inadequate water supply for fighting fires in project vicinity
Is the City able to supply sufficient water pressure for fire-fighting purposes should this warehouse project catch on fire from storage of flammable items? Located at the base of Spring Hill with its forested slopes, the Project's risk of devastating wildfire is significant. Where proposed, some of this heavily wooded hillside's trees would even overhang the northern end of the proposed fence around this warehouse Project. An outdoor burn fire nearly got out of control before about 800 feet away on the east Spring Hill in 1990. (See photo below) Wildfires could more easily occur now that our summers are hotter and drier due to climate changes. Accordingly, the City is required by CEQA environmental review regulations to answer this question: Would the project, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks?
The IS-MND (4.0-76) acknowledges this project site is in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. But the IS-MND only considers if wildfires occurring on Spring Hill will endanger this warehouse development at its base. The IS-MND never considers whether project users themselves, their stored items or their activities will endanger Spring Hill's forested slopes by starting a wildfire. No mitigation measures are even being considered to lessen this fire spread risk, not even requiring automatic fire sprinklers in the storage units! Nor are mitigation measures proposed requiring many fire extinguishers for use by someone renting a unit should a fire begin. No protective CEQA mitigation is being proposed to effectively prevent storage of hazardous chemicals or flammable items in these self-storage units. This Project, located at the edge of this vulnerable wooded hillside with a Very High Fire Hazard Severity designation, is essentially a tinderbox, a virtual time bomb waiting for a spark to set it off. But the public has been kept in the dark by the IS-MND's failure to evaluate this risk.
self-storage warehouses are dangerous fire risks
To see how many fires they cause, search the Internet. Fires are very common in such facilities
10/01/2016 BY JOSEPH T. BERRY
The self-storage facilities considered below are generally one- or two-story buildings featuring prefabricated lightweight metal or concrete-block construction. Although they share similar problems and hazards with all self-storage facilities, these construction types seem to suffer the most at fire incidents. The incident commander’s (IC’s) major concerns operating at a fire at a self-storage building are the lightweight construction’s collapse potential; the enormous amount of sometimes densely packed, combustible contents; and the unknown hazardous materials or liquids stored within. Self-storage facilities are in almost every large city, suburb, and rural area throu...
https://www.fireengineering.com/articles/print/volume-169/issue-10/features/storage-unit-fires-hazards-unknown.html
"Light-gauge metal partition walls separate units from one another on the sides and back. The partitions do not extend to the underside of the roof, leaving an opening at the ceiling level between each unit. This lets fire travel horizontally and unimpeded throughout the building. A fire in one unit could extend to the neighboring units once the metal partition wall heats up and conducts to the contents of adjoining units. Firefighters can expect to find fire in numerous units upon arrival."
https://www.firehouse.com/operations-training/article/10498637/selfstorage-facilities-part-1-lightweight-metal-storage-buildings
The self-storage facilities considered below are generally one- or two-story buildings featuring prefabricated lightweight metal or concrete-block construction. Although they share similar problems and hazards with all self-storage facilities, these construction types seem to suffer the most at fire incidents. The incident commander’s (IC’s) major concerns operating at a fire at a self-storage building are the lightweight construction’s collapse potential; the enormous amount of sometimes densely packed, combustible contents; and the unknown hazardous materials or liquids stored within. Self-storage facilities are in almost every large city, suburb, and rural area throu...
https://www.fireengineering.com/articles/print/volume-169/issue-10/features/storage-unit-fires-hazards-unknown.html
"Light-gauge metal partition walls separate units from one another on the sides and back. The partitions do not extend to the underside of the roof, leaving an opening at the ceiling level between each unit. This lets fire travel horizontally and unimpeded throughout the building. A fire in one unit could extend to the neighboring units once the metal partition wall heats up and conducts to the contents of adjoining units. Firefighters can expect to find fire in numerous units upon arrival."
https://www.firehouse.com/operations-training/article/10498637/selfstorage-facilities-part-1-lightweight-metal-storage-buildings
What should be of great concern to all Mt. Shasta area citizens is whether enough water is available to fight fires here near Spring Hill. The County's General Plan Policy 30 says "All development proposed within a wildfire hazard area shall be designed to provide safe ingress, egress, and have an adequate water supply for fire suppression purposes in accordance with the degree of wildfire hazard."
But the IS-MND (4.0-74) does not answer this question about an adequate supply of water being available for fire fighting. It claims that only 1,150 gallons per day are needed for the car wash, which might only be about 100 gallons per hour, which is less than 2 gallons per minute. Yet near-secret emails between city officials show that much more water would be necessary than the IS-MND discloses. The city's public works director and city engineer in 2016 discussed the project's need for 1,500 gallons per minute (GPM) that would last for two hours for fire fighting! (See emails below) The city engineer guessed the city could only deliver "much less than 500 GPM" to meet fire flow rates. The City reported that the "water pressures along Ski Village Drive go nearly to zero or negative" when one or more fire hydrants are opened in the area. There are no facts or analysis in the IS-MND demonstrating that city water pressure is adequate for fire fighting on the Freeze project site.
Without this water supply matter being clarified and mitigated in the IS-MND, this risk of fire or wildfire due to inadequate water supply to the warehouse project may create a significant environmental impact. This risk is widespread too because there are hundreds of homes within reach of an out-of-control wildfire that might start at this project site by accident or by malevolent intention.
Without this water supply matter being clarified and mitigated in the IS-MND, this risk of fire or wildfire due to inadequate water supply to the warehouse project may create a significant environmental impact. This risk is widespread too because there are hundreds of homes within reach of an out-of-control wildfire that might start at this project site by accident or by malevolent intention.
2014 Weed bole's fire started near a steep hillside
In Weed in 2014, a disastrous wildfire occurred near the base of a steep hillside that grew quickly and burnt down over 150 structures, mostly homes.
Here in Mt. Shasta, steep slopes and dense, forested vegetation immediately adjacent to this Freeze project's warehouses at Spring Hill would make the spread of wildfire during hot summer conditions fast and difficult to stop.
Simulated View of Proposed Mini-Storage Warehouses along North Mount Shasta Boulevard Next to Spring Hill's Trees
But this Project is so badly designed and overcrowded that it does not even have an adequate open space buffer around the warehouse units. The IS-MND acknowledges that California requires a minimum of 100 feet of width of defensible space around structures. But some of this project's mini-storage warehouses are being proposed as close as about 25 feet from the northern property line where the forested slope of Spring Hill starts. There will not be 100 feet of clearance there unless about 75 feet width of vegetation and trees beyond the project site is cleared on Spring Hill. No documentation in the IS-MND indicates the separation distance of the tree-covered slope to these mini-storage warehouse units. The IS-MND never considers the consequences of that resulting proximity nor requires Crystal Geyser Water Company, the Spring Hill hillside owner, to remove its trees so these warehouses can be built closer to its property line without risking burning down the northern half of the city.
This Freeze Project's Mini-Storage Warehouses are Proposed Right at the Base of Steep, Tree-Covered Spring Hill
(click to enlarge)
(click to enlarge)
Smoke emitted from multiple storage units in photo above in another community indicates fire has spread from point of origin.
FIRE AND WILDFIRE HAZARD RISKS ARE MORE REASONS THESE WAREHOUSES SHOULD NOT BE LOCATED BY SPRING HILL
Are Mt. Shasta residents prepared to spend about $2,000,000 to install a new well for extra water flows and a large water storage tank near Spring Hill to prevent a wildfire someday sparked by this Freeze mini-storage warehouse project pressed tightly up to the base of this steep hillside? Are neighbors threatened by such a tinderbox willing to risk losing their homes like occurred in Weed due to the Boles Fire in 2014? Or will they demand this facility be moved elsewhere or at least have some enforceable wildfire mitigation measures added to its approval?
FIRE AT BASE OF SPRING HILL IN 1990:
Evidence of inadequate water supply for freeze warehouse project -
mT. SHASTA cITY ENGINEER PREDICTS INSUFFICIENT WATER BEING AVAILABLE.
Read that last page. The City has not installed a new water tank at Spring Hill or a new well to maintain adequate water pressure here for this project. Does the developer expect the public will pay for that $2 million improvement so his project won't endanger the community? The IS-MND never even discusses the need for that water storage tank that the city's engineer identified. This issue is also one that must be included in an EIR after the MND is rejected as being inadequate.
What is clear from public records at city hall is that the developer fought against the city's requirement that his project should include automatic fire sprinklers. His project designer Nick Sinnott who is not an architect insisted to city officials in multiple emails that fire sprinklers were not required by the building codes. So the city dropped its requirement for sprinklers.
Without sprinklers though, even 1,500 gpm will not be sufficient to meet the 2016 California Fire Code requirements. That insufficiency is supported where on February 13, 2018, the city manager Bruce Pope wrote to the IS-MND preparer at Michael Baker International that the City is requiring a water supply flow of 3,250 gpm for at least 3 hours. But that newer information never got included in the IS-MND. There is no information about minimum fire flow availability in the IS-MND. Soon afterward there was discussion in Project documents at City Hall about firing Michael Baker International and hiring a new planning consultant firm.
What is clear from public records at city hall is that the developer fought against the city's requirement that his project should include automatic fire sprinklers. His project designer Nick Sinnott who is not an architect insisted to city officials in multiple emails that fire sprinklers were not required by the building codes. So the city dropped its requirement for sprinklers.
Without sprinklers though, even 1,500 gpm will not be sufficient to meet the 2016 California Fire Code requirements. That insufficiency is supported where on February 13, 2018, the city manager Bruce Pope wrote to the IS-MND preparer at Michael Baker International that the City is requiring a water supply flow of 3,250 gpm for at least 3 hours. But that newer information never got included in the IS-MND. There is no information about minimum fire flow availability in the IS-MND. Soon afterward there was discussion in Project documents at City Hall about firing Michael Baker International and hiring a new planning consultant firm.
2014 Weed boles fire began when fire spread to a hillside
Topeka Kansas 2016
100 self-storage units demolished by fire.
Firefighters took nine hours to bring a blaze under control that destroyed 100 storage units at the Storage Max facility in Topeka, KS on Thursday. The cause of the fire has yet to be determined but a member of the public who works next door to Storage Max said she heard multiple explosions before running outside to see the facility on fire.
Topeka Fire Department had to break into each of the building’s 100 individual units because the blaze spread throughout the structure.
2016 - Hillsborough County Fire Rescue responded to the two-alarm fire in which 150 units were destroyed or suffered smoke and water damage. Structural damage is estimated at close to a million dollars with as yet unspecified losses by unit holders.
Hillsboro, Oregon storage unit fire
|
Spokeswoman for Hillsborough Fire Rescue, said that the building did not require sprinklers which considering the number of fires in storage facilities is an obvious omission in the regulations. Sprinklers may not prevent a fire from starting but they can help contain the fire after it starts.
|
what can public do to help reduce wildfire risk of this warehouse project?
Write to city officials expressing your concerns. Let them know the IS-MND fails to evaluate the project's wildfire risks to the immediately adjacent Spring Hill vegetation and nearby homes. Remind them there is no evidence in the IS-MND that there are sufficient flows of water for fire-fighting safety should these densely-packed tinderboxes called mini-storage units catch on fire and spread from unit to unit. Point out the IS-MND fails to even require automatic fire sprinklers or fire extinguishers for these warehouses. Most importantly, tell them warehouses are not permitted under any conditions on this property with its C-2 commercial zoning designation. The planning commission has the authority to deny the project applicant's request for a Conditional Use Permit if the commission finds this project may be detrimental to the public welfare. The commission is required to first find that:
"The establishment, maintenance or conducting of the use for which a use permit is sought will not, under the particular case, be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood." (source)
Let city officials know those ways you perceive the project would be detrimental. Ask that an EIR be prepared to study this wildfire risk associated with locating a self-storage warehouse adjacent to Spring Hill because that matter has not been evaluated in the IS-MND.
"The establishment, maintenance or conducting of the use for which a use permit is sought will not, under the particular case, be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood." (source)
Let city officials know those ways you perceive the project would be detrimental. Ask that an EIR be prepared to study this wildfire risk associated with locating a self-storage warehouse adjacent to Spring Hill because that matter has not been evaluated in the IS-MND.