit mix, parking ratios, floor heights), operating assumptions (e.g., sales prices, rents, vacancy,
operating costs), development cost assumptions (e.g., hard costs, soft costs), and valuation
metrics (e.g., return on cost and yield thresholds). The initial results were tested against actual
recent projects and land prices.
The RLV pro forma analysis was modeled for the prototypes that conform to Auburn’s current
development standards. The model also includes additional prototypes that do NOT conform
8 The real estate data collected in 2019 and 2020 reflect market conditions before the economic impacts of COVID-
19. The pandemic and economic recession are likely to impact development viability in multiple ways. The results of
this analysis presented in this memo do not reflect these effects and likely future reality.
9 A very small portion of the City of Auburn is located in Pierce County, but this portion falls outside our study area
(see the study area map on page 6 so data were not collected from the Pierce County Assessor.
Page 44 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan 31
to the City of Auburn’s development standards to demonstrate the financial impact of such
changes. The financial value of each prototype under a set of development standards is heavily
dependent on the assumptions used in the pro forma analysis (listed in the Appendix). Thus,
the most relevant insights from the analysis come from comparing the results for one prototype
across changes to development standards.
Analyzed Prototypes
Six prototypes were selected to assess the impacts of changing different development
standards in this analysis. These six prototypes were tested on lots sizes that are representative
of the existing lot patterns and existing lot sizes in the DUC Zone, the R-5 Zone, and the R-7
zone for the study area referenced in Figure 3.
Podium Apartments
The development standards in the DUC Zone make podium construction
the most obvious housing type to build. The height limit (75 feet) and
parking requirements (1 stall per unit) in the DUC Zone are suitable for a
5-over-2 prototype in which five residential floors are located above two
floors of concrete structured parking. The ground floor programming
would include a main lobby, retail space, and/or structured parking. Also,
street-level retail and structured parking area help achieve the bonus
residential density (3.4 FAR). See an example in Figure 22.
Podium apartments are assumed to have a mix of studio, 1-bedroom, and
2-bedroom units. Market data show they are likely to rent at $1,850, on
average ($1,500 for studio, $1,690 for 1-bedroom, and $2,190 for 2-
bedroom). This analysis assumes that podium prototypes are located on a
60,000-square-feet lot, have up to 6,000 square feet of commercial area,
and 226 dwelling units.10
10 Although the podium apartment (5-over-2) prototype is similar in shape to The Verge that was recently completed
in downtown Auburn, its financial feasibility will be different because the material and construction costs for future
projects are expected to be much higher than the costs assumed for developments that are under construction or
recently opened.
Podium construction
prototypes have four or
five wood frame
residential stories over
one or more concrete
floors.
A 7-story building
would likely be a “5-
over-2” prototype with
five wood frame
residential floors over
two concrete floors.
A 5-story building
would likely be a “4-
over-1” prototype with
four wood frame
residential floors over
one concrete floor.
Page 45 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan 32
Figure 22. Example of a 5-over-2 Podium Development with Structured Parking
Source: Teutsch Partners; Location: Auburn Town Center Apartments, Auburn, WA
Micro Units
Another high-density multifamily building that can be built in downtown Auburn (DUC Zone) is
an apartment with micro units. Based on a comparison of nearby real estate markets with micro
units, they tend to have about 220 square feet of living area that would be sufficient for a
queen-sized bed, a private bathroom, and a kitchenette – similar to hotel rooms. Shared
laundry facilities and kitchens are available. See an example in Figure 23.
Because this 4-story prototype is targeted for transit-dependent workers who oftentimes are
not car-dependent, the City’s development standards would need to reduce parking
requirements for this prototype. This analysis assumes initially that this prototype would be
located on a 15,000-square-feet lot, have no on-site parking, and have 155 dwelling units,
resulting in a 3.4 FAR. Further sensitivity test is conducted to show the tradeoff between
parking requirement and unit production. Market data shows that the possible rent for micro
units could be slightly under $1,000, which would be affordable to households earning about
60% of the King County MFI.11 These market-rate units are “naturally affordable” because they
do not need regulatory restrictions from government funding sources to be affordable to
lower-income households.
11 See page 8 for a description of affordability limits in Auburn.
Page 46 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan 33
Figure 23. Example of an Apartment Building with Micro Units
Source: CoStar; Location: 162TEN Apartments, Redmond, WA
Page 47 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan 34
Micro Units and Housing Affordability
Micro units can increase housing affordability in downtown Auburn by virtue of the very small
size of units and by increasing the overall supply of housing. This type of housing can be one
component of a wider array of solutions aimed at more housing choices, and housing options
at different price points.
However, it is important to note that the likely demand for these types of units come from
smaller (1-person) households. And because they are unregulated, the rents can change over
time.
While these units can provide increased affordability, this type of development is not
necessarily a solution to the wider issue of providing more affordable housing for a diverse
range of Auburn residents – with so little square footage, micro units are not generally
desirable for families.
Middle Housing Types
This analysis includes four additional prototypes: duplexes and triplexes developed for both
ownership and rental.
A duplex development consists of two units sharing a wall, and each unit having access to
covered parking in a single-car garage and uncovered parking on the driveway. The driveways
and balconies of both units face the street. Duplexes are modeled on 5,000-square-foot lots,
resulting in a lot size per unit of 2,500 square feet. The selection for this lot size was informed
by the minimum lot area in the zoning code, which is 4,500 square feet in the R-5 Zone and
4,300 square feet in the R-7 Zone. Because a majority of lots in R-5 and R-7 Zones within the
study area are larger than 5,000 square feet, the selection of a relatively small lot size ensures
the feasibility test considers even more challenging development circumstances.
§ For-sale units are assumed to have 3 bedrooms, an average of 1,514 square feet of
space, and are modeled to sell at $360,000 per unit.
§ Rental units are assumed to have 2 bedrooms, an average of 1,255 square feet of
space, and are modeled to rent at $2,300 per unit.
A triplex development consists of three units constructed side-by-side so that one unit shares
two walls with other units. Each unit in a triplex has access to a single-car garage, with
additional parking is available in the rear of the lot. Where alley access is available, additional
parking may be accessed through the alley. Triplexes are modeled on a 7,500-square-foot lot,
which is the median size in the R-7 Zone (the median lot size is larger in R-5 Zone.)
Page 48 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan 35
§ For-sale units are assumed to have 3 bedrooms, an average of 1,466 square feet of
space, and are modeled to sell at about $338,000 per unit.
§ Rental units are assumed to have 2 bedrooms, an average of 1,203 square feet of
space, and are modeled to rent at $2,160 per unit.
From a developer’s perspective, duplexes and triplexes can be desirable because they utilize
the lot more efficiently, which results in lower costs, more attainable price points, and greater
demand. Shared wall and utility lines entering the lot increase development efficiency.
Meanwhile, the construction costs of duplexes and triplexes are not higher than those of
single-family houses. However, duplexes and triplexes could trigger additional development
requirements including storm water management improvements, right of way improvements,
or utility improvements. These additional development requirements are likely to be site
specific and will not apply evenly to all R-5 and R-7 development prototypes evaluated in this
analysis.
Page 49 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan 36
Figure 24. Massing Diagram of Duplex Building Type
Source: SERA Architects
Page 50 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan 37
Figure 25. Massing Diagram of Triplex Building Type
Source: SERA Architects
Page 51 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan 38
Development Feasibility Results
Market Rate Housing in DUC Zone
The podium apartment prototype is generally suitable for the DUC, Downtown Urban Center
Zone. A 5-over-2 building can have 226 units, some street-level retail space, and sufficient
structured parking to provide one parking stall for each residential unit. There likely exists
market demand for these rental apartments with a relatively low parking ratio (compared to
that of single-family housing types) due to transit access in the DUC Zone. Recent
developments, including the Verge Apartments, are evidence of the prototype’s feasibility in
the DUC Zone at the time of their application.
However, steep increases in construction costs in the past few years will likely hamper further
development of podium apartments. Based on today’s construction costs,12 the residual land
value (RLV) of a podium apartment prototype is $19.7 per square foot, well below current land
costs, which range between $45 and $65 per square foot in Auburn. This finding is consistent
with similar findings in other cities in South King County. In Auburn a 22% increase in rents
would be necessary to support podium-style development without any subsidies given current
market conditions and land prices.13
In contrast, reducing the total construction cost by 5% in the model results in an RLV of $75.8
per square foot. The difference in RLV is equivalent to $3.37 million (= [$75.8 - $19.7] x 60,000
square foot) in the value of the podium project. Development of podium apartments is likely to
be challenging until market dynamics change overtime, rents increase to overcome high
construction costs, or construction costs decrease.
Although the City of Auburn cannot influence construction costs, it can improve the feasibility
of podium projects by making regulatory changes. Reducing the parking requirements and
increasing the allowed density (FAR) are two of many ways the City can encourage the
continued production of market rate housing through podium development:
§ Reducing the parking ratio from 1.0 stalls per unit to 0.8 stalls per unit can increase the
RLV on a podium prototype from $19.7 to $67.0 per square foot.
§ Requiring fewer parking stalls allows more units to be added. In this scenario, the
maximum bonus density (FAR) would have to increase from 3.5 to 4.3.
Figure 26 compares the development feasibility of the three scenarios mentioned above.
Based on today’s construction costs and expected market rent (Base Scenario), podium
apartments are not feasible because the RLV is not high enough to pay for land in the DUC
Zone. This pro forma analysis found that a 5% reduction in construction costs would make the
podium apartment feasible.
12 Construction cost data were accessed in fall 2020.
13 South King County Subregional Housing Framework Feasibility Analysis Tool; https://econw.shinyapps.io/south-
kc-policy-analysis-tool/
Page 52 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan 39
Finally, podium prototypes can become feasible if parking requirements were reduced and
maximum bonus density was increased. Reducing the parking ratio increases the total number
of residents and units in the podium apartment without changing the total parking area.
Adding an additional unit without additional parking increases the net operating income of the
building far beyond the combined costs of construction, taxes, and fees.
Figure 26. Feasibility of Market Rate Housing in 5-Over-2 Podium Apartments
Affordable Housing in DUC Zone
There are two ways the City of Auburn can encourage the production of more affordable units
in the DUC Zone.
§ The City can mandate affordable housing requirements through an inclusionary housing
(IH) program, which would require 20% of units to be affordable to households earning
below a certain income level.14
§ The City can make regulatory changes necessary to allow the development of micro
units, which would be “naturally affordable,” meaning their market-rate rents would be
affordable to lower-income households without regulations stipulating affordability.
14 Although the City can choose to designate an affordability set-aside higher or lower than 20% of the units, the
20% requirement is used for this analysis because the 12-year Multifamily Tax Exemption program requires at least
20% of units to be affordable.
Page 53 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan 40
Inclusionary Housing (IH): An IH program would generate regulated apartments in which 20%
of the units in the building would be accessible for households that earn less than 80% of AMI.
Because this requirement would reduce the average rent from $1,850 to $1,700 for 20% of
units, the RLV would become negative (-$2.6 per square foot), meaning the project would not
be feasible even with free land. This analysis indicates that inclusionary housing, without
incentives to off-set the negative impacts of the affordability requirement, is not feasible.
One mechanism that the City of Auburn can use to improve the feasibility of a project with the
IH program is to award the 12-year Multifamily Tax Exemption (MFTE) for projects that
participate in the IH program. Washington State allows its cities to provide property tax
exemptions on multifamily housing properties. Eight (8) years of property tax exemption is
available for all qualifying multifamily properties and 12 years of property tax exemption is
available for those that have income- and rent-restricted units. As Figure 27 shows, adding the
12-year MFTE program to the podium apartment prototype with an active IH program would
increase the RLV to $75.7 per square foot, above the typical land prices.
Figure 27. Feasibility of 5-Over-2 Podium Apartments with IH and MFTE
Micro Units: A relatively novel approach to increasing the availability of affordable units in the
DUC Zone is encouraging the development of micro units. Although they do not currently exist
in Auburn and are not a type of housing the City of Auburn is familiar with, they exist in other
urban areas with good access to transit because they provide affordable housing opportunities
for small, lower-income households that want to live in urban environments. Because the
Page 54 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan 41
market rent for micro units is expected to be slightly below $1,000 a month15, they can be
affordable to households earning 60% of AMI without any regulatory restrictions or
requirements. Moreover, unlike the IH or MFTE programs, all market rate units would be
affordable to households earning 50% of AMI. However, any household can reside in these
units because there are no income restrictions. And, because there are no rent restrictions, the
rent could increase above $1,000 over time.
Assuming no on-site parking is required, the micro unit prototype can achieve 155 units and
3.4 FAR with only four floors and its RLV is estimated at $152 per square foot, well above the
land value for the DUC Zone. The City would need to exempt this housing type from on-site
parking requirements to generate the maximum utilization of the lot area. But, because the
value of such development is very high, the City could also require public benefit contributions
that do not take up buildable area, such as sidewalk improvements and vertical public art
installations.
However, if exempting parking requirements for a development type is difficult or not
preferred, micro units could still be feasible with some on-site parking. Sensitivity test of the
parking requirement reveals that having 0.5 parking stalls per unit would result in an RLV of $48
per square foot, barely within the range of typical land prices in the DUC Zone. Notably, as
Figure 28 shows, 95 “naturally affordable” micro units could be lost by increasing the parking
requirement from 0 stalls to 0.5 stalls per unit.
In order for a micro unit prototype to be feasible on most lots in the DUC Zone, parking
requirement would need to be reduced to 0.3 stalls per unit. Still, this policy option would
produce about half the number of units possible without a parking requirement.
Figure 28. Sensitivity Test of Parking Requirement in Micro Units Prototype
15 The estimate for rents is based on existing properties in other nearby markets, such as Columbia City (Seattle) and
Redmond, because there are no micro units in Auburn.
Page 55 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan 42
Middle Housing Types
Two changes to the zoning code are required to allow duplex and triplex housing types in R-5
and R-7 Zones. First, the allowed uses in R-5 Zone must be changed to allow duplexes and
triplexes, and the allowed uses in R-7 Zone must be changed to allow triplexes (duplexes are
currently allowed in R-7 Zone). To achieve middle housing outcomes recommended in this
section, the City’s Infill Residential Development Standards in Chapter 18.25 must also be
modified to accommodate middle housing as infill development.
Second, the maximum residential density must be increased to 17.4 dwelling units per acre
(du/ac). On small lots (5,000 square feet for duplexes and 7,500 square feet for triplexes),
duplexes and triplexes can reach up to 17.4 du/ac, though they can be built on larger lots with
lower residential density. Relatedly, minimum lot size per unit, which in inversely related to
residential density, will need to be lowered. The changes to residential density and minimum
lot size must also be reflected in the infill residential development standards.
Modifications of other development standards (e.g., maximum height, minimum landscape
coverage, setbacks, etc.) were not tested in the model because the current standards are much
less likely to be barriers to development feasibility.
Alternatively, the City could choose to instead apply the current R-16 Zone in areas where
middle housing types would be desired. The current R-16 zone exists as a zone within the code
but is not currently mapped anywhere in the City. If Auburn were to choose re-mapping current
R-5 and R-7 Zoned areas to allow middle housing through the R-16 zones, the city should also
consider increasing density allowances to allow 18 dwelling units per acre which is the density
level necessary to support middle housing types evaluated as part of this analysis. The City
could also choose to allow the R-16 (at 18 dwelling units per acre) within the existing
comprehensive plan designations that would allow for a zoning designation change consistent
with the comprehensive plan designations. However, this approach would add additional
process that would likely limit production of these housing types and increase time and costs
associated with the zone change process.
Even with the changes to the development standards, the current market prices and rents for
new duplex and triplex units are not high enough to support their development in R-5 and R-7
Zones in the middle housing study area today. Blue bars in Figure 29 show the four prototypes
modeled in the analysis generate RLV ranging from $11 to $22 per square foot. However, the
median land cost is $36 per square foot in R-5 Zone and $40 per square foot in R-7 Zone. The
expected financial value of converting a single-family property on R-5 or R-7 Zone to a duplex
or a triplex building is not high enough to justify redevelopment. Even with reduced parking
requirement – to 1 stall per unit – the RLV is simply not high enough. Based on current market
prices, duplex and triplex developments are feasible on vacant sites across the City of Auburn
where the typical land value is closer to $6 per square foot.
Page 56 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan 43
Figure 29. Feasibility of Duplex and Triplex Developments
Page 57 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan 44
Part 4: Recommendations
& Implementation Steps
This Part describes 17 policy and program recommendations and an implementation roadmap for
the City to consider as Auburn works toward increasing housing supply over the next 20 years.
Page 58 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan 45
Recommendations
A) Encourage Market Rate Development Downtown
Market rate housing is typically affordable to households earning above 80% of AMI. These are
often new, high-amenity apartments in areas that are targeted for growth and have good
transit access. Several podium apartments, including a project for senior living, have been
constructed in downtown Auburn in the past few years.
Auburn’s zoning code and development standards do not present many barriers to the physical
development of this type of housing. Only small changes are needed (presented as
recommendations below) that will allow a developer to maximize the efficiency of the land and
achieve a scale that makes the project financing feasible.
While physical limitations are not a big barrier, there are financing barriers due to current
construction costs and Auburn’s current rental market. In the near-term, development of
market-rate podium apartments is challenged due to high construction costs. Although the
development of podium apartments in the downtown area is desirable because it allows more
households to live near transit and other urban amenities, development of this higher-density
prototype is likely to be challenging until market dynamics change overtime, rents increase to
overcome high construction costs, or construction costs decrease.
A1) Reduce Parking Requirements to Support Development in Downtown Auburn
See development feasibility analysis on page 38.
Rationale
To encourage more market-rate podium apartments in downtown
Auburn, the City needs to allow denser housing construction by
reducing the parking requirement to 0.8 stalls per unit AND
increasing the maximum FAR (with bonus density) to 4.3 FAR (see
Recommendation A2). To encourage more development, the
parking reduction must be paired with an increase in the allowable
FAR in the DUC Zone and should also be paired with transportation
demand management strategies and parking management
strategies.
These changes are needed to achieve the unit density that is
feasible in today’s market conditions. Although the City of Auburn
cannot influence rents or construction costs in today’s market, it can
improve development feasibility via these regulatory changes.
As noted on page 28, parking
ratios and density limits are
development standards that
create (or subtract) potential
value for development.
Changes that increase the
overall building footprint give
value to developers.
Generally, cities like to
extract some sort of public
benefit from these
entitlements or use them to
encourage development the
City desires, but the market is
not delivering, such as podium
construction (discussed here)
or affordable housing
(discussed in Recommend-
ation B2 on page 51).
Page 59 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan 46
Considerations
Reducing parking requirements is an effective way to increase development feasibility and help
the market deliver more housing units, more choices, and improved affordability. However,
reductions in parking requirements should be considered along with potential mitigations such
as Transportation Demand Management strategies, on-street parking management, or flexible
on-site and off-site parking options.
The reduced parking requirements will need to be balanced with a development’s proximity to
groceries, restaurants, and transit stations to attract residents who are less likely to own
automobiles. There likely are a limited number of lots in downtown Auburn that are suitable for
such development, so the City of Auburn must proactively identify sites for future development
of podium apartments.
Parking and density requirements are related. Their interaction affects what can be physically
developed on a site, which affects the potential value of the development and its feasibility:
§ Reducing the parking requirement alone is insufficient to encourage podium
construction. Requiring fewer parking stalls per unit might not result in more units if the
building is already near the allowable density limit in the Code.
§ Increasing density alone is insufficient to encourage podium construction. Allowing
more units on a typical lot may not matter if a large portion of the site must be
dedicated to a high parking ratio.
Next Steps
Building on the development feasibility analysis offered in this HAP, the City should consider
the following next steps as it works toward implementing this recommendation:
§ The City should work with developers and city’s current planning, public works, and
economic development staff to understand the physical and financial opportunities and
barriers related to satisfying current parking requirements Downtown.
§ The City should work with property owners in the areas where parking reductions might
be recommended to understand the potential impacts that reductions in parking
requirements might have on surrounding areas.
§ The City could pair reductions in parking requirements with the requirement for
development projects to include transportation demand management strategies such
as providing transit passes to tenants, requiring the project to restrict units without
parking to residents without vehicles, and provide a project-sponsored vehicle share
program.
§ The City could explore parking management strategies that can be implemented in
Downtown Auburn to manage the on and off-street parking inventory to support
development in the district as well as to efficiently manage parking resources in the
areas.
Page 60 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan 47
A2) Offer a Density Bonus to Support Denser Development and Mixed-Income Housing in
Downtown Auburn
See development feasibility analysis on page 38.
Rationale
As mentioned in the prior recommendation, the City of Auburn should also increase the
maximum residential density (with bonus density) to 4.3:1 FAR to allow more units to be built
on each lot in downtown.
As it works toward encouraging more housing development to meet the housing needs of
current and future residents, Auburn will need denser housing. To achieve denser
developments, the maximum residential FAR in the DUC Zone should be increased to support
efficient development types that can advance multiple objectives in Downtown. Like parking
reductions, allowing increased density on a site is an entitlement that the City can provide to
developers to achieve desired development and community outcomes.
Considerations
As noted in Recommendation A1, a FAR bonus that does not relieve properties of the required
parking ratio will not yield more dwelling units because they cannot physically fit on the site.
Increasing density allowances is an effective way to increase development feasibility and help
the market deliver more housing units, more choices, and improved affordability.
In addition to encouraging podium development, density bonuses can be offered in exchange
for the public benefit of regulated affordability in mixed-income developments. This is
discussed in Recommendation B2 on page 51.
Next Steps
§ The City should consider modifying existing density bonuses, and related development
standards, to allow for up to 4.3 FAR.
§ The City should modify the density bonus allowances to work in coordination with
reduced parking requirements. Additional floor area that can be accessed through a
density bonus is only achievable when parking requirements are aligned to not force
parking into financially infeasible underground parking facilities.
§ (Should there be a strategy that construction costs and feasibility be periodically
monitored in the future to reassess density bonuses and change up or down based on
result?)
A3) Promote Lot Aggregation in Downtown Auburn
Rationale
Some smaller lots in Downtown Auburn will need to be consolidated to be developed with the
desired higher density podium development. The structured parking area of podium
Page 61 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan 48
apartments usually requires at least half of a city block to have efficient circulation of
automobiles. Because the acquisition of adjacent lots for redevelopment can take advanced
planning and time, strategic planning efforts by the City may be necessary to deliver market
rate housing more quickly.
Considerations
The City could consider allowing shared parking between developments to support more
efficient lot assembly. Shared parking would allow parking requirements to be met either
between new development projects, or across existing development projects with
underutilized parking capacity. While there are current provisions to allow for shared parking in
City Code, the code should be modified to expand provisions for shared parking with the
specific goal of supporting lot aggregation in Downtown Auburn.
The City could encourage or require shared parking agreements to maximize utilization of the
off-street parking inventory in Downtown Auburn by sharing spaces between daytime
(employment) and nighttime (residential) uses.
Next Steps
§ Explore opportunities to support and negotiate shared parking agreements between
different property owners in Downtown. Downtown Auburn currently has a supply of
off-street private parking that could be more efficiently utilized if this existing parking
supply could be shared with other uses and developments Downtown.
§ Explore allowing developers to “pool” parking requirements that can be in other
nearby development projects to support development on smaller lots or to facilitate
site assembly.
§ Consider expanding city code provisions which allow parking requirements to be
satisfied off-site pursuant to ACC 18.52.050(A)(2) to include residential uses in the DUC
zone when the site is legally encumbered by appropriate means to ensure continuous
use and where pedestrian connection/linkage is provided.
§ Evaluate extending existing code provisions in Table ACC 18.52.030, 'Parking Quantity
Reductions', for instances of different peak parking demands, mixed occupancies, and
for proximity to transit to apply within the DUC zone.
A4) Explore Fee Waivers for Targeted Development Types in Downtown Auburn
Rationale
One way of encouraging more housing development in Downtown Auburn, is by reducing the
cost of development. Ongoing costs like property taxes and up-front costs like impact fees or
permitting fees, contribute to a property’s overall development costs which need to be paid for
via rental revenues. By reducing, waiving, or allowing fees to be financed and repaid over time,
the City can help to reduce development costs and encourage more housing production.
Page 62 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan 49
Lower development costs can also translate to lower rents and be part of a strategy to
encourage affordable housing.
Considerations
There are numerous considerations to make when determining if a fee waiver (or reduction or
financing) program is appropriate.
§ The City does not control or oversee all the fees levied on a new property. The city may
collect the fees on behalf of another entity, or it may share fees with special purpose
districts or school districts, reducing its ability to implement such a program. Examples
are certain impact fees or regional sewer treatment plant fees.
§ Development and permitting fees add costs to development but also pay for essential
services provided by City staff and municipal infrastructure.
§ Conversations around fee waivers must carefully balance the need to fund staff and
infrastructure and the value of reducing costs for a development. For example, if
waived, the City of Auburn’s transportation impact fees must be paid from City general
funds, so this creates both foregone fee revenue and a reduction in the City’s budget to
replace the costs of the fee waiver.
§ Reducing fees creates value for the developer and property owner. This value could be
exchanged for a public benefit desired by the community. Often fee waiver programs
are offered for specific development types that a city wants to see but the market is not
developing, or they are provided in exchange for some sort of public benefit (e.g.,
public plazas, affordable housing units, etc.).
Next Steps
§ The City should only pursue fee waivers when it is determined that the program will not
have negative impacts on the overall city financial condition and will not have negative
impacts on the delivery of City services or the operations and maintenance of existing
infrastructure systems.
§ Evaluate the opportunities to update city code to enable partial fee waivers, up to 80%
of fees, that does not require local government funding to backfill the exempted
portion of the fee consistent with recent authorized legislation in RCW 82.020.060(3).16
§ While the City has recently removed, or let sunset, previous fee waiver programs for the
Downtown Catalyst and Downtown Plan Areas, fee waivers are a tool that could be
considered in the future.
B) Encourage Affordable Housing Downtown
While increasing the total stock of housing units is an important factor for improving housing
affordability in a regional market, increasing the stock of affordable housing options – both
regulated and unregulated – will have a quicker and more direct impact on the overall
16 https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=82.02.060
Page 63 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan 50
affordability of housing in Auburn. The City of Auburn can directly encourage more affordable
housing in a couple of ways, detailed below.
B1) Create Policies to Lower the Cost of Affordable Housing Development
Rationale
There are many programs and policies that the City of Auburn can explore to help lower the
costs of affordable housing development. Some will require meaningful funding (such as grant
programs), or staff time (such as a low-cost loan program), but others can be done through the
improvements to City processes (such as expedited entitlement programs or reduced
permitting fees). In addition, strong partnerships with existing mission-oriented developers
(those who only or primarily build and operate affordable housing), community-based
organizations, and regional funders, can go far in building a supportive network for affordable
housing development.
Considerations
If the City of Auburn wants more affordable housing development in
the DUC Zone, it should make every effort to support developers
seeking to build. A few example programs worth exploring include:
§ Expedited or simplified development review processes. Some
cities offer expedited or simplified development and permitting
processes specifically for affordable housing projects. This can
speed up the development process, which reduces a
developer’s carrying costs.
§ Reduced permitting costs. The City could offer reduced
permitting costs to reduce the overall cost of development. See a larger discussion of
this in Recommendation A4 on page 48.
§ Grants or low-cost loans for development. Rather than starting a grant or lending
program (which requires a lot of program rulemaking and staff effort to run), Auburn
could partner with other jurisdictions and regional entities already offering these types
of programs. A few examples include the South King County Housing and
Homelessness Partnership (SKHHP) in which the City already participates, the Regional
Equitable Development Initiative (REDI) Fund, or the Sound Transit Revolving Loan
Fund.
Next Steps
§ While the City of Auburn’s development review process is relatively streamlined and
less time intensive compared to other jurisdictions in the Puget Sound, the City could
choose to offer an expedited permitting for both regulated affordable housing
developments as well as market rate housing developments that include below market
rate units as part of mixed-income development.
Because almost all new
real estate development
is funded by loans,
developers pay interest on
these loans while the
project is being permitted
and built. The interest on
these loans is referred to
as a carrying cost and
must be repaid, adding to
the overall cost of
development.
Page 64 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan 51
§ The City could offer reduced permitting costs specifically to non-profit affordable
housing developers and other regulated housing development across the City.
The City should partner with other government agencies to access and leverage existing
affordable housing funding mechanisms. Auburn is currently partnering with SKHHP
and has contributed SHB 1406 funds to SKHHP's housing capital fund. During Spring
2021, the SKHHP Executive Board will be developing an administration program for the
SKHHP Housing Capital Fund. This includes identifying priorities and an application
and allocation process for jurisdictional partners. Auburn also currently directs HB
1406 funds to SKHHP and has deferred to King County for the HB 1590 funds since
Auburn didn’t adopt a local ordinance.
B2) Consider a Voluntary Inclusionary Housing Program Paired with a Development Bonus
See development feasibility analysis on page 39.
Rationale
The City could consider regulating housing affordability through a
voluntary inclusionary housing program. Voluntary inclusionary
housing programs require new developments (of a certain size or in a
certain location) to include a portion of their units as regulated
affordable housing – restricted so that households of various incomes
can afford to live there – in exchange for incentives such as density
bonuses, parking reductions, or tax exemptions. A program in the
DUC Zone would likely target 10-20% of units in a development to be
set aside for households earning less than 80% of AMI. This would
result in new, affordable units in downtown Auburn that lower-income
households can immediately access and that would be rent restricted
into the future creating longer-term affordable housing. Current
market dynamics in Auburn can likely not support a broad mandatory
inclusionary housing requirement.
Auburn could explore a voluntary inclusionary housing program that
requires affordable units in exchange for participation in an MFTE
program or increases in density allowances. This could be an effective
tool to support the creation of long-term affordable housing through
mixed-income development in Downtown Auburn. However, for an
inclusionary housing program to be effective, the City would need to
package affordable housing obligations with financial incentives,
regulatory incentives such as reductions to parking standards or bonus
entitlements (e.g., increased height and density limits), or process
improvements.
What is inclusionary
housing?
Affordable housing
requirements, often
referred to as inclusionary
housing or inclusionary
zoning, require (via a
mandatory program) or
encourage (via a voluntary
program) developers to
contribute to the public
benefit of affordable
housing.
This often takes the form
of either providing
affordable units within a
new or renovated market
rate project, building, or
renovating new affordable
housing off-site but in
conjunction with a new
market rate development
or paying a fee-in-lieu of
providing the affordable
housing on or off site.
These programs can be
mandatory or voluntary
and can apply to
residential development
as well as commercial
development.
Page 65 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan 52
Considerations
Without development or financial incentives that offset the lost revenue from requiring
affordable units in a new development, inclusionary housing policies decrease development
feasibility and can negatively impact housing production.
To overcome this obstacle, the City would need to pair an inclusionary housing program with a
benefit to developers that helps to overcome the lost revenues. Generally, this type of benefit
can come in as a financial incentive (directly offsetting the lost revenues) or as a regulatory
incentive (allowing more floor area to be constructed thereby adding value to the
development).
§ Financial Incentives: In addition to the financing programs outlined in the prior
recommendation B1, the City could consider adopting a 12-year multifamily tax
exemption (MFTE) program. Development feasibility analysis performed on Page 27
demonstrates that a 12-year MFTE program (with 20% of the units set-aside for
households earning 80% of AMI in exchange for a 12-year tax exemption) is likely to
generate sufficient incentive for developers to not only develop more podium
apartments in downtown Auburn but also develop some income- and rent-restricted
units.
§ Regulatory Incentives: In addition to financial incentives, the City could offer a density
bonus that allows more housing to be physically built than would otherwise be allowed
in the Code. This creates more value for the development and helps the developer
reach the necessary scale to offset the lost revenues from the affordable units. A density
bonus and or parking reduction (as suggested in recommendations A1 and A2) would
be good to pair with an inclusionary housing program.
Inclusionary housing programs can either be structured as voluntary or mandatory. In a
voluntary program, developers choose to opt into the affordability requirements in exchange
for development incentives. In a mandatory program, all newly constructed properties meeting
the requirements (e.g., size or location) must participate in the program.
Current market conditions could prove challenging when implementing an effective
inclusionary housing program without a broad suite of incentives to mitigate impacts to
development feasibility. In today’s market conditions, a voluntary inclusionary housing policy is
most appropriate.
By tailoring a package of incentives to the needs of a particular type of development project,
the City can work in partnership with developers to ensure development remains financially
feasible while also achieving the community’s housing needs.
Next Steps
§ Explore the tradeoffs associated with on-site inclusionary housing obligations with other
program options such as fee-in-lieu payments that could work better with current
Page 66 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan 53
market conditions while also generating revenue for affordable housing more broadly
across the City.
§ Track market activity and developer perceptions. The single most important factor for
an inclusionary housing program to achieve its objectives is a significant and sustained
level of market-rate development in the local market. If a community is not currently
experiencing a material amount of new development, a voluntary inclusionary housing
policy will not generate a meaningful number of new affordable housing units.
§ Work with stakeholders (residents, associations, developers, housing advocates) to
solicit input on the priority locations, set asides, and other requirements for a potential
program if the market is supportive in the future.
B3) Reduce Parking Requirements for Micro Units
See development feasibility analysis on page 32.
Rationale
The City of Auburn could encourage the development of
unregulated affordable housing by making the development of
micro units more feasible. As discussed in the development
feasibility analysis on page 32, these units are affordable by virtue of
their small size and are generally targeted towards small, transit-
dependent households.
The City could encourage the development of these unregulated affordable housing units by
eliminating the parking requirement - development of these units in downtown Auburn is very
feasible when no on-site parking is required. A single project with micro units can deliver 155
housing units that are affordable to single-person households earning less than 50% of AMI,
which is about $40,000 per year when adjusted for household size.17
It is also possible to encourage micro unit developments by reducing the parking requirement
to 0.3 stalls per unit, or to 0.5 stalls per unit on parcels with lower existing land values.
However, increasing the parking requirement from 0 stalls per unit reduces the total number of
housing units that can be produced. This tradeoff should not be ignored when considering
policy options to best serve the needs of lower-income households.
Considerations
Newly developed micro units in Auburn would likely rent around 60% of AMI and can offer
affordable housing options without any public subsidy. However, because they are
unregulated, the rents can increase over time. Micro units are typically marketed to small
households (one person) who primarily rely on public transit.
17 $40,000 = $113,300 (2020 AMI) x 70% (HUD adjustment factor for one-person household) x 50%
Micro units are newly
constructed apartments that
are very small (about 220
square feet), have bathrooms
and kitchenettes, and come
with shared common space.
Page 67 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan 54
While these housing types can increase housing variety and choice to meet the diverse needs
of Auburn’s residents, these types of housing units are not suitable or desirable for every
household type – with so little square footage, micro units are not generally desirable for
families.
While these units can provide increased affordability, this type of development is not
necessarily a solution to the wider issue of providing more affordable housing for a diverse
range of Auburn residents. Encouraging this type of housing should be one component of a
wider array of solutions aimed at more housing choices, and housing options at different price
points.
Next Steps
§ Because current density in the DUC zone is only regulated by FAR and not by
residential densities, current development standards generally support the
development of micro units. However, if the City wanted to encourage this housing
type as a way to meet their current and future housing needs, the City should consider
reducing parking requirements to support the feasibility of this housing type as well as
to realize the production of more units. If parking is reduced or eliminated, those
dwelling units without parking should be restricted to residents without vehicles.)
§ To ensure a micro housing development with no on-site parking serves the needs of
lower-income households, the City of Auburn could choose to deed restrict a
development project that receives a full parking exemption from on-site parking
requirements to limit its tenants to those who earn less than 80% AMI. While micro units
are naturally affordable at 60% AMI, adding an affordability requirement at this level is
likely too restrictive. This approach would functionally create a voluntary inclusionary
housing approach specific to this housing type with only one regulatory incentive.
Page 68 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan 55
C) Encourage Middle Housing Options in R-5 and R-7 Zones
Allowing the development of duplexes and triplexes (See explanation of middle housing page
5) in areas currently zoned for single-family development can help to increase the number of
housing units available across Auburn, provide housing types that are not broadly available in
the market today, and increase housing affordability. Duplexes and triplexes can help support
housing affordability because they can both increase the total supply of housing and because
they are typically smaller than new detached single-family units and subsequently less costly to
build.
C1) Allow Duplexes and Triplexes in Single-Family Neighborhoods
See development feasibility analysis and massing diagrams beginning on page 34.
Rationale
The current housing supply in Auburn could benefit from increasing housing choices and types
that can better meet the wide range of needs of Auburn’s residents, including seniors, empty
nesters, small families, and young people who find the transition to single-family
homeownership out of reach due to student loan debt, underemployment, or high rents that
prevent saving for a down payment.
The number of households with these unmet needs is likely to increase as Auburn’s
demographics change over the next several decades (with more seniors, empty nesters, and
people looking to buy homes). Because middle housing units are generally smaller than
traditional single-family housing, they are usually more affordable and generally sell for
between 80% and 120% AMI. In addition, these housing types can provide lower-barrier
homeownership opportunities than more traditional single family housing types.
Currently, Auburn’s zoning code allows only single-family units in the R-5 Zone and single-
family and duplex units in the R-7 Zone. To encourage the development of middle housing
types, Auburn could allow duplexes and triplexes uses in the R-5 and R-7 single dwelling zones.
Alternatively, the City could choose to instead apply the current R-16 Zone in areas where
middle housing types would be desired. The current R-16 Zone exists within the code but is
not currently mapped anywhere in the City. If Auburn were to choose re-mapping current R-5
and R-7 Zones to allow middle housing through the R-16 Zone, it should also consider
increasing density allowances to allow 18 dwelling units per acre which is the density level
necessary to support middle housing types evaluated as part of this analysis (see
recommendation C2 below). The City could also choose to allow the R-16 (at 18 dwelling units
per acre) within the existing comprehensive plan designations that would allow for a zoning
designation change consistent with the comprehensive plan designations.
Considerations
The City should evaluate the trade-offs of allowing duplexes and triplexes by modifying zoning
allowances in the R-5 and R-7 Zones or applying the R-16 Zone designation to areas on the
Page 69 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan 56
zoning map. Allowing middle housing types by right in the R-5 and R-7 Zones would provide a
more dispersed and flexible approach of integrating middle housing across both current future
residential communities across Auburn.
Allowing middle housing types by redesignating areas of the City with an R-16 Zone could also
achieve the desired outcomes of increasing housing options and housing choice through a
broader diversity of housing types but would be a more focused and limited approach. This
approach would allow the City to more precisely map areas where they would like to see
middle housing consistent with other City goals and objectives such as proximity to transit,
grocery stores, and other community amenities. However, the City should also consider access
to other amenities such as neighborhood schools and neighborhood parks that are more
aligned with the lower density scale of middle housing types when evaluating how and where
to map the R-16 Zone.
Next Steps
§ The City should move forward to allow middle housing types in the study area and
other areas of Auburn to meet Auburn’s current and future housing needs.
§ The City should support zone changes through redesignating areas with the R-16 zone
or changes to development standards in the R-5 and R-7 zones as part of the next
Comprehensive Plan update.
§ The City should update the residential infill development standards to support middle
housing in an infill context. For example, maximum density can be 10% greater for infill
developments under certain conditions, but this amount is nowhere near the 17.4 units
per acre necessary to build middle housing. Additionally, minimum lot area can be
reduced by 20% for infill developments under certain conditions, but this is also
insufficient to reach 2,500 square feet minimum lot area per dwelling unit needed for
duplex and triplex housing types.
§ The City should consider a public outreach effort to increase community understanding
of compatibility issues, housing types, density, and housing needs and how these
housing types can support and advance the Auburn’s housing goals in the
comprehensive plan.
§ Explore the implications of middle housing regulatory changes on parking. Even if the
cost of providing parking is not an issue for development feasibility, the space
dedicated to parking can be. See Recommendation C4 below.
Page 70 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan 57
C2) Increase Density and Reduce Minimum Lot Size Per Unit in R-5 and R-7 Zones
See development feasibility analysis and massing diagrams beginning on page 34.
Rationale
In addition to allowing duplex and triplex uses whether through modifications to existing R-5
and R-7 Zones or through mapping a higher density R-16 Zone, the City of Auburn needs to
increase the allowed residential density to 17.4 units per acre in order to realize development
of this scale. Although duplexes and triplexes can be built with lower residential density on
larger lot sizes, on smaller lots they are likely to reach 17.4 dwelling units per acre on lot sizes
(e.g., 5,000 square feet for duplexes and 7,500 square feet for triplexes) that are most
prevalent throughout Auburn’s current single dwelling zones.
Considerations
If the City chooses to redesignate some R-5 and R-7 Zones to an R-16 Zone, the density
allowances in the R-16 Zone would also need to be increased to 17.4 units per acre to allow
the development of duplexes and triplexes on smaller lot sizes. Effectively, the City would need
to create an R-18 Zone that permits duplexes and triplexes.
These recommended changes are beyond the flexibility offered by the residential infill
development standards. For example, maximum density can be 10% greater for infill
developments under certain conditions, but this amount is nowhere near the 17.4 dwelling
units per acre needed. Additionally, minimum lot area can be reduced by 20% for infill
developments under certain conditions, but this is also insufficient to reach 2,500 square feet
per dwelling needed for duplex and triplex housing types.
These regulatory changes alone, however, will not immediately result in the production of
duplex and triplex housing types because they are currently feasible only on vacant lots. The
regulatory changes could make duplex and triplex developments more valuable than single-
family developments for owners of vacant lots, but they will not be valuable enough to support
the broad conversion or redevelopment of existing single-family housing into duplexes or
triplexes within current market conditions.
Next Steps
§ Auburn should integrate middle housing options in its next Comprehensive Plan and
Code Amendment process to increase the supply of less expensive housing, increase
home ownership opportunities, and provide housing options that can better meet the
range of current and future household needs across the City.
§ The City should explore the tradeoffs associated with the approach of broadening
housing type allowances in the R-5 and R-7 zones versus redesignating areas of the City
with the R-16 (or future R-18) zoning designation. The City should work with community
stakeholders and governing bodies to evaluate the preferred path forward as part of
the forthcoming Comprehensive Plan update process.
Page 71 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan 58
§ The City will also need to update its residential infill development standards to
accommodate middle housing in an infill context. The current infill development
standards are not designed in way to support smaller scale, medium-density infill of
middle housing types on smaller parcel sizes in the single dwelling zones.
§ If the City chose to pursue modifying development standards in the R-5 and R-7 Zones,
it will also need to modify the Land Use Element (Volume 1) of the City’s
Comprehensive Plan that limits residential densities in these single dwelling zones.
C3) Revise Rear Yard Setbacks to Accommodate Triplexes in R-7 Zones
See development feasibility analysis and massing diagrams beginning on page 34.
Rationale
The City’s zoning development standards currently require a rear setback of 20 feet in “all
zones for structures with vehicular entrances oriented toward the street or a public alley”
(Auburn City Code 18.07.030). On a typical 150-foot by 50-foot lot, this requirement limits the
buildable area for triplexes (not duplexes) when accommodating two parking stalls per unit,
because the structure of one unit would need to extend into the rear setback area. The current
standards limit the configuration of triplex developments to have separate parking stalls
outside the structure. To create more flexible options and more efficient site design and
development without reducing the parking requirement, the rear setback from triplex
structures should be reduced, to 10 feet, for example. This is especially important for these
housing types to be built with alley-loaded parking access when alleys are present, and the
conditions of the alleys supports vehicle access and parking at the rear or a site.
Relatedly, the current infill residential development standards require building orientation on
infill lots to “match the predominant orientation of the other buildings along the block face”
(Auburn City Code 18.25.040). This requirement would limit triplex infill developments that are
designed to not face the street (see Figure 25).
Considerations
When allowing middle housing types (duplexes and triplexes) on smaller parcels in single
dwelling areas, there are site constraints that present tradeoffs between setback requirements
and parking requirements. Given the prevalence of alley access in the middle housing study
area which adds to additional buffers between adjacent properties, reducing rear setback
requirements to allow triplexes to meet current parking requirements is likely to generate less
off-site impacts to the adjacent property owners than reducing parking requirements.
Next Steps
§ When updating development standards as part of the code amendment process, the
City should explore modifying rear setback requirements, such as reducing the rear
setback to 10 feet, when triplex developments are meeting existing parking
requirements.
Page 72 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan 59
C4) Reduce Parking Requirements in R-5 and R-7 Zones
See development feasibility analysis and massing diagrams beginning on page 34.
Rationale
Although the current parking requirements can be accommodated, they create a tradeoff
between parking, open space, and the footprint of duplexes and triplexes.
While developers could theoretically fit the required 2.0 stalls per unit on a typical lot, this
creates a tradeoff between on-site open space (such as a shared yard or patio) or, as
mentioned in recommendation C2, a larger home footprint. Parking can consume about 700
square feet per unit. In perspective, the average U.S bedroom is 132 square feet. Considering
that there are usually on-street parking options for a second vehicle, better use of property
space could be to allow more developable space (allowing for larger family-sized homes) or
more open space.
Considerations
Due to the small site sizes in single dwelling zones to accommodate middle housing types,
there are tradeoffs between development standards such as impervious coverage, open space,
setbacks, and parking that are interrelated and effect the production of middle housing at the
site-level. Additionally, private sector developers are likely to make decisions related to these
tradeoffs about how housing can best meet demand for housing as preferences change over
time. An approach to development standards that allows flexibility between parking, setbacks,
and open space is likely to produce housing types that better meet the diverse needs of
households in Auburn.
Next Steps
§ The City should consider mitigating for conflicting development standards that create
physical constraints on small sites where middle housing development is likely to occur
during the Comprehensive Plan update and code amendment processes.
C5) Consider Minimum Site Size Requirements Relative to Homeownership Goals in R-5
and R-7 Zones
Rationale
The City of Auburn should also consider the tradeoffs inherent in minimum lot size
requirements and its goals of promoting homeownership. Modifying minimum site sizes to
support land-divisions that would result in more ownership could be considered as a strategy
to support increasing homeownership opportunities.
Considerations
Both builders and prospective home buyers prefer fee-simple ownership over condo
ownership. Allowing more fee-simple homeownership opportunities on smaller lots would help
expand homeownership access for more residents.
Page 73 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan 60
The required minimum lot size per unit, which is inversely related to residential density, will
need to be reduced to 2,500 square feet to accommodate these housing types. The currently
required minimum lot size per unit (4,500 square feet in R-5 and 4,300 square feet in R-7)
effectively limits residential density to about 10 units per acre which is too low. For reference,
the minimum lot size per unit in higher density zones (i.e., R-10, R-16, and R-20) is 2,000 square
feet.
Next Steps
§ When updating development standards as part of the code amendment process, the
City should explore reducing minimum lot size requirements to 2,500 square feet per
unit to support middle housing development and create more homeownership
opportunities through attached side-by-side duplexes and triplexes.
C6) Evaluate Site Development Standards and Infrastructure Requirements to Support
Middle Housing Development
Rationale
While the other recommendations in this section are focused on zoning code standards to
support middle housing development, there are other City code and administrative
requirements that can barriers to development feasibility for these housing types. These other
standards and requirements could include things such as civil site development requirements,
street frontage standards, access requirements, and infrastructure standards. The costs of
complying with these standards and requirements can render development of this housing
type unfeasible.
Considerations
Current development standards and requirements have been developed and implemented to
serve the needs of Auburn’s residents and businesses. Additionally, many site development
standards and infrastructure requirements can be a function of code requirements in the
Washington State Building Code. Any evaluation of modifications to site development
standards should be evaluated within the context of the Washington State Building Code and
in coordination with the City Engineer.
Next Steps
§ Site development standards and infrastructure requirements should be revisited by the
Community and Public Works Departments in the context of supporting a wider range
of housing types across Auburn in both vacant and infill development contexts.
§ The City should coordinate with local building professionals, home builders, architects,
and engineers to identify opportunities to simplify these standards and requirements to
support middle housing types in Auburn.
Page 74 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan 61
D) Prevent Displacement and Encourage the Preservation of Existing
Affordable Housing
While increasing the City’s overall housing stock and its stock of affordable housing is
important, it is also critical to preserve the housing stock that exists because it does not
consume new resources and so that households are not displaced and forced to move when
redevelopment occurs. These efforts can focus on preserving naturally occurring affordable
housing (unregulated but affordable) or preserving regulated affordable housing at risk of
regulations expiring and no longer remaining affordable. In addition, tenant supports and
resources for landlords are essential to ensuring that tenants are educated about their rights
and that landlords can properly maintain their properties.
Landlord and Tenant Supports
The City of Auburn has numerous policies and programs already in place to support existing
landlords and tenants as it relates to displacement pressures. The Community Development and
Community Services websites offer a wealth of information on resources, community-based
services, and landlord-tenant information. Information is available in several languages, and there
are numerous links to partner agencies and community organizations.
A new city ordinance (Ordinance No. 6786) was passed in the wake of the COVID-19 crisis and the
economic recession’s effects on low-income renters.18 The City is aware of the need to carefully
balance renter relief and support programs with additional programs and resources focused on
supporting landlords who still have mortgages, taxes, and maintenance to pay for, even if tenants
lose income to pay for rent.
Existing Tenant Supports:
§ Tenant’s rights and education resources
§ City funding to support multiple legal
assistance agencies focusing on tenants
§ Just cause eviction policies
§ 120-day notice for rent increases for
tenants on month-to-month leases or on
annual increases in excess of 5%
§ Requirement for landlords to give “Notice of
Intent to Sell” an existing property with low-
income units
§ Requirement for landlords to give “Notice of
Resources” when serving other notices to
tenants (under RCW 59.12.030)
Existing Landlord Supports:
§ Landlord education resources
§ Clearly established and documented rental
notice requirements
§ Clearly established and documented tenant
responsibilities
§ Clearly established and documented
maintenance standards
18 Ordinance text can be found here: https://weblink.auburnwa.gov/External/0/doc/394573/Page1.aspx
Page 75 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan 62
D1) Monitor and Track Unregulated Affordable Housing
Rationale
The City of Auburn should build on the data collected through its rental housing licensing and
inspection program to develop a more robust understanding of the rental properties in the
City. A good starting point would be to expand the basic information gathered from landlords
through the annual licensing process, then merge this information with code violations and
inspection results and ask for rents and rent increases each year.
Considerations
Examples of basic data points that could be collected to track and monitor unregulated
affordable housing include:
§ Property address
§ Property size (number of units)
§ Year built
§ Contact information for the landlord
§ Management company (if applicable)
The data points listed below are examples of expanded data that could be collected
depending on the City’s staffing and funding resources. Ideally, this data would also be
gathered from the rental licensing and inspection program, but some of it might come from
the King County Assessor’s database, or from other city departments (like code compliance or
permitting applications). Code violations or complaints
§ Permit data (to monitor major remodels or renovations)
§ Rents & rent changes
§ Changes to management companies (if applicable)
Tracking and monitoring this type of data in a comprehensive database can require significant
staff time and resources, so the effort should be scaled to resource availability.
Next Steps
§ The City could consider expanding the types of data collected from landlords through
the existing rental licensing program. Regular, updated access to this type of data
would allow the City to actively monitor the rents and affordability levels of rental
housing as well as have readily available contact information for landlords when the
need arises.
§ Once the City has a robust database that allows it to monitor low-cost market rentals,
the City could build a framework to track and understand which properties might be
primed for sale and redevelopment. The “Notice of Intent to Sell” policy can help to
mitigate some of this risk by providing advanced notice of an intent to sell, but 60 days
does not provide a huge window of time without additional data on hand.
Page 76 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan 63
D2) Create Programs and Policies to Preserve Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing
Rationale
Because regulated affordable housing is so difficult and costly to build, the majority of low-
income households live in unregulated affordable housing, often called ‘naturally occurring
affordable housing.’ However, because these housing units are not regulated by a government
or community-based lender and subject to inspections and subsidies to maintain the
properties, they can fall into disrepair. This is especially common if the rents are well below
market and the property has deferred maintenance.
Deferred maintenance can put a property at risk of being sold for redevelopment because the
current property owner may not have the capital or the interest in undergoing major
renovations. A new owner, financing the property acquisition and rehabilitation with debt, will
need to increase rents to pay for the debt and repairs, putting the existing tenants at risk of
displacement.
A variety of programs and policies can help unregulated property owners and smaller landlords
maintain and repair their properties. Proper ongoing maintenance and capital repairs can help
keep deferred maintenance at bay and ensure that existing low-income tenants have safe and
stable housing.
Considerations
These programs and policies, as well as partnerships in the community
and region, can help to preserve this important stock of low-cost
unregulated multifamily rentals.
§ The City should enhance its existing partnerships with mission-
oriented acquisition funds like the Regional Equitable
Development Initiative (REDI) Fund or Sound Transit’s Transit-
Oriented Development Revolving Loan Fund. These funds stand
ready to deploy capital aimed at acquiring and rehabilitating low-
cost market rentals in exchange for affordability restrictions.
§ Work with the King County Housing Authority or South King
Housing and Homelessness Partners (SKHHP) to establish a pilot
program that would offer low-cost loans for property owners to
rehabilitate their units in exchange for guaranteeing tenants the
ability to return and guaranteeing affordability restrictions.
Because the City of Auburn does not have a housing agency or
housing bureau that is already set up to monitor compliance and
lend funds, except for its shared participation in the SKHHP, the
best course of action is to partner with an agency that already has
these programs and policies in place.
The City of Auburn’s
“Notice of Intent to Sell”
is a great example of a
policy that can help
prevent displacement.
This policy requires
landlords of low-income
multifamily rental
properties (with 5+ units
and at least 1 unit renting
below 80% AMI) to notify
the City at least 60 days
prior to listing the
property for sale.
This advanced notice gives
the City some time to try
to arrange a mission-
oriented buyer or work
with the landlord to
maintain affordability.
See Auburn Municipal
Code 5.23.060 for more
information.
Page 77 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan 64
Common Red Flags for Redevelopment Risk
§ Small property size (e.g., fewer than 10 units)
§ Low assessed value
§ Low rents and or lack of rent increases in
recent years
§ High sales price or high land price
§ Presence of redevelopment nearby
§ Near amenities or transit
§ Presence of deferred maintenance or capital
repairs (blight, numerous code violations, or
numerous complaints)
§ Non-institutional landlord, and or aging
landlord
§ Nearby properties under common ownership
§ Nearby properties are rentals and meet
numerous other conditions
§ Nearby (re)development or city-led planning
efforts to spur housing or economic
development
Next Steps
§ The City should coordinate with the SKHHP and other regional housing organizations to
participate in existing programs while also working with other cities through South King
County to develop new programs that can advance housing affordability across the sub-
region.
§ Building on the data collected in Recommendation D1, the City could monitor this data
and general market data for warning signs of redevelopment risk.
§ The City should continue to build strong relationships with property owners and
managers of small multifamily buildings that could be at risk, particularly when there are
other development projects or planning efforts happening nearby.
§ The City should also continue to enhance its partnerships and relationships with
mission-oriented funders, lenders, and housing providers. Having an awareness of
which properties might be at risk of redevelopment coupled with strong relationships
with service and housing providers, will enable the city to act quickly when it receives a
“notice of intent to sell” to ensure existing tenants are protected.
D3) Monitor and Track Regulated Affordable Housing
Rationale
Most regulated affordable housing properties receive funding that comes with a requirement
to rent some or all the units at a certain income level, for a certain amount of time. The length
of these affordability restrictions varies by program, funding type, and property.
However, when affordability restrictions do end, these properties can be at risk of moving to
market-rate housing, thereby becoming unaffordable to the existing tenants. This risk is
particularly high if properties are owned by private, for-profit companies (nonprofit affordable
housing owners and operators will typically work to keep the rents affordable).
While Auburn’s “Notice of Intent to Sell” policy can help to mitigate this by providing
advanced notice, regulated affordable property owners have numerous regulatory “hoops” to
jump through to recapitalize and extend restrictions. Often these properties have meaningful
capital repairs that need to be addressed when restrictions are renewed.
Page 78 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan 65
By monitoring regulated affordable housing properties that are nearing their affordability
expiration dates, the City can be a strong partner and advocate, working with the property
owners to help secure needed funding and avoid the property returning to market rate. period,
the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program has a 15-year affordability period).
Considerations
Newly constructed affordable housing developments will not likely see their affordability
restrictions end for some time, but older properties should be monitored.
The City should consider establishing a database along with a solid understanding of the
affordability terms associated with different funding programs (e.g., the MFTE program has a
12-year affordability period, the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program has a 15-year
affordability period).
Next Steps
§ The City should coordinate with PSRC and King County regional and county-wide
affordable housing tracking and monitoring efforts to ensure that city-level affordable
housing data is accurate and includes relevant information.
§ The city should ensure that it has strong, ongoing relationships with, and proper contact
information for, all the mission-driven developers and affordable housing property
owner-operators in the City.
§ The City should work with these housing providers to ensure data sharing is possible,
consider setting up a reporting agreement with reporting information and deadlines to
create a database that monitors upcoming expirations.
§ The City should gain familiarity with the various funding sources that are available to
support recapitalization and rehabilitation including the Low-Income Housing Tax
Credit, HUD Funding (such as CDBG or HOME funds), funding opportunities through
the Washington State Housing Finance Commission, and funding programs through the
Washington State Department of Commerce.
D4) Identify Opportunities to Increase Homeownership
Rationale
One way to mitigate for the risk of displacement caused by changing market conditions is
through programs aimed at increasing homeownership opportunities. This is particularly
important for renters, low-income households, households of color (who have historically lower
homeownership rates than white households), as well as immigrants and refugees.
Compared to renters, homeowners are largely shielded from displacement pressures because
they have fixed mortgage payments. Unlike rents that can rise without warning or increase
annually with a lease renewal, mortgage payments cannot change without warning. While
property taxes do change each year, they are a small portion of overall homeownership
housing costs. In addition, because lenders size a mortgage to a buyer’s income and ability to
Page 79 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan 66
pay, homeowners are less susceptible to cost burdening and housing insecurity, absent a
sudden change in income.
Considerations
Because of these benefits, and because homeownership offers the benefit of wealth generation
through equity in a real asset, encouraging homeownership is one of the best ways to prevent
displacement. The most impactful way to improve homeownership opportunities is likely
through a down payment assistance program. However, this requires meaningful funding
resources and careful calibration to ensure tenant success.
Example Programs Requiring Funding
§ Down payment assistance programs
§ Expand existing homeownership weatherization and rehabilitation grants
§ Energy assistance grants
Many other programs do not require meaningful funding to be successful. The City should look
to the community-based partners already working in these areas and build strong lines of
communication as to how it can help.
Example Programs Not Requiring Funding
§ Donate city facilities for in-person meetings (when safe and appropriate) or staff time to
advancing one of these programs
§ Host homebuyer education (classes educating renters on the homebuying process)
§ Foreclosure education assistance and counseling
§ Donate excess land for affordable homeownership
Next Steps
§ Auburn should work with SKHHP and regional partners to collaborate with the
Washington State Housing Finance Commission to develop area-specific down
payment assistance funding and programs for South King County in the same way that
is done with A Regional Coalition for Housing (ARCH) in East King County, in Pierce
County, and in Tacoma.
§ City staff could also work with community organizations, landlords, and housing
providers to encourage referrals to homebuyer education programs sponsored by the
Washington State Housing Finance Commission and the Washington Homeownership
Resource Center.
Page 80 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan 67
Recommendations and Alignment with the Comprehensive Plan
This HAP identifies 17 recommendations that can help the City of Auburn address the current
and future housing needs that are expected to emerge over the next few decades, as
described Part 2 (see the Summary of Housing Needs beginning on page 11).
As required by the Washington State Growth Management Act, a jurisdiction’s Housing
Element must include adequate provisions for existing and projected housing needs of all the
economic segments of the community.19 As such, 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 and the corresponding residential development
needed for current and future residents.20 Among the eight primary Comprehensive Plan
elements, the Housing Element (Volume 2) is most relevant to the HAP strategies and the Land
Use Element (Volume 1) includes a few applicable areas. This section reviews how these two
Comprehensive Plan elements compare to the HAP and assesses whether updates would be
needed.
The recommendations in this HAP are supportive and largely consistent with Auburn’s Housing
Element. In fact, many of the HAP recommendations provide direct support to advancing
numerous Housing Element policies. For example, there are recommendations in the HAP that
promote:
§ Workforce housing development (Comprehensive Plan policy H-4),
§ More housing development in Downtown Auburn (policies H-5 and H-13),
§ Increased housing variety (policy H-10),
§ Increased home ownership opportunities and education (policies H-11, H-39, and H-40),
§ Conservation and repairs of existing housing (policies H-18 to H-21, LU-3, and LU-25),
and
§ Affordable housing development meeting community needs (policies H-23, and H-24).
Many of the HAP recommendations on development standard and regulatory amendments aim
to promote greater flexibility and minimize costs to build housing which directly promotes
policy H-27. Other key HAP regulatory suggestions help to further execute policy H-29, calling
for exploration of density bonuses, parking reductions, and fee reductions.
Implementing a few of the HAP recommendations could involve possible policy and Code
amendments and Comprehensive Plan updates. These are a few areas to consider during the
next Comprehensive Plan update process. The plan updates discussed here, primarily focus on
19 Washington State Growth Management Act, RCW 36.70A.070(2)
20 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. The currently adopted Comprehensive Plan
includes a 20-year planning horizon from 2015 to 2035; however, the next update is expected to include an updated
20-year planning horizon.
Page 81 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan 68
amending existing policies to encompass emerging topics and recalibrate the direction
towards better meeting housing needs.
§ The HAP includes a few recommendations to explore fee waivers for targeted
development types in Downtown Auburn (A4) and policies to lower the cost of
affordable housing development (B1). These actions are worded generally, calling for a
process of further evaluation of different policy options. Consequently, during the
process of developing policies associated with fees, LU-5 policy should be considered
as to whether minor modifications would be needed or could be avoided.
o LU-5: New residential development should contribute to the creation,
enhancement, and improvement of the transportation system, health and human
services, emergency services, school system, and park system. This may be
accomplished through the development of level-of-service standards, mitigation
fees, impact fees, or construction contributions.
§ HAP recommendations (C1 – C5) encouraging middle housing options in the R-5 and R-
7 Zones largely involve land use, development standards (such as setback and minimum
lot size standards), development densities, and parking requirement amendments in the
City of Auburn Code. In addition, a few areas with the Comprehensive Plan might need
to be addressed. These HAP actions support the provision of a variety of housing
typologies to suit the needs of various potential residents (LU-17) but implementing
density increases in the R-5 and R-7 Zones (HAP recommendation C2), would require
amendments to Land Use Element Comprehensive Plan language (on page 4)
describing the allowable residential housing density for the R-5 and R-7 zones.
o R-5 Residential Zone (Five Dwelling Units Per Acre): All properties not located
within the Urban Separator Overlay may be zoned R-5.
o R-7 Residential Zone (Seven Dwelling Units Per Acre): All properties not located
within the Urban Separator Overlay may be zoned R-7.
§ HAP recommendations (A1 – A3), supporting market rate development in Downtown
Auburn, chiefly call for parking requirement reductions, increased maximum residential
Floor Area Ratio limits in the DUC Zone, and lot aggregation which would likely
necessitate amendments to the City of Auburn Code. Similarly, recommendation B3,
supporting affordable housing development in Downtown Auburn, by reducing parking
requirements for micro housing units, likely would involve amendments to the City of
Auburn Code.
Additionally, a few areas within the Land Use Element of Auburn’s Comprehensive Plan
might need to be modified (LU-39, shown below) to support the implementation of
HAP recommendations A2 and A3. In addition to allowing additional height or density
in exchange for supplemental amenities identified in this policy, the City should
explicitly identify affordable housing and mixed-income development as eligible uses
for deviations in height, density, or intensity.
Page 82 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan 69
o LU-39: Deviations of height, density or intensity limitations should be allowed
when supplemental amenities are incorporated into site and building design.
Examples of amenities include use of low-impact development, use of
sustainable site and building techniques, public space and art, transit-oriented
development, landscaping and lighting, and bike shelters.
§ To address policy LU-43, safeguards should be evaluated and considered to mitigate
for parking impacts on commercial development associated with HAP
recommendations A1 and B3, involving changes to the parking requirements for certain
targeted types of residential development.
o LU-43: Parking standards within the downtown should reflect the pedestrian
orientation of the area, but also consider parking's impact for economic
development.
§ The HAP also includes an objective regarding preventing displacement and
encouraging the preservation of affordable housing. This objective is similar to the
Comprehensive Plan goal and corresponding policies aiming to improve the quality and
maintenance of the housing stock to help preserve affordable housing. However, this
goal and the associated policies do not explicitly address the need to minimize
displacement impacts. Consequently, this Comprehensive Plan goal could be updated
to better encompass this emerging topic. A new aspect of PSRC’s VISION 2050 plan
(adopted in 2020) is the recognition of displacement risk (cultural, economic, and
physical) and the need for jurisdictions to mitigate and minimize displacement.
Implementation Steps
In the coming years, implementing this HAP will require the City to balance and coordinate its
pursuit of actions, funding, and partnerships with its other policy and programmatic priorities.
This section outlines an implementation process that will improve success with advancing this
Plan’s recommendations.
Develop and Assign Work Programs
The 17 recommendations in this HAP will require varying levels of effort for the City to
implement. Each recommendation will require different levels of staff time and resources and
will achieve different objectives.
Each of these recommendations lies within the City of Auburn’s control, but work will span
departments and involve meaningful contributions from stakeholders such as City Council,
Planning Commission, residents, homeowners, neighborhood associations, advocates,
developers (both affordable and market rate), and many others. Additionally, some of the
actions in the HAP are intended to support enhanced coordination with government agency
and non-profit partners.
Page 83 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan 70
While implementation will take several years, one of the first steps will be to develop a work
program and assign tasks. The City will need to assess the varying levels of effort, allocate
resources, and examine technological solutions to develop work programs that can help
complete the needed analysis and initiate important conversations with these stakeholders.
Prioritize Code Changes and Recommendations that Work Through the
Housing Element
As described in the table below, the City should prioritize the recommendations that can be
achieved through zoning code changes. These recommendations do not generally require high
levels of funding, aside from staff time and resources. Given that general funds are and will
likely remain limited in the coming years due to the effects of the COVID-19 economic
recession, prioritizing changes through the code can help to support housing development,
generate economic activity, and promote community stability.
In addition, the City should understand which recommendations can be implemented via the
next update of the Housing Element as part of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. These actions
can be prioritized so the City is ready and prepared when the Housing Element update process
begins (many of the changes will require some lead time to connect with the community,
Planning Commission, and City Council).
Programmatic recommendations that require new assets (staff, funding, or technological
solutions) should be given a lower priority given limitations on resources. However, as these
recommendations can also have longer lead times, the City could prioritize actions for longer
term implementation and impact, should resources become available.
Figure 31 provides an overview of each of the 17 recommendations highlighted in this HAP.
Each recommendation is aligned with its geography (Study Area or Citywide), is suggested as a
near-term or long-term action, and has been assessed for its relative impact on the City’s staff
and fiscal resources. In addition, icons are used to denote the type of recommendation, which
influences its implementation (see Figure 31).
Figure 30. Icons used to denote Recommendation Types
Icon Recommendation Type
Recommendation calls for a zoning or Comprehensive Plan change.
Recommendation can be implemented through the Zoning Code and/or
through Comprehensive Plan update and code amendment processes.
Recommendation calls for a new program. Implementation will require staff and
or resources to support new or expanded program operations.
Recommendation calls for increased partnerships and collaboration.
Implementation will focus on enhancing relationships and securing partnerships.
Page 84 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan 71
Figure 31. Summary of Recommended Actions and Implementation Considerations
Objective # Recommended Action Recommendation Type Sub-Area of Citywide? Near-term or
Long-Term
Impact to City
Resources Encourage Market Rate Development Downtown A1 Reduce Parking Requirements to Support
Development in Downtown Auburn
Downtown Near-Term Moderate staff
time
A2 Offer a Density Bonus to Support Denser
Development and Mixed-Income Housing
Downtown Near-Term Moderate staff
time
A3 Promote Lot Aggregation in Downtown
Auburn
Downtown Near-Term Moderate staff
time
A4 Explore Fee Waivers for Targeted
Development Types in Downtown Auburn
Downtown Long-Term
Potential for
negative fiscal
impact Encourage Affordable Housing Downtown B1 Create Policies to Lower the Cost of
Affordable Housing Development
Citywide Near-Term
Moderate staff
time and potential
lost revenue from
permitting
B2 Consider a Voluntary Inclusionary Housing
Program Paired with a Density Bonus
Downtown Long-Term
Moderate staff
time to create
and manage a
program
B3 Reduce Parking Requirements for Micro
Units
Downtown Near-Term Moderate staff
time Encourage Middle Housing Options in R-5 and R-7 Zones C1 Allow Duplexes and Triplexes in Single-
Family Neighborhoods
Middle Housing Study
Area and Citywide as
Appropriate
Near-Term Moderate staff
time
C2 Increase Density and Reduce Minimum Lot
Size Per Unit in R-5 and R-7 Zones
Middle Housing Study
Area and Citywide as
Appropriate
Near-Term Moderate staff
time
Page 85 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan 72
Objective # Recommended Action Recommendation Type Sub-Area of Citywide? Near-term or
Long-Term
Impact to City
Resources
C3 Revise Rear Yard Setbacks to Accommodate
Triplexes in R-7 Zones
Middle Housing Study
Area and Citywide as
Appropriate
Near-Term Moderate staff
time
C4 Reduce Parking Requirements in R-5 and R-
7 Zones
Middle Housing Study
Area and Citywide as
Appropriate
Near-Term Moderate staff
time
C5
Consider Minimum Site Size Requirements
Relative to Homeownership Goals in R-5
and R-7 Zones
Middle Housing Study
Area and Citywide as
Appropriate
Near-Term Moderate staff
time
C6
Evaluate Site Development Standards and
Infrastructure Requirements to Support
Middle Housing Development
Middle Housing Study
Area and Citywide as
Appropriate
Near-Term Moderate staff
time Prevent Displacement and Encourage the Preservation of Existing Affordable Housing D1 Monitor and Track Unregulated Affordable
Housing Citywide Near-Term
Meaningful staff
time to establish
and track data
D2 Create Programs and Policies to Preserve
Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing
Citywide Long-Term
Meaningful staff
time to create
and manage a
program
D3 Monitor and Track Regulated Affordable
Housing Citywide Long-Term
Meaningful staff
time to establish
and track data
D4 Identify Opportunities to Increase
Homeownership
Citywide Near-Term
Moderate staff
time and potential
program funding
Page 86 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan 73
This page is intentionally left blank.
Page 87 of 199
DRAFT Housing Action Plan
Appendices
City of Auburn
April 2021
Prepared for: City of Auburn
Report Appendices
Page 88 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix A A-2
Part 5: Appendices
This section provides 4 appendices with important, data sources, methods, and assumptions for
the analysis and recommendations advanced in this Housing Action Plan.
Page 89 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix A A-3
Appendix A. Full Public Engagement Summary Memorandum
Page 90 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix A A-4
Page 91 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix A A-5
Page 92 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix A A-6
Page 93 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix A A-7
5
Appendix A. Participant List
Stakeholder Interviews
Jean, Resident
Julie DeBolt, Auburn School District
Kacie Brae, Auburn Area Chamber of Commerce
Debbie Christian, Auburn Food Bank
Melanie Fink, Investment Property Group
Josh Headley, Revive Church
Amie Hudson, Neiders Company
Jennifer Hurley, Auburn Senior Center
Christopher Loving, Eastside Legal Protection
Katharine Nyden, Eastside Legal Protection
Kathy Powers, Orion
Cyndi Rapier, Green River College
Kyla Wright, City of Auburn
Focused Group Conversations
Greg Brown, Auburn School District
Julie DeBolt, Auburn School District
Terri Herren, Auburn School District
Isiah Johnson, Auburn School District
Renters: Jenny, Lewis, Joan (Auburn residents)
Page 94 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix A A-8
Page 95 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix A A-9
Page 96 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix A A-10
Page 97 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix A A-11
Page 98 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix B B-1
Appendix B. Existing Conditions Memorandum (Housing Needs
Assessment Section)
ORIGINAL DATE: January 15, 2021
REVISED DATE: February 26, 2021
TO: Jeff Dixon and Anthony Avery, City of Auburn
FROM: Tyler Bump, Madeline Baron, Jenn Cannon, Oscar Saucedo-Andrade, Justin
Sherrill, Ryan Knapp
SUBJECT: AUBURN HOUSING ACTION PLAN – EXISTING CONDITIONS MEMORANDUM –
REVISED
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
Page 99 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix B B-2
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.
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.
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 100 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix B B-3
Housing Needs Analysis
This section summarizes the housing inventory, household1 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 35.
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 s ources.
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.2
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.3
Figure 2. Number of Units Built Per Year, Auburn, 2011-2019
Source: OFM, 2019.
1 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)
2 In this report, multifamily housing is defined as five or more units in a given property development.
3 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 101 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix B B-4
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 %
10 0%
Owner Re nter
Single-famil y detached Single-family at tached
Dupl ex, Tripl ex , Quadplex Mul tifamily (5 + units)
Type of Single-Family Housing (units)
Page 102 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix B B-5
Compared to King
County and South King
County, Auburn has a
higher share of 2-star4
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 CoStar5 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 data6
4 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.
5 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).
6 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%
Au burn
(n=5,794)
S. King Co un ty
(n=49,571)
Kin g Coun ty
(n=305,516)
2-star 3-sta r 4-sta r 5-s ta r
3%
3%
7%
12%
13%
17%
22%
28%
24%
37%
32%
27%
23%
18%
19%
4%
5%
6%
0%20 %40 %60 %80 %10 0%
Auburn
South King County
King County
St udios 1-BR Units 2-BR Unit s 3-BR Units 4-BR Unit s 5+ BR Units
Page 103 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix B B-6
About 37 percent of all
housing units in Auburn
have 3 bedrooms, the
largest share of all
bedroom sizes.
Four-bedroom units
make up the next
largest share of the
city’s total housing stock
(23 percent), followed
by 2-bedroom units (22
percent), and then 1-
bedroom units (12
percent).
Figure 8. Housing Units by Bedroom Size, Auburn
Source: ECONorthwest analysis of U.S. Census Bureau PUMS 2018 1-year survey data
Special Needs Housing
The 2010 Census provides the most recent available data for describing residents that live in
group homes or residential treatment centers. In that year, about 105 Auburn residents lived in
group homes intended for adults, and no adult residents lived in residential treatment centers
(Census, 2010). According to the Census Bureau, group homes are “community-based group
living arrangements in residential settings that are able to accommodate three or more clients of
a service provider.”7 These homes provide services to clients such as behavioral or social
programs, in addition to room and board. Residential treatment centers differ from group
homes in that they are staffed 24-hours per day and help treat residents for ailments such as
drug or alcohol abuse, or behavioral disorders.8
Population and Household Demographics
This section provides information on the demographics of Auburn residents, both at the
population level and at the household level. This section includes important information on the
race and ethnicity characteristics of Auburn residents. The U.S. Census Bureau considers race
and ethnicity as two distinct concepts. Census survey respondents self-identify as one of two
ethnicities: Hispanic or Latino, or Not Hispanic or Latino. Census survey respondents also self -
identify as one of seven races (these are the options offered by the Census): White, Asian, Pacific
Islander or Native Hawaiian, Black or African American, American Indian or Alaskan Native,
7 U.S. Census Bureau. Definition of Group Homes Intended for Adults (pg. 7). 2010 American Community
Survey/Puerto Rico Community Survey Group Quarters Definitions. https://www2.census.gov/programs-
surveys/acs/tech_docs/group_definitio ns/2010GQ_Definitions.pdf
8 U.S. Census Bureau. Definition of Residential Treatment Centers for Adults (pg. 7). 2010 American Community
Survey/Puerto Rico Community Survey Group Quarters Definitions.
1,793
10,799
17,177
10,106
5,377
1,397
- 5,00 0 10 ,0 00 15 ,0 00 20,0 00
5+Bedrooms
4-Bedr oom
3-Bedr oom
2-Bedr oom
1-Bedr oom
Studi os
Page 104 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix B B-7
Multiple Races, or “Other” Race. This analysis groups individuals by their race and ethnicity
(e.g., Non-Hispanic Black or African American), so as to provide mutually exclusive racial and
ethnic identities.
Population Characteristics
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, with a larger share of residen ts under age 19. In
addition, as of the 2014-2018 time period, about 16 percent of Auburn’s residents identify as
Hispanic or Latino of any race and about 57 percent identify as non-Hispanic White.
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 9. Age Distribution, Auburn, 2014-2018
Source: ACS (5 year 2014-2018).
Share of Population
As of the 2014-2018 time period, about 16 percent of Auburn’s residents identif ied as Hispanic
or Latino of any race and about 57 percent as non-Hispanic White. About 11 percent identified
as non-Hispanic Asian, and another 11 percent as non-Hispanic of Another or Multiple races
(including Pacific Islander or Native Hawaiian and Non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaskan
Native). About 5 percent identified as non -Hispanic Black or African American.
Figure 10. Population by Race and Ethnicity, Auburn (City), 2014- 2018
Source: ACS (5-year, 2014-2018).
8%
8%
7%
6%
7%
15%
13%
13%
7%
6%
6%
3%
1%
0%5%10 %15 %20 %
Un der 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 %11%5%11 %
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Share of Total Population
His pa nic or Latin o of An y Ra ce Non -Hispanic Wh ite
Non-Hispan ic of A nothe r or Multiple Races Non -Hispanic B la ck or A frican America n
Non-Hispan ic A sian
Page 105 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix B B-8
Auburn saw an 86 percent increase in the number of residents who identify as Hispanic or Latino
of any race between 2010 and 2018. In addition, Auburn saw about a 67 percent increase in the
number of residents who identify as being non-Hispanic of Another or Multiple races (including
Pacific Islander or Native Hawaiian and Non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaskan Native ).
Figure 11. Population by Race and Ethnicity, Auburn (City), 2010 and 2018
Source: ACS (5-year, 2006-2010 and 2014-2018).
As of 2018, across all race and ethnic groups, residents of the Auburn Area PUMA (which
includes Lakeland and some rural areas) tend to own their homes rather than rent. The
homeownership rate in this area is about 64 percent, right in line with national averages.
However, more residents identifying as non-Hispanic Black or African American, or non-Hispanic of
Another or Multiple races (including Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander, and American Indian
and Alaskan Native) rent rather than own their homes.
Figure 12. Population Tenure by Race and Ethnicity, Auburn Area PUMA, 2018
Source: ECONorthwest analysis of U.S. Census Bureau PUMS 2018 1 -year data
44,302
5,266
6,891
3,816
6,710
44,803
8,782
12,831
3,894
8,800
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000
Non -Hispanic Wh ite
Non -Hispanic of A nothe r or M ultip le Races
Hispanic or Latino of An y Ra ce
Non-His panic B lack or A frican America n
Non-Hispan ic A sian
Total Population
2018 2010
47,511
5,475
9,539
2,789
9,202
20,097
6,134
9,234
3,142
3,424
0 20,000 40,000 60,000
Non-Hispanic Wh ite
Non -Hispanic of A nothe r or Multip le Races
Hispa nic or Latino of An y Ra ce
Non-Hispanic B la ck or A frican America n
Non-Hispan ic A sian
Total Population
Homeowner Re nter
Page 106 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix B B-9
Household Characteristics
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 12 for a description of AMI) in 2018,
compared to 34 percent in the South King County region. Auburn’s average household size is
2.72 persons for renters and 2.80 persons per household for homeowners (ACS, 2014 -2018).
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 13. Number of Households by Household Size, Auburn,
2014-2018
Source: ACS (5 year 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 14. Household Tenure, Auburn, 2014-2018
Source: ACS (5 year 2014-2018).
About two-thirds of
Auburn’s households are
family households.9
Approximately one-third of
Auburn’s households are
non-family households
(roommates and one-
person households).
Figure 15. Household Composition, Auburn, 2014-2018
Source: ACS (5 year 2014-2018).
9 See footnote 1 on page 4 for a definition of family household.
8,549
9,775
3,850
7,491
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10 ,00 0
12 ,00 0
1 2 3 4+
56%44%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100 %
Owner-occup ie d h ouseholds Re nter-occupied ho useho lds
33%34%33%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Non-family ho useho lds
Family house holds without children
Family house holds with c hildren
Page 107 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix B B-10
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 ea rning between 80% and 100% of
AMI (see Figure 16).
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 16. 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 17. Income Distribution by AMI and Tenure, Auburn, 2018
Source: PUMS, 2018.
Page 108 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix B B-11
Like national trends, household incomes in Auburn vary meaningfully by race and ethnicity.
Across all races and ethnicities, household incomes in Auburn are lower than that of Bellevue,
and King County as a whole.
In the 2014-2018 time period, non-Hispanic White and non-Hispanic Asian households had
incomes above Auburn’s median, while incomes for non-Hispanic households of Multiple Races
were right in line with the median. Most other races and ethnicities had household incomes below
the median.
Figure 18. Household Income by Race and Ethnicity, Auburn, Bellevue, and King County, 2018
Source: ACS (5 year 2014-2018).
$89,418
$94,533
$48,075
$49,059
$102,233
$70,361
$54,123
$76,155
$62,784
$112,283
$109,604
$73,531
$47,928
$121,192
$64,356
$92,393
$74,826
$68,947
$72,117
$47,917
$54,875
$83,911
$71,314
$52,326
$66,250
$56,161
$0 $50,000 $100,000
All ho us eho ld s
Non -His pan ic Wh ite
Non -His pan ic B la ck or A fric an
Am erican
Non -His pan ic A me ric an Ind ian o r
Ala skan Native
Non -His pan ic A sian
Non -Hi s pan ic P ac ific Islan der o f
Native Hawa iia n
Non -His pan ic of A nothe r Race
Non -His pan ic of M ultiple Ra ces
H is pa nic or L atin o of An y Ra ce
Au bu rn Be llev ue K in g Coun ty
Hispanic or Latino of Any Race
Non-Hispanic of Multiple Races
Non-Hispanic of Another Race
Non-Hispanic Pacific Islander or
Native Hawaiian
Non-Hispanic Asian
Non-Hispanic American Indian or
Alaskan Native
Non-Hispanic Black or African
American
Non-Hispanic White
All Households
Page 109 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix B B-12
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 imper fect measure of affordability and
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.10 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.11 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 19).
10 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
11 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 110 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix B B-13
Figure 19. 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
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 19 the
official 50% income limit for a family of four is slightly higher than half of the 100% limit).
Figure 20. 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
Median Household Income (MHI)
Because the Seattle-Bellevue, WA HUD Metro Fair Market Rent Area is so large, it does not
account for differences within the geography. As noted, a property developed in Auburn u sing a
50% income limit would have the same rents as one in Bellevue, despite underlying differences
in the incomes of these cities individually. To capture a more localized consideration of median
income, we calculated Auburn’s median household income (MHI) using Census 5-year ACS data
(see Figure 18). In the 2014-2018 time period, Auburn’s median household income was
estimated to be $68,950. This is much lower than the $89,400 estimated for King County as a
whole, and significantly lower than the $112,300 estimated for the City of Bellevue (using the
Page 111 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix B B-14
same Census 5-year ACS data). The MHI for the South King County region was estimated at
$71,400 using Census PUMS 2018 1-year data.
It is important to note that this MHI is not directly comparable to HUD’s MFI. HUD’s MFI
calculation relies on underlying Census data related to family incomes, and the 100% median is
set for families of four. This MHI is for all households – not just families – and households can
have a wide range of compositions (e.g., roommates) compared to families. In the City of
Auburn, the median household only has 2.77 people. An area’s MHI is typically lower than its
MFI.
While MHI does not directly compare to MFI, the fact that Auburn’s MHI is lower than other
cities in the region, but that affordable properties in Auburn use region-wide MFI limits, means
that households and families in Auburn may have a harder time finding housing that is
affordable within their income ranges (costing less than 30 percent of gross monthly income).
Housing Cost Trends
In the past decade, housing costs in the entire Puget Sound have risen dramatically, buoyed by
the strong economy, low housing production, and high dem and 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
21). 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 20, 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.
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 21. 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 22 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
Page 112 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix B B-15
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 22. Ownership Housing Units Affordable by AMI, Auburn,
2018
Source: PUMS (2018).
Figure 23 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 fou r). 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).
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 23. Rental Housing Units Affordable by AMI, Auburn, 2018
Source: PUMS (2018).
Regulated and Unregulated Affordable Housing
Importantly, Figure 23 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,
Page 113 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix B B-16
quality housing that rents at prices affordable to households earning less than 30% of AMI is
this regulated housing stock.12
In 2020, Auburn had 2,778 regulated affordable housing units which are in cluded in all analyses
of Auburn’s housing stock. These units were provided in 31 across the City, with an average of
88 units per property (King County Housing Authority, the Washington State Housing Finance
Commission, and HUD, 2020). The majority of these units are affordable to households earning
less than 60% AMI, and very few units are restricted to households earning less than 30% AMI.
Additionally, construction data was available for about 72 percent of Auburn’s regulated units.
Of these 2,027 units, 22 percent were constructed before 2000, and another 24 percent were
constructed between 2000 and 2010. The remaining 54 percent were constructed after 2011, with
the largest delivery of units occurring in 2018 at 879 units, or 43 percent of the total s tock for
properties with data.
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 24 below presents data on Auburn’s NOAH ren tal 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 c an 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.
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 24. 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
12 Unregulated housing stock that may be affordable t o 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 114 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix B B-17
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 26). 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.
Of the approximate 15,507
renter households in
Auburn, more than half (53
percent) are cost burdened,
and more than one-quarter
(27 percent) are severely
cost burdened.
Figure 25. Cost Burdened and Severely Cost Burdened Renters,
Auburn, 2018
Source: PUMS (2018).
Income
Category
Total
Households Cost Burdened Severely Cost
Burdened
Count % Share Count % Share
0 – 30% 4,407 3,886 88% 3,160 72%
30 – 50% 4,009 2,830 71% 1,004 25%
50 – 80% 4,299 1,426 33% 0 0%
80 – 100% 1,381 0 0% 0 0%
100% + 1,411 121 9% 0 0%
Total 15,507 8,263 53% 4,164 27%
Recalling the figures on
page 13, 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 115 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix B B-18
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 26. Cost Burdened and Severely Cost Burdened Renters,
Auburn, 2018
Source: PUMS (2018).
In Auburn, households of color account for a disproportionate number of households
experiencing cost burdening, compared to their share of total populations (see Figure 27).
Hispanic households of any race accounted for approximately 25 percent of all of the households
experiencing cost burdening (blue bar) in the 2014-2018 period, yet they only accounted for
roughly 16 percent of the Auburn area’s total households (yellow bar). This means that they are
disproportionately cost burdened relative to non -Hispanic White and non-Hispanic Asian
households.
Figure 27. Cost Burdening by Race and Ethnicity, Auburn Area PUMA, 2014 -2018
Source: PUMS (5 year 2014-2018).
Page 116 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix B B-19
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 oute r 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 w ould spend about
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 28).
Figure 28. 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%
Page 117 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix B B-20
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 with out 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, bu t 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.
▪ 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 w ith 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 t o 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.
Page 118 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix B B-21
▪ 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 29 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.
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 39.
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 119 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix B B-22
Figure 29. 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.
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
*
Page 120 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix B B-23
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 c arefully 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.
Access to Healthy Food
According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), food access is a measure that
considers accessibility to healthy foods and the resources necessary to obtain healthy foods such
as income and transportation, at both the individual and neighborhood levels. Healthy foods
can be found in supermarkets, grocery stores, and in other retail markets. The further the
distance required to travel to these supermarkets the greater the burden on individuals and
families to maintain a healthy diet. In urban areas, the USDA considers close access to healthy
food to be within one-mile of a household’s home for driving, and ½ mile for walking. 13
To assess access to healthy food in the City of Auburn, this analysis researched the locations of
grocery stores, culturally specific markets, and farmers markets in or just outside the city limits.
An initial list of locations was found via Google maps , Yelp.com, and was then cross-referenced
with Auburn’s retail license data to approximate the number and location of stores offering
healthy food. This analysis excludes locations that are primarily delis or hot-food suppliers,
even if these locations offer basic sundries. This analysis also excludes corner-markets and gas
station markets, even if these locations might offer basic stables such as milk and eggs.
As seen in Figure 30, Auburn residents have access to roughly 22 food retailers that might offer
healthy grocery stables. Twenty are located within city limits and two are within a mile of city
limits. Ten are found along Auburn Way, seven are big -box grocery stores, six are ethnic
grocery stores, and one is a farmer’s market.
13 USDA Economic Research Service. Food Access Research Atlas. Available from: https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-
products/food-access-research-atlas
Page 121 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix B B-24
Figure 30. Map of Grocery Stores in and Near Auburn, 2021
Source: City of Auburn Retail License Data, 2021, Google Maps, Yelp
Note: Circles represent number of housing units
Figure 30 also shows the driving distance to the closest grocery store or market for Auburn’s
households (depicted in blue, pink, red or yellow shading), as well as the number of housing
units clustered in dense areas (depicted by circle size). According to this analysis,
approximately 52 percent of Auburn’s housing units are located within one mile of a grocery
store or food retailer, and only 21 percent are located within walking distance – ½ mile or less.
Figure 31 below shows the locations of these 22 grocery stores and their one -mile drive sheds
overlaid with the displacement risk analysis conducted on page 21. This displacement risk
analysis considers socio-demographic variables such as income, minority race or ethnicity,
educational attainment and tenure by census Block Group. As the map displays, there does no t
appear to be a food access issue in the Block Groups identified as most vulnerable (depicted in
dark pink and purple).
Page 122 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix B B-25
Figure 31. Map of Grocery Stores in and Near Auburn and Census Block Groups with High
Displacement Vulnerability, 2018
Source: City of Auburn Retail License Data, 2021, Google Maps, Yelp
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
Page 123 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix B B-26
Assistance with 4,925 people, and (4) Wholesale Trade with 4,308 people. Combined, these
industries represent 50 percent of Auburn’s total resident employmen t 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 al so 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, 14 (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
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 32 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).
14 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 124 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix B B-27
Figure 32. Access to Employment—Travel Shed, 2018
Source: ECONorthwest Analysis of 2018 PSRC Data.
Note: Departing at 8:00 AM, midweek
Page 125 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix B B-28
Future Housing Needs
PSRC forecasts that by 2040, Auburn will grow to a population of 95,4 61 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 2040.15
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 8,068 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 33. 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 33 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.
15 See footnote Error! Bookmark not defined. 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 35.
Page 126 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix B B-29
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 evalu ating 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 3). 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.16 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 34. Multifamily Rent per Square Foot and Vacancy Rate, Auburn,
2008 through Q3 2020
Source: CoStar
16 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 p er Sq. Ft.Vaca ncy (%)
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 127 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix B B-30
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 35, Auburn’s rents have grown commensurate with its
neighboring cities, only surpassing that of Federal Way in abou t 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 35. Multifamily Rent per Unit, South King County Cities & Tacoma, 2010-2020
Source: CoStar
Figure 36 below shows that net absorption17 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.
17 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.
$60 0
$80 0
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
$1,600
$1,800
20102011201220132014201520162017201820192020Multifamily Effective Rent per UnitAuburn
Bu rien
Federal
Wa y
Kent
Rent on
Tacoma
Tukw ila
Page 128 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix B B-31
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 36. Multifamily Net Absorption, Auburn, 2008 through Q3 2020
Source: CoStar
Recent Rental Property Developments
Figure 37 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 37. 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 129 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix B B-32
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 Au burn, 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 38), and the median sales price in
Auburn did not overtake that of another city in the 2010-2020 time period.
Page 130 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix B B-33
Figure 38. 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)
Residential Development Capacity
The Core Plan of the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan had identified a gross adjusted net
development capacity in vacant development and redevelopment capacity for 14,597 residential
units. This summary can be found in Table 2 of the Core Plan that identifies gross and adjusted
net acres of vacant and redevelopable land and capacity by aggregated residential cone type.18
We have identified a need of 10,429 units through 2040 and 3,511 units that have been built
through 2019. This analysis indicates that the current development capacity identified in the
Comprehensive Plan is sufficient to satisfy housing needs, but that land efficiency and
intensification policies should be considered as part of the Comprehensive Plan update and BLI
update process.
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.
18https://www.cityofauburnwa.gov/UserFiles/Servers/Server_11470554/File/City%20Hall/Community%20Developme
nt/Zoning%20and%20Land%20Use/Comprehensive%20Plan/01-Core%20Comprehensive%20Plan.pdf
Page 131 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix B B-34
▪ 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 132 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix B B-35
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 si ze, 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 VISION 2040 population forecast for Auburn for 2040.
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 6 on page 5, 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
Total Housing Units Needed
We calculated future housing needs as the current underproduction of housing plus the future
needs based on projections from PSRC 2040 household projections. Without accounting for past
and current underproduction, development targets focused solely on future housing needs will
continue to underproduce relative to the actual need.
Figure 39. Total Needed Housing Units in Auburn by 2040
Source: ECONorthwest analysis of PSRC and OMF data
Current
Under-
production:
2,361
Future
Need:
8,068
Total Units:
10,429
Page 133 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix B B-36
Current Underproduction
We first calculate the current underproduction of units in each city’s existing housing inventory.
This underproduction is estimated based on the ratio of housing units produced and new
households formed in King County over time. As of 2019, King County as a whole had 1.06
housing units for every household. Auburn’s ratio was 0.986. Since Auburn’s ratio is less than
King County’s ratio, we con sider Auburn to have underproduced. Conversely, if the ratio were
greater than 1.06, the city would have overproduced housing relative to King County as a
whole. The steps for calculating current underproduction include:
1. Calculate the count of housing units and population in each city from Washington Office
of Financial Management (OFM) 2018 data.
2. We then convert population to households by using average household size for each city
in the South King County Subregion from the 2018 PUMS dataset.
3. We then compare each city’s ratio of total housing units to households to that of the
county (1.06 units per household) as the target ratio.
4. If a city’s ratio is lower than 1.06, we calculate the underproduction as the number of
units it would have needed to produce over the timeframe, to reach a ratio of 1.06.
Because Washington State does not have a regional approach to planning for housing
production, our consideration of underproduction implies that the City of Auburn should be
producing housing at a rate to be consistent with the King County ratio of housing units to
households of 1.06.
This approach to underproduction is simple and intuitive while using the best available data
that is both local and the most recent. This analysis does not differentiate between renter and
owner households and relies on average household size to convert population counts to
household counts. The relationships between average household size, numbe r of households,
and current housing units interact in ways that impact underproduction findings for cities
within the subregion differently. This approach to identifying current underproduction does
not account for local or regional housing preferences by type or tenure. Housing affordability
considerations are taken into account in the next step, in determining future housing needs.
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).
Page 134 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix B B-37
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 40, below. We then
account for current and future household sizes at the city level to better understand nuances of
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 t he
subregion is likely to vary depending on policy choices made over the next 20 years. That is to
say that if cities do not take meaningful action to increase housing production, and affordability
worsens due to demand from higher-income households outpacing supply of total housing
units, many low-income households would face displacement and the forecast need for lower
income households would likely be lower.. The ultimate income distribution in 2040 will be the
result of regional housing trends and polic y decisions made at the local level.
Figure 40. 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 AM I 31-50% of AM I 51-80% of AM I 81-100 % of
AMI
100 %+ o f AMI
Au burn So ut h Ki ng Count y Ki ng C ounty
Page 135 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix B B-38
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 41. Total Units Needed by 2040 by Area Median Income Distribution
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 41, 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 limi t 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 eac h isochrone. The total number of jobs
Page 136 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix B B-39
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.
ACS wage estimates by industry are not available for every industry, usually due to low
numbers of survey samples. Many of these estimates, especially for industries with few
workers, show relatively high margins of error and should be treated as rough approximations.
C) Displacement Risk Analysis
The displacement risk analysis on page 22 was modeled after PSRC’s Displacement Risk
Mapping Tool which compiles 15 different demographic and socioeconomic variables (using
ACS 5-year tract-level data), standardizes and weights them equally, and creates a composite,
index score (“high”, “medium”, and “low”) for every Census Tract in the 4 -county Puget Sound
region. However, the Census Tract level is not granular enough for this analysis. We build off
PSRC’s tool, using the following variables 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
6. Per capita income
Page 137 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix B B-40
In Figure 29 on page 22, 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 138 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix C C-1
Appendix C. Existing Conditions Memorandum (Housing Policy
Review Section)
ORIGINAL DATE: January 15, 2021
REVISED DATE: February 26, 2021
TO: Jeff Dixon and Anthony Avery, City of Auburn
FROM: Tyler Bump, Madeline Baron, Jenn Cannon, Oscar Saucedo-Andrade, Justin
Sherrill, Ryan Knapp
SUBJECT: AUBURN HOUSING ACTION PLAN – EXISTING CONDITIONS MEMORANDUM –
REVISED
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).
Page 139 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix C C-2
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.
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.
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.
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 140 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix C C-3
This summary of existing plans and policies is divided into two s ections: 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 2 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 mee t evolving
housing needs. In addition, the Washington State Growth Management Act requires that zoning
regulations and districts be consistent with Comprehensive Plans.
Page 141 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix C C-4
Figure 2. 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
HAP
Page 142 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix C C-5
demographic groups, as well as strategies that can help overcome housing affordability barriers
(policy H-7).1 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 th ese
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 Au burn 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 ince ntives
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).
1 Source: King County Countywide Planning Policies. (2012, Amended June, 2016).
Page 143 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix C C-6
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 2035.2 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
2 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 144 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix C C-7
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 3. 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 f or 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, 2 020). 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 ma rket 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 revie wed 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)
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 -
Page 145 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix C C-8
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 c ontinue 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:
https://www.commerce.wa.gov/growing-the-economy/energy/weatherization-and-energy-
efficiency/weatherization-program-documents/
Page 146 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix C C-9
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, housi ng 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 experienc ing 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:
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.
Page 147 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix C C-10
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, N ormandy 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 148 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix C C-11
Figure 4. Auburn Comprehensive Plan Housing Element Goal Outcomes and Indicators
Source: Auburn Comprehensive Plan Housing Element
Page 149 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix C C-12
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.3
Figure 5 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.
3 This analysis of past planning policies was conducted by Evermost Consulting as par t of the ECONorthwest
consulting team on the South King County Subregional Housing Action Framework.
Page 150 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix C C-13
Figure 5. 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 151 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix C C-14
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 152 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix C C-15
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. 4 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.5
(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: Additio nal
online permitting and tracking
improvements to reduce trips to the
permit counter, cross-departmental
coordination enhancements,
ameliorating design review
4 “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).
5 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 153 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix C C-16
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 154 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix C C-17
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 155 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix C C-18
This page is intentionally left blank.
Page 156 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix D D-1
Appendix D. Development Feasibility Proforma Model Assumptions
Operating Revenue and Cost Assumptions
Var iable Assumption Unit of Measure
Revenue
Duplex f or-s ale 359,948$ Sale price per un it
Triplex f or-s ale 338,170$ Sale price per un it
Duplex ren tal 2,299$ Mon thly rent per un it
Triplex ren tal 2,160$ Mon thly rent per un it
Micro un its 988$ Mon thly rent per un it
Podium 1,854$ Mon thly rent per un it
Af fordable ren t 1,708$ Mon thly rent per un it
Retail 28.00$ NNN, per s quare f oot, yearly
Vac anc y Rat e
Aff ordable residen tial 4%Perc en t
Market rate residen tial 5%Perc en t
Retail 12%Perc en t
Operating Expen ses
Duplex/Triplex 5%Perc en t of ren t per unit
Micro un its 30%Perc en t of ren t per unit
Podium 20%Perc en t of ren t per unit
Retail 1.20$ Per s quare f oot, yearly
Res iden tial P arking Net Revenue
Vacan cy 10%
Podium 80$ Per s tall, mon thly
Development Cost Assumptions
Var iable Assumption Unit of Measure
Hard Costs
Kitc hen 350$ Per s quare f oot
Bathroom 460$ Per s quare f oot
O ther In terior Space 70$ Per s quare f oot
Micro un its 247$ Per s quare f oot
Podium 190$ Per s quare f oot
Retail 160$ Per s quare f oot
Lobby/Shared 180$ Per s quare f oot
Parking Cost
Garage 10,000$ Per s tall
Surf ace 5,000$ Per s tall
Podium 35,000$ Per s tall
Stall Size
Garage 300 Square f oot per s tall
Surf ace 280 Square f oot per s tall
Podium 370 Square f oot per s tall
Page 157 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix D D-2
Development Cost Assumptions
Var iable Assumption Unit of M easure
Other Developmen t Costs
Hards cape 15$ Per s quare f oot
Lan ds cape 10$ Per s quare f oot
Soft c os ts (in c ld permittin g an d taxes )22%Percen t of hard c os ts
Duplex an d t riplex i mpact f ees 19,510$ Per un it
Micro units i mpact f ees 10,702$ Per un it
Podium i mpact f ees 13,552$ Per un it
Cont in genc y f ee 5%Percen t of hard an d s of t c osts
Developer f ee/comis sion 3%Percen t of developmen t c osts
Retail T.I. 40$ Per s quare f oot
Target Returns
Duplex Triplex RO C 7.5%
Mult ifamily RO C 5.0%
Retail RO C 7.0%
Parkin g RO C 6.0%
Apartment/Unit Assumptions
Var iable Assumption Unit of M easure
Un it Size
Duplex f or-s ale
Studio 0 Square f eet
1 Bedroom 770 Square f eet
2 Bedroom 1304 Square f eet
3 Bedroom 1541 Square f eet
4 Bedroom 1741 Square f eet
Triplex f or-s ale
Studio 0 Square f eet
1 Bedroom 770 Square f eet
2 Bedroom 1248 Square f eet
3 Bedroom 1496 Square f eet
4 Bedroom 1696 Square f eet
Duplex ren tal
Studio 0 Square f eet
1 Bedroom 770 Square f eet
2 Bedroom 1192 Square f eet
3 Bedroom 1402 Square f eet
4 Bedroom 1602 Square f eet
Triplex ren tal
Studio 0 Square f eet
1 Bedroom 770 Square f eet
2 Bedroom 1136 Square f eet
3 Bedroom 1359 Square f eet
4 Bedroom 1559 Square f eet
Page 158 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix D D-3
Apartment/Unit Assumptions
Var iable Assumption Unit of Measure
Un it Size
Micro un its
Studio 220 Square f eet
1 Bedroom 460 Square f eet
2 Bedroom 0 Square f eet
3 Bedroom 0 Square f eet
Podium
Studio 490 Square f eet
1 Bedroom 680 Square f eet
2 Bedroom 990 Square f eet
3 Bedroom 1310 Square f eet
Un it M ix
Duplex f or-s ale
Studio 0%perc en t of all units
1 Bedroom 0%perc en t of all units
2 Bedroom 20%perc en t of all units
3 Bedroom 70%perc en t of all units
4 Bedroom 10%perc en t of all units
Triplex f or-s ale
Studio 0%perc en t of all units
1 Bedroom 0%perc en t of all units
2 Bedroom 20%perc en t of all units
3 Bedroom 70%perc en t of all units
4 Bedroom 10%perc en t of all units
Duplex ren tal
Studio 0%perc en t of all units
1 Bedroom 0%perc en t of all units
2 Bedroom 70%perc en t of all units
3 Bedroom 30%perc en t of all units
4 Bedroom 0%perc en t of all units
Triplex ren tal
Studio 0%perc en t of all units
1 Bedroom 0%perc en t of all units
2 Bedroom 70%perc en t of all units
3 Bedroom 30%perc en t of all units
4 Bedroom 0%perc en t of all units
Micro un its
Studio 100%perc en t of all units
1 Bedroom 0%perc en t of all units
2 Bedroom 0%perc en t of all units
3 Bedroom 0%perc en t of all units
Podium
Studio 10%perc en t of all units
1 Bedroom 55%perc en t of all units
2 Bedroom 35%perc en t of all units
3 Bedroom 0%perc en t of all units
Page 159 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix D D-4
Apartment/Unit Assumptions
Var iable Assumption Unit of Measure
Un it P rice
New/Fut ure Con struc t ion P remium 5%
Duplex f or-s ale
Studio 205$ Per s quare foot
1 Bedroom 295$ Per s quare foot
2 Bedroom 240$ Per s quare foot
3 Bedroom 241$ Per s quare foot
4 Bedroom 207$ Per s quare foot
Triplex f or-s ale
Studio 199$ Per s quare foot
1 Bedroom 287$ Per s quare foot
2 Bedroom 233$ Per s quare foot
3 Bedroom 234$ Per s quare foot
4 Bedroom 201$ Per s quare foot
Duplex ren tal
Studio 2.54$ Per s quare foot, monthly
1 Bedroom 2.08$ Per s quare foot, monthly
2 Bedroom 1.86$ Per s quare foot, monthly
3 Bedroom 1.78$ Per s quare foot, monthly
4 Bedroom -$ Per s quare foot, monthly
Triplex ren tal
Studio 2.49$ Per s quare foot, monthly
1 Bedroom 2.04$ Per s quare foot, monthly
2 Bedroom 1.82$ Per s quare foot, monthly
3 Bedroom 1.74$ Per s quare foot, monthly
4 Bedroom -$ Per s quare foot, monthly
Mic ro un its
Studio 4.49$ Per s quare foot, monthly
1 Bedroom 3.67$ Per s quare foot, monthly
2 Bedroom Per s quare foot, monthly
3 Bedroom Per s quare foot, monthly
Podium
Studio 2.99$ Per s quare foot, monthly
1 Bedroom 2.45$ Per s quare foot, monthly
2 Bedroom 2.18$ Per s quare foot, monthly
3 Bedroom 2.09$ Per s quare foot, monthly
Average Un it Size
Blen ded un it s ize
Duplex f or-s ale 1514 Square f oot
Triplex f or-s ale 1466 Square f oot
Duplex ren tal 1255 Square f oot
Triplex ren tal 1203 Square f oot
Mic ro un its 220 Square f oot
Podium 770 Square f oot
Page 160 of 199
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix D D-5
Apartment/Unit Assumptions
Var iable Assumption Unit of M easure
Average Un it Size
Gros s t o Net Ratio
Duplex and Triplex 100%
Micro un its 70%
Podium 87%
Gros s un it s ize
Duplex f or-s ale 1514 Square f eet
Triplex f or-s ale 1466 Square f eet
Duplex ren tal 1255 Square f eet
Triplex ren tal 1203 Square f eet
Micro un its 314 Square f eet
Podium 884 Square f eet
Sales pric es
Duplex 238$ Per s quare foot
Triplex 231$ Per s quare foot
Blen ded Ren t
Duplex 1.83$ Per s quare foot, m onthly
Triplex 1.80$ Per s quare foot, m onthly
Micro un its 4.49$ Per s quare foot, m onthly
Podium 2.41$ Per s quare foot, m onthly
Affordability Polic y Assumptions
Var iable Assumption Unit of M easure
Taxes an d M FTE Assumption s
Property tax rate 13.19$ Per $1,000 of asses s ed value
MV t o AV ratio 90%
Tax abatement (dis c ount rate)6.00%
12-year abatemen t PV f actor 70%
Percen t t axes abated 100%
Affordability As s umption s
MFI (4 person household)113,300$
In c ome toward ren t 30%Perc en t of i n come
Depth 80%Perc en t of MFI
Set-as ide 20%Perc en t of un its
Utilities allowan c e S tudio 80.00$ Per unit
Utilities allowan ce 1 Bed 95.00$ Per unit
Utilities allowan ce 2 Bed 110.00$ Per unit
Utilities allowan ce 3 Bed 125.00$ Per unit
MFI Multiplier f or S tudio 70%Perc en t of MFI
MFI M ultiplier f or 1 Bed Un it 75%Perc en t of MFI
MFI M ultiplier f or 2 Bed Un it 90%Perc en t of MFI
MFI M ultiplier f or 3 Bed Un it 104%Perc en t of MFI
Page 161 of 199
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
SEPA and Environmental Review Series 1 of 6 Presentations
(Tate)(30 Minutes)
Date:
May 18, 2021
Department:
Community Development
Attachments:
Council S EPA Pres entation
SEPA Environmental Checklis t
Budget Impact:
Current Budget: $0
Proposed Revision: $0
Revised Budget: $0
Administrativ e Recommendation:
For discussion only.
Background for Motion:
Background Summary:
This is the f irst in a series of six presentations on the City’s environmental regulations that
Planning Services will provide to City Council. This presentation will provide an overview of
Auburn’s implementation of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).
Rev iewed by Council Committees:
Councilmember:Stearns Staff:Tate
Meeting Date:May 24, 2021 Item Number:
Page 162 of 199
PLANNING SERVICES
ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION SERIES:
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL
POLICY ACT
PRESENTED TO CITY COUNCIL
MAY 24 TH 2021
ALEXANDRIA D. TEAGUE, AICP
JEREMY HAMMAR
AUBURN
VALUES
SERVICE
ENVIRONMENT
ECONOMY
CHARACTER
SUSTAINABILITY
WELLNESS
CELEBRATION
Department of Community Development
Planning Building Development Engineering Permit Center
Sustainability Community Services ●Code Enforcement 1Page 163 of 199
NEPA AND SEPA
SERVICE ENVIRONMENT ECONOMY CHARACTER SUSTAINABILITY WELLNESS CELEBRATION
1969 –National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is enacted
1971 -State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) is enacted
Is modeled after NEPA and
gives agencies the tools to
both consider and mitigate
for environmental impacts of
proposals.
Mandates environmental
analyses of many actions
and policies by all agencies
of state and local
government.
Contains provisions that
ensure the involvement of
the public, tribes, and
interested agencies in
decisions with environmental
impacts.
2Page 164 of 199
KEY PROVISIONS OF SEPA
SERVICE ENVIRONMENT ECONOMY CHARACTER SUSTAINABILITY WELLNESS CELEBRATION
Agency decisions (actions) benefit from the “hard look” at impacts, alternatives
and mitigation options before commitment to specific course of action.
Provides transparency and
accountability for chain of
decision-making for public
programs and project
City evaluations of environmental
impacts and written decisions
available to the public
Promotes early public
involvement in planning and
project development
Requires cities to provide a 14-
day public comment period and
a 14-or 21-day appeal period
Fills regulatory gaps
Requires evaluation of impacts
not traditionally addressed by
other regulations such as critical
areas ordinances
3Page 165 of 199
WHEN IS SEPA REQUIRED?
SERVICE ENVIRONMENT ECONOMY CHARACTER SUSTAINABILITY WELLNESS CELEBRATION
SEPA applies throughout the state at all levels
SEPA applies to governmental actions
SEPA also applies to both project and non-project actions
Unless the project is categorically exempt….
4Page 166 of 199
EXEMPTIONS TO SEPA
Categorical Exemptions
Actions that do not significantly impact the
environment as defined by WAC 197-11 -300 and
197-11 -800
Ex) Minor Construction activities
Other Exemptions
Actions that include administrative procedures, city
budgets and property purchases.
Ex) Procedural Actions
Exemptions do not apply to “lands covered by water”, actions with some exempt and some non-exempt categories within
them, critical areas
AUBURN SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS
The city of Auburn has chosen to raise exempt levels
per city SEPA ordinance (Chapter 16.06 ACC) in
regards to minor new construction.
1.For residential dwelling units 20 dwelling units or less.
2.For office, school, commercial, recreational, service or storage
buildings of 12,000 square feet or less and with associated
parking facilities designed for 40 or less automobiles.
3.For parking lots in 40 or fewer automobile parking spaces.
4.For fill and excavations in 500 cubic yards or less.
SERVICE ENVIRONMENT ECONOMY CHARACTER SUSTAINABILITY WELLNESS CELEBRATION 5Page 167 of 199
AUBURN SEPA PROCESS
Application Submitted
Review for Exemptions
Determine Lead Agency
Evaluate the Proposal
Are Significant Impacts
Likely?
If Non-Significant
Issue a DNS or MDNS
Begin 14-day comment
period
Agency Decision Final
14-or 21-Day Appeal Period
SERVICE ENVIRONMENT ECONOMY CHARACTER SUSTAINABILITY WELLNESS CELEBRATION 6Page 168 of 199
AUBURN SEPA PROCESS CONTINUED
SERVICE ENVIRONMENT ECONOMY CHARACTER SUSTAINABILITY WELLNESS CELEBRATION
If Significant
DS/Scoping Notice
(14-30 day review)
Issue Draft EIS
(30 Day)
Issue Final EIS
(7 day wait)
Agency Decision
Application Submitted
Review for Exemptions
Determine Lead Agency
Evaluate the Proposal
Are Significant Impacts
Likely?
7Page 169 of 199
Thank you!
QUESTIONS?
SERVICE ENVIRONMENT ECONOMY CHARACTER SUSTAINABILITY WELLNESS CELEBRATION 8Page 170 of 199
Form Updated: March 2019 Page 1 of 8
SEPA ENVIRONMENTAL
CHECKLIST
Date Received:
Physical Address:
Auburn City Hall Annex, 2nd Floor
1 E Main St
Mailing Address:
25 W Main St
Auburn, WA 98001
Webpage & Application Submittal:
www.auburnwa.gov
applications@auburnwa.gov
Phone and Email:
253-931-3090
permitcenter@auburnwa.gov
Project Name:
Parcel Number(s):
A. Background [help]
1. Name of proposed project, if applicable:
2. Name of Applicant:
Name of Agent (if applicable):
3. Address and phone number of Applicant:
Address and phone number of Agent (if applicable):
4. Date Checklist prepared:
Date(s) Checklist Revised:
5. Agency requesting checklist:
6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable).
7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this
proposal? If yes, explain.
8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly
related to this proposal.
9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly
affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain.
10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known.
11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project
and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your
proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page.
ATTACHMENT B
Page 1 of 10Page 171 of 199
Form Updated: March 2019 Page 2 of 8
12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of
your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a
proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal
description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit
any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with
any permit applications related to this checklist.
B. Environmental Elements [help]
1. Earth [help]
a. General description of the site: flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other
b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)?
c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know
the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any agricultural land of long-term commercial
significance and whether the proposal results in removing any of these soils.
d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe.
e. Describe the purpose, type, total area, and approximate quantities and total affected area of any filling,
excavation, and grading proposed. Indicate source of fill.
f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe.
g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for
example, asphalt or buildings)?
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any:
2. Air [help]
a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal during construction, operation, and
maintenance when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if
known.
b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally
describe.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any:
Page 2 of 10Page 172 of 199
Form Updated: March 2019 Page 3 of 8
3. Water [help]
a. Surface Water. [help]
1. Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and
seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If
appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into.
2. Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes,
please describe and attach available plans.
3. Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water
or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material.
4. Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose,
and approximate quantities if known.
5. Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan.
6. Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the
type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge.
b. Ground Water. [help]
1. Will groundwater be withdrawn from a well for drinking water or other purposes? If so, give a general
description of the well, proposed uses and approximate quantities withdrawn from the well. Will water be
discharged to groundwater? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known.
2. Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if
any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals. . . ; agricultural; etc.).
Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served
(if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve.
c. Water runoff (including stormwater).
1. Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any
(include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so,
describe.
2. Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe.
3. Does the proposal alter or otherwise affect drainage patterns in the vicinity of the site? If so, describe.
Page 3 of 10Page 173 of 199
Form Updated: March 2019 Page 4 of 8
4. Plants [help]
a. Check the types of vegetation found on the site:
deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other
evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other
shrubs
grass
pasture
crop or grain
orchards, vineyards or other permanent crops
wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other
water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other
other types of vegetation
b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered?
c. List threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site.
d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the
site, if any:
e. List all noxious weeds and invasive species known to be on or near the site.
5. Animals [help]
a. Check any birds and other animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on
or near the site.
Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, geese, ducks, crows, other
Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other
Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other
b. List any threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site.
c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain.
d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any:
e. List any invasive animal species known to be on or near the site.
6. Energy and Natural Resources [help]
a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed
project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc.
b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally
describe.
c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other
proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any:
Page 4 of 10Page 174 of 199
Form Updated: March 2019 Page 5 of 8
7. Environmental Health [help]
a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and
explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe.
1. Describe any known or possible contamination at the site from present or past uses.
2. Describe existing hazardous chemicals/conditions that might affect project development and design.
This includes underground hazardous liquid and gas transmission pipelines located within the project
area and in the vicinity.
3. Describe any toxic or hazardous chemicals that might be stored, used, or produced during the project's
development or construction, or at any time during the operating life of the project.
4. Describe special emergency services that might be required.
5. Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any:
b. Noise.
1. What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment,
operation, other)?
2. What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a
long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would
come from the site.
3. Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any:
8. Land and Shoreline Use [help]
a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Will the proposal affect current land uses on
nearby or adjacent properties? If so, describe.
b. Has the project site been used as working farmlands or working forest lands? If so, describe. How much
agricultural or forest land of long-term commercial significance will be converted to other uses as a result of
the proposal, if any? If resource lands have not been designated, how many acres in farmland or forest
land tax status will be converted to nonfarm or nonforest use?
1. Will the proposal affect or be affected by surrounding working farm or forest land normal business
operations, such as oversize equipment access, the application of pesticides, tilling, and harvesting? If
so, how:
Page 5 of 10Page 175 of 199
Form Updated: March 2019 Page 6 of 8
c. Describe any structures on the site.
d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what?
e. What is the current zoning classification of the site?
f. What is the current Comprehensive Plan designation of the site?
g. If applicable, what is the current Shoreline Master Program designation of the site?
h. Has any part of the site been classified as a critical area? If so, specify.
i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project?
j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace?
k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any:
L. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and
plans, if any:
m. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts to agricultural and forest lands of long-term
commercial significance, if any:
9. Housing [help]
a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income
housing.
b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-
income housing.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any:
10. Aesthetics [help]
a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal
exterior building material(s) proposed?
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed?
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any:
11. Light and Glare [help]
a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? W hat time of day would it mainly occur?
Page 6 of 10Page 176 of 199
Form Updated: March 2019 Page 7 of 8
b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views?
c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal?
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any:
12. Recreation [help]
a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity?
b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be
provided by the project or applicant, if any:
13. Historic and Cultural Preservation [help]
a. Are there any buildings, structures, or sites, located on or near the site that are over 45 years old listed in
or eligible for listing in national, state, or local preservation registers ? If so, specifically describe.
b. Are there any landmarks, features, or other evidence of Indian or historic use or occupation? This may
include human burials or old cemeteries. Are there any material evidence, artifacts, or areas of cultural
importance on or near the site? Please list any professional studies conducted at the site to identify such
resources.
c. Describe the methods used to assess the potential impacts to cultural and historic resources on or near
the project site. Examples include consultation with tribes and the Department of Archeology and Historic
Preservation (DAHP), archaeological surveys, historic maps, GIS data, etc.
d. Proposed measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for loss, changes to, and disturbance to
resources. Please include plans for the above and any permits that may be required.
14. Transportation [help]
a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site or affected geographic area and describe proposed
access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any.
b. Is the site or affected geographic area currently served by public transit? If so, generally describe. If not,
what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop?
Page 7 of 10Page 177 of 199
Form Updated: March 2019 Page 8 of 8
c.How many additional parking spaces would the completed project or non-project proposal have? How
many would the project or proposal eliminate?
d.Will the proposal require any new or improvements to existing roads, streets, pedestrian, bicycle or state
transportation facilities, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or
private).
e.Will the project or proposal use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If
so, generally describe.
f.How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project or proposal? If known,
indicate when peak volumes would occur and what percentage of the volume would be trucks (such as
commercial and nonpassenger vehicles). What data or transportation models were used to make these
estimates?
g. Will the proposal interfere with, affect or be affected by the movement of agricultural and forest products
on roads or streets in the area? If so, generally describe.
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any:
15.Public Services [help]
a.Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police
protection, public transit, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe.
b.Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any.
16. Utilities [help]
a.Check utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service,
telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other
b.Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general
construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed.
C.Signature [help]
Signature:
Name of Signee:
Position and Agency/Organization:
Date Submitted:
Page 8 of 10Page 178 of 199
Form Updated: March 2019
D. Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions [help]
(Only use this form for the following applications: Comp. Plan Map Amendment, Comp. Plan Text Amendment, Zoning
Code Text Amendment, and Zoning Map Amendment (Rezone) and other nonproject actions.)
Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the
elements of the environment.
When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result
from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not
implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms.
1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or
release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise?
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are:
2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life?
Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are:
3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources?
Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are:
4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or
eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers,
threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime
farmlands?
Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are:
Page 9 of 10Page 179 of 199
Form Updated: March 2019
5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or
encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans?
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are:
6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities?
Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are:
7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for
the protection of the environment.
Page 10 of 10Page 180 of 199
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Ordinance No. 6816 (Thomas)(60 Minutes)
Date:
May 19, 2021
Department:
Finance
Attachments:
Memo
Ordinance No. 6816
Budget Impact:
Administrativ e Recommendation:
For discussion only.
Background for Motion:
Background Summary:
The City recently completed a solid waste rate study to determine the rate increases needed
to cover increasing costs while maintaining the required fund balance. Ordinance No. 6816
amends the Auburn City Code pertaining to solid waste rates. The new rates will incorporate a
King County disposal f ee increase, increased Waste Management collection costs, and
provide over 60 days of working capital in the Solid Waste Fund by the end of 2023.
Rev iewed by Council Committees:
Councilmember:Baggett Staff:Thomas
Meeting Date:May 24, 2021 Item Numb er:
Page 181 of 199
Page 1 of 2
Interoffice Memorandum
To: Auburn City Council
From: Jamie Thomas, Finance Director
Joan Nelson, Utility Billing Services Manager
CC: Nancy Backus, Mayor
Date: May 24, 2021
Re: Solid Waste Rate Study
BACKGROUND
The City of Auburn’s solid waste contract with Waste Management and franchise agreement with
Republic Services both expire September 30, 2021. The City of Auburn completed a request for
proposal process in 2020, and selected Waste Management as the City’s solid waste service
provider for the next ten years. The City wanted to conduct a competitive process to ensure the
best rate and service package for City of Auburn residents and businesses.
The new contract with Waste Management brings enhanced services, but it also comes with
increased costs since labor and equipment expenses have increased since the City last negotiated
a contract with Waste Management in 2011. In addition, the City will be transferring the customer
service and billing for solid waste to Waste Management.
The City’s last solid waste rate increase was on January 1, 2014. Since that time, the City’s solid
waste fund has absorbed over 16% in Consumer Price Index (CPI) increases from Waste
Management and approximately 17% in King County Tipping Fee increases. City staff monitor the
solid waste fund, and an increase has not been needed due to the strong fund balance. Now, with
the substantial contract rate increase and a King County Tipping Fee increase coming, rate
increases are needed to maintain the minimum working capital in the City’s solid waste fund.
RATE STUDY
The City hired Sound Resource Management to conduct a solid waste rate study using their rate
model. Sound Resource Management has worked with the City for many years and they also work
with other cities in the area.
The model provides a multi-year rate increase to smooth the rate increases needed to cover the
increasing costs since the City can initially cover some of the increase with the solid waste fund
balance.
Page 182 of 199
Page 2 of 2
The rate model includes the following assumptions:
• Average 25% service fee increase from new Waste Management contract effective October
1, 2021
• 3% utility tax increase effective January 1, 2021
• Adding approximately 4,000 residential customers effective October 1, 2021
• Projected 9% annual increase in King County Tipping Fees
• Projected 3% CPI increase, annually
RATE PROPOSAL
The proposed rate strategy spreads the total increase over three separate rate increases over a 27-
month period of time, as follows:
1. The first proposed rate increase of 13.6% would become effective October 1, 2021;
2. The second proposed rate increase of 14.2% would become effective January 1, 2022; and
3. The final proposed rate increase of 13.6% would become effective January 1, 2023.
In 2021 and 2022, the City is using the existing fund balance to subsidize the increasing contractor
rates and tipping fees. In 2023, the City rates will cover the costs and result in 60 days of fund
balance by the end of the year.
RECOMMENDATION
The proposed retail rates are necessary to cover the increase in Waste Management service fees,
the increase in the City Utility Tax to 10%, the changes in service levels due to the addition of
approximately 4,000 residential customers, the projected King County Tipping Fee increases, and
the projected CPI increases. The goal beyond 2023, is to set smaller, more frequent rate increases
to build more predictability and stability for solid waste customers. City staff recommends City
Council adopt Ordinance 6816 so that the City can continue to maintain a healthy fund balance while
providing dependable solid waste services for residents and businesses.
Page 183 of 199
-----------------------------
Ordinance No. 6816
May 18, 2021
Page 1 of 12
ORDINANCE NO. 6816
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
AUBURN, WASHINGTON, AMENDING SECTION 8.08.180
OF THE AUBURN CITY CODE RELATING TO SOLID
WASTE COLLECTION CHARGES
WHEREAS, the City provides for refuse and garbage services for residential and
commercial properties located within the City; and
WHEREAS, it is the City’s policy to have its waste management operations and services
reflect their true costs in terms of value and fees charged; and
WHEREAS, the City has reviewed its solid waste fund balance and utility rates and has
determined that there is a need to stabilize the fund balance; and
WHEREAS, publishing the utility rates in the Auburn City Code as a list does not clearly
show the rate changes over time while using a table format allows citizens to more easily
determine the rates that are effective each year.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN,
WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN as follows:
Section 1. Amendment to City Code. Section 8.08.180 of the Auburn City Code is
amended to read as follows:
8.08.180 Collection charges – Residential and commercial collections – Effective on
October 1, 2021.
A. Services and charges herein shall become effective for each account on January 1,
2014October 1, 2021, January 1, 2022, and January 1, 2023 as established below. Upon this date,
sServices shall be provided at the 35-gallon cart service rate unless the finance department is
notified otherwise by the tenant or property owner. Likewise, unless the finance department is
otherwise notified, services will automatically revert to the 35-gallon cart service rate upon a
change in property tenancy or ownership. Rates to be charged by the city for solid wast e services
shall be those shown in the following tables for the dates and services listedas follows:
Type of Service Monthly Charge
Residential Garbage and Recycling
Page 184 of 199
-----------------------------
Ordinance No. 6816
May 18, 2021
Page 2 of 12
One 10-gallon micro-can, one pickup per week $6.25
One 20-gallon mini-can, one pickup per week $12.69
One 35-gallon cart, one pickup per week $16.11
One 64-gallon cart, one pickup per week $35.60
One 96-gallon cart, one pickup per week $49.62
Each extra container of up to 32 gallons, per pickup $10.83
Residential Compostables Monthly Charge
One 35-gallon compostables cart, one pickup per week $8.81
One 64-gallon compostables cart, one pickup per week $9.53
One 96-gallon compostables cart, one pickup per week $10.26
One extra can/bag, per pickup $3.32
One extra cart, per pickup $5.29
Compostables restart (if cancel and restart service within seven months) $25.00
Compostables cart cleaning/deodorizing $15.00
Commercial Garbage and Recycling Monthly Charge
One 10-gallon micro-can, one pickup per week $11.26
One 20-gallon mini-cart, one pickup per week $12.99
One 35-gallon cart, one pickup per week $18.18
One 64-gallon cart, one pickup per week $29.32
One 96-gallon cart, one pickup per week $40.47
Each extra container of up to 32 gallons, per pickup $10.83
One-yard container, one pickup per week $126.81
One-yard container, two pickups per week $238.32 One-yard
container, three pickups per week $349.84
One-yard container, four pickups per week $461.39
One-yard container, five pickups per week $572.92
One-and-one-half-yard container, one pickup per week $168.02
One-and-one-half-yard container, two pickups per week $299.43
One-and-one-half-yard container, three pickups per week $439.44
Page 185 of 199
-----------------------------
Ordinance No. 6816
May 18, 2021
Page 3 of 12
One-and-one-half-yard container, four pickups per week $579.40
One-and-one-half-yard container, five pickups per week $719.38
Two-yard container, one pickup per week $192.11
Two-yard container, two pickups per week $360.52
Two-yard container, three pickups per week $528.97
Two-yard container, four pickups per week $697.40
Two-yard container, five pickups per week $865.86
Three-yard container, one pickup per week $267.28
Three-yard container, two pickups per week $506.00
Three-yard container, three pickups per week $744.71
Three-yard container, four pickups per week $983.43
Three-yard container, five pickups per week $1,222.11
Four-yard container, one pickup per week $334.66
Four-yard container, two pickups per week $635.84
Four-yard container, three pickups per week $937.02
Four-yard container, four pickups per week $1,238.21
Four-yard container, five pickups per week $1,539.38
Six-yard container, one pickup per week $474.31
Six-yard container, two pickups per week $904.91
Six-yard container, three pickups per week $1,335.45
Six-yard container, four pickups per week $1,766.03
Six-yard container, five pickups per week $2,196.60
Eight-yard container, one pickup per week $596.93
Eight-yard container, two pickups per week $1,144.61
Eight-yard container, three pickups per week $1,692.31
Eight-yard container, four pickups per week $2,240.00
Eight-yard container, five pickups per week $2,787.71
Each extra yard (by volume), per pickup $31.70
One-yard compactor, one pickup per week $256.76
One-yard compactor, two pickups per week $513.53
One-and-one-half-yard compactor, one pickup per week $357.41
Page 186 of 199
-----------------------------
Ordinance No. 6816
May 18, 2021
Page 4 of 12
One-and-one-half-yard compactor, two pickups per week $714.81
Two-yard compactor, one pickup per week $436.64
Two-yard compactor, two pickups per week $873.27
Three-yard compactor, one pickup per week $628.86
Three-yard compactor, two pickups per week $1,257.74
Four-yard compactor, one pickup per week $811.33
Four-yard compactor, two pickups per week $1,622.66
Five-yard compactor, one pickup per week $1,182.45
Five-yard compactor, two pickups per week $2,364.90
Six-yard compactor, one pickup per week $1,408.20
Six-yard compactor, two pickups per week $2,816.42
One-yard special pickup $103.23
One and one-half-yard special pickup $106.79
Two-yard special pickup $110.33
Three-yard special pickup $117.40
Four-yard special pickup $124.47
Six-yard special pickup $138.66
Eight-yard special pickup $152.80
One-yard compactor special pickup $123.61
One and one-half-yard compactor special pickup $137.76
Two-yard compactor special pickup $151.92
Three-yard compactor special pickup $177.19
Four-yard compactor special pickup $228.59
Five-yard compactor special pickup $332.79
Six-yard compactor special pickup $396.77
Commercial Compostables Monthly Charge
One 35-gallon compostables cart, one pickup per week $11.92
One 64-gallon compostables cart, one pickup per week $12.66
One 96-gallon compostables cart, one pickup per week $13.43
One-yard container, one pickup per week $95.29
Page 187 of 199
-----------------------------
Ordinance No. 6816
May 18, 2021
Page 5 of 12
Two-yard container, one pickup per week $125.26
Each extra yard (by volume), per pickup $37.23
One-yard special pickup $34.31
Two-yard special pickup $57.42
Compostables restart (if cancel and restart service within seven months) $25.00
Compostables cart cleaning/deodorizing $15.00
Residential Garbage and Recycling
Effective
October 1, 2021
Effective
January 1, 2022
Effective
January 1, 2023
35-gallon garbage cart - one pickup per month $10.00 $11.65 $13.18
Senior discount $5.00 $5.82 $6.59
20-gallon garbage cart, one pickup per week $14.61 $17.02 $19.25
Senior discount $7.31 $8.51 $9.63
35-gallon garbage cart, one pickup per week $19.75 $23.00 $26.02
Senior discount $9.88 $11.50 $13.01
45-gallon garbage cart, one pickup per week $27.00 $31.45 $35.58
Senior discount $13.50 $15.72 $17.79
64-gallon garbage cart, one pickup per week $38.00 $44.26 $50.07
Senior discount $19.00 $22.13 $25.03
96-gallon garbage cart, one pickup per week $57.14 $66.56 $75.29
Senior discount $28.57 $33.28 $37.64
Each extra container of up to 32 gallons, per pickup $10.83 $10.83 $10.83
Monthly Charge
Miscellaneous - Other
Effective
October 1, 2021
Effective
January 1, 2022
Effective
January 1, 2023
Appliances (non-refrigerant)$25.00 $29.12 $32.94
Refrigerators / freezers $35.00 $40.77 $46.12
Sofas $25.00 $29.12 $32.94
Mattresses $25.00 $29.12 $32.94
Roll-out charge (per 25 ft/cart/time) or overweight/oversize cart $5.00 $5.82 $6.59
Cart cleaning (per cart per cleaning)$15.00 $15.00 $15.00
Cart redelivery $15.00 $15.00 $15.00
Return trip (each)$15.00 $17.47 $19.76
Drive-in charge (per month)$7.00 $8.15 $9.22
Additional 96-gallon recycling cart, each pickup $3.00 $3.49 $3.95
Rate
Yard Waste Service
Effective
October 1, 2021
Effective
January 1, 2022
Effective
January 1, 2023
96-gallon yard waste cart, one pickup per week $11.81 $13.76 $15.57
Senior discount $5.91 $6.88 $7.78
64-gallon yard waste cart, one pickup per week $10.97 $12.78 $14.46
Senior discount $5.49 $6.39 $7.23
35-gallon yard waste cart, one pickup per week $10.15 $11.82 $13.37
Senior discount $5.08 $5.92 $6.69
Extra can/bag, each pickup $3.82 $4.45 $5.04
Second and additional 96-gallon cart $7.00 $8.15 $9.22
Rate
Page 188 of 199
-----------------------------
Ordinance No. 6816
May 18, 2021
Page 6 of 12
Commercial Garbage and Recycling
Effective
October 1, 2021
Effective
January 1, 2022
Effective
January 1, 2023
20-gallon garbage cart, one pickup per week $14.52 $16.38 $18.53
35-gallon garbage cart, one pickup per week $20.33 $22.92 $25.93
45-gallon garbage cart, one pickup per week $24.48 $27.61 $31.23
Extra garbage (32-gallon equivalent)$10.83 $10.83 $10.83
64-gallon garbage cart, one pickup per week $32.78 $36.97 $41.82
96-gallon garbage cart, one pickup per week $45.25 $51.03 $57.72
1 yard container, 1 pickup/week $141.77 $159.90 $180.88
1 yard container, 2 pickups/week $266.44 $300.50 $339.93
1 yard container, 3 pickups/week $391.12 $441.12 $499.00
1 yard container, 4 pickups/week $515.83 $581.78 $658.11
1 yard container, 5 pickups/week $640.52 $722.41 $817.19
1.5 yard container, 1 pickup/week $187.85 $211.86 $239.66
1.5 yard container, 2 pickups/week $334.76 $377.56 $427.09
1.5 yard container, 3 pickups/week $491.29 $554.10 $626.80
1.5 yard container, 4 pickups/week $647.77 $730.58 $826.43
1.5 yard container, 5 pickups/week $804.27 $907.08 $1,026.09
2 yard container, 1 pickup/week $214.78 $242.24 $274.02
2 yard container, 2 pickups/week $403.06 $454.59 $514.23
2 yard container, 3 pickups/week $591.39 $666.99 $754.50
2 yard container, 4 pickups/week $779.69 $879.37 $994.74
2 yard container, 5 pickups/week $968.03 $1,091.78 $1,235.03
3 yard container, 1 pickup/week $298.82 $337.02 $381.24
3 yard container, 2 pickups/week $565.71 $638.03 $721.74
3 yard container, 3 pickups/week $832.59 $939.02 $1,062.22
3 yard container, 4 pickups/week $1,099.47 $1,240.03 $1,402.72
3 yard container, 5 pickups/week $1,366.32 $1,540.99 $1,743.17
Monthly Charge
Commercial Garbage and Recycling (continued)
Effective
October 1, 2021
Effective
January 1, 2022
Effective
January 1, 2023
4 yard container, 1 pickup/week $374.15 $421.98 $477.35
4 yard container, 2 pickups/week $710.87 $801.75 $906.94
4 yard container, 3 pickups/week $1,047.59 $1,181.51 $1,336.53
4 yard container, 4 pickups/week $1,384.32 $1,561.29 $1,766.13
4 yard container, 5 pickups/week $1,721.03 $1,941.04 $2,195.71
6 yard container, 1 pickup/week $530.28 $598.07 $676.54
6 yard container, 2 pickups/week $1,011.69 $1,141.02 $1,290.73
6 yard container, 3 pickups/week $1,493.03 $1,683.90 $1,904.83
6 yard container, 4 pickups/week $1,974.42 $2,226.83 $2,518.99
6 yard container, 5 pickups/week $2,455.80 $2,769.75 $3,133.14
8 yard container, 1 pickup/week $667.37 $752.68 $851.44
8 yard container, 2 pickups/week $1,279.67 $1,443.27 $1,632.62
8 yard container, 3 pickups/week $1,892.00 $2,133.88 $2,413.84
8 yard container, 4 pickups/week $2,504.32 $2,824.47 $3,195.04
8 yard container, 5 pickups/week $3,116.66 $3,515.09 $3,976.27
Extra commercial yards - in container $20.00 $22.56 $25.52
Extra commercial yards - loose on ground $25.00 $28.20 $31.90
1 yard compactor, per pickup $66.24 $74.71 $84.52
1.5 yard compactor, per pickup $92.21 $104.00 $117.64
2 yard compactor, per pickup $112.65 $127.05 $143.72
3 Yard compactor, per pickup $162.25 $182.99 $207.00
4 yard compactor, per pickup $209.32 $236.08 $267.06
5 yard compactor, per pickup $305.07 $344.07 $389.21
6 yard compactor, per pickup $363.32 $409.76 $463.52
Monthly Charge
Page 189 of 199
-----------------------------
Ordinance No. 6816
May 18, 2021
Page 7 of 12
Special Pickups
Effective
October 1, 2021
Effective
January 1, 2022
Effective
January 1, 2023
1 yard container $115.41 $130.17 $147.24
1.5 yard container $119.39 $134.65 $152.32
2 yard container $123.35 $139.12 $157.37
3 yard container $131.25 $148.03 $167.45
4 yard container $139.16 $156.95 $177.54
6 yard container $155.02 $174.84 $197.78
8 yard container $170.83 $192.67 $217.95
Monthly Charge
Commercial Yard Waste
Effective
October 1, 2021
Effective
January 1, 2022
Effective
January 1, 2023
96-gallon yard waste cart, one pickup per week $15.01 $16.93 $19.16
64-gallon yard waste cart, one pickup per week $14.15 $15.96 $18.06
35-gallon yard waste cart, one pickup per week $13.33 $15.03 $17.00
1 yard container, one pickup per week $60.00 $67.67 $76.55
2 yard container, one pickup per week $120.00 $135.34 $153.10
1 yard special pickup $38.36 $43.26 $48.94
2 yard special pickup $64.20 $72.40 $81.90
Redelivery/restart fee $15.00 $16.92 $19.14
Cart cleaning/deodorizing $15.00 $15.00 $15.00
Extra yards $41.62 $46.94 $53.10
Rate
Miscellaneous Services
Effective
October 1, 2021
Effective
January 1, 2022
Effective
January 1, 2023
Cart return trip $15.00 $16.92 $19.14
Stand-by time (per minute)$2.50 $2.82 $3.19
Cart roll-out charge (per 25 ft/cart/time)$1.81 $2.04 $2.31
Cart redelivery $15.00 $15.00 $15.00
Container redelivery $23.30 $26.28 $29.73
Container cleaning (per yard per cleaning)$15.00 $16.92 $19.14
Container return trip $21.91 $24.71 $27.95
Rate
Temporary Container Service
Effective
October 1, 2021
Effective
January 1, 2022
Effective
January 1, 2023
2 yard container $85.28 $96.18 $108.80
4 yard container $126.17 $142.30 $160.96
6 yard container $167.07 $188.43 $213.16
8 yard container $207.87 $234.45 $265.21
Delivery fee $114.04 $128.62 $145.49
Daily rent - 2 yard container $1.76 $1.98 $2.24
Daily rent - 4 yard container $1.97 $2.22 $2.51
Daily rent - 6 yard container $2.18 $2.46 $2.78
Daily rent - 8 yard container $2.39 $2.70 $3.05
Rate per Pickup
Page 190 of 199
-----------------------------
Ordinance No. 6816
May 18, 2021
Page 8 of 12
Roll Off
Effective
October 1, 2021
Effective
January 1, 2022
Effective
January 1, 2023
10 yard drop box $183.91 $210.09 $258.84
20 yard drop box $183.91 $210.09 $258.84
30 yard drop box $183.91 $210.09 $258.84
40 yard drop box $183.91 $210.09 $258.84
8 - 25 yard compactor $223.12 $254.90 $314.03
30 yard compactor $223.12 $254.90 $314.03
40 yard compactor $223.12 $254.90 $314.03
Rate per Pickup
Permanent Drop Box Rental Fees
Effective
October 1, 2021
Effective
January 1, 2022
Effective
January 1, 2023
10 yard drop box $60.21 $68.79 $84.74
20 yard drop box $85.81 $98.03 $120.78
30 yard drop box $110.33 $126.04 $155.28
40 yard drop box $134.87 $154.08 $189.82
Delivery $114.04 $130.27 $160.50
Monthly Rate
Temporary Drop Box Haul Fees
Effective
October 1, 2021
Effective
January 1, 2022
Effective
January 1, 2023
10 yard drop box $220.68 $252.11 $310.60
20 yard drop box $220.68 $252.11 $310.60
30 yard drop box $220.68 $252.11 $310.60
40 yard drop box $220.68 $252.11 $310.60
Rate per Pickup
Temporary Drop-box Rental (per day) and Delivery Fees
Effective
October 1, 2021
Effective
January 1, 2022
Effective
January 1, 2023
10 yard drop box $2.87 $3.28 $4.05
20 yard drop box $4.26 $4.87 $6.00
30 yard drop box $5.52 $6.31 $7.77
40 yard drop box $6.14 $7.01 $8.63
Delivery $114.04 $130.27 $160.50
Rate
Miscellaneous Services
Effective
October 1, 2021
Effective
January 1, 2022
Effective
January 1, 2023
Mileage Charge per mile to other facility $3.90 $4.46 $5.49
Return Trip $35.00 $39.98 $49.26
Solid Drop-box Lid Charge (per day)$1.50 $1.71 $2.11
Container Cleaning (per yard)$3.44 $3.93 $4.84
Event Services (per 3 carts)$30.00 $34.27 $42.22
Stand-By Time (per minute) - Boeing rate $2.50 $2.86 $3.52
Stand-By Time (per minute) - regular rate $2.50 $2.86 $3.52
Truck & Driver (per hour)$182.31 $208.27 $256.59
Additional Labor (per person per hour)$106.13 $121.25 $149.38
Rate
B. Multi-unit residential accounts must have the same type of service for each "occupied
unit" unless tenant and owner sign city tenant release form for single-family residence garbage
Page 191 of 199
-----------------------------
Ordinance No. 6816
May 18, 2021
Page 9 of 12
service. Tenant then pays direct to the city for solid waste services and is provided variable solid
waste service as defined in "single-family residence." Owners are responsible for payment if
tenant does not pay. If no payment is received from tenant or owner within 60 days of billin g,
service will revert back to multi-unit residential accounts. Residences can request a tenant release
form only once in a year while they are at that address.
C. Property owners of property not specifically addressed elsewhere in this Chapter are
responsible for tenant payments. A tenant and owner may sign a city tenant release form for
garbage service. Tenant then pays direct to city for solid waste services. Owners are responsible
for payment if the tenant does not pay. If no payment is received from tenant or owner within 60
days of billing, service will revert back to a 35-gallon cart and tenant’s name will be removed
from the account and the owner will be held responsible.
D. Garbage collections in excess of those included in the current monthly service (as listed
on the account) shall be at the rate of $10.83 per each extra container of up to 32 gallons per
pickup.
E. For tTemporary and roll off services, services and charges herein shall become effective
on January 1, 2014 October 1, 2021, and do not include tipping fees charged by the King County
solid waste division which shall be added to the total service charges. The tipping fee shall be the
actual container load weight multiplied by the tipping fee and then multiplied by a factor of
1.1702. Minimum charges for temporary and roll off services include applicable delivery and
pickup fees and rental rates per pickup. Temporary and roll off service rates (not including
tipping fees) shall be as follows:
Temporary Container Service Rate Per Pickup
Two-yard container $76.28
Four-yard container $112.85
Six-yard container $149.44
Delivery fee $44.40
Daily rent $1.57
Roll Off Rate Per Pickup
Twenty-yard drop box $161.27
Thirty-yard drop box $161.27
Forty-yard drop box $161.27
Eight- through 25-yard compactor $195.66
Thirty-yard compactor $195.66
Forty-yard compactor $195.66
Permanent Drop Box Rental Fees Rent Per Month
Twenty-yard drop box $75.25
Page 192 of 199
-----------------------------
Ordinance No. 6816
May 18, 2021
Page 10 of 12
Thirty-yard drop box $96.75
Forty-yard drop box $118.27
Temporary Drop Box Haul Fees Rate Per Pickup
Twenty-yard drop box $193.52
Thirty-yard drop box $193.52
Forty-yard drop box $193.52
Temporary Drop Box Rental Fees Rent Per Day
Twenty-yard drop box $3.74
Thirty-yard drop box $4.84
Forty-yard drop box $5.38
F. Rental rates for dumpsters and drop boxes are required with the provision that persons,
firms or corporations may furnish their own detachable bulk containers on approval of the solid
waste administrator. These containers shall be constructed so that they can be readily picked up
by the service provider and the service provider's equipment.
G. A deposit pre-pay amount for all temporary containers 20 cubic yards or larger is
required prior to delivery. For new or previously delinquent accounts the deposit shall include
up to a maximum of two months of collection, rent and tonnage fees. Current accounts with no
delinquency charges shall be charged a deposit pre-pay amount as follows:
DepositPre-Pay
Two cubic yard container $200.00
Four cubic yard container $250.00
Six cubic yard container $300.00
Eight cubic yard container $350.00
Twenty cubic yard container $600.00
Thirty cubic yard container $700.00
Forty cubic yard container $800.00
As other temporary containers become available, a deposit pre-pay amount shall be required
for the use of such container and the deposit pre-pay amount shall be based on size. The amount
of the deposit pre-pay sum shall be determined by the director of finance.
H. For miscellaneous services, services and charges herein shall become effective on
January 1, 2014, and shall be as follows:
Page 193 of 199
-----------------------------
Ordinance No. 6816
May 18, 2021
Page 11 of 12
Miscellaneous – Other Rate
Appliances $84.57
Refrigerator/freezers $121.35
Sofas $84.57
Chairs $56.95
Mattresses $41.40
Tires: auto/light truck $28.28
bus/heavy truck $30.78
additional for rims or wheels $20.00
Miscellaneous refuse, per cubic yard $128.46
Carry-out surcharge $8.24
Carry-out per can $1.62
Roll-out container $20.84
Pressure washing, per yard $3.44
Mileage charge over 15 miles $3.42
Return trip – Roll off $59.65
Return trip – SF and commercial $19.03
Solid drop box lid charge, per month $23.86
Stand-by time, per minute $4.78
Truck and driver, per hour $159.87
Additional labor, per person $93.07
(Ord. 6395 § 3, 2011; Ord. 6367 § 10, 2011; Ord. 6354 § 3, 2011; Ord. 6160 § 1, 2008; Ord.
6139 § 1, 2007; Ord. 6069 § 1, 2006; Ord. 6054 § 1, 2006; Ord. 5968 § 1, 2006; Ord. 5885 § 2,
2004; Ord. 5726 § 1, 2003; Ord. 5719 § 2, 2002; Ord. 5622 § 1, 2001; Ord. 5243 § 1, 1999; Ord.
5212 § 1 (Exh. D), 1999; Ord. 5151 § 1, 1998; Ord. 5081 § 1, 1998; Ord. 4943 § 1, 1997; Ord.
4613 § 2, 1993; Ord. 4588 § 1, 1992; Ord. 4537 § 1 (Exh. A), 1991; Ord. 4500 § 2, 1991.
Formerly 8.08.230.)
Section 3. Implementation. The Mayor is hereby authorized to implement such
administrative procedures as may be necessary to carry out the directions of this legislation.
Page 194 of 199
-----------------------------
Ordinance No. 6816
May 18, 2021
Page 12 of 12
Section 4. Severability. The provisions of this ordinance are declared to be separate and
severable. The invalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section or portion of
this ordinance, or the invalidity of the application thereof to any person or circumstance shall not
affect the validity of the remainder of this ordinance, or the validity of its application to other
persons or circumstances.
Section 5. Effective date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force five days
from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law.
Section 6. Codification Note. Section 8.08.180 of the Auburn City Code shall be
retitled to read as follows: “8.08.180 Collection charges – Residential and commercial
collections – Effective before October 1, 2021.” Both this retitled section and the amendatory
section adopted herein shall be published in the Auburn City Code. After October 1, 2021, the
amendatory section adopted herein shall replace the current section 8.08.180.
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Shawn Campbell, MMC, City Clerk
INTRODUCED: ________________
PASSED: ____________________
APPROVED: __________________
___________________________
NANCY BACKUS, MAYOR
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________
Kendra Comeau, City Attorney
Published: ____________________
Page 195 of 199
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Ordinance No. 6822 (Thomas)(10 Minutes)
Date:
May 19, 2021
Department:
Finance
Attachments:
Ordinance No. 6822
Budget Impact:
Administrativ e Recommendation:
For discussion only.
Background for Motion:
Background Summary:
Prior to 2020, City Code assessed a 6% utility tax on its city owned utilities to go into the
General Fund plus an additional 1% to be dedicated to the Arterial Street Preservation Fund.
During 2020’s pandemic, Council adopted a budget amendment and corresponding
Ordinance No. 6785 which amended the Utility Tax Code. This amendment diverted the 1%
dedicated towards Arterial Street Preservation into the General Fund through December 31,
2020.
During the 2021/2022 biennial budget process the Council adopted a utility rate increase
effective January 1, 2021 that would adjust the tax rate on city owned utilities f rom 6% to 10%
and continue an additional 1% to Arterial Street Preservation. Inadvertently, the 1% language
dedicated to Arterial Street Preservation was removed from that most recent code revision.
Ordinance No. 6822 is to reinstate the 1% to Arterial Street Preservation that was mistakenly
excluded in the prior ordinance.
Rev iewed by Council Committees:
Councilmember:Baggett Staff:Thomas
Meeting Date:May 24, 2021 Item Numb er:
Page 196 of 199
--------------------------------
Ordinance No. 6822
May 19, 2021
Page 1 of 3 Rev. 2019
ORDINANCE NO. 6822
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
AUBURN, WASHINGTON, AMENDING SECTIONS 3.40.010
AND 3.41.010 OF THE AUBURN CITY CODE TO RESTORE
AN INADVERTENTLY OMITTED ALLOCATION OF TAX
REVENUE TO AN ESTABLISHED CITY FUND
WHEREAS, Auburn City Code (ACC) sections 3.40.010 and 3.41.010 establish a
tax to be collected from water, storm drainage, sewer and garbage/solid waste funds and
utilities in the City, and call for a portion of the collected tax to be allocated to the City’s
arterial street fund;
WHEREAS, on November 16, 2020, the City passed Ordinance No. 6801 that
increased the tax rates in ACC 3.40.010 and 3.41.010 from 7% to 10%, and otherwise
technically revised those code sections;
WHEREAS, the revisions in Ordinance No. 6801 inadvertently removed the tax
revenue allocation to the arterial street fund in those code sections. This ordinance is
necessary to restore that tax allocation and to further clarify the provisions of ACC
3.40.010 and 3.41.010; and
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 6801 contained a referendum provision pursuant to
RCW 35.21.706. This ordinance revising 6801 is not subject to RCW 35.21.706 because
it does not impose or increase a business and occupation tax.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN,
WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN as follows:
Section 1. Amendment to City Code. Section 3.40.010 of the Auburn City
Code is amended to read as follows:
Page 197 of 199
--------------------------------
Ordinance No. 6822
May 19, 2021
Page 2 of 3 Rev. 2019
A. There is created a 10 percent tax to be levied on and after January 1, 2021,
against and upon the total annual revenues derived from:
1. The City’s water, storm drainage and sewer utility funds; and
2. All water, storm drainage and sewer utilities, business enterprises or other
entities engaged in providing such utility services within the city.
B. The finance director is directed to collect this imposed tax and to pay the
collected revenue into the City’s current general fund, subject to subsection C.
C. On and after January 1, 2021, the finance director shall allocate 1% of the
tax revenue received under this section to the City’s arterial street preservation
fund.
D. The tax rate in subsection A shall automatically revert to 9% if the State of
Washington provides the City’s arterial street preservation fund with a long-term
sustainable funding source that is sufficient to maintain the City’s arterial streets
stem’s Pavement Condition Index (PCI) at an average of 70 PCI out of a score of
100 PCI for the foreseeable future.
Section 2. Amendment to City Code. Section 3.41.010 of the Auburn City
Code is amended to read as follows:
A. There is created a 10 percent tax to be levied on and after January 1, 2021,
against and upon the gross receipts and total annual revenues of:
1. The City’s garbage fund; and
2. All solid waste utilities and every business enterprise or other entity engaged
in handling solid waste.
B. For the purposes of this section “solid waste” means garbage, recyclables
and yard debris.
C. The finance director is directed to collect this tax and to pay the collected
funds into the City’s general expense fund, subject to subsection D.
D. On and after January 1, 2021, the finance director shall allocate 1% of the tax
revenue received under this section to the City’s arterial street preservation fund.
E. The tax rate in subsection A shall automatically revert to 9% if the State of
Washington provides the City’s arterial street preservation fund with a long-term
sustainable funding source that is sufficient to maintain the City’s arterial streets
Page 198 of 199
--------------------------------
Ordinance No. 6822
May 19, 2021
Page 3 of 3 Rev. 2019
stem’s Pavement Condition Index (PCI) at an average of 70 PCI out of a score of
100 PCI for the foreseeable future.
F. Pursuant to RCW 35.58.560, nothing in this section shall be intended or
construed to impose a tax on any county owned or operated solid waste facility.
Section 3. Implementation. The Mayor is authorized to implement those
administrative procedures necessary to carry out the directives of this legislation.
Section 4. Severability. The provisions of this ordinance are declared to be
separate and severable. The invalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision,
section, or portion of this ordinance, or the invalidity of the application of it to any person
or circumstance, will not affect the validity of the remainder of this ordinance, or the validity
of its application to other persons or circumstances.
Section 5. Effective date. This Ordinance will take effect and be in force five
days from and after its passage, approval, and publication as provided by law.
INTRODUCED: _______________
PASSED: ____________________
APPROVED: _________________
____________________________
NANCY BACKUS, MAYOR
ATTEST:
____________________________
Shawn Campbell, MMC, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________
Kendra Comeau, City Attorney
Published: ____________________
Page 199 of 199