HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-14-2019 CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION AGENDACity Council Study Session Community
Wellness Special F ocus Area
October 14, 2019 - 5:30 P M
City Hall Council Chambers
A GE NDA
Watch the meeting L I V 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
A .Roll Call
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 I I .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 .No S moking or Vaping in City P arks (Faber) (20 Minutes)
No S moking or Vaping in P arks Discussion
B .Modification to the 2020-2025 Transportation I mprovement P rogram (Gaub) (10
Minutes)
C.Resolution No. 5458 (Hinman) (10 Minutes)
A Resolution of the City Council of the City of A uburn, Washington, authorizing the
Mayor to negotiate and execute an Airport Office and A pron L ease with Normandy
A ircraft
D.Ordinance No. 6728 (Tate) (15 Minutes)
A n Ordinance of the City Council of the City of A uburn, Washington, relating to land
use development regulations related to mixed-use development; amending chapters
18.08, 18.23, and 18.57 of the A uburn City Code and Exhibit 1 to Ordinance No. 6382
I 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
A .Community Needs A ssessment P resentation (Tate) (20 Minutes)
A presentation from Cloudburst Consulting Group on the findings and
recommendations from the Auburn Community Needs Assessment.
B .J oint Meeting with the Human S ervices Committee (Tate) (30 Minutes)
Roundtable discussion between the Human Services Committee & the City Council.
C.C D B G Consolidated Plan and 2020 A nnual A ction Plan (Tate) (20 Minutes)
A n overview of the 2020-2024 City of Auburn C D B G Consolidated P lan, including the
2020 A nnual A ction Plan and the King County Consortium A nalysis of I mpediments to
Fair Housing Choice
D.A uburn Farmers Market Season (Faber) (10 Minutes)
Page 1 of 364
V.O T HE R D I S C US S I O N I T E MS
V I .NE W B US I NE S S
V I I .MAT R I X
A .Matrix
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 review
at the City Clerk's Office.
Page 2 of 364
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
No Smoking or Vaping in City Parks (Faber) (20 Minutes)
Date:
October 9, 2019
Department:
City Council
Attachments:
Cover Memo
Presentation
Tobacco Policy
Budget Impact:
Current Budget: $0
Proposed Revision: $0
Revised Budget: $0
Administrativ e Recommendation:
Review background information and discuss proposed ordinance to restrict smoking and
vaping in public parks.
Background Summary:
The Healthy Auburn Blue Ribbon Committee as well as the Auburn Parks and
Recreation Board are committed to creating a healthy community. In 2009 the Tobacco-
Free Park Policy was initiated to assist recreational organizations and parents in their efforts
to recreate in a tobacco-free environment. In July of 2019, staff was requested to develop
information related to a potential ban on smoking and vaping in City Parks. This initiative is
supported by both the Parks Board and the Blue Ribbon Committee who recognize that the
negative effects of first and second hand smoke and discourage tobacco usage at places
where youth are gathered and healthy lifestyle activities are available.
Rev iewed by Council Committees:
Municipal Services
Councilmember:Staff:Faber
Meeting Date:October 14, 2019 Item Number:
Page 3 of 364
Why a Smoking and Vaping Ban?Why a Smoking and Vaping Ban?Why a Smoking and Vaping Ban?Why a Smoking and Vaping Ban?
It is clear from the King County Public Health Statistics that a disproportionate number of Auburn
residents are at a high health risk compared to the rest of the County. Realizing such, the City of
Auburn launched the Healthy Auburn 2020 “Blue Ribbon Committee”. It is understood that
smoking and vaping in parks may still occur should an ordinance be approved as this infraction
would fall low on the list of police priorities but if the health and experience of any park visitors is
positively affected, then we’ve create a better public space. Our intent is to launch a “Just
Breathe” campaign similar to the City of Kent, modify all of our permit, rental, tournaments, etc.
paperwork. Below is the City of Kent code where they excluded the Riverbend Golf Course, as
we would with the Auburn Golf Course. Many of the agencies on the I-5 corridor have already
implemented a code similar to this.
Kent Code:
4.01.135 Smoking, vaping, or tobacco use in parks prohibited.4.01.135 Smoking, vaping, or tobacco use in parks prohibited.4.01.135 Smoking, vaping, or tobacco use in parks prohibited.4.01.135 Smoking, vaping, or tobacco use in parks prohibited.
It is unlawful for any person to smoke, vape, or use tobacco products in or on any park property
or park facility, excluding the Riverbend Golf Course facility. This prohibition includes both
noncombustible products, like e-cigarettes or other vaping devices that produce smoke or vapor,
and dipping tobacco, chewing tobacco, snuff, or snus; and combustible products, like paper
cigarettes, cigarillos, or cigars, pipes, and hookahs. If the product emits smoke, or vapor, or
contains tobacco, it is prohibited.
https://www.kingcounty.gov/depts/health/data/city-health-profiles.aspx
Page 4 of 364
10/9/2019
1
CITY OF AUBURN
TOBACCO/SMOKE FREE PARKS
STUDY SESSION | OCTOBER 14, 2019
One of the primary purposes and functions of a public park is to provide safe, welcoming
places for all genders, faiths, ethnicities and abilities to enjoy and pursue physical activity,
healthy lifestyles and leisure experiences through nature, which have been proven to
assist in combating chronic disease, an increased prevalence of sedentary lifestyles,
stress reduction and poor nutrition habits. Parks and open spaces contribute to a
healthier Auburn community.
Smoking and tobacco use in parks is contrary to this goal. The issue is not about
protecting the rights of some people who smoke, rather a smoking/tobacco restriction in
parks is about protecting the rights of everyone to have a smoke free environment while
visiting their parks.
In conjunction with the Blue Ribbon/Healthy Auburn 2020 Task Force and the
City of Auburn Park Board, we are asking the Council to consider implementing
a Tobacco/Smoke Free Parks Ordinance.
INTRODUCTION
Page 5 of 364
10/9/2019
2
Within the City of Auburn, Wa:
(King County City Health Profile Auburn, March 2016)
•Top 2 leading causes of death in the City of Auburn are Cancer and Heart Disease.
•Smoking ranked 4th out of 9 indicators (which is significantly higher than the King County average)
•Smoking during pregnancy ranked 1st out of 9 indicators (which is significantly higher than the King
County average)
•20% of residents in Auburn identify as a current smoker.
Within King County:
(King County Public Health, 2017)
•Nearly 1 in 5 Students in King County were using a tobacco product in 2014.
•Almost 1 in 5 deaths in King County are caused by smoking.
•E-cigarette use among students increased from 3% in 2012 to 14% in 2014.
SMOKING BY THE NUMBERS
•Washington State Law prohibits the smoking in all indoor public spaces. Must be
25’ from nearest entrance. (Previous Clean Indoor Air Act, enacted in 2005).
•Washington State Law prohibits the use of all tobacco products on public school
property and grounds.
•Washington State Law prohibits smoking or consuming marijuana in view of the public.
•City of Auburn Resolution 4475 kicked off the Tobacco Free Parks Kids Education
Campaign in 2009
•City of Auburn, Personnel Policy 200-08 Tobacco Free Work Environment sets out the
City of Auburn’s commitment to achieving a tobacco-free work environment.
•If a future City of Auburn ordinance is adopted, implications on contractors, renters,
etc. will need to be reviewed and policies modified.
CURRENT LAWS AND CITY POLICIES
Page 6 of 364
10/9/2019
3
Tobacco use is the leading cause of preventable death and disease in the US
•Healthier recreational environments that promote physical activity
•Less exposure to tobacco use and second hand smoke
•Increased awareness of the dangers of smoking and tobacco use
•Cleaner parks that contribute to the recreational experience, less cigarette butts
•Fewer carcinogens, toxic metals and poisonous gases in the air
•Fresher air to help support physical activity and respiratory health
•Less risk of fire during dry months via still burning cigarette butts
•Helps shields visitors, especially children, who can be easily influenced
•Decreased maintenance cost and improved aesthetics due to less cigarette butts
•Increased community health within the City of Auburn
•Reduced long term impacts on public health care
•Support and extension of local, statewide and national no-smoking campaigns
•A recent study (using New York City Parks, May 2012) proved these types of bans can
influence behavior.
SUPPORT FOR SMOKING/TOBACCO RESTRICTION
OPPOSITION OF SMOKING/TOBACCO RESTRICTION
A restriction of smoking/tobacco in public parks does not exclude the individual,
it excludes the behavior.
•The freedom to choose is an American value and expectation
•Assuming personal responsibility for negative choices is part of being an adult
•A person should be in charge of their own intrinsic health decisions
•Mixed scientific reviews on the impacts of second hand smoke
•Historically, banning substances does not work in changing behavior (ie prohibition)
•Continued isolation and criticism of smoking populations
•Vape “smoke” is not smoke, what’s the harm
•Cultural barriers could influence decisions
•Smokers and tobacco users pay taxes too
Page 7 of 364
10/9/2019
4
COMMUNICATION / ENFORCEMENT
Personal conduct in parks and adherence to laws are expected to be followed, just
like all Auburn City Codes and laws that impact City of Auburn residents. Similar
to other park conduct expectations like no alcohol, no littering, leash laws, no
fireworks, etc. the primary enforcement tool is signage to communicate/inform.
•Press releases, website, programming guides, rental agreements, temporary signage or
banners, marketing collateral, social media etc will all assist in the initial announcement
and continued awareness of Tobacco/Smoke Free Parks
•Park signage will be created and installed, where applicable
•Staff education, talking points and public engagement procedures will be developed –
focus is education only, leave behind card for park patrons – no enforcement
•If “enforcement” escalates to law enforcement via Auburn Police Department (APD), it is
important to understand, that in order to cite an individual, officers have to witness the
violation occurring themselves. It is likely that if a park patron calls the APD, the
potential violator will have already finished smoking their cigarette. These types of a
calls, similar to all other law enforcement calls, will be prioritized by APD dispatch and
handled according to APD policy.
COMMUNICATION / ENFORCEMENT CONT.
Examples of signage/education campaigns:
Page 8 of 364
10/9/2019
5
Resources closest to the City of Auburn:
•SeaMar Community Health Centers – Kent Medical Clinic | Tobacco Cessation
•Auburn Valley YMCA, Auburn, WA |Accelerate Your Quit Workshops
•Valley Cities Counseling and Consultation, Auburn | Smoking Cessation/Vaping Group
•Multicare Auburn Medical Center, Auburn | QuitSmart Tobacco Cessation Program
Within King County:
•Over 25 options, including on-line programs, support groups and hotlines.
SMOKING/TOBACCO CESSATION RESOURCES
WHAT OTHER COMMUNITIES ARE DOING
National Park Service | No smoking or vape products in any national park.
WA State Parks | Identified smoke-free areas.
•Researched 34 case studies in 14 counties:
•The majority supported 100% smoke/tobacco free bans in park/parks.
•Adjacent Neighbors:
•City of Seattle | All parks are smoke and tobacco free.
•City of Burien | All parks are smoke and tobacco free.
•City of Seatac | All parks are smoke and tobacco free.
•City of Covington | All parks are smoke and tobacco free.
•City of Kent | All parks are smoke and tobacco free.
•Thousands of park and recreation systems across the United States are smoke and
tobacco free.
Page 9 of 364
10/9/2019
6
DETERMINING TYPE OF BAN
Smoking and tobacco free parks restricts the following items: bidis (a
tobacco smoking product that's rolled in the leaves of the tendu plant, instead of paper, then tied with string),
cigarettes, cigars/cigarillos, clove cigarettes/kreteks, e-cigarettes,
nicotine vaporizers, nicotine liquids, hookahs, pipes, chew, snuff,
smokeless tobacco and marijuana.
•Type(s) of Bans/Restrictions:
1. Tobacco and Smoke Free Parks* – System Wide
2. Tobacco and Smoke Free Spaces* – Designated Areas Only (Playgrounds, Athletic Complexes)
3. No Change in Policy
*Can split out and have just “smoke free” parks, instead of all tobacco products.
*Can remove specific products from the above ban, where applicable.
Park Board and Auburn’s Blue Ribbon Committee recommend a system-wide ban.
SAMPLE CODE LANGUAGE FOR AUBURN
Smoking, vaping, or tobacco use in parks prohibited.
It is unlawful for any person to smoke, vape, or use tobacco products in or on any park
property or park facility, excluding the Auburn Golf Course facility. This prohibition includes
both noncombustible products, like e-cigarettes or other vaping devices that produce
smoke or vapor, and dipping tobacco, chewing tobacco, snuff, or snus; and combustible
products, like paper cigarettes, cigarillos, or cigars, pipes, and hookahs. If the product emits
smoke, or vapor, or contains tobacco, it is prohibited.
Page 10 of 364
10/9/2019
7
AUBURN CITY COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED &
NEED TO DETERMINE TYPE OF CODE / PENALTY
At the September 4, 2019 City of Auburn Park Board meeting, the Park Board
unanimously supported the implementation of a City of Auburn policy reflecting Smoke
and Vape Free Parks and requested staff develop such ordinance through Auburn City
Code that could be considered by Auburn City Council.
Recommendation to adopt an Ordinance of Smoke and Vape Free Parks in Auburn to
ACC Chapter 2.22 Park Code:
o If the ordinance were added to Ch. 2.22 ACC and the code was violated;
ACC 2.22.250 would kick in, which provides that any violation of a section of
Ch. 2.22 ACC is a class 1 civil infraction. This infraction carries a base penalty of
up to $250, not including statutory assessments.
Page 11 of 364
Tobacco Policies in Local Parks King County, WA 2014
Public Health—Seattle & King County
Report on Tobacco Policies
in Local Parks
January 2014
About public health policy reports:
Public Health – Seattle & King County monitors the local policy environment to identify
what policies are in place, how they may vary across jurisdictions and institutions, and
identify opportunities for further policy development or research. This report is part of
an occasional series. See our website for additional reports and interactive policy maps.
Parks are important community assets.
Prohibiting tobacco use in public recreational
venues can make it easier for smokers to quit,
helps to de-normalize smoking behaviors1,
especially for youth park users, and decreases
secondhand smoke exposure and tobacco
litter. In 2013, Public Health-Seattle & King
County’s Assessment, Policy Development
and Evaluation Unit collected and coded
policies that restrict tobacco use in parks, with
the aim of making this information available
to policymakers, researchers, stakeholders
and the general public.
The policy environment was assessed for the
38 cities in King County that regulate conduct
in local parks owned by that local jurisdiction.
City policy is set by the city council, or
authority is delegated to the agency that
oversees parks and recreation.
King County government also has a relatively
new policy that restricts tobacco use in high-
use areas in King County-owned parks
(KCC 7.12.435), covering 200 parks in both
unincorporated areas and incorporated cities
of the county. The county-wide law is not
included in this research on the policy
environment at the sub-county level.
Background:
Page 12 of 364
Tobacco Policies in Local Parks King County, WA 2014
2
Findings:
Parks’ Tobacco Policies on the Increase:
Twelve cities (out of 38 cities2 with local parks
in King County) had tobacco-use policies3 in
2013 (up from five in 2010). These included:
Black Diamond, Bothell, Burien, Covington,
Kirkland, Normandy Park, SeaTac, Seattle,
Shoreline, Snoqualmie, Woodinville, and
Tukwila. Research showed that a few cities
informally post signage without a policy, e.g.
Auburn and Mercer Island. Enacted city park
tobacco policies cover a total of 925,250
residents or slightly more than half (54%) of
King County residents.
Relatively Few Cities Have 100% Smoke-
Free Policies for Parks, but these Policies
Are Increasing: Four King County cities
prohibited all smoking in 100% of their parks
(―100% smoke-free‖) in 2013 (up from none
in 2010): Bothell, Burien, Shoreline, and
Woodinville, covering eight percent of King
County residents or 130,130 people.
Higher Number of North King County
Cities with 100% Tobacco-Free Policies:
Three of four cities with 100% smoke-free
policies in 2013 were in the northern part of
the county (Bothell, Shoreline, and
Woodinville), while one was in the south
(Burien).4
Areas with High Smoking Disparities
Starting to Address Tobacco in Parks: Four
cities in South King County had tobacco
policies for their parks in 2013, including two
new policies since 2010. Five cities had no
tobacco policies for their parks: Auburn, Des
Moines, Federal Way, Kent, and Renton
(though Auburn reports utilizing signage).
SeaTac still allows smoking in 4 parks and
Tukwila excludes 1 park. Tobacco rates are
higher in South King County than in the rest
of the county.
South King County Parks’ Tobacco Policies
Majority of Cities Have No Tobacco Policies
for Parks: A majority (26 cities) in King
County had not enacted tobacco-use policies
for their parks in 2013, as found through
Cities with Tobacco Policies Cities without Tobacco Policies
Black Diamond Auburn
Burien [100% smoke-free] Algona
Covington Des Moines
Normandy Park [100%
smoke-free]
Federal Way
Tukwila*
*Excludes one park and
“discourages” but does not
prohibit outright adult use
Kent
SeaTac*
*some parks only
Renton
Page 13 of 364
Tobacco Policies in Local Parks King County, WA 2014
3
review of city municipal codes and contact
with city officials.
Most Cities with Policies have Enforcement
Provisions: In 2013, all twelve cities with
tobacco policies specified some type of
enforcement mechanism. Four have only
voluntary enforcement for adult use
(meaning that citizens may politely request
tobacco users to cease).
The rest had enforcement mechanisms
ranging from expulsion, fines, to
misdemeanor penalties
(criminal penalties) and
some had multiple
enforcement mechanisms
defined (usually a
combination of possible
expulsion and fines).
Only one policy actually
specified the type of
behavior that is
prohibited, which might
include inhaling, spitting, chewing, etc.
Kirkland, SeaTac, Woodinville, Tukwila5 and
Covington (42% of cities with policies)
differentiated tobacco-use enforcement
measures from enforcement of other types of
park conduct (i.e., littering, alcohol use, etc.).
The remainder enforced their tobacco policy
in the same manner as other provisions in
their parks’ code of conduct.
Eight out of twelve (67%) tobacco-use policies
were codified in municipal code, while the
remaining four (33%) issued rules through
the city’s parks and recreation authority.
Parks’ Policy Provisions Still Allow
Smoking in Most Park Areas: For the eight
cities that had policies but were not 100%
tobacco-free in 2013, one city allows smoking
only in designated smoking areas (Covington),
while other cities prohibit smoking only in
non-smoking areas (Black Diamond, Kirkland,
Normandy Park, SeaTac, Seattle,
Snoqualmie).
Some cities specify specific areas that are non-
smoking, such as trails, woods, playgrounds.
Snoqualmie prohibits smoking
at athletic fields, playgrounds,
picnic shelters, restrooms and
anywhere else with a sign.
Seattle also prohibits smoking
within 25 feet of other patrons,
at play areas, on beaches,
playgrounds and picnic areas.
SeaTac prohibits smoking in
100% of park areas, but
exempts four parks.
No cities explicitly restrict e-cigarette use.
No city policies ban or restrict e-cigarette use,
though Burien’s policy ―discourages‖ their
use. (Note, however, that the King County
Code bars ―vaping‖ or use of personal
vaporizer devices such as e-cigarettes
anywhere that smoking is otherwise
prohibited.)
Signage Provisions Limited: Only four cities’
policies include any type of signage
requirement in their policies, although as
Page 14 of 364
Tobacco Policies in Local Parks King County, WA 2014
4
In general, there is wide variation in city
policies vis-à-vis tobacco use in parks,
ranging from full prohibition to none. Many
policies are fairly simple; they are not specific
about what type of tobacco use (smoked,
smokeless and/or e-cigarettes) is
prohibited—usually defaulting to
―smoking‖—or about how the law is to be
implemented.
The majority of cities with tobacco-use
policies include smoking in an itemized list of
general prohibited behaviors in the parks,
without offering specifics as to types of
regulated products or behaviors. The bulk of
these cities utilize the same enforcement
mechanisms for tobacco use as for other park
infractions (i.e., camping and littering).
Nor do most policies stipulate that signage be
placed in parks, although signage may be
installed without statutory or policy
language.
It is unclear whether those policies lacking
specificity complicates enforcement, or what
implications it may have for norm/behavior
change, particularly among youth, who are at
greater risk for tobacco use if they perceive
smoking to be normalized.
A greater proportion of cities in North King
County had tobacco-use policies and 100%
smoke-free policies in 2013 than in the
southern or eastern portion of the region.
This is particularly significant because the
highest rates of tobacco use among adults and
school-aged youth are in South King County.8
Conclusions
noted above, local parks and recreation de-
partments are typically permitted to issue
signage without statutory authority. The City
of Burien requires signage on beaches, trails
and in all parks6, and two cities require sign-
age at playgrounds or play areas (Seattle and
Kirkland)7. Tukwila’s procedures note that
the Parks and Recreation Department will en-
courage compliance through signage, and
―prominently post and maintain‖ signage in
all parks and trails.
Findings (Continued)
Page 15 of 364
Tobacco Policies in Local Parks King County, WA 2014
5
To determine which variables to include in our
coding, we reviewed the model parks policy
developed by Americans for Non-Smokers Rights
(ANR). Based on the ANR’s provisions, and in
consultation with experts on tobacco policy, we
developed a set of 38 questions. We collected
policies for each of the 38 localities with parks
(identified through the King County Department of
Environmental Services) using the freely accessible
Municipal Research and Services Center (MRSC)
online database of municipal codes.9
Reach for the extent of coverage of policies was
calculated by using total city population, based on
2013 Washington Office of Financial Management,
and include all annexation effective at the time of
coding.10 When we were unable to find policies
online, we confirmed that none exists by contacting
city officials. We test-coded a small sample of
policies to confirm appropriate question language ,
made necessary revisions, and proceeded to code the
remainder of the policies. Inter-rater reliability
testing resulted in 84% agreement.
Divergences were discussed and addressed by again
revising questions for clarity, and the agreed-upon
codes were entered into the LawAtlasSM system.
The resulting LawAtlasSM webpage displays a subset
of the 38 questions, chosen based on perceived level
of stakeholder interest, and allows a user to
manipulate a map of King County using a set of
queries. A ―slider bar‖ permits the user to adjust the
year to show change over time in the number, scope
and complexity of park policies. This system will also
allow future updates, creating an ongoing policy
surveillance system, if feasible. Although we
included policies in our dataset that were
significantly older, for simplicity we chose to limit
the number of years available for query to between
2010 and 2013. Policies are current through August of
2013.
Programmatic practices such as placement of signage
where no formal policy was enacted were not
considered a ―policy‖ for purposes of this research.
Park Districts outside of municipal areas (such as
Vashon) were excluded, but may be added to the
dataset later.
The entire dataset, codebook and protocol is available
at www.kingcounty.gov/health/PolicyTracker .
Methods:
Acknowledgements
This issue of Policy Reports was produced by the Assessment, Policy Development & Evaluation Unit, in conjunction
with the Prevention Division’s Tobacco Program, by Laura Hitchcock, JD, with support from Amy Laurent, MSPH,
Nancy McGroder, BA, Eli Kern, MPH, RN/BSN, Scott Neal, MBA, and Paul Zemann, BA. Special thanks for data
collection, coding and analysis goes to Patricia Atwater, MOPH Candidate, University of Washington School of Public
Health.
For more information and updates, contact data.request@kingcounty.gov and visit www.kingcounty.gov/
healthservices/health/data, where you can subscribe to e-alerts to receive future policy and other reports and
announcements and to utilize the online King County LawAtlasSM system.
Page 16 of 364
Tobacco Policies in Local Parks King County, WA 2014
6
1. Social Norms and Attitudes About Smoking.
(2011, April). Social Norms and Attitudes About
Smoking. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
Commission to Build a Healthier America. Retrieved
October 4, 2013, from http://www.rwjf.org/
content/dam/web-assets/2011/04/social-norms-
and-attitudes-about-smoking
2. The Town of Beaux Arts does not have any public
parks.
3. Most park policies do not account for nuances in
types of tobacco products (i.e., nicotine products
like e-cigarettes, smokeless vs. smoked products,
etc.). Unless otherwise noted, we use the terms
―tobacco‖ and ―smoking‖ interchangeably to
signify that at least smoking is prohibited. The
visual representation of the data in LawAtlasSM
allows the user to choose which types of products
are governed by a policy when putting together a
query.
4. Normandy Park’s policy changed to 100% Smoke-
Free after the research for this report was
conducted, while Tukwila’s policy ―discourages‖
but does not prohibit use, for adults.
5. Tukwila’s policy varies between adult use and
youth use. Adult use is ―discouraged‖ and youth
use is ―prohibited‖ with the youth use prohibition
listed as an infraction enforceable under the
Tukwila Municipal Code. Tukwila Municipal
Code, 12.08.110.
6. Note that Burien’s signage language stipulates
wording that ―smoking is discouraged.‖
7. Public Health – Seattle & King County also
recently distributed grants to several cities in
King County for signage to be installed in parks
covered by their local ordinances.
8. 13% of all Seattle residents are current cigarette
smokers, while the corresponding percentage is
between 14% and 20% of residents in South King
County communities.
9. Note that cities may have a policy that has not yet
been sent to MSRC and is therefore not included
in our dataset of August, 2013. Future updates to
this dataset will include subsequent policies.
10. 2013 population figures are from the Office of
Financial Management, last accessed on
1/7/2014. http://www.ofm.wa.gov/pop/april1/
ofm_april1_population_final.xlsx
End Notes
Page 17 of 364
Tobacco Policies in Local Parks King County, WA 2014
7
Page 18 of 364
Tobacco Policies in Local Parks King County, WA 2014
8
TABLE 1: Where is smoking prohibited in city and county parks in King County,
Washington (2013)
Bothell Woodinville Shoreline Burien Black Diamond Covington Kirkland Normandy Park** SeaTac* Seattle Snoqualmie Tukwila* 100% of park areas X X X X X X X
Prohibited everywhere
except designated smoking
areas (not defined)
X X
Playgrounds
/play areas X X
Beaches X
Athletic
fields X
Away from other patrons
X
25
feet
Prohibited except in
designated parks
X *4
parks
exempt
X *1
park
exempt
Picnic shelters X
Restrooms X
“Children and Youth
Area” (areas heavily used
by children/
youth)
X
Signed “no smoking” areas X
“Woods” (not defined) X
Roads X
Trails X
*SeaTac exempts 4 parks (and allows smoking/tobacco use). All other parks in SeaTac are
100% smoke-free. Tukwila exempts one park.
**Normandy Park became 100% smoke-free after research for this report was complete.
Page 19 of 364
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Modification to the 2020-2025 Transportation Improvement
Program (Gaub) (10 Minutes)
Date:
October 7, 2019
Department:
Public Works
Attachments:
Modified/New TIP Sheets
Budget Impact:
Current Budget: $0
Proposed Revision: $0
Revised Budget: $0
Administrativ e Recommendation:
For discussion only.
Background Summary:
Previous Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) modifications were made with the
annual TIP update adopted in June of this year. Since then, changes in available project
funding and the addition of projects associated with grants and developer projects
necessitate additional modifications. The proposed modifications are summarized below:
SUMM ARY OF PROPOSED AM ENDMENT S T O T HE 2020-2025 T IP
Modifications: The following existing projects are proposed to be revised:
• TIP P-7: Auburn Way N Preservation Phase 2 ($1.63M) – a portion of the grant funds
awarded to this project were swapped with local funds in the A Street SE preservation project
to help meet regional funding obligation targets set by FHWA for 2019.
• TIP R-8: 49th Street NE ($5.35M) – the project will complete the 49th Street NE corridor
between Auburn Way N and I Street NE. Proposed changes reflect portions of the project
being completed as part of a development project and the remaining portion would be
completed by the City with traffic mitigation funds.
• TIP R-16: Regional Growth Center Access Improvements ($2.01M) – The project is being
revised to reflect the award of $1.625M in grant funds from the Sound Transit Access Fund
competition.
Additions: The following projects are proposed to be added to the updated TIP:
• TIP I-16: 15th Street NW/SR-167 NB Ramps ($1.65M) – The project would fund the design
and construction of a new westbound right-turn pocket at the intersection.
Page 20 of 364
• TIP P-3: 2nd Street SE Reconstruction ($0.98M) – The project would reconstruct 2nd Street
SE between A Street SE and Auburn Way S. TIB grant funding for the project was applied for
in 2019 and will be decided later in 2019.
NEXT STEPS:
The public hearing and adoption are scheduled for the October 21st City Council meeting.
Rev iewed by Council Committees:
Councilmember:Staff:Gaub
Meeting Date:October 14, 2019 Item Number:
Page 21 of 364
Six Year Transportation Improvement PlanARTERIAL PRESERVATION FUND (105)Project Title: Auburn Way N Preservation Phase 2 (8th St NE to 22nd St NE)STIP# AUB-56Project No:TBDProject Type:PreservationProject Manager:Jeff BenderLOS Corridor ID# 1/2Activity:2019 YEFunding Sources:Prior to 2019Estimate202020212022202320242025Beyond 2025Total Project CostArterial Preservation Fund- 120,000 439,720 - - - - - - 559,720 Secured Federal Grant- - 1,068,280 - - - - - - 1,068,280 Other- - - - - - - - - - Total Funding Sources: - 120,000 1,508,000 - - - - - - 1,628,000 Capital Expenditures:Design- 120,000 - - - - - - - 120,000 Right of Way- - - - - - - - - - Construction- - 1,508,000 - - - - - - 1,508,000 Total Expenditures: - 120,000 1,508,000 - - - - - - 1,628,000 TIP# P-7Description:This project will grind and overlay Auburn Way N from the 22nd Street NE to 8th Street NE, remove unused driveways, and upgrade curb ramps and pedestrian signals as needed to meet ADA requirements.Progress Summary:Federal Grant funding was awarded in 2016.Future Impact on Operating Budget:There is no impact to the street maintenance budget.BudgetForecast Project Costs1Page 22 of 364
Six Year Transportation Improvement PlanARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Project Title: 49th Street NE (Auburn Way N to I St NE)STIP# AUB-N/AProject No:TBDProject Type:CapacityProject Manager:TBDLOS Corridor ID# N/AActivity:2019 YEFunding Sources:Prior to 2019Estimate202020212022202320242025Beyond 2025Total Project CostUnrestricted Street Revenue- - - - - - - - - - Unsecured Grant- - - - - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees- - - 500,000 1,500,000 - - - - 2,000,000 Other (Development) - 850,000 2,500,000 - - - - - - 3,350,000 Total Funding Sources: - 850,000 2,500,000 500,000 1,500,000 - - - - 5,350,000 Capital Expenditures:Design- 250,000 - 350,000 - - - - - 600,000 Right of Way- 600,000 - 150,000 - - - - - 750,000 Construction- - 2,500,000 - 1,500,000 - - - - 4,000,000 Total Expenditures: - 850,000 2,500,000 500,000 1,500,000 - - - - 5,350,000 TIP# R-8BudgetForecast Project CostFuture Impact on Operating Budget:The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be $10,000Description:This project will construct a new traffic signal at the intersection of 49th Street NE and Auburn Way North, improve the intersection of 49th Street NE and Auburn Way North to provide for northbound to southbound u-turns, improve 49th Street NE from Auburn Way North to D Street NE, and construct an extension of 49th Street NE from D Street NE to I Street NE (which is being constructed from 45th Street NE to South 277th Street under a separate project). Progress Summary:Portions of this project are anticipated to be constructed with a development project. The remaining portions would be constructed by the City and/or with other future development projects.1Page 23 of 364
Six Year Transportation Improvement PlanARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Project Title: Regional Growth Center Access ImprovementsSTIP# AUB-N/AProject No:TBDProject Type:CapacityProject Manager:TBDLOS Corridor ID# N/AActivity:2019 YEFunding Sources:Prior to 2019Estimate202020212022202320242025Beyond 2025Total Project CostUnrestricted Street Revenue- - - - - - - - - - Secured Grant- - - 325,000 - 1,300,000 - - - 1,625,000 Traffic Impact Fees- - - 85,000 100,000 200,000 - - - 385,000 Other- - - - - - - - - - Total Funding Sources: - - - 410,000 100,000 1,500,000 - - - 2,010,000 Capital Expenditures:Design- - - 410,000 - - - - - 410,000 Right of Way- - - - 100,000 - - - - 100,000 Construction- - - - - 1,500,000 - - - 1,500,000 Total Expenditures: - - - 410,000 100,000 1,500,000 - - - 2,010,000 TIP# R-16Description:This project will make improvements to the intersections of 3rd Street NE and Auburn Avenue, 4th Street NE and Auburn Ave, and 4th Street NE and Auburn Way to improve motorized and non-motorized access to the City's downtown urban center and the Sounder Transit Station. The project will add a northbound left-turn movement and a northbound/southbound crosswalk at the intersection of 3rd Street NE and Auburn Avenue and modify the intersection of 4th St NE with Auburn Way N to eliminate the split phase operation signal improving circulation and access.Progress Summary:Grant funding for the design and construction phases was awarded from Sound Transit in 2019.Future Impact on Operating Budget:There is no impact to the street maintenance budget.BudgetForecast Project Costs1Page 24 of 364
Six Year Transportation Improvement PlanARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Project Title: 15th Street NW/SR-167 NB RampsSTIP# AUB-N/AProject No:TBDProject Type:CapacityProject Manager:TBDLOS Corridor ID# 9Activity:2019 YEFunding Sources:Prior to 2019Estimate202020212022202320242025Beyond 2025Total Project CostUnrestricted Street Revenue- - - - - - - - - - Unsecured Federal Grant- - - - - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees- - 225,000 - - - - - - 225,000 Other (Development)- 125,000 1,300,000 - - - - - - 1,425,000 Total Funding Sources: - 125,000 1,525,000 - - - - - - 1,650,000 Capital Expenditures:Design- 125,000 - - - - - - - 125,000 Right of Way- - - - - - - - - - Construction- - 1,525,000 - - - - - - 1,525,000 Total Expenditures: - 125,000 1,525,000 - - - - - - 1,650,000 TIP# I-16Description:This project design and construct a new westbound right-turn pocket on 15th Street NW at the intersection with the SR-167 northbound ramps. Progress Summary:The design and construction of the project is anticipated as part of an adjacent development project.Future Impact on Operating Budget:This annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be $2,500.BudgetForecast Project Cost1Page 25 of 364
Six Year Transportation Improvement PlanARTERIAL PRESERVATION FUND (105)Project Title: 2nd Street SE PreservationSTIP# AUB-N/AProject No:TBDProject Type:PreservationProject Manager:TBDLOS Corridor ID# N/AActivity:2019 YEFunding Sources: Prior to 2019 Estimate 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Beyond 2025 Total Project CostArterial Preservation Fund- - 46,000 347,502 - - - - - 393,502 Unsecured Grant- - 69,000 521,253 - - - - - 590,253 Other - - - - - - - - - - Total Funding Sources: - - 115,000 868,755 - - - - - 983,755 Capital Expenditures:Design- - 115,000 - - - - - - 115,000 Right of Way- - - - - - - - - - Construction- - - 868,755 - - - - - 868,755 Total Expenditures: - - 115,000 868,755 - - - - - 983,755 TIP# P-3Description:This project will reconstruct 2nd Street SE between A Street SE and Auburn Way S. The reconstruction will utilize full depth reclamation techniques. The project will also remove remove fixed objects within the clear zone, remove barriers to ADA access, and install new LED street lighting.Progress Summary:Grant funding for this project was applied for in 2019. If awarded, design would occur in 2020 and construction in 2021.Future Impact on Operating Budget:This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance.BudgetForecast Project Cost1Page 26 of 364
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Resolution No. 5458 (Hinman) (10 Minutes)
Date:
October 2, 2019
Department:
Administration
Attachments:
Res olution 5458 Normandy Aircraft Lease
Normandy Term Sheet with Additional Services
Budget Impact:
Current Budget: $0
Proposed Revision: $0
Revised Budget: $0
Administrativ e Recommendation:
Adoption of Resolution No. 5458 authorizing the Mayor to negotiate and execute a lease
agreement with Normandy Aircraft for office and apron space on Auburns Municipal Airport
Background Summary:
Normandy Aircraft is an aircraft maintenance and service business interested in relocating
from Norman Grier Field to the Auburn Airport. Currently there is no business providing
aircraft maintenance and servicing on Auburn’s Airport. Airport management, airport users,
and other airport tenants have identified aircraft maintenance and servicing as a need for the
airfield. Normandy Aircraft fulfills that need.
In addition to providing aircraft maintenance and servicing, Normandy will provide additional
services on behalf of the airport and airport management. Services that will include opening
and staffing the airport office on weekends, assisting airport management with planning and
hosting annual events at the airport, provide twenty-four hour aircraft incident response and
recovery services, provide specialty maintenance to airport management, and provide
facilities for other airport tenants to dispose of their waste airplane oil.
Rev iewed by Council Committees:
Councilmember:Staff:Hinman
Meeting Date:October 14, 2019 Item Number:
Page 27 of 364
--------------------------------
Resolution No. 5458
September 30, 2019
Page 1 of 2 Rev. 2019
RESOLUTION NO. 5458
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
AUBURN, WASHINGTON, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO
NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE AN AIRPORT OFFICE AND
APRON LEASE WITH NORMANDY AIRCRAFT.
WHEREAS, beginning on January 1, 2020, the City of Auburn municipal
airport will have office and apron space available for lease to private airport-related
businesses; and
WHEREAS, Normandy Aircraft is interested in leasing such office and apron space
for their aircraft maintenance and service business; and
WHEREAS, the public, visiting aircraft, airport management, airport customers and
other airport tenants would benefit from having Normandy Aircraft located on the airport.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN,
WASHINGTON, RESOLVES as follows:
Section 1. The Mayor is authorized to negotiate and execute a lease with
Normandy Aircraft, provided that the lease be in substantial conformity with the term
sheet, attached as Exhibit A.
Section 2. The Mayor is authorized to implement those administrative
procedures necessary to carry out the directives of this legislation.
Section 3. This Resolution will take effect and be in full force on passage and
signatures.
Dated and Signed:
Page 28 of 364
--------------------------------
Resolution No. 5458
September 30, 2019
Page 2 of 2 Rev. 2019
CITY OF AUBURN
____________________________
NANCY BACKUS, MAYOR
ATTEST:
____________________________
Shawn Campbell, MMC, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________
Steven L. Gross, City Attorney
Page 29 of 364
Page 30 of 364
Page 31 of 364
Page 32 of 364
Page 33 of 364
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Ordinance No. 6728 (Tate) (15 Minutes)
Date:
October 8, 2019
Department:
Community Development
Attachments:
Agenda Bill
Ordinance No. 6728
Exhibit A - ACC 18.08
Exhibit B - Placeholder
Exhibit C - ACC 18.23
Exhibit D - ACC 18.31.200
Exhibit E - ACC 18.57
Exhibit F - Placeholder
Budget Impact:
Current Budget: $0
Proposed Revision: $0
Revised Budget: $0
Administrativ e Recommendation:
Schedule Ordinance No. 6728, ZOA19-0002, Proposed Zoning Code Amendments by
Inland Washington LLC for action by City Council on October 21, 2019.
Background Summary:
Please see attachment.
Rev iewed by Council Committees:
Councilmember:DaCorsi Staff:Tate
Meeting Date:October 14, 2019 Item Number:
Page 34 of 364
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
CITY COUNCIL
Agenda Subject/Title:
Ordinance No. 6728, File No. ZOA19-
0002, Proposed Zoning Code
Amendments by Inland Washington LLC
Date:
October 1, 2019
Department:
Community Development
Budget Impact:
Current Budget: $0
Proposed Revision: $0
Revised Budget: $0
DESCRIPTION:
Ordinance No. 6728, File No. ZOA19-0002, Proposed Zoning Code amendments by Inland
Washington LLC
Proposed changes to four sections of the zoning code including: the chapter dealing with
the Planned Action (ACC 18.08); the uses & development standards of the C-4, Mixed
Use Commercial zoning district (ACC 18.23), the development standards associated with
mixed use development (ACC 18.57), and revision of the architectural & design standards
(ACC 18.31.200) and the associated revisions to Exhibit 1 to previously-adopted
Ordinance No. 6382 (Planned Action Ordinance, codified as ACC 18.08).
ADMINISTRATIVE RECOMMENDATION:
Schedule Ordinance No. 6728, ZOA19-0002, Proposed Zoning Code Amendments by
Inland Washington LLC for action by City Council on October 21, 2019.
BACKGROUND/SUMMARY:
PROPOSAL: An Inland Washington LLC (“Inland”) application to amend the text of four
sections the City’s zoning code to facilitate development of the Auburn Gateway Project. In
summary, the main changes to the four code sections include:
• ACC 18.08 Change to Planned Action Ordinance (PAO) This is a separate code chapter
that is specifically for this development proposal and is being modified to accommodate project
changes. Such changes include:
o Allow horizontal integrated mixed use in addition to vertical integrated mixed use.
o Recognize the preparation of additional environmental review documents
o Include any other project changes and associated mitigation measures (Amending
Exhibit 1 to the original Ordinance No. 6382, Planned Action Ordinance previously
adopted in 2011.)
• ACC 18.23 Commercial and industrial zones
o The unique zoning of C-4, Mixed Use Commercial to be changed to also allow
horizontal distributed mixed use in addition to vertical distributed mixed use.
o Allow an “outdoor recreation use for profit” as an allowed use subject to an city
approval of an administrative use permit (land use approval).
Page 35 of 364
Staff Member: Tate
Date: October 1, 2019
Page 2 of 9
• ACC 18.57.030 Mixed use development standard
o Allow mixed use commercial to be changed to allow horizontal mixed use as well as
vertical.
• ACC 18.31.200 Architectural and Site Design Standards and regulations
o Allow the Design Standards document to be administratively amended by the
Community Development Director rather than amended by approval of the Planning and
Development Committee of the Auburn city council--
o To change the references contained in ACC 18.31.200, (Architectural and site design
review standards and regulations) to recognize any future amendments to the design
standards.
FINDINGS OF FACT:
Background & Proposal
1. Inland Construction LLC (“Inland”), on May 17, 2019 filed an application (File No. ZOA19-
0002) for a zoning code text amendment to affect changes to three provisions of the zoning
code as part of the various approvals needed for the proposed ‘Auburn Gateway Project’.
This project was previously proposed by Robertson Properties Group (RPG) for
redevelopment of the former Valley 6 Drive-In Theater site associated with the parcels that
RPG had acquired in Northeast Auburn and was the subject of a previously executed
Development Agreement (DA) with the City.
2. Since the time of the application, the city staff have been working with Inland Construction
LLC on various approvals needed for the project. As a result, City staff identified an
additional zoning code section that requires modification for the project; which is ACC
18.31.200, (Architectural and site design review standards and regulations). The changes
have been reviewed with the Applicant.
3. The project site is approximately 70 acres in area and consists of the former drive theater
site and adjacent parcels that RPG had acquired over the intervening time. All the drive in
theater structures and features have been removed as authorized by city permits. The site
is generally bounded by Auburn Way North, 45th ST NE, the extension of I ST NE and S
27th ST, with certain property exceptions.
Page 36 of 364
Staff Member: Tate
Date: October 1, 2019
Page 3 of 9
4. Inland is acquiring the former Valley 6 Drive-In properties from Robertson Properties Group
(RPG). In anticipation of acquiring the property, Inland has submitted an application to
amend the City code and the existing Development Agreement (DA) adopted under
Resolution No. 4756 (2011) in order to allow horizontal mixed use (the current DA restricts
the development to only vertical mixed use in order to have multifamily residential land
uses).
5. Inland has indicated their desire to construct, as a first phase, a multi-family complex with
500 dwelling units. This number is consistent with the maximum number of multi-family
units considered and approved in the previously approved sub area plan of the City’s
Comprehensive Plan, the Environmental Impact Statements (EIS’s), and the DA. However,
Inland has indicated that there are a number of circumstances that preclude construction of
the full amount of the previously proposed 1.6 million square feet of professional office
and/or 720,000 square feet of retail commercial space. These circumstances include a
changed economic environment for retail storefronts and the anticipated changes in 2020 to
the floodplain maps by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to increase
the extent and depth of floodplain in this vicinity.
6. DA’s are a development tool authorized under State law (RCW 36.70B.170). The concept
behind a DA is to allow a municipality and a property owner to voluntarily agree to
development terms for a specific development proposal that may be beyond adopted city
code requirements. Both parties may have interest in entering into such an agreement
because it allows a property owner greater flexibility in certain specified city standards that
Page 37 of 364
Staff Member: Tate
Date: October 1, 2019
Page 4 of 9
are determined in advance in exchange the City can require a higher quality of development
and greater benefits to the community than what typical code requires. It is an optional
process because it is a voluntary negotiated agreement. The City has only a few other
instances of development agreements.
7. The main code change affecting multiple sections is to allow horizontal distributed or
integrated mixed-use in addition to the currently exclusively-required vertical integrated
mixed-use required by the C-4, Mixed Use Commercial zoning district. Vertical mixed-use is
where the ground floor consists of commercial tenants with multi-family residential located
above.
8. The City’s zoning code provides the following definition of mixed use development:
“ACC 18.04.625 Mixed-use development.
“Mixed-use development” means a single unified development that incorporates the
planned integration of two or more different land uses consisting of some
combination of office, light industrial, hotel, retail, entertainment, public uses, along
with residential uses. Mixed-use development may be vertically oriented in one or
more buildings, or horizontally distributed on a development site. When horizontally
distributed, the different uses may be constructed concurrently and in separate
phases, and should incorporate common and/or complementary features and/or
elements such as pedestrian walkways, access driveways, parking areas,
architectural themes, or other techniques that provide integration between uses on
the site.”
9. To change provisions of the zoning code requires an amendment with a recommendation
made by the Planning Commission and final action by the City Council. One of the other
needed approvals for the project is amending the DA, which is a City Council decision.
10. Also since the time of their application, the City Council has considered amendments to the
Development Agreement (DA) that was previously executed between Robertson Properties
Group RPG) and the City (Resolution No. 4756). At a special Council meeting conducted
on June 24th 2019, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 5442 approving an amended
and re-stated development agreement between the City and Inland Construction LLC, for
the Auburn Gateway Project.
Past Planning Commission & City Council Act ions
11. At the Planning Commission’s May 7, 2019 regular meeting, John Fisher and Scott Morris of
Inland Washington LLC (Inland) introduced themselves, their company, the type of projects
their company constructs and described their proposal for the Auburn Gateway Project.
12. At the Planning Commission’s June 4, 2019 regular meeting, staff introduced and described
the first three code amendments. The materials presented included a description of the
changes along with copies of the code sections with edits showing. Inland Construction LLC
representatives were present at the meeting and were invited to add comments.
Page 38 of 364
Staff Member: Tate
Date: October 1, 2019
Page 5 of 9
13. At the Planning Commission’s July 16, 2019 regular meeting, a public hearing was
conducted on the four proposed code amendments. The only testimony was from the John
Fisher of Inland Washington LLC (Applicant). At the conclusion of the hearing, the
Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the code amendments to the
City Council.
14. At the City Council’s April 22, 2019 Study Session, John Fisher and Scott Morris of Inland
Washington LLC (Inland) introduced themselves, their company, the type of projects their
company constructs and described an overview of their proposal for the Auburn Gateway
Project.
15. At the Study Session on June 24, 2019, the City Council discussed the Amended and
Restated Development Agreement.
16. On June 24, 2019 after a properly noticed public hearing, the City Council adopted the
Amended and Restated Development Agreement between the City and inland Washington
LLC by Resolution No. 5442.
Procedural Steps
17. Pursuant to Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 36.70A the proposed zoning code
amendment language was transmitted to the Washington State Department of Commerce
for State Agency Review and requesting an expedited review (consisting of a 14-day period)
on July 1, 2019. City received notice that expedited review had been accepted and that the
City met the notice to state agency requirements contained in RCW 36.70A.106. The City
has not received comments from any state agency.
18. In accordance with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) (WAC 197-11) the City
issued a Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) for the Auburn Gateway
Project in 2004. Also, the City issued an Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact
Statement Northeast Auburn Robertson Properties Special Area Plan, City of Auburn, 2004
to clarify wetland-related text, Page 9.
19. Subsequently, in 2011 the City issued a second addendum to the Final EIS to address some
project changes including additional properties, identification of phasing, changes in
governing regulations and changes in nearby development.
20. A third addendum to the Final EIS is currently being prepared to meet the SEPA
requirements for the changes to the proposed action specifically by Inland Washington LLC.
21. To meet the City code requirements associated with zoning code amendments (ACC
18.68.030, Public Hearing Process), a Notice of Public Hearing (NOPH) was published in
the Seattle Times newspaper on July 1, 2019 prior to the Planning Commission Public
hearing and posted in three general public places (City Hall, City Annex, and the City’s
Public Land Use Notice webpage).
Page 39 of 364
Staff Member: Tate
Date: October 1, 2019
Page 6 of 9
A further and more detailed explanation of the changes to each of the four code section follows:
1. ACC 18.08 Text Change to Planned Action Ordinance (PAO) - Exhibits A & B.
First, an explanation of the term: “Planned Actions”. A planned action is a tool of the WA State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) that was added to the state laws in 1997. A planned action is
a designated development project whose impacts have been addressed by an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) associated with a plan for a specific geographic area before individual
development projects are proposed. A planned action involves detailed SEPA review and
preparation of EIS documents in conjunction with sub-area plans, consistent with RCW
43.21C.031 and WAC 197-11-164 through WAC 197-11-172. The tool provides for up-front
analysis of impacts and mitigation measures to facilitate expedited environmental review of
subsequent individual development projects, when determined consistent.
The City adopted Chapter 18.08, ‘Northeast Auburn Special Area Plan and Auburn Gateway
Planned Action’ in 2011 by Ordinance No. 6382 and has not been used, as no development has
taken place. In summary, the text changes are for the purpose of:
o To recognize the preparation of additional environmental review documents (change
text to recognize the November 2, 2011 EIS addendum and to recognize the future EIS
addendum that is currently being prepared).
o To allow horizontal integrated mixed-use in addition to vertical integrated mixed-use
that is currently required by the zoning classification (While this does not require any text
changes, the PAO refers to the zoning that applies to the site in subsection ACC
18.08.040, ‘Planned action thresholds’ and the C-4, Mixed Use Commercial is also
proposed to change). By reference, this is also a change.
o To recognize the change in City Department name.
o To increase consistency with the development agreement.
o To recognize any other project changes and associated EIS identified mitigation
measures (Amending Exhibit 1 to the original Ordinance No. 6382, Planned Action
Ordinance).
Please note: that in code subsection 18.08.080, ‘Planned action mitigation measures’ there is a
reference to a separate document (Exhibit 1) that is not codified in the city’s code chapter. This
Exhibit 1 consists of the mitigation measures drawn from the EIS’s and due to their length are
not made part of the same document. The contents of this Exhibit could require modifications
since the environmental review process is being conducted.
2. ACC 18.23 Commercial and industrial zones – Exhibit C.
Chapter 18.23 ACC, ‘Commercial and industrial zones’ describes the purpose statement, uses
regulations, and zoning development standards of certain zoning classifications. The text
changes are related to modifying the “C-4, Mixed Use” zoning classification. The project site is
the only mapped location of this zoning classification in the city. See the following zoning map
excerpt.
Page 40 of 364
Staff Member: Tate
Date: October 1, 2019
Page 7 of 9
Zoning Map (excerpt)
The changes are for the purpose of:
o Change the C-4, Mixed Use Commercial zoning classification to also allow horizontal
integrated mixed-use in addition to vertical integrated mixed-use.
o Change the set of uses to recognize the listed use of: “outdoor recreation use for
profit” in the zoning district subject to an administrative use permit (land use approval).
Page 41 of 364
Staff Member: Tate
Date: October 1, 2019
Page 8 of 9
3. ACC 18.31.200 Architectural and Site Design Standards and Regulations – Exhibit D.
This chapter of the zoning code provides an administrative review process for evaluating the
design and arrangement of development. The architectural and site design regulations are
intended to be consistent with and implement the policies of the comprehensive plan. A
further explanation of the purpose can be found at ACC 18.31.200.A. (Purpose and Intent).
The architectural and site design regulations apply either to specific geographic areas of the
city, such as downtown, or to specific types of development,-such as multiple family
residential. There is a document which contains the architectural and site design standards
governing each geographic area or type of development. The “Auburn Gateway
architectural and site design standards”: that apply in this instance were specifically adopted
by Resolution No. 4756.
In summary, the text changes are for the purpose of:
o Allow the Design Standards document to be administratively amended by the
Community Development Director rather than amended upon approval by the
Planning and Development Committee of the Auburn City Council. This refers to
Council committee structure which no longer exists because it was changed by
Ordinance No. 6532 in 2014 to provide for study sessions of the entire council. The
approach of administrative changes by the Department director is similar in authority
to the Public Works Department Director approval of the Engineering Design
Standards (ACC 12.04).
o Change the references contained in ACC 18.31.200, (Architectural and site design
review standards and regulations) to recognize any future amendments to the
specific design standards.
o To recognize the change in City Department name.
4. ACC 18.57.030 Mixed use development standard – Exhibit E
Chapter 18.57 ACC, ‘Standards for specific land uses’ contains zoning development standards
in addition to those contained in the zoning district chapter. This chapter provides site planning,
development, and/or operating standards for certain land uses that are allowed by individual or
multiple zoning districts, and for activities that require special standards to mitigate their
potential adverse impacts. Section ACC 18.57.030, ‘Mixed use development’ contains
standards that apply when mixed-use development is proposed in the city.
The text amendments to the mixed-use standards are proposed to accomplish the following:
o To allow mixed-use commercial to be changed to allow horizontal mixed-use as well
as vertical. It should be noted that vertical mixed-use is not actively being pursued for
this project.
STAFF:
Tate
COUNCILMEMBER:
DaCorsi
Page 42 of 364
Staff Member: Tate
Date: October 1, 2019
Page 9 of 9
ATTACHMENTS:
Ordinance No. 6728
Exh A – ACC 18.08, Text Changes to Planned Action Ordinance
Exh B – Placeholder - Exh 1 to Ordinance No. 6382 (Planned Action Ordinance, codified as
ACC 18.08). Mitigation Measures derived from the EIS and addendums (An updated
version will be provided when available).
Exh C – ACC 18.23 Text changes to Commercial and industrial zoning district
Exh D – ACC 18.31.200 Text changes to Architectural and Site Design Standards and
Regulations
Exh E - ACC 18.57.030 Text changes to Mixed Use development standards
Exh F – Placeholder - 2019 EIS Addendum (As noted above, this document is being prepared
and will be provided when available).
Page 43 of 364
--------------------------------
Ordinance No. 6728
October 1, 2019
Page 1 of 4 Rev. 2018
ORDINANCE NO. 6728
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
AUBURN, WASHINGTON, RELATING TO LAND USE
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS RELATED TO MIXED-
USE DEVELOPMENT; AMENDING CHAPTERS 18.08,
18.23, 18.31, AND 18.57 OF THE AUBURN CITY CODE AND
EXHIBIT 1 TO ORDINANCE NO. 6382.
WHEREAS, the City and Auburn Properties, Inc. (“API”) entered into a
Development Agreement authorized by Resolution No. 4756 related to the Auburn
Gateway Project; and,
WHEREAS, The City adopted Ordinance No. 6183 in 2008 and Ordinance No.
6382 in 2011, both of which contained development regulations related to implementation
of the Northeast Auburn – Robertson Properties Group Special Area Plan which includes
the Auburn Gateway Project site; and,
WHEREAS, Despite the City’s and API’s intentions, the market conditions and
other factors have changed such that the API is no longer interested in developing the
property, and has proposed selling the property; and,
WHEREAS, the new developer, Inland Washington, LLC (“Inland” dba Capital
Acquisitions, LLC) has proposed a development that is generally consistent with land
uses that was previously proposed but that allows residential development first, separate
from commercial development rather than mixed used within the same structure; a
change in the boundaries and number of phases; different proportions of land uses;
changes in street intersection signalization; changes in surrounding development; and
changes in critical area mitigation. These changes to the Auburn Gateway Project require
Page 44 of 364
--------------------------------
Ordinance No. 6728
October 1, 2019
Page 2 of 4 Rev. 2018
changes to the zoning development standards and the requirements of the Development
Agreement to take into account the changes in conditions; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department and Public Works
Department have reviewed the proposed changes and prepared an addendum to the
current Environmental Impact Statement (and addenda) under the State Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) that provides for mitigation measures and other conditions to ensure
that the proposed future development will not create significant adverse environmental
impacts; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed changes to the development regulations were reviewed
by the City’s Planning Commission at its June 4, 2019 meeting and after a public hearing
conducted on July 16, 2019, the Commission recommended approval; and,
WHEREAS, the City transmitted the proposed code amendments to the
Washington State Department of Commerce and to other state agencies as required by
RCW 36.70A.160 on July 1, 2019; and,
WHEREAS, Council has determined that revising the development regulations in
connection with approval of an Amended and Restated Development Agreement is
mutually beneficial to the developer and to the City and community; and
WHEREAS, the City Council discussed the Amended and Restated Development
Agreement on June 24, 2029 and after a properly noticed public hearing adopted the
Amended and Restated Development Agreement on June 24, 2019 by Resolution No.
5442.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON,
DO ORDAIN as follows:
Page 45 of 364
--------------------------------
Ordinance No. 6728
October 1, 2019
Page 3 of 4 Rev. 2018
Section 1. Amendment to City Code. Chapter 18.08 of the Auburn City Code
(NE Auburn Special Area Plan & Auburn Gateway Planned Action) is amended to read
as shown in Exhibit A.
Section 2. Amendment to Exhibit 1 to Ordinance No. 6382. Section D of
Exhibit 1 to Ordinance No. 6382 (uncodified) is amended to read as shown in Exhibit B.
Section 3. Amendment to City Code. Chapter 18.23 of the Auburn City Code
(Commercial & Industrial Zones) is amended to read as shown in Exhibit C.
Section 4. Amendment to City Code. Section 18.31.200 of the Auburn City
Code (Architectural & Site Design Review Standards) is amended to read as shown in
Exhibit D.
Section 5. Amendment to City Code. Section 18.57.030 of the Auburn City
Code (Standards for Mixed Use Development) is amended to read as shown in Exhibit E.
Section 6. Implementation. The Mayor is authorized to implement those
administrative procedures necessary to carry out the directives of this legislation.
Section 7. 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 8. 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. However,
the amendments to the Code Provisions and to Ordinance No. 6382 shall not take effect
until the Development Agreement between Inland Washington LLC and the City is signed
Page 46 of 364
--------------------------------
Ordinance No. 6728
October 1, 2019
Page 4 of 4 Rev. 2018
and recorded and Inland Washington LLC (or its affiliate) owns the Auburn Gateway
Properties.
INTRODUCED: _______________
PASSED: ____________________
APPROVED: _________________
____________________________
NANCY BACKUS, MAYOR
ATTEST:
____________________________
Shawn Campbell, MMC, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________
Steven L. Gross, City Attorney
Published: ____________________
Page 47 of 364
Exhibit A. Ch. 18.08 Northeast Auburn Special Area Plan | Auburn City Code Page 1 of 8
The Auburn City Code is current through Ordinance 6708, passed December 17, 2018.
Chapter 18.08
NORTHEAST AUBURN SPECIAL AREA PLAN AND AUBURN
GATEWAY PLANNED ACTION
Sections:
18.08.010 Purpose of the planned action.
18.08.020 Findings related to the northeast Auburn special area plan.
18.08.030 Applicability of the planned action.
18.08.040 Planned action thresholds.
18.08.050 Review criteria for planned actions.
18.08.060 Effect of planned action designation.
18.08.070 Planned action permit process.
18.08.080 Planned action mitigation measures.
18.08.090 Amendments.
18.08.010 Purpose of the planned action.
The purpose of this chapter is to:
A. Set forth a procedure designating certain project actions within a specific subject site as
“planned actions” consistent with state law, RCW 43.21C.031; and
B. Provide the public with an understanding as to what constitutes a planned action and how land
use applications which qualify as planned actions will be processed by the city; and
C. Streamline and expedite the development review process for this designated planned action by
relying on completed and existing detailed environmental analysis for the subject site; and
D. Combine environmental analysis with land use planning; and
E. Apply the city’s development regulations together with the mitigation measures described in the
environmental impact statement (EIS) and EIS addenda and this chapter to address the impacts of
future development contemplated by the planned action. (Ord. 6382 § 2, 2011.)
18.08.020 Findings related to the northeast Auburn special area plan.
After thorough review and consideration, the city council makes the following findings:
Page 48 of 364
Exhibit A. Ch. 18.08 Northeast Auburn Special Area Plan | Auburn City Code Page 2 of 8
The Auburn City Code is current through Ordinance 6708, passed December 17, 2018.
A. The Northeast Auburn special area plan (“subarea plan”) and its accompanying draft and final
environmental impact statement (“EIS”) and EIS addenda have analyzed and addressed all of the
probable significant environmental impacts associated with the land uses allowed by the city’s
development regulations and described in the subarea plan as to the Northeast Auburn special
planning area.
B. The analysis contained in the subarea plan and EIS and addenda is adequate to identify the
probable environmental impacts of developments allowed under the city’s development regulations
which were not previously analyzed in the comprehensive plan and its accompanying environmental
documents.
C. The mitigation measures identified in the environmental element of the subarea plan, EIS and EIS
addenda, together with the regulations in the city’s development code, are adequate to identify and
mitigate the probable significant environmental impacts of the land uses and developments
considered within the planned action and subarea plan and EIS documents.
D. The expedited development review procedure in this chapter is consistent with law, will be a
benefit to the public, will protect the environment, and will enhance the city’s economic development.
E. The public interest will be served by implementing the expedited development review procedure
set forth in this chapter.
F. Public involvement and review of the subarea plan and EIS and EIS addenda have been
extensive and meet the requirements of law, and have been sufficient to ensure that the subarea
plan and EIS bear a substantial relationship to the public interest, health, safety, and welfare.
G. The land uses identified in the subarea plan for the Northeast Auburn special area are consistent
with and will implement the Ccomprehensive Pplan.
H. Northeast Auburn special area is hereby designated a planned action. (Ord. 6382 § 2, 2011.)
18.08.030 Applicability of the planned action.
A. Planned Action Area. This chapter applies to approximately 70 acres included in the Auburn
Gateway project area as described in the Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties special area plan
EIS, issued by the city on July 30, 2004 and EIS Addendum on November 2, 2011 (and any
addenda thereto) and the adoption of the Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties special area plan.
Any other planned action for which the impacts have been studied in an EIS shall also meet the
requirements of this chapter, be approved by the planning and Ccommunity Ddevelopment Ddirector
(Ddirector), and be designated as a planned action by resolution of the city council before it shall be
entitled to review and treatment as a planned action under this chapter.
Page 49 of 364
Exhibit A. Ch. 18.08 Northeast Auburn Special Area Plan | Auburn City Code Page 3 of 8
The Auburn City Code is current through Ordinance 6708, passed December 17, 2018.
B. Environmental Document. A planned action for a site-specific development shall be based on the
environmental analysis contained in the Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties special area plan
EIS, issued by the city on July 30, 2004 and EIS Addendum on November 2, 2011 (and any
addenda thereto). The mitigation requirements in this chapter are based on the Northeast
Auburn/Robertson Properties special area plan EIS and addenda. These requirements, together with
city codes, ordinances, and standards provide the framework for the decision by the city to impose
conditions on a planned action project.
C. Planned Action Designated. Uses and activities described in the Northeast Auburn/Robertson
Properties special area plan EIS (and any addenda thereto), subject to thresholds (ACC 18.08.040)
and mitigation measures established by this chapter, are designated planned actions pursuant to
RCW 43.21C.031. (Ord. 6382 § 2, 2011.)
18.08.040 Planned action thresholds.
Subject to the zoning regulations for the site and the mitigation measures described in this chapter,
the maximum levels of development described below have been evaluated in the Northeast
Auburn/Robertson Properties special area plan EIS, as described in the EIS (and any addenda
thereto), and are planned actions pursuant to RCW 43.21C.031. In order to qualify as a planned
action, total cumulative development within the Auburn Gateway project area that has been
permitted under this chapter shall meet all of the following criteria:
A. Land Use.
1. The following are the primary categories of uses authorized under this planned action:
a. Office.
b. Retail.
c. Multifamily residential.
2. Land Use Review Threshold. The planned action designation applies to future development
proposals within the Auburn Gateway project area which are within the range evaluated in the
Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties special area plan EIS and the EIS addenda as shown
below.
Page 50 of 364
Exhibit A. Ch. 18.08 Northeast Auburn Special Area Plan | Auburn City Code Page 4 of 8
The Auburn City Code is current through Ordinance 6708, passed December 17, 2018.
Use Maximum
Allowable
Maximum
Structure
Height
Multifamily
residences
500 dwelling units 75 feet
Retail
uses
720,000 square
feet
75 feet
Office
uses
1,600,000 square
feet
75 feet
B. Transportation.
1. Trip Ranges. Cumulative development within the Auburn Gateway project area that does not
exceed the following range of trip generation from all uses developed within the Auburn
Gateway project area shall qualify as a planned action:
Maximum Net New (Non-Pass-By) Trip Generation Allowable in the Auburn Gateway
Project Area
Time Range Net New Trips
AM peak hour (primary) 1,862
PM peak hour (primary) 2,419
Daily Total: 18,920 Non-Pass-by Trips (“Auburn Gateway Transportation Impact Analysis”
prepared by Transportation Solutions, Inc. in October 2011 for the Auburn Gateway
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) addendum).
2. The net new (non-pass-by) trip generation within a single phase shall qualify as a planned
action that does not exceed the following:
Maximum Net New Trips Allowable within a Single Phase of the Auburn Gateway Project
Area
Time Range Net New Trips
AM Peak Hour (primary) 1,117
PM Peak Hour (primary) 1,451
Page 51 of 364
Exhibit A. Ch. 18.08 Northeast Auburn Special Area Plan | Auburn City Code Page 5 of 8
The Auburn City Code is current through Ordinance 6708, passed December 17, 2018.
C. Earthwork. The maximum amount of excavation and fill qualifying as a planned action shall be
250,000 cubic yards of excavation and 750,000 cubic yards of fill.
D. Air Quality. Modifications to regional arterials included in the planned action include potential new
signals on Auburn Way North at 45th Street NE and 49th Street NE, and at the driveway access to
Auburn Way North midpoint between the two intersections, if demonstrated by analysis of signal
warrants and on South 277th Street and 45th Street NE at a relocated I Street NE. A roundabout or
traffic signal would be provided at the intersection of 49th Street NE and I Street NE and a future
signal at 45th Street NE.
E. Water.
1. Floodplain Modifications. Up to 33.73 acre feet of floodplain storage volume may be filled
within the Auburn Gateway project area based on the 1995 FEMA floodplain. The actual amount
of floodplain modification and storage compensatory flood storage volume will depend on the
FEMA floodplain regulations in effect at the time of development. Since the extent of floodplain
and amount of fill may be subject to change it may be subject to further environmental review.
The amount of floodplain affected will require that compensatory volume is provided at the time
of fill.
2. Impervious Surfaces. Up to 90 percent of the Auburn Gateway site area may be covered
with impervious surfaces.
F. Plants and Animals. Up to 0.55 acres of wetland fill placed in accordance with local, state, and
federal regulations in the wetland ditches along South 277th Street (approximately 0.5 acres), and
as necessary to complete required improvements for I Street NE and 49th Street NE (up to 0.25
acres of wetland fill within the Auburn Gateway project area), shall qualify as part of this planned
action. The wetland impacts to the yet undelineated Wetland F within the Gateway II project area will
be in accordance with local, state and federal regulations in effect.
G. Time of Submission. The application is submitted during the time that the development
agreement between the city of Auburn and Robertson Auburn Properties, entered into on November
21, 2011, is in effect. (Ord. 6382 § 2, 2011.)
18.08.050 Review criteria for planned actions.
The director or director’s designee is hereby authorized to designate a project application as a
planned action if the project meets all of the following conditions:
A. The project is consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan.
B. The project is located on the subject site as described with the planned action ordinance.
Page 52 of 364
Exhibit A. Ch. 18.08 Northeast Auburn Special Area Plan | Auburn City Code Page 6 of 8
The Auburn City Code is current through Ordinance 6708, passed December 17, 2018.
C. The project’s significant environmental impacts have been adequately addressed in the EIS and
EIS addenda.
D. The project complies with the planned action thresholds.
E. The project’s significant impacts have been mitigated though application of the mitigation
measures identified in the EIS documents, EIS addenda, and other city requirements.
F. The project is not an essential public facility. (Ord. 6382 § 2, 2011.)
18.08.060 Effect of planned action designation.
A. Upon designation by the planning Community Development Ddirector that the project qualifies
as a planned action, the project shall not be subject to a SEPA threshold determination, an
environmental impact statement (EIS), or any further review under SEPA.
B. Being designated a planned action means that a proposed project has been reviewed in
accordance with this chapter, and found to be consistent with the development parameters and
environmental analysis included in the EIS documents and EIS addenda.
C. Planned actions will not be subject to further procedural review under SEPA. However, projects
may be subject to conditions designed to mitigate any environmental impacts which may result from
the project proposal, and projects will be subject to whatever permit requirements are deemed
appropriate by the city under state and city laws and ordinances. The planned action designation
shall not excuse a project from meeting the city’s code and ordinance requirements apart from the
SEPA process. (Ord. 6382 § 2, 2011.)
18.08.070 Planned action permit process.
The Ddirector shall establish a procedure to review projects and determine whether they meet the
planned action criteria, and establishing minimum application and notice requirements. The
procedure shall consist, at a minimum, of the following:
A. Developments shall meet the requirements of ACC Titles 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19,
unless modified by the development agreement . Application shall be made on the forms provided by
the city and shall include a SEPA checklist (where approved through WAC 197-11-315(2)) or such
other environmental review forms provided by the city.
B. The Ddirector shall determine if the application is complete as provided in Chapter 14.06 ACC.
Page 53 of 364
Exhibit A. Ch. 18.08 Northeast Auburn Special Area Plan | Auburn City Code Page 7 of 8
The Auburn City Code is current through Ordinance 6708, passed December 17, 2018.
C. If the project is within the area designated as a planned action, the application shall be reviewed
to determine if it is consistent with all of the requirements in this chapter.
D. When a complete application for development has been determined by the city to qualify as a
planned action, the Ddirector shall notify the applicant and the project shall proceed in accordance
with the appropriate permit procedure, with the exception that no additional SEPA review, threshold
determination, or EIS shall be required.
E. Public notice for project qualifying as planned actions shall be tied to the underlying permit. If
notice is otherwise required for the underlying permit, the notice shall state that the project has
qualified as a planned action. If notice is not otherwise required for the underlying permit, no special
public notice is required.
F. If a project is determined to not qualify as a planned action, the Ddirector shall so notify the
applicant and the SEPA responsible official, and shall prescribe a SEPA review procedure consistent
with the city’s SEPA regulations and the requirements of state law. (Ord. 6382 § 2, 2011.)
18.08.080 Planned action mitigation measures.
The planned action mitigation measures set forth in the Exhibit 1 attached to the ordinance codified
in this chapter and incorporated herein by this reference shall apply to the project identified therein.
This Exhibit 1 shall not be codified with the provisions of this chapter, but shall be on file and
available for review in the office of the city clerk. (Ord. 6382 § 2, 2011.)
18.08.090 Amendments.
Amendments to this chapter may be initiated by the city, the proponent, or the proponent’s
successor, and shall occur as follows:
A. The Ddirector of community development and public works may interpret the words and
meaning of certain conditions in order to resolve conflicts in implementation. All words in the
ordinance codified in this chapter shall carry their customary and ordinary meaning.
B. If changes to the language of the ordinance codified in this chapter are required, such proposed
changes shall be reviewed by the Ddirector of community development and public works. If, in the
estimation of the Ddirector of community development and public works, the proposed change is
minor, then the proposed change shall be forwarded directly to the city council for its consideration.
If, in the estimation of the Ddirector of community development and public works, the change is
major, the proposed change shall be referred to the planning commission which shall conduct a
Page 54 of 364
Exhibit A. Ch. 18.08 Northeast Auburn Special Area Plan | Auburn City Code Page 8 of 8
The Auburn City Code is current through Ordinance 6708, passed December 17, 2018.
public hearing and make a recommendation to the city council. (Ord. 6532 § 28, 2014; Ord. 6382 § 2,
2011.)
Page 55 of 364
Exhibit 1, page 10
Exhibit B
This Exhibit is being finalized and will consist of an updated Exhibit 1 to
Ordinance No. 6382 (The Planned Action Ordinance, codified as ACC
18.08) The contents of the Exhibit are not codified and will consist of a
listing of the mitigation measures derived from the Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) and Addenda.
Page 56 of 364
Exhibit B
Page 2 of 2
Page 57 of 364
Exhibit C. Ch. 18.23 Commercial and Industrial Zones | Auburn City Code Page 1 of 13
The Auburn City Code is current through Ordinance 6708, passed December 17, 2018.
Chapter 18.23
COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL ZONES
Sections:
18.23.010 Purpose.
18.23.020 Intent of commercial and industrial zones.
18.23.030 Uses.
18.23.040 Development standards.
18.23.050 Additional development standards for C-2, central business zone.
18.23.060 Additional development standards for the ep, environmental park zone.
18.23.010 Purpose.
This chapter lists the land uses that may be allowed within the commercial and industrial zones
established by ACC 18.02.070 (Establishment of zones), determines the type of land use approval
required for each use, and provides basic and additional development standards for sites, buildings,
and associated improvements. (Ord. 6433 § 26, 2012.)
18.23.020 Intent of commercial and industrial zones.
A. General. This section describes the intent for each of the city’s commercial and industrial zones.
These intent statements are to be used to guide the interpretation of the regulations associated with
each zone. The planning director is authorized to make interpretations of these regulations based on
his/her analysis of them together with clear and objective reasons for such interpretation.
B. C-N, Neighborhood Shopping Center Zone. The C-N zone is intended to provide areas
appropriate for neighborhood shopping establishments which provide limited retail business, service
and office facilities for the convenience of residents of the neighborhood. A neighborhood shopping
center is designed and located so as to minimize traffic congestion on public highways and streets in
its vicinity and to best fit the general land use pattern of the area to be served by the center. The
protective standards contained in this chapter are intended to minimize any adverse effect of the
neighborhood shopping center on nearby property values and to provide for safe and efficient use of
the neighborhood shopping center itself.
C. C-1, Light Commercial Zone. The C-1 zone is intended for lower intensity commercial adjacent
to residential neighborhoods. This zone generally serves as a transition zone between higher and
lower intensity land uses, providing retail and professional services. This zone represents the
Page 58 of 364
Exhibit C. Ch. 18.23 Commercial and Industrial Zones | Auburn City Code Page 2 of 13
The Auburn City Code is current through Ordinance 6708, passed December 17, 2018.
primary commercial designation for small – to moderate-scale commercial activities compatible by
having similar performance standards and should be developed in a manner which is consistent with
and attracts pedestrian-oriented activities. This zone encourages leisure shopping and provides
amenities conducive to attracting shoppers and pedestrians.
D. C-2 Central Business District Zone. The intent of the C-2 zone is to set apart the portion of the
city proximate to the center for financial, commercial, governmental, professional, and cultural
activities. Uses in the C-2 zone have common or similar performance standards in that they
represent types of enterprises involving the rendering of services, both professional or to the person,
or on-premises retail activities. This zone encourages and provides amenities conducive to attracting
pedestrians.
E. C-3, Heavy Commercial Zone. The intent of the C-3 zone is to allow for medium to high intensity
uses consisting of a wide range of retail, commercial, entertainment, office, services, and
professional uses. This zone is intended to accommodate uses which are oriented to automobiles
either as a mode or target of the commercial service while fostering a pedestrian orientation. The
uses allowed can include outside activities, display, fabrication or service features when not the
predominant portion of the use. The uses enumerated in this classification have potential for impacts
to surrounding properties and street systems than those uses permitted in the more restrictive
commercial classifications.
F. C-4, Mixed-Use Commercial Zone. The intent of the C-4 zone is to provide for a pedestrian-
oriented mix of retail, office, and limited multiple-family residential uses. This classification is also
intended to allow flexibility in design and the combination of uses that is responsive to market
demands. The uses enumerated in this classification anticipate a mix of multiple-family residential,
retail, and office uses that are coordinated through a site-specific planning process. The multiple-
family residential must be located in a multi-story building; the ground floor of which must contain a
permitted use or combination of uses, other than parking, as listed in this chapter. Certain heavy
commercial uses permitted in other commercial classifications are not permitted in this zone
because of the potential for conflicts with multifamily residential uses, in order to achieve a quality of
environment that is conducive to this mix of uses.
G. M-1, Light Industrial Zone. The intent of the M-1 zone is to accommodate a variety of industrial,
commercial, and limited residential uses in an industrial park environment, to preserve land primarily
for light industrial and commercial uses, to implement the economic goals of the comprehensive plan
and to provide a greater flexibility within the zoning regulations for those uses which are non-
nuisance in terms of air and water pollution, noise, vibration, glare or odor. The light
industrial/commercial character of this zone is intended to address the way in which industrial and
commercial uses are carried out rather than the actual types of products made.
The character of this zone will limit the type of primary activities which may be conducted outside of
enclosed buildings to outdoor displays and sales. Uses which are not customarily conducted indoors
Page 59 of 364
Exhibit C. Ch. 18.23 Commercial and Industrial Zones | Auburn City Code Page 3 of 13
The Auburn City Code is current through Ordinance 6708, passed December 17, 2018.
or involve hazardous materials are considered heavy industrial uses under this title and are not
appropriate for the M-1 zone. An essential aspect of this zone is the need to maintain a quality of
development that attracts rather than discourages further investment in light industrial and
commercial development. Consequently, site activities which could distract from the visual quality of
development of those areas, such as outdoor storage, should be strictly regulated within this zone.
H. EP, Environmental Park Zone. The environmental park district is intended to allow uses in
proximity to the Auburn Environmental Park that benefit from that location and will complement the
park and its environmental focus. Uses allowed in this zone will focus upon medical, biotech and
“green” technologies including energy conservation, engineering, water quality and similar uses.
Other uses complementary to and supporting these uses are also allowed. Incorporation of
sustainable design and green building practices will be a primary aspect of this zone. The
construction of leadership in energy and environmental design (LEED) and built green certified
buildings is encouraged and built green will be required for multiple-family dwellings. The city
recognizes that much of the property in this zone was developed under earlier standards, so the
goals of the district will be realized over a period of time as properties are redeveloped.
I. M-2, Heavy Industrial Zone. The M-2 zone is intended to accommodate a broad range of
manufacturing and industrial uses. Permitted activity may vary from medium to higher intensity uses
that involve the manufacture, fabrication, assembly, or processing of raw and/or finished materials.
Heavy industrial uses should not be located near residential development.
While other uses may be sited within this zone, permits for such uses should not be issued if such
uses will discourage use of adjacent sites for heavy industry, interrupt the continuity of industrial
sites, or produce traffic in conflict with the industrial uses. (Ord. 6433 § 26, 2012.)
18.23.030 Uses.
A. General Permit Requirements. Table 18.23.030 identifies the uses of land allowed in each
commercial and industrial zone and the land use approval process required to establish each use.
B. Requirements for Certain Specific Land Uses. Where the last column in Table 18.23.030
(“Standards for Specific Land Uses”) includes a reference to a code section number, the referenced
section determines other requirements and standards applicable to the use regardless of whether it
is permitted outright or requires an administrative or conditional use permit.
Table 18.23.030. Permitted, Administrative, Conditional and Prohibited Uses by Zone
Page 60 of 364
Exhibit C. Ch. 18.23 Commercial and Industrial Zones | Auburn City Code Page 4 of 13
The Auburn City Code is current through Ordinance 6708, passed December 17, 2018.
PERMITTED, ADMINISTRATIVE, CONDITIONAL AND PROHIBITED USES BY ZONE
P – Permitted
C – Conditional
A – Administrative
X – Prohibited
LAND USE
Zoning Designation Standards for Specific
Land Uses C-N C-1 C-2 C-3 C-4 M-1 EP M-2
INDUSTRIAL, MANUFACTURING AND PROCESSING, WHOLESALING
Building contractor,
light
X X X P X P X P
Building contractor,
heavy
X X X X X A X P
Manufacturing,
assembling and
packaging – Light
intensity
X X X P X P P P ACC 18.31.180
Manufacturing,
assembling and
packaging – Medium
intensity
X X X A X P A P ACC 18.31.180
Manufacturing,
assembling and
packaging – Heavy
intensity
X X X X X X X A ACC 18.31.180
Marijuana processor X X X X X C C C Chapter 18.59 ACC
Marijuana producer X X X X X C C C Chapter 18.59 ACC
Marijuana researcher X X X X X C C C Chapter 18.59 ACC
Marijuana retailer X X X C X C C C Chapter 18.59 ACC
Marijuana transporter
business
X X X X X C C C Chapter 18.59 ACC
Outdoor storage,
incidental to principal
permitted use on
property
X X X P X P P P ACC 18.57.020(A)
Storage – Personal
household storage
facility (mini-storage)
X P X P X P X P ACC 18.57.020(B)
Warehousing and
distribution
X X X X X P P C ACC 18.57.020(C)
Warehousing and
distribution, bonded
X X X P X P P P
Page 61 of 364
Exhibit C. Ch. 18.23 Commercial and Industrial Zones | Auburn City Code Page 5 of 13
The Auburn City Code is current through Ordinance 6708, passed December 17, 2018.
PERMITTED, ADMINISTRATIVE, CONDITIONAL AND PROHIBITED USES BY ZONE
P – Permitted
C – Conditional
A – Administrative
X – Prohibited
LAND USE
Zoning Designation Standards for Specific
Land Uses C-N C-1 C-2 C-3 C-4 M-1 EP M-2
and located within a
designated foreign
trade zone
Wholesaling with on-
site retail as an
incidental use (coffee,
bakery, e.g.)
X X X P X P P P
RECREATION, EDUCATION AND PUBLIC ASSEMBLY USES
Commercial recreation
facility, indoor
X P P P P P P A
Commercial recreation
facility, outdoor
X X X A XA P A A ACC 18.57.025(A)
Conference/convention
facility
X X A A X A X X
Library, museum X A A A X A P X
Meeting facility, public
or private
A P P P X A P A
Movie theater, except
drive-in
X P P P P X X X
Private school –
Specialized
education/training (for
profit)
A A P P P P P P
Religious institutions,
lot size less than one
acre
A P P P A A A A
Religious institutions,
lot size more than one
acre
C P P P A A A A
Sexually oriented
businesses
X X X P X P X P Chapter 18.74 ACC
Sports and
entertainment
assembly facility
X X A A X A X A
Page 62 of 364
Exhibit C. Ch. 18.23 Commercial and Industrial Zones | Auburn City Code Page 6 of 13
The Auburn City Code is current through Ordinance 6708, passed December 17, 2018.
PERMITTED, ADMINISTRATIVE, CONDITIONAL AND PROHIBITED USES BY ZONE
P – Permitted
C – Conditional
A – Administrative
X – Prohibited
LAND USE
Zoning Designation Standards for Specific
Land Uses C-N C-1 C-2 C-3 C-4 M-1 EP M-2
Studio – Art, dance,
martial arts, music, etc.
P P P P P P A A
RESIDENTIAL
Caretaker apartment X P P P X P P P
Live/work unit X X P P P P P X
Work/live unit X P P P P P P X
Marijuana cooperative X X X X X X X X
Multiple-family
dwellings as part of a
mixed-use
development2
X X P P P P P X ACC 18.57.030
Multiple-family
dwellings, stand-alone
X X X X X X X X
Nursing home,
assisted living facility
X P P P C X X X
Senior housing2 X X A A X X X X
RETAIL
Building and
landscape materials
sales
X X X P X P X P ACC 18.57.035(A)
Construction and
heavy equipment sales
and rental
X X X X X A X P
Convenience store A A P P X P P P
Drive-through
espresso stands
A A A P A P A A
Drive-through facility,
including banks and
restaurants
A A A P P P X P ACC 18.52.040
Entertainment,
commercial
X A P P X A X A
Page 63 of 364
Exhibit C. Ch. 18.23 Commercial and Industrial Zones | Auburn City Code Page 7 of 13
The Auburn City Code is current through Ordinance 6708, passed December 17, 2018.
PERMITTED, ADMINISTRATIVE, CONDITIONAL AND PROHIBITED USES BY ZONE
P – Permitted
C – Conditional
A – Administrative
X – Prohibited
LAND USE
Zoning Designation Standards for Specific
Land Uses C-N C-1 C-2 C-3 C-4 M-1 EP M-2
Groceries, specialty
food stores
P P P P P P P X ACC 18.57.035(B)
Nursery X X X P A P X P ACC 18.57.035(C)
Outdoor displays and
sales associated with a
permitted use
(auto/vehicle sales not
included in this
category)
P P P P P P P P ACC 18.57.035(D)
Restaurant, cafe,
coffee shop
P P P P P P P P
Retail
Community retail
establishment
A P P P P P X P
Neighborhood retail
establishment
P P P P P P X P
Regional retail
establishment
X X X P P P X A
Tasting room P P P P P P P P
Tavern P P X P P P X A
Wine production
facility, small craft
distillery, small craft
brewery
A P P P P P P P
SERVICES
Animal daycare
(excluding kennels and
animal boarding)
A A A P A P X P ACC 18.57.040(A)
Animal sales and
services (excluding
kennels and veterinary
clinics)
P P P P P P X P ACC 18.57.040(B)
Banking and related
financial institutions,
P P P P P P P P
Page 64 of 364
Exhibit C. Ch. 18.23 Commercial and Industrial Zones | Auburn City Code Page 8 of 13
The Auburn City Code is current through Ordinance 6708, passed December 17, 2018.
PERMITTED, ADMINISTRATIVE, CONDITIONAL AND PROHIBITED USES BY ZONE
P – Permitted
C – Conditional
A – Administrative
X – Prohibited
LAND USE
Zoning Designation Standards for Specific
Land Uses C-N C-1 C-2 C-3 C-4 M-1 EP M-2
excluding drive-
through facilities
Catering service P P P P A P A P
Daycare, including
mini daycare, daycare
center, preschools or
nursery schools
A P P P P P P X
Dry cleaning and
laundry service
(personal)
P P P P P P P P
Equipment rental and
leasing
X X X P X P X P
Kennel, animal
boarding
X X X A X A X A ACC 18.57.040(C)
Government facilities;
this excludes offices
and related uses that
are permitted outright
A A A A A A A A
Hospital X P P P X P X P
Lodging – Hotel or
motel
X P P P P A P A
Medical – Dental clinic P P P P P P X X
Mortuary, funeral
home, crematorium
A P X P X P X X
Personal service
shops
P P P P P P X X
Pharmacies P P P P P X X X
Print and copy shop P P P P P P X X
Printing and publishing
(of books, newspaper
and other printed
matter)
X A P P P P P P
Professional offices P P P P P P P P
Page 65 of 364
Exhibit C. Ch. 18.23 Commercial and Industrial Zones | Auburn City Code Page 9 of 13
The Auburn City Code is current through Ordinance 6708, passed December 17, 2018.
PERMITTED, ADMINISTRATIVE, CONDITIONAL AND PROHIBITED USES BY ZONE
P – Permitted
C – Conditional
A – Administrative
X – Prohibited
LAND USE
Zoning Designation Standards for Specific
Land Uses C-N C-1 C-2 C-3 C-4 M-1 EP M-2
Repair service –
Equipment, appliances
X A P P P P X P ACC 18.57.040(D)
Veterinary clinic,
animal hospital
A P P P P P X X
Youth community
support facility
X P X X X X X X ACC 18.57.040(E)
TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATIONS AND INFRASTRUCTURE
Ambulance, taxi, and
specialized
transportation facility
X X X A X P X P
Broadcasting studio X P X P X P X P
Heliport X X X C X C X C
Motor freight terminal1 X X X X X X X X See Footnote No. 1
Parking facility, public
or commercial, surface
X P P P P P P X
Parking facility, public
or commercial,
structured
X P P P P P P X
Towing storage yard X X X X X A X P ACC 18.57.045(A)
Utility transmission or
distribution line or
substation
A A A A A A A A
Wireless
communication facility
(WCF)
– – – – – – – – ACC 18.04.912,
18.31.100
VEHICLE SALES AND SERVICES
Automobile washes
(automatic, full or self-
service)
X A X P P P X P ACC 18.57.050(A)
Auto parts sales with
installation services
X A A P P P X P
Auto/vehicle sales and
rental
X A X P X P X P ACC 18.57.050(B)
Page 66 of 364
Exhibit C. Ch. 18.23 Commercial and Industrial Zones | Auburn City Code Page 10 of 13
The Auburn City Code is current through Ordinance 6708, passed December 17, 2018.
PERMITTED, ADMINISTRATIVE, CONDITIONAL AND PROHIBITED USES BY ZONE
P – Permitted
C – Conditional
A – Administrative
X – Prohibited
LAND USE
Zoning Designation Standards for Specific
Land Uses C-N C-1 C-2 C-3 C-4 M-1 EP M-2
Fueling station X A A P P P X P ACC 18.57.050(C)
Mobile home, boat, or
RV sales
X X X P X P X P
Vehicle services –
Repair/body work
X X A P X P X P ACC 18.57.050(D)
OTHER
Any commercial use
abutting a residential
zone which has hours
of operation outside of
the following: Sunday:
9:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
or Monday – Saturday:
7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
A A A A A A A A
Other uses may be
permitted by the
planning director or
designee if the use is
determined to be
consistent with the
intent of the zone and
is of the same general
character of the uses
permitted. See ACC
18.02.120(C)(6),
Unclassified Uses.
P P P P P P P P
1 Any motor freight terminal, as defined by ACC 18.04.635, in existence as of the effective date of the ordinance
codified in this section, is an outright permitted use in the M-1 and M-2 zones. Any maintenance, alterations and
additions to an existing motor freight terminal which are consistent with ACC 18.23.040, Development standards,
are allowed.
2 Any mixed-use development or senior housing project vested prior to Resolution No. 5187 (December 7, 2015) is
an outright permitted use in the C-1 zone. Subsequently, if a nonresidential use within a vested mixed-use
development changes, then the nonresidential use shall maintain a minimum of 10 percent of the cumulative
building ground floor square footage consisting of the uses permitted outright, administratively, or conditionally,
listed under “Recreation, Education, and Public Assembly,” “Retail,” or “Services” of the C-1 zone.
Page 67 of 364
Exhibit C. Ch. 18.23 Commercial and Industrial Zones | Auburn City Code Page 11 of 13
The Auburn City Code is current through Ordinance 6708, passed December 17, 2018.
(Ord. 6688 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2018; Ord. 6644 § 2, 2017; Ord. 6642 § 9, 2017; Ord. 6508 § 1, 2014; Ord. 6433 § 26, 2012.)
18.23.040 Development standards.
A. Hereafter, no use shall be conducted and no building, structure and appurtenance shall be
erected, relocated, remodeled, reconstructed, altered or enlarged unless in compliance with the
requirements in Tables 18.23.040A (C-N, C-1, C-2, C-3, and C-4 Zone Development Standards) and
18.23.040B (M-1, EP and M-2 Zone Development Standards) and in compliance with the provisions
of this title, and then only after securing all permits and approvals required hereby. These standards
may be modified through either an administrative variance or variance, subject to the procedures of
Chapter 18.70 ACC.
Table 18.23.040A. C-N, C-1, C-2, C-3, and C-4 Zone Development Standards
Development Standard
Requirement by Zone
C-N
Neighborhood
Shopping
Center
C-1
Light
Commercial
C-2
Central
Business
C-3
Heavy
Commercial
C-4
Mixed-Use
Commercial
Minimum lot area 2 acres None None None None1
Minimum lot width,
depth
None None None None None
Maximum lot coverage 55 percent None None None None
Minimum setbacks Minimum setbacks required for structures. See also ACC 18.31.070 for specific
exceptions to these setback standards.
Front 50 ft 20 ft None 20 ft 20 ft
Side – Interior None2 None2 None None2 None2
Side – Street 50 ft 15 ft None 15 ft 15 ft
Rear None2 None2 None None2 None2
Height limit Maximum allowable height of structures. See also ACC 18.31.030 (Height limitations –
Exceptions) for specific height limit exceptions.
Maximum height 30 ft 45 ft3 ACC 18.23.050 75 ft 75 ft
Additional development
standards
None None ACC 18.23.050 None None
Fences and hedges See Chapter 18.31 ACC
Landscaping See Chapter 18.50 ACC
Parking See Chapter 18.52 ACC
Page 68 of 364
Exhibit C. Ch. 18.23 Commercial and Industrial Zones | Auburn City Code Page 12 of 13
The Auburn City Code is current through Ordinance 6708, passed December 17, 2018.
Development Standard
Requirement by Zone
C-N
Neighborhood
Shopping
Center
C-1
Light
Commercial
C-2
Central
Business
C-3
Heavy
Commercial
C-4
Mixed-Use
Commercial
Signs See Chapter 18.56 ACC
Lighting See Chapter 18.55 ACC
Nonconforming
structures, land and
uses
See Chapter 18.54 ACC
Notes:
1 Residential uses: no minimum lot size; provided, that residential density does not exceed 20 units per gross acre
(this includes privately owned open space tracts but excludes dedicated public roads).
2 A 25-foot setback is required when adjacent to a residential zone.
3 Buildings within the Auburn north business area, as established by Resolution No. 2283, may exceed 45 feet if
one additional foot of setback is provided from each property line (or required minimum setback) for each foot the
building exceeds 45 feet in height.
Table 18.23.040B. M-1, EP and M-2 Zone Development Standards
Development Standard
Requirement by Zone
M-1
Light Industrial
EP
Environmental Park
M-2
Heavy Industrial
Minimum lot area None None None
Minimum lot width, depth None None None
Maximum lot coverage None 35 percent None
Minimum setbacks Minimum setbacks required for structures. See also ACC 18.31.070
for specific exceptions to these standards.
Front 20 ft 20 ft 30 ft
Side – Interior None1 15 ft None1
Side – Corner 20 ft 20 ft 30 ft
Rear None1 20 ft1 None1
Height limit Maximum allowable height of structures. See also ACC 18.31.030
(Height limitations – Exceptions) for specific height limit exceptions.
Page 69 of 364
Exhibit C. Ch. 18.23 Commercial and Industrial Zones | Auburn City Code Page 13 of 13
The Auburn City Code is current through Ordinance 6708, passed December 17, 2018.
Development Standard
Requirement by Zone
M-1
Light Industrial
EP
Environmental Park
M-2
Heavy Industrial
Maximum height 45 ft2 35 ft 45 ft2
Additional development standards None ACC 18.23.060 None
Fences and hedges See Chapter 18.31 ACC
Landscaping See Chapter 18.50 ACC
Parking See Chapter 18.52 ACC
Signs See Chapter 18.56 ACC
Lighting See Chapter 18.55 ACC
Nonconforming structures, land and
uses
See Chapter 18.54 ACC
Notes:
1 A 25-foot setback is required when adjacent to a residential zone.
2 Buildings may exceed 45 feet if one foot of setback is provided from each property line (or required minimum
setback) for each foot the building exceeds 45 feet.
Page 70 of 364
Exhibit D. 18.31.200 Architectural and site design review standards and regulations I Auburn City Code Page 1
of 7
18.31.200 Architectural and site design review standards and
regulations.
A. Intent and Purpose. The architectural and site design regulations provide an administrative review
process for evaluating the design and arrangement of development. The architectural and site
design regulations are intended to be consistent with and implement the policies of the
comprehensive plan. The purposes of these design review regulations are to:
1. Foster good decision-making for development through architectural and site design within the
context of the community’s built and natural environmental character, scale and diversity;
2. Promote the use of appropriate scale of buildings and the configuration of open space and
parking areas for development to safely and comfortably accommodate pedestrian activities;
3. Coordinate the interrelationship of buildings and public and private open space;
4. Discourage monotony in building design and arrangement, while promoting harmony among
distinct building identities; and
5. Mitigate, through design and site plan measures, the visual impact of large building facades,
particularly those which have high public visibility (encourage the creative use of architectural
and landscape features in order to reduce the actual and perceived scale and bulk of
structures).
B. Applicability. The following land uses, types of development activities, including all related site
improvements, and geographic areas, are subject to the architectural and site design standards and
the processes and regulations for conducting design review contained in this chapter:
1. Multiple-Family and Mixed-Use Developments. The following land uses and types of
development are subject to the city’s multiple-family and mixed-use design standards document
unless addressed by a different set of architectural and site design standards applicable to a
specific geographic area.
a. Multifamily development inclusive of triplexes and fourplexes in all zones in the city
where permitted outright or as a conditional use and not otherwise addressed through the
city’s residential infill development standards (Chapter 18.25 ACC); and
b. Mixed-Use Residential Development. Mixed-use development containing residential
living units in all zones in the city where permitted outright or as a conditional use; and
c. Retirement apartments, congregate living facilities and senior housing complexes in all
zones in the city where permitted outright or as a conditional use.
Page 71 of 364
Exhibit D. 18.31.200 Architectural and site design review standards and regulations I Auburn City Code Page 2
of 7
2. Downtown Urban Center. The following locations of development activities are subject to the
city’s downtown urban center design standards document.
a. Properties located within the boundaries of the DUC, downtown urban center zoning
district, as identified on the comprehensive zoning map.
3. Auburn Junction. The following locations of development activities are subject to the city’s
Auburn Junction design standards document.
a. Properties located within the boundaries of West Main Street, 2nd Street SE/SW, A
Street SE, and A Street SW as identified with ACC 18.29.070, design standards of the DUC
downtown urban center zone.
4. Northeast Auburn Special Planning Area. The following locations of development activities
are subject to the city’s Auburn Gateway architectural and site design standards document.
a. Properties located within the boundaries of the Auburn Gateway Project as defined by
the development agreement approved by city Resolution No. 4756, or as may be
subsequently amended. The Auburn Gateway architectural and site design is addressed in
Section 4 of this resolution and provided as Attachment 4 to the resolution.
C. Exemptions. The following activities as determined by the planning directorCommunity
Development Director shall be exempt from the provisions of the design standards:
1. Any building activity that does not require a building permit; or
2. Interior construction work which does not alter the exterior of the structure; or
3. Normal or routine building and site maintenance/repair that is exempt from issuance of a
permit including the repair or maintenance of structural members; or
4. Interior alterations that do not modify an existing site condition; or
5. Site and exterior alterations that do not exceed 10 percent of the assessed valuation of the
property building or land per the most recent county records; or
6. Building additions that are less than 10 percent of the existing floor area of the existing
building. Any cumulative floor area increase from the adoption date of the ordinance
establishing the architectural and site design standard that totals more than 10 percent shall not
be exempt unless the planning directorCommunity Development Director determines
compliance with these standards would be unfeasible and/or unreasonable.
D. Design Standard Documents. Adopted by reference are the following architectural and site design
documents, copies of which shall be maintained by the city clerk. These documents contain the
standards for the design and development of the built environment. These documents contain the
Page 72 of 364
Exhibit D. 18.31.200 Architectural and site design review standards and regulations I Auburn City Code Page 3
of 7
standards for the design and development of the built environment. The Community Development
Directorplanning director or designee shall have the authority to apply the standards to specific
development proposals. The following specific architectural and design standards documents may
be amended upon approval by the Community Development Directorplanning and development
committee of the Auburn city council:
1. Mixed-use and multiple-family development design standards.
2. Auburn Gateway architectural and site design standards.
3. Downtown urban center design standards.
4. Auburn Junction design standards.
E. Timing of Administrative Design Review.
1. Design review shall be conducted by the planning directorCommunity Development Director
or designee prior to or concurrent with the processing of building permits and/or review of
discretionary land use approvals/permits.
2. The decision on the administrative design review shall be issued prior to issuance of the
building permits and/or issuance of discretionary land use approvals/permits.
F. Pre-application Meeting – When Required Associated with a Design Review.
1. A pre-application conference is required for the following instances:
a. For multifamily development in the R-10, R-16, and R-20 residential zones; and
b. For mixed-use development containing residential living units located within R-10, R-16
and R-20 residential zones; and
c. For mixed-use development containing residential living units located within commercial
zones; and
d. For retirement apartments, congregate living facilities and senior housing complexes
located within R-10, R-16 and R-20 residential zones, and all commercial zones.
2. A pre-application conference is strongly recommended for all other projects subject to the
city’s architectural and site design review but is not required.
G. Design Review Submittal Requirements. In addition to any other documentation required for
submittal of a complete application for building permit or discretionary land use approvals/permits,
the following items shall be required for the architectural and site design review:
Page 73 of 364
Exhibit D. 18.31.200 Architectural and site design review standards and regulations I Auburn City Code Page 4
of 7
1. Elevation drawings prepared by an architect licensed in the state of Washington of all
proposed construction including dimensional drawings at one-eighth inch equals one foot or
comparable scale showing the type of exterior materials, accurate color (where applicable),
exterior finishes for buildings and accessory structures, location and elevations of exterior
lighting for buildings, the type, style and model of exterior lighting fixtures (where applicable),
parking areas, and fenestration details;
2. A to-scale landscape plan prepared by a landscape architect licensed in the state of
Washington showing existing vegetation to be retained and proposed vegetation to be installed
inclusive of the common and botanical name of all vegetation, the location and quantity of
vegetation, the initial planting size and methods of irrigation;
3. A context vicinity map that shows all structures on the property and within 200 feet in each
direction of the subject property drawn approximately to scale;
4. A neighborhood circulation plan consistent with the provisions of Chapter 17.16 ACC
(Neighborhood Circulation Plan); and
5. Conceptual plans for any public infrastructure, including roads, water, sewer, and storm
facilities.
H. Interpretations.
1. The planning directorCommunity Development Director shall be authorized to interpret the
meaning of words, phrases and sentences which relate to the implementation of the specific
architectural and design standards document. Any interpretations regarding implementation of
the specific architectural and design standards document shall be made in accordance with its
intent or purpose statements and the intent and purpose statements of this chapter. For
interpretations, life safety and public health regulations shall be given priority over all other
regulations.
2. Administrative interpretations may be appealed to the hearing examiner as prescribed in ACC
18.70.050.
I. Design Review Adjustments.
1. Authority for Design Review Adjustments. The planning directorCommunity Development
Director or designee shall have the authority, subject to the provisions of this section and upon
such conditions as the planning directorCommunity Development Director or designee may
deem necessary to comply with the provisions of this section, to approve design adjustments as
follows:
Page 74 of 364
Exhibit D. 18.31.200 Architectural and site design review standards and regulations I Auburn City Code Page 5
of 7
a. An adjustment to architectural or site design requirements such that no more than two of
the total number of required menu items in the city of Auburn multifamily and mixed-use
design standards are out of compliance.
b. An adjustment to required building wall and roof modulation standards, as contained in
the city of Auburn multifamily and mixed-use design standards, up to 20 percent of the
amount of any quantified standards contained therein.
c. An adjustment to the architectural or site design requirements that remains consistent
with the purpose and intent of the architectural and site design standards.
2. Required Findings to Grant Design Review Adjustments. Each determination granting an
adjustment by the planning directorCommunity Development Director or designee shall be
supported by written findings showing specifically wherein all of the following conditions exist:
a. That the granting of such adjustment does not constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations upon uses of other properties in the vicinity and/or zone of
the subject site; and
b. That the granting of such adjustment will not adversely affect the established character of
the surrounding neighborhood, discourage maintenance or upgrades on surrounding
properties, nor result in perpetuation of those design qualities and conditions which the
comprehensive plan intends to eliminate or avoid; and
c. That the project incorporates alternate design characteristics that are equivalent or
superior to those otherwise achieved by strict adherence to stated menu options; and
3. Public Notification and Action on Design Review Adjustment Applications. Upon the filing of a
properly completed application and associated request for a design review adjustment, the
planning directorCommunity Development Director or designee shall comply with the city’s Type
II land use review requirements for issuance of a properly noticed and appealable land use
decision.
4. Appeal of Director’s Decision on Design Review Adjustments.
a. If a written objection to the initial determination notice is filed within 14 business days of
said notification, the planning directorCommunity Development Director or designee shall
reconsider the initial determination in light of the objection(s) as raised and render a final
decision on the permit. This final decision shall result in either the planning
directorCommunity Development Director’s affirmation of the original determination of
approval, the approval with additional modifications or denial.
b. Upon completion of the planning directorCommunity Development Director’s
reconsideration, all parties notified of the original determination shall receive notification of
Page 75 of 364
Exhibit D. 18.31.200 Architectural and site design review standards and regulations I Auburn City Code Page 6
of 7
the planning directorCommunity Development Director’s final decision. Any party aggrieved
by the planning directorCommunity Development Director’s final decision may file an
appeal of that decision to the hearing examiner in accordance with the city’s land use
appeal provisions. Such appeals for hearing examiner review must be filed within 14
business days from the date the written decision was made and shall include the following:
i. The appeal shall be filed on forms provided by the department of planning and
development.
ii. The appeal shall clearly state the decision being appealed, setting forth the specific
reason, rationale, and/or basis for the appeal.
iii. Fees associated with the appeal shall be paid to the city upon filing of the appeal in
accordance with a fee schedule established by resolution.
5. Upon filing of a timely and complete appeal, the hearing examiner shall conduct a public
hearing to consider the merits of the appeal. This hearing shall be subject to the city’s public
noticing and public hearing requirements and shall include notification of all parties notified of
the planning directorCommunity Development Director’s final decision. The hearing examiner
may affirm the planning directorCommunity Development Director’s decision or may remand the
matter to the planning directorCommunity Development Director for further review in accord with
the examiner’s direction.
6. If no written objection is filed to the initial determination within the specified time limits, the
planning directorCommunity Development Director shall render a final decision on the permit in
accord with the initial determination.
J. Approval Criteria for Design Review. The planning directorCommunity Development Director or
designee may approve, modify and approve, or deny an application for an administrative design
review. Each determination granting approval or approval with modifications shall be supported by
written findings showing the applicant satisfies all the following criteria:
1. The plans and supplemental materials submitted to support the plan meet the requirements
of the specific architectural and site design documents;
2. The proposed development is consistent with the comprehensive plan;
3. The proposed development meets required setback, landscaping, architectural style and
materials, such that the building walls have sufficient visual variety to mitigate the appearance of
large facades, particularly from public rights-of-way and single-family residential zones.
4. In addition to the criteria in subsections (J)(1) through (3) of this section, for multiple-family
residential and retirement apartment projects, the director or designee must determine that the
following key review criteria have been met:
Page 76 of 364
Exhibit D. 18.31.200 Architectural and site design review standards and regulations I Auburn City Code Page 7
of 7
a. The proposed development is arranged in a manner that either:
i. Provides a courtyard space creating a cohesive identity for the building cluster and
public open space furnished to facilitate its use; or
ii. Possesses a traditional streetscape orientation that provides clearly identifiable and
visible entries from the street, views from residential units onto the street and
reinforces pedestrian-oriented streetscape characteristics (e.g., building edge abutting
sidewalk, entries onto the street); or
iii. Faces and facilitates views of a major open space system;
b. The proposed development provides a variety in architectural massing and articulation to
reduce the apparent size of the buildings and to distinguish vertical and horizontal
dimensions;
c. The proposed development contains a combination of elements such as architectural
forms, massing, assortment of materials, colors, and color bands sufficient to distinguish
distinct portions and stories of the building;
d. Residential buildings in large multiple-family projects or mixed-use projects are physically
integrated into the complex possessing sufficiently different appearance or placement to be
able to distinguish one building from another;
e. Unit entrances are individualized by use of design features that make each entrance
distinct or which facilitate additional personalization by residents;
f. Areas dedicated to parking are sufficiently visually broken up and contain a complement
of vegetative materials to project a landscaped appearance;
g. Where applicable, a transition is created that minimizes impacts from multifamily and
mixed-use development projects on neighboring lower density residential dwelling units in
abutting or adjacent single-family zones; and
h. Where applicable, in cases of granting density or height bonuses, the project has
provided community benefits, facilities or improvements above and beyond those required
in the municipal code and supports the goals, objectives and policies of the comprehensive
plan. (Ord. 6408 § 1, 2012; Ord. 6287 § 2, 2010; Ord. 6245 § 15, 2009.)
Page 77 of 364
Exhibit E. 18.57.030 Mixed-use development | Auburn City Code Page 1 of 2
The Auburn City Code is current through Ordinance 6708, passed December 17, 2018.
18.57.030 Mixed-use development.
A. All Zones Where Permitted.
1. Multiple-family dwellings shall only occur concurrent with or subsequent to the development
and construction of the nonresidential components of the mixed-use development, unless a
different sequence is allowed in the following code sections.
2. Vertical Mixed – Use.
a. Mixed-use development comprised of a maximum of one building on a development
site shall have a minimum of 50 percent of the ground floor comprised of one or more of the
uses permitted outright, administratively, or conditionally, listed under “Recreation,
Education, and Public Assembly,” “Retail,” or “Services” in Table 18.23.030; provided, that
uses normal and incidental to the building including, but not limited to, interior entrance
areas, elevators, waiting/lobby areas, mechanical rooms, mail areas,
garbage/recycling/compost storage areas, and vehicle parking areas located on the ground
floor shall occupy a maximum of 50 percent of the ground floor space.
3. Horizontal Mixed – Use.
a. Mixed-use development comprised of two or more buildings shall have a minimum of 25
percent of the cumulative building ground floor square footage comprised of one or more of
the uses permitted outright, administratively, or conditionally, listed under “Recreation,
Education, and Public Assembly,” “Retail,” or “Services” in Table 18.23.030; provided, that
uses normal and incidental to the building including, but not limited to, interior entrance
areas, elevators, waiting/lobby areas, mechanical rooms, mail areas,
garbage/recycling/compost storage areas, and vehicle parking areas located on the ground
floor shall not be included in this 25 percent requirement.
b. Mixed-use development comprised of two or more buildings (horizontal mixed-use)
shall be arranged with the required nonresidential building(s) located adjacent to the public
street or private street and the multifamily located behind. For a corner lot or through lot,
the nonresidential building(s) shall be located adjacent to higher classification street.
B. C-2 Zoneand C-4 Zones.
1. Vertical mixed-use development is required.
2. All other requirements of subsection A of this section shall apply.
C. C-3 Zone.
1. One thousand two hundred square feet of lot area is required for each dwelling unit.
Page 78 of 364
Exhibit E. 18.57.030 Mixed-use development | Auburn City Code Page 2 of 2
The Auburn City Code is current through Ordinance 6708, passed December 17, 2018.
2. All other requirements of subsection A of this section shall apply.
D. C-4 Zone.
1. Vertical or horizontal mixed-use is allowed.
2. Multiple-family dwellings may be constructed prior to the development and construction of the
nonresidential components of the mixed-use development provided that the non-residential
components of the master plan are development ready (i.e. wet and dry utilities beare extended to
future commercial pads) and required frontage improvements as determined by the Community
Development Director are completed.
D. M-1 Zone.
1. Vertical mixed-use development is required.
2. Ground floor uses shall be comprised of one or more of the uses permitted outright,
administratively, or conditionally, listed under “Retail” or “Services” in Table 18.23.030. All other
requirements of subsection A of this section shall apply.
E. EP Zone.
1. The multiple-family development incorporates sustainable design and green building
practices and qualifies to be built green certified.
2. All other requirements of subsection A of this section shall apply. (Ord. 6644 § 3, 2017; Ord.
6478 § 1, 2013; Ord. 6435 § 1, 2012.)
Page 79 of 364
Exhibit 1, page 10
Exhibit F
This 3rd EIS Addendum is being finalized in response to the project
changes proposed by Inland Washington LLC and will provided when
available prior to City Council Action.
Page 80 of 364
Exhibit F
Page 2 of 2
Page 81 of 364
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Community Needs Assessment Presentation (Tate) (20
Minutes)
Date:
October 8, 2019
Department:
Communit Development
Attachments:
Auburn NA Council Presentation
Auburn Community Needs Assessment
Budget Impact:
Current Budget: $0
Proposed Revision: $0
Revised Budget: $0
Administrativ e Recommendation:
For discussion only.
Background Summary:
As part of the 2019-2020 biennial budgeting process, City Council approved a funding
allocation to conduct a Community Needs Assessment in 2019. During the April 8, 2019
Community Wellness Special Focus Area Study Session staff provided an overview of the
CDBG Consolidated Plan update process. This briefing highlighted the Needs Assessment
as an important part of that process. At the June 10, 2019 Study Session, City Council
received a presentation from Joel Warren and Julie McFarland, consultants from Cloudburst
Consulting that were selected to assist the City in conducting the Assessment. The
Assessment effort is now in its final stages, and City Council will be receiving a briefing from
Cloudburst on the Needs Assessment findings at the October, 14 2019 Study Session.
The overall Assessment provides a picture of the existing state of human services within the
City and an analysis on gaps in services. This information will support key Human Services
and CDBG efforts in the coming year:
This Needs Assessment:
· Identifies how City Human Services goals could be better aligned to meet community
needs,
· Provides funding priority recommendations for the City’s human services funding process,
and
· Supports the strategic planning update to the City’s 2020-2024 Community Development
Block Grant Consolidated Plan.
Cloudburst Consultants will present the information from their final report and answer
questions about the process, findings, and recommendations.
Rev iewed by Council Committees:
Page 82 of 364
Councilmember:Trout-Manuel Staff:Tate
Meeting Date:October 14, 2019 Item Number:
Page 83 of 364
Impact. Empowerment. Resilience. www.cloudburstgroup.com
Auburn Community
Needs Assessment
Page 84 of 364
2
Introductions
Page 85 of 364
3
Presentation Overview
Quantitative
-Community profile
& trends
-Needs by Topic
-Housing Needs
Qualitative
-Trends from focus
groups and
interviews
-Key takeaways
from in-person
meetings & surveys
Recommendations
-Go over
recommendations
-Budget allocation
recommendations
based on needs
identified
Page 86 of 364
4
Quantitative Summary
Auburn is growing
•10.3% growth between 2010 and 2017
•Median age is 34.8, down from 35.7 as of 2010
•Population brackets growing the most are on the edges, those 0-34 and 65+
•Diversity of race/ethnicity continues to increase
14.4%
10.3%
85.6%
89.7%
2017
2010
Hispanic/Non -Hispanic Population
Hispanic or Latino Not Hispanic or Latino
Page 87 of 364
5
Quantitative Summary
9,509
5,460
395
50
57 1,224
1,381
2017
2010
Hispanic Population
Mexican Puerto Rican Cuban Other Hispanic or Latino
46,073
44,302
3,537
3,816
1,592
959
7,625
6,710
1,951
1,233
236
98
5,241
2,976
2017
2010
Non -Hispanic Population
White alone
Black or African American alone
American Indian and Alaska Native alone
Asian alone
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone
Page 88 of 364
6
Quantitative Summary
Auburn has stable employers
•Same top seven (7) employers in 2009 and 2019, accounting for just under half of all employed in the City
•Auburn is similar to its neighbors in the percentage of those living in Auburn and working elsewhere
TOP EMPLOYERS
1.The Boeing Company
2.Muckleshoot Tribal Enterprises
3.The Outlet Collection
4.Auburn School District
5.Multicare Auburn Medical Center
6.Green River College
7.Emerald Downs Racetrack
Percent employed and living in the same city
Auburn 12.7%
Federal Way 16.0%
Kent 14.3%
Lakewood 13.9%
Seattle 40.3%
Source: United States Census Bureau; OnTheMap
Page 89 of 364
7
Quantitative Summary
Educational Attainment
•Auburn is similar to neighboring cities in resident educational attainment
High School
Diploma
Some College
(no degree)
Associate’s
Degree
Bachelor’s
Degree
Graduate
Degree
Auburn 29.7 24.6 10.2 16.7 6.6
Federal Way 25.7 25.8 11.4 18.2 7.9
Kent 26.0 23.3 11.4 17.8 6.9
Lakewood 28.2 27.4 11.7 14.2 7.7
King County 13.5 18.6 8.1 30.7 19.6
2017 Educational Attainment Levels (% of total population over 25 years old)
Page 90 of 364
8
Quantitative Summary
Kindergarten Readiness
•Auburn children entering kindergarten score slightly lower than those in neighboring cities
•Washington Kindergarten Inventory of Developing Skills (WaKIDS)
Percent of students entering kindergarten ready
in all six areas of development and learning
Auburn 33.4
Federal Way 43.3
Kent 44.0
Lakewood 39.7
Tacoma 46.5
Kindergarten Readiness
Page 91 of 364
9
Quantitative Summary
Kindergarten Readiness
•Disparate readiness scores exist for some race
groups and for those young children who are
living with special needs or in low-income
households
Auburn 2018-19 Kindergarten Readiness by Race/Ethnicity
Auburn 2018-19 Kindergarten Readiness by Race/Ethnicity
Page 92 of 364
10
Quantitative Summary
Transportation
•2019 Southern King County Food Access Needs Assessment
•29.5% of Auburn residents are under-served by public transit
•Most commonly cited issues
–Cost
–Routes
–Frequency of stops
–Information/Language barriers
Page 93 of 364
11
Quantitative Summary
Income
•Auburn is seeing a modest increase in real incomes, alongside King County and Kent
Median Household Income Change in Real 2017 Dollars (2010 to 2017)
Page 94 of 364
12
Quantitative Summary
Housing Affordability
•Those renter households in Auburn are far more likely to be in the lower income
brackets
Share of Auburn Households by Income Bracket
Median Income (2015)*
100% AMI = $89,600
80% AMI = $65,800
50% AMI = $44,800
30% AMI = $26,900
Source:2011-2015 CHAS
*Family of four HUD
calculation
Page 95 of 364
13
Quantitative Summary
Housing Affordability
•Owner elderly households are the most likely to be cost burdened of those owner households
•Of renter households, small related (families of 2-4) and “Other” are most likely to be cost
burdened. Other = Single in most cases
Share of Cost Burdened Households by Household Type
Source: 2011-2015 CHAS
Page 96 of 364
14
Quantitative Summary
Housing Affordability
•Just over half of all renter households experience a housing problem, that number is far higher
in households under 50% AMI ($44,800)
Source: 2011-2015 CHAS
Page 97 of 364
15
Quantitative Summary
Housing Affordability
•A group that is ten (10) percentage points above the jurisdiction as a whole is considered to have disproportionate needs
as determined by HUD. There are four housing problems: lack of plumbing, lack of kitchen, overcrowding (more than
1.25/room), and cost burden (30% or more of income towards housing)
Housing Problems by Race
Source: 2011-2015 CHAS
Page 98 of 364
16
Quantitative Summary
Housing Affordability
•Cost burden is overwhelmingly the most experienced housing problem. Severe cost burden is a household
putting more than 50% of household income towards housing (this includes utilities)
Housing Cost Burden by Race
Source: 2011-2015 CHAS
Page 99 of 364
17
Quantitative Summary
Homelessness
•21% of all unsheltered individuals experiencing homelessness in King County are in the
Southwest region of the County
2019 Regional PIT Count
Region
Persons on
streets/outside
Persons
in tents
Persons in
buildings
Persons
in car
Persons in
RV
Persons
in van
Total
unsheltered
persons
% of
total
East County 40 16 2 203 35 41 337 6%
North County 23 16 2 13 15 16 85 2%
Northeast County 6 39 13 9 28 4 99 2%
Seattle 1,105 1,162 46 385 621 239 3,558 68%
Southeast County 0 7 20 25 9 4 65 1%
Southwest County 332 195 57 303 115 82 1,084 21%
Total 1,506 1,435 140 938 823 386 5,228 100%
Source: Seattle/King County Point-In-Time Count of Persons Experiencing Homelessness: 2019
Page 100 of 364
18
Quantitative Summary
Home Value and Rental Rates
•Cost of housing has steadily risen since 2013.
•Median rent in Auburn is $1,732 as of July 2019.
•Median list price in Auburn is $410,000 as of July 2019
Page 101 of 364
19
Survey Summary
Community Survey Results
•109 residents responded to the survey
•Half of all respondents were 35-54 years old
•77% were female
•85% were White
•96% were Non-Hispanic
Page 102 of 364
20
Resident Needs Survey
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Basic needs (food & emergency sheltering)
Homelessness and housing stability
Job training and educational programs
Access to services
Early learning and youth services
Community wellbeing and safety (includes domestic
violence)
Needs have decreased Needs have stayed the same Needs have increased
Page 103 of 364
21
Resident Survey
Basic needs (food & emergency shelter)
Homeless prevention and housing stability
Neighborhood safety and wellbeing
Healthcare and dental care
Domestic violence and sexual assault supports
Job training and educational programs
Disability services
Youth/Teen programs
Immigrant & Refugee services
Early learning
Relationship building programs
Legal services
Community Needs Ranking
Page 104 of 364
22
Resident Survey
Homelessness prevention
Mental health services
Substance use recovery services
Emergency sheltering
Food access
Employment services
Rental assistance
Medical and dental
Domestic Violence supports
Youth/Teen programs
Disability services
Resource connection & navigation services
Family supports
Early learning
Immigration and refugee services
Sexual assault services
Tenant rights services
Legal service
Other
Service Needs Ranking
Page 105 of 364
23
Staff Survey
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Basic needs (food & emergency sheltering)
Homelessness and housing stability
Job training and educational programs
Access to services
Early learning and youth services
Community wellbeing and safety (includes
domestic violence)
Needs have decreased Needs have stayed the same Needs have increased
Page 106 of 364
24
Survey Results Comparison
Staff Survey Resident Survey
Community Needs Ranking Community Needs Ranking
1.Basic Needs
2.Homeless Prevention and Housing Stability
3.Neighborhood Safety and Wellbeing
4.Healthcare and dental care
5.Domestic violence and sexual assault supports
1.Basic Needs
2.Homeless Prevention and Housing Stability
3.Healthcare and dental care
4.Job training and educational programs
5.Neighborhood safety and wellbeing
Service Needs RankingService Needs Ranking
1.Homeless prevention
2.Mental health services
3.Substance use recovery services
4.Emergency sheltering
5.Food access
1.Homeless prevention
2.Food access
3.Mental health services
4.Resource connection & navigation services
5.Emergency sheltering
Page 107 of 364
25
Community Engagement
Community Outreach & Conversations
•11 key stakeholder organizations interviewed
•Input collected from Council & Human Services Committee
•33 people accessing services participated in 2 focus groups and were compensated for their time
Themes
•Mobile Medical Van, Access to Food, and a welcoming library highlighted as local strengths
•Primary concern is lack of affordable housing and the need for more housing resources, from one -time light
assistance to more intensive assistance that includes supportive services
•Concern with lack of access to mental health services, behavioral health services and general medical services,
and need for local medical respite resource
•Lack of low barrier emergency shelter and safe parking options for vehicle residents
•People want to live in Auburn where they are rooted and connected, and lack of living wage employment is
prohibitive
•Lack of adequate public transportation within Auburn and throughout region
Page 108 of 364
26
Recommendations
1.Increase the overall budget for Human Service programs.
Human Service Spending as a Ratio of General Fund Expenditures (no CDBG funds)
City General Fund Expenditures Human Service Spending Human Service Ratio
Auburn $ 68,244,317 $ 437,300 0.64 %
Covington $ 10,772,568 $ 136,500 1.27 %
Federal Way $ 52,843,000 $ 585,840 1.11 %
Issaquah $ 43,260,080 $ 371,500 0.86 %
Kent $ 94,400,000 $ 1,044,500 1.11 %
SeaTac $ 73,067,091 $ 495,209 0.68 %
Human Service Funding with CDBG Funds Included
City 2017 CDBG Allocation
15% Human Service
Spending Cap
Human Service Ratio WITH
CDBG funds included
Auburn $ 428,078 $ 64,212 0.73 %
Federal Way $ 674,568 $ 101,185 1.30 %
Kent $ 1,054,657 $ 158,199 1.27 %
Page 109 of 364
27
Recommendations
2. Prioritize and expand shelter and housing options aligning with the Housing First
philosophy.
3. Expand supportive housing options utilizing evidence -based housing models,
including diversion, rental assistance and permanent supportive housing options.
4. Ensure strong housing location services are available to support landlord
identification, negotiation and incentives.
5. Additional affordable housing, in partnership with the regional approach.
Page 110 of 364
28
Recommendations
6. Expand access to basic needs services, including laundry, showers and storage for
personal belongings
7. Access to resource information and navigation support, utilizing peer outreach &
engagement models
8. Develop safe parking options for people living in their vehicles
9. Adopt a clear, outcome-focused list of Human Service Funding priorities
10. Messaging and strategic communication targeted community-wide
Page 111 of 364
29
Budget Recommendations
Assuming 1% of the general fund expenditures in 2019 ($682,443) and including maximum cap
of CDBG ($89,361), the total budget is $771,804.
Based on the local costs and outcome data, to maximize households assisted with resources
available, the following is the recommended breakdown of budget allocation by priority:
75% -housing and associated services -$578,853
25% -basic needs and job training -$192,951
Page 112 of 364
30
Budget Recommendations
Of the 75%:
•38% to housing problem solving interventions (diversion and rapid exit from
shelter)
•38% to rental assistance with supportive service programming
•24% to access housing related basic needs services
Of the 25%
•65% would go towards those services provided offering basic and emergency
needs outside of housing related services.
•35% would go to job training and education services
Page 113 of 364
31
Budget Recommendations
Allocation by proposed priority
•Homelessness prevention &
housing stability
•Homelessness interventions
•Supportive services (including
housing related basic needs)
•Basic needs (food, medical/dental)
•Job training/education
Proposed Prioritization List
Page 114 of 364
32
Additional Recommendations
Prioritizing existing staff time and resources to maximize the local impact:
•Create opportunities for collaboration and peer learning among service providers,
as increased knowledge of available services and benefits increases the ability of
frontline staff to offer system navigation to people in crisis.
•Lead focused effort to increase service provider participation in HMIS
•Create clear and concise communication with residents around human service
priorities.
Page 115 of 364
33
Questions & Comments
Joel Warren
The Cloudburst Group
Joel.warren@cloudburstgroup.com
Julie McFarland
Julie McFarland Consulting
jmcfarlandconsulting@outlook.com
Page 116 of 364
34
Auburn Community
Needs Assessment
If you have additional questions about the Community Needs Assessment, please feel free to contact: Joy Scott ;
jfscott@auburnwa.gov
Page 117 of 364
Cover photo by Ron Clausen.
CITY OF AUBURN
COMMUNITY NEEDS
ASSESSMENT
October 7, 2019
Page 118 of 364
Contents
Executive Summary ______________________________________________________________________ 1
Background ............................................................................................................................................................. 1
Purpose and Methodology...................................................................................................................................... 1
Key Findings ............................................................................................................................................................ 2
Community Quantitative Analysis ____________________________________________________________ 4
Community Profile .................................................................................................................................................. 4
Population 4
Race/Ethnicity 6
Workforce 8
Education 10
Transportation 15
Income 16
Housing Affordability 17
Fair Housing 24
Homelessness 24
Home and Rental Values 26
Survey Results ....................................................................................................................................................... 27
Resident Survey 27
Staff Survey 32
Funding Distribution Trend Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 35
Auburn Funding Prioritization ............................................................................................................................... 37
Qualitative Analysis _____________________________________________________________________ 39
Strengths _____________________________________________________________________________ 42
Recommendations ______________________________________________________________________ 43
Budget Allocation Recommendations................................................................................................................... 46
Page 119 of 364
City of Auburn – Community Needs Assessment 1 | Page
Executive Summary
Background
This assessment was the culmination of a funded mandate from the City Council of Auburn to provide additional context
and analysis to the Committee in their efforts to prioritize funding to those agencies and non-profits working with the
highest need communities. Given that community needs consistently out measure available resources, this assessment
will assist the Committee in their efforts to do the most with the available funding. The goal of this report is to:
Identify how City goals could be aligned to meet community needs
Be a tool in the City’s human service funding process
Provide critical information for grant applications, and
Support the strategic planning update to the City’s 2020-2024 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Consolidated Plan
The Cloudburst Consulting Group (“Cloudburst”) was selected as the consultant to conduct the Community Needs
Assessment. The work was completed working closely with City staff, receiving input from the Human Services
Committee.
Purpose and Methodology
The primary purpose of this report is to act as a decision-making tool within the human service funding process, aiding
council and committee members in their efforts to utilize funds to create the most impact with the funds made
available. To create a report that is both functional and robust enough to justify decisions based off the report, a mixed
methods research approach was used; leveraging qualitative and quantitative data, supplemented by surveys.
The quantitative data gathering, and subsequent analysis was completed with human service funding in mind, focusing
on topics where human service dollars have been implemented in the past or where, through focus groups and
interviews, it is thought human service funding may go in the future.
The qualitative data consisted of focus groups and direct interviews; this analysis includes individuals with direct lived
experience interacting with human service providers in Auburn. These focus groups and interviews were carefully
planned, with the assistance of City staff. Representation was excellent at all focus groups and reflected a diverse cross-
section of Auburns population and service organizations.
Both of the analysis sections were supplemented by two surveys; one for residents at-large and one for those City staff
personnel whose job function has them interacting directly with residents in need of services.
Phone consultations were done with two cities’ human service representatives, Spokane and Walla Walla. Those
consultations were to initially inform portions of the recommendations, adding detail and an opportunity for live
learning from a jurisdiction that may be implementing some of the recommendations outlined below. Those
conversations were fruitful; however, it is the consultant’s belief that the jurisdictions vary in degrees that make a direct
comparison difficult. Spokane had enough system similarities to outline several concepts for further thought and how
they may be integrated into Auburn systems, however due to system differences Walla Walla was not explicitly included
in this document. The key takeaways from the consultation with Spokane on their human service funding model and
system are outlined at the end of this document.
Page 120 of 364
City of Auburn – Community Needs Assessment 2 | Page
Finally, the consultants developed a set of recommendations based on findings. Those findings are summarized below
and are expounded upon near the end of this document.
Key Findings
The King County housing market has notoriously been outpaced by rapid growth over the last decade and the cost of
living has become increasingly unaffordable throughout the region for a wider number of households. Over half of
renters and 1/3 of homeowners in Auburn experience a housing problem (cost burden is overwhelmingly the most
common housing problem experienced), resulting in thousands of Auburn households paying a high percentage of their
income toward housing costs and unable to afford other necessities. This situation forces difficult household spending
decisions on a monthly basis and an increased demand on community resources to meet basic needs. The Human
Service system is experiencing more demand from residents than ever before and has become increasingly tapped by
service providers to fund additional needs.
The upward trend in the cost of living has put a great deal of pressure on Auburn residents, and this trend is expected
to continue. To meet this challenge, additional funding to the Human Services budget is imperative, focusing primarily
on housing and emergency shelter resources with strong services to support people in addressing housing challenges
and connecting to mainstream community resources so they can sustain housing long-term and thrive in the City of
Auburn.
Key recommendations include:
Increase the Human Services budget to meet the growing need
Prioritize 75% of budget allocations to enhance and increase housing, emergency shelter, and supportive
service resources that are evidence-based and align with local and national best practices. Ensure resources
are flexible and rooted in Progressive Engagement, providing what a person needs at the time they request
assistance.
o Supportive service may include mental health supports and mainstream resource connection support
(mental health services, financial benefits, healthcare, etc.)
Prioritize 25% of budget allocations to meeting basic needs (laundry, showers, storage, safe parking) and job
training programs/services
o A detailed budget allocation recommendation is stated in the Budget Allocation Recommendations
section of this report
Program and system alignment with the Housing First philosophy, ensuring low barriers and quality supportive
services so all people have access to basic housing, shelter and service needs
Implement a system navigation approach that promotes streamlined and trauma-informed access to
community resources and housing location services
It is understood that the recommendations near the end of this document are a shift from how human service
funding has been prioritized in the past. These recommendations are justified through data analysis, surveys, and
conversations with residents and stakeholders, and fall in alignment with Council priorities. Unmet housing needs
often translate into other needs subsequently not being met; such as food, clothing, education, childcare,
employment, among others. This is further reason to first address the housing issues Auburn residents are
experiencing. As is consistent with the Housing First philosophy, once housing needs are sufficiently met, other needs
Page 121 of 364
City of Auburn – Community Needs Assessment 3 | Page
may be addressed in a manner that is more sustainable, providing the individual and/or family with space and
capacity to engage in any other needed or desired services.
There is no metric or easily identifiable signal to know when to readjust priorities for human service funding. Resident
needs change over time and it is not expected that the prioritization or recommended funding ratios remain a
constant, rather an ongoing detailed and thorough investigation of needs is the best catalyst for addressing emerging
or evolving needs. When improvement is made to address unmet immediate housing needs and community needs
shift, human service funds should be balanced with more prevention-oriented strategies including education,
childcare and early childhood intervention to have a maximum long-term impact. Given Auburn’s status as a HUD
entitlement grantee receiving a CDBG allocation each year, and requiring Auburn to submit a Consolidated Plan every
five (5) years, it is recommended that community needs be thoroughly reviewed and analyzed in a manner similar to
this report as the City prepares its next Consolidated Plan in 2024.
Page 122 of 364
City of Auburn – Community Needs Assessment 4 | Page
Community Quantitative Analysis
Community Profile
Similar to other cities within King County and the Puget Sound region at-large, Auburn has grown rapidly, becoming an
increasingly diverse community as it pertains to race/ethnicity, income, education, and language among other
categories. This section will outline the current circumstances in Auburn as well as identify the growth trends that have
occurred since 2010. The United States Census Bureau data is utilized throughout this profile to offer consistency among
variables between topics.
Population
According to the 2017 American Community Survey (ACS), the population of Auburn is 77,440, this is a 10.3% increase
from 2010. These residents form 18,862 families, making the average family size 3.25, well above the national average
of 2.63 and the King County average of 2.45.
Although population growth is felt by the entire region, it is notably large in Auburn. Each year, Auburn has increased
its share of residents within King County; meaning that Auburn has outpaced most other King County cities in
percentage of growth. Auburn accounted for 1.9% of the King County population in 1970, now accounting for 3.7% of
the population. The graph below outlines the percent growth from 1980 to 2017, marking the growth percent between
each ten-year census and ending with the percent change from 2017 to 2010. It is important to note that the large
jumps in percentage growth reflect annexations of existing populations in the region and not an influx of new residents.
Source: 1990, 2000, 2010 Census & 2017 ACS
25%22%
74%
10%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
1990 2000 2010 2017
Population Growth, Percent
Auburn Federal Way Kent Seattle King County
Page 123 of 364
City of Auburn – Community Needs Assessment 5 | Page
The State of Washington1 forecasts that King County will continue to grow at a rapid pace, estimating a population of
2.44 million people by 2040. The Auburn Comprehensive Plan projects a population of 100,000 by 2035, a number
established by King County and Pierce County in their Countywide Planning Policies. A population of 100,000 by 2035
would reflect a 26% increase in residents from 2017.
As Auburn has grown significantly over the past decade, much of the growth has been in the younger age brackets. In
2010 the median age was 35.7 years old, in 2017 the median age was 34.8 years old. While this decrease in median age
reflects a trend towards a younger overall population, Auburn is also home to an increasingly large elderly population.
The elderly population, according to the State of Washington forecast is expected to continue to grow at an outsized
rate. In 2015 those aged 65+ made up about 12% of the King County population. That number is forecasted to increase
to 19.5% by 2040.
Elderly households are often more vulnerable due to either fixed or constrained income and increased health risks.
Auburn residents over the age of 65 make up 11% of the population while someone over the age of 62 resides in just
over one-quarter of all households in Auburn. Notably, those households that contain someone over the age of 62
experience a housing problem (cost burden, overcrowding, or substandard housing) at a rate of 11%. The most common
housing problem among the elderly is cost burden (spending more than 30% of monthly income on housing costs).
Particularly because elderly households are more likely to be on a fixed income and have fewer opportunities to
increase income streams.
Below is a graph that shows the age brackets as of 2017 for Auburn.
Source:2017 ACS 5-yr estimate2
1 State of Washington Office of Financial Management, https://ofm.wa.gov/washington-data-research/population-
demographics/population-forecasts-and-projections/growth-management-act-county-projections/growth-
management-act-population-projections-counties-2010-2040-0
2 The American Community Survey (ACS) data is a Census Bureau dataset developed each year, the 2017 dataset is
the most current. In all instances within this report where ACS data is used, it is the 5-year estimate data.
22,329 16,599 20,329 9,942 8,241
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Age Brackets Of Auburn Residents
0-19
20-34
35-54
55-64
65+
Page 124 of 364
City of Auburn – Community Needs Assessment 6 | Page
Race/Ethnicity
Racial and ethnic backgrounds in Auburn are reflective of the trends in the region as a whole; steadily shifting towards
a more diverse population. This section will first look at changes in the Hispanic and Non-Hispanic populations, and
then identify shifts within each of those two categories more specifically. The Hispanic population has increased by 4.1
percentage points since 2010, now making up 14.4% of the Auburn population.
Source: 2010 ACS 5-yr estimate & 2017 ACS 5-yr estimate
This shift is captured by Census data, which is indicative of the adult population. This slight change in demographics is
also highlighted by the student population in the Auburn School District. In the 2017-18 school year within the Auburn
School District, 29.9% of all students were Hispanic/Latino of any race while 38.9% of the student population is White.
This most likely points to White students having more representation in private schools in the area as compared to
other races.
14.4%
10.3%
85.6%
89.7%
2017
2010
Hispanic/Non -Hispanic Population
Hispanic or Latino Not Hispanic or Latino
Page 125 of 364
City of Auburn – Community Needs Assessment 7 | Page
Source: 2010 ACS 5-yr estimate & 2017 ACS 5-yr estimate
Within the Hispanic population of Auburn, the largest shift comes from those residents with Mexican heritage. Making
up 8.2% of the total population in 2010, Mexican residents now make up 12.3% of the population, a four (4) percentage
point growth in seven years. This marks the single biggest growth trend from 2010 in any single race/ethnicity category.
Source: 2010 ACS 5-yr estimate & 2017 ACS 5-yr estimate
Within the non-Hispanic population of Auburn, the largest shift is those residents that are White and Two or more races.
The shift among White alone residents was one of two net decreases since 2010, down 6.6 percentage points, the other
being Black or African American alone with a 1.1 percentage point decrease. The other notable shift in demographics
comes within the Two or more races category, marking a 2.4 percentage point increase since 2010. Now making up just
under 5% of the total population, this growth trend is indicative of an overall trend towards greater diversity in a
community as there are an increased number of mixed-race partnerships and families.
9,509
5,460
395
50
57 1,224
1,381
2017
2010
Hispanic Population
Mexican Puerto Rican Cuban Other Hispanic or Latino
46,073
44,302
3,537
3,816
1,592
959
7,625
6,710
1,951
1,233
236
98
5,241
2,976
2017
2010
Non -Hispanic Population
White alone Black or African American alone
American Indian and Alaska Native alone Asian alone
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone Some other race alone
Two or more races
Page 126 of 364
City of Auburn – Community Needs Assessment 8 | Page
Workforce
Auburn, like much of the Puget Sound region has experienced substantial growth on nearly all fronts due to its proximity
to some of the highest paying jobs in the country as well as its location that has ready access to highly sought-after
recreation and leisure. As is with most urban centers within the country, many suburban cities find their residents
commute outside of their home city for work.
The unemployment rate has steadily declined following a peak in the unemployment rate of 10.9% in 2013.
Source: 2009-2017 ACS 5-yr estimate
According to 2015 Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamic (LEHD) data, only about 13% of the Auburn population
both live and work in Auburn. This is not uncommon in suburban communities, especially those communities so near a
large-scale economic hub such as Seattle. Comparing this 13% to neighboring cities, we’ll see that it is not uncommon
for such a small number of individuals to both work and live in the same city.
Employment status is a good predictor for insurance coverage; according to a Kaiser Family Foundation report, about
half (49%) of the country’s population received their health insurance through an employer sponsored insurance plan.
Insured Rates by City
Total
Insured
Total
Uninsured
Employed Unemployed
Insured Uninsured Insured Uninsured
Auburn 90.2% 9.8% 88.3% 11.7% 70.7% 29.3%
Federal Way 88.6% 11.4% 84.8% 15.2% 77.2% 22.8%
Kent 89.6% 10.4% 88.0% 12.0% 70.8% 29.2%
King County 93.0% 7.0% 91.8% 8.2% 75.1% 24.9%
Washington 91.7% 8.3% 89.7% 10.3% 70.8% 29.2%
Source: 2017 ACS
7.9%
8.8%9.2%
10.6%10.9%
9.5%
8.2%7.4%
6.4%
0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
8.0%
10.0%
12.0%
14.0%
16.0%
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Unemployment Rate
King County Pierce County Auburn Federal Way
Kent Lakewood Seattle
Page 127 of 364
City of Auburn – Community Needs Assessment 9 | Page
Auburn fares well compared to neighboring South King County cities when looking at the percentage of the population
that are insured. Just over 90% of Auburn residents insured, while that number drops to about 71% when looking at
those insured that are also unemployed. Another important demographic to consider when looking at insured rates are
those under the age of nineteen (19); 95% of Auburn residents under the age of 19 are insured.
Employment Inflow/Outflow
The graphic to the left identifies the number of
individuals coming into Auburn to work (38,422),
those who both live and work in Auburn (5,589),
and those living in Auburn that work elsewhere
(27,794). According to the 2018 Comprehensive
Annual Financial Report 3 , there are seven
employers in Auburn with more than 1,000
employees:
1. The Boeing Company
2. Muckleshoot Tribal Enterprises
3. The Outlet Collection
4. Auburn School District
5. Multicare Auburn Medical Center
6. Green River College
7. Emerald Downs Racetrack
These seven employers account for 48% of the total city employment. These same employers were also the largest
employers in 2009, then accounting for 46.1% of total city employment
Percent employed and living in the same city
Auburn 12.7%
Federal Way 16.0%
Kent 14.3%
Lakewood 13.9%
Seattle 40.3%
Source: United States Census Bureau; OnTheMap
As mentioned in the 2016 Ten-Year Economic Development Strategic Plan, Auburn is positioned to harness the
successes of its neighbors to develop its own economic future. This access to a bustling economic market has steadily
increased household wages while decreasing the unemployment rate. Many of the jobs that are driving the economic
growth in the area require a college education. Again, Auburn is positioned well to capitalize on this with its proximity
to Green River College and the partnerships already formed to create channels for workforce training and development.
3 http://weblink.auburnwa.gov/External/ElectronicFile.aspx?dbid=0&openfile=true&docid=355186
Source: United States Census Bureau; OnTheMap
Page 128 of 364
City of Auburn – Community Needs Assessment 10 | Page
Education
While many of the jobs sought after in the region are high-tech jobs, South King County remains a manufacturing hub
for the region. Due to this, it is not surprising that South King County cities run slightly under King County as a whole
when looking at educational attainment. Auburn runs slightly less than its neighbors when comparing educational
attainment.
2017 Educational Attainment Levels (% of total population over 25 years old)
High School
Diploma
Some College
(no degree)
Associate’s
Degree
Bachelor’s
Degree
Graduate
Degree
Auburn 29.7 24.6 10.2 16.7 6.6
Federal Way 25.7 25.8 11.4 18.2 7.9
Kent 26.0 23.3 11.4 17.8 6.9
Lakewood 28.2 27.4 11.7 14.2 7.7
King County 13.5 18.6 8.1 30.7 19.6
Source: 2010 - 2017 ACS
The chart below outlines the changes in educational attainment from 2010 to 2017. Notably, Auburn has seen an
increase in those obtaining a high school diploma but no further education and a significant drop in those beginning
some post-secondary education while not finishing a degree. Auburn has seen relatively little change in the percentage
of residents obtaining post-secondary education since 2010.
Difference in Education Levels from 2010 to 2017
High School
Diploma
Some College
(no degree)
Associate’s
Degree
Bachelor’s
Degree
Graduate
Degree
Auburn 1.1 -3.3 0 0.6 -0.6
Federal Way 0.2 -0.9 1.3 -1.0 1.0
Kent -0.6 -1.2 2.1 -0.1 0.9
Lakewood -0.8 0.9 2.2 -0.8 -0.1
King County -4.2 -2.3 0.1 1.9 3.2
Source: 2010 - 2017 ACS
Although it is important to recognize the current workforce and their levels of education to consider areas where
support may be offered to best match workers with jobs, it is also important to look at the school system and identify
areas that could use resources to close gaps in achievement. As of the 2018 school year, Auburn Public Schools enroll
17,093 students, with an on-time/four-year graduation rate of 77.4%.
Each year the Auburn School District collects data on kindergarten readiness, assessed by utilizing the Washington
Kindergarten Inventory of Developing Skills (WaKIDS). This assessment is done during the first two months of
kindergarten; teachers observe students across six areas of development: social/emotional, physical, language,
cognitive, literacy, and math. Understanding this early development is used to better help families prepare their
children for success beyond kindergarten. The only requirement for kindergarten students is that they are five years of
age by August 31 of the school year.
Page 129 of 364
City of Auburn – Community Needs Assessment 11 | Page
The chart below outlines kindergarten readiness in six areas for the Auburn School District for the 2018-19 school year.
Those kindergarten students identified in the Not Ready category are identified to have a range of skills typical of 0-3-
year-old children. While there are some four-year-old children that show levels of readiness below the kindergarten
level, some show levels above.
Auburn 2018-19 Kindergarten Readiness
Source: Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction; Auburn School District
Looking at all kindergarteners in the 2018-19 school year for Auburn School District, 33.4% entered kindergarten ready
in all six areas of development and learning. The chart below compares Auburn to nearby school districts.
Kindergarten Readiness
Percent of students entering kindergarten ready
in all six areas of development and learning
Auburn 33.4
Federal Way 43.3
Kent 44.0
Lakewood 39.7
Tacoma 46.5
Source: Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction
The graph below outlines those kindergarten students who presented as “ready” for the 2018-19 kindergarten school
year in all six (6) categories tested within the WaKIDS assessment.
80%
67%
79%
55%
71%
77%
20%
33%
21%
45%
29%
24%
COGNITIVE
LANGUAGE
LITERACY
MATH
PHYSICAL
SOCIAL/EMOTIONAL
Ready Not Ready
Page 130 of 364
City of Auburn – Community Needs Assessment 12 | Page
Auburn 2018-19 Kindergarten Readiness by Race/Ethnicity
Source: Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction; Auburn School District
The data above indicates that those Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander children are not as likely to be as ready for
kindergarten compared to their peers.
There are other indicators beyond race/ethnicity that may point to students that are not as likely to be prepared for
kindergarten. Similar to the above charts, the chart below identifies those students entering kindergarten that
presented as “ready” in all six areas of development and learning. The chart makes evident that those students who
are disadvantaged in any of the three categories below are not as likely to be as ready for kindergarten as their peers.
This is true within all three categories where comparisons are made: English language learners, low-income, and those
students with disabilities. At nearly a third of the rate of their peers without disabilities, 13% of students with disabilities
entering kindergarten are ready in all six areas that the WaKIDS assessment considers.
39%
34%
10%
36%
41%
24%
61%
66%
90%
64%
59%
76%
ASIAN
BLACK/AFRICAN AMERICAN
NATIVE HAWAIIAN/OTHER PACIFIC
ISLANDER
TWO OR MORE RACES
WHITE
HISPANIC/LATINO OF ANY RACE(S)
Ready Not Ready
Page 131 of 364
City of Auburn – Community Needs Assessment 13 | Page
Auburn 2018-19 Kindergarten Readiness by Race/Ethnicity
Source: Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction; Auburn School District
The data above identifies kindergarten student’s readiness to learn and develop in the classroom setting. A student’s
readiness typically indicates a greater likelihood of success in kindergarten and beyond. This however is not always the
case and should not be considered objective outcome-oriented data, rather this data is reflective of opportunities
where supports can be put into place to minimize gaps that the above data lays out.
Similar to the kindergarten readiness data, the high school graduation data below indicates gaps while making
comparisons across variables. The data below is the graduating class of 2018, all students who began 9th grade together.
Data indicates that those students graduating high school tend to earn more, are less likely to be involved with the
criminal justice system and position themselves to take advantage of economic opportunities that exist within the
region.
22%
40%
21%
46%
13%
36%
78%
61%
79%
54%
87%
64%
ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS
NON ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS
LOW INCOME
NON LOW INCOME
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES
STUDENTS WITHOUT DISABILITIES
Ready Not Ready
Page 132 of 364
City of Auburn – Community Needs Assessment 14 | Page
Percent of Students Graduated in Four years by race/ethnicity
Source: Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction; Auburn School District
Percent of Students Graduated in Four years by Student Characteristic
Source: Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction; Auburn School District
85%
80%
71%
60%
77%
81%
6%
9%
13%
14%
8%
8%
8%
11%
17%
26%
15%
11%
ASIAN
BLACK/ AFRICAN AMERICAN
HISPANIC/ LATINO OF ANY RACE(S)
NATIVE HAWAIIAN/ OTHER PACIFIC
ISLANDER
TWO OR MORE RACES
WHITE
Percent Graduating Percent Continuing Percent Dropout
60%
79%
59%
79%
70%
88%
51%
80%
20%
8%
11%
9%
12%
6%
33%
7%
21%
12%
30%
12%
18%
6%
16%
13%
ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS
NON ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS
HOMELESS
NON HOMELESS
LOW INCOME
NON LOW INCOME
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES
STUDENTS WITHOUT DISABILITIES
Percent Graduating Percent Continuing Percent Dropout
Page 133 of 364
City of Auburn – Community Needs Assessment 15 | Page
The most evident demographic not graduating high school in four years at a rate on par with peers is the Native
Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander and Hispanic/Latino of any race demographics. The graph outlining on-time graduation
rates among the class of 2018 by characteristics matches relatively well with the kindergarten readiness data also
looking at the same student characteristics. Those students with disabilities, from low-income families, homeless
students, and English-language learners, are all significantly less likely to graduate within four years as compared to
their peers.
Transportation
Transportation impacts households in a variety of ways; some of which are economic opportunities, food access, and
social activities. According to 2017 ACS data, 8% of Auburn households do not have access to a vehicle. The number
varies by tenure; 15% of renter households do not have access to a vehicle while 3% of owner households do not have
access to a vehicle.
Having a personal vehicle may be a financial burden for those households earning less than 50% of the area median
income (AMI). As noted in the 2019 Southern King County Food Access Needs Assessment Those households that are
most in need of human service programs are often those where owning or operating a vehicle may not be possible.
This leaves several options to consider ensuring there is equity of access to all parts of Auburn for residents.
King County Metro Services operates several transportation services. The Access Transportation service is a shared-ride
van service for people whose disabilities prevent them from utilizing the accessible, non-commuter, fixed route bus
services. King County operates the Demand Area Response Transit (DART) which is a van that has a fixed route but is
capable to deviate from its fixed route upon request. The DART service is available to everyone. King County operates
a free instruction service for seniors and those persons with disabilities, training individuals on the available programs
and route and service options. The County also provides a Regional Reduced Fair Permit (RRFP) that allows seniors aged
65 years and older, people with disabilities, and Medicare card holders to ride public transportation systems for a
reduced fare.
Sound Generations operates the Hyde shuttle, which is a free shuttle for seniors 55 or older and people with disabilities.
The shuttles operate Monday to Friday from 8:00 am to 4:30 pm. The shuttle is able to provide a resident with service
anywhere in the service area. All of Auburn is within the Auburn Hyde Shuttle service area.
Those individuals and families that rely on public transportation to meet their day-to-day needs are often
disadvantaged, facing increased travel times, minimal capacity to carry goods, and dependence on transit schedules.
According to the 2019 Southern King County Food Access Needs Assessment, 29.5% of Auburn residents are underserved
by public transit.
In January 2019, Hopelink in coordination with the South King County Mobility Coalition conducted a food access and
transportation needs assessment. The assessment included interviews and a survey. According to several of the
interviews, a primary need is the physical transportation of the food, not necessarily the individual. Those households
utilizing public transit to access a food bank are restricted to what they can carry. Another highlighted need for those
using public transit to access foodbanks were the high number of bus line transfers and infrequent bus service. An issue
highlighted in one interview noted that often those individuals using a food bank will use a shopping cart to carry their
food to a nearby bus stop. These shopping carts are often left abandoned there. This concern was also raised in the
community survey for this assessment.
Page 134 of 364
City of Auburn – Community Needs Assessment 16 | Page
In June 2019, Hopelink in conjunction with the King County Mobility Coalition partnered with the University of
Washington Evans School of Public Policy and Governance Student Consulting Lab to complete a county-wide
transportation assessment specifically geared to investigate the transportation needs of the refugee and immigrant
community. The key findings from that study4 were:
Cost: Public transit fares present a significant barrier to immigrants and refugees. This cost barrier remains
despite reduced fare programs. Addressing this issue would result in further reduced bus fares, free public
transportation, and increasing the length of time before bus transfers expire.
Lack of service: limited availability of times has public transit users spending a great deal of time in transit to
their destinations. Similarly, lack of service also means inconvenient bus routes that do not serve all areas.
Information/Language: Lack of translated information available as written, signage, and announcements are
significant barriers among immigrant and refugee communities.
A key conclusion from the report states that entities operating public transit should prioritize affordability, as this
impacts all low-income and vulnerable populations.
Income
Along with the steadily increasing economic opportunities within the region, median household income has grown
alongside those opportunities. The chart below shows that overall, Auburn has seen just over a 5% increase in median
household income (adjusted for inflation) since 2010, reaching $64,000 in 2017. This fact makes evident that indeed
Auburn is closely tethering itself to the growth trend of King County and the Puget Sound region as a whole.
Median Household Income Change in Real 2017 Dollars (2010 to 2017)
Source: 2010 - 2017 ACS
4 Transportation Barriers and Needs for Immigrants and Refugees: An Exploratory Needs Assessment. The University
of Washington Evans School of Public Policy and Governance Graduate Consulting Lab. Taylor Bailey, Roslyn, Hower,
Erica Ratner, and Suzanne Spencer.
Auburn 5.13%
King County 9.46%
Pierce County
-1.59%
Federal Way
-2.05%
Kent 7.18%
Lakewood -0.02%
Lakewood Kent Federal Way Pierce County King County Auburn
Page 135 of 364
City of Auburn – Community Needs Assessment 17 | Page
While the overall income trend is positive, the costs of goods and services have also increased significantly. The 2017
Self-Sufficiency Standard for Washington State5 outlines the needed income for households to be self-sufficient based
on localized costs. According to the report, the self sufficiency standard in South King County for one adult, one
preschooler, and one school-age child is $68,625 annually. Similarly, the self-sufficiency standard for two adults, one
preschooler, and one school-age child is $74,083. The median annual household income in Auburn ($64,000) nearly hits
these self-sufficiency numbers. Despite substantial economic growth, the pace of such growth exacerbates inequities
and gaps. Without adequate economic supports those gaps risk growing larger as economic growth continues at such
a rapid pace.
Another way to look at the growth trend in the region is to combine population growth with economic growth. The
chart below shows the per capita income changes from 2010 and 2017.
Per Capita Income Change in Real 2017 Dollars (2010 to 2017)
Auburn King County Pierce
County
Federal Way Kent Lakewood
2017 $29,344 $46,316 $31,157 $30,288 $28,636 $26,982
2010 $29,563 $42,862 $30,787 $29,914 $28,937 $30,017
Difference -0.74% -10.85% -10.85% 1.25% -1.04% -10.11%
Source: 2010 - 2017 ACS
From the above we can get interpret that the median income household growth is not impacting all income brackets
the same way. Note that the median annual household income showed a 5.13% growth from 2010 to 2017 in Auburn.
The chart above signals a slight decrease in the per capita income over the same period of time. Per capita income is
the summation of all income generated in Auburn divided by the number of residents. A slight decrease in per capita
income means that the average income received to each resident is slightly down. This is markedly true in King County,
Pierce County, and Lakewood City, all with per capita income decreases of over 10% between 2010 and 2017.
Another indicator of the economic situation of families and households is the change in poverty rate over time. As of
2017, 13.6% of Auburn residents were living under the federal poverty limit, down 0.5 percetnage points since 2010.
This slight reduction of those living in poverty is similar to that of the region as a whole; with King County showing no
change since 2010 and Federal Way and Kent both reducing those living in poverty within their cities by 0.6 and 1.8
percentage points respectively.
Housing Affordability
Housing costs in Auburn and the surrounding region have seen dramatic increases over the past several years. These
increased costs impact all income levels as well as both owners and renter households. However, low-income renter
households are often most impacted by increased housing costs given the proportion of costs is higher among those
with the lowest incomes.
The dataset used in this section is developed by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and utilizes
Area Median Income (AMI) to make determinations on program eligibility. The most recent available dataset is 2015.
Cost burden is an often-used way to identify housing needs within cities and counties. Cost burden is defined as a
household that spends more than 30% of monthly income on housing costs, this includes utilities. Severe cost burden,
5 http://selfsufficiencystandard.org/sites/default/files/selfsuff/docs/WA2017_SSS.pdf
Page 136 of 364
City of Auburn – Community Needs Assessment 18 | Page
is defined as a household that spends more than 50% of their household income on housing costs, again including
utilities. The data below will first identify income groups by renter and owner households, and then breakdown those
household types that are cost burdened and severely cost burdened.
Share of Auburn Households by Income Bracket
Source: 2011-2015 CHAS6
The chart above indicates that Auburn renter households are over-represented in lower income brackets. Over two-
thirds of renter households in 2015 earned less than 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI), and two-thirds of all owner
households earn more than 80% AMI. To this point, there are also larger numbers of renter households with children
in lower income brackets than compared to owner households. This information should be utilized when attempting to
target programming and/or funds that may support housing stability. Given a greater percentage of renter households
are low- and extremely-low income, when implementing housing support programs and services, it should be
considered that renter households are more likely to be in need of financial supports.
6 The Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) dataset is developed by the Department of Housing and
Urban Development each year. The most recent CHAS dataset available is 2015. Similar to ACS data within this report,
when CHAS data is used, it is the 5-year estimate.
8%
12%13%10%
57%
31%
19%18%
12%
20%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
0-30% AMI >30-50% AMI >50-80% AMI >80-100% AMI >100% AMI
Owner Renter
Page 137 of 364
City of Auburn – Community Needs Assessment 19 | Page
The graphs below show the breakdown of owner/renter households by income bracket for Pierce and King County, as
well as Federal Way, Kent, and Lakewood.
Source: 2011-2015 CHAS
Comparing the number of households within each income
bracket, Auburn compares similarly to its neighbor cities.
In all instances, nearly 70% of renter households are
considered low- or moderate-income, earning less than
80% of the area median income (AMI). Similarly, among
all cities identified, nearly one-third of renter households
earn 0-30% of the AMI, while in all instances less than 10%
of owner households do so.
9%12%14%11%
55%
31%
24%
17%
11%
17%
0-30% AMI >30-50%
AMI
>50-80%
AMI
>80-100%
AMI
>100% AMI
Federal Way
Owner Renter
8%9%14%12%
57%
32%
23%
16%12%
17%
0-30% AMI >30-50%
AMI
>50-80%
AMI
>80-100%
AMI
>100% AMI
Kent
Owner Renter
7%9%
15%12%
57%
27%
19%24%
7%
23%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
0-30% AMI >30-50%
AMI
>50-80%
AMI
>80-100%
AMI
>100% AMI
Lakewood
Owner Renter
Source: 2011-2015 CHAS
Page 138 of 364
City of Auburn – Community Needs Assessment 20 | Page
The graph below shows the number of households with children under the age of six (6), broken down by income
bracket.
Share of Households with Children Present
Source: 2011-2015 CHAS
Given that there are significantly more renter households nearer the lower end of the income brackets, it is expected
that there would also be a larger representation of renter households with children in the lower income brackets.
Housing problem data are collected by HUD each year, the housing problems are divided into four categories:
1. Substandard housing – Lacking complete plumbing or kitchen facilities
2. Overcrowded – With 1.01 to 1.51 people per room
3. Cost burden – Paying more than 30% of monthly household income in housing costs
4. Severe cost burden – Paying more than 50% of monthly household income in housing costs
Overwhelmingly, the households that do experience a housing problem from the four listed above, experience cost
burden. Of all the renter households experiencing a housing problem, 81% experience cost burden. Similarly, of all
owner households in Auburn experiencing a housing problem, 88% experience cost burden. The graph below indicates
the types of households experiencing cost burden in both renter and owner households (only including those
households below 80% AMI).
8%
28%13%
15%
12%
11%
8%
8%
59%
37%
OWNER RENTER
0-30% AMI 30-50% AMI 50-80% AMI 80-100% AMI >100% AMI
Page 139 of 364
City of Auburn – Community Needs Assessment 21 | Page
Share of Cost Burdened Households by Household Type
Source: 2011-2015 CHAS
The data above indicates that cost burdened renter households are most likely to be small related families (up to four
(4) family members) or Other, which is most often assocaited with single-person households. This analysis remains true
for all income brackets. However, owner households that are cost burdened are far more likely to be elderly
households. Those elderly households living in a home they own, are far more likely to be cost burdened. This indicates
a high need for supports that will allow an elderly household to age in place while likely living on a fixed income.
Source: 2011-2015 CHAS
The above graph shows that those households with income below 50% AMI experience housing problems at a very high
rate. Nearly 85% of all renter households earning less than 50% AMI experience a housing problem. Overall, just over
half of all renter households in Auburn experience a housing problem, with nearly one-third of owner households
experiencing a housing problem.
0%20%40%60%80%100%
0-30% AMI
30-50% AMI
50-80% AMI
Renter Households
Small Related Large Related Elderly Other
0%20%40%60%80%100%
0-30% AMI
30-50% AMI
50-80% AMI
Owner Households
Small Related Large Related Elderly Other
84%83%47%21%53%84%59%54%33%30%0 -30% AMI 30-50% AMI 50-80% AMI 80-100% AMI TOTAL
Share Of Households By Income And Tenure With
Housing Problem
Renter Owner
Page 140 of 364
City of Auburn – Community Needs Assessment 22 | Page
HUD also collects data on disprportionate housing needs based on racial demographics. A disproportionate housing
need is identified when a particular group displays a ratio of housing need that is more than ten (10) percentage points
above the jurisdictional need as a whole. The graph below displays housing needs by Race.
Housing Problems by Race
Source: 2011-2015 CHAS
From the above data, it is shown that both Black/African American and Pacific Islander households experience housing
problems at a disproportionate rate as compared to the jurisdiction as a whole. With 61% of Auburn households
experiencing a housing problem, Black/African households and Pacific Islander households experience housing
problems at fourteen (14) and twenty-eight (28) percentage points above the jurisdiction as a whole.
Breaking down the above graph into renter and owners, there are several areas of disproportionate need. Among renter
households, Black/African American (76.8%) and Pacific Islander (87.6%) households experience a housing problem
greater than ten (10) percentage points above the jurisdiction as a whole (65.8%). Among owner households, Pacific
Islander households experience a housing problem at 100%; there are 25 Pacific Islander households identified in this
dataset.
61%
31%
50%
75%
63%
89%
61%
36%
68%
42%
22%
31%
11%
38%
JURISDICTION AS A WHOLE
AMERICAN INDIAN, ALASKA NATIVE
ASIAN
BLACK / AFRICAN AMERICAN
HISPANIC
PACIFIC ISLANDER
WHITE
Housing Problem No Housing Problem Zero Income
Page 141 of 364
City of Auburn – Community Needs Assessment 23 | Page
Source: 2011-2015 CHAS
The graph below displays housing cost burden, both 30% cost burden and 50% cost burden, by Race. Similar to the
above graph, the graph below is working to identify disproportionate needs. Those households experiencing cost
burden at a rate of more than ten (10) percentage points are considered to have a disproportionate need from HUD’s
perspective.
Housing Cost Burden by Race
Source: 2011-2015 CHAS
65.8%
66.0%
76.8%
55.6%
26.0%
87.6%
65.6%
30.9%
32.1%
19.2%
31.2%
72.5%
12.4%
26.6%
JURISDICTION AS A
WHOLE
WHITE
BLACK / AFRICAN
AMERICAN
ASIAN
AMERICAN INDIAN,
ALASKA NATIVE
PACIFIC ISLANDER
HISPANIC
Renter Housing Problem
By Race
Housing Problem No Housing Problem Zero Income
55.9%
55.7%
64.6%
46.2%
55.1%
100.0%
60.1%
43.1%
43.8%
35.4%
49.6%
44.9%
0.0%
38.7%
JURISDICTION AS A
WHOLE
WHITE
BLACK / AFRICAN
AMERICAN
ASIAN
AMERICAN INDIAN,
ALASKA NATIVE
PACIFIC ISLANDER
HISPANIC
Owner Housing Problem
By Race
Housing Problem No Housing Problem Zero Income
61.8%
80.1%
70.8%
44.4%
51.6%
34.4%
62.8%
21.7%
14.5%
13.2%
32.7%
24.6%
31.1%
21.9%
15.4%
4.6%
12.3%
20.5%
19.6%
34.4%
14.6%
JURISDICTION AS A WHOLE
AMERICAN INDIAN, ALASKA NATIVE
ASIAN
BLACK / AFRICAN AMERICAN
HISPANIC
PACIFIC ISLANDER
WHITE
No Cost Burden Cost Burden Severe Cost Burden
Page 142 of 364
City of Auburn – Community Needs Assessment 24 | Page
Considering cost burdened and severe cost burdened households, the above graph indicates that Black/African
American households experience cost burden at a disproportionately high rate, while Pacific Islander households
experience severe cost burden at a disproportionately higher rate.
Fair Housing
In 2019, King County updated their Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice, the update of this document
includes fair housing testing. Fair housing testing throughout King County was conducted by the Fair Housing Center of
Washington. Testing consists of two types, policy-oriented testing and differential treatment testing. The policy-
oriented testing identifies discriminatory property management policies that place additional barrier to housing on a
person due to their inclusion in a protected class. Differential treatment testing looks at the treatment of a person in
search of housing based upon a protected class status. The testing that was done was County-wide; consisting of eighty-
two (82) total tests, 16 policy checks and 66 differential treatment checks. Below is a breakdown of where the testing
was done throughout the County:
Fair Housing Testing in King County
Region Discriminatory
Policy
Differential
Treatment
Grand Total
South 9 32 41
North/East 7 34 41
Total 16 66 82
Source: 2019 King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice, Public Review Draft
Of those 41 fair housing tests completed in South King County, 18 (44%) were positive. Of those 41 tests conducted in
South King County, 8 were done within Auburn. Below are the testing results that were conducted within Auburn
Fair Housing Testing in Auburn
Discriminatory
Policy
Differential
Treatment
Grand Total
Positive 0 4 4
Negative 1 3 4
Total 1 7 8
Source: 2019 King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice, Public Review Draft
Of the differential treatment tests done in Auburn, those that were positive were either on account of race (2) or
national origin (2). A positive test does not necessarily mean fair housing rules and laws are being violated, rather the
Fair Housing Center of Washington recommends that additional testing be done to determine if the positive test is a
pattern for those particular housing sites.
Homelessness
Each year the Point In Time count (PIT) is conducted on a single night in January to offer a snapshot of the number of
individuals experiencing homelessness. The PIT Count is conducted within King County by All Home, the regional
Continuum of Care, and results are reported out regionally; Auburn is part of the Southwest County region along with:
Algona, Burien, Des Moines, Federal Way, Kent, Milton, Normandy Park, Pacific, Renton, SeaTac, Tukwila, and Vashon
Island. Though imperfect and nationally recognized as a likely undercount, this is often the best snapshot available in
Page 143 of 364
City of Auburn – Community Needs Assessment 25 | Page
communities to understand trends in homelessness year after year. It is important to note that these responses are
self-reported.
The unsheltered counts from the 2019 PIT Report are below:
2019 Regional PIT Count
Region
Persons on
streets/outside
Persons
in tents
Persons in
buildings
Persons
in car
Persons in
RV
Persons
in van
Total
unsheltered
persons
% of
total
East County 40 16 2 203 35 41 337 6%
North County 23 16 2 13 15 16 85 2%
Northeast County 6 39 13 9 28 4 99 2%
Seattle 1,105 1,162 46 385 621 239 3,558 68%
Southeast County 0 7 20 25 9 4 65 1%
Southwest County 332 195 57 303 115 82 1,084 21%
Total 1,506 1,435 140 938 823 386 5,228 100%
Source: Seattle/King County Point-In-Time Count of Persons Experiencing Homelessness: 2019
The above chart indicates that 21% of all unsheltered individuals experiencing homelessness in King County are in the
Southwest region of the County. Although the total number of unsheltered individuals experiencing homelessness in
King County in 2019 is down from 2018; the number within the Southwest region of King County is up. Only the
Southwest region of the County experienced a net increase in unsheltered homelessness from 2018 to 2019.
While conducting the PIT count, those individuals experiencing homelessness are asked what the event or condition
was that led to their current homelessness situation. The top responses were:
1. Loss of a job (24%)
2. Alcohol or drug use (16%)
3. Eviction (15%)
4. Divorce/Separation (9%)
5. Rent increases (8%)
According to the December 2017 McKinsey & Company report, King County and Seattle Homelessness – Some Facts,
the regional Crisis Response System (CRS) has improved however it is unable to meet the demand of newly homeless
individuals. A primary factor for this is a shortage of affordable housing, including both rent increases and homes prices
that are out of reach for those households earning less than 80% of the area median income (AMI). It is estimated that
for every $100 increase in rent, there is an associated increase in homelessness between 15 and 19 percent. 7
During interviews with young adults experiencing homelessness, they noted appreciation for “the city being cleaned
up; sometimes there’s vandalism…and the city cleans it up right away.” Young adults associated cleanliness with safety
and feel this effort to keep the city clean “presents a much stronger image.”
7 Journal of Urban Affairs
Page 144 of 364
City of Auburn – Community Needs Assessment 26 | Page
Home and Rental Values
As is similar with the entire region, the housing costs in Auburn have seen a substantial increase over the past several
years. The charts below outline the increases in costs for purchasing a home. The average sales price in Auburn has
increased by 63% since 2010, reaching a price of $384,000 as of July 2019. Similarly, the median listing price of all homes
for sale in Auburn has increased by 61% since 2010, reaching $410,000 as of July 2019.
Source: Zillow Economic Data
The substantial increases in the costs for pruchasing a home have pushed many lower-income buyers out of the market.
Looking more closely at rental rates, the data shows a similar trend.
Source: Zillow Economic Data
The rental market trend line matches relatively closely with the housing market; seeing a low in 2012, and steadily
increasing since. Since 2011 the median rental rate has increased by 32%, reaching $1,732 as of July 2019. Over the
same period of time, the median rental rate in King County increased by 46%, peaking in July of 2019 at $2,161.
$254,950
$187,250
$410,000
$-
$50,000
$100,000
$150,000
$200,000
$250,000
$300,000
$350,000
$400,000
$450,000
Median Home List Price
-14%-14%
17%
22%
6%
14%
5%
11%
8%
-20%
-15%
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Percent Change in Median
List Price
$1,314
$1,732
$-
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
$1,600
$1,800
$2,000
Median Rent Price
-6%
3%
6%
4%
6%
8%
4%
2%
-8%
-6%
-4%
-2%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Percent Change in Median
Rent
Page 145 of 364
City of Auburn – Community Needs Assessment 27 | Page
The substantial housing cost increase in both purchasing and renting places pressure on all income brackets, however,
the pressure is felt greatest at the lowest brackets, those households earning 80% or less of the area median income.
Due to the down payment requirements when purchasing a home, the lower income brackets create a larger share of
renter households. Of those households earning 0-50% of AMI, 63% are renter households. Of those households earning
80-100+% of AMI, 24% are renter households.
According to the 2019 Out of Reach8 study by the National Low Income Housing Coalition, the mean renter wage in
King County is $27.05/hour. To not put that household into a cost burdened situation, the household could afford up
to $1,406 in rent. As rental rates continue to increase, those households earning less than 80% of AMI will need supports
to make ends meet, putting themselves into positions where economic opportunities are reasonably obtainable.
Survey Results
For this Community Needs Assessment, two surveys were conducted. One survey for general public, asking residents to
weigh in on prioritization and changes they are seeing in their communities. A second survey was given to Auburn City
staff whose job function has them linking residents to resources, asking these staff persons to identify issues and
barriers they are seeing in access to services.
Resident Survey
The survey was developed in conjunction with Auburn City staff, translated into Spanish, and disseminated through
online networks, listservs, and made available at kiosks at local events. The survey was made available to the public for
ten (10) weeks, outreach was conducted at various points throughout the survey being open. There was a total of 109
responses to the survey, below is a summary of those responses.
Demographics
Nearly half (49%) of the respondents fall between the ages of 35 to 54 years old. There were no respondents below the
age of 18.
8 https://reports.nlihc.org/oor/washington
3%13%22%27%15%20%
Age Of Respondents
Under 18 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+
Page 146 of 364
City of Auburn – Community Needs Assessment 28 | Page
77%
19%
Gender
Female Male
Non-binary/third gender Prefer not to say
Prefer to self-describe
95%
Transgender
Yes No Prefer not to say
4%
85%
6%
2%Race
American Indian/Alaska Native Asian
Black or African American Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
White Multi-Racial
Other (please specify)
96%
Ethnicity
Hispanic/Latino Non-Hispanic/Latino
Page 147 of 364
City of Auburn – Community Needs Assessment 29 | Page
Community Needs
Q.1 - From your experience and understanding, for the categories listed, please indicate if the needs within
you community have decreased, stayed the same, or increased in the past five years:
In all categories above, over 50% of survey respondents indicated that they believe needs have increased. The
categories with the highest percent of respondents indicating needs have increased are homelessness and housing
stability (89%) and basic needs (79%).
13%31%11%41%11%
Respondents Experience With Human Serives In
Auburn
Current or past recipient of services Work at a service agency
Volunteer at a service agency Have not directly engaged with services
Other
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Basic needs (food & emergency sheltering)
Homelessness and housing stability
Job training and educational programs
Access to services
Early learning and youth services
Community wellbeing and safety (includes domestic
violence)
Needs have decreased Needs have stayed the same Needs have increased
Page 148 of 364
City of Auburn – Community Needs Assessment 30 | Page
Q. 2 - From your experience and understanding, please rank the community needs from highest to lowest
(0=low and 10=high)
The scores outlined above are a weighted 0-10 ranking. Further echoing Question 1, basic needs and
homelessness/housing stability are among the top issues for survey respondents.
Q. 3 - From your experience and understanding, please rank the top 5 types of services needed in your
community.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Basic needs (food & emergency shelter)
Homeless prevention and housing stability
Neighborhood safety and wellbeing
Healthcare and dental care
Domestic violence and sexual assault supports
Job training and educational programs
Disability services
Youth/Teen programs
Immigrant & Refugee services
Early learning
Relationship building programs
Legal services
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Homelessness prevention
Mental health services
Substance use recovery services
Emergency sheltering
Food access
Employment services
Rental assistance
Medical and dental
Domestic Violence supports
Youth/Teen programs
Disability services
Resource connection & navigation services
Family supports
Early learning
Immigration and refugee services
Sexual assault services
Tenant rights services
Legal service
Other
Page 149 of 364
City of Auburn – Community Needs Assessment 31 | Page
The above graph outlines a weighted score given to each response. A rank of 1, the highest community need, was
assigned 5 points, while a rank of 5 was assigned 1 point. Like questions 1 and 2, homelessness prevention was at the
top of issues respondents are seeing as the largest need in their community.
Q. 4 – Please identify any barriers you have experienced while attempting to obtain services in Auburn.
Of those respondents identifying barriers to access services in Auburn, knowing what types of services Auburn offers
was the primary barrier. About one-third of respondents identified stigma as a barrier and 25% listed transportation as
a barrier to Auburn services
Q. 5 – For the following three (3) statements, rate the availability of housing within Auburn from a scale of
0-5. Zero indicates lack of availability, 5 indicates an adequate supply.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Language barriers / lack
of translated materials
or interpretation
Physical access to
building
Transportation access Knowledge of types of
services are available
Stigma/Discomfort in
requesting support
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Housing with enough bedrooms to meet your
household's needs
Housing with public transportation access
Affordable housing that costs no more than 30% of
your monthly income
Page 150 of 364
City of Auburn – Community Needs Assessment 32 | Page
Results from question 5 indicate that the respondents believe the availability of affordable housing in Auburn is
relatively low, receiving an aggregate score of 1.78 out of 5. This perception of limited affordable housing availability is
rooted in market realities. The limited availability of affordable housing is reflected by the number of cost burdened
households; impacting both renter and owner households. This concern echoes many of the other key takeaways from
the survey: the issue of homelessness and basic needs (food & shelter) is inextricably linked to the cost of housing.
Survey respondents identified housing with public transportation access in short supply (2.65) and housing with enough
bedrooms closer to an adequate supply (3.04).
Q. 6 – Are there additional types of human services that are needed in Auburn?
This was an open-ended question. Key themes that emerged were the issue of homelessness, mental health and
substance abuse services, and services/transportation for specific populations (seniors, youth, persons with a
disability).
Of the services brought up in the responses to this question, Auburn is or has funded organizations providing those
services. However, these responses contribute to the general theme of the survey that the highest priority needs in
Auburn are related to homelessness/housing stability, mental health/substance abuse services, and transportation.
Q. 7 – Please enter additional feedback or comments you may have regarding human services in Auburn
The respondents’ comments to this prompt further illustrate what the previous questions have highlighted. The issue
of homelessness in the community at-large is at the forefront of many of the respondents. Several strengths were
pointed out by residents, namely the Auburn School District in their capacity to address students with special needs,
and City Staff for their collaborative approach in issue identification and problem-solving.
Staff Survey
The staff survey was developed in conjunction with Auburn City staff and disseminated by Auburn City Staff to their
colleagues whom hold positions that connect residents to human services. The Staff Survey was only intended for
public-facing city staff who help connect residents to services as part of their role. Target staff groups: parks, arts, and
recreation staff, community services, code enforcement, utilities, police department, mayor’s office. Invitation
intended to reach approximately 65-70 city staff. There was a total of 10 responses to the survey, below is a summary
of those responses.
Q. 1 - From your experience and understanding, for the categories listed, please indicate if the needs within
you community have decreased, stayed the same, or increased in the past five years:
Page 151 of 364
City of Auburn – Community Needs Assessment 33 | Page
The majority of staff survey respondents identified all types of services as having increased in need over the past 5
years. Like the resident survey, staff also listed homelessness/housing stability, basic needs, and community wellbeing
as the top three categories.
Q. 2 - From your experience and understanding, please rank the types of services by need in your community
The above graph outlines the weighted score for each type of service. The top two listed, basic needs and homeless
prevention/housing stability are identically ordered from the resident survey. Also, the bottom four scores here are the
same bottom four scores from the resident survey. Sharing the top and bottom types of services indicate a shared
understanding from city staff and residents of the greatest needs are.
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Basic needs (food & emergency sheltering)
Homelessness and housing stability
Job training and educational programs
Access to services
Early learning and youth services
Community wellbeing and safety (includes domestic violence)
Needs have decreased Needs have stayed the same Needs have increased
Basic needs (food & emergency sheltering)
Homeless prevention and housing stability
Healthcare and dental care
Job training and educational programs
Neighborhood safety and wellbeing
Disability services
Youth/Teen programs
Domestic violence and sexual assault supports
Legal services
Early learning
Immigrant and Refugee services
Relationship building programs
Page 152 of 364
City of Auburn – Community Needs Assessment 34 | Page
Q. 3 - From your experience and understanding, please rank the top 5 types of services needed in your
community
The above graph outlines a weighted score given to each response. A rank of 1, the highest community need, was
assigned 5 points, while a rank of 5 was assigned 1 point. Homelessness prevention, food access, and mental health
services rank as the top three needed services from the perspective of City staff. These needs are echoed from the
resident survey, where homelessness prevention was the top need identified, while mental health service was number
two, and food access was number five.
Q. 4 - Please identify any barriers you have experienced while attempting to obtain services in Auburn
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Homelessness prevention
Food access
Mental health services
Resource connection & navigation services
Emergency sheltering
Rental assistance
Substance use recovery services
Early learning
Youth/Teen programs
Family supports
Medical and dental
Disability services
Employment services
Immigration and refugee services
Tenant rights services
Domestic Violence supports
Legal service
Sexual assault services
Other
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Language barriers /
lack of translated
materials or
interpretation
Physical access to
building
Transportation
access
Knowledge of
types of services
are available
Stigma/discomfort
in requesting
support
Other
Page 153 of 364
City of Auburn – Community Needs Assessment 35 | Page
The City Staff survey respondents identified language, transportation, and knowledge of services available as the top
three barriers they see when working with residents.
Funding Distribution Trend Analysis
Auburn is a member of the Human Service Funders Collaborative, a group of eighteen (18) cities that have formed a
joint application process. Human service providers are able to submit one application to any of the participating cities,
simplifying the administrative burden. Applications submitted to Auburn are reviewed by the Human Services
Committee, a 9-member volunteer board appointed by the Mayor and approved by the City Council. The committee
produces funding recommendations, presenting to the City Council in a scheduled Fall session. Final allocation amounts
will be approved and adopted as part of the overall City budget. This process of funding occurs every two years.
The City of Auburn has historically aimed to fund Human Services at a rate of 1% of the total general fund. This funding
has slowly crept below that 1% mark over the past decade. The amount made available to organizations through the
Human Services application process has typically been near $560,000 each year; this includes approximately $490,000
from the General Fund, and approximately $70,000 from the City’s Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
program. The CDBG funding for human service activities is capped at 15% of the entire CDBG allocation, Auburn makes
every effort to reach this cap each year.
Funding human service programs as a percentage of the general fund is one strategy. However, this strategy is subject
to economic fluctuations. In a “down” economy, often those low- and moderate-income households are in greater
need, increasing demand of services. Tying human service funding to general fund expenditures in a “down” economy
may leave the funding of critical services at a level that is not capable of meeting demand. The primary alternative to
this method is a funding strategy that is based on the population and its growth. Per capita funding works to keep pace
with growth, reducing strain on smaller organizations and non-profits as they see dramatic increases in demand for
their services while not gaining access to resources at the same pace. Also, in recession years when the demand for
human services increase, through a per capita funding strategy, resources to service agencies will not be impacted.
0.95%0.96%0.99%0.98%1.00%
0.92%0.89%0.85%0.81%0.76%0.72%
0.00%
0.20%
0.40%
0.60%
0.80%
1.00%
1.20%
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Auburn Human Service Spending As A
Percentage Of General Fund Expenditures
Page 154 of 364
City of Auburn – Community Needs Assessment 36 | Page
As of August 2019, the Auburn City Council is considering a move to per capita funding for Human Service programs.
Per Capita Funding Scenario
2019 Population 81,720
General Fund Expenditures $68,244,317
Human Service Funding at $8.15/resident $666,018
Human Service funding as % of General Fund 0.98%
In the 2019-2020 Human Services Collaboration application process there were 83 applications submitted from 63
different agencies, totaling a request of $1.4 million. Of those organizations funded by Auburn, there were 40 unique
agencies, funding 52 unique projects.
$6.70 $6.74
$6.92 $6.87 $6.69 $6.57 $6.49 $6.36 $6.21 $6.08 $6.00
$4.00
$4.50
$5.00
$5.50
$6.00
$6.50
$7.00
$7.50
$8.00
2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019
Human Service Funding Per
Capita
67%
23%
10%
Program History
Auburn has funded
Established program, new to Auburn
New program
38%
62%
Funding Amount
Fully Funded Partially Funded
Page 155 of 364
City of Auburn – Community Needs Assessment 37 | Page
The majority of programs funded in the 2019-2020 cycle are programs that Auburn is familiar with; about 30% of funded
programs were new to Auburn. Of those programs that were funded, about 40% were funded at their requested level.
Total Requested Amount $873,113
Recommendation $490,000
Difference $383,113 (43%)
Of programs receiving either partial or full funding, the total request was $873,113. Nearly all programs that received
full funding have been funded in the past (85%).
Human Service Spending as a Ratio of General Fund Expenditures
Below is a comparison of 2017-18 human service spending as a part of general fund expenditures. Human service
spending in this comparison is determined by the granted amount for the 2017-2018 Human Service Funders
Collaborative. To normalize comparisons, no CDBG funds are included in the Human Service spending below because
not all cities in King County received those funds. Those cities that do receive CDBG funds listed below are: Auburn,
Federal Way, and Kent.
Human Service Spending as a Ratio of General Fund Expenditures (no CDBG funds)
City General Fund Expenditures Human Service Spending Human Service Ratio
Auburn $ 68,244,317 $ 437,300 0.64 %
Covington $ 10,772,568 $ 136,500 1.27 %
Federal Way $ 52,843,000 $ 585,840 1.11 %
Issaquah $ 43,260,080 $ 371,500 0.86 %
Kent $ 94,400,000 $ 1,044,500 1.11 %
SeaTac $ 73,067,091 $ 495,209 0.68 %
As a ratio of total general fund expenditures, Covington contributes the largest portion of their City budget to human
service projects at 1.27%, followed by Federal Way and Kent (both CDBG entitlement Cities) at 1.11%. Of those cities
that receive CDBG funds, below is the breakout of Human Service spending as a ratio of general fund expenditures
including the use of 15% of CDBG funds on human service projects.
Human Service Funding with CDBG Funds Included
City 2017 CDBG Allocation
15% Human Service
Spending Cap
Human Service Ratio WITH
CDBG funds included
Auburn $ 428,078 $ 64,212 0.73 %
Federal Way $ 674,568 $ 101,185 1.30 %
Kent $ 1,054,657 $ 158,199 1.27 %
Page 156 of 364
City of Auburn – Community Needs Assessment 38 | Page
Auburn Funding Prioritization
As established in Resolution 5348, adopted by the Auburn City Council on February 5, 2018, the Auburn Human Service
Funding Priorities are as follows:
1. Services that address basic and emergency needs, including food, shelter, health and dental care
2. Programs that prevent homelessness and support housing stability
3. Job training and educational programs that provide economic opportunity for Auburn residents
4. Programs that promote wellbeing and safety of individuals and families in the community
5. Programs that support positive relationship within families, neighborhoods, and communities
AND
Homelessness Prevention and Housing Stability
o Diversion
o Rental Assistance
o Shelter and Navigation Services
o Domestic Violence Supports
Food Access
o Emergency Food
o Meal Programs
o Food Delivery
Healthcare
o Dental
o Mental Health
o Chemical Dependency
o Senior Health Access
Based on the 2018 Resolution cited above, below is a breakout of the funded organizations in the 2019-2020 application
cycle by type, as classified by the Human Services Committee:
Priority Funded
Orgs
Funding
Amount
Percent of
Budget
Homeless Prevention/Housing Stability 15 $161,027 33%
Basic and Emergency Needs 13 $140,475 29%
Wellbeing and Safety 4 $100,710 21%
Job Training and Education 4 $46,288 9%
Positive Relationships 7 $41,500 8%
A majority of those funds allocated through the human service competitive grant process are spent on Homeless
Prevention/Housing Stability and Basic and Emergency Needs, a combined 62% of the human service budget. These two
priorities reflect most of the need as outlined above in both the data portion and below in the focus groups/interviews.
The budget recommendations outlined below are only in reference to those funds allocated through the human service
competitive application cycle.
Page 157 of 364
City of Auburn – Community Needs Assessment 39 | Page
Qualitative Analysis
Focus groups and interviews were conducted with 14 stakeholder groups, including service providers, people accessing
services, and professionals frequently interacting with people accessing services. Those consulted included a random
sample. Randomization was done by using Microsoft Excel to assign a random number to each organization between
0.00000 and 1.00000, then rank those numbers from smallest to largest. The numbers nearest to zero (0.00000) were
identified for consultations, resulting in interviews with the following groups: Auburn Public Library staff, Auburn Food
Bank staff and consumers, NEXUS staff, NEXUS youth and young adult consumers, Bill Kirlin-Hackett of Interfaith
TaskForce, Mother Africa staff, Ukrainian Community Center staff, Mobile Medical team, Mary’s Place staff, Catholic
Community Services staff, Sound Health staff, Lutheran Community Services staff and the Human Services Committee.
A total of 33 people who are currently accessing services in the City of Auburn were interviewed.
Within each conversation, local strengths and gaps were highlighted and perspectives on priorities were shared. Several
themes emerged, both positive and negative. Positive themes included examples of effective services that are currently
available, including mobile medical services, access to food, a welcoming library, and the impact of word of mouth and
peer sharing when it comes to obtaining resource information. Those strengths are elaborated upon in the next section.
Broad concerns were consistent with other communities in the region, including the lack of affordable housing, mental
health services, general medical services, emergency shelter, food access, and living wage employment, as well as many
comments regarding unreliable public transportation and uncertainty about what resources are available locally. Below
is a summary of those themes.
Affordable Housing: People struggle to pay rent in the Auburn area, both up-front costs to obtain housing as well as
monthly rental costs. When asked what types of resources should be prioritized for funding in Auburn, people accessing
services unanimously said housing assistance and more affordable housing, and service providers broadly agreed. There
are long wait lists for subsidized housing resources, and units that are “affordable” require households to have income
at a rate three times higher than rent, which makes many affordable units inaccessible, especially to those households
in lower income brackets. People experiencing homelessness shared that up-front costs is sometimes all they need to
obtain housing stability; covering a deposit, first month rent and move in costs would be sufficient to end their episode
of homelessness. This speaks to the broad spectrum of housing resources needed in the community, from light touch,
one-time assistance to intensive supportive housing interventions. The affordable housing crunch is felt throughout the
region, as evidenced by the cost burden tables within the quantitative section of this assessment, and the spectrum of
housing and supportive services interventions need to be significantly expanded.
Behavioral Health Services: Behavioral health providers cite access to treatment as a primary need in the region,
second only to shelter/housing. Providers have access to funding for transportation to Seattle to access substance use
treatment, which hasn’t been ideal (outside their community) but has resulted in some success in connecting people
to necessary resources. People without Medicaid insurance have no local options for treatment and are highlighted as
a priority need. Although they’ve seen improved rates of coverage through the Affordable Care Act, 10% of people
served by PATH outreach still have no coverage and cannot access services.
One provider highlighted a gap in use of the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) specifically across
South King County providers, largely due to volunteer-run and faith-based nature of resources (not required to use
HMIS). This results in an equal access issue, and this provider has seen a disproportionate number of people
Page 158 of 364
City of Auburn – Community Needs Assessment 40 | Page
experiencing homelessness in South King County lose housing opportunities through the regional Coordinated Entry for
All system (CEA). CEA utilizes service transactions documented in HMIS to determine active and inactive status of people
who have requested housing support. When HMIS is not used to log service transactions, it results in people losing
housing referral opportunities through CEA.
Medical Services: Common themes regarding medical services included 1) Inappropriate discharges and follow up from
hospitals, and 2) Lack of medical respite care facility. It is not uncommon for Auburn Food Bank to see people
transported via taxi between hospitals and their programs, when there is a clear need for additional medical care that
human service organizations cannot provide. A more intensive medical respite care facility does not exist locally (closest
is Harborview in Seattle), so people exit the emergency room with nowhere to go, directly to the streets or emergency
shelter and often end up at the public library during the day. This results in the Mobile Medical Team seeing people
with worsening/acute medical conditions that would be preventable if a medical respite care option were available.
The Mobile Medical Team identified the number one strategy for providing effective and sustainable treatment as a
medical respite facility. Without that critical resource, patients, often without housing options, are discharged without
safe place to recover and no medical follow up.
Emergency Shelter: During daytime hours, there are no day center locations with general services; there is no safe
place to go within the human services system. As for nightly emergency shelter, Sundown shelter is available to single
adults experiencing literal homelessness, and they use a lottery system due to being beyond their capacity of 30 beds
nightly. NEXUS offers a residential program to youth under 18 and emergency shelter to young adults 18-24. Beyond
these maxed out resources, people within the City of Auburn do not have access to shelter, safe places to park and
reside in their vehicles, or safe campgrounds. Couples without children, families with children and single women do not
have access to any shelter within the City of Auburn, and people with pets and those actively using substances have no
options for shelter within the City of Auburn, as low barrier shelter does not exist.
Supportive services, including case management, navigation, housing location, and mainstream resources such as
mental health services essentially do not exist within existing shelter programming. Ray of Hope is largely volunteer-
run and focused on meeting basic needs, and NEXUS has experienced numerous cuts and a resulting need to
significantly reduce services and focus on meeting basic needs. When people are able to get help with accessing
services, they often cite Auburn Public Library staff as the source of that support.
Living Wage Employment: One culturally tailored service provider cited employment as “the hardest challenge.”
Another culturally tailored service provider wants to see “employment resources that work to build connections with
agencies,” as many immigrants and refugees face discrimination from employers. Many employment barriers exist
when English skills are limited; while staff can attend job fairs with clients, they lack capacity to have repeated
meetings/interviews with employers.
Young adults do not find existing employment resources to be helpful; specifically mentioning their ability to do resume
writing without WorkSource assistance. Young adult providers would like to offer in-house employment services
tailored to young adults but have experienced funding cuts that limit their ability to cover more than daily operations.
Public Transportation: People accessing services cited hardship when it comes to getting around in Auburn and the
surrounding areas. Free and reduced fare bus tickets are not readily available except for NEXUS consumers and people
engaged by outreach teams. Weekend, evening and mid-day service is especially limited; at night, after Sundown
Page 159 of 364
City of Auburn – Community Needs Assessment 41 | Page
Shelter fills its beds, it is extremely difficult to find transportation to regional shelter options. People often need to
travel into Seattle to access services and obtaining bus passes for such travel is a burden.
Basic Needs: People accessing services, specifically single adults and young adults, cited a need for access to clothing
and business attire. Single adults accessing Auburn Food Bank have struggled to access regular showers, storage for
personal belongings, and regular access to laundry machines. Without the ability to meet these basic needs, the ability
to gain employment and work toward goals are exponentially more difficult, given the stigma and public reaction to
perceived hygiene issues and hauling personal belongings around town and into interviews. Several people talked about
the exhaustion associated with hauling their belongings all day, leaving little energy and ability to accomplish much
else.
Knowledge of Available Resources: People currently accessing services in Auburn commonly cited frustration when
attempting to obtain information about available resources. Despite calling hotlines, utilizing resource books and
talking with social service staff, much resource information is outdated, disorganized and/or completely unavailable
when a person is experiencing a crisis. While the 211 hotline and resource books are “accessible,” the information
available is “not helpful” and that is largely due to a lack of navigation services to guide people through complex systems
and requirements. Young adults believe increased outreach and advertising specific to local resources would be helpful
in addressing the issue. The Auburn Public Library was repeatedly mentioned as a safe place to be during the day, with
access to computer resources and helpful library staff. Overall, people accessing services, social service staff and the
general public struggle to obtain information about resources immediately available and find it challenging to move
through benefit and service systems with consistent success.
Page 160 of 364
City of Auburn – Community Needs Assessment 42 | Page
Strengths
People with connections in Auburn want to remain in the Auburn area, despite challenges they experience making ends
meet. Several community strengths were mentioned in conversations with stakeholders, including people with lived
experience. Strengths focused on effective services that are currently available, including mobile medical services,
access to food, a welcoming library, and the impact of word of mouth and peer sharing when it comes to obtaining
resource information.
Mobile Medical Services: Interviews resulted in positive feedback regarding the effectiveness and consistency of the
Mobile Medical Van, with desire for increased frequency. It’s particularly important for the service to be delivered
consistently, and to be anchored to an existing community service. Independent foot traffic does not reach enough
people. Successful partnerships include day centers and meal programs. Additionally, youth have been satisfied by the
care provided by The Country Doctor.
Access to Food: People cited access to food as adequate, and the Auburn Food Bank stated having adequate resources
except during the holidays. However, one service provider cited concerns with food banks providing expired food.
Welcoming Library: Folks cited the public library as a safe, welcoming place to go during the day, and library staff
identify this service as being part of their mission. The Auburn library has experienced steady increases in the number
of people experiencing homelessness they are seeing during the day, increased need for support identifying resources,
and frequent need to handle complex situations including mental health crises, which library staff haven’t traditionally
been trained to handle.
Word of Mouth and Peer Sharing: When it comes to obtaining resource information in the Auburn area, word of mouth
is what people rely on. This is a common method of resource information sharing in most communities, but partly due
to lack of a centralized location (mobile, physical, etc.) in Auburn to get such information. People are relying on each
other to share what they know. One clear benefit of focus groups associated with this Needs Assessment was the peer
sharing that occurred during the facilitated sessions; perhaps there is opportunity for continued peer sharing sessions
in the short term.
Outreach Partnership with Police Department: Catholic Community Services (CCS) partners with the Auburn Police
Department to deliver outreach to unsheltered people experiencing mental health and/or substance use issues and has
seen success in this balanced approach. CCS offers a supportive service approach, paired with Auburn Police
Department for law enforcement when necessary. Connection to services has been successful, including housing,
shelter, food, and healthcare resources. Service providers highlight a preference for a Mental Health Professional to be
hired within Auburn Police Department but have established successful partnerships in lieu of this resource.
Page 161 of 364
City of Auburn – Community Needs Assessment 43 | Page
Recommendations
Based on the most urgent needs highlighted by people accessing services as well as service providers, the authors of
this assessment put forward the following recommendations:
1. Increase the overall budget for Human Service programs.
Given the analysis above comparing neighboring cities sharing broad similarities to Auburn, it is recommended
that the City of Auburn dedicate 1% of General Fund expenditures to Human Services. This 1% excludes CDBG
funding. It is recommended that upon reaching the 1% of General Fund expenditures allocated to human
services, that the City adjust annually to keep pace with population growth. Nearby cities that are CDBG
entitlement grantees dedicate just over 1.1% of general fund expenditures to human services, that percentage
goes up to just over 1.25% when including CDBG funding.
Auburn and South King County have grown tremendously, driving up the cost of living. This upward trend in
costs has put a great deal of pressure on those low- and moderate-income families. As pressure from Seattle
continues to push households to the suburbs, this trend is not expected to lessen in the coming years. To meet
this challenge, additional funding to the Human Services budget is strongly recommended.
As the data, surveys, and focus groups above indicate, the needs in the City and the region have increased in
all areas over the past five years. Most notably, the cost of housing has had a great impact on the families in
Auburn. This is evidenced by data, the number of cost burdened households earning less than 50% of the Area
Median Income (AMI) has increased by 21% since 2010. This increase in housing costs should be met with
increased resource to assist those households that are most vulnerable to these market trends.
2. Prioritize and expand shelter and housing options aligning with the Housing First philosophy. According to
the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH), “Housing First is a proven approach,
applicable across all elements of systems for ending homelessness, in which people experiencing homelessness
are connected to permanent housing swiftly and with few to no treatment preconditions, behavioral
contingencies, or other barriers. It is based on overwhelming evidence that people experiencing homelessness
can achieve stability in permanent housing if provided with the appropriate level of services. Study after study
has shown that Housing First yields higher housing retention rates, drives significant reductions in the use of
costly crisis services and institutions, and helps people achieve better health and social outcomes.” When
analyzing trends in communities who have moved the needle on homelessness and sustained the gains,
alignment with Housing First is a clear, common thread. Alignment with Housing First includes and is not limited
to the following examples:
a) Access to emergency shelter and housing programs is not contingent on sobriety, minimum income
requirements, lack of a criminal record, completion of treatment, participation in services, or other
unnecessary conditions.
b) Emergency shelter and housing programs accommodate couples as well as pets. This goes beyond the
legal requirement of accepting service animals and acknowledges a household’s “family” as they
Page 162 of 364
City of Auburn – Community Needs Assessment 44 | Page
define “family.” It is common for couples and people with pets to remain unsheltered as opposed to
leaving a partner or pet to enter emergency shelter.
c) Services are informed by a harm-reduction philosophy that recognizes drug and alcohol use and
addiction are a part of some tenants’ lives. Many people live with substance use issues and remain
successfully housed without entering the homeless system, demonstrating it is possible to remain
housed despite substance use challenges. Aligning with the harm reduction philosophy, tenants are
engaged in non-judgmental communication regarding drug and alcohol use and are offered education
regarding how to avoid risky behaviors and engage in safer practices.
d) Staff in shelter are trained in and actively employ evidence-based practices for client/tenant
engagement, such as motivational interviewing, assertive engagement, critical time interventions, and
trauma-informed care.
e) Services focus primarily on rapid connection to permanent housing resources, utilizing a Housing
Problem Solving approach, and consistent and intentional connections to Coordinated Entry for All
(CEA).
3. Expand supportive housing options utilizing evidence-based housing models.
a. Housing Problem Solving, specifically “diversion” and “rapid exit from shelter” approaches. Housing
Problem Solving is an approach embedded within the homeless system focused on helping households
utilize their strengths, support networks, and community resources to find housing. It should be
attempted with everyone interacting with the homeless system, by staff highly trained in conflict
resolution and mediation, and include flexible financial assistance when such assistance will make the
difference between housing stability and entering or continuing to access the homeless system.
Consider cross training staff from multiple systems for maximum impact, including emergency shelter
and day center staff, public library staff, and mobile medical staff.
b. Rental assistance with supportive services utilizing the Progressive Engagement model. Progressive
Engagement means providing only the amount of assistance that’s necessary to support a household
in stabilizing. According to the National Alliance to End Homelessness, most households require only
a small amount of assistance to stabilize. For those who need more assistance, that should be
provided. This is an individualized, highly flexible approach that maximizes resources by providing only
the assistance that is necessary to support housing stability. Research supports an inability to predict
the level of assistance a household will need to stabilize, even by looking at specific data around
income, employment, substance use, etc. Therefore, supportive service staff must work closely with
people to understand exactly what is needed to permanently end their episode of homelessness. It is
important to utilize real time data to analyze displacement and equity-related implications of all
housing interventions. Because data indicates displacement and equity issues within larger King
County rental assistance efforts, emphasis is placed here for City of Auburn officials and partners.
c. Permanent Supportive Housing targeted to people experiencing homelessness with long term rental
subsidy and intensive service needs. This is a longer-term approach requiring a substantial planning
effort, and supplemental to rental assistance programming that can serve as more of a short-term plan
to make additional resources available to people immediately.
4. Ensure strong housing location services are available. The local and regional housing market makes identifying
a market rate rental and negotiating with landlords incredibly challenging. Housing location services should be
Page 163 of 364
City of Auburn – Community Needs Assessment 45 | Page
available through existing housing programs to people receiving housing assistance to ensure a viable housing
option is identified, and as needed, supports provided to landlords who are willing to negotiate reductions to
their screening criteria when people have housing barriers such as an eviction or criminal history.
5. Additional affordable housing. As a participating member of the recently formed South King Housing and
Homeless Partners, we recommend the City of Auburn continue to analyze its use of zoning policies and
regional approaches to affordable housing. As the suburban areas of South King County continue to receive
families and households pushed outwards from the Greater Seattle Area due to increased housing costs,
Auburn will also see a rise in housing costs due to increased demand. This regional approach to affordable
housing for South King County is an excellent start and will need several early victories to create buy-in to the
notion that affordable housing is a solvable issue when looked at from a regional perspective with an equity
lens.
a. Formally, through the South King Housing and Homelessness Partners (SKHHP) this suggested regional
approach has the opportunity move forward with a significant amount of funds. Auburn
representation within SKHHP should strongly advocate for the pooling of HB1406 funds among the
SKHHP membership. As recommended by the SKHHP Staff Working Group, the pooling of funds has
the potential to increase the outflow from the fund significantly. To this point, affordable housing is a
regional concern, and the regional approach should supply itself with adequate funding to secure an
early and visible “win” to increase general trust among members and as a marketing tool for other
communities interested in joining SKHHP.
6. Expand access to basic needs services, including laundry, showers and storage for personal belongings. Hours
of access to laundry and showers must be available beyond traditional business hours and include weekends
to accommodate employment and school schedules. Storage facilities that are accessible 24/7 are ideal given
varying schedules. Incorporating a “resource navigator” role within these services may help to address both
basic needs and the lack of resource navigation support cited by people accessing services.
7. Access to resource information and navigation support, resulting in meaningful connections to resources.
8. Develop safe parking options for people living in their vehicles due to lack of housing and emergency shelter
options. Vehicle residency represented the largest increase in the 2019 Point in Time Count across King County,
and within that increase, the region with the largest increase was South King County. Yet, there are no safe
parking options within the City of Auburn. All Home, King County, City of Seattle and partners are working with
HUD Unsheltered Initiative technical assistance providers from Cloudburst to identify priority action items and
it is recommended the City of Auburn adopt recommendations provided through the Unsheltered Initiative
process in late 2019 and early 2020.
9. Funding Prioritization List – Adopt a formal list of Human Service Funding priorities that are clear and may be
tied to outcomes to facilitate clear communication with Auburn residents. Given the data analysis, survey
results, and conversations with service providers and local programs, our recommended of priorities would be:
i. Homelessness prevention & housing stability
ii. Emergency sheltering
iii. Supportive services (including housing related basic needs)
iv. Basic Needs (food, medical/dental care)
v. Job training/education
Page 164 of 364
City of Auburn – Community Needs Assessment 46 | Page
All types of programs funded in the past would reasonably fit under the proposed priorities above. For example,
domestic violence programs could fit under priority 1, 2, or 3. Childcare, given the circumstance could fit under
priority 3, 4, or 5.
Create a crosswalk document for applicants clearly indicating the priorities and what types of programs may
fit under which priority. Applicants should identify which priority their program or service satisfies, and clearly
outline the metrics for those services and/or programs such as: people served; beds/night provided, meals
delivered, etc.
Create a vision/mission statement that justifies these priorities in a way that conveys to the public that
priorities are understood and reflect the needs/desires of residents.
10. Messaging and strategic communication – Resident comments in the survey (both within the survey and on
Facebook where the survey was disseminated) indicated that there are some sentiments that exist within the
community that have extremely negative perceptions of their neighbors struggling with homelessness.
Especially as residents see and experience increases in diversity and their perception is that homelessness is
more visible, clear and accurate messaging with residents is critical.
a. Clearly outline to the public what the human service priorities are, the amount of funding going to
each priority in the most recent funding cycle, visualizing outcomes from funded organizations.
Budget Allocation Recommendations
The following are recommendations for prioritizing resources to maximize the local impact. Assuming 1% of the general
fund expenditures in 2019 ($682,443) and including maximum cap of CDBG ($89,361), the total budget for
recommendations below is $771,804.
75% of funding towards housing and associated services - $578,853
When asked how they would prioritize City of Auburn Human Service funding, 100% of community members in
interviews and focus groups prioritized “housing” as the primary need. Based on local cost and outcome data, it is
recommended that the City of Auburn dedicate at least 75% of the total budget to housing resources.
Of this 75%:
38% to housing problem solving interventions (diversion and rapid exit from shelter). The estimated average
cost per household for these services in King County is $1,668. Given this, assisting 131 households would cost
an estimated $220,176. (Noted in the below graphic as Homelessness interventions)
38% to rental assistance with supportive service programming, supporting an estimated 15 households at an
average cost per household of $14,407 in King County.
24% to access housing related basic needs services, including storage, laundry, and showers. Storage was noted
as a top priority among these services; a partnership with faith-based organizations may meet laundry and
shower needs at a lower cost, and perhaps accommodate safe parking needs.
25% of funding towards meeting basic needs and job training - $192,951
Of this 25%
Page 165 of 364
City of Auburn – Community Needs Assessment 47 | Page
65% ($125,418) would go towards those services provided offering basic and emergency needs outside of
housing related services. Such as childcare resources, community health services, meal delivery, etc.
35% ($67,533) would go to job training and education services with the aim at increasing economic
opportunities for those served.
The priorities funded in the past do not differ greatly from the recommendations outlined above. Given the need
identified in focus groups, interviews, and throughout the data, it is recommended that a greater amount of funding
be allocated towards housing specific needs. In the 2019-2020 cycle, approximately 45% of funding went towards
organizations related in some way to housing services. It is recommended that that proportion be increased to 75%. In
conjunction with this, it is also recommended to clearly identify and delineate between priorities, creating space for
more streamlined outcome measurement and data standards.
The graphic below outlines the funded organizations by priority in the 2019-2020 cycle and compares that to the
recommendation of funding by priority.
2019-2020 Allocation by Priority Recommended Allocation by Priority
The following are additional recommendations for prioritizing existing staff time and resources to maximize the local
impact:
Create opportunities for collaboration and peer learning among service providers, as increased knowledge of
available services and benefits increases the ability of frontline staff to offer system navigation to people in
crisis. This should include facilitation of regularly scheduled meetings focused on resource sharing and
identification of tools needed to support system navigation. A regional approach is recommended, in
partnership with at least the communities of Auburn, Kent and Burien, which facilitates stronger collaboration
between service providers of each city as well as Human Service staff and leadership.
Page 166 of 364
City of Auburn – Community Needs Assessment 48 | Page
Lead focused effort to increase service provider participation in HMIS, especially among faith based and
volunteer-run programming, to ensure equal access to housing resources through regional Coordinated Entry
for All system as well as to contribute to local and regional data that will assist with future planning.
Create clear and concise communication with residents around human service priorities. Develop dialog with
residents around outcomes of human service funding and progress towards goals.
The following is a short description of how Spokane, Washington approaches providing human services to their
residents.
In attempts to provide recommendations to Auburn on human service funding priorities as well as broader
recommendations, an interview was conducted with a Homeless Program Specialist from Spokane to identify places
where overlaps and differences exist. This was not included in the recommendations above because the infrastructure
and processes comparing Auburn to Spokane are widely different and any specific recommendations based on
Spokane’s system would require long-term concentrated efforts and large amounts of resources. The system outlined
below are ideas to consider.
Funding Cycle
Spokane has shifted to a 5-year funding window for its human service providers. Acknowledging that this is a
more extensive process at the outset while they are rewarded with a more static and high-quality collection of
funded organizations.
Realizing many of the same organizations were being funded from year-to-year, Spokane had a largely stable
portfolio of organizations applying and being funded, making them more comfortable with the administrative
and reporting capacity of many of the organizations applying for funds. Moving from a 2-year cycle to a 5-year
cycle has freed up City resources and administrative capacity.
Creative projects that may not have the administrative or reporting infrastructure at the outset may be funded
using local dollars and not federal or state dollars. With a 5-year funding window, staff are able to work with
these organizations to get their performance up to the system a whole in the least.
Contracting
All 5-year awards are performance-based contracts with clearly defined, mutually agreed upon outcome
measurements. Outcome measurements are often tied back to HUD or the Washington State Department of
Commerce. This raises the data quality to a level that would allow a wider pool of funding for the organization
to be eligible for. City staff is utilized for technical assistance (TA) throughout the program year, offering
assistance where able to the funded service organizations. This is largely possible as cited by Spokane, due to
the shift to a 5-year funding window. Freeing up staff from a large and frequent application process, it has
allowed staff to act in a different more deeply involved role.
Performance Standards
The City has minimum performance standards and holds each contract accountable to those. Spokane does
not take a punitive approach, rather for those underperforming organizations, the City provides technical
assistance to get them up to meet the standards at a minimum. The City makes every attempt to provide
funded organizations with the tools to accurately record outcomes.
Page 167 of 364
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Joint Meeting with the Human Services Committee (Tate) (30
Minutes)
Date:
October 8, 2019
Department:
Community Development
Attachments:
No Attachments Av ailable
Budget Impact:
Current Budget: $0
Proposed Revision: $0
Revised Budget: $0
Administrativ e Recommendation:
For discussion only.
Background Summary:
Chapter 2.36 of the Auburn City Code (ACC) creates the Human Services Committee. Two
important passages within Chapter 2.36 that lay the foundation for the purpose and role of the
Committee are as follows:
ACC 2.36.010 – “There is created the human services committee which is established
to review the social needs of the city that should be considered when appropriating
federal revenue sharing funds and general funds, and also to serve as a committee to
advise the mayor and the council on allocation and application for grant funds to be
used for community development projects.”
ACC 2.36.020 – “The human services committee should assist and advise elected
officials of the city in identifying the local social service needs and recommending
priorities to meet those needs including but not restricted to proposing programs,
reviewing and evaluating existing programs, encouraging citizen participation, and
performing other assignments referred to the committee by the mayor or council as
deemed appropriate.
To achieve the above objectives, the Committee and staff work together to gather data,
identify community needs, evaluate grant applications, and develop policy. The Human
Services Committee does not have decision making authority; the Committee makes
recommendations for consideration by City Council.
Page 168 of 364
The joint meeting offers an opportunity for both bodies to have a more casual conversation
about city needs and objectives as well as ways to enhance the overall delivery of human
services in Auburn. Staff will not be providing a structure around which this conversation
should occur in order to allow committee members and council members to share their own
questions, ideas and opinions. Possible discussion points include:
Debriefing on the prior year activities
Previewing upcoming activities
Discussion of service enhancements such as the grant application process and
identification of service gaps and needs
Discussion of funding levels
Methods for enhancing communication lines between the committee and council
Rev iewed by Council Committees:
Councilmember:Trout-Manuel Staff:Tate
Meeting Date:October 14, 2019 Item Number:
Page 169 of 364
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
CDBG Consolidated Plan and 2020 Annual Action Plan (Tate)
(20 Minutes)
Date:
October 8, 2019
Department:
Community Development
Attachments:
Res olution No. 5461
Item 1. Consolidatd Plan Overview
Item 2 - Consolidated Plan
Item 3 - Analysis of Impediments to Fair Hous ing
Choice
Item 4 - CDBG Cons olidated Plan and AI
Overview ( PowerPoint)
Budget Impact:
Current Budget: $0
Proposed Revision: $0
Revised Budget: $0
Administrativ e Recommendation:
Staff recommendation: Schedule Resolution No. 5461 for action by City Council at the regular
meeting on November 4, 2019.
Background Summary:
Every five years, the City of Auburn is required to submit an updated Consolidated Plan to the
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to guide the investment of Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. Auburn’s current Consolidated Plan ends in 2019,
with the next plan (2020-2024) due to HUD by November 15, 2019. The Consolidated Plan is
inclusive of the City of Auburn’s 2020 Annual Action Plan for CDBG projects.
Auburn is part of the larger King County Consortium, therefore Auburn’s Consolidated Plan is
part of the larger regional plan. All King County Consortium members also largely share in the
same Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice, a required document that has also
been updated and is included in packet.
City Council scheduled and held a public hearing on the plan on October 7, 2019. No
additional public comments were received at this time.
This presentation will describe the major components of the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan,
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice, and the 2020 Annual Action Plan.
Rev iewed by Council Committees:
Councilmember:Trout-Manuel Staff:Tate
Meeting Date:October 14, 2019 Item Number:
Page 170 of 364
Page 171 of 364
--------------------------
Resolution No. XXXX
October XX, 2019
Page 1 of 2
RESOLUTION NO. 5461
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN,
WASHINGTON, ADOPTING THE 2020-2024 CONSOLIDATED PLAN, THE
ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE, AND THE 2020
ANNUAL ACTION PLAN
WHEREAS, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
designated the City of Auburn as an entitlement community for its Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program;
WHEREAS, the primary objective of the Consolidated Plan and CDBG
Program is the development of viable urban communities by providing decent
housing, a suitable living environment, and expanding economic opportunities,
principally for persons of low and moderate income;
WHEREAS, to be eligible for funding, the City of Auburn must submit a
Consolidated Plan to serve as a federally required planning document to guide the
City of Auburn's human service and community development efforts;
WHEREAS, the planning process to develop the Consolidated Plan involved
public participation and guidance from non-profit and governmental agencies
serving low income residents in the community;
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Auburn heard and considered
public comment about the proposed 2020 – 2024 Consolidated Plan, Analysis of
Impediments to Fair Housing Choice, and the 2020 Annual Action Plan;
Page 172 of 364
--------------------------
Resolution No. XXXX
October XX, 2019
Page 2 of 2
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN,
WASHINGTON, RESOLVES as follows:
Section 1. Pursuant to Chapter 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part
91, the City adopts the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan, the Analysis of Impediments
to Fair Housing Choice, and the 2020 Annual Action Plan.
Section 2. The Mayor is authorized to implement such administrative
procedures as may be necessary to carry out directions of the legislation.
Section 3. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect on passage and
signatures.
DATED and SIGNED this ______ day of XXXX, 2019.
CITY OF AUBURN
____________________________
NANCY BACKUS, MAYOR
ATTEST:
____________________________
Shawn Campbell, MMC, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________
Steven L. Gross, City Attorney
Page 173 of 364
City of Auburn
2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Update
Overview
Every five years, the City of Auburn is required to submit an updated Consolidated Plan to the
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to guide the investment of Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. Auburn’s current Consolidated Plan ends in 2019,
with the next plan (2020-2024) due to HUD in November. The Consolidated Plan is inclusive of
the City of Auburn’s 2020 Annual Action Plan for CDBG projects.
Auburn expects to receive an annual entitlement of approximately $600,000 based on prior
year allocations. CDBG funds are heavily regulated, with a limited scope of allowable
expenditures.
Auburn is part of the larger King County Consortium, therefore Auburn’s Consolidated Plan is
part of the larger regional plan. All King County Consortium members also largely share in the
same Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice, a required document that has also been
updated and will be scheduled for Council approval as an addendum to the Consolidated Plan
in November of 2019.
Goals
Projects and activities of the Consolidated Plan follow three broad goals:
Affordable Housing – Ensure access to healthy, affordable housing for low- and moderate-
income households throughout the region and advance fair housing to end discrimination and
overcome historic patterns of segregation.
Ending Homelessness – Make homelessness rare, brief, and one-time and eliminate racial
disparities.
Community and Economic Development – Establish and maintain healthy, integrated, and
vibrant communities by improving the well-being and mobility of low- and moderate-income
residents, and focusing on communities with historic disparities in health, income, and quality
of life.
Goal One
Affordable Housing
Goal Two
Ending
Homelessness
Goal Three
Community and
Economic
Development
Housing Repair
Program
Homelessness
prevention public
services (e.g. job
training programs or
eviction prevention)
Infrastructure
(sidewalk
improvements)
Capital improvements
for nonprofit
affordable housing
properties
Homelessness
intervention public
services (e.g. street
outreach or medical
and dental services)
Fair Housing public
services (e.g. tenant
workshops or legal
assistance)
Page 174 of 364
City of Auburn
2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Update
Changes to Note
The overarching goals of the Consolidated Plan have remained similar to the 2015-2019
strategic planning period. However, the Consolidated Plan highlights the need for ongoing
work around fair housing, displacement, and equity and social justice:
All three overarching goals explicitly include language for these priorities.
The Consolidated Plan is informed by the 2019 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing
Choice and supports the ten Fair Housing Goals.
Fair Housing public service activities have been specifically prioritized based on
community input and fair housing data.
Timeline and Process
The Consolidated Plan has been publicly available on the city’s website since September 3,
2019. A 30 day public comment period was provided and advertised in the Seattle Times.
City Council held a public hearing on October 7, 2019 and will receive a presentation from
staff with all public comments incorporated at the October 14, 2019 Study Session.
Page 175 of 364
City of Auburn
2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Update
King County Consortium Members
Participating Jurisdictions
Auburn Bellevue Federal Way Kent
Joint Agreement Cities
Burien Kirkland Redmond Renton Shoreline
Partner Cities
Algona Black Diamond Beaux Arts Bothell Carnation
Clyde Hill Covington Des Moines Duvall Enumclaw
Hunts Point Issaquah Kenmore Lake Forest Park Maple Valley
Medina Mercer Island Newcastle Normandy Park North Bend
Pacific Sammamish SeaTac Skykomish Snoqualmie
Tukwila Woodinville Yarrow Point Unincorporated King County
Page 176 of 364
Consolidated Plan AUBURN 1
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
City of Auburn
Community Development Block Grant Consolidated Plan
2020 – 2024
Page 177 of 364
Consolidated Plan AUBURN 2
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
Executive Summary
ES-05 Executive Summary – 24 CFR 91.200(c), 91.220(b)
1. Introduction
The purpose of the City of Auburn's contribution to the King County Consortium Consolidated Plan is to
provide guidance for the investment of certain Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds in
the City and within the surrounding region as well as setting forth goals and performance measures. The
Consolidated Plan has been prepared on behalf of and with the assistance of participating groups,
agencies and organizations. The City of Auburn is committed to finding effective, coordinated
approaches to address the unmet needs of its low and moderate income residents, and has aligned the
goals of the Consolidated Plan with our Urban County Consortium partners.
The City of Auburn anticipates receiving approximately $600,000 per year in CDBG funds during the five
year period of the Consolidated Plan for program years 2020-2024. These funds will be used to address
housing, homelessness, and community development needs throughout the community.
Data in this Consolidated Plan is based primarily upon the 2011-2015 American Community Survey (ACS)
five-year data set, which is the most current ACS data available at time of publishing. This data provides
the most detailed information available on income, poverty, housing, and housing cost burden. For the
purposes of Auburn’s Consolidated Planning process, the ACS data has been supplemented in this Plan
with more recent data from community surveys, focus groups, public meetings, and other available data
sets pertaining to housing and community development. The Consolidated Plan follows the Department
of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) standardized template, and each section contains questions
framed by HUD.
The Consolidated Plan also takes into account the findings and goals of King County’s 2019 Analysis of
Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI). The AI found that systemic segregation, disproportionate
housing needs, and individual-level discrimination are present and ongoing across King County, including
in Auburn.
Key Findings from the AI include:
King County has become significantly more diverse over recent decades.
Jurisdictions in King County can be categorized within three racial compositions: areas that are
diverse, predominantly White and Asian, and predominantly White.
South Seattle and Southwest King County contain the most diverse areas of King County and
face the greatest barriers in access to opportunity.
Economic segregation is a major factor to segregation patterns throughout King County and
protected class status is frequently correlated with lower incomes.
Page 178 of 364
Consolidated Plan AUBURN 3
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
Housing prices have increased dramatically in the last ten years, displacing lower-income
communities of color and immigrants.
Field-testing conducted across jurisdictions in King County found evidence of individual-level
housing discrimination in about half of all tests. The testing that occurred in Auburn was
consistent with these results.
The AI proposed the following Fair Housing Goals:
1. Invest in programs that provide fair housing education, enforcement, and testing.
2. Engage underrepresented communities on an ongoing basis to better understand barriers and
increase access to opportunity.
3. Provide more housing for vulnerable populations.
4. Provide more housing choices for people with large families.
5. Support efforts to increase housing stability.
6. Preserve and increase affordable housing in communities at high risk of displacement.
7. Review zoning laws to increase housing options and supply in urban areas.
8. Work with communities to guide investments in historically underserved communities.
9. Support the Affordable Housing Committee’s efforts to promote fair housing.
10. Report annually on Fair Housing Goals and progress.
2. Summary of the objectives and outcomes identified in the Plan Needs Assessment
Overview
Within this context, the Consolidated Plan's identified objectives and outcomes are:
1. Affordable Housing – Ensure access to healthy, affordable housing for low- and moderate-
income households throughout the region and advance fair housing to end discrimination and
overcome historic patterns of segregation.
2. Homelessness – Make homelessness rare, brief, and one-time and eliminate racial disparities.
3. Community and Economic Development – Establish and maintain healthy, integrated, and
vibrant communities by improving the well-being and mobility of low- and moderate-income
residents, and focusing on communities with historic disparities in health, income, and quality of
life.
To accomplish these outcomes and objectives, the City invests in programs that meet the community
basic needs, increase self-sufficiency, provide economic opportunity and develop a safe community.
3. Evaluation of past performance
During the first four years of the 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan, Auburn worked with the community,
nonprofit agencies, HUD, and our partners in the King County Consortium to make progress towards our
Consolidated Plan goals.
Page 179 of 364
Consolidated Plan AUBURN 4
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
Each year, the City of Auburn prepares a Consolidated Annual Performance Evaluation Report (CAPER)
and submits it to HUD. The CAPER reports on the specific accomplishments and activities for that year.
From 2015 to 2018, the City of Auburn achieved the following with CDBG funds:
242 households received home repairs
81 residents received job training and placement
54 small businesses received assistance
75 youth received free after-school programming
209 residents received medical services
247 residents received dental services
Bathrooms at Les Gove Park were renovated to become ADA accessible
A house was rehabbed to accommodate a transitional housing program which has served
multiple families in the community
A small business in the downtown core received a business façade improvement
Four sections of sidewalk were built or modified to meet ADA requirements
4. Summary of citizen participation process and consultation process
The City of Auburn held a public meeting prior to the development of the Consolidated Plan in order to
receive public input on community needs, barriers to fair housing, priorities, and potential strategies.
Notices for the meeting were posted on the City’s website and emailed to agencies and community
stakeholders via a distribution list.
In addition to soliciting direct input from community members, the City also worked with a consultant to
complete a 2019 Community Needs Assessment. The report synthesized data and community feedback
from stakeholder interviews, focus groups, and a community-wide online survey. This data and input
went into the development of the Needs Assessment and Market Analysis sections of the Consolidated
Plan.
The City of Auburn in conjunction with the Consortium consulted with multiple public and private
agencies during the development of the consolidated plan. Agencies that participated in consultations
included: the King County Housing Authority, All Home King County, other government human service
providers and nonprofit agencies delivering services in Auburn and the subregion.
In addition to conducting consultations during the development of the plan, the City of Auburn
collaborates and works closely with numerous coalitions, committees and government entities
throughout the duration of the plan in efforts to enhance strategies and systems to meet established
goals and objectives on the plan.
The draft of the Consolidated Plan was posted on September 4, 2019 for public comment.
Page 180 of 364
Consolidated Plan AUBURN 5
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
5. Summary of public comments
Prior to development of the Consolidated Plan, the City collected input from a public meeting held on
April 1, 2019 to inform community needs and gaps, and to receive input from Auburn residents on how
impactful the 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan strategies were.
Community members shared feedback with the City on what is working well, what is missing from our
previous Consolidated Plan strategies, what they would like to see prioritized, and the ways in which our
residents are experiencing barriers to fair housing choice. Below is a summary of key feedback received
from public stakeholders.
What is Working Well
Sidewalk ADA improvements help create greater accessibility and safety for the community
Health and dental services
Youth after-school programming
Small business assistance helps to build entrepreneurship opportunities for community
members
What is Missing
There continues to be a significant need for health services in the community, including mental
health and substance abuse treatment.
Supports for tenants are limited and more is needed in the areas of tenant education, legal
assistance, and mediation support for direct landlord engagement.
A greater focus is needed on homelessness prevention services in the community.
Transportation within Auburn and the larger region continues to be a barrier to accessing
services and employment easily and efficiently.
Barriers to Fair Housing Choice
The lack of housing affordability, locally and regionally, is a key barrier for low- to moderate-
income residents accessing safe and healthy housing in a community of choice.
There is more education needed for both landlords and tenants on their rights and
responsibilities.
Many individuals in local shelters are housing ready and have rental resources available, but
there are no housing units available for them to move into. This increases the strain on our
homeless crisis response system.
The lack of proactive enforcement and oversight of tenant protections translates to a lack of
systemic accountability for tenant rights and rental housing quality in our community.
The process for Fair Housing Enforcement is particularly challenging for vulnerable populations
to access, due to fear of retaliation and an overly complex civil legal system.
Page 181 of 364
Consolidated Plan AUBURN 6
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
Low income renters in our community face particular challenges with absentee/out of state
landlords in rental properties and mobile home parks.
Credit scores and social security numbers are being used as neutral tools to discriminate against
potential tenants.
Tenants are experiencing barriers to accessing housing due to the changing technology used by
landlords and property managers. A lack of access to technology for online applications presents
soft barriers, while discrimination in the form of social media ad targeting can be a more
concrete form of discrimination that bars access to rental information by certain populations.
Recommended Actions Identified by Public Stakeholders
Programs that support low-income homeowners with energy efficiency improvements to reduce
overall housing cost.
Programs or policies that address the increasing rental costs in the community.
Need to prioritize services for renters in the community.
Support pre-apprenticeship programs that provide job training and build skills in repair and
manufacturing trades.
6. Summary of comments or views not accepted and the reasons for not accepting them
All comments and views provided were taken into consideration during the Consolidated Plan process.
Any comments not accepted were deemed as offensive, inappropriate or had no relation to issues
related to Auburn or the Consolidated Plan.
7. Summary
Auburn residents along with stakeholders, community partners, service providers and others were
consulted during the development of the Consolidated Plan. They provided valuable input that
supported to the development of the outcomes and objectives listed in the Consolidated Plan. The
remainder of the plan will provide further detail on how Auburn intends to employ its investment.
Page 182 of 364
Consolidated Plan AUBURN 7
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
The Process
PR-05 Lead & Responsible Agencies - 91.200(b)
1. Describe agency/entity responsible for preparing the Consolidated Plan and those
responsible for administration of each grant program and funding source
The following are the agencies/entities responsible for preparing the Consolidated Plan and
those responsible for administration of each grant program and funding source.
Agency Role Name Department/Agency
Lead Agency Auburn Community Development Department
CDBG Administrator Auburn Community Development Department
HOME Administrator King County Department of Community and Human Services
ESG Administrator King County Department of Community and Human Services
Table 1– Responsible Agencies
Narrative
The City of Auburn, as a member of the King County Consortium, administers its own CDBG funds and
prepares its own Consolidated Plan for the administration of those funds. However, it also contributes
to sections of the King County Consolidated Plan relating to the HOME program. The lead staff for King
County are identified below:
HOME Program – Nicole Washington
ESG Program – Kate Speltz
As a member of the King County Consortium, the City works closely with numerous nonprofit
organizations in the region that implement programs funded by the City of Auburn CDBG program. A
detailed list of agencies responsible for administering funded programs by CDBG can be found in
the Action Plan section of this document.
Consolidated Plan Public Contact Information
Joy Scott
Community Services Manager
City of Auburn
25 West Main Street
Auburn, WA 98001
253.876.1965
jfscott@auburnwa.gov
Page 183 of 364
Consolidated Plan AUBURN 8
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
PR-10 Consultation - 91.100, 91.200(b), 91.215(l)
1. Introduction
This section describes the community consultation process followed by the City of Auburn in updating
the Consolidated Plan and the coordination with other local governments, the Continuum of Care,
service agencies, and community stakeholders. The City of Auburn consulted with multiple public and
private agencies as well as community members during the development of the Consolidated Plan.
In addition to conducting consultations during the development of the plan, the City of Auburn
collaborates and works closely with numerous coalitions, committees, and government entities
throughout the duration of the plan in efforts to enhance strategies and systems to meet established
goals and objectives of the plan.
Provide a concise summary of the jurisdiction’s activities to enhance coordination between
public and assisted housing providers and private and governmental health, mental health
and service agencies (91.215(I)).
The City of Auburn works closely with partnering King County jurisdictions, public housing authorities
and health providers to develop systems in order to improve the quality of service and access for low-
income residents as well as the community as a whole within the city and throughout the region.
The City of Auburn, in partnership with the Seattle-King County Coalition on Homelessness, convenes a
monthly group of service providers, faith communities, community advocates, and others, to coordinate
efforts on serving individuals experiencing homelessness in South King County. The meeting provides a
venue for resource sharing, collaboration, training, and best practice implementation. City staff also
participate in regional collaborative and decision making bodies such as the King County Joint
Recommendations Committee (JRC) and the South King County Human Services Planners group. The city
is a member of the King County Human Services Funder Collaborative, which provides a more
streamlined process for human service agencies to access funding from multiple cities.
Additionally, the City participates in monthly meetings with staff from King County Department of
Community and Human Services, Public Health King County, the Housing Development Consortium,
Valley Cities, the Multi-Service Center, and the King County Housing Authority to review program
progress and delivery of services funded through regional efforts. This regional collaboration work is
supported by the South King Housing and Homelessness Partnership, which Auburn and other South
King County Cities contribute to in order to build additional capacity to address issues related to housing
and homelessness in the South King County region.
Describe coordination with the Continuum of Care and efforts to address the needs of
homeless persons (particularly chronically homeless individuals and families, families with
children, veterans, and unaccompanied youth) and persons at risk of homelessness
Page 184 of 364
Consolidated Plan AUBURN 9
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
Since 2016, King County and All Home, our region’s Continuum of Care (CoC) lead agency, launched the
Coordinated Entry for All (CEA) system for homeless populations and has been refining the system since
then. National research identifies coordinated entry as a key component for an effective homeless
system because it improves the quality of client screening and assessment, matches clients to
appropriately targeted services and resources, and promotes a more efficient use of resources. CEA
processes and prioritizes assistance based on vulnerability and severity of service needs to ensure that
people who need assistance the most can receive it in a timely manner.
A key feature of the CEA system includes a common assessment tool, the CEA Housing Triage Tool,
which is based upon vulnerability and severity of service needs to ensure that people who need
assistance the most can receive it in a timely manner. Chronically homeless individuals and families,
families with children, veterans, unaccompanied youth, and young adults are a part of the coordinated
system. In addition, CEA utilizes regional access points which serve as the primary “front door” for the
homeless housing system.
Auburn’s mayor is a member of All Home’s coordinating board, and participates in regional CoC efforts.
During the latter half of 2019, Auburn staff have been invited to provide feedback to King County and All
Home in their efforts to shift the current governance model of our CoC. We expect to continue to play a
role in this process during the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan period.
Describe consultation with the Continuum(s) of Care that serves the jurisdiction's area in
determining how to allocate ESG funds, develop performance standards and evaluate
outcomes, and develop funding, policies and procedures for the administration of HMIS
The ESG program focuses on assisting people to quickly regain stability in permanent housing after
experiencing homelessness or a housing crisis.
Consultation with CoC - During the planning process, All Home, the CoC, advises and collaborates with
the County and the City of Seattle in stakeholder meetings as a part of the development of the
Consolidated Plan and the Action Plan.
Allocation of ESG Funds - The Consortium consults with, member jurisdictions, stakeholders, and the
public, and works with the Joint Recommendation Committee to allocate ESG funds. Auburn has a
representative on the JRC and works closely with King County to provide input on local context. Funding
awards are made on a competitive basis through bi-annual funding rounds advertised publicly and
conducted through the King County Department of Procurement.
Performance Standards and Evaluation of Outcomes - All projects adhere to the Homeless Management
Information System (HMIS) operating standards and all reporting and program evaluation is completed
through HMIS. Within HMIS, data for target populations, youth and young adults, singles, and families, is
collected for the following three categories: 1) exit to permanent housing; 2) average program stay; and
3) return to homelessness. This information is collected for emergency shelters, transitional housing,
Page 185 of 364
Consolidated Plan AUBURN 10
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
permanent supportive housing, prevention, and rental assistance programs. Actual performance is
measured against the target goals.
Funding, Policies and Procedures for HMIS - The Consortium, with King County as the lead, has improved
the efficiency and accountability of HMIS. The King County HHCDD team coordinates with the HMIS
team who also are employees of King County. This strengthens the infrastructure and refines the
process that allows HMIS to act as the data system platform for the CEA system. Using HMIS as the
platform for the system allows continued and substantial improvement in the amount and accuracy of
data reported.
The Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing Act (HEARTH Act) revised the
Emergency Shelter Grants Program and renamed it the Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG) Program. The
new name reflects the change in the program’s focus from addressing the needs of homeless people in
emergency shelters to assisting people to quickly regain stability in permanent housing after
experiencing homelessness and/or a housing crisis.
2. Describe Agencies, groups, organizations and others who participated in the process
and describe the jurisdictions consultations with housing, social service agencies and other
entities
Page 186 of 364
Consolidated Plan AUBURN 11
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
Table 2– Agencies, groups, organizations who participated
1 Agency/Group/Organization KING COUNTY
Agency/Group/Organization Type Other government - County
What section of the Plan was addressed
by Consultation?
Housing Need Assessment
Homelessness Strategy
Homeless Needs - Chronically homeless
Homeless Needs - Families with children
Homelessness Needs - Veterans
Homelessness Needs - Unaccompanied youth
Non-Homeless Special Needs
Market Analysis
How was the
Agency/Group/Organization consulted
and what are the anticipated outcomes
of the consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
As a member of the King County Housing Consortium
for the purpose of HOME funds, Auburn works
closely with King County in the development of the
City's and the County's Consolidated Plan. Because
the two entities have a cardinal role in each other's
program delivery there is active participation from
both parties in the development of the plan. Staff
from King County and Auburn met regularly prior to
and during the development of the plan, and both
entities participated in the public meeting held in
Auburn on April 1.
2 Agency/Group/Organization KENT
Agency/Group/Organization Type Other government - Local
What section of the Plan was addressed
by Consultation?
Housing Need Assessment
Lead-based Paint Strategy
Homelessness Strategy
Homeless Needs - Chronically homeless
Homeless Needs - Families with children
Homelessness Needs - Veterans
Homelessness Needs - Unaccompanied youth
Non-Homeless Special Needs
Market Analysis
Anti-poverty Strategy
Page 187 of 364
Consolidated Plan AUBURN 12
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
How was the
Agency/Group/Organization consulted
and what are the anticipated outcomes
of the consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
As members of the Urban County Consortium,
Auburn and Kent staff worked closely together
during the development of the Consolidated Plan.
Staff from both cities attend monthly meetings to
discuss human services and housing trends, needs,
and progress on ongoing initiatives.
3 Agency/Group/Organization FEDERAL WAY
Agency/Group/Organization Type Other government - Local
What section of the Plan was addressed
by Consultation?
Housing Need Assessment
Lead-based Paint Strategy
Homelessness Strategy
Homeless Needs - Chronically homeless
Homeless Needs - Families with children
Homelessness Needs - Veterans
Homelessness Needs - Unaccompanied youth
Non-Homeless Special Needs
Market Analysis
Anti-poverty Strategy
How was the
Agency/Group/Organization consulted
and what are the anticipated outcomes
of the consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
As members of the Urban County Consortium,
Auburn and Federal Way staff worked closely
together during the development of the
Consolidated Plan. Staff from both cities attend
monthly meetings to discuss human services and
housing trends, needs, and progress on ongoing
initiatives.
4 Agency/Group/Organization Housing Development Consortium of Seattle-King
County
Agency/Group/Organization Type Planning organization
What section of the Plan was addressed
by Consultation?
Housing Need Assessment
Public Housing Needs
Homelessness Strategy
Homeless Needs - Chronically homeless
Homeless Needs - Families with children
Homelessness Needs - Veterans
Homelessness Needs - Unaccompanied youth
Page 188 of 364
Consolidated Plan AUBURN 13
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
How was the
Agency/Group/Organization consulted
and what are the anticipated outcomes
of the consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
Auburn participates in monthly meetings convened
by the Housing Development Consortium (HDC) on
homeless response needs and strategy in SKC, and
bimonthly meetings focused on affordable housing
data and developments. The information collected
by HDC helps to inform multiple pieces of our
Consolidated Plan, particularly those strategies
related to homelessness and affordable housing in
our community.
5 Agency/Group/Organization Seattle-King County Coalition on Homelessness
Agency/Group/Organization Type Services-homeless
Nonprofit agency
What section of the Plan was addressed
by Consultation?
Homelessness Strategy
Homeless Needs - Chronically homeless
Homeless Needs - Families with children
Homelessness Needs - Veterans
Homelessness Needs - Unaccompanied youth
How was the
Agency/Group/Organization consulted
and what are the anticipated outcomes
of the consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
Auburn is a member of the Seattle-King County
Coalition on Homelessness (SKCCH), and co-
convenes a monthly group of service providers
working with people experiencing homelessness in
our communities. The meetings provide a frequent
check-in point, and the opportunity to hear from
providers directly on the challenges and trends
they're seeing in Auburn. The Coalition on
Homelessness' organizational members include
agencies and community groups that provide
emergency shelter and services, transitional housing,
and permanent, supported housing to the roughly
27,000 men, women, and children who are homeless
in King County during one year.
6 Agency/Group/Organization South King County Housing and Homelessness
Partners
Agency/Group/Organization Type Other government - Local
Regional organization
Page 189 of 364
Consolidated Plan AUBURN 14
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
What section of the Plan was addressed
by Consultation?
Housing Need Assessment
Public Housing Needs
Homelessness Strategy
Homeless Needs - Chronically homeless
Homeless Needs - Families with children
Homelessness Needs - Veterans
Homelessness Needs - Unaccompanied youth
How was the
Agency/Group/Organization consulted
and what are the anticipated outcomes
of the consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
South King Housing and Homelessness Partners
(SKHHP) is a coalition formed by an interlocal
agreement between the jurisdictions of Auburn,
Burien, Covington, Des Moines, Federal Way, Kent,
Normandy Park, Renton, Tukwila, and King County.
The agreement allows for South King County
jurisdictions to work together and share resources in
order to effectively address affordable housing and
homelessness. This collaborative model is based on
similar approaches used in Snohomish County, East
King County, and other areas of the country. The
purpose of the coalition is to increase the available
options for South King County residents to access
affordable housing and to preserve the existing
affordable housing stock.
Identify any Agency Types not consulted and provide rationale for not consulting
A wide range of groups and organizations participated in the process including public funders from
Washington State and King County partner jurisdictions, public housing authorities, members from the
Seattle-King County Housing Development Consortium, stakeholders, housing providers for low-and-
moderate income persons, agencies who serve persons who are homeless, and Seattle-King County
Public Health. In addition to the consultations referenced above, Auburn, King County and Consortium
partner staff coordinate closely with each other and fan out to participate and attend a wide range of
standing meetings with city planners, housing and service providers.
The only types of organizations not consulted with were corrections facilities. The rationale for not
consulting with these facilities is that the City does not host this type of organization.
Page 190 of 364
Consolidated Plan AUBURN 15
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
Other local/regional/state/federal planning efforts considered when preparing the Plan
Name of Plan Lead Organization How do the goals of your Strategic Plan overlap with
the goals of each plan?
Continuum of Care All Home King County The goals of Auburn's Strategic Plan overlap with the
goals of the CoC to address the needs of homeless
residents in the community and reduce the risk of
homelessness.
Table 3– Other local / regional / federal planning efforts
Describe cooperation and coordination with other public entities, including the State and any
adjacent units of general local government, in the implementation of the Consolidated Plan
(91.215(l))
As a member of the King County Housing Consortium for the purpose of HOME funds, Auburn works
closely with King County in the development of the City's and the County's Consolidated Plan. Because
the two entities have a cardinal role in each other's program delivery there is active participation from
both parties in the development of the plan.
The City also actively participates in the South King County Human Services Planners Committee. The
Committee is composed of neighboring South King County City's such as Kent, Federal Way and Burien
as well as partnering funder organizations such as All Home and United Way. The monthly meetings are
used to discuss current issues impacting the community as well as Consolidated Planning and other
CDBG program management strategies.
Narrative
Page 191 of 364
Consolidated Plan AUBURN 16
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
PR-15 Citizen Participation - 91.401, 91.105, 91.200(c)
1. Summary of citizen participation process/Efforts made to broaden citizen participation
Summarize citizen participation process and how it impacted goal-setting
Citizen participation plays a crucial role in the success of the City's Consolidated Plan. The goals are to hear the community's feedback and
recommendations on how CDBG funds should be invested and how services can coordinate to achieve the greatest impact.
As part of the Consolidated Plan development, the City of Auburn solicited input on community needs, priorities, and potential strategies. Public
input was gathered utilizing a variety of public engagement strategies, including public meetings, written comments, stakeholder interviews,
focus groups, and online surveys. The City made an effort to reduce barriers to input by providing the online survey in English and Spanish and
making interpretation available during the public meeting and stakeholder interviews and focus groups.
Page 192 of 364
Consolidated Plan AUBURN 17
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
Citizen Participation Outreach
Sort
Orde
r
Mode of
Outreach
Target of
Outreach
Summary of
response/attendance
Summary of
comments
received
Summary of
comments
not accepted
and reasons
URL (If
applicable)
1 Public
Meeting
Non-
targeted/broad
community
Elected
Leaders,
Service
Providers,
Business
Community
"One Table" was a series of
meetings convened by the City
of Seattle, the City of Auburn,
and King County. The January
22, 2018 One Table Community
Action Work Group meeting
brought elected officials,
service providers to discuss the
root causes of homelessness
and to develop a community
approach to homelessness and
affordability.
Full meeting summary at URL
below
None https://www.kin
gcounty.gov/dep
ts/community-
human-
services/housing
/services/homele
ss-housing/one-
table.aspx
2 Public
Meeting
Non-
targeted/broad
community
Elected
Leaders,
Service
Providers,
Business
Community
The April 4, 2018 One Table
Community Action Work Group
meeting brought elected
officials, service providers to
discuss the root causes of
homelessness
Full meeting summary at URL
below
None https://www.kin
gcounty.gov/dep
ts/community-
human-
services/housing
/services/homele
ss-housing/one-
table.aspx
Page 193 of 364
Consolidated Plan AUBURN 18
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
Sort
Orde
r
Mode of
Outreach
Target of
Outreach
Summary of
response/attendance
Summary of
comments
received
Summary of
comments
not accepted
and reasons
URL (If
applicable)
3 Public
Meeting
Non-
targeted/broad
community
Elected
Leaders,
Service
Providers,
Business
Community
The August 3, 2018 One Table
Community Action Work Group
meeting brought elected
officials, service providers to
discuss the root causes of
homelessness.
Full meeting summary at URL
below
None https://www.kin
gcounty.gov/dep
ts/community-
human-
services/housing
/services/homele
ss-housing/one-
table.aspx
4 Public
Meeting
Non-
targeted/broad
community
On April 1, the City of Auburn
held a public meeting with
support from King County to
gather input for the 2020-2024
Consolidated Plan update, and
to hear from community
members on local housing
needs and barriers to Fair
Housing.
People expressed a desire to see
more affordable housing, fewer
barriers to obtaining housing
including: tenant screening,
selective micro-targeting
through social media,
discrimination against domestic
violence survivors, rental
application fees. Also
mentioned was single family
zoning as exclusionary and
limiting the housing supply.
Other supply constraining
factors mentioned were
permitting process and
regulations.
None
Page 194 of 364
Consolidated Plan AUBURN 19
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
Sort
Orde
r
Mode of
Outreach
Target of
Outreach
Summary of
response/attendance
Summary of
comments
received
Summary of
comments
not accepted
and reasons
URL (If
applicable)
5 Stakehold
er
meeting
King County
Library System
City of Auburn staff along with
consultant met with staff at
King County Library system to
hear input on community
needs.
Identified gaps in services
included low availability of
shelter beds compared to
community need, lack of
medical respite beds,
wraparound services for
individuals experiencing chronic
homelessness, transportation.
None
6 Stakehold
er
meeting
Auburn Food
Bank
City of Auburn staff along with
consultant held two focus
groups at Auburn food bank,
for staff and clients to provide
input on community needs.
Identified gaps in services
included inadequate
transportation, lack of
affordable housing, insufficient
mental health services
compared to need, lack of
personal storage options for
individuals experiencing
homelessness.
None
7 Stakehold
er
meeting
Nexus Youth
and Families
City of Auburn staff along with
consultant held two focus
groups at Nexus Youth and
Families, for staff and clients to
provide input on community
needs.
Identified gaps in services
included youth-appropriate
employment services, clothing
resources, and lack of
affordable housing locally.
None
Page 195 of 364
Consolidated Plan AUBURN 20
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
Sort
Orde
r
Mode of
Outreach
Target of
Outreach
Summary of
response/attendance
Summary of
comments
received
Summary of
comments
not accepted
and reasons
URL (If
applicable)
8 Stakehold
er
meeting
Mother Africa City of Auburn staff along with
consultant met with staff at
Mother Africa to hear input on
community needs.
Identified gaps in services
included lack of emergency
shelter beds for individuals
fleeing domestic violence, lack
of large family-size affordable
housing units across South King
County, including Auburn, and
employment services.
None
9 Stakehold
er
meeting
Ukrainian
Community
Center of
Washington
City of Auburn staff along with
consultant met with staff at
Ukrainian Community Center
of Washington to hear input on
community needs.
Identified gaps in services
included employment services,
housing-related legal resources
for renters, lack of affordable
housing, and resources for
utility assistance for low-income
community members.
None
10 Stakehold
er
meeting
Seattle-King
County Public
Health Mobile
Medical Van
City of Auburn staff along with
consultant met with staff at the
Mobile Medical Van to hear
input on community needs.
Identified gaps included a lack
of medical respite beds for
individuals experiencing
homeless, emergency shelter
beds, and legal assistance.
None
11 Stakehold
er
meeting
Mary's Place City of Auburn consultant met
with staff at Mary's Place to
hear input on community
needs.
Identified gaps included
insufficient affordable housing
and shelter capacity in South
King County.
None
Page 196 of 364
Consolidated Plan AUBURN 21
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
Sort
Orde
r
Mode of
Outreach
Target of
Outreach
Summary of
response/attendance
Summary of
comments
received
Summary of
comments
not accepted
and reasons
URL (If
applicable)
12 Public
Meeting
City of Auburn
Human
Services
Committee
City of Auburn staff along with
consultant met with the City of
Auburn's Human Services
Committee to hear input on
community needs.
Identified gaps included
insufficient affordable housing
locally, lack of transportation,
especially at a subregional level,
lack of flexible options for
increasing affordable housing
stock.
None
13 Stakehold
er
meeting
Interfaith Task
Force on
Homelessness
City of Auburn consultant met
with staff at the Interfaith Task
Force on Homelessness to hear
input on community needs.
Identified gaps included a lack
of directed support and
programs for individuals living in
their vehicles in Auburn.
None
14 Internet
Outreach
Non-
targeted/broad
community
Broad community survey was
made available for 9 weeks
with outreach to community
members and human service
providers through web
postings, social media,
targeted emails, availability at
public events, and
announcements at community
meetings. The survey received
119 responses.
Survey responses identified
community perceptions of
increasing human service needs,
particularly related to housing
stability, domestic violence, and
food and emergency sheltering.
Respondents would like to see
city prioritization of basic needs,
homeless prevention and
housing stability, neighborhood
safety and wellbeing, and health
and dental care.
None
Table 4– Citizen Participation Outreach
Page 197 of 364
Consolidated Plan AUBURN 22
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
Needs Assessment
NA-05 Overview
Needs Assessment Overview
The needs assessment of Auburn's Consolidated Plan is largely comprised of data provided through HUD
and the US Census well as information gathered through consultations and citizen participation. The
assessment provides a clear picture of Auburn's needs related to affordable housing, special needs
housing, community development and homelessness. Within these topics the highest priority needs will
be identified which will form the basis for a strategic plan.
Numerous sources were used to conclude Auburn's needs for the next five years, including Census data,
school district data, information from the HUD Comprehensive Affordability Strategy and the
Washington State Department of Health and Social Services. Data from the King County Regional
Affordable Housing Task Force was also used to provide more in depth detail about Auburn's housing
needs.
In addition, the City worked with a consultant to provide focus groups, stakeholder interviews, and a
community-wide survey on housing and human service needs. The City assessed comments received
from residents and consultations with stakeholders, partners and other collaborative partners who
worked closely with the city on housing and other human services issues.
Page 198 of 364
Consolidated Plan AUBURN 23
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
Page 199 of 364
Consolidated Plan AUBURN 24
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
NA-50 Non-Housing Community Development Needs - 91.415, 91.215 (f)
Describe the jurisdiction’s need for Public Facilities:
In 2015, the City of Auburn completed a strategic planning process specific to the City’s parks, open
spaces, and recreation facilities. The plan emphasized the following recommendations with regards to
public parks and recreation facilities:
Age/Composition: Our young, growing population, with many single-parent families and an increasing
population of elderly residents, has extensive needs for recreation and service programs, as well as
recreation facilities.
Race: Auburn’s changing racial composition can be incorporated into its historical, cultural and
recreational programming and in development of facilities.
Housing: With increased density of housing, there is an increased need for parks and open space to
replace the lost “backyard” is occurring.
Income Levels: The lower income levels in Auburn mean that there is a greater need for public
recreation facilities. Our residents also require classes and programs at reasonable rates or no cost.
Teens, the elderly, and families with several children are particularly in need of free or reduced fee
services.
New Park Development: Specific park land and facilities needed to serve new residents should be
determined as development occurs or is planned. The recently annexed areas of Lea Hill and West Hill
are underserved by parks and recreation programs. Park site selection should ensure that the site will
physically accommodate the identified facilities. Areas with extensive steep slopes and wetlands may be
difficult areas in which to develop active recreation facilities, although they may be suited to open space
or passive activities.
Scenic and Resource Lands: Lands with high scenic or natural resource value should be acquired and
utilized for parks and open space. Public access to these locations should be guaranteed through site
selection and design.
Ecosystems: It is desirable to have parks located in a variety of ecosystems present in the city. This
means we plan parks in, or adjacent to the rivers, creeks, wetlands and wooded hillsides found
throughout the city.
Art and History: The inclusion of historical artwork, public art, and information in the development of
parks will broaden their value to the community. It can provide an added source of enjoyment and
education to the recreational experience.
In addition to public facilities operated by the City, Auburn is host to numerous public facilities that offer
programs serving those who are at risk of or currently experiencing homelessness. However, community
members still identify clear gaps in the types of facilities needed to support vulnerable Auburn residents.
In 2019, Auburn heard from residents at public meetings and through interviews and focus groups as
part of the Community Needs Assessment process. Key needs identified through this process included:
Enhanced, 24 Hour Emergency Shelter: The City of Auburn supports a day center and separate
overnight shelter for adults experiencing literal homelessness in the community. The shelter is
consistently at capacity and turns away residents seeking services as a result. In addition, the City of
Auburn is home to an emergency shelter for young adults ages 18-24 that also experiences challenges
with limited capacity and significant need. Beyond these maxed out resources, people within the City of
Page 200 of 364
Consolidated Plan AUBURN 25
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
Auburn do not have access to shelter, safe places to park and reside in their vehicles, or safe
campgrounds. Couples wanting to reside together, people with pets, and people actively using
substances have no options for shelter within the City of Auburn, as low barrier shelter does not exist.
Medical Respite: Stakeholders identified that there is a clear need for additional medical care that
human service organizations cannot provide. A more intensive medical respite care facility does not
exist, so people exit the emergency room with nowhere to go, directly to the streets or emergency
shelter and often end up at the public library during the day. This results in King County Public Health’s
Mobile Medical Team seeing people with worsening/acute medical conditions that would be
preventable if a medical respite care option were available. Stakeholders identified the number one
strategy for providing effective and sustainable treatment as a medical respite facility. Without that
critical resource, patients, often without housing options, are discharged without safe place to recover
and no medical follow up.
How were these needs determined?
These needs were determined through multiple public participation and data gathering processes. The
City’s strategic planning process related to parks and open spaces included an online survey, public
meetings, engagement at the City’s Park Board, Arts Commission, Planning Commission and City Council
Meetings, an Auburn Health Impact Assessment, and feedback from current participants of Parks and
Recreation Classes. The Community Needs Assessment incorporated public survey feedback,
information from stakeholder interviews and focus groups, input from the City Council and Human
Services Committee, and local and national data.
Describe the jurisdiction’s need for Public Improvements:
The City of Auburn makes numerous efforts and strategies to ensure improvements are made to provide
a safe, user friendly and appealing community for community members to reside. Because staff cannot
see all happenings at all times it is important that residents communicate their needs and make
requests as a need for improvement arises. The City of Auburn provides a reporting system on the City
website as well as an app where Auburn residents can report issues with streets, facilities, parking,
vegetation and other issues that need attention. The system has allowed the City to keep up with
maintenance issues and meet needs of its community. Although the system has increased
communication between citizens and city services as well as improved efficiency of improvements,
citizens have expressed a need for improved parking facilities, sidewalks and street repairs.
The City of Auburn has developed several public improvement projects in the past utilizing CDBG funds.
The City anticipates utilizing CDBG funds in the 2020-2024 strategic planning period to address sidewalk
ADA accessibility needs in low-income areas of the community. These projects support greater safety
and accessibility for community members.
How were these needs determined?
Page 201 of 364
Consolidated Plan AUBURN 26
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
Auburn's needs for public improvements were determined through needs assessments, citizen surveys,
and ongoing evaluation and assessment by the City’s Public Works department. In addition, a telephone
survey conducted prior to the last Consolidated Plan update asked citizens of their opinions about the
quality of life in Auburn, priorities for the future, and the level of satisfaction with city government and
city services. The data collected was summarized into a report made available to the public on the City's
website.
Describe the jurisdiction’s need for Public Services:
Similar to other cities within King County and the Puget Sound region at-large, Auburn has grown
rapidly, becoming an increasingly diverse community as it pertains to race/ethnicity, income, education,
and language, among other categories. According to the 2017 American Community Survey (ACS), the
population of Auburn is 77,440, this is a 10.3% increase from 2010. These residents form 18,862
families, making the average family size 3.25, well above the national average of 2.63 and the King
County average of 2.45.
Although population growth is felt by the entire region, it is notably large in Auburn. Each year, Auburn
has increased its share of residents within King County; meaning that Auburn has outpaced most other
King County cities in percentage of growth. Auburn accounted for 1.9% of the King County population in
1970, now accounting for 3.7% of the population.
The 2017 Self Sufficiency Standard in South King County for one adult, one preschooler, and one school-
age child is $68,625 annually. Similarly, the self-sufficiency standard for two adults, one preschooler, and
one school-age child is $74,083. The median annual household income in Auburn ($64,000) nearly hits
these self-sufficiency numbers. Despite substantial economic growth, the pace of such growth
exacerbates inequities and gaps. Without adequate economic supports those gaps risk growing larger as
economic growth continues at such a rapid pace.
Rapidly increasing housing costs and a low vacancy rate in the region has contributed to an increased
housing cost burden for Auburn residents and increased risk of housing instability. This data, highlighted
in the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing and Housing Market Analysis sections of the
Consolidated Plan, point to an increased need for Public Services, which can often serve to mitigate
housing instability by meeting other household needs or providing legal or other housing interventions.
Auburn’s accelerated pace of growth also highlights the increased need for Public Services, as local
providers are unable to keep pace with the demand in order to address current needs of residents. Key
Public Service needs identified through public participation include Fair Housing supports, medical
services, increased services connected to emergency shelter, employment training for young adults, and
supportive housing.
How were these needs determined?
Numerous sources were used to conclude Auburn's needs for the next five years, including Census data,
school district data, information from the HUD Comprehensive Affordability Strategy and the
Washington State Department of Health and Social Services. Data from the King County Regional
Page 202 of 364
Consolidated Plan AUBURN 27
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
Affordable Housing Task Force was also used to provide more in depth detail about Auburn's housing
needs.
In addition, the City worked with a consultant to provide focus groups, stakeholder interviews, and a
community-wide survey on housing and human service needs. The City assessed comments received
from residents and consultations with stakeholders, partners and other collaborative partners who
worked closely with the city on housing and other human services issues.
Based on the needs analysis above, describe the State's needs in Colonias
Page 203 of 364
Consolidated Plan AUBURN 28
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
Housing Market Analysis
MA-05 Overview
Housing Market Analysis Overview:
The Market Analysis Section will cover the following topic areas within Auburn's housing market:
Supply and demand
Housing stock available
Condition and cost of housing
Inventory of facilities, housing, and services that meet the needs of homeless persons
Barriers to affordable housing
Characteristics of the jurisdiction's economy
Each section will identify and describe Auburn's greatest needs, what resources and options are
available, as well as what resources are less available for residents.
Page 204 of 364
Consolidated Plan AUBURN 29
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
Page 205 of 364
Consolidated Plan AUBURN 30
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
MA-45 Non-Housing Community Development Assets - 91.410, 91.210(f)
Introduction
Centrally located between Tacoma and Seattle, Auburn is an ideal place of residence in the Puget Sound's economic region. Connected to
freeways and the Sound Transit's Commuter Train, Auburn has continued to experience a significant amount of economic growth in the past five
years. At the center of the largest industrial complex in the Northwest, Auburn sits in the middle of the major North-South and East-West routes
of this region. With two rail roads and close proximity to the Ports of Seattle and Tacoma, Auburn was identified by the Department of
Commerce as one of only 15 Innovation Partnership Zones in Washington State. With continued job expansion and above average retail growth,
Auburn enjoys a vibrant and sustainable business environment. Like most regions, Auburn experienced fluctuation of employment during the
recession; however the recent changes and community enhancements have kept the unemployment rate relatively low. Being centrally located
and having large amounts of available land, the City of Auburn is ideal for business expansion and economic growth.
This section will cover Auburn's non-housing economic development assets of the city. The items covered in detail are:
business by sector
labor force
occupation by sector
travel time to work
educational attainment
median earnings in the past 12 months
The tables will provide detailed information on the economic status of Auburn as well as provide an estimate of where the gaps are.
Economic Development Market Analysis
Business Activity
Business by Sector Number of
Workers
Number of Jobs Share of Workers
%
Share of Jobs
%
Jobs less workers
%
Agriculture, Mining, Oil & Gas Extraction 356 13 1 0 -1
Arts, Entertainment, Accommodations 3,004 2,644 9 6 -3
Page 206 of 364
Consolidated Plan AUBURN 31
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
Business by Sector Number of
Workers
Number of Jobs Share of Workers
%
Share of Jobs
%
Jobs less workers
%
Construction 2,586 3,291 8 8 0
Education and Health Care Services 6,468 7,495 19 17 -2
Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate 1,659 1,007 5 2 -3
Information 503 639 1 1 0
Manufacturing 5,065 9,119 15 21 6
Other Services 1,474 1,489 4 3 -1
Professional, Scientific, Management Services 3,165 2,282 9 5 -4
Public Administration 1,626 3,139 5 7 2
Retail Trade 4,311 5,615 13 13 0
Transportation and Warehousing 2,573 2,998 7 7 0
Wholesale Trade 1,531 3,849 4 9 5
Total 34,321 43,580 -- -- --
Table 5 - Business Activity
Alternate Data Source Name:
2015 ACS Data, Selected Economic Characteristics
Data Source Comments:
Labor Force
Total Population in the Civilian Labor Force 37,388
Civilian Employed Population 16 years and over 34,315
Unemployment Rate 8.13
Unemployment Rate for Ages 16-24 23.04
Unemployment Rate for Ages 25-65 5.02
Table 6 - Labor Force
Data Source: 2011-2015 ACS
Page 207 of 364
Consolidated Plan AUBURN 32
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
Occupations by Sector Number of People
Management, business and financial 6,775
Farming, fisheries and forestry occupations 1,674
Service 3,980
Sales and office 9,090
Construction, extraction, maintenance and
repair 3,369
Production, transportation and material
moving 2,040
Table 7 – Occupations by Sector
Data Source: 2011-2015 ACS
Travel Time
Travel Time Number Percentage
< 30 Minutes 17,635 54%
30-59 Minutes 10,715 33%
60 or More Minutes 4,195 13%
Total 32,545 100%
Table 8 - Travel Time
Data Source: 2011-2015 ACS
Education:
Educational Attainment by Employment Status (Population 16 and Older)
Educational Attainment In Labor Force
Civilian Employed Unemployed Not in Labor Force
Less than high school graduate 2,685 239 1,773
High school graduate (includes equivalency) 8,100 710 2,785
Page 208 of 364
Consolidated Plan AUBURN 33
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
Educational Attainment In Labor Force
Civilian Employed Unemployed Not in Labor Force
Some college or Associate's degree 10,065 810 2,890
Bachelor's degree or higher 7,845 225 1,090
Table 9 - Educational Attainment by Employment Status
Data Source: 2011-2015 ACS
Educational Attainment by Age
Age
18–24 yrs 25–34 yrs 35–44 yrs 45–65 yrs 65+ yrs
Less than 9th grade 125 679 700 548 595
9th to 12th grade, no diploma 1,105 974 740 1,045 643
High school graduate, GED, or alternative 2,595 3,040 2,765 5,795 2,795
Some college, no degree 2,810 2,310 2,275 4,685 2,035
Associate's degree 555 960 1,275 2,335 595
Bachelor's degree 475 1,815 1,655 3,115 1,115
Graduate or professional degree 15 470 715 1,450 625
Table 10 - Educational Attainment by Age
Data Source: 2011-2015 ACS
Educational Attainment – Median Earnings in the Past 12 Months
Educational Attainment Median Earnings in the Past 12 Months
Less than high school graduate 23,670
High school graduate (includes equivalency) 33,290
Some college or Associate's degree 41,024
Bachelor's degree 57,196
Graduate or professional degree 64,409
Table 11 – Median Earnings in the Past 12 Months
Page 209 of 364
Consolidated Plan AUBURN 34
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
Alternate Data Source Name:
2011-2015 ACS Data
Data Source Comments:
Based on the Business Activity table above, what are the major employment sectors within your jurisdiction?
Based on the Business Activity table above the major employment sectors within Auburn's jurisdiction are:
Manufacturing
Education and Health Care Services
Retail trade
Major manufacturing businesses in Auburn include but are not limited to: Boeing, Skills, LMI Aerospace, ExOne, Conrad Manufacturing, and
Orion Aerospace.
Major education and health care services employers include: the Auburn School District, Green River College, Multicare
Major retail trade businesses include: The Outlet Collection, Wal Mart, and Coastal Farm and Ranch. In addition to the major retail trade
businesses, Auburn has numerous small businesses throughout the City.
Describe the workforce and infrastructure needs of the business community:
Auburn is fortunate to be in the path of growth, and, in the past years, the City has successfully set the stage for increased investment. As a
result, the interest in and momentum around Auburn have been increasing and continue to build. In 2014, Auburn’s population was almost
76,000. By 2020, Esri, a leading demographic data provider, estimates that Auburn’s population will be nearly 85,000. With the cost of housing
continuing to climb throughout the Seattle region, Auburn and its South Sound peers will likely see population growth accelerate even more
than these conservative projections predict. Currently, the City is a net importer of labor with more workers commuting to Auburn for jobs each
day than leaving. As new residents move into the community, Auburn’s economic development activities will influence whether there are job
opportunities for these new residents in Auburn or whether they will commute outside the city limits for work. According to EMSI, a leading
economic and labor market data provider, the City is projected to add over 6,400 jobs over the next 10 years. This number is also likely
Page 210 of 364
Consolidated Plan AUBURN 35
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
conservative. The actual number and composition of jobs could change dramatically with a targeted, entrepreneurial economic development
program. The City’s current economic development resources and structure allow the City to be responsive to opportunities that come its way. It
has a proven track record of dedication and creativity that has yielded impressive results to date. The City of Auburn’s Economic Development
Strategic Plan found that the City will benefit from augment its Economic Development program with additional resources and stronger
partnerships. This will position the City to better support the attraction, formation, retention, and expansion of businesses that form the
economic backbone of the community and provide more and better economic opportunities for Auburn residents.
Describe any major changes that may have an economic impact, such as planned local or regional public or private sector
investments or initiatives that have affected or may affect job and business growth opportunities during the planning period.
Describe any needs for workforce development, business support or infrastructur e these changes may create.
Each of Auburn’s seven neighborhood areas have upcoming developments that may impact local investment and business growth, including
some planned infrastructure improvements:
Downtown: There are several large projects in the downtown area that are in various stages of the design, permit review, and approval process.
Auburn Town Center is a seven-story, 296,000 square foot mixed use commercial property being developed at 1st and South Division
Street in the heart of downtown. It will include 226 market rate apartment units and 2,000 square feet of ground level commercial
space.
Next door will be the Auburn Legacy Senior Living, an eight-story, 216,000 square foot building that will provide additional housing
options for our senior community members, as well as an additional 7,000 square feet of ground floor commercial space on Main Street.
Ground breaking is anticipated this summer or fall.
The Heritage Building, in Auburn’s downtown core, was sadly destroyed by fire in December of 2017. The property owner is working on
the design of a new and improved six-story, 60,000 square foot building with 67 apartments, doubling the capacity of the previous
building. This site will provide 5,500 square feet of ground floor commercial space. This project is currently in the design review phase,
with an anticipated 2020 construction start date.
Lakeland Hills: There are several development projects planned for the Lakeland Hills area of Auburn, including a new 73,000 square foot
Auburn Public Schools elementary school, a 16-lot residential subdivision, and a 5-building retail development.
Page 211 of 364
Consolidated Plan AUBURN 36
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
Lea Hill: In addition to three subdivision projects that are in preliminary design and review stages, the City is also moving forward with the Lea
Hill Corridor project. In September 2018, the City initiated the Lea Hill Road Corridor Study, between Harvey Road/M Street NE and 124th
Avenue SE. The study is taking a practical design approach to develop alternative solutions, determine a preferred roadway design, and identify
any potential interim solutions. The Lea Hill Road Corridor Study, which involves public engagement, traffic forecasting and analysis, conceptual
design, and preliminary cost estimation, is expected to be complete by the end of 2019.
North: There are several large projects in North Auburn that are in various stages of the design, permit review, and approval process. Notably,
these include a 290,000 square foot warehouse and distribution center, a mixed use retail and multi-family development that includes
affordable housing, a 250,000 square foot warehouse, and a public elementary school replacement.
Plateau: There are two large infrastructure improvements that are in process on the Plateau in Auburn:
SR 164 Improvements: The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe is leading this project to improve transportation on the SR 164 corridor from SR 18
to the Poplar Street curve, with the support of WSDOT and the City of Auburn. The purpose of the project is to develop a cost-effective,
long-term solution that improves congestion, increases safety, and accommodates growth. The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, with the
support of WSDOT and the City, hosted two public open houses to display project concepts and an online comment form to collect
community feedback. A final public open house on the project will be held early this fall.
Auburn Way South Improvements: The Auburn Way South Sidewalk Improvement project will construct a sidewalk to fill the missing
sidewalk gap from 17th Street SE to Muckleshoot Plaza along the north side of Auburn Way South. The project will provide pedestrian
access along Auburn Way South by constructing a sidewalk where one doesn’t currently exist. This project also includes the following
work:
o Narrowing the existing lane widths to accommodate the new sidewalks within the existing roadway footprint;
o Painting new lane lines to delineate the new lane widths;
o Reducing the speed limit from 45 MPH to 35 MPH;
o Installing c-curbing and a raised median for the purpose of calming vehicular speeds;
o Removing the existing guardrail and installing new guardrail behind the planned sidewalk; and
o Upgrading the existing streetlights with energy efficient LED fixtures.
South:
Farmer’s Market: With a $20,000 grant from King Conservation District for the past season, the Market was able to continue to grow at
the new Les Gove Park location. The move to Les Gove Park has brought new success to the Market, its customers, vendors, and
Page 212 of 364
Consolidated Plan AUBURN 37
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
especially the farmers. With the new park view, increase in exposure, an active park full of amenities, and space to grow, the Auburn
Farmers Market will continue to flourish and grow for decades to come.
West Hill: In addition to receiving two subdivision projects that are in the review stages, the City will be completing improvements to a property
for Parks use that will include soft surface trail improvements, viewpoints with picnic tables and benches, parking area, and a footbridge.
How do the skills and education of the current workforce correspond to employment opportunities in the jurisdiction?
Auburn’s primary strength, and the strength of the South Sound region, is its access to skilled labor. In the 145 zip codes that are within about a
45-minute drive of Auburn, there are 1.5 million workers. Over 800,000 of these workers fall into the “middle skills” segment of workers. In fact,
Auburn has very good access to hard-to-find skillsets such as customer service representatives, truck drivers, registered nurses, maintenance
and repair workers, and various types of technicians that support manufacturing operations. Auburn’s primary constraint is the availability of
sites and buildings with vacancy. This constraint is important because a community’s inventory of sites and buildings determines whether or not
it can enter into the competition for business investment. The majority of the other site selection factors distinguish regio ns across the country
from one another. In that regard, Auburn is fortunate to be located in a region that is a magnet for talent and investment, which provides it with
an advantage over communities of similar size in less competitive regions. Within the Seattle–Tacoma Metro area, the competition to attract
businesses is stiff, and communities must differentiate themselves to standout from their peers.
Auburn's education attainment is lower than the state's average; however the percentage of individuals with high school diplomas and some
college (without degrees) is higher than the percentage of those without high school diplomas. Data shows that those in Auburn with some
college or a bachelor's degree or higher have a higher employment rate than those who don't and have a higher median incom e. The
employment rate of high school graduates, those with some college, those with bachelor's degrees or higher and the annual media income is
lower than the state and nation's average.
The rate of Auburn residents with bachelor's degrees or higher is relatively lower than the general population, but the education attainment of
the City positively corresponds with the employment opportunities in the jurisdiction. Because the majority of employment opportunities are in
areas that do not require higher education degrees (wholesale trade, construction and retail trade) there is ample opportunity for employment
in the City.
Describe any current workforce training initiatives, including those supported by Workforce Investment Boards, community
colleges and other organizations. Describe how these efforts will support the jurisdiction's Consolidated Plan.
Page 213 of 364
Consolidated Plan AUBURN 38
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
The Mayor’s Workforce Initiative began last summer when leadership from Auburn, Pacific, Algona, the Auburn School District, Green River
College and businesses came together to talk about how we could work together proactively to connect local companies with our graduating
students, and vice versa.
The vision of the group is: To build a community where all residents can successfully participate in the workforce, achieve economic stability, raise
a family, and be a part of the fabric of Algona, Auburn and Pacific. We will build a regional education-to-career pipeline that is a community-wide
effort uniting education, cities, the business community, community-based organizations and citizens, where 100% of businesses choose to
remain in the Cities and 100% of prospective employers choose our cities
Does your jurisdiction participate in a Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS)?
No
If so, what economic development initiatives are you undertaking that may be coordinated with the Consolidated Plan? If not,
describe other local/regional plans or initiatives that impact economic growth.
Workforce Development, Business Assistance and Business Development Programs are services routinely provided through the City of Auburn's
Office of Economic Development. The Office of Economic Development has a variety of resources for business development, expansion and
recruitment. The City provides tools to assist, including a variety of regularly scheduled Business Assistance Training and Education
Programming.
Urban Center for Innovative Partnerships
The mission of Auburn's Urban Center for Innovative Partnerships is to support a vibrant vital economy for the City of Auburn, our local region
and the State of Washington. Encouraging the adaption of warehouse districts to mixed use, market-affordable technology clusters and
facilitating collaborative partnering among private sector employers, research partners, and programmed workforce development, the IPZ is a
multi-phased plan across a variety of manufacturing sectors. These collaborative clusters will realize new businesses and products; expand our
existing knowledge based middle-wage jobs while creating new higher paying employment opportunities for the citizens of our City. Through
new partnerships and the clustering of entrepreneurs, ideas will flourish, manufacturing efficiencies will be developed and our diverse business
community will expand, creating investment opportunities, new technologies and the general growth of our economy.
Downtown Revitalization Project
Page 214 of 364
Consolidated Plan AUBURN 39
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
For 120 years, property owners, business large and small, and individuals have invested and succeeded in Downtown Auburn. Downtown
Auburn has undergone a significant revitalization. Recent and ongoing infrastructure investments by the City, new businesses, commuter rail
access, shopping and dining opportunities, and recreational and cultural amenities have increased the economic growth and opportunity of
downtown business owners as well as enhanced the vitality of the area. Since 2010, the City of Auburn has invested $10 million of federal and
State funds in the South Division Street Promenade Project and other downtown projects to make it easier and more attractive for private sector
investment. Projects such as improved parking, sidewalks, lighting and updated water, sewer, storm and private utilities are just a small portion
of improvements made to impact economic growth in Auburn.
Discussion
The economic and community development of the City, specifically in CDBG-qualifying neighborhoods directly affect the vitality and wellness of its residents. For this reason the City intends to continue to include Community and Economic Development in its three priority goals for the 2020-2024 strategic planning period. In addition to neighborhood revitalization, the City intends on focusing on workforce development efforts. As many residents experience the disproportionate increases in cost of living compared to wage growth, Auburn intends to ensure that the workforce development corresponds with future business opportunities.
Page 215 of 364
Consolidated Plan AUBURN 40
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
MA-50 Needs and Market Analysis Discussion
Are there areas where households with multiple housing problems are concentrated?
(include a definition of "concentration")
In the City of Auburn, there are few concentrated areas where there are multiple housing problems.
Households of all income groups throughout Auburn have a roughly balanced amount of households
experiencing housing problems (problems include: overcrowding, substandard housing and housing cost
burdens). Although the households with multiple housing problems are spread throughout the region
and not concentrated, there are areas of concentration experiencing just one housing problem.
Auburn's neighborhood referred to as "the Valley" runs parallel from North to South along West Valley
Highway. The Valley has a concentration of households experiencing housing cost burdens and severe
housing cost burdens.
When looking at population rather than geographic area, we find that a number of groups experience
housing problems in Auburn at a disproportionate rate.
Households with income below 50% AMI experience housing problems at a very high rate. Nearly 85% of
all renter households earning less than 50% AMI experience a housing problem. Overall, just over half of
all renter households in Auburn experience a housing problem, with nearly one-third of owner
households experiencing a housing problem.
HUD also collects data on disproportionate housing needs based on racial demographics. A
disproportionate housing need is identified when a particular group displays a ratio of housing need that
is more than ten (10) percentage points above the jurisdictional need as a whole. Both Black/African
American and Pacific Islander households experience housing problems at a disproportionate rate as
compared to the jurisdiction as a whole. With 61% of Auburn households experiencing a housing
problem, Black/African households and Pacific Islander households experience housing problems at
fourteen (14) and twenty-eight (28) percentage points above the jurisdiction as a whole.
When comparing renter and owner households, there are several areas of disproportionate need.
Among renter households, Black/African American (76.8%) and Pacific Islander (87.6%) households
experience a housing problem greater than ten (10) percentage points above the jurisdiction as a whole
(65.8%). Among owner households, Pacific Islander households experience a housing problem at 100%;
there are 25 Pacific Islander households identified in this CHAS dataset.
Considering cost burdened and severe cost burdened households, the data indicates that Black/African
American households experience cost burden at a disproportionately high rate, while Pacific Islander
households experience severe cost burden at a disproportionately higher rate.
Are there any areas in the jurisdiction where racial or ethnic minorities or low -income
families are concentrated? (include a definition of "concentration")
Page 216 of 364
Consolidated Plan AUBURN 41
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
Racial diversity exists across much of Auburn’s geography. However, there are areas of concentration of
two population groups.
Native Americans in Auburn are concentrated in the Eastern side of Auburn near the
Muckleshoot Reservation.
Auburn residents of Hispanic origin reside along the Valley but have a heavier concentration on
the South end of the Valley which runs directly up the middle of Auburn along highway 167.
Low-income families are concentrated in the Valley which runs up the center of Auburn alongside
highway 167 and in the east side of Auburn near the Muckleshoot Indian Reservation.
Auburn's definition of concentration regarding households in the region is the density in the number of
individuals in a specific area.
What are the characteristics of the market in these areas/neighborhoods?
Although the housing available for rental and ownership in the Auburn Valley area is more
affordable than other locations in the City, housing costs have been increasing proportionate to
the regional trends, making this area no longer affordable to households at many income levels.
According to the National Low Income Housing Coalition Out of Reach Report (2017), fair
market rent for a 2-bedroom home in Auburn ranges from $1700 - $2190. This requires a
“housing wage” of $67,995 annually to afford housing without experiencing cost burden. The
median household income in the zip code that encompasses the Valley is $51,086, or 25%
below the housing wage for that area.
Are there any community assets in these areas/neighborhoods?
Auburn's community assets in the Valley include but are not limited to:
small businesses
produce markets
faith-based institutions
schools
restaurants
The Muckleshoot Casino
The White River Amphitheater
Page 217 of 364
Consolidated Plan AUBURN 42
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
Are there other strategic opportunities in any of these areas?
Auburn's Urban Center for Innovative Partnerships supports the vibrant vital economy for the City of
Auburn and the surrounding local region. Encouraging the adaption of warehouse districts to mixed use,
market-affordable technology clusters and facilitating collaborative partnering among private sector
employers, research partners, and programmed workforce development. These collaborations will
realize new businesses and products; expand existing knowledge based middle-wage jobs while creating
new higher paying employment opportunities for the citizens of our City. Through new partnerships and
the clustering of entrepreneurs, ideas will flourish, manufacturing efficiencies will be developed and our
diverse business community will expand, creating investment opportunities, new technologies and the
general growth of our economy.
Page 218 of 364
Consolidated Plan AUBURN 43
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
Strategic Plan
SP-05 Overview
Strategic Plan Overview
The City of Auburn's strategic plan is based on the assessment of our community's needs as identified in
this Consolidated Plan. The strategic plan will cover the following topics:
Geographic priorities: Based on the analysis of needs, the area in Auburn with the greatest need
lies along Auburn's Valley neighborhood which runs parallel to HWY 167 in the middle of the
city. Even though there is a greater need in the Valley, the City has determined not to set
priorities on that geographic basis: rather, residents in all areas of the City have priority needs.
Priority needs: This section will explain the rationale for the decided priorities based on data,
citizen participation, consultations with community partners and stakeholders and other
assessments.
Influence of Market Conditions: The City's housing strategy will indicate how the characteristics
of the housing market influenced the City’s decisions on how to allocate funds to support the
preservation and development of affordable housing options for residents.
Anticipated Resources: The City has several anticipated resources that will assist in the
delegation of funds as well as determining strategies and goals.
Institutional Delivery Structure: This section describes organizations that will carry out the
identified objectives outlined in the Strategic Plan.
Goals: The section will provide an explanation of the objectives intended to initiate and
complete through the duration of the Consolidated Plan. Each objective identifies proposed
accomplishments and outcomes using the provided Goal Outcome Indicators template.
Auburn’s desired outcomes for each goal are impacted by many factors, including the larger
economy, shifts in local funding patterns, and resources available.
Public Housing: This section explains the needs of public housing residents and the objectives
established in the Strategic Plan to meet those needs.
Barriers to Affordable Housing: This section identifies the strategies for removing
or ameliorating any negative effects of public polies that serve as barriers to affordable housing
in Auburn as identified in the Market Analysis section of the Consolidated Plan.
Homelessness Strategy: This section describes Auburn's strategy for reducing homelessness
through outreach, intervention, and homeless prevention services.
Lead-Based Paint Hazards: This section outlines the City's proposed actions to evaluate and
reduce lead-based paint hazards and the policies/programs that will be implemented to address
the issue.
Anti-Poverty Strategies: This section will summarize the City’s goals, programs, and policies for
reducing family poverty.
Page 219 of 364
Consolidated Plan AUBURN 44
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
Monitoring: This section will identify the standards and procedures the City will use to
monitor sub-recipients to ensure long-term compliance with program and comprehensive
planning requirements.
Within this context, the Consolidated Plan strategic plan intends funds to focus on:
1. Affordable Housing
2. Homelessness
3. Community and Economic Development
The following context will detail the highest priority need, as well established goals and objectives.
Page 220 of 364
Consolidated Plan AUBURN 45
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
SP-10 Geographic Priorities - 91.415, 91.215(a)(1)
Geographic Area
Table 12 - Geographic Priority Areas
General Allocation Priorities
Describe the basis for allocating investments geographically within the state
Due to the fact that low/moderate-income individuals and families in need of supportive services reside
throughout all geographic regions of the city, geographic boundaries will not be used as a basis for
allocating investments.
Page 221 of 364
Consolidated Plan AUBURN 46
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
SP-25 Priority Needs - 91.415, 91.215(a)(2)
Priority Needs
Table 13 – Priority Needs Summary
1 Priority Need
Name
Affordable Housing
Priority Level High
Population Extremely Low
Low
Moderate
Large Families
Families with Children
Elderly
Public Housing Residents
Chronic Homelessness
Individuals
Families with Children
Mentally Ill
Chronic Substance Abuse
veterans
Victims of Domestic Violence
Elderly
Frail Elderly
Persons with Mental Disabilities
Persons with Physical Disabilities
Victims of Domestic Violence
Geographic
Areas
Affected
Associated
Goals
Description The City of Auburn will engage in housing activities, collaborations, and
partnerships to enhance opportunities for the creation and preservation of
affordable housing. The City will plan for and support fair housing strategies and
initiatives designed to affirmatively further fair housing choice, and to increase
access to housing and housing programs.
Page 222 of 364
Consolidated Plan AUBURN 47
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
Basis for
Relative
Priority
The City of Auburn continues to experience a significant increase in its
population, number of households, housing costs and median income.
Although household numbers and median income continues to increase, the City
continues to experience housing problems and an increasing housing need for its
residents which is common throughout the South King County region. South King
County has experienced consistently increasing housing costs over the past five
years, which has contributed to housing instability and housing cost burdens for
low- to moderate-income households.
Residents who are low income or extremely low income suffer from cost burdens
greater than 30-50% for both renters and homeowners and other housing
problems such as overcrowding and substandard living conditions. These cost
burdens can result in eviction, foreclosure and even homelessness for many
families. To address these issues the city intends to support programs offered by
agencies that provide services to alleviate financial crisis, establish financial
stability, address barriers to fair housing choice, and prevent eviction or
homelessness. The city will also continue to provide minor home repair services
for low income homeowners in the community.
2 Priority Need
Name
Ending Homelessness
Priority Level High
Population Extremely Low
Low
Large Families
Families with Children
Elderly
Rural
Chronic Homelessness
Individuals
Families with Children
Mentally Ill
Chronic Substance Abuse
veterans
Victims of Domestic Violence
Unaccompanied Youth
Geographic
Areas
Affected
Associated
Goals
Page 223 of 364
Consolidated Plan AUBURN 48
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
Description We value working together with collective impact to continue the work to
develop a cohesive and coordinated homeless system that is grounded in the
principle of Housing First and shared outcomes; we invest in projects that ensure
that homeless households from all sub-populations are treated with dignity and
respect; are returned to permanent housing as quickly as possible; receive
strength-based services that emphasize recovery, as needed; are supported to
graduate from temporary homeless housing as rapidly as possible, and from
permanent supportive housing as soon as they are ready; receive only what they
need to be returned to housing quickly and to be as self-reliant as possible.
Basis for
Relative
Priority
Homelessness is an issue that affects communities across the United States and
has been increasing in King County over the past five years. As regional housing
costs have increased, we see a correlation to increasing numbers of individuals
and families in our community experiencing unsheltered homelessness.
The projection of how many individuals are experiencing or at risk of
homelessness is challenging to estimate. The most accurate estimate of homeless
residents comes from an annual assessment called the Point in Time Count that is
coordinated by All Home King County. In conjunction with dozens of nonprofit
and government agencies, churches and numerous volunteers, cover large areas
of the County in order to find homeless persons on the streets, in cars or in other
places not meant for housing. The 2019 count estimated 11,199 individuals
experiencing homelessness in King County. Of those 11,199 residents, 217 were
in Auburn.
Shared outcomes with King County and our local Continuum of Care include the
following: 1) reduce the number of households becoming homeless; 2) reduce
the length of time that households are homeless; 3) increase the rate of exits to
permanent housing; and 4) reduce the number of households that re-enter the
homeless system after exit to permanent housing.
3 Priority Need
Name
Community and Economic Development
Priority Level High
Page 224 of 364
Consolidated Plan AUBURN 49
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
Population Extremely Low
Low
Moderate
Middle
Large Families
Families with Children
Elderly
Chronic Homelessness
Individuals
Families with Children
Mentally Ill
Chronic Substance Abuse
veterans
Victims of Domestic Violence
Unaccompanied Youth
Elderly
Frail Elderly
Persons with Mental Disabilities
Persons with Physical Disabilities
Persons with Developmental Disabilities
Persons with Alcohol or Other Addictions
Victims of Domestic Violence
Non-housing Community Development
Geographic
Areas
Affected
Associated
Goals
Description In an effort to meet the need of Auburn's economic and demographic growth the
City intends to fund programs and activities that will enhance the economy,
accessibility, safety, and physical appearance of neighborhoods. Activities that
would be eligible for funding include public infrastructure and ADA
improvements for public facilities. These investments help to ensure equitable
opportunities for good health, happiness, safety, self-reliance and connection to
community.
Page 225 of 364
Consolidated Plan AUBURN 50
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
Basis for
Relative
Priority
Auburn recognizes the direct correlation between the health, wellness and
sustainability of the City and its economic development. To ensure Auburn
provides a safe and desirable place to reside, the City includes Community and
Economic Development as a cardinal area to be addressed in the Consolidated
Plan.
Auburn's efforts to support economic opportunities coincide with its efforts to
support connectivity, accessibility, financial stability and an increased quality of
life for its residents.
Narrative (Optional)
These strategic priorities identified are a direct conclusion of the data collected and assessment
conducted from the Needs Assessment as well as an enhancement of the previous Consolidated Plan.
Page 226 of 364
Consolidated Plan AUBURN 51
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
SP-35 Anticipated Resources - 91.420(b), 91.215(a)(4), 91.220(c)(1,2)
Introduction
The City of Auburn anticipates funding for the duration of the Consolidated Plan from
CDBG
City of Auburn General Fund allocation for Human Services
Anticipated Resources
Program Source of
Funds
Uses of Funds Expected Amount Available Year 1 Expected
Amount
Available
Remainder
of ConPlan
$
Narrative Description
Annual
Allocation:
$
Program
Income: $
Prior Year
Resources:
$
Total:
$
CDBG public -
federal
Acquisition
Admin and
Planning
Economic
Development
Housing
Public
Improvements
Public Services 600,000 0 51,182 651,182 2,400,000
Resources anticipated based on
2020 estimated entitlement
General
Fund
public -
local
Public Services 500,000 0 0 500,000 2,000,000
Anticipated general fund
allocation to human services in
the community.
Table 14 - Anticipated Resources
Page 227 of 364
Consolidated Plan AUBURN 52
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
Explain how federal funds will leverage those additional resources (private, state and local funds), including a de scription of how
matching requirements will be satisfied
The City of Auburn relies on CDBG funds to support community and economic development projects and activities in efforts to support low to
moderate income populations in the community. However, CDBG funds are not the only source of funds the City uses to support public services
and community projects and activities. The City's general funds are used to support public services in addition to CDBG funds.
CDBG funds do not require matching funds.
If appropriate, describe publically owned land or property located within the state that may be used to address the needs
identified in the plan
Discussion
The City of Auburn will explore possibilities to utilize publicly owned land to address needs identified in the Consolidated Plan.
Page 228 of 364
Consolidated Plan AUBURN 53
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
SP-40 Institutional Delivery Structure - 91.415, 91.215(k)
Explain the institutional structure through which the jurisdiction will carry out its consolidated plan
including private industry, non-profit organizations, and public institutions.
Responsible Entity Responsible Entity
Type
Role Geographic Area
Served
AUBURN Government Planning Jurisdiction
Table 15 - Institutional Delivery Structure
Assess Strengths and Gaps in the Institutional Delivery System
Strengths:
Local, South King County and King County systems collaborate services to create a more
integrated and comprehensive approach to avoid duplication in services.
City of Auburn’s engagement in regional collaborations supports larger solutions focused work
on often-intractable issues such as affordable housing and homelessness.
Population specific services such as seniors, children and families, culturally-specific, and faith
based are present throughout the community.
City supported neighborhood and community collaboration events and projects.
Gaps:
Affordable housing need in Auburn and region exceeds available supply
Lack of enhanced homeless shelter and permanent supportive housing opportunities in Auburn.
Auburn makes numerous efforts to fill gaps in services throughout the region by supporting emergency
service and other supportive service programs. However, as the need for emergency services grows
along with the number of residents in the City, the community has experienced a proportionate
decrease in funding for human services making accessibility more challenging for those in need.
Availability of services targeted to homeless persons and persons with HIV and mainstream
services
Homelessness Prevention
Services
Available in the
Community
Targeted to
Homeless
Targeted to People
with HIV
Homelessness Prevention Services
Counseling/Advocacy X
Legal Assistance X
Mortgage Assistance
Rental Assistance X
Utilities Assistance X
Page 229 of 364
Consolidated Plan AUBURN 54
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
Street Outreach Services
Law Enforcement X
Mobile Clinics X X
Other Street Outreach Services X X
Supportive Services
Alcohol & Drug Abuse X X
Child Care X
Education X X
Employment and Employment
Training X X
Healthcare X X
HIV/AIDS
Life Skills X
Mental Health Counseling X X
Transportation X
Other
Table 16 - Homeless Prevention Services Summary
Describe the extent to which services targeted to homeless person and persons with HIV and
mainstream services, such as health, mental health and employment services are made
available to and used by homeless persons (particularly chronically homeless individuals and
families, families with children, veterans and their families and unaccompanied youth) and
persons with HIV within the jurisdiction
The City of Auburn has provided funding for, supported and collaborated with numerous homeless
prevention and intervention service providers throughout the region. Considering homelessness
prevention and intervention are high priorities on the City's Consolidated Plan, there are several systems
in place to ensure services listed above are made available to and used by individuals and families
experiencing homelessness.
The City funds multiple shelter programs utilizing general fund dollars, including those that serve
youth and young adults, individuals fleeing domestic violence, families, and single adults.
The majority of emergency service providers are centrally located in Auburn on major bus routes
where individuals experiencing homelessness utilizing public transportation or are unfamiliar
with the area can easily locate resources.
King County's Mobile Medical Unit visits Auburn regularly and schedules are made visible
at local homeless prevention and emergency assistance service provider’s locations.
The City coordinates with homeless outreach teams to network with agencies who work with
and serve individuals experiencing homelessness. For example: Sound Mental Health's PATH
Outreach team regularly visits the hospital, food banks, free meal sites and Auburn Library to
make access to services easier for homeless persons.
Page 230 of 364
Consolidated Plan AUBURN 55
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
The City co-facilitates a monthly provider meeting for service providers in South King County
serving individuals experiencing homelessness. These meetings provide training opportunities,
networking and resource sharing, policy updates, and coordination on regional initiatives.
Describe the strengths and gaps of the service delivery system for spe cial needs population
and persons experiencing homelessness, including, but not limited to, the services listed
above
Strengths:
Partnerships of multi-service organizations that collaborate to integrate service delivery
Funders who independently support and partner with anti-poverty service programs and
organizations
Dedicated volunteers and staff providing direct services to residents
Central point of entry to access services
Numerous opportunities for collaboration and integration of services amongst government and
nonprofit entities
Gaps:
Insufficient or reduction in funding
Frequent systems or policy changes
High turnover in direct service providers
Insufficient access for individuals who are not English proficient
Transportation
Provide a summary of the strategy for overcoming gaps in the institutional structure and
service delivery system for carrying out a strategy to address priority needs
To overcome gaps of the service delivery system, Auburn will continue to support and work
collaboratively with human service providers in the region to ameliorate barriers to program
accessibility as well as develop and implement systems and strategies to leverage their current
resources while still providing optimal service to residents. The City will also continue to assess and
evaluate programs and service delivery to ensure the community's needs are being met.
Page 231 of 364
Consolidated Plan AUBURN 56
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
SP-45 Goals - 91.415, 91.215(a)(4)
Goals Summary Information
Sort Order Goal Name Start
Year
End
Year
Category Geographic
Area
Needs
Addressed
Funding Goal Outcome Indicator
1 Affordable
Housing
2020 2024 Affordable
Housing
Public
Housing
Homeless
Non-
Homeless
Special
Needs
Affordable
Housing
CDBG:
$1,780,000
Public Facility or Infrastructure
Activities for Low/Moderate Income
Housing Benefit:
5 Households Assisted
Homeowner Housing Rehabilitated:
325 Household Housing Unit
2 Ending
Homelessness
2020 2024 Homeless Ending
Homelessness
CDBG:
$350,000
Public service activities other than
Low/Moderate Income Housing
Benefit:
365 Persons Assisted
3 Community and
Economic
Development
2020 2024 Non-
Homeless
Special
Needs
Non-Housing
Community
Development
Community
and Economic
Development
CDBG:
$421,182
Public Facility or Infrastructure
Activities other than Low/Moderate
Income Housing Benefit:
1000 Persons Assisted
Public service activities other than
Low/Moderate Income Housing
Benefit:
200 Persons Assisted
4 Planning and
Administration
2020 2024 CDBG:
$500,000
Other:
0 Other
Table 17 – Goals Summary
Page 232 of 364
Consolidated Plan AUBURN 57
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
Goal Descriptions
1 Goal Name Affordable Housing
Goal
Description
The City of Auburn will engage in housing activities, collaborations, and partnerships to enhance opportunities for the
creation and preservation of affordable housing. The City will plan for and support fair housing strategies and initiatives
designed to affirmatively further fair housing choice, and to increase access to housing and housing programs.
2 Goal Name Ending Homelessness
Goal
Description
The City of Auburn will support Public Service activities that work toward the following outcomes: 1) reduce the number of
households becoming homeless; 2) reduce the length of time that households are homeless; 3) increase the rate of exits to
permanent housing; and 4) reduce the number of households that re-enter the homeless system after exit to permanent
housing.
3 Goal Name Community and Economic Development
Goal
Description
In an effort to meet the need of Auburn's economic and demographic growth the City intends to fund programs and
activities that will enhance the economy, accessibility, safety, and physical appearance of neighborhoods. Activities that
would be eligible for funding include fair housing public services, public infrastructure and ADA improvements for public
facilities. These investments help to ensure equitable opportunities for good health, happiness, safety, self-reliance and
connection to community.
4 Goal Name Planning and Administration
Goal
Description
General administration and project management
Estimate the number of extremely low-income, low-income, and moderate-income families to whom the jurisdiction will provide
affordable housing as defined by HOME 91.315(b)(2)
Auburn does not directly receive HOME grant funds.
Page 233 of 364
Consolidated Plan AUBURN 58
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
Page 234 of 364
Consolidated Plan AUBURN 59
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
Page 235 of 364
Consolidated Plan AUBURN 60
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
SP-65 Lead-based Paint Hazards - 91.415, 91.215(i)
Actions to address LBP hazards and increase access to housing without LBP hazards
The City of Auburn includes language in its CDBG contracts that require agencies to comply with HUD
Lead-Based Paint Regulations (24 CFR Part 35) issued pursuant to the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning
Prevention Act (42 U.S.C. Sections 4831, et seq.) requiring prohibition of the use of lead-based paint
whenever CDBG funds are used. In addition, the City notifies residents of potential lead-based paint
hazards when it awards a Housing Repair grant. A copy of the pamphlet – "Protect Your Family from
Lead In Your Home" is provided each Housing Repair client when the City conducts the initial inspection
of their home.
The city takes additional measures when the age of the home indicates a possible presence of lead-
based paint. Before housing repair work commences, the city contracts with a certified provider to
undertake lead paint testing. When lead-based hazards are positively identified, the city works with the
housing repair client and contractors certified in RRP Lead Abatement to implement the necessary
mitigation and safety strategies.
How are the actions listed above integrated into housing policies and procedures?
Auburn's Housing Repair Program has established written procedures that incorporate all processes of
LBP hazard mitigation listed above.
Page 236 of 364
Consolidated Plan AUBURN 61
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
SP-70 Anti-Poverty Strategy - 91.415, 91.215(j)
Jurisdiction Goals, Programs and Policies for reducing the number of Poverty -Level Families
Over half of Auburn’s households would qualify under federal guidelines as low/moderate income
households. Auburn has one of the highest poverty rates among all the King County cities. Data included
in the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice show that low income households are more likely
to experience cost burden, multiple housing problems, and be concentrated in areas with poorer
environmental health. These low-income households have limited financial resources at their disposal to
use when faced with normal fluctuations in daily expenses and more serious life crises. Many of these
households are precariously housed and several of them become homeless. Helping these residents
retain or obtain housing, along with other supportive services that will help them get out of poverty,
remain priority issues relative to the City's consideration for grant awards.
The City of Auburn's Community Services Division is developing strategies and systems to promote the
City's efforts to reduce poverty and work in partnership with citizens, non-profit agencies, and other city
departments to:
develop affordable housing opportunities
foster job growth and employment opportunities
support the delivery of human services
The ultimate goal of the City's Consolidated Plan is to reduce the number of people living in poverty in
Auburn. In addition to complying with federal regulations and addressing a priority outlined in the
Consolidated Plan, the City will give funding priority to programs which are consistent with the following
anti-poverty strategy for resource allocation.
How are the Jurisdiction poverty reducing goals, programs, and policies coordinated with this
affordable housing plan
The City of Auburn's supportive residents and leadership has contributed largely to the City's multiple
efforts to pass initiatives that support preserving affordable housing, human service and self sufficiency
needs, economic development and address the needs of the lower income residents to ameliorate
barriers to help them escape poverty.
The City's poverty reducing goals, programs and policies coordinate with the Consolidated Plan by giving
funding priority and investing to:
Emergency assistance programs
Shelters and transitioning housing programs
Homeless prevention and intervention programs
Healthcare services for homeless and low income residents
Page 237 of 364
Consolidated Plan AUBURN 62
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
Economic development programs
Neighborhood revitalization programs
Programs targeting underserved and special populations such as seniors, ethnic minorities,
disabled, homeless and non English speaking residents.
Page 238 of 364
Consolidated Plan AUBURN 63
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
SP-80 Monitoring - 91.230
Describe the standards and procedures that the jurisdiction will use to monitor activities
carried out in furtherance of the plan and will use to ensure long-term compliance with
requirements of the programs involved, including minority business outreach and the
comprehensive planning requirements
Once CDBG funding is approved, City staff executes an agreement with the service provider. The
agreement will include, among other general and specific conditions, the project goals and
requirements. Grant agreements with project recipients will be required to submit reports at least
quarterly detailing the number of Auburn residents served, level of service provided and a demographic
profile of the clients served. Grant recipients will be required to submit an annual report that explains
the progress the agency made toward achieving its outcomes and output goals.
Grant agreements with recipients will be executed following the completion of the review of the project.
Projects will be required to submit progress reports quarterly. If the project warrants additional
reporting requirements (such as weekly payroll reports for proof of federal prevailing wage compliance),
project monitoring will be increased accordingly. Projects will be monitored on a consistent, on-going
basis by City staff. Telephone and/or in person contacts are made at least quarterly, depending upon the
activity and issues associated with the individual project. On-site monitoring visits will be conducted
upon grant recipients at least annually. Frequency of on-site visits will depend upon the amount of funds
provided, past history of contract compliance, and/or programmatic changes that may occur in the
projector in the service delivery of public service programs. City staff will review, prior to approval all
vouchers and back up documentation for payment. Environmental, lead-based paint inspections and
contractor debarment issues will be reviewed with agency project managers at the beginning of each
project.
City staff will strive to help grant recipients complete their projects in a timely manner and in
accordance with applicable rules and regulations.
Page 239 of 364
Consolidated Plan AUBURN 64
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
Expected Resources
AP-15 Expected Resources - 91.420(b), 91.220(c)(1,2)
Introduction
The City of Auburn anticipates funding for the duration of the Consolidated Plan from
CDBG
City of Auburn General Fund allocation for Human Services
Anticipated Resources
Program Source of
Funds
Uses of Funds Expected Amount Available Year 1 Expected
Amount
Available
Remainder
of ConPlan
$
Narrative Description
Annual
Allocation:
$
Program
Income: $
Prior Year
Resources:
$
Total:
$
CDBG public -
federal
Acquisition
Admin and
Planning
Economic
Development
Housing
Public
Improvements
Public Services 600,000 0 51,182 651,182 2,400,000
Resources anticipated based on
2020 estimated entitlement
Page 240 of 364
Consolidated Plan AUBURN 65
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
Program Source of
Funds
Uses of Funds Expected Amount Available Year 1 Expected
Amount
Available
Remainder
of ConPlan
$
Narrative Description
Annual
Allocation:
$
Program
Income: $
Prior Year
Resources:
$
Total:
$
General
Fund
public -
local
Public Services
500,000 0 0 500,000 2,000,000
Anticipated general fund
allocation to human services in
the community.
Table 18 - Expected Resources – Priority Table
Explain how federal funds will leverage those additional resources (private, state and local funds), including a description of how
matching requirements will be satisfied
The City of Auburn relies on CDBG funds to support community and economic development projects and activities in efforts to support low to
moderate income populations in the community. However, CDBG funds are not the only source of funds the City uses to support public services
and community projects and activities. The City's general funds are used to support public services in addition to CDBG funds.
CDBG funds do not require matching funds.
Page 241 of 364
Consolidated Plan AUBURN 66
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
If appropriate, describe publically owned land or property located within the jurisdiction that
may be used to address the needs identified in the plan
Discussion
The City of Auburn will explore possibilities to utilize publicly owned land to address needs identified in
the Consolidated Plan.
Page 242 of 364
Consolidated Plan AUBURN 67
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
Annual Goals and Objectives
AP-20 Annual Goals and Objectives - 91.420, 91.220(c)(3)&(e)
Goals Summary Information
Sort
Order
Goal Name Start
Year
End
Year
Category Geographic
Area
Needs
Addressed
Funding Goal Outcome Indicator
1 Affordable Housing 2020 2024 Affordable
Housing
Public Housing
Homeless
Non-Homeless
Special Needs
Affordable
Housing
CDBG:
$380,000
Public Facility or Infrastructure
Activities for Low/Moderate
Income Housing Benefit: 5
Households Assisted
Homeowner Housing Rehabilitated:
65 Household Housing Unit
2 Ending
Homelessness
2020 2024 Homeless Ending
Homelessness
CDBG: $70,000 Public service activities other than
Low/Moderate Income Housing
Benefit: 165 Persons Assisted
3 Community and
Economic
Development
2020 2024 Non-Homeless
Special Needs
Non-Housing
Community
Development
Community
and Economic
Development
CDBG:
$101,182
Public Facility or Infrastructure
Activities other than
Low/Moderate Income Housing
Benefit: 200 Persons Assisted
4 Planning and
Administration
2020 2024 CDBG:
$100,000
Other: 0 Other
Table 19 – Goals Summary
Page 243 of 364
Consolidated Plan AUBURN 68
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
Goal Descriptions
1 Goal Name Affordable Housing
Goal
Description
The City of Auburn will engage in housing activities, collaborations, and partnerships to enhance opportunities for the
creation and preservation of affordable housing. The City will plan for and support fair housing strategies and initiatives
designed to affirmatively further fair housing choice, and to increase access to housing and housing programs.
2 Goal Name Ending Homelessness
Goal
Description
The City of Auburn will support Public Service activities that work toward the following outcomes: 1) reduce the number
of households becoming homeless; 2) reduce the length of time that households are homeless; 3) increase the rate of
exits to permanent housing; and 4) reduce the number of households that re-enter the homeless system after exit to
permanent housing.
3 Goal Name Community and Economic Development
Goal
Description
In an effort to meet the need of Auburn's economic and demographic growth the City intends to fund programs and
activities that will enhance the economy, accessibility, safety, and physical appearance of neighborhoods. Activities that
would be eligible for funding include fair housing public services, public infrastructure and ADA improvements for public
facilities. These investments help to ensure equitable opportunities for good health, happiness, safety, self-reliance and
connection to community.
4 Goal Name Planning and Administration
Goal
Description
General administration and project management
Page 244 of 364
Consolidated Plan AUBURN 69
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
AP-35 Projects - 91.420, 91.220(d)
Introduction
Auburn's Annual Action Plan provides descriptions of proposals of how funds will be prioritized to
achieve goals identified in the Consolidated Plan. Projects funded by the City will address the priority
needs of providing assistance to prevent homelessness, ensure affordable housing and a suitable living
environment. Projects and programs are selected through a competitive application process to ensure
optimal quality services is provided to the community in use of the funds.
# Project Name
1 Housing Repair
2 Healthpoint
3 Employment Training Program
4 Sidewalk Accessibility Improvements
5 Affordable Housing Capital Improvements
6 Planning and Administration
Table 20 – Project Information
Describe the reasons for allocation priorities and any obstacles to addressing underserved
needs
The allocations proposed are based on the assessment of Auburn's needs, the resources available in the
region, the availability of other funds also focusing on needs, and the purpose of Consolidated Plan
funds.
Should CDBG revenues exceed the proposed amount, the additional resources shall be allocated in
accordance to the following guidelines:
Fill gaps in human services primarily healthcare, homeless prevention and intervention and
affordable housing accessibility.
Increase funding for community development projects and activities including housing,
community facilities and economic development.
If increases are not significant enough to enhance projects or activities funds may be placed in
contingency for programming later in the year or the following program year.
Should CDBG revenues come in lower than anticipated; the City will continue with its planned policy and
to the extent allowed reduce funding allocations in homeowner rehabilitation projects and
administrative activities.
Should CDBG revenues come in less than originally proposed, the City will continue managing the
programs with decreased resources to the extent possible and reduce funding allocations
in administrative activities and not public services.
Page 245 of 364
Consolidated Plan AUBURN 70
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
AP-38 Project Summary
Project Summary Information
1 Project Name Housing Repair
Target Area
Goals Supported Affordable Housing
Needs Addressed Affordable Housing
Funding CDBG: $350,000
Description Maintain the affordability of decent housing for low-income Auburn residents by providing repairs
necessary to maintain suitable housing for low income Auburn homeowners.
Target Date 12/31/2019
Estimate the number and type
of families that will benefit
from the proposed activities
An estimated 65 low to moderate income families will benefit from the housing repair program. As the
City's largest homeless prevention program, housing repair ensures the sustainability of a safe home for
some of Auburn's most vulnerable residents. Of the 65 low to moderate income residents who apply for
the program, over half of them are of the senior and disabled population.
Location Description n/a
Planned Activities Activities include minor home repairs.
2 Project Name Healthpoint
Target Area
Goals Supported Ending Homelessness
Needs Addressed Homeless Prevention and Intervention
Funding CDBG: $60,000
Description Providing healthcare services which include medical and dental to 150 or more low to moderate
income, Auburn residents. This project is a public service activity.
Page 246 of 364
Consolidated Plan AUBURN 71
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
Target Date 12/31/2019
Estimate the number and type
of families that will benefit
from the proposed activities
At least 150 low to moderate income Auburn residents will have benefitted from the proposed
activities.
Location Description n/a
Planned Activities
3 Project Name Employment Training Program
Target Area
Goals Supported End Homelessness
Needs Addressed Homeless Prevention and Intervention
Funding CDBG: $10,000
Description Provide employment training supportive services to approximately 15 low to moderate income Auburn
residents so that at least half of them can find and sustain a job. This project is a public service activity.
Target Date 12/31/2019
Estimate the number and type
of families that will benefit
from the proposed activities
15 low to moderate income Auburn residents will benefit from the employment training program.
Location Description n/a
Planned Activities
4 Project Name Sidewalk Accessibility Improvements
Target Area
Goals Supported Community and Economic Development
Needs Addressed Ensure a Suitable Living Environment
Page 247 of 364
Consolidated Plan AUBURN 72
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
Funding CDBG: $101,182
Description Provide sidewalk ADA improvements in low- to moderate-income areas of Auburn, improving
accessibility, safety, and community connectedness.
Target Date 12/31/2019
Estimate the number and type
of families that will benefit
from the proposed activities
200 low to moderate income Auburn residents will benefit from the improvements.
Location Description n/a
Planned Activities Planned activities include sidewalk improvements to install missing sections or ADA-compliant curb
ramps.
5 Project Name Affordable Housing Capital Improvements
Target Area
Goals Supported Affordable Housing
Needs Addressed Ensure a Suitable Living Environment.
Funding CDBG: $30,000
Description Make funds available through an RFP process to nonprofit affordable housing providers in the City of
Auburn for property improvements.
Target Date 12/31/2019
Estimate the number and type
of families that will benefit
from the proposed activities
5 low income households will benefit from the proposed improvements.
Location Description n/a
Page 248 of 364
Consolidated Plan AUBURN 73
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
Planned Activities
Page 249 of 364
Consolidated Plan AUBURN 74
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
AP-50 Geographic Distribution - 91.420, 91.220(f)
Description of the geographic areas of the entitlement (including areas of low -income and
minority concentration) where assistance will be directed
The City of Auburn intends on distributing funds throughout the jurisdiction.
Geographic Distribution
Target Area Percentage of Funds
Table 21 - Geographic Distribution
Rationale for the priorities for allocating investments geographically
Due to the fact that all areas of Auburn have low to moderate income families dispersed throughout the
entire City, the City intends on investing throughout the entire jurisdiction to ensure that all populations
throughout the region have access to beneficial programs and housing opportunities.
Discussion
Due to the fact that all areas of Auburn have low to moderate income families dispersed throughout the
entire City, the City intends on investing throughout the entire jurisdiction to ensure that all populations
throughout the region have access to beneficial programs and housing opportunities.
Page 250 of 364
Consolidated Plan AUBURN 75
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
AP-85 Other Actions - 91.420, 91.220(k)
Introduction
The City of Auburn will continue to work with service providers throughout the region in coordination to
develop systems and strategies to promote their efforts in providing optimal, easily accessible services.
The City will work to reduce the number of families in poverty, sustain relationships with employment
training agencies, and work to preserve and increase the affordable housing stock in our community.
Actions planned to address obstacles to meeting underserved needs
By establishing a strong foundation of networks between local service providers, stakeholders and
government agencies through committees and coalitions, the City will work in partnership to address
obstacles and ameliorate barriers to meeting underserved needs. The collaborated organizations will
develop detailed strategic plans that will delegate tasks, build systems and ongoing assessment of
service delivery.
Actions planned to foster and maintain affordable housing
The City will continue to maintain the affordability of decent housing for low income Auburn residents
by allocating over $300,000 of CDBG funds to the City's Housing Repair Program. The program provides
emergency repairs necessary to maintain safe housing for at least 65 Auburn homeowners, many
of whom are senior citizens and/or are experiencing barriers to safely accessing their homes due to
physical disabilities.
In addition to Auburn's Housing Repair program, the City will maintain affordable housing by continuing
to engage and partner with coalitions, committees and other government agencies to integrate and
enhance efforts on the issue.
Auburn has been participating in multiple robust regional efforts to coordinate affordable housing
activities in King County. One of these efforts, The South King Housing and Homelessness Partners
(SKHHP) is a coalition formed by an interlocal agreement between the jurisdictions of Auburn, Burien,
Covington, Des Moines, Federal Way, Kent, Normandy Park, Renton, Tukwila, and King County. The
agreement allows for South King County jurisdictions to work together and share resources in order to
effectively address affordable housing and homelessness. This collaborative model is based on similar
approaches used in Snohomish County, East King County, and other areas of the country. The purpose of
the coalition is to increase the available options for South King County residents to access affordable
housing and to preserve the existing affordable housing stock.
Additionally, the City of Auburn has been an active participant in the recently formed Affordable
Housing Committee of the Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC), with a City Councilmember
sitting on the Committee as a voting member. The Affordable Housing Committee serves as a regional
advisory body to recommend action and assess progress toward implementing the Regional Affordable
Housing Task Force (RAHTF) Five Year Action Plan. The Committee functions as a point in coordinating
Page 251 of 364
Consolidated Plan AUBURN 76
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
and owning accountability for affordable housing efforts across King County.
Actions planned to reduce lead-based paint hazards
The City of Auburn includes language in its CDBG contracts that require agencies to comply with HUD
Lead-Based Paint Regulations (24 CFR Part 35) issued pursuant to the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning
Prevention Act (42 U.S.C. Sections 4831, et seq.) requiring prohibition of the use of lead-based paint
whenever CDBG funds are used. In addition, the City notifies residents of potential lead-based paint
hazards when it awards a Housing Repair grant. A copy of the pamphlet – "Protect Your Family from
Lead In Your Home" is provided each Housing Repair client when the City conducts the initial inspection
of their home.
The city takes additional measures when the age of the home indicates a possible presence of lead-
based paint. Before housing repair work commences, the city contracts with a certified provider to
undertake lead paint testing. When lead-based hazards are positively identified, the city works with the
housing repair client and contractors certified in RRP Lead Abatement to implement the necessary
mitigation and safety strategies.
Actions planned to reduce the number of poverty-level families
The City of Auburn's planned actions to reduce the number of poverty- level families within the context
of this Annual Action Plan include but are not limited to:
Allocating $10,000 to employment and training programs
Allocating $60,000 to healthcare services targeted at families who are uninsured or
underinsured
Participate and partner with coalitions, committees and agencies that provide antipoverty
services to develop and enhance strategies and efforts to reduce poverty level families
Supporting the development and sustainability of affordable multi-family housing in Auburn
In addition, the city will continue to support and fund programs serving families living in poverty through
a competitive human services funding process.
Actions planned to develop institutional structure
The City's planned actions to address the gaps and weaknesses identified in the strategic plan include:
Maintaining partnerships with and participating in the South King County Housing and
Homelessness Partnership, All Home of King County and other regional human service providers,
coalitions and committees who address homeless issues. The City will also continue to work
collaboratively with partnering organizations and groups to integrate and enhance services to
provide optimal services to individuals and families currently experiencing or at risk of
homelessness. In addition the City plans to allocate $250,000 to emergency shelters and
homelessness intervention services, and more than $60,000 to emergency services such as food,
Page 252 of 364
Consolidated Plan AUBURN 77
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
financial assistance, clothing and healthcare.
Take a comprehensive approach to consolidated and comprehensive planning to include all
internal City departments, commissions, committees and task forces.
Actions planned to enhance coordination between public and private housing and social
service agencies
The City of Auburn has heavily contributed and intends to continue cultivating relationships between
public and private housing and social service agencies. In addition the City will continue to participate in
collaborations with the South King County Forum on Homelessness, the South King County Council of
Human Services, Seattle-King County Housing Development Consortium and the King County Joint
Planners Meeting.
In 2016 the City of Auburn started participating in Affordable Housing Week through the Housing
Development Consortium along with other public and private housing agencies in King County to
continue our partnerships in providing affordable housing in the region. The City will continue its
participation in this annual event and look for other similar opportunities to raise build partnerships to
support the preservation and enhanced affordability of housing in our community.
Discussion
The expressed goal of the City's Consolidated Plan is to reduce the number of people living in poverty
within Auburn. The City intends to give funding priority to programs that in addition to complying with
federal regulations and address a priority a outlined in the Consolidated Plan are consistent with all of
the goals and objectives identified.
Page 253 of 364
Consolidated Plan AUBURN 78
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
Program Specific Requirements
AP-90 Program Specific Requirements - 91.420, 91.220(l)(1,2,4)
Introduction
The City of Auburn does not anticipate receiving any program income during the 2020 Annual Action
Plan year.
Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG)
Reference 24 CFR 91.220(l)(1)
Projects planned with all CDBG funds expected to be available during the year are identified in the
Projects Table. The following identifies program income that is available for use that is included in
projects to be carried out.
1. The total amount of program income that will have been received before
the start of the next program year and that has not yet been reprogrammed
2. The amount of proceeds from section 108 loan guarantees that will be
used during the year to address the priority needs and specific objectives
identified in the grantee's strategic plan
3. The amount of surplus funds from urban renewal settlements
4. The amount of any grant funds returned to the line of credit for which the
planned use has not been included in a prior statement or plan.
5. The amount of income from float-funded activities
Total Program Income
Page 254 of 364
Consolidated Plan AUBURN 79
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
Page 255 of 364
Attachment A
2019 King County Analysis of
Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Page 256 of 364
Attachment A
King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Table of Contents
Introduction and Executive Summary .............................................................................. 3
Community Participation Process ................................................................................... 4
Assessment of Past Fair Housing Goals ....................................................................... 19
Fair Housing Analysis .................................................................................................... 26
Demographic Trend Summary ................................................................................... 27
Segregation and Integration in King County ............................................................... 30
Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs) ................................ 41
Disproportionate Housing Needs .................................................................................. 43
Disparities in Access to Opportunity .............................................................................. 49
Education ................................................................................................................... 50
Employment ............................................................................................................... 55
Transportation ............................................................................................................ 57
Environmental Health ................................................................................................. 60
Conclusion - Disparities in Access to Opportunity ...................................................... 66
Publicly Supported Housing Analysis ............................................................................ 67
Disability and Access Analysis ...................................................................................... 71
Fair Housing Discrimination Data Analysis .................................................................... 74
Fair Housing Goals........................................................................................................ 76
Conclusion and Next Steps ........................................................................................... 77
Page 257 of 364
Attachment A
Page 258 of 364
Attachment A
King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 1
INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction
Everyone deserves fair access to housing. Discrimination and segregation are deeply
engrained in the history of the United States, including King County. Access to housing
was historically a key tool to perpetuate segregation, and will be critical for its undoing.
The Federal Fair Housing Act of 1968 banned discrimination against certain protected
classes, and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD’s)
implementation of the act requires all local governments to affirmatively further fair
housing. This means King County must take meaningful actions to combat
discrimination, overcome historic patterns of segregation, and foster inclusive
communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity.
Protected Classes in King County
Federal State of Washington King County
Race
Color
National Origin
Religion
Sex
Disability
Familial Status
Sexual Orientation
Gender Identity
Creed
Marital Status
Veteran/Military Status
Use of Service or Assistive
Animal
Source of Income
Age
Ancestry
This Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (Analysis of Impediments) seeks to
understand the barriers to fair housing choice and will guide policy and funding decisions
to end discrimination and overcome historic patterns of segregation in King County.
This analysis is written in the context of King County’s Equity and Social Justice
Strategic Plan1, which provides a lens through which all critical government decisions
are made. The Strategic Plan creates a framework to analyze how to engage historically
underserved communities in examining current conditions and defining equitable
solutions.
1 https://aqua.kingcounty.gov/dnrp/library/dnrp-directors-office/equity-social-justice/201609-ESJ-SP-FULL.pdf
Page 259 of 364
Attachment A
King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 2
This analysis is also written in the context of the Regional Affordable Housing Task
Force’s Five-Year Action Plan and Final Report 2 and the Affordable Housing
Committee. This analysis may inform efforts King County and the Affordable Housing
Committee will take to develop model ordinances or provide technical assistance to
partner jurisdictions. The Five-Year Action Plan includes strategies that this analysis
partially addresses:
• Goal 4, Strategy A: Propose and support legislation and statewide policies related to
tenant protection to ease implementation and provide consistency for landlords:
o Prohibit discrimination in housing against tenants and potential tenants with
arrest records, conviction records, or criminal history
• Goal 4, Strategy B: Strive to more widely adopt model, expanded tenant protection
ordinances countywide and provide implementation support for:
o Prohibiting discrimination in housing against tenants and potential tenants
with arrest records, conviction records, or criminal history
• Goal 5, Strategy B: Increase investments in communities of color and low-income
communities by developing programs and policies that serve individuals and families
at risk of displacement
o Expand requirements to affirmatively market housing programs and enhance
work to align affordable housing strategies with federal requirements to
affirmatively further fair housing.
This analysis is conducted on behalf of the King County Consortium, which includes all
of King County with the exception of the Cities of Seattle and Milton. While this analysis
includes the City of Seattle, particularly for the analysis of shifting demographics and
segregation throughout King County, it does not represent the City of Seattle nor reflect
all of its efforts to affirmatively further fair housing. The City of Seattle and Seattle
Housing Authority conducted its own Assessment of Fair Housing in 2017, which you
can read here.3
This analysis is primarily based on the structure of HUD’s 2017 Assessment of Fair
Housing Local Government Assessment Tool and the data from the Affirmatively
Furthering Fair Housing Data and Mapping Tool 4 provided by HUD. More current and
supplemental data sources are included when appropriate, and the structure has been
modified to improve readability.
2 https://kingcounty.gov/~/media/initiatives/affordablehousing/documents/report/RAHReportPrintFileUpdated7-
17-19.ashx?la=en
3 http://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/HumanServices/CDBG/2017%20AFH%20Final.4.25.17V2.pdf
4 https://egis.hud.gov/affht/
Page 260 of 364
Attachment A
King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 3
Executive Summary
This report finds that systemic segregation, disproportionate housing needs, and
individual-level discrimination are present and ongoing in King County. Key findings
include:
• King County has become significantly more diverse over recent decades.
• Jurisdictions in King County can be categorized within three racial compositions:
areas that are diverse, predominantly White and Asian, and predominantly White.
• South Seattle and Southwest King County contain the most diverse areas of King
County and face the greatest barriers in access to opportunity.
• Economic segregation is a major factor to segregation patterns throughout King
County and protected class status is frequently correlated with lower incomes.
• Housing prices have increased dramatically in the last ten years, displacing lower-
income communities of color and immigrants.
• Field-testing conducted across jurisdictions in King County found evidence of
individual-level housing discrimination in about half of all tests.
• Blacks are half as likely as Whites to apply for a home loan and twice as likely to be
denied.
This report proposes an initial set of goals:
1. Invest in programs that provide fair housing education, enforcement, and testing.
2. Engage underrepresented communities on an ongoing basis to better understand
barriers and increase access to opportunity.
3. Provide more housing for vulnerable populations.
4. Provide more housing choices for people with large families.
5. Support efforts to increase housing stability.
6. Preserve and increase affordable housing in communities at high risk of
displacement.
7. Review zoning laws to increase housing options and supply in urban areas.
8. Work with communities to guide investments in historically underserved
communities.
9. Support the Affordable Housing Committee’s efforts to promote fair housing.
10. Report annually on Fair Housing Goals and progress.
Page 261 of 364
Attachment A
King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 4
COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION PROCESS
King County staff solicited input on community needs, priorities, and on the draft
Analysis of Impediments from partner organizations, local jurisdictions, and the general
public. Public outreach and engagement activities were designed to reduce barriers to
participation and engage stakeholders and community groups who have been
underrepresented in the past. King County staff partnered with local jurisdictions to help
reach more communities, and hosted meetings in public places that might be more
broadly attended. Information on the Analysis of Impediments, the notice of the public
meetings and survey were widely distributed through targeted outreach with local
partners. The public review draft was available for public review and comment from
June 14-July 26, 2019. The meeting notices and the survey tool were available to
members of the public in English, Somali, Spanish, and Vietnamese from June 25-July
26, 2019.
The Joint Recommendations Committee, which oversees the funding decisions of the
King County Consortium, reviewed and approved this report at a special meeting on
July 12, 2019. In effect, this means that this Analysis of Impediments has been adopted
by all of the cities in King County, except the Cities of Seattle and Milton. The King
County Department of Community and Human Services will submit this report to the
King County Council by September, which will provide an additional forum for public
comment.
Stakeholders
King County staff invited members of the following organizations to participate in one-
on-one interviews to provide additional feedback. Staff also shared the public meetings
notice with the following organizations and encouraged them to distribute it through their
networks.
Housing Providers/Policy Advocates
• Housing Development Consortium of Seattle-King County
• Housing Justice Project
• King County Housing Authority
• Puget Sound Sage
• Renton Housing Authority
• Tenant’s Union (WA State and City of Kent)
• WA Multifamily Housing Association
• WA Realtors
Nonprofit/Community Based Organizations
• African Community Housing and Development
• Alliance of People with disAbilities
• Asian Pacific Islander Americans for Civic Engagement (APACE)
Page 262 of 364
Attachment A
King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 5
• Asian Counseling and Referral Services
• Centro De La Raza
• Refugee Women’s Alliance (ReWA)
• Somali Community: Living Well Kent
• Washington State Coalition Against Domestic Violence (WSCADV)
• White Center CDA
Regional Partners
• Columbia Legal Services
• Futurewise
• Puget Sound Sage
• Skyway Solutions
• University of Washington: Evans School of Public Policy & Governance
King County staff conducted interviews with representatives from the following
organizations:
• Alliance for People with disAbilities
• Asian Counseling and Referral Services
• Columbia Legal Services
• University of Washington: Evans School of Public Policy & Governance
• King County Housing Authority
• Puget Sound SAGE
• Refugee Women’s Alliance
• Washington State Coalition Against Domestic Violence
Page 263 of 364
Attachment A
King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 6
Community Meetings For the General Public
Public Drop-In Forums
Three public open houses (one in each sub-region) gave a chance for residents to
provide feedback on the draft Analysis of Impediments and share their concerns and
perspectives with King County staff. These meetings followed the federal requirements
for providing public notice, providing notice in the Seattle Times newspapers, posting on
the King County website, posting notice at the meeting site and providing direct
notification to stakeholders 14 calendar days prior to the first community meeting. These
meetings took place at the following times and locations:
• East – Bellevue, 6/15, Crossroads Mall, 11:00 a.m.-1:00 p.m.
• North – Shoreline, 6/22, Shoreline Library, 10:30 a.m.-12:30 p.m.
• South – Tukwila, 6/29, Tukwila Library, 10:30 a.m.-12:30 p.m.
These community forums were held in mixed–income and low-income locations around
King County that are walkable, accessible by public transit, and had free parking. The
venues included areas that are frequented by community members of all economic
backgrounds, often in areas with subsidized and affordable housing options. These
public meetings were held in publicly accessible locations, without architectural barriers
which would preclude the attendance of people who have a disability. The community
meeting held at the Crossroads Mall was the best attended, as the location had the
most foot traffic, and was a good location to talk to people passing by the posted
information.
Additional Meetings
King County co-hosted two community meetings jointly, one with the City of Auburn and
another with the City of Federal Way. An additional stakeholder meeting was scheduled
to provide an opportunity to discuss this work and get feedback during work hours. Staff
from the Downtown Emergency Services Center, Housing Development Consortium,
and Congregations for the Homeless attended this meeting. King County staff also
briefed the City of Renton Human Services Commission on this process, key findings,
and recommendations.
Online Survey
King County staff also distributed an online survey to collect information regarding
individuals’ personal experiences of barriers to accessing housing. The survey was
translated into Spanish, Vietnamese, and Somali to increase accessibility. By the end of
the comment period, 46 participants submitted responses and comments through the
survey.
Survey Themes:
Page 264 of 364
Attachment A
King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 7
• Rental Market:
o Lack of affordable housing for low-income/fixed-income individuals
o Instability of constantly moving due to:
Annual rent increases that make an area unaffordable
Buildings being renovated and displacing residents
o Living with multiple roommates in crowded conditions to afford the area
o Community members settling for sub-quality rental housing in order to
manage affordability
o Moved out of homelessness into a rental unit
• Housing ownership market is too expensive and unattainable:
o Older housing options are the only options in lower price ranges
o Newer housing is larger and starts in the $800K range
o Prices prevent younger families from moving in, the elderly from staying in
their homes and the new graduates need to return to live at home
o Newer housing being built does not incorporate concern for aesthetic or
functional neighborhoods or communities; quantity over quality is being
valued
o Frustrated by a lack of market options/configurations; need more multi-
family properties
• Need more education about how to report housing discrimination, and what
tenant rights are when facing fair housing discrimination
• Need more low-barrier, affordable housing options
• Need to protect mobile home parks from development, enabling low-income
residents to remain (see work Kenmore is doing)
Summary of Feedback
Key Themes Highlighted from Public Meetings and Stakeholder Interviews:
• Fair Housing Enforcement needs work, as the current system relies on the
injured party to report the discrimination (racism, classism, ableism etc.)
• Certain protected classes (i.e. individuals living with a disability, immigrants with
limited English proficiency) experience inherent barriers to accessing housing
o Need more accessible units for people with disabilities, and policies to
ensure units are actually accessible or modified to be accessible
o Need for more translated materials (forms, websites) and available
interpreters to help immigrants/refugees access information and apply for
housing
• The impacts of displacement are being felt across the county:
o Available housing is pricing out low-income individuals
o Evictions are disproportionately impacting women of color
o Cost of housing restricts geographical choice, forces residents to relocate
o Number of people experiencing homelessness continue to increase
Page 265 of 364
Attachment A
King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 8
• Immigrant and refugee communities are afraid of government/public
entities/organizations
• Credit scores and social security numbers are being used as neutral tools to
discriminate against potential tenants
Recommended Actions Identified by Public Stakeholders:
• Need more accessible, affordable housing and larger capacity units across King
County
• Need to further educate landlords/property managers/housing providers on
working with tenants with disabilities, with domestic violence survivors, and with
tenants with criminal records.
• Need a centralized housing database that provides a reference list of available
housing programs, resources and available units.
The following chart summarizes the feedback received for each public meeting and
interview. Feedback has also been incorporated throughout this analysis since the
public review draft was first posted on June 14, 2019.
Page 266 of 364
Attachment A
King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 9
Citizen Participation Outreach
Mode of
Outreach
Target of
Outreach
Summary of
response/attendance
Summary of
comments received
Summary of
comments
not
accepted
and reasons
Public
Meeting
Affordable
Housing
experts,
stakeholder
s
The Regional Affordable Housing
Task Force Kick-Off meeting on
July 14, 2017 at the Renton
Community Center included a
data presentation on housing
affordability and small and large
group discussions. Approximately
70 individuals attended
See meeting summary
https://www.kingcounty.gov/initiatives/aff
ordablehousing/meetings.aspx
None
Public
Meeting
Communiti
es of Color
Broad
Community
The January 30, 2018 Regional
Affordable Housing Task Force
met at the New Holly Community
Center (in New Holly
neighborhood operated by the
Seattle Housing Authority) for
open public testimony on the
public’s experiences of and
perspective on housing
affordability. 50 members of the
public provided testimony.
See meeting summary
https://www.kingcounty.gov/initiatives/aff
ordablehousing/meetings.aspx
None
Public
Meeting
Individuals
with lived
experiences
of
homelessne
ss
Elected
Leaders
Business
Community
Service
Providers
Broad
Community
The January 22, 2018 One Table
Community Action Work Group
meeting brought elected officials,
service providers to discuss the
root causes of homelessness and
to develop a community
approach to homelessness and
affordability.
See meeting summary
https://www.kingcounty.gov/depts/comm
unity-human-
services/housing/services/homeless-
housing/one-table.aspx
None
Page 267 of 364
Attachment A
King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 10
Citizen Participation Outreach
Mode of
Outreach
Target of
Outreach
Summary of
response/attendance
Summary of
comments received
Summary of
comments
not
accepted
and reasons
Individuals
with lived
experiences
of
homelessne
ss
Elected
Leaders
Business
Community
Service
Providers
Broad
Community
The April 4, 2018 One Table
Community Action Work Group
meeting brought together elected
officials, service providers to
discuss the root causes of
homelessness
See meeting summary
https://www.kingcounty.gov/depts/comm
unity-human-
services/housing/services/homeless-
housing/one-table.aspx
None
Individuals
with lived
experiences
of
homelessne
ss
Elected
Leaders
Business
Community
Service
Providers
Broad
Community
The August 3, 2018 One Table
Community Action Work Group
meeting brought elected officials,
service providers to discuss the
root causes of homelessness.
See meeting summary
https://www.kingcounty.gov/depts/comm
unity-human-
services/housing/services/homeless-
housing/one-table.aspx
None
Page 268 of 364
Attachment A
King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 11
Citizen Participation Outreach
Mode of
Outreach
Target of
Outreach
Summary of
response/attendance
Summary of
comments received
Summary of
comments
not
accepted
and reasons
Public
Meeting
Broad
Community
The April 19, 2018 Regional
Affordable Housing Task Force
Meeting at Kenmore City Hall was
organized with small group
discussions around a specific
issue of affordable housing, with
small groups reporting out to the
whole. Approximately 50 people
participated.
See meeting summary
https://www.kingcounty.gov/initiatives/aff
ordablehousing/meetings.aspx
None
Public
Meeting
Broad
Community
On September 5, 2018 at
Shoreline Community College, the
Regional Affordable Housing Task
Force presented a draft Action
Plan and facilitated discussion
around prioritizing goals.
See meeting summary
https://www.kingcounty.gov/initiatives/aff
ordablehousing/meetings.aspx
None
Public
Meeting
Broad
Community
On September 8, 2018 at the
South Bellevue Community
Center, the Regional Affordable
Housing Task Force presented a
draft Action Plan and facilitated
discussion around prioritizing
goals.
See meeting summary
https://www.kingcounty.gov/initiatives/aff
ordablehousing/meetings.aspx
None
Public
Meeting
Broad
Community
On September 11, 2018 at the
Auburn Community Center, the
Regional Affordable Housing Task
Force presented a draft Action
Plan and facilitated discussion
around prioritizing goals.
See meeting summary
https://www.kingcounty.gov/initiatives/aff
ordablehousing/meetings.aspx
None
Online
Comment
Tool
Broad
Community
The Regional Affordable Housing
Task Force website hosted a
public comment tool that allowed
residents to share what
neighborhood they live in
(optionally), their experiences,
and any other perspectives or
solutions to address housing
affordability.
See public comments here
https://www.kingcounty.gov/initiatives/aff
ordablehousing.aspx
None
Page 269 of 364
Attachment A
King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 12
Citizen Participation Outreach
Mode of
Outreach
Target of
Outreach
Summary of
response/attendance
Summary of
comments received
Summary of
comments
not
accepted
and reasons
Public
Meeting
Community
Meeting in
Auburn
On April 1, 2019 King County staff
participated in a community
meeting organized by City of
Auburn to gather input for their
CDBG program and county-wide
housing and fair housing needs.
People expressed a desire to see more
affordable housing, fewer barriers to
obtaining housing including: tenant
screening, selective micro-targeting
through social media, discrimination
against domestic violence survivors, rental
application fees. Also mentioned was single
family zoning as exclusionary and limiting
the housing supply. Other supply
constraining factors mentioned were
permitting process and regulations.
None
Public
Meeting
Broad
Community
(Bellevue)
On June 15, 2019 King County
staff organized a community
drop-in opportunity in Bellevue at
Crossroads Mall for community
members to discuss county-wide
housing needs and fair housing
needs, as well as provide public
comment on the Consolidated
Plan and Analysis for
Impediments.
Members of the public expressed a need
for more affordable housing options for
renters and home buyers. They shared
concerns of their community becoming
unaffordable. Shared concerns that
employees need to travel further from
work to find housing. Lack of affordable
housing is impacting efforts to help people
out of homelessness, means people are on
waitlists longer. Fair housing laws can have
unintended consequences, and it can be
complicated for realtors to implement.
Community needs: workforce housing,
ADUs, subsidies that provide both housing
and cost of living assistance.
None
Public
Meeting
Broad
Community
(Shoreline/
Lake Forest
Park)
On June 22, 2019 King County
staff organized a community
drop-in opportunity at the
Shoreline Library for community
members to discuss county-wide
housing needs and fair housing
needs, as well as provide public
comment on the Consolidated
Plan and Analysis for
Impediments.
Members of the public shared the fear
immigrant communities are feeling to join
public meetings, and a need for more
outreach to immigrant communities.
Concerned about availability of housing
stock, and impact of tech companies
expanding campuses. Community needs
more: rental assistance to help keep
housing, low-income apartment stock,
resources on what to do when you are
experiencing discrimination and better
responsiveness to reported discrimination.
None
Page 270 of 364
Attachment A
King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 13
Citizen Participation Outreach
Mode of
Outreach
Target of
Outreach
Summary of
response/attendance
Summary of
comments received
Summary of
comments
not
accepted
and reasons
Public
Meeting
Broad
Community
(Tukwila)
On June 29, 2019 King County
staff organized a community
drop-in opportunity at the
Tukwila Library for community
members to discuss county-wide
housing needs and fair housing
needs, as well as provide public
comment on the Consolidated
Plan and Analysis for
Impediments.
Members of the public shared their
concern regarding impact of evictions, and
how it is being misused. Concerned about
the growing number of homeless women
and homeless vets. Additionally, how
affordability is impacting ability to stay in
their preferred neighborhoods. Community
needs more: help with planning around
credit scores, education, financial planning,
and new, accessible homes at affordable
prices.
None
Stakehold
er
Meeting
Partners/St
akeholders
On July 9, 2019 King County staff
organized a community drop-in
opportunity for partners and
stakeholders to discuss county-
wide housing needs and fair
housing needs, as well as provide
public comment on the
Consolidated Plan and Analysis
for Impediments.
Partners shared their concern that there
are not adequate resources for behavioral
health needs, aging in place, or access to
adult care homes. Additional concerns
included unhealthy housing. Partners
shared that the county needs more long-
term medical care, more education for
landlords, long-term subsidized housing,
private landlord/rental repair, and more
fair housing testing and enforcement
None
Public
Meeting
Joint
Recommen
dations
Committee
& Members
of the
Public
On July 12, 2019 King County staff
organized a special meeting of
the Joint Recommendations
Committee (JRC) to review and
approve the Consolidated Plan
and Analysis of Impediments to
Fair Housing
Joint Recommendations Committee (JRC)
held a special meeting and heard a
presentation on the Consolidated Plan and
Analysis for Impediments.
Members of the public shared concern for
the displacement of immigrants/refugees
from their neighborhoods of choice, and
how that type of displacement has a
distinct ripple effect for both the
community member that is forced to move,
and the community left behind.
None
Page 271 of 364
Attachment A
King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 14
Citizen Participation Outreach
Mode of
Outreach
Target of
Outreach
Summary of
response/attendance
Summary of
comments received
Summary of
comments
not
accepted
and reasons
Stakehold
er
Interview
Alliance of
People with
disAbilities
Interviewed leadership at Alliance
of People with disAbilities
-Fair housing barriers: people who are
impacted need extra support; housing
access is unaffordable and inaccessible -
Accessible units rented on first serve basis,
not held for tenants with accessibility
needs; increases the wait for units and
rigorous search needed for those tenants
-Alliance of People with disAbilities acts as
a system navigator to help people access
services; work with anyone who states they
have a disability
-People with disabilities are missing/not
reflected by current reports on
homelessness, even though they continue
to represent a growing part of the
homeless population
-Distinction between ADA accessible and
accessible for specific individual; some
more work is needed on educating housing
providers on tenants’ rights to have a unit
modified to be accessible for them
-Need more accessible units and subsidized
housing, with range of options to
customize for tenants with disabilities
-Need one stop housing database with all
currently available housing and info on
housing programs
-Need voice at the table in these processes;
there is a problem with the process
-Need more funding for accessibility work,
specifically advocating for tenants with
disabilities and educating housing
providers
-Need more housing to be designed and
built in a more broadly accessible
None
Page 272 of 364
Attachment A
King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 15
Citizen Participation Outreach
Mode of
Outreach
Target of
Outreach
Summary of
response/attendance
Summary of
comments received
Summary of
comments
not
accepted
and reasons
Stakehold
er
Interview
King County
Housing
Authority
Interviewed leadership and staff
at KCHA
-Fair housing barriers: market availability
and geographic choice present barriers to
fair housing
-Low-income individuals are being priced
out; qualifying for these benefits gets you
on the list but not immediate access to
benefits; not enough resources to help
everyone in need
-KCHA working with City of Seattle on
Creating Moves to Opportunity Pilot to
improve outcomes of children by
evaluation strategies that support Housing
Choice Vouchers in moving to higher
opportunity neighborhoods
-KCHA increasing landlord engagement
work; build and maintain relationships with
local landlords to educate them about
HCVs
-Harder for housing authorities to work
with undocumented family members; need
to disclose all members of household living
in residence
-Increase in intakes of tenants coming
directly out of homelessness (40-50%);
demand for Section 8 vouchers is also
increasing
-Growing urgency and need for housing
resources overall
-Need more multifamily housing,
affordable home ownership and
concessionary sales prices
None
Page 273 of 364
Attachment A
King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 16
Citizen Participation Outreach
Mode of
Outreach
Target of
Outreach
Summary of
response/attendance
Summary of
comments received
Summary of
comments
not
accepted
and reasons
Stakehol
der
Interview
Washingto
n State
Coalition
Against
Domestic
Violence
(WSCADV
)
Interviewed staff member at
WSCADV
-Fair housing barriers: Survivors of DV
cannot be denied housing on the basis
of DV history, but it does happen in
practice (both by landlords and housing
authorities)
-Lack of understanding on how to work
with survivors of domestic violence
-Need: improved education for housing
providers on how to work with survivors
and what a tenant’s rights are for
survivors accessing safe housing or
vacating housing to be safe (i.e.
changing locks, breaking a lease
without repercussions, requesting new
housing location)
-Need: navigation for survivors help to
get safe and stable housing; eviction
reform and tenant screening; process of
housing applications and timelines can
often be the barrier
None
Stakehol
der
Interview
Puget
Sound
Sage
Interviewed staff at Puget
Sound Sage
-Puget Sound Sage advocates for
investments and policies at the state
level that seek to protect tenants and
promote equitable development, and
there has been significant movement in
these areas in recent years
-Fair housing barriers include rising
house costs, restricted land use (single
family housing), and evictions rising,
which increases displacement, real
estate market and cost of housing
-Equitable Development Initiative a
good example of funding to support
community initiated projects in high-risk
displacement neighborhoods;
community engaged in solution
-Need to strengthen affordable housing,
use more affirmative marketing and
preferential strategies
None
Page 274 of 364
Attachment A
King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 17
Citizen Participation Outreach
Mode of
Outreach
Target of
Outreach
Summary of
response/attendance
Summary of
comments received
Summary of
comments
not
accepted
and reasons
Stakehol
der
Interview
Asian
Counselin
g and
Referral
Services
(ACRS)
Interviewed staff at ACRS -Fair housing barriers: distrust in
institutions, availability of interpreters
and availability of materials and forms
printed in multiples languages for
clients to access
-ACRS: assists clients finding housing
and navigating services, but can take
more time and resources due to
language barriers; often end up filling
out forms with clients. These barriers
cause delays, as clients cannot access
the information themselves, and ACRS
has limited resources to meet the need.
-CEA is working well, providing multiple
resources in community to determine
needs. Housing First model has had a
positive impact as well.
-Need: more translated materials and
more interpreters available at housing
provider offices to assist with housing
process, forms etc.
None.
Stakehol
der
Interview
Columbia
Legal
Services
(CLS)
Interviewed staff at CLS -Fair housing barriers:
racism/unacknowledged racism,
affordability (credit score as a “neutral
test” has a disproportionate impact,
enforcement model falls on victim to
report discrimination, type of housing
stock and lack of units
-Columbia Legal Services: work with
clients with criminal records on access
to housing (leaving jail, homelessness,
accessibility of shelters, reasonable
accommodation, and undocumented
residents).
-Need: education on many forms of
housing discrimination that exist (ex.
SSN is not needed on all the forms it is
requested but can have a barrier
impact); increasing access for tenants
with disabilities (accommodation vs.
modification).
None.
Page 275 of 364
Attachment A
King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 18
Citizen Participation Outreach
Mode of
Outreach
Target of
Outreach
Summary of
response/attendance
Summary of
comments received
Summary of
comments
not
accepted
and reasons
Stakehol
der
Interview
University
of
Washingto
n, Evans
School of
Public
Policy and
Governanc
e
Interviewed Evans School
professor
-Fair housing barriers: discrimination
without enforcement, use of other
policies for discrimination by proxy, Ban
the Box had unintended consequences
-Need more education around what fair
housing is, and enforcement for parties
who are violating it
None.
Page 276 of 364
Attachment A
King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 19
ASSESSMENT OF PAST FAIR HOUSING GOALS
King County participated in a regional Fair Housing and Equity Assessment lead by the Puget Sound Regional Council
(PSRC) in 2015. You can read the full report here.5 The following table reviews the goals set in that assessment, policies
and programs implemented since 2015 that seek to further these goals, and the results or current status towards reaching
each goal. King County and partner cities welcome input on other activities and results in King County that have not been
included in this assessment, as well as on goals where progress has not been made since 2015.
Goal Activities Results
I. Fair Housing Education and Information
A. Work with regional
funding partners and fair
housing agency partners
to increase the visibility
of fair housing
enforcement resources.
• Fair housing and tenant advocacy organizations
perform outreach and education of fair housing
enforcement resources:
o Fair Housing Center of Washington
o The Tenants Union of Washington
• Information and access to resources are posted
on the websites of:
o King County
o City of Seattle
o Washington State Human Rights
Commission
o U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development
• Education and access to
enforcement resources are
available.
B. Work with regional
funding partners and fair
housing agency partners
The Fair Housing Center of Washington is certified
as a private fair housing enforcement initiative
program through HUD.6
• There is inconsistent
capacity across King
5 https://www.psrc.org/sites/default/files/fairhousingequityassessment.pdf
6 https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/contact_fhip
Page 277 of 364
Attachment A
King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 20
Goal Activities Results
to consider funding
specific enforcement
initiatives for rental
housing in high
opportunity areas and
high capacity transit
areas.
Fair housing enforcement is available in King
County:
• The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) enforces federal laws.7
• The Washington State Human Rights
Commission enforces state laws.8
• Local jurisdiction enforcement programs include:
o City of Bellevue9
o King County Civil Rights Program (for
unincorporated areas)10
o City of Seattle Office of Civil Rights 11
County for fair housing
enforcement.
• Dispersed and overlapping
authority makes accessing
resources confusing.
C. Work with regional
funding partners and fair
housing agency partners
to provide fair housing
education and training,
including specific
education for public and
elected officials – assess
need for funding for
Information regarding fair housing is available and
education has continued through the Fair Housing
Center of Washington, the Tenants Union, and
Solid Ground, among other organizations. However,
King County and partner cities did not fund specific
educational campaigns.
• Elected officials, housing
professionals, renters, and
homebuyers are often still
not aware of fair housing
rights or responsibilities.
7 https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp
8 https://www.hum.wa.gov/fair-housing
9 https://development.bellevuewa.gov/codes-and-guidelines/code-compliance
10 https://www.kingcounty.gov/elected/executive/equity-social-justice/civil-rights.aspx
11 https://www.seattle.gov/civilrights/civil-rights/fair-housing
Page 278 of 364
Attachment A
King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 21
Goal Activities Results
specific educational
campaigns.
D. Work with regional
funding partners and fair
housing agency partners
to develop new
informational materials
and publications that will
increase participation in
the affirmative furthering
of fair housing in our
region.
Informational pamphlets were available and
distributed at fair housing seminars and are
available online.
• Most of the fair housing
materials are outdated.
II. Landlord/Housing Barriers
A. Work with partners,
stakeholders, and private
landlords to reduce
housing screening
barriers, including
disparate treatment of
protected classes and
criminal background
barriers that have a
disparate impact on
persons of color.
There has been significant activity in recent years
for reducing screening barriers to housing, with a
focus on polices that have disproportionate impacts
on people of color.
• RCW 43.31.605 created
the Washington State
Landlord Mitigation
Program in 2018.12 The
program provides
education and, in some
cases, financial support to
landlords who rent to
tenants receiving rental
assistance.
12 https://www.commerce.wa.gov/building-infrastructure/housing/landlord-mitigation-program/
Page 279 of 364
Attachment A
King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 22
Goal Activities Results
B Work with partners,
stakeholders, and private
landlords on initiatives
and requirements that
will actively promote fair
housing choice and
increase access to
housing for protected
classes, including
expansion of the
Landlord Liaison Project.
• The Landlord Liaison Project was
reprogrammed into a larger and broader
reaching organization called the Housing
Connector. This is a cross collaborative effort
between the Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of
Commerce, King County, and the City of Seattle.
• The King County Housing Authority staffs three
Owner Liaisons who build relationships with new
and strengthen existing partnerships with
landlords to encourage participation in the
Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Program.
• The Housing Connector
connects private property
owners/managers to those
most in need of housing.
Click here to learn more. 13
• Since the Owner Liaison
team was created, they
have helped the HCV
program find homes for
over 900 new families.
C. Work with partners to
add the coverage of
source of income/rental
assistance/Section 8
discrimination at the
State level and at the
local level for jurisdictions
that do not currently
include this as a
protected class and that
have the capacity of
• King County and other partners advocated
banning source of income discrimination at the
Washington State Legislature.
• The Washington State
Legislature banned source
of income discrimination
statewide in 2018. You can
find more information about
the bill here.14
13 https://www.housingconnector.com/
14 https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=2578&Year=2017&Initiative=false
Page 280 of 364
Attachment A
King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 23
Goal Activities Results
administer such a
program and explore
other opportunities to
reduce barriers to the
use of Section 8 and
other rental assistance in
housing.
D. Provide technical
assistance to help
agencies get their
questions answered by
the appropriate fair
housing professional.
• King County and partner cities do not provide
technical assistance, but refer residents to fair
housing professionals that provide fair housing
education, including: Solid Ground, the Housing
Justice Project, and the Tenants Union of
Washington State.
• The Washington State Multifamily Housing
Association and Washington Realtors provide
references to education and enforcement
resources.
• Fair housing professionals
continue to provide
technical assistance.
III. Access to Opportunity
A. In coordination with
funding and community
partners, make strategic
investments in affordable
housing in regions of the
Consortium that have
high access to
opportunity.
Since 2015, King County government has invested
over $180 million in affordable housing in high
opportunity areas or areas with frequent transit
service.
• Significant affordable
housing investments were
made in affordable housing
projects in high access to
opportunity.
Page 281 of 364
Attachment A
King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 24
Goal Activities Results
B. In coordination with
funding partners and
community partners,
make strategic
investments that will
catalyze additional public
and private investment in
regions of the
Consortium that have low
access to opportunity.
In 2014, Public Health – Seattle & King County
began the program Communities of Opportunity
(COO) in partnership with the Seattle Foundation,
which seeks to empower residents and
communities with low access to opportunity. One of
the primary goals of COO is to increase economic
opportunity. Click here for more information.15
• Supporting areas with low
access to opportunity has
been a priority, but
significant disparities
persist.
C. Work across sectors on
shared outcomes to
increase health, well-
being and the vitality of
communities located in
areas of low access to
opportunity.
• Some of the primary goals of COO are to
improve health outcomes and community
connections. Click here for more information.16
• King County Community Health Needs
Assessment and
• Significant disparities in
health outcomes persist in
low-income communities.
D. Work with partners on
legislative matters,
incentive programs, and
tools that encourage
responsible development
in areas of low access to
• Addressing displacement and gentrification was
an emerging topic during the past five year
planning period. The Regional Affordable
Housing Task Force convened elected officials
and expert stakeholders and culminated in a
Final Report and Five-Year Action Plan. Goal 5
• In 2019, the City of
Kenmore rezoned its
manufactured housing
communities to ensure
they were not replaced with
another housing type.
15 https://www.coopartnerships.org/
16 https://www.coopartnerships.org/
Page 282 of 364
Attachment A
King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 25
Goal Activities Results
opportunity and ensure
that there are plans to
address displacement of
low-income persons, if
such may occur.
of the Regional Affordable Housing Task Force
is to “Protect existing communities of color and
low-income communities from displacement in
gentrifying communities,” and includes a number
of strategies to achieve this goal.
• The King County Housing Authority has
prioritized acquisition and preservation of
affordable housing in high opportunity areas
where access for low-income persons has
historically been limited and in areas at high risk
of displacement.
• King County’s 2019-2020
budget included funding for
a TOD Preservation and
Acquisition Plan. The plan
currently proposes
preserving 582 units in the
coming years. You can
learn more about the plan
here.17
17 https://mkcclegisearch.kingcounty.gov/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3876610&GUID=DD8C9E4E-56BC-4AD6-9B76-
C24EB3FC68E5&Options=Advanced&Search=
Page 283 of 364
Attachment A
King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 26
FAIR HOUSING ANALYSI S
Understanding the impediments to fair housing choice requires many levels of analysis.
This analysis includes the following sections:
• Summary of King County demographics and trends
• Analysis of segregation patterns and trends
• Analysis of racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty
• Analysis of disproportionate housing needs
• Analysis of disparities in access to opportunity along the following factors:
- Education
- Employment
- Transportation
- Environmentally Healthy Areas
• Analysis of publicly supported housing
• Analysis of housing access for individuals with disabilities
• Analysis of fair housing discrimination testing and housing mortgage disclosure
data
Each section includes an analysis of the dynamics and disparities for each issue, key
contributing factors, and provides a brief overview of the existing programs and policies
seeking to address these issues.
Page 284 of 364
Attachment A
King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 27
Demographic Trend Summary
King County has seen significant demographic shifts since 1990 in overall population
and makeup by race, ethnicity, and country of origin. King County’s population has
increased from 1,507,319 in 1990 to a 2017 Census estimate of 2,118,119, an increase
of 41%. This was significantly greater than the overall U.S. population growth of 30%
from 1990 to 2017.
Please see Appendix A for a table containing key demographic data for King County as
whole, each jurisdiction, and the unincorporated areas.
Race/Ethnicity
King County has become significantly more diverse, with the White, not Hispanic or
Latinx population decreasing from 84.8% in 1990 to a 2017 Census estimate of 61%.
The Asian and Latinx populations grew most rapidly in the same time period, increasing
from 7.9% to 17% and from 2.9% to 9% of the overall population, respectively. The
Black population grew from 5.1% in 1990 to a 2017 estimate of 6.2%. King County’s
racial and ethnic composition is similar to the larger Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue
Metropolitan area.
National Origin
A major contributor to the growth in King County is immigration from other countries. In
1990, 140,600 residents had a national origin other than the U.S. The 2017 King County
estimate is 467,938, an increase of 333% compared to 1990. The growth of this
population accounts for 54% of the overall population growth in King County in this time
period, and our foreign-born population accounts for 22% of the overall population,
significantly higher than the national average of 14% and similar to the Seattle-Tacoma-
Bellevue Metropolitan area.
There is significant variation between jurisdictions for the percent of their population that
is foreign-born. The cities with the highest rates are:
Jurisdiction Percent Foreign-Born
SeaTac 41%
Tukwila 40%
Redmond 40%
Data Source: 2017 5-Year ACS Population Estimates
The cities with the lowest percentages of foreign-born individuals are:
Jurisdiction Percent Foreign-Born
Page 285 of 364
Attachment A
King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 28
Milton 5%
Duvall 6%
Maple Valley 6%
Data Source: 2017 5-Year ACS Population Estimates
Countries of origin with more than 15,000 residents in King County are India, China,
Mexico, Vietnam, the Philippines, Korea, Canada, Ukraine, and Ethiopia. More than half
of King County’s foreign-born population originates from Asia.
Language and Limited English Proficiency
King County residents speak over 170 different languages, and more than a quarter of
households in King County speak a language other than English at home. Six percent of
King County households have limited English proficiency (LEP). Fifty five percent of
LEP households speak Asian and Pacific Island languages, 20% speak Spanish, 16%
speak Indo-European languages, and 9% speak other languages.18 The most common
languages spoken by K-12 students with LEP in King County are:
Language spoken by LEP students Number of students in King County
Spanish 26,260
Vietnamese 5,575
Somali 3,786
Mandarin 3,552
Russian 2,543
Cantonese 2,263
Data Source: WA State Office of Financial Management, Forecasting Division, 2016 estimates
Familial Status
Despite other shifting demographics, household size in King County has remained
relatively unchanged. Sixty percent of King County residents live in family households,
married with or without children, or single parent households. The average household
size in King County is 2.5 people. These figures are similar to the United States as a
whole.
There is significant variation in average household size between jurisdictions within King
County. The cities with the highest average household sizes are:
Jurisdiction Average Household Size
Algona 3.4
18 Data Source: 2016 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimate
Page 286 of 364
Attachment A
King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 29
Snoqualmie 3.1
Sammamish 3.0
Duvall 3.0
Data Source: 2017 5-Year ACS Population Estimates
The areas with the smallest average household size are:
Jurisdiction Average Household Size
Skykomish 1.7
Seattle 2.2
Normandy Park 2.4
Data Source: 2017 5-Year ACS Population Estimates
The King County Office of Economic and Financial Analysis performs annual
demographic trend analysis. Click here to visit their webpage.19
19
https://www.kingcounty.gov/independent/forecasting/King%20County%20Economic%20Indicators/Demog
raphics.aspx
Page 287 of 364
Attachment A
King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 30
Segregation and Integration in King County
Understanding the nature of residential segregation patterns and trends in King County
is a critical first step to understanding the barriers to fair housing choice.
Geographically, residential segregation patterns in King County can be categorized as
jurisdictions and neighborhoods that are predominantly White, predominantly White and
Asian, or racially and ethnically diverse. South Seattle and Southwest King County
experience the highest levels of racial and ethnic diversity, and are relatively integrated.
Urban jurisdictions east of Seattle, such as Bellevue, Redmond, Sammamish, and
Kirkland are predominantly White and Asian. Please see Appendix A for race and
ethnicity information for each jurisdiction, King County as a whole, and the
unincorporated areas of King County.
Non-White residents have moved into urban areas throughout King County over recent
decades, which paints an overall positive outlook for racial and ethnic integration in the
future. However, as the non-White population is likely to continue to grow, the
displacement and shift of the Latinx and Black community into Southwest King County
does present a risk of persistent or increased segregation in the future.
King County’s segregation levels vary significantly by race. While Latinx and Asian
populations experience similar levels of relatively low segregation, the Black population
is highly segregated from the White population. The Dissimilarity Index provided by
HUD measures the degree of segregation between two groups. A score of 0 would
represent complete integration, while a score of 100 would represent complete
segregation.
Race Dissimilarity Index
White/Non-White 35.81
Black/White 56.71
Hispanic/White 39.71
Asian/White 36.22
Data Source: HUD Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Data and Mapping Tool, Nov. 2017 Update
Segregation Trends since 1990
In 1990, areas with significant non-White populations were primarily in Central and
South Seattle. Over time, the non-White population has expanded into Southwest King
County, with the Asian population also growing significantly in the urban areas east of
Seattle. The most segregated areas of King County are those that are predominantly
White in the rural areas, which have experienced relatively low population and job
growth compared to the urban areas.
Page 288 of 364
Attachment A
King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 31
Population Change in King County Jurisdictions, 1980-2016
Data source: 2010 Census and American Community Survey
A major factor for why the rural area’s population and demographics have changed
relatively little is the Growth Management Act of Washington State (GMA). King County
established an Urban Growth Boundary in 1992, in accordance with the GMA, and the
boundary remains largely unchanged today. This boundary seeks to prevent sprawling,
uncontrolled development and targets growth primarily in the western urban areas of
King County. The urban areas have accommodated King County’s growth in recent
decades, while the rural area’s demographics remain closer to King County’s 1990
demographics. Suburban cities also annexed the majority of the urban unincorporated
area, which accounts for the significant decrease in population in the urban
unincorporated areas.
Another segregation trend over recent decades has been that of income segregation.
Middle-income or mixed-income census tracts have decreased from 57% in 1980 to
46% in 2017. Economic segregation indexes rate this metropolitan region as about
average or slightly below average compared to other metropolitan regions in the U.S.
Page 289 of 364
Attachment A
King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 32
Since approximately 2013, dramatic increases in the cost of housing have displaced lower-income communities of color
farther south in Seattle or into the more affordable areas of Southwest King County. Residents have also been displaced
into Kitsap, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties, which have historically had more lower cost housing compared to King
County.
Page 290 of 364
Attachment A
King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 33
Contributing Factors to Segregation
Race, National Origin, and Income
Understanding the strong connection between race and income is critical to
understanding segregation trends in King County.
Race/Ethnicity 2017 Median
Household Income
Percent of King County
Median Household
Income
All King County Households $83,571
Asian $93,971 112%
White $88,638 106%
Two or more races $70,046 84%
Native Hawaiian and Other
Pacific Islander $62,500
75%
Hispanic or Latinx $57,933 69%
Some other race $52,070 62%
American Indian and Alaska
Native $45,923
55%
Black or African American $42,280 51%
Data Source: 2017 5-Year ACS Population Estimates
As the preceding table shows, White and Asian households earn above, while all other
races and ethnicities earn significantly below, the King County median income.
Another significant income disparity that contributes to segregation trends in King
County is between U.S.-born and foreign-born individuals. On average, foreign-born
individuals earn $34,871, while US born individuals earn $41,983. The following table
shows the median household income for households with at least one foreign-born adult
by place of birth. The countries included are those with at least 5,000 King County
residents. The disparities between different places of birth are stark:
Place of Birth
2017 Median Household
Income
United Kingdom $150,511
India $137,966
Canada $124,101
Hong Kong $113,677
Germany $109,406
Taiwan $101,574
Japan $101,046
China $91,070
Philippines $90,575
Russia $87,468
Page 291 of 364
Attachment A
King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 34
Korea $81,777
Ukraine $75,967
Vietnam $72,978
Guatemala $65,595
Cambodia $55,034
Mexico $52,105
El Salvador $46,098
Ethiopia $39,290
Somalia $17,178
Data Source: 2017 5-Year ACS Population Estimates
The most striking disparity is households with an adult born in Somalia, who have a
median income below the federal poverty level, depending on household size.20 The
preceding table also shows that while Asians as a single category earn above the King
County median income, households with adults born in Korea, Vietnam, and Cambodia
earn less than the King County median income. These income disparities are a major
component to why immigrants and low-income people of color have moved into
Southwest King County.
Historical Redlining and Restrictive Covenants
Two major institutional factors that have historically contributed to segregation in King
County are the practices of redlining and restrictive covenants. Redlining was a practice
20 https://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty-guidelines
Page 292 of 364
Attachment A
King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 35
used by lending institutions to systematically deny financial services to residents of
specific neighborhoods, either by outright denial or by raising the price for their services.
Restrictive covenants explicitly excluded residents from buying houses in certain areas,
typically based on race and religion. These policies restricted access to homeownership
opportunities for non-White communities.
Homeownership is an important tool to building future wealth, and parental
homeownership significantly increases the chance that their children will buy a home.21
These policies have likely had a major impact on intergenerational wealth and
contributed to the systemic disparities identified throughout this report.
The federal Supreme Court ruled against racially restrictive covenants in 1948, and the
federal Fair Housing Act of 1968 outlawed both practices. However, their effects are still
visible in King County’s demographics today. The Seattle Civil Rights & Labor History
Project, based at the University of Washington, provides a wealth of information about
the history of segregation in King County. You can learn more about redlining and
racially restrictive covenants, including mapping of both practices, here.22
King County’s Topography
Another factor that may contribute to racial and ethnic segregation patterns in King
County is its topography. Access to and views of Puget Sound, lakes, and mountains
have a strong influence on housing prices and are dispersed throughout King County.
Areas with these assets tend to have a majority White with significant Asian
populations. The Latinx and Black populations in King County have significantly lower
median incomes and are therefore less likely to live in these areas.
Because housing with views or water access can be in close geographic proximity to
housing without these assets, an area can be diverse from a jurisdictional or
neighborhood level of analysis, but segregated at a sub-neighborhood or block-by-block
level. An example of this trend can be seen in predominantly White areas along Puget
Sound within the Cities of Burien, Normandy Park, Des Moines, and Federal Way,
which transition to neighborhoods that are less than 50% White in distances as short as
half a mile. Please see the next page for a map of the racial and ethnic composition of
this area.
21 https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/99251/intergenerational_homeownership_0.pdf
22 https://depts.washington.edu/civilr/segregated.htm
Page 293 of 364
Attachment A
King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 36
Race/Ethnicity Map – Southwest King County
Data Source: HUD Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Data and Mapping Tool, Nov. 2017 Update
Displacement of Residents Due to Economic Pressures
King County has experienced dramatic increases in the cost of housing since the recession
of 2008. Even as the overall number of homes has increased in the last ten years by
88,000, the number of rental homes affordable to low- and moderate-income families
has decreased by 36,000.
Affordability of Rental Housing Stock by Income Level
Page 294 of 364
Attachment A
King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 37
This is due in large part to significant growth in higher-income households.
Data source: 2017 ACS 1-Year Estimates
Households of color are disproportionately likely to be severely cost burdened, paying
more than half of their income toward housing costs. These trends have resulted in
Page 295 of 364
Attachment A
King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 38
significant displacement of communities of color from Central and South Seattle into South
Seattle and Southwest King County.
Location and Type of Affordable Housing
Southwest King County has historically been the area of King County with the most naturally
occurring affordable housing, meaning that market rate housing has been affordable to
households with lower incomes. As a result, residents displaced due to rising housing costs,
many of whom are people of color, have relocated to this area. Due in part to its affordability,
Southwest King County has also become home to lower-income immigrant communities
over recent decades. These areas have also experienced faster rates of growth in housing
costs compared to the more costly Seattle and Eastside submarkets.
Land use and zoning laws
Zoning codes significantly limit development in a majority of the urban areas of King County.
Areas that allow only lower density development, such as single-family zoning or large
minimum lot size requirements, are whiter than the King County average. Limiting the type of
housing allowed to single-family homes, which is typically the most expensive form of
housing, leads to economic segregation. This economic segregation effectively excludes the
low-income communities that are highly correlated with protected class status.23
Private Discrimination and Lack of Enforcement of Existing Laws
Community input and housing discrimination testing have found that private, individual-level
housing discriminatory practice are still commonplace in King County and present an
impediment to fair housing choice. Familial status, race, religion, disability, and national origin
were all identified as having experienced housing discrimination.
In addition to Federal Fair Housing laws, the State of Washington, King County, and
jurisdictions within King County have implemented many policies aimed at reducing
discrimination and addressing these disparities. However, funding for monitoring,
education, and enforcement of these laws has been limited. Please see the Fair
Housing Discrimination section for more information.
Programs, Policies, and Investments to Address Segregation, Fair Housing,
and Geographic Mobility
Communities of Opportunity
Communities of Opportunity is an initiative undertaken jointly between Public
Health – Seattle and King County and the Seattle Foundation to address
23 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5800413/
Page 296 of 364
Attachment A
King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 39
inequitable outcomes based on geography. Geographic communities targeted
currently include:
• The Rainier Valley (City of Seattle)
• White Center
• SeaTac/Tukwila
• The City of Kent
• The Central District of the City of Seattle
• Rural Snoqualmie Valley
• The urban Native Community
• The Latinx Community of Vashon Island
• Transgender and gender nonconforming communities
There is significant overlap between these targeted communities and federal
protected classes. Each community develops its own vision and priorities, which
may include:
• anchoring multi-cultural communities at risk of displacement,
• advocating for the preservation and development of affordable housing
in areas that are in close proximity to transit, jobs, and education,
• Access to health, affordable food and safe places outside to be
physically active, especially for youth,
• Workforce development that includes local hires, support of new local
businesses, and inclusion of youth, and
• Increased civic participation and engagement, cultural preservation, and
access to safe public spaces.
The majority of these efforts seek to empower and improve outcomes for protected
classes, which may ultimately lead to greater integration due to economic mobility
and mixed-income communities.
King County Housing Authority’s Small Area Fair Market Rent Policies
In 2016, KCHA expanded its two-tiered system of payment standards (which
involved a regular standard and an “exception area” standard that covered East
King County) to create a ZIP code-based, multi-tiered structure with five payment
standard levels. KCHA’s adoption of multi-tiered payment standards recognizes
the importance of closely aligned payment standards to local rental sub-markets
as a means of achieving four goals:
1. Increasing access to high opportunity areas
2. Containing program costs by “right-sizing” subsidy amounts in lower and
middle cost markets
Page 297 of 364
Attachment A
King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 40
3. Ensuring that new and existing voucher holders can secure and
maintain their housing in competitive and increasingly costly rental
submarkets across the county
4. Limiting the number of households experiencing cost burden.
An internal assessment completed in 2017 found that households were more likely
to move to higher opportunity areas after enactment of the policy: between 2015
and 2016, the proportion of new voucher holders with children leasing in higher
cost areas increased by 8.4%, movers with children relocating from lower cost to
higher cost areas increased by 4%, and nearly all racial groups experienced
increased access to higher cost areas.
Creating Moves to Opportunity
The King County Housing Authority is partnering with the Seattle Housing Authority,
MDRC, and a multi-disciplinary academic team that includes Raj Chetty and others from
Harvard, Johns Hopkins, and MIT to identify strategies to increase opportunity area
access among families with young children who receive a Housing Choice Voucher.
The program, Creating Moves to Opportunity (CMTO), is being run as a multi-year
randomized control test study that will test a range of services aimed at reducing rental
barriers to opportunity neighborhood access; the end result from CMTO will be identified
best practices that are both impactful and scalable. You can learn more about this
program here.24
24 http://creatingmoves.org/research/
Page 298 of 364
Attachment A
King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 41
RACIALLY OR ETHNICALLY CONCENTRATED
AREAS OF POVERTY
Neighborhoods with high concentrations of poverty contribute to negative outcomes
greater than the struggles of an individual family living in poverty. Concentrations of
poverty limit educational opportunities, lead to increased crime rates and poor health
outcomes, hinder wealth building, reduce private-sector investment and increase prices
for goods and services, and raise costs for local governments.25 It is critical to
understand the needs and dynamics that have led to the creation of these areas to
understand barriers to fair housing choice. HUD defines a “Racially or Ethnically
Concentrated Areas of Poverty” (R/ECAP) as a census tract that is majority non-White
and has a poverty rate greater than 40%.
King County is privileged to have only a few R/ECAP tracts. This is due primarily to a
relative lack of concentration of poverty and few areas that are majority non-White.
There is only one R/ECAP outside the City of Seattle, in the East Hill neighborhood of
the City of Kent.
The East Hill R/ECAP tract is 38.5% White, 16% Black, 1% Native American,
22.3% Asian, and 21.5% Latinx and scores in the bottom decile of the HUD
Poverty Index. This is a significantly higher rate of people of color compared to the
King County average. King County had no R/ECAP tracts outside the City of
Seattle in 1990. In 2000, a census tract in the City of Kent between I-5 and Pacific
Highway South was an R/ECAP with a White population of 46.6%, Black 17%,
Native American 2%, Asian 13.5%, Hispanic 19.8%.
The City of Kent has historically been an area with naturally occurring
affordable housing, and has seen a significant amount of growth in the non-
White population since 1990. The R/ECAP tracts are near major highways, a
former landfill, and industrial activities, reducing the value of homes in this area
and leading to higher rates of lower-income households.
In 2018, Communities of Opportunity created the Kent Community
Development Collaborative; a partnership of community-based organizations
working to ensure everyone can participate and benefit from decisions that
shape their neighborhood and greater community. The partnership convenes
community forums focused on creating affordable, safe housing for Kent
25 https://www.huduser.gov/portal/periodicals/em/spring13/highlight1.html
Page 299 of 364
Attachment A
King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 42
residents, as well as opportunities for living-wage jobs and access to healthy,
affordable foods.
Page 300 of 364
Attachment A
King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 43
DISPROPORTIONATE HOUSING NEEDS
Achieving fair housing means more than eliminating overt discrimination. This analysis also
seeks to understand the disproportionate housing needs of protected classes. The following
section analyzes the disparities in housing.
There are stark disparities among households who are cost burdened and experience
housing problems. The four housing problems, as measured by the US Census Bureau, are:
• Incomplete kitchen facilities
• Incomplete plumbing facilities
• More than 1 person per room 26
• Cost burden.27
Race/Ethnicity Percent of households experiencing at
least one housing problem
Hispanic or Latinx 56%
Black 55.9%
Other, Non-Hispanic 43.6%
Native American 38.3%
Asian or Pacific Islander 37.8%
All Households 37.1%
White 33.9%
Data Source: HUD Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Data and Mapping Tool, Nov. 2017 Update
There are also significant racial disparities in severe cost burden28 that create a
disproportionate need for affordable housing for non-White and non-Asian communities.
Race/Ethnicity Percent Severely Housing Cost
Burdened
Black 29%
Some other Race 26%
Hispanic or Latinx 24%
Native American 22%
Native Hawaiian or Pacific
Islander 22%
White 18%
Asian 18%
Data Source: 2015 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy
26 This measure includes all rooms, such as kitchens and living rooms.
27 Cost burden is when a household spends more than 30% of its gross income on household costs.
28 Severe cost burden is when a household spends more than half of its gross income on household
costs.
Page 301 of 364
Attachment A
King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 44
Geographically, South Seattle and Southwest King County experience the highest
rates of cost burden and severe cost burden.
Rental vs. Homeownership Housing
There are significant disparities in the rates of households who rent versus own along
race, ethnicity, and foreign-born status.
Household
Type
Percent of Households
who Rent
Percent of Households
who Own
All King
County
Households 43% 57%
Black 72% 28%
Native
Hawaiian or
Pacific
Islander 71% 29%
All other
Races 71% 29%
Hispanic or
Latinx 66% 34%
Native
American 61% 39%
Two or More
Races 60% 40%
Asian 42% 58%
White 38% 62%
Foreign Born 50% 50%
U.S. Born 40% 60%
Data Source: 2017 5-Year ACS Population Estimate
Areas of King County with high rates of rental housing are located primarily in the urban
areas along I-5 and east of Seattle. Within these urban areas, most rentals are located
in the areas zoned for higher residential densities. Neighborhoods and jurisdictions
composed of single-family homes are therefore more likely to be White and Asian, while
denser areas are more diverse.
Page 302 of 364
Attachment A
King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 45
Page 303 of 364
Attachment A
King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 46
Page 304 of 364
Attachment A
King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 47
Familial Status
In King County, single individual households are most likely to be cost burdened. This
is likely due to paying for housing costs with only a single income, and because
younger people are more likely to earn less as they begin their careers.
However, large families are also significantly more likely to experience housing
problems, due primarily to the cost of larger housing and overcrowding. There is also
significant variation in average household size by country of origin, likely meaning that
certain immigrant populations face additional challenges obtaining sufficient housing
for their families. The following table includes countries of birth with more than 5,000
King County residents.
Place of Birth Average Household Size
Somalia 4.0
El Salvador 4.0
Mexico 3.9
Guatemala 3.9
Cambodia 3.5
Ukraine 3.5
Philippines 3.3
Vietnam 3.3
Ethiopia 3.0
India 2.8
Hong Kong 2.7
Russia 2.7
China 2.7
Japan 2.6
Korea 2.6
Taiwan 2.6
Germany 2.6
United Kingdom 2.4
Canada 2.4
Data Source: 2017 5-Year ACS Population Estimates
Low-income and immigrant communities have provided consistent input that there is a
significant lack of affordable large-unit homes. A review of the publicly subsidized
housing inventory in King County found that 27% of units are two bedrooms and 13%
of units are three bedrooms or larger.
Loss of Affordable Housing
The stock of homes affordable to households earning 80% AMI or less has decreased
since 2007, and is on a trajectory to continue decreasing. Between 2007 and 2017, the
Page 305 of 364
Attachment A
King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 48
total number of rental units increased by 88,000, but the number of rental units affordable
at 80% AMI and below decreased by 36,000. This is due to a combination of market
pressures and the physical demolition of affordable housing.
Significant growth in population and high-paying jobs in King County, particularly from
2013-2018, has increased the demand for housing, and the market has been unable to
build enough new housing to accommodate this growth. Rents have increased
dramatically in the last ten years, even in older, previously affordable buildings.
As the urban areas of King County are already largely developed, construction of new
housing can lead to a physical loss of affordable housing. Naturally affordable housing is
often redeveloped as the value of the land is higher relative to the value of the structure.
Naturally affordable housing can also be lost through renovations or remodels that
increase the cost of housing.
Language Barriers for Immigrant Households
Limited English proficiency is an additional barrier some immigrant households face in
their housing search. Rental postings and applications are typically not readily available in
languages other than English. The need for translation services is therefore a
disproportionate housing need for these households.
Difficulty Transitioning from Temporary Cash Assistance for Refugees
Refugees receive eight months of temporary cash assistance upon arrival.29 Advocates
reported difficulty finding stable employment and obtaining affordable housing before this
assistance expires. Even for refugees who are stably employed, establishing a sufficient
employment and credit history over that period of time is a significant challenge and
presents a barrier to securing housing.
29 https://www.dshs.wa.gov/esa/community-services-offices/refugee-cash-assistance
Page 306 of 364
Attachment A
King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 49
DISPARITIES IN ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITY
Fair housing choice is not only about combating discrimination. Intergenerational effects
of discrimination and segregation have had a disproportionate impact on access to
opportunity for protected classes in King County. The following sections summarize
disparities; propose contributing factors to these disparities; and review policies,
programs, and investments that seek to address these disparities.
Page 307 of 364
Attachment A
King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 50
Education
Equitable access to a high quality education is a critical component to addressing
intergenerational poverty and providing long-term economic mobility.
Summary of Disparities/Dynamics
The debate over how to measure or compare school proficiency is ongoing and beyond
the scope of this analysis. However, the Washington State Office of Superintendent of
Public Instruction’s “School District Report Card” provides relevant data and shows
significant disparities between school districts. The following table provides an overview
of the 19 School Districts in King County.
Page 308 of 364
Attachment A
King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 51
Overview of School Districts in King County
Percent of 8th Grade
Students Meeting State
Standards
Race/Ethnicity Demographics Special Programs
School
District
Language
Arts Math Science Percent
White
Percent
Asian
Percent
Latinx
Percent
Black
Percent
Two or
More
Races
Percent
English
Learners
Percent
Low -
Income
Percent
with a
Disability
Auburn 49.7 38.3 42.5 39.2 8.9 29.7 7.3 9.7 18.9 51.8 12
Bellevue 81.5 73.7 76.9 36.6 39.4 11.8 2.7 9.2 14.6 17.2 9.2
Enumclaw 64.9 53.2 59.9 77.9 0.7 15.3 0.5 4.2 5.8 28.8 17.3
Federal Way 50.1 32.1 36.6 26.9 11.2 29.4 13.9 12.7 21.2 58 14.5
Highline 50.4 33.6 42.1 22 14.5 38.5 14.1 6.1 27.9 62.5 15.9
Issaquah 79.8 77 80.5 53 28.9 8.4 1.9 7.5 6.5 7.8 8.7
Kent 55 42.8 46.8 33.7 19.1 22.6 11.9 9.7 21.1 48.8 11.4
Lake Wash. 82.2 75 78.3 51.9 28 10.3 1.7 7.8 10.1 10.3 11
Mercer Island 83.9 82.5 82.2 63.9 20.9 4.6 0.9 9.5 4 3.2 10
Northshore 79.3 38.3 71.7 57.3 19 12.5 2 8.7 8.1 13.4 13.3
Renton 54.2 45.6 55 26.2 24.9 23.9 14.9 8.6 18 48.2 14.8
Riverview 71.7 55.8 72.2 78.9 3 12.5 0.6 4.5 46 13 11.7
Seattle 68.8 61.6 62.5 47.1 14.1 12.1 14.9 10.8 12.5 31.8 15.1
Shoreline 76 61.7 68.5 53.6 13.2 12.8 7.2 12.3 7.9 25.1 12.5
Skykomish N<10 N<10 N<10 88.2 0 9.8 0 0 0 89.4 40.4
Snoq. Valley 74.9 70.4 74.1 79.7 6 7.8 0.7 5.8 2.7 8.9 11.9
Tahoma 69.4 66.5 71.4 72.5 4.6 10.2 2.2 9.1 2.6 11.4 13.1
Tukwila 45.4 35.2 49.1 10.9 28.7 29.4 19.8 6.8 37.4 71.9 10.9
Vashon Island 81.1 66.9 72.8 76.3 2.2 12 0.5 8.8 4.8 20.5 12
Data Source: OSPI Washington School Report Card
Page 309 of 364
Attachment A
King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 52
The data show that school districts in Southwest King County are more diverse, have
higher rates of students living in low-income households, and have a higher percentage
of students who struggle to meet state standards. The school districts with the highest
percentage of students meeting state standards are generally in the areas east of
Seattle, which have significantly white and Asian student populations that are less likely
to live in low-income households. Notably, the demographics of the student population
are significantly less White than the general population, in keeping with the trends of an
increasingly diverse King County.
HUD also provides a School Proficiency Index, which measures the likelihood a student
in King County of a given race or ethnicity attends a proficient school.
Race/Ethnicity School Proficiency
Index
School Proficiency Index -
Households below federal
poverty line
White 69.9 60.3
Asian or Pacific
Islander
63.9 54.4
Native American 58.6 39.5
Hispanic or Latinx 54.5 51.6
Black 41.2 35.1
Data Source: HUD Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Data and Mapping Tool, Nov. 2017 Update
This index also shows clear disparities, with the largest disparity between Whites and
Blacks. This racial disparity persists among the population below the federal poverty
level.
Contributing Factors to Disparities in Access to Education
Local vs. State Funding
Reliance on local funding for schools puts a proportionally greater burden on residents in
lower-income school districts, which frequently have more diverse student bodies. The
Washington State Legislature recently complied with a State Supreme Court ruling
(McLeary v. State of Washington) by increasing school investments at the state level and
limiting how much funding can be collected locally and on how it can be spent.30
Boundaries of School Districts
30 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCleary_v._Washington
Page 310 of 364
Attachment A
King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 53
With some exceptions, school districts in King County generally contain one of the three
demographic categories of King County: predominantly White, White and Asian, or
racially and ethnically diverse. This leads to racial, ethnic, and economic segregation,
and limits opportunities for lower-income and non-White students to access the same
resources as students living in wealthier areas.
Parent-Teacher Association Funding
Another contributor to disparities between and within school districts is funding provided
by Parent-Teacher/Parent-Teacher-Student Associations (PTA/PTSAs). PTA funding
perpetuates disparities through intergenerational wealth, as wealthier parents can invest
in their children’s school or in the specific program their child is interested in, bypassing
the more redistributive investment patterns of government funding.31 This funding stream
can be used for teacher salaries, supplementary equipment and materials, or other
investments that can have an impact on student outcomes.
In 2018, KUOW reported that Roosevelt High School, which is located in the Whiter and
wealthier area of Northeast Seattle, has the largest PTSA and foundation funding in the
Seattle School District with assets of $3.5 million and annual income of $225,586.
Meanwhile, Rainier Beach, Franklin, and Chief Sealth High Schools, which are located in
the historically non-White and lower-income area of South Seattle, have no PTSA or
foundation assets or income.32
Programs, Policies, and Investments Addressing Disparities in Access to
Education
King County’s Best Start for Kids Levy
Passed by the voters in 2015, Best Start for Kids seeks to put every child and youth in
King County on a path toward lifelong success, funding a number of programs likely to
target immigrants and communities of color that:
• Build resiliency of youth and reduce risky behaviors,
• Stop the school-to-prison pipeline,
• Prevent youth and family homelessness, and
• Meet the health and behavioral needs of youth.
31 https://cdn.americanprogress.org/content/uploads/2017/04/18074902/ParentFundraising-report-
corrected.pdf
32 https://www.kuow.org/stories/some-seattle-school-ptas-can-afford-extra-teachers-should-they-spread-
the-wealth
Page 311 of 364
Attachment A
King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 54
You can learn more about the programs funded through Best Start for Kids here.33
Race to the Top
In 2012, the Puget Sound Educational Service District, Auburn, Federal Way, Highline,
Kent, Renton, Seattle and Tukwila School Districts and the King County Housing
Authority jointly applied for and received a $40 million federal Race to the Top grant,
allowing the group to further expand its programs, which work to:
- Increase the number of children ready for kindergarten
- Raise instruction quality in math and science
- Help students plan for career training or college
- Provide early intervention for struggling students
Home and Hope Project
Led by Enterprise Community Partners in conjunction with elected officials, public
agencies, educators, nonprofits and developers, the Home and Hope project facilitates
development of affordable housing and early childhood education centers on
underutilized, tax-exempt sites owned by public agencies and nonprofits in King County.
You can learn more about the Home and Hope Project here.34
33 https://beststartsblog.com/
34 https://www.enterprisecommunity.org/where-we-work/pacific-northwest/home-hope
Page 312 of 364
Attachment A
King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 55
Employment
The geographic distribution of employment centers can result in barriers to opportunity
and have a disproportionate impact on low-income communities of color. Longer
commutes can have a detrimental impact on an individual’s health from increased
stress and exposure to air pollution, and are associated with less physical activity and a
poorer diet.
Summary of Dynamics/Disparities
The Labor Market Engagement Index provided by HUD measures the level of
employment, labor force participation, and educational attainment in a census tract, and
shows disparities by race and ethnicity in King County.
Race/Ethnicity Labor Market
Engagement Index
Labor Market Engagement Index –
Households below Federal Poverty
Line
White 74.6 64.8
Asian or Pacific
Islander
72.5 62.0
Hispanic or Latinx 61.4 55.3
Native American 58.5 47.0
Black 56.4 47.8
Data Source: HUD Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Data and Mapping Tool, Nov. 2017 Update
Within the population below the poverty line, Whites are still significantly more likely to
live in areas with low unemployment compared to Blacks. The White population is the
most likely to live in an areas with low unemployment, while the Black population is the
least. However, the Native American population living below the poverty line is the
group least likely to live in areas with low unemployment.
Based on the HUD mapping tool, there is no clear geographic disparity in access to jobs
for protected class groups. The jobs index is strong in the Duwamish and Kent Industrial
Valley, which is at the core of the racially and ethnically diverse Southwest King County.
The jobs index is also strong in the urban areas east of Seattle.
Contributing Factors to Disparities in Access to Employment
Geographic Segregation of High-Skilled Jobs
A key factor not captured by the HUD Jobs Proximity Index is the nature of the jobs in a
given area. King County is privileged to have hundreds of thousands of high-skill, high-
paying jobs at leading corporations in the technology, engineering, health, and maritime
industries. Boeing has a major facility in Renton, which is accessible to the diverse areas
Page 313 of 364
Attachment A
King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 56
of King County. However, the growing tech sector, which is primarily located in Seattle,
Bellevue, and Redmond, can be a long commute from Southwest King County.
Programs, Policies, and Investments Addressing Disparities in Access to
Employment
King County Investments in Affordable Workforce Housing
The 2019-2020 King County budget included more than $100 million in transit-oriented
development for affordable workforce housing. These projects will produce hundreds of
units that will have access to employment hubs in King County. The King County
Housing Authority has also focused on acquiring housing in Bellevue, Redmond, and
Kirkland to support the workforce in these areas and provide new opportunities for low-
income households to live in areas closer to job centers.
King County Employment and Education Resources
King County Department of Community and Human Services provides employment
programming. You can learn more about these services here.35
35 https://www.kingcounty.gov/depts/community-human-services/employment-and-education-
resources.aspx
Page 314 of 364
Attachment A
King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 57
Transportation
Transportation is a major concern in King County, given its topography and significant
growth over recent decades. Transportation is typically the largest household cost after
housing and is deeply intertwined with housing cost and access.
Summary of Disparities/Dynamics
The variation in the Low Transportation Cost Index provided by HUD is low, with Native
Americans and Whites scoring the lowest, at 71.3 and 72.0. There are more
pronounced disparities in transit use by race.
Race/Ethnicity Percentage who commute via transit
White 6.5
Black 9.4
Native American 6.2
Asian 7.8
Hispanic or Latinx 6.4
Two or More Races 6.4
Data Source: 2017 5-Year ACS Population Estimates
Native Americans are least likely, and Blacks are significantly more likely to commute
using public transportation. Transit access is generally highest in the City of Seattle and
adjacent suburbs, including those in Southwest King County. The relatively lower transit
index scores and higher transportation costs for the White and Native American
populations is likely due to the rural Muckleshoot reservation and the higher rates of
Whites in the rural areas of King County, which have limited transit service.
Contributing Factors to Disparities in Access to Transportation
Transportation Infrastructure Investments
Investments in transit infrastructure have a complicated effect on access to
transportation and housing costs for protected classes. Lower-income households are
more likely to struggle to afford transportation costs and should be given priority or
strong consideration when planning long-term infrastructure investments. However,
dramatically improved transit access to an area increases its desirability overall and can
increase the cost of housing, creating a risk of displacing the residents the infrastructure
was originally meant to serve.
Page 315 of 364
Attachment A
King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 58
Programs, Policies, and Investments Addressing Disparities in Access to
Transportation
Sound Transit Light Rail Expansion and Equitable TOD Policy
Approved by voters regionally in 2016, Sound Transit 3 will dramatically expand the
region’s light rail network, connecting high and lower opportunity areas across King,
Pierce, and Snohomish Counties. You can learn more about Sound Transit’s plans
here.36
Construction of the light rail network requires purchasing storage and staging areas that
become surplus once construction is complete. Sound Transit’s Equitable TOD Policy37
commits to ensuring there is affordable housing in close proximity to transit stations. In
2018 and in accordance with state law, Sound Transit adopted a plan to offer a
minimum of 80 percent of its surplus property that is suitable for development of
affordable housing.38
King County Metro’s Orca LIFT Reduced Fare and Equity in Service Planning
King County Metro was the first transit authority to introduce a reduced fare for low-
income residents. The program provides up to a 50% discount in fares to ensure low-
income communities are not overly burdened by the cost of transportation. You can
learn more about Orca LIFT here.39
King County Metro also incorporates social equity into its long-range service planning,
placing an importance on serving historically disadvantaged communities, which are
more likely to contain residents who are a protected class. Today, 76% of low-income
households in King County are within 1/4 mile of a bus stop.40
PSRC Growing Transit Communities
In 2010, the Puget Sound Regional Council, in collaboration with 17 community
partners, applied for and received a $5 million Sustainable Communities Regional
Planning Grant from the HUD Office of Sustainable Housing and Communities. The
grant funded the creation of the Growing Transit Communities Partnership, with a work
36 http://soundtransit3.org/overview
37 https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/20140423_RPT_TOD.pdf
38 https://www.soundtransit.org/get-to-know-us/news-events/news-releases/board-adopts-policy-
promoting-equitable-development-near
39 https://kingcounty.gov/depts/transportation/metro/fares-orca/orca-cards/lift.aspx
40
https://www.kingcounty.gov/elected/executive/constantine/priorities/transportation/infographic/sources.as
px
Page 316 of 364
Attachment A
King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 59
program intended to address some of the greatest barriers to implementing the central
Puget Sound region’s integrated plan for sustainable development and securing
equitable outcomes. The strategy includes providing housing choices for low- and
moderate-income households near transit and to provide equitable access to
opportunity for all the region’s residents. You can learn more about the Growing Transit
Communities Strategy here.41 Additionally, the most recent regional Fair Housing
Assessment was conducted by the Puget Sound Regional Council in 2014. You can
read the PSRC Fair Housing Equity Assessment here.42
King County Transit-Oriented Development Investments
In 2016, King County began a 5-year competitive RFP process to invest approximately
$87 million in transit-oriented affordable housing projects. You can read the full plan
here.43 The 2019-2020 King County budget also included more than $100 million in
transit-oriented development for affordable workforce housing.
41 https://www.psrc.org/growing-transit-communities
42 https://www.psrc.org/sites/default/files/fairhousingequityassessment.pdf
43 https://www.kingcounty.gov/~/media/depts/community-human-services/housing/documents/housing-
finance/tod-bond-allocation-plan-final-sm.ashx?la=en
Page 317 of 364
Attachment A
King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 60
Environmental Health
All households deserve access to open space, healthy foods, and toxic-free
environments. However, lack of access to those amenities and exposure to
environmental hazards has been a chronic issue for low-income communities.
Summary of Disparities/Dynamics
According to the HUD Environmental Health Index, which uses EPA estimates of
carcinogenic, respiratory, and neurological toxins in the air, there is a significant racial
disparity in access to environmentally healthy neighborhoods. A higher score represents
greater access to healthy environments.
Race/Ethnicity Environmental Health Index
White 27.0
Black 10.4
Hispanic or Latinx 16.0
Asian or Pacific Islander 17.6
Native American 29.6
Data Source: HUD Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Data and Mapping Tool, Nov. 2017 Update
Black residents in King County are the least likely to have access to environmentally
healthy neighborhoods. Native Americans scored the highest, a few points above
Whites, likely due to a greater percentage of Native Americans living in rural areas.
King County contains the lower Duwamish waterway, a Superfund site designated in
2001. The river has been contaminated with a number of pollutants over the decades,
most notably a significant amount of polychlorinated biphenyls, arsenic, carcinogenic
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, dioxins, and furans. This makes fishing in the
Duwamish, particularly for shellfish and bottom-feeding fish, unsafe. The neighborhoods
along the Duwamish house many immigrants and communities of color that have fishing
as a component of their way of life or identity, and there has been an ongoing challenge
of communicating the risks of fishing in the river to these communities.44
44 http://www.seattleglobalist.com/2015/05/04/duwamish-river-cleanup-plans-immigrant-fishermen-
pollution-superfund/36642
Page 318 of 364
Attachment A
King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 61
Data Source: Washington State Department of Ecology Toxic Cleanup Program 45
45 https://ecology.wa.gov/Spills-Cleanup/Contamination-cleanup/Cleanup-sites/Toxic-cleanup-sites/Lower-
Duwamish-Waterway
Page 319 of 364
Attachment A
King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 62
Five hundred thousand King County residents do not live within ¼ mile from a publicly
owned park, green space, or trail, and most of these residents live in Southwest King
County.46
46 https://your.kingcounty.gov/dnrp/library/water-and-land/land-conservation/equity/20190319-Open-
Space-Equity-Cabinet-Report.pdf
Page 320 of 364
Attachment A
King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 63
Lack of access to healthy food options can have negative health outcomes.47 Lower-
income communities of color are also more likely to live in “food deserts”, which are
defined as urban areas lacking access to a supermarket within one mile or rural areas
lacking access within 10 miles. Again, these areas a primarily located in Southwest King
County.
King County Food Deserts
Data Source: USDA Food Access Research Atlas.48
Contributing Factors to Disparities in Access to Healthy Environments
Environmental Hazards Near or in Lower-Cost Housing
Housing costs are lower in areas adjacent to environmental hazards, industrial zones,
airports, and highways, and farther from green open space and other amenities that
improve health. Lower cost housing is also more likely to be older, which increases the
47 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK208018/
48 https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-access-research-atlas/go-to-the-atlas/
Page 321 of 364
Attachment A
King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 64
likelihood of asbestos, mold, and lead paint contamination. Because of the deep
connection between race and income due to legacies of discrimination, non-White
communities are more likely to live in housing with these problems.
Access to Open Space and Healthy Food Options is More Expensive
Housing near amenities that improve health outcomes are desirable and therefore more
expensive. Again, because of the deep connection between race and income, non-
White communities are less likely to have access to these areas.
Programs, Policies, and Investments Addressing Disparities in Access to Healthy
Environments
King County Open Space Equity Initiative
King County convened 21 residents representing 12 different community-based
organizations located throughout King County to develop recommendations to ensure
more equity in providing access to greenspace and open space and advise the County
on how to best engage communities and cities to add open space in underserved areas.
You can learn more about the Open Space Equity Cabinet and read their full report
here.49
Public Health – Seattle & King County Environmental Health Services
Public Health has many programs that seek to address environmental hazards and
improve access to environmentally healthy areas. You can learn more about their
services here.50
Environmental Justice Network in Action
The Environmental Justice Network in Action (EJNA) is a partnership between the Local
Hazardous Waste Management Program in King County, community-based
organizations, nonprofit groups and government agencies. EJNA works to:
• Identify the key environmental and health concerns of low income communities,
people of color, and immigrant and refugee communities through jointly
conducted needs assessments
• Identify the public engagement strategies that work best for particular populations
and share these
49 https://kingcounty.gov/services/environment/water-and-land/land-conservation/Equity/OpenSpace.aspx
50 https://www.kingcounty.gov/depts/health/environmental-health.aspx
Page 322 of 364
Attachment A
King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 65
• Improve the capacity of CBOs, non-profit groups and government agency
partners to design, deliver and evaluate programs and services.
You can learn more about the EJNA here.51
51 https://www.hazwastehelp.org/EnvironmentalJustice/ejna.aspx
Page 323 of 364
Attachment A
King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 66
Conclusion - Disparities in Access to Opportunity
The previous analysis shows that immigrants and communities of color are more likely
to live in areas with higher rates of poverty and environmental hazards and fewer
economic and educational opportunities. High opportunity areas in Seattle and the
urban areas east of Seattle are predominantly White and Asian, while Black and Latinx
communities primarily live in Southwest King County, which has less access to
opportunity.
Page 324 of 364
Attachment A
King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 67
PUBLICLY SUPPORTED HOUSING ANALYSIS
Fair access to and the location of publicly supported housing can have major
impacts to access to opportunity for protected classes.
Summary of Publicly Supported Housing Disparities/Dynamics
The Seattle, Renton, and King County Housing Authorities collectively operate over
19,000 units and administer tenant-based vouchers for nearly 18,000 households.
Other programs provide affordable housing, such as Low-Income Housing Tax
Credits, Multifamily Housing Tax Exemptions, inclusionary housing programs, and
other local funding sources provide affordable units. Publicly supported housing is
distributed throughout the urban areas of King County.
Page 325 of 364
Attachment A
King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 68
There are high concentrations of publicly supported housing in the downtown core of
Seattle, which is zoned for greater density and has high access to opportunity.
KCHA provided racial demographics of the households who utilize their programs:
Housing
Type
Percent
White
Percent
Black
Percent
Hispanic
Percent
Asian or
Pacific
Islander
Percent
Native
American
Public
Housing
53.9 21 6.9 19.4 0.6
Project-
Based
Voucher
48.9 29.7 10.4 15.6 1.2
Tenant-
Based
Voucher
49.3 39.1 6.4 6.7 1.5
Data Source: King County Housing Authority
Black households are significantly more likely to utilize the Housing Choice
Voucher Program, while Asians and Pacific Islanders are more likely to utilize
public housing, relative to utilization of other housing types.
Notably, Hispanic or Latinx households are underrepresented in all categories
compared to their overall percentage of the King County population, despite being
more likely to be housing cost burdened. Consistent with HUD policy and
guidelines, KCHA seeks to provide access to all members of the community who
are eligible for federal housing assistance. This includes eligible members of the
immigrant and refugee community, mixed-eligibility families (where assistance is
pro-rated based on the number of eligible household members), and US citizens.
Contributing Factors to Publicly Supported Housing Location and Access
Lack of public investment in specific neighborhoods
While publicly supported housing is located in most jurisdictions, many of the highest-
opportunity areas of King County have lower rates of publicly supported housing.
Land Use and Zoning Laws
Neighborhoods and jurisdictions in King County that are zoned for single family
homes are less likely to contain publicly supported housing, as the majority of public
housing developments are multifamily properties. This limits publicly supported housing
access in single-family zones to recipients of housing choice vouchers.
Page 326 of 364
Attachment A
King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 69
Programs, Policies, and Investments Addressing Disparities in Location of and
Access to Publicly Supported Housing
Housing Authority Planning and Policies
The Seattle, King County, and Renton Housing Authorities consider racial and
geographic equity as part of their long-term planning processes. As noted in KCHA’s
Moving to Work Plan 52, KCHA’s long-term goals include providing greater geographic
choice for low-income households – including residents with disabilities and elderly
residents with mobility impairments – so that residents have the opportunity to live in
neighborhoods with high-performing schools and convenient access to services,
transit, health services, and employment. The 2019 Plan also includes short-term
goals regarding broadening geographic choice to support economic and racial
integration in the region – through new property acquisitions, creation of family-sized
affordable units, and through myriad strategies to ensure voucher holders have broad
access to units across King County.
The KCHA Board of Commissioners passed a resolution in 2012 which directs staff
to give strong consideration to opportunity area indicators, including education and
employment, when acquiring new properties, siting project-based Section 8
subsidies, and making other policy and programmatic decisions. Recent policy
changes and programmatic decisions have reflected this consideration, including the
adoption of small area payment standards, the siting of project-based subsidies in
high opportunity areas, and piloting of mobility counseling strategies as part of
Creating Moves to Opportunity.
While the Hispanic and Latinx community has historically been underrepresented
in subsidized housing, KCHA has made efforts to ensure access. In the recent
waiting list opening for the Housing Choice Voucher program staff made a
concerted effort to connect with relevant service providers and organizations with
connections to this community. As a result, KCHA serves a large number of
immigrants and refugees through the Housing Choice Vouchers and Public
housing programs, a diversity that is similarly reflected among King County’s
population.
King County TOD Preservation and Acquisition Plan
King County’s 2019-2020 budget included funding set aside for a partnership with
KCHA to implement a TOD Preservation and Acquisition Plan. The plan currently
52 https://www.kcha.org/documents/90.pdf
Page 327 of 364
Attachment A
King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 70
proposes preserving 582 units in the coming years. You can learn more about the plan
here.53
KCHA targets the preservation of affordable housing in communities at the highest risk
of displacement (including those along emerging mass transit corridors) and in high
opportunity areas characterized by access to high-performing schools, jobs, and
transportation. After KCHA purchases a property, rents are only increased as operating
costs rise, making these properties increasingly affordable over time.
53 https://mkcclegisearch.kingcounty.gov/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3876610&GUID=DD8C9E4E-56BC-
4AD6-9B76-C24EB3FC68E5&Options=Advanced&Search=
Page 328 of 364
Attachment A
King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 71
DISABILITY AND ACCES S ANALYSIS
While people with disabilities may experience the same fair housing issues as
individuals without disabilities, there are also distinct disability-related barriers. For
example, some individuals with disabilities may need specific accessibility features or
additional services in housing, transportation, education, and other programs or
facilities in order to have an equal opportunity.
Summary of Disparities/Dynamics
People with disabilities are dispersed throughout King County, with no clear
concentration or pattern of segregation. King County and Washington State have
made significant strides in supporting people to live in the most independent living
arrangement possible and transitioning out larger institutions over the last fifty years.
The single major remaining institution for people with disabilities in King County is
Fircrest Rehabilitation Center, which houses and provides programming for about
200 individuals.
Disabilities take many forms, and it is important to differentiate the needs of different
groups. The following table shows the percentage of King County residents with the
different types of disabilities, as measured by the Census Bureau. It is important to
note that this table does not include all disabilities, such as behavioral health issues.
Disability Type Percent of King County Residents
Hearing Difficulty 3.1%
Vision Difficulty 1.6%
Cognitive Difficulty 3.9%
Ambulatory Difficulty 4.8%
Self-care Difficulty 2.0%
Independent Living Difficulty 3.5%
Data Source: HUD Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Data and Mapping Tool, Nov. 2017 Update
Contributing Factors to Disability and Access Issues
Cost of Reasonable Accommodations Increases Likelihood of Discrimination
Providing reasonable accommodation for people with disabilities is more likely to carry a
financial burden to a housing provider than providing housing to other protected classes.
This increases the likelihood of discrimination. While not a large enough sample to be
statistically significant, housing discrimination testing conducted in King County in 2019
found evidence of discrimination in eight out of seventeen tests conducted by people with
a disability.
Page 329 of 364
Attachment A
King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 72
Disability as a Barrier to Seeking and Securing Housing
A disability in and of itself can make it difficult to tour housing or submit applications in a
timely manner.
Income and Education Gap for People with Disabilities
Nationally, people with disabilities earn 64% as much as people without disabilities, and
about 10% of adults with a disability have a bachelor’s degree or higher, compared to
more than 25% of working-age adults without disabilities.54 In 2019, individuals whose
primary source of income is a Social Security Disability payment can receive a maximum
monthly benefit of $2,861, with a national average of $1,234. These disparities contribute
to people with disabilities being less likely to afford housing.
Complex Network of Resources and Multifaceted Nature of Disability Community
There are dozens of organizations and resources for people with disabilities in King
County. However, most organizations either provide one type of support or target
individuals who live with a certain type of disability. This can make accessing support
confusing and difficult. Disability advocates requested a “one-stop shop” that provides an
inventory and navigation of all of the resources available for people with each type of
disability.
Growing Population of Older Adults
Although age is not a federally protected class for fair housing, it is in King County,
and is correlated with disabilities such as mobility, hearing, vision, and self-care
issues. Due to a combination of increasing longevity, declining birthrate,
improvements in medical technology and other factors, the population of Americans
over age 65 will double over the next 25 years.55 Significant investments will be
necessary to meet the increasing demand for accessible housing.
Programs, Policies, and Investments to Address Housing Access for Disabled
Individuals
Home Care Services
54
https://www.air.org/sites/default/files/Lack%20of%20Equal%20Pay%20for%20People%20with%20Disabili
ties_Dec%2014.pdf
55 https://www.cdc.gov/aging/pdf/state-aging-health-in-america-2013.pdf
Page 330 of 364
Attachment A
King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 73
Many aging and disabled individuals remain in their homes through in-home care.
Caregivers may visit or live in the client’s home, depending on their needs. These
services are provided by dozens of providers in King County.
Adult Family Homes
Housing resources for disabled individuals is also provided through adult family homes,
which are located throughout King County and are offered by a number of housing
providers.
Publicly Supported Senior Housing
Publicly supported housing projects that target seniors are a large percentage of King
County’s public housing portfolio. Low-Income Housing Tax Credit projects also
frequently build housing targeted to older adults.
Housing Accessibility Modification Program
King County’s Housing Repair Program serves renters with disabilities who require
modifications to their unit. You can learn more about this program here.56
Moving Toward Age Friendly Housing in King County
King County, the City of Seattle, and other partners undertook an effort in 2018 to
understand the needs of the aging population and make recommendation to increase
access to affordable housing for older adults. Key recommendations include:
- Increase supply of affordable housing that meets the needs of a diverse, aging
population.
- Create accessible housing that meets the needs of a diverse aging population
You can read the full report here.57
56 https://kingcounty.gov/depts/community-human-services/housing/services/housing-repair/grants.aspx
57 http://www.agingkingcounty.org/wp-
content/uploads/sites/185/2018/02/MovingTowardAgeFriendlyHousingInKingCounty.pdf
Page 331 of 364
Attachment A
King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 74
FAIR HOUSING DISCRIMINATION DATA ANALYSIS
Laws banning housing discrimination are insufficient if housing providers do not comply.
This section reviews data regarding discrimination against protected classes.
Housing Discrimination Testing
Community and stakeholder input reported that despite being illegal for over 50 years,
individual-level discrimination in applications for rental housing remains a systemic issue.
King County and partner cities chose to conduct field-testing to collect data on the nature
and extent of housing discrimination in King County.
King County and partner cities contracted with the Fair Housing Center of Washington to
conduct at least 65 differential treatment tests and 15 policy tests in jurisdictions across
King County. Differential treatment tests are two-part, in which a member of a protected
class and a control tester apply for the same housing. Policy tests ask housing providers
direct questions about their policies, such as accommodation for a disabled individual or
whether they rent to families with children. A “positive” result is a test that found evidence
of discrimination. The Fair Housing Center of Washington tested for the following
protected classes:
• Race
• National Origin
• Religion
• Disability
• Familial Status
The final report provided by the Fair Housing Center of Washington reported positive test
results in 34 out of 66 differential treatment tests and seven positive results out of 16
policy tests. These results are troubling and indicate that protected classes continue to
face barriers to fair housing choice. Because the testing was spread across five
protected classes in 24 jurisdictions, the data are insufficient to provide statistical
significance for more granular findings. Please see Appendix B for a copy of the final
testing report.
Housing Mortgage Disclosure Act Data
Fair access to financing for homeownership is a critical component of housing choice,
and a major potential barrier. This analysis reviewed 2016 and 2017 summary data
provided by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that tracks the outcomes of
applications for mortgages for primary residences in King County by race. This data set
does not include applicants’ income, the size of the loan applied for, or other relevant
factors that influence whether a loan is approved or denied, and is therefore not proof of
individual-level racial discrimination on its own. There are, however, troubling disparities.
Page 332 of 364
Attachment A
King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 75
Race Percent of primary residence
home loan applications denied
White 5.7
Asian 7.2
Black 11.6
Hawaiian or Pacific
Islanders
6.5
Native American 9.8
Data Source: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 58
Black households are more than twice as likely to be denied a loan as White households.
Native Americans are also significantly more likely to be denied a loan than Whites. It is
also notable that Black applicants accounted for 2.8% of mortgage applications, despite
being 6% of the King County population, which reflects earlier analysis regarding the
racial disparities for rental and homeownership rates. Further outreach and analysis is
necessary to understand the dynamics contributing to these disparities.
58 https://www.consumerfinance.gov/data-research/hmda/explore
Page 333 of 364
Attachment A
King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 76
FAIR HOUSING GOALS
Informed by community input from other planning processes and the previous analysis,
this section proposes a set of priority actions to achieve fair housing choice in King
County. These goals are also written in the context of the programs, policies, and plans
that currently seek to eliminate barriers to fair housing choice.
1. Invest in programs that provide fair housing education, enforcement, and testing.
2. Engage underrepresented communities on an ongoing basis to better understand
barriers and increase access to opportunity.
3. Provide more housing for vulnerable populations.
4. Provide more housing choices for people with large families.
5. Support efforts to increase housing stability.
6. Preserve and increase affordable housing in communities at high risk of
displacement.
7. Review zoning laws to increase housing options and supply in urban areas.
8. Work with communities to guide investments in historically underserved
communities.
9. Support the Affordable Housing Committee’s efforts to promote fair housing.
10. Report annually on Fair Housing Goals and progress.
Page 334 of 364
Attachment A
King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 77
CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS
This report analyzes access to fair housing choice along a number of factors, provides
information on past and current efforts, and sets initial goals for future policies and
investments. This report is planned to be submitted to the King County Council by the
beginning of September and approved by early November. This section will be updated
as next steps are identified and the report advances through the following timeline.
Page 335 of 364
Attachment A
King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 78
Appendix A: King County Demographics by Jurisdiction
Data Source: 2017 ACS 5-Year Population Estimate
Page 336 of 364
Attachment A
King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 79
Data Source: 2017 ACS 5-Year Population Estimate
Page 337 of 364
Attachment A
King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 80
Appendix B: Housing Discrimination Testing Final Report
Final Testing Report for King County
This document is a summary report of the Fair Housing Center of Washington’s results of the contract.
A spreadsheet with the total number of tests completed, the name, city and subregion of the test site,
protected classes tested, type of test (policy, differential treatment), and test results is included in the
final report packet.
As of May 31, 2019, the Fair Housing Center of Washington completed eighty-two (82) tests, of
which forty-three (43) were negative and thirty-nine (39) were positive. The violations observed
during this contract were either differential treatment based on a protected class status or
discriminatory policies that placed additional barriers to housing due to a person’s inclusion in a
protected class. For tests indicating differential treatment violations, the FHCW recommends
additional testing to determine if there is a pattern of differential treatment based on a protected class.
For tests indicating one or more discriminatory policies, the FHCW recommends a technical letter
advising the test site to correct their policies so that they adhere to fair housing laws. For either type
of fair housing violation, the FHCW may pursue enforcement of fair housing laws if a pattern of
discrimination is determined.
Of the thirty-nine (39) positive tests, thirty-two (32) had recommendations for additional testing for
differential treatment based on a protected class.
Row Labels Negative Positive Grand
Total
No further action recommended 43 0 43
Additional testing recommended 0 32 32
Technical letter recommended 0 7 7
Grand Total 43 39 82
As of May 31, 2019, the Fair Housing Center of Washington completed sixteen (16) policy check
tests, of which seven (7) were conducted in the North/East subregion and nine (9) were conducted in
the South subregion of King County.
Subregion Negative Positive Grand Total
North / East 4 3 7
South 5 4 9
Grand Total 9 7 16
Of the sixteen (16) policy check tests, four (4) tested for willingness to grant reasonable
accommodations to persons with a disability, and eleven (11) tested for willingness to accept
alternative sources of income, including housing vouchers (Section 8) and maternity leave.
Page 338 of 364
Attachment A
King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 81
Protected Basis Negative Positive Grand Total
Reasonable Accommodations 1 3 4
Source of Income – Housing Voucher 5 4 9
Source of Income – Maternity Leave 2 0 2
Income & Reasonable Accommodation 1 0 1
Grand Total 9 7 16
As of May 31, 2019, the Fair Housing Center of Washington completed sixty-six (66) differential
treatment tests, of which thirty-four (34) were conducted in the North/East subregion and thirty-two
(32) were conducted in the South subregion of King County.
Negative Positive Grand Total
North/East 16 18 34
South 18 14 32
Grand Total 34 32 66
Of the thirty-four (34) differential treatment tests conducted in the North/East subregion, sixteen (16)
were negative and eighteen (18) were positive, including:
North/East Negative Positive Grand Total
Disability 7 5 12
Familial Status 2 3 5
National Origin 1 2 3
Race 4 4 8
Religion 2 4 6
Grand Total 16 18 34
Of the thirty-two (32) differential treatment tests conducted in the South subregion, fourteen (14) were
positive, including:
South Negative Positive Grand Total
Disability 1 1
Familial Status 6 3 9
National Origin 5 6 11
Race 1 3 4
Religion 5 2 7
Grand Total 18 14 32
Of the sixty-six (66) differential treatment tests conducted, fourteen (14) were conducted via email,
twenty-one (21) were conducted via phone calls, and thirty-one (31) were conducted via site visits.
Contact Type Negative Positive Grand Total
Email 7 7 14
Phone 12 9 21
Page 339 of 364
Attachment A
King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 82
Site 15 16 31
Grand Total 34 32 66
Of the thirty-one (31) site differential treatment tests, five (5) tests were conducted in Auburn, six
(6) were conducted in Bellevue, one (1) was conducted in Burien, five (5) were conducted in Federal
Way, five (5) were conducted in Kent, and one (1) was conducted in Renton.
City Negative Positive Grand Total
Auburn 2 3 5
Bellevue 3 3 6
Burien 0 1 1
Federal Way 2 3 5
Kent 4 1 5
Renton 0 1 1
Of the five (5) site, differential treatment tests conducted in Kent, one (1) was based on disability, one
(1) was based on familial status, one (1) was based on national origin, one (1) was based on race,
and one (1) was based on religion.
Protected Basis
(Kent)
Negative Positive Grand Total
Disability 1 0 1
Familial Status 1 0 1
National Origin 0 1 1
Race 1 0 1
Religion 1 0 1
Grand Total 4 1 5
In sum, the Fair Housing Center of Washington observed thirty-nine (39) positive violations of
Fair Housing law throughout King County during the contract period. Additional testing as well
as sending of technical letters are both recommended to 1) further identify potentially systemic barriers
to fair housing, 2) make violators aware of their actions and 3) bring said violators into compliance with
Fair Housing law. In addition, increased fair housing education, including annual fair housing training
throughout the county may help to combat instances of discrimination, for both new and seasoned
property managers, leasing agents and other actors in the housing space.
Page 340 of 364
AUBURN
VALUES
S E R V I C E
ENVIRONMENT
E C O N O M Y
C H A R A C T E R
SUSTAINABILITY
W E L L N E S S
C E L E B R AT I O N
COMMUNITY SERVICES
CDBG CONSOLIDATED
PLAN 2020 -2024
JOY SCOTT
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
OCTOBER 14, 2019
Department of Community Development
Planning ⚫Building ⚫Development Engineering ⚫Permit Center
Sustainability ⚫Community Services ●Code Enforcement Page 341 of 364
General Fund Human
Services dollars
▪$490,000
▪Competitive funding for direct
service nonprofit agencies
▪Guided by Human Services
Funding Priorities set by
Council
▪Approved by City Council every
other year during budget
process
CDBG dollars
▪$595,742*
▪Funds support city’s Housing
Repair program, public facility
ADA improvements, public
services (limited), and some
economic development activities
▪Guided by Consolidated Plan and
Annual Action Plans
▪Approved by City Council every
year
GENERAL FUND VS CDBG
Page 342 of 364
In order for the City of Auburn to maintain its status as a
CDBG entitlement community, HUD requires that Auburn
submit a plan every five years that maps out how it will
prioritize CDBG dollars during the next planning period.
The plan is designed to help states and local jurisdictions
assess their affordable housing and community development
needs
Our current plan covers 2015 -2019
2019 is our planning year (2020 -2024 plan)
Auburn’s plan is a piece of the larger King County whole
The Consolidated Plan update is due to HUD by November 15,
2019.
CDBG CONSOLIDATED PLAN
Page 343 of 364
CONSOLIDATED PLANNING
TIMELINE AND NEXT STEPS
April -August September -November
April 1
April 8
October 7
October 14
September 4
Page 344 of 364
•Five Year Consolidated Plan
•Eligibility Reviews
•Annual Action Plans
•Consolidated Annual Performance Evaluation Report
(CAPER)
•Annual Subrecipient Monitoring
•Financial Management
•Project Management
•Environmental Reviews
•Procurement Procedure
•Lead Mitigation
CDBG ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS
Page 345 of 364
The Consolidated Plan guides the investment of federal housing
and community development funds. The Consolidated Plan is a
requirement of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD), through which Auburn receives an annual
entitlement, or formula grant, from the Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG ) program.
WHAT IS THE CONSOLIDATED PLAN?
2020 –2024 Consolidated Plan
2020 CAPER 2021 CAPER
2021 Action Plan
2022 CAPER 2023 CAPER
2022 Action Plan
2019 CAPER
2023 Action Plan 2024 Action Plan
Page 346 of 364
The CDBG Entitlement Program provides
annual grants on a formula basis to entitled
cities to develop viable urban communities.
Projects must:
•Align with HUD’s National Objectives
•Be eligible under HUD’s guidelines
•Benefit low and moderate income persons
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
GRANT
SERVICE ⚫ENVIRONMENT ⚫ECONOMY ⚫CHARACTER ⚫SUSTAINABILITY ⚫WELLNESS ⚫CELEBRATIONPage 347 of 364
Consolidated Plan Key Components:
▪Needs Assessment
▪Market Assessment
▪Geographic Priorities
▪Goals
▪Housing Access
▪2020 Annual Action Plan
CONSOLIDATED PLAN: OVERVIEW
Page 348 of 364
WHAT SHAPED OUR 2020 –2024
CONSOLIDATED PLAN?
Page 349 of 364
CONSOLIDATED PLANNING
PROCESS AND INPUT
Public meetings
Community Needs
Assessment
Housing Cost Data
Barriers to Fair
Housing
2020-2024
Consolidated Plan
Goals
Page 350 of 364
2015 -2019
Ensure a Suitable Living
Environment
End Homelessness
Ensure Decent,
Affordable Housing
2020-2024
Affordable Housing –Ensure access to
healthy, affordable housing for low -
and moderate -income households
throughout the region and advance fair
housing to end discrimination and
overcome historic patterns of
segregation .
Ending Homelessness –Make
homelessness rare, brief, and one -
time and eliminate racial disparities .
Community and Economic
Development –Establish and maintain
healthy, integrated, and vibrant
communities by improving the well -
being and mobility of low -and
moderate -income residents, and
focusing on communities with historic
disparities in health, income, and
quality of life.
CONSOLIDATED PLAN GOALS
Page 351 of 364
Overarching goals have remained similar, however:
▪All three overarching goals explicitly include language to
ensure renewed focus on fair housing, displacement, and
equity and social justice.
▪The Consolidated Plan is informed by the 2019 Analysis
of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice and supports the
identified Fair Housing Goals .
▪The Consolidated Plan is informed by the Community
Needs Assessment and has more robust community -level
data included than the prior version.
▪Fair Housing public service activities have been
specifically prioritized based on community input and fair
housing data.
KEY CHANGES
Page 352 of 364
The AI includes:
A review of King County’s laws ,
regulations, and administrative
policies, procedures, and
practices
An assessment of how those
laws, etc. affect the location,
availability, and accessibility of
housing
Results from Fair Housing
Testing conducted across King
County, including in Auburn
An assessment of conditions,
both public and private,
affecting fair housing choice for
all protected classes
Impediments to Fair
Housing Choice are:
Any actions, omissions, or
decisions taken because of
race, color, religion, sex,
disability, familial status, or
national origin which restrict
housing choices or the
availability of housing choices
Any actions, omissions, or
decisions which have the effect
of restricting housing choices or
the availability of housing
choices on the basis of race,
color, religion, sex, disability,
familial status, or national
origin.
ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS
TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE (AI)
Page 353 of 364
•Expected CDBG Funding Allocation: $600,000
•Remaining Prior -Year Funds: $51,182
•Public Services (Subject to 15 % Cap): $70,000
•From prior year application cycle
•Healthpoint : $60,000
•Medical and dental care for un-and under-insured Auburn residents
•Multi -Service Center: $10,000
•Job training services for low -to moderate-income Auburn residents
•Housing Repair: $350,000
•Allocation supports program model shift as presented to Council
•At least 65 low -to moderate -income Auburn homeowners served
•Over 50% Seniors or Disabled
•Affordable Housing Capital Improvements: $30,000
•Make funds available through an RFP process to nonprofit affordable
housing providers in the City of Auburn for property improvements.
•Sidewalk Accessibility Improvements: $101,182
•Provide sidewalk ADA improvements in low -to moderate -income areas of
Auburn, improving accessibility, safety, and community connectedness.
•Administration (Subject to 20 % Cap): $100,000
2020 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN
Page 354 of 364
CONSOLIDATED PLANNING
TIMELINE AND NEXT STEPS
April -August September -November
April 1
April 8
October 7
October 14
September 4
Page 355 of 364
QUESTIONS?
Page 356 of 364
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Auburn Farmers Market Season (Faber) (10 Minutes)
Date:
October 9, 2019
Department:
City Council
Attachments:
End of Season Report
Budget Impact:
Current Budget: $0
Proposed Revision: $0
Revised Budget: $0
Administrativ e Recommendation:
Background Summary:
Staff will provide an overview of the 2019 Farmers Market Season. The 2019 season ran
every Sunday from June 2 through September 22 in its second year at the Les Gove Park
location. Total customer count for 2019 was over 24,00 and total market revenue for the
season was nearly $340,000. The Market expanded into Les Gove Park this year and saw 7%
more vendors than in 2018.
Rev iewed by Council Committees:
Councilmember:Staff:Faber
Meeting Date:October 14, 2019 Item Number:
Page 357 of 364
10/8/2019
1
2019 Season Report
Auburn Farmers Market Mission
Forum for the purchase of a variety of healthy and locally grown products
to area resident. Education about healthy food choices and overall health
and well-being. Convenient marketplace for local farmers and artisans.
Vibrant gathering place for the community to enjoy AUBURN!
Page 358 of 364
10/8/2019
2
Customer Count
Season Totals
•2017-2019;
increased by
32%
•Average weekly
customer count
at end of August
was 1,676;
three rainy
Sundays in
September
impacted yearly
attendance
20,000
15,000
19,785
23,907 23,454
22,918
20,406
19,297
18,400
23,573
24,326
14000
16000
18000
20000
22000
24000
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Customer Count Totals by Year
Page 359 of 364
10/8/2019
3
2009 $152,435
2010 $118,086
2011 $127,508
2012 $146,362
2013 $156,494
2014 $202,657
2015 $151,284
2016 $201,270
2017 $188,601
2018 $312,678
2019 $339,818
Vendor
Sales
by Year
•2017 vs. 2019:
vendor sales
increase by 80%
•King County
markets average
vendor sales in 2016
(excluding Seattle
Markets) was
$285,509.
•Auburn is above
2016 County
average by 19%
2019 Expansion
•Expanded into Les Gove Park
•Added eight additional
vendor spaces
•Received positive
feedback from
both vendors and
customers
•Overall we saw
7% more vendors
compared to 2018
Expansion Area
Page 360 of 364
10/8/2019
4
Farmers at the Market
•3% increase of farmers at the Market from 2018
•3% increase of farmer sales over 2018 season
Food at the Market
•Prepared Food
•Whistle Stop Concessions
•Food Innovation Network
•Simply Kettle Corn
•Brewganic Coffee
•Burnin' Wood BBQ
•Gypsy Doggs
•Mobile Mayan
Processed Food
•King's Mozzarella
•Pike Place Nuts
•Reeds Sweet Wine
•Stina's Cellars
•Linds Custom Meats
•Mama D's
•TB's Smoked Cheese
•Milk and Butter Bakery
•Geek Girl Goods
•Z Street Coffee
•Neighbor Lady Cheese LLC
•Purdy's Organic Pickles
•Butterfusion
•Market Pasta
•Smith Brothers Farms
•Blue Skye Meadery
•Trixie's Desserts
Page 361 of 364
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Matrix
Date:
October 9, 2019
Department:
City Council
Attachments:
Special Focus Area Key
Matrix
Budget Impact:
Current Budget: $0
Proposed Revision: $0
Revised Budget: $0
Administrativ e Recommendation:
Background Summary:
Rev iewed by Council Committees:
Councilmember:Staff:
Meeting Date:October 14, 2019 Item Number:
Page 362 of 364
SPECIAL FOCUS AREAS
COMMUNITY WELLNESS
FINANCE, TECHNOLOGY,
& ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT
PUBLIC WORKS & COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
MUNICIPAL SERVICES
PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELLNESS
COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES
HOMELESSNESS & HOMELESSNESS
PREVENTION
HOUSING QUALITY, AFFORDABILITY
& ATTAINABILITY
HUMAN & SOCIAL SERVICES
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SERVICES
COMMUNITY EQUITY
EQUIPMENT RENTAL
FACILITIES
INNOVATION & TECHNOLOGY
CITY REAL PROPERTY
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT
SISTER CITIES INTERNATIONAL
UTILITIES
TRANSPORTATION
SUSTAINABILITY
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
CULTURAL ARTS & PUBLIC ARTS
PLANNING & ZONING
PERMITS & DEVELOPMENT
RIGHT OF WAY MANAGEMENT
AIRPORT
AIRPORT BUSINESS
POLICE
SCORE JAIL
DISTRICT COURT
PARKS & RECREATION
ANIMAL CONTROL
SOLID WASTE
ENERGENCY PLANNING
MULTIMEDIA
CEMETERY
Councilmember Trout-Manuel, Chair Councilmember Wales, Chair Councilmember DaCorsi, Chair Councilmember Brown, Chair
Councilmember DaCorsi, Vice Chair Councilmember Holman, Vice Chair Councilmember Baggett, Vice Chair Deputy Mayor Peloza, Vice Chair
2019 MEETING DATES 2019 MEETING DATES 2019 MEETING DATES 2019 MEETING DATES
February 11, 2019 February 25, 2019 January 14, 2019 January 28, 2019
April 8, 2019 April 22, 2019 March 11, 2019 March 25, 2019
June 10, 2019 June 24, 2019 May 13, 2019 May 27, 2019
August 12, 2019 August 26, 2019 July 8, 2019 July 22, 2019
October 14, 2019 October 28, 2019 September 9, 2019 September 23, 2019
December 9, 2019 December 23, 2019 November 12, 2019 November 25, 2019
Page 363 of 364
Updated 10-07-2019
NO.TOPIC Chair STAFF LEAD(S)STUDY SESSION REVIEW
DATE(S)
COUNCIL DISCUSSION
SUMMARY ACTION DATE
1 Auburn Avenue Theater Chair DaCorsi
Vice Chair Baggett Director Faber 10/14/2019
2 Metro Bus Barn Site Chair DaCorsi
Vice Chair Baggett
Director Gaub
Director Tate TBD
3 Funding Options Chair Wales
Vice Chair Holman Director Thomas Ongoing
4 No Smoking or Vaping in City
Parks
Chair Brown
Vice Chair Peloza
Chief Pierson
Director Faber
10/14/2019
5 2019 Fireworks Update Chair Brown
Vice Chair Peloza Chief Pierson 11/25/2019
6 AVHS Board Update Chair Brown
Vice Chair Peloza Director Thomas 11/25/2019
7 Domestic Violence Update Chair Trout-Manuel
Vice Chair DaCorsi Director Tate TBD
COUNCIL MATRIX
Page 364 of 364