Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Single Exit Appendix topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Workgroup forwards single‑exit appendix to council after economic review
Summary
Staff presented a draft appendix implementing SB 5491 to allow single‑exit stairways for certain multifamily buildings up to six stories and walked the workgroup through a preliminary cost‑benefit analysis; the group directed staff to update cost estimates and incorporate them into the master WAC 5150 preliminary cost‑benefit analysis.
SBCC staff presented a draft appendix to the International Building Code that would allow a single stair to serve certain multifamily buildings up to six stories, following direction from the 2023 Legislature (SB 5491). The staff member said the current Washington code allows single‑exit configurations only for limited lower‑rise layouts (one basement level and up to three stories, four units per floor, with a 125‑foot maximum exit access travel distance) and described how the proposed appendix would expand those options while adding life‑safety mitigations.
The staff member framed the appendix as voluntary for builders and said it is intended to create statewide consistency for jurisdictions capable of supporting single‑stair construction. “We start off these documents with a rationale for why we’re doing this, and the first part of this is painting a picture of what the current code looks like without any modification,” the staff member said.
Roger Heeringa, a State Building Code Council member and chair of the Single Exit/Multiplex Housing TAG, presented independent estimates and urged staff to include additional citations. “If you take a … 24,000 square foot floor area and $300 a square foot, and said you’re reducing the constructed area by 7% … it’s roughly $500,000 that you’re saving,” Heeringa said, describing a floor‑area and cost calculation that includes estimated upgrades for sprinkler and stair pressurization systems.
Workgroup members discussed the assumptions and disagreed about applying a single percentage to all building types. Todd Beyreuther said his independent review shows results vary by building construction type and that some trade‑offs (for example, additional fire‑safety systems) can offset floor‑area savings in certain configurations. “I don’t think anyone’s seen an increase in cost,” Beyreuther said, “but where I saw a kind of single‑digit increase was in Type 4C construction.”
After discussion the workgroup voted to direct staff to incorporate updated cost impacts into the WAC 5150 preliminary cost‑benefit analysis for Council review. The motion was moved by Katy Sheehan and seconded by Dan Young; recorded affirmative responses were provided during the voice vote and the item was forwarded to the Council for inclusion in the larger preliminary analysis.
Staff said they would integrate additional citations and the members’ independent analyses and return revised Section 2A with more detailed engineering and cost comparisons. The next procedural step is Council review of the consolidated WAC 5150 preliminary cost‑benefit analysis.
