Senate committee hears bill to cap local parking mandates, prompting wide public debate

The Senate Housing Committee heard public testimony on Senate Bill 5184 on minimum parking requirements, a bill that would limit local governments’ ability to require a set number of off‑street parking spaces for new development across Washington.

Supporters, including state housing and building industry representatives, affordable housing providers and environmental groups, told the committee the bill would lower development costs and free land for housing and other uses. “Our minimum parking requirements are outdated and archaic, and they’re getting in the way of building the housing that our communities desperately need,” Chair Bateman said during the hearing.

The bill would cap residential minimums at 0.5 parking space per dwelling unit and limit commercial minimums to one parking space per 1,000 square feet. It would also exempt a range of uses from minimum parking requirements, including affordable housing, senior housing, housing for people with disabilities, changes of use in existing buildings, small residences under 1,200 square feet, commercial spaces under 5,000 square feet, child care, certain alcohol‑serving facilities and mixed‑use projects. The proposal preserves accessible (ADA) spaces and states that jurisdictions may not require more than the stated caps; current minimums under Growth Management Act jurisdictions would be repealed. A fiscal note estimates approximately $125,000 in state costs in the current biennium.

Proponents said the change would help projects “pencil” financially by removing expensive parking requirements. Nicholas Carr, senior policy advisor for housing in the governor’s office, said structured parking can cost up to tens of thousands per stall and that lowering mandates can make housing more feasible. Jace Cotton, a Bellingham city council member, described local action to eliminate minimums and urged statewide leadership so smaller jurisdictions are not handcuffed by a patchwork of rules.

Affordable housing developers testified that mandatory parking increases costs and delay projects. “Forcing [projects] to include a specified number of spaces only drives up costs and creates more barriers to increasing the supply of subsidized affordable housing,” Michelle Thomas of the Washington Low Income Housing Alliance said.

Cities, business owners and some local elected officials urged caution. Mayor Salim Nies of Mercer Island urged an amendment adding an exemption for areas within a one‑mile radius of large commercial airports to preserve access for workers who rely on vehicles. Amina Abdallah of SeaTac and Mariah Frost from Kemper Development emphasized the local variability of parking needs—particularly in airport communities and downtown commercial cores—and asked the Legislature to preserve tools for local parking and curb management.

Local governments including Bellingham, Spokane, Bothell, Vancouver and others described either recent local reforms or concerns about unintended spillover such as shoulder parking, curb access and safety on narrow roads. Staff and local planners asked for funding or technical assistance to accompany major statewide changes, and recommended clearer definitions for terms such as “commercial” and “mixed use.”

The hearing compiled a broad coalition of supporters—builders, environmental organizations, affordable housing providers and transit advocates—alongside cities and businesses recommending technical fixes. Committee members closed testimony on the bill and did not take an immediate vote during the hearing.

Votes or formal committee action were not recorded for SB 5184 at this hearing; the bill remains in committee for possible amendment and further consideration.