[{"_1":2,"_124":-5,"_125":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100,112],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6149899,"mediaKeyId","5509895-49fbfaaa0e54f3daba8c2892ccc66867","parentId",5509895,"title","Tag flags definition cleanup, debate over 'sleeping unit' and draft plan for follow-up","audioSeconds",850,"startMs",1916000,"endMs",2766000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5509895-49fbfaaa0e54f3daba8c2892ccc66867&start=1916&end=2766","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5509895-49fbfaaa0e54f3daba8c2892ccc66867/thumbnail_1916000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6149899/Washington/Tag-flags-definition-cleanup-debate-over-sleeping-unit-and-draft-plan-for-follow-up","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6149899-ffc852decfe1e20db78e1efb996548f4/orig.mp4?Expires=1773628384&Signature=QjDX9z1QljepLLka1SnRMnAgaobh1tFo1NUsCyEtz7uhIzKaVElvZw1Qh-rzxH-Jr3HjUwyetutdfhVZm98l7ObdIc4IL1C6uqqJS4EcgWZ6Pih693E-n-hMeze322tf~ZelrGzKEv1Fdct1nSPLRjputkKCYBxADYbm-QWezqD1JbPq~7inCxyaqNnF4IHQpdPb4csqGc9g8tV5aOa7xJfm0EngjsqGXtKavskIXt8E3O8XJne-DQzi6L-v0DuNCUW8OdGLIgSsWly2bz31tzyXhlc1helu9jb2m7ov25UK8UapkMKcQwA0weP8oZZTUa1nxey-yV2WdpWn-U21fA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Building Code Council","date","2025-07-30T15:03:07Z","article","Tag members reviewed Chapter 2 definitions and identified several cleanup tasks: remove definitions that only reference Chapter 11 (which Washington does not adopt), reconcile Chapter 2 definitions with newly added terms for electric-vehicle charging, and decide whether to keep a state amendment defining “sleeping unit.”

Staff recommended keeping the existing amendment for 'sleeping unit' pending more analysis because it is used in some state amendments and some committee members argued removing it without tracing all uses could create inconsistency. Patrick Hanks, Committee member, recommended preserving the amendment in the absence of a compelling reason to remove it; others said the term appears unused and could be purged. The tag asked staff to compile a list of definitions that reference omitted chapters and return with a cleanup list for the committee to consider.

Next steps: staff will run a systematic review of Chapter 2, identify definitions that are vestigial or only reference non-adopted chapters, and return with a draft cleanup list and recommendations for which state amendment definitions should be maintained.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","SBCC IRC TAG Meeting - July 29, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Members recommended preserving several existing state definitions for now, flagged a possible repeal of the 'sleeping unit' amendment after review, and asked staff to identify definitions that reference chapters not adopted in Washington’s code to simplify Chapter 2.","taxTitle","Building Code Council, Governor's Office - Boards & Commissions, Executive, Washington","taxId",24233,"location","Washington","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6149905,"Tag volunteers to align EV-charging installation provisions for new and existing dwellings",421,9247000,9668000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5509895-49fbfaaa0e54f3daba8c2892ccc66867&start=9247&end=9668","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5509895-49fbfaaa0e54f3daba8c2892ccc66867/thumbnail_9247000.jpg","/articles/6149905/Washington/Tag-volunteers-to-align-EV-charging-installation-provisions-for-new-and-existing-dwellings","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6149905-830693201be6887bbb7f0e900a34532e/orig.mp4?Expires=1773628384&Signature=KBSNyarRzuWWUdZ72X-24APdsAKTi0nGH1T6~lKv6JMR6Xeap7CKqIX19bK8TkaIvUvVdnjMBvw9WFZblS5dpBShj0Xoro7iqsHXUtMzL~Rj8dL5AOILDYHlxsNT3NWrnfHnsf1IRV~1fE7bPPWA5kZNzbYdLq2ezdXb1zMJ5NwysotrsQxBUccV4LxV28Lp2rMVTqIKzkTu3Zt6jU8yUL4oGVnN2~YIU~amoQDT7Lp9zzgVfxv-LzJiPWWTf72bvQq0XTCLnYbEUdIPh1SphJt80zJa2M3hIJHBjvAQykPcbb64PGcppkp-BTjzSgXFG5GatbS20X6t8puJ6Vs~Cw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The tag discussed new model-code language that governs the installation of electric vehicle (EV) charging systems in garages and carports and how that language interacts with an existing Washington amendment that mandates charging infrastructure for new dwelling construction. Patrick Hanks, Committee member, and others explained the state amendment addresses when EV infrastructure must be provided (a requirement for new construction), while the 2024 model-code text sets installation standards for EV systems where they are provided.

Members noted apparent conflicts in the draft between a sentence that limited the model-code section to new construction and other model provisions that describe how EV charging equipment must be installed when provided. Several members recommended drafting two complementary subsections: (1) a state amendment or separate subsection mandating when EV-ready infrastructure is required for new dwelling units, and (2) the model-code-derived subsection that prescribes installation standards (including NFPA 70 compliance) for any EV charging equipment installed in either new or existing dwellings. Two committee members volunteered to draft combined language that preserves Washington’s new‑construction mandate while importing the model-code installation requirements.

Next steps: volunteers to produce draft language that clearly separates the trigger (when EV infrastructure is required) from the installation standard (how to install per NFPA 70), and staff will incorporate the draft into the significant-changes report for review.","Members asked staff to reconcile the state amendment that mandates EV-ready infrastructure for new dwellings with the 2024 model-code language that defines requirements when EV charging is provided; volunteers will draft combined language to specify where and how requirements apply.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6149910,"Tag reviews townhouse separation, continuity and common-wall wording; members request clearer figures and historical check",1021,4537000,5558000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5509895-49fbfaaa0e54f3daba8c2892ccc66867&start=4537&end=5558","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5509895-49fbfaaa0e54f3daba8c2892ccc66867/thumbnail_4537000.jpg","/articles/6149910/Washington/Tag-reviews-townhouse-separation-continuity-and-common-wall-wording-members-request-clearer-figures-and-historical-check","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6149910-cbcc8151bd3a13847e02ea0ceb3b6c2d/orig.mp4?Expires=1773628385&Signature=Bdbf5jWMynHsH9el4UyZpLP-wTcdfZpkP8qqwlnpgz1HAzZHtLrG6us7LyqlEPIm~jo4P64wEo5z--feXlsUgnjsk7hnib4fVVRZl~j8YJtGEibH~uW28nQYqYq2E8sjzrg9MafTekaW-52y7AJ4eKuAnThSta5Eaiy~4-F8hpIVO2cCattkx2KQPN7tkAblHx6ZvNnF1FjLloeKogv8F3VsYLFi5eVJaXDX4rvRK4PItlLUp1Dkiwr0vmeUnFoplxk1LzM4TjHK7dB4waRoWGUo~Fb154GZwotTueEGTblwVq7uHzmWipDascErqEdaYrfLTgTeh~0M00HmMo4eNw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Members considered several interconnected townhouse provisions: structural independence, fire separation distance, continuity and the placement/numbering of illustrative figures. Josh Mergans and other practitioners reported recurring confusion about the term 'both sides' in the common-wall language—whether that phrase requires a fully independent one-hour assembly per side or a single one-hour rated common assembly. Hoyt and other practitioners explained the intent is a one-hour-rated common wall assembly (fire exposure on both sides), noting that the IRC’s prescriptive approach uses assemblies of specific materials (for example, Type X gypsum).

On structural independence, staff recalled that a 2018 change struck the state amendment requiring structural independence for townhouses in favor of the model code language; some tag members said they had previously sought an interpretation because requiring structural independence is difficult in seismic areas without a designed seismic gap. One participant explained that in seismic categories D/E, independent foundations and diaphragms without a seismic gap would be impractical and that the separation language often came originally from IBC firewall provisions intended for fire performance, not seismic behavior.

The tag also found figure numbering and placement problems: figures intended to illustrate the continuity rules appear before the numbered text and need to be renumbered/renested to match the new 2024 section numbering. Staff agreed to renumber figures for clarity and to add a note calling out that the figures illustrate the two continuity options under the code text. The group asked staff to research the rule-making history where the townhouse structural-independence amendment was removed (2018 CR103) and return with a clear recommendation outlining whether the state should retain a unique Washington amendment or accept the model-code approach.

Next steps: staff will confirm the 2018 CR103 rationale, renumber and relocate the illustrative figures to match the text, and produce a draft amendment (or recommendation to repeal) that resolves the structural-independence question and clarifies the 'both sides' language.","Committee members debated whether the code should require structural independence between townhouse units, questioned figure numbering and continuity provisions, and asked staff to confirm historical changes to the state amendment from prior cycles.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6149915,"Tag debates new model-language on anchorage of water heaters and seismic strapping",437,3288000,3725000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5509895-49fbfaaa0e54f3daba8c2892ccc66867&start=3288&end=3725","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5509895-49fbfaaa0e54f3daba8c2892ccc66867/thumbnail_3288000.jpg","/articles/6149915/Washington/Tag-debates-new-model-language-on-anchorage-of-water-heaters-and-seismic-strapping","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6149915-e09ca7452820cbc7cacd28f360deee8d/orig.mp4?Expires=1773628384&Signature=SW69~iD0xDwDT64L5EDiemnAYm6gPVByk2-8tiVRUin1959sp3nASr7XrvRvyRZS4TyLJMCVZi1Qpd0-EBrKThbYFDhRlFlR3a8arzCI8vVzEPabtjpBcAmpQtDRMlPYIGQi-w9z4vWQ2ZLSnzdOhXVUPGvSJnvUiA7in8s64~PU73njvGHTBkCT1JVEB7Wi40sDonOM1fcPmyBjAgr0eIPPHXAnc-R6NeOgiXAOX4miqM50lka7-JvkmgfuUVPfJ4pn2XQPZgfiAGVzrC7H9YKTan8Ypy8UQcoS1FpO9kgsg6VViGUsvXx3o7-yLznqfPLbSMAJcxVysjHE0rrUGw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","During review of Chapter 3 provisions, staff recommended repealing Washington’s prior amendment that referenced only water heaters and instead adopt the 2024 model-code approach that applies to appliances and equipment fixed in position. Staff noted the 2024 text expands the requirement beyond traditional water heaters to include other fixed appliances in seismic areas.

Committee members highlighted practical ramifications. The draft model provisions and staff commentary use a 400-pound installed-weight threshold and a 4-foot measurement for the bottom of the appliance above the floor as part of exceptions; committee members observed that a 40-gallon water heater (installed weight plus water) can exceed 400 pounds, and that a tall but lighter appliance could meet one exception but not another. Ken Brulette, Representative, Seattle City Fire Department, and others observed that Washington jurisdictions largely sit in seismic design category D (and some areas are moving toward E in the code cycle), which makes the strapping and anchorage rules especially relevant.

Multiple members asked for more review of how the new model language aligns with the Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC) anchorage section (UPC 507.2 / 402.5 references were discussed) and how the UPC and IRC cross-reference should be handled. Staff said the matter should be revisited in the significant-changes report and volunteers should compare the UPC text to the model-code revisions to ensure the rule will not inadvertently require strapping of non-fixed equipment.

Next steps: staff will bring the item back flagged for further cross-code analysis (UPC vs. IRC/model code), and the tag will examine the proposal in the significant-changes report before deciding whether to preserve part of the state amendment or adopt the model-code wording.","The group reviewed new model-code language broadening anchorage requirements from water heaters to fixed appliances, discussed a staff recommendation to repeal the old state amendment, and raised technical questions about weight, height and local seismic design implications.",{"_33":113,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":114,"_41":115,"_43":116,"_45":117,"_47":118,"_49":119,"_51":120,"_53":121,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":122,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":123,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6149921,"Tag members find WAC/IRC numbering error, seek clearer adult-family-home and daycare language",229,611000,840000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5509895-49fbfaaa0e54f3daba8c2892ccc66867&start=611&end=840","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5509895-49fbfaaa0e54f3daba8c2892ccc66867/thumbnail_611000.jpg","/articles/6149921/Washington/Tag-members-find-WACIRC-numbering-error-seek-clearer-adult-family-home-and-daycare-language","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6149921-10271566ee21a671c0dd71f613109f5f/orig.mp4?Expires=1773628384&Signature=DUObm3at9IRbC2BeygmZhyK482~9i-cqQCeeqPh0cr2TY0uvGDuyqdyYbQQVo0cBd2g9CU3MxtlJXTiA-Bw8oZuOeOTEXwIdWbEdi~SPV88hZQDhwqcb-KrZ4P-gfGIz6vQ0kXNMNVc72nomJmRgMYMieXz0iL9kh3HhQsSiyvzL8FXQc~Iu0AbT1XZnmpsajzjATR861UmVWb6eKrM8jS0Hik~~G-WZ7wvv4xF~GYF4wjXGFCQ65B10ko4dOWFTlbFNqKDYAaloDPnZNQ72b-NKZa9sfu6N47oIzWaJege6EtKGpsSEWQ1aT0w5WqYHHpRS8PlLRyXCuznM~D-ECA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","At a Washington IRC tag meeting, members flagged what staff called a placement error in the draft rulemaking report that mixes exception language for daycare facilities and adult family homes across numbered subsections of the code. Mariko Blessing, Committee member, urged moving the inserted blue text from exception 5 to exception 6 to match the model code structure (“I don't think the insertion belongs in number 5. I believe the insertion of the blue text belongs in number 6.”). Staff (Staff member) acknowledged a staff error in the published report and said the numbering should be corrected before the proposal goes to rulemaking (“...that was a staff error on this report. It was put into the wrong exception.”).

The tag discussed that the state amendment must preserve the intended regulatory effect while matching the model code’s numbering and exceptions so jurisdictions do not enforce conflicting requirements. Committee members said the item ties into a recent interpretation distinguishing adult family homes from other care facilities; the group agreed the draft proposal should incorporate the missing blue text and the adult-family-home clarification. Angela Haupt, Committee member, said she will circulate the proposal and requested volunteers for a small working group to refine wording; Jen Luke, Committee member, and others volunteered.

Members also debated whether some terms (for example, “dwelling unit” versus “single-family dwelling”) should be revised for consistency across chapters; tag members asked that the final proposal clearly say where daycare language applies, how “units” are counted, and that adult family homes remain treated according to the interpretation issued earlier in the year. The group agreed to draft an amendment that moves the daycare wording into the correct numbered exception, add clarifying text on where adult family homes are excepted, and circulate it to a volunteer subgroup for editing.

Next steps: staff will correct the numbering in the draft report, circulate a proposed amendment incorporating the blue text into the correct exception, and the small volunteer group (including Jen Luke and Mariko Blessing) will refine language before the executive committee meeting.","Members of the Washington IRC tag outlined a staff error in how daycare and adult family home exceptions were placed in the rulemaking report and asked for a focused proposal to clarify the state amendments and model-code correlation.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Tag flags definition cleanup, debate over 'sleeping unit' and draft plan for follow-up

Tag volunteers to align EV-charging installation provisions for new and existing dwellings

Tag reviews townhouse separation, continuity and common-wall wording; members request clearer figures and historical check

Tag debates new model-language on anchorage of water heaters and seismic strapping

Tag members find WAC/IRC numbering error, seek clearer adult-family-home and daycare language