HomeMy WebLinkAbout5592 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
Resolution No. 5592
June 17, 2021
Page 1 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.
Resolution No. 5592
June 17, 2021
Page 2 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: Julv 6, 2021
CITY OF AUBURN
C1C AkKUS, MAYOR
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Shawn Campbell, MMC, City Clerk Kendra Comeau, City Attorney
Resolution No. 5592
June 17, 2021
Page 3 of 3 Rev.2019
Housing Action Plan
City of Auburn
June 2021
Prepared for: City of Auburn
Draft Report
CITY OF
oeni. Usart "..„,,useszto, * *
*
, ._ WASHINGTON
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,
ECONorthwest Justin Sherrill, Michelle Anderson, James Kim, Andres
ECONOMICS • FINANCE • PLANNING Arjona, and Jennifer Cannon.
*rats
Andrea Petzel and Valerie Pacino
!a
BROADVIEW
PLANNING
SERA
Ben Webber and Ross Determan
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan i
Auburn Community Members (alphabetical order)
• Arnie 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
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan ii
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:Appendicesliststechnical 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.
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan iii
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
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan iv
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.
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 1
Introduction
The City of Auburn was founded in 1891 and has grown to become the fifteenth largest city in
the State of Washington. Multiple periods of growth can be observed in the many regions of
Auburn, including early 20th century neighborhoods, mid-century growth, and the annexation
of rural county lands in the early 21st century. This has resulted in over 29 square miles of
housing growth representing many different scales of development that have occurred over
different periods.
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 Prior to creating this
engagement, a review of policies, and an assessment of housing Housing Action Plan,
development feasibility, this HAP identifies preliminary Auburn participated in the
South King County
recommendations, implementation considerations, and actions that Subregional Housing
can help the City of Auburn guide its housing policies, regulations, and Action Framework, along
with the cities of Burien,
programs as it encourages housing needed to accommodate current Federal Way, Kent,
residents and Auburn's growing population. HAP efforts are focused Renton, and Tukwila.
on encouraging the production of both affordable and market rate This Subregional Housing
housing at a variety of price points to meet the needs of current and Action Framework met
future residents. the same Housing Action
Plan requirements but
focused on regional and
This HAP must comply with state guidance, including the adoption of subregional strategies that
the South King County
the grant-funded HAP document consisting of the needs assessment, cities could pursue
housing policy review, and implementation preliminary together.
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.
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 2
Figure 1.Auburn's HAP Development Process
Public Engagement
Community Vision Existing Conditions
Solicit Ideas Recommended Actions
Assess Changes Data Analysis
Employment Trends Adoption.
Public Input
Population Growth
Staff Input
Policy Evaluation Planning Commission
Development
Analysis City Council
Prioritization
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.
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 3
Figure 2. HAP Preliminary Recommendations Inputs
Community
Data
Input, Analysis(7Q,. \ , /jct.)
/ mk , •Qi
9� �`\ 4,
• , ✓ Q i
cso \ 14 Development r / ao/
<<), '40� Feasibility
Preliminary Recommendations f
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.
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 4
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 arid 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: What is Middle Housing?
increased development and denser development
In this analysis, the term
middle housing refers to
B. Encourage the development of below-market affordable housing duplexes and triplexes.
in Downtown Auburn See relevant development
standards on page 31 and
example renderings on
C. Encourage the development of middle housing in R-5 and R-7 page 39.
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."' 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.
' PSRC Regional Centers Framework,page 4.
https://www.psrc.org/sites/default/files/final_regional_centers_fra mework_ma rch_22_version.pdf
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 5
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 The City may choose to make
evaluating circumstances in and applicability to, all areas of the city zoning code changes in this
limits of Auburn, as this is where the City has regulatory jurisdiction. study area -testing the
response from the housing
Auburn's housing-related goals and planning processes are focused market, developers, and
citywide. However, some of the comprehensive plan policy guidance neighborhood / community
members- before making
may also extend to those areas within the City's few designated changes in other parts of the
Potential Annexation Areas (PAA) where only the Comprehensive Plan City.
policies apply. The City could also choose to
advance changes to
Due to time and fiscal limitations of analyzing the entire city, certain development standards that
support a broader range of
geographic areas were selected for a concentrated focus. The Auburn housing options in single
HAP study areas shown in Figure 3 were selected by City of Auburn family dwelling zoned areas
staff to evaluate.specific policy and regulatory interventions to across Auburn.
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
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 6
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
S cif I \‘\_„,„,---7------ 4
9 f_.;Vii. `v,� 9....._. V.
. I 1
off
it _ __
4 1
N !", ; i. �
1, IwA1aj
�� �—.. ,(�— _
1 i —_ ._� ; I Lea
�: i Hill
I ___ -�, �
' z
o- a I___-_____—_,.._
4.
i \ t)
.-.
.
wA 16 ` a --- -
1-*'- 1-..- ..„..4 __ '.. --:
' \I
F" 3 ,... '� JIwA 1611 �.,.
C
,�...' / r^/tel ,/,'
.,,3 ; :�„:�:°.. '.- `
y 1 `a,
cj
�—•Pacific �,,,- F,4
ri Auburn:.
• Regional urban growth center aPD Q�'"s�ay --e `� \�`
-Middlejii housingstud `area, ` i
City of Auburn , Housing Action Plan 7
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.'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 theincome 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: i 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/i118/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).
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 8
„
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).
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 9
•
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 1 summarizes housing and population data for the City of Auburn
Section Ilsummarizes 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.
10
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan
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.°
Figure 5. Number of Units Built Per Year,Auburn, 2011-2019
Source:OFM,2019.
658 653
600 - --
507 534
412
400 -- - - — - - -
250
204
200 168
125
0 --_
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 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).
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 11
Figure 6.Type of Single-Family Housing Built,Auburn, 1960-2020
Source:King County Assessor's Office,2020.
3,000
2,000 ----- _
1,000 -
1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s
Type of Single-Family Housing (units)
1 2-4
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.
3,000
2,000 - _
1,000 ---
0
1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s
Building scale(units)
5-19 20-49 50-99 100+
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 12
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).
30% 30%30%
25%
20% 21%
1 rY0 — 16/°° -16/°o 20%. _
13%11%
o _
0-30% 30-50% 50-80% 80-100% +100%
- - Household Income as % of AMI
Year • 2012 ® 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
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 13
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).
16% 57% all, 11(76,
i
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
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).
8,800 ! ■2018 ®20110
Non-Hispanic Asian 6,710
! I
ti !
Non-Hispanic Black or African American 3,816
Hispanic or Latino of Any Race 6,891 12,831
M.
Non-Hispanic of Another or Multiple Races 8'782
5,266
4 � �
Non-Hispanic White 44,803
p, 4,--6, ... _ . ;.mac=,..N., ;,:. :s 44,302
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000
Total Population
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).
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 14
Figure 11.Age Distribution,Auburn, 2014-2018
Source:ACS(5 year 2014-2018).
85 years and over `7 1%
75to84years � 3%
65 to 74 years 6%
60 to 64 years 6%
55to59years 7%
45 to 54 years 13%
35to44years 13%`
25 to 34 years 15%
20to24years immiimommi 7%
15 to 19 years 6%
10 to 14 years 7%
5 to 9 years NININIEN 8%
Under 5 years somim 8%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20%
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.
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 15
Figure 13. Cost Burdened and Severely Cost Burdened Renters,Auburn, 2018
Source:PUMS(2018).
Renter
100% - 88% -
75j% 72% 71% - . -
50% -- ---
25%25% -7 in.
33%
0
0% 0% 0% 0%
0-30% 30-50% 50-80% 80-100% +100%
- - III Cost burdened II Severe cost burdened
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).
Amer.
Indian&Alaskan Native, 4.9%®1.9% - --
non-Hispanic i
Pac.Islander&Native Hawaiian,_ 2.7%®2.3%
non-Hispanic
Multiple, 10.4% 5.1%
non-Hispanic
Black,_ _ _
non-Hispanic 6.6% 5.6%
Asian,_ 6.0% i 10.8%
non-Hispanic
Hispanic,_ 25.0% 16.1%
any race
White,- 44.4/° 58.1%
_-
non-Hispanic °
40% 0% 40%
■ Share of burdened renters ® Share of area population
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 16
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 industriesmentioned 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,' (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).
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.
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 17
isFigure 15.Access to Employment—Travel Shed, 2018
Source:ECONorthwest Analysof 2018 PSRC Data.
Note:Departing at 8:00 AM,midweek
`, I
i ,.
-,,,Iti it:"'"-- fl :, `‘,-..,4' ,2,4`,.:74 .i,,,,:;-Ai..4.,1 4** --ii. l'" ' '441/4‘
, ti , ', '‘;''%ilffl:k , 1.
F
•
txti ;,
/ '' ° -t
4y } J ,p -
Y � r� '41-7'-',!:,!..,,,,','
11 i' E �7r..,„�� ..
gds w,�y, t f A / 0
. A
.a a T. . 5) ^�+�
r
k /Is ' �
w:
,. IL
. r
,
, ,
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 18
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
Underproduction is
need 10,429 new dwelling units between 2020 and 2040, at an calculated from the ratio
average trajectory of 521 new units per year through 2040. Of those of housing units produced
and new households
needed dwellings, 2,361 units are a result of housing formed in Auburn over
underproduction (see sidebar). The remaining 8,068 units are to time. If too few housing
accommodate population growth. In total, this represents a sizable neat are ootive to thheeructed
relanumber of
increase in the number of housing units that need to be produced new households formed,
each year(521 units), given the annual average of only 390 units built underproduction occurs
and contributes to price
per year from 2011 to 2019. increases.
Figure 16. Housing Units Needed by AMI,Auburn, 2040 Without including current
Source:OFM,2019;PSRC,2017;ECONorthwest Calculation. underproduction in
AMI #of Units %of Units calculations of future
need, the current
0-30% 1,669 16% mismatch of housing units
30-50% 1,043 10% to numbers of households
50 80% 2,503 24% will continue into the
future.
80-100% 1,251 12%
100%+ 3,963 38% See more detailed
Total10,429 100% explanation of
— -- — methodology in the
Existing Conditions
As Figure 16 demonstrates, 38 percent of units needed between 2020 Memorandum in Part 5
and 2040 should be affordable to households earning more than Appendices.
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
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 19
accounting for past and current underproduction, development targets focused solely on
future housing needs will continue to underproduce relative to the actual need.'
Figure 17.Total Needed Housing Units in Auburn by 2040
Source:ECONorthwest analysis of PSRC and OMF data
Current Future
Under- — Total Units:
production: w 8'0 8 10,429
2,361
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. Calculatethecount 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.
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 20
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.
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 21
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 processincludes 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.
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 22
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 interview 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 livedexperiences 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 concem 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.
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 23
• 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.
Increasedtransit accesswould 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 dose 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
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 24
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
1; Preliminary recommendation.Type
Preliminary recommendation calls for a zoning or Comprehensive Plan change.
fill Preliminary recommendation can be implemented through the Zoning Code,
W 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.
4 � Preliminary recommendation calls for increased partnerships and collaboration.
��' Implementation will focus on enhancing relationships and securing partnerships.
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 25
Fi:ure 19.Summa of Recommended Actions
Objective # Preliminary Description Preliminary Near-Term or _
Recommendation Recommendation Type Long-Term
Al Reduce Parking . To achieve denser developments,the City needs to reduce ,1. Long-Term
Requirements to parking requirements so developers can fit more units and � $ ���''►� . ,- -
W
Support Development make development feasible.This entitlement can be given for W '
3 Ir
in Downtown Auburn desired housing types but must be paired with preliminary
o recommendation A2.
A2Di
Offer a Density Bonus, To achieve denser developments,the City needs to increase Near-Term
to Support Denser the maximum residential floor area ratio(FAR)allowed in the mW®
o. Residential Downtown Urban Center(DUC)zone.This entitlement can be WW W
Z Development and given for desired housing types but must be paired with
cMixed-Income Housing preliminary recommendation Al because FAR bonus without
0 . parking reduction will not yield more units.
cc
A3 Promote Lot Smaller lots in downtown Auburn will need to be consolidated Near-Term
Di
Y Aggregation in • if they are to be used for podium(wood-frame over concrete W��
R Downtown Auburn construction)apartments.Since this is costly and creates W
E delays,the City should encourage and promote lot aggregation
� or allow shared parking between developments.
o Explore Fee Waivers for The City could explore waiving fees for desired housing types to $ Long-Term
I
s A4 Targeted Development reduce the overall cost of development and increase
- Types in Downtown feasibility.These policies need to balance the public benefit
Auburn with the lost fee revenues.
no Create Policies to Explore programs and policies to help lower the costs of , Near-Term
c B1 Lower the Cost of affordable housing development in downtown Auburn. $ ,,^
TA Affordable Housing
x° Development
a c Consider a Voluntary Auburn could explore a voluntary inclusionary housing program Long-Term
Di
° 2 B82 Inclusionary Housing that requires affordable units in exchange for a tax exemption �pW® $
3 Program Paired with a or increases in density allowances. W
a c° Density Bonus
0
P. B3 Reduce Parking Newly developed micro units(small units with some shared Long-Term
0 Requirements for Micro amenities)rent around 50%AMI and can offer affordable W� ,1.� �^��
L0
Units housing options without any public subsidy.However,they are W
only feasible with much fewer required parking spaces.
City of Auburn DRAFT HousingAction Plan 26
Objective # Preliminary Description Preliminary Near-Term or
• Recommendation Recommendation Type Long-Term
C1 Allow Duplexes and To encourage the development of duplexes and triplexes,the Near-Term
Eli
• Triplexes in Single- City first needs to allow these uses in single family Ww�
Family Neighborhoods neighborhoods,including R-5 and R-7 Zones. W
oC2 Increase Density and , After allowing duplex and triplex uses,the City would need to Near-Term
Eli
NN Reduce Minimum Lot• increase the allowed residential density and lower the p�Size Per Unit in R-5 and minimum lot size per unit in the R-5 and R-7 Zones.1*7
WW WW
cc R-7 Zones
m C3 Revise Rear Yard The rear setback requirements limit building configurations in Near-Term
Bil
Setbacks to : typical R-7 lots for triplex development prototypes. El
cc Accommodate Triplexes
In in R-7-Zones
o Reduce Parking Although the current perking requirements can be li Near-Term
0- C4 Requirements in R-5 accommodated,they create a tradeoff between parking,open W��
m and R-7 Zones space,and the footprint of duplexes and triplexes. W
c C5 Consider Minimum Site The City should consider circumstances under which to reduce Near-Term
141
T Size Requirements minimum site sizes to support land-divisions as a strategy to W W W®
v Relative to support homeownership opportunities.
v Homeownership Goals .
d
in R-5 and R-7 Zones
2• C6 Evaluate Site Site development standards and infrastructure requirementsEll Long-Term
o Development 'such as the engineering design standards should be evaluated m�®
$ .
w Standards and ,in the context of supporting a wider range of housing types WW WW
Infrastructure across Auburn.
Requirements to 14S#
Support Middle 1i,,
Housing Development
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan 27
Objective . # Preliminary Description Preliminary Near-Term or
Recommendation ,Recommendation Type Long-Term
- Monitor and Track Un- Expand the data collected on naturally occurring affordable Near-Term
6 - D1 regulated Affordable housing.starting with the City's rental housing licensing "`���"' *V
`o Housing -- program.
•
D2 Create Programs and The City should explore programs,policies,and partnerships Long-Term
d Policies to Preserve and collect data to maintain and preserve its stock of naturally $ ^�
a Naturally Occurring occurring affordable housing units. ���.
0 = Affordable Housing
• _ D3 Monitor and Track Strengthen partnerships and collect data to monitor the City's Long-Term
�, Regulated Affordable :supply of regulated affordable housing units and prepare for I�� •
o m Housing affordability restrictioniexpirations. ���.
W 9
G
`m a t NEIN
_ Preservation tools andstrategies can help prevent mobile W�
_ Provide support for -• homearks frombein redevelopedy
E N D4 Mobile Home Park pg purchased and thereby
Near-Term
23 adisplacing existing residents from this critical affordable
y Preservation housing stock ,
i,
c
Identify Opportunities Encouraging and expanding access to homeownership is a
P. solid way to prevent and mitigate displacement because
a D5 to Increase homeowners are less vulnerable to changes in the market or I,i,^ $ Near-Term
• Homeownership the effects of redevelopment.
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan 28
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.
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 29
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 Development feasibility
analysis helps identify the
analysis and public engagement, development feasibility analysis is the regulatory and program
third input to the preliminary recommendations advanced in this HAP. preliminary
recommendations that
However, future analysis of the public infrastructure development could most effectively
standards will be required to understand the potential impacts. help the City encourage
more housing production
This section:describes the development standards and market-realistic of all types.
development examples called prototypes on which the development Auburn will need more
standards were tested to understand the impact that these changes size ,housing units ef all points,typ ,
Psizes, and price to
could have on Auburn's housing goals. meet its forecasted
population growth and to
This section also summarizes the development feasibilityanalysis ment maideain current
residents access to a
methods used to arrive at some of the preliminary recommendations in variety of housing options.
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 Downtown Auburn Downtown Urban Encourage higher density
Housing Center(DUC)Zone developments to produce more
market rate housing.
2 More Affordable Downtown Auburn Downtown Urban Regulated to be affordable to
Housing Center(DUC)Zone households earning less than
80%of AMI.
3 More Diverse Specific Study R-5 and R-7 Zones Middle housing types including
Housing Options Area (see Figure 3) duplexes and triplexes.
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 30
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 What is Middle Housing?
study areas evaluated. During this project, the consultant team In this analysis, the term
engaged with staff from the Building Services and Development middle housing refers to
duplexes and triplexes.
Engineering Services areas of the Community Development See example renderings
Department to better understand the impact of additional on page 39.
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 s DUC Zone R-5 Zone R-7 Zone
Maximum Residential Density Base limit:2 FAR* 5 dwelling units per 7 dwelling units
With bonus:3.5 FAR acre 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 N/A 4,500 sq.ft. 4,300 sq.ft.
Unit
Allowed Residential Uses Multifamily and Mixed- Single Family Single Family and
Use Duplex
Min. 1 stall per 2 stalls per unit for duplexes(4 stalls total)
Residential Parking Ratio dwelling unit 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 N/A N/A
sq.ft.of retail space
Restaurant Parking Ratio 0.5 stalls per 4 seats N/A N/A
Structured Parking Requirement None N/A N/A
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 31
*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. Reducing Parking
Requirements
_ 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 Reducing parking
requirements can be an
development type that the City desires but the market is not delivering effective way to increase
(e.g., podium construction, or regulated affordable housing). housing options, improve
affordability, and increase
Infill residential developments in the City of Auburn are also guided by development feasibility.
Chapter 18.25 of the Auburn Municipal Code. It allows added flexibility However, reductions in
parug requirements in development standards to encourage more development of shouldbe cosidered
underutilized parcels. It applies to R-5 and R-7 Zones, as well as to along with potential
other residential zones (i.e., R-10, R-16, and R-20 Zones). However, the mitigations such as
Transportation Demand
provisions of infill residential standards are not directly evaluated in the Management strategies,
analysis below. The existing infill development standards do not allow on-street parking
management, or flexible
the'housing types at the residential densities necessary to advance on-site and off-site
these preliminary recommendations. Still, the preliminary parking options.
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://olvmpiawa.gov/-/media/Files/CPD/Planning/Housing-Code/HousingCode-OPC-Rec-Summary.pdf?la=en
https://www.lakestevenswa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/8507/1081-Infill-Regulations
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 32
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 isessentially 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 specificparcel than on other changes to development standards.
Figure 22. Illustration of Residual Land Value Per Square Foot
Source:ECONorthwest
$100.0 --- ---.._..
0
LL $80.0
2 $80.0 — — — --- — -- ---- —
cr
m $60.0 $55.0-CL
w. �
a)
$40.0 $30.0
To
$20.0
y
a)
Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 33
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," 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 developrrient 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 elected 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
Podium construction
The development standards in the DUC Zone makepodium construction Pre
p five woodototypes frame four or
the most obvious housing type to build. The height limit (75 feet) and residential stories over
parking requirements (1 stall per unit) in the DUC Zone are suitable for a floorone or more concrete
5-over-2 prototype in which five residential floors are located above two
floors of concrete structured parking. The ground floor programming A 7-story building
would likely be a "5-
would include a main lobby, retail space, and/or structured parking. Also, over-2" prototype with
street-level retail and structured parking area help achieve the bonus five wood frame
residential density(3.4FAR). See an example in Figure 23. residential floors over
P 9 two concrete floors.
Podium apartments are assumed to have a mix of studio, 1-bedroom, and A 5-story building
"4-
2-bedroom units. Market data show theyare likelyto rent at$1,850, on would likely a
over-1 prototype with
average ($1,500 for studio, $1,690 for 1-bedroom, and $2,190 for 2- four wood frame
bedroom). This analysis assumes that podium prototypes are located on a residentialoneconcrete floorsfloor.over
10 The real estate data collected in 2019 and 2020 reflect market conditions before the economic impacts of COVID-
19.The pandemic and economic recession are likely to impact development viability in multiple ways.The results of
this analysis presented in this memo do not reflect these effects and likely future reality.
11 A very small portion of the City of Auburn is located in Pierce County,but this portion falls outside our study area
(see the study area map on page 6 so data were not collected from the Pierce County Assessor.
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 34
60,000-square-feet lot, have up to 6,000 square feet of commercial area, and 226 dwelling
units.12
Figure 23. Example of a 5-over-2 Podium Development with Structured Parking
Source:Teutsch Partners;Location:Auburn Town Center A•artments,Auburn,WA
N*
, ..„..„ „..,....::"::....ci:,i,,,,.ri,
�I
w. I
:,, v1' i -gip —' �; -
s ; Nj1'1111-1111011111. e q• Mii i� ' .t 'i- "#
taut � , 1>? ' r, —,' � i ,",, 111111,1.€i jl II- ( r i
g 11 • 4,i :11111 I ., i�.
r tai Ji ; - ®111t1f1 ` ' '.3d = .. t. t.liiihie.pi Q 1$.'' r'ta m) `ra" yi � a4 ° I- 1111 ' t)
_14 r #111111 r, ; _. , r it.,n
• .., ''''1311 g °
n4�r��^ �t111111 Ini 1.41 �•�� '�®",'-'I .� i -I � rtll l tililllill°f ��) �f
nog" j '� "11 7111
- � ;:;, ,�_ � 1111 -- 1iF
= �� � . L 6 AI! t � �� � • -
e�
-Ipa«cac [+a Y1_,'7 F'i till/m C IL1ti ,.',......°7------
t ..7.:.-,i,•;4 h 'r
ri
.
9 ,rte.t ',K
1 U +/ J7 11 'V �'e �1 it,1, 4+t, ��' `L )t"�1^'
t 1_..,12. ti -2�. �.,. ., it z ��.
1
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.
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 35
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 MF1.13
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 A.artments,Redmond,WA
0!1t' II I111°` ' N
,\.0
,,,
,./, , ,.„!, ,,, f„, , .„ ,
„ ,,
, ,,.
,,,
r.
,/' \r
,\ 1 [L' ,, a;. . :TY , .I�,: 0� a
. \
„ ,.„,
_ . \_____.
,,,- , SII
1 -.„-.0.‘tai 1. .�
// , ',
4.4. 11 f ♦of*-i- . l D-,. .I
.... ,
- . . r 1i .z 1,,:;---‘fc', II11�ui:-�►•
,_ ______________
. .
r.T. . 1 ii ,ic. — — —-- ,. 1
f. , _
sr
3
.SIJ �..,r s �. y�i _ (,_
ikri
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.
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan • 36
'". i'0.
sr.
Y - 11
.,z--1„, XHui..
Gig- . + ',1 I _
'` fir. ` r;.�rrvr
�� t � ,,i is ,'^y. r' r«W"
�„ ,�.-.�.. ,rpt-- )� ,_ ;`-'y .W.r` _� "f- � `-T
Bp
.„...„4,,,,,
4,. pe
r
• '.
a' 'rte .�. !� S +
. UK
_
'B •r th
•7:::.;:::• p
'ppee•„ )'B
<BBepee •r :.r , rrt . , �y �{ ..c-or+ � ;
,kic7�.17�: w� S..e T,1'e�D� il... �+.�c3..� r`• • '1;�.
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.
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 37
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.
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 38
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
,...400000000111100 '0, lip., &p:Ar ,'-—''..,
Tir- ,..›
,'''
0 I r,),1 ' to 0. ,--- .„-
Atl,.._ ..., 4.21 ri 0 il il 40. ,,______.--
i<flo . ..--<-:-:,,,....7.-T . (,.", ,,,,, ,,,----
„,,-' 440 .7 0..11 „ie.
trx-
e�
411110
411000.-....., ' * ,._.
f.,, .., r,i \ , 00 .7.--70 _,
4-S(41L:11,_ 1 0 j,?--------”---CI + ,f
/140,-'
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 39
1- _ a
_111
s_AI
1 .:
70 Ls.
ill IC!
- _ imnsmfim
111111111111111111111111111111111111 tIII
12K
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 40
Figure 26. Massing Diagram of Triplex Building Type
Source:SERA Architects
<,,,, <-., ---- '' ,- kt 114‹ <A
`' ` yR C
44.„...„
\.�.\ �.�\� ` � -tom � fI/Q
\, s p rip
,...-- >,..-- - -
/ � , '+
~ 4 '`r
to It
0 V •>,->;,,,›"›
\11,� � �� /}�� G,0.
Y� r/ //c?V�r,.
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 41
'..' -
C-",,,,>,<, ,.,-,
1 t Q
/ 1,---- �; :�
/" ��t ' / 'rte
1
i I
.___I I f; i i it 1 9 eu !r rl
_
" I
3 II i, �
, I J
- I 1Q_..1 L_____w
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.
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 42
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/
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 43
Figure 27. Feasibility of Market Rate Housing in 5-Over-2 Podium Apartments
$100.0 - - _. - - -- -- --
0
' $80.0 - - _-_-_ - — -$7.5.8
$67.0
co
uc $60.0 -
CF) DUC Improved Land Value: $45-65j
$40.0 _ -------- ---
To
o $20.0 -_._.-.
$19.7
To
cc
$(20.0)
Base Scenario 5% Reduction in Parking Reduction
Construction Costs (0.8 stalls per unit,
4.3 FAR)
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."
• 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.
"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.
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 44
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
$100.0
I $80.0$60.0
DUC Improved Land Value: $45-651
$40.0
$19.7
J $20.0
-073
a
$(2.6)
$(20.0)
Base Scenario Inclusionary Housing 12 Year MFTE with IH
(80%of AMI) (80%of AMI)
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.
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 45
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
155
------ -- — -- ------- — —.. -- --._ —_
121 $152
— — - — — -- _._ _. — -----
till:
—_ 98
8-- - 70ST6
60;— t I DUG Land Vlue:$45 651 4.``4 -
-- -+ -- — — � 25 28 3C) — ; }
13
Total Units Resulting On-Site Parking RLV Per Square Foot
■0 staff per unit■0.1stalls per unit■0.2stalls per unit®0.3stalls per unit❑0.4stalls per unit n 0.5 stalls per unit
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 46
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.
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 47
Figure 30. Feasibility of Duplex and Triplex Developments
$45.0 -- -- — — —
�, R-7 Improved Land Value:$40
0
u_ R-5 Improved Land Value:$36
m
(Sr $30.0 --
L
a
m $22.3 $23.2
To $18.7 $19.3
$14.7
$15.0 —X13..7.. —
J — $11.1 $11.-976
—.
76
7 Vacant Land Value:$6
cc
Duplex Ownership : Triplex Ownership Duplex Rental Triplex Rental
•Base Scenario •Parking Reduction
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 48
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.
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 49
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.
Al) 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
As noted on page 31, parking
Auburn, the City should consider allowing denser housing ratios and density limits are
construction by reducing the parking requirement to 0.8 stalls per development standards that
create (or subtract) potential
unit AND increasing the maximum FAR (with bonus density)to 4.3 value for development.
FAR (see Preliminary recommendation A2). To encourage more Changes that increase the
overall building footprint give
development, the parking reduction must be paired with an value to developers.
increase in the allowable FAR in the DUC Zone and should also be
paired with the considerations described below. Generally, cities like to
extract some sort of public
benefit from these
These changes are needed to achieve the unit density that is entitlements or use them to
feasible in today's market conditions. Although the City of Auburn encourage development the
City desires, but the market is
cannot influence rents or construction costs in today's market, it can not delivering, such as podium
construction (discussed here)
improve development feasibility via these regulatory changes.
or affordable housing
(discussed in Recommend-
Considerations ation B2 on page 57).
Reducing parking requirements is an effective way to increase — ---development feasibility and help the market deliver more housing units, more choices, and
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 50
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 fewerparking 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.
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 51
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 Al, 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.
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 52
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
couldbe 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:/hsbanland.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/ChOS Technical Part1 Parking.pdf
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 53
• 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 dr 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.
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 54
• 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.
131) 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 Because almost all new
the DUC Zone, it should make every effort to support developers real estate development
is funded by loans,
seeking to build. A few example programs worth exploring include: developers pay interest on
these loans while the
■ Expedited or simplified development review processes. Some project is being permitted
and built. The interest on
cities offer expedited or simplified development and permitting these loans is referred to
processes specifically for affordable housing projects. This can as a carrying cost and
speed up the development process, which reduces a must be repaid, dding to
o
the overall cost of
developer's carrying costs. development.
• 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
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 55
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.
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 56
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 What is inclusionary
housing programs require new developments (of a certain size or in a housing.
certain location) to include a portion of their units as regulated Affordable housing
affordable housing — restricted so that households of various incomes requirements, often
referred to as inclusionary
can afford to live there— in exchange for incentives such as density housing or inclusionary
bonuses, parking reductions, or tax exemptions. A program in the zoning, require (via a
DUC Zone would likelytarget 10-20% of units in a development to be mandatory program)or
9 P encourage (via a voluntary
set aside for households earning less than 80% of AMI. This would program)developers to
result in new, affordable units in downtown Auburn that lower-income cpuli
benefitontribute of affordable c
households can immediately access and that would be rent restricted housing.
into the future creating longer-term affordable housing. Current This often takes the form
market dynamics in Auburn can likely not support a broad mandatory of either providing
inclusionary housing requirement. affordable units within a
new or renovated market
rate project, building, or
Auburn could explore a voluntary inclusionary housing program that renovating new affordable
requires affordable units in exchange for participation in an MFTE housing off-site but in
conjunction with a new
program or increases in density allowances. This could be an effective market rate development
tool to support the creation of long-term affordable housing through or paying a fee-in-lieu of
providing the affordable
mixed-income development in Downtown Auburn. However, for an housing on or off site.
inclusionary housing program to be effective,the City would need to These programs can be
package affordable housing obligations with financial incentives, mandatory or voluntary
and can apply to
regulatory incentives such as reductions to parking standards or bonus residential development
entitlements (e.g., increased height and density limits), or process as well as commercial
development.
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
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 57
•
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 Al 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.
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 58
B3) Reduce Parking Requirements for Micro Units
See development feasibility analysis on page 35.
Rationale
The City of Auburn could encourage the development of Micro units are newly
unregulated affordable housing by making the development of constructed apartments that
micro units more feasible. As discussed in the development are very small (about 220 - -
p square feet), have bathrooms
feasibility analysis on page 35, these units are affordable by virtue of and kitchenettes, and come
their small size and are generally targeted towards small, transit- with shared common space.
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%
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 59
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 housingdevelopment 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.
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 60
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 scaleof 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
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 61
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.
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 62
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 alsoneed 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.
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 63
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 parkingrequirements 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.
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 64
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.
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 65
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.
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 66
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: Existing Landlord Supports:
.■Tenant's rights and education resources ■ Landlord education resources
• City funding to support multiple legal •:Clearly established and documented rental
assistance agencies focusing on tenants, notice requirements .
•Just cause eviction policies • Clearly established and documented tenant
• 120-day notice for rent increases for .responsibilities
tenants on month-to-month leases or on • Clearly established and.documented
annual increases in excess of 5% maintenance standards
• 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)
22 Ordinance text can be found here: https://weblink.auburnwa.gov/External/0/doc/394573/Pagel.aspx
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 67
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.
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 68
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 The City of Auburn's
Notice of Intent to Sell
unregulated multifamily rentals. is a great example of a
policy that can help
■ The City should enhance its existing partnerships with mission-
prevent displacement.
oriented acquisition funds like the Regional Equitable This policy requires
Development Initiative (REDI) Fund or Sound Transit's Transit- landlords of low-income
multifamily rental
Oriented Development Revolving Loan Fund. These funds stand properties (with 5+units
ready to deploy capital aimed at acquiring and rehabilitating low- and at least 1 unit renting
below 80%AMI) to notify
cost market rentals in exchange for affordability restrictions. the City at least 60 days
■ Work with the King County Housing Authority or South King prior to listing the
property for sale.
Housing and Homelessness Partners (SKHHP) to establish a pilot
program that would offer low-cost loans for property owners to This advanced notice gives
i
rehabilitate their units in exchange for guaranteeing tenants the tohthe arrangeCitysome a mission-
tmeto try
ability to return and guaranteeing affordability restrictions. oriented buyer or work
Because the City of Auburn does not have a housing agency or with the landlord to
maintain affordability.
housing bureau that is already set up to monitor compliance and
lend funds, except for its shared participation in.the SKHHP, the See Auburn Municipal
Code 5.23.060 for more
best course of action is to partner with an agency that already has information.
these programs and policies in place.
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 69
Common Red Flags for Redevelopment Risk
• Small property size(e.g.,fewer than 10 units) • Non-institutional landlord,and or aging
• Low assessed value landlord
• lowrents and or lack of rent increases in • Nearby properties under common ownership
recent years • Nearby properties are rentals and meet
• High sales price or high land price numerous other conditions
• Presence of redevelopment nearby • Nearby(re)development or city-led planning
• Near amenities or transit . efforts to spur housing or economic
• Presence of deferred maintenance or capital development
repairs(blight, numerous code violations, or
numerous complaints)
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.
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 70
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.
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 71
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.
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 72
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)
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 73
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.
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 74
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 Citjr 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 (Al —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
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 75
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 Al and 83, 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
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 76
•
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 withthe 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 l Preliminary Recommendation Type
Eli Preliminary recommendation calls for a zoning or Comprehensive Plan change.
Me 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.
*AV Preliminary recommendation calls for increased partnerships and collaboration.
Implementation will focus on enhancing relationships and securing partnerships.
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 77
•
•
Figure 32.Summary of Recommended Actions and Implementation Considerations
Near-term
- Objective # Recommended Action Preliminary Sub-Area of Citywide? or Long- Impact to City
• Recommendation Type Term Resources
i } 1
'Reduce Parking Requirements to Support , s
^
Al Downtown Long-Term I Moderate staff time i
c Development in Downtown Auburn j WNW *
• 3 ---- ---5-------- f
5 f Offer a Density Bonus to Support Denser . DI
c° — Moderate staff time
; A2 (Development and Mixed In o �� Downtown Near-Term me Housing �— I 1
LI c A3 'Promote Lot Aggregation in Downtown Auburn WSW Downtown Near-Term Moderate staff time
w 0 } — f — —
❑ Potential for
' $
A4 'Explore Fee Waivers for Targeted j Downtown Long-Term I negative fiscal
Development Types in Downtown Auburn I impact
—— .. — —— = -- J -- — i — — — ,
I r
j Moderate staff time j
{Create Policies to Lower the Cost of ♦ ^� I and potential lost j
a 3 j 61 'Affordable Housing Development �.,, i Citywide Near-Term i revenue from I
P. — Permitting
I a• o 1 I Moderate staff time
a,❑ B2 'Consider a Voluntary Inclusionary HousingDowntown Long Term to create and
V t Program Paired with a Density Bonus di $ Id0 TA
a program !
W• B3 Reduce Parking Requirements for Micro Units• m ® $$ %f! IS I Downtown Long-Term Moderate staff time
1 I I Middle Housing Study I i
c Lo a j [Allow Duplexes and Triplexes in Single-Family
d H ii c l Cl ! $ Area and Citywide as Near-Term i Moderate staff time 1
o 0 c o Neighborhoods ��
Appropriate I.
c v—mc,v C2 ;Increase Density and Reduce Minimum Lot — !Middle n Housing Study —
m
j m v a m ® Area and Citywide as Near-Term I Moderate staff time
g o•m (Size Per Unit in R-5 and R-7 Zones W� f
— — - i _ Appropriate — —
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 78
Near-term
Preliminary Impact to City
• Objective # Recommended Action Recommendation Type Sub-Area of Citywide? or Long- Resources
Term
I N Revise Rear Yard Setbacks to Accommodate m Middle Housing Study
e C3 mm ® I Area and Citywide as Near-Term Moderate staff time I-
!Triplexes in R-7 Zones W� Appropriate •
oParking mIl Inil ® I
nto c 'Middle Housing Study
0 C4 Reduce
Requirements in R-5 and R-7 WSW Area and Citywide as Near-Term Moderate staff time
•
_o r- F... W Appropriate
°1 IConsiderMinimum Site Size Requirements m® Middle Housing Study
•
a ' { C5 Relative to Homeownership"Goals in R-5 and WSW i Area and Citywide as Near-Term I Moderate staff time
• m R-7 Zones W WWW �_ Appropriate
`2 Evaluate Site Development Standards and. I Middle Housing Study 1
�.,...S C6 Infrastructure Requirements to Support . WSW �,•!°�♦ Area and Citywide as Long-Term 1 Moderate staff time i
W Middle Housing Development I Appropriate
— i f — —— ' — Meaningful staff I
.I
f)` N ID D1
'Monitor and Track Unregulated Affordable
Y N I ,•4 I Citywide Near-Term time,to establish
;Housing . $
_ and track data
co
cu Meaningful staff
Create Programs and Policies to Preserve
o a D2 I ( $ ^ i Citywide Long-Term time to create and
• c GI ;Naturally Occurring Affordable_Housing '•a I
a6 r -- manage a program
o
au cr I i ( ! 1 Meaningful staff
to Monitor and Track Regulated Affordable l
N D3 Housing 4r#,,, Citywide Long-Term time to establish
• E R and track data
co [ Meaningful staff I
� Ti° Provide Support for Mobile Home Park I WW I I'�♦ Citywide Near-Term time to establish
c D4 ' W
''o r !Preservation .,
m _ and track data ;
c Z —
s 'Identify Opportunities to Increase ! � ♦ i Moderate staff timet
a D5 I I $ ,,i Citywide I Near-Term and potential
o ;Homeownership '• program funding
City of Auburn Housing Action Plan 79
This page is intentionally left blank.
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan 80
Housing Action Plan
Appendices
H. City of Auburn
June 2021
Prepared for: City of Auburn
Report Appendices
CITY OF *
-10044' .,01/
. , . - 270 Atraza =zzifn t
/MC igal
*
WAS H I N GTO N
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.
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan -Appendix A A-2
Appendix A. Full Public Engagement Summary Memorandum
206.709.9588
Y:u J.'.b:C3d.:aW7.��ng.rnm
BROADVIEW
PLANNING
To: Jeff Dixon,Anthony Avery,City of Auburn
Cc: Tyler Bump+Madeline Baron,ECONorthwest
From: Andrea Petzel+Valerie Pacino,Broadview Planning
Re: 'REVISED Summary of Aubum Housing Action Plan Public Engagement
Date: 12 March 2021(REVISED 23 June 2021)
This memorandum summarizes stakeholder feedback for developing the City of Auburn's Housing
Action Plan(HAP).
Project Overview
The purpose of the community engagement element of the HAP is to connect with residents,workers,
businesses,non-profitorganizations,service providers,and other key stakeholders to discover
qualitativedataand stakeholder stories to support and ground-truth the HAP's quantitative data.As
captured in the project's initial public engagement plan,the priorities for this work are to:
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 thecity's need to create(and preserve existing)more,and different types,of
affordable housing.
3. Understand community perceptionsof density and different housing types.
The public engagement process includes three iterative phases:stakeholder interviews;small,focused
group conversations;and a final community open house.Due to restrictions from COVID-19,the
public engagement process was conducted entirely through online video meetings or phone calls.This
report provides analysis of feedback from all interviews and focus groups to inform HAP
recommendations and strategies.The third phase of engagement,a community open house,is
forthcoming in spring 2021,and will invite the public to consider and react to draft housing
recommendations and strategies in a draft Housing Action Plan.A separate memo will synthesize
feedback from the open house.
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:
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan -Appendix A A-3
• 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 immeasurablyto our understanding of
human,institutional,and systems behavior.
However,the quantitative researchprocess generates a tremendous amount of information that must
be thoughtfully analyzed,edited;-and presented.It is also important to remember that a qualitative
research processwill never reach all stakeholders,and while participants are considered
"representative,"they arespeaking from their own lived experiences.A:final note:analysis is through
the lens,ofthe interviewer,and even with an emphasis on neutrality,interpretation can carry elements
of our own biases.
Outreach Approach
The community engagement process began with a collaborative effort to identify specific outreach
goals in a Public Engagement Plan(PEP).These specific goals set forth in the PEP were:
a. Conduct outreach that reflects diversity of Auburn and helps tell an accurate qualitative
story of the city's housing opportunities and.challenges.
2. Remain focused,yet flexible,on authentic public involvement during the challenges of social
distancing during the COVID-ig pandemic.
3. Develop and maintain a:consistent communications strategy between the City of Auburn and
its residents, ensuring equitable messaging.
4. Provide a clear connection between community involvement and how input informs housing
strategies.
5. Present clear qualitative data that succinctly summarizes community perspectives on how w new
housing can best integrate into Aubum's neighborhoods.
6. Understand the;existing barriers to.homeownership and best practices for creating
opportunities for people'to'own their own home.
7. Coordinate,as necessary,with other Auburn-related outreach efforts,and remain mindful of
potential overlap between stakeholders.
Building on the outreach goals,we established a process designed to maximize inclusion of a diverse
range of voices.This process included:
Stakeholder Interviews:We conducted twelve interviews with thirteen people across a broad range of
community stakeholders representing City staff,non-profits,social serviceproviders,faith-based
organizations, property managers,seniors,and community groups.
2
Ca'MuNrrY PLANNING PUGUC ENGAGEMENT I fAC UTARON
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan -Appendix A A-4
Focused Group Conversations:We held two focused conversations of three or more people,
representingrenters and Auburn School District representatives.Seven people participated in these
focused group conversations.
Community Forums:The City of Auburn hosted two online community forums to discuss the
recommendations of the draft Housing Action Plan.Twelve peopleparticipated in the daytime
meeting on May12 and eight-people participated during the evening meeting on May 17(excluding
city staff{-consultants).The,meeting included an interactive poll to gauge understanding of
housing issues with theresults presented below.
Speak Up Auburn:The'CityofAuburn's Community Development Department also hosted the draft
Housing Action plan on their platform for residents,business owners and students to engage and
make their voice heard.
A complete list of stakeholders who participated in interview and focused group conversations is
included in Appendix A.
The cumulative contentof each engagement process was analyzed to identify key themes and
insights.thatshould be proactively considered when developing housingpolicy recommendations.
While some feedback may provide direct recommendations for housing strategies,the real value of
stakeholder perspectives is what we glean from their lived experiences and to develop housing
policies to directlyaddress their concerns.
Examples of some questions we asked participants included:
• What is your iinpressionjknowledge of housing availability in Auburn?
0 Do you believe there are adequate opportunities to rent a home in Auburn?Do you believe
there are adequate opportunities to buy a home in Auburn?
• Has the COVID-19 public health crisis changed the way you think about housing in Auburn?
How has it changed?
• How can the City of Aubum demonstrate leadership on affordable housing?
• Who are the most important people to hear from for their perspective on housing issues?
• 15-zo years from now what should housing look like in Auburn?
Key Themes
After reviewing all stakeholder input from both interviews,group conversations,and community
forums,we identified thefollowing key themes,which are summarized below.Each theme is further
supported by quotes,insight,and recommendations from stakeholders in their own words,detailed
in Appendix B.
3
COMMUNEPLANNING;Pll8LUC ENGAGEMENT i FACllITA)IO
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan -Appendix A A-5
Consistent themes across interviews,included:
• While Auburn has changed dramatically overtime,people have a strong sense of community
identity,and like the small-town feel.People from Auburn want to stay in Auburn.
• While there's'a perception that housing in Auburn is more affordable than Seattle,it's still
not affordable for a lot of people living in Auburn.
•. The greatest housing need is for low-income,supported housing.
• Public-safety is an ongoing concern for many stakeholders.
• Mobile home parks are an in-demand source of affordable housing with low turnover rates
and long wait lists.
.• 'Stakeholders expressed concern about the conditions of affordable rental units,including
building maintenance and upkeep.
• There is a.sense of"middle income"housing,with stakeholders citing a lack of starter homes,
smaller homes,and options forseniorsto 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.
• There are existing family-sized units(2-4 bedrooms),but still not enough of these types of
units to meet demand.
• The eviction morat'oritjm has quelled a lot of housing instability,but the real issue is the loss
ofjobs/income to pay for rent post-moratorium.
• .There's a:desire for a strong,vibrant,mixed-use downtown area,but there are no
opportunities'forhome(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.
Stakeholders offered the following considerations,in their own terms,about opportunities for the City
to show leadership on housing:
• 'Develop the City's own Section 8 housing program,separatefrom King County,to help Auburn
residents stay in Auburn.
• Senior living can be isolating in general.The City should develop intergenerational housing
complexes with lots of opportunities for all ages to interact.
• Supporta coalition of faith-based organizations to take action on housing issues and help the
faith community to view tackling homelessness as more than the"City's problem".
• Educate landlords in order to help them embrace just-cause eviction requirements.
• Invest in long-term business/economic development support as part of nixed-use
development projects.The City is too focused on developing space,not businesses.
• Don't plan for housing in isolation.All affordable housing development should include easy
access to support services,transportation,job options,and grocery stores.This helps
communities thrive.
• Hold joint planning efforts with Auburn School District,in order to marry housing demands
and planning with culturally-appropriate services and support for immigrant and refugee
communities.
4
COMMUNITY PLANNING gPUALJC ENGAC'u4 hT I MCtUTNTU)
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan -Appendix A A-6
Outreach Challenges+Opportunities
Conducting community outreach with the challenges of COVID-19 is difficult.All outreach events
were held via video:or phone calls,with peoplewho had access to technology.Scheduling was
relatively easy,and groups forfocused conversations never exceeded more than four people.While
-somewhat small,the size of the group allowed for more in-depth conversation and shared ideas.
Next Steps
Community input from this phase ofthe outreach process will be used to shape the direction ofthe
HAP's strategiesand recommendations.Draft strategies and recommendations will be reviewed by
. staff and City Council,and a community open house will be held in April or May 2oz1 for further
refinement and feedback.Additional public engagement opportunities beyond the HAP will occur
when the city seeks to implement the recommendations of this planthrough the development of new
comprehensive'plan.policies,new development regulations,and new capital expenditures.
s
CLbs,StN:Irv/PuKNino.PU UC ENCAB6.NEMT I McIurAxlo,a
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan -Appendix A A-7
Appendix A.Participant List
StakeholderInterviews
Jean,Resident
Julie DeBolt,Auburn School District
Kacie Brae,Auburn Area Chamber of Commerce
Debbie Christian,Auburn Food Bank
Melanie Fink,Investment Property Group
Josh Headley,Revive Church
Arnie Hudson,Neiders Company
Jennifer Hurley,Auburn Senior Center
Christopher Loving,Eastside.Legal Protection
Katharine Nyden,Eastside Legal Protection
Kathy Powers,Orion
Cyndi Rapier,Green River College
Kyla Wright,City of Auburn
Focused Group Conversations
Greg Brown,Auburn School District
Julie DeBolt,Auburn School District
Terri Herren,Auburn School District
Isiah Johnson,Auburn School District
Renters:Jenny,Lewis,Joan(Auburn residents)
6
COMMUNITY PLANNING;MUBLC ENGAGEMENT 1 FACILITATION
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan -Appendix A A-8
Appendix B.Stakeholder Feedback Organized by Theme
Below is a summary of feedback received,organized thematically.Where noted,the statement is a
verbatim quote from a stakeholder.
Perceptions of Housing Availability
• While there's a perception that housing in Auburn is more affordable than Seattle,it's still not
affordable fora lot of people living in Auburn.
• There's nothing-available—either to rent or own.Rents and mortgages have continued to rise.
•.• Townhomes are extremely popular with renters because ofthe yard.Townhomes and
duplexes rent very quickly.
• "Auburn is expensive,and anything affordable is a dive."
Sense of Community
•. Many people.are long term residents and there's a strong sense of community here.This can
be:challenging„but itdoesn'tfeel like community tension[around affordable housing],rather
unawareness:"Many people in Auburn haven't had to buy a home in a long time and have no
shared sense of the realities of housing".
•. There's not.a,strong:level of community engagement with the broader community,it's hard to
get people to engage in civic conversations.
• "Auburn has always been kind of a small hometown.This is home,and a lot of people feel that
• way,it's not the place to move away from".
• It feels like a caring City,with an engaged and proud community.
Greatest Housing Need
• .• A mixof housing isneeded,it can't all be affordable housing.We also need people who can
spend money in the community.
• 'It's too expensive to live in King County,more people are looking in Pierce County where they
can have more land Or bigger homes.
• Renting more than a one-bedroom apartment is a challenge.
• The need is for large fare ly units,there are a lot of multigenerational housing needs that aren't
met.
• Low-income-housing is missing.
• Rents are too high.
• Low-income senior housing in neighborhoods where people feel safe.
• Assisted living,across the board.There is none in Auburn.
• Housing with access to support/services.
•
Missing Housing
• There's no condo ownership options downtown and that would be great.
• Duplexes,cottages-small spaces with yards.People looking to downsize want yards.
• There aren't duplexes or"generational"homes for families to expand in to when they want to
care foraging parents or kids move back home.
• "Offering 2-3-bedroom apartments is pretty typical.But we always have people looking for
one-bedroom units."
7
COMMW IFY PLANNING PUeUC E.NGA GLMENT FACUJTAiiON
•
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan -Appendix A A-9
Housing Stability
• Getting landlords to embrace just-cause eviction would be great—and the City probably needs
to adjust messaging and educate landlords.
• In general,housing in Auburn is more affordable than Seattle,but you still need to have a dual
income or multigenerational housing to make it work.
• Stable housing is critical for people trying to get/maintain employment.
• Auburn is a manufacturing base where people can train and get jobs and live in Auburn.
COVID Impacts
• Eviction moratorium has quelled a lot of instability.The real issue is the loss of jobs and income
to pay for rent post-moratorium.
• Therehas been a greater need for financial support,rather than food support from the food.
bank.
• There's been'a big increase in homeless population.Couch surfers aren't really welcome
anymore now that everyone is home all the time.
• There's beenrsome.difficulty communicating with ESL renters about the quarantine
requirements.They've also neglected tote!!us when they're sick and that presents issues
when we have to do maintenance issues,etc.
• Social isolation has been incredibly impactful on seniors.
• "People'are in survival mode.In my church of about 100 people,30-4o are behind on rent."
• There's concern people might move out of housing,into homelessness,because they can't
make rent once the moratorium lifts.
Demonstrating Leadership on Housing
.• ."I'm:impressed with themixed-use downtown. If I was single I'd love it, it's brought so much
vitality and hopefully post-COVID there's still support."
• -City leaders should meet with people in their home environment so they can hear directly from
those most impacted by lack of affordable housing.
• Auburn could develop its own Section 8 housing program, separate.from King County (like
Renton).This would help Auburn residents stay in Auburn.
• Senior living canbe isolating in general.The City should develop intergenerational housing
complexes with lots of opportunities for all ages to interact.
• Partner with faith-based organizations to help distribute information about housing resources.
• Support a coalition of faith-based organizations.to take action on housing issues and help the
faith community to view tackling homelessness as more than the"City's problem".
• Advocate for rent relief/forgiveness.
• Coordinate with school district leaders to plan for community needs related to education and
housing.Auburn School District has felt unprepared to with understanding the specific needs
of different immigrant/refugee communities.
zo Year Vision
• There will be pride in Auburn businesses and homes—people love where they work and live.
• Duplexes,triplexes.
8
CCM/AVM fY PLANNING PUBLIC ENG&GE)1ENT iACUTAf1UN
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan -Appendix A A-10
• More mixed use in multiple areas of the city.
• Creative expansion of accessory dwelling units.
• Keep the hometown look and feel.
• .A welcoming and diverse place with a.wide range or residents from different cultures.
• More ability for people families to live close to where they work.Auburn should be walkable
and have access to transportation.
Seniors
• Seniors have particular housing needs that should be addressed like public WIFI access,laundry
onsite,access to outdoor space that's level and walkable.
o Senior living spaces need:walk in showers,kitchens,at least one bedroom,and nothing
under 50o square feet.Parking is somewhat important because someseniors still drive.
•
"Create spate in public areas for us to store our walkers and canes,otherwise the fire
department tells us it's a hazard."
.• It's very hard to find senior housing and some people what 4-5 years for government housing.
o "The main reason I need to stay in Auburn is for my doctor's.And if I can't,staying in
King County is just as important."
• "There is no housing,and seniors are hurting the worst."
• "Seniors are lobking'for something smaller,notbigger and bigger is what's getting built."
Housing issues showup when big change happens—death of a spouse,or landlord sells a rental
-• .house.Seniors aren't always looking to buy,but definitely want to downsize.
• ADUs,or extra space in a home would allow seniors to have additional income potential.
• .Do need assistance'with upkeep and home repair.For low-income seniors Auburn does have a
'program,but.you:have to be low income.Some churches/charities also provide assistance.
Rental Housing Conditions+Concerns
• A lot ofthe rental housing seems to be older and in need of repair.
• -Work with property owners more to make sure old buildings are renovated and maintained.
• My senior housing conditions aren't great,things are falling apart,and the space was filthy
when I moved in.
• A lot of surrounding properties look really bad—but campers and graffiti and the condition of
the buildings."We maintain our property,but it impacts our appeal when the neighbors don't"
• There are a lot of habitability issues and demanding rent to meet repair needs.
Financial qualifications are a barrier for renters,including:first/last month's rent,excessive pet
deposits and fees,and cosign requirements for leases.
Housing+Economic Development
• Housing is on the business community's agenda because ofthe need to address homelessness.
• A lot of people come to Auburn to work,but both living and working in Auburn is rare.Living in
Auburn is great access to either Seattle or Tacoma.
• Retail spaces below apartment complexes can be an issue because there's not enough support
for business development.There aren't great incentives to bring in and support retail and
commercial spaces.If that's what the City wants,then they have to provide support.
9
COMMUU;TV?LOANING i'U&LIC ENGRGEM.Ehl i FAClLITMi6N
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan -Appendix A A-11
•
• Economic development should be about developing businesses;the City is focused on
developing space,not businesses.
• Business development must be a part of housing.development.
Safety Perceptions
• People can come and dowhateverthey want,there's a lot of trespassing and property crime.
Also needles laying around downtown.Businesses have a lot of complaints and would love to •
the City clean up the downtown.
• "We have.a lot_of crime around our property.We work closely with the Auburn Police
Department,and they're great."
'• Citywide there are a lot of campers along the streets,and nobody does anything about it.
• Mobile home.parks could use more police support attimes.Police won't respond to mobile
home parks issues because they are treated as private property.
Miscellaneous
• Auburn should focus-on housing solutions for Auburn residents and not on a regional approach
except working togetherto discuss possibilities and new ideas.
• Mobile homes present affordable housing options,both to rent or own.However,there's a
very low turnover rate and long wait lists for spots.
• Mobile homeparks provide a sense of safety,security,and long-term housing opportunity.
•' Development in Lea Hill supports more and more families,but lacks resources,especially
grocery stores.
• There's no shelter for homeless youths in Auburn—they have to go to Kent for a bed.
• Auburn is drawing more and more new residents who come from cultures that are more
.community-based and less individualistic.Auburn should think about planning for
multigenerational housing,and shared spaces.
10
COMMUNITY PLANNING RUBUC ENGAGLMENT I FACILITATION
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan -Appendix A A-12
Appendix B. Existing Conditions Memorandum (Housing Needs
Assessment Section)
ECONorthwest
ECONOMICS • FINANCE • PLANNING
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
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan -Appendix B B-1
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
Public Engagement
Community Vision Existing'.Conditions
Solicit Ideas Recommended Actions
Data Analysis
Assess Changes Employment Trends Adoption
Population Growth Public Input
Policy Evaluation Staff Input Planning Commission
Development
Analysis City Council
Prioritization
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.
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan -Appendix B B-2
Housing Needs Analysis
This section summarizes the housing inventory,household) 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 sources.
Current Housing Inventory
As of 2018, there were 31,345 total housing units in Auburn(OFM,2019).About half of
Auburn's housing stock was built in the 1980's or earlier(King County Assessor,2020) and the
majority of the housing is single-family detached(61 percent).About 16 percent of Auburn's
housing stock is located in properties with 2-4 units,and construction of these housing types
peaked in the 1970s and 1980s.About 23 percent of Auburn's housing stock is characterized as
multifamily, the majority of which was build pre-1960, and in the 1990s and 2000s.2
Auburn saw 3,511 new Figure 2. Number of Units Built Per Year,Auburn, 2011-2019
dwelling units built Source:OFM,2019.
between 2011 and 658 653
2019, averaging 390
600 —new units per year. 534
Over this period, 7.8 507
new housing units were 412
produced for every 10
400 — —
new households that
formed in Auburn.3 250
200
0 204
168
125
III
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
'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 indudes 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 exdudes 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).
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan -Appendix B B-3
The majority of Figure 3. Occupied Housing by Tenure,Auburn, 2014-2018
Auburn's homeowners Source:ACS(5 year 2014-2018).
(88 percent) live in 100% .. 3r.:
single-family detached '% -
housing. 80% —
` 49%
About half of Auburn's
renters live in 60% .---------__. _.
multifamily housing
(with five or more units 40% ---- .-- — --- 20%
per structure)and 23 8%o
percent of renters live in 20% - --__----
single-family detached 23%
housing. 0% — —
Owner Renter
•Single-family detached ®Single-family attached
•Duplex,Triplex,Quadplex •Multifamily(54-units)
The majority of Figure 4.Type of Single-Family Housing Built,Auburn, 1960-2020
Auburn's single-family Source:King County Assessor's Office,2020.
housing stock was built
prior to the 2000's.The 3,000
1960's, 1990's,and
2000's saw peak
construction of single- 2,000 ----. _._._...__,....__...____.
family homes.
The majority of ' ' 1,000 - - - — —
duplexes,triplexes and
quad-plex type housing
0
was built prior to the
2000's.The 1970's and 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s
1980's saw peak Type of Single-Family Housing(units)
construction of these Eli NM
housing types relative to 1 2-4
other years.
Figure 5.Scale of Multifamily Housing Built,Auburn, 1960-2020
The majority of Source:King County Assessor's Office,2020.
multifamily housing in
Auburn was built before 3,000
2000.Auburn saw an
increase in larger_
multifamily housing 2,000 -- _ _
development(100+
units) in the 1980s, 1,000
1990s, 2000s,and
2010s.
The majority of medium 0 --
sized multi family 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s
housing(between 5 and
50 units) was built in Building scale(units)
the 1990s or earlier. 1111 11111111 NEI _
5-19 20-49 50-99 100+
•
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan -Appendix B B-4
Compared to King Figure 6.Share of CoStar5 Multifamily Inventory by"Star Rating" in
County and South King Auburn,South King County, and King County
County,Auburn has a Source:CoStar;Note:n signifies number of properties in each geography's sample.
higher share of 2-star4 King County 27°r° 36% °
apartments(typically (n=305,51x) '• 3�
older properties with
few amenities).
Based on CoStar data, S. =49County
(n=X9.671) 27% 56% 1%
_
half of Auburn's
apartment housing
stock is rated 2-star, 'Auburn
compared to 27 percent (n=5,794) 51°'° 38% f - o
in King County and
South King County. 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
■2-star ■3-star .4-star ■5-star
Compared to King Figure 7.Share of Housing Units by Bedroom Size,Auburn,South King
• County and South King County, and King County
County,Auburn has a Source:ECONorthwest analysis of U.S.Census Bureau PUMS 2018 1-year survey data6
larger share of 3-and 4 'King County 7% 17%
bedroom units. ' 19% 6%
About one-third of
Auburn's housing units
have 1 or 2 bedrooms. II South'King County 3% 13% 65 - 18% g$
•
.1111
Auburn 30j 12% KR3 gill 23%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
•Studios ■1-BR Units ®2-BR Units ■3-BR Units n 4-BR Units ■5+BR Units
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.
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan -Appendix B B-5
About 37 percent of all Figure 8. Housing Units by Bedroom Size,Auburn
housing units in Auburn Source:ECONorthwest analysis of U.S.Census Bureau PUMS 2018 1-year survey data
have 3 bedrooms,the
largest share of all Studios 1,397
bedroom sizes.
Four-bedroom units
make up the next 1-Bedroom 5,377 i
largest share of the
city's total housing stock 2-Bedroom 10,106
(23 percent),followed
by 2-bedroom units(22
percent), and then 1- 3-Bedroom 17,177
bedroom units(12
percent).
4-Bedroom 10,799
i I
5+Bedrooms - 1,793
5,000 10,000 15,0 00 20,000
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.'
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_definitions/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.
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan-Appendix B B-6
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 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.
Like most areas,the Figure 9.Age Distribution,Auburn, 2014-2018
• majority of Auburn's Source:ACS(5 year 2014-2018).
residents are between 20 85 years and over 1°i°
and 64 years old. 75 to 84 years 3%1
65 to 74 years INiemi 6%
Auburn has a larger 1 1
population proportion of 60 to 64 years I I • 6%
young residents(those age 55 to 59 years I I 7%
19 years and under)than 45to54years I I I 13%
seniors(those 65 years and 35to44years I I 13°il
older). 25 to 34 years 1 I 15%
- - 20 to 24 years ilimmomirme 7%
15 to 19 years 6%
10 to 14 yearsI 7%
5to9years immimilmml 8%
Under 5 years ' 8%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20%
Share of Population
As of the 2014-2018 time period, about 16 percent of Auburn's residents identified 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).
I I I
i
y
16% 57%
i i
', I I i i
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
to Non-Hispanic Asian
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan -Appendix B B-7
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).
8,800 ■2018 ®2000
Non-His panic Asian 6,710
Non-Hispanic Black or African American n 3'894
3,8161
1 4 1 I
Hispanic or Latino of Any Race - 12'831
6,891
• Non-Hispanic of Another or Multiple Races 5 266782
Non-Hispanic White b 44,803
44,302
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000
Total Population
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
Non-Hispanic Asian 9,202 +. 3,424 ■Homeowner ®Renter
Non-Hispanic Black or African American n3,142
2,789
Hispanic or Latino of Any Race 9,539 NNW
Non-Hispanic of Another or Multiple Races 5,4715 ;6,134
Non-Hispanic White 47,511 [ 20 097° 'r
I i
0 20,000 40,000 60,000
Total Population
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan -Appendix B B-8
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) Figure 13. Number of Households by Household Size,Auburn,
of Auburn's households 2014-2018
were one-and two-person Source:ACS(5 year 2014-2018).
households. 12,000 --------- -------------- -
.- About 25 percent of 9,775
Auburn's households were 10,000 -- ---------- - ---
large families, with four or 8,549
more persons per 8,000 _ -- - _7;491
household.
6,000
Between 2012 and 2018,
Auburn.added 7,474 new 3,850 •
households(PUMS, 2012
• 4,000 -- --
and 2018).
2,000 — -- — —
•
0
1 2 3 4+
The majority(56 percent) Figure 14. Household Tenure,Auburn, 2014-2018
of Auburn households own Source:ACS(5 year 2014-2018).
and 44 percent of 100% - - -households rent.
80%In Tukwila, only 40 percent
of housing units were 60% --- -owner-occupied in 2018. In
Burien,this figure was 53 40% - -percent. 56% —
20% —— 44%
0% — — — —
Owner-occupied households Renter-occupied households
About two-thirds of Figure 15. Household Composition,Auburn, 2014-2018
Auburn's households are Source:ACS(5 year 2014-2018).
family households.9 33% 34% 33%
Approximately one-third of l
Auburn's households are
non-family households
(roommates and one- 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
person households).
•Non-fa mily households
•Family households without children
▪Family households with children
9 See footnote 1 on page 4 for a definition of family household.
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan -Appendix B B-9
Income Characteristics
Income is one of the key determinants in housing choice and households' ability to afford
housing.This is due to the fact that,for most households in the U.S.,housing is the single
largest expense and impacts numerous other factors like access to jobs, schools, and amenities.
Between 2012 and 2018,Auburn,saw a large increase in the number of households earning
between 50% and 80%of the 2018 King County Area Median Income (AMI—see page 11 for a
description),while it saw a modest decrease in the number of households earning less than 30%
of AMI, and a small decrease in the number of households earning between 80%and 100%of
AMI(see Figure 16).
About 33 percent of Figure 16. Income Distribution by AMI,Auburn, 2012 and 2018
Auburn's households earn Source:PUMS(2012 and 2018).
Tess than 50%of AMI.This 30%30%_.__
30/o
is in line with the South --
..___...__.__.. 25°i°
King County Region as ao 21°i° _20%
whole,where 34'percent of 13% 1%
°
households earn less than . 10%
1 _
50%of AMI.
Auburn's share of
households earning more 0-30% 30-50% 50-80% 80-100% +100%
than 80%of AMI is also'_; Household Income as % of AMI
similar to that of the South
King County Region: 41
percent.and 43 percent, Year ■ 2012 II 2018
respectively.
The majority of Auburn Figure 17. Income Distribution by AMI and Tenure,Auburn, 2018
homeowners, 56 percent, Source:PUMS,2018.
earned 80%of AMI or r d
more,while the majority of Renters 28 26 2s 9 0
renters, 82 percent, earned
80%of AMI or less. Owners 10 11 1 23
The share of renters
earning less than 80%of 0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
AMI is similar to that of
South King County, 74 Household Income (as % of AMI)
percent.
111111111
0-30% 30-50% 50-80% 80-100% +100%
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan -Appendix B B-10
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).
'.56 161
Hispanic or Latino of Any Race $74,826
',62,784
{
$.6,_ 01
Non-Hispanic of Multiple Races $92,393
_ .ra . _ ' $76,155
',52,326
Non-Hispanic of Another Race $64,356
$54,123
Non-Hispanic Pacific Islander or � $71,31
Native Hawaiian
.:_�� $70,361
Non-Hispanic Asian $83,9 �_,, $121,192
is $102,233
Non-Hispanic American Indian or $54,875
Alaskan Native
$47,92
49 059
Non-Hispanic Black or African 47 917
$73,531
American $48,075
$72 117
Non-Hispanic White $109,604
$94,533
'.68 947
All Households _ $112,283
I $89,418
$0 $50,000 $100,000
■Auburn Bellevue King County
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan -Appendix B B-11
Housing Affordability
Housing costs are typically the largest portion of a household budget.Housing is considered to
be affordable to a household of a certain income if the household pays less than 30 percent of its
gross income on monthly housing costs.While this is an imperfect measure of affordability and
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/ill8/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.
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan -Appendix B B-12
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- Family Size(Number of People)
ability 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Level
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 ofother 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 a Annual 1 Max Monthly Housing Costs ' Example Jobs
Income Limit Income 1 (30%of Monthly Income) ' (full time)
30%of AMI $25,700 $643 1 worker in retail sector
50%of AMI $42,800 $1,070 1 worker in retail sector
2-Person _
Family 80%of AMI $64,200 $1,605 2 workers in food service; 1 full
time worker in info.tech.
2 workers in retail sector; 1
100%of AMI $85,600 $2,140 worker in management+ 1
worker in retail sector
30%of AM! $32,100 $803 1 worker in food service
50%'of AMI $53,500 • $1,338. 1 worker in transportation/
•
warehousing
4-Person 1 worker in finance;
Family - -80%of AMI $80,250 $2,006 1 worker in education+1
worker in retail sector
1 worker in finance+.1 worker
100%of AMI $103,400 $2,585 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 using 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
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan -Appendix B B-13
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 demand for housing in the region.Price
increases in the past decade are also high because they are measured off the very low prices in
2010,which was a period of home price declines from the housing crisis and economic
recession.
Auburn is no exception to having seen steep price increases.Since 2010,home prices in Auburn
rose by 88 percent,from a median sales price of$222,750 in 2010 to$418,300 in 2020(see Figure
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, Figure 21. Median Home Sales Price and Average 2-Bedroom Rent,
the average monthly rent in Auburn, 2010 and 2020
Auburn increased by 49 Source:Costar and Zillow.Not adjusted for inflation.
percent($459 per month). 2010 2020
In this same time period, Average Rent $934 $1,393
the median sales price for Median Sales Price $222,750 $418,300
a home increased by 88
percent($195,550).
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
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan -Appendix B B-14
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 Figure 22. Ownership Housing Units Affordable by AMI,Auburn,
units(using 2018 data), 38 2018
percent were affordable to Source:PUMS(2018).
households earning less Owner
than 50%of AMI, 32 10,000
percent were affordable to 8.715
households earning 50- 7,500
80%of AMI, and 30 5,000 .._._ 5,811 ..__.__-.-aso9_ _....___ 4,667
percent were affordable to 3,770
households earning 80%of 2,500 --
AMI or more.
0
0-30% 30-50% 50-80% 80-100% +100%
Household Income as %of AMI
_ 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 four).Another 35 percent of
the rental housing stock is affordable to households earning between 50%and 80%of AMI
($42,800-$64,200 for a family of two and$53,500-$80,250 for a family of four).
Of Auburn's rental units Figure 23. Rental Housing Units Affordable by AMI,Auburn, 2018
(using 2018 data), 54 Source:PUMS(2018).
percent were affordable to Renter
households earning less 10,000than 50%of AMI, 35
percent were affordable to
7,500 __.__- __.6,694
households earning 50- 5,000 5,432.
-------- - . _ ..� ..._._---
80%of AMI,and 11
percent were affordable to 2,500 -._.._1,707_ _._.. i,oaa
households earning 80%of 0 586 _._._.
AMI or more. 0-30% 30-50% 50-80% 80-100% +100%
Household Income as % of AMI
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,
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan -Appendix B B-15
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 included 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 stock 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 rental units.These units are defined as
NOAHs by virtue of being unregulated but affordable to lower-income households(either
households earning less than 50%of AMI or less than 80%of AMI).NOAH units are an
important part of a city's housing stock,but can be at risk of substandard quality,neglect,or
dramatic price increases because they are not regulated.Auburn has few NOAH units that can
accommodate larger household sizes in 3-and 4-bedroom units.
Of Auburn's 6,421 NOAH Figure 24. Number of Naturally Occurring Affordable Rental Units,
units, 34 percent are by AMI Level,Auburn, 2012-2016
affordable to households Source:ECONorthwest Analysis of Costar data.
earning 50%of AMI or less Units Affordable at: 50%of AMI 80%of AMI
and 66 percent are or less or less
affordable to households Studio units 87 230
earning between 50-80% 1-bedroom units 1,029 2,477
of AMI. 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 to households earning less than 30%of AMI may be
substandard quality.Households with these extremely low incomes may also find housing via HUD's Housing
Choice Voucher program,where a subsidy pays the difference between the market rent and the price the household
can pay.
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan -Appendix B B-16
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 Recalling the figures on
households mayhave too little income leftover after paying for housingpage 13, a four-person
p y g household earning less
costs,to afford other necessities, such as transportation,food,medicine, than 30%of AMI in 2018
or childcare.Housing cost burdening is particularly important for low- could afford a maximum
monthly rent of$803. Yet
income households,who have very little income to begin with. the average two-bedroom
apartment in Auburn was
Policymakers typically focus on renters when assessing cost burdening. nearly$1,400 in 2020.
It can signal a lack of affordable housing in a region.It is less of a focus With rents at this level,
for homeowners,because a lender will assess a buyer's ability to pay extremely low-income
for a mortgage before the household can buy a home, and because householdsand houd
pressed toofind housing
mortgage payments are typically fixed and do not fluctuate with the that is affordable, and
often end up cost
larger economy or housing market.Thus,homeowners are not as
burdened.
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 Figure 25.Cost Burdened and Severely Cost Burdened Renters,
renter households in Auburn, 2018
Auburn, more than half(53 Source:PUMS(2018).
_ . , - -percent)are cost_burdened; Income Total Severely Cost
and more than one-quarter Category Households Cost Burdened Burdened
(27 percent)are 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%
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan -Appendix B B-17
Of Auburn's renter Figure 26.Cost Burdened and Severely Cost Burdened Renters,
households(earning 30% Auburn, 2018
of AMI or less), 88 percent Source:PUMS(2018).
were cost burdened and 72 Renter
percent were severely cost 100% -138%
burdened. 75% — 7.%___7th°__r__ __�____ __._---_-----
Because those paying more 50°i° -- - -- -than 50%on housing are by 25% 33%
definition paying more th,an 25% '- —__. 9%
0 0% 0% 0% 0%
30%on housing, rates of 0,° -._- _...._. __-.._----- _---
"cost burden" include those 0-30% 30-50% 50-80% 80-100% +100%
_ , considered "severely:cost Household Income as % of AMI
burdened."
• . ■ Cost burdened III Severe cost burdened
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).
•
Amer.Indian&Alaskan Native,-,--= 1 4:9%®1:9% — —
non-Hispanic
I
Pac.Islander&Native Hawaiian,_..__ i
!
_:. 2:7%II 2:3% ---------
• non-Hispanic
Multiple,
non-Hispanic — - 0.4/o 5.1/° — --t-- -
I
Black, !-.. - .._.__, !_..6.6% I 5.6% . _ — _i.
non-Hispanic 1. i
Asian, I .
non-Hispanic
- - — I ,— 6.0% 10:8%— — i
__.. . Hispanic,_ l--25:0% ! 16:1%
any race
White,_ -44.4% '58..- 1%--
non-Hispanic 1
40% 0% 40%
■ Share of burdened renters ® Share of area population
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan-Appendix B B-18
Housing Affordability, with Transportation Cost Considerations
The standard definition of cost burden does not factor transportation costs.However,today,
housing advocates and researchers stress the importance of considering transportation costs in
affordability analyses,because many households relocate to the outer edges of metro areas in
search of affordable housing, thereby increasing their transportation costs.
Center for Neighborhood Technology publishes a Housing+Transportation Affordability Index
(H&T Index) (most recently as of 2017),providing a ready-made data source for assessing the
possible transportation cost burdening of Auburn residents.The H+T Index calculates,through
a series of statistical models, the transportation and housing costs for the"regional typical" and
"regional moderate"household; "typical"meaning a household earning the regional AMI with
the regional average number of commuting workers and persons per household, and
"moderate"meaning a household earning 80% of AMI(but having the same number of workers
and persons per household).
For the Seattle metro region,the"regional typical"household has the following attributes
according to the H+T Model:
• Income:$70,475
• Commuters: 1.19 workers
• Household Size:2.54 people
While the index considers the"regional moderate" (80% of AMI)household as:
• Income:$56,380
• Commuters: 1.19 workers
• Household Size:2.54 people
In Auburn, the model estimates that a"typical"household would spend about 45 percent of its
income on housing and transportation costs,while a"moderate"household would spend about
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- H+T costs as%of income-
100%of AMI ; 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%
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan-Appendix B B-19
Displacement Risk
As described in the demographics section above,Auburn has a very diverse population—by age, race,
ethnicity, and household composition (e.g.,family or non-family household).The City has included housing
preservation as a key goal driving this Housing Action Plan, particularly as it relates to preserving housing
for low-income households. Housing preservation is an anti-displacement effort,and can help to mitigate
and minimize the negative effects that often arise from new housing development.
Different Types of Displacement
Before determining recommendations to prevent against displacement,it is helpful to define and unpack
the meaning of displacement. Generally,there are three types of displacement:
■ Economic or indirect displacement. Economic displacement can occur if new development or
redevelopment in an area rents or sells at higher price points that encourage owners of existing
units to increase rents,and these increases exceed what existing tenants can afford.The effects of
(re)development renting at market rates may spill over to lower-cost rental units, causing rents to
rise and potentially displacing existing residents. However,if supply is tight and high demand puts
upward pressure on rents,market changes could lead to displacement without any new
development occurring in an area.
• Economic displacement can occur due to high demand and low supply of new
housing,with or without(re)development occurring. Economic insecurity and
displacement are very important for existing communities,but is difficult to measure
quantitatively.
• Low-income households are at high risk of economic displacement as they have
fewer choices about where they can afford to live.
• Physical or direct displacement. When evaluating when,where, and what type of project to build
or rehabilitate, developers consider many factors, including market rents,construction costs, local
amenities, and transit access. In some cases,public programs could encourage displacement by
incenting a developer to rehabilitate or replace older, less expensive (unregulated affordable)
housing with newer,higher-priced units.This could lead to the direct displacement of existing
residents,who may not be able to afford the higher rents in the new development.
• Physical displacement occurs with the redevelopment of a specific parcel.This only
occurs when new development is feasible, and can be measured quantitatively.
• In theory, any type of household could be at risk of physical displacement due to a
new development demolishing their current housing.But in reality,low-income
households,households of color,immigrant households,and other marginalized
populations are at higher risk of physical displacement.Wealthy or"powerful"
households are at lower risk of direct displacement, as they may not live in areas
experiencing new development, and they may hold sway over decision makers or
otherwise know how to exert influence in the process.
• Cultural displacement occurs when people "choose" to move because their neighbors and
culturally-relevant businesses and institutions have left the area.The presence (or absence) of these
cultural assets can influence racial or ethnic minority households in their decisions about where to
live,more than for broader populations. While this is difficult to measure,and one can argue
whether these are true"choices" or whether this is "forced" displacement, it is an important effect
that can have broad equity implications beyond physical or economic displacement alone.
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan -Appendix B B-20
• 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 differenttypes 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
'L. • 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.
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan -Appendix B B-21
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.
•,\ ......:1
,‘,'757.,.....5 % '--LI' .1101114,c1
i "'''
Vulnerability
� � score
:, r III6 (High)
III 5
1 '.- ' ,,', -.,--.,--,4-7,, pi , ) L '-„-, :30 ,
4
\ ; ''. A ",,„I' : ,,,,°:,„,,, An „I'. ---'0.-,"'%,.''''''''''4 77.- ,,,, t 3:: Joi,"."..e. ''.°!:1 lic,,,i4.- \n,t::1--—'7^. h, - k.--7.-m7rillir , i
k2
_
' � �d �`- _ 0 (Low)
�; 0City of Auburn
410
I
IlBlock 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 doe¬ 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
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan -Appendix B B-22
requires a robust analysis of new and existing rent trends, and this is beyond the scope of this
work.More analysis is needed to understand this risk.
When considering recommendations to boost housing production around the City,Auburn
should evaluate the displacement risk in each neighborhood, and act carefully to implement
policy changes.More discussion of policy changes,housing preservation, and other anti-
displacement efforts will be discussed in a forthcoming Recommendations memorandum
(expected in Spring 2021) and full Housing Action Plan.
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 1h 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
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan -Appendix B B-23
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
gt
% .we r,,
, S .. 3
1 1 A +
+ a MTS^ s
' R `; i` t_ '.t ,2 µ - f j Housing units
fs S{. i � CflC ' � a- 7 ! 0 1
(iilp
_
Y �x 'It:
! E t
�'�� f, l' 'r >,.��,a 1 ' . . , t _ ,. i 0 20
' ". i... . .. -f yet,,'''''''../4*,...- : 0 100 '
Pias,t - ?
.' . :-----1;',;----:------4.-.',-3- ,: . r. �
' Drive distance to
f .� ; } :a nearest grocery store
(mi),-;v , , yd 'a ,,, 4.,
i +.4
t 1 y 2
i i ,g , 1b f 4 1
tr;, •: '1i 4. , 1 ,
Ap.
t '
. oil -,. • Grocery store
1 i . °- /
61a
rf f
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—1 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 not
appear to be a food access issue in the Block Groups identified as most vulnerable(depicted in
dark pink and purple).
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan -Appendix B B-24
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
•
- • Vulnerability
•
sr score
. III 6 (High)
III 5
III 4
tei
4,,f0.4 3
j ,r, •' ,e �'. `.:4,
. . .- _.
1
u cr r I� 40 (Low)
\s.7,,2\
4 •- • Grocery store
Jr`'•
•
EJ1-mile drive
•
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
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan -Appendix B B-25
Assistance with 4,925 people, and (4)Wholesale Trade with 4,308 people. Combined,these
industries represent 50 percent of Auburn's total resident employment workforce.
Between 2008 and 2018, several industries lost Auburn residents.The four industries that lost
the greatest share of employed Auburn residents were: (1)Mining,Quarrying, and Oil and Gas
Extraction with a 100 percent decline, (2)Utilities also with a 100 percent decline,(3)Retail with
a 13 percent decline, and(4)Public Administration with a 12 percent decline. Combined,these
industries represent a loss of 1,251 employment jobs.
Job losses in each of the industries mentioned above,and job gains in new industries,signify a
shift in Auburn's employment profile between 2008 and 2018.For example, the five industries
which gained the greatest share of employment were: (1)Agriculture,Forestry,Fishing and
Hunting with a 192 percent increase,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.
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan -Appendix B B-26
Figure 32.Access to Employment Travel Shed, 2018
Source:ECONorthwest Analysis of 2018 PSRC Data.
Note:Departing at 8:00 AM,midweek
r fi ') + rTr •
4Tç
f�?1 M1 qt3 do.: l .
1� I � �' �( i' r
41"1
k . 4 , .—.. , 5.- ', ,.''," :. 1,<,..t !' - ,
r' ,4 `
`/ 1 _ ,, '
�'� '.:1!*.r.,.:; P
f/ " apt„,,,,,,
} �tiG 7 aFc {
, '.e '' ,' , ....„ 4 . \ ii.1_,: .. _
,. :141i.:,,.„. . , e.
- e---4------b v ..
,c ,,, 0 ,,.,..,„i‘i.-.....1,•,,..: --ti
.s. ,,,,,,,
. .,7„. , &•-,.” ), .r
il
,., , :
Auburn
N
WA
A-
k__
® Drive time
Y l'a''4 ,
N ei
i1 III l00 r.
Transit time
B-27
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan -Appendix B
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 2040.15
• Based on this forecast population growth,the City is projected to Housing underproduction is
need 10,429 new dwelling units between 2020 and 2040, at an calculated based on the ratio of
average trajectory of 521 new units per year through 2040.Of those housing units produced anew
households formed in Auburn
needed dwellings,2,361 units are a result of housing over time.
underproduction(see sidebar).The remaining 8,068 units are to
If too few housing units are
accommodate population growth.In total,this represents a sizable constructed relative to the
increase in the number of housing units that need to be produced number of new households
formed, underproduction
each year(521 units), iven the annual average of only 390 units occurs and contributes to
price
built per year from 2011 to 2019. increases.
Without including current
Figure 33. Housing Units Needed by AMI,Auburn, 2040 underproduction in calculations
Source:OFM,2019;PSRC,2017;ECONorthwest Calculation. of future need, the current
AMI # of Units %of Units mismatch of housing units to
numbers of households will
0-30% 1,669 16% continue into the future.
30-50% 1,043 10%
50-80% 2,503 24% See more detailed methods in
80-100% 1,251 12% Part 5 beginning on page 35.
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.
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan -Appendix B B-28
Market Conditions
To get a deeper look at housing
This section presents information about market conditions and market trends in Auburn, this
section primarily relies on
development trends in Auburn's housing market.Data includes
proprietary data sources, such
multifamily rents,vacancy rates, and recent developments as Zillow and CoStar, rather
delivered to the market, as well as home price trends that should than public sources like the
Office of Financial Management
be taken into consideration when evaluating future development or the US Census, which take
in Auburn.This section also includes comparisons of trends in longer to be collected and
Auburn to other cities in South King County. published.
The CoStar data presented here
These data and market trends are important to consider as the focuses on market rate trends
Cityworksto encourage the development to reach the 10,429 and only shows multifamily
g p properties (with 4+units)so
units needed by 2040. statistics here are a subset of
the full housing stock analyzed
in the Housing Inventory.
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, Figure 34. Multifamily Rent per Square Foot and Vacancy Rate, Auburn,
multifamily rents in 2008 through Q3 2020
Auburn have Source:CoStar
increased while $2.00 12.0%
11.0%
vacancy rates have $1.75 10.5%
hovered around 4.5
6-2 $1.50 9.0%
percent. Q Y
The 2020 vacancy a $1.25 7.5% co
spike came from a $1.00 6.0%
large multifamily $0.75 4.5°r° >15
delivery of about 500 $1.68
units.
o $0.50 3.0%
$0.25 1.5%
From 2010 to 2020,
multifamily rents moo T 0.0%
grew 47 percent o°�o°�'oti°0"Y oti,otic otic otic'oti°otic otic otic oa3
from $1.14 to $1.68 ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ry �
per square foot. —Rent per Sq.Ft. —vacancy(%)
16 Copper Gate apartments,located at 4750 Auburn Way N,construction with first occupancies in October 2020.
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan -Appendix B B-29
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 about 2011.Unlike some cities,
Auburn's rents did not decline in the post-recession housing crisis.By third quarter(Q3)2020,
Auburn's average rent was approaching that of Kent and Tukwila's.
Figure 35. Multifamily Rent per Unit,South King County Cities&Tacoma, 2010-2020
Source:CoStar
$1,800 - -
Auburn
1-2 $1,600
—Bu rien
Q.
, $1,400 —Federal
'''-.-°�.°'� Way
$1,200 ®Kent
w
.E- $1,000 Renton
a
—Tacoma
$800
—Tukwila
$600 —T C
,y0 y'y ,ry, ,y3 ,yCx y< CotiyA y 4) (Or " �0
O O ,O O `, �O 9O �O 1O (1, 'O
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.
i7 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.
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan -Appendix B B-30
Over the 2008 to Figure 36. Multifamily Net Absorption,Auburn, 2008 through Q3 2020
2020 Q3 period, net Source:CoStar
absorption has been 700
mostly positive, 600 -
indicating demand
has continually 500 - -
increased.
400 -
In 2020 Q3, net
u) 300
absorption is ,_
negative,though this E 200 - -
is likely due to the
recent multifamily 100
1
delivery of,units that 0 �, I �-
has yet to be leased T -� - -- " 71-7
to residents. -100
-200
cO rO fl, 9, (O �O (O 'I (O (O (O (O O(p
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-
®f , 1 1 !I�`;- = ' ; �"` ", -; unit, 5-story apartment building. It has
ni Pitt _, -- studio, 1-, and 2-bedroom units ranging in
1 I , L -i '� size from 536 SF for studios and 650 833
/.:: 1 k - L-, SF for 1-and 2-bedrooms units. Rents are
K, ,; �. 414
' rt « marketrate and rangefrom $1,322for�, � �t `� ' : la '�. k studios to$1,712 for 2-bedroom
•l -4 , tY" apartments.
' ''I 'g % , l e + .•' Unit amenities include a washer/dryer,
mi ""1"". 1
7" _ dishwasher, balcony, HVAC, and upper
-----0--::-------z k- level terrace,community room, and fitness
center. It is located in downtown Auburn.
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan -Appendix B B-31
Merrill Gardens at Auburn Type: Low-Rise Apartments
Year Built 2017
e 1-1_ Description: Merrill Gardens is a 129-unit
4 —, %, ' ., .... 7.-- 4-story senior living apartment building
bt w r
, x; � , �. ��, ,� around the corner from Trek Apartments. It
Or„, ° �� 4 , �z ,. r has studio, 1-,and 2-bedroom units
IOCIII IN *4� c f ,g, a ranging in size from 496 SF studios and
Iz :-�1 u; 1i, .3i ar x 693-976 SF for 1-and 2-bedroom units.
a.t
`f i3
,� �re --,—.7`' . __� , '4::.,.. =i*�r�` �,r, � � Rents are market rate and range from
-7,_:::-.14'.42- ry_ . ., 1 $2,923 for studios to$4,291 or 2-
_T 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
,, ,,,,,x s r , Year Built 2018
I 1 , 't ''"" �"`�' Description:The Reserve at Auburn is part
Iv ^n u .. - ,` L, "l At ,. of a phased affordable mixed-use
r-, fid a ; I " * .
.¢ i �, y } ,, development that contains 298 affordable
'"° i f _iii filo ,, ti„°. - r;r1 M units for senior living.The second phase is
t
s , r c t� --Ei ii! °': rl t ", i IC the Villas at Auburn which has 295
r>x ,
I" ri +� , �� ° T -' affordable family-sized units and
� c5,- , ." ,' I. , t ry V approximately 11,000 square feet of
' '# . �.�.-' �, FF -" ground floor commercial space. Both
r 1 ____.- - - - r--` '-`� 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 offofCSt.
Ownership Market Trends
As indicated in the Housing Needs Analysis in Part 2,Auburn's housing stock primarily
consists of ownership units (it has a 56 percent homeownership rate) compared to only about 44
percent of rental units.Due to demand outpacing the supply of homes in Auburn,prices have
been rising.Since 2010,home prices in Auburn rose by 88 percent,from a median sales price of
$222,750 in 2010 to$418,300 in 2020.Over this time,Auburn has seen somewhat lower median
home sales price growth than nearby cities (see Figure 38), and the median sales price in
Auburn did not overtake that of another city in the 2010-2020 time period.
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan -Appendix B B-32
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 i Median Sales Price • Median Sales Price I Percent Change
2010(or 2013 *) 2020
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
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan -Appendix B B-33
Methodology, Data Sources, and Assumptions
A) Housing Needs Analysis
Data Sources
To conduct this existing conditions assessment we primarily relied on 2019 data from the
Washington Office of Financial Management(OFM)to evaluate housing and demographic
trends.Where OFM data was unavailable we relied on the U.S. Census Bureau's Public Use
Micro Sample(PUMS) data from 2012 through 2018 and the U.S.Census Bureau's 2012-2016
Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS)Data.To supplement OFM data on
housing.trends and existing housing types by size,we supplemented this analysis with King
County Assessor data.For housing market data on rents and sales prices we relied on data from
the King County Assessor and CoStar.For the housing demand analysis we relied on Puget
Sound Regional Council 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 keyvariables 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 Future
Under- ft]
Need: �-- Total Units:
production: 10,429
2;361 8,068
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan -Appendix B B-35
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 consider 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 considerationof 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,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,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).
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan -Appendix B B-36
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 futurehousehold 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 the
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 policy 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
1 AMI Level Auburn South King County 'King County 1
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%
50% - - - - --
i
40%
40% - -- --- -
i
30° 1%
30% — — — — °
25%
3%
18%
20% 17% 1-18% 1646%o— %1112111
11°-?%1%1110%
0-30% ofAMl 31-50%ofAMl51-80% ofAMl 81-100%of 100%+ofAMl
AMI
■ Auburn ■ South King County a King County
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan -Appendix B B-37
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 South King County Total Units Needed
Needed by 2040 by 2040
0-30%of AMI 16% 1,669 18% 11,207
31-50%of AMI 10% 1,043 _ 16% V 10,288
51-80%of AMI _ 24% 2,503 23% 14,552
81-100%of AMI V 12% 1,251 12% 7,603
100%+AMI .38% 3,963 _ 31% 19,440 -
_,"TOTAL V`: V 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 limit of 45
minutes to generate isochrones(travel sheds).We used ESRI Services to create drive-time
isochrones,simulating traffic conditions typical of 8:00AM,Wednesday.We created transit
isochrones using OpenTripPlanner and the consolidated Puget Sound General Transit Feed
Specification(GTFS) database that is created and maintained by Sound Transit.This GFTS
database allows users to model possible transfers between the region's multiple transit agencies.
For each 2-digit NAICS industry,the data summarize the share of jobs across the four-county
region that are accessible within a 45-minute transit or auto commute from Auburn.
Transit Isochrones
We created isochrones originating from every transit stop within the jurisdiction. Each transit
stop was also weighted by the population within a half-mile distance(straight-line).These
isochrones were then joined to LODES job points at the Census Block Level, and the total
number of jobs by NAICS industry was calculated for each isochrone.The total number of jobs
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan -Appendix B B-38
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
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan -Appendix B B-39
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.
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan -Appendix B B-40
Appendix C. Existing Conditions Memorandum (Housing Policy
Review Section)
ECONorthwest
ECONOMICS • FINANCE • PLANNING
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.Multipleperiods 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).
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan-Appendix C C-1
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
Public Engagement
Community Vision Existing Conditions
Solicit Ideas Data Analysis Recommended Actions
Assess Changes Employment Trends •- Adoption
Population Growth Public Input
Staff Input
Policy Evaluation Planning Commission
Development
Analysis City Council
Prioritization
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.
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan -Appendix C C-2
This summary of existing plans and policies is divided into two sections:the first describes the
"planning pyramid" and the associated roles of the Growth Management Act,PSRC, and King
and Pierce Countywide Policies as it relates to comprehensive planning at the local level (the
City of Auburn is located in both counties).The next section provides a summary of Auburn's
existing policies key to promoting housing goals.
The Planning Pyramid
The"planning pyramid" in Figure 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 meet evolving
housing needs.In addition, the Washington State Growth Management Act requires that zoning
regulations and districts be consistent with Comprehensive Plans.
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan -Appendix C G3
Figure 2.The Growth Management"Planning Pyramid"
Source:ECONorthwest
.,_.
°' " STATE-GMA requires cities and counties to develop n
"Comprehensive Planincluding a Housing Element with goals and
r rl.•j"P¶i.t(r;n l.;'i ri -Cr oy;i1� i,p'f+�.t1i a"�1 %;1 1- r 1Y:y, - policies promoting the preservation,improvement,and to provide for
the development of housing fdr at housing needs.
�� REGION-Multi-county vision supports best housing practices for "t
ou d . '-OU!.0 I VI 'COr r gaining affordable,healthy and safe housing for all the region's -1 _
residents and coordinates where to allocate growth in the region. I
•' - - 'COUNTY-Countywide Planning Policies advises'cities on strategies to l ,'
and Pierce Gan ties o Coun ide° address affordable housing needs,and promote bons ng diversity.transit I
[a..1110yZ/( access and fair housing meeting the diverse needs of residents.Provides {
housing and employment growth targets for clues in the county. Ji
px' CTY ; mi
t�'Y11 GovernmentComprehensve�� 4 housingneedTseyCpoovrehgeanssoPn aann douhtloiunseisngrhgo cAolty'
sansAdtarpiofliocrieasddestreabsgirtg
a
�.� } ., ?r•c framework for specific programmatic actions to pursue across a city.
I' "" !^ *-.. °r r ;CITY-The most detailed rules for developing housingis provided in a city's
Local Government,Develo ment
•° •" ,,„a p ,code of orduuvtces including the zonrngcade,and in subarea,specific,and master "!
:Regulations =� Il plana Guidance is provided on where housing can be built and regarding the size,
°scale,configuration"and design. • .
• Protect Review
,CITY-.Building new housing and doing significant remodels typically requires permitting
-'
and project review.
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
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan -Appendix C C-4
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 these
CPP strategies are listed below:
• Within designated Urban Growth Areas,include sufficient zoning capacity to
accommodate the development requirements for a range of housing types and densities
in a.way that supports attainment of overall housing targets (policy H-4),
• Preserve,maintain, and rehabilitate the existing housing stock including affordable
housing to ensure housing conditions are safe and livable (policies H-6,H-11),
• Adopt incentive programs to encourage the development of low-income housing,
• Adopt strategies,regulations, and goals promoting housing diversity, affordability, and
supply (diversity in tenure, affordability, types, sizes, and accommodations for special
needs,universal design,sustainable development,policy H-5),
• Plan for neighborhoods supporting the health and well-being of residents (policy H-12),
• Plan for housing(particularly for middle-income households or lower)with reasonable
access to employment centers(policy H-9) and in coordination with transit,bicycle, and
pedestrian plans and investments (policy H-10), and
• Promote fair housing to help meet the diverse needs of residents with a range of
abilities, ages,races,ethnicities,incomes, and characteristics (policy H-13).
A small southern section of the City of Auburn is located in Pierce County and as such,the area
is subject to the Pierce County Countywide Planning Policies.Pierce County's CPPs(amended in
2018) offer similar guidance as King County particularly in adequately providing housing
affordable to all economic segments of the city population along with sufficiently providing
housing for special needs.In addition,Pierce County promotes innovative housing techniques
to promote higher-density affordable housing,the use of funding opportunities and incentives
to subsidize affordable housing development, and inclusionary zoning techniques.
In the CPPs,Pierce County also requires that jurisdictions set a goal to satisfy at a minimum,
25%of the growth allocation,through affordable housing (defined as earning up to 80%of the
county AMI).Pierce County's 2006-2031 Housing Growth Target for Auburn, designated a core
city,is 3,634 net new housing units by 2030 (Table 1,Exhibit A to Ordinance No.2017-24s,
Growth Targets 2008-2030,by Vision 2040 Regional Geography).
1 Source:King County Countywide Planning Policies.(2012,Amended Tune,20161.
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan -Appendix C C-5
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.
AAuburn's vision was based on seven value statements associated with beeburn's exciting,203vision is to
an vibrant
character,wellness,service, economy,celebration,environment, and city attracting
sustainability.Downtown Auburn, designated as an urban center,has businesses,
andvisitors residentsand ,
become the thriving heart of the community and is poised for
continued revitalization. "a city of connected and
cherished places,from a
vibrant downtown to
The Housing Element themes provided below summarize guidance quiet open spaces and
useful for the development of housing action strategies. everything in between,
where a community of
healthy, diverse, and
Comprehensive Plan Housing Element Themes engaged people live,
work, visit, and thrive."
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).
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan -Appendix C C-6
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 ofresidential and employment growth for different
jurisdictions.Auburn too recognizes the need to balance jobs to housing as a wayto 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 theCity.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.Anemployment to housing ratio in the range of 0.75'to 1.5 is considered beneficial
for reducing vehicle miles traveled (Cox, 2020). The ratio has slightly lowered overall in the last two
decades as Auburn transitions from a suburban town to a thriving city offering broader housing options.
Housing production should continue alongside job growth.
Auburn has been effective in encouraging a variety of multifamily housing and infill development in its
downtown area which could be.partially attributed to Multifamily Tax Exemption(MFTE) incentives
targetedfor this area.As noted in the MFTE program review below approximately 680 market rate units
were.created or rehabilitated since 2003.The City has made progress in providing for more housing
choices in the Downtown area; however other mixed-use areas With sufficient infrastructure in place or
capable of improvement should be reviewed to determine whether housing variety has improved,
particularly in terms of providin: a ran:e of housin: 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-
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan -Appendix C C-7
1960, and in the 1990s and 2000s. Production of larger multifamily housing with over 100 units has
picked up during the last decade since 2010.Auburn should continue supporting production of single-
family attached and multifamily housing construction to continue integrating a variety of housing
options. By 2025,the number of seniors in King County will double to comprise 23 percent of the
population. Likely trends for the Baby Boomer generation: Household sizes will decrease(greater 1-
person households)and demand could grow for missing middle-housing options allowing for
"downsizing" and lower-maintenance living.-
Rising housing prices are increasingly making homeownership more out of reach. Over the last decade,
housing prices have increased by 88%;consequently, more action could be needed to increase the
availability of moderate and middle-income housing such'as cottages, condominiums, and townhomes.
Recent legislation passed reform to the state's condominium liability law in support condo production.
The implications of this new law should be monitored to see if it truly encourages more condo
construction and associated homeownership.
Auburn has adopted.code updates over the last decade to support increased Accessory Dwelling Unit
(ADU) production.The:pace of ADU development has increased but isstill 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 grantprogram 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.com merce.wa.gov/growi ng-the-economy/energy/weatherization-and-energy-
effici ency/weatherization-program-documents/
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan -Appendix C C-8
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 explorin:the use of density bonuses.
Evaluation Discussion:
The housing growth targets should align with the adopted King County countywide targets that are
beingdeveloped for the 2024 Comprehensive Plan update cycle and expected to be adopted by mid-
2021(PSRC VISION 2050, King.County,2020). These housing production and income level targets for
2024 to 2044 could be adopted in mid 2021. In general,Auburn will likely need to increase annual '
housing production to help increase housing availability.
As of 2020,Auburn has around 2;850 manufactured/mobile homes which is around 9%of the total
housing stock.This:type of naturally occurring affordable housing tends to be accessible to low to
moderate-income households (earning less than 80%AMI).•Consequently, housing preservation
strategies could be considered suchas mobile home park preservation, repair(see above discussion
under theme 3), monitoring strategy,and:assistance in establishing Mobile Home Parks into
cooperatives.
5)Special Needs
These policies call for the City's support of programs that offer funding, housing, and supportive
services to keep persons with special needs housed.These populations include veterans,single-parent
households,seniors,disabled households, and those experiencing homelessness.Assisting low-
income persons displaced by redevelopment in accordance with relevant laws is also recognized under
this theme. Other policies support seniors aging in place(encouraging development to adhere to
universal design principles) and the availability of transitional housing and assisted living facilities.
Evaluation Discussion:
The existing conditions analysis highlighted gradation of displacement risk across the city and this.
information could inform affordable housing'preservation and anti-displacement measures.The City
likely will be updating its comprehensive plan by June 2024 and during this update process,the plan
policies will be reviewed to ensure they are consistent with state, regional,and countywide policies.A
new aspect of PSRC's VISION 2.050 plan is the recognition of displacement risk(cultural, economic,
and physical)andthe 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, andhomebuyer's class/credit counseling training.
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan -Appendix C C-9
7) Partnership and Monitoring
This theme supports a variety of partnerships to collectively work on challenging topics such as
homelessness, affordable housing financing, and housing assistance. Policy H-50 calls for Auburn to
evaluate possible modifications to these housing policies and strategies every five years.
Evaluation Discussion:
The City,of Auburn has joined a regional affordable housing consortium in partnership with various
other south King County cities(Burien,Covington, Des Moines, Federal Way, Kent, Normandy Park,
Renton, and Tukwila)and King County.The South King Housing and Homelessness Partners(SKHHP)
was recently formed through an interlocal agreement to share resources to preserve and increase
access to affordable housing. Effective in 2019,the interlocal agreement outlines the role, purpose, `
_structure, and other details of SKHHP. Essentially,SKHHP will share technical information and,.
resourcesto 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.
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan -Appendix C C-10
Figure 4.Auburn Comprehensive Plan Housing Element Goal Outcomes and Indicators
Source:Auburn Comprehensive Plan Housing Element
Outcomes Indicators Example Tools
Housing rehabilitation and repair loans
• Loans for energy conservation and healthy indoor air
quality
Improve housing Increased quality of.rental City-sponsored and nonprofit property manager
quality housing programs
Housing inspection program
Code enforcement
Community volunteer program
Meet demand for Land capacity to meet or Land use plan and zoning
new housing units exceed housing target
Pr-emotehousing Maintain or increase Single-family dwellings including small lots
ownership homeownership rates Accessory dwelling units
Cottages,townhomes
Increased numbers Single-family dwellings including small lots
Allow:for,a variety of small units with Accessory dwelling units
of housing types to neighborhood recreation
meet size and age and service amenities Multiplexes,cottages,townhomes
and cultural trends Retention of housing stock Mixed-use zoning
with larger units Incentives infill housing types
Increased numbers of
ownership dwellings avail- Accessory dwelling units
Increase`opportu- able to moderate incomes
nities for,housing to Increased mixed-use de- Downtown incentives
very-low,low-,and "vetopment for all incomes Infill incentives
moderate-income Increased'preservation Permit and impact fee waivers
households and improvementof rental
housing with long-term af- See also"improve housing quality"above
fordability commitments
Im roved'o or- Greater match of housing
P PP to special needs includ- Community services programs
tunities for special .
mg housing for all ages
needs housing and
Partnerships with nonprofit housing providers and non-
services and abilities as well as the governmental organizations
homeless - -
Monitor housing Address achievement of Monitor in conjunction with regular Comprehensive Plan
supply,affordabili- updates and new countywide planning policy housing
ty,and diversity indicators above targets
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan -Appendix C C-11
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 part of the ECONorthwest
consulting team on the South King County Subregional Housing Action Framework.
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan -Appendix C C-12
Figure.5.Evaluation of Key Existing Affordable Housing Incentive Programs in Auburn
Source:ECONorthwest building on Evermost Consultin:,2020,data provided b City of Auburn
Policy How it Works Auburn Findings Evaluation
Multifamily Tax. RCW chapter 84.14,allows cities with Auburn established its program in 2003 The 8-year exemption does not require
Exemptions more than 15,000 people to establish and has had four contracts take advantage affordable housing units.At the time
(METE) a multifamily tax exemption program of the lax waiver to date.These properties when this program was adopted,the
for 8-years or 12-years if the housing created or rehabilitated 680 units under Downtown Center area targeted for the
• development includes 20%of its units the 8-year exemption. program was lacking market rate
as affordable housing.By waiving housing.Unsurprisingly,this program
• • taxes,housing developments have The METE incentive is available only for has not yet generated affordable housing
lower operating costs,which affects new construction or for the rehabilitation of and the program has resulted in an
the project's overall feasibility by multifamily housing located in the average of 40 units created/
making it easier to build new units. Downtown Urban Center.Tax exemptions rehabilitated per year for 17 years.
Programs can exempt eligible new are available for 8 years for new multi-
. construction or rehabilitated housing family'or rehabilitated housing units
and the housing development must be constructed downtown(market-rate)or for
• located in an urban center and include 12 years for qualified affordable housing
at least four housing units. units(Auburn City Code 3.94).
Accessory Accessory dwelling units(ADUs) According to data provided by the city, Until recently,the City of Auburn was
Dwelling Units provide an additional dwelling unit— Auburn has issued 36 building permits for requiring ADUs to pay school and traffic
- typically with its own sleeping,bathing, ADUs since 2005.It is important to note impact fees along with utility system
. and cooking facilities—on properties that this summary does not encompass development charges,which could have
with existing single-family homes.ADU unperrnitted ADUs(an estimate for Seattle contributed to lower development.Since
policies attempt to increase housing indicated that up to three-quarters of what removing this requirement a few years
density in ways that do not change the appeared to be ADUs was unpermitted). ago,the pace of ADU development has
character,look,and feel of existing increased but is still somewhat low.
neighborhoods,and put more housing In Auburn,ADUs are permitted outright in
• in areas with access to amenities such all residential zones that allow single-family Auburn's Zoning Code has a fair amount
as jobs,schools,and retail centers.In homes.The homeowner must successfully of flexibility for ADU construction and
theory,because they are smaller than gain an ADU building permit.One attached density.The size,parking,and owner-
single-family homes,ADUs can be ADU or detached ADU is allowed on a occupancy requirements are somewhat
cheaper housing options-but this is parcel and each ADU is limited to no more restrictive but are not too burdensome.
not always the case. than two bedrooms.
Possible areas of improvement to
The style of the ADU should match the consider:pre-approved ADU/DADU plans
primary residence and cannot exceed 50 to streamline the process(Renton and
percent of the primary unit or 950 square Sea tle example),ADU guidebook
feet,whichever is less. (Tacoma example),removal of owner-
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan-Appendix C C-13
Policy How it Works I Auburn Findings Evaluation
One additional parking space beyond what occupancy requirement in exchange for
is required for the single-family home must affordability(below 80%AMI),and
be provided for the ADU.The home or ADU opportunities to reduce fees and allow
must be the principal place of residence for shared/off-street parking.
the homeowner.(Source:Auburn Code
Section 18.31.120,last amended in 2012 ADU permitting requirements and ADU
by Ord.6419§4). 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 ofADUs
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 Auburn had established several fee waiver The reinstatement of select fee waivers,
" a new building often includes,but is incentives.The City has fee waivers for the even over a temporary period of time,
not limited to,zoning application fees, Downtown Catalyst and Downtown Plan could be considered when city revenue
mitigation fees,building permit fees, Areas which were implemented in 2001 sources are plentiful to target
plan check review fees,utility (more detail in Auburn Code Section underproduced housing and the
connection charges,building 19.04).These fee waivers have all expired construction of more affordable housing.
inspection fees,and impact fees. and the last exemption for the Downtown
While these fees are important Catalyst area was extended through , Relaxing fees can help incentivize
funding sources for their respective Ordinance No.6637 was scheduled to affordable housing development in the
municipal departments and special City.While careful calibration is needed
districts,they can add up and to ensure the public benefit of reduced
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan-Appendix C C-14
Policy How it Works Auburn Findings 1 Evaluation
_ ._ effectively discourage new housing sunset on December 31,2017.4 These fee fees is offset by the lost revenue to the
- development-particularly at lower waiver's have been utilized in conjunction City,these programs can meaningfully _
price points.Fee waivers for with MFTE. reduce the cost of development and help
affordable housing development or incentivize lower-cost housing.
other qualified development projects.
•
Expedited Some cities such as Kirkland,Lacey Concurrent review of preliminary plat and A common area of continuous
Permitting, and Vancouver offer streamlined civil plans is being explored by Auburn(with improvement for many cities is to adjust
review or expedited permitting the applicant assuming the risk).The the permitting processes to be more
processes for qualified development Master Builders Association(2020) predictable,efficient,accessible,and
- projects.The state of Washington estimates that this could save up to a year transparent.
Local Project Review law(RCW on the permit process 5
36.7OB)supports the establishment of � Possible areas of improvement to make
• -• a predictable and timely review - (See incentives described in the next row.) the process more predictable particularly
process by setting time limits on - for affordable housing development
application review and permit could be identified and examined for
- decisions and a maximum time period Outside of this,Auburn does not have an trade-offs.A pilot program can be
of 120 days unless the jurisdictions expedited permit review process for implemented as a way to test out
makes written findings that additional affordable housing or qualified different techniques and work out
-. time is needed. development. process tweaks.A key area of
improvement is to examine ways to
Auburn could define criteria for • reduce upfront fees and requirement
qualification of expediting permitting barriers such as the possibility of review
to include things such as rent or price process efficiencies and/or integrating
restricted affordable housing,projects payment deferment options.
`. that utilize the 12-year MFTE program,
for targeted development types such Other measures to consider:Additional
as infill development or podium online permitting and tracking
development,or for development improvements to reduce trips to the
projects in specific areas such as the permit counter,cross-departmental
Downtown area. 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.munidpal.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/advocacvf ssue-
briefs/mbaks-housing-tool ki t-2020.pd f
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan-Appendix C C-15
Policy How it Works Auburn Findings Evaluation
Safeguards could be added to - requirements,and enhanced staff
- expedited permitting measures such training.
as including negotiated deadlines for
the applicant and permitting staff to The following cities enacted permitting
each meet,respectively. efficiencies:Kirkland and Tacoma.
•
Density and Most cities offer some manner of In the City of Auburn,development The overall effectiveness of these
Height Bonuses incentives or bonuses in exchange for standard bonus incentives may be policies in spurring housing development
additional exactions on the developer; awarded to residential developers in is yet to be seen.Additional analysis on
- these incentives can often result in exchange for recognized public benefits the types and uses of these incentives is
better design or substantially pursuant to Chapter 18.25(infill an area of further study.
• advancing public interest while making development)or 18.49 ACC(flexible
the project more profitable for the development alternatives). Other opportunities for incentives should
developer. be identified to help encourage
Eligible infill development(section ACC affordable housing development in the
Policies are often put in place when a 18.25.020 provides more guidance)can City.The City should consider developing
jurisdiction wants to encourage a type gain density increases by up to 10 percent, policy incentives that are easy-to-
of development that the market is not increased building height by up to five feet, understand with low complexity.
delivering(for a variety of reasons),so reduced/alternative setbacks,and a 10
the jurisdiction makes it easier,less percent reduction in the minimum on-site Many local jurisdictions are also offering
costly,or more profitable to build the parking when designed to be shared(Code incentives to encourage green building
desired type of project. Section 18.25.040). such as Tacoma,Everett,and Kirkland.
• 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
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan-Appendix C C•16
Policy How it Works Auburn Findings Evaluation
• policy complexity for applicant
• participation.
Planned Action Under the Washington State According to data provided by the City in While this coverage may expedite review
Environmental Environmental Policy Act(SEPA),a spring'2020,Auburn has planned action and increase certainty of development,
Impact • - planned action—such as rezoning, coverage for 708 residential dwelling units Auburn staff-along with most of the
Statements development agreement,subarea in planned action environmental impact South King County Cities-noted that
plan,etc.—can pre-analyze the statements,thereby helping to reduce the few SEPA challenges were filed so the •
• predicted impacts of a certain level of cost of development(SEPA analysis),and benefits of this program(reducing the
development.Jurisdictions may increase both the certainty and speed of cost of development by avoiding a SEPA
implement these policies to encourage development. analysis)are limited.
development by allowing projects to
avoid costly SEPA analyses,by It is unclear how many units have been
increasing certainty around mitigation ' developed under this program,and if it
requirements,and by avoiding lengthy has truly helped to incentivize market
• delays due to SEPA challenges. rate or affordable housing.
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan-Appendix C C-17
This page is intentionally left blank.
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan -Appendix C C-18
Appendix D. Development Feasibility Proforma Model Assumptions
Operating Revenue and Cost Assumptions
Variable _ Assumption Unit of.Measure
RevPnuP -- ---__
Duplex for-sale $ 359,948 Sale price per unit
Triplex for-sale; $' 338,170 'Sale price per unit
Duplex rental, $ 2,299 Monthly rent per unit
Triplex rental $ 2,160 Monthly rent per unit
Micro units 1 $ ' 988;Monthly rent per unit
Podium $ .1,854 Monthly rent per unit
Affordable rent; $ , 1,708 Monthly rent per unit
Retail, $ 28.00 I NNN,per square foot,yearly
Vacancy Rate
Affordable residential 4%Percent
Market rate residential l 5% Percent
Retails 12%Percent
Operating Expenses
•
Duplex/Triplex' 5%,Percent of rent per unit
Micro units; 30%,Percent of rent per unit
Podium," 20%0l Percent of rent per unit
Retail; $ 1.20'Per square foot,yearly
Residential Parking Net Revenue
Vacancy 10%;
Podium $ 80 ;Per stall,monthly
Development Cost Assumptions
Variable • Assumption Unit of Measure
Hard Costs
Kitchen; $ `R •-350 ;Per square foot
Bathroom; $ 460 Per square foot
Other Interior Space i $ 70 Per square foot
Micro units $ 247 Per square foot
Podium i $ 190 Per square foot
Retail; $ 160 `,Per square foot
Lobby/Shared, $ 180•Per square foot
Parking Cost j
Garage; $ 10,000 Per stall
Surface, $, 5,000 Per stall
Podium $ 35,000 Per stall
StalLSize
Garage • 300 Square foot per stall
Surface: • 280 'Square foot per stall
Podium. 370 Square foot per stall
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan -Appendix D D-1
Development Cost Assumptions
Variable_ __ Assumption Unit of Measure
Other Development Costs ����
Hardscapej $ 15 Per square foot
Landscape $ 10 Per square foot
Soft costs(incld permitting and taxes) 22%'. Percent of hard costs
Duplex and triplex impact fees $ 19,510 Per unit
Micro units impact fees $ 10,702 Per unit
Podium impact fees'. $ 13,552 ' Per unit
Contingency fee; 5%;Percent of hard and soft costs
Developer fee/comission 3% Percent of development costs
Retail T.I. $ 40 Per square foot
Target Returns
f �
Duplex Triplex ROC; 7.5%'
Multifamily ROC. 5.0%)
Retail ROC` 7.0%'
Parking ROC 6.0%.
} p
Apartment/Unit_ Assumptions
Variable Assumption Unit of Measure
Unit Sipe
I ,
Duplex for-sale
Studio,. 0;Square feet
1 Bedroom! 7.70,Square feet
2 Bedroom 1304 Square feet
3 Bedroom 1541;Square feet
4 Bedroom ', . 17411 Square feet
Triplex for-saleI
Studio;. 0;Square feet
1 Bedroom# 770 Square feet
2 Bedroom 12481 Square feet
3 Bedroom 1496 Square feet
4 Bedroom; 1696;Square feet
Duplex rental;.
Studio 0 Square feet
1 Bedroom I •770,Square feet
2 Bedroom 1192 Square feet
3 Bedroom) 1402 Square feet
4 Bedroom! 1602 Square feet
Triplex rental
Studio 0 Square feet
1 Bedroom i. - 770;Square feet
2 Bedroom 11361 Square feet
3 Bedroom '1359 Square feet
4 Bedroom; 1559 Square feet
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan -Appendix D D-2
Apartment/Unit Assumptions
Variable Assumption Unit of Measure
UnitSvP. `--- _--a--- ---------I -------- --_�__
Micro units.
Studio! 220'Square feet
1 Bedroom 460,Square feet
2 Bedroom' 0;Square feet
3 Bedroom 0!Square feet
Podium
Studio' • 490,Square feet
1 Bedroom • 6801 Square feet
2 Bedroom 9901 Square feet
3 Bedroom' -1310 Square feet
Unit Mix
J)ilexfor-sale:: ,
Studio 0%,percent of all units
1 Bedroom; 0%, percent of all units
2 Bedroom 20%!percent of all units
3 Bedroom' 70%percent of all units
4 Bedroom, 10%i percent of all units
Triplex for-sale;
• Studio 0%,percent of all units
1 Bedroom 0% percent of all units
2 Bedroom 20% percent of all units
3 Bedroom 70%!percent of all units
4 Bedroom, 10%;percent of all units
Duplex rental
Studio 0%i percent of all units
1 Bedroom 0% percent of all units
2 Bedroom i -70%j percent of all units
3 Bedroom 30%'percent of all units
4 Bedroom:. 0% percent of all units
Triplex rental
Studio! • 0%a percent of all units
1 Bedroom 0%i percent of all units
2 Bedroom 70%i percent of all units
3 Bedroom 30%percent of all units
4 Bedroom, 0%percent of all units
Micro units'
Studio'. 100%0%percent of all units
1 Bedroom; 0%,percent of all units
2 Bedroom 1 0%`percent of all units ,
3 Bedroom; 0%percent of all units
Podium
Studios 10%;percent of all units
1 Bedroom 55%percent of all units
2 Bedroom. :35%;percent of all units
3 Bedroom 0% percent of all units
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan -Appendix D D-3
Apartment/Unit Assumptions
Variable Assumption Unit of Measure
Unit Price
New/Future Construction Premium 5%;
Duplex for-sale
Studio`: $ 205 I Per square foot
1 Bedroom+ $ - 295 I Per square foot
2 Bedroom $ 240 Per square foot
3 Bedroom! $ 241 Per square foot
4 Bedroom f $ 207 Per square foot
Triplex for-sale;
Studio $ 199 I Per square foot
1 Bedroom $ 287 I Per square foot
2 Bedroom` $ '233 I Per square foot
3 Bedroom $ 234,I Per square foot
4 Bedroom $ 2011 Per square foot
Duplex rental ` ,
Studio; $ 2.54 ;Per square foot,monthly
1 Bedroom $ 2.08 ;Per square foot,monthly
2 Bedroom $ 1.86 ;Per square foot,monthly
3 Bedroom', $ 1.7.8 Per square foot,monthly
4 Bedroom $ j Per square foot,monthly
Triplex rental I
Studio] $ 2.49 i Per square foot,monthly
1 Bedroom' $ 2.04 Per square foot,monthly
2 Bedroom $, '1.82 Per square foot,monthly
• 3 Bedroom $ 1.741 Per square foot,monthly
4 Bedroom $ - Per square foot,monthly
Micro units f
Studio $ 4.49 Per square foot,monthly
1 Bedroom f;.$ 3.67 ;Per square foot,monthly
2 Bedroom E ,Per square foot,monthly
3 Bedroom` ;Per square foot,monthly
Podium; -
Studio $ 2.99 Per square foot,monthly
1 Bedroom $ 2.45 Per square foot,monthly
2 Bedroom $ 2.18 I Per square foot,monthly
3 Bedroom; $ `2.09 i Per square foot,monthly
Averag,Unit Sipe
Blended unit size' '
Duplex for-sale 1514 Square foot
Triplex for-sale 1466`Square foot
Duplex rental sr 12551 Square foot
Triplex rental 1203;Square foot
Micro units • 2201 Square foot
• Podium 770;Square foot
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan -Appendix D D-4
Apartment/Unit Assumptions
Variable Assumption Unit of Measure
_
Average Unit 5i7a
Gross to Net Ratio
Duplex and Triplex` 100%
Micro units 70%1
Podium':, 87%
Gross unitsi7e
Duplex for-sale 1514]Square feet
Triplex for-sale'.; 1466 Square feet
Duplex rental, 1255!Square feet
Triplex rental 1203!Square feet
Micro units 314!Square feet
Podium' 884J Square feet
,Sales prices
Duplex-$ , 238I Per square foot
Triplex; $ 231 1 Per square foot
Blended Rent
Duplex, $ 1.83 1 Per square foot,monthly
Triplex' $ 1.80.I Per square foot,monthly
Micro units $ 4:49 !Per square foot,monthly
Podium $ .2.41 Per square foot,monthly
Affordability Policy Assumptions _ _
Variable Assumption Unit of Measure
Taxes and MFTF Assumptions
Property tax rate $ 13.19E Per$1,000 of assessed value
MV to AV ratio' 90%
Tax abatement(discount rate) 6.00%!
12-year abatement PV factor ' . 70%1
Percent taxes abated; 100%�
Affordability Assumptions
MFI(4 person household) $ - 113,3001
Income toward rent 30% Percent of income
Depth 80%I Percent of MFI
Set-aside;n 20%!Percent of units
Utilities allowance Studio $ 80.00 Per unit
Utilities allowance 1 Bed, $ 95.00 I Per unit
Utilities allowance 2 Bed $ 110.00 I Per unit
Utilities allowance 3 Bed $ 125.00 I Per unit
M Fl Multiplier for Studio: 70%!Percent of M Fl
MFI Multiplier for 1 Bed Unit 75%;Percent of MFI
MFI Multiplier for 2 Bed Unit . 90%;Percent of MFI
MFI Multiplier for 3 Bed Unit 104%'Percent of MFI
City of Auburn DRAFT Housing Action Plan -Appendix D D-5
`l STATg o
, 'L I889 a
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
do 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.
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,
4
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