The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRES 4544 CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. 4544 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 overtime 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 RESOLUTION NO. 4544 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 9th day of December, 2024. ason A. 04h, City Clerk 2 RESOLUTION NO. 4544 APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 9th day of December, 2024. Armondo Pavone, Mayor Approved as to form: �O F�RFq,�'' Shane Moloney, City AttorneyJL * = SEAL CED:24RES027:11/13/24 3c %, OR4 QED SE?; 3 RESOLUTION NO. EXHIBIT A Support for Ordinance 5983 Sales Tax Funding An Addendum to the Housing Action Plan A City of Renton SUPPORT FOR ORDINANCE 5983 SALES TAX FUNDING AN ADENDUM TO THE HOUSING ACTION PLAN August 2021 Drafted December 2024 Adopted 2200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 1000 00111 BERK Seattle,Washington 98121 P(206)324-8760 STRATEGY ,ANALYSIS el COMMUNICATIONS www.berkconsultin.g.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. 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 individual 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. ■ 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. :111 City of Renton I Ordinance 5983 Assessment ii Table of Contents Summary of Recommendations.......................................................................................................i Tableof Contents........................................................................................................................iii Introduction...............................................................................................................................1 ContextOverview........................................................................................................................2 Legislation ...............................................................................................................................2 CurrentSupport ........................................................................................................................3 DataReview..............................................................................................................................10 Introduction............................................................................................................................10 HousingNeeds ........................................................................................................................10 Specific Housing Needs by Category...........................................................................................19 Homelessness.......................................................................................................................24 BehavioralHealth Needs...........................................................................................................28 Interviews ................................................................................................................................29 Approach...............................................................................................................................29 Summaryof Findings................................................................................................................30 Funding Recommendations.......................................................................................................33 Introduction............................................................................................................................33 ProposedInvestment ..............................................................................................................35 Implementation......................................................................................................................38 ''I City of Renton I Ordinance 5983 Assessment iii 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. VII 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.' 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 The cities of Ellensburg and Olympia passed theses sales tax with voters in 2018. :111 City of Renton I Ordinance 5983 Assessment 2 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) ''I City of Renton I Ordinance 5983 Assessment 3 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 :111 City of Renton I Ordinance 5983 Assessment 4 Exhibit 1. City of Renton Social Services Spending, 2013-2020. $3.5M Total 2020 Expenditure:$3.OM $35 � Q M -a $3.OM $30 V � � L 00 a u $2.5M — �' $25 0 to $2.OM ---------- $20 � 2020 Expenditure per capita:$28.49/pp m .p $1.5M $15 u C $1.OM $10 H M $0.5M $5 .o 1n $0 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Year Source:SAO Local Government Financial Reporting System, 2021. Exhibit 2. Social Services Spending, Amount and Per Capita by City, 2020. N $'7M $70 i Total +� $6M Per Capita S6 U $50.26 Q $47.00 a x $5M LU Q N x W u $4M >40 U) $28.49 .� $3M $6.1 M 'v $21.16 (n $2M $17.47 'u N $3.OM $3.5M ) O O N N $1.7M $1.7M O N 0 Renton Federal Way Auburn Redmond Source:SAO Local Government Financial Reporting System, 2021. :111 City of Renton I Ordinance 5983 Assessment 5 Exhibit 3. City of Renton Human Services Agency Funding, 2019-2020. ORGANIZATION 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 ............................................................................................................................................ .............. Lifewi re $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 ..........................................y........... .......................... The Salvation Arm $7,500 .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... West African Community Council $7,500 ......................... ............................................................... . ..... _ ......................................................................__ ......... ......... ......... ......... Margie Williams Helping Hands $5,000 .......... TOTAL $562,037 Source: City of Renton, 2021. :111 City of Renton I Ordinance 5983 Assessment 6 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 CountV Subregional Housing Action Framework—Task 2 Housing Context Assessment Methods Memo", ECONorthwest, 2020. ''I City of Renton I Ordinance 5983 Assessment 7 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/ 58 Compass Housing Alliance 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. :111 City of Renton I Ordinance 5983 Assessment 8 Exhibit 5. Location of Available Income-Restricted Housing, City of Renton. I NEWd'ASTLE I Lake SEATTLE ', ICaslzin,�,Irun 76 _ 1 1 t /, I — d j UIKWIL P _i - ne C I, i - - - a t I I I 16 I _ I --- - KEIT LEGEND 00111 BERK Affordable Housing Renton Housing Other City of Renton Map Date:August 2021 Authority Providers Community Planning Areas Highways/State Routes 8 units • Other cities Arterials Urban Growth Areas — Rail 300 units ® • Public lands (0 Major Transit Stations Water ® Future Transit Center 0 1 2 Miles Sources:City of Renton, 2020;BERK, 2021. :111 City of Renton I Ordinance 5983 Assessment 9 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. 11 City of Renton I Ordinance 5983 Assessment 10 Exhibit 6. Households by Tenure and Income Level, City of Renton. All Households W 13% 14% Renter 18% 17% ' Owner 1 9% 11% ' • ■Extremely Low-Income (<_30%MFI) Very Low-Income(30-50%MFI) Low-Income(50-80%MFI) Moderate Income(80-100% MFI) ■Above Median Income(>100%MFI) Sources:HUD CHAS(based on ACS 2017 5-year estimates);BERK, 2021. Exhibit 7. Renter Households and Affordable Housing Supply, City of Renton. Countywide Renter HH 15% 14% Income Renton Renter HH Income 18% 17% Renton Rental Unit Supply 23% 39% ■Extremely-Low Income (<30%AM]) Very-Low Income(30-50%AMI) Low-Income(50-80%AMI) ■Moderate-Income and Higher (>80%AMI) Sources:HUD CHAS(based on ACS 2017 5-year estimates);BERK, 2021. :111 City of Renton I Ordinance 5983 Assessment 11 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. Mi City of Renton I Ordinance 5983 Assessment 12 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. Total Cost Burdened:46% All Renter Households 25% 53% Total Cost Burdened: 5% Above Median Income (>100%) Drj-5 95% Total Cost Burdened:26% Moderate Income (80-100%) 1. 24% 71 74% Total Cost Burdened: 53% Low Income (50-80%) m 48% 47% Total Cost Burdened:77% Very Low Income (30-50%) 47% 23% Total Cost Burdened:85% Extremely Low Income (<30%) off 16% 12% 3% Severely Cost-Burdened (>50%) Cost-Burdened (30-50%) Not Cost-Burdened Not Computed Sources:HUD CHAS(based on ACS 2017 5-year estimates);BERK, 2021. :111 City of Renton I Ordinance 5983 Assessment 13 Exhibit 9. Housing Cost Burden of Renters by Income Category, Number of Households, City of Renton. 7,000 O N6,000 5,835 = 5,000 4,090 4,000 3,395 3,175 3,000 - 2,230 2,000 1,000 0 Extremely Low Very Low Low Income Moderate Above Median Income Income (50-80% AMI) Income Income (<30%AMI) (30-50%AMI) (80-100% AMI) (>100%AMI) Severely Cost-Burdened (>50%) Cost-Burdened (30-50%) Not Cost-Burdened Not Computed Sources:HUD CHAS(based on ACS 2017 5-year estimates);BERK, 2021. Exhibit 10. Gaps in Affordable Housing by Income Threshold, City of Renton. N 2,740 unit surplus +' 16,000 ■ Renting households G1 14,000 ■ Affordable rental units 13,390 C •y Gap/surplus 12,000 = 10,650 N 10,000 1,520 unit gap 13 r 8,000 7,470 2,415 unit gap 5,950 = 6,000 4,080 4,000 2,000 1,665 0 <30%AMI <50%AMI <80% AMI Household Income as % HUD AMFI Sources:HUD CHAS(based on ACS 2017 5-year estimates);BERK, 2021. :111 City of Renton I Ordinance 5983 Assessment 14 Exhibit 11. Aggregate Annual Housing Cost Burdens, City of Renton. Renter Cost Burden 0-30%AMI $26.8M $9.8M $36.71A 30-60%AMI $5.9M $21.2M $27.1M Owner Cost Burden 0-30%AMI $10.6M $3.5M $14.1M 30-60%AMI $4.7M $11.5M $16.2M ■ Severe cost burdens (>50% income) ■ Cost burdens (30-50% income) Sources:ACS PUMS, 2019;BERK, 2021. :111 City of Renton I Ordinance 5983 Assessment 15 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. M C 6,000 ■ Affordable to 50-80%AMI 5,127 a1 ■ Affordable to<50%AMI r- 5,000 4,718 .N 7 O = 4,000 d M L. 3,000 0 00 Q 2,000 1,000 688 950 713 53 69 0 to Studios 1-BR 2-BR 3-BR 16 4-BR Source: EcoNorthwest, 2020; CoStar, 2020. 4 For more information, see visit econw.shinyapps.io/south-kc-policy-analysis-tool. :111 City of Renton I Ordinance 5983 Assessment 16 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. 11 City of Renton i Ordinance 5983 Assessment 17 Exhibit 13. Projected Housing Needs for the City of Renton, 2019-2040. 0 10,000 9,262 total units needed 9,000 C •� 8,000 4,099 units(44%) C Above Median Income(>100%AMI) 7,000 6,000 2021 HUD Income Limits Studio 1-1313 2-BD 5,000 100%AMI $2,025 $2,169 $2,603 4,000 2,590 units(28%) Affordable at 60%AMI or below 3,000 1,852 units(20%) 60%AMI $1,215 $1,302 $1,563 Low Income(50-80%AMI) 2,000 50%AMI $1,012 $1,085 $1,302 ° 1,079 units(12/o) 11 000 ............ Very Low Income(30-50%AMI) 30%AMI $607 $651 $781 894 units(10%) 0 Extremely Low Income(<_30%AMI) Source: EcoNorthwest, 2020. :111 City of Renton I Ordinance 5983 Assessment 18 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. N 9,000 ■ � Self-care or ind.living limitation t ■ Other disability y 8,000 5% N None of the above 7 8% = 7,000 L 6,000 4-0 CD IX 5,000 4,000 21% 3,000 ° 11% 6% 19/0 14% 13% 2,000 1,000 0 Extremely Low Very Low Low Income Moderate Income Income (50-80%AMI) Income or Higher (<30%AMI) (30-50%AMI) (>80%AMI) Sources:HUD CHAS(based on ACS 2017 5-year estimates);BERK, 2021. :111 City of Renton I Ordinance 5983 Assessment 19 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. -0 4,000 Elderly- Living Alone t ■ Elderly-Couples N 3,500 O 20%are elderly living alone Other Households O = 3,000 4%are elderly couples L 4%are elderly living alone C 2,500 2%are elderly couples ix 2,000 C 1,500 - L 3 m 1,000 a O U 500 0 Extremely Low Very Low Low Income Moderate Above Median Income Income (50-80%AMI) Income Income (<30%AMI) (30-50%AMI) (80-100%AMI) (>100%AMI) Sources:HUD CHAS(based on ACS 2017 5-year estimates);BERK, 2021. :111 City of Renton I Ordinance 5983 Assessment 20 Exhibit 16. Renter Severely Cost-Burdened Households by Household Type (Elderly/Other), City of Renton. 3,000 ■ Elderly- Living Alone 6 o ■ Elderly-Couples 16/o are elderly living alone 7 2,500 5%are elderly couples Other Households O L 2,000 d 1,500 C d 1- 1,000 8%are elderly living alone 7 m 3%are elderly couples i O 500 U a� L 0 d d Extremely Low Very Low Low Income Moderate V) Income Income (50-80%AMI) Income (<30%AMI) (30-50%AMI) (80-100%AMI) 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. -0 1,400 k Elderly- Living Alone O o ■ Elderly Couples W 41/o total Y- p of 1,200 Other Households G 33%total = 44%total 29%total L 1,000 25%total C 0 800 600 L m 400 V) �j 200 0 Extremely Low Very Low Low Income Moderate Above Median Income Income (50-80%AMI) Income Income (<30%AMI) (30-50%AMI) (80-100%AMI) (>100%AMI) Sources:HUD CHAS(based on ACS 2017 5-year estimates);BERK, 2021. :111 City of Renton I Ordinance 5983 Assessment 21 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. N 300 U 0 C 250 a) O 5 200 U al E O 50 0 Jan Apr Jul Oct Jan Apr Jul Oct Jan Apr Jul Oct 2018 2019 2020 Month Source: Renton Police Department, 2021. 6 See Seattle and King County Public Health, Domestic Violence Patterns in King County, WA: March-September 2020. 11 City of Renton I Ordinance 5983 Assessment 22 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. 11 City of Renton I Ordinance 5983 Assessment 23 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 Report' 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. 11 Around 35% are experiencing homelessness for the first time. El About 64% have been experiencing homelessness for a year or more. El The most common reasons for homelessness include job loss, alcohol/drug use, and eviction. El 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. See All Home, Count Us In: Seattle/King County Point-in-Time Count of Individuals Experiencing Homelessness, 2020. 11 City of Renton I Ordinance 5983 Assessment 11 24 Exhibit 19. Point-In-Time Count Reporting Areas. Cl ■ 0 Source:All Home, 2020. Exhibit 20. Point-In-Time Counts of People Experiencing Homelessness, King County. m 16,000 Southwest Area _ Lq y 14,000 ■ Rest of King County 12,112 11,751 O 12,000 11,643 11,199 2 o� 10,000 v •L Q 8,000 X w 01 6,000 Q O Ol d 4,000 4- 0 2,000 O U 0 2017 2018 2020 Years Source:All Home, 2020. :111 City of Renton Ordinance 5983 Assessment 25 ■ 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. Ei City of Renton I Ordinance 5983 Assessment 26 Exhibit 21. Sheltered versus Unsheltered Individuals, Southwest Area. m 3,000 v _ • Unsheltered v v 2,500 ■ Sheltered E 0 = 2,039 2,000 1,964 1,937 .E 1,838 c v L a 1,500 x w v c 1,000 v (L 0 c 3 0 U 0 2017 2019 2020 Years Source:All Home, 2020. Exhibit 22. Students Experiencing Homelessness, by Primary Nighttime Residence, 2019. 500 469 C N d a� 400 E O 2 C 'u C a� L d Q x w N 67 82 7 V) 16 0 � Doubled-Up Hotel/motel Sheltered Unsheltered Primary Nighttime Residence Source: WA OSPI, Comprehensive Education Data and Research System (CEDARS), 2020. :111 City of Renton I Ordinance 5983 Assessment 27 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. N ■Other diagnoses 4-0 ■Anxiety,dissociative,and other nonpsychotic(F41-49) d 1,200 4-0 Other substances(F1 1-19) a ■Alcohol(Flo) 1,078 C ■Schizophrenia and other non-mood psychotic(F20-29)L. ■Mood(affective)disorders(F30-39) Ql M 849 887 3 7 800 776 - - Z 400 200 0 - 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Year of Discharge Source: WA DOH, Comprehensive Hospital Abstract Reportinq System, 2021. :111 City of Renton I Ordinance 5983 Assessment 28 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) Behavioral Health Angela West / Childhaven ................... Ukrainian Community Center Behavioral Health Oleg Pynda .................................................... .................................... .................................................................. .... ......... ......... ......... _ .................. ......... ............... Valley Cities Counseling and Consultation Behavioral Health Amber Rhodes :111 City of Renton I Ordinance 5983 Assessment 29 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? 11 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. 11 City of Renton I Ordinance 5983 Assessment 30 • 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. 11 City of Renton I Ordinance 5983 Assessment 31 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). 11 City of Renton I Ordinance 5983 Assessment 32 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. MI City of Renton I Ordinance 5983 Assessment 33 ■ 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. 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)." a 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. " Developed using the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics O( EWS), May 2020. :111 City of Renton I Ordinance 5983 Assessment 34 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. Mi City of Renton I Ordinance 5983 Assessment 35 ■ 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 El City of Renton I Ordinance 5983 Assessment 36 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. :111 City of Renton I Ordinance 5983 Assessment 37 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. a J11 City of Renton I Ordinance 5983 Assessment 38 ■ 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: El Behavioral health services (including field response) ''I City of Renton I Ordinance 5983 Assessment 39 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.). 11 City of Renton I Ordinance 5983 Assessment 40 RESOLUTION NO. EXHIBIT B Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis B Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis An Addendum to the Housing Action Plan I Drafted March 2023 Adopted December 2024 Table of Contents Tableof Contents .................................................................................................................................. 1 Tableof Figures.....................................................................................................................................2 Introduction...........................................................................................................................................4 StateLaws and Requirements...............................................................................................................4 HB 1220 .....................................................................................................................................................................4 MissingMiddle Grant ..............................................................................................................................................4 Relationto Other Plans.........................................................................................................................5 Vision2050 ...............................................................................................................................................................5 CountywidePlanning Policies..................................................................................................................................5 HousingAction Plan ..................................................................................................................................................5 RentonComprehensive Plan ....................................................................................................................................6 ComprehensivePlan Review................................................................................................................6 LandUse Element.......................................................................................................................................................6 Housing and Human Services Element....................................................................................................................9 ExistingCode 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 VII 1 Chapter9 — Permits — Specific.........................................................................................................................19 PastCode Amendments......................................................................................................................20 Summaryof Analysis..........................................................................................................................22 RacialEquity Analysis ........................................................................................................................23 Introduction................................................................................................................................................................23 CommunityUnderstanding .....................................................................................................................................23 HistoricalContext................................................................................................................................................23 Analysis of Racially Disparate Impacts, Exclusion, and Displacement...........................................................27 Measures...............................................................................................................................................................27 RaciallyDisparate Impacts................................................................................................................................28 HousingTenure.....................................................................................................................................................31 Distribution of Environmental Exposure Risk...................................................................................................35 Summaryof Analysis Findings...............................................................................................................................46 Table of Figures Exhibit 1. 4-2-020 Existing Purpose and Intent of Zoning Districts.....................................................................1 1 Exhibit 2. 4-2-020 Recommended Changes to Purpose and Intent of Zoning Districts...................................1 1 Exhibit 3. Percentage of Housing Units Density......................................................................................................1 2 Exhibit 4. 4-2-060 Zoning Use Table.......................................................................................................................12 Exhibit 5. 4-2-1 1 OA1 Existing Development Standards For Residential Zoning Designations......................1 3 Exhibit 6. 4-2-1 1 OA Recommended Changes To Development Standards For Residential Zoning Designations...................................................................................................................................................................14 Exhibit 7. 4-2-1 15.2 Existing Open Space Standards.........................................................................................15 Exhibit 8. 4-2-1 15.3 Existing Residential Design Standards...............................................................................15 Exhibit 9. 4-2-1 16 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 VII City of Renton I Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 2 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 Exhibit19. Average Rent Comparison.....................................................................................................................29 Exhibit20. Rent Over Time.........................................................................................................................................30 Exhibit21. 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 Exhibit29. 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 VII City of Renton I Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 3 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. VII City of Renton I Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 4 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. :i'I City of Renton I Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 5 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 Include a provision that supports the inclusion A—The R 1 zone can help meet identified significant environmental constraints,which of attached and detached accessory dwelling housing needs by accommodating may have the potential for development at units. accessory dwelling units. 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 VII City of Renton I Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 6 POLICY Middle Housing Support RDI Evaluation the Residential Low Density land use designation. Policy L-14: Residential-4 Zone—Zone lands Remove language around specific single A—Policy could include specific suitable for large lot housing and suburban, family housing styles and replace with"lands descriptions of geography and desired estate-style dwellings compatible with the suitable for single family housing residential typologies. scale and density of the surrounding area typologies".Include a provision that supports Residential-4(R-4). R-4 zoning is allowed in the inclusion of attached and detached the Residential Low Density land use accessory dwelling units. The corresponding designation. zoning designation allows 0-4 dulac. Policy L-14: Residential Manufactured Home No changes are proposed for RMH zoned S—This policy is supportive of the Park Zone—Lands with existing parcels. achieving the GMA goal for housing. 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. Policy L-15: Residential Medium-Density- Exclusively single-family development should C—Prioritizing single family residential Place areas that can support high-quality, not be supported outright in the RMD zone, development in the RMD designation is a compact,urban development with access to but instead could be included as part of a barrier to the implementation additional urban services,transit,and infrastructure, new development including duplexes, missing middle typologies.Some middle whether through new development or triplexes, fourplexes,fiveplexes,sixplexes, housing typologies should be allowed in through infill,within the Residential Medium townhouses,courtyard apartments,cottage the code. Density(RMD)designation.Within the RMD housing and stacked flats. 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. Policy L-15: Residential 6 Zone-Zone lands Remove specific density reference (4-8 units A—This density range could be more Residential-6(R-6)where there is land per net acre) to establish a more flexible supportive of missing middle housing suitable for larger lot development,an density range within the municipal code typologies to achieve the GMA goal for opportunity for infill development,an designation.The corresponding zoning housing. existing pattern of single-family designation allows 3-6 du/ac which differs development in the range of four to eight from the guidance in L-15. units per net acre,and where critical areas are limited. R-6 zoning is allowed in the Residential Medium Density land use designation. Policy L-15: Residential 8 Zone-Zone lands Include missing middle typologies within the A—Policy could include specific Residential-8(R-8)where there is R8 definition to expand beyond single family descriptions of geography and desired opportunity to re-invest in existing single- and infill development. This may include residential typologies. family neighborhoods through infill or the duplexes, triplexes, townhouses,and cottage opportunity to develop new single-family housing.The corresponding zoning plats at urban densities greater than four designation allows 4-8 dulac. dwelling units per acre. R-8 zoning is allowed in the Residential Medium Density land use designation. Policy L-1 6: Residential High Density— Exclusively single-family development should C—Prioritizing single family residential Designate land for Residential High Density not be supported outright in the RHD zone, development in the RHD designation is a (RHD)where access,topography,and but instead could be included as part of a barrier to the implementation additional adjacent land uses create conditions new development including a mix of missing middle typologies.Middle and appropriate for a variety of housing unit duplexes, triplexes,fourplexes,fiveplexes, Multifamily housing should be prioritized. types,or where there is existing multifamily sixplexes, townhouses,courtyard apartments, development. RHD unit types are designed livelwork lofts cottage housing and stacked to incorporate features from both single flats.Existing multifamily housing should not family and multifamily developments, be a prerequisite to implement an RHD support cost-efficient housing,facilitate infill designation. development,have close access to transit III City of Renton I Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 7 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-1 6: Residential-10 Zone—Zone Remove the mention of single family uses as A—This density range could be more lands Residential-10(R-10)where there is exclusively single-family development should supportive of missing middle housing an existing mix of single family and small- not be supported outright in the RHD zone. typologies to achieve the GMA goal for scale multifamily use or there are vacant or Include typologies that fit within this zone, housing. underutilized parcels that could be these may include a mix of duplexes, redeveloped as infill and are located within triplexes,fourplexes,fiveplexes,sixplexes, 1/4 mile of public transit service and a major townhouses,courtyard apartments,livelwork arterial. R-1 0 implements the Residential lofts,cottage housing and stacked flats. High Density land use designation. Additionally, consider expanding the distance to major transit centers to %2 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 1 1 10. Policy L-16: Residential-14 Zone—Zone Include typologies that fit within this zone, A—Policy could include specific lands Residential-14(R-14)where it is these may include a mix of duplexes, descriptions of geography and desired possible to develop a mix of compact triplexes,fourplexes,fiveplexes,sixplexes, residential typologies. housing types in areas of approximately 20 townhouses,courtyard apartments,live/work acres or larger in size(may be in different lofts,cottage housing and stacked flats. ownerships)or are within or adjacent to a Consider reducing the acreage for the size of Growth Center The zone functions as a development expected as this zone is a transition zone between lower intensity target for infill development. residential and higher intensity mixed use zoning. R-14 implements the Residential High Density land use designation. Policy L-16: Residential Multi-Family Zone— Expansion of the RMF designation should not C-Policy is restrictive and preventative in Zone lands Residential Multi Family(RMF) rely on the adjacency of existing multi-family nature. where there is existing (or vested) housing.In order to make this designation multifamily development of one-acre or more flexible, the requirement for existing greater in size. Expanded RMF zoning multifamily properties to abut at least two should only be where access is from a street property sides should be removed as it is classified as a Principal arterial,Minor prohibitive of future RMF expansion. 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. Policy L-16:Commercial Neighborhood Remove language around residential C—Language conflates desired Zone—Zone lands Commercial neighborhood character and adjust to characteristics with a housing type. Neighborhood (CN)that provide goods and encourage a mix of housing typologies in an services on a small-scale to a surrounding effort to anticipate the needs of future residential neighborhood and that front on residents. 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. VII City of Renton I Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 8 POLICY Middle Housing Support RDI Evaluation PROMOTING A SAFE,HEALTHY,AND ATTRACTIVE COMMUNITY Policy L-57: Provide complete arranged as Consider requiring new master planned A—This density range could be more an interconnecting network or grid. Locate developments in R4—R 14 zoning supportive of missing middle housing planter strips between the curb and the designations to create connected and typologies to achieve the GMA goal for sidewalk in order to provide separation hierarchical street networks.Alternatively, housing. between cars and pedestrians. Discourage prohibiting new master planned development dead-end streets and cul-de-sacs. from building dead-end streets and cul-de- sacs when not adjacent to significant or unavoidable critical areas. Housing and Human Services Element POLICY Middle Housing Support RDI Evaluation Policy HHS-3:Work with other jurisdictions Make specific mention of the AMI this policy is S—This policy is supportive of the and organizations,including the Renton planning for.Site very-low income housing in achieving the GMA goal for housing. Housing Authority and non-profit housing RLD land uses. 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 Policy HHS-4: Promote homeownership Provide explicit affordability targets for A-Policy could include specific opportunities for households of all incomes. moderate (120%),low(80% AMI),very low affordability targets. (50% AMI) housing,and extremely low-income (30% AMI) households.See allocations developed regionally.' Policy HHS-B:Ensure a variety of housing Including duplexes,triplexes,fourplexes, A—Policy could include specific types are available within the City that meet fiveplexes,sixplexes, townhouses,courtyard descriptions of geography and desired the needs of The present without apartments,cottage housing and stacked flats. residential typologies. compromising The needs of future generations Policy HHS-6: Implement inclusionary zoning Including bonuses for middle and affordable A-This policy could be more provisions and other techniques that result in housing typologies. supportive of the GMA goal for a range of housing Types,at different housing. densities,and prices in new developments that address the housing needs of all people at all stages of life,including vulnerable populations. Policy HHS-8: Continue to allow Accessory Support through inclusionary zoning and A—Architectural compatibility Dwelling Units in single family residential financial incentive programs as well as permit- requirements may challenge the areas and ensure they are compatible with ready program.Remove vague architectural jurisdiction's ability to mee the GMA the existing neighborhood. compatibility requirements. housing goal or interfere with anti-RDI efforts,particularly if policy language is vague. Policy HHS-9:Foster and locate new housing Includelprioritize middle and affordable A-This policy could be more in proximity to Employment Centers and Housing typologies. supportive of the GMA goal for streets that have public transportation housing. Available at: https://kingcounty gov/—/media/depts/community-human-services/housing-homelessness-community- development/documents/afford ab le-housing= committee/Statements%201ssued%20by%20the%20Committee/GMPC Motion 21-1 Recommendation Transmittal 2022,- d-,12,-d-,29.ashx?la=en. VII City of Renton I Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 9 POLICY Middle Housing Support RDI Evaluation systems in place,and complements existing housing. Policy HHS-26:Encourage construction of Increase the proximity of supportive housing to A—This policy could be more universally designed units,supportive housing one-half mile to public transportation. supportive of the GMA goal for arrangements,and transitional housing in housing by increasing the proximity of close proximity(within one-quarter mile)to supportive housing to transit service. public transportation. 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. :i'I City of Renton I Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 10 Exhibit 1. 4-2-020 Existing Purpose and Intent of Zoning Districts Land Use Zone Minimum Maximum Net DeNet Density nsity Low Density R-1 N/A 1 DU/AC*Density bonus provisions,of up to eighteen(18) (RLD) dwelling units per acre,are intended to allow assisted living to develop with higher densities within the zone _.... .... .... .... .... ....... .... .... .... ... . .............. ...... .......... .... .... .. . R-A N/A A DU/AC . . . . . . . .. ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ........ ......... ........ ........ .. ..... Residential Medium R-6 3 DU/AC 6 DU/AC Density(RMD) _.... .... .... .... .... ....... .... .... . R-8 A DU/AC 8 DU/AC ................................... ................ Residential High Density R-10 5 DU/AC 10 DU/AC (RHD) R-1A 7 DU/AC lA 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 Minimum Maximum Net Density Density - Density Buildable Lands Residential Low R-1 1.57 N/A 1 DU/AC*Density bonus provisions,of up to eighteen (18) Density(RLD) dwelling units per acre,are intended to allow assisted living to develop with higher densities within the zone ........ ..I....... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ............................ ......... ......... ............ R-A 3.72 2 DU/AC 6 DU/AC ............................................... ............._.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ...__. Residential Medium R-6 A.75 6 DU/AC 8 DU/AC Density(RMD) .......... .... .... .... .... ........ .... .... .... ....... .... .... .. _ _ ..................................... R-8 5.52 8 DU/AC 10 DU/AC .......... . . . ....... .............._.. Residential High R-10 10.79 10 DU/AC 1A DU/AC Density(RHD) .......................................... ___._.. _.___..._... . . ......... ................ ..............___................ R-1 A 10.78 1 A 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 0i'I City of Renton I Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review& Racial Equity Analysis 11 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) 11.........._............................ ................._.. . ._.__._...._. ._. ........_... Residential-14 44% Live/Work(R-14) ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Residential Multi Family 89% Townhouses(All) Attached dwellings/Flats(All) Garden Apartments(RM-F) 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 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, New detached dwellings should be removed as an outright permitted Townhouses,Carriage Houses use.Duplexes and Triplexes should be permitted uses in R-10 zoning. ....... ......... ......... ...._.... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ............ Residential-14 Detached dwelling,ADUs,Flats,Live Detached Dwelling should be removed as an outright permitted use. Work Units,Townhouses,Carriage Fourplexes,fiveplexes,and sixplexes should be permitted uses in R-14 Houses,Congregate Residence zoning. ......... . . . ...... . .............. Residential Multi Family Flats,Garden Style Apartments, Congregate Residences,fourplexes,fiveplexes,and sixplexes should be Townhouses,Carriage Houses permitted uses in R-14 zoning. Source: Renton Municipal Code, 2022. 0i'I City of Renton I Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review& Racial Equity Analysis 12 4-2-1 10 - 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 Minimum Net None 3 dwelling 4 dwelling 5 dwelling 7 dwelling 10 dwelling Density(per Net units units units30 units30 units30 Acre)' 2,15 Maximum Net 1 dwelling 1 dwelling 4 dwelling 6 dwelling 8 dwelling 10 dwelling 14 dwelling 20 dwelling Density(per Net Acre, unit unit7•36 units units unit538 unit529 units29 units29 Except per Net 10 Acres in RC)2.14,15 Maximum Number of 1 dwelling 1 dwelling 1 dwelling with 1 1 dwelling Detached dwellings: 1 Per Maximum Dwellings(per Legal with 1 with 1 accessory dwelling unit with 1 dwelling with 1 accessory Net Density Lot)2 accessory accessory accessory dwelling unit dwelling dwelling dwelling unit unit? unit Attached dwellings:n/a Maximum Building 10% 20% 35% 40% 50% 55% 65% Townhouses: Coverage(including 70% Primary and Accessory) Other Attached Dwellings: 35% A maximum coverage of 45%may be allowed through the Hearing Examiner site development plan review process. Maximum Impervious 15% 25% 50% 55% 65% 70% 80% 75% Surface Area Maximum Number of n/a No more No more n/a Units per Building2 than 4 units than 6 units per building. per building. 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 — VII City of Renton I Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 13 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. 4-2-1 10A Recommended Changes To Development Standards For Residential Zoning Designations Minimum Net None 2 6 dwelling 8 dwelling 10 dwelling 14 10 dwelling Density(per Net Acre)', units units units30 dwelling units30 2,15 units3o Maximum Net 1 dwelling 1 dwelling 4 dwelling 8 dwelling 10 14 dwelling 20 30 dwelling Density(per Net Acre, unit unit7-36 units units dwelling units29 dwelling units29 Except per Net 10 units38 units29 Acres in RC)2.14.15 ...._.... ......... ............................................... ......... ......... .......... ........... ......... ......... ......... ......... ............................................................ Maximum Number of 1 dwelling 1 dwelling 1 dwelling with 1 Per Per Maximum Net Per Maximum Dwellings(per Legal with 1 with 1 accessory dwelling unit Maximum Density Net Density Lot)2 accessory accessory Net Density dwelling dwelling unit unit? ._. ............... .... .... .... ........ _ Maximum Building 10% 20% 35% 55% Townhouses:70% Townhouses: Coverage(including 70% Primary and Accessory) Other attached Dwellings:65% Other Attached Dwellings:65% n fflaxi_urn ce,,,eFOge ef 45' may be eillewed thFeugh mc-rtc-m�ng Exeminer site acyc-rvprrtcrTT plan N-eyiew pFeess. Maximum Impervious 15% 25% 50% 55% 65% 70% 80% 75% Surface Area Maximum Number of n/a n1a n/a n/a Units per Building' Source: Renton Municipal Code, 2022; BERK 4-2-1 15 - 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 1/4 mile of a public park (and fee in lieu). See Exhibit 7. VII City of Renton I Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 14 Exhibit 7. 4-2-1 15.2 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. 4-2-1 16 - 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 VII City of Renton I Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 15 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. 4-2-1 16 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 The ADU shall be architecturally compatible with significant architectural details of the primary structure, R-14 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 1 2%, 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 1 1. 2 See: https://www.rentonwa.ciov/city hall community and economic development permit ready a d u program. 3 Victoria Transit Policy Institute, 2022. VII City of Renton I Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 16 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 1.6 per 3 bedroom and large dwelling units large dwelling units 1.4 per 2 bedroom units 1.4 per 2 bedroom units 1 per 1 bedroom and 1 per 1 bedroom and studio studio units units Congregate residences: 1 per sleeping room 1 per sleeping room 1 for the proprietor 1 for the proprietor 1 additional space for each 1 additional space for each 4 persons employed on the 4 persons employed on the premise premise Attached dwellings in RMF,R-14 and R-1 0 Zones: 1.6 per 3 bedroom and 1.6 per 3 bedroom and large dwelling units large dwelling units 1.4 per 2 bedroom units 1.4 per 2 bedroom units 1 per 1 bedroom and 1 per 1 bedroom and studio studio units 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 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. 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. VII City of Renton I Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 17 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 Studio: 1 1 bedroom: 1 1 bedroom: 1 2 bedroom: 1 2 bedroom: 1.5 3+bedroom: 1 3+bedroom: 1.5 ... .... ................ .............. ................ ......... ......... ......... ......... ...._.......... ................ .......... . .... ......................... ......... . . . . Congregate residences: 1 per sleeping room 1 per sleeping room 1 for the proprietor 1 for the proprietor 1 additional space for each 1 additional space for each 4 persons employed on the 4 persons employed on the premise premise ... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... ... . . .......- ................... Attached dwellings in RMF,R-14 and R-10 Zones: Studio:0 Studio: 1 1 bedroom: 1 1 bedroom: 1 2 bedroom: 1 2 bedroom: 1.5 3+ bedroom: 1 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 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. 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. 0i'I City of Renton I Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review& Racial Equity Analysis 18 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 andlor 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 VII City of Renton I Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 19 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, 12-13-202 7) 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 4-1 1 -040 of the Renton Municipal Code. ■ Ordinance 6101 was adopted in 2022, amending Subsections 4-2-1 1 O.E, 4-2-1 20.B, 4-2-1 20.C, and 4-2-1 30.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.1 0 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 4-2-1 10.A and 4-2-1 10.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 4-1 1 -040 of the Renton Municipal Code, amending Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) regulations. ■ Ordinance 6042 was adopted in 2021, amending Sections 4-2-1 10 and 4-2-1 15, Subsections 4-4- 080.F.1 O.D, 4-4-090.A, and 4-4-090.13, Section 4-7-090, Subsections 4-9-065.A, 4-9-065.13, 4-5- 065.D, 4-9-200.13, and 4-9-200.D, and Section 4-1 1-030 of the Renton Municipal Code, adding cottage house development regulations, including adding a definition of "Cottage House Development" to Section 4-1 1-030. VII City of Renton I Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 20 ■ 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, 1 18th Avenue SE to the East, SE 180th Street to the south, and 1 16th 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 4-2-1 1 O.C, 4-2-1 1 O.E, and 4-2-1 16.13.2 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, 4-2-1 10.A, 4-2-1 10.13, 4-2-1 10.C, 4-2-1 1 O.D, 4-2-1 1 O.E, 4-2-1 10.1', 4-3-1 10.E.5.A.1, 4- 4-080.E.2.A, 4-4-080.E.2.E, and 4-4-080.F.1 O.D; Chapter 4-2; and Section 4-9-030; by amending Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) development standards, including adding a new Section 4-2-1 16 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). VII City of Renton I Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 21 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-1 0—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. VII City of Renton I Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 22 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-7 900 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_ha I I/pa rks_and_recreation/museum/city history/pre_1 900#:~:text=CITY%200F%20RENT ON%20WASHINGTON&text=The%20Duwamish%20are%20the%20Coast,and%20Duwamish%20Rivers%20%26%20EI lio tt%20Bay. 5 https://www.duwamishtribe.org/treaty-of-point-elliott VII City of Renton I Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 23 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 11, not everyone in the city benefited. Specifically, Renton's Japanese American families—who in the 1920s and 1 930s 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 1-405 runs between Renton and Tukwila) and were relocated to Fresno, California.? 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/cros/One.aspx?portalld=7922741&pageld=91 17416 7 https://historylink.org/File/21002 01 111 City of Renton I Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 24 Exhibit 12. Annexation History Map ORDINANCE NUMBER NAME OF ANNEXATION EFFECTIVE DATE Ij 'TT -- { Y zr > �j 4T Z.Z-11 -TT Y�I nI -S, r--- 177 I'M —F ........ I V L Ff* Information Technology GI ,apsupport@rentonwa gcv Printed on 111312014 Cats Somces City of Renton,King County City of Renton This document is a graphic mpremntation,n guaranteed informationMl— to survey accuracy,and is based on the best shown.This map is intended for Annexation History i able as of the date shown. City display pulp—only. r) N Source: City of Renton, 2023 Al City of Renton I Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 25 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 1926 6 "The parties of the second part further agrees to sell to white people Garden of Eden,Division No. 1 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 1946 2 "No persons of any race other than the Caucasian or White race shall Garden of Eden,Division No.4 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 1948 115 "Neither the owner or any successor in interest shall ever convey,lease Division 1,2,3,4,5,and 6 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 1942 143 "No race or nationality other than those of the Caucasian race shall use Renton 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. VII City of Renton I Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 26 Exhibit 14. Renton Map of Race-Based Covenants Newcastle Kentdale O its Lakerid,, Coalfif Allentown HI 90 ,erton Windr&hWddition to Renton Maplewood Heights i Heights Maplewood Tukwila Fairwood SeaTac Orillia Benso Northwestern Garden Tracts Division 1,2,3,4,5,6 Source: University of Washington Seattle Civil Rights & Labor History Proiect, 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 �. jam aw�iiii am AMW 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 Disaggregated by race and ethnicity Disparities Map,2022 ..................................................................................................................................................................... Commute mode estimates ACS 5-year,2021 VII City of Renton I Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 27 Datapoint Source Details density by race and ethnicity, Census 2020 mapped ......................................................................................................................................................................................................._................................................................................................................. Park access City of Renton Include 10-minute walksheds ......................................................................................................................................................................................................_................................................................................................................. Fair housing complaints ......................................................................................................................................................................................................_................................................................................................................. Commute patterns by worker type LEHD based on ACS 5-year 2015-Disaggregated by income level and geographic 2019 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.$ 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 30% 25% 25% 20% 20% 20% ° 16/0 18% 16/0 17% o 0 15% 15% — 15% o 0 11% 10% 12/° 0 10% 5% 5% 2% 0% - Under$25,000 $25,000 to $50,000 to $75,000 to $100,000 to $150,000 to $200,000 or more $49,999 $74,999 $99,999 $149,999 $199,999 Income Bracket ■2010 ■2021 8 Department of Commerce Draft Racially Disparate Impacts Guidance, 2023. 0i'I City of Renton I Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review& Racial Equity Analysis 28 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 Hispanic or Latino Two or more Other alone NHOPI alone 0' Asian alone AIAN alone t Black alone 0' �211 ®� i White alone,not Hispanic or Latino •' 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ■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 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% VII City of Renton I Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 29 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 $2,500 $2,265 +66% $2,000 j $1,500 $1,368 $1,000 $500 $0 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 United States — Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue Metro —King County —Renton 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. VII City of Renton I Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 30 Exhibit 20. Average home price over time $1,000,000 $889,984 (+264%) $900,000 $800,000 $759,919 251%) $700,000 $753, 50%) $600,000 $500,000 $400,000 $337,032 (+179%) $300,000 $200,000 —� $100,000 $0 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 United States Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue Metro King County Renton 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 $1,200,000 - 1,025,053 $1,000,000 (+225%) $800,000 753,472 (+250%) $600,000 559,553 (+267%) $400,000 $200,000 — $0 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 5-35% 35-65% 65-95% Sources: Zillow, 2022; BERK 2023. Housing Tenure Exhibit 22 shows that: VII City of Renton I Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 31 ■ 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 010 2021 2010 2021 Renton Renter occupied Renter occupied Owner occupied Owner occupied CITYWIDE 43% 470/c 57% ............................................................................................................................................_. ...................................................................... K White alone,not Hispanic or Latino 40% 2% 60%...... 58% Black alone 67% 1 72% 33% 28% _..... _.._.............. .... .... . ..._...__. AIAN alone 62% 71% 38% 29% ......... . . ...... . ...._.___... Asian alone 28% 31% 72% 69% NHOPI alone 67% 0°/ 33% 30% Other alone 62% 730 38% 27% Two or more � 53% 72% 47% 28% .................. .... .... .... .. ..,.., Hispanic or Latino 60% 71% 40% % 2010 2021 2010 2021 King County Renter occupied Renter occupied Owner occupied Owner COUNTYWIDE 40% 43% 60% 57% ......... ......... White alone,not Hispanic or Latino 35% 8% 65% 62% ............................................................................................................................................................._........................................................................... ................................................................................... ..,....,........,........,......,....,......,....,.........,. Black alone 67% 2% 33% 128% ....... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .... ......... ......... AIAN alone 63% 37% 43% Asian alone 40% 42°/ 60% 58% ..... .... .. . . . ........ ............... NHOPI alone 73% 1760 27%.. ._ 24% Other alone 66% 680 34% 32% Two or more 55% 570 45% 43% Hispanic or Latino 64% 64% 36% 36% .................................................................................._........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................-... .......................................................... Legend %Increase %Decrease Same Sources: US Census, 2010;ACS, 2027; BERK 2023. 0i'I City of Renton I Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review& Racial Equity Analysis 32 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 Other(including multiple races,non-Hispanic) Hispanic,any race •', Pacific Islander alone,non-Hispanic •' .y sAmerican Indian or Alaska Native alone,non-Hispanic r' W °y Asian alone,non-Hispanic V a Black or African-American alone,non-Hispanic •'. BIPOC 0' White alone,non-Hispanic 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Percentage ■Not Cost-Burdened ■Cost-Burdened ■Extremely Cost-Burdened Not Computed Sources: ACS, 2027; 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%. VII City of Renton I Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 33 Exhibit 24. Renter Cost Burden by Race and Ethnicity Other(including multiple races,non-Hispanic) Hispanic,any race •'. Pacific Islander alone,non-Hispanic BOW T .0 s American Indian or Alaska Native alone,non-Hispanic o' W °y Asian alone,non-Hispanic V a Black or African-American alone,non-Hispanic BIPOC White alone,non-Hispanic 0'. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Percentage ■Not Cost-Burdened ■Cost-Burdened ■Extremely Cost-Burdened ■Not Computed Sources: ACS, 2027; 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 VII City of Renton Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 34 TENURE OCCUPANTS PER ROOM ESTIMATE MARGIN of '•' 1.51 —2.00 occupants per room 525 209 2.01 or more occupants per room 139 96 Sources: ACS, 2027; 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 Washington Environmental Health Disparities Threat x Vulnerability = Risk THREAT ©/ VULNERABILITY 000, RISK Fossil Fuel Pollution Other Toxic Socioeconomic Sensitive Environmental Exposure Exposures Factors Populations Health Disparities Diesel emissions Lead risk from housing Limited English Populations with Communities experiencing Ozone concentration Proximity to hazardous waste No high school diploma high death a disproportionate share of treatment,storage,and rates from environmental health burdens disposal facilities PM2.5 concentration People of color cardiovascular that will need more assistance Proximity to heavy traffic Population living in disease to reach equitable outcomes roadways Proximity to Superfund sites poverty Populations with Proximity to risk management Transportation expense high percentages plan facilities of low birth Wastewater discharge Unaffordable housing weight Toxic releases from facilities Unemployment Source: Washington State Department of Health, 2023. VII City of Renton I Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 35 Exhibit 27. Environmental Exposure Risk Map :� , iasaquah Rank - High 0 7 6 5 4l 4 Renbnn ' I 3 z Low O 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. VII City of Renton I Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 36 Exhibit 28. Commute Mode Split Worked from home 1 1 8% 0 Other ' 1�° Walked BE 5% 0 Bicycle 1 0% 1% m Motorcycle 0 0 0% Taxicab 0% 0% Public transportation 1 1% 0 Carpool %10% Drive alone 55% o 68/o 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Percentage ■King County ■Renton Sources: ACS, 2027; 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 1-405 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. RacelEthnicify 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. VII City of Renton I Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 37 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 PROJECTR•GRAM TYPE APPLICATION YEAR TOTAL Compass Center Renton Lutheran 9%Tax Credits 2008 58 Regional Veterans' Program Golden Cedars PRI 366 Heritage Grove Apartments 4%Tax Credits 1994 55 - ........................................... June Leonard Place 9%Tax Credits 2017 47 I..".........,....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 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 0i'I City of Renton I Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review& Racial Equity Analysis 38 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 III City of Renton Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 39 Burien 174 2.01% 1.45 Source: https:/Itesseract.csde.washington.edu:8080Ishinylevictionmap—sl Exhibit 31. Municipality Eviction Rate: by Race and Ethnicity Municipality -Y White Only -W I Black'IIIT Hispanic Asian Eviction Rate Eviction Rate Eviction Rate 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:/Itesseract.csde.washington.edu:8080Ishinylevictionmap—sl Exhibit 32. Municipality Relative Risk of Eviction: by Race and Ethnicity Municipality White Only Black Hispanic Asian Eviction Rate Eviction Rate Eviction Rate 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:/Itesseract.csde.washington.edu:8080Ishinylevictionmap—sl 0i'I City of Renton I Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review& Racial Equity Analysis 40 Exhibit 33. Evictions Study Map: Eviction Count ti Tukwila Estimated Number of Evictions 250—1,181 100—250 Des r in 50— 100 25—50 1 —25 Leaflet I O OpenStreetKlap contributors®CARTO Source: https:/Itesseract.csde.washington.edu:8080Ishinylevictionmap�,z Exhibit 34. Eviction Study Map: Eviction Rate Estimated Eviction Rate 5—100% 3-5% 2-3% 1 —2% 0-1% Insufficient Data r I ' Leaflet I©OpenStreetklap contributors©CARTO Source: https://tesseract.csde.washington.edu:8080IshinylevictionmaRv VII City of Renton I Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 41 Exhibit 35. Eviction Study Map: Relative Eviction Risk F` Issaquah Burson SoaTac Estimated Relative Risk of Eviction 2.00-2.935 1.00-2.000 0.50-1.000 0.25-0.500 LMill 0.00-0.250 Insufficient Data Leaflet 0 OpenStreett,lap contributors 0 CARTO Source: https:/Itesseract.csde.washington.edu:8080Ishinylevictionmap-s� Exhibit 36. Evictions Study Map: Relative Eviction Risk J Census Tract 99 King County Mef D4q � Relative Risk 0 88 i Renton $urien i - Estimated Relative Risk of Eviction 3.00-6.785 2.00-3.000 I 1.00-2.000 0.50- 1.000 5 0.25-0.500 ' 0.00-0.250 Insufficient Data Leaflet 10 OpenStreetklap contributors 0 CARTO Source: https://tesseract.csde.washington.edu:8080Ishinylevictionmap�,z VII City of Renton I Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 42 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. VII City of Renton I Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 43 Exhibit 37. Displacement Risk Index Legend .L Displacement City of Renton Risk Index 47.04 Other - Possible Incorporated displacement Places High KC Metro High — Frequency Bus 247.03 Moderate Routes Low Kennydale Existing or — Proposed BRT ., 252.02 , Routes 252.01 .._ - 900 - 254.01 Highlands —} City Center 251.03 599 West Hill O 253.03 251.04 253.02 260.04 East Plateau _900 261. 169 , 256.02 319.12 319.13 Cedar River _ Q 518 ��1. - � 169 257.02 319.10 -- �i, Benson 258.04 258.05 258.06`- Fairwood 67 515 Note:Displacement risk calculated at a tract level by looking at social 181 Talbot vulnerability(2021 data),demographic 293.04 change(2010 to 2021),and market 293.09 prices(2010 to 2021).The model compares tract-level change over time to countywide rates of change along the some variables,and produces relative scores that are combined in a © 293.05 matrix to determine estimated levels of displacement risk. 0 0 2Miles Map Date: March 2023 00111 BERK Sources: Census 2020, BERK 2023. VII City of Renton I Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 44 Exhibit 38. Displacement Risk Table, Renton Market Prices Percent Renter BIPOC Median Social Vulnerability Under 80%AMI Change Demographic High or Low Market Price Tract Overlap Quintile Quintile Income Score Score BIPOC Change Score Score Change Score Rent Area Appreciation Rate 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 251.03 100% 3 5 2 10 Tracking county change Increasing Low Income HHs Disinvestment Low rent area Low or mod appreciation Stable 7Moderate 251.04 65% 1 4 2 7 Tracking county change Increasing Low Income HHs Disinvestment Low rent area Low or mod appreciation Stable 252.01 100% 2 4 3 9 Decreasing BIPOC Increasing Low Income HHs No Low rent area High appreciation Accelerating 252.02 90% 4 4 3 11 Tracking county change Increasing Low Income HHs Disinvestment Low rent area High appreciation Accelerating 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 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 r 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 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 r 262.00 1% 5 5 4 14 Tracking county change Decreasing Low Income HHs Gentrification Low rent area Low or mod appreciation Stable 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 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 r 319.13 45% 1 3 1 5 Increasing BIPOC Decreasing Low Income HHs No Low rent area Low or mod appreciation Stable Low Mll 11 45 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. 46