Fire safety concerns at the Cherry Blossom Townhomes

Read the memo to Portland Fire & Rescue as a PDF:

Executive Summary

After receiving a complaint from a homeowner at the Cherry Blossom Townhomes, the Ombudsman investigated their concerns about fire safety at the complex and the Fire Bureau’s process of approving the building plans.

We found that Fire poorly documented the decisions made during the plans approval process. We also found that the current practice of parking vehicles on a portion of the access road and sidewalks could impede rescue efforts in an emergency.

Fire officials have expressed confidence that they can respond to an emergency and that homeowners are safe. But they have sent mixed messages in their communications with homeowners, who remain concerned and want Fire to provide clarity and assurances about their safety. Fire has yet to formally recommend that the homeowners association change parking practices that effectively leave the access road below the minimum 20-foot width required by the Fire Code.

To address homeowner concerns, we recommend that the Fire Bureau document in writing how it can safely respond to a fire at the complex and what steps it recommends the homeowners association take to ensure fire truck access. We also recommend that the Fire Bureau hold a community meeting to provide homeowners with an opportunity to ask questions.

Introduction

In July 2024, a homeowner at a Southeast Portland affordable housing complex, Cherry Blossom Townhomes, reached out to the Ombudsman because they believed their home was unsafe. They said the City allowed the 31-unit complex to be built below Fire Code standards by not requiring an automatic sprinkler system to protect homeowners in the event of a fire. The community member said they had raised their concerns with the Fire Bureau, which was slow to respond, often ignored them, and repeatedly downplayed the issues they raised.

To determine whether the homeowners’ concerns about fire safety at the complex were substantiated, the Ombudsman launched an investigation that involved reviewing the process by which the Fire Bureau approved the Cherry Blossom building plans. We also interviewed multiple Fire officials, homeowners, and the architect, and examined the conditions on the ground at the housing complex today.

This memo summarizes the Ombudsman’s investigation into concerns about the Fire Bureau’s approval of the Cherry Blossom Townhomes plans. It also presents our findings and recommendations.

Background

Cherry Blossom Townhomes is a 31-unit affordable condominium development built by Habitat for Humanity in the Gateway District of Southeast Portland. The first homeowners began moving into homes in late 2022 and construction was completed in 2023.

Portland Fire & Rescue’s mission is to keep all communities safe from emergencies. Fire officials review building plans to ensure that they comply with the Fire Code. Modifications may be allowed if safety is not compromised. An administrative appeals board typically reviews plans that deviate from a strict reading of the standards outlined in the Fire Code. The Cherry Blossom Townhomes plans were approved without going through an administrative appeal.

Figure 1. The Cherry Blossom Townhomes complex has mostly attached townhomes

In October 2023, a new owner of one of the townhomes reached out to the Fire Bureau with concerns about fire safety at the complex. Over the next eight months, the homeowner raised questions with officials from Fire and from Portland Permitting & Development.

A Fire official provided the homeowner with a document that was particularly concerning: the fire safety check sheet from November 2019, one month before the final plans were approved. On the check sheet, a Fire plans examiner stated that several items were “in apparent violation” of specific Fire Code requirements, including requirements for the width of the access road, a turnaround in the access road, and the distance of the nearest hydrant to the complex.

On December 20, 2019, the architect responded and stated that the buildings were under the height that triggered the plans examiner’s concerns about the width of the access road. In addition, the architect pointed out that the distance between the fire hydrant and the end of the access road was well below the minimum required.

The next day, another Fire plans examiner sent an email questioning the architect’s contention that all the issues raised in November had been resolved. The architect responded that they believed the access road requirements didn’t apply because the buildings were under the height limit and requested a phone call.

On December 31, 2019, the Fire Bureau approved the plans without further documentation. For the homeowner, this raised questions about whether and how the examiners’ concerns about compliance with the Fire Code were addressed.

Investigation Findings

Our investigation identified concerns regarding building height, access road length, parking practices, and Fire officials’ responses to community members. Fire initially flagged questions about compliance with Fire Code requirements that are based on building height and access road length but approved the plans without changes or written explanation. Currently, parking on the paver portion of the access road and on the sidewalks could create challenges for firefighters in the event of a fire. And we found that Fire’s inconsistent, slow communication left homeowners without clear answers to their important questions.

The building height could have triggered the requirement to accommodate a truck with an extendable ladder or an alternative that includes an automatic sprinkler system

According to the Fire Code, if a building is 30 feet high or less, a 20-foot-wide access road is required. This road width allows for the use of ground ladders for fighting a fire. If the building is taller than 30 feet, a 26-foot-wide access road is necessary to accommodate a truck with a longer, extendable ladder, known as an aerial ladder truck. An aerial ladder truck needs a wider access road because it uses six-foot braces on either side for stability when the ladder is extended.

The Fire plans examiner’s notes on the fire safety check sheet in November 2019 indicated that the building appeared to be taller than 30 feet and therefore a 26-foot access road or alternates were required. Alternates to the 26-foot access road include an automatic sprinkler system. 

The building plans clearly stated that the top of the building is 31 feet 9 inches from the ground. However, the 2016 Fire Code, the code in place at the time, allowed for a different measurement. The Code stated, “For purposes of this section, the highest roof surface shall be determined by the measurement to the eave of a pitched roof, the intersection of the roof to the exterior wall, or the top of the parapet walls, whichever is greater.”

The Cherry Blossom roof is flat and does not have a parapet. The architect measured from the ground to the average height of the intersection of the roof and the exterior wall and reported that to be under 30 feet.

The 2021 Fire Code revised the section on measuring the height of buildings. Under the new language, the Cherry Blossom Townhomes would measure over 30 feet. As a result, today’s Fire Code would require a 26-foot-wide access road to accommodate an aerial ladder truck, or the installation of an automatic sprinkler system as part of an alternative.

There is no written record indicating why the Fire plans examiner changed their initial position, but the plans were approved without an automatic sprinkler system and Fire has since measured the access road as less than 25 feet wide, less than the required width for an aerial ladder truck.

In June 2024, eight months after the homeowner first reported their concerns, Fire brought a ladder truck to the Cherry Blossom Townhomes and examined the conditions on site. Firefighters determined that some of the buildings were too tall to follow best practices for ground ladders. When ground ladders aren’t long enough, firefighters deploy an aerial ladder truck in the event of an emergency.

Figure 2. A site visit from the Fire Bureau confirmed that using ground ladders would not follow best practices for fighting a fire at Cherry Blossom Townhomes

Parking on the access road and sidewalks raises additional concerns

Homeowners park their vehicles on the paver portion of the access road and on the sidewalks. With parking on the road and sidewalks, the access road is reduced to 17 feet wide. Although that is sufficiently wide to accommodate a 12-foot aerial ladder truck, it does not leave room for the truck’s six-foot braces that extend on each side for stability, which would increase the minimum needed access to 18 feet.

The Ombudsman visited the Cherry Blossom Townhomes in early 2025 and found 16 vehicles parked on the paver portion of the access road and on sidewalks late on a Monday morning. It is reasonable to believe that even more vehicles are typically parked at night when most people are home from work and school.

Fire officials noted that the aerial ladder truck can remain stable with a single brace and that they can extend a brace between parked vehicles if needed. They acknowledged that the parking practices on site were far from ideal but expressed confidence in their ability to subdue a fire and keep homeowners safe. While we have no reason to doubt this, it is understandable that homeowners might still find the situation concerning.

Figure 3. Parked vehicles could reduce the space available for an aerial ladder truck in the event of a fire

The access road length could have triggered the requirement for a turnaround

In the November 2019 fire safety check sheet, the Fire plans examiner flagged a section of the Fire Code that dead-end access roads more than 300 feet long “shall be provided with an approved turnaround.” A turnaround allows fire trucks to safely turn around without having to reverse for long distances, which could delay emergency response times. A turnaround also allows for efficient Fire vehicle access and maneuverability.

 Rules in place at the time the Cherry Blossom Townhomes were built were inconsistent regarding when the length of an access road requires a turnaround. The 2016 Fire Code, which was in effect at the time, said dead-end fire apparatus access roads longer than 150 feet require a turnaround. However, a 2015 Fire Bureau guide said dead-end fire apparatus access roads longer than 300 feet require a turnaround. The discrepancy remains in the 2021 Fire Code, where the relevant section of the code refers to 150 feet, but the appendix refers to 300 feet. Fire officials told the Ombudsman that the Bureau adopted the 300-foot rule as a local provision. 

The architect’s response did not appear to address the access road length requirement, instead focusing on the building height.

The Ombudsman reached out to the architect, who said that in the plans the access road measured less than 300 feet. The architect added that a shorter service road that forks off the main access road could function if needed as a “Y” alternative to a turnaround, which the Fire guide includes as one of the acceptable alternatives to a turnaround. The architect also maintained that this fork in the road effectively reduces the total length of the access road.

In response to the Ombudsman’s investigation, Fire officials said the fork meets the Code requirements. But the lack of written documentation by Fire during the approval process in late 2019 makes it difficult to assess whether the architect’s explanation was what led to the configuration being approved without a turnaround at the end of the access road.

Figure 4. As measured on Google Maps, the dead-end access road is long enough to require a turnaround

Fire officials responded to homeowners inconsistently and without clarity

After the homeowner initially raised concerns, seven months elapsed before an inspector visited the Cherry Blossom Townhomes to meet with them. It was another month before a Fire inspector measured the access road. At that time, the inspector expressed alarm. According to a recording of a phone call provided by the homeowner, the inspector said, “the place wasn’t built right” and “the street wasn’t wide enough.”

The homeowner also tried to speak to the plans examiner who approved the Cherry Blossom plans and said the plans examiner was dismissive and unprofessional. The homeowner said that a senior Fire inspector initially promised a full investigation, while the Fire Marshal’s office has largely told them there is nothing to worry about.

The lack of responsiveness and clear communication from Fire has contributed to homeowners feeling frustrated and concerned about their safety.

Members of the homeowners association also expressed frustration. At one point, Fire officials told them they only needed to prohibit parking on some portions of the sidewalks, but at another point told them that they didn’t need to do anything. A Fire official also told the homeowners association that Fire would be sending out an “information/formal letter regarding parking issues,” but never did.

A homeowner also learned that the Fire plans examiner who reviewed the project in 2019 later expressed surprise that units were completed without an automatic sprinkler system. This seemed to confirm the resident’s fear that the approval process was flawed.

Conclusion

Cherry Blossom Townhomes residents are understandably confused and concerned about the safety of their homes. The lack of documentation around Fire’s approval of the Cherry Blossom plans raised unanswered questions about the access road and the decision not to require an automatic sprinkler system that Fire initially indicated might be necessary, among other issues. The Bureau’s responses have not helped assuage the concerns of homeowners and inconsistent answers have aggravated fears about safety at the complex.

We accept the Fire Bureau’s assurances that homeowners are safe and that they can respond to an emergency. However, the parking of cars on the paver portion of the access road and on the sidewalks presents challenges to an emergency response, and Fire officials have yet to adequately address this situation.

We also believe that the homeowners deserve more than general assurances given the pattern of unclear and inconsistent responses to their important questions.

Recommendations

To take responsibility for the poorly documented process by which the Cherry Blossom plans were approved after plans examiners initially flagged questions about Fire Code compliance, and to provide homeowners with clear reassurances of their safety in the event of a fire, we recommend that the Fire Bureau:

1. Document in writing how firefighters can respond to a fire at the site.
2. Make recommendations in writing concerning vehicles parking on the paver portion of the access road and sidewalks, as well as any other identified safety improvements.
3. Conduct a community meeting to allow homeowners to ask questions about fire safety.