By David Greenwald
The claim: Approving DISC Will Require the Building of the Fourth Fire Station
Our View: It will not.
One of the claims by the No on B Campaign has been that voter approval of the Davis Innovation and Sustainability Campus will require the city to build a fourth fire station.
While the analysis is complicated, it is our view that DISC alone will not require the city to build a fourth fire station – but with a 30 year build out and the city growing potentially to 90,000 or 95,000 incidental to any plans east of Mace, a fourth fire station is potentially in the works down the line.
The issue has been analyzed in the EIR since 2015. At that time, the Davis Fire Chief “indicated that Station 33 would adequately serve the MRIC and Mace Triangle, with existing resources and personnel.” (See EIR – section 4.13-1).
Likewise in the MRIC, mixed-use EIR from 2015, the EIR concluded: “Although the demand for fire protection services would increase due to the addition of residences in the area, the Mixed-Use Alternative would be anticipated to result in a less-than-significant impact given the close proximity of the nearest fire station and project’s payment of impact fees.” (See EIR – section 8-64).
In the current project, analyzed as ARC but now DISC, on 3-316, the EIR notes: “The ARC Project would not result in substantially increased demand for fire protection services relative to the MRIC Project.”
Here they do find that there is a “cumulative impact” under a “reasonably foreseeable scenario” in that “Station 33 provides back-up response to Station 31 in the downtown core of the City, given the fact that Station 31 is overburdened with calls. As reasonably foreseeable development increases throughout the City, the likelihood that the downtown core station will require backup from Station 33 would also increase. However, if Station 33 is already responding to an incident at the ARC Site, it would not be able to provide needed back-up response to the downtown core station.”
They write: “The ARC Project’s incremental impact, then, should be considered a secondary, or indirect cumulative impact, to fire protection services.”
They note: “Among the mitigation options, contributing funds towards the construction of a fourth fire station is noted.”
The EIR notes: “cumulative impacts related to fire protection were determined to be cumulatively considerable and significant and unavoidable for the MRIC Project. The ARC Project would introduce 850 residential units to a site which currently does not contain housing.”
In conclusion, “the ARC Project, in combination with past, present, and probable future projects, will result in a significant cumulative impact to fire protection services; and the project’s incremental contribution would be cumulatively considerable.”
But the answer to this is not necessarily a requirement for a fourth fire station which would have in addition to considerable one-time costs, also considerable ongoing costs.
One option then is “construct a fourth fire station within the city of Davis.” But the other option seems more reasonable at this time: “Modify existing Davis fire facilities, which may include renovation of existing fire stations.”
Indeed the EIR does not determine which option to take – only recommending as a mitigation measure, “the project applicant shall contribute the project’s fair share funding towards one of the following mitigation options, as determined by the City of Davis Department of Community Development and Sustainability and Davis Fire Department.” (Emphasis added, see page 3-317 of the SEIR for ARC).
The EIR concludes: “The above impact could be reduced to a less-than-significant level if one of the above two mitigation options is implemented.”
It does add: “Successful implementation of each mitigation option, however, cannot be assured, as the full amount of funding for the improvement(s) has not been secured, nor programmed into an identified improvement program. As a result, the project’s incremental contribution to this significant impact, similar to the MRIC Project, would remain cumulatively considerable and significant and unavoidable.”
Discussion
The EIR makes it clear that one of the mitigation measures for the cumulative impact of DISC would be constructing a fourth fire station. But given the ongoing costs of staffing that fire station, the mitigation of modifying the existing fire facilities and renovating the fire station seems far more likely – especially in the short term.
Therefore it our conclusion that the claim that DISC will require a fourth fire station is FALSE.
HOWEVER, we would be remiss not to point out the obvious – if Davis continues on its projected growth over the next 30 years and that does indeed take the population over 90,000 – as it may – then we are likely looking at the need for a fourth fire station regardless. That is especially true with rising fire concerns amid climate change.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Support our work – to become a sustaining at $5 – $10- $25 per month hit the link:
So the analysis is DISC in itself won’t require the building of a new fire station but it will certainly add to the need for one.
That is correct, to an extent… unclear if due to increased provisions of building codes offset the need… as it is looking at history, fire suppression needs are going down, EMS service needs are rising… the whole concept of need for “fire stations” needs serious examination…
I agree Bill. As we are looking at re-imaging policing, looking at re-imaging fire service in light of medical calls and increased fire risks bears scrutiny as well.
I spoke to a retired fire person who claimed that DISC will require a new ladder truck to be able to handle the 4+ story buldings planned for the project because UCD’s ladder truck is too far away.
But he also said a larger ladder truck would not fit in the smaller fire station south of the freeway on Mace Blvd thus necessitating a larger station.
Is that possible need discussed in the EIR?
Page 3-206: “The multi-story project would likely necessitate use of a ladder truck in the event of a fire emergency on the upper floors. The UC Davis Fire Department currently operates Truck 34, which has a 100-foot ladder. Pursuant to the City’s automatic aid agreement with UC Davis, Truck 34 would be dispatched, as needed, to incidents at the project site. The proposed maximum building height would be approximately 85 feet; thus, with sufficient access, the 100-foot ladder could safely reach all floors of the proposed buildings.”
EIR concludes: “Mitigation Measure: None required.”
According to Google Maps, the fastest time a vehicle can get from Hutchinson Hall (adjacent to the fire station at UCD) to Ikeda’s is 12 minutes…and that is with normal traffic. I hardly think that is a sufficient response time. I thought the standard was a maximum 5 minute response time? What does the fire chief say about a 12 minute response time? And it will certainly be far longer than 12 minutes with congested traffic.
I was just reminded that the city is actually purchasing a Ladder truck – it’s on for the long range calendar on November 10. The city believes it will fit on either Mace or Downtown with minor modifications. So this is a non-issue.
But that said – are you really using Google Maps to map emergency response time??? Do you have any expertise on this?
Did you happen to notice there is a four story hotel across the street from the project site? Did you raise this question then?
Out of curiosity Alan – why did you use Google maps rather than the city’s response time map to do the calculations? From the CityGate report, it appears that UC Davis can get to Mace in less than 8 minutes.
Well, that begs the question.
The city hasn’t decided how “large” it wants to be, and how much more sprawl it wants to accommodate. And, what the “purpose” is of doing so, especially when costs increase as a result.
An inevitable setup for ongoing fights, given that it’s not planned to house the majority of its workers. (Assuming it’s even viable beyond the stages which are subsidized by the onsite housing.)
As a result, DISC would exacerbate future conflicts.