SHB 1353
SignedHouse
ADU self-certification
Establishing a self-certification program for accessory dwelling unit project permit applications.
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
This bill allows Washington cities to adopt a self-certification program for detached accessory dwelling unit (ADU) permits, letting registered architects certify compliance with building codes instead of undergoing full city review—provided they meet requirements and pass audits. It establishes oversight, penalties for errors, and reporting to ensure accountability.
- Allows cities to set up a self-certification program where registered architects can certify that their detached accessory dwelling unit (ADU) designs comply with building codes, eliminating the need for additional city review after confirming the application is complete.
- Requires the Department of Commerce to create rules for the program, including mandatory random audits of at least 5% of submissions per year, professional qualifications for architects, liability insurance requirements, and penalties for failed audits—including temporary or permanent bans from the program.
- Includes a standard self-certification form that must be signed by the property owner, architect, and contractor, with provisions requiring the owner to correct code violations at their own expense and indemnifying the city against liability.
- Requires cities to report annually to the Department on ADU permitting timelines, number of self-certified applications submitted and approved, and audit results; the Department must then publish a statewide summary by December 31 each year.
- Creates a statewide database of architects penalized for failed audits in any city, and prohibits cities from accepting self-certified applications from architects currently under penalty in another city.
Who is affected
- Registered architects — Architects who are registered with the state and wish to participate in the program must meet professional requirements, carry liability insurance, and may face penalties—including temporary or permanent bans—if their certified projects fail audits.
- Property owners seeking to build ADUs — Property owners who want to build an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) on their residential property may use the self-certification process if their city offers it, potentially speeding up permitting but remaining responsible for correcting code violations at their own expense.
- City governments (especially planning and building departments) — Local governments that choose to adopt the program must establish audit procedures, maintain records, and report annually to the state—but are protected from liability for decisions made under the program due to indemnification clauses.
- ADU contractors and builders — Contractors or construction companies building the ADUs must sign the self-certification form and agree to indemnify the city against claims related to the project.
Pro/Con Analysis
Potential Benefits (5)
Accelerating ADU permitting by eliminating redundant city review significantly reduces wait times for homeowners seeking to build accessory dwellings—helping address Washington’s housing shortage and enabling faster rental income or multigenerational housing options, especially for middle- and low-income families.
HousingPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1)State-mandated annual reporting on permitting timelines and audit results creates transparency that empowers communities to hold local officials accountable and identify systemic delays—potentially guiding future investments in housing infrastructure and staffing.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 5(4)(i)-(iv)Standardized professional requirements and a statewide database of sanctioned architects improve quality control and reduce reputational risk for reputable architects and contractors, encouraging participation and potentially lowering long-term construction costs through trusted providers.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2)(a) & Sec. 1(4)(b)Indemnification clauses protect cities from liability for defects or injuries tied to self-certified ADUs, reducing legal exposure and potentially lowering insurance premiums for municipalities—though this benefit is modest since cities rarely face such liability in first place.
Local GovernmentLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(3)(c)Streamlined permitting may increase demand for ADU construction, supporting small contractors and local trades—but only if demand materializes, and the benefit is diluted since large developers are less likely to use architect-certified ADUs (they typically use in-house engineering).
Business & EmploymentLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(1)
Potential Concerns (5)
Shifting primary responsibility for building code compliance from city inspectors to private architects increases risk of undetected code violations, potentially compromising structural safety and fire life-safety—especially in high-density ADU clusters—since audits (5% minimum) occur *after* construction begins and may miss systemic errors.
Public SafetyRef: Sec. 1(2)(c)Mandating professional liability insurance for architects and requiring property owners to indemnify cities shifts financial risk of construction defects or injuries to individual property owners and small architects—many of whom lack robust insurance coverage—while cities avoid liability entirely.
FinancialRef: Sec. 1(2)(d) & Sec. 1(3)(c)Requiring property owners to correct code violations at their own expense disproportionately burdens low- and middle-income homeowners (e.g., seniors, single-parent households) who may lack the liquid capital to fix major defects discovered post-construction—effectively privatizing risk while socializing oversight costs.
HousingPeopleRef: Sec. 1(3)(d)Cities must conduct audits and submit annual reports, increasing administrative burden on local building departments—many already under-resourced—while the state adds reporting and database maintenance, diverting funds from other critical services like road repair or parks.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2)(b) & Sec. 5Penalties for architects (e.g., 1-year ban for first audit failure, permanent ban for second within 5 years) may incentivize defensive certification—approving only low-risk, high-margin projects—while discouraging innovative but complex ADU designs that serve vulnerable populations (e.g., accessible units for seniors or disabled residents).
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2)(c)
Who Is Most Affected
Low- and middle-income homeowners—especially seniors and single-family property owners—are the primary beneficiaries of faster, cheaper ADU construction; they gain housing flexibility and rental income potential, but bear full financial risk for code corrections and liability. The program’s design (e.g., indemnification, audit penalties) increases their exposure relative to wealthier or institutional actors.
Registered architects gain new business opportunities but face increased liability, insurance costs, and risk of permanent debarment. The 5% audit rate and penalty structure disproportionately impact solo practitioners and small firms without deep buffers—large firms can absorb fines and insurance premiums more easily.
Local governments gain liability protection and standardized reporting tools but must invest in audit oversight and reporting—costs that fall disproportionately on smaller cities with leaner budgets. Larger cities may benefit more from economies of scale in administration.
Contractors benefit from faster project start times but must sign indemnity clauses and bear responsibility for correcting violations—exposing them to financial risk without corresponding liability protections. The program does not require contractor insurance beyond the form’s indemnity clause.
Renters and low-income households indirectly benefit if increased ADU supply lowers rents, but the bill does not mandate affordability covenants or tenant protections—so gains are speculative and likely concentrated in high-demand urban areas, not rural or lower-appreciation communities.