It’s been seven long years since Kitaro (1645 N. 45th St) went up in a roil of smoke and fire. Since then, it has stood a burned out husk, decorated occasionally with concert posters, interrupted only by the occasional rumor of change.
Well, change looks like it is finally on the horizon (although not the change everyone may have hoped for). Mike Ruby spotted this proposal on the City of Seattle’s website for the property:
SDR – Construct 10,200 sq. ft. residential building with 7 units and no parking proposed. REVISED FROM: Demolition of existing fire-damaged Mixed Use building. New construction of a four-story Mixed Use building with commercial on the ground floor and apartments on the upper floors. More than 50% of the apartments are intended to be Small Efficiency Dwelling Units. No parking proposed.
So it’s a change commercial first floor / “apodment”-style mini-apartments above to pure residential “reasonable-sized” apartments throughout.
Obviously, the lack of parking is going to stick in the craw of a lot folks around here. Parking can already be difficult to find, and that makes shopping in Wallingford core more difficult for those who don’t live nearby.
No review with the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections has been scheduled as of yet.
I have been fussing about this site (Kitaro) for seven years. It is encouraging to know that will no longer remain a health hazard to the community.
But the decisions about this building are another stark reminder that the developers rule. With silence from the city, more housing is built, with no parking provided. Providing parking is an additional cost to the developers, so they just don’t do it. Over and over again.
Beginning in 2019, when Lincoln opens, residents and shoppers can forget parking options, for they won’t exist. With the influx of the entire faculty and staff of Lincoln, plus student drivers, plus all the new housing with nary a parking place in site, I wonder what will happen to Wallingford. If you are a resident, and cannot fabricate some kind of access to your back yard, good luck. One of the biggest assets to a home in Wallingford is a home with alley with a garage. I sure do feel sorry for residents who have small children, strollers, groceries to unload. Not to mention older folks or anyone with any handicap, permanent or temporary, who cannot find parking within multiple blocks of their home.
It’s pretty easy to resolve. Make all parking in Wallingford pay parking with rates reflecting the needs. Parking should not be considered free utility. People who park in streets are effectively using public resources, same as homeless tents on public land..
You must strongly support bike licenses.
The homeless don’t pay property taxes like I do.
I’m a parent living in the neighborhood with my spouse and two small children. We have one car that we use infrequently. We walk or bus whenever feasible, including most grocery trips. My family needs no sympathy from you over crowded parking. We’re fine either way.
Keep in mind, Lincoln has been used multiple times in the last 15 years as a interim site, including at least twice as an interim site for a comprehensive HS (Garfield and Ballard). Having lived 5 blocks from Lincoln during all that use, I did not see a major impact on parking. I did see lots more people walking and taking advantage of local businesses like Molly Moon’s.
Five blocks from Lincoln is a bit far. Lincoln teachers and students generally do not walk a total of ten blocks to go to work and school. That is why you did not see a major impact on parking. If people parked five blocks away to go Molly Moon’s or a similar business, it is likely they could not find a parking place closer than that. Also, many employees who work on N.45th park on my street every morning. I watch them. My side of the street is totally full of cars belonging to people who work down the street. It’s a short 1-2 block stroll. I don’t blame them, but feel sorry for my neighbor who has two small children and sacks of groceries.
If your neighbor lives close to 45th, why would they need car to do grocery shopping?
four blocks I consider that close to N45th
I am sorry, I can’t speak for them. It is a lot for young parents to work full time, come home to two small children, haul them off to go grocery shopping, while pushing a stroller an holding onto the hand of a 4 year old. Seems that both hands/arms are busy doing that, and getting two sacks of groceries to manage on the way back is pretty daunting.
What you said sounds like problems for spoiled people, and if we have to accommodate for this kind of issue, what are we doing for single parents living in Kent and commuting to Seattle for low wage work? How about building more cheap and tiny apartments in the city so fewer people like that have to commute so far?
“What you said sounds like problems for spoiled people,…”
What, in snelsen’s description, would lead you to accuse them of being spoiled?
he’s (TBD) af. he won’t answer because IT’S COMPLICATED (see my bike license question above).
“Dumb” is a bit harsh. I prefer “misguided.”
I’m actually kind of fond of TJ. I can’t figure out why, especially considering how irritating his positions are. Maybe it’s just because he never fails to amuse me. But still, we should all strive to be easy on each other.
@warmfuzzyhayduke ok I edited. <3
Well, I did answer and I think the issue isn’t that I don’t understand complicated issue. It’s my ideas are too complicated for you to realize when I don’t spell it out.
But really, most of my positions aren’t hard to understand, if we don’t just think about “what’s the best for the owners of million dollar houses in Wallingford”. Think what could be good for a low wage Wallingford worker, who also is the main bread-earner of the family, and you can see my point easier.
A big social problem in the US these days is segregation by wealth, making it harder and harder for people to sympathize with those less fortunate because those less fortunate than us are mostly living far away from us. We hardly see their suffer.
And when we do see them, like the homeless encampment, they look so foreign that we can’t imagine how is it possible for them to exist.
Because the hardship he’s speculating his neighbors to have is hardly an issue and vast majority of the people would hope that’s the kind of “hardship” they can suffer.
Walking ten blocks to get groceries with two young kids isn’t hardship. That’s what I used to do when my kids were younger. I don’t do that anymore simply because my kids are small anymore. Comparing that to the fact that the admin in my office couldn’t afford to live anywhere close to Wallingford and has to commute more than an hour one way even when pregnant, what’s hardship? She used to live in a small apartment near Green Wood, which she can’t afford anymore. She would benefit from more cheap apartments built in Wallingford.
So in which way isn’t snelsen’s description of spoiled people problem that’s worse than First World problem complaints? The description was just daily life for many people, and it’s insulting to consider that an issue other people have to “solve”.
Good grief, TJ. Not wanting to walk more than 10 blocks with armloads of groceries and kids in tow doesn’t make a young working couple “spoiled.” By your definition, anyone who only has to walk a few blocks to go grocery shopping is spoiled. Spoiled is a term generally reserved for children who are overly doted on by their parents or grandparents. No one spoiled the young couple and gave them their house. They have their house and short walk because they worked for it and PAID for it.
Please remember the said young couple are not in this discussion. The person that’s spoiled is snelsen who imagined hardship for the young couple. I kind of doubt that couple will make that complain here.
tj, I think the personal attack on anyone is not necessary. you write some good posts, too. Why don’t you come to meet me sometime?” The person that’s spoiled is snelsen?”……a silly accusation. Get to know me.
WOW!! Thank you for this information. I asked about it repeatedly ( about once a year) and took “heat” for doing so.
I am curious of there is any info re those pod apartment buildings which ar enow built and rented out- how many residents have cars and find places to park them? Or do mos tresidents of these new developments rely on Uber. Lyft, biking walking Metro and other transportation sources?
Most walk or take the bus. Everyone I work with that’s under 30 walks/bikes/busses everywhere. My family (2 adults 1 kid) only has one car and whoever doesn’t have it that day walks/bikes/busses. Its pretty common in the city, especially among the younger set.
I’m glad that you and your family are being so conscientious. My experience is different; the house next door is rented by 4 under-30s. Each has a car which is driven to work each day. None of them use their driveway. Weekend parking is especially difficult
With two different bus lines stopping within a block of this location, it seems like a terrific place to live car-free. I hope that is part of the draw for the carless.
“None of them use their driveway. Weekend parking is especially difficult”
Ask to use their driveway on the weekend if the aren’t?
If people don’t use their driveway then it’s up to you to politely mention to them that it would improve the neighborhood to use it to park at least one car (or–gasp–park multiple cars tandem and make sure you share keys so as not to block people in).
To Bryan and Holly. Unfortunately, my new neighbors are not particularly open to suggestions; i.e. that perhaps they should move their parties indoors after midnight. We’re beyond polite suggestions here, and I need to choose my battles. There is always going to be a certain segment of the population who are not interested in engaging with the neighborhood. I can imagine that dealing with people in a larger apartment building will be more difficult than dealing with people living in a shared single family house near established owner-occupied homes. My point was that four cars from one house can create havoc on the block. The renters usually uber/lyft on weekends, leaving their cars at home. If I want a parking space near enough to my home to unload my groceries, I now have to have it done before 4:30 pm. Forget weekends entirely.
This is a perfect example of why Wallingford (and all of Seattle) would benefit from parking benefit districts. Charge for all on-street parking (ideally also including curb cuts in property owners’ taxes), and funnel at least some of the money back to the neighborhood. Once your neighbors have to eat the true cost of their car ownership, they’ll have an incentive to look for alternatives.
Portland just started doing this[1], and I’m looking forward to seeing it implemented up here.
[1] https://www.sightline.org/2018/08/13/portland-smartest-parking-policy-in-america/
” I can imagine that dealing with people in a larger apartment building will be more difficult than dealing with people living in a shared single family house near established owner-occupied homes”
I’m not sure that’s true. I can imagine that if you threaten a nuisance lawsuit against a building manager, they have every incentive to tell their tenants to “cut the s**t or else” rather than incur any costs/hassle on their part. They’re runnng a business with a P&L, whereas (at least in this case) it sounds like the homeowner is just a jerk (assuming you’ve complained to him/her).
But in any event – sorry to hear your neighbors and the owner are not responsive to things to which they should be.
+1
Yeah we’re on 49th and I just got rid of my car. My wife still has hers because she has to drive around South King County for work, but I haven’t missed it at all. (Tho, sadly, far from under 30 myself….)
Why restrict the study to these apartments? There is a serious problem of single-family houses not having enough parking spaces in Wallingford. Many houses have multiple cars and one or zero private parking spots. Most of the Wallingford parking issue can be easily resolved if no single-family houses rely on street parking.
Single-family houses are obviously less efficient way of using the land, so the parking burden should naturally be more on the burden of house owners than apartment dwellers.
Who is doing a study? I said I am curious.
There is no problem, serious or otherwise, of single family homes not having enough parking. Parking around here has been just fine until you guys started shoving your density agenda down our throats. Since sf homes were already here first, we’re not the ones causing the problem. You don’t get to come into an existing neighborhood and point your finger at people already living there and say “you guys are the problem.”
The parking problem stems not just from bike lanes taking away existing parking, but from all your wonderful Borg-esque aPodments with no on-site parking (most of whose residents will still own cars) that are being built where once sat a single family home.
It’s simple, really. If you want people to live in Wallingford in your tiny micro housing units, don’t allow them to have a car. That’s the trade off. And since, according to you transit and biking is so convenient and the way of the future, you shouldn’t have a problem with that.Since we are being told to constantly sacrifice for newcomers, then they can sacrifice as well. That way things will be, you know, “equitable.”
“There is no problem, serious or otherwise, of single family homes not having enough parking.”
Then single family homeowners wouldn’t care a whit about street parking, because they’d have enough of their own. What a weird hobby it would be to complain about parking one doesn’t need…!
It’s not the houses that are the problem, it’s the cars. Every car parked on the street is contributing equally to the problem.
Furthermore your idea that we should assign priority to public parking by age of housing is just strange. I’d sympathize more if you suggested it should be based on how long the people have lived there. If you’ve gotten used to being able to park your car on the street in front of your house, it’s understandable to want to be able to keep doing it. Someone just moving into the neighborhood (whether into an old single-family house or new tiny apartment) has no such preconceptions. If the street parking is crowded and they still buy a house without any parking, they know what they’re getting into.
I am strongly against the idea of giving priority to those who live here longer. In this neighborhood of rapid rising rent and property tax, those who stay long are by default those who can absorb the increases, therefore less qualified for any sort of help from the public.
Also what’s the fairness for the long time poor residents in Central that got chased out to Kent or further then? Help those people first. Even help those former long term residents of Wallingford who got chased out of the neighborhood due to rents that’s more than doubled first.
A long term home owner in Wallingford would have seen his home value more than doubled anyway. So if somehow he can’t afford the parking, I am sure he can cash out the house and made huge returns.
Giving priority to length of living here isn’t my favorite either, but it seems to make a heck of a lot more sense than saying anyone living in a home built before 2000 (or whatever) can use public resources and people living in a home built after that date can’t, despite each group being charged equal tax rates.
I think market pricing is the fairest way to allocate the parking. It gives people who have other options an incentive to use them. How many garages in the neighborhood are full of stuff instead of cars? How many of these would magically empty themselves out if the alternative was paying $100/month to park on the street?
Many of the driveways and garages in the neighborhood were small, since most single family houses were built when cars were smaller. I had to spend money to increase the width of my drive way, or the cars can’t get on it. Many houses did the opposite: converting garages to rooms.
If somehow you want to grandfather people in, surely it can’t be by the age of the house. At most you grandfather in people who are living in the neighborhood before the rule change. If you use the age of the house, you are effectively using public policy to increase the value of older houses against public interest.
I guess we should only give waivers to long time residents who drive tiny cars like SMART, because those are the only people who are still kind of living the way this neighborhood is designed for.
SMART cars literally fit crosswise in the apron of a typical driveway (we’ve done it to get around the stupid “move you car every 72 hours” rule when we had one and went on vacation). SMART cars up to the # of aprons on a street ought to consume 0 net new street spaces, so long as folks are willing to share (or rent) use of their apron with neighbors.
If you say good things about Smart cars people will accuse you of wanting to take away their Outbacks. That’s what happens whenever anyone mentions bikes.
Just like a Wallingford homeowner, those residents of the CD presumably made huge cash returns on their sf homes that have been replaced by boxy condos and apartments for upwardly mobile young WHITE techies, right? I wonder what the former residents and the few who remain would say if you told them how all that wonderful new density we’ve added to the CD is a good thing for their neighborhood, or that it will somehow making housing more affordable for them.
And btw, were those former residents who were sf homeowners “privileged” and “wealthy” because they had all that “unearned” equity? Were they being “exclusionary,” “racist” “NIMBY’s” because they resisted the gentrification and destruction of their neighborhood?
So if you are saying all home owners, regardless of single-family house or condo, should give up privileges to renters, I’m listening.
Also what’s happening in Wallingford is not gentrification. It’s just a middle class neighborhood becoming a rich one. It’s a neighborhood that middle class can no longer afford to buy in. It used to be a nice place for people with school teacher salary can afford, and now you have to be double income tech family to move in.
Some existing owners have no interest in turning Wallingford back into a middle class neighborhood, and would rather have policies that help them maintain the high property price. And yes, for most it’s unearned equity, because there is often little reason to believe why we are better than those who just happened to live in cities that didn’t grow as much.
“Also what’s happening in Wallingford is not gentrification. It’s just a middle class neighborhood becoming a rich one. It’s a neighborhood that middle class can no longer afford to buy in. It used to be a nice place for people with school teacher salary can afford, and now you have to be double income tech family to move in.
Some existing owners have no interest in turning Wallingford back into a middle class neighborhood…”
🔥🔥🔥
I’ve written a lot of stuff online about housing, but rarely this well-put. Well said.
“…they know what they’re getting into.”
Exactly! Unlike those who’ve already been living here, whether they rent or own, newcomers moving into an aPodment with no on-site parking know what they’re getting into. They knowingly moved into a building that far exceeds a block’s carrying capacity for being able to park a car on it. Most residents from one 40 unit building with no on-site parking will still choose to have a car. So if they think they HAVE to live here in a SEDU, fine. Give up your car. Since they know what they’re getting into, that shouldn’t be a problem for them. Besides, the urbanists like trying to force people out of their cars, anyway, so they should have no problem with this policy.
“Unlike those who’ve already been living here, whether they rent or own, newcomers moving into an aPodment with no on-site parking know what they’re getting into.”
The population of Seattle has grown from under 200 to more than 700,000. Rounding to decades, its population has grown for more than 130 of the last 150 years (the 70s and 80s were the exceptions). I think anyone who chose to live here after, say, the first century of continued growth (1860-1960) probably should have expected they were getting into a place that was going to become denser and more populous over time.
What’s the logic of “here first therefore not the problem”? It’s just a rule you made up for the sake of your argument? Sacred text of your religion?
And if we want to talk about who was here first, the ones we can figure out only goes as far as some of the native American tribes. In that sense we all are problems.
And obviously Seattle has been gentrifying a lot, which is exactly the proof that we go into existing neighborhoods and change them.
I am not against your ideas just that I think it should be applied universally. Street parking rights should be treated as equal for all, and we should all pay for street parking the same way regardless of where we live and what kind of house we live in. If we want to provide discounts, I am OK with some form of assistance to senior, handicap, and low income people. People in tiny apartments are more likely to be applicable than the single-family home owners in this neighborhood if we want to review who’s more worthy of getting help.
Marie of R, or whoever you are, it is inappropriate to play “bait, insult, tease ” on a friendly neighborhood internet newsletter. It is possible that you could find something to better your own life rather than continue a longstanding need to harrass me.JUST STOP!
No harrassment intended at all. I was genuinely happy for you.
We almost always walk or bike the seven blocks from our place to 45th for lunch dinner and other shopping (for ethical as well as health reasons – and we like walking our neighborhood). But we absolutely drive for our larger (more “retail-impact”) purchases: Case or wine or beer for a BBQ, large grocery, home improvement purchases and supplies.
I’ll be commenting on this development to the city as should everyone who cares about Wallingford’s retail and commercial core and impact of less parking. Cars (owned or “car-share”) are always going to be used, particularly by those that can’t easily walk, use public transport or need car-transport for large (bulky) purchases. Providing less than one car per unit would be acceptable, or charging the apartment dwellers for a unit parking spot.
Less parking will simply drive more buyers further away to places where there is parking – Costco and parts of the city with parking and hurt our retail core.
But there really can’t be much of a parking issue since the city is REMOVING the RPZ around the Guild and other places in Wallingford. Not saying that it’s easy to find a spot right in front of where you want to go, just saying that there doesn’t seem to be quite the issue that folks seem to think there is.
Also, if folks were really worried about people with disabilities being able to park close in they would be advocating for more disabled spots. But I’m not hearing a lot about that.
RPZs address the specific parking problem created by non-residents. There are new RPZs coming in eastern Wallingford, for example, because it has become UW East Parking Lot. When an apartment building brings more cars than the neighboring streets can accommodate, an RPZ is no help, because currently anyone in the apartment can get a permit. Actually worse than no help, because it only adds to local businesses’ problems.
Timed parking and pay parking are the real help. RPZ makes things worse by ensuring parking is hogged by the limited few.
Wallingford retail core has been relatively dead comparing to nearby neighborhoods like Fremont or Ballard or U District. Right now the most vibrant restaurant scene in Wallingford is at the south end of Stone Way.
The retail core for Wallingford is not hurting because of parking, which is not easier to get in other neighboring places. The retail core is hurting due to the combination of low density and high property price.
Cars aren’t always going to be used. Car usage goes down as density goes up, since with higher density you get more customers within walking distance to sustain the businesses, which leads to more businesses within walking distance.
Seems like it should be straightforward enough to put parking time limit signs all along 45th and on nearby side streets to ensure that residents aren’t hogging the space that is nearest to neighborhood businesses. Beyond that, the neighborhood is getting a lot more people in walking distance to these businesses, and therefore parking availability is becoming less of a determinant for business success in the area.
The city did that with the restricted zones. Now they have found that there is sufficient parking to not need RPZs so they are removing parking restrictions.
Ah, no. Wallingford just ADDED an RPZ.
Both happened. There was an RPZ set up to prevent parking in the area around the Guild theater. That RPZ was removed at the same time a new one was added.
Yes, but there was significant gain in net RPZ acreage.
The Wallingford business district has tons of parking (Wallingford Center, QFC, further east at Dick’s, and that coffee shop/food truck parking lot around Corliss). What it needs are people, since cars don’t spend money.
The off street parking lots along 45th (excluding Dicks).
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a582d7f883ca22cdef90e2ef2e3e59ea513ffdacd427f520297ffe2251b52686.png
The QFC lot is managed by Diamond and monitored. Thus, although it has spaces people who park there can get tickets which are expensive.
VERY monitored. I saw tickets on two cars yesterday in the QFC lot. I happened to see the people walking in the opposite direction of QFC. On went the tickets by the guy who was watching.
Thanks for the info. Where was the guy who was watching? I never see anyone hanging around there.
He is usually in a white van, kinda toward the west end of the entry to the QFC parking lot…but sometimes he is at the east end, in the middle
A good thing to happen would be for the QFC lot (and, indeed, any and all of the surface lots) to become pay-to-park that’s free with purchase; that QFC lot is rarely full. Businesses should be free to charge what they want – e.g., if you’re QFC and you’re worried about non-customers filling the lot, charge a premium…but ideally it should still be open. Carrots and sticks to turn single-purpose, single-business lots into more broadly available would be good city policy. And even good neighborhliness (e.g., Archie McPhee’s lot is empty but for their van after hours … policy that encouraged or facilitated folks who want overnight parking paying a local business are a win-win).
If there was a shortage of parking this would already be happening. You can pay to park in the Chase bank lot in the evening but nobody ever does
Yes, absolutely, you’re right. It’s true in the ‘hood as well. Less than 1/2 of my neighbors/their guests/even our guests park in front of their driveway aprons routinely. There are a few long driveways I haven’t seen full in ~14 years. Whether out of courtesy or for financial arrangements, if those things don’t happen, there isn’t a shortage.
removing comments
That’s a great idea Cathy. Who can we write to so that parking lot is opened up after hours?
Can you clarify why they said opening up the library lot after hours would be “too complicated?” Seems to me like it would just be a matter of putting up signs saying that the lot is free to use after hours. The library staff would be free to call a tow truck in the morning for anyone who hasn’t left yet, just as they currently do for any cars that aren’t following the rules. What am I missing?
comments removed by me for a reason
I wish I could help you Cathy, in this quest, but I don’t know where to go first.
No, you do not. I do not care re the issue anymore. Your insidious personal targetting borders harrassment. I emailed the owner of the blog. I have asked and told you to stop it before.
I don’t mean to harrass by offering to help – I don’t understand. but you’re clearly upset so I won’t try to lend my support to you if it’s unwelcome. I wish you peace.
You harrassed me for months, possibly years. i quit using the blog for a long time due to your underhanded mean comments.
It’s great to hear something will finally be done with this location. I do feel sad if the owners of the restaurant have given up their hope to reopen it. The Stone Way end of 45th is finally getting some more residents thanks to this and other recently developments. I’m excited that with more people living in the heart of the neighborhood we will see less boarded up store fronts.
This location is perfect for walking to shops, restaurants, etc. It has great bus access to downtown and the university. Many people who live there will have little need for a car. There is no parking shortage on 45th. All along 45th there are off street parking lots. Except for the one in front of QFC they are mostly empty. If parking was scarce along 45th then many of these would be paid lots. In the future personal car ownership will decline. It would be wrong to force people to build apartment buildings with parking which is not needed now and less needed in the future.
The owner did not want to reopen it. Yes, I know about it.
Thank you,
I’d be more upset about the SEDU’s and lack of parking if it didn’t mean getting rid of this eyesore. Just hope we don’t end up with another piece of ground-floor retail that sits vacant for years, like the Smith & Burns.
I’m so glad to see this burnt-out building replaced by something new. The new building will have about 1,400 square feet per home: plenty of space for raising a family.
As to parking, I have the same comment as I always do: acquire enough off-street parking for your own cars and you’ll find that it won’t make much difference to you whether or not your neighbors did the same.
Anyone hear about the drive-by at Dicks?
Wow! Really? Same old, same old, response from those that will not be affected by the project.
Despite the urbanist dogma about parking, reality is that when Lincoln returns, there will be little street parking available. This may or may not affect those electing to rent in a building with zero parking. Marketing choice by the developers likely was made without understanding the conditions soon to descend on that portion of Wallingford. This has absolutely nothing to do with what one FEELS should happen. Reality is reality. I suspect that those defending the choice are new to the neighborhood and simply do not know.
Understand that the urban villages have already absorbed 75 percent of all growth in the city. Understand that the area where this project will be build already is at over 85 percent saturation of street parking. Understand that many of our small businesses rely on at least SOME street parking being available.
Finally understand that 60 percent of those that live in supposed “carless” buildings still own cars and will want to park them on the street.
Yes, we can certainly elect to allow the market to drive (hee, hee) those electing to live there away. Is it wise? Probably not. Under Council’s “random approach” to urban planning, they have chosen to “let the market decide” and pit new resident against existing resident. Sad and misguided (and quite irritating). Vote the bums out and get someone willing to represent their constituents. There is no need for these adverse impacts. Makes zero sense.
If we add 7 people (assume 1 person per apartment) living within walking distance of our local businesses, and those 7 people consume 4 streets spaces (60% x 7), our local businesses will almost certainly come out ahead in terms of how much business they’ll get, on balance.
Bryan, I have no problem with “carless” projects, but developers should be required to mitigate the impacts created by their own projects. If “carless” is the way that elected officials wish to go, then close the loop on the market choice to eliminate parking by making residents of such projects “walk the talk” by prohibiting such projects from participating in neighborhood RPZs, which clearly demonstrate that street parking already exceeded 85-percent saturation when the developer made the CHOICE to not meet the projected needs of the project’s residents.
The adverse impacts of eliminating parking are significantly greater for SEDU projects that pack up to 18 households onto a single 4000 sq ft lot. Imposing a project’s impacts onto neighboring properties is neither fair not just. Creating policy that will make developers consider the market cost of their choice on future vacancy rate seem entirely appropriate.
It would be a simple fix, too. Well, two things. First, the household limit of 4 permits becomes a lot limit. Second, the criteria to qualify for an RPZ change, so that residential areas can qualify based on internal demand alone. We wouldn’t need global RPZ coverage, but it would be understood that when demand reaches RPZ threshold, your whole apt bldg is going to qualify for only 4 permits.
“Imposing a project’s impacts onto neighboring properties is neither fair not just”
There’s no impact on my property. I can park on my driverway in perpetuity if somebody packs 1,800 households, never mind 18, onto a single 4000 sq ft lot.
The public right of way? Maybe there’s an impact, but it’s not my property. Nor yours. nor anybody else’s any more or less than the 18 or 1,800 households (or for that matter somebody who drives in from Omak who wants to park for the day).