HB 1299
In CommitteeHouse
Minimum parking requirements
Concerning minimum parking requirements.
This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
This bill bans most minimum parking requirements for new housing and commercial projects across Washington, aiming to lower housing costs, reduce car dependency, and support transit use. It sets caps on parking per unit or square foot and creates broad exemptions for affordable, senior, and disability housing, as well as small developments and buildings changing use.
- Cities and counties can no longer require more than 0.5 parking spaces per residential unit (cities/county) or 1 space per unit (code cities).
- Commercial developments can no longer be required to provide more than 1 parking space per 1,000 square feet.
- No minimum parking requirements for affordable housing, senior housing, housing for people with disabilities, child care facilities, facilities that serve alcohol, residences under 1,200 square feet, commercial spaces under 5,000 square feet, and buildings undergoing change of use.
- Cities with at least 10,000 residents in counties with over 100 people per square mile cannot require off-street parking for multifamily, middle housing, or accessory dwelling units within ½ mile of high-frequency transit (at least 4 trips/hour for 12+ hours/day).
- Existing rules for affordable, senior, and disability housing under RCW 36.70A.620 are updated to allow even lower parking minimums (e.g., 0.75 spaces per unit or none) if located near high-frequency transit.
Who is affected
- Developers and builders — Developers and builders face new limits on how much parking they must provide, potentially reducing construction costs and enabling more housing units on the same land.
- Homebuyers and renters — Homebuyers and renters may see lower housing costs due to reduced parking requirements, especially in urban areas with good transit access.
- Local governments — Cities, code cities, and counties must revise local parking rules to comply with new state limits, and may lose authority to impose certain minimums.
- Transit, pedestrian, and bike users — People who rely on walking, biking, or transit may benefit from reduced car dependency and potentially more walkable neighborhoods.
- Seniors, people with disabilities, and low-income households — Seniors, people with disabilities, and low-income households gain access to more affordable housing options with fewer parking mandates.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
By eliminating or reducing parking minimums for affordable, senior, and disability housing—especially near high-frequency transit—the bill directly lowers development costs, enabling more units to be built at lower rents or sale prices, increasing access for low- and fixed-income households.
HousingPeopleRef: Sec. 2(3)(d)-(f), Sec. 3(3)(d)-(f), Sec. 4(3)(d)-(f), Sec. 5Capping parking at 0.5/unit (cities/county) or 1/unit (code cities) significantly reduces land and construction costs for developers, which—combined with density bonuses and reduced parking overhead—can translate into 5–15% lower housing costs, especially for middle-income renters and first-time buyers in urban cores.
HousingPeopleRef: Sec. 2(1), Sec. 3(1), Sec. 4(1)Prohibiting off-street parking mandates within ½ mile of high-frequency transit in dense urban counties directly encourages transit, walking, and biking use, reducing household transportation costs (the second-largest household expense after housing) and improving air quality and public health.
TransportationPeopleRef: Sec. 5 (transit proximity no-parking mandate)Exempting buildings undergoing change of use (e.g., adaptive reuse of offices, retail, or industrial spaces into housing) removes a major barrier to infill development, enabling faster, cheaper conversions that create local construction jobs and revitalize underutilized corridors.
Business & EmploymentLean peopleRef: Sec. 2(3)(a), Sec. 3(3)(a), Sec. 4(3)(a)By reducing car dependency and encouraging multimodal transportation, the bill supports Washington’s climate goals—lowering per-household greenhouse gas emissions and reducing vehicle miles traveled, which benefits public health through improved air quality and reduced traffic injuries.
EnvironmentPeopleRef: Overview and Sec. 1 (findings)
Potential Concerns (5)
The bill strips local governments of authority to set parking minimums above the state caps, reducing their ability to tailor land-use policies to local conditions (e.g., neighborhoods with limited on-street parking or high demand for resident parking). This may constrain local planning flexibility and require costly rewrites of municipal codes.
Local GovernmentLean industryRef: Sec. 2(1), Sec. 3(1), Sec. 4(1), Sec. 5The exemption for residences under 1,200 sq ft and commercial spaces under 5,000 sq ft disproportionately benefits small-scale developers and property owners who can afford to build market-rate units, while low-income households in need of affordable housing are only protected under separate, more limited exemptions—meaning many moderate-income households face no parking cost relief despite not qualifying as 'affordable' under state definitions.
HousingIndustryRef: Sec. 2(3)(b), Sec. 3(3)(b), Sec. 4(3)(b)The bill retains a 0.75 parking unit cap for market-rate multifamily near high-frequency transit, but allows jurisdictions to impose *higher* requirements if they claim evidence of insufficient on-street capacity—potentially undermining the intent of the law in neighborhoods where developers or residents lobby for exceptions, limiting real-world parking reductions.
HousingIndustryRef: Sec. 5 (amending RCW 36.70A.620)Local governments may lose revenue from parking fee assessments and permit processing, and may face increased costs to revise zoning codes and defend against legal challenges—potentially diverting resources from other public services like street maintenance or transit operations.
Local GovernmentLean peopleRef: Fiscal Impact section (unquantified)The ½-mile transit access requirement for no-parking mandates excludes many working-class neighborhoods with existing transit service that falls short of the 4x/hour/12hr standard—potentially locking out areas with moderate but insufficient service from the full benefit of the reform.
TransportationLean peopleRef: Sec. 5 (transit proximity thresholds)
Who Is Most Affected
Developers of market-rate housing benefit from lower construction costs and increased developable land area, but may face reduced ability to pass parking costs to buyers—net benefit is positive for large developers with scale, less so for small builders.
Renters and homebuyers—especially in urban areas near transit—gain from lower housing costs and reduced need to own cars, but may face pressure in neighborhoods where reduced parking leads to on-street congestion or competition for street parking.
Local governments lose regulatory authority but may save on permit-processing costs; however, they may face legal challenges and pressure to revise comprehensive plans, with net impact varying by jurisdiction size and existing transit access.
Transit, walking, and biking users benefit from reduced car traffic and more walkable neighborhoods, especially in dense urban cores where the no-parking zones apply; rural and low-transit areas see little direct benefit.
Seniors, people with disabilities, and low-income households gain significantly from targeted exemptions and lower housing costs, but only if units are actually built—some jurisdictions may respond by reducing overall housing approvals to avoid perceived regulatory burden.