Appeal Materials - Laserfiche WebLink

For discussion see Appendix A, Memorandum from Gunnar Schlieder, Ph.D., CEG, GeoScience Inc. dated May 2, 2018. Appeal Issue #21: The Hearings Official erred in finding that the evidence in the record indicates the proposed PUD will not be an impediment to emergency response. The Hearings Official states (p. 54): "In response to the anticipated measures to alleviate access issues, the Fire Marshals' office provided updated comments on February 20, 2018 that concludes that providing the full unobstructed width on Capital Drive from Spring Boulevard to Cresta De Ruta Street with "No Parking" signs on both sides of the roadway will improve emergency access and evacuation capabilities along the route to the proposed development... Based on the Fire Marshal's updated comments, and with the addition of a loop street that allows greater maneuverability of emergency vehicles, the evidence in the record indicates the proposed PUD will not be an impediment to emergency response. " There are two issues with this statement. First, the Fire Marshal says that emergency access will be improved, not that it will be adequate. Removal of on-street parking will just change it from very bad to bad, as the access route will remain below code for width and without a 5-foot sidewalk. Two 10 foot wide fire trucks will not be able to pass by each other on this 18 foot wide access route. Second, there are many other concerns in the record about emergency access, expressed by the Deputy Fire Marshal on 3/27/17, but the Hearings Official has focused only on this one improved, but still not code compliant, issue. This one improvement addresses just one of the many "concern realities" that were raised, and the remainder remain unaddressed. The Fire Department's letter makes it clear that the proposed CHPUD would in fact be an impediment to emergency response. The Hearings Official ignored and/or did not reasonably evaluate and weigh the substantial evidence in the record that demonstrated that emergency response vehicles do not have unimpeded access to the site. Appeal Issue #22: The Hearings Official erred in not requiring fire sprinklers in the proposed development. In the CHPUD application the applicant said that they were going to include fire sprinklers in the proposed housing to help suppress fires, especially important because there is no secondary emergency access to the property. This presents a threat to public health. There is absolutely no requirement anywhere to actually include the fire suppressing sprinklers in this proposed development that abuts wild land and is accessed by long windy narrow roads with bad choke points. The Fire Department highlighted these dangers, which can cause severe delays, as "Concern Realities", Referral Comments 3/27/17. 22