How much transit = no need for parking? Mayor says he’ll vet new proposed ‘Director’s Rule’

By Tracy Record
West Seattle Blog editor

Mayor Murray promised today that his office will review the proposed development-rule change regarding transit availability and offstreet-parking requirements, formally known as Department of Planning and Development Director’s Rule 6-2015, before it takes effect.

We wrote about this week before last, before the comment period closed. First, here’s the proposed rule:

We asked the mayor about this during a wide-ranging conversation at City Hall today, his first in a series of planned meetings with “neighborhood press” (the invitation was sent widely; along with WSB, journalists from CapitolHillSeattle.com and the Capitol Hill Times were there – photo above – we’ll have a full report on the entire event tonight).

The West Seattle-based group SeattleNERD. (Neighbors Encouraging Reasonable Development) contends the proposed rule runs counter to what city Hearing Examiner Sue Tanner said in her ruling last year on their appeal related to an on-the-drawing-board development at 3078 Avalon Way SW. SeattleNERD’s official comment is in this letter:

Note Tanner’s observation (see section 15 in her conclusions) that the distinction would have to be changed by legislation – in other words, by a new action the City Council. But Director’s Rules don’t go through the Council; the mayor noted in our conversation this morning, however, that the buck stops with him, since departments such as the DPD report to him, and so that’s why it won’t go forward without mayoral review.

This also is becoming a campaign issue; City Council District 1 (West Seattle/South Park) candidate Lisa Herbold sent a news release saying she also has sent a letter to the DPD, saying in part:

I believe that the City Council did not intend for the DPD to interpret the Land Use Code in this way, and that the department should instead follow the Hearing Examiner’s December 1, 2014 decision. Further, the proposed rule will unnecessarily and unjustifiably reduce parking availability as West Seattle moves towards finding ways to make transit service more reliable, frequent, and consistent.

Read her letter in full here:

That is the point many have made here – while the ultimate goal of less car use and more transit use is supported by most, this area does not currently have the volume and range of transit, even with what Proposition 1 funding is about to pay for, to enable car users to renounce private-vehicle use en masse and eliminate the need for new parking to accompany new residential units.

So what are the next steps on deciding all this? We asked DPD that on Friday, and spokesperson Wendy Shark replied, “We will take the range of comments we received into consideration as we make final edits to the Director’s Rule. Then the Director will sign the final rule, it will be published on our website, and filed with the City Clerk.” (As for a timeline – we’re still waiting for the answer to our followup question about that.)

47 Replies to "How much transit = no need for parking? Mayor says he'll vet new proposed 'Director's Rule' "

  • hannah March 16, 2015 (4:22 pm)

    I had an interesting conversation with a rentor who lives in one of the new massive condos as he was getting into his car infront of my house 2 blocks from the high rise, he loves living close to transit and uses it for his job down town. And the added convience of parking his 3 vehicles on my street, his car, his husband’s car and his motorcycle. Best of all worlds he stated…when I pointed out one of his cars that just sits there is in front of an elderly couple who have lived in their home for 50 year, just a shrug and oh well
    Thinking this is not working if the logic that all these 20 something don’t own a car..they do it just is sitting in the neighborhood a couple of blocks away
    If the mayor and city council don’t rethink this Ed Murry will go the way of McGinnis

  • pupsarebest March 16, 2015 (4:36 pm)

    Yes, let’s close the barn door after the horse is 100 miles down the road.

  • Show and tell March 16, 2015 (5:00 pm)

    So she sent a letter and then a press release about sending the letter? For someone who has never testified at council, I bet a lot of testifying and pr letters on issues are in the works for the next few months!

    • WSB March 16, 2015 (5:05 pm)

      This would be fairly standard for campaigns. We don’t and won’t necessarily report on every campaign press release but this is an issue that’s making news right now, so we’re glad to hear from candidates as well as officials, neighborhood groups, etc., who are also paying attention to it. We had a story in the works already anyway and it was the first thing we asked the mayor about this morning, as it’s something up for a decision right now – TR

  • natinstl March 16, 2015 (5:12 pm)

    One of my co-workers lives in the Blake apartments across from the Granada and she said the same thing that Hannah mentioned, they charge an additional $100 per month to use their parking spots so everyone is just parking in the neighborhood. I’m not saying it’s right or wrong, but I think that all these types of additional parkers need to factor into the mix also, just because a building has parking doesn’t mean they are using it. I won’t be surprised to see RPZ zones established eventually in certain areas of West Seattle.

  • wscommuter March 16, 2015 (5:32 pm)

    What I find most remarkable/annoying is the persistent fantasy that “if only we have enough buses, then all those people living in the new condos/apartments won’t own cars.”
    .
    Which is, of course, moronic thinking. Many/most of them may well take the bus to work because parking is expensive downtown, etc. … but they STILL OWN CARS. Cars that have to be parked somewhere.
    .
    I’m lucky … I don’t live near these areas so I am not directly affected. But I shake my head at the silly notion that there will be fewer cars parked in W.S. if only we add enough transit (and I am 100% in favor of more transit).
    .
    The horse has left the barn for all the new buildings already allowed to be built without parking. At some point, reality needs to set in for planning for all the new buildings yet to come.

  • Ttt March 16, 2015 (5:34 pm)

    Hannah:
    Feel free to contact the parking enforcement officers on behalf of your elderly neighbors if any of his 3 vehicles sit in one spot for more than the allowed time. We are seeing the same problem in our neighborhood too, and we know it will just get worse…

  • NW March 16, 2015 (6:01 pm)

    I have been considering tying spent bicycle tubes together like three and tightly tying them to the door handles all four so they can’t get into their vehicles that will show some car rancher not to park in my neighborhood.

  • jwright March 16, 2015 (6:32 pm)

    I agree with wscommuter that it is fantasy to expect all the folks who live in buildings without parking won’t own cars.
    .
    Given that, I would still rather their cars be parked (even on my street) because it means the owners are taking the bus/biking/walking and not driving.
    .
    I grapple with the notion that homeowners are entitled to the parking in front of their homes. My own parochial interest appreciates being able to park my car on the street in front of my house but I also realize that might not be the best allocation of a scarce resource.

  • Brian ws March 16, 2015 (6:32 pm)

    Streets are public. If you expect a parking space at your house you should have a parking space at your house in your own private property. Otherwise you’re just a hypocrite.

  • fred johnson March 16, 2015 (6:56 pm)

    “….spokesperson Wendy Shark replied, “We will take the range of comments we received into consideration as we make final edits to the Director’s Rule….”

    My interest is piqued. Is SDOT quantifying the comments then applying that measure to the ruling? Seems unlikely….

  • dhg March 16, 2015 (7:05 pm)

    I, too, support Metro and vote for their money requests. BUT, they sold us a poor pack of goods when they started the Rapid Ride. We had visions of plentiful seats, frequent times. we got buses with few seats and infrequent times (especially as they tend to clump together). They cut back on other routes forcing more people on the RR. They make noises of cutting back more, cutting hours and then think people will choose the bus option. Doesn’t work like that. Metro has practically abandoned Admiral and Beach. People use cars for more than commuting downtown and yet that is all Metro will focus on.

  • SY March 16, 2015 (7:53 pm)

    @Brian, These neighborhood streets were never designed to accommodate this many large apartment buildings. They were designed for single family homes and have parking to support those. If you put in an apartment building in the space you need to provision extra space for the parking.

    @hannah, That is exactly what I suspected was happening. People keep their cars and ride transit. Proximity to transit means even more parking is needed because those cars stay parked for longer periods.

  • Joe Szilagyi March 16, 2015 (8:38 pm)

    You can mandate parking in buildings but you cannot mandate it come WITH the apartment or IN their base rental. You can’t force someone to use it. Even if you convert all of West Seattle to be RPZ you can’t exclude renters – who are now 55% to 60% of the city population – from STILL having a street slot under the RPZ.
    .
    I am a homeowner. “My” curb has space for 3-4 cars. My driveway and garage each have space for one. I am not entitled to that curb parking. I only own my driveway and garage.

  • onion March 16, 2015 (8:41 pm)

    Sorry Lisa Herbold,but you helped create this problem while working for Nick Licata. You want to take credit for his accomplishments on the council–well, this is one of them.

  • Ivan March 16, 2015 (9:32 pm)

    Well, onion, that’s one way to look at it. But it is just as accurate to say that among the candidates, only Lisa has demonstrated that she understands the issue, only Lisa has taken any initiative to deal with it, that’s the kind of proactive, pro-neighborhood leadership that West Seattle voters should be looking for in a City council member, and that is why Lisa stands out from the pack in this election. That’s another, equally valid, way of looking at it.

  • Pigeon Point Ben March 16, 2015 (9:38 pm)

    Forcing developers to create more expensive homes by mandating minimum parking requirements adversely affects the affordability of housing. If a scarcity of parking is created developers and the city should respond to that market force by charging more for it until it becomes more less scarce. Enforcing time limits and/or enacting more and stricter limits would certainly help free up more space as well. I don’t mean to say that all public amenities should be subject to market forces but rather those that are ultimately detrimental to our shared wellbeing can be curbed in part by refraining to subsidize them further.

  • elly March 16, 2015 (10:22 pm)

    They just park in the street!! And I would take the bus to work if it actually went anywhere near it, but I still need the car sometimes, like for camping trips. Our city council is delusional. And I bet they live in houses with garages!! Does SeattleNERD have a Facebook page? If so I would like it. I like anyone who makes sense!

  • elly March 16, 2015 (10:26 pm)

    Forcing developers to create parking spots will not bankrupt them. I know for a fact because I talk to them all the time in my line of work. It’s the cost of doing business. They will be just fine, they are getting plenty of profit at our expense already. Not to mention screwing up our traffic and sidewalks while they build these monoliths.

  • Lisa Herbold March 16, 2015 (10:36 pm)

    @onion – My concern is related to DPD’s unilaterally redefining the existing law. I do think the impacts of the existing law should be examined & the Council has a review to do so underway, but that is a separate issue from the problem my comment letter is about…about DPD making NEW policy – that differs from the legislation the Council passed – w/o using the legislative process to do so.

  • ChefJoe March 16, 2015 (11:23 pm)

    ” Director’s Rules don’t go through the Council; the mayor noted in our conversation this morning, however, that the buck stops with him, since departments such as the DPD report to him, and so that’s why it won’t go forward without mayoral review.”

    Isn’t that a similar sort of mayoral “whim” into otherwise normal proceedings that caused a great hullabaloo when McGinn suggested the DPD not give a street/alley vacation for a “non-living wage paying” (AKA, not a part of union that endorsed him) Whole Foods ? Tread carefully Mr Mayor…. and I support the NERD position.

  • ChefJoe March 16, 2015 (11:44 pm)

    @Joe,
    “you can’t exclude renters – who are now 55% to 60% of the city population – from STILL having a street slot under the RPZ.”

    Wouldn’t simply changing the form to require applicant’s name be on the property tax bill or have copies of birth certificates/marriage licenses/legal gaurdianship/etc showing link to the property tax payer pretty much exclude renters ?
    Or one could require that RPZs be purchased in 10 year increments.

    • WSB March 16, 2015 (11:59 pm)

      Information about RPZs is here:
      .
      http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/parking/docs/RPZFactSheet122014.pdf
      .
      They are not for *property owners* – they are for residents – and that includes renters.
      .
      Also note the criteria are fairly stringent. There were attempts several years back to get SDOT to evaluate parts of The Junction neighborhoods for RPZs but they didn’t qualify. I believe the Fauntleroy ferry dock neighborhoods are the only ones in West Seattle with an RPZ, which qualifies for the “generator” mentioned in the fact sheet above.

  • Jeff March 17, 2015 (12:00 am)

    This three ring circus is exactly what y’all have been voting for over the years. So, now y’all have to live with it.

    Hilarious!

  • Joe Szilagyi March 17, 2015 (6:07 am)

    @chefjoe all the long years I rented, I paid property tax. Whether I pay it as a broken out bill direct to city and county or rolled up into my rent is irrelevant.

  • Jic March 17, 2015 (7:58 am)

    I would invite any homeowner who is concerned about “their” street parking to pour in a nice driveway over their lawn or out up a garage on their property somewhere. As you have no rights or claims to the street in front of your home, you have no legitimate complaint regarding the street parking.

  • Ivan March 17, 2015 (8:12 am)

    @Jic:

    Be glad that you live in Seattle, and not in my hometown of Philadelphia PA, which has all the “density,” “walkable neighborhoods,” and “vibrant street life” that all the “urbanists” here claim would make Seattle into their little Nirvana.

    Tell a homeowner there, in their blocks of blocks upon more blocks of row housing, that they “have no rights or claims to the street in front of your home,” and more likely than not, you will find yourself strapped to a gurney on the way to the emergency room. No one who has lived there could justly accuse me of exaggerating.

    How wonderful it was to escape that and to move to Seattle, where there used to be breathing space. How wonderful now, that people want to bring that here.

  • Sue March 17, 2015 (8:52 am)

    Let me explain my story of being a renter in a frequent transit area with no car, and why so many ultimately do have cars even if they use transit for work.
    .
    When I moved into the Junction, I tried to go car-free for several months. I had multiple supermarkets and other stores nearby I could walk to, I took the bus to work downtown, and probably 95% of the time I was absolutely okay without a car. But there were certain tradeoffs which were becoming a problem. I have a regular appointment in Ravenna which takes 75-90 minutes via multiple buses, and yet only 35 by car, so that was sucking time away from me. My church is on the 22 line, and on a Sunday that meant I would either be 40 minutes early or 20 minutes late, or have to walk uphill from the C (hills are difficult for me), and if I took it for a weeknight meeting, it would stop running by the time I left to go home. Unless you are going to/from downtown during rush hour, the buses in this city are rarely all that convenient.
    .
    I live near a zipcar, and would occasionally rent one for a full day to do a ton of errands or a day trip. That would cost about $75, and I was doing it about once a month. I would also grab an occasional car2go. I did the math and realized that the insurance on a car would be about what I was paying for carshare costs per month. So I bought an inexpensive car, no car payments, and now have access 24/7 and saves me a ton of time on the bus to Ravenna and other errands.

  • Rick March 17, 2015 (8:52 am)

    Apparently, street parking “belongs” to the developers.

  • Born on Alki59 March 17, 2015 (8:57 am)

    Perhaps the mayor, council and DPD should read their own “green fleet plan” and ask themselves how these tenants would be able to charge an EV if parking infrastructure is not provided.

  • ChefJoe March 17, 2015 (9:01 am)

    @Joe Szilagyi,
    I’m just suggesting that changing the evaluation criteria a bit would make the RPZ tied to the owners in the area. I don’t think that’s the way to go.

    Instead, I would suggest that applicants from any address applying for an RPZ in a high-transit/low-to-no-parking-required area be capped at 1 permit for every 3 units remaining if you presume each building-supplied parking is utilized at a 1 space per unit basis.

    If you have 20 apartments and supply 5 parking spaces on the property, then of the remaining 15 units only 5 RPZs could be obtained from that address.

    You build the property saying nobody will have cars, it will all work out as long as 66% of your tenants actually live that lifestyle.

  • Sue March 17, 2015 (9:19 am)

    This homeowner vs. renter conversation is both tedious and insulting. A homeowner is no better than me, a renter. It’s not my fault if a building doesn’t have enough parking for everyone. I live in an older building that has tons of parking compared to the newer buildings, and it still isn’t enough and there is a waiting list. And even if they had enough, it’s $70/month to rent one. So do I park on the street? Yes, I do. And I am just as entitled to park in a public parking space as my homeowner neighbors.

  • Born on Alki59 March 17, 2015 (10:05 am)

    @Sue. This isn’t about renter vs. property owner or street parking entitlement, it’s about developers not being required to provide any off street parking for mega housing. I believe everyone has the right to legally park on a public street. Your answer cements the fact that renters do own many cars and are willing to pay for a parking spot since there is “tons of parking” in your apartment and a parking spot waiting list. At what point would you be willing to pay for a parking spot in your complex? When you have to park three, four, six, eight blocks away? Just curious. I own a home and have ” off street” parking for several vehicles. Our alley driveway we installed was a $20k investment, and our property is now taxed as such with “improvements”. Makes 70 bucks a month sound reasonable to me.

  • Mickymse March 17, 2015 (10:18 am)

    I pass exactly 11 homes facing on to Genesee as I make my way to my bus stop. (By the way, we are a two-person household with only one car and a garage space that we own.) EVERY SINGLE ONE of those 11 homes has a garage, and most even have large driveways. At least three park all of their cars in the driveway. (Do they not fit in the garages?) At least two are parking in the ‘parking strip’ because their garages are full of other crap instead of their cars. Zero have the option of parking in the street because we took spaces away when we placed a much needed bus route in front of them which serves hundreds of people every day. So, I ask you, should I feel bad that we took “their” parking spaces away from them?

  • AmandaKH March 17, 2015 (10:24 am)

    In an effort to be fair, we should change the rules of the RPZ to not just be in “major traffic generators like hospitals and universities”, but in every area that is designated as Transit Oriented Development. Because when it comes down to it, owning a car is a privilege, not a right. And that goes for parking on public streets as well. Any homeowner/renter with access to a garage/driveway but who prefers to park on the street, can pay for that privilege. We need to be looking at ways to co-exist with the future of Seattle. Not fighting against it.

  • Joe Szilagyi March 17, 2015 (10:26 am)

    @Chefjoe, that’s all well and good, but there’s a certain high level Federal law that will stop it with a trivial lawsuit if any access is minimized in any way between classes of residents — such as owners vs renters. We all need to be treated 1:1, no preference in either direction. This law:
    .
    “…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

  • natinstl March 17, 2015 (10:57 am)

    Mickymse-depending on the age of the home they may not be able to fit their car in the garage, we can’t. Our home was built in 1918 and although the garage was fixed up it still occupies the same footprint as the original garage that was built with the home as we have pictures. A lot of the older homes don’t have large garages, if they do than they’re lucky. Thankfully we can utilize the small driveway in front of it for one car, but that’s it. It’s effectively a shop for my husband.

  • ChefJoe March 17, 2015 (12:38 pm)

    AmandaKH and Sue, considering that property tax takes into account the land value and corner lots with more street frontage are assessed at a higher value, I think we already have money being collected that’s related to providing street parking. Higher density/less street parking usually correlates well with a smaller lot/portion of land tax being paid by the condo owner/renter.

    I wouldn’t mind the property record including a count of how many street parking slots are estimated to be at the property the same way they record the number of spaces in the garage and make gross accounts of parking availability (“adequate” in the example), if that would help clarify how the physical lot/parking relates to a home’s value.

    Of course, RPZs exert an additional level of “pay for use” that can help limit car ranching, but that’s a different discussion than the director’s rule.
    example:
    http://info.kingcounty.gov/Assessor/eRealProperty/Detail.aspx?ParcelNbr=7876500040

  • pjmanley March 17, 2015 (12:53 pm)

    @wscommuter for the Win!
    This is not us versus them, folks. The problem is too many cars, period. And it’s a fact. And no, I’m not anti-car or pro-transit. I’m pro balance and function. For an example of the juxtaposition of this debate, take a trip through Sylvan Ridge Townhomes sometime. Nice, fairly new rowhouses each with it’s own garage, and cars parked bumper to bumper all throughout the streets, meaning even a garage AND a driveway aren’t enough to accommodate the number of cars in that development. Considering most of my WS neighbors to be reasonable, kind-hearted, conscientious and green people, there has to be a reasonable explanation for this. And it lies in the absence of viable alternatives for many people and the bright shining lie of this era, to wit: “Millenials don’t own cars.” Horse-pucky. They may not “drive” them all the time, or even a lot. But they own them in droves, as proven by the disappearing spaces on our streets. Until we accept actual facts, we’re doomed to this ridiculous merry-go-round of us vs them, renter vs owner, haves vs have-nots, etc., etc. with no viable solutions that can trump ideologies.

  • pjmanley March 17, 2015 (12:59 pm)

    My solution, btw? I see only one. Build more parking spaces BEFORE we run out, not after. The cars are already here and hundreds more are coming, with or without improved transit, bike lanes, etc. Let’s not be too pessimistic about the horses. Plenty are still in the barn and hundreds or thousands more are on the way, right now.

  • skeeter March 17, 2015 (2:53 pm)

    People respond to incentives. Right now the city provides an incentive to park cars on public streets by offering the parking for free. Start charging for overnight street parking. Then people will have an incentive to (a) limit the number of cars they own and (b) construct off-street parking spaces. All the problems are solved instantly. There is only one solution folks.

  • winnie March 17, 2015 (3:04 pm)

    The irony is that a lot of these upset homeowners probably work for the big technology companies and developers that are changing the city and encouraging people move here and walk three blocks in order to park in front of their million dollar homes because there is nowhere else to park.

  • AmandaKH March 17, 2015 (3:39 pm)

    I would also be remiss if I didn’t call out Lisa Herbold’s misleading letterhead and use of a press release to announce her letter to the DPD. If I were to write press releases every time I wrote a letter to an agency, I would literally have to send dozens of them.

  • Sue March 17, 2015 (3:58 pm)

    I also wondered about Ms. Herbold’s letterhead. It gives the impression that she’s already on the council (until you read to the end).

  • Hannah March 17, 2015 (6:48 pm)

    Oh whinnie really.
    I’m one of those homeowners who owns a modest single family home, work for Harborview and modest income
    And I am unhappy about the lack of parking and the demise of west seattle, really we all work for high tech companies and have million dollar homes?

  • JTB March 18, 2015 (12:20 pm)

    AmandaKH,
    I like Lisa Herbold’s analysis of the issues and pointing out the proposed Director’s Rule is out of line with the intentions of the Council.

    One might hope that will cause Ms. Hines and Mr. Podowski to appreciate they’re getting off course and their actions are coming under some public scrutiny informed by awareness of the actual issues.

    I’m not clear about what is inappropriate for a candidate for any office to highlight something they do in the interest of their constituents. Or is it preferable they just give speeches and schmooze?
    If you only looked at the campaign letterhead and not the signature at the end of the letter, I can see how you might reasonably feel you were mislead, otherwise it seems more like an opportunity to take a shot for some reason that eludes me.

  • jwright March 18, 2015 (6:00 pm)

    I totally agree with skeeter. Free overnight spots distort the market for parking and are a subsidy of car ownership.

Sorry, comment time is over.