Shelters, Transitional Housing, Emergency Housing, and Permanent Supportive Housing.
A city may not prohibit indoor emergency shelters, transitional housing, indoor emergency housing, or permanent supportive housing (STEP housing) under certain circumstances. The extent of this prohibition depends on the type of housing involved. For example, a city may not prohibit transitional housing or permanent supportive housing in any zone where residential dwelling units or hotels are allowed. Similarly, a city may not prohibit indoor emergency shelters or indoor emergency housing in any zone where hotels are allowed, unless the city has adopted an ordinance authorizing indoor emergency shelters and indoor emergency housing in a majority of zones within a 1-mile proximity to transit.
A city may impose reasonable occupancy, spacing, and intensity use requirements on STEP housing for public health and safety purposes. These requirements may not prevent the siting of a sufficient amount of STEP housing to accommodate the city's projected need under its comprehensive plan.
Local Requirements on Affordable Housing Developments.
A city, county, or other local governmental entity is authorized to impose and enforce requirements on affordable housing developments as conditions of loans, grants, financial support, tax benefits, subsidy funds, or sale or lease of public property. The authorization also applies to affordable housing incentive programs or any other program involving bonus density, transfer of development rights, waiver of development regulations or fees, or other development incentives.
Shelters, Transitional Housing, Emergency Housing, and Permanent Supportive Housing.
Cities must allow transitional housing and permanent supportive housing in an zones within an urban growth area in which residential dwelling units or hotels are allowed. Indoor emergency shelters and indoor emergency housing must be allowed in any area within an urban growth area in which hotels are allowed. Indoor emergency shelters and indoor emergency housing must be allowed in additional zones if necessary to meet projected needs identified in the comprehensive plan. Counties planning under the Growth Management Act are subject to the same requirements in urban growth areas.
Transitional housing, permanent supportive housing, indoor emergency shelters, and indoor emergency housing (STEP housing) may not be located in an area zoned for industrial use. A county or city is not required to approve a permit application for STEP housing proposed in a critical area in which no residential development is permitted, an area of natural hazards that generally prohibit residential development, or on agricultural, forest, or mineral lands of long-term commercial significance.
A county or city subject to this requirement may generally not require any standards, conditions, or requirements for STEP housing that are more restrictive than those required for other types of lodging or residential development in the zone. However, the city or county may apply any objective development regulations, including form-based codes, that are not required for lodging or residential development such as density limits, dimensional standards, height restrictions, floor area ratios, setback, lot coverage, stormwater, and tree canopy and retention requirements. Similarly, the city or county may only apply the same development permit and environmental review processes to STEP housing that apply to lodging or residential development in the same zone, unless otherwise required by state law, such as shoreline regulations and building, energy, and electrical codes.
If applying design review for STEP housing, only administrative design review may be required. "Administrative design review" for cities is defined as a development permit process in which an application is reviewed, approved, or denied by the planning director (or designee) based solely on objective design and development standards without a public predecision hearing, unless the review is otherwise required by state or federal law or the structure is a designated landmark or within a historic district established under a local preservation ordinance. A city may approve requests for variances from locally established design review standards.
A county or city may require the sponsor or managing agency of an indoor emergency shelter or indoor emergency housing to certify in writing that it has, between the date the permit application was approved and the date the certificate of occupancy was issued:
The written certification constitutes full compliance with this requirement—the county or city may not require additional certifications or for any of the items to be repeated or revised.
Upon receipt of a permit application for an indoor emergency shelter or indoor emergency housing with a proposed location within 500 feet of walking distance from a public or private school in operation prior to the permit application or from another indoor emergency shelter or other indoor emergency housing, a city (or a county if the proposed location is not in a city) may enter into good-faith negotiations with the sponsor to establish additional and reasonable requirements pertaining to health and safety protocols. If the parties are unable to come to an agreement within 180 days of the permit being submitted, the permit may be denied. This does not allow indoor emergency shelters or indoor emergency housing to be limited in a manner where the capacity for such facilities is insufficient to meet the projected needs in the comprehensive plan. These provisions do not apply to indoor emergency shelters or indoor emergency housing designated for individuals under the age of 18, families, or victims of domestic violence. A county or city that denies a permit must assist the sponsor to identify other suitable properties.
Local Requirements on Affordable Housing Developments.
The types of requirements a city, county, or local governmental entity may impose and enforce on affordable housing developments are limited to income qualification, coordinated entry, reporting, and monitoring requirements.
A county or city is permitted, but not required, to enter into a contract with a sponsor of STEP housing to establish additional and reasonable operational requirements pertaining to health and safety protocols. The consideration for the contract on behalf of the county or city must include a donation of real property, a long-term lease of land at least 50 years in length, or a significant general fund contribution for capital or operating expenses to be mutually determined by the parties to the contract. A county or city that unilaterally withdraws or modifies the consideration is in material breach of the contract and the operational requirements specified in the contract no longer apply to the STEP housing. A sponsor's refusal to accept contract terms relating to the consideration may not be construed as failing to met the requirements of other fund sources or the provisions of the act relating to the siting of STEP housing.
Updates to Local Requirements.
Counties and cities must incorporate the requirements of the act into their development regulations, zoning regulations, and other official controls within 2 years of the effective date of the act or at the next comprehensive plan update, whichever is sooner. The requirements of the act supersede, preempt, and invalidate any conflicting local requirements regardless of whether a county or city has incorporated the requirements of the act into its development regulations, zoning regulations, and other official controls.
Application.
The requirements of the act do not apply to STEP housing in operation on the effective date of the act. A county or city may not deem STEP housing in operation on the effective date of the act as unlawful or noncompliant due to ordinances, regulations, or controls adopted or amended pursuant to the act.
As part of a pilot project, testimony in this section of the bill report was summarized by generative artificial intelligence and reviewed for accuracy by non-partisan legislative staff. Generative artificial intelligence was used only in this section of the bill report; all other sections were prepared by non-partisan legislative staff without the use of any generative artificial intelligence.
(In support) The testimony emphasized broad support for the legislation as a necessary response to persistent barriers that delay or prevent the development of emergency shelters, transitional housing, emergency housing, permanent supportive housing, and step housing. Testimony described how inconsistent local regulations, discretionary permitting processes, shifting requirements, and unequal standards are often used to obstruct housing intended for people experiencing homelessness or disabilities, resulting in higher costs, prolonged timelines, and lost opportunities to address urgent needs. Speakers highlighted that these housing types are critical to stabilizing individuals, reducing reliance on emergency services, jails, and hospitals, and improving public safety and community well-being, particularly in smaller jurisdictions with limited resources. The testimony further underscored that housing is foundational to recovery, treatment, and long-term stability, and that discriminatory land-use practices may violate civil rights and fair housing laws. Overall, the testimony argued that the bill would create clearer, more consistent statewide standards, support regional solutions, protect the rights and dignity of vulnerable populations, and ensure that already funded and proven housing models can be built efficiently and equitably across communities.
(Opposed) The testimony raised concerns about the bill as drafted, emphasizing the need to preserve a degree of local authority to ensure public safety, effective operations, and appropriate siting of step housing and shelter facilities. Testimony argued that the ability to require operational agreements—such as on-site supervision, security plans, and codes of conduct—is essential to maintaining safe, well-managed facilities that support successful transitions to permanent housing, and that these requirements are not intended to block housing but to ensure accountability. Concerns were also expressed about eliminating the ability to apply spacing or distribution standards for shelters, with testimony noting that concentrating facilities in limited areas can create broader public safety and community impacts. Additionally, testimony questioned provisions requiring step housing to be allowed in nearly all zones, characterizing this as a significant preemption of local control that could force jurisdictions to allow shelters in areas lacking transit, services, or appropriate infrastructure. Finally, testimony warned that the bill could function as an unfunded mandate by increasing code enforcement and public safety demands without providing corresponding state oversight or funding, and urged the legislature to consider amendments and proposed revisions to address these issues.
(Other) The testimony categorized as "other" expressed general support for expanding access to permanent supportive, transitional, and emergency housing, while raising concerns that the bill as drafted could unintentionally limit local governments' ability to ensure safety, accountability, and successful operations. Testimony emphasized that cities often invest significant public funds, land, and staff resources into step housing projects and rely on operational agreements, safety plans, and community engagement processes to protect residents, meet audit and contractual obligations, and build neighborhood trust. Concerns were raised that prohibiting such agreements could undermine proven local practices that have contributed to successful and widely accepted shelter and housing programs, including measures to prevent predatory behavior, ensure on-site management, and maintain clear communication with surrounding communities. Additional testimony highlighted that different types of step housing have different operational impacts, that location and access to services matter, and that some provisions could conflict with existing planning requirements or force reactive enforcement rather than proactive management. Overall, the testimony urged targeted amendments to preserve effective local tools while continuing to advance the bill's goal of addressing homelessness and housing instability.
(In support) This legislation builds on previous work to ensure that all housing types are treated as housing types, including STEP housing. Compared to other housing developments, STEP housing consistently faces additional barriers, such as additional licensing and permitting requirements, unequal and unclear standards, and discretionary approvals. The level of approval needed practically makes projects infeasible. These unnecessary requirements increase costs for taxpayers and increases the cost of addressing homelessness. Also, STEP housing is a part of communities, and should not be zoned out. Residents and providers of STEP housing are good neighbors. Providers work to build homes where everyone is seen, supported, and valued. Many people with disabilities rely on STEP housing. More STEP housing will keep people out of jail and involuntary commitment. This legislation is about increasing housing supply and making sure local governments are held accountable, and that all communities are putting in the work to increase housing options. The bill provides guidance that cities are asking for, and gives cities the tools to house people and respond to issues.
(Opposed) Additional requirements are needed for STEP housing. Cities should be allowed to verify that requirements are being met by providers. Adult family homes have minimum standards; STEP housing should have similar standards to help mitigate impact on communities. There should be a minimum level of spacing between STEP housing and schools and parks. The removal of the option for local governments to have operating agreements with STEP housing providers is problematic, and may inadvertently get in the way of cities investing in housing. Self-certification is not the best approach.
(Other) Many cities have invested in STEP housing and are permitting it throughout their communities. While cities support expanding access to STEP housing, the removal of the option to impose conditions on grant funding and land transfers is problematic. Operating agreements are a tool to ensure that providers proactively have best practices in place. Other tools are reactive in nature and more expensive to use. Allowing operational agreements sets providers up for success. In Redmond, the city provided land and grant funding to a STEP housing provider that contributed a significant amount to the overall project cost. Redmond would not have made that commitment without the operational agreement and community engagement process. By removing these options, the bill would reduce the likelihood that local governments will contribute. Housing providers should have to decide whether receiving funding is worth conditions put upon it. Particularly, the language that prevents local governments from requiring legal agreements poses problems for STEP housing currently in place, such as shelter beds funded through contractual agreements.
(In support) Representative Strom Peterson, prime sponsor; Dan Wise, Catholic Community Services; Sarah Dickmeyer, Plymouth Housing Group; James Lovell, SeaTac City Councilmember; Jenn Hendersen, Disability Rights Washington; Alexia Diorio, Washington State Attorney General's Office; and Joe McDermott, State Relations Director.
(In support) Representative Strom Peterson, prime sponsor; Jenn Henderson, Disability Rights Washington; Sarah Dickmeyer, Plymouth Housing; James Lovell; and Joe McDermott, State Relations Director of King County.
Joe Tovar, Washington Chapter of the American Planning Association; Mary Anito, ROOTS Young Adult Shelter; and Erin Chapman-Smith, ROOTS Young Adult Shelter .