Minimum Parking Requirements.
Cities and counties have broad authority to regulate parking in their jurisdictions. Cities and counties are subject to certain minimum parking requirements, such as parking minimums for certain types of housing within a specified distance of a transit stop and restrictions on parking requirements for accessory dwelling units within a specified distance of a transit stop. Some affordable housing incentive programs offer incentives for parking reductions.
In counties and cities that plan under the Growth Management Act, minimum residential parking requirements mandated by municipal zoning ordinances for housing units constructed after July 1, 2019, are subject to the following:
People with disabilities are granted access to accessible parking spaces. Such individuals receive special license plates or placards that must be hung in their vehicles to park in accessible spaces.
Cities and counties may not require any minimum parking requirements for the following:
Cities and counties may not require more than 0.5 parking spaces per multifamily residential dwelling unit and one parking space per single family residence. Cities and counties may not require more than two parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of commercial space.
These requirements do not apply to:
Cities that have adopted substantially similar policies to the limitations and prohibitions on parking may apply to Commerce for a determination of compliance with the requirements. Jurisdictions may submit a request for a variance from the limitations and prohibitions on parking to Commerce if compliance with the requirements would be hazardous to the life, health, and safety of residents as confirmed by a building official or fire marshal, or their designees.
A county may not require off-street parking if the county's roads are not developed to the standards for streets and roads adopted by the cities within that county.
The State Building Code Council must research, and if necessary, adopt by rule updated accessible parking space requirements in the State Building Code to align with current research on disability rates among drivers.
Jurisdictions with a population between 30,000 and 100,000 must implement the requirements within three years of the effective date of the bill. Jurisdictions with a population of 100,000 or greater must implement the requirements of this act within 18 months of the effective date of the bill.
Jurisdictions may require parking in excess of these limitations for religious organizations and for carpools. Jurisdictions are not prohibited from requiring temporary or time-restricted parking.
Minimum parking requirements for cities and counties planning under the Growth Management Act are repealed.
The striking amendment allows one parking space per single family home and 0.5 parking spaces per multifamily residential unit, rather than 0.5 parking spaces for all residential units. Two parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of commercial space are permitted rather than one parking space. Jurisdictions may require parking in excess of the limitations on parking for religious organizations and carpools. Jurisdictions are not restricted from requiring temporary or time-restricted parking. Jurisdictions that have adopted minimum parking requirements that are substantially similar to those required in the bill may seek a determination of compliance from Commerce. Timelines for jurisdictions to implement the parking limitations and prohibitions are established based on population. Commercial buildings under 3,000 feet are exempted from the limitations and prohibitions on parking requirements, rather than commercial buildings under 5,000 square feet. Certain exemptions from the limitations and prohibitions on parking requirements are removed. Cities may request a variance from the limitations and prohibitions on parking requirements if development would be hazardous to the life, health, and safety of residents as confirmed by a building official or fire marshal, or their designees. Cities with a population of 30,000 or less, rather than 20,000 or less, are exempted from the prohibitions and limitations on minimum parking requirements.
(In support) This is really a housing bill. There has been a bipartisan effort to increase the supply of housing in Washington. This is because Washington is hundreds of thousands of homes behind. The Legislature has worked on eliminating barriers to housing, including the construction of middle housing and accessory dwelling units, coliving, and permanent supportive housing. There are barriers at the local level to being able to adapt and create the housing that Washington needs. Housing prices have stabilized in Washington, but the median home price in King County is $800,000. Many people are living with their parents now and into the foreseeable future, but many of those people would like to have autonomy. This bill talks about parking and its relationship to the housing crisis. Washington's parking requirements are not based on data or need. They are based on an old manual that is still in place today. Parking is overproduced in Washington. Developers pay for parking and then pass that cost along to the person who is living there.
Parking is expensive. It costs between $50,000 to $60,000 for an elevated parking structure. This bill puts a max on what jurisdictions can require as a precondition for construction of commercial or residential projects. It does not say that jurisdictions cannot have minimum parking requirements. Developers can always provide more parking if it's necessary. A number of cities in Washington have already done this and have seen positive results. Some people will say that this is only required near transit. This has been done already. Also, multimodal transit or mass transit is predicated on density. There is no utilization unless there is underlying density. Washington is in a housing crisis, not a parking crisis.
This bill is one of Governor Ferguson's highest priorities. It offers flexibility to fit the parking need to the market need. Parking can be a regulatory burden for small businesses and entrepreneurs who are looking to build the necessary amenities and housing needed. This bill is supported by housing developers, environmental organizations, labor council organizations, realtors, architects, residential builders, commercial builders, and cities. It passed with bipartisan support in the Senate. This bill prevents excessively high parking requirements from blocking homes from being built and businesses from opening while still allowing local governments to require parking in most circumstances. Existing parking requirements are rigid and archaic. Not every parcel in a city or zoning district has the same attributes. This bill is urgently needed to create flexibility to tailor the parking requirements to meet actual site conditions and market realities. The first thing an architect does on a project is checking the zoning regulations to read the parking minimums and determine how many cars need to be parked. Then the architect can figure out how many homes can be built. This is backwards and it should be homes before cars. Variances are available but they are long and costly. Parking mandates force builders to sacrifice buildable land. Cities can allow more housing on the same footprint, which will increase the housing supply. The statewide approach in this bill provides consistency, avoids local pushback, and assures that every community benefits from the improvements. Parking minimums create delays and increase costs for affordable housing development. The Institute of Transportation Engineers does not support minimum parking requirements. Housing and transportation are two of the biggest barriers the disabled community is facing. For many wheelchair users a car is the only form of transportation. Street parking is almost never an option. It is difficult to find accessible parking nationwide. The required number of handicap spots hasn't been updated for 20 years. Parking is complex and this bill includes provisions that address the complexity of parking requirements with nuance. The number of registered vehicle owners has declined between 2012 and 2019.
(Opposed) The question is whether the input of impacted citizens matters through the local democratic process or whether those people don't know what's best for them. The impacted community should make these decisions, not real estate developers. In most cities people have cars and need to drive. This takes space. The problem is that once something has been built it is very hard to correct. Parking management systems are expensive and not funded. This bill needs to provide more flexibility to reduce parking to meet a goal, such as a 30 percent reduction from current standards. Cities should be allowed to develop a more locally tailored approach. There are different parking needs in different areas. Some areas have sidewalks and crossings that allow for safe navigation between parking lot locations while others do not. The bill's requirements may be well-served in areas with transit, but not in areas without. Reducing parking to 0.5 stalls per residential unit is simply not feasible in a suburban community of commuters. There is concern about reducing requirements to zero because employees need parking. There should be language allowing cities to have three years to comply with these requirements. This bill will exacerbate the growing parking problem and will result in additional opposition to new housing development. Local governments should continue to be empowered to advocate for appropriate minimum parking based on their inventory of current on-street parking.
(Other) There should be a technical change to define mixed-use projects and commercial space.
(In support) Senator Jessica Bateman, prime sponsor; Skylar Bisom-Rapp, Inversion Design Build; Ty Stober, City of Vancouver; Zack Zappone, Council Member, City of Spokane; Catie Gould; Dana Christiansen, Kids Unlimited; Blake Lyon, Director of Planning and Community Development for the City of Bellingham, WA; Nicholas Carr, Office of the Governor; Jennifer Gregerson; Ron Davis, Sightline, on behalf of the Coalition in Support of Parking Reform; Joe Tovar; Cary Westerbeck; Angela Rozmyn, Natural and Built Environments; Sonja Max; Ryan Donohue, Habitat for Humanity Seattle-King and Kittitas Counties; Riley Benge, Washington REALTORS; Scott Hazlegrove, Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish Counties; Jace Cotton, Bellingham City Councilmember (testifying as an individual); Sarah Dickmeyer, Plymouth Housing; Daniel Herriges, Parking Reform Network; Scott Bonjukian; Jenne Alderks, City of Bothell Councilmember; Jesse Simpson, Housing Development Consortium; Brent Ludeman, Building Industry Association of Washington; cecelia black; McKai Morgan, A1DesignBuild; and Wes Stewart, Sierra Club Washington State Chapter.