For example, in the Northeast, heaters have been required for all residential construction for many decades. Residences without heaters are legally considered not habitable. In most of the Southwest like Arizona and Nevada, new residential construction must have ACs (in CA, it's not a universal requirement and window units meet the requirement).
Few residential apartments come with washers. Generally, those would be apartments classified as "luxury" or better (where luxury is a rental term of art referring to amenities, not the actual quality of the building...)
I of course have no objection that buildings must be habitable. A building with dirty water, structural issues, or lacking heat in a cold place is obviously not serving any market segment.
Parking seems to me be fundamentally different than those issues though. I know many people that happily live without a car in LA. Why should it be illegal for developers to cater to them?
There is no "minimum air conditioning" requirement where I live, but pretty much every building I walk into has it. My apartment, like most apartments I've seen, also has it.
Turns out that people don't need the government to tell them what they want. People like AC, so most buildings have AC. Not particularly remarkable, but most apartments in my area also come with refrigerators, stoves, ovens, sinks, showers, and dishwashers, all sans-minimum-appliance requirement.
To me, a minimum parking requirement seems as weirdly dystopian as requiring ACs or dishwashers. Most people like those things, so most buildings will have them, but it shouldn't be illegal to decide you don't need an AC or dishwasher.