Legislative committee reviews SHB 1254 framework for optional wildland-urban interface code

The State Building Code Council Legislative Committee reviewed SHB 1254 on Feb. 20, 2025, a bill that would allow the council to develop an optional Wildland-Urban Interface code for the 2024 building codes and describes how later permanent rulemaking could preempt local adoptions.

Committee members said the optional code would let the council produce a model WUI appendix that local jurisdictions could adopt before permanent statewide mapping and rulemaking for the 2027 code cycle. Dustin, a staff member who presented the legislative tracking update, said the bill "allows the council to do work on an optional WUI code, for implementation with the 2024 codes." He noted the change is presented as optional and not mandatory for the council.

Committee members pressed for clarity on the interaction between local adoption, local amendments and future permanent rulemaking. One question asked whether a local jurisdiction that adopted an optional appendix for 2024 would lose the authority to rely on that local adoption once the statewide, permanent WUI rule is adopted for the 2027 code cycle. The committee was told the bill’s language envisions that 90 days after the SBCC develops an optional code, "local jurisdictions should enforce that version," but that when permanent rulemaking and statewide mapping occur in the 2027 cycle those permanent rules would supersede earlier local adoptions. Dustin summarized: "The way this new bill reads is that 90 days after the creation of an optional code by the SBCC, local jurisdictions should enforce that version of the WUI code."

Members also discussed limits on local amendments. Under the bill as described, local jurisdictions could adopt or amend the optional code, but amendments that affect residential construction would require SBCC approval before becoming effective. Committee members pointed to building-hardening provisions and defensible-space measures as areas that could need SBCC review because they may touch residential construction; Shane Nels of the American Wood Council said defensible space ‘‘might be up for some interpretation’’ because it occurs outside the building envelope.

The group also addressed concerns about fire-flow requirements in rural and interface areas. Several members clarified that water-supply and apparatus access requirements (including fire-flow) are controlled by other statutes and local ordinances; Micah, a council member, said that is "included in section 2" of the substitute bill and that fire-flow matters have been labeled in prior cycles as not adopted in the code when regulated elsewhere. Another committee member added: "The rule code as written has nothing to do with fire flow. That is a misconception that has been interpreted by some."

Committee members asked about timing and language around adoption versus implementation dates. Dustin said the bill uses an implementation date aligned with other RCWs and that staff would reach out to the bill sponsor to suggest clarifying language (for example, using "implement" rather than "adopt") to reduce confusion about when jurisdictions must be in compliance. No formal council action was taken at the meeting.

Dustin said staff will engage the bill sponsor and follow the session’s progress; members indicated they may work outside the legislative session to propose clarifying language.

The committee did not vote on a position; members discussed technical and policy implications and next steps for outreach and suggested edits.