SU0015801 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

4 Environmental Analysis 4.1 Aesthetics Rated Feature Pre-Development Score Post-Development Score Difference in Scores Color 1 1 0 Muted color with little variation:tan and Muted color with little variation:tan and green associated with vegetation;gray, Explanation green associated with vegetation;gray,brown brown and white associated with and white associated with structures. structures.Project would add neutral colored structures. Detail The dominant colors from this viewpoint are tan(low-lying grasses),gray(energy facilities),and white (residential structure).The Project would increase the amount of neutral,muted colors. Adjacent Scenery 1 1 0 Explanation Adjacent scenery provides views of hilly Adjacent scenery provides views of hilly grasslands. grasslands. Detail Adjacent scenery consists of hilly grasslands.The Project would replace views of grasslands on the Project site with energy storage facilities,however,adjacent scenery will still be visible. Scarcity 1 1 1 Similar viewsheds throughout the region.No The Project would replace views of Explanation unique or unusual aspects however,hilly grasslands on the Project site with energy terrain less common that county's storage facilities;however,site terrain predominately flat terrain. would not change significantly. Detail Existing views of hilly grasslands are typical of the area and are not unique or unusual. Cultural Modifications -1 -3 2 Manmade modifications in this view include The Project would increase manmade utility and transmission lines and structures, modifications in this view with the Explanation fencing,residential structure.These features introduction of energy storage facilities that are somewhat discordant with the would replace the grasslands. surrounding landscape but common. The existing view exhibits manmade modifications to the landscape of hilly grasslands.The Project would Detail introduce views of energy storage facilities.The Project would be discordant with the grasslands but due to the utility and transmission lines and structures in the immediate area would not be an unexpected modification. Totals 4 2 2 This viewpoint reflects the views of drivers traveling along Midway Road. These impacts would be short term for travelers because they would only be paralleling the Project site for a limited time and their focus would be on the road ahead. For views from the residence, while appearing as new and visible features, the Project would be consistent with the horizontal and vertical lines and geometric shapes of the other structures visibly prominent throughout the landscape. The muted colors of the Project would be consistent with and contribute to blending into the landscape. Project elements begin to demand attention of the casual viewer and would begin to dominate the currently undeveloped portion of the landscape setting, introducing a moderate contrast. However, the existing transmission line and residential structures dominate the view and demand attention over the Project. The scenic quality of KOP 1, both under existing conditions and post development of the Project is identified as low (Class IV). The only key visual quality factor that would change is Cultural Modifications, as the Project elements would add variety consistent with the surrounding built environment but would be discordant and introduce a moderate degree of disharmony with the undeveloped portion of the setting. As shown in Table 4.1-3, visual quality would be reduced from a rating of 4 to 2, remain low, and not result in a change in visual class. In addition, the Project will implement Mitigation Measure AES-1. Therefore, with mitigation, the Project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings and would result in a less than significant visual impact. Griffith Energy Storage Project 4.1-25 Tetra Tech/SCH 2022120675 Draft Environmental Impact Report August 2023