What constitutes ‘frequent transit,’ when it’s time to decide how much parking a development needs or doesn’t need?

| Development | West Seattle news

By Tracy Record
West Seattle Blog editor

Back in December, we reported that the city was planning to rewrite its rule about what kind of transit availability is required before development projects to be built without parking. That was part of the fallout from a ruling by the city Hearing Examiner on a West Seattle group’s challenge to issues including a project’s use of multiple bus routes/stops to contend “frequent transit service” was available nearby.

That group, Seattle NERD, says the proposed “director’s rule” runs counter to the ruling in their appeal (we covered the appeal hearing – here, here, and here – and the ruling, last fall). This is all unfolding as the deadline for comment on the rule rushes up – it’s tomorrow (March 5th).

If you blinked, you might have missed the notice that the rewrite was ready for review and comment (we did, until Seattle NERD pointed it out) – it was linked from this notice in a recent edition of the city’s Land Use Information Bulletin, and lumped in with an unrelated proposed rule change, as per the screengrab below:

The overview of the proposed rule:

Purpose

The purpose of this rule is to define the Department’s requirements for demonstrating that a development site is eligible to be developed without parking (pursuant to 23.54.015 Table A, Row J or Table B, Row M) or qualifies for a 50% reduction in amount of required parking (pursuant to 23.54.020.F) due to the site’s location within walking distance of frequent transit service (FTS).

Background

To promote environmental and transportation policies of the Comprehensive Plan and support alternatives to driving, either no parking is required, or a reduction in the required amount is allowed for residential uses in multifamily and commercial zones in areas of the city where transit service is adequate to serve commute and non-work related trips.

The full text of the proposed rule is here. (Note that its example involves 35th/Avalon.)

It would, as Seattle NERD alleges, allow combination of bus routes and stops to arrive at a determination of “frequent transit” availability. The group points this out, including color-coded comparisons, in detail on the home page of its website. It’s pointed this out to City Councilmembers, and at least one, West Seattle-residing Tom Rasmussen, has promised to check it out.

This isn’t just an abstract process; the future of at least a few development projects awaits the decision – for example, the microhousing project planned at 3050 SW Avalon Way (with no offstreet parking) has been corresponding with the city on the issue.

If you have any comment on the proposed rule, e-mail Mike Podowski, whose address is on the notice – and again, tomorrow is the deadline.

Silly Goose March 4, 2015 (2:47 pm)

Thank you “Seattle Nerd” for being on top of this huge problem of crowded neighborhods and streets with all condo dwellers cars, ugh these developers and city offcials need a reality check!! GO GET’EM

Laura March 4, 2015 (3:18 pm)

There may be enough transit if you work downtown, don’t go anywhere else and don’t have any buses pass you by. Still doesn’t mean they won’t own cars. We are a car drivung area contrary to what these developers and the city want us to believe.
This reminds me of a conversation in the movie Singles where one character was trying to increase public transportation and another character said they weren’t giving up their car.

skeeter March 4, 2015 (3:58 pm)

The problem is free parking. Why build (and pay!) for an off-street parking space when the city gives away several hundred thousand spaces per day/night for free. Get rid of the free street parking and the congestion problems are solved instantly.

Kim March 4, 2015 (4:36 pm)

Simple solution. If you build a condo/apartment with no parking provided then you (as seller/owner/renter) are not allowed to own a car.

MSW March 4, 2015 (4:51 pm)

All buildings should have parking. These developers won’t be around for the mess they will make in our neighborhood. They will pocket the money and go ruin another neighborhood. I saw this in Ballard and now it’s in West Seattle.

S.Young March 4, 2015 (5:12 pm)

Transit shouldn’t enter into it at all. It could go away or be manipulated by the developer. Having transit available won’t make the people moving in sell their cars but having transit available may get them to drive less and leave their vehicles parked on the street longer and more often… by that logic “FTS” should require MORE parking!

Peter March 4, 2015 (5:27 pm)

The fact is rates of car ownership and per person vehicle miles continue to decline, and yet the vast majority of developments still build excess parking. And those that don’t are basically making a choice, people who need parking won’t live there. I certainly wouldn’t move into one. On the other hand, building parking is very expensive, and minimum parking requirements raise rents and contribute to the escalating cost of housing for everyone whether they own cars or not. I don’t get all the hand wringing at all. No-parking buildings represent a tiny fraction of the city’s housing supply. It’s not the 1950s anymore, and car “culture” is in permanent decline.

flimflam March 4, 2015 (5:37 pm)

I’d say there needs to be, at the very least “some” parking rather then “none what-so-ever”.

jwright March 4, 2015 (5:43 pm)

Peter, I don’t necessarily agree that building parking contributes to higher rents. I think higher rent is a matter of what the market will bear, not how much the building cost to build.
.
skeeter‘s comment is spot on. Free street parking distorts the market in so many different ways.

Jetcitygirl March 4, 2015 (5:59 pm)

Please write to oppose The Directors Rule. Ms. Sugimura should change to require underground parking not eliminate it. Reasonable development is what we need our leaders to support.

natinstl March 4, 2015 (6:01 pm)

I can only assume Peter does not participate in any activities that require a car in WA state that I believe the majority do. Hiking, fishing, kayaking, skiiing, camping, etc…all require a car and most people live here because of the access to all of those things.It’s not as if this is NY where a good majority live in the city and don’t go anywhere else. Downtown is dead beyond 7pm.

candrewb March 4, 2015 (6:18 pm)

Peter, I have said this before and I will say it again. Single occupancy vehicles are never going away. They may be powered by electricity, poop, water, good intentions, whatever. But they are not going away. To not create parking because the city minders envision a mass transit utopia, is incredibly short-sighted. I take the bus everyday to work; it’s great. My wife works in and drives to Renton and negotiates child care for the kid at the same time. Can’t do that on a bus. All the twenty-something techies that we are building all this crap for will one day be thirty-something and will think family as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow. They will all-of-a-sudden need cars. Also, why do people live here really? The outdoors. Ever take a bus to day hike around Rainier?

John March 4, 2015 (7:30 pm)

skeeter is correct.
Charging for street parking would eliminate the problem.
–
Parking absolutely adds to higher rents. Given two identical buildings, the one with added expensive underground parking would bear a higher cost.

dbf March 4, 2015 (7:31 pm)

We could go greener, create SOH ( single occupancy horse) lanes on WSBridge, carpool horse and buggy lanes, and have developers make stables instead of parking. Some could even ride a real jaguar to work.

JN March 4, 2015 (8:05 pm)

@Natinstl, I go camping all the time yet don’t own a car, just get out there by bicycle and it is way more fun and you get to know the country so much more intimately. People don’t seem to realize that you can do a lot of stuff without a car, probably because they have never been shown that it is possible to do anything without a car.

Tolduso March 4, 2015 (8:35 pm)

Myself and a minority tried to sound the alarm (for several years) on this blog almost 10 years ago. We were called MIMBYs. Now there is a problem, getting worse by the week.

Kim March 4, 2015 (8:41 pm)

It’s also becoming very difficult (and dangerous) to make a left turn onto California, from any intersection without a light, because of all the cars parked along Cali blocking sight lines.

Westseattlechaz March 4, 2015 (8:42 pm)

I have to beleive that paying a monthly fee to leave your car parked in the public right of way is coming sooner than you might think. Just think of the revenue stream.

dbf March 4, 2015 (10:15 pm)

Seeing it in a lot of neighborhoods, In Wallingford, for instance, street parking near popular bus stops. Cars park for the day, bus it to work, neighbors get pissed. Next thing you know, 2 hour parking signs, and residents have to pay for zone “x” parking permits.

m March 4, 2015 (10:59 pm)

Charging for parking will result in front yards being paved over for automobiles. Not a good look INMHO

ChefJoe March 4, 2015 (11:25 pm)

@Kim, that’s also a peeve of mine. You can’t park within 20 ft of a crosswalk and all intersections have unpainted crosswalks unless specifically prohibited by signage. Ergo you have 1.5 car lengths of no-parking from such an unpainted crosswalk on both sides, irrespective of the 30 ft from signage at the intersection.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.570

JanS March 4, 2015 (11:59 pm)

for those who say bike it…some of us can’t…seniors, for instance, esp. those with disabilities. And what candrewb said. A lot of those “no parkiing” buildings are going to be rented to younger single people. Certainly not to families. But those same single people want to go play on weekends. Beaches, mountains, eastern Washington…Seattle nightlife until 2am. Have you tried to bus it to Leavenworth? Mt. Rainier? Home from Belltown or Capitol Hill at 2am? Or from visiting friends on the east side…or from Ballard in the middle of the night? Yes, there are taxis, Lyfts, Uber…not everyone will be able to use them. That leaves a bus at 2am, and we all know how many run at that time of night…they don’t. There will be cars parked on public streets no matter what, and some will be from these renters…ask anyone on Avalon…

Jic March 5, 2015 (8:13 am)

“Simple solution. If you build a condo/apartment with no parking provided then you (as seller/owner/renter) are not allowed to own a car.”

So I can assume you and every other homeowner without a driveway will be parking your car on your lawn then, correct? You have no more right to the public street parking than anyone else does.

Victoria March 5, 2015 (8:59 am)

These are all good comments – I hope each of you are emailing the contacts at the City as well since today is the last day to make your feelings known.

LoriK March 5, 2015 (9:44 am)

Seattle is increasing in population and will continue to do so. There need to be alternative ways of housing people, including apartments that are less expensive that do not offer parking. Homeowners have no more right to a “parking spot” on the public street than anyone else. I admit that can be frustrating. But things are changing: there are plenty of people, especially the young, who do not own cars. There are convenient alternatives to owning and maintaining a car such as car sharing and car rental.

jwright March 5, 2015 (9:47 am)

John, Cost does not determine rent, the market does. You are correct that given two identical buildings, a building with underground parking would certainly have higher rent than one without. However that is not due to the builder’s cost structure; it is because parking is an amenity that people are willing to pay for just like a pool, washer/dryer, air conditioning, etc. It is a fallacy to assume that because a building cost less to build that rent will be cheaper. The landlord will charge every penny they possibly can regardless whether there is a parking garage.

WS Parking Chaos March 5, 2015 (10:35 am)

Posting on WSB is great but please let Mike Podowski know your feelings too:
Mike.podowski@seattle.gov
re: Director’s Rule 6-2015 Parking Reductions Based on Frequent Transit Service

It’s critical that your voices are heard loud and clear.

JN March 5, 2015 (1:15 pm)

@JanS, no one is saying everyone should bike everywhere, only that for the vast majority of people who are able-bodied, it is not that hard. Obviously if you have a disability then it is probably not an option, but that does not mean that everyone should drive everywhere.

VS March 6, 2015 (9:52 am)

In regards to “frequent transit service”: Does it still count if the bus that goes by every 15 minutes is too full to get on? The C line has this problem when you are one of the last stops leaving WS or the last stop before getting on the viaduct from downtown.

Dee Hayward March 16, 2015 (4:43 pm)

I was told by the City that our van pool folks should use parking under the bridge rather than on-street parking. Since our commute doesn’t take us under the bridge, nor do we WANT to park under the bridge, I thought it was short-sighted to indicate that there would be no parking provided in the Triangle area.

Sorry, comment time is over.