Richland hearing on parking study: consultant urges code changes, council split on citywide abolition

Kimley Horn consultant Robert Farrin presented the results of a parking optimization study to the Richland City Council on July 22, outlining findings from stakeholder outreach, a review of city code and a recent state law change and offering regulatory and parking management options.

The consultant summarized existing parking utilization in Richland’s central business district (CBD): off‑street parking utilization peaked around 50% and averaged about 38%, while on‑street utilization peaked near 26% and averaged about 20%, indicating substantial underused supply in the CBD. He also said recent state legislation (Senate Bill 5184, effective July 27) requires cities to remove certain parking minimums and reduces residential parking requirements for many multifamily units.

Farrin recommended the city move first to implement the statutory changes required by SB 5184 (within 18 months) and then consider abolishing vehicle parking minimums in the CBD. He outlined three regulatory options: (1) adopt required state changes and consolidate the use table, (2) abolish CBD minimums, and (3) in a later phase, consider abolition citywide after broader public engagement. Complementary parking‑management measures recommended included: wayfinding and signage to underused public lots; on‑street space delineation; phased expansion of time limits and enforcement; and, if demand grows, alternative curb uses and pricing.

Code‑level recommendations included consolidating the zoning use table to simplify parking rules, allowing shared parking without a Board of Adjustment review up to a 25% cap, defining a 500‑foot radius for counting off‑site shared parking toward minimums, explicitly allowing valet/tandem to count toward requirements, clarifying that EV charging spaces can count toward minimums, and raising minimum bicycle parking from five to 10 spaces in certain locations. Farrin also proposed, as a future option, an in‑lieu fee for parking that could fund wayfinding or management programs.

Stakeholder outreach — meetings with agencies, businesses, the planning commission and a public session — found most participants did not report persistent difficulty finding parking; the top public requests were improved wayfinding and safer pedestrian and bike infrastructure. Farrin said cities that remove minimums often must then manage on‑street parking more proactively (time limits, enforcement, paid parking) as demand grows.

Council reaction was mixed. Council members Meyer, Kent and others argued for more aggressive action — some supported citywide abolition of parking minimums — saying market forces and consultants’ findings indicate developers will provide appropriate parking and that minimums have hindered downtown redevelopment. Other members, including Council members Van Dyke and Witten, voiced caution about moving citywide immediately, raised concerns about impacts on caregivers and seniors and stressed the need for monitoring and staged implementation.

City Manager Jer Amundsen and staff asked for clearer direction so they could return with a consolidated code change package rather than multiple permutations. Amundsen described a proposed administrative path for staff to draft a single ordinance or ordinance set based on council preference and to present cost and implementation impacts. Several council members requested built‑in evaluation or review points (for example, a 3‑year review) and that staff identify measurable triggers for enforcement, time limits or paid parking.

Quotes taken from the meeting: consultant Robert Farrin said, "There are certain uses that will no longer have parking minimum requirements." Deputy City Manager Joe Schissel summarized earlier parking counts: "the BFCOG did that study for us." Mayor Richardson closed the procedural vote on the earlier item saying, "All those in favor, say aye." (See provenance for transcript lines.)

Staff will consolidate council feedback and return with code language and an implementation plan; council did not adopt an ordinance at this meeting.