INTRODUCTION
It is essential that an IS-MND fully analyze and mitigate a Project’s aesthetic impacts. CEQA requires careful review of harms to a visual landscape. Under CEQA, it is the State’s policy to “take all action necessary to provide the people of this state with . . . enjoyment of aesthetic, natural, scenic and historic environmental qualities.” (CEQA 21001(b)). “A substantial negative effect of a project on view and other features of beauty could constitute a significant environmental impact under CEQA.” No special expertise is required to demonstrate that the Project will result in significant aesthetic impacts. “Opinions that the Project will not be aesthetically pleasing are not the special purview of experts.”
Here, this Project would be developed adjacent to a broad area of open space known as Spring Hill. Spring Hill has the scenic Spring Hill Trail immediately next to the Project’s proposed warehouses and driveway. (See Recent History of this Trail). The one and a half mile trail features a climb of approximately 600 vertical feet, and takes just under an hour to hike. The Mount Shasta Trail Association and the Siskiyou Land Trust and other local volunteers have worked to create and provide access to the trail. In and around the Project site are scenic vistas of undisturbed forested hills and landscape of Strawberry Valley and prominent mountainous terrain, including Mt. Shasta’s peak.
Here, this Project would be developed adjacent to a broad area of open space known as Spring Hill. Spring Hill has the scenic Spring Hill Trail immediately next to the Project’s proposed warehouses and driveway. (See Recent History of this Trail). The one and a half mile trail features a climb of approximately 600 vertical feet, and takes just under an hour to hike. The Mount Shasta Trail Association and the Siskiyou Land Trust and other local volunteers have worked to create and provide access to the trail. In and around the Project site are scenic vistas of undisturbed forested hills and landscape of Strawberry Valley and prominent mountainous terrain, including Mt. Shasta’s peak.
View from Spring Hill Trail lookout
SPRING HILL TRAIL
Spring Hill Trail is the closest elevated hiking trail to the center of Mount Shasta City. Spring Hill is visible from town. Although this small butte is easily viewed, many people do not know that a trail now winds its way to its summit, offering great views along the way. Looking at Spring Hill, you might not expect a long trail to reach the summit. Surprisingly, this trail is three miles long round trip, though not very steep. This length is a result of long switchbacks that are used to lessen the trail’s grade. The trail is a great option if one is staying in town or has limited time. The quick trailhead access (adjacent to this newly-proposed warehouse site) and its easy trail are ideal for a quick trip for hiking and scenery. The views are great, and have numerous vistas along the trail. In particular, the view of Mount Shasta City, nestled in the Strawberry Valley and flanked by Mount Shasta and the Trinity Divide is excellent.
Volunteers helping Mount Shasta Trail Association maintain Spring Hill Trail in 2019
ceqa requires analysis of project's aesthetic impact
Our environmental law, CEQA, requires the City to have answered these questions: “Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista” and “would the Project substantially degrade the existing visual character on quality of the site and its surroundings?” Given the lack of any visual simulation in the IS-MND to demonstrate a less-than-significant visual impact, and the evidence presented here that this Project would harm a scenic impact, and the City’s prohibitions against metal buildings and warehouses on this commercially zoned land for aesthetic purposes, it can be conclusively determined that this Project would have a significant aesthetic impact. The City must therefore either deny the Project application or at least prepare an EIR to correctly evaluate the Project’s aesthetic impacts.
Additionally, the City cannot legally approve a project that is inconsistent with its General Plan. The City’s General Plan’s Goal OC-7 is to “protect the scenic resources of the Mt. Shasta area.” Its Policy OC-7.1 is to [p]romote the protection of the scenic beauty of the Mt. Shasta area through appropriate zoning, development standards, and the development review process.” The General Plan’s Implementation Measure OC-7.1(a) requires the City to “[l]ocate new development outside of scenic vistas . . . except when land in such areas is specifically zoned and planned for development.” This Project site however is within a scenic vista, and is specifically zoned C-2 to prohibit metal buildings and warehouse buildings. Therefore, this Project is not consistent with the General Plan’s goal, policy and measures meant to protect scenic resources.
Additionally, the City cannot legally approve a project that is inconsistent with its General Plan. The City’s General Plan’s Goal OC-7 is to “protect the scenic resources of the Mt. Shasta area.” Its Policy OC-7.1 is to [p]romote the protection of the scenic beauty of the Mt. Shasta area through appropriate zoning, development standards, and the development review process.” The General Plan’s Implementation Measure OC-7.1(a) requires the City to “[l]ocate new development outside of scenic vistas . . . except when land in such areas is specifically zoned and planned for development.” This Project site however is within a scenic vista, and is specifically zoned C-2 to prohibit metal buildings and warehouse buildings. Therefore, this Project is not consistent with the General Plan’s goal, policy and measures meant to protect scenic resources.
While the IS-MND states that “The Project would be visible to sensitive viewer groups such as nearby residents and Spring Hill trail users,” the IS-MND entirely fails to evaluate the viewer sensitivity of Spring Hill Trail users. Viewer sensitivity is the overall measure of the variable receptivity of viewers to adverse visual changes in an existing landscape. Individuals have varying degrees of sensitivity to changes in visual conditions, often depending on the character of the land use from which they are viewing the scene and the overall visual characteristics of the place. In areas of more distinctive visual quality, such as designated scenic roads, parks, and recreation and natural areas, viewer sensitivity is characteristically more pronounced. Spring Hill Trail is the only trail within the City that offers a steep hillside and dramatic elevated views of the surrounding area. Therefore, Spring Hill Trail users are considered a most sensitive viewing group, and this Project’s foreground viewing impacts to overall scenic vistas for these viewers are more significant than for pedestrians elsewhere in the City.
The IS-MND fails to acknowledge that there is a scenic view from the Spring Hill Trail to the south in which this Project site is prominently visible. The IS-MND only judges the significance of the visual impact if the Project “obstructs” views of distant scenery, and never analyzes if it would contaminate a foreground view of the site that is part of the larger scenic vista.
The IS-MND fails to acknowledge that there is a scenic view from the Spring Hill Trail to the south in which this Project site is prominently visible. The IS-MND only judges the significance of the visual impact if the Project “obstructs” views of distant scenery, and never analyzes if it would contaminate a foreground view of the site that is part of the larger scenic vista.
Scenic vistas will be harmed by project
A scenic vista is considered to be a location from which the public can experience unique and exemplary high-quality views, including panoramic views of great breadth and depth. A scenic vista is a view of natural environmental features possessing visual and aesthetic qualities of value to the community. The term “vista” generally implies an expansive view, usually from an elevated point or open area.
Moreover, the City draws no distinction between scenic vistas from public or from private vantage points. In either case, views from Spring Hill Trail are definitely public vantage points of scenic vistas. This trail, formerly called a jeep trail before 1950, has a long-established claim as a public recreational easement providing access to such scenic enjoyment.
Moreover, the City draws no distinction between scenic vistas from public or from private vantage points. In either case, views from Spring Hill Trail are definitely public vantage points of scenic vistas. This trail, formerly called a jeep trail before 1950, has a long-established claim as a public recreational easement providing access to such scenic enjoyment.
PROJECT AS PROPOSED:
The Spring Hill Trail with its elevated climb and open area vantage points is therefore a scenic vista, and is advertised by the Mount Shasta Trail Association for its views of scenic beauty. That means all of the Spring Hill Trail, not just from a lookout high up on the Trail. The photographs presented here demonstrate that scenic views from higher elevations on this Trail, as well as at the base of this Trail where the Project site is prominently visible, are indeed scenic vistas. The IS-MND is incorrect to state that this Project site would not be within a scenic vista.
The IS-MND claims that the Project site does not contribute to or harm the scenic quality of the broader natural landscape (including views from Spring Hill Trail) because there is other development in view beyond the site. The IS-MND fails to recognize that foreground views of this meadow will be irrevocably damaged by such unsightly structures even though the buildings are not as tall as more distant trees.
The IS-MND states: “[t]he pastoral setting of Strawberry Valley and other areas, even though largely intermixed with low-density residential and other development, provides a visually pleasing environment.” It also states that Spring Hill, situated adjacent to the Project site to the north, is in a Scenic View Shed Area as depicted in the City’s General Plan. That should have been enough for the IS-MND to consider those General Plan requirements, but it did not.
While the IS-MND clearly acknowledges the area’s stunning setting, it ignores some General Plan requirements to protect scenic vistas. It instead relies upon vague and misleading impact analysis – without any photographic visual simulations – to conclude, incorrectly, that the Project’s impacts to scenic vistas would be less-than-significant. Without those visual simulations of Project structures as seen from public viewing locations that are routinely prepared for similar projects in California, the IS-MND lacks evidentiary support for its conclusion that the Project would not significantly impact scenic vistas. Such visual simulations would have demonstrated that the Project would replace a bucolic open meadow with more than 153 self-storage warehouse units in metal buildings, and those would have significant impacts on scenic vistas.
The following visual simulations are provided to show what is missing from the IS-MND that the developer is hiding from the public:
While the IS-MND clearly acknowledges the area’s stunning setting, it ignores some General Plan requirements to protect scenic vistas. It instead relies upon vague and misleading impact analysis – without any photographic visual simulations – to conclude, incorrectly, that the Project’s impacts to scenic vistas would be less-than-significant. Without those visual simulations of Project structures as seen from public viewing locations that are routinely prepared for similar projects in California, the IS-MND lacks evidentiary support for its conclusion that the Project would not significantly impact scenic vistas. Such visual simulations would have demonstrated that the Project would replace a bucolic open meadow with more than 153 self-storage warehouse units in metal buildings, and those would have significant impacts on scenic vistas.
The following visual simulations are provided to show what is missing from the IS-MND that the developer is hiding from the public:
fENCING WILL NOT SHIELD UNSIGHTLY WAREHOUSES FROM PUBLIC VIEW
The IS-MND acknowledges that these buildings will become a significant visual impact, but its proposed mitigation measure will not only be ineffective, it will also provide much less visual screening than even the applicant proposed. See additional detail about this aesthetic impact.
This project's warehouses would be located immediately adjacent to the trees on the left in the photo above at the base of Spring Hill. Not only would that constitute a significant aesthetic impact, but it would also present a serious wildfire threat locating these warehouses, filled with flammable stored items, next to this hillside's vulnerable vegetation.
AESTHETIC IMPACT to views from north mt. shasta boulevard
NEXT: