State building code committee debates placement of elevator rules after HB 1183 draft shifts standards to L&I

Members of the State Building Code Council legislative committee on Jan. 30 discussed draft legislative language — including HB 1183 and related Senate language (SB 5156) — that would move elevator-standards material into RCW 70.87, the Department of Labor & Industries elevator program statute. Committee chair Tom Handy opened the conversation and Dustin, SBCC staff, walked members through a substitute bill that places standards language in 70.87.

The panel’s central concern was placement of provisions that would direct cities and counties to allow “small passenger elevators” (described in the draft as applying to buildings up to six stories and about 24 units). Dustin told the committee, “This section ... is the only language change in this one, and it’s placed in 70.87,” and flagged that the requirement for cities and counties to allow passenger elevators may not belong in that RCW.

Why this matters: moving the standards portion of the draft into L&I’s RCW would leave policy language that affects local plan review and building-code amendments in a statute administered by a different agency. Several members said that if the legislature intends to change how single-exit residential buildings are treated (for example, allowing smaller elevator cars that would not accommodate a stretcher), the change should be located where the SBCC or the International Building Code (IBC) implementation process can address the necessary code amendments.

Committee discussion focused on two enforcement/placement issues: L&I’s role in adopting technical elevator standards versus local jurisdictions’ role in plan review and applying the IBC; and whether a legislative change intended to affect single-exit residential buildings should instead be placed in chapter 19.27 RCW or as amendments to IBC Chapter 30 (the chapter that governs means of egress and related requirements). Angela, who participated in earlier hearings, said L&I moved the standard into its RCW but that language touching the number of stories or exemptions “has no business under L&I” and should instead refer to the building-code RCW.

Several members and participants recommended drafting targeted amendment language to clarify legislative intent and to align statutory deadlines with the SBCC code-adoption schedule (members noted March 31, 2026 in the draft would not align with the SBCC’s adoption calendar). Jay Arnold suggested the committee “take control here and give language we think works for the Building Code Council.”

Direction and next steps: Dustin said he would work with Council chair Todd Bayreuther to prepare draft language for the council to consider at its next meeting, and encouraged engagement from WABO and others to test practical implications. The committee did not take a formal vote on the elevator language during this meeting; members asked staff to draft clearer statutory language and to bring it back to the full council for consideration.

Context and technical points: speakers referenced IBC 3002.4 (the stretcher-size requirement for elevator cars in certain occupancies) and the distinction between IBC/IRC triggers for elevator size and plan-review practice in jurisdictions. The committee discussed residential typologies (single-exit buildings, multi-unit residential) and the possible need to amend Chapter 30 of the IBC if the legislature intends to exempt certain residential conveyances from stretcher-size requirements.

Ending: Staff and several council members agreed to draft and circulate proposed language for council review before the next formal action, and to monitor related senate/house language (HB 1183, SB 5156) as it moves through the legislative process.