Section 4.1 Aesthetics Introduction. Terminology and Concepts. Visual Resource Terminology and Concepts

Transcription

1 4.1.1 Introduction Section 4.1 Aesthetics Aesthetics, as addressed in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), refers to visual considerations in the physical environment (CERES, 2009). Because a person s reaction and attachment to a given viewshed are subjective, visual changes inherently affect viewers differently. Accordingly, aesthetics analysis, or visual resource analysis, is a systematic process to logically assess visible change in the physical environment and the anticipated viewer response to that change. The Aesthetics section of this EIR describes the existing landscape character of the project area, existing views of the area from various on-the-ground vantage points, the visual characteristics of the proposed project, and the landscape changes that would be associated with the construction and operation of the proposed project, as seen from various vantage points. Sources that were consulted for information on existing and future visual resources in the project area included USGS topographic maps, plans of development provide by the project applicant, highway maps, Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail (PCT) trail guide and map, Pacific Crest Trail Communicator (magazine), Google Earth images, and internet sources. Regulatory standards were investigated, including the Kern County General Plan and the project applicant s Application for Zone Change. Terminology and Concepts Visual Resource Terminology and Concepts When viewing the same landscape, people may have different responses to that landscape and any proposed visual changes, based upon their values, familiarity, concern, or expectations for that landscape and its scenic quality. Because each person s attachment to and value for a particular landscape is unique, visual changes to that landscape inherently affect viewers differently. However, generalizations can be made about viewer sensitivity to scenic quality and visual changes. Recreationists, hikers, equestrians, tourists and people driving for pleasure are expected to have high concern for scenery and landscape character. People who are commuting daily through the same landscape generally have a moderate concern for scenery, while people working at industrial sites (such as wind farms) generally have a lower concern for scenic quality or changes to existing landscape character. The visual sensitivity of a landscape is affected by the viewing distances at which it is seen, such as close-up or far away. The visual sensitivity of a landscape also is affected by the travel speed at which a person is viewing the landscape (high speeds on a highway, low speeds on a hiking trail, or stationary at a residence). For this EIR, the Study Area for the visual resource analysis was defined by the viewsheds from which the proposed project might be seen. For this project viewsheds are extensive, given the long vistas that are available in the relatively flat Mojave Desert and the long distances from which the Tehachapi Mountains are visible. Desert vegetation provides very little vegetative screening throughout the project area, especially for structures that are as high as the proposed wind turbine generators (WTGs). Because of the flat topography in the Mojave Desert, especially Alta Oak Creek Mojave Project August 2009

2 in and around Subareas 2 and 3 of the proposed project site, very little topographic screening is available for the proposed project s features. The viewpoints from which sensitive receptors would see the proposed project and that define the Study Area include the following travel routes and use areas, starting at the northwest and proceeding to the southeast: the City of Tehachapi, community of Monolith, State Route 58 (SR 58), Highline Road, Dennison Road, Tehachapi-Willow Springs Road, the PCT, Cameron Road, Oak Creek Road, Camelot Boulevard, Holt Street, the unincorporated town of Mojave, Silver Queen Road, Mojave-Tropico Road, Backus Road, Rosamond Boulevard, and the Antelope Valley Freeway (SR 14). In locations outside the project area, and in outlying areas around the project site, there are scattered rural residences from which the project would be visible. The proposed project would not be visible from the community of Rosamond because the Rosamond Hills provide topographic screening. The visual resources Study Area was subdivided into separate landscape units. A landscape unit is a delineated landscape area that is: (1) visible from a single, particular location (e.g., an overlook or residence); (2) visible from a linear series of points (e.g., from along a road or trail); or (3) a landscape area where physical and cultural conditions are generally similar. The proposed project study area was subdivided into landscape units based on similar physical and cultural conditions in the landscape. The same project features can be perceived differently by people depending on the distance between the observer and the viewed objects. This distance is defined as viewing distance or distance zones. For the purpose of this analysis, distance zones are delineated as immediate foreground, foreground, middleground, and background. When a viewer is closer in proximity to a viewed object in the landscape, more detail can be seen and there is greater potential influence of the object on visual quality because of its form or scale (relative size of the object in relation to the viewer). When the same landscape feature is viewed at background distances, details may be imperceptible but overall forms of terrain and vegetation are evident, and the horizon and skyline are dominant. In the middleground, some detail is evident (like the foreground) and landscape elements are seen in context with landforms and vegetation patterns (like the background). For this analysis, four viewing distances were used: Immediate Foreground (from the viewer to approximately 300 feet away) Foreground (approximately 300 feet to 0.5 mile away) Middleground (approximately between 0.5 and 4 miles away) Background (approximately 4 miles to the horizon) Environmental Setting This section discusses the existing visual character of the region, existing visual quality in the project area; viewer concern, and viewer exposure to the project, leading to a rating of overall visual sensitivity. Also discussed are the existing sources of light and glare within the project area and features of the proposed project. Alta Oak Creek Mojave Project August 2009

3 Regional Character The proposed project site consists of approximately 9,300 acres of private land that is generally undeveloped and rural in nature. It is located on the southeastern flank of the Tehachapi Mountains and extends into the Mojave Desert at the northern extent of the Antelope Valley in rural Kern County. Land usage in and around the proposed project area consists of open space with some mining and cement manufacturing (see Section 3.0, Project Description). The landforms vary from moderate hillsides in the Tehachapi Mountains, transitioning to a large desert plateau that gradually slopes west to east. Elevations of the project site range from approximately 5,780 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL) at the southwest corner of Subarea 1, to approximately 2,875 feet at the southeast corner of Subarea 2. Oak Creek Canyon dissects the Tehachapi Mountain hillsides in a southwest to northeast direction. Then Oak Creek Canyon is joined by Cameron Canyon coming in from the northeast, at which point Oak Creek Canyon turns east and separates the main Tehachapi Mountain range from the California Portland Cement (CPC) Mojave Quarry. Oak Creek turns into a desert wash as it runs south into the Mojave Desert, with its relatively flat landforms. There are numerous other small, visually inconspicuous, desert washes that traverse the Mojave Desert area. Vegetation on Subarea 3 of the project site is primarily grasses, and on Subarea 2 of the proposed project site, vegetation is primarily creosote desert scrub and forb habitat, with some scattered occurrences of Joshua trees along Oak Creek Canyon Road near the Cal Cement entry road and along Tehachapi-Willow Springs Road. Scattered groves of California junipers and piñon pines are present in some of the upland locations and along washes within Subarea 1 of the proposed project site, along with rabbit brush, sagebrush and grasses. These pine and juniper trees are short in stature, and as mentioned previously, they provide very little vegetative screening. Thoroughfares and Communities The major thoroughfares that traverse through the project area and that provide viewing opportunities to the proposed project are Tehachapi-Willow Springs Road, Oak Creek Road, Cameron Canyon Road, and the PCT. The major thoroughfares outside the project area that provide viewing opportunities into the project area are SR 58, Highline Road, Dennison Road, Camelot Blvd, Holt Street, Silver Queen Road, Mojave-Tropico Road, Backus Road, Rosamond Boulevard, and the Antelope Valley Freeway (SR 14). Nearby communities that would view the project area include the communities of Tehachapi, Monolith, and Mojave (but not Rosamond, because of topographic screening by Rosamond Hills). Developed Recreation Sites There is one developed recreation site within the proposed project area the PCT Trailhead at the intersection of Tehachapi-Willow Springs Road and Cameron Canyon Road. Another PCT trailhead is along Cameron Road near the railroad tracks on the northeast end of the Tehachapi Wind Resource Area (TWRA), but it is not in the proposed project area. The PCT between these two trailheads is a popular route for hikers and equestrians who want to experience the scenic trail and wind farms. For the best views and the easiest walking, follow the trail northeast from the Alta Oak Creek Mojave Project August 2009

4 junction of Tehachapi-Willow Springs Road and Cameron Road toward Cameron Ridge (Gipe, 2009a). There are two developed parks in the Town of Mojave West Park and East Park. There is a lighted baseball field at East Park and there is an unlighted ball field at West Park, surrounded by an evergreen windbreak. The proposed project would not be visible from West Park because of existing buildings that block the line of sight. However; the proposed project would be visible from West Park when people are arriving or departing (Google Maps, 2009). The developed western portion of Kern County s Tehachapi Mountain Park is situated approximately 2.5 to 5.0 miles west of Subarea 3 of the proposed project area. According to the Kern County website, the park lies eight miles southwest of the town of Tehachapi, located on the southern side of SR 58. Woody's Peak (elevation, 7,986 feet) overlooks the park from its dominion in the Tehachapi Mountains, the dividing line between the San Joaquin Valley and the Los Angeles Basin. The park is developed with family campsites, two group camps with cabins [Tehachapi Mountain Camp and Sierra Flats], hiking trails, nature trails, equestrian trails and a corral (Kern County Parks and Recreation, 2009). The proposed project would not be visible from the developed portions of Tehachapi Mountain Park because of topographic screening. There is an eastern undeveloped portion of Tehachapi Mountain Park that is located west of Tehachapi-Willow Springs Road and south of Highline Road, adjacent to Subarea 3 of the project site and the proposed project area is visible from this portion of the park. There are gravel roads and a hiking trail in this portion of the park. Red Rock Canyon State Park is situated approximately 25 miles northeast of the Town of Mojave on SR 14, near Cantil, California (California State Parks and Recreation, 2009). The proposed project area is not visible from this State Park because of topographic screening and the distances involved. Landscape Units and Typical Views of Project Area The proposed project study area was subdivided into Landscape Units (see Figure 4.1-1, Landscape Units and Key Observation Point (KOP) Location Map at the end of Section 4.1). Landscape Unit 1 is the Tehachapi Valley, situated northwest of Subarea 3 of the project site. Tehachapi Valley contains the communities of Tehachapi and Monolith, and is crossed in an eastwest direction by SR 58 and the Union Pacific Railroad. Tehachapi Valley is enframed on the north by the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range and on the south by the Tehachapi Mountain Range. The City of Tehachapi was incorporated in 1909 (City of Tehachapi, 2009). The population was 10,957 at the 2000 census (US Census, 2009). None of the proposed project is situated in Landscape Unit 1. Landscape Unit 2 is the Tehachapi Mountain Unit, situated in the middle of the proposed project. Landscape Unit 2 contains Subareas 1 and 3 of the proposed project. The Tehachapi Mountains Landscape Unit is defined by the moderate to steep terrain of the Tehachapi Mountains that divides the flatter Tehachapi Valley to the northwest and the flat Mojave Desert to the southeast. Oak Creek Canyon and Cameron Canyon are two major drainages in Landscape Unit 2. Landform slopes of the Tehachapi Mountains Landscape Unit range from less than 8 percent to more than 65 percent and are generally barren and wind blown. Slopes are covered with grasses, Alta Oak Creek Mojave Project August 2009

5 sagebrush, rabbit brush, and scattered groves of short-stature California junipers and piñon pines. Because of these steeper slopes, set against the flatter valley floors, the Tehachapi Mountains form a landscape backdrop for many scenic vistas in and around the project area. Existing human made cultural features include scattered residences and thousands of existing wind turbine generators, mostly arrayed in straight rows that are aligned southwest to northeast across the hillsides. The California Portland Cement quarry and plant are located at the southern edge of Landscape Unit 2. Landscape Unit 3 is the Mojave Desert Landscape Unit, and it includes the southeastern portion of the proposed project and all components of Subarea 2. The Mojave Desert Landscape Unit is defined by the flatter slopes with numerous small undistinguished drainages. The landform is a gently sloping plain, tilted from higher elevations at the west that drain toward the east. The landscape is dominated by open space, and is covered by grasses, sagebrush, rabbit brush, creosote bush scrub, and widely scattered Joshua trees. The landform slopes are generally flat, with 100 topographic change per mile (<2 percent gradient). Landscape Unit 4 consists of several large isolated, steep, barren mountains that are situated to the south and east of Subarea 2 of the proposed project. Landscape Unit 4 is named the Isolated Mountains Landscape Unit, and none of the proposed project would occur here. Rock formations are distinctive, as seen against the flat landscape of the Mojave Desert. Landforms are steep and mining/quarry activities are visually evident with bare soils at mine entrances and quarries. There are no sensitive receptor locations within Landscape Unit 4 that would provide sensitive vantage points looking into the proposed project area. The existing landscape character for a majority of Subareas 2 and 3 are open space landscapes. In Subareas 2 and 3, there are large landscape expanses dominated by open space, with little to no visible development, except for widely scattered dirt roads which are not visually evident from on the ground vantage points. These open space landscapes appear largely undeveloped and are covered by grasses, sagebrush, rabbit brush, creosote bush scrub, and Joshua trees. Key Observation Points (KOPs) From among dozens of possible KOPs, six were selected to represent typical views of the proposed project. The basis of selecting these six KOPs was that each one displays a different sensitive receptor location from which the proposed project would be visible, and accurately represents how the project would appear when seen from different distance zones (immediate foreground; foreground; middleground; and background). The locations of each KOP are listed here and described in detail below. For each KOP, photographs of existing visual conditions and visual simulations of expected future visual conditions are found at the end of Section 4.1. Visual sensitivity consists of three components: viewer exposure, viewer concern, and visual quality. Viewer exposure affects a landscape s overall visual sensitivity. Landscapes that have very low viewer exposure (based on landscape visibility, the viewing distance, the number of people who view the landscape, or the duration of time that the landscape can be viewed) would tend to be less sensitive to overall visual change in the context of human experience of visual impacts. Landscapes with higher viewer exposure are more sensitive to overall visual changes. Viewer concern can be described as the personal expectations for the landscape that are held by Alta Oak Creek Mojave Project August 2009

6 the viewing public. Viewer concern is often reflected in public policy documents that identify landscapes of special concern (e.g., vista points or ridgeline protection ordinances), or roadways with special scenic status (e.g., scenic highways) or trails with special scenic status (e.g., the PCT). The description of visual quality notes the natural scenic attractiveness of the landscape, existing built structures, and unique landscape features that contribute to overall visual quality. KOP-1 Located on Dennison Road, south of Highline Road, heading southbound. KOP-2 Located on Tehachapi-Willow Springs Road, heading southbound. KOP-3 Located on the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail (PCT) in the Tehachapi Mountains. KOP-4 Located on Oak Creek Road, heading eastbound. KOP-5 Located on Oak Creek Road at the over-crossing of the Santa Fe Pacific Railroad. KOP-6 Located on Tehachapi-Willow Springs Road, heading northbound. KOP 1 Dennison Road KOP-1 is located on Dennison Road, south of Highline Road, on a major road leading to several rural residences and to the eastern, less developed portion of Kern County s Tehachapi Mountain Park (see Figure 4.1-2a Existing Visual Conditions at KOP-1, Dennison Road at the end of Section 4.1). There are numerous rural residences to the west of Subarea 3 of the proposed project, and this view from Dennison Road looks directly at Subarea 3, similar to many of the residential views. It is a closer view, and from the same angle of view of Subarea 3 as seen from Highline Road, the City of Tehachapi, and/or SR 58. This KOP is located at the southern edge of the Tehachapi Valley Landscape Unit (Landscape Unit 1), looking at the Tehachapi Mountains Landscape Unit (Landscape Unit 2) on the skyline and to the right side of the photo. Dennison Road is a divided road, with the southbound lane paved and the northbound lane gravel. At this point in the road, eastbound drivers are aimed directly at Subarea 3 of the proposed project, which would be located on a flat ridge just below the skyline to the right, approximately two to three miles away. This is a middleground viewing distance to the project. Approximately 100 existing WTGs are located along the skyline (approximately four-miles away) behind and to the left of the proposed Subarea 3 of the project site. This is also a middleground viewing distance. This view looks across the eastern, less developed portion of the Tehachapi Mountain Park, operated by the Kern County Parks and Recreation Department. Eastern Tehachapi Mountain Park abuts Highline Road and Tehachapi-Willow Springs Road at the northeast, and proceeds southward and uphill toward Subarea 3 of the proposed project area. The proposed project would construct and operate approximately nine new wind turbine generators that could be as high as 500 feet tall and seen against the skyline of this view. The closest sensitive receptors to this area are people living at any of the nine private residences located near Subarea 3 of the project site. The closest residence is situated on Tehachapi-Willow Springs Road near the eastern boundary of Subarea 3. The structure is located about 120 feet outside the Subarea 3 boundary and two project WTGs would be located approximately 950 feet from this house, with a third WTG located approximately 1,030 feet away. The remaining eight Alta Oak Creek Mojave Project August 2009

7 residences are located to the south, west, and north of Subarea 3. The closest of these is a vacation home that is vacant most of the time near the northwest corner of the Subarea 3 (Alta Windpower Development, 2009). This residence is located approximately 1,350 feet from the closest proposed WTG. All of the other houses would be more than 1,450 away from any WTG. Additionally, there is an unoccupied modular house on the southern part of Subarea 3, which has been there for several years and has no plumbing (Alta Windpower Development, 2009). This house would be approximately 470 feet from the closest WTG and approximately 540 feet from a second WTG. The project would not be screened by topography or vegetation, and would not have a landform backdrop, but would be seen against the skyline. This view is representative of views from this collector street, other local streets, private residences in this area, and the Tehachapi Mountain Park. Viewer Exposure: moderate. Because there is no landscape screening by landforms or vegetation, Subarea 3 of the proposed project would be very visible in the middleground, as seen from KOP-1. The number of viewers on Dennison Road and nearby residences is low (as compared to other vantage points, such as SR 58, which is further away to the north, or the City of Tehachapi, which is further away to the northwest). For these viewers on Dennison Road, the duration of view would be brief because of the speed of travel, but extended as seen from nearby residences, leading to a moderate viewer exposure. Viewer Concern: moderate-to-high. Residents and visitors enjoy the predominantly natural setting with middleground panoramic sightlines to the Tehachapi Wind Resource Area. Area residents can be expected to have moderate-to-high concern for visual impacts from the proposed project features, even though they are subject to similar views of existing WTGs on a daily basis. Overall, viewer concern is estimated to be moderate-to-high. Visual Quality: low-to-moderate. The primary focal points of this landscape are the existing white turbines with their spinning rotors and the rounded landforms of the rolling hills, drawing viewers attention to the skyline. Secondary focal points in this landscape are the grass covered hillsides of the Tehachapi Valley Landscape Unit (Landscape Unit 1) and the large patches of evergreen trees and shrubs on the right skyline, in the Tehachapi Mountains Landscape Unit (Landscape Unit 2). Tertiary focal points of this view are the single family residences to the left of this view. The landscape composition has a strong axis of view, created by the curve in the road and the divided roadway that leads the eye to the skyline, reinforcing the primary focal point of the skyline and existing WTGs. Perceptual factors affecting landscape aesthetics and visual quality include variables such as viewing angle, time of day, atmospheric conditions, and motion. Motion is one of the strongest visual attributes in a landscape, because the landscape is mostly static and any motion attracts and holds the viewer s attention. The human eye can detect motion in the landscape from very long distances (USDA Forest Service, 1973). Motion from large spinning rotors on wind turbine generators is an example of this perceptual factor that affects visual quality and attracts attention. The motion of spinning rotors on existing wind turbine generators raises the visual quality of this industrial character landscape from a low rating to a low-to-moderate rating. Overall Visual Sensitivity: moderate. For visitors and residents traveling on Dennison Road looking at for Subarea 3 of the proposed project, and from KOP-1 specifically, the moderate Alta Oak Creek Mojave Project August 2009

8 viewer exposure, moderate-to-high viewer concern, and low-to-moderate visual quality, lead to a moderate overall visual sensitivity of the visual setting and viewing characteristics. KOP 2 Southbound Tehachapi Willow Springs Road KOP-2 is located on southbound Tehachapi-Willow Springs Road. At this point, drivers have just passed over the crest of Oak Creek Pass and are starting a long straight stretch where they are able to focus on the landscape in front of them (see Figure 4.1-3a Existing Visual Conditions at KOP-2, Southbound Tehachapi-Willow Springs Road at the end of Section 4.1). Hundreds of existing light-gray WTGs are visible on the flat slopes beyond and on hillsides to the left and right of this view. The California Portland Cement quarry is visible straight ahead, drawing attention to four large WTGs that spin slowly on the right skyline on the windswept slopes of the Tehachapi Mountains Landscape Unit. Dark brown transmission line monopoles are very visible in the foreground, and partially interfere with the view to the horizon. Here drivers enter Subarea 1 of the proposed project site, and new WTGs would be visible in the foreground (zero to one-half mile away) and middleground (one-half mile to four miles away). Proposed WTGs in Subarea 2 of the proposed project would also be visible in the background (four miles or more away). KOP 2 is located in the heart of Landscape Unit 2 (Tehachapi Mountains), and is looking at both Landscape Unit 2 and Landscape Unit 3 (Mojave Desert) on the flats below, with Soledad Mountain, a part of Landscape Unit 4 (Isolated Mountains) visible against the background horizon. Viewer Exposure: moderate. The proposed Subarea 1 of the proposed project would vary from zero miles to two miles away from sensitive receptors on Tehachapi-Willow Springs Road, and therefore, would be classified as foreground and middleground viewing distances. The proposed Subarea 2 of the proposed project would be four or more miles away from KOP-2, and therefore, would be classified as background viewing distances. Because there is no landscape screening by landforms or vegetation, the proposed project would be highly visible in the foreground, middleground, and background as seen from Tehachapi-Willow Springs Road. The number of viewers on Tehachapi-Willow Springs Road is moderate. For all of these viewers, the duration of view would be brief because of the speed of travel, resulting in moderate viewer exposure. Viewer Concern: low-to-moderate. Regular viewers of this landscape (mostly drivers on Tehachapi-Willow Springs Road) are expected to be familiar with the existing WTGs of the TWRA. Non-resident travelers on this road may be more concerned with visual resources and may be traveling this road specifically to view WTGs (Gipe, 2009a). Overall, viewer concern for visual change is estimated to be low-to-moderate. Visual Quality: moderate-to-high. The landscape is characterized by rounded landforms of the Tehachapi Mountains, seen against the gently sloping desert plain of the Mojave Desert, with Soledad Mountain visible in the background. The primary focal points in this landscape are the moving wind turbine generators on the hillsides of the TWRA. The secondary focal point is the dark green, tree-covered hillside in the middleground, straight ahead, which contrasts with other grass covered wind-blown hillsides. The axis of the road leads the eye to this dark green hillside. The eye is then drawn to the expansive views of the Mojave Desert, with its flat plain that extends to the horizon. Upon studying the landscape further, the top of the California Portland Cement quarry becomes a distinguishable feature on the hilltop beyond the dark green, tree-covered Alta Oak Creek Mojave Project August 2009

9 hillside. Bare soils at this quarry distract from the natural landscape character. Existing visual variety is high for the landforms, vegetative patterns, and motion of hundreds of existing WTGs, but because of the soil color contrasts at the quarry and the dark brown transmission line poles, the overall visual quality of this landscape is reduced to moderate-to-high. Overall Visual Sensitivity: moderate. For viewers on Tehachapi-Willow Springs Road in general, and from KOP-2 specifically, the moderate viewer exposure, low-to-moderate viewer concern, and moderate-to-high visual quality, lead to a moderate overall visual sensitivity. KOP 3 Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail KOP-3 is located on the PCT in the heart of the Tehachapi Mountains Landscape Unit (Landscape Unit 2). At this point, the PCT is headed northbound, which is the predominant route of travel for through-hikers (see Figure 4.1-4a Existing Visual Conditions at KOP-3, Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail at the end of Section 4.1). From here, there is a panorama of about 270-degrees, to the northwest, northeast, and southeast. The KOP-3 view looks east-northeast and shows existing light-gray WTGs in rows on the hillsides of the Tehachapi Mountains. WTGs of Subarea 1 of the proposed project would be located on the skyline in the immediate foreground and foreground of the PCT (zero to one-half mile away) and on the hillsides in the middleground (one-half mile to four miles away from the viewer). All of the landscape within this view from KOP-3 is within Landscape Unit 2. The project applicant proposes to relocate the PCT in this vicinity, in order to achieve an appropriate setback from the proposed WTGs. Viewer Exposure: high. Because there is no landscape screening by landforms or vegetation, the existing WTGs are very exposed and proposed WTGs would be highly visible in the immediate foreground and foreground from the PCT. For PCT users, the duration of view would be extended because of the pedestrian speed of travel. The proposed WTGs would be adjacent to the trail and would be in the foreground distance zone of the trail for several miles. The use volume is comparatively high because few officially designated scenic trails exist within the regional area. The relatively high number of users leads to a high viewer exposure rating. Overall, visual sensitivity of the Pacific Crest Trail is high. Viewer Concern: high. People hiking or riding horses on the PCT can be expected to have high concern for scenery and visual resources. The PCTA has written several articles about their concern for the integrity of the PCT as it traverses the industrial landscapes of TWRA (Pacific Crest Trail Communicator, 2008). The PCTA is actively working with the Forest Service and Tejon Ranch to permanently relocate the PCT away from the wind turbines of the TWRA. Visual Quality: moderate. The primary focal points in this landscape are the slowly turning, large, light-gray wind turbine generators that occupy the grassy, wind-blown hillsides of the Tehachapi Mountains and across the skyline to the east-northeast. Secondary focal points are the dark green piñon pines in the foreground, which contrast against the light tan, grassy, rolling hills of the middleground. The motion of spinning rotors on existing wind turbine generators adds visual interest, but detracts from the natural appearing landscape character and changes it to an industrial character landscape, resulting in a moderate rating for visual quality. Alta Oak Creek Mojave Project August 2009

10 Overall Visual Sensitivity: moderate-to-high. For PCT users in general, and from KOP-3 specifically, the moderate-to-high viewer exposure, high viewer concern, and moderate visual quality lead to a moderate-to-high overall visual sensitivity. KOP 4 Oak Creek Road KOP-4 is located on eastbound Oak Creek Road, looking east-southeast. At this point, drivers have just entered the northwestern edge of the Mojave Desert Landscape Unit (Landscape Unit 3) after winding along the short canyon of Oak Creek in Landscape Unit 2 (Tehachapi Mountains) (see Figure 4.1-5a Existing Visual Conditions at KOP-4, Oak Creek Road at the end of Section 4.1). Primary focal points in this view are the large excavating machine that marks the California Portland Cement entrance road and Soledad Mountain, a part of Landscape Unit 4, on the skyline. Secondary focal points in this view are the existing dark brown transmission line monopoles that are very visible in the foreground. When actually on the ground, people would also be drawn to thousands of spinning rotors on existing WTGs on the left side of Oak Creek Road (just out of view to the left of this photograph). Widely scattered Joshua trees are visible on both sides of the road, and attract attention because of their unique forms. At this location on Oak Creek Road, the landscape is characterized as a relatively flat desert plain of the Mojave Desert. The desert appears flat, but is actually gently sloping, west to east. Looking east along Oak Creek Road, the TWRA is to the north (left side of photo, just out of view) and the undeveloped Mojave Desert is on the south (right) side of the road. Three proposed WTGs would be visible in the foreground of KOP-4, and additional proposed WTGs would be visible in the middleground (onehalf mile to four miles away) and background (four miles or more away), giving an overall impression of the project s extent. Viewer Exposure: moderate. Because there is no landscape screening by landforms or vegetation, the proposed project WTGs, laydown area, substation, and transmission lines would be highly visible in the foreground, middleground, and background as seen from Oak Creek Road and KOP-4. The number of viewers would be low-to-moderate. For all of these viewers, the duration of view would be brief because of the speed of travel (50 to 55 mph). Therefore, viewer exposure would be moderate. Viewer Concern: low-to-moderate. Recreationists traveling on Oak Creek Road may be concerned with visual resources, but most are assumed to be traveling through the area to other more scenic destinations, or to view existing WTGs. As was noted for KOP-2, regular viewers of this landscape and drivers on Oak Creek Road are assumed to be local residents who are familiar with the existing WTGs of the Tehachapi Wind Resource Area. Non-resident travelers on this road may be more concerned with visual resources, but overall, viewer concern is estimated to be low-to-moderate. Visual Quality: low. The primary focal points in this landscape are the large excavating machine in the foreground and Soledad Mountain in the background. The axial view created by Oak Creek Road leads the viewers eye to secondary focal points of the dark brown tubular steel poles of the transmission line that protrude above the skyline. The excavating machine adds visual interest, but it and the transmission lines detract from the natural appearing landscape character and the background mountain and changes it to an industrial character landscape, resulting in a low visual quality rating. Alta Oak Creek Mojave Project August 2009

11 Overall Visual Sensitivity: low-to-moderate. For viewers on Oak Creek Road in general, and from KOP-4 specifically, the moderate viewer exposure, low-to-moderate viewer concern, and low visual quality lead to a low-to-moderate overall visual sensitivity of the visual setting and viewing characteristics. KOP 5 Oak Creek Road in Mojave at Railroad Over Crossing At the northwest edge of the unincorporated town of Mojave, Oak Creek Road crosses over the Santa Fe Pacific Railroad tracks (see Figure 4.1-6a Existing Visual Conditions at KOP-5, Oak Creek Road in Mojave at Railroad Over-Crossing at the end of Section 4.1). There is a railroad switchyard that usually has railcars stored further south of this location. The stored railcars completely block any views of the proposed project area as it would be seen from SR 14 and/or the community of Mojave. At this vantage point on the Oak Creek Road Bridge, travelers are headed westbound. There are a few residential areas on the west side of the railroad tracks, as shown in the photograph. This elevated view gives the best view to the proposed project area from the community of Mojave. The proposed project would be located approximately four to 13 miles west of this KOP, making this a background distance zone to the project. This view is representative of views from the community of Mojave, and also captures a similar angle of view for travelers on SR 14 and SR 58. Both SR 14 north of Mojave and SR 58 east of Mojave are eligible for State Scenic Highway designation, but are not officially designated State Scenic Highways (California Scenic Highway Mapping System, 2009). Viewer Exposure: low-to-moderate. The proposed project would be very visible from this railroad over-crossing, because of the elevated viewer position on the bridge. The proposed project would vary from four miles to 13 miles away, making this a background viewing distance. The number of viewers is low-to-moderate and because of travel speeds, duration of view on this road and over-crossing is brief. Therefore, viewer exposure is low-to-moderate for KOP-5 on the Oak Creek Road Bridge. Viewer Concern: low. Other than the industrial workers at the wind farms, California Portland Cement quarry and plant, and agricultural workers, the only other sensitive receptors are local residents in Mojave. Travelers on Oak Creek Road are generally expected to be people who live and/or work locally and are expected to have low concern for visual impacts that would be caused by the proposed project, due to the presence of existing wind farms along Oak Creek Road, as seen in the background on the right side of this view. Recreationists traveling on this road may be concerned with visual resources, but most are assumed to be traveling through the area to other, more scenic destinations or to view WTGs. Overall, viewer concern is estimated to be low. Visual Quality: low. The landscape in this portion of the proposed project is characterized by the flat plain of the Mojave Desert Landscape Unit (Landscape Unit 3), leading the eye to the Tehachapi Mountains Landscape Unit (Landscape Unit 2) on the skyline. Vegetation is predominantly low-growing, dark green and gray-green creosote bush scrub, with some scattered shade trees in the residential areas in the left foreground of this view. The primary focal point in this view is the skyline ridge of the Tehachapi Mountains, with the gray ribbon of asphalt road leading the eye and reinforcing the focal point on the horizon. Secondary focal points are created by the light poles that interrupt the view to the background mountain range. Additional focal points are the scattered residences and vertical lines of utility poles, transmission lines, and chain Alta Oak Creek Mojave Project August 2009

12 link fence poles in the foreground that distract from the primary focal point. The lack of topographic features, water features, or interesting vegetation leads to a low visual quality rating. Overall Visual Sensitivity: low. For viewers on Oak Creek Road in Mojave at the railroad overcrossing in general, and from KOP-5 specifically, the low-to-moderate viewer exposure, low viewer concern, and low visual quality lead to a low overall visual sensitivity. KOP 6 Northbound Tehachapi Willow Springs Road KOP-6 is located on Tehachapi-Willow Springs Road, south of Subarea 2 and heading northbound. At this point, vehicles have just turned to the northwest, after having driven straight north toward Subarea 2 of the proposed project site for several miles on Tehachapi-Willow Springs Road (see Figure 4.1-7a Existing Visual Conditions at KOP-6, Northbound Tehachapi- Willow Springs Road at the end of Section 4.1). The view at this curve and along the straightaway ahead provides a panorama of Subarea 2 in the Mojave Desert Landscape Unit (Landscape Unit 3) and of Subarea 1 in the Tehachapi Mountains Landscape Unit (Landscape Unit 2). Existing WTGs are visible against the skyline and on the hillsides of the Tehachapi Mountains Landscape Unit. Exposed rock faces are visible at the CPC quarry. Widely scattered Joshua trees protrude above the dense creosote bush scrub that occupies this portion of the Mojave Desert. The road creates a strong visual axis that directs the eye to these mountains in the background, approximately four to seven miles away. New WTGs at Subarea 2 of the project site would be constructed on the flat plains of the Mojave Desert, to the right (north) side of the road. New WTGs of Subarea 1 of the project site would be constructed on the hillsides and ridgelines of the Tehachapi Mountains, directly ahead and to the right in this view. These new WTGs would be visible at middleground and background distances from KOP-6. The California Aqueduct crosses through the middle of this landscape in a northeast-southwest direction, perpendicular to Tehachapi-Willow Springs Road. The aqueduct is an underground facility, with a surface access road being the only aboveground feature. As such, the aqueduct is not a visual feature in this landscape and does not attract attention from KOP-6. This view also is representative of views from scattered rural residential developments to the south of the proposed project, along Backus Road and Tehachapi-Willow Springs Road. As people travel north on this road, the proposed project would be seen at middleground and background viewing distances, and then further north along the road, WTGs would be seen at foreground viewing distances. Viewer Exposure: moderate. The proposed project would vary from three miles to 13 miles away from KOP-6 on Tehachapi-Willow Springs Road. Therefore, viewing distances would be classified as middleground and background from KOP-6. Because there is no landscape screening by landforms or vegetation, the proposed project would be highly visible from Tehachapi-Willow Springs Road. The number of viewers on Tehachapi-Willow Springs Road would be moderate. For all of these viewers, the duration of view would be brief because of the speed of travel, resulting in a moderate viewer exposure. Viewer Concern: low. People would be able to view the proposed project area from this vantage point and for several miles before while traveling northbound on Tehachapi-Willow Springs Road. Many people who travel these roads are generally expected to be people who live and/or work locally and are expected to have low concern for potential visual impacts that could be caused by the proposed project. Recreationists traveling on this road may be concerned with Alta Oak Creek Mojave Project August 2009

13 visual resources, but most are expected to be traveling through the area to other, more scenic destinations or to see WTGs. Overall, viewer concern is estimated to be low. Visual Quality: low. For Subarea 2 of the proposed project site, the landscape is characterized by a gently sloping desert plain, tilted slightly to the east. The desert is covered with creosote bush scrub and widely scattered Joshua trees. Widely spaced, shallow desert washes are obscured by this vegetation and are not visually evident to passers-by. The primary focal points in this landscape are the slowly moving wind turbine generators on the skyline in the Tehachapi Wind Resource Area. The secondary focal point is the flat desert plain that creates a horizontal line in front of the rugged, barren, wind-swept mountains. The overall visual quality of the affected landscape is low. Overall Visual Sensitivity: low-to-moderate. For viewers on Tehachapi-Willow Springs Road in general, and from KOP-6 specifically, the moderate viewer exposure, low viewer concern, and low visual quality lead to a low-to-moderate overall visual sensitivity. Light and Glare Within the proposed project area, the only existing fixed light sources are found at the California Portland Cement quarry and plant, plus widely scattered red and white strobe lights atop existing meteorological towers and existing WTGs. There are no existing street lights or yard lights within the proposed project area that produce any nighttime light. Transitory nighttime light and glare is produced by headlights from moving vehicles. Analysis of potential light and glare impacts with regard to visual resources considers the following: Artificial sky glow: The brightening of the night sky attributable to human-created sources of light. Glare: Light that causes visual discomfort or disability or a loss of visual performance. Spill light: Light from a lighting installation that falls outside of the boundaries of the property on which the installation is sited. Light trespass: Spill light that because of quantitative, directional, or type of light causes annoyance, discomfort, or loss in visual performance and visibility. There is nighttime sky glow from developed areas surrounding the proposed project site. Specifically, the City of Tehachapi to the northwest, the community of Mojave to the east, and the community of Rosamond to the southeast produce nighttime sky glow. Outside the proposed project site, there are scattered rural residences that have yard lights that also produce nighttime sky glow. Otherwise, the area is generally very dark after sunset. The current nighttime views are of high value. Wind Turbine Generator Visual Considerations Depending upon WTG manufacturer(s) and model(s) chosen, the WTGs would range in height from approximately 80 to 152 meters (265 to 500 feet), as measured from the top of the foundation to the blade tip (with the blade in the vertical position) and would consist of monopole towers, rather than lattice tower designs. Because of the potential height of 500 feet for each WTG, the project would be highly visible. This is especially true when considering the project s Alta Oak Creek Mojave Project August 2009

14 visual characteristics in a landscape setting in the high desert and barren mountain slopes, and the general lack of vegetative screening or topographic screening. Direction of rotation of proposed WTGs is an important visual consideration. In the TWRA, most WTGs have a clockwise direction of rotation, and a few manufacturers WTGs have a counterclockwise direction of rotation (as viewed from the upwind position). When viewed together at the same time, this mix of different rotation directions can be visually confusing and upsetting, with some people reporting physical upset feelings such as vertigo or dizziness. The GE turbines specified in the applicant s Project Description state that [t]he rotor spins in a clockwise direction under normal operating conditions when viewed from an upwind location. Research and recent publications indicate the public is concerned with the visual blight of unmaintained WTGs, spare parts strewn across the land, or decommissioned WTGs that are not removed from the landscape. Some of the operation and maintenance procedures used at existing wind energy sites in the TWRA have been criticized publicly (Gipe, 2009b). With regard to the overhead 230 kv transmission lines that would be constructed as a part of the project, the applicant s Project Description identifies the location of these lines (Alta Windpower Development, 2009). The transmission line structures will be lattice steel towers (LSTs) or tubular steel poles (TSPs). Existing LSTs in the vicinity are galvanized steel and existing TSPs are dark brown corten steel. Existing corten steel monopoles are shown in photographs of existing landscape conditions for KOPs 2 and 4 at the end of this section Regulatory Setting Federal State There are no federal lands involved with the proposed project, and therefore, no federal regulations would apply. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) CEQA Guidelines define a significant effect on the environment to mean a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance (California Code of Regulations [CCR], Title 14, 15382). Kern County Kern County General Plan Chapter 1. Land Use, Open Space, and Conservation Element Light and Glare Policies Policy 47. Ensure that light and glare from discretionary new development projects are minimized in rural as well as urban areas. Alta Oak Creek Mojave Project August 2009

15 Policy 48. Encourage the use of low-glare lighting to minimize nighttime glare effects on neighboring properties. Implementation Measures Implementation Measure AA. The County shall utilize CEQA Guidelines and the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance to minimize the impacts of light and glare on adjacent properties and in rural undeveloped areas. Kern County Zoning Ordinance In 1986, the Wind Energy (WE) Combining District was adopted as Chapter of the Kern County Zoning Ordinance. The WE Combining District promotes the development of wind energy in Kern County. The Wind Energy (WE) Combining District (Chapter 19.64) contains development standards and conditions (Section ) that would be applicable to the siting and operation of turbines. The following provisions apply to the visual characteristics of the project. Chapter Wind Energy (WE) Combining District Element Height Limits Height limits in a WE District are as follows: A. Wind-driven electrical generators and associated meteorological towers shall comply with the height limits specified in Section of this chapter. B. All other uses and structures shall comply with the requirements of the base district with which the WE District is combined Development Standards and Conditions Development in the WE Combining District shall comply with the following standards: B. Towers and blades shall be painted a nonreflective, unobtrusive color or have a nonreflective surface. D. All on-site electrical power lines associated with wind machines shall be installed underground within one hundred fifty (150) feet of a wind turbine and elsewhere when practicable, excepting there from "tie-ins" to utility type transmission poles, towers, and lines. However, if project terrain or other factors are found to be unsuitable to accomplish the intent and purpose of this provision, engineered aboveground electrical power lines shall be allowed. G. Wind generator machine and associated meteorological tower overall height shall not exceed six hundred (600) feet and is subject to Section B. For the purposes of this chapter, machine height shall be measured as follows: 1. Overall machine height of horizontal axis machines shall be measured from grade to the top of the structure, including the uppermost extension of any blades. Alta Oak Creek Mojave Project August 2009

16 2. Machine height of vertical axis or other machine designs shall be measured from grade to the highest point of the structure. I. One (1) project identification sign, located at each point of project ingress and egress, not to exceed thirty-two (32) square feet in area, may be erected on the project site. No other signs shall be installed other than safety signs and the required warning signs. The developer shall submit a sign elevation drawing to the Planning Director for review and approval prior to installation Impacts and Mitigation Measures Methodology Potential impacts to visual resources within the project area were evaluated based on the following criteria: (1) existing visual quality and scenic attributes of the landscape; (2) location of sensitive receptors in the landscape; (3) assumptions about receptors concern for scenery and sensitivity to changes in the landscape; (4) the magnitude of visual changes in the landscape that would be brought about by implementation, construction, and operation of the project; and, (5) compliance with State, County and local policies for visual resources. Photographs of existing landscape conditions and computer-generated visual simulations are provided in this section to accurately portray the proposed project and changes to the visual character of the landscape. Baseline visual resources data were collected using an approach that incorporated a combination of information review, agency consultation, analysis of aerial photographs and satellite imagery, map review, field reconnaissance, and on-site photography. Existing information from recently completed CEQA documents for projects within the proposed project area was used to the extent possible and appropriate. Baseline data were collected for the environmental setting using the following methods: A general overview and site reconnaissance was conducted with Aspen Environmental Group, Kern County staff, and the applicant in October 2008, followed by independent site reconnaissance and site analysis by the visual analyst. Locations of sensitive receptors were identified on USGS topographic maps showing freeways, streets, roads, residences, and trails. Viewpoints were identified from which the proposed project would be seen. From all viewpoints investigated, the most critical views were selected as possible key observation points (KOPs). Landscape photographs were taken from possible KOPs, including panorama views. Latitude, longitude, and elevation for each possible KOP was recorded via Global Positioning System (GPS). From all possible KOPs, the six (6) most critical were selected as KOPs for analysis, based on their ability to exemplify visual resource impacts at a particular location. KOPs that were analyzed are representative of project-induced visual resource impacts to this particular landscape. (See Figure 4.1-1, Landscape Units and KOP Location Map at the end of Section 4.1). Computerized visual simulations were developed based on existing landscape photography, computer models of proposed features, and USGS topographic maps showing project Alta Oak Creek Mojave Project August 2009

17 facilities. Before and after landscape photographs/simulations are presented at the end of Section 4.1. Photographs were taken at each KOP with a Canon-20D digital camera equipped with a fixed focal length lens that provides a normal view, thereby eliminating distortion. For comparison to this normal lens, a wide angle lens makes background features appear unrealistically small and further away, while a telephoto lens makes background features unrealistically larger and closer in the photograph. The normal lens makes all landscape features appear in their proper perspective and size, relative to each other. When on 11x17-inch paper and held approximately 18 inches from the eye, each photograph appears life-size as viewed from on the ground at the exact KOP location. From among the various photographs taken at each KOP, the best exposure and composition was selected to represent the view. Computerized visual simulations were prepared using AutoCAD and 3D-Studio software to create accurate, computerized depictions showing the visual effects of the project. The existing visual conditions are described in detail for each KOP in Section 4.1.3, Environment Setting. Using the computerized visual simulations, predicted future visual effects of the project for each KOP are described in this section. Visual Sensitivity/Visual Change Components The project would be situated on private lands under the jurisdiction of Kern County. Because no federal or State lands would be directly affected by the proposed project, this visual analysis used the Visual Sensitivity/Visual Change (VS/VC) method to assess the visual effects on existing landscapes. The VS/VC criteria were ascertained from the Kern County General Plan which has criteria for visual resource management. The VS/VC methodology used to evaluate potential impacts of the proposed project included a characterization of the visual sensitivity of existing landscapes and the characteristics of existing visual changes apparent in the landscape. At each KOP, existing conditions of the landscape and viewing circumstances were described, leading to a conclusion about the viewpoint s overall visual sensitivity. Project-induced visual change at each KOP was assessed based on field studies of anticipated visual contrast, project dominance, and the potential for view impairment of higher quality landscape features. Project-induced visual change can result from aboveground facilities, vegetation removal, landform modification, component size or scale relative to existing landscape characteristics, and the placement of project components relative to existing developed features. The experience of visual change can also be affected by the degree of available screening by vegetation, landforms, and existing structures; distance from the observers; atmospheric conditions; and angle of view. Computerized visual simulations were prepared to aid in the assessment of visual change and overall impact significance, which was arrived at by evaluating the extent of visual change in the context of the existing visual sensitivity. Visual impact significance is a function of two factors: overall visual sensitivity and extent of visual change. Table illustrates the general relationship between visual sensitivity and visual change. This table was used primarily as a consistency check between individual KOP Alta Oak Creek Mojave Project August 2009

18 evaluations. Determinations of visual sensitivity and visual change were based primarily on analyst s professional experience and site-specific circumstances. The relationships presented in Table are intended as a guide only, recognizing that sitespecific circumstances may warrant a different conclusion. However, it is reasonable to conclude that lower visual sensitivity ratings combined with lower visual change ratings will generally correlate well with lower degrees of impact significance when viewed on-site. Conversely, higher visual sensitivity ratings combined with higher visual change ratings will tend to result in higher degrees of visual impact occurring at the site. Table General Guidance for Review of Visual Impact Significance Visual Visual Change Sensitivity Low Low to Moderate Moderate Moderate to High High Low Not Significant 1 Not Significant Adverse but Not Significant 2 Adverse but Not Significant Adverse but Not Significant Low to Moderate Not Significant Adverse but Not Significant Adverse but Not Significant Adverse but Not Significant Adverse and Potentially Significant 3 Moderate Adverse but Not Significant Adverse but Not Significant Adverse but Not Significant Adverse and Potentially Significant Adverse and Potentially Significant Moderate to High Adverse but Not Significant Adverse but Not Significant Adverse and Potentially Significant Adverse and Potentially Significant Significant 4 High Adverse but Not Significant Adverse and Potentially Significant Adverse and Potentially Significant Significant 4 Significant 1 Not Significant Impacts may or may not be perceptible but are considered minor in the context of existing landscape characteristics and view opportunity. 2 Adverse but Not Significant Impacts are perceived as negative but do not exceed environmental thresholds. 3 Adverse and Potentially Significant Impacts are perceived as negative and may exceed environmental thresholds depending on project and site-specific circumstances. 4 Significant Impacts with feasible mitigation may be reduced to levels that are not significant or avoided all together. Without mitigation, significant impacts would exceed environmental thresholds. Implicit in this rating methodology is the acknowledgment that for a visual impact to be considered significant two conditions generally exist: (1) the existing landscape is of reasonably high quality and is relatively valued by viewers; and (2) the perceived incompatibility of one or more elements or characteristics of the project tends toward the high extreme, leading to a substantial reduction in visual quality. Thresholds of Significance The Kern County CEQA Implementation Document and Kern County Environmental Checklist state that a project would normally be considered to have a significant impact if it would: Alta Oak Creek Mojave Project August 2009

19 Project Impacts Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista; Substantially alter or damage a major landform or scenic resource, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway; Substantially alter or degrade the existing visual character or quality of the proposed project site and its surroundings; or Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Impact 4.1 1: Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista There is no national, state, or county designated scenic vista in the vicinity of the proposed project; therefore, no impact would occur. Impacts to non-designated scenic vistas are evaluated in detail for each KOP under Impact Mitigation Measures The project would comply with the goals, policies, and implementation measures of the Kern County General Plan. No additional mitigation measures are proposed. Level of Significance after Mitigation Impacts would be less than significant. Impact 4.1 2: Substantially alter or damage a major landform or scenic resource, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State Scenic Highway The proposed project would be located on private land that is generally undeveloped and rural in nature located on the southeastern flank of the Tehachapi Mountains and in the Mojave Desert at the northern extent of the Antelope Valley. Land usage in and around the proposed project area consists of open space with some mining and cement manufacturing. The landforms vary from moderate hillsides in the Tehachapi Mountains, transitioning to a large desert plateau that gradually slopes west to east. The only eligible scenic highways in the vicinity are SR 14 north of Mojave and SR 58 east of Mojave (from Mojave to Boron), and the proposed project does not extend into the viewsheds of either of these eligible State scenic highways. Therefore the proposed project would not damage any existing scenic resources of any designated or eligible State Scenic Highway, and impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures The project would comply with the goals, policies, and implementation measures of the Kern County General Plan. No additional mitigation measures are proposed. Level of Significance after Mitigation Impacts would be less than significant. Alta Oak Creek Mojave Project August 2009

20 Impact 4.1 3: Substantially alter or degrade the existing visual character or quality of the proposed project site and its surroundings The existing visual character and quality of the proposed project site is based primarily on its varying topography, which includes the Tehachapi Mountains, Oak Creek Canyon and Cameron Canyon, and the flat desert plain of the Mojave Desert. The existing visual environment of the project site would be substantially altered to accommodate the construction and operation of the proposed project. Project Wide Visual Impacts Lands that are currently undeveloped open space, such as Subarea 2 and 3 of the project site, would be transformed into a commercial-scale wind farm. Lands that currently contain wind turbine generators, such as Subarea 1 of the project area, would be developed with new wind turbine generators in new locations. The entire proposed project area would be transformed from its current condition (natural open space and/or developed wind farm) to a larger sized, commercial-scale wind farm consisting of up to 320 WTGs. Each wind turbine could be as much as 500 feet tall. For consistency and to allow the applicant the flexibility to construct the largest possible WTGs, all simulations show proposed WTGs at 500 feet tall. Project elements that possess the potential to substantially alter the existing visual character or quality of the proposed project site include up to 320 WTGs, service roads, a power collection system, communication cables, overhead and underground transmission lines, electrical switchyards, four project substations, meteorological towers, and one or two operations and maintenance facilities. The applicant s Project Description states that the 34.5 kv collection system would be on wood or steel poles. The tubular steel poles (TSP) would be visually compatible with the WTG monopoles of the proposed project. Construction of the proposed project would also require the following temporary project facilities: access roads, laydown areas, and concrete batch plants. In addition, clearing and grading required for project access/maintenance roads and level pads for project facilities could be visually apparent because of the removal of vegetation and the creation of cut-and-fill slopes or large cleared and graded areas. Because of their size and configuration, these various elements would be clearly evident and would significantly alter the open space character of the existing landscape from viewpoints described in Section 4.1.3, Thoroughfares and Communities, above, to result in significant impact. Visual Impacts at Specific KOPs There are numerous public use areas from which the public could view the proposed project. These viewpoints are described in Section under the heading Thoroughfares and Communities. The project would result in visual quality changes that may result in potentially adverse effects on scenic vistas throughout the project area. Visual impacts as seen from the six key observation points are discussed below. KOP 1 Dennison Road KOP-1 was established on Dennison Road, south of Highline Road, on a major road leading to several rural residences and to the eastern, less developed portion of Kern County s Tehachapi Alta Oak Creek Mojave Project August 2009

21 Mountain Park. There are numerous rural residences to the west of Subarea 3 of the proposed project, and this view from Dennison Road looks directly at Subarea 3, where nine new wind turbines would be located on a flat landform below the skyline (see Figure 4.1-2b Visual Simulation at KOP-1, Dennison Road at the end of Section 4.1). Visual Contrast: low-to-moderate. The proposed monopoles, nacelles, and rotors would be painted a dull light-gray color has been shown to blend well with sky colors, as shown in the simulation (Figure 4.1-2b). When viewed against a dark green landscape further uphill, this lightgray paint color appears white or nearly white. This color would create moderate visual contrast against the dark green landscape backdrop of the Tehachapi Mountains. This color contrast and the motion of the rotors would draw the viewer s eye to the new wind turbines, similar to the existing WTGs on the skyline. There are hundreds of existing wind turbines visible on the skyline. As seen from KOP-1, the nine new WTGs of the project would be closer and taller than the existing WTGs, and would create low-to-moderate visual contrast. Project Dominance. Because the proposed WTGs of Subarea 3 of the proposed project site would be seen at middleground distances from KOP-1 at Dennison Road, and because existing WTGs already occupy the skyline, the proposed project would not dominate this view. Project dominance would be low-to-moderate as seen from KOP-1. View Impairment. As seen from KOP-1, the proposed WTGs of Subarea 3 of the proposed project would have a landform backdrop for the northern (lower) WTGs but would be partially skylined in the southern (upper) extent of the array. This would create low-to-moderate view impairment of the skyline and surrounding landscape scenery. Overall Visual Change. Based on low-to-moderate visual contrast, low-to-moderate project dominance, and low-to-moderate view impairment, the overall visual change at KOP-1 would be low-to-moderate. Visual Sensitivity/Visual Change. Referring to Table 4.1-1, General Guidance for Review of Visual Impact Significance, the overall visual change seen from KOP-1 at Dennison Road would be low-to-moderate and in the context of the existing landscape s moderate visual sensitivity, the resulting visual impact would be adverse but not significant. KOP 2 Southbound Tehachapi Willow Springs Road KOP-2 was located on Tehachapi-Willow Springs Road, heading southbound. At this point, vehicles have just passed over the crest of the Oak Creek Summit and are starting a long straight stretch where they are able to focus on the landscape in front of them. Hundreds of existing lightgray WTGs are visible on the flatter slopes beyond, and the proposed project would construct and operate new WTGs that would be visible from here (see Figure 4.1-3b Visual Simulation at KOP-2, Southbound Tehachapi-Willow Springs Road at the end of Section 4.1). Visual Contrast. As seen from KOP-2, 12 new WTGs at Subarea 1 of the proposed project site would be visible on the right (south) side of the road and five new WTGs would be visible on the left (north) side of the road. Additionally, numerous WTGs at Subarea 2 of the proposed project site would be visible in the background, on the flats of the Mojave Desert, beyond the middleground hill that is the California Portland Cement quarry. New wind turbines of Subarea 1 of the proposed project site would be very visible straight ahead and would protrude above the Alta Oak Creek Mojave Project August 2009

22 skyline of the Tehachapi Mountains. Their height, plus the motion of the rotors, would create new focal points in the landscape, and would draw attention away from new WTGs on the left and in the background on the flats of the Mojave Desert. The motion of wind turbine generators in the foreground and above the skyline would attract attention, creating moderate-to-high visual contrast. Project Dominance. The 12 new WTGs in Subarea 1 of the proposed project site on the right (south) side of Tehachapi-Willow Springs Road would be very visible and would create new focal points in the landscape. In addition, the motion of turbine blades would attract attention away from the natural landforms and vegetative patterns. The project would have moderate-to-high visual dominance. View Impairment. As seen from KOP-2, the proposed WTGs in Subarea 1 of the proposed project would have a landform backdrop for those WTGs on the north (left) side of the road, but would be partially skylined for those WTGs on the south (right) side of the road. This would create moderate view impairment of the skyline and surrounding landscape scenery. Overall Visual Change. Based on moderate-to-high visual contrast, moderate-to-high project dominance, and moderate view impairment, the overall visual change at KOP-2 would be moderate-to-high. Visual Sensitivity/Visual Change. Referring to Table 4.1-1, General Guidance for Review of Visual Impact Significance, the overall visual change seen from KOP-2 and the Tehachapi Willow Springs Road would be moderate-to-high and in the context of the existing landscape s moderate visual sensitivity, the resulting visual impact would be adverse and significant. KOP 3 Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail KOP-3 was located on the PCT in the heart of the Tehachapi Mountains Landscape Unit (Landscape Unit 2). At this point, the PCT is headed northbound, and from here, there is a tremendous panorama of about 270-degrees, to the northwest, northeast, and southeast. This view looks east-northeast and shows existing light-gray WTGs in rows on the hillsides of the Tehachapi Mountains (Landscape Unit 2). New WTGs at Subarea 1 of the proposed project would be located on the skyline in the foreground of the PCT (zero to one-half mile away) (see Figure 4.1-4b Visual Simulation at KOP-3, Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail at the end of Section 4.1). Visual Contrast. As seen from KOP-3 on the PCT, seven new WTGs at Subarea 1 of proposed project would be visible in the foreground as seen from this vantage point on the trail. Because of the wide 270-degree panorama at this location on the PCT, more than seven WTGs would be visible from this KOP but are outside the frame of this photograph. Because the proposed WTGs would be located on the same ridgetop landform as the PCT, even after the proposed temporary trail location, visual contrast would be high. Project Dominance. The new WTGs in Subarea 1 of the proposed project would be very visible from the PCT and would create new focal points in the landscape. In addition, the motion of turbine blades would attract attention away from the natural landforms and vegetative patterns. The project would have high visual dominance. Alta Oak Creek Mojave Project August 2009

23 View Impairment. Because the proposed WTGs would extend so far above the cone of vision as to be beyond the top of the photograph, as illustrated in the simulation of KOP-3, view impairment to surrounding landscape features would be high. Overall Visual Change. Based on high visual contrast, high project dominance, and high view impairment, the overall visual change at KOP-3 on the Pacific Crest Trail would be high. Visual Sensitivity/Visual Change. Referring to Table 4.1-1, General Guidance for Review of Visual Impact Significance, the overall visual change seen from KOP-3 and this vicinity of the Pacific Crest Trail would be high and in the context of the existing landscape s moderate-to-high visual sensitivity, the resulting visual impact would be adverse and significant. KOP 4 Oak Creek Road KOP-4 was located on eastbound Oak Creek Road, looking east-southeast. At this point, the vehicle has just entered the northwestern edge of the Mojave Desert Landscape Unit (Landscape Unit 3) after driving along the Oak Creek canyon in Landscape Unit 2. People would now be focused on Subarea 2 features of the proposed project (see Figure 4.1-5b Visual Simulation at KOP-4, Oak Creek Road at the end of Section 4.1). Visual Contrast. The proposed WTGs would be very visually evident from KOP-4. New monopoles, nacelles, and rotors would be painted a dull light-gray color that has been shown to blend well with sky colors, as shown in the simulation. The motion of the rotors would draw the viewer s eye to the new wind turbines, similar to the existing WTGs that are on the north (left) side of the road, out of frame of this photograph. There are hundreds of existing wind turbines visible on the north side of the road. As shown in the simulation, three new WTGs would be visible in the foreground and dozens more would be visible in the middleground. As seen from KOP-4, the new WTGs would have moderate visual contrast. Project Dominance. The proposed WTGs of Subarea 2 of the proposed project would be seen at foreground and middleground distances from KOP-4 on Oak Creek Road. Three of the proposed WTGs would extend above the skyline as seen from KOP-4, but the majority of Subarea 2 WTGs would have a landform backdrop, as illustrated in the simulation. Therefore, project dominance would be moderate as seen from KOP-4. View Impairment. As seen from KOP-4, the three closest proposed WTGs of Subarea 2 of the proposed project would not have a landform backdrop, but the remainder of proposed WTGs would have a landform backdrop from this vantage point. This would create low-to-moderate view impairment of the skyline and surrounding landscape scenery. Overall Visual Change. Based on moderate visual contrast, moderate project dominance, and low-to-moderate view impairment, the overall visual change at KOP-4 would be moderate. Visual Sensitivity/Visual Change. Referring to Table 4.1-1, General Guidance for Review of Visual Impact Significance, the overall visual change seen from KOP-4 and this general vicinity on Oak Creek Road would be moderate and in the context of the existing landscape s low-tomoderate visual sensitivity, the resulting visual impact would be adverse but not significant. Alta Oak Creek Mojave Project August 2009

24 KOP 5 Oak Creek Road in Mojave at Railroad Over Crossing KOP-5 is located at the northwest edge of the unincorporated town of Mojave, where Oak Creek Road crosses over the Santa Fe Pacific Railroad tracks. At this point, motorists get an elevated view looking west into the Mojave Desert Landscape Unit (Landscape Unit 3) and the Tehachapi Mountains Landscape Unit (Landscape Unit 2). This elevated view gives the best view to the proposed project area from the community of Mojave. The proposed project would be approximately four miles to 13 miles west of this location, making this a background distance zone to the project (see Figure 4.1-6b Visual Simulation at KOP-5, Oak Creek Road in Mojave at Railroad Over-Crossing at the end of Section 4.1). Visual Contrast. Across the flat plain of the Mojave Desert, the proposed WTGs at Subarea 2 of the project site would be very visible against the skyline. The proposed WTG monopoles, nacelles, and rotors would be painted a dull light-gray color that has been shown to blend well with sky colors, as shown in the simulation. Several new WTGs would be located on the skyline ridges of the Tehachapi Mountains, but because of their long distance from eh mountains (12 to 13 miles), these WTGs would barely be visible from KOP-5 due to atmospheric haze. The motion of the rotors would draw the viewer s eye to the new wind turbines against the skyline, similar to the existing WTGs north of Oak Creek Road. There are hundreds of existing wind turbines visible in the right side of this photograph that are somewhat muted because of the viewing distance. Proposed project WTGs would be closer to KOP-5 and taller than the existing WTGs north of Oak Creek Road and would create moderate visual contrast as seen from KOP-5. Project Dominance. Because the proposed WTGs at Subarea 2 of the proposed project site would be seen at background distances, approximately four miles to 13 miles away from KOP-5 at Oak Creek Road, and because existing WTGs already are visible from this location in the Town of Mojave, the project would not dominate the view. However, the motion of spinning rotors would create co-dominance with the existing landscape, and therefore, project dominance would be moderate as seen from KOP-5 at the Railroad Over-Crossing of Oak Creek Road in Mojave. View Impairment. As seen from KOP-5, the proposed WTGs at Subarea 2 of the proposed project would have a landform backdrop for the western and northern arrays of WTGs (right side of simulation Figure 4.1-6b), but WTGs would be skylined in the eastern and southern extent of the arrays (left side of simulation Figure 4.1-6b). Proposed WTGs at Subarea 1 of the project would be situated on skyline ridges, but because of the long distances involved and typical atmospheric haze, they would be barely visible from KOP-5. Because of the skyline interruption on the left, the project would create moderate view impairment of the skyline and surrounding landscape scenery. Overall Visual Change. Based on moderate visual contrast, moderate project dominance, and moderate view impairment, the overall visual change at KOP-5 would be moderate. Visual Sensitivity/Visual Change. Referring to Table 4.1-1, General Guidance for Review of Visual Impact Significance, the overall visual change seen from KOP-5 and Oak Creek Road in Mojave at the railroad over-crossing would be moderate and in the context of the existing landscape s low visual sensitivity, the resulting visual impact would be adverse but not significant. Alta Oak Creek Mojave Project August 2009

25 KOP 6 Northbound Tehachapi Willow Springs Road KOP-6 was established on Tehachapi Willow Springs Road at the point where the northbound road turns northwest, after running north-south for many miles in the Mojave Desert (see Figure 4.1-7b Visual Simulation at KOP-6, Northbound Tehachapi-Willow Springs Road at the end of Section 4.1). The new wind turbines in Subarea 2 of the proposed project site would be very visible on the flats of the Mojave Desert, as seen from KOP-6 and would be in full view from many miles further south of KOP-6, as travelers head northbound. Then as travelers turn northwest on Tehachapi-Willow Springs Road, as represented in KOP-6, new turbines at Subarea 1 of the proposed project site would be visible straight ahead on the Tehachapi Mountain skyline. Existing turbines are visible on the skyline straight ahead, and the new turbines would extend further south along the skyline. Visual Contrast. The new wind turbine generators would be very visible in Subarea 2 after construction because of their height and the lack of vegetative or topographic screening. Because of the greater distance to Subarea 1 on the skyline of the Tehachapi Mountains, the new WTGs there would be less visible. The motion of wind turbine generators in the Mojave Desert and on the skyline mountains also would attract attention, making this a focal point for people driving on the road. As seen from KOP-6 on northbound Tehachapi-Willow Springs Road, the new WTGs would have moderate visual contrast. Project Dominance. The proposed WTGs of Subarea 2 of the proposed project would be seen at middleground distances from KOP-6 on Tehachapi-Willow Springs Road. The proposed WTGs at Subarea 1 of the project site in the Tehachapi Mountains would be seen at background distances from KOP-6. Many of the proposed WTGs would extend above the skyline as seen from KOP-6, but the northern WTGs in Subarea 2 would have a landform backdrop, as illustrated in the simulation. Therefore, project dominance would be moderate as seen from KOP-6. View Impairment. The monopoles, nacelles, and towers in Subarea 2 would extend above the skyline of the Mojave Desert and the Tehachapi Mountains, creating low-to-moderate view impairment of the skyline and surrounding landscape scenery. Overall Visual Change. Based on moderate visual contrast, moderate project dominance, and low-to-moderate view impairment, the overall visual change at KOP-6 would be moderate. Visual Sensitivity/Visual Change. Referring to Table 4.1-1, General Guidance for Review of Visual Impact Significance, the overall visual change seen from KOP-6 and this general vicinity on Tehachapi-Willow Springs Road would be moderate and in the context of the existing landscape s low-to-moderate visual sensitivity, the resulting visual impact would be adverse but not significant. Maintenance and Abandonment As mentioned in Section 4.1.3, Environmental Setting, maintenance practices at wind energy facilities can affect the visual quality and character of landscapes. Research and recent publications indicate the public is generally not happy with the visual blight of un-maintained WTGs, spare WTG parts strewn across the land, or decommissioned WTGs that are not removed from the landscape. Some of the operation and maintenance procedures used at existing wind energy sites in the TWRA have been criticized publicly (Gipe, 2009b). Chapter of the Kern Alta Oak Creek Mojave Project August 2009

26 County General Plan, Section , discusses Wind Turbine Maintenance and Abandonment. Section B declares that Any wind turbine not in operational condition for a consecutive period of twelve (12) months shall be deemed abandoned and shall be removed within sixty (60) days from the date a written notice is sent to the property owner and turbine owner, as well as the project operator, by the County. Enforcement of this provision would aid in the improvement of visual quality and landscape character at the proposed project site. Additionally, more stringent mitigation measures regarding maintenance practices as described below would improve the visual environment of the proposed project. The County currently deems any wind turbine abandoned if it is not in operational condition for a consecutive period of twelve (12) months. Section B declares that In no case shall a wind turbine which has been deemed abandoned be permitted to remain in place for more than forty-eight (48) months from the date the wind turbine was first deemed abandoned. It is expected that neighbors to the proposed project might find the 48 month time period to be excessive for abandoned wind turbines or turbine parts, and the loss of visual quality to the project vicinity to be visually unacceptable for such an extended period of time. Therefore, additional mitigation measures are recommended below. Mitigation measures would reduce impacts at individual KOP locations to a less-than-significant level. However, because there are no feasible mitigation measures that can be implemented to preserve the existing open space landscape character (Subarea 3, southern extent of Subarea 1, and Subarea 2 of the proposed project site) while at the same time developing the wind energy project, impacts to visual resources would be significant and unavoidable Mitigation Measures MM MM MM Each wind turbine shall be painted a uniform light-gray color, such as, RAL 7035 or similar, per manufacturer s requirements. In order to minimize the reflectivity of the structures, the paint to be used shall have a gloss level that does not exceed 30 percent. The surfaces of all other structures (substations, main building, operation and maintenance building, etc.) shall be given low reflectivity finishes with neutral desert tan colors to minimize the contrast of the structures with their backdrops. To the extent feasible, the sites selected for use as construction laydown areas shall be areas that are already disturbed and/or are in locations of low visual sensitivity. All construction-related areas shall be kept clean and tidy by storing construction materials and equipment within the proposed construction staging and laydown areas and/or generally away from public view. The project proponent shall remove construction debris promptly at intervals of two weeks or less, at any one location. All operation and maintenance areas shall be kept clean and tidy by storing all wind generation equipment, parts, and supplies in areas that are screened from view and/or are generally not visible to the general public. The project proponent shall remove derelict WTGs and derelict parts and pieces within 30 days of decommissioning, and shall relocate such equipment, derelict parts and pieces to an area that is screened from view and/or is not visible to the general public. Alta Oak Creek Mojave Project August 2009

27 MM Grading and landscape treatment around tower bases shall match conditions of surrounding landscape and habitat to recreate a pleasing visual environment. Level of Significance after Mitigation Impacts would be significant and unavoidable. Impact 4.1 4: Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area Installation of lighting on certain WTGs would be required to comply with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Advisory Circular 70/7460-1, Obstruction Lighting/Marking, requirements. As discussed in more detail in Section 4.9 Land Use and 4.15 Transportation and Traffic, Mitigation Measure would require the applicant to file form , Notification of Proposed Construction or Alteration, with the FAA for each WTG. The FAA would determine the appropriate lighting required for the project and the appropriate exterior finish for the WTGs for daylight marking to ensure safety. It is likely that not every WTG in an array would require light, but rather, the end WTGs and every fourth or fifth WTG in an array would be lighted at night with a strobe. Individual and/or isolated WTGs would each likely be lighted with a strobe. There are no residences within the boundaries of the proposed project area; however, there are some scattered residences west and north of Subarea 3 of the project site and along Cameron Road, north of Subarea 1 of the project site. Other viewers that could be impacted by the addition of the nighttime lighting include user of the PCT who may be camping along the trail. Views of pulsating nighttime lighting atop new WTGs would change the night sky view for these and other distant viewers, such as from Tehachapi or Mojave. Bright white lights or strobe lighting could disturb residents and would be visible from the surrounding communities from background viewing distances (four miles or more away). This impact is potentially significant because it would substantially change the aesthetic nighttime character of this rural area. The change to the night sky from the introduction of continuous or pulsating red or white lights and security lighting is considered significant and unavoidable. In addition, the main building, substations, and O&M building are expected to have security lighting. As discussed in Section 4.1.3, Light and Glare, above, there are four categories of light and glare, artificial sky glow, glare, spill light, and light trespass. Artificial sky glow is brightening of the night sky that is attributable to human-created sources of light. This factor is normally attributable to artificial lighting sources in urbanized areas and is not expected to become a factor with the proposed project. Glare is light that causes visual discomfort or disability or a loss of visual performance. Glare is normally attributable to highly reflective objects or intense artificial lighting sources and is not expected to become a factor with the proposed project. Spill light is light from a lighting installation that falls outside of the boundaries of the property on which the installation is sited. This factor is normally attributable to artificial lighting sources such as yard lights, parking lot lights, stadium lighting, etc. Spill light could occur at the O&M facility of the proposed project. Light trespass is spill light that because of intensity, direction, or source type causes annoyance, discomfort, or loss in visual performance and visibility. This factor is normally attributable to artificial lighting sources such as yard lights, Alta Oak Creek Mojave Project August 2009

28 parking lot lights, stadium lighting, etc. Spill light and light trespass could occur at the O&M facility of the proposed project. Mitigation Measures Implement MM and as describe above, and MM as described in Section 4.9, Land Use. MM All outdoor lighting shall be the minimum required to meet safety and security standards. All light fixtures shall be hooded and/or shielded to eliminate any potential for glare effects and to prevent light from spilling off the site or up into the sky. In addition, the fixtures shall have sensors and switches to permit the lighting to be turned off when it is not required. Level of Significance after Mitigation Impacts would be less than significant. Cumulative Setting Impacts and Mitigation Measures Cumulative Setting The geographic extent of the cumulative impacts analysis for visual resources is the same as the extent of the regional setting, as described in Section That extent is defined as the viewsheds from which the proposed project might be seen, including immediate foreground, foreground, middleground, and background viewing distances. In the vicinity of the proposed project, there are many past projects and activities that have modified the landscape and changed the naturally evolving landscape character. Some of these past activities have adversely affected natural-appearing landscape character and visual quality, including a one-mile grid of roads, SR 14 and SR 58, wind farms in the TWRA, scattered rural/agricultural developments, transmission lines, substations, the California Aqueduct, and the communities of Tehachapi, Monolith, Mojave, and Rosamond. The one-mile grid of roads in the region provides numerous vantage points from which the landscape easily can be viewed. Agricultural developments in the vicinity include irrigated and dry-crop farming, and irrigated fields have introduced lush green landscapes into the otherwise dry, relatively barren desert environment that was previously covered by creosote bush scrub. Wind farms have introduced motion into an otherwise motionless landscape, and large rotors atop tall monopole and lattice structures attract attention to the wind turbine generators in the TWRA. The newest generation of turbines is much taller than older turbines, and has introduced a massive, sculptural character, albeit industrial in nature. Existing transmission lines cross the area in several different directions, including SCE s Antelope-Magunden corridor, Antelope-Vincent corridor, Midway-Vincent corridor, and Los Angeles Department of Water and Power s 1,000 kv direct current corridor. All of these corridors contain large, industrial character lattice steel towers and high voltage conductors that have affected the naturally evolving and/or natural-appearing landscape character and visual quality. In addition, the Sagebrush Transmission Line carries wind power from the TWRA to the Vincent Substation on tubular steel poles, which are dark brown corten steel. Alta Oak Creek Mojave Project August 2009

29 New residential subdivisions are occurring in the vicinity of Tehachapi, and they will continue to alter existing landscape character and visual quality of the valley and mountain environment through the addition of numerous streets, street lights, houses, driveways, vehicles, non-native landscaping, and people. At this time, the applicant is in the early planning stages for construction of a second wind energy facility that would be located within the general vicinity of the proposed project and possibly on portions of the proposed project site. No application has been filed for this second wind project and there is no specific information to conduct a full environmental evaluation. However, this second facility is considered as part of the cumulative visual impacts discussion in this EIR. It is reasonable to assume that new WTGs would be similar in size and density at this second wind energy facility. Potential cumulative visual impacts would be similar to the proposed project, and similar or identical mitigation measures would be recommended for both wind energy projects. Cumulative visual impacts are expected, therefore, to be less than significant after implementation of visual resource mitigation measures, except for the loss of open space landscape character, which would be adverse and significant as described in Section above. There are additional proposed and approved wind projects in the vicinity. Although there is no specific information regarding construction schedules for these proposed and/or approved wind projects, because the construction duration of the proposed project would span 24 to 48 months, it is reasonable to assume that construction of some of these cumulative projects would occur concurrently with that of the proposed project. SCE is currently constructing the Windhub Substation on Oak Creek Road and 220 kv and 500 kv transmission lines as part of the Antelope Transmission Project, Segments 2 & 3 (ATP 2-3). These facilities are situated in Subareas 1 and 2 of the proposed project site. In the Final EIR for ATP 2-3, it was determined that the new substation would create adverse and significant visual impacts. The new 220 kv and 500 kv transmission lines would create visual impacts that are adverse but not significant. Overall, impacts to visual resources as seen from Oak Creek Road would be significant, but mitigable (CPUC, 2006). SCE is proposing to construct the Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project (TRTP), which is scheduled for overall completion of all segments (Segments 4-11) in The TRTP would involve new and upgraded transmission infrastructure along approximately 173 miles of new and existing ROWs in southern Kern County, portions of Los Angeles County, including the Angeles National Forest, and the southwestern portion of San Bernardino County. Segment 10 of TRTP is a proposed 500 kv transmission line and it would be situated in Subarea 2 of the proposed project site. The proposed Whirlwind Substation would be situated to the southwest of the proposed project area and in a different viewshed, on 170th Street West, about 1.5 miles south of Rosamond Boulevard. Impact 4.1 5: Contribute to cumulative visual impacts As discussed above, ongoing development throughout the cumulative effects area for visual resources is dominated by residential and commercial developments near Tehachapi, and also includes additional development of wind resources in the TWRA. This trend in wind development and residential development is also representative of reasonably foreseeable future projects in the cumulative effects area, as supported by the aggressive population growth and demand for Alta Oak Creek Mojave Project August 2009

30 electricity forecasted by the TRTP EIR/EIS. Reasonably foreseeable future projects within the proposed project vicinity are expected to be characteristic of past and ongoing projects. The proposed project study area is currently undergoing rapid wind power development and some population growth. The population in Kern County is expected to rise by 113 percent between the years 2000 and 2050 (CPUC, 2009). As such, development in the TWRA is expected to continue and increase substantially to accommodate the increasing population and demands for renewable energy. Furthermore, it is expected that existing open space areas in the proposed project vicinity, which are currently either natural-appearing or used for agricultural operations, will be utilized for the construction of wind energy or residential developments. With regards to visual resources, these changes will dramatically alter the current open space landscapes within the viewsheds of the proposed project. With regard to Impact (Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista), the proposed project would not affect a designated scenic vista. Therefore, impacts of the proposed project would not have the potential to combine with impacts from past, present, or reasonably foreseeable projects to result in a cumulative impact on a scenic vista. With regard to Impact (Substantially alter or damage a major landform or scenic resource, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway), the proposed project is not within a state scenic highway viewshed and would not result in damage to major landforms or scenic resources. Therefore, impacts of the proposed project would not have the potential to combine with impacts from past, present, or reasonably foreseeable projects to result in a cumulative impact to major landforms, scenic resources, or scenic highways. With regard to Impact (Substantially alter or degrade the existing visual character or quality of the proposed project site and its surroundings), it has been determined that the proposed project change the existing open space landscape character of the project area to a more industrial character. Several wind generation facilities with features similar to those of the proposed project are located within the same viewshed as the proposed project. These other wind projects have also resulted in an increased industrial character of the surrounding area. Additionally, more wind projects are planned within the TWRA, which is comprised largely of open space land that allows unobstructed views of distant landscape features. The construction of additional wind farms in the TWRA would further increase the industrial visual character of the TWRA. This change from an open space landscape to a more industrial character is considered to represent a significant impact. Therefore, proposed project impacts, when combined with visual impacts of other past, present, reasonably foreseeable projects would be significant. With regard to Impact (Create a New Source of Substantial Light or Glare That Would Adversely Affect Day or Nighttime Views in the Area), there are feasible mitigation measures that can be implemented to improve the nighttime visual environment while still constructing, operating, and maintaining the wind energy project and other planned or reasonably foreseeable projects. Therefore, after mitigation visual resource impacts of light and glare would be less than significant. With regard to the three major residential developments listed in Section 3.11 of the EIR (Tejon, Frazier Park, & Centennial) these planned developments are not within the viewshed of the Alta Oak Creek Mojave Project August 2009

31 proposed project. Therefore, visual impacts of these three projects would not combine with visual impacts of the proposed project. There are no cumulative visual impacts associated with these three projects and the proposed project. Mitigation Measures Implement MM through MM and MM as described in Section 4.9, Land Use. Level of Significance after Mitigation Impacts would be significant and unavoidable. Alta Oak Creek Mojave Project August 2009

32 Tehachapi Landscape Unit 1 Tehachapi Valley A « N - 14W 12N - 13W Subarea A N - 14W Landscape Unit 2 Tehachapi Mountains N - 13W A8 5 Mojave A Pacific Crest Trail Subarea A Oak Creek Road Landscape Unit 3 Mojave Desert « Silver Creek Road N - 14W Tehachapi - Willow Springs Road N - 13W 3 Subarea I Miles Alta-Oak Creek Mojave Project A Landscape Unit 4 Isolated Mountains Backus Road A Key Observation Points KOP Bearings Landscape Unit Pacific Crest Trail 6 Proposed Wind Energy Combining District Zone Change Alta-Oak Creek Mojave Project Area Figure Landscape Units and KOP Location Map August 2009

33 4.1. Aesthetics Aspen Environmental Group Alta-Oak Creek Mojave Project Source: Photography by Lee Anderson Figure 4.1-2a Existing Visual Conditions at KOP-1, Dennison Road August 2009

34 4.1. Aesthetics Aspen Environmental Group Alta-Oak Creek Mojave Project Source: Simulation by Lee Anderson and 3DScape Figure 4.1-2b Visual Simulation at KOP-1, Dennison Road August 2009

35 4.1. Aesthetics Aspen Environmental Group Alta-Oak Creek Mojave Project Source: Photography by Lee Anderson Figure 4.1-3a Existing Visual Conditions at KOP-2, Southbound Tehachapi-Willow Springs Road August 2009

36 4.1. Aesthetics Aspen Environmental Group Alta-Oak Creek Mojave Project Source: Simulation by Lee Anderson and 3DScape Figure 4.1-3b Visual Simulation at KOP-2, Southbound Tehachapi-Willow Springs Road August 2009

37 4.1. Aesthetics Aspen Environmental Group Alta-Oak Creek Mojave Project Source: Photography by Lee Anderson Figure 4.1-4a Existing Visual Conditions at KOP-3, Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail August 2009

38 4.1. Aesthetics Aspen Environmental Group Alta-Oak Creek Mojave Project Source: Simulation by Lee Anderson and 3DScape Figure 4.1-4b Visual Simulation at KOP-3, Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail August 2009

39 4.1. Aesthetics Aspen Environmental Group Alta-Oak Creek Mojave Project Source: Photography by Lee Anderson Figure 4.1-5a Existing Visual Conditions at KOP-4, Oak Creek Road August 2009

40 4.1. Aesthetics Aspen Environmental Group Alta-Oak Creek Mojave Project Source: Simulation by Lee Anderson and 3DScape Figure 4.1-5b Visual Simulation at KOP-4, Oak Creek Road August 2009

41 4.1. Aesthetics Aspen Environmental Group Alta-Oak Creek Mojave Project Source: Photography by Lee Anderson Figure 4.1-6a Existing Visual Conditions at KOP-5, Oak Creek Road in Mojave at Railroad Over-Crossing August 2009

42 4.1. Aesthetics Aspen Environmental Group Alta-Oak Creek Mojave Project Source: Simulation by Lee Anderson and 3DScape Figure 4.1-6b Visual Simulation at KOP-5, Oak Creek Road in Mojave at Railroad Over-Crossing August 2009

43 4.1. Aesthetics Aspen Environmental Group Alta-Oak Creek Mojave Project Source: Photography by Lee Anderson Figure 4.1-7a Existing Visual Conditions at KOP-6, Northbound Tehachapi-Willow Springs Road August 2009