February 25, 2026 Planning Board Special Meeting - WEHI Transcript

03/20/2026 06:14:03 AM Page 21 to 24 of 154 6 of 68 sheets 21 the point of noting -- of answering these questions.1 Now, one of them was, as you know, there's only one2 major means of ingress and egress, the other plan of3 means of ingress and egress is for an emergency access4 road of going to the north to Howell, which we'll talk5 about in terms of zoning later, and also possibly if6 Kuzak gets opened up for emergency purposes. But7 there's no other means of ingress and egress, other that8 Oval Road. Warner goes into Oval. That's the only9 means of ingress and egress. So the fire chief was10 addressing a question, number one, about direct access11 to the rear of the building. Now, the only building12 that this applies to is Building D. Remember, we had13 some discussion early in the case when Mr. Appel was14 testifying, about is there enough room for emergency15 vehicles in the back of Building D along the ridge. And16 someone actually asked, probably some member of the17 public, I don't think I asked the question, someone18 asked Mr. Appel, Well, can you get a vehicle back there?19 You know, how close to the building could you go. Mr.20 Appel replied, and I remember, I think Mr. Klein raised21 the issue, I remember Mr. Klein and Mr. Appel were22 having dialogue, and Mr. Appel said, Well, no, you23 wouldn't want to get right up to the building anyway.24 And Mr. Klein said, Because of the fall zone, the drop25 22 zone of course. If the parts of building are dropping1 down onto trucks, you don't want a truck next to it.2 But there's no other room for a truck back there. That3 factors not contested. You can't go right up to the4 building, its illegal in a fire. And after the fall5 zone or the drop zone, there's no room for fire6 vehicles. They're going right over the edge. And so7 the fire chief was asked these questions, about access8 to the rear of the building, the rear of the four story9 building, and his answer was, "Having rear access is10 ideal. However, our traditional tactics include entry11 through the front door of a residential structure to12 protect the means of egress for fleeing occupants." But13 his important phrase is the first clause. "Having rear14 access is ideal."15 Now, when we design a building, a four story16 building sitting on top of a ridge, or just next to it17 with no access for emergency vehicles, and the fire18 chief says,

ing rear14 access is ideal."15 Now, when we design a building, a four story16 building sitting on top of a ridge, or just next to it17 with no access for emergency vehicles, and the fire18 chief says, "Having rear access is ideal." What do we19 do? Do we say, well, ideal means you could do without20 it. You're dealing with lives of hundreds of people who21 live in this building and these questions have been22 raised repeatedly by members of the public also, because23 members of the public live in multifamily dwellings all24 over this area and everyone lives with these questions.25 23 How do we get protected in case of an emergency. So now1 we learn, there's no rear access, that's not debated.2 And the fire chief says, Rear access would be ideal.3 But notes, he doesn't even explain though, how we get4 around the problem of having no rear access. What he5 said was very interesting. He says, I will repeat it,6 "However, our traditional tactics include entry through7 the front door of a residential structure to protect the8 means of egress for fleeing occupants." Well, what9 happens if the fire is in the front door? What happens10 if the fire is in the front of the building and you11 can't get in and there's no rear access? That's why12 having rear access is ideal, as he says. Do we approve13 a project where the geostructural evidence is weak, or14 highly debatable and never really independently15 reviewed. And do we approve that same project where the16 four story building on top of a ridge with rear access17 for emergency vehicles, or fire vehicles, is18 unavailable. How do we protect the people in this19 house, four story structure, if there's a fire in front20 and firefighters can't get in and no one can get around21 the back? Are you comfortable approving a multistory22 apartment complex on a ridge where there's no access in23 the entire rear of the structure, and we'll put the24 pictures on, and I'm sure you'll remember, it's a very25 24 long structure. The entire length of that structure is1 unavailable in the rear, and the only way of entering2 the building, according to the fire chief otherwise, is3 through the front door. If the fires in the front, what4 do we do? You have to say to yourselves, am I5 comfortable approving the project. Do I believe I'm6 meeting my duty as a Planning Board in those7 circumstances.8 Now, there's other aspects to his

hat4 do we do? You have to say to yourselves, am I5 comfortable approving the project. Do I believe I'm6 meeting my duty as a Planning Board in those7 circumstances.8 Now, there's other aspects to his report in9 which he says, "Because there's only one means of10 ingress and egress" other than emergency access on the11 -- in the back and possibly Kuzak. He says, "Response12 time may be delayed." He then goes and says, but we can13 get in. I'm going to read exactly what he says in14 response to this question. "Review of the plans show15 emergency access from Kuzak Drive and Howell Drive."16 The question is, "Is that sufficient for emergency17 access in addition to the normal means entering on18 Warner Road." The answer is, "As with any development19 setback from arterial roadways response may be delayed,20 but access should not be in question." So we have a21 couple of things working here. We know response may be22 delayed, because we're off an arterial road and we don't23 have any other means of ingress and egress, except the24 Oval/Warner structure.25