Laserfiche WebLink
4 Environmental Analysis <br /> 4.1 Aesthetics <br /> This viewpoint reflects the views of drivers traveling along 1-580, likely traveling at a high rate of <br /> speed. These impacts would be short term for travelers because they would only be paralleling <br /> the Project site for a limited time and their focus would be on the road ahead. For views from <br /> residence, while appearing as new and visible features, the Project would be barely visible and <br /> would not attract attention of the casual viewer, resulting in a weak contrast and no change in <br /> visual quality ratings. Therefore, the impacts would be less than significant. <br /> KOP 5 <br /> The Project would not be visible from this location because of the screening of the Project site by <br /> rolling terrain; see Figure 4.1-7. This viewpoint reflects the views of drivers traveling along the <br /> frontage road and for the occupants of the residence south of this KOP. As the Project would not <br /> be visible from this location, there would be no visual impacts from Viewpoint 5. <br /> KOP 6 <br /> The Project would introduce neutral colors, geometric shapes, and horizontal and vertical lines <br /> into the landscape setting. The Project would be barely visible from this location because of the <br /> screening of the Project site by rolling terrain and distance and would not attract the attention of <br /> a casual observer, see Figure 4.1-8. The earth-tone color of the sound wall would blend in with <br /> the landscape, especially during the drier months when the surrounding vegetation is <br /> predominantly tan. What little can be seen of the Project blends into the landscape setting. An <br /> analysis of potential visual impacts is summarized in Table 4.1-7. <br /> Table 4.1-7. Visual Quality Rating Analysis— KOP 6 <br /> Rated ••ment Score Post-Development Score Difference <br /> in Scores <br /> Landform 1 1 771 0 <br /> Explanation Visible land is flat to hilly. Post-development visible land is flat to hilly. <br /> Detail No change to the visible landforms would result from Project implementation. <br /> Vegetation 1 1 0 <br /> Explanation Little variation in low-lying grasses and Little variation in low-lying grasses and ruderal <br /> ruderal vegetation. vegetation. <br /> Detail Both the existing and simulated view show little contrast in vegetation. <br /> Water 0 0 0 <br /> The Project would not introduce water to the <br /> Explanation No water is present on the Project site or in Project site. <br /> the Project area. <br /> Detail Neither existing nor simulated views include any water features. <br /> Color 1 1 0 <br /> Muted color with little variation:tan Muted color with little variation: tan and green <br /> associated with vegetation.Gray,white and associated with vegetation would remain;Gray <br /> Explanation brown colors associated with fencing, and brown colors associated with fencing, <br /> transmission towers and lines,utility poles transmission towers and lines,utility poles and <br /> and lines,roadway,buildings. lines,roadway,buildings.Where visible Project <br /> would add neutral colored structures. <br /> Detail The dominant colors from this viewpoint are tan and green of vegetation and gray,white,and brown of <br /> structures.Where visible,the Project would increase the amount of neutral,muted colors. <br /> Griffith Energy Storage Project 4.1-30 Tetra Tech/SCH 2022120675 <br /> Draft Environmental Impact Report August 2023 <br />