Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Emergency Shelters topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Advisory group reviews California Appendix P as a model for temporary emergency shelters, narrows scope and plans Seattle briefing
Summary
Committee reviewed California Building Code Appendix P as a template for temporary emergency-shelter guidance, discussed scope (pallet shelters, emergency sleeping cabins, tents, RVs, manufactured homes), and agreed to invite Seattle staff to a future meeting to refine scope and local-declaration requirements.
Members of the Washington State Building Code Council IBC technical advisory group reviewed California Building Code Appendix P during the Dec. 4, 2025 meeting as a potential template for statewide temporary emergency-shelter guidance, discussed which types of temporary structures to include, and agreed to bring Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections (SDCI) staff to a future meeting for detailed input.
Dustin (staff) opened the emergency-shelter discussion and said the Appendix P material and Seattle shelter guidance were posted for the meeting. An industry representative, Aaron Scott of Pallet Shelters, said his organization has "deployed, hundreds of shelters in California" using similar code approaches and that local jurisdictions should retain discretion over whether a declared emergency is required. Meeting participants reviewed Appendix P’s definitions and exemptions and noted that California’s Appendix P is activated in a declared disaster; one participant noted that Tacoma’s practice does not always require a governor’s declaration.
The committee discussed scope choices for a Washington model: whether to include pallet shelters and temporary cabins (often used as emergency sleeping cabins), tents and membrane structures, tiny homes, recreational vehicles/park models, and HUD-regulated manufactured homes. Several members said tents and membrane structures and pandemic-era amendments in the 2024 code already cover some temporary housing scenarios; others urged retaining manufactured homes and park-model options as potential emergency deployments even if zoning or HUD rules apply. Practical deployment concerns were also raised: manufactured homes often trigger permanent-foundation requirements under zoning, and some jurisdictions require permanent foundations unless the site is in a park set for temporary deployment.
On process and scope, the group agreed to limit the immediate effort to temporary emergency-shelter approaches applicable to existing buildings and quick-deploy structures that do not require complex permanent infrastructure, while continuing to consider whether to treat very small or single/double-occupancy units (e.g., pallet-shelter units) differently in a threshold table. Dustin indicated he would prepare materials and that SDCI staff would be asked to provide additional detail at a planned meeting on Dec. 18. The group also identified items out of scope for this immediate code work (for example, some HUD-regulated manufactured homes and standard zoning issues) but left open the option to include them as contingencies for emergency use depending on local authority.
