Editor:
Sidewalks, parking, street safety are big topics whenever Edmonds residents voice their concerns. This year, the state legislature passed changes to the minimum parking requirements for residential, multifamily and commercial spaces in cities. This law – 5184-S.PL.pdf – requires cities of between 30,000 and 50,000 to implement the new minimums within three years of its effective date, or 2028. The new minimums for residential parking include
- Only one parking space per residential unit.
- For residences under 1,200 square feet, no required spaces.
This major change in residential areas will have profound impact on Edmonds with our narrow streets, limited sidewalks, and many cul-de-sac developments. It poses obvious questions on just how safe residents will be getting to and from their homes, to their work, or to their play destinations.
The law wisely gives cities time to assess whether safety can be assured or the city needs to seek a variance to the minimums as the law provides. Edmonds should not rush to include these new parking minimums into code until a solid traffic and resident safety assessment informs the decisions. If you agree, please contact the Planning Board at Planning@edmondswa.gov prior to their meeting Wednesday, May 14. Share your thoughts about when Edmonds should implement this law with or without a thorough traffic assessment to find those areas where the new minimums would risk safety for pedestrians, bicyclists, and drivers. We can meet the three-year time limit but also be intentional about the welfare of our residents in the process.
Karen Haase Herrick
Edmonds
Thank you, Karen! Based on the approved Comp Plan, it appears nearly 10,000 units could be built in the Hubs and Centers. The existing code indicates that between 1.2 (studio) and 2.0 (3 bedroom) off street parking spaces are required for multi-family housing. The new requirements indicate that only 0.5 off street parking spaces are required per unit – not per bedroom. Also, the number of units per lot in residential areas could double based on the state requirements to be approved by the end of June. Off-street residential parking spaces are now reduced from 2 to 1. It appears there is potential for many, many more units without requirements for many more off-street parking spaces… We may want to slow down and think about the consequences of this – we have three years. Driving down the streets of Ballard is very tough with cars lining both sides of the street. Off street parking spaces constructed of gravel or pavers appears to be allowed which minimzes cost which is an issue…
It is essential to evaluate the safety assessments concerning traffic and pedestrians, as well as their effects on local neighborhoods, prior to the implementation of these legislative mandates. The local planning process should not follow a haphazard approach of ‘Ready, Fire, Aim.’
I hope our Edmonds residents reading this speak up now and make their voice heard on this critical safety issue. Our city planners, Planning Board and City Council members have 3 years to assess our streets and ask for variances where needed to protect the safety of our residents. There should be no reason to rush this process when we are not required to. At the last Planning Board meeting, the interim Planning Director did not share we had 3 years. Please contact the Planning Board and ask them to not approve these new parking codes until we do our due diligence on street safety. Most elected leaders and bike activists want everyone to walk and bike everywhere. How can we possibly do this safely on many of our streets when they are lined solid with parked cars and no sidewalks? Walking in the middle of the street and navigating driving down streets with room for only one car should not be acceptable if we can mitigate it. We don’t want our streets to be like Ballard. Voice your concerns to: Citizens-Planning@EdmondsWA.gov
This new law from the state will definitely cause increased congestion and safety hazards for pedestrians.
Imagine .50 parking spots for multi-family and zero spots for ADU’s and DADU”S. If we go with a very conservative estimate of 1.5 cars per dwelling and we are to add over 9000 units. This could potentially force thousands of cars to the street for parking. Hello Ballard! We need to push the pause button on this RCW and discuss the potential to modify these requirements as noted in the law. I would encourage the planning board to recommend further discussion before the city adopts this bill outright. (5184) The following sections of the bill give cities leeway to customize the requirement. A robust discussion of these sections will lead to a better result for Edmonds. Line 29-34 as related to public safety, Lines 4-8 as related to cities ability to require expanded waiting and drop off zones. Important especially for new multi-family developments. Lines 23-35 gives us the ability to request a variance from the commerce department if: compliance with the requirements of this section would be hazardous to the life, health, and safety of residents as confirmed by a building official or fire marshal, or their designees. Let’s do our due diligence to achieve the best result!
Thank you for this editorial…very timely with all the code changes our planners are rushing to enact. They should slow down and determine in a public forum whether or not pushing all the parking out to the street is right for Edmonds. Street by street, not a vague broad brush like we get from the Comp Plan EIS that conveniently does not mention this issue.
Can anybody imagine how big of a tax increase will be needed to pay for all this? Wider streets, new sidewalks, curb and gutter cost a boatload of money and will have to be added to accommodate parking for all the new developments. Seems like the type of thing the planners would tell us before they change the codes.
If Edmonds building codes require parking for all homes, no matter what size or type the dwelling is, builders and developers will figure it out and comply. They will not go elsewhere. Every dwelling should have off street parking available. If you are adding an ADU or DADU, add parking even if it means you enlarge your own driveway. I do not want my neighbor’s backyard residents parking constantly in front of my house. It is rude to even think this is ok. If you think it doesn’t matter that out neighborhood streets are jammed with cars, then you need to drive through the Wedgewood, Ballard, West Seattle, and Ravenna neighborhoods. It’s a nightmare navigating those streets. And, additionally, if you visit a friend in those neighborhoods, there is NO WHERE to park! We have a good thing going here in Edmonds. Please don’t ruin it!
John,
I don’t think the city has any infrastructure improvement plans whatsoever. I think the thought is, park on the street where ever you can. It’ll be a parking free for all.
Which effectually blocks those with mobility issues from ever coming down to the bowl.
No disabled spots on Main between the fountain and 6th, but there are so few anyway, so why even try?
These new parking regulations will simply not work. There will not be enough street parking to handle the need.
It will turn some streets into 1 lane affairs that you see in many Seattle neighborhoods. Among other things it will certainly slow down emergency vehicles. At least in some areas of Seattle there are alleys to handle some of the load.
I don’t understand why the City wants to accelerate the process without thoroughly evaluating the impact of such reductions in parking availability. It has become clear, the powers that be have a different vision of Edmonds than the Citizens. Why?
We must keep the pressure on them.
We should be thoughtful about everything and rush through nothing that concerns public well-being. Isn’t that the basis of civil society?
Ah, the third option: rush, be thoughtful – or do nothing until it’s too late to do anything.
I would ask that the ADA laws about the ratio of disabled spots to “regular” spots be followed, especially downtown
With acknowledgement to Yes, Minister:
• Bernard Woolley : What if the Prime Minister insists we help them?
Sir Humphrey Appleby : Then we follow the four-stage strategy.
Bernard Woolley : What’s that?
Sir Richard Wharton : Standard Foreign Office response in a time of crisis.
Sir Richard Wharton : In stage one we say nothing is going to happen.
Sir Humphrey Appleby : Stage two, we say something may be about to happen, but we should do nothing about it.
Sir Richard Wharton : In stage three, we say that maybe we should do something about it, but there’s nothing we *can* do.
Sir Humphrey Appleby : Stage four, we say maybe there was something we could have done, but it’s too late now.