4.1 AESTHETICS. Table Impact and Mitigation Summary: Aesthetics. Impact Mitigation Measures Residual Impact

Transcription

1 4.1.1 Summary 4.1 AESTHETICS Table summarizes the identified environmental impacts, proposed mitigation measures, and residual impacts of the proposed project with regard to aesthetics. Additional detail is provided in Section (Impact Analysis). Impact AES-1 The project site is not located within view of a designated state scenic highway; however, construction of the project would temporarily alter motorists views from SR 41, which provides scenic vistas in the vicinity of the site. Impacts would be Class II, significant but mitigable. [Threshold 1] Table Impact and Mitigation Summary: Aesthetics Impact Mitigation Measures Residual Impact AES-1 Temporary Fencing at SR Impacts would be less than 41 Staging Areas. The applicant significant after mitigation. shall install opaque temporary fencing at construction staging areas within 0.5 miles of SR 41. The placement and design of temporary fencing shall be sufficient to obstruct views of any construction activities from the perspective of motorists on SR 41. Fencing shall be erected for the duration of construction activities at staging areas within 0.5 mile of SR 41. Impact AES-2 Construction and operation of the proposed project would visually transform the existing character of the project site from a rural, ranching landscape, to a renewable energy development with associated infrastructure. Although operation of the project would not permanently substantially degrade the existing character or quality of the area, as viewed from a public viewing area, construction staging areas along SR 41 would temporarily alter rural views for motorists. Impacts would be Class II, significant but mitigable. [Threshold 3] Impact AES-3 The proposed project would introduce new sources of lighting that could adversely affect the existing visual resources in the area. Impacts would be Class II, significant but mitigable. [Threshold 4] The incorporation of Mitigation Measure AES-1 would minimize impacts. AES-3 Minimize Construction Lighting. Prior to issuance of construction permits, the applicant shall prepare a Construction Lighting Plan showing night lighting for construction and parking areas on construction plans and submit to the RMA Planning Department for review and approval. Night lighting of construction and parking areas shall be minimized in both brightness and extent to the maximum extent possible, consistent with the safety needs of the facility. All lighting shall be shielded, with all direct lighting limited to within the parking or construction area, and with no upwardly directed lighting. Security lighting for construction storage Impacts would be less than significant after mitigation. Impacts would be less than significant after mitigation

2 Table Impact and Mitigation Summary: Aesthetics Impact Mitigation Measures Residual Impact areas shall also be hooded and directed down and into the site, with no off site light trespass. This requirement shall be specified in contracts with contractors and subcontractors that may require nighttime construction lighting. The Plan shall include the location, type, and wattage of all external light fixtures and include catalog sheets of each fixture. The approved Construction Lighting Plan shall be incorporated into the construction plans submitted to RMA Building Services for the project. Impact AES-4 The proposed project would introduce glint and glare from solar modules, which would not significantly adversely affect the existing visual receptors in the area. Impacts would be Class III, less than significant. [Threshold 4] Setting No mitigation measures are required. Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation. a. Regional Landscape. The proposed project would be located in the southeastern corner of Monterey County; approximately seven miles southeast of the community of Parkfield and 25 miles northeast of the City of Paso Robles, near the borders of Monterey, San Luis Obispo, Kings and Fresno counties (refer to Figures 2-1 and 2-2 in Section 2.0, Project Description). The project site is located along the eastern rim of the Cholame Valley, an elongated northwest-southeast trending basin in the Coast Range Mountains of southern Monterey County and northern San Luis Obispo County. The Cholame Valley is bordered to the west by the Cholame Hills and to the east by the Castle Mountain Range Spur of the Diablo Mountain Range. The elevation ranges from approximately 1,100 at the southern end to 1,700 feet at the northern end, near the small town of Parkfield. The proposed project would be built and operated on an approximately 3,000-acre portion of an existing 72,000-acre cattle ranch, known as Jack Ranch. The regional landscape is predominantly rural in character with small-scale agricultural (grazing) operations in the immediate vicinity. b. Project Site Setting. The project site is vacant and is currently a working landscape that includes cattle ranching, with a rural visual character. The project site consists predominantly of California annual grassland, wildflower fields, and grassland riparian habitat types. Other habitat types include willow-cottonwood riparian woodland, riparian oak woodland, mixed oak woodland, ornamental non-native woodland, valley needlegrass grassland, serpentine bunchgrass grassland, ephemeral stream, intermittent stream, perennial stream, seasonal wetland, and perennial marsh (refer to Section 4.4, Biological Resources). The site is used for cattle grazing, and the western terminus of the proposed utility corridor is used for 4.1-2

3 crop production. The project site is bordered in all directions by mostly undeveloped grazing land, interspersed with sparse residential development and small farms south and east of the site. The pastoral character of the grass covered valley floor and the natural surrounding hills and ridges form a visually coherent pattern with high scenic quality and considerable visual interest (refer to Figures 2-3a and 2-3b in Section 2.0, Project Description, for representative site photos). The elevated, rugged ridges of the more distant Castle Mountain Range Spur of the Diablo Mountain Range to the east of the project site and the rolling Cholame Hills to the west of the project site provide a landscape backdrop that enhances the available panoramic views across the valley. With the exceptions of the existing Morro Bay-Gates 230 kilovolt (kv) transmission line transecting the site (as shown in Figures 2-4e, 2-4f, 2-4h, 2-4l, 2-4k, 2-4o, and 2-4s in Section 2.0, Project Description) and several ranch support structures, the site is generally undeveloped. c. Proposed Project Viewshed. The viewshed or area of potential visual effect (the area within which the project could potentially be seen) is confined to the eastern rim of the Cholame Valley, including two residences located approximately 775 to 1,000 feet north of the northwestern corner of the project site boundary, and the terminus of Turkey Flat Road. Turkey Flat Road serves two primary functions: (1) it provides access to an existing ranch and associated residences north of the site, and (2) it provides existing ranch access to the project site. As a result, this segment of Turkey Flat Road is generally not used by the public on a regular basis. The site would be visible from surrounding hillsides; however, adjacent properties are privately owned and do not provide public access from which views of the site would be offered (for example, through recreation trails). The proposed project site is not visible from any roadways, with the exception of Turkey Flat Road and Cholame Valley Road, which, due to the surrounding topography, generally have very limited views of the site, despite its size. The project site is generally isolated and is not an area that is widely traveled or visited or within a designated scenic corridor. There are also no notable public gathering areas, such as local, State, or regional parks or other heavily used public recreational facilities that are adjacent to or overlook the project site. Accordingly, the potential aesthetic and visual impacts analysis is based on views from local rural roadways in the area. The visual setting and proposed project were evaluated in detail from five key observation points (KOPs), which are listed below and shown in Figure These KOPs represent common public viewing locations with views toward the project site. KOP 1: South of Project Site/Private Access Drive and SR 41. KOP 1 is located south of the project site at the intersection of the private access road with SR 41, an eligible State Scenic Highway. This site is located approximately 4.72 miles from the solar development area. This location represents the area where automobiles traveling east or west on SR 41 would potentially view the project site. KOP 2: Cholame Valley Road South. KOP 2 is located just north of the intersection of SR 46 and Cholame Valley Road. SR 46 is an eligible State Scenic Highway. This site is located approximately 4.62 miles from the project site. This location represents the viewshed of automobiles traveling north or south on Cholame Valley Road

4 KOP 3: Central Cholame Valley Road. KOP 3 is located on Cholame Valley Road north of KOP 2. This site is located approximately 3.62 miles from the project site. This KOP represents the viewshed from passing motorists traveling north or south on Cholame Valley Road. KOP 4: Cholame Valley Road/McMillan Canyon Road. KOP 4 is located at the intersection of Cholame Valley Road and McMillan Canyon Road and represents the viewshed northeast from passing motorists traveling north or south on Cholame Valley Road. This site is located approximately 3.62 miles from the solar generating facility area and the existing access road, and approximately 1 mile from the proposed utility corridor. KOP 5: Existing Site Entrance/Western Turkey Flat Road. KOP 5 is located on Turkey Flat Road near where it transitions from being a County maintained road to a private ranch access road, directly west of the northwestern edge of the project site. d. Existing Visual Character. The characterization of the existing visual quality of the project site and surrounding area is based in part on a Visual Impact Assessment prepared by Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. (July 2012), which was peer reviewed by Rincon Consultants, Inc., as well as Rincon staff s observations at site visits conducted on March 13, 2013 and April 19, Visual character is described using a three-criteria scale system based on the Federal Highway Administration s (FHWA s) Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projects (n.d.). The three criteria used are: vividness, intactness, and unity, and are defined as follows: Vividness. Vividness is the degree of drama, memorability, or distinctiveness of the landscape components. Vividness is composed of four elements landform, vegetation, water features, and human-made elements that usually influence the degree of vividness. Intactness. Intactness is a measure of the visual integrity of the natural and human-built landscape and its freedom from encroaching elements. This factor can be present in well-kept urban and rural landscapes, as well as in natural settings. High intactness means that the landscape is free of eyesores and is not broken up by features that appear to be out of place. Intactness is composed of two primary elements development and encroachment that influence the degree of intactness. Unity. Unity is the degree of visual coherence and compositional harmony of the landscape when it is considered as a whole. High unity frequently attests to the careful design of individual components and their relationship in the landscape. The FHWA s methodology typically assigns numeric ratings to the three criteria vividness, intactness and unity that determine visual quality and then averages the ratings to establish an overall visual quality score. For purposes of this analysis, rather than using numerical ratings, qualitative assessments are provided for each of the criteria and then an overall assessment is provided to assign a high, medium or low rating. The concepts utilized to evaluate the visual character and quality of a particular viewing location may be somewhat esoteric or subjective, but these criteria help identify the exiting visual environment in a manner that allows a meaningful evaluation of potential project effects

5 Turkey Flat Road!( 5!( 4!( 3 Chalome Valley Road!( 2!( Miles!( Viewpoints Existing Private Access Road Solar Development Area Utility Corridor Project Site * Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, USGS, Intermap, ipc, NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom, 2013 Copyright: 2013 Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, TomTom Title: KOP Viewpoint Locations File: Source: Denise Duffy and Associates, C:\GIS\GIS_Projects\ CA Flats Solar\Final Products\Key Observation Points.mxd Date: Scale: Project: Monterey San Jose 3/5/2014 Denise Duffy and Associates, Inc. Figure Environmental Consultants Resource Planners 947 Cass Street, Suite Monterey, CA in = 1 miles Key Observation Point (KOP) Locations (831) Figure 4.1-1

6 Applying this approach provides an evaluation that reasonably represents the range of visual quality and allows identification of viewpoints that may be considered more visually sensitive than other locations. This approach is considered appropriate for the dual purposes of: a) determining the visual quality of an area; and b) determining whether the project would (or would not) result in a change in the visual environment that would constitute a substantial adverse visual effect, as defined by the. The overall visual quality categories are described as low, medium, or high, which are defined as follows: Low Visual Quality. Areas that have low visual quality may have features that seem visually out of place, lack visual coherence, do not have compositional harmony, and contain eyesores. Medium Visual Quality. These areas can be generally pleasant appearing but may lack distinctiveness, memorability, drama, and compositional harmony, or may simply be common and ordinary landscapes. High Visual Quality. These areas may be memorable, distinctive, unique (in a positive way), intact natural or park-like areas, or urban areas with strong and consistent architectural and urban design features. Viewers can be categorized as having low, medium, or high sensitivity to changes in the viewed environment. Viewer sensitivity is strongly influenced by a viewer s activity, awareness of his or her surroundings, and amount of time spent looking at a view. People who view a landscape infrequently, view it for short periods of time (often as they pass through it), or are not attentive to it due to focusing on other activities (such as driving) are often less sensitive to changes and are assumed to have low viewer sensitivity. Viewers with average viewer sensitivity include workers and customers who may expect a somewhat pleasant visual setting for the establishments they work in or frequent but are in the locations for purposes other than enjoying its scenery or visual quality. The visual quality of an area can provide a good indication of how responsive an area s most sensitive viewers would likely be to changes in the visual environment. For example, viewers with high viewer sensitivity in areas that are categorized as having high visual quality would be expected to react more to changes in the visual environment than they would in areas that have medium or low visual quality. This concept can help determine areas where a project might be expected to have its greatest impacts on visual resources. Using this characterization methodology described above, the existing visual setting at each KOP is presented in the following paragraphs. KOP 1. The existing visual character of the area as perceived from this location is considered high; unobstructed views of distant mountain ranges and hillsides are prominently visible from this location. Existing conditions from this KOP are shown in the top image in Figure As shown therein, views from this location are primarily comprised of views into the Cholame Valley with scrubland hills on its eastern and western borders. Although visible, the gate and access road to the Jack Ranch property do not distract from views of the immediate surrounding area

7 This location offers distinct and memorable views, views are considered relatively intact with few visual intrusions, and views have a high degree of unity. Viewer sensitivity is considered moderate due to duration of views as perceived by vehicular traffic. KOP 2. Views from this location consist primarily of changing topography and scrubland hills of the eastern border of Cholame Valley. Existing conditions from this KOP are shown in the top image in Figure As shown therein, distant mountains and rolling hills are visible from this location, as well as existing ranch land. Existing utility poles are also visible from this location. The existing visual character of the area as perceived from this location is considered high despite the presence of existing utilities; views of distant mountain ranges and hillsides are prominently visible from this location. Viewer sensitivity is considered moderate. This location offers distinct and memorable views, views are considered relatively intact with few visual intrusions, and views have a high degree of unity. Viewer sensitivity is considered moderate due to duration of views as perceived by vehicular traffic. KOP 3. Views to the north from this KOP consist primarily of the scrubland hills of the eastern border of the Cholame Valley. Existing conditions from this KOP are shown in the top image in Figure As shown therein, existing utility poles, wetlands, and distant hillsides are visible from this location. The existing visual character of the area as perceived from this location is considered high despite views of some utilities; views of distant mountain ranges and hillsides are prominently visible from this location. This location offers distinct and memorable views, views are considered relatively intact with few visual intrusions, and views have a high degree of unity. Viewer sensitivity is considered moderate due to duration of views as perceived by vehicular traffic. KOP 4. Views to the northeast from this location consist primarily of the scrubland hills of the eastern border of the Cholame Valley. Distant hillsides and mountains are visible from this location. In addition, a portion of the existing Morro Bay-Gates 230kv transmission line is also prominently visible from this location. The top image in Figure depicts existing visual conditions from this location. The existing visual character of the area as perceived from this location is considered moderate; views are not considered distinct and the highly visible nature of transmission lines detracts from the visual integrity of this location. Viewer sensitivity is considered moderate due to duration of views as perceived by vehicular traffic traveling north or south on Cholame Valley Road. KOP 5. Views from this location consist primarily of existing grazing land and rolling hillsides. The Morro Bay Gates 230kv transmission line is also visible. The existing visual character of the area as perceived from this location is considered high; unobstructed views of the valley and rolling hillsides are prominently visible from this location. Although KOP 5 is located in a remote area, viewer sensitivity is considered moderate to high 4.1-8

8 Project Site Existing view looking north North from Culvert Crossing #1. Limit of project site is 4.72 miles away and view is obstructed. Project Site Proposed view looking North north from Culvert Crossing #1. Limit of project site is 4.72 miles away and view is obstructed. Source: DDA, 2012; RBF, 2012 ^ Title: File: Existing & Project Views - KOP1 Exhibit 5A KOP1.pdf Date: Scale: Project: N/A Visual Simulation: KOP 1 Monterey San Jose Denise Duffy and Associates, Inc. Environmental Consultants Resource Planners 947 Cass Street, Suite 5 Monterey, CA (831) Source: RBF, 2012 Figure Exhibit A

9 Project Site Existing view looking North north from Cholame Road. Limit of project site is 4.62 miles away and view is obstructed. Project Site Proposed view looking North north from Cholame Road. Limit of project site is 4.62 miles away and view is obstructed. Source: DDA, 2012; RBF, 2012 ^ Title: File: Existing & Project Views - KOP2 Exhibit 5A KOP1.pdf Date: Scale: Project: N/A Visual Simulation: KOP 2 Monterey San Jose Denise Duffy and Associates, Inc. Environmental Consultants Resource Planners 947 Cass Street, Suite 5 Monterey, CA (831) Source: RBF, 2012 Figure Exhibit 5B

10 Project Site Existing view looking Northeast northeast from Cholame Road. Limit of project site is 3.62 miles away and view is obstructed. Project Site Proposed view looking Northeast northeast from Cholame Road. Limit of project site is 3.62 miles away and view is obstructed. Source: DDA, 2012; RBF, 2012 ^ Title: File: Existing & Project Views - KOP3 Exhibit 5C KOP3.pdf Date: Scale: Project: Visual Simulation: KOP 3 Monterey San Jose Figure Denise Duffy and Associates, Inc. Exhibit N/A Environmental Consultants Resource Planners 947 Cass Street, Suite C Monterey, CA (831) Source: RBF, 2012

11 Project Site Existing view looking Northeast northeast from Cholame Road. Limit of project site is 3.62 miles away and view is obstructed. Project Site Proposed view looking Northeast northeast from Cholame Road. Limit of project site is 3.62 miles away and view is obstructed. Source: DDA, 2012; RBF, 2012 ^ Title: File: Existing & Project Views - KOP4 Exhibit 5D KOP4.pdf Date: Scale: Project: Visual Simulation: KOP 4 Monterey San Jose Figure Denise Duffy and Associates, Inc. Exhibit N/A Environmental Consultants Resource Planners 947 Cass Street, Suite D Monterey, CA (831) Source: RBF, 2012

12 Project Site Existing view looking Northwest northwest to East east from main site entrance on Turkey Flats Road. Project Site Proposed view looking Northeast northeast from main site entrance on Turkey Flats Road. Source: DDA, 2012; RBF, 2012 Visual Simulation: KOP 5 Figure Source: RBF, 2012

13 because individuals utilizing the end of Turkey Flat Road as their primary residential access would be travelling at a slow rate of speed, be highly aware of his or her surroundings, and spend abundant time looking at the view. e. Regulatory Setting. State. California State Scenic Highway Program. The California State Scenic Highway program was created by the Legislature in Its purpose is to preserve and protect scenic highway corridors from change that would diminish the aesthetic value of lands adjacent to highways. The program includes a list of highways that are either designated or eligible for designation as a scenic highway. The state laws governing the Scenic Highway Program are found in the Streets and Highways Code, Sections 260 through 263. A highway may be designated scenic depending upon how much of the natural landscape can be seen by travelers, the scenic quality of the landscape, and the extent to which development intrudes upon the traveler's enjoyment of the view. There are no designated State Scenic Highways located within Monterey County that are located in the vicinity of the project site. SR 41 and SR 46 are, however, eligible State Scenic Highways. Monterey County. Monterey County Code. The requires an evaluation of potential aesthetic-related effects and a determination of significance from common public view areas. Common public viewing area means a public area such as a public street, road, designated vista point, or public park from which the general public ordinarily views the surrounding viewshed (Monterey County Code, ). For the purposes of visual impact analyses, Monterey County defines a substantial adverse visual impact as a visual impact which, considering the condition of the existing viewshed, the proximity and duration of view when observed with normal unaided vision, causes an existing visual experience to be materially degraded (Monterey County Code, ). The project site is zoned Farmland, 160 acre minimum building site (F/160) and Permanent Grazing, 160 acre minimum building site (PG/160). Title 21 (Zoning) of the Monterey County Code does not include lighting requirements for these areas. Monterey County General Plan. The Open Space Element of the Monterey County General Plan contains guidance, goals, and specific policies relating to maintaining and improving the appearance of the physical environment. Goal OS-1 calls for retaining the character and natural beauty of Monterey County by preserving, conserving, and maintaining unique physical features, natural resources, and agricultural operations. Policies further encourage voluntary restrictions on the development of properties located in designated visually sensitive areas (Policy OS-1.1), and restrict development on ridgelines (Policy OS-1.3). The project site is not located in a designated visually sensitive area, nor does it constitute ridgeline development. General Plan policies further restrict the significant disruption of views from designated scenic

14 routes (Policy OS-1.12). As noted previously, the project site is not visible from a State or County Scenic Highway. Consistency of the proposed project with specific visual resources policies is evaluated in Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning. South County Area Plan. The South County Area Plan also applies to the project site and its surrounding area; however, the South County Area Plan does not include specific policies regarding visual resources Impact Analysis a. Methodology and Significance Threshold. This evaluation is based in part on a Visual Impact Assessment prepared for the proposed project by Denise Duffy & Associates (DDA, July 2012). This report was reviewed by Rincon Consultants, Inc. in May 2013, and a revised Visual Impact Assessment was completed in August The revised assessment was also reviewed by Rincon Consultants, Inc. A significant effect on the environment is generally defined as a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in the physical environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15358). Environment in this instance is meant to include objects of aesthetic significance (both natural and man-made). The assessment of aesthetic impacts involves qualitative analysis that is inherently subjective in nature. Different viewers react to viewsheds and aesthetic conditions differently. Methods pursued in order to establish the environmental setting included site visits, review of site photographs and aerials of the project site, analysis of visual simulations of project components (refer to Figures through 4.1-6), and preparation of an existing conditions inventory. The existing conditions inventory, presented in Section 4.1.2(d) (Existing Visual Character), describes the visual character of the viewshed in the project vicinity, identifies the types of viewer groups that would see the project site and associated improvements, and describes their sensitivity to changes in the viewed environment (viewer sensitivity). This assessment uses the terminology and methodology based on the system developed by the FHWA for assessing the visual effects of highway projects, as described in Section 4.1.2(d) (Existing Visual Character). Visual simulations are used in this analysis to provide a graphical representation of the project improvements and other associated elements from varying viewpoints to illustrate the extent of visual change to the existing character of the site. The methodologies used to prepare the visual simulations are described in the Visual Impact Assessment (Appendix B). As stated in Section 2.0, Project Description, project decommissioning, which would occur in 30 years or more, could potentially result in other environmental effects, depending on site-specific environmental conditions and the specific actions that would occur as part of decommissioning. The County may conduct additional CEQA review to ensure compliance with future aesthetic requirements during decommissioning. In accordance with Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, impacts would be considered potentially significant if the proposed project would:

15 1. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista; 2. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway; 3. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings; and/or 4. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. It should be noted that there are no designated State or County scenic highways located in the vicinity of the project site. SR 41 and SR 46 are eligible State Scenic Highways, although neither is officially designated. No other scenic highways are located in proximity to the project site. As a result, the proposed project would not damage scenic resources within a designated state scenic highway. Further discussion regarding threshold 2 can be found in Section 4.14, Effects Found not to be Significant. b. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures. Impact AES-1 The project site is not located within view of a designated state scenic highway; however, construction of the project would temporarily alter motorists views from SR 41, which provides scenic vistas in the vicinity of the site. Impacts would be Class II, significant but mitigable. [Threshold 1] As noted in Section 4.1.2(c) (Proposed Project Viewshed), the project site is visible from Turkey Flat Road, Cholame Valley Road, and SR 41. Both Turkey Flat Road and Cholame Valley Road generally have very limited visibility. The site would be visible from surrounding hillsides; however, adjacent properties are privately owned and do not provide public access from which views of the site would be offered (for example, through recreation trails). Because the project is not visible from a common public viewing area, scenic vistas of the project site are not generally available from these roadways. Turkey Flat Road serves two primary functions near the project site: (1) it provides access to an existing ranch and associated residences north of the site, and (2) it provides existing ranch access to the project site. As a result, this segment of Turkey Flat Road is generally not used by the public on a regular basis, and does not constitute a scenic vista. The installation of project improvements associated with the Solar Development Area and the existing access road would not degrade a scenic vista, and impacts along Turkey Flat Road would be less than significant. The public views to drivers traveling along Cholame Valley Road are currently affected by the existing transmission lines, which detract from the visual integrity of this area. The proposed utility corridor would generally follow the same alignment as the existing transmission lines, and would therefore be visually consistent with the existing view shed. In addition, the proposed utility corridor components are located approximately 1 mile from Cholame Valley Road. Due to this distance, combined with the short duration of time that motorists view this area, impacts to scenic vistas from these viewpoints would be less than significant

16 Primary access to the project site would be provided from an existing private road off of SR 41 that connects to a private gravel road that is currently used for the existing ranch operation. As shown on Figure 2-10, the proposed project would require improvements to SR 41 to allow the safe ingress and egress of vehicles entering and leaving the project site. These improvements to SR 41 would require the temporary placement of construction equipment and staging areas, which would be visible to drivers traveling along SR 41. However, as described below under Impact AES-2, the completed roadway improvements would be consistent with the existing roadway infrastructure. In addition to the proposed roadway improvements, the proposed project would require placement of two temporary construction staging areas along SR 41. These include: an approximately 4-acre staging area directly northwest of SR 41 and a 0.5-acre construction staging area directly south of SR 41 (Figure 2-11). The northwest staging area would be used during construction for temporary construction staging, vehicle queuing, and delivering. The southern staging area would be used during construction of SR 41 improvements. Although construction of the proposed roadway improvements and the staging areas would be shortterm and temporary, drivers traveling along SR 41, an eligible state scenic highway, would see this construction equipment for a short segment of SR 41. Therefore, impacts related to scenic vistas along SR 41 are potentially significant. Impacts related to degradation of exiting visual character are discussed in Impact AES-2. Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measure is required to reduce potential impacts from construction staging areas along SR 41 to a less than significant level. AES-1 Temporary Fencing at SR 41 Staging Areas. The applicant shall install opaque temporary fencing at construction staging areas within 0.5 mile of SR 41. The placement and design of temporary fencing shall be sufficient to obstruct views of any construction activities from the perspective of motorists on SR 41. Fencing shall be erected for the duration of construction activities at staging areas within 0.5 mile of SR 41. Significance After Mitigation. Impacts would be less than significant after mitigation. Impact AES-2 Construction and operation of the proposed project would visually transform the existing character of the project site from a rural, ranching landscape, to a renewable energy development with associated infrastructure. Although operation of the project would not permanently substantially degrade the existing character or quality of the area, as viewed from a public viewing area, construction staging areas along SR 41 would temporarily alter rural views for motorists. Impacts would be Class II, significant but mitigable. [Threshold 3]

17 Construction and operation of the proposed project would visually transform the existing character of the project site from a rural, ranching landscape, to a renewable energy development with associated infrastructure. The project would encompass approximately 3,000 acres and include the installation of PV modules, a high-capacity collection system line corridor, pad-mounted inverters and transformers, two substations, a switching station, an operations and maintenance (O&M) building, security fencing, lighting, internal access roads, improvements to an existing private access road, a new utility corridor, and other infrastructure needed to serve the proposed project. Compared to current conditions, the project site would be covered in energy infrastructure, resulting in a semi-developed visual character. KOP Analysis. Visual simulations were prepared for the five KOPs, as shown in Figures through Given the remote nature of the site, no project components would be visible from KOP 2 or KOP 3. Therefore, the visual character of the site, as viewed from these public viewing areas, would not be affected as a result of the project. Figure depicts pre- and post-project conditions as viewed from KOP 1. As shown therein, solar modules and associated energy infrastructure would not be visible from this location. However, improvements to the private access road (shown in the center of the photograph) would be visible from KOP 1, but are excluded from the visual simulation. Visible improvements would include: widening the access road to 30 feet in all locations, resurfacing with aggregate material, widening the existing culverts to accommodate the 30-foot width of the access road, and creating turnouts to accommodate emergency vehicle access. Proposed access improvements would be minor, and would not constitute a substantial change from the existing visual condition. Therefore, although the visual simulation erroneously excludes these improvements, the simulation is accurate in that effects of the project on the visual character of the site as viewed from KOP 1 looking toward the project site would be less than significant. It should also be noted that KOP 1 is located to the north of the intersection of the project access road and SR 41. Where the access road intersects with SR 41 (south of, or behind, KOP 1), several improvements are proposed. These include: the construction of one new northbound left turn lane and one new southbound right turn lane, vehicle storage space, lane taper striping, and permanent lighting. As with the private access improvements, these improvements would be relatively minor and they would be consistent with the visual character of the existing highway. In addition, as described above under AES-1, two construction staging areas would be placed on the northwest and southeast shoulder areas of SR 41. Construction activity at these staging areas would temporarily alter the rural character of the landscape, as visible to motorists traveling on SR 41. The temporary placement of construction equipment at these areas represents a potentially significant impact on visual character. KOP 4 represents a location from which the proposed utility corridor infrastructure could be somewhat visible from a public viewing location. Figure depicts pre- and post-project conditions as viewed from KOP 4. The proposed three-mile utility corridor is not included in the post-project visual simulation. The proposed utility corridor would generally be located to the southeast of the existing 230 kv Morro Bay Gates overhead transmission line. Because of the current visibility of the transmission line, this area is not a pristine view. The proposed overhead utilities in this corridor would be located along a similar path as the existing Morro

18 Bay Gates infrastructure. Therefore, the proposed utility corridor would not substantially degrade this viewshed, and the visual impacts related to the proposed utility corridor are less than significant. KOP 5 represents the location where the proposed project would be most visible from a public viewing location. Figure depicts pre- and post-project conditions as viewed from KOP 5. As shown therein, PV modules would figure prominently in the post-project condition, thereby changing the visual character from a rural, working landscape to a renewable energy facility. As indicated in the Visual Impact Assessment (Appendix B), this would change the site s overall visual quality from a ranking of high to a ranking of medium. Potential visual impacts are limited to two viewing locations (KOP 1 and 5). KOP 5 is located at the end of a rural county road that provides existing ranch access as well as access to an existing off-site ranch and two rural residences. This segment of Turkey Flat Road is generally not used by the public on a regular basis. Thus, visual impacts in this area would largely be internalized to the existing ranch. Viewers in the proximity of this location (i.e. existing residences) may be sensitive to changes in the visual quality of the site; however, given the remote nature of the site and the limited public access to this location, changes near KOP 5 are not anticipated to be significant. Nevertheless, mitigation is required to reduce temporary impacts from staging areas along SR 41 to a less than significant level. Private Views. It is worth noting that although the project would not substantially degrade the visual character of the project site as viewed from public viewing areas, views from two private residences would be substantially degraded. These residences are located approximately 775 feet from the project site boundary, near the eastern public road terminus of Turkey Flat Road (refer Figure 2.4b in Section 2.0, Project Description). These residences are located slightly uphill from the project site, and have sweeping views of the existing project site. These private views would change from a rural ranch landscape to an expanse of solar modules and associated infrastructure, thus constituting a substantial degradation. The project site is not in a County-designated visually sensitive area and is not visible from a scenic roadway. The General Plan does not protect private views, and the scenic resources policies (contained in the Conservation and Open Space Element) do not expressly protect grazing land as a scenic resource. In addition, CEQA does not require a detailed evaluation of individual private views, particularly when only a limited number of private views would be affected by site development activities. Therefore, although some homeowners may experience adverse interference with their private views, the impact is not significant for purposes of the CEQA analysis due to the limited number of affected properties. Mitigation Measures. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AES-1 would require the installation of temporary opaque fencing to obscure motorists views of construction staging areas along SR 41. With this mitigation measure, temporary impacts on the rural character of the area would be minimized. Significance After Mitigation. Impacts would be less than significant after mitigation

19 Impact AES-3 The proposed project would introduce new sources of lighting that could adversely affect the existing visual resources in the area. Impacts would be Class II, significant but mitigable. [Threshold 4] Because of the rural nature of the project area, there is no public lighting in or near the project vicinity. Consequently, night skies are very intact and dark, and vulnerable to impact from ambient night lighting of any kind. The project would include external safety lighting and permanent lighting at the O&M facility, switching station, substations and main project entry location at SR 41. Operational lighting plans will be required as a standard condition of approval. Temporary construction lighting also may be necessary. Temporary construction lighting would be limited to the 38-acre construction laydown area, an approximately 4 acre- temporary construction and material staging area northwest of SR 41, a 0.5-acre temporary construction staging area south of SR 41, and the project entrance. This lighting would be used on an as needed basis to accommodate nighttime deliveries and/or for security purposes. Decommissioning activities are expected to have similar lighting needs as project construction. Nighttime lighting at the project site during construction, operation, and decommissioning has the potential to be visually intrusive in the landscape. Visibility of night lighting would negatively impact the night sky, and may impact stargazing activities in the surrounding areas. As noted in Section 2.0, Project Description, all project lighting would be down-lit and directional in nature, consistent with standard Monterey County standard condition of approval PD014(a), Lighting Exterior Lighting Plan. This standard condition requires that all exterior lighting is unobtrusive, down-lit, harmonious with the local area, and constructed or located so that only the intended area is illuminated and off-site glare is fully controlled. In addition, Section 2.0, Project Description, states that, where feasible, the project would use motion-sensor lighting to reduce the extent of lighting-related impacts. The lighting must comply with the requirements of the California Energy Code set forth in California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6. The exterior lighting plan is subject to approval by the Director of RMA - Planning, prior to the issuance of building permits. Implementation of these requirements would reduce the magnitude of this impact, but the impact would still exceed thresholds of significance. Mitigation measures are required to reduce lighting-related impacts to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measures are required. AES-3 Minimize Construction Lighting. Prior to issuance of construction permits, the applicant shall prepare a Construction Lighting Plan showing night lighting for construction and parking areas on construction plans and submit to the RMA Planning Department for review and approval. Night lighting of construction and parking areas shall be minimized in both brightness and extent to the maximum extent possible, consistent

20 with the safety needs of the facility. All lighting shall be shielded, with all direct lighting limited to within the parking or construction area, and with no upwardly directed lighting. Security lighting for construction storage areas shall also be hooded and directed down and into the site, with no off site light trespass. This requirement shall be specified in contracts with contractors and subcontractors that may require nighttime construction lighting. The Plan shall include the location, type, and wattage of all external light fixtures and include catalog sheets for each fixture. The approved Construction Lighting Plan shall be incorporated into the construction plans submitted to RMA-Building Services for the project. Significance After Mitigation. Impacts would be less than significant. Impact AES-4 The proposed project would introduce glint and glare from solar modules, which would not significantly adversely affect the existing visual receptors in the area. Impacts would be Class III, less than significant. [Threshold 4] The potential for glint and glare from a PV module s surface exists when the angle of the sun to the surface is such that light is reflected toward a viewer. If trackers are used for the proposed project, the solar modules would change orientation during the course of a day, tracking the sun in an arc. That is, the tracker would rotate from east-facing in the morning to west-facing in the afternoon. At midday, the tracker would be parallel to the ground. At midday, all reflections would be toward the sky with maximum sun angles above the horizon occurring between May and August and peaking at the summer solstice on June 21. The maximum angle of the sun above the horizon at the latitude of the project would be approximately 78 degrees. With a maximum sun angle of approximately 78 degrees above the horizon and a solar module tilt (to the south) of 30 degrees, the lowest reflection angle off the solar modules would be approximately 42 degrees above the horizon, which would be directed into the sky below the sun s position but generally above potential viewpoints on the ground. Therefore, the glare from midday reflections would be minimal. Similarly, the angle of trackers during the morning and afternoon would direct reflections skyward and ground-level module glint and glare would be minimal, though visible for short periods from certain ground locations in proximity to the solar modules. If the proposed project uses a non-tracker (fixed-tilt) system, glint and glare would depend upon the angle of the panel, the height and location of the sun, and the direction and proximity of off-site sensitive receptors. However, the only off-site receptors are two residences located approximately 775 feet north of the project site, and solar modules would be tilted at an angle between 20 to 25 degrees to the south to achieve maximum sun exposure. If any exposure occurred at these receptors, the duration would be expected to be relatively short. In addition, PV modules are designed to absorb light to the highly concentrated photovoltaic material, rather than reflect it outward. The solar modules would likely be black or dark grey in color and would be non-reflective, thus minimizing potential off-site glare. Whether a tracking and/or fixed-tilt module system is used, impacts from glint and glare would be less than significant. In

21 addition, the County standard condition of approval PD014(a), Lighting Exterior Lighting Plan, described above, would ensure that project-related glare impacts are less than significant. Mitigation Measures. No mitigation is required. Significance After Mitigation. Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation. c. Cumulative Impacts. A description of the cumulative analysis methodology and development scenario, including proposed development in the South County Planning Area and the surrounding counties, and other solar projects that would affect similar resources, is included in Section 5.0, Cumulative Scenario and Methodology, of this EIR. Geographic Extent. Cumulative impacts could occur if implementation of the proposed project would combine with those of other local or regional projects. The proposed project is evaluated with respect to two types of cumulative impacts: Cumulative impacts within the immediate project viewshed, essentially comprising existing and proposed projects along the eastern rim of the Cholame Valley and along Turkey Flat Road; and Cumulative impacts of existing and proposed projects beyond the local viewshed, such as the South County Planning Area of Monterey County, northern San Luis Obispo County, or western Kings and Fresno counties. The following discussion of cumulative impacts addresses the proposed project s contribution to cumulative impacts within the context of existing and proposed projects. Cumulative Impact Analysis. Of the proposed cumulative projects (refer to Table 5.1 in Section 5.0, Cumulative Scenario and Methodology), all are located outside of the proposed project s viewshed. Therefore, the cumulative impact assessment of those projects considers whether or not any of the projects, in conjunction with the proposed project, would degrade the existing visual character of the site, relative to the existing rural character of these areas. Of those projects, most are of sufficiently small scale (up to 12 exploratory oil and gas wells, a temporary power pole to collect wind and other meteorological data, and a water test well and production) such that there would not be a significant cumulative impact to aesthetics from the combination of the proposed project and these projects; there would not be a perceived degradation of the existing visual character of the site when considering the spatial context and distance of these cumulative projects. The four nearest solar projects to the site (the Topaz Solar Project and California Valley Solar Ranch, which are approximately 40 miles southeast; the Recurrent Energy Tranquility Solar Project, located approximately 50 miles north; and the Panoche Valley Solar Farm, located approximately 62 miles north) are sufficiently distant from the proposed project site such that a there would not be a significant cumulative impact to aesthetics from the combination of those four projects and the proposed project. Several other small-scale solar projects (3 MW to 60 MW) would be located in Kings County, and a 57.5-mile underground heated oil pipeline would cross several counties, including Monterey. However, these projects are also at a sufficient distance from the proposed project site such that there would not be a significant cumulative impact to aesthetics from the combination of those three projects and the proposed project because these projects are too far