State advisory group debates tiered standards, building‑official approval for temporary emergency shelters

The Washington State Building Code Council’s IBC Technical Advisory Group met online Oct. 23, 2025, to continue drafting guidance for temporary emergency shelters and shelter‑like uses, discussing how statewide language could support local jurisdictions responding to homelessness and disasters.

Members focused on a tiered approach that would differentiate immediate disaster relief, short‑term inclement‑weather shelters and planned temporary or converted facilities. Chair Dustin opened the item and noted several documents posted to the project page shortly before the meeting.

The group repeatedly returned to three core public‑safety priorities: safe egress, notification/alerting, and sanitation. "I like looking at this from the standpoint of how are we bettering the situation over what it is," said Josh Mergans, urging that any standard leave people in a safer condition than street sleeping. Steve Belzak, who presented a baseline concept, described his goal as "the bare minimum" that would be an improvement over living on the sidewalk, noting that he had not fully addressed sanitation and suggesting options such as porta‑potties.

Seattle staff described an operational model already in use: joint walkthroughs by building and fire staff, emphasis on two exits and at‑grade egress where possible, smoke and carbon‑monoxide detection or awake staff, and provision of fire extinguishers. Ardel (SDCI) summarized that inspections and operational controls are used to mitigate risk in spaces not originally designed for residential sleeping, including limits on cooking and smoking and expectations that "these would have awake and alert staff throughout the time that people are sleeping, and that's what's really serving as your notification to the residents."

Participants recommended treating different shelter scenarios separately: (1) immediate disaster relief that must be deployed quickly and may require streamlined, minimum requirements; (2) short‑term shelters for extreme weather with modest, rapidly implementable controls; and (3) planned or recurring temporary shelters—converted buildings or modular units—where stronger standards or upgrades (for example, sprinklers or structural review) may be appropriate. Several members proposed occupant‑load thresholds (examples discussed: 20 people, 50 people) to trigger higher levels of systems and staffing, and noted that staffing ratios used for fire‑watch coverage commonly require either two staff or one staff per 10 occupants.

Multiple speakers emphasized that any statewide language should preserve local authority and require building‑official approval. "The building official knows their area better than anybody else," said Hoyt Jeter, urging that local officials coordinate with fire marshals and bring professional review where needed. The group discussed use of the International Existing Building Code (IEBC) provisions and the need for licensed professional engineers when technical review is required.

Other topics included accessibility requirements for common facilities, the definition of what constitutes a "bed" or sleeping area for occupant‑load calculations, and how to count sanitation fixtures versus duration of stay. Members asked staff to collect example ordinances and operational checklists from jurisdictions (Seattle, Tacoma and others) and to circulate a consolidated draft framework for comment before the next meeting.

No formal motions or votes were recorded during the session. The advisory group assigned homework to gather jurisdictional examples and to refine a draft outline that will be circulated to the tag group for feedback.

Next steps noted at adjournment: staff will post jurisdictional examples to the project page for review; members were asked to submit local ordinances to the tag inbox; and the group will reconvene to continue work on minimum dwelling unit sizes and the temporary shelters framework.