Planning Commission Meeting

Agenda City of Ocean Shores Planning Commission Meeting Join Zoom Meeting Online Click Here Join Zoom Meeting by Phone Phone Number: 1.253.215.8782 Meeting ID: 842 1980 8246 Passcode: 693376 Tuesday Ocean Shores Library January 14, 2025 573 Point Brown Ave NW 2:00PM Ocean Shores, Washington Page Call to Order Roll Call Approval of Meeting Agenda Approval of Minutes 3-4 1. Approval of minutes for the Regular City of Ocean Shores Planning Commission Meeting on December 10, 2024. Public Communication - 3 Minutes 2. The Planning Commission is providing opportunities for public comments, by submitting written comments to the City Clerk’s office via email at publiccomment@osgov.com no later than 1:00 PM on January 14, 2025. Old Business 3. Metal Siding and Roof Materials Page 1 of 16 Page  Presented by: Planning Commission Chair, Mark Lawlis and Lead Planner, Marshall Read 4. Weed Burners  Presented by: Planning Commission Chair, Mark Lawlis New Business 5. Nomination of Planning Commission Officers  Presented by: Planning Commission Chair, Mark Lawlis Discussion 5 - 16 6. Parking Mandates  Led by: Planning Commission Chair, Mark Lawlis 7. Strategic Planning  Led by: Planning Commission Chair, Mark Lawlis Reports 8. Community Development Liaison Report  Presented by: Lead Planner, Marshall Read 9. Planning Commission Member(s) Report  Mark Lawlis  Thorn Ward  Tom Bies  Dan Bricker Public Communication - 3 Minutes Future Meeting Date Tuesday, January 28, 2025 at 2:00pm in the Ocean Shores Library Meeting Room. Adjourn _________________________________________________________ Public Notice: • Persons requiring auxiliary aids or special arrangements in order to participate in meetings should call 360.940.7498 at least two business days prior to the scheduled meeting. Page 2 of 16  MINUTES Ocean Shores Planning Commission Regular Meeting Tuesday, 12/10/2024 – 2:00 p.m. Ocean Shores Public Library Meeting Room 573 Point Brown Ave NW, Ocean Shores, WA Minutes taken by Commissioner Bies 1. Call to Order Chair Mark Lawlis called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. 2. Roll Call Planning Commissioners present: Thorn Ward, Mark Lawlis, Kerry Barr, Tom Bies and Dan Bricker Planning Commissioners absent: Commissioner Kern Motion to approve Commissioner Kerns absence:: Comissioner Barr/Bricker passed unanimously City Staff Present: Marshall Reed (City Planner), Roy (City Building Inspecter) City Staff present: Nicole Birch, City Clerk, Marshall Read, City Planner 3. Approval of Meeting Agenda • Commissioner Ward moved to approve the meeting agenda. • Commissioner Barr second the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 4. Approval of Minutes • Approval of our minutes from our meeting of November 12th, 2024: • Commissioner Barr moved to approve the meeting agenda. • Commissioner Bricker seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 5. Public Comments • Ascetics, safety, Fire Dept, household safety standards 6. Old Business: Metal Siding and roofing exposed metal fasteners in Residential Zones • Presented by Commissioner Lawliss A discussion ensued about metal siding and how it is attached. Marshal Reed commented. Roy comments should stay in chapter 17 of the Building code. Translucent, roof structures. Metal containers (Shipping Containers) How are other cites dealing with this? Continue at next meeting on January 14. Commissioner Lawliss will work with Marshall Reed on wording. Political signs: • Presented by Commissioner Bricker A discussion concerning political signs revealed that looking at the communities of Wenatchee and Oak Harbor may be beneficial. MRSC says you can't treat different from temporary signs. Definition Sign height is 5 or 6 feet from the ground grade to top of temporary sign. Sending to Attorney MOTION : To approve changed wording for sinage Commissioner Barr/Bricket passed unanimously Page 1 of 2 1. Approval of minutes for the Regular City of Ocean Shores Planning Com... Page 3 of 16  Weed Burners o Presented by Chair, Mark Lawlis Have requested and am awaiting statistics as to how many fires have been caused by weed burners. Tabled to next meeting January 14. Planning Commission Handbook • Presented by Chair, Mark Lawlis The Commissioners discussed the progress they had made and discussion was held over to the next meeting. Tabled until we get guidance from city. 9. Planning Commission Member(s) Report • Commissioner Lawlis: attended City Council and interviews are upcoming. Parking, Antenna support structures, Public hearing for Div 4 plat hearing • Commissioner Ward • Commissioner Barr • Commissioner Bies • Commissioner Berry • Commissioner Kern 9.Public Comments: • Legal definition for sign height is 5 ft. please research. Jane Shattuc 10.Secretary for Next Meeting • Chair Mark Lawliss appointed Commissioner Bricker as secretary for the 01/14/2025 Meeting. 11. Future Meetings. • Next meeting is at 2:00 p.m. on 01/14/2025. • Meetings will be held at the Ocean Shores Public Library meeting room located at 573 Point Brown Ave NW, Ocean Shores, WA. • Prior to attending, please confirm the meeting location on the official agenda. The agenda is easily accessed by clicking on the meeting posted on the city calendar at the bottom of the city website homepage at www.osgov.com. 12. Adjournment • Commissioner Bricker moved to adjourn. • Commissioner Ward seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. • Chair Mark Lawlis adjourned the meeting at approximately 3:00p.m. 1. Approval of minutes for the Regular City of Ocean Shores Planning Com... Page 4 of 16  The State of Parking Mandates in Washington Minimum parking requirements are paving over Washington, regardless of how much residents or businesses actually need. Catie Gould, October 2024 6. Parking Mandates Led by: Planning Commission Chair, Mark Lawlis Page 5 of 16  PARKING MATTERS How parking mandates silently shape our communities Look at just about any city’s zoning code and you’ll find a table of parking ratios, usually dating back 50 to 80 years, mandating a predetermined number of parking spaces for all new buildings —and for every new bedroom, church pew, want to invest in their community. Instead light up a vacant building, if that entrepre- or bowling lane. If new development built of managing on-street parking, these neur were legally allowed to operate their “adequate” off-street parking, the thinking regulations have locked cities into patterns business with 14 on-site parking spaces went, cars and curbsides could be managed. of sprawling development that makes instead of 23. Ultimately, these mandates traveling without a car impossible. In short, rob Washingtonians of their right to decide But one-size-fits-all mandates, determined parking mandates have silently shaped for themselves how much parking they by city planning offices, were the wrong how we live and how we get around. really need. tool for the job. Guessing at the right num- bers, most jurisdictions erred on the side Mandatory parking minimums reveal a fail- Consequently, Washington cities have of excess. Beyond creating an oversupply— ure of centralized control over something inherited a mess where housing is scarce, parking that doesn’t get used—mandating that any homeowner or business owner commercial vacancies abound, and too much parking carries a raft of unin- knows varies from block to block. These automobile dependency is baked into tended consequences. Too much required regulations fail to see, for example, the sin- legal codes. This report aims to bring these parking outlaws the kinds of buildings that gle mom who, like 40 percent of Wenatchee arbitrary regulations to light and show how define cities’ historic walkable neighbor- households, has no need for the second these rules from the past still shape life hoods, blunts housing construction and parking space the government requires today in communities across the state. drives up home prices and rents, and her to pay for in her rent. They dismiss the increases barriers for entrepreneurs who local entrepreneur with an idea that could 2 6. Parking Mandates Led by: Planning Commission Chair, Mark Lawlis Page 6 of 16  Methodology For this report, researchers reviewed minimum parking requirements for key housing and commercial categories across Washington’s largest 44 cities and 10 counties. Together, these jurisdictions regulate the land that is home to 75 percent of the state’s residents. While nearly every city has at least a handful of down- town blocks where providing parking is optional, we chose to compare the base tables that set regulations city- or countywide. These ratios are the starting point from which any reductions to required parking must work (often in percentages) and are easiest to compare across borders. For the handful of jurisdictions that had no base tables but instead set unique parking mandates for each zone (for example, Redmond currently does this across 50 zones), we selected the highest requirement. Table of Contents After compiling parking ratios, we applied them to a hypothetical building to make them easier to compare. Key Findings 4 Most values were reported per home or other fractional size, but some categories such as daycares and schools A History of Guesswork 5 were more easily compared as a whole building. We deducted 10 percent of a building’s total footprint (gross The High Cost of Excess Parking 6 floor area) to get net floor area (subtracting corridors, Parking Mandates Overestimate 8 closets, etc.) for jurisdictions that defined codes that way. Car Ownership and Undercut We included guest parking and loading spaces where Homebuilding specified in the base tables. In practice, jurisdictions would round to the nearest whole parking spot, but we Parking Mandates Are a Tax On 9 opted to note fractional spaces to demonstrate the varia- Business tion between local governments. If Exceptions Are the Rule, The Rule Is 10 Flawed We collected this data from August 2023 to August 2024 and spent much of that time reaching out to cities and Right-sizing Parking Lots: Parking 12 counties to verify and clarify their requirements. We are Reform in Washington grateful to the dozens of planning departments that took the time to give us feedback throughout the process. Although zoning codes are constantly evolving, we hope Acknowledgements this report serves as a useful point-in-time look at the state of parking mandates in Washington. Thank you to the many people who contribut- ed to data collection for this report, fact check- Full data is available at sightline.org/ParkingReport ing, and editing, including Sightline staff and Tony Jordan, Joseph Alamo, Ethan Chan, and others at the Parking Reform Network. Thank you to Sam Vogt for graphic design. 3 6. Parking Mandates Led by: Planning Commission Chair, Mark Lawlis Page 7 of 16  Mandated parking spots also Arbitrary and outnumber the cars Washington homeowners own Excessive Parking One in four homeowner households in Washington have one Mandates in or no cars, but nearly all jurisdictions (91 percent) require two or more off-street parking spaces for every detached home. Washington State Four jurisdictions require three or more parking spaces for single-detached houses, though only 35 percent of homeowner Local laws lock communities across the Evergreen households have more than two cars. State into more pavement and sprawl, barriers to business and homebuilding, and high rents. Excessive parking mandates undercut Sightline analyzed zoning codes in 54 jurisdictions, represent- less expensive, “middle housing” ing regulations for land use where three-quarters of Washingto- home choices nians live. We found that parking ratios vary widely across city and county lines, but that Washington communities consistent- Twenty-eight percent of Washington cities and counties have ly mandate an excess of parking that is out of sync with people’s made parking optional for accessory dwelling units (ADUs). But actual car ownership and counterproductive for local home- only in Spokane are duplexes granted the same flexibility. building and business development. Family-friendly apartments pay a parking penalty The more bedrooms, the more parking required. Across the state, 59 percent of localities require additional parking for larger apartments, increasing barriers for family-sized units. Parking mandates hinder local businesses, especially in historic downtowns The typical office or retail store in Washington is required to dedicate more space to parking than to the building itself. The most common mandate for restaurants requires three times as much space to be paved over for parking than the dining Barkley Village, Bellingham, Washington. Photo: David Ryder establishment itself. KEY FINDINGS Converting a former office to a retail store would require provi- ding additional parking in most cities and counties. A restaurant Mandated parking spots exceed cars would require more parking in nearly every jurisdiction. Washington renters own Fifty-eight percent of all Washington renter households own one or no cars, but in most cities and counties, it is illegal to Parking mandates vary widely construct a home with only one parking spot. between jurisdictions, but generally exceed of actual use Six out of every ten jurisdictions surveyed require even studio For the same types of businesses, places with the highest mi- apartments to supply more than one parking space per unit, nimums require 3 to 12 times more parking spaces than their while two out of ten require that studios come with two parking neighbors with the lowest minimums. spaces apiece—overbuilding parking for most residents. 4 6. Parking Mandates Led by: Planning Commission Chair, Mark Lawlis Page 8 of 16  Pasco, Washington. Photo: Jake Parrish 6. Parking Mandates Led by: Planning Commission Chair, Mark Lawlis Page 9 of 16  How copy + paste from the ITE leads to excess parking, hurting businesses A history of Adopting average peak demand as a minimum standard forces many businesses to pave more parking spots than they use. guesswork Off-street parking requirements are a recent invention, even compared to zoning itself. New York City, famous for the first modern zoning ordinance in the United States in 1916,[1] would not adopt parking mini- mums until 1950. After World War II, parking mandates spread rapidly alongside other exclusionary zoning practices. By 1972, 99 percent of American cities surveyed had set rules around requiring parking for new buildings.[2] Cities largely took a guess at how much parking to require. Like a game of telephone, planning departments often simply copied neighboring cities’ guesses without questioning the origin of the numbers. One study found that 45 percent of senior planners and directors ranked “survey nearby cities” as the most important information when setting parking man- dates. The second most influential resource for setting parking rules was the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Traffic Engineering Handbook. A share of planners admitted that they “didn’t know” which source of information to use, and only 3 percent used locally commissioned studies.[3] This practice is still common today. Cities that adopt parking minimums that correlate with ITE’s Parking Generation manual do so at their own risk. The studies informing ITE’s standards typically measure peak demand at a handful of suburban locations with abundant free parking and little transit service. Half of the parking generation rates from the 1987 edition were based on four or fewer studies. And 22 percent were based on just one study.[4] Parking mandate guesswork comes with Even with additional data points, parking demand often has real-world consequences no statistical correlation to variables such as store size. The wide-ranging data indicates that it’s not possible to set one Selah, Washington, a small town outside Yakima, requires over twice as many parking spots for mosques as for parking ratio to apply to all businesses. Take this study on fast- churches, synagogues, and other temples. Is this religious food restaurants: a ~2,600-square-foot diner was observed to discrimination? No; like many city parking mandates, those use anywhere from 16 to 42 parking spaces. The largest restau- values were copied and pasted from the Institute of Trans- rant had half the parking demand of some smaller restaurants. portation Engineers’ (ITE) Traffic Engineering Handbook. Despite the ITE’s warning to use caution, cities still adopted “average” rates as legal minimums, mandating an oversupply of Churches, Synagogues, Temples parking for many of the businesses the standard was based on. 8.37 spaces / 1,000 sq ft Mosques 17.32 spaces / 1,000 sq ft 6 6. Parking Mandates Led by: Planning Commission Chair, Mark Lawlis Page 10 of 16  The high cost of Mandates to pave and pressure to sprawl: Parking takes up valuable space excess parking Local laws often mandate farmore space for parking than the size of a building or business. Despite 99 percent of parking spots in the United For certain uses it’s typical to see mandates for States being free to use, they come with costs that parking that takes up twice or three times the we all bear. size of the interior. It’s common for jurisdictions to mandate three, six, or even ten spots re- Parking is expensive to build. On the low end, a surface parking quired per 1,000 square feet of interior building lot might cost $5,000 to $20,000 per space. A multilevel parking spaceThe result is excess pavement, demolitions garage can cost $60,000 (or more) per spot. New Sound Transit to make way for parking, sprawling outward to park-and-ride stations in Kent, Auburn, and Sumner ballooned open spaces—or not building at all. to $240,000[5] per parking spot. Those costs are passed down, rolled into the price of food, rent, No mandated parking and taxes, whether you park a car there or not. Every parking spot per home can increase rent by 12.5 percent[6] (or more As much parking than $200 per month[7]). as building space 3 spots per 1,000 sq ft Parking costs us in dollars and space. A good rule of thumb is that parking lots are forced to be as large as the building they serve when mandates reach three parking spaces per 1,000 Twice as much parking square feet, with 330 square feet[8] for each space. That is a as building space 6 spots per 1,000 sq ft common value. Of the localities we studied, 61 percent required at least that much parking for offices and 80 percent required that minimum for stores. Restaurants have it even worse: the typical jurisdiction requires parking lots to be 3.3 times larger 3.3 times as much park- than the eatery itself. ing as building space 10 spots per 1,000 sq ft "If we had to build off-street parking at today’s standards the entire city would be covered in asphalt." Jacob Gonzalez Planning Manager in Pasco, WA The Ninebark Apartments provide 1.6 parking spaces per home. The site would require even more parking if located downtown after Washougal City Council increased parking mandates in 2023. Image: Ninebark Apartments 6. Parking Mandates Led by: Planning Commission Chair, Mark Lawlis Page 11 of 16  Parking mandates overestimate car ownership and undercut homebuilding Every year across Washington, homes for people are denied because they don’t also provide enough homes for cars. S ho ingl ap ar m e-d e e tm ta 3 en ched ap -bed t Du ar ro tm o pl St ud en m ADU ex io t Homes go unbuilt across Washington because of Most Common 1 2 2 1 2 parking mandates Seattle 0 1 1 1 1 In 2023, the Vancouver Housing Authority was forced to cut 40 subsidized homes from a proposed Washougal project after the Spokane 0 0 0 0 0 city council doubled the off-street parking required downtown. Tacoma 0 2 2 1.5 1.5 Parking mandates can make middle housing infeasible, Vancouver 0 1 1 1 1 especially on small lots Bellevue 0 2 1.8 1.2 1.8 A study found that required parking made ADUs impossible on 85 percent[9] of Kent’s single-detached house lots. Kent 1 2 2 2 2 Everett 1 2 2 1 2 Parking mandates limit property owners’ options to build homes Renton 1 2 1.6 1.1 1.7 Schoolteacher Marijean Rak moved to Mount Vernon to care Spokane Valley 1 2 2 1.1 1.5 for her mother, but city requirements for four parking spac- Yakima 1 2 2 2 2 es, including a two-car garage, made it impossible to build a modest, 1,000-square-foot, single-story home on a vacant lot. Kirkland 0 2 2 1.2 1.8 “This requirement is cost-prohibitive and doesn’t align with Bellingham 1 2 2 1 2 the character of the neighborhood,” she said, pointing out that most of the existing homes have a one-car garage or no off- Kennewick 1 2 2 1.1 1.6 street parking at all.[10] Redmond 1 2 2 1.2 2 Parking mandates hurt renters disproportionately Bremerton 0 2 2 1.5 2 Each parking space can add $200 per month in rent, whether Puyallup 1 2 2 2 2 tenants need that parking space or not. Many don’t, since 58 Issaquah 0 1 1 1.2 1.2 percent of Washington renter households own one or zero cars.[11] Even when forgoing a car or bedroom to save money, Mount Vernon 1* 4 4 1 2 tenants are forced to pay for parking. All but one jurisdiction re- Pierce County 1 2 2 1.5 2.3 quired an off-street parking spot for studio apartments; studios in 22 percent of Washington localities require two or more. Snohomish County 1 2 2 2 2 King County 0 2 2 1.2 2 Most kids don’t drive a car, but parking mandates tax their bedrooms—preventing family-sized apartments Clark County 1 2 2 1.5 1.5 Family-sized units are commonly hit with higher parking man- Kitsap County 1 3 2 2 2 dates; 59 percent of Washington jurisdictions bump up parking Spokane County 1 2 2 1.6 1.6 mandates by number of bedrooms, encouraging builders to opt State Average 0.7 2 1.9 1.3 1.8 for smaller units and making it harder to find apartments with three or more bedrooms. * assumes existing residence has 2 parking spots already, for total of 3 See appendix for more information. 8 Full data available: sightline.org/ParkingReport 6. Parking Mandates Led by: Planning Commission Chair, Mark Lawlis Page 12 of 16  Parking mandates are a tax on businesses Re sta ur 00 sq ft) an t Bo (1 Washington state’s parking regulations are proving a significant hurdle wl in ga ,00 0s q for small businesses, historic sites, and urban development. ft) Da yc ar l l ey (p e ft) e( rl an 0s q El 50 ch ee em ild quiva ,00 (5 ent 1,0 re n le (1 00 ar ) nt) Off Re ch y sc ild ho ice tail ( re o n) l Beloved establishments often can’t be rebuilt today Most Common 3.3 3.3 10 5 10 70 because of parking mandates Seattle 1 2 4 2.4 12.5 48 Port Townsend is home to the state’s oldest grocery store, Aldrich’s Market. After fire destroyed the original 1889 building, Spokane 0 0 0 0 0 0 a historic exemption allowed the owners to rebuild without Tacoma 3 2.5 6 5 10 31.2 modern parking mandates—and that flexibility was expanded citywide through a 2024 interim parking ordinance. But busi- Vancouver 2.5 3.3 4 5 14.2 68.8 nesses in other cities aren’t as lucky; most Washington commu- Bellevue 3.6 4.5 12.6 ** ** ** nities require two to six parking spots for every 1,000 square feet of a similar retail store. Kent 4 5 10 5 10* 80 Everett 2.5 2.5 5 3 9.2 ** Parking minimums often stand in the way of repurposing existing buildings Renton 1.8 2.3 5 2 14 70 To convert an underutilized office to a retail store, 54 percent Spokane Valley 2 2.9 4 3.4 5 26 of cities and counties in our study would require more parking. Yakima 5 3.3 12 5 18.3 91.7 Starting a café in a vacant space is even more difficult; twice as much parking is typically required for restaurants than retail. Kirkland 3.3 3.3 10 ** ** ** Bellingham 2.9 5 8 4 10* 37 Parking mandates can keep communities from critical amenities: Take daycares Kennewick 4 5 10 4 15 70 Washington requires daycare centers to provide 75 square feet Redmond 4 4 9 11.9 10 ** of outdoor play area per child. Local governments add on an average 87 square feet of parking per child. These rules vary by Bremerton 3.3 6 6.7 5 12 58.6 jurisdiction: 4.5 spots required for a daycare in King County; 12 Puyallup 3.3 3.3 10 5 36 43.4 in Pierce County; 36 in Puyallup. Issaquah 3.3 5 10 2.4 9.8 225.7 The rules vary wildly and interpretation is up for grabs Mount Vernon 3 3 9 5 10* 39 In Bothell, would a neighborhood grocery store like Aldrich’s be State Average 3.1 3.7 7.7 4.3 13.2 65.8 considered “retail” or a “convenience store”? The latter requires twice as much parking despite not being defined in code. One- * Also requires an unspecified number of pick-up/drop-off spots, not included size-fits-all requirements for recreation facilities in Redmond in total. ** Director (use not specified; planning department determines on and Mercer Island would require space-intensive bowling alleys case-by-case basis) -- See appendix for more information to provide an equivalent 12 parking spots per lane. Full data available: sightline.org/ParkingReport Deviating from arbitrary parking mandates can still be The original 1913 school had no off-street parking, but code contentious, slowing projects and increasing costs today requires 48 spaces. With Issaquah at the high end, requir- Parking requirements, city waivers, and local appeals held up ing 226 spots (roughly 1.7 acres—larger than the Alki site itself), permits for Seattle’s new Alki Elementary School for over a year. we found 56 percent of Washington cities and counties would require more parking to rebuild a similar-sized school. 9 6. Parking Mandates Led by: Planning Commission Chair, Mark Lawlis Page 13 of 16  Parking mandates are as specific If Exceptions Are as they are arbitrary the Rule, the Rule is Similar uses, like libraries and archives, can require Flawed very different space for parking. Categories are tied to building area or to units or employees—or a combi- nation! It's not uncommon for jurisdictions to specify Planning departments know that parking parking ratios for over a hundred different building mandates are set too high, which is why exceptions types. Here’s a snapshot from the City of SeaTac: keep getting added to city codes over the years. Butterfly or moth breeding facility These carve-outs satisfy the practical need to make building 1 parking spot per 250 square feet feasible for properties lucky enough to qualify, but they can force builders into uncertain discretionary processes. Even College dormitory when the city itself is the applicant, as with Seattle’s Alki Ele- 1.5 parking spots per bedroom mentary, bending the rules can be controversial. Even the “op- Hospital tional” minimums in cities such as Lacey and Lakewood require 1 parking spot per bed plus 5 spots for a special approval to supply less parking than the suggested every 2 employees ratios. We categorized this as a waiver process. Tavern Piling on exceptions to the rules makes zoning codes more 1 parking spot per 250 square feet of complicated. Even an educated city planner can misinterpret leasable space how much parking is actually required. That’s what happened Micro-winery or brewery in Washougal. City officials thought they were adopting the 1 parking spot for every 40 square same downtown parking standards as neighboring Camas[12], feet of tasting room space plus 1 per but they overlooked a small section of Camas’s code. That employee section, “Units of measurement,” gave steep parking discounts to multistory buildings, cutting requirements for new buildings Library by half or more. Without copying the exception, Washougal 1 parking spot per 200 square feet of inadvertently outlawed within its own city limits the kind of building in-demand new housing springing up in Camas. Public archive 1 parking spot per 400 square feet of waiting or review area plus 1 per employee Cemetery 1 parking spot per 40 square feet of chapel plus 1 per employee Bowling alley 5 parking spots per lane plus 1 per employee Rules prevent new buildings, even on vast, underused parking lots Olympia’s Capital Mall can’t transform its unused parking lots into a people-oriented urban center[13] under current 10 zoning rules that deem it “underparked,” with 214 fewer spaces[14] than required for a shopping center. 6. Parking Mandates Led by: Planning Commission Chair, Mark Lawlis Page 14 of 16  Pasco, Washington. Photo: Jake Parrish what had been required. This correction While Bank is trying to find a nearby prop- Right-sizing parking lots: was exactly in line with an earlier King erty for additional surface parking in the Parking County study that found that 40 percent of short term, he imagines that the need for parking spaces in multifamily buildings sat parking could decrease over time. A rapid reform in empty overnight.[16] bus line will be installed out front in the next two years, likely spurring additional Washington Builders in small Washington cities have investments in the neighborhood and mak- also taken advantage of full flexibility. The ing the street more walkable as a whole. first new building to be permitted in Bell- Washington cities have begun ingham’s Old Town district after repealing As financial lenders and roadways evolve rethinking these rules. So far in parking mandates in that zone included over time, the zoning code is written to 2024, Port Townsend and Spokane 2.3 times the number of homes (or 48 new allow the surface parking lot built today to have eliminated parking mandates dwellings) as would have been allowed be- transform into a community building when altogether, returning decisions fore. If it turns out that there aren’t enough the conditions are right. By merely restoring about parking needs to individual parking spaces to attract tenants, builders property owners’ right to determine their property owners. have multiple options to provide additional own parking needs, Spokane has allowed parking on neighboring properties.[17] itself to respond to the changing market Other cities like Bellingham and Redmond when the time comes. are in the process of reducing or removing Zoning is ultimately just one barrier to their parking mandates. making building feasible. Jesse Bank, To unlock the same kind of innovation and director of Spokane’s Northeast Public opportunity that Spokane, Bellingham, When given full flexibility, developers Development Authority (PDA), has been and Port Townsend are eyeing for their frequently still choose to build parking wrestling with how to provide more parking communities, cities and counties across but in different numbers than zoning in a proposal for a building that will house the state—and Washington state itself— codes prescribe. A comprehensive study of the future PDA office, workforce housing, may want to take another look at their Seattle’s 2012 parking reform found that 70 and a 24-hour daycare center. The city no own zoning codes. The origin of any town’s percent of multifamily buildings still chose longer requires parking, but kids still need parking mandates is likely to have been to build off-street parking. The flexibility to be safely dropped off at daycare, and an lost long ago, but these ratios continue to was widely used: 59 percent of new homes appraiser determined that fewer than one shape the places we love. The decisions benefitted from reduced construction costs parking space per home could decrease we make now will determine whether by providing fewer parking spaces than the building’s ultimate value by as much the neighborhoods of the future have previously mandated.[15] Across the 868 as $1 million dollars. “Zoning is out of the abundant housing, local businesses, and new developments studied, the market way, but it’s only one of five or six things,” community spaces—or an abundance of built a total of 40 percent less parking than Bank said. unused parking lots. 11 6. Parking Mandates Led by: Planning Commission Chair, Mark Lawlis Page 15 of 16  Notes [1] M. Nolan Gray, Arbitrary Lines: How Zoning [7] Seth Goodman, “How Much Does One [12] Catie Gould, “How Parking Ratios Kill Homes,” Broke the American City and How to Fix It (Wash- Parking Spot Add to Rent?” Reinventing Parking, Sightline Institute, December 6, 2023, https:// ington, DC: Island Press, 2022). June 2, 2015, https://www.reinventingparking. www.sightline.org/2023/12/06/how-parking-ra- org/2015/06/how-much-does-one-parking-spot- tios-kill-homes/. [2] Robert A Weant and Herbert S. Levinson, add-to.html. Parking (Washington, DC: Eno Center for Transpor- [13] Engage Olympia, “Capital Mall Triangle,” 2024, tation, 1990), https://enotrans.org/wp-content/ [8] Donald Shoup, “The Pseudoscience of Parking https://engage.olympiawa.gov/capital-mall-tri- uploads/2023/02/Parking-Full.pdf. Requirements,” Zoning Practice 37, no. 2 (2020), angle. https://dallascityhall.com/departments/sus- [3] Donald C. Shoup, The High Cost of Free [14] City of Olympia, “Capital Mall Triangle Subar- tainabledevelopment/planning/DCH%20Docu- Parking, updated ed. (Chicago: American Planning ea Plan & Planned Action EIS: Existing Conditions ments/code%20amendments/parking%20code/ Association Planners Press, 2011). Report,” December 2022, https://engage.olympia- APA_%20Practice_Parking_Reform_February%20 wa.gov/17664/widgets/55409/documents/37948. [4] Donald C. Shoup, “Truth in Transportation 2020.pdf. Planning,” Journal of Transportation and Statistics [15] Catie Gould, “Parking Reform Legalized Most [9] Catie Gould, “Unlock Middle Housing with 6, no. 1 (2003): 1–16, http://shoup.bol.ucla.edu/ of the New Homes in Buffalo and Seattle,” Sight- Parking Reform,” Sightline Institute, March 18, TruthInTransportationPlanning.pdf. line Institute, April 13, 2023, http://www.sightline. 2024, https://www.sightline.org/2024/03/18/un- org/2023/04/13/parking-reform-legalized-most-of- [5] Stephen Fesler, “Sounder Needs More Service, lock-middle-housing-with-parking-reform/. the-new-homes-in-buffalo-and-seattle. Not More Parking Garages,” The Urbanist, February [10] Mount Vernon City Council meeting, May 8, 9, 2023, http://www.theurbanist.org/2023/02/09/ [16] King County Metro, “Right Size Parking, Final 2024, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3B- sounder-needs-more-service-not-more-parking- Report,” August 2015, https://metro.kingcounty. GYL-hu0M. garages. gov/programs-projects/right-size-parking/pdf/ [11] U.S. Census Bureau, Tenure by Vehicles rsp-final-report-8-2015.pdf. [6] Todd Litman, “Parking Requirement Impacts Available, American Community Survey 5-Year on Housing Affordability,” Victoria Transport Policy [17] Catie Gould, “Bellingham’s Parking Reform Estimates Detailed Tables, 2022, https://data.cen- Institute, January 20, 2009, reconnectingamerica. Pilot Pays Off,” Sightline Institute, May 1, 2024, sus.gov/table/ACSDT5Y2022.B25044?q=Table%20 org/assets/Uploads/parking_housing_2009.pdf. http://www.sightline.org/2024/05/01/belling- B25044&g=040XX00US53. hams-parking-reform-pilot-pays-off. Appendix Washington Residential Parking Washington Commercial & Civic Bowling alley = 19,061-sq-ft building; 16 Mandates Parking Mandates lanes; 5 employees; 100-person capacity; ADU = Lot size: 5,500 sq ft; Unit size: 600 sq Director = Use not specified; Planning No dining area ft; 1 bedroom; First ADU on property department determines on case-by-case basis Daycare = 50 children; 10 staff; 4,000-sq- Single-Detached home = Lot size: 5,500 sq ft facility; Indoor play area: 90 percent ft; Unit size: 1,800 sq ft; 3 bedroom Office = Ground floor; Non-customer of gross floor area; No business vehicle facing on-site Duplex = Lot size: 5,500 sq ft; Unit size: 1,400 sq ft; 3 bedrooms Retail = 900 sq ft; Open to customers Elementary school = 90,278-sq-ft building; 500 students, 70 employees, 37 teachers; Apartments: 6 units in building; Studio Restaurant = All indoor; 600-sq-ft dining 26 classrooms, 11 offices; 1,310-sq-ft office size: 500 sq ft space; 40-person capacity space; Auditorium capacity: 275,384 peo- ple, 3,840-sq-ft; No school buses parked on-site 12 6. Parking Mandates Led by: Planning Commission Chair, Mark Lawlis Page 16 of 16