Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

TAG weighs elevator requirements for multiplexes, fire and accessibility implications

September 24, 2025 | Building Code Council, Governor's Office - Boards & Commissions, Executive, Washington


This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »

TAG weighs elevator requirements for multiplexes, fire and accessibility implications
A central topic at the Building Code Council’s multiplex meeting was whether elevators provided in three‑story multiplex housing must meet IBC (commercial) stretcher‑sized requirements or whether smaller, ASME‑compliant residential elevators allowed in the IRC could be permitted.

The question affects cost and rescue operations. If the TAG points to chapter 30/IBC for elevator scoping, common‑service elevators may have to be stretcher‑sized; that increases cost and could discourage developers from installing elevators. If the TAG points to IRC sections for residential/private lifts, smaller cabs would be allowed and more buildings might include elevators.

Ardel Jala, building official for the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections, told the group: "We do provide stretcher sized elevators in buildings of this size as required by the IBC today." Fire and rescue personnel said stretcher‑sized elevators improve rescuers’ ability to evacuate or treat patients on upper stories.

Mike (fire official) said when elevators are provided, fire crews prefer a rescue‑capable (stretcher) elevator because "we will use that for helping patients egress" and smaller cabs can make patient care and transport difficult in emergency medical events.

Several engineers and TAG members noted that ASME A17.1 allows multiple cab sizes and configurations. Richard Geiske summarized that "there are multiple allowed sizes for elevators in A17.1," and that smaller cabs can meet accessibility standards even if they are not stretcher‑sized.

No final code text was adopted. Members asked staff to get a focused comparison for the next meeting: what mandatory chapter‑30 IBC provisions (besides stretcher size) would be lost if the appendix pointed to IRC residential elevator provisions, and whether cost savings from smaller cabs would likely increase elevator installation in multiplexes.

Next steps: TAG staff will consult the subject matter experts (including Jonathan Goldsmith, who authored earlier elevator material) and produce a short note comparing IBC Chapter 30 requirements, ASME A17.1 cab sizes, and IRC residential elevator provisions for the next TAG meeting.

Don't Miss a Word: See the Full Meeting!

Go beyond summaries. Unlock every video, transcript, and key insight with a Founder Membership.

Get instant access to full meeting videos
Search and clip any phrase from complete transcripts
Receive AI-powered summaries & custom alerts
Enjoy lifetime, unrestricted access to government data
Access Full Meeting

30-day money-back guarantee

Sponsors

Proudly supported by sponsors who keep Washington articles free in 2025

Scribe from Workplace AI
Scribe from Workplace AI