No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFinal Agenda Packet CITY OF RENTON AGENDA - City Council Regular Meeting 7:00 PM - Monday, December 9, 2024 Council Chambers, 7th Floor, City Hall – 1055 S. Grady Way Please note that this regular meeting of the Renton City Council is being offered as a hybrid meeting and can be attended in person at the Council Chambers, 7th floor of City Hall, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, 98057 or remotely through Zoom. For those wishing to attend by Zoom: Please (1) click this link https://us02web.zoom.us/j/84938072917?pwd=TUNCcnppbjNjbjNRMWpZaXk2bjJnZz09 (or copy/paste the URL into a web browser) or (2) call-in to the Zoom meeting by dialing 253-215- 8782 and entering 849 3807 2917 Passcode 156708, or (3) call 425-430-6501 by 5 p.m. on the day of the meeting to request an invite with a link to the meeting. Registration for Audience Comment: Registration will be open at all times, but speakers must register by 5 p.m. on the day of a Council meeting in order to be called upon. Anyone who registers after 5 p.m. on the day of the Council meeting will not be called upon to speak and will be required to re-register for the next Council meeting if they wish to speak at that next meeting.  Request to Speak Registration Form: o Click the link or copy/paste the following URL into your browser: https://forms.office.com/g/bTJUj6NrEE  You may also call 425-430-6501 or email jsubia@rentonwa.gov or cityclerk@rentonwa.gov to register. Please provide your full name, city of residence, email address and/or phone number, and topic in your message.  A sign-in sheet is also available for those who attend in person. Video on Demand: Please click the following link to stream Council meetings live as they occur, or to select previously recorded meetings: Renton Channel 21 Video on Demand 1. CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL 3. SPECIAL PRESENTATION a) Recognition of Renton Sustainability Programs b) Renton Businesses Recognition for Shift Green Program 4. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT a) Administrative Report 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS  All remarks must be addressed to the Council as a whole, if a response is requested please provide your name and address, including email address, to the City Clerk to allow for follow-up.  Speakers must sign-up prior to the Council meeting.  Each speaker is allowed three minutes.  When recognized, please state your name & city of residence for the record. NOTICE to all participants: Pursuant to state law, RCW 42.17A.555, campaigning for or against any ballot measure or candidate in City Hall and/or during any portion of the council meeting, including the audience comment portion of the meeting, is PROHIBITED. 6. CONSENT AGENDA The following items are distributed to Councilmembers in advance for study and review, and the recommended actions will be accepted in a single motion. Any item may be removed for further discussion if requested by a Councilmember. a) Approval of Council Meeting minutes of December 2, 2024. Council Concur b) AB - 3719 Community & Economic Development Department submits a draft ordinance streamlining the land use appeal process and recommends the ordinance be referred to the Planning Commission for review at its next available meeting so it can provide a recommendation to Council. Refer to Planning Commission and Planning & Development Committee c) AB - 3714 Executive Services Department recommends execution of Amendment 2-24 to CAG-19-024, contractor Valley Defenders, PLLC, in the amount of $227,711.16, which extends the contract through March 31, 2025. Council Concur d) AB - 3713 Police Department recommends approval to execute an agreement with the Washington Traffic Safety Commission for Law Enforcement Liaison to accept $5,000 in grant funds to increase law enforcement participation in traffic safety enforcement and to serve as a resource for the region's Target Zero manager. Refer to Finance Committee e) AB - 3715 Public Works Transportation Systems Division recommends execution of a sub- award agreement with the Puget Sound Regional Council, to accept $400,000 in US Department of Transportation grant funds with a $100,000 city match ($500,000 total) for the Renton Comprehensive Safety Action Plan. Refer to Finance Committee f) AB - 3716 Public Works Transportation Systems Division recommends adoption of a resolution authorizing a 120-day closure of Houser Way N, between January 21, 2025 and May 22, 2025, for the purpose of installing a watermain and improving storm drainage facilities in support of the I-405 to Bellevue Widening and Express Toll Lane project. Refer to Transportation (Aviation) Committee g) AB - 3717 Public Works Transportation Systems Division recommends execution of Amendment #1 to the Project Coordinator Agreement with the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), increasing WSDOT's payment to Renton from $240,000 to $440,000, in support of the Renton to Bellevue Widening and Express Toll Lane project. Refer to Finance Committee h) AB - 3718 Public Works Utility Systems Division reports bid opening on November 12, 2024 for the Renton Highlands Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Phase 3 project (CAG-24- 001), and recommends awarding the contract to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, Insituform Technologies, LLC, in the amount of $2,808,428.24. Council Concur 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Topics listed below were discussed in Council committees during the past week. Those topics marked with an asterisk (*) may include legislation. Committee reports on any topics may be held by the Chair if further review is necessary. a) Committee on Committees: 1) 2025 Council Committee Assignments b) Committee of the Whole: 1) Allocation of Lodging Tax Funding for 2025 c) Finance Committee: 1) Vouchers; 2) Agreement for Hazardous Materials/Encampment Cleanups Using State Master Contract #09321; 3) Water Quality Grant Agreement No. WQC-2025-Renton-00120 (CAG-24-261) with the State of Washington Department of Ecology for the Lind Ave SW Conveyance and Water Quality Retrofit Project; 4) Renewal of Liability Insurance Policies for 2025; 5) Housing Opportunity Grant Award to Homestead Community Land Trust for Willowcrest Townhomes Phase II d) Planning & Development Committee: 1) 2024 Comprehensive Plan Update* 8. LEGISLATION Resolution: a) Resolution No. 4544: Adopting Housing Plan Amendments (See Item 7.d) Ordinances for first reading and advancement to second and final reading: a) Ordinance No. 6153: Adopting 2025 Comp Plan (See Item 7.d) b) Ordinance No. 6154: Amend Title IV Zoning – RMF2 (See Item 7.d) 9. NEW BUSINESS (Includes Council Committee agenda topics; visit rentonwa.gov/cityclerk for more information.) 10. ADJOURNMENT COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING AGENDA (Preceding Council Meeting) 5:45 p.m. - 7th Floor - Conferencing Center Hearing assistance devices for use in the Council Chambers are available upon request to the City Clerk CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE TELEVISED LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 21 To view Council Meetings online, please visit rentonwa.gov/councilmeetings Mayor’s Office Memorandum DATE: December 5, 2024 TO: Ed Prince, Council President Members of the Renton City Council FROM: Armondo Pavone, Mayor Ed VanValey, Chief Administrative Officer SUBJECT: Administrative Report Get into the holiday spirit and join us for a bigger and better Battle of the Badges, Saturday, December 14 from 5:30-8 p.m. at Renton Technical College. Over 30 public safety agencies will showcase their creativity by competing for the best decorated vehicle or display, with the community voting for their favorites. Enjoy music and food trucks, such as Fisher Scones, Café de la Loba, Dirty Dawgz, and Uncle Bill’s Famous Corn Dog Shack. This is a free event open to the public. Additionally, we will be collecting non-perishable food and monetary donations to support the Salvation Army Food Bank. Find the full list of agencies competing and other information a rentonwa.gov/battle. Adopt a new dog or cat! The City of Renton, Renton Police Department, and Eastside Veterinary Associations will host the annual Renton Animal Care and Control adoption event Saturday, December 14 from 1-4 p.m. at Eastside Veterinary Associates; 1700 NE 44th Street; Renton. Adoption fees are reduced by 50%. Adopt a dog for $50 or cat for $25. All pets are fully vaccinated, spayed/neutered, and micro-chipped. • Information about preventative street maintenance, traffic impact projects, and road closures happening this week can be found at http://rentonwa.gov/traffic. All projects are weather permitting and unless otherwise noted, streets will always remain open.  Monday, December 9 through Friday, December 13, 8:00am-3:00pm. Intermittent lane closure on Sunset Blvd NE and Bronson Way NE for construction work. Approved traffic control plans were issued for all work and will be followed. Questions may be directed to Kip Braaten, 206-503-1746.  Monday, December 9 through Friday, December 13, 8:00am-3:00pm. Intermittent lane closure on Rainier Ave N between Airport Way and S 3rd St for construction work. Approved traffic control plans were issued for all work and will be followed. Questions may be directed to Joe Nerlfi, 425-757-9657. AGENDA ITEM #4. a) Ed Prince, Council President Members of the Renton City Council Page 2 of 2 December 5, 2024  Monday, December 9 through Friday, December 13, 8:00am-3:00pm. Intermittent lane closure on NE Sunset Blvd between Edmonds Ave NE and Kirkland Ave NE for construction work. Approved traffic control plans were issued for all work and will be followed. Questions may be directed to Brad Stocco, 425- 282-2373.  Monday, December 9 through Friday, December 13, 8:00am-3:00pm. Shifting lane closures both east and west on NE Sunset Blvd between Redmond Pl NE to Union Ave NE for utility installation and frontage improvements. Approved traffic control plans were issued for all work and will be followed. Questions may be directed to Brad Stocco, 425-282-2373.  Monday, December 9 through Friday, December 13, 8:30am-3:00pm. Intermittent northbound lane closure on Wells Ave S north of intersection S 2nd St for utility installation. Approved traffic control plans were issued for all work and will be followed. Questions may be directed to Casey Grant, 206-532-4380.  Monday, December 9 through Friday, December 13, 8:00am-3:00pm. Intermittent lane closure on Williams Ave S between Cedar River and S 3rd St for construction work. Approved traffic control plans were issued for all work and will be followed. Questions can be directed to Rob Blackburn, 206-379-1489. AGENDA ITEM #4. a) December 2, 2024 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES CITY OF RENTON MINUTES - City Council Regular Meeting 7:00 PM - Monday, December 2, 2024 Council Chambers, 7th Floor, City Hall – 1055 S. Grady Way CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Pavone called the meeting of the Renton City Council to order at 7:00 PM and led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Councilmembers Present: Ed Prince, Council President James Alberson, Jr., Council Position No. 1 Carmen Rivera, Council Position No. 2 Valerie O'Halloran, Council Position No. 3 Ryan McIrvin, Council Position No. 4 Ruth Pérez, Council Position No. 6 Kim-Khánh Vǎn, Council Position No. 7 Councilmembers Absent: ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF PRESENT Armondo Pavone, Mayor Ed VanValey, Chief Administrative Officer Alex Tuttle, Senior Assistant City Attorney Jason Seth, City Clerk Kim Gilman, Interim Human Resources / Risk Management Administrator Young Yoon, IT Director Eric Perry, Government Affairs Manager Commander Susan Hassinger, Police Department Attended Remotely: Judith Subia, Chief of Staff Kari Roller, Finance Administrator Martin Pastucha, Public Works Administrator Ron Straka, Public Works Utility Systems Director AGENDA ITEM #6. a) December 2, 2024 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT CAO Ed VanValey reviewed a written administrative report summarizing the City’s recent progress towards goals and work programs adopted as part of its business plan for 2024 and beyond. Items noted were: • Adopt a new dog or cat! The City of Renton, Renton Police Department, and Eastside Veterinary Associations will host the annual Renton Animal Care and Control adoption event Saturday, December 14 from 1-4 p.m. at Eastside Veterinary Associates; 1700 NE 44th Street; Renton. Adoption fees are reduced by 50%. Adopt a dog for $50 or cat for $25. All pets are fully vaccinated, spayed/neutered, and micro-chipped. • Preventative street maintenance will continue to impact traffic and result in occasional street closures. AUDIENCE COMMENTS • Patrick Dickinson, Renton, urged city officials to remove fluoride from Renton's drinking water supply. He also expressed disapproval of raising the allowable property tax increase from one percent to three percent. CONSENT AGENDA The following items are distributed to Councilmembers in advance for study and review, and the recommended actions will be accepted in a single motion. Any item may be removed for further discussion if requested by a Councilmember. a) Approval of Council Meeting minutes of 11/25/2024. Council Concur. b) AB - 3455 Community & Economic Development Department recommended awarding a $100,000 grant to Homestead Community Land Trust for the Willow Townhomes Phase II project; and approving the Housing Opportunity Fund Affordable Housing Agreement with Homestead Community Land Trust. Refer to Finance Committee. c) AB - 3709 Community & Economic Development Department submitted the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee funding allocation recommendations; and requests approval of the allocations and authorization to execute contracts with the successful applicants. Refer to Committee of the Whole. d) AB - 3695 Human Resources / Risk Management Department recommended approval of the city's 2025 liability insurance renewals; and authorization to execute the implementing documents when they are ready. Refer to Finance Committee. e) AB - 3711 Parks & Recreation Department recommends approval of a Master Non-Exclusive On-Call Small Public Works Agreement, with Clean Harbors Environmental Services, Inc., in the amount of $235,000, using State Master Contract #09321, for Hazardous Materials/Encampment Clean-ups through December 31, 2025. Refer to Finance Committee. f) AB - 3710 Public Works Transportation Systems Division reported bid opening on October 4, 2024, for CAG-24-109, S 7th St Corridor Improvements project, and recommends awarding the contract to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder Active Construction, Inc., in the amount of $1,887,887. Council Concur. AGENDA ITEM #6. a) December 2, 2024 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES g) AB - 3712 Public Works Utility Systems Division recommended execution of Water Quality Grant Agreement No. WQC-2025-Renton-00120 (CAG-24-261) with the Department of Ecology to accept grant funds in the amount of $297,500 for the Lind Ave SW Conveyance and Water Quality Retrofit project. The city's match is $52,500. Refer to Finance Committee. MOVED BY PRINCE, SECONDED BY ALBERSON, COUNCIL ADOPT THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PUBLISHED CARRIED. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Topics listed below were discussed in Council committees during the past week. Those topics marked with an asterisk (*) may include legislation. Committee reports on any topics may be held by the Chair if further review is necessary. a) Utilities Committee: Chair Văn presented a report recommending concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve the extension of the preliminary latecomer’s approval and grant Tuscany Construction LLC final approval of a latecomer agreement for a period of 20 years from the date of execution of the final agreement for the purpose of recovering a portion of the cost of extending a sanitary sewer main along Hoquiam Avenue NE, north of NE 5th Place. The application for a Latecomer's Agreement request was submitted by Bob Wenzl (Tuscany Construction LLC) on November 16, 2017, and the preliminary costs were approved by the City Council on December 11, 2017. The city inspected and accepted the improvements, workmanship, and materials on March 20, 2023. Staff has received as-built plans, reviewed the final costs, and received the final contractor's total cost of $75,217.00. The Committee further recommends that the final assessment roll be forwarded to the City Clerk, who will notify the affected property owner of the latecomer's potential assessment and the right to appeal, with Council retaining the right to rule on the final action. If no appeals have been submitted within 20 days of the date of mailing the assessment notice, the Mayor and City Clerk are authorized to execute and record the latecomer agreement to finalize the matter. MOVED BY VǍN, SECONDED BY RIVERA, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION. CARRIED. b) Transportation Committee: Chair McIrvin presented a report recommending concurrence in the staff recommendation to deny the petition for vacation of the unopened Lyons Avenue NE Right- of-Way, south of NE 4th Street. MOVED BY MCIRVIN, SECONDED BY VǍN, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION. CARRIED. LEGISLATION Ordinances for second and final reading: a) Ordinance No. 6155: An Ordinance of the City of Renton, Washington, adopting the 2021 Edition of the International Fire Code as adopted and amended by the State Building Code Council in Chapter 51-54A WAC, revising the City’s amendments thereto in Section 4-5-070 of the Renton Municipal Code, authorizing corrections, providing for severability, and establishing an effective date. MOVED BY PÉREZ, SECONDED BY ALBERSON, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. AGENDA ITEM #6. a) December 2, 2024 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES b) Ordinance No. 6156: An Ordinance of the City of Renton, Washington, amending and replacing the 2025 City of Renton Salary Table previously adopted in Ordinance No. 6147, authorizing corrections, providing for severability, and establishing an effective date. MOVED BY O'HALLORAN, SECONDED BY PÉREZ, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. NEW BUSINESS (Includes Council Committee agenda topics; visit rentonwa.gov/cityclerk for more information.) a) Mayor Pavone called for nominations for 2025 Council President. Council President Prince nominated Councilmember Alberson. There being no additional nominations, Mayor Pavone called for a voice vote: • Prince - Aye • Pérez - Aye • Văn - Abstained • Alberson - Aye • Rivera - Aye • O'Halloran - Aye • McIrvin - Aye Councilmember Alberson was elected 2025 Council President. b) Mayor Pavone called for nominations for 2025 Council President Pro Tempore. Councilmember Alberson nominated Councilmember Pérez. There being no additional nominations, Mayor Pavone called for a voice vote: • Prince - Aye • Pérez - Aye • Văn - Abstained • Alberson - Aye • Rivera - Aye • O'Halloran - Aye • McIrvin - Aye Councilmember Pérez was elected 2025 Council President Pro Tempore. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY PRINCE, SECONDED BY ALBERSON, COUNCIL ADJOURN. CARRIED. TIME: 7:16 PM Jason A. Seth, MMC, City Clerk Jason Seth, Recorder 02 Dec 2024 AGENDA ITEM #6. a) December 2, 2024 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES AGENDA ITEM #6. a) Council Committee Meeting Calendar December 2, 2024 December 9, 2024 Monday 1:00 p.m. Public Safety Committee, Chair Rivera Location: Council Conference Room/Videoconference 1. Blake Fix Update 2. Downtown Patrol Unit Update 3. Pedestrian Safety Update 4. RRFA Briefing 5. Emerging Issues in Public Safety 2:15 p.m. Community Services Committee, Chair Alberson Location: Council Conference Room/Videoconference 1. Emerging Issues in Parks & Recreation 3:00 p.m. Finance Committee, Chair O’Halloran Location: Council Conference Room/Videoconference 1. Agreement for Hazardous Materials/Encampment Cleanups Using State Master Contract #09321 2. Water Quality Grant Agreement No. WQC-2025-Renton-00120 (CAG-24- 261) with the State of Washington Department of Ecology for the Lind Ave SW Conveyance and Water Quality Retrofit Project 3. Renewal of Liability Insurance Policies for 2025 4. Housing Opportunity Grant Award to Homestead Community Land Trust for Willowcrest Townhomes Phase II 5. Vouchers 6. Emerging Issues in Finance 3:45 p.m. Planning & Development Committee, Chair Pérez Location: Council Conference Room/Videoconference 1. 2024 Comprehensive Plan Update 2. Emerging Issues in CED 4:30 p.m. Committee on Committees, Chair Alberson Location: Council Conference Room 1. 2025 Council Committee Assignments 5:45 p.m. Committee of the Whole, Chair Prince Location: Conferencing Center 1. Allocation of Lodging Tax Funding for 2025 2. Review of Every Other Week Garbage Collection Program 7:00 p.m. Council Meeting Location: Council Chambers/Videoconference AGENDA ITEM #6. a) AB - 3719 City Council Regular Meeting - 09 Dec 2024 SUBJECT/TITLE: Consideration of Ordinance Streamlining Land Use Appeal Procedures RECOMMENDED ACTION: Refer to Planning Commission and Planning & Development Committee DEPARTMENT: Community & Economic Development Department STAFF CONTACT: Matt Herrera, Planning Director EXT.: 6593 FISCAL IMPACT SUMMARY: No known fiscal impact. SUMMARY OF ACTION: Agenda Bill Summary: Ordinance Streamlining Land Use Appeals Process The Renton Municipal Code currently contemplates that the City Council act as a quasi-judicial appellate body for appeals of most land use decisions. Staff recommends adoption of an ordinance that streamlines the land use appeals process by removing the City Council from hearing appeals of land use decisions. This change aims to improve efficiency and clarify the Council's role in the city's governance. Key Points: Current System: Land use decisions are made by a professional hearing examiner, with appeals heard by the City Council in a quasi-judicial closed record process. Proposed Change: The proposed draft ordinance would eliminate the City Council's role in hearing these appeals, making the hearing examiner's decision final and subject only to further challenge in King County Superior Court. Rationale for Change:  The City Council's primary role as a legislative body conflicts with the quasi-judicial nature of closed record appeals  The Council is currently restricted from considering new evidence or testimony during appeals and not allowed to change laws through the quasi-judicial process, limiting its ability to engage with constituents' and risking creation of false expectations that it can act on such concerns  A professional hearing examiner is well-qualified to make these decisions, making the Council's review unnecessary Alignment with Other Cities: As discussed in the attached MRSC article, most cities with hearing examiner systems have already removed their city councils from hearing land use appeals. City staff reviewed the codes of several cities in King County and it appears that none of those surveyed contemplates closed record appeals to their respective city councils for land use decisions. The cities that do contemplate City Council review of land use applications appear limited to decisions that are intended to be treated as legislative decisions rather AGENDA ITEM #6. b) than quasi-judicial closed record appeals (e.g. decisions on requests for changes in or interpretation of land use designations). EXHIBITS: A. Draft Ordinance B. MRSC Article regarding Quasi-Judicial Hearings STAFF RECOMMENDATION: To speed implementation of the proposed changes, staff recommends Council refer the proposed draft ordinance to the Planning Commission and to schedule a public hearing before the Planning Commission at its next available meeting so that it can make a recommendation to the City Council regarding adoption of the draft proposed ordinance, with or without changes. AGENDA ITEM #6. b) 1 Draft Proposed Ordinance Streamlining Land Use Appeals 12/9/24 Council Referral CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. ________ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, STREAMLINING LAND USE APPEALS BY REMOVING CITY COUNCIL CLOSED RECORD APPEAL HEARINGS FROM THE REVIEW PROCESS AND CLARIFYING REFERENCES TO THE APPEAL PROCESS BY AMENDING SUBSECTIONS 4-3-010.F.2.e, 4-7-230.P, 4-8-070.H.1, 4- 8-070.I, 4-8-080.G, 4-8-110.A, 4-8-110.C, 4-8-110.E.4 AND 4-9-240.K.3 OF THE RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE AND REPEALING 4-8-110.F OF THE RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE; AUTHORIZING CORRECTIONS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City currently has a system in which parties of record to certain permit applications, code enforcement actions, and land use appeals appear before a professional land use hearing examiner, who gathers testimony and evidence from the interested parties, creates findings of fact and conclusions of law upon which professionally rendered decisions are made in accordance with applicable laws; and WHEREAS, under the current system, after the professional hearing examiner renders a decision, parties may appeal the hearing examiner decision to the City Council, and the City Council’s decision is then generally subject to further challenge in King County Superior Court; and WHEREAS, the appeal to the City Council is a quasi-judicial closed record appeal, which means the Council is not allowed to consider new evidence or testimony, but only argument as to whether the professional hearing examiner’s decision was erroneous based upon the evidence that was considered by the hearing examiner. Under this process, the City Council is not allowed to consider any additional evidence or testimony or have contacts with the parties of record about the appeal or underlying issues; and AGENDA ITEM #6. b) ORDINANCE NO. ________ 2 Draft Proposed Ordinance Streamlining Land Use Appeals 12/9/24 Council Referral WHEREAS, the City Council is a legislative body, which strives to be responsive to its constituents and listen to their concerns in order to take legislative actions, such as passing new laws, amending existing laws, or appropriating budget resources to impact the operations of the City. However, when the Council sits in its quasi-judicial capacity, it is not allowed to consider concerns that are outside of the hearing examiner record and it is required to render a decision based upon how existing laws apply to the individual circumstances of the matter being appealed. It cannot rendered a decision based upon what it thinks the law should have been or even what it has changed the law to after the underlying matter vested to certain standards; and WHEREAS, this inability to engage with constituents' conflicts with the Council's primary legislative role, and that limitation is unnecessary in light of fact that it has hired a professional hearing examiner to make decisions for which the hearing examiner is well qualified to make; and WHEREAS, most or all other cities that have adopted a hearing examiner process do not include an appeal process to their city councils; and WHEREAS, this matter was duly referred to the Planning Commission for investigation and study, and the matter was considered by the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106, on ______[DATE], the City notified the State of Washington of its intent to adopt amendments to its development regulations; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on ________[DATE], considered all relevant matters, and heard all parties in support or opposition, and subsequently forwarded a recommendation to the City Council; AGENDA ITEM #6. b) ORDINANCE NO. ________ 3 Draft Proposed Ordinance Streamlining Land Use Appeals 12/9/24 Council Referral NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. All portions of the Renton Municipal Code in this ordinance that are not shown in strikethrough and underline edits or are not explicitly repealed herein remain in effect and unchanged. SECTION II. Subsection 4-3-010.F.2.e of the Renton Municipal Code is amended as follows: e. Appeals: Rights to appeal the decision are governed by the provisions of RMC 4-8-110E8 and F6. SECTION III. Subsection 4-7-230.P of the Renton Municipal Code is amended as follows: P. APPEALS: See RMC 4-8-110H. SECTION IV. Subsection 4-8-070.H.1 of the Renton Municipal Code is amended as follows: 1. Authority: The Hearing Examiner shall review and act on the following: a. Appeals of administrative decisions/determinations (including, but not limited to, parking, sign, street, tree cutting/routine vegetation management standards, and Urban Center Design Overlay District regulations) and ERC decisions, excepting determinations of whether an application is a bulk storage facility which shall be appealable to the City Council, b. Appeals relating to RMC 4-5-060, Construction Administrative Code, AGENDA ITEM #6. b) ORDINANCE NO. ________ 4 Draft Proposed Ordinance Streamlining Land Use Appeals 12/9/24 Council Referral c. Bulk storage special permit and variances from the bulk storage regulations, d. Conditional use permit, e. Dedications of property for public purposes, f. Fill and grade permit, special, g. Master Plan review (overall plan) and major amendments to an overall Master Plan, h. Mobile home parks, preliminary and final, i. Planned urban development, preliminary, j. Preliminary plats and major amendments to plats, k. Shoreline conditional use permit, l. Shoreline variance, m. Site plan approvals requiring a public hearing, n. Special permits, o. Temporary use permits, tier III Temporary Homeless Encampments, p. Variances from wireless communication facility development standards, the provisions of the subdivision regulations, and variances associated with a development permit that requires review by the Hearing Examiner, and q. Building permits submitted in conjunction with any of the above. SECTION V. Subsection 4-8-070.I of the Renton Municipal Code is amended as follows: I. CITY COUNCIL: The City Council shall review and act on the following: AGENDA ITEM #6. b) ORDINANCE NO. ________ 5 Draft Proposed Ordinance Streamlining Land Use Appeals 12/9/24 Council Referral 1. Annexations, 2. Appeals of Hearing Examiner decisions (any appeal from a Hearing Examiner’s decision, whether an appeal from an administrative determination or an original decision, shall be appealable to the City Council pursuant to RMC 4-8- 110E8), 3 Appeals of staff determinations of whether or not a proposal is considered a bulk storage facility, 4 3. Comprehensive Plan map or text amendment, 5 4. Dedications of property for public purposes, 6 5. Development and zoning regulations text amendment, 7 6. Release of easements, 8 7. Rezones with associated Comprehensive Plan amendment, 9 8. Rezones with associated Comprehensive Plan map or text amendment, 10 9. Street vacations,. SECTION VI. Subsection 4-8-080.G of the Renton Municipal Code is amended as shown in Attachment A. SECTION VII. Subsection 4-8-110.A of the Renton Municipal Code is amended as follows: A. SCOPE AND PURPOSE: This Section provides the basic procedures for processing appeals to the Hearing Examiner and City Council of land use and development-related decisions. Specific requirements are based upon the type/level of appeal and the appeal authority. AGENDA ITEM #6. b) ORDINANCE NO. ________ 6 Draft Proposed Ordinance Streamlining Land Use Appeals 12/9/24 Council Referral SECTION VIII. Subsection 4-8-110.C of the Renton Municipal Code is amended as follows: C. GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICABLE TO APPEALS: The following applies to appeals to the Hearing Examiner and City Council unless otherwise provided elsewhere in the RMC or by state law: 1. Standing: Only the applicant, City or a person who has been made a party of record prior to the issuance of a decision may appeal the decision. In order to appeal, the person shall be aggrieved or affected by the decision pursuant to RCW 36.70C.060. 2. Time to File: Except for final EIS decisions, all appeal periods shall be fourteen (14) calendar days, which shall begin either three (3) calendar days after the date of mailing of the decision to the parties of record via U.S. Postal mail by the City Clerk, or the date the decision is electronically transmitted, posted or emailed to the appellant and parties of record by the City Clerk, if such electronic transmittal method has been previously approved or agreed to by the parties. The appeal period for a final EIS shall be twenty (20) calendar days from the publication of the final decision. 3. Required Form for and Content of Appeals: Any appeal shall be filed in writing with the City Clerk. The written notice of appeal shall fully, clearly and thoroughly specify the substantial error(s) in fact or law which exist in the record of the proceedings from which the appellant seeks relief. If the appeal is unclear and does not sufficiently explain the basis for the appeal, an order requiring the appellant amend the appeal within ten (10) calendar days of the date of the order AGENDA ITEM #6. b) ORDINANCE NO. ________ 7 Draft Proposed Ordinance Streamlining Land Use Appeals 12/9/24 Council Referral may be issued. If the appeal is not satisfactorily amended within the time allowed, it shall be dismissed. 4. Filing of Appeal and Fee: The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by a fee in accordance with the City of Renton fee schedule. 5. Facsimile Filings: Whenever any application or filing is required under this Chapter, it may be made by facsimile. Any facsimile filing received at the City after five o’clock (5:00) p.m. on any business day will be deemed to have been received on the following business day. Any facsimile filing received after five o’clock (5:00) p.m. on the last date for filing will be considered an untimely filing. Any party desiring to make a facsimile filing after four o’clock (4:00) p.m. on the last day for the filing must call the City Clerk’s office and indicate that the filing is being made by facsimile and the number to which the facsimile copy is being sent. The filing party must ensure that the facsimile filing is transmitted in adequate time so that it will be completely received by the City before five o’clock (5:00) p.m. In all instances in which filing fees are to accompany the filing of an application, those filing fees must be received by the City before the end of the business day on the last day of the filing period or the filing will be considered incomplete and will be rejected. 6. Motions: The Hearing Examiner may dismiss an appeal to the Hearing Examiner, without hearing, when it is determined by the Hearing Examiner to be untimely, without merit on its face, incomplete, or frivolous. Any application to the Hearing Examiner for an order shall be by motion which, unless made during AGENDA ITEM #6. b) ORDINANCE NO. ________ 8 Draft Proposed Ordinance Streamlining Land Use Appeals 12/9/24 Council Referral a hearing, shall be in writing, stating the reasons for the request and setting forth the relief or order sought. Written motions shall be received at least five (5) business days in advance of the hearing. 7. Parties: The parties in appeal hearings shall be the City, the applicant, and the appellant(s), if different from the applicant or the City. No other persons shall be allowed to testify unless serving as an expert witness for one of the parties. 8. Notice of Appeal Filed: If an appeal is filed with the City Clerk, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record to the decision subject to the appeal. Notice shall be sent within five (5) calendar days via U.S. Postal mail by the City Clerk, or on the date the application of appeal is received if electronic transmittal (email) had been previously approved or agreed to by the parties, and at least ten (10) days prior to the appeal hearing. A hearing for the appeal shall be set within twenty one (21) days after acceptance of a complete application for appeal. 9. Restrictions on Subsequent Actions: Any later request to interpret, explain, modify, or retract the decision shall not be deemed to be a new administrative determination creating a new appeal period for any new third party to the permit. 10. Limit on Number of Appeals: Pursuant to RCW 36.70B.050 and 43.21C.075, the City has consolidated the permit process to allow for only one open record appeal of all permit decisions associated with a single development application. AGENDA ITEM #6. b) ORDINANCE NO. ________ 9 Draft Proposed Ordinance Streamlining Land Use Appeals 12/9/24 Council Referral There shall be no more than one appeal on a procedural determination or environmental determination such as the adequacy of a determination of significance, nonsignificance, or of a final environmental impact statement. Any appeal of the action of the Hearing Examiner in the case of appeals from environmental determinations shall be joined with an appeal of the substantive determination. 11. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies: No person may seek judicial review of any decision of the City unless that person first exhausts the administrative remedies provided by the City. SECTION IX. Subsections 4-8-110.E.4 of the Renton Municipal Code is amended to add a new subsection 4-8-110E.4.g, Hearing Examiner Decisions Final, to read as follows: g. Hearing Examiner Decisions Final: The action of the Hearing Examiner approving, modifying, or rejecting an application or decision being appealed shall be final and conclusive unless timely appealed. SECTION X. Subsections 4-8-110.F, Appeals to City Council, of the Renton Municipal Code is hereby repealed. SECTION XI. Subsection 4-9-240.K.3.p of the Renton Municipal Code is amended as as follows: p. Review Authority, Appeals, and Permit Revocation: Decision authority is at the Hearing Examiner level with a public hearing, as designee for the Administrator, and the decision is final appeal authority is with City Council. If a AGENDA ITEM #6. b) ORDINANCE NO. ________ 10 Draft Proposed Ordinance Streamlining Land Use Appeals 12/9/24 Council Referral permit is revoked pursuant to subsection R1 of this Section, the applicant may request an appeal before the City Council. SECTION XII. Upon approval of the City Attorney, the City Clerk is authorized to direct the codifier to make necessary corrections to this ordinance, including the corrections of scriveners or clerical errors; references to other local, state, or federal laws, codes, rules, or regulations; or ordinance numbering and section/subsection numbering and references. The City Clerk is further authorized to direct the codifier to update any chapter, section, or subsection titles in the Renton Municipal Code affected by this ordinance. SECTION XIII. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or word of this ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality thereof shall not affect the constitutionality of any other section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or word of this ordinance. SECTION XIV. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect five (5) days after publication of a summary of this ordinance in the City’s official newspaper. The summary shall consist of this ordinance’s title. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL the day of , 2024. Jason A. Seth, City Clerk AGENDA ITEM #6. b) ORDINANCE NO. ________ 11 Draft Proposed Ordinance Streamlining Land Use Appeals 12/9/24 Council Referral APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2024. Armondo Pavone, Mayor Approved as to form: Shane Moloney, City Attorney Date of Publication: ORD-CED:242ORD026:12/3/2024 AGENDA ITEM #6. b) ORDINANCE NO. ________ 12 Draft Proposed Ordinance Streamlining Land Use Appeals 12/9/24 Council Referral ATTACHMENT A RMC 4-8-080.G G. LAND USE PERMIT PROCEDURES: LAND USE PERMITS PUBLIC NOTICE OF APPLICATION RECOMMENDATION OPEN RECORD HEARING7 DECISION/ ADOPTION OPEN RECORD APPEAL CLOSED RECORD APPEAL JUDICIAL APPEAL TYPE I Building and Grading Permits1 Staff HE CC SC Deferrals Staff HE CC SC Final Plats Staff CC SC Lot Line Adjustments Staff HE CC SC Minor Modification to Previously Approved Site Plan (<10%) Staff HE CC SC Modifications, Deviations, Alternates of Various Code Standards2 Staff HE CC SC Public Art Exemption Certificate Staff HE CC SC Routine Vegetation Management Permits (SEPA exempt) Staff HE CC SC AG E N D A I T E M # 6 . b ) ORDINANCE NO. ________ 13 Draft Proposed Ordinance Streamlining Land Use Appeals 12/9/24 Council Referral LAND USE PERMITS PUBLIC NOTICE OF APPLICATION RECOMMENDATION OPEN RECORD HEARING7 DECISION/ ADOPTION OPEN RECORD APPEAL CLOSED RECORD APPEAL JUDICIAL APPEAL Shoreline Exemptions Staff HE CC SC Small Cell Permits Staff HE CC SC Special Fence Permits Staff HE CC SC Temporary Use Permit: Tier I Staff HE CC SC Waivers2 Staff HE CC SC Other SEPA Exempt Activities/Actions Staff HE CC SC TYPE II Additional Animals Permit Yes Staff HE CC SC Additional Vehicles Permit Yes Staff HE CC SC Conditional Approval Permit (nonconforming structures) Yes Staff HE CC SC Critical Area Permit Yes Staff HE CC SC Home Occupation Permit, special Yes Staff HE CC SC Planned Urban Development, final Yes Staff HE CC SC Temporary Use Permits: Tier II Yes Staff HE CC SC AG E N D A I T E M # 6 . b ) ORDINANCE NO. ________ 14 Draft Proposed Ordinance Streamlining Land Use Appeals 12/9/24 Council Referral LAND USE PERMITS PUBLIC NOTICE OF APPLICATION RECOMMENDATION OPEN RECORD HEARING7 DECISION/ ADOPTION OPEN RECORD APPEAL CLOSED RECORD APPEAL JUDICIAL APPEAL Temporary Emergency Wetland Permit Yes Staff HE CC SC Variances, Administrative Yes Staff HE CC SC Binding Site Plans Yes Staff HE CC SC Conditional Use Permit (administrative) Yes Staff HE CC SC Development Permit (special flood hazard) Yes Staff HE CC SC Environmental Review9 Yes Staff HE CC SC Master Site Plan Approvals (individual phases) Yes Staff HE CC SC Site Plan Review (administrative) Yes Staff HE CC SC Shoreline Permit Yes Staff DOE CC SC Short Plats Yes Staff HE CC SC TYPE III4 Bulk Storage Special Permit Yes Staff HE HE CC SC Conditional Use Permit (Hearing Examiner) Yes Staff HE HE CC SC AG E N D A I T E M # 6 . b ) ORDINANCE NO. ________ 15 Draft Proposed Ordinance Streamlining Land Use Appeals 12/9/24 Council Referral LAND USE PERMITS PUBLIC NOTICE OF APPLICATION RECOMMENDATION OPEN RECORD HEARING7 DECISION/ ADOPTION OPEN RECORD APPEAL CLOSED RECORD APPEAL JUDICIAL APPEAL Fill and Grade Permit, Special Yes Staff HE HE CC SC Major Amendments to Plats Yes Staff HE HE CC SC Master Site Plan Approval (overall plan) Yes Staff HE HE CC SC Mobile Home Parks, Preliminary and Final Yes Staff HE HE CC SC Planned Urban Development, preliminary Yes Staff HE HE CC SC Preliminary Plats – 10 Lots or More Yes Staff HE HE CC SC Shoreline Conditional Use Permit6 Yes Staff HE DOE, HE SHB Shoreline Variance6 Yes Staff HE DOE, HE SHB Site Plan Review (Hearing Examiner) Yes Staff HE HE CC Special Permits Yes Staff HE HE CC Temporary Use Permits: Tier III Temporary Homeless Encampments Yes Staff HE HE CC SC AG E N D A I T E M # 6 . b ) ORDINANCE NO. ________ 16 Draft Proposed Ordinance Streamlining Land Use Appeals 12/9/24 Council Referral LAND USE PERMITS PUBLIC NOTICE OF APPLICATION RECOMMENDATION OPEN RECORD HEARING7 DECISION/ ADOPTION OPEN RECORD APPEAL CLOSED RECORD APPEAL JUDICIAL APPEAL Variances (associated with Hearing Examiner land use review) Yes Staff HE HE CC TYPE IV4 Rezones (site-specific, not associated with a Comprehensive Plan amendment) Yes Staff, HE HE CC SC TYPE V4 Street Vacations8 Yes Public Works Staff CC CC SC TYPE VI4 Development Regulation Text Amendments8 Yes Staff, PC PC CC GMHB Comprehensive Plan Map or Text Amendments (may include associated rezones)8 Yes Staff, PC PC CC GMHB LEGEND: Staff – Community and Economic Development Staff ERC – Environmental Review Committee AG E N D A I T E M # 6 . b ) ORDINANCE NO. ________ 17 Draft Proposed Ordinance Streamlining Land Use Appeals 12/9/24 Council Referral PC – Planning Commission Admin. – Community and Economic Development Administrator HE – Hearing Examiner CC – City Council DOE – Washington State Department of Ecology SC – Superior Court SHB – Shoreline Hearings Board GMHB – Growth Management Hearings Board BLANK – Not Applicable AG E N D A I T E M # 6 . b ) AGENDA ITEM #6. b) AGENDA ITEM #6. b) AGENDA ITEM #6. b) AGENDA ITEM #6. b) AGENDA ITEM #6. b) AB - 3714 City Council Regular Meeting - 09 Dec 2024 SUBJECT/TITLE: Amendment 2 to CAG-19-024 for Primary Public Defense Services RECOMMENDED ACTION: Council Concur DEPARTMENT: Executive Services Department STAFF CONTACT: Kristi Rowland, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer EXT.: 6500 FISCAL IMPACT SUMMARY: The fiscal impact to extend CAG-19-024 with Valley Defenders, PLLC for public defender services is $75,903.72 per month for a total of $227,711.16. The amendment will be covered using the 2025 allocation to Contracted Services 000.000000.003.513.10.41.003. SUMMARY OF ACTION: In 2019 the city contracted with Valley Defenders for public defender services under CAG-19-024. The agreement was extended via Amendment 1-24 on March 26, 2024. City staff has commenced search for a new public defender using a request for proposal process (RFQ). The RFQ is expected to open in the next few weeks. The overall process lasts approximately 8-10 weeks. Amendment 2-24 is needed to cover public defender services from January 1-March 31, 2025 during the RFQ process. A new public defender is expected to be under contract and ready to commence services April 1, 2025. During negotiations for a short-term agreement, the city considered extending the existing agreement on a month-to-month basis, however for Valley Defenders to provide adequate coverage with appropriate staffing, it was discovered a three-month agreement would better serve both parties. EXHIBITS: A. Amendment 2-24 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the Mayor to sign Amendment 2-24 to CAG-19-024 for $75,903.72 per month for a total of $227,711.16 for a 3-month extension to the agreement with Valley Defenders, PLLC for public defender services. AGENDA ITEM #6. c) CAG-19-024, Adden #2-24 AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO AGREEMENT FOR PRIMARY PUBLIC DEFENSE SERVICES THIS AMENDMENT, dated for reference purposes only as December 2, 2025, is by and between the City of Renton (the “City”), a Washington municipal corporation, and Valley Defenders, PLLC (“ Public Defender”), a Washington Professional Limited Liability Company.. The City and the Public Defender are referred to collectively in this Amendment as the “Parties.” Once fully executed by the Parties, this Amendment is effective as of the last date signed by both parties. Whereas, the City engaged the services of the Consultant under Agreement CAG-19-024, dated April16, 2019, to provide necessary services for the primary public defense services (referred to herein as the “Agreement”); Whereas, the Parties wish to amend the Agreement to extend the term of the agreement in order to continue primary public defense services through March 31, 2025. NOW THEREFORE, It is mutually agreed upon that CAG-19-024 is amended as follows: 1. Time of Performance: Section 3.C, End of Term, is amended to continue appointments under the Agreement through March 31, 2025. 2. Compensation: Section 4.A, Basic Compensation, is amended so that starting on January 1, 2025, the monthly compensation payable to the Public Defender will be $ 75,903.72 per month. 3. All terms of the Agreement not explicitly modified herein shall remain in full force and effect and such terms shall apply to Work performed according to this Amendment as if fully set forth herein. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have voluntarily entered into this Amendment as of the date last signed by the Parties below. CITY OF RENTON By:_____________________________ CONSULTANT By:____________________________ Armondo Pavone Mayor Shawn McCully Owner, Valley Defenders, PLLC AGENDA ITEM #6. c) PAGE 2 OF 2 _____________________________ Date _____________________________ Date Attest _____________________________ Jason A. Seth City Clerk Approved as to Legal Form: By email on December 2, 2024, by Shane Moloney, City Attorney Contract Template Updated 06/17/2021 AGENDA ITEM #6. c) AB - 3713 City Council Regular Meeting - 09 Dec 2024 SUBJECT/TITLE: Interagency Agreement-2025-Sub-grants 5489 Region 7_8 Law Enforcement Liaison RECOMMENDED ACTION: Refer to Finance Committee DEPARTMENT: Police Department STAFF CONTACT: Steve Morris, Commander EXT.: 7597 FISCAL IMPACT SUMMARY: The sub-grant reimburses the Renton Police Department for costs related to the Law Enforcement Liaison Program between October 7,2024, and September 30, 2025, up to $5,000. Budget adjustment will be made in Q1 of 2025. SUMMARY OF ACTION: Receive funds from the Washington Traffic Safety Commission for Law Enforcement Liaison to increase law enforcement participation in traffic safety enforcement and to serve as a resource for the regions Target Zero Manager. EXHIBITS: A. Agreement STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the interagency agreement with the Washington Traffic Safety Commission for Law Enforcement Liaison to receive up to $5,000 in grant funds to increase law enforcement participation in traffic safety enforcement and to serve as a resource for the regions Target Zero Manager. AGENDA ITEM #6. d) Interagency Agreement-2025-Sub-grants-5489-Region 7/8 Law Enforcement Liaison INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE Washington Traffic Safety Commission AND Renton Police Department 2025-Sub-grants-5489-Region 7/8 Law Enforcement Liaison THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between the Washington Traffic Safety Commission, hereinafter referred to as “WTSC,” and Renton Police Department, hereinafter referred to as “SUB-RECIPIENT.” NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the authority provided to WTSC in RCW 43.59 and RCW 39.34, terms, conditions, covenants, and performance contained herein, or attached and incorporated and made a part hereof, the parties mutually agree as follows: 1. PURPOSE OF THE AGREEMENT: The purpose of this Agreement is to provide funding, provided by the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and allowed under the Assistance Listing #20.600, for traffic safety grant project 2025-Sub-grants-5489-Region 7/8 Law Enforcement Liaison. 2. PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE The period of performance of this Agreement shall commence upon the date of execution by both parties or October 07, 2024, whichever is later, and remain in effect until September 30, 2025, unless terminated sooner, as provided herein. page 1 of 23 AGENDA ITEM #6. d) 3. STATEMENT OF WORK The SUB-RECIPIENT shall carry out the provisions of the traffic safety project described here as the Statement of Work (SOW). If the SUB-RECIPIENT is unable to fulfill the SOW in any manner on this project, the SUB-RECIPIENT must contact the WTSC program manager immediately and discuss a potential amendment. All Federal and State regulations will apply. 3.1 SCOPE OF WORK 3.1.1 Problem ID and/or Opportunity The Law Enforcement Liaison (LEL) program provides an opportunity for the WTSC to work with local law enforcement agencies to develop and implement statewide initiatives focusing on traffic safety education and culture change at the local level. The frequency of contact with local law enforcement is important to help facilitate their cooperation in achieving the Washington State Traffic Safety Commission’s (WTSC) mission of building partnerships to save lives and prevent injuries on our roadways for the health, safety, and benefit of our communities. The LEL program provides the conduit to make those connections while helping the WTSC and local coordinators implement agency strategies. 3.1.2 Project Purpose and Strategies The purpose of this project is to increase law enforcement participation in traffic safety enforcement and to serve as a resource for local law enforcement agencies for other WTSC supported programming. This project supports the effectiveness of many other WTSC-funded projects, particularly those that involve law enforcement activity. 3.2 PROJECT GOALS 1) Grow participation in regional traffic safety activities, with a goal of 75% of law enforcement agencies in the region participating in HVE events in the fiscal year. 2) Provide leadership in the development of professional development for traffic safety minded officers, with the long term goal of increasing the number of law enforcement agency leaders/admin who believe that traffic safety is a priority. 3) Provide guidance/feedback on law enforcement topics to the regional Target Zero Manager and traffic safety coalition (if applicable). 3.2.1 The objectives, measures and timelines listed in Appendix A will be reviewed at least annually by the designated contacts of the SUB-RECIPIENT and WTSC, and may be updated pursuant to clause 6 of this AGREEMENT. For the purposes of this section only, the parties’ DESIGNATED CONTACTS, as listed in clause 42, are authorized to execute these amendments to Appendix A. page 2 of 23 AGENDA ITEM #6. d) 3.3. COMPENSATION 3.3.1 The cost of accomplishing the work described in the SOW will not exceed $5,000.00, for the entire period of performance, as allocated to each year of this agreement in Section 3.4 PROJECT COSTS. Unspent contract funds from each year do NOT carry over into subsequent years and each year’s budget is independent of the others. 3.3.2 Payment for satisfactory performance of the work shall not exceed this amount unless the parties mutually agree to a higher amount in a written Amendment to this Agreement executed by both parties. 3.3.3 After the first year, continuation is subject to funding availability, agreement on future objectives and measures, and satisfactory progress toward completion of agreed upon goals (as determined by WTSC), as set forth in the SOW. 3.3.4 If the SUB-RECIPIENT intends to charge indirect costs, an Indirect Cost Rate must be established in accordance with WTSC policies, and an approved cost allocation plan may be required to be submitted to the WTSC before any performance is conducted under this Agreement. Indirect cost rates are subject to change based on updated Indirect Rate Letters from a cognizant federal agency or approved cost allocation plans. If the indirect rate increases, the budget will be modified by deducting the amount of the indirect rate increase from other budget categories so that the total budget does not increase. The total budget may not increase without an amendment to this agreement executed by both parties. 3.3.5 WTSC will only reimburse the SUB-RECIPIENT for travel related expenses for travel defined in the scope of work and budget or for which approval was expressly granted. The SUB-RECIPIENT must submit a travel authorization form (A-40) to request approval for any travel not defined in the SOW and for all travel outside of the continental United States. 3.3.6 WTSC will reimburse travel related expenses consistent with the written travel policies of the SUB- RECIPIENT. If no written policy exists, state travel rates and policies (SAAM Chapter 10) apply. If WTSC makes travel arrangements on behalf of the SUB-RECIPIENT, state travel policies must also be followed. Washington State Administrative & Accounting Manual (SAAM) Chapter 10 can be obtained at this website: https://www.ofm.wa.gov/sites/default/files/public/legacy/policy/10.htm. If for any reason, this information is not available at this website, contact the WTSC office at 360-725-9860 to obtain a copy. If following state travel policies, the SUB-RECIPIENT must provide appropriate documentation (receipts) to support reimbursement requests, including the A-40 Travel Authorization form if required. 3.3.7. Any equipment that will be purchased under this agreement with a purchase price over $10,000 must be pre-approved by NHTSA prior to purchase. Pre-approval must also be gained if funding from this agreement is used to purchase a portion of an item with a purchase price of $10,000 or higher. Approval page 3 of 23 AGENDA ITEM #6. d) for these purchases will be facilitated by WTSC. WTSC will notify the SUB-RECIPIENT when approval has been gained or denied. Failure to receive pre-approval will preclude reimbursement. Any equipment purchased with NHTSA funds must be used exclusively for traffic safety purposes or the cost must be pro-rated. If required under the Buy America Act, SUB-RECIPIENT will provide WTSC with purchase price, quote, manufacturer, description of its use in the project, and documentation showing that it is made in America. 3.3.8. All equipment must be inventoried by the SUB-RECIPIENT. The SUB-RECIPIENT agrees to maintain the equipment, continue to use it for project purposes, and report on its status to WTSC each year when requested. 3.3.9. Equipment is defined as any asset with a useful life greater than one year AND a unit cost of $10,000 or greater, and small and attractive assets. Small and attractive assets are the following if they a unit cost of $300 or more: Laptops and Notebook Computers Tablets and Smart phones Small and attractive assets also include the following if they have a unit cost of $1000 or more: Optical Devices, Binoculars, Telescopes, Infrared Viewers, and Rangefinders Cameras and Photographic Projection Equipment Desktop Computers (PCs) Television Sets, DVD Players, Blu-ray Players and Video Cameras (home type) 3.4 PROJECT COSTS The costs for the work under the SOW to be provided by the SUB-RECIPIENT are as follows: Year 1: $5,000.00 APPLICABLE STATE AND FEDERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS: 4. ACTIVITY REPORTS The SUB-RECIPIENT will submit progress reports on the activity of this project in the form provided by page 4 of 23 AGENDA ITEM #6. d) the WTSC using the WTSC Enterprise Management System (WEMS) Progress Reporting process or other alternate means pre-approved by WTSC. The SUB-RECIPIENT will include copies of publications, training reports, advertising, social media posts, meeting agendas, and any statistical data generated in project execution in the reports. The final report will be submitted to WTSC within 30 days of termination of this Agreement. WTSC reserves the right to delay the processing of invoices until activity reports are received and approved. 5. ADVANCE PAYMENTS PROHIBITED No payments in advance of or in anticipation of goods or services to be provided under this Agreement shall be made by the WTSC. 6. AGREEMENT ALTERATIONS AND AMENDMENTS This Agreement may be amended by mutual agreement of the parties in the form of a written Amendment to this Agreement. Such amendments shall only be binding if they are in writing and signed by personnel authorized to bind each of the parties. 7. ALL WRITINGS CONTAINED HEREIN This Agreement contains all the terms and conditions agreed upon by the parties. No other understandings, oral or otherwise, regarding the subject matter of this Agreement shall be deemed to exist or to bind any of the parties hereto. 8. SUBCONTRACTING REQUIREMENTS The SUB-RECIPIENT may not assign the work to be provided under this Agreement, in whole or in part, without the express prior written consent of the WTSC, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. The SUB-RECIPIENT shall provide the WTSC a copy of all third-party contracts and agreements entered into for purposes of fulfilling the SOW. Such third-party contracts and agreements must follow applicable federal, state, and local law, including but not limited to procurement law, rules, and procedures. If any of the funds provided under this Agreement include funds from NHTSA, such third-party contracts and agreements must include the federal provisions set forth in this Agreement in sections 33 through 42. 9. ATTORNEYS’ FEES In the event of litigation or other action brought to enforce the Agreement terms, each party agrees to bear its own attorney fees and costs. 10. BILLING PROCEDURE The SUB-RECIPIENT shall submit monthly invoices for reimbursement to WTSC with supporting documentation as WTSC shall require. All invoices for reimbursement shall be submitted through the WEMS invoicing process, or via alternate method if approved by WTSC. Payment to the SUB- RECIPIENT for approved and completed work will be made by warrant or account transfer by WTSC page 5 of 23 AGENDA ITEM #6. d) within 30 days of receipt of such properly documented invoices acceptable to WTSC. Upon expiration of the Agreement, any claim for payment not already made shall be submitted within 45 days after the expiration date of this Agreement. All invoices for goods received or services performed on or prior to June 30, must be received by WTSC no later than August 10 of the same calendar year. All invoices for goods received or services performed between July 1 and September 30, must be received by WTSC no later than November 15 of the same calendar year. WTSC reserves the right to delay the processing of invoices until activity reports required by Section 4 of this agreement, are received and approved. 11. CONFIDENTIALITY / SAFEGUARDING OF INFORMATION The SUB-RECIPIENT shall not use or disclose any information concerning the WTSC, or information which may be classified as confidential, for any purpose not directly connected with the administration of this Agreement, except with prior written consent of the WTSC, or as may be required by law. 12. COST PRINCIPLES Costs incurred under this Agreement shall adhere to provisions of 2 CFR Part 200 Subpart E. 13. COVENANT AGAINST CONTINGENT FEES The SUB-RECIPIENT warrants that it has not paid, and agrees not to pay, any bonus, commission, brokerage, or contingent fee to solicit or secure this Agreement or to obtain approval of any application for federal financial assistance for this Agreement. The WTSC shall have the right, in the event of breach of this section by the SUB-RECIPIENT, to annul this Agreement without liability. 14. DISPUTES 14.1. Disputes arising in the performance of this Agreement, which are not resolved by agreement of the parties, shall be decided in writing by the WTSC Deputy Director or designee. This decision shall be final and conclusive, unless within 10 days from the date of the SUB-RECIPIENT’s receipt of WTSC’s written decision, the SUB-RECIPIENT furnishes a written appeal to the WTSC Director. The SUB-RECIPIENT’s appeal shall be decided in writing by the Director or designee within 30 days of receipt of the appeal by the Director. The decision shall be binding upon the SUB-RECIPIENT and the SUB-RECIPIENT shall abide by the decision. 14.2. Performance During Dispute. Unless otherwise directed by WTSC, the SUB-RECIPIENT shall continue performance under this Agreement while matters in dispute are being resolved. 14.3 In the event that either Party deems it necessary to institute legal action or proceedings to enforce any right or obligation under this Agreement, the Parties hereto agree that any such action or proceedings shall be brought in the superior court situated in Thurston County, Washington. 15. GOVERNANCE page 6 of 23 AGENDA ITEM #6. d) 15.1. This Agreement is entered into pursuant to and under the authority granted by the laws of the state of Washington and any applicable federal laws. The provisions of this Agreement shall be construed to conform to those laws. 15.2. In the event of an inconsistency in the terms of this Agreement, or between its terms and any applicable statute or rule, the inconsistency shall be resolved by giving precedence in the following order: 15.2.1. Applicable federal and state statutes and rules 15.2.2. Terms and Conditions of this Agreement 15.2.3. Any Amendment executed under this Agreement 15.2.4. Any SOW executed under this Agreement 15.2.5. Any other provisions of the Agreement, including materials incorporated by reference 16. INCOME Any income earned by the SUB-RECIPIENT from the conduct of the SOW (e.g., sale of publications, registration fees, or service charges) must be accounted for, reported to WTSC, and that income must be applied to project purposes or used to reduce project costs. 17. INDEMNIFICATION 17.1. To the fullest extent permitted by law, the SUB-RECIPIENT shall indemnify and hold harmless the WTSC, its officers, employees, and agents, and process and defend at its own expense any and all claims, demands, suits at law or equity, actions, penalties, losses, damages, or costs of whatsoever kind (“claims”) brought against WTSC arising out of or in connection with this Agreement and/or the SUB- RECIPIENT’s performance or failure to perform any aspect of the Agreement. This indemnity provision applies to all claims against WTSC, its officers, employees, and agents arising out of, in connection with, or incident to the acts or omissions of the SUB-RECIPIENT, its officers, employees, agents, contractors, and subcontractors. Provided, however, that nothing herein shall require the SUB-RECIPIENT to indemnify and hold harmless or defend the WTSC, its agents, employees, or officers to the extent that claims are caused by the negligent acts or omissions of the WTSC, its officers, employees or agents; and provided further that if such claims result from the concurrent negligence of (a) the SUB-RECIPIENT, its officers, employees, agents, contractors, or subcontractors, and (b) the WTSC, its officers, employees, or agents, or involves those actions covered by RCW 4.24.115, the indemnity provisions provided herein shall be valid and enforceable only to the extent of the negligence of the SUB-RECIPIENT, its officers, employees, agents, contractors, or subcontractors. 17.2. The SUB-RECIPIENT agrees that its obligations under this Section extend to any claim, demand and/or cause of action brought by, or on behalf of, any of its employees or agents in the performance of this agreement. For this purpose, the SUB-RECIPIENT, by mutual negotiation, hereby waives with respect to WTSC only, any immunity that would otherwise be available to it against such claims under the page 7 of 23 AGENDA ITEM #6. d) Industrial Insurance provisions chapter 51.12 RCW. 17.3. The indemnification and hold harmless provision shall survive termination of this Agreement. 18. INDEPENDENT CAPACITY The employees or agents of each party who are engaged in the performance of this Agreement shall continue to be employees or agents of that party and shall not be considered for any purpose to be employees or agents of the other party. 19. INSURANCE COVERAGE 19.1. The SUB-RECIPIENT shall comply with the provisions of Title 51 RCW, Industrial Insurance, if required by law. 19.2. If the SUB-RECIPIENT is not required to maintain insurance in accordance with Title 51 RCW, prior to the start of any performance of work under this Agreement, the SUB-RECIPIENT shall provide WTSC with proof of insurance coverage (e.g., vehicle liability insurance, private property liability insurance, or commercial property liability insurance), as determined appropriate by WTSC, which protects the SUB- RECIPIENT and WTSC from risks associated with executing the SOW associated with this Agreement. 20. LICENSING, ACCREDITATION, AND REGISTRATION The SUB-RECIPIENT shall comply with all applicable local, state, and federal licensing, accreditation, and registration requirements and standards necessary for the performance of this Agreement. The SUB- RECIPIENT shall complete registration with the Washington State Department of Revenue, if required, and be responsible for payment of all taxes due on payments made under this Agreement. 21. RECORDS MAINTENANCE 21.1. During the term of this Agreement and for six years thereafter, the SUB-RECIPIENT shall maintain books, records, documents, and other evidence that sufficiently and properly reflect all direct and indirect costs expended in the performance of the services described herein. These records shall be subject to inspection, review, or audit by authorized personnel of the WTSC, the Office of the State Auditor, and federal officials so authorized by law. All books, records, documents, and other material relevant to this Agreement will be retained for six years after expiration. The Office of the State Auditor, federal auditors, the WTSC, and any duly authorized representatives shall have full access and the right to examine any of these materials during this period. 21.2. Records and other documents, in any medium, furnished by one party to this Agreement to the other party, will remain the property of the furnishing party, unless otherwise agreed. The receiving party will not disclose or make available this material to any third parties without first giving notice to the furnishing party and giving them a reasonable opportunity to respond. Each party will utilize reasonable page 8 of 23 AGENDA ITEM #6. d) security procedures and protections to assure that records and documents provided by the other party are not erroneously disclosed to third parties. 22. RIGHT OF INSPECTION The SUB-RECIPIENT shall provide right of access to its facilities to the WTSC or any of its officers, or to any other authorized agent or official of the state of Washington or the federal government, at all reasonable times, in order to monitor and evaluate performance, compliance, and/or quality assurance under this Agreement. The SUB-RECIPIENT shall make available information necessary for WTSC to comply with the right to access, amend, and receive an accounting of disclosures of their Personal Information according to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) or any regulations enacted or revised pursuant to the HIPAA provisions and applicable provisions of Washington State law. The SUB-RECIPIENT shall upon request make available to the WTSC and the United States Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services all internal policies and procedures, books, and records relating to the safeguarding, use, and disclosure of Personal Information obtained or used as a result of this Agreement. 23. RIGHTS IN DATA 23.1. WTSC and SUB-RECIPIENT agree that all data and work products (collectively called “Work Product”) pursuant to this Agreement shall be considered works made for hire under the U.S. Copyright Act, 17 USC §101 et seq., and shall be owned by the state of Washington. Work Product includes, but is not limited to, reports, documents, pamphlets, advertisement, books, magazines, surveys, studies, computer programs, films, tapes, sound reproductions, designs, plans, diagrams, drawings, software, and/or databases to the extent provided by law. Ownership includes the right to copyright, register the copyright, distribute, prepare derivative works, publicly perform, publicly display, and the ability to otherwise use and transfer these rights. 23.2. If for any reason the Work Product would not be considered a work made for hire under applicable law, the SUB-RECIPIENT assigns and transfers to WTSC the entire right, title, and interest in and to all rights in the Work Product and any registrations and copyright applications relating thereto and any renewals and extensions thereof. 23.3. The SUB-RECIPIENT may publish, at its own expense, the results of project activities without prior review by the WTSC, provided that any publications (written, visual, or sound) contain acknowledgment of the support provided by NHTSA and the WTSC. Any discovery or invention derived from work performed under this project shall be referred to the WTSC, who will determine through NHTSA whether patent protections will be sought, how any rights will be administered, and other actions required to protect the public interest. 24. SAVINGS page 9 of 23 AGENDA ITEM #6. d) In the event funding from state, federal, or other sources is withdrawn, reduced, or limited in any way after the effective date of this Agreement and prior to completion of the SOW under this Agreement, the WTSC may terminate the Agreement under the "TERMINATION FOR CONVENIENCE" clause, without the 30 day notice requirement. The Agreement is subject to renegotiation at the WTSC’s discretion under any new funding limitations or conditions. 25. SEVERABILITY If any provision of this Agreement or any provision of any document incorporated by reference shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions of this Agreement which can be given effect without the invalid provision, if such remainder conforms to the requirements of applicable law and the fundamental purpose of this Agreement, and to this end the provisions of this Agreement are declared to be severable. 26. SITE SECURITY While on WTSC premises, or while interacting with WTSC’s personnel, the SUB-RECIPIENT, its agents, employees, or sub-contractors shall conform in all respects with all WTSC physical, fire, or other security policies and applicable regulations and not interfere with WTSC’s operations. 27. TAXES All payments of payroll taxes, unemployment contributions, any other taxes, insurance, or other such expenses for the SUB-RECIPIENT or its staff shall be the sole responsibility of the SUB-RECIPIENT. 28. TERMINATION FOR CAUSE If the SUB-RECIPIENT does not fulfill in a timely and proper manner its obligations under this Agreement or violates any of these terms and conditions, the WTSC will give the SUB-RECIPIENT written notice of such failure or violation, and may terminate this Agreement immediately. At the WTSC’s discretion, the SUB-RECIPIENT may be given 15 days to correct the violation or failure. In the event that the SUB- RECIPIENT is given the opportunity to correct the violation and the violation is not corrected within the 15-day period, this Agreement may be terminated at the end of that period by written notice of the WTSC. 29. TERMINATION FOR CONVENIENCE Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, either party may terminate this Agreement, without cause or reason, with 30 days written notice to the other party. If this Agreement is so terminated, the WTSC shall be liable only for payment required under the terms of this Agreement for services rendered or goods delivered prior to the effective date of termination. 30. TREATMENT OF ASSETS 30.1. Title to all property furnished by the WTSC shall remain property of the WTSC. Title to all property furnished by the SUB-RECIPIENT for the cost of which the SUB-RECIPIENT is entitled to be reimbursed page 10 of 23 AGENDA ITEM #6. d) as a direct item of cost under this Agreement shall pass to and vest in the WTSC upon delivery of such property by the SUB-RECIPIENT. Title to other property, the cost of which is reimbursable to the SUB- RECIPIENT under this Agreement, shall pass to and vest in the WTSC upon (i) issuance for use of such property in the performance of this Agreement, or (ii) commencement of use of such property in the performance of this Agreement, or (iii) reimbursement of the cost thereof by the WTSC in whole or in part, whichever first occurs. 30.2. Any property of the WTSC furnished to the SUB-RECIPIENT shall, unless otherwise provided herein or approved by the WTSC, be used only for the performance of this Agreement. 30.3. The SUB-RECIPIENT shall be responsible for any loss or damage to property of the WTSC which results from the negligence of the SUB-RECIPIENT or which results from the failure on the part of the SUB-RECIPIENT to maintain and administer that property in accordance with sound management practices. 30.4. If any WTSC property is lost, destroyed, or damaged, the SUB-RECIPIENT shall immediately notify the WTSC and shall take all reasonable steps to protect the property from further damage. 30.5. The SUB-RECIPIENT shall surrender to the WTSC all property of the WTSC prior to settlement, upon completion, termination, or cancellation of this Agreement. 30.6. All reference to the SUB-RECIPIENT under this clause shall also include SUB-RECIPIENT's employees, agents, or sub-contractors. 31. STATE NONDISCRIMINATION 31.1 Nondiscrimination Requirement. During the term of this Contract, Contractor, including any subcontractor, shall not discriminate on the bases enumerated at RCW 49.60.530(3). In addition, Contractor, including any subcontractor, shall give written notice of this nondiscrimination requirement to any labor organizations with which Contractor, or subcontractor, has a collective bargaining or other agreement. 31.2 Obligation to Cooperate. Contractor, including any subcontractor, shall cooperate and comply with any Washington state agency investigation regarding any allegation that Contractor, including any subcontractor, has engaged in discrimination prohibited by this Contract pursuant to RCW 49.60.530(3). 31.3 Default. Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary, WTSC may suspend Contractor, including any subcontractor, upon notice of a failure to participate and cooperate with any state agency investigation into alleged discrimination prohibited by this Contract, pursuant to RCW 49.60.530(3). Any such suspension will remain in place until WTSC receives notification that Contractor, including any page 11 of 23 AGENDA ITEM #6. d) subcontractor, is cooperating with the investigating state agency. In the event Contractor, or subcontractor, is determined to have engaged in discrimination identified at RCW 49.60.530(3), WTSC may terminate this Contract in whole or in part, and Contractor, subcontractor, or both, may be referred for debarment as provided in RCW 39.26.200. The Contractor or subcontractor may be given a reasonable time in which to cure this noncompliance, including implementing conditions consistent with any court-ordered injunctive relief or settlement agreement. 31.4 Remedies for Breach. Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary, in the event of Contract termination or suspension for engaging in discrimination, Contractor, subcontractor, or both, shall be liable for contract damages as authorized by law including, but not limited to, any cost difference between the original contract and the replacement or cover contract and all administrative costs directly related to the replacement contract, which damages are distinct from any penalties imposed under Chapter 49.60, RCW. WTSC shall have the right to deduct from any monies due to Contractor or subcontractor, or that thereafter become due, an amount for damages Contractor or subcontractor will owe WTSC for default under this provision. 32. WAIVER A failure by either party to exercise its rights under this Agreement shall not preclude that party from subsequent exercise of such rights and shall not constitute a waiver of any other rights under this Agreement. APPLICABLE CERTIFICATIONS AND ASSURANCES FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY GRANTS (23 CFR PART 1300 APPENDIX A): 33. BUY AMERICA ACT The SUB-RECIPIENT will comply with the Buy America requirement (23 U.S.C. 313) when purchasing items using federal funds. Buy America requires the SUB-RECIPIENT to purchase only steel, iron, and manufactured products produced in the United States, unless the Secretary of Transportation determines that such domestically produced items would be inconsistent with the public interest, that such materials are not reasonably available and of a satisfactory quality, or that inclusion of domestic materials will increase the cost of the overall project contract by more than 25 percent. In order to use federal funds to purchase foreign produced items, the WTSC must submit a waiver request that provides an adequate basis and justification, and which is approved by the Secretary of Transportation. 34. DEBARMENT AND SUSPENSION Instructions for Lower Tier Certification 34.1. By signing this Agreement, the SUB-RECIPIENT (hereinafter in this section referred to as the “lower tier participant”) is providing the certification set out below and agrees to comply with the requirements of page 12 of 23 AGENDA ITEM #6. d) 2 CFR part 180 and 23 CFR part 1200. 34.2. The certification in this section is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was entered into. If it is later determined that the lower tier participant knowingly rendered an erroneous certification, in addition to other remedies available to the federal government, the department or agency with which this transaction originated may pursue available remedies, including suspension and/or debarment. 34.3. The lower tier participant shall provide immediate written notice to the WTSC if at any time the lower tier participant learns that its certification was erroneous when submitted or has become erroneous by reason of changed circumstances. 34.4. The terms covered transaction, civil judgement, debarment, suspension, ineligible, participant, person, principal, and voluntarily excluded, as used in this clause, are defined in 2 CFR parts 180 and 1200. 34.5. The lower tier participant agrees by signing this Agreement that it shall not knowingly enter into any lower tier covered transaction with a person who is proposed for debarment under 48 CFR part 9, subpart 9.4, debarred, suspended, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this covered transaction, unless authorized by WTSC. 34.6. The lower tier participant further agrees by signing this Agreement that it will include the clause titled “Instructions for Lower Tier Certification” including the “Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion - Lower Tier Covered Transaction,” without modification, in all lower tier covered transactions and in all solicitations for lower tier covered transactions, and will require lower tier participants to comply with 2 CFR part 180 and 23 CFR part 1200. 34.7. A participant in a covered transaction may rely upon a certification of a prospective participant in a lower tier covered transaction that it is not proposed for debarment under 48 CFR part 9, subpart 9.4, debarred, suspended, ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from the covered transaction, unless it knows that the certification is erroneous. A participant is responsible for ensuring that its principals are not suspended, debarred, or otherwise ineligible to participate in covered transactions. To verify the eligibility of its principals, as well as the eligibility of any prospective lower tier participants, each participant may, but is not required to, check the System for Award Management Exclusions website (https://www.sam.gov/). 34.8. Nothing contained in the foregoing shall be construed to require establishment of a system of records in order to render in good faith the certification required by this clause. The knowledge and information of a participant is not required to exceed that which is normally possessed by a prudent page 13 of 23 AGENDA ITEM #6. d) person in the ordinary course of business dealings. 34.9. Except for transactions authorized under paragraph 34.5. of these instructions, if a participant in a covered transaction knowingly enters into a lower tier covered transaction with a person who is proposed for debarment under 48 CFR part 9, subpart 9.4, suspended, debarred, ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this transaction, in addition to other remedies available to the Federal government, the department or agency with which this transaction originated may pursue available remedies, including suspension or debarment. Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion - Lower Tier Covered Transactions 34.10. The lower tier participant certifies, by signing this Agreement, that neither it nor its principals are presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this transaction by any federal department or agency. 33.11. Where the lower tier participant is unable to certify to any of the statements in this certification, such participant shall attach an explanation to this Agreement. 35. THE DRUG-FREE WORKPLACE ACT OF 1988 (41 U.S.C. 8103) 35.1. The SUB-RECIPIENT shall: 35.1.1. Publish a statement notifying employees that the unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensing, possession, or use of a controlled substance is prohibited in the SUB-RECIPIENT'S workplace, and shall specify the actions that will be taken against employees for violation of such prohibition. 35.1.2. Establish a drug-free awareness program to inform employees about the dangers of drug abuse in the workplace; the SUB-RECIPIENT’s policy of maintaining a drug-free workplace; any available drug counseling, rehabilitation, and employee assistance programs; and the penalties that may be imposed upon employees for drug violations occurring in the workplace. 35.1.3. Make it a requirement that each employee engaged in the performance of the grant be given a copy of the statement required by paragraph 35.1.1. of this section. 35.1.4. Notify the employee in the statement required by paragraph 35.1.1. of this section that, as a condition of employment under the grant, the employee will abide by the terms of the statement, notify the employer of any criminal drug statute conviction for a violation occurring in the workplace no later than five days after such conviction, and notify the WTSC within 10 days after receiving notice from an employee or otherwise receiving actual notice of such conviction. page 14 of 23 AGENDA ITEM #6. d) 35.1.5. Take one of the following actions within 30 days of receiving notice under paragraph 35.1.4. of this section, with respect to any employee who is so convicted: take appropriate personnel action against such an employee, up to and including termination, and/or require such employee to participate satisfactorily in a drug abuse assistance or rehabilitation program approved for such purposes by a federal, state, or local health, law enforcement, or other appropriate agency. 35.1.6. Make a good faith effort to continue to maintain a drug-free workplace through implementation of all of the paragraphs above. 36. FEDERAL FUNDING ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY ACT (FFATA) In accordance with FFATA, the SUB-RECIPIENT shall, upon request, provide WTSC the names and total compensation of the five most highly compensated officers of the entity, if the entity in the preceding fiscal year received 80 percent or more of its annual gross revenues in federal awards, received $25,000,000 or more in annual gross revenues from federal awards, and if the public does not have access to information about the compensation of the senior executives of the entity through periodic reports filed under section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or section 6104 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. 37. FEDERAL LOBBYING 37.1. The undersigned certifies, to the best of his or her knowledge and belief, that: 37.1.1. No federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the undersigned, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any federal contract, the making of any federal grant, the making of any federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement. 37.1.2. If any funds other than federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, the undersigned shall complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying, in accordance with its instructions. 37.1.3. The undersigned shall require that the language of this certification be included in the award documents for all sub-awards at all tiers (including sub-contracts, sub-grants, and contracts under grant, loans, and cooperative agreements), and that all sub-recipients shall certify and disclose accordingly. page 15 of 23 AGENDA ITEM #6. d) 37.2. This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was made or entered into. Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for making or entering into this transaction imposed by Section 1352, Title 31, U.S. Code. Any person who fails to file the required certification shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure. 38. FEDERAL NONDISCRIMINATION (Title VI, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq.) 38.1. During the performance of this Agreement, the SUB-RECIPIENT agrees: 38.1.1. To comply with all federal statutes and implementing regulations relating to nondiscrimination (“Federal Nondiscrimination Authorities”). These include but are not limited to: 38.1.1.1. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq., 78 stat. 252 38.1.1.2. 49 CFR part 21 38.1.1.3. 28 CFR section 50.3 38.1.1.4. The Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 38.1.1.5. Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973, (23 U.S.C. 324 et seq.) 38.1.1.6. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, (29 U.S.C. 794 et seq.) 38.1.1.7. The Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended, (42 U.S.C. 6101 et seq.) 38.1.1.8. The Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 38.1.1.9. Titles II and III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. 12131-12189) 38.1.1.10. Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations 38.1.1.11. Executive Order 13166, Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency 38.1.1.12. Executive Order 13985, Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities through the Federal Government 38.1.1.13. Executive Order 13988, Preventing and Combating Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Sexual Orientation 38.1.2. Not to participate directly or indirectly in the discrimination prohibited by any federal non- discrimination law or regulation, as set forth in Appendix B of 49 CFR Part 21 and herein. 38.1.3. To keep and permit access to its books, records, accounts, other sources of information, and its facilities as required by the WTSC, USDOT, or NHTSA in a timely, complete, and accurate way. Additionally, the SUB-RECIPIENT must comply with all other reporting, data collection, and evaluation requirements, as prescribed by law or detailed in program guidance. 38.1.4. That, in the event a contractor/funding recipient fails to comply with any nondiscrimination provisions in this contract/funding Agreement, the WTSC will have the right to impose such page 16 of 23 AGENDA ITEM #6. d) contract/agreement sanctions as it or NHTSA determine are appropriate, including but not limited to withholding payments to the contractor/funding recipient under the contract/agreement until the contractor/funding recipient complies, and/or cancelling, terminating, or suspending a contract or funding agreement, in whole or in part. 38.1.5. In accordance with the Acts, the Regulations, and other pertinent directives, circulars, policy, memoranda, and/or guidance, the SUB-RECIPIENT hereby gives assurance that it will promptly take any measures necessary to ensure that: “No person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program or activity, for which the Recipient receives Federal financial assistance from DOT, including NHTSA”. 38.1.6 To insert this clause, including all paragraphs, in every sub-contract and sub-agreement and in every solicitation for a sub-contract or sub-agreement that receives federal funds under this program. 39. POLITICAL ACTIVITY (HATCH ACT) The SUB-RECIPIENT will comply with provisions of the Hatch Act (5 U.S.C. 1501-1508), which limit the political activities of employees whose principal employment activities are funded in whole or in part with federal funds. 40. PROHIBITION ON USING GRANT FUNDS TO CHECK FOR HELMET USAGE The SUB-RECIPIENT will not use 23 U.S.C. Chapter 4 grant funds for programs to check helmet usage or to create checkpoints that specifically target motorcyclists. This Agreement does not include any aspects or elements of helmet usage or checkpoints, and so fully complies with this requirement. 41. STATE LOBBYING None of the funds under this Agreement will be used for any activity specifically designed to urge or influence a state or local legislator to favor or oppose the adoption of any specific legislative proposal pending before any state or local legislative body. Such activities include both direct and indirect (e.g., “grassroots”) lobbying activities, with one exception. This does not preclude a state official whose salary is supported with NHTSA funds from engaging in direct communications with state or local legislative officials, in accordance with customary state practice, even if such communications urge legislative officials to favor or oppose the adoption of a specific pending legislative proposal. 42. CERTIFICATION ON CONFLICT OF INTEREST General Requirements 42.1. No employee, officer or agent of the SUB-RECIPIENT who is authorized in an official capacity to negotiate, make, accept or approve, or to take part in negotiating, making, accepting or approving any page 17 of 23 AGENDA ITEM #6. d) subaward, including contracts or subcontracts, in connection with this grant shall have, directly or indirectly, any financial or personal interest in any such subaward. Such a financial or personal interest would arise when the employee, officer, or agent, any member of his or her immediate family, his or her partner, or an organization which employs or is about to employ any of the parties indicated herein, has a financial or personal interest in or a tangible personal benefit from an entity considered for a subaward. 42.2. Based on this policy: 42.2.1. The SUB-RECIPIENT shall maintain a written code or standards of conduct that provide for disciplinary actions to be applied for violations of such standards by officers, employees, or agents. The code or standards shall provide that the SUB-RECIPIENT’s officers, employees, or agents may neither solicit nor accept gratuities, favors, or anything of monetary value from present or potential sub- awardees, including contractors or parties to subcontracts and establish penalties, sanctions or other disciplinary actions for violations, as permitted by State or local law or regulation. 42.2.2. The SUB-RECIPIENT shall maintain responsibility to enforce the requirements of the written code or standards of conduct. Disclosure Requirements 42.3. No SUB-RECIPIENT, including its officers, employees or agents, shall perform or continue to perform under a grant or cooperative agreement, whose objectivity may be impaired because of any related past, present, or currently planned interest, financial or otherwise, in organizations regulated by NHTSA or in organizations whose interests may be substantially affected by NHTSA activities. 42.3.1. The SUB-RECIPIENT shall disclose any conflict of interest identified as soon as reasonably possible, making an immediate and full disclosure in writing to WTSC. The disclosure shall include a description of the action which the recipient has taken or proposes to take to avoid or mitigate such conflict. 42.3.2. NHTSA will review the disclosure and may require additional relevant information from the recipient. If a conflict of interest is found to exist, NHTSA may (a) terminate the award, or (b) determine that it is otherwise in the best interest of NHTSA to continue the award and include appropriate provisions to mitigate or avoid such conflict. 43.3.3 Conflicts of interest that require disclosure include all past, present or currently planned organizational, financial, contractual or other interest(s) with an organization regulated by NHTSA or with an organization whose interests may be substantially affected by NHTSA activities, and which are related to this award. The interest(s) that require disclosure include those of any SUB-RECIPIENT, affiliate, proposed consultant, proposed subcontractor and key personnel of any of the above. Past interest shall be limited to within one year of the date of award. Key personnel shall include any person owning more page 18 of 23 AGENDA ITEM #6. d) than a 20 percent interest in a SUB-RECIPIENT, and the officers, employees or agents of a recipient who are responsible for making a decision or taking an action under an award where the decision or action can have an economic or other impact on the interests of a regulated or affected organization. 43. DESIGNATED CONTACTS The following named individuals will serve as designated contacts for each of the parties for all communications, notices, and reimbursements regarding this Agreement: The Contact for the SUB-RECIPIENT is:The Contact for WTSC is: Corey Jacobs CJacobs@Rentonwa.gov 425-430-7596 Jerry Noviello jnoviello@wtsc.wa.gov 360-725-9897 ext. 44. AUTHORITY TO SIGN The undersigned acknowledge that they are authorized to execute this Agreement and bind their respective agencies or entities to the obligations set forth herein. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement. Renton Police Department _____________________________________ Signature _____________________________________ Printed Name _____________________________________ Title _____________________________________ page 19 of 23 AGENDA ITEM #6. d) Date WASHINGTON TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION _____________________________________ Signature _____________________________________ Printed Name _____________________________________ Title _____________________________________ Date page 20 of 23 AGENDA ITEM #6. d) APPENDIX A Project Costs Year 1 BUDGET CATEGORY DESCRIPTION DIRECT AMOUNT Indirect Cost Rate Indirect Amount Total Budget Employee salaries and benefits $5,000.00 0% $0.00 $5,000.00 Travel $0.00 0% $0.00 $0.00 Contract Services $0.00 0% $0.00 $0.00 Goods and Services $0.00 0% $0.00 $0.00 Equipment $0.00 0% $0.00 $0.00 TOTAL $5,000.00 $0.00 $5,000.00 Budget may be modified between budget categories with email or phone request to the assigned WTSC Program Manager. It is expected that the designated law enforcement liaison (LEL) will attend various trainings and other meetings. These may take place in WA or in other states in the country. In some cases, WTSC will reimburse travel and conference related expenses using other grant funds. Approval for training events is confirmed via separate award letter. Important Notes: 1. Indirect cost rates are subject to change based on updated Indirect Rate Letters from a cognizant federal agency or approved cost allocation plans. If the indirect rate increases, the budget will be modified by deducting the amount of the indirect rate increase from other budget categories so that the total budget does not increase. 2. The total annual budget may not increase without a written amendment to this agreement executed by both parties. page 21 of 23 AGENDA ITEM #6. d) 3. Adjustments between budget categories within the same year can be made upon mutual agreement of the contact for WTSC and the contact for the SUB-RECIPIENT. Objectives and Measures Goal 1 - Grow participation in regional traffic safety activities, with a goal of 75% of law enforcement agencies in the region participating in HVE events in the fiscal year. Objective Objective Details Completion Date Actively participate in your region/county traffic safety task force. Encourage participation in HVE activities from all agencies in the region. Troubleshoot options if an agency is experiencing staffing or political issues that impact their participation in local HVE programming. 09/30/2025 Facilitate the development of performance expectations for HVE participation for your region. Along with the TZM, monitor HVE performance and follow up with officers if their performance doesn't meet the task force's expectations. The WTSC relies on LELs to ensure that HVE funds are being used in an appropriate and effective manner. Work with your task force to determine appropriate performance expectations and processes for following up when needed. 09/30/2025 Build support for traffic safety by meeting/presenting to department leadership about traffic safety. These can be a great opportunity to gather feedback about their priorities for the region and discuss current/future planned activities. 09/30/2025 Measure Reporting Frequency Type Target page 22 of 23 AGENDA ITEM #6. d) Percent of law enforcement agencies in your region that participate in HVE activities.Annual Process 75 Goal 2 - Provide leadership in the development of professional development for traffic safety minded officers, with the long term goal of increasing the number of law enforcement agency leaders/admin who believe that traffic safety is a priority. Objective Objective Details Completion Date Seek out opportunities for professional development for yourself and others in your region that will grow traffic safety leaders in your region. Some examples of this include the Traffic Safety Champions event, CJTC supervisor training courses, etc. It is critical that LELs have the knowledge and skills to be a trusted leader in traffic safety to their peers in the region. They should seek training opportunities to stay at the cutting edge of the field. Preapproval required to attend training events. For non-WTSC led trainings, LEL will provide an after-training summary that describes how the learned skills and information will be used in the field. 09/30/2025 Goal 3 - Provide guidance/feedback on law enforcement topics to the regional Target Zero Manager and traffic safety coalition (if applicable). Objective Objective Details Completion Date Support the TZM in building relationships with law enforcement departments in your region.09/30/2025 page 23 of 23 AGENDA ITEM #6. d) AB - 3715 City Council Regular Meeting - 09 Dec 2024 SUBJECT/TITLE: Authorize Sub-Agreement with the Puget Sound Regional Council for the Renton Comprehensive Safety Action Plan RECOMMENDED ACTION: Refer to Finance Committee DEPARTMENT: Public Works Transportation Systems Division STAFF CONTACT: Ellen Talbo, Transportation Planning Manager EXT.: 7319 FISCAL IMPACT SUMMARY: This sub-agreement provides $100,000 from Fund 317 as a local match toward $400,000 of federal USDOT grant funds that were awarded to the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) in February 2023. The total project cost of $500,000 is for Renton to complete a citywide comprehensive safety action plan specifically adhering to federal Safe Streets 4 All (SS4A) principles. The $100,000 local match funds have been included in the 2025- 2026 capital improvement plan budget. SUMMARY OF ACTION: The United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) issued a notice of funding opportunity in 2022 for the new Safe Streets 4 All discretionary program. The SS4A program provides grant funding to regional, local, and Tribal initiatives intended to prevent roadway deaths and serious injuries. The City partnered with other cities and the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) to submit a grant application with PSRC as the lead agency and the City of Renton as a sub-recipient along with several other cities. The grant application was accepted and PSRC was designated by USDOT to serve as the grant facilitator. A sub-recipient funding agreement with the PSRC is necessary to implement Renton’s proposed scope of work of developing a citywide safety action plan that outlays the foundations for a citywide “Vision Zero” traffic safety program. Previously the city completed a Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) in 2022 that lays out an evidenced-based analysis of crashes with recommendations for spot improvements at top crash locations. The SS4A safety action plan would expand on the LRSP and will enable the City to qualify and compete for additional federal funding specific to addressing road-related serious injuries and fatalities. An SS4A-qualified Action Plan will include engagement with public and non-profit community stakeholders, as well as identify and prioritize safety treatments with education and outreach on a Safe Systems Approach that focuses on reducing serious and fatal crashes. The project is estimated to cost $500,000 including a local match of 20% ($100,000). The competitive procurement of professional services will begin in January 2025and kick off the start of the work by April 2025. EXHIBITS: A. Subaward Agreement STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the subaward agreement with PSRC for the Renton Comprehensive Safety Action Plan. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Subaward Agreement Between Puget Sound Regional Council and City of Renton for Renton Comprehensive Safety Action Plan Date Entered into Agreement: Date Signed Subaward Agreement #: 2024-12 AGENDA ITEM #6. e) 1.0. SUBAWARD AGREEMENT Pass-through Entity (PTE): Puget Sound Regional Council Subrecipient: City of Renton Subaward Period of Performance: Start: Date Signed End: Amount Funded: $400,000 Subaward Agreement #: 2024-12 Federal Awarding Agency: Puget Sound Regional Council FAIN: 693JJ32440280 Federal Award Issue Date: 04/17/2024 Total Amount of Matching Funds: $100,000 ALN No. and Name: 20.939, Safe Streets and Roads for All Project Title: Renton Comprehensive Safety Action Plan R & D Award Yes No Unique Entity ID #UG2PSBS6UJJ3 This SUBAWARD (hereinafter the "Award"), is made and entered into as of date of signing by and between the Pass-through Entity, Puget Sound Regional Council, (hereinafter "PSRC") and Subrecipient City of Renton(hereinafter "COR"), and supports the work described in the approved final scope of work, which is incorporated by reference into this Award and attached in Exhibit A. All work on this project should be consistent with the Authorized Scope of Work unless modified by the appropriate authority as described in 4.2 below. PSRC is a Metropolitan Planning Organization under federal law (23 USC 134) and a Regional Planning Transportation Planning Organization under state law (RCW 47.80) and has all powers necessary for the performance of the work and obligations of this Agreement, and has the authority to contract with member and non-member agencies for special services; and COR is a US Local Government under state law (RCW 43.21C.120) and has all powers necessary for the performance of the work and obligations of this Agreement; The U.S. Department of Transportation (hereinafter the “USDOT”), has expressly consented to this Award; and NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, assurances and mutual promises herein the Parties agree as follows: 2.0. DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVES To ensure effective intergovernmental cooperation and efficiencies, the Parties each designate a representative (the "Designated Representative") who shall be responsible for coordination of communications between the Parties and shall act as a central point of contact for each Party. The Designated Representatives shall each be responsible for the administration and performance of the Scope of Work of this Award, as well as ensuring that schedule, budget, and funding limitations of this Agreement are satisfied. Each Designated Representative is also responsible for coordinating the input and work of its respective governmental agency or department staff, consultants and contractors as it relates to the scope of this Agreement. A Party may change its Designated Representative by written notice to the other Party. Each Party’s Designated Representative is named below with the individual’s contact information. PSRC Designated Representative. The Designated Representative for PSRC is Gary Simonson. They may designate other staff as the principal contact for daily work coordination. All official correspondence concerning this Agreement shall be directed to the Designated Representative at the following address: Puget Sound Regional Council Phone: (206) 971-3276 Attn: Gary Simonson, Senior Planner Fax: 206-587-4825 AGENDA ITEM #6. e) 1201 3rd Avenue, Suite 500 Email: gsimonson@psrc.org Seattle, WA 98101 COR Designated Representative. The Designated Representative for COR is Ellen Talbo. They may designate other staff as the principal contact for daily work coordination. All official correspondence concerning this Agreement shall be directed to the Designated Representative at the following address: City of Renton Phone: (425) 430-7319 Attn: Ellen Talbo Title: Transportation Planning Manager 1055 South Grady Way Public Works Renton, WA 98057 Email: etalbo@rentonwa.gov 3.0. TERMS AND CONDITIONS 3.1. In its performance of this Subaward Agreement, COR shall be an independent entity and not an employee or agent of PSRC. 3.2. COR must obtain the prior written approval of PSRC whenever any programmatic changes are anticipated, including but not limited to the following: a) Any revision of the Scope of Work or objectives of the project (regardless of whether there is an associated budget revision requiring prior approval). b) Changes in key persons in cases where specified in an application or a grant award. In research projects, a change in the project director or principal investigator shall always require approval unless waived by the USDOT. c)Under non-construction projects, contracting out, subgranting (if authorized by law) or otherwise obtaining the services of a third party to perform activities, which are central to the purposes of the award. d)Transfer of budgeted amounts. e)No-cost extensions. 3.3. Governmentwide Debarrment and Suspension COR shall comply with the provisions of 2 C.F.R. Part 200, Appendix II, “Contract Provisions for Non- Federal Entity Contracts Under Federal Award”, Section I, (published in the Federal Register on December 26, 2013, 78 FR 78608), which generally prohibit entities that have been debarred, suspended, or voluntarily excluded from participating in Federal nonprocurement transactions either through primary or lower tier covered transactions, and which sets forth the responsibilities of recipients of Federal financial assistance regarding transactions with other persons, including subrecipients and contractors. COR (and all subcontractors, if any) must maintain current registration in the System for Award Management (www.sam.gov) at all times during which they have active federal awards or subawards, including for this Agreement. 3.4. Indemnification To the extent permitted by law, each Party to this Agreement shall indemnify the other Party and its officers, officials, employees, and agents, while acting within the scope of their employment, from any and all costs, claims, demands, judgments, damages, or liability of any kind including injuries to persons or damages to property, which arise out of, or in any way result from, due to, any acts or omissions of the indemnifying Party in the implementation of this Agreement or any agreement between COR and its subcontractor(s). No Party shall be required to indemnify the other Party if the claim, suit, or action for injuries, death, or damages is caused by the sole negligence of the Party seeking indemnification. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Where such claims, suits, or actions result from concurrent negligence of the Parties, the indemnity provisions provided herein shall be valid and enforceable only to the extent of the Party's own negligence. Each Party by mutual negotiation, hereby waives, with respect to the other Party only, any immunity that would otherwise be available against such claims under the industrial insurance provisions of Title 51 RCW. This indemnification shall survive the termination of this Agreement. 3.5. Compliance with Federal Award Obligations. The Award is subject to, and COR shall comply with, the terms and conditions of the Award and the Department of Transportation General Terms and Conditions (February 8, 2023) (see attachments 1 and 2), including all applicable statutes, regulations, executive orders (E.O.s), Office of Management and Budget (OMB) circulars, provisions of the OMB Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (codified at 2 C.F.R. Part 200) (OMB Uniform Guidance), and approved applications. COR is also a party to the award, and the parties want COR to carry out certain Project components with PSRC’s assistance, financial management, internal controls, and oversight as described in Article 17 of this agreement. PSRC, as a pass-through entity, shall monitor the activities COR in compliance with 2 C.F.R 200 332(d) with respect to a subrecipient’s performance of work under a subaward of this SS4A Grant. 4.0. BUDGET & PAYMENT PROCEDURE 4.1. Budget The estimated budget to accomplish the tasks described in the Scope of Work for this is incorporated in Exhibit B of this Agreement. This budget reflects the Parties' best estimates of the amounts that may be required to accomplish the total work under this Agreement. Actual amounts reimbursable shall be based on actual work performed. In the event it is determined that the Scope of Work has been accomplished by COR for a lesser amount, PSRC shall only pay reimbursements for documented costs. In no event shall COR be paid for costs that are not documented pursuant to the requirements of this Agreement. 4.2. Payments/Invoices PSRC shall reimburse COR not more often than monthly for costs incurred in the performance of this Award, which are determined to be allowable, allocable, & reasonable in accordance with 2 CFR Part 200. All invoices shall be submitted using COR’s standard invoice, but at a minimum shall include current and cumulative costs, subaward number, and certification (Exhibit C), as required in 2 CFR 200.415 (a). PSRC shall not transfer nor be obligated to transfer any funds in advance of its approval of such requests. Documentation of all expenses eligible for reimbursement shall be maintained by COR and shall, upon request by PSRC, be provided prior to reimbursement as required by this Award. All invoices presented for payment shall include a reasonable description of the tasks performed that correspond to the amounts invoiced. To assure payment processing in a timely manner, COR shall submit all invoices, required reports, and documentation to the attention of: PSRC Attn: Finance 1201 3rd Ave, Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98101 finance@psrc.org PSRC’s shall review and pay reimbursable amounts within 45 days of receipt of the invoice. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PSRC reserves the right to withhold payments pending timely delivery and proper completion of the reports or documents as may be reasonably required under this Agreement. 4.3. Prohibited Use of Funds COR may not use funds for the following ineligible activities: (a)Ineligible costs under 2 C.F.R Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards; (b) Any activities prohibited under the Grant between USDOT and PSRC dated. 4.4. Final Payment Final payment will be made to COR upon final completion of the work and upon written acceptance by PSRC’s Designated Representative. Any required adjustments shall be reflected in the final invoice. 4.5. Use of Consultants/Contractors For all proposals and contracts where costs are expected to exceed $100,000, the scope of work and the costs of such must be submitted to and approved by USDOT prior to employment of such consultants or contractors. COR will ensure that any consultant or contractor paid from funds provided under this award is bound by all applicable award terms and conditions. USDOT shall not be liable hereunder to a third party nor to any party other than the PSRC. In addition, all procurements shall adhere to PSRC’s Procurement Policies and Procedures as updated March 2023. $10,000 or under Micro purchase: No competition required. $10,001-$250,000* Small purchase: Competition required with documentation of an adequate number of price/rate quotes. Over $250,000* Competitive proposal: Competition required with documentation of at least two formal, written bids, proposals or qualifications, as well as an independent cost estimate. Pre-approval required Noncompetitive proposal: Only when competitive method is infeasible and certain situations apply. *In addition, all contracts over $100,000 shall include applicable lobbying certifications as stated in section 10.15. 5.0. REPORTING AND RECORDS 5.1. Reports and Documentation Project Progress Reports: COR agrees to assist PSRC with Project Progress Reports on a quarterly basis. COR will supply report content, e.g. summaries of work completed, to PSRC no later than 10 days following the end of the period. Reports are due no later than 30 days following the end of the period. Performance Progress Reports submitted to USDOT by PSRC should include the following: i. Provide a clear, concise overview of the activities undertaken during the Project Period; ii. Document accomplishments, benefits, and impacts that the Project and Activities are having. Recipients should note specific outcomes where activities have led to job creation/retention, AGENDA ITEM #6. e) private investment, increased regional collaboration, engagement with historically excluded groups or regions, enhanced regional capacity, and other positive economic benefits; iii. Highlight any upcoming or potential press events or opportunities for collaborative press events to highlight benefits of the USDOT investment; iv. Compare progress with the project timeline, explaining any departures from the targeted schedule, identifying how these departures are going to be remedied, and projecting the course of work for the next period; v. Outline challenges that currently impact or could impact progress on the grant over the next reporting period and identify ways to mitigate this risk; and vi. Outline any areas where USDOT assistance is needed to support the project or any other key information that would be helpful for your USDOT Project Officer to know. Final Project Reports may be posted on USDOT’s website, used for promotional materials or policy reviews, or may be otherwise shared. Recipients should not include any copyrighted or other sensitive business information in these reports. There is no specific page limit for Final Project Reports; however, such reports should concisely communicate key project information, and should: i. Outline the specific regional need that the project was designed to address and update on progress made during the reporting period that will mitigate need and advance economic development; ii. Provide a high-level overview of the activities undertaken; iii. Detail lessons learned during the project period that may be of assistance to USDOT or other communities undertaking similar efforts; iv. Outline the expected and actual economic benefits of the project as the time that the report is written; and v. Any other key information from the relevant project period 5.2. Availability of Records All project records in support of all costs and actual expenditures incurred by COR and its Sub- Contractor(s) under this Agreement shall be maintained by COR and its Sub-Contractor(s) and open to inspection by PSRC (or its federal funding agency) during normal business hours, and shall be retained and made available for such inspection for the duration of the State and Federal records retention requirements from final payment of funds under this Agreement to PSRC. Copies of said records shall be furnished to PSRC and/or its federal funding agency upon request. This requirement shall be included in all subcontracts related to the work entered into by COR to fulfill the terms of this Agreement. 6.0. Certifications and Assurances By signing the Subaward Agreement, the Authorized Official of Subrecipient certifies, to the best of his/her knowledge and belief, that: Certification Regarding Lobbying 1) No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the Subrecipient, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any Federal contract, the making of any Federal grant, the making of any Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement. 2) If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or intending to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, the Subrecipient shall complete and submit Standard Form -LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying," to the Pass-through Entity. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) 3) The Subrecipient shall require that the language of this certification be included in the award documents for all subawards at all tiers (including subcontracts, subgrants, and contracts under grants, loans, and cooperative agreements) and that all subrecipients shall certify and disclose accordingly. This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was made or entered into. Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for making or entering into this transaction imposed by section 1352, title 31, U. S. Code. Any person who fails to file the required certification shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure. Debarment, Suspension, and Other Responsibility Matters Subrecipient certifies by signing this Subaward Agreement that neither it nor its principals are presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible or voluntarily excluded from participation in this transaction by any federal department or agency. Audit and Access to Records Subrecipient certifies by signing this Subaward Agreement that it complies with the Uniform Guidance, will provide notice of the completion of required audits and any adverse findings which impact this subaward as required by 2 C.F.R. parts 200.501 and 200.521, and will provide access to records as required by parts 200.336, 200.337, and 200.201 as applicable. Right to Audit and Disallow and Recover Funds The Federal government reserves the right to seek recovery of any funds that were not expended in accordance with the requirements or conditions of this Agreement based upon USDOT review, the final audit, or any other special audits or reviews undertaken. USDOT has the right to order a special audit, even if PSRC’s auditor or a cognizant agency has already conducted one. 7.0. CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION and SUBRECIPIENT MONITORING COR shall be solely responsible for the administration of and the completion and quality of work performed under any contracts executed by COR. In no event shall any contract executed by COR be construed as obligating PSRC. Any claims arising out of the separate contracts of COR for work under this Agreement are the sole responsibility of COR. All contracts shall comply with all applicable public works and procurement laws and regulations, including, but not limited to, applicable bonding, prevailing wage, nondiscrimination, retainage, insurance, and workers compensation requirements. 7.1. Direct Supervision Nothing in PSRC’s exercise of the right to inspect or accept the work performed by COR shall reduce COR 's responsibility for the proper execution of the work or relieve COR from its responsibility for direct supervision of the work. When PSRC exercises its right to inspect or accept the work performed by COR, it shall not be deemed or construed to be in control of the work under this Agreement. 7.2. Sub-recipient Monitoring PSRC reserves the right to monitor and manage subrecipients, including lower tier subrecipients. At a minimum, monitoring of COR will include: i. Review of financial and programmatic reports; ii. Following-up and ensuring that COR takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to COR from PSRC detected through audits, on-site reviews, and other means; and iii. If applicable, issuing a management decision for audit findings pertaining to the Federal award provided to COR from PSRC as required by 2 C.F.R. § 200.521 (Management decision). AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PSRC requires all subrecipients, including lower tier subrecipients, under the award to comply with the provisions of the award, including applicable provisions of the OMB Uniform Guidance (2 C.F.R. Part 200) and all associated terms and conditions. 8.0. INSURANCE COR will maintain at all times during the term of this Agreement, satisfactory limits of insurance and/or self-insurance to protect against claims arising out of this Agreement. Such insurance or self-insurance shall include General Liability, Business Automobile Liability, and Workers' Compensation in accordance with statutory requirements under Title 51 RCW. Each Party will require and cause its respective subcontractors of all tiers to maintain such insurance as described above in sufficient amounts to protect the interest of the Parties. Such insurance shall be confirmed by a Certificate of Insurance prior to commencement of the work. The Parties hereby agree to require their respective insurers and their respective subcontractors of all tiers, to waive subrogation rights against the other Party and such other Party's insurers. It is understood and agreed that insurance and/or self-insurance provided by the Parties under this Agreement is not intended to and shall not in any manner limit or qualify the liabilities and obligations assumed by the Parties or their Contractors of any tier under their respective contracts or imposed by applicable laws or regulations. 9.0. TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT 9.1. Termination for Default Either Party may terminate this Agreement, in whole or in part, if the other Party substantially fails to fulfill any or all of its obligations under this Agreement through no fault of the other Party, provided that insofar as practicable, the Party terminating the Agreement will give: a.Notice of intent to terminate at least thirty (30) calendar days prior to the date of termination stating the manner in which the other Party has failed to perform the obligations under this Agreement; and b.An opportunity for the other Party to cure the default. If COR is the party in default, PSRC shall provide an opportunity of COR to cure the default as provided in Section 14.2. If PSRC is the party in default, COR shall give PSRC a Notice of Termination stating the time period in which cure is permitted and any other appropriate conditions. c.Provided however, that if PSRC’s funding agency terminates financial support for the project at any time, either party shall have the right to immediately terminate this Agreement by giving written notice thereof. If the other Party fails to remedy the default or the breach to the satisfaction of the other Party within the time period established in the Notice of Termination or any extension thereof granted by the Party not at fault, the other Party may terminate this Agreement. However, any terms of this Agreement relevant to a dispute that is unresolved at the time of termination shall survive until the dispute is finally resolved. 9.2. Termination for Convenience Either Party may terminate this Agreement, in whole or in part, for its convenience provided that the terminating Party shall provide the other Party with an advance notice of at least thirty (30) calendar days. 9.3. Notice of Termination Notice of termination shall be given by the Party terminating this Agreement to the other Party in writing. The notice shall specify the effective date of termination, which shall not be sooner than the non- terminating Party’s receipt of the notice. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) 9.4. Rights and Duties of Parties Upon Termination A termination by any Party shall not extinguish or release either Party from liability, claims, or obligations to third parties existing as of the time of termination. Any costs incurred prior to the effective date of termination will be borne by the Parties in accordance with the terms of this Agreement and this Section. The record keeping requirements, payment, release and indemnification provisions set forth in this Agreement and all remedial provisions shall survive termination of this Agreement. Upon termination of this Agreement by expiration of the term or upon termination for the convenience of the Parties, the Parties agree to work together cooperatively to develop a coordinated plan for terminating the scope of work rendered up until the time of termination and determining reasonable contract close-out costs for termination for convenience or as a result of PSRC’s default or breach. In the event of termination by default or breach, PSRC shall only be obligated to compensate COR for the portion of work that has been satisfactorily rendered to the date of termination according to the terms of this agreement. 10.0. GENERAL CONTRACT PROVISIONS 10.1. Rights and Remedies The rights and remedies of the Parties to this Agreement are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law, except as otherwise provided in this Agreement. 10.2. No Agency No joint venture or partnership is formed as a result of this Agreement. No employees, agents or subcontractors of one Party shall be deemed, or represent themselves to be, employees of any other Party. 10.3. Third Party Rights It is understood and agreed that this Agreement is solely for the benefit of the Parties hereto and USDOT and gives no right to any other entity. Nothing in this Agreement, whether express or implied, is intended to confer any rights or remedies under or by reason of this Agreement on any persons other than the Parties and USDOT. 10.4. Assignment/Successors No Party shall assign any interest, obligation, or benefit in this Agreement or transfer any interest in the same, whether by assignment or novation, without prior written consent by the other Party. This limitation does not, however, prevent COR from selecting subcontractors or consultants to perform the work authorized by this Agreement. All of the terms, provisions, and conditions of this Agreement will be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Parties hereto and their respective successors, permitted assigns, and legal representatives. 10.5. Compliance with Laws COR shall comply, and to the best of its ability shall ensure, that its employees, agents, consultants, and representatives comply with all federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and ordinances applicable to the work to be performed. The work performed by COR under this Agreement shall comply with all applicable public works and procurement laws and regulations, including, but not limited to, bonding, prevailing wage, nondiscrimination, retainage, insurance, and workers compensation requirements. 10.6. Governing Law and Venue AGENDA ITEM #6. e) This Agreement will be governed by, and construed and enforced in accordance with, the laws of the State of Washington. Any legal action resulting from this Agreement shall be brought in the Superior Court of King County. 10.7. Notice All notices or requests required or permitted under this Agreement shall be in writing, shall be personally delivered or sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, or by facsimile transmission and shall be deemed received three (3) business days following the date when mailed or on the date when delivered or faxed (provided the fax machine has issued a printed confirmation of receipt). All notices or requests shall be sent to the PSRC and COR addressed as shown in Section 3.0. 10.8. Waiver of Default Waiver of any default shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent default. Waiver of breach of a provision of this Agreement, including failure to require full and timely performance of any provision, shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any other or subsequent breach and shall not be construed to be a modification of the terms of this Agreement unless stated to be such in writing, signed by authorized parties, and attached to the original Agreement. 10.9. Severability If any of the terms and conditions of this Agreement are determined to be invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining terms and conditions unaffected thereby shall remain in full force and effect. The Parties agree to negotiate in good faith to reform the Agreement to replace any invalid or unenforceable term and/or condition with a valid and enforceable term and/or condition that comes as close as possible to the intention of the stricken term and/or condition. 10.10. Warranty of Right to Enter into Agreement The Parties each warrant that they have the authority to enter into this Agreement and that the persons signing this Agreement have the authority to bind such person's respective entity. 10.11. Publicity The Parties to this Agreement shall not make any formal press releases, news conferences or similar public statements concerning this Agreement without prior consultation with the other Party. 10.12. Future Support PSRC makes no commitment of future support and assumes no obligation for future support of the activity contracted herein except as set forth in this Agreement. 10.13. Exhibits All exhibits referenced in and attached to this Agreement are incorporated herein, except to the extent otherwise provided herein. 10.14. Limitation on Payments to Influence Certain Federal Transactions Section 1352 of Title 31 of the U.S. Code provides in part that no appropriated funds may be expended by the recipient of a Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement to pay any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, and officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of Member of Congress in connection with any of the following covered Federal actions: the awarding of any Federal contract, the making of any Federal grant, the making of any Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, AGENDA ITEM #6. e) continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement. 10.15. Lobbying Restrictions Statutory Provisions 1. Non-Federal entities shall comply with 2 C.F.R. § 200.450 (“Lobbying”), which incorporates the provisions of 31 U.S.C. § 1352; the “New Restrictions on Lobbying” published at 55 FR 6736 (February 26, 1990); and OMB guidance and notices on lobbying restrictions. In addition, non-Federal entities must comply with the DOC regulations published at 15 C.F.R. Part 28, which implement the “New Restrictions on Lobbying”. These provisions prohibit the use of Federal funds for lobbying the executive or legislative branches of the Federal Government in connection with the award and require the disclosure of the use of non-Federal funds for lobbying. Lobbying includes attempting to improperly influence, meaning any influence that induces or tends to induce a Federal employee or officer to give consideration or to act regarding a Federal award or regulatory matter on any basis other than the merits of the matter, either directly or indirectly. Costs incurred on to improperly influence are unallowable. See 2 C.F.R. § 200.450(b) and (c). 2.Disclosure of Lobbying Activities Any non-Federal entity that receives more than $100,000 in Federal funding shall submit a completed Form SF-LLL, “Disclosure of Lobbying Activities,” regarding the use of non-Federal funds for lobbying. The Form SF-LLL shall be submitted within 30 days following the end of the calendar quarter in which there occurs any event that requires disclosure or that materially affects 22 | December 26, 2014, the accuracy of the information contained in any disclosure form previously filed. The non-Federal entity must submit any required Forms SF-LLL, including those received from subrecipients, contractors, and subcontractors, to the Grants Officer. 10.16. Confidentiality The Parties acknowledge that the prohibitions against disclosure of information or records described in this Section 18.20 is limited by and not applicable where any law, rule, regulation or court proceeding requires or allows disclosure of information and documents, and neither Party is required to notify the other or any program beneficiary regarding such allowed or required disclosure. COR and any subgrantees, subcontractors or vendors must maintain confidential files on individual program beneficiaries served associated with this Agreement. Recipient staff must keep paper files in a locked filing cabinet and protect all electronic files related to individual beneficiaries with a personal password. The service providers shall maintain primary access to individual beneficiary files. Other project management staff may have access to these files only if they contain a “release of information” consent form signed by the individual beneficiary. A release of information form must clearly indicate which parties may have access to an individual beneficiary’s file. Such parties might include the management staff and USDOT staff. COR may only share individual beneficiary files with those parties listed on the signed form. If an individual beneficiary has not signed the consent form the parties listed may not read that individual beneficiary’s file. These categories serve as guidelines to COR staff and management staff. COR must determine if the individual beneficiary’s confidential information will significantly affect the safety and security of that individual or COR itself. 10.17. Entire Agreement This Agreement, including its Recitals and Exhibits, embodies the Parties entire Agreement on the matters covered by it, except as supplemented by subsequent amendments to this Agreement. All prior negotiations and draft written agreements are merged into and superseded by this Agreement. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) 20.0. FLOW DOWN PROVISIONS If COR contracts or subawards funds under this Agreement with a person or entity to perform work under this award, COR shall include in the contract or subaward agreement such provisions as may be necessary to ensure that all contractors and subgrantees comply with the requirements of the grant and reporting provisions as set forth in these terms and conditions or as established by USDOT and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) All subgrantees are required to obtain a Unique Entity ID (or update its existing record), in the System for Award Management prior to award. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereby agree to the terms and conditions of this Agreement as of the date written below. Subawardee:PSRC: 1055 South Grady Way Puget Sound Regional Council Public Works 1201 3rd Avenue, Suite 500 Renton, WA 98507 Seattle, Washington 98101 By:By: Armondo Pavone Mayor, City of Renton Josh Brown, Executive Director Puget Sound Regional Council Date: Date: Approved as to form: NAME,CONTRACTOR Attorney By: __________________________ NAME,TITLE Subawardee AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Exhibit A Scope of Work for City of Renton Anticipated Tasks and Timeline: See Attached Schedule (Exhibit A Schedule) Objective/Task Date/Period of Completion 1. Data Collection and Analysis of Road Network 3/1/2025 Review and update city’s high injury network and validate the serious injury or fatality (SIF) rate, crash data analysis, crash risk factors, and roadway geometry. Objective: summarize and compare analysis against previous 5-year period for any growth in SIF crashes or risk factors 2. Existing Policy and Safety Program Review 3/1/2025 Review existing city policies, traffic operations practices & policies, and other traffic safety policies & programs. Objectives: Evaluate the city’s policy framework for gaps or need for additional policy steps to achieve Vision Zero goals & initiatives. 3. Equity Analysis & Focused Engagement 3/31/2025 Evaluate and understand which communities may be most impacted by transportation planning decisions, Engage community members on what they consider equity priorities Objectives: Develop a framework for incorporating equity into roadway safety; Augment quantitative data analysis with community input to include populations who may be underrepresented in traditional data and processes 4. Policy Development and Action Plan Initiatives 5/31/2025 Consultant will be asked to use engagement and participation outcomes to develop draft strategies or initiatives that can be implemented reasonably or with cooperation from stakeholders. Objectives: Convene a task force or work group to develop principles and goals for Vision Zero strategies that prioritize: building and sustaining leadership, collaboration and accountability; collecting and analyzing data on an ongoing basis; equity and engagement; leading wit roadway design that prioritizes safety; managing speed; and leverage technology advances. 5. Scoping and Development of Prioritized Safety Projects/Initiatives 6/30/2025 Consultant will be asked to develop conceptual scope(s) of work for any specific roadway safety projects or programs that would improve safety conditions meeting the Vision Zero principals and goals. Objective: Rank or prioritize potential capital safety projects for implementation as well as any programs such as educational safety programs that could be implemented by the City on a frequent basis. Community Outreach/Task Force Work Group 7/31/2025 Consultant will be asked to assist with forming and facilitating a task force or work group comprised of a blend of city staff, police staff, and community members to lead the evaluation of Vision Zero principals, equity goals, and program goals and outcomes. The task force may conduct a community road safety audit to engage fully with community members about identified road concerns. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Objectives: Engage citizen or task force participation in identifying safety features in their community; Provide regular public updates about the Plan and collect public feedback. 6. Council Report-outs and Plan Adoption 10/1/2025 Consultant may be asked to assist with graphics, presentation slides, or materials for council briefings during the Plan AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Exhibit B Project Budget Amounts Based on $400,000 Grant Award, $100,000 Match Item Grant Share Match Personnel 8000 2,000 Fringe Benefits 0 0 Travel 0 0 Equipment 0 0 Contractual (Professional Services) (expenses for public engagement and/or citizen safety audit event may be an allowable expense from consultant - such as but not limited to bike helmets, safety vests, prizes/financial incentives, lunches - as allowed per FHWA Guidelines and 2 CFR § 200.403; language interpretation and translation services may be an allowable expense from consultant) 392000 8000 Construction 0 0 Total Direct Charges 400000 100000 Indirect Charges Total Charges 400000 100000 AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Exhibit C Requisition for Payment and Reporting Template To: Puget Sound Regional Council Attn: Accounts Payable 1201 3rd Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, Washington 98101 From: City of Renton Attn: Ellen Talbo 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98507 Project Title: Renton Comprehensive Safety Action Plan Project Agreement Number: 2024-12 Invoice Period: From to . Budget Table Line Item Current Expense Total Expense to Date Contract Budget Personnel $ $ $ Fringe Benefits $ $ $ Travel $ $ $ Equipment $ $ $ Supplies $ $ $ Contractual $ $ $ Other $ $ $ Total Direct Charges $ $ $ Indirect Charges $ $ $ Total Requisition this Period $ $ $ I certify that the expenses listed above have been properly incurred in the accomplishment of the services of this agreement. Name, Title Date AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AB - 3716 City Council Regular Meeting - 09 Dec 2024 SUBJECT/TITLE: 120 Day Closure – Houser Way North RECOMMENDED ACTION: Refer to Transportation (Aviation) Committee DEPARTMENT: Public Works Transportation Systems Division STAFF CONTACT: Jim Seitz, Transportation Systems Director EXT.: 7245 FISCAL IMPACT SUMMARY: There is no fiscal impact to the city by adopting the resolution. SUMMARY OF ACTION: The I-405, Renton to Bellevue Widening and Express Toll Lanes (ETL) Project is intended to increase the capacity of the I-405 freeway. The project also builds infrastructure for Sound Transit’s Stride Bus Rapid Transit system including a new inline transit station at Northeast 44th Street in Renton. Bus rapid transit, paired with the ETL system, will provide more reliable transportation options for people. As part of this project, a 120-day closure of Houser Way North between Lake Washington Boulevard North and Lowe’s business access road is needed in 2025 to perform vital work for the project. This project needs to complete the installation of a City of Renton watermain, install shoring, and excavate to construct two large drainage outfall structures. This 120-day closure is anticipated to occur between January 21, 2025, and May 22, 2025, with notifications provided to the public in accordance with the Public Outreach Plan in Exhibit A. All business access will be maintained throughout the duration of the closure. Work performed during this period includes the following: 1. Installation of a 12” City of Renton watermain. 2. Installation of soldier pile shoring to support two storm drainage outfall structures. 3. Storm drainage structure excavation. 4. Jack and bore of (3) 42” diameter storm drainage pipes. This milestone will create the space needed to install City water infrastructure and provide improved storm drainage as part of the I-405, Renton to Bellevue, Widening and Express Toll Lanes Project. WSDOT’s public outreach plan is attached and includes one flier for businesses within proximity to the street closure along with the localized detour plan. EXHIBITS: A. Public Outreach Plan B. WSDOT Project Flier with Primary Detour Routes C. Resolution STAFF RECOMMENDATION: AGENDA ITEM #6. f) Adopt the resolution authorizing the 120-day closure to occur between January 21, 2025, and May 22, 2025, for the purpose of installing the City of Renton watermain and improving storm drainage facilities supporting the I-405, Renton to Bellevue, Widening and Express Toll Lane Project. AGENDA ITEM #6. f) Page | 1 I- 5Renton to Bellevue Wideningand Express Toll Lanes Project 2025 Closure of Houser Way North between Lake Washington Boulevard North and the Lowe’s Business Access Road Houser Way North: 120 Day Closure – occurring between January 21, 2025, and May 22, 2025 Scope of work: 120-day closure of Houser Way North between Lake Washington Boulevard North and Lowes Business Access to install a City of Renton watermain and construct storm drainage improvements. Completing this work supports the construction of WSDOT Express Toll Lanes and Sound Transit Bus Rapid Transit systems. Outreach methods: • 14-day advanced notification to businesses and residents • Fliers to businesses and residents outlined in the Figure 1 map to the right • Flier provided to City of Renton for internal distribution • Social media and WSDOT Blog posts notifying the public of the closure o Coordination with the City of Renton to share social media posts from the project • Hotline and project inbox information provided on fliers, blogposts, and project website • Message boards will be placed 14 days before the closure to notify the traveling public • Emergency services briefing ahead of closure • WSDOT availability for media Figure 1: Business flier area AGENDA ITEM #6. f) I-405, Renton to Bellevue Widening a n d Express Toll Lanes Project 120-day Closure of Houser Way North between Lake Washington Boulevard North and the Lowe’s Business Access Overview Crews working for the Washington State Department of Transportation are fully closing Houser Way North for 120 days for crews to install a City of Renton water main and construct critical storm drainage infrastructure. Houser Way North will be closed between Lake Washington Boulevard North and the Lowe’s Business Access. Detours will be provided for bicyclists and pedestrians within the work area. Motorists and material deliveries will be routed to Garden Avenue and North 8th Street. Access to all businesses is maintained throughout the duration of the closure. This key milestone for the I-405, Renton to Bellevue Widening and Express Toll Lanes project is necessary to complete widening of the I-405 freeway. Work during this closure period will include:  Installation of a 12” City of Renton Watermain  Installation of soldier pile shoring to support two storm drainage outfall structures  Storm drainage structure excavation Houser Way North will be closed between Lake Washington Boulevard North and Lowe’s Business Access Road. Access to all businesses is maintained.  Jack and bore of (3) 42” diameter storm drainage pipes Lane and Ramp Closures 120-day closure between January 21, 2025 and May 22, 2025 (advance notice provided)-Full closure of Houser Way North between Lake Washington Boulevard North and Lowe’s Business Access AGENDA ITEM #6. f) 1 CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. _______ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AUTHORIZING TEMPORARY FULL STREET CLOSURE OF HOUSER WAY NORTH BETWEEN LAKE WASHINGTON BOULEVARD NORTH AND LOWE’S BUSINESS ACCESS ROAD. WHEREAS, the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) is constructing the I-405, Renton to Bellevue Widening and Express Toll Lanes (ETL) project; and WHEREAS, this construction activity will require a temporary street closure of Houser Way North between Lake Washington Boulevard and Lowe’s business access road; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the City Code section 9-9-3, such street closures require City Council authorization by means of a resolution; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DO RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. The City Council does hereby authorize the temporary closure of Houser Way North between Lake Washington Boulevard North and Lowe’s business access road for a 120-day period to occur between the dates of January 21, 2025 through May 22, 2025 for the purpose of completing construction activities related to the I-405, Renton to Bellevue Widening and Express Toll Lanes (ETL) project . SECTION II. Notice of the closure shall be posted and published as required by RMC 9-9-2 and RMC 9-9-3. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL the day of , 2024. AGENDA ITEM #6. f) RESOLUTION NO. _______ 2 ______________________________ Jason A. Seth, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2024. ______________________________ Armondo Pavone, Mayor Approved as to form: __________________________ Shane Moloney, City Attorney RES- PW:24RES029:11/26/2024 AGENDA ITEM #6. f) AB - 3717 City Council Regular Meeting - 09 Dec 2024 SUBJECT/TITLE: Amendment #1 – GCB 2433, WSDOT Project Coordinator Agreement RECOMMENDED ACTION: Refer to Finance Committee DEPARTMENT: Public Works Transportation Systems Division STAFF CONTACT: Jim Seitz, Transportation Systems Director EXT.: 7245 FISCAL IMPACT SUMMARY: Amendment #1 increases the maximum amount payable by WSDOT to the City by $200,000, from $240,000 to $440,000. SUMMARY OF ACTION: The I-405, Renton to Bellevue Widening and Express Toll Lanes (ETL) Project is intended to increase the capacity of the I-405 freeway. The project also builds infrastructure for Sound Transit’s Stride Bus Rapid Transit system including a new inline transit station at Northeast 44th Street in Renton. Bus rapid transit, paired with the ETL system, will provide more reliable transportation options for people. Back on March 11, 2019, the City entered into an agreement (GCB 2433) in which WSDOT agreed to reimburse the city for costs directly related to services for the I-405 – Renton to Bellevue Corridor Widening and Express Toll Lanes Project. Services include project coordination and expedited reviews. The purpose of this amendment #1 is to increase the maximum amount payable by WSDOT to the City by $200,000, from $240,000 to $440,000 and increase the number of billable hours from 3,000 to 5,500. The amendment is needed because the project was originally scheduled to be completed by the end of 2024 and now is projected to be completed by the end of 2025. EXHIBITS: A. Amendment #1 – GCB 2433 B. Resolution STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute Amendment # 1 – GCB, WSDOT Project Coordinator agreement, in support of the I-405, Renton to Bellevue, Widening and Express Toll Lane Project. AGENDA ITEM #6. g) GCB 2433 Amendment No. 1 Page 1 of 2 GCB 2433 Coordinator Agreement City of Renton I-405 – Renton to Bellevue Corridor Widening and Express Toll Lanes Project Amendment No. 1 THIS Amendment No. 1 is made and entered into by the City of Renton (CITY) and the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), collectively referred to as the “Parties” and individually referred to as “Party.” Recitals A. The Parties entered into the Design-Build Coordinator and City Staff Review Agreement (“GCB 2433”) on March 11, 2019, which provided CITY expedited services and WSDOT to reimburse the CITY for costs directly related to services for the project known as the I-405 – Renton to Bellevue Corridor Widening and Express Toll Lanes Project (“Project”). B. GCB 2433 Section 7.1 allows for the Parties to adjust or increase the number of hours based on the Project contract duration as mutually agreed by both Parties. C. The Project contract duration has been extended to a later date than anticipated at the signing of GCB 2433. D. In consideration of the change in the Project contract duration, GCB 2433 estimate does not reflect the actual number of hours for CITY services in GCB 2433 and it is necessary to amend GCB 2433 to reflect the current estimate and the maximum Agreement amount agreed to by the Parties. Now therefore, pursuant to Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 39.34.080, which authorizes a public agency to contract with another public agency to perform any governmental service that each public agency is authorized to perform, and in consideration of the terms, conditions, covenants, and performances contained herein, it is mutually agreed as follows: 1. The dates in the first sentence of Section 5.2 “June 2019 and December 2024”, are hereby replaced with “June 2019 and December 2025”. 2. The number of hours in the third to last sentence in Section 7.1 “three thousand (3000)”, is hereby replaced with “five thousand five hundred (5500)”. 3. Section 7.4 is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: 7.4 The maximum amount payable by WSDOT to the CITY under this Agreement is Four Hundred Forty Thousand Dollars ($440,000). AGENDA ITEM #6. g) GCB 2433 Amendment No. 1 Page 2 of 2 4. All other terms and conditions of the original Agreement shall remain in full force and effect, except as modified by this Amendment No. 1. In witness whereof, the Parties hereto have executed this Amendment No. 1 as of the latest date written below: CITY WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION By: By: Armondo Pavone Lisa Hodgson Mayor I-405/SR 167 Program Administrator Date: Date: APPROVED AS TO FORM APPROVED AS TO FORM By: By: Not required per WSDOT process. Printed: Printed: Not required per WSDOT process. Title: Assistant Attorney General Not required per WSDOT process. Date: Date: Not required per WSDOT process. AGENDA ITEM #6. g) 1 CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. _______ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO ENTER INTO CAG-19-059 AMENDMENT NO 1, TO AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH WSDOT, WHICH AMENDMENT IS TITLED “GCB 2433 COORDINATOR AGREEMENT CITY OF RENTON I-405 – RENTON TO BELLEVUE CORRIDOR WIDENING AND EXPRESS TOLL LANES PROJECT, AMENDMENT NO. 1.” WHEREAS, the City and Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) are authorized, pursuant to RCW Chapter 39.34, the Interlocal Cooperation Act, to enter into an interlocal government cooperative agreement; and WHEREAS, City and WSDOT entered into “GCB 2433 Coordinator Agreement City of Renton I-405 – Renton to Bellevue Widening and Express Toll Lanes Project” (the “Agreement”) in March 2019, which provides that WSDOT will reimburse the City for certain costs spent by a City project coordinator on the I-405 – Renton to Bellevue Corridor Widening and Express Toll Lanes Project (the “Project”) City Numbered CAG-19-059; and WHEREAS, the duration of the Project has increased from the originally estimated duration, requiring the City and WSDOT to adjust the terms of the Agreement relating to project duration, number of hours spent by the project coordinator, and the maximum agreement amount; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DO RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. The Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized to enter into CAG-19-059 Amendment No 1, to an interlocal agreement with WSDOT, which amendment is titled “GCB AGENDA ITEM #6. g) RESOLUTION NO. _______ 2 2433 Coordinator Agreement City of Renton I-405 – Renton to Bellevue Corridor Widening and Express Toll Lanes Project, Amendment No. 1” attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated by this reference. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL the day of , 2024. Jason A. Seth, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2024. Armondo Pavone, Mayor Approved as to form: Shane Moloney, City Attorney RES- PW:24RES030:11/27/2024 AGENDA ITEM #6. g) RESOLUTION NO. _______ 3 EXHIBIT “A” Click or tap here to enter text. AGENDA ITEM #6. g) GCB 2433 Amendment No. 1 Page 1 of 2 GCB 2433 Coordinator Agreement City of Renton I-405 – Renton to Bellevue Corridor Widening and Express Toll Lanes Project Amendment No. 1 THIS Amendment No. 1 is made and entered into by the City of Renton (CITY) and the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), collectively referred to as the “Parties” and individually referred to as “Party.” Recitals A. The Parties entered into the Design-Build Coordinator and City Staff Review Agreement (“GCB 2433”) on March 11, 2019, which provided CITY expedited services and WSDOT to reimburse the CITY for costs directly related to services for the project known as the I-405 – Renton to Bellevue Corridor Widening and Express Toll Lanes Project (“Project”). B. GCB 2433 Section 7.1 allows for the Parties to adjust or increase the number of hours based on the Project contract duration as mutually agreed by both Parties. C. The Project contract duration has been extended to a later date than anticipated at the signing of GCB 2433. D. In consideration of the change in the Project contract duration, GCB 2433 estimate does not reflect the actual number of hours for CITY services in GCB 2433 and it is necessary to amend GCB 2433 to reflect the current estimate and the maximum Agreement amount agreed to by the Parties. Now therefore, pursuant to Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 39.34.080, which authorizes a public agency to contract with another public agency to perform any governmental service that each public agency is authorized to perform, and in consideration of the terms, conditions, covenants, and performances contained herein, it is mutually agreed as follows: 1. The dates in the first sentence of Section 5.2 “June 2019 and December 2024”, are hereby replaced with “June 2019 and December 2025”. 2. The number of hours in the third to last sentence in Section 7.1 “three thousand (3000)”, is hereby replaced with “five thousand five hundred (5500)”. 3. Section 7.4 is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: 7.4 The maximum amount payable by WSDOT to the CITY under this Agreement is Four Hundred Forty Thousand Dollars ($440,000). AGENDA ITEM #6. g) GCB 2433 Amendment No. 1 Page 2 of 2 4. All other terms and conditions of the original Agreement shall remain in full force and effect, except as modified by this Amendment No. 1. In witness whereof, the Parties hereto have executed this Amendment No. 1 as of the latest date written below: CITY WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION By: By: Armondo Pavone Lisa Hodgson Mayor I-405/SR 167 Program Administrator Date: Date: APPROVED AS TO FORM APPROVED AS TO FORM By: By: Not required per WSDOT process. Printed: Printed: Not required per WSDOT process. Title: Assistant Attorney General Not required per WSDOT process. Date: Date: Not required per WSDOT process. AGENDA ITEM #6. g) AB - 3718 City Council Regular Meeting - 09 Dec 2024 SUBJECT/TITLE: Bid Award-Renton Highlands Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Phase 3 CAG-24-001, Project No. WWP-27-04282 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Council Concur DEPARTMENT: Public Works Utility Systems Division STAFF CONTACT: Jesse Neman EXT.: FISCAL IMPACT SUMMARY: Insituform Technologies, LLC submitted the lowest bid of $2,808,428.24, exceeding the engineer’s estimate of $1,940,000 by $872,282.57 (45%). This project is a collaboration between the Wastewater and Surface Water Utility Sections. The Wastewater Utility’s portion of the construction cost is $2,496,109.39. There are sufficient funds available in the remaining unencumbered 2024 adjusted budget for the Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation and Replacement account (426.465521) of $1,760,007 and the approved 2025 budget of $2,000,000 for the project. The total available budget for the project is $3,760,007. The Surface Water Utility’s portion of the project construction cost is $312,318.85. The remaining unencumbered funds in the 2024 adjusted budget for the for the Small-Scale Stormwater Projects account (427.475015) is $784,000, which is sufficient funding for the project. Both accounts have the adequate funds needed for the award of the construction contract. SUMMARY OF ACTION: The Renton Highlands Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Project Phase 3 will rehabilitate approximately 31,277 linear feet (LF) of deteriorated sewer main and 2,526 LF of deteriorated storm main with Cured in Place Pipe (CIPP). The pipe sizes to be lined with CIPP range from 8-inches to 12-inches in diameter. The bid opening met the following Council crieria: 1) There was more than one bid submitted; 2) The lowest responsive and responsible bid was within budget; and 3) There were no substantive irregularities with the lowest responsive and responsible bid. Bids for this construction contract were received and opened on Tuesday, November 12, 2024. Three bids were submitted, and the bid amounts are summarized below. Engineers Estimate $1,940,000.00 Bid submitted by Bid amount Insituform Technologies, LLC $2,808,428.24 AGENDA ITEM #6. h) Iron Horse, LLC $2,830,919.09 SAK Construction, LLC $2,926,375.53 The lowest responsible bid is within each project budget and contains no irregularities. Determination of responsive bid and responsible bidder The Wastewater Utility staff has reviewed the submitted bid and determined that it is responsive. Additionally, Insituform Technologies, LLC has been deemed a responsible bidder in accordance with RCW 39.04.350, Renton City Policy 250-02, and section 1-02.14 of the project specifications (refer to Exhibit B). As an industry leader in CIPP technology, Insituform Technologies, LLC brings extensive experience working with multiple jurisdictions, including the City of Renton. EXHIBITS: A. Final Bid Tabulation B. Bidder Assessment C. City Clerk Bid Tab STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Award the construction contract to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, Insituform Technologies, LLCin the amount of $2,808,428.24 and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the construction contract CAG-24-001. AGENDA ITEM #6. h) Project Renton Highlands Sanitary Sewer Rehab PH III City of Renton Insituform Technologies, LLC Iron Horse, LLC SAK Construction, LLC BID DATE:12-Nov-24 Engineers Estimate Item No. Description Unit Quantity Unit Price Bid Amount Unit Price Bid Amount Unit Price Bid Amount Unit Price Bid Amount Schedule A A01 Mobilization & Demobilization Lump Sum 1 60,000.00 60,000.00 2,718.00 2,718.00 $125,000.00 125,000.00 $19,000.00 19,000.00 A02 Temporary Traffic Control Lump Sum 1 50,000.00 50,000.00 195,723.00 195,723.00 $165,000.00 165,000.00 $180,000.00 180,000.00 Subtotal A 110,000.00 Subtotal A 198,441.00 Subtotal A 290,000.00 Subtotal A 199,000.00 Sales Tax A (10.3%)11,330.00 Sales Tax A (10.3%)20,439.42 Sales Tax A (10.3%)29,870.00 Sales Tax A (10.3%)20,497.00 Total A 121,330.00 Total A 218,880.42 Total A 319,870.00 Total A 219,497.00 Schedule B Sewer Items B01 CIPP Pre-installation Cleaning and Inspection Linear Foot 31,277 3.25 101,650.25 9.00 281,493.00 $4.00 125,108.00 $6.00 187,662.00 B02 Furnish and Install 8" Cured-in-Place Pipe Linear Foot 30,154 40.00 1,206,160.00 49.00 1,477,546.00 $56.00 1,688,624.00 $60.75 1,831,855.50 B03 Furnish and Install 10" Cured-in-Place Pipe Linear Foot 936 50.00 46,800.00 130.00 121,680.00 $62.00 58,032.00 $62.00 58,032.00 B04 Furnish and Install 12" Cured-in-Place Pipe Linear Foot 187 55.00 10,285.00 332.00 62,084.00 $115.00 21,505.00 $64.00 11,968.00 B05 Lateral Reinstatement Each 417 180.00 75,060.00 187.00 77,979.00 $150.00 62,550.00 $200.00 83,400.00 B06 Trim Intruding Laterals Each 2 500.00 1,000.00 271.00 542.00 $300.00 600.00 $1,500.00 3,000.00 B07 Point Repairs Each 1 1,000.00 1,000.00 3,805.00 3,805.00 $7,800.00 7,800.00 $32,000.00 32,000.00 B08 Post Installation Inspection Linear Foot 31,277 1.00 31,277.00 1.00 31,277.00 $1.00 31,277.00 $1.00 31,277.00 B09 Minor Change Per Estimate 1 30,000.00 30,000.00 30,000.00 30,000.00 $30,000.00 30,000.00 $30,000.00 30,000.00 Subtotal B 1,503,232.25 Subtotal B 2,086,406.00 Subtotal B 2,025,496.00 Subtotal B 2,269,194.50 Sales Tax B (10.3%)154,832.92 Sales Tax B (10.3%)214,899.82 Sales Tax B (10.3%)208,626.09 Sales Tax B (10.3%)233,727.03 Total B 1,658,065.17 Total B 2,301,305.82 Total B 2,234,122.09 Total B 2,502,921.53 Percentage Sewer Cost 91%Percentage Sewer Cost 89%Percentage Sewer Cost 89%Percentage Sewer Cost 92% Schedule C Storm Items C01 CIPP Pre-installation Cleaning and Inspection Linear Foot 2,526 3.25 8,209.50 11.00 27,786.00 $4.00 10,104.00 $6.00 15,156.00 C02 Furnish and Install 8" Cured-in-Place Pipe Linear Foot 326 40.00 13,040.00 86.00 28,036.00 $56.00 18,256.00 $63.00 20,538.00 C03 Furnish and Install 10" Cured-in-Place Pipe Linear Foot 1,021 50.00 51,050.00 53.00 54,113.00 $62.00 63,302.00 $65.00 66,365.00 C04 Furnish and Install 12" Cured-in-Place Pipe Linear Foot 1,179 55.00 64,845.00 135.00 159,165.00 $141.00 166,239.00 $68.00 80,172.00 C05 Lateral Reinstatement Each 6 180.00 1,080.00 179.00 1,074.00 $150.00 900.00 $200.00 1,200.00 C06 Trim Intruding Laterals Each 2 500.00 1,000.00 271.00 542.00 $300.00 600.00 $1,500.00 3,000.00 C07 Post Installation Inspection Linear Foot 2,526 1.00 2,526.00 1.00 2,526.00 $1.00 2,526.00 $1.00 2,526.00 C08 Minor Change Per Estimate 1 15,000.00 15,000.00 15,000.00 15,000.00 $15,000.00 15,000.00 $15,000.00 15,000.00 Subtotal C 156,750.50 Subtotal C 288,242.00 Subtotal C 276,927.00 Subtotal C 203,957.00 Sales Tax C 0.00 Sales Tax C 0.00 Sales Tax C 0.00 Sales Tax C 0.00 Total C 156,750.50 Total C 288,242.00 Total C 276,927.00 Total C 203,957.00 Percentage Storm Cost 9.00%Percentage Storm Cost 11%Percentage Storm Cost 11%Percentage Storm Cost 8% Total Sewer Cost A +B (Tax Inc.) 1,768,475.47 Total Sewer Cost A +B (Tax Inc.) 2,496,109.39 Total Sewer Cost A +B (Tax Inc.) 2,518,806.39 Total Sewer Cost A +B (Tax Inc.) 2,704,858.77 Total Storm Cost A +C (Tax inc.) 167,670.20 Total Storm Cost A +C (Tax inc.) 312,318.85 Total Storm Cost A +C (Tax inc.) 312,112.70 Total Storm Cost A +C (Tax inc.) 221,516.76 Total All Schedules 1,936,145.67 Total All Schedules 2,808,428.24 Total All Schedules 2,830,919.09 Total All Schedules 2,926,375.53 Corrected Sum (JN) AG E N D A I T E M # 6 . h ) Item Description Determination 1. A Proposal will be considered irregular and will be rejected if: Criteria Met (Per Below) 1.a. The bidder is not prequalified when so required; Not required for this project. 1.b. The authorized proposal form furnished by the Contracting Agency is not used or is altered. Authorized proposal form used. 1.c. The complete proposal form contains any unauthorized additions, deletions, alternate bids, or conditions; No edits to proposal conditions. 1.d. The bidder adds provisions reserving the right to reject or accept the award, or enter into the Contract; No edits to proposal conditions. 1.e. A price per unit cannot be determined from the bid proposal; Price per unit clearly identified. 1.f. The proposal form is not properly executed; Proposal form submitted with bid. Signed by Whittney Schulte. 1.g. The Bidder fails to submit or properly complete a Subcontractor list, if applicable, as required in Section 1-02.6. Subcontractor list submitted with bid. 1.h.The bidder fails to submit or properly complete a Disadvantaged, Minority or Women’s Business Enterprise Certification, if applicable, as required in Section 1-02.6; or Not applicable 1.i. The bid proposal does not constitute a definite and unqualified offer to meet the material terms of the bid invitation. Definite and unqualified offer. 1.j. More than one proposal is submitted for the same project from a Bidder under the same or different names.One proposal submitted. Item Description Determination 2. A Proposal may be considered irregular and may be rejected if: Criteria Met (Per Below) 2.a. The Proposal does not include a unit price for every Bid item. Unit price included for every bid item. 2.b.Any of the unit prices are excessively unbalanced (either above or below the amount of a reasonable Bid) to the potential detriment of the Contracting Agency; All unit prices considered reasonable and balanced. 2.c. The authorized Proposal Form furnished by the Contracting Agency is not used or is altered; Proposal form submitted with bid. Signed by Whittney Schulte. 2.d. The completed Proposal form contains any unauthorized additions, deletions, alternate Bids, or conditions; No edits to proposal conditions. Bidder Assessment CAG-24-001 Bid Opening: November 12, 2024 Bidder: Insituform Technologies, LLC Renton Highlands Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Phase 3 2024 WSDOT Standard Specifications 1-02.13 Irregular Proposals L&I Doing Business As (DBA): Insituform Technologies, LLC City Special Provisions 1-02.13 Irregular Proposals WA UBI: 601-880-220 License No.: INSITTL883CW Entity Type: Corporation Bidder Assessment-Renton Highlands Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation - Phase 3 Page 1 of 3 AGENDA ITEM #6. h) 2.e. Receipt of Addenda is not acknowledged; Not applicable, there was no addenda, however form was submitted and signed by Whittney Schulte. 2.f.A member of a joint venture or partnership and the joint venture or partnership submit Proposals for the same project (in such an instance, both Bids may be rejected); or No evidence that members of a joint venture or partnership submitted multiple proposals. 2.g. If the Proposal form entried are not made in ink. Proposal form entries made in ink. Item Description Determination 1.A Bidder will be deemed not responsible and the proposal rejected if the bidder does not meet the responsibility criteria in RCW 39.04.350. Criteria Met (Per Below) (1)Before award of a public works contract, a bidder must meet the following responsibility criteria to be considered a responsible bidder and qualified to be awarded a public works project. The bidder must: Criteria Met (Per Below) YES L&I Acct ID: 882,695-01 Account is CURRENT (1)(b) Have a current state unified business identifier number; WA UBI: 601-880-220 (1)(c)If applicable, have industrial insurance coverage for the bidder's employees working in Washington as required in Title 51 RCW; Meets current requirements Per L&I (1)(d) Not be disqualified from bidding on any public works contract under RCW 39.06.010 or 39.12.065(3); No debarments have been issued against this contractor Per L&I. (1)(e) If bidding on a public works project subject to the apprenticeship utilization requirements in RCW 39.04.320, not have been found out of compliance by the Washington state apprenticeship and training council for working apprentices out of ratio, without appropriate supervision, or outside their approved work processes as outlined in their standards of apprenticeship under chapter 49.04 RCW for the one-year period immediately preceding the date of the bid solicitation; The project is not subject to apprenticeship utilization requirements as the Engineer's Estimate was below $2,000,000.00. (1)(f) Have received training on the requirements related to public works and prevailing wage under this chapter and chapter 39.12 RCW. The bidder must designate a person or persons to be trained on these requirements. The training must be provided by the department of labor and industries or by a training provider whose curriculum is approved by the department. The department, in consultation with the prevailing wage advisory committee, must determine the length of the training. Bidders that have completed three or more public works projects and have had a valid business license in Washington for three or more years are exempt from this subsection. The department of labor and industries must keep records of entities that have satisfied the training requirement or are exempt and make the records available on its web site. Responsible parties may rely on the records made available by the department regarding satisfaction of the training requirement or exemption; and Exempt from this requirement Per L&I. (1)(g) Within the three-year period immediately preceding the date of the bid solicitation, not have been determined by a final and binding citation and notice of assessment issued by the department of labor and industries or through a civil judgment entered by a court of limited or general jurisdiction to have willfully violated, as defined in RCW 49.48.082, any provision of chapter 49.46, 49.48, or 49.52 RCW. No lawsuits against the bond or savings accounts during the previous 6 year period, per L&I. (2) Before award of a public works contract, a bidder shall submit to the contracting agency a signed statement in accordance with chapter 5.50 RCW verifying under penalty of perjury that the bidder is in compliance with the responsible bidder criteria requirement of subsection (1)(g) of this section. A contracting agency may award a contract in reasonable reliance upon such a sworn statement. Submitted with bid. Signed by Whittney Schulte. (1)(a) At the time of bid submittal, have a certificate of registration in compliance with chapter 18.27 RCW; City Special Provisions 1-02.14 Disqualification of Bidder RCW 39.04.350 Bidder Assessment-Renton Highlands Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation - Phase 3 Page 2 of 3 AGENDA ITEM #6. h) 2. A bidder may be deemed not responsible and the proposal rejected if: Criteria Met (Per Below) 2.a. More than one proposal is submitted for the same project from a bidder under the same or different names;One proposal submitted. 2.b.Evidence of collusion exists with any other bidder or potential bidder. Participants in collusion will be restricted from submitting further bids; No evidence of collusion. 2.c. The bidder, in the opinion of the Contracting Agency, is not qualified for the Work or to the full extent of the bid, or to the extent that the bid exceeds the authorized prequalification amount as may have been determined by a prequalification of the bidder; Bidder considered to be qualified. 2.d. An unsatisfactory performance record exists based on past or current Contracting Agency Work or for Work done for others, as judged from the standpoint of conduct of the Work; workmanship; progress; affirmative action; equal employment opportunity practices; or Disadvantaged Enterprise, Minority Enterprise, or Women’s Business Enterprise utilization; No evidence of unsatisfactory performance. 2.e.There is uncompleted Work (Contracting Agency or otherwise) which might hinder or prevent the prompt completion of the Work bid upon; No evidence of uncompleted work. 2.f. The bidder failed to settle bills for labor or materials on past or current contracts; No evidence of unsettled bills. 2.g.The bidder has failed to complete a written public contract or has been convicted of a crime arising from a previous public contract; No evidence of failure to complete a public contract. 2.h. The bidder is unable, financially or otherwise, to perform the Work; No evidence of inability to perform the Work. 2.i. A bidder is not authorized to do business in the State of Washington (not registered in accordance with RCW 18.27); Meets current requirements Per L&I. 2.j. There are any other reasons deemed proper by the Contracting Agency. No other reasons for rejection. 3 In addition to the bidder responsibility criteria in subsection (1) of this section, the state or municipality may adopt relevant supplemental criteria for determining bidder responsibility applicable to a particular project which the bidder must meet. Criteria Met (Per Below) a Supplemental criteria for determining bidder responsibility, including the basis for evaluation and the deadline for appealing a determination that a bidder is not responsible, must be provided in the invitation to bid or bidding documents. Suplemental bidding criteria included in bid documents b In a timely manner before the bid submittal deadline, a potential bidder may request that the state or municipality modify the supplemental criteria. The state or municipality must evaluate the information submitted by the potential bidder and respond before the bid submittal deadline. If the evaluation results in a change of the criteria, the state or municipality must issue an addendum to the bidding documents identifying the new criteria. No bidders requested for this matter during bidding period c If the bidder fails to supply information requested concerning responsibility within the time and manner specified in the bid documents, the state or municipality may base its determination of responsibility upon any available information related to the supplemental criteria or may find the bidder not responsible. Not applicable d If the state or muncipality determines a bidder to be not responsible, the state or municipality must provide, in writing, the reasons for the determination. The bidder may appeal the determination with the time period specified in the bidding documents by presenting additional information to the state or municipality. The state or municipality must consider the additional information before issuing its final determination. If the final determination affirms that the bidder is not responsible, the state or municipality may not execute a contract with any other bidder until two business days after the bidder determined to be not responsible has received the final determination. Not applicable Bidder Assessment-Renton Highlands Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation - Phase 3 Page 3 of 3 AGENDA ITEM #6. h) CITYOF RENTON BID TABULATION SHEET Project:Renton Highlands Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Phase 3 Project -CAG-24-001 Due Date:November 12,2024 m—Bid TOtaI from Riddpr Addpn ?rhpdulp ——————.lvr’h“.a.“.quy Triple form Cert Bond Compl List Ack *lncludes Sales Tax Inshufornw 580 Goddard Ave 1 Chester?eld Mo X X X X X X $2,808,428.24 63005 Iron Horse,LLC. PO.Box 1472 Fairview OR 97024 $2,830,919.09 SAK Construction,LLC 864 Hoff Road O'Fallon .>> MO X X . X X > X > X $2,929,375.53 63366 Engineer's Estimate:$1,940,000.00 (includes tax) AG E N D A I T E M # 6 . h ) CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. _______ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING TWO ADDENDA RELATING TO EQUITY AND IMPROVING HOUSING CHOICES TO THE CITY OF RENTON HOUSING ACTION PLAN. WHEREAS, the City of Renton Business Plan 2024-2029 states a goal to encourage and partner in the development of quality housing choices for people of all ages and income levels; and WHEREAS, the City of Renton is subject to the planning requirements of the Growth Management Act (Chapter 36.70A of the Revised Code of Washington) (“GMA”); and WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution 4449, the City of Renton adopted a Housing Action Plan with goals to promote diverse neighborhoods, build sustainable and complete housing ecosystems, promote more market-rate housing production, expand local housing opportunities for low- and moderate-income households, and increase the supply of subsidized, income qualified housing; and WHEREAS, on October 5, 2020, the City of Renton adopted Ordinance 5983 which authorized an additional sales and use tax for affordable housing, behavioral health, and housing related services under RCW 82.14.530; and WHEREAS, analysis and recommendations for allocations for funding using the tax revenue over time has been compiled as a document titled Support for Ordinance 5983 Sales Tax Funding; and WHEREAS, housing policy recommendations for middle housing will allow more diverse and affordable housing options for Renton’s residents and future households; and AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) RESOLUTION NO. _______ 2 WHEREAS, pursuant to GMA, each city must use a racial equity analysis and establish anti-displacement policies to ensure there will be no net displacement of very low, low, or moderate-income households or individuals from racial, ethnic, and religious communities which have been subject to discriminatory housing policies in the past; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on July 3, 2024 regarding addenda to the Housing Action Plan, considered all relevant matters, and heard all parties in support or opposition, and subsequently forwarded a recommendation to the City Council; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DO RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. The City Council adopts the document Support for Ordinance 5983 Sales Tax Funding, attached as Exhibit A and incorporated by this reference, as an addendum to the City of Renton Housing Action Plan. SECTION II. The City Council adopts the document Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review and Racial Equity Analysis, attached as Exhibit B and incorporated by this reference, as an addendum to the City of Renton Housing Action Plan. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL the ______ day of _____________________, 2024. ______________________________ Jason A. Seth, City Clerk AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) RESOLUTION NO. _______ 3 APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this ______ day of _____________________, 2024. ______________________________ Armondo Pavone, Mayor Approved as to form: ______________________________ Shane Moloney, City Attorney CED:24RES027:11/13/24 AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) RESOLUTION NO. _______ A EXHIBIT A Support for Ordinance 5983 Sales Tax Funding An Addendum to the Housing Action Plan AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) City of Renton SUPPORT FOR ORDINANCE 5983 SALES TAX FUNDING AN ADENDUM TO THE HOUSING ACTION PLAN August 2021 Drafted December 2024 Adopted AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) 2200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 1000 Seattle, Washington 98121 P (206) 324-8760 www.berkconsulting.com “Helping Communities and Organizations Create Their Best Futures” Founded in 1988, we are an interdisciplinary strategy and analysis firm providing integrated, creative and analytically rigorous approaches to complex policy and planning decisions. Our team of strategic planners, policy and financial analysts, economists, cartographers, information designers and facilitators work together to bring new ideas, clarity, and robust frameworks to the development of analytically -based and action-oriented plans. AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) i Summary of Recommendations On October 5, 2020, Renton City Council adopted Ordinance 5983 to authorize an additional sales and use tax for affordable housing, behavioral health, and housing-related services under RCW 82.14.530, which was passed with House Bill 1590. The research in this report informs a series of recommendations to the City to guide the use of this 0.1% sales tax funding, as well as longer-term questions in program monitoring and evaluation. The research in this report includes a review of available statistics on overall needs for affordable housing, emergency and transitional housing needs for people experiencing homelessness, and behavioral health services. Additionally, major providers related to these areas were interviewed to compile information on current trends and needs in the community. Based on the research findings, the following recommendations are provided for allocations of funding over time. The focus should be on acquiring strategic resources, including housing units and properties for new development, in conjunction with available partners (e.g., Renton Housing Authority, local non-profits, private equity). Additionally, pilot programs are also proposed to test other support programs. Major allocations include: ▪ Overall management, including engagement and consultation with local stakeholders, and regular reporting. ▪ Strategic leveraging of City resources to acquire housing units or land for future development, to be coordinated with available partners. ▪ Development of a permanent emergency shelter, potentially with supportive services such as a meal program, laundry and hygiene facilities, and navigation services. ▪ Capital and maintenance funding to develop affordable housing with local partners, including the Renton Housing Authority (RHA) and local nonprofits (potentially through a competitive application process). This would also include joint regional facilities with neighboring jurisdictions, potentially through South King Housing and Homelessness Partners (SKHHP) or i ndividual agreements. ▪ Maintenance of behavioral health field response as a pilot program, with a review of the associated outcomes. ▪ A pilot program for additional behavioral health services for Renton residents, granted through a contract with a local provider. ▪ A pilot program for rental assistance, coordinated with an external partner to provide supporting funds to recipients in the community at risk of housing instability. AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) City of Renton | Ordinance 5983 Assessment ii ▪ Development of affordable housing on banked land with available housing partners. ▪ Additional funding support for affordable housing development by the Renton Housing Authority, and other partners. Funding should also be allocated to address longer-term maintenance and operations of the facilities acquired under this program. ▪ The development of an additional emergency shelter, potentially as a regional response to meet more specialized needs, coordinated with neighboring communities. ▪ A review and adjustment of pilot programs, including the behavioral health services (including field response) and rental assistance programs. AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) City of Renton | Ordinance 5983 Assessment iii Table of Contents Summary of Recommendations ....................................................................................................... i Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................ iii Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1 Context Overview ........................................................................................................................ 2 Legislation ............................................................................................................................... 2 Current Support ........................................................................................................................ 3 Data Review .............................................................................................................................. 10 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 10 Housing Needs ........................................................................................................................ 10 Specific Housing Needs by Category ........................................................................................... 19 Homelessness ....................................................................................................................... 24 Behavioral Health Needs ........................................................................................................... 28 Interviews ................................................................................................................................ 29 Approach ............................................................................................................................... 29 Summary of Findings ................................................................................................................ 30 Funding Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 33 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 33 Proposed Investment .............................................................................................................. 35 Implementation ...................................................................................................................... 38 AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) 1 Introduction On October 5, 2020, the Renton City Council adopted Ordinance 5983 to authorize an additional sales and use tax for affordable housing, behavioral health, and housing-related services under RCW 82.14.530, which implemented House Bill 1590. This was made possible by changes by the Washington State Legislature to the statute in March 2020 that allowed the City Council to impose the tax through councilmanic action. To help guide the use of this revenue to address issues of housing affordability, homelessness, and behavioral health in the community, this report outlines high-level needs and recommended actions by the City to address existing and future gaps. To help understand these gaps and the importance of action, it includes assessments of: ▪ Overall housing and behavioral health issues in the community. ▪ Available resources for housing-related and behavioral services that serve the specified low-income groups. ▪ Existing gaps in available affordable housing, housing-related services, and behavioral health services. ▪ The contributions of different organizations to meeting low-income housing needs and behavioral health needs in Renton. This report presents two main sources of information related to this work: ▪ Existing sources of data are compiled and reviewed to quantify the supply, demand, and gaps with existing services in housing and behavioral health available in Renton. ▪ Interviews were conducted and are summarized in this document to provide a qualitative perspective on needs, resources, and gaps with respect to housing and behavioral health providers in the city. These data sources inform a series of recommendations to the City to guide the use of Ordinance 5983 sales tax funding, as well as longer-term questions of program monitoring and evaluation. The remainder of the report is structured into the following sections: ▪ An overview of the legislation and City of Renton context, including a discussion of current services and expenditures and funding. ▪ A data review to highlight information about major themes in housing, homelessness, and behavioral health in the community. ▪ A summary of interviews discusses the outcomes from the conversations, and how these results align with the overall discussion of needs for these services. ▪ Finally, a description of funding support recommendations incorporates the information collected as part of this review and presents actionable advice to guide the use of Ordinance 5983 funding over the long-term. AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) City of Renton | Ordinance 5983 Assessment 2 Context Overview Legislation In 2015, the Washington State Legislature passed ESHB 2263, which in part provided a new local option for cities to create a retail sales and use tax that could support affordable housing, behavioral health facilities, and operations and maintenance costs related to these types of programs and facilities. However, while this program had the potential to provide a new source of revenue, only two cities were able to get approval for the sales tax increase from voters.1 Recognizing the growing need to address local resource needs to address these issues, the Legislature updated the provision of this sales and use tax option implemented under RCW 82.14.530. The most important adjustment was through HB 1590 in 2020, which allowed the tax to be passed with councilmanic authority instead of requiring voter approval at an election, making it more flexible for cities to use. Additional changes were made under ESHB 1070 in April 2021, which provided revisions to the allowed uses for the funding and other smaller amendments. Currently, the provisions of RCW 82.14.530 state that a 0.1% sales tax can be imposed after September 30, 2020, if counties did not decide to impose this tax first. Under the statute, at least 60% of the revenue received must be used on the following activities: ▪ Constructing or acquiring affordable housing, which may include emergency, transitional, and supportive housing and new units of affordable housing within an existing structure, and facilities providing housing-related services, or acquiring land for these purposes. ▪ Constructing or acquiring behavioral health-related facilities or acquiring land for these purposes. ▪ Funding the operations and maintenance costs of new units of affordable housing and facilities where housing-related programs are provided, or newly constructed evaluation and treatment centers. The remaining funding (40% or less) can be used for the operation, delivery, or evaluation of behavioral health treatment programs and services or housing-related services. The housing and housing-related programs are restricted to only include specific populations: ▪ Persons with behavioral health disabilities ▪ Veterans ▪ Senior citizens ▪ Persons who are homeless or at-risk of being homeless, including families with children ▪ Unaccompanied homeless youth or young adults ▪ Persons with disabilities ▪ Domestic violence survivors 1 The cities of Ellensburg and Olympia passed theses sales tax with voters in 2018. AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) City of Renton | Ordinance 5983 Assessment 3 Current Support Funding Data from the Washington State Auditor’s Office Local Government Financial Reporting System (LGFRS) can be used to track social services funding. For Renton, this data shows regular funding of social services, including funding related to general welfare, seniors, domestic violence, and homelessness over multiple departments, is increasing over time. Exhibit 1 presents the amount of funding provided for social services in city expenditures from 2013 to 2020. This indicates that funding for these items has increased both on an absolute and per capita basis, rising from $1.8 million in 2013 to about $3 million in 2020, or about 7% per year on average. The majority of Renton’s financial support highlighted in this data is indicated as being directed towards the following: ▪ Welfare, amounting to about $11.1 million in expenses since 2013, largely associated with activities under “Serving vulnerable/low income” and “Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)” line items for the current Community Services budget. ▪ Aging and disability services, amounting to $4.7 million in expenses since 2013, largely related to the operation of the senior center. ▪ Domestic violence prevention, totaling $1.2 million between 2013 and 2020 to support a DV advocate and related expenses. ▪ Mental health services ($372K) and chemical dependency services ($197K) Exhibit 2 provides amounts in total and per capita social services expenditures for Federal Way, Auburn, Redmond, and Kent. While the LGFRS data may be categorized differently and not match completely, it provides a landscape view of social services spending and suggests that Renton’s expenditures are generally midrange. City-level reporting can provide a more detailed view of expenditures. Listed in Exhibit 3 is City of Renton Human Services Agency funding provided to individual organizations, many that support housing and services related to housing, homelessness, and behavioral health. Aside from this funding, other recent major contributions provided by the City for these purposes include the following: Housing projects ▪ Sunset Oaks: $700,000 grant, assistance in securing other funding, waived fees. ▪ Sunset Court: Assistance in property acquisition, assistance in securing a 9% Low -Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) allocation and other funding, waived fees. ▪ Sunset Gardens: $1.5 million in Ordinance 5983 funding, assistance in securing other funding. ▪ Willowcrest Townhomes: $357,000 in grants, assistance in securing other funding, waived fees Shelters ▪ REACH Center of Hope: City Hall space, direct financial contribution ($120,000 in 2021) AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) City of Renton | Ordinance 5983 Assessment 4 Emergency Assistance & Mental/Behavioral Health Services ▪ Emergency rental and food assistance: $650,000 in CARES Act funding for food assistance and emergency rental assistance ▪ Community Court: Expected to support diversion to prescribed treatment and services as an alternative to incarceration. Community Centers ▪ Renovation/development of the Sunset Neighborhood Center: $400,000 grant ▪ Family First Community Center: $4,000,000 in support AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) City of Renton | Ordinance 5983 Assessment 5 Exhibit 1. City of Renton Social Services Spending, 2013–2020. Source: SAO Local Government Financial Reporting System, 2021. Exhibit 2. Social Services Spending, Amount and Per Capita by City, 2020. Source: SAO Local Government Financial Reporting System, 2021. AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) City of Renton | Ordinance 5983 Assessment 6 Exhibit 3. City of Renton Human Services Agency Funding, 2019-2020. ORGANIZATION AMOUNT Catholic Community Services $62,747 Communities in Schools of Renton $51,315 St. Vincent de Paul/St. Anthony Conference $35,780 King County Sexual Assault Resource Center $32,000 YWCA Seattle King Snohomish $29,000 Domestic Abuse Women's Network $26,500 Renton Area Youth and Family Services $24,880 Sound Generations $20,500 Crisis Clinic $20,000 Ukrainian Community Center of WA $17,500 HealthPoint $17,000 Multi-Service Center $17,000 St. Vincent de Paul Seattle King County $16,000 Friends of Youth $15,000 Lifewire $10,515 King County Bar Foundation $10,500 Seattle-King County Dept. of Public Health $10,000 Valley Cities Counseling and Consultation $10,000 Washington Poison Center $9,000 Renton Kiwanis Clothes Bank $8,500 Way Back Inn $8,000 Refugee Women's Alliance $7,800 Aerospace Joint Apprenticeship Comm. $7,500 Bridge Disability Ministries $7,500 Children's Therapy Center $7,500 Feminist Women's Healthcare Center $7,500 Institute for Family Development $7,500 Issaquah School Foundation $7,500 Mother Africa $7,500 Nexus Youth & Family $7,500 Orion Industries $7,500 Partners In Employment $7,500 Puget Sound Training Ctr $7,500 The Salvation Army $7,500 West African Community Council $7,500 Margie Williams Helping Hands $5,000 TOTAL $562,037 Source: City of Renton, 2021. AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) City of Renton | Ordinance 5983 Assessment 7 Available Income-Restricted Housing Income-restricted affordable housing units are provided by different organizations in Renton. Locations of these housing units are displayed on a map of Renton in Exhibit 5. In this map, the Renton Housing Authority properties are highlighted to demonstrate the distribution of these units. According to information provided from the National Housing Preservation Database (NHPD) and other sources, there is a supply of almost 2,000 income-restricted low-income housing units in the city, with a development pipeline of almost 600 affordable units at different stages.2 Additionally, many existing income-restricted units were updated as part of the Renton Housing Authority’s recently completed rehabilitation and modernization work, which invested about $57 million into their existing projects. Different sources highlight how these income-restricted housing units fit local needs: ▪ From the projects identified in the NHPD dataset, available subsidized units cater mainly to elderly and/or disabled households (58% of units), and families (18% of units). ▪ A 2019 analysis of South King County communities highlighted that from 1,580 units identified, 75% were accessible to households at 60% AMI or below, while only about 133 units, or 8% of this total, were accessible at 30% AMI or below.3 Available Emergency Shelter Space Emergency space in Renton is limited, but two programs have historically offered shelter services. The ARISE program, coordinated by Catholic Community Services NW, provides overnight shelter for men in temporary space within churches in the community. The REACH Center of Hope is a permanent shelter for 10–12 families and is being relocated to the Lakeridge Lutheran Church as part of the “Hope on the Hill” partnership. Future additional emergency shelter space is anticipated through King County’s purchase of the Extended Stay America Hotel in Renton as part of the Health Through Housing program. 2 National Housing Preservation Database, 2021. 3 “South King County Subregional Housing Action Framework – Task 2 Housing Context Assessment Methods Memo”, ECONorthwest, 2020. AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) City of Renton | Ordinance 5983 Assessment 8 Exhibit 4. Available Income-Restricted Housing, City of Renton. NAME OWNER UNITS Housing Authorities Cedar Park Apartments Renton Housing Authority 244 Houser Terrace Renton Housing Authority 104 Vantage Point Apartments King County Housing Authority 77 Cedar River Terrace Renton Housing Authority 72 Sunset Oaks Renton Housing Authority 62 Hillcrest Terrace Renton Housing Authority 60 Golden Pines Renton Housing Authority 53 Evergreen Terrace Renton Housing Authority 50 Sunset Court Renton Housing Authority 50 Cole Manor Renton Housing Authority 28 Kirkland Avenue Townhomes Renton Housing Authority 18 Chantelle Renton Housing Authority 17 Highland House Renton Housing Authority 15 Glennwood Townhomes Renton Housing Authority 8 Non-Profits Liberty Square Apartments DASH 92 Compass Veterans Center Renton Lutheran Regional Veterans Program / Compass Housing Alliance 58 June Leonard Place Low-Income Housing Institute (LIHI) 48 Renton Family Housing Catholic Housing Services of Western Washington 42 Good Shepherd I Good Shepherd Lutheran Home 12 Good Shepherd II Good Shepherd Lutheran Home 12 For-Profit Royal Hills Apartments PPMG, Inc. 284 The Reserve at Renton Affordable Housing CDC Inc. 217 Stonebrook Apartments HNN Associates, LLC 193 Spencer Court Apartments MS Real Estate Co. 74 Heritage Grove Apartments Pacific Living Properties 51 Peak 88 Apartments Pacific Living Properties 33 Merrill Gardens Merrill Gardens 31 Sources: Renton Housing Authority, 2021; National Housing Preservation Database (NHPD), 2021; BERK, 2021. AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) City of Renton | Ordinance 5983 Assessment 9 Exhibit 5. Location of Available Income-Restricted Housing, City of Renton. Sources: City of Renton, 2020; BERK, 2021. AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) City of Renton | Ordinance 5983 Assessment 10 Data Review Introduction To provide a high-level understanding of the potential needs for low-income housing and behavioral health, this report compiles available information from multiple sources to characterize the supply of available housing and services, as well as the demand from the Renton community. This includes the following information: ▪ A high-level review of the overall housing needs in the community, including current and projected needs and estimated costs for addressing housing insecurity in the community. ▪ Specific housing needs by category, as specified in the legislation. ▪ An understanding of the behavioral health needs in the community, with quantitative measures where possible. ▪ A review of the capacity and gaps to meet these needs, including areas where additional support will be essential. Although available data can provide some guidance as to the needs and gaps for different groups in the city, this information was supplemented with qualitative interviews summarized in the following section. Housing Needs Comparisons of Income and Housing It is important to understand how the distribution of incomes within a community compares to the housing that is affordable to them. Exhibit 6 provides a distribution of the income levels of households in Renton. This is categorized according to tenure (renters versus owners) and income bracket based on Area Median Income (AMI). Exhibit 7 provides the distribution of renting households in King County and Renton by income categories, as well as the proportions of rental housing affordable at each income category. This information highlights the following: ▪ Overall, about 47% of renters in Renton are considered low-income, with household incomes of 80% AMI or lower. This is generally comparable to King County as a whole. ▪ For renting households, affordable units do not line up with the needs by income level. Most notably, there is a significant lack of affordable housing affordable to extremely low -income households, with only 9% of housing affordable to those making 30% AMI or below. This suggests that there are significant gaps at the lower end of the market, where subsidies are usually required for households to afford housing. ▪ There are also concerns with the availability of units at the upper end of the market (affordable at 80% AMI or above). While market-rate housing is outside of the scope of this analysis, downrenting by higher-income households of housing affordable to lower -income households contributes to affordability challenges for low-income households. AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) City of Renton | Ordinance 5983 Assessment 11 Exhibit 6. Households by Tenure and Income Level, City of Renton. Sources: HUD CHAS (based on ACS 2017 5-year estimates); BERK, 2021. Exhibit 7. Renter Households and Affordable Housing Supply, City of Renton. Sources: HUD CHAS (based on ACS 2017 5-year estimates); BERK, 2021. AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) City of Renton | Ordinance 5983 Assessment 12 Housing Cost Burdens Exhibits 8 and 9 describe cost burdens experienced by households renting in Renton by income category, by percent, and number respectively. This information includes the most recent data available from the 2017 CHAS dataset provided by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development, and highlights households that are cost burdened (paying more than 30% of their income on rent) and severely cost burdened (paying more than half their income on rent). To understand how this relates to the availability of affordable housing, Exhibit 10 shows the differences between renting households at or below a given AMI, compared to the total supply of housing affordable at that income level or lower. This represents all households and housing in the current market, to generally show what affordable housing certain households have access to in the local area right now, and how many units short Renton is with respect to meeting needs at different income levels. This indicates the following: ▪ About 46% of renters in the city are experiencing some level of housing cost burden, and 21% of renters are paying over half their income on rent. ▪ These burdens are related strongly to income: about 30% of households with incomes at 30–50% AMI are paying over half their income on rent, and 69% of households at 0–30% AMI are severely cost burdened. ▪ At incomes of 50% AMI or below, over 6,000 households in Renton are facing some level of housing burden, with over 3,800 households experiencing severe cost burdens. ▪ For extremely low-income households earning 30% AMI or below, there is a significant gap in available affordable housing, with an estimated shortfall of about 2,415 units today. This gap is reduced when considering households at 50% AMI or below, suggesting that the most significant needs are with extremely low-income households and many of these households may have to access housing that is less affordable to them. ▪ Overall, these distributions across income categories highlight evidence of both uprenting, with low- income households taking on increased housing burdens, and downrenting, with higher-income households paying less than 30% of their incomes on rent, potentially for units that would be more affordable to lower-income households. To better understand the likely cost burdens faced by residents of the city, it is possible to generate the cost of the total housing cost burden faced by all low-income households in Renton. While these burdens cannot be fully addressed with this funding, especially given its constraints, this can provide a sense of the scale of the problem as compared to these available resources. Data from the Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) from the American Community Survey for 2019 was used to calculate the total housing subsidies necessary to address housing burdens for Renton households at 60% AMI or below. This is divided by: ▪ Tenure: Renters versus owners. ▪ Housing costs burdens: severe housing cost burdens (all housing costs above 50% of income), or all housing cost burdens (above 30% of income). ▪ Income level: Extremely low-income households (<30% AMI) versus households at 30–60% AMI. AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) City of Renton | Ordinance 5983 Assessment 13 From this assessment, total cost burdens for households at 60% AMI or below amount to $94 million per year, with about $64 million for all renting households, and around $30 million for cost burdens for low- income households renting in the city. While not all these burdens can be addressed with this sales tax funding, this highlights that the housing cost burden in the community will exceed available revenue sources, requiring prioritization in housing support. Exhibit 8. Housing Cost Burden of Renters by Income Category, Percent, City of Renton. Sources: HUD CHAS (based on ACS 2017 5-year estimates); BERK, 2021. AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) City of Renton | Ordinance 5983 Assessment 14 Exhibit 9. Housing Cost Burden of Renters by Income Category, Number of Households, City of Renton. Sources: HUD CHAS (based on ACS 2017 5-year estimates); BERK, 2021. Exhibit 10. Gaps in Affordable Housing by Income Threshold, City of Renton. Sources: HUD CHAS (based on ACS 2017 5-year estimates); BERK, 2021. AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) City of Renton | Ordinance 5983 Assessment 15 Exhibit 11. Aggregate Annual Housing Cost Burdens, City of Renton. Sources: ACS PUMS, 2019; BERK, 2021. AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) City of Renton | Ordinance 5983 Assessment 16 Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing In understanding how the current housing market can manage current housing needs, examining naturally occurring affordable housing can also be important. In the open market, there are cases where units may be affordable but not maintained through subsidies. These housing units are often older and more obsolete than the rest of the housing stock, but because of their condition, the rents charged for these spaces are lower. As they present a source of unsubsidized affordable housing in the local market, understanding the populations they serve and how they can be maintained with lower rents can be an important part of affordable housing policy. Estimates of the availability of naturally occurring affordable housing in Renton are provided in Exhibit 12, based on the analysis of CoStar data from the South King Housing (SoKiHo) sub-regional housing assessment framework.4 This provides a count of the available market-rate units by the number of bedrooms, according to the affordability for two different income categories: 50–80% AMI (low-income), and less than 50% AMI (very low- and extremely low-income). This indicates that about 62% of units that are market-rate and affordable at 50% AMI or below consist of either studio or 1-bedroom apartments. This highlights that larger low-income households (such as those with children) may have greater challenges finding affordable units on the market. This is especially true for larger family sizes, where availability may be very limited, and overcrowding would be likely. Exhibit 12. Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing Units by Size, City of Renton. Source: EcoNorthwest, 2020; CoStar, 2020. 4 For more information, see visit econw.shinyapps.io/south-kc-policy-analysis-tool. AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) City of Renton | Ordinance 5983 Assessment 17 Future Housing Needs Beyond the discussions of current housing needs above, there are also considerations that more affordable housing will be needed in the future. Exhibit 13 highlights the overall expected housing needs in Renton estimated over the next 20 years, considering both short-term housing underproduction and expected needs into the future. This figure is based on estimates from the 2017 Land Use Vision modeling coordinated by the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) and is presented as part of the South King Housing (SoKiHo) framework. This projection indicates the following: ▪ Overall, about 2,590 housing units, or about 28% of the total housing demand, will need to be built in the future to address the needs of households with incomes of 60% AMI or lower. ▪ For extremely low-income households making 30% AMI or below, about 894 units in this assessment will be required to meet demand. These units will require significant subsidy, either through the City or partners. This assessment is based on earlier measures with previous growth targets for the city. Under new Countywide Planning Policies approved in July 2021, Renton has set a new target of 17,000 new housing units between 2019 and 2044. ▪ Based on these proportions, this would require around 4,750 new units at 60% AMI or below, including around 1,650 new units at 30% AMI or below over the next 20 years. ▪ Meeting the needs of affordable housing for extremely low-income households alone would require building $500–660 million in new housing, or about $25–33 million per year in today’s dollars over a 20-year period.5 This would require the most significant subsidies, and other support (e.g., grants, surplus land for development, etc.) would still be necessary to address other needs for the 4,750 units needed at 60% AMI and below. Note that these assessments are over and above the needs that are identified in the current market, such as the need for an additional 2,415 units to meet the needs of households at 30% AMI or below. Additionally, many of the other gaps in the affordable housing stock today, such as with family-sized housing, will likely widen as growth continues unless addressed. 5 This assumes a cost of $300,000 to $400,000 per unit for construction in current dollars, and only includes costs of development and not ongoing costs with maintenance and operations. AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) City of Renton | Ordinance 5983 Assessment 18 Exhibit 13. Projected Housing Needs for the City of Renton, 2019–2040. Source: EcoNorthwest, 2020. AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) City of Renton | Ordinance 5983 Assessment 19 Specific Housing Needs by Category People with Disabilities Exhibit 14 provides a distribution of renter households in the city, divided between: ▪ Households with at least one member with a disability providing limitations on self-care or independent living. ▪ Households with at least one member with another disability. ▪ All other households. This data highlights that higher proportions of households with lower incomes have household members with disabilities, with the highest proportions among extremely low-income households. This highlights that challenges with housing affordability will increase with household members with disabilities, especially considering the need for appropriate housing that meets their needs. This challenge with affordability should be recognized in funding support, especially for funding that can be used to address deficiencies in available housing. Exhibit 14. Renter Households With At Least One Member with Disability, City of Renton. Sources: HUD CHAS (based on ACS 2017 5-year estimates); BERK, 2021. AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) City of Renton | Ordinance 5983 Assessment 20 Seniors The following exhibits highlight housing income distributions for seniors: ▪ Exhibit 15 provides a distribution of cost-burdened renter households by income and household type (including seniors living alone and senior couples). ▪ Exhibit 16 highlights a distribution of severely cost-burdened renter households by income and household type. ▪ Exhibit 17 describes the distribution of owner households by income and household type. These figures indicate the following: ▪ For cost-burdened and severely cost-burdened households, a greater proportion of extremely low- income households consist of seniors, especially seniors living alone. Twenty percent of cost- burdened renters at 30% AMI or below are seniors living alone, and 16% of severely cost burdened households are seniors living alone. ▪ Cost burdens for seniors that own their homes are not as significantly related to income. While a greater proportion of cost-burdened owners are seniors, about 29% of cost-burdened households making AMI or above are considered “cost burdened”. Altogether, this suggests that while a greater proportion of low-income cost-burdened households that are renting are seniors, this relationship is not as clear when it comes to housing burdens for owner- occupied housing. Exhibit 15. Renter Cost-Burdened Households by Household Type (Elderly/Other), City of Renton. Sources: HUD CHAS (based on ACS 2017 5-year estimates); BERK, 2021. AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) City of Renton | Ordinance 5983 Assessment 21 Exhibit 16. Renter Severely Cost-Burdened Households by Household Type (Elderly/Other), City of Renton. Sources: HUD CHAS (based on ACS 2017 5-year estimates); BERK, 2021. Exhibit 17. Owner Cost-Burdened Households, by Household Type (Elderly/Other), City of Renton. Sources: HUD CHAS (based on ACS 2017 5-year estimates); BERK, 2021. AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) City of Renton | Ordinance 5983 Assessment 22 Domestic Violence Housing needs for survivors of domestic violence are often more challenging than other types of housing needs. Temporary shelters, transitional housing, and permanent housing options typically require anonymity, and affected individuals and families can often experience severe disruptions in housing stability and security. To understand general trends in domestic violence in Renton, Exhibit 18 highlights the volume of monthly calls from the Renton Police Department coded as domestic disputes related to domestic violence. As noted in this figure, the number of calls varies between about 175 to 250 per month, or 5.7 to 8 per day on average, with the highest volume recorded in July 2019. No significant change is noticeable from this data, however. Anecdotal evidence does suggest that the social isolation and stress related to the COVID-19 pandemic may be related to an increase in domestic violence that may not be reported.6 Similarly, many cases of domestic violence typically go unreported. Coupled with income and housing instability, there may be future needs that will only be possible to identify well after the impacts of the pandemic have receded. Exhibit 18. Domestic Violence Calls by Month, City of Renton. Source: Renton Police Department, 2021. 6 See Seattle and King County Public Health, Domestic Violence Patterns in King County, WA: March-September 2020. AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) City of Renton | Ordinance 5983 Assessment 23 Veterans Among the civilian population aged 18 and over in Renton, about 6.5% (5,104) are veterans, versus 5.8% in King County overall, according to 2019 5-year ACS data. In Renton, veterans are more likely to have risk factors associated with higher levels of housing instability than non-veterans: ▪ 11.9% are in poverty (versus 8.6% of non-veterans). ▪ 4.9% are unemployed (versus 3.5% of non-veterans). ▪ 28.8% have at least one disability (versus 11.7% of non-veterans). While these factors would suggest a higher rate of housing instability, there are avenues of support available to veterans that are not accessible to other households at risk for housing instability. Specifically, access to additional federal resources for healthcare and housing through the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), can also help with unmet housing and health needs, but will not alleviate all the needs of veterans in the community. AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) City of Renton | Ordinance 5983 Assessment 24 Homelessness The major source of data in the region on homelessness is the annual Seattle/King County Point-in-Time count of people experiencing homelessness. The 2020 Report7 highlights major trends in homelessness across the region, including demographics, health conditions, reasons for homelessness, and types of shelter. This count does not provide specific counts for Renton. However, aggregated counts are provided for different subareas in the county, as shown in Exhibit 19. Renton is in the “Southwest County” area, with Algona, Auburn, Burien, Des Moines, Federal Way, Kent, Milton, Normandy Park, Pacific, Renton, SeaTac, Tukwila, Vashon Island, and other unincorporated parts of King County. This information indicates the following: ▪ Overall counts of people experiencing homelessness. Overall estimates of annual point-in-time counts from 2017 to 2020 are provided in Exhibit 20, with the proportion of the total found in the Southwest Area indicated in the graph. Over time, the count of people experiencing homelessness is relatively stable at around 12,000 individuals, with the Southwest Area accounting for about 15– 18% of this total or around 1,900–2,000 people. ▪ General demographics. From the recent 2020 Point-in-Time Count, general statistics for individuals experiencing homelessness in the county include the following:  About 19% are under 18 years old.  Around 35% are experiencing homelessness for the first time.  About 64% have been experiencing homelessness for a year or more.  The most common reasons for homelessness include job loss, alcohol/drug use, and eviction.  In 2020, over half of respondents had a psychiatric or emotional condition, with two-thirds indicating that this kept them from maintaining stable housing. Other common health conditions included post-traumatic stress disorder (47%) and substance use (44%)  Families with children account for 32% of the total population of people experiencing homelessness.  People fleeing domestic violence or abuse account for about 10% of the homeless population, with 69% unsheltered.  Unaccompanied youth comprise about 8% of the total homeless population of the county, with 27% representing different gender identities (e.g., gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, etc.).  Veterans account for about 7% of the total number of people in the county experiencing homelessness, with a downward trend since 2017. 7 See All Home, Count Us In: Seattle/King County Point-in-Time Count of Individuals Experiencing Homelessness, 2020. AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) City of Renton | Ordinance 5983 Assessment 25 Exhibit 19. Point-In-Time Count Reporting Areas. Source: All Home, 2020. Exhibit 20. Point-In-Time Counts of People Experiencing Homelessness, King County. Source: All Home, 2020. AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) City of Renton | Ordinance 5983 Assessment 26 ▪ Shelter status. For the population of people experiencing homelessness in the Southwest Area overall, Exhibit 21 highlights the breakdown of people with shelter (including transitional housing and emergency shelter space) versus those without adequate shelter. This highlights that from the total, only about 42–47% of the people experiencing homelessness in the count are able to find some type of space for shelter, with this proportion slightly decreasing over time. ▪ Overall regional proportion. With respect to shelter space, it can be difficult to determine the city of residence for people experiencing homelessness, especially those experiencing chronic homelessness. However, 6% of countywide respondents reported that their last permanent address was Renton in the 2019 Count, which was the second most frequent response after Seattle. ▪ Youth homelessness. More detailed information on the characteristics of students experiencing homelessness is available from the Washington State Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction through the Comprehensive Education Data and Research System (CEDARS). In addition to providing information about students that are sheltered or unsheltered, this information highlights other housing situations, such as doubling-up in housing or temporary shelter at a hotel/motel. What should be highlighted here is that doubling-up is the most common expression of homelessness, with about 74% of students experiencing homelessness finding temporary shelter in this way. This points to a much more extensive issue with access to affordable housing that also needs to be addressed. For emergency shelter space targets, it is a complex task to set fair targets between communities to meet these needs. The annual Point-in-Time reports provide physical counts, but they involve self-reported data and may not identify people that do not want to participate or are finding temporary shelter in other ways (e.g., doubling up, hotel rooms, etc.). People experiencing homelessness may need to relocate to more urban locations where they can receive services, including both moving from Renton to Seattle, as well as moving to Renton from surrounding suburban communities. It can also be challenging to determine someone’s city of residence for the purpose of allocating responsibilities without a stable address. A service target for Renton can be informed in two ways: ▪ Allocations at the county level. Based on the finding from the 2019 report that 6% of people experiencing homelessness reported their original place of residence as Renton. As a proportion, this suggests that Renton would need to provide emergency shelter and supportive housing for a total of around 700 people currently experiencing homelessness. At a minimum, accommodating a 6% share of currently unsheltered people would require facilities to meet the needs of 335 residents. ▪ Allocations at the subregional level. From point-in-time count tallies at the sub-regional level, about 1,937 people were experiencing homelessness in the Southwest Area, 42% of which had access to shelter. Based on a proportion of the total city population, Renton should accommodate about 365 residents. If calculated on unsheltered residents, about 210 spaces would be required. From these calculations, the minimum target for additional emergency shelter and permanent supportive housing in Renton should be around 200 spaces, which would account for an even share of the subregional count of unsheltered people in the last point-in-time count. However, the City should look to set higher targets for these services to be hosted in the community and work with partners to accommodate at least 350–400 spaces for people experiencing housing instability and homelessness. Note that this target will likely increase over time as population and housing costs increase. AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) City of Renton | Ordinance 5983 Assessment 27 Exhibit 21. Sheltered versus Unsheltered Individuals, Southwest Area. Source: All Home, 2020. Exhibit 22. Students Experiencing Homelessness, by Primary Nighttime Residence, 2019. Source: WA OSPI, Comprehensive Education Data and Research System (CEDARS), 2020. AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) City of Renton | Ordinance 5983 Assessment 28 Behavioral Health Needs Providing enhanced behavioral health treatment options is also an important component of an integrated approach under this sales tax funding option. In addition to providing for better overall quality of life through access to treatment, addressing these health needs can be an important part of the supportive services that can keep people housed. Over half of respondents in the Point-in-Time Count noted that they had a psychiatric or emotional condition, with a significant portion of respondents noting that PTSD and substance use were also health conditions of concern that keep many from maintaining stable housing. To understand general trends in the demand for behavioral health services, Exhibit 23 shows data from the Washington State Department of Health Comprehensive Hospital Abstract Reporting System (CHARS). This database system provides aggregated data on inpatient and observation intakes at area hospitals by three-digit zip code aggregations, with information on intakes related to behavioral health issues, divided according to distinct types of issues. This graph shows that while intakes due to behavioral health conditions dropped significantly in 2020 due to the pandemic, there was a 39% growth in intakes from 2017 to 2019. The most significant increases were with “Schizophrenia and other non-mood psychotic”, which increased 49% in this time, and other substance use aside from alcohol, which amounted to 46% in that same period. This rapid increase may suggest that there has been a distinct rise recently in the need for behavioral health services, especially in more severe cases that may challenge someone’s housing stability. Exhibit 23. Inpatient/Observation Patient Stays, Mental/Behavioral Disorders, 980 Zip Codes. Source: WA DOH, Comprehensive Hospital Abstract Reporting System, 2021. AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) City of Renton | Ordinance 5983 Assessment 29 Interviews Approach The interviews conducted as part of this research were coordinated with organizations that currently provide services in Renton or the region in areas of housing, homelessness, and behavioral health. The participating organizations are included in Exhibit 24: Exhibit 24. Project Interviews Conducted. Organization Type Representative Renton Housing Authority Affordable Housing Jill Richardson City of Renton Domestic Violence Advocate Domestic Violence Tina Harris Domestic Abuse Women’s Network (DAWN) Domestic Violence Angela Dannenbring King County Library Services Homelessness Services Melissa Glen Multi-Service Center Homelessness Services Maje Qureshi Refugee Women’s Alliance Homelessness Services Crisaan Brooks St. Vincent de Paul/St. Stephen the Martyr Homelessness Services Darlene Simpson REACH Center of Hope Homelessness Services / Emergency Shelter Maggie Breen Catholic Community Services (ARISE) Homelessness Services / Emergency Shelter Whonakee King Asian Counseling and Referral Services Behavioral Health Yoon Joo Han Renton Area Youth and Family Services (RAYS) / Childhaven Behavioral Health Angela West Ukrainian Community Center Behavioral Health Oleg Pynda Valley Cities Counseling and Consultation Behavioral Health Amber Rhodes AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) City of Renton | Ordinance 5983 Assessment 30 These interviews were intended as an “environmental scan” to determine major trends. The general focus of these interviews was on the following questions: Current Services and Programs ▪ What housing-related needs are currently underserved in Renton (either due to a lack of service options or lack of capacity to meet the need)? ▪ What are the current barriers to meeting those needs? ▪ Which housing-related services are constrained due to a lack of facilities (either housing or facilities to provide services)? ▪ What are the risks to your programs related to facilities? Future Services ▪ What are promising models to address the unmet/undermet needs in Renton? ▪ Are you currently expanding or planning to expand your services?  In what ways?  What needs are you responding to?  What are the barriers to expansion? Summary of Findings General ▪ Issues with navigation were highlighted as a major concern. Generally, engaging with multiple agencies to find services is an issue, and these problems are compounded for people of color, people with limited English ability, and people with mental/behavioral health issues. Providing more equitable access may require specially trained navigation staff that can address specific needs of subpopulations in the community. ▪ Providing services locally was seen as supporting people in retaining their connections to the community. This can also help in cases where transportation is a barrier to accessing services. ▪ In addition to providing for direct capital needs related to housing and mental and behavioral health services, there are other facility needs that may be required. Challenges with acquiring and maintaining office space may provide obstacles to service delivery, especially in cases where office costs are rising and spaces may be too small for staffing levels. Housing ▪ Providers report that help finding affordable housing is the most common request, and there are few options available due to a lack of supply and turnover. More supply of affordable housing is desperately needed. ▪ Incomes are too low for many to maintain stable housing in Renton. It can be challenging for these households to maintain housing stability without continuing subsidies or sufficient income. AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) City of Renton | Ordinance 5983 Assessment 31 ▪ The City has ongoing relationships with other agencies, including the Renton Housing Authority, and ongoing support of capital projects should continue. ▪ There is an important role for flexible temporary housing assistance through grants or loans. Covering short-term emergency expenses can make the difference between households staying in permanent housing or requiring more expensive support later. Homelessness ▪ There are very limited local services for people experiencing homelessness. Emergency shelter beds are limited throughout the region, and there is far more demand than supply. ▪ While the advantages to approaching homelessness with a “housing first” approach are important, there is still a perceived need for transitional housing, especially since there has been the perception that providing wraparound services (including mental and behavioral health services) has been a challenge. ▪ Local facilities are very limited as well. REACH Center of Hope is the only permanent shelter in Renton (serving women with children), with temporary shelter space for single adult men provided in other facilities through ARISE. The Extended Stay Hotel purchase by King County will provide some permanent supportive housing capacity when the facility opens. ▪ Other facilities may be needed to support people experiencing homelessness, in addition to shelters. Construction and staffing of hygiene centers and day centers can provide additional support, even for people who are unable or unwilling to pursue shelter options. Behavioral Health ▪ The COVID-19 pandemic has provided significant limitations to accessing mental and behavioral health services. In-person appointments have been limited, and many staff members have only been able to provide remote services by phone or video chat. This often limits contact with individuals needing support, and clients that are homeless or experiencing severe behavioral health issues may be challenged in using technology to access appointments. ▪ As with navigation in general, there are distinct cultural needs for mental and behavioral health services, and often specialized services (such as bilingual providers) are needed for different populations. While some providers can give these specific services to clients, more general service providers may have challenges in meeting a broad set of needs with available staff. ▪ There have been considerable staffing constraints to meet existing needs. During the pandemic, there have been additional challenges, but burnout and low salaries have been an ongoing challenge to recruitment and retention of staff to support services. Without additional sources of funding, these issues cannot be addressed. ▪ Child and elder care can be important support services for people accessing mental and behavioral health. This is especially true for households managing without typical child or elder care arrangements, and a lack of care options can be an obstacle in accessing support services. While this could be a service available to support appointments, it is not always available. AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) City of Renton | Ordinance 5983 Assessment 32 Specialized Needs ▪ Accommodating accessibility of affordable and emergency housing for people with disabilities can address a major obstacle to receiving needed services. Providing accessibility for people with mobility issues and other disabilities is essential in addressing major obstacles to these services. However, in many cases service providers do not have the resources or infrastructure to meet these needs themselves, which can limit the options for people with disabilities. Providing support both for the needs of these clients through supporting programs and referrals and to providers to accommodate these needs in facilities, can help address these obstacles. ▪ For people experiencing homelessness, there are few local options to address other specialized needs in Renton. Meeting the specific needs of youth, people with disabilities, domestic violence survivors, and other populations locally can be limited since even general resources are scarce. This is often due to the scale of these specialized needs, meaning that regional or metro-wide collaboration is necessary to ensure that these needs are supported. ▪ There may also be limited options for specialized behavioral health treatment that can be provided in Renton. Again, this is related to the scale of demand, where psychiatric care or specific types of behavioral therapy may only be able to be provided at regional facilities. This means that people may need to access the resources found in other communities (such as in Seattle), and coordinating access to these types of regional services is important. ▪ More local housing and service options (e.g., coordinated with surrounding communities) can help to support people at risk by maintaining their local social networks and reducing travel. From the experiences of providers, the social connections developed by people experiencing homelessness can be an important source of support. Additionally, traveling to receive services and emergency housing can be a challenge, especially if people need to access locations that would be difficult to reach by transit (such as travel to Eastside cities). AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) City of Renton | Ordinance 5983 Assessment 33 Funding Recommendations Introduction Under City estimates of revenue, the 0.1% sales tax has generated $1.1 million as of June 2021 and is expected to generate around $2.6 million for the entire year. For future years, receipts of around $2.7 million would be expected per year starting in 2022, changing with inflation and adjustments to local taxable retail sales. The following points should be considered when determining courses of action based on the findings from this report and the Housing Action Plan: ▪ The City should leverage available funding using relationships with local providers. As seen by the diversity of non-profits and religious organizations operating in Renton, there are several partners well-positioned to address issues of housing, homelessness, and behavioral health. Funding to support key investments by these organizations can facilitate planned projects that may not otherwise move forward, provide support and connections for hired staff, and reduce administrative costs to the City. ▪ New funding allocations should focus on investments that can leverage external sources. Even with cooperation from other partners, the funding available from this sales tax will not cover all identified needs. However, a flexible and reliable source of funding can help to demonstrate the viability of projects and attract additional financial support from external entities. This could include county, state, and federal grant programs, as well as the forthcoming SKHHP Capital Fund, private equity funding, and other sources. ▪ This revenue presents opportunities for reliable long-term support. One challenge that often arises is the availability and reliability of support over time. For operating expenditures such as salaries, planning around unreliable or short-term funding sources can be challenging. The City should focus on providing more reliable and consistent allocations of support that can be flexible when considering overall needs. ▪ Equity considerations should be a primary concern. Issues related to housing, homelessness, and behavioral health often have a disproportionate impact on certain populations, including people of color. Funding allocations need to consider issues with the availability of services and resources to these groups in the community. Additionally, the City should identify approaches to provide navigation services and support to address differences in access and outcomes. ▪ Regional needs require a regional response and funding. Some specialized needs, such as addressing the housing and behavioral health needs of specific populations (e.g., veterans, DV survivors), may need to be addressed at a regional scale given the proportions of people impacted. Coordinating with other jurisdictions on both capital and operating support will be important in providing regional coverage of housing and behavioral health services. This will require a consistent source of funding that can be allocated to projects over time. AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) City of Renton | Ordinance 5983 Assessment 34 ▪ Funding models should provide focused support. Many smaller awards can limit the ability to audit and review the effects of these allocations, given the increased costs of oversight. Where possible, larger and more regular funding allocations should be made with this revenue stream. ▪ Long-term planning must consider ongoing support for maintenance and operations. New facilities will require additional support for ongoing operations and maintenance costs beyond existing budgets. While immediate allocations of this funding should look to focus on capital needs, this revenue stream should provide for fiscal sustainability by giving a greater focus on operations, maintenance, and preservation/rehabilitation over time. 8 Based on estimated equity costs of about $80,000 to $400,000 per unit, drawn from multiple sources, depending upon the cost and other funding leveraged to acquire the housing units. 9 Based on estimates of “costs per day” identified in the Washington State Department of Commerce Homeless System Performance: King County Report Card for 2018 and 2019. 10 Based on estimates of “costs per successful exit” from the Homeless System Performance: King County Report Card for 2018 and 2019. 11 Developed using the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS), May 2020. Illustrative Examples of Funding Allocations With respect to the potential investment strategies for this revenue, there are many possible approaches for allocating this funding within the community. However, this funding will not be sufficient alone to address all the gaps in the local system. While the results of spending in different areas will vary based on details, there are several examples of what the funding could provide. For example, the entire amount could be used to fund any one of the following (or a combination of a portion of two or more of the following): ▪ Acquire around 10–30 affordable housing units per year, depending on market conditions.8 ▪ Support the operating costs for 100–200 person-years in rapid rehousing programs, 150–300 person-years in emergency shelters, 150–550 person-years in transitional housing, or 500–1000 person-years in homelessness prevention programs.9 ▪ Provide for the annual operating costs for around 200–400 successful exits from emergency shelter, rapid rehousing, or transitional housing into permanent housing.10 ▪ Directly support about 30–50 case workers/counselors or 20 psychologists (depending on salaries and benefits).11 AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) City of Renton | Ordinance 5983 Assessment 35 Proposed Investment Overview The statute under RCW 82.14.530 provides requirements for allocations for the funding, with: ▪ From 60% to 100% allocated to constructing or acquiring facilities for housing, housing-related services, and behavioral health, as well as ongoing operations and maintenance costs. ▪ The remaining funding (up to 40%) can be used for the operation, delivery, or evaluation of behavioral health treatment programs and services or housing-related services in other locations. This funding split is flexible and dependent on capital needs for services related to addressing housing, homelessness, and behavioral health. Given this, recommendations for funding allocations are divided between facilities support and programmatic support. Facilities Support Given the required allocations of funding and expected revenue, facility support could amount to between $1.6 and $2.7 million per year based on the projections for 2022, depending on the levels of programmatic support allocated. Based on the research coordinated, recommended options for this funding include: ▪ Strategic leveraging. As land prices in Renton will continue to increase, providing support for the strategic acquisition of existing housing and future sites for affordable housing should be a high priority for the City. This should be done in collaboration with the Renton Housing Authority and housing non-profit agencies operating in Renton and should consider the surplus lands inventory anticipated being coordinated by the City. The main focus of this effort should be on acquiring housing and property in transit-oriented locations in the Rainier/Grady Junction area and in other locations with high development pressures. ▪ Development of emergency shelter and associated support facilities. At present, there are only two emergency shelters available in Renton: one men’s shelter (ARISE) with rotating space run by Catholic Community Services, and the REACH Center of Hope facility for families experiencing homelessness. Expanding available emergency shelter space with additional permanent beds would be desirable to address the identified gaps. Additionally, new facilities could provide an ideal location for the replacement of the services formerly provided in the cold weather shelter near the Renton Airport, including meals, hygiene facilities, and other support activities. ▪ Ongoing contract support for the operation of emergency housing and supporting services ($200K–$450K). In addition to providing short-term support for the development of new emergency housing space in the community, the City should work to provide ongoing support through a contract for personnel and ongoing management of shelter space and other facilities. A staff of 2 – 5 employees would be expected for a facility providing emergency housing for 30–60 people, with additional costs and staffing based on available day services, meal programs, navigation services, and other functions. Identified costs assume that the City would contract for these services (similar to REACH) and would assume the costs, benefits, and overhead for part or all of the staff. AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) City of Renton | Ordinance 5983 Assessment 36 ▪ Ongoing development of affordable housing by the Renton Housing Authority. A significant and consistent portion of the regular revenue should be allocated to the Renton Housing Authority to support ongoing acquisition and construction of affordable housing. This revenue should be directed to support new housing at 60% AMI or below for the targeted populations identified in the statute. The City should coordinate funding support with RHA long-range planning to highlight specific opportunities for funding support. ▪ Ongoing development of affordable housing by other agencies. Additional funding for affordable housing can also be directed to support the production of housing by other partners. Where possible, this should address the identified needs for extremely low-income housing (30% AMI or below) and low-income families first, targeting support specifically to meet needs that are not easily addressed by the local market through existing and future incentives. ▪ Future support for operations and maintenance of existing facilities. Adding new affordable housing and facilities to support people experiencing homelessness and behavioral health challenges will require ongoing operations and maintenance costs. To ensure that these investments are fiscally sustainable, the City should direct funding to provide long-term operations and maintenance costs for facilities constructed or acquired under this program. Programmatic Support According to the funding model under statute and estimates of revenue, the City can allocate about $1 million per year based on the projections for 2022 to operating costs for behavioral health and housing- related services. This would include support for staffing, as well as the provision of other programs that are not directly related to acquiring and maintaining facilities. Recommended allocations for this funding include the following: ▪ Ongoing joint funding for behavioral health field response ($100K –$300K). The City is pursuing an option to fund a behavioral health professional to provide field response. This funding should be maintained over the long term to provide dependable support to the community through these positions. Based on a short-term evaluation of their effectiveness and the availability of other grant funding, the City may seek to expand funding for Renton-specific needs depending on demand. ▪ Additional wrap-around housing and behavioral health services pilot ($100K–$400K). In addition to the funding support for a field response team, support for behavioral health professionals providing wrap-around services is also needed. These professionals would be focused on the needs of Renton residents in existing emergency shelters and permanent supportive housing and provide behavioral health support on an ongoing basis. Initial efforts should be focused on a limited hire (one to two counselors or behavioral health professionals) through a contract with a local nonprofit provider, with the potential to expand these services over time. ▪ Affordable rental assistance funding pilot ($100K–$200K). Providing emergency funding to very low- and extremely low-income renters in targeted populations that are experiencing housing instability can be an effective way to avert homelessness in the community. Maintaining households that are experiencing unforeseen financial circumstances in permanent housing, can avoid the need for emergency housing services, which can reduce the costs to the community and keep these AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) City of Renton | Ordinance 5983 Assessment 37 households from being displaced. This program should be developed as a pilot to determine the potential demand for market assistance and could also include other flexible options to allow the use of this funding for assistance with housing searches, rental deposits, moving expenses, and other expenses.12 As opposed to the facilities-based expenditures, this programmatic support element should be defined by initial pilot programs, with efforts scaled up based on initial uptake, outcomes, and expected additional demand. Additional funding should be allocated based on assessments. Administration While certain elements of the proposed investments could be administered by the City departments, the management of these new resources should be shared with other agencies working with housing, homelessness, and behavioral health services in the community. Unlike current models of funding support, these expenditures would far exceed current levels of funding in the community. As a result, this would require a higher level of review and coordination, requiring investments of City staff time and resources in specific areas: ▪ Proposals/Applications. Many of the activities listed in this assessment would be coordinated with existing agencies or through relationships, for example, additional funding to the Renton Housing Authority or cooperative projects with other communities. Funding support for RHA could be negotiated separately, with other allocations to affordable housing providers coordinated through a regular competitive process, either through yearly applications or a formal Request for Proposals. Additionally, smaller outlays with rental assistance and housing preservation should also be evaluated on a continuing basis through applications. ▪ Additional engagement. The City should also provide for regular engagement with non-profit housing and community organizations. Regular communication with these groups can help to identify what issues should be considered in funding allocations and whether changes to these programs are necessary. Monitoring and reporting. To ensure this revenue is deployed openly and transparently, the City should commit to regular reporting of the use of sales tax funding on key objectives. Because of this, regular yearly reporting should be coordinated from partners and City departments receiving or managing these resources. Outcomes should then be reported on a regular basis by the City to the broader public, through a scorecard report or web-based dashboard. This reporting should also include reviews of the efficacy of the pilot programs identified and recommendations for future adjustments to these programs. 12 The City of Ellensburg has developed a comparable funding program using this sales tax revenue source, coordinated through HopeSource Ellensburg. See: “City, HopeSource ready to disperse funds to help residents pay rent.”, The Daily Record, May 4, 2020. 13 The City of Olympias’s Home Fund is managed in this way through a Home Fund Advisory Committee, consisting of representatives from affordable housing finance, community health, homelessness services, behavioral health, law enforcement, and emergency services. AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) City of Renton | Ordinance 5983 Assessment 38 Implementation A general schedule for implementation steps would proceed as follows: The City should focus on setting up the frameworks for long-term management of the program with its partners and providing for strategic leveraging of resources for affordable housing and the development of shelter space. Programmatic investments should focus on pilots related to behavioral health response and support of low-income renters. Administration ▪ Engagement. Regular and ongoing efforts for outreach with organizations providing affordable housing and services related to housing, homelessness, and behavioral health should be coordinated over time. ▪ Reporting. A regular framework should be developed in the short term by the City to provide transparency about the use of funding and related outcomes. This should be presented as a yearly report and/or an online dashboard. ▪ Ongoing program administration. The City should continue engagement with local providers, other jurisdictions, and regular reporting activities. Facilities Support ▪ Strategic leveraging. Target properties for immediate acquisition of housing units or land banking for future development should be identified in coordination with the Renton Housing Authority and nonprofit agencies, with priorities in areas with high transit service. ▪ Emergency shelter development. A process should be developed for receiving applications for funding support for the acquisition and operation of permanent space for emergency shelter. Preferably, this would include options for supportive services such as a meal program, laundry and hygiene facilities, and navigation services. This development may be negotiated directly with Catholic Community Services to provide a permanent location for the ARISE shelter, although a net expansion of available beds should be provided from this investment. ▪ Capital and maintenance funding for the Renton Housing Authority. The City should coordinate with the Renton Housing Authority to determine a schedule or plan for providing funding support for RHA capital and maintenance expenditures related to new affordable housing acquisition and development. ▪ Capital and maintenance funding for regional facilities. In coordination with neighboring communities and SKHHP, the City should identify funding priorities for regional facilities to address issues of housing, homelessness, and behavioral health, and clearly determine required funding support. These allocations should focus on specialized populations that would be best served at a regional scale, such as supportive housing options for survivors of domestic violence. ▪ Capital and maintenance funding to support local partners. In addition to direct funding for RHA and regional projects, the City should coordinate a competitive application process for local providers to support efforts by non-profit and private equity partners to create and maintain affordable housing options in the community. AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) City of Renton | Ordinance 5983 Assessment 39 ▪ Coordination of development on banked land. The City should work to provide support for funding affordable housing projects on banked land in key locations. This should be coordinated with RHA and affordable housing development partners and may include additional capital funding to promote the development of these projects. ▪ Additional funding support for affordable housing development. Ongoing capital and maintenance funding should be coordinated with the Renton Housing Authority, as well as with neighboring jurisdictions and with external affordable housing providers through a competitive process. At this stage, funding should begin to be allocated to address longer-term maintenance and operations of the facilities acquired under this program. ▪ Additional emergency shelter development. A second process should be coordinated to provide for an expansion of emergency shelter space. This may be focused on more of a regional response to specialized needs, and discussions with neighboring communities should be coordinated to plan out potential options and locations. ▪ Continuation of capital funding support. The City should look to provide ongoing capital funding support for targeted affordable housing projects in the community, both with the Renton Housing Authority and other affordable housing providers. Where possible, this should be focused on development of banked land. As noted previously, this funding should shift over time to provide greater support for maintenance and preservation projects to encourage fiscal sustainability. ▪ Additional shelter development. An additional process should be developed to expand emergency shelter space further. As with previous processes, this may be provided through a regional facility in cooperation with other neighboring jurisdictions. Programmatic Support ▪ Maintenance of behavioral health field response. The City should continue to support funding for behavioral health professionals and navigators for field response and monitor the outcomes from this work. ▪ Pilot program for additional behavioral health services. The City should coordinate a pilot process to develop additional behavioral health services for residents. This may be negotiated directly with a public housing authority or non-profit agencies to support existing facilities related to permanent supportive housing or could be granted through a contract based on a competitive application process to a local provider. ▪ Pilot program for rental assistance. A pilot process would be coordinated with an external partner to provide housing assistance to recipients in the community. This may be negotiated directly or released through a competitive process to a limited number of social service agencies working in the Renton area. ▪ Continuation of programmatic support. Efforts to provide other support through the identified programs with behavioral health services, rental assistance, and affordable housing preservation should be maintained. ▪ Review and adjustment of pilot programs. After a few years, an initial review of the pilot programs should be conducted. This would include:  Behavioral health services (including field response) AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) City of Renton | Ordinance 5983 Assessment 40  Rental assistance For each of these programs, the City should review the performance of each investment and determine the reach of these programs. This should be used to identify whether funding support should be expanded or realigned as needed. ▪ Program review. As this funding program continues into the long term, the City should conduct a broader review of the funding strategies and use of resources to determine if a significant realignment would be necessary. This should look to identify possible new areas of funding support based on changing trends (e.g., aging population, changing demographics, etc.). AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) RESOLUTION NO. _______ B EXHIBIT B Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) 1 Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis An Addendum to the Housing Action Plan | Drafted March 2023 Adopted December 2024 Table of Contents Table of Contents .................................................................................................................................. 1 Table of Figures ..................................................................................................................................... 2 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 4 State Laws and Requirements ............................................................................................................... 4 HB 1220 ..................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Missing Middle Grant .............................................................................................................................................. 4 Relation to Other Plans ......................................................................................................................... 5 Vision 2050 ............................................................................................................................................................... 5 Countywide Planning Policies .................................................................................................................................. 5 Housing Action Plan .................................................................................................................................................. 5 Renton Comprehensive Plan .................................................................................................................................... 6 Comprehensive Plan Review ................................................................................................................ 6 Land Use Element ....................................................................................................................................................... 6 Housing and Human Services Element .................................................................................................................... 9 Existing Code Review ......................................................................................................................... 10 Title IV Development Regulations ......................................................................................................................... 10 Chapter 2 – Zoning Districts – Uses and Standards ..................................................................................... 10 Chapter 4 – City-Wide Property Development Standards ........................................................................ 16 Chapter 6 – Street and Utility Standards ...................................................................................................... 19 AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) City of Renton | Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 2 Chapter 9 – Permits – Specific ......................................................................................................................... 19 Past Code Amendments ...................................................................................................................... 20 Summary of Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 22 Racial Equity Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 23 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................ 23 Community Understanding ..................................................................................................................................... 23 Historical Context ................................................................................................................................................ 23 Analysis of Racially Disparate Impacts, Exclusion, and Displacement ........................................................... 27 Measures ............................................................................................................................................................... 27 Racially Disparate Impacts ................................................................................................................................ 28 Housing Tenure ..................................................................................................................................................... 31 Distribution of Environmental Exposure Risk ................................................................................................... 35 Summary of Analysis Findings ............................................................................................................................... 46 Table of Figures Exhibit 1. 4-2-020 Existing Purpose and Intent of Zoning Districts ..................................................................... 11 Exhibit 2. 4-2-020 Recommended Changes to Purpose and Intent of Zoning Districts ................................... 11 Exhibit 3. Percentage of Housing Units Density ...................................................................................................... 12 Exhibit 4. 4-2-060 Zoning Use Table ....................................................................................................................... 12 Exhibit 5. 4-2-110A1 Existing Development Standards For Residential Zoning Designations ...................... 13 Exhibit 6. 4-2-110A Recommended Changes To Development Standards For Residential Zoning Designations................................................................................................................................................................... 14 Exhibit 7. 4-2-115.2 Existing Open Space Standards ......................................................................................... 15 Exhibit 8. 4-2-115.3 Existing Residential Design Standards ............................................................................... 15 Exhibit 9. 4-2-116 Existing Accessory Dwelling Unit Residential Design Standards ....................................... 16 Exhibit 10. 4-4-080 Existing Parking Spaces Required Based on Land Use .................................................... 17 Exhibit 11. 4-4-080 Recommended Changes to Parking Spaces Required Based on Land Use .................. 18 Exhibit 12. Parking Area Versus Floor Space Ratio ............................................. Error! Bookmark not defined. Exhibit 13. Annexation History Map ......................................................................................................................... 25 AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) City of Renton | Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 3 Exhibit 14. Racially Restrictive Covenants in Renton: Representative Language from a Sample of Covenants ....................................................................................................................................................................... 26 Exhibit 15. Renton Map of Race-Based Covenants ............................................................................................... 27 Exhibit 16. Measures of Racially Disparate Impacts, Exclusion, and Displacement ......................................... 27 Exhibit 17. Renton Median Household Income ........................................................................................................ 28 Exhibit 18. Median Household Income by Race and Ethnicity ............................................................................. 29 Exhibit 19. Average Rent Comparison ..................................................................................................................... 29 Exhibit 20. Rent Over Time ......................................................................................................................................... 30 Exhibit 21. Average home price over time .............................................................................................................. 31 Exhibit 22. Average home price in Renton at different AMI ................................................................................ 31 Exhibit 23. Housing Tenure Rates, 2010-2021 ...................................................................................................... 32 Exhibit 24. Home Owner Cost Burden by Race and Ethnicity .............................................................................. 33 Exhibit 25. Renter Cost Burden by Race and Ethnicity .......................................................................................... 34 Exhibit 26. Overcrowding in Renton ......................................................................................................................... 34 Exhibit 27. Washington Environmental Health Disparities Definition .................................................................. 35 Exhibit 28. Environmental Exposure Risk Map ........................................................................................................ 36 Exhibit 29. Commute Mode Split ............................................................................................................................... 37 Exhibit 30. Affordable Housing Projects in Renton ................................................................................................ 38 Exhibit 31. Municpality Eviction Study Comparison ............................................................................................... 39 Exhibit 32. Municipality Eviction Rate: by Race and Ethnicity .............................................................................. 40 Exhibit 33. Municipality Relative Risk of Eviction: by Race and Ethnicity .......................................................... 40 Exhibit 34. Evictions Study Map: Eviction Count ...................................................................................................... 41 Exhibit 35. Eviction Study Map: Eviction Rate ......................................................................................................... 41 Exhibit 36. Eviction Study Map: Relative Eviction Risk ........................................................................................... 42 Exhibit 37. Evictions Study Map: Relative Eviction Risk ......................................................................................... 42 Exhibit 38. Displacement Risk Index ......................................................................................................................... 44 Exhibit 39. Displacement Risk Table, Renton ........................................................................................................... 45 AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) City of Renton | Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 4 Introduction The Comprehensive Plan and Policy review is an analysis of existing Renton Comprehensive Plan policies and Municipal Code to determine the extent of amendments required to meet the goal of authorizing middle housing types on at least 30% of lots currently zoned as single family residential. Middle housing types include duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, fiveplexes, sixplexes, townhouses, courtyard apartments, cottage housing, and stacked flats. Existing plans such as the Renton Housing Action Plan (HAP) and Vision 2050 have been assessed and provide context and recommendations as to how Middle Housing can address housing needs in Renton. Housing policy recommendations for middle housing will allow more diverse and affordable housing options for Renton’s residents and future households. This report is designed to provide a review of the City’s existing codes and policiesto inform recommendations for next steps. A racial equity analysis and a public engagement process will also be done in conjunction to provide additional quantitative and qualitative information. This report lists relevant comprehensive plan policies and municipal code affecting middle housing, with notes, rationale, and questions for further discussion. Furthermore, key themes from this report will inform discussion questions for public engagement and a framework for policy recommendations for middle housing in Renton. State Laws and Requirements HB 1220 (link) House Bill 1220 amended the Growth Management Act, adding greater specificity to the requirement of the housing element. The new requirements are effective as of July 25, 2021. The updates strengthen the GMA housing goal from “encourage the availability of affordable housing to all economic segments of the population” to “plan for and accommodate housing affordable to all economic segments of the population of this state,” making policy more actionable in planning for and accommodating households of all incomes, including emergency and permanent supportive housing. The amendment also requires counties and cities to identify and remove discriminatory barriers and undo racially disparate impacts. Missing Middle Grant (link) Section 189 of Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 5693, the 2022 supplemental operating budget, directs the Washington State Department of Commerce (Commerce) to develop a grant program to support the adoption of ordinances authorizing middle housing types, as well support to conduct a racial equity analysis. The Middle Housing Grant Program is available to cities within King, Kitsap, Pierce, and Snohomish counties. Grantee jurisdictions must conduct actions relating to adopting ordinances that authorize middle housing types on at least 30% of lots currently zoned as single family residential. “Middle housing types” include duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, fiveplexes, sixplexes, townhouses, courtyard apartments, cottage housing, and stacked flats. AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) City of Renton | Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 5 Each city must use a racial equity analysis and establish anti-displacement policies as required under RCW 36.70A.070(2)(e) through (h) to ensure there will be no net displacement of very low, low, or moderate-income households, as defined in RCW 43.63A.510, or individuals from racial, ethnic, and religious communities which have been subject to discriminatory housing policies in the past. Relation to Other Plans Vision 2050 (link) The Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) develops policies and facilitates decisions about regional growth, transportation, and economic development planning within King, Pierce, Snohomish, and Kitsap counties. PSRC is composed of four counties, numerous cities and towns, ports, state and local transportation agencies, and Tribal governments within the region. The GMA requires multi-county planning policies (MPPs) that cities’ and counties’ comprehensive plans must be consistent with. MPPs for King, Pierce, Snohomish, and Kitsap counties are adopted by PSRC in a long-range plan called VISION 2050. VISION 2050 is the region’s plan to grow to accommodate 5.8 million people by 2050. PSRC’s Regional Growth Strategy calls for the 16 Core Cities (including the City of Renton) to accommodate 28% of the region’s population growth and 35% of its employment growth by 2050. Within the Core Cities, jurisdictions should encourage growth near high-capacity transit stations and within regional growth centers to achieve regional growth goals. Countywide Planning Policies Within the GMA framework, each county collaborates with its cities to adopt Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs) and develop local growth targets that set expectations for local comprehensive plans. Manufacturing and industrial centers (MICs) are also designated at this countywide level. In 2021 the Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) approved new CPPs, and they have been approved by the King County Council and ratified by the cities. The updated policies are consistent with PSRC’s newly adopted VISION 2050. The CPPs set forth growth targets for housing and jobs, and identify a hierarchy of centers reflecting VISION 2050 as well as countywide center. The CPPs also address equity and environmental justice, environmental protection, and detailed affordable housing requirements, among other policies. Housing Action Plan (link) The City of Renton received a grant from Commerce to create a Housing Action Plan in 2021. The Renton City Council adopted the Final Housing Action Plan in October of 2021. The Housing Action Plan (HAP) is the City of Renton’s short-term strategy for increasing housing options and affordability in the community to achieve its vision of a more vibrant, inclusive, and equitable future. The City’s progress on implementing the strategies and impacts to housing production and achieving the goals of the Plan will be assessed as part of the update to the Comprehensive Plan in 2024. AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) City of Renton | Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 6 Renton Comprehensive Plan (link) Renton’s Comprehensive Plan includes a future land use map and goals and policies that accommodate its 2035 growth targets and govern housing, economic development, transportation, utilities, capital facilities, and a variety of public and human services. The content, analyses, goals, and policies of Renton’s Comprehensive Plan were developed in compliance with the GMA, King County’s Countywide Planning Policies, and PSRC’s Regional Growth Strategy (at the time VISION 2040). The City will prepare a periodic update of its Comprehensive Plan by 2024 to address more recent updates to GMA and VISION 2050 as well as its new growth targets to 2044. Comprehensive Plan Review The Comprehensive Plan Review identifies relevant policies from Renton’s Land Use and Housing and Human Services Element. The notes column on the right in the table below identifies changes that could support middle housing in Renton. Considerations regarding middle housing include: explicit limitations on middle housing styles or densities in policies or design limitations and open space and parking policies that would impede middle housing. This section is designed to inform policy recommendations with additional support from the racial equity analysis and public engagement. The policies were reviewed for racially disparate impacts using draft Commerce guidance, and notes are in the right hand column. The evaluation included the following criteria:  The policy is valid and supports meeting the identified housing needs. The policy is needed and addresses identified racially disparate impacts, displacement, and exclusion in housing. S Supportive  The policy can support meeting the identified housing needs but may be insufficient or does not address racially disparate impacts, displacement, and exclusion in housing. A Approaching  The policy may challenge the jurisdictions' ability to meet the identified housing needs. The policy’s benefits and burdens should be reviewed to optimize the ability to meet the policy’s objectives while improving the equitable distribution of benefits and burdens imposed by the policy. C Challenging  The policy does not impact the jurisdiction’s ability to meet the identified housing needs and has no influence or impact on racially disparate impacts, displacement, or exclusion. NA Not Applicable Land Use Element POLICY Middle Housing Support RDI Evaluation RENTON LAND USE PLAN Policy L-14: Residential-1 Zone – Lands with significant environmental constraints, which may have the potential for development at a level of intensity that is compatible with that environment, or lands that provide urban separators should be zoned for Residential-1 (R-1). R-1 zoning is allowed in Include a provision that supports the inclusion of attached and detached accessory dwelling units. A – The R1 zone can help meet identified housing needs by accommodating accessory dwelling units. AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) City of Renton | Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 7 POLICY Middle Housing Support RDI Evaluation the Residential Low Density land use designation. Policy L-14: Residential-4 Zone – Zone lands suitable for large lot housing and suburban, estate-style dwellings compatible with the scale and density of the surrounding area Residential-4 (R-4). R-4 zoning is allowed in the Residential Low Density land use designation. Remove language around specific single family housing styles and replace with “lands suitable for single family housing typologies”. Include a provision that supports the inclusion of attached and detached accessory dwelling units. The corresponding zoning designation allows 0-4 du/ac. A – Policy could include specific descriptions of geography and desired residential typologies. Policy L-14: Residential Manufactured Home Park Zone – Lands with existing manufactured home parks as established uses should be zoned Residential Manufactured Home Park (RMH). RMH zoning is allowed in the Residential Low Density, Residential Medium Density, and Residential High Density land Use designations. No changes are proposed for RMH zoned parcels. S – This policy is supportive of the achieving the GMA goal for housing. Policy L-15: Residential Medium-Density - Place areas that can support high-quality, compact, urban development with access to urban services, transit, and infrastructure, whether through new development or through infill, within the Residential Medium Density (RMD) designation. Within the RMD designation, allow a variety of single-family development, with continuity created through the application of design guidelines, the organization of roadways, sidewalks, public spaces, and the placement of community gathering places and civic amenities. Exclusively single-family development should not be supported outright in the RMD zone, but instead could be included as part of a new development including duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, fiveplexes, sixplexes, townhouses, courtyard apartments, cottage housing and stacked flats. C – Prioritizing single family residential development in the RMD designation is a barrier to the implementation additional missing middle typologies. Some middle housing typologies should be allowed in the code. Policy L-15: Residential 6 Zone - Zone lands Residential-6 (R-6) where there is land suitable for larger lot development, an opportunity for infill development, an existing pattern of single-family development in the range of four to eight units per net acre, and where critical areas are limited. R-6 zoning is allowed in the Residential Medium Density land use designation. Remove specific density reference (4-8 units per net acre) to establish a more flexible density range within the municipal code designation. The corresponding zoning designation allows 3-6 du/ac which differs from the guidance in L-15. A – This density range could be more supportive of missing middle housing typologies to achieve the GMA goal for housing. Policy L-15: Residential 8 Zone - Zone lands Residential-8 (R-8) where there is opportunity to re-invest in existing single- family neighborhoods through infill or the opportunity to develop new single-family plats at urban densities greater than four dwelling units per acre. R-8 zoning is allowed in the Residential Medium Density land use designation. Include missing middle typologies within the R8 definition to expand beyond single family and infill development. This may include duplexes, triplexes, townhouses, and cottage housing. The corresponding zoning designation allows 4-8 du/ac. A – Policy could include specific descriptions of geography and desired residential typologies. Policy L-16: Residential High Density – Designate land for Residential High Density (RHD) where access, topography, and adjacent land uses create conditions appropriate for a variety of housing unit types, or where there is existing multifamily development. RHD unit types are designed to incorporate features from both single family and multifamily developments, support cost-efficient housing, facilitate infill development, have close access to transit Exclusively single-family development should not be supported outright in the RHD zone, but instead could be included as part of a new development including a mix of duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, fiveplexes, sixplexes, townhouses, courtyard apartments, live/work lofts cottage housing and stacked flats. Existing multifamily housing should not be a prerequisite to implement an RHD designation. C – Prioritizing single family residential development in the RHD designation is a barrier to the implementation additional missing middle typologies. Middle and Multifamily housing should be prioritized. AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) City of Renton | Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 8 POLICY Middle Housing Support RDI Evaluation service, and efficiently use urban services and infrastructure. Land designated RHD is where projects will be compatible with existing uses and where infrastructure is adequate to handle impacts from higher density uses. Policy L-16: Residential-10 Zone – Zone lands Residential-10 (R-10) where there is an existing mix of single family and small- scale multifamily use or there are vacant or underutilized parcels that could be redeveloped as infill and are located within ¼ mile of public transit service and a major arterial. R-10 implements the Residential High Density land use designation. Remove the mention of single family uses as exclusively single-family development should not be supported outright in the RHD zone. Include typologies that fit within this zone, these may include a mix of duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, fiveplexes, sixplexes, townhouses, courtyard apartments, live/work lofts, cottage housing and stacked flats. Additionally, consider expanding the distance to major transit centers to ½ mile (Renton Transit Center and South Renton Transit Center) as this is in line with the urban design concepts for a 15-minute neighborhood and the forthcoming HB 1110. A – This density range could be more supportive of missing middle housing typologies to achieve the GMA goal for housing. Policy L-16: Residential-14 Zone – Zone lands Residential-14 (R-14) where it is possible to develop a mix of compact housing types in areas of approximately 20 acres or larger in size (may be in different ownerships) or are within or adjacent to a Growth Center The zone functions as a transition zone between lower intensity residential and higher intensity mixed use zoning. R-14 implements the Residential High Density land use designation. Include typologies that fit within this zone, these may include a mix of duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, fiveplexes, sixplexes, townhouses, courtyard apartments, live/work lofts, cottage housing and stacked flats. Consider reducing the acreage for the size of development expected as this zone is a target for infill development. A – Policy could include specific descriptions of geography and desired residential typologies. Policy L-16: Residential Multi-Family Zone – Zone lands Residential Multi Family (RMF) where there is existing (or vested) multifamily development of one-acre or greater in size. Expanded RMF zoning should only be where access is from a street classified as a Principal arterial, Minor arterial, or Collector, and where existing multi-family is abutting at least two property sides. RMF zoning implements the Residential High Density land use designation. Expansion of the RMF designation should not rely on the adjacency of existing multi-family housing. In order to make this designation more flexible, the requirement for existing multifamily properties to abut at least two property sides should be removed as it is prohibitive of future RMF expansion. C – Policy is restrictive and preventative in nature. Policy L-16: Commercial Neighborhood Zone – Zone lands Commercial Neighborhood (CN) that provide goods and services on a small-scale to a surrounding residential neighborhood and that front on a street classified as a Principal arterial, Minor arterial, or Collector. Expanded CN zoning should only be where there is opportunity to provide small limited-scale commercial opportunity to the immediately surrounding residential community that would not result in an increase in scale or intensity, which would alter the character of the nearby residential neighborhood. The CN zone implements the Residential High Density land use designation. Remove language around residential neighborhood character and adjust to encourage a mix of housing typologies in an effort to anticipate the needs of future residents. C – Language conflates desired characteristics with a housing type. AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) City of Renton | Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 9 POLICY Middle Housing Support RDI Evaluation PROMOTING A SAFE, HEALTHY, AND ATTRACTIVE COMMUNITY Policy L-57: Provide complete arranged as an interconnecting network or grid. Locate planter strips between the curb and the sidewalk in order to provide separation between cars and pedestrians. Discourage dead-end streets and cul-de-sacs. Consider requiring new master planned developments in R4 – R14 zoning designations to create connected and hierarchical street networks. Alternatively, prohibiting new master planned development from building dead-end streets and cul-de- sacs when not adjacent to significant or unavoidable critical areas. A – This density range could be more supportive of missing middle housing typologies to achieve the GMA goal for housing. Housing and Human Services Element POLICY Middle Housing Support RDI Evaluation Policy HHS-3: Work with other jurisdictions and organizations, including the Renton Housing Authority and non-profit housing developers, to address the need for housing to be affordable to very low-income households. This housing should focus on accessibility, mobility, and proximity to social services Make specific mention of the AMI this policy is planning for. Site very-low income housing in RLD land uses. S – This policy is supportive of the achieving the GMA goal for housing. Policy HHS-4: Promote homeownership opportunities for households of all incomes. Provide explicit affordability targets for moderate (120%), low (80% AMI), very low (50% AMI) housing, and extremely low-income (30% AMI) households. See allocations developed regionally.1 A – Policy could include specific affordability targets. Policy HHS-B: Ensure a variety of housing types are available within the City that meet the needs of the present without compromising the needs of future generations Including duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, fiveplexes, sixplexes, townhouses, courtyard apartments, cottage housing and stacked flats. A – Policy could include specific descriptions of geography and desired residential typologies. Policy HHS-6: Implement inclusionary zoning provisions and other techniques that result in a range of housing types, at different densities, and prices in new developments that address the housing needs of all people at all stages of life, including vulnerable populations. Including bonuses for middle and affordable housing typologies. A – This policy could be more supportive of the GMA goal for housing. Policy HHS-8: Continue to allow Accessory Dwelling Units in single family residential areas and ensure they are compatible with the existing neighborhood. Support through inclusionary zoning and financial incentive programs as well as permit- ready program. Remove vague architectural compatibility requirements. A – Architectural compatibility requirements may challenge the jurisdiction’s ability to mee the GMA housing goal or interfere with anti-RDI efforts, particularly if policy language is vague. Policy HHS-9: Foster and locate new housing in proximity to Employment Centers and streets that have public transportation Include/prioritize middle and affordable Housing typologies. A – This policy could be more supportive of the GMA goal for housing. 1 Available at: https://kingcounty.gov/~/media/depts/community-human-services/housing-homelessness-community- development/documents/affordable-housing- committee/Statements%20Issued%20by%20the%20Committee/GMPC_Motion_21-1_Recommendation_Transmittal_2022,- d-,12,-d-,29.ashx?la=en. AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) City of Renton | Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 10 POLICY Middle Housing Support RDI Evaluation systems in place, and complements existing housing. Policy HHS-26: Encourage construction of universally designed units, supportive housing arrangements, and transitional housing in close proximity (within one-quarter mile) to public transportation. Increase the proximity of supportive housing to one-half mile to public transportation. A – This policy could be more supportive of the GMA goal for housing by increasing the proximity of supportive housing to transit service. Existing Code Review The existing code review focuses on Chapter 2 – Zoning Regulations, Chapter 4 – City Wide Property Development Standards, Chapter 6 – Street and Utility Standards, and Chapter 9 – Permits – Specific of the Renton Municipal Code. Recommended changes to the existing code aid in adopting ordinances that would authorize middle housing types on at least 30% of lots currently zoned as single family residential. “Middle housing types” include duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, fiveplexes, sixplexes, townhouses, courtyard apartments, cottage housing and stacked flats. The City of Renton’s zoning by density approach is one of the largest barriers to implementing missing middle housing typologies. The banded zoning designations are largely designed for detached single family residential typologies with the exception of the Residential Multi Family (RMF) zone. The following recommendations attempt to associate the existing zoning designations with a more inclusive selection of missing middle housing typologies. Title IV Development Regulations Chapter 2 – Zoning Districts – Uses and Standards Chapter 4-2 RMC contains zone-related land use regulations, and zone-related development standards, primarily in tabular form. Chapter 4-2 RMC additionally includes provisions for interpreting the Zoning Map that delineate the zoning and overlay districts and provisions for determining the permissibility of unclassified uses. 4-2-020 – Purpose and Intent of Zoning Districts This section establishes the approved density ranges for the zoning districts that implement the land use vision in the comprehensive plan. As it is written, the zone indicates the maximum net density permitted within the zone with the exception for density bonuses intended to allow assisted living facilities to develop in zones with a low max net density threshold. The zoning districts correspond with land use designations in the comprehensive plan, and as the code is written, provide a narrow range for missing middle housing typologies to be included. AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) City of Renton | Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 11 Exhibit 1. 4-2-020 Existing Purpose and Intent of Zoning Districts Land Use Zone Minimum Net Density Maximum Net Density Residential Low Density (RLD) R-1 N/A 1 DU/AC *Density bonus provisions, of up to eighteen (18) dwelling units per acre, are intended to allow assisted living to develop with higher densities within the zone R-4 N/A 4 DU/AC Residential Medium Density (RMD) R-6 3 DU/AC 6 DU/AC R-8 4 DU/AC 8 DU/AC Residential High Density (RHD) R-10 5 DU/AC 10 DU/AC R-14 7 DU/AC 14 DU/AC *Opportunities for bonuses up to eighteen (18) dwelling units per net acre RMF 10 DU/AC 20 DU/AC *Opportunities for bonuses up to twenty five (25) dwelling units per net acre Source: Renton Municipal Code, 2022. The recommended change doubles the minimum net density of the residential zone and increases capacity and flexibility for missing middle housing typologies. The change maintains the existing zone designations and uses the naming convention to establish minimum net densities as opposed to maximum net densities. This will allow greater flexibility within the individual zoning designations to accommodate missing middle housing typologies while gently increasing residential density through the city. Exhibit 2. 4-2-020 Recommended Changes to Purpose and Intent of Zoning Districts Land Use Zone Mean Net Density in Buildable Lands Minimum Net Density Maximum Net Density Residential Low Density (RLD) R-1 1.57 N/A 1 DU/AC *Density bonus provisions, of up to eighteen (18) dwelling units per acre, are intended to allow assisted living to develop with higher densities within the zone R-4 3.72 2 DU/AC 6 DU/AC Residential Medium Density (RMD) R-6 4.75 6 DU/AC 8 DU/AC R-8 5.52 8 DU/AC 10 DU/AC Residential High Density (RHD) R-10 10.79 10 DU/AC 14 DU/AC R-14 10.78 14 DU/AC 20 DU/AC RMF 21.35 10 DU/AC 30 DU/AC Sources: Renton Municipal Code, 2022; BERK, 2022. R-1, R-8, R-10, and RMF zones all have roughly 90% of units at 75%+ net density which indicates a need for increased capacity. R-6 shows that 53% of units are at 75%+ net density which is an indicator that single family homes are being built, likely without ADUs. R-8 and R-10 are where additional changes AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) City of Renton | Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 12 to permitted uses, and increases in minimum net density will benefit the inclusion of additional missing middle housing typologies. Additionally, RMF zoning indicates a need for increased density beyond what can be achieved through density bonuses. Allowing a larger minimum net density range, with an increased max net density, will allow market forces to guide housing preference. Exhibit 3. Percentage of Housing Units Density Zone Designation Percent of Units at 75%+ Net Density Allowed Middle Housing Typologies Rresidential-1 97% Detached dwelling, ADUs Residential-4 77% Detached dwelling, ADUs Residential-6 53% Detached dwelling, ADUs Residential-8 88% Detached dwelling, ADUs Residential-10 89% Detached dwelling (R-10, R-14) Live/Work (R-14) Townhouses (All) Attached dwellings/Flats (All) Garden Apartments (RM-F) Residential-14 44% Residential Multi Family 89% Source: BERK, 2022. 4-2-060 - Zoning Use Table – uses allowed in zoning designations The existing permitted residential uses limit missing middle housing typologies and allow opportunities for detached dwellings to built in all zoning designations except for RMF. Below are recommended changes to permitted uses that increase the flexibility of missing middle housing typologies and address the density changes recommended in 4-2-020. Exhibit 4. 4-2-060 Zoning Use Table Zone Designation Permitted Residential Uses Additional Recommended Permitted Housing Typologies Rresidential-1 Detached dwelling, ADUs Residential-4 Detached dwelling, ADUs Residential-6 Detached dwelling, ADUs Attached Dwellings including Flats should be permitted uses in R-6 zoning Residential-8 Detached dwelling, ADUs Attached Dwellings including Flats, Townhouses, and Carriage Houses should be permitted uses in R-8 zoning. Residential-10 Detached dwelling, ADUs, Flats, Townhouses, Carriage Houses New detached dwellings should be removed as an outright permitted use. Duplexes and Triplexes should be permitted uses in R-10 zoning. Residential-14 Detached dwelling, ADUs, Flats, Live Work Units, Townhouses, Carriage Houses, Congregate Residence Detached Dwelling should be removed as an outright permitted use. Fourplexes, fiveplexes, and sixplexes should be permitted uses in R-14 zoning. Residential Multi Family Flats, Garden Style Apartments, Townhouses, Carriage Houses Congregate Residences, fourplexes, fiveplexes, and sixplexes should be permitted uses in R-14 zoning. Source: Renton Municipal Code, 2022. AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) City of Renton | Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 13 4-2-110 - Residential development standards Commensurate with the recommendation to increase the minimum and maximum net densities for the residential zoning designations, recommended changes to the development standards for residential zoning designations include: allowing the maximum density determine the number of dwellings per legal lot for medium and high density designations, increasing the max building coverage for R-8 through RMF zones to accommodate the increased net density, and removing the cap set on maximum number of units per building for R-10 and R-14. The underlying max net density and accompanying setback standards will effectively regulate this. Exhibit 5, below, shows the existing development standards. Exhibit 5. 4-2-110A1 Existing Development Standards For Residential Zoning Designations RC R-1 R-4 R-6 R-8 R-10 R-14 RMF Minimum Net Density (per Net Acre)1, 2, 15 None 3 dwelling units 4 dwelling units 5 dwelling units30 7 dwelling units30 10 dwelling units30 Maximum Net Density (per Net Acre, Except per Net 10 Acres in RC)2, 14, 15 1 dwelling unit 1 dwelling unit7, 36 4 dwelling units 6 dwelling units 8 dwelling units38 10 dwelling units29 14 dwelling units29 20 dwelling units29 Maximum Number of Dwellings (per Legal Lot)2 1 dwelling with 1 accessory dwelling unit 1 dwelling with 1 accessory dwelling unit7 1 dwelling with 1 accessory dwelling unit 1 dwelling with 1 accessory dwelling unit Detached dwellings: 1 dwelling with 1 accessory dwelling unit Attached dwellings: n/a Per Maximum Net Density Maximum Building Coverage (including Primary and Accessory) 10% 20% 35% 40% 50% 55% 65% Townhouses: 70% Other Attached Dwellings: 35% A maximum coverage of 45% may be allowed through the Hearing Examiner site development plan review process. Maximum Impervious Surface Area 15% 25% 50% 55% 65% 70% 80% 75% Maximum Number of Units per Building2 n/a No more than 4 units per building. No more than 6 units per building. n/a Source: Renton Municipal Code, 2022. The recommended changes mirror the density changes in 4-2-020 while also encoring changes to lot coverage and maximum number dwelling per lot and maximum number of units per building. The maximum building coverage for R8 – R14 is changed to match the approved townhouse lot coverage of 70% in the existing RMF zone. Lot coverage for other attached dwellings is increased to 65%, effectively making each individual parcel more effective in accommodating a variety of housing typologies. R10 – AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) City of Renton | Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 14 R14 previously permitted no more than 4 and 6 units per building, respectively. The recommended change is to remove limits on units per building, and let the underlying zoning dictate the density, lot coverage, and height of the structure as shown in Exhibit 6. Exhibit 6. 4-2-110A Recommended Changes To Development Standards For Residential Zoning Designations RC R-1 R-4 R-6 R-8 R-10 R-14 RMF Minimum Net Density (per Net Acre)1, 2, 15 None 2 6 dwelling units 8 dwelling units 10 dwelling units30 14 dwelling units30 10 dwelling units30 Maximum Net Density (per Net Acre, Except per Net 10 Acres in RC)2, 14, 15 1 dwelling unit 1 dwelling unit7, 36 4 dwelling units 8 dwelling units 10 dwelling units38 14 dwelling units29 20 dwelling units29 30 dwelling units29 Maximum Number of Dwellings (per Legal Lot)2 1 dwelling with 1 accessory dwelling unit 1 dwelling with 1 accessory dwelling unit7 1 dwelling with 1 accessory dwelling unit Per Maximum Net Density Per Maximum Net Density Per Maximum Net Density Maximum Building Coverage (including Primary and Accessory) 10% 20% 35% 55% Townhouses: 70% Other attached Dwellings: 65% Townhouses: 70% Other Attached Dwellings: 65% A maximum coverage of 45% may be allowed through the Hearing Examiner site development plan review process. Maximum Impervious Surface Area 15% 25% 50% 55% 65% 70% 80% 75% Maximum Number of Units per Building2 n/a n/a n/a n/a Source: Renton Municipal Code, 2022; BERK 4-2-115 - Residential design and open space standards Consider the impacts of primary entry and open space requirements. When four or more units are proposed in a development, located within an R-10 or R-14 zone, there is a fixed requirement for 350 square feet of common open space. This requirement may prevent additional lot coverage needed to accommodate greater density in Residential High Density zones. Some communities allow for a reduction of onsite open space if in a ¼ mile of a public park (and fee in lieu). See Exhibit 7. AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) City of Renton | Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 15 Exhibit 7. 4-2-115.2 Existing Open Space Standards Standards for Common Open Space R-10 and R-14 Developments of four (4) or more units: Required to provide common open space as outlined below. Above ground drainage facilities (i.e., ponds, swales, ditches, rain gardens, etc.) shall not be counted towards the common open space requirement. For each unit in the development, three hundred fifty (350) square feet of common open space shall be provided. Open space shall be designed as a park, common green, pea-patch, pocket park, or pedestrian entry easement in the development and shall include picnic areas, space for recreational activities, and other activities as appropriate. Open space shall be located in a highly visible area and be easily accessible to the neighborhood. Open space(s) shall be contiguous to the majority of the dwellings in the development and accessible to all dwellings. For sites one acre or smaller in size, open space(s) shall be at least thirty feet (30') in at least one dimension. For sites larger than one acre in size, open space(s) shall be at least forty feet (40') in at least one dimension. For all sites, to allow for variation, open space(s) of less than the minimum dimension (thirty feet (30') or forty feet (40'), as applicable) are allowed; provided, that when all of a site’s open spaces are averaged, the applicable dimension requirement is met. A pedestrian entry easement can be counted as open space if it has a minimum width of twenty feet (20') and within that twenty feet (20') a minimum five feet (5') of sidewalk is provided. Source: Renton Municipal Code, 2022. In instances where rowhouse and townhouse style housing is proposed in R-10 and R-14 zones, the primary entrance requirements may be too prescriptive and present a barrier to site design. This may specifically hinder walk-up style rowhouse development, which may be a typology well suited for R-14 zones. See Exhibit 8. Exhibit 8. 4-2-115.3 Existing Residential Design Standards Primary Entry Standards R-10 and R-14 Both of the following are required: The entry shall take access from and face a street, park, common green, pocket park, pedestrian easement, or open space, and The entry shall include a porch or stoop with a minimum depth of five feet (5') and minimum height twelve inches (12") above grade. Exception: in cases where accessibility (ADA) is a priority, an accessible route may be taken from a front driveway. Source: Renton Municipal Code, 2022. 4-2-116 - Accessory dwelling unit residential design standards Renton should consider removing all architectural compatibility requirements for ADUs, as these are arbitrary and rely on pre-existing conditions that may be undesirable and hinder the construction of future ADUs. To simplify and streamline permitting, the City of Renton has already offered pre-approved AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) City of Renton | Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 16 DADU construction plans that create a faster, easier, and more predictable design and permitting process.2 Exhibit 9, below, shows existing Municipal code for DADUs. Exhibit 9. 4-2-116 Existing Accessory Dwelling Unit Residential Design Standards Scale, Bulk, And Character: Residential communities are intended for people and homes that have appropriate scale and bulk to contribute to the sense of orientation to people. Guidelines: The ADU shall visually demonstrate that it is accessory, or subordinate, to the primary structure by its reduced scale and bulk. Standards: R-4, R-6, R-8, R-10, and R-14 The ADU shall be architecturally compatible with significant architectural details of the primary structure, dominating forms, and design elements, such as eaves, roof pitch, roof form, porches, principal dormers, materials, and other significant architectural features. Architectural Detailing: Architectural detailing contributes to the visual appeal of a home and the community. It helps create a desirable human scale and a perception of a quality, well-designed home. Guidelines: The ADU shall visually demonstrate a clear relationship with the primary structure so that the two (2) structures are architecturally compatible. Architectural detail shall be provided that is consistent with the architectural character of the primary structure; detailing like materials and color, fenestration, trim, columns, eaves, and/or corner boards shall reflect the architectural character of the primary structure. Source: Renton Municipal Code, 2022. Chapter 4 – City-Wide Property Development Standards Chapter 4-4 contains regulations and standards governing site development of property City-wide, such as parking, landscaping, fencing, and others. 4-4-080 - Parking, loading, and driveway regulations Providing off-street parking with new development increases the fixed cost of development and reduces the net developable square footage of a parcel. Costs associated with meeting minimum parking requirements, especially in multifamily housing, may add additional challenges to building affordable housing by adding fixed costs to construction. According to the Victoria Transit Policy Institute, “one parking space per unit typically increases moderate-priced housing costs approximately 12%, and two parking spaces increases lower-priced housing costs by 25%.”3 Reducing or eliminating parking requirements could substantially reduce the development costs of multifamily buildings, especially in locations that are well-served by public transportation. The following recommendations reduces the minimum parking requirements for detached dwelling and townhouses, cottage housing, and attached dwellings in R-10, R-14, and RMF. Exhibit 10 shows the existing code, with recommendations for change in Exhibit 11. 2 See: https://www.rentonwa.gov/city_hall/community_and_economic_development/permit_ready_a_d_u_program. 3 Victoria Transit Policy Institute, 2022. AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) City of Renton | Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 17 Exhibit 10. 4-4-080 Existing Parking Spaces Required Based on Land Use Residential Uses Outside of Center Downtown Zone: Minimum Maximum Detached dwellings and townhouses: 2 per dwelling unit 1 per 1 bedroom unit Cottage house developments: 1.6 per 3 bedroom and large dwelling units 1.4 per 2 bedroom units 1 per 1 bedroom and studio units 1.6 per 3 bedroom and large dwelling units 1.4 per 2 bedroom units 1 per 1 bedroom and studio units Congregate residences: 1 per sleeping room 1 for the proprietor 1 additional space for each 4 persons employed on the premise 1 per sleeping room 1 for the proprietor 1 additional space for each 4 persons employed on the premise Attached dwellings in RMF, R-14 and R-10 Zones: 1.6 per 3 bedroom and large dwelling units 1.4 per 2 bedroom units 1 per 1 bedroom and studio units 1.6 per 3 bedroom and large dwelling units 1.4 per 2 bedroom units 1 per 1 bedroom and studio units Attached dwellings within all other zones: 1 per dwelling unit 1.75 per dwelling unit Attached dwelling for low income: 1 per every 4 units 1.75 per unit Live-work unit, residential unit: 1 per dwelling unit 1 per dwelling unit Accessory dwelling unit: 1 per dwelling unit ADUs located within 1/4 mile of a mass transit facility, as defined in RMC 4-2-080, shall be exempt from off-street parking requirements. 1 per dwelling unit Source: Renton Municipal Code, 2022. The following recommendations reduce the minimum parking requirements for detached dwelling and townhouses, cottage housing, and attached dwellings in R-10, R-14, and RMF (see Exhibit 11). As the code is currently written, required parking standards are static for cottage housing and attached dwellings in R10 – RMF zones, meaning that there is no range between the minimum and maximum required. In order to build in flexibility and reduce the inclusion of redundant parking spaces, it is recommended that the standard minimum parking space per unit is reduced to 1, with consideration made for unit sizes. AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) City of Renton | Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 18 Exhibit 11. 4-4-080 Recommended Changes to Parking Spaces Required Based on Land Use Residential Uses Outside of Center Downtown Zone: Minimum Maximum Detached dwellings and townhouses: 1 per dwelling unit Cottage house developments: Studio: 0 1 bedroom: 1 2 bedroom: 1 3+ bedroom: 1 Studio: 1 1 bedroom: 1 2 bedroom: 1.5 3+ bedroom: 1.5 Congregate residences: 1 per sleeping room 1 for the proprietor 1 additional space for each 4 persons employed on the premise 1 per sleeping room 1 for the proprietor 1 additional space for each 4 persons employed on the premise Attached dwellings in RMF, R-14 and R-10 Zones: Studio: 0 1 bedroom: 1 2 bedroom: 1 3+ bedroom: 1 Studio: 1 1 bedroom: 1 2 bedroom: 1.5 3+ bedroom: 1.5 Attached dwellings within all other zones: 1 per dwelling unit 1.75 per dwelling unit Attached dwelling for low income: 1 per every 4 units 1.75 per unit Live-work unit, residential unit: 1 per dwelling unit 1 per dwelling unit Accessory dwelling unit: 1 per dwelling unit ADUs located within 1/4 mile of a mass transit facility, as defined in RMC 4-2-080, shall be exempt from off-street parking requirements. 1 per dwelling unit Source: Renton Municipal Code, 2022; BERK Parking supply is essential to thriving business districts in the City of Renton. Unrestricted Parking zones allow for a vehicle to occupy a space for up to 72 hours. The impact of unrestricted parking influences drivers’ behavior, leading drivers to use curbside parking as a form of short-term vehicle storage. Paid Parking zones improve the utilization of curbside parking resources and encourage short-stay parking for those visiting and working in the neighborhood. A secondary benefit of this policy change is the positive impact on the public realm. Frequent parking turnover will increase street level activation and pedestrian circulation, and will contribute to a vibrant and thriving commercial core. Paid parking also influences transportation mode choice, and may encourage more bus, streetcar, and bicycle trips to and from the neighborhood. More trips utilizing multimodal transit translates to a more pedestrian-focused transit environment and a more active public realm. If on-street parking is carefully managed, off-street parking solutions will not be as urgently needed. Source: Reinventing Transport, 2019. AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) City of Renton | Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 19 Chapter 6 – Street and Utility Standards The development-related requirements for water, sewer, storm drainage and street construction are contained in chapter 4-6 RMC. 4-6-060 - Street standards Shared driveway standards in 4-6-060-J state that: Where Permitted: Shared driveways may be allowed for access to no more than four (4) residentially zoned lots, and no more than four (4) residential units, the types of which are listed in RMC 4-2-060C, provided: a. At least one lot abuts a public right-of-way and the street frontage of the lot is equal to or greater than the lot width requirement of the zone; b. The subject lots are not created by a subdivision of ten (10) or more lots; c. A public street is not anticipated by the City of Renton to be necessary for existing or future traffic and/or pedestrian circulation through the short subdivision or to serve adjacent property; d. The shared driveway would not adversely affect future circulation to neighboring properties; e. The shared driveway is no more than three hundred feet (300') in length; and f. The shared driveway poses no safety risk and provides sufficient access for emergency vehicles and personnel. How might this requirement limit anticipated future residential development in R-8 – RMF zoning? Within the context of Renton’s Residential Medium and Low Density urban form, increases in future density may necessitate that missing middle housing typologies have more than four units sharing a drive around a cul- de-sac. The unit threshold of the existing standard should be discussed with an interdepartmental team of City staff to understand implications of increasing the number of units permitted to share a driveway. Chapter 9 – Permits – Specific This Chapter contains detailed permit process and evaluation criteria for the various permits and requests, including, but not limited to, conditional use permits, site plan review, and variances. 4-9-065 - Density bonus review Cottage housing is currently incentivized for market rate density bonuses at a rate of 2.5 times the maximum density that could be achieved based on the underlying zone. The City should consider AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) City of Renton | Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 20 incentivizing additional missing middle typologies through similar density bonus programs. This incentive will depend on a coordinated vision for the inclusion of missing middle housing including duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, fiveplexes, sixplexes, townhouses, courtyard apartments, and stacked flats. 4-9-065.D.3. Cottage House Developments: Bonus market-rate dwellings may be granted at a rate of two and one-half (2.5) times the maximum density that could be achieved in a standard subdivision based on the development standards of the underlying residential zone. The applicant shall submit a pro forma subdivision plan for the proposed property showing the number of conventional lots that would be permitted by the underlying zone. This pro forma subdivision plan will be used to determine the maximum number unit lots allowed, by multiplying the number of lots in the pro forma subdivision plan by two and one-half (2.5). (Ord. 6042, 12-13-2021) Past Code Amendments The City has made several recent changes relevant to housing development in Renton. Below is a summary or ordinances from 2018 – 2022 that are relevant to housing development, changes in zoning classifications, and land use.  Ordinance 6102 was adopted in 2022, establishing new standards for Multifamily Housing by adding Section 4-4-155 and amending Section 4-11-040 of the Renton Municipal Code.  Ordinance 6101 was adopted in 2022, amending Subsections 4-2-110.E, 4-2-120.B, 4-2-120.C, and 4-2-130.B of the Renton Municipal Code to adjust the maximum building height in the Center Downtown Zone and correct references to the Airport Related Height restrictions.  Ordinance 6099 was adopted in 2022, amending Subsection 4-4-080.F.10 of the Renton Municipal Code, amending parking regulations for converted land uses.  Ordinance 6078 was adopted in 2022, amending Subsection 4‐1‐220.D.2 of the Renton Municipal Code, amending multi-family tax exemption housing types.  Ordinance 6048 was adopted in 2021, amending Subsections 4-2-110.A and 4-2-110.E.20 of the Renton Municipal Code, amending height and setback regulations in the RMF (Residential Multi- Family) Zone.  Ordinance 6046 was adopted in 2021, amending Subsections 4-4-080.A.7 and 4-4-080.F.10.D, SECTION 4-9-030, and the definition of “Dwelling Unit, Accessory” in Section 4-11-040 of the Renton Municipal Code, amending Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) regulations.  Ordinance 6042 was adopted in 2021, amending Sections 4-2-110 and 4-2-115, Subsections 4-4- 080.F.10.D, 4-4-090.A, and 4-4-090.B, Section 4-7-090, Subsections 4-9-065.A, 4-9-065.B, 4-5- 065.D, 4-9-200.B, and 4-9-200.D, and Section 4-11-030 of the Renton Municipal Code, adding cottage house development regulations, including adding a definition of “Cottage House Development” to Section 4-11-030. AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) City of Renton | Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 21  Ordinance 6015 was adopted in 2021, amending Subsection 4-2-080.A.6 of the Renton Municipal Code, adding regulations for mixed-income housing in the Center Village (CV) Zone; lifting the moratorium for Large Residential Projects established by Ordinance No. 5967 and as extended by Ordinance No. 5982.  Ordinance 6008 was adopted in 2020, changing the zoning classification of twenty-nine parcels bounded by SE Petrovitsky Road to the north, 118th Avenue SE to the East, SE 180th Street to the south, and 116th Avenue SE to the west within the City Of Renton from Residential Four (R-4) to Residential Six (R-6).  Ordinance 6002 was adopted in 2020, revising Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) regulations by amending Subsections 4-2-110.C, 4-2-110.E, and 4-2-116.B.2 of the Renton Municipal Code.  Ordinance 5960 was adopted in 2019, amending Renton Municipal Code subsections 4-2-060.D, 4- 2-080.A.7, 4-2-110.A, 4-2-110.B, 4-2-110.C, 4-2-110.D, 4-2-110.E, 4-2-110.F, 4-3-110.E.5.A.I, 4- 4-080.E.2.A, 4-4-080.E.2.E, and 4-4-080.F.10.D; Chapter 4-2; and Section 4-9-030; by amending Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) development standards, including adding a new Section 4-2-116 Regulating ADU Design Standards, amending Parking Standards relating to ADUs, adding a new Subsection 4-9-030.H.  Ordinance 5920 was adopted in 2019, establishing the zoning classification of certain property annexed within the City of Renton from R‐4 (Urban Residential 4 Dwelling Units Per Acre, King County Zoning) to R‐4 (Residential 4 Du/AC; four dwelling units per acre, City of Renton Zoning) (Wolf Woods Annexation, File No. A-17-002).  Ordinance 5914 was adopted in 2018, changing the Zoning Classification of four parcels (7227801315, 7227801290, 7227801295, 7227801300) within the City of Renton from Residential Fourteen Dwelling Units per acre (R-14) to Center Village (CV) (CPA 2018-M-01). AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) City of Renton | Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 22 Summary of Analysis The review and analysis of the Renton Comprehensive Plan policies and Municipal Code presented recommendations and amendments required to meet the goal of authorizing middle housing types on at least 30% of lots currently zoned as single family residential. Recommended changes to the Comprehensive Plan are focused on the Land Use and Housing and Human Services Elements. These changes include specific inclusion of missing middle typologies in an effort to establish expectations for land use designations as they relate to zoning districts. Additionally, there are recommendations for specifying AMI bands that are being planned for and accommodated in the HHS element. Recommended changes to the existing land use code is centered on Chapters 2 – Zoning Regulations, 4 – City Wide Property Development Standards, 6 – Street and Utility Standards, and 9 – Permits. Changes to Chapter 2 include revisions to the permitted net residential densities within residential zoning districts. In an effort to increase residential density and create more flexibility for missing middle housing typologies, it is recommended that the current naming convention for the zoning district be used to mark the minimum net density as opposed to the maximum net density. For example, R4 would have a minimum net density of 2 DU/AC and a maximum net 4 DU/AC instead of no minimum DU/AC. Changes to Chapter 4 are focused on parking reductions for detached dwelling and townhouses, cottage housing, and attached dwellings in RMF, R-14 and R-10 Zones. Parking requirements contribute to the fixed costs of a new development, which are often passed along to future tenants. By building in a minimum and maximum range that scales to the size of the unit, future development may reduce the at- grade footprint for parking and reduce the cost of development. Chapter 6 focuses on Street and Utility Standards. There is an existing requirement that shared driveways may be used for access by no more than 4 residential units. How might this requirement limit anticipated future residential development in R-8 – RMF zoning? Within the context of Renton’s Residential Medium and Low Density urban form, increases in future density may necessitate that missing middle housing typologies have more than four units sharing a drive around a cul-de-sac. Chapter 9 focuses on Permits. A future area for discussion is around density bonuses, and if there are additional typologies that the City wishes to incentivize through a bonus structure. There are existing density bonusses for cottage housing. CODE NOTES Land Use Element Make RLD, RMD, and RHD land uses distinct by prohibiting new standalone detached dwellings in RMD and RHD land use designations. Housing And Human Services Element Specify the AMI and housing typologies that are being planned for. Expand density incentives beyond cottage housing. Chapter 2 – Zoning Regulations Adjust the max net density for RMD and RHD land uses to increase capacity for missing middle typologies. Adjust the permitted uses to allow a larger spectrum of uses in R-10 – RMF zones. Chapter 4 – City Wide Property Development Standards Reduce parking minimums to make new housing development more affordable. Chapter 6 – Street and Utility Standards Discuss street standards and clarify intent with shared driveway requirements. Chapter 9 – Permits - Specific Discuss density bonuses as they are applied to market rate housing development. AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) City of Renton | Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 23 Racial Equity Analysis Introduction The purpose of the Racial Equity Analysis is to provide a review of the planning history within the city of Renton, and a quantitative data analysis of population and housing trends, as well as to summarize key findings. This information, in conjunction with policy and code review, will establish a baseline for making equitable planning and code recommendations to minimize displacement and ensure that BIPOC communities have access to affordable housing that meets their needs. A public engagement process will help answer questions raised in this process and will inform best practices for middle housing in Renton. Community Understanding Historical Context Renton pre-1900 Before Renton was incorporated as a town in 1901, the land was occupied by the Duwamish and Upper Puyallup people, who now compose the ferderally recognized Muchelshoot Indian Tribe.4 In 1855, the Treaty of Point Elliot was signed between the US government and many regional tribes, including the Duwamish tribe, which exchanged 54,000 acres of land for a guarantee of reservations, and hunting and fishing rights. Included in this land exchange was the present-day cities of Seattle, Renton, Tukwila, Bellevue, as well as more areas across King County.5 Soon after the Treaty of Point Elliot was signed, it was violated by European-American immigrants, thereby triggering several years of war. In 1866, a formal recommendation was made to the United States government to establish a reservation for the Duwamish, but this was met with a petition that ultimately blocked the action, and to this day, the Point Elliott Treaty has not been honored. It is important to recognize the Duwamish tribe, who are still seeking federal recognition, and more broadly the Coast Salish people, as the original stewards of the land, and to acknowledge and address the ongoing impacts of the American history of colonialization. As the City of Renton continues with city planning efforts, it can begin to redress historic inequities by supporting the voices of Renton’s indigenous communities and fostering equitable housing outcomes for all Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) households. Renton’s Industrial History and World War II Following Renton’s 1901 incorporation, the city was a hub for industrial activity, particularly coal mining, brick production, and manufacturing by companies like PACCAR (then called the Pacific Car and Foundry), leading Renton to become the second largest industrial center of King County at the time. 4https://www.rentonwa.gov/city_hall/parks_and_recreation/museum/city_history/pre_1900#:~:text=CITY%20OF%20RENT ON%20WASHINGTON&text=The%20Duwamish%20are%20the%20Coast,and%20Duwamish%20Rivers%20%26%20Ellio tt%20Bay. 5 https://www.duwamishtribe.org/treaty-of-point-elliott AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) City of Renton | Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 24 In 1941, the Boeing Company established itself in Renton to build planes for war efforts, and brought with it significant change. In contrast to previous years of slow recovery from the Great Depression, Renton suddenly experienced rapid growth, as Boeing’s presence brought $4 million in federal funding for housing and infrastructural improvements.6 Later, in 1958, the Boeing Company began producing the 707 airliner and thus launching commercial jet aviation in Renton and worldwide. Despite improved access to better housing and infrastructural assets, as well as Renton’s growing economic success, both brought by World War II, not everyone in the city benefited. Specifically, Renton’s Japanese American families—who in the 1920s and 1930s had been integral to Renton’s horticultural industry and some of the region’s major green spaces, like Kubota Gardens—were displaced from their homes within Renton and the Puget Sound area, and were forced into internment camps. Following the announcement of Executive Order 9066 in 1942, Japanese immigrant and American households in Renton had two days to register at the Renton Junction Civil Control Station (which is now where I-405 runs between Renton and Tukwila) and were relocated to Fresno, California.7 After the war, housing laws prohibited Japanese immigrant families from owning land until 1967, and former family-owned horticultural land was replaced by development. The internment of Japanese immigrants and American families is a direct result of systemic racism, and has lastingly impacted the Japanese community’s accumulated wealth, access to economic opportunity, and housing opportunities. Renton Suburbanization and Annexation A great deal of present-day Renton has been annexed from King County in recent years. Exhibit 12, below, shows parcels annexed by the City of Renton. 6 https://www.rentonwa.gov/cms/One.aspx?portalId=7922741&pageId=9117416 7 https://historylink.org/File/21002 AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) City of Renton | Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 25 Exhibit 12. Annexation History Map Source: City of Renton, 2023 AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) City of Renton | Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 26 Racially Restrictive Covenants Racially restrictive covenants are clauses in property deeds that prevent specific groups of people from occupying land, based on their race. At the time of their use from the 1920s through 1960s, racially restrictive covenants were legally enforceable contracts, and those who broke deed restrictions could lose their claim to property or face financial liability. While racially restrictive covenants are illegal to act on, they remain in many deeds across the country. In 2006, Washington Governor Christine Gregoire signed SB 6169, making it easier for homeowners’ associations to remove racially restrictive covenants from their language. Similarly, in 2018, the Washington Legislature added a provision that enabled property owners to strike racial restrictions from their deeds and other property records. The UW Seattle Civil Rights & Labor History project searched King County property records to identify restrictions that prevented BIPOC households from owning property or living in neighborhoods citywide. In the City of Renton, ten racially restrictive covenants could be found within its current boundary, as listed below in Exhibit 13, and Exhibit 14 maps where these covenants were located. Most of the covenants withing Renton restricted homeownership and property rental to only allow people who identified as white. The red circles in Exhibit 14 show properties with racial covenants and the yellow neighborhoods labeled as a “restricted district.” Exhibit 13. Racially Restrictive Covenants in Renton: Representative Language from a Sample of Covenants Subdivision Year Properties Impacted Covenant Text C.D. Hillman’s Lake Washington Garden of Eden, Division No. 1 1926 6 “The parties of the second part further agrees to sell to white people only and not to permit either to be sold by forced sale; and any sale of this contract or of any interest in said contract or in the lands therein described without the written consent of the party of the first part will render this contract null and void.” C.D. Hillman’s Lake Washington Garden of Eden, Division No. 4 1946 2 “No persons of any race other than the Caucasian or White race shall use or occupy any building or lot, except that this covenant shall not prevent occupancy by domestic servant of a different race domiciled with an owner or tenant.” Cresto View Addition 1947 29 “No persons of any race other than the Caucasian or White race shall use or occupy any building or lot except that this covenant shall not prevent occupancy domestic servants of a different race domiciled with an owner or tenant.” Northwestern Garden Tracts Division 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 1948 115 “Neither the owner or any successor in interest shall ever convey, lease or rent to any person other than the white or Caucasian races, said premises, or any portion thereof or permit the occupancy thereof by any such persons, except as a domestic servant.” President Park 400 Labeled a “Restricted District” in newspaper advertisements. Stewart’s Highland Acres 1947 2 “This property cannot be sold to any person or persons other than those of the Caucasian race;” Windsor Hills Addition to Renton 1942 143 “No race or nationality other than those of the Caucasian race shall use or occupy any dwelling on a lot, except that this covenant shall not prevent occupancy by domestic servants of a different race or nationally employed by a owner or tenant.” Source: University of Washington Seattle Civil Rights & Labor History Project, 2022. AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) City of Renton | Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 27 Exhibit 14. Renton Map of Race-Based Covenants Source: University of Washington Seattle Civil Rights & Labor History Project, 2022. Analysis of Racially Disparate Impacts, Exclusion, and Displacement Measures Analyzing racially disparate impacts, exclusion, and displacement in housing is a complex process that can be approached in a variety of ways. In order to facilitate a comprehensive analysis, this evaluation uses over a dozen measures, including income, rental prices, housing cost burden, and population density, as shown in Exhibit 15 below. Exhibit 15. Measures of Racially Disparate Impacts, Exclusion, and Displacement Datapoint Source Details Median household Income ACS 5-year, 2021 Disaggregated by race and ethnicity and mapped by Census tract Average rent Zillow Average housing prices Calculated based on Zillow median home prices for average homes and lower market homes Housing tenure ACS 5-year, 2021 Disaggregated by race and ethnicity Housing cost burden rates CHAS 5-year 2015-2019 Disaggregated by race and ethnicity Rates of crowding ACS 5-year, 2021 Distribution of environmental exposure risk Washington Environmental Health Disparities Map, 2022 Disaggregated by race and ethnicity Commute mode estimates ACS 5-year, 2021 AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) City of Renton | Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 28 Datapoint Source Details Population density by race and ethnicity, mapped Census 2020 Park access City of Renton Include 10-minute walksheds Fair housing complaints Commute patterns by worker type LEHD based on ACS 5-year 2015- 2019 Disaggregated by income level and geographic location Subsidized housing locations National Housing Preservation Database Evictions count and rate Eviction Study Mapped by Census tract Displacement risk factors Renton Housing Needs Assessment Mapped by Census tract Source: BERK, 2023. Racially Disparate Impacts Racially disparate impacts are defined as occurring when policies, practices, rules, or other systems result in a disproportionate impact on one or more racial groups.8 Data analysis of a range of variables can assess whether racially disparate impacts are impacting a community, including household income, average rent and housing prices, and housing tenure, among other variables. Median Household Income Exhibit 16 shows that:  Median household income has generally increased from 2010 to 2021. In 2021, a much higher percentage of the population had a median household income over $150,000 than in 2010.  Citywide, Renton has seen an increase in the number of low-income households (see Exhibit 38). Exhibit 16. Renton Median Household Income 8 Department of Commerce Draft Racially Disparate Impacts Guidance, 2023. 16% 25% 20% 17%16% 5% 2% 11% 15% 18% 15% 20% 10%12% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% Under $25,000 $25,000 to $49,999 $50,000 to $74,999 $75,000 to $99,999 $100,000 to $149,999 $150,000 to $199,999 $200,000 or more % o f t o t a l Income Bracket 2010 2021 AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) City of Renton | Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 29 Sources: US Census 2010; ACS 2021; BERK 2023. Exhibit 17 shows that:  Median household income is relatively evenly spread within all groups, with the exception of those who identify as AIAN alone, where people are more likely to have an income of $25,000 to $49,999.  Those who identify as NHOPI alone, Asian alone, and White alone (non-Hispanic) are the most likely to have an income of $200,000 or more. Exhibit 17. Median Household Income by Race and Ethnicity Sources: ACS 2021; BERK 2023. Average Rent Exhibit 18 shows that:  Average rent in Renton has increased 38% in the last five years, which is comparable to the percent increase across the United States, but is higher than the percent increase in the Seattle-Tacoma- Bellevue Metro area, and is much higher than the percent increase in King County.  Through the Displacement Risk analysis (see Exhibit 38). Exhibit 18. Average Rent Comparison City/Region Average Rent (Nov 2022) % increase in the last 5 years (Nov 2017) Renton $2,265 38% 10% 26% 2% 7% 12% 9% 16% 6% 14% 16% 51% 11% 0% 29% 15% 25% 17% 20% 12% 15% 35% 23% 18% 23% 14% 9% 6% 14% 26% 11% 20% 17% 19% 14% 25% 26% 3% 17% 21% 15% 12% 5% 4% 11% 4% 5% 5% 8% 13% 10% 0% 15% 19% 7% 4% 6% White alone, not Hispanic or Latino Black alone AIAN alone Asian alone NHOPI alone Other alone Two or more Hispanic or Latino Under $25,000 $25,000 to $49,999 $50,000 to $74,999 $75,000 to $99,999 $100,000 to $149,999 $150,000 to $199,999 $200,000 or more 10% 26% 2% 7% 12% 9% 16% 6% 14% 16% 51% 11% 0% 29% 15% 25% 17% 20% 12% 15% 35% 23% 18% 23% 14% 9% 6% 14% 26% 11% 20% 17% 19% 14% 25% 26% 3% 17% 21% 15% 12% 5% 4% 11% 4% 5% 5% 8% 13% 10% 0% 15% 19% 7% 4% 6% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% White alone, not Hispanic or Latino Black alone AIAN alone Asian alone NHOPI alone Other alone Two or more Hispanic or Latino Under $25,000 $25,000 to $49,999 $50,000 to $74,999 $75,000 to $99,999 $100,000 to $149,999 $150,000 to $199,999 $200,000 or more AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) City of Renton | Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 30 King County $2,292 25% Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue Metro $2,220 30% United States $2,008 37% Sources: Zillow 2022; BERK 2023. Exhibit 19 shows that:  Since 2015, rental prices have increased 66%.  Similar increases in rental pricing can be found in King County and in the Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue Metro area. All three of these areas, however, have experienced rental pricing increases greater than the United States as a whole. Exhibit 19. Rent Over Time Sources: Zillow, 2022; BERK 2023. Exhibit 20 shows that:  Average home prices have increased significantly.  Average home prices in Renton have increased at a rate similar to that of King County and the Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue Metro area. $1,368 $2,265 +66% $0 $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 United States Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue Metro King County Renton AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) City of Renton | Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 31 Exhibit 20. Average home price over time Sources: Zillow, 2022; BERK 2023. Average Housing Prices Exhibit 21 shows that:  Average home prices in different AMI groups in Renton have increased at similar rates. Exhibit 21. Average home price in Renton at different AMI Sources: Zillow, 2022; BERK 2023. Housing Tenure Exhibit 22 shows that: $337,032 (+179%) $889,984 (+264%) $753,472 (+250%) $759,919 (+251%) $0 $100,000 $200,000 $300,000 $400,000 $500,000 $600,000 $700,000 $800,000 $900,000 $1,000,000 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 United States Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue Metro King County Renton 559,553 (+267%) 753,472 (+250%) 1,025,053 (+225%) $0 $200,000 $400,000 $600,000 $800,000 $1,000,000 $1,200,000 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 5-35%35-65%65-95% AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) City of Renton | Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 32  New residents of Renton tend to be renters rather than homeowners. More people are renting housing in Renton since 2010 across the board. Homeownership has dropped 4% in Renton since 2010.  Homeownership rates in Renton have dropped the most with Hispanic/Latino, Non-White and multi- racial households. Exhibit 22. Housing Tenure Rates, 2010-2021 2010 2021 2010 2021 Renton Renter occupied Renter occupied Owner occupied Owner occupied CITYWIDE 43% 47% 57% 53% White alone, not Hispanic or Latino 40% 42% 60% 58% Black alone 67% 72% 33% 28% AIAN alone 62% 71% 38% 29% Asian alone 28% 31% 72% 69% NHOPI alone 67% 70% 33% 30% Other alone 62% 73% 38% 27% Two or more 53% 72% 47% 28% Hispanic or Latino 60% 71% 40% 29% 2010 2021 2010 2021 King County Renter occupied Renter occupied Owner occupied Owner occupied COUNTYWIDE 40% 43% 60% 57% White alone, not Hispanic or Latino 35% 38% 65% 62% Black alone 67% 72% 33% 28% AIAN alone 63% 57% 37% 43% Asian alone 40% 42% 60% 58% NHOPI alone 73% 76% 27% 24% Other alone 66% 68% 34% 32% Two or more 55% 57% 45% 43% Hispanic or Latino 64% 64% 36% 36% Legend % Increase % Decrease Same Sources: US Census, 2010; ACS, 2021; BERK 2023. AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) City of Renton | Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 33 Housing Cost Burden Rates Exhibit 23 shows that:  Homeowners who identified their race or ethnicity as “Other” (including multiple races, non-Hispanic) experience the most “extreme” cost burden.  Homeowners who identified as Pacific Islander alone (non-Hispanic) experience the highest overall percentage of cost-burden, followed by those who identified as Black or African American alone (non-Hispanic).  Homeowners who identified as While alone (non-Hispanic) experienced the lowest overall percentage of cost-burden. Exhibit 23. Home Owner Cost Burden by Race and Ethnicity Sources: ACS, 2021; BERK, 2023. Renter Cost Burden Exhibit 24 shows that:  All renters who identified as Pacific Islander alone (non-Hispanic) are cost-burdened.  Renters who identified as Hispanic (any race) or Black or African-American alone (non-Hispanic) experience the second and third highest overall percentages of cost-burden, at 53% and 48%, respectively.  Renters who identified as Asian alone (non-Hispanic) experienced the lowest overall percentage of cost-burden, at 29%, followed by those who identified as White alone (non-Hispanic), at 42%. 77% 65% 56% 65% 74% 53% 73% 73% 15% 20% 23% 21% 26% 47% 17% 6% 7% 15% 20% 14% 0% 0% 10% 21% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% White alone, non-Hispanic BIPOC Black or African-American alone, non-Hispanic Asian alone, non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Native alone, non-Hispanic Pacific Islander alone, non-Hispanic Hispanic, any race Other (including multiple races, non-Hispanic) Percentage Ra c e o r E t h n i c i t y Not Cost-Burdened Cost-Burdened Extremely Cost-Burdened Not Computed AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) City of Renton | Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 34 Exhibit 24. Renter Cost Burden by Race and Ethnicity Sources: ACS, 2021; BERK, 2023. Rates of Crowding Overcrowding is determined by a ratio of household size to number of bedrooms in their housing unit. Any ratio greater than 1.0 is considered an overcrowded household. Exhibit 25 shows that:  Overcrowding is more prevalent in households that rent, compared to those that are home owners.  Larger sized rental options could be important to incentivize in policies and codes. Exhibit 25. Overcrowding in Renton TENURE OCCUPANTS PER ROOM ESTIMATE MARGIN of ERROR Owner 0.50 or less occupants per room 15,384 817 0.51-1.00 occupants per room 5,410 458 1.01 to 1.50 occupants per room 262 102 1.51 – 2.00 occupants per room 38 36 2.01 or more occupants per room 0 30 Renter 0.50 or less occupants per room 10,113 757 0.51-1.00 occupants per room 7,240 670 1.01 to 1.50 occupants per room 900 252 58% 54% 52% 71% 53% 0% 47% 56% 21% 24% 17% 17% 47% 76% 33% 21% 20% 22% 31% 12% 0% 24% 20% 23% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% White alone, non-Hispanic BIPOC Black or African-American alone, non-Hispanic Asian alone, non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Native alone, non-Hispanic Pacific Islander alone, non-Hispanic Hispanic, any race Other (including multiple races, non-Hispanic) Percentage Ra c e o r E t h n i c i t y Not Cost-Burdened Cost-Burdened Extremely Cost-Burdened Not Computed AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) City of Renton | Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 35 TENURE OCCUPANTS PER ROOM ESTIMATE MARGIN of ERROR 1.51 – 2.00 occupants per room 525 209 2.01 or more occupants per room 139 96 Sources: ACS, 2021; BERK, 2023. Distribution of Environmental Exposure Risk Washington State Department of Health released an Environmental Health Disparities Map that evaluates health risks based off threat and vulnerability. Exhibit 26, below, shows how environmental risk was determined using 19 indicators to calculate a cumulative impact. A link to the map can be found here. With regards to Renton, the east half of the Highlands and the west half of the East Plateau Community Planning areas have the lowest environmental risk of 6. Everywhere else in the city has a risk factor of at least 8 out of 10. Higher residential densities cannot happen without a safe, multimodal transportation system. Environmental policy recommendations are critical to ensure future populations are not impacted by negative health factors. Exhibit 26. Washington Environmental Health Disparities Definition Source: Washington State Department of Health, 2023. AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) City of Renton | Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 36 Exhibit 27. Environmental Exposure Risk Map Source:Washington State Department of Health, 2023. Commute Mode Estimates Exhibit 28 shows that:  Renton residents tend to drive alone as their commute, and at a rate higher than King County as a whole.  Renton residents are more likely to drive, whether carpooling or driving alone, than to use public transportation.  Renton residents are less likely than King County residents to walk as their commute method. AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) City of Renton | Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 37 Exhibit 28. Commute Mode Split Sources: ACS, 2021; BERK, 2023. Commute Patterns by Worker Type Error! Reference source not found. in Appendix A details the Home and Work location of employed individuals in Renton using Longitudinal Employer Household Dynamics data. The map shows that the downtown and industrial centers of Renton are concentrated locations of in-person labor in Renton, many of those jobs attracting indivuals who live outside of Renton. The residential communities south and east of I-405 work outside of Renton for the most part. There is a small proportion of individuals who live and work in Renton, although there is no spatial logic for where these individuals live in the City of Renton. Crosswalking these findings with Error! Reference source not found. - Error! Reference source not found., the racial diversity of Renton make it difficult to determine how these Home and Work locations impact specific racial/ethnic groups. Race/Ethnicity Location Quotient Exhibits 40 through 44 in Appendix A map the location quotients for different racial/ethnic groups in Renton. Location quotients measure a race or ethincity’s share of the population in a block group, relative to that same group’s share of the population within King County as a whole. A location quotient score of one indicates an identical share of the population, whereas scores less than one indicate that the group has a lower share of the population within the subarea than the county as a whole. Likewise, scores above one indicate that the group has a higher share of the population within the subarea. These maps indicate that:  The population of Renton proportionately holds a higher share of BIPOC individuals than King County as a whole. Specifically, Renton has higher shares of people who identify as Hispanic or Latino, Black alone, and Asian alone, than King County does. 68% 10% 6% 0% 0% 0% 2% 1% 13% 55% 9% 11% 0% 0% 1% 5% 1% 18% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70% Drive alone Carpool Public transportation Taxicab Motorcycle Bicycle Walked Other Worked from home Percentage Mo d e King County Renton AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) City of Renton | Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 38 Park Access Error! Reference source not found. in Appendix A maps the areas of Renton that have access to a city park within a ten-minute walk. This map indicates that:  The majority of Renton has access to city parks within a ten-minute walk.  The northeast and south of Renton (Benson and East Plateau CPA’s) have the widest park access gaps. When juxtaposed with Error! Reference source not found. (BIPOC location quotient map), these areas also represent some of the highest percentages of BIPOC households Fair Housing Complaints The Federal Housing and Urban Development Department tracks complaints filed under the Fair Housing Act, which prohibits discrimination based on federally recognized bases (race, religion, etc). In Washington State, there have been 4664 complaints in Washington State from 2000 – 2019. Subsidized Housing Locations According to data from the Washington State Housing Finance Commission, there are 22 publicly subsidized apartment properties across the City of Renton. See Exhibit 29. These 22 properties provide 2,987 units of affordable housing, most of which are located in the City Center and Renton Highlands neighborhoods. Exhibit 29. Affordable Housing Projects in Renton PROJECT NAME PROGRAM TYPE APPLICATION YEAR TOTAL UNITS Compass Center Renton Lutheran Regional Veterans' Program 9% Tax Credits 2008 58 Golden Cedars PRI 366 Heritage Grove Apartments 4% Tax Credits 1994 55 June Leonard Place 9% Tax Credits 2017 47 LaFortuna PRI 12 Liberty Square Apartments 4% Tax Credits 2006 91 Lodge at Eagle Ridge 80/20 Bonds 2005 128 Merrill Gardens at Renton Centre 80/20 Bonds 155 Peak 88 4% Tax Credits 1995 35 Renton Crest 4% Tax Credits 2018 271 Renton Family Housing 9% Tax Credits 1996 24 Reserve at Renton, The 4% Tax Credits 2014 217 AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) City of Renton | Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 39 Royal Hills Apartments 9% Tax Credits 2000 281 Solera Apartments 4% Tax Credits 2021 272 Spencer Court Apartments 9% Tax Credits 1991 73 Stonebrook Apartments 4% Tax Credits 2003 138 Sunset Court Apartments 9% Tax Credits 2016 50 Sunset Gardens 4% Tax Credits 2022 77 Sunset Oaks 4% Tax Credits 2019 59 Vantage Point Apartments 9% Tax Credits 2013 77 Wasatch Hills 80/20 Bonds 356 Watershed Renton PRI 145 Total 2,987 Sources: Washington State Housing Finance Commission, 2023; BERK, 2023 Evictions Count and Rate The University of Washington has created an Eviction Study Map, seen below in Exhibit 30 through Exhibit 36 (link). The study tracks evictions in Washington State from 2004 to 2017. It should be noted that the study map only shows data by race and ethnicity for individuals that identified as White, Black, Hispanic, or Asian only. There is a gap of information for other racial and multiracial communities. These exhibits indicate that:  For eviction risk, a value greater than 1 represents a higher likelihood of eviction compared to the rest of the study area. A value less than 1 represents a lesser likelihood. Overall, Renton has a higher relative risk of eviction compared to Seattle, when broken down by race, individuals who identify as Asian have a higher risk of eviction compared to other racial and ethnic groups.  Black individuals represent the highest rate of eviction rates in Renton. It is higher than many neighboring cities. Exhibit 30. Municpality Eviction Study Comparison Municipality Number of Evictions Eviction Rate Eviction Risk Renton 273 1.46% 1.05 Seattle 1,181 0.7% 0.51 Tukwila 51 1.23% 0.89 Kent 429 2.19% 1.59 AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) City of Renton | Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 40 Burien 174 2.01% 1.45 Source: https://tesseract.csde.washington.edu:8080/shiny/evictionmaps/ Exhibit 31. Municipality Eviction Rate: by Race and Ethnicity Municipality White Only Eviction Rate Black Eviction Rate Hispanic Eviction Rate Asian Eviction Rate Renton 0.98% 3.65% 1.16% 1.11% Seattle 0.52% 2.32% 0.88% 0.48% Tukwila 0.92% 2.16% 0.74% 0.95% Kent 1.31% 4.72% 2.2% 1.71% Burien 1.37% 3.74% 1.98% 2.03% Source: https://tesseract.csde.washington.edu:8080/shiny/evictionmaps/ Exhibit 32. Municipality Relative Risk of Eviction: by Race and Ethnicity Municipality White Only Eviction Rate Black Eviction Rate Hispanic Eviction Rate Asian Eviction Rate Renton 0.93 0.89 0.65 1.35 Seattle 0.5 0.57 0.49 0.58 Tukwila 0.88 0.53 0.41 1.15 Kent 1.25 1.15 1.24 2.07 Burien 1.31 0.91 1.11 2.46 Source: https://tesseract.csde.washington.edu:8080/shiny/evictionmaps/ AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) City of Renton | Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 41 Exhibit 33. Evictions Study Map: Eviction Count Source: https://tesseract.csde.washington.edu:8080/shiny/evictionmaps/ Exhibit 34. Eviction Study Map: Eviction Rate Source: https://tesseract.csde.washington.edu:8080/shiny/evictionmaps/ AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) City of Renton | Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 42 Exhibit 35. Eviction Study Map: Relative Eviction Risk Source: https://tesseract.csde.washington.edu:8080/shiny/evictionmaps/ Exhibit 36. Evictions Study Map: Relative Eviction Risk Source: https://tesseract.csde.washington.edu:8080/shiny/evictionmaps/ AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) City of Renton | Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 43 Displacement Risk Displacement risk was calcuclated at a tract level by looking at the following factors:  Social Vulnerability. Each Census tract was given a social vulnerability score based off the number of households that rent, BIPOC share of total population and median household income. Each census tract was sorted into quintiles, and a total score was allocated.  Demographic change. A determination was given to each census tract to note whether there has been an increase or decrease in households that identify either as BIPOC and/or have an AMI less than 80%. Through this analysis it was determined whether there were signs of gentrification from looking at population change. However, it should be noted that just because there has been a decrease or increase in BIPOC populations, it does not necessitate a sign of gentrification. Additional research should be done to understand specific push and pull factors into specific neighborhoods.  Market Prices. Rent prices and housing appreciation was analyzed to determine whether housing prices have been increasing or decreased. Areas with higher rents and market prices were determind as high appreciation areas, and lower rents as more stable neighborhoods. Exhibit 37 shows a GIS map of displacement risk in Renton and Exhibit 38 a table with detailed information on each census tract. Furthermore, Exhibit 38 shows how much of the census tract overlaps within current Renton city limits. The ID label in each census tract in Exhibit 37 corresponds with the tract number in Exhibit 38. The areas with the highest risk of displacement is in the Highlands community planning area predominately, and along along I-405 and Hwy 900 in Benson, Cedar River, and Valley. Of these areas, the Renton Highlands have the most census tracts at high risk of displacement followed by Benson and Valley. All of these areas have scored high in social vulnerability. Displacement risk was also high in the Valley Community Planning Area. However, significant portions here are zoned industrial, and additional analysis is needed to understand housing push/pull factors here. Signs of gentrification was highest in the Highlands, and where Benson and Cedar River meetThe Highlands community planning area also has the highest number of census tracts with accelerating housing market prices despite being a more affordable area for renters. AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) City of Renton | Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 44 Exhibit 37. Displacement Risk Index Sources: Census 2020, BERK 2023. AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) 45 Exhibit 38. Displacement Risk Table, Renton Final Displacement Risk Tract Percent Overlap Renter Quintile BIPOC Quintile Median Income Score Social Vulnerability Score BIPOC Change Score Under 80% AMI Change Score Demographic Change Score High or Low Rent Area Appreciation Rate Market Price Score 247.03 21%1 3 1 5 Decreasing BIPOC Increasing Low Income HHs No High rent area High appreciation Appreciated Low 247.04 12%2 3 1 6 Tracking county change Increasing Low Income HHs Disinvestment High rent area High appreciation Appreciated Low 251.01 98%3 4 3 10 Decreasing BIPOC Tracking county change Gentrification Low rent area High appreciation Accelerating High 251.03 100%3 5 2 10 Tracking county change Increasing Low Income HHs Disinvestment Low rent area Low or mod appreciation Stable Low 251.04 65%1 4 2 7 Tracking county change Increasing Low Income HHs Disinvestment Low rent area Low or mod appreciation Stable Low 252.01 100%2 4 3 9 Decreasing BIPOC Increasing Low Income HHs No Low rent area High appreciation Accelerating Low 252.02 90%4 4 3 11 Tracking county change Increasing Low Income HHs Disinvestment Low rent area High appreciation Accelerating Moderate 253.02 90%5 4 5 14 Tracking county change Increasing Low Income HHs Disinvestment Low rent area Low or mod appreciation Stable Low 253.03 100%5 4 4 13 Increasing BIPOC Increasing Low Income HHs Disinvestment High rent area Low or mod appreciation Appreciated Low 253.04 100%4 3 2 9 Tracking county change Decreasing Low Income HHs Gentrification High rent area High appreciation Appreciated Possible displacement 254.01 100%5 5 4 14 Tracking county change Increasing Low Income HHs Disinvestment Low rent area Low or mod appreciation Stable Low 254.02 100%4 5 3 12 Decreasing BIPOC Decreasing Low Income HHs Gentrification Low rent area High appreciation Accelerating High 255.00 100%4 5 4 13 Decreasing BIPOC Tracking county change Gentrification Low rent area Low or mod appreciation Stable High 256.01 100%3 5 4 12 Decreasing BIPOC Increasing Low Income HHs No Low rent area High appreciation Accelerating High 256.02 68%1 4 1 6 Increasing BIPOC Decreasing Low Income HHs No Low rent area Low or mod appreciation Stable Low 257.02 80%2 3 2 7 Decreasing BIPOC Increasing Low Income HHs No High rent area Low or mod appreciation Appreciated Low 257.03 100%5 4 4 13 Increasing BIPOC Tracking county change No Low rent area High appreciation Accelerating High 257.04 100%4 3 4 11 Decreasing BIPOC Decreasing Low Income HHs Gentrification Low rent area Low or mod appreciation Stable High 258.03 100%4 5 4 13 Decreasing BIPOC Decreasing Low Income HHs Gentrification Low rent area Low or mod appreciation Stable High 258.04 77%2 4 4 10 Decreasing BIPOC Increasing Low Income HHs No High rent area Low or mod appreciation Appreciated Moderate 258.05 100%4 5 4 13 Tracking county change Increasing Low Income HHs Disinvestment Low rent area Low or mod appreciation Stable Low 258.06 100%4 5 3 12 Decreasing BIPOC Increasing Low Income HHs No Low rent area Low or mod appreciation Stable Moderate 260.03 62%5 5 4 14 Decreasing BIPOC Decreasing Low Income HHs Gentrification Low rent area Low or mod appreciation Stable High 260.04 51%2 5 2 9 Decreasing BIPOC Decreasing Low Income HHs Gentrification Low rent area Low or mod appreciation Stable Low 261.01 3%4 5 4 13 Decreasing BIPOC Increasing Low Income HHs No Low rent area Low or mod appreciation Stable Moderate 262.00 1%5 5 4 14 Tracking county change Decreasing Low Income HHs Gentrification Low rent area Low or mod appreciation Stable High 293.04 29%2 4 3 9 Tracking county change Increasing Low Income HHs Disinvestment High rent area Low or mod appreciation Appreciated Low 293.05 30%1 5 3 9 Tracking county change Tracking county change No Low rent area High appreciation Accelerating Low 293.08 100%3 5 3 11 Decreasing BIPOC Tracking county change Gentrification High rent area Low or mod appreciation Appreciated Possible displacement 293.09 100%4 5 4 13 Tracking county change Increasing Low Income HHs Disinvestment High rent area Low or mod appreciation Appreciated Low 319.06 3%1 2 2 5 Increasing BIPOC Increasing Low Income HHs Disinvestment Low rent area Low or mod appreciation Stable Low 319.10 46%1 3 3 7 Decreasing BIPOC Increasing Low Income HHs No High rent area Low or mod appreciation Appreciated Low 319.12 3%1 2 3 6 Increasing BIPOC Increasing Low Income HHs Disinvestment Low rent area Low or mod appreciation Stable Low 319.13 45%1 3 1 5 Increasing BIPOC Decreasing Low Income HHs No Low rent area Low or mod appreciation Stable Low Social Vulnerability Demographic Change Market Prices AG E N D A I T E M # 8 . a ) 46 Summary of Analysis Findings  Renton has a proportionally larger BIPOC population than King County overall. East Plateau has seen higher rates of increases of BIPOC households compared to other community planning areas. However, there are lower rates of BIPOC households moving into some of Renton’s most diverse neighborhoods (Benson, Highlands).  Median income in Renton has increased.  Renton’s average rental prices have increased more than the Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue Metro area, and significantly more than in King County. The housing market has been appreciating highest in Kennydale and Highlands.  More people are renting housing in Renton across the board, and homeownership rates have dropped.  Homeownership rates in Renton have dropped the most within Hispanic/Latino, Non-White populations.  Most of Renton has relatively high environmental health risk.  Those who identify as Black or African American represent the highest eviction rates in Renton.  The Renton Highlands and Benson have the highest risk of displacement in Renton. This is attributed to higher housing costs in low-rent areas, slower rates of households that are BIPOC and have an AMI < 80% compared to the county. The initial displacement risk analysis indicates that there is potential gentrification, and further analysis is needed through public engagement  East Plateau and City Center has some of the lowest risk for displacement due to low rents and housing appreciation rates. More households that are BIPOC and/or with an AMI <80% have been moving here as well. Overall, Renton is a diverse city with a variety of housing options. It’s a city of both increases in both households with higher, moderate- and low-income households. Middle housing can be a solution to increase affordable homeownership opportunities and prevent displacement. Additional outreach and engagement is needed to complicate the data narrative in understanding push/pull factors for housing. Outreach for this project will better understand local narratives on what makes Renton a thriving community for all. AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) 1 CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 6153 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, REVISING THE CITY’S 2015 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO COMPLY WITH MANDATED 2024 GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT REVIEW AND UPDATE, AND ADOPTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT, MAPS, AND DATA IN CONJUNCTION THEREWITH; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Council has heretofore adopted and filed a Comprehensive Plan, and the Council has implemented and amended and revised the Comprehensive Plan from time to time, together with the adoption of various codes, reports and records; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has heretofore fully recommended to the Council, from time to time, certain amendments and revisions to the City’s Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the current Comprehensive Plan was implemented pursuant to Ordinance No. 5758 (adopted June 22, 2015) and most recently amended pursuant to Ordinance No. 6116 (adopted August 14, 2023); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held public hearings on this matter on May 1, 2024 and on July 3, 2024; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has made certain findings and recommendations to the Council; and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106, on July 24, 2024, the City notified the State of Washington of its intent to adopt amendments to its development regulations; and WHEREAS, the City conducted public notification and participation efforts required by RCW 36.70A.130(2); and AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) ORDINANCE NO. 6153 2 WHEREAS, the Council has duly determined after due consideration of the evidence before it that it is advisable and appropriate to amend and revise the City’s Comprehensive Plan in compliance with Chapter 36.70A RCW; and WHEREAS, such revision and implementation of elements for the Comprehensive Plan being in the best interest for the public benefit; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I.The above findings and recitals are found to be true and correct in all respects. SECTION II. The Comprehensive Plan, attached hereto as Attachment A, is hereby adopted in whole, and its elements and associated appendices replace all elements and portions of the City’s 2015 Comprehensive Plan. SECTION III. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map attached hereto as Attachment B shall be the official Comprehensive Plan – Land Use Map, and the land use designations shown on this map for the various properties located within the City’s Urban Growth Boundary of the City of Renton are hereby the land use designations for those properties. Comprehensive Planning – Land Use Map amendment ordinances adopted after this ordinance shall amend the official Comprehensive Planning – Land Use Map. SECTION IV. The Zoning Map attached hereto as Attachment C shall be the official Zoning Map, and the zoning districts shown on this map for the various properties located within the City limits of the City of Renton are hereby the zoning designations for those AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) ORDINANCE NO. 6153 3 properties. Rezone ordinances adopted after this ordinance shall amend the official Zoning Map. SECTION V. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or word of this ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality thereof shall not affect the constitutionality of any other section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or word of this ordinance. SECTION VI. The City Clerk shall publish a summary of this ordinance in the City’s official newspaper. The summary shall consist of this ordinance’s title. SECTION VII .This ordinance shall be in full force and effect on January 1, 2025. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL the _____ day of __________________, 2024. Jason Seth, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this _____ day of __________________, 2024. Armondo Pavone, Mayor Approved as to form: Shane Moloney, City Attorney Date of Publication: _______________ ORD-CED:24ORD022:12/04/2024 AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) ORDINANCE NO. 6153 A ATTACHMENT A CITY OF RENTON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) ORDINANCE NO. 6153 B ATTACHMENT B COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE MAP AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) ORDINANCE NO. 6153 C ATTACHMENT C ZONING MAP AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 6154 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AMENDING SUBSECTIONS 4-2-010.C AND 4-2-010.D, SECTIONS 4-2-020 AND 4-2-110A, AND SUBSECTION 4-2-115.B.1 TO CREATE A NEW RESIDENTIAL MULTI FAMILY TWO (RMF-2) ZONE; AUTHORIZING CORRECTIONS, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE WHEREAS, the Council has heretofore adopted and filed a Comprehensive Plan and the Council has implemented and amended the Comprehensive Plan from time to time, together with the adoption of various codes, reports and records; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has heretofore fully recommended to the Council, from time to time, certain amendments to the City’s Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held public hearings on this matter on May 1, 2024 and on July 3, 2024; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has made certain findings and recommendations to the Council; and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106, on July 24, 2024, the City notified the State of Washington of its intent to adopt amendments to its development regulations; and WHEREAS, it is necessary to adopt amendments to the City’s code in order to implement changes to the City’s Comprehensive Plan, adopted contemporaneously with this ordinance; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. Subsections 4-2-010.C and 4-2-010.D of the Renton Municipal Code are hereby amended as follows: AGENDA ITEM # 8. b) ORDINANCE NO. 6154 2 C. ZONING DISTRICTS: The City is divided into the following types of zoning districts and the following map symbols are established: ZONE MAP SYMBOL Resource Conservation (RC) Residential-1 (R-1) Residential-4 (R-4) Residential-6 (R-6) Residential-8 (R-8) Residential Manufactured Home (RMH) Residential-10 (R-10) Residential-14 (R-14) Residential Multi-Family (RMF) Residential Multi-Family 2 (RMF-2) Light Industrial (IL) Medium Industrial (IM) Heavy Industrial (IH) Center Downtown (CD) Center Village (CV) Commercial Arterial (CA) Commercial Neighborhood (CN) Commercial Office (CO) AGENDA ITEM # 8. b) ORDINANCE NO. 6154 3 ZONE MAP SYMBOL Commercial Office Residential (COR) Urban Center-1 (UC-1) Urban Center-2 (UC-2) D. ZONES IMPLEMENTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan Designations are implemented by certain zones: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION IMPLEMENTING ZONES Residential Low Density (RLD) Resource Conservation (RC) Residential-1 (R-1) Residential-4 (R-4) Residential Manufactured Home Park (RMH) Residential Medium Density (RMD) Residential-6 (R-6) Residential-8 (R-8) Residential Manufactured Home Park (RMH) Residential High Density (RHD) Residential-10 (R-10) Residential-14 (R-14) Residential Manufactured Home Park (RMH) Residential Multi-Family (RMF) Residential Multi-Family 2 (RMF-2) Commercial Neighborhood (CN) Commercial & Mixed Use (CMU) Center Downtown (CD) Center Village (CV) Commercial Arterial (CA) Commercial Office (CO) AGENDA ITEM # 8. b) ORDINANCE NO. 6154 4 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION IMPLEMENTING ZONES Urban Center (UC-1, UC-2) Commercial Office Residential (COR) Commercial Office Residential (COR) Employment Area (EA) Commercial Arterial (CA) Commercial Office (CO) Light Industrial (IL) Medium Industrial (IM) Heavy Industrial (IH) Resource Conservation (RC) SECTION II. Section 4-2-020 of the Renton Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows: 4-2-020 PURPOSE AND INTENT OF ZONING DISTRICTS: A. GENERAL: Approval of projects in the zones is contingent upon the determination that the proposed developments are consistent with the purpose of the zone and the purpose and intent of the land use designations and guiding policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element policies for each corresponding zone classification and all the Elements of the Comprehensive Plan shall be used together with the purpose statements for each zone and map designation set forth in the following sections to guide interpretation and application of land use AGENDA ITEM # 8. b) ORDINANCE NO. 6154 5 regulations within the zones and designations and any changes to the range of permitted uses within each zone through amendments to the code. B. RESOURCE CONSERVATION ZONE (RC): The Resource Conservation Zone (RC) is established to provide a very low- density residential zone that endeavors to provide some residential use of lands characterized by extensive critical areas or lands with agricultural uses. It is intended to implement the Low Density Residential Comprehensive Plan designation. This zone promotes uses that are compatible with the functions and values of designated critical areas and allows for continued production of food and agricultural products. No minimum density is required. The Resource Conservation Zone is also intended to provide separation between areas of more intense urban uses and critical lands or agricultural uses; encourage or preserve very low-density residential uses; reduce the intensity of uses in accordance with the extent of environmentally sensitive areas such as floodplains, wetlands and streams, aquifers, wildlife habitat, steep slopes, and other geologically hazardous areas; allow for small-scale farming to commence or continue; and provide viable uses within urban separators. C. RESIDENTIAL-1 (R-1): The Residential-1 Zone (R-1) is established to provide and protect suitable environments for residential development of lands characterized by pervasive critical areas where limited residential development will not compromise critical areas. It is intended to implement the Low Density Residential Comprehensive AGENDA ITEM # 8. b) ORDINANCE NO. 6154 6 Plan designation. The zone provides for suburban estate single family and clustered single family residential dwellings, at a maximum density of one dwelling unit per net acre, and allows for small scale farming associated with residential use. Density bonus provisions, of up to eighteen (18) dwelling units per acre, are intended to allow assisted living to develop with higher densities within the zone. It is further intended to protect critical areas, provide separation between neighboring jurisdictions through designation of urban separators as adopted by the Countywide Policies, and prohibit the development of incompatible uses that may be detrimental to the residential or natural environment. D. RESIDENTIAL-4 (R-4): The Residential-4 Zone (R-4) is established to promote urban single family residential neighborhoods serviceable by urban utilities and containing open space amenities. It is intended to implement the Residential Low Density Comprehensive Plan designation. The Residential-4 (R-4) allows a maximum density of four (4) dwelling units per net acre. The R-4 designation serves as a transition between rural designation zones and higher density residential zones. It is intended as an intermediate lower density residential zone. E. RESIDENTIAL-6 (R-6): The Residential-6 Zone (R-6) is established for single family dwellings and is intended to implement the Residential Medium Density Comprehensive Plan designation. The R-6 zone allows a range of three (3) to six (6) dwelling units per AGENDA ITEM # 8. b) ORDINANCE NO. 6154 7 net acre. Development in the R-6 zone is intended to be single family residential at moderate density. F. RESIDENTIAL-8 (R-8): The Residential-8 Zone (R-8) is established for single family residential dwellings allowing a range of four (4) to eight (8) dwelling units per net acre. It is intended to implement the Residential Medium Density Comprehensive Plan designation. Development in the R-8 Zone is intended to create opportunities for new single family residential neighborhoods and to facilitate high-quality infill development that promotes reinvestment in existing single family neighborhoods. It is intended to accommodate uses that are compatible with and support a high- quality residential environment and add to a sense of community. G. RESIDENTIAL MANUFACTURED HOME PARK (RMH): The Residential Manufactured Home Park Zone (RMH) is established to promote development that is single family in character and developed to offer a choice in land tenancy. Standards provide for safe and high-quality manufactured home neighborhoods. It is intended to implement the Residential Low Density Comprehensive Plan designation. The RMH Zone is intended to protect established manufactured home parks and to expand the variety of affordable housing types available within the City. H. RESIDENTIAL-10 (R-10): The Residential-10 Zone (R-10) is established for high-density residential development that will provide a mix of residential styles including small lot AGENDA ITEM # 8. b) ORDINANCE NO. 6154 8 detached dwellings or attached dwellings such as townhouses and small-scale flats. Development promoted in the zone is intended to increase opportunities for detached dwellings as a percent of the housing stock, as well as allow some small- scale attached housing choices and to create high-quality infill development that increases density while maintaining the single family character of the existing neighborhood. Allowable base densities range from five (5) to ten (10) dwelling units per net acre. The zone serves as a transition to higher density multi-family zones. I. RESIDENTIAL-14 (R-14): The purpose of the Residential-14 Zone (R-14) is to encourage development, and redevelopment, of residential neighborhoods that provide a mix of detached and attached dwelling structures organized and designed to combine characteristics of both typical single family and small-scale multi-family developments. Densities range from seven (7) to fourteen (14) units per net acre with opportunities for bonuses up to eighteen (18) dwelling units per net acre. Structure size is intended to be limited in terms of bulk and scale so that the various unit types allowed in the zone are compatible with one another and can be integrated together into a quality neighborhood. Project features are encouraged, such as yards for private use, common open spaces, and landscaped areas that enhance a neighborhood and foster a sense of community. Civic and limited commercial uses may be allowed when they support the purpose of the designation. AGENDA ITEM # 8. b) ORDINANCE NO. 6154 9 J. RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY (RMF): The Residential Multi-Family (RMF) Zone provides suitable environments for multi-family dwellings. It is further intended to conditionally allow uses that are compatible with and support a multi-family environment. The RMF allows for the development of both infill parcels in existing multi-family districts with compatible projects and other multi-family development. Densities range from ten (10) to twenty (20) du/acre with opportunities for bonuses up to twenty-five (25) dwelling units per net acre. K. RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY 2 (RMF-2): The Residential Multi-Family 2 (RMF-2) Zone provides suitable environments for multi-family dwellings. It is further intended to conditionally allow uses that are compatible with and support a multi-family environment. The RMF-2 allows for the development of infill parcels in existing multi-family developments with compatible projects and areas, as well as, with other multi-family development. Densities range from twenty (20) to forty (40) dwelling units per net acre. KL. COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD ZONE (CN): The purpose of the Commercial Neighborhood Zone (CN) is to provide for small-scale convenience retail/commercial areas offering incidental retail and service needs for the surrounding area. Uses serving a larger area may be appropriate if they also serve the residents of the immediate area and are compatible with the scale and character of the neighborhood. This designation is the smallest and least intensive of the City’s commercial zones. AGENDA ITEM # 8. b) ORDINANCE NO. 6154 10 LM. CENTER VILLAGE ZONE (CV): 1. Purpose: The purpose of the Center Village Zone (CV) is to provide an opportunity for concentrated mixed-use residential and commercial redevelopment designed to urban rather than suburban development standards that supports transit-oriented development and pedestrian activity. Use allowances promote commercial and retail development opportunities for residents to shop locally. Uses and standards allow complementary, high-density residential development, and discourage garden-style, multi-family development. 2. Scale and Character: The Center Village Zone (CV) is intended to provide suitable environments for district-scaled retail and commercial development serving more than one neighborhood, but not providing City-wide services. MN. COMMERCIAL ARTERIAL ZONE (CA): The purpose of the Commercial Arterial Zone (CA) is to evolve from “strip commercial” linear business districts to business areas characterized by enhanced site planning and pedestrian orientation, incorporating efficient parking lot design, coordinated access, amenities and boulevard treatment with greater densities. The CA Zone provides for a wide variety of retail sales, services, and other commercial activities along high-volume traffic corridors. Residential uses may be integrated into the zone through mixed-use buildings. The zone includes the designated Automall District. NO. CENTER DOWNTOWN (CD): AGENDA ITEM # 8. b) ORDINANCE NO. 6154 11 The purpose of the Center Downtown Zone (CD) is to provide a mixed-use urban commercial center serving a regional market as well as high-density residential development. Uses include a wide variety of retail sales, services, multi-family residential dwellings, and recreation and entertainment uses. OP. COMMERCIAL OFFICE ZONE (CO): The Commercial Office Zone (CO) is established to provide areas appropriate for professional, administrative, and business offices and related uses, offering high-quality and amenity work environments. In addition, a mix of limited retail and service uses may be allowed to primarily support other uses within the zone, subject to special conditions. Limited light industrial activities, which can effectively blend in with an office environment, are allowed, as are medical institutions and related uses. PQ. COMMERCIAL OFFICE RESIDENTIAL ZONE (COR): The purpose of the Commercial Office Residential Zone (COR) is to provide for a mix of intensive office, hotel, convention center, and residential activity in a high-quality, master-planned development that is integrated with the natural environment. Commercial retail and service uses that are architecturally and functionally integrated are permitted. Also, commercial uses that provide high economic value may be allowed if designed with the scale and intensity envisioned for the COR Zone. The scale and location of these sites will typically denote a gateway into the City and should be designed accordingly. QR. LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONE (IL): AGENDA ITEM # 8. b) ORDINANCE NO. 6154 12 The purpose of the Light Industrial Zone (IL) is to provide areas for low- intensity manufacturing, industrial services, distribution, storage, and technical schools. Uses allowed in this zone are generally contained within buildings. Material and/or equipment used in production are not stored outside. Activities in this zone do not generate external emissions such as smoke, odor, noise, vibrations, or other nuisances outside the building. Compatible uses that directly serve the needs of other uses in the zone are also allowed. RS. MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL ZONE (IM): The purpose of the Medium Industrial Zone (IM) is to provide areas for medium-intensity industrial activities involving manufacturing, processing, assembly, and warehousing. Uses in this zone may require some outdoor storage and may create some external emissions of noise, odor, glare, vibration, etc., but these are largely contained on site. Compatible uses that directly serve the needs of other uses permitted within the district are also allowed zone-wide. ST. HEAVY INDUSTRIAL ZONE (IH): The purpose of the Heavy Industrial Zone (IH) is to provide areas for high- intensity industrial activities involving heavy fabrication, processing of raw materials, bulk handling and storage, construction, and heavy transportation. Uses in this zone may require large outdoor areas in which to conduct operations. Environmental impacts may be produced that affect off-site areas, requiring isolation of the industrial activity from more sensitive land uses. Compatible uses AGENDA ITEM # 8. b) ORDINANCE NO. 6154 13 that directly serve the needs of other uses permitted within the district are also allowed. TU. URBAN CENTER-1 (UC-1): The Urban Center-1 Zone (UC-1) is established to provide an area for pedestrian-scale urban mixed-use development that supports the residential and employment goals of Renton’s Urban Center. The UC-1 Zone is intended to attract a wide range of office, technology, commercial, and residential uses. The overall mix and intensity of uses within both zones will develop over time. Consequently, decisions made in early phases of redevelopment will need to take into consideration the potential for further infill and intensification of uses. The overall mix and intensity of uses is intended to create an urban rather than suburban character. The form of development is expected to use urban development standards and therefore, setbacks, heights, landscaping, parking, and design standards are to be urban in scale and configured in a layout utilizing the street system to create a human-scale, pedestrian-oriented new center. Uses that support urban center development are allowed. Development is expected to include amenities such as gateways, water access, and open space. High-quality development is anticipated, encompassing a mix of residential neighborhoods, shopping, and employment districts and public facilities. UV. URBAN CENTER-2 (UC-2): The Urban Center-2 Zone (UC-2) is established to provide a similar built environment as UC-1 and also supports the residential and employment goals of AGENDA ITEM # 8. b) ORDINANCE NO. 6154 14 Renton’s Urban Center, but to a lesser degree than UC-1 due to differing characteristics of the geography, which limit the scale of commercial enterprise. The overall mix and intensity of uses is intended to create an urban rather than suburban character. The form of development is expected to use urban development standards and therefore setbacks, heights, landscaping, parking, and design standards are to be urban in scale and configured in a layout utilizing the street system to create a human-scale, pedestrian-oriented new center. Uses that support urban center development are allowed. Development is expected to include amenities such as gateways, water access, and open space. High-quality development is anticipated, encompassing a mix of residential neighborhoods, shopping, employment districts, and public facilities. The designation is also intended to allow continuation of airplane manufacturing and accessory airplane manufacturing uses, as land area formerly occupied by those uses is transformed to combinations of retail, service, office, residential, and civic uses. SECTION III. Section 4-2-110A, Development Standards for Residential Zoning Designations (Primary Structures), of the Renton Municipal Code is hereby amended as shown on Attachment A. SECTION IV. Subsection 4-2-115.B.1 of the Renton Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows: B. APPLICABILITY: 1. This Section shall apply to all new primary and attached dwelling units in the following zones: Resource Conservation (RC), Residential-1 (R-1), AGENDA ITEM # 8. b) ORDINANCE NO. 6154 15 Residential-4 (R-4), Residential-6 (R-6), Residential-8 (R-8), Residential-10 (R-10), and Residential-14 (R-14), and unit lot subdivisions within the RMF, RMF-2, and CV zones. The standards of the Site Design subsection are required to be addressed at the time of subdivision application. The standards of the Residential Design subsection are required to be addressed at the time of application for building permits. The standards of Residential Design are required to be addressed for the building for which the building permit is being issued. SECTION V. Upon approval of the City Attorney, the City Clerk is authorized to direct the codifier to make necessary corrections to this ordinance, including the corrections of scriveners or clerical errors; references to other local, state, or federal laws, codes, rules, or regulations; or ordinance numbering and section/subsection numbering and references. The City Clerk is further authorized to direct the codifier to update any chapter, section, or subsection titles in the Renton Municipal Code affected by this ordinance. SECTION VI. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or word of this ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality thereof shall not affect the constitutionality of any other section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or word of this ordinance. SECTION VII. The City Clerk shall publish a summary of this ordinance in the City’s official newspaper. The summary shall consist of this ordinance’s title. SECTION VIII. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect on January 1, 2025. AGENDA ITEM # 8. b) ORDINANCE NO. 6154 16 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL the _____ day of __________________, 2024. Jason Seth, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this _____ day of __________________, 2024. Armando Pavone, Mayor Approved as to form: Shane Moloney, City Attorney Date of Publication: _______________ ORD-CED:24ORD023:11/22/2024 AGENDA ITEM # 8. b) ORDINANCE NO. 6154 A-1 ATTACHMENT A 4-2-110A1 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS (PRIMARY STRUCTURES) RC R-1 R-4 R-6 R-8 R-10 R-14 RMF RMF-2 Minimum Net Density (per Net Acre)1, 2, 15 None 3 dwelling units 4 dwelling units 5 dwelling units30 7 dwelling units30 10 dwelling units30 20 dwelling units30 Maximum Net Density (per Net Acre, Except per Net 10 Acres in RC)2, 14, 15 1 dwelling unit 1 dwelling unit7, 36 4 dwelling units 6 dwelling units 8 dwelling units38 10 dwelling units29 14 dwelling units29 20 dwelling units29 40 dwelling units20 Maximum Number of Dwellings (per Legal Lot)2 1 dwelling with 1 accessory dwelling unit 1 dwelling with 1 accessory dwelling unit7 1 dwelling with 1 accessory dwelling unit 1 dwelling with 1 accessory dwelling unit Detached dwellings: 1 dwelling with 1 accessory dwelling unit Attached dwellings: n/a Townhouses: 1 dwelling Other Attached Dwellings: n/a Minimum Lot Size2, 28, 31 10 acres 1 acre3, 32 9,000 sq. ft.32, 34 7,000 sq. ft.32, 34 5,000 sq. ft.34 Detached dwellings: 4,000 sq. ft. Attached dwellings: n/a Detached dwellings: 3,000 sq. ft. Attached dwellings: n/a n/a AG E N D A I T E M # 8 . b ) ORDINANCE NO. 6154 A-2 RC R-1 R-4 R-6 R-8 R-10 R-14 RMF RMF-2 Minimum Lot Width31 150 ft. 100 ft.32 70 ft.32 60 ft.32 50 ft. 40 ft. 30 ft. Townhouses: 25 ft. Other Attached Dwellings: 50 ft. Minimum Lot Width31 (Corner Lots) 175 ft. 110 ft. 80 ft. 70 ft. 60 ft. 50 ft. 40 ft. Townhouses: 30 ft. Other Attached Dwellings: 60 ft. Minimum Lot Depth31 300 ft. 200 ft.3, 32 100 ft.32 90 ft.32 80 ft. 70 ft. 60 ft. Townhouses: 50 ft. Other Attached Dwellings: 65 ft. Minimum Front Yard4, 5, 31 30 ft. 30 ft.6 30 ft.6, 33 25 ft.6 20 ft. except when all vehicle access is taken from an alley, then 15 ft.39 15 ft.11, except when all vehicle access is taken from an alley, then 10 ft.39 Townhouses: 15 ft.11, except when all vehicle access is taken from an alley, then 10 ft.39 Other Attached Dwellings: 20 ft. Minimum Rear Yard4, 22, 31 35 ft. 30 ft. 25 ft.33 25 ft. 25 ft.39 15 ft.21, 39 10 ft.21, 39 Townhouses: 10 ft.13, 39 Other Attached Dwellings: 15 ft.39 Minimum Side Yard4, 31 25 ft. 15 ft. Combined 20 ft. with not less Combined 15 ft. with not less than 5 ft. 5 ft. Detached Units: 4 ft. Detached Units: 4 ft. 5 ft. for unattached side(s), 0 ft. for the attached side(s).13 AG E N D A I T E M # 8 . b ) ORDINANCE NO. 6154 A-3 RC R-1 R-4 R-6 R-8 R-10 R-14 RMF RMF-2 than 7.5 ft. on either side. on either side. Attached Units: 4 ft. for unattached side(s), 0 ft. for the attached side(s).23 Attached Units: 4 ft. for unattached side(s), 0 ft. for the attached side(s).23 Minimum Secondary Front Yard4, 5, 31 (applies to Corner Lots) 30 ft. 30 ft.6 30 ft.6, 33 25 ft.6 15 ft.11 15 ft.11 15 ft.11 Townhouses: 15 ft.11 Other Attached Dwellings: 20 ft. Maximum Building Coverage (including Primary and Accessory) 10% 20% 35% 40% 50% 55% 65% Townhouses: 70% Other Attached Dwellings: 35% A maximum coverage of 45% may be allowed through the Hearing Examiner site development plan review process. Maximum Impervious Surface Area 15% 25% 50% 55% 65% 70% 80% 75% AG E N D A I T E M # 8 . b ) ORDINANCE NO. 6154 A-4 RC R-1 R-4 R-6 R-8 R-10 R-14 RMF RMF-2 Maximum Number of Stories 3 2 3 Maximum Wall Plate Height8, 9, 10, 12, 18, 19 32 ft. 24 ft. 24 ft., increase up to 32 ft. possible subject to administrative conditional use permit approval. Townhouses: 32 ft. Other Attached Dwellings: 32 ft., increase up to 42 ft. possible subject to administrative conditional use permit approval. Maximum Number of Units per Building2 n/a No more than 4 units per building. No more than 6 units per building. n/a Minimum Freeway Frontage Setback 10 ft. landscaped setback from the street property line. Maximum Wireless Communication Facilities Height (including Amateur Radio Antennas) See RMC 4-4-140, Wireless Communication Facilities. Amateur radio antennas are allowed a maximum height of 6 feet without a Conditional Use Permit. Larger structures will have a maximum height determined by the Conditional Use Permit process, RMC 4-9-030, Conditional Use Permits. Design Standards See RMC 4-2-115, Residential Design and Open Space Standards. AG E N D A I T E M # 8 . b ) ORDINANCE NO. 6154 A-5 RC R-1 R-4 R-6 R-8 R-10 R-14 RMF RMF-2 Landscaping See RMC 4-4-070, Landscaping. Exterior Lighting See RMC 4-4-075, Lighting, Exterior On-Site. Screening See RMC 4-4-095, Screening and Storage Height/Location Limitations. Exception for Pre- Existing Legal Lots See RMC 4-10-010, Nonconforming Lots. 1 Please see Section 4-2-110E, Conditions Associated With Development Standards Table For Residential Zoning Designations, for explanation of table footnotes. AG E N D A I T E M # 8 . b )