Tom Rasmussen Seattle City Councilmember April 1, 2015

Dear Council Colleagues:

One of the most controversial aspects of some new multifamily housing developments is when little to no parking is required. In light of a proposed Department of Planning and Development (DPD) Director’s Rule regarding parking requirements, and in anticipation of a forthcoming analysis from DPD on residential vehicle parking requirements, I believe Council will soon have an opportunity to consider improvements to our Code that will address this issue and bring clarity to our current rules. This letter is an opportunity to bring Councilmembers up to speed on this issue, as well as an opportunity to present some of my views and concerns.

Background

The Multifamily Code was revised by Ord. 123495 in 2010 to allow some projects to be built without any parking, if the project is located in an Urban Village and is within a quarter mile of “frequent transit service (FTS).” According to the Seattle Municipal Code, “frequent transit service” means “transit service headways in at least one direction of 15 minutes or less for at least 12 hours per day, 6 days per week, and transit service headways of 30 minutes or less for at least 18 hours every day.”1 If a multifamily development is located within an urban village and within a quarter mile (1,320 feet) of a transit stop that provides frequent transit service, no parking is required.2 If a multifamily development is located outside of an urban village but within a quarter mile of a transit stop that provides frequent transit service, the minimum parking requirements are reduced by 50 percent.3

To administer the provisions in Ord. 123495 DPD adopted Director’s Rule 11-2012, which stated in part that “multiple routes and multiple transit stops may be identified to provide the level of transit at frequent transit service levels.” Rule 11-2012 also provided that averaging may be used in measuring 15 minute transit service headways over a 12 hour period, stating: “as headways may vary in a 12 hour period, the average headways in the 12 hour period, per day, shall be interpreted to meet the standard.” These requirements were similar to Director’s Rule 8-2011, which preceded Rule 11-2012.

Challenge to DPD Rule

Residents of a West Seattle neighborhood, Neighbors Encouraging Reasonable Development (NERD), have been at odds with the DPD interpretation of the definition of “frequent transit service” with regard to a particular proposed development, which DPD’s interpretation would have allowed to be built with up to zero parking.

NERD successfully challenged Director’s Rule 11-2012 in December 2014 when City Hearing Examiner Sue Tanner held that Rule 11-2012 violated the SMC definition of “frequent transit

1 Seattle Municipal Code (SMC) 23.84A.038 “T” 2 SMC Tables A, B, and C for 23.54.015 3 SMC 23.54.020.F

service.”4 The Hearing Examiner held that the Director had no authority to allow for averaging, stating that “had the Council intended that headways be averaged, it could have inserted the word ‘average’ in two places within the definition to indicate that intent. It did not do so, and neither the Director nor the Examiner has the authority via statutory construction to add the word ‘average’ to the term ‘headway’ in the definition of frequent transit service. Doing so would change the clearly stated meaning and the impact of the definition. This can be accomplished only through legislation.”5

In response to the Hearing Examiner’s decision DPD has proposed Director’s Rule 6-2015, which no longer “averages” the headways and revises the requirements to measure frequent transit service as follows:

“Only one transit stop need be identified and it may be on the same side of the street or the opposite side as the development. Multiple routes and multiple transit stops may be identified to demonstrate transit at FTS levels as follows:

a. Multiple routes at the same stop may be included; and

b. Multiple transit stops within 1,320 feet walking distance may be included provided transit is going in the same direction.”

“Headways” Definition Controversy

Rule 6-2015 would continue to allow for the service frequencies of multiple routes to be taken into account when determining whether there are transit service headways every 15 minutes at a particular stop. In other words, if three routes are each scheduled to arrive at the same bus stop in the University District every 20 minutes, and their combined service results in a bus arriving at that same stop more frequently than every 15 minutes, then that area would continue to qualify as frequent transit service.

NERD alleges this interpretation of headway is inconsistent with the Hearing Examiner’s interpretation of the term, who referred to the definition of “headway” found in Webster’s Dictionary: “the time interval between two vehicles traveling in the same direction on the same route.”6 The Seattle Municipal Code does not provide a definition of the term “headway.”

A number of residents have written to all Councilmembers, asking us to tell the Mayor and DPD that proposed Director’s Rule 6-2015 remains inconsistent with the Seattle Municipal Code and the Hearing Examiner’s decision, and that the rule should be scrapped. In response to their request I have researched the history of Ord. 123495 to determine the Council’s intent when it updated the Multifamily Code in 2010 and revised the frequent transit rule. Did Council intend for multiple routes to be counted when it passed legislation stating that headways must be every 15 minutes in order to qualify as frequent transit service?

After reviewing the legislative history behind the 2010 legislation including staff memos from that time, and after multiple discussions with Central Staff who worked on the issue and with local transit professionals, it appears that DPD’s interpretation of “headways” in the proposed Director’s Rule is in line with Council’s intent. My conclusions are based on several factors:

4 In the Matter of the Appeal of Neighbors Encouraging Reasonable Development, Hearing Examiner File Nos. MUP-14-006 (DR,W)/S-14-001 (December 1, 2014). 5 Id., 14-15. 6 Id., 10.

2

1. “Transit service headways” v. “headways” distinction. While the Hearing Examiner’s decision defined “headways” as relating to the frequency of vehicles on the same route, the SMC actually defines frequent transit service as instances where “transit service headways” are every 15 minutes over 12 hours and every 30 minutes over 18 hours. The distinction between the two terms is significant. The fact that Council included the modifying words “transit service” to the term “headways” would indicate that the standard Webster’s Dictionary definition of the word “headways” would not apply here. Instead, a street that has “transit service” every 15 minutes is the key factor to consider, which could mean not only bus service from multiple routes, but could also mean streetcar or light rail service.

2. Council intent. Conversations with Council Central staffer Rebecca Herzfeld indicates that the difference between counting multiple routes or just one route was in fact discussed in 2010. The belief at the time was that the term “transit service headways” meant that multiple routes would be counted when determining frequent transit service.

3. No standard definition of “headway.” While the Hearing Examiner referred to the Webster’s Dictionary definition of headway as the frequency of the same route, the definition of “headway” actually varies depending on the source. The American Public Transportation Association’s glossary of transit terms does define “headway” consistent with Webster’s Dictionary.7 However, King County Metro Transit’s glossary of transit terms does not indicate that a “headway” necessarily needs to be in reference to the same route, and could be construed to include the headways of multiple routes.8

While proposed Director’s Rule 6-2015 may be consistent with the Seattle Municipal Code’s current definition of frequent transit service and Council intent, this does not necessarily mean that our current frequent transit service rule is clear. If the Code is not clarified, there will continue to be controversy and confusion over the frequent transit service rule, both regarding the issue of averaging headways and regarding the definition of headways itself.

Comprehensive Plan Considerations

The conversations surrounding Director’s Rule 6-2015 have also raised broader questions about whether our residential parking requirements are meeting the parking goals and policies established in the City’s Comprehensive Plan.

Comprehensive Plan Policy LU49 provides general guidance about parking requirements: “Seek to further this Plan’s goal of encouraging the use of public transit, carpools, walking, and bicycles as alternatives to the use of single-occupancy vehicles when setting parking requirements for both single-occupant vehicles and their alternatives. When setting new requirements for off-street parking, balance the goals of accommodating the parking demand generated by new development and avoiding on-street congestion of parked cars with the goals of lowering construction costs and discouraging single-occupant vehicles…”

A Central Staff memo dated March 20, 2010, regarding parking requirements for multifamily housing in urban villages states:

7 Headway: “Time interval between vehicles moving in the same direction on a particular route.” 8 Headway: “The amount of time between consecutive vehicle trips in the same direction of travel. On routes with uneven headways (i.e. variation in times between buses), this measure is expressed as an ‘average headway.’”

3

“To support this policy, parking requirements should minimize parking spillover on the one hand and discourage under-used parking on the other. Policy LU49 recognizes that requiring more than the necessary amount of parking can add significantly to construction costs.”

The goal of lowering construction costs is important in light of our housing affordability challenge, and I am not interested in requiring developments to build parking spaces that go unutilized. However, residents in a number of neighborhoods would argue that the competing goal of avoiding on-street congestion of parked cars has been ignored and that there is significant spillover of parked cars. It is worth considering whether improvements to our current Code could be made in order to ensure new developments do not cause parking spillover in specific areas where on-street parking congestion is at its very worst.

The Comprehensive Plan also includes a policy that more specifically addresses parking requirements in urban villages and centers. Policy LU50 states: “In urban centers and urban villages, consider removing minimum parking requirements and setting parking maximums in recognition of the increased pedestrian, bicycle and transit accessibility these areas already provide or have planned. Parking requirements for urban centers and villages should account for local conditions and planning objectives.”

I strongly support our policies encouraging increased pedestrian, bicycle, and transit use. But again, that policy must be balanced with accounting for local conditions where on-street parking congestion is at its worst.

It may be worth re-examining the 2010 decision in the same legislation to eliminate the DPD Director’s authority under SEPA to condition a residential project for parking impacts when the project is located in an urban village with frequent transit service.9 If restored, discretion provided to the DPD Director could help mitigate parking impacts in specific areas where parking spillover from a project would be expected to have more severe impacts compared to other areas of the city. Mitigation strategies would not necessarily only be requiring parking spaces, but could include requirements for car sharing memberships or transit passes for residents.

Going Forward

In light of the controversy (and confusion) surrounding the pending DPD Director’s Rule on parking requirements, I believe it is time for the Council to review our current multifamily parking requirements to make sure they are consistent with our Comprehensive Plan, and to see if there are clarifications and improvements that can be made.

As part of my amendment to Council’s microhousing legislation last year, DPD is currently conducting a review of residential vehicle parking requirements citywide. Based on that review, DPD is expected to present its own recommendations to Council for changes to our current minimum parking requirements.

Given the need for clarity surrounding Director’s Rule 6-2015, and given the need to balance our competing parking goals found in the City’s Comprehensive Plan, I recommend that Council look at the parking requirements in the Land Use Code areas of frequent transit service, after DPD’s review is presented to Council.

9 Ord. 123495, Sec. 104.

4

Sincerely,

Councilmember Tom Rasmussen

cc: Mayor Ed Murray Diane Sugimura, DPD Director

5