Olympia City Council scrapped the Planning Commission's recommendation on parking code amendments and instead voted and approved Councilmember Dani Madrone's alternative proposals, requiring all new residential units to have a minimum of 0.5 parking spaces per unit.
At Tuesday's city council meeting, Community Planning and Development Senior Planner Joyce Phillips presented the Planning Commission's recommendations, including no minimum parking requirement for single-family, duplexes, and townhouses; and zero to 1.25 spaces per unit for multifamily units.
On the other hand, Madrone's recommendations include:
In presenting her recommendation, Madrone noted that the Planning Commission made a sharp pivot on the issue of minimum parking. The Land Use and Environment Committee she chaired supported the commission's recommendation.
Madrone said the biggest challenge today is how to shape the future within the existing built environment – because not everyone is close to transit or can walk or bike. But she said there are creative solutions other than requiring parking spaces.
She appealed to people to join her on the transit system to demand more frequent services even if they had their vehicles. "We build a better, more accessible transit system when more people use it, not the other way around."
The councilmembers showed their support for Madrone's recommendations during the discussion.
Councilmember Jim Cooper initially supported the Planning Commission's recommendation, but on Tuesday, he backed Madrone's recommendations, which he said is prudent now.
"I hope that someday we can get to the proposal of the Planning Commission. But for today, I support Councilmember Madrone's proposal," Cooper said.
Councilmember Dontae Payne weighed in on compelling reasons for supporting and rejecting the Planning Commission's proposed amendments.
"I understand the parking struggles that we have in the community, Payne said. “I understand people's fears about not having easily accessible parking at odd hours and feeling safe. Those are real for people."
Earlier, Climate Program Director Dr. Pamela Braff mentioned that the Climate Mitigation Plan also focuses on reducing people's reliance on vehicles and increasing the efficiency of transportation systems, increasing urban density, and reducing urban sprawl to meet the climate goals.
Payne said addressing climate change requires collective efforts from neighboring cities, counties, states, nations, and the global community.
"We can try to take steps towards helping our environment and encourage our neighbors to do the same with us and recognize the challenges we have in the present moment while we work our way towards the future we want to see in our community, which I do believe will eventually be less car dependency. But frankly, we're not there yet," Payne said, adding that the original motion from the Planning Commissioner is premature.
The council approved Madrone's recommendation with a vote of 4, 2.
Mayor Pro Tem Clark Gilman agreed with Madrone's recommendation but had reservations about making a parking strategy for the Capital Mall Triangle subarea when the council has not been briefed yet on the project's progress.
Mayor Cheryl Selby also expressed support for Madrone's recommendation but expressed concern with the requirement of removing parking minimums within half a mile of frequent transit service.
Selby said a half-mile distance is too far for individuals carrying heavy items or those with limited mobility. She is more interested in removing minimum parking requirements within a quarter mile with frequent transit service.
The mayor agreed with Gilman that the city council should wait on the Capitol Mall project report before making decisions.
According to Madrone, the areas with frequent transit services are on the corner of the triangle of the Capitol Mall to Martin Way in Lacey.
8 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
Yeti1981
Change is hard for sure and just about everyone will not cross the line of giving up a little of their own comfort and convenience, even if it is temporary. It's also ironic that the concerns stated by the opposition were literally elements that have been created by and emphasized by the fact that we are such a car dependent society. Want to protect agriculture, forests, the climate? Make cities more people-centric and do away with mandated unnecessary parking minimums. Want to solve the housing crisis? Build more housing. You can start to do that by building housing in spaces that are taken up by massive and mostly unused parking lots. Also, by not mandating parking spaces, you potentially remove up to 13% of development costs. This makes more projects pencil, which means projects that were impossible before will get built. It's literally happening in over 200 cities across America right now. Want transit to improve and get built? Increase the need by removing mandated parking requirements. Transit gets built to the need, not the other way around. Want to create more equitable, affordable, and safer communities? Eliminate the need for cars by focusing on building density in housing and services in the city. This isn't taking away parking or the ability to drive. It's putting the needs of humans over the needs of cars.
Thursday, June 8, 2023 Report this
CPWINOLY
Intercity Transit Routes are not practical for anyone living on the far west side of town. There is no route on 14th/Walnut Ave even with plenty of new housing developments in the last 10 years. In order for me to get to work by bus I would have to leave my house by 6:30 a.m. in order to walk to Cooper Pt. Rd to catch the 48 which would then get me downtown by 7:10. Then I have to wait 20 minutes at the transit station, which is miserable in the winter, in order to get to work by 8:00. When the weather is nice I can bike, but I'm not biking in the winter in the dark and in bad weather. I'd rather drive than take 90 minutes to get to work.
Thursday, June 8, 2023 Report this
OlympiaUsedToBeANicePlaceToLive
It's nice in theory, but what will happen is the same as happened in Beaverton, OR when I lived there. People will park their cars on neighboring streets, creating a complete mess. And Beaverton has far more extensive and frequent public transportation options than Olympia does.
If we want to be like European cities where people can mostly get by without vehicles, we'll need equivalent infrastructure with much more frequent transportation options within a short walking distance. 4 times an hour only in a small part of city is not going to cut it. When the option is 15-20 minutes by car vs. 2+ hours by public transit (people do have to travel outside the "frequent" transit corridor) the car is going to be most folks choice.
The "if you don't build it, they will come" is not going to work unless the other infrastructure is provided. So of course the short-sighted Olympia council only does the part that doesn't cost anything - removing parking with no plans to make transit quick and convenient.
Thursday, June 8, 2023 Report this
FrostedFlake
Please stop pretending we can legislate the convenience of a personal vehicle out of peoples lives.
There is a story among the Greeks of two brothers whose horses ran off, so they pulled their Mother in their Chariot to the Temple, to the accolades of those who saw and to the rain of praises from thier friends. These strong young men both died in that temple on that day, and were by thier fellows adjudged the happiest Greeks who ever lived. For they died in sight of thier gods under the weight of their closest friends praise.
Thursday, June 8, 2023 Report this
LindaD
I was wondering, if there's a half a parking place requirement, where do we park the other half of the car?
Developers are developers, not social workers, so they are going to charge what the market will bear, and pocket any cost savings from reduced parking requirements, not pass them along to consumers. Remember, developers, not social workers.
So, where has reduced parking let to more transit infrastructure happily used by more people? Where have people loved it? Anywhere, anytime? If nowhere, never is the answer, perhaps we should take that as a clue.
Thursday, June 8, 2023 Report this
KarenM
This process should have been slowed down for more analysis and consideration. When the Planning Commission held their hearing, there was a proposal on the table that could potentially be quite modest. When the Planning Commission made a big change from that to what they recommended. That new option should have been analyzed and the Planning Commission should have had further consideration including another hearing. Staff kept reminding everyone that they had a grant deliverable deadline. Two things -
Staff should have planned this project so that the end game at the Commission and Council was not rushed.
Making public policy in a hurry isn't going to serve any of us well.
It is obvious that there are strong opinions on this topic. Having 2 minute public comment isn't the way to work these things out. This should have had a better process for community discussion.
Friday, June 9, 2023 Report this
JohnPaget
Strong Towns recommends ending minimum parking requirements. Here is their article about ending minimum parking and how it affects people with disabilities:
"How Does Removing Parking and Road Space Affect People With Disabilities?"
https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2021/7/22/how-does-removing-parking-and-road-space-affect-people-with-disabilities
I just moved back to Olympia from Buffalo, New York. In 2017, Buffalo became the first city in America to end minimum parking requirements, and it has been a huge success. If it can be done in a city with brutal winters, it can be done anywhere.
https://www.sightline.org/2022/10/12/big-reforms-big-growth-buffalos-parking-rewrite-pays-off/
Wednesday, June 14, 2023 Report this
Yeti1981
JohnPaget, appreciate your take. People here just can't seem to see the evidence beyond their confirmation bias.
Wednesday, June 14, 2023 Report this