The Visual Resources section of this EIR describes the scenic and visual impacts to the landscape that are associated with the construction and operation of the Proposed Project. Visual resources were investigated based on the following criteria: (1) location of sensitive receptors in the landscape; (2) assumptions about the receptors sensitivity to changes in the landscape; and (3) the magnitude of visual changes in the landscape that would be brought about by implementation of the Project. D.14.1 Environmental Setting D.14.1.1 Visual Resource Methodology Based on the description of the Proposed Project and alternatives, the Visual Resources Technical Team defined the study area for the visual resource analysis as the viewsheds from which the Proposed Project and alternatives might be seen, including immediate foreground, foreground, middleground, and background viewing distances. Viewing distance is the distance between the viewed object and viewer. When a viewer is closer in proximity to a viewed object, more detail can be seen and there is greater potential influence of the object on visual quality. For this Specialist Report, four viewing distances were used: (1) immediate foreground (approximately between 0 and 300 feet from viewers), (2) foreground (approximately between 300 feet and 0.5 mile), (3) middleground (approximately between 0.5 and 4 miles), and (4) background (beyond approximately 4 miles). For the Proposed Project and its alternatives, baseline data were collected using an approach that incorporated a combination of information review, analysis of aerial photographs and satellite imagery, review of maps, field reconnaissance, site analysis, and on-site photography. Existing information was used to the extent possible and appropriate, including the Applicant s Project Description and PowerPoint Presentation (Liberty, 2007). Baseline data were collected for the environmental setting using the following methodology: A general overview and site reconnaissance was conducted for the project. Locations of sensitive receptors were mapped on existing USGS topographic maps and/or aerial photographs showing freeways, streets, roads, schools, and residences. Viewpoints were identified from which the Proposed Project and alternatives would be seen. From all of these viewpoints, the most critical views were selected as possible key observation points (Possible KOPs). From all Possible KOPs, the most critical were selected as KOPs for analysis, based on their ability to exemplify either typical visual impacts of the Project, or worst-case visual impacts at a particular location. Written descriptions were prepared for each KOP, including a photograph of existing conditions as a thumbnail view to augment the text in the Affected Environment section. 11 x17 color images of existing conditions are found at the end of the Specialist Report in concert with the visual simulations at 11 x17 size. From dozens of potential viewpoints, three (3) locations were selected as Key Observation Points (KOPs) for detailed analysis of the Proposed Project. At each KOP, photographs were taken with a digital camera Draft EIR D.14-1 June 2008
equipped with a normal focal length lens. When printed on 11x17-paper, each photograph appears lifesize when held approximately 18-inches away. From among all photographs taken, the best were selected to represent the existing view from each of the three KOPs, and were used for subsequent computerized visual simulations to depict the visual effects of the Project. In the Affected Environment section, the existing visual situation is described in detail for each KOP, and a small thumbnail photograph is displayed. In the Impact Analysis Section, future visual effects of the Project were predicted for each KOP by using the computerized visual simulations and professional judgment. Visual Sensitivity/Visual Change Methodology (VS/VC) The VS/VC methodology used to analyze the 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. Visual sensitivity consists of three components: visual quality, viewer concern, and viewer exposure. The description of visual quality notes the existing natural landscape features and built structures that contribute to overall visual quality. Viewer concern can be described as the expectations for the landscape that are held by the viewing public. These concerns were elicited during scoping and from planning documents. Viewer concern is often reflected in public policy documents that identify landscapes of special concern (vista points, scenic trails, ridgeline protection ordinances, etc.) or roadways with special scenic status (scenic highways). Viewer exposure also affects a landscape s overall visual sensitivity. Landscapes that have very low viewer exposure (based on landscape visibility, viewing distance, number of people who view the landscape, or duration of time that the landscape can be viewed) will 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. Project-induced visual change was determined for each KOP based on field studies of anticipated visual contrast, project dominance, and the potential for view impairment, that is, potential of the proposed structure to block, obstruct, or impair the view to the backdrop landscape, skyline, or higher quality landscape features. Project-induced visual change can result from the visual appearance of aboveground facilities, vegetation removal, landform modification, project component size or scale relative to existing landscape characteristics, and the placement of project components relative to developed features. The experience of visual change can also be affected by the degree of available screening by vegetation, landforms, architecture and other structures; distance from the observers; atmospheric conditions; and angle of view. As described in detail above, 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. Table D.14-1 illustrates the general relationship between visual sensitivity and visual change. This table was used primarily as a consistency check between individual KOP evaluations. Determinations of visual sensitivity and visual change were based primarily on analyst experience and site-specific circumstances at each KOP. The relationships presented in Table D.14-1 are intended as a guide only, recognizing that site-specific 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. 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. June 2008 D.14-2 Draft EIR
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. Table D.14-1. General Guidance for Review of Visual Impact Significance Visual Sensitivity Low Low to Moderate Low Not 1 Not Low to Moderate Moderate Moderate To High High Not Adverse but Not Adverse but Not Adverse but Not Adverse but Not Adverse but Not Adverse but Not Adverse and Potentially Visual Change Moderate Adverse but Not 2 Adverse but Not Adverse but Not Adverse and Potentially Adverse and Potentially Moderate to High Adverse but Not Adverse but Not Adverse and Potentially Adverse and Potentially High Adverse but Not Adverse and Potentially 3 Adverse and Potentially 4 Table Notes 1 Not 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 Impacts are perceived as negative but do not exceed environmental thresholds. 3 Adverse and Potentially Impacts are perceived as negative and may exceed environmental thresholds depending on project and sitespecific circumstances. 4 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. D.14.1.2 Affected Environment This section documents the existing visual conditions of the landscape where the Proposed Project and the Banning electric utility 34.5-kV tie-line would be located.. Figures D.14-1A, D.14-2A and D.14-3A contain landscape character photographs captured from those sensitive receptor locations depicting representative views within the vicinity of the landscape. Thumbnail photographs of landscapes that were selected as KOPs and were subjected to detailed analysis are presented below alongside the descriptive text. City of Banning, California The affected environment extends from North Fourth Street in the west to the Morongo Casino Resort on Seminole Drive to the east. The semi-arid landscape is dominated by the imposing San Jacinto Mountains located immediately to the south of San Gorgonio Pass and the San Gabriel Mountains located to the north of Interstate 10 (I-10). North of I-10 the developed areas consist of widely mixed uses, including low density rural residential, light commercial, schools, parks, churches, and the Morongo Indian Reservation. While developed areas south of I-10 could still be classified as mixed use, consisting of schools, light commercial and rural residences, they are clearly lower in density, and appear to be more industrial in nature, particularly those areas adjacent to the Banning Municipal Airport. Draft EIR D.14-3 June 2008
KOP-1 Interstate 10 KOP-1 was established approximately 4,200 feet away from the Proposed Project site on Interstate 10, and represents the view for eastbound travelers as they look forward and to the southeast. KOP-1 is located just east of South Hathaway Street on I-10. This view is representative of what eastbound travelers would see in route to the Morongo Resort or Palm Springs, which is located beyond, to the east. The landscape appears both rural and industrial in nature, framed by the background San Jacinto Mountains that form a focal point on the horizon, and which contrast with the arid, relatively flat land below. In the foreground, parallel to I-10 is John Street and a heavy freight railroad spur, both of which attract attention away from the mountains. In this photograph, transmission line conductors cross overhead, perpendicular to the freeway, but these are minor visual elements when seen at freeway speeds of 65 to 70 mph. Between the railroad and mountains are the runways of the Banning Municipal Airport and several small airport support structures (see Figure D.14-1A KOP-1: Interstate 10 Existing Conditions). Viewer Exposure: moderate-to-high. Because there is no visual screening by landforms or vegetation, and therefore low visual absorption capability, the Proposed Project would be highly visible in the middleground, more than ½ mile away, at the base of the San Jacinto Mountains. The number of viewers would be high on the Interstate. For all of these viewers, the duration of view would be brief to moderate, due to speed of travel and intermittent screening in the immediate foreground of the freeway. Because of the overall lack of screening to the Proposed Project site, viewer exposure would be moderate-to-high. Viewer Concern: moderate-to-high. Visitors to the Morongo Resort and residents of the Morongo Reservation and community of Banning would perceive any visible increase in industrial character, structure prominence, or view blockage of higher value landscape features, (such as sky, ridgelines, or San Jacinto Mountains), an adverse visual change. Although travelers on I-10 may be concerned with visual resources, most are not traveling to the area, but instead through the area, to other, more scenic destinations. Overall, viewer concern is estimated to be moderate-to-high. Visual Quality: low-to-moderate. Foreground views to the southeast from I-10 are dominated by the flat arid landscape of San Gorgonio Pass and the presence of the railroad and Banning Municipal Airport. Views to the southeast are back-dropped (and confined) by the steeply rising ridges of the San Jacinto Mountains that define the pass between the arid desert to the east and the urban basin of the Inland Empire to the west. Overall Visual Sensitivity: moderate. For visitors traveling to the community or Morongo resort/reservation or Palm Springs beyond, the moderate viewer exposure, moderate-to-high viewer concern, and low-to-moderate visual quality lead to an overall moderate visual sensitivity of the visual setting and viewing characteristics. June 2008 D.14-4 Draft EIR
KOP-2 Desert Hills Premium Outlets on Seminole Drive KOP-2 was established approximately 9,000 feet away from the Proposed Project site, from the Desert Hills Premium Outlet stores on Seminole Drive, just north of I-10, looking west-southwest. Not only is this view representative of what patrons of Desert Hills might see, but also that of what westbound travelers departing the Morongo Resort on Seminole Drive might view as well. Because I-10 and Seminole Drive are parallel, this view from KOP-2 also represents I-10 westbound views. The landscape appears both rural and industrial in nature, framed by the San Jacinto Mountains to the south, and arid, relatively flat land of Banning to the north. In the foreground, parallel to I-10 is Railroad Avenue and a heavy freight railroad spur. In the distance, approximately in the center of the view are the runways of the Banning Municipal Airport (see Figure D.14-2A KOP-2: Desert Hills Premium Outlets on Seminole Drive Existing Conditions). Viewer Exposure: moderate-to-high. From this view, the Proposed Project would be partially screened by the intermediate ridge that forms the base of the San Jacinto Mountains to the south. Therefore visibility would be moderate at the base of the San Jacinto Mountains and viewing distance is middleground. The number of viewers would be high from westbound Seminole Drive and the Desert Hills Outlets, plus I-10. For all of these viewers, the duration of view would be moderate, due to speed of travel and duration of stay. Therefore, viewer exposure would be moderate-to-high. Viewer Concern: moderate-to-high. Visitors of the Morongo Resort/reservation and the community would perceive any visible increase in industrial character, structure prominence, or view blockage of higher value landscape features, (such as: sky, ridges, or San Jacinto Mountains), an adverse visual change. Although patrons of the Desert Hills Outlets and westbound travelers on Seminole Drive may be concerned with visual resources, most are not traveling to the area, but instead through the area, to other, more scenic destinations. Overall, viewer concern is estimated to be moderate-to-high. Visual Quality: low-to-moderate. Foreground views to the southwest from Seminole Drive are dominated by the asphalt paving, the flat arid landscape of San Gorgonio Pass, and the presence of the railroad. Views to the southern horizon are back-dropped by the steeply rising landforms of the San Jacinto Mountains that define the pass between the arid desert to the east and the urban basin of the Inland Empire to the west. Overall Visual Sensitivity: moderate. For the patrons of the Desert Hills Outlets or the Morongo Resort/reservation, considering the moderate-to-high viewer exposure, moderate-to-high viewer concern, and low-to-moderate visual quality, the overall visual sensitivity of the visual setting and viewing characteristics would be moderate. KOP-3 North Hathaway Street and East Nicolet Street KOP-3 was established approximately 6,200 feet away from the Proposed Project site, at the corner of North Hathaway Street and East Nicolet Street, just south of the Morongo Indian Reservation. Adjacent on North Allen Street to the west are Mission and First Baptist Churches, as well as Pass Valley Park to the north on East George Street. This view is representative of what southbound travelers see when leaving the Morongo Reservation or the adjacent rural neighborhoods of Banning. The landscape appears predominantly rural in nature, framed by the San Jacinto Mountains at the horizon, and relatively arid flat lands below. Vehicular Draft EIR D.14-5 June 2008
traffic on I-10 is visible in the middleground, along with several transmission conductors above, as they run along North Hathaway Street (see Figure D.14-3A KOP-3: North Hathaway Street and East Nicolet Street Existing Conditions). Viewer Exposure: moderate-to-high. Because there is little to no landscape screening by landforms or vegetation; the Proposed Project would be highly visible in the middleground, beyond I-10, at the base of the San Jacinto Mountains. The number of viewers would be moderate-to-high. For all of these viewers, the duration of view would be moderate, due to speed of travel. Therefore, viewer exposure would be moderate-to-high. Viewer Concern: moderate-to-high. Most residents of the Morongo Reservation and the adjacent rural community would perceive any visible increase in industrial character, structure prominence, or view blockage of higher value landscape features, (such as: sky, ridges, or San Jacinto Mountains), an adverse visual change. Although the heavy freight vehicular traffic on I- 10 accompanied by the regular railroad traffic might be construed as an existing adverse condition in the environment, the viewer concern from this key observation point is still estimated to be moderate-to-high. Visual Quality: low-to-moderate. Foreground views to North Hathaway and East Nicolet are dominated by the flat arid landscape of San Gorgonio Pass and the presence of I-10. Views to the south are back-dropped (and confined) by the steeply rising ridges of the San Jacinto Mountains that define the pass between the arid desert to the east and the urban basin to the west. Overall Visual Sensitivity: moderate. For residents of the Morongo Reservation and the adjacent rural community, considering the moderate-to-high viewer exposure, moderate-to-high viewer concern, and low-tomoderate visual quality, the overall visual sensitivity of the visual setting and viewing characteristics would be moderate. D.14.2 Applicable Regulations, Plans, and Standards D.14.2.1 Federal The Proposed Project and its alternatives would not occupy any federal lands and, therefore, there are no federal regulations for visual resources that would apply in this EIR. D.14.2.2 State The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was enacted in 1970. CEQA provides a process for determining a project s potential effect on the environment and developing measures to minimize those effects. California Public Resources Code, 21060.5 states that Environment means the physical conditions which exist within the area which would be affected by a Proposed Project, including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, noise, objects of historic or aesthetic significance (emphasis added). Chapter 1, 21000 Policy, of the California Environmental Quality Act states that the California Legislature finds and declares as follows: June 2008 D.14-6 Draft EIR
(a) The maintenance of a quality environment for the people of this state now and in the future is a matter of statewide concern. (b) It is necessary to provide a high-quality environment that at all times is healthful and pleasing to the senses and intellect of man. (c) There is a need to understand the relationship between the maintenance of high-quality ecological systems and the general welfare of the people of the state, including their enjoyment of the natural resources of the state. (d) The capacity of the environment is limited, and it is the intent of the Legislature that the government of the state take immediate steps to identify any critical thresholds for the health and safety of the people of the state and take all coordinated actions necessary to prevent such thresholds being reached. (e) Every citizen has a responsibility to contribute to the preservation and enhancement of the environment. (f) The interrelationship of policies and practices in the management of natural resources and waste disposal requires systematic and concerted efforts by public and private interests to enhance environmental quality and to control environmental pollution. (g) It is the intent of the Legislature that all agencies of the state government which regulate activities of private individuals, corporations, and public agencies which are found to affect the quality of the environment, shall regulate such activities so that major consideration is given to preventing environmental damage, while providing a decent home and satisfying living environment for every Californian. The Legislature further finds and declares that it is the policy of the state to: (a) Develop and maintain a high-quality environment now and in the future, and take all action necessary to protect, rehabilitate, and enhance the environmental quality of the state. (b) Take all action necessary to provide the people of this state with clean air and water, enjoyment of aesthetic, natural, scenic, and historic environmental qualities, and freedom from excessive noise. Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Chapter 3 Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act states in Article 20 Definitions: 15360. Environment Environment means the physical conditions which exist within the area which will be affected by a proposed project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historical or aesthetic significance. The area involved shall be the area in which significant effects would occur either directly or indirectly as a result of the project. The "environment" includes both natural and man-made conditions. 15382. Effect on the Environment effect on the environment means 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. Title 14. California Code of Regulations, Chapter 3 Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, states in 15126.2 Consideration and Discussion of Environmental Impacts: (a) The Environmental Effects of the Proposed Project. An EIR shall identify and focus on the significant environmental effects of the proposed project. In assessing the impact of a proposed project on the environment, the lead agency should normally limit its examination to changes in the existing physical conditions in the affected area as they exist at the time the notice of preparation is published, or where no notice of preparation is published, at the time environmental analysis is commenced. Direct and indirect significant effects of the project on the environment shall be clearly identified and described, giving due consideration to both the short-term and long-term effects. The discussion should include relevant specifics of the area, the resources involved, physical changes, alterations to ecological systems, and changes induced in population distribution, population concentration, the human use of the land (including commercial and residential development), health and safety problems caused by the physical changes, and other aspects of the resource base such as water, historical resources, scenic quality, and public services. Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines asks the following four questions regarding aesthetics, which can lead to a determination of a significant visual impact: Draft EIR D.14-7 June 2008
Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? D.14.2.3 Local The Proposed Project would be located in the City of Banning in Riverside County. The Riverside County General Plan establishes land use standards for design of projects within areas containing natural features and other characteristics which contribute to natural scenic beauty. The General Plan mandates that these features be preserved and incorporated into the project design, whenever possible. The Riverside County General Plan (Open Space and Conservation Element) designates the area along SR 62 from I-10 north to the San Bernardino County line as a scenic corridor. In addition, the Western Coachella Valley Plan designates other highways/roads within the San Gorgonio Pass area, east of the Liberty Project area, as scenic corridors: SR 62, SR 111, Palm Drive, Pierson Blvd, Snow Creek Road, Dillon Road, Whitewater Canyon Road, Varner Road, and I-10. The County is seeking State approval from Caltrans to designate I-10 from SR 62 west to the San Bernardino County line and SR 111 from the interchange at I-10 east to SR 74 in Palm Desert as State Scenic Highways. Riverside County has local ordinances regarding visual resources and scenic quality that apply to the Proposed Project site. Riverside County published on October 7, 2003, its CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations of the Board of Supervisors of Riverside County for the 2003 Riverside County General Plan. In its Findings of Fact and Mitigation Measures, the County declares for Aesthetics/Visual Resources (in part) as follows: (http://www.tlma.co.riverside.ca.us/generalplan/findings.html): Environmental Impact 4.4.1. The proposed General Plan would increase the development of urban uses, causing a substantial loss in open space and aesthetic resources. This could significantly alter existing and future public views and view corridors, which include State and County designated Scenic Highways. Adopted Policies and/or Mitigation Measures Policies: LU 2.1, LU 4.1, LU 8.1, LU 8.3-8.4, LU 11.1, LU 13.1-13.8, LU 16.1, LU 17.1, LU 17.3, LU 17.6, LU 19.4, LU 21.2, LU 22.10, LU 22.11, LU 26.1, LU 26.3, LU 26.10, LU 26.11, OS 21.1, OS 21.2, OS 21.22, and OS 22.1-22.5. 4.4.1A Development projects shall be subject to the requirements of all relevant guidelines, including the community center guidelines (Appendix J of the proposed General Plan), Riverside County supervisorial district design and landscape guidelines, and all applicable standards, policies, guidelines, and/or regulations of the County of Riverside or other affected entities pertaining to scenic vistas/aesthetic resources. Factors considered in these guidelines include the scale, extent, height, bulk, or intensity of development; the location of development; the type, style, and intensity of adjacent land uses; the manner and method of construction, including materials, coatings, and landscaping; the interim and/or final use of the development; the type, location, and manner of illumination and signage; the nature and extent of terrain modification required; and the potential effects to the established visual characteristic of the project site and/or an identified scenic vista/aesthetic resource Environmental Impact 4.4.2 Implementation of the proposed General Plan would increase the effects of light and glare upon existing residential uses, as well as the Mount Palomar Observatory. New light and glare would be created by the addition of residences and commercial establishments within the proposed General Plan. The most significant glare would be generated by commercial uses throughout the proposed General Plan area, especially in association with June 2008 D.14-8 Draft EIR
outdoor parking that may be lit at night and that would be visible from roadways. This is a potentially significant impact, but would be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of mitigation measures. Adopted Policies and/or Mitigation Measures Ordinance: County of Riverside Ordinance No. 655, restricting the permitted use of certain light fixtures emitting into the night sky undesirable light rays which have a detrimental effect on astronomical observation and research. 4.4.2A Riverside County shall require that sources of lighting within the General Plan area be limited to the minimum standard required to ensure safe circulation and visibility. 4.4.2B Riverside County shall require exterior lighting for buildings to be of a low profile and intensity. 4.4.2C The County shall establish a liaison with California Institute of Technology to ensure "dark skies" preservation procedures are incorporated, as necessary, in future County ordinances. 4.4.2D The County shall participate in Palomar Observatory's "dark sky" conservation area. Environmental Impact 4.4.3 Implementation of the proposed General Plan would result in conversion of open space areas to urban land use. Adopted Policies and/or Mitigation Measures No feasible mitigation measures exist to address the conversion of open space to urban land. In the City of Banning General Plan, the Open Space and Conservation Goals, Policies and Programs includes the following policy statement for visual resources: (http://www.ci.banning.ca.us/ DocumentView.asp?DID=4) Policy 3 The City of Banning shall protect the peaks and ridgelines within the City, and encourage coordination with adjacent jurisdictions to protect the peaks and ridgelines within the City s area of influence, to protect the historic visual quality of the hillside areas and natural features of the Pass area. Program 3A The City shall investigate and implement actions and regulations that facilitate hillside development that is compatible with the natural characteristics of the terrain while protecting the significant view sheds and natural hillside features such as topography, natural drainage, vegetation, wildlife habitats, movement corridors, etc. On the website trails.com, there is a listing for the Palms to Pines Scenic Drive: Banning to Palm Desert. According to this website, there is A sixty-six-mile-long, two-lane highway that climbs from Banning over the scenic San Jacinto Mountains and down into Palm Desert in the Coachella Valley. This is not an official State or County designated scenic highway. D.14.3 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures for the Proposed Project This visual analysis used the Visual Sensitivity/Visual Change (VS/VC) method to assess the visual effects of the Project on existing landscapes. The VS/VC criteria were ascertained from the Riverside County General Plan and the City of Banning, both of which have criteria for aesthetics and visual resource management. (Because no federal lands would be occupied by the Proposed Project, therefore, the BLM Visual Resource Management System was not employed.) From dozens of potential observer positions, three locations were selected as KOPs for detailed analysis of the Proposed Project. At each KOP, photographs were taken with a digital camera equipped with a normal focal length lens. When printed on 11x17-paper, each photograph appears life-size when held approximately 18- inches from the eye. From among the photographs taken, the best were selected to represent the view from each KOP. Computerized visual simulations were prepared using AutoCAD and 3D-Studio software to create accurate computerized depictions showing the visual effects of the Project. In the Affected Environment section, the existing visual situation is described in detail for each of the KOPs. Using the computerized visual Draft EIR D.14-9 June 2008
simulations, predicted future visual effects of the Project for each KOP are described below in Section D.14.3.2 Impact Analysis. D.14.3.1 Criteria for Determining Significance The Proposed Project would result in significant visual resource impacts if it would: Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. There are no state scenic highways from which the Proposed Project would be viewed. The closest designated state scenic highway is Highway 62, from its junction with Interstate 10 to the north County line. This highway is several miles east of the Proposed Project site, and in an entirely different viewshed. Therefore, the second criterion regarding scenic resources will be dropped from further consideration and discussion. D.14.3.2 Impact Analysis Assessment of the likely visual impacts that would occur as a result of the Proposed Project and alternatives was accomplished by establishing representative KOPs from which to conduct a detailed analysis of the Project s physical impacts on the visual environment. In this Impact Analysis Section, future visual effects of the Project were predicted for each KOP by using these computerized visual simulations. The following section provides a discussion of the impacts identified for the Proposed Project and alternatives. Riverside County policies and programs require a project to be compatible in terms of scale, extent, height, bulk, or intensity of development; the location of development; the type, style, and intensity of adjacent land uses. The Applicant provided a day-time visual simulation and a 3D computerized model of the Proposed Project. That close-up view of the facility is displayed at Figure D.14-4 Liberty Energy Facility Looking East. While many other industrial uses have been designed to blend in with other nearby buildings or with the landscape, the colors and textures selected for the buildings, storage silos, and screen walls in this simulation indicate that the Applicant wants the facility to stand out and attract attention. Riverside County and the City of Banning do not appear to have ordinances controlling color selection for projects such as Liberty Energy. However, the Proposed Project has not undergone City of Banning Planning Division staff review or review by the Planning Commission. The City of Banning s entitlement process requires the site plan and building elevations to be submitted to the City s Planning Division for approval. This review evaluates the visual impact, including consideration of surface textures, color palette schemes, and related architectural styles and design features. Impact V-1: The Proposed Project would have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista (Class II) According to drawings provided by the Applicant, the white buildings would be approximately 100-feet tall; the rooftop cooling towers would be approximately 116-9 above the ground plane to the top of the fan shroud; the green screen panels would be 70-feet tall. The water vapor plumes would extend approximately 36-feet above the top of roof top cooling towers (see Figure D.14-1B KOP-1: Interstate 10 Visual Simulation; Figure D.14-2B KOP-2: Desert Hills Premium Outlets on Seminole Drive Visual Simulation; and Figure D.14-3B KOP-3: North Hathaway Street and East Nicolet Street Visual Simulation). There are two cooling towers per building, and three separate buildings in each simulation. There are six cooling towers June 2008 D.14-10 Draft EIR
shown in each simulation. Because of the angle of view of each KOP, some cooling towers and plumes are situated in front of others. Therefore, in the simulations of KOPs 1 and 3, there appears to be only three plumes, while in the view of KOP-2, four separate plumes are visible, and the other two plumes are visually stacked one in front of the other. As seen from KOP-1 on Interstate 10, KOP-2 at Desert Hills Premium Outlets on Seminole Drive, and KOP-3 on North Hathaway Street and East Nicolet Street, the Proposed Project would be very noticeable and would draw viewers attention away from the San Jacinto Mountain backdrop. This is especially true because of the overall height of the buildings, the bright yellow and green colors selected for the buildings and screen walls that wrap around all three power trains, as well as the plumes of vapor that would occur during certain atmospheric conditions. The combination of these visual attributes of the Project would certainly draw attention to the facility, thereby creating a new focal point in the landscape. Viewers attention is currently focused on the undeveloped skyline and undeveloped, steep, barren slopes of the San Jacinto Mountains, with the undeveloped flat plain at the base of the mountains. Implementation of the Proposed Project, however, with its bright yellow and green colors that contrast against the tan-brown mountainside, and periodic vapor plumes extending into the sky, would draw viewers attention and create co-dominance of focal points: at the skyline and would create a dominant focal point at the Liberty facility. The contrasting yellow and green colors would draw viewers attention to the geometric forms of the buildings and cooling towers and would create high visual contrast. The moving vertical lines of the vapor plumes that extend above the facility and then blow off in the direction of the prevailing winds would create moderate-to-high contrast. The new electric transmission line, with its horizontal lines of new conductors, would create low visual contrast. None of the Project facilities (buildings, cooling towers, new power poles or conductors) would block the skyline or views, and therefore, no ridgeline protection ordinance would be violated. The motion of vapor plumes in the sky would attract attention, and would reinforce the focal point of the bright yellow and green Project facilities for people driving on the freeway and nearby streets, and for community residents and visitors to Banning and the Morongo Resort/reservation, resulting in a moderate-tohigh overall visual change. The architectural significance of the Proposed Project may be enhanced by the screen wall that wraps about all three power trains, which in form, does have a softening effect that tends to lessen the otherwise industrial nature of the facility. Likewise, the semi-translucent equipment enclosures may aid to break down the scale of the overall massing. The bright yellow and green color treatment selected for the numerous panels of the screen wall, a broad spectrum of pale to dark green, tends to negate the function of the architectural form, which should be to downplay the significance and the industrial character of the project, enabling it to more effectively blend into the surrounding landscape. Likewise, the bright yellow color selected for the primary power train equipment tends to draw attention to it in the rural environment; in this case, the steeply rising tan-brown San Jacinto Mountains in the background. If these bright color treatments were substituted with a more subdued palette of warm earth tones, not unlike those of the arid, mountainous environment surrounding them, then the Proposed Project generating units would appear to blend with the existing natural-appearing landscape character, not contrast strongly with it. Similarly, if the colors treatments were substituted with a palette of off-white or beige colors, similar to existing industrial buildings in the vicinity, then the generating units would appear to blend with the existing industrial landscape character, not contrast strongly with it. Draft EIR D.14-11 June 2008
Implementation of the Proposed Project would result in a substantial adverse effect on the existing scenic vistas to the San Jacinto Mountains as seen from numerous vantage points on I-10, Seminole Drive, North Hathaway Drive, East Nicolet Street, and numerous other vantage points in and near Banning. Referring to Table D.14-1, the overall visual change seen from numerous vantage points in the vicinity of Banning and specifically from KOPs 1, 2, and 3, would be moderate-to-high and in the context of the existing landscape s moderate overall visual sensitivity, the resulting visual impact would be adverse and potentially significant. Implementation of mitigation measures would reduce visual impacts such that the Proposed Project would not be as visually evident when seen from the numerous vantage points described above. Implementation of Mitigation Measures V-1a (Treat Surfaces with Appropriate Colors, Textures, and Finishes) and V-1b (Establish Perimeter Wall and Evergreen Vegetative Screen) would improve the visual environment of the proposed Proposed Project. This would result in an improved visual environment, as compared to the Proposed Project without mitigation (Class II). Mitigation Measure for Impact V-1 V-1a V-1b Treat Surfaces with Appropriate Colors, Textures, and Finishes. For all external structures that are visible from sensitive viewing locations, Liberty Energy and its Contractors shall select surface materials with colors, finishes, and textures to most effectively blend the structures with the surrounding landscape. For the new transmission line, conductors shall be non-specular and nonreflective, and the insulators shall be non-reflective and non-refractive. Liberty Energy shall coordinate with the City of Banning Planning Division to develop a color palette and selection of finishes and textures to ensure that the objectives of this measure are achieved. Liberty Energy and its Contractors shall submit a Structure Surface Treatment Plan for the external visible facilities and structures, demonstrating compliance with this measure to the City of Banning for review and approval at least 60 days prior to the start of construction. Establish Perimeter Wall and Evergreen Vegetative Screen. Liberty Energy and its Contractors shall establish a permanent perimeter wall at least eight-feet (8 ) tall. The eight-foot height of the perimeter wall will be measured from the existing or future ground plain, and may consist of a three-foot berm plus a five-foot wall, a two-foot berm and a six-foot wall, or an eight-foot wall. Contractors shall install a permanent evergreen vegetative screen outside the wall, of sufficient height for immediate visual screening around the Project site. Liberty Energy and its Contractors shall provide a permanent drip irrigation system for plant survival. Plant materials selected for screening shall be evergreen, wind-resistant, non-invasive, and acclimated to the desert environment of the Pass area. Because of the views to the site from the Banning-Idywild Highway as it descends from the mountains to the south, the permanent evergreen vegetative screen shall be established along the southern edge of the development, and adjacent to the north bank of Smith Creek. Liberty Energy shall coordinate with the City of Banning Planning Division to ensure that the objectives of this measure are achieved. Liberty Energy and its Contractors shall submit a Landscape Screening Plan for the Project area demonstrating compliance with this measure to the City of Banning for review and approval at least 60 days prior to the start of construction. Impact V-2: The Proposed Project would substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings (Class II) The existing visual character and quality of the site and its surroundings are similar to the description of scenic vistas described under Impact V-1, above. The degradation of existing visual character and quality of the site and its surroundings would be similar in all respects to the Impacts described under Impact V-1 (Class II). Implementation of Mitigation Measure V-1a (Treat Surfaces with Appropriate Colors, Textures, and Finishes) would reduce these visual impacts to be less than significant. June 2008 D.14-12 Draft EIR
Mitigation Measure for Impact V-2 V-1a Treat Surfaces with Appropriate Colors, Textures, and Finishes. Impact V-3: The Proposed Project would create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. (Class II) At the new Liberty Energy facility, new sources of light (Criterion V-4) would adversely affect nighttime views as seen from numerous sensitive receptor locations in the City of Banning and at the Morongo Resort/reservation, and specifically from KOP-1 (I-10), KOP-2 (Desert Hills Premium Outlets on Seminole Drive), and KOP-3 (North Hathaway Street and East Nicolet Street). Because the Proposed Project would operate 24-hours a day and would require outdoor and indoor lighting; it would create a new source of nighttime lighting. Presence of nighttime lights at the new energy facility would be an unusual and visually incongruous element against the undeveloped, dark, unlit landscape of the San Jacinto Mountains in the background, as no other sources of light are present in this vicinity. Standard illumination of the entire facility would create strong visual impacts. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) considers a structure to be an obstruction to air navigation if it is of a height greater than 500 feet above ground level (AGL) at the site of the object, no matter the distance to an airport. At five miles from an airport, this height reduces to 400 feet AGL; to 300 feet AGL at four miles away; and to 200 feet AGL at three miles away. Greater restrictions apply when a tower is closer than three nautical miles from an airport, such as the Proposed Project. If the FAA determines that a structure could be an obstruction to air navigation, then obstruction marking (alternating aviation orange and aviation white paint) and/or lighting (red lights or white lights) would be required (14 CFR Part 77, 77.23 Standards for Determining Obstructions). Because the proximity of the proposed Proposed Project to the Banning Airport is within one mile, the Proposed Project would have obstruction paint markings and/or lighting. Aviation lighting would affect nighttime views and, therefore, there would be nighttime lighting visual impacts. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-5a (Use Shielded Lighting and Direct Lighting in a Downward Position) and V-3a (Use Only Non-Specular and Non-Reflective Conductors and Insulators) would reduce visual impacts, as compared to the proposed Proposed Project without mitigation, to less than significant levels (Class II). Mitigation Measures for Impact V-3 BIO-5a Use Shielded Lighting and Direct Lighting in a Downward Position. V-3a Use Only Non-Specular and Non-Reflective Conductors and Insulators. Liberty Energy and its Contractors shall use only non-specular and non-reflective conductors, and the insulators shall be non-reflective and non-refractive. Liberty Energy and its Contractors shall submit samples of these materials to the City of Banning for review and approval at least 120 days prior to the start of construction. D.14.4 Alternative 1 - Charles Street Truck Route This alternative is a modified transportation route developed jointly between the City of Banning and Liberty Energy. In Alternative 1, the Charles Street Truck Route, instead of turning east on Westward Avenue, trucks would continue on Hathaway Street to Charles Street, where they would turn east and follow Charles Street to the Liberty Energy facility. Figure C-1 shows the Charles Street Truck Route. All other components of construction and operation of the Liberty Energy facility would remain the same as described for the Proposed Project. Draft EIR D.14-13 June 2008
D.14.4.1 Alternative 1 Environmental Setting The visual resource environmental setting of Alternative 1 would be identical to the environmental setting of the Proposed Project. D.14.4.2 Alternative 1 - Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures The visual resource environmental impacts and mitigation measures for Alternative 1 would be identical to the environmental impacts and mitigation measures for the Proposed Project. D.14.5 Alternative 2 - Avoid Peak Hour Traffic Alternative Under this alternative, operational truck traffic would be restricted to occur only outside of peak traffic hours. Construction of the Alternative 2 would be the same as described for the Proposed Project. With the exception of the times that operational truck traffic would be restricted, operation and maintenance of Alternative 2 would be the same as the Proposed Project. D.14.5.1 Alternative 2 Environmental Setting The visual resource environmental setting of Alternative 2 would be identical to the environmental setting of the Proposed Project. D.14.5.2 Alternative 2 - Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures The visual resource environmental impacts and mitigation measures for Alternative 2 would be identical to the environmental impacts and mitigation measures for the Proposed Project. D.14.6 No Project Alternative Selection of the No Project Alternative would mean that the Proposed Project would not be implemented. As such, none of the associated construction, operation, or maintenance activities would occur. The No Project Alternative would be seen from the same three KOPs used to describe and analyze the Proposed Project, plus a multitude of other vantage point, as described in the Affected Environment section of this EIR. All three KOPs afford scenic vistas to the surrounding landscape and the existing condition photographs portray the visual effects the No Project Alternative would have on the site and its surroundings. The visual impacts of the proposed Proposed Project would not occur and the site and its surroundings would remain in their existing condition. Visual impacts resulting from the No Project Alternative are the same as the existing conditions. D.14.7 Mitigation Monitoring, Compliance, and Reporting Table Table D.14-2 on the following page presents the mitigation monitoring recommendations for Visual Resources. June 2008 D.14-14 Draft EIR
Table D.14-2. Mitigation Monitoring Program Visual Resources Impact Mitigation Measure Location Monitoring / Reporting Action Effectiveness Criteria Responsible Agency Timing V-1: The Proposed Project would have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista (Class II) V-1a: Treat Surfaces with Appropriate Colors, Textures, and Finishes. For all external structures that are visible from sensitive viewing locations, Liberty Energy and its Contractors shall select surface materials with colors, finishes, and textures to most effectively blend the structures with the surrounding landscape. For the new transmission line, conductors shall be non-specular and nonreflective, and the insulators shall be non-reflective and non-refractive. Liberty Energy shall coordinate with the City of Banning Planning Division to develop a color palette and selection of finishes and textures to ensure that the objectives of this measure are achieved. Liberty Energy and its Contractors shall submit a Structure Surface Treatment Plan for the external visible facilities and structures, demonstrating compliance with this measure to the City of Banning for review and approval at least 60 days prior to the start of construction. V-1b: Establish Perimeter Wall and Evergreen Vegetative Screen. Liberty Energy and its Contractors shall establish a permanent perimeter wall at least eight-feet (8 ) tall. The eight-foot height of the perimeter wall will be measured from the existing or future ground plain, and may consist of a three-foot berm plus a five-foot wall, a two-foot berm and a six-foot wall, or an eight-foot wall. Contractors shall install a permanent evergreen vegetative screen outside the wall, of sufficient height for immediate visual screening around the Project site. Liberty Energy and its Contractors shall provide a permanent drip irrigation system for plant survival. Plant materials selected for screening shall be evergreen, wind-resistant, non-invasive, and acclimated to the desert environment of the Pass area. Because of the views to the site from the Banning-Idywild Highway as it descends from the mountains to the south, the permanent evergreen vegetative screen shall be established along the Entire project site. Perimeter of site. Visual analyst designated by the City of Banning will review Structure Surface Treatment Plan and Landscape Screening Plan for visual impact reduction and compliance with these mitigation measures. Adverse visual impacts are reduced. Effectiveness can be monitored by comparing computerized visual simulations of Proposed Project without mitigation to new computerized visual simulations that implement the control measures. City of Banning Prior to Construction Draft EIR D.14-15 June 2008
Table D.14-2. Mitigation Monitoring Program Visual Resources Impact Mitigation Measure Location southern edge of the development, and adjacent to the north bank of Smith Creek. Liberty Energy shall coordinate with the City of Banning Planning Division to ensure that the objectives of this measure are achieved. Liberty Energy and its Contractors shall submit a Landscape Screening Plan for the Project area demonstrating compliance with this measure to the City of Banning for review and approval at least 60 days prior to the start of construction. Monitoring / Reporting Action Effectiveness Criteria Responsible Agency Timing V-2: The Proposed Project would substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. (Class II) V-1a: Treat Surfaces with Appropriate Colors, Textures, and Finishes. V-1b: Establish Perimeter Wall and Evergreen Vegetative Screen. Entire project site. Perimeter of site. Same as above. Same as above. City of Banning Prior to Construction V-3: The Proposed Project would create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. (Class II) BIO-5a: Use Shielded Lighting and Direct Lighting in a Downward Position. V-3b: Use Only Non-Specular and Non-Reflective Conductors and Insulators. Entire project site. New transmission line. Visual analyst designated by the City of Banning will review Lighting Plan and samples of conductors and insulators for visual impact reduction and compliance with these mitigation measures. Adverse visual impacts are reduced. Effectiveness can be monitored by comparing unshielded lighting plans with shielded lighting plans, and by comparing samples of conductors and insulators for reflectivity. City of Banning Prior to Construction June 2008 D.14-16 Draft EIR
D.14.9 References Aspen (Aspen Environmental Group). 2007. Site Visit conducted by Aspen Visual Analyst on November 14. Banning. 2008. City of Banning General Plan. [online]: http://www.ci.banning.ca.us/index.asp?nid=54, http://www.ci.banning.ca.us/documentview.asp?did=4 Accessed January 5. California Code of Regulations, Title 14 15126.2, 1998. Consideration and Discussion of Environmental Impacts. California Code of Regulations Title 14 15000 et seq., 1998. CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, Landscape Aesthetics Criteria for Significance. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). 2008. Title 14--Aeronautics and Space, Chapter I Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, Part 77 Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace, 77.23 Standards for determining obstructions. (01 01 04 Edition) [online]: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_04/14cfr77_04.html Accessed January 5. Description (Liberty). 2007. Riverside County Integrated Plan (RCIP). 2008. Transportation and Land Management Agency. [online]: http://www.tlma.co.riverside.ca.us/cgi-bin/search.pl. Accessed January 5.. 2008. RCIP. [online]: http://www.tlma.co.riverside.ca.us/generalplan/findings.html Accessed January 5. Trails.com. 2008. Palms to Pines Scenic Drive: Banning to Palm Desert. [online]: http://www.trails.com/tcatalog_trail.asp?trailid=xfa109-020. Accessed January 5. USDA-Forest Service. 1973. National Forest Landscape Management, Volume 2, Chapter 1, The Visual Management System. Agriculture Handbook No. 462.. 1995. Landscape Aesthetics, A Handbook for Scenery Management. Agriculture Handbook No. 701. USDI-Bureau of Land Management. 2000. BLM web site Visual Resource Management. [online]: http://www.blm.gov/narsc/vrm/vrmsys.html. Accessed January 5.. 1986. Manual Handbook 8410-1 Visual Resource Inventory.. 1981. Visual Resource Management Program Handbook, GPO Stock No. 024-011-00116-6. Draft EIR D.14-17 June 2008
This page intentionally left blank
Aspen Environmental Group Draft EIR D.14-19 Figure D.14-1A KOP-1: Interstate 10 Existing Conditions June 2008
Aspen Environmental Group Draft EIR D.14-20 Figure D.14-1B KOP-1: Interstate 10 Visual Simulation June 2008
Aspen Environmental Group Draft EIR Figure D.14-2A KOP-2: Desert Hills Premium Outlets on Seminole Drive Existing Conditions D.14-21 June 2008
Aspen Environmental Group Draft EIR D.14-22 Figure D.14-2B KOP-2: Desert Hills Premium Outlets on Seminole Drive Visual Simulation June 2008
D. 14 Visual Resources Aspen Environmental Group Draft EIR D.14-23 Figure D.14-3A KOP-3: North Hathaway Street and East Nicolet Street Existing Conditions June 2008
D. 14 Visual Resources Aspen Environmental Group Draft EIR D.14-24 Figure D.14-3B KOP-3: North Hathaway Street and East Nicolet Street Visual Simulation June 2008
D. 14 Visual Resources Aspen Environmental Group Draft EIR Figure D.14-4 Daytime Visual Simulation Proposed Project Looking East D.14-25 June 2008