AN ACT Relating to minimum parking requirements;
SB 5184 is a parking reform bill that limits the ability of cities, code cities, and counties in Washington to impose minimum off-street parking requirements on new development. The bill states legislative findings that mandatory parking requirements raise housing costs, discourage walking and transit use, and increase reliance on automobiles, and it directs local governments to set parking based on actual project needs and market conditions rather than one-size-fits-all rules.
The bill generally caps local parking mandates at one space per residential unit and one space per 300 square feet of commercial space. It also prohibits minimum parking requirements for a range of uses and building types, including existing buildings undergoing change of use, very small residences and commercial spaces, affordable housing, senior housing, housing for people with disabilities, alcohol service facilities, childcare facilities, and commercial space in mixed-use projects. Accessible parking required under the Americans with Disabilities Act is not affected.
For jurisdictions planning under Washington’s Growth Management Act, the bill further restricts parking requirements for certain housing near frequent transit. For very low-income and extremely low-income housing within a quarter-mile of qualifying transit, minimum parking may not exceed one space per bedroom or unit, though cities may require covenants and may allow higher parking where evidence shows on-street parking is infeasible. For senior and disability housing near frequent transit, cities may not impose minimum parking for residents, though they may require parking for staff and visitors. For market-rate multifamily housing near frequent transit, minimum parking is also limited to one space per bedroom or unit, with similar local exceptions based on evidence of parking infeasibility.
The bill also bars certain larger, denser cities from requiring off-street parking as a condition of permitting multifamily middle housing or accessory dwelling units within walking distance of transit. At the same time, it preserves local authority to adopt maximum parking limits and to require frontage improvements to provide on-street parking. The act is titled the Parking Reform and Modernization Act.
Overall, the sentiment around the bill appears generally favorable, especially among housing and transit-oriented policymakers, as reflected by strong committee support and passage in both chambers. The votes were not unanimous, however, indicating meaningful opposition or concern, particularly around local land-use control and the practical effects of reducing parking mandates. The main contention appears to be the balance between lowering housing costs and promoting transit-oriented development versus preserving city and county flexibility to address neighborhood parking demand, street capacity, and site-specific conditions.
The bill would amend Washington land-use and zoning law by limiting minimum parking requirements that cities, code cities, and counties may impose on new development, especially for housing and mixed-use projects near transit. It would create new statutory restrictions in the RCW on local parking mandates, preempting more stringent local ordinances in many circumstances while preserving ADA-accessible parking requirements and allowing some local exceptions based on evidence of infeasible on-street parking. It also affects permitting standards for multifamily housing, middle housing, accessory dwelling units, affordable housing, senior housing, disability housing, and certain commercial uses.
The bill appears to have broad support among legislators focused on housing affordability, transit access, and reducing development barriers, as shown by strong committee votes and final passage in both chambers. The Senate Housing Committee and House Local Government Committee both recommended passage, and the bill cleared final passage votes with comfortable margins, though not unanimously. The non-unanimous floor votes suggest some legislators remained concerned about the scope of state preemption and the impact on local parking management.
The central point of contention is whether local governments should retain broad discretion to require parking based on neighborhood conditions, or whether the state should sharply limit those mandates to reduce housing costs and support transit use. Supporters emphasize affordability, climate, and multimodal transportation benefits, while opponents are likely concerned about spillover parking, neighborhood congestion, and reduced local control over development standards. The bill itself addresses some of those concerns by allowing evidence-based exceptions where on-street parking is infeasible and by preserving authority over maximum parking limits and frontage improvements.