Building Code Council tag advances single-exit appendix, defers detailed economic study

The Building Code Council’s single-exit/multiplex housing tag voted Jan. 13 to forward technical language for a proposed single-exit appendix to the Building, Fire & RW (BFRW) committee, while asking BFRW and the economic work group to gather more precise cost data before finalizing the economic‑impact statement.

Chair Roger Haringa opened the tag’s discussion of two user‑note drafts for the single‑exit proposal and asked staff to read the long‑standing text that would allow a single exit stair in certain multifamily R‑2 buildings. Dustin, staff to the tag, read the appendix language describing the alternative single‑exit design and the conditions that would limit its statewide application to jurisdictions served by a “professional fire department meeting the requirements of section 101.1.”

Public participants raised safety and clarity concerns. Steven Smith, executive director of the Center for Building in North America, urged the group to clarify what a fire safety and evacuation plan should contain for these small single‑stair buildings, noting designers unfamiliar with large‑building IBC practice might be unsure what to submit. City of Seattle staff noted the city already provides a multi‑residential handbook and that emergency guides for R‑2 occupancies are required in their jurisdiction, though the city typically does not review every guide unless asked.

The tag discussed drafting precision (for example, whether the user note should explicitly say R‑2 apartments) and agreed to simplify the user note to avoid unintended allowances for other occupancies. The group accepted Rich Geiske’s edited wording and approved it by voice vote.

On economic impacts, Chair Haringa presented a preliminary spreadsheet using conservative assumptions (24,000 square‑foot building, $300 per square foot, a 7% floor‑plate saving from single‑exit design) that produced an estimated $500,000 in savings and roughly $150,000 in assumed upgrade costs (sprinkler system upgrade, pressurization, upgraded alarms). Several tag members, including Ken and Micah, counseled against relying on rough per‑square‑foot numbers and urged obtaining contractor quotes (sprinkler and fire‑alarm vendors) or other real‑world estimates before finalizing the economic‑impact statement.

Given differing technical opinions and the need for better cost estimates, the tag approved a motion to move the technical code language (section 4 of the proposal) to the BFRW committee and to have BFRW gather additional economic‑impact information and finalize item 7 of the change proposal as needed. Mike Messer moved the motion; John Hall seconded, and the motion passed.

What happens next: the technical language will be posted for the 60‑day public comment period. The BFRW committee and the economic work group will gather contractor estimates and other data to refine the economic‑impact statement before any final council action.