During the 2025 legislative session, we have provided alerts about a bill that threatens local preservation efforts across the state. Substitute House Bill 1576 will restrict the way communities are able to designate local landmarks. The bill seeks to prohibit cities and counties from designating a property as a historic landmark if owner consent has not been obtained, the building is less than 40 years old, and the designation would restrict the building’s use, alteration, or demolition.

These bills affect local landmark designation in Tacoma, Seattle, and across King County.

Updates

Substitute HB 1576: On April 9, the Washington State Senate passed Substitute HB 1576 (SHB 1576) with a 47-2 vote. The substitute bill clarifies that existing landmark designations are not affected, but the Senate added an amendment requiring that buildings must be at least 125 years old to be designated as a historic landmark without owner consent (the prior threshold was 100 years). Essentially, in those jurisdictions that do not require owner consent, a building must be constructed prior to 1900 for the public to have a say in whether or not it is preserved.

The bill will now move back to the House of Representatives for reconciliation, where it can be scheduled for a final vote on the House Floor before being sent to the Governor for his signature.

If passed, this bill will undo 50 years of preservation policy in the City of Seattle, while also impacting the ability for residents of Tacoma and a handful of other jurisdictions to participate in the process of determining which community resources to preserve.

Take Action!

You can find who your State Representatives are by using the online map HERE.

You can find contact information for your State Representative HERE.

Please ask your State Representative to pause this bill and take time after the legislative session to have a thoughtful discussion of the issue. At the very least, ask for the following revisions to be made in an amendment to the bill:

  • Allowing a property to be designated as a historic landmark without owner consent if the property is more than 75 years old (rather than 125);
  • Limitation of the owner consent requirement to properties currently or previously zoned for single-family residential use (the substitute bill currently includes mixed-use zones); and
  • Removal of the owner consent requirement for publicly owned buildings, because the public should have a say when it comes to the landmarking of publicly owned buildings.

If you live in Seattle, Tacoma, or any jurisdiction served by the King County Historic Preservation Program, please also reach out to your city council members and ask them to oppose SHB 1576. By requiring owner consent for all local landmarks, the legislature is taking away the voice of residents in these communities and the ability for local cities to determine for themselves those resources significant to the community.

Talking Points You Can Use

The bill purports to address concerns that once missing middle legislation takes effect, local landmark designation will be used to restrict the development of missing middle housing. The fear is that single-family homes will be nominated for landmark status, thus curtailing the ability to develop duplexes, triplexes, and four- or six-unit townhomes—the type of development missing middle housing targets.

This fear is unfounded. Passage of SHB 1576 attempts to solve a problem that doesn’t exist:

  • Fewer than 0.5% of parcels in Seattle are designated as landmarks, either individually or as part of a historic district. Of these, an estimated 15% were originally constructed as single-family homes (many of which have since been converted to multi-family or commercial use—landmark designation does not restrict use).
  • In the six-year period from 2019-2024, the City of Seattle designated 46 buildings as local landmarks. Of these, only nine were designated without owner consent (and of these nine, three were publicly owned by Seattle City Parks). None of the resources designated without owner consent were on buildings/parcels suitable for missing middle development.
  • The threshold to become a local landmark is high. Most single-family homes are not eligible for landmark consideration.

In short, there are relatively few single-family homes designated as landmarks in the City of Seattle.

Preservation is not the problem. In fact, much affordable housing in the City of Seattle and in other jurisdictions across the state is developed in historic buildings.

  • Federal and state incentives for both historic rehabilitation and development of affordable housing can be paired, making historic buildings an appealing option for the creation of affordable housing.
  • Designation as a local landmark does not freeze a building in time. Accommodations are made for landmarks to allow new uses, alterations, expansions, and additions.
  • More often than not, delays in housing development are due to external economic factors (such as high interest rates).

We acknowledge the housing shortage and affordability gap that exists in Washington State. We firmly believe existing buildings (whether historic or not) need to be part of the solution—along with the creation of new housing and increased density.

SHB 1576 does not address our state’s housing crisis. But it will result in the loss of historic buildings important to our communities.

Listen to this special episode of “Cascade of History” from March 13 to hear Executive Director Chris Moore discuss this legislation with host Feliks Banel:

Cascade of History · BONUS EPISODE: March 13 Preservation Legislation Update from the Washington Trust

Advocacy Alerts

Stay in the loop on the Washington Trust’s advocacy work and learn how you can help raise your voice in support of historic preservation. Click below to sign up for emails and make sure to select “Preservation Issues and Advocacy Alerts” from the list as an area of interest!

Sign up for Advocacy Emails