Lawmakers consider allowing smaller elevators in midrise housing to lower costs and increase accessibility
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
ESSB 5156 would permit smaller elevator cars for buildings up to six stories/24 units, direct the State Building Code Council to adopt standards, and create a technical advisory group; proponents say it reduces costs and increases accessibility while manufacturers warned vague harmonization language risks safety and litigation.
The House Housing Committee on Feb. 18 heard testimony on Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 5,156, which would require the State Building Code Council to adopt standards allowing apartment buildings up to six stories and 24 units to be served by elevators no larger than federal accessibility standards.
Staff explained the bill also convenes a technical advisory group to review hoistway opening protection and two-way visual emergency communications and that the council must include fire chiefs, elevator industry professionals, developers and disability advocates.
Supporters said the measure would lower elevator costs and preserve housing density. Steven Smith, executive director at the Center for Building in North America, said "elevators here are 3 to 4 times as much" as in Western Europe and argued the bill "allows for very slightly smaller elevators" and is mainly a modest policy nudge toward competition. Jason Gano of 1 Drop and Carter Nelson of CREDA Washington State said smaller elevators could cut installation and maintenance costs, increase competition for parts and repairs, and help developers build more housing.
Opponents, primarily the National Elevator Industry, urged removal of section 2 paragraph 2, arguing the language that encourages international code harmonization is vague and could "lead to requests for variances based on the intent of the bill, leading to the creation of multiple standards for equipment in the field as well as lawsuits," potentially undermining accessibility and first-responder needs, according to Billy Taylor, representing the industry.
Sponsor remarks framed the provision as a limited effort to increase competition and not a directive to replace U.S. safety standards; the sponsor described the harmonization language as a "nudge" to support broader national work on code alignment. Committee members asked whether dropping section 2 paragraph 2 would change industry positions; NEI said removal would yield neutrality.
The committee heard additional testimony from housing advocates (Sightline Institute, Futurewise) stressing accessibility and that current elevator cost rules deter installation in small multifamily buildings. The hearing concluded with no formal vote; several witnesses and committee members said they expect further stakeholder work on the harmonization language and technical standards.