HomeMy WebLinkAboutCommittee of the Whole - 02 Dec 2024 - Agenda - Pdf
CITY OF RENTON
AGENDA - Committee of the Whole Meeting
5:45 PM - Monday, December 2, 2024
7th Floor Conferencing Center
1. OVERVIEW OF THE 2024 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
a) Presentation - Overview of Comprehensive Plan Update
b) AB - 2825
c) Comprehensive Plan - Transportation Improvements
d) Comprehensive Plan - Table of Public Access Objectives
e) Comprehensive Plan - Existing Conditions
f) Comprehensive Plan - Housing Need Land Capacity and Adequate Provisions
g) Comprehensive Plan - Land Use Changes
h) Comprehensive Plan - Land Use Map October
i) Comprehensive Plan - Zoning Changes
j) Comprehensive Plan - Zoning
k) Housing Action Plan "HAP" Addendums - Policy Review and Racial Equity Analysis
l) Housing Action Plan "HAP" Addendums - Support for Ordinance 5983 Sales Tax Funding
m) Title IV New Zone Ordinance
OVERVIEW OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PERIODIC UPDATE
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
DECEMBER 2, 2024
AG
E
N
D
A
I
T
E
M
#
1
.
a
)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE JOURNEY
•Started in 2022 with Public Participation Plan
•Briefed, held public hearings, and received recommendations from Planning
Commission over 15 meetings
•Briefed Planning & Development Committee 16 meetings
•Many public events, especially at Farmers Market
•Over 1,000 survey respondents
AG
E
N
D
A
I
T
E
M
#
1
.
a
)
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING –GMA
•Required elements of the Plan:
- Land use
- Transportation
-Housing
- Capital facilities
- Utilities
- Shorelines
- Climate
•Citizen participation AG
E
N
D
A
I
T
E
M
#
1
.
a
)
MANAGED GROWTH
Comp.
Plans
Countywide
Planning
Policies
Vision
2040
•State
-Growth Management Act
•Region (Puget Sound Regional Council)
- VISION 2050
•County
- King County Countywide Planning Policies
•Municipalities
- Renton Comprehensive Plan
- Renton Business Plan
- Parks, Recreation, and Natural Areas Plan
- Arts and Culture Master Plan
CONNECTING THE PLANS
MANAGED GROWTH
Comp.
Plans
Countywide
Planning
Policies
Vision
2050
AG
E
N
D
A
I
T
E
M
#
1
.
a
)
•Outlines goals and policies to inform the way
the city grows and develops
•Summary of Update:
–Stronger goals for housing
Example: “Encourage affordable housing” vs. “Plan for
and accommodate housing affordable to all household
incomes of the community.”
–Climate and resiliency
–Equity, inclusion, as well as displacement
•Rely on separate plans – Bicycles and Trails,
Urban Forest Management Plan, etc.
•Adoption deadline: December 31, 2024 AG
E
N
D
A
I
T
E
M
#
1
.
a
)
•The City’s Business Plan states that the city supports planned growth,
and that growth should foster development of vibrant, sustainable,
attractive, mixed-use neighborhoods in urban centers
•PSRC 2050 projections:
–1.6 million more people
–1.2 million more jobs
•Renton planning for 17,000 new households and 31,780 new jobs
PLANNING FOR GROWTH
AG
E
N
D
A
I
T
E
M
#
1
.
a
)
•In general, people have concerns about housing and
transportation
–Housing costs, availability of housing that meets their needs such as
apartments with enough bedrooms for families or being able to stay in
their home as they age
–Transportation network congestion, lack of access to public transportation,
lots of desire for safe pedestrian and bicycle routes
•Vision needs to include all people not just businesses and families
•People like living in Renton and feel that it is a desirable place to
live, want to ensure environment is protected
•Concern about climate change especially among younger residents
OUTREACH/ENGAGEMENT
AG
E
N
D
A
I
T
E
M
#
1
.
a
)
RACIALLY RESTRICTIVE COVENANTSRACIALLYRESTRICTIVECOVENANTS
Covenant TextProperties
ImpactedYearSubdivision
“The parties of the second part further agrees to sell to white people
only and not to permit either to be sold by forced sale; and any sale of
this contract or of any interest in said contract or in the lands therein
described without the written consent of the party of the first part will
render this contract null and void.”
61926
C.D. Hillman’s Lake
Washington Garden of Eden,
Division No. 1
“No persons of any race other than the Caucasian or White race shall
use or occupy any building or lot, except that this covenant shall not
prevent occupancy by domestic servant of a different race domiciled
with an owner or tenant.”
21946
C.D. Hillman’s Lake
Washington Garden of Eden,
Division No. 4
“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.”
291947Cresto View Addition
“Neither the owner or any successor in interest shall ever convey, lease
or rent to any person other than the white or Caucasian races, said
premises, or any portion thereof or permit the occupancy thereof by
any such persons, except as a domestic servant.”
1151948Northwestern Garden Tracts
Division 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6
Labeled a “Restricted District” in newspaper advertisements.400President Park
“This property cannot be sold to any person or persons other than
those of the Caucasian race;”21947Stewart’s Highland Acres
“No race or nationality other than those of the Caucasian race shall use
or occupy any dwelling on a lot, except that this covenant shall not
prevent occupancy by domestic servants of a different race or
nationally employed by a owner or tenant.”
1431942Windsor Hills Addition to
Renton
AG
E
N
D
A
I
T
E
M
#
1
.
a
)
DISPLACEMENT RISKDISPLACEMENTRISK
AG
E
N
D
A
I
T
E
M
#
1
.
a
)
SAMPLE DRAFT POLICIES –DISPARATE IMPACTSSAMPLEDRAFTPOLICIES–DISPARATE IMPACTS
•Mitigate displacement pressure caused by market forces by fostering
homeownership opportunity and encouraging investments in
existing housing.
•Monitor housing policies, racially disparate impacts and
displacement risk, and report trends in implementation reports and
periodic updates for the Comprehensive Plan.
•Ensure availability of a variety of housing types that meet all housing
needs equitably and sustainably.
•* No changes to these policies or analysis
AG
E
N
D
A
I
T
E
M
#
1
.
a
)
•Inventory of existing and projected needs
•How to preserve, improve, and develop
housing
•Must new plan for greater variety of
housing (Middle Housing)
•Must plan for and demonstrate capacity for
all income groups with specific numbers
•Evaluation of racially disparate impacts
•Areas of potential displacement
HOUSING & HUMAN SERVICES ELEMENT
AG
E
N
D
A
I
T
E
M
#
1
.
a
)
•Policies such as: “Encourage and
partner in the development of
quality housing choices for people
of all ages and income levels” and
“Support the growing need of
humans services funding to address
the challenges of housing and
mental health”
HOUSING & HUMAN SERVICES ELEMENT
AG
E
N
D
A
I
T
E
M
#
1
.
a
)
HOUSING –DEMONSTRATING CAPACITY
2,161Renton
Statewide
1,6244,110 1,019 1,062 5,819
3,248
AG
E
N
D
A
I
T
E
M
#
1
.
a
)
HOUSING –DEMONSTRATING CAPACITY
AG
E
N
D
A
I
T
E
M
#
1
.
a
)
•Number of existing housing units by bedrooms and
condition
•Number of units of existing emergency housing,
emergency shelters, and permanent supportive
housing
•Show capacity for emergency housing
•And resolve deficit at 80-120% AMI
HOUSING & HUMAN SERVICES ELEMENT –CHANGES
AG
E
N
D
A
I
T
E
M
#
1
.
a
)
•Documents planned growth
•Designates distribution and location
of land uses
•Includes population densities,
building intensities, and land uses
•Identifies Potential Annexation
Areas
•Identifies Regional Growth Center
and Countywide Centers
LAND USE ELEMENT
AG
E
N
D
A
I
T
E
M
#
1
.
a
)
•Policies support City Business Plan
goals such as: and “Promote a
walkable, pedestrian and bicycle
friendly city with complete streets,
trails, and connections between
neighborhoods and community focal
points” and “Foster development of
vibrant, sustainable, attractive,
mixed-use neighborhoods in urban
centers”
LAND USE ELEMENT
AG
E
N
D
A
I
T
E
M
#
1
.
a
)
•Add language related to wildfire preparedness and
mitigation
•Add treaty rights to policy about tribal coordination
LAND USE ELEMENT -CHANGES
AG
E
N
D
A
I
T
E
M
#
1
.
a
)
•Very strongly linked to Land Use element
and regional growth strategy
•Identifies regional partners and establishes
coordination
•Identifies Level of Service for city roadways
•Identifies needs and funds to construct are
stated
•Goals for bicycles and pedestrians also
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
AG
E
N
D
A
I
T
E
M
#
1
.
a
)
•Policies such as: “Pursue
transportation and other
regional improvements and
services that improve quality of
life” and “Actively seek grants
and other funding
opportunities”
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
AG
E
N
D
A
I
T
E
M
#
1
.
a
)
•Add ADA Barrier Free plan to list of documents
included by reference
•Update mode split goals
•Add language about Level of Service standards for
highways of Statewide Significance
* Also, comments related to work currently being done
regarding technical analysis (inventory existing
facilities, travel forecasting, project list, financing plan,
etc.)
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT -CHANGES
AG
E
N
D
A
I
T
E
M
#
1
.
a
)
•Inventory of existing and capacity
•Forecast of future needs
•Proposed locations and capacities of new/expanded
•Plan to finance over 6 years with sources identified
•Requires consistency and coordination with Land Use
element
CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT
AG
E
N
D
A
I
T
E
M
#
1
.
a
)
•Policies such as: “Plan, develop,
and maintain quality services,
infrastructure, and amenities” and
“Respond to growing service
demands through partnership,
innovation, and outcome
management”
•* No changes to these policies
CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT
AG
E
N
D
A
I
T
E
M
#
1
.
a
)
•Surface water (city and other),
wastewater (city and other),
electrical, telecommunications,
natural gas lines, etc.
•Identify locations of existing
and planned systems, as well
as capacity of existing and
planned
UTILITIES ELEMENT
AG
E
N
D
A
I
T
E
M
#
1
.
a
)
•Policies such as: “Prioritize
services at levels that can be
sustained by revenue” and
“Develop and maintain
collaborative partnerships and
investment strategies that
improve services”
•* No changes to these policies
UTILITIES ELEMENT
AG
E
N
D
A
I
T
E
M
#
1
.
a
)
•Newest requirement
•Includes section about resilience
•Inventories greenhouse gas
emissions
•Identifies Greenhouse Gas
emission reduction goals
•Strong connection to Land Use,
Transportation, Housing &
Human Services, and Parks
CLIMATE ELEMENT
AG
E
N
D
A
I
T
E
M
#
1
.
a
)
•Polices such as: “Assume a critical role in improving our
community’s health and environmental resiliency by addressing
impacts of climate change for future generations” and “Pursue
initiatives to increase mobility, promote clean energy in our existing
buildings and in new development, preserve and expand open
spaces and tree coverage, and other efforts to reduce CO2 and
greenhouse gas emissions”
•* No changes to these policies
CLIMATE ELEMENT
AG
E
N
D
A
I
T
E
M
#
1
.
a
)
•Summarizes local economy
–Employment, sectors, etc.
•Identifies strengths and
weaknesses
•Identifies goals, policies,
programs, and projects to
foster economic growth and
development for future needs
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT
AG
E
N
D
A
I
T
E
M
#
1
.
a
)
•Policies such as: “Nurture
entrepreneurship and foster
successful partnerships with
businesses and community
leaders” and “Recruit and retain
businesses to ensure a dynamic,
diversified employment base”
•* No changes to these policies
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT
AG
E
N
D
A
I
T
E
M
#
1
.
a
)
•Evaluation of facilities and services
•Estimates of demand for at least 10
year period
•Evaluation of intergovernmental
opportunities for regional approaches
to meeting demand
•Must be consistent with Capital
Facilities
PARKS, RECREATION, AND NATURAL AREAS ELEMENT
AG
E
N
D
A
I
T
E
M
#
1
.
a
)
•Policies such as: “Improve access to
city services, programs and
employment, provide opportunities
and eradicate disparities for residents,
workers, and businesses” and
“Promote safety, health, and security
through effective communication and
service delivery”
•* No changes to these policies
PARKS, RECREATION, AND NATURAL AREAS ELEMENT
AG
E
N
D
A
I
T
E
M
#
1
.
a
)
COMMUNITY
PLANNING ELEMENT
•Policies such as: “Facilitate
successful neighborhoods
through community
involvement”
•* No changes to these
policies AG
E
N
D
A
I
T
E
M
#
1
.
a
)
•Represents policies required to
meet the City obligations under
the Shoreline Management Act
•Identifies Shorelines of
Statewide Significance
•Establishes the Shoreline
Master Program
•* No changes to these policies
SHORELINE ELEMENT
AG
E
N
D
A
I
T
E
M
#
1
.
a
)
•Title IV amendments to create an RMF-2 zone allowing 40 du/ac
•Rezone of 3 parcels from CA to RMF-2
•Rezone of 4 parcels from RMF to CA
•Addenda to Housing Action Plan
–Policy Review and Racial Equity Analysis
–Support for Ordinance 5983 Sales Tax Funding
ACCOMPANYING AMENDMENTS
AG
E
N
D
A
I
T
E
M
#
1
.
a
)
•Planning & Development Committee, Committee Report
–12/9/24
•First and Second Reading of Ordinances
–12/9/24
NEXT STEPS
AG
E
N
D
A
I
T
E
M
#
1
.
a
)
AB - 2825
City Council Regular Meeting - 08 Mar 2021
SUBJECT/TITLE: 2021 Title IV Docket #16 Items
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Refer to Planning Commission and Planning & Development
Committee
DEPARTMENT: Community & Economic Development Department
STAFF CONTACT: Angie Mathias, Long Range Planning Manager
EXT.: 6576
FISCAL IMPACT SUMMARY:
N/A
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
RMC 4-8-070G outlines the types of review the Planning Commission shall conduct. The review of the
Development Regulations (Title IV Docket) process is specifically listed. Land Use Regulations review occurs
upon Council request. The Planning Commission will make recommendations regarding the Land Use
Regulations to the Council. Final recommendation of the Title IV Docket will be the authority of the Council.
Title IV Development Regulations
This process is codified in RMC 4-9-025, Title IV Development Regulation Revision Process. Staff has compiled
a series of amendments to Title IV of the Renton Municipal Code (Development Regulations) that initiates
several regulatory initiatives that respond to important issues facing the City. The proposed list o f
amendments includes City initiated amendments as shown in the 2021 Title IV Docket #16 Table and was
arrived at after consultation with the Planning Commission and Planning & Development Committee.
EXHIBITS:
A. Issue Paper
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Refer the 2021 Title IV Docket #16 Items to the Planning and Development Committee and Planning Commission for
review. Following this review, the Planning Commission will present code revisions recommendations to Council.
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
& ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE:March 8, 2021
TO:Randy Corman, Council President
Members of Renton City Council
VIA:Armondo Pavone, Mayor
FROM:Chip Vincent, CED Administrator (x6588)
STAFF CONTACT:Angie Mathias, Long Range Planning Manager (x6576)
SUBJECT:2021 Title IV Docket #16 Items
ISSUE:
Should the 2021 Title IV Docket #16 work program be referred to the Planning &
Development Committee and the Planning Commission for consideration and potential
adoption?
RECOMMENDATION:
Refer the additional items for the 2021 Title IV Docket #16 to the Planning and
Development Committee and Planning Commission for review. Following this review,
the Planning Commission will present code revision recommendations to Council.
BACKGROUND SUMMARY:
RMC 4-8-070G outlines the types of review the Planning Commission shall conduct.
The review of the Development Regulations (Title IV Docket) process is specifically
listed. Land Use Regulations review occurs upon Council request. The Planning
Commission will make recommendations regarding the Land Use Regulations to the
Council. Final recommendation of the Title IV Docket will be the authority of the
Council.
Title IV Development Regulations
This process is codified in RMC 4-9-025, Title IV Development Regulation Revision
Process. Staff has compiled a series of amendments to Title IV of the Renton Municipal
Code (Development Regulations) that initiates several regulatory initiatives that
respond to important issues facing the City. The proposed list of amendments includes
City initiated amendments as shown in the Table below.
CONCLUSION:
The proposed schedule for review of the Title IV Docket #16 Amendments is for the
Planning Commission review to occur throughout 2021.
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
2021 TITLE IV DOCKET #16
City Initiated Amendments
Humane Pet Store Ordinance
Ordinance for humane pet stores. Consider establishing rules to ensure that pet sale stores meet minimum
standards for safe and healthy treatment for the pets they sell.
Sewer Service Outside City Limits
Recent review from the City Attorney’s Office indicates that the City should extend sewer to areas in the
unincorporated county in all instances, including to new subdivisions. The code currently only allows extensions
of sewer to a single parcel. This code section needs to be reviewed.
Public Notice Requirement for Appeals
Remove the requirement for publication of an appeal hearing from title IV. In an appeal public hearing there is
no opportunity for the public to comment or provide input into the process. Therefore, the extra step adds time
and cost to the appeal process without public benefit.
Rental Registration Program
Clarify exemptions
Clarify Rental Checklists Requirements to indicate document must be submitted for each of landlord’s
rental properties annually along with the Declaration of Compliance.
Clarify Residential Checklist requirements when it comes to self-inspection for properties with more
than 20 units.
Provide checklist alternative if a landlord alternatively submits a certificate of inspection, completed by
a third-party.
Clarify submission of Certificate of Inspection: a certificate of inspection must be provided to the City
within a 30 days, after F(1)-(3). The certificate of inspection is required to be submitted with a new
registration if a violation is found in the previous 12 months. Clarify that if violations are found on the
Certificate of Inspection, landlords may be subject to further violations.
Impact Fee Credit
Amend the sliding scale for the amount of time a property can claim impact fee credit for previous uses;
from 2 ½ -5 years to 3 years.
Adjust timing of collection of impact fees from permit submittal to permit issuance.
Setbacks in Commercial Zones
A footnote to the Commercial Standards table for commercial zones that states that setbacks can be reduced to
0 ft. through site plan review. This needs to be reviewed and reconsidered.
Fence Standards in Commercial Zones
Review fence regulations and evaluate standards relating to scale, placement, safety, design, and materials of
fences, notably within commercial zones. The current regulations lack distinguished requirements for varying
uses and overlay districts which creates conflict between code implementation and intention. This review will
include clearing up existing discrepancies or contradictions in 4-4-040, Fences, Hedges, and Retaining Walls. Due
to the fact that there are currently no clear vision standards for driveways, this may include evaluating the need
to define clear vision areas with respect to commercial zones.
Docket Items for Sunsetting Programs
The waived fees and MFTE program
Residential Accessory Structures
Assess and make amendments to residential zoning standards for accessory structures, including but not limited
to, allowed height, area, and number, exemptions, and how to regulate covered decks and patios.
Applicability of Urban Design Regulations
Consider when/how urban design regulations should be applied to existing structures.
Clarify definition and distinction between duplexes and SFR
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
Provide clarity for staff when reviewing building permits for single-family residential homes with additional
“units” inside. We’ve seen an uptick in new SFR home proposing what is essentially a secondary unit either in
the basement or in some other area of the house. What constitutes an attached accessory dwelling unit (i.e.
separate entrance? atmospherically connected? Kitchen? Etc) so that we can more easily approve or deny
permits that include this type of secondary unit.
Additional height in the RMF zone to be considered via a CUP similar to other residential zones such as the R-
14.
The front setback in the RMF zone is 10 ft. for townhomes and 20 ft. for other attached dwellings. I would
recommend that the setback be amended to 15 ft. for townhomes, as the 10 ft. setback is the smallest setback
in comparison to the majority of City zones.
TOD Subarea Development Regulations and Other Codework
Subsequent to the adoption of the Rainier/Grady Junction Subarea Plan staff will need to draft and adopt
development regulations for the overlay. Subject to adoption of the TOD Subarea Plan and consultant contract.
Plan/Policy Development
Comprehensive Plan
Review with Council planned changes in anticipation of King County policy changes.
Initiate 8 year required Comprehensive Plan update, largely technical changes. Add implementation
strategies, add/amending policies to reflect current policies. Also, review each element for racial justice
and equity, as well as, climate change.
Buildable Lands
Evaluate Regional Center designation as Core City or Metro City. Also consider amending boundary to
include TOD area.
Consider Countywide Centers designation
2020 CPA North 30th
Rezone of approx. 2.65-acres of the N 30th St Study Area (7.41 acres, 12 parcels located between Park Ave N
and I-405 on N 30th St) from a land use designation Residential Medium Density (RMD) to Residential High
Density (RHD) and a zoning change from Residential-6 (R-6) to Commercial Neighborhood (CN). Three (3) of the
five (5) parcels are currently split zoned as R-6 and CN. Also, amendments to the CN zone regulations to improve
the implementation of the zone.
Joint Planning in Potential Annexation Areas
Work with King County to establish consistent development standards for the unincorporated area associated
with the City’s potential annexation area.
Update Clean Economy Strategy Plan
Adopted in 2010 and is in need of update for consistency with countywide and regional state work on this topic.
Administrative Code Interpretations (from December 2018 to Current)
CI-149, Downtown Window Transparency
CI-150, Preschool and Daycare Permissibility
CI-151, Slotted Drain Usage
CI-152, Applicability of 4-4-055, Short Term Rentals
CI-153, Administrative Fee for the Collection of School Impact Fees
CI-154, Special Administrative Fence Permit Eligibility
CI-155, Definition of Townhouse
CI-156, Enforcement of Violations 4-4-085
CI-157, Nonconforming Structures v. Nonconforming Sites
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
CI-158, Warehousing and Distribution
CI-159, Minimum Dimensions for Open Space
CI-160, Revocable Right of Way Permit Fee Reference
CI-162, Rear Yard Setback from Alley
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
CITY OF RENTON – COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
APPENDIX A: TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS PAGE xiii
APPENDIX A:
TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS
Project
ID Project Location (Limits) Description
Community
Planning
Area
MULTIMODAL ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
1 Lake Washington Blvd/NE 44th St
(May Creek Bridge to NE 48th St)
Widen arterial including upgraded pedestrian and bicycle
facilities and new traffic signal. Kennydale
2 NE 31st St (May Creek)
Bridge Replacement
Replace the existing substandard bridge based on low
sufficiency rating. Kennydale
3 Lake Washington Blvd
(Park Ave N to Coulon Park Entrance) Widen existing roadway to provide additional left turn lanes. City Center
4 Park Ave N Extension
(Logan Ave N to north of Logan Ave N)
Extend Park Ave N through construction of a new 4/5 lane
roadway with pedestrian and bicycle facilities. City Center
5 Houser Way N
(from N 8th St to Lk Washington Blvd)
Convert Houser Way N to two-way operation including
pedestrian and bicycle facilities. City Center
6 Rainier Ave Phase 4
(S 3rd St (SR 900) to NW 3rd Pl)
Reconstruct arterial including pedestrian improvements and
traffic signal upgrades. City Center
7 Rainier Ave Phase 5
(NW 3rd Pl to North City Limits)
Convert existing arterial to 3 to 4 lanes with pedestrian and
bicycle facilities. City Center
8 Bronson Way
(S 2nd St to Park Ave N) Rehabilitate or replace existing bridge. City Center
9 Main Ave S/Bronson Way S Circulation
(S 3rd St to Mill Ave S/ Bronson Way S)
Construct new northbound lane on Main Ave S and Bronson
Way S and intersection modifications. City Center
10 City Center One-way Street System
Conversion
Convert existing one-way streets per City Center Community
Plan. City Center
11 City Center Circulation and Multimodal
Enhancement Projects
Implement arterial and local roadway improvements
identified in the City Center Community Plan. City Center
12 Logan Ave Phase 2
(N 6th St to Park Ave N)
Widen arterial to include additional northbound lane,
sidewalks, multi-use trail, and traffic signal modifications. City Center
13 Grady Way
(Main Ave to Rainier Ave)
Reconfigure existing travel lanes to improve traffic
operations and transit reliability. City Center
14 S 7th St
(Rainier Ave S to Talbot Rd S)
Widen existing arterial and install traffic signal and
additional lanes at intersection of S 7th St/Shattuck Ave. City Center
15
Sunset Blvd NE (SR 900)
(I-405 to NE Park Dr; Monroe Ave NE
to East City Limits)
Modify arterial to improve traffic operations including
channelization, access management, pedestrian/bicycle
facilities and traffic signal modifications.
Highlands - East
Plateau
16 Sunset Area Community Road Improvements
16a Sunset Blvd
(NE Park Dr to Monroe Ave NE)
Reconstruct arterial with pedestrian and bicycle facilities and
transit facilities to latest principal arterial standards. Highlands
AGENDA ITEM #1. c)
CITY OF RENTON – COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
PAGE xiv APPENDIX A: TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS
Project
ID Project Location (Limits) Description
Community
Planning
Area
16b Sunset Ln/NE 10th St
(Sunset Boulevard to Glenwood Ave)
Reconstruct Sunset Ln to a 2-lane roadway and extend NE
10th St (Harrington Ave NE to Glenwood Ave NE). Highlands
16c Sunset Area Green Connections Construct multimodal improvements identified in the Sunset
Area Community Planned Action Study. Highlands
16d NE 12th St/Edmonds Ave Modify intersection channelization. Highlands
16e NE 12th St/Harrington Ave Modify intersection channelization. Highlands
17 NE 10th St
(Union Ave NE to Duvall Ave NE)
Develop streets to Residential Access standards with one
lane in each direction. Highlands
18 NE 8th St
(Union Ave NE to Duvall Ave NE)
Develop streets to Residential Access standards with one
lane in each direction. Highlands
19 NE 3rd St/NE 4th St Corridor
(Sunset Blvd to East City Limits)
Modify intersection channelization and traffic signals and
upgrade pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
Highlands - East
Plateau
20 NE 6th St
(Duvall Ave NE to 156th Ave SE)
Develop streets to Residential Access standards with one
lane in each direction. East Plateau
21 Duvall Ave NE
(NE 4th St to Sunset Blvd)
Widen existing 4-lane arterial to provide center two-way left
turn lane north of NE 7th St, as needed. East Plateau
22 NE 2nd St
(Duvall Ave NE to 156th Ave SE)
Develop streets to Residential Access standards with one
lane in each direction. East Plateau
23 156th Ave SE
(NE 4th St to SE 143rd St)
Construct two-way left-turn lane and non-motorized
facilities, as needed. Install signal at 156th Ave SE/
NE 142nd St.
East Plateau
24 Maple Valley Hwy (SR 169) Interim
(SE 5th St to East City Limits)
Construct intersection and operational improvements. Also
see WSDOT SR 169 project. Cedar River
25 Grady Way
(Rainier Ave to West City Limits)
Construct additional turn lanes at Grady Way intersections
with Lind Ave and with Oakesdale Ave. Valley
26 Lind Ave SW
(SW 16th St to SW 43rd St)
Widen arterial to provide a center two-way left turn lane
and upgrade sidewalks, as needed. Modify traffic signals. Valley
27 SW 43rd St/Carr Rd(Lind Ave to Talbot
Rd S)
Widen SW 43rd St and East Valley Hwy to add travel lanes
approaching their intersection. Also see SR 167/SW 43rd St
interchange project.
Valley - Talbot
28
SW 43rd St/Carr Rd/SE 176th St/SE
Petrovitsky Rd
(Oakesdale Ave to 134th Ave SE)
Implement adaptive signal control system (ACSC) along
corridor and construct westbound right-turn lane from Carr
Rd to Benson Dr SE.
Valley- Talbot -
Benson
29 Talbot Rd
(SW 43rd St to South City Limits)
Widen existing 2-lane roadway to provide a center two-way
left turn lane, where needed, and bike lanes. Talbot
30 Carr Rd/Petrovitsky Rd
(Talbot Rd S to Benson Dr S)
Implement projects along this arterial corridor to improve
traffic operations and enhance non-motorized facilities. Talbot
31 Puget Dr SE
(Jones Pl SE to Edmonds Ave SE)
Widen existing 2-lane roadway to provide center two-way
turn lane, as needed. Benson
AGENDA ITEM #1. c)
CITY OF RENTON – COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
APPENDIX A: TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS PAGE xv
Project
ID Project Location (Limits) Description
Community
Planning
Area
32 Benson Rd
(S 26th St to S 31st St) Widen existing 2-lane roadway to 3-4 lanes, as needed. Benson
33 Benson Hill Community Plan
Improvements
Implement various pedestrian and bicycle enhancements as
identified in the Benson Hill Community Plan. Benson
34 116th Ave SE/Edmonds Ave SE
(Puget Dr SE to S 192nd St)
Widen arterial to provide a center two-way left turn lane
and upgrade sidewalks, as needed. Modify traffic signals. Benson
35 Petrovitsky Rd
(Benson Dr S to134th Ave SE)
Implement projects along this arterial corridor to improve
traffic operations and enhance non-motorized facilities. Benson
36
Monster Rd
(Monster Rd SW/Oakesdale Ave SW to
MLK Way/Sunset Blvd)
Widen to 4/5 lane arterial with pedestrian and bicycle
facilities. Realign intersection of Beacon Coal Mine Rd. Joint
project with King County.
West Hill
NON-MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS
Lake Washington Loop Trail
Construct a shared use regional trail from the Cedar River
Trail and extending to the north City limits along Airport Way
and Rainier Ave N.
City Center
Lake to Sound Trail
The Lake -to-Sound (L2S) Trail is a joint partnership between
the cities of Renton, SeaTac, Tukwila, Burien, and Des
Moines, in coordination with King County.
City Center -
Valley
Walkway/Bicycle/Trails Program
Construct sidewalks, bicycle facilities, and multi-use trails
per Comprehensive Walkway Study and Renton Trails and
Bicycle Master Plan.
Citywide
Other Annual Walkway and Barrier-
free Transition Plan Program
Construct missing sidewalks, walkways, and other pedestrian
facilities based on various studies. Also includes removal of
barriers to pedestrian travel.
Citywide
PRESERVATION, SAFETY, ITS, AND TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
Preservation Programs
Annual City programs including Street Overlay, Arterial
Rehabilitation, Sidewalk Rehab and Replacement, and Bridge
Inspection and Repair.
Citywide
Safety Programs
Annual City programs including Roadway Safety and
Guardrails, Intersection Safety and Mobility, and Traffic
Safety.
Citywide
Traffic Signal Operations and
Intelligent Transportation Systems
(ITS) Program
Provides for improvements to the operational efficiency of
the transportation retiming and modifying traffic signals,
coordinating traffic signals, and implementation of various
Intelligent Traffic Systems (ITS) improvements including
adaptive signal control systems (ACSC).
Citywide
Arterial Circulation and Project
Development Programs
Provide for the short and long-range planning and traffic
analyses to evaluate transportation improvements projects.
Include other support activities such as funding and public
involvement.
Citywide
AGENDA ITEM #1. c)
CITY OF RENTON – COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
PAGE xvi APPENDIX A: TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS
Project
ID Project Location (Limits) Description
Community
Planning
Area
OTHER AGENCY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS SERVING RENTON
WSDOT
I-405 Widening and High Occupancy
Toll (HOT) Lanes
(I-5 to Bellevue)
Add lanes to I-405 and convert existing HOV Lane to HOT
lane. Modify Interchanges in Renton per I-405 Master Plan.
I-405/SR 167 Interchange Direct
HOV/HOT Connector Project
Construct new HOV/HOT direct access ramps between SR
167 and I-405.
SR 167
SW 43rd Street to I-405 Construct one or two additional northbound lanes.
SR 167/SW 43rd St Interchange
Work with WSDOT to modify and increase capacity of SR
167/SW 43rd Street interchange including widening SW 43rd
St/Carr Rd and interchange overcrossing.
Maple Valley Hwy (SR 169) Long-range
(I-405 to City Limits)
Work with WSDOT to widen existing 4-lane state highway to
provide an additional lane in each direction per WSDOT
Route Development Plan.
Sound Transit
I-405 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Implement BRT along I-405 corridor in conjunction with
WSDOT widening of I-405 to add HOV/HOT lanes.
I-405 NE 8th St Transit/High
Occupancy Vehicle( HOV) Interchange
Construct a direct access HOV interchange in north Renton.
Project tied to WSDOT I-405 widening project.
N 8th St Parking Garage Construct a park-and-ride with up to 700 parking stalls for
transit riders.
King County/Metro
Cedar River to Sammamish Trail
(Cedar River Trail in Renton to
East Lake Sammamish Trail in
Issaquah)
Acquisition, design, and construction of paved off-road
multi-purpose facility linking the Cedar River Trail with East
Lake Sammamish Trail.
Lake to Sound Trail - Various
Segments Acquisition, design, and construction of paved regional trail.
Soos Creek Trail to Lake Youngs Trail
(Soos Creek Trail at 116th St to 116th
St/148th Ave SE)
Design and construct on-road and off-road connector trail
between Soos Creek and Lake Youngs Trails via SE 216th St
140th / 132nd Ave SE
(From SE Petrovitsky Rd to
SE 240th St)
Provide continuity in the north/south corridor by capacity,
operational, and safety improvements. Will add additional
lanes in the south portion of the corridor.
Kennydale P&R 400 new stalls
Rainier Ave ITS(Seattle City Limits to
Renton City Limits)
Provide ITS improvements which could include signal
synchronization, vehicle detection, cameras, and TSP.
AGENDA ITEM #1. c)
CITY OF RENTON – COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
APPENDIX A: TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS PAGE xvii
Project
ID Project Location (Limits) Description
Community
Planning
Area
Renton Ave ITS
(from Rainier Ave S to Rainier Ave N)
Provide ITS improvements which could include signal
synchronization, vehicle detection, cameras, and TSP.
87th Ave S and S 124th St Realign Intersection
68th Ave S
(Martin Luther King Jr Way to Renton
City Limits)
Construct walls for widening arterial. Also see City of Renton
project 36.
Kent
SE 192nd St Roadway Extension
(84th Ave/ E Valley Hwy to 108th Ave
SE)
Create new roadway connection with 4-5 lanes and bike
lanes
Newcastle
112th Pl SE (SE 86th Pl to 114th Ave
SE) and 114th Ave SE
(112th Pl SE to SE 88th St)
Construct sidewalks
Replace Coal Creek Prkwy Bridge
(South of Coal Creek Pkwy/
SE May Valley Rd)
Replace bridge
144th Pl SE road extension to May
Valley Rd Construct new street with curb, gutters, and drainage
Tukwila
SW 27th St/Strander Blvd
(West Valley Hwy (SR-181)
to Naches Ave SW)
Design and construct arterial improvements for a new
roadway extending Strander Blvd/SW 27th St from West
Valley Highway to Naches Ave SW
Strander/W Valley Hwy Extension
Modifications Modify future roadway and intersection, as needed.
Baker Boulevard
(from Andover Park W to W Valley
Hwy)
Modify roadway and construct pedestrian/bicycle bridge
over the Green River to the Interurban Trail and connections
to the Tukwila commuter rail/Amtrak Station.
Tukwila Station Access with 156th St to
16th Ave S Link
(156th St to 16th Ave S)
Construct new roadway with pedestrian facilities to pass
under the BNSF and UP railroad tracks; connecting S 156th
St in Tukwila to 16th Ave S in Renton.
Tukwila Urban Center Transit Center
(Strander Blvd to Tukwila Pkwy) Construct Transit Center in the Central Business District
AGENDA ITEM #1. c)
CITY OF RENTON – COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
PAGE xviii APPENDIX B: PUBLIC ACCESS OBJECTIVES BY REACH
APPENDIX B:
PUBLIC ACCESS OBJECTIVES BY REACH
The following table outlines the policy objectives for maintaining and improving public access within the shoreline. Application of public access objectives
should be considered along with other objectives of the Shoreline Management Act, such as ecological restoration and priority uses.
SHORELINE REACH LOCATION PUBLIC ACCESS OBJECTIVES
LAKE WASHINGTON
Lake Washington
Reach A
From Bellevue city
limits to Renton
city limits
This developed primarily single-family area currently provides no public access. The potential for provision of
public access from new development is low because further subdivision and non-single family use is not
likely but should be pursued if such development occurs. Public agency actions to improve public access
should include visual access from public trail development along the railroad right of way inland of the
residential lots; however, views may be limited by topography and vegetation. Access to the water should be
pursued at an existing undeveloped railroad right of way, including parcels used for utilities and potential
acquisition of parcels, with emphasis on parcels that are not currently developed because they do not
currently have roadway access.
Lake Washington
Reach B
From the city limits to
the Seahawks training
facility
This is primarily a single-family area with one multi-family development immediately south of the Seahawks
Training Center. There is currently no public access. There is a public trail along I-405, but it does not have
views of the water. The potential for provision of public access from new development is low because further
subdivision and non-single family use is not likely, but should be pursued if such development occurs. Public
agency actions to improve public access should include visual access from trail development along the
railroad right of way inland of the residential lots (however, views may be limited by topography and
vegetation) and potential acquisition of opportunities for public access to the water.
Lake Washington
Reach C
From the Seattle
Seahawks
headquarters and
training facility
through the former
Barbee Mill site.
This reach includes the recently constructed Seattle Seahawks headquarters and training facility to the north
and the Barbee Mill site to the south. The Quendall Terminals parcel between the Seahawks and Barbee Mill
sites is a Superfund site contaminated with coal tar and creosote. There is public access along a portion of
the shoreline at the Seahawks site and adjacent to May Creek at the Barbee Mill site. Public harbor lands are
along about a third of the subdivision water frontage. The potential for provision of public access from new
development will occur after cleanup of the Superfund site with multi-use development that should offer
shoreline access across the entire property, consistent with vegetation conservation. Provision of public
access from future redevelopment of the Seahawks and Barbee Mill site is possible under the existing zoning,
which allows higher intensity use and provides an opportunity for continuous public access parallel to the
shoreline. Public access should be provided to shared or commercial docks. Public agency actions to improve
public access should include visual access from a future trail along the railroad (views may be limited to the
AG
E
N
D
A
I
T
E
M
#
1
.
d
)
CITY OF RENTON – COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
APPENDIX B: PUBLIC ACCESS OBJECTIVES BY REACH PAGE xix
SHORELINE REACH LOCATION PUBLIC ACCESS OBJECTIVES
northerly and southerly portion of the reach because of distance to the water and potential blockage by
intervening buildings); enhancement of the May Creek trail to public streets; access on public aquatic lands;
and potential acquisition of public access to the water.
Lake Washington
Reach D
From May Creek to
Mountain View
Avenue
This reach is a single-family area with no public access except Kennydale Beach Park. The potential for
provision of public access from new development is low because further subdivision and non-single family
use is not likely but should be pursued if such development occurs. Public agency actions to improve public
access should include visual access from public trail development along the railroad right of way; pedestrian
and bicycle access on Lake Washington Boulevard; public viewing areas and possible public acquisition of
access to the water including an existing undeveloped railroad right of way adjacent to the water; and
potential public right of way and potential public acquisition of selected parcels, including undeveloped
parcels with development constraints.
Lake Washington
Reach E
From Mountain View
Avenue to Gene
Coulon Park
This reach is a single-family area with no existing public access. The potential for provision of public access
from new development is low because further subdivision and non-single family use is not likely but should
be pursued if such development occurs. Public agency actions to improve public access should include visual
access from public trail development along the railroad right of way; pedestrian and bicycle access on Lake
Washington Boulevard; public viewing areas and possible public acquisition of access to the water including
an existing undeveloped railroad right of way adjacent to the water; possible public street ends; and
potential public acquisition of selected parcels.
Lake Washington
Reach F
The less developed
northerly portion of
Gene Coulon Park
Public access is currently provided by a trail system through the park and a variety of primarily passive
recreational facilities, a fishing pier, and a moorage dock. Public access is one element of park functions that
should be continued and incorporated in future plans and balanced with goals for providing recreation and
improving ecologic functions. Other public agency actions to improve public access should include visual
access from public trail development along the railroad right of way, and pedestrian and bicycle access on
Lake Washington Boulevard including addition of public viewing areas.
Lake Washington
Reach G
The more developed
southerly portion of
Gene Coulon Park
Public access is currently provided by a trail system through the park together with a variety of passive and
active recreational facilities, a boat launch, over-water facilities, and concession facilities. Public access is
one element of park functions that should be continued and incorporated in future plans, as well as
balanced with goals for providing recreation and improving ecologic functions.
Lake Washington
Reach H
Southport multiple use
development
Public access is currently provided along the waterfront and should continue in the future as part of multi-
use development of the remainder of the property. The design should include supporting water-oriented
uses and amenities such as seating and landscaping.
Lake Washington
Reach I
Boeing Plant and to
the Cedar River
This reach is about one-third state-owned aquatic lands designated as Harbor Area and managed by the
Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and two-thirds is the Boeing Company’s site.
Landward of the inner harbor line, ownership is entirely the Renton Boeing Plant. Public access in this area
AG
E
N
D
A
I
T
E
M
#
1
.
d
)
CITY OF RENTON – COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
PAGE xx APPENDIX B: PUBLIC ACCESS OBJECTIVES BY REACH
SHORELINE REACH LOCATION PUBLIC ACCESS OBJECTIVES
includes the Cedar River Boathouse located on pilings in Lake Washington and accessed from the west from
the Cedar River Trail. The boathouse includes a public fishing area and provides canoe and kayak rentals,
classes, and guided trips. Public access is currently not feasible on the three acres of state owned aquatic
lands managed by DNR. In the future, if the Boeing site is redeveloped public access should be provided,
balanced with goals for ecological restoration. Public agency actions to improve public access should
include a waterfront trail, which would connect the public access at the Southport development to the
Cedar River Trail. This action should be implemented when environmental and security issues can be
resolved, as well as public access to public lands, balanced with the goals of preserving ecological functions.
Lake Washington
Reach J
Renton Municipal
Airport
Public access to the Lake Waterfront is provided from the lawn area of the Will Rogers, Wiley Post
Memorial Sea Plane Base and should be maintained if the goal of public access is not in conflict with the
aeronautical use of the property. Public agency actions to improve public access should include enhancing
opportunities for the public to approach the water’s edge from the existing lawn area. Public access may
necessarily be limited by safety and security limitation inherent in the primary use of the property for
aeronautical purposes.
Lake Washington
Reach K
From the Renton
Municipal Airport to
the Seattle city limits
This reach is predominantly single-family area with no existing public access. Public visual access is provided
from Rainier Avenue. The potential for provision of public access from new development is likely limited to
future redevelopment of a small mobile home park in the easterly portion of this reach and from
redevelopment of existing multi-family uses. Public agency actions to improve public access should include
enhanced public views from Rainier Avenue as well as enhanced pedestrian facilities or view points. This
effort may include acquisition of several undeveloped parcels to provide access to the water’s edge,
consistent with goals for preservation and enhancement of ecological functions.
MAY CREEK
May Creek A
From the mouth of the
creek to Lake
Washington Boulevard
This reach is bounded by open space dedicated as part of a subdivision and includes public access provided
by a trail along the creek. Public agency actions to improve public access should include enhanced public
views from Lake Washington Boulevard including enhanced pedestrian facilities or view points, improved
connections of the May Creek trail to public streets, and to the potential trail to the east across or under
the railroad right of way and Lake Washington Boulevard.
May Creek B
From Lake
Washington Boulevard
to I-405
There is currently no public access in this reach. At the time of re-development, public access should be
provided from a trail parallel to the water along the entire property with controlled public access to the
water, balanced with goals of preservation and enhancement of ecological functions. Public agency actions
to improve public access should include provisions to cross I-405 to connect with trail systems to the east.
May Creek C
From I-405 to NE 36th
Street
This reach includes discontinuous public ownership with some private ownership. At the time of
development of private lands, public access should be provided from a trail parallel to the water together
with public agency actions to develop a trail on public land. All trail development should be set back from
AG
E
N
D
A
I
T
E
M
#
1
.
d
)
CITY OF RENTON – COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
APPENDIX B: PUBLIC ACCESS OBJECTIVES BY REACH PAGE xxi
SHORELINE REACH LOCATION PUBLIC ACCESS OBJECTIVES
the water’s edge with controlled public access to the water, balanced with goals of preservation and
enhancement of ecological functions.
May Creek D
From NE 36th Street to
the city limits
This reach is largely King County May Creek Park. Public access is informal and discontinuous. There are
some private holdings along the creek. At the time of development of private lands, public access should be
provided from a trail parallel to the water coordinated with public agency actions to develop a trail on
public land. All trail development should be set back from the water’s edge with controlled public access to
the water, balanced with goals of preservation and enhancement of ecological functions.
CEDAR RIVER
Cedar River A
Mouth to Logan
Avenue
A public trail is provided on the east side of the river in the Cedar River Park. No public access is provided
on the west side of the river adjacent to the municipal airport. Public physical access from a trail parallel to
the water should be provided if the Renton Municipal Airport redevelops in the future, balanced with goals
of ecological restoration.
Cedar River B
Logan Avenue to I-405
bridges
A public trail is provided on the north side of the river and a variety of public access is provided on the
south side, including small city parks. Public access should generally be provided within the corridor of
public lands adjacent to the river; however, adjacent private parcels not separated by public streets should
provide active open space and other facilities to provide gathering places to enjoy the shoreline
environment, together with water-oriented uses. Revisions to the existing trail to relocate further from the
water’s edge to allow revegetation should be considered in the future as part of public park and river
maintenance plans.
Cedar River C
I-405 to the SR 169 A public trail is provided on the former Milwaukee railroad. Public access is provided at a public park on the
north side immediately east of I-405. Public and/or community access along the waterfront should be
provided as private lands on the north side of the river redevelop, considered along with the goal of
restoration of ecological functions. The single-family residential area on the north side of the river provides
no public access. The potential for provision of public access from new development is low because further
subdivision and non-single family use is not likely but should be pursued if such development occurs. Public
agency actions to improve public access should include additional interpretive trails and trail linkages
through public lands on the south side of the river, if consistent with ecological functions and public
acquisition of access to the water in existing single-family areas, where appropriate.
Cedar River D
SR 169 to UGA
boundary
A public trail is provided on the former Milwaukee railroad. It is generally at a distance from the water’s
edge. Most of this reach is under public ownership or dedicated open space. The primary goal for
management of this reach should be ecological enhancement. Additional public access to the water’s edge
may be provided if consistent with ecological functions. The small residential area at the east end of the
UGA provides no public access. The potential for provision of public access from new development is low
because further subdivision and non-single family use is not likely but should be pursued if such
AG
E
N
D
A
I
T
E
M
#
1
.
d
)
CITY OF RENTON – COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
PAGE xxii APPENDIX B: PUBLIC ACCESS OBJECTIVES BY REACH
SHORELINE REACH LOCATION PUBLIC ACCESS OBJECTIVES
development occurs. Public agency actions to improve public access should include improved visual access
from the existing trail and possible public acquisition of access to the water.
GREEN RIVER
Green River
Reach A
The Green/Black River
below the pump
station
The area west of Monster Road provides no public access. Public physical access from a trail parallel to the
water should be provided as private lands redevelop. Public agency actions to improve public access should
include acquisition of trail rights to connect the Lake to Sound trail system to the Green River Trail and Fort
Dent Park.
The area west of Monster Road is part of the publicly owned Black River Forest where interpretive trails
exist. Expansion of public access should occur only if consistent with ecological functions.
BLACK RIVER / SPRINGBROOK CREEK
Black/Springbrook A
From the City Limits to
Grady Way
The area west of Monster Road provides no public access. Public physical access from a trail parallel to the
water should be provided as private lands redevelop. Public agency actions to improve public access should
include acquisition of trail rights to connect the trail system to the Green River Trail and Fort Dent Park.
The area west of Monster Road is part of the publicly owned Black River Forest where interpretive trails
exist. Expansion of public access should occur only if consistent with ecological functions. Interpretive trails
are present in the Black River Forest. Expansion of public access should occur only if consistent with
ecological functions. A trail system is present on the west side of the stream adjacent to the sewage
treatment plant and should be retained and possibly enhanced.
Springbrook B From Grady Way to
SW 16th Street
A trail system is present on WSDOT right of way and crosses under I-405. Enhancement should be
implemented as part of future highway improvements or other public agency actions.
Springbrook C
From SW 16th Street
to the City Limits
A public trail parallel to the stream was developed as part of the Boeing Longacres Office Park and extends
from SW 16th Street under Oaksdale. Avenue and terminates at the alignment of 19th Street at the parking
lot of a pre-existing industrial building. If future development occurs in this area, a continuous trail system
connecting to the continuous system to the south should be planned, consistent with protection of
ecological values of wetlands and streamside vegetation.
There is no trail system along the stream from SW 19th Street to the approximate alignment of SE 23rd
Street. A continuous trail system is provided from 23rd Street to the city limits including portions through
the Springbrook Wetland Mitigation Bank. If future development occurs in the area of the missing trail link,
a trail system connecting to the continuous system to the south should be planned, consistent with
protection of ecological values of wetlands and streamside vegetation buffers. Public actions should
include interim linkages of the existing trail systems, which may include interim trails or routing on public
streets and sidewalks. In the future, if vegetation buffers are developed within the stream corridor and
adjacent lands, relocation of the trail farther from the stream should be considered with controlled access
to the water’s edge.
AG
E
N
D
A
I
T
E
M
#
1
.
d
)
CITY OF RENTON – COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
APPENDIX B: PUBLIC ACCESS OBJECTIVES BY REACH PAGE xxiii
SHORELINE REACH LOCATION PUBLIC ACCESS OBJECTIVES
LAKE DESIRE: A trail system is present in public open space in parks around the lake but there is no trail system adjacent to the lake.
Lake Desire
Entire Lake Public access is provided by a WDFW boat launch. There is currently no formal public access to the water at
the natural area at the south end of the lake, nor the County-designated natural area at the north end of
the lake. Interpretive access should be implemented in a manner consistent with ecological values.
Existing single-family residential development provides no public access. The potential for provision of
public access from new development is low because further subdivision and non-single family use is not
likely but should be pursued if such development occurs. Public agency actions to improve public access
should include public acquisition of access to the water where appropriate. Access for interpretive purposes
may be an element of public acquisition of wetlands.
AG
E
N
D
A
I
T
E
M
#
1
.
d
)
RENTON COMMUNITY PROFILE & EXISTING CONDITIONS 1
Appendix C: Renton Community Profile
& Existing Conditions
Introduction and Context
Located southeast of Seattle along the southern edge of Lake Washington, the City of Renton’s vision is to
be the center of opportunity in the Puget Sound region, where families and businesses thrive. The City is
dedicated to providing a range of housing options affordable to all residents, attracting clean, high-paying
jobs, providing high-quality multi-modal transit options, and providing a range of amenities and services to
keep Renton a great place to live, work, learn, and visit.
Renton is a diverse city with a strong sense of community and many established neighborhoods. The City
prioritizes consistent and equitable engagement with its residents, businesses, and organizations to
facilitate and foster healthy, vibrant communities and involve those in the decision-making that affects
their communities.
Community Planning Areas
Renton includes many distinct communities, each with unique qualities, attributes, and amenities.
In 2008, Renton established Community Planning Areas to better align city planning and services to
the local experience of Renton’s community members (see Exhibit 1). The Community Planning
Areas provide a valuable framework to engage stakeholders in identifying shared vision and goals for
each of Renton’s distinct communities. The City’s Comprehensive Plan provides an overall
framework for the city and its role within the county and region. Under this unifying vision,
community planning allows neighborhood stakeholders to work together refine solutions based on
local conditions.
AGENDA ITEM #1. e)
Community Planning Areas
RENTON COMMUNITY PROFILE & EXISTING CONDITIONS 2
Exhibit 1. Renton Community Planning Areas
Sources: City of Renton, 2020; King County GIS, 2020; BERK, 2020.
AGENDA ITEM #1. e)
Zoning Map
RENTON COMMUNITY PROFILE & EXISTING CONDITIONS 3
Benson
Renton’s Benson Hill includes 2,960 acres of predominantly residential uses with two major
commerce centers in the southeastern portion of Renton. Several parks, trails, and major utility
corridors provide lots of opportunities for recreation. Approximately 300 acres of Benson Hill is an
undeveloped wildlife corridor, wetlands, and other natural areas, leaving water quality and wildlife
habitat important considerations for the area.
Plans by Reference: Benson Hill Community Plan
Cedar River
The Cedar River flows directly through the Cedar River community planning area. Along the river is
the Cedar River Trail, a regional trail offering a scenic setting for runners, walkers, cyclists, and
outdoor enthusiasts. Cedar River is also home to notable attractions, such as the Renton Civic
Theater, Renton Community Center, Henry Moses Aquatic Center, and Maplewood Golf Course,
which offer activities for Renton residents and visitors to the city.
AGENDA ITEM #1. e)
RENTON COMMUNITY PROFILE & EXISTING CONDITIONS 4
City Center
Renton’s City Center is in the heart of the City of Renton. The City Center’s boundaries are generally
Lake Washington to the North, I-405 to the south and east, and Lind Avenue SW and Rainier
Avenue to the west. The City Center is a unique area that is comprised of diverse activities and
land uses ranging from airport industrial uses to regional and local retail districts to residential
neighborhoods.
PSRC’s VISION 2050 designates City Center as a Regional Growth Center intended to include a mix
of uses and activities connected by efficient transportation.
Plans Adopted by Reference: City Center Community Plan and Puget Sound Regional Council’s Regional
Growth Strategy
East Plateau
East Plateau is Renton’s eastern most neighborhood East Plateau is largely residential area and
contains both single unit detached and attached housing options. East Plateau has the highest
average household income out of all Renton’s community planning areas.
AGENDA ITEM #1. e)
RENTON COMMUNITY PROFILE & EXISTING CONDITIONS 5
Fairwood
Fairwood is one of the City’s Potential Annexation Areas. It is east of Benson and offers a variety of
recreation opportunities, including Lake Desire and Shady Lake, Petrovitsky Park, and Fairwood
Golf & Country Club. Fairwood offers residential areas, a variety of civic uses (such as the
Fairwood Library and Northwood Middle School), and commercial centers.
Highlands
Located in northeast Renton, the Highlands planning area has the greatest population of all of
Renton’s community planning areas at 31,570 residents. Highlands has a large BIPOC [black,
indigenous, and persons of color] population, as well as a high number of foreign-born
populations and residents with Limited English Proficiency near commercial areas in the
neighborhood. The area offers a variety of activities for Renton residents and visitors alike; the
neighborhood is home to the Jimi Hendrix Memorial, several parks, and Renton Technical College,
a community college offering academic degrees and certificates in professional-technical fields.
Highlands has a strong commercial district and is home to many local restaurants and shops.
AGENDA ITEM #1. e)
RENTON COMMUNITY PROFILE & EXISTING CONDITIONS 6
Kennydale
Located in Northern Renton and along the shores of Lake Washington, Kennydale boasts
beautiful shoreline views and swimming and boating opportunities at Kennydale Beach Park.
Kennydale is largely residential, though the neighborhood does have pockets of commercial uses
and public uses, such as Renton Fire Station 15 and Kennydale Elementary School. The Kennydale
CPA is relatively less diverse compared to other parts of Renton, though there is a high number
of households with Limited English Proficiency and foreign born populations, especially east of I-
405 and south of May Creek Park.
Talbot
Talbot offers a variety of recreation opportunities, from playground fun at Victoria Park Children’s
Park to pickleball at Talbot Hill Reservoir Park. Talbot contains the Valley Medical Center, though
is largely residential and features many tree lined neighborhood streets with townhomes,
apartments, and single, detached dwellings. Talbot has a large BIPOC population, as well as a
large number of residents with Limited English Proficiency.
AGENDA ITEM #1. e)
RENTON COMMUNITY PROFILE & EXISTING CONDITIONS 7
Valley
Largely commercial in nature, Renton’s Valley is one of the City’s main job hubs, home to IKEA,
business parks, and a variety of other commercial uses. Fostering easy connections to and from
the area is the Tukwila Sounder Station, located on the western boundary of the area. The Black
River and Springbrook Creek run through Valley. Valley has the smallest number of residents of
the Community Panning areas with 917 residents.
West Hill
West Hill is almost entirely comprised of another one of the City’s Potential Annexation Areas. It
lies west of Renton and borders Lake Washington and the City of Seattle. Much of West Hill is
residential with commercial nodes and parks. The West Hill community planning area has one of
the greatest proportions of BIPOC residents, as nearly three quarters (74%) of the CPA residents
are BIPOC.
AGENDA ITEM #1. e)
RENTON COMMUNITY PROFILE & EXISTING CONDITIONS 8
Zoning Map
Sources: City of Renton, 2020; King County GIS, 2020; BERK, 2020.
AGENDA ITEM #1. e)
Community Profile
RENTON COMMUNITY PROFILE & EXISTING CONDITIONS 9
Community Profile
Located at the center of the Puget Sound Region, Renton
is a growing and diverse city. Renton has more than
doubled in population since 2000, through both
annexation and by residents moving in. Renton is growing
at a rate slightly lower than King County as a whole, but
faster than other cities such as Tukwila, Kent, and Burien.
Exhibit 2. Renton Population, 2000 – 2023
Sources: WA OFM, 2023; BERK, 2023.
Renton’s age profile is like King County as a whole, with
about a quarter of the population being children (23%)
and adults ages 70 and older comprising about 8% of the
population. Like King County, the average age of a Renton
resident has become older due to an increase in the
proportion of the population aged 60 years and older and
a reduction in the proportion of the population that is
younger than 19 years.
Exhibit 3. Renton Population by Age, 2010 & 2020
Sources U.S. Decennial Census, 2010 and 2020; BERK, 2020.
Renton has long been a home to waves of new Americans
and today is diverse community in which no one racial or
ethnic group makes up most of the population (see
Exhibit 4). The Duwamish tribe, and more broadly the
Coast Salish people, are the original stewards of the land
on which Renton sits. The community composition today
reflects Renton’s colonial history as well as historical
inequities that limited housing opportunity for Black,
Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) households.
While no neighborhood in Renton is completely comprised
of a single or even two racial or ethnic groups, there are
communities with significantly greater representation of
specific racial and ethnic groups, such as Asian
populations in the East Plateau and Benson Planning
Areas, Black populations in the Highlands, Talbot, and
Benson Planning Areas, Hispanic/Latino populations in
the Highlands Planning Area, and White populations along
the shoreline in the Kennydale and the Cedar River
Planning Areas. Exhibit 4 displays the distribution of
population by the most common race or ethnicity
categories.
AGENDA ITEM #1. e)
Community Profile
RENTON COMMUNITY PROFILE & EXISTING CONDITIONS 10
Exhibit 4. Distribution of Population by Race and Ethnicity, 2020
Sources: U.S. Decennial Census, 2020; BERK, 2023.
AGENDA ITEM #1. e)
Community Profile
RENTON COMMUNITY PROFILE & EXISTING CONDITIONS 11
All households need safe, affordable housing, access to
services, transportation, and economic opportunity.
Household income is the primary driver of access to
services and housing and is relevant to understanding the
needs for services and economic opportunity in a
community. Renton household income spans a broad
range, with representation all along the income spectrum.
Exhibit 5. Household Income, 2010 & 2021
Sources: ACS 5-year estimates, 2006-2010 and 2017-2021;
BERK 2023.
In 2021, about 42% of Renton’s households had incomes
above $100,000. Between 2010 and 2021, Renton
experienced an increase in the proportion of households
with incomes above $100,000 and a loss of households
with incomes less than $100,000 with the greatest
reductions in households earning between $25,000 and
$39,999. Some of the loss of households with incomes in
the lower ranges may be the result of household incomes
rising, but likely also could include the displacement of
households with lower incomes out of Renton.
Household income patterns vary across racial and ethnic
groups. Renton’s households led by a person that
identifies as Black, Hispanic, or American Indian or Alaska
Native have lower median incomes than Renton’s
households led by someone who identifies as White and
Asian. More than half of American Indian or Alaska Native
households (53%) have household incomes of less than
80% of King County median income (see Exhibit 6 on the
next page). Housing policies must ensure enough variety
in housing opportunity and offer protective measures for
vulnerable populations to reduce housing disparities
across racial and ethnic groups.
Household Income in the Regional Context
Located in the center of the Puget Sound region, Renton’s
housing market is shaped by influences across the region.
Many of Renton’s residents work outside the city, and
many people who work in Renton live elsewhere. To better
characterize local housing and service needs, household
income is benchmarked to the area median income.
Washington cities and counties use area median income
categories established by the US Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD) for King and Snohomish
Counties. Due to data lags, household and housing
estimates are based on self-reported 2019 household
income and adjusted for household size.
The HUD-reported 2019 Median Income (4-person
household) is $108,500. HUD also establishes income-
limits based that account for account for household size
and areas of unusually high median incomes to
determine eligibility for housing assistance programs.
2019 HUD-defined income limits (4-person household):
• 80% AMI = $88,250
• 50% AMI = $55,350
• 30% AMI = $33,200
AGENDA ITEM #1. e)
Community Profile
RENTON COMMUNITY PROFILE & EXISTING CONDITIONS
DRAFT October 9, 2023
12
Exhibit 6: Proportion of Households by Race and Income,
2019 bullets that follow, based on the social vulnerability of
current residents; evidence of demographic change
associated with gentrification; and changes in market
0-30%
AMI
All
Asian alone, non-Hispanic
White alone, non-Hispanic
NHOPI alone, non-Hispanic
Black alone, non-Hispanic
AIAN alone, non-Hispanic
Hispanic, any race
30-50%
AMI
50-80%
AMI
80-100%
AMI
100% +
AMI prices relative to city-wide patterns.
Social vulnerability is assessed based on the
factors that would make it difficult for a
household to find new housing in the area if they
should be displaced from their current unit. This
includes the share of households that rent, the
share of the population that identifies as a
person of color, and median income relative to
the countywide median income.
Demographic change is the change over time
(e.g., 2010 to 2021) in the BIPOC share of the
population and proportion of households with
household incomes of less than 80% of King
County AMI. Patterns are assessed for how much
they deviate from countywide patterns.
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Sources: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development,
Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy data (based on
2015-2019 ACS 5-year estimates); BERK, 2023.
Displacement Risk
Displacement occurs when people are forced out of their
homes for reasons beyond their control. Local planning
laws and regulations can influence displacement by
restricting housing supply, discouraging investment or
maintenance of existing housing, or insufficiently
managing exposure to environmental hazards such as
flooding, urban heat, or air pollution. Exhibit 7 presents
an assessment of displacement risk, further identified in
Market prices are assessed based on whether
the area was relatively affordable in 2015 and
changes in rent for occupied rental units
between 2010 and 2021.
The results from these three risk factors are evaluated to
assign a displacement risk score for the entire census
tract. For example, an area with high social vulnerability,
no demographic change, but accelerating market prices
would have a high displacement risk. Measuring by
census tract provides a high-level screening of
displacement risk, but the effects of displacement may be
concentrated in a much smaller area such as a
neighborhood or few square blocks.
28%
48% 12% 15%
50%
32% 14% 10% 33% 11%
33% 13% 36%
9% 13% 12% 16%
16% 9% 28% 22% 25%
15%
25%
13% 12%
12% 44% 15% 14%
30% 9% 8%
16%
AGENDA ITEM #1. e)
Community Profile
RENTON COMMUNITY PROFILE & EXISTING CONDITIONS 13
Exhibit 7: Displacement Risk by Census Tract, City of Renton
Sources: U.S. Decennial Census 2010 and 2020; ACS 5-year estimates, 2006-2010, 2011-2015, 2017-2021; BERK 2023.
AGENDA ITEM #1. e)
Housing Conditions
RENTON COMMUNITY PROFILE & EXISTING CONDITIONS 14
The Highlands Planning Area has the highest
degree of displacement risk. The Highlands
Planning Area had relatively affordable rents in
2015 but has seen higher rent increases through
2021 than other areas of the city. In addition, the
population has higher rates of social
vulnerability. The Highlands Planning Area has
the greatest number of BIPOC-identified people
compared to all other planning areas as well as
high proportions of renters and lower average
household incomes compared to county-wide
patterns.
Housing Conditions
Housing Supply
Renton needs a wide variety of housing and neighborhood
types to meet the needs of all Renton’s residents. In
2023, Renton has an estimated 43,921 housing units
(see Exhibit 8). This represents an increase of 4,991 units
since 2010 with an average annual growth rate of .93%.
Exhibit 8: Total Housing Units in Renton, 2000 - 2023
The Benson Planning Area has a mixed finding
of displacement risk. Higher displacement risk is
associated with the area between SE 168th St
and SE Petrovitsky Road which includes a higher
proportion of apartment housing. Higher
displacement risk is associated with the areas
East of SR515 which has moderately high
proportions of renters and higher proportions of
people who identify as BIPOC, particularly
Hispanic and Latino people.
The analysis suggests that displacement may
have already occurred in the central part of the
Talbot Planning Area south of S 43rd Street
based on the area lagging the county-wide
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
Total Housing Units
43,921
22,676
Annexed Housing Units
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2023
change in BIPOC population. However, since the
area already had a high proportion of BIPOC
people, which continued to increase between
2010 and 2020, the analysis likely overstates
the finding of displacement.
The analysis indicates high displacement risk in
the Valley Planning Area. However, only 0.7% of
the population associated with the census tract
lies within Renton city boundaries. Most of the
residential areas in the census tract are within
the jurisdiction of the City of Tukwila.
Sources: WA OFM, 2023; BERK, 2023.
Renton’s housing stock includes a mix of single unit,
detached homes and attached homes in multiunit
formats. About one quarter of Renton’s housing stock has
been built since 2000 (see Exhibit 9), including a mixture
of single unit, detached housing and attached housing
including apartment and condominium housing.
AGENDA ITEM #1. e)
Housing Conditions
RENTON COMMUNITY PROFILE & EXISTING CONDITIONS 15
Exhibit 9: Renton Housing Units by Year Built, 2023
Sources: King County Assessor, 2020; BERK, 2020.
Market Conditions
Housing development in Renton has largely kept pace
with expected demands from regional projections.
However, lower than needed housing production across
the region has led to shortfalls in housing supply putting
pressure on the Renton market.
Exhibit 10 presents trends in Renton home values
between January 2010 and July 2023. The 2008-2009
Great Recession caused a slight drop in prices that lasted
through the end of 2012. Prices rebounded by 2014 and
increased until 2022. In July 2023, Renton’s median
home value was $717,804 representing a 104% increase
since July of 2010. An even higher precent increase of
+141% is observed for homes in the 5th to 35th percentile
range, a range that is typically associated with first-time
homeownership.
Exhibit 10. Renton Home Value Change, 2010 – 2023
$1,200K
July 2023 Value & % Change Since 2010
$1,000K
$800K
$600K
$400K
Renton High Range
$983,426, +90%
King County Median
$812,132, +118%
Renton Median
$717,804, +104%
Renton Low Range
509,738, +141%
$200K
$0K
2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022
*Zillow Home Value Index is a seasonally adjusted measure of the typical home value in the region. "Median" is the typical home value in
the 35th to 65th percentile range, "high" is the typical home value in the 65th - 95th percentile, "low" is the typical value in the 5th to 35th
percentile range.
Sources: Zillow, 2023; BERK, 2023
AGENDA ITEM #1. e)
RENTON COMMUNITY PROFILE & EXISTING CONDITIONS 16
Housing Conditions
Meeting the Housing Need for Households with Very Low Incomes
Market rents vary across the region. In areas, market-rate rents are affordable to low- and moderate-income
households. However, households with incomes below 50% of AMI are not able to afford current market prices
anywhere in the region. The amount these households can pay is considerably lower than market rents, and in many
cases not enough to cover the ongoing expenses of the building. Government and Non-profit support is necessary to
bridge this gap to ensure that affordable housing is feasible and sustainable. As household income rises, less support is
needed.
Therea is a range of supports that can be provided for building and preserving affordable housing such as
Direct financial support for development, such as grants, loans, donated land, or tax credits
Indirect financial support for development, such as fee waivers or tax exemptions
Regulatory incentives, such as bonus site densities, lower parking requirements, or flexible development requirements
Financial support for residents, such as housing vouchers or other types of rental assistance
However, available resources are currently outstripped by
the need for affordable housing. Development costs can
be upwards of $300,000 per unit or more, depending on
project characteristics and market conditions. Many
projects serving specialized populations that require on-
site services have additional expenses. A rough estimate
would suggest that to meet the need for an additional
6,271 units affordable to households with incomes less
than 30% of county-wide AMI would cost $1.9 billion
dollars. Different levels of support would likely be needed
to provide the target of 1,624 units affordable to
households with incomes between 30-50% AMI as well.
While new funding from sales taxes under the SHB 1406
and HB 1590 programs can help to address this gap,
long-term solutions cannot be addressed by the City
alone.
AGENDA ITEM #1. e)
Housing Conditions
RENTON COMMUNITY PROFILE & EXISTING CONDITIONS 17
About 53% of Renton’s households live in housing that they
own. Homeownership offers many advantages including the
ability to lock in monthly housing payments, favorable tax
benefits, the ability to withstand displacement pressure, and
wealth-building through land value appreciation. The Renton
community values homeownership opportunity as an
important component of an inclusive community.
Due to historic and current discrimination, BIPOC households
have been denied equal access to homeownership, resulting
in persistent disparities in homeownership and exclusion
from neighborhoods that have predominantly owner-
occupied housing units. For example, the University of
Washington’s Seattle Civil Rights & Labor History Project
identified 10 areas with racially restrictive covenants within
Renton’s current city boundaries. Exhibit 11 presents
Renton’s homeownership rate by race and ethnicity. While
more than two-thirds of Asian alone households (69%) live in
homes they own, the rate is less than half for Black
households (29%) and Hispanic or Latino households (27%).
Similar to the Puget Sound Region, Renton has experienced
declines in homeownership rates between 2010 and 2020.
The reduction in homeownership is observed across all race
and ethnic categories except the American Indian Alaska
Native alone (non-Hispanic) population.
Exhibit 11. Homeownership Rate by Race and Ethnicity, 2010
and 2020
One significant factor of homeownership opportunity is
affordable housing. Consistent with increased
homeownership costs, Renton has experienced rising
rental costs. After years of relative rental affordability,
rents in Renton have increased faster than the regional
average.
The affordability of housing is assessed by a ratio of
household income to housing costs. Housing is
affordable if it costs less than 30% of a household’s
income. Households spending more than 30% of
income on housing are housing cost burdened and
households spending more than 50% of household
income are severely cost-burdened. Exhibit 12 presents
patterns of cost-burden for Renton’s owner and renter
households.
Exhibit 12. Renton Housing Cost Burden, 2020
AGENDA ITEM #1. e)
Housing Conditions
RENTON COMMUNITY PROFILE & EXISTING CONDITIONS 18
Projected Housing Need
In 2023, the Department of Commerce released
projected housing needs at each affordability level, for
counties across the state. King County adopted these
future targets in its Countywide Planning Policies and
allocated the countywide need to all incorporated and
unincorporated areas within the county. Renton’s share of
the total county future need (in 2044) is 60,362 housing
units, which represents an increase of 17,000 units
above the 2020 housing stock. More importantly, about
half (46%) of Renton’s net new need between 2020 and
2044 is for units affordable to households earning 50% of
AMI or less, with 37% of the need for households at or
below 30% of AMI. Renton also must plan for capacity to
accommodate more than 3,200 emergency housing beds
by 2044.
Exhibit 13. Renton Housing Supply and Future
Housing Need 2020 – 2044
These future housing targets represent a bold step to
address housing affordability challenges and supply
shortages, particularly at moderate and lower income
levels. Currently, Renton can nearly meet its overall
housing growth target of 17,000 units by 2044. However,
to meet the unit targets for all affordability levels, Renton
has made significant land use and policy changes to allow
and encourage development of housing types that are
associated with moderate and low-income affordability
levels.
2020
2044
2020
2044
2020
2044
2020
2044
2020
2044
2020
2044
2020
2044
≥ 120% of AMI
+5,819 units
(24% of future
100 - 120% of AMI
+1,205 units (14%)
80 - 100% of AMI
+1,062 units (20%)
50 - 80% of AMI
+1,019 units (17%)
30 - 50% of AMI
+1,624 units (13%)
0 - 30% of AMI
Not Permanent
Supportive housing,
+4,110 units (9%)
0 - 30% of AMI
Permanent
Supportive Housing
+2,161 units (4%)
0 5,000 10,000 15,000
Source: King County, 2022; Renton, 2023
8,404
+5,819
units
6,988
+1,205
10,863
+1,062
9,259
+1,019
6,206
+1,624
232
+2,161
1,410
+4,110
Renton’s Efforts to Increase Housing
Availability and Affordability for all
Economic Segments
Housing Action Plan, 2021
Renton developed a Housing Action Plan that identifies a
broad set of short-term strategies to build on the City’s
efforts to expand housing options.
Middle Housing Assessment, 2023
Renton developed a Missing Middle Housing Assessment
and Strategy to identify how to best accommodate middle
housing types (i.e., duplexes, triplexes, townhomes,
courtyard apartments) within existing neighborhoods.
AGENDA ITEM #1. e)
Employment and Economic Development
RENTON COMMUNITY PROFILE & EXISTING CONDITIONS
19
Employment and Economic Development
Renton is an opportunity-rich city with a dynamic and
varied economic base. The City of Renton is focused on
sustaining a prosperous and sustainable economy for all
people. Nationally recognized companies such as Boeing,
PACCAR, and IKEA have locations in the city, and Renton
has also attracted “new economy” companies, including
Parallels, Microscan, and Wizards of the Coast. Renton is
a medical hub with Valley Medical Center, Kaiser
Permanente, and Providence systems.
The City aims to reduce barriers for communities and
businesses and focus development in targeted economic
centers. Recent planning efforts include:
The Downtown Civic Core Vision and Action Plan,
adopted in 2018, envisions that “the Civic Core
and Downtown are places where people of all
ages and abilities live, work, shop, recreate, and
gather, connected by art and public spaces that
encourage investment and creativity.”
In 2011, the City adopted the Clean Economy
Strategy, a roadmap to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions, enhance environmental sustainability,
and build resilience for impacts from a changing
climate. In 2023 Renton is updating the strategy
to further integrate climate action.
Existing Employment
Renton functions as both an employment hub and a
bedroom community. Exhibit 14 presents a map of
Renton’s regional employment centers, that is the areas
where people who live elsewhere come to work in Renton.
Indicated with yellow dots (), employment
concentrations can be seen throughout the Valley
Planning Area, the area along SR 167, and the southern
part of the City Center Planning Area. In addition,
employment nodes can be seen throughout Renton
associated with neighborhood service centers. Areas
dominated with blue dots () represent the home
locations of people who work outside of Renton. Many of
Renton’s residential communities are bedroom
communities for workers in Seattle, Bellevue, and Kent
among others, see Exhibit 15. A relatively small
proportion of Renton’s workforce also lives in Renton (6%
indicated with red dots ()), with no obvious geographic
pattern. Renton is seeking pathways for people to live and
work in Renton to provide economic opportunity for all.
AGENDA ITEM #1. e)
Employment and Economic Development
RENTON COMMUNITY PROFILE & EXISTING CONDITIONS
20
Exhibit 14: Home and Work Location for Employed Persons who Live and/or Work in Renton
Source: Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics Origin-Destination Employment Statistics, 2020; BERK 2023.
AGENDA ITEM #1. e)
Employment and Economic Development
RENTON COMMUNITY PROFILE & EXISTING CONDITIONS 21
Exhibit 15: Place of Residence/Work for Employed People who Work or Live in Renton
Work in Renton, Live Elsewhere Live in Renton, Work Elsewhere
Seattle city 7,105 Seattle city 14,515
Kent city 5,094 Bellevue city 6,201
Unspecified Location 4,908 Kent city 2,932
Auburn city 2,197 Tukwila city 2,483
Federal Way city 2,129 Redmond city 2,322
Tacoma city 1,890 Issaquah city 1,602
Bellevue city 1,887 SeaTac city 1,221
Burien city 1,182 Auburn city 1,174
Fairwood CDP 1,058 Kirkland city 1,165
Maple Valley city 968 Tacoma city 798
Source: Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics Origin-Destination Employment Statistics, 2020; BERK 2023.
As of 2022, there were 64,942 jobs covered by the
Washington Unemployment Insurance Act within Renton,
which represents roughly 90% of all employment (and
excludes self-employed individuals, proprietors, corporate
officers, and military personnel). This is an 18% increase
since 2011, but a 5% drop from pre-COVID-19 pandemic
levels in 2019. The job losses over the last few years
were almost exclusively in the manufacturing sector,
which was particularly impacted by the pandemic with
more than 4,700 jobs lost since 2019. This followed
significant growth of the manufacturing sector before the
pandemic, with Renton adding more than 3,000
manufacturing jobs between 2011 and 2019. Most of the
other economic sectors have rebounded from the
pandemic with modest or considerable growth. Retail is a
notable exception; the sector had experienced the
slowest growth of all sectors in Renton before 2019 and
has since lost all gains to below 2011 levels.
Exhibit 16: Covered Employment in Renton, 2011 - 2022
2011
2019
2022
2011-2019
Change
2019- 2022
Change
Construction & Resources 1,625 2,599 3,238 60% 25%
Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate 1,884 2,113 2,313 12% 9%
Manufacturing 15,700 18,782 14,063 20% -25%
Retail 5,374 5,509 5,158 3% -6%
Services 17,808 23,768 24,591 33% 3%
Wholesale Trade, Transportation, & Utilities 4,374 5,368 5,676 23% 6%
Government 6,272 7,547 7,563 20% 0%
Education 2,136 2,371 2,339 11% -1%
Total 55,173 68,057 64,942 23% -5%
Source: PSRC Covered Employment Estimates; BERK 2023
AGENDA ITEM #1. e)
Parks and Natural Environment
RENTON COMMUNITY PROFILE & EXISTING CONDITIONS 22
Commuting patterns for employed residents have shifted
significantly since the COVID-19 pandemic. The largest
change is the share of workers who work from home, with
at least 13% of employed residents working remotely, up
from under 5% in 2019. This change is largely
responsible for the decrease in mode share for residents
who drive alone to work, and those who take public
transportation.
Exhibit 17: Commute Mode Share for Employed Renton
Residents, 2021
Source: ACS 5-year estimates, 2017-2021, Table B08301;
BERK 2023.
Future Employment
King County estimates a total job growth within its urban
growth areas at roughly 491,000 by 2044.1 Classified as
one of eleven “core cities” under PSRC’s Vision 2050,
Renton is projected to add nearly 32,000 jobs by 2044,
the second most among “core cities” and fourth overall in
King County. This represents an overall job growth of 48%
over 2019 levels. Using the city’s original 2035 targets,
King County’s Urban Growth Capacity report estimated
that Renton had sufficient industrial and mixed-use land
supply to accommodate its job growth target (at the time
of the UGC report, the city did not have any vacant or
redevelopable commercial parcels). However, when
evaluated against King County’s updated 2044 target for
the city, Renton sits at a deficit of 5,500 jobs. Land use
policy changes and potential rezones will need to be
considered to close this gap and ensure that Renton’s
land supply can accommodate needed growth.
AGENDA ITEM #1. e)
Parks and Natural Environment
RENTON COMMUNITY PROFILE & EXISTING CONDITIONS 23
Parks and Natural Environment
Natural Areas
Renton is home to much natural beauty, with riparian
forests, rivers and creeks, and Lake Washington on its
northern boundary. Natural areas within the city preserve
habitat or include environmentally sensitive lands,
including streams, ravines, steep hillsides, and wetlands.
They are undeveloped areas that protect sensitive
resources and, where appropriate, provide trail access.
Renton’s extensive floodplains are concentrated along
the Cedar River, May Creek, Soos Creek, and the Green
River.
Parks and Trails
Renton maintains an extensive system of parks, trails,
recreational facilities, and natural areas. This system
offers a variety of opportunities for active recreation and
peaceful reflection that serves an important connection
between people and the environment, builds
stewardship, fosters connections, encourages active
lifestyles, helps attract residents and businesses, and
helps protect and conserve natural resources. Parks
range in scale from smaller neighborhood parks, such
as Glencoe Park to larger regional parks, such as Gene
Coulon Memorial Beach Park.
The City has an adopted Parks, Recreation, and Natural
Areas Plan (2020) and a Renton Trails and Bicycle Master
Plan (2019). With these plans, Renton is committed to
promoting a walkable, bicycle friendly city with a variety of
recreation opportunities and connections between
neighborhoods and community spaces. Investments in
pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure reflect the City’s
commitment to reducing reliance on vehicles and
improving environmental resiliency.
With 33 total developed park sites covering nearly 450
acres, Renton strives to provide access to parks and trails
within a 10-minute walk from home, see Exhibit 18. The
city has an additional 16 undeveloped sites or natural
areas that comprise an additional 805 acres. More than
half of Renton’s parks are neighborhood parks located in
close proximity to residential neighborhoods.
Renton’s parks and natural areas include 13 maintained
miles of trails, 20 playgrounds, 18 sports fields, 17 tennis
courts, 12 basketball courts, and a skate park. There are
two community gardens and a dog park. The city sponsors
more than 60 annual events across its park system.
Tree Canopy
Renton completed an Urban Tree Canopy Assessment in
2018, which showed a citywide canopy coverage of 4,382
acres, or 29.3% of Renton’s geographic area at the time.
This represented a slight increase from the previous
assessment in 2011. In addition to Renton’s upland
forests, street trees are an important part of the city’s
tree canopy, with more than 10,000 street trees across
the city and more than 20,000 trees within the city’s
developed parks. Meanwhile, Renton’s natural areas are
home to nearly 110,000 trees. An additional 20% of the
city’s land area not presently occupied by tree canopy is
suitable for tree plantings.
Shorelines
Renton is dedicated to protecting and enhancing its
shorelines, largely through the City’s Shoreline Master
Program, which provides regulations to guide and
manage development along the shorelines. Renton has
over 18 miles of shoreline, including Lake Washington,
Green River, Cedar River, May Creek, and Springbrook
Creek. These waterbodies are home to chinook, sockeye,
and coho salmon runs.
AGENDA ITEM #1. e)
Parks and Natural Environment
RENTON COMMUNITY PROFILE & EXISTING CONDITIONS 24
Exhibit 18: 10-Minute Walkshed from Renton Parks
Source: City of Renton, King County; BERK 2023
AGENDA ITEM #1. e)
Utilities, Facilities, and Public Services
RENTON COMMUNITY PROFILE & EXISTING CONDITIONS 25
Utilities, Facilities, and Public Services
Utility Service
Renton aims to provide sustainable, cost-effective utility
service while meeting the City’s current and future needs
and protecting existing neighborhoods and the natural
environment. The city owns and operates a multi-source
municipal water system, which includes supplying,
treating, storing, and distributing potable water to
residential, commercial, industrial, and wholesale
customers. Most of Renton’s water supply comes from
the Cedar Valley Aquifer, a sole-source aquifer that the
City protects for long-term benefit, and the rest from
Springbrook Springs in the south end of Renton. The
entire system serves users across sixteen square miles.
Renton also owns, operates, and maintains its
Wastewater Utility, which covers an area of twenty-one
square miles. Collected wastewater is discharged to King
County wastewater facilities, where it is transmitted to the
King County South Treatment Reclamation Plant.
Three energy providers distribute electricity throughout
Renton. Most electricity consumers in the city receive
power from Puget Sound Energy. Seattle City Light
provides electricity to the Bryn Mawr and Skyway areas.
Meanwhile, the Bonneville Power Administration operates
transmission lines that transmit power from generation
facilities to retailers across the state, who then sell power
to local customers.
Puget Sound Energy provides natural gas service within
the city. PSE receives natural gas from the Northwest
Pipeline Corporation, which operates pipelines that cross
the Renton Planning Area and terminate at the South
Seattle Gate Station.
The City also provides no-charge public wireless network
for residents and visitors in and near every city building,
and around select parks, intersections, and reservoirs.
Fire and Emergency Services
The Renton Regional Fire Authority (RFFA) serves the
Renton area and provides three core services: response
operations, community risk reduction, and safety and
support. Voters established the RFFA as a special
purpose district in 2016. It operates seven stations within
the Renton city limits. In addition to engines and aid units,
it has one hazmat unit, one water unit, and one FD CARES
unit.
Police Services
The Renton Policy Department employs 120 sworn and
28 non-sworn personnel. It is accredited by the
Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs, and
its average response times range from under 3.5 minutes
for Priority I calls, to under 21 minutes for Priority IV calls.
Schools
Renton, Kent, and Issaquah School Districts all overlap
Renton’s city limits. During the 2022-2023 school year,
more than 60,000 students were enrolled across all three
districts, with more than 15,000 in the Renton School
District. All three districts have diverse student bodies,
with no one race or ethnicity comprising a majority. Within
the Renton School District, Hispanic or Latino students
are the largest share of all students (28%), followed by
students that identify as Asian (25%), White (21%), and
Black (15%). Roughly 77% of students in the Renton
School District are English language learners, and 16%
live with disabilities. About 4% of students in the district
are experiencing homelessness.
The three school districts are home to 102 schools, with
29 schools within the Renton School District. Eleven of
those schools provide pre-kindergarten services.
AGENDA ITEM #1. e)
Transportation
RENTON COMMUNITY PROFILE & EXISTING CONDITIONS 26
Transportation
Transit
Renton serves as a key hub for the region’s
multimodal transportation system. Renton strives to
ensure that the City’s transportation systems provide
options that meet all users' needs.
Renton’s location offers convenient access to SeaTac
International Airport, I-5, I-405, and state routes 167,
169, 515, and 900. Transit projects underway in
Renton, such as Sound Transit’s Stride project
extension of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) to I-405 and
construction of a new Transit Center in south Renton,
reflect the Region’s emphasis on reducing the number
of trips in single
occupancy vehicles and reducing transportation
impacts on the environment. The Renton Trails and
Bicycle Master Plan identifies action for
improvements to the City’s walking and biking
environment.
In addition to Sound Transit’s project that will bring
BRT service to the South Renton Transit Center (via
the S1 line from Burien to Bellevue), Renton is also
served by King County Metro’s RapidRide F Line BRT
service, which has several stops in the city, including
at the Renton Transit Center. Meanwhile, the future
RapidRide I Line will bring an additional BRT service
to the city, connecting the Renton Transit Center with
Auburn’s transit station to the south. I Line is
expected to begin service in 2026.
Exhibit 20: Future Service Maps for King County Metro
RapidRide I Line and Sound Transit S1
Exhibit 19: King County RapidRide F
Line System Map
AGENDA ITEM #1. e)
Transportation
RENTON COMMUNITY PROFILE & EXISTING CONDITIONS 27
Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure
Renton completed a Trails and Bicycle Master Plan in
2019, which described a vision and set of goals
related to trails and bicycle facilities. As of 2019, the
city managed 30 miles of regional and local trails
and bicycle facilities. The network services about
one-third of Renton’s population and about two-
thirds of the city’s employees; however, Renton
seeks to create a larger and more connected system
to support the city’s growing population and thriving
economy and to increase comfort, safety, and access
for all ages and abilities. The future proposed
network will increase the system from 30 to 128
miles within the city limits, with another 8 miles of
new trails planned in areas immediately outside of
the city.
Many areas within Renton are walkable, and the city
has at least 343 miles of existing sidewalk. However,
there are gaps in the pedestrian network – particularly
along local neighborhood streets – with at least 188
miles of missing sidewalk and low levels of pedestrian
comfort in some areas.
In 2023, the city initiated a Comprehensive Walkway
Plan process that will evaluate existing conditions
for pedestrians across the city and produce a set of
prioritized recommendations to improve the
walkability, safety, and overall pedestrian
experience.
AGENDA ITEM #1. e)
1
Appendix D
Housing Need Land Capacity and
Adequate Provisions
Renton Comprehensive Plan Update |
Introduction & Context
The Growth Management Act (GMA), adopted in 1990, provides the statewide framework for
Washington State to manage its growth, including planning for future housing needs. The GMA directs the
Office of Financial Management to project long term growth and requires counties to allocate the growth
in consultation with cities. King County has an inter-governmental process to establish growth targets so
that each planning agency provides enough development capacity to accommodate their allocated share
of future growth. To help address the legacy of discriminatory housing and land use policies and
practices (e.g., redlining, racially restrictive covenants, exclusionary zoning, etc.) that have led to
significant racial and economic disparities in access to housing and neighborhoods of choice, 2020
revisions to the GMA expanded the obligations of planning agencies to ensure development capacity in
the densities and land use types necessary to meet growth targets for each economic sector.
This memo describes how Renton’s updated Comprehensive Plan provides sufficient development
capacity to accommodate its allocated housing targets for each economic segment of the community.
Regional Growth Strategy
Located in King County, growth targets for the City of Renton began with the development of the Puget
Sound Regional Council’s VISION 2050, which is a four-county (King, Snohomish, Pierce, and Kitsap
counties) regional plan for managing long term growth. Adopted in October 2020, VISION 2050
provides common goals and guidance for updating county and city policies and regulations and sets
growth shares by bands of communities based on their role in the region.
Within this regional framework, Renton is categorized as one of sixteen “Core Cities” characterized as
having designated regional growth centers with connections to the Region’s high-capacity transit system.
As a core city, Renton is expected to be among the most intensely urban places in the region.
AGENDA ITEM #1. f)
Renton Comprehensive Plan Update | Housing Need Land Capacity and Adequate Provisions 2
King County Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs), adopted in 2021, implements the VISION 2050 plan
for growth and establishes population, housing, and job targets for its 39 cities and unincorporated urban
areas. The targets are designed to accommodate the addition of approximately 660,000 people and
490,00 jobs in King County by 2044.
In coordination with the cities in King County, the projected county-wide growth was apportioned to
planning areas (cities and potential annexation areas) in the King County Countywide Planning Policies
(CPPs) so that:
All the projected growth was accommodated.
The pattern for growth is consistent with VISION 2050 by
Focusing growth within cities and Potential Annexation Areas with designated centers and within
high-capacity transit station areas
Limiting development in the Rural Area and protection of the designated Natural Resource Lands
Allocating growth to Potential Annexation Areas within urban areas where there is capacity for
housing and employment growth
Efficient use of urban land and existing and planned infrastructure.
Promoting a land use pattern that can be served by a connected network of public transportation
services and pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure.
Improving jobs/housing balance
Ensuring racial and social equity in housing and employment opportunity
Renton’s Housing Targets
The King County CPPs establishes a countywide need for affordable housing defined as the additional
housing units needed in King County by 2044 so that no household with a household income at or below
80 percent of Area Median Income (AMI) is housing cost burdened. Renton’s housing growth targets are
presented in Exhibit 1.
Exhibit 1. Renton Housing Supply and Future Housing Need
Source: King County Countywide Planning Policies, 2021; Renton, 2023
Between 2019 and 2044, Renton must plan to accommodate a total of 17,000 new housing units,
which represents an increase of approximately 39% over the 2020 housing supply.
Based on the affordability levels of the 2020 housing supply:
0 to 30% AMI
Total Non-PSH PSH
Housing Supply: 2020 43,362 1,410 232 6,206 9,259 10,863 6,988 8,404 114
Net New Need: 2020 - 2044 17,000 4,110 2,161 1,624 1,019 1,062 1,205 5,819 3,248
Total Future Need: 2044 60,362 5,520 2,393 7,830 10,278 11,925 8,193 14,223 3,362
Share of Future Housing Need 9% 4% 13% 17% 20% 14% 24%
Emergenc
y Housing
30 to
50% AMI
50 to
80% AMI
80 to
100 AMI
100 to
120% AMI
≥120%
AMI
AGENDA ITEM #1. f)
Renton Comprehensive Plan Update | Housing Need Land Capacity and Adequate Provisions 3
Approximately 26% of the new unit capacity should be affordable to households in the lowest
income categories (below 50% AMI). This includes ac combination of Permanent Supportive
Housing (4% of units)1 and deeply affordable housing without services (non-PSH).
Approximately 38% of new unit capacity should be affordable to households with income at
100% of AMI or greater.
Land Capacity Analysis
To meet its obligations for planning for housing for all economic segments, the Land Capacity Assessment
determines if Renton is planning for sufficient buildable land to ensure capacity to accommodate the
housing targets for each economic sector. The methodology follows Washington State Department of
Commerce’s Guidance for Updating Your Housing Element (2023). This guidance was developed to help
jurisdictions conduct housing land capacity analysis as part of housing element updates implementing HB
1220. It provides directions on how to categorize zones, and default assumptions for high-cost
communities like Renton about which household income levels can feasibly be served by residential
development under the zoning schema. The Guidance specifies six steps:
Step ❶. Summarize land capacity by zone.
GMA requires a review and update of the development capacity for each county and city that is
planning under the act. The larger, faster growing counties are subject to the Buildable Lands Program
that requires the review and evaluation of urban growth capacity to ensure each jurisdiction has
designated adequate residential, commercial, and industrial lands to meet growth allocations developed
by the counties in consultation with their cities.
The King County Urban Growth Capacity Report (adopted December 14, 2021) assessed the available
development capacity for each parcel in King County based on planned density assumptions under the
zoning in place in 2020. Growth capacity was determined for existing residential parcels that are
suitable for redevelopment as well as parcels for which new projects had been issued a permit but had
not yet been built. The sum of the capacity of among these two groups of parcels is the total capacity,
presented in Exhibit 2.
1 Permanent supportive housing (PSH) is defined in RCW 36.70A.030 (16) as non-time-limited housing for persons with
disabling conditions who have experienced homelessness or risk of homelessness and are offered voluntary supportive
services aimed at assisting the client in maintaining the terms of their lease agreement.
AGENDA ITEM #1. f)
Renton Comprehensive Plan Update | Housing Need Land Capacity and Adequate Provisions 4
Exhibit 2. Renton Land Capacity for Housing by Zone (2019 data)
Sources: Residential capacity elements are based on the 2021 King County Urban Growth Capacity Report, June 2021 based on
2019 data; City of Renton, 2021
The 2021 analysis (2019 data) assessed Renton’s residential capacity at 16,503 units, a 497- unit
shortfall from the 2020 – 2044 17,000-unit growth target.
For the 2024 Comprehensive Plan update, Renton has identified redeveloped and pipeline lots and
updated its analysis of vacant and developable lands, as presented in Exhibit 3. Analysis assumptions
include:
Adjusted Buildable Acres include all vacant and developable acres, less the critical areas and
pipeline acres (acres already permitted for development). The result is 955 buildable acres.
Built/Pipeline between 2020 and 2024 include the units that have been built or are imminent
between the original 2021 analysis and the 2024 Comprehensive Plan Update analysis. Since 2019,
Renton has added 9,457 new housing units, representing 56% of its 2000 – 2044 growth targets,
primarily in mixed-use areas.
Housing Unit Capacity Baseline is calculated by multiplying the available acres by the assumed
density (housing units per acre) with deductions based on:
Mixed Use. For zones that allow mixed use development, the analysis subtracts a proportion of
the development capacity from residential use. The deductions range from 5% in the COR zone
to 90% in the CO zone.
Right of way. The analysis deducts a portion of the developable acreage to account for public
rights of way based on zoning. The deductions range from 3% in the mixed use zones to 15% in
the low-density residential zones.
Residential Capacity (2019)
Zone Name Zone
Adjusted
Buildable Acres
Redevelopable
Residential Parcels
Pipeline
Parcels
Total
Capacity
Commercial Arterial CA 60 3,257 24 3,281
Center Downtown CD 8 855 530 1,385
Commercial Neighborhood CN 1 6 - 6
Commercial Office CO 6 637 73 710
Commercial Office (TOD)CO (TOD)26 2,590 - 2,590
Commercial Office Residential COR 39 1,592 1,281 2,873
Center Village CV 13 1,041 184 1,225
Residential-1 R-1 28 45 - 45
Residential-10 R-10 32 302 - 302
Residential-14 R-14 29 357 80 437
Resdiential-4 R-4 147 733 86 819
Residential-6 R-6 61 200 - 200
Residential-8 R-8 192 518 148 666
Resource Conservation RC 13 2 - 2
Residential Multi-Family RM-F 9 152 30 182
Urban Center UC 16 1,781 - 1,781
Total 680 14,067 2,436 16,503
AGENDA ITEM #1. f)
Renton Comprehensive Plan Update | Housing Need Land Capacity and Adequate Provisions 5
Public purposes. Public purpose uses are generally stormwater facilities, parks, or other open
space. These discounts are approximated using observed development data collected to
calculate achieved densities.
Market factors. Not all landowners chose to develop their land to its full development potential.
The market factor deduction represents an estimate of underutilized development capacity
based on landowner preferences. Assumptions by zone are within ranges recommended in the
2021 King County Buildable Lands analysis as well as observed market conditions in Renton.
Existing Units account for existing units that will be lost when redevelopment occurs.
Exhibit 3. Renton Land Capacity for Housing by Zone, updated 2024 analysis
Source:
The updated Housing Unit Capacity includes 14,997 units. This combined with the new 9,457 units built
since the 2020 analysis results in a development capacity of 24,454 units between 2020 and 2044,
7,454 units above the 17,000 unit target.
Steps ❷,❸& ❹ Capacity by Affordability Level
Housing costs vary significantly by housing type, primarily due to the land associated with the specific
unit. Since zoning and other local development regulations specify the type of housing and densities that
can be built, they impact the availability of housing affordable to different economic segments of the
Residential Capacity 2024
Zone Name Zone
Adjusted
Buildable
Acres
Built/Pipeline
between 2020
and 2024
Housing Unit
Capacity
Baseline Existing Units
Housing Unit
Capacity
Commercial Arterial CA 117 914 2,054 10 2,044
Commercial Arterial 150 du/acre CA (PAA 150)52 - 4,270 10 4,260
Commercial Arterial 200 du/acre CA (PAA 250)17 - 2,372 10 2,362
Center Downtown CD 9 860 880 2 878
Commercial Neighborhood CN 4 - 18 - 18
Commercial Office CO 26 3,389 397 - 397
Commercial Office (TOD)CO (TOD)20 - 2,278 - 2,278
Commercial Office Residential COR 12 1,666 373 - 373
Center Village CV 10 1,046 433 4 429
Residential-1 R-1 46 2 53 9 44
Residential-10 R-10 50 4 305 23 282
Residential-14 R-14 28 269 243 28 215
Resdiential-4 R-4 188 200 639 62 577
Residential-6 R-6 88 45 355 195 160
Residential-8 R-8 250 321 1,016 724 292
Resource Conservation RC 21 - 2 3 (1)
Residential Multi-Family RM-F 11 201 86 8 78
Urban Center UC-2 7 540 310 - 310
Total 955 9,457 16,085 1,088 14,997
Units built 2020 - 2024 9,457
Additional unbuilt capacity 14,997
Housing Unit Target 2020 - 2044 17,000
Total development capacity relative to target (surplus/-deficit )7,454
AGENDA ITEM #1. f)
Renton Comprehensive Plan Update | Housing Need Land Capacity and Adequate Provisions 6
community. The Commerce Guidance Steps through estimate the residential development capacity
according to the economic needs served.
Step is identifying the housing types and density allowed in each zone. Exhibit 4 presents the
allowed housing types in each of Renton’s residential zones and identifies an “Assigned Zone Category”
based on a rubric provided by the Commerce Guidance.
Exhibit 4. Commerce Guidance’s Rubric for Zone Category
Source: Washington Department of Commerce, Guidance for Updating Your Housing Element, 2023
Step includes assumptions about the potential income levels served by market rate production in each
of the city’s zones. Under King County’s current market conditions, developers are not able to deliver new
housing units affordable to households with very low incomes.2 To address this challenge, Exhibit 4
includes assumptions for both Market Rate housing as well as housing built With Subsidies based on the
Commerce Guidance, local market conditions, and a review of achieved densities and housing
affordability levels in Renton’s recent development projects.
2 To meet all economic needs of the community, Renton will need new affordable housing over the 20 year planning period.
New affordable housing can be gained through the development of new, income-qualified units using a combination of
public and private funds, trickle down effects whereby older housing becomes more affordable as new, higher amenity
housing is built, and (if overall housing supply is sufficient) rising incomes of households with low-incomes.
AGENDA ITEM #1. f)
Renton Comprehensive Plan Update | Housing Need Land Capacity and Adequate Provisions 7
Exhibit 5. Categorization of Renton’s Zones by Affordability Level
* The Commercial Neighborhood zone allows residential development at an approximate density of 8.19 du/acre, which is
typically associated with “Low Density” or “Moderate Density” development patterns. However, the zone’s intended development
pattern is for a higher intensity than typical of residential zones and of which residential is only one component. In addition, the
zone allows for Multifamily Housing.
Legend: SF -single family detached dwelling; ADU – accessory dwelling unit; TH – townhouse; MPL – multiplex; MF - multifamily
Since the last 2015 Comprehensive Plan update Renton has made numerous changes to its zoning
regulations to encourage a greater variety of housing types, in denser forms, organized around key
public investments including high-capacity transit. The updated analysis includes revisions to:
Housing Types Allowed. Since the 2021 analysis, Renton expanded middle housing options across
its residential areas. Accessory Dwelling Units are now allowed in the Resource Conservation zone
and all Residential Zones. To encourage higher densities in Renton’s growth centers and adjacent to
regional transit investments, Townhomes are no longer permitted in Residential Multi-Family or
Commercial Arterial zones.
Buildable Density. Buildable densities have been updated based on regulation changes and
observed market preferences:
Center Downtown zone. Current zoning allows a maximum of 200 units/acre. In 2019 the
observed built density was 108.7 units/acre, but new development proposals since 2019 are at
much higher densities. The analysis updates the density assumption to 175 units/acre.
Commercial Neighborhood zone. The 2019 analysis showed an achieved density of 8.19
units/acre. There is significant demand for residential uses in Commercial Neighborhood (CN)
zones, but the zoning requirements for vertically integrated mixed-use buildings were posing a
barrier to development. In 2022, Renton updated the CN zoning (Ordinance 6089) to not
require ground floor commercial in vertically mixed-use buildings and provide the option to
arrange the required commercial and residential product in separate buildings (on the same
Assigned
Zone Category Market Rate With Subsidies
Resource Conservation RC SF, ADU 0 (1) Low Density >120%Not Feasible
Residential-1 R-1 SF, ADU 2 46 Low Density >120%Not Feasible
Resdiential-4 R-4 SF, ADU 5 777 Low Density >120%Not Feasible
Residential-6 R-6 SF, ADU 6 205 Low Density >120%Not Feasible
Residential-8 R-8 SF, ADU 6 613 Low Density >120%Not Feasible
Residential-10 R-10 SF, TH, MPL, MF 10 286 Moderate Density >80-120%Not Feasible
Residential-14 R-14 SF, TH, MPL, MF 13 484 Moderate Density >80-120%Not Feasible
Residential Multi-Family RM-F MF 17 279 Low Rise >50-80% 0-50%
Commercial Neighborhood CN TH, MF, MU 17 18 Low Rise >50-80%0-50%
Commercial Arterial CA MF, MU 54 2,958 Mid Rise >50-80% 0-50%
Commercial Arterial PAA CA (PAA 150)MF, MU 136 4,260 Mid Rise >50-80%0-50%
Commercial Arterial PAA CA (PAA 250)MF, MU 226 2,362 Mid Rise >50-80% 0-50%
Center Village CV TH, MF, MU 78 1,475 Mid Rise >50-80%0-50%
Commercial Office Residential COR MF, MU 41 2,039 High Rise >120% 80-120%
Commercial Office CO MF, MU 200 3,786 High Rise >120%80-120%
Commercial Office (TOD)CO (TOD)MF, MU 200 2,278 High Rise >120% 80-120%
Center Downtown CD MF, MU 175 1,738 High Rise >120%80-120%
Urban Center UC-2 MF, MU 112 850 High Rise >120% 80-120%
Zone Name Zone
Abbreviation
Housing Types
Allowed
Buildable
Density
Total
Capacity
Lowest Potential Income Level Served
AGENDA ITEM #1. f)
Renton Comprehensive Plan Update | Housing Need Land Capacity and Adequate Provisions 8
site). The zoning was updated to allow a maximum of 20 units/acre. The analysis assumes 17.42
units/acre, similar to observed densities in the Residential Multi-Family zones.
Commercial Office. The Commercial Office zone is intended to provide areas appropriate for
professional, administrative, and business offices and related uses, offering high-quality and
amenity work environments. The primary land use is commercial to accommodate the
development necessary to meet Renton’s employment growth targets. In 2015, Renton
(Ordinance 5759) updated the zone to allow multi-family housing where it is withing ¼ mile of
mass transit facilities. Since that update, new qualifying mass transit facilities have made nearly
every developable CO-zoned lot eligible for residential development. In 2022, Renton
(Ordinance 6093) updated zoning requirements to impose limits on the proportion of the
development that can be residential, allowing a greater percentage of residential to incentivize
dedicated affordable housing, eliminating the requirement that a residential building be a
minimum of eight stories, and requiring residential development to be entitled through the
Planned Urban development (PUD) or Master Plan Review process depending on site size.
Assumed density on the residential portion of the CO lots has been updated to 17.42 units/acre
to reflect likely development.
Commercial Office (TOD). The maximum development in the CO-TOD zone is 250 units/acre.
The original analysis used the 2019 achieved density of 101 units/acre. The updated analysis
uses 200 units/acre which is more reflective of recent development.
CA (Potential Action Area) In 2020, Renton established a Rainier/Grady Junction TOD
Subarea Plan to create a commercial and residential district oriented around near-term bus
rapid transit with potential for future light rail service. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
was completed in March 2024 to assess the impacts of implementing the land use vision of the
subarea plan through development regulation changes.
Total Capacity. Total capacity includes the total development capacity (2024) plus the development
that has been built since 2020 or is currently in the pipeline, minus the existing housing units on lots
likely to be redevelopment prior to 2044.
Step is summarizing the capacity by assigned zone category. The Commerce Guidance models how to
assign an affordability category to each zone based on allowed housing times and density.
Assigned Zone Category. The Zone Category is based on the Commerce Guidance rubric, and
ground-truthed based on current market conditions in Renton and observed development.
Lowest Potential Income Served. The income level service is based on the Commerce Guidance and
observed development in Renton. Commerce’s guidance suggests that new affordable, income
qualified housing production is most commonly feasible in multi-family development associated with
low- and mid-rise apartments.
Renton has a number of affordable housing incentives in place. As a result, private development can
achieve some affordable housing in some of Renton’s low-rise zones (Residential Multi-Family and
Commercial Neighborhood) without subsidies. Additionally, since 2019 Renton has added 193 units
of affordable housing to its Center Downtown zone (assigned to the High Rise zone category) with
housing at all affordability levels less than 80% AMI.
AGENDA ITEM #1. f)
Renton Comprehensive Plan Update | Housing Need Land Capacity and Adequate Provisions 9
Exhibit 6. Summary of Development Capacity by Income Level and Special Housing Needs
Source:
Exhibit 6 presents the final summary and demonstrates how Renton is satisfying its obligations for
development capacity to accommodate its affordable housing targets.
Income level >120% AMI. Low Density Residential Zones provide capacity for 1,640 households
earning more than 120% of Area Median Income. This includes the zones Resource Conservation,
Residential-1, Residential-4, Residential-6, and Residential-8. These zones may also accommodate
some housing needs in lower income groups through ADUs, adult family homes, group homes,
permanent supportive housing, and transitional housing.
The development capacity associated with Renton’s High Rise zones is also assumed to serve
households earning more than 120% of Area Median Income. This includes new development in
mixed use areas near new or planned high-capacity transit.
Income levels 80% AMI – 120% AMI. Renton’s two Moderate Density Residential Zones provide
residential capacity mostly affordable to households with incomes between 80 to 120% of AMI, with
some production for the lower affordability categories through attached flats, townhouses, carriage
houses, ADUs, adult family homes, group homes, permanent supportive housing, and transitional
housing. Combined the zones have capacity for 770 new units.
Income levels >80% AMI. Renton’s Low Rise and Mid Rise zones provide capacity for households
earning between 50 and 80% of AMI, reaching deeper affordability levels with subsidies. Mostly in
Mid Rise housing forms with access to high-capacity transit, the zones provide development capacity
for 11,352 new households.
Permanent Supportive Housing
In compliance with RCW 35.21.683, all zones that allow residential dwelling units or hotels also allow
Permanent Supportive Housing and Transitional Housing, as shown in Exhibit 7.
Income Level (%AMI)
and Special Needs
Housing
Housing
Target
Housing Target
by Zone
Category
Assigned Zone
Category
Pipeline +
Capacity
in Zones
Capacity
Surplus or
(Deficit)
>120%5,819 5,819
Low Density
(SF, ADU);
High Rise
(MF, MU)
12,332 6,513
>100-120%1,205
>80-100%1,062
>50-80%1,019
>30-50%1,624
0-30% Other 4,110
0-30% PSH 2,161
Total 17,000 17,000 24,454
2,267 Moderate Density
(SF, TH, MPL, MF) 770 (1,497)
8,914
Low Rise
(MF, TH, MU);
Mid Rise
(MF, TH, MU)
11,352 2,438
AGENDA ITEM #1. f)
Renton Comprehensive Plan Update | Housing Need Land Capacity and Adequate Provisions 10
For addressing the needs of those experiencing homelessness, Renton has a defined Homeless Services
Use allowed in all Renton’s Commercial Zones as well as R-1, R-10, and R-14. Homeless Services Use
includes all homeless services apart from those allowed under a temporary use permit, hosted by a
religious organization within buildings on their property, social service organizations, unrelated
individuals living together as a “family”, and housing for tenants that fall under the protections of the
Residential Landlord-Tenant Action (RW 59.18).
Homeless Services Use includes Emergency Shelters and requires a conditional use permit approved by a
Hearing Examiner, or the applicant may request the Council approve a negotiated development
agreement. Emergency Shelters cannot be located within a ½ mile from another property with Homeless
Services Use unless they do not serve more than a combined 115 residents. Facilities with more than fifty
beds must be located within one mile of a public transit stop.
Exhibit 7. Renton Zoning Use Table for Permanent Supportive Housing
H=Hearing Examiner Conditional Use
P=Permitted Use
P#=Permitted up to number specified
Permenant
Supportive
Houisng
Transitional
Housing
Hotel Use
Allowed
Homeless
Services
Use*Emergency Shelter
Land Supply
(acres)
RC H H 21.37
R-1 H H H Up to 10 occupants
(including staff)
45.72
R-4 H H 187.55
R-6 H H 87.71
R-8 H H 249.83
R-10 H H H 49.78
R-14 H H H 27.72
RM-F H H 10.99
CN H6 H 3.77
CA H6 H6 P20 116.72
CA (PAA 150)51.77
CA (PAA 250)17.26
CV H6 H6 P H 10.38
COR H6 H6 P H 12.45
CO H16 H16 P H 25.80
CO (TOD)19.77
CD H6 H6 P29 9.45
UC-2 H6 H6 P18 H 7.17
IL H H P29 H 24.66
IM H H P29 H 22.08
IH H H P29 H 6.40
Up to 100 occupants
(115 with city
approval)
Up to 100 occupants
(115 with city
approval)
Up to 14 occupants
(including staff)
AGENDA ITEM #1. f)
Renton Comprehensive Plan Update | Housing Need Land Capacity and Adequate Provisions 11
Addressing Barriers to Affordable Housing
Step ❻ of the Commerce Guidance is to “Implement actions to increase capacity for one or more
housing needs.” Renton’s Housing Action Plan (2020) reviewed current barriers to affordable housing
production in Renton, including financing, land availability and costs, construction costs, regulations and
permitting. The analysis identified several possible remedies of which Renton has implemented the
following:
1. Participate in Partnerships to Meet Housing Goals.
The City works with developers and residents to identify challenges and barriers to local
development and growth, including local housing affordability challenges, increases in development
costs, changes in community demands for housing types, and other trends. Ongoing community
engagement informs City actions to address future housing needs and integrate new housing into
existing neighborhoods.
Renton has taken the following steps to implement this remedy:
• Continued efforts with neighboring communities to address housing needs in south
King County.
• Continued coordination with county and regional agencies on needs for affordable
housing.
• Identifying long-term funding sources for the Renton Housing Authority to promote the
development of affordable housing options.
• Conducting community planning that integrates housing goals.
2. Promote Diverse Housing Types and Sizes in Neighborhoods
Renton has updated planning regulations to allow for additional housing types and sizes at higher
densities in targeted areas to create more affordable and accessible options for a range of
households. Regulation updates provide opportunities for new housing, in more options, at a faster
rate
2.1 Permitting additional housing types
Renton has updated the use table to allow
ADUs
Ordinance 5960 was adopted in 2019, amending Renton Municipal Code subsections 4-2-
060.D, 4-2-080.A.7, 4-2-110.A, 4-2-110.B, 4-2-110.C, 4-2-110.D, 4-2-110.E, 4-2-110.F,
4-3-110.E.5.A.I, 4-4-080.E.2.A, 4-4-080.E.2.E, and 4-4-080.F.10.D; Chapter 4-2; and
Section 4-9-030; by amending Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) development standards,
including adding a new Section 4-2-116 Regulating ADU Design Standards, amending
Parking Standards relating to ADUs, adding a new Subsection 4-9-030.H.
Ordinance 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
AGENDA ITEM #1. f)
Renton Comprehensive Plan Update | Housing Need Land Capacity and Adequate Provisions 12
4-11-040 of the Renton Municipal Code, amending Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU)
regulations.
Ordinance 6002 was adopted in 2020, revising Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) regulations
by amending Subsections 4-2-110.C, 4-2-110.E, and 4-2-116.B.2 of the Renton Municipal
Code.
Cottage Housing
Ordinance 6042 was adopted in 2021, amending Sections 4-2-110 and 4-2-115,
Subsections 4-4-080.F.10.D, 4-4-090.A, and 4-4-090.B, Section 4-7-090, Subsections 4-9-
065.A, 4-9-065.B, 4-5-065.D, 4-9-200.B, and 4-9-200.D, and Section 4-11-030 of the
Renton Municipal Code, adding cottage house development regulations, including adding a
definition of “Cottage House Development” to Section 4-11-030.
2.2 Adjusted minimum densities.
Ordinance 6101 was adopted in 2022, amending Subsections 4-2-110.E, 4-2-120.B, 4-2-120.C,
and 4-2-130.B of the Renton Municipal Code to adjust the maximum building height in the Center
Downtown Zone and correct references to the Airport Related Height restrictions. Also, require
that new projects result in densities of at least 50–75% of the maximum density in Residential
High Density areas.
2.3 Increase allowed zoning densities to allow for greater flexibility with high-density
residential uses.
Ordinance 6048 was adopted in 2021, amending Subsections 4-2-110.A and 4-2-110.E.20 of
the Renton Municipal Code, amending height and setback regulations in the RMF (Residential
Multi-Family) Zone.
Considering Creating separate RMF-20 and RMF-40 zones that allow for targeted locations in
RMF zones to accommodate up to 40 units per acre as of right can help to increase housing
capacity in higher-density neighborhoods.
2.4 Adjusting Residential Development Standards
Adjusting Open space Standards for R-10 and R-14 to allow walkup, townhouse design.
2.5 Adjust zoning in R-10, R-14, and RMF to encourage more density and diverse housing
types
City should explore targeted upzoning that will allow for more intensive residential development,
specifically with the goal of increasing infill and redevelopment in these neighborhoods where
practical. These rezones should be based on the following requirements:
2.6 Streamline Permitting
AGENDA ITEM #1. f)
Renton Comprehensive Plan Update | Housing Need Land Capacity and Adequate Provisions 13
To simplify and streamline permitting, the City of Renton has already offered pre-approved
DADU construction plans that create a faster, easier, and more predictable design and permitting
process.3
2.5 Coordinate outreach to ensure residential design standards promote high-quality
design and compatibility.
3. Affordable Housing Incentives
3.1 Parking Requirements.
City of Renton is strategic in minimizing the amount of parking required for new development,
especially for affordable housing projects (which are only required at the rate of one space for
every four affordable units). The City maintains a policy to “regularly review and refine parking
ratios to account for existing parking supply, land use intensity, and access to transit.” The City
also grants parking flexibility to developers that submit a supportive parking demand study.
These efforts have allowed for effective management of parking requirements that have reduced
costs of development.
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.
3.2 Ground-Floor Commercial Space in Mixed Use Buildings
Renton’s regulations are designed to provide for housing, jobs, and local services to support
resident needs and promote walkability in neighborhoods. To that end, there are requirements
under RMC 4-4-150 for the CA, CN, and UC zones to accommodate commercial space in 50% of
the gross square footage of the ground floor of mixed use projects.
The City has increased flexibility in mixed use zones to balance the long-term need for walkable,
complete urban neighborhoods while supporting short term development feasibility where
commercial requirements pose a constraint to development.
4. Promote Affordable Housing Production and Preservation
Renton works to preserve existing affordable housing and encourage new affordable housing
development. The City provides funding for income-restricted units and incentivizes property
owners to maintain rents at affordable levels. The City also support increased production of new
income-restricted units, either as part of market-rate development or wholly affordable projects.
4.1 Density Bonus.
Under RMC 4-9-060, density bonuses of up to 30% can be provided in CD, UC, CV, CO, COR, R-
14, and RMF zones, with one bonus market-rate unit provided for each affordable dwelling unit
constructed on site (assumed to be 80% AMI for owner-occupied housing and 50% AMI for rental
housing).
Density bonus provisions in R-1of up to eighteen (18) dwelling units per acre to allow assisted
living to develop with higher densities within the zone.
3 See: https://www.rentonwa.gov/city_hall/community_and_economic_development/permit_ready_a_d_u_program.
AGENDA ITEM #1. f)
Renton Comprehensive Plan Update | Housing Need Land Capacity and Adequate Provisions 14
In R-14 zones opportunities for bonuses up to eighteen (18) dwelling units per net acre and in
RMF zones opportunities for bonuses up to twenty five (25) dwelling units per net acre
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.
4.2 Fee Waivers
Fees can be waived affordable home ownership and affordable rental housing projects.
4.3 MFTE
Extending MFTE eligibility to the rehabilitation projects of new and existing units while requiring
the provision of affordable units can ensure there are incentives to upgrade the quality of older
multifamily housing units while preserving units for low-income households.
Under Chapter 84.14 RCW cities can provide property tax exemptions under an MFTE program
for both new and rehabilitated properties in urban centers. Currently, the City’s MFTE program
permits tax exemptions for new market-rate and affordable construction in Sunset, Downtown,
South Lake Washington, and Rainier Grady TOD Subarea.
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.
4.4 Surplus Public Land
The City of Renton follows an approach for managing surplus properties as outlined in City Policy
100-12. This policy outlines a public process for transferring or selling these lands, which includes
requirements for public hearings, property appraisal, rights of first refusal, and property sales.
However, this policy does not explicitly mention the use of these properties for affordable housing
purposes or include any policies that align with the provisions of RCW 39.33.015. Incorporating
explicit statements in the policy about this priority can ensure that appropriate sites can be
diverted for use in affordable housing.
Renton allows unused public or quasi-public lands at reduced or no cost for affordable housing
projects and increasing the rate of production of affordable units in the community.
Coordinate its land acquisition, management, and surplus disposal policies with Sound Transit,
King County Metro, non-profits, and other agencies to implement land banking for affordable
housing in transit station areas.
4.5 Inclusionary Zoning
Renton has reviewed several times the capacity for requiring new development in the city to
provide affordable housing. To date, the market has not been strong enough to push the
maximum allowed density. Renton will continue to review and consider utilizing inclusionary
zoning.
4.6 Protective MHP Zoning
Renton has a Mobile Home Park zone that is utilized throughout the city.
AGENDA ITEM #1. f)
Renton Comprehensive Plan Update | Housing Need Land Capacity and Adequate Provisions 15
4.7 Identifying Affordable Housing as a Public Benefit
Under RMC 4-9-150, applicants interested in development projects may pursue modifications to
the regulations regarding allowable uses, urban design, street standards, and other requirements
as part of a “planned urban development”, or PUD. The proposed departures from regulations
with a PUD design must be supported by a “public benefit”, which can include protection of
critical areas and natural features, provision of public facilities, demonstration of sustainable
development techniques, and application of superior urban design techniques (see RMC 4-9-
150(D)2). The City includes affordable housing in the public benefits which can be provided as
part of a PUD, thus providing these projects with additional flexibility with meeting regulations
4.8 Establishing and Tracking Housing Performance
Commit to a monitoring and review process to track housing production compared to the
identified need. This tracking effort should be supported by expanded resources to the
Department of Community and Economic Development, with the expectation of regular reporting
to Council on progress towards housing goals.
AGENDA ITEM #1. f)
0 Land Use Designation Changes
Change from
RHD to CMU
ME
Change from
CMU to RHD
AGENDA ITEM #1. g)
ir
I
i
RHD
RMD
jRHD ,
rzRD
Q
N 30th St
i
l
I
I
NE 27th Sr
NE 24th St
NE 23rd PI
r
e
s ° NE 20th St
RMD RLD
RHD6S 1
y „a
LID c
RHD
CMU 40 King Cou11-
tto oF RHD
CMU --
RHD CMU s J y
NE 1 Oth St
HE 1 Oth St NE 1 Oth St —Q`---,-- 7
aHE 9ih Sr—
N:,Bth s_t. RMD
I NE 711S1 r
EA EA
RMD = HE 6th St NE 6th St a
z Y
RHD
RHD z a ;
CMU RMD
a /v,,AthSt CMU RHD Pnra,
A eS, RHD RHD
HE
2 d St o
NF2nast
RHD
1 1 RMD LA RMD -
RMD
s IMBUE Evs RHD `
R RHD
f p. N
Wj,
S 7th St MU:
fir 0 Poo RHD
RHD
NNN
RMD SE
1 60th St Q'
SE 1 64th St SE 164ih St RMD .
I >
ukw-
a o ,. o
c RHD
RHD
SE c ,d sr J
RHD SE
Petro,itsky Rd CMU
CMU
RLD RLD RLD
RMD
RHD
RMD RHD
U
RLD , e
t \ 0
0.25 0.s Miles
RHD
111111
RHD
CMU
RHD
W3
RMD
Land
Use Designations RLD -
Residential Low Density RMD -
Residential Medium Density RHD -
Residential High Density EA -
Employment Area CMU -
Commercial Mixed Use COR -
Commercial Office Residential
AGENDA ITEM #1. h)
0 Zoning Changes
405
ok
Change from
R-14 to CA
Change from
CA to RMF-2
On
AGENDA ITEM #1. i)
LEA
Bellevue
e
f\ Mercer Island
l
k. ry
J
Ilewcastle
R-6
Z
405'
y
R-8
f a
Z R-6
e R-8
R-1
E N 3W, St
R-8
Newcmtle
Q - 1,
I "
NE 27th St
Wash R•1 \ -
Z R-8
NE 2-1h St
NE 23, of
R-4 R-10
1. RM-F
1 •' NE 2011, St R-1
F' F'
g y r
R-10
R 8 `v --
a
I - Z RB ,
t
J----• i NE I2tq it 4 & ,
m"Idn` I s • Y
0, rx S ` RM-F R_g
11 i i i r o as
R-8 NE 0rh sr
N
NE 10th St
NE 10u, -
King C.ount7 C. S,
NE v R8 mCA
st 405 1 a'
z a
R-8
NE 7w Sr a R-8 c
NE 7r1t
i q = R.q
RM-R a
IM
Z NE 6rh St
UC-2O R-14904! R-8
RM-
I'IL Ifttsssssla R-4
ss
F
1 `
RM-F
r.
N 3r.:: sr a /y: R-10 R-g %
j -
a
a s, & R-4
S
v, / .` pm 5aE 3' R-10 R-8 NE 2nJ Si s NF
i
vS R-10 I , I Iri R B
L p_h
R.
Y, St
aa I1pp.I/ _
IL
P>-
Q3A/- -. COR
RM.H 4
Rq
4
in" R-
RM-F , , 4
O
King County
SW ,y .;
L S7n, S,
y- 9 RC
Vo IMIR-14 s '
R
8 1z RMF `
s RAkF RC i COME
W R6 1 2 •14 h
St P-8 RC
R-
6 `M-
F ' R-
8 I
I j Kent
S
21 2t1, Si N
0 0.25 0.5 1
R8
R8 ILR-
8 R•1C R-
1 a 34th
51 m l
o
R-
8 RM-Oft - r-
co
R-
4 5,#r ' „
s/
t
R-
8 E
160•I, S. R-
6 SE
R-
6 t
a. .. R-
8 R-6 LE
168", sr R-6 1
P ' Q'
SE 172ro1 Sr a R-
14 R MR-10 m 1 SE
i i , 1,ky U R-
4 R-
6 R-
8 R-
4 rR-
1 E 1 s2 _ 51 R-
6 r
1-F
R-
8 51 t 4
PC
7
R-
4 R-
14 R 8 P-
6 r!
Q'p,
1111
SE
184tli Sr R-
4 R-
4 I
Kent
I
F i I R-
4 King
County P -
I 0
4
RMH RC
Zoning
Designations RC:
Resource Conservation R-
1: Residential 1 DU/Acre R-
4: Residential 4 DU/Acre R-
b: Residential b DU/Acre R-
8: Residential 8 DU/Acre R-
10: Residential 10 DU/Acre R-
14: Residential 14 DU/Acre RMF:
Residential Multifamily RMF-
2: Residential Multifamily-2 RMH:
Residential Manufactured Homes UL
CN: Commercial Neighborhood CV:
Center Village CA:
Commercial Arterial UC-
1: Urban Center-1 UC-
2: Urban Center-2 CD:
Center Downtown COR:
Commercial Office/Residential CO:
Commercial Office IL:
Industrial Light i
IM: Industrial Medium IH:
Industrial Heavy
AGENDA ITEM #1. j)
1
Comprehensive Plan and Policy
Review & Racial Equity Analysis
An Addendum to the Housing Action Plan | Drafted March 2023, Adopted December 31, 2024
Table of Contents
Table of Contents .................................................................................................................................. 1
Table of Figures ..................................................................................................................................... 2
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 4
State Laws and Requirements ............................................................................................................... 4
HB 1220 ..................................................................................................................................................................... 4
Missing Middle Grant .............................................................................................................................................. 4
Relation to Other Plans ......................................................................................................................... 5
Vision 2050 ............................................................................................................................................................... 5
Countywide Planning Policies .................................................................................................................................. 5
Housing Action Plan .................................................................................................................................................. 5
Renton Comprehensive Plan .................................................................................................................................... 6
Comprehensive Plan Review ................................................................................................................ 6
Land Use Element ....................................................................................................................................................... 6
Housing and Human Services Element .................................................................................................................... 9
Existing Code Review ......................................................................................................................... 10
Title IV Development Regulations ......................................................................................................................... 10
Chapter 2 – Zoning Districts – Uses and Standards ..................................................................................... 10
Chapter 4 – City-Wide Property Development Standards ........................................................................ 16
Chapter 6 – Street and Utility Standards ...................................................................................................... 19
AGENDA ITEM #1. k)
City of Renton | Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 2
Chapter 9 – Permits – Specific ......................................................................................................................... 19
Past Code Amendments ...................................................................................................................... 20
Summary of Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 22
Racial Equity Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 23
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................ 23
Community Understanding ..................................................................................................................................... 23
Historical Context ................................................................................................................................................ 23
Analysis of Racially Disparate Impacts, Exclusion, and Displacement ........................................................... 27
Measures ............................................................................................................................................................... 27
Racially Disparate Impacts ................................................................................................................................ 28
Housing Tenure ..................................................................................................................................................... 31
Distribution of Environmental Exposure Risk ................................................................................................... 35
Summary of Analysis Findings ............................................................................................................................... 46
Table of Figures
Exhibit 1. 4-2-020 Existing Purpose and Intent of Zoning Districts ..................................................................... 11
Exhibit 2. 4-2-020 Recommended Changes to Purpose and Intent of Zoning Districts ................................... 11
Exhibit 3. Percentage of Housing Units Density ...................................................................................................... 12
Exhibit 4. 4-2-060 Zoning Use Table ....................................................................................................................... 12
Exhibit 5. 4-2-110A1 Existing Development Standards For Residential Zoning Designations ...................... 13
Exhibit 6. 4-2-110A Recommended Changes To Development Standards For Residential Zoning
Designations................................................................................................................................................................... 14
Exhibit 7. 4-2-115.2 Existing Open Space Standards ......................................................................................... 15
Exhibit 8. 4-2-115.3 Existing Residential Design Standards ............................................................................... 15
Exhibit 9. 4-2-116 Existing Accessory Dwelling Unit Residential Design Standards ....................................... 16
Exhibit 10. 4-4-080 Existing Parking Spaces Required Based on Land Use .................................................... 17
Exhibit 11. 4-4-080 Recommended Changes to Parking Spaces Required Based on Land Use .................. 18
Exhibit 12. Parking Area Versus Floor Space Ratio ............................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
Exhibit 13. Annexation History Map ......................................................................................................................... 25
AGENDA ITEM #1. k)
City of Renton | Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 3
Exhibit 14. Racially Restrictive Covenants in Renton: Representative Language from a Sample of
Covenants ....................................................................................................................................................................... 26
Exhibit 15. Renton Map of Race-Based Covenants ............................................................................................... 27
Exhibit 16. Measures of Racially Disparate Impacts, Exclusion, and Displacement ......................................... 27
Exhibit 17. Renton Median Household Income ........................................................................................................ 28
Exhibit 18. Median Household Income by Race and Ethnicity ............................................................................. 29
Exhibit 19. Average Rent Comparison ..................................................................................................................... 29
Exhibit 20. Rent Over Time ......................................................................................................................................... 30
Exhibit 21. Average home price over time .............................................................................................................. 31
Exhibit 22. Average home price in Renton at different AMI ................................................................................ 31
Exhibit 23. Housing Tenure Rates, 2010-2021 ...................................................................................................... 32
Exhibit 24. Home Owner Cost Burden by Race and Ethnicity .............................................................................. 33
Exhibit 25. Renter Cost Burden by Race and Ethnicity .......................................................................................... 34
Exhibit 26. Overcrowding in Renton ......................................................................................................................... 34
Exhibit 27. Washington Environmental Health Disparities Definition .................................................................. 35
Exhibit 28. Environmental Exposure Risk Map ........................................................................................................ 36
Exhibit 29. Commute Mode Split ............................................................................................................................... 37
Exhibit 30. Affordable Housing Projects in Renton ................................................................................................ 38
Exhibit 31. Municpality Eviction Study Comparison ............................................................................................... 39
Exhibit 32. Municipality Eviction Rate: by Race and Ethnicity .............................................................................. 40
Exhibit 33. Municipality Relative Risk of Eviction: by Race and Ethnicity .......................................................... 40
Exhibit 34. Evictions Study Map: Eviction Count ...................................................................................................... 41
Exhibit 35. Eviction Study Map: Eviction Rate ......................................................................................................... 41
Exhibit 36. Eviction Study Map: Relative Eviction Risk ........................................................................................... 42
Exhibit 37. Evictions Study Map: Relative Eviction Risk ......................................................................................... 42
Exhibit 38. Displacement Risk Index ......................................................................................................................... 44
Exhibit 39. Displacement Risk Table, Renton ........................................................................................................... 45
AGENDA ITEM #1. k)
City of Renton | Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 4
Introduction
The Comprehensive Plan and Policy review is an analysis of existing Renton Comprehensive Plan policies
and Municipal Code to determine the extent of amendments required to meet the goal of authorizing
middle housing types on at least 30% of lots currently zoned as single family residential. Middle housing
types include duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, fiveplexes, sixplexes, townhouses, courtyard apartments,
cottage housing, and stacked flats. Existing plans such as the Renton Housing Action Plan (HAP) and Vision
2050 have been assessed and provide context and recommendations as to how Middle Housing can
address housing needs in Renton. Housing policy recommendations for middle housing will allow more
diverse and affordable housing options for Renton’s residents and future households. This report is
designed to provide a review of the City’s existing codes and policiesto inform recommendations for next
steps. A racial equity analysis and a public engagement process will also be done in conjunction to
provide additional quantitative and qualitative information.
This report lists relevant comprehensive plan policies and municipal code affecting middle housing, with
notes, rationale, and questions for further discussion. Furthermore, key themes from this report will inform
discussion questions for public engagement and a framework for policy recommendations for middle
housing in Renton.
State Laws and Requirements
HB 1220 (link)
House Bill 1220 amended the Growth Management Act, adding greater specificity to the requirement of
the housing element. The new requirements are effective as of July 25, 2021. The updates strengthen the
GMA housing goal from “encourage the availability of affordable housing to all economic segments of
the population” to “plan for and accommodate housing affordable to all economic segments of the
population of this state,” making policy more actionable in planning for and accommodating households
of all incomes, including emergency and permanent supportive housing. The amendment also requires
counties and cities to identify and remove discriminatory barriers and undo racially disparate impacts.
Missing Middle Grant (link)
Section 189 of Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 5693, the 2022 supplemental operating budget, directs
the Washington State Department of Commerce (Commerce) to develop a grant program to support the
adoption of ordinances authorizing middle housing types, as well support to conduct a racial equity
analysis. The Middle Housing Grant Program is available to cities within King, Kitsap, Pierce, and
Snohomish counties.
Grantee jurisdictions must conduct actions relating to adopting ordinances that authorize middle housing
types on at least 30% of lots currently zoned as single family residential. “Middle housing types” include
duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, fiveplexes, sixplexes, townhouses, courtyard apartments, cottage housing,
and stacked flats.
AGENDA ITEM #1. k)
City of Renton | Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 5
Each city must use a racial equity analysis and establish anti-displacement policies as required under
RCW 36.70A.070(2)(e) through (h) to ensure there will be no net displacement of very low, low, or
moderate-income households, as defined in RCW 43.63A.510, or individuals from racial, ethnic, and
religious communities which have been subject to discriminatory housing policies in the past.
Relation to Other Plans
Vision 2050 (link)
The Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) develops policies and facilitates decisions about regional
growth, transportation, and economic development planning within King, Pierce, Snohomish, and Kitsap
counties. PSRC is composed of four counties, numerous cities and towns, ports, state and local
transportation agencies, and Tribal governments within the region.
The GMA requires multi-county planning policies (MPPs) that cities’ and counties’ comprehensive plans
must be consistent with. MPPs for King, Pierce, Snohomish, and Kitsap counties are adopted by PSRC in a
long-range plan called VISION 2050. VISION 2050 is the region’s plan to grow to accommodate 5.8
million people by 2050.
PSRC’s Regional Growth Strategy calls for the 16 Core Cities (including the City of Renton) to
accommodate 28% of the region’s population growth and 35% of its employment growth by 2050.
Within the Core Cities, jurisdictions should encourage growth near high-capacity transit stations and within
regional growth centers to achieve regional growth goals.
Countywide Planning Policies
Within the GMA framework, each county collaborates with its cities to adopt Countywide Planning
Policies (CPPs) and develop local growth targets that set expectations for local comprehensive plans.
Manufacturing and industrial centers (MICs) are also designated at this countywide level. In 2021 the
Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) approved new CPPs, and they have been approved by
the King County Council and ratified by the cities. The updated policies are consistent with PSRC’s newly
adopted VISION 2050. The CPPs set forth growth targets for housing and jobs, and identify a hierarchy
of centers reflecting VISION 2050 as well as countywide center. The CPPs also address equity and
environmental justice, environmental protection, and detailed affordable housing requirements, among
other policies.
Housing Action Plan (link)
The City of Renton received a grant from Commerce to create a Housing Action Plan in 2021. The Renton
City Council adopted the Final Housing Action Plan in October of 2021. The Housing Action Plan (HAP) is
the City of Renton’s short-term strategy for increasing housing options and affordability in the community
to achieve its vision of a more vibrant, inclusive, and equitable future. The City’s progress on
implementing the strategies and impacts to housing production and achieving the goals of the Plan will be
assessed as part of the update to the Comprehensive Plan in 2024.
AGENDA ITEM #1. k)
City of Renton | Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 6
Renton Comprehensive Plan (link)
Renton’s Comprehensive Plan includes a future land use map and goals and policies that accommodate its
2035 growth targets and govern housing, economic development, transportation, utilities, capital
facilities, and a variety of public and human services. The content, analyses, goals, and policies of
Renton’s Comprehensive Plan were developed in compliance with the GMA, King County’s Countywide
Planning Policies, and PSRC’s Regional Growth Strategy (at the time VISION 2040). The City will prepare
a periodic update of its Comprehensive Plan by 2024 to address more recent updates to GMA and
VISION 2050 as well as its new growth targets to 2044.
Comprehensive Plan Review
The Comprehensive Plan Review identifies relevant policies from Renton’s Land Use and Housing and
Human Services Element. The notes column on the right in the table below identifies changes that could
support middle housing in Renton. Considerations regarding middle housing include: explicit limitations on
middle housing styles or densities in policies or design limitations and open space and parking policies
that would impede middle housing.
This section is designed to inform policy recommendations with additional support from the racial equity
analysis and public engagement.
The policies were reviewed for racially disparate impacts using draft Commerce guidance, and notes are
in the right hand column. The evaluation included the following criteria:
The policy is valid and supports meeting the identified housing needs. The policy is needed and
addresses identified racially disparate impacts, displacement, and exclusion in housing. S Supportive
The policy can support meeting the identified housing needs but may be insufficient or does not
address racially disparate impacts, displacement, and exclusion in housing. A Approaching
The policy may challenge the jurisdictions' ability to meet the identified housing needs. The policy’s
benefits and burdens should be reviewed to optimize the ability to meet the policy’s objectives while
improving the equitable distribution of benefits and burdens imposed by the policy. C Challenging
The policy does not impact the jurisdiction’s ability to meet the identified housing needs and has no
influence or impact on racially disparate impacts, displacement, or exclusion. NA Not Applicable
Land Use Element
POLICY Middle Housing Support RDI Evaluation
RENTON LAND USE PLAN
Policy L-14: Residential-1 Zone – Lands with
significant environmental constraints, which
may have the potential for development at
a level of intensity that is compatible with
that environment, or lands that provide
urban separators should be zoned for
Residential-1 (R-1). R-1 zoning is allowed in
Include a provision that supports the inclusion
of attached and detached accessory dwelling
units.
A – The R1 zone can help meet identified
housing needs by accommodating
accessory dwelling units.
AGENDA ITEM #1. k)
City of Renton | Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 7
POLICY Middle Housing Support RDI Evaluation
the Residential Low Density land use
designation.
Policy L-14: Residential-4 Zone – Zone lands
suitable for large lot housing and suburban,
estate-style dwellings compatible with the
scale and density of the surrounding area
Residential-4 (R-4). R-4 zoning is allowed in
the Residential Low Density land use
designation.
Remove language around specific single
family housing styles and replace with “lands
suitable for single family housing
typologies”. Include a provision that supports
the inclusion of attached and detached
accessory dwelling units. The corresponding
zoning designation allows 0-4 du/ac.
A – Policy could include specific
descriptions of geography and desired
residential typologies.
Policy L-14: Residential Manufactured Home
Park Zone – Lands with existing
manufactured home parks as established
uses should be zoned Residential
Manufactured Home Park (RMH). RMH
zoning is allowed in the Residential Low
Density, Residential Medium Density, and
Residential High Density land Use
designations.
No changes are proposed for RMH zoned
parcels. S – This policy is supportive of the
achieving the GMA goal for housing.
Policy L-15: Residential Medium-Density -
Place areas that can support high-quality,
compact, urban development with access to
urban services, transit, and infrastructure,
whether through new development or
through infill, within the Residential Medium
Density (RMD) designation. Within the RMD
designation, allow a variety of single-family
development, with continuity created
through the application of design guidelines,
the organization of roadways, sidewalks,
public spaces, and the placement of
community gathering places and civic
amenities.
Exclusively single-family development should
not be supported outright in the RMD zone,
but instead could be included as part of a
new development including duplexes,
triplexes, fourplexes, fiveplexes, sixplexes,
townhouses, courtyard apartments, cottage
housing and stacked flats.
C – Prioritizing single family residential
development in the RMD designation is a
barrier to the implementation additional
missing middle typologies. Some middle
housing typologies should be allowed in
the code.
Policy L-15: Residential 6 Zone - Zone lands
Residential-6 (R-6) where there is land
suitable for larger lot development, an
opportunity for infill development, an
existing pattern of single-family
development in the range of four to eight
units per net acre, and where critical areas
are limited. R-6 zoning is allowed in the
Residential Medium Density land use
designation.
Remove specific density reference (4-8 units
per net acre) to establish a more flexible
density range within the municipal code
designation. The corresponding zoning
designation allows 3-6 du/ac which differs
from the guidance in L-15.
A – This density range could be more
supportive of missing middle housing
typologies to achieve the GMA goal for
housing.
Policy L-15: Residential 8 Zone - Zone lands
Residential-8 (R-8) where there is
opportunity to re-invest in existing single-
family neighborhoods through infill or the
opportunity to develop new single-family
plats at urban densities greater than four
dwelling units per acre. R-8 zoning is
allowed in the Residential Medium Density
land use designation.
Include missing middle typologies within the
R8 definition to expand beyond single family
and infill development. This may include
duplexes, triplexes, townhouses, and cottage
housing. The corresponding zoning
designation allows 4-8 du/ac.
A – Policy could include specific
descriptions of geography and desired
residential typologies.
Policy L-16: Residential High Density –
Designate land for Residential High Density
(RHD) where access, topography, and
adjacent land uses create conditions
appropriate for a variety of housing unit
types, or where there is existing multifamily
development. RHD unit types are designed
to incorporate features from both single
family and multifamily developments,
support cost-efficient housing, facilitate infill
development, have close access to transit
Exclusively single-family development should
not be supported outright in the RHD zone,
but instead could be included as part of a
new development including a mix of
duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, fiveplexes,
sixplexes, townhouses, courtyard apartments,
live/work lofts cottage housing and stacked
flats. Existing multifamily housing should not
be a prerequisite to implement an RHD
designation.
C – Prioritizing single family residential
development in the RHD designation is a
barrier to the implementation additional
missing middle typologies. Middle and
Multifamily housing should be prioritized.
AGENDA ITEM #1. k)
City of Renton | Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 8
POLICY Middle Housing Support RDI Evaluation
service, and efficiently use urban services
and infrastructure. Land designated RHD is
where projects will be compatible with
existing uses and where infrastructure is
adequate to handle impacts from higher
density uses.
Policy L-16: Residential-10 Zone – Zone
lands Residential-10 (R-10) where there is
an existing mix of single family and small-
scale multifamily use or there are vacant or
underutilized parcels that could be
redeveloped as infill and are located within
¼ mile of public transit service and a major
arterial. R-10 implements the Residential
High Density land use designation.
Remove the mention of single family uses as
exclusively single-family development should
not be supported outright in the RHD zone.
Include typologies that fit within this zone,
these may include a mix of duplexes,
triplexes, fourplexes, fiveplexes, sixplexes,
townhouses, courtyard apartments, live/work
lofts, cottage housing and stacked flats.
Additionally, consider expanding the distance
to major transit centers to ½ mile (Renton
Transit Center and South Renton Transit
Center) as this is in line with the urban design
concepts for a 15-minute neighborhood and
the forthcoming HB 1110.
A – This density range could be more
supportive of missing middle housing
typologies to achieve the GMA goal for
housing.
Policy L-16: Residential-14 Zone – Zone
lands Residential-14 (R-14) where it is
possible to develop a mix of compact
housing types in areas of approximately 20
acres or larger in size (may be in different
ownerships) or are within or adjacent to a
Growth Center The zone functions as a
transition zone between lower intensity
residential and higher intensity mixed use
zoning. R-14 implements the Residential
High Density land use designation.
Include typologies that fit within this zone,
these may include a mix of duplexes,
triplexes, fourplexes, fiveplexes, sixplexes,
townhouses, courtyard apartments, live/work
lofts, cottage housing and stacked flats.
Consider reducing the acreage for the size of
development expected as this zone is a
target for infill development.
A – Policy could include specific
descriptions of geography and desired
residential typologies.
Policy L-16: Residential Multi-Family Zone –
Zone lands Residential Multi Family (RMF)
where there is existing (or vested)
multifamily development of one-acre or
greater in size. Expanded RMF zoning
should only be where access is from a street
classified as a Principal arterial, Minor
arterial, or Collector, and where existing
multi-family is abutting at least two
property sides. RMF zoning implements the
Residential High Density land use
designation.
Expansion of the RMF designation should not
rely on the adjacency of existing multi-family
housing. In order to make this designation
more flexible, the requirement for existing
multifamily properties to abut at least two
property sides should be removed as it is
prohibitive of future RMF expansion.
C – Policy is restrictive and preventative in
nature.
Policy L-16: Commercial Neighborhood
Zone – Zone lands Commercial
Neighborhood (CN) that provide goods and
services on a small-scale to a surrounding
residential neighborhood and that front on
a street classified as a Principal arterial,
Minor arterial, or Collector. Expanded CN
zoning should only be where there is
opportunity to provide small limited-scale
commercial opportunity to the immediately
surrounding residential community that
would not result in an increase in scale or
intensity, which would alter the character of
the nearby residential neighborhood. The
CN zone implements the Residential High
Density land use designation.
Remove language around residential
neighborhood character and adjust to
encourage a mix of housing typologies in an
effort to anticipate the needs of future
residents.
C – Language conflates desired
characteristics with a housing type.
AGENDA ITEM #1. k)
City of Renton | Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 9
POLICY Middle Housing Support RDI Evaluation
PROMOTING A SAFE, HEALTHY, AND
ATTRACTIVE
COMMUNITY
Policy L-57: Provide complete arranged as
an interconnecting network or grid. Locate
planter strips between the curb and the
sidewalk in order to provide separation
between cars and pedestrians. Discourage
dead-end streets and cul-de-sacs.
Consider requiring new master planned
developments in R4 – R14 zoning
designations to create connected and
hierarchical street networks. Alternatively,
prohibiting new master planned development
from building dead-end streets and cul-de-
sacs when not adjacent to significant or
unavoidable critical areas.
A – This density range could be more
supportive of missing middle housing
typologies to achieve the GMA goal for
housing.
Housing and Human Services Element
POLICY Middle Housing Support RDI Evaluation
Policy HHS-3: Work with other jurisdictions
and organizations, including the Renton
Housing Authority and non-profit housing
developers, to address the need for housing
to be affordable to very low-income
households. This housing should focus on
accessibility, mobility, and proximity to social
services
Make specific mention of the AMI this policy is
planning for. Site very-low income housing in
RLD land uses.
S – This policy is supportive of the
achieving the GMA goal for housing.
Policy HHS-4: Promote homeownership
opportunities for households of all incomes.
Provide explicit affordability targets for
moderate (120%), low (80% AMI), very low
(50% AMI) housing, and extremely low-income
(30% AMI) households. See allocations
developed regionally.1
A – Policy could include specific
affordability targets.
Policy HHS-B: Ensure a variety of housing
types are available within the City that meet
the needs of the present without
compromising the needs of future generations
Including duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes,
fiveplexes, sixplexes, townhouses, courtyard
apartments, cottage housing and stacked flats.
A – Policy could include specific
descriptions of geography and desired
residential typologies.
Policy HHS-6: Implement inclusionary zoning
provisions and other techniques that result in
a range of housing types, at different
densities, and prices in new developments
that address the housing needs of all people
at all stages of life, including vulnerable
populations.
Including bonuses for middle and affordable
housing typologies. A – This policy could be more
supportive of the GMA goal for
housing.
Policy HHS-8: Continue to allow Accessory
Dwelling Units in single family residential
areas and ensure they are compatible with
the existing neighborhood.
Support through inclusionary zoning and
financial incentive programs as well as permit-
ready program. Remove vague architectural
compatibility requirements.
A – Architectural compatibility
requirements may challenge the
jurisdiction’s ability to mee the GMA
housing goal or interfere with anti-RDI
efforts, particularly if policy language
is vague.
Policy HHS-9: Foster and locate new housing
in proximity to Employment Centers and
streets that have public transportation
Include/prioritize middle and affordable
Housing typologies. A – This policy could be more
supportive of the GMA goal for
housing.
1 Available at: https://kingcounty.gov/~/media/depts/community-human-services/housing-homelessness-community-
development/documents/affordable-housing-
committee/Statements%20Issued%20by%20the%20Committee/GMPC_Motion_21-1_Recommendation_Transmittal_2022,-
d-,12,-d-,29.ashx?la=en.
AGENDA ITEM #1. k)
City of Renton | Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 10
POLICY Middle Housing Support RDI Evaluation
systems in place, and complements existing
housing.
Policy HHS-26: Encourage construction of
universally designed units, supportive housing
arrangements, and transitional housing in
close proximity (within one-quarter mile) to
public transportation.
Increase the proximity of supportive housing to
one-half mile to public transportation. A – This policy could be more
supportive of the GMA goal for
housing by increasing the proximity of
supportive housing to transit service.
Existing Code Review
The existing code review focuses on Chapter 2 – Zoning Regulations, Chapter 4 – City Wide Property
Development Standards, Chapter 6 – Street and Utility Standards, and Chapter 9 – Permits – Specific of
the Renton Municipal Code. Recommended changes to the existing code aid in adopting ordinances that
would authorize middle housing types on at least 30% of lots currently zoned as single family residential.
“Middle housing types” include duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, fiveplexes, sixplexes, townhouses,
courtyard apartments, cottage housing and stacked flats. The City of Renton’s zoning by density
approach is one of the largest barriers to implementing missing middle housing typologies. The banded
zoning designations are largely designed for detached single family residential typologies with the
exception of the Residential Multi Family (RMF) zone. The following recommendations attempt to
associate the existing zoning designations with a more inclusive selection of missing middle housing
typologies.
Title IV Development Regulations
Chapter 2 – Zoning Districts – Uses and Standards
Chapter 4-2 RMC contains zone-related land use regulations, and zone-related development standards,
primarily in tabular form. Chapter 4-2 RMC additionally includes provisions for interpreting the Zoning
Map that delineate the zoning and overlay districts and provisions for determining the permissibility of
unclassified uses.
4-2-020 – Purpose and Intent of Zoning Districts
This section establishes the approved density ranges for the zoning districts that implement the land use
vision in the comprehensive plan. As it is written, the zone indicates the maximum net density permitted
within the zone with the exception for density bonuses intended to allow assisted living facilities to
develop in zones with a low max net density threshold. The zoning districts correspond with land use
designations in the comprehensive plan, and as the code is written, provide a narrow range for missing
middle housing typologies to be included.
AGENDA ITEM #1. k)
City of Renton | Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 11
Exhibit 1. 4-2-020 Existing Purpose and Intent of Zoning Districts
Land Use Zone Minimum
Net Density
Maximum Net Density
Residential Low Density
(RLD)
R-1 N/A 1 DU/AC *Density bonus provisions, of up to eighteen (18)
dwelling units per acre, are intended to allow assisted living to
develop with higher densities within the zone
R-4 N/A 4 DU/AC
Residential Medium
Density (RMD)
R-6 3 DU/AC 6 DU/AC
R-8 4 DU/AC 8 DU/AC
Residential High Density
(RHD)
R-10 5 DU/AC 10 DU/AC
R-14 7 DU/AC 14 DU/AC *Opportunities for bonuses up to eighteen (18)
dwelling units per net acre
RMF 10 DU/AC 20 DU/AC *Opportunities for bonuses up to twenty five (25)
dwelling units per net acre
Source: Renton Municipal Code, 2022.
The recommended change doubles the minimum net density of the residential zone and increases capacity
and flexibility for missing middle housing typologies. The change maintains the existing zone designations
and uses the naming convention to establish minimum net densities as opposed to maximum net densities.
This will allow greater flexibility within the individual zoning designations to accommodate missing middle
housing typologies while gently increasing residential density through the city.
Exhibit 2. 4-2-020 Recommended Changes to Purpose and Intent of Zoning Districts
Land Use Zone Mean Net
Density in
Buildable
Lands
Minimum
Net
Density
Maximum Net Density
Residential Low
Density (RLD)
R-1 1.57 N/A 1 DU/AC *Density bonus provisions, of up to eighteen (18)
dwelling units per acre, are intended to allow assisted living
to develop with higher densities within the zone
R-4 3.72 2 DU/AC 6 DU/AC
Residential Medium
Density (RMD)
R-6 4.75 6 DU/AC 8 DU/AC
R-8 5.52 8 DU/AC 10 DU/AC
Residential High
Density (RHD)
R-10 10.79 10 DU/AC 14 DU/AC
R-14 10.78 14 DU/AC 20 DU/AC
RMF 21.35 10 DU/AC 30 DU/AC
Sources: Renton Municipal Code, 2022; BERK, 2022.
R-1, R-8, R-10, and RMF zones all have roughly 90% of units at 75%+ net density which indicates a
need for increased capacity. R-6 shows that 53% of units are at 75%+ net density which is an indicator
that single family homes are being built, likely without ADUs. R-8 and R-10 are where additional changes
AGENDA ITEM #1. k)
City of Renton | Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 12
to permitted uses, and increases in minimum net density will benefit the inclusion of additional missing
middle housing typologies. Additionally, RMF zoning indicates a need for increased density beyond what
can be achieved through density bonuses. Allowing a larger minimum net density range, with an
increased max net density, will allow market forces to guide housing preference.
Exhibit 3. Percentage of Housing Units Density
Zone Designation Percent of Units at 75%+ Net Density Allowed Middle Housing Typologies
Rresidential-1 97% Detached dwelling, ADUs
Residential-4 77% Detached dwelling, ADUs
Residential-6 53% Detached dwelling, ADUs
Residential-8 88% Detached dwelling, ADUs
Residential-10 89% Detached dwelling (R-10, R-14)
Live/Work (R-14)
Townhouses (All)
Attached dwellings/Flats (All)
Garden Apartments (RM-F)
Residential-14 44%
Residential Multi Family 89%
Source: BERK, 2022.
4-2-060 - Zoning Use Table – uses allowed in zoning designations
The existing permitted residential uses limit missing middle housing typologies and allow opportunities for
detached dwellings to built in all zoning designations except for RMF. Below are recommended changes
to permitted uses that increase the flexibility of missing middle housing typologies and address the
density changes recommended in 4-2-020.
Exhibit 4. 4-2-060 Zoning Use Table
Zone Designation Permitted Residential Uses Additional Recommended Permitted Housing Typologies
Rresidential-1 Detached dwelling, ADUs
Residential-4 Detached dwelling, ADUs
Residential-6 Detached dwelling, ADUs Attached Dwellings including Flats should be permitted uses in R-6 zoning
Residential-8 Detached dwelling, ADUs Attached Dwellings including Flats, Townhouses, and Carriage Houses
should be permitted uses in R-8 zoning.
Residential-10 Detached dwelling, ADUs, Flats,
Townhouses, Carriage Houses
New detached dwellings should be removed as an outright permitted
use. Duplexes and Triplexes should be permitted uses in R-10 zoning.
Residential-14 Detached dwelling, ADUs, Flats, Live
Work Units, Townhouses, Carriage
Houses, Congregate Residence
Detached Dwelling should be removed as an outright permitted use.
Fourplexes, fiveplexes, and sixplexes should be permitted uses in R-14
zoning.
Residential Multi Family Flats, Garden Style Apartments,
Townhouses, Carriage Houses
Congregate Residences, fourplexes, fiveplexes, and sixplexes should be
permitted uses in R-14 zoning.
Source: Renton Municipal Code, 2022.
AGENDA ITEM #1. k)
City of Renton | Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 13
4-2-110 - Residential development standards
Commensurate with the recommendation to increase the minimum and maximum net densities for the
residential zoning designations, recommended changes to the development standards for residential
zoning designations include: allowing the maximum density determine the number of dwellings per legal
lot for medium and high density designations, increasing the max building coverage for R-8 through RMF
zones to accommodate the increased net density, and removing the cap set on maximum number of units
per building for R-10 and R-14. The underlying max net density and accompanying setback standards
will effectively regulate this. Exhibit 5, below, shows the existing development standards.
Exhibit 5. 4-2-110A1 Existing Development Standards For Residential Zoning Designations
RC R-1 R-4 R-6 R-8 R-10 R-14 RMF
Minimum Net
Density (per Net
Acre)1, 2, 15
None 3 dwelling
units
4 dwelling
units
5 dwelling
units30
7 dwelling
units30
10 dwelling
units30
Maximum Net
Density (per Net Acre,
Except per Net 10
Acres in RC)2, 14, 15
1 dwelling
unit
1 dwelling
unit7, 36
4 dwelling
units
6 dwelling
units
8 dwelling
units38
10 dwelling
units29
14 dwelling
units29
20 dwelling
units29
Maximum Number of
Dwellings (per Legal
Lot)2
1 dwelling
with 1
accessory
dwelling
unit
1 dwelling
with 1
accessory
dwelling
unit7
1 dwelling with 1
accessory dwelling unit
1 dwelling
with 1
accessory
dwelling
unit
Detached dwellings: 1
dwelling with 1 accessory
dwelling unit
Attached dwellings: n/a
Per Maximum
Net Density
Maximum Building
Coverage (including
Primary and Accessory)
10% 20% 35% 40% 50% 55% 65% Townhouses:
70%
Other
Attached
Dwellings:
35%
A maximum
coverage of
45% may be
allowed
through the
Hearing
Examiner site
development
plan review
process.
Maximum Impervious
Surface Area
15% 25% 50% 55% 65% 70% 80% 75%
Maximum Number of
Units per Building2
n/a No more
than 4 units
per building.
No more
than 6 units
per building.
n/a
Source: Renton Municipal Code, 2022.
The recommended changes mirror the density changes in 4-2-020 while also encoring changes to lot
coverage and maximum number dwelling per lot and maximum number of units per building. The
maximum building coverage for R8 – R14 is changed to match the approved townhouse lot coverage of
70% in the existing RMF zone. Lot coverage for other attached dwellings is increased to 65%, effectively
making each individual parcel more effective in accommodating a variety of housing typologies. R10 –
AGENDA ITEM #1. k)
City of Renton | Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 14
R14 previously permitted no more than 4 and 6 units per building, respectively. The recommended
change is to remove limits on units per building, and let the underlying zoning dictate the density, lot
coverage, and height of the structure as shown in Exhibit 6.
Exhibit 6. 4-2-110A Recommended Changes To Development Standards For Residential Zoning Designations
RC R-1 R-4 R-6 R-8 R-10 R-14 RMF
Minimum Net
Density (per Net Acre)1,
2, 15
None 2 6 dwelling
units
8 dwelling
units
10 dwelling
units30
14
dwelling
units30
10 dwelling
units30
Maximum Net
Density (per Net Acre,
Except per Net 10
Acres in RC)2, 14, 15
1 dwelling
unit
1 dwelling
unit7, 36
4 dwelling
units
8 dwelling
units
10
dwelling
units38
14 dwelling
units29
20
dwelling
units29
30 dwelling
units29
Maximum Number of
Dwellings (per Legal
Lot)2
1 dwelling
with 1
accessory
dwelling
unit
1 dwelling
with 1
accessory
dwelling
unit7
1 dwelling with 1
accessory dwelling unit
Per
Maximum
Net Density
Per Maximum Net
Density
Per Maximum
Net Density
Maximum Building
Coverage (including
Primary and Accessory)
10% 20% 35% 55% Townhouses: 70%
Other attached Dwellings: 65%
Townhouses:
70%
Other Attached
Dwellings: 65%
A maximum
coverage of
45% may be
allowed through
the Hearing
Examiner site
development
plan review
process.
Maximum Impervious
Surface Area
15% 25% 50% 55% 65% 70% 80% 75%
Maximum Number of
Units per Building2
n/a n/a n/a n/a
Source: Renton Municipal Code, 2022; BERK
4-2-115 - Residential design and open space standards
Consider the impacts of primary entry and open space requirements. When four or more units are
proposed in a development, located within an R-10 or R-14 zone, there is a fixed requirement for 350
square feet of common open space. This requirement may prevent additional lot coverage needed to
accommodate greater density in Residential High Density zones. Some communities allow for a reduction
of onsite open space if in a ¼ mile of a public park (and fee in lieu). See Exhibit 7.
AGENDA ITEM #1. k)
City of Renton | Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 15
Exhibit 7. 4-2-115.2 Existing Open Space Standards
Standards for Common Open Space
R-10 and R-14 Developments of four (4) or more units: Required to provide common open space as outlined below. Above
ground drainage facilities (i.e., ponds, swales, ditches, rain gardens, etc.) shall not be counted towards the
common open space requirement.
For each unit in the development, three hundred fifty (350) square feet of common open space shall be
provided.
Open space shall be designed as a park, common green, pea-patch, pocket park, or pedestrian entry
easement in the development and shall include picnic areas, space for recreational activities, and other
activities as appropriate.
Open space shall be located in a highly visible area and be easily accessible to the neighborhood.
Open space(s) shall be contiguous to the majority of the dwellings in the development and accessible to all
dwellings. For sites one acre or smaller in size, open space(s) shall be at least thirty feet (30') in at least one
dimension. For sites larger than one acre in size, open space(s) shall be at least forty feet (40') in at least one
dimension. For all sites, to allow for variation, open space(s) of less than the minimum dimension (thirty feet
(30') or forty feet (40'), as applicable) are allowed; provided, that when all of a site’s open spaces are
averaged, the applicable dimension requirement is met.
A pedestrian entry easement can be counted as open space if it has a minimum width of twenty feet (20')
and within that twenty feet (20') a minimum five feet (5') of sidewalk is provided.
Source: Renton Municipal Code, 2022.
In instances where rowhouse and townhouse style housing is proposed in R-10 and R-14 zones, the
primary entrance requirements may be too prescriptive and present a barrier to site design. This may
specifically hinder walk-up style rowhouse development, which may be a typology well suited for R-14
zones. See Exhibit 8.
Exhibit 8. 4-2-115.3 Existing Residential Design Standards
Primary Entry Standards
R-10 and R-14 Both of the following are required:
The entry shall take access from and face a street, park, common green, pocket park, pedestrian
easement, or open space, and
The entry shall include a porch or stoop with a minimum depth of five feet (5') and minimum height
twelve inches (12") above grade.
Exception: in cases where accessibility (ADA) is a priority, an accessible route may be taken from a front
driveway.
Source: Renton Municipal Code, 2022.
4-2-116 - Accessory dwelling unit residential design standards
Renton should consider removing all architectural compatibility requirements for ADUs, as these are
arbitrary and rely on pre-existing conditions that may be undesirable and hinder the construction of
future ADUs. To simplify and streamline permitting, the City of Renton has already offered pre-approved
AGENDA ITEM #1. k)
City of Renton | Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 16
DADU construction plans that create a faster, easier, and more predictable design and permitting
process.2 Exhibit 9, below, shows existing Municipal code for DADUs.
Exhibit 9. 4-2-116 Existing Accessory Dwelling Unit Residential Design Standards
Scale, Bulk, And Character: Residential communities are intended for people and homes that have
appropriate scale and bulk to contribute to the sense of orientation to people.
Guidelines: The ADU shall visually demonstrate that it is accessory, or subordinate, to the primary structure by its reduced scale and bulk.
Standards:
R-4, R-6, R-8, R-10, and
R-14
The ADU shall be architecturally compatible with significant architectural details of the primary structure,
dominating forms, and design elements, such as eaves, roof pitch, roof form, porches, principal dormers,
materials, and other significant architectural features.
Architectural Detailing: Architectural detailing contributes to the visual appeal of a home and the community. It
helps create a desirable human scale and a perception of a quality, well-designed home.
Guidelines: The ADU shall visually demonstrate a clear relationship with the primary structure so that the two (2) structures are
architecturally compatible. Architectural detail shall be provided that is consistent with the architectural character of the primary structure;
detailing like materials and color, fenestration, trim, columns, eaves, and/or corner boards shall reflect the architectural character of the
primary structure.
Source: Renton Municipal Code, 2022.
Chapter 4 – City-Wide Property Development Standards
Chapter 4-4 contains regulations and standards governing site development of property City-wide, such
as parking, landscaping, fencing, and others.
4-4-080 - Parking, loading, and driveway regulations
Providing off-street parking with new development increases the fixed cost of development and reduces
the net developable square footage of a parcel. Costs associated with meeting minimum parking
requirements, especially in multifamily housing, may add additional challenges to building affordable
housing by adding fixed costs to construction. According to the Victoria Transit Policy Institute, “one
parking space per unit typically increases moderate-priced housing costs approximately 12%, and two
parking spaces increases lower-priced housing costs by 25%.”3 Reducing or eliminating parking
requirements could substantially reduce the development costs of multifamily buildings, especially in
locations that are well-served by public transportation. The following recommendations reduces the
minimum parking requirements for detached dwelling and townhouses, cottage housing, and attached
dwellings in R-10, R-14, and RMF. Exhibit 10 shows the existing code, with recommendations for change
in Exhibit 11.
2 See: https://www.rentonwa.gov/city_hall/community_and_economic_development/permit_ready_a_d_u_program.
3 Victoria Transit Policy Institute, 2022.
AGENDA ITEM #1. k)
City of Renton | Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 17
Exhibit 10. 4-4-080 Existing Parking Spaces Required Based on Land Use
Residential Uses Outside of Center Downtown Zone:
Minimum Maximum
Detached dwellings and townhouses: 2 per dwelling unit
1 per 1 bedroom unit
Cottage house developments: 1.6 per 3 bedroom and
large dwelling units
1.4 per 2 bedroom units
1 per 1 bedroom and
studio units
1.6 per 3 bedroom and
large dwelling units
1.4 per 2 bedroom units
1 per 1 bedroom and studio
units
Congregate residences: 1 per sleeping room
1 for the proprietor
1 additional space for each
4 persons employed on the
premise
1 per sleeping room
1 for the proprietor
1 additional space for each
4 persons employed on the
premise
Attached dwellings in RMF, R-14 and R-10 Zones: 1.6 per 3 bedroom and
large dwelling units
1.4 per 2 bedroom units
1 per 1 bedroom and
studio units
1.6 per 3 bedroom and
large dwelling units
1.4 per 2 bedroom units
1 per 1 bedroom and studio
units
Attached dwellings within all other zones: 1 per dwelling unit 1.75 per dwelling unit
Attached dwelling for low income: 1 per every 4 units 1.75 per unit
Live-work unit, residential unit: 1 per dwelling unit 1 per dwelling unit
Accessory dwelling unit: 1 per dwelling unit
ADUs located within 1/4
mile of a mass transit
facility, as defined in
RMC 4-2-080, shall be
exempt from off-street
parking requirements.
1 per dwelling unit
Source: Renton Municipal Code, 2022.
The following recommendations reduce the minimum parking requirements for detached dwelling and
townhouses, cottage housing, and attached dwellings in R-10, R-14, and RMF (see Exhibit 11). As the
code is currently written, required parking standards are static for cottage housing and attached
dwellings in R10 – RMF zones, meaning that there is no range between the minimum and maximum
required. In order to build in flexibility and reduce the inclusion of redundant parking spaces, it is
recommended that the standard minimum parking space per unit is reduced to 1, with consideration made
for unit sizes.
AGENDA ITEM #1. k)
City of Renton | Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 18
Exhibit 11. 4-4-080 Recommended Changes to Parking Spaces Required Based on Land Use
Residential Uses Outside of Center Downtown Zone:
Minimum Maximum
Detached dwellings and townhouses: 1 per dwelling unit
Cottage house developments: Studio: 0
1 bedroom: 1
2 bedroom: 1
3+ bedroom: 1
Studio: 1
1 bedroom: 1
2 bedroom: 1.5
3+ bedroom: 1.5
Congregate residences: 1 per sleeping room
1 for the proprietor
1 additional space for each
4 persons employed on the
premise
1 per sleeping room
1 for the proprietor
1 additional space for each
4 persons employed on the
premise
Attached dwellings in RMF, R-14 and R-10 Zones: Studio: 0
1 bedroom: 1
2 bedroom: 1
3+ bedroom: 1
Studio: 1
1 bedroom: 1
2 bedroom: 1.5
3+ bedroom: 1.5
Attached dwellings within all other zones: 1 per dwelling unit 1.75 per dwelling unit
Attached dwelling for low income: 1 per every 4 units 1.75 per unit
Live-work unit, residential unit: 1 per dwelling unit 1 per dwelling unit
Accessory dwelling unit: 1 per dwelling unit
ADUs located within 1/4
mile of a mass transit
facility, as defined in
RMC 4-2-080, shall be
exempt from off-street
parking requirements.
1 per dwelling unit
Source: Renton Municipal Code, 2022; BERK
Parking supply is essential to thriving business districts in the City of Renton. Unrestricted Parking zones
allow for a vehicle to occupy a space for up to 72 hours. The impact of unrestricted parking influences
drivers’ behavior, leading drivers to use curbside parking as a form of short-term vehicle storage. Paid
Parking zones improve the utilization of curbside parking resources and encourage short-stay parking for
those visiting and working in the neighborhood. A secondary benefit of this policy change is the positive
impact on the public realm. Frequent parking turnover will increase street level activation and pedestrian
circulation, and will contribute to a vibrant and thriving commercial core. Paid parking also influences
transportation mode choice, and may encourage more bus, streetcar, and bicycle trips to and from the
neighborhood. More trips utilizing multimodal transit translates to a more pedestrian-focused transit
environment and a more active public realm. If on-street parking is carefully managed, off-street parking
solutions will not be as urgently needed.
Source: Reinventing Transport, 2019.
AGENDA ITEM #1. k)
City of Renton | Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 19
Chapter 6 – Street and Utility Standards
The development-related requirements for water, sewer, storm drainage and street construction are
contained in chapter 4-6 RMC.
4-6-060 - Street standards
Shared driveway standards in 4-6-060-J state that:
Where Permitted: Shared driveways may be allowed for access to no more
than four (4) residentially zoned lots, and no more than four (4) residential
units, the types of which are listed in RMC 4-2-060C, provided:
a. At least one lot abuts a public right-of-way and the street frontage of the
lot is equal to or greater than the lot width requirement of the zone;
b. The subject lots are not created by a subdivision of ten (10) or more lots;
c. A public street is not anticipated by the City of Renton to be necessary for
existing or future traffic and/or pedestrian circulation through the short
subdivision or to serve adjacent property;
d. The shared driveway would not adversely affect future circulation to
neighboring properties;
e. The shared driveway is no more than three hundred feet (300') in length;
and
f. The shared driveway poses no safety risk and provides sufficient access for
emergency vehicles and personnel.
How might this requirement limit anticipated future residential development in R-8 – RMF zoning? Within
the context of Renton’s Residential Medium and Low Density urban form, increases in future density may
necessitate that missing middle housing typologies have more than four units sharing a drive around a cul-
de-sac. The unit threshold of the existing standard should be discussed with an interdepartmental team of
City staff to understand implications of increasing the number of units permitted to share a driveway.
Chapter 9 – Permits – Specific
This Chapter contains detailed permit process and evaluation criteria for the various permits and
requests, including, but not limited to, conditional use permits, site plan review, and variances.
4-9-065 - Density bonus review
Cottage housing is currently incentivized for market rate density bonuses at a rate of 2.5 times the
maximum density that could be achieved based on the underlying zone. The City should consider
AGENDA ITEM #1. k)
City of Renton | Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 20
incentivizing additional missing middle typologies through similar density bonus programs. This incentive
will depend on a coordinated vision for the inclusion of missing middle housing including duplexes,
triplexes, fourplexes, fiveplexes, sixplexes, townhouses, courtyard apartments, and stacked flats.
4-9-065.D.3. Cottage House Developments: Bonus market-rate dwellings
may be granted at a rate of two and one-half (2.5) times the maximum
density that could be achieved in a standard subdivision based on the
development standards of the underlying residential zone. The applicant shall
submit a pro forma subdivision plan for the proposed property showing the
number of conventional lots that would be permitted by the underlying zone.
This pro forma subdivision plan will be used to determine the maximum
number unit lots allowed, by multiplying the number of lots in the pro forma
subdivision plan by two and one-half (2.5). (Ord. 6042, 12-13-2021)
Past Code Amendments
The City has made several recent changes relevant to housing development in Renton. Below is a
summary or ordinances from 2018 – 2022 that are relevant to housing development, changes in zoning
classifications, and land use.
Ordinance 6102 was adopted in 2022, establishing new standards for Multifamily Housing by
adding Section 4-4-155 and amending Section 4-11-040 of the Renton Municipal Code.
Ordinance 6101 was adopted in 2022, amending Subsections 4-2-110.E, 4-2-120.B, 4-2-120.C,
and 4-2-130.B of the Renton Municipal Code to adjust the maximum building height in the Center
Downtown Zone and correct references to the Airport Related Height restrictions.
Ordinance 6099 was adopted in 2022, amending Subsection 4-4-080.F.10 of the Renton Municipal
Code, amending parking regulations for converted land uses.
Ordinance 6078 was adopted in 2022, amending Subsection 4‐1‐220.D.2 of the Renton Municipal
Code, amending multi-family tax exemption housing types.
Ordinance 6048 was adopted in 2021, amending Subsections 4-2-110.A and 4-2-110.E.20 of the
Renton Municipal Code, amending height and setback regulations in the RMF (Residential Multi-
Family) Zone.
Ordinance 6046 was adopted in 2021, amending Subsections 4-4-080.A.7 and 4-4-080.F.10.D,
SECTION 4-9-030, and the definition of “Dwelling Unit, Accessory” in Section 4-11-040 of the
Renton Municipal Code, amending Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) regulations.
Ordinance 6042 was adopted in 2021, amending Sections 4-2-110 and 4-2-115, Subsections 4-4-
080.F.10.D, 4-4-090.A, and 4-4-090.B, Section 4-7-090, Subsections 4-9-065.A, 4-9-065.B, 4-5-
065.D, 4-9-200.B, and 4-9-200.D, and Section 4-11-030 of the Renton Municipal Code, adding
cottage house development regulations, including adding a definition of “Cottage House
Development” to Section 4-11-030.
AGENDA ITEM #1. k)
City of Renton | Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 21
Ordinance 6015 was adopted in 2021, amending Subsection 4-2-080.A.6 of the Renton Municipal
Code, adding regulations for mixed-income housing in the Center Village (CV) Zone; lifting the
moratorium for Large Residential Projects established by Ordinance No. 5967 and as extended by
Ordinance No. 5982.
Ordinance 6008 was adopted in 2020, changing the zoning classification of twenty-nine parcels
bounded by SE Petrovitsky Road to the north, 118th Avenue SE to the East, SE 180th Street to the
south, and 116th Avenue SE to the west within the City Of Renton from Residential Four (R-4) to
Residential Six (R-6).
Ordinance 6002 was adopted in 2020, revising Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) regulations by
amending Subsections 4-2-110.C, 4-2-110.E, and 4-2-116.B.2 of the Renton Municipal Code.
Ordinance 5960 was adopted in 2019, amending Renton Municipal Code subsections 4-2-060.D, 4-
2-080.A.7, 4-2-110.A, 4-2-110.B, 4-2-110.C, 4-2-110.D, 4-2-110.E, 4-2-110.F, 4-3-110.E.5.A.I, 4-
4-080.E.2.A, 4-4-080.E.2.E, and 4-4-080.F.10.D; Chapter 4-2; and Section 4-9-030; by amending
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) development standards, including adding a new Section 4-2-116
Regulating ADU Design Standards, amending Parking Standards relating to ADUs, adding a new
Subsection 4-9-030.H.
Ordinance 5920 was adopted in 2019, establishing the zoning classification of certain property
annexed within the City of Renton from R‐4 (Urban Residential 4 Dwelling Units Per Acre, King
County Zoning) to R‐4 (Residential 4 Du/AC; four dwelling units per acre, City of Renton Zoning)
(Wolf Woods Annexation, File No. A-17-002).
Ordinance 5914 was adopted in 2018, changing the Zoning Classification of four parcels
(7227801315, 7227801290, 7227801295, 7227801300) within the City of Renton from
Residential Fourteen Dwelling Units per acre (R-14) to Center Village (CV) (CPA 2018-M-01).
AGENDA ITEM #1. k)
City of Renton | Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 22
Summary of Analysis
The review and analysis of the Renton Comprehensive Plan policies and Municipal Code presented
recommendations and amendments required to meet the goal of authorizing middle housing types on at
least 30% of lots currently zoned as single family residential. Recommended changes to the
Comprehensive Plan are focused on the Land Use and Housing and Human Services Elements. These
changes include specific inclusion of missing middle typologies in an effort to establish expectations for
land use designations as they relate to zoning districts. Additionally, there are recommendations for
specifying AMI bands that are being planned for and accommodated in the HHS element. Recommended
changes to the existing land use code is centered on Chapters 2 – Zoning Regulations, 4 – City Wide
Property Development Standards, 6 – Street and Utility Standards, and 9 – Permits.
Changes to Chapter 2 include revisions to the permitted net residential densities within residential zoning
districts. In an effort to increase residential density and create more flexibility for missing middle housing
typologies, it is recommended that the current naming convention for the zoning district be used to mark
the minimum net density as opposed to the maximum net density. For example, R4 would have a minimum
net density of 2 DU/AC and a maximum net 4 DU/AC instead of no minimum DU/AC.
Changes to Chapter 4 are focused on parking reductions for detached dwelling and townhouses, cottage
housing, and attached dwellings in RMF, R-14 and R-10 Zones. Parking requirements contribute to the
fixed costs of a new development, which are often passed along to future tenants. By building in a
minimum and maximum range that scales to the size of the unit, future development may reduce the at-
grade footprint for parking and reduce the cost of development.
Chapter 6 focuses on Street and Utility Standards. There is an existing requirement that shared
driveways may be used for access by no more than 4 residential units. How might this requirement limit
anticipated future residential development in R-8 – RMF zoning? Within the context of Renton’s
Residential Medium and Low Density urban form, increases in future density may necessitate that missing
middle housing typologies have more than four units sharing a drive around a cul-de-sac.
Chapter 9 focuses on Permits. A future area for discussion is around density bonuses, and if there are
additional typologies that the City wishes to incentivize through a bonus structure. There are existing
density bonusses for cottage housing.
CODE NOTES
Land Use Element Make RLD, RMD, and RHD land uses distinct by prohibiting new
standalone detached dwellings in RMD and RHD land use
designations.
Housing And Human Services Element Specify the AMI and housing typologies that are being planned
for. Expand density incentives beyond cottage housing.
Chapter 2 – Zoning Regulations Adjust the max net density for RMD and RHD land uses to increase
capacity for missing middle typologies. Adjust the permitted uses to
allow a larger spectrum of uses in R-10 – RMF zones.
Chapter 4 – City Wide Property Development Standards Reduce parking minimums to make new housing development more
affordable.
Chapter 6 – Street and Utility Standards Discuss street standards and clarify intent with shared driveway
requirements.
Chapter 9 – Permits - Specific Discuss density bonuses as they are applied to market rate housing
development.
AGENDA ITEM #1. k)
City of Renton | Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 23
Racial Equity Analysis
Introduction
The purpose of the Racial Equity Analysis is to provide a review of the planning history within the city of
Renton, and a quantitative data analysis of population and housing trends, as well as to summarize key
findings. This information, in conjunction with policy and code review, will establish a baseline for making
equitable planning and code recommendations to minimize displacement and ensure that BIPOC
communities have access to affordable housing that meets their needs. A public engagement process will
help answer questions raised in this process and will inform best practices for middle housing in Renton.
Community Understanding
Historical Context
Renton pre-1900
Before Renton was incorporated as a town in 1901, the land was occupied by the Duwamish and Upper
Puyallup people, who now compose the ferderally recognized Muchelshoot Indian Tribe.4 In 1855, the
Treaty of Point Elliot was signed between the US government and many regional tribes, including the
Duwamish tribe, which exchanged 54,000 acres of land for a guarantee of reservations, and hunting and
fishing rights. Included in this land exchange was the present-day cities of Seattle, Renton, Tukwila,
Bellevue, as well as more areas across King County.5 Soon after the Treaty of Point Elliot was signed, it
was violated by European-American immigrants, thereby triggering several years of war. In 1866, a
formal recommendation was made to the United States government to establish a reservation for the
Duwamish, but this was met with a petition that ultimately blocked the action, and to this day, the Point
Elliott Treaty has not been honored.
It is important to recognize the Duwamish tribe, who are still seeking federal recognition, and more
broadly the Coast Salish people, as the original stewards of the land, and to acknowledge and address
the ongoing impacts of the American history of colonialization. As the City of Renton continues with city
planning efforts, it can begin to redress historic inequities by supporting the voices of Renton’s indigenous
communities and fostering equitable housing outcomes for all Black, Indigenous, and People of Color
(BIPOC) households.
Renton’s Industrial History and World War II
Following Renton’s 1901 incorporation, the city was a hub for industrial activity, particularly coal mining,
brick production, and manufacturing by companies like PACCAR (then called the Pacific Car and
Foundry), leading Renton to become the second largest industrial center of King County at the time.
4https://www.rentonwa.gov/city_hall/parks_and_recreation/museum/city_history/pre_1900#:~:text=CITY%20OF%20RENT
ON%20WASHINGTON&text=The%20Duwamish%20are%20the%20Coast,and%20Duwamish%20Rivers%20%26%20Ellio
tt%20Bay.
5 https://www.duwamishtribe.org/treaty-of-point-elliott
AGENDA ITEM #1. k)
City of Renton | Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 24
In 1941, the Boeing Company established itself in Renton to build planes for war efforts, and brought
with it significant change. In contrast to previous years of slow recovery from the Great Depression,
Renton suddenly experienced rapid growth, as Boeing’s presence brought $4 million in federal funding
for housing and infrastructural improvements.6 Later, in 1958, the Boeing Company began producing the
707 airliner and thus launching commercial jet aviation in Renton and worldwide.
Despite improved access to better housing and infrastructural assets, as well as Renton’s growing
economic success, both brought by World War II, not everyone in the city benefited. Specifically, Renton’s
Japanese American families—who in the 1920s and 1930s had been integral to Renton’s horticultural
industry and some of the region’s major green spaces, like Kubota Gardens—were displaced from their
homes within Renton and the Puget Sound area, and were forced into internment camps. Following the
announcement of Executive Order 9066 in 1942, Japanese immigrant and American households in Renton
had two days to register at the Renton Junction Civil Control Station (which is now where I-405 runs
between Renton and Tukwila) and were relocated to Fresno, California.7 After the war, housing laws
prohibited Japanese immigrant families from owning land until 1967, and former family-owned
horticultural land was replaced by development. The internment of Japanese immigrants and American
families is a direct result of systemic racism, and has lastingly impacted the Japanese community’s
accumulated wealth, access to economic opportunity, and housing opportunities.
Renton Suburbanization and Annexation
A great deal of present-day Renton has been annexed from King County in recent years.
Exhibit 12, below, shows parcels annexed by the City of Renton.
6 https://www.rentonwa.gov/cms/One.aspx?portalId=7922741&pageId=9117416
7 https://historylink.org/File/21002
AGENDA ITEM #1. k)
City of Renton | Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 25
Exhibit 12. Annexation History Map
Source: City of Renton, 2023
AGENDA ITEM #1. k)
City of Renton | Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 26
Racially Restrictive Covenants
Racially restrictive covenants are clauses in property deeds that prevent specific groups of people from
occupying land, based on their race. At the time of their use from the 1920s through 1960s, racially
restrictive covenants were legally enforceable contracts, and those who broke deed restrictions could lose
their claim to property or face financial liability. While racially restrictive covenants are illegal to act on,
they remain in many deeds across the country. In 2006, Washington Governor Christine Gregoire signed
SB 6169, making it easier for homeowners’ associations to remove racially restrictive covenants from their
language. Similarly, in 2018, the Washington Legislature added a provision that enabled property
owners to strike racial restrictions from their deeds and other property records.
The UW Seattle Civil Rights & Labor History project searched King County property records to identify
restrictions that prevented BIPOC households from owning property or living in neighborhoods citywide. In
the City of Renton, ten racially restrictive covenants could be found within its current boundary, as listed
below in Exhibit 13, and Exhibit 14 maps where these covenants were located. Most of the covenants
withing Renton restricted homeownership and property rental to only allow people who identified as
white. The red circles in Exhibit 14 show properties with racial covenants and the yellow neighborhoods
labeled as a “restricted district.”
Exhibit 13. Racially Restrictive Covenants in Renton: Representative Language from a Sample of Covenants
Subdivision Year Properties Impacted Covenant Text
C.D. Hillman’s Lake Washington
Garden of Eden, Division No. 1
1926 6 “The parties of the second part further agrees to sell to white people
only and not to permit either to be sold by forced sale; and any sale
of this contract or of any interest in said contract or in the lands
therein described without the written consent of the party of the first
part will render this contract null and void.”
C.D. Hillman’s Lake Washington
Garden of Eden, Division No. 4
1946 2 “No persons of any race other than the Caucasian or White race shall
use or occupy any building or lot, except that this covenant shall not
prevent occupancy by domestic servant of a different race domiciled
with an owner or tenant.”
Cresto View Addition 1947 29 “No persons of any race other than the Caucasian or White race shall
use or occupy any building or lot except that this covenant shall not
prevent occupancy domestic servants of a different race domiciled with
an owner or tenant.”
Northwestern Garden Tracts
Division 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6
1948 115 “Neither the owner or any successor in interest shall ever convey, lease
or rent to any person other than the white or Caucasian races, said
premises, or any portion thereof or permit the occupancy thereof by
any such persons, except as a domestic servant.”
President Park 400 Labeled a “Restricted District” in newspaper advertisements.
Stewart’s Highland Acres 1947 2 “This property cannot be sold to any person or persons other than
those of the Caucasian race;”
Windsor Hills Addition to
Renton
1942 143 “No race or nationality other than those of the Caucasian race shall use
or occupy any dwelling on a lot, except that this covenant shall not
prevent occupancy by domestic servants of a different race or
nationally employed by a owner or tenant.”
Source: University of Washington Seattle Civil Rights & Labor History Project, 2022.
AGENDA ITEM #1. k)
City of Renton | Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 27
Exhibit 14. Renton Map of Race-Based Covenants
Source: University of Washington Seattle Civil Rights & Labor History Project, 2022.
Analysis of Racially Disparate Impacts, Exclusion, and
Displacement
Measures
Analyzing racially disparate impacts, exclusion, and displacement in housing is a complex process that
can be approached in a variety of ways. In order to facilitate a comprehensive analysis, this evaluation
uses over a dozen measures, including income, rental prices, housing cost burden, and population density,
as shown in Exhibit 15 below.
Exhibit 15. Measures of Racially Disparate Impacts, Exclusion, and Displacement
Datapoint Source Details
Median household Income ACS 5-year, 2021 Disaggregated by race and ethnicity and
mapped by Census tract
Average rent Zillow
Average housing prices Calculated based on Zillow
median home prices for average
homes and lower market homes
Housing tenure ACS 5-year, 2021 Disaggregated by race and ethnicity
Housing cost burden rates CHAS 5-year 2015-2019 Disaggregated by race and ethnicity
Rates of crowding ACS 5-year, 2021
Distribution of environmental exposure risk Washington Environmental Health
Disparities Map, 2022
Disaggregated by race and ethnicity
Commute mode estimates ACS 5-year, 2021
AGENDA ITEM #1. k)
City of Renton | Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 28
Datapoint Source Details
Population density by race and ethnicity,
mapped
Census 2020
Park access City of Renton Include 10-minute walksheds
Fair housing complaints
Commute patterns by worker type LEHD based on ACS 5-year 2015-
2019
Disaggregated by income level and geographic
location
Subsidized housing locations National Housing Preservation
Database
Evictions count and rate Eviction Study Mapped by Census tract
Displacement risk factors Renton Housing Needs Assessment Mapped by Census tract
Source: BERK, 2023.
Racially Disparate Impacts
Racially disparate impacts are defined as occurring when policies, practices, rules, or other systems result
in a disproportionate impact on one or more racial groups.8 Data analysis of a range of variables can
assess whether racially disparate impacts are impacting a community, including household income,
average rent and housing prices, and housing tenure, among other variables.
Median Household Income
Exhibit 16 shows that:
Median household income has generally increased from 2010 to 2021. In 2021, a much higher
percentage of the population had a median household income over $150,000 than in 2010.
Citywide, Renton has seen an increase in the number of low-income households (see Exhibit 38).
Exhibit 16. Renton Median Household Income
8 Department of Commerce Draft Racially Disparate Impacts Guidance, 2023.
16%
25%
20%
17%16%
5%
2%
11%
15%
18%
15%
20%
10%12%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Under $25,000 $25,000 to
$49,999
$50,000 to
$74,999
$75,000 to
$99,999
$100,000 to
$149,999
$150,000 to
$199,999
$200,000 or more
%
o
f
t
o
t
a
l
Income Bracket
2010 2021
AGENDA ITEM #1. k)
City of Renton | Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 29
Sources: US Census 2010; ACS 2021; BERK 2023.
Exhibit 17 shows that:
Median household income is relatively evenly spread within all groups, with the exception of those
who identify as AIAN alone, where people are more likely to have an income of $25,000 to
$49,999.
Those who identify as NHOPI alone, Asian alone, and White alone (non-Hispanic) are the most likely
to have an income of $200,000 or more.
Exhibit 17. Median Household Income by Race and Ethnicity
Sources: ACS 2021; BERK 2023.
Average Rent
Exhibit 18 shows that:
Average rent in Renton has increased 38% in the last five years, which is comparable to the percent
increase across the United States, but is higher than the percent increase in the Seattle-Tacoma-
Bellevue Metro area, and is much higher than the percent increase in King County.
Through the Displacement Risk analysis (see Exhibit 38).
Exhibit 18. Average Rent Comparison
City/Region Average Rent (Nov 2022) % increase in the last 5 years
(Nov 2017)
Renton $2,265 38%
10%
26%
2%
7%
12%
9%
16%
6%
14%
16%
51%
11%
0%
29%
15%
25%
17%
20%
12%
15%
35%
23%
18%
23%
14%
9%
6%
14%
26%
11%
20%
17%
19%
14%
25%
26%
3%
17%
21%
15%
12%
5%
4%
11%
4%
5%
5%
8%
13%
10%
0%
15%
19%
7%
4%
6%
White alone, not Hispanic or Latino
Black alone
AIAN alone
Asian alone
NHOPI alone
Other alone
Two or more
Hispanic or Latino
Under $25,000 $25,000 to $49,999 $50,000 to $74,999 $75,000 to $99,999
$100,000 to $149,999 $150,000 to $199,999 $200,000 or more
10%
26%
2%
7%
12%
9%
16%
6%
14%
16%
51%
11%
0%
29%
15%
25%
17%
20%
12%
15%
35%
23%
18%
23%
14%
9%
6%
14%
26%
11%
20%
17%
19%
14%
25%
26%
3%
17%
21%
15%
12%
5%
4%
11%
4%
5%
5%
8%
13%
10%
0%
15%
19%
7%
4%
6%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
White alone, not Hispanic or Latino
Black alone
AIAN alone
Asian alone
NHOPI alone
Other alone
Two or more
Hispanic or Latino
Under $25,000 $25,000 to $49,999 $50,000 to $74,999 $75,000 to $99,999
$100,000 to $149,999 $150,000 to $199,999 $200,000 or more
AGENDA ITEM #1. k)
City of Renton | Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 30
King County $2,292 25%
Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue Metro $2,220 30%
United States $2,008 37%
Sources: Zillow 2022; BERK 2023.
Exhibit 19 shows that:
Since 2015, rental prices have increased 66%.
Similar increases in rental pricing can be found in King County and in the Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue
Metro area. All three of these areas, however, have experienced rental pricing increases greater
than the United States as a whole.
Exhibit 19. Rent Over Time
Sources: Zillow, 2022; BERK 2023.
Exhibit 20 shows that:
Average home prices have increased significantly.
Average home prices in Renton have increased at a rate similar to that of King County and the
Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue Metro area.
$1,368
$2,265
+66%
$0
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
United States Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue Metro King County Renton
AGENDA ITEM #1. k)
City of Renton | Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 31
Exhibit 20. Average home price over time
Sources: Zillow, 2022; BERK 2023.
Average Housing Prices
Exhibit 21 shows that:
Average home prices in different AMI groups in Renton have increased at similar rates.
Exhibit 21. Average home price in Renton at different AMI
Sources: Zillow, 2022; BERK 2023.
Housing Tenure
Exhibit 22 shows that:
$337,032 (+179%)
$889,984 (+264%)
$753,472 (+250%)
$759,919 (+251%)
$0
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
$700,000
$800,000
$900,000
$1,000,000
2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022
United States Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue Metro King County Renton
559,553
(+267%)
753,472
(+250%)
1,025,053
(+225%)
$0
$200,000
$400,000
$600,000
$800,000
$1,000,000
$1,200,000
2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022
5-35%35-65%65-95%
AGENDA ITEM #1. k)
City of Renton | Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 32
New residents of Renton tend to be renters rather than homeowners. More people are renting
housing in Renton since 2010 across the board. Homeownership has dropped 4% in Renton since
2010.
Homeownership rates in Renton have dropped the most with Hispanic/Latino, Non-White and multi-
racial households.
Exhibit 22. Housing Tenure Rates, 2010-2021
2010 2021 2010 2021
Renton Renter occupied Renter occupied Owner occupied Owner occupied
CITYWIDE 43% 47% 57% 53%
White alone, not Hispanic or Latino 40% 42% 60% 58%
Black alone 67% 72% 33% 28%
AIAN alone 62% 71% 38% 29%
Asian alone 28% 31% 72% 69%
NHOPI alone 67% 70% 33% 30%
Other alone 62% 73% 38% 27%
Two or more 53% 72% 47% 28%
Hispanic or Latino 60% 71% 40% 29%
2010 2021 2010 2021
King County Renter occupied Renter occupied Owner occupied Owner occupied
COUNTYWIDE 40% 43% 60% 57%
White alone, not Hispanic or Latino 35% 38% 65% 62%
Black alone 67% 72% 33% 28%
AIAN alone 63% 57% 37% 43%
Asian alone 40% 42% 60% 58%
NHOPI alone 73% 76% 27% 24%
Other alone 66% 68% 34% 32%
Two or more 55% 57% 45% 43%
Hispanic or Latino 64% 64% 36% 36%
Legend
% Increase
% Decrease
Same
Sources: US Census, 2010; ACS, 2021; BERK 2023.
AGENDA ITEM #1. k)
City of Renton | Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 33
Housing Cost Burden Rates
Exhibit 23 shows that:
Homeowners who identified their race or ethnicity as “Other” (including multiple races, non-Hispanic)
experience the most “extreme” cost burden.
Homeowners who identified as Pacific Islander alone (non-Hispanic) experience the highest overall
percentage of cost-burden, followed by those who identified as Black or African American alone
(non-Hispanic).
Homeowners who identified as While alone (non-Hispanic) experienced the lowest overall
percentage of cost-burden.
Exhibit 23. Home Owner Cost Burden by Race and Ethnicity
Sources: ACS, 2021; BERK, 2023.
Renter Cost Burden
Exhibit 24 shows that:
All renters who identified as Pacific Islander alone (non-Hispanic) are cost-burdened.
Renters who identified as Hispanic (any race) or Black or African-American alone (non-Hispanic)
experience the second and third highest overall percentages of cost-burden, at 53% and 48%,
respectively.
Renters who identified as Asian alone (non-Hispanic) experienced the lowest overall percentage of
cost-burden, at 29%, followed by those who identified as White alone (non-Hispanic), at 42%.
77%
65%
56%
65%
74%
53%
73%
73%
15%
20%
23%
21%
26%
47%
17%
6%
7%
15%
20%
14%
0%
0%
10%
21%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
White alone, non-Hispanic
BIPOC
Black or African-American alone, non-Hispanic
Asian alone, non-Hispanic
American Indian or Alaska Native alone, non-Hispanic
Pacific Islander alone, non-Hispanic
Hispanic, any race
Other (including multiple races, non-Hispanic)
Percentage
Ra
c
e
o
r
E
t
h
n
i
c
i
t
y
Not Cost-Burdened Cost-Burdened Extremely Cost-Burdened Not Computed
AGENDA ITEM #1. k)
City of Renton | Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 34
Exhibit 24. Renter Cost Burden by Race and Ethnicity
Sources: ACS, 2021; BERK, 2023.
Rates of Crowding
Overcrowding is determined by a ratio of household size to number of bedrooms in their housing unit.
Any ratio greater than 1.0 is considered an overcrowded household. Exhibit 25 shows that:
Overcrowding is more prevalent in households that rent, compared to those that are home owners.
Larger sized rental options could be important to incentivize in policies and codes.
Exhibit 25. Overcrowding in Renton
TENURE OCCUPANTS PER ROOM ESTIMATE MARGIN of ERROR
Owner 0.50 or less occupants per room 15,384 817
0.51-1.00 occupants per room 5,410 458
1.01 to 1.50 occupants per room 262 102
1.51 – 2.00 occupants per room 38 36
2.01 or more occupants per room 0 30
Renter 0.50 or less occupants per room 10,113 757
0.51-1.00 occupants per room 7,240 670
1.01 to 1.50 occupants per room 900 252
58%
54%
52%
71%
53%
0%
47%
56%
21%
24%
17%
17%
47%
76%
33%
21%
20%
22%
31%
12%
0%
24%
20%
23%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
White alone, non-Hispanic
BIPOC
Black or African-American alone, non-Hispanic
Asian alone, non-Hispanic
American Indian or Alaska Native alone, non-Hispanic
Pacific Islander alone, non-Hispanic
Hispanic, any race
Other (including multiple races, non-Hispanic)
Percentage
Ra
c
e
o
r
E
t
h
n
i
c
i
t
y
Not Cost-Burdened Cost-Burdened Extremely Cost-Burdened Not Computed
AGENDA ITEM #1. k)
City of Renton | Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 35
TENURE OCCUPANTS PER ROOM ESTIMATE MARGIN of ERROR
1.51 – 2.00 occupants per room 525 209
2.01 or more occupants per room 139 96
Sources: ACS, 2021; BERK, 2023.
Distribution of Environmental Exposure Risk
Washington State Department of Health released an Environmental Health Disparities Map that
evaluates health risks based off threat and vulnerability. Exhibit 26, below, shows how environmental risk
was determined using 19 indicators to calculate a cumulative impact. A link to the map can be found
here.
With regards to Renton, the east half of the Highlands and the west half of the East Plateau Community
Planning areas have the lowest environmental risk of 6. Everywhere else in the city has a risk factor of at
least 8 out of 10. Higher residential densities cannot happen without a safe, multimodal transportation
system. Environmental policy recommendations are critical to ensure future populations are not impacted
by negative health factors.
Exhibit 26. Washington Environmental Health Disparities Definition
Source: Washington State Department of Health, 2023.
AGENDA ITEM #1. k)
City of Renton | Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 36
Exhibit 27. Environmental Exposure Risk Map
Source:Washington State Department of Health, 2023.
Commute Mode Estimates
Exhibit 28 shows that:
Renton residents tend to drive alone as their commute, and at a rate higher than King County as a
whole.
Renton residents are more likely to drive, whether carpooling or driving alone, than to use public
transportation.
Renton residents are less likely than King County residents to walk as their commute method.
AGENDA ITEM #1. k)
City of Renton | Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 37
Exhibit 28. Commute Mode Split
Sources: ACS, 2021; BERK, 2023.
Commute Patterns by Worker Type
Error! Reference source not found. in Appendix A details the Home and Work location of employed
individuals in Renton using Longitudinal Employer Household Dynamics data. The map shows that the
downtown and industrial centers of Renton are concentrated locations of in-person labor in Renton, many
of those jobs attracting indivuals who live outside of Renton. The residential communities south and east of
I-405 work outside of Renton for the most part. There is a small proportion of individuals who live and
work in Renton, although there is no spatial logic for where these individuals live in the City of Renton.
Crosswalking these findings with Error! Reference source not found. - Error! Reference source not
found., the racial diversity of Renton make it difficult to determine how these Home and Work locations
impact specific racial/ethnic groups.
Race/Ethnicity Location Quotient
Exhibits 40 through 44 in Appendix A map the location quotients for different racial/ethnic groups in
Renton. Location quotients measure a race or ethincity’s share of the population in a block group, relative
to that same group’s share of the population within King County as a whole. A location quotient score of
one indicates an identical share of the population, whereas scores less than one indicate that the group
has a lower share of the population within the subarea than the county as a whole. Likewise, scores
above one indicate that the group has a higher share of the population within the subarea. These maps
indicate that:
The population of Renton proportionately holds a higher share of BIPOC individuals than King
County as a whole. Specifically, Renton has higher shares of people who identify as Hispanic or
Latino, Black alone, and Asian alone, than King County does.
68%
10%
6%
0%
0%
0%
2%
1%
13%
55%
9%
11%
0%
0%
1%
5%
1%
18%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%
Drive alone
Carpool
Public transportation
Taxicab
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Walked
Other
Worked from home
Percentage
Mo
d
e
King County Renton
AGENDA ITEM #1. k)
City of Renton | Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 38
Park Access
Error! Reference source not found. in Appendix A maps the areas of Renton that have access to a city
park within a ten-minute walk. This map indicates that:
The majority of Renton has access to city parks within a ten-minute walk.
The northeast and south of Renton (Benson and East Plateau CPA’s) have the widest park access
gaps. When juxtaposed with Error! Reference source not found. (BIPOC location quotient map),
these areas also represent some of the highest percentages of BIPOC households
Fair Housing Complaints
The Federal Housing and Urban Development Department tracks complaints filed under the Fair Housing
Act, which prohibits discrimination based on federally recognized bases (race, religion, etc). In
Washington State, there have been 4664 complaints in Washington State from 2000 – 2019.
Subsidized Housing Locations
According to data from the Washington State Housing Finance Commission, there are 22 publicly
subsidized apartment properties across the City of Renton. See Exhibit 29. These 22 properties provide
2,987 units of affordable housing, most of which are located in the City Center and Renton Highlands
neighborhoods.
Exhibit 29. Affordable Housing Projects in Renton
PROJECT NAME PROGRAM TYPE APPLICATION YEAR TOTAL UNITS
Compass Center Renton Lutheran
Regional Veterans' Program
9% Tax Credits 2008 58
Golden Cedars PRI
366
Heritage Grove Apartments 4% Tax Credits 1994 55
June Leonard Place 9% Tax Credits 2017 47
LaFortuna PRI
12
Liberty Square Apartments 4% Tax Credits 2006 91
Lodge at Eagle Ridge 80/20 Bonds 2005 128
Merrill Gardens at Renton Centre 80/20 Bonds
155
Peak 88 4% Tax Credits 1995 35
Renton Crest 4% Tax Credits 2018 271
Renton Family Housing 9% Tax Credits 1996 24
Reserve at Renton, The 4% Tax Credits 2014 217
AGENDA ITEM #1. k)
City of Renton | Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 39
Royal Hills Apartments 9% Tax Credits 2000 281
Solera Apartments 4% Tax Credits 2021 272
Spencer Court Apartments 9% Tax Credits 1991 73
Stonebrook Apartments 4% Tax Credits 2003 138
Sunset Court Apartments 9% Tax Credits 2016 50
Sunset Gardens 4% Tax Credits 2022 77
Sunset Oaks 4% Tax Credits 2019 59
Vantage Point Apartments 9% Tax Credits 2013 77
Wasatch Hills 80/20 Bonds
356
Watershed Renton PRI
145
Total
2,987
Sources: Washington State Housing Finance Commission, 2023; BERK, 2023
Evictions Count and Rate
The University of Washington has created an Eviction Study Map, seen below in Exhibit 30 through
Exhibit 36 (link). The study tracks evictions in Washington State from 2004 to 2017. It should be noted
that the study map only shows data by race and ethnicity for individuals that identified as White, Black,
Hispanic, or Asian only. There is a gap of information for other racial and multiracial communities. These
exhibits indicate that:
For eviction risk, a value greater than 1 represents a higher likelihood of eviction compared to the
rest of the study area. A value less than 1 represents a lesser likelihood. Overall, Renton has a
higher relative risk of eviction compared to Seattle, when broken down by race, individuals who
identify as Asian have a higher risk of eviction compared to other racial and ethnic groups.
Black individuals represent the highest rate of eviction rates in Renton. It is higher than many
neighboring cities.
Exhibit 30. Municpality Eviction Study Comparison
Municipality Number of Evictions Eviction Rate Eviction Risk
Renton 273 1.46% 1.05
Seattle 1,181 0.7% 0.51
Tukwila 51 1.23% 0.89
Kent 429 2.19% 1.59
AGENDA ITEM #1. k)
City of Renton | Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 40
Burien 174 2.01% 1.45
Source: https://tesseract.csde.washington.edu:8080/shiny/evictionmaps/
Exhibit 31. Municipality Eviction Rate: by Race and Ethnicity
Municipality White Only
Eviction Rate
Black
Eviction Rate
Hispanic
Eviction Rate
Asian
Eviction Rate
Renton 0.98% 3.65% 1.16% 1.11%
Seattle 0.52% 2.32% 0.88% 0.48%
Tukwila 0.92% 2.16% 0.74% 0.95%
Kent 1.31% 4.72% 2.2% 1.71%
Burien 1.37% 3.74% 1.98% 2.03%
Source: https://tesseract.csde.washington.edu:8080/shiny/evictionmaps/
Exhibit 32. Municipality Relative Risk of Eviction: by Race and Ethnicity
Municipality White Only
Eviction Rate
Black
Eviction Rate
Hispanic
Eviction Rate
Asian
Eviction Rate
Renton 0.93 0.89 0.65 1.35
Seattle 0.5 0.57 0.49 0.58
Tukwila 0.88 0.53 0.41 1.15
Kent 1.25 1.15 1.24 2.07
Burien 1.31 0.91 1.11 2.46
Source: https://tesseract.csde.washington.edu:8080/shiny/evictionmaps/
AGENDA ITEM #1. k)
City of Renton | Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 41
Exhibit 33. Evictions Study Map: Eviction Count
Source: https://tesseract.csde.washington.edu:8080/shiny/evictionmaps/
Exhibit 34. Eviction Study Map: Eviction Rate
Source: https://tesseract.csde.washington.edu:8080/shiny/evictionmaps/
AGENDA ITEM #1. k)
City of Renton | Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 42
Exhibit 35. Eviction Study Map: Relative Eviction Risk
Source: https://tesseract.csde.washington.edu:8080/shiny/evictionmaps/
Exhibit 36. Evictions Study Map: Relative Eviction Risk
Source: https://tesseract.csde.washington.edu:8080/shiny/evictionmaps/
AGENDA ITEM #1. k)
City of Renton | Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 43
Displacement Risk
Displacement risk was calcuclated at a tract level by looking at the following factors:
Social Vulnerability. Each Census tract was given a social vulnerability score based off the number
of households that rent, BIPOC share of total population and median household income. Each census
tract was sorted into quintiles, and a total score was allocated.
Demographic change. A determination was given to each census tract to note whether there has
been an increase or decrease in households that identify either as BIPOC and/or have an AMI less
than 80%. Through this analysis it was determined whether there were signs of gentrification from
looking at population change. However, it should be noted that just because there has been a
decrease or increase in BIPOC populations, it does not necessitate a sign of gentrification. Additional
research should be done to understand specific push and pull factors into specific neighborhoods.
Market Prices. Rent prices and housing appreciation was analyzed to determine whether housing
prices have been increasing or decreased. Areas with higher rents and market prices were
determind as high appreciation areas, and lower rents as more stable neighborhoods.
Exhibit 37 shows a GIS map of displacement risk in Renton and Exhibit 38 a table with detailed
information on each census tract. Furthermore, Exhibit 38 shows how much of the census tract overlaps
within current Renton city limits. The ID label in each census tract in Exhibit 37 corresponds with the tract
number in Exhibit 38.
The areas with the highest risk of displacement is in the Highlands community planning area
predominately, and along along I-405 and Hwy 900 in Benson, Cedar River, and Valley. Of these areas,
the Renton Highlands have the most census tracts at high risk of displacement followed by Benson and
Valley. All of these areas have scored high in social vulnerability. Displacement risk was also high in the
Valley Community Planning Area. However, significant portions here are zoned industrial, and additional
analysis is needed to understand housing push/pull factors here.
Signs of gentrification was highest in the Highlands, and where Benson and Cedar River meetThe
Highlands community planning area also has the highest number of census tracts with accelerating housing
market prices despite being a more affordable area for renters.
AGENDA ITEM #1. k)
City of Renton | Comprehensive Plan and Policy Review & Racial Equity Analysis 44
Exhibit 37. Displacement Risk Index
Sources: Census 2020, BERK 2023.
AGENDA ITEM #1. k)
45
Exhibit 38. Displacement Risk Table, Renton
Final Displacement
Risk
Tract
Percent
Overlap
Renter
Quintile
BIPOC
Quintile
Median
Income Score
Social Vulnerability
Score BIPOC Change Score
Under 80% AMI Change
Score
Demographic
Change Score
High or Low
Rent Area Appreciation Rate
Market Price
Score
247.03 21%1 3 1 5 Decreasing BIPOC Increasing Low Income HHs No High rent area High appreciation Appreciated Low
247.04 12%2 3 1 6 Tracking county change Increasing Low Income HHs Disinvestment High rent area High appreciation Appreciated Low
251.01 98%3 4 3 10 Decreasing BIPOC Tracking county change Gentrification Low rent area High appreciation Accelerating High
251.03 100%3 5 2 10 Tracking county change Increasing Low Income HHs Disinvestment Low rent area Low or mod appreciation Stable Low
251.04 65%1 4 2 7 Tracking county change Increasing Low Income HHs Disinvestment Low rent area Low or mod appreciation Stable Low
252.01 100%2 4 3 9 Decreasing BIPOC Increasing Low Income HHs No Low rent area High appreciation Accelerating Low
252.02 90%4 4 3 11 Tracking county change Increasing Low Income HHs Disinvestment Low rent area High appreciation Accelerating Moderate
253.02 90%5 4 5 14 Tracking county change Increasing Low Income HHs Disinvestment Low rent area Low or mod appreciation Stable Low
253.03 100%5 4 4 13 Increasing BIPOC Increasing Low Income HHs Disinvestment High rent area Low or mod appreciation Appreciated Low
253.04 100%4 3 2 9 Tracking county change Decreasing Low Income HHs Gentrification High rent area High appreciation Appreciated Possible displacement
254.01 100%5 5 4 14 Tracking county change Increasing Low Income HHs Disinvestment Low rent area Low or mod appreciation Stable Low
254.02 100%4 5 3 12 Decreasing BIPOC Decreasing Low Income HHs Gentrification Low rent area High appreciation Accelerating High
255.00 100%4 5 4 13 Decreasing BIPOC Tracking county change Gentrification Low rent area Low or mod appreciation Stable High
256.01 100%3 5 4 12 Decreasing BIPOC Increasing Low Income HHs No Low rent area High appreciation Accelerating High
256.02 68%1 4 1 6 Increasing BIPOC Decreasing Low Income HHs No Low rent area Low or mod appreciation Stable Low
257.02 80%2 3 2 7 Decreasing BIPOC Increasing Low Income HHs No High rent area Low or mod appreciation Appreciated Low
257.03 100%5 4 4 13 Increasing BIPOC Tracking county change No Low rent area High appreciation Accelerating High
257.04 100%4 3 4 11 Decreasing BIPOC Decreasing Low Income HHs Gentrification Low rent area Low or mod appreciation Stable High
258.03 100%4 5 4 13 Decreasing BIPOC Decreasing Low Income HHs Gentrification Low rent area Low or mod appreciation Stable High
258.04 77%2 4 4 10 Decreasing BIPOC Increasing Low Income HHs No High rent area Low or mod appreciation Appreciated Moderate
258.05 100%4 5 4 13 Tracking county change Increasing Low Income HHs Disinvestment Low rent area Low or mod appreciation Stable Low
258.06 100%4 5 3 12 Decreasing BIPOC Increasing Low Income HHs No Low rent area Low or mod appreciation Stable Moderate
260.03 62%5 5 4 14 Decreasing BIPOC Decreasing Low Income HHs Gentrification Low rent area Low or mod appreciation Stable High
260.04 51%2 5 2 9 Decreasing BIPOC Decreasing Low Income HHs Gentrification Low rent area Low or mod appreciation Stable Low
261.01 3%4 5 4 13 Decreasing BIPOC Increasing Low Income HHs No Low rent area Low or mod appreciation Stable Moderate
262.00 1%5 5 4 14 Tracking county change Decreasing Low Income HHs Gentrification Low rent area Low or mod appreciation Stable High
293.04 29%2 4 3 9 Tracking county change Increasing Low Income HHs Disinvestment High rent area Low or mod appreciation Appreciated Low
293.05 30%1 5 3 9 Tracking county change Tracking county change No Low rent area High appreciation Accelerating Low
293.08 100%3 5 3 11 Decreasing BIPOC Tracking county change Gentrification High rent area Low or mod appreciation Appreciated Possible displacement
293.09 100%4 5 4 13 Tracking county change Increasing Low Income HHs Disinvestment High rent area Low or mod appreciation Appreciated Low
319.06 3%1 2 2 5 Increasing BIPOC Increasing Low Income HHs Disinvestment Low rent area Low or mod appreciation Stable Low
319.10 46%1 3 3 7 Decreasing BIPOC Increasing Low Income HHs No High rent area Low or mod appreciation Appreciated Low
319.12 3%1 2 3 6 Increasing BIPOC Increasing Low Income HHs Disinvestment Low rent area Low or mod appreciation Stable Low
319.13 45%1 3 1 5 Increasing BIPOC Decreasing Low Income HHs No Low rent area Low or mod appreciation Stable Low
Social Vulnerability Demographic Change Market Prices
AG
E
N
D
A
I
T
E
M
#
1
.
k
)
46
Summary of Analysis Findings
Renton has a proportionally larger BIPOC population than King County overall. East Plateau has
seen higher rates of increases of BIPOC households compared to other community planning areas.
However, there are lower rates of BIPOC households moving into some of Renton’s most diverse
neighborhoods (Benson, Highlands).
Median income in Renton has increased.
Renton’s average rental prices have increased more than the Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue Metro area,
and significantly more than in King County. The housing market has been appreciating highest in
Kennydale and Highlands.
More people are renting housing in Renton across the board, and homeownership rates have
dropped.
Homeownership rates in Renton have dropped the most within Hispanic/Latino, Non-White
populations.
Most of Renton has relatively high environmental health risk.
Those who identify as Black or African American represent the highest eviction rates in Renton.
The Renton Highlands and Benson have the highest risk of displacement in Renton. This is attributed to
higher housing costs in low-rent areas, slower rates of households that are BIPOC and have an AMI <
80% compared to the county. The initial displacement risk analysis indicates that there is potential
gentrification, and further analysis is needed through public engagement
East Plateau and City Center has some of the lowest risk for displacement due to low rents and
housing appreciation rates. More households that are BIPOC and/or with an AMI <80% have been
moving here as well.
Overall, Renton is a diverse city with a variety of housing options. It’s a city of both increases in both
households with higher, moderate- and low-income households. Middle housing can be a solution to
increase affordable homeownership opportunities and prevent displacement. Additional outreach and
engagement is needed to complicate the data narrative in understanding push/pull factors for housing.
Outreach for this project will better understand local narratives on what makes Renton a thriving
community for all.
AGENDA ITEM #1. k)
City of Renton
SUPPORT FOR ORDINANCE 5983
SALES TAX FUNDING
AN ADENDUM TO THE HOUSING ACTION PLAN
August 2021 Drafted
December 31, 2024 Adopted
AGENDA ITEM #1. l)
2200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 1000
Seattle, Washington 98121
P (206) 324-8760
www.berkconsulting.com
“Helping Communities and Organizations Create Their Best Futures”
Founded in 1988, we are an interdisciplinary strategy and analysis firm providing integrated, creative and
analytically rigorous approaches to complex policy and planning decisions. Our team of strategic planners,
policy and financial analysts, economists, cartographers, information designers and facilitators work together to
bring new ideas, clarity, and robust frameworks to the development of analytically-based and action-oriented
plans.
AGENDA ITEM #1. l)
i
Summary of Recommendations
On October 5, 2020, Renton City Council adopted Ordinance 5983 to authorize an additional sales and
use tax for affordable housing, behavioral health, and housing-related services under RCW
82.14.530, which was passed with House Bill 1590. The research in this report informs a series of
recommendations to the City to guide the use of this 0.1% sales tax funding, as well as longer-term
questions in program monitoring and evaluation.
The research in this report includes a review of available statistics on overall needs for affordable
housing, emergency and transitional housing needs for people experiencing homelessness, and behavioral
health services. Additionally, major providers related to these areas were interviewed to compile
information on current trends and needs in the community.
Based on the research findings, the following recommendations are provided for allocations of funding
over time.
The focus should be on acquiring strategic resources, including housing units and properties for new
development, in conjunction with available partners (e.g., Renton Housing Authority, local non-profits,
private equity). Additionally, pilot programs are also proposed to test other support programs. Major
allocations include:
Overall management, including engagement and consultation with local stakeholders, and regular
reporting.
Strategic leveraging of City resources to acquire housing units or land for future development, to be
coordinated with available partners.
Development of a permanent emergency shelter, potentially with supportive services such as a
meal program, laundry and hygiene facilities, and navigation services.
Capital and maintenance funding to develop affordable housing with local partners, including the
Renton Housing Authority (RHA) and local nonprofits (potentially through a competitive application
process). This would also include joint regional facilities with neighboring jurisdictions, potentially
through South King Housing and Homelessness Partners (SKHHP) or 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.
AGENDA ITEM #1. l)
City of Renton | Ordinance 5983 Assessment ii
Development of affordable housing on banked land with available housing partners.
Additional funding support for affordable housing development by the Renton Housing Authority,
and other partners. Funding should also be allocated to address longer-term maintenance and
operations of the facilities acquired under this program.
The development of an additional emergency shelter, potentially as a regional response to meet
more specialized needs, coordinated with neighboring communities.
A review and adjustment of pilot programs, including the behavioral health services (including field
response) and rental assistance programs.
AGENDA ITEM #1. l)
City of Renton | Ordinance 5983 Assessment iii
Table of Contents
Summary of Recommendations ....................................................................................................... i
Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................ iii
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1
Context Overview ........................................................................................................................ 2
Legislation ............................................................................................................................... 2
Current Support ........................................................................................................................ 3
Data Review .............................................................................................................................. 10
Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 10
Housing Needs ........................................................................................................................ 10
Specific Housing Needs by Category ........................................................................................... 19
Homelessness ....................................................................................................................... 24
Behavioral Health Needs ........................................................................................................... 28
Interviews ................................................................................................................................ 29
Approach ............................................................................................................................... 29
Summary of Findings ................................................................................................................ 30
Funding Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 33
Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 33
Proposed Investment .............................................................................................................. 35
Implementation ...................................................................................................................... 38
AGENDA ITEM #1. l)
1
Introduction
On October 5, 2020, the Renton City Council adopted Ordinance 5983 to authorize an additional sales
and use tax for affordable housing, behavioral health, and housing-related services under RCW
82.14.530, which implemented House Bill 1590. This was made possible by changes by the
Washington State Legislature to the statute in March 2020 that allowed the City Council to impose the
tax through councilmanic action.
To help guide the use of this revenue to address issues of housing affordability, homelessness, and
behavioral health in the community, this report outlines high-level needs and recommended actions by the
City to address existing and future gaps. To help understand these gaps and the importance of action, it
includes assessments of:
Overall housing and behavioral health issues in the community.
Available resources for housing-related and behavioral services that serve the specified low-income
groups.
Existing gaps in available affordable housing, housing-related services, and behavioral health
services.
The contributions of different organizations to meeting low-income housing needs and behavioral
health needs in Renton.
This report presents two main sources of information related to this work:
Existing sources of data are compiled and reviewed to quantify the supply, demand, and gaps with
existing services in housing and behavioral health available in Renton.
Interviews were conducted and are summarized in this document to provide a qualitative perspective
on needs, resources, and gaps with respect to housing and behavioral health providers in the city.
These data sources inform a series of recommendations to the City to guide the use of Ordinance 5983
sales tax funding, as well as longer-term questions of program monitoring and evaluation.
The remainder of the report is structured into the following sections:
An overview of the legislation and City of Renton context, including a discussion of current services
and expenditures and funding.
A data review to highlight information about major themes in housing, homelessness, and behavioral
health in the community.
A summary of interviews discusses the outcomes from the conversations, and how these results align
with the overall discussion of needs for these services.
Finally, a description of funding support recommendations incorporates the information collected
as part of this review and presents actionable advice to guide the use of Ordinance 5983 funding
over the long-term.
AGENDA ITEM #1. l)
City of Renton | Ordinance 5983 Assessment 2
Context Overview
Legislation
In 2015, the Washington State Legislature passed ESHB 2263, which in part provided a new local option
for cities to create a retail sales and use tax that could support affordable housing, behavioral health
facilities, and operations and maintenance costs related to these types of programs and facilities.
However, while this program had the potential to provide a new source of revenue, only two cities were
able to get approval for the sales tax increase from voters.1
Recognizing the growing need to address local resource needs to address these issues, the Legislature
updated the provision of this sales and use tax option implemented under RCW 82.14.530. The most
important adjustment was through HB 1590 in 2020, which allowed the tax to be passed with
councilmanic authority instead of requiring voter approval at an election, making it more flexible for
cities to use. Additional changes were made under ESHB 1070 in April 2021, which provided revisions to
the allowed uses for the funding and other smaller amendments.
Currently, the provisions of RCW 82.14.530 state that a 0.1% sales tax can be imposed after
September 30, 2020, if counties did not decide to impose this tax first. Under the statute, at least 60%
of the revenue received must be used on the following activities:
Constructing or acquiring affordable housing, which may include emergency, transitional, and
supportive housing and new units of affordable housing within an existing structure, and facilities
providing housing-related services, or acquiring land for these purposes.
Constructing or acquiring behavioral health-related facilities or acquiring land for these purposes.
Funding the operations and maintenance costs of new units of affordable housing and facilities
where housing-related programs are provided, or newly constructed evaluation and treatment
centers.
The remaining funding (40% or less) can be used for the operation, delivery, or evaluation of behavioral
health treatment programs and services or housing-related services.
The housing and housing-related programs are restricted to only include specific populations:
Persons with behavioral health disabilities
Veterans
Senior citizens
Persons who are homeless or at-risk of being homeless, including families with children
Unaccompanied homeless youth or young adults
Persons with disabilities
Domestic violence survivors
1 The cities of Ellensburg and Olympia passed theses sales tax with voters in 2018.
AGENDA ITEM #1. l)
City of Renton | Ordinance 5983 Assessment 3
Current Support
Funding
Data from the Washington State Auditor’s Office Local Government Financial Reporting System (LGFRS)
can be used to track social services funding. For Renton, this data shows regular funding of social services,
including funding related to general welfare, seniors, domestic violence, and homelessness over multiple
departments, is increasing over time.
Exhibit 1 presents the amount of funding provided for social services in city expenditures from 2013 to
2020. This indicates that funding for these items has increased both on an absolute and per capita basis,
rising from $1.8 million in 2013 to about $3 million in 2020, or about 7% per year on average.
The majority of Renton’s financial support highlighted in this data is indicated as being directed towards
the following:
Welfare, amounting to about $11.1 million in expenses since 2013, largely associated with activities
under “Serving vulnerable/low income” and “Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)” line
items for the current Community Services budget.
Aging and disability services, amounting to $4.7 million in expenses since 2013, largely related to
the operation of the senior center.
Domestic violence prevention, totaling $1.2 million between 2013 and 2020 to support a DV
advocate and related expenses.
Mental health services ($372K) and chemical dependency services ($197K)
Exhibit 2 provides amounts in total and per capita social services expenditures for Federal Way, Auburn,
Redmond, and Kent. While the LGFRS data may be categorized differently and not match completely, it
provides a landscape view of social services spending and suggests that Renton’s expenditures are
generally midrange.
City-level reporting can provide a more detailed view of expenditures. Listed in Exhibit 3 is City of
Renton Human Services Agency funding provided to individual organizations, many that support housing
and services related to housing, homelessness, and behavioral health.
Aside from this funding, other recent major contributions provided by the City for these purposes include
the following:
Housing projects
Sunset Oaks: $700,000 grant, assistance in securing other funding, waived fees.
Sunset Court: Assistance in property acquisition, assistance in securing a 9% Low-Income Housing Tax
Credit (LIHTC) allocation and other funding, waived fees.
Sunset Gardens: $1.5 million in Ordinance 5983 funding, assistance in securing other funding.
Willowcrest Townhomes: $357,000 in grants, assistance in securing other funding, waived fees
Shelters
REACH Center of Hope: City Hall space, direct financial contribution ($120,000 in 2021)
AGENDA ITEM #1. l)
City of Renton | Ordinance 5983 Assessment 4
Emergency Assistance & Mental/Behavioral Health Services
Emergency rental and food assistance: $650,000 in CARES Act funding for food assistance and
emergency rental assistance
Community Court: Expected to support diversion to prescribed treatment and services as an
alternative to incarceration.
Community Centers
Renovation/development of the Sunset Neighborhood Center: $400,000 grant
Family First Community Center: $4,000,000 in support
AGENDA ITEM #1. l)
City of Renton | Ordinance 5983 Assessment 5
Exhibit 1. City of Renton Social Services Spending, 2013–2020.
Source: SAO Local Government Financial Reporting System, 2021.
Exhibit 2. Social Services Spending, Amount and Per Capita by City, 2020.
Source: SAO Local Government Financial Reporting System, 2021.
AGENDA ITEM #1. l)
City of Renton | Ordinance 5983 Assessment 6
Exhibit 3. City of Renton Human Services Agency Funding, 2019-2020.
ORGANIZATION AMOUNT
Catholic Community Services $62,747
Communities in Schools of Renton $51,315
St. Vincent de Paul/St. Anthony Conference $35,780
King County Sexual Assault Resource Center $32,000
YWCA Seattle King Snohomish $29,000
Domestic Abuse Women's Network $26,500
Renton Area Youth and Family Services $24,880
Sound Generations $20,500
Crisis Clinic $20,000
Ukrainian Community Center of WA $17,500
HealthPoint $17,000
Multi-Service Center $17,000
St. Vincent de Paul Seattle King County $16,000
Friends of Youth $15,000
Lifewire $10,515
King County Bar Foundation $10,500
Seattle-King County Dept. of Public Health $10,000
Valley Cities Counseling and Consultation $10,000
Washington Poison Center $9,000
Renton Kiwanis Clothes Bank $8,500
Way Back Inn $8,000
Refugee Women's Alliance $7,800
Aerospace Joint Apprenticeship Comm. $7,500
Bridge Disability Ministries $7,500
Children's Therapy Center $7,500
Feminist Women's Healthcare Center $7,500
Institute for Family Development $7,500
Issaquah School Foundation $7,500
Mother Africa $7,500
Nexus Youth & Family $7,500
Orion Industries $7,500
Partners In Employment $7,500
Puget Sound Training Ctr $7,500
The Salvation Army $7,500
West African Community Council $7,500
Margie Williams Helping Hands $5,000
TOTAL $562,037
Source: City of Renton, 2021.
AGENDA ITEM #1. l)
City of Renton | Ordinance 5983 Assessment 7
Available Income-Restricted Housing
Income-restricted affordable housing units are provided by different organizations in Renton. Locations of
these housing units are displayed on a map of Renton in Exhibit 5. In this map, the Renton Housing
Authority properties are highlighted to demonstrate the distribution of these units.
According to information provided from the National Housing Preservation Database (NHPD) and other
sources, there is a supply of almost 2,000 income-restricted low-income housing units in the city, with a
development pipeline of almost 600 affordable units at different stages.2 Additionally, many existing
income-restricted units were updated as part of the Renton Housing Authority’s recently completed
rehabilitation and modernization work, which invested about $57 million into their existing projects.
Different sources highlight how these income-restricted housing units fit local needs:
From the projects identified in the NHPD dataset, available subsidized units cater mainly to elderly
and/or disabled households (58% of units), and families (18% of units).
A 2019 analysis of South King County communities highlighted that from 1,580 units identified, 75%
were accessible to households at 60% AMI or below, while only about 133 units, or 8% of this total,
were accessible at 30% AMI or below.3
Available Emergency Shelter Space
Emergency space in Renton is limited, but two programs have historically offered shelter services. The
ARISE program, coordinated by Catholic Community Services NW, provides overnight shelter for men in
temporary space within churches in the community. The REACH Center of Hope is a permanent shelter for
10–12 families and is being relocated to the Lakeridge Lutheran Church as part of the “Hope on the Hill”
partnership.
Future additional emergency shelter space is anticipated through King County’s purchase of the Extended
Stay America Hotel in Renton as part of the Health Through Housing program.
2 National Housing Preservation Database, 2021.
3 “South King County Subregional Housing Action Framework – Task 2 Housing Context Assessment Methods Memo”,
ECONorthwest, 2020.
AGENDA ITEM #1. l)
City of Renton | Ordinance 5983 Assessment 8
Exhibit 4. Available Income-Restricted Housing, City of Renton.
NAME OWNER UNITS
Housing Authorities
Cedar Park Apartments Renton Housing Authority 244
Houser Terrace Renton Housing Authority 104
Vantage Point Apartments King County Housing Authority 77
Cedar River Terrace Renton Housing Authority 72
Sunset Oaks Renton Housing Authority 62
Hillcrest Terrace Renton Housing Authority 60
Golden Pines Renton Housing Authority 53
Evergreen Terrace Renton Housing Authority 50
Sunset Court Renton Housing Authority 50
Cole Manor Renton Housing Authority 28
Kirkland Avenue Townhomes Renton Housing Authority 18
Chantelle Renton Housing Authority 17
Highland House Renton Housing Authority 15
Glennwood Townhomes Renton Housing Authority 8
Non-Profits
Liberty Square Apartments DASH 92
Compass Veterans Center Renton Lutheran Regional Veterans Program /
Compass Housing Alliance
58
June Leonard Place Low-Income Housing Institute (LIHI) 48
Renton Family Housing Catholic Housing Services of Western Washington 42
Good Shepherd I Good Shepherd Lutheran Home 12
Good Shepherd II Good Shepherd Lutheran Home 12
For-Profit
Royal Hills Apartments PPMG, Inc. 284
The Reserve at Renton Affordable Housing CDC Inc. 217
Stonebrook Apartments HNN Associates, LLC 193
Spencer Court Apartments MS Real Estate Co. 74
Heritage Grove Apartments Pacific Living Properties 51
Peak 88 Apartments Pacific Living Properties 33
Merrill Gardens Merrill Gardens 31
Sources: Renton Housing Authority, 2021; National Housing Preservation Database (NHPD), 2021; BERK, 2021.
AGENDA ITEM #1. l)
City of Renton | Ordinance 5983 Assessment 9
Exhibit 5. Location of Available Income-Restricted Housing, City of Renton.
Sources: City of Renton, 2020; BERK, 2021.
AGENDA ITEM #1. l)
City of Renton | Ordinance 5983 Assessment 10
Data Review
Introduction
To provide a high-level understanding of the potential needs for low-income housing and behavioral
health, this report compiles available information from multiple sources to characterize the supply of
available housing and services, as well as the demand from the Renton community. This includes the
following information:
A high-level review of the overall housing needs in the community, including current and projected
needs and estimated costs for addressing housing insecurity in the community.
Specific housing needs by category, as specified in the legislation.
An understanding of the behavioral health needs in the community, with quantitative measures
where possible.
A review of the capacity and gaps to meet these needs, including areas where additional support
will be essential.
Although available data can provide some guidance as to the needs and gaps for different groups in the
city, this information was supplemented with qualitative interviews summarized in the following section.
Housing Needs
Comparisons of Income and Housing
It is important to understand how the distribution of incomes within a community compares to the housing
that is affordable to them. Exhibit 6 provides a distribution of the income levels of households in Renton.
This is categorized according to tenure (renters versus owners) and income bracket based on Area
Median Income (AMI). Exhibit 7 provides the distribution of renting households in King County and Renton
by income categories, as well as the proportions of rental housing affordable at each income category.
This information highlights the following:
Overall, about 47% of renters in Renton are considered low-income, with household incomes of
80% AMI or lower. This is generally comparable to King County as a whole.
For renting households, affordable units do not line up with the needs by income level. Most notably,
there is a significant lack of affordable housing affordable to extremely low-income households, with
only 9% of housing affordable to those making 30% AMI or below. This suggests that there are
significant gaps at the lower end of the market, where subsidies are usually required for households
to afford housing.
There are also concerns with the availability of units at the upper end of the market (affordable at
80% AMI or above). While market-rate housing is outside of the scope of this analysis, downrenting
by higher-income households of housing affordable to lower-income households contributes to
affordability challenges for low-income households.
AGENDA ITEM #1. l)
City of Renton | Ordinance 5983 Assessment 11
Exhibit 6. Households by Tenure and Income Level, City of Renton.
Sources: HUD CHAS (based on ACS 2017 5-year estimates); BERK, 2021.
Exhibit 7. Renter Households and Affordable Housing Supply, City of Renton.
Sources: HUD CHAS (based on ACS 2017 5-year estimates); BERK, 2021.
AGENDA ITEM #1. l)
City of Renton | Ordinance 5983 Assessment 12
Housing Cost Burdens
Exhibits 8 and 9 describe cost burdens experienced by households renting in Renton by income category,
by percent, and number respectively. This information includes the most recent data available from the
2017 CHAS dataset provided by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development, and highlights
households that are cost burdened (paying more than 30% of their income on rent) and severely cost
burdened (paying more than half their income on rent).
To understand how this relates to the availability of affordable housing, Exhibit 10 shows the differences
between renting households at or below a given AMI, compared to the total supply of housing
affordable at that income level or lower. This represents all households and housing in the current market,
to generally show what affordable housing certain households have access to in the local area right now,
and how many units short Renton is with respect to meeting needs at different income levels.
This indicates the following:
About 46% of renters in the city are experiencing some level of housing cost burden, and 21% of
renters are paying over half their income on rent.
These burdens are related strongly to income: about 30% of households with incomes at 30–50%
AMI are paying over half their income on rent, and 69% of households at 0–30% AMI are
severely cost burdened.
At incomes of 50% AMI or below, over 6,000 households in Renton are facing some level of
housing burden, with over 3,800 households experiencing severe cost burdens.
For extremely low-income households earning 30% AMI or below, there is a significant gap in
available affordable housing, with an estimated shortfall of about 2,415 units today. This gap is
reduced when considering households at 50% AMI or below, suggesting that the most significant
needs are with extremely low-income households and many of these households may have to access
housing that is less affordable to them.
Overall, these distributions across income categories highlight evidence of both uprenting, with low-
income households taking on increased housing burdens, and downrenting, with higher-income
households paying less than 30% of their incomes on rent, potentially for units that would be more
affordable to lower-income households.
To better understand the likely cost burdens faced by residents of the city, it is possible to generate the
cost of the total housing cost burden faced by all low-income households in Renton. While these burdens
cannot be fully addressed with this funding, especially given its constraints, this can provide a sense of the
scale of the problem as compared to these available resources.
Data from the Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) from the American Community Survey for 2019 was
used to calculate the total housing subsidies necessary to address housing burdens for Renton households
at 60% AMI or below. This is divided by:
Tenure: Renters versus owners.
Housing costs burdens: severe housing cost burdens (all housing costs above 50% of income), or all
housing cost burdens (above 30% of income).
Income level: Extremely low-income households (<30% AMI) versus households at 30–60% AMI.
AGENDA ITEM #1. l)
City of Renton | Ordinance 5983 Assessment 13
From this assessment, total cost burdens for households at 60% AMI or below amount to $94 million per
year, with about $64 million for all renting households, and around $30 million for cost burdens for low-
income households renting in the city. While not all these burdens can be addressed with this sales tax
funding, this highlights that the housing cost burden in the community will exceed available revenue
sources, requiring prioritization in housing support.
Exhibit 8. Housing Cost Burden of Renters by Income Category, Percent, City of Renton.
Sources: HUD CHAS (based on ACS 2017 5-year estimates); BERK, 2021.
AGENDA ITEM #1. l)
City of Renton | Ordinance 5983 Assessment 14
Exhibit 9. Housing Cost Burden of Renters by Income Category, Number of Households, City of Renton.
Sources: HUD CHAS (based on ACS 2017 5-year estimates); BERK, 2021.
Exhibit 10. Gaps in Affordable Housing by Income Threshold, City of Renton.
Sources: HUD CHAS (based on ACS 2017 5-year estimates); BERK, 2021.
AGENDA ITEM #1. l)
City of Renton | Ordinance 5983 Assessment 15
Exhibit 11. Aggregate Annual Housing Cost Burdens, City of Renton.
Sources: ACS PUMS, 2019; BERK, 2021.
AGENDA ITEM #1. l)
City of Renton | Ordinance 5983 Assessment 16
Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing
In understanding how the current housing market can manage current housing needs, examining naturally
occurring affordable housing can also be important. In the open market, there are cases where units may
be affordable but not maintained through subsidies. These housing units are often older and more
obsolete than the rest of the housing stock, but because of their condition, the rents charged for these
spaces are lower. As they present a source of unsubsidized affordable housing in the local market,
understanding the populations they serve and how they can be maintained with lower rents can be an
important part of affordable housing policy.
Estimates of the availability of naturally occurring affordable housing in Renton are provided in Exhibit
12, based on the analysis of CoStar data from the South King Housing (SoKiHo) sub-regional housing
assessment framework.4 This provides a count of the available market-rate units by the number of
bedrooms, according to the affordability for two different income categories: 50–80% AMI (low-income),
and less than 50% AMI (very low- and extremely low-income).
This indicates that about 62% of units that are market-rate and affordable at 50% AMI or below consist
of either studio or 1-bedroom apartments. This highlights that larger low-income households (such as
those with children) may have greater challenges finding affordable units on the market. This is
especially true for larger family sizes, where availability may be very limited, and overcrowding would
be likely.
Exhibit 12. Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing Units by Size, City of Renton.
Source: EcoNorthwest, 2020; CoStar, 2020.
4 For more information, see visit econw.shinyapps.io/south-kc-policy-analysis-tool.
AGENDA ITEM #1. l)
City of Renton | Ordinance 5983 Assessment 17
Future Housing Needs
Beyond the discussions of current housing needs above, there are also considerations that more
affordable housing will be needed in the future. Exhibit 13 highlights the overall expected housing needs
in Renton estimated over the next 20 years, considering both short-term housing underproduction and
expected needs into the future. This figure is based on estimates from the 2017 Land Use Vision modeling
coordinated by the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) and is presented as part of the South King
Housing (SoKiHo) framework.
This projection indicates the following:
Overall, about 2,590 housing units, or about 28% of the total housing demand, will need to be
built in the future to address the needs of households with incomes of 60% AMI or lower.
For extremely low-income households making 30% AMI or below, about 894 units in this assessment
will be required to meet demand. These units will require significant subsidy, either through the City
or partners.
This assessment is based on earlier measures with previous growth targets for the city. Under new
Countywide Planning Policies approved in July 2021, Renton has set a new target of 17,000 new housing
units between 2019 and 2044.
Based on these proportions, this would require around 4,750 new units at 60% AMI or below,
including around 1,650 new units at 30% AMI or below over the next 20 years.
Meeting the needs of affordable housing for extremely low-income households alone would require
building $500–660 million in new housing, or about $25–33 million per year in today’s dollars
over a 20-year period.5 This would require the most significant subsidies, and other support (e.g.,
grants, surplus land for development, etc.) would still be necessary to address other needs for the
4,750 units needed at 60% AMI and below.
Note that these assessments are over and above the needs that are identified in the current market, such
as the need for an additional 2,415 units to meet the needs of households at 30% AMI or below.
Additionally, many of the other gaps in the affordable housing stock today, such as with family-sized
housing, will likely widen as growth continues unless addressed.
5 This assumes a cost of $300,000 to $400,000 per unit for construction in current dollars, and only includes costs of
development and not ongoing costs with maintenance and operations.
AGENDA ITEM #1. l)
City of Renton | Ordinance 5983 Assessment 18
Exhibit 13. Projected Housing Needs for the City of Renton, 2019–2040.
Source: EcoNorthwest, 2020.
AGENDA ITEM #1. l)
City of Renton | Ordinance 5983 Assessment 19
Specific Housing Needs by Category
People with Disabilities
Exhibit 14 provides a distribution of renter households in the city, divided between:
Households with at least one member with a disability providing limitations on self-care or
independent living.
Households with at least one member with another disability.
All other households.
This data highlights that higher proportions of households with lower incomes have household members
with disabilities, with the highest proportions among extremely low-income households. This highlights that
challenges with housing affordability will increase with household members with disabilities, especially
considering the need for appropriate housing that meets their needs. This challenge with affordability
should be recognized in funding support, especially for funding that can be used to address deficiencies
in available housing.
Exhibit 14. Renter Households With At Least One Member with Disability, City of Renton.
Sources: HUD CHAS (based on ACS 2017 5-year estimates); BERK, 2021.
AGENDA ITEM #1. l)
City of Renton | Ordinance 5983 Assessment 20
Seniors
The following exhibits highlight housing income distributions for seniors:
Exhibit 15 provides a distribution of cost-burdened renter households by income and household type
(including seniors living alone and senior couples).
Exhibit 16 highlights a distribution of severely cost-burdened renter households by income and
household type.
Exhibit 17 describes the distribution of owner households by income and household type.
These figures indicate the following:
For cost-burdened and severely cost-burdened households, a greater proportion of extremely low-
income households consist of seniors, especially seniors living alone. Twenty percent of cost-
burdened renters at 30% AMI or below are seniors living alone, and 16% of severely cost burdened
households are seniors living alone.
Cost burdens for seniors that own their homes are not as significantly related to income. While a
greater proportion of cost-burdened owners are seniors, about 29% of cost-burdened households
making AMI or above are considered “cost burdened”.
Altogether, this suggests that while a greater proportion of low-income cost-burdened households that
are renting are seniors, this relationship is not as clear when it comes to housing burdens for owner-
occupied housing.
Exhibit 15. Renter Cost-Burdened Households by Household Type (Elderly/Other), City of Renton.
Sources: HUD CHAS (based on ACS 2017 5-year estimates); BERK, 2021.
AGENDA ITEM #1. l)
City of Renton | Ordinance 5983 Assessment 21
Exhibit 16. Renter Severely Cost-Burdened Households by Household Type (Elderly/Other), City of Renton.
Sources: HUD CHAS (based on ACS 2017 5-year estimates); BERK, 2021.
Exhibit 17. Owner Cost-Burdened Households, by Household Type (Elderly/Other), City of Renton.
Sources: HUD CHAS (based on ACS 2017 5-year estimates); BERK, 2021.
AGENDA ITEM #1. l)
City of Renton | Ordinance 5983 Assessment 22
Domestic Violence
Housing needs for survivors of domestic violence are often more challenging than other types of housing
needs. Temporary shelters, transitional housing, and permanent housing options typically require
anonymity, and affected individuals and families can often experience severe disruptions in housing
stability and security.
To understand general trends in domestic violence in Renton, Exhibit 18 highlights the volume of monthly
calls from the Renton Police Department coded as domestic disputes related to domestic violence. As
noted in this figure, the number of calls varies between about 175 to 250 per month, or 5.7 to 8 per day
on average, with the highest volume recorded in July 2019. No significant change is noticeable from this
data, however.
Anecdotal evidence does suggest that the social isolation and stress related to the COVID-19 pandemic
may be related to an increase in domestic violence that may not be reported.6 Similarly, many cases of
domestic violence typically go unreported. Coupled with income and housing instability, there may be
future needs that will only be possible to identify well after the impacts of the pandemic have receded.
Exhibit 18. Domestic Violence Calls by Month, City of Renton.
Source: Renton Police Department, 2021.
6 See Seattle and King County Public Health, Domestic Violence Patterns in King County, WA: March-September 2020.
AGENDA ITEM #1. l)
City of Renton | Ordinance 5983 Assessment 23
Veterans
Among the civilian population aged 18 and over in Renton, about 6.5% (5,104) are veterans, versus
5.8% in King County overall, according to 2019 5-year ACS data. In Renton, veterans are more likely to
have risk factors associated with higher levels of housing instability than non-veterans:
11.9% are in poverty (versus 8.6% of non-veterans).
4.9% are unemployed (versus 3.5% of non-veterans).
28.8% have at least one disability (versus 11.7% of non-veterans).
While these factors would suggest a higher rate of housing instability, there are avenues of support
available to veterans that are not accessible to other households at risk for housing instability.
Specifically, access to additional federal resources for healthcare and housing through the US
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), can also help with unmet housing and health needs, but will not
alleviate all the needs of veterans in the community.
AGENDA ITEM #1. l)
City of Renton | Ordinance 5983 Assessment 24
Homelessness
The major source of data in the region on homelessness is the annual Seattle/King County Point-in-Time
count of people experiencing homelessness. The 2020 Report7 highlights major trends in homelessness
across the region, including demographics, health conditions, reasons for homelessness, and types of
shelter.
This count does not provide specific counts for Renton. However, aggregated counts are provided for
different subareas in the county, as shown in Exhibit 19. Renton is in the “Southwest County” area, with
Algona, Auburn, Burien, Des Moines, Federal Way, Kent, Milton, Normandy Park, Pacific, Renton, SeaTac,
Tukwila, Vashon Island, and other unincorporated parts of King County.
This information indicates the following:
Overall counts of people experiencing homelessness. Overall estimates of annual point-in-time
counts from 2017 to 2020 are provided in Exhibit 20, with the proportion of the total found in the
Southwest Area indicated in the graph. Over time, the count of people experiencing homelessness is
relatively stable at around 12,000 individuals, with the Southwest Area accounting for about 15–
18% of this total or around 1,900–2,000 people.
General demographics. From the recent 2020 Point-in-Time Count, general statistics for individuals
experiencing homelessness in the county include the following:
About 19% are under 18 years old.
Around 35% are experiencing homelessness for the first time.
About 64% have been experiencing homelessness for a year or more.
The most common reasons for homelessness include job loss, alcohol/drug use, and eviction.
In 2020, over half of respondents had a psychiatric or emotional condition, with two-thirds
indicating that this kept them from maintaining stable housing. Other common health conditions
included post-traumatic stress disorder (47%) and substance use (44%)
Families with children account for 32% of the total population of people experiencing
homelessness.
People fleeing domestic violence or abuse account for about 10% of the homeless population,
with 69% unsheltered.
Unaccompanied youth comprise about 8% of the total homeless population of the county, with
27% representing different gender identities (e.g., gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, etc.).
Veterans account for about 7% of the total number of people in the county experiencing
homelessness, with a downward trend since 2017.
7 See All Home, Count Us In: Seattle/King County Point-in-Time Count of Individuals Experiencing Homelessness, 2020.
AGENDA ITEM #1. l)
City of Renton | Ordinance 5983 Assessment 25
Exhibit 19. Point-In-Time Count Reporting Areas.
Source: All Home, 2020.
Exhibit 20. Point-In-Time Counts of People Experiencing Homelessness, King County.
Source: All Home, 2020.
AGENDA ITEM #1. l)
City of Renton | Ordinance 5983 Assessment 26
Shelter status. For the population of people experiencing homelessness in the Southwest Area
overall, Exhibit 21 highlights the breakdown of people with shelter (including transitional housing and
emergency shelter space) versus those without adequate shelter. This highlights that from the total,
only about 42–47% of the people experiencing homelessness in the count are able to find some
type of space for shelter, with this proportion slightly decreasing over time.
Overall regional proportion. With respect to shelter space, it can be difficult to determine the city
of residence for people experiencing homelessness, especially those experiencing chronic
homelessness. However, 6% of countywide respondents reported that their last permanent address
was Renton in the 2019 Count, which was the second most frequent response after Seattle.
Youth homelessness. More detailed information on the characteristics of students experiencing
homelessness is available from the Washington State Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction
through the Comprehensive Education Data and Research System (CEDARS). In addition to providing
information about students that are sheltered or unsheltered, this information highlights other housing
situations, such as doubling-up in housing or temporary shelter at a hotel/motel. What should be
highlighted here is that doubling-up is the most common expression of homelessness, with about 74%
of students experiencing homelessness finding temporary shelter in this way. This points to a much
more extensive issue with access to affordable housing that also needs to be addressed.
For emergency shelter space targets, it is a complex task to set fair targets between communities to meet
these needs. The annual Point-in-Time reports provide physical counts, but they involve self-reported data
and may not identify people that do not want to participate or are finding temporary shelter in other
ways (e.g., doubling up, hotel rooms, etc.). People experiencing homelessness may need to relocate to
more urban locations where they can receive services, including both moving from Renton to Seattle, as
well as moving to Renton from surrounding suburban communities. It can also be challenging to determine
someone’s city of residence for the purpose of allocating responsibilities without a stable address.
A service target for Renton can be informed in two ways:
Allocations at the county level. Based on the finding from the 2019 report that 6% of people
experiencing homelessness reported their original place of residence as Renton. As a proportion, this
suggests that Renton would need to provide emergency shelter and supportive housing for a total of
around 700 people currently experiencing homelessness. At a minimum, accommodating a 6% share
of currently unsheltered people would require facilities to meet the needs of 335 residents.
Allocations at the subregional level. From point-in-time count tallies at the sub-regional level, about
1,937 people were experiencing homelessness in the Southwest Area, 42% of which had access to
shelter. Based on a proportion of the total city population, Renton should accommodate about 365
residents. If calculated on unsheltered residents, about 210 spaces would be required.
From these calculations, the minimum target for additional emergency shelter and permanent supportive
housing in Renton should be around 200 spaces, which would account for an even share of the
subregional count of unsheltered people in the last point-in-time count. However, the City should look to
set higher targets for these services to be hosted in the community and work with partners to
accommodate at least 350–400 spaces for people experiencing housing instability and homelessness.
Note that this target will likely increase over time as population and housing costs increase.
AGENDA ITEM #1. l)
City of Renton | Ordinance 5983 Assessment 27
Exhibit 21. Sheltered versus Unsheltered Individuals, Southwest Area.
Source: All Home, 2020.
Exhibit 22. Students Experiencing Homelessness, by Primary Nighttime Residence, 2019.
Source: WA OSPI, Comprehensive Education Data and Research System (CEDARS), 2020.
AGENDA ITEM #1. l)
City of Renton | Ordinance 5983 Assessment 28
Behavioral Health Needs
Providing enhanced behavioral health treatment options is also an important component of an integrated
approach under this sales tax funding option. In addition to providing for better overall quality of life
through access to treatment, addressing these health needs can be an important part of the supportive
services that can keep people housed. Over half of respondents in the Point-in-Time Count noted that
they had a psychiatric or emotional condition, with a significant portion of respondents noting that PTSD
and substance use were also health conditions of concern that keep many from maintaining stable
housing.
To understand general trends in the demand for behavioral health services, Exhibit 23 shows data from
the Washington State Department of Health Comprehensive Hospital Abstract Reporting System (CHARS).
This database system provides aggregated data on inpatient and observation intakes at area hospitals
by three-digit zip code aggregations, with information on intakes related to behavioral health issues,
divided according to distinct types of issues.
This graph shows that while intakes due to behavioral health conditions dropped significantly in 2020 due
to the pandemic, there was a 39% growth in intakes from 2017 to 2019. The most significant increases
were with “Schizophrenia and other non-mood psychotic”, which increased 49% in this time, and other
substance use aside from alcohol, which amounted to 46% in that same period. This rapid increase may
suggest that there has been a distinct rise recently in the need for behavioral health services, especially in
more severe cases that may challenge someone’s housing stability.
Exhibit 23. Inpatient/Observation Patient Stays, Mental/Behavioral Disorders, 980 Zip Codes.
Source: WA DOH, Comprehensive Hospital Abstract Reporting System, 2021.
AGENDA ITEM #1. l)
City of Renton | Ordinance 5983 Assessment 29
Interviews
Approach
The interviews conducted as part of this research were coordinated with organizations that currently
provide services in Renton or the region in areas of housing, homelessness, and behavioral health. The
participating organizations are included in Exhibit 24:
Exhibit 24. Project Interviews Conducted.
Organization Type Representative
Renton Housing Authority Affordable Housing Jill Richardson
City of Renton Domestic Violence Advocate Domestic Violence Tina Harris
Domestic Abuse Women’s Network (DAWN) Domestic Violence Angela Dannenbring
King County Library Services Homelessness Services Melissa Glen
Multi-Service Center Homelessness Services Maje Qureshi
Refugee Women’s Alliance Homelessness Services Crisaan Brooks
St. Vincent de Paul/St. Stephen the Martyr Homelessness Services Darlene Simpson
REACH Center of Hope Homelessness Services / Emergency Shelter Maggie Breen
Catholic Community Services (ARISE) Homelessness Services / Emergency Shelter Whonakee King
Asian Counseling and Referral Services Behavioral Health Yoon Joo Han
Renton Area Youth and Family Services (RAYS)
/ Childhaven
Behavioral Health Angela West
Ukrainian Community Center Behavioral Health Oleg Pynda
Valley Cities Counseling and Consultation Behavioral Health Amber Rhodes
AGENDA ITEM #1. l)
City of Renton | Ordinance 5983 Assessment 30
These interviews were intended as an “environmental scan” to determine major trends. The general focus
of these interviews was on the following questions:
Current Services and Programs
What housing-related needs are currently underserved in Renton (either due to a lack of service
options or lack of capacity to meet the need)?
What are the current barriers to meeting those needs?
Which housing-related services are constrained due to a lack of facilities (either housing or facilities
to provide services)?
What are the risks to your programs related to facilities?
Future Services
What are promising models to address the unmet/undermet needs in Renton?
Are you currently expanding or planning to expand your services?
In what ways?
What needs are you responding to?
What are the barriers to expansion?
Summary of Findings
General
Issues with navigation were highlighted as a major concern. Generally, engaging with multiple
agencies to find services is an issue, and these problems are compounded for people of color,
people with limited English ability, and people with mental/behavioral health issues. Providing more
equitable access may require specially trained navigation staff that can address specific needs of
subpopulations in the community.
Providing services locally was seen as supporting people in retaining their connections to the
community. This can also help in cases where transportation is a barrier to accessing services.
In addition to providing for direct capital needs related to housing and mental and behavioral
health services, there are other facility needs that may be required. Challenges with acquiring and
maintaining office space may provide obstacles to service delivery, especially in cases where office
costs are rising and spaces may be too small for staffing levels.
Housing
Providers report that help finding affordable housing is the most common request, and there are few
options available due to a lack of supply and turnover. More supply of affordable housing is
desperately needed.
Incomes are too low for many to maintain stable housing in Renton. It can be challenging for these
households to maintain housing stability without continuing subsidies or sufficient income.
AGENDA ITEM #1. l)
City of Renton | Ordinance 5983 Assessment 31
The City has ongoing relationships with other agencies, including the Renton Housing Authority, and
ongoing support of capital projects should continue.
There is an important role for flexible temporary housing assistance through grants or loans.
Covering short-term emergency expenses can make the difference between households staying in
permanent housing or requiring more expensive support later.
Homelessness
There are very limited local services for people experiencing homelessness. Emergency shelter beds
are limited throughout the region, and there is far more demand than supply.
While the advantages to approaching homelessness with a “housing first” approach are important,
there is still a perceived need for transitional housing, especially since there has been the
perception that providing wraparound services (including mental and behavioral health services) has
been a challenge.
Local facilities are very limited as well. REACH Center of Hope is the only permanent shelter in
Renton (serving women with children), with temporary shelter space for single adult men provided in
other facilities through ARISE. The Extended Stay Hotel purchase by King County will provide some
permanent supportive housing capacity when the facility opens.
Other facilities may be needed to support people experiencing homelessness, in addition to shelters.
Construction and staffing of hygiene centers and day centers can provide additional support, even
for people who are unable or unwilling to pursue shelter options.
Behavioral Health
The COVID-19 pandemic has provided significant limitations to accessing mental and
behavioral health services. In-person appointments have been limited, and many staff members
have only been able to provide remote services by phone or video chat. This often limits contact with
individuals needing support, and clients that are homeless or experiencing severe behavioral health
issues may be challenged in using technology to access appointments.
As with navigation in general, there are distinct cultural needs for mental and behavioral health
services, and often specialized services (such as bilingual providers) are needed for different
populations. While some providers can give these specific services to clients, more general service
providers may have challenges in meeting a broad set of needs with available staff.
There have been considerable staffing constraints to meet existing needs. During the pandemic,
there have been additional challenges, but burnout and low salaries have been an ongoing
challenge to recruitment and retention of staff to support services. Without additional sources of
funding, these issues cannot be addressed.
Child and elder care can be important support services for people accessing mental and
behavioral health. This is especially true for households managing without typical child or elder care
arrangements, and a lack of care options can be an obstacle in accessing support services. While this
could be a service available to support appointments, it is not always available.
AGENDA ITEM #1. l)
City of Renton | Ordinance 5983 Assessment 32
Specialized Needs
Accommodating accessibility of affordable and emergency housing for people with disabilities
can address a major obstacle to receiving needed services. Providing accessibility for people with
mobility issues and other disabilities is essential in addressing major obstacles to these services.
However, in many cases service providers do not have the resources or infrastructure to meet these
needs themselves, which can limit the options for people with disabilities. Providing support both for
the needs of these clients through supporting programs and referrals and to providers to
accommodate these needs in facilities, can help address these obstacles.
For people experiencing homelessness, there are few local options to address other specialized
needs in Renton. Meeting the specific needs of youth, people with disabilities, domestic violence
survivors, and other populations locally can be limited since even general resources are scarce. This is
often due to the scale of these specialized needs, meaning that regional or metro-wide collaboration
is necessary to ensure that these needs are supported.
There may also be limited options for specialized behavioral health treatment that can be
provided in Renton. Again, this is related to the scale of demand, where psychiatric care or specific
types of behavioral therapy may only be able to be provided at regional facilities. This means that
people may need to access the resources found in other communities (such as in Seattle), and
coordinating access to these types of regional services is important.
More local housing and service options (e.g., coordinated with surrounding communities) can help
to support people at risk by maintaining their local social networks and reducing travel. From the
experiences of providers, the social connections developed by people experiencing homelessness
can be an important source of support. Additionally, traveling to receive services and emergency
housing can be a challenge, especially if people need to access locations that would be difficult to
reach by transit (such as travel to Eastside cities).
AGENDA ITEM #1. l)
City of Renton | Ordinance 5983 Assessment 33
Funding Recommendations
Introduction
Under City estimates of revenue, the 0.1% sales tax has generated $1.1 million as of June 2021 and is
expected to generate around $2.6 million for the entire year. For future years, receipts of around $2.7
million would be expected per year starting in 2022, changing with inflation and adjustments to local
taxable retail sales.
The following points should be considered when determining courses of action based on the findings from
this report and the Housing Action Plan:
The City should leverage available funding using relationships with local providers. As seen by
the diversity of non-profits and religious organizations operating in Renton, there are several
partners well-positioned to address issues of housing, homelessness, and behavioral health. Funding
to support key investments by these organizations can facilitate planned projects that may not
otherwise move forward, provide support and connections for hired staff, and reduce administrative
costs to the City.
New funding allocations should focus on investments that can leverage external sources. Even
with cooperation from other partners, the funding available from this sales tax will not cover all
identified needs. However, a flexible and reliable source of funding can help to demonstrate the
viability of projects and attract additional financial support from external entities. This could include
county, state, and federal grant programs, as well as the forthcoming SKHHP Capital Fund, private
equity funding, and other sources.
This revenue presents opportunities for reliable long-term support. One challenge that often arises
is the availability and reliability of support over time. For operating expenditures such as salaries,
planning around unreliable or short-term funding sources can be challenging. The City should focus on
providing more reliable and consistent allocations of support that can be flexible when considering
overall needs.
Equity considerations should be a primary concern. Issues related to housing, homelessness, and
behavioral health often have a disproportionate impact on certain populations, including people of
color. Funding allocations need to consider issues with the availability of services and resources to
these groups in the community. Additionally, the City should identify approaches to provide
navigation services and support to address differences in access and outcomes.
Regional needs require a regional response and funding. Some specialized needs, such as
addressing the housing and behavioral health needs of specific populations (e.g., veterans, DV
survivors), may need to be addressed at a regional scale given the proportions of people impacted.
Coordinating with other jurisdictions on both capital and operating support will be important in
providing regional coverage of housing and behavioral health services. This will require a consistent
source of funding that can be allocated to projects over time.
AGENDA ITEM #1. l)
City of Renton | Ordinance 5983 Assessment 34
Funding models should provide focused support. Many smaller awards can limit the ability to
audit and review the effects of these allocations, given the increased costs of oversight. Where
possible, larger and more regular funding allocations should be made with this revenue stream.
Long-term planning must consider ongoing support for maintenance and operations. New
facilities will require additional support for ongoing operations and maintenance costs beyond
existing budgets. While immediate allocations of this funding should look to focus on capital needs,
this revenue stream should provide for fiscal sustainability by giving a greater focus on operations,
maintenance, and preservation/rehabilitation over time.
8 Based on estimated equity costs of about $80,000 to $400,000 per unit, drawn from multiple sources, depending upon the
cost and other funding leveraged to acquire the housing units.
9 Based on estimates of “costs per day” identified in the Washington State Department of Commerce Homeless System
Performance: King County Report Card for 2018 and 2019.
10 Based on estimates of “costs per successful exit” from the Homeless System Performance: King County Report Card for 2018
and 2019.
11 Developed using the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics
(OEWS), May 2020.
Illustrative Examples of Funding Allocations
With respect to the potential investment strategies for this revenue, there are many possible
approaches for allocating this funding within the community. However, this funding will not be sufficient
alone to address all the gaps in the local system. While the results of spending in different areas will
vary based on details, there are several examples of what the funding could provide. For example,
the entire amount could be used to fund any one of the following (or a combination of a portion of
two or more of the following):
Acquire around 10–30 affordable housing units per year, depending on market conditions.8
Support the operating costs for 100–200 person-years in rapid rehousing programs, 150–300
person-years in emergency shelters, 150–550 person-years in transitional housing, or 500–1000
person-years in homelessness prevention programs.9
Provide for the annual operating costs for around 200–400 successful exits from emergency
shelter, rapid rehousing, or transitional housing into permanent housing.10
Directly support about 30–50 case workers/counselors or 20 psychologists (depending on
salaries and benefits).11
AGENDA ITEM #1. l)
City of Renton | Ordinance 5983 Assessment 35
Proposed Investment
Overview
The statute under RCW 82.14.530 provides requirements for allocations for the funding, with:
From 60% to 100% allocated to constructing or acquiring facilities for housing, housing-related
services, and behavioral health, as well as ongoing operations and maintenance costs.
The remaining funding (up to 40%) can be used for the operation, delivery, or evaluation of
behavioral health treatment programs and services or housing-related services in other locations.
This funding split is flexible and dependent on capital needs for services related to addressing housing,
homelessness, and behavioral health. Given this, recommendations for funding allocations are divided
between facilities support and programmatic support.
Facilities Support
Given the required allocations of funding and expected revenue, facility support could amount to
between $1.6 and $2.7 million per year based on the projections for 2022, depending on the levels of
programmatic support allocated. Based on the research coordinated, recommended options for this
funding include:
Strategic leveraging. As land prices in Renton will continue to increase, providing support for the
strategic acquisition of existing housing and future sites for affordable housing should be a high
priority for the City. This should be done in collaboration with the Renton Housing Authority and
housing non-profit agencies operating in Renton and should consider the surplus lands inventory
anticipated being coordinated by the City. The main focus of this effort should be on acquiring
housing and property in transit-oriented locations in the Rainier/Grady Junction area and in other
locations with high development pressures.
Development of emergency shelter and associated support facilities. At present, there are only
two emergency shelters available in Renton: one men’s shelter (ARISE) with rotating space run by
Catholic Community Services, and the REACH Center of Hope facility for families experiencing
homelessness. Expanding available emergency shelter space with additional permanent beds would
be desirable to address the identified gaps. Additionally, new facilities could provide an ideal
location for the replacement of the services formerly provided in the cold weather shelter near the
Renton Airport, including meals, hygiene facilities, and other support activities.
Ongoing contract support for the operation of emergency housing and supporting services
($200K–$450K). In addition to providing short-term support for the development of new
emergency housing space in the community, the City should work to provide ongoing support through
a contract for personnel and ongoing management of shelter space and other facilities. A staff of 2–
5 employees would be expected for a facility providing emergency housing for 30–60 people, with
additional costs and staffing based on available day services, meal programs, navigation services,
and other functions. Identified costs assume that the City would contract for these services (similar to
REACH) and would assume the costs, benefits, and overhead for part or all of the staff.
AGENDA ITEM #1. l)
City of Renton | Ordinance 5983 Assessment 36
Ongoing development of affordable housing by the Renton Housing Authority. A significant and
consistent portion of the regular revenue should be allocated to the Renton Housing Authority to
support ongoing acquisition and construction of affordable housing. This revenue should be directed
to support new housing at 60% AMI or below for the targeted populations identified in the statute.
The City should coordinate funding support with RHA long-range planning to highlight specific
opportunities for funding support.
Ongoing development of affordable housing by other agencies. Additional funding for
affordable housing can also be directed to support the production of housing by other partners.
Where possible, this should address the identified needs for extremely low-income housing (30%
AMI or below) and low-income families first, targeting support specifically to meet needs that are
not easily addressed by the local market through existing and future incentives.
Future support for operations and maintenance of existing facilities. Adding new affordable
housing and facilities to support people experiencing homelessness and behavioral health challenges
will require ongoing operations and maintenance costs. To ensure that these investments are fiscally
sustainable, the City should direct funding to provide long-term operations and maintenance costs for
facilities constructed or acquired under this program.
Programmatic Support
According to the funding model under statute and estimates of revenue, the City can allocate about $1
million per year based on the projections for 2022 to operating costs for behavioral health and housing-
related services. This would include support for staffing, as well as the provision of other programs that
are not directly related to acquiring and maintaining facilities.
Recommended allocations for this funding include the following:
Ongoing joint funding for behavioral health field response ($100K–$300K). The City is
pursuing an option to fund a behavioral health professional to provide field response. This
funding should be maintained over the long term to provide dependable support to the
community through these positions. Based on a short-term evaluation of their effectiveness and
the availability of other grant funding, the City may seek to expand funding for Renton-specific
needs depending on demand.
Additional wrap-around housing and behavioral health services pilot ($100K–$400K). In
addition to the funding support for a field response team, support for behavioral health
professionals providing wrap-around services is also needed. These professionals would be focused
on the needs of Renton residents in existing emergency shelters and permanent supportive housing
and provide behavioral health support on an ongoing basis. Initial efforts should be focused on a
limited hire (one to two counselors or behavioral health professionals) through a contract with a local
nonprofit provider, with the potential to expand these services over time.
Affordable rental assistance funding pilot ($100K–$200K). Providing emergency funding to very
low- and extremely low-income renters in targeted populations that are experiencing housing
instability can be an effective way to avert homelessness in the community. Maintaining households
that are experiencing unforeseen financial circumstances in permanent housing, can avoid the need
for emergency housing services, which can reduce the costs to the community and keep these
AGENDA ITEM #1. l)
City of Renton | Ordinance 5983 Assessment 37
households from being displaced. This program should be developed as a pilot to determine the
potential demand for market assistance and could also include other flexible options to allow the use
of this funding for assistance with housing searches, rental deposits, moving expenses, and other
expenses.12
As opposed to the facilities-based expenditures, this programmatic support element should be defined
by initial pilot programs, with efforts scaled up based on initial uptake, outcomes, and expected
additional demand. Additional funding should be allocated based on assessments.
Administration
While certain elements of the proposed investments could be administered by the City departments, the
management of these new resources should be shared with other agencies working with housing,
homelessness, and behavioral health services in the community. Unlike current models of funding support,
these expenditures would far exceed current levels of funding in the community. As a result, this would
require a higher level of review and coordination, requiring investments of City staff time and resources
in specific areas:
Proposals/Applications. Many of the activities listed in this assessment would be coordinated with
existing agencies or through relationships, for example, additional funding to the Renton Housing
Authority or cooperative projects with other communities. Funding support for RHA could be
negotiated separately, with other allocations to affordable housing providers coordinated through a
regular competitive process, either through yearly applications or a formal Request for Proposals.
Additionally, smaller outlays with rental assistance and housing preservation should also be
evaluated on a continuing basis through applications.
Additional engagement. The City should also provide for regular engagement with non-profit
housing and community organizations. Regular communication with these groups can help to
identify what issues should be considered in funding allocations and whether changes to these
programs are necessary.
Monitoring and reporting. To ensure this revenue is deployed openly and transparently, the City
should commit to regular reporting of the use of sales tax funding on key objectives. Because of
this, regular yearly reporting should be coordinated from partners and City departments
receiving or managing these resources. Outcomes should then be reported on a regular basis by
the City to the broader public, through a scorecard report or web-based dashboard. This reporting
should also include reviews of the efficacy of the pilot programs identified and
recommendations for future adjustments to these programs.
12 The City of Ellensburg has developed a comparable funding program using this sales tax revenue source, coordinated
through HopeSource Ellensburg. See: “City, HopeSource ready to disperse funds to help residents pay rent.”, The Daily
Record, May 4, 2020.
13 The City of Olympias’s Home Fund is managed in this way through a Home Fund Advisory Committee, consisting of representatives from affordable housing finance, community health, homelessness services, behavioral health, law enforcement, and emergency services.
AGENDA ITEM #1. l)
City of Renton | Ordinance 5983 Assessment 38
Implementation
A general schedule for implementation steps would proceed as follows:
The City should focus on setting up the frameworks for long-term management of the program with its
partners and providing for strategic leveraging of resources for affordable housing and the development
of shelter space. Programmatic investments should focus on pilots related to behavioral health response
and support of low-income renters.
Administration
Engagement. Regular and ongoing efforts for outreach with organizations providing affordable
housing and services related to housing, homelessness, and behavioral health should be coordinated
over time.
Reporting. A regular framework should be developed in the short term by the City to provide
transparency about the use of funding and related outcomes. This should be presented as a yearly
report and/or an online dashboard.
Ongoing program administration. The City should continue engagement with local providers,
other jurisdictions, and regular reporting activities.
Facilities Support
Strategic leveraging. Target properties for immediate acquisition of housing units or land banking
for future development should be identified in coordination with the Renton Housing Authority and
nonprofit agencies, with priorities in areas with high transit service.
Emergency shelter development. A process should be developed for receiving applications for
funding support for the acquisition and operation of permanent space for emergency shelter.
Preferably, this would include options for supportive services such as a meal program, laundry and
hygiene facilities, and navigation services. This development may be negotiated directly with
Catholic Community Services to provide a permanent location for the ARISE shelter, although a net
expansion of available beds should be provided from this investment.
Capital and maintenance funding for the Renton Housing Authority. The City should coordinate
with the Renton Housing Authority to determine a schedule or plan for providing funding support for
RHA capital and maintenance expenditures related to new affordable housing acquisition and
development.
Capital and maintenance funding for regional facilities. In coordination with neighboring
communities and SKHHP, the City should identify funding priorities for regional facilities to address
issues of housing, homelessness, and behavioral health, and clearly determine required funding
support. These allocations should focus on specialized populations that would be best served at a
regional scale, such as supportive housing options for survivors of domestic violence.
Capital and maintenance funding to support local partners. In addition to direct funding for RHA
and regional projects, the City should coordinate a competitive application process for local
providers to support efforts by non-profit and private equity partners to create and maintain
affordable housing options in the community.
AGENDA ITEM #1. l)
City of Renton | Ordinance 5983 Assessment 39
Coordination of development on banked land. The City should work to provide support for funding
affordable housing projects on banked land in key locations. This should be coordinated with RHA
and affordable housing development partners and may include additional capital funding to
promote the development of these projects.
Additional funding support for affordable housing development. Ongoing capital and
maintenance funding should be coordinated with the Renton Housing Authority, as well as with
neighboring jurisdictions and with external affordable housing providers through a competitive
process. At this stage, funding should begin to be allocated to address longer-term maintenance and
operations of the facilities acquired under this program.
Additional emergency shelter development. A second process should be coordinated to provide
for an expansion of emergency shelter space. This may be focused on more of a regional response
to specialized needs, and discussions with neighboring communities should be coordinated to plan out
potential options and locations.
Continuation of capital funding support. The City should look to provide ongoing capital funding
support for targeted affordable housing projects in the community, both with the Renton Housing
Authority and other affordable housing providers. Where possible, this should be focused on
development of banked land. As noted previously, this funding should shift over time to provide
greater support for maintenance and preservation projects to encourage fiscal sustainability.
Additional shelter development. An additional process should be developed to expand emergency
shelter space further. As with previous processes, this may be provided through a regional facility in
cooperation with other neighboring jurisdictions.
Programmatic Support
Maintenance of behavioral health field response. The City should continue to support funding for
behavioral health professionals and navigators for field response and monitor the outcomes from this
work.
Pilot program for additional behavioral health services. The City should coordinate a pilot process
to develop additional behavioral health services for residents. This may be negotiated directly with
a public housing authority or non-profit agencies to support existing facilities related to permanent
supportive housing or could be granted through a contract based on a competitive application
process to a local provider.
Pilot program for rental assistance. A pilot process would be coordinated with an external partner
to provide housing assistance to recipients in the community. This may be negotiated directly or
released through a competitive process to a limited number of social service agencies working in the
Renton area.
Continuation of programmatic support. Efforts to provide other support through the identified
programs with behavioral health services, rental assistance, and affordable housing preservation
should be maintained.
Review and adjustment of pilot programs. After a few years, an initial review of the pilot
programs should be conducted. This would include:
Behavioral health services (including field response)
AGENDA ITEM #1. l)
City of Renton | Ordinance 5983 Assessment 40
Rental assistance
For each of these programs, the City should review the performance of each investment and
determine the reach of these programs. This should be used to identify whether funding support
should be expanded or realigned as needed.
Program review. As this funding program continues into the long term, the City should conduct a
broader review of the funding strategies and use of resources to determine if a significant
realignment would be necessary. This should look to identify possible new areas of funding support
based on changing trends (e.g., aging population, changing demographics, etc.).
AGENDA ITEM #1. l)
4-2-110A1 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS (PRIMARY STRUCTURES)
RC R-1 R-4 R-6 R-8 R-10 R-14 RMF RMF-2
Minimum Net
Density (per Net
Acre)1, 2, 15
None 3 dwelling units 4 dwelling
units
5 dwelling
units30
7 dwelling
units30
10 dwelling
units30
20 dwelling
units30
Maximum Net
Density (per Net
Acre, Except per
Net 10 Acres in
RC)2, 14, 15
1
dwelling
unit
1 dwelling
unit7, 36
4 dwelling
units
6 dwelling units 8 dwelling
units38
10 dwelling
units29
14 dwelling
units29
20 dwelling
units29
40 dwelling
units20
Maximum Number
of Dwellings (per
Legal Lot)2
1
dwelling
with 1
accessory
dwelling
unit
1 dwelling
with 1
accessory
dwelling
unit7
1 dwelling with 1 accessory
dwelling unit
1 dwelling
with 1
accessory
dwelling unit
Detached dwellings: 1
dwelling with 1 accessory
dwelling unit
Attached dwellings: n/a
Townhouses: 1 dwelling
Other Attached
Dwellings: n/a
Minimum Lot Size2,
28, 31
10 acres 1 acre3, 32 9,000 sq. ft.32,
34
7,000 sq. ft.32, 34 5,000 sq. ft.34 Detached
dwellings:
4,000 sq. ft.
Attached
dwellings:
n/a
Detached
dwellings:
3,000 sq. ft.
Attached
dwellings: n/a
n/a
Minimum Lot
Width31
150 ft. 100 ft.32 70 ft.32 60 ft.32 50 ft. 40 ft. 30 ft. Townhouses: 25 ft.
AG
E
N
D
A
I
T
E
M
#
1
.
m
)
RC R-1 R-4 R-6 R-8 R-10 R-14 RMF RMF-2
Other Attached
Dwellings: 50 ft.
Minimum Lot
Width31 (Corner
Lots)
175 ft. 110 ft. 80 ft. 70 ft. 60 ft. 50 ft. 40 ft. Townhouses: 30 ft.
Other Attached
Dwellings: 60 ft.
Minimum Lot
Depth31
300 ft. 200 ft.3, 32 100 ft.32 90 ft.32 80 ft. 70 ft. 60 ft. Townhouses: 50 ft.
Other Attached
Dwellings: 65 ft.
Minimum Front
Yard 4, 5, 31
30 ft. 30 ft.6 30 ft.6, 33 25 ft.6 20 ft. except when all vehicle
access is taken from an alley,
then 15 ft.39
15 ft.11,
except when
all vehicle
access is
taken from an
alley, then 10
ft.39
Townhouses: 15 ft.11,
except when all vehicle
access is taken from an
alley, then 10 ft.39
Other Attached
Dwellings: 20 ft.
Minimum Rear
Yard 4, 22, 31
35 ft. 30 ft. 25 ft.33 25 ft. 25 ft.39 15 ft.21, 39 10 ft.21, 39 Townhouses: 10 ft.13, 39
Other Attached
Dwellings: 15 ft.39
Minimum Side
Yard 4, 31
25 ft. 15 ft. Combined 20
ft. with not
less than 7.5
Combined 15 ft.
with not less
than 5 ft. on
either side.
5 ft. Detached
Units: 4 ft.
Attached
Units: 4 ft.
Detached
Units: 4 ft.
Attached
Units: 4 ft. for
5 ft. for unattached
side(s), 0 ft. for the
attached side(s).13
AG
E
N
D
A
I
T
E
M
#
1
.
m
)
RC R-1 R-4 R-6 R-8 R-10 R-14 RMF RMF-2
ft. on either
side.
for
unattached
side(s), 0 ft.
for the
attached
side(s).23
unattached
side(s), 0 ft.
for the
attached
side(s).23
Minimum
Secondary Front
Yard 4, 5, 31 (applies
to Corner Lots)
30 ft. 30 ft.6 30 ft.6, 33 25 ft.6 15 ft.11 15 ft.11 15 ft.11 Townhouses: 15 ft.11
Other Attached
Dwellings: 20 ft.
Maximum Building
Coverage (including
Primary and
Accessory)
10% 20% 35% 40% 50% 55% 65% Townhouses: 70%
Other Attached
Dwellings: 35%
A maximum coverage of
45% may be allowed
through the Hearing
Examiner site
development plan
review process.
Maximum
Impervious Surface
Area
15% 25% 50% 55% 65% 70% 80% 75%
Maximum Number
of Stories
3 2 3
AG
E
N
D
A
I
T
E
M
#
1
.
m
)
RC R-1 R-4 R-6 R-8 R-10 R-14 RMF RMF-2
Maximum Wall
Plate Height8, 9, 10,
12, 18, 19
32 ft. 24 ft. 24 ft.,
increase up to
32 ft. possible
subject to
administrative
conditional
use permit
approval.
Townhouses: 32 ft.
Other Attached
Dwellings: 32 ft.,
increase up to 42 ft.
possible subject to
administrative
conditional use permit
approval.
Maximum Number
of Units per
Building2
n/a No more
than 4 units
per building.
No more than
6 units per
building.
n/a
Minimum Freeway
Frontage Setback
10 ft. landscaped setback from the street property line.
Maximum Wireless
Communication
Facilities
Height (including
Amateur Radio
Antennas)
See RMC 4-4-140, Wireless Communication Facilities. Amateur radio antennas are allowed a maximum height of 6 feet without a
Conditional Use Permit. Larger structures will have a maximum height determined by the Conditional Use Permit process,
RMC 4-9-030, Conditional Use Permits.
Design Standards See RMC 4-2-115, Residential Design and Open Space Standards.
Landscaping See RMC 4-4-070, Landscaping.
Exterior Lighting See RMC 4-4-075, Lighting, Exterior On-Site.
AG
E
N
D
A
I
T
E
M
#
1
.
m
)
RC R-1 R-4 R-6 R-8 R-10 R-14 RMF RMF-2
Screening See RMC 4-4-095, Screening and Storage Height/Location Limitations.
Exception for Pre-
Existing Legal Lots
See RMC 4-10-010, Nonconforming Lots.
AG
E
N
D
A
I
T
E
M
#
1
.
m
)