Bill to require owner consent for most landmark designations draws sharp debate

House Bill 1576 would bar cities and code cities from designating a property as a historic landmark if the property is less than 40 years old or if the designation would restrict use, alteration or demolition and the owner’s written consent has not been obtained, committee staff said.

The bill includes several carved‑out exceptions and changes from an earlier Senate version: it would not affect historic-landmark designations made before the bill’s effective date; designations within locally established historic districts or properties more than 100 years old would be exempt from the owner‑consent requirement; cities could still allow a property to be nominated without owner consent but could not complete a designation without consent unless an exception applies; and non‑project actions to comply with the requirements would not be subject to SEPA appeal.

Proponents told the committee that allowing third‑party landmark nominations without owner consent has been used to stall or block housing projects. Alex Hurd of the Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish Counties said the bill would reduce uncertainty for infill development and urged raising the protected threshold to structures built after 1900. Ben Maritz, an affordable‑housing developer, described a project that had spent more than $2 million in development costs before a third‑party nomination created additional risk.

Opponents included preservation advocates and preservation professionals. Eugenia Wu of Historic Seattle said the bill “is not about housing supply but about developers maximizing the highest return on investment” and argued the landmark process rarely affects housing supply. Catherine Merlino, an architect and preservation specialist, urged caution and presented data showing only a small share of parcels are landmarked and that landmarking has not historically prevented substantial amounts of housing construction in the city.

The committee heard many one‑minute public witnesses who voiced both support and opposition. Supporters emphasized the bill would protect modest developers and housing projects from third‑party nominations that can create long delays and financial risk; opponents said the bill would strip local control and curtail tools communities use to protect historic resources.

The bill passed the House 95–0 and was presented for committee consideration; no final committee vote occurred at the time of the public hearing portion of the session.