Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wui Mapping And Code topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
SBCC committee presses ahead on WUI mapping and an optional WUI code; DNR maps may delay mandatory adoption until 2029
Summary
Committee members discussed timelines and options for a wildland‑urban interface (WUI) code after updated draft language and DNR mapping projections. Members favored deliberate tag‑level work and flagged statutory limits on local amendments to residential codes.
State Building Code Council legislative‑committee members spent substantial time on the wildland‑urban interface (WUI) code and the mapping schedule that underpins any mandatory statewide WUI standard.
Legislative staff said Representative Duerr provided updated draft language and that the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) expects to finish the WUI maps "sometime, at the end of this year," which staff said would be too late for adoption in the 2024 code cycle and pushed any mandatory statewide implementation toward a later code cycle. Staff described an anticipated implementation date of November 1, 2029 — tied to a 2027 code adoption and the time needed to compile mapping and administrative steps.
Because mapping drives the geographic application of a WUI code, members discussed an interim approach: develop an optional state WUI code based on the 2024 model WUI code and use it to inform jurisdictions and to address definitional and statutory conflicts before any mandatory adoption. Dustin explained the optional code idea was meant to "get ahead of some of the defensible space and building hardening difficulties" and to reconcile the WUI model code with Washington statutes such as fire apparatus access and water‑supply requirements.
Multiple committee members said the SBCC must ensure compliance with RCW language requiring SBCC approval of amendments that affect single‑family or multifamily residential construction. Staff noted that allowing local jurisdictions to amend mandatory residential requirements without SBCC review could conflict with RCW 19.27.060.
Members who had taken part in prior WUI code work urged patience and extensive stakeholder engagement. One member recounted that previous WUI work had run as a year‑and‑a‑half work group followed by several months of tag consideration and that public commenters had said the prior process still felt rushed. Several members recommended aligning any large policy or mandatory step with the 2027 code cycle to allow adequate time for mapping, public input and cross‑agency coordination.
Ending: The committee agreed to continue TAG‑level work on WUI technical issues, coordinate with DNR mapping efforts and watch for bill language changes; no final rulemaking or policy decision was made.
