A special committee convened by the Building Code Council met virtually to discuss proposed code language aimed at ensuring emergency access where residential building entrances do not face a street, alley or parking area. The discussion focused on a proposal tied to the 2021 Washington State Fire Code (proposed new section 504.1.1) that would require a minimum 5‑foot clear access to certain building entrances that do not face a public way.

The topic matters because recent state “middle housing” legislation has increased the number of dwelling units and detached accessory dwelling units (ADUs) allowed on some lots, and several fire officials and medics said that narrower side‑yard entrances can prevent safe removal of patients on a gurney. "It's impossible, and it's all about patient care and getting in and out," said Ken Burlet, representing fire service interests, describing the difficulty of removing a patient on a gurney where only three feet of clear width exists.

Committee members, local building and planning officials, and industry representatives disagreed about the scope of the problem and the appropriate fix. Several participants said the proposal as written would apply to openings required by the fire code and the International Building Code, and may not reach work performed under the International Residential Code; others urged a narrower drafting approach focused on building entrances (doors) rather than all openings or rescue windows.

Industry concerns included affordability and design flexibility. Patrick Hanks of the Building Industry Association of Washington said the committee still needs to clarify "what problem you're trying to solve and why a statewide code change is needed," adding that the item had already consumed months of stakeholder time. Builders and some local officials said a rigid 5‑foot requirement across every jurisdiction could reduce feasible unit counts on tight lots and interfere with preapproved ADU plans.

Fire and emergency medical responders explained the operational basis for the 5‑foot figure: when a main entry does not face a public way, two rescuers carrying a gurney need room to position and move the patient safely. Several participants suggested alternatives to a single statewide prescription, including: (a) specifying a 5‑foot turning/clear area immediately at the entrance rather than a continuous 5‑foot setback along the entire side yard; (b) allowing local jurisdictions to adopt equivalent standards (Seattle, Vancouver and other cities were cited as jurisdictions to examine); and (c) having plan reviewers or fire officials exercise site‑specific authority to require design adjustments where a proposed plan prevents safe rescue.

Committee staff agreed to gather local examples and municipal guidance for the next meeting (members mentioned Seattle tip sheets and Vancouver code language as starting points). Dustin, staff to the committee, proposed reconvening monthly and suggested a next meeting in late November; the committee set a follow‑up meeting for Friday, Nov. 21, at 1:00 p.m. to continue research and to review municipal code examples and sample plan language. There was no council action to adopt statewide emergency rulemaking at this meeting.

The committee also spent time clarifying which code sections were implicated in the draft language — participants referenced the 2021 Washington State Fire Code section proposed as 504.1.1, International Building Code provisions, and the IRC section on emergency egress (R310), which generally requires a 36‑inch egress opening from sleeping rooms. Several speakers urged the committee to identify the single operational problem to be solved (gurney turning radius/clearance at an entrance versus width of interior egress passages or rescue window arrangements) before drafting binding statewide language.

Next steps identified by the committee: staff will collect municipal code excerpts and tip sheets (Seattle, Vancouver and other jurisdictions were specifically mentioned), the group will review example language and operational evidence (including the practical experience of medics and fire crews), and reconvene on Nov. 21 to discuss a narrower set of drafting options and whether recommendation for state‑level code change is warranted.

Outcome: exploratory discussion and research assignment; no statewide code amendment or emergency rule was adopted at this meeting.