• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

Culver City (Calif.) Approves Single Exit Stairway in Multifamily Bldgs.

Y

Yikes

SAWHORSE
Joined
Nov 2, 2009
Messages
4,277
Location
Southern California
https://www.culvercity.gov/News/City-Council-Meeting-Summary-9-29

Ordinance Allowing Single Exit Stairway in Residential Buildings Approved​

The City Council unanimously agreed on an ordinance that would allow a single exit stairway in residential buildings up to six stories in height, modeled after the City of Seattle’s single exit stair ordinance, as adapted by the City of Los Angeles. The ordinance was amended to include the requirement of an elevator for buildings that are five or six stories in height. All stories must be served by the elevator.

At the state level, the six-year local building code amendment freezes in Assembly Bill 130 (AB 130) took effect on October 1, 2025. If the State Fire Marshall provides more stringent recommendations in the future, the City Council agreed to review those as well.

It is estimated that a six-story small lot residential building with a second stair and an internal corridor increases total project costs up to 13 percent. The approved ordinance creates a new pathway for much needed housing by enabling small lot, flexible layout and energy-efficient single exit stairway residential projects, that were otherwise likely to be cost-prohibitive.
 
This will be the greatest thing since the invention of sliced bread -- until the first family dies because the only exit from the sixth floor was blocked by fire. Then everyone will point fingers and ask "How could anyone have approved such a stupid idea?"
 
Well it’s not like there will be a lot of them in Culver City, Ca.
 
How many developers would be concerned with constructing a safe building?

I once had a code enforcement case where a man had converted a horse barn to a dormitory. About twenty stalls had been converted to a domicile with a lockable entrance. Power cord was strung from one end to the other and back again.
At the end of the now hallway was a double wide stall that the owner's daughter occupied. She was a free spirited type with a penchant for tie dyed drapery and candles. There was one way out of the building. I asked the owner what he thought about the fire danger. He said that he would install smoke alarms. I said that was a great idea. Your daughter would be awake as she burned. I sensed that my words had an impact. I demanded that he house these people elsewhere. A week later the horse barn was gone.
 
I know this has been discussed on other threads, but a lot of this push has been based on decades of fire stats from other countries, where there hasn’t been a significant difference in fire safety outcomes between 1 exit stair vs. 2 exit stairs.

Based on that, my bigger question these days is not so much about fire safety as security (such as an active shooter in a single stairwell). Maybe this is hasn’t been a significant issue in other high-trust cultures.

How long has Seattle’s ordinance been in place, and has there been any fires that have tested the single exit system?
 
Yikes said:
It is estimated that a six-story small lot residential building with a second stair and an internal corridor increases total project costs up to 13 percent. The approved ordinance creates a new pathway for much needed housing by enabling small lot, flexible layout and energy-efficient single exit stairway residential projects, that were otherwise likely to be cost-prohibitive.
Click to expand...
I'm going to call BS on this. Not that having two stairs doesn't increase the costs, but that this will have any impact on the number of projects. Developers will just find something else to complain about to justify their projects not moving forward.

A few years ago, a developer I was working with scrapped a huge project due to "city taxes" (building permit fees). The fees were relatively small compared to what they were going to spend on construction. They could have paid those fees with a month of rent from the completed project. The location of the development and what was being proposed would have likely made a significant amount of money for them. They estimated that they would get a return on their investment in less than 10 years (not bad for the area and for what was being proposed). But they wanted a quicker ROI (less than 5 years), so they blamed relatively inconsequential fees.

It just seems like they'll blame anything other than the actual cause most of the time. Blame the symptom, not the disease.
 
Joe.B said:
The estimated 13% doesn't simply come from the added cost, it's also about the lost square footage. The cost per square foot ratio is what's affected.
Click to expand...
Okay. Still won't change the number of projects imo. I'd be very happy to be proven wrong though :).
 
Yikes said:
I know this has been discussed on other threads, but a lot of this push has been based on decades of fire stats from other countries, where there hasn’t been a significant difference in fire safety outcomes between 1 exit stair vs. 2 exit stairs.
Click to expand...
.... because the countries cited in the cherry-picked "studies" pushed by cheapass developers who care more about profit than people just happen to be countries like Italy where things are built out of stone, which doesn't burn. And also very small buildings, not massive multi-storey apartments built out of wood frame constructon.

I've had a few ripples cross my desk regarding this, and it's clear and obvious that it's based not on life safety but bottom line.
 
Inspector Gadget said:
.... because the countries cited in the cherry-picked "studies" pushed by cheapass developers who care more about profit than people just happen to be countries like Italy where things are built out of stone, which doesn't burn. And also very small buildings, not massive multi-storey apartments built out of wood frame constructon.

I've had a few ripples cross my desk regarding this, and it's clear and obvious that it's based not on life safety but bottom line.
Click to expand...
Light wood frame vs. masonry is a key comparison left out....All that noncombustibility worked great at Grenfell didn't it?
 
TheCommish said:
Link to NFPA report
Click to expand...
  • Types of Allowable Construction: The types of construction permitted for single exit stair buildings may lack sufficient fire resistance, necessitating a careful review of construction type to ensure occupant safety.
Click to expand...
I think this would be a good compromise. If only having one stair really is that big of a deal, then allow it, but only if the fire-resistance rating is increased.

It's not a perfect solution, but it at least partially addresses the life-safety issue having only one stair could cause. Better than just axing a second stair.
 
Inspector Gadget said:
I've had a few ripples cross my desk regarding this, and it's clear and obvious that it's based not on life safety but bottom line.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's the entire point, at least here in CA. We have such a housing crisis that officials will throw anything that seems like it could work at the wall to try to get new housing developed. Freezing residential code for a while, allowing ADUs basically anywhere (not that I'm complaining about that, but a lot of local jurisdictions are trying to resist this), going to war with local jurisdictions trying to block new construction because "property values will fall", effectively removing single-family zones... I'm honestly waiting for the day they just say "screw it" and axe any zoning regulation that limits where multi-family structures can be constructed in the name of "saving money" or "reducing construction costs".
 
arwat23 said:
I think this would be a good compromise. If only having one stair really is that big of a deal, then allow it, but only if the fire-resistance rating is increased.

It's not a perfect solution, but it at least partially addresses the life-safety issue having only one stair could cause. Better than just axing a second stair.
Click to expand...
I had a hypothetical conversation with our Fire Marshall about this a while ago after some folks were pushing us to consider this. He was adamantly against the concept entirely; I'm not convinced either way. So, I posed it like this, what are the concerns? We went through his concerns one by one and by the end he admitted that if there were enough compromises, it could work. Increase the fire rating, up it to a NFPA 13 sprinkler system instead of 13-R, make the stairway wider, maybe even a smoke control system. Now maybe you add all of those things and you lose the 13% (or whatever it is) savings advantage, but the point is there can be a middle ground.
 
Joe.B said:
I had a hypothetical conversation with our Fire Marshall about this a while ago after some folks were pushing us to consider this. He was adamantly against the concept entirely; I'm not convinced either way. So, I posed it like this, what are the concerns? We went through his concerns one by one and by the end he admitted that if there were enough compromises, it could work. Increase the fire rating, up it to a NFPA 13 sprinkler system instead of 13-R, make the stairway wider, maybe even a smoke control system. Now maybe you add all of those things and you lose the 13% (or whatever it is) savings advantage, but the point is there can be a middle ground.
Click to expand...
Until someone is carrying a couch up the stairs and there is a fire or other emergency…and why does everyone spell Fire marshal wrong these days?
 
steveray said:
Until someone is carrying a couch up the stairs and there is a fire or other emergency…and why does everyone spell Fire marshal wrong these days?
Click to expand...
Worth noting that the IBC T-1006.3.4(1)already allows R-2 occupancies with a single exit up to 3 stories height for 4 units and max. 125’ of travel. A lot of these concerns for a single exit are already possibilities in the current code. That makes it worth comparing those kinds of buildings vs. other single-exit buildings in Seattle or in most of Europe, to find out the safety records. Did fires in a 4 story building, or a building with twice as many units, fare significantly worse?

One other comment on Culver City council’s action:
As I understand it, the State of California was issuing a moratorium on local code modifications for several years, effective 10/1/25. The intent was to avoid having NIMBY cities add stricter codes that make it harder to develop more housing. This also had the unintended consequence of stopping existing code modifications that would make it easier. Culver City decided to pass this ordinance before the statewide code freeze went into effect.
 
Yikes said:
Worth noting that the IBC T-1006.3.4(1)already allows R-2 occupancies with a single exit up to 3 stories height for 4 units and max. 125’ of travel. A lot of these concerns for a single exit are already possibilities in the current code.
Click to expand...
Yeah...but...How many code requirements do we double or halve without a boatload of data? 3 to 6 stories.....I'll jump from the 3rd story but i guess as previously stated, ill jump from 6 before I burn to death....And the 125' was a sprinkler gimmie....
 
steveray said:
Yeah...but...How many code requirements do we double or halve without a boatload of data? 3 to 6 stories.....I'll jump from the 3rd story but i guess as previously stated, I’ll jump from 6 before I burn to death....And the 125' was a sprinkler gimmie....
Click to expand...
It is likely there’s already boatloads of data available from other jurisdictions that have had single-stair buildings for many decades.

 
steveray said:
And the contrast….coconut grove had one exit…triangle shirtwaist had restricted egress…our lady of angels had a compromised egress….
Click to expand...
Culver City’s code change only affects multifamily, not nightclubs, factories, or schools.

Other large American cities such as Seattle, New York and Austin have already made similar code modifications for multifamily.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top