Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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 Examiners decision DPD has proposed Directors 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 Examiners interpretation
of the term, who referred to the definition of headway found in Websters 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 Directors Rule 6-2015 remains inconsistent with the Seattle Municipal Code and the
Hearing Examiners decision, and that the rule should be scrapped. In response to their request I
have researched the history of Ord. 123495 to determine the Councils 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 DPDs interpretation of headways in the proposed Directors
Rule is in line with Councils intent. My conclusions are based on several factors:
In the Matter of the Appeal of Neighbors Encouraging Reasonable Development, Hearing Examiner File Nos. MUP-14006 (DR,W)/S-14-001 (December 1, 2014).
5
Id., 14-15.
6
Id., 10.
Headway: Time interval between vehicles moving in the same direction on a particular route.
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.
8
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
Directors 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 Directors 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 Councils 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 Directors Rule 6-2015, and given the need to balance our
competing parking goals found in the Citys Comprehensive Plan, I recommend that Council look at
the parking requirements in the Land Use Code areas of frequent transit service, after DPDs review is
presented to Council.
Sincerely,
cc:
Mayor Ed Murray
Diane Sugimura, DPD Director