The city’s released its final environmental impact statement (EIS) for accessory dwelling units (ADUs)/backyard cottages last week. Other sites in the urbanist blogosphere analyzed the entire document.
This post focuses on the EIS’s study of parking impacts in particular, since worries about street parking availability are a common anti-density talking point.
So: would the ADU proposal make parking on a side street difficult in Maple Leaf or Magnolia?
No.
In fact, not all that much would change (which is a point worth discussing on its own.) In its analysis of the preferred alternative, the plan that would create the most capacity for ADUs, the City projects that only 300 ADUs would be built. That’s about 10 percent of the 3,007 parcels that would be eligible for ADU construction—which itself is a very small slice of the 138,531 parcels in single family-zoned areas across the city.
Analysis of one of the two proposals that would eliminate the requirement that any ADU have a complementary off-street parking spot says that the City “do[es] not expect increased parking demand resulting from ADU production to exceed existing on-street parking availability under typical conditions.” The preferred alternative would create parking impacts that “would be very similar to, but slightly greater than, those described under Alternative 2 due to slightly higher ADU production.”
The EIS concludes that implementing the ADU plan will make only marginal changes to the single family-zoned parking supply, which is already robust. The EIS’s study of street parking supply, which used data collected from 2016-18, concludes that 56 percent of parking in single family zones is in use on a weekday.
That figure may actually overstate demands on the parking supply. Two of the four study areas are located in areas with high parking demand. The southeast study location is between the northeast edge of Columbia City’s business district and Genesee Park. The southwest study area surrounds the West Seattle Junction.
In short, existing evidence suggests that ADUs will not noticeably change the amount of parking available in Seattle’s single family neighborhoods.
There’s something very wrong about limiting the number of people that can live in a neighborhood so that other people can park their cars on the street. But I also think that these next ten years or so, ever fewer people will want to keep their car on city streets for any reason.
My own choice, exactly. Keep my car garaged at the end of a fast transit line, available when I need it, and safe and well-cared for when I don’t. And never leaving a tire-print inside city limits. Same as for a prize horse.
Can’t remember what they’re called, but I think there are garages that’ll not only keep your car, but also deliver it when you need it, and pick it up when you’re done with it. And do routine maintenance as well.
I think we’re already moving our living habits in this direction, because like pet dogs running free channeling their inner rabid pit-bull, at night, city streets increasingly cooperate to keep each others’ speed as low as possible. And leave each other scratched or dented every time they’re left at a curb overnight.
What we and our insurance companies call vehicle damage, cars themselves call a “noogie”. Major motivation for a beneficial cycle, as the relocated cars leave street lanes with increasingly more space for transit- a very low-capital assist to transit speed. I don’t see much coercion necessary. Selfish economy and convenience work much better.
Mark Dublin
“Keep my car garaged at the end of a fast transit line”
That’s the opponents’ point though. Many people don’t have garages, or the garages are too old to fit current car sizes, or the garages are filled with storage. Otherwise there wouldn’t be residents parking on the street, only visitors. And the complaints are mainly about residents’ parking, the fear that they’ll lose the street capacity they currently use.
Think I didn’t make myself clear, Mike. I don’t want anyone deprived of either living or car-storage space. But my real priority?
Parked or driven, number of cars itself is now Seattle’ worst threat not only where to leave your car, but how to to move at all. Free curb parking for life would be no favor to anybody, on any score. Least of all to cars’ owners and homes’ residents.
Because in addition to likely damage from theft, vandalism, or careless damage, by the time you put your key in the ignition any morning, your car has been stuck in traffic for an hour. Among drivers who hate you for being in the way of their car.
For the sake of both freedom and ownership, you need to find someplace safer to keep the car. I’m not sure of the generic term for it, but I don’t mean a rundown shed near a distant station. I’m thinking of a large indoor building where your car is not only garaged, but maintained as part of the rental agreement.
And delivered to you, and picked up when you’re done, whenever you need it to be.
I think your insurance company might save enough in risk to give you a break on the riskier bill you now pay. But my plan’s got another half. By relocating your car to safety, you help open two curb lanes to traffic.Giving your street a reserved lane in each direction no extra cost at all. Filling the lanes with moving buses instead of parked, and trapped, cars.
Which will be one part of curing what Seattle needs least: More slow-moving oil-burners ruining both air quality and financial accounting for their drivers’ whole morning. And late afternoon. I think it’s provably true that cost of combined wasted time could put platinum wheels on every railcar in the fleet. And buy a lot of care and comfort to cars whose white-walls are now at the mercy of any passing dog.
Making them always ready when their owners’ bus or streetcar arrives to take the two of you where the driving isn’t herding, and under conditions that improve the mechanical value of your car. And you.
Because I just remembered something I found out 25 years ago, from local architect and highway engineer. Our Interstate highway system was specifically designed to carry military machines and supplies at drag racing speed between both of our seaboards, which were simultaneously getting blown to rubble.
Meaning both money was no object, and driving efficiency or pleasure…”Whaddaya, a lousy (name your favorite invader) lovah?” Which means that it’s also extremely possible and economical to build highways that are not only comfortable and fuel-efficient to drive, but also adjust traffic speed and “bunching” by their own design and shape- saving a lot of signal bulbs, as well as wasted time and needless wear.
Man’s name is Grant Jones. When I met him, he had offices on Main across from Occidental Park. Which was in final phase of tearing down a pergola (not the famous one) which featured a brass drinking fountain cast by his wife.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/43315334@N07/24114037377/in/dateposted-public/
Will try to look him up. Because as conditions make line-haul ground travel like trains and buses become the comfortable norm, there’ll still be millions of us who still want to drive a car. And will be willing to pay full fare for the right to do it right. Sliding income scale. But no such flex for skills.
And renew our licenses every year, if a State Highway Patrol trainer thinks it’s a good idea. If not, we get a transit pass good on anything wheeled, hydrofoiled, or ground-effected between both oceans East-West. And Prudhoe Bay and Tierra del Fuego the other way.
Chief problem will really be to keep Elon Musk off the long, linear property. But he would be good “sparring partner for developing skills in concentration and temper control. One thing: The “War on Cars” people will be too scared to get off Link to be any trouble at all.
Mark
The scarcity of street parking is location-specific. People on Capitol Hill have problems finding street parking. But when I lived in NW 65th Street in Ballard there was plenty of open spaces, and my visitors never had difficulty parking on my block. I lived in a small “missing middle” apartment building (10 units), and had a “free” surface parking space in back which I didn’t use because I didn’t have a car, but it was awkward to get into so my visitors mostly parked on the street instead.
I agree; street parking availability really varies by location across the city. Btw, I used to have the same situation when I lived in an apartment building in Wallingford, except that our building had its surface parking in the front. I didn’t own a vehicle either so my space was used by my boyfriend or other visitor, or another unit’s visitor with my permission. Because of the number of units nearby that had off-street parking included, there was typically adequate street parking (except for special events like the 4th of July fireworks at Gas Works Park or the Fremont Parade and Festival).
Speaking of special events, I do wonder what families do now or will do in the future when it comes to holiday family gatherings, like Thanksgiving and Christmas, when there is less street parking available. In my own case, we gather at my mother-in-law’s house on Beacon Hill for such occasions and since the immediate family consists of seven siblings’ families who are scattered around the metro area in every direction, we typically end up with way more vehicles that will fit in the driveway and thus end up somewhere on the street in the neighborhood. I’ve thought about suggesting carpooling but in most cases it’s really not that feasible or practical. For now, we just make do, as I’m sure countless other families do during the various holidays and other celebrations. The townhomes that I see popping up all around my own area in SW SnoCo end up having vehicles parked in all manners of illegal and frequently unsafe ways during these times. Anyway, a little off topic perhaps, but it’s still food for thought.
“I’ve thought about suggesting carpooling but in most cases it’s really not that feasible or practical.” Right now, it just seems that way because parking is too plentiful for people to bother. But, if the house were in New York City, rather than Beacon Hill, you can be very assured that people would adapt and find a way.
In practice, as long as people are willing to walk a few blocks, I don’t foresee parking in the residential park of Beacon Hill being a problem for the foreseable future. Even if the guests are bringing food that they don’t want to carry further than necessary, they can just double-park for a couple minutes which the bring in the food, then go back to their cars to search for parking. There may also be pay lots in the area that guests could use if they had to.
But, even if things get tighter, there are still options. Link is an obvious one, since it runs frequent and late, even on a holiday – even if the house is too far from the station, the host could always drive over and pick them up. Meeting at a central location for carpooling, such as Mercer Island P&R, is another.
In any case, stunting growth by requiring excessive parking just for family gatherings twice a year does not make sense. People in Wallingford survive the once-a-year parking crunch on the 4th of July, and nobody is advocating tearing down multiple city blocks to build a parking lot for a once-a-year celebration.
Just recently moved in to one of those townhouse complexes in SW SnoCo, though mine has street parking as well as the individual garages and guest spots. Will see how it goes this holiday season, though. One option I would have is to have some people park nearby at the transit center, nearby school, or park and either shuttle them back and forth or call Uber/Lyft for them. I can see it being an issue for complexes that don’t have any street parking though — which there are many.
Back in Miami most older residential neighborhoods didn’t come with sidewalks and curbs, let along street parking. Always interesting to see how people manage, mostly by parking on the grass or just in the street if it’s a quiet street (they’d tow ya for parking in a strip mall even if all the stores are closed!).
@asdf2 So much to reply to:
1.The reason why carpooling isn’t that practical is because each family is coming from a different city/direction. The two families that do live in the same eastside city also happen to be the largest ones and, absent a 16-passenger van, carpooling just isn’t an option.
2. I’m originally from NY. Just fyi.
3. We already do walk a block or two as needed when the neighborhood is crowded with guests. It’s not that big a deal as things stand NOW. We don’t generally do the double-parking thing but rather use the available hands on deck to shuttle packages, food, etc. from the car to the house.
4. In this particular area there are no pay lots. I believe there is a public school in the area but I have no idea if using their parking facilities is an option. Probably not.
5. At present, Link has not reached far enough to be useful for any of the families in our case. (Of course this could be quite a different scenario for other families where Link is a viable option.) Four to seven family members commuting together, and whatever they are bringing with them, for these family gatherings makes for use of a vehicle over transit an easy choice.
6. The carpooling at a P&R could work for some families for sure. In our particular case, the families from the eastside that could conceivably carpool based on their proximity to one another and direction of travel wouldn’t have the vehicle capacity to do so. (See #1 above.)
7. The host house (my mother-in-law’s) is too far from the Beacon Hill Link Station to walk as well; so all families would either need to be shuttled, take an Uber/taxi or wait for the local Metro bus (and then walk from the closest bus stop) to get to the house. Keep in mind that this would all be with packages, food dishes, etc. lugged around the entire way. This just isn’t a realistic option.
8. “In any case, stunting growth by requiring excessive parking just for family gatherings twice a year does not make sense.” I wasn’t suggesting that; I was simply pondering how these types of scenarios will develop over time as street parking is reduced and parcels get smaller and provide less off-street parking. And for the record, family gatherings don’t just happen twice a year (think bar/bat mitzvahs, birthdays, anniversaries, graduations, births/deaths, holidays, etc.). In my particular case, my spouse’s immediate family is rather large and tight-knit, no one has scattered beyond the Puget Sound area and they get together at least a couple of times a month for a family dinner.
9. I lived in Wallingford (as I stated in my original post) for 10 years. Also just fyi. The rest of your comment concerning the 4th of July parking situation is so frivolous it doesn’t warrant a response.
@B Thanks for your feedback. If you don’t mind me asking, how many townhome units are there where you presently live and how many guest parking spots has the complex provided?
Oh, and welcome to SW SnoCo!
At the moment, I agree, that the parking situation is still easy enough that it’s not worth doing anything drastic. But, there are some simple things that could help, which would have minimal impact on the guests’ time. Reminding people that parking is tight and encouraging them to arrive in one car per family, rather than one car per individual, is a big one.
Another option, if the host has a driveway, would be for the host to move *their* car out of the way, before the guests arrive, so as to free up the driveway spot for one of the guest cars. If necessary, the driveway spot could be reserved for a particular guest that has trouble walking. I don’t know if it’s legal to allow guests to park on the street, directly in front of your own driveway, but if it’s not, it should be.
Of course, if parking ever got tight enough that the whole neighborhood would routinely get completely full, you *would* start to see privately owned parking lots offer pay parking to the general public during when the adjacent business is closed. Wallingford already has examples of this.
There will always be situations where someone will prefer to drive. That happens even in cities with really good public transportation systems. In those cities, parking is difficult, but just something you get used to. We seem to be bothered by it more because it is new to us. I’ve overheard more than once, that “Ballard is a pain” because you can’t park there anymore. Nonsense. You just park in a garage. Yes, it costs money, and yes, it is a pain to park in a garage, but as someone who visits Second Ascent (now Ascent Outdoors) routinely, I’ve never had problems parking (I would take a bus, but it is a pain carrying skis on the bus). Likewise, I often drive to the UW for basketball games (the bus is too infrequent). If I am willing to pay, then I can park really close. Since I’m not, I park a ways outside, and walk to the game.
I think what people object to is change. They were used to free, no hassle parking, and now that is going away. I understand the complaint, but I also think a lot of the folks who argue for additional parking mandates are either ignorant or selfish. Either they don’t care whether someone else has to pay more for rent, or they don’t understand how parking mandates push up the cost of rent.
Question, Mike, if only to keep this one on topic. How likely was it ever that your next-door neighbor would ever build an “ADU” in his yard, and rent it to a couple with a car each? Inspiring much imitation? What WILL your advice to these pages be?
My comments today added three conditions for off-site parking. Fast, reliable all-hours transit to where your car is stored. And car-delivery driver on call 24-7-365. And parking fees part of the sale or rental agreement.Any other ideas?
Because based on the dynamic that evicted me from years of residence with three weeks’ notice and no claim of misbehavior……how much money will I need to go back and finish my life there, as I’d always planned.
And whatever the figure, where will I get wages high enough to move back in? Tell me the truth now. When Jeff Bezos earned his Hero of the People statue with his latest raise, would I have been celebrating because now I can move back home, or because if I pissed him off and got fired my car would be repossessed out from under me at its present affordable location under I-5?
I imagine that to my fellow commenters, question of being able to earn a home at all is best left understood to be the world’s lowest-volume shrug. But leave your volume setting alone. To me, it’s already got the volume of a 747 on takeoff.
You’re asking me about my apartment on NW 65th? I never saw any of the neighbors; the street was empty when I walked to the bus stop on 15th or 24th. I was only there nine months. Re ADUs and parking, I think we have to try it and see how much of an issue it is. Right now people without cars are forced to pay for parking they don’t use because the assumption is that everybody has a car. What if it turns out that more people don’t have cars than the assumption is? What if it turns out that there are people without cars who want less expensive and more spacious housing than they can get in the neighborhood centers yet still be near a frequent bus stop. They will preferentially chose locations like 65th, while those with a car who want a parking space will go somewhere else.
Duh… plenty of available parking when everyone is at work. Talk about a study that works from the conclusion backwards. When the obvious answer is at odds with the policy the only thing to do is commission a study that says otherwise.
I assumed it looked at 24-hour usage and this was the average
The average doesn’t matter, it’s the peak use time that everyone cares about. If you look at average traffic volumes you’d conclude that there isn’t any congestion on I-405.
Bernie, if “peak parking demand” of about 8 h per day increased, the 24 h average would mathematically increase too. Daytime people are at work, but there is still significant demand from commercial service vehicles, visitors, people parking in residential areas adjacent to businesses, ect.
Of course, in the end nobody is forcing people who have cars to living in these cottages. If it’s somewhere like Capitol Hill with really limited free street parking pretty much any time of day, people with cars would be hesitant to even consider living somewhere without off street parking (in fact, they already are!). I suspect any backyard cottages in Capitol Hill would be most popular with the walk/bike/transit and occasional Uber/Lyft crowd. However, many Seattle residential areas have actually lost people (growth has been in urban villages), and hence street parking is less of a concern.
A lot of people, especially the younger set own “weekend” vehicles. While they, bike, ride transit, etc for the vast majority of their trips they keep a car (parked on the street) for the weekend outing, out of town trips, supply runs, etc.The car not used is actually more of an issue. But, the point isn’t about the people who will rent these zoning buster apartments, it’s that the people who have already invested in the neighborhood are impacted. And, while the big cry seems to be street parking there are plenty of other effects triggered by increased structure density.
In Seattle you are not allowed to park on the street for more than 72 hours. My friend in Magnolia got ticketed for this offense when she went out of town for too long.
Owning a weekend vehicle that just sits there a minimum of 5 days a week is actually quite a lot more expensive than most people realize, especially if residential parking isn’t free. The only reason it makes any kind of financial sense is because the parking, in many neighborhoods, is still very cheap.
If the cost of parking went up, many such people would eventually switch to car sharing services and/or Uber/Lyft instead.
asdf2 says
We are in complete agreement here. I don’t think any street parking should be free. Even a modest permit fee allotted by neighborhood would change the dynamics completely. Yes, you have to move the car every 24 or 72 hours (or take a chance) but a lot of the existing parking is taken up by such “weekend” vehicles. And don’t even get me started on Seattle’s dumb ass policy regarding RV encampments… homestead my ass!
Owning a weekend vehicle that just sits there a minimum of 5 days a week is actually quite a lot more expensive than most people realize, especially if residential parking isn’t free. The only reason it makes any kind of financial sense is because the parking, in many neighborhoods, is still very cheap.
Absolutely correct. The idea that we should increase housing scarcity and keep newcomers out of neighborhoods in order to continue to subsidize this particular choice–presumably simply because it has been de facto subsidized up to now–is very strange to me.
Bertolet doesn’t like the one-year waiting period before a new owner can build a second ADU. But one year is nothing in the context of legitimate home ownership (i.e., not flipping it or being Airbnb). It takes a year just to make a plan, get it approved, and line up the financing and contractors. So what’s the problem?
It means you can’t flip it. Flipping, by the way, gets a bad name. Everyone associates it with the real estate bubble which played a part in the financial crisis (which lead to the recession). But that was what I would call passive flipping, or speculation. People would by a house, wait a while, and then sell it again. Whatever improvements they made were cosmetic. But if you look at what is happening now, flipping is common and a good thing. Someone who works a regular job doesn’t want to buy a dump, and then fix it up themselves. Hiring contractors takes a long time. So someone else buys the place, fixes it up, then sells it. It is adding value to the market.
Someone can do the same thing with an (D)ADU. Buy a house, fix it up, sell it. One year is a long time in that context. You are basically comparing it to hiring a contractor, which can take a long time in this market (or any hot market) or building an apartment, which takes a long time because of the regulations (i. e. the review process). The latter, of course, is one reason why apartments are so expensive (owners have to sit on valuable land a long time before they can even start building). It is quite reasonable for someone to build a house and convert a room to an apartment in a few months.
The whole point is, other cities don’t have these regulations. What is the point of the regulation, anyway? It is obviously an attempt to slow down the construction of ADUs, which in turn will make apartments more expensive.
I still see buying a house just to renovate it and sell it as part of the problem. It’s taking a lower-priced rental or sale off the market, just to make a windfall for the flipper. If people want to make money they should invest in something that’s not a necessity of life for people.
In our economy, the only way necessities of life get created are if someone does it seeking a profit. Farms aren’t run by volunteers, they’re a for-profit business. Housing is the same. Even government-funded housing projects generally get built by for-profit contractors.
That worn-down house is on the cheaper side right now precisely because the materials are showing their age. It can’t stay that way forever. At some point, someone has to fix it up again so it can last a few more decades, or tear the whole thing down and start fresh.
You mean like healthcare?
Excellent source, Mike: a tax on residential real-estate speculation. Except would not call it a tax. I’d call it a BILL.
Incidentally, put something in last message to you a couple minutes ago that’s as interesting as it is little-known. “Ground Effect”. Combination glider and flying boat.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/43315334@N07/39551283012/in/dateposted-public/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/43315334@N07/39580195841/in/dateposted-public/
Floats on top of the layer of air compressed between the plane and the ground. Still thinking what we’re going to do with I-5. Bet the big one would carry a lot of standees.
Mark
It is rarely a windfall. True story: A couple years ago, I was shopping for houses with my son in Rainier Valley. I had talked him into looking at a house in a somewhat “sketchy” part of Rainier Valley. Having grown up here (as a white guy) I feel like this city is very safe. Being a younger man of color, having spent time in Saint Louis (and East Saint Louis) he is a bit more wary. This house was relatively affordable (around 200 grand, if I remember right). It was still pretty small, but nice and clean. While I talked about the potential (you could always grow toward the back) it just didn’t work for him. Meanwhile, the realtor was chatting with us, and at some point said “Wait a second — I remember this place — this was a dump! Somebody cleaned this place up really well”. In any event, my son didn’t buy the place.
The point is, flipper aren’t getting rich. They are often cleaning up dumps. I don’t think they are taking dumps off the market — I’m sure that is one of the few houses that actually sat for a while during the boom. Go ahead, play around with Redfin — you’ll notice that the crappy houses (the ones that need work) sit for a while. The tear downs go quickly of course, but I think you would have a tough time proving that people who fix and *add value* to houses are making it tougher for folks to find a nice house. Quite often it is the opposite. Someone (less picky than my son) bought that house, and they got a tiny little gem, in my opinion.
The larger point is, I see no value, whatsoever, in this regulation. What purpose does it serve? Does it prevent tear downs (where a tiny house is replaced by a mansion)? Nope. Does it make it easier to rent a house, or rent an apartment in a house? Nope. It makes things worse.
Another angle: Imagine you have worked for a contractor, or are a contractor. What is that work like? You are asked to build something for someone, and if they don’t like it — exactly as they specified — they are pissed. It better be ready by the time they ask for it too. Otherwise, you reputation is ruined, and might as well go back to serving coffee for the masses.
On the other hand, imagine the life of flipper. You buy a house, and start working on it. You can build whatever you want. You can take as long as you want. At the end of the day, you then present your work to the general public. If they like it, great. If they don’t, no big deal. Someone will eventually by it (probably for not a lot of money) and at least you made a living.
It stands to reason that flippers enjoy their job way more, which means that they are effectively charging less for their work. It is no different that asking an artist for a portrait. Sure, a good artist will do it, but they won’t like it, and they will charge a bundle.
There’s a big difference between properly rehabbing a property vs doing a cosmetic “Home Depot Flip” in a rising speculative market. But if it is bargain basement cheap rent, it’s probably in the rehab category, and it’s likely the property needed it to remain in a *livable* condition. This is why we really need to continuously be adding housing at *all* price ranges.
There’s a big difference between properly rehabbing a property vs doing a cosmetic “Home Depot Flip” in a rising speculative market.
Yes, and that is why I made the distinction. In this case, the former is illegal, while the latter is not. In other words, I can buy a house, mow the lawn, wait a while, and sell it again for a tidy profit a few months later. But I can’t buy a house, add a basement apartment, and then sell it again for a full year. Or at least if someone buys it, they can’t rent out the two units (the main house and the basement apartment) to two different people for another year. This lowers the value of the house, thus lowering the value of what I added.
As I’ve asked before — what is the point? What is the point of the provision, other than to make it tougher to build or rent basement apartments (and the like)?
The primary purpose of houses is to live in. If somebody buys a house just to fix it up and sell it for a higher price, it’s a form of arbitage. While we maybe shouldn’t outlaw it, our policies shouldn’t encourage it; e.g., by artificial scarcity created by zoning restrictions which drives prices up and makes this a particularly attractive investment. I have more respect for people who buy a house, fix it up, and then live in it, than people who fix up a house just to sell it. The idea that we have to accommodate people who won’t wait even one year to add an ADU is silly. If they’re serious about keeping the house for several years, one year won’t be an excessive burden. If they can’t afford to not have the income from that ADU for a few months, then they can’t afford that house at all and shouldn’t be buying it.
1) It’s much harder to get financing for an ADU with that rule. 2) It concedes too much to the nasty underlying anti-renter bigotry; what’s wrong with living next to renters?
If the way a potential “permanent” owner can afford the home is “from the rent from 2 ADUs” then you need them both ready to rent ASAP.
In our house, with no structural changes the back 2 rooms & bath on the ground floor and the back 2 rooms & bath on the 3rd could be ADUs… if we’d needed the money (at today’s rate in our ‘hood, as much as $1,500/month each) to afford the house, the 1 year delay would mean “no ownership.” At today’s prices a buyer would need more than $5,000 a month to afford our house – $3,000 in rent would make it a an option for a lot more people, (And if an initial owner “flipped” the house by adding 2 ADUs and selling it to a family with a budget of less than $5,000 a month…well that seems great. We should encourage it!)
I’m observing that there is a misunderstanding about what an EIS is. It’s about disclosure.
Just adding one car makes it an impact. To say “no” is technically wrong.
Is it significant? It really depends on lots of factors. Still, parking is a block-by-block issue. Sure there may be plenty of on-street spaces in aggregate across Seattle to make it very insignificant — but on someone’s block that may not be the case. There are many streets in Seattle where one can only park on one side — and many where no one can park at all.
Anyway, an EIS has to be conservative in identifying impacts. I don’t see why telling the bald truth is inaccurate. Leaders have a choice to do nothing or provide mitigation — but they shouldn’t officially just lie to fit their agenda like our President self-admittedly does.
Meanwhile, Tacoma allows ADUs everywhere in the city. That’s embarrassing. But what’s really embarrassing to Seattle is that tiny little Fircrest allows ADUs everywhere in the city.
How many have been built in Tacoma?
In answer to the original question:
Not much. Surely not as much as would apodments with no garage available for its residents.