|
LIAR! LIAR! County's on FIRE! |
|
Early Release Chapter 1 Santa Ana winds start blowing at 70+ mph after a prolonged drought with
single-digit humidity on a hot day. An arsonist for whatever reason lights a fire, or a motorbike misfires, or children are
playing with matches at the base of the Merriam Mountains in North San Diego County. A fire starts and burns rapidly and intensely
up the mountain associated with dense smoke, heat, embers, noise and flames creating a terrifying picture. There are 10,000
to 13,000 people in their homes up on Merriam Mountain, in the parks, in the woods or on the roads. Of course, there would be
no time for evacuation of so many people. The roads through the natural habitat would not be passable. The major egress roads
would become immediately clogged in poor visibility and, as in late evacuation, accidents would occur. There would be panic
in trying to find and protect loved ones. Windows would not all be closed and some homes would catch fire from embers. The
sparse amount of fire personnel would be helpless in fighting an urban fire in the midst of a massive wildland fire intermingled
with thousands of residents needing help. Everyone would be at the mercy of the fire. There would not be enough time (less
than 15 minutes) for any effective coordination by the government, law enforcement, fire personnel or the population to deal
with the event. The roads of all the surrounding areas would become immediately clogged and the potential evacuation of anyone
in the Twin Oaks, Hidden Meadows and Deer Springs area would be compromised. The only sorry conclusion
that could be made in such a scenario is that the proposed Stonegate development should never have been
built because of this specific potential danger and the resultant massive injury and loss of life that would occur. The politics of fire can be defined as the intersection of economic interests of developers,
the political system and all its faults, the potential for wildland fire, and the safety of the public. What makes the politics
of fire in San Diego County so unique is that it crosses a line that now places the safety of the public below the interests
of the developers. In order for that to occur, the political system has to fail in its number one priority, which is the regulation
of the protection of the public. The County, State and Federal governments have as of the present time stood
idly by watching the events unfold. The massive wildfires of 2003 in San Diego served as a wake-up call. The wildfires of
2007 once again confirmed how dangerous San Diego County wildfires could be and how ineffective the government has
been in preventing widespread and costly destruction of property. The California wildfires of 2007 showed dramatic evidence
of how the winds and the climate controlled the fate of what would happen in a wildfire and not the firefighters. So far,
human life has been largely preserved because everyone has been able to evacuate in the face of wildfire. That is about to
change. This is highlighted by the proposed building of one particular development in San Diego North County called Stonegate/Merriam
Mountains (which we will call Stonegate, the name of the original group of land speculators).
This development has not been formally approved as yet but reading this book will convince any reader why it is on a track
for approval despite overwhelming evidence that is unsafe and could easily result in the deaths of hundreds or thousands of
people in addition to the destruction of millions if not billions of dollars of property. The proposed Stonegate development
will serve as an example just how distorted and corrupted the government has become when common sense is ignored and
special interests are permitted to run amok. The County has purposefully and willfully neglected the implications of wildland
fire by allowing development to take place that is uninhibited by safety considerations. It is important to tell this story
in order to influence and change the way development in the wildland-urban interface (WUI)[2] will take place in the future. Perhaps then the Governor of California will not impose extra
taxes on the population for firefighting and fire relief while at the same time enabling future fire catastrophes to be more
likely. Perhaps the Federal Government would not have to bail out those who suffered disasters caused by wildland fire if
they did not ignore the danger that has now become out of control by allowing developers to build in San Diego’s most
fire-hazardous areas in plain defiance of the principles and concepts of San Diego County's General Plan[3]. Most people do not consider fire to be a significant hazard to their safety and property
so long as they take certain basic precautions and follow most safety rules. People rightly consider fire personnel to be
very well trained to extinguish fires and deal effectively with a host of emergencies. Most fires are either localized to
individual buildings or occur far away from populated areas and usually do not affect the average citizen. In the wildland-urban
interface (WUI), where Stonegate will be located, a new problem will confront a homeowner. Suddenly, there is no guarantee
that a fire that starts close by in the wildland (forest land or in a mountainous area covered by chaparral) will be easily
contained. In San Diego, climatologic conditions (a combination of high pressure and low pressure areas
several hundred miles away) can cause gale force winds to blow from the east toward the west. These Santa Ana winds (that
can be upwards of 70 mph) bring the hot dry desert wind to an area that has accumulated dry vegetation (fuel) in a drought
situation. Added to this is the problem of extremely sloped land with canyons and mountains that enable fire to spread at
very fast speeds (up to 100 mph). Firefighters are at the mercy of the weather conditions and cannot contain a wildfire
unless the winds abate. All firefighting modalities (local, state and federal) become involved to try to contain the fire
and help save structures and people when necessary. The point is clear that a fire in the WUI will threaten many areas and
requires complete cooperation from many firefighting sources and still the fire may spread easily and unpredictably[4]. It may require mass and urgent evacuation in a similar fashion to what occurred in October
of 2007 in San Diego. A fire occurring in what is called the Wildland-Urban interface is totally different from a typical
urban building fire and requires a whole different approach to protect the lives and safety of those who live in the WUI.
Evacuation must be assured in the planning of large dense developments in the midst of high fire-hazard severity zones. The County of San Diego has five supervisors, each elected for a four-year term (with no limit
on the number of terms served). Each Supervisor represents a different region within the county. The Board of Supervisors
is the governmental body that rules on land use and decides whether a developer is granted the right to build a new housing
project by voting to approve a "General Plan Amendment"[5]. The Board has the final say unless its decision is challenged in court.
Ideally, the Board should vote in accordance with and respect for existing law, exercising some discretion in special
situations. They should be helped by the experts of the planning department (Department of Planning and Land Use –DPLU[6]) who will make a recommendation. They must consider the Environmental Impact
Report[7] (EIR) and the public comments, and their general knowledge of their responsibilities
under the law. They are not supposed to be influenced by campaign contributions made by developers or behind-the-scenes deals
made with developers. They all should vote independently according to the merits of the project. It is well known
in San Diego County that if a Supervisor wants a project in his area, the other four Supervisors will agree lest they not
be able to gain approval of their own pet projects. The Stonegate development is a proposal to build 2,700 homes on a pad size of
approximately 400 acres in a rugged, mountainous and rural part of North San Diego County. The development will contain
between 10,000 to 13,000 people[8] and will include approximately 2500 acres of which approximately 1200 acres will be
left in its present state of natural biological habitat. This habitat is covered with and surrounded by thick chaparral
(a highly combustible fuel) that has been building up for 100 years, thereby creating
a gigantic fuel source for a wildland fire. The site is highly mountainous with 80% of the mountain having a slope of 25%
or greater[10](navigeable only by a mountain goat). The site has been evaluated by the State
of California and has been designated a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone[11]. The site has actually been implicated in two scenarios for a potential devastating
wildfire by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection[12]. The developer has unequivocally admitted in writing that in a fast-moving fire starting
within the boundaries of the project or nearby adjacent areas, evacuation would be impossible because of the extreme
rate of burning[13]. It is the intention of
this book to show that this proposed development is inherently unsafe to build yet it is being pushed through the approval
process because of corruption within the San Diego County government with complicity of the two developers (Stonegate and
Newland Communities). The Federal and State governments have done nothing as yet to question the safety of the development
although they have been alerted to the danger of Stonegate and it is within their purview of responsibility (the land on which
the development is to be built is in a State Responsibility Area[14] {SRA}) to make sure this would be a safe development. The Governor of the State of
California has already asked for an assessment to be paid by residents of the state specifically for fire fighting in the
wildland but has done nothing to investigate a potential disaster by allowing building in the WUI to occur without the ability
to evacuate (against provisions in state law since this would entail a significant risk to the residents of the project). The Stonegate
development proposal has been around since the year 2000 when a group of land speculators from Orange County decided to try
to build a housing development on a steep rocky barren area called Merriam Mountains in a rural area of North San Diego County
called Twin Oaks Valley. There were equestrian and agricultural activities located in this area with sparse residences. The
principal zoning on Merriam Mountain with respect to San Diego's General Plan (GP) was 1 house for every 20 acres
over the vast majority of this mountainous site. The infrastructure with respect to roads was limited with a 2-lane road
called Deer Springs Road that intersects with another 2-lane road called Twin Oaks Road. This serves most of the circulation
needs of the area. The area is bounded on one side by I-15 to the East and the city of Vista and San Marcos to the west and
south. Another rural area (Bonsall) borders this area on the north. Stonegate consisted of
investors who decided to speculate on land on Merriam Mountain (the present zoning combined with the rugged terrain made the
land almost worthless), then change the zoning through a General Plan Amendment and thus gain the right to build an enormous housing
development in the midst of rugged mountainous terrain. They could then choose to build the homes themselves or sell the rights
to build homes to other developers. The Stonegate speculators started by buying options on the land and purchasing outright
certain key areas that would serve as ingress or egress areas to the development. On October 5, 2000 the
Stonegate speculators applied for a Plan Amendment Authorization[15] (PAA) to develop Merriam Mountains and called their project Montechez. The proposal
consisted of 434 units and was opposed by the Twin Oaks Sponsor Group[16] that prepared a lengthy and fully documented dissertation why the PAA should not be
granted. This opposition was based on the facts that the General Plan conformity was not adequate and the environmental effects
would violate the California Environmental Quality Act[17] (CEQA). In February of 2001 the PAA was withdrawn by Stonegate. On July
28, 2003 Stonegate submitted a new PAA now proposing a six-fold increase of units to 2,391
homes. All the Sponsor Groups involved reiterated their strong and even more vehement opposition. On Sept 11, 2003 (despite
all three local sponsor groups' strong recommendations of rejection), the County's Department of Planning and Land Use granted
Stonegate the right to present a Specific Plan as the first step toward a General Plan Amendment. Specific Plan (SP):
This is basically an outline of the proposed way the General Plan (GP) will be amended and a description of the development
to be built. It serves as a building block on which the County, the Sponsor Groups, and other special groups (such as a Fire
District), can add their input and allow the developer to modify and alter specific areas of the plan to comply with safety
and the law. The Specific Plan contains a separate chapter on its required conformance to the General Plan. In July 2004 Stonegate submitted its Specific Plan to
the County asking to build 2,391 units and all three Sponsor Groups again unanimously voted to recommend rejection of the
project. On January 19, 2006 Stonegate submitted a revised
Specific Plan now wanting to build 2,700 units despite unanimous rejection by the communities of the 2,391-unit proposal. How
can a project that was so opposed at 434 units return as a 2,391 unit project proposal and then despite vehement opposition
return as a 2,700 unit proposal? A rare insight can be gained into the scheme of the developer and what happens behind
closed doors by examining “the Stonegate Papers”[18]. What is even more notable is that the political processes at work are not deterred
by the fact that the project has grown to such a huge size that the future safety of its residents are now seriously jeopardized
because of the inability to evacuate in a wildland fire. These papers were subpoenaed in a matter concerning redistricting of San Diego County. In the
“net” of that subpoena, a set of letters between the Stonegate President (Mr. Gordon Youde) and several people
working for Stonegate happened to be revealed. The excerpts are taken from those letters. The entire set of papers are referenced
in the Appendix. Comment: the slope of the land is related to the density of housing that can be safely
built for a host of reasons (among them evacuation in case of fire). Stonegate said the max is 500-600 yet the project has
now grown to 2,700. Upon reading the Stonegate papers, it
becomes obvious that San Diego County government's approval process for new development has utterly ignored public
safety. The process has been subverted by developers who direct the County Supervisors to approve unsafe and dangerous
development plans. The fact that large sums of money are paid by developers to the Supervisors for their "re-election"
(and whatever else) is even brazenly out in the open and reported in the papers. The Supervisors continue to approve developments
in extreme high fire-severity areas where evacuation is not possible. There is no concern about building safe
development nor is there concern about the community’s objection (e.g., we will...“shove it down their throats”).
The community's objections voiced along the way are considered to be mere noise and nuisance (e.g.,“it will be
a horrible process”). As long as any changes required in the project are minor to the developer (and this will
be controlled by the Supervisors), the project will proceed through the system and when it gets to the Supervisors, “you
will have the votes." If the public does not become involved, the proposed Stonegate development will sail through. THE COMMUNITY BECOMES INVOLVED Several concerned community
members attended a meeting in January, 2006 and were first introduced to Stonegate. A sign had appeared on Deer Springs Road
(a road in Twin Oaks), traveled by us frequently, stating that a development was planned but we had taken no particular notice
or care (not unlike many other residents.) Stonegate would be built approximately 3 miles from the adjoining communities of
Champagne Village, Hidden Meadows, Deer Springs and Bonsall. At first, Stonegate seemed to pose no serious threat to
our immediate surroundings but we did not know much about the development. We heard that the Stonegate developers would
be presenting to the Bonsall Sponsor Group to inform that group what Stonegate had planned. We, at that point, believed that
all development would have to go through hurdles to comply with existing laws and that our political leaders would have the
safety of the public foremost in their mind followed by a due diligence to carry out the duties of their office. At
the Bonsall meeting, the history of the Stonegate proposal was reviewed. It was revealed that Stonegate had just increased
the proposed number of housing units from 2,391 to 2,700, although the previous proposals for 434 and 2,391 units had been
soundly rejected by all the sponsor groups. When Stonegate spokesman Joseph Perring appeared, accompanied by an entourage
of people, it was clear what was occurring. In his presentation there was an arrogance and confidence that he was presenting
a “fait accompli." He did not care that this was an outrageous proposal that had been rejected previously at a
vastly lower number of proposed housing units. He did not address concerns about the density of the project and how it
did not come close to conforming to the General Plan. The group with him continued to giggle and joke among themselves. It
seemed as if they were mocking the Sponsor Group and its audience and were making fun of the group’s feeble attempts
to object to their project. It was obvious that this developer was just going through the motions of presenting the project
with little care as to the outrageous nature of the project. We learned that the developer was confident that this project would be approved
no matter what, that the Sponsor Groups had little influence, and that members of the community were not represented in their opposition
to developers building poorly planned, over-dense and dangerous developments. We also learned that it was the developers'
tactic to divide and weaken community opposition by targeting individual community members and catering to their "special
interests." We went to another sponsor group meeting at Hidden Meadows
where we learned about the fire danger of Stonegate. One member talked about the speed and intensity of a fire in Merriam
Mountains given the enormous amount of fuel surrounding the development and the steepness of the terrain. It wasn't long before we realized that the developer
was building a firetrap of gargantuan proportions and no one effectively
opposed the danger of this project. Fire was not even included as a serious concern the development may face in a list
compiled by the developer. We had our focus, were angered by what we saw and we began our research. [1] The developer has found through telephone surveys that the name Stonegate had become
associated with fire danger because of all the controversy surrounding this development. Although originally called Stonegate/Merriam
Mountains, the developer thought it best to drop the Stonegate from the name. We thought it best to retain that name. [2] The Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI): This can be defined as the area where development
abuts on or is intermingled with the wildland that can be forests or mountainous terrain covered with flammable chaparral.
The wildland, because of its rugged terrain, poor infrastructure, and flammable fuel load, represent different and unusual
problems with respect to controlling fire. This can be exacerbated by climatologic events such as gale-force winds (the Santa
Anas) and extremely low humidity (in the single digits) which can and does occur in San Diego County. Living and building
in the WUI has now attracted attention from all levels of government because of the expenditures of money and resources to
protect residents who wish to live in these areas. [3] General Plan: Every 20 years a plan is supposed to be approved at the County level
which is a blueprint for how development should proceed within the County. It takes into account population growth, traffic,
water resources, safety, agricultural needs, preservation of natural resources and a whole gamut of variables to anticipate
the future and work within the framework of topographical constraints and available infrastructure. There are many experts
from different areas all contributing to and influencing the final result. This is then evaluated by the elected County Supervisors
(five of them representing different parts of the county) who then approve or disapprove the plan for various reasons
and may wish to modify it in some way. This plan (called the General Plan) will set zoning (how many houses can be built in
a prescribed area) and land use (how the land may be used – residential, commercial, agricultural, etc). General Plan
20/20 has been delayed for 8 years at the level of the Board of Supervisors of San Diego County. [4] MCS-Southern California Firestorm 2003 (Report for the Wildland Fire Lessons Learned
Center) p 4-7. Introduction to Wildland Fire Pyne, Andrews, Laven p311. Fire Suppression Foundation Doctrine
June 2005, p10. [5]General Plan Amendment (GPA): The purpose of an amendment is to
allow developers to build on a parcel of land in a manner that may not exactly fit the General Plan but serve the general
good of the community. An amendment was never intended to completely subvert the intentions of the General Plan. In fact,
in order for an amendment to be passed legally it must go through a rigorous evaluation by the County’s
agencies and comply with State Law for amending a General Plan (which includes a test of conformity to the General Plan).
[6] Department of Planning and
Land Use (DPLU): This governmental agency is directly under the control of the Board of Supervisors and provides the expertise
in evaluating new developments, planning, traffic circulation, etc and coordinates activities so that the Supervisors can
make well informed decisions knowing that the State Laws have been satisfied. The Supervisors can take their cue from the
DPLU’s recommendations but can still vote how they wish. Unfortunately, the DPLU employees (essentially everyone who
works for the DPLU is a County employee) have job security and promotions to consider when speaking out against or for a particular
development. In no way are decisions made independently. For instance, there is ample evidence that the Stonegate development
was pushed through the DPLU by the Supervisors. The Supervisors wanted a chance to vote on the project and did not want the
project quashed at a lower level. [7] EIR (Environmental Impact Report) – a state requirement of a developer to publish
a document (the EIR) stating what the adverse environmental impacts of a development will be. [8] Merriam Mountains Evacuation Plan as part of the July Final 2005
Fire Protection Plan; Appendix E p.3. the statement is made that the project will contain 9,000 to 12,000
residents - the project size at that time was 2,391 units. By extrapolating the new size of 2,700 units,
the population would now be between 10,163-13,550 residents. [9] EIR of Stonegate Subchapter 3.3 p.4 [10] University Center for Atmospheric Research: www.ucar.edu/communications/factsheets/wildfires.html [11] California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, San Diego Unit, Pre Fire Management
Plan, 2005, p.42. [12] “Preparing for the Worst” by Michael Burge, San Diego Union Tribune, March
28, 2004 [13] Stonegate’s Conceptual Wildfire Life Safety & Sheltering Report –Draft
– June 6, 2006 [14] FRAP MAP Calfire [15]Plan Amendment Authorization (PAA): When a new development is first
considered, a preliminary presentation is made to the county planning department to see if it fits the parameters of the State’s
and County’s rules and regulations. If the project is too outlandish, the county will save the developer time and money
and reject the development outright and disapprove a PAA. [16]Sponsor Groups: In each unincorporated area of San Diego County
there are members of the community who are appointed and approved by the Board of Supervisors to be on an advisory panel called
the Sponsor Group. This supposedly allows a means of communication between the community and the Supervisors regarding potential
decisions that may affect the individual communities. A large development such as Stonegate would have drastic
effects on three adjoining rural communities (Twin Oaks being the most affected) and the thinking would be that the Supervisors
would want to know how the residents of Twin Oaks would be affected by the placement of this development in their midst. The
system has turned out to be a means of allowing the Supervisors to gain some credibility for the idea that the Supervisors
are respectful of the wishes and concerns of the community. They indeed will respond to the community’s wishes as long
as it does not interfere with their own personal agendas. However, if the personal agenda of the Supervisor of an area differs
from those of outspoken members of the sponsor group, then those members may be dismissed from their positions.
In fact, in the Bonsall sponsor group, members of the panel were actually fired because they impeded the plans of Supervisor
Bill Horn. We heard Sponsor Group chairmen lament that they could not be too vocal about the community’s wishes
for fear of being fired from their position. At times, however, the Sponsor Group will state that a development was egregious
and ill-suited (such as Stonegate) and they would voice strong disapproval (the community would be strongly upset if they
did not). The Supervisors would generally ignore the community if they had already decided that a project is going to be approved.
The true power of the Sponsor Group manifested when some small-time developer wanted to gain approval for a small project
where the Supervisors did not have much interest. In this case, the recommendation of the Sponsor Group carried some weight.
The Chairmen of the Sponsor Groups would many times reflect the community’s opposition to a project but their voice
would be blunted by their special relationship with the Supervisors. The Sponsor Group meetings are usually poorly attended
and represent going through the motions with little relevance to what the Supervisors decide on big issues. It is important
to remember that the Sponsor Group members MAY NOT REPRESENT the community because they are pre-selected and/or approved by
the Supervisors and can be fired by the Supervisors. The three Sponsor Groups representing areas that border the Stonegate
project are Twin Oaks, Bonsall and Hidden Meadows. [17]California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA ): CEQA embodies the
state laws that must be followed to amend a general plan. These laws undergo constant revision and are steeped in legal jargon
which make it more difficult for the community to participate effectively. However, as part of CEQA, there are policies that
have been developed reflecting the decisions the courts have made from challenges against developments. These policies (decisions)
are now considered to be implicit in CEQA. These policies are stated in layman’s terms and may be as straightforward
and simple as to state that the public must be protected and should be considered as part of the environment. [18] These were subpoenaed documents in an unrelated area that became public documents.
They consist mainly of letters written by the President of Stonegate to a land broker which were not supposed to be public
and therefore give a rare insight to what is happening behind the scenes. |