Committee takes public testimony on SB 5156 to loosen elevator size and technical standards

The Senate Housing Committee held a public hearing on Senate Bill 5156, which would require the State Building Code Council to adopt rules allowing smaller passenger elevators for certain low-rise multifamily buildings and to permit use of global or North American elevator technical standards.

Why it matters: Supporters said current U.S. elevator-size and technical requirements raise costs and reduce the number of buildings that include elevators, which in turn limits accessible housing for older adults, people with disabilities and families with small children. Opponents, including fire and emergency medical responders, warned that a smaller elevator cabin could prevent standard ambulance stretchers and supine patient transport, posing risks during medical emergencies.

Staff briefing and bill summary: Ben Omdahl, committee staff, summarized SB 5156 as proposing that by March 31, 2026 the State Building Code Council adopt standards allowing passenger elevators no larger than those that accommodate a wheelchair for apartment buildings with at most six stories and at most 24 units, and to allow use of the most current global safety standards or North American standards as alternatives. The fiscal note referenced meeting travel costs estimated at approximately $20,000.

Supporters’ arguments: Steven Smith, executive director of the Center for Building in North America, said U.S. elevator costs and cabin-size rules are substantially higher than in Western Europe, and that smaller "European-sized" cabins are compatible with many modern emergency-response strategies. "The number one goal for accessibility and first responders should be making it as easy as possible to put an elevator in these buildings at all," Smith testified. Sightline Institute also urged approval, with Dan Berdullet saying a smaller elevator is better than no elevator and citing Seattle data showing many small multifamily buildings lack elevators entirely.

Technical and jurisdictional concerns: The Department of Labor & Industries (LNI) requested a technical amendment to place elevator regulatory language in the RCW section where LNI adopts elevator rules (testimony referenced RCW 7087) rather than in the State Building Code Council statute. LNI staff and the State Building Code Council’s managing director said adoption and enforcement cycles differ; placing standards in the wrong statute could create enforcement confusion. LNI and code staff also noted that the U.S. and Canada typically follow ASME A17.1 elevator safety standards while much of the rest of the world uses ISO standards; harmonization would affect supply chains and competition.

Public-safety concerns: Several fire service witnesses, including Steve Brooks (Washington Fire Chiefs) and Nick Gullickson (Washington State Council of Firefighters), opposed the bill in its current form. They said smaller elevator cars could prevent moving a patient on a gurney in a supine position into an elevator, requiring multiple responders to carry patients down stairs and increasing risk to patients and responders and reducing emergency response capacity in the neighborhood.

Committee questions and next steps: Committee members asked whether smaller cabins could still accommodate stretchers in a semi-upright position and requested technical follow-up. Senator Solomon, the bill sponsor, said the bill targets small, lower-cost buildings and intends to make elevators feasible where none would otherwise be installed; he urged a national-style approach to enable more infill housing. Multiple witnesses asked for a technical working group to identify a middle ground that preserves emergency responder needs while expanding access to elevators that are smaller and less costly to install.

Ending: The committee closed the public hearing; members asked staff and agencies to coordinate technical fixes and to consider placement of regulatory language so LNI and the Building Code Council do not produce conflicting standards.