Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parking Minimums topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee adopts amendment and advances parking‑minimums bill out of committee
Summary
In executive session Feb. 5 the Housing Committee adopted an amendment and advanced a proposed substitute of Senate Bill 5,184 limiting local minimum parking requirements. The adopted changes include numeric limits and an airport‑area exception; the committee moved the bill with a due‑pass recommendation to Rules.
In executive session Feb. 5 the Washington State Senate Housing Committee adopted an amendment and advanced Senate Bill 5,184, a proposal that would restrict local minimum parking requirements.
Ben Andal, committee staff, summarized the proposed substitute and an amendment. The proposed substitute would prohibit cities and counties from requiring more than 0.5 parking spaces per residential dwelling unit and would prohibit requiring more than 1 parking space per 1,000 square feet of commercial space; it would also remove minimum parking requirements for certain change‑of‑use and existing buildings. The staff summary noted an amendment offered by Senator Taryn Orwell that clarified the commercial‑space metric as "per 1,000 square feet of commercial space" and added an exception exempting portions of jurisdictions within a one‑mile radius of a commercial airport that has at least 9,000,000 annual enplanements.
The committee adopted the Orwell amendment (labeled A1) by voice vote, and then adopted a motion to roll the amendment into the new proposed substitute and to give the substitute a due‑pass recommendation to the Rules Committee. The chair noted that the bill "has passed subject to signatures." Senator Alvarado, who described the measure as part of a broader housing supply package, said she anticipated continued conversations with cities as the bill moves forward.
Senator Gaynor, the ranking member, voiced concern about local control but acknowledged that some projects have historically required more parking than necessary. The committee did not record a roll‑call tally in the executive‑session exchange on the record; actions were recorded as adopted by voice vote and the bill was advanced to Rules with a due‑pass recommendation.
Why it matters: the bill would set statewide upper limits on required off‑street parking for new residential and commercial development in most jurisdictions, with an airport‑area exception, and would remove minimums for some change‑of‑use scenarios. Supporters argued the limits could lower construction costs and encourage housing density; some members and municipal representatives warned of reduced local flexibility.
