HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-06-2021 CITY COUNCIL AGENDACity Council Meeting
J uly 6, 2021 - 7:00 P M
Virtual
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 AL L T O O RD E R
I I .V I RT UAL PART IC I PAT I O N L I NK
1.Virtual P articipation L ink
T he Auburn City Council Meeting scheduled for Tuesday, J uly 6, 2021 at 7:00
p.m. will be held virtually and telephonically. To attend the meeting virtually please
click one of the below links, enter the meeting I D into the Zoom app, or call into
the meeting at the phone number listed below.
Per Governor I nslee's E mergency Proclamation 20-05 and 20-28 et. seq. and
Stay S afe-Stay Healthy, the City of A uburn is holding public meetings virtually at
this time.
City of A uburn Resolution No. 5581, designates City of A uburn meeting locations
for all Regular, S pecial and Study Session Meetings of the City Council and of the
Committees, Boards and Commissions of the City as Virtual L ocations.
T he link to the Virtual Meeting or phone number to listen to the Council Meeting is:
J oin from a P C, Mac, iP ad, iPhone or Android device:
Please click one of the below UR L to join.
Z O O M: https://zoom.us/j/92655360256
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/user/watchauburn/live/?nomobile=1
Or join by phone:
253 215 8782
877 853 5257 (Toll F ree)
Webinar I D: 926 5536 0256
A .P ledge of Allegiance
B .Roll Call
Page 1 of 195
I I I .AP P O I NT M E NT S
A .P arks and Recreation B oard
City Council to confirm the appointment of P eter Di Turi to the Parks and Recreation
B oard for a three year term expiring December 31, 2023
I V.AG E ND A M O D I F IC AT I O NS
V.NE W B US I NE S S
V I .C IT IZE N I NP UT, P UB L I C HE ARI NG S AND C O RRE S P O ND E NC E
A .Audience Participation
This is the place on the agenda where the public is invited to speak to the City
Council on any issue.
1.Virtual P articipation
Participants can submit written comments via mail, fax or email. A ll written
comments must be received prior to 5:00 p.m. on the day of the scheduled
meeting and must be 350 words or less.
Please mail comments to:
City of A uburn
Attn: Shawn Campbell, City Clerk
25 W Main S t
Auburn, WA 98001
Please fax comments to:
Attn: Shawn Campbell, City Clerk
F ax number: 253-804-3116
Email comments to: publiccomment@auburnwa.gov
B .Correspondence - (T here is no correspondence for Council review.)
V I I .C O UNC I L AD HO C C O M M IT T E E RE P O RT S
Council Ad Hoc Committee Chairs may report on the status of their ad hoc Council
Committees' progress on assigned tasks and may give their recommendation to the
City Council, if any.
1.F inance Ad Hoc Committee (Chair B aggett)
V I I I .C O NS E NT AG E ND A
All matters listed on the Consent Agenda are considered by the City Council to be
routine and will be enacted by one motion in the form listed.
A .Minutes of the J une 21, 2021 Regular Council Meeting
Page 2 of 195
B .Claim Vouchers (Thomas)
Claim voucher list dated J uly 6, 2021 which includes voucher numbers 463770 through
463881 in the amount of $1,409,688.74 and three wire transfers in the amount of
$220,320.09
C.P ayroll Vouchers (T homas)
P ayroll check numbers 539159 through 539165 in the amount of $583,555.31, and
electronic deposit transmissions in the amount of $2,152,860.32, for a grand total of
$2,736,415.63 for the period covering J une 16, 2021 to J une 30, 2021
D.S etting date for Public Hearing for L imited Update of the
Comprehensive Water P lan (Gaub)
City Council to set date for the P ublic Hearing regarding the L imited Update of the
Comprehensive Water P lan
E .S etting date for Public Hearing for Water Use E fficiency
P rogram (Gaub)
City Council to set the date for a Public Hearing regarding the Water Use E fficiency
P rogram Plan
(RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N: M ove to approve the Consent Agenda.)
I X.UNF INIS HE D B US I NE S S
X .O RD INANC E S
A .Ordinance No. 6826 (Comeau)
A n Ordinance amending S ections 2.57.010, 2.57.020, 2.57.030, 2.57.040 and
2.57.050 of the Auburn City Code related to City Civil Service positions
(RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N: M ove to adopt Ordinance No. 6826.)
X I .RE S O L UT IO NS
A .Resolution No. 5592 (Tate)
A Resolution approving the 2021 Housing A ction Plan for the 2020 to 2040 planning
period
(RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N: M ove to adopt Resolution No. 5592.)
B .Resolution No. 5598 (Tate)
A Resolution ratifying the 2021 update to the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget
S ound Watershed or Water Resource I nventory A rea (W R I A ) 9 Salmon Habitat Plan,
Making Our Watershed Fit for a K ing
(RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N: M ove to adopt Resolution No. 5598.)
Page 3 of 195
X I I .M AY O R AND C O UNC I L M E M B E R RE P O RT S
At this time the Mayor and City Council may report on significant items associated with
their appointed positions on federal, state, regional and local organizations.
A .From the Council
B .From the M ayor
X I I I .AD J O URNM E 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 4 of 195
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Minutes of the June 21, 2021 Regular Council Meeting
Date:
June 23, 2021
Department:
City Council
Attachments:
06-21-2021 Minutes
Budget Impact:
Current Budget: $0
Proposed Revision: $0
Revised Budget: $0
Administrativ e Recommendation:
Background for Motion:
Background Summary:
Rev iewed by Council Committees:
Councilmember:Staff:
Meeting Date:July 6, 2021 Item Number:CA.A
Page 5 of 195
City Council Meeting
J une 21, 2021 - 7:00 P M
Virtual
MINUT E S
Watch the meeting L IV E !
Watch the meeting video
Meeting videos are not available until 72
hours after the meeting has concluded.
I .C AL L T O O RD E R
I I .V IRT UAL PART IC I PAT I O N L I NK
1.Virtual Participation L ink
T he C ity C ouncil Meeting was held virtually.
A.P ledge of Allegiance
Mayor Nancy B ackus called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the
C ouncil Chambers of Auburn City Hall, 25 West Main S treet, and led those
in attendance in the P ledge of A llegiance.
B.Roll Call
C ouncilmembers virtually present: Deputy Mayor C laude DaC orsi, Bob
B aggett, L arry B rown, J ames J eyaraj, R obyn Mulenga, C hris Stearns and
Yolanda Trout-Manuel.
Mayor Nancy B ackus, Network A nalyst E ric D usoleil, Chief of P olice D an
O'Neil and C ity C lerk Shawn Campbell were in Chambers.
The f ollowing department directors and staff members attended the
meeting virtually: Senior City S taf f A ttorney Harry B oesche, Director of
P ublic Works I ngrid Gaub, D irector of F inance J amie Thomas, Senior
Traffic E ngineer J ames Webb and A ssistant D irector of I nnovation and
Technology Ashley Riggs.
I I I .AG E ND A M O D I F IC AT I O NS
There were no modifications to the agenda.
I V.NE W B US INE S S
There was no new business.
Page 1 of 5Page 6 of 195
V.C I T I ZE N INP UT, P UB L I C HE ARI NG S AND C O RRE S P O ND E NC E
A.P ublic Hearings
1.P ublic Hearing Virtual P articipation
2.P ublic Hearing for the 2022-2027 Transportation
I mprovement P rogram (G aub)
A P ublic Hearing to Consider the 2022-2027 Transportation I mprovement
P rogram
Mayor Backus opened the public hearing at 7:02 p.m. T here were no
public comments received, she closed the hearing.
B.Audience P articipation
Thi s i s the place on the agenda where the public is invited to speak to the City
Counci l on any issue.
1.Virtual Participation
No public comments were received.
C .C orrespondence
There was no correspondence f or Council to review.
V I .C O UNC IL AD HO C C O M M IT T E E RE P O RT S
C ouncil Ad Hoc C ommittee Chairs may report on the status of their ad hoc Council
C ommittees' progress on assigned tasks and may give their recommendation to the
C ity Council, if any.
1.F inance A d Hoc Committee (Chair B aggett)
Councilmember B aggett, Chair of the F inance ad hoc committee, reported he and
Councilmember J eyaraj have reviewed the claims and payroll vouchers described
on the agenda this evening and recommended their approval.
V I I .C O NS E NT AG E ND A
All matters l isted on the Consent Agenda are considered by the City Council to be
routine and wi ll be enacted by one moti on in the form listed.
A.Minutes f or the J une 7, 2021 R egular C ouncil Meeting
B.Minutes of the J une 14, 2021 S tudy S ession
C .C laim Vouchers (T homas)
C laim voucher list dated J une 21, 2021 which includes voucher numbers 463624
Page 2 of 5Page 7 of 195
through 463769 in the amount of $4,724,079.67 and four wire transfers in the amount
of $493,299.56
D .P ayroll Vouchers (Thomas)
P ayroll check numbers 539152 through 539158 in the amount of $74,734.67, manual
payroll check numbers 539151 in the amount of $558.16, and electronic deposit
transmissions in the amount of $2,319,092.58, for a grand total of $2,393,827.25 for
the period covering J une 2, 2021 to J une 15, 2021
D eputy Mayor DaC orsi moved and Councilmember Trout-Manuel
seconded to approve the consent agenda.
MO T I O N C A R R I E D UNA NI MO US LY. 7-0
V I I I .UNF I NI S HE D B US I NE S S
I X.O RD I NANC E S
A.Ordinance No. 6823 (Gaub)
A n O rdinance amending Ordinance No. 6759, amending the deadline to complete
conditions associated with vacating right-of -way of a portion of the alley north of 3rd
S treet NE between B Street NE and Auburn Avenue
C ouncilmember Stearns moved and Councilmember B rown seconded to
adopt O rdinance No. 6823.
MO T I O N C A R R I E D UNA NI MO US LY. 7-0
B.Ordinance No. 6824 (Gaub)
A n O rdinance providing a temporary waiver of R ight-of-Way Use Permit Fees, set forth
in A uburn C ity C ode 12.60.020 and 12.60.025 for outside restaurant seating, in
response to the phased opening of commercial businesses f ollowing the C O V I D-19
D eclared P ublic Health Emergency
C ouncilmember Brown moved and Councilmember S tearns seconded to
adopt O rdinance No. 6824.
MO T I O N C A R R I E D UNA NI MO US LY. 7-0
C .Ordinance No. 6825 (Comeau)
A n O rdinance relating to controlled substances and repealing C hapter 9.22 of the
A uburn C ity C ode and amending A C C 9.24.010 to conform with E S B 5476
C ouncilmember J eyaraj moved and C ouncilmember Baggett seconded to
adopt O rdinance No. 6825.
MO T I O N C A R R I E D UNA NI MO US LY. 7-0
Page 3 of 5Page 8 of 195
X .RE S O L UT IO NS
A.R esolution No. 5597 (Gaub)
A R esolution authorizing the adoption of the 2022-2027 Transportation I mprovement
P rogram
D eputy Mayor DaC orsi moved and Councilmember B rown seconded to
adopt Resolution No. 5597.
MO T I O N C A R R I E D UNA NI MO US LY. 7-0
B.R esolution No. 5599 (C omeau)
A R esolution authorizing the Mayor to execute a second amendment to the I nterlocal
A greement between the City of A uburn and the City of F ederal Way related to the
P uget Sound Auto Thef t Task-F orce
C ouncilmember J eyaraj moved and C ouncilmember Mulenga seconded to
adopt Resolution No. 5599.
MO T I O N C A R R I E D UNA NI MO US LY. 7-0
X I .M AY O R AND C O UNC I L M E M B E R RE P O RT S
At this ti me the Mayor and City Council may report on significant i tems associated with
their appoi nted positions on federal, state, regional and local organi zations.
A.Fr om the Council
D eputy Mayor DaC orsi reported he attended the L akota C hapter of the
National S ociety D aughters of the American R evolution L ittle F ree L ibrary
dedication at I ndian Tom Park.
C ouncilmember Trout-Manuel reported she attended the A uburn C up 25th
A nniversary celebration at Emerald D owns.
C ouncilmember J eyaraj reported he attended the Sound C ities
A ssociation Equity and I nclusion meeting.
B.Fr om the M ayor
Mayor B ackus reported she participated in a Town Hall Meeting and
attended the McC onkey A uction G roup A uto A uction F undraiser, Auburn
P olice Department vs. Auburn A dventist A cademy basketball game, Great
S eattle P artners meeting with Chris Mefford, Good Eggs B reakfast,
Washington Cities I nsurance A uthority P olice C hief forum and a F arewell
R etirement P arty and Golf Tournament for J im F erguson.
Page 4 of 5Page 9 of 195
X I I .AD J O URNM E NT
There being no further business to come bef ore the Council, the meeting
was adjourned at 7:30 p.m.
A P P R O V E D this 6th day of J uly, 2021.
____________________________ ____________________________
NA NC Y B A C K US , MAYO R Shawn C ampbell, City Clerk
Agendas and minutes are available to the public at the City Clerk's Office, on the City website
(http://www.auburnwa.gov), and via e-mail . Complete agenda packets are available for revi ew
at the City Clerk's Office.
Page 5 of 5Page 10 of 195
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Claim Vouchers (Thomas)
Date:
June 23, 2021
Department:
Finance
Attachments:
No Attachments Av ailable
Budget Impact:
Current Budget: $0
Proposed Revision: $0
Revised Budget: $0
Administrativ e Recommendation:
Approve Claim Vouchers.
Background for Motion:
Background Summary:
Claim voucher list dated July 6, 2021 which includes voucher numbers 463770 through
463881 in the amount of $1,409,688.74 and three wire transfers in the amount of
$220,320.09.
Rev iewed by Council Committees:
Councilmember:Staff:Thomas
Meeting Date:July 6, 2021 Item Number:CA.B
Page 11 of 195
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Payroll Vouchers (Thomas)
Date:
June 23, 2021
Department:
Finance
Attachments:
No Attachments Av ailable
Budget Impact:
Current Budget: $0
Proposed Revision: $0
Revised Budget: $0
Administrativ e Recommendation:
Approve Payroll Vouchers.
Background for Motion:
Background Summary:
Payroll check numbers 539159 through 539165 in the amount of $583,555.31, and electronic
deposit transmissions in the amount of $2,152,860.32, for a grand total of $2,736,415.63 for
the period covering June 16, 2021 to June 30, 2021
Rev iewed by Council Committees:
Councilmember:Staff:Thomas
Meeting Date:July 6, 2021 Item Number:CA.C
Page 12 of 195
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Setting date for Public Hearing for Limited Update of the
Comprehensive Water Plan (Gaub)
Date:
June 25, 2021
Department:
Public Works
Attachments:
No Attachments Av ailable
Budget Impact:
Current Budget: $0
Proposed Revision: $0
Revised Budget: $0
Administrativ e Recommendation:
City Council sets the date of the Public Hearing for the Limited Update of the Comprehensive
Water Plan as August 2, 2021 at 7:00 pm.
Background for Motion:
Background Summary:
The Washington Department of Health (DOH) approved the 2015 Comprehensive Water Plan
(Plan) through May 11, 2022, which contains the required 6-year and 20-year planning period
projections. The 2015 Plan also contains 10-year projections in anticipation of a regulatory
change allowing 10 years instead of 6 years between preparation of new comprehensive
plans. DOH has now implemented that regulatory change. The City will be requesting DOH’s
approval of a 4-year extension of the City’s comprehensive plan by submitting a Limited
Update to the 2015 Comprehensive Water Plan. This Limited Update documents how the
existing approved Plan is still accurate and applicable.
Prior to submitting the plan for DOH approval, the water purveyor is required to hold a public
informational meeting per WAC 246-290-100 (8)(a). This Public Hearing on August 2, 2021
will meet that requirement.
Staff will present further background and information about the Limited Update at the Council
Study Session on July 26, 2021.
A full Comprehensive Water Plan update will be prepared over the next 3 years along with the
City’s Comprehensive Plan, anticipated to be completed in 2024.
Rev iewed by Council Committees:
Councilmember:Stearns Staff:Gaub
Meeting Date:July 6, 2021 Item Number:CA.D
Page 13 of 195
Page 14 of 195
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Setting date for Public Hearing for Water Use Efficiency
Program (Gaub)
Date:
June 25, 2021
Department:
Public Works
Attachments:
No Attachments Av ailable
Budget Impact:
Current Budget: $0
Proposed Revision: $0
Revised Budget: $0
Administrativ e Recommendation:
City Council sets the date of the Public Hearing for the Water Use Efficiency Program Plan as
August 2, 2021 at 7:00 p.m.
Background for Motion:
Background Summary:
The 2015-2020 Water Use Efficiency (WUE) Program was prepared with the 2015
Comprehensive Water Plan. Existing program goals were evaluated and new goals are being
proposed for the 2021-2026 WUE Program. Per the WAC 246-290-830(4)(a), all water
purveyors are required to set water use efficiency goals in a public forum that provides an
opportunity for consumers and the public to participate and comment on the water use
efficiency goals.
Staff will present further background and information at the Council Study Session on July 26,
2021. The public hearing on August 2, 2021 will provide the public with the opportunity to
provide input.
Rev iewed by Council Committees:
Councilmember:Stearns Staff:Gaub
Meeting Date:July 6, 2021 Item Number:CA.E
Page 15 of 195
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Ordinance No. 6826 (Comeau)
Date:
June 30, 2021
Department:
City Attorney
Attachments:
Ordinance No. 6826
Exhibit A
Budget Impact:
Current Budget: $0
Proposed Revision: $0
Revised Budget: $0
Administrativ e Recommendation:
City Council to adopt Ordinance No. 6826.
Background for Motion:
Ordinance 6826 proposes to amend ACC 2.57 for clarity and precision, and to update the
chapter for consistency with the City’s current employment structure and practices.
Background Summary:
The City’s civil service laws are contained in ACC 2.57. That ACC chapter is outdated. It was
last amended in 2005, and currently contains references to City departments and
employment positions (fire department, fire chief) that no longer exist. Ordinance 6826
proposes to amend ACC 2.57 for clarity and precision, and to update the chapter for
consistency with the City’s current employment structure and practices.
The City supports the adoption of Ordinance 6826.
Rev iewed by Council Committees:
Councilmember:Jeyaraj Staff:Comeau
Meeting Date:July 6, 2021 Item Number:ORD.A
Page 16 of 195
--------------------------------
Ordinance No. 6826
June 22, 2021
Page 1 of 2 Rev. 2019
ORDINANCE NO. 6826
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
AUBURN, WASHINGTON, AMENDING SECTIONS
2.57.010, 2.57.020, 2.57.030, 2.57.040 AND 2.57.050 OF
THE AUBURN CITY CODE RELATED TO CITY CIVIL
SERVICE POSITIONS
WHEREAS, Auburn City Code (ACC) Chapter 2.57 establishes the City’s Civil
Service Commission, and sets forth Commission membership requirements and powers,
and provides for City employment positions that are exempt from civil service
requirements;
WHEREAS, the sections within ACC 2.57 are dated (the most recent amendment
occurred in 2005), and they are in need of updating and revision for clarity and precision,
and to remove excess code language;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN,
WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN as follows:
Section 1. Amendment to City Code. Sections 2.57.010, 2.57.020, 2.57.030,
2.57.040 and 2.57.050 of the Auburn City Code are amended to read as set forth in Exhibit
A to this Ordinance.
Section 2. Implementation. The Mayor is authorized to implement those
administrative procedures necessary to carry out the directives of this legislation.
Section 3. 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.
Page 17 of 195
--------------------------------
Ordinance No. 6826
June 22, 2021
Page 2 of 2 Rev. 2019
Section 4. Effective date. This Ordinance will take effect and be in force five
days from and after its passage, approval, and publication as provided by law.
INTRODUCED: _______________
PASSED: ____________________
APPROVED: _________________
____________________________
NANCY BACKUS, MAYOR
ATTEST:
____________________________
Shawn Campbell, MMC, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________
Kendra Comeau, City Attorney
Published: ____________________
Page 18 of 195
EXHIBIT A—ORDINANCE 6826
Chapter 2.57
CIVIL SERVICE SYSTEM FOR POLICE AND FIRE DEPARTMENTS
ACC 2.57.010 State law adopted. Creation of city civil service commission, adoption of
State law by reference.
A. Creation of City civil service commission, member appointment and removal. This
Section creates There is created a new Chapter 2.57 ACC adopting the state civil
service law and creating the city civil service commission for the City’s police
department. Commission members shall be appointed and/or subject to removal
pursuant to RCW 41.12 and ACC 2.30.
B. Adoption of RCW chapter by reference. RCW Chapter 41.12 (Civil Service for City
Police) is adopted by reference as it currently exists or is hereafter amended.
and with the exception of the following sections set out in this chapter, Chapters
41.08 (Civil Service – City Firemen) and 41.12 (Civil Service – City Police) RCW are
adopted by reference. Members of the city civil service commission shall be appointed
pursuant to the provisions of Chapters 41.08 and 41.12 RCW, and shall be subject to
removal in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 2.30 ACC and RCW 41.08.030
and/or 41.12.030, as they currently exist or as they may be amended hereafter.
Pursuant to RCW 35A.12.140 of the laws of the state of Washington said statutes are
adopted by reference and need not be published in a newspaper as provided in RCW
35A.12.160, but the ordinance codified in this chapter shall be published and a copy of
Chapters 41.08 and 41.12 RCW adopted by reference in this chapter, with amendments
or additions, if any, in the form in which it is adopted, shall be authenticated and
recorded by the clerk along with the adopting ordinance codified in this chapter. Not less
than one copy of said statute with amendments or additions, if any, in the form in which
it is adopted, shall be filed in the office of the city clerk for use and examination by the
public while said statutes are under consideration by the city council. Prior to adoption,
not less than one copy thereof shall be filed in the office of the city clerk for examination
by the public.
ACC 2.57.020 Exempted positions.
Pursuant to RCW 41.12.050, Tthe positions of police chief or its equivalent position and
deputy police chief where the position of deputy chief is as a temporary assignment in
the police department and fire chief or equivalent position and deputy fire chief where
the position of deputy chief is as a temporary assignment are is an found to be
administrative policy-making and policy-formulation positions that is within those
Page 19 of 195
respective departments and those positions are exempted from the classified civil
service of the city.
ACC 2.57.030 Return to Civil service status after appointment to exempt
position. determination.
Any person hereinafter appointed to the unclassified position of police chief or deputy
police chief where the position of deputy chief is as a temporary assignment in the
Auburn police department, or fire chief or deputy fire chief where the position of deputy
chief is as a temporary assignment in the Auburn fire department after July 1, 1987,
from a classified civil service position shall be entitled to return to their previous civil
service status if upon being relieved from such appointment, unless relieved position
and returning to a classified civil service position, except where such relief from that
position is due to conviction of official malfeasance or misconduct in office, or to the
inability to perform official duties because of physical or mental disability rendering them
incapable of performing the duties of their office. Other than in the circumstances
excepted above, tThe returning employee returning to a classified civil service position
shall have the right to return revert to their previously held Auburn Police Department
civil service rank. The returning employee’s previously held by that individual in the
Auburn police or fire departments. Upon such employee being returned to such
classified civil service position, their seniority standing and benefits shall be computed
on the same basis as though they had continuously served rendered service in a
classified position as set forth in the city’s civil service rules.
ACC 2.57.040 Job requirements for exempt positions determined by mayor.
The mayor shall have the duty of establishing the administrative requirements, the
required knowledge, skills and abilities, and the distinguishing work features of work for
the exempt positions of Auburn police chief. , assistant police chief, and fire department
positions of fire chief and assistant fire chief.
ACC 2.57.050 Submission of eligible applicant names to the – Aappointing
authority.
Page 20 of 195
The Auburn civil service commission is required to submit the names of three eligible
applicants that test highest to the appointing authority for each position open in the
Auburn police and fire department,s and shall authorize thereafter authorizing the
appointing authority to select the best qualified applicant for the position from the names
of thosee three eligible applicants.
Page 21 of 195
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Resolution No. 5592 (Tate)
Date:
June 29, 2021
Department:
Community Development
Attachments:
Res olution No. 5592
Auburn HAP 6.23.21
Auburn HAP Appendices
Commerce Support Letter HAP
Budget Impact:
Current Budget: $0
Proposed Revision: $0
Revised Budget: $0
Administrativ e Recommendation:
City Council to adopt Resolution No. 5592.
Background for Motion:
Resolution 5592 is Auburn City Council’s ratification of the 2021 Housing Action Plan that
covers the period of 2020 to 2040. The Action Plan establishes strategies, objectives, and
priorities that are intended to help increase the stock of housing in Auburn and to strive
towards a housing inventory that serves all income levels within the community.
Background Summary:
Purpose
On November 18, 2019, the Auburn City Council considered and adopted City Resolution No.
5471 authorizing the City to enter into a contract with the Washington State Dept. of
Commerce (Commerce) to accept a grant and prepare a Housing Action Plan. The contract
specifies that the Housing Action Plan (HAP) must be adopted by the City Council.
According to the contract language, the goal of a housing action plan is to encourage
construction of additional affordable and market rate housing in a greater variety of housing
types and at prices that are accessible to a greater variety of incomes, including strategies
aimed at the for-profit single-family home market. The housing action plan should:
(a) Quantify existing and projected housing needs for all income levels, including
extremely low-income households, with documentation of housing and household
characteristics, and cost burdened households;
(b)Develop strategies to increase the supply of housing, and variety of housing types,
needed to serve the housing needs identified in (a) of this subsection;
(c) Analyze population and employment trends, with documentation of projections;
(d) Consider strategies to minimize displacement of low-income residents resulting
from redevelopment;
Page 22 of 195
(e) Review and evaluate the current housing element adopted pursuant to RCW
36.70A.070, including an evaluation of success in attaining planned housing types and
units, achievement of goals and policies, and implementation of the schedule of
programs and actions;
(f) Provide for participation and input from community members, community groups,
local builders, local realtors, nonprofit housing advocates, and local religious groups;
and
(g) Include a schedule of programs and actions to implement the recommendations of
the housing action plan.
Plan Recommendations:
The HAP set out to address the following four city goals:
A. Encourage market rate development in Downtown Auburn: more development and
denser development
B. Encourage the development of below-market workforce housing in Downtown
Auburn
C. Encourage the development of middle housing types in R-5 and R-7 Zones in the
Study Area (see Figure 3)
D. Prevent displacement and encourage the preservation of existing affordable housing
With these four goals providing the framework, the plan identifies several recommendations
or strategies to increase housing supply and to meet the goals. The recommendations can
be categorized into three types, as follows:
1. Recommendations call for a zoning code or Comprehensive Plan change.
Recommendation can be implemented through the Zoning Code and/or through
Comprehensive Plan update and code amendment processes.
2. Recommendations call for a new program. Implementation will require staff and
or resources to support new or expanded program operations.
3. Recommendations call for increased partnerships and collaboration.
Implementation will focus on enhancing relationships and securing partnerships.
Presentations on the Housing Action Plan were provided to the Planning Commission on
February 2, 2021, and May 18, 2021, and discussed at regular City Council Study Sessions
on February 22, 2021, and May 24, 2021. The Housing Action Plan was developed using a
continuous public outreach consisting of virtual individual stakeholder interviews, virtual
focus/small group discussions, virtual public open houses on May 12 and 17, 2021 and
webpage feedback and the City prepared and made publicly available on the webpage a draft
of the Housing Action Plan on May 10, 2021, and accepted public comment through June 1,
2021.
Page 23 of 195
Future Actions
In the coming years, implementing this HAP will require the City to balance and coordinate its
pursuit of actions, funding, and partnerships with its other policy and programmatic priorities.
The recommendations in the HAP will require varying levels of effort for the City to
implement. Each recommendation will require different levels of staff time and resources and
will have achieve different objectives.
Rev iewed by Council Committees:
Councilmember:Mulenga Staff:Tate
Meeting Date:July 6, 2021 Item Number:RES.A
Page 24 of 195
--------------------------------
Resolution No. 5592
June 17, 2021
Page 1 of 3 Rev. 2019
RESOLUTION NO. 5592
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
AUBURN, WASHINGTON, APPROVING THE 2021
HOUSING ACTION PLAN FOR THE 2020 TO 2040
PLANNING PERIOD
WHEREAS, on November 18, 2019, the Auburn City Council considered and
adopted City Resolution No. 5471 authorizing the City to enter into a contract with the
Washington State Dept. of Commerce (Commerce) to accept grant funds for the
preparation of a Housing Action Plan. The contract specifies that the Housing Action Plan
(HAP) must be adopted by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City of Auburn, as the first part of the grant partnered with the
cities of Burien, Federal Way, Kent, Renton, and Tukwila to conduct sub-regional data
collection; and
WHEREAS, the sub-regional funding and data collection resulted in the
preparation of the South King County Sub-Regional Framework document in August of
2020; and.
WHEREAS, the City of Auburn, as the second part of the grant application,
contracted separately to prepare a Housing Action Plan specifically for the City and
utilizing the sub-regional data collection and remaining grant funding ($80,000.00); and
WHEREAS, Auburn coordinated with the Department of Commerce to determine
the final scope of work, which is substantially unchanged from the one contained in the
original application for grant funding; and
Page 25 of 195
--------------------------------
Resolution No. 5592
June 17, 2021
Page 2 of 3 Rev. 2019
WHEREAS, the goal of the Housing Action Plan is to encourage construction of
additional affordable and market rate housing in a greater variety of housing types and at
prices that are accessible to a greater variety of incomes, and the Plan identifies several
strategies and preliminary recommendations, including strategies aimed at the for-profit
single-family home market, that the City may implement to guide its housing policies and
regulations and decisions over the 2020-2040 (20-year) planning period; and
WHEREAS, the Housing Action Plan was developed using ongoing public
outreach consisting of virtual individual stakeholder interviews, virtual focus/small group
discussions, virtual open houses on May 12 and 17, 2021, and website feedback; and
WHEREAS, presentations on the Housing Action Plan were provided to the
Planning Commission on February 2, 2021, and May 18, 2021; and
WHEREAS, the Housing Action Plan was discussed at regular City Council Study
Sessions on February 22, 2021, and May 24, 2021; and
WHEREAS, among other methods of collecting feedback, the City prepared and
made publicly available on its website a draft of the Housing Action Plan on May 10, 2021,
and accepted public comment on the website through June 1, 2021; and
WHEREAS, the original grant contract required City Council adoption of the
Housing Action Plan and submittal to the Washington State Department of Commerce by
June 15, 2021; and
WHEREAS, due to delays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the Washington
State Department of Commerce and the City extended the time for adoption of the final
deliverable (HAP) by a contract amendment, without any change in the grant budget
which satisfies the grant obligations.
Page 26 of 195
--------------------------------
Resolution No. 5592
June 17, 2021
Page 3 of 3 Rev. 2019
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN,
WASHINGTON, RESOLVES as follows:
Section 1.The 2021 Housing Action Plan is approved for implementation in the
City of Auburn.
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:
CITY OF AUBURN
____________________________
NANCY BACKUS, MAYOR
ATTEST:
____________________________
Shawn Campbell, MMC, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________
Kendra Comeau, City Attorney
Page 27 of 195
Housing Action Plan
City of Auburn
June 2021
Prepared for: City of Auburn
Draft Report
Page 28 of 195
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan i
Acknowledgements
ECONorthwest prepared this report for the City of Auburn. ECONorthwest and the City of
Auburn are grateful to the numerous staff, elected officials, and community members who
participated and provided feedback to shape the plan.
City of Auburn
§ Jeff Tate, Director of Community Development
§ Jeff Dixon, Planning Services Manager
§ Anthony Avery, Senior Planner (former)
§ Joy Scott, Community Services Manager
§ Alexandria Teague, Planner II
§ Erika Klyce, Neighborhood Programs Coordinator
§ Kyla Wright, Human Services Program Coordinator
§ Steven Sturza, Development Engineer Manager
§ Jason Krum, Development Services Manager
South King County Housing and Homelessness Partnership (SKHHP)
§ Angela San Filippo, Executive Manager
Consultant Team
Tyler Bump, Madeline Baron, Oscar Saucedo-Andrade,
Justin Sherrill, Michelle Anderson, James Kim, Andrés
Arjona, and Jennifer Cannon.
Andrea Petzel and Valerie Pacino
Ben Webber and Ross Determan
Page 29 of 195
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan ii
Auburn Community Members (alphabetical order)
§ Amie Hudson, Neiders Company
§ Christopher Loving, Eastside Legal Assistance Program
§ Cyndi Rapier, Green River College
§ Debbie Christian, Auburn Food Bank
§ Greg Brown, Auburn School District
§ Isiah Johnson, Auburn School District
§ Jean, Resident
§ Jennifer Hurley, Auburn Senior Center
§ Jenny, Resident
§ Joan, Resident
§ Josh Headley, Revive Church
§ Julie DeBolt, Auburn School District
§ Kacie Brae, Auburn Area Chamber of Commerce
§ Katharine Nyden, Eastside Legal Assistance Program
§ Kathy Powers, Orion
§ Lewis, Resident
§ Melanie Fink, Investment Property Group
§ Terri Herren, Auburn School District
§ Three housing developers
Page 30 of 195
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan iii
How this Plan is Organized
This report is organized into five parts:
1. Part 1: Introduction offers helpful background information on this plan, the objectives
driving the work, and the study area.
2. Part 2: Summary summarizes the most important information in Parts 3 and 4,
highlighting key findings from the housing needs analysis, public engagement,
preliminary recommendations, and implementation steps.
3. Part 3: Development Feasibility Analysis outlines and summarizes the development
feasibility analysis that was conducted to identify many of the preliminary
recommendations offered in Part 2 and Part
4. Part 4: Preliminary recommendations & Implementation Steps offers 17 policy and
program preliminary recommendations and an implementation roadmap for the City to
consider as Auburn works toward increasing housing supply over the next 20 years.
5. Part 5: Appendices lists technical appendices that support this plan, including the full
Public Engagement Results, Existing Conditions on Auburn’s community and housing
stock, the housing policy review, and the development feasibility proforma
assumptions.
Page 31 of 195
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan iv
Table of Contents
Part 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................ 1
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 2
What is a Housing Action Plan? ........................................................................................................ 2
How was the HAP Created? .............................................................................................................. 2
Where Did the Plan Preliminary Recommendations Come From? ..................................................... 3
What Objectives are Driving the HAP? .............................................................................................. 5
What is the Planning Horizon for the HAP? ....................................................................................... 6
What is the Geographic Study Area for the Plan? ............................................................................. 6
What are the Regulated Income Limits in Auburn? ........................................................................... 8
Part 2: Summary ................................................................................................................... 10
I. Summary of Housing Needs ......................................................................................................... 11
II. Summary of Public Engagement Key Findings ............................................................................. 22
III. Summary of Preliminary Recommendations & Next Steps ......................................................... 25
Part 3: Development Feasibility Analysis .............................................................................. 29
Objectives and Focus Areas ............................................................................................................ 30
Development Standards ................................................................................................................. 31
Development Feasibility Methods .................................................................................................. 32
Analyzed Prototypes ...................................................................................................................... 34
Development Feasibility Results ..................................................................................................... 42
Part 4: Preliminary Recommendations & Implementation Steps .......................................... 49
Preliminary Recommendations ...................................................................................................... 50
Preliminary Recommendations and Alignment with the Comprehensive Plan ................................ 73
Implementation Steps .................................................................................................................... 76
Page 32 of 195
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 1
Part 1: Introduction
This Part offers helpful background information on the legislation governing Housing Action Plans,
the plan development process, the City’s objectives driving this work, the planning horizon, the
geographic study area in Auburn, and regulated housing income limits in Auburn.
Page 33 of 195
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 2
Introduction
The City of Auburn was founded in 1891 and has grown to become the fifteenth largest city in
the State of Washington. Multiple periods of growth can be observed in the many regions of
Auburn, including early 20th century neighborhoods, mid-century growth, and the annexation
of rural county lands in the early 21st century. This has resulted in over 29 square miles of
housing growth representing many different scales of development that have occurred over
different periods.
In 2019, the state legislature adopted House Bill 1923 (HB 1923), which awarded grants in the
amount of up to $100,000 to various cities to increase residential capacity. The City received a
grant to increase residential capacity through development of a Housing Action Plan (referred
to as a HAP).
What is a Housing Action Plan?
The City of Auburn is growing. Supported by data, community
engagement, a review of policies, and an assessment of housing
development feasibility, this HAP identifies preliminary
recommendations, implementation considerations, and actions that
can help the City of Auburn guide its housing policies, regulations, and
programs as it encourages housing needed to accommodate current
residents and Auburn’s growing population. HAP efforts are focused
on encouraging the production of both affordable and market rate
housing at a variety of price points to meet the needs of current and
future residents.
This HAP must comply with state guidance, including the adoption of
the grant-funded HAP document consisting of the needs assessment,
housing policy review, and implementation preliminary
recommendation components, no later than June 30, 2021. Funding is
provided by the Washington State Department of Commerce via House Bill 1923 (HB 1923).
How was the HAP Created?
The City of Auburn hired a team of consultants – ECONorthwest, Broadview Planning, and
SERA Architects – to assist in the development of this HAP. The HAP process has involved
many steps which are summarized in Figure 1. Throughout the entire process, Broadview
Planning has engaged the public to offer input on the community’s vision and housing needs,
to provide ideas and preliminary recommendations for how Auburn can increase capacity for
more housing, and to review draft documents before they are finalized and adopted by City
Council.
Prior to creating this
Housing Action Plan,
Auburn participated in the
South King County
Subregional Housing
Action Framework, along
with the cities of Burien,
Federal Way, Kent,
Renton, and Tukwila.
This Subregional Housing
Action Framework met
the same Housing Action
Plan requirements but
focused on regional and
subregional strategies that
the South King County
cities could pursue
together.
Page 34 of 195
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 3
Figure 1. Auburn’s HAP Development Process
The Department of Commerce requires that funded HAPs be adopted by each city. In Auburn,
that means that this DRAFT HAP will be presented to city staff for review, revised, and then
presented for public review and to the Planning Commission for a briefing. After reviewing
those comments, a revised, final HAP will be the subject of a briefing, and then presented to
City Council for adoption.
Where Did the Plan Preliminary Recommendations Come From?
The preliminary recommendations offered in this HAP are informed by several components of
this project. In addition to building on the work completed in 2020 for the South King County
Subregional Housing Action Framework document, the preliminary recommendations in this
plan were developed using the following components. (See Figure 2):
1. Data on current and future housing needs discussed in the Existing Conditions
Memorandum,
2. Suggestions and ideas generated from the community through the continuous
community engagement process, and
3. A development feasibility analysis and review of Auburn’s zoning code / development
standards to evaluate impacts to the feasibility of new construction. However, this
analysis did not include a review of the Engineering Design Standards and how the
proposed concepts work with the streetscape elements within the city’s complete
streets policy. This analysis will be required in any future processes that consider
implementation of the concepts presented here.
These three sources of input were used to arrive at the preliminary recommendations offered in
this plan. The key findings from each of these sources are described in Part 2: Summary.
Public Engagement
Community Vision
Solicit Ideas
Assess Changes
Existing Conditions
Data Analysis
Employment Trends
Population Growth
Policy Evaluation
Recommended Actions
Public Input
Staff Input
Development
Analysis
Prioritization
Adoption
Planning Commission
City Council
Page 35 of 195
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 4
Figure 2. HAP Preliminary Recommendations Inputs
This plan uses the Term “preliminary recommendations” because, while a substantial amount
of research and analysis has been conducted to prepare this plan and its identified measures,
there remain additional evaluation and considerations in order to implement some of the
recommendations. Some of the measures recommended are not fully ready and capable of
being implemented based on the contents of the plan alone. It is acknowledged that
additional evaluation is necessary to determine whether some measures are appropriate for
Auburn and whether there are unintended consequences. For example, changes to increase
density will require consideration in the Transportation Element and Utility Element of the
Comprehensive Plan to determine the necessary infrastructure required to implement changes.
Depending on the locations of increases and how broadly these are applied, there could be for
example, impacts to the transportation system that could generate an issue related to
transportation concurrency and result in either lowering level of service standards further or
limiting development until improvements can be built to support the higher density.
This after plan analysis of the preliminary recommendations is beyond the scope and budget of
this HAP preparation. There will be additional public input that will influence and shape the
measures through the review and adoption process. Also, as discussions about housing supply
continue to advance in the future, the city may wish to consider other measures that are not
identified in this plan.
Preliminary Recommendations
Development
Feasibility
Community
Input
Data
Analysis
City’s Housing Objectives C
i
t
y
’
s
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
E
n
v
i
r
o
nm
e
n
t
Page 36 of 195
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 5
What Objectives are Driving the HAP?
The City of Auburn desires a mix of housing types, sizes, and options that serve a wide array of
residents – from seniors and multigenerational housing, to low-income households, to young
workers – and desires this mixture throughout the City. The City understands the importance of
housing affordability and seeks affordable housing options spread throughout the City – options for
buyers and renters, alike. It recognizes that affordable housing options will look different in
different parts of the City to suit the neighborhood context and desires of residents. And,
importantly, the City wants to preserve its existing housing stock, and support landlords in
maintaining existing properties.
For the purposes of this Housing Action Plan scope of work, the City wanted to explore a few
key targeted housing development types and locations, identified below. These specific topics
fit into the City’s larger efforts to create a diverse range of housing options to meet the needs
of a broad range of residents. These objectives were developed as part of the scope of work
for this project to support a broader mix of housing types, housing sizes, and housing price
points across the City that are available to a wider range of current and future Auburn
residents.
While these are not ordered in any rank or priority, they are helpful to organize the preliminary
recommendations and support the implementation steps that will be suggested in the final
HAP:
A. Encourage market rate development in Downtown Auburn:
increased development and denser development
B. Encourage the development of below-market affordable housing
in Downtown Auburn
C. Encourage the development of middle housing in R-5 and R-7
Zones in the Study Area (see Figure 3 on page 7)
D. Prevent displacement and encourage the preservation of existing affordable housing
One reason the City highlighted downtown Auburn in this HAP is because it seeks to ensure
that Downtown continues to meet criteria for the Puget Sound Regional Council’s (PSRC) 2050
designation of a “Regional Growth Center.”1 This designation requires moving from 18
towards 45 activity units per acre minimum and both additional development as well as denser
development can help to achieve this.
1 PSRC Regional Centers Framework, page 4.
https://www.psrc.org/sites/default/files/final_regional_centers_framework_march_22_version.pdf
What is Middle Housing?
In this analysis, the term
middle housing refers to
duplexes and triplexes.
See relevant development
standards on page 31 and
example renderings on
page 39.
Page 37 of 195
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 6
What is the Planning Horizon for the HAP?
This HAP focuses on the 2020-2040 planning period using data from PSRC. As a regional
planning agency, PSRC produces regional population forecasts for King, Snohomish, Pierce,
and Kitsap Counties. These population forecasts are allocated by each county for their city-
level growth targets.
King County is updating its growth targets and forecasts for the 2017 - 2044 forecast period,
but the formal adoption of these targets will not occur until later in 2021. Auburn’s future
housing needs estimated in the Existing Conditions Memorandum and summarized in Part 2
are based on the acknowledged 2040 population forecast. Since the HAP timing is earlier, a
subsequent effort will be needed to compare results attributable to the end points of the
different forecast periods.
The Puget Sound Regional Council is a regional planning agency overseeing urban growth,
economic development, and transportation planning for King, Snohomish, Pierce, and Kitsap
Counties. PSRC develops policies and guides decision making with over 100 members from the
cities, towns, counties, ports, transportation agencies, and tribal governments in the Puget Sound
area.
What is the Geographic Study Area for the Plan?
The contents of the Auburn HAP are prepared for the purpose of
evaluating circumstances in and applicability to, all areas of the city
limits of Auburn, as this is where the City has regulatory jurisdiction.
Auburn’s housing-related goals and planning processes are focused
citywide. However, some of the comprehensive plan policy guidance
may also extend to those areas within the City’s few designated
Potential Annexation Areas (PAA) where only the Comprehensive Plan
policies apply.
Due to time and fiscal limitations of analyzing the entire city, certain
geographic areas were selected for a concentrated focus. The Auburn
HAP study areas shown in Figure 3 were selected by City of Auburn
staff to evaluate specific policy and regulatory interventions to
advance the objectives identified above. The Downtown Auburn
Regional Growth Center is identified in the map below as the study area where this analysis
evaluates changes to development standards that support more feasible mixed-income
housing at density levels that meet the PSRC 2050 Regional Growth Center criteria.
The middle housing study area was selected for its proximity to commuter rail transportation,
proximity to downtown, diversity of built characteristics, representation of other parts of the
The City may choose to make
zoning code changes in this
study area - testing the
response from the housing
market, developers, and
neighborhood / community
members – before making
changes in other parts of the
City.
The City could also choose to
advance changes to
development standards that
support a broader range of
housing options in single
family dwelling zoned areas
across Auburn.
Page 38 of 195
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 7
City, and its somewhat-regular street grid pattern. The study area is also based on the
boundaries of Census block groups.
This area is not to be interpreted as the only area in which the middle housing preliminary
recommendations contained within this plan could apply. This study area was chosen as a
representative area of the city within which to conduct more in-depth analysis of middle
housing regulations that would not be practical to conduct city-wide.
Figure 3. Auburn HAP Study Area
Source: ECONorthwest analysis of Auburn Municipal Code
Page 39 of 195
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 8
It is important to note that although parts of the City of Auburn extend into Pierce County, this
analysis, and the preliminary recommendations herein, focus exclusively on the portions of
Auburn located in King County. Data in the Existing Conditions Memorandum (and
summarized in Part 2) do account for housing conditions and demand in both the King County
and Pierce County areas of Auburn, but the analysis and preliminary recommendations herein
are focused solely on King County geographies because there are very few future housing
opportunities within the Pierce County portion of Auburn. These strategies and preliminary
recommendations still could be applied to city-wide even though they were not evaluated
specifically for the Pierce County portion of the City.
What are the Income Level Categories Related to Housing in
Auburn?
This HAP regularly refers to affordable housing and housing that is affordable to a certain
segment of the population. This section describes affordability terms and income limits in
Auburn.
Understanding AMI and MFI
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) defines an area’s Median
Family Income (MFI), but Area Median Income (AMI) is often used interchangeably.2 AMI is
used in this report to align with King County’s data and reporting. Auburn is part of the Seattle-
Bellevue, WA HUD Metro Area.
As shown in Figure 4, the Seattle-Bellevue, WA HUD Metro Area AMI was $103,400 for a family
of four in 2018.3 HUD adjusts the income limits up or down based on family size and provides
income limits for 30% of MFI, 50% of MFI, and 80% of MFI. Additional income limits (such as
60% or 120%) can be calculated off the 100% income limit to get an approximation of other
affordability thresholds.4
Figure 4. HUD 2018 Median Family Income Limits
for the Seattle-Bellevue, WA HUD Metro Area
Affordability Level: Annual Income Limit (for
a family of 4):
30% of AMI $32,100
50% of AMI $53,500
80% of AMI $80,250
100% of AMI $103,400
2 Source: HUD. 2018. “FY 2018 Income Limits Frequently Asked Questions.”
www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il/il18/FAQs-18r.pdf
3 The 2018 AMI is referenced to align with the 2018 Census data used in developing the Housing Action Plan.
4 These approximations—and HUD’s official limits—may not be exact fractions of the 100% median income (in the
table, the official 50% income limit for a family of four is slightly higher than half of the 100% limit).
Page 40 of 195
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 9
Understanding MHI
Because the Seattle-Bellevue, WA HUD Metro Area is so large, it does not account for
differences within the geography. A property developed in Auburn using a 50% AMI limit
would have the same limits as one in Bellevue, despite underlying differences in the incomes of
these cities individually. To capture a more localized consideration of median income, we
calculated Auburn’s median household income (MHI) using 5-year American Community Survey
(ACS) data.
In the 2014-2018 time period, Auburn’s MHI was estimated to be $68,950. This is much lower
than the $89,400 estimated for King County as a whole, and pretty close to the MHI estimated
for the South King County region ($71,400 using Census PUMS 2018 1-year data).
It is important to note that this MHI is not directly comparable to HUD’s MFI. HUD’s MFI
calculation relies on underlying Census data related to family incomes, and the 100% median is
set for families of four. This MHI is for all households – not just families – and households can
have a wide range of compositions and sizes (e.g., roommates) compared to families. In the
City of Auburn, the median household only has 2.77 people. An area’s MHI is typically lower
than its MFI.
Although MHI does not directly compare to MFI, affordable housing properties in Auburn use
region-wide MFI limits. Meanwhile, Auburn’s MHI is lower than MHI of other cities in the
region. Therefore, these two facts result in a greater likelihood that households and families in
Auburn may have a harder time finding housing that is affordable within their income ranges
(costing less than 30% of gross monthly income).
Page 41 of 195
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 10
Part 2: Summary
This Part summarizes the most important information in Parts 3 and 4, highlighting key findings
from the housing needs analysis, public engagement, preliminary recommendations, and
implementation steps.
It has three sections and is intended to provide an overview of all the elements of the Housing
Action Plan required by the Department of Commerce.
§ Section I summarizes housing and population data for the City of Auburn
§ Section II summarizes the results from public engagement conducted throughout the
project,
§ Section III summarizes the preliminary recommendations and next steps that are
described in more detail in Part 4.
Page 42 of 195
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 11
I. Summary of Housing Needs
Current Housing Inventory
As of 2018, there were 31,345 total housing units in Auburn (OFM, 2019). About half of
Auburn’s housing stock was built in the 1980’s or earlier (King County Assessor, 2020) and the
majority of housing across Auburn is in single-family detached (61 percent) housing. About 16
percent of Auburn’s housing stock is in properties with 2-4 units. About 23 percent of Auburn’s
housing stock is characterized as multifamily, the majority of which was built pre-1960, and in
the 1990s and 2000s.5
Auburn saw 3,511 new dwelling units built between 2011 and 2019, averaging 390 new units
per year. Over this period, 7.8 new housing units were produced for every 10 new households
that formed in Auburn.6
Figure 5. Number of Units Built Per Year, Auburn, 2011-2019
Source: OFM, 2019.
The majority of Auburn’s single-family housing stock was built prior to the 2000’s. The 1960’s,
1990’s, and 2000’s saw peak construction of single-family homes. The majority of duplexes,
triplexes and quad-plex type housing was built prior to the 2000’s. The 1970’s and 1980’s saw
peak construction of these housing types relative to other years and in the 2010s this housing
type was not built.
5 In this report, multifamily housing is defined as five or more units in a given property development.
6 Household formation occurs when people move into the city, or when one household becomes two (e.g., a child
moves out of a family home, roommates separate).
Page 43 of 195
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 12
Figure 6. Type of Single-Family Housing Built, Auburn, 1960-2020
Source: King County Assessor’s Office, 2020.
The majority of multifamily housing in Auburn was built before 2000. Auburn saw an increase in
larger multifamily housing development (100+ units) in the 1980s, 1990s, 2000s, and 2010s.
The majority of medium sized multi-family housing (between 5 and 50 units) was built in the
1990s or earlier. Since 2010 the vast majority of multi-family built was of the 100+ unit type and
saw very few smaller-scale multi-family housing being built.
Figure 7. Scale of Multifamily Housing Built, Auburn, 1960-2020
Source: King County Assessor’s Office, 2020.
Page 44 of 195
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 13
Income Characteristics
Income is one of the key determinants in housing choice and households’ ability to afford
housing. This is because, for most households in the U.S., housing is the single largest expense
and impacts numerous other factors like access to jobs, schools, and amenities. Between 2012
and 2018, Auburn saw a large increase in the number of households earning between 50% and
80% of the 2018 King County Area Median Income (AMI – see page 11 for a description), while
it saw a modest decrease in the number of households earning less than 30% of AMI, and a
small decrease in the number of households earning between 80% and 100% of AMI (see
Figure 8).
About 33 percent of Auburn’s households earn less than 50% of AMI. This is in line with the
South King County Region as a whole, where 34 percent of households earn less than 50% of
AMI. Auburn’s share of households earning more than 80% of AMI is also similar to that of the
South King County Region: 41 percent and 43 percent, respectively.
Figure 8. Income Distribution by AMI, Auburn, 2012 and 2018
Source: PUMS (2012 and 2018).
Population Characteristics
Between 2010 and 2018, Auburn’s population grew by more than 10,400 new residents, from
70,180 people in 2010, to 80,615 people in 2018. Auburn’s population is younger on average
compared to other cities in South King County, with a larger share of residents under age 19.
In addition, as of the 2014-2018 time period, about 16 percent of Auburn’s residents identify as
Hispanic or Latino of any race and about 57 percent identify as non-Hispanic White.
About 11 percent identify as non-Hispanic Asian, and another 11 percent as non-Hispanic of
Another or Multiple races (including Pacific Islander or Native Hawaiian and Non-Hispanic
Page 45 of 195
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 14
American Indian or Alaskan Native). About 5 percent identify as non-Hispanic Black or African
American.
Figure 9. Population by Race and Ethnicity, Auburn (City), 2014- 2018
Source: ACS (5-year, 2014-2018).
Auburn saw an 86 percent increase in the number of residents who identify as Hispanic or
Latino of any race between 2010 and 2018. In addition, Auburn saw about a 67 percent
increase in the number of residents who identify as being non-Hispanic of Another or Multiple
races (including Pacific Islander or Native Hawaiian and Non-Hispanic American Indian or
Alaskan Native).
Figure 10. Population by Race and Ethnicity, Auburn (City), 2010 and 2018
Source: ACS (5-year, 2006-2010 and 2014-2018).
Like most areas, the majority of Auburn’s residents are between 20 and 64 years old. Auburn
has a larger population proportion of young residents (those age 19 years and under) than
seniors (those 65 years and older).
16%57%11%5%11%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Share of Total Population
Hispanic or Latino of Any Race Non-Hispanic White
Non-Hispanic of Another or Multiple Races Non-Hispanic Black or African American
Non-Hispanic Asian
44,302
5,266
6,891
3,816
6,710
44,803
8,782
12,831
3,894
8,800
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000
Non-Hispanic White
Non-Hispanic of Another or Multiple Races
Hispanic or Latino of Any Race
Non-Hispanic Black or African American
Non-Hispanic Asian
Total Population
2018 2010
Page 46 of 195
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 15
Figure 11. Age Distribution, Auburn, 2014-2018
Source: ACS (5 year 2014-2018).
Share of Population
Housing Cost Trends
Similar to much of the Puget Sound, Auburn has seen steep price increases. Since 2010, home
prices in Auburn rose by 88 percent, from a median sales price of $222,750 in 2010 to
$418,300 in 2020 (see Figure 12).
In addition, the average rent for a two-bedroom apartment in Auburn increased by 49 percent
from 2010 to 2020, reaching $1,393 per month. Using 2018 income data, the average rent for
a two-bedroom apartment would be affordable to a four-person household earning 50% of the
AMI (which would be a relatively tight space), or to a two-person household earning between
50% and 80% of AMI.
Figure 12. Median Home Sales Price and Average 2-Bedroom Rent, Auburn, 2010 and 2020
Source: Costar and Zillow. Not adjusted for inflation.
2010 2020
Average Rent $934 $1,393
Median Sales Price $222,750 $418,300
Housing Cost Burdening
In 2018, 88 percent of Auburn renters earning less than 30% of AMI were cost burdened and
71 percent of renters earning between 30% to 50% of AMI were cost burdened (see Figure 13).
Cost burdening tends to decline as incomes go up, because a household has more income to
spend on housing. In Auburn, 33 percent of renters earning between 50% and 80% of AMI
were cost burdened.
8%
8%
7%
6%
7%
15%
13%
13%
7%
6%
6%
3%
1%
0%5%10%15%20%
Under 5 years
5 to 9 years
10 to 14 years
15 to 19 years
20 to 24 years
25 to 34 years
35 to 44 years
45 to 54 years
55 to 59 years
60 to 64 years
65 to 74 years
75 to 84 years
85 years and over
Page 47 of 195
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 16
Figure 13. Cost Burdened and Severely Cost Burdened Renters, Auburn, 2018
Source: PUMS (2018).
In Auburn, households of color account for a disproportionate number of households
experiencing cost burdening, compared to their share of total populations (see Figure 14).
Hispanic households of any race accounted for approximately 25 percent of all of the
households experiencing cost burdening (blue bar) in the 2014-2018 period, yet they only
accounted for roughly 16 percent of the Auburn area’s total households (yellow bar). This
means that they are disproportionately cost burdened relative to non-Hispanic White and non-
Hispanic Asian households.
Figure 14. Cost Burdening by Race and Ethnicity, Auburn Area PUMA, 2014-2018
Source: PUMS (5 year 2014-2018).
Page 48 of 195
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 17
Employment & Transportation
Based on data from the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), Auburn’s total employment
grew from 40,070 jobs in 2008 to 45,990 jobs in 2018—an increase of 5,919 jobs or 15
percent.
In 2018, the top four largest industries were: (1) Manufacturing with 8,765 people, (2) Retail
Trade with 5,091 people, (3) Health Care and Social Assistance with 4,925 people, and (4)
Wholesale Trade with 4,308 people. Combined, these industries represent 50 percent of
Auburn’s total jobs.
Between 2008 and 2018, several industries lost employment. The four industries that lost the
greatest share of employees were: (1) Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction with a 100
percent decline, (2) Utilities also with a 100 percent decline, (3) Retail with a 13 percent decline,
and (4) Public Administration with a 12 percent decline. Combined, these industries represent a
loss of 1,251 jobs.
Job losses in each of the industries mentioned above, and job gains in new industries, signify a
shift in Auburn’s employment profile between 2008 and 2018. For example, the five industries
which gained the greatest share of employment were: (1) Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and
Hunting with a 192 percent increase,7 (2) Finance and Insurance with a 115 percent increase, (3)
Real Estate and Rental and Leasing with a 72 percent increase, (4) Health Care and Social
Assistance with a 70 percent increase, and (5) Transportation and Warehousing with a 53
percent increase. Combined, these industries represent a gain of 3,784 employees.
Median salaries in 2018 also varied by industry. At opposite ends of the wage spectrum, the
Accommodation and Food Services industry had the lowest annual wages of $32,451, of which
this industry represented approximately five percent of Auburn’s total employment. On the
other, the Finance and Insurance industry had the highest annual wage of $79,375,
representing about 2 percent of Auburn’s total employment.
Figure 15 below shows how far an Auburn resident can travel to access employment in the
Puget Sound Region within a 45-minute drive time (blue) and a 45-minute transit trip (orange).
7 It is important to note that the large increase in Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting is an increase from 13 to
38 people between 2008 and 2018.
Page 49 of 195
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 18
Figure 15. Access to Employment—Travel Shed, 2018
Source: ECONorthwest Analysis of 2018 PSRC Data.
Note: Departing at 8:00 AM, midweek
Page 50 of 195
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 19
Future Housing Needs
PSRC forecasts that by 2040, Auburn will grow to a population of 95,461 people, an increase of
14,846 people (or 18 percent) from its 2018 population estimate of 80,615 people. As Auburn
is forecast to grow at a faster rate than it has in the past, the City’s population growth will
continue to drive future demand for housing through 2040.
Based on this forecast population growth, the City is projected to
need 10,429 new dwelling units between 2020 and 2040, at an
average trajectory of 521 new units per year through 2040. Of those
needed dwellings, 2,361 units are a result of housing
underproduction (see sidebar). The remaining 8,068 units are to
accommodate population growth. In total, this represents a sizable
increase in the number of housing units that need to be produced
each year (521 units), given the annual average of only 390 units built
per year from 2011 to 2019.
Figure 16. Housing Units Needed by AMI, Auburn, 2040
Source: OFM, 2019; PSRC, 2017; ECONorthwest Calculation.
AMI # of Units % of Units
0-30% 1,669 16%
30-50% 1,043 10%
50-80% 2,503 24%
80-100% 1,251 12%
100%+ 3,963 38%
Total 10,429 100%
As Figure 16 demonstrates, 38 percent of units needed between 2020
and 2040 should be affordable to households earning more than
100% of the AMI (recall the discussion of affordability limits beginning
on page 8). This is helpful since new market-rate housing tends to be developed at prices and
rents that are affordable to higher income households.
When an area does not have enough housing priced for higher income households, these
households “rent down” and occupy units that would be appropriately priced for lower-income
households, thereby increasing competition for low-cost housing units. All cities need a range
of housing choices – of different sizes, types, and prices – to accommodate the various needs
and incomes of residents.
Housing Needs Analysis Methodology
This analysis calculates total future housing needs as the current underproduction of housing
plus the future needs based on projections from PSRC 2040 household projections. Without
Underproduction is
calculated from the ratio
of housing units produced
and new households
formed in Auburn over
time. If too few housing
units are constructed
relative to the number of
new households formed,
underproduction occurs
and contributes to price
increases.
Without including current
underproduction in
calculations of future
need, the current
mismatch of housing units
to numbers of households
will continue into the
future.
See more detailed
explanation of
methodology in the
Existing Conditions
Memorandum in Part 5
Appendices.
Page 51 of 195
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 20
accounting for past and current underproduction, development targets focused solely on
future housing needs will continue to underproduce relative to the actual need.8
Figure 17. Total Needed Housing Units in Auburn by 2040
Source: ECONorthwest analysis of PSRC and OMF data
Current Underproduction
We first calculate the current underproduction of units in Auburn’s housing inventory. This
underproduction is estimated based on the ratio of housing units produced and new
households formed in King County over time. As of 2019, King County as a whole had 1.06
housing units for every household. Auburn’s ratio was 0.986. Since Auburn’s ratio is less than
King County’s ratio, we consider Auburn to have underproduction. Conversely, if the ratio were
greater than 1.06, the city would have overproduced housing relative to King County as a
whole. The steps for calculating current underproduction include:
1. Calculate the count of housing units and population from Washington Office of
Financial Management (OFM) 2018 data.
2. We then convert population to households by using average household size in Auburn
from the 2018 PUMS dataset.
3. We then compare Auburn’s ratio of total housing units to households to that of the
county (1.06 units per household) as the target ratio.
4. If a city’s ratio is lower than 1.06, we calculate the underproduction as the number of
units it would have needed to produce over the timeframe, to reach a ratio of 1.06.
Because Washington State does not have a regional approach to planning for housing
production, our consideration of underproduction implies that the City of Auburn should be
8 This analysis primarily relied on 2019 data from the Washington Office of Financial Management (OFM) to evaluate
housing and demographic trends. Where OFM data was unavailable we relied on the U.S. Census Bureau’s Public
Use Micro Sample (PUMS) data from 2012 through 2018 and the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2012-2016 Comprehensive
Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) Data. To supplement OFM data on housing trends and existing housing types
by size, we supplemented this analysis with King County Assessor data. For housing market data on rents and sales
prices we relied on data from the King County Assessor and CoStar. For the housing demand analysis, we relied on
Puget Sound Regional Council VISION 2040 population forecast for Auburn for 2040.
Current
Under-
production:
2,361
Future
Need:
8,068
Total Units:
10,429
Page 52 of 195
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 21
producing housing at a rate to be consistent with the King County ratio of housing units to
households of 1.06.
This approach to underproduction is simple and intuitive while using the best available data
that is both local and the most recent. This analysis does not differentiate between renter and
owner households and relies on average household size to convert population counts to
household counts. The relationships between average household size, number of households,
and current housing units interact in ways that impact underproduction findings for cities within
the subregion differently. This approach to identifying current underproduction does not
account for local or regional housing preferences by type or tenure. Housing affordability
considerations are taken into account in the next step, in determining future housing needs.
Future Housing Needs
We estimate Auburn’s future housing needs based on the forecasted household growth
through 2040 from PSRC. PSRC does not forecast housing units, but instead forecasts the
estimated number of households. To calculate Auburn’s future housing need, we use a target
ratio of developing 1.14 housing units per new household. This ratio is the national average of
housing units to households in 2019. It is important to use a ratio greater than 1:1 since healthy
housing markets allow for vacancy, demolition, second/vacation homes, and broad absorption
trends. Use of the national ratio is a reasonable target, particularly for larger areas and regions.
Using this ratio suggests that at a minimum, jurisdictions should be hitting the national average
and is preferred as the existing regional ratio may capture existing issues in the housing market
(such as countywide/regional existing housing shortages).
Total Units Needed by Income
The next step is to allocate the needed units by income level. We first look at the most recent
distribution of households by income level (using 2018 PUMS to determine area median
income or “AMI”) in Auburn. We then account for current and future household sizes at the city
level to better understand nuances of how housing need by income can shift over time as
household sizes change and subsequent changes to housing affordability.
Because forecasting incomes at the household level over time can be challenging at best, and
misleading at worst, this data evaluates housing need using current income distributions
forecast forward. The forecast housing need by income category at the city level is likely to vary
depending on policy choices made over the next 20 years. That is to say that if cities do not
take meaningful action to increase housing production, and affordability worsens due to
demand from higher-income households outpacing supply of total housing units, many low-
income households would face displacement and the forecast need for lower income
households would likely be lower. The ultimate income distribution in 2040 will be the result of
regional housing trends and policy decisions made at the local level.
Page 53 of 195
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 22
II. Summary of Public Engagement Key Findings
This section summarizes the key findings and themes from the public engagement conducted
by Broadview Planning throughout the project.
The purpose of the community engagement element of the HAP is to connect with residents,
workers, businesses, non-profit organizations, service providers, and other key stakeholders to
discover qualitative data and stakeholder stories to support and ground truth the HAP’s
quantitative data. As captured in the project’s initial Public Engagement Plan, which was
reviewed and approved by City Staff, the priorities for this work included:
1. Integrate an educational approach to community outreach to build awareness of the
importance of housing needs and types.
2. Gather community input as a key part of creating strategic and intentional policy actions
to address the city’s need to create (and preserve existing) more, and different types, of
affordable housing.
3. Understand community perceptions of density and different housing types.
The public engagement process includes four iterative phases: stakeholder interviews; small
group conversations; a HAP project website hosted by the City on Speak Up Auburn, and two
final community open houses. Due to restrictions from the COVID-19 pandemic, the public
engagement process was conducted entirely through online video meetings or phone calls.
Building on the engagement priorities established by the consultant team and the City, an
inclusive process was designed to maximize the inclusion of a diverse range of voices. Every
effort was made to ensure that underrepresented communities had a voice in this public
engagement process, particularly those at highest risk of displacement from new development,
and those often overlooked in traditional planning processes.
The full public engagement process, list of stakeholders, key themes, community suggestions,
and challenges relating to COVID-19 social distancing protocols are all discussed in Part 5,
Appendices.
Page 54 of 195
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 23
Qualitative Research Methodology
Qualitative data and community stories provide insight and a greater understanding of community
perceptions and experiences with housing and what types of housing choices community members
seek now and in the future. One-on-one and small group interviews allow stakeholder participation
on their own terms and with a sense of empowerment and inclusion. Qualitative research is also
beneficial because it:
§ Supports quantitative data meaningfully and purposefully, allowing for more detailed
understanding of complex issues.
§ Values lived experiences and expresses data in people’s own words, with the capacity to
uncover multiple perspectives or unconventional thinking.
§ Informs and enhances decision-making and adds immeasurably to our understanding of
human, institutional, and systems behavior.
However, the quantitative research process generates a tremendous amount of information that
must be thoughtfully analyzed, edited, and presented. It is also important to remember that a
qualitative research process will never reach all stakeholders, and while participants are
considered “representative,” they are speaking from their own lived experiences. A final note:
analysis is through the lens of the interviewer, and even with an emphasis on neutrality,
interpretation can carry elements of our own biases.
Consistent Themes
After reviewing all stakeholder input from both interviews, small group conversations, and the
open houses, Broadview Planning identified the following key themes, which are summarized
below. In addition, the city has hosted an ongoing HAP webpage to gather input and the
themes from this effort are summarized below. Each theme is further supported by quotes,
insight, and preliminary recommendations from stakeholders in their own words, detailed in
Part 5: Appendices.
Consistent themes across the interviews and small group conversations, included:
§ While Auburn has changed dramatically over time, people have a strong sense of
community identity, and like the small-town feel. People from Auburn want to stay here.
§ While there is a perception that housing in Auburn is more affordable than Seattle, it is
still not affordable for a lot of people living in Auburn.
§ The greatest housing need is for low-income, supported housing.
§ Public safety is an ongoing concern for many stakeholders.
§ Mobile home parks are an in-demand source of affordable housing with low turnover
rates and long wait lists.
§ Stakeholders expressed concern about the conditions of affordable rental units,
including building maintenance and upkeep.
§ There is a sense that middle housing is missing, with stakeholders citing a lack of starter
homes, smaller homes, and options for seniors to downsize. Stakeholders also
expressed a desire for more accessory dwelling units and other types of options for
seniors or kids moving back home to be able to live with family.
Page 55 of 195
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 24
§ There are existing family-sized units (2-4 bedrooms), but still not enough of these types
of units to meet demand.
§ The eviction moratorium has quelled a lot of housing instability, but the real issue is the
loss of jobs/income to pay for rent post-moratorium.
§ There is a desire for a strong, vibrant, mixed-use downtown area, but there are no
opportunities for home (condo) ownership, and weak support for businesses to thrive as
part of a mixed-use complex.
§ Resource inequities are part of the housing situation, and housing developments should
address the need for easy access to medical services, grocery stores, transportation,
and green space.
Consistent themes expressed in the open houses, included:
§ Many households need better access to affordable housing and need supportive
services. Consider integrating these services into new housing to help ensure
sustainable housing.
§ Missing middle housing strategies appear they can be implemented quickly and there
appear to be good local examples.
§ The missing middle strategies are an important tool to move folks from renting to home
ownership.
§ Increased transit access would seem a factor in additional or more dense housing.
§ We must consider how we bring along the infrastructure (public--streets, utilities,
services and parks & private--services and amenities) to support new housing
development.
§ Affordability of housing should be considered from an equity lens.
§ While there remain some obstacles, more and increased diversity of ownership forms of
housing should be pursued.
§ High-density and low-cost housing seems to be associated with problems, including
crime. There is a loss of character with only focusing on high-density housing.
§ Up-zoning and more density should consider quality of life.
§ Increasing middle income housing, avoiding displacement, and helping people move
from renting to ownership should be priorities.
Consistent themes expressed in the website feedback, included:
§ Auburn’s charm has been in its attempts at preserving the old homes and buildings and
recommendations in this HAP are going in another direction.
§ Sprawl or increases in housing are inevitable, conscious choice to locate more dense
housing in downtown close to transit and services is preferrable.
§ There is support for small lot development and for accessory dwelling units (ADU).
Consider reductions in lot and building size to make housing more affordable.
§ Auburn should take the lead in innovative housing solutions.
§ Massive apartment buildings being planned in the neighborhoods of the city is
alarming. Large apartment structures should not be overlapping the single dwellings
Page 56 of 195
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 25
already in existence. The huge buildings can be erected on large lots on the outskirts or
in areas that do not have single family homes already in place.
§ Downtown parking is already insufficient, the large number of units will make parking
and traffic worse.
§ Develop a local transport system to service a greater number of units in the downtown.
The city does not have the proper infrastructure to significantly increase housing in in
the downtown.
III. Summary of Preliminary Recommendations & Next Steps
Figure 19 on the next page describes 18 preliminary recommendations for the City of Auburn
to consider as it encourages more housing production to meet the needs of its growing
population. A few things to keep in mind when reading this table:
§ The preliminary recommendations are outlined in greater detail in Part 4, with
rationales, considerations for the City to evaluate, potential next steps, and suggestions
for implementation and prioritization.
§ Many of these preliminary recommendations were evaluated via development feasibility
testing which is described in Part 3. The prototypes and zoning development standards
referenced in these preliminary recommendations are described in detail in Part 3. This
development feasibility testing did not include an analysis of the public infrastructure
required to support the preliminary recommendations.
§ These preliminary recommendations are grouped by the four objectives driving this
HAP (discussed on page 5).
§ The various types of preliminary recommendations are denoted by icons listed in Figure
18 below.
Figure 18. Icons used to denote Preliminary recommendation Types
Icon Preliminary recommendation Type
Preliminary recommendation calls for a zoning or Comprehensive Plan change.
Preliminary recommendation can be implemented through the Zoning Code,
other city code, or administrative regulations or through Auburn’s next
Comprehensive Plan Housing Element update.
Preliminary recommendation calls for a new program. Implementation will
require staff time and or resources or capital investment or potential state
legislative action to get a new program off the ground.
Preliminary recommendation calls for increased partnerships and collaboration.
Implementation will focus on enhancing relationships and securing partnerships.
Page 57 of 195
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan 26
Figure 19. Summary of Recommended Actions
Objective # Preliminary
Recommendation
Description Preliminary
Recommendation Type
Near-Term or
Long-Term Encourage Market Rate Development Downtown A1 Reduce Parking
Requirements to
Support Development
in Downtown Auburn
To achieve denser developments, the City needs to reduce
parking requirements so developers can fit more units and
make development feasible. This entitlement can be given for
desired housing types but must be paired with preliminary
recommendation A2.
Long-Term
A2 Offer a Density Bonus
to Support Denser
Residential
Development and
Mixed-Income Housing
To achieve denser developments, the City needs to increase
the maximum residential floor area ratio (FAR) allowed in the
Downtown Urban Center (DUC) zone. This entitlement can be
given for desired housing types but must be paired with
preliminary recommendation A1 because FAR bonus without
parking reduction will not yield more units.
Near-Term
A3 Promote Lot
Aggregation in
Downtown Auburn
Smaller lots in downtown Auburn will need to be consolidated
if they are to be used for podium (wood-frame over concrete
construction) apartments. Since this is costly and creates
delays, the City should encourage and promote lot aggregation
or allow shared parking between developments.
Near-Term
A4 Explore Fee Waivers for
Targeted Development
Types in Downtown
Auburn
The City could explore waiving fees for desired housing types to
reduce the overall cost of development and increase
feasibility. These policies need to balance the public benefit
with the lost fee revenues.
Long-Term Encourage Affordable Housing Downtown B1 Create Policies to
Lower the Cost of
Affordable Housing
Development
Explore programs and policies to help lower the costs of
affordable housing development in downtown Auburn.
Near-Term
B2 Consider a Voluntary
Inclusionary Housing
Program Paired with a
Density Bonus
Auburn could explore a voluntary inclusionary housing program
that requires affordable units in exchange for a tax exemption
or increases in density allowances.
Long-Term
B3 Reduce Parking
Requirements for Micro
Units
Newly developed micro units (small units with some shared
amenities) rent around 50% AMI and can offer affordable
housing options without any public subsidy. However, they are
only feasible with much fewer required parking spaces.
Long-Term
Page 58 of 195
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan 27
Objective # Preliminary
Recommendation
Description Preliminary
Recommendation Type
Near-Term or
Long-Term Encourage Middle Housing Options in R-5 and R-7 Zones C1 Allow Duplexes and
Triplexes in Single-
Family Neighborhoods
To encourage the development of duplexes and triplexes, the
City first needs to allow these uses in single family
neighborhoods, including R-5 and R-7 Zones.
Near-Term
C2 Increase Density and
Reduce Minimum Lot
Size Per Unit in R-5 and
R-7 Zones
After allowing duplex and triplex uses, the City would need to
increase the allowed residential density and lower the
minimum lot size per unit in the R-5 and R-7 Zones.
Near-Term
C3 Revise Rear Yard
Setbacks to
Accommodate Triplexes
in R-7 Zones
The rear setback requirements limit building configurations in
typical R-7 lots for triplex development prototypes.
Near-Term
C4 Reduce Parking
Requirements in R-5
and R-7 Zones
Although the current parking requirements can be
accommodated, they create a tradeoff between parking, open
space, and the footprint of duplexes and triplexes.
Near-Term
C5 Consider Minimum Site
Size Requirements
Relative to
Homeownership Goals
in R-5 and R-7 Zones
The City should consider circumstances under which to reduce
minimum site sizes to support land-divisions as a strategy to
support homeownership opportunities.
Near-Term
C6 Evaluate Site
Development
Standards and
Infrastructure
Requirements to
Support Middle
Housing Development
Site development standards and infrastructure requirements
such as the engineering design standards should be evaluated
in the context of supporting a wider range of housing types
across Auburn.
Long-Term Page 59 of 195
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan 28
Objective # Preliminary
Recommendation
Description Preliminary
Recommendation Type
Near-Term or
Long-Term Prevent Displacement and Encourage the Preservation of Existing Affordable Housing D1 Monitor and Track Un-
regulated Affordable
Housing
Expand the data collected on naturally occurring affordable
housing. starting with the City’s rental housing licensing
program.
Near-Term
D2 Create Programs and
Policies to Preserve
Naturally Occurring
Affordable Housing
The City should explore programs, policies, and partnerships
and collect data to maintain and preserve its stock of naturally
occurring affordable housing units.
Long-Term
D3 Monitor and Track
Regulated Affordable
Housing
Strengthen partnerships and collect data to monitor the City’s
supply of regulated affordable housing units and prepare for
affordability restriction expirations.
Long-Term
D4
Provide support for
Mobile Home Park
Preservation
Preservation tools and strategies can help prevent mobile
home parks from being purchased and redeveloped thereby
displacing existing residents from this critical affordable
housing stock
Near-Term
D5
Identify Opportunities
to Increase
Homeownership
Encouraging and expanding access to homeownership is a
solid way to prevent and mitigate displacement because
homeowners are less vulnerable to changes in the market or
the effects of redevelopment.
Near-Term
Page 60 of 195
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 29
Part 3: Development Feasibility Analysis
This Part steps through the development feasibility analysis that was used to arrive at many of the
preliminary recommendations offered in this Housing Action Plan.
Page 61 of 195
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 30
To inform preliminary recommendations about the development standards and affordable
housing programs that can support more market rate and affordable housing, we evaluated the
development feasibility of several development types (or prototypes) using some limited
development feasibility analysis and sensitivity testing that did not include public infrastructure-
related development standards. Development feasibility analysis allows
us to analyze and test the impacts that result from various changes to
development standards and incentive programs. Along with data
analysis and public engagement, development feasibility analysis is the
third input to the preliminary recommendations advanced in this HAP.
However, future analysis of the public infrastructure development
standards will be required to understand the potential impacts.
This section describes the development standards and market-realistic
development examples called prototypes on which the development
standards were tested to understand the impact that these changes
could have on Auburn’s housing goals.
This section also summarizes the development feasibility analysis
methods used to arrive at some of the preliminary recommendations in
Part 4. Important information relating to data inputs and development
assumptions can be found in Part 5: Appendices.
Objectives and Focus Areas
As discussed on page 5, this HAP is driven by four objectives aimed at increasing housing
production in a relatively narrow geographic study area. However, the analysis and preliminary
recommendations outlined in this HAP fit within Auburn’s larger housing-related goals and
planning processes, which are focused citywide. However, the applicability citywide may
depend on sufficiency of infrastructure.
Three of the four objectives driving this HAP were evaluated via development feasibility
analysis, as displayed in Figure 20 below. The fourth objective, relating to anti-displacement
efforts and the preservation of affordable housing, is assessed qualitatively in Part 4 beginning
on page 49.
Figure 20. Auburn’s Housing Action Plan Objectives Evaluated via Development Feasibility Analysis
# Objective Geography Relevant Zones Housing Types
1 More Market Rate
Housing
Downtown Auburn Downtown Urban
Center (DUC) Zone
Encourage higher density
developments to produce more
market rate housing.
2 More Affordable
Housing
Downtown Auburn Downtown Urban
Center (DUC) Zone
Regulated to be affordable to
households earning less than
80% of AMI.
3 More Diverse
Housing Options
Specific Study
Area (see Figure 3)
R-5 and R-7 Zones Middle housing types including
duplexes and triplexes.
Development feasibility
analysis helps identify the
regulatory and program
preliminary
recommendations that
could most effectively
help the City encourage
more housing production
of all types.
Auburn will need more
housing units of all types,
sizes, and price points, to
meet its forecasted
population growth and to
maintain current
residents’ access to a
variety of housing options.
Page 62 of 195
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 31
Development Standards
Auburn’s zoning code specifies the development standards for each zone. Although zoning
determines the allowed uses in each zone, the zoning development standards determine the
actual form of the properties by limiting height, density, or lot coverage, and by requiring
certain amounts of landscaping, parking, and recreational spaces. As
described in the next section, this analysis evaluated development
prototypes that could occur on a wide range of sites across the
study areas evaluated. During this project, the consultant team
engaged with staff from the Building Services and Development
Engineering Services areas of the Community Development
Department to better understand the impact of additional
regulations beyond standards in the development code.
This analysis did not evaluate site-specific infrastructure or other regulatory requirements –
such as complete street improvements, utility improvements, or transit services – that could be
required or needed on a site-specific basis. While site-specific infrastructure is an important
consideration contributing to the cost for each development project, generalizing it in a
prototypical analysis does not produce useful insights because it could vary widely from one
development to another and in some cases are not feasible due to the scope of infrastructure
needed.
Figure 21 below identifies the zoning development standards that are relevant for the structure
of high-density residential properties (both affordable and market rate) in downtown Auburn,
as well as middle housing properties in the R-5 and R-7 Zones.
Figure 21. Select Residential Zoning Development Standards
Source: ECONorthwest Analysis of Auburn Municipal Code
Development Standard DUC Zone R-5 Zone R-7 Zone
Maximum Residential Density Base limit: 2 FAR*
With bonus: 3.5 FAR
5 dwelling units per
acre
7 dwelling units
per acre
Maximum Height 75 ft. 35 ft. 35 ft.
Maximum Impervious Coverage N/A 65% 75%
Minimum Landscape Coverage 0% 0% 0%
Minimum Lot Area Per Dwelling
Unit N/A 4,500 sq. ft. 4,300 sq. ft.
Allowed Residential Uses Multifamily and Mixed-
Use Single Family Single Family and
Duplex
Residential Parking Ratio Min. 1 stall per
dwelling unit
2 stalls per unit for duplexes (4 stalls total)
1.5 stalls per unit for triplexes (up to 2
bedrooms each, round to 5 stalls total)
Retail Parking Ratio Min. 2 stalls per 1,000
sq. ft. of retail space N/A N/A
Restaurant Parking Ratio 0.5 stalls per 4 seats N/A N/A
Structured Parking Requirement None N/A N/A
What is Middle Housing?
In this analysis, the term
middle housing refers to
duplexes and triplexes.
See example renderings
on page 39.
Page 63 of 195
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 32
*Notes: Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is the ratio of total floor area (all floors within the walls of a building) to the total lot size.
Areas devoted to vents, shafts, light courts, loading and unloading facilities, and parking are excluded from the floor area.
The development standards outlined in Figure 21 dictate what can be built. These standards
affect building mass and development footprints in Auburn, and thus impact the overall value
of potential development. For example, reducing the parking ratio (the number of off-street
parking stalls required per unit) allows a developer to increase the value of a property, by using
the space previously dedicated to parking to build and rent more units on a site.
Changes to these standards can increase or decrease the potential
value of a property and thus impact overall development feasibility.
Because of the potential to add value, these changes can be “given” to
developers, typically in exchange for a public benefit or to encourage a
development type that the City desires but the market is not delivering
(e.g., podium construction, or regulated affordable housing).
Infill residential developments in the City of Auburn are also guided by
Chapter 18.25 of the Auburn Municipal Code. It allows added flexibility
in development standards to encourage more development of
underutilized parcels. It applies to R-5 and R-7 Zones, as well as to
other residential zones (i.e., R-10, R-16, and R-20 Zones). However, the
provisions of infill residential standards are not directly evaluated in the
analysis below. The existing infill development standards do not allow
the housing types at the residential densities necessary to advance
these preliminary recommendations. Still, the preliminary
recommendations that follow are relevant and point to a need to
change both residential development standards and the infill residential standards.9
Development Feasibility Methods
We used a financial pro forma model to estimate the impact on the feasibility of development
from hypothetical changes to the City of Auburn’s regulations.
More specifically, this analysis evaluates the residual land value (RLV) to understand
development feasibility and the value that a change to development standards or tax
abatements might provide. RLV is an estimate of what a developer would be willing to pay for
land given the property’s income from leases or sales, the cost of construction, and the
investment returns needed to attract capital for the project. While there are other quantitative
9 Examples of residential zones and infill standards to support middle housing standards can be found at these links:
https://www.oregon.gov/lcd/UP/Documents/OAR660046%20EXHIBIT%20B%20-
%20Large%20Cities%20Middle%20Housing%20Model%20Code%2020201209.pdf
https://olympiawa.gov/~/media/Files/CPD/Planning/Housing-Code/HousingCode-OPC-Rec-Summary.pdf?la=en
https://www.lakestevenswa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/8507/1081-Infill-Regulations
Reducing Parking
Requirements
Reducing parking
requirements can be an
effective way to increase
housing options, improve
affordability, and increase
development feasibility.
However, reductions in
parking requirements
should be considered
along with potential
mitigations such as
Transportation Demand
Management strategies,
on-street parking
management, or flexible
on-site and off-site
parking options.
Page 64 of 195
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 33
methods for calculating regulatory and incentive changes, such as an internal rate of return
(IRR) threshold approach, all the potential methods share drawbacks regarding the quality of
inputs and sensitivity to those inputs. An advantage of the RLV approach is that it does not rely
on land prices as an input. Rather, observed land prices can be compared with the model
outputs to help calibrate the model and ensure it reflects reality.
Because RLV is essentially a land budget, a higher RLV relative to land prices indicates better
development feasibility. For example, in Auburn, typical land prices are between $45 and $65
per square foot in the DUC Zone. So, prototypes that have an RLV below $45 per square foot
would be unlikely to develop (without free or discounted land, other changes to development
standards, or new financial incentives), whereas prototypes that exceed the typical land prices
are much more likely to develop.
Figure 22 demonstrates, for illustrative purposes only, how RLV results are presented and
compared to existing land prices. In this example, each scenario needs to meet or exceed
current land price thresholds (identified in green), for the scenario development to be feasible.
A scenario falling within the green box indicates project feasibility would depend more on the
price of a specific parcel than on other changes to development standards.
Figure 22. Illustration of Residual Land Value Per Square Foot
Source: ECONorthwest
Page 65 of 195
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 34
To conduct this analysis, 2019 and 2020 real estate data inputs were gathered10 from multiple
sources including CoStar, Redfin, RS Means, the King County Assessor,11 and various interviews
with local developers and real estate experts. Data include building program assumptions (e.g.,
unit mix, parking ratios, floor heights), operating assumptions (e.g., sales prices, rents, vacancy,
operating costs), development cost assumptions (e.g., hard costs, soft costs), and valuation
metrics (e.g., return on cost and yield thresholds). The initial results were tested against actual
recent projects and land prices.
The RLV pro forma analysis was modeled for the prototypes that conform to Auburn’s current
development standards. The model also includes additional prototypes that do NOT conform
to the City of Auburn’s development standards to demonstrate the financial impact of such
changes. The financial value of each prototype under a set of development standards is heavily
dependent on the assumptions used in the pro forma analysis (listed in the Appendix). Thus,
the most relevant insights from the analysis come from comparing the results for one prototype
across changes to development standards.
Analyzed Prototypes
Six prototypes were selected to assess the impacts of changing different development
standards in this analysis. These six prototypes were tested on lots sizes that are representative
of the existing lot patterns and existing lot sizes in the DUC Zone, the R-5 Zone, and the R-7
zone for the study area referenced in Figure 3.
Podium Apartments
The development standards in the DUC Zone make podium construction
the most obvious housing type to build. The height limit (75 feet) and
parking requirements (1 stall per unit) in the DUC Zone are suitable for a
5-over-2 prototype in which five residential floors are located above two
floors of concrete structured parking. The ground floor programming
would include a main lobby, retail space, and/or structured parking. Also,
street-level retail and structured parking area help achieve the bonus
residential density (3.4 FAR). See an example in Figure 23.
Podium apartments are assumed to have a mix of studio, 1-bedroom, and
2-bedroom units. Market data show they are likely to rent at $1,850, on
average ($1,500 for studio, $1,690 for 1-bedroom, and $2,190 for 2-
bedroom). This analysis assumes that podium prototypes are located on a
10 The real estate data collected in 2019 and 2020 reflect market conditions before the economic impacts of COVID-
19. The pandemic and economic recession are likely to impact development viability in multiple ways. The results of
this analysis presented in this memo do not reflect these effects and likely future reality.
11 A very small portion of the City of Auburn is located in Pierce County, but this portion falls outside our study area
(see the study area map on page 6 so data were not collected from the Pierce County Assessor.
Podium construction
prototypes have four or
five wood frame
residential stories over
one or more concrete
floors.
A 7-story building
would likely be a “5-
over-2” prototype with
five wood frame
residential floors over
two concrete floors.
A 5-story building
would likely be a “4-
over-1” prototype with
four wood frame
residential floors over
one concrete floor.
Page 66 of 195
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 35
60,000-square-feet lot, have up to 6,000 square feet of commercial area, and 226 dwelling
units.12
Figure 23. Example of a 5-over-2 Podium Development with Structured Parking
Source: Teutsch Partners; Location: Auburn Town Center Apartments, Auburn, WA
Micro Units
Another high-density multifamily building that can be built in downtown Auburn (DUC Zone) is
an apartment with micro units. Based on a comparison of nearby real estate markets with micro
units, they tend to have about 220 square feet of living area that would be sufficient for a
queen-sized bed, a private bathroom, and a kitchenette – similar to hotel rooms. Shared
laundry facilities and kitchens are available. See an example in Figure 24.
Because this 4-story prototype is targeted for transit-dependent workers who oftentimes are
not car-dependent, the City’s development standards would need to reduce parking
requirements for this prototype. Transportation demand management (TDM) strategies could
be required for development projects that take advantage of lower parking allowances. Some
cities require TDM plans for development projects that are permitted with lower parking ratios.
This analysis assumes initially that this prototype would be located on a 15,000-square-feet lot,
have no on-site parking, and have 155 dwelling units, resulting in a 3.4 FAR. Further sensitivity
12 Although the podium apartment (5-over-2) prototype is similar in shape to The Verge that was recently completed
in downtown Auburn, its financial feasibility will be different because the material and construction costs for future
projects are expected to be much higher than the costs assumed for developments that are under construction or
recently opened.
Page 67 of 195
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 36
test is conducted to show the tradeoff between parking requirement and unit production.
Market data shows that the possible rent for micro units could be slightly under $1,000, which
would be affordable to single person households earning about 60% of the King County MFI.13
These market-rate units are “naturally affordable” because they do not need regulatory
restrictions from government funding sources to be affordable to lower-income households.
Figure 24. Example of an Apartment Building with Micro Units
Source: CoStar; Location: 162TEN Apartments, Redmond, WA
13 MFI limits for micro units correspond to 0 bedroom and 1 bedroom units identified in the King County 2018 Income
and Rent Limits – Multifamily Rental Housing. King County uses 1.5 persons per bedroom to determine the
household size and corresponding rent limits.
Page 68 of 195
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 37
Micro Units and Housing Affordability
Micro units can increase housing affordability in downtown Auburn by virtue of the very small
size of units and by increasing the overall supply of housing. This type of housing can be one
component of a wider array of solutions aimed at more housing choices, and housing options
at different price points.
However, it is important to note that the likely demand for these types of units come from
smaller (1-person) households. And because they are unregulated, the rents can change over
time.
While these units can provide increased affordability, this type of development is not
necessarily a solution to the wider issue of providing more affordable housing for a diverse
range of Auburn residents – with so little square footage, micro units are not generally
desirable for families.
Page 69 of 195
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 38
Middle Housing Types
This analysis includes four additional prototypes: duplexes and triplexes developed for both
ownership and rental.
A duplex development consists of two units sharing a wall, and each unit having access to
covered parking in a single-car garage and uncovered parking on the shared driveway. The
driveways and balconies of both units face the street. Duplexes are modeled on 5,000-square-
foot lots, resulting in a lot size per unit of 2,500 square feet.14 The selection for this lot size was
informed by the minimum lot area in the zoning code, which is 4,500 square feet in the R-5
Zone and 4,300 square feet in the R-7 Zone. Because a majority of lots in R-5 and R-7 Zones
within the study area are larger than 5,000 square feet, the selection of a relatively small lot size
ensures the feasibility test considers even more challenging development circumstances.
§ For-sale units are assumed to have 3 bedrooms, an average of 1,514 square feet of
space, and are modeled to sell at $360,000 per unit.
§ Rental units are assumed to have 2 bedrooms, an average of 1,255 square feet of
space, and are modeled to rent at $2,300 per unit.
A triplex development consists of three units constructed side-by-side so that one unit shares
two walls with other units. Each unit in a triplex has access to a single-car garage, with
additional parking is available in the rear of the lot. Where alley access is available, additional
parking may be accessed through the alley. Triplexes are modeled on a 7,500-square-foot lot,
which is the median size in the R-7 Zone (the median lot size is larger in R-5 Zone.)
§ For-sale units are assumed to have 3 bedrooms, an average of 1,466 square feet of
space, and are modeled to sell at about $338,000 per unit.
§ Rental units are assumed to have 2 bedrooms, an average of 1,203 square feet of
space, and are modeled to rent at $2,160 per unit.
From a developer’s perspective, duplexes and triplexes can be desirable because they utilize
the lot more efficiently, which results in lower costs, more attainable price points, and greater
demand. Shared wall and utility lines entering the lot increase development efficiency.
Meanwhile, the construction costs of duplexes and triplexes are not higher than those of
single-family houses. However, duplexes and triplexes could trigger a few additional
development requirements such as storm water management due to greater percentage
impervious surface. These additional development requirements are likely to be site specific
and will not apply evenly to all R-5 and R-7 development prototypes evaluated in this analysis.
Additionally, there is likely a broader market demand for middle housing types that can be
built as fee simple housing (housing units on individual lots) as opposed to middle housing
types that can be built as condominiums. Potential home buyers oftentimes prefer fee simple
housing over condominiums that require homeowner associations (HOA) and associated HOA
14 Duplex and triplex housing types as ownership can be delivered as both condo ownership or fee simple ownership.
Page 70 of 195
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 39
fees. Builders of these housing types also generally prefer fee simple development over condo
development because of reductions in risk exposure.
Figure 25. Massing Diagram of Duplex Building Type
Source: SERA Architects
Page 71 of 195
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 40
Page 72 of 195
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 41
Figure 26. Massing Diagram of Triplex Building Type
Source: SERA Architects
Page 73 of 195
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 42
Development Feasibility Results
Market Rate Housing in DUC Zone
The podium apartment prototype is generally suitable for the DUC, Downtown Urban Center
Zone. A 5-over-2 building can have 226 units, some street-level retail space, and sufficient
structured parking to provide one parking stall for each residential unit. There likely exists
market demand for these rental apartments with a relatively low parking ratio (compared to
that of single-family housing types) due to a limited increment of transit access at the Sounder
station in the DUC Zone. Recent developments, including the Verge Apartments, are evidence
of the prototype’s feasibility in the DUC Zone at the time of their application.
However, steep increases in construction costs in the past few years will likely hamper further
development of podium apartments. Based on today’s construction costs,15 the residual land
15 Construction cost data were accessed in fall 2020.
Page 74 of 195
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 43
value (RLV) of a podium apartment prototype is $19.7 per square foot, well below current land
costs, which range between $45 and $65 per square foot in Auburn. This finding is consistent
with similar findings in other cities in South King County. In Auburn a 22% increase in rents
would be necessary to support podium-style development without any subsidies given current
market conditions and land prices.16
In contrast, reducing the total construction cost by 5% in the model results in an RLV of $75.8
per square foot. The difference in RLV is equivalent to $3.37 million (= [$75.8 - $19.7] x 60,000
square foot) in the value of the podium project. Development of podium apartments is likely to
be challenging until market dynamics change overtime, rents increase to overcome high
construction costs, or construction costs decrease.
Although the City of Auburn cannot influence construction costs, it can improve the feasibility
of podium projects by making regulatory changes. Reducing the parking requirements and
increasing the allowed density (FAR) are two of many ways the City can encourage the
continued production of market rate housing through podium development:
§ Reducing the parking ratio from 1.0 stalls per unit to 0.8 stalls per unit can increase the
RLV on a podium prototype from $19.7 to $67.0 per square foot.
§ Requiring fewer parking stalls allows more units to be added. In this scenario, the
maximum bonus density (FAR) would have to increase from 3.5 to 4.3.
Figure 27 compares the development feasibility of the three scenarios mentioned above.
Based on today’s construction costs and expected market rent (Base Scenario), podium
apartments are not feasible because the RLV is not high enough to pay for land in the DUC
Zone. This pro forma analysis found that a 5% reduction in construction costs would make the
podium apartment feasible.
Finally, podium prototypes can become feasible if parking requirements were reduced and
maximum bonus density was increased. Reducing the parking ratio increases the total number
of residents and units in the podium apartment without changing the total parking area.
Adding an additional unit without additional parking increases the net operating income of the
building far beyond the combined costs of construction, taxes, and fees.
16 South King County Subregional Housing Framework Feasibility Analysis Tool; https://econw.shinyapps.io/south-
kc-policy-analysis-tool/
Page 75 of 195
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 44
Figure 27. Feasibility of Market Rate Housing in 5-Over-2 Podium Apartments
Affordable Housing in DUC Zone
There are two ways the City of Auburn can encourage the production of more affordable units
in the DUC Zone.
§ The City can mandate affordable housing requirements through an inclusionary housing
(IH) program, which would require 20% of units to be affordable to households earning
below a certain income level.17
§ The City can make regulatory changes necessary to allow the development of micro
units, which would be “naturally affordable,” meaning their market-rate rents would be
affordable to lower-income households without regulations stipulating affordability.
Inclusionary Housing (IH): An IH program would generate regulated apartments in which 20%
of the units in the building would be accessible for households that earn less than 80% of AMI.
Because this requirement would reduce the average rent from $1,850 to $1,700 for 20% of
units, the RLV would become negative (-$2.6 per square foot), meaning the project would not
be feasible even with free land. This analysis indicates that inclusionary housing, without
incentives to off-set the negative impacts of the affordability requirement, is not feasible.
17 Although the City can choose to designate an affordability set-aside higher or lower than 20% of the units, the
20% requirement is used for this analysis because the 12-year Multifamily Tax Exemption program requires at least
20% of units to be affordable.
Page 76 of 195
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 45
One mechanism that the City of Auburn can use to improve the feasibility of a project with the
IH program is to award the 12-year Multifamily Tax Exemption (MFTE) for projects that
participate in the IH program. Washington State allows its cities to provide property tax
exemptions on multifamily housing properties. Eight (8) years of property tax exemption is
available for all qualifying multifamily properties and 12 years of property tax exemption is
available for those that have income- and rent-restricted units. As Figure 28 shows, adding the
12-year MFTE program to the podium apartment prototype with an active IH program would
increase the RLV to $75.7 per square foot, above the typical land prices.
Figure 28. Feasibility of 5-Over-2 Podium Apartments with IH and MFTE
Micro Units: A relatively novel approach to increasing the availability of affordable units in the
DUC Zone is encouraging the development of micro units. Although they do not currently exist
in Auburn and are not a type of housing the City of Auburn is familiar with, they exist in other
urban areas with good access to transit because they provide affordable housing opportunities
for small, lower-income households that want to live in urban environments. Because the
market rent for micro units is expected to be slightly below $1,000 a month18, they can be
affordable to households earning 60% of AMI without any regulatory restrictions or
requirements. Moreover, unlike the IH or MFTE programs, all market rate units would be
affordable to households earning 50% of AMI. However, any one- or two-person household
18 The estimate for rents is based on existing properties in other nearby markets, such as Columbia City (Seattle) and
Redmond, because there are no micro units in Auburn.
Page 77 of 195
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 46
can reside in these units because there are no income restrictions. And, because there are no
rent restrictions, the rent could increase above $1,000 over time.
Assuming no on-site parking is required, the micro unit prototype can achieve 155 units and
3.4 FAR with only four floors and its RLV is estimated at $152 per square foot, well above the
land value for the DUC Zone. The City would need to exempt this housing type from on-site
parking requirements to generate the maximum utilization of the lot area. But, because the
value of such development is very high, the City could also require public benefit contributions
that do not take up buildable area, such as vertical public art installations.
However, if exempting parking requirements for a development type is difficult or not
preferred, micro units could still be feasible with some on-site parking. Sensitivity test of the
parking requirement reveals that having 0.5 parking stalls per unit would result in an RLV of $48
per square foot, barely within the range of typical land prices in the DUC Zone. Notably, as
Figure 29 shows, 95 “naturally affordable” micro units could be lost by increasing the parking
requirement from 0 stalls to 0.5 stalls per unit.
In order for a micro unit prototype to be feasible on most lots in the DUC Zone, parking
requirement would need to be reduced to 0.3 stalls per unit. Still, this policy option would
produce about half the number of units possible without a parking requirement.
Figure 29. Sensitivity Test of Parking Requirement in Micro Units Prototype
Page 78 of 195
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 47
Middle Housing Types
Two changes to the zoning code are required to allow duplex and triplex housing types in R-5
and R-7 Zones. First, the allowed uses in R-5 Zone must be changed to allow duplexes and
triplexes, and the allowed uses in R-7 Zone must be changed to allow triplexes (duplexes are
currently allowed in R-7 Zone). To achieve middle housing outcomes recommended in this
section, the City’s Infill Residential Development Standards in Chapter 18.25 must also be
modified to accommodate middle housing as infill development.
Second, the maximum residential density must be increased from the existing standard to 17.4
dwelling units per acre (du/ac). On small lots (5,000 square feet for duplexes and 7,500 square
feet for triplexes), duplexes and triplexes can reach up to 17.4 du/ac, though they can be built
on larger lots with lower residential density. Relatedly, minimum lot size per unit, which is
inversely related to residential density, will need to be lowered. The changes to residential
density and minimum lot size must also be reflected in the infill residential development
standards.
Modifications of other development standards (e.g., maximum height, minimum landscape
coverage, setbacks, etc.) were not tested in the model because the current standards are much
less likely to be barriers to development feasibility.
Alternatively, the City could choose to instead apply the current R-16 Zone in areas where
middle housing types would be desired. The current R-16 zone exists as a zone within the code
but is not currently mapped anywhere in the City. If Auburn were to choose re-mapping current
R-5 and R-7 Zoned areas to allow middle housing through the R-16 zones, the city should also
consider increasing density allowances to allow 18 dwelling units per acre which is the density
level necessary to support middle housing types evaluated as part of this analysis. The City
could also choose to allow the R-16 (at 18 dwelling units per acre) within the existing
comprehensive plan designations that would allow for a zoning designation change consistent
with the comprehensive plan designations. However, this approach would add additional
process that would likely limit production of these housing types and increase time and costs
associated with the zone change process.
Even with the changes to the development standards, the current market prices and rents for
new duplex and triplex units are not high enough to support their development in R-5 and R-7
Zones in the middle housing study area today. Blue bars in Figure 30 show the four prototypes
modeled in the analysis generate RLV ranging from $11 to $22 per square foot. However, the
median land cost is $36 per square foot in R-5 Zone and $40 per square foot in R-7 Zone. The
expected financial value of converting a single-family property on R-5 or R-7 Zone to a duplex
or a triplex building is not high enough to justify redevelopment. Even with reduced parking
requirement – to 1 stall per unit – the RLV is simply not high enough. Based on current market
prices, duplex and triplex developments are feasible on vacant sites across the City of Auburn
where the typical land value is closer to $6 per square foot.
Page 79 of 195
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 48
Figure 30. Feasibility of Duplex and Triplex Developments
Page 80 of 195
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 49
Part 4: Preliminary Recommendations
& Implementation Steps
This Part describes 17 policy and program preliminary recommendations and an implementation
roadmap for the City to consider as Auburn works toward increasing housing supply over the next
20 years.
Page 81 of 195
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 50
Preliminary Recommendations
A) Encourage Market Rate Development Downtown
Market rate housing is typically affordable to households earning above 80% of AMI. These are
often new, high-amenity apartments in areas that are targeted for growth and have good
transit access. Several podium apartments, including a project for senior living, have been
constructed in downtown Auburn in the past few years.
Auburn’s zoning code and development standards do not present many barriers to the physical
development of this type of housing. Only small changes are needed (presented as preliminary
recommendations below) that will allow a developer to maximize the efficiency of the land and
achieve a scale that makes the project financing feasible.
While physical limitations are not a big barrier, there are financing barriers due to current
construction costs and Auburn’s current rental market. In the near-term, development of
market-rate podium apartments is challenged due to high construction costs. Although the
development of podium apartments in the downtown area is desirable because it allows more
households to live near transit and other urban amenities, development of this higher-density
prototype is likely to be challenging until market dynamics change overtime, rents increase to
overcome high construction costs, or construction costs decrease.
A1) Reduce Parking Requirements to Support Development in Downtown Auburn
See development feasibility analysis on page 42.
Rationale
To encourage more market-rate podium apartments in downtown
Auburn, the City should consider allowing denser housing
construction by reducing the parking requirement to 0.8 stalls per
unit AND increasing the maximum FAR (with bonus density) to 4.3
FAR (see Preliminary recommendation A2). To encourage more
development, the parking reduction must be paired with an
increase in the allowable FAR in the DUC Zone and should also be
paired with the considerations described below.
These changes are needed to achieve the unit density that is
feasible in today’s market conditions. Although the City of Auburn
cannot influence rents or construction costs in today’s market, it can
improve development feasibility via these regulatory changes.
Considerations
Reducing parking requirements is an effective way to increase
development feasibility and help the market deliver more housing units, more choices, and
As noted on page 31, parking
ratios and density limits are
development standards that
create (or subtract) potential
value for development.
Changes that increase the
overall building footprint give
value to developers.
Generally, cities like to
extract some sort of public
benefit from these
entitlements or use them to
encourage development the
City desires, but the market is
not delivering, such as podium
construction (discussed here)
or affordable housing
(discussed in Recommend-
ation B2 on page 57).
Page 82 of 195
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 51
improved affordability. However, reductions in parking requirements should be considered
along with potential mitigations such as Transportation Demand Management strategies, on-
street parking management, or flexible on-site and off-site parking options.
The reduced parking requirements will need to be balanced with a development’s proximity to
groceries, restaurants, and frequent transit service and stops/stations to attract residents who
are less likely to own automobiles. There likely are a limited number of lots in downtown
Auburn that are suitable for such development, so the City of Auburn must proactively identify
sites for future development of podium apartments.
Parking and density requirements are related. Their interaction affects what can be physically
developed on a site, which affects the potential value of the development and its feasibility:
However, impacts on transportation system also need to be considered to facilitate increases in
density.
§ Reducing the parking requirement alone is insufficient to encourage podium
construction. Requiring fewer parking stalls per unit might not result in more units if the
building is already near the allowable density limit in the Code.
§ Increasing density alone is insufficient to encourage podium construction. Allowing
more units on a typical lot may not matter if a large portion of the site must be
dedicated to a high parking ratio.
Next Steps
Building on the development feasibility analysis offered in this HAP, the City should consider
the following next steps as it works toward implementing this preliminary recommendation:
§ The City should work with developers and city’s current planning, public works,
economic development, and police staff to understand the physical and financial
opportunities and barriers related to satisfying current parking requirements Downtown
including infrastructure needs beyond those supporting the development.
§ The City planning, public works, economic development, and police should work with
property owners in the areas where parking reductions might be recommended to
understand the potential impacts that reductions in parking requirements might have
on surrounding areas.
§ The City could pair reductions in parking requirements with the requirement for
development projects to include transportation demand management strategies such
as providing transit passes to tenants, requiring the project to restrict units without
parking to residents without vehicles, and provide a project-sponsored vehicle share
program.
§ The City could explore parking management strategies and the resources to implement
these strategies that can be implemented in Downtown Auburn to manage the on-
street parking inventory to support development in the district. The evaluation should
also include resources to efficiently manage parking in the nearby area and possible
oversight of private parking.
Page 83 of 195
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 52
A2) Offer a Density Bonus to Support Denser Residential Development and Mixed-Income
Housing in Downtown Auburn
See development feasibility analysis on page 42.
Rationale
As mentioned in the prior preliminary recommendation, the City of Auburn should also
increase the maximum residential density (with bonus density) to 4.3:1 floor area ratio (FAR) to
allow more units to be built on each lot in downtown.
As it works toward encouraging more housing development to meet the housing needs of
current and future residents, Auburn will need denser housing. To achieve denser
developments, the maximum residential FAR in the DUC Zone should be increased to support
efficient development types that can advance multiple objectives in Downtown. Like parking
reductions, allowing increased residential density on a site is an entitlement that the City can
provide to developers to achieve desired development and community outcomes.
Considerations
As noted in Preliminary recommendation A1, a FAR bonus that does not relieve properties of
the required parking ratio will not yield more dwelling units because they cannot physically fit
on the site.
Increasing density allowances is an effective way to increase development feasibility and help
the market deliver more housing units, more choices, and improved affordability.
In addition to encouraging podium development, density bonuses can be offered in exchange
for the public benefit of regulated affordability in mixed-income developments. This is
discussed in Preliminary recommendation B2 on page 57.
Next Steps
§ The City should consider modifying existing density bonuses, and related development
standards, to allow for up to 4.3 FAR.
§ The City should modify the density bonus allowances to work in coordination with
reduced parking requirements. Additional floor area that can be accessed through a
density bonus is only achievable when parking requirements are aligned to not force
parking into financially infeasible underground parking facilities.
§ The city should have a process to periodically assess the financial feasibility of market
rate housing in downtown to calibrate development feasibility in relation to FAR and
bonus provisions and the requirement for any public benefit such as affordable housing.
Page 84 of 195
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 53
A3) Promote Lot Aggregation in Downtown Auburn
Rationale
Some smaller lots in Downtown Auburn will need to be consolidated to be developed with the
desired higher density podium development. The structured parking area of podium
apartments usually requires at least half of a city block to have efficient circulation of
automobiles. Because the acquisition of adjacent lots for redevelopment can take advanced
planning and time, strategic planning efforts by the City may be necessary to deliver market
rate housing more quickly.
One element of overcoming development obstacles created by existing parcel configuration is
through allowing shared parking across property lines.
Considerations
The City could consider allowing shared parking between developments to support more
efficient lot assembly. Shared parking would allow parking requirements to be met either
between new development projects, or across existing development projects with
underutilized parking capacity. While there are current provisions to allow for shared parking in
City Code, the code should be modified to expand provisions for shared parking with the
specific goal of supporting shared parking in Downtown Auburn for residential uses.19
The City could encourage or require shared parking agreements to maximize utilization of the
off-street parking inventory in Downtown Auburn by sharing spaces between daytime
(employment) and nighttime (residential) uses.
Next Steps
§ Explore opportunities to support and negotiate shared parking agreements between
different property owners in Downtown. Downtown Auburn currently has a supply of
off-street parking that could be more efficiently utilized if this existing parking supply
could be shared with other uses and developments Downtown.
§ Explore allowing developers to “pool” parking requirements that can be in other
nearby development projects to support development on smaller lots or to facilitate
site assembly.
§ Consider expanding city code provisions which allow parking requirements to be
satisfied off-site pursuant to ACC 18.52.050(A)(2) to include residential uses in the DUC
zone when the site is legally encumbered by appropriate means to ensure continuous
use and where pedestrian connection/linkage is provided within a reasonable walking
distance of the site.
19 Examples of shared parking strategies can be found at the links below:
https://urbanland.uli.org/news/uli-releases-new-edition-of-shared-parking/
https://eugene.municipal.codes/EC/9.6400
https://crcog.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Ch08_Technical_Part1_Parking.pdf
Page 85 of 195
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 54
§ Evaluate extending existing code provisions in Table ACC 18.52.030, 'Parking Quantity
Reductions', for instances of different peak parking demands, mixed occupancies, and
for proximity to frequent transit service to apply within the DUC zone.
A4) Explore Fee Waivers for Targeted Development Types in Downtown Auburn
Rationale
One way of encouraging more housing development in Downtown Auburn, is by reducing the
cost of development. Ongoing costs like property taxes and up-front costs like impact fees or
permitting fees, contribute to a property’s overall development costs which need to be paid for
via rental revenues or housing sales prices. By reducing, waiving, or allowing fees to be
financed and repaid over time, the City can help to reduce development costs and encourage
more housing production. Lower development costs can also translate to lower rents and sales
prices and be part of a strategy to encourage affordable housing.
Considerations
There are numerous considerations to make when determining if a fee waiver (or reduction or
financing) program is appropriate.
§ The City does not control or oversee all the various fees levied on a new property. The
city may collect the fees on behalf of another entity, or it may share fees with special
purpose districts or school districts, reducing its ability to implement such a program.
Examples are certain impact fees or regional sewer treatment plant fees.
§ Development and permitting fees add costs to development but also pay for essential
services provided by City staff and municipal infrastructure that are not funded by any
other sources. Reduction of fees will likely require a reduction in services elsewhere
within the City.
§ Conversations around fee waivers must carefully balance the need to fund staff and
infrastructure and the value of reducing costs for a development. For example, if
waived, the City of Auburn’s transportation impact fees could be required to be paid
from City general funds, so this creates both foregone fee revenue and a reduction in
the City’s budget to replace the costs of the fee waiver and a likely reduction in City
services due to the current deficit of the city general fund.
§ Reducing fees creates value for the developer and property owner. This value could be
exchanged for a public benefit desired by the community. Often fee waiver programs
are offered for specific development types that a city wants to see but the market is not
developing, or they are provided in exchange for some sort of public benefit (e.g.,
public plazas, affordable housing units, etc.).
Next Steps
§ The City should only pursue fee waivers when it is determined that the program will not
have negative impacts on the overall city financial condition and will not have negative
impacts on the delivery of City services or the operations and maintenance of existing
infrastructure systems.
Page 86 of 195
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 55
§ Evaluate the opportunities to update city code to enable partial fee waivers, up to 80%
of fees, that does not require local government funding to backfill the exempted
portion of the fee consistent with recent authorized legislation in RCW 82.020.060(3).20
§ While the City has recently removed, or let sunset, previous fee waiver programs for the
Downtown Catalyst and Downtown Plan Areas, fee waivers are a tool that could be
considered in the future when/if the City’s financial environment changes.
B) Encourage Affordable Housing Downtown
While increasing the total stock of housing units is an important factor for improving housing
affordability in a regional market, increasing the stock of affordable housing options – both
regulated and unregulated – will have a quicker and more direct impact on the overall
affordability of housing in Auburn. The City of Auburn can directly encourage more affordable
housing in a couple of ways, detailed below.
B1) Create Policies to Lower the Cost of Affordable Housing Development
Rationale
There are many programs and policies that the City of Auburn can explore to help lower the
costs of affordable housing development. Some will require meaningful funding (such as grant
programs), or staff time (such as a low-cost loan program), but others can be done through the
improvements to City processes (such as expedited entitlement programs or reduced
permitting fees). In addition, strong partnerships with existing mission-oriented developers
(those who only or primarily build and operate affordable housing), community-based
organizations, and regional funders, can go far in building a supportive network for affordable
housing development.
Considerations
If the City of Auburn wants more affordable housing development in
the DUC Zone, it should make every effort to support developers
seeking to build. A few example programs worth exploring include:
§ Expedited or simplified development review processes. Some
cities offer expedited or simplified development and permitting
processes specifically for affordable housing projects. This can
speed up the development process, which reduces a
developer’s carrying costs.
§ Reduced permitting costs. The City could offer reduced
permitting costs to reduce the overall cost of development when they will not have
negative impacts on the city financial condition and will not have negative impacts on
20 https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=82.02.060
Because almost all new
real estate development
is funded by loans,
developers pay interest on
these loans while the
project is being permitted
and built. The interest on
these loans is referred to
as a carrying cost and
must be repaid, adding to
the overall cost of
development.
Page 87 of 195
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 56
the delivery of City services or maintenance of existing infrastructure systems. See a
larger discussion of this in Preliminary recommendation A4 on page 54.
§ Grants or low-cost loans for development. Rather than starting a grant or lending
program (which requires a lot of program rulemaking and staff effort to run), Auburn
could partner with other jurisdictions and regional entities already offering these types
of programs. A few examples include the South King County Housing and
Homelessness Partnership (SKHHP), the Regional Equitable Development Initiative
(REDI) Fund, or the Sound Transit Revolving Loan Fund. Also, Auburn is already
partnering with SKHHP and putting SHB 1406 sales tax credit revenues towards a
regional housing capital fund.
Next Steps
§ While the City of Auburn’s development review process is relatively streamlined and
less time intensive compared to other jurisdictions in the Puget Sound, the City could
choose to offer an expedited permitting for both regulated affordable housing
developments as well as market rate housing developments that include below market
rate units as part of mixed-income development.
§ The City could offer reduced permitting costs specifically to non-profit affordable
housing developers and other regulated housing development across the City. An
analysis should be prepared for the City to take a deep dive into permitting costs, what
can and cannot be waived/reduced, and the connection between fees and impact on
affordable housing development.
§ The City should partner with other government agencies to access and leverage
existing affordable housing funding mechanisms. Auburn is currently partnering with
SKHHP and has contributed SHB 1406 funds to SKHHP's housing capital fund. During
Spring 2021, the SKHHP Executive Board will be developing an administration program
for the SKHHP Housing Capital Fund. This includes identifying priorities and an
application and allocation process for jurisdictional partners. Auburn also currently
directs HB 1406 funds to SKHHP and has deferred to King County for the HB 1590
funds since Auburn didn’t adopt a local ordinance.
Page 88 of 195
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 57
B2) Consider a Voluntary Inclusionary Housing Program Paired with a Development Bonus
See development feasibility analysis on page 44.
Rationale
The City could consider regulating housing affordability through a
voluntary inclusionary housing program. Voluntary inclusionary
housing programs require new developments (of a certain size or in a
certain location) to include a portion of their units as regulated
affordable housing – restricted so that households of various incomes
can afford to live there – in exchange for incentives such as density
bonuses, parking reductions, or tax exemptions. A program in the
DUC Zone would likely target 10-20% of units in a development to be
set aside for households earning less than 80% of AMI. This would
result in new, affordable units in downtown Auburn that lower-income
households can immediately access and that would be rent restricted
into the future creating longer-term affordable housing. Current
market dynamics in Auburn can likely not support a broad mandatory
inclusionary housing requirement.
Auburn could explore a voluntary inclusionary housing program that
requires affordable units in exchange for participation in an MFTE
program or increases in density allowances. This could be an effective
tool to support the creation of long-term affordable housing through
mixed-income development in Downtown Auburn. However, for an
inclusionary housing program to be effective, the City would need to
package affordable housing obligations with financial incentives,
regulatory incentives such as reductions to parking standards or bonus
entitlements (e.g., increased height and density limits), or process
improvements.
Considerations
Without development or financial incentives that offset the lost revenue from requiring
affordable units in a new development, inclusionary housing policies decrease development
feasibility and can negatively impact housing production.
To overcome this obstacle, the City would need to pair an inclusionary housing program with a
benefit to developers that helps to overcome the lost revenues. Generally, this type of benefit
can come in as a financial incentive (directly offsetting the lost revenues) or as a regulatory
incentive (allowing more floor area to be constructed thereby adding value to the
development).
§ Financial Incentives: In addition to the financing programs outlined in the prior
preliminary recommendation B1, the City could consider adopting a 12-year multifamily
What is inclusionary
housing?
Affordable housing
requirements, often
referred to as inclusionary
housing or inclusionary
zoning, require (via a
mandatory program) or
encourage (via a voluntary
program) developers to
contribute to the public
benefit of affordable
housing.
This often takes the form
of either providing
affordable units within a
new or renovated market
rate project, building, or
renovating new affordable
housing off-site but in
conjunction with a new
market rate development
or paying a fee-in-lieu of
providing the affordable
housing on or off site.
These programs can be
mandatory or voluntary
and can apply to
residential development
as well as commercial
development.
Page 89 of 195
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 58
tax exemption (MFTE) program. Development feasibility analysis performed on Page 27
demonstrates that a 12-year MFTE program (with 20% of the unit’s set-aside for
households earning 80% of AMI in exchange for a 12-year tax exemption) is likely to
generate sufficient incentive for developers to not only develop more podium
apartments in downtown Auburn but also develop some income- and rent-restricted
units.
§ Regulatory Incentives: In addition to financial incentives, the City could offer a density
bonus that allows more housing to be physically built than would otherwise be allowed
in the Code. This creates more value for the development and helps the developer
reach the necessary scale to offset the lost revenues from the affordable units. A density
bonus and or parking reduction (as suggested in preliminary recommendations A1 and
A2) could be paired with a voluntary inclusionary housing program.
Inclusionary housing programs can either be structured as voluntary or mandatory. In a
voluntary program, developers choose to opt into the affordability requirements in exchange
for development incentives. In a mandatory program, all newly constructed properties meeting
the requirements (e.g., size or location) must participate in the program.
Current market conditions could prove challenging when implementing an effective
inclusionary housing program without a broad suite of incentives to mitigate impacts to
development feasibility. In today’s market conditions, a voluntary inclusionary housing policy is
most appropriate.
By tailoring a package of incentives to the needs of a particular type of development project,
the City can work in partnership with developers to ensure development remains financially
feasible while also achieving the community’s housing needs.
Next Steps
§ Explore the tradeoffs associated with on-site inclusionary housing obligations with other
program options such as fee-in-lieu payments that could work better with current
market conditions while also generating revenue for affordable housing more broadly
across the City.
§ Track market activity and developer perceptions. The single most important factor for
an inclusionary housing program to achieve its objectives is a significant and sustained
level of market-rate development in the local market. If a community is not currently
experiencing a material amount of new development, a voluntary inclusionary housing
policy will not generate a meaningful number of new affordable housing units.
§ Work with stakeholders (residents, associations, developers, housing advocates) to
solicit input on the priority locations, set asides, and other requirements for a potential
program if the market is supportive in the future.
§ Conduct further traffic impact analysis to determine if the incentives for a voluntary
inclusionary housing program are supported by existing infrastructure or infrastructure
needs.
Page 90 of 195
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 59
B3) Reduce Parking Requirements for Micro Units
See development feasibility analysis on page 35.
Rationale
The City of Auburn could encourage the development of
unregulated affordable housing by making the development of
micro units more feasible. As discussed in the development
feasibility analysis on page 35, these units are affordable by virtue of
their small size and are generally targeted towards small, transit-
dependent households.
The City could encourage the development of these unregulated affordable housing units by
eliminating the parking requirement - development of these units in downtown Auburn is very
feasible when no on-site parking is required. A single project with micro units can deliver 155
housing units that are affordable to single-person households earning less than 50% of AMI,
which is about $40,000 per year when adjusted for household size.21
It is also possible to encourage micro unit developments by reducing the parking requirement
to 0.3 stalls per unit, or to 0.5 stalls per unit on parcels with lower existing land values.
However, increasing the parking requirement from 0 stalls per unit reduces the total number of
housing units that can be produced. This tradeoff should not be ignored when considering
policy options to best serve the needs of lower-income households.
Considerations
Newly developed micro units in Auburn would likely rent around 60% of AMI and can offer
affordable housing options without any public subsidy. However, because they are
unregulated, the rents can increase over time. Micro units are typically marketed to small
households (one person) who primarily rely on public transit.
While these housing types can increase housing variety and choice to meet the diverse needs
of Auburn’s residents, these types of housing units are not suitable or desirable for every
household type – with so little square footage, micro units are not generally desirable for
families.
While these units can provide increased affordability, this type of development is not
necessarily a solution to the wider issue of providing more affordable housing for a diverse
range of Auburn residents. Encouraging this type of housing should be one component of a
wider array of solutions aimed at more housing choices, and housing options at different price
points.
21 $40,000 = $113,300 (2020 AMI) x 70% (HUD adjustment factor for one-person household) x 50%
Micro units are newly
constructed apartments that
are very small (about 220
square feet), have bathrooms
and kitchenettes, and come
with shared common space.
Page 91 of 195
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 60
Next Steps
§ Because current density in the DUC zone is only regulated by FAR and not by
residential densities, current development standards generally support the
development of micro units. However, if the City wanted to encourage this housing
type as a way to meet their current and future housing needs, the City should consider
reducing parking requirements to support the feasibility of this housing type as well as
to realize the production of more units. If parking is reduced or eliminated, those
dwelling units without parking should be restricted to residents without vehicles.)
§ To ensure a micro housing development with no on-site parking serves the needs of
lower-income households, the City of Auburn could choose to deed restrict a
development project that receives a full parking exemption from on-site parking
requirements to limit its tenants to those who earn less than 80% AMI. While micro units
are naturally affordable at 60% AMI, adding an affordability requirement at this level is
likely too restrictive. This approach would functionally create a voluntary inclusionary
housing approach specific to this housing type with only one regulatory incentive.
C) Encourage Middle Housing Options in R-5 and R-7 Zones
Allowing the development of duplexes and triplexes (See explanation of middle housing page
5) in areas currently zoned for single-family development can help to increase the number of
housing units available across Auburn, provide housing types that are not broadly available in
the market today, and increase housing affordability. Duplexes and triplexes can help support
housing affordability because they can both increase the total supply of housing and because
they are typically smaller than new detached single-family units and subsequently less costly to
build.
C1) Allow Duplexes and Triplexes in Single-Family Neighborhoods
See development feasibility analysis and massing diagrams beginning on page 38.
Rationale
The current housing supply in Auburn could benefit from increasing housing choices and types
that can better meet the wide range of needs of Auburn’s residents, including seniors, empty
nesters, small families, and young people who find the transition to single-family
homeownership out of reach due to student loan debt, underemployment, or high rents that
prevent saving for a down payment.
The number of households with these unmet needs is likely to increase as Auburn’s
demographics change over the next several decades (with more seniors, empty nesters, and
people looking to buy homes). Because middle housing units are generally smaller than
traditional single-family housing, they are usually more affordable and generally sell for
between 80% and 120% AMI. In addition, these housing types can provide lower-barrier
homeownership opportunities than more traditional single family housing types.
Page 92 of 195
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 61
Currently, Auburn’s zoning code allows only single-family units in the R-5 Zone and single-
family and duplex units in the R-7 Zone. To encourage the development of middle housing
types, Auburn could allow duplexes and triplexes uses in the R-5 and R-7 single dwelling zones.
Alternatively, the City could choose to instead apply the current R-16 Zone in areas where
middle housing types would be desired. The current R-16 Zone exists within the code but is
not currently mapped anywhere in the City. If Auburn were to choose re-mapping current R-5
and R-7 Zones to allow middle housing through the R-16 Zone, it should also consider
increasing density allowances to allow 18 dwelling units per acre which is the density level
necessary to support middle housing types evaluated as part of this analysis (see preliminary
recommendation C2 below). The City could also choose to allow the R-16 (at 18 dwelling units
per acre) within the existing comprehensive plan designations that would allow for a zoning
designation change consistent with the comprehensive plan designations.
Considerations
The City should evaluate the trade-offs of allowing duplexes and triplexes by modifying zoning
allowances in the R-5 and R-7 Zones or applying the R-16 Zone designation to areas on the
zoning map. Allowing middle housing types by right in the R-5 and R-7 Zones would provide a
more dispersed and flexible approach of integrating middle housing across both current future
residential communities across Auburn.
Allowing middle housing types by redesignating areas of the City with an R-16 Zone could also
achieve the desired outcomes of increasing housing options and housing choice through a
broader diversity of housing types but would be a more focused and limited approach. This
approach would allow the City to more precisely map areas where they would like to see
middle housing consistent with other City goals and objectives such as proximity to transit,
grocery stores, and other community amenities. However, the City should also consider access
to other amenities such as neighborhood schools and neighborhood parks that are more
aligned with the lower density scale of middle housing types when evaluating how and where
to map the R-16 Zone.
Next Steps
§ The City should move forward to allow middle housing types in the study area and
other areas of Auburn to meet Auburn’s current and future housing needs.
§ The City should support zone changes through redesignating areas with the R-16 zone
or changes to development standards in the R-5 and R-7 zones as part of the next
Comprehensive Plan update.
§ The City should update the residential infill development standards to support middle
housing in an infill context. For example, maximum density can be 10% greater for infill
developments under certain conditions, but this amount is nowhere near the 17.4 units
per acre necessary to build middle housing. Additionally, minimum lot area can be
reduced by 20% for infill developments under certain conditions, but this is also
Page 93 of 195
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 62
insufficient to reach 2,500 square feet minimum lot area per dwelling unit needed for
duplex and triplex housing types.
§ The City should consider a public outreach effort to increase community understanding
of compatibility issues, housing types, density, and housing needs and how these
housing types can support and advance the Auburn’s housing goals in the
comprehensive plan.
§ Explore the implications of middle housing regulatory changes on parking. Even if the
cost of providing parking is not an issue for development feasibility, the space
dedicated to parking can be. See Preliminary recommendation C4 below.
C2) Increase Density and Reduce Minimum Lot Size Per Unit in R-5 and R-7 Zones
See development feasibility analysis and massing diagrams beginning on page 38.
Rationale
In addition to allowing duplex and triplex uses whether through modifications to existing R-5
and R-7 Zones or through mapping a higher density R-16 Zone, the City of Auburn needs to
increase the allowed residential density to 17.4 units per acre in order to realize development
of this scale. Although duplexes and triplexes can be built with lower residential density on
larger lot sizes, on smaller lots they are likely to reach 17.4 dwelling units per acre on lot sizes
(e.g., 5,000 square feet for duplexes and 7,500 square feet for triplexes) that are most
prevalent throughout Auburn’s current single dwelling zones.
Considerations
If the City chooses to redesignate some R-5 and R-7 Zones to an R-16 Zone, the density
allowances in the R-16 Zone would also need to be increased to 17.4 units per acre to allow
the development of duplexes and triplexes on smaller lot sizes. Effectively, the City would need
to create an R-18 Zone that permits duplexes and triplexes.
These recommended changes are beyond the flexibility offered by the residential infill
development standards. For example, maximum density can be 10% greater for infill
developments under certain conditions, but this amount is nowhere near the 17.4 dwelling
units per acre needed. Additionally, minimum lot area can be reduced by 20% for infill
developments under certain conditions, but this is also insufficient to reach 2,500 square feet
per dwelling needed for duplex and triplex housing types.
These regulatory changes alone, however, will not immediately result in the production of
duplex and triplex housing types because they are currently feasible only on vacant lots. The
regulatory changes could make duplex and triplex developments more valuable than single-
family developments for owners of vacant lots, but they will not be valuable enough to support
the broad conversion or redevelopment of existing single-family housing into duplexes or
triplexes within current market conditions.
Page 94 of 195
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 63
Next Steps
§ Auburn should integrate middle housing options in its next Comprehensive Plan and
Code Amendment process to increase the supply of less expensive housing, increase
home ownership opportunities, and provide housing options that can better meet the
range of current and future household needs across the City. This will require
additional traffic and utility analysis to determine the impact on the public infrastructure
needed to support the additional development and to determine feasibility of
expanding the infrastructure to meet the demand.
§ The City should explore the tradeoffs associated with the approach of broadening
housing type allowances in the R-5 and R-7 zones versus redesignating areas of the City
with the R-16 (or future R-18) zoning designation. The City should work with community
stakeholders and governing bodies to evaluate the preferred path forward as part of
the forthcoming Comprehensive Plan update process.
§ The City will also need to update its residential infill development standards to
accommodate middle housing in an infill context. The current infill development
standards are not designed in way to support smaller scale, medium-density infill of
middle housing types on smaller parcel sizes in the single dwelling zones.
§ If the City chose to pursue modifying development standards in the R-5 and R-7 Zones,
it will also need to modify the Land Use Element (Volume 1) of the City’s
Comprehensive Plan that limits residential densities in these single dwelling zones. The
Transportation and the Utility Elements of the Comprehensive plans will also need to be
evaluated.
C3) Revise Rear Yard Setbacks to Accommodate Triplexes in R-7 Zones
See development feasibility analysis and massing diagrams beginning on page 38.
Rationale
The City’s zoning development standards currently require a rear setback of 20 feet in “all
zones for structures with vehicular entrances oriented toward the street or a public alley”
(Auburn City Code 18.07.030). On a typical 150-foot by 50-foot lot, this requirement limits the
buildable area for triplexes (not duplexes) when accommodating two parking stalls per unit,
because the structure of one unit would need to extend into the rear setback area. The current
standards limit the configuration of triplex developments to have separate parking stalls
outside the structure. To create more flexible options and more efficient site design and
development without reducing the parking requirement, the rear setback from triplex
structures should be reduced, to 10 feet, for example. This is especially important for these
housing types to be built with alley-loaded parking access when alleys are present, and the
conditions of the alleys supports vehicle access and parking at the rear or a site.
Page 95 of 195
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 64
Relatedly, the current infill residential development standards require building orientation on
infill lots to “match the predominant orientation of the other buildings along the block face”
(Auburn City Code 18.25.040). This requirement would limit triplex infill developments that are
designed to not face the street (see Figure 26).
Considerations
When allowing middle housing types (duplexes and triplexes) on smaller parcels in single
dwelling areas, there are site constraints that present tradeoffs between setback requirements
and parking requirements. Given the prevalence of alley access in the middle housing study
area which adds to additional buffers between adjacent properties, reducing rear setback
requirements to allow triplexes to meet current parking requirements is likely to generate less
off-site impacts to the adjacent property owners than reducing parking requirements.
Next Steps
§ When updating development standards as part of the code amendment process, the
City should explore modifying rear setback requirements, such as reducing the rear
setback to 10 feet, when triplex developments are meeting existing parking
requirements.
C4) Reduce Parking Requirements in R-5 and R-7 Zones
See development feasibility analysis and massing diagrams beginning on page 38.
Rationale
Although the current parking requirements can be accommodated, they create a tradeoff
between parking, open space, and the footprint of duplexes and triplexes.
While developers could theoretically fit the required 2.0 stalls per unit on a typical lot, this
creates a tradeoff between on-site open space (such as a shared yard or patio) or, as
mentioned in preliminary recommendation C2, a larger home footprint. Parking can consume
about 700 square feet per unit. In perspective, the average U.S bedroom is 132 square feet.
Considerations
Due to the small site sizes in single dwelling zones to accommodate middle housing types,
there are tradeoffs between development standards such as impervious coverage, open space,
setbacks, and parking that are interrelated and effect the production of middle housing at the
site-level. Additionally, private sector developers are likely to make decisions related to these
tradeoffs about how housing can best meet demand for housing as preferences change over
time. An approach to development standards that allows flexibility between parking, setbacks,
and open space is likely to produce housing types that better meet the diverse needs of
households in Auburn.
Page 96 of 195
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 65
Next Steps
§ The City should consider mitigating for conflicting development standards that create
physical constraints on small sites where middle housing development is likely to occur
during the Comprehensive Plan update and code amendment processes.
C5) Consider Minimum Site Size Requirements Relative to Homeownership Goals in R-5
and R-7 Zones
Rationale
The City of Auburn should also consider the tradeoffs inherent in minimum lot size
requirements and its goals of promoting homeownership. Modifying minimum site sizes to
support land-divisions that would result in more ownership could be considered as a strategy
to support increasing homeownership opportunities.
Considerations
Both builders and prospective home buyers prefer fee-simple ownership over condo
ownership. Allowing more fee-simple homeownership opportunities on smaller lots would help
expand homeownership access for more residents.
The required minimum lot size per unit, which is inversely related to residential density, will
need to be reduced to 2,500 square feet to accommodate these housing types. The currently
required minimum lot size per unit (4,500 square feet in R-5 and 4,300 square feet in R-7)
effectively limits residential density to about 10 units per acre which may not achieve desired
affordability For reference, the minimum lot size per unit in higher density zones (i.e., R-10, and
R-16) is 2,000 square feet.
Next Steps
§ When updating development standards as part of the code amendment process, the
City should explore reducing minimum lot size requirements to 2,500 square feet per
unit to support middle housing development and create more homeownership
opportunities through attached side-by-side duplexes and triplexes.
C6) Evaluate Site Development Standards and Infrastructure Requirements to Support
Middle Housing Development
Rationale
While the other preliminary recommendations in this section are focused on zoning code
standards to support middle housing development, there are other City codes and
administrative requirements that can barriers to development feasibility for these housing
types. These other standards and requirements could include things such as civil site
development requirements, street frontage improvement standards, access requirements, and
utility infrastructure standards. The costs of complying with these standards and requirements
can render development of this housing type unfeasible.
Page 97 of 195
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 66
Considerations
Current development standards and requirements have been developed and implemented to
serve the needs of Auburn’s residents and businesses. Additionally, many site development
standards and infrastructure requirements can be a function of increasing standards over time
and an orientation to operation and maintenance costs. An evaluation of modifications to site
development standards should be undertaken to assess the effect on development costs and
coordinated with achieving city housing goals. Also, the evaluation should consider
recognized engineering standards in coordination with the City Engineer and the context of
the Washington State Building Code in coordination with the Building Official.
Next Steps
§ Site development standards and infrastructure requirements should be revisited by the
Community and Public Works Departments in the context of supporting a wider range
of housing types across Auburn in both vacant and infill development contexts.
§ The City should coordinate with local building professionals, home builders, architects,
and engineers to identify opportunities to simplify these standards and requirements to
support middle housing types in Auburn.
Page 98 of 195
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 67
D) Prevent Displacement and Encourage the Preservation of Existing
Affordable Housing
While increasing the City’s overall housing stock and its stock of affordable housing is
important, it is also critical to preserve the housing stock that exists because it does not
consume new resources and so that households are not displaced and forced to move when
redevelopment occurs. These efforts can focus on preserving naturally occurring affordable
housing (unregulated but affordable) or preserving regulated affordable housing at risk of
regulations expiring and no longer remaining affordable. In addition, tenant supports and
resources for landlords are essential to ensuring that tenants are educated about their rights
and that landlords can properly maintain their properties.
Landlord and Tenant Supports
The City of Auburn has numerous policies and programs already in place to support existing
landlords and tenants as it relates to displacement pressures. The Community Development and
Community Services websites offer a wealth of information on resources, community-based
services, and landlord-tenant information. Information is available in several languages, and there
are numerous links to partner agencies and community organizations.
A new city ordinance (Ordinance No. 6786) was passed in the wake of the COVID-19 crisis and the
economic recession’s effects on low-income renters.22 The City is aware of the need to carefully
balance renter relief and support programs with additional programs and resources focused on
supporting landlords who still have mortgages, taxes, and maintenance to pay for, even if tenants
lose income to pay for rent.
Existing Tenant Supports:
§ Tenant’s rights and education resources
§ City funding to support multiple legal
assistance agencies focusing on tenants
§ Just cause eviction policies
§ 120-day notice for rent increases for
tenants on month-to-month leases or on
annual increases in excess of 5%
§ Requirement for landlords to give “Notice of
Intent to Sell” an existing property with low-
income units
§ Requirement for landlords to give “Notice of
Resources” when serving other notices to
tenants (under RCW 59.12.030)
Existing Landlord Supports:
§ Landlord education resources
§ Clearly established and documented rental
notice requirements
§ Clearly established and documented tenant
responsibilities
§ Clearly established and documented
maintenance standards
22 Ordinance text can be found here: https://weblink.auburnwa.gov/External/0/doc/394573/Page1.aspx
Page 99 of 195
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 68
D1) Monitor and Track Unregulated Affordable Housing
Rationale
The City of Auburn should build on the data collected through its rental housing licensing and
inspection program to develop a more robust understanding of the rental properties in the
City. A good starting point would be to expand the basic information gathered from landlords
through the annual licensing process, then merge this information with code violations and
inspection results and ask for rent amounts and rent increases each year.
Considerations
Examples of basic data points that could be collected to track and monitor unregulated
affordable housing include:
§ Property address
§ Property size (number of units)
§ Year built
§ Contact information for the landlord
§ Management company (if applicable)
The data points listed below are examples of expanded data that could be collected
depending on the City’s desire to increase staffing and funding resources for this purpose.
Ideally, this data would also be gathered from the rental licensing and inspection program, but
some of it might come from the King County Assessor’s database, or from other city
departments (like code compliance or permitting applications). Code violations or complaints
§ Permit data (to monitor major remodels or renovations)
§ Rents & rent changes
§ Changes to management companies (if applicable)
Tracking and monitoring this type of data in a comprehensive database can require significant
staff time and resources, so the effort should be scaled to resource availability.
Next Steps
§ The City could consider expanding the types of data collected from landlords through
the existing rental licensing program. Regular, updated access to this type of data
would allow the City to actively monitor the rents and affordability levels of rental
housing as well as have readily available contact information for landlords when the
need arises.
§ Once the City has a robust database that allows it to monitor low-cost market rentals,
the City could build a framework to track and understand which properties might be
primed for sale and redevelopment. The “Notice of Intent to Sell” policy can help to
mitigate some of this risk by providing advanced notice of an intent to sell, but 60 days
does not provide a huge window of time without additional data on hand.
Page 100 of 195
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 69
D2) Create Programs and Policies to Preserve Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing
Rationale
Because regulated affordable housing is so difficult and costly to build, the majority of low-
income households live in unregulated affordable housing, often called ‘naturally occurring
affordable housing.’ However, because these housing units are not regulated by a government
or community-based lender and subject to inspections and subsidies to maintain the
properties, they can fall into disrepair. This is especially common if the rents are well below
market and the property has deferred maintenance.
Deferred maintenance can put a property at risk of being sold for redevelopment because the
current property owner may not have the capital or the interest in undergoing major
renovations. A new owner, financing the property acquisition and rehabilitation with debt, will
need to increase rents to pay for the debt and repairs, putting the existing tenants at risk of
displacement.
A variety of programs and policies can help unregulated property owners and smaller landlords
maintain and repair their properties. Proper ongoing maintenance and capital repairs can help
keep deferred maintenance at bay and ensure that existing low-income tenants have safe and
stable housing.
Considerations
These programs and policies, as well as partnerships in the community
and region, can help to preserve this important stock of low-cost
unregulated multifamily rentals.
§ The City should enhance its existing partnerships with mission-
oriented acquisition funds like the Regional Equitable
Development Initiative (REDI) Fund or Sound Transit’s Transit-
Oriented Development Revolving Loan Fund. These funds stand
ready to deploy capital aimed at acquiring and rehabilitating low-
cost market rentals in exchange for affordability restrictions.
§ Work with the King County Housing Authority or South King
Housing and Homelessness Partners (SKHHP) to establish a pilot
program that would offer low-cost loans for property owners to
rehabilitate their units in exchange for guaranteeing tenants the
ability to return and guaranteeing affordability restrictions.
Because the City of Auburn does not have a housing agency or
housing bureau that is already set up to monitor compliance and
lend funds, except for its shared participation in the SKHHP, the
best course of action is to partner with an agency that already has
these programs and policies in place.
The City of Auburn’s
“Notice of Intent to Sell”
is a great example of a
policy that can help
prevent displacement.
This policy requires
landlords of low-income
multifamily rental
properties (with 5+ units
and at least 1 unit renting
below 80% AMI) to notify
the City at least 60 days
prior to listing the
property for sale.
This advanced notice gives
the City some time to try
to arrange a mission-
oriented buyer or work
with the landlord to
maintain affordability.
See Auburn Municipal
Code 5.23.060 for more
information.
Page 101 of 195
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 70
Common Red Flags for Redevelopment Risk
§ Small property size (e.g., fewer than 10 units)
§ Low assessed value
§ Low rents and or lack of rent increases in
recent years
§ High sales price or high land price
§ Presence of redevelopment nearby
§ Near amenities or transit
§ Presence of deferred maintenance or capital
repairs (blight, numerous code violations, or
numerous complaints)
§ Non-institutional landlord, and or aging
landlord
§ Nearby properties under common ownership
§ Nearby properties are rentals and meet
numerous other conditions
§ Nearby (re)development or city-led planning
efforts to spur housing or economic
development
Next Steps
§ The City should coordinate with the SKHHP and other regional housing organizations to
participate in existing programs while also working with other cities through South King
County to develop new programs that can advance housing affordability across the sub-
region.
§ Building on the data collected in Preliminary recommendation D1, the City could
monitor this data and general market data for warning signs of redevelopment risk.
§ The City should continue to build strong relationships with property owners and
managers of small multifamily buildings that could be at risk, particularly when there are
other development projects or planning efforts happening nearby.
§ The City should also continue to enhance its partnerships and relationships with
mission-oriented funders, lenders, and housing providers. Having an awareness of
which properties might be at risk of redevelopment coupled with strong relationships
with service and housing providers, will enable the city to act quickly when it receives a
“notice of intent to sell” to ensure existing tenants are protected.
D3) Monitor and Track Regulated Affordable Housing
Rationale
Most regulated affordable housing properties receive funding that comes with a requirement
to rent some or all the units at a certain income level, for a certain amount of time. The length
of these affordability restrictions varies by program, funding type, and property.
However, when affordability restrictions do end, these properties can be at risk of moving to
market-rate housing, thereby becoming unaffordable to the existing tenants. This risk is
particularly high if properties are owned by private, for-profit companies (nonprofit affordable
housing owners and operators will typically work to keep the rents affordable).
While Auburn’s “Notice of Intent to Sell” policy can help to mitigate this by providing
advanced notice, regulated affordable property owners have numerous regulatory “hoops” to
jump through to recapitalize and extend restrictions. Often these properties have meaningful
capital repairs that need to be addressed when restrictions are renewed.
Page 102 of 195
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 71
By monitoring regulated affordable housing properties that are nearing their affordability
expiration dates, the City can be a strong partner and advocate, working with the property
owners to help secure needed funding and avoid the property returning to market rate at the
end of the period, the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program has a 15-year affordability
period).
Considerations
Newly constructed affordable housing developments will not likely see their affordability
restrictions end for some time, but older properties should be monitored.
The City should consider establishing a database along with a solid understanding of the
affordability terms associated with different funding programs (e.g., the MFTE program has a
12-year affordability period, the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program has a 15-year
affordability period).
Next Steps
§ The City should coordinate with PSRC and King County regional and county-wide
affordable housing tracking and monitoring efforts to ensure that city-level affordable
housing data is accurate and includes relevant information.
§ The city should ensure that it has strong, ongoing relationships with, and proper contact
information for, all the mission-driven developers and affordable housing property
owner-operators in the City.
§ The City should work with these housing providers to ensure data sharing is possible,
consider setting up a reporting agreement with reporting information and deadlines to
create a database that monitors upcoming expirations.
§ The City should gain familiarity with the various funding sources that are available to
support recapitalization and rehabilitation including the Low-Income Housing Tax
Credit, HUD Funding (such as CDBG or HOME funds), funding opportunities through
the Washington State Housing Finance Commission, and funding programs through the
Washington State Department of Commerce.
D4) Provide Support for Mobile Home Park Preservation
Manufactured home parks can face incredible displacement and redevelopment pressure if
they are located on valuable land with close proximity to strong housing markets, regional
employment centers, and amenities. Preservation can be a highly effective model for
preventing mobile home parks from being purchased and redeveloped. The City should
explore ways to provide more support for low-income residents of mobile home parks.
Considerations
Any guidelines developed surrounding mobile home park preservation should also provide
clear criteria around housing quality, environmental health and life safety standards, and shared
utility billing practices.
Page 103 of 195
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 72
The City currently regulates mobile home parks through the RHMP zone that already includes a
preservation strategy by requiring any conversions or redevelopment to go through a rezone
process. The City also regulates mobile home park closures and requires relocations plans and
relocation assistance through Chapter 14.20 (Mobile Home Park Closures) of the City Code.
These local regulations along with State of Washington financial assistance provisions of RCW
59.21.005 represent current best practice of manufactured home preservation strategies from a
regulatory perspective.
§ The City could consider establishing procedures or guidelines to support non-profit
housing providers that might be interested in acquiring and managing manufactured
home parks to preserve the lowest cost naturally occurring affordable housing that
exists in communities throughout the region.
§ The City could also explore opportunities to collaborate with government and non-
profit partners to fund the repair, maintenance, or rehabilitation of units in
manufactured home parks and the private utility infrastructure within them as this is the
source of a significant cost burden on tenants.
D5) Identify Opportunities to Increase Homeownership
Rationale
One way to mitigate for the risk of displacement caused by changing market conditions is
through programs aimed at increasing homeownership opportunities. This is particularly
important for renters, low-income households, households of color (who have historically lower
homeownership rates than white households), as well as immigrants and refugees.
Compared to renters, homeowners are largely shielded from displacement pressures because
they have fixed mortgage payments. Unlike rents that can rise without warning or increase
annually with a lease renewal, mortgage payments cannot change without warning. While
property taxes do change each year, they are a small portion of overall homeownership
housing costs. In addition, because lenders size a mortgage to a buyer’s income and ability to
pay, homeowners are less susceptible to cost burdening and housing insecurity, absent a
sudden change in income.
Considerations
Because of these benefits, and because homeownership offers the benefit of wealth generation
through equity in a real asset, encouraging homeownership is one of the best ways to prevent
displacement. The most impactful way to improve homeownership opportunities is likely
through a down payment assistance program. However, this requires meaningful funding
resources and careful calibration to ensure tenant success.
Page 104 of 195
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 73
Example Programs Requiring Funding
§ Down payment assistance programs
§ Expand existing homeownership weatherization and rehabilitation grants
§ Energy assistance grants
Many other programs do not require meaningful funding to be successful. The City should look
to the community-based partners already working in these areas and build strong lines of
communication as to how it can help.
Example Programs Not Requiring Funding
§ Donate city facilities for in-person meetings (when safe and appropriate) or staff time to
advancing one of these programs
§ Host homebuyer education (classes educating renters on the homebuying process)
§ Foreclosure education assistance and counseling
§ Donate excess land for affordable homeownership within legal requirements
Next Steps
§ Auburn should work with SKHHP and regional partners to collaborate with the
Washington State Housing Finance Commission to develop area-specific down
payment assistance funding and programs for South King County in the same way that
is done with A Regional Coalition for Housing (ARCH) in East King County, in Pierce
County, and in Tacoma.
§ City staff could also work with community organizations, landlords, and housing
providers to encourage referrals to homebuyer education programs sponsored by the
Washington State Housing Finance Commission and the Washington Homeownership
Resource Center.
Preliminary Recommendations and Alignment with the
Comprehensive Plan
This HAP identifies 18 preliminary recommendations that can help the City of Auburn
potentially address the current and future housing needs that are expected to emerge over the
next few decades, as described Part 2 (see the Summary of Housing Needs beginning on page
11).
As required by the Washington State Growth Management Act, a jurisdiction’s Housing
Element must include adequate provisions for existing and projected housing needs of all the
economic segments of the community.23 As such, the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan
(referred to as Imagine Auburn, amended in 2015, first adopted in 1986) meets the regional
responsibilities to manage urban growth and the corresponding residential development
23 Washington State Growth Management Act, RCW 36.70A.070(2)
Page 105 of 195
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 74
needed for current and future residents.24 Among the eight primary Comprehensive Plan
elements, the Housing Element (Volume 2) is most relevant to the HAP strategies and the Land
Use Element (Volume 1) includes a few applicable areas. This section reviews how these two
Comprehensive Plan elements compare to the HAP and assesses whether updates would be
needed.
As acknowledged elsewhere in this plan, certain preliminary recommendations such as
increasing density may also require review and modification of the Transportation (Volume 5) or
Capital Facilities (Utility) (Volume 3) Comprehensive Plan Elements to determine the feasibility
of serving higher densities.
The preliminary recommendations in this HAP are supportive and largely consistent with
Auburn’s Housing Element. In fact, many of the HAP preliminary recommendations provide
direct support to advancing numerous Housing Element policies. For example, there are
preliminary recommendations in the HAP that promote:
§ Workforce housing development (Comprehensive Plan policy H-4),
§ More housing development in Downtown Auburn (policies H-5 and H-13),
§ Increased housing variety (policy H-10),
§ Increased home ownership opportunities and education (policies H-11, H-39, and H-40),
§ Conservation and repairs of existing housing (policies H-18 to H-21, LU-3, and LU-25),
and
§ Affordable housing development meeting community needs (policies H-23, and H-24).
Many of the HAP preliminary recommendations on development standard and regulatory
amendments aim to promote greater flexibility and minimize costs to build housing which
directly promotes policy H-27. Other key HAP regulatory suggestions help to further execute
policy H-29, calling for exploration of density bonuses, parking reductions, and fee reductions.
Implementing a few of the HAP preliminary recommendations could involve possible policy
and Code amendments and Comprehensive Plan updates. These are a few areas to consider
during the next Comprehensive Plan update process. The plan updates discussed here,
primarily focus on amending existing policies to encompass emerging topics and recalibrate
the direction towards better meeting housing needs.
§ The HAP includes a few preliminary recommendations to explore fee waivers for
targeted development types in Downtown Auburn (A4) and policies to lower the cost of
affordable housing development (B1). These actions are worded generally, calling for a
process of further evaluation of different policy options. Consequently, during the
24 The Auburn Comprehensive Plan should be updated every eight years, by around 2024, as outlined in the
periodic update schedule, mandated by the Growth Management Act. The currently adopted Comprehensive Plan
includes a 20-year planning horizon from 2015 to 2035; however, the next update is expected to include an updated
20-year planning horizon.
Page 106 of 195
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 75
process of developing policies associated with fees, LU-5 policy should be considered
as to whether minor modifications would be needed or could be avoided.
o LU-5: New residential development should contribute to the creation,
enhancement, and improvement of the transportation system, health and human
services, emergency services, school system, and park system. This may be
accomplished through the development of level-of-service standards, mitigation
fees, impact fees, or construction contributions.
§ HAP preliminary recommendations (C1 – C5) encouraging middle housing options in
the R-5 and R-7 Zones largely involve land use, development standards (such as setback
and minimum lot size standards), development densities, and parking requirement
amendments in the City of Auburn Code traffic and utility analysis and coordination
with the design standards within the public Right-of-way. In addition, a few areas with
the Comprehensive Plan may need to be addressed including updating the
transportation and utility elements. These HAP actions support the provision of a variety
of housing typologies to suit the needs of various potential residents (LU-17) but
implementing density increases in the R-5 and R-7 Zones (HAP preliminary
recommendation C2), would require amendments to Land Use, Transportation and
Utility Elements Comprehensive Plan language (on page 4) describing the allowable
residential housing density for the R-5 and R-7 zones and the related infrastructure..
o R-5 Residential Zone (Five Dwelling Units Per Acre): All properties not located
within the Urban Separator Overlay may be zoned R-5.
o R-7 Residential Zone (Seven Dwelling Units Per Acre): All properties not located
within the Urban Separator Overlay may be zoned R-7.
§ HAP preliminary recommendations (A1 – A3), supporting market rate development in
Downtown Auburn, chiefly call for parking requirement reductions, increased maximum
residential Floor Area Ratio limits in the DUC Zone, and lot aggregation which would
likely necessitate amendments to the City of Auburn Code. Similarly, preliminary
recommendation B3, supporting affordable housing development in Downtown
Auburn, by reducing parking requirements for micro housing units, likely would involve
amendments to the City of Auburn Code.
Additionally, a few areas within the Land Use Element of Auburn’s Comprehensive Plan
might need to be modified (LU-39, shown below) to support the implementation of
HAP preliminary recommendations A2 and A3. In addition to allowing additional
height or density in exchange for supplemental amenities identified in this policy, the
City should explicitly identify affordable housing and mixed-income development as
eligible uses for increases in height, density, or intensity. This might also necessitate
analysis within the Transportation and Utility Elements of the Comprehensive Plan and
review of the public right-of-way standards.
o LU-39: Deviations of height, density or intensity limitations should be allowed
when supplemental amenities are incorporated into site and building design.
Examples of amenities include use of low-impact development, use of
Page 107 of 195
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 76
sustainable site and building techniques, public space and art, transit-oriented
development, landscaping and lighting, and bike shelters.
§ To address policy LU-43, safeguards should be evaluated and considered to mitigate
for parking impacts on commercial development associated with HAP preliminary
recommendations A1 and B3, involving changes to the parking requirements for certain
targeted types of residential development.
o LU-43: Parking standards within the downtown should reflect the pedestrian
orientation of the area, but also consider parking's impact for economic
development and quality of life.
§ The HAP also includes an objective regarding preventing displacement and
encouraging the preservation of affordable housing. This objective is similar to the
Comprehensive Plan goal and corresponding policies aiming to improve the quality and
maintenance of the housing stock to help preserve affordable housing. However, this
goal and the associated policies do not explicitly address the need to minimize
displacement impacts. Consequently, this Comprehensive Plan goal could be updated
to better encompass this emerging topic. A new aspect of PSRC’s VISION 2050 plan
(adopted in 2020) is the recognition of displacement risk (cultural, economic, and
physical) and the need for jurisdictions to mitigate and minimize displacement.
Implementation Steps
In the coming years, implementing this HAP will require the City to balance and coordinate its
pursuit of actions, funding, and partnerships with its other policy and programmatic priorities.
This section outlines an implementation process that will improve success with advancing this
Plan’s preliminary recommendations.
Develop and Assign Work Programs
The 18 preliminary recommendations in this HAP will require varying levels of effort for the City
to implement. Each preliminary recommendation will require different levels of staff time and
resources and will achieve different objectives with different levels of overall benefit. The
relative costs of an option should be carefully evaluated against the overall benefit to the intent
of this plan.
Each of these preliminary recommendations lie within the City of Auburn’s control, but work
will span departments and involve meaningful contributions from stakeholders such as City
Council, Planning Commission, residents, homeowners, neighborhood associations, advocates,
developers (both affordable and market rate), and many others. Additionally, some of the
actions in the HAP are intended to support enhanced coordination with government agency
and non-profit partners.
While implementation will take several years, one of the first steps will be to develop a work
program and assign tasks. The City will need to assess the varying levels of effort and potential
benefit, allocate funding and additional resources, and examine technological solutions to
Page 108 of 195
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 77
develop work programs that can help complete the needed analysis and initiate important
conversations with these stakeholders.
Prioritize Code Changes and Preliminary Recommendations that Work
Through the Housing Element
As described in the table below, the City should prioritize the preliminary recommendations
that can be achieved through zoning code changes once their impacts on infrastructure needs
are evaluated and understood to avoid unintended consequences. preliminary
recommendation Given that general funds are and will likely remain limited in the coming years
due to the effects of the COVID-19 economic recession, prioritizing changes through the code
can help to support housing development, generate economic activity, and promote
community stability.
In addition, the City should understand which preliminary recommendations may not all be
implemented via the next update of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. These actions can be
prioritized so the City is ready and prepared when the Housing Element update process begins
(many of the changes will require some lead time to coordinate among departments and then
to connect with the community, Planning Commission, and City Council).
Programmatic preliminary recommendations that require new assets (staff, funding, or
technological solutions) should be given a lower priority given limitations on resources.
However, as these preliminary recommendations can also have longer lead times, the City
could prioritize actions for longer term implementation and impact, should resources become
available.
Figure 32 provides an overview of each of the 18 preliminary recommendations highlighted in
this HAP. Each preliminary recommendation is aligned with its geography (Study Area or
Citywide), is suggested as a near-term or long-term action, and has an initial assessment of its
relative impact on the City’s staff and fiscal resources. In addition, icons are used to denote the
type of preliminary recommendation, which influences its implementation (see Figure 32).
Figure 31. Icons used to denote Preliminary Recommendation Types
Icon Preliminary Recommendation Type
Preliminary recommendation calls for a zoning or Comprehensive Plan change.
Preliminary recommendation can be implemented through the Zoning Code
and/or through Comprehensive Plan update and code amendment processes.
Preliminary recommendation calls for a new program. Implementation will
require staff and or resources to support new or expanded program operations.
Preliminary recommendation calls for increased partnerships and collaboration.
Implementation will focus on enhancing relationships and securing partnerships.
Page 109 of 195
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 78
Figure 32. Summary of Recommended Actions and Implementation Considerations
Objective # Recommended Action
Preliminary
Recommendation Type Sub-Area of Citywide?
Near-term
or Long-
Term
Impact to City
Resources Encourage Market Rate Development Downtown A1 Reduce Parking Requirements to Support
Development in Downtown Auburn
Downtown Long-Term Moderate staff time
A2 Offer a Density Bonus to Support Denser
Development and Mixed-Income Housing
Downtown Near-Term Moderate staff time
A3 Promote Lot Aggregation in Downtown Auburn
Downtown Near-Term Moderate staff time
A4 Explore Fee Waivers for Targeted
Development Types in Downtown Auburn
Downtown Long-Term
Potential for
negative fiscal
impact Encourage Affordable Housing Downtown B1 Create Policies to Lower the Cost of
Affordable Housing Development
Citywide Near-Term
Moderate staff time
and potential lost
revenue from
permitting
B2 Consider a Voluntary Inclusionary Housing
Program Paired with a Density Bonus
Downtown Long-Term
Moderate staff time
to create and
manage a program
B3 Reduce Parking Requirements for Micro Units
Downtown Long-Term Moderate staff time Encourage Middle Housing Options in R-5 and R-7 Zones C1 Allow Duplexes and Triplexes in Single-Family
Neighborhoods
Middle Housing Study
Area and Citywide as
Appropriate
Near-Term Moderate staff time
C2 Increase Density and Reduce Minimum Lot
Size Per Unit in R-5 and R-7 Zones
Middle Housing Study
Area and Citywide as
Appropriate
Near-Term Moderate staff time
Page 110 of 195
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 79
Objective # Recommended Action
Preliminary
Recommendation Type Sub-Area of Citywide?
Near-term
or Long-
Term
Impact to City
Resources Encourage Middle Housing Options in R-5 and R-7 Zones C3 Revise Rear Yard Setbacks to Accommodate
Triplexes in R-7 Zones
Middle Housing Study
Area and Citywide as
Appropriate
Near-Term Moderate staff time
C4 Reduce Parking Requirements in R-5 and R-7
Zones
Middle Housing Study
Area and Citywide as
Appropriate
Near-Term Moderate staff time
C5
Consider Minimum Site Size Requirements
Relative to Homeownership Goals in R-5 and
R-7 Zones
Middle Housing Study
Area and Citywide as
Appropriate
Near-Term Moderate staff time
C6
Evaluate Site Development Standards and
Infrastructure Requirements to Support
Middle Housing Development
Middle Housing Study
Area and Citywide as
Appropriate
Long-Term Moderate staff time Prevent Displacement and Encourage the Preservation of Existing Affordable Housing D1 Monitor and Track Unregulated Affordable
Housing
Citywide Near-Term
Meaningful staff
time to establish
and track data
D2 Create Programs and Policies to Preserve
Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing
Citywide Long-Term
Meaningful staff
time to create and
manage a program
D3 Monitor and Track Regulated Affordable
Housing
Citywide Long-Term
Meaningful staff
time to establish
and track data
D4 Provide Support for Mobile Home Park
Preservation
Citywide Near-Term
Meaningful staff
time to establish
and track data
D5 Identify Opportunities to Increase
Homeownership
Citywide Near-Term
Moderate staff time
and potential
program funding
Page 111 of 195
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan 80
This page is intentionally left blank.
Page 112 of 195
Housing Action Plan
Appendices
City of Auburn
June 2021
Prepared for: City of Auburn
Report Appendices
Page 113 of 195
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix A A-2
Part 5: Appendices
This section provides 4 appendices with important, data sources, methods, and assumptions for
the analysis and recommendations advanced in this Housing Action Plan.
Page 114 of 195
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix A A-3
Appendix A. Full Public Engagement Summary Memorandum
Page 115 of 195
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix A A-4
Page 116 of 195
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix A A-5
Page 117 of 195
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix A A-6
Page 118 of 195
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix A A-7
Page 119 of 195
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix A A-8
Page 120 of 195
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix A A-9
Page 121 of 195
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix A A-10
Page 122 of 195
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix A A-11
Page 123 of 195
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix A A-12
Page 124 of 195
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix B B-1
Appendix B. Existing Conditions Memorandum (Housing Needs
Assessment Section)
ORIGINAL DATE: January 15, 2021
REVISED DATE: February 26, 2021
TO: Jeff Dixon and Anthony Avery, City of Auburn
FROM: Tyler Bump, Madeline Baron, Jenn Cannon, Oscar Saucedo-Andrade, Justin
Sherrill, Ryan Knapp
SUBJECT: AUBURN HOUSING ACTION PLAN – EXISTING CONDITIONS MEMORANDUM –
REVISED
Introduction
The City of Auburn was founded in 1891 and has grown to become the fifteenth largest city in
the State of Washington. Multiple periods of growth can be observed in the many regions of
Auburn, including early 20th century neighborhoods, mid-century growth, and the annexation
of rural county lands in the early 21st century. This has resulted in over 29 square miles of
housing growth representing many different scales of development that have occurred over
different periods of time.
HB1923 and Housing Action Plans
In 2019, the state legislature adopted House Bill 1923 (HB 1923), which awarded grants in the
amount up to $100,000 to various cities for the purpose of increasing residential capacity.
As the first step in developing a Housing Action Plan, the city of Auburn participated in the
development of a supporting document: the South King County Subregional Housing Action
Framework, along with the cities of Burien, Federal Way, Kent, Renton , and Tukwila. Auburn’s
individual Housing Action Plan builds off the data analysis, housing needs, demographic and
employment trends, housing policy review, and potential housing production strategies that
were generated through this previous subregional framework report.
Auburn’s individual Housing Action Plan must comply with state law, including adoption of
the grant-funded Housing Action Plan consisting of the needs assessment, housing policy
review, and implementation recommendation components, no later than June 30, 2021. Funding
is provided by the Washington State Department of Commerce via House Bill 1923 (HB 1923).
Housing Action Plan Development Process
Housing Action Plan efforts are focused on encouraging production of both affordable and
market rate housing at a variety of price points to meet the needs of current and future
Page 125 of 195
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix B B-2
residents. Developing the Housing Action Plan is a multi-step process (see Figure 1).
Throughout the entire process, a subconsultant, Broadview Planning is engaging the public to
seek input on the community’s vision and housing needs, as well as ideas and
recommendations for how Auburn can increase capacity for more housing. In addition, the
public will be invited to review a draft Housing Action Plan and provide comment before the
City moves toward finalization and City Council adoption of the Housing Action Plan.
Figure 1. Auburn’s Housing Action Plan Development Process
The Department of Commerce requires that Housing Action Plans be adopted by each city. In
Auburn, that means the Housing Action Plan will be presented to city staff for review, revised,
and then presented for public review. After reviewing those comments, a revised, final Housing
Action Plan will be presented to the Planning Commission, then to City Council for adoption.
Public Engagement
Community Vision
Solicit Ideas
Assess Changes
Existing Conditions
Data Analysis
Employment Trends
Population Growth
Policy Evaluation
Recommended Actions
Public Input
Staff Input
Development
Analysis
Prioritization
Adoption
Planning Commission
City Council
Page 126 of 195
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix B B-3
Housing Needs Analysis
This section summarizes the housing inventory, household1 demographics, and socio-economic
trends that influence housing needs in Auburn. It is based on work conducted for the South King
County Subregional Housing Action Framework which was completed in June 2020. Important data
sources, methods, and assumptions are listed in Part 5 beginning on page 35.
This report uses the best available data sources to assess the housing inventory and future
needs, analyze employment trends, and analyze demographic trends in Auburn. Because
Auburn has more than 65,000 people, it is surveyed in the American Community Survey every
year and thus has data in 1-year samples. The most recent survey data is for 2018. Information
from other sources may be a few years old but represent best data s ources.
Current Housing Inventory
As of 2018, there were 31,345 total housing units in Auburn (OFM, 2019). About half of
Auburn’s housing stock was built in the 1980’s or earlier (King County Assessor, 2020) and the
majority of the housing is single-family detached (61 percent). About 16 percent of Auburn’s
housing stock is located in properties with 2 -4 units, and construction of these housing types
peaked in the 1970s and 1980s. About 23 percent of Auburn’s housing stock is characterized as
multifamily, the majority of which was build pre-1960, and in the 1990s and 2000s.2
Auburn saw 3,511 new
dwelling units built
between 2011 and
2019, averaging 390
new units per year.
Over this period, 7.8
new housing units were
produced for every 10
new households that
formed in Auburn.3
Figure 2. Number of Units Built Per Year, Auburn, 2011-2019
Source: OFM, 2019.
1 The U.S. Census defines a household as the following: “all the people who occupy a housing unit (such as a house
or apartment) as their usual place of residence. A household includes the related family members and all the
unrelated people, if any, such as lodgers, foster children, wards, or employees who share the housing unit. A person
living alone in a housing unit, or a group of unrelated people sharing a housing unit such as partners or roomers, is
also counted as a household. The count of households excludes group quarters. There are two major categories of
households, "family" and "nonfamily." (see: https://www.census.gov/glossary/#term_Household)
2 In this report, multifamily housing is defined as five or more units in a given property development.
3 Household formation occurs when people move into the city, or when one household becomes two (e.g., a child
moves out of a family home, roommates separate).
Page 127 of 195
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix B B-4
The majority of
Auburn’s homeowners
(88 percent) live in
single-family detached
housing.
About half of Auburn’s
renters live in
multifamily housing
(with five or more units
per structure) and 23
percent of renters live in
single-family detached
housing.
Figure 3. Occupied Housing by Tenure, Auburn, 2014-2018
Source: ACS (5 year 2014-2018).
The majority of
Auburn’s single-family
housing stock was built
prior to the 2000’s. The
1960’s, 1990’s, and
2000’s saw peak
construction of single-
family homes.
The majority of
duplexes, triplexes and
quad-plex type housing
was built prior to the
2000’s. The 1970’s and
1980’s saw peak
construction of these
housing types relative to
other years.
Figure 4. Type of Single-Family Housing Built, Auburn, 1960-2020
Source: King County Assessor’s Office, 2020.
The majority of
multifamily housing in
Auburn was built before
2000. Auburn saw an
increase in larger
multifamily housing
development (100+
units) in the 1980s,
1990s, 2000s, and
2010s.
The majority of medium
sized multi-family
housing (between 5 and
50 units) was built in
the 1990s or earlier.
Figure 5. Scale of Multifamily Housing Built, Auburn, 1960-2020
Source: King County Assessor’s Office, 2020.
88%
23%
7%
8%
2%
20%
3%
49%
0%
20 %
40 %
60 %
80 %
10 0%
Owner Re nter
Single-famil y detached Single-family at tached
Dupl ex, Tripl ex , Quadplex Mul tifamily (5 + units)
Type of Single-Family Housing (units)
Page 128 of 195
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix B B-5
Compared to King
County and South King
County, Auburn has a
higher share of 2-star4
apartments (typically
older properties with
few amenities).
Based on CoStar data,
half of Auburn’s
apartment housing
stock is rated 2-star,
compared to 27 percent
in King County and
South King County.
Figure 6. Share of CoStar5 Multifamily Inventory by “Star Rating” in
Auburn, South King County, and King County
Source: CoStar; Note: n signifies number of properties in each geography’s sample.
Compared to King
County and South King
County, Auburn has a
larger share of 3- and 4-
bedroom units.
About one-third of
Auburn’s housing units
have 1 or 2 bedrooms.
Figure 7. Share of Housing Units by Bedroom Size, Auburn, South King
County, and King County
Source: ECONorthwest analysis of U.S. Census Bureau PUMS 2018 1-year survey data6
4 CoStar’s proprietary ratings consider design, amenities, certification, and landscaping, and other factors. A 5-Star
multifamily building represents the luxury end of the market as it relates to finishes, amenities, design, and the
highest level of specifications for its style (garden, low-rise, mid-rise, or high-rise). 4-Star multifamily buildings are
constructed with higher end finishes and specifications, provide desirable amenities to residents, and are built to
contemporary standards. 3-Star multifamily buildings are likely smaller and older with less energy-efficient systems,
average quality finishes and or a layout conducive to compact lifestyle, and few on-site facilities. 2-Star multifamily
buildings have small, adequate windows, average aesthetics, purely functional systems, below-average finishes and
use of space, and limited on-site facilities. 1-star multifamily buildings are practically uncompetitive, may require
significant renovation, and may be functionally obsolete.
5 CoStar is a private, third-party, proprietary data provider commonly used in the real estate industry. Of its
residential data, CoStar focuses on multifamily properties with four or more units. While CoStar is one of the best
sources for multifamily data, it has gaps and limitations. Newer buildings and those that are professionally managed
are more likely to have reliable information, while smaller, older buildings may have incomplete or missing data. In
Auburn in 2020, CoStar had data on about 5,800 multifamily units (in properties with four or more units). This
compares to a 2018 PUMS estimate of roughly 12,000 multifamily units (in properties with five or more units).
6 The Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) dataset is very comprehensive and provided by the U.S. Census Bureau
for statistical analysis. PUMS data are only available for geographies called Public Use Microdata Sample Areas
(PUMAs) which contain about 100,000 people. The Auburn PUMA includes the Cities of Auburn and Lakeland.
51 %
27 %
27 %
38%
56%
36%
11%
17 %
34%
1%
3%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Au burn
(n=5,794)
S. King Co un ty
(n=49,571)
Kin g Coun ty
(n=305,516)
2-star 3-sta r 4-sta r 5-s ta r
3%
3%
7%
12%
13%
17%
22%
28%
24%
37%
32%
27%
23%
18%
19%
4%
5%
6%
0%20 %40 %60 %80 %10 0%
Auburn
South King County
King County
St udios 1-BR Units 2-BR Unit s 3-BR Units 4-BR Unit s 5+ BR Units
Page 129 of 195
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix B B-6
About 37 percent of all
housing units in Auburn
have 3 bedrooms, the
largest share of all
bedroom sizes.
Four-bedroom units
make up the next
largest share of the
city’s total housing stock
(23 percent), followed
by 2-bedroom units (22
percent), and then 1-
bedroom units (12
percent).
Figure 8. Housing Units by Bedroom Size, Auburn
Source: ECONorthwest analysis of U.S. Census Bureau PUMS 2018 1-year survey data
Special Needs Housing
The 2010 Census provides the most recent available data for describing residents that live in
group homes or residential treatment centers. In that year, about 105 Auburn residents lived in
group homes intended for adults, and no adult residents lived in residential treatment centers
(Census, 2010). According to the Census Bureau, group homes are “community-based group
living arrangements in residential settings that are able to accommodate three or more clients of
a service provider.”7 These homes provide services to clients such as behavioral or social
programs, in addition to room and board. Residential treatment centers differ from group
homes in that they are staffed 24-hours per day and help treat residents for ailments such as
drug or alcohol abuse, or behavioral disorders.8
Population and Household Demographics
This section provides information on the demographics of Auburn residents, both at the
population level and at the household level. This section includes important information on the
race and ethnicity characteristics of Auburn residents. The U.S. Census Bureau considers race
and ethnicity as two distinct concepts. Census survey respondents self-identify as one of two
ethnicities: Hispanic or Latino, or Not Hispanic or Latino. Census survey respondents also self -
identify as one of seven races (these are the options offered by the Census): White, Asian, Pacific
Islander or Native Hawaiian, Black or African American, American Indian or Alaskan Native,
7 U.S. Census Bureau. Definition of Group Homes Intended for Adults (pg. 7). 2010 American Community
Survey/Puerto Rico Community Survey Group Quarters Definitions. https://www2.census.gov/programs-
surveys/acs/tech_docs/group_definitio ns/2010GQ_Definitions.pdf
8 U.S. Census Bureau. Definition of Residential Treatment Centers for Adults (pg. 7). 2010 American Community
Survey/Puerto Rico Community Survey Group Quarters Definitions.
1,793
10,799
17,177
10,106
5,377
1,397
- 5,00 0 10 ,0 00 15 ,0 00 20,0 00
5+Bedrooms
4-Bedr oom
3-Bedr oom
2-Bedr oom
1-Bedr oom
Studi os
Page 130 of 195
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix B B-7
Multiple Races, or “Other” Race. This analysis groups individuals by their race and ethnicity
(e.g., Non-Hispanic Black or African American), so as to provide mutually exclusive racial and
ethnic identities.
Population Characteristics
Between 2010 and 2018, Auburn’s population grew by more than 10,400 new residents, from
70,180 people in 2010, to 80,615 people in 2018. Auburn’s population is younger on average
compared to other cities in South King County, with a larger share of residen ts under age 19. In
addition, as of the 2014-2018 time period, about 16 percent of Auburn’s residents identify as
Hispanic or Latino of any race and about 57 percent identify as non-Hispanic White.
Like most areas, the
majority of Auburn’s
residents are between 20
and 64 years old.
Auburn has a larger
population proportion of
young residents (those age
19 years and under) than
seniors (those 65 years and
older).
Figure 9. Age Distribution, Auburn, 2014-2018
Source: ACS (5 year 2014-2018).
Share of Population
As of the 2014-2018 time period, about 16 percent of Auburn’s residents identif ied as Hispanic
or Latino of any race and about 57 percent as non-Hispanic White. About 11 percent identified
as non-Hispanic Asian, and another 11 percent as non-Hispanic of Another or Multiple races
(including Pacific Islander or Native Hawaiian and Non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaskan
Native). About 5 percent identified as non -Hispanic Black or African American.
Figure 10. Population by Race and Ethnicity, Auburn (City), 2014- 2018
Source: ACS (5-year, 2014-2018).
8%
8%
7%
6%
7%
15%
13%
13%
7%
6%
6%
3%
1%
0%5%10 %15 %20 %
Un der 5 years
5 to 9 years
10 to 14 years
15 to 19 years
20 to 24 years
25 to 34 years
35 to 44 years
45 to 54 years
55 to 59 years
60 to 64 years
65 to 74 years
75 to 84 years
85 years and over
16%57 %11%5%11 %
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Share of Total Population
His pa nic or Latin o of An y Ra ce Non -Hispanic Wh ite
Non-Hispan ic of A nothe r or Multiple Races Non -Hispanic B la ck or A frican America n
Non-Hispan ic A sian
Page 131 of 195
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix B B-8
Auburn saw an 86 percent increase in the number of residents who identify as Hispanic or Latino
of any race between 2010 and 2018. In addition, Auburn saw about a 67 percent increase in the
number of residents who identify as being non-Hispanic of Another or Multiple races (including
Pacific Islander or Native Hawaiian and Non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaskan Native ).
Figure 11. Population by Race and Ethnicity, Auburn (City), 2010 and 2018
Source: ACS (5-year, 2006-2010 and 2014-2018).
As of 2018, across all race and ethnic groups, residents of the Auburn Area PUMA (which
includes Lakeland and some rural areas) tend to own their homes rather than rent. The
homeownership rate in this area is about 64 percent, right in line with national averages.
However, more residents identifying as non-Hispanic Black or African American, or non-Hispanic of
Another or Multiple races (including Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander, and American Indian
and Alaskan Native) rent rather than own their homes.
Figure 12. Population Tenure by Race and Ethnicity, Auburn Area PUMA, 2018
Source: ECONorthwest analysis of U.S. Census Bureau PUMS 2018 1 -year data
44,302
5,266
6,891
3,816
6,710
44,803
8,782
12,831
3,894
8,800
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000
Non -Hispanic Wh ite
Non -Hispanic of A nothe r or M ultip le Races
Hispanic or Latino of An y Ra ce
Non-His panic B lack or A frican America n
Non-Hispan ic A sian
Total Population
2018 2010
47,511
5,475
9,539
2,789
9,202
20,097
6,134
9,234
3,142
3,424
0 20,000 40,000 60,000
Non-Hispanic Wh ite
Non -Hispanic of A nothe r or Multip le Races
Hispa nic or Latino of An y Ra ce
Non-Hispanic B la ck or A frican America n
Non-Hispan ic A sian
Total Population
Homeowner Re nter
Page 132 of 195
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix B B-9
Household Characteristics
Similar to other cities in South King County, about 33 percent of Auburn’s households earned
less than half of the Area Median Income (AMI - see page 12 for a description of AMI) in 2018,
compared to 34 percent in the South King County region. Auburn’s average household size is
2.72 persons for renters and 2.80 persons per household for homeowners (ACS, 2014 -2018).
The majority (62 percent)
of Auburn’s households
were one- and two-person
households.
About 25 percent of
Auburn’s households were
large families, with four or
more persons per
household.
Between 2012 and 2018,
Auburn added 7,474 new
households (PUMS, 2012
and 2018).
Figure 13. Number of Households by Household Size, Auburn,
2014-2018
Source: ACS (5 year 2014-2018).
The majority (56 percent)
of Auburn households own
and 44 percent of
households rent.
In Tukwila, only 40 percent
of housing units were
owner-occupied in 2018. In
Burien, this figure was 53
percent.
Figure 14. Household Tenure, Auburn, 2014-2018
Source: ACS (5 year 2014-2018).
About two-thirds of
Auburn’s households are
family households.9
Approximately one-third of
Auburn’s households are
non-family households
(roommates and one-
person households).
Figure 15. Household Composition, Auburn, 2014-2018
Source: ACS (5 year 2014-2018).
9 See footnote 1 on page 4 for a definition of family household.
8,549
9,775
3,850
7,491
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10 ,00 0
12 ,00 0
1 2 3 4+
56%44%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100 %
Owner-occup ie d h ouseholds Re nter-occupied ho useho lds
33%34%33%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Non-family ho useho lds
Family house holds without children
Family house holds with c hildren
Page 133 of 195
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix B B-10
Income Characteristics
Income is one of the key determinants in housing choice and households’ ability to afford
housing. This is due to the fact that, for most households in the U.S., housing is the single
largest expense and impacts numerous other factors like access to jobs, schools, and amenities.
Between 2012 and 2018, Auburn saw a large increase in the number of households earning
between 50% and 80% of the 2018 King County Area Median Income (AMI – see page 11 for a
description), while it saw a modest decrease in the number of households earning less than 30%
of AMI, and a small decrease in the number of households ea rning between 80% and 100% of
AMI (see Figure 16).
About 33 percent of
Auburn’s households earn
less than 50% of AMI. This
is in line with the South
King County Region as a
whole, where 34 percent of
households earn less than
50% of AMI.
Auburn’s share of
households earning more
than 80% of AMI is also
similar to that of the South
King County Region: 41
percent and 43 percent,
respectively.
Figure 16. Income Distribution by AMI, Auburn, 2012 and 2018
Source: PUMS (2012 and 2018).
The majority of Auburn
homeowners, 56 percent,
earned 80% of AMI or
more, while the majority of
renters, 82 percent, earned
80% of AMI or less.
The share of renters
earning less than 80% of
AMI is similar to that of
South King County, 74
percent.
Figure 17. Income Distribution by AMI and Tenure, Auburn, 2018
Source: PUMS, 2018.
Page 134 of 195
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix B B-11
Like national trends, household incomes in Auburn vary meaningfully by race and ethnicity.
Across all races and ethnicities, household incomes in Auburn are lower than that of Bellevue,
and King County as a whole.
In the 2014-2018 time period, non-Hispanic White and non-Hispanic Asian households had
incomes above Auburn’s median, while incomes for non-Hispanic households of Multiple Races
were right in line with the median. Most other races and ethnicities had household incomes below
the median.
Figure 18. Household Income by Race and Ethnicity, Auburn, Bellevue, and King County, 2018
Source: ACS (5 year 2014-2018).
$89,418
$94,533
$48,075
$49,059
$102,233
$70,361
$54,123
$76,155
$62,784
$112,283
$109,604
$73,531
$47,928
$121,192
$64,356
$92,393
$74,826
$68,947
$72,117
$47,917
$54,875
$83,911
$71,314
$52,326
$66,250
$56,161
$0 $50,000 $100,000
All ho us eho ld s
Non -His pan ic Wh ite
Non -His pan ic B la ck or A fric an
Am erican
Non -His pan ic A me ric an Ind ian o r
Ala skan Native
Non -His pan ic A sian
Non -Hi s pan ic P ac ific Islan der o f
Native Hawa iia n
Non -His pan ic of A nothe r Race
Non -His pan ic of M ultiple Ra ces
H is pa nic or L atin o of An y Ra ce
Au bu rn Be llev ue K in g Coun ty
Hispanic or Latino of Any Race
Non-Hispanic of Multiple Races
Non-Hispanic of Another Race
Non-Hispanic Pacific Islander or
Native Hawaiian
Non-Hispanic Asian
Non-Hispanic American Indian or
Alaskan Native
Non-Hispanic Black or African
American
Non-Hispanic White
All Households
Page 135 of 195
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix B B-12
Housing Affordability
Housing costs are typically the largest portion of a household budget. Housing is considered to
be affordable to a household of a certain income if the household pays less than 30 percent of its
gross income on monthly housing costs. While this is an imper fect measure of affordability and
does not consider disposable income after housing costs, it is an industry -accepted threshold to
measure affordability.
Understanding AMI and MFI
Each year, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) defines an area’s
Median Family Income (MFI), but Area Median Income (AMI) is often used to mean the same
thing.10 AMI is used in this report to align with King County’s data and reporting . In 2018, the
King County AMI was $103,400 for a family of four. 2018 is used to align with the 2018 Census
data used in this report (the latest available).
HUD calculates affordability and income limits for metro areas and counties across the country,
based on the area's MFI which comes from Census data.11 The City of Auburn falls within the
Seattle-Bellevue, WA Metro Area and is subject to the same income and affordability limits as
the rest of the cities in this metro area (which includes King County and Snohomish County).
Properties developed in Auburn that use HUD income limits to determine eligibility – such as
regulated affordable housing that is restricted to tenants of a certain income – will use the same
affordability limit as properties in Bellevue, Seattle, or other parts of King and Snohomish
Counties, since they all fall within the same HUD metro area.
In 2018, the Seattle-Bellevue, WA HUD Metro Area MFI was $103,400 for a family of four. HUD
adjusts the income limits up or down based on family size and provides income limits for 30%
of MFI, 50% of MFI, and 80% of MFI (see Figure 19).
10 We used AMI and MFI interchangeably in this report. HUD offers the following note on MFI vs AMI: “HUD
estimates Median Family Income (MFI) annually for each metropolitan area and non-metropolitan county. The
metropolitan area definitions are the same ones HUD uses for Fair Market Rents (except where statute requires a
different configuration). HUD calculates Income Limits as a function of the area's Median Family Income (MFI). The
basis for HUD’s median family incomes is data from the American Community Survey, table B19113 - MEDIAN
FAMILY INCOME IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS. The term Area Median Income is the term used more generally in the
industry. If the term Area Median Income (AMI) is used in an unqualified manor, this reference is synonymous with
HUD's MFI. However, if the term AMI is qualified in some way - generally percentages of AMI, or AMI adjusted for
family size, then this is a reference to HUD's income limits, which are calculated as percentages of median incomes
and include adjustments for families of different sizes.” Source: HUD. 2018. “FY 2018 Income Limits Frequently
Asked Questions.” https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il/il18/FAQs-18r.pdf
11 For the Seattle-Bellevue, WA HUD Metro FMR Area, HUD has deviated from its typical use of Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) area definitions. In this case, the Seattle-Bellevue, WA HUD Metro FMR Area
income limit program parameters include King County and Snohomish County.
Page 136 of 195
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix B B-13
Figure 19. HUD 2018 Income Limits for Seattle-Bellevue, WA HUD Metro Fair Market Rent Area
Source: HUD (see https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il.html and select the year and metro area from the list).
Afford-
ability
Level
Family Size (Number of People)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
30% $22,500 $25,700 $28,900 $32,100 $34,700 $37,250 $39,850 $42,400
50% $37,450 $42,800 $48,150 $53,500 $57,800 $62,100 $66,350 $70,650
80% $56,200 $64,200 $72,250 $80,250 $86,700 $93,100 $99,550 $105,950
100% $103,400
Additional income limits (such as 60% or 120%) can be calculated off the 100% income limit to
get an approximation of other affordability thresholds. However, these approximations —and
HUD’s official limits —may not be exact scalars to the 100% median income (in Figure 19 the
official 50% income limit for a family of four is slightly higher than half of the 100% limit).
Figure 20. HUD 2018 Income Limits for Seattle-Bellevue, WA HUD Metro FMR Area, Max Housing
Costs, and Example Jobs
Source: HUD 2018, Puget Sound Regional Council Employment Data, ECONorthwest Calculations
Family Size 2018
Income Limit
Annual
Income
Max Monthly Housing Costs
(30% of Monthly Income)
Example Jobs
(full time)
2-Person
Family
30% of AMI $25,700 $643 1 worker in retail sector
50% of AMI $42,800 $1,070 1 worker in retail sector
80% of AMI $64,200 $1,605 2 workers in food service; 1 full
time worker in info. tech.
100% of AMI $85,600 $2,140
2 workers in retail sector; 1
worker in management + 1
worker in retail sector
4-Person
Family
30% of AMI $32,100 $803 1 worker in food service
50% of AMI $53,500 $1,338 1 worker in transportation /
warehousing
80% of AMI $80,250 $2,006
1 worker in finance;
1 worker in education + 1
worker in retail sector
100% of AMI $103,400 $2,585
1 worker in finance + 1 worker
in agriculture; 2 construction
workers
Median Household Income (MHI)
Because the Seattle-Bellevue, WA HUD Metro Fair Market Rent Area is so large, it does not
account for differences within the geography. As noted, a property developed in Auburn u sing a
50% income limit would have the same rents as one in Bellevue, despite underlying differences
in the incomes of these cities individually. To capture a more localized consideration of median
income, we calculated Auburn’s median household income (MHI) using Census 5-year ACS data
(see Figure 18). In the 2014-2018 time period, Auburn’s median household income was
estimated to be $68,950. This is much lower than the $89,400 estimated for King County as a
whole, and significantly lower than the $112,300 estimated for the City of Bellevue (using the
Page 137 of 195
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix B B-14
same Census 5-year ACS data). The MHI for the South King County region was estimated at
$71,400 using Census PUMS 2018 1-year data.
It is important to note that this MHI is not directly comparable to HUD’s MFI. HUD’s MFI
calculation relies on underlying Census data related to family incomes, and the 100% median is
set for families of four. This MHI is for all households – not just families – and households can
have a wide range of compositions (e.g., roommates) compared to families. In the City of
Auburn, the median household only has 2.77 people. An area’s MHI is typically lower than its
MFI.
While MHI does not directly compare to MFI, the fact that Auburn’s MHI is lower than other
cities in the region, but that affordable properties in Auburn use region-wide MFI limits, means
that households and families in Auburn may have a harder time finding housing that is
affordable within their income ranges (costing less than 30 percent of gross monthly income).
Housing Cost Trends
In the past decade, housing costs in the entire Puget Sound have risen dramatically, buoyed by
the strong economy, low housing production, and high dem and for housing in the region. Price
increases in the past decade are also high because they are measured off the very low prices in
2010, which was a period of home price declines from the housing crisis and economic
recession.
Auburn is no exception to having seen steep price increases. Since 2010, home prices in Auburn
rose by 88 percent, from a median sales price of $222,750 in 2010 to $418,300 in 2020 (see Figure
21). In addition, the average rent for a two-bedroom apartment in Auburn increased by 49
percent from 2010 to 2020, reaching $1,393 per month. Using 2018 income data from
Figure 20, this average rent for a two-bedroom apartment would be affordable to a four-person
household earning 50% of the AMI (which would be a relatively tight space), or to a two -person
household earning between 50% and 80% of AMI.
Between 2010 and 2020,
the average monthly rent in
Auburn increased by 49
percent ($459 per month).
In this same time period,
the median sales price for
a home increased by 88
percent ($195,550).
Figure 21. Median Home Sales Price and Average 2-Bedroom Rent,
Auburn, 2010 and 2020
Source: Costar and Zillow. Not adjusted for inflation.
2010 2020
Average Rent $934 $1,393
Median Sales Price $222,750 $418,300
Figure 22 demonstrates the housing cost distribution of Auburn’s ownership housing stock as it
relates to percent of AMI (this includes all ownership housing types and sizes). Despite price
increases over time, Auburn’s housing stock remains somewhat affordable to lower income
households: 38 percent of all housing units are affordable to households earning less than 50%
of AMI ($42,800 for a family of two and $53,500 for a family of four). Another 32 percent of the
Page 138 of 195
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix B B-15
housing stock is affordable to households earning between 50% and 80% of AMI ($42,800-
$64,200 for a family of two and $53,500-$80,250 for a family of four).
Of Auburn’s ownership
units (using 2018 data), 38
percent were affordable to
households earning less
than 50% of AMI, 32
percent were affordable to
households earning 50-
80% of AMI, and 30
percent were affordable to
households earning 80% of
AMI or more.
Figure 22. Ownership Housing Units Affordable by AMI, Auburn,
2018
Source: PUMS (2018).
Figure 23 demonstrates the housing cost distribution of Auburn’s rental housing stock as it
relates to percent of AMI (this includes all rental housing types and sizes). Despite cost
increases over time, Auburn’s housing stock remains relatively affordable to lower income
households: 54 percent of rental housing units are affordable to households earning less than
50% of AMI ($42,800 for a family of two and $53,500 for a family of fou r). Another 35 percent of
the rental housing stock is affordable to households earning between 50% and 80% of AMI
($42,800-$64,200 for a family of two and $53,500-$80,250 for a family of four).
Of Auburn’s rental units
(using 2018 data), 54
percent were affordable to
households earning less
than 50% of AMI, 35
percent were affordable to
households earning 50-
80% of AMI, and 11
percent were affordable to
households earning 80% of
AMI or more.
Figure 23. Rental Housing Units Affordable by AMI, Auburn, 2018
Source: PUMS (2018).
Regulated and Unregulated Affordable Housing
Importantly, Figure 23 also includes the regulated affordable rental housing stock in the City.
Regulated affordable housing is income or rent-restricted by certain county, state, or federal
agencies, to ensure that it is occupied by households earning a certain income. Regulations are
set according to the types of funding used to develop the housing, such as the Low-Income
Housing Tax Credit, or HUD funding. Most regulated affordable housing is restricted for
households earning under 60% of AMI, but these restrictions vary. Often, the only healthy,
Page 139 of 195
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix B B-16
quality housing that rents at prices affordable to households earning less than 30% of AMI is
this regulated housing stock.12
In 2020, Auburn had 2,778 regulated affordable housing units which are in cluded in all analyses
of Auburn’s housing stock. These units were provided in 31 across the City, with an average of
88 units per property (King County Housing Authority, the Washington State Housing Finance
Commission, and HUD, 2020). The majority of these units are affordable to households earning
less than 60% AMI, and very few units are restricted to households earning less than 30% AMI.
Additionally, construction data was available for about 72 percent of Auburn’s regulated units.
Of these 2,027 units, 22 percent were constructed before 2000, and another 24 percent were
constructed between 2000 and 2010. The remaining 54 percent were constructed after 2011, with
the largest delivery of units occurring in 2018 at 879 units, or 43 percent of the total s tock for
properties with data.
For numerous reasons relating to the cost of building and operating housing, cities across the
country face a shortage of affordable housing units to meet demand. Nationally, only 1 -in-4
households who would qualify for Federal housing assistance, is able to receive it. As a result,
the majority of low-income households live in low-cost market rentals, that are often referred to
as “naturally occurring affordable housing” (NOAH) units.
Figure 24 below presents data on Auburn’s NOAH ren tal units. These units are defined as
NOAHs by virtue of being unregulated but affordable to lower-income households (either
households earning less than 50% of AMI or less than 80% of AMI). NOAH units are an
important part of a city’s housing stock, but c an be at risk of substandard quality, neglect, or
dramatic price increases because they are not regulated. Auburn has few NOAH units that can
accommodate larger household sizes in 3- and 4-bedroom units.
Of Auburn’s 6,421 NOAH
units, 34 percent are
affordable to households
earning 50% of AMI or less
and 66 percent are
affordable to households
earning between 50-80%
of AMI.
Figure 24. Number of Naturally Occurring Affordable Rental Units,
by AMI Level, Auburn, 2012-2016
Source: ECONorthwest Analysis of Costar data.
Units Affordable at: 50% of AMI
or less
80% of AMI
or less
Studio units 87 230
1-bedroom units 1,029 2,477
2-bedroom units 952 3,139
3-bedroom units 103 471
4-bedroom units 12 104
Total 2,183 6,421
12 Unregulated housing stock that may be affordable t o households earning less than 30% of AMI may be
substandard quality. Households with these extremely low incomes may also find housing via HUD’s Housing
Choice Voucher program, where a subsidy pays the difference between the market rent and the price the household
can pay.
Page 140 of 195
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix B B-17
Housing Cost Burdening
When a household cannot find adequate housing (habitable, the appropriate size, in a desired
location) at a price that is considered to be affordable, it becomes “cost burdened.” As
mentioned, the typical standard used to determine housing affordability is that a household
should pay no more than 30 percent of its gross household income for housing, including
payments and interest or rent, utilities, and insurance. HUD guidelines indicate that households
paying more than 30 percent of their income on housing experience “cost burdening” and
households paying more than 50 percent of their income on housing experience “severe cost
burdening” (because those paying more than 50% on housing are by definition paying more
than 30% on housing, rates of “cost burden” include those considered
“severely cost burdened”). Cost burdening is an issue in that
households may have too little income leftover after paying for housing
costs, to afford other necessities, such as transportation, food, medicine,
or childcare. Housing cost burdening is particularly important for low -
income households, who have very little income to begin with.
Policymakers typically focus on renters when assessing cost burdening.
It can signal a lack of affordable housing in a region. It is less of a focus
for homeowners, because a lender will assess a buyer’s ability to pay
for a mortgage before the household can buy a home, and because
mortgage payments are typically fixed and do not fluctuate with the
larger economy or housing market. Thus, homeowners are not as
vulnerable to price changes in the housing market.
In 2018, 88 percent of renters earning less than 30% of AMI were cost burdened and 71 percent
of renters earning between 30% to 50% of AMI were cost burdened (see Figure 26). Cost
burdening tends to decline as incomes go up, because a household has more income to spend
on housing. In Auburn, 33 percent of renters earning between 50% and 80% of AMI were cost
burdened.
Of the approximate 15,507
renter households in
Auburn, more than half (53
percent) are cost burdened,
and more than one-quarter
(27 percent) are severely
cost burdened.
Figure 25. Cost Burdened and Severely Cost Burdened Renters,
Auburn, 2018
Source: PUMS (2018).
Income
Category
Total
Households Cost Burdened Severely Cost
Burdened
Count % Share Count % Share
0 – 30% 4,407 3,886 88% 3,160 72%
30 – 50% 4,009 2,830 71% 1,004 25%
50 – 80% 4,299 1,426 33% 0 0%
80 – 100% 1,381 0 0% 0 0%
100% + 1,411 121 9% 0 0%
Total 15,507 8,263 53% 4,164 27%
Recalling the figures on
page 13, a four-person
household earning less
than 30% of AMI in 2018
could afford a maximum
monthly rent of $803. Yet
the average two-bedroom
apartment in Auburn was
nearly $1,400 in 2020.
With rents at this level,
extremely low-income
households are hard
pressed to find housing
that is affordable, and
often end up cost-
burdened.
Page 141 of 195
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix B B-18
Of Auburn’s renter
households (earning 30%
of AMI or less), 88 percent
were cost burdened and 72
percent were severely cost
burdened.
Because those paying more
than 50% on housing are by
definition paying more than
30% on housing, rates of
“cost burden” include those
considered “severely cost
burdened.”
Figure 26. Cost Burdened and Severely Cost Burdened Renters,
Auburn, 2018
Source: PUMS (2018).
In Auburn, households of color account for a disproportionate number of households
experiencing cost burdening, compared to their share of total populations (see Figure 27).
Hispanic households of any race accounted for approximately 25 percent of all of the households
experiencing cost burdening (blue bar) in the 2014-2018 period, yet they only accounted for
roughly 16 percent of the Auburn area’s total households (yellow bar). This means that they are
disproportionately cost burdened relative to non -Hispanic White and non-Hispanic Asian
households.
Figure 27. Cost Burdening by Race and Ethnicity, Auburn Area PUMA, 2014 -2018
Source: PUMS (5 year 2014-2018).
Page 142 of 195
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix B B-19
Housing Affordability, with Transportation Cost Considerations
The standard definition of cost burden does not factor transportation costs. However, today,
housing advocates and researchers stress the importance of considering transportation costs in
affordability analyses, because many households relocate to the oute r edges of metro areas in
search of affordable housing, thereby increasing their transportation costs.
Center for Neighborhood Technology publishes a Housing + Transportation Affordability Index
(H&T Index) (most recently as of 2017), providing a ready-made data source for assessing the
possible transportation cost burdening of Auburn residents. The H+T Index calculates, through
a series of statistical models, the transportation and housing costs for the “regional typical” and
“regional moderate” household; “typical” meaning a household earning the regional AMI with
the regional average number of commuting workers and persons per household, and
“moderate” meaning a household earning 80% of AMI (but having the same number of workers
and persons per household).
For the Seattle metro region, the “regional typical” household has the following attributes
according to the H+T Model:
▪ Income: $70,475
▪ Commuters: 1.19 workers
▪ Household Size: 2.54 people
While the index considers the “regional moderate” (80% of AMI) household as:
▪ Income: $56,380
▪ Commuters: 1.19 workers
▪ Household Size: 2.54 people
In Auburn, the model estimates that a “typical” household would spend about 45 percent of its
income on housing and transportation costs, while a “moderate” household w ould spend about
52 percent of its income on these necessities. This compares to 44 percent and 52 percent for
households in Kent, and 44 and 51 percent for households in Federal Way (see Figure 28).
Figure 28. 2017 Housing + Transportation Costs as a Percent of Household Income, South King
County Jurisdictions and Comparable Areas
Source: Center for Neighborhood Technology Housing + Transportation Affordability Index
Name H+T costs as % of income -
100% of AMI
H+T costs as % of income -
80% of AMI
Auburn 45% 52%
Bellevue 55% 65%
Burien 44% 52%
Federal Way 44% 51%
Kent 44% 52%
Renton 46% 54%
Seattle 46% 54%
Tukwila 39% 46%
Page 143 of 195
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix B B-20
Displacement Risk
As described in the demographics section above, Auburn has a very diverse population – by age, race,
ethnicity, and household composition (e.g., family or non-family household). The City has included housing
preservation as a key goal driving this Housing Action Plan, particularly as it relates to preserving housing
for low-income households. Housing preservation is an anti-displacement effort, and can help to mitigate
and minimize the negative effects that often arise from new housing development.
Different Types of Displacement
Before determining recommendations to prevent against displacement, it is helpful to define and unpack
the meaning of displacement. Generally, there are three types of displacement:
▪ Economic or indirect displacement. Economic displacement can occur if new development or
redevelopment in an area rents or sells at higher price points that encourage owners of existing
units to increase rents, and these increases exceed what existing tenants can afford. The effects of
(re)development renting at market rates may spill over to lower -cost rental units, causing rents to
rise and potentially displacing existing residents. However, if supply is tight and high demand puts
upward pressure on rents, market changes could lead to displacement with out any new
development occurring in an area.
▪ Economic displacement can occur due to high demand and low supply of new
housing, with or without (re)development occurring. Economic insecurity and
displacement are very important for existing communities, bu t is difficult to measure
quantitatively.
▪ Low-income households are at high risk of economic displacement as they have
fewer choices about where they can afford to live.
▪ Physical or direct displacement. When evaluating when, where, and what type of project to build
or rehabilitate, developers consider many factors, including market rents, construction costs, local
amenities, and transit access. In some cases, public programs could encourage displacement by
incenting a developer to rehabilitate or replace older, less expensive (unregulated affordable)
housing with newer, higher-priced units. This could lead to the direct displacement of existing
residents, who may not be able to afford the higher rents in the new development.
▪ Physical displacement occurs w ith the redevelopment of a specific parcel. This only
occurs when new development is feasible, and can be measured quantitatively.
▪ In theory, any type of household could be at risk of physical displacement due to a
new development demolishing their current housing. But in reality, low-income
households, households of color, immigrant households, and other marginalized
populations are at higher risk of physical displacement. Wealthy or “powerful”
households are at lower risk of direct displacement, as they may not live in areas
experiencing new development, and they may hold sway over decision makers or
otherwise know how to exert influence in the process.
▪ Cultural displacement occurs when people “choose” to move because their neighbors and
culturally-relevant businesses and institutions have left the area. The presence (or absence) of these
cultural assets can influence racial or ethnic minority households in their decisions about where to
live, more than for broader populations. While this is difficult t o measure, and one can argue
whether these are true “choices” or whether this is “forced” displacement, it is an important effect
that can have broad equity implications beyond physical or economic displacement alone.
Page 144 of 195
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix B B-21
▪ Cultural displacement can occur with (re)development and includes business
displacement. While cultural displacement is very important for existing
communities, it is very difficult to measure quantitatively.
▪ Marginalized communities – be they low-income, a specific race or ethnicity, or
another group of people – are at higher risk of cultural displacement than dominant
communities. When businesses and housing that serves these communities leave or
are removed, people can feel pushed out of their neighborhoods.
Displacement Risk
Given these different types of displacement, Figure 29 on the following page shows the Census Block
Groups within the City of Auburn that are most vulnerable to displacement, based on six different
demographic and socioeconomic variables. Some of the Census Block Groups used in this analysis extend
beyond Auburn’s city limits, however this does not influence or affect the methodology. Any
recommendations about preservation and anti-displacement measures will be focused within Auburn’s city
limits.
Variables Used to Estimate Displacement Risk
▪ Percent of population that is a race other than non -Hispanic White
▪ Percent of households that speak a language other than English at home
▪ Percent of population over age 25 who lack a bachelor’s degree
▪ Percent of households that are renters
▪ Percent of households paying >30% or more of their gross income on housing
▪ Per capita income
See the full methodology in Part 5 on page 39.
The data only goes so far
Actually measuring displacement is difficult, and not quantifiable from data. It requires qualitative
information from in-person engagement with people living near new development. Cultural displacement, in
particular can be very difficult to measure, as its effects are subtle and multifaceted.
Page 145 of 195
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix B B-22
Figure 29. Map of Displacement Vulnerability in Auburn, 2018
Source: ECONorthwest Analysis of ACS 2018 5-year data.
Note: The block group with an * in the SouthWest corner of the City is mostly
commercial and industrial areas and has few housing units. A mobile home park
located in this block group scored high on displacement vulnerability.
Block groups shown in purple and dark pink have the highest risk of displacement vulnerability when
considering these socioeconomic factors. These neighborhoods might be at greater risk for economic
displacement which can occur even without new development if market forces – such as an imbalance of
housing supply and demand – work to increase rents.
It is important to keep in mind that this analysis does not consider development feasibility
layered in with displacement risk. All three forms of displacement – physical displacement,
economic displacement, and cultural displacement – can occur when new development occurs.
A deeper dive into economic displacement resulting from the spillover of new development
*
Page 146 of 195
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix B B-23
requires a robust analysis of new and existing rent trends, and this is beyond the scope of this
work. More analysis is needed to understand this risk.
When considering recommendations to boost housing production around the City, Auburn
should evaluate the displacement risk in each neighborhood, and act c arefully to implement
policy changes. More discussion of policy changes, housing preservation, and other anti -
displacement efforts will be discussed in a forthcoming Recommendations memorandum
(expected in Spring 2021) and full Housing Action Plan.
Access to Healthy Food
According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), food access is a measure that
considers accessibility to healthy foods and the resources necessary to obtain healthy foods such
as income and transportation, at both the individual and neighborhood levels. Healthy foods
can be found in supermarkets, grocery stores, and in other retail markets. The further the
distance required to travel to these supermarkets the greater the burden on individuals and
families to maintain a healthy diet. In urban areas, the USDA considers close access to healthy
food to be within one-mile of a household’s home for driving, and ½ mile for walking. 13
To assess access to healthy food in the City of Auburn, this analysis researched the locations of
grocery stores, culturally specific markets, and farmers markets in or just outside the city limits.
An initial list of locations was found via Google maps , Yelp.com, and was then cross-referenced
with Auburn’s retail license data to approximate the number and location of stores offering
healthy food. This analysis excludes locations that are primarily delis or hot-food suppliers,
even if these locations offer basic sundries. This analysis also excludes corner-markets and gas
station markets, even if these locations might offer basic stables such as milk and eggs.
As seen in Figure 30, Auburn residents have access to roughly 22 food retailers that might offer
healthy grocery stables. Twenty are located within city limits and two are within a mile of city
limits. Ten are found along Auburn Way, seven are big -box grocery stores, six are ethnic
grocery stores, and one is a farmer’s market.
13 USDA Economic Research Service. Food Access Research Atlas. Available from: https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-
products/food-access-research-atlas
Page 147 of 195
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix B B-24
Figure 30. Map of Grocery Stores in and Near Auburn, 2021
Source: City of Auburn Retail License Data, 2021, Google Maps, Yelp
Note: Circles represent number of housing units
Figure 30 also shows the driving distance to the closest grocery store or market for Auburn’s
households (depicted in blue, pink, red or yellow shading), as well as the number of housing
units clustered in dense areas (depicted by circle size). According to this analysis,
approximately 52 percent of Auburn’s housing units are located within one mile of a grocery
store or food retailer, and only 21 percent are located within walking distance – ½ mile or less.
Figure 31 below shows the locations of these 22 grocery stores and their one -mile drive sheds
overlaid with the displacement risk analysis conducted on page 21. This displacement risk
analysis considers socio-demographic variables such as income, minority race or ethnicity,
educational attainment and tenure by census Block Group. As the map displays, there does no t
appear to be a food access issue in the Block Groups identified as most vulnerable (depicted in
dark pink and purple).
Page 148 of 195
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix B B-25
Figure 31. Map of Grocery Stores in and Near Auburn and Census Block Groups with High
Displacement Vulnerability, 2018
Source: City of Auburn Retail License Data, 2021, Google Maps, Yelp
Employment & Transportation
Based on data from the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), Auburn’s total employment
grew from 40,070 jobs in 2008 to 45,989 jobs in 2018—an increase of 5,919 jobs or 15 percent. This
analysis measures residents of Auburn who are employed (in a given sector), not the total
number of jobs located in Auburn.
In 2018, the top four largest industries, in terms of total employed Auburn residents were: (1)
Manufacturing with 8,764 people, (2) Retail Trade with 5,091 people, (3) Health Care and Social
Page 149 of 195
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix B B-26
Assistance with 4,925 people, and (4) Wholesale Trade with 4,308 people. Combined, these
industries represent 50 percent of Auburn’s total resident employmen t workforce.
Between 2008 and 2018, several industries lost Auburn residents. The four industries that lost
the greatest share of employed Auburn residents were: (1) Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas
Extraction with a 100 percent decline, (2) Utilities al so with a 100 percent decline, (3) Retail with
a 13 percent decline, and (4) Public Administration with a 12 percent decline. Combined, these
industries represent a loss of 1,251 employment jobs.
Job losses in each of the industries mentioned above, and job gains in new industries, signify a
shift in Auburn’s employment profile between 2008 and 2018. For example, the five industries
which gained the greatest share of employment were: (1) Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and
Hunting with a 192 percent increase, 14 (2) Finance and Insurance with a 115 percent increase, (3)
Real Estate and Rental and Leasing with a 72 percent increase, (4) Health Care and Social
Assistance with a 70 percent increase, and (5) Transportation and Warehousing with a 53
percent increase. Combined, these industries represent a gain of 3,784 employees.
Median salaries in 2018 also varied by industry. At opposite ends of the wage spectrum, the
Accommodation and Food Services industry had the lowest annual wages of $32,451, of which
this industry represented approximately five percent of Auburn’s total employment. On the
other, the Finance and Insurance industry had the highest annual wage of $79,375, representing
about 2 percent of Auburn’s total employment.
Figure 32 below shows how far an Auburn resident can travel to access employment in the
Puget Sound Region within a 45-minute drive time (blue) and a 45-minute transit trip (orange).
14 It is important to note that the large increase in Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting is an increase from 13 to
38 people between 2008 and 2018.
Page 150 of 195
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix B B-27
Figure 32. Access to Employment—Travel Shed, 2018
Source: ECONorthwest Analysis of 2018 PSRC Data.
Note: Departing at 8:00 AM, midweek
Page 151 of 195
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix B B-28
Future Housing Needs
PSRC forecasts that by 2040, Auburn will grow to a population of 95,4 61 people, an increase of
14,846 people (or 18 percent) from its 2018 population estimate of 80,615 people. As Auburn is
forecast to grow at a faster rate than it has in the past, the City’s population growth will
continue to drive future demand for housing through 2040.15
Based on this forecast population growth, the City is projected to
need 10,429 new dwelling units between 2020 and 2040, at an
average trajectory of 521 new units per year through 2040. Of those
needed dwellings, 2,361 units are a result of housing
underproduction (see sidebar). The remaining 8,068 units are to
accommodate population growth. In total, this represents a sizable
increase in the number of housing units that need to be produced
each year (521 units), given the annual average of only 390 units
built per year from 2011 to 2019.
Figure 33. Housing Units Needed by AMI, Auburn, 2040
Source: OFM, 2019; PSRC, 2017; ECONorthwest Calculation.
AMI # of Units % of Units
0-30% 1,669 16%
30-50% 1,043 10%
50-80% 2,503 24%
80-100% 1,251 12%
100%+ 3,963 38%
Total 10,429 100%
As Figure 33 demonstrates, 38 percent of units needed between 2020 and 2040 should be
affordable to households earning more than 100% of the AMI. This is helpful since new market -
rate housing tends to be developed at prices and rents that are affordable to higher income
households. When an area does not have enough housing priced for higher income households,
these households “rent down” and occupy units that would be appropriately priced for lower-
income households, thereby increasing competition for low-cost housing units. All cities need a
range of housing choices – of different sizes, types, and prices – to accommodate the various
needs and incomes of residents.
15 See footnote Error! Bookmark not defined. on page 2 for an explanation of King County 2040 Growth Targets.
Housing underproduction is
calculated based on the ratio of
housing units produced and new
households formed in Auburn
over time.
If too few housing units are
constructed relative to the
number of new households
formed, underproduction
occurs and contributes to price
increases.
Without including current
underproduction in calculations
of future need, the current
mismatch of housing units to
numbers of households will
continue into the future.
See more detailed methods in
Part 5 beginning on page 35.
Page 152 of 195
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix B B-29
Market Conditions
This section presents information about market conditions and
development trends in Auburn’s housing market. Data includes
multifamily rents, vacancy rates, and recent developments
delivered to the market, as well as home price trends that should
be taken into consideration when evalu ating future development
in Auburn. This section also includes comparisons of trends in
Auburn to other cities in South King County.
These data and market trends are important to consider as the
City works to encourage the development to reach the 10,429
units needed by 2040.
Rental Market Trends
As the housing inventory demonstrated, 3,511 total housing units were developed between 2011
and 2018 (see Figure 2 on page 3). Roughly 60 percent of these new units are ownership units,
while about 40 percent are rentals.
In 2020, multifamily rents in Auburn reached a historic high of $1.68 per square foot, however,
rents are lower than the greater King County region where average rents are about $2.18 per
square foot. Vacancies also increased in 2020 due to a brand new 500-unit multifamily
apartment development that is still being absorbed into the market.16 Irrespective of this large
market delivery, historic vacancies in Auburn remain low at about 4.5 percent as demand for
multifamily apartments continues to increase.
From 2013 to 2019,
multifamily rents in
Auburn have
increased while
vacancy rates have
hovered around 4.5
percent.
The 2020 vacancy
spike came from a
large multifamily
delivery of about 500
units.
From 2010 to 2020,
multifamily rents
grew 47 percent
from $1.14 to $1.68
per square foot.
Figure 34. Multifamily Rent per Square Foot and Vacancy Rate, Auburn,
2008 through Q3 2020
Source: CoStar
16 Copper Gate apartments, located at 4750 Auburn Way N, construction with first occupancies in October 2020.
$1.68
11.0%
0.0%
1.5%
3.0%
4.5%
6.0%
7.5%
9.0%
10.5%
12.0%
$0.00
$0.25
$0.50
$0.75
$1.00
$1.25
$1.50
$1.75
$2.00
2008200920102011201220132014201520162017201820192020 Q3Vacancy RateDirect Rent per Sq. Ft.Rent p er Sq. Ft.Vaca ncy (%)
To get a deeper look at housing
market trends in Auburn, this
section primarily relies on
proprietary data sources, such
as Zillow and CoStar, rather
than public sources like the
Office of Financial Management
or the US Census, which take
longer to be collected and
published.
The CoStar data presented here
focuses on market rate trends
and only shows multifamily
properties (with 4+ units) so
statistics here are a subset of
the full housing stock analyzed
in the Housing Inventory.
Page 153 of 195
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix B B-30
The average rent for a two-bedroom unit in Auburn was $1,393 in 2020, and has grown 49
percent since 2010. As shown in Figure 35, Auburn’s rents have grown commensurate with its
neighboring cities, only surpassing that of Federal Way in abou t 2011. Unlike some cities,
Auburn’s rents did not decline in the post-recession housing crisis. By third quarter (Q3) 2020,
Auburn’s average rent was approaching that of Kent and Tukwila’s.
Figure 35. Multifamily Rent per Unit, South King County Cities & Tacoma, 2010-2020
Source: CoStar
Figure 36 below shows that net absorption17 has been mostly positive, indicating an increase
demand for multifamily housing in the City. According to CoStar data accessed in fall 2020,
Auburn has about 614 multifamily units under construction, with 63 percent of them (or 387
units) expected to be delivered by the end of 2020. The remaining 37 percent of units are
expected to be delivered by June 2021.
17 Net absorption measures the net change in supply of multifamily units in Auburn. A positive value indicates that
supply is being rented more than what has been delivered to market in a given year.
$60 0
$80 0
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
$1,600
$1,800
20102011201220132014201520162017201820192020Multifamily Effective Rent per UnitAuburn
Bu rien
Federal
Wa y
Kent
Rent on
Tacoma
Tukw ila
Page 154 of 195
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix B B-31
Over the 2008 to
2020 Q3 period, net
absorption has been
mostly positive,
indicating demand
has continually
increased.
In 2020 Q3, net
absorption is
negative, though this
is likely due to the
recent multifamily
delivery of units that
has yet to be leased
to residents.
Figure 36. Multifamily Net Absorption, Auburn, 2008 through Q3 2020
Source: CoStar
Recent Rental Property Developments
Figure 37 shows examples of recently constructed market-rate and affordable multifamily
buildings in Auburn. These properties were selected to highlight the recent market trends in
design, size, and amenities being constructed in multifamily residential properties in Auburn.
Since 2008, ten multifamily properties were built. Typically, these new multifamily properties
are between three and five stories tall and mostly offer one - and two-bedroom units. Typical
amenities for new properties include clubhouses, fitness centers, laundry facilities, and game
rooms/media centers. Additionally, three of these properties are for senior living and six are
regulated affordable housing (including two of the senior properties). Three additional
multifamily properties are under construction with expected completion in 2021.
Figure 37. Examples of New Multifamily Apartment Buildings in Auburn
Source: CoStar
Trek Apartments
Type: Mid-Rise Apartments
Year Built: 2015
Description: The Trek Apartments is a 126-
unit, 5-story apartment building. It has
studio, 1-, and 2-bedroom units ranging in
size from 536 SF for studios and 650-833
SF for 1- and 2-bedrooms units. Rents are
market rate and range from $1,322 for
studios to $1,712 for 2-bedroom
apartments.
Unit amenities include a washer/dryer,
dishwasher, balcony, HVAC, and upper
level terrace, community room, and fitness
center. It is located in downtown Auburn.
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
2008200920102011201220132014201520162017201820192020 Q3UnitsPage 155 of 195
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix B B-32
Merrill Gardens at Auburn
Type: Low-Rise Apartments
Year Built: 2017
Description: Merrill Gardens is a 129-unit
4-story senior living apartment building
around the corner from Trek Apartments. It
has studio, 1-, and 2-bedroom units
ranging in size from 496 SF studios and
693-976 SF for 1- and 2-bedroom units.
Rents are market rate and range from
$2,923 for studios to $4,291 for 2-
bedroom apartments.
Unit amenities include HVAC with site
amenities such as community room, patio
and meal service.
The Reserve at Auburn
Type: Mid-Rise Apartments
Year Built: 2018
Description: The Reserve at Auburn is part
of a phased affordable mixed-use
development that contains 298 affordable
units for senior living. The second phase is
the Villas at Auburn which has 295
affordable family-sized units and
approximately 11,000 square feet of
ground floor commercial space. Both
multifamily buildings are 5-stories and
each contain their own separate amenity
space.
All units are 1- or 2-bedroom, averaging
547 SF ($1,303 asking rent) and 612 SF
($1,565 asking rent), respectively. The
Reserve is located just north of downtown
Auburn off of C St.
Ownership Market Trends
As indicated in the Housing Needs Analysis in Part 2, Auburn’s housing stock primarily
consists of ownership units (it has a 56 percent homeownership rate) compared to only about 44
percent of rental units. Due to demand outpacing the supply of homes in Au burn, prices have
been rising. Since 2010, home prices in Auburn rose by 88 percent, from a median sales price of
$222,750 in 2010 to $418,300 in 2020. Over this time, Auburn has seen somewhat lower median
home sales price growth than nearby cities (see Figure 38), and the median sales price in
Auburn did not overtake that of another city in the 2010-2020 time period.
Page 156 of 195
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix B B-33
Figure 38. Median Home Sales Price Growth, South King County Cities & Tacoma, 2015 -2020
Source: Zillow 2010, 2013, and 2020 Home Sales Price Data
Area Median Sales Price
2010 (or 2013 *)
Median Sales Price
2020
Percent Change
Auburn $222,750 $418,300 88% (10 years)
Burien* $233,450 $470,300 101% (7 years)
Federal Way $211,600 $414,700 96% (10 years)
Kent $237,750 $447,500 88% (10 years)
Renton $269,950 $516,800 91% (10 years)
Tukwila* $182,500 $412,000 126% (7 years)
Residential Development Capacity
The Core Plan of the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan had identified a gross adjusted net
development capacity in vacant development and redevelopment capacity for 14,597 residential
units. This summary can be found in Table 2 of the Core Plan that identifies gross and adjusted
net acres of vacant and redevelopable land and capacity by aggregated residential cone type.18
We have identified a need of 10,429 units through 2040 and 3,511 units that have been built
through 2019. This analysis indicates that the current development capacity identified in the
Comprehensive Plan is sufficient to satisfy housing needs, but that land efficiency and
intensification policies should be considered as part of the Comprehensive Plan update and BLI
update process.
Key Market Data Findings
Overall, Auburn’s housing market is characterized by strong growth in both the
homeownership and multifamily rental markets. These trends are important to consider as the
City works to encourage development to reach the 10,429 units needed by 2040. Key findings
include the following:
▪ Multifamily rents in Auburn increased 47 percent from $1.14 per square foot in 2010 to $1.68 in
2020 Q3. Auburn did not see a dip in rents in 2011-2013 like many of its peer cities. In addition,
thus far through 2020, multifamily rents are continuing to grow in Auburn, approaching levels in
Kent and Tukwila which have started to level off.
▪ Auburn’s rental vacancy rates are low, indicating continued demand for housing. Multifamily
vacancy rates in Auburn increased by 2.7 percentage points from 8.3 percent in 2008 to 11.0
percent in 2020 Q3, spurred by the recent Copper Gate affordable apartment complex, which
added 500 units to Auburn’s housing market in late 2020. Although this increase in vacancy is
reflected by an influx of new multifamily units that have yet to be rented, the mostly positive net
absorption in the City over 2008 to 2019 indicates demand for multifamily housing is strong.
▪ About 60 percent of the new units developed in Auburn between 2010 and 2018 are for
homeownership, while only about 40 percent are intended as rentals. These ownership trends,
coupled with strong price growth, indicate strength in the market.
18https://www.cityofauburnwa.gov/UserFiles/Servers/Server_11470554/File/City%20Hall/Community%20Developme
nt/Zoning%20and%20Land%20Use/Comprehensive%20Plan/01-Core%20Comprehensive%20Plan.pdf
Page 157 of 195
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix B B-34
▪ Auburn has not been producing enough housing to meet its demand from household formation (net
in-migration and people forming new households, such as moving out of a family home). Over the
2010-2019 time period, only 7.8 housing units (of all types and sizes) were constructed for every
10 new households that formed. This translates into housing underproduction, and is a contributor
to Auburn’s rent and price increases.
Page 158 of 195
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix B B-35
Methodology, Data Sources, and Assumptions
A) Housing Needs Analysis
Data Sources
To conduct this existing conditions assessment we primarily relied on 2019 data from the
Washington Office of Financial Management (OFM) to evaluate housing and demographic
trends. Where OFM data was unavailable we relied on the U.S. Census Bureau’s Public Use
Micro Sample (PUMS) data from 2012 through 2018 and the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2012-2016
Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) Data. To supplement OFM data on
housing trends and existing housing types by si ze, we supplemented this analysis with King
County Assessor data. For housing market data on rents and sales prices we relied on data from
the King County Assessor and CoStar. For the housing demand analysis we relied on Puget
Sound Regional Council VISION 2040 population forecast for Auburn for 2040.
We used the best available data sources to assess the housing inventory and future needs,
analyze employment trends, and analyze demographic trends in Auburn. Because Auburn has
more than 65,000 people, it is surveyed in the American Community Survey every year and
thus has data in 1-year samples. The most recent survey data is for 2018.
To get more granular data on key variables of interest, we also rely on PUMS data. As noted in
footnote 6 on page 5, PUMS data are only available at the PUMA geography, which contain
about 100,000 people. The Auburn PUMA includes the City of Auburn and Lakeland.
Housing Needs Analysis Methodology
Total Housing Units Needed
We calculated future housing needs as the current underproduction of housing plus the future
needs based on projections from PSRC 2040 household projections. Without accounting for past
and current underproduction, development targets focused solely on future housing needs will
continue to underproduce relative to the actual need.
Figure 39. Total Needed Housing Units in Auburn by 2040
Source: ECONorthwest analysis of PSRC and OMF data
Current
Under-
production:
2,361
Future
Need:
8,068
Total Units:
10,429
Page 159 of 195
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix B B-36
Current Underproduction
We first calculate the current underproduction of units in each city’s existing housing inventory.
This underproduction is estimated based on the ratio of housing units produced and new
households formed in King County over time. As of 2019, King County as a whole had 1.06
housing units for every household. Auburn’s ratio was 0.986. Since Auburn’s ratio is less than
King County’s ratio, we con sider Auburn to have underproduced. Conversely, if the ratio were
greater than 1.06, the city would have overproduced housing relative to King County as a
whole. The steps for calculating current underproduction include:
1. Calculate the count of housing units and population in each city from Washington Office
of Financial Management (OFM) 2018 data.
2. We then convert population to households by using average household size for each city
in the South King County Subregion from the 2018 PUMS dataset.
3. We then compare each city’s ratio of total housing units to households to that of the
county (1.06 units per household) as the target ratio.
4. If a city’s ratio is lower than 1.06, we calculate the underproduction as the number of
units it would have needed to produce over the timeframe, to reach a ratio of 1.06.
Because Washington State does not have a regional approach to planning for housing
production, our consideration of underproduction implies that the City of Auburn should be
producing housing at a rate to be consistent with the King County ratio of housing units to
households of 1.06.
This approach to underproduction is simple and intuitive while using the best available data
that is both local and the most recent. This analysis does not differentiate between renter and
owner households and relies on average household size to convert population counts to
household counts. The relationships between average household size, numbe r of households,
and current housing units interact in ways that impact underproduction findings for cities
within the subregion differently. This approach to identifying current underproduction does
not account for local or regional housing preferences by type or tenure. Housing affordability
considerations are taken into account in the next step, in determining future housing needs.
Future Housing Needs
We estimate Auburn’s future housing needs based on the forecasted household growth through
2040 from PSRC. PSRC does not forecast housing units, but instead forecasts the estimated
number of households. To calculate Auburn’s future housing need, we use a target ratio of
developing 1.14 housing units per new household. This ratio is the national average of housing
units to households in 2019. It is important to use a ratio greater than 1:1 since healthy housing
markets allow for vacancy, demolition, second/vacation homes, and broad absorption trends.
Use of the national ratio is a reasonable target, particularly for larger areas and regions. Using
this ratio suggests that at a minimum, jurisdiction should be hitting the national average and is
preferred as the existing regional ratio may capture existing issues in the housing market (such
as existing housing shortages).
Page 160 of 195
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix B B-37
Total Units Needed by Income
The next step is to allocate the needed units by income level. We first look at the most recent
distribution of households by income level (using PUMS to determine area median income or
“AMI”) in Auburn and the South King County subregion. This distribution is displayed for the
South King County subregion and King County as a whole in Figure 40, below. We then
account for current and future household sizes at the city level to better understand nuances of
how housing need by income can shift over time as household sizes change and subsequent
changes to housing affordability.
Because forecasting incomes at the household level over time can be challenging at best, and
misleading at worst, this data evaluates housing need using current income distributions
forecast forward. The forecast housing need by income category at both the city level and at t he
subregion is likely to vary depending on policy choices made over the next 20 years. That is to
say that if cities do not take meaningful action to increase housing production, and affordability
worsens due to demand from higher-income households outpacing supply of total housing
units, many low-income households would face displacement and the forecast need for lower
income households would likely be lower.. The ultimate income distribution in 2040 will be the
result of regional housing trends and polic y decisions made at the local level.
Figure 40. Household Income Distribution in Auburn, South King County Subregion, and King County
Source: ECONorthwest analysis of 2018 Census 1-year PUMS data
AMI Level Auburn South King County King County
0-30% of AMI 17% 18% 18%
31-50% of AMI 16% 16% 15%
51-80% of AMI 25% 23% 16%
81% of AMI 11% 12% 11%
100%+ of AMI 30% 31% 40%
17 %16 %
25%
11%
30%
18%
16 %
23%
12%
31 %
18%
15%16%
11%
40%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
0-30% of AM I 31-50% of AM I 51-80% of AM I 81-100 % of
AMI
100 %+ o f AMI
Au burn So ut h Ki ng Count y Ki ng C ounty
Page 161 of 195
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix B B-38
We then apply Auburn’s distribution of households by income (right column) to the total units
needed to get the share of new units needed by income level.
Figure 41. Total Units Needed by 2040 by Area Median Income Distribution
Source: ECONorthwest analysis of 2018 Census 1-year PUMS data
AMI Level Auburn Total Units
Needed by 2040
South King County Total Units Needed
by 2040
0-30% of AMI 16% 1,669 18% 11,207
31-50% of AMI 10% 1,043 16% 10,288
51-80% of AMI 24% 2,503 23% 14,552
81-100% of AMI 12% 1,251 12% 7,603
100%+ AMI 38% 3,963 31% 19,440
TOTAL 100% 10,429 100% 63,090
As shown in Figure 41, the City has the highest need over the period for units that are
affordable to households earning more than 100% of AMI, and the next greatest need for units
affordable at the 51%-80% of AMI level.
B) Employment Analysis
An employment analysis and an analysis of trends in job growth by industry are requirements
for local housing action plans. We developed city -level employment estimates by 2-digit North
American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes using a combination of the U.S. Census
Bureau’s Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD) Origin-Destination
Employment Statistics (LODES) data, and PSRC’s Covered Employment Estimates. The
employment estimates show the total number of Auburn residents working in different 2-digit
NAICS industries, the change in employment in that industry since 2008, and the 2018 median
wages for Auburn residents in that sector.
Access to Employment
We measured access to employment for both transit and auto use, using a preset limi t of 45
minutes to generate isochrones (travel sheds). We used ESRI Services to create drive -time
isochrones, simulating traffic conditions typical of 8:00AM, Wednesday. We created transit
isochrones using OpenTripPlanner and the consolidated Puget Sound General Transit Feed
Specification (GTFS) database that is created and maintained by Sound Transit. This GFTS
database allows users to model possible transfers between the region’s multiple transit agencies.
For each 2-digit NAICS industry, the data summarize the share of jobs across the four-county
region that are accessible within a 45-minute transit or auto commute from Auburn.
Transit Isochrones
We created isochrones originating from every transit stop within the jurisdiction. Each transit
stop was also weighted by the population within a half -mile distance (straight-line). These
isochrones were then joined to LODES job points at the Census Block Level, and the total
number of jobs by NAICS industry was calculated for eac h isochrone. The total number of jobs
Page 162 of 195
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix B B-39
reachable by transit (and walking) within 45 minutes was calculated as the weighted mean
number of jobs within the isochrones, using the transit-stop population as weights.
Auto Isochrones
For drive-time isochrones, we used a similar method as the transit isochrones. Instead of transit
stops, however, we used block group centroids as the isochrone origin points, and the
associated block group population estimates provided the weights with which we calculated
the average number of jobs reachable by the “average resident.”
Number of Jobs
We derived the number of jobs by industry from PSRC’s Covered Employment Estimates for
2018 and 2008. PSRC provides job totals by city and NAICS 2-digit industry categories, but will
censor an estimate if that number represents fewer than three reporting firms, or when a single
employer accounts for more than 80 percent of jobs in an industry within a jurisdiction. In these
instances, we have provided an internally calculated estimate of employment in that industry
based on the uncensored totals for each industry. Average wages by industry were calculated
using the 2018 5-yr ACS estimates at the city level.
Caveats
The auto isochrones may be overly optimistic in terms of traffic. Since we are limited in terms of
other tools that even claim to model travel sheds with traffic congestion, there are few
alternative options.
ACS wage estimates by industry are not available for every industry, usually due to low
numbers of survey samples. Many of these estimates, especially for industries with few
workers, show relatively high margins of error and should be treated as rough approximations.
C) Displacement Risk Analysis
The displacement risk analysis on page 22 was modeled after PSRC’s Displacement Risk
Mapping Tool which compiles 15 different demographic and socioeconomic variables (using
ACS 5-year tract-level data), standardizes and weights them equally, and creates a composite,
index score (“high”, “medium”, and “low”) for every Census Tract in the 4 -county Puget Sound
region. However, the Census Tract level is not granular enough for this analysis. We build off
PSRC’s tool, using the following variables at the Census Block Group level, to estimate
displacement risk in Auburn.
1. Percent of population that is a race other than non -Hispanic White
2. Percent of households that speak a language other than English at home
3. Percent of population ≥25 who lack a bachelor’s degree
4. Percent of households that are renters
5. Percent of households paying >30% or more of their gross income on housing
6. Per capita income
Page 163 of 195
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix B B-40
In Figure 29 on page 22, the color palette of the map visualizes the six levels of displacement
vulnerability based on how many variables were present in each block group.
Page 164 of 195
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix C C-1
Appendix C. Existing Conditions Memorandum (Housing Policy
Review Section)
ORIGINAL DATE: January 15, 2021
REVISED DATE: February 26, 2021
TO: Jeff Dixon and Anthony Avery, City of Auburn
FROM: Tyler Bump, Madeline Baron, Jenn Cannon, Oscar Saucedo-Andrade, Justin
Sherrill, Ryan Knapp
SUBJECT: AUBURN HOUSING ACTION PLAN – EXISTING CONDITIONS MEMORANDUM –
REVISED
Introduction
The City of Auburn was founded in 1891 and has grown to become the fifteenth largest city in
the State of Washington. Multiple periods of growth can be observed in the many regions of
Auburn, including early 20th century neighborhoods, mid-century growth, and the annexation
of rural county lands in the early 21st century. This has resulted in over 29 square miles of
housing growth representing many different scales of development that have occurred over
different periods of time.
HB1923 and Housing Action Plans
In 2019, the state legislature adopted House Bill 1923 (HB 1923), which awarded grants in the
amount up to $100,000 to various cities for the purpose of increasing residential capacity.
As the first step in developing a Housing Action Plan, the city of Auburn participated in the
development of a supporting document: the South King County Subregional Housing Action
Framework, along with the cities of Burien, Federal Way, Kent, Renton , and Tukwila. Auburn’s
individual Housing Action Plan builds off the data analysis, housing needs, demographic and
employment trends, housing policy review, and potential housing production strategies that
were generated through this previous subregional framework report.
Auburn’s individual Housing Action Plan must comply with state law, including adoption of
the grant-funded Housing Action Plan consisting of the needs assessment, housing policy
review, and implementation recommendation components, no later than June 30, 2021. Funding
is provided by the Washington State Department of Commerce via House Bill 1923 (HB 1923).
Page 165 of 195
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix C C-2
Housing Action Plan Development Process
Housing Action Plan efforts are focused on encouraging production of both affordable and
market rate housing at a variety of price points to meet the needs of current and future
residents. Developing the Housing Action Plan is a multi-step process (see Figure 1).
Throughout the entire process, a subconsultant, Broadview Planning is engaging the public to
seek input on the community’s vision and housing needs, as well as ideas and
recommendations for how Auburn can increase capacity for more housing. In addition, the
public will be invited to review a draft Housing Action Plan and provide comment before the
City moves toward finalization and City Council adoption of the Housing Action Plan.
Figure 1. Auburn’s Housing Action Plan Development Process
The Department of Commerce requires that Housing Action Plans be adopted by each city. In
Auburn, that means the Housing Action Plan will be presented to city staff for review, revised,
and then presented for public review. After reviewing those comments, a revised, final Housing
Action Plan will be presented to the Planning Commission, then to City Council for adoption.
Housing Planning and Policy Evaluation
As demonstrated in the Housing Needs Analysis in Part 2, Auburn , like other cities in the
region, has grown over the years and this has led to increasing housing affordability challenges.
The lack of affordable housing is a common problem for many cities across the Puget Sound
region and a complex issue without an easy solution. Each policy, strategy and tool are unique
in its support and delivery of different levels of housing affordability; consequently,
communities benefit from developing a comprehensive toolkit with a variety of different
solutions designed to meet each community’s unique housing needs. Recognizing the guidance
offered by relevant state, regional, county, and city plans within Auburn’s planning context
helps to set the stage for housing actions and policy development.
Public Engagement
Community Vision
Solicit Ideas
Assess Changes
Existing Conditions
Data Analysis
Employment Trends
Population Growth
Policy Evaluation
Recommended Actions
Public Input
Staff Input
Development
Analysis
Prioritization
Adoption
Planning Commission
City Council
Page 166 of 195
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix C C-3
This summary of existing plans and policies is divided into two s ections: the first describes the
“planning pyramid” and the associated roles of the Growth Management Act, PSRC, and King
and Pierce Countywide Policies as it relates to comprehensive planning at the local level (the
City of Auburn is located in both counties). The next section provides a summary of Auburn’s
existing policies key to promoting housing goals.
The Planning Pyramid
The “planning pyramid” in Figure 2 below illustrates how the planning scale is broader and less
detailed at the top tiers of plans while at the bottom of the pyramid, the scale tends to be
smaller and the regulatory detail more extensive and specific.
While this Housing Action Plan and its associated implementation steps will be less binding
than the other types of planning documents listed in the pyramid, as a subject -focused plan, its
detail sits between a jurisdiction’s Comprehensive Plan and its Development Regulations (such
as zoning codes).
Growth Management Act
At the top of the pyramid is the role of the state. The Washington State Legislature adopted the
Growth Management Act (GMA, adopted in 1990, as amended) to plan for population and
employment growth by establishing urban growth areas and critical/natural resource areas to
avoid impacting. The GMA requires cities and counties to develop Comprehensive Plans to
coordinate urban growth and this plan should include a Housing Element (RCW 36.70A.070(2)).
Essentially, a Housing Element provides goals and policies for promoting the preservation and
improvement, and to provide for the development of housing and the identification of adequate
land for all housing needs. A jurisdiction’s Housing Element must include adequate provisions
for existing and projected housing needs of all the economic segments of the community and
these needs should be identified through an inventory and analysis of existing and projected
housing needs. Based on the analysis, strategies should be developed to meet the housing needs
and their performance should be measured to allow for continual adjustment to mee t evolving
housing needs. In addition, the Washington State Growth Management Act requires that zoning
regulations and districts be consistent with Comprehensive Plans.
Page 167 of 195
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix C C-4
Figure 2. The Growth Management “Planning Pyramid”
Source: ECONorthwest
PSRC Housing Planning Documents
At the regional level, PSRC has established multi-county housing policies in VISION 2050. The
cities and unincorporated areas within King, Kitsap, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties are part of
the Puget Sound region and thus, are subject to VISION 2050 (adopted in 2020). VISION 2050
encourages local jurisdictions to adopt best practices and innovative techniques to advance the
delivery of affordable, healthy, and safe housing for all the region’s residents and includes
guidance on growth.
The newly adopted plan expects that by 2050 an additional 1.8 million people will move to the
region and that this population will be older, more diverse, and living in smaller households
than today’s regional population. The plan emphasizes advancing housing choices,
homeownership opportunities, and affordability particularly for lower income housing and
calls for cities to support the building of more diverse housing types, especially near transit,
services, and jobs.
A new aspect of this plan is the recognition of displacement risk (cultural, economic, and
physical) and the need for jurisdictions to mitigate and minimize displacement. PSRC expects to
update the new housing, job, and population targets by 2021 and after release, cities will need to
recalibrate their capacity to accommodate this expected growth.
Countywide Planning Documents
The King County Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs, amended June, 2016) advises cities in King
County to consider strategies to address affordable housing needs of all economic and
HAP
Page 168 of 195
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix C C-5
demographic groups, as well as strategies that can help overcome housing affordability barriers
(policy H-7).1 The King County CPPs in the Housing Chapter emphasize that cities should share
in the responsibility of increasing the supply of housing affordable to households earning less
than 80% AMI (policy H-1), noting that housing for households earning less than 30% AMI can
be the most challenging to develop – often requiring interjurisdictional cooperation and support
from public agencies (policy H -2). Policy H-3 outlines the housing inventory and existing and
projected housing needs analysis requirements (mandated by statewide Growth Management
Act policies) for each local jurisdiction’s Comprehensive Plan Housing Element. The remaining
policies describe a range of strategies for meeting diverse housing needs. Examples of th ese
CPP strategies are listed below:
▪ Within designated Urban Growth Areas, include sufficient zoning capacity to
accommodate the development requirements for a range of housing types and densities
in a way that supports attainment of overall housing targets (policy H-4),
▪ Preserve, maintain, and rehabilitate the existing housing stock including affordable
housing to ensure housing conditions are safe and livable (policies H -6, H-11),
▪ Adopt incentive programs to encourage the development of low-income housing,
▪ Adopt strategies, regulations, and goals promoting housing diversity, affordability, and
supply (diversity in tenure, affordability, types, sizes, and accommodations for special
needs, universal design, sustainable development, policy H -5),
▪ Plan for neighborhoods supporting the health and well -being of residents (policy H-12),
▪ Plan for housing (particularly for middle-income households or lower) with reasonable
access to employment centers (policy H-9) and in coordination with transit, bicycle, and
pedestrian plans and investments (policy H-10), and
▪ Promote fair housing to help meet the diverse needs of residents with a range of
abilities, ages, races, ethnicities, incomes, and characteristics (policy H -13).
A small southern section of the City of Au burn is located in Pierce County and as such, the area
is subject to the Pierce County Countywide Planning Policies. Pierce County’s CPPs (amended in
2018) offer similar guidance as King County particularly in adequately providing housing
affordable to all economic segments of the city population along with sufficiently providing
housing for special needs. In addition, Pierce County promotes innovative housing techniques
to promote higher-density affordable housing, the use of funding opportunities and ince ntives
to subsidize affordable housing development, and inclusionary zoning techniques.
In the CPPs, Pierce County also requires that jurisdictions set a goal to satisfy at a minimum,
25% of the growth allocation, through affordable housing (defined as earning up to 80% of the
county AMI). Pierce County’s 2006-2031 Housing Growth Target for Auburn, designated a core
city, is 3,634 net new housing units by 2030 (Table 1, Exhibit A to Ordinance No. 2017-24s,
Growth Targets 2008-2030, by Vision 2040 Regional Geography).
1 Source: King County Countywide Planning Policies. (2012, Amended June, 2016).
Page 169 of 195
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix C C-6
Local Planning Documents
At the bottom of the “planning pyramid” sits local planning documents and policies, but their
location at the bottom belies their importance. This section steps through the most relevant
housing focused planning documents and highlights the goals and policies that are most
important to the Auburn Housing Action Plan.
Over the course of the past several decades and with annexations in the late 1990s and early
2000s, Auburn has grown from a small town to a mature city of regional significance. Auburn
has varied assets to build upon including many parks and trails, a solid business core and an
ideal location along the Sound Transit commuter line.
City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan
The City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan (referred to as Imagine Auburn, amended in 2015, first
adopted in 1986) meets the regional responsibilities to manage urban growth for current and
future residents between 2015 to 2035.2 This plan establishes a framework from which to
identify specific programmatic actions for affordable housing. Among the eight primary plan
elements, policy guidance within the Housing Element (Volume 2) was reviewed. Auburn’s
Comprehensive Plan lays out a roadmap for navigating its 20-year horizon by articulating a
vision and corresponding core values, policies to achieve the vision and actions to promote the
core values.
Auburn’s vision was based on seven value statements associated with
character, wellness, service, economy, celebration, environment, and
sustainability. Downtown Auburn, designated as an urban center, has
become the thriving heart of the community and is poised for
continued revitalization.
The Housing Element themes provided below summarize guidance
useful for the development of housing action strategies.
Comprehensive Plan Housing Element Themes
Essentially, the housing focused vision for Auburn is to gain attainable
housing in a variety of styles meeting the needs of all ages, abilities, cultures, and incomes and
establish safe and attractive neighborhoods. Managing the evolving housing needs of Auburn’s
communities is guided by a set of seven goal-oriented themes that are summarized below.
Along with this summary, an assessment of progress in achieving Comprehensive Plan
goals/policies is provided for each theme along with an evaluation discussion to consider for
2 The Auburn Comprehensive Plan should be updated every eight years, by around 2024, as outlined in the periodic
update schedule, mandated by the Growth Management Act. King and Pierce County jurisdictions must complete a
review and evaluation of their “Buildable Lands Program” at least one year before the comprehensive plan update to
provide data that will be used for the comprehensive plan update, per RCW 36.70A.215(2)(b).
Auburn’s 2035 vision is to
be an exciting, vibrant
city attracting
businesses, residents,
and visitors and
“a city of connected and
cherished places, from a
vibrant downtown to
quiet open spaces and
everything in between,
where a community of
healthy, diverse, and
engaged people live,
work, visit, and thrive.”
Page 170 of 195
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix C C-7
future action. The City of Auburn faces growth pressures and various challenges and
opportunities as it relates to housing development, some of which are newly emerging. This
makes it important to continually review current conditions and progress towards achieving
planning goals. As the City continues to grow and mature, creative approaches might be
needed to accommodate growth and support diverse community needs.
Figure 3. Auburn Housing Element Themes, Summary and Evaluation
Source: ECONorthwest Analysis of Auburn Comprehensive Plan Housing Element
1) Healthy Homes and Neighborhoods
This theme focuses on enhancing the safety and connections in Auburn’s neighborhoods along with
improving the streetscapes. This theme also recognizes the need to provide housing for Auburn’s
workforce to help balance the jobs-housing ratio. This theme also includes a policy objective to provide
for housing choices in downtown and other designated mixed -use centers where infrastructure is more
available or can be improved with regional and local funds.
Evaluation Discussion:
The jobs-to-housing ratio is another metric for describing the availability of housing for local workers.
King County uses the jobs-to-housing assessment to improve the jobs/housing balance within the
county, and as a factor in determining the allocation of residential and employment growth f or different
jurisdictions. Auburn too recognizes the need to balance jobs to housing as a way to ensure the
attainment of an appropriate supply and mix of housing and affordability levels to meet the needs of
people who work and desire to live in the City. Auburn’s jobs to housing ratio is slightly tilted towards
jobs. In 2019, Auburn’s had around 1.5 jobs for each housing unit in the City. This metric is limited in
not accounting for the number of wage-earners and is not necessarily fully reflective of true housing
demand. However, it can generally be used to guide the planning of development to achieve efficient
transit networks. An employment to housing ratio in the range of 0.75 to 1.5 is considered beneficial
for reducing vehicle miles traveled (Cox, 2 020). The ratio has slightly lowered overall in the last two
decades as Auburn transitions from a suburban town to a thriving city offering broader housing options.
Housing production should continue alongside job growth.
Auburn has been effective in encouraging a variety of multifamily housing and infill development in its
downtown area which could be partially attributed to Multifamily Tax Exemption (MFTE) incentives
targeted for this area. As noted in the MFTE program review below approximately 680 ma rket rate units
were created or rehabilitated since 2003. The City has made progress in providing for more housing
choices in the Downtown area; however other mixed-use areas with sufficient infrastructure in place or
capable of improvement should be revie wed to determine whether housing variety has improved,
particularly in terms of providing a range of housing at different price points.
2) Variety
This theme calls for the City to broaden housing options. Objective H-10 notes the need to integrate a
variety of land uses and densities for housing providers while other objectives support homeownership
opportunities; mixed-uses integrating residential uses in the downtown area; ADUs as an affordable
housing strategy; and manufactured, transitional, and multifamily housing in limited zones.
Evaluation Discussion:
Achieving a healthy mix of housing requires boosting housing production to broaden housing choices
where supplies are limited, in a way that aligns with housing demand considerations. This goal
promotes King County’s Regional Affordable Housing Task Force Goal 6 which supports greater
housing growth and diversity to achieve a variety of housing types at a range of affordability and to
improve the jobs/housing connections throughout King County. The majority of duplexes, triplexes and
quad-plex housing in Auburn was built prior to the 2000’s (comprising 16% of the total housing stock)
and since 2010 single-family attached housing production has declined for this type of housing. About
23% of Auburn’s housing stock is characterized as multifamily, the majority of which was build pre -
Page 171 of 195
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix C C-8
1960, and in the 1990s and 2000s. Production of larger multifamily housing with over 100 units has
picked up during the last decade since 2010. Auburn should c ontinue supporting production of single-
family attached and multifamily housing construction to continue integrating a variety of housing
options. By 2025, the number of seniors in King County will double to comprise 23 percent of the
population. Likely trends for the Baby Boomer generation: Household sizes will decrease (greater 1 -
person households) and demand could grow for missing middle-housing options allowing for
“downsizing” and lower-maintenance living.
Rising housing prices are increasingly making homeownership more out of reach. Over the last decade,
housing prices have increased by 88%; consequently, more action could be needed to increase the
availability of moderate and middle-income housing such as cottages, condominiums, and townhomes.
Recent legislation passed reform to the state’s condominium liability law in support condo production.
The implications of this new law should be monitored to see if it truly encourages more condo
construction and associated homeownership.
Auburn has adopted code updates over the last decade to support increased Accessory Dwelling Unit
(ADU) production. The pace of ADU development has increased but is still somewhat low. The City
should continue to track ADU development as time progresses and possibly revisit and augment
actions promoting ADU affordable housing strategies.
3) Quality
This theme aims to improve the quality and maintenance of the housing stock to help preserve
affordable housing. Key objectives for this theme are to track rundown properties and improve code
enforcement, educate property managers, and promote improvements of affordable housing possibly
through possible tax exemptions. Objective H-21 includes specific steps to carry out home repairs and
rehabilitation such as through loans, participation in the Emergency Home Repair Program, and green
lending for improved energy efficiency. These home repair efforts can help preserve naturally occurring
affordable housing (NOAH) units. Objective H-22f calls for the consideration of creating an Auburn-
based Housing Authority.
Evaluation Discussion:
Affordable housing preservation strategies can range from increasing investments to preserve
affordable properties to repairing homes to help keep people in affordable housing. The City could
collect key data on rental housing to build a rental housing preservation inventory (including key
information such as the age of housing, rental rates, number of bedrooms, conditions such as the
CoStar housing condition star rating).
The King County Housing Repair Program: Eligible low-income homeowners can gain a deferred loan or
matching funds loan (up to $25,000) to cover housing repairs addressing health and safety concerns;
and emergency grants covering life -threatening repairs for owner-occupied homes (up to $6,000). For
renters with a disability, they also provide free financial assistance to make housing more accessible.
Between 2018 and the second quarter of 2020, 17 applicants totaling approximately $320,135 from
the City of Auburn participated in this program. Source: King County Housing Repair Program. This
program does not necessarily provide weatherization home repairs or energy efficiency audits. A local
energy-efficient, weatherization and rehabilitation grant program could help improve the livability and
energy efficiency of existing owner-occupied homes. This program should complement the existing King
County Housing Repair program.
The Washington State Department of Commerce administers a Weatherization Program to help
increase home energy efficiency for low-income families. This program is funding by the U.S.
Department of Energy’s Weatherization Program among other sources:
https://www.commerce.wa.gov/growing-the-economy/energy/weatherization-and-energy-
efficiency/weatherization-program-documents/
Page 172 of 195
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix C C-9
4) Attainability
This theme addresses the need for affordable housing to accommodate Auburn’s changing
demographics and to meet the fair share housing objectives, outlined by King and Pierce Counties.
Objective H-24a outlines King County’s share of housing by income levels :
• Below 30% AMI (very low income) – 12% of total,
• 30-50% AMI (low income) – 12% of total, and
• 50-80% AMI (moderate income) – 16% of total housing supply.
The city also aspires to lead and find new funding strategies to build more low -income housing. Other
objectives include using surplus land (sales) for affordable housing, promoting fair housing laws,
streamlining development regulations, and exploring the use of density bonuses.
Evaluation Discussion:
The housing growth targets should align with the adopted King County countywide targets that are
being developed for the 2024 Comprehensive Plan update cycle and expected to be adopted by mid -
2021 (PSRC VISION 2050, King County, 2020). These housing production and income level targets for
2024 to 2044 could be adopted in mid 2021. In general, Auburn will likely need to increase annual
housing production to help increase housing availability.
As of 2020, Auburn has around 2,850 manufactured/mobile homes which is around 9% of the total
housing stock. This type of naturally occurring affordable housing tends to be accessible to low to
moderate-income households (earning less than 80% AMI). Consequently, housi ng preservation
strategies could be considered such as mobile home park preservation, repair (see above discussion
under theme 3), monitoring strategy, and assistance in establishing Mobile Home Parks into
cooperatives.
5) Special Needs
These policies call for the City’s support of programs that offer funding, housing, and supportive
services to keep persons with special needs housed. These populations include veterans, single -parent
households, seniors, disabled households, and those experienc ing homelessness. Assisting low-
income persons displaced by redevelopment in accordance with relevant laws is also recognized under
this theme. Other policies support seniors aging in place (encouraging development to adhere to
universal design principles) and the availability of transitional housing and assisted living facilities .
Evaluation Discussion:
The existing conditions analysis highlighted gradation of displacement risk across the city and this
information could inform affordable housing preservation and anti-displacement measures. The City
likely will be updating its comprehensive plan by June 2024 and during this update process, the plan
policies will be reviewed to ensure they are consistent with state, regional, and countywide policies . A
new aspect of PSRC’s VISION 2050 plan is the recognition of displacement risk (cultural, economic,
and physical) and the need for jurisdictions to mitigate and minimize displacement. Consequently, the
City of Auburn should consider anti-displacement policy and code updates.
6) Supportive Services
This theme focuses on providing education, training, engagement opportunities, and human services
associated with affordable housing and homeownership.
Evaluation Discussion:
There are a range of options in support of education and engagement associated with affordable
housing and homeownership. Here are a few education examples: Education on tenant rights, fair
housing laws, and homebuyer’s class/credit counseling training.
Page 173 of 195
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix C C-10
7) Partnership and Monitoring
This theme supports a variety of partnerships to collectively work on challenging topics such as
homelessness, affordable housing financing, and housing assistance. Policy H -50 calls for Auburn to
evaluate possible modifications to these housing policies and strategies every five years.
Evaluation Discussion:
The City of Auburn has joined a regional affordable housing consortium in partnership with various
other south King County cities (Burien, Covington, Des Moines, Federal Way, Kent, N ormandy Park,
Renton, and Tukwila) and King County. The South King Housing and Homelessness Partners (SKHHP)
was recently formed through an interlocal agreement to share resources to preserve and increase
access to affordable housing. Effective in 2019, the interlocal agreement outlines the role, purpose,
structure, and other details of SKHHP. Essentially, SKHHP will share technical information and
resources to promote sound housing policy, coordinate public resources to attract greater private and
public investment, and support advocacy. SKHHP has the potential to help the City of Auburn in a
variety of ways including possibly expanding housing assistance, facilitating greater partnerships, and
increasing the availability of affordable housing.
A list of Housing Element outcomes, indicators, and example tools that are useful for
monitoring progress is provided below (Auburn Comprehensive Plan, 2015). Revisiting the
progress (or lack thereof) towards achieving outcomes can help to lay the groundwork for
potential areas of improvement.
Page 174 of 195
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix C C-11
Figure 4. Auburn Comprehensive Plan Housing Element Goal Outcomes and Indicators
Source: Auburn Comprehensive Plan Housing Element
Page 175 of 195
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix C C-12
South King County Subregional Housing Action Framework
As noted, this report builds off the existing conditions work that was developed through the
South King County Subregional Housing Action Framework. The City of Auburn participated in this
regional effort, along with the cities of Burien, Federal Way , Kent, Renton, and Tukwila.
As part of the South King County Subregional Housing Action Framework, the following affordable housing
regulations and incentives were evaluated: Multifamily Tax Exemptions (MFTE), Incentives for Accessory
Dwelling Units (ADUs), Fee Waivers, Density and Height Bonuses, and Planned Action Environmental Impact
Statements.3
Figure 5 below builds on Evermost Consulting’s evaluation of these five affordable housing incentive
programs in the South King County Subregional Housing Action Framework, and assesses Auburn’s success
and possible areas of improvement.
3 This analysis of past planning policies was conducted by Evermost Consulting as par t of the ECONorthwest
consulting team on the South King County Subregional Housing Action Framework.
Page 176 of 195
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix C C-13
Figure 5. Evaluation of Key Existing Affordable Housing Incentive Programs in Auburn
Source: ECONorthwest building on Evermost Consulting, 2020, data provided by City of Auburn
Policy How it Works Auburn Findings Evaluation
Multifamily Tax
Exemptions
(MFTE)
RCW chapter 84.14, allows cities with
more than 15,000 people to establish
a multifamily tax exemption program
for 8-years or 12-years if the housing
development includes 20% of its units
as affordable housing. By waiving
taxes, housing developments have
lower operating costs, which affects
the project’s overall feasibility by
making it easier to build new units.
Programs can exempt eligible new
construction or rehabilitated housing
and the housing development must be
located in an urban center and include
at least four housing units.
Auburn established its program in 2003
and has had four contracts take advantage
of the tax waiver to date. These properties
created or rehabilitated 680 units under
the 8-year exemption.
The MFTE incentive is available only for
new construction or for the rehabilitation of
multifamily housing located in the
Downtown Urban Center. Tax exemptions
are available for 8 years for new multi-
family or rehabilitated housing units
constructed downtown (market-rate) or for
12 years for qualified affordable housing
units (Auburn City Code 3.94).
The 8-year exemption does not require
affordable housing units. At the time
when this program was adopted, the
Downtown Center area targeted for the
program was lacking market rate
housing. Unsurprisingly, this program
has not yet generated affordable housing
and the program has resulted in an
average of 40 units created/
rehabilitated per year for 17 years.
Accessory
Dwelling Units
Accessory dwelling units (ADUs)
provide an additional dwelling unit—
typically with its own sleeping, bathing,
and cooking facilities—on properties
with existing single-family homes. ADU
policies attempt to increase housing
density in ways that do not change the
character, look, and feel of existing
neighborhoods, and put more housing
in areas with access to amenities such
as jobs, schools, and retail centers. In
theory, because they are smaller than
single-family homes, ADUs can be
cheaper housing options – but this is
not always the case.
According to data provided by the city,
Auburn has issued 36 building permits for
ADUs since 2005. It is important to note
that this summary does not encompass
unpermitted ADUs (an estimate for Seattle
indicated that up to three-quarters of what
appeared to be ADUs was unpermitted).
In Auburn, ADUs are permitted outright in
all residential zones that allow single-family
homes. The homeowner must successfully
gain an ADU building permit. One attached
ADU or detached ADU is allowed on a
parcel and each ADU is limited to no more
than two bedrooms.
The style of the ADU should match the
primary residence and cannot exceed 50
percent of the primary unit or 950 square
feet, whichever is less.
Until recently, the City of Auburn was
requiring ADUs to pay school and traffic
impact fees along with utility system
development charges, which could have
contributed to lower development. Since
removing this requirement a few years
ago, the pace of ADU development has
increased but is still somewhat low.
Auburn’s Zoning Code has a fair amount
of flexibility for ADU construction and
density. The size, parking, and owner-
occupancy requirements are somewhat
restrictive but are not too burdensome.
Possible areas of improvement to
consider: pre-approved ADU/DADU plans
to streamline the process (Renton and
Seattle example), ADU guidebook
(Tacoma example), removal of owner-
Page 177 of 195
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix C C-14
Policy How it Works Auburn Findings Evaluation
One additional parking space beyond what
is required for the single-family home must
be provided for the ADU. The home or ADU
must be the principal place of residence for
the homeowner. (Source: Auburn Code
Section 18.31.120, last amended in 2012
by Ord. 6419 § 4).
occupancy requirement in exchange for
affordability (below 80% AMI), and
opportunities to reduce fees and allow
shared/off-street parking.
ADU permitting requirements and ADU
development scenarios could be
analyzed for the accumulative effect of
layered requirements (including site
coverage) to identify possible areas to
add more flexibility.
In terms of providing housing options,
there is a level of uncertainty as to
whether these units are actually rented
long-term versus short-term or used for
off-market purposes such as for family
guests, if their rents are lower than other
units, and the extent that ADUs are
provided in amenity-rich locations. The
City could address short-term rental use
of ADUs by evaluating regulatory options
to limit potential conversions of ADUs
serving as long-term rentals (RCW 64.37
provides new Short-term Rentals
legislature to consider).
Fee Waivers The list of potential fees when entitling
a new building often includes, but is
not limited to, zoning application fees,
mitigation fees, building permit fees,
plan check review fees, utility
connection charges, building
inspection fees, and impact fees.
While these fees are important
funding sources for their respective
municipal departments and special
districts, they can add up and
Auburn had established several fee waiver
incentives. The City has fee waivers for the
Downtown Catalyst and Downtown Plan
Areas which were implemented in 2001
(more detail in Auburn Code Section
19.04). These fee waivers have all expired
and the last exemption for the Downtown
Catalyst area was extended through
Ordinance No. 6637 was scheduled to
The reinstatement of select fee waivers,
even over a temporary period of time,
could be considered when city revenue
sources are plentiful to target
underproduced housing and the
construction of more affordable housing.
Relaxing fees can help incentivize
affordable housing development in the
City. While careful calibration is needed
to ensure the public benefit of reduced
Page 178 of 195
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix C C-15
Policy How it Works Auburn Findings Evaluation
effectively discourage new housing
development–particularly at lower
price points. Fee waivers for
affordable housing development or
other qualified development projects.
sunset on December 31, 2017. 4 These fee
waivers have been utilized in conjunction
with MFTE.
fees is offset by the lost revenue to the
City, these programs can meaningfully
reduce the cost of development and help
incentivize lower-cost housing.
Expedited
Permitting
Some cities such as Kirkland, Lacey
and Vancouver offer streamlined
review or expedited permitting
processes for qualified development
projects. The state of Washington
Local Project Review law (RCW
36.70B) supports the establishment of
a predictable and timely review
process by setting time limits on
application review and permit
decisions and a maximum time period
of 120 days unless the jurisdictions
makes written findings that additional
time is needed.
Auburn could define criteria for
qualification of expediting permitting
to include things such as rent or price
restricted affordable housing, projects
that utilize the 12-year MFTE program,
for targeted development types such
as infill development or podium
development, or for development
projects in specific areas such as the
Downtown area.
Concurrent review of preliminary plat and
civil plans is being explored by Auburn (with
the applicant assuming the risk). The
Master Builders Association (2020)
estimates that this could save up to a year
on the permit process.5
(See incentives described in the next row.)
Outside of this, Auburn does not have an
expedited permit review process for
affordable housing or qualified
development.
A common area of continuous
improvement for many cities is to adjust
the permitting processes to be more
predictable, efficient, accessible, and
transparent.
Possible areas of improvement to make
the process more predictable particularly
for affordable housing development
could be identified and examined for
trade-offs. A pilot program can be
implemented as a way to test out
different techniques and work out
process tweaks. A key area of
improvement is to examine ways to
reduce upfront fees and requirement
barriers such as the possibility of review
process efficiencies and/or integrating
payment deferment options.
Other measures to consider: Additio nal
online permitting and tracking
improvements to reduce trips to the
permit counter, cross-departmental
coordination enhancements,
ameliorating design review
4 “Downtown catalyst accessory area” means the area defined by the boundary of 1st Street NW to the south, “A” Street NW to the west, 2nd Street NW to the north,
and North Division Street to the east (Auburn Code Section 19.04.020 Definitions, GG: https://auburn.municipal.codes/ACC/19.04.020).
5 Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish Counties Housing Toolkit, 2020: https://www.mbaks.com/docs/default-source/documents/advocacy/issue-
briefs/mbaks-housing-toolkit-2020.pdf
Page 179 of 195
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix C C-16
Policy How it Works Auburn Findings Evaluation
Safeguards could be added to
expedited permitting measures such
as including negotiated deadlines for
the applicant and permitting staff to
each meet, respectively.
requirements, and enhanced staff
training.
The following cities enacted permitting
efficiencies: Kirkland and Tacoma.
Density and
Height Bonuses
Most cities offer some manner of
incentives or bonuses in exchange for
additional exactions on the developer;
these incentives can often result in
better design or substantially
advancing public interest while making
the project more profitable for the
developer.
Policies are often put in place when a
jurisdiction wants to encourage a type
of development that the market is not
delivering (for a variety of reasons), so
the jurisdiction makes it easier, less
costly, or more profitable to build the
desired type of project.
In the City of Auburn, development
standard bonus incentives may be
awarded to residential developers in
exchange for recognized public benefits
pursuant to Chapter 18.25 (infill
development) or 18.49 ACC (flexible
development alternatives).
Eligible infill development (section ACC
18.25.020 provides more guidance) can
gain density increases by up to 10 percent,
increased building height by up to five feet,
reduced/alternative setbacks, and a 10
percent reduction in the minimum on-site
parking when designed to be shared (Code
Section 18.25.040).
The flexible development alternative
(adopted in 2009) allocates incentives for
residential and mixed-use development
with features/ benefits such as
sustainability, urban design, neighborhood
safety features, housing, cultural/
historical, transportation/mobility, and
open space/recreational features and
benefits (Code Section 18.49).
The incentives range from expedited review
(90 days or less), density bonus (135 to
150 percent above base zoning), and
reduced parking by up to 25 percent.
These incentives are high along with the
The overall effectiveness of these
policies in spurring housing development
is yet to be seen. Additional analysis on
the types and uses of these incentives is
an area of further study.
Other opportunities for incentives should
be identified to help encourage
affordable housing development in the
City. The City should consider developing
policy incentives that are easy-to-
understand with low complexity.
Many local jurisdictions are also offering
incentives to encourage green building
such as Tacoma, Everett, and Kirkland.
Page 180 of 195
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix C C-17
Policy How it Works Auburn Findings Evaluation
policy complexity for applicant
participation.
Planned Action
Environmental
Impact
Statements
Under the Washington State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), a
planned action—such as rezoning,
development agreement, subarea
plan, etc.—can pre-analyze the
predicted impacts of a certain level of
development. Jurisdictions may
implement these policies to encourage
development by allowing projects to
avoid costly SEPA analyses, by
increasing certainty around mitigation
requirements, and by avoiding lengthy
delays due to SEPA challenges.
According to data provided by the City in
spring 2020, Auburn has planned action
coverage for 708 residential dwelling units
in planned action environmental impact
statements, thereby helping to reduce the
cost of development (SEPA analysis), and
increase both the certainty and speed of
development.
While this coverage may expedite review
and increase certainty of development,
Auburn staff –along with most of the
South King County Cities – noted that
few SEPA challenges were filed so the
benefits of this program (reducing the
cost of development by avoiding a SEPA
analysis) are limited.
It is unclear how many units have been
developed under this program, and if it
has truly helped to incentivize market
rate or affordable housing.
Page 181 of 195
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix C C-18
This page is intentionally left blank.
Page 182 of 195
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix D D-1
Appendix D. Development Feasibility Proforma Model Assumptions
Operating Revenue and Cost Assumptions
Var iable Assumption Unit of Measure
Revenue
Duplex f or-s ale 359,948$ Sale price per un it
Triplex f or-s ale 338,170$ Sale price per un it
Duplex ren tal 2,299$ Mon thly rent per un it
Triplex ren tal 2,160$ Mon thly rent per un it
Micro un its 988$ Mon thly rent per un it
Podium 1,854$ Mon thly rent per un it
Af fordable ren t 1,708$ Mon thly rent per un it
Retail 28.00$ NNN, per s quare f oot, yearly
Vac anc y Rat e
Aff ordable residen tial 4%Perc en t
Market rate residen tial 5%Perc en t
Retail 12%Perc en t
Operating Expen ses
Duplex/Triplex 5%Perc en t of ren t per unit
Micro un its 30%Perc en t of ren t per unit
Podium 20%Perc en t of ren t per unit
Retail 1.20$ Per s quare f oot, yearly
Res iden tial P arking Net Revenue
Vacan cy 10%
Podium 80$ Per s tall, mon thly
Development Cost Assumptions
Var iable Assumption Unit of Measure
Hard Costs
Kitc hen 350$ Per s quare f oot
Bathroom 460$ Per s quare f oot
O ther In terior Space 70$ Per s quare f oot
Micro un its 247$ Per s quare f oot
Podium 190$ Per s quare f oot
Retail 160$ Per s quare f oot
Lobby/Shared 180$ Per s quare f oot
Parking Cost
Garage 10,000$ Per s tall
Surf ace 5,000$ Per s tall
Podium 35,000$ Per s tall
Stall Size
Garage 300 Square f oot per s tall
Surf ace 280 Square f oot per s tall
Podium 370 Square f oot per s tall
Page 183 of 195
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix D D-2
Development Cost Assumptions
Var iable Assumption Unit of M easure
Other Developmen t Costs
Hards cape 15$ Per s quare f oot
Lan ds cape 10$ Per s quare f oot
Soft c os ts (in c ld permittin g an d taxes )22%Percen t of hard c os ts
Duplex an d t riplex i mpact f ees 19,510$ Per un it
Micro units i mpact f ees 10,702$ Per un it
Podium i mpact f ees 13,552$ Per un it
Cont in genc y f ee 5%Percen t of hard an d s of t c osts
Developer f ee/comis sion 3%Percen t of developmen t c osts
Retail T.I. 40$ Per s quare f oot
Target Returns
Duplex Triplex RO C 7.5%
Mult ifamily RO C 5.0%
Retail RO C 7.0%
Parkin g RO C 6.0%
Apartment/Unit Assumptions
Var iable Assumption Unit of M easure
Un it Size
Duplex f or-s ale
Studio 0 Square f eet
1 Bedroom 770 Square f eet
2 Bedroom 1304 Square f eet
3 Bedroom 1541 Square f eet
4 Bedroom 1741 Square f eet
Triplex f or-s ale
Studio 0 Square f eet
1 Bedroom 770 Square f eet
2 Bedroom 1248 Square f eet
3 Bedroom 1496 Square f eet
4 Bedroom 1696 Square f eet
Duplex ren tal
Studio 0 Square f eet
1 Bedroom 770 Square f eet
2 Bedroom 1192 Square f eet
3 Bedroom 1402 Square f eet
4 Bedroom 1602 Square f eet
Triplex ren tal
Studio 0 Square f eet
1 Bedroom 770 Square f eet
2 Bedroom 1136 Square f eet
3 Bedroom 1359 Square f eet
4 Bedroom 1559 Square f eet
Page 184 of 195
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix D D-3
Apartment/Unit Assumptions
Var iable Assumption Unit of Measure
Un it Size
Micro un its
Studio 220 Square f eet
1 Bedroom 460 Square f eet
2 Bedroom 0 Square f eet
3 Bedroom 0 Square f eet
Podium
Studio 490 Square f eet
1 Bedroom 680 Square f eet
2 Bedroom 990 Square f eet
3 Bedroom 1310 Square f eet
Un it M ix
Duplex f or-s ale
Studio 0%perc en t of all units
1 Bedroom 0%perc en t of all units
2 Bedroom 20%perc en t of all units
3 Bedroom 70%perc en t of all units
4 Bedroom 10%perc en t of all units
Triplex f or-s ale
Studio 0%perc en t of all units
1 Bedroom 0%perc en t of all units
2 Bedroom 20%perc en t of all units
3 Bedroom 70%perc en t of all units
4 Bedroom 10%perc en t of all units
Duplex ren tal
Studio 0%perc en t of all units
1 Bedroom 0%perc en t of all units
2 Bedroom 70%perc en t of all units
3 Bedroom 30%perc en t of all units
4 Bedroom 0%perc en t of all units
Triplex ren tal
Studio 0%perc en t of all units
1 Bedroom 0%perc en t of all units
2 Bedroom 70%perc en t of all units
3 Bedroom 30%perc en t of all units
4 Bedroom 0%perc en t of all units
Micro un its
Studio 100%perc en t of all units
1 Bedroom 0%perc en t of all units
2 Bedroom 0%perc en t of all units
3 Bedroom 0%perc en t of all units
Podium
Studio 10%perc en t of all units
1 Bedroom 55%perc en t of all units
2 Bedroom 35%perc en t of all units
3 Bedroom 0%perc en t of all units
Page 185 of 195
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix D D-4
Apartment/Unit Assumptions
Var iable Assumption Unit of Measure
Un it P rice
New/Fut ure Con struc t ion P remium 5%
Duplex f or-s ale
Studio 205$ Per s quare foot
1 Bedroom 295$ Per s quare foot
2 Bedroom 240$ Per s quare foot
3 Bedroom 241$ Per s quare foot
4 Bedroom 207$ Per s quare foot
Triplex f or-s ale
Studio 199$ Per s quare foot
1 Bedroom 287$ Per s quare foot
2 Bedroom 233$ Per s quare foot
3 Bedroom 234$ Per s quare foot
4 Bedroom 201$ Per s quare foot
Duplex ren tal
Studio 2.54$ Per s quare foot, monthly
1 Bedroom 2.08$ Per s quare foot, monthly
2 Bedroom 1.86$ Per s quare foot, monthly
3 Bedroom 1.78$ Per s quare foot, monthly
4 Bedroom -$ Per s quare foot, monthly
Triplex ren tal
Studio 2.49$ Per s quare foot, monthly
1 Bedroom 2.04$ Per s quare foot, monthly
2 Bedroom 1.82$ Per s quare foot, monthly
3 Bedroom 1.74$ Per s quare foot, monthly
4 Bedroom -$ Per s quare foot, monthly
Mic ro un its
Studio 4.49$ Per s quare foot, monthly
1 Bedroom 3.67$ Per s quare foot, monthly
2 Bedroom Per s quare foot, monthly
3 Bedroom Per s quare foot, monthly
Podium
Studio 2.99$ Per s quare foot, monthly
1 Bedroom 2.45$ Per s quare foot, monthly
2 Bedroom 2.18$ Per s quare foot, monthly
3 Bedroom 2.09$ Per s quare foot, monthly
Average Un it Size
Blen ded un it s ize
Duplex f or-s ale 1514 Square f oot
Triplex f or-s ale 1466 Square f oot
Duplex ren tal 1255 Square f oot
Triplex ren tal 1203 Square f oot
Mic ro un its 220 Square f oot
Podium 770 Square f oot
Page 186 of 195
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan – Appendix D D-5
Apartment/Unit Assumptions
Var iable Assumption Unit of M easure
Average Un it Size
Gros s t o Net Ratio
Duplex and Triplex 100%
Micro un its 70%
Podium 87%
Gros s un it s ize
Duplex f or-s ale 1514 Square f eet
Triplex f or-s ale 1466 Square f eet
Duplex ren tal 1255 Square f eet
Triplex ren tal 1203 Square f eet
Micro un its 314 Square f eet
Podium 884 Square f eet
Sales pric es
Duplex 238$ Per s quare foot
Triplex 231$ Per s quare foot
Blen ded Ren t
Duplex 1.83$ Per s quare foot, m onthly
Triplex 1.80$ Per s quare foot, m onthly
Micro un its 4.49$ Per s quare foot, m onthly
Podium 2.41$ Per s quare foot, m onthly
Affordability Polic y Assumptions
Var iable Assumption Unit of M easure
Taxes an d M FTE Assumption s
Property tax rate 13.19$ Per $1,000 of asses s ed value
MV t o AV ratio 90%
Tax abatement (dis c ount rate)6.00%
12-year abatemen t PV f actor 70%
Percen t t axes abated 100%
Affordability As s umption s
MFI (4 person household)113,300$
In c ome toward ren t 30%Perc en t of i n come
Depth 80%Perc en t of MFI
Set-as ide 20%Perc en t of un its
Utilities allowan c e S tudio 80.00$ Per unit
Utilities allowan ce 1 Bed 95.00$ Per unit
Utilities allowan ce 2 Bed 110.00$ Per unit
Utilities allowan ce 3 Bed 125.00$ Per unit
MFI Multiplier f or S tudio 70%Perc en t of MFI
MFI M ultiplier f or 1 Bed Un it 75%Perc en t of MFI
MFI M ultiplier f or 2 Bed Un it 90%Perc en t of MFI
MFI M ultiplier f or 3 Bed Un it 104%Perc en t of MFI
Page 187 of 195
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
1011 Plum Street SE PO Box 42525 Olympia, Washington 98504-2525 (360) 725-4000
www.commerce.wa.gov
June 24, 2021
City Council
City of Auburn
c/o Jeff Dixon
25 W Main Street
Auburn, Washington 98001
Sent Via Electronic Mail
Re: City of Auburn - Draft Housing Action Plan
Dear Auburn City Council:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Auburn’s proposed draft Housing Action Plan (HAP).
We appreciate your coordination with our agency as you work to fulfill the grant contract to develop
this plan.
Auburn has done an excellent job through this draft plan to address all the required elements of a
housing action plan as outlined in RCW 36.70A.600. The plan, if implemented as designed, will help
the city address its future housing needs by accommodating the future population with a greater
diversity of housing options and affordability, while addressing displacement and preserving
affordable housing.
The following parts of the city’s HAP are particularly strong and commendable:
The development feasibility was helpful in evaluating specific strategies that will help the city
move forward with implementation quickly. The analysis looked at the real world implications
of how the different strategies would most effectively achieve the desired development
identified in the plan.
The recommendations are presented so that readers can understand the rationale and
considerations, impacts based on the development feasibility (where applicable), and what next
steps are needed for implementation for each strategy.
The Implementation Steps section and Figure 31. Summary of Recommended Actions and
Implementation Considerations ties the plan together giving clear direction and an easy visual
to help decision makers decide how and when to implement this plan.
Page 188 of 195
Auburn City Council
June 24, 2021
Page 2
The combination of existing landlord and tenant supports, and displacement prevention
strategies adds to the strength of this plan as displacement is a critical area to focus on as
residents are increasingly priced out of areas.
The housing policy analysis was successful at identifying where the HAP strategies implement
existing policies and where existing policies may need to be refined to support the proposed
recommendations. This analysis will be extremely helpful as Auburn undergoes the periodic
review and update of the comprehensive plan and development regulations, which is due in
2024.
As Auburn looks toward adoption and implementation of this strong set of housing strategies, we
suggest the city make a plan for how it wants to monitor the goals within the HAP and develop
indicators to track progress. Such a plan would allow the city to measure its progress and evaluate
which changes have been effective at meeting the goals, and which might need modifications to meet
the intended purpose.
Congratulations to the staff for the good work that the draft HAP represents. We extend our continued
support to the City of Auburn as you work toward setting your intended direction for housing policy.
If you have any questions or need technical assistance, please feel free to contact me at
laura.hodgson@commerce.wa.gov or (360) 764-3143.
Sincerely,
Laura Hodgson
Associate Planner
Growth Management Services
cc: Jeff Dixon, Planning Services Manager, City of Auburn
David Andersen, AICP, Managing Director, Growth Management Services
Steve Roberge, Deputy Managing Director, Growth Management Services
Ben Serr, AICP, Eastern Region Manager, Growth Management Services
Anne Fritzel, AICP, Senior Housing Planner, Growth Management Services
Gary Idleburg, Senior Planner, Growth Management Services
Page 189 of 195
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Resolution No. 5598 (Tate)
Date:
June 29, 2021
Department:
Community Development
Attachments:
Res olution No. 5598
Budget Impact:
Current Budget: $0
Proposed Revision: $0
Revised Budget: $0
Administrativ e Recommendation:
City Council to adopt Resolution No. 5598.
Background for Motion:
Resolution 5598 is Auburn City Council’s endorsement and statement of support for the 2021
WRIA 9 Salmon Recovery Plan which pertains to the salmon protection and recovery within
the Green/Duwamish River watershed.
Background Summary:
The Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed is referred to as Watershed
Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 9 and is a collection of 17 local governments that
coordinate salmon recovery efforts for one of the most important salmon habitat
environments in the Puget Sound region. The City of Auburn is one of the 17 local
governments that participates in this work. Councilmember Chris Stearns is the local elected
official that is appointed to the WRIA 9 Watershed Ecosystem Forum (WEF) who oversees
efforts to improve the watershed health and salmon habitat recovery.
In 2005 a WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat Plan was prepared and completed. Over the last couple of
years WRIA 9 developed an updated Plan that has since been adopted by the WEF.
Resolution 5598 is a statement of support to ratify the Plan and to declare Auburn’s support
for the priorities, objectives, and strategies established within the Plan.
Rev iewed by Council Committees:
Councilmember:Stearns Staff:Tate
Meeting Date:July 6, 2021 Item Number:RES.B
Page 190 of 195
--------------------------------
Resolution No. 5598
June 29, 2021
Page 1 of 5 Rev. 2019
RESOLUTION NO. 5598
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
AUBURN, WASHINGTON, RATIFYING THE 2021 UPDATE
TO THE GREEN/DUWAMISH AND CENTRAL PUGET
SOUND WATERSHED OR WATER RESOURCE
INVENTORY AREA (WRIA) 9 SALMON HABITAT PLAN,
MAKING OUR WATERSHED FIT FOR A KING.
WHEREAS, the 2021 Update to the WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat Plan (“WRIA 9
Plan”) is an addendum to the 2005 WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat Plan, and includes new
science, revised habitat goals and recovery strategies, an updated capital project list,
and a monitoring and adaptive management plan; and
WHEREAS, 17 local governments in WRIA 9 (“Parties”) have partnered through
an inter-local agreement (ILA) (2001-2006, 2007-2015, 2016-2025) to jointly fund
development and implementation of the WRIA 9 Plan to address shared interest in and
responsibility for long-term watershed planning and salmon recovery in the
Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed (“watershed”); and
WHEREAS, in March 1999, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) Fisheries listed the Puget Sound Chinook salmon evolutionary
significant unit, including the Green River Chinook salmon population, as a threatened
species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA); and
WHEREAS, local jurisdictions have authority over some habitat-based aspects of
Chinook survival through land use and other policies and programs; and the state and
tribes, who are the legal co-managers of the fishery resource, are responsible for
addressing harvest and hatchery management; and
Page 191 of 195
--------------------------------
Resolution No. 5598
June 29, 2021
Page 2 of 5 Rev. 2019
WHEREAS, the WRIA 9 partners recognize participating in the ILA and
implementing priorities in the WRIA 9 Plan demonstrates their commitment to
proactively working to address the ESA listing of Chinook salmon; and
WHEREAS, coordination and cooperation among federal, state, and local
agencies, tribes, businesses, non-governmental organizations, landowners, community
members, and other interests are essential to implement and adaptively manage a
salmon recovery plan; and
WHEREAS, the Puget Sound Partnership serves as the Puget Sound regional
organization and lead agency for planning and implementing the Puget Sound Salmon
Recovery Plan, approved by NOAA Fisheries; and
WHEREAS, the WRIA 9 Plan is one of fifteen watershed-based chapters of the
Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City of Auburn supports cooperation at the WRIA level to set
common priorities for actions among partners, efficient use of resources and
investments, and distribution of responsibility for actions and expenditures; and
WHEREAS, habitat protection and restoration actions to increase Chinook
salmon productivity trends are necessary throughout the watershed, in conjunction with
other recovery efforts, to avoid extinction in the near term and restore WRIA 9 Chinook
salmon to viability in the long term; and
WHEREAS, salmon recovery is interrelated with flood risk reduction, water
quality improvement, open-space protection, recreation, economic development, and
tribal treaty rights; and
Page 192 of 195
--------------------------------
Resolution No. 5598
June 29, 2021
Page 3 of 5 Rev. 2019
WHEREAS, the City of Auburn has a strong interest to achieve multiple benefit
outcomes for people and fish across the watershed; and
WHEREAS, the WRIA 9 Plan recognizes that salmon recovery is a long-term
effort, and focuses on a 10-year implementation time horizon to allow for evaluation of
progress and adaptation of goals and implementation strategies; and
WHEREAS, it is important to provide jurisdictions, the private sector and the
public with certainty and predictability regarding the course of salmon recovery actions
in WRIA 9; and
WHEREAS, if insufficient action is taken at the local and regional level, it is
unlikely Chinook salmon populations in WRIA 9 will improve and it is possible the
federal government could list Puget Sound Chinook salmon as an endangered species,
thereby decreasing local flexibility.
WHEREAS, the Parties previously took formal action to ratify the 2005 Salmon
Habitat Plan, and
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN,
WASHINGTON, RESOLVES as follows:
Section 1. The City of Auburn hereby ratifies the Green/Duwamish and
Central Puget Sound Watershed, Water Resource Inventory Area 9 Salmon Habitat
Plan Update, Making Our Watershed Fit for a King, dated February 2021. Ratification is
intended to convey the City’s support for the following:
Page 193 of 195
--------------------------------
Resolution No. 5598
June 29, 2021
Page 4 of 5 Rev. 2019
1. Protecting and restoring habitat based on best available science with the
intent to achieve sustainable, resilient, and harvestable populations of
naturally spawning Chinook salmon.
2. Pursuing a multi-benefit approach to WRIA 9 Plan implementation that
integrates salmon recovery, flood hazard reduction, water quality
improvements, open space and recreation, and equity and social justice to
improve outcomes for people and fish.
3. Utilizing the WRIA 9 Plan as a source of best available science to inform local
government actions, including, but not limited to land use, shoreline, and
transportation planning/permitting.
4. Utilizing capital project concepts, programmatic actions, and policies outlined
within the WRIA 9 Plan to inform local priorities for implementation and
funding via grants, capital improvements, ordinances, and other activities.
Ratification does not obligate any partner to implement any specific actions or
adhere to specific timelines for such actions
5. Working collaboratively with local, state, and federal partners and tribes to
support and fund implementation of the WRIA 9 Plan, including monitoring
and adaptive management to address scientific uncertainty, tracking and
communicating progress, and refining strategies to ensure cost-effective
investments.
Section 2. The Mayor is authorized to implement those administrative
procedures necessary to carry out the directives of this legislation.
Page 194 of 195
--------------------------------
Resolution No. 5598
June 29, 2021
Page 5 of 5 Rev. 2019
Section 3. This Resolution will take effect and be in full force on passage and
signatures.
Dated and Signed:
CITY OF AUBURN
____________________________
NANCY BACKUS, MAYOR
ATTEST:
____________________________
Shawn Campbell, MMC, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________
Kendra Comeau, City Attorney
Page 195 of 195