After printing out (one sided) the Draft EIR for the General Plan, I had a stack almost six inches tall on my desk. Others refer to this as “The 2,000 Pages”. All this is in addition to the General Plan itself, and to the Housing Element of the General Plan, which also must go through a separate EIR process. My first question should appear obvious: Is this expense of money and human effort justified? Historically, the EIR processes followed the General Plan/Zoning process, so it got tacked on as a separate undertaking given the governmental bureaucratic point of view. But both the modern planning and conservation movements started about a hundred years ago in response to industrialization and rapid urbanization. Aren’t both the General Plan and the EIR about essentially the same thing: preventing mistakes? Do we really need two or more studies for the same end?
Ironically, this document - a program EIR - exists to “Allow reduction in paperwork” (1-2) and “Avoid duplicative reconsideration of basic considerations” (1-2). To accomplish this end, the document, despite being called “general”, is very specific. As an example, any development along the Hwy 88 Scenic Corridor would have significant environmental impacts (2-7). So a restaurant, general store, service station or a motel at the entrance to hiking trails would threaten the Sierra scenery. Most people would find that these establishments enhance their enjoyment of the Sierra because of their convenience. An earlier study done before the environmentalists prevented the Ironwood skiing area from reopening found that tourists don’t like Hwy 88 because it lacks these conveniences. Unlike the ordinary people enjoying the Sierra, but like the Frankenstein monster, this plan has no human soul. The environment is an abstraction where in all human activity is a threat. But humans have been shaping the environment and acting in symbiosis with it for probably a million years. Their detached attitude gives me chills. This is why Alternative Three-Restricted Growth is the Environmentally Preferred Alternative (2-5, 6).
However, all this specificity and the EIR for a General Plan process do intend to make future development less controversial since they are conceptually pre-approved (1-2). Ideally, this should inhibit the relatively pandemic litigation now plaguing our small county. But the document states: “…unless new information arises that changes the impact analysis” (1-3), “later documents need only focus on new impacts that have not been considered before” (1-4) and “agencies may utilize this…” in “…approval of subsequent implementation activities” including such unsympathetic bodies as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the California Department of Conservation (1-5, 6). The document also states: “…commentators should also focus on the document’s sufficiency in analyzing possible environmental impacts” (1-10). So anyone of the well funded environmental elite should have no problem suing and adding unnecessarily to our county’s expenses and growing anti-business reputation.
The seemingly benign goal of this entire effort “…is to accommodate population growth, housing and employment in an orderly manner” (2-1, 2). But growth is never orderly. Look at history or into our own lives. We all have experienced periods of expansion (or defeat) followed by periods of consolidation. Orderly growth bears no relationship to reality; it is strictly an intellectual construct. Again, like the Frankenstein monster, or Agenda 21, it has no soul. The document also realizes the improbability of the plan with: “Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provisions of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR” (1-3). The EIR for our General Plan is not about guiding growth, but rather from preventing anything from happening. Since anything one would do has an impact, its best to do nothing. Our General Plan EIR is not a plan for development but rather a prescription for paralysis.
Note: The citations given are from the document. As I read through this monster, I will post my thoughts since it seems improbable that they can summarized into a few paragraphs.
Ironically, this document - a program EIR - exists to “Allow reduction in paperwork” (1-2) and “Avoid duplicative reconsideration of basic considerations” (1-2). To accomplish this end, the document, despite being called “general”, is very specific. As an example, any development along the Hwy 88 Scenic Corridor would have significant environmental impacts (2-7). So a restaurant, general store, service station or a motel at the entrance to hiking trails would threaten the Sierra scenery. Most people would find that these establishments enhance their enjoyment of the Sierra because of their convenience. An earlier study done before the environmentalists prevented the Ironwood skiing area from reopening found that tourists don’t like Hwy 88 because it lacks these conveniences. Unlike the ordinary people enjoying the Sierra, but like the Frankenstein monster, this plan has no human soul. The environment is an abstraction where in all human activity is a threat. But humans have been shaping the environment and acting in symbiosis with it for probably a million years. Their detached attitude gives me chills. This is why Alternative Three-Restricted Growth is the Environmentally Preferred Alternative (2-5, 6).
However, all this specificity and the EIR for a General Plan process do intend to make future development less controversial since they are conceptually pre-approved (1-2). Ideally, this should inhibit the relatively pandemic litigation now plaguing our small county. But the document states: “…unless new information arises that changes the impact analysis” (1-3), “later documents need only focus on new impacts that have not been considered before” (1-4) and “agencies may utilize this…” in “…approval of subsequent implementation activities” including such unsympathetic bodies as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the California Department of Conservation (1-5, 6). The document also states: “…commentators should also focus on the document’s sufficiency in analyzing possible environmental impacts” (1-10). So anyone of the well funded environmental elite should have no problem suing and adding unnecessarily to our county’s expenses and growing anti-business reputation.
The seemingly benign goal of this entire effort “…is to accommodate population growth, housing and employment in an orderly manner” (2-1, 2). But growth is never orderly. Look at history or into our own lives. We all have experienced periods of expansion (or defeat) followed by periods of consolidation. Orderly growth bears no relationship to reality; it is strictly an intellectual construct. Again, like the Frankenstein monster, or Agenda 21, it has no soul. The document also realizes the improbability of the plan with: “Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provisions of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR” (1-3). The EIR for our General Plan is not about guiding growth, but rather from preventing anything from happening. Since anything one would do has an impact, its best to do nothing. Our General Plan EIR is not a plan for development but rather a prescription for paralysis.
Note: The citations given are from the document. As I read through this monster, I will post my thoughts since it seems improbable that they can summarized into a few paragraphs.
Copyright 2014, Mark L. Bennett
Mark, where do you get the idea that "environmentalists" were responsible for the closure of Iron Mountain (not Ironwood) Ski Resort? That's certainly news to me. My understanding is that the U.S. Forest Service would not renew the lease for the resort (on FS lands). The reason I recall stated at the time was that due to its relatively low elevation, Iron Mountain could not be operated profitably. Former District Ranger Judy Yandoh was responsible for the decision.
ReplyDelete