WA lawmakers want to limit parking requirements for new development

Sen. Jessica Bateman, chair of the Senate Housing Committee, leads a meeting Wednesday, Jan. 15, 2025, at the Washington State Capitol in Olympia, Wasingtonh. (Ryan Berry/Washington State Standard)

The amount of parking a city can require for new construction may soon be limited.

Senate Bill 5184 would prevent cities and counties from mandating more than one spot for every two housing units. Developers could still add more spots if they choose, but that would not be required.

The policy received a public hearing last week and is scheduled for a vote out of the Senate Housing Committee on Wednesday.

It’s another in a host of bills this year aimed at building more housing quickly in Washington.

“Our minimum parking requirements are outdated and archaic, and they’re getting in the way of building the housing that our communities desperately need,” bill sponsor Sen. Jessica Bateman, D-Olympia, said.

Most jurisdictions require new homes to be built with a certain number of parking spaces. Critics of these minimums say that they make it more expensive and complicated to build housing, while also taking up limited space in dense cities.

Along with limiting parking requirements for dwellings, the bill would prohibit cities and counties from requiring more than one space for every 1,000 feet of a commercial building. It would also eliminate parking requirements altogether for certain types of buildings like residences under 1,200 square feet, commercial spaces under 5,000 feet, affordable housing, senior housing and child care facilities.

Bateman said the state needs these types of facilities desperately right now, and limiting how much parking must accompany them could help them get built faster.

Under the proposal, parking restrictions would not apply to accessible spaces in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Oregon and California rolled back some minimum parking requirements in recent years. Some local governments in Washington have limited parking requirements, too, but no statewide proposal has yet to make it across the finish line.

This year, there may be more support — at least from the executive branch.

Bateman’s proposal was included as a priority in a housing report from Lt. Gov. Denny Heck and Gov. Bob Ferguson’s transition team. Nicholas Carr, Ferguson’s senior policy advisor on housing, said parking minimums in Washington are “arbitrary and difficult to change.”

“Parking spots cost money, a lot of money,” Carr told the Senate Housing Committee. “This is a real opportunity for savings. That’s why Gov. Ferguson supports this bill.”

Research from Sightline Institute found that parking can cost $5,000 to $20,000 per space in a surface-level lot and $60,000 per spot in a garage in Washington.

Sightline’s research also found that parking mandates vary significantly across Washington with no scientific backing for how they are set, researcher Catie Gould told the Senate Housing Committee.

“I regret to say that there’s no magic parking ratio that will meet the needs of every family or every restaurant,” Gould said.

At Friday’s public hearing, many supporters of the proposal argued that it would still give developers the option to build more parking than the minimum required.

“Importantly, this bill does not ban parking nor does it restrict how much parking can be built,” said Riley Benge, commercial government affairs director at Washington Realtors.

Still, some testifiers expressed concerns.

Kelsey Hulse, who represented the Association of Washington Cities and the Washington State Association of Counties, said requiring less parking for new development could result in traffic hazards where people are searching for parking for long periods or parking in areas where it is not allowed, such as shoulders on narrow roads.

Though Hulse said the associations support the bill’s idea to build more housing, she urged lawmakers to limit its scope.

Another big concern with the proposal was that it lacked an exemption for the city of SeaTac. With the state’s largest airport, the city is home to many professional drivers for Uber, Lyft or taxi services who would suffer if parking spots are limited in nearby neighborhoods, said Amina Abdalla, a lobbyist for the city.

“Their car is their business and livelihood,” Abdalla said.

– By Laurel Demkovich, Washington State Standard

Washington State Standard is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Washington State Standard maintains editorial independence.

  1. We need more parking and more homes. Stop building to accommodate businesses and start accommodating the people who need housing. Turn some of these abandoned city buildings into housing like other cities have. Everything doesn’t need to be shiny and new for people. You want the economy to grow then you need to make the state livable.

  2. Absolutely disgusting and irresponsible. Parking for for all residents, guests, customers and employees should be readily available and reasonably priced. Vehicles are absolutely necessary to get around and people shouldn’t be stuck with trying to find street parking.

    1. Having enough parking doesn’t mean anything when hundreds of people around you struggle to afford rents because of a lack of available housing or simply can’t afford it at all and end up homeless.

      Please recognize the housing crisis that is a serious issue in Washington and across the US.

      This bill doesn’t ban adding parking to developments anyway, so I don’t see why you’re so heated over it. Considering the language you choose to use, calling a lack of parking “disgusting,” it doesn’t seem like you actually put any thought into this at all past your own personal inconveniences caused by less parking.

      1. I end up doing my shopping, getting services and eating out mostly in Edmonds and Lynnwood instead of In MLT because of the lack of available, usable parking at newer construction. And those around me raising families depend on personal transportation to get their children to school and recreational activities.

        And thanks for the insulting comments, Steve. I have thought it out and so has my extended family. That’s why all of the older family members got the education and training to get and keep good paying jobs and now the younger family members are doing the same.

        Yes, some people have financial and other problems. It’s sad that some have had bad luck they couldn’t plan for and others are facing self inflicted problems. But help is available for many who decide to look for it and accept it.

  3. I strongly support Senate Bill 5184 and the efforts to limit parking requirements for new developments in Washington. By reducing parking mandates, this bill promotes more sustainable, walkable communities and helps tackle the housing affordability crisis by encouraging denser, more efficient development. Limiting unnecessary parking spaces also reduces urban sprawl, mitigates traffic congestion, and supports the transition to alternative transportation options like biking and public transit.

    As cities grow, it’s essential that we rethink outdated policies that prioritize cars over people. Senate Bill 5184 empowers local governments to make smarter, more context-sensitive decisions that reflect the needs of their residents and the environment. This is a crucial step toward creating vibrant, accessible, and sustainable urban spaces.

    Let’s move forward with policies that encourage the development of diverse housing options and reduce our reliance on cars. Senate Bill 5184 is a significant step in the right direction!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Real first and last names — as well as city of residence — are required for all commenters.
This is so we can verify your identity before approving your comment.

By commenting here you agree to abide by our Code of Conduct. Please read our code at the bottom of this page before commenting.