WAVO proposes new Appendix Q to allow single-exit stair for up to six-story multifamily buildings

The Washington Association of Building Officials (WAVO) presented a draft Appendix Q to the 2024 International Building Code (IBC) that would permit a single-exit stair to serve certain multifamily (Group R-2) buildings up to six stories above grade plain.

WAVO’s presenter, Bridal Jala, told the Single-Exit/Multiplex Housing technical advisory group that the appendix is intended to implement the legislature’s direction in RCW 19.27.115 and related bills. "This amendment is needed to address a specific state policy or statute," Jala said during the presentation. She said the draft draws heavily on long‑standing Seattle local provisions and feedback from fire marshals, and was assembled by a WAVO subcommittee that met multiple times.

The appendix proposal includes a package of minimum conditions and design requirements. Key features presented by WAVO were:

- Scope: single-exit path may serve up to five elevated stories and the building may be no more than six stories above grade plain; Group R-2 occupancies only, with limits on occupied roofs served by the single exit. - Occupancy separation: other occupancies shall not directly communicate with the R-2 portion or the single-exit stair (exceptions for accessory parking, unoccupied roofs noted). - Unit and layout limits: no more than four dwelling units per story; maximum travel distances to the stair limited (20 ft to the stair; travel distance caps consistent with existing single-exit tables). - Construction and systems: minimum construction types limited to 1A/1B/2A/3A/4A/4B/4C/5A (heavy timber/mass timber and similar where listed); required NFPA 13 automatic sprinkler system; minimum half‑hour fire resistance ratings for corridors; stair pressurization connected to legally required standby power; hoistway/shaft protection with options for pressurization or natural ventilation. - Egress and discharge: single exit must discharge directly to the exterior (not to egress courts), and emergency escape/rescue openings are required for sleeping rooms on floors served by the single exit. - Limits on clustering: no more than two separate buildings on a single lot may both use the single-exit path provisions.

WAVO emphasized the proposal is intended as an appendix jurisdictions could adopt locally rather than a mandatory statewide replacement of code sections. Jala and other presenters said the draft is based on Seattle code history (single-exit provisions in effect since the 1970s) plus input from the Washington State Association of Fire Marshals on response-time and water-supply considerations.

Tag members raised operational and policy concerns. David Nieman, an architect active in multifamily projects, said the draft’s prohibition on other occupancies directly communicating with R-2 circulation had practical consequences: bike rooms, trash rooms and required accessible routes sometimes must connect to interior circulation, and strict application could create accessibility and design challenges. "Every R-2 occupancy has waste rooms and bike rooms and utility rooms that are technically other occupancies," Nieman said, urging clearer exceptions for incidental or accessory uses.

Fire and life-safety questions were prominent. Members of the fire community on the call (including Dave Cocotte and Mike Messer during the discussion) supported higher levels of occupant notification and sprinkler/standby-power integration but noted technical details (for example, NFPA 13 vs NFPA 13R or 13D and what the NFPA standards allow). Several speakers pressed WAVO to clarify when elevators would be required and how shaft/elevator provisions interface with accessibility rules.

Members also asked about cost and regulatory analysis. Patrick Hanks of the Building Industry Association asked why the proposal did not include an economic-impact calculation; staff referenced RCW 34.05.310 (Administrative Procedure Act/Regulatory Fairness Act) exemptions that can apply for rulemaking that implements explicit legislative direction. TAG staff said proponents could check the code-change form boxes and submit supporting economic material later. Several members said they wanted analysis to ensure the final rules would be practically buildable and not unduly cost‑prohibitive.

WAVO recommended the TAG use this draft as a starting point for a formal code-change proposal; Roger Heringa, TAG chair, invited members to file amendment drafts or alternative proposals. No official vote or adoption of the text occurred; presenters and members treated the draft as an informational starting point to be refined in subsequent meetings and in formal submittals.

The TAG noted the proposal’s user notes that suggest local review criteria (aerial apparatus, personnel levels, water supply, Washington Surveying & Rating Bureau public protection class grading), indicating jurisdictions could evaluate local fire‑protection capacity before adopting the appendix.

The TAG did not take formal action on the WAVO single-exit proposal at this meeting; members asked proponents to post Word/PDF drafts on the TAG web page and to prepare formal code-change submissions for the upcoming comment and review windows.