Committee hears bill capping parking minimums to lower development costs; wide support and local objections follow

Elizabeth Allison, committee staff, briefed the Local Government Committee on engrossed substitute Senate Bill 5,184, which would cap or eliminate minimum parking requirements in many situations and set statewide limits on how much local ordinances may require.

Under the bill as briefed, cities and counties may not require minimum parking for a range of uses, including existing buildings undergoing a change of use, residences under 1,200 square feet, commercial spaces under 5,000 square feet, affordable housing, senior housing, housing for people with disabilities, childcare facilities, and many mixed‑use projects. The bill also would limit residential parking requirements to no more than 0.5 spaces per dwelling unit and limit commercial requirements to no more than one parking space per 1,000 square feet of commercial space. The limitations would not apply to accessible parking required under the Americans with Disabilities Act; cities with populations of 20,000 or less would be exempt from some limits. The bill creates a pathway for a local government to submit an empirical safety study for certification by the Department of Commerce if it believes the limits would be significantly less safe, and it directs the State Building Code Council to research and, if necessary, adopt updated accessible parking requirements in the state building code.

"This is really a housing bill," Senator Bateman, 20th Legislative District, told the committee. Bateman said parking mandates raise construction costs, that many jurisdictions require more parking than market demand justifies, and that over‑parking can prevent projects such as childcare and affordable housing from proceeding. She described the bill as intended to "right‑size" parking, give developers flexibility and make more projects feasible.

The hearing drew large, organized testimony on both sides. Support came from the governor's office (Nicholas Carr), housing and development organizations (Washington Realtors, Building Industry Association of Washington, Master Builders Association), affordable housing providers (Habitat for Humanity, Plymouth Housing), environmental and transportation groups (Sightline Institute, Sierra Club), and many city planning and elected officials from jurisdictions that have already reduced or eliminated parking minimums (Bellingham, Spokane, Olympia, and others). Supporters cited multiple examples in the transcript of projects blocked or scaled back by parking mandates: Pullman blocked a hotel conversion because the lot had 42 spaces but the code required 51; Mount Vernon prevented a small house because single‑family rules required four off‑street stalls; and a Mattawa mini‑mart plan was scrapped because the code required 100 spaces while the owner offered 33.

Supporters emphasized the cost of parking—witnesses used ranges from $5,000 to $60,000 per surface or structured stall and cited that structured stalls can push projects out of financial feasibility. "Reducing parking minimums is an important step to reducing building costs and promoting the development of more housing units," Nicholas Carr, senior policy advisor for housing in the governor's office, told the committee.

Opposition or concern was registered by many city officials and municipal associations who said the bill is too broad and removes local control needed to address differing conditions across Washington's diverse cities and towns. Carl Schrader of the Association of Washington Cities said localities should retain flexibility and that state preemption could shift parking burdens onto on‑street public space without funding for parking management. Cities and elected officials from Kennewick, Renton, Des Moines, Covington, Port Orchard, Bellevue, Moses Lake, Washougal and others said the bill's uniform limits do not reflect local transit availability, commuting patterns, existing on‑street capacity, and public safety concerns.

Cities urged amendments and off‑ramps: suggested options included a phased implementation period, a three‑year compliance window, clearer definitions of "mixed use" (Port Orchard asked the committee to clarify that the bill targets commercial spaces beneath residential uses rather than horizontally mixed campuses), and a proposal discussed by multiple city witnesses to instead set a smaller percentage reduction from local standards (for example, a 30 percent reduction) combined with local implementation authority. Several cities asked for more funding or technical support to create parking management systems; city witnesses estimated that street‑level parking management can cost hundreds of thousands to more than a million dollars annually in larger jurisdictions.

The transcript records multiple technical and policy clarifications that were added to the bill during floor amendments earlier in the session: an exemption for cities with populations of 20,000 or less, and a Commerce certification pathway for safety exceptions. Multiple witnesses asked the committee to consider increasing the exemption population threshold or adding other local flexibility.

Witnesses also recommended defining the scope of the commercial/mixed‑use carve‑outs, and a number of cities asked the committee to allow a multiyear phase‑in (for example, three years) to give jurisdictions time to study impacts and to develop parking management strategies before limits take effect.

No committee vote on SB 5,184 is recorded in the transcript. The bill drew one of the longest public testimony sessions the committee had seen, with broad sign‑ins from housing developers, nonprofit providers, environmental groups, municipal officials and business associations. The committee adjourned after closing testimony and said it would reconvene on the next scheduled date.