HB 1353 establishes a local-option self-certification program for accessory dwelling unit (ADU) project permit applications. Under the bill, a city may choose to let registered architects self-certify that an ADU project complies with applicable building code requirements, allowing the city to treat a procedurally complete application as code-compliant without further technical review. The measure applies to detached accessory dwelling units on residential property and is designed to streamline permitting and reduce review time for qualifying projects.
The bill sets out minimum program rules for participating cities. Those rules include professional qualification standards for architects, random audit requirements, penalties for failed audits, temporary or permanent suspension from the program after repeated audit failures, liability insurance requirements, and indemnification/hold-harmless agreements protecting the city. Cities must also create a self-certification form, notify the state department when penalties are imposed, maintain reporting data, and submit annual program reports to the legislature. The bill defines "building code" broadly to include state and local building, energy, electrical, plumbing, mechanical, and fire codes, but excludes utility connection requirements.
HB 1353 affects state and local permitting law by authorizing a new expedited review pathway for ADU permits and by directing the state department to maintain a database of architects subject to penalties under the program. It also requires the department to report to legislative committees on city-submitted program data. The bill expressly preserves the validity of any self-certification or similar program already in existence before the effective date, so it does not displace preexisting local programs.
The overall sentiment around the bill appears strongly favorable. It passed the House committee 7-0, the House floor 94-1, the Senate Housing Committee 7-0, and the Senate floor 49-0, indicating broad bipartisan support and little recorded opposition. The voting pattern suggests the bill was viewed as a practical housing-permitting reform rather than a controversial policy change.
The main points of contention, to the extent they are reflected in the bill text, center on accountability and risk management rather than the concept of self-certification itself. The bill responds to those concerns by requiring audits, penalties for inaccurate certifications, insurance coverage, owner responsibility for correcting code deficiencies, and city indemnification protections. Any policy debate likely focused on balancing faster ADU approvals against the need to preserve building-code compliance and municipal oversight.
The bill adds a new section to chapter 35A RCW authorizing cities to operate an optional self-certification program for detached accessory dwelling unit permit applications. It also creates reporting duties for participating cities and the state department, establishes a statewide database of architects penalized under the program, and requires annual legislative reporting. The measure leaves existing local self-certification programs intact and does not alter utility connection requirements.
The bill received overwhelmingly positive support throughout the legislative process. It was approved unanimously in both the House Local Government Committee and the Senate Housing Committee, and it passed the House and Senate floors by wide margins, with only one no vote in the House and none in the Senate. The vote history suggests broad agreement that the bill would help speed ADU permitting while maintaining safeguards.
There is little evidence of major opposition in the available record. The bill’s safeguards indicate the primary concerns were potential errors, liability, and code compliance in a self-certification system. Those concerns are addressed through architect qualification rules, random audits, penalties, suspension or debarment from the program, insurance requirements, owner correction obligations, and city indemnification. Any disagreement likely involved how much trust to place in private professional certification versus traditional municipal plan review.