HB 1345 Detached ADU Limits Bill Overly Coersive

By Cindy Alia February 2, 2026 

HB 1345 is ramping up its second try for the 2025-26 bicameral legislative session.  Some things the legislature produces do not improve with age! I am on the fence with this bill, but in the long run must be like a Mama Bear in protecting and promoting property rights!

Citizens' Alliance would urge the legislature to take a less heavy anded approach if housing is the goal.  If GMA mandates and heavy handed government coersion is the goal, then let the bill remain the same.

CAPR has some comments related to perfecting the bill, even while discouraging a disturbing trend of lawmakers to "compromise" and describe coercive tactics for GMA goals as voluntary compliance.

HB 1345 An act relating to establishing limitations on detached accessory dwelling units outside of urban growth areas. 

This bill would allow Detached Accessory Dwelling Units in the Rural Area outside the Urban growth line.  While aiming for sustainability, the bill risks overreach and unintended burdens on rural property owners. 

Testimony Outline: Concerns Regarding Enforcement and Compliance Provisions in Engrossed HB 1345 Submitted by:  Cindy Alia, Citizens’ Alliance for Property Rights
Date: February 2, 2026
Position: Opposed in current form (pro-property rights perspective, with recommendations for amendments) 

1. Positive Aspects – Enabling Rural DADUs  
   • The bill advances property owner freedoms by allowing counties to permit detached accessory dwelling units (DADUs) outside urban growth areas, providing options for family housing, multi-generational living, affordability, and rental income on existing rural parcels.  
   • This supports quick, low-impact housing solutions amid Washington's shortage, benefiting landowners' ability to use their property productively. 
2. Major Concerns – Coercive Nature of Enforcement & "Voluntary" Compliance Pathway  
   • The so-called "voluntary" compliance process for unpermitted (or potentially misclassified) existing DADUs is coercive in practice, not truly optional.  
     • Owners face an ultimatum: proactively pay at least double permit fees (often escalating to triple fees + $1,000+ civil infractions if non-compliant), retrofit to meet new strict standards (≤1,296 sq ft, water metering, septic proofs, 150 ft siting, shared driveway, etc.), or risk mandatory removal, future 3-year permit bans, and property loss.  
     • This pressures owners into compliance under threat, treating private land improvements as presumptively violative and eroding genuine choice. 
3. Amplification of Coercion Due to Lax County Record-Keeping  
   • The bill preserves validity of pre-existing county ordinances authorizing ADUs (Section 4(a)), so older, legally permitted rural DADUs should remain exempt from the pathway.  
   • However, many rural counties have incomplete, outdated, or poorly digitized records (manual filing, understaffing, historical gaps), making it difficult or impossible to quickly verify original permits.  
   • Result: Legitimate older DADUs risk being treated as "unpermitted" during enforcement, inspections, complaints, or plan reviews—triggering the coercive pathway, penalties, and retrofits.  
   • This shifts the burden onto owners to prove compliance in flawed systems, punishing past informal or poorly documented approvals and further chilling rural development. 
4. Overall Impacts & Recommendations  
   • While the bill enables some new legal DADUs, its heavy enforcement (deterrence of violations + high compliance costs, often $10k–$30k+ with upgrades) and lack of broad grandfathering/protections likely suppress total DADU numbers (permitted + existing) more than it expands them—prioritizing Growth Management Act oversight and resource protection over individual landowner autonomy.  
   • Suggested Amendments for Balance:  
     • Strengthen protections for documented older units (e.g., presumption of validity if owner provides reasonable evidence).  
     • Require counties to improve digitization and record access before enforcement ramps up.  
     • Reduce penalty minimums or add hardship waivers for modest/family-oriented rural units.  
     • Provide true amnesty or lighter pathways for pre-bill unpermitted DADUs to encourage legalization without coercion.