Fire danger in Kittitas County II

Some background (we'll get to the fire danger part soon): during run-up to the mortgage bubble, Kittitas county came under intense development pressure. This led to a number of hasty decisions and policy changes on the part of county government. The development boom also funneled money from real estate developers, builders, and land use attorneys into the campaigns of all sitting county commissioners; this effect on county government started late in the previous century and continues to this day.

The influence of real estate developers has had several unfortunate policy impacts, some of which, like access road requirements, increase the danger to residents and firefighters in the event of a wildfire like the one we're experiencing now. The most desirable land for development is in forested areas, but the problem extends county-wide. One example is the Tumble Creek development in Suncadia, the subject of my last post. That most expensive development in the county is served by only one county-standard access road, even though it contains (by my count) over 150 lots.

The Kittitas Count Prosecuting Attorney's Office (PAO) does more than prosecute offenders: it acts as the legal representative and advisor for county government. The PAO has repeatedly warned the County Commissioners that Kittitas County's access road policy is out of step with the policies of neighboring counties, and that this could put our county at risk of liability in the event of a large fire. Tumble Creek is out of compliance with even the most generous policies in the state, which are mostly found on the much wetter (and therefore much less fire-prone) west side of the Cascades.

Kittitas County's current policy is that a second access road is required for developments with more than 40 lots. This is 1/3 more lots than than the 30-lot limit recommended by the International Fire Code, and 2.5 times more than the very cautious requirement of 16 lots in Douglas County.

Incredibly, there is pressure from a citizen's advisory committee (which, perhaps not surprisingly, happens to be dominated by real estate developers; members of the committee must be approved by the County Commissioners) to raise the lot limit to 101 lots. In other words, a development of 100 lots would not be required to have a second access road, no matter where it was located in the county.

The PAO correctly observes that the county's existing 40-lot limit puts the county at risk, and has raised the alarm with increasing urgency in a series of memos this year. This wouldn't be necessary if the PAO weren't concerned that the County Commissioners might vote for the interests of their campaign donors, which is a rather alarming thought in the midst of a fire like the Taylor Bridge Fire.