SHB 2381
In CommitteeHouse
Low-rise res. buildings
Concerning performance-based building codes for low-rise residential buildings.
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
This bill creates a new state-level, performance-based building code pathway for low-rise residential buildings (1–6 stories) to speed up permitting and support industrialized housing construction. It allows pre-certified housing systems to be used statewide without repeated local reviews, aiming to increase housing supply and reduce costs while maintaining safety standards.
- Requires the State Building Code Council to adopt a new mandatory appendix to the International Building Code that establishes a performance-based compliance pathway for low-rise residential buildings (1–6 stories).
- Directs the council to form a technical advisory group with experts and state agencies (including Department of Labor and Industries, Department of Commerce, and universities) to develop performance criteria for building systems and materials.
- Allows housing systems and building plans to be certified by nationally recognized third-party organizations, and those certifications will be accepted by local building departments as proof of compliance.
- Requires the new pathway to align with existing energy codes and greenhouse gas emissions rules, enabling combined compliance using whole-building or system-level metrics instead of separate reviews.
- Defines a 'low-rise residential building' as having 1–24 dwelling units, and defines 'performance-based code' as a framework that sets measurable outcomes without mandating specific materials or methods.
Who is affected
- Housing developers and builders — Housing developers and builders can use standardized, pre-approved housing systems and designs across jurisdictions, reducing delays and costs, especially for off-site or industrialized construction.
- Local governments and building departments — Local governments (cities and counties) will accept third-party certifications as proof of code compliance, reducing the need for repetitive plan reviews and speeding up permitting.
- Modular and prefabricated housing manufacturers — Manufacturers of modular, prefabricated, or system-based housing components can get their products certified once for use statewide, supporting scalability and innovation.
- Homebuyers and renters — Homebuyers and renters may benefit from increased housing supply and potentially lower costs due to more efficient construction methods and standardized approvals.
Pro/Con Analysis
Potential Benefits (5)
Creates a standardized, repeatable compliance pathway for low-rise residential buildings, which can significantly reduce permitting timelines and administrative delays—especially for modular and prefabricated housing—helping increase housing supply and lower construction costs for first-time homebuyers and renters.
HousingPeopleRef: Sec. 2(1)Enables integrated compliance with energy and greenhouse gas emissions rules using whole-building or system-level metrics, supporting lower-carbon construction and alignment with state climate goals—potentially reducing long-term operational emissions for new housing stock.
EnvironmentPeopleRef: Sec. 2(4)Supports scalability of off-site manufacturing by enabling one-time certification for use across jurisdictions, potentially creating jobs in Washington’s industrialized housing sector and supporting local suppliers of prefabricated components.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 2(3)Reduces regulatory uncertainty for developers and manufacturers, encouraging investment in innovative housing systems and potentially lowering housing costs through economies of scale—though benefits may be concentrated among larger firms unless safeguards are added.
HousingLean peopleRef: Sec. 2(5)Requires involvement of University of Washington and Washington State University in technical advisory group, fostering applied research and workforce development in modular construction and building science—potentially improving long-term technical capacity in the state.
EducationLean peopleRef: Sec. 2(2)
Potential Concerns (5)
Reduces local governments’ ability to conduct independent plan reviews and impose local design standards (e.g., unit mix, unit size, affordability requirements, or neighborhood compatibility features), potentially weakening local control over housing character and affordability outcomes.
HousingPeopleRef: Sec. 2(5)May reduce accountability for quality control in off-site manufacturing, as third-party certifications may not guarantee consistent field installation quality or long-term durability—especially if local inspectors lack training or resources to verify certified systems, increasing risk of defects or failures in vulnerable communities.
HousingPeopleRef: Sec. 2(5)Lacks explicit affordability or equity safeguards (e.g., set-asides for low-income units, inclusionary zoning compatibility, or rent stabilization), so increased supply may primarily benefit market-rate developers and higher-income buyers/renters, with limited direct benefit to low- and moderate-income households.
HousingPeopleRef: Sec. 2(4)Shifts inspection and verification burden to local jurisdictions, which must rely on third-party certifications without additional funding—potentially straining local building departments that lack technical capacity to audit or challenge certifications, especially in rural or under-resourced counties.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 2(5)May reduce local revenue from permit fees if permitting timelines shorten significantly and volume increases without proportional fee adjustments—though this is speculative and likely offset by volume gains.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 2(1)
Who Is Most Affected
Developers and builders—especially those using off-site or modular methods—gain streamlined permitting and reduced delays, lowering soft costs and enabling faster project completions. However, smaller developers without access to certified systems may be disadvantaged relative to larger firms with certification resources.
Local governments gain efficiency in permitting but lose discretionary authority over design and affordability standards. Rural or under-resourced jurisdictions may lack staff or expertise to audit third-party certifications, increasing risk of noncompliance or quality issues.
Modular and prefabricated manufacturers benefit from statewide recognition of certifications, enabling economies of scale and market expansion. However, small or regional manufacturers may struggle to afford third-party certification costs, consolidating advantage among large national producers.
Homebuyers and renters may benefit from increased supply and lower costs, but without affordability mandates, new units are likely to skew market-rate and benefit higher-income households. Renters and low-income households are at risk of displacement if new supply doesn’t include targeted affordability.