CHAPTER 6

EXPOSING STONEGATE TO THE GOVERNMENT

As we researched Stonegate and uncovered serious safety concerns relating to development in the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI), we tried to get as much information from the federal, state and local governments and in turn inform them of the firetrap project being planned in North County. We hoped that when we presented government agencies with evidence of a poorly planned, dangerous development, we would find a receptive audience. We were grossly mistaken. We hoped that when government fire personnel and administrators received detailed information and facts about the project, they would be spurred to examine the safety and sanity of the development and act decisively. We contacted fire officials and officials on the federal, state and local levels to provide them with detailed research about the Stonegate development. The backdrop of the 2003 and 2007 San Diego County wildfires provided real life urgency to the fire danger concerns about development in highly fire-prone areas such as Stonegate/Merriam Mountain.

. 

Federal Contacts: The federal government under the Department of Interior (DOI) and the Department of Agriculture (DOA) concerns itself with wildland fire and its relationship to planning, safety, development, and education. There are divisions that specifically address the Wildland Urban Interface that is under the National Wildfire Coordinating Group (NWCG), whose purpose it is to coordinate the programs of all the wildfire management agencies. We contacted people in these federal agencies who were extremely concerned about the issues presented but said they could not be of assistance unless the development bordered on public (federal or state) lands. They were helpful in recommending further contacts at the state and local levels and forwarded a book published by the American Planning Association entitled  “Planning for Wildfires.”[1] This book provided a wealth of information and references in the rapidly changing area of the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI). The dangers of building in the WUI are well-known and documented. K. Stewart[2] wrote: “Planning boards are not sufficiently aware that they can’t change the environment to make it safe … they’re not accepting scientific facts about the nature of fires, and they’re trying to defend undefendable development.”

.

The final conclusion from our contact with federal administrators was that they knew wrong from right but were unable to impact decisions made at local levels even if these decisions were extremely dangerous. There was no mechanism. This situation existed despite the fact that the federal government often winds up getting called in---resulting in the spending hundreds of millions dollars a year in firefighting aid and relief---when a catastrophic wildfire occurs in a populated and ill-conceived development such as Stonegate in San Diego County.

.

WHAT IS WRONG AT CALFIRE?

. 

State Contacts: The federal contacts provided names of people to be contacted at the state level. Usually these people were either retired or active firefighters or members of the CDF (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection – now called CalFire).

CalFire is a state agency whose primary role is to take care of firefighting in the unincorporated areas of the state and the state forests. CalFire is extremely important with regard to Stonegate since this development happens to be situated in a State Responsibility Area. In a State Responsibility Area, CalFire has the responsibility to make sure that state laws are followed with respect to fire safety. The developer must satisfy the Public Resource Codes of California that require that a new development have a valid and adequate Fire Protection Plan.

In 1994, the Deer Springs Fire District Board contracted with CalFire to provide firefighting personnel for the District (paid for by a special tax surcharge charged to residents of the Deer Springs Fire District.) It was a murky, confusing chain of command. Small fires and EMT calls, as well as administrative matters, would be handled by the local CalFire employees who are overseen by the locally elected Fire District Board. Any large fire would be handled by the state. CalFire employees worked for the local district but they also worked for CalFire.

On the list of contacts were Ruben Grijalva, CDF Director; Thomas Hoffman, Chief of Fire Prevention and Pre-Fire Management; Candace Gregory, Chief Southern Operations; Charles Maner, San Diego County unit Chief; Tom Porter, San Diego Unit Forester; Kate Dargan, Chief Fire Marshal CDF; Wayne Mitchell,  Assistant Deputy Director, Fire Prevention and Planning and, of  course, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.  After speaking with several CalFire personnel, we quickly began to realize that the CalFire as an organization was not going to take any position regarding proposed development that was dangerous from a fire safety standpoint. It was a political hot potato that they were cautioned to drop. Lower-echelon CalFire personnel uniformly chose to refrain from any criticism or in any way take a stand against unsafe development.

It is eye-opening to examine a June 29, 2006 letter written by Craig Tolmie, PreFire Management Coordinator, on behalf of Candace Gregory, CalFire’s Chief of Southern Operations for the state of California. Tolmie wrote (with our comment following each of his statements):

.

·        “If the development is located within what is known as State Responsibility Area (SRA), i.e. the areas of the state where the Board of Forestry and Fire Protection has determined that the primary financial responsibility of preventing and suppressing wildland fires rests with the state (PRC 4125), CDF’s authority is to ensure the development and individual home construction is consistent with the standards of PRC 4290 - Fire Safety Standards."                                     

    Comment: Since Stonegate is located in a SRA, the CDF admits it has the financial responsibility of preventing and suppressing fires in this proposed development. 

·        “If the development is located outside of SRA, CDF does not have the statutory authority to review subdivision development plans."                                                                      

     Comment:  Stonegate is in a SRA and the CDF should review subdivision development plans and see if the Fire Protection Plan is in accordance with Article 86 of the California Fire Code – and thus adheres to the Public Resource Code of the State of California.

·        “CDF can only require compliance with the PRC. Local government, in this case the County of San Diego, is the responsible authority to determine appropriate land use and development standards/mitigations.”                                     

     Comment: But in this case it is the obligation of the CDF to make sure the PRC is complied with… and that means an adequate  Fire Protection Plan must be submitted. The project must not expose future residents to a significant risk of injury or death (as stated in the PRC via the Health and Safety codes). This has nothing to do with land use…it has only to do with fire safety, which is precisely within the jurisdiction of CalFire.

·        “Please bear in mind that if a subdivision is approved and built at the proposed Merriam Mountains site, the current composition and arrangement of vegetation shall be modified to reflect the applicable fuel reduction ordinances and or the PRC, whichever is more stringent. These standards have been increased by both the County of San Diego and the CDF within the last two years with the intent of increasing the protection for lives and property in the path of wildfire. CDF shall continue to be an active participant in the inspection of clearance around structures in the SRA."    

     Comment: Residents located in the path of a wildfire must be able to evacuate. Protection of life means the ability to evacuate and does not depend on additional feet of clearance or fuel reduction ordinances (i.e., flowers and trees that are planted).

·        “Regarding your concerns about the proposed evacuation plan for the Merriam Mountains development, the County of San Diego, through their Sheriff’s Office and the County Office of Emergency Services are the responsible authorities for evacuation of citizens in the event of emergency incidents or natural disasters. However, the technique of “shelter-in-place” is a concept that has been employed in Rancho Santa Fe, locally, and is used widely in Australia.”   

     Comment: “Shelter-in-place” has never been employed in any development in the United States in actual wildfire conditions. SIP exists on the books only in San Diego County in order to permit development in wildland areas where timely evacuation of large numbers of residents is known to be impossible. In Australia, the concept of SIP is employed for homes located in sparse settings in the outback and only where residents voluntarily choose to defend their homes by remaining behind to fight the oncoming wildfire. 

     That brand of SIP is a far cry from the notion of INVOLUNTARY Shelter-in-Place proposed for a massive, dense housing development (that includes among its residents many people who will not be able to tolerate fighting or living through a wildfire trauma, i.e., infants, children, the elderly and the medically infirm).  The Sheriff’s Office and the Office of Emergency Services mentioned by CalFire do not participate in either the planning or approval process for new developments. Therefore there is no agency assigned with determining whether evacuation will be possible. The Sheriff’s office and OES handle a crisis as best as they can in the event of an actual emergency.

     The Stonegate developer has readily admitted that the Stonegate project could not be evacuated in a timely manner in the event of a Santa Ana wind-driven wildfire starting in or near the development.                                                

     Is the CDF (CalFire) now stating that it advocates a policy of involuntary shelter-in-place as a means of protecting lives in a wildland fire? Is the CDF stating that it is acceptable for residents to be unable to evacuate?

·        “I am sure you are aware that the Deer Springs Fire Protection District has made arrangements for a special presentation by Cliff Hunter, the Fire Marshal of Rancho Santa Fe, on the topic [of SIP]. He will be providing information on the use of “Shelter-in-Place” concept as it applies to newly constructed communities in his jurisdiction. His presentation will be on Friday, June 20 at 3:00 PM at the Meadow Lake Golf Clubhouse; 10333 Meadow Glen Way East, Escondido.”  

    Comment: CalFire, a state agency, has referred us to a public relations presentation promoting the developers’ suspect and self-serving fire strategy,“Shelter-in-Place.” CalFire has no business endorsing this public relations effort on behalf of development interests.  

·        “In conclusion, CDF’s statutory authority does not allow CDF to prohibit development of private lands. Our authority is to ensure compliance with the Public Resource Code. Land use planning and development mitigations are the responsibility of local government. However, CDF shall remain an active participant in the review of this DRAFT “Fire Protection Plan for Merriam Mountains." Further, it is the responsibility of the Department to ensure the revisions proposed to the DRAFT Fire Protection Plan and the eventual “Final” Fire Protection Plan (should it be approved by the San Diego Department of Land Use and Planning) are in compliance with the Public Resource Code.”        

     Comment:  As will be shown, the CDF never became involved in assessing Stonegate’s Fire Protection Plan and never addressed the risk of injury or death to the residents of the Stonegate project in the scenario called Fire Condition One. Where is the CDF in following up on Stonegate’s Fire Protection Plan? Does the CDF really endorse the notion that people should remain in an open area outdoors within the project (one of the developer’s suggestions in the final FPP). If evacuation is not possible, then a project should not be approved because state law overrules the County’s right to designate land use if that designation jeopardizes public safety. CDF is not fulfilling its obligation to the people of California residing in a State Responsibility Area. CalFire wrongly fears that any critique on their part of a proposed development’s fire safety is an incursion into land use. Fire safety determination is precisely CDF’s jurisdiction, and the CDF should not fear making honest determinations on that account. The enormous political clout of developers and the building industry lobby in the state of California has cast a pall on state agencies’ ability and willingness to do their jobs.  This is a huge problem in the Wildland Urban Interface in State Responsibility Areas.

·       “If you have specific concerns regarding the Merriam Mountains development’s compliance with the Public Resource Code please contact San Diego Unit Chief Charles Maner at …”

                                                Sincerely Candace Gregory, Chief

                                                Southern Operations

                                                By: Craig Tolmie

                                                Pre-Fire Management Coordinator

In summary, the higher levels of the CDF did not wish to address the safety of the Stonegate development, even though it is located in CDF’s area of responsibility. CDF also chose to ignore the need for a Fire Protection Plan that insures that the building of a development would not constitute a significant risk for the destruction of property and/or the loss of life. CalFire refused to consider the inability to evacuate in the face of a wildland fire as within its purview, even though such inability would surely create a significant risk of injury or death to the residents of the development (and thus not be in compliance with the Public Resource Codes of the State).

.

We contacted Chuck Maner (San Diego County CalFire Chief) and followed up with a letter.[3] The letter contained a summary of all pertinent research regarding the fire dangers of Stonegate and the conclusion that Stonegate would be an ill-conceived and unsafe project from a fire safety perspective.

 Chief Maner sent back an e-mail stating what we now grew to expect:

.

“As the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF), I remind you that we have no jurisdiction in development of private land even in the area that we provide wildland fire protection. This is a County Planning Department issue, the CDF can only make recommendations and enforce the Public Resources Code after the structures are built.”       

.                                        

Apparently, Chief Maner lacks knowledge as to what a Public Resource Code is and specifically the requirement for a viable Fire Protection Plan. The FPP must be ruled upon before the structures are built. Maner’s response just demonstrated once again that CalFire was not living up to its responsibility to the public---and this is an organization that reports directly to the Governor of California. Everyone in the CDF feels that if they judge a development to be unsafe, then they are ruling on land use, which is out of their jurisdiction. That erroneous and misguided reasoning has dangerous consequences.

.

Local Contacts: We contacted the San Diego County Department of Planning and Land Use (DPLU) on numerous occasions. When we tried to speak to the County Fire Marshal in charge of Stonegate, he hung up the phone. William Stocks, the County’s Project Manager, was unable to answer pertinent questions and could not comment on the safety concerns but could only defray questions. As will be shown, the County Planning Unit squirmed and twisted to follow orders from above and escort Stonegate’s proposal through the lower-tier approval process in order to get it to the County Board of Supervisors.  No one at the Planning Department wanted to listen because it would interfere with approval of a dangerous project when the orders from above were to approve the project. The DPLU functioned as a convenient shield for the Supervisors, insulating them from the public. The DPLU was not able to act as a competent deliberative agency because the Supervisors’ agendas would not permit it.