One California city’s idea to tackle the housing crisis: Take the stairs – CalMatters

Report on Culver City’s Single-Staircase Housing Ordinance and its Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals

1.0 Introduction: Policy Innovation for Sustainable Urban Housing

In September, the municipality of Culver City, California, enacted a landmark ordinance permitting the construction of mid-rise apartment buildings (up to six stories) with a single staircase. This policy represents a significant departure from prevailing U.S. building codes, which typically mandate a minimum of two staircases for structures over three stories. The initiative serves as a critical test case for building code reforms aimed at addressing California’s housing crisis, with profound implications for achieving key United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities.

2.0 Ordinance Framework and Objectives

The Culver City ordinance is designed to stimulate the development of “missing middle” housing by making construction on smaller, urban infill lots more economically and logistically feasible. The policy’s primary objectives are directly linked to creating more inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable urban environments.

2.1 Key Provisions

• Allows for single-exit stairways in residential buildings up to six stories.
• Restricts floor plates to a maximum of 4,000 square feet with no more than four units per floor.
• Mandates enhanced fire-safety measures, including high-class automatic sprinkler systems and pressurized or open-air stairwells to prevent smoke intrusion.

2.2 Intended Outcomes

1. Increased Housing Density: To enable the construction of multi-family housing on small parcels that cannot accommodate the larger footprint required by two-staircase designs.
2. Improved Affordability and Design: To reduce construction costs and reclaim floor space (estimated at 7%) typically lost to secondary corridors and stairs, allowing for more or larger, family-friendly units with better cross-ventilation and natural light.
3. Promotion of Infill Development: To encourage dense development near public transit, reducing urban sprawl.

3.0 Contribution to Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

The single-stair reform initiative in Culver City directly supports the advancement of several interconnected SDGs by addressing the economic, social, and environmental dimensions of sustainable development.

3.1 SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

• Target 11.1 (Adequate, Safe and Affordable Housing): By removing a significant barrier to the construction of smaller-scale apartment buildings, the policy aims to increase the supply of housing, thereby contributing to improved affordability and access for all.
• Target 11.3 (Inclusive and Sustainable Urbanization): The reform promotes efficient land use by unlocking the potential of underutilized urban lots. This fosters compact, walkable communities and counters unsustainable urban sprawl, aligning with principles of sustainable human settlement planning.

3.2 SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being) & SDG 13 (Climate Action)

• Reduced Commuting and Emissions: By facilitating denser housing in urban cores, often near public transit, the policy helps reduce dependency on private vehicles. This contributes to lower greenhouse gas emissions (SDG 13) and improved air quality.
• Enhanced Safety: Reduced vehicle miles traveled can lead to fewer traffic-related accidents and fatalities, supporting SDG 3.6. The debate also encompasses a holistic view of safety, weighing the minimal fire risk in modern buildings against the health and safety risks associated with housing instability and long commutes.

4.0 Analysis of Safety and Risk Management

A central component of the policy debate involves fire safety, a cornerstone of building code regulations.

4.1 Evidence Supporting the Reform

• Data from Peer Cities: A study by the Pew Charitable Trusts found that single-stair buildings in New York City and Seattle, where they are permitted, have a fire fatality rate equal to that of other residential structures, with no deaths directly attributable to the lack of a second staircase.
• Modern Fire Suppression Technology: Proponents argue that modern safety systems—including advanced sprinklers, alarms, and fire-rated construction—provide robust protection that mitigates the risks associated with a single egress point.
• International Precedent: This building typology is standard practice in many European and global cities, demonstrating its viability and safety record.

4.2 Counterarguments and Concerns

• Redundancy in Egress: Fire safety officials and unions express concern that a single staircase could become blocked during an emergency, trapping occupants.
• Long-Term Maintenance: Critics question whether mandatory safety systems like sprinklers and alarms will be consistently maintained throughout the life of the building.

5.0 Implementation Status and Future Outlook

5.1 Regulatory Standing

The Culver City ordinance was passed unanimously by its council before a state law froze local building code amendments for six years, positioning the city as a unique incubator for this policy. While California’s Building Standards Commission acknowledged the ordinance, it noted that it “may contain a local amendment that is less restrictive” than state code, leaving its legal standing ambiguous and subject to potential future challenges.

5.2 State-Level Implications

The experience in Culver City will be closely monitored as a real-world test of single-stair design’s impact on housing production and safety. A forthcoming report from the California State Fire Marshal, commissioned to study single-stair rules, is due in January and will be pivotal in shaping the future of building codes and sustainable urban development policies across the state.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

The article primarily addresses issues related to SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities. It also touches upon aspects of SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being.

• SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities): The core of the article revolves around urban housing policy, specifically changing building codes to increase the supply of affordable and adequate housing in cities. The debate over single-stair versus double-stair buildings is framed as a key to unlocking “urban apartment building boom” to address the “housing crisis” and “affordability crisis.” This directly aligns with the goal of making cities inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable.
• SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being): This goal is connected through the extensive discussion on safety and risk. The primary argument against single-stair buildings is fire safety, a fundamental component of well-being. The article weighs this risk against other health and safety risks, such as those associated with long commutes due to housing shortages (“What happens when you drive? You die. You die at really high risks on the road.”). This connects housing policy to broader public health outcomes.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Based on the article’s discussion, the following specific SDG targets can be identified:

1. Target 11.1: By 2030, ensure access for all to adequate, safe and affordable housing and basic services and upgrade slums.
   • The article directly addresses this target by focusing on a policy change (single-stair reform) intended to “turbo-charge urban housing construction at a modest and more affordable scale.” The stated goal is to combat the “housing crisis” and “affordability crisis” in California by making it easier and more efficient to build apartment buildings. The discussion also extensively covers the “safe” aspect of housing, weighing the fire safety of single-stair buildings against current standards.
2. Target 11.3: By 2030, enhance inclusive and sustainable urbanization and capacity for participatory, integrated and sustainable human settlement planning and management in all countries.
   • The reform is presented as a way to promote more sustainable urbanization. It allows for denser development on smaller, “funky little lots” that are otherwise unsuitable for typical apartment blocks. This promotes infill development, which is a key component of sustainable urban planning. The article notes that the reform allows for “packing more apartments into California’s major cities,” which is a direct reflection of enhancing sustainable urbanization.
3. Target 3.6: By 2020, halve the number of global deaths and injuries from road traffic accidents.
   • While the target date has passed, the principle is relevant. The article implies a connection to this target by arguing that a lack of affordable urban housing forces people into longer commutes. It states, “more renters would also likely live further away, forcing them to commute, which comes with its own set of risks,” specifically citing the high risk of death from driving. By increasing urban housing supply, the policy could reduce commute times and associated traffic risks.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

Yes, the article mentions and implies several quantitative and qualitative indicators that can be used to measure progress:

• Indicator for Housing Supply (Target 11.1): The number of new apartment units constructed. The article’s central premise is that this reform could “unleash” an “apartment building boom,” making the rate of new construction a primary indicator of success.
• Indicator for Land Use Efficiency (Target 11.3): The percentage of floor space reclaimed for housing. The article cites a study that “7 percent more” floor space is dedicated to extra staircases and corridors. Measuring the reduction in non-livable space in new buildings would be a direct indicator of efficiency.
• Indicator for Development on Small Lots (Target 11.3): The number of new multi-family buildings constructed on small or irregularly shaped urban lots. The article highlights that the reform makes “funky little lots… eligible for nice little boutique apartment buildings,” so tracking this type of infill development would be a key metric.
• Indicator for Housing Safety (Target 11.1): The fire fatality rate in residential buildings. The article explicitly uses this as an indicator, citing a Pew study that analyzed the “fatality rate in single-stair buildings” in New York City and found it to be “low and equal to other residential structures.” Continued monitoring of this rate would be a critical safety indicator.
• Indicator for Housing Quality (Target 11.1): The design and size of new apartment units. The article suggests the reform promotes apartments that are “bigger, airier and better lit” and nudges design “toward roomier digs that might appeal to families.” Qualitative and quantitative assessments of new unit designs could serve as an indicator of improved housing adequacy.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: calmatters.org