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“Our minimum parking requirements are outdated and archaic, and they’re getting in the way of building the housing that our communities desperately need,” bill sponsor Sen.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. Each community knows much better than the legislature what their parking needs are. Please butt out of their business.

  2. “[L]imit parking requirements for new development” and make downtown parking even more impossible. Parking and usable infrastructure must precede any measures which, ultimately, simply put more cars out on the streets and choke existing parking.

    And not altogether a separate topic, why on EARTH is there a disabled parking spot on the northwest corner of 6th and Dayton when there is not a single one on Main between the circle and Dayton? We who are disabled are expected to park in obscure places as far from shops and restaurants as possible? It would seem so.

    1. If there is too difficult to find parking on the street, such that demand exceeds supply, then the price of parking needs to be increased. This will also make it easier for those with disabled placards to get parking where they need it (as they don’t need to pay for street parking).

  3. The consequence of not mandating enough minimum parking for large multifamily buildings is that the surrounding neighborhood streets become inundated with cars. Ultimately this reduces quality of life for the neighborhoods. These proposals are actually a form of ageism discrimination as not everybody is going to be able to ride their bicycle or skateboard to get around the neighborhood and public transit is never going to be adequate alternative. Further these policies tend to be anti-business as customers find the inconvenient access unacceptable, so go to where they can park reasonably.

    1. Most of the business in main have no parking as the building predate the parking mandates. These are some of the most coveted building spots thanks to the high pedestrian traffic and not having more than a single spot per two units in main hasn’t negatively affected the businesses. This proves that allocating massive amounts of the most valuable space to storage of private vehicles isn’t necessary for a thriving commercial street. This is not a surprise at all for it is exactly how Edmonds operated before stripmall ordinances started demanding design that was car friendly, but not people friendly. The results of which model works best is clear today. Stripmalls are dying as the stores there cannot count on foot traffic for sales because they made it terrible to be a pedestrian as who wants to shop next to cars zooming by next to vacant parking lots with nothing on them. This bill simply legalizes building cities like we used to. You know, for people. Cars don’t buy anything. people do.

  4. The practical effects of this bill are minimal. Most urban construction is financed by lenders who demand assurances that their loan will be repaid. They review building plans to assure there will be adequate parking for tenants or buyers. Without adequate parking, a building is likely to attract fewer tenants or users and underperform financially.

    If the bill becomes law, it will allow inadequate parking for new development, but in most cases the free market will prevent that from actually happening. I have no concerns about negative effects here in Edmonds.

    1. Roger:
      I’m not as optimistic as you about this proposed legislation. Edmonds is really not immune to ending up with too little parking. Just a few years ago the multi-family building at the northeast corner of 3rd and Edmonds St. was allowed to be built with zero parking. I firmly believe that this issue belongs with each community and not the legislature.

    2. Roger, I concur that developing new construction with inadequate parking is a poor business decision. That being said, I can provide examples in West Seattle, Fremont, Queen Anne, Shoreline, and other neighborhoods where inadequate building parking has consequently had cars spilling into the adjacent neighborhood streets. You may personally not have concerns, but why implement this bill if the effects are minimal, while in other neighborhoods they have been drastic and negative?

      1. Ron and Brian, you raise legitimate points~ but very few projects might actually get built with inadequate parking, for reasons I expressed. I don’t fear Edmonds will be horribly transformed due to this bill.

        How did we get here? It’s an article of faith in “progressive” politics circles~ our housing crisis has one simple solution: increase density and reduce parking. Those of us with some planning experience understand the real world is a bit more complicated. But articles of faith driving simple solutions, those are powerful motivators for some Olympia legislators.

  5. Makes sense as long as there are sidewalks, which isn’t the case in Washington more than any other state I’ve seen. Edmonds in particular is ridiculously behind at building sidewalks outside the typical hyper rich blocks which for some strange reason always seems to get priority…how curious.

    1. Mr. Ventresca:
      The city does mot build our sidewalks. The sidewalks are required to be provided by the property owner.

  6. I can understand why developers would support this initiative. I cannot understand why the bill would prohibit local counties from setting parking requirements to better fit the counties population density and environment. Having lived many years in California, insufficient parking requirements drastically impacted city beauty, standard of living, and economic prospects more.

  7. They lost me at taking rights from local government and giving to state government without giving adequate reason for the change? The claim is that the state needs this but it is never explained why a state need wouldn’t be shared by a city? Parking is a local issue that belongs to the citizens. I expect this will eventually go the way of multi-family housing and end up being decided at the federal level, even more unacceptable.

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.