SHB 1160
In CommitteeHouse
Local gov. design review
Concerning local government design review.
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
HB 1160 streamlines local design review for housing projects, limits the number of drawings and public meetings required, and mandates that cities allow higher housing density—especially near transit—on residentially zoned land. It also prohibits stricter design rules for middle housing than for single-family homes and clarifies how design review fits into the broader permitting process.
- Clarifies definitions for 'open record hearing', 'closed record appeal', 'project permit', and 'public meeting' to distinguish formal permitting processes from informal public input sessions.
- Limits design review for housing developments to one architectural drawing and restricts review to administrative-level review only (no board or committee review), unless the project involves landmarks or historic districts.
- Prohibits local governments from requiring more than one public meeting during the design review process for housing permits.
- Requires cities of certain sizes to allow higher housing density (e.g., 2–6 units per lot) on residentially zoned lots, depending on population and proximity to transit, with exceptions for critical areas and other constraints.
- Mandates that cities allow at least six types of middle housing (e.g., duplexes, townhomes, ADUs) to meet density requirements, and prohibits stricter design standards for middle housing than for single-family homes.
- Bars requirements for off-street parking for middle housing within ½ mile of major transit stops, and caps parking at 1 space per unit for small lots (≤6,000 sq ft) and 2 spaces per unit for larger lots, unless a safety study justifies higher requirements.
Who is affected
- Cities with populations of 25,000 or more — Cities with populations of at least 25,000 (and especially those with 75,000 or more) must allow higher housing density on residential lots, and may need to revise zoning and permitting processes to comply with new requirements.
- Housing developers and property owners — Developers and property owners seeking to build housing (including middle housing types like townhomes, duplexes, and ADUs) benefit from streamlined design review, reduced parking requirements, and clearer rules for adding units.
- Local government planning and zoning staff — Local planning and zoning staff in cities must update development regulations, implement new permit processes, and potentially conduct new studies (e.g., on parking safety) to comply with the law.
- Residents of affected cities — Residents in affected cities may gain access to more housing options—including more affordable units—especially near transit and in neighborhoods previously zoned only for single-family homes.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
Requires cities to allow up to six units per lot near transit and in high-population cities, significantly expanding housing supply and potentially lowering rents and purchase prices—especially for moderate-income households seeking proximity to jobs and services.
HousingPeopleRef: Sec. 3(1)(a)(ii), (b)(ii), (c) & Sec. 3(6)(c)Mandates cities to allow at least six types of middle housing (e.g., duplexes, townhomes, ADUs) and prohibits stricter design standards than single-family homes—making it easier and cheaper for middle-income families to build or buy homes in historically exclusive neighborhoods.
HousingPeopleRef: Sec. 3(5) & Sec. 3(6)(a)Eliminates off-street parking requirements within ½ mile of major transit stops, reducing construction costs and enabling more affordable housing near high-ridership transit—encouraging transit use and reducing household transportation expenses.
TransportationPeopleRef: Sec. 3(6)(c) & Sec. 3(6)(d)Streamlines design review to one architectural drawing and one public meeting, reducing administrative burden and speeding permitting timelines—benefiting small developers and homeowners seeking to build ADUs or duplexes.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 2(1) & Sec. 2(2)Requires affordability covenants of at least 50 years for units counted toward density credits, locking in long-term affordability and preventing displacement—especially beneficial for low- and moderate-income renters in high-cost urban areas.
HousingPeopleRef: Sec. 3(2)(a) & Sec. 3(2)(c)
Potential Concerns (5)
Mandates cities to revise zoning and permitting processes to allow higher-density middle housing, which requires staff time, legal review, and potential infrastructure assessments—costs that strain local budgets, especially in mid-sized cities without robust planning departments.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 2(1) & Sec. 3(6)(a)Parking mandates are relaxed near transit, but jurisdictions may be forced to conduct costly safety studies to justify higher parking requirements—costs that may be passed to developers or taxpayers, and may delay projects without guaranteeing increased safety.
HousingPeopleRef: Sec. 3(1)(a)(ii), (b)(ii), (c) & Sec. 3(6)(c)Exemptions for critical areas, wildfire zones, and sea-level rise zones reduce the bill’s environmental benefits in vulnerable regions, potentially concentrating new development in less resilient areas and increasing long-term climate risk and public costs.
EnvironmentLean peopleRef: Sec. 3(4)(b)(v) & Sec. 3(8)The 25% exemption clause allows cities to avoid density mandates in areas at risk of displacement or infrastructure strain, but lacks enforceable safeguards to prevent overuse of exemptions—potentially diluting the bill’s overall impact on housing supply.
Local GovernmentLean peopleRef: Sec. 3(4)(b)(i), (ii), (v) & Sec. 3(10)By limiting design review to administrative-level review only, the bill reduces opportunities for community input on neighborhood character and aesthetics—potentially weakening local democratic participation in land-use decisions.
Rights & LibertiesLean peopleRef: Sec. 3(6)(b) & Sec. 3(6)(c)
Who Is Most Affected
Low- and moderate-income households in high-cost urban areas benefit most from increased supply and affordability requirements—especially those near transit who may now access more units at lower prices.
Small developers and homeowners seeking to build ADUs or duplexes benefit from streamlined permitting and relaxed parking rules—though they may face competition from larger developers with more resources to navigate local compliance.
Local governments in mid-sized cities face new costs for zoning updates and permitting, but may benefit from reduced legal risk if they comply with state mandates—though they lose local control over design and density in many cases.
Existing residents in single-family zones may see neighborhood character change and increased density, but may also benefit from improved transit access and more diverse housing options—though some may oppose changes to familiar neighborhoods.
Large developers may benefit from standardized rules and faster permitting, but the bill’s focus on middle housing and affordability requirements may limit high-margin single-family projects—net effect depends on regional market dynamics.