With a vote of 7-2, the Olympia Planning Commission approved the recommendation for the parking code amendments, including removing the minimum parking space for all residential developments, on Monday, April 17.
The commission also voted on the proposed change of providing vehicle parking spaces of one or two spaces for single-family residences, duplexes, and townhouses, at the property owner's discretion, for properties within one-quarter mile of the transit route on a city-designated arterial or collector street.
Principal Planner Joyce Phillips said the approved code amendment includes the minimum parking space for the multifamily of zero to 1.25 per unit.
Commissioner Tracy Carlos raised the motion to approve the draft parking code amendments, where various land-use buildings have corresponding minimum and maximum parking space requirements.
But Commissioner Greg Quetin moved to amend Carlos' motion and remove the minimum parking space for all residential developments.
Quetin noted that those in favor and against zero parking all have the same concern: costs that applied to apartment dwellers for the parking spaces. "What we are doing is just applying that to our housing and housing emergency to increase the flexibility."
According to Quetin, some renters choose not to drive and have to pay about 10% to 20% extra in rent fees for the parking space they are not using.
During the discussion, Commissioner Tammy Adams strongly opposed removing minimum parking space for all residential developments, saying it would cause safety concerns and spillover in multiple areas.
"We have tenants who are complaining because cars get broke when they have to park on the street because there is not enough room in the parking lot," Adams said, adding that parking space is one of the more significant issues in the development.
Carlos' concern was for people with disabilities who need parking near their homes. "If we remove the parking for residential, there will be fewer disabled-ready homes. It is already much harder for somebody who is disabled to find a home they can live in."
Speaking from experience, Carlos added that the transit system in the city is currently not good enough. She said she would constantly ask for rides from people after 6 p.m.
Carole Richmond also echoed the community members' comments that the transit system is not ready to move people throughout the city at all hours, even evening hours. She said more cars and more developments without parking would cause problems in the future.
William Hannah believed that transit would adapt relatively quickly. He said buildings that do not have parking would not show up overnight, and it would be a long process. "My understanding is that these things will be new areas that the whole infrastructure will be built around them."
Planning Chair Zainab Nejati weighed in on the need for more housing units. She believed that addressing transit and walkability issues could be addressed on a shorter timeline than building an additional 14,000 units.
Citing the Federal Highway Administration – Department of Transportation (FHWA) and National Transit Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) manuals, Nejati addressed community members' other concerns about using the streets as parking.
She pointed out that these agencies considered parking on streets as a "traffic calming" measure as people slowdown when cars parked in the roadway. "In terms of safety, it is better than just having a 60-foot right away with no parking on either side."
Phillips informed the commissioners that the building code will always require accessible parking for new development regardless of whether or not the zoning code requires parking.
Those who voted in favor of the draft parking code amendment, which includes removing the minimum parking for residential development, were Chair Zainab Nejati, vice-chair Greg Quetin, Aaron Sauerhoff, Candi Millar, Carole Richmond, Michael Burnham, and William Hannah.
Those who opposed were Tracey Carlos and Tammy Adams.
The approved recommendation would be presented to the Land Use and Environment Committee. It is tentatively scheduled to go to the city council on May 16.
9 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
longtimeresident
If you are not in an HOA, and you don't have a driveway where you can park your car, park on your lawn. Of course, this would only work for single family residences.....
Tuesday, April 18, 2023 Report this
Honestyandrealityguy
With crime at a record high in Olympia I do not believe that it is common sense to park off-site.
Tuesday, April 18, 2023 Report this
olyhiker
This is insane. It would take the thieves no time at all to realize that cars were parked nowhere near where the owner lives. Break-ins would be rampant. Cars would be stolen without anyone noticing. The transit doesn't go everywhere a person needs to go and when a person needs to go. Taking the transit to go shopping is an all day chore. Who came up with this dumb idea?
Wednesday, April 19, 2023 Report this
RobertV
Thank god for the Planning Commission. Eliminating parking development requirements is the best thing a city can do to became safer, more walkable, denser, meet it's climate goals, and create an actually fabric environment. The long-term benefits will be well worth the initial negative feedback from naysayers.
Wednesday, April 19, 2023 Report this
Yeti1981
This is a good move. It is important to acknowledge the concerns around transit, ease of access, and crime. However, this is a major step toward being able to build housing at a reasonable rate. Developers will still build parking, of course. They just aren't required to build more spaces than necessary, which can add as much as $60k to the cost of a home.
Wednesday, April 19, 2023 Report this
Yeti1981
And one more thing...there are examples all across the country where this is working. Here's a good article: https://planning.org/planning/2018/oct/peopleoverparking/
Wednesday, April 19, 2023 Report this
Scooter
This sounds like one of those half-baked ideas that will prove to be a big mistake in the future. Neighborhoods change, requirements change, driving habit change..... the status quo is a fleeting moment in time. Why not require all new housing to have plug-ins installed for electric cars and include parking..... no parking is just flat a bad idea.
Wednesday, April 19, 2023 Report this
MTSpencer
This change will force the social engineers among us to think about all sorts of issues. I understand these concerns may seem ridiculous if you live on one of the rare streets in Olympia that has ample sidewalks and road edges that are not puddled with rainwater for months of the year, but here are a few concerns that many Olympians already deal with:
- Cars parked all over road shoulders force pedestrians to walk in vehicle traffic lanes. Will the city accelerate the pace of sidewalk building to accommodate the anticipated increase in those who walk to work and school? Sadly, safe routes to schools in Olympia are still a long way off, even though we prioritized those sidewalks on the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee over 20 years ago.
- Who will keep track of the hundreds of vehicles without current registration parked/abandoned in public right-of-ways all over town? Road shoulder real estate will become more valuable under this new rule, so who will ensure this space is available?
- Where will we put our refuse bins for pick-up? Anyone who lives on roads where on-street parking is already prevalent will understand what I mean.
- Same with emergency vehicle access. Some streets in older neighborhoods with narrow streets already experience bottlenecks due to multiple vehicles parked on road shoulders.
- How will people charge their electric vehicles if they can't park near at-home chargers in driveways or other protected areas?
Wednesday, April 19, 2023 Report this
Larry Dzieza
The article has a key fact wrong:
"The commission also voted on the proposed change of providing vehicle parking spaces of one or two spaces for single-family residences, duplexes, and townhouses, at the property owner's discretion, for properties within one-quarter mile of the transit route on a city-designated arterial or collector street."
No, the commission threw out all the language that would limit the change to properties in proximity to transit.
The Commission voted for applying the zero policy THROUGHOUT the city and for ALL types of residential buildings.
And by the way, zero minimum parking = zero accessible parking and zero electric vehicle charging spaces. This "ready, shoot, aim" approach to changing laws needs to stop. Again, I urge the Planning Commission to take a step back and listen to the community before acting so hastily.
Friday, April 21, 2023 Report this