PD Editorial: Developers can’t just brush aside fire risk anymore

Lake County officials hoped that a proposed luxury resort could provide an economic boost to the struggling county by growing the tax base, bringing in tourist dollars and providing local jobs. Not so fast, said a judge this month. Economic development is all well and good, but the county needs to consider wildfire dangers.

The 25-square-mile Guenoc Valley project, with its easy access to Wine Country, certainly sounded swank. It was going to include five boutique hotels, resort apartments and 1,400 estate villas. Guests wouldn’t want for activities between a golf course, polo fields, equestrian centers, a spa and wellness facility and a shopping area.

County leaders desperate for economic development salivated, and Lake County supervisors certified the required environmental impact report.

That wasn’t the end of it, though. As is often the case with these sorts of projects, a lawsuit followed. The nonprofit Center for Biological Diversity challenged the certification of the environmental impact report. The state attorney general joined the lawsuit.

This month, a Superior Court judge sided with the challengers. More accurately, he sided with them on a couple of points, which were enough to scuttle the project unless the developers make changes.

The judge’s concerns came down to wildfires. The land for the project has seen multiple fires over the years, most recently as part of the 2020 LNU Complex fire, which burned 363,220 acres across multiple counties. Building there would require mitigating the risk.

In a lot of ways, the proposal did just that. Utility lines would be buried. Firebreaks would help contain any blaze. There would be an on-site fire station and helipad. And buildings would have exterior sprinkler systems. Would that more projects were so fire-conscious.

Where the developers’ plan failed was in evacuations. Residents and guests might be able to escape a fire, but the environmental impact report hadn’t sufficiently considered whether fleeing people might get in the way of fleeing neighbors. The resort would add an estimated 4,070 residents in an area where about 10,000 people already live. Local roads might not be able to handle 40% more people trying to escape a fire.

“The hazards of a wildfire are certainly exacerbated if community residents are unable to evacuate safely due to congested evacuation routes,” the judge wrote.

Less convincing was an argument that the resort needed to justify not being closer to public transit to cut down on greenhouse gas emissions. As if people visiting a resort are going to ride a bus to the polo fields or golf course.

Recognizing that wildfire mitigation and risk extend beyond a project site is key to future development in a state that is only getting more fire-prone thanks to drought and climate change. Santa Rosa will face similar considerations as it reviews future plans for the Chanate Road campus sold recently by the county to a Las Vegas developer.

People are entitled to rebuild after a fire, and economic development is important, especially in struggling rural areas. But fire safety must be upfront in land use planning, both during local review and under state rules. And that planning extends beyond the boundaries of the project. Fire risk and mitigation affect an entire community, not just one piece of developable land.

You can send letters to the editor to letters@pressdemocrat.com.