• 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
4,267
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?"
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top