As I proceed through this document, it becomes denser and
even more specific. “The analysis of potential visual impacts…
(including)…valued qualities of the affected environment (4.1-3) …designated in
plans and policies for protection or special considerations…including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcropping, and historic buildings within a state
scenic highway (4.1-4)’’. Aside from
that section of Hwy 88, the planners want to extend these considerations to the
rest of Hwy 88 and to “…SR 16, SR 49 … and Ridge Road (4.1-4)” and also apply their
aesthetic judgment to things that “… improve the visual character of new land
uses (4.1-7)” and projects that “…substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its surroundings… (4.1-4)”. Who defines
surroundings? Note the expressions valued
qualities, special considerations, improve the visual character and existing visual character. These all
have subjective qualities. This is not the concept of law or the image of blind
justice most Americans see as the bedrock of our way of life.
Their dangerous subjectivity continues with the Town Centers
are “…to conform to a physical model similar to traditional rural towns
(4.1-5)”. Not that long ago some people believed
that maintaining a traditional rural town meant racially segregated areas. Fortunately, that has changed. Our culture and our personal lives are all in constant flux
and this naturally would be reflected in the built environment. This concept of
stasis, like the concept of orderly growth, is unnatural. By their very nature
they can only cause problems. I consider these assumptions to be a far greater
significant impact that their alleged significant environmental impacts. The
awareness that most people would consider an additional restaurant, gas
station, etc along Hwy 88 as a convenience totally escapes them. And none of
this has anything to do with preventing the real environmental hazard of
pollution or even protecting so called endangered species.
Next are the “Increase in Light and Glare and Skyglow
Effects…from development of urban land uses (4.1-7)”. While this increase is
partly caused by the plan’s intent of crowding us into dense settlements, it
must also be migrated. Their proposed measures include “Exterior building
materials on nonresidential structures shall be composed of a minimum 50%
low-reflectance, non-polished finishes (4.1-8)”. The shalls were eliminated from the General Plan and replaced with shoulds by action of the Board of
Supervisors. But they have mysteriously reappeared in the DEIR for that plan.
This “significant and unavoidable” impact of urban areas
night time light can also be mitigated by “Bare metallic surfaces (e.g., pipes,
vents, light fixtures) shall be painted or etched to minimize reflectance
(4.1-8)”. These measures are to be implemented “…to the maximum extent
practicable… (4.1-8)”. But the most practical among us would assume, accept and
it some cases desire the urban areas to be well lit.
Except for putting the Board of Supervisors on the decision-making hot seat of endless potential litigation, a discussion of cost versus
benefit appears absent. Also missing is the common sense understanding that the
harder you make it for someone to do something, the less likely it is to happen.
Standards of living will decrease as innovation decreases. What if the work of
Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard in their rented Palo Alto garage with occasional
finishing touches done in a home oven wasn’t permissible?
Copyright 2015, Mark L. Bennett
No comments:
Post a Comment