Additional Public Comments as of 3-23-18

established photographically). An emergency is not timed and an impediment to traffic could still be there at any time. This also does nothing to improve the main choke-point at the 5 way intersection or any of the roads further down such as Spring either way. The Fire Department still left all other concerns in their letter including this from Concern Reality 2, “The impact upon the timely response of additional fire response vehicles on major medical emergencies and fire incidents. Given the severely restricted access to the area, in all likelihood the truck company would not be able to physically drive to the scene. This means the Incident Commander would need to determine whether to have the crew from the truck park at the most out of the way place and walk in on foot or send the truck away and call for another engine company. Either way the truck company crew of 3 would be out of the fire fight.” This acknowledges that the Fire Department believes that in a major emergency the severely restricted access to the area would necessitate firefighters abandoning their vehicle ¼ of a mile from the entrance of the proposed CHPUD and running uphill to the emergency. Given that the bigger the emergency the bigger the necessary response and the larger the amount of people fleeing the emergency this necessarily creates a situation that is self-exacerbating, meaning that a larger emergency would have more congestion, more delays to response and a higher casualty rate and loss of property both public and private in the case of fires. Approval of the proposed CHPUD would allow the addition of up to 35 additional households having just one access and egress point from the site, resulting in a significant risk to public health and safety. In fact the main access via Capital Dr is not the required 20ft, but rather is 18ft per city record’s and confirmed by the Fire Department and our own measurements (17ft9in-18ft7in), leaving the proposed PUD with no emergency access that meets standards (given the route via Madrona-Cresta de Ruta is even worse, as described by the Fire Dept.) In fact the primary emergency access route, at 18ft, is not wide enough to accommodate two 10ft wide emergency vehicles to pass by each other while responding to an emergency. Thus, the proposed CHPUD is inconsistent with the intent of the street connectivity standards stated in EC 9.6815 (1) (a): Streets are designed to efficiently and safely accommodate emergency fire and medical service vehicles, making it clear that the CHPUD proposal does not meet criteria 5 and should be denied. The issue of relying on Capital Dr as the only reasonable yet inadequate emergency access for a development with over 30 new homes was driven home again yesterday when we saw this large temporary sign at the 5-way stop informing us that Capital Dr would be closed on Thursday, March 22, 2018. We asked, and it is for periodic tree trimming around powerlines. The road will be closed that day and blocked by large tree trimming trucks. (This is yearly maintanance and Capital is closed for other reasons such as Utility repair/work as has been documented in the CHPUD Response Group report) Emergency responders will have to use the much less desireable Madrona-Highland- CrestaDeRuta route that “would require additional maneuvering of the fire vehicle and would potentially greatly reduce response time.” (Fire Department 2-20-18) I would also like to add that along that slow windy route there is a very narrow portion of Madrona between Malabar Dr and Highland Dr that if blocked for whatever reason would require the emergency response to use Malabar Dr and make an extremely sharp turn onto the other side of Madrona which would then allow the Emergency Vehicle to access Highland and proceed up the hill. (This turn was shown in the presentation with the Firetruck trying to make it and Fireman out of the truck helping. It is similar to the Cresta de Ruta to Capital Dr turn the Fire Department described above) This is very clearly unsafe and does not meet EC 9.6815 (1) (a). This also shows the CHPUD proposal does not meet EC 9.8320 Criteria 5 and Criteria 6 and should be denied. 2