Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-11-01 Combined GP 2045 Public Testimony (Davina Mar -Adrienne Hew (5)From:heyhew@me.com To:WPCtestimony Subject:Subject: Testimony On Hawaii General Plan 2045 Date:Friday, November 1, 2024 10:39:04 AM I’m writing to express concern, if not outrage, at the General Plan being proposed. It wreaks of the kind of vague language that we have seen in the past is done to hoodwink the public into believing that our elected officials are working on our behalf, when in fact, itALWAYS ends up in a land grab and nefarious attempt to strip rights away from those who pay your salaries. Here are a few concerns: The plan refers to STAKEHOLDERS, not HOMEOWNERS. Stakeholders, more often than not, refers to corporations or billionaires who buy off politicians and unelectedofficials for personal gain at the expense of the homeowner and taxpayer. What do these stakeholders have a stake in?What does this plan plan to accomplish? If it cannot be clearly defined, this GP needs to be abandoned and redone with the public’s input.The last thing communities need is "politics and technical coordination”. Stay out of the private lives of citizens. A smart plan would remove regulations on small farmers andput them where they belong on the polluting corporations and those who fly private planes or charter private sea vessels to and within the islands.Everyone knows that SUSTAINABILITY is code for raping the planet on YOUR terms. This is just a buzz word salad used to fine every day people who are not the source ofthe climate crisis. If you really cared about the planet, if sustainability were really the goal, the military concentration camp at Pohakuloa would be SHUT DOWN and privatejets and yachts would be BANNED! There are too many issues to go into with this plan. Suffice it to say, TEAR THIS VERSIONDOWN! And redraft a new version WITH THE PUBLIC’S INPUT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION! Mahalo, Adrienne Hew From:Chris Stamey To:WPCtestimony Subject:Testimony On Hawaii General Plan 2045 Date:Friday, November 1, 2024 2:33:34 PM This General Plan needs to be thrown out and redone! Here are a some reasons why: It is too vague. The language is not clear what the plan wishes to accomplish. There are MANY concerning sections that sound like rights, freedoms, and property are at risk with this plan. Page 111, section 17.4: "Land use application shall identify as early as possible any existing or potential active living corridors that should be incorporated into the counties open space network." This sounds like you'll be looking at people's property to take for open space because they apply for land use. That is not Pono and is an invasion of privacy! 2.2 Biocultural Stewardship Goal (1.13): "Incentive private land management practices that enhance natural resources and values and when appropriate pursue the acquisitions of lands for the protections of natural resources." We've seen your incentives like the tax incentives on Maui, which is costing people thousands if they don't do what the government wants. You want to acquire land to protect natural resources and values. Who gets to decide what are natural resources and values? Whose values are they? Why do you think it's your right to "pursue" acquiring someone's private property?!! You have an entire section on climate change that looks to take away many freedoms and rights. Did you know there are close to 2K credentialed scientists from around the world that state there is no climate danger? https://clintel.org/world-climate-declaration/ The reason for this narrative is the change these policies will create will increase the pocket book of investors in renewable energy as it reduces freedoms for the general population. Page 116, 19.7: "Concurrency reviews should incorporate reduction in vehicle miles traveled to mitigate traffic impacts and achieve sustainability and demand management goals." The Constitution says we have the right to travel! It is not the right of the Planning department to "demand" that your management goals reduce that right! Anything that reads, "Reduce vehicle miles traveled" should be removed from this plan! This General Plan must be redone with the people and the future keiki in mind, which this plan does not do! Alyssa Stamey From:Chuck Flaherty To:WPCtestimony Subject:Re: GP2045, late written testimony plus attachments Date:Friday, November 1, 2024 12:00:18 PM Attachments:GP2040, Aug. 2019 draft, Public Access thru Cultural&Historic Preservation.pdf Scenario Planning - Trend Scenario Land Use Allocation Technical Report - Placeways (2016).pdf Technical Methodology for General Plan Land Use (2020-24), 8-23-24.pdf Aloha Mr. Chair and members of the Commission, Kala mai for not getting my written testimony to you prior to the meeting. Please see testimony below and attached documents to which I was referring in mytestimony that have been a part of the General Plan Comprehensive Review process andshould have been provided to the Commission, as well as the public. Documents attached to this e-mail: Draft General Plan 2040, pages 102-125 Trend Scenario and Land Use Allocation Technical Report Technical Methodology for General Plan Land Use (2020-2024) Because of the large size of the documents, I will have to send the Scenic Resources Inventory and Mapping Project report and an e-mail to immediately follow this one. Mahalo, Chuck Flaherty November 1, 2024 Windward Planning Commission 101 Pauahi St, Ste 103 Hilo HI 96720 Re: Final draft General Plan 2045 Aloha Mr. Chair and members of the Windward Planning Commission, My name is Chuck Flaherty. I am speaking on my personal behalf today. Mahalo nui loa for your volunteer service on this Commission. This special meeting and agenda item should have been given more time. If you have read the draft GP2045, then we now have had a shared experience of attempting to compare it to the current General Plan. The feedback that I’ve gotten from other members of the public is that this comparison has been an almost impossible task because GP2045 is a complete gut-and-replace of the current General Plan. Also, placingthe GP2045 online in two different software platforms has disenfranchised a large number ofpeople who have made sincere efforts to make informed comments, but are technologically-challenged. As a general statement, the draft GP2045 does not contain sufficient imperative and directive language to provide reasonable assurance that it will be implemented. That being said, there are documents that are relevant to the draft General Plan that shouldhave been provided to the Commission. It may be that these documents are the ones thathave been submitted today, but I will review the list with you to make sure. I've alsoattached them to this e-mail so they may be forwarded to the Commission's members. The most important of the documents not provided to the Commission is the draft General Plan 2040 that was released in August 2019 by then-Planning Director Michael Yee. The reason GP2040 is so important is because it shows the extent to which public accessand cultural, historic, and scenic resource preservation policies and actions contained withinGP2040 were removed and not included in GP2045. For instance, the SustainabilityObjective on page 108 states, “Native Hawaiian language, values, and practices are integrated into all County processes.” This objective has been cleansed from the draft GP now before the Commission. Another document is a report titled “Hawai’i County Scenic Resources Inventory and Mapping Project, Scenic Resource Protection Programs and Strategies” prepared for the Planning Department in August 2016. The Policies and Actions in GP2040 included the programs and strategies recommended by this report. However, GP2045 removed these policies and actions and now GP2045 only contains a reference to the report. Another report not in the Commission’s initial board packet is the Trend Scenario and Land Use Allocation Technical Report, published in April 2016. This report contains important information, such as how many dwellings can be built with existing zoning, subdivision approvals, and building permits. Another critical report not included in the Commission’s initial board packet is the Technical Methodology for General Plan Land Use (2020-2024). This report was not released until August 2024. It should have been released a year earlier because it contains information that the public has been requesting since last September 2023, such as explanations of how the GP2045 land use maps were developed. I would like to give an example of why General Plan land use designations are so important. Let’s use the example of a property owner who wants to rezone and subdivide 300 acres in the state land use Agriculture district. If the property owner applies to rezone and subdivide for Ag-1 lots, the owner could be granted approvals. Now let’s say the property owner wants to subsequently have the subdivision moved to the state land use Rural district, so that amenities, such as a members’ lodge, could be built. The owner would have to file a petition with the state Land Use Commission (LUC) for boundary amendment and the petition would go before the LUC for consideration. And let’s say the owner asks the county to use the general plan comprehensive review process to redesignate the subdivision from Agricultural to Rural in the GP land use map and let’s say the county makes the change in the GP land use map. Because the individual lots in the subdivision are Ag-1, that is, less than 15 acres, the state LUC would no longer have jurisdiction and individual land owners could then petition the county to have their lot(s) redesignated from the state land use Agriculture district to Rural and also apply for county rezoning to Rural as well. The bottom line is that while the project owner cannot request a state land use boundary amendment involving more than 15 acres because the Planning Director would have redesignated the GP land use map to Rural for all lots in the project’s subdivision, the individual lot owner(s) can apply to the county have their 1 acre lots redesignated to the state land use Rural district and apply for county rezoning to Rural in order to accrue the ability to have expanded property rights and uses on their lots. Presently, the Planning Director is refusing to provide the reason that he is proposing such changes to the GP land use map. Mahalo, Chuck Flaherty Captain Cook Trend Scenario and Land Use Allocation Technical Report 1 PROJECT DOCUMENT County of Hawaiʻi General Plan Comprehensive Review Trend Scenario and Land Use Allocation Technical Report Date: April 18, 2016 Authors: Amy DeBay, Ian Varley, Doug Walker Introduction Task S2 (Land Use Allocation) sets up a framework for estimating future development patterns (amounts and location) based on a set of rules. Task E (Trend Scenario) uses an initial, calibrated run of the allocation model to estimate future development patterns based on historical trends. These tasks go hand-in-hand and are combined in this technical report. Allocation Concepts and Approach Future development patterns (amounts and location) are estimated using an algorithm-driven process called allocation. Allocation models the interplay between market demand for development in certain locations (“desirability”) and amount of development allowed according to current regulations or by future land use patterns suggested by alternate scenarios (“capacity”). Given a pre-determined amount of growth expected in the given time frame (here, new growth between 2015 and 2040), the allocation process estimates where each incremental unit of new development will go, following the basic presumption that the most desirable areas will be developed first, capacity allowing. Thus highly desirable areas are assigned growth first, and then slightly less desirable areas get developed next, etc., until all the estimated growth amount has been accommodated. Numerous refinements to the basic principle are used to produce the final estimates. For example, parcels aren’t always filled all the way to capacity, a certain amount of controlled “randomness” is often applied to the growth pattern, etc. For mixed use areas, both residential and non-residential growth can be assigned. In this study, a CommunityViz tool called Allocator 5 is used. The methods combined with the algorithms in Allocator 5 provide a well-reasoned analysis that will be helpful for this and myriad other planning studies, but it is recognized that the results have limitations in terms of modelling precision and confidence. The CommunityViz allocation method is sometimes described as “light-weight” to “medium-weight,” differentiating it from the “heavy-weight” algorithms such as UrbanSim or PECAS that are considerably more sophisticated but are more difficult and expensive to implement. In contrast, the Allocator 5 method is easier to use and lends itself well to “what-if” type scenario planning. At the highest level, the allocation algorithm takes 3 inputs—growth amount, capacity, and desirability—and generates 1 output—a pattern of future development. Our methods for each of these are described next. Growth Amount As a 2015 baseline for housing unit data, Placeways used data from the County’s Real Property Tax (RPT) office to identify the number of housing units and non-residential square feet. The procedure began with a database file from RPT that, unfortunately, lacked metadata, so the fields were interpreted manually. For each TMK, buildings were converted to housing units where appropriate Trend Scenario and Land Use Allocation Technical Report 2 (buildings and dwelling units were tracked separately). Single family homes and ʻohana units were readily identified in the RPT data. Multifamily housing required some additional steps. In cases where there were multiple records per TMK (as with condos), the records required consolidation to identify the total number of dwelling units per TMK. Separate analyses were performed for single family, multifamily, and commercial properties. In RPT data, housing units that are treated as commercial property (e.g., apartments and timeshares) were counted as residential only when the RPT data showed them as such. Once this basic processing was complete, Placeways used the RPT online tool, Google Street View, digital air photos and other tools to verify the number of existing units with the goal of establishing an accurate baseline and using the RPT database to its maximum extent. For the trend scenario, growth projections are provided by SMS, a Hawaiʻi-based research and consulting company (see their report “General Plan Comprehensive Review Trends and Forecast Analysis Final Report (2015)”). These projections are broken out by 13 geographic areas called “forecast analysis zones” or FAZs (see Figure 1) and by use type (residential dwelling units and non-residential square feet). In order to add additional land use information to the allocation, the SMS forecasts were further broken down into four categories: single family dwelling units, multifamily dwelling units, commercial square feet, and industrial square feet. The ratio of single family to multifamily was found using the mean of the ratio from three dates in the recent past (2000, 2010, 2015) for which the ratio was known. This ratio was then applied to the combined residential allocation amounts to produce the single family/multifamily splits seen in Tables 1, 3, and 6. Similarly, growth amounts for non-residential development were developed as a single forecast and had to be split into amounts for commercial and industrial uses. The 2013 ACS Employment by Occupation Type data were used to identify the ratio of industrial employment to commercial employment and to produce the splits seen in Tables 2, 3, and 7. While this method assumes no change in the ratio of single family to multifamily units and commercial to industrial space, it reflects the recent development patterns in the Trend Scenario and can easily be adjusted for use in alternate scenarios. Trend Scenario and Land Use Allocation Technical Report 3 Figure 1. Map of Forecast Analysis Zone (FAZ) Areas (source: SMS) In contrast to the RPT-based method for establishing a baseline, the housing forecast data produced by SMS rely on US Census and Hawaiʻi DBEDT as sources. The methods used to collect Census and DBEDT data are quite different from RPT, resulting in differing 2015 baseline quantities. In addition, SMS did not suggest a 2015 baseline, instead using decadal increments for forecasting. In order to establish an SMS 2015 baseline, Placeways used the average of SMS’s 2010 and the first forecast year of 2020. This results in a 2015 baseline difference of 11,558 housing units (RPT 2015: 75,100; SMS/Census: 86,658). The reasons that the RPT and Census derived baseline amounts are different are due to the sources’ two distinct methods, and no attempt was made to reconcile them. To calculate the amount of new residential growth, Placeways used a method to find the relative amount of net new amount of growth per FAZ. This method finds the percent change, per SMS, between 2015 and 2040 and applies that to the RPT 2015 baseline. This forecast results in fewer net new units (35,750) than the SMS forecast (40,160 new units), but its rates of change match SMS. The SMS non-residential forecasts were already reconciled with the RPT data, and their forecast was calibrated to closely match the 2015 RPT baseline square footage. Therefore, in the case of non- residential growth, there was no need to rectify the forecast numbers as was the case with residential growth. Non-residential square feet were rounded and translated from square feet to 1,000 square feet Trend Scenario and Land Use Allocation Technical Report 4 for the purposes of allocation. This ensured that allocation amounts are in whole increments and not in very small portions of square feet. Table 1. Residential Forecast by FAZ FAZ 2015 2040 Change 2040 Total Single Family Multi- family Total Single Family Multi- family Single Family Multi- family Total Hilo 14,713 1,138 15,851 2,953 833 17,666 1,971 19,636 North Hilo - Hāmākua Coast Villages 2,822 12 2,834 721 71 3,543 83 3,626 Honokaʻa-Paʻauilo 2,399 14 2,413 871 56 3,270 70 3,340 Waimea 3,212 98 3,310 1,420 158 4,632 256 4,887 North Kohala 2,499 17 2,516 785 59 3,284 76 3,360 Kawaihae-Puakō- Waikoloa-Waikoloa Resorts 2,610 3,390 6,000 1,337 1,337 3,947 4,727 8,675 North Kona 11,181 5,989 17,170 4,418 2,708 15,599 8,697 24,295 South Kona Villages 3,437 73 3,510 1,129 125 4,566 198 4,765 Kaʻū 3,397 76 3,473 2,135 112 5,532 188 5,720 Keaʻau -Kurtistown 1,640 10 1,650 834 35 2,474 45 2,518 Upper Puna 4,884 0 4,884 3,373 104 8,257 104 8,361 HPP-Orchidland 6,654 0 6,654 7,431 152 14,085 152 14,237 Lower Puna 4,835 0 4,835 2,515 78 7,350 78 7,428 Total 64,283 10,817 75,100 29,922 5,828 94,205 16,645 110,850 Trend Scenario and Land Use Allocation Technical Report 5 Table 2. Non-Residential Forecast by FAZ (in 1,000 square feet) FAZ 2015 2040 Change 2040 Total Commercial Industrial Total Commercial Industrial Commercial Industrial Total Hilo 9,187 3,762 12,949 3,979 346 13,166 4,108 17,274 North Hilo - Hāmākua Coast Villages 347 30 377 98 8 445 38 483 Honokaʻa-Paʻauilo 438 38 476 130 7 568 45 613 Waimea 1,303 75 1,379 421 37 1,724 112 1,837 North Kohala 290 255 545 181 12 471 267 738 Kawaihae-Puakō-Waikoloa-Waikoloa Resorts 5,406 63 5,470 1,608 85 7,014 148 7,163 North Kona 6,512 5,135 11,648 3,400 296 9,912 5,431 15,344 South Kona Villages 868 16 884 235 18 1,103 34 1,137 Kaʻū 303 0 303 110 11 413 11 424 Keaʻau-Kurtistown 760 902 1,662 454 51 1,214 953 2,167 Upper Puna 201 2 203 54 3 255 5 260 HPP-Orchidland 120 0 120 57 4 177 4 181 Lower Puna 413 0 413 114 14 527 14 541 Total 26,150 10,279 36,428 10,841 892 36,991 11,171 48,161 Capacity Capacity values used in this report are based primarily on the results of Task S1, covered in a separate report. The focus is on net capacity, which is gross (or total) capacity minus existing development. Numeric capacity is assigned to every parcel on the island for residential dwelling units, and a separate numeric capacity for non-residential square feet. The majority of visitor units, existing and projected, are within 3 of the 13 FAZ areas. More information on visitor units and how they are addressed can be found in the Indicator Modeling technical report (Task G). During the initial calibration of the allocation model, it was decided to place caps on the capacity of individual parcels that limited the amount of development that could occur on any single parcel. Caps for both residential and non-residential development were identified by looking at the County’s subdivision records and the 2004-2015 building permit data. This information revealed what the recent historical maximums were for each kind of development: 600 units for residential development and 306,000 square feet for non-residential development. (The historical maximums and their place in the model are also discussed below in the section on additional calibration factors.) The final numbers below represent capped net capacity. Later in the project, these capacity values may be adjusted to model different potential planning and policy decisions. Trend Scenario and Land Use Allocation Technical Report 6 Table 3. Net Capacity (Capped) by FAZ FAZ Name Residential Single Family Capacity (DU) Residential Multifamily Capacity (DU) Commercial Capacity (sq ft) Industrial Capacity (sq ft) Hilo 22,299 1,183 7,037,091 6,766,170 North Hilo - Hāmākua Coast Villages 8,721 50 1,173,273 894,155 Honokaʻa-Paʻauilo 9,691 39 579,692 133,073 Waimea 6,807 827 1,242,247 577,334 North Kohala 9,950 231 1,660,320 1,499,805 Kawaihae-Puakō- Waikoloa-Waikoloa Resorts 15,237 3,815 1,944,304 310,342 North Kona 21,855 5,376 9,831,956 12,956,188 South Kona Villages 21,445 190 539,714 0 Kaʻū 25,088 1,971 768,304 620,075 Keaʻau-Kurtistown 5,518 75 1,481,939 4,484,680 Upper Puna 25,390 31 135,975 0 HPP-Orchidland 9,996 0 0 0 Lower Puna 25,928 151 656,727 74,451 Total 207,925 13,939 27,051,542 28,316,273 Desirability Desirability is a complex topic and represented a large proportion of the effort for this task. The desirability of a given parcel for a given use (residential or commercial) is represented by a score from 0 (least desirable) to 100 (most desirable). A parcel that is not eligible for a given use is assigned a desirability score of -1. On a map, the pattern of desirability scores is sometimes called a “desirability surface” because one can picture a lumpy blanket covering the island with high points in areas of high desirability and low points in areas of low desirability. Desirability was calculated all at once for the entire island. Given more time and resources, it would be possible to perform separate calculations for subareas such as east/west or individual FAZs. However, the additional effort would make little difference because growth amounts are constrained to meet FAZ-specific totals and thus growth is allocated based on relative desirability scores within a FAZ, not between FAZs. Trend Scenario and Land Use Allocation Technical Report 7 The detailed procedure for creating the initial desirability surface, used to create the Trend Scenario, follows: 1. Spatial and non-spatial factors affecting location desirability were hypothesized. These factors, such as proximity to infrastructure or coastline, likely affected development desirability in the past and could be quantified for all parcels on the island given available information. While a complete list of factors tested is included at the end of this report, all hypothesized factors could fit into the following categories: • Distance to infrastructure, geographical features, town and commercial centers • Parcel shape/size • Terrain/climate characteristics • Neighbor (10 ft) and neighborhood (1000 ft) context: the number of nearby parcels and development proximity (the number of nearby parcels that are built) • Current land use and build status • Geographic location (District, FAZ, etc.) • Property and building valuation. Using CommunityViz, these factors were calculated for each parcel on the island and exported to a table for use in SPSS statistical analysis software. 2. Statistical regression analysis in SPSS was used to calculate how well each factor correlates with new development in a given time frame. Three timeframes were initially considered: • All development since the beginning of RPT (County of Hawaiʻi Real Property Tax Office) recordkeeping (1880s) • All development since 1995 • All development between 1975 and 1995. However, because the goal of this statistical regression was to capture the principal factors influencing urban growth in the recent past, a cutoff date of 1995 was established. This year was selected to encompass a full cycle of real estate development and to capture the “highs and lows” in development activity. Development during this period followed this approximate pattern: • Trough: 1996 • Peak: 2005-2006 • Trough: 2009-2011 • Recent uptick: 2015. The SMS CoH 2016 General Plan Final Report (Figure 1, Resident Population) illustrates this pattern. The statistical analysis models the relationship between dependent variables – Commercial Square Feet (COM_SQFT) and Number of Residential Buildings (NumberOfResidences) – and the hypothesized list of independent variables (see Appendix 1, Table 12. Factors Tested for Historical Growth Trends). As a result, a step-wise Multiple Linear Regression model was chosen to create coefficients associated with each of the variables in order to represent the independent contributions of each independent variable to the prediction of the dependent variable after controlling for all other independent variables. Trend Scenario and Land Use Allocation Technical Report 8 The initial analysis included an overall view of development, an earlier era of development (1975-95), and post-1995 recent development patterns for both of the dependent variables (see Appendix 1: Comparing Post 1995 Regression Factors with the 1975-1995 Regression Factors for a discussion of these results). The results show the top 10 variables—that is, the top 10 of the hypothesized desirability factors—that influence each of the analyses, along with the absolute value of each of the standardized coefficients. The coefficient values allow ranking the variables from most to least influential. Detailed analysis information is included at the end of this report. The standardized regression coefficients with the 10 highest absolute beta values for the post- 1995 period were converted into CommunityViz weighting factors normalized to the scale 0 – 10, where 0 is no correlation and 10 is the highest correlation of any factor (though less than 1). Candidate factors with lower beta coefficients, below the top ten, were ignored for the desirability score. A cutoff of 10 factors was chosen for a few reasons. One was to keep the most significant factors in the mix. The top 10 account for the majority of the causal influence of all factors tested. Additionally, there was a benefit to limiting the number of movable parts for testing. Even with 10, it is challenging to understand the interplay of all inputs and the individual effect on the overall score. The goal here is to incorporate both sophistication and manageable interactive parts, and 10 is a reasonable number for that. Some factors are negatively correlated, and some factors are inversely correlated. For instance, distance values that correlate to growth are often inverse: nearer, smaller distance values are more desirable and further, larger distance values are less desirable. In the table below, negative and inverse correlations are indicated by a negative beta value score. Understanding this, many factors below make intuitive sense. The slope factor for example suggests that as land gets steeper (slope increases), the likelihood of development decreases. Some results are not always intuitive, however. Statistically, for example, it is found that parcels that are closer to old lava flows are more desirable for non-residential development than those far away (i.e. Distance2LavaFlow1790). Some positively correlated cases also benefit from some explanation. For example, the strongest factor for residential development is Distance2VolcanoHazard. This is a positively correlated factor meaning that as distance increases away from volcano hazards, the likelihood of development also increases. Trend Scenario and Land Use Allocation Technical Report 9 Table 4. Residential Factors (Top 10) for Growth Desirability Model (Post 1995 Development) Factor Description Beta Value Absolute Beta Value Normalized Value (Weighting) Distance2VolcanoHazard Distance to high volcano risk area, defined as areas classified as category 1 or 2 on the risk layer 0.0808 0.0808 10 Distance2LavaFlow1250 Distance to older lava flow, deposited between the year 1250 and the present -0.0575 0.0575 7.1 Slope Mean slope of the parcel in percent rise -0.0494 0.0494 6.1 Intersections1miDensity Road intersection density: the number of intersections on major roads within ½ mi of the parcel divided by area of the parcel -0.0439 0.0439 5.4 Rainfall Annual average rainfall, in inches -0.0429 0.0429 5.3 Distance2CenterAdjusted Network distance to commercial center. Commercial center is defined by RPT land use "commercial." This adjusted value uses straight line distance for those features not picked up by the patchy network. -0.0411 0.0411 5.1 RESpost1995ProximitySum1000ft Total number of dwelling units on parcels within 1000 ft of a parcel built after 1995 -0.0394 0.0394 4.9 RESpost1995ProximitySum10ft Total number of dwelling units on parcels within 10 ft of a parcel built after 1995 -0.0321 0.0321 4 ParcelPerimeter2DivArea Lot shape: perimeter squared divided by area 0.0305 0.0305 3.8 Distance2Coastline Distance to the island’s coastline -0.0301 -0.0301 3.73 Trend Scenario and Land Use Allocation Technical Report 10 Table 5. Non-Residential Factors (Top 10) for Growth Desirability Model (Post 1995 Development) Factor Description Beta Value Absolute Beta Value Normalized Value Distance2LavaFlow1790 Distance to recent lava flow, deposited since 1790 -0.3410 0.3410 10 Intersections1miDensity Road intersection density: the number of intersections on major roads within ½ mi of the parcel divided by area of the parcel -0.2560 0.2560 7.5 Distance2Airports Distance to nearest major airport 0.2246 0.2246 6.6 Proximity1000ftParcelDensity The number of parcels within 1000ft divided by the area of the parcel 0.1723 0.1723 5 Distance2ExistingMF1 Distance to nearest multifamily residential development -0.1380 0.1380 4 Distance2SewerService Distance to nearest wastewater service line -0.1207 0.1207 3.6 Distance2WaterService Distance to nearest potable water service line 0.1089 0.1089 3.2 Proximity10ftParcelDensity The number of parcels within 10 ft divided by the area of the parcel -0.1006 0.1006 3 ParcelPerimeter2DivArea Lot shape: perimeter squared divided by area -0.0935 0.0935 2.7 Distance2VolcanoHazard Distance to high volcano risk area, defined as areas classified as category 1 or 2 on the risk layer 0.0885 0.0885 2.6 3. The CommunityViz Suitability Wizard was then used to create a suitability analysis using the parcels’ normalized factor values (such as distance to roads) as inputs. Since these values were pre-calculated for the statistical analysis, Suitability Wizard was pointed directly at the numeric values, improving processing performance. The wizard default is set to 5 (on a scale of 0 to 10) for each factor weighting. After the suitability analysis is run with defaults, the weighting assumption defaults are set for each factor according to the values calculated in the previous step to calibrate the score to historical trends. 4. The suitability (desirability) score for each parcel is displayed using the parcels layer symbolized by the suitability scores. The factor weightings are adjustable, so each factor that contributes to the overall score can be given a level of priority appropriate to the goals of the scenario. Trend Scenario and Land Use Allocation Technical Report 11 Trend Scenario Allocation The allocation of forecasted development in the “Trend Scenario” is based on the desirability surface representing historic development trends. Later in the project, it will be possible to develop alternate desirability surfaces for scenario planning in which planners test planning strategies that could encourage growth to evolve in particular ways. Allocation is performed using Allocator 5 with the inputs above. Again, allocation distributes predetermined growth amounts for each FAZ to parcels within that FAZ, developing the most desirable parcels first and proceeding until all growth has been accommodated. No parcel receives more development than it has capacity for, and many parcels receive little or no development even though they have capacity available. For the initial run, used to develop the Trend Scenario, randomness is set at 1 out of 10. Results for each FAZ are as follows: Table 6. Allocated Residential Growth by FAZ FAZ Name Residential Single Family Dwelling Units Remaining Single Family Capacity Residential Multifamily Dwelling Units Remaining Multifamily Capacity Hilo 2,952 19,347 833 350 North Hilo - Hāmākua Coast Villages 721 8,000 50 0 Honokaʻa-Paʻauilo 871 8,820 39 0 Waimea 1,419 5,388 158 669 North Kohala 785 9,165 59 172 Kawaihae-Puakō-Waikoloa- Waikoloa Resorts 1,338 13,899 1,338 2,477 North Kona 4,418 17,437 2,708 2,668 South Kona Villages 1,130 20,315 126 64 Kaʻū 2,135 22,953 112 1,859 Keaʻau-Kurtistown 833 4,685 35 40 Upper Puna 3,373 22,017 31 0 HPP-Orchidland 7,431 2,565 0 0 Lower Puna 2,515 23,413 78 73 Total 29,921 178,004 5,567 8,372 Trend Scenario and Land Use Allocation Technical Report 12 Table 7. Allocated Non-Residential Growth by FAZ in 1,000 square feet FAZ Name Commercial Allocated Remaining Commercial Capacity Industrial Allocated Remaining Industrial Capacity Hilo 3,979 3,039 346 6,424 North Hilo - Hāmākua Coast Villages 98 1,074 8 887 Honokaʻa-Paʻauilo 130 450 7 125 Waimea 421 814 37 541 North Kohala 181 1,479 12 1,487 Kawaihae-Puakō-Waikoloa-Waikoloa Resorts 1,608 336 85 224 North Kona 3,400 6,411 296 12,656 South Kona Villages 235 303 0 0 Kaʻū 110 655 11 609 Keaʻau-Kurtistown 454 1,023 51 4,434 Upper Puna 54 80 0 0 HPP-Orchidland 0 0 0 0 Lower Puna 114 542 14 60 Total 10,784 16,206 867 27,447 Trend Calibration Factors In order to better replicate the patterns of the previous 20 years, additional calibration factors were developed to supplement the factors used in the statistical analysis. The objective of the Trend Scenario is to reflect a continuation of recent patterns, and these factors help reflect the recent development characteristics. While the statistical analysis provides an impartial and “data-driven” perspective on the patterns of recent development, its results cannot provide a complete picture because of a number of limitations: • Data limitations. Data were not available on all factors and across all historic time scales. In particular, the model lacked in-depth real estate market data, including market conditions and consumer preferences for both residential and non-residential development. In addition, historic building data were not available in appropriate forms. • Geographic biases that resulted from using parcel data as the unit of analysis. For example, large parcels tended to score very well in the statistical analysis. These features tend to show advantages that small parcels do not: they have more capacity, they have more neighboring parcels, and they can be closer to more desirable locations simply because of their size. A grid- based analysis would reduce these issues, but it would introduce many other issues (e.g., mismatch between the grids and the available parcel data) in their place. • Difficulty reflecting all patterns and preferences for all the island at a local scale (e.g., what drives growth in North Kona is somewhat different from what drives growth in Lower Puna). It was outside the scope of this project to run individual analyses for smaller areas (e.g., FAZs). Trend Scenario and Land Use Allocation Technical Report 13 • No forecast model is perfect, and it is expected that any algorithmic results will require some degree of adjustment to match observed results. Because of these limitations on factors derived solely from statistical analysis, additional calibration factors based on expert human knowledge were included in the analysis as well. The combination resulted in a hybrid system that carefully combines both statistical modeling and expert judgement. Each calibration factor works in a different way to help fine-tune the model by what is believed as common knowledge by County of Hawaiʻi planners and by comparing values observed in the recent development data to the results of the draft versions of the Trend Scenario allocation. Some of these factors (Redevelopment Friction, Residential Subdivision Friction and Non-residential Size Friction) help steer growth towards areas that have received consistent development pressure in the previous 20 years. The Pipeline Projects Factor prioritizes parcels that currently have development proposals pending. While these factors help calibrate the Trend Scenario to reflect recent patterns, it is difficult—and not necessarily desirable—to exactly replicate rates and patterns of the recent past with what occurs in the Trend Scenario’s modeled future. The future is unknown and many external factors and unforeseeable conditions will affect how growth actually occurs. The goal of the Trend Scenario is to provide a plausible and useful reference for comparing alternative scenarios to help inform policy and the contents of the General Plan; it is not intended as a detailed forecast. Recent Lava Factor While a significant amount of development in the County of Hawaiʻi occurs on geologically recent lava flow (often on lava less than a few hundred years old), lava that has been deposited very recently is a significant obstacle to development. Lava flows that are more recent than 1990 were identified, and desirability of parcels that overlapped post-1990 lava flows was reduced. Pipeline Projects Factor This factor adds a bonus to the desirability of parcels that are currently under development or that County planning staff assume are likely to develop in the near future. The pipeline projects are divided into two groups. Group one consists of two projects, Kamakana Villages and Kealakehe Homesteads, which are very likely to develop or are in the process of development. The second group includes five projects that are less advanced in the planning process but have greater than average chances of developing. The project pipeline projects are mostly located in North Kona and primarily entail residential development. Table 8 identifies the pipeline projects and the number of units allocated to them. Trend Scenario and Land Use Allocation Technical Report 14 Table 8. Pipeline projects Project Name Approximate Location Allocated Residential Units Kamakana Villages Ane Keohokālole Highway, North of Kailua Kona 600 Kealakehe Homesteads North of Kailua-Kona, Corner of Keanalehu & Manawalea 184 UH Pālamanui UH West Hawaiʻi campus, just east of airport 300 Pualani South of Kailua-Kona along Queen Ka‘ahumanu highway 178 Keahuolū Queen Liliʻuokalani Trust Various parcels, north of Kailua-Kona downtown 48 Redevelopment Friction The uncalibrated allocation model orients development towards areas of greater desirability and available capacity. Many parcels already have existing residential or non-residential structures on them but according to the capacity analysis have some additional capacity (these parcels are considered “underbuilt” for purposes of the model). The Redevelopment Friction factor considers redevelopment in the sense of any new development on a parcel that has an existing residential or non-residential structure (according to RPT). The uncalibrated model does not distinguish the nature of this new development: whether it is a physical addition to a structure, a new structure on an undeveloped portion of the parcel, or the wholesale redevelopment of an existing structure. Redevelopment areas can sometimes be more difficult and costly to develop but they may be highly desirable because of their location or other amenities. The 2004-2015 building permit data reveal that 34% of residential development occurred on parcels that already had a residential or non-residential structure. This figure is lower for commercial development, where 15% of growth occurred on parcels with existing structures. The Redevelopment Friction factor applies a penalty to the desirability score for both residential and non-residential development to parcels that already have some development. Residential Subdivision Friction An analysis of residential growth since 1995 revealed that over 75% of new dwelling units were built on parcels that were subdivided to sizes of less than 5 acres. Subdivisions yielding parcels larger than 25 acres were not as common and did not contain large amounts of residential development in the recent past. The County’s subdivision data revealed that in the last fifteen years, the largest subdivision to be approved was 590 parcels. During initial runs of the allocation model, it was observed that the tool tended to select larger parcels over smaller parcels, a pattern that was not consistent with the recent development patterns. The County’s subdivisions layer depicts all of the island’s major subdivisions and using this data as a guide, subdivided parcels were flagged and received higher desirability scores than Trend Scenario and Land Use Allocation Technical Report 15 non-subdivided parcels. This factor actually consists of two factors, one factor that penalizes large parcels by size and another that caps residential development at 600 units, similar to the historic maximum. Non-residential Footprint Friction Similar to residential subdivision friction, recent non-residential development had certain characteristics related to building footprint size (i.e., the square footage of the non-residential development) that were not well captured by the regression analysis. Early runs of the model revealed some extremely large non-residential developments that seemed uncharacteristic with the recent development patterns. According to RPT records, the largest commercial development since 1995 was 306,000 square feet and the median size 6,510 square feet. For the Trend Scenario, non-residential capacity was capped at 300,000 and desirability was boosted for smaller capacity parcels. Comparing Recent Development Trends and the Trend Scenario After calibration, the Trend Scenario matches recent development patterns fairly well, as shown in the table below. Table 9. Comparing recent development with the trend scenario Recent Development* 2004- 2015 Trend Scenario Residential Redevelopment 11% of recent growth occurred on built parcels 4% of growth occurs on built parcels Commercial Redevelopment 15% of recent growth occurred on built parcels 16% of growth occurs on built parcels Residential Subdivision Development 75% of recent growth occurred in existing subdivisions; median parcel size is 0.7 acres 73% of recent growth occurs in existing subdivisions; median parcel size is 0.9 acres Non-residential Footprint Friction Median development size was 6,510 square feet Median development size is 5,000 square feet * Recent redevelopment is based on RPT and building permit data; subdivision and parcel size factors use RPT data. Trend Scenario and Land Use Allocation Technical Report 16 Appendix 1. Comparing Post 1995 Regression Factors with the 1975-1995 Regression Factors The regression analysis conducted for all development and development post-1995 was also run for development that occurred between 1975 and 1995. Development in this era appeared to manifest some similar patterns (Distance to Volcano Hazards, Lava Flow, and Intersection Density) as the post 1995 development. Distance to centralized services such as water and sewer systems was more strongly correlated in the 1975-95 development, perhaps reflecting the closer proximity of development in that era to those services. In a more extreme case, the correlation for Distance2Airport reverses: it is negative for 1975-95 development and positive for post 1995 development. In other words, as distance to airports diminishes the likelihood of development increases in the 1975-95 era. The opposite is true for development in the post 1995 era. Valuation factors (building, land values) were poorly correlated in the 1975-95 era for residential development. Valuation factors were more strongly correlated with non-residential square footage. However, the valuation factors used reflect present-day conditions. In general, care should be taken when comparing the results of the 1975-95 era beta values with the post 1995 beta values because this analysis relies on data that represents conditions as they are now, not as conditions were during the 1975-95 phase of the island’s development. Some factors rely on data that has remained relatively consistent through time; for example the location of the island’s coastline, slope, rainfall patterns, etc. are very similar now to how they were 40 years ago. Other factors have changed considerably since the 1975-95 development occurred (distance to commercial development, development proximity, land and building valuations, etc.). The 1975-95 development patterns would be better compared to the post 1995 development by factoring in the conditions as they existed in that 1975-95 era, not conditions as they exist in the present day. Unfortunately that level of analysis was not feasible within the scope of the current project. Below are two tables comparing the 1975-95 and the post 1995 beta values for residential and nonresidential development. Table 10. Comparing post 1995 and 1975-95 non-residential beta values Factor ComPost95Beta Com75-95Beta Difference Distance2LavaFlow1790 -.341 .006 -0.3474 Intersections1miDensity -.256 -.100 -0.1564 Distance2Airports .225 -.145 0.3700 Proximity1000ftParcelDensity .172 -.042 0.2140 Distance2ExistingMF1 -.138 -.126 -0.0120 Distance2SewerService -.121 .161 -0.2813 Distance2WaterService .109 .013 0.0958 Proximity10ftParcelDensity -.101 .019 -0.1196 ParcelPerimeter2DivArea -.093 .077 -0.1703 Distance2VolcanoHazard .088 .090 -0.0016 Trend Scenario and Land Use Allocation Technical Report 17 Table 11. Comparing post 1995 and 1975-95 residential beta values Factor ResPost95Beta ResPost75-95Beta Difference Distance2VolcanoHazard .081 .079 0.0017 Distance2LavaFlow1250 -.057 -.173 0.1151 Slope -.049 -.049 0.0000 ValueBuilding .049 .010 0.0389 Intersections1miDensity -.044 -.078 0.0338 Rainfall -.043 -.007 -0.0359 Distance24CenterAdjusted -.041 -.028 -0.0132 RESpost1995ProximitySum1000ft* -.039 #N/A -0.0419 RESpost1995ProximitySum10ft** -.032 #N/A -0.0273 ParcelPerimeter2DivArea .031 .037 -0.0067 * The 1975-95 results used the factor, RESpost7595ProximitySum1000ft instead of the post 1995 proximity sums, yielding the beta value of 0.002. ** The 1975-95 results used the factor, RESpost7595ProximitySum10ft instead of the post 1995 proximity sums, yielding the beta value of -0.005. Table 12. Factors Tested for Historical Growth Trends Factor Name Description Unit Source Acres Size of the parcel in acres acres Distance2Airports Distance to nearest major airport feet County GIS Distance2Belt10 Distance to the island's belt road feet County GIS Distance2Coastline Distance to coastline feet County GIS Distance24CenterAdj Network distance to commercial center. Commercial center is defined by RPT land use "commercial,” this adjusted value used straight line distance for those features not picked up by the patchy network. feet RPT and county GIS Distance2ElectricService Distance to nearest electric utility pole feet County GIS Distance2ExistingMF1 Distance to nearest multifamily residential development feet RPT and county GIS Distance2ExistingSF1 Distance to nearest single family residential development feet RPT and county GIS Distance2Hospitals Distance to hospitals feet County GIS Distance2LavaFlow1250 Distance to older lava flow, deposited since 1250 feet USGS Hawaiʻi Geologic Map Distance2LavaFlow1790 Distance to recent lava flow, deposited since 1790 feet USGS Hawaiʻi Geologic Map Distance2Major10 Distance to nearest major, arterial- type road feet County GIS Trend Scenario and Land Use Allocation Technical Report 18 Factor Name Description Unit Source Distance2Schools Distance to nearest public school feet County GIS Distance2SewerService Distance to nearest wastewater service line feet County GIS Distance2Towns Distance to nearest major town, towns defined by county provided "towns" layer feet County GIS Distance2VolcanoHazard Distance to high volcano risk area, defined as areas classified as category 1 or 2 on the risk layer feet USGS, via county GIS Distance2WaterService Distance to nearest potable water service line feet County GIS Slope Mean slope of the parcel in percent rise percent rise USGS DEM ValueLand Land value in dollars per the County's RPT records dollars RPT Rainfall Annual average rainfall, in inches inches University of Hawaiʻi District Planning district County GIS FAZ Forecast analysis zone SMS MaukaMakaiNum Uses 1 or makai (outside the belt) and 2 for mauka (inside the belt) Placeways COM_YRBLT_YN If built 1, if not 0. RPT RES_YRBLT_YN If built 1, if not 0. RPT isCom If commercial, 1; if not, 0 RPT isSF If single family residential, 1; if not, 0 RPT isMF If multifamily residential, 1; if not, 0 RPT COMAllYearsProximitySum10ft Total commercial square feet on parcels within 10ft of any parcel with commercial square footage RPT COMAllYearsProximitySum1000ft Total commercial square feet on parcels within 1000ft of any parcel with commercial square footage RPT COMpost1995PS1000ft Total commercial square feet on parcels within 1000ft of any parcel with a structure built after 1995 RPT COMpost1995PS10ft Total commercial square feet on parcels within 10ft of any parcel with a structure built after 1995 RPT RESAllYearsProximitySum10ft Total number of dwelling units on parcels within 10ft of any parcel with a residential structure RPT RESAllYearsProximitySum1000ft Total number of dwelling units on parcels within 1000ft of any parcel with residential structure RPT DUpost1995PS10ft Total number of dwelling units on parcels within 10 ft of any parcel with a structure built after 1995 RPT DUpost1995PS1000ft Total number of dwelling units on RPT Trend Scenario and Land Use Allocation Technical Report 19 Factor Name Description Unit Source parcels within 1000 ft of any parcel with a structure built after 1995 ParcelPerimeter2DivArea Lot shape: perimeter squared divided by area square feet/feet County GIS Intersections1/2miDensity Road intersection density: the number of intersections on major roads within ½ mi of the parcel divided by area of the parcel intersection per acre County GIS Proximity10ftParcelDensity The number of parcels within 10ft divided by the area of the parcel Parcels per acre County GIS Proximity1000ftParcelDensity The number of parcels within 1000ft divided by the area of the parcel Parcels per acre County GIS Trend Scenario and Land Use Allocation Technical Report 20 Appendix 2. Detailed Statistical Methods Commercial All Data The first multiple linear regression was calculated to predict COM_SQFT for all possible parcels based on ParcelPerimeter2DivArea, Intersections1miDensity, Slope, Rainfall, Distance2Major10, Distance2WaterService, Distance2SewerService, Distance2Schools, Distance2Coastline, Distance2VolcanoHazard, Distance2Airports, Distance2LavaFlow1250, Distance2LavaFlow1790, Distance2Towns, Distance2ElectricService, Distance2Hospitals, Distance24CenterAdjusted, Distance2ExistingSF1, Distance2ExistingMF1, Distance2Belt10, COMAllYearsProximitySum10ft, COMAllYearsProximitySum1000ft, ValueLand, Proximity10ftParcelDensity, Proximity1000ftParcelDensity with n= 132,842. A significant regression equation was found (F(28,132814) = 161.888, p <0.001 ) with an R2 of 0.033. After the analysis the 12 coefficients that influence Commercial square feet are listed below. Table 13. Twelve most influential variables for commercial square feet, all years Variables Beta Value Coefficient COMAllYearsProximitySum10ft .125 COMAllYearsProximitySum1000ft .056 Distance2VolcanoHazard .054 Intersections1miDensity -.051 Distance2Hospitals .037 Distance2LavaFlow1790 .032 Distance2ExistingSF1 .025 Distance2ElectricService -.023 Distance2ExistingMF1 -.020 Slope -.019 Distance2SewerService -.018 Distance2LavaFlow1250 -.018 Commercial Post 1995 The first multiple linear regression was calculated to predict COM_SQFT commercial buildings built on or after 1995 based on ParcelPerimeter2DivArea, Intersections1miDensity, Slope, Rainfall, Distance2Major10, Distance2WaterService, Distance2SewerService, Distance2Schools, Distance2Coastline, Distance2VolcanoHazard, Distance2Airports, Distance2LavaFlow1250, Distance2LavaFlow1790, Distance2Towns, Distance2ElectricService, Distance2Hospitals, Distance24CenterAdjusted, Distance2ExistingSF1, Distance2ExistingMF1, Distance2Belt10, COMpost1995ProximitySum1000ft, COMpost1995ProximitySum10ft, ValueLand, Proximity10ftParcelDensity, Proximity1000ftParcelDensity with n= 451. A significant regression equation was found (F(27,424) = 2.259, p <0.001 ) with an R2 of 0.126. After the analysis the 12 coefficients that influence Commercial square feet after 1995 are listed below. Trend Scenario and Land Use Allocation Technical Report 21 Table 14. Twelve most influential variables for commercial square feet, post 1995 Variables Absolute Value Coefficient Distance2LavaFlow1790 -.341 Intersections1miDensity -.256 Distance2Airports .225 Proximity1000ftParcelDensity .172 Distance2ExistingMF1 -.138 Distance2SewerService -.121 Distance2WaterService .109 Proximity10ftParcelDensity -.101 ParcelPerimeter2DivArea -.093 Distance2VolcanoHazard .088 ValueLand .082 Distance2Towns -.067 Commercial Post 1975-95 The first multiple linear regression was calculated to predict COM_SQFT commercial buildings built on or after 1975 and before 1995 based on ParcelPerimeter2DivArea, Intersections1miDensity, Slope, Rainfall, Distance2Major10, Distance2WaterService, Distance2SewerService, Distance2Schools, Distance2Coastline, Distance2VolcanoHazard, Distance2Airports, Distance2LavaFlow1250, Distance2LavaFlow1790, Distance2Towns, Distance2ElectricService, Distance2Hospitals, Distance24CenterAdjusted, Distance2ExistingSF1, Distance2ExistingMF1, Distance2Belt10, COMpost1995ProximitySum1000ft, COMpost1995ProximitySum10ft, ValueLand, Proximity10ftParcelDensity, Proximity1000ftParcelDensity with n= 687. A significant regression equation was found (F(27,660) = 3.634, p <0.001 ) with an R2 of 0.129. After the analysis the 12 coefficients that influence Commercial square feet between 1975-95 are listed below. Table 15. Twelve most influential variables for Commercial Square Feet > 1975 and < 1995 Variables Beta Value Coefficient Distance2SewerService .161 Distance2Airports -.145 ValueLand -.144 Distance2ExistingMF1 -.126 Distance2ExistingSF1 -.126 Distance2Schools .109 Intersections1miDensity -.100 Distance2VolcanoHazard .090 ParcelPerimeter2DivArea .077 Distance24CenterAdjusted -.072 Distance2Coastline -.070 Distance2Belt10 -.059 Trend Scenario and Land Use Allocation Technical Report 22 Residential All Data The first multiple linear regression was calculated to predict NumberOfResidences for residential buildings built after 1995 based on ParcelPerimeter2DivArea, Intersections1miDensity, Slope, Rainfall, Distance2Major10, Distance2WaterService, Distance2SewerService, Distance2Schools, Distance2Coastline, Distance2VolcanoHazard, Distance2Airports, Distance2LavaFlow1250, Distance2LavaFlow1790, Distance2Towns, Distance2ElectricService, Distance2Hospitals, Distance24CenterAdjusted, Distance2ExistingSF1, Distance2ExistingMF1, Distance2Belt10, RESAllYearsProximitySum10ft, RESAllYearsProximitySum1000ft, ValueLand, Proximity10ftParcelDensity, Proximity1000ftParcelDensity with n=132,842. A significant regression equation was found (F(27,132,815) = 73.875, p < 0.001 ) with an R2 of 0.015. After the analysis the 12 coefficients that influence Number of Residences the most are listed in the following table. Table 16. Twelve most influential variables for residential, all years Variables Beta Value Coefficient Distance2LavaFlow1250 -.062 Distance2VolcanoHazard .060 Distance2ExistingMF1 -.050 Distance2SewerService -.048 Intersections1miDensity -.043 Distance2WaterService .035 Distance2Coastline -.028 Distance2Airports .028 Rainfall -.025 Distance2Towns -.024 RESAllYearsProximitySum1000ft .022 Slope -.021 Residential Post 1995 The first multiple linear regression was calculated to predict NumberOfResidences for residential buildings built on or after 1995 based on ParcelPerimeter2DivArea, Intersections1miDensity, Slope, Rainfall, Distance2Major10, Distance2WaterService, Distance2SewerService, Distance2Schools, Distance2Coastline, Distance2VolcanoHazard, Distance2Airports, Distance2LavaFlow1250, Distance2LavaFlow1790, Distance2Towns, Distance2ElectricService, Distance2Hospitals, Distance24CenterAdjusted, Distance2ExistingSF1, Distance2ExistingMF1, Distance2Belt10, DUpost1995ProximitySum10ft, DUpost1995ProximitySum1000ft, ValueLand, Proximity10ftParcelDensity, Proximity1000ftParcelDensity with n=18,819. A significant regression equation was found (F(27,18,792) = 11.549, p < 0.001 ) with an R2 of 0.016. After the analysis the 12 coefficients that influence Number of Residences built after 1995 the most are found in the table below. Trend Scenario and Land Use Allocation Technical Report 23 Table 17. Twelve most influential variables for residential, post 1995 Variables Beta Value Coefficient Distance2VolcanoHazard .081 Distance2LavaFlow1250 -.057 Slope -.049 Intersections1miDensity -.044 Rainfall -.043 Distance24CenterAdjusted -.041 RESpost1995ProximitySum1000ft -.039 RESpost1995ProximitySum10ft -.032 ParcelPerimeter2DivArea .031 Distance2Coastline -.030 Distance2Schools -.029 Distance2Hospitals 0.23 Residential 1975-95 The first multiple linear regression was calculated to predict NumberOfResidences for residential buildings built on or after 1975 and before 1995 based on ParcelPerimeter2DivArea, Intersections1miDensity, Slope, Rainfall, Distance2Major10, Distance2WaterService, Distance2SewerService, Distance2Schools, Distance2Coastline, Distance2VolcanoHazard, Distance2Airports, Distance2LavaFlow1250, Distance2LavaFlow1790, Distance2Towns, Distance2ElectricService, Distance2Hospitals, Distance24CenterAdjusted, Distance2ExistingSF1, Distance2ExistingMF1, Distance2Belt10, DUpost1995ProximitySum10ft, DUpost1995ProximitySum1000ft, ValueLand, Proximity10ftParcelDensity, Proximity1000ftParcelDensity with n=23,822. A significant regression equation was found (F(27,23,795) = 17.956, p < 0.001 ) with an R2 of 0.020. After the analysis the 12 coefficients that influence Number of Residences built between 1975-95 the most are found in the table below. Table 18. Twelve most influential variables for Residential > 1975 and < 1995 Variables Absolute Value Coefficient Distance2LavaFlow1250 -.173 Distance2ExistingMF1 -.137 Distance2Airports .123 Distance2SewerService -.106 Distance2VolcanoHazard .079 Intersections1miDensity -.078 Distance2Schools .073 Distance2WaterService .073 Proximity10ftParcelDensity .064 Proximity1000ftParcelDensity -.059 Distance2LavaFlow1790 .051 Slope -.049 Page 1 of 18 Technical Methodology for General Plan Land Use (2020-2024) County of Hawaiʻi General Plan Prepared by: Amy DeBay Focused Planning Solutfons LLC August 8, 2024 Introduction Beginning in 2015, the County of Hawaiʻi Planning Department has been working to update to the General Plan document adopted in 2005. This update has included reviewing and revising the General Plan Land Use map which guides the intended future use of land within the County. This document is intended to provide details on the methodology used to determine appropriate future uses for existfng urban, rural, agricultural, and open space areas of the County. General Plan Land Use The General Plan is a policy document with a future horizon of 20 years. To help guide growth and development, the General Plan includes a map of intended future use of land throughout Hawaiʻi County. In the adopted 2005 General Plan, this map is referred to as the Land Use Pattern Allocatfon Guide (LUPAG). As the County works to adopt the updated plan, the map of proposed future use is being referred to as the General Plan Land Use (GPLU) map to better tfe to the General Plan document. GPLU is not the same as the zoning code, also refered to as Chapter 25 of the Hawaiʻi County Code. The intent of the GPLU is to guide decisions about potentfal uses of land in a comprehensive way to meet the needs of a growing populatfon in the coming decades. Decisions about zoning and development should be informed by the GPLU and be consistent with the intended uses designated in the GPLU. 2019 Proposed Land Use Map and Revisions Development of the GPLU for the update began with work in 2015. At that tfme, the County did extensive analysis to identffy existfng development, examined the future capacity for development in the County, explored a number of projected growth scenarios, and compared potentfal outcomes of different growth patterns. This analysis was shared with the public in a series of workshops in 2016 and 2017 to explore community choices of how growth occurs and how County services support different growth scenarios. The outcomes of that work shaped the policy guidance for establishing a future land use plan designed to encourage growth in urban centers where services are existfng or planned. In 2019, a version of the land use map1 was shared with the public for review and comment. This document provides details on the methodology used to review public comments and revise the 2019 map resultfng in the current proposed GPLU map as part of the General Plan 2045 under public review from September 18, 2023 through April 1, 2024. 1 Future Land Use System Technical Report, Ian Varley, City Explained, Inc., March 10, 2020. Page 2 of 18 Beginning in the summer 2020, the County and Focused Planning Solutfons LLC reviewed the comments to the 2019 proposed future land use map and recommended several revisions to the map at that tfme. Additfonally, new sources of data were explored to help guide proposed revisions. From the review, several consideratfons were identffied to be explored and addressed. Consideration: The 2019 future land use designatfons removed Urban Expansion as a designatfon. Within Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB), LUPAG Urban Expansion areas were defaulted to urban uses, predominantly Low Density Urban. An unintended consequence of this method was some large shifts to urban uses in areas of the County with no planned development in the plan horizon and no existfng or planned infrastructure to support such development. Actfon: Review all LUPAG Urban Expansion designated areas to determine the criteria for proposed change in future land use. Propertfes designated as a specific change due to CDP guidance or other area plans were accepted as intended. Propertfes that were assigned the default urban uses were reviewed for consistency with State Land Use, CDP use, zoning, proposed conservatfon areas, or other potentfal plans. In CDPs with future centers identffied, urban uses were assigned based on proximity to centers. The criteria used for determining appropriate land use designatfons: • Assigned future land use is from an existfng plan document. • Earlier versions of LUPAG show a specific land use, not Urban Expansion. • Comments from public review propose land uses and County concurs with consistency. • Area is within a TOD or Center from CDPs. • Property is under public ownership with intended future use • Privately owned property has a known area plan • Where no plan is identffied, use existfng data for agriculture use, SLUD, access to infrastructure, and/or zoning district to determine appropriate designatfons. Following these steps, a determinatfon was made for UE parcels. Consideration: The 2019 future land use map introduced the Natural Areas designatfon as a broad category of open space with no intended agricultural use. LUPAG designatfons of Open and Extensive Agriculture were considered as appropriate candidates to transitfon to Natural Areas. About 25% of LUPAG is currently classified as Extensive Agriculture. In the 2019 plan, 45% of that land area changed to the Pastoral land use designatfon based on 2015 UH-Hilo agriculture study of pasture lands and 47% of LUPAG Extensive Agriculture was re-designated to Natural Areas. In current LUPAG, only about 1.4 % of the County is designated Open. About 36% of that land area was re-designated to Natural Areas. Some of these resultfng Natural Areas were identffied during the review as not consistent with existfng or intended property use. Actfon: Areas of the LUPAG map currently designated Extensive Agriculture that were proposed to transitfon to Natural Areas in the 2019 proposed land use plan were reviewed for their existfng and planned uses. The following additfonal data sources were explored to better understand existfng and intended future use: Page 3 of 18 • Carbon Assessment of Hawaiʻi landcover and habitat analysis (John Jacobi, 2015) • Historic Lava Flows (HVO, All available years) • 2015 UH-Hilo Agricultural Baseline crops and pasture data (SDAV, 2015) • Federal and State Owned Lands from Hawaiʻi County assessor data Landcover data was used to define more intentfonal boundaries for natural areas. The following criteria shaped decisions around the Natural Areas designatfon: • State owned lands – retained Natural • Bare Lands in landcover and historic lava flows – Classified as Natural • Wetlands in landcover and Cemetery in County Parks – Classified as Natural • Natfve dominant use in landcover – Classified as Natural • Agriculture dominant use – Classified as Agriculture (includes developed, alien forests) • Pastoral dominant use – Classified as Pastoral Consideration: 2019 future land use was under review at the same tfme the 2018 Kīlauea Lower East Rift Zone (2018 LERZ) eruptfon recovery process was underway. At that tfme, the area impacted by the eruptfon was assigned a land use designatfon of Pending so as not to conflict with concurrent planning processes. Actfon: The Pending designatfons in the 2018 LERZ impact area were reviewed to assign appropriate future uses that would not conflict with the recovery efforts and would appropriately convey the demonstrated risk of the locatfon. The County land area also increased in this area by approximately 766 acres due to the lava flowing into Kapoho Bay and reshaping the coastline in that area. The lava flows were assigned Natural. Island areas surrounded by lava or kīpuka were assigned agricultural use designatfons to match agricultural studies for productfve crop use and or pastoral uses. The Kapoho residentfal area was also under lava flow. The former urban uses in this area were assigned natural to match these condtfons. Consideration: Parks were not always showing as recreatfon or conservatfon. Actfon: Data layers for County, State, and Federal Parks were cross-referenced with the proposed land use designatfons. Park areas not designated as recreatfon or conservatfon use were adjusted to match park boundaries. Parks in SLU conservatfon are noted as GPLU conservatfon, actfve parks with actfve use areas are noted as recreatfon, and public lands not in actfve use are noted as natural or conservatfon, such as PONC propertfes. Consideration: Industrial land uses in LUPAG and the 2019 proposed future land use plan were often inconsistent or showed conflictfng boundaries with zoning and other plans. Actfon: All industrial areas designated in LUPAG, the 2019 proposed land use plan, zoning, CDPs, and other area plans were identffied and reviewed to compare boundaries for consistency. Page 4 of 18 2021 & 2024 Proposed Land Use Map and Revisions The revisions from the 2019 process were shared in an interactfve mapping platiorm using Esri ArcGIS Online Story Maps. Story Maps provided a universally accessible locatfon to see the proposed land use alongside many other relevant data sets for infrastructure, conservatfon, hazards, facilitfes, agriculture, natfve habitat, and transportatfon. The Story Map provided an effectfve way to review proposed changes and digitfze comments directly in the mapping applicatfon. The County also began using the interactfve document platiorm, Konveio, to review draft General Plan document products and gather community input. In 2022, a series of working sessions were conducted to review the comments and the proposed changes. At this tfme, the name of the map was chosen to be the General Plan Land Use (GPLU) map to clarify the connectfon to the guiding document and purpose of the map. Some revisions to the designatfons were also made. The final proposed General Plan land uses are shown below in Table 1. Table 1: General Plan Land Use Designations General Plan Designation Changes from 2019 Proposed Plan Urban Land Use High-Density Urban Medium-Density Urban Low-Density Urban Urban Expansion Added back – after discussion, it was decided to revisit this LUPAG designatfon Light Industrial Heavy Industrial University Resort Rural Land Use Rural Agricultural Land Use Productive Agriculture Extensive Agriculture Name Change – in the 2019 plan this was referred to as Pastoral Use Natural Name Change – in the 2019 plan this was referred to as Natural Areas Open Space Land Use Recreation Conservation Page 5 of 18 The 2022 working sessions were conducted to review land use designatfons categorically. Using a live working session format, questfons were explored about map designatfons in real tfme, identffying areas to flag for review. Comments from the previous online review platiorm were also reviewed to determine appropriate responses and actfons. In sessions exploring urban designatfons, uses near centers and development plans were considered. Inclusion of the Urban Expansion designatfon as a proposed land use provided an opportunity to revisit appropriate locatfons for that use: • Review areas of LUPAG within Urban Expansion. • Look at undeveloped existfng land use • Exclude areas that are already at capacity, map those at the capacity • Exclude state owned conservatfon, critfcal habitat, county parks. • Within TODs, use the appropriate high or medium urban designatfons. The next sessions explored rural and agriculture uses for consistency with State Land Use, zoning, and the 2020 UH-Hilo Agriculture data. Conservatfon and Natural areas were reviewed for consistency with State Land Use, natfve habitat landcover data, and area plans for conservatfon. These review sessions highlighted areas for potentfal changes to better align with intended criteria. After incorporatfng recommendatfons to the GPLU map in the spring-summer 2023, an interactfve mapping platiorm was designed to provide a single locatfon for public users to review the proposed map and add comments. The mapping platiorm links to the Konveio General Plan document review platiorm directly, allowing users to derive document searches from the map and to query the map based on questfons in the document. The public review process concluded on April 1, 2024. Over 200 comments were provided on the GPLU maps. From the public review process, a few consideratfons were identffied and reviewed. Consideration: Some areas assigned Urban Expansion land use are currently developed as urban. Actfon: Review existfng development in Urban Epansion to identffy areas that are built or at capacity and assign consistent urban designatfons. Consideration: The Kona CDP identffied areas at high elevatfon for consideratfon of protectfon to help with water protectfon, landslide risk, and natfve habitat. Actfon: Review lands in the County above 2,500 feet elevatfon for possible Natural designatfon. Property in public ownership identffied for Natural designatfon. Consideration: Lands identffied by the Public Access, Open Space, and Natural Resources Preservatfon Commission (PONC) should be designated as conservatfon lands. Actfon: Map the PONC lands and reclassify to Conservatfon Land Use. Consideration: The coastal buffer for the island was initfally proposed to have Recreatfon as the universal designatfon. Many coastal areas are in SLUD Conservatfon areas. Page 6 of 18 Actfon: Review coastline for SLUD classificatfon. Convert SLUD Conservatfon and Agriculture to GPLU Conservatfon. Confirm SLUD Urban as GPLU Recreatfon. Results Appendix B provides the graphic analysis of changes in land use from adopted LUPAG through the proposed GPLU. The land use comparisons demonstrate the County policy goals to increase Conservatfon and Natural uses, retain Productfve Agriculture, reduce or more specifically define urban footprints, and provide more areas for Rural. Page 7 of 18 Appendix A – List of Additional Data and Sources HVO, U. (All available years). Past and Present Lava Flows for Hawaii Island. John Jacobi, U. P. (2015, 01 01). Carbon Assessment of Hawaii Habitat Status. Retrieved from https://www.sciencebase.gov/catalog/item/592dee75e4b092b266efeb6e SDAV. (2015). 2015 Hawaii Statewide Agricultural Land Use Baseline layer. Page 8 of 18 Appendix B: General Plan Land Use Changes by District Hawaiʻi County (approximately 2,578,828 acres) 2005 LUPAG 2019 Proposed Land Use 2024 Proposed Land Use 2005 LUPAG (143,033 acres) 2019 Proposed Land Use (146,802 acres) 2024 Proposed Land Use (144,604 acres) Hawaiʻi County Breakdown of Other Land Use Types Hāmākua (approximately 404,337 acres) 2005 LUPAG 2019 Proposed Land Use 2024 Proposed Land Use 2005 LUPAG (2,763 acres) 2019 Proposed Land Use (1,602 acres) 2024 Proposed Land Use (1,715 acres) Hāmākua Breakdown of Other Land Use Types North Hilo (approximately 167,230 acres) 2005 LUPAG 2019 Proposed Land Use 2024 Proposed Land Use 2005 LUPAG (853 acres) 2019 Proposed Land Use (659 acres) 2024 Proposed Land Use (681 acres) North Hilo Breakdown of Other Land Use Types South Hilo (approximately 255,518 acres) 2005 LUPAG 2019 Proposed Land Use 2024 Proposed Land Use 2005 LUPAG (20,292 acres) 2019 Proposed Land Use (19,936 acres) 2024 Proposed Land Use (21,289 acres) South Hilo Breakdown of Other Land Use Types Puna (approximately 321,604 acres) 2005 LUPAG 2019 Proposed Land Use 2024 Proposed Land Use 2005 LUPAG (43,854 acres) 2019 Proposed Land Use (53,607 acres) 2024 Proposed Land Use (39,017 acres) Puna Breakdown of Other Land Use Types Kaʻū (approximately 661,461 acres) 2005 LUPAG 2019 Proposed Land Use 2024 Proposed Land Use 2005 LUPAG (15,360 acres) 2019 Proposed Land Use (23,103 acres) 2024 Proposed Land Use (22,599 acres) Kaʻū Breakdown of Other Land Use Types South Kona (approximately 146,964 acres) 2005 LUPAG 2019 Proposed Land Use 2024 Proposed Land Use 2005 LUPAG (1,994 acres) 2019 Proposed Land Use (1,601 acres) 2024 Proposed Land Use (2,966 acres) South Kona Breakdown of Other Land Use Types North Kona (approximately 365,585 acres) 2005 LUPAG 2019 Proposed Land Use 2024 Proposed Land Use 2005 LUPAG (28,646 acres) 2019 Proposed Land Use (26,755 acres) 2024 Proposed Land Use (25,485 acres) North Kona Breakdown of Other Land Use Types South Kohala (approximately 176,135 acres) 2005 LUPAG 2019 Proposed Land Use 2024 Proposed Land Use 2005 LUPAG (25,645 acres) 2019 Proposed Land Use (15,811 acres) 2024 Proposed Land Use (23,533 acres) South Kohala Breakdown of Other Land Use Types North Kohala (approximately 79,993 acres) 2005 LUPAG 2019 Proposed Land Use 2024 Proposed Land Use 2005 LUPAG (3,625 acres) 2019 Proposed Land Use (4,267 acres) 2024 Proposed Land Use (7,319 acres) North Kohala Breakdown of Other Land Use Types From:Chuck Flaherty To:WPCtestimony Subject:Re: GP2045, late written testimony plus attachments - 2 of 2 Date:Friday, November 1, 2024 12:03:20 PM Attachments:080116_Scenic Resource Protection Programs and Strategies_FINAL.pdf Aloha Mr. Chair and members of the Commission, Kala mai for not getting my written testimony to you prior to the meeting. Please see testimony below and attached documents to which I was referring in my testimony that have been a part of the General Plan Comprehensive Review process and should have been provided to the Commission, as well as the public. Documents attached to this e-mail: Scenic Resources Inventory and Mapping Project, Scenic Resource Protection Programs and Strategies Because of the large size of the documents, I have sent the Scenic Resources Inventory and Mapping Project report in this second e-mail. Mahalo, Chuck Flaherty ******************************************************* November 1, 2024 Windward Planning Commission 101 Pauahi St, Ste 103 Hilo HI 96720 Re: Final draft General Plan 2045 Aloha Mr. Chair and members of the Windward Planning Commission, My name is Chuck Flaherty. I am speaking on my personal behalf today. Mahalo nui loa for your volunteer service on this Commission. This special meeting and agenda item should have been given more time. If you have read the draft GP2045, then we now have had a shared experience ofattempting to compare it to the current General Plan. The feedback that I’ve gotten fromother members of the public is that this comparison has been an almost impossible task because GP2045 is a complete gut-and-replace of the current General Plan. Also, placing the GP2045 online in two different software platforms has disenfranchised a large number of people who have made sincere efforts to make informed comments, but are technologically- challenged. As a general statement, the draft GP2045 does not contain sufficient imperative and directive language to provide reasonable assurance that it will be implemented. That being said, there are documents that are relevant to the draft General Plan that should have been provided to the Commission. It may be that these documents are the ones that have been submitted today, but I will review the list with you to make sure. I've also attached them to this e-mail so they may be forwarded to the Commission's members. The most important of the documents not provided to the Commission is the draft General Plan 2040 that was released in August 2019 by then-Planning Director Michael Yee. The reason GP2040 is so important is because it shows the extent to which public access and cultural, historic, and scenic resource preservation policies and actions contained within GP2040 were removed and not included in GP2045. For instance, the Sustainability Objective on page 108 states, “Native Hawaiian language, values, and practices are integrated into all County processes.” This objective has been cleansed from the draft GP now before the Commission. Another document is a report titled “Hawai’i County Scenic Resources Inventory andMapping Project, Scenic Resource Protection Programs and Strategies” prepared for thePlanning Department in August 2016. The Policies and Actions in GP2040 included theprograms and strategies recommended by this report. However, GP2045 removed thesepolicies and actions and now GP2045 only contains a reference to the report. Another report not in the Commission’s initial board packet is the Trend Scenario and Land Use Allocation Technical Report, published in April 2016. This report contains important information, such as how many dwellings can be built with existing zoning, subdivision approvals, and building permits. Another critical report not included in the Commission’s initial board packet is the TechnicalMethodology for General Plan Land Use (2020-2024). This report was not released untilAugust 2024. It should have been released a year earlier because it contains informationthat the public has been requesting since last September 2023, such as explanations of howthe GP2045 land use maps were developed. I would like to give an example of why General Plan land use designations are so important. Let’s use the example of a property owner who wants to rezone and subdivide 300 acres in the state land use Agriculture district. If the property owner applies to rezone and subdivide for Ag-1 lots, the owner could be granted approvals. Now let’s say the property owner wants to subsequently have the subdivision moved to the state land use Rural district, so that amenities, such as a members’ lodge, could be built. The owner would have to file a petition with the state Land Use Commission (LUC) for boundary amendment and the petition would go before the LUC for consideration. And let’s say the owner asks the county to use the general plan comprehensive review process to redesignate the subdivision from Agricultural to Rural in the GP land use map and let’s say the county makes the change in the GP land use map. Because the individual lots in the subdivision are Ag-1, that is, less than 15 acres, the state LUC would no longer have jurisdiction and individual land owners could then petition the county to have their lot(s) redesignated from the state land use Agriculture district to Rural and also apply for county rezoning to Rural as well. The bottom line is that while the project owner cannot request a state land use boundary amendment involving more than 15 acres because the Planning Director would have redesignated the GP land use map to Rural for all lots in the project’s subdivision, the individual lot owner(s) can apply to the county have their 1 acre lots redesignated to the state land use Rural district and apply for county rezoning to Rural in order to accrue the ability to have expanded property rights and uses on their lots. Presently, the Planning Director is refusing to provide the reason that he is proposing such changes to the GP land use map. Mahalo, Chuck Flaherty Captain Cook Hawaii County Scenic Resources Inventory and Mapping Project Scenic Resource Protection Programs and Strategies Prepared for: The Department of Planning Long-range Planning Division 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Prepared by: Planning Consultants Hawaii, LLC 2331 W. Main Street Wailuku, Hawaii 96793 808/269-6220 msummers@planningconsultantshawaii.com August 1, 2016 Hawaii County Scenic Resources Inventory and Mapping Project Scenic Resource Protection Programs and Strategies Page | ii PROJECT PURPOSE 1 COUNTY ENABLING LEGISLATION 2 PROGRAMMATIC NEEDS 3 OVERVIEW OF STUDY 4 VIEW PLANE PROTECTION PROGRAMS 5 STATE OF HAWAII, COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1978, HRS CHAPTER 205A 5 IMPLEMENTATION 6 MAUI COUNTY’S EXPERIENCE 7 SMA PERMITTING 7 PROGRAM SUCCESS 8 RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPROVE THE PROCESS 9 APPLICABILITY TO HAWAII COUNTY 10 COUNTY OF NAPA, CALIFORNIA 11 IMPLEMENTATION 12 PROGRAM ELEMENTS 13 APPLICABILITY TO HAWAII COUNTY 14 STOWE, VERMONT 15 IMPLEMENTATION 15 PROGRAM ELEMENTS 16 APPLICABILITY TO HAWAII COUNTY 17 STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, MAINE 18 IMPLEMENTATION 19 PROGRAM ELEMENTS 20 APPLICABILITY TO HAWAII COUNTY 21 VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT TECHNIQUES 21 CANYON OAKS STORY POLES 22 WAIKAPU COUNTRY TOWN, COMPUTER GENERATED PHOTOMONTAGE 23 THE SILL, LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 25 VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN, VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 25 RECOMMENDATIONS 28 Hawaii County Scenic Resources Inventory and Mapping Project Scenic Resource Protection Programs and Strategies Page | iii APPENDICIES: APPENDIX A Napa County Viewshed Protection Program APPENDIX B Stowe Vermont, Ridgelines/Hillsides Overlay District APPENDIX C State Department of Environmental Protection, Maine Chapter 315, “Assessing and Mitigating Impact to Existing Scenic and Aesthetic Uses APPENDIX D Canyon Oaks Story Poles APPENDIX E Waikapu Country Town Visual Impact Assessment APPENDIX F The Sill, Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment APPENDIX G Village Specific Plan, Visual Impact Assessment Hawaii County Scenic Resources Inventory and Mapping Project Scenic Resource Protection Programs and Strategies Page | 1 Project Purpose The County of Hawai’i Planning Department initiated a comprehensive review of the General Plan in February 2015. As required by HRS §226-58 and Hawai’i County Charter §3-15, the Plan must include, among other things, objectives, policies, and implementation actions for land use, natural resources conservation, and the preservation of scenic beauty, open space, and other scenic resources. The County of Hawai’i contracted Planning Consultants Hawai’i to conduct an inventory of the County’s scenic resources along its State Highways and select County roadways. The “Scenic Resources Inventory and Mapping Project” accomplished the following objectives: 1. Identified and inventoried Hawai‘i County’s scenic, viewshed, and open space resources using digital photography and Geographic Positioning Systems (GPS); 2. Mapped the scenic resources using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and for use with geodesign-based scenario modeling (i.e., CommunityViz); and 3. Described and prioritized the scenic resources using prescribed standards and practices. The purpose of this element of the study is to document methods that can be developed and implemented to protect the County’s scenic resources for future generations. The study will bring forth scenic resource protection programs and methods that are in use elsewhere. The objective is to conduct research on view plane protection strategies that different local, state, and federal government units have adopted that might serve as a model to assist County planners and policy makers in the development of a scenic resources protection program tailored to the unique needs of Hawaii County. Hawaii County Scenic Resources Inventory and Mapping Project Scenic Resource Protection Programs and Strategies Page | 2 Unique visual landscapes found in Hawaii County. County Enabling Legislation Hawaii County Code §25-6-60 establishes that the Hawai‘i County Council may designate scenic roadway corridors. The ordinance further states that the County must prepare a Scenic Corridor Management Plan to “preserve, maintain, protect, or enhance the intrinsic character of the corridor.” The Management Plan would necessarily include design standards and conditions to implement the purpose of the Plan. The ordinance states that in the establishment of scenic roadway corridors the following criteria must be met: 1) Is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Zoning Code and the County General Plan. 2) Will not result in a substantial adverse impact upon the surrounding area, community and/or region. 3) Will enhance Hawai‘i County’s significant natural, visual, recreation, historic and/or cultural qualities. 4) Will protect and enhance the attractiveness of Hawai‘i County to make it a better place to live, work, visit, and/or play. 5) Will improve Hawai‘i County’s economic vitality by enhancing and protecting our unique natural, scenic, historic, cultural, and/or recreational resources. Hawaii County Scenic Resources Inventory and Mapping Project Scenic Resource Protection Programs and Strategies Page | 3 6) Is located on a major or minor arterial highway, or collector road. 7) Significantly possesses at least one of the following intrinsic qualities: scenic, natural, historic, cultural, archaeological, recreational, or demonstrates local, private, and public support and participation. Moreover, the ordinance establishes a clear process for the establishment of scenic resource corridors. These steps include: 1) The Planning Director or Council introduces a resolution to initiate the establishment of a scenic corridor. 2) Notice is served to all owners and lessees of property within 300 feet of the proposed corridor. 3) Within 24 months of the adoption of the resolution, the Planning Director or a corridor advocacy group identified in the resolution completes a corridor management plan and enabling ordinance. A scenic corridor management plan is a written document that assesses the intrinsic qualities of the corridor and specifies actions, procedures, controls, and administrative as well as community strategies that will be pursued to maintain those qualities. 4) Within 120 days, the Planning Commission reviews the proposed plan and ordinance, holds a public hearing, and makes a recommendation to Council. 5) The Council may adopt the plan by ordinance, with or without conditions. Programmatic Needs While the County has a strong policy foundation upon which to develop a scenic resources protection program1, such a program has not yet been developed. Programmatic gaps that currently exist include:  Establishing scenic roadway corridors pursuant to the requirements of Hawaii County Code §25-6-60;  Preparing the Scenic Corridor Management Plan;  Developing application requirements;  Developing permit conditions, such as design guidelines, landscaping, screening, or structural setbacks from major thoroughfares and highways, to mitigate any visual impacts from development. 1 See Pages 1 through 3 of the Hawaii County Scenic Resources Inventory and Mapping Project Final Methods Report. Hawaii County Scenic Resources Inventory and Mapping Project Scenic Resource Protection Programs and Strategies Page | 4 Historic Kailua Kona Town. Overview of Study Recognizing the positive economic and quality of life benefits derived from scenic resources, many jurisdictions throughout the United States have implemented programs to protect these resources for present and future generations. Scenic resource protection programs typically arise from strong public policy directives to mitigate development impacts to scenic views. Planning Consultants Hawai’i has examined view plane protection programs across local, state and federal government jurisdictions in the United States, England and Australia to identify current best practice for protecting scenic resources. A common thread across the programs surveyed is that regulatory controls are preceded by clear policy directives that mandate the protection of scenic resources from development impacts. The County of Hawaii’s General Plan has very clear policy directives to 1) protect its scenic resources from development impacts, 2) identify the scenic resources that are to be protected, and 3) establish regulations to protect these resources. The primary purpose of the “Hawaii County Scenic Resources Inventory and Mapping Project” was to inventory, document, and rate scenic views along the County’s State and County roadways. The information derived provides the basis for the development of regulatory Hawaii County Scenic Resources Inventory and Mapping Project Scenic Resource Protection Programs and Strategies Page | 5 Hawaii County’s pastoral and agricultural landscapes are an important scenic resource. interventions to protect these resources. The inventory and mapping study also provides extensive location specific data including written observations, digital photography and GIS mapping that will greatly assist with the development of mitigation strategies tailored to the uniqueness of the landscapes that are to be protected. This study documents scenic resource protection programs and strategies employed in other jurisdictions that may inform the development of programs appropriate to Hawaii County. The study concludes by providing specific recommendations for actions needed to establish a scenic resources protection program in Hawaii County. View Plane Protection Programs State of Hawaii, Coastal Zone Management Act of 1978, HRS Chapter 205A The Hawaii Coastal Zone Management Act of 1978, HRS 205A, mandates that the Counties implement the ten (10) objectives of the coastal zone management program. Among these objectives, HRS 205A-2 (b) (5) addresses scenic and open space resources by requiring each County to: “Protect, preserve, and, where desirable, restore or improve the quality of coastal scenic and open space resources”. Hawaii County Scenic Resources Inventory and Mapping Project Scenic Resource Protection Programs and Strategies Page | 6 HRS 205A further provides a number of policies to achieve each objective of the law. HRS 205A-2 (c) (3) lists four policies to achieve scenic and open space resource objectives. These include: A. Identify valued scenic resources in the coastal zone management area; B. Ensure that new developments are compatible with their visual environment by designing and locating such developments to minimize the alteration of natural landforms and existing public views to and along the shoreline; C. Preserve, maintain, and, where desirable, improve and restore shoreline open space and scenic resources; and D. Encourage those developments that are not coastal dependent to locate in inland areas. The law further states that the County “shall seek to minimize where reasonable any development which would substantially interfere with or detract from the line of sight toward the sea from the state highway nearest the coast, or from the existing public views to and along the shoreline.” Implementation Any “development” proposed within a Special Management Area (SMA) must obtain a Special Management Area Minor or Major permit. In issuing the permit, the County must determine that the project is consistent with HRS 205A-2 (c) (3). Thus, it is the County’s responsibility to review development within the SMA, and prior to issuing an SMA permit, ensure that the development is consistent with the above-referenced SMA scenic resource objectives and policies. If the development is found not compatible, then it is the County’s responsibility to require changes to the project’s design and/or location to ensure consistency. Hawaii County’s diverse coastal views are protected by SMA objectives and policies. Hawaii County Scenic Resources Inventory and Mapping Project Scenic Resource Protection Programs and Strategies Page | 7 Maui County’s Experience HRS Chapter 205A requires that the SMA boundary be located at least 100 yards inland from the shoreline. However, Maui County’s Special Management Area typically extends inland to the nearest State Highway paralleling the coastline, which in coastal communities like Kihei, extends nearly a mile inland. In some areas, Maui County’s Special Management Area extends inland of the State highway, such as in Kahului, where the boundary extends approximately 3,000 feet inland to the intersection of Wakea Avenue and West Kamehameha Avenue. Because a preponderance of Maui’s urban lands are located along the shoreline and inland of the State Highways, much of its urban development has been subject to SMA permitting requirements, which requires an analysis of consistency with HRS 205A-2 (c) (3). SMA Permitting Maui County SMA Minor permits are approved administratively by the Planning Department. Maui County SMA Major Permits are processed by the Planning Department, but ultimately approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the Maui Planning Commission. The Planning Department prepares the staff and recommendation reports and transmits these to the Maui Planning Commission for decision making at a noticed public hearing. Prior to finalizing its staff and recommendation reports, the Planning Department will require that the project be presented to the County’s Urban Design and Review Board (UDRB) for comment. The UDRB is a nine member board appointed by the Mayor that has specialized professional expertise in urban design. The UDRB will review the project’s site plan, architecture and civil engineering. It is not uncommon for the UDRB to raise concerns pertaining to scenic resource impacts. Thus, the SMA permitting process provides the Planning Department, UDRB and the Maui Planning Commission the opportunity to address development impacts to scenic resources within the coastal zone. Hawaii County Scenic Resources Inventory and Mapping Project Scenic Resource Protection Programs and Strategies Page | 8 Program Success It is Planning Consultants Hawaii’s professional opinion that SMA policies have had just limited success in protecting scenic resources within Maui County’s coastal zone. There are several reasons for the modest performance, including: 1. Existing Community Plan and Zoning Designations. The bulk of Maui’s developed shoreline and coastal lands were community planned and zoned in the early 1970’s with little consideration for how such significant development could impact scenic resources. The County’s early community plans neither documented the scenic resources warranting special protections nor provided sufficient guidance to help mitigate development impacts. As such, during a period of prolonged and rapid urbanization of the County’s coastal lands, SMA permitting was the principal safeguard to address scenic resource impacts, but it was just modestly successful at protecting these resources. 2. Lack of Scenic Resources Protection Process, Procedures and Standards. Although developments within the SMA are reviewed for consistency with SMA scenic resource objectives and policies, there are no criteria for determining when an impact has occurred, if the impact is acceptable or not acceptable, and what measures should be taken to mitigate scenic resource impacts. The current SMA process relies upon the discretion of the County’s staff planner, who most likely has not received formal training nor been provided with sufficient guidance for how best to mitigate scenic resource impacts within the SMA. Considerable urban development exists within Hilo and Kona’s SMA boundaries. Hawaii County Scenic Resources Inventory and Mapping Project Scenic Resource Protection Programs and Strategies Page | 9 Likewise, the UDRB and Maui Planning Commission have also not received sufficient training on scenic resource impact management and mitigation. 3. Maui Coastal Scenic Resources Study (August 1990). Recognizing these shortcomings in the SMA permitting process, the County of Maui’s Planning Department commissioned the above-referenced study in 1990 to address the following gaps:  Inventory and describe scenic resources within the developed and developing areas of the SMA;  Propose measures, if necessary, to improve the quality of these resources;  Develop a scenic resources design manual; and  Establish a training program for Planning Department staff. The study recommended that the design manual be used by the UDRB as well for reviewing coastal developments; and the study recommended the establishment of an in-house evaluation committee to “specialize in the review of coastal projects.” Unfortunately, the study’s recommendations were never implemented by the Department. The study continues to serve as a resource for both SMA Permit Applicants and Planning Department staff to help determine if a development is within an area of the SMA that may contain visual resources. However, the design manual is rarely used to determine appropriate mitigation and the training and evaluation programs were never institutionalized. Recommendations to Improve the Process Maui County’s reliance upon SMA permitting to protect coastal scenic resources could be significantly improved through enhanced training of Planning Department staff, the UDRB and the Maui Planning Commission. Practices should be put into place to produce more consistent documentation of scenic resource impacts and to identify appropriate mitigation strategies and standards for determining if the development is consistent with the SMA’s scenic resources objectives and policies. Maui County could amend its SMA Rules (§12-202) to ensure more effective scenic resource protection through HRS 205A. Such amendments could include the addition of: 1) a design manual to be used for the mitigation of scenic resource impacts; 2) application content requirements for projects that produce scenic resource impacts; 3) criteria for Hawaii County Scenic Resources Inventory and Mapping Project Scenic Resource Protection Programs and Strategies Page | 10 documenting and evaluating scenic resource impacts; and 4) standards for determining levels of acceptable impact. Maui County could also better protect its scenic resources through on-going training of Planning Department staff, UDRB and the Planning Commission in scenic resource impact evaluation and mitigation. Applicability to Hawaii County Much of Maui’s urban development has been subject to SMA Permitting, which requires consistency with the SMA objectives and policies. However, the lack of a defined process with supporting procedures, criteria and standards together with training has resulted in only modest protection of the island’s coastal scenic resources. Any scenic resources protection program implemented by Hawaii County should ensure that such program weaknesses are not apparent. It is important to note that while some of Hawai‘i County’s urban lands are located within the SMA, a larger portion are not. In addition, because of its vast and rural nature, many exceptional and important views in Hawai‘i County are mountain (mauka) or agricultural views. Therefore, developments in these areas are not subject to SMA permitting requirements. For example, the inventory and mapping study identified many important and exceptional views in urban areas, such as the Hilo and Waimea views below that are not located in the SMA. Hawai‘i County may want to consider amending its SMA boundary to include some of the coastal exceptional and important views, provided that Hilo and Waimea urban views. Hawaii County Scenic Resources Inventory and Mapping Project Scenic Resource Protection Programs and Strategies Page | 11 other criteria for amending the boundaries are met as well. In addition, Hawai‘i County may want to consider other protective overlays used in other jurisdictions to ensure its mauka and agricultural views are protected. County of Napa, California Napa County has adopted a Viewshed Protection Program to protect the quality of its scenic resources. The program implements the goals and polices of the Napa County general plan including its land use, open space, conservation, circulation and scenic highway elements. The program is codified as Chapter 18.106, “Viewshed Protection Program” of the County’s zoning ordinance (See: Appendix A, “Napa County Viewshed Protection Program”). Section 18.1206.010 states that the program is intended to accomplish the following: A. Provide hillside development standards to minimize the impact of man- made structures and grading on views of existing landforms, unique geologic features, existing landscape features and open space as seen from designated public roads within the county; B. Protect and preserve views of major and minor ridgelines from designated public roads; C. Create a development review process that maximizes administrative, staff level approval of projects which meet administrative standards, while also providing a vehicle for review by the zoning administrator or planning commission of those projects that do not meet the administrative standards; D. Minimize cut and fill, earthmoving, grading operations and other such man-made effects on the natural terrain to ensure that finished slopes are compatible with existing land character; and E. Promote architecture and designs that are compatible with hillside terrain and minimize visual impacts. Hawaii County Scenic Resources Inventory and Mapping Project Scenic Resource Protection Programs and Strategies Page | 12 Views towards the horizon along the South Kona coast. Implementation The Viewshed Protection Program is implemented through the County’s zoning ordinance. The ordinance applies to building, erosion control and grading permits located on a slope of fifteen percent or more or on minor or major ridgelines as defined by the ordinance. The Director of the Conservation, Development and Planning Department, or the Director’s designee, is responsible for determining if the project meets the administrative criteria and substantially conforms to the Design Manual. If the project does not meet the criteria, the Director may transmit the application to the Napa Valley Conservation Commission and the Commission must grant an exception pursuant to Section 18.106.070. In order for the Commission to grant an exception, the Hawaii County Scenic Resources Inventory and Mapping Project Scenic Resource Protection Programs and Strategies Page | 13 Commission must find that conformance would produce greater visual impacts and greater impacts to existing landforms. Moreover, the Commission must find that measures have been taken to mitigate the project’s visual impacts. Program Elements Major program elements include:  Standardized application and approval process. The process is codified in the County’s zoning ordinance, which clearly describes how visual impacts are evaluated, potential mitigative measures and how applications are processed.  Viewshed Protection Program Application Packet. Among the program’s application content requirements are: 1) Proposed site plan, 2) Topographic map/preliminary grading plan, 3) Building/structure elevations, 4) Landscaping and/or vegetation retention plan, 5) Exterior lighting plan, and 6) Visual impact analysis. The Visual Impact Analysis may include one or more of the following:  Story poles (the temporary placement of a mock wooden skeleton in the general shape of the building, then draping plastic orange snow fencing around the roofline to portray the visual prominence and bulk of the proposed structure);  Computer simulation;  Photomontage;  Picture or visual as viewed from designated public road at point(s) where the structure(s) is/are visible;  Appropriately scaled model; and  Additional views or materials as required by staff from other vantage points.  Design Manual. The Design Manual is defined in the Napa County Viewshed Protection Program ordinance as follows: "Design Manual" shall mean the manual entitled "Viewshed Protection Manual" on file with the Napa County conservation, development and planning Hawaii County Scenic Resources Inventory and Mapping Project Scenic Resource Protection Programs and Strategies Page | 14 Hawaii County’s historic bridges are important scenic resources for the structures themselves as well as for the scenic integrity of the landscapes seen from the bridges. department. The Design Manual shall contain graphic examples of major and minor ridgelines, projects which do and do not meet the criteria contained in this chapter, and landscape plan provisions. Applicability to Hawaii County The Napa County Viewshed Protection Program may serve as a helpful model for Hawaii County as it develops a program to address its scenic resource protection objectives. The program embodies a standardized application and approval process, Hawaii County Scenic Resources Inventory and Mapping Project Scenic Resource Protection Programs and Strategies Page | 15 clear application content requirements and a design manual unique to Napa’s program objectives. Stowe, Vermont The Town of Stowe, Vermont adopted the Ridgelines/Hillsides Overlay District (RHOD) to protect its scenic and ecological resources. The overlay district is implemented through the Town of Stowe Zoning and Subdivision Regulations. Overlay districts are zoning regulations that are typically applied to geographic areas that have unique geographical, environmental or socio-economic conditions that warrant special regulations. These regulations are attached to the existing zoning ordinance and are in addition to and not in lieu of those regulations (See: Appendix B, Stowe, Vermont Ridgelines/Hillsides Overlay District”). The purpose of the Stowe overlay district is described as follows: The purpose of the Ridgelines/Hillsides Overlay District (RHOD) is to protect the scenic and ecological resources associated with lands characterized by high elevations, steep slopes and visual sensitivity in a manner that allows for carefully designed, low- impact development. Implementation The RHOD is applicable to any development proposed on lands within the Overlay District. Development within the RHOD must submit a hillside development plan that is reviewed by the Development Review Board (DRB). The DRB determines if the project is classified as “minor” or “significant”. There are established criteria that the DRB follows to make this determination. Minor projects may proceed with their development permits. Significant projects are subject to review by the DRB, in accordance with the RHOD process and standards codified by ordinance. The process includes the submittal of an application package, scheduling of a public hearing, review by the DRB and either approval, approval with conditions or disapproval of the site development plan within 45 days of the public hearing. Hawaii County Scenic Resources Inventory and Mapping Project Scenic Resource Protection Programs and Strategies Page | 16 Program Elements Major program elements include:  Standardized review and approval process. The RHOD process is codified in the Town’s overlay district ordinance, which clearly describes which projects are considered to have “minor” impacts and which are considered to have “significant impacts”; projects having significant impacts are subject to DRB review. The ordinance also contains standards and guidelines for determining potential impacts to vantage points and for guiding development in a manner that minimizes its impact upon scenic resources.  Application Submission/Content Requirements. Among the program’s application submission/content requirements are materials that may include: 1) Site development plan, 2) Grading plan, 3) Lighting plan, 4) Visibility studies, 5) Stormwater management/erosion control plan, 6) architectural plans and renderings, 7) Access plan, and 8) Slope analysis. Visibility studies may include viewshed analysis, line of site sections, site photography and other means to assess the visual impact of the proposed application. On site measures such as plywood and pole mock-ups, and survey tape layout of site elements may also be required in the event the site is deemed to be sensitive by the DRB.  Standards and Guidelines. The RHOD ordinance contains Standards and Guidelines that the Applicant, Staff and the DRB rely upon to mitigate scenic resource impacts. The ordinance defines the following terms as follows: "Adverse" indicates a negative impact on an identified resource. "Undue Adverse" indicates that the proposed development violates one or more of the Standards set forth in this ordinance and that the impacts cannot be mitigated. Standards are statements that express the development and design intentions of this overlay district. All development within this district must comply with these standards. The Standards reflect Hawaii County Scenic Resources Inventory and Mapping Project Scenic Resource Protection Programs and Strategies Page | 17 Hawaii County’s scenic resources are dramatically influenced by geology, climate and topography. the visual and environmental concerns of the community in terms of the Town's hillsides and ridgelines. Guidelines are instructive in nature. They suggest a variety of means by which the applicant might comply with the standards. The options for compliance are not limited to the guidelines listed, but the applicant can use the list to aid in the design process. Illustrations graphically portray the prescriptions and concepts conveyed in both the Standards and Guidelines. The program’s deployment of standards and guidelines supported by illustrations that are used in conjunction with a standardized approval and review process creates the basis for a powerful scenic resources preservation program. Applicability to Hawaii County The Town of Stowe’s overlay district may serve as a helpful model for Hawaii County as it develops a program to accomplish its scenic resource protection objectives. The overlay ordinance embodies a standardized application and approval process; clear application content requirements; and scenic resource standards, guidelines and illustrations that may serve as a helpful model for the development of a program to protect Hawaii County’s scenic resources. Hawaii County Scenic Resources Inventory and Mapping Project Scenic Resource Protection Programs and Strategies Page | 18 Kailua Kona seaside view. State Department of Environmental Protection, Maine The Department of Environmental Protection enacted Chapter 315, “Assessing and Mitigating Impacts to Existing Scenic and Aesthetic Uses”, to implement the State’s Natural Resources Protection Act (NRPA). The NRPA requires that applicants proposing activities occurring in, on, over, or adjacent to protected natural resources demonstrate that these activities will not unreasonably interfere with existing scenic and aesthetic resources (See: Appendix C, State Department of Environmental Protection, Maine Chapter 315, “Assessing and Mitigating Impacts to Existing Scenic and Aesthetic Uses”). The purpose of the Chapter states: This rule specifies State regulatory concerns, defines visual impacts, establishes a procedure for evaluating visual impacts Hawaii County Scenic Resources Inventory and Mapping Project Scenic Resource Protection Programs and Strategies Page | 19 generated from proposed activities, establishes when a visual assessment may be necessary, explains the components of a visual assessment when required, and describes avoidance, mitigation, and offset measures that may eliminate or reduce unreasonable adverse impacts to existing scenic and aesthetic uses. Implementation Chapter 35 applies to “the alteration of a coastal wetland, great pond, freshwater wetland, fragile mountain area, river, stream, or brook, as defined in the M.S.R.A § 480- B of the Natural Resources Protection Act, that requires an individual permit or is eligible for Tier 3 review.” The Chapter requires that the Department determine the following when an activity is proposed:  Presence of a scenic resource listed in Section 10 of the NRPA;  Significance of the scenic resource;  Character of the surrounding environment;  Expectations of the current viewer;  Extent and intransience of the activity;  Project purpose; and  Context of the proposed activity. The Department is instructed that “unreasonable adverse visual impacts are those that are expected to unreasonably interfere with the general public’s visual enjoyment and appreciation of a scenic resource, or those that otherwise unreasonably impair the character or quality of such a place.” The Department’s visual impact assessment is based on the following:  Landscape compatibility. The project’s impact on the color, form, line and texture of the environment by whether it differs significantly from its existing surroundings;  Scale contrast. The project’s size and scope given its location within the viewshed of a scenic resource; and Hawaii County Scenic Resources Inventory and Mapping Project Scenic Resource Protection Programs and Strategies Page | 20  Spatial dominance. The degree to which an activity dominates the landscape composition or dominates landform, water, or sky backdrop as viewed from a scenic resource. The rule states that “an application may be denied if the activity will have an unreasonable impact on the visual quality of a protected natural resources as viewed from a scenic resource even if the activity has no practical alternative and the applicant has minimized the proposed alteration and its impacts through mitigation.” Program Elements Major program elements include:  Application Submission/Content Requirements. The Applicant must describe the location of the activity and provide an inventory of scenic resources within the viewshed. This is accomplished by having the Applicant complete the MDEP Visual Evaluation Field Survey Checklist.  Visual Impact Assessments. If deemed necessary by the Department, the Applicant may be required to have a qualified design professional prepare a visual impact assessment to document the impact of the project. The assessment must illustrate the proposed changes to the environment and the effectiveness of mitigation measures. The assessment must include a narrative of the project, discussion of the significance of the impacts, level of use and viewer expectations, and mitigation measures incorporated into the design. The rule notes that line-of-sight profiles are one acceptable means for documenting impacts. It is also noted that photo simulations and computer generated graphics may be required for more sensitive landscapes.  Mitigation. In reviewing an Application, the Department is to consider if the project is compatible with its surroundings, and if mitigation has been incorporated to reduce the project’s scenic resource impacts. Design strategies promulgated in the rules include:  Planning and siting. Locate structures in a way on the site to limit the structure’s adverse impacts within the viewshed.  Design. Applicants should utilize screening, buffers, earthen berms, camouflage, low profile, downsizing, non-standard Hawaii County Scenic Resources Inventory and Mapping Project Scenic Resource Protection Programs and Strategies Page | 21 materials, lighting, and alternative technologies to minimize impacts.  Offsets. If scenic resource impacts are unavoidable, applicants may propose “offset” improvements within the viewshed that would enhance the scenic resource in other ways. An offset may be developing a scenic overlook to provide greater access to the scenic resource.  Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) for Evaluating Impacts. The Department’s Bureau of Land and Water enacted standards to assist staff in evaluating scenic and aesthetic use impacts. The guidelines require that staff be trained in the use of a visual impact assessment (VIA) form (Appendix C) and Visual Impact Assessment Matrix (VIM) (Appendix C). The VIA form assesses the project’s compatibility with various elements of the landscape using descriptive indicators and a ratings scoring. The VIM form determines the significance of the visual impact and appropriate mitigation in response to the severity of the impact. Applicability to Hawaii County Maine’s Department of Environmental Management has adopted rules to implement State policy to protect the scenic quality found in its rivers, streams, mountains and other environmental resources. The rules establish an application process, submission requirements, appropriate mitigation strategies and guidelines and standards for evaluating scenic resource impacts. The Department’s rules may serve as a helpful model for Hawaii County as it develops a program to address the County’s scenic resource protection objectives. Hawaii County is blessed with rural landscapes of a diversity of colors and textures. Hawaii County Scenic Resources Inventory and Mapping Project Scenic Resource Protection Programs and Strategies Page | 22 Visual Impact Assessment Techniques As documented in this report, visual impact assessment should be preceded by documenting the scenic resources to be protected. Thereafter, criteria and/or guidelines should be developed to help the assessor evaluate how, and to what extent, a scenic resource is being degraded by a proposed action. Once a standardized process is in place, visual impact assessment methods should be deployed to document project induced impacts. The visual impact assessment techniques most commonly used to document scenic resource impacts include: 1. Line-of-sight analysis. A graphic line between two points on a surface that shows where along the line the view is being obstructed. This analysis can be performed using ARC GIS. 2. Story poles. The temporary placement of a mock structure or poles at the height and massing of a structure to simulate the impact of the structure on scenic resources. 3. Computer simulation. The use of computers to simulate pre- and post-project conditions by creating a computerized model of the height, scale and architectural character of a structure together with the existing natural and built environment surrounding it. 4. Photomontage. Creating a composite photograph by incorporating elements from two or more photographs into a new image. Image editing software is often used and the process is commonly referred to as “photoshopping”. These techniques are elaborated upon through their application in the following visual impact assessment case studies: Canyon Oaks Story Poles The City of Calabasas, California, requires projects to conduct a story pole analysis if they are located within its “Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone”, or if they are requesting height variances. The purpose of installing story poles is to assess the visual impact of the project (See: Appendix D, Canyon Oaks Story Poles). Hawaii County Scenic Resources Inventory and Mapping Project Scenic Resource Protection Programs and Strategies Page | 23 Mauka views from Alii Drive in Kailua Kona document how building height and separation can be used to preserve view corridors towards Hualalai. The case study described in Appendix D documents an application that was made to the City’s Planning Commission to install story poles, in accordance with a proposed story pole plan. The Applicant was seeking an approval from the Planning Commission to proceed with the story pole plan. The story pole analysis was intended to document the scenic resource impacts of a development comprising 67 single-family residences, two duplexes and a four-story hotel. Approximately 80% of the 77-acre site was to remain in open space. The Application to the Planning Commission comprised the following:  Development summary;  Project site plan superimposed onto an aerial photograph;  Documentation of views from the abutting roadways;  Architectural Sections of the project;  Story pole plans; and  Story pole plan with computer simulation of post development condition. (See: Appendix D, pages 14 through 19). Waikapu Country Town, Computer Generated Photomontage A Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was filed with the State Land Use Commission to assess the impacts associated with the development of a 1,433 unit mixed-use development in Waikapu, Maui. The Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS), Hawaii County Scenic Resources Inventory and Mapping Project Scenic Resource Protection Programs and Strategies Page | 24 Chapter 343, trigger for the DEIS was an amendment to the County’s General Plan. The project also requires a change in the State Land Use District from Agricultural to Urban and Rural. The project site is within the County’s directed growth boundary and is consistent with the County’s directed growth plan. The Maui Island Plan (MIP) identifies the Honoapiilani highway fronting the project as a “scenic corridor” with “high” resource value. The MIP has policies that stipulate the protection of scenic resources including views of the West Maui Mountains, Haleakala, agricultural lands and the Pacific Ocean. In reviewing the Environmental Impact Statement Preparation Notice (EISPN), the Planning Department’s staff planner requested that the impacts to views along the Honoapiilani Highway be assessed in the DEIS. In response to the Planning Department’s request, the Applicant prepared a series of computer generated photomontages to document the visual impacts of the development on the landscape (See: Appendix E, Waikapu Country Town Visual Impact Assessment). As described in the DEIS, the Applicant incorporated several mitigation measures into the design to help reduce the project’s visual impacts, including:  Increasing the depth of the setbacks along the highway;  Limiting the scale and height of buildings along the highway;  Increasing the separation between buildings;  Aligning internal roadways in a manner to create scenic corridors, where possible; and  Incorporating canopy shade trees and other landscape planting treatments Low roof profiles preserve expansive views of Hawaii County’s coastline. Hawaii County Scenic Resources Inventory and Mapping Project Scenic Resource Protection Programs and Strategies Page | 25 within the right-of-way to create a sense of place. The computer generated photomontages will help to inform the public of the impacts that the project will have upon scenic resources. They will also help decision makers determine if the impacts are acceptable or unacceptable, and if additional mitigation measures are warranted. The Sill, Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) was prepared to assess the visual impacts of constructing a Landscape Discovery Center, 86-bed hostel, parking, and infrastructure within the 400 square mile Northumberland National Park, England. The study was conducted in accordance with the “Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment”: Third Edition: 2013, edited by the Landscape Institute and the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment. The LIVA is noteworthy for its discussion of the study’s methodology and overview of the significance criteria (Chapter 3), description of baseline resource conditions (Chapter 4), and summarization of impacts (Chapter 5). Photomontage was used to demonstrate the project’s visual impacts from a variety of locations (See: Appendix F). The tables on pages 31 through 34 are especially helpful in documenting the project’s visual impacts. Similar tables could be used alongside photomontage and/or computer simulation to document development impacts to Hawaii County’s scenic resources. Increasing shoreline setbacks and minimum lot sizes could help to better protect shoreline views along the South Kona coast. Hawaii County Scenic Resources Inventory and Mapping Project Scenic Resource Protection Programs and Strategies Page | 26 Village Specific Plan, Visual Impact Assessment The City of Del Mar, California, Planning and Community Development Department, commissioned a study that was completed in July 2012 to assess the visual impacts of the City’s “Del Mar Village Specific Plan”. The Visual Impact Assessment thoroughly documents the existing visual resources within the study area and assesses the visual response of the different viewer groups. The study then conducts an assessment of the Plan’s visual impacts, proposes mitigation options and assesses the impacts following mitigation (See: Appendix G, Village Specific Plan, Visual Impact Assessment). The Del Mar study utilizes several of the visual impact assessment techniques identified in this report, including: GIS based line-of-site/viewshed analysis, photomontage and computer simulation. GIS based line-of-site/viewshed analysis using a digital elevation model (DEM) was effectively deployed to assess the Plan’s overall impact by documenting the following:  The scope of existing and future ocean viewsheds from residences located to the east (mauka) of the planning area.  The visibility of existing and future buildings from residences located east (mauka) of the planning area based on existing and planned conditions.  The degree of visual impact upon residences located east (mauka) of the planning area. The presence and types of view corridors through the planning area from residences located to the east (mauka) (See: Appendix G, pages 23 to 33). Computer simulations documenting pre- and post-project conditions were are also used extensively in the Del Mar Study. The study documents existing views from locations where the Plan is proposing changes to building massing and height. Using computer software, such as SketchUp, scale models depicting future building conditions were inserted into existing condition photographs. Utility clutter is a significant threat to Hawaii County’s scenic resources. Hawaii County Scenic Resources Inventory and Mapping Project Scenic Resource Protection Programs and Strategies Page | 27 The analyst is then able to assess the significance of the project’s impact. Using computer simulation, the scenic resources analyst is able to assess the following:  Existing visual quality / character;  Proposed project features;  Change to visual quality / character;  Viewer response;  Resultant visual impact. See Simulation “D1” on pages 52 through 53, Simulation “E1” on pages 56 through 57 and Simulations “F1” through “F4” on pages 58 through 62 of Appendix G. Building setback, scale and topography minimize scenic resource impacts above while exacerbating impacts below. Hawaii County Scenic Resources Inventory and Mapping Project Scenic Resource Protection Programs and Strategies Page | 28 Dust fencing offers suggestions of potential impacts to open space and Hualalai views just east of Waimea along Highway 19, Kawaihae Road. Recommendations The purpose of this study was to research view plane protection programs and strategies that different local, state, and federal government units have adopted. These programs and strategies may serve as models that Hawaii County could use to help respond to the programmatic gaps that have been identified within the County’s existing planning and regulatory documents. The County has a solid foundation of existing State and County policy directives to establish view plane regulations to preserve and protect its scenic resources. As documented in this report, there is also sufficient enabling policy to develop a scenic Hawaii County Scenic Resources Inventory and Mapping Project Scenic Resource Protection Programs and Strategies Page | 29 resource protection program. Any program developed should include the following key elements that are already supported by County policy: • Identification of scenic view planes, areas of natural beauty, and other visual resources by mapping them (HRS 205A-2(c)(3)(A)); • Establishment of application requirements for all land use and construction reviews to assess potential impacts on view planes and other natural and scenic beauty resources, likely including line-of-sight analysis (GP 7.3 (e), (h), & (i)); and • Development of permit conditions, such as design guidelines, landscaping, screening, or structural setbacks from major thoroughfares and highways, to mitigate any visual impacts from development (GP 7.3(f)). The following summarizes this study’s recommendations: 1. Identification of scenic view planes, areas of natural beauty, and other visual resources. 1.A Conduct additional community outreach to support recommendations 1.B and 1.C. 1.B Rate the viewsheds and roadway corridors documented in the Scenic Resources Inventory and Mapping Project (June, 2016); and 1.C Develop scenic resource and viewshed corridor maps. 2. Develop administrative rules to implement Hawaii County Code §25-6-60. These rules will provide a consistent framework and process for the implementation of HCC §25-6-60. The rules should include: 1. Purpose and intent language; 2. Criteria used to determine significant impacts when reviewing development projects; 3. An application review and approval process for the review of development projects; and 4. Application content requirements. Models documented in this report include: Napa, California; Stowe Vermont; and State Department of Environmental Protection, Maine. Hawaii County Scenic Resources Inventory and Mapping Project Scenic Resource Protection Programs and Strategies Page | 30 In addition, The Sill, Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Report (Appendix F), provides criteria that may be applicable for assessing visual impacts. The visual impact assessment techniques documented in this report, including: computer simulations, photomontages and constructing story poles, should be required of Applicants when it is expected that their project will produce adverse scenic resource impacts. 3. Develop Scenic Corridor Management Plan(s) for specific corridors identified through steps 1.B and 1.C. Prepare and process the Management Plan(s) in accordance with Hawaii County Code §25-6-60. 3.A Scenic Corridor Management Plan(s) should include permit conditions, such as design guidelines, landscaping, screening, or structural setbacks from major thoroughfares and highways, to mitigate any visual impacts from development. 3.B Prepare Urban Design and Scenic Resource Protection Guidelines. Design guidelines are needed to help both Applicant’s and staff identify best practice mitigation for minimizing scenic resource impacts. Design guidelines should address the following:  Building density, scale, setbacks, height, separation, placement/orientation, colors, and materials;  Landscape planting; and  Topography The guidelines should demonstrate the application of mitigation to projects of the type to be expected within the unique landscape character districts found within the County. 4. Staff and Planning Commission Training. Institutionalize a scenic resources management and protection training program. As described in this report, all development within Maui County’s SMA is subject to a determination of consistency with the SMA’s scenic resource objectives and policies. Unfortunately, there is very little guidance provided to help distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable impacts, when a visual impact Hawaii County Scenic Resources Inventory and Mapping Project Scenic Resource Protection Programs and Strategies Page | 31 assessment should be conducted, and the types of mitigation that are most appropriate to specific conditions. Any program adopted in Hawaii County should include a training element to help ensure that impacts are addressed consistently and in a manner consistent with the purpose and intent of the County’s scenic resource protection policies. Hawaii County’s scenic resources enhance the quality of life for its residents while attracting visitors from around the world. APPENDIX A NAPA COUNTY VIEWSHED PROTECTION PROGRAM APPENDIX B STOWE, VERMONT RIDGELINES/HILLSIDES OVERLAY DISTRICT APPENDIX C STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, MAINE CHAPTER 315, “ASSESSING AND MITIGATING IMPACTS TO EXISTING SCENIC AND AESTHETIC USES Standard Operating Procedure Bureau of Land and Water Quality Date: July 20, 2003 Doc num: DEPLW0541-A2003 COVERSHEET STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Operation Title:Guidance for Assessing Impacts to Existing Scenic and Aesthetic Uses under the Natural Resources Protection Act Identification No.:DEPLW0541-A2003 Revision No.:00 Originator Name:Judy Gates Reviser:N/A Effective Date:July 20, 2003 APPROVALS: Bureau of Land and Water Quality Director: Brooke Barnes________ ____________________________ Date: ___________ Print Name Signature QMSC Chair: Malcolm C. Burson_____ ____________________________ Date: ___________ Print Name Signature DISTRIBUTION: ( ) Bureau of Air Quality......................................................By: _____ Date: _______ ( ) Bureau of Land and Water Quality.................................By: _____ Date: _______ ( ) Bureau of Remediation and Waste Management..........By: _____ Date: _______ ( ) Office of the Commissioner............................................By: _____ Date: _______ ( ) Quality Management Steering Committee.....................By: ____ Date: ________ ( ) Bureau QACs and Lead auditors……………………… By: ______ Date: ________ Standard Operating Procedure Bureau of Land and Water Quality Date: July 20, 2003 Doc num: DEPLW0541-A2003 Bureau of Land and Water Quality Division of Land Resource Regulation Licensing Unit Standard Operating Procedure Guidelines for Assessing Impacts to Existing Scenic and Aesthetic Uses under the Natural Resources Protection Act 1. APPLICABILITY. This standard operating procedure (SOP) applies to all licensing staff in the Bureau of Land and Water Quality’s Division of Land Resource Regulation (Division) after December 1, 2002. It applies to the processing of applications filed with the Department under the Natural Resources Protection Act (NRPA). 2. PURPOSE. This SOP is intended to establish consistent procedures for staff assessments of potential impacts to existing scenic and aesthetic uses during the processing of NRPA applications by the Division of Land Resource Regulation. 3. RESPONSIBILITIES. 3.1 COMPLIANCE. All licensing staff in the Division of Land Resource Regulation are responsible for becoming familiar, and complying with, the contents of this procedure prior to processing an application. The attached appendices are to serve as reference materials throughout the processing of applications. Supervisors are responsible for ensuring that licensing staff is familiar with and adhere to the procedures outlined in this SOP. Enforcement & Field Services staff Drafting Department Orders will also adhere to these procedures. 3.2 OTHER. The Licensing Coordinator is responsible for initial development, approval, distribution, and maintenance of the proposed SOP. Policy and Procedures staff in the Bureau of Land & Water Quality will track this SOP. The name of responsible individuals, document title, dates of last revision, and document numbers will be recorded. 4. GUIDELINES AND PROCEDURES. 4.1 ORIGINATION AND CONTENTS. Division Licensing staff will be trained in the use of the Basic Visual Assessment (VIA) form (Appendix A) and Visual Impact Assessment Matrix (Matrix) (Appendix B) associated with this SOP. The appendices will be used by Division Licensing staff when potential impacts on existing scenic and aesthetic uses are identified during the processing of an NRPA application. The VIA and matrix will be used as guidance for determining whether a proposed activity will have an unreasonable adverse impact on an aesthetically significant place, as defined in Chapter 315, Section 9. The completed VIA and matrix will be included in Standard Operating Procedure Bureau of Land and Water Quality Date: July 20, 2003 Doc num: DEPLW0541-A2003 Page 2 of 5 the project file. Associated definitions included in this SOP apply to the VIA and matrix. 4.2 SOP DEVELOPMENT AND APPROVAL PROCESS. Approval of this SOP follows the preliminary draft cycle and final approval cycle for Bureau-specific SOPs described in SOP No. OC-PE-0001, Standard Operating Procedure Development, Format, Approval, and Distribution, dated June 15, 2001. The Director of the Bureau of Land and Water Quality and the Maine DEP’s QAM approve the final SOP. 5. REFERENCES. 5.1 MAINE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (JUNE 2001). 5.2 MAINE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE ON STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES (OC- PE-0001). 5.3 MAINE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, BUREAU OF LAND AND WATER QUALITY, STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE SUPPLEMENT TO OC-PE-0001 (DEPLW2001-22). 5.4 LANDSCAPE AESTHETICS: A HANDBOOK FOR SCENERY MANAGEMENT. REVISED OCTOBER 2000. U.S. FOREST SERVICE. 5.5 SMARDON, R.C. AND HUNTER, M. 1983. THE FUTURE OF WETLANDS: ASSESSING VISUAL – CULTURAL VALUES. TOTOWA, NJ. Standard Operating Procedure Bureau of Land and Water Quality Date: July 20, 2003 Doc num: DEPLW0541-A2003 Page 3 of 5 APPENDIX A:Basic Visual Impact Assessment Form VISUAL ELEMENTS VISUAL SUB ELEMENTS INDICATORS/CLUES ELEMENT RATINGS ELEMENT SCORES Severe 3 Moderate 2 Minimal 1 LANDSCAPE COMPATIBILITY COLOR Significantly different color, hue, value chroma None 0 Severe 3 Moderate 2 Minimal 1FORM Incompatible 2/3 dimensional shape with landscape surroundings None 0 Severe 3 Moderate 2 Minimal 1LINE Incompatible edges, bands, or silhouette lines introduced None 0 Severe 3 Moderate 2 Minimal 1TEXTURE Incompatible textural grain, density, regularity or pattern None 0 SUBTOTAL Major scale introduction/intrusion Severe 12 One of several major scales or major objects in confined setting Moderate 8 Significant object or scale Minimal 4 Small object or scale None 0 SCORE SCALE CONTRAST LANDSCAPE Dominate 12 Co-Dominate 8 SITUATION Sub-ordinate 4 BACKDROP Object/activity dominates or is prominent in whole landscape composition; oris promently situated within the landscape; or dominates landform, water, or sky backdrop Insignificant 0 SPATIAL DOMINANCE SCORE TOTAL VISUAL IMPACT SEVERITY Severe 27-36 Strong 26-18 DEPLW0541-A2002 Moderate 17-9 Used with permission of R.C. Smardon Weak or Negligible 8-0 Standard Operating Procedure Bureau of Land and Water Quality Date: July 20, 2003 Doc num: DEPLW0541-A2003 Page 4 of 5 Definitions associated with Appendix A. A. Backdrop. The distant part of a landscape located from 4 miles to infinity from the viewer. B. Color. The property of reflecting light of a particular wavelength that enables the eye to differentiate otherwise indistinguishable objects. A hue (red, green, blue, yellow, etc.) as contrasted with a value (black, white, or gray). C. Contrast. Diversity or distinction of adjacent parts. Effect of striking differences in color, form, line, or texture of a landscape. D. Dominance. The extent to which an object is noticeable when compared to the surrounding context. E. Form. The structure, mass or shape of a landscape or an object. Landscape form is often defined by the edges or outlines of landforms, rockforms, vegetation patterns, or waterforms, or the enclosed spaces created by these attributes. F. Landform. One of the attributes or features that make up the Earth’s surface, such as a plain, mountain, or valley. G. Landscape. An area composed of interacting ecosystems that are repeated because of geology, landform, soils, climate, biota, and human influences throughout that area. H. Landscape Character or Landscape Composition. Particular attributes, qualities, and traits of a landscape that give it an image and make it identifiable or unique. I. Landscape Compatibility. The elements of color, form, line, and texture that typically determine landscape character. J. Line. Anything that is arranged in a row or sequence. In landscapes – ridges, skylines, structures, changes in vegetation, or individual trees and branches – may be perceived as line. K. Scale Contrast. The degree to which an activity or object dominates or intrudes into a landscape or confined setting. L. Situation. The position of the activity or object within the landscape. M. Spatial Dominance. The degree to which an activity or object dominates the landscape; is prominently situated within the landscape; or dominates landform, waterform, or sky backdrop. N. Texture. The grain of a landscape or repetitive pattern of tiny forms. Visual texture can range from smooth to coarse. O. Visual Elements. The landscape’s components that make up the overall visual character of a landscape. P. Waterform. One of the attributes or features that make up the Earth’s surface, such as a pond, lake, stream, river, waterfall, estuary, or ocean. Standard Operating Procedure Bureau of Land and Water Quality Date: July 20, 2003 Doc num: DEPLW0541-A2003Page 0 of 5APPENDIX B:Visual Impact Assessment MatrixLEGENDImpact severity RatingScenicsignificanceSevere36-27Strong26-18Moderate17-9Weak/None8-0UNACCEPTABLE. High level of visual contrast in line,form, color, or texture between existing high qualitylandscape and development proposal; view of water or othersignificant visual resource obstructed. May be grounds forproject denial.HighACCEPTABLE WITH MAJOR MITIGATION. Highdegree of contrast on landscape of medium significance;moderate degree of contrast on highly significant landscape.Project re-design necessary.MediumACCEPTABLE WITH MITIGATION. Somemodification to project siting or design necessary to achievebetter landscape ‘fit.’LowACCEPTABLE WITH MINOR MITIGATION.Relatively minor adjustments to plan or siting necessary toachieve a higher level of project compatibility.SCENIC SIGNIFICANCE OF VIEWUnratedLOW/NO IMPACT. No perceptible change to the visuallandscape. No mitigation required.Chart is recommended method for reviewing visual impactsand determining level of effort required for mitigation and/orreconsideration of project siting and design. Application ofthe recommended actions should consider length of view andviewer expectation.Appendix BBasic Visual Assessment FormDEPLW0451-A2002(Used with permission of Terrence DeWan &Associates) 06-096 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Chapter 315, Assessing and Mitigating Impacts to Existing Scenic and Aesthetic Uses - 1 - Chapter 315: ASSESSING AND MITIGATING IMPACTS TO EXISTING SCENIC AND AESTHETIC USES SUMMARY: This chapter describes the process for evaluating impacts to existing scenic and aesthetic uses resulting from activities in, on, over, or adjacent to protected natural resources subject to the Natural Resources Protection Act, pursuant to 38 M.S.R.A. § 480-D (1). 1. Introduction. In the Natural Resources Protection Act (NRPA), 38 M.R.S.A. §§ 480-A through Z, the Legislature has found and declared that Maine’s rivers and streams, great ponds, fragile mountain areas, freshwater wetlands, significant wildlife habitat, coastal wetlands, and sand dune systems are resources of state significance. Section 480-A states that these resources have great scenic beauty and unique characteristics, unsurpassed recreational, cultural, historical, and environmental value of present and future benefit to the citizens of the State and that uses are causing the rapid degradation and, in some cases, the destruction of these critical resources. The Legislature’s recognition of the scenic beauty of these protected natural resources through statute distinguishes the visual quality of those resources and its value to the general population. Applicants for permits under the NRPA are required to demonstrate that a proposed activity meets the standards of the NRPA that have been established by the Legislature. Standard 1 in Section 480-D of the NRPA requires an applicant to demonstrate that a proposed activity will not unreasonably interfere with existing scenic and aesthetic uses. 2. Purpose. This rule specifies State regulatory concerns, defines visual impacts, establishes a procedure for evaluating visual impacts generated from proposed activities, establishes when a visual assessment may be necessary, explains the components of a visual assessment when required, and describes avoidance, mitigation, and offset measures that may eliminate or reduce unreasonable adverse impacts to existing scenic and aesthetic uses. 3. Applicability. This rule applies to the alteration of a coastal wetland, great pond, freshwater wetland, fragile mountain area, river, stream, or brook, as defined in 38 M.S.R.A. § 480-B of the Natural Resources Protection Act (NRPA), that requires an individual permit or is eligible for Tier 3 review. This rule does not apply to an activity that is exempt from permit requirements under the NRPA or that qualifies for a Tier 1 or Tier 2 permit. This rule does not apply to a Permit by Rule unless the Department exercises its discretionary authority to require an individual permit as described in Chapter 305, Section 1 (D). In the review of an application for a permit, the Department must evaluate the potential for unreasonable adverse visual impacts resulting from a proposed activity located in, on, over, or adjacent to a protected natural resource. 4. Scope of Review. The potential impacts of a proposed activity will be determined by the Department considering the presence of a scenic resource listed in Section 10, the significance of the scenic resource, the existing character of the surrounding area, the expectations of the typical viewer, the extent and intransience of the activity, the project purpose, and the context of the proposed activity. Unreasonable adverse visual impacts are those that are expected to unreasonably interfere with the general public’s visual enjoyment and appreciation of a scenic resource, or those that otherwise unreasonably impair the character or quality of such a place. 06-096 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Chapter 315, Assessing and Mitigating Impacts to Existing Scenic and Aesthetic Uses - 2 - 5. Definitions. As used in these rules, the following terms have the following meanings. Other terms used in these rules have the meanings set forth at 38 M.S.R.A. § 480-X and Chapter 310, the Wetlands and Waterbodies Protection Rules. A. Adverse visual impact. The negative effect of a regulated activity on the visual quality of a landscape. B. Composition. The arrangement of the component parts of a landscape. Component parts are objects or activities usually described in terms of color, texture, line, form, dominance, and scale. C. Contrast. Comparing the component parts of a landscape in terms of form, line, color, texture, dominance, or scale. D. Existing uses. The current appearance and use of the landscape, considering previous human alterations. E. Landscape. An area characterized by its geology, landform, biota, and human influences throughout that area. F. Mitigation. Any action taken or not taken to avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce, or eliminate actual or potential adverse environmental impact, including adverse visual impact. G. Practicable. Available and feasible considering cost, existing technology and logistics based on the overall purpose of the activity. H. Scenic Resource. Public natural resources or public lands visited by the general public , in part for the use, observation, enjoyment, and appreciation of natural or cultural visual qualities.. The attributes, characteristics, and features of the landscape of a scenic resource provide varying responses from, and varying degrees of benefits to, humans. I. Viewshed. The geographic area as viewed from a scenic resource, which includes the proposed activity. The viewshed may include the total visible activity area from a single observer position or the total visible activity area from multiple observers’ positions. J. Visual Quality. The essential attributes of the landscape that when viewed elicit overall benefits to individuals and, therefore, to society in general. The quality of the resource and the significance of the resource are usually, but not always, correlated. 6. Application submissions. An applicant is required to demonstrate that the proposed activity will not unreasonably interfere with existing scenic and aesthetic uses of a scenic resource listed in Section 10. Basic evidence must be provided to ensure that visual concerns have been fully addressed in each application. The applicant must describe the location of the activity and provide an inventory of scenic resources within the viewshed of the proposed activity by completing the MDEP Visual Evaluation Field Survey Checklist (doc. #DEPLW0540) provided in the application. The applicant must describe the activity relative to its location and scale within the viewshed of any scenic resource, including a description of the existing visual quality and landscape characteristics. The applicant may request a pre-application meeting during which 06-096 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Chapter 315, Assessing and Mitigating Impacts to Existing Scenic and Aesthetic Uses - 3 - the Department can provide guidance for determining the location of the activity relative to scenic resources in the vicinity of the applicant’s parcel. 7. Visual impact assessments. The Department may require a visual impact assessment if a proposed activity appears to be located within the viewshed of, and has the potential to have an unreasonable adverse impact on, a scenic resource listed in Section 10. An applicant’s visual impact assessment should visualize the proposed activity and evaluate potential adverse impacts of that activity on existing scenic and aesthetic uses of a protected natural resource within the viewshed of a scenic resource, and to determine effective mitigation strategies, if appropriate. If required, a visual impact assessment must be prepared by a design professional trained in visual assessment procedures, or as otherwise directed by the Department. In all visual impact assessments, scenic resources within the viewshed of the proposed activity must be identified and the existing surrounding landscape must be described. The assessment must be completed following standard professional practices to illustrate the proposed change to the visual environment and the effectiveness of any proposed mitigation measures. The radius of the impact area to be analyzed must be based on the relative size and scope of the proposed activity given the specific location. Areas of the scenic resource from which the activity will be visible, including representative and worst-case viewpoints, must be identified. Line-of-sight profiles constitute the simplest acceptable method of illustrating the potential visual impact of the proposed activity from viewpoints within the context of its viewshed. A line-of-sight profile represents the path, real or imagined, that the eye follows from a specific point to another point when viewing the landscape. See Appendix A for guidance on line-of-sight profiles. For activities with more sensitive conditions, photosimulations and computer-generated graphics may be required. A visual impact assessment must also include narratives to describe the significance of any potential impacts, the level of use and viewer expectations, measures taken to avoid and minimize visual impacts, and steps that have been incorporated into the activity design that may mitigate any potential adverse visual impacts to scenic resources. 8. Mitigation. In the case where the Department determines that the proposed activity will have an adverse visual impact on a scenic resource, applicants may be required to employ appropriate measures to mitigate the adverse impacts to the extent practicable. Mitigation should reduce or eliminate the visibility of the proposed activity or alter the effect of the activity on the scenic or aesthetic use in some way. The Department will determine when mitigation should be proposed and whether the applicant’s mitigation strategies are reasonable. The Department may require mitigation by requesting that the applicant submit a design that includes the required mitigation or by imposing permit conditions consistent with specified mitigation requirements. In its determination whether adverse impacts to existing scenic and aesthetic uses are unreasonable, the Department will consider whether the applicant’s activity design is visually compatible with its surroundings, incorporating environmentally sensitive design principles and components according to the strategies described below. A. Planning and siting. Properly siting an activity may be the most effective way to mitigate potential visual impacts. Applicants are encouraged, and may be required, to site a proposed activity in a location that limits its adverse visual impacts within the viewshed of a scenic resource. 06-096 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Chapter 315, Assessing and Mitigating Impacts to Existing Scenic and Aesthetic Uses - 4 - B. Design. When circumstances do not allow siting to avoid visual impacts on a scenic resource, elements of particular concern should be designed in such a way that reduces or eliminates visual impacts to the area in which an activity is located, as viewed from a scenic resource. Applicants should consider a variety of design methods to mitigate potential impacts, including screening, buffers, earthen berms, camouflage, low profile, downsizing, non-standard materials, lighting, and other alternate technologies. C. Offsets. Correction of an existing visual problem identified within the viewshed of the same scenic resource as the proposed activity may qualify as an offset for visual impacts when an improvement may be realized. Offsets may be used in sensitive locations where significant impacts from the proposal are unavoidable or other forms of mitigation might not be practicable. An example of an offset might be the removal of an existing abandoned structure that is in disrepair to offset impacts from a proposal within visual proximity of the same scenic resource. Offsets can also include visual improvements to the affected landscape, such as tree plantings or development of scenic overlooks. 9. Determination. It is the responsibility of the applicant to demonstrate that the proposed design does not unreasonably interfere with existing scenic and aesthetic uses, and thereby diminish the public enjoyment and appreciation of the qualities of a scenic resource, and that any potential impacts have been minimized. The Department’s determination of impact is based on the following visual elements of the landscape: A. Landscape compatibility, which is a function of the sub-elements of color, form, line, and texture. Compatibility is determined by whether the proposed activity differs significantly from its existing surroundings and the context from which they are viewed such that it becomes an unreasonable adverse impact on the visual quality of a protected natural resource as viewed from a scenic resource; B. Scale contrast, which is determined by the size and scope of the proposed activity given its specific location within the viewshed of a scenic resource; and C. Spatial dominance, which is the degree to which an activity dominates the whole landscape composition or dominates landform, water, or sky backdrop as viewed from a scenic resource. In making a determination within the context of this rule, the Department considers the type, area, and intransience of an activity related to a scenic resource that will be affected by the activity, the significance of the scenic resource, and the degree to which the use or viewer expectations of a scenic resource will be altered, including alteration beyond the physical boundaries of the activity. In addition to the scenic resource, the Department also considers the functions and values of the protected natural resource, any proposed mitigation, practicable alternatives to the proposed activity that will have less visual impact, and cumulative effects of frequent minor alterations on the scenic resource. An application may be denied if the activity will have an unreasonable impact on the visual quality of a protected natural resources as viewed from a scenic resource even if the activity has no practicable alternative and the applicant has minimized the proposed alteration and its impacts as much as possible through mitigation. An 06-096 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Chapter 315, Assessing and Mitigating Impacts to Existing Scenic and Aesthetic Uses - 5 - “unreasonable impact” means that the standards of the Natural Resources Protection Act, 38 M.R.S.A. § 480-D, will not be met. 10. Scenic resources. The following public natural resources and public lands are usually visited by the general public, in part with the purpose of enjoying their visual quality. Under this rule, the Department considers a scenic resource as the typical point from which an activity in, on, over, or adjacent to a protected natural resource is viewed. This list of scenic resources includes, but is not limited to, locations of national, State, or local scenic significance. A scenic resource visited by large numbers who come from across the country or state is generally considered to have national or statewide significance. A scenic resource visited primarily by people of local origin is generally of local significance. Unvisited places either have no designated significance or are “no trespass” places. Sources for information regarding specific scenic resources are found as part of the MDEP Visual Evaluation Field Survey Checklist (doc. #DEPLW0540) provided in the application. A. National Natural Landmarks and other outstanding natural and cultural features (e.g., Orono Bog, Meddybemps Heath); B. State or National Wildlife Refuges, Sanctuaries, or Preserves and State Game Refuges (e.g., Rachael Carson Salt Pond Preserve in Bristol, Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge, the Wells National Estuarine Research Reserve); C. A State or federally designated trail (e.g., the Appalachian Trail, East Coast Greenway); D. A property on or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (e.g., the Rockland Breakwater Light, Fort Knox); E. National or State Parks (e.g., Acadia National Park, Sebago Lakes State Park); F. Public natural resources or public lands visited by the general public, in part for the use, observation, enjoyment and appreciation of natural or cultural visual qualities.(e.g., great ponds, the Atlantic Ocean). STATUTORY AUTHORITY: 38 M.R.S.A. § 480-A ADOPTED DATE: June 5, 2003 EFFECTIVE DATE: June 29, 2003 - filing 2003-198 06-096 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Chapter 315, Assessing and Mitigating Impacts to Existing Scenic and Aesthetic Uses - 6 - APPENDIX A GUIDANCE FOR THE PREPARATION OF LINE-OF SIGHT-PROFILES 06-096 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Chapter 315, Assessing and Mitigating Impacts to Existing Scenic and Aesthetic Uses - 7 - 06-096 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Chapter 315, Assessing and Mitigating Impacts to Existing Scenic and Aesthetic Uses - 8 - 06-096 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Chapter 315, Assessing and Mitigating Impacts to Existing Scenic and Aesthetic Uses - 9 - APPENDIX D CANYON OAKS STORY POLES Canyon Oaks Story Poles Discussion A request to install story poles, per the attached story pole plan, for the proposed development of a 77-acre vacant site located at 4790 Las Virgenes Road at the eastern terminus of Agoura Road (APNs: 2069078009 and 2069078011). The proposed project includes: (1) a residential component consisting of 67 single-family detached homes and four affordable units located within two duplexes; and (2) a commercial component consisting of a four-story hotel. Approximately 80% of the site would be preserved as permanent open space. Planning Commission January 21, 2016 File No. 140000011 A request to install story poles for the proposed development of a 77-acre vacant site located at 4790 Las Virgenes Road. Location Map Project Site N APN: 2069078009 APN: 2069078011 500’ Scenic Corridor Buffer Planning Commission January 21, 2016 File No. 140000011 A request to install story poles for the proposed development of a 77-acre vacant site located at 4790 Las Virgenes Road. Proposed Development Summary •The project site is currently zoned PD – RMF (20) – OSDR. •Commercial component: 120-room, 66,516 square-foot hotel on approximately three acres; •Residential component: 67 small lot, single-family residences and two duplexes (four units) on approximately 13 acres; •Approximately 61 acres of dedicated open space. •The project site is located within the Las Virgenes Road Scenic Corridor. The hotel and 19 of the 71 total residential units fall within the 500-foot Las Virgenes Road scenic corridor buffer. Planning Commission January 21, 2016 File No. 140000011 A request to install story poles for the proposed development of a 77-acre vacant site located at 4790 Las Virgenes Road. Review Authority •Per the City of Calabasas Story Pole Procedures: Story poles are required for all new projects located within a Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone. Story poles are required for all projects seeking an exception in building height by way of variance or development plan, and the subject project does include a development plan request to exceed a height of 35-feet). Hotel component •The Planning Commission is being requested to review the proposed story pole plan due to the impracticability of erecting the poles for the all of the houses in the scenic corridor in complete compliance with the guidelines. •Story Pole Goals: (1) public notification; (2) assessment of visual impact. Planning Commission January 21, 2016 File No. 140000011 A request to install story poles for the proposed development of a 77-acre vacant site located at 4790 Las Virgenes Road. Planning Commission January 21, 2016 File No. 140000011 A request to install story poles for the proposed development of a 77-acre vacant site located at 4790 Las Virgenes Road. The Colony Planning Commission January 21, 2016 File No. 140000011 A request to install story poles for the proposed development of a 77-acre vacant site located at 4790 Las Virgenes Road. Views from Las Virgenes Planning Commission January 21, 2016 File No. 140000011 A request to install story poles for the proposed development of a 77-acre vacant site located at 4790 Las Virgenes Road. Views from Las Virgenes Planning Commission January 21, 2016 File No. 140000011 A request to install story poles for the proposed development of a 77-acre vacant site located at 4790 Las Virgenes Road. Views from Las Virgenes Planning Commission January 21, 2016 File No. 140000011 A request to install story poles for the proposed development of a 77-acre vacant site located at 4790 Las Virgenes Road. Section D Views from Las Virgenes Planning Commission January 21, 2016 File No. 140000011 A request to install story poles for the proposed development of a 77-acre vacant site located at 4790 Las Virgenes Road. Views from Las Virgenes Planning Commission January 21, 2016 File No. 140000011 A request to install story poles for the proposed development of a 77-acre vacant site located at 4790 Las Virgenes Road. Views from Las Virgenes Planning Commission January 21, 2016 File No. 140000011 A request to install story poles for the proposed development of a 77-acre vacant site located at 4790 Las Virgenes Road. Views from Las Virgenes Planning Commission January 21, 2016 File No. 140000011 A request to install story poles for the proposed development of a 77-acre vacant site located at 4790 Las Virgenes Road. Story Pole Plan Planning Commission January 21, 2016 File No. 140000011 A request to install story poles for the proposed development of a 77-acre vacant site located at 4790 Las Virgenes Road. Hotel + Story Poles Planning Commission January 21, 2016 File No. 140000011 A request to install story poles for the proposed development of a 77-acre vacant site located at 4790 Las Virgenes Road. Story Pole Plan - Hotel Tallest Pole: Pole Height = 36.5’ Proposed Tower Height = 53’ Tallest point of proposed building = 54.9’ Planning Commission January 21, 2016 File No. 140000011 A request to install story poles for the proposed development of a 77-acre vacant site located at 4790 Las Virgenes Road. Proposed Residential Development + Story Poles Planning Commission January 21, 2016 File No. 140000011 A request to install story poles for the proposed development of a 77-acre vacant site located at 4790 Las Virgenes Road. Proposed Res. Story Poles Planning Commission January 21, 2016 File No. 140000011 A request to install story poles for the proposed development of a 77-acre vacant site located at 4790 Las Virgenes Road. Story Pole Plan - Residential Pole with Highest Elevation: Pole Height = 43’ Proposed Building Height (at roof eave) = 26.5’ Planning Commission January 21, 2016 File No. 140000011 A request to install story poles for the proposed development of a 77-acre vacant site located at 4790 Las Virgenes Road. Recommended Action That the Commission authorize the applicant to proceed with the proposed story pole plan. APPENDIX E WAIKAPU COUNTRY TOWN VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT             &+$37(59 $IIHFWHG+XPDQ(QYLURQPHQW3RWHQWLDO ,PSDFWVDQG0LWLJDWLRQ0HDVXUHV               CHAPTER 5 AFFECTED HUMAN ENVIRONMENT, POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES  WAIKAPŪ COUNTRY TOWN V-26 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT  6.Visual Resources Existing Conditions. The WCT project area is located between the town of Wailuku to the north and Māʻalaea to the south along the Honoapi’ilani Highway. The project site generally slopes from west to east with a high elevation of approximately 710 feet mean sea level (msl) at the northwesterly corner and a low elevation of about 256 feet above msl at the southerly corner, within the fertile Central Maui isthmus. Views from within the project site are both diverse and dramatic. Largely unobstructed views of Haleakalā, the West Maui Mountains, the Central Maui isthmus and the Pacific Ocean are available at the mid and upper elevations. At the higher elevations Wailuku and Kahului, East Maui and South Maui are all visible. From the lower elevations largely unobstructed views are available of the West Maui Mountains, Haleakalā, and sugar cane lands that stretch from Honoapi’ilani Highway to Māʻalaea and Kīhei. These same lower elevation views are presently available from Honoapi’ilani Highway looking into the project site. The existing mauka view from Honoapi’ilani Highway into the project site is of agricultural fields planted in sugar and diversified crops, the MTP, and the valley and ridgelines of the West Maui Mountains. The makai view from the highway, where not obstructed by right-of-way vegetation, is of the existing sugarcane fields and Haleakalā. When the sugarcane has been harvested there are intermittent views of the ocean horizon (See: Figure 8 A-N, “Site Photographs”). Potential Impacts and Mitigation Measures. Chris Hart & Partners, Inc. prepared an island-wide Scenic Resources Inventory Study for the County of Maui, Department of Planning, in July 2006 in support of the General Plan 2030 Update. The purpose of the study was to inventory and rate the island’s scenic resources so that appropriate advanced planning and mitigation strategies could be employed to protect these resources. The MIP incorporates the study’s scenic roadway corridor recommendations into its “Context and Character Map” and references the corridors in policies within Chapter 3, Heritage Resources (See: Figure No. 34, “Maui Island Plan, Context and Character Map”). Figure 34: MIP Context & Character Map Property Location CHAPTER 5 AFFECTED HUMAN ENVIRONMENT, POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES  WAIKAPŪ COUNTRY TOWN V-28 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT  The Scenic Resources Inventory Study identifies the area along Honoapi’ilani Highway, fronting the project site, as an area of “High” scenic resource value. In the study, areas of “Exceptional” and “High” resource value are described as having “dramatic and diverse resource values consistently throughout the corridor” and are “typically in a natural condition and unmarked by development.” The study’s GIS inventory provides “field study” notes that describe the character of the subject corridor. The notes describing the Honoapi’ilani corridor, fronting the project site, are as follows: “High concentration of agricultural lands; open space; and distant Haleakalā views. Intact West Maui mountain views and expansive views of Māʻalaea and the Kīhei coastline and Lana`i views exist. There is considerable utility clutter along the highway. Sprawl conditions along the highway between Waikapū and Māʻalaea should be avoided through the establishment of clear boundaries and features such as landscape plantings and entry signage.” Chapter 3, Heritage Resources, of the MIP contains policies that discourage sprawl and the merging of the island’s small towns. MIP policies also protect views of Haleakalā, the West Maui Mountains, the Pacific Ocean and other scenic resources. As such, design strategies are needed to mitigate the impact of the WCT on visual resources from the Honoapi’ilani Highway fronting the project site. The following documents scenic resource impacts and describes proposed urban design strategies to help mitigate these impacts. xSprawl. The WCTs urban and rural development will have approximately 4,700 linear feet of frontage along the Honoapi’ilani Highway. The proposed development pattern will produce a significant change from the largely undeveloped and open space views that currently exist along what will become the frontage of the project. It is unavoidable that the current open space views of sugarcane will be impacted by the development. However, the following urban design and landscape architectural treatments will be implemented to help reduce the appearance of sprawl like conditions and to create an aesthetically pleasing sense of place fronting the project site: ƒLarge Setbacks along the Highway. Setbacks of at least 60 feet, and in some areas significantly more than 60-feet, will be utilized along each side of the CHAPTER 5 AFFECTED HUMAN ENVIRONMENT, POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES  WAIKAPŪ COUNTRY TOWN V-29 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT  Honoapi’ilani Highway to separate the development from the public right-of- way. ƒLandscape Planting within the Right-of-Way. Within the setbacks, the planting of large canopy Monkey Pod trees, tropical shrubs and ground covers will be maintained to create a sense of separation and definition between the urban development and the highway and to create a green canopy enclosure and greenway as a passage through the town. ƒSeparated Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities. An approximate 10-feet wide shared pedestrian and bicycle track, separated from the highway, will meander along the highway frontage. The shared use path will promote non-motorized transportation, while producing more opportunities for the public to experience the pleasant scenery along the highway. xHaleakalā and West Maui Mountains from Honoapi’ilani Highway. From Honoapi’ilani Highway, the elevation of the project site rises rather gradually, at a 3% to 6% slope, from about 325-feet above msl to about 550-feet above mls where the Waikapū Ditch traverses north to south across the property. From the Waikapū Ditch the slopes increase to between 10% and 15% as the elevation increases to the foot of the West Maui Mountains. The foot of the West Maui Mountains is at an elevation of approximately 1,250 feet at the upper reaches of the WCT property and is about 6,800 feet from the highway. In order to mitigate the obstruction of views from the highway to the West Maui Mountains and Haleakalā, buildings will be setback at least 75-feet from the highway and building heights will be limited to a maximum of 30-feet along the highway frontage. Building placement and areas of separation will also help to create view corridors between the highway and the mountains. Within the project, roadways are purposefully aligned, where practicable, to capture mauka and makai view corridors. This opportunity exists at each entrance into the project site and along these roads as they travel east to west. In addition, views of the West Maui Mountains, Haleakalā and the Pacific Ocean will also be preserved in various CHAPTER 5 AFFECTED HUMAN ENVIRONMENT, POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES  WAIKAPŪ COUNTRY TOWN V-30 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT  locations from public spaces within the WCT, including the Village Green, the Waikapū River Park, Waiheʻe Ditch Greenway and the Waikapū Station Greenway. xOpen Space Resources. The project will impact views of agricultural lands on each side of the Honoapi’ilani Highway fronting the development. While these views are not unique within Central Maui, they do enhance Maui’s beauty and are an important visual resource. In order to mitigate this impact, approximately 800 acres of agricultural land will be preserved in perpetuity as an open space buffer and permanent separation between Waikapū Town and Māʻalaea. Along the section of the highway where agricultural land is to be preserved, largely unobstructed views of Haleakalā, the West Maui Mountains and partial views of the Pacific Ocean exist. Within the project site, the WCT will transform the current character of the MTP from a visitor oriented attraction to a park-like village center, with its existing lagoon, gardens, open spaces, shops, and restaurant coming together to create a new sense of place. While the existing agricultural and open space ambiance of the lands abutting the MTP will become an urban and rural settlement pattern, the WCT will maintain a rural and agricultural ambiance at its boundaries because of the preservation of agricultural lands and incorporation of agricultural supporting activities, such as a farmers market, within the project site. From an urban design perspective, the proposed project will complement the unique country- town architectural character that exists in Waikapū, Wailuku, Pāʻia, and Makawao. WCT design guidelines are being developed to control the density, architectural design, and variation of all buildings in the WCT to help preserve scenic resources and the aesthetic character of the development. Goals of the design guidelines will be to preserve views and maintain the aesthetic character of the community. A defining quality of the urban design character of the development will be to create architecturally pleasing streets with landscape planting that frames the travel ways and provides scale around architectural elements. As part of the DEIS, a visual impact assessment was conducted to determine how views might be impacted along Honoapi’ilani Highway, fronting the project site, following the Project’s build-out. Figure No. 35 A-E, is a simulation of before project and after project views along Honoapi’ilani Highway. Visual Simulation of Pre- and Post Project Views Figure 35, A :$,.$3Ş&28175<72:1 1 1. Before. Looking in a south-easterly direction towards sugar land with Haleakala in the background.1. After. Looking in a south-easterly direction over the makai development with Haleakala in the back- ground and separated pedestrian and bicycle path in the foreground. Visual Simulation of Pre- and Post Project Views Figure 35, B :$,.$3Ş&28175<72:1 2 2. Before. Looking in a south-easterly direction towards sugar land with Haleakala in the background.2. After. Looking in a south-easterly direction over the makai development with canopy trees in the background and separated pedestrian and bicycle path in the foreground. Visual Simulation of Pre- and Post Project Views Figure 35, C :$,.$3Ş&28175<72:1 3 3. Before. Looking in a north-westerly direction with the West-Maui Mountains in the background and the MTP grounds in the foreground.3. After. Looking in a north-westerly direction through the project with the West-Maui Mountains in the background. Visual Simulation of Pre- and Post Project Views Figure 35, D :$,.$3Ş&28175<72:1 4 4. Before. Looking in a south-westerly direction through the MTP with the West Maui Mountains in the background.4. After. Looking in a south-westerly direction through the project with the West Maui Mountains in the background and the separated pedestrian and bicycle path in the foreground. Visual Simulation of Pre- and Post Project Views Figure 35, E :$,.$3Ş&28175<72:1 5 5. Before. Looking in a westerly direction through the MTPs agricultural fields with the with the West Maui Mountains in the background.5. After. Looking in a westerly direction through the project with the West Maui Mountains in the background and the separated pedestrian and bicycle path in the foreground. APPENDIX F THE SILL, LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT Planning Application for the demolition of existing National Park Visitor Centre (D1), Offices (B1), Retail (A1) and Café (A3) and 79 bed Youth Hostel (Sui Generis) and associated car parking, and redevelopment of site as new Landscape Discovery Centre incorporating Exhibition Space (D1), Retail (A1), Café (A3), Offices (B1) and 86 bed Youth Hostel (Sui Generis) together with 87 Permanent Car Parking Spaces, 93 Overflow car parking spaces, associated landscaping, substation and crossing point across the B6318 Military Road, pedestrian ramp within the roadside ditch and formation of pedestrian refuges and route within wooded copse. Application situated at land South and North of the B6318 at Once Brewed, Haydon Bridge, Northumberland, NE47 7AN Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment The Sill ‘The Sill’ Landscape Discovery Centre and Youth Hostel, Once Brewed. Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Northumberland National Park Authority and The Youth Hostel Association. Page | 1 Glen Kemp Ltd., January 2014 THE SILL LANDSCAPE DISCOVERY CENTRE AND YOUTH HOSTEL LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT: CONTENTS PAGE 1.0 Introduction 2 1.1 Scope of Assessment 2 2.0 Policy Context 3 2.1 Introduction 3 2.2 Northumberland National Park Management Plan 2009 – 2014 3 2.3 Northumberland National Park Local Development Framework 4 2.4 Hadrian’s Wall Management Plan 2008 – 2014 5 2.5 Landscape Character Assessment for Northumberland National Park 2007 6 2.6 Exterior Lighting Masterplan 6 3.0 Assessment Methodology & Significant Criteria 7 3.1 Introduction 7 3.2 Landscape and Visual Effects 7 3.3 Landscape Sensitivity 8 3.4 Visual Sensitivity 8 3.5 Magnitude of Change 9 3.6 Impact Significance Thresholds 9 3.7 Survey Area 10 3.8 Consultation 10 4.0 Baseline Conditions 11 4.1 The Landscape of the Study Area 11 4.2 The Development Site 12 CONTENTS PAGE 4.3 Landscape Character 14 4.4 The Landscape at Night 16 4.5 Landscape Value 17 4.6 Visual Baseline 18 5.0 Potential Effects 21 5.1 Introduction 21 5.2 Description of the Proposed Development 21 5.3 Effects During Construction 24 5.4 Effects After Completion 24 Schedule of Selected Viewpoints for Assessment of Visual Effects 31 6.0 Mitigation Measures 37 6.1 Introduction 37 6.2 Design Evolution 37 6.3 Alternative Car Park Options 38 6.4 During Construction 38 6.5 After Completion 39 7.0 Residual Effect 40 7.1 After Completion 40 8.0 Summary and Conclusions 41 8.1 Summary 41 8.2 Conclusions 44 FIGURES 1 – 20 (see separate schedule after page 44) ‘The Sill’ Landscape Discovery Centre and Youth Hostel, Once Brewed. Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Northumberland National Park Authority and The Youth Hostel Association. Page | 2 Glen Kemp Ltd., January 2014 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Scope of assessment 1.1.1 This Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) considers the anticipated landscape and visual effects arising from construction of a proposed new Landscape Discovery Centre and Youth Hostel by Northumberland National Park Authority in partnership with the Youth Hostel Association. The new facilities are to replace those currently present on the site at Once Brewed. The assessment has been undertaken by a member of staff at Glen Kemp Ltd. who is a Chartered Member of the Landscape Institute. 1.1.2 Having first established the planning policy context for the site in question, the report sets out the methodology upon which the assessment has been based. It is important that the methodology employed is transparent if the findings are to be interpreted correctly by the reader. In broad terms, both the sensitivity of the landscape / visual receptor and the anticipated magnitude of change resulting from the development are analysed and by combining these two factors, a level of significance of effect (which may be positive or adverse) is predicted. Effects on the landscape. 1.1.3 A description of the baseline physical and perceptual landscape of both the proposed development site and the broader study area, includes a review of its recognised value. The likely impacts on the landscape resulting from the development are then identified and the resulting effects noted. This includes direct effects on physical elements within the landscape and indirect effects on landscape character and distinctiveness. Visual effects 1.1.4 In assessing visual effects, this report identifies and examines the nature of the public and private views from the surrounding area which could be affected by the proposed development and predicts the magnitude of the ‘degree of change’ in view and – taking account of the sensitivity of the visual receptor – evaluates the significance of the anticipated visual impact resulting from the proposed development. 1.1.5 Photomontages and visual impact schedules based on selected viewpoints from within the study area are used to assist the assessment of visual effects. Cultural heritage 1.1.6 The archaeological and cultural heritage within this part of the Northumberland National Park is of international importance and fundamental to the unique character of the landscape within the study area. While this report makes an assessment of the anticipated effects on the physical landscape and its perceived character, an assessment of the effects on the setting of designated heritage assets such as the Hadrian’s Wall World Heritage Site and associated Scheduled Ancient Monuments is specifically excluded. Such an assessment is the remit of the specialist archaeologist or landscape historian using a methodology established by English Heritage (‘Seeing the History in the view: A method for assessing heritage significance within views’, 2008). Such an assessment is covered in the relevant section of the Environmental Statement prepared for this development project. Effects and mitigation 1.1.7 The potential landscape and visual effects are identified for the demolition, construction and management stages of the project and, where relevant, an assessment is made of how mitigation measures have been used to minimise the significance of any adverse effects on the landscape or visual amenity. Finally, residual effects – those that would remain after mitigation measures have been employed – are identified. ‘The Sill’ Landscape Discovery Centre and Youth Hostel, Once Brewed. Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Northumberland National Park Authority and The Youth Hostel Association. Page | 3 Glen Kemp Ltd., January 2014 2.0 Policy Context 2.1 Introduction 2.1.1 This section provides a brief review of existing policy and management strategy frameworks which are directly relevant to landscape issues relating to the proposed development. It concentrates primarily on the Northumberland National Park Management Plan and the Northumberland National Park Local Development Framework (LDF) and the relevant documents contained within it, but also makes reference to the External Lighting Management Plan prepared as part of the successful bid to the International Dark Sky Association for Dark Sky Park status . 2.2 Northumberland National Park Management Plan 2009 – 2014: 2.2.1 The Northumberland National Park Authority (NNPA) was established in 1997 as a special purpose local authority with the role of delivering the specific National Park statutory purposes as set out in law. The two statutory purposes are: i) to conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage; and ii) to promote opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities by the public - the first purpose taking precedence over the second in instances where the two purposes might conflict with each other. 2.2.2 The NNP Management Plan is the over-arching strategic document setting out the guiding principles, vision, objectives and actions for managing the National Park and outlines the framework which will guide Park’s future and ensure delivery of the two statutory purposes. It also identifies an additional statutory duty, that of fostering the economic and social well-being of local communities within the National Park, in recognition of the fact that the living and working landscape and the Park is the result of the interaction of human activity and natural forces. Consequently, local communities need to be empowered to take on an active role as custodians of the landscape and the concept of ‘Action Area’ working has been adopted by NNPA as a framework to enhance the variation in locally distinctive character throughout the Park. Four Action Areas have been identified, the proposed development site falling with the Hadrian’s Wall and South Tyne Action Area. 2.2.3 The four guiding principles identified as underpinning the delivery process are: i) sustainable development – “The National Park will aim to serve as a model of sustainable development within the North East Region”. ii) equality and diversity – “Northumberland National Park is for everyone and should be accessible to the whole community regardless of economic social or physical constraints”. iii) partnership working iv) transparency and openness. 2.2.4 The ‘special qualities of the National Park are identified as being: i) A distinctive landscape character – a stunning and varied landscape, a key characteristic of which is its “openness, with landscapes and horizons free from significant human intrusions which contribute significantly to the high levels of tranquillity”; ii) A landscape rich in biodiversity and geology; iii) A rich cultural heritage, reflected in the many layers of historic landscape in the Park ; iv) A true sense of tranquillity – freedom from noise and visual disturbance is a key component of experiencing the National Park. It is an area with an emotional and spiritual quality. One third of respondents to a visitor survey in 2007 stated that tranquillity was the thing they liked most about the Park. 2.2.5 In addition, a survey by the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE) in 2006 identified Northumberland as the most tranquil local authority on England, and this is one of the characteristics most valued by visitors to the Northumberland National Park. 2.2.6 Together, these qualities have helped shape the vision for the National Park which is summarised in the vision statement: “Northumberland National Park will be a truly welcoming and distinctive place, easily accessible to all. Its inspiring and changing landscapes, characterised by open spaces, tranquillity, diverse habitats, geology and rich cultural heritage, will be widely recognised and valued. The living, working landscape will contribute positively to the well-being of the thriving and vibrant communities in and around the Park”. ‘The Sill’ Landscape Discovery Centre and Youth Hostel, Once Brewed. Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Northumberland National Park Authority and The Youth Hostel Association. Page | 4 Glen Kemp Ltd., January 2014 2.2.7 In turn, the vision of the Park is embedded in five Strategic Aims, set out below, with outcomes relevant to this assessment noted as follows: 1) A welcoming Park – i) people who come to the National Park will feel they have had an exceptional experience in relating to the landscape and in finding peace, tranquillity and adventure; ii) the National Park will be accessible to a wider and more diverse audience; iii) a more diverse range of learning opportunities will be available. 2) A distinctive place – i) that will maintain a sense of inspiration and tranquillity; ii) the natural qualities and diverse habitats will be safeguarded and enhanced. 3) A living, working landscape for now and the future 4) Thriving communities 5) A valued asset. 2.2.8 Of particular relevance to this assessment is the Strategic Aim of delivering a ‘distinctive place’. This has generated a number of objectives directly relevant to landscape with the most notable means of achieving them outlined below: Objective Means to achieve To protect and enhance tranquillity levels as the highest in England New development to be in line with policies set out in the LDF. To ensure all new development will conserve or enhance the natural and cultural qualities of the National Park. Ensure effective design guidance is promoted and good design is celebrated. Ensure visitor and recreational use complements the character and capacity of the locations in which it takes place. Positively promote and enhance low impact recreational access to tranquil areas. 2.3 Northumberland National Park Local Development Framework: 2.3.1 The LDF consists of a set of documents which together guide new development in the National Park and assist in delivering the strategy set out in the National Park Management Plan. The three documents within the LDF which are of particular relevance to this LVIA are: 1) Core Strategy and Development Policies Document 2.3.2 The following policy extracts are of particular note: Policy 1 – Delivering Sustainable Development: sustainable development should conserve / enhance the special qualities of the National Park, making efficient use of land, materials and infrastructure. It should provide opportunities to understand and enjoy the special qualities of the Park and demonstrate high quality design, promoting accessibility via public transport, cycling or walking. Policy 3 – General Development Principles: new development must promote principles of sustainable development, protecting and enhancing local character and distinctiveness through careful integration with the existing built form. It should be sympathetic in terms of scale, height, massing, siting, form, materials, colour and to the protection of open space which contributes to the amenity, character and setting of a settlement. The well being of local communities should be supported by ensuring amenity is not adversely affected in terms of visual impact, pollution, noise and waste and that services and infrastructure can be provided without compromising the quality of the landscape. Policy 19 – Tranquillity: Development proposals which conserve or enhance the tranquillity of the National Park will be supported. In order to determine the extent to which tranquillity is affected there will be an assessment of the impact on the level of noise, traffic and light generated; on the sense of openness of the National Park and on the quite enjoyment of the landscape. Policy 20 – Landscape Quality and Character: All proposals will be assessed in terms of their impact on landscape character and sensitivity as defined in the Landscape Supplementary Planning Document. Development which would adversely affect the quality and character of the landscape will not be permitted. ‘The Sill’ Landscape Discovery Centre and Youth Hostel, Once Brewed. Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Northumberland National Park Authority and The Youth Hostel Association. Page | 5 Glen Kemp Ltd., January 2014 2) Landscape Supplementary Planning Document 2.3.3 The above document aims to assist an assessment of the potential impact of development on the landscape of the National Park and is to be considered alongside a broader Landscape Strategy which it is understood is under preparation. It builds on the work of Natural England in assessing landscape character. Consequently, the relevant content of this Supplementary Planning Document is referred to in section 4.3 which considers issues relating to landscape character. 3) Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document 2.3.4 This is the current format of a Building Design Guide which has been in use since 1995. Rather than setting out new policy, the Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) helps interpret existing policies. This specific SPD aims to improve the quality of the built environment and safeguard the special qualities of the area, while at the same time promoting sustainable construction. It is intended to help deliver the vision that all development will contribute to protecting, sustaining and enhancing the special qualities of the National Park, and that it will be sensitively located and designed. 2.3.5 Guidance of particular relevance to the development project is noted below: - Form and hierarchy is evident in individual buildings within the National Park and has traditionally been dictated by function and intended status. - The building materials used often reflects what materials were locally available, the intended status of a building or even what was fashionable at the time of construction. The material most commonly used was stone, reflecting the diverse granites and whinstone. - External features help tie a building into the wider landscape and anchor it into its setting, occasionally declaring its status. - New technologies, designs and materials must be embraced and contemporary design is to be supported, but it must be appropriate and locally distinctive. - Design quality of new development is of the highest importance and should consider siting, massing, scale, proportion, rhythm, materials and colour, as well as the contribution to sustainable development. Distinct design considerations for new buildings which are either in the ‘open countryside’ or in a ‘settlement’ (both of which are applicable to the Once Brewed site given its position within the hamlet of Twice Brewed) are listed. New development in open countryside should: - take account of wider views into and out of the development site; - sit comfortably within the site and not harm views through the use of inappropriate materials; - reflect the form of the surrounding landscape; - take care not to break the skyline; - have boundary treatments that avoid a suburbanising effect. New development within settlements should: - look at the form and rhythm of existing buildings; - consider height, scale and massing in relation to surrounding buildings; - use boundary treatments to anchor the building into the wider setting; - consider opportunities for creating new habitats. With regard to external works: - site boundaries should reflect surrounding character; - consideration should be given to the facing material of retaining walls; - hard surfacing should be kept to a minimum and be permeable where possible; - soft landscaping should use dominant native species and should aim to connect with other natural features to assist the movement of wildlife. 2.4 Hadrian’s Wall Management Plan 2008 - 2014 2.4.1 Hadrian’s Wall was designated as a World Heritage Site (WHS) in 1987 by the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) as the most complex and best preserved of the frontiers of the Roman Empire. In 2005 it became part of the transnational WHS called ‘Frontiers of the Roman Empire’, being judged to be of universal importance to humanity. 2.4.2 As the whin escarpment on which the Wall sits and, to a lesser extent the Wall itself, are prominent features in the landscape in which the development site is located, policies designed to protect the setting of Hadrian’s Wall are directly relevant to the Once Brewed site. Indeed the site sits within a designated ‘Buffer Zone’, mapped as a visual envelope extending 1-6km from the designated WHS itself, one of the primary objectives of which is to protect the WHS from development that would be detrimental to its visual setting. ‘The Sill’ Landscape Discovery Centre and Youth Hostel, Once Brewed. Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Northumberland National Park Authority and The Youth Hostel Association. Page | 6 Glen Kemp Ltd., January 2014 2.4.3 The Hadrian’s Wall Management Plan notes that the “presence of the Wall has had a lasting effect on the landscape and perceptions of it”, and that the particular characteristics of the landscape are “its open aspect, the maintenance of space between rural settlements, the existing patterns of fields and open country, the use of traditional local materials in building, and woodland developed to reinforce the patterns of the landscape”. 2.4.4 The Hadrian’s Wall Path – a National Trail – opened in 2003, running on or close to the remains of the Wall and in 2006 the Hadrian’s Cycleway (National Cycle Route 72) was opened. 2.4.5 Appendix 7 of the Hadrian’s Wall Management Plan summarises the policies set out within it, listing amongst other things, the need to maintain and reinforce the special character of the Wall landscape including its beauty and natural heritage, and to retain the vitality of the landscape. 2.5 Landscape Character Assessment for Northumberland National Park 2007 2.5.1 This document has been used to inform the content of the Landscape Supplementary Planning Document referred to above and the character of the landscape around the development site is covered in detail in section 4.3 of this report. However, for each Landscape Character Type (LCT) identified in the above Landscape Character Assessment, an outline strategy principle is defined to help shape future management of the specific landscape and guidelines are offered for what is considered to be appropriate land management and development. The strategy for the LCT within which the site is located is set out as follows: “This landscape has a strong identity and many valuable landscape features which remain in good condition. The overall strategy for this area is to conserve and sensitively manage.” 2.5.2 With regard to future management, the following guidelines are relevant: - Forestry and woodland: Restocking of shelterbelts to increase native species. Planting to have softer outlines with shapes designed to integrate with local topography. - Field boundaries: Rebuilding and restoration of stone walls should be encouraged. - Historic sites: conservation of historic sites and their settings and areas of earthworks should be encouraged, particularly where they act as local focal points and create strong landscape patterns and textures. - Tourism and recreation: Any development should be low key, conserving the wild character of the Wall’s setting, with care taken to avoid altering or suburbanising the landscape character. New buildings should respect the local surroundings in terms of materials and scale. New development should not be visually prominent and should not detract from the scenic quality of the area. - Transport: Any improvements to road safety on the Military Road must have minimum visual impact on the open moorland character and the World Heritage Site. Night lighting should be resisted and signage kept to a minimum. 2.6 Exterior Lighting Masterplan 2.6.1 In December 2013 the International Dark Sky Association (IDA) awarded Dark Sky Park status to the combined areas of the Northumberland National Park and the Kielder Water and Forest Park – a total area of 1,482km2. An essential component of the successful bid for Dark Sky Park status was an Exterior Lighting Masterplan (LMP) prepared by Lighting Consultancy And Design Services Ltd. which aims to provide practical advice on mitigating stray light within the Dark Sky Park for the NNPA, adjacent Local Authorities, local businesses and residents. The document is not regulatory but outlines strategies of best working practice with regard to design and planning guidelines and choice of lighting fixtures and correct installation practice. 2.6.2 The LMP sets out nine Plan Statements which describe how a Basic Light Limitation Plan is to be applied to defined ‘Environmental Zones’ within the Dark Sky Park. The Once Brewed site falls within the broad Environmental Zone E0-250. 2.6.3 Appendix H of the LMP contains a Planning Application Guidance Note for all new or refurbished exterior lighting installations. It confirms that an assessment of existing and future lighting effects should now form an essential element for planning applications within a designated Dark Sky award area. It makes reference to the Institution of Lighting Professionals (ILP) ‘Professional Lighting Guide 04: Guidance on Undertaking Environmental Lighting Impact assessments:2013’ which focuses on the external lighting aspects of new development applications and includes design and assessment methodology. ‘The Sill’ Landscape Discovery Centre and Youth Hostel, Once Brewed. Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Northumberland National Park Authority and The Youth Hostel Association. Page | 7 Glen Kemp Ltd., January 2014 3.0 Assessment Methodology & Significance Criteria 3.1 Introduction 3.1.1 The methodology for this LVIA is based on the ‘Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment’: Third Edition: 2013 (GLVIA 3, 2013), edited by the Landscape Institute and the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment. This document is regarded as the industry standard work, setting out the principles for the assessment process. While the accepted methodology for LVIA work is now reasonably well established, qualitative judgements and a degree of subjectivity remain a critical part of LVIA with regard to gauging the significance of identified effects for example, or identifying impacts on perceptual aspects of landscape character. Consequently, it is important that such professional judgement is based on a logical and transparent methodology so that it can be examined and understood by others. This section of the LVIA chapter sets out the framework upon which the assessment has been made. 3.1.2 The ‘Landscape Character Assessment: Guidance for England and Scotland’ published by the then Countryside Agency (2002) in association with Scottish Natural Heritage, has also been used as a reference. 3.2 Landscape and visual effects 3.2.1 Following the recommendation in the GLVIA, in this assessment the term ‘impact’ is used to refer to the action being taken and the term ‘effect’ is defined as the change resulting from that action. It is the purpose of the LVIA to assess effects both on the landscape as a resource in its own right, and on views of the landscape and general visual amenity. 3.2.2 It should be noted that issues relating specifically to the potential effects of the proposed development on the historic landscape and the setting of sites of cultural heritage significance have been assessed by specialist landscape historians within the Cultural Heritage chapter of the Environmental Statement. Consequently, a detailed analysis of such effects has been excluded from this report. 3.2.3 The GLVIA defines the assessment of landscape effects as “assessing effects on the landscape as a resource in its own right.” Components of the landscape that are likely to be affected by a proposed development are referred to as landscape receptors and can include individual elements or features, overall character and key characteristics and aesthetic or perceptual aspects. Landscape effects derive from changes in the physical landscape which may give rise to changes in its character and how this is experienced. This may in turn affect the perceived value ascribed to the landscape. 3.2.4 The Guidelines define the assessment of visual effects as “assessing effects on specific views and on the general visual amenity experienced by people.” People who will be affected by changes in views or visual amenity are referred to as visual receptors and visual effects relate to the changes that arise in the composition of available views as a result of changes to the landscape, to people’s responses to the changes, and to the overall effects with respect to visual amenity. 3.2.5 Landscape and visual effects can be negative (adverse) or positive (beneficial). They can be direct, indirect, secondary or cumulative and be either permanent or temporary (short, medium or long term). They can also arise at different scales (local, regional or national). 3.2.6 The level of significance ascribed to landscape and visual effects depends primarily on the interaction between, and combination of, the sensitivity of the landscape / visual receptor and the scale, or magnitude of the predicted effects of the development. 3.2.7 To assess levels of sensitivity, both the susceptibility of the receptor to the type of change arising from the specific development proposal and the value attached to the receptor, need to be considered. In assessing landscape value, a measure of the physical state of the landscape (ie. its condition or quality) may be made in terms of its intactness from a visual, functional or ecological perspective. It also ‘reflects the state of repair of individual features and elements which make up the character in any one place’, (Countryside Agency & Scottish Natural Heritage, 2002). 3.2.8 In considering the magnitude of change, judgements need to be made about the size and scale, geographical extent and the duration and reversibility of the effect identified. Once levels of receptor sensitivity and the magnitude of change resulting from a specific effect have been defined, a judgement can be made about the overall significance of the landscape / visual effect. 3.2.9 To assist in establishing clarity and transparency of the assessment process used in this LVIA, the criteria for the classification of: i) receptor sensitivity; ii) the value of the baseline landscape and visual receptors, iii) the magnitude of landscape and visual effects, and iv) the resulting significance of the impact identified, are set out in the following tables. ‘The Sill’ Landscape Discovery Centre and Youth Hostel, Once Brewed. Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Northumberland National Park Authority and The Youth Hostel Association. Page | 8 Glen Kemp Ltd., January 2014 3.3 Landscape sensitivity 3.3.1 The objective of the baseline study of the physical landscape of the development site and its setting is to assemble a comprehensive audit of those landscape character and land use features on and around the proposed development site that could contribute to a distinct ‘sense of place’. From such an audit, the more valued landscape receptors that could be directly or indirectly affected and physically altered by the development proposals are identified and the significance of that effect assessed. 3.3.2 Landscape susceptibility (the degree to which a landscape can accommodate change without unacceptable detrimental impact on its character) is not an absolute criterion as its definition is dependent on the nature of the potential development in question. Consequently, an assessment of landscape susceptibility is not strictly part of the baseline study, but is considered at the time of assessing landscape sensitivity in relation to specific identified impacts inherent in the specific development proposals. 3.3.3 The criteria for assessing landscape value is set out in Table 1. TABLE 1 – Criteria for assessing landscape value Value Typical criteria Typical scale Examples High Exceptional High importance and rarity. No / very limited potential for substitution. International, National. World Heritage Site, AONB, National Park, National Scenic Area. High High importance and rarity. Limited potential for substitution. National, regional, local. AONB, National Park, National Scenic Area, AHLV / AGLV. Moderate Moderate Medium importance and rarity. Limited potential for substitution. Regional, local. AHLV / AGLV, Regional Scenic Area. Moderate - low Medium importance and rarity. Some / good potential for substitution. Regional, local. Undesignated but value expressed in demonstrable use. Low Low Low importance and rarity. Local. Area identified as having some aspect of local value but with scope for improvement. Very low Low importance and rarity. Local. Areas identified for recovery / enhancement. 3.3.4 To assist the understanding of landscape value, landscape designations over a study area defined by a minimum 3km radius from the centre of the site were identified using Defra’s ‘MAGIC’ web-based data base. 3.4 Visual sensitivity 3.4.1 The sensitivity of a visual receptor is defined by the type of viewer (taking into account the expectation and activity of the receptor), viewer numbers, the duration of exposure to the view and the factor of distance. It also takes into account the importance of both the view itself and the point from which the view is experienced (see Table 2.). TABLE 2 – Criteria for assessing the sensitivity of visual receptors Level Typical criteria High Sensitivity: A strategic view or panorama of acknowledged national or regional importance, in which the proposed development could be clearly seen from a highly sensitive public viewpoint. Communities where the development results in changes to the landscape setting or valued views enjoyed by the community. Users of recreational facilities including public rights of way outside designated areas, whose interest is focussed on the landscape. Occupiers of residential properties with views affected by the development. Moderate Sensitivity A moderately valued view or panorama of local importance, reasonably tolerant of change or a strategic view, or view of acknowledged national or regional importance, seen from a less sensitive public viewpoint and / or from a significant distance. People travelling through or past the affected landscape in cars, trains or other transport routes and whose attention might be focused on the landscape. Users of outdoor sports and recreational facilities in designated areas where the landscape is unlikely to be the primary focus. Low Sensitivity A relatively unimportant view which is potentially tolerant of change or may benefit from that change or moderately valued view or panorama of local importance seen from less sensitive viewpoint and / or from a significant distance. People engaged in outdoor recreation in non-designated areas whose attention maybe focussed away from the change in the view and where tolerance to change is likely to be high. People at their place of work or engaged in similar activities whose attention maybe focussed away from the change in the view and where tolerance to change is likely to be high. ‘The Sill’ Landscape Discovery Centre and Youth Hostel, Once Brewed. Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Northumberland National Park Authority and The Youth Hostel Association. Page | 9 Glen Kemp Ltd., January 2014 3.5 Magnitude of change 3.5.1 The magnitude or scale of physical or visual change can be measured in terms of the degree of change, whether it is adverse or beneficial and whether it is likely to be permanent or temporary. Criteria for the assessment of magnitude of change are set out in Table 3 below. TABLE 3 – Criteria for assessing magnitude of change Level Typical criteria Substantial: Total loss of or major alteration to key elements / features / characteristics of the baseline landscape. Introduction of elements considered to be totally uncharacteristic in the context of the baseline landscape. A large number of sensitive receptors experiencing a major or fundamental change in nature of the baseline view, particularly in near views with the baseline urban skyline substantially changed. Moderate Partial loss of or alteration to key elements / characteristics of the baseline landscape. Introduction of elements that may be prominent but may not necessarily be considered substantially uncharacteristic in the context of the baseline landscape. A moderate, but not fundamental, change in nature of view affecting a notable number of sensitive receptors. Open, uninterrupted views with some middle distance obstruction of part of that view resulting from the proposed development; baseline urban skyline not adversely infringed in view typically seen over medium / long distance. Low Minor loss of or alteration to key elements / features / characteristics of the baseline landscape. Minor but non material change in nature of view; long distance views across urban landscape panorama, or restricted views (upstairs bedroom windows only) with relatively few receptors affected. Negligible Very minor loss of or alteration to key elements / features / characteristics of the baseline landscape.Changes unlikely to be perceived by the majority of visual receptors. 3.6 Impact significance thresholds 3.6.1 Significance is not absolute and can only be assessed in relation to each development in its location. The two principal criteria used in determining significance are: i) the sensitivity of the landscape / visual receptor and ii) the magnitude of change anticipated. 3.6.2 For the purposes of this report, the summary range of the significance of the predicted landscape and visual effects has been subdivided into five levels or grades. These ‘grades’ of significance are defined in Table 4 as follows:- TABLE 4 – Criteria for assessing levels of impact significance Sensitivity of Receptor + Magnitude of change = Impact Significance High High Substantial (Proposals have a large effect within the context of the wider area.) High Moderate Moderate - substantial High Low Moderate (Proposals have a noticeable effect within the context of the wider area.) Moderate High Moderate - substantial Moderate Moderate Moderate (Proposals have a noticeable effect within the context of the wider area.) Moderate Low Low - moderate Low High Moderate (Proposals have a noticeable effect within the context of the wider area.) Low Moderate Low - moderate Low Low Low (Proposals have only a limited effect within the mainly local area.) ‘The Sill’ Landscape Discovery Centre and Youth Hostel, Once Brewed. Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Northumberland National Park Authority and The Youth Hostel Association. Page | 10 Glen Kemp Ltd., January 2014 3.6.3 No discernible deterioration or improvement in the baseline landscape character or the baseline level of visual amenity would obviously result in no significant or negligible change being attributable. 3.6.4 Impacts may be short term (or temporary), essentially related to changes evident during the construction period of the proposed development, or longer term (or comparatively permanent) resulting in changes in landscape character and to the perception of that landscape after final construction. 3.6.5 For the purposes of this report, impacts which are assessed as being moderate or substantial (adverse) are considered to be of a significance which should influence the design process and mitigation strategy for the proposed development. 3.7 Survey area 3.7.1 The extent of the survey area used for the purpose of assessing landscape and visual effects was defined initially as a result of a desk top exercise, during which a Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) was established using digital terrain model with an OS raster backdrop. This ZTV was then tested and refined as a result of observations made in the field. 3.7.2 Once a ZTV had been defined, key viewpoints were identified within it (see section 3.8) from which to base the assessment of visual effects on the broader landscape and those moving through it. Analysis of the visual effects has been summarised for each selected viewpoint. 3.8 Consultation 3.8.1 Viewpoints upon which the broader visual assessment has been made have been selected in consultation with the Local Planning Authority. 3.8.2 Of the 13no. viewpoints selected in total, those considered to be of greatest significance have been used to generate a photomontage which aims to show how the proposed development is likely to appear when seen from the viewpoint in question. These viewpoints are identified as PM1-8. In order to show the context of the Once Brewed site in the wider landscape at a scale that could be readily reproduced as part of this document, the baseline photographs were taken using a digital SLR camera with the lens set at a focal length of 32mm. To compensate for the loss of detail in these images when reproduced at A3 size, the specific area of the Once Brewed development site has been increased to a size which, when held at arms length, reflects the size of the image of the development as it wold appear in the field when seen with the naked eye. The viewpoints for which no photomontage has been produced are labelled VP1-5. 3.8.3 It has been agreed with the Planning Authority that landscape and visual effects experienced from a distance of 10km or more are generally likely to have a negligible effect on visual receptors. However, it is acknowledged that an exception to this broad principle could result from the visual effects of night time illumination. Consequently a long distance viewpoint (VP6) located within the North Pennies Area of Outstanding natural Beauty (which comes within 5km of the site at its closest point) has been selected specifically for this purpose at an elevated location on the B6305, just south of Langley Castle and c.10.5km to the south east of the Once Brewed site. 3.8.4 At the RIBA Stage C design stage, the initial design concepts for the building and external spaces where presented to the North East Design Review and Enabling Service (NEDRES) – a panel of professional experts in the field of architectural and landscape design, set up to promote high building design quality within the region. It was their shared opinion that the building should have a ‘presence’ when seen from the Military Road corridor and that the visual connection with both the Whin Sill and the Vallum should be maximised. In their view, this would contribute to the sense of drama already evident in the broader landscape. ‘The Sill’ Landscape Discovery Centre and Youth Hostel, Once Brewed. Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Northumberland National Park Authority and The Youth Hostel Association. Page | 11 Glen Kemp Ltd., January 2014 4.0 Baseline Conditions 4.1 The landscape of the study area (See Figure 1) 4.1.1 In describing the baseline landscape, the aim is to understand the landscape of the area that may be affected by the proposed development. The study area used for the purposes of this assessment has been informed largely by the Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) - see section 4.6 - backed up by a desktop survey and observations in the field. However, it extends beyond the ZTV in places in order to capture the relevant setting and visual context for the proposed development site, particularly for those visual receptors who experience the site while passing through this distinct and characterful landscape. 4.1.2 The topography of the study area is very much dominated by the form of the Whin Sill, an intrusion of dolorite (known locally as whinstone) which runs from Upper Teesdale to the Farnes on the Northumbrian coast. It forms a ridge running on a generally east – west alignment, reaching a high point within the study area of 345m AOD at Winshield Crags to the north west of the site. Along this section of the Whin Sill, the outcrops at Peel Crag and Steel Rigg present particularly dramatic focal points on the skyline when viewed from the B6318 corridor, the route from which most people are likely to experience the landscape within the study area. 4.1.3 From the Whin Sill, the land falls to the bottom of the valleys formed by Brackies Burn and Bradley Burn, both of which feed into Chainley Burn which enters the River South Tyne at Bardon Mill. South of Brackies Burn and Bradley Burn, the land rises again to form another ridge, not quite as high as the Whin Sill, but running parallel with it. In broad terms, these two ridgelines define the extent of the most significant part of the ZTV for the proposed development. 4.1.4 Rough grazing and semi-improved pasture dominate the landscape, with medium scale fields defined primarily by dry stone walls but also by post and wire fencing. Tree cover is limited to small clumps and individual specimens along the course of Brackies Burn and Bradley Burn and the small blocks around the Once Brewed site and the adjacent Twice Brewed Inn. Elsewhere, tree and shrub cover is restricted to individual specimens growing along field boundaries or along the B6318 road corridor. 4.1.5 Settlement is sparse, being restricted generally to individual farmsteads, the largest group of properties being the loose cluster defined as Twice Brewed. The only other notable elements of urban infrastructure are the road signs associated with the B6318 and in particular, the group located around the junction adjacent to the Once Brewed site. 4.1.6 The proposed development site at Once Brewed is located on the south side of the B6318 (known locally as the ‘Military Road’) which runs in generally straight sections on an east – west alignment following the line of Hadrian’s Wall. Once Brewed is positioned on the south facing slopes of the valley formed by the Brackies Burn and is 2.5 km north of the major transport route of the A69 road corridor and the valley of the River South Tyne along which it runs. The nearest town is Haltwhistle 5.6km to the south west and the village of Bardon Mill lies 3.5km to the south east, both settlements being located on the A69. 4.1.7 Once Brewed is part of the settlement of Twice Brewed, a dispersed group of buildings along the B6318 comprising the existing Once Brewed NNPA visitor centre and YHA building and the neighbouring Twice Brewed Inn, the Winshields camp site, three domestic residences including West Twice Brewed, the Vallum Lodge guest house and a domestic residence and farm stead at East Twice Brewed. 4.1.8 Other isolated properties of note within the vicinity of the site but set back from the B6318 corridor are: - Seatsides and Smith’s Shield on the top of a prominent ridgeline to the south of the site which defines the southern boundary of the National Park designation; - The National Trust owned holiday cottages of Springwell Cottage and Peel Bothy located on the minor road leading from the B6318 up to the Whin Sill to the north; - The farm of East Bog on the south facing slope of the Whin Sill escarpment. 4.1.9 The Once Brewed site lies at the point at which one of the occasional minor roads running north – south connecting the A69 with the B6318, intersects the Military Road. Having crossed the Military Road, the minor road continues north over the Whin Sill and provides access to the Steel Rigg car park operated by the NNPA. ‘The Sill’ Landscape Discovery Centre and Youth Hostel, Once Brewed. Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Northumberland National Park Authority and The Youth Hostel Association. Page | 12 Glen Kemp Ltd., January 2014 4.1.10 Public Rights of Way and designated recreational routes within the study area are shown in Figure 1. The most notable are listed below: - Hadrian’s Wall Path National Trail – follows Hadrian’s Wall on the crest of the Whin Sill escarpment but occasionally runs on lower ground to the south of the ridge. - Pennine Way National Trail – follows the line of the Hadrian’s Wall Path before striking off northward at a point 1km west of Houseteads Roman fort. - National Cycle Routes 68 and 72 – connect the site with the Whin Sill to the north, Vindolanda Roman fort to the east and the A69 to the south. - Several public footpaths running from the B6318 corridor southward up slope to the ridge south of the Brackies Burn. 4.1.11 Designated heritage sites are covered in the heritage section of the Environmental Statement, however three specific sites or features are of such significance that they should be mentioned here. The first is Hadrian’s Wall and the associated linear earthworks of the Vallum. The former follows the ridge of the Whin Sill and the latter runs close to the B6318. Consequently, both have a strong visual profile and play a major part in defining the drama and romance of this ancient landscape. The other two sites are the Roman forts of Housesteads and Vindolanda (4.2km to the north east and 1.8km to the south east of the site respectively), both major tourist destinations drawing visitors to this local area. Also of note is the specific location on Hadrian’s Wall know as ‘Sycamore Gap’ just to the east of Milecastle 39 and 1.2km from the Once Brewed site. The view of the mature sycamore tree which has established in the centre of a dramatic dip in the Whin Sill ridgeline has become an iconic image in the region, made all the more famous as a result of it being the location for a scene in the film ‘Robin Hood Prince of Thieves’ staring Kevin Costner (1991). 4.2 The development site (To be read in conjunction with Figure 2 - ‘Existing Site Plan’) Location and topography 4.2.1 The proposed development site is located at the junction of the B6318 Military Road with the minor road which connects it with the A69 at Heshaw and at Bardon Mill to the south. It lies 400m within the southern boundary of the Northumberland National Park on the south facing slope of the valley containing the Brackies Burn flowing in a west – east direction. 4.2.2 The boundaries of the site are clearly defined by the Military Road to the north, the minor road to the east and the Brackies Burn to the south. The western boundary is shared with the Twice Brewed Inn and associated car park at the northern end, and is largely defined by a field boundary and the course of a tributary to the Brackies Burn on its central and southern sections. The northern part of the site currently contains the existing Northumberland National Park Authority’s visitor centre (NNPA) and a hostel operated by the Youth Hostel Association (YHA). The central and southern sections are defined by a field owned by the National Trust which is currently used by a tenant farmer for grazing sheep. 4.2.3 From a level of 224.5m AOD at the north eastern corner, the site slopes to 201.3m AOD at the valley bottom. In its central and southern sections, the site is slightly elevated above the minor road to the east along much of its length and there is a marked change in gradient along the western boundary where the land falls more steeply to form a small valley for the stream which flows south into the Brackies Burn. 4.2.4 Similarly, a section of the southern field falls south at a more pronounced gradient before levelling out at the valley bottom to form a distinct landscape character sub-zone within the site. Site features The northern part of the site: 4.2.5 All existing built development on the site is restricted to the northern section. The current NNPA visitor centre is a single storey building finished in natural stone cladding and with a pitched slate roof. Glazing and timber cladding on the north elevation facing the service area and car park is of low visual quality but has a low visual profile. On the eastern elevation, signage in the form of large, white individual letters fixed to the plain stone clad wall identify the building as a tourist destination point when seen from the Military Road corridor. 4.2.6 The main entrance to the visitor centre is on the southern elevation and is marked by larger glazed panels. Outside the entrance, riven faced stone flags and dry stone wall raised beds form a patio garden containing a haphazard arrangement of timber picnic tables and benches, steel bike stands, litter bins and interpretation / information panels. Solar panels are located on the roof above the main entrance. 4.2.7 The western elevation of the visitor centre is dominated by a depot area with a large steel container enclosed by a close board fence of low visual quality. Adjacent to this storage area is a pathway to the youth hostel which is largely screened from view by a block of tree and shrub planting. ‘The Sill’ Landscape Discovery Centre and Youth Hostel, Once Brewed. Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Northumberland National Park Authority and The Youth Hostel Association. Page | 13 Glen Kemp Ltd., January 2014 4.2.8 The hostel building itself takes the form of a stone clad single storey, flat roof building on the east side (separated from the NNPA visitor centre to the south by a narrow paved area) which is connected by a central timber clad single storey block with large glazed panels, to a two storey accommodation block with a slate pitched roof, stone cladding and pebble-dash finish above ground floor level. The main entrance within the central section is accessed via a courtyard garden area paved in precast concrete flags and containing a random arrangement of timber planters, picnic tables and benches. The garden space extends around the western side of the hostel building where it takes the form of an overgrown naturalistic garden dominated by individual mature trees and tree / shrub groups. 4.2.9 Immediately to the south of the YHA garden is a compacted stone footpath linking the neighbouring Twice Brewed Inn site with the main NNPA car park. The path passes between the garden and a fenced off, overgrown area containing septic tanks which once served both buildings on site. 4.2.10 The main car park to the visitor centre is located immediately to the south of the building and is formed in tarmacadam with a stone sett edging and with unmarked parking bays formed in compacted gravel. A grass strip with a couple of picnic tables and timber post and rail fence define the southern edge of the car park area. 4.2.11 A second car park serving the youth hostel is located right in the visually prominent north eastern corner of the site where the large area of tarmac also caters for services vehicles and provides access to timber sheds / garage (in poor condition), a LPG compound and an unfenced bin store. The overall visual effect is one of low visual quality. This car park area has its own entrance directly off the minor road close to the junction with the Military Road. Vehicular and pedestrian access gates are in timber and of an agricultural style. 4.2.12 From this service area, a narrow concrete path runs along the northern edge of the youth hostel, the northern elevation of which is formed predominantly by a single storey stone clad block with a narrow strip of glazing just below the eaves. The path marks the southern toe of the earth mound which is the Vallum – a Roman military earthwork and Scheduled Ancient Monument. Within the site, the Vallum is barely legible, its form being hidden by tree and shrub cover, much of which is in poor condition and is of low visual quality. 4.2.13 A low dry stone wall, generally in good condition, defines the site boundary on the Military Road corridor and on the eastern boundary. Breaks in the wall mark the entrance points into the site and at these locations there is a scattered collection of individual but uncoordinated road signs and site markers relating to the existing facilities. 4.2.14 The stone wall also runs down the northern section of the western site boundary. Although it forms the boundary to the youth hostel garden, for the most part it is well screened from within the site by tree and shrub planting. 4.2.15 Details of the tree cover on site is recorded in a Tree Survey produced by AMR Geomatics, 2013. The survey records 51no. individual trees with a diameter greater than 75mm (the majority of which are assessed as being of fair to poor condition) and 9 tree groups (Groups A – H) of varying sizes. With regard to the individual trees, beech (Fagus sylvatica) and cherry (Prunus sp) are dominant, although 70% of the cherries are noted as dead or in such poor condition as to warrant felling. Oak (Quercus petraea), sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus), Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) and Norway maple (Acer platanoides) are also present together with smaller numbers of silver birch (Betula pendula), ash (Fraxinus excelsior), alder (Alnus glutinosa), rowan (Sorbus aucuparia) and Norway spruce (Picea abies). 4.2.16 In terms of tree groups, the largest by far is the triangular block of woodland on the eastern site boundary to the south of the NNPA car park which comprises an even aged stand of ash, rowan, Scots pine, sycamore and hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna) approximately 10m in height. A sign on a timber gate giving pedestrian access into the woodland at its northern end identifies it as a woodland play area, although signs of play activity are limited. Also visually prominent is a younger (but still well established) group of alder, ash, beech and hawthorn which screens the YHA building and its garden from the NNPA car park to the south. A small engraved timber sign suggests this planting was undertaken by the NNPA and the Northumbrian Tourist Board in 1992 as part of ‘Beacon Europe’. 4.2.17 Other tree groups of note are the narrow strip of mature Scots pines and overgrown leylandii hedge which form a dense evergreen screen along the western edge of the YHA garden at the north west corner of the site, and the small fenced group of hawthorn and beech marked as a ‘wildlife garden’ on the edge of the NNPA car park near the northern corner of the triangular woodland block. 4.2.18 As for the pattern of distribution of individually recorded trees within the site, the most prominent grouping is that of the belt of trees which have become established on and adjacent to the Vallum on the site’s northern boundary. Small patches of ornamental shrubs such as cotoneaster and rhododendron are also present within this tree belt in which the size and condition of the trees varies enormously. Interconnected groups of individual trees also define much of the character of the YHA garden space and the enclosed ‘The Sill’ Landscape Discovery Centre and Youth Hostel, Once Brewed. Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Northumberland National Park Authority and The Youth Hostel Association. Page | 14 Glen Kemp Ltd., January 2014 nature of the western end of the NNPA car park. Elsewhere within the site, individual trees are generally seen in isolation, particularly along the north eastern and eastern boundary within the grass verge between the buildings / car parks and the public roads. Of these specimen trees, the only one worthy of particular note is the mature ash tree on the south side of the NNPA site entrance which acts as a focal point and an informal gateway feature. However, this tree leans at a significant angle out over the public highway and the tree survey has identified signs of rot in a hollow at the base of the trunk which merits further investigation if the tree is to be retained. 4.2.19 One impact which is likely to affect the site, regardless of the development proposal, is the spread of Fraxinus chalara, a disease which causes the gradual death of ash trees and which has been detected in mature trees of this species in Northumberland. Once infected, the life span of a tree is likely to be less than 10 years, however it is impossible to predict whether the trees on site will succumb to the disease or show resistance, or at what stage any effects might become apparent. 4.2.20 For the purpose of this assessment it is appropriate to note that the three individual ash trees on site are all located adjacent to the entrance to the NNPA car park and represent the three age classes of ‘young, ‘middle aged’ and ‘mature’. In the tree survey, all three are regarded as being of low quality and value (category C) but do provide some screening or softening effect to the locality (subcategory 2). If these three trees were lost, the eastern boundary of the site would become marginally more permeable in terms of views into the site in this location. 4.2.21 The loss of ash trees which are present within the planting block south of the youth hostel and in the triangle of woodland on the eastern boundary (tree groups A and D respectively) is unlikely to have a significant visual effect, on the basis that the space created by dead / dying trees is likely to be filled by the growth of neighbouring trees as they respond to the increased light levels. The central and southern section: 4.2.22 The remaining two thirds of the main proposed development site comprises a field of semi-improved pasture, together with the triangle of woodland referred to in section 4.2.16 above. A timber field gate in the south eastern corner caters for agricultural vehicular access into the site but pedestrian access is also possible via timber gates in the post and rail fence along the southern edge of the NNPA car park. 4.2.23 A post and wire fence prevents stock from gaining access to the Brackies Burn which flows in a small incised channel along the southern edge of the field. In contrast, access to the tributary which runs through the site temporarily on its western boundary, is not fenced off. The western field boundary is defined primarily by a dry stone wall but with a post and wire fence featuring at the southern end of the site. 4.2.24 Timber poles located at intervals within the field near the top of the tributary’s west facing valley slope, support over head electric cables which run from a pole mounted transformer near the western end of the NNPA car park, to a pole in the bottom of the valley. From here they run across the southern section of the field in two directions, both up and down stream on a broadly east – west axis. Copse north of the Military Road: 4.2.25 Directly opposite the north eastern corner of the site on the north side of the B6318 Military Road, there is a group of alder and rowan which forms a small copse within an area enclosed by a dry stone wall. Believed to be a former garden space associated with a previous youth hostel building, the regularly spaced trees cover gently sloping ground falling towards the back of the Military Road highway verge. The only break in the dry stone wall is on the southern boundary at a former narrow gateway marked by two stone gateposts. 4.3 Landscape character Broad landscape 4.3.1 Landscape character refers to the distinct pattern of elements relating to geology, soils, topography, land use, vegetation cover, settlement patterns etc. that differentiates one landscape from another and contributes to a recognisable sense of place. 4.3.2 The National Character Areas (NCA) as defined by Natural England, based on the Character Map of England (Countryside Commission, 1998) that fall within the study area are illustrated in Figure 3 and include: - 11 Tyne Gap and Hadrian’s Wall - 5 Border Moors and Forests - 10 North Pennies ‘The Sill’ Landscape Discovery Centre and Youth Hostel, Once Brewed. Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Northumberland National Park Authority and The Youth Hostel Association. Page | 15 Glen Kemp Ltd., January 2014 4.3.2 The site itself lies within the western section of NCA 11 Tyne Gap and Hadrian’s Wall. Listed characteristics of note include: - it is visually contained to the north by the parallel scarps of the Whin Sill; - farmland is pastoral in the west, merging to mixed and arable in the east; - there is a variety of enclosure patterns, with large, walled enclosures predominant in the west and hedged enclosures in the east; - north of the Whin Sill there is open, windswept semi-improved and rough grazing on elevated land, with loughs and rushy pastures; - very evident remains of the Roman wall, forts and associated features occur on the Whin scarp. 4.3.3 The landscape of this NCA has been analysed in more detail by Julie Martin Associates and Alison Farmer Associates with Countryscape as part of their Landscape Character Assessment of Tynedale District and Northumberland National Park, 2007. 4.3.4 This more detailed analysis has identified the Landscape Character Type (LCT) 14: Parallel Ridges and Commons within the part of the NCA in which the site is located, Landscape Character Types being landscapes with broadly similar combinations of basic landscape elements and which can therefore be found in different places. 4.3.5 The key characteristics of LCT 14: Parallel Ridges and Commons are identified as follows: - repeating pattern of elevated ridges and shallow troughs with strong east-west alignment: - cuesta landscape; - dramatic outcrops of igneous rock forming pronounced north-facing scarps and south facing dip slopes; - open moorland with mat-and purple moor grass, peat bogs, improved pastures and commons and loughs; - medium to large-scale enclosure pattern defined by stone walls and post and wire fencing; - extensive Roman archaeology associated with Hadrian’s Wall but also earlier archaeology; - limited habitation of dispersed farmsteads nestling into landform and surrounded by shelter planting; - limited tree cover of small broadleaved copses and blocks of coniferous plantation; - significant area for outdoor recreation. 4.3.6 In addition, other observations of note include: - The outcrops of Whin Sill are seen rising often abruptly from the gently undulating moorland, creating a sense of drama and ruggedness; - There are extensive areas of open mat-grass moorland and patches of carr woodland, reed bed and bog habitats associated with lower lying areas and glacial loughs and within these areas the landscape has a large scale and exposed character; - Elsewhere, the land has been enclosed by sandstone walls or fencing (particularly to the south of the Whin Sill and around isolated farmsteads) to create a medium scale pattern of semi-improved pastures, many of which are wet, the rushes creating visual texture. - Tree cover is limited to small copses of ash and thorn and blocks of coniferous plantation; - Many of the farmsteads date to the 19thC and are located in a dispersed pattern, nestled into the landform among rocky outcrops. - More recent man-made features in this landscape relate to the area’s importance for recreation and tourism. Signage, car parks, footpaths and interpretation are frequent and characteristic and are particularly concentrated along the Military Road and Whin Sill. - This landscape character type feels remote because of its narrow roads, sparse settlement, extensive agriculture management, and exposure to the elements. The landscape seems timeless and unmodified since Roman times. The complex, enduring form of the Whin Sill, set within a simple and uniform landscape of gently rolling moorland and enclosed pastures, remains its defining feature. 4.3.7 The LCT is broken down further into Landscape Character Areas – landscape units which share the same characteristics as the LCT but which display their own individual character and identity. The Parallel Ridges and Commons LCT is divided into three LCAs, the development site lying close to the centre of the largest of the three – LCA 14b Haltwhistle, Melkridge and Ridley Commons which is defined primarily for the dramatic escarpment and associated outcrops of the Whin Sill and the overt signs of Roman occupation. Scattered farmsteads are often surrounded by small copses of trees and visitor signage is also prominent in parts. ‘The Sill’ Landscape Discovery Centre and Youth Hostel, Once Brewed. Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Northumberland National Park Authority and The Youth Hostel Association. Page | 16 Glen Kemp Ltd., January 2014 Site character 4.3.8 At a more detailed level, the proposed development site itself can be divided into 5 sub-character zones as follows: Zone 1: Military Road corridor – a largely utilitarian area of low visual quality along the north side of the existing buildings, dominated by the service area (bin store, LPG compound, sheds) YHA car park, and the noise and movement of traffic on the B6318. The ‘back’ of the YHA building is presented to the Vallum Scheduled Ancient Monument and this important earthwork is barely legible in the landscape largely due to the tree and shrub cover growing on it, much of which is in a very poor condition. The proximity of the buildings and the continuous tree cover means much of the area is in shade for prolonged periods and the resulting sense of enclosure is at odds with the proximity of the B6318. In contrast to the immediate surroundings however, this part of the site does give striking views (some filtered) north to the dramatic landscape of the ridge of the Whin Sill, and in particular, the view to Peel Crag. Zone 2: YHA garden – although similar to the western end of zone 1 in terms of being enclosed and shaded by boundary tree cover and buildings, this ‘garden’ space is more domestic in character. Signs of a fire pit and the presence of a suspended basket seat from a tree indicate that the space functions as an informal garden. Much of the vegetation appears to be unmaintained giving it a naturalistic appearance which has a certain appeal. Although neglected, the space is secluded, relaxing and a offers a degree of escapism and communion with nature. Zone 3: NNPA and YHA environs – The sequence of linked, generally small spaces that combine to make up the ‘front of house’ areas to the existing facilities on site lack visual quality but have a low key charm nonetheless, being domestic in scale and welcoming. The absence of any coordinated design to the layout of the external spaces is apparent but is perhaps appropriate for such a location. The NNPA car park is of low visual impact from the main entrances to both buildings and allows the view south across the valley of the Brackies Burn to dominate. Zone 4: South facing slope within the southern field – From within this grazed field, the dominant view is to the south and to the ridgeline of the north facing slope of the Brackies Burn valley. Consequently, the presence of the NNPA car park and visitor facilities has a reduced impact on the character of this space which is rural and open. In amenable weather conditions the view can be stimulating. In poor conditions, the openness of the site can translate as being exposed. Zone 5: Brackies Burn valley bottom within the southern field – With very few urban elements present in the view from this enclosed and secluded spot within the valley, the sense of being in a peaceful rural location is enhanced. Being in an incised channel, the Brackies Burn itself has limited impact on the visual character of the space yet its presence still contributes to the sense harmony in the landscape character. 4.4 The landscape at night 4.4.1 As might be expected in a landscape where buildings are generally isolated and sparsely scattered and where roads are not lit, levels of illumination after sun set are extremely low within the study area. The main sources of light are: - External security lights to domestic / commercial properties and farm buildings, some of which are temporary, responding to the movement of vehicles / people – generally the most visible light sources being uncovered and bright; - Internal lighting to domestic properties – generally muted in intensity due to the presence of curtains / blinds used at night; - Car lights – bright but transient. Catch the eye due to movement. 4.4.2 Light levels for the existing NNPA visitor centre are very low at night as the site facilities only operate between the hours of 10am and 3pm during the months between the end of October and end of March. Pin-point red and green security lighting is visible within the building but only from within the southern car park area of the site itself. The entrance and associated signage into the site are not illuminated. 4.4.3 On the south side of the youth hostel, external spot lighting and a wash of lighting at the main entrance is visible but only from the southern car park where it is largely screened by a combination of existing vegetation and the fenced depot area to the NNPA visitor centre. The visual impact of existing lighting when seen from locations to the south and which are outside the site, is very subtle. What is more noticeable is the orange glow from a wall mounted security light to the Twice Brewed Inn car park. 4.4.4 In views westward into the site from the YHA car park to the north, external wall mounted lighting is more visible but still has a limited visual profile in views from outside the site. ‘The Sill’ Landscape Discovery Centre and Youth Hostel, Once Brewed. Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Northumberland National Park Authority and The Youth Hostel Association. Page | 17 Glen Kemp Ltd., January 2014 4.4.5 In views south from the road leading up to the Steel Rigg / Peel Crag car park, the regular spacing of uncovered wall mounted external lighting along the length of the north elevation of the youth hostel is uncharacteristic of lighting in the area and gives the impression that there is a large building present, even if the building itself is not visible. On the neighbouring site the Twice Brewed Inn car park security light is dominant and internal lighting to the entrance porch is visible. Together, the Twice Brewed Inn and YHA sites represent the main clusters of lighting visible in the view but the overall effect is not intrusive to a significant degree. 4.5 Landscape value The broader landscape 4.5.1 Establishing the value of the landscape in which the proposed development site is located and of the landscape features within the site itself, is of direct relevance when it comes to assigning a level of susceptibility to change to those identified landscape receptors. 4.5.2 The role of Northumberland National Park as a ‘special place’ and a valued resource not just for the North East but for the nation as a whole, has been noted in section 3 above. The NNPA Management Plan itself notes that: “National Parks are the most beautiful, spectacular and dramatic expanses of countryside in England, Scotland and Wales and are landscapes of national importance. They contain a wealth of nationally and internationally important wildlife and cultural heritage.” The Northumberland National Park is expansive, covering 20% of the county. However, there is no doubt that the specific landscape within which the Once Brewed site is located is as valued as any within the remainder of the Park. The dramatic topography created by the Whin Sill outcrop inspires and challenges. It can have an emotional and spiritual quality and a sense of tranquillity that is one of the main perceptual qualities valued by visitors to the area. 4.5.3 The Once Brewed site falls within the WHS ‘buffer zone,’ identified as the area beyond the WHS which defines its setting. 4.5.4 Other heritage assets of the Roman period of national value, designated as Scheduled Ancient Monuments, surround the site and one, the Vallum Earthworks, actually lies within the northern section of the proposed development site. 4.5.5 A Grade II post medieval listed building lies 200m to the west of the site at West Twice Brewed. 4.5.6 The value of the local landscape for recreational activities in which direct experience of the landscape is important is confirmed by the presence of designated routes of national significance such as the Hadrian’s Wall Path and the Pennine Way, and National Cycle Routes 68 and 72. 4.5.7 At ‘Sycamore Gap’ 1.2km to the north east of the site, a single mature sycamore tree growing on the line of the Wall ( just east of Milecastle 39) in the centre of a dramatic dip in the escarpment, is associated with a scene in the film ‘Robin Hood Prince of Thieves’ staring Kevin Costner and many visitors are drawn to that specific point on the line of Hadrian’s Wall for that reason. 4.5.8 Although issues relating to ecology are beyond the scope of this report, it is worth noting that there are 2no. National Nature Reserves and 3no. Sites of Special Scientific Interest within 3.5km of the site (see Figure 1). The nearest of these is the Roman Wall Escarpment SSSI on the north side of the B6318. 4.5.9 Consequently, there can be no doubt that the local landscape within which the proposed development site is located is valued at a national and international level. In addition, as of December 2013, the site falls within an area which has been granted International Dark Sky Park (Gold tier) status by the International Dark Sky Association (IDA). It is the largest area of protected night sky in Europe, and amongst the largest in the world. Landscape receptors on site 4.5.10 This section considers the value of the main individual landscape features within the site in terms of their quality and aesthetic appeal and their contribution to the recognised value of the broader landscape. 4.5.11 The existing buildings themselves are considered to be of little architectural merit and value. Although they generally blend into the landscape as a result of the use of stone and slate in construction, when seen close up, the elevational treatment and detailing and the surrounding external spaces are seen to be of low visual quality. 4.5.12 The Tree Survey for the site prepared by AMR Geomatics notes that: “The mature trees on the site make a significant contribution to the landscape of this part of the Hadrian’s Wall corridor and help to blend the existing buildings into the landscape.” The value of the trees lies predominantly in the role they perform as a group in terms of their screening function, habitat provision and generating a feature characteristic of a landscape in which trees are generally restricted to groups and clumps associated with individual farmsteads or residential properties. ‘The Sill’ Landscape Discovery Centre and Youth Hostel, Once Brewed. Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Northumberland National Park Authority and The Youth Hostel Association. Page | 18 Glen Kemp Ltd., January 2014 4.5.13 When considered in isolation, many of the trees are in poor to fair condition, and there are few highly valued individuals. One notable ‘landmark’ tree is the mature ash at the existing entrance to the NNPA car park. However, there are concerns over its future stability. 4.5.14 Although the trees on the Vallum along the northern site boundary perform a valuable screening role to the existing buildings in views from the north, it is acknowledged that their presence could be detrimental to the condition and preservation of the Vallum Scheduled Ancient Monument. 4.5.15 Tree cover on the site is therefore generally assessed as being of low to moderate value. 4.5.16 The low dry stone wall which defines the extent of the site on its northern and eastern boundaries is generally in good condition. It is a distinctive feature of the site and an element which is characteristic of the broader landscape. It is of moderate value. 4.5.17 The field to the south of the existing NNPA car park is of moderate value, providing an attractive setting to views south across the Brackies Burn valley from the current visitor centre. The southernmost section of this field which forms the valley floor, is visually segregated from the site facilities by the local topography. This isolation and containment generates a distinct sense of place which is of a higher value. 4.5.18 The site feature of most significant value is the Vallum – an earthwork feature from the Roman period which runs along the northern boundary of the site and which is designated as a Scheduled Ancient Monument of national importance. 4.6 Visual baseline Visual context – broader landscape 4.6.1 A digital terrain model covering the area within a 15km radius of the Once Brewed site has been used to generate a Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) for the existing site (see Figure 4). This uses elevation data alone to predict points from which ground level of the existing site is theoretically visible assuming a ‘bare earth’ landscape in which the potential screening impact of vegetation and buildings etc. is not taken into account. 4.6.2 The ZTV in Figure 4 shows that, given the parameters set out above, the areas on the north side of the River South Tyne from which the site may be visible are restricted to a comparatively short section of the Military Road corridor, including the line of Hadrian’s Wall and the World Heritage site itself, and a section of road to the south east of the Once Brewed site and due east of the Vindolanda Roman fort site. 4.6.3 Further a field (c. 5+km), on the south side of the river and the A69 road corridor, views of the site are theoretically possible from an area south of Beltingham and a much smaller area north west of Whitfield, and from higher ground to the west, east and south of Langley Castle, including sections of the A686 and B6305. Further south still, the ZTV includes an area of moorland between Ninebanks and Allendale Town, c. 13km from the site. Although further from the Once Brewed site, these potential viewpoints south of the River South Tyne are of particular significance as most fall within the North Pennines Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). 4.6.4 Given the theoretical nature of the zone of visual influence illustrated in Figure 4, survey work in the field has been carried out to establish actual levels of visibility from the more distant viewpoints within the North Pennines AONB. As expected, the screening effect of tree cover, buildings and roadside walls and hedges reduces significantly the actual area from which the site can be seen. Photographs in Figure 5 taken at the five key viewpoints VP 6 – 10 identified in Figure 4 give an indication of the extent to which the site is visible at such distances. Clearly, at distances greater than 5km, the existing site has a low visual profile within the broader views north and in most instances there are other landforms or features on the horizon that draw the eye and provide a focus away from the area in which the site is located. One exception is viewpoint VP6 on the B6305 east of Langley, where the Once Brewed site, although virtually indistinguishable in the broader landscape, is located just below one of the most visually prominent ridges (Winshield Crags) on the horizon. 4.6.5 It should be noted that the site is not visible from Langley Castle which is located within the wooded valley of the Langley Burn and the number of public rights of way within the ZTV south of the River South Tyne is limited. The only public footpath providing sustained long distance views northwards to the Once Brewed site is that running on an east-west axis across a grouse moor at Greenrigg Moor south east of Langley. Visual context – local landscape 4.6.6 A more detailed illustration of the ZTV based upon site ground level covering the area to the north of the River South Tyne is provided in Figure 6 ‘The Sill’ Landscape Discovery Centre and Youth Hostel, Once Brewed. Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Northumberland National Park Authority and The Youth Hostel Association. Page | 19 Glen Kemp Ltd., January 2014 4.6.7 It shows that the site may be visible from a 3km section of the B6318 Military Road corridor between Shield on the Wall to the west, and East Twice Brewed to the east. It also indicates that the ZTV is contained by the ridge of the Whin Sill and the line of Hadrian’s Wall to the north, and the ridge formed by the top of the southern slopes of the Brackies Burn valley to the south (and which marks the southern boundary of the National Park). 4.6.8 To the east, the areas from which the existing site might be visible are limited, being restricted mainly to sections of the Whin Sill ridge extending as far as Hotbank Crags and the point at which the Pennine Way leaves the Hadrian’s Wall Path, striking off northward, and a strip of elevated ground on the north western edge of Thorngrafton Common, c.300m east of Vindolanda. 4.6.9 Most visual receptors experience the local landscape around Once Brewed from the Military Road corridor and as such, the Once Brewed site must be seen in the context of a broader visual experience which, whether travelling from the east or the west, captures the drama of Hadrian’s Wall and the cuesta landscape with which it is associated. Within this setting, the existing site and its features have a generally low visual profile. However, the precise nature of this visual profile depends very much on the direction from which the visual receptor, passing through the landscape, approaches the site. 4.6.10 The existing buildings on the site are most visible when approached from the east, yet due to the screening effect of the dry stone boundary wall on the south side of the B6318, the NNPA visitor centre is not clearly visible in the view from the road until one is comparatively close to the buildings. From a distance, the warm grey of the stone and slate building materials blends well with the surrounding backdrop of tree cover and it is only the large white lettering on the east facing elevation which marks the building as a feature of public note. 4.6.11 Approaching from the west, ridges to the north and south prevent a broader outlook and concentrate views along the road corridor to a greater extent. The other dwellings and agricultural buildings which make up the hamlet of Twice Brewed are notable at stages in the view. The large property at Seatsides on the skyline to the south draws the eye, as does the longer distance view of the ridge formed by Thorngrafton Common. The field to the south of the existing NNPA visitor centre is visible in this view but has a low visual profile. However, as one approaches the Once Brewed site, not only is the Twice Brewed Inn much more dominant in the view than the YHA building, which is largely screened by mature tree cover around the outer edges of the site, but distinctive earthworks to the north of the highway provide a focus for attention together with the profile of the Whin Sill forming the horizon. Consequently, the existing site buildings go almost unnoticed until the receptor is travelling along the northern edge of the site. From this close viewpoint, the stone and pebbledash finish to the youth hostel, which is filtered by vegetation on the Vallum, is of low visual quality. The Vallum itself is barely legible, obscured as it is by existing tree and shrub cover. 4.6.12 When travelling towards the site along the road from Henshaw and Bardon Mill to the south, although the Twice Brewed Inn together with a scattered cluster of other buildings are visible, the existing visitor centre and youth hostel buildings are all but hidden from view by existing tree cover. Once past Smith’s Shield, direct and unobstructed views of the field to the south of the existing car park are possible from limited sections of road before it drops down into the bottom of the Brackies Burn valley. When present, vehicles (minibuses in particular) parked in the existing YHA car park and at the western end of the NNPA car park, are notable. These views form part of a broader vista north in which the outcrop of Peel Crag forms a locally distinct focal point. From the point where the road crosses the Burn, views into the lower section of this field are possible, but these are transitory. 4.6.13 Although not a direction from which visual receptors are likely to encounter the existing site for the first time, the visual profile of the site from the north is highly significant as this is the direction from which the site is seen from the Hadrian’s Wall World Heritage Site and the Hadrian’s Wall and Pennine Way recreational routes. Currently, views of the existing buildings are heavily filtered, even in winter, by tree and shrub cover within the site. Vehicles parked in the YHA car park at the north east corner of the site are visible and are unscreened. 4.6.14 The south facing field south of the existing NNPA car park is hidden from view. In contrast, the Twice Brewed Inn, painted white on its north facing elevation, is clearly visible, as are cars parked in its car park to the east of the Inn. This is the building which most draws the eye, although other buildings such as Seatsides, East Twice Brewed and Smith’s Shield are also visible. Visual receptors 4.6.15 There are only c.11no. residential properties shown to fall within the ZTV illustrated in Figure 6. These include one public house (The Twice Brewed Inn), one campsite (Winshields Farm Campsite), a guest house (Vallum Lodge) and two holiday cottages owned by the National Trust (Springwell Cottage and Peel Bothy). By their very nature, private domestic residences are generally considered to be highly sensitive visual receptors. ‘The Sill’ Landscape Discovery Centre and Youth Hostel, Once Brewed. Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Northumberland National Park Authority and The Youth Hostel Association. Page | 20 Glen Kemp Ltd., January 2014 4.6.16 Out of these properties, three have direct views of the northern site boundary (East Bog, Springwell Cottage and Peel Bothy) and two (Seatsides and Smith’s Shield) have direct views of the field to the south of the existing facilities on site. 4.6.17 The remaining properties which make up the hamlet of Twice Brewed to the west of the Once Brewed site have very restricted views of the site, screened as it is by buildings and tree cover. Some limited views of the field forming the southern part of the proposed development site are possible. 4.6.18 In terms of properties providing accommodation for visitors and tourists, there are no significant views of the site from the Winshields Campsite and the Vallum Lodge Guest House. Unobstructed views of the site’s north western boundary are possible from the neighbouring Inn but the boundary vegetation provides a strong filter to views of the YHA building. Similarly, as seen from the Springwell Cottage and Peel Bothy holiday lets, both of which are located on the road up to the Steel Rigg car park. Given that the great majority of visitors to the locality are attracted by the highly valued landscape and heritage assets, properties providing accommodation for tourists (short term and long term) are generally considered to be visual receptors of high sensitivity unless specific site conditions suggest otherwise. 4.6.19 Despite being subservient to the A69 with which it runs parallel, the B6318 still functions as an important transport route for those who live and work in the area, connecting the hamlets and isolated farmsteads along the line of the Whin Sill. Some receptors using this route will be of low to moderate susceptibility to change. However, it is its role in providing both visual and physical access to some of the most significant heritage sites in the North East which is of particular relevance, as it carries the great majority of the c. 50- 70,000 people who visit the existing Once Brewed site every year, on average. As previously noted, the quality of the landscape is one of the key factors that attracts visitors to this part of the county, and consequently it should be assumed that potential visual receptors travelling on the B6318 could be moderately to highly sensitive to change. 4.6.20 For the same reason, visual receptors travelling on the road linking the Once Brewed site with the A69 and the road skirting the western edge of Thorngrafton Common, should also be considered to be of moderate to high sensitivity. 4.6.21 It is apparent that the existing site is potentially visible from sections of the Hadrian’s Wall World Heritage Site between Turret 37A and Milecastle 41. It is not visible from the Roman fort and Scheduled Ancient Monument at Housteads nor is it visible from the Roman fort and Scheduled Ancient Monument at Vindolanda. However, the site is visible in the background in views of the Vindolanda site as experienced from the elevated ground of Thorngrafton Common. 4.6.22 The visual impact on these and other significant heritage and cultural assets is assessed in detail in the heritage chapter of the ES. For the purposes of this LVIA, the visual effects of the proposed development on views both from and to landscape features of heritage value, are assessed on the basis of selected viewpoints at locations. These are analysed in more detail in section 5 of this report. 4.6.23 Other highly sensitive receptors engaged in recreational pursuits would be those using the National Cycle Route 68 which passes by the site. 4.6.24 Figure 6 identifies a number of public footpaths within the ZTV and although some of these are likely to be used only infrequently, all recreational users should be considered to be potentially highly sensitive visual receptors. Aside from the recreational routes associated with Hadrian’s Wall and the Whin Sill ridge, the footpaths providing the most notable views of the existing site are the two routes which run from Twice Brewed (one from the Winshields Campsite) up the south side of the Brackies Burn valley and over the ridge on which Seatsides is located. Although much of the existing buildings are screened or filtered by tree cover, open views of the southern field within the proposed development site are possible from the higher ground. ‘The Sill’ Landscape Discovery Centre and Youth Hostel, Once Brewed. Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Northumberland National Park Authority and The Youth Hostel Association. Page | 21 Glen Kemp Ltd., January 2014 5.0 Potential Effects 5.1 Introduction 5.1.1 Within this section the effects of the proposed development on both landscape and visual receptors is assessed and the significance of that effect is graded according to the methodology set out in section 4.2. Consideration is given to the generally temporary effects which relate directly to the construction process, such as the movement and noise of heavy plant etc., and to the more long term effects evident once the construction process is completed. For each effect identified, where appropriate, the level of significance is assessed first without, and then with, reference to mitigation measures which have been incorporated into the design proposal. 5.1.2 Some measures taken to mitigate the impact of the proposed new building on the landscape were defined at a very early stage in the design process and are fundamental to the final architectural vision and design concept. These inherent mitigation measures are outlined in section 7. 5.2 Description of the proposed development 5.2.1 The development which has been assessed is illustrated in Figures 7 and 8. Basic design concept 5.2.2 The new building has a single footprint of c.2,157m2 and is made up of the NNPA’s Landscape Discovery Centre (the eastern part of the building) and the new YHA 86 bed hostel (the western section of the building). Understanding the design concept behind the proposed building helps with the interpretation of its complex form which is largely inspired by the undulating cuesta landscape in which it is located. The bold northern elevation captures the drama of the north facing Whin Sill escarpment, while the more gentle profile of the southern elevation reflects the softer south facing escarpment slopes. Similarly, building and landscape are fully integrated at the north eastern corner as the lower section of the sloping roof rises out from existing ground levels at a constant gradient before turning back on itself in order to create a dramatic viewpoint and architectural statement aligned with the vista north towards the local focal point of Peel Crag and the Whin Sill. 5.2.3 In response to the site’s sloping topography, the north eastern end of the Landscape Discovery Centre is recessed into the ground while the south western end (the two storey YHA accommodation block which drops half a floor level in relation to the main building mass) appears to project out from the ground. In addition, the provision of a green roof further assimilates the built form with the surrounding green space. 5.2.4 As the building is to function as a ‘gateway’ to the landscapes of the National Park, it is intended that it should have a presence in the landscape and be legible and distinctive. However, it is also a fundamental part of the design concept that the building should be constructed using materials which are of a local character and provenance as much as possible. The building 5.2.5 The shared main entrance is central to the southern elevation, much of which supports a projecting canopy at first floor level made up of photovoltaic panels. The Landscape Discovery Centre is two storeys at its north eastern end (8m above existing ground level), with a café at the upper level aligned with the striking vista to Peel Crag and the Whin Sill. Although the YHA accommodation block is two storey, the fact that it is dropped half a floor level in relation to the main building allows the first floor café and viewing terrace to the Landscape Discovery Centre to function as the feature which draws the eye. Much of the northern and western elevation reads as two storey although a pronounced section of sloping roof deliberately breaks up the straight roofline at the centre of the building and brings it down close to ground level. 5.2.6 On the northern elevation which faces out onto the Military Road corridor, the building is to be faced in whin stone filled gabion baskets at the lower levels with timber cladding used at the higher levels. The junction between the two is stepped so as to reflect the block-like profile of the actual Whin Sill outcrop. Window voids are irregular for the same reason. The stepped form of the whin stone gabions will provide opportunities for incorporating appropriate native planting on the building façade. On the south facing elevation, although the principle of using timber cladding at higher levels is repeated, lower levels are to be faced in sandstone as a softer contrast to the darker whin stone on the northern aspect. ‘The Sill’ Landscape Discovery Centre and Youth Hostel, Once Brewed. Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Northumberland National Park Authority and The Youth Hostel Association. Page | 22 Glen Kemp Ltd., January 2014 5.2.7 On the northern elevation the main area of glazing is that of the café. This glazing continues, running along the length of the south facing elevation of the first floor as it projects above the lower sloping section of the green roof to form an atrium. Below this, much of the central section of the southern elevation is glazed with panels in between stone buttresses formed using dry stone walling techniques. On the YHA accommodation block, glazing is restricted to bedroom windows although a linear skylight is present along the length of the roof to this block. 5.2.8 The green roof to the main body of the building is to be formed using transplanted whin vegetation typical of the rare and threatened plant communities which are associated with the Whin Sill outcrop. Plant plugs are to be planted into a predominantly whinstone gravel – dust and compost mix. A ramp extending from the building at its north eastern end is to continue up on to the roof where it connects with a timber deck walkway. This weaves through the whin vegetation passing seating or rest areas, until it reaches the highest point on the roof which takes the form of a viewing deck over the first floor café. Balustrading to the publicly accessible green roof is to be provided using c.1m high galvanised steel mesh panels of irregular lengths. The green roof to the YHA accommodation block is to be constructed using a basic matrix of appropriate grass species as used on the main green roof. At the southern end, where the accommodation block terminates with the main plant room for the whole building, flues from the plant room will extend 1.5m above the level of the green roof. 5.2.9 The internal lighting for the building has yet to be specified but it is understood that the one of the key objectives would be to minimise light spill by specifying fittings which cast no light above the horizontal plane. External spaces 5.2.10 The overriding design principle for the treatment of external spaces is that they should be treated with a light touch and blend seamlessly with the surrounding landscape. The main challenge has been to accommodate a requirement for approximately 180no. car parking spaces (87 permanent spaces and 93 overflow spaces, the latter in a grassed field). Prior to fixing the design solution illustrated in Figure 7, a number of alternative layouts were considered before being rejected and these are described in section 6 as part of the early mitigation process. 5.2.11 On the north side of the new building, the demolition of the existing visitor centre and youth hostel sees the removal of the existing car park and service area at the north eastern corner of the site. This is replaced with a green events space and the ramped access to the green roof. The new building line is set further back from the Vallum SAM and active management of the vegetation currently growing on the Vallum would include the removal of much of the lower growing ornamental shrubs including rhododendron, and dead / dying trees. Over a prolonged period, there would be a phased approach to the continued selective removal of vegetation on the Vallum which would run parallel with a programme of new planting designed to recreate some of the screening and filtering function of the removed vegetation but in a more considered location where it would not have an adverse impact on archaeological remains. 5.2.12 Key trees marked for retention along the boundary with the Military Road corridor are identified in Figure 9. At the western end of this green buffer strip between the new development and the SAM, a new woven willow hedge planted behind a dry stone wall would provide privacy and security to the YHA garden space which is laid out in the space between the new youth hostel and the western boundary. Much of the mature coniferous planting along the north western boundary is to be retained. The garden space is to incorporate an informal play space, an open events area and a patio with pergola and seat swing etc. A garden path will connect with the gateway to the Twice Brewed Inn site. The north west corner of the garden is also to accommodate a timber bat loft - a 4x4m x 4.7m high structure with a slate pitched roof. The floor of the loft would be 2.5m above ground and the space below it enclosed for use as a cycle storage facility. This element would be constructed in advance of the demolition of the existing buildings. 5.2.13 To the east of the building, a series of dry stone walls (both free standing and retaining) accommodate changes in levels as the green roof and main building integrate with the external landscape. A new lay-by set back from the highway verge is to be formed to cater for service deliveries. Just south of this lay-by, a covered bin store and cycle storage facility are to be constructed in dry stone walling and with a green turf roof. This storage area marks the eastern boundary of a courtyard area defining the arrival / gathering space outside the main entrance. A feature wall projecting out of the building segregates the main entrance area from the neighbouring outdoor classroom space to the west. This educational gathering space is to be separated from the main circulation route to the south by a hawthorn hedge. To the west of the outdoor classroom is an outdoor dining space for the YHA, the southern edge of which is defined by a dry stone retaining wall at the northern end of the YHA accommodation block. Along the southern edge of this ‘front of house’ area, a sweeping arc of a footpath connects the main entrance with the parking areas to the south. ‘The Sill’ Landscape Discovery Centre and Youth Hostel, Once Brewed. Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Northumberland National Park Authority and The Youth Hostel Association. Page | 23 Glen Kemp Ltd., January 2014 5.2.14 Vehicular access to the site remains in its existing southern position and a new timber double leaf field gate is to be provided which can be closed during the movement of livestock along this. The main car park area is located between the new building and the existing triangle of woodland on the eastern site boundary. The space allocated to parking is broken up by the inclusion of new belts and clumps of native tree and shrub planting. A raised hedgebank c. 1m high defines the northern edge ofthe central parking area. All linear planting is to be maintained as informal hedgerow with unrestricted vertical growth. Two low pressure gas tanks are located near the car park entrance, screened by an extension to the existing dry stone boundary wall and by a fence with hedge planting. At the southern end of the upper car park, set against the western edge of the triangular woodland, an electric substation is to be located. It would have a 5x5m footprint, be faced in dry stone walling and have a pitched slate roof, giving it the appearance of an agricultural out-building. 5.2.15 A second tier of car parking is located further down the existing slope and south of the triangle of woodland. It ends on an area of comparatively level ground, approximately 12m back from the top of the crest of a steeper slope down into the Brackies Burn valley bottom. Coach parking bays are positioned alongside the wood’s western boundary. Larger planting areas are used to break up the area of hardstanding and a broad belt of native screen planting runs along the southern edge of the car park and up the eastern boundary. 5.2.16 The main circulation route through the car park areas is to have an asphalt surface finish. Most bays within the upper car park, together with the accessible parking and drop-off area are to be top dressed with tar spray and chippings, giving a softer visual texture. Throughout the remaining car park areas, parking bays are formed using a gravel filled plastic grid. 5.2.17 Between the upper and lower car parks lies a play space focusing on naturalistic play. It also includes a concrete platform for astronomical observation. Although a detailed design for the play area has yet to be created, the provision of some fixed play equipment is anticipated but any such structure would be in timber and have a maximum height of c.3m. 5.2.18 South of the YHA accommodation block a ramped compacted whin stone path (together with resting areas and timber benches) connects the car parks and play area with the main building. A retaining wall formed in gabions with hand placed stone to the face would have a maximum height of 1.5m and run between the southern edge of the upper car park and the path which is at the lower level. New embankments are to be formed to tie the ramped path levels into the existing steep slope leading down to the south flowing tributary. 5.2.19 Within the valley bottom, the more level part of the field is to be allocated for dual use as overflow parking and events space. Minor grading of levels together with land drainage will be required to facilitate this as will a visually discreet means of reinforcing the grass surface. Access to the overflow car park is to be via an existing field gate location in the south east corner of the field. To the north of the entrance, a submerged water treatment plant is to be located in the field, discharging into the Brackies Burn. 5.2.20 The existing overhead electric cable mounted on timber poles which runs down the field and along the valley bottom, is to be relocated underground as part of the development works. 5.2.21 External lighting of the pedestrian route from the two car park areas up to the Landscape Discovery Centre and youth hostel is to be in the form of low level, directional timber bollard lighting to give the lowest level of illumination required to allow safe access. 5.2.22 A camera for registration plate recognition purposes is to be installed near the entrance gate at a point along the existing fence line. A clump of new native shrub planting would form a backdrop. Military Road crossing point 5.2.23 It is proposed that the works on site would include improved access across the Military Road for pedestrians wishing to make the journey up to Hadrian’s Wall and the Whin Sill. This is to be delivered in the form of a break in the site’ northern boundary wall and millstone flags placed within the highway verge at the north eastern corner of the site (see Figure 7) with millstone flags defining a route along the opposite verge to a step down into the existing ditch, and which then continues along the base of the ditch to an existing gateway into a small rectangular copse enclosed by a dry stone wall on all sides. The millstone flag path runs around the inner face of the southern and eastern boundary walls before crossing over the wall, via a newly formed break near the north east corner, and into the highway verge of the road leading up to Peel Crag. ‘The Sill’ Landscape Discovery Centre and Youth Hostel, Once Brewed. Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Northumberland National Park Authority and The Youth Hostel Association. Page | 24 Glen Kemp Ltd., January 2014 Junction improvements 5.2.24 Improvements to the sightlines at the junction of the Vindolanda road with the Military Road are also to be carried out as part of the development proposal. This would involve the lowering of the height of the existing dry stone retaining wall that forms the field boundary on the south side of the Military Road on the east side of the junction. The wall would be taken down to the level of the highway verge over a c.30m length and the existing stock proof post and wire fence running in the field immediately behind the wall, would be renewed. On the west side of the junction, the height of the dry stone wall forming the northern site boundary would be reduced by approximately one course over a 30m length. 5.3 Effects during construction 5.3.1 It is anticipated that during the construction process there will be adverse landscape and visual effects of low to substantial significance. These would relate primarily to the effects of construction plant movement (both on and off the site) and noise on the local landscape character and sense of tranquillity but would be temporary. It is expected that the effects would be of greatest significance during the early demolition and earth moving stages of an approximately 18 month construction phase. 5.3.2 Although stockpiles of crushed concrete, stone and brick generated during the demolition process would look out of place until the time they could be re-cycled during the construction phase, they would only be visible from a comparatively limited area. The presence of site cabins and storage containers themselves would represent an urban intrusion into the rural landscape. It is unknown where site cabins are likely to be located, but in the event that they are positioned off-site on neighbouring land to the west, perhaps on the site of the existing Twice Brewed Inn car park, then they would only really have any visual significance in views from the B6318 road corridor when travelling west and from East Bog farm in its elevated location to the north. 5.3.3 Increased levels of illumination are expected to an extent during hours of darkness when the construction site is operational or when site cabins are occupied and the significance of any adverse effects are likely to be low to moderate given their limited duration and would only be visible from a restricted area. 5.3.4 During the construction process, signage and site security fencing would be required, the visual effects of which would be difficult to mitigate. The temporary urbanisation of the landscape character of the site would be a temporary adverse landscape and visual effect of low to moderate significance when experienced closer up. 5.3.5 It is expected that the receptors most affected by the adverse effects would be the few residents around the hamlet of Twice Brewed who live close to the site or who are located in elevated positions overlooking the site from the south. Another group of receptors who are likely to be particularly sensitive to noise are those using the recreational routes on the Whin Sill ridge and for whom noises generated by the construction process could be carried northwards on the prevailing wind, resulting in a transient but moderately - substantially adverse effect on their experience and enjoyment of a landscape otherwise valued for its tranquillity and escapism. 5.4 Effects after completion Effects on individual landscape receptors within the site 5.4.1 The following sections consider the anticipated effects on the main physical elements that constitute landscape receptors within the site. Existing buildings: 5.4.2 These have been identified as being of low value and are considered to be of low susceptibility to change and therefore to be of low sensitivity. Their demolition represents a magnitude of change which is assessed as being beneficial to a moderate – substantial degree resulting in an effect of moderate beneficial significance. The Vallum: 5.4.3 As a landscape feature which is designated as a Scheduled Ancient Monument, it is of high – exceptional value and potentially highly susceptible to change as a result of new built development, making it a ‘The Sill’ Landscape Discovery Centre and Youth Hostel, Once Brewed. Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Northumberland National Park Authority and The Youth Hostel Association. Page | 25 Glen Kemp Ltd., January 2014 landscape receptor of high sensitivity. The removal of the existing youth hostel building along its southern boundary and the creation of new open space between the new buildings and the SAM boundary would improve the setting of the Vallum. In addition, the proposed initial tree removal on the mound itself would enhance its legibility in the landscape. This represents a magnitude of change which is moderately beneficial. This is likely to increase to a magnitude of substantially beneficial in the longer term as a sensitive vegetation management plan sees the gradual removal of the great majority of the existing tree cover on the Vallum. Consequently, the significance of the effect of the proposed development on the Vallum within the site is assessed as being moderately beneficial, increasing to substantially beneficial over the 20-40 year period after construction of the new facilities on site. 5.4.4 Footpath works proposed for within the copse on the opposite side of the Military Road .would have no significant impact on the visual character of this part of the SAM. Tree cover: 5.4.5 The tree cover on site has been assessed as being of low to moderate value for the reasons set out section 5.2. It is a resource which can be recreated easily enough, but it is acknowledged that new planting may take slightly longer to reach the levels of maturity currently present on site compared to the majority of development sites due to the exposed nature of the location and more harsh growing conditions. Consequently it is considered to be of moderate susceptibility to change and of low to moderate sensitivity overall. 5.4.6 Despite the generally poor quality of much of the tree cover, its value lies largely in its screening function and the resulting contribution it makes to the character of the local landscape. As much of the most significant tree cover in this regard is to be retained, the magnitude of change as a result of the proposed development is expected to be low adverse. The overall significance of the effect on tree cover across the site is therefore assessed as being low to moderately adverse. 5.4.7 However, as the proposed new native structure planting establishes and makes visual connections with existing mature tree groups on this and adjacent sites, the effect on this landscape receptor is expected to become of low beneficial significance. Boundary dry stone walls: 5.4.8 Of moderate landscape value, the boundary walls within the site are moderately susceptible to the redevelopment of the site on this scale and are therefore of moderate sensitivity. 5.4.9 Most of the existing walls are to be retained or extended and, where removed, replaced with new walls on slightly different alignments. The new boundary wall construction would match the visual character of the existing walls. In places they would be higher and incorporate pedestrian access gates, perhaps giving the boundary feature a slightly more domestic rather than agricultural character. 5.4.10 On balance, the expected magnitude of change to this landscape receptor is negligible to low adverse, giving an effect of negligible to low adverse significance. Southern field: 5.4.11 The field to the south of the existing NNPA car park on site is considered to vary in landscape value from moderate to high largely as the result of the subtle change in landscape character between the upper and central part of the field and the more enclosed lower section in the bottom of the Brackies Burn valley. Given the simple nature of this landscape receptor it is highly susceptible to change as a result of new build development making it generally highly sensitivity overall. 5.4.12 For the lower section of the field, the introduction of a camera on the southern boundary as part of the system for administering parking charges and a footpath connecting the proposed overflow car park / events area with the main building, represents a low adverse magnitude of change. The proposed system for providing additional strength to the existing grass sward would have a negligible effect on the visual character of this part of the field. 5.4.13 However, in the central and upper sections a greater magnitude of adverse change is anticipated. A significant proportion of the grass sward would be replaced with hard standing for the vehicular access road and parking bays, although the latter would be formed in reinforced gravel so as to generate a more natural colour and visual texture. Parked vehicles and features associated with the proposed play area would add three dimensional elements currently lacking in the field, although it should be noted that the existing timber poles carrying the overhead power line down the length of the field would be removed as a ‘The Sill’ Landscape Discovery Centre and Youth Hostel, Once Brewed. Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Northumberland National Park Authority and The Youth Hostel Association. Page | 26 Glen Kemp Ltd., January 2014 result of the development project. In addition, the movement of vehicles within the area of the car park would be very different from that of the sheep which occasionally graze the field. Consequently, the magnitude of change for the central and upper part of the field is expected to be moderate to substantially adverse. 5.4.14 As a result, whereas the significance of effect on the lower section of the field is assessed as being minor adverse, the effects on parts of the more elevated sections are likely to be of moderate to substantial adverse significance within a very local context. 5.4.15 Obviously the proposed new planting which forms part of the mitigation strategy for this landscape effect would take time to establish and fulfil its role as a visual barrier and filter to areas of hardstanding and vehicles on site. Based on apparent growth rates for existing mass planting on site, it is anticipated that the significance of the adverse effect would be reduced to ‘moderate’ within ten years, and to ‘low’ within twenty years. Effects on landscape character 5.4.16 Having considered the effects on individual landscape receptors on the site, the cumulative effects need to be examined alongside other anticipated impacts such as new building construction and potential changes to the way the site is used in order to assess the overall effect on the perceived landscape character of the site and the contribution it makes to the broader landscape. The interrelationship between these elements is complex and in line with good practice it is proposed that the assessment process should focus on what are expected to be the most significant effects on the key aspects of the baseline landscape character. 5.4.17 In Section 3 of this report, the review of planning and management policies relating to the landscape of the Northumberland National Park and of the local area around the Once Brewed site provided an overview of the characteristics of the landscape which are considered to be of most value and therefore most worthy of protection. It is suggested that the key aspects of greatest significance can be summarised as being: - the sense of tranquillity; - distinctive local character; - dark skies and the night time landscape. 5.4.18 In all instances, when assessed in these terms, the landscape around the proposed development site is judged to be of high value, increasing to exceptionally high with regard to distinctive local character. 5.4.19 In the context of the above, the landscape’s susceptibility to the potential changes associated with the construction of a new building on the existing site is considered to be moderate due to the scale of the landscape and the visual character of the facilities already on site. In terms of establishing landscape sensitivity, this is assessed as being moderate - high in all instances. 5.4.20 Due to the complexity of establishing the anticipated magnitude of change resulting from the many facets of the development on the key aspects of landscape character, it is proposed that critical aspects of the development project should be assessed individually. A judgement can then be made on the composite magnitude of change. 5.4.21 Using the Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document within the NNP’s Local Development Framework as a reference, the main aspects of the development selected for assessment are: scale – (building and external works), rhythm, materials – (colour, texture, reflection), signage, function, lighting, movement and noise. Each one is considered in turn, although some are inevitably interconnected. Scale: 5.4.22 Building - the footprint of the new building (2,157m2) is greater than the combined footprints of the existing buildings (957m2) and it would reach two storeys in height (8m) at its eastern end where currently the visitor centre is only one storey. At its western end the accommodation block to the youth hostel is also two storeys but this part of the structure drops half a floor in relation to the main new building utilising the sloping site to best advantage. Similarly, in the north east corner, the ground floor exhibition space is cut into existing ground level by c.1m. 5.4.23 The observer’s perception of scale is influenced to a degree by levels of visual screening, built form and construction materials (see below). In this instance, much of the tree cover on the site boundaries is to be retained, however the tree group currently screening the YHA building on its southern aspect would be lost. ‘The Sill’ Landscape Discovery Centre and Youth Hostel, Once Brewed. Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Northumberland National Park Authority and The Youth Hostel Association. Page | 27 Glen Kemp Ltd., January 2014 5.4.24 Although larger in size, the designed form of the new building is a more sensitive response to the site topography, rising out of the ground in part at its eastern end with a split level roof which breaks up the visual mass of the building. The proposed use of natural materials such as whin stone, sandstone and timber cladding would help reduce the apparent size of the building, allowing it to blend into the surrounding soft landscaping as is the case with the existing structure. Significantly more glazing is proposed in the new structure than currently exists and this can help reduce the perception of visual mass by reflecting surrounding colours and textures. Magnitude of change in relation to size of building = low to moderate adverse. 5.4.25 External works - an increase in the area of car parking is proposed. The existing site has capacity for c. 77 no. vehicles whereas the new permanent car park facility would accommodate c. 90 vehicles including 3 coaches. The majority of these would be located in a field currently used for pasture to the south of the existing site, resulting in the permanent replacement of soft landscaping with hard standing and static vehicles. The magnitude of change in relation to the scale of the external layout for the upper sections of the field is moderate to substantial adverse but is experienced from a comparatively restricted area locally. In addition, when considering the change in size or extent of car parking, changes in distribution of the areas of parking are also important. The new development would see the removal of parking on one of the most visually prominent parts of the site (that being the north east corner – visible from the WHS and the Military Road corridor) with the area being given over to soft landscaping. This would bring a beneficial change of low magnitude. A further c.90 overflow parking spaces are proposed for the more level lower area at the southern end of the field but as this would be only occasional and is reversible, the net level of change for this more sensitive part of the site is assessed as being negligible. Rhythm: 5.4.26 The form of the new building’s green roofline is intended to flow out of the landscape and the elevational treatments, on the north side in particular, are designed to reflect the rhythm of the Whin Sill escarpment itself. The pattern of level changes in the built form mimics that of the local cuesta landscape as do the lines and terraces in the external layout. This contrasts favourably with the regular geometric patterns of the existing site features and layout. Magnitude of change in relation to rhythm of built structures and external layout = substantial beneficial. Materials: 5.4.27 Colour – in terms of surface finishes to the new main building, colours would generally be the natural and muted warm / dark / silver greys and browns associated with whinstone, sandstone and timber. These softer colours would extend out into the external surface finishes through the use of natural aggregates and stone flags. Although parking areas would be formed in natural aggregates, main vehicular circulation routes would be formed in black tarmac – as is the case in the existing car park on site. Extensive areas of glazing would generally reflect colours in the surrounding external landscaping. With regard to the colour of materials used for miscellaneous items within external circulation spaces, it is anticipated that a considered and coordinated approach to specification on the new project would generate a more subtle palate of colours than currently exists. There would be a very strong emphasis on the use of appropriate native tree, shrub, herbaceous and grass species throughout the site and it is anticipated that colours of the soft landscaping would blend successfully with the wider landscape. The effects of the colour of the whin vegetation proposed for the green roof are difficult to assess given that the recreation of such specialist and unique plant communities in a green roof location is untested and colonisation / success rates are unknown. However, it is expected that the colour of the vegetation that does establish, although having a resonance with grassland in the wider local landscape, will differ from that of the grazed fields adjacent to the site – particularly as the harsher micro climate of the green roof may result in the rooftop vegetation responding earlier to seasonal changes than the plant communities in the neighbouring fields. In the light of the above, the magnitude of change in relation to the colour of materials for built structures would be expected to be low beneficial. However, when considered together with the introduction of cars into the green field to the south of the existing site, (which is off-set to a degree by the beneficial effect of the proposal to remove vehicles from the northern site boundary) the magnitude of change shifts to being one of moderate adverse. 5.4.28 Texture – the issues are very much the same as those set out above for the colour of materials used on the development, the main exception being that of the proposed glazing. Although large glazed panels do occur on the existing buildings, the proposed glazed southern elevation at the main entrance, the glazed first floor café and the glazed atrium are designed to feature as key elements of the fabric of the building. Long sections of glass present a visual texture which is very contemporary in character and its use in this manner represents a departure from the scale to which it is characteristically used in buildings elsewhere within the local landscape. Consequently, the magnitude of change in relation to the visual texture of ‘The Sill’ Landscape Discovery Centre and Youth Hostel, Once Brewed. Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Northumberland National Park Authority and The Youth Hostel Association. Page | 28 Glen Kemp Ltd., January 2014 materials used on site is assessed as being low - moderate adverse. However, see section on ‘function’ below. 5.4.29 Reflection – the issue of light reflection off glazed surfaces within the building and off the metallic surfaces of vehicles is significant given the proposed increase in both these elements within the development proposals. The glare resulting from sunlight reflecting off such surfaces may be only transient but when seen in the context of a landscape which is generally regarded as being free from overt signs of significant human intrusion, the experience is readily interpreted as an indicator of the presence of man-made objects in the landscape. A computer generated sun path model has confirmed that the large area of glazing to the café which faces north east towards the Whin Sill and Hadrian’s Wall WHS will not experience direct sunlight and would not therefore result in reflected light being visible from elevated view points to the north. 5.4.30 The glazed south facing elevation is shielded by a canopy of photovoltaic panels that projects 3m from the building and which would therefore screen the windows from direct sunlight. The panels themselves are positioned at an angle that would not result in visible solar glare and which gives them a very low visual profile when seen in views form the south. However, the south and south east facing glazing to the atrium could result in reflected light being seen from points within a restricted area on the south side of the Brackies Burn and Bradley Burn valleys, although this would be occasional and obviously of a transient nature. The same applies to the reflection of light off the metallic surfaces and windscreens of parked / moving cars within the proposed south facing car park. It is also worth noting here that light reflection is not uncommon within the broader landscape depending on weather conditions and time of year. The glare of reflected strong sunlight can be seen across the landscape from multiple sources such as standing water in fields and on roads and from wet black plastic bale wrap. Magnitude of change in relation to increase in reflective surfaces = low adverse. Signage: 5.4.31 Badly located or poorly coordinated signage can lead to the urbanisation of the landscape. As well as signage proposed for the area within the site, where required, effects relating to the introduction of new signage within the public highways on the approach to the new facilities needs to be taken into account. 5.4.32 Existing signage within the site, although uncoordinated, does not appear to have a significant adverse effect on landscape character. New signage for the Landscape Discovery Centre and Youth Hostel would be kept to a minimum and would be coordinated in terms of form, style and materials. A main site marker for the project could be the subject of an artist’s commission and as such no design proposals are available for assessment. However, it is anticipated that part of any design brief would be the requirement that any installation must represent a creative response to the character of the local landscape. 5.4.33 The presence of signage and interpretation along the Military Road is identified as being characteristic of the landscape of the area in the Landscape Character Assessment of Tynedale District and Northumberland National Park (see section 5.3). Existing bus stop signs located in the highway verge either side of the road leading into the site would be removed as part of the project (buses would pick-up / drop-off within the site) bringing some beneficial effect. 5.4.34 A comprehensive review of the existing road signage and the need to replace damaged signs and the size and positioning of signs has yet to be carried out. This process may become linked to the possible introduction of a 40mph speed restriction along the Military Road at Twice Brewed. However, given the level of signage already in place, it is anticipated that the magnitude of change in relation to signage would be negligible. Function: 5.4.35 The ‘Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document’ reviewed in section 3.3 above observes that within the National Park, form and hierarchy is evident in individual buildings and that this has traditionally been dictated by function and intended status. It is the case that public knowledge about the function or role of a building will influence how its presence in the landscape is interpreted. In the case of The Sill project, the scale and form of the building and use of contemporary sustainable construction techniques may be regarded more favourably in the knowledge that the building represents a public gateway to the National Park and acts, quite literally as a window to the riches of its landscapes, than if it were a private commercial venture or domestic residence. The Landscape Discovery Centre would be one of the primary visitor destinations in the National Park and possibly the region. The principle that this status should be reflected in its appearance and presence in the landscape is one which has been long established in this ancient landscape. Magnitude of change in relation to the visual interpretation of the intended function of the building = substantially beneficial. ‘The Sill’ Landscape Discovery Centre and Youth Hostel, Once Brewed. Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Northumberland National Park Authority and The Youth Hostel Association. Page | 29 Glen Kemp Ltd., January 2014 Lighting: 5.4.36 There are three main aspects relating specifically to the issue of lighting in relation to the landscape and visual effects of the development proposal: Light spill from internal light sources – the existing YHA facility is operational 24hrs a day but between the end of October and the end of March, the NNPA visitor centre closes during the week and is only open between 10am – 3pm at weekends during this period. The new YHA would operate on the same basis as the existing, but the new Landscape Discovery Centre is expected to operate all year round and to provide a venue for evening activities. Whereas the glazing to the proposed first floor café would have black-out blinds, the glazed atrium, the glazed sky light to the YHA accommodation block and the floor to ceiling glazing at the main entrance which provides access to the YHA part of the building and so would be operational 24hrs a day, would not have any screening. Consequently, there is higher potential for light spill to occur at these points. Such light spillage would most likely present itself as a soft glow along the length of these glazed features at a scale and form which would be uncharacteristic of existing patterns of night time illumination in the locality. There is some internal glow within the existing youth hostel but it is generally screened from public view by planting. Without any mitigation measures in place, the expected magnitude of change in relation to light spillage from the building would be moderately adverse, the change being greatest when observed from the south. However, it is expected that internal light fittings in the public circulation space in these areas would prevent any light spillage beyond the horizontal and would comply with the design guidance set out in the Lighting Management Plan. Together with the impact of screen planting as it matures, the magnitude of change would be revised to low – moderate adverse after approximately 10years, and low – negligible after 20 years. 5.4.37 Light spill from external lighting – in section 4.4 it was noted that wall mounted external lighting on the existing buildings are not covered and the main effect of this is experienced in views from the north where the regular spacing of external light units gives the impression of there being a large commercial scale building present in the night landscape. Consequently, their removal would be a change of low beneficial magnitude. All external lighting associated with the new development would be covered to prevent light spill beyond the horizontal and light sources would be orientated so as to face away from primary public view points beyond the site boundary. On the new development proposal, the element most likely to generate adverse effects would be the lighting required for the car park areas and for the pedestrian routes linking the upper, lower and overflow parking area with the main building. Light sources would be present in views from the south where there currently are none and there is the potential for lighting to the footpath route to read as a regular linear feature which is out of keeping with the general distribution pattern of infrequent and scattered light sources across the night landscape. Without mitigation, this would generate a magnitude of change which was moderate - substantially adverse over a limited local area. Again however, it is expected that the design of the external lighting would comply with guidance in the Lighting Management Plan. Lighting to the footpath in particular could be movement activated so that its presence is only temporary and it could be switched off after a certain time in the evenings. On this basis, the potential magnitude of change is assessed as being low - moderately adverse. 5.4.38 The visual impact of illumination from car headlamps – although transitory in nature, the moving glare from car headlamps draws the eye in an otherwise tranquil night time landscape and is visible from a significant distance. The existing car parking for the YHA is on the northern boundary of the site where night time vehicular movement is a feature of the Military Road corridor. The NNPA car parking where vehicles are generally off site by 4pm in winter months is located on the more peaceful southern side of the building. In contrast, the new development would see all vehicle parking provided on the south facing valley slope. The increase in both the likely duration of periods of night time vehicle movement and the actual number of movements would represent a substantial adverse magnitude of change with regard to the effects of illumination from car headlamps when seen from limited areas within the lower parts of the Brackies Burn valley, but would reduce in significance as one moved up the valley slopes (see schedule 1 – PM5). Movement: 5.4.39 The movement of objects within a landscape can influence the perceived levels of peacefulness and tranquillity ascribed to its character. It is expected that the new site facilities could attract 80,000 visitors a year – with the potential for this to increase to 100,000 within a three year period from opening and perhaps up to 120,000 over a longer period. Although current visitor numbers are at a level of c. 45,000 a year, in the 1990’s they stood at around 100,000, dropping to c. 70,000 by 2005-6. Consequently, the target visitor numbers for the new facility do not represent a significant departure from the numbers of visitors accommodated on the site within the last 20 years. The two main factors associated with higher visitor numbers to the new building are the increase in vehicle movements and the heightened visibility of people accessing the café terrace and green roof. The effect associated with static parked cars is considered under the heading of ‘materials’ above. The effects relating specifically to moving cars are considered to be secondary but would still be adverse when occurring an a part of the site which is predominantly static in character – apart from when sheep are present in the field. In a landscape where ‘The Sill’ Landscape Discovery Centre and Youth Hostel, Once Brewed. Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Northumberland National Park Authority and The Youth Hostel Association. Page | 30 Glen Kemp Ltd., January 2014 thousands of visitors walk along visually prominent sections of the line of Hadrian’s Wall and along the minor roads adjacent to the Once Brewed site, the presence of visitors to the site walking up the ramped green roof does not represent an adverse change and could even be considered as another feature of interest on the B6318 route. Consequently the magnitude of change relating to issues of increased movement on the site is assessed as being low adverse. Noise: 5.4.40 Given the presence of the B6318 road corridor immediately to the north of the site and the lack of permanent neighbouring receptors who might be affected by any moderate increase in noise as a result of increased visitor numbers and external events, the magnitude of change in the landscape character relating to increased noise levels is considered to be negligible adverse. 5.4.41 In section 4.2 of this report it was noted that any effects which are assessed as being moderately or substantially adverse should influence the mitigation strategy for the proposed development. Consequently, it is worth looking in more detail at the elements that are believed to generate the most significant magnitudes of adverse change in landscape character – namely: scale of external works; colour of materials, and lighting. In all instances the critical issues relate to the impact of extending car parking into the southern field where the resulting effects have been assessed on the basis of the condition of the site at the time of completion of the construction works. Obviously, the proposed screen planting within the car park areas and particularly along the southern edge will have a significant mitigating effect given time in terms of the screening / filtering of views of parked cars and associated external lighting. Consequently, it is assessed that after ten years growth, effects judged to be moderately adverse will be mitigated to low adverse, diminishing to negligible adverse after 20 years when the planting should be approaching a height comparable to existing tree groups. Effects on visual receptors – overview 5.4.42 The Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) for the site containing an 8m high structure (see Figure 4) is only marginally larger than that based on ground level. In the wider landscape it is more extensive in the area to the south of Beltingham and the area north of Whitfield and includes new areas of moorland west of Whitfield and at Blenkinson Common south of Greenfield. Nearer the site (see Figure 6) it is slightly more extensive in the area around Thorngrafton Common, on the southern slopes of Hotbank Crags and south of Sycamore Gap. However, given the nature of the terrain affected, this increase in the ZVT is not considered significant. 5.4.43 For those resident in the cluster of properties making up the hamlet of Twice Brewed, the new building on the Once Brewed site would be hidden by the tree cover around the boundary of the site or by existing buildings. A view of the southern field containing vehicles in the new car park would be possible from a short section of road east of Winshields Farm campsite but would be of low significance in the view. In terms of night time views, the potential effect on residential visual receptors located on the south side of the Brackies Burn valley, from where the impact of lighting is likely to be greatest, is assessed in relation to viewpoint PM 5 in Schedule 1 below. 5.4.44 In the broader landscape within the ZTV, one of the areas potentially most sensitive to increased night time illumination is the higher ground south east of Langley on the basis that this is probably the most readily accessed part of the AONB within the ZTV which gives long distance vistas that include the Once Brewed site. From the viewpoint VP6 (see Figure 4) on the B6305, uncovered light sources associated with the new facilities could potentially be visible. A softer glow arising from light spillage from hidden light sources such as might occur along the line of the glazed atrium, would be much less legible at this distance. However, any lighting would be seen in the context of a night time view which already features bright lights on the horizon to the west of Once Brewed; moving lights on the A69 (and to a lesser extent on the B6318); small clusters of lights generally across the landscape (including Bardon Mill, Humshaugh), and a larger cluster at Haltwhistle. Consequently, the significance of any additional external lighting on views from the North Pennines AONB is assessed as being negligible. Effects on selected representative visual receptors 5.4.46 The nature of more direct views of the site from within the wider local area is assessed using the selected viewpoints identified in Figure 6. These have been picked on the basis of selecting what are considered to be the most sensitive visual receptors whether they are private properties, public recreational routes or landscape viewpoints of aesthetic, cultural or heritage significance and the selection has been make in consultation with the National Park planning authority. To assist the assessment process, photographs taken from those visual receptors thought to be of highest value have been used to generate photomontages of the proposed development (PM nos. 1-8). Photographs with the development site identified have been used for the remaining viewpoints (VP nos. 1-5). ‘The Sill’ Landscape Discovery Centre and Youth Hostel, Once Brewed. Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Northumberland National Park Authority and The Youth Hostel Association. Page | 31 Glen Kemp Ltd., January 2014 Schedule 1: Selected viewpoints for assessment of visual effects. (To be read in conjunction with Figures 11-20.) Ref. Visual Receptor with OS grid ref. Distance from site Assessment of visual effect Mitigation PM1 Winshields Crags (Hadrian’s Wall Path and Pennine Way) 374211, 567564 1.2km Receptor sensitivity: WHS and national recreational route. High Magnitude of change: Extensive views south to the North Pennines AONB are possible from the most elevated point on the Whin Sill ridge. The site is visible in the middle distance. The YHA accommodation block is visible in part above peripheral tree cover but the scale not dissimilar to the neighbouring Twice Brewed Inn which is much more prominent in the view. Negligible. Significance of effects: Negligible. None required. PM2 Peel Crags (Hadrian’s Wall Path and Pennine Way) 375390, 567540 650m Receptor sensitivity: WHS and national recreational route. High Magnitude of change: Views south to the North Pennines AONB are possible over the southern ridge of the Brackies Burn Valley. The site is visible in the middle distance. The eastern end of the glazed café is prominent but much of the remainder of the new building is heavily filtered by retained tree cover along the Vallum. The contemporary materials of the visible structure have no strong colours to draw the eye, unlike the Twice Brewed Inn which contrasts strongly with the muted natural colours of the surrounding landscape and which is comparable in scale with the visible sections of the proposed new structure. Vehicles currently visible at the north east corner of the site when present, would be removed from the view. The property of Seatsides is also prominent in the view on top of the ridge just below the skyline. Negligible - Low adverse. Significance of effects: Low adverse. None required. PM3 Military Road corridor to the west (nr. Twice Brewed Inn) 375110, 566900 100m Receptor sensitivity: This road is the main route for tourists passing through this valued landscape but views of the site are transitory. The eye of travellers is likely to be drawn to prominent views of Peel Crag to the north. Moderate Magnitude of change: Like the existing YHA building, the new facility would be largely screened by existing boundary tree cover. A short section of the YHA accommodation block would be visible in views across the eastern end of the Twice Brewed Inn car park. Negligible. Significance of effects: Negligible. None required. ‘The Sill’ Landscape Discovery Centre and Youth Hostel, Once Brewed. Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Northumberland National Park Authority and The Youth Hostel Association. Page | 32 Glen Kemp Ltd., January 2014 Ref. Visual Receptor with OS grid ref. Distance from site Assessment of visual effect Mitigation PM4 Military Road corridor to the east (near junction) 375470, 566986 150m Receptor sensitivity: This road is the main route for tourists passing through this valued landscape and views of the site are less transitory when heading west. For many visitors travelling for leisure purposes, the new building may represent their destination point. Moderate - high Magnitude of change: Screened in part on the approach by the boundary wall on the south side of the road for those travelling by car, once visible the building would draw the eye, the glazing and steelwork of the green roof balustrade representing a very contemporary structure. Colours however would be neutral with the possibility of some late afternoon sun reflecting off the café’s south facing windows. The lower section of the sloping green roof breaks up the visual mass of the building. The vertical support of the café canopy and vertical balustrade posts are characteristic of other vertical elements such as fence posts, telegraph poles and exposed tree trunks. The bat roost structure in the YHA garden in the north west corner of the site would be screened to a significant degree by a retained oak tree near the corner of the café terrace. Low adverse. Significance of effects: Low - moderate adverse. Specimen tree planting proposed on the eastern boundary of the site would further break up the visual mass of the building and the amount of glazing which can be seen, reducing the significance of the visual effect over time to Low adverse. PM5 Seatsides residential property and PROW 374933,566131 520m Receptor sensitivity: Private residence and minor recreational route but with clear views of the Whin Sill Ridge and the WHS. High Magnitude of change: The new building sits below the skyline but close to the landform of Peel Crag which draws the eye. Much of the new building is visible at this angle of view and would appear as the largest built structure in the local landscape. Although cars in the existing NNPA car park are visible in the current view, the new car parking would be more extensive and coaches parked against the back drop of existing woodland would be visible. The play area would also be seen. As the viewpoint is higher than the new development, it is unlikely that there would be a significant issue relating to sunlight reflecting off the south facing atrium glazing but visual receptors could experience temporary sun glare off vehicles at times. Seatsides is likely to be the private property most affected by the impact of external lighting. However, from this vantage point two bright light sources can be seen on the existing site and lighting from neighbouring properties (Vallum Lodge, East Bog, Twice Brewed Inn, Smith’s Field) is also visible. In addition, car headlamps can clearly be seen moving along the Military Road along much of the section from Hotbank Crags to a point past Winshield Farm camp site. Seen in this context, the introduction of vehicle lights into the southern field is less significant than might be first anticipated. Low – Moderate adverse. Significance of effects: Moderate adverse. As it matures, the structure planting proposed within the car park and along its southern and western edges would reduce the significance of this adverse effect to Negligible – Low by eventually screening the car park and providing a heavy filter to views of the building. ‘The Sill’ Landscape Discovery Centre and Youth Hostel, Once Brewed. Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Northumberland National Park Authority and The Youth Hostel Association. Page | 33 Glen Kemp Ltd., January 2014 Ref. Visual Receptor with OS grid ref. Distance from site Assessment of visual effect Mitigation PM6 ‘Long Stone’ view point, minor road and PROW, Thorngrafton Common 377851, 566414 2.58km Receptor sensitivity: This viewpoint represents views gained from a minor road and recreational route but which include views down on to the site of Vindolanda. Moderate - High Magnitude of change: The Once Brewed site is visible in the same direction of view as both the Roman heritage site of Vindolanda and Winshields Crag, but any new building would be barely noticeable when seen from this distance, especially when other buildings such as farmsteads are clearly visible as a feature of the local landscape. Negligible. Significance of effects: Negligible. None required. PM7 ‘Springwell Cottage’, National Trust holiday cottage 375280, 567068 130m Receptor sensitivity: Holiday cottage owned by National Trust. No permanent residents but occupiers likely to be staying for the purpose of recreational engagement with the landscape., although property looks out towards B6318 road corridor. Moderate Magnitude of change: Principle view from front of property is south to Military Road which virtually forms the skyline, with no significant distant horizon the draw the eye. Roof of existing NNPA visitor centre is visible above old earthworks on the foreground but is visually indistinct. The eastern end of the new building with its glazed café would be higher and materials more contemporary in appearance. People on the café terrace and the green roof observation point above the café would be visible, introducing colour and movement into the view, with associated possible increased noise levels above the sound of any traffic movements. However, proposed events spaces between the building and the B6318 would be hidden from view. The western end of the YHA facilities would be visible as are the existing, but with slightly less filtering following selected tree removal on the Vallum. This is one view where the screening / filtering of the new building by tree cover would be significantly higher when deciduous trees are in leaf, than during winter months. Low- Moderate adverse. Significance of effects: Low - Moderate adverse. Longer term management of tree removal on the Vallum should be sensitive to the visual effects experienced by this visual receptor. New planting proposed for the space between the new building and the Vallum SAM to maintain light filtering of views of the new building, could be positioned to maximise the screening effect from this property. If necessary, there is scope to plant a hedge for screening purposes along the inner edge of the southern boundary wall to the cottage. ‘The Sill’ Landscape Discovery Centre and Youth Hostel, Once Brewed. Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Northumberland National Park Authority and The Youth Hostel Association. Page | 34 Glen Kemp Ltd., January 2014 Ref. Visual Receptor with OS grid ref. Distance from site Assessment of visual effect Mitigation PM8 Henshaw to Once Brewed minor country road 375409, 566515 160m Receptor sensitivity: Main direction of approach to the Once Brewed facilities for tourists leaving the A69. Views from the road are transient with direct views into the southern field often filtered by roadside vegetation, but the site is seen in the context of the first open dramatic views of Peel Crag and the Whin Sill ridge line as travellers cross the local ridgeline and the NNP boundary and drop down into the Brackies Burn valley. Moderate - High Magnitude of change: The NNPA Landscape Discovery Centre would be hidden behind the existing woodland along the eastern site boundary but there would be direct open views of the YHA accommodation block. Whereas the proposed neutral facing materials of stone and timber for the visible part of the building would sit comfortably in the landscape, the colours and reflective nature of parked vehicles in the southern field would draw the eye. Although the far eastern corner of the café is likely to be seen projecting out from behind the semi-mature woodland block, parked vehicles such as cars, vans and minibuses which are currently visible when present in the YHA car park in the north eastern corner, would be removed from view. Other buildings such as the Twice Brewed Inn, West Twice Brewed and East Bog farm are also visible in the view, but the new building is greater in scale. The scale of the new parking area is significantly foreshortened in the view so that cars at the southern end of the car park would screen those further up the slope. Parked coaches would be seen, but against a woodland backdrop. Moderate adverse. Significance of effects: Moderate adverse. The visual effect on receptors at this viewpoint is based on the condition of the site at time of completion of the contracted works and so the effects of mitigating screen planting is not taken into account. It is anticipated that as the planting matures, after 10years the adverse significance of visual effects would be reduced to Low, reducing further to Negligible – Low after twenty years, when the new structure planting would blend seamlessly with the existing tree groups either side. VP1 Military Road corridor to the west of the Twice Brewed Inn 374872, 566838 320 Receptor sensitivity: This road is the main route for tourists passing through this valued landscape but near distance views tend to be transitory. The eye of travellers is likely to be drawn to prominent views of Peel Crag to the north. Moderate Magnitude of change: The northern part of the site is screened from view by existing buildings and vegetation cover. Although limited transient views of the upper section of the southern field are possible, even when containing parked cars, this is unlikely to draw the eye. Negligible. Significance of effects: Low – Negligible adverse. In time, screen planting would reduce this level of significance to Negligible. ‘The Sill’ Landscape Discovery Centre and Youth Hostel, Once Brewed. Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Northumberland National Park Authority and The Youth Hostel Association. Page | 35 Glen Kemp Ltd., January 2014 Ref. Visual Receptor with OS grid ref. Distance from site) Assessment of visual effect Mitigation VP2 PROW nr. Melkridge Tilery Campsite 373400, 566040 1.95km Receptor sensitivity: A view from a minor recreational route but which provides open vistas north in which the profile and drama of the Whin Sill escarpment is particularly legible. Moderate - High Magnitude of change: The proposed new building would be hidden by existing tree cover in the locality but a limited view of the southern field is possible. Although indistinct in the broader landscape at present, this element of the site is more likely to catch the eye when containing parked cars (which may reflect strong sunlight at times) and the proposed play area. It is worth noting however, that vehicles moving on the B6318 are a regular feature in this view. Negligible – Low adverse. Significance of effects: Low adverse. Proposed native structure planting would reduce the significance of this effect to Negligible VP3 ‘Peel Bothy’, National Trust holiday cottage 375278, 567410 460m Receptor sensitivity: Holiday cottage owned by National Trust. No permanent residents but occupiers likely to be staying for the purpose of recreational engagement with the landscape. Moderate - High Magnitude of change: Principle views from the front of the property are southward across the Brackies Burn valley. From this elevated position, unlike Springwell Cottage, much more extensive views over the southern valley ridge to the North Pennines AONB beyond, are possible. The glazed north-east facing café is likely to be visible in the position where the current visitor centre is seen now. The YHA facility is likely to be less filtered in the view than the existing building due to proposed selective tree removal on the Vallum. The actual scale of the building would be broken up by the retained tree cover with the result that visible sections of the building would be in keeping with the scale of the neighbouring Twice Brewed Inn, but would blend more successfully into the visual texture of the landscape. In this view, other elements such as the North Pennine moors on the horizon and the property of Seatsides in its prominent location on top of the Brackies Burn valley ridge are also likely to register as focal points of interest. Negligible - Low adverse. Significance of effects: Low adverse. None required. ‘The Sill’ Landscape Discovery Centre and Youth Hostel, Once Brewed. Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Northumberland National Park Authority and The Youth Hostel Association. Page | 36 Glen Kemp Ltd., January 2014 Ref. Visual Receptor with OS grid ref. Distance from site Assessment of visual effect Mitigation VP4 Milecastle 39nr ‘Sycamore Gap’, (Hadrian’s Wall Path and Pennine Way) 376150, 567717 1.05km Receptor sensitivity: WHS and national recreational route. Regional visitor destination of contemporary cultural significance. High Magnitude of change: The Once Brewed site features in the middle ground of vistas which extend a significant distance to the North Pennines – weather permitting. In this view southward, the landscape appears to be very simple and rolling and the Once Brewed site facilities would register with receptor as a focal point of interest, set within a clump of existing trees. The visible sections of new building would compare favourably in terms of scale compared with the neighbouring Twice Brewed Inn. Negligible. Significance of effects: Negligible. None required. VP5 Hotbank Crags, (Hadrian’s Wall Path and Pennine Way) 378045, 568616 3.3km Receptor sensitivity: WHS and national recreational route. High Magnitude of change: Site is only just discernable in long distance views gained from just below the Whin Sill ridge. From the ridge itself the site is hidden by an existing plantation. Negligible. Significance of effects: Negligible. None required. ‘The Sill’ Landscape Discovery Centre and Youth Hostel, Once Brewed. Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Northumberland National Park Authority and The Youth Hostel Association. Page | 37 Glen Kemp Ltd., January 2014 6 Mitigation Measures 6.1 Introduction 6.1.1 Mitigation of potential significant adverse effects can be addressed through the processes of prevention or avoidance (the preferred option); through reduction, or through compensation (generally considered to be the least favourable option). 6.1.2 This section of the LVIA explains how a review of potential landscape and visual effects has been a fundamental part of the broader iterative design process for The Sill project and that the mitigation of potential adverse effects has been considered from the earliest stages of the first site analysis and identification of site constraints and opportunities. As well as providing an overview to the design development of the project and identifying the main mitigation measures embedded in the final design scheme, it also reviews alternative design options for the car parking element which were rejected on the basis of landscape and visual considerations. It then considers mitigation proposals relating specifically to the potential construction and post-construction phases of the project. 6.1.3 The impact that the mitigation measures incorporated within the development proposal are expected to have on the potential significant adverse landscape and visual effects identified, is taken into account within the assessment process set out in section 5. 6.2 Design evolution 6.2.1. Right from the outset, the design brief for The Sill project has specified that the proposed new facilities on the Once Brewed site (ie. the Landscape Discovery Centre and new youth hostel) should be ‘of the landscape’ and a landscape architect has been part of the design team working closely with the project architect from the preliminary site analysis stage. Community consultation has also taken place throughout the design process and has informed the final development proposal. 6.2.2 The positioning of the proposed building and its alignment within the site has been influenced by a desire to respond positively to both the detailed site characteristics and the broader landscape character. The alignment of the building maximises the opportunity to bed the structure into the sloping topography, thereby minimising the visual effects of providing a two storey buildings on the site, while at the same time making the most of the visual connection with the dramatic views of Peel Crags to the north east. It also allows the green roof to merge with the existing ground levels in a seamless integration of landscape and building. The green roof itself is also intended to reduce the apparent visual mass of the proposed new built structure. 6.2.3 The positioning of the building avoids adverse physical impact on the Vallum Scheduled Ancient Monument and facilitates the retention of the majority of the key trees on the northern and western site boundaries and the visual screening / filtering function which they perform. Much of the proposed tree removal on the northern boundary is driven by a desire to improve the legibility and interpretation of the Vallum as a heritage asset and promote its preservation. 6.2.4 Similarly, to protect and enhance the setting of the Vallum, a decision was taken to remove any car parking or service / delivery area from the zone between the northern elevation of the building and the Scheduled Ancient Monument. 6.2.5 With regard to the layout of external spaces, the car parking for the new facilities has been located to the south of the building where it is screened from views gained from the Hadrian’s Wall and the World Heritage Site. Alternative locations for the car parking were considered during the design process prior to being discounted and these are reviewed in section 6.3 below. 6.2.6 The layout of the final car park design is intended to balance a requirement to deliver as many parking spaces close to the main building as possible with the desire to provide green infrastructure throughout the car park which would break up the visual mass of the associated hard landscaping and integrate it into the landscape. The result is a series of tiers to the parking provision which work with the existing contours. 6.2.7 The existing triangle of woodland on the eastern boundary is retained so as to make the most of its screening potential. Coach parking is located along its western edge so that these larger vehicles are positioned against a backdrop of mature tree cover. ‘The Sill’ Landscape Discovery Centre and Youth Hostel, Once Brewed. Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Northumberland National Park Authority and The Youth Hostel Association. Page | 38 Glen Kemp Ltd., January 2014 6.2.8 Where potential adverse effects cannot be avoided, in order to minimise the visual effects of proposed car parking within the open field to the south of the existing facilities on site, the southern edge of the parking has been set back from a break in slope which means that parked cars would be screened by the local landform in views up the field from the adjacent public highway as it crosses the Brackies Burn. It also means proposed screen planting can be positioned on subtle mounding along the southern edge of the parking area thereby maximising its screening impact. Where appropriate, hazel or willow hurdles would be used to act as a wind break to facilitate plant establishment and to provide an early screen to parked vehicles. 6.2.9 Throughout the external site layout, native tree and shrub planting has been designed in a manner that will allow it to integrate visually with existing planting beyond the site as it matures when seen in the broader landscape context in views from the south of the Brackies Burn. Similarly, plant species associated with the Whin Sill are proposed for the green roof (rather than commercially available sedum carpets) in order to create visual textures and colours more appropriate to the local landscape. 6.2.10 Proposed materials for the construction of the new building and of the external areas of hardstanding have been selected with a view to minimising adverse visual effects and reflecting existing landscape character. The proposed use of whinstone and sandstone as facing material for the building makes reference to locally available building materials and where practical, external hard surfaces would be formed or surface dressed with granular materials such as gravel or whinstone aggregate. 6.2.11 Where the loss of wildlife habitat in the form of tree and shrub cover or semi-improved grassland is unavoidable, it is intended that new habitats should be fully integrated with the fabric of the building and external structures as compensation. Although 25no. individual trees and 710m2 of native structure planting would be lost, c80no. new individual trees, 1,745m2 of native structure planting and 110 linear m of new hedging would be planted as part of the development. In time, it is proposed that the new development would enhance the biodiversity of the site. 6.2.12 With regard to lighting and the requirement to comply with the Dark Sky Park Lighting Management Plan, external lighting is to be kept to an absolute minimum. A detailed lighting scheme is not currently available but it is anticipated that it will follow the recommendations set out in both the LMP and the Lighting Impact Assessment prepared for the development. Movement activated lighting and cut-off / timing devices are likely to be employed as necessary together with the use of concealed sources of red light for external footpath links with the car parking area. 6.3 Alternative car park options 6.3.1 During the early stages of the design process, a number of options for delivering the appropriate number of parking spaces required were considered before being rejected. These are illustrated in Figure 10. 6.3.2 As an alternative to extending the proposed development footprint beyond the southern boundary of the existing site, options for using the adjacent field to the east of the site were examined. In the past, overflow parking for the existing NNPA facility has been accommodated on occasion in the northern part of the eastern field, but this was rejected as a more formal solution to accommodating increased parking numbers due to the potential adverse effect on views from the World Heritage Site and on known archaeological features. 6.3.3 The use of the lower sections of the same field as an additional or overflow car park where rejected for similar reasons. It also became apparent that the local highway authority was concerned about issues of highway safety with regard to any proposed new vehicle access / exit point to the field. In addition, the permanent use of such a large section of the field for car parking would have compromised the viability of the field for agricultural purposes. 6.4 During construction 6.4.1 Section 5.3 of this report identifies the potentially significant adverse landscape and visual effects that might be associated specifically with the construction phase of the proposed development. Measures to mitigate such effects are generally secondary measures in that they are not an integral part of the proposed development but relate more to the manner in which the construction process is carried out and to working methods or constraints identified within the building contract documentation. 6.4.2 The positioning of site cabins either within the site or on adjacent land should be carefully considered in order to minimise any associated adverse visual effects. This is likely to be most relevant to the construction phase rather than any demolition phase. ‘The Sill’ Landscape Discovery Centre and Youth Hostel, Once Brewed. Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Northumberland National Park Authority and The Youth Hostel Association. Page | 39 Glen Kemp Ltd., January 2014 6.4.3 The visual effects of the post demolition phase, when existing buildings have been levelled and stockpiles of crushed concrete and stone have been formed for reuse in the construction phase, would be minimised if the construction phase commenced immediately as part of the same contract. 6.4.4 Opportunities to store stripped soils on site in a manner that provides temporary screening to vehicle movement and construction operations should be maximised. 6.4.5 Working methods will be required to address the requirement to reduce external light emissions to the minimum necessary for safe working and restrictions on working hours during winter months may be employed. 6.4.6 The timing of vegetation removal would be restricted so as to avoid the bird nesting season and the building demolition phase would need to be carried out in strict accordance with the bat mitigation strategy forming part of the bat licence issued by English Nature. 6.4.7 Protective fencing compliant with BS 5837:2012 ‘Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction’ would be maintained throughout the construction phase to protect the root protection areas of trees to be retained. 6.5 After Completion 6.5.1 After completion of the construction phase there are certain elements relating to the management of the site which would be required to ensure the delivery of key components of the primary landscape and visual mitigation strategy. One of the most important of these would be the maintenance of the soft landscaping and, in particular, the screen planting to the car park areas. To ensure this is carried out in an appropriate manner, a comprehensive maintenance regime covering an appropriate establishment period for new native structure planting would form part of the soft landscape specification for the project. Issues relating to plant replacements, thinning and pruning operations to promote healthy growth rates and rapid establishment would be covered. 6.5.2 In a similar vein, a management plan for the green roof would be required to ensure that it is adequately maintained and that the necessary expertise is available to monitor and guide the maintenance process so that it responds appropriately to the various evolutionary stages of the plant communities evolving on it. It must also be capable of responding to any unforeseen events - particularly as the process of establishing whin vegetation in the form of a green roof is unique to The Sill project. ‘The Sill’ Landscape Discovery Centre and Youth Hostel, Once Brewed. Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Northumberland National Park Authority and The Youth Hostel Association. Page | 40 Glen Kemp Ltd., January 2014 7.0 Residual Effects 7.1 After Completion 7.1.1 In section 6 it was noted that the landscape effects assessed as being of moderate to substantial adverse significance at the time of completion of the works are the subject of a mitigation strategy based on reducing the adverse effects identified rather than preventing them. As the mitigation relies on the growth of soft landscape structure planting to perform a screening and filtering function, it would take time for the mitigating benefits to be apparent on site. Plant growth rates on this exposed site are expected to be slower than might be anticipated on most construction projects, but it is suggested that a significant reduction in the relevant adverse effects would be noticeable within 10 years, and continue to reduce for a further ten years after which point the adverse effect would be diminished to a point requiring no further mitigation. This being the case, it is considered that there are no permanent adverse effects of significance relating to landscape and visual effects anticipated for this project. ‘The Sill’ Landscape Discovery Centre and Youth Hostel, Once Brewed. Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Northumberland National Park Authority and The Youth Hostel Association. Page | 41 Glen Kemp Ltd., January 2014 8.0 Summary and Conclusions 8.1 Summary Scope of assessment and methodology 8.1.1 This report considers the anticipated landscape and visual effects arising from the construction of a proposed new Landscape Discovery Centre and Youth Hostel to replace the existing Northumberland National Park visitor centre and YHA hostel at Once Brewed. 8.1.2 The assessment methodology used in this report is based on the ‘Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment’ Third Edition:2013 (LI and IEMA). The level of significance given to identified landscape and visual effects (effects can be adverse or beneficial) depends on the combination of the sensitivity of the landscape element, / landscape character / view or observer, and the scale of the effects predicted. When defining the sensitivity of the existing landscape, one must consider the value attached to it. The criteria for making such judgements are set out in section 4 in order to make the assessment process as transparent as possible. 8.1.3 It should be noted that issues relating specifically to the potential effects of the proposed development on the historic landscape and the setting of sites of cultural heritage significance have been assessed by specialist landscape historians within the Cultural Heritage chapter of the Environmental Statement prepared for the project. Consequently, a detailed analysis of such effects has been excluded from this report. Existing policy 8.1.4 A brief review of existing planning policy and management strategy frameworks for the landscape in which the site is located concentrates mainly on the Northumberland National Park Management Plan and the Northumberland National Park Development Framework. These documents confirm just how special the landscape is around Once Brewed. It is a landscape with a distinct character and a much valued sense of tranquillity and contains a rich cultural heritage as well as being a landscape rich in biodiversity and geology. The designated Hadrian’s Wall World Heritage Site and its associated Management Plan indicates the landscape being considered is of international value. In addition, the landscape around Once Brewed is part of a much larger area which has recently been awarded Dark Sky Park status by the International Dark Sky Association, making it the largest area of protected dark sky in Europe. As such any new project involving external lighting must comply with the Exterior Lighting Masterplan. The existing landscape 8.1.5 The landscape of the area covered by this report is dominated by the Whin Sill, a well known geological feature in the region, running from Upper Teesdale to the Farne Islands on the Northumberland coast. This high ridge of hard rock defines the northern skyline within much of the study area, the southern skyline being defined by another smaller ridge running parallel with the Whin Sill. This second ridge marks the southern boundary of the National Park. The road B6318 (known locally as the Military Road) follows the line of the landscape corridor formed by these two ridgelines and provides the main route from which to view the dramatic Whin Sill, Hadrian’s Wall and the simple landscape dominated by rough grazing in which settlement is sparse and tree cover is generally restricted to small clumps around isolated properties. The area is rich in Roman heritage sites and the line of the Roman Wall is also the route of two National Trails – the Hadrian’s Wall Path and the Pennine Way. Two National Cycle Routes connect the area of the development site with the Whin Sill, the local Roman site of Vindolanda and the A69. 8.1.6 The proposed development site itself is located on the south side of the Military Road which forms its northern boundary and extends southwards to the bottom of the Brackies Burn valley. The northern section of the site contains the Vallum Scheduled Ancient Monument but is dominated by the existing visitor centre and YHA building, both of which are of little architectural merit. The majority of trees on site are assessed in the site’s tree report as being in fair to poor condition. Their main value is in the screening they provide to the existing facilities on site. South of the existing buildings, a the upper sections of a sloping grazed field provide an attractive setting to views out across the Brackies Burn valley and the lower section is comparatively enclosed at the bottom of the valley, providing a sense of peace and intimacy not available elsewhere on the site. 8.1.7 As might be expected, in the night time landscape, sources of light are limited to isolated properties and car headlamps. Light sources from the buildings are generally hidden, the most noticeable impact resulting from uncovered external wall mounted lights on the northern side of the buildings. ‘The Sill’ Landscape Discovery Centre and Youth Hostel, Once Brewed. Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Northumberland National Park Authority and The Youth Hostel Association. Page | 42 Glen Kemp Ltd., January 2014 8.1.8 There is no doubt that the proposed development site is located within a highly valued landscape of international importance in terms of its cultural heritage and its dark skies. In addition, it is perceived as a ‘special place’ with a sense of tranquillity that brings with it a spiritual quality and as such, it is of national importance for the recreational opportunities it provides. Of the existing features on site, the main features of significance are the tree cover, the dry stone boundary walls, the field to the south and the Roman earthwork of the Vallum. Visual context of the existing site 8.1.9 Using electronic Orndnance Survey data, a map covering the area within a 15km radius of the Once Brewed site is used in Figure 4 to show the area from which the ground level of the existing site can be seen. This is only theoretically as the process by which the map is produced assumes there are no landscape features above ground level which could screen or interrupt the view from any given point. 8.1.10 Because the strong ridgelines in the local landscape contain views of the site to a large degree, on the north side of the River South Tyne and the A69 corridor, the area from which the site can be seen is restricted to a short section of the Military Road corridor (including the line of Hadrian’s Wall and the World Heritage Site) and a much smaller area on Thorngrafton Common just east of Vindolanda Roman fort. 8.1.11 In theory, views of the site are also possible from vantage points south of the River South Tyne, mainly from higher ground west of the River Allen and south of Haydon Bridge, most of which fall within the North Pennines Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. However, fieldwork has shown that at these longer distances (5+km) the Once Brewed site is difficult to identify and has a low visual profile within the broader landscape. 8.1.12 The facilities at Once Brewed are most likely to be seen first when travelling on the Military Road. Because of the existing tree cover around the boundaries of the site to the north and the west which serves to screen the buildings on site, the direction of travel very much influences how much of the site can be seen. When travelling from the east, the existing visitor centre is visible but the YHA building is largely hidden. When travelling from the west, virtually all buildings on the site are screened until the observer is alongside the site. In views from the north (ie. the Hadrian’s Wall World Heritage Site, the Hadrian’s Wall and Pennine Way National Trails) although vehicles parked in the YHA car park at the north eastern corner of the site are visible, the buildings are well screened by existing trees on the Vallum and it is the neighbouring Twice Brewed Inn which draws the eye. When approaching the site from the south along a minor country lane, again the buildings are well screened by trees and it is the field to the south which can clearly be seen. 8.1.13 Most of the properties within the hamlet of Twice Brewed have no or very limited views of the site. Only three have direct views of the site from the north and two from the south. People in private residences and visitors engaged in recreational activities which focus on this valued landscape are considered to be highly sensitive to changes in the view. Description of the proposed development 8.1.14 A plan of the proposed Landscape Discovery Centre and Youth Hostel scheme is shown in Figure 7. and images of the building shown in Figure 8. 8.1.15 The design of the proposed building is inspired by the distinctive landforms of the landscape in which it is located. The north face of the building captures aspects of the north facing Whin Sill outcrop itself with the south facing side of the building being softer in form. The main features of the building (which is a maximum of two storeys) are a glazed café facing north east so as to make the most of dramatic views to Peel Crags on the Whin Sill escarpment and to the Roman Wall; a long YHA accommodation block on the west side, and a green roof which takes the form of a long ramp rising out of the ground at the north east corner and which doubles back on itself, eventually ending at a viewpoint above the café. The green roof is to support establishing plant communities associated with the harsh conditions of the Whin Sill outcrop. 8.1.16 The National Park Authority are keen that the new facility should be well integrated with the landscape. However, as the Landscape Discovery Centre is to function as a ‘gateway’ to the landscape of the National Park, it should still be distinctive, acting as a marker in the landscape. 8.1.17 In terms of the project’s external spaces, it is intended that they should blend with the existing rural landscape. On the northern boundary the largest trees would be kept but the poorest quality trees and shrubs would be removed from the Vallum making it easier to see. They would be replaced by new trees planted outside the protected archaeologically sensitive area. On the western boundary, most of the existing tree cover within the YHA garden would be retained as would the footpath link to the Twice Brewed Inn. ‘The Sill’ Landscape Discovery Centre and Youth Hostel, Once Brewed. Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Northumberland National Park Authority and The Youth Hostel Association. Page | 43 Glen Kemp Ltd., January 2014 8.1.18 On the east side of the site new dry stone walls would form the edge of the building and the existing YHA car park (which is currently in the most publicly visible parts of the site) would be removed. As a result there would be only one vehicle access point into the site and that would be in the position of the existing entrance into the National Park visitor centre car park. Near the south facing main entrance to the new building there would be an entrance courtyard, a cycle store and bin store built in dry stone walling with a green roof, and an outdoor classroom space. Just to the south of these spaces would be an upper car park which would lead past a new play area into a lower car park further down the field which is currently used for grazing sheep. The existing triangle of woodland on the eastern site boundary would be retained. 8.1.19 The field slopes down to the Brackies Burn and at the bottom of the valley it is proposed that the more enclosed flatter ground should be used as both an events space and an overflow car park. This would be done in a manner that allowed this attractive area to stay as a green field. 8.1.20 A new footpath would link all the car park levels to the main building and these paths would have low level lighting activated by movement in hours of darkness when necessary. All external lighting would be kept to a minimum and would be designed so as to prevent light pollution. 8.1.21 Outside the site boundary, on the north side of the Military Road opposite the Once Brewed site, a new path would be made through an existing group of trees surrounded by a wall in order to create a safer route from the site, over the road to the Whin Sill and Peel Crags. In addition, an existing field boundary wall would be lowered to improve sight lines at the existing road junction at the north east corner of the site. Anticipated landscape and visual effects 8.1.22 During the early phases of the construction process in particular, when the existing buildings are demolished and earthworks are carried out, the movement and noise of construction traffic would have a substantial adverse effect on the sense of tranquillity. Although seen directly without any screening from only a few viewpoints, the construction site would read as an urban feature out of keeping with the character of the local landscape. This would be temporary however, and the impact would generally reduce as the expected c. 18 month construction project progressed. 8.1.23 By the end of the building works, the removal of the existing poor quality buildings and the improvements to the setting of the Vallum would be beneficial landscape effects. The main adverse effect on the landscape within the site would relate to the creation of the new car park on the upper and central sections of the green field south of the existing visitor centre. This is largely due to the introduction of vehicles and man-made materials which are a strong contrast to the natural appearance of the field. Vehicles could also reflect glare from the sun in certain light conditions. The negative impact of this on the field would be moderately to substantially significant so the scheme includes screen planting within and around the car park which, once established would reduce the negative impact to low significance after 10 years. After 20 years the car park would be virtually completely hidden. 8.1.24 In considering the potential impact of the development project on the special character of this highly valued and sensitive landscape, the assessment looks at: the scale of the new building and external facilities; the form of the building; the materials proposed for both the building and the external spaces including the car park in terms of colour, texture and levels of reflection; signage; the function of the building as a potential primary visitor attraction in the region and the impact of the potential increase in the number of visitors to the site; lighting; movement, and noise. The main negative impacts all relate to the impact of extending car parking into the southern field. As noted , once the planting proposed around the car parking has grown enough to form a screen, this negative impact would be reduced to low levels after 10 years and low – negligible levels after 20 years. 8.1.25 The impact of the proposed development on the quality of views from within the surrounding landscape are assessed using selected representative viewpoints which have been agreed with the National Park planning authority. These viewpoints are identified in Figure 11 and include views from key points to the north along Hadrian’s Wall / the Pennine Way / Hadrian’s Wall Path, as well as views from the Military Road to the east and west, and from near / more distant viewpoints to the south on the south side of the Brackies Burn valley. Where views are considered to be particularly sensitive or significant, photomontages of the proposed development have been produced using computer generated images to show how the building would look in the landscape. These key viewpoints are identified by the reference ‘PM’. Other viewpoints labelled ‘VP’ are shown in a photograph with the location of the Once Brewed site marked. 8.1.26 The impact of the proposed development on the views identified can be summarised as follows: - The effect on views from within the Hadrian’s Wall World Heritage Site and from the two National Trails is assessed as being of negligible significance increasing to low adverse significance at the closest viewpoint (Peel Crags); ‘The Sill’ Landscape Discovery Centre and Youth Hostel, Once Brewed. Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Northumberland National Park Authority and The Youth Hostel Association. Page | 44 Glen Kemp Ltd., January 2014 - From the Military Road corridor, the scheme would have negligible to low adverse impact when approaching from the west, increasing to low to moderate adverse impact when travelling from the east. The latter effect can be reduced to low adverse in time with the mitigation proposed. - From properties / public highway on the south side of the Brackies Burn valley the impact on the view would be of low to moderate adverse impact, reducing with time to negligible – low as screen planting established. From holiday rental properties to the north of the Military Road the negative impact would vary from low to moderate depending on distance from the site. - The impact of the scheme on views in which the site of Vindolanda is visible would be negligible. Mitigation measures 8.1.27 The main reason for the relatively limited adverse impact of the development proposal on the landscape and its views is that right from the first stages of the design process, the integration of the building and its associated car parking into the landscape has been a primary objective. This is reflected in the way the building and car parking is positioned on site and how it relates to the local landform. 8.1.28 In addition, the materials proposed for the building and the external hard landscape elements have been selected for their natural colours and textures and new planting would be carried out using species that grow naturally in the area. 8.1.29 Although the extension of car parking into the field to the south of the existing buildings is seen to have the potential to generate some of the most adverse impacts on the landscape and certain views in the area, on balance, the layout proposed is considered to be the best option available. Other layouts which explored the potential to provide parking in the field to the east of the site were considered and rejected on the basis that they were likely to have unacceptable levels of negative impact. 8.1.30 It is noted that appropriate management plans for the proposed planting and green roof vegetation must be put in place after the works on site are completed in order that these features can perform the roles intended in terms of screening and integrating the building into the landscape. The planting is required to reduce the few individual effects which have been identified as being of moderate to substantial adverse significance, to an appropriate level. A significant reduction in adverse impact would be seen within ten years with continued reduction occurring during the next ten year period. 8.2 Conclusion 8.2.1 The landscape of the Whin Sill escarpment is indeed a special landscape, prized for its unique landscape character, sense of tranquillity and for its dark skies. A series of policies and management plans have been put in place to protect these aspects and make them relevant to the lives of those who live and work in the area and more accessible to those visitors who wish to engage with the landscape in a manner which is completely sustainable. The fact that the new facility is designed specifically with the aim of delivering this broad objective and that, to an extent, the project represents a re-birth of the existing site facilities, is likely to have a positive influence on the way the building is perceived and interpreted in the landscape by those who visit it or view it without any direct engagement. 8.2.2 That the new building is to function as a ‘gateway’ to the National Park landscape means it is expected to have a presence worthy of the role and it is this ‘public’ profile which must be carefully balanced against the requirement to minimise adverse effects on the valued and sensitive landscape and visual character of both the site and the broader landscape of which it is a part. 8.2.3 The fundamental design concept behind the design of the building and the external works appears to have ‘built in’ a significant component of the mitigation strategy for the development which would assist in integrating it into the landscape to a significant degree. The ‘Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document’ within the National Park Local Development Framework notes that sustainable contemporary design is to be supported. The proposed building undoubtedly has contemporary themes but the design follows many of the recommendations, such as using locally available materials; not breaking the skyline; avoiding a suburbanising effect; use of native plant species etc. to help blend it into the local landscape. 8.2.4 There are three principle aspects of the Whin Sill landscape upon which a new building of size and character could potentially have an adverse effect: i) landscape elements within the site; ii) landscape character; iii) visual quality. 8.2.5 With regard to anticipated effects on the physical landscape elements within the site, both adverse and beneficial effects are recorded initially but with time, it is the adverse effects which diminish and the net beneficial effects which are strengthened. ‘The Sill’ Landscape Discovery Centre and Youth Hostel, Once Brewed. Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Northumberland National Park Authority and The Youth Hostel Association. Page | 45 Glen Kemp Ltd., January 2014 8.2.6 The effects of the project on landscape character have been reviewed in detail against various criteria and it is noted that generally, in instances where an effect of ‘moderate adverse’ significance is identified, it is in relation to the extension of the car park into the southern field. As above, this adverse effect is one which can readily be mitigated in time (effective within the first ten years) to a level of low and ultimately negligible significance. 8.2.7 Given the recent award of Dark Sky Park (gold tier) status to the area in question, the issue of potential adverse effects on the quality of the night sky and the night time landscape is of particular resonance. This report has found that the potential for greatest adverse impact occurs when the southern part of the site is experienced from the lower parts of the Brackies Burn valley which, by its very nature involves transient views experienced by comparatively few receptors. From more elevated positions, the potential for adverse impact diminishes and it is confirmed that anticipated impact on night time views of the broader landscape as experienced from within the North Pennines Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, would be negligible. In all instances, the soft landscaping proposed to address mitigation issues relating to the car park in particular, would successfully mitigate against adverse effects on landscape character relating to external lighting. 8.2.8 In terms of the effects of the development project on key views and the visual character of the area, it has been seen that beyond distances of 5km the anticipated change in the view would be negligible. From the viewpoints of international value gained from the line of Hadrian’s Wall World Heritage Site, the visual effects are assessed as being of low adverse significance at worst. 8.2.9 From viewpoints closer to the development site where an overall visual effect of moderate adverse significance is anticipated, it is seen that proposed mitigation measures in the form of appropriate planting would reduce this level of significance to ‘low – negligible’ over time. 8.2.10 Given that much of the secondary mitigation (ie. that which reduces effects rather than prevents them) is dependent on new structure planting, it is important to consider the overall effect of this planting itself and it is concluded that once mature, the belts of native tree and shrub planting proposed for the southern field in particular, would sit comfortably in the view, reading as natural extensions of existing blocks of tree planting either side of the field. 8.2.11 In summary, it is concluded that no enduring adverse landscape or visual effects of substantial or moderate significance are anticipated in association with the development proposal outlined in this report. ‘The Sill’ Landscape Discovery Centre and Youth Hostel, Once Brewed. Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Northumberland National Park Authority and The Youth Hostel Association. Page | 46 Glen Kemp Ltd., January 2014 THE SILL LANDSCAPE DISCOVERY CENTRE AND YOUTH HOSTEL LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT: SCHEDULE OF FIGURES Figure 1 Site Context Plan Figure 2 Existing Site Plan Figure 3 Landscape Character Areas Figure 4 Zone of Theoretical Visibility (1:100,000 scale) Figure 5 Views towards site from Viewpoints VP 6 – 9 within the North Pennines AONB Figure 6 Zone of Theoretical Visibility (1:25,000 scale) Figure 7 Proposed Site Masterplan Figure 8 Proposed Architectural Details Figure 9 Proposed Tree Retention & Removal Plan Figure 10 Rejected Car Park Sketch Options Figures 11 – 18 Photomontage Viewpoints PM1 – PM8 Figures 19 – 20 Viewpoints VP 1-5 'The Sill' Landscape Discovery Centre and Youth Hostel, Once Brewed. Northumberland National Park Authority and The Youth Hostel Association Landscape and Visual Assessment Glen Kemp Ltd., January 2014 Figure 11. FIGURE 11. PHOTOMONTAGE VIEWPOINT PM1 WINSHIELD CRAGS Photomontage Viewpoint PM1 - As Existing Photomontage scaled so that when held at arm's length, it reflects the size of the image of the development as it would appear in the field when seen with the naked eye. Proposed Building Existing Building Photomontage Viewpoint PM1 - Proposed Proposed Building Twice Brewed Inn 'The Sill' Landscape Discovery Centre and Youth Hostel, Once Brewed. Northumberland National Park Authority and The Youth Hostel Association Landscape and Visual Assessment Glen Kemp Ltd., January 2014 Figure 12. FIGURE 12. PHOTOMONTAGE VIEWPOINT PM2 PEEL CRAGS Photomontage Viewpoint PM2 - As Existing Proposed Building Existing Building Photomontage Viewpoint PM2 - Proposed Proposed Building Photomontage scaled so that when held at arm's length, it reflects the size of the image of the development as it would appear in the field when seen with the naked eye. Seatsides Twice Brewed Inn 'The Sill' Landscape Discovery Centre and Youth Hostel, Once Brewed. Northumberland National Park Authority and The Youth Hostel Association Landscape and Visual Assessment Glen Kemp Ltd., January 2014 Figure 13. FIGURE 13. PHOTOMONTAGE VIEWPOINT PM3 MILITARY ROAD CORRIDOR TO THE WEST (nr. Twice Brewed Inn) Photomontage Viewpoint PM3 - As Existing Proposed Building Existing Building Photomontage Viewpoint PM3 - Proposed Proposed Building Photomontage scaled so that when held at arm's length, it reflects the size of the image of the development as it would appear in the field when seen with the naked eye. 'The Sill' Landscape Discovery Centre and Youth Hostel, Once Brewed. Northumberland National Park Authority and The Youth Hostel Association Landscape and Visual Assessment Glen Kemp Ltd., January 2014 Figure 14. FIGURE 14. PHOTOMONTAGE VIEWPOINT PM4 MILITARY ROAD TO THE EAST Photomontage Viewpoint PM4 - As Existing Photomontage Viewpoint PM4 - Proposed Proposed BuildingExisting Building Proposed Building Photomontage scaled so that when held at arm's length, it reflects the size of the image of the development as it would appear in the field when seen with the naked eye. 'The Sill' Landscape Discovery Centre and Youth Hostel, Once Brewed. Northumberland National Park Authority and The Youth Hostel Association Landscape and Visual Assessment Glen Kemp Ltd., January 2014 Figure 15. FIGURE 15. PHOTOMONTAGE VIEWPOINT PM5 SEATSIDES RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY & PROW Photomontage Viewpoint PM5 - As Existing Proposed Building Existing Building Photomontage Viewpoint PM5 - Proposed Proposed Building Photomontage scaled so that when held at arm's length, it reflects the size of the image of the development as it would appear in the field when seen with the naked eye. Peel Crags 'The Sill' Landscape Discovery Centre and Youth Hostel, Once Brewed. Northumberland National Park Authority and The Youth Hostel Association Landscape and Visual Assessment Glen Kemp Ltd., January 2014 Figure 16. FIGURE 16. PHOTOMONTAGE VIEWPOINT PM6 'LONG STONE' VIEWPOINT & PROW, THORNGRAFTON COMMON Photomontage Viewpoint PM6 - As Existing Proposed Building Existing Building Photomontage Viewpoint PM6 - Proposed Proposed Building Photomontage scaled so that when held at arm's length, it reflects the size of the image of the development as it would appear in the field when seen with the naked eye. Vindolanda Roman Fort 'The Sill' Landscape Discovery Centre and Youth Hostel, Once Brewed. Northumberland National Park Authority and The Youth Hostel Association Landscape and Visual Assessment Glen Kemp Ltd., January 2014 Figure 17. FIGURE 17. PHOTOMONTAGE VIEWPOINT PM7 SPRINGWELL COTTAGE, NATIONAL TRUST HOLIDAY COTTAGE Photomontage Viewpoint PM7 - As Existing Proposed Building Existing Building Photomontage Viewpoint PM7 - Proposed Proposed Building Photomontage scaled so that when held at arm's length, it reflects the size of the image of the development as it would appear in the field when seen with the naked eye. 'The Sill' Landscape Discovery Centre and Youth Hostel, Once Brewed. Northumberland National Park Authority and The Youth Hostel Association Landscape and Visual Assessment Glen Kemp Ltd., January 2014 Figure 18. FIGURE 18. PHOTOMONTAGE VIEWPOINT PM8 HENSHAW TO ONCE BREWED MINOR COUNTRY ROAD Photomontage Viewpoint PM8- As Existing Proposed Building Existing Building Photomontage Viewpoint PM8 - Proposed Proposed Building Photomontage scaled so that when held at arm's length, it reflects the size of the image of the development as it would appear in the field when seen with the naked eye. Twice Brewed Inn 'The Sill' Landscape Discovery Centre and Youth Hostel, Once Brewed. Northumberland National Park Authority and The Youth Hostel Association Landscape and Visual Assessment Glen Kemp Ltd., January 2014 Figure 19. FIGURE 19. PHOTOGRAPHIC VIEWPOINTS VP1-VP3 Photographic Viewpoint VP1 - Military Road corridor to the west of the Twice Brewed Inn (nr. Vallum Lodge Guest House) Photographic Viewpoint VP2 - PROW near Melkridge Tilery Campsite Photographic Viewpoint VP3 - Peel Bothy, National Trust holiday cottage Existing Building Existing Building Existing Building Southern Field 'The Sill' Landscape Discovery Centre and Youth Hostel, Once Brewed. Northumberland National Park Authority and The Youth Hostel Association Landscape and Visual Assessment Glen Kemp Ltd., January 2014 Figure 20. FIGURE 20. PHOTOGRAPHIC VIEWPOINTS VP4-VP5 Photographic Viewpoint VP4 - Milecastle 39 nr. Sycamore Gap (Hadrian's Wall Path and Pennine Way). NB: Site is not visible from Sycamore Gap itself. Photographic Viewpoint VP5 - Hotbank Crags (Hadrian's Wall Path and Pennine Way) Existing Building Existing Building APPENDIX G VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN, VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT Village Specific Plan Visual Impact Assessment Prepared for: The City of Del Mar Planning and Community Development Department 1050 Camino del Mar Del Mar, CA 92014 Prepared by: KTU+A Planning and Landscape Architecture 3916 Normal Street San Diego, CA 92103 March 13, 2012 Revised July 5, 2012 Visual Impact Assessment Table of Contents VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012 Page | i Table of Contents 1.0 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY ............................................................................................. 3 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................ 3 3.0 ASSESSMENT METHOD ................................................................................................. 5 4.0 VISUAL ENVIRONMENT OF THE PROJECT ................................................................. 5 4.1 Project Setting ....................................................................................................... 5 4.2 Regulatory Setting ................................................................................................. 7 4.2.1 State Scenic Highway Program ................................................................. 7 4.2.2 California Coastal Act ................................................................................ 7 4.2.3 Del Mar Community Plan ........................................................................... 7 4.2.4 Scenic View Protection Ordinance ............................................................ 7 4.2.5 Tree Ordinance .......................................................................................... 8 4.2.6 Design Review ........................................................................................... 8 4.2.7 Historic Preservation Overlay Zone ........................................................... 9 4.2.8 Other Municipal Code Regulations ............................................................ 9 4.3 Visual Character Units ......................................................................................... 10 4.4 Project Viewshed and Views ............................................................................... 23 5.0 EXISTING VISUAL RESOURCES AND VIEWER RESPONSE ..................................... 36 5.1 Methods used for Visual Resource Analysis ....................................................... 36 5.2 Existing Visual Resources ................................................................................... 37 5.2.1 Scenic Resources .................................................................................... 37 5.2.2 Existing Visual Character ......................................................................... 41 5.2.3 Existing Visual Quality ............................................................................. 41 5.3 Methods of Predicting Viewer Response............................................................. 42 5.3.1 Existing Viewer Groups, Viewer Sensitivity, and Viewer Exposure ......... 42 6.0 VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT .................................................................................. 45 6.1 Method of Assessing Impacts ............................................................................. 45 6.2 Definition of Visual Impact Levels........................................................................ 45 6.3 Analysis of Candidate Key Views ........................................................................ 45 6.4 Analysis of Key View Simulations........................................................................ 46 6.5 Impact Assessment Summary ............................................................................. 65 7.0 VISUAL MITIGATION ..................................................................................................... 67 7.1 Visual Mitigation Options ..................................................................................... 67 7.2 Visual Impacts After Mitigations .......................................................................... 68 8.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 71 List of Figures Figure 4-1: Project Location and Village Specific Plan Boundary ................................................. 6 Figure 4-2: Viewshed and Human Eyesight Dynamics ............................................................... 24 Figure 4-3: Determining Ocean Views from Slopes .................................................................... 26 Visual Impact Assessment Table of Contents VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012 Page | ii Figure 4-4: Viewshed Trendline with Existing Buildings along CDM .......................................... 27 Figure 4-5: Viewshed Trendline with Proposed Buildings along CDM ........................................ 28 Figure 4-6: Viewshed Trendline Net Difference .......................................................................... 29 Figure 4-7: Viewshed of Existing Buildings along CDM .............................................................. 30 Figure 4-8: Viewshed of the Proposed Buildings along Camino del Mar .................................... 31 Figure 4-9: Viewshed Net Difference of Building Heights ........................................................... 32 Figure 4-10: Ocean Viewsheds and View Corridors Along and Through Camino del Mar ......... 33 Figure 6-1: Key View Simulation “A” ........................................................................................... 47 Figure 6-2: Key View Simulation “B” ........................................................................................... 49 Figure 6-3: Key View Simulation “C” ........................................................................................... 51 Figure 6-4: Key View Simulation “D1” ......................................................................................... 53 Figure 6-5: Key View Simulation “D2” ......................................................................................... 55 Figure 6-6: Key View Simulation “E” ........................................................................................... 57 Figure 6-7: Key View Simulation “F1” ......................................................................................... 59 Figure 6-8: Key View Simulation “F2” ......................................................................................... 60 Figure 6-9: Key View Simulation “F3” ......................................................................................... 61 Figure 6-10: Key View Simulation “F4” ....................................................................................... 62 Figure 6-11: Key View Simulation “G” ......................................................................................... 64 List of Tables Table 5-1: Visual Quality Assessment of Character Units .......................................................... 41 Table 5-2: Summary of Viewer Groups ....................................................................................... 44 List of Appendices APPENDIX A CANDIDATE KEY VIEWS ............................................................................. A-1 Visual Impact Assessment VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012 Page | 3 1.0 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY The purpose of this study is to assess the visual impacts of the proposed Del Mar Village Specific Plan, also referred to as the Village Specific Plan. The study also proposes measures to mitigate any adverse visual impacts associated with the implementation of the plan and its effect on the visual environment. 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project consists of a new Specific Plan for the Village that is designed to implement the vision found in the Community Plan. Some of the major policies that may affect the visual environment resulting from implementation of the Specific Plan include: • increased development potential within the study area; • requirements for a build-to line requiring a street wall along the walk for storefronts; • requirements for various setbacks from property lines and stepbacks of upper building elements; • raised height limit to 26’-0” on the western side of Camino del Mar to match the allowed height limit on the eastern side; • height limit bonus for an additional 4’ 0” on top of the 26’-0” for articulated rooflines; • creation of a mixed-use zone for commercial properties that also allows residential development at a density of 20 dwelling units per acre; • permitting parking structures in both the mixed-use and public facilities zones; • redesigned sidewalks and on-street parking to be continuous and aligned within the public right-of-way; and, • redesigned Camino del Mar to be a 2-lane roadway with roundabouts at key intersections. The new Specific Plan would allow building parcels to increase their maximum development potential from the existing .45 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) to a 1.0 FAR. Proposed allowed building heights would be 26 feet above Camino del Mar for properties that face Camino del Mar to allow two stories. Side street parcels within the Specific Plan would be allowed to have a 26’-0” height from their average street front property elevation. Roof articulation features may extend an additional four feet, but would not be allowed to create habitable space. Three parcel-specific Specific Plans have been previously adopted and fall within the Village Specific Plan boundaries: the Hotel Specific Plan (L’Auberge), the Plaza Specific Plan (Del Mar Plaza and 1435 Camino del Mar), and the Garden Del Mar Specific Plan (941 Camino del Mar and 307 10 th Street). Both the Hotel and Plaza have been developed according to their adopted Specific Plans. The Garden Del Mar site remains entitled, but undeveloped and vacant. No build-out is anticipated beyond that which is currently constructed at either the L’Auberge Hotel or the Del Mar Plaza, excluding 1435 Camino del Mar. Visual Impact Assessment VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012 Page | 4 Computer model outputs showing existing buildings (top), maximum building envelopes (middle) and theoretical infill buildings (bottom). These views are looking from the north, by the Del Mar Plaza at 15th Street, southward to 9th Street. Visual Impact Assessment VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012 Page | 5 3.0 ASSESSMENT METHOD The study follows Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) thresholds for visual impacts identified by the State of California and further defined by the Association of Environmental Planners. In addition, methods used at the federal level have also been included, even though this study is not a NEPA document, they are relevant for visual studies. The processes from the federal level used in this visual impact study generally follow the guidelines outlined in the publication "Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projects," Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), March 1981, as well as processes known as “Visual Resource Management” methods from the Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service and the National Forest Service. Local, state, federal guidelines and national standards commonly suggest six steps for conducting visual impacts. They are as follows: A. Define the project setting and viewshed. B. Identify key views for visual assessment. C. Analyze existing visual resources and viewer response. D. Depict the visual appearance of project alternatives. E. Assess the visual impacts of project alternatives. F. Propose methods to mitigate adverse or significant visual impacts. 4.0 VISUAL ENVIRONMENT OF THE PROJECT 4.1 Project Setting The Village Specific Plan boundary is shown in Figure 4-1. The plan occupies approximately 40 acres within the urbanized town center of Del Mar. The Village Specific Plan generally encompasses the central business district corridor that is along Camino del Mar between 9th Street and approximately the easterly alignment of 17th Street. Additionally, commercial and post office properties along 15th Street west to Stratford Court are included. Visual Impact Assessment VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012 Page | 6 Figure 4-1: Project Location and Village Specific Plan Boundary Visual Impact Assessment VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012 Page | 7 4.2 Regulatory Setting 4.2.1 State Scenic Highway Program California's Scenic Highway Program was created by the Legislature in 1963. Its purpose is to preserve and protect scenic highway corridors from change, which would diminish the aesthetic value of lands adjacent to highways. There are no designated or eligible scenic highways in the area listed in the California Scenic Highway Program. 4.2.2 California Coastal Act Under the California Coastal Act of 1976, scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas are considered and protected as a visual resource. Permitted development should be sited and designed to protect public views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas. The act also requires minimizing the alteration of natural landforms, to assure that they are visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and, where feasible, to restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas. The City implements their Local Coastal Plan (LCP) through the Community Plan, various policy reports, the San Dieguito Lagoon Enhancement Program, as well as other goals and policies adopted by the City Council to guide future development within Del Mar. Aesthetic components of the LCP relevant to the Plan area include development of a community center with attractive walkways and landscaped court and open spaces, pedestrian-oriented streetscapes, and architectural style which retains a small-town character and preserves public ocean views and public access to the coastline. 4.2.3 Del Mar Community Plan The Del Mar Community Plan (1976 amended 1985) includes goals and policies that address aesthetics. The overall goal is to “[p]reserve and enhance the special character of Del Mar, the elements of which are a village-like community of substantially single- family residential character, a picturesque and rugged site, and a beautiful beach.” Other goals applicable to aesthetics include minimizing the impact of vehicles on the character of the City, and preserving and enhancing the “special residential character and small town atmosphere with its harmonious blending of buildings and landscape in proximity to a beautiful shoreline.” As identified in the Community Plan, Camino del Mar is a scenic roadway and views of the Pacific Ocean and other visual resources such as bluffs and trees are to be protected. Jimmy Durante Boulevard (formerly Turf Road), Crest Road, Carmel Valley Road, Coast Boulevard, and Del Mar Heights Road are also considered scenic roadways; however, the Plan area is not located within the scenic views identified for preservation for these roadways. 4.2.4 Scenic View Protection Ordinance DMMC Chapter 23.51 provides for protection of trees, scenic views, and sunlight that contribute to the character of the City and benefit to residents. This chapter is informally known as the Scenic View Protection Ordinance and gives residents the right to preserve scenic views or sunlight that existed at the time they purchased or occupied the residence or in the last 10 years, whichever is shorter. Scenic views are defined as “a view of the ocean, lagoons, canyons, the community and its landscapes and urban forest character, or other scenic vistas, from the Primary Living Area of a residence.” Primary Living Areas are defined as the “[single] portion of a residence from which a Scenic View is observed most often by the occupants and guests at the residence.” Visual Impact Assessment VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012 Page | 8 Under this ordinance, vegetation and trees must be properly maintained within 300 feet of residential properties to preserve scenic views and sunlight. The Municipal Code has established a procedure to resolve conflicts regarding protected trees, scenic views and sunlight rights. 4.2.5 Tree Ordinance The Tree Ordinance (Chapter 23.50 of the DMMC) provides for the orderly protection of trees, including the following measures: B. In the interest of the public health, safety and welfare, as well as general aesthetics of the community and the importance of the ecology of the area, the City of Del Mar finds it necessary to encourage conservation of trees and the application of management techniques to create a healthy, diverse urban forest, including but not limited to pruning, thinning, trimming, shaping, and selective planting and removal of trees and vegetation within the City of Del Mar on private as well as public property. [Ord. 749] C. The species Torrey Pine, the species Monterey Cypress, and all species of trees located within the Central Commercial zone and the environmentally sensitive Open Space Overlay zone are of particular significance to the City, and should therefore be protected to conserve the environmental qualities of the City. To further enforce this protection, the City of Del Mar prepared a Public Tree Policy Manual in 2004. This manual directs tree preservation in order to preserve the community’s unique, village-like atmosphere, which is distinguished by its community forest. Trees species of particular concern include Torrey pines and Monterey cypress, although the manual indicates all trees within the Plan area are considered significant. A Tree Removal Permit is required to remove a Protected Tree, except in certain situations outlined in the Municipal Code Chapter 23.50.050. In the case of public trees, a separate Encroachment Permit from the City is also required (this statement does not apply to the City or its contractors). Implemented through the Design Review process, trees are also required to be protected during construction to prevent tree loss. 4.2.6 Design Review Ordinance The Design Review Chapter 23.08 of DMMC Title 23 (also known as Design Review Ordinance) requires all new construction or major remodeling projects within the Plan area to obtain a Design Review Permit (DRP). The purpose of the DRP is to “to achieve and protect a residential, seaside community which is both beautiful and pleasant in character, by fostering and encouraging good design which encompasses the use of harmonious materials and colors, compatible proportional relationships and appropriate use of landscaping, and to protect the citizens of the City of Del Mar.” The DRP process includes several evaluation components, including many related to aesthetics. Overall, the evaluation components provide the following guidance: • Minimize the disruption of existing natural features such as trees and other vegetation, natural ground forms, and view. This includes blending proposed grading with existing topography. • Include landscaping that matches existing landscaping in the area and compliments and visually softens buildings. Visual Impact Assessment VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012 Page | 9 • Unattractive features shall be screened from view. • Minimize blockage impacts to public and private coastal views, and retains scenic resources. • Development shall be similar in scale and design (including style, materials, or colors) relative to the surrounding neighborhood; however, similar or identical building façades shall be avoided on adjacent parcels. • Design lighting to reduce adverse impacts to the local neighborhood and be architecturally integrated. • Views and designs shall be considered in all elevations. The Design Review section of the Design Regulations (Section 23.08.070) does not allow projects where “design unreasonably blocks significant public coastal views” or “unreasonably encroaches upon primary scenic views of neighboring property.” As the above information is only a summary of several pages of evaluation components, please refer to the Design Review Ordinance for more information. As a part of the Design Review aesthetics analysis, story poles may be required to indicate the proposed alignment and massing of a development. Story poles are required for projects that involve a new structure, a second-story addition to an existing structure, or any addition which, in the estimation of staff or the Design Review Board, may cause concerns about inappropriate bulk and mass, or view blockage. The story pole analysis shall be completed per the City’s story poles application guide. The Design Review Board, or City Council, has the authority to impose conditions on projects to protect and enhance the health, safety, and welfare of the surrounding area, and to ensure that projects fully meet the criteria as set forth in Chapter 23.08 of the Municipal Code. As stated in Chapter 23.08.100, conditions shall be reasonably related to the project. 4.2.7 Historic Preservation Overlay Zone The DMMC designates the HP-OZ. The HP-OZ protects the architectural and historic integrity of certain historically significant properties located within the City. The Stratford Square and the City Library are the two sites within the Plan area with HP-OZ designations. In addition, the residence at 110 15th Street, the former train station, the Powerhouse Community Center located west of Coast Boulevard, and the “Rock House,” a residence located adjacent to the east side of the Plan area are nearby properties with HP-OZ designations. 4.2.8 Other Municipal Code Regulations Other DMMC regulations also indirectly regulate aesthetic impacts. Supplemental Municipal Code zoning regulations in Chapter 30.86 pertain to undergrounding utilities; fences; screening of unsightly uses including garbage storage space; rooftop structures (chimneys and vents); yard landscaping; and yard projections. The zoning code provides height and density restrictions. Within the Plan area, height restrictions include 26 feet for properties along east side of Camino del Mar and 14 feet along the west side of Camino del Mar. Currently, 70 percent of the structures on the west side of Camino del Mar are nonconforming in that they already exceed this 14-foot building height restriction. Visual Impact Assessment VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012 Page | 10 Assignment of a maximum FAR, the amount of building square footage relative to the size of a development parcel is a primary means by which Del Mar and other communities control the visible bulk and mass of structures. The maximum allowable FAR in the Central Commercial Zone is 0.45 and the Public Facilities Zone does not have a FAR limit. Forty percent of the existing buildings in the Village already exceed the current CC Zone 0.45 FAR limitation. In addition, signs are regulated by Municipal Code Chapter 30.84. 4.24.3 Visual Character Units A visual character unit is a portion of the regional landscape that can be thought of as an outdoor room exhibiting a distinct and definable visual character. A character unit will often correspond to a place or district that is commonly known among local viewers. A total of seven visual character units have been identified either within the specific plan boundary or adjacent to the boundary: Civic, Residential, Commercial, Hotel, Plaza, Vacant, Street and Streetscape. These units are important to establish the context of the visual environment. Impacts to a visual environment resulting from project changes, all depend on the visual character setting in which these changes occur. Civic Character Unit Civic spaces within the Village Specific Plan boundary include the City Hall, the Library, and the Post Office. All three of these buildings are unique in character and are set off the street. The City Hall site is underutilized and consists of a building on the corner of Camino del Mar and 11th Street and a large parking lot adjacent to Camino del Mar. Visual Impact Assessment VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012 Page | 11 Residential Character Unit The residential neighborhoods are both to the west and east of Camino del Mar. The architecture and landscape ranges in style. The buildings are tucked behind the main streets and are either moderately or highly hidden by mature landscape and trees. The buildings heights are limited to protect views to the oceans and generally follow the topography. Visual Impact Assessment VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012 Page | 12 Commercial Character Units The commercial character unit along Camino del Mar varies in architectural style and character. The buildings are limited and consistent in height because of the current restrictions in the municipal code. The setbacks on the buildings vary and are inconsistent, which creates a variable pedestrian space between the roadway and building façade. Visual Impact Assessment VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012 Page | 13 Hotel and Plaza Character Unit The Plaza development at the north end of the study area includes a variety of view- oriented restaurants and retail that take advantage of the topography. The project is generally oriented around a pedestrian experience. The Plaza includes an underground parking garage at the north end of the character unit. Across the street to the west is the L'Auberge Del Mar Hotel. It creates a visual gateway into the commercial core of Del Mar. Both of these developments include manicured landscape with modernized, well- maintained architecture. Visual Impact Assessment VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012 Page | 14 Vacant / Parking Character Unit Most of the lots in the Del Mar Village area are developed, though the intensity of development is only moderate compared to many downtown areas of similar size to Del Mar. Much of the land not occupied by buildings is used for surface parking. Large lots are found at the City Hall, and diagonal parking is in front of several businesses along Camino del Mar. There is one parcel that is vacant. This parcel is comprised of an asphalt-paved surface with a wooden fence surrounding the site. Visual Impact Assessment VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012 Page | 15 Street and Streetscape Character Unit The existing right-of-way along Camino del Mar is 100 feet wide with parking, bike lanes, two lanes of travel in each direction and a median. The parking along this street is inconsistent and includes parallel, head-in and diagonal parking. There are mature plantings within the median, which include random groupings of large, mature trees. The pedestrian spaces between the face of curb and buildings fronting Camino del Mar vary greatly because of the buildings setbacks and other unique site constraints. The paving, planting, furnishings, lighting, and signage are inconsistent. Visual Impact Assessment VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012 Page | 16 Recreation Character Unit The recreation character unit includes Powerhouse Park and the bluffs and coastline along the Pacific Ocean. Many local residents and visitors use these areas for a variety of recreational opportunities. Powerhouse Park consists of an expansive lawn with tables and benches. Adjacent to this park heading south, there are pathways on top of bluffs that are covered in native and non-native vegetation with direct views to the ocean below that individuals use for walking and running. Visual Impact Assessment VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012 Page | 17 Existing Architectural Form and Street Character The City of Del Mar has an eclectic and unique character resulting from a mixture of architecture, landscape, parking facilities, and the streetscape elements. Camino del Mar is the main road through the city and development is concentrated on each side of it. It is comprised of two travel lanes in both directions with bike lanes inconsistently located along its length. Parking includes of a variety of parallel and angled parking with some of it within the right of way. Other spaces are arranged in a “town and country” style on private property in front of buildings. The north and southbound lanes are divided by landscaped medians with mature trees and a variety of smaller shrubs and groundcover. Architectural Character: One of the major contributors to the eclectic style of Del Mar is the variety of architectural styles present along Camino del Mar. The buildings generally take elements from a specific architectural style or period but do not always follow one style consistently. The mixture of styles from lot to lot creates a distinctive style and character. This occurs throughout the Specific Plan area. A good example of this mixture can be seen on the west side of Camino del Mar south of 15th Street. The photograph on the left illustrates three unrelated styles for three different buildings. The building on the far right was built in the Tudor Revival style while the building at the far left has elements of Spanish Revival. The building in the middle has no distinct style but was built during the 1970s. It is this blend of variety of mixed styles that contributes to the eclectic feel and unique character of the Village of Del Mar. Although the architectural styles of the buildings are different along Camino del Mar, there are consistencies with respect to materials, doors, and windows openings. The buildings incorporate a variety of materials. All types of colors, textures and materials from stucco finishes to brick can be found along Camino del Mar. Doors and windows also have a significant impact on the success of the pedestrian environment and overall streetscape. The buildings that contribute most to the streetscape environment are the ones that activate the pedestrian experience. These buildings typically have doors that are easily identifiable and windows that allow for shop displays starting no more than 24”’ above the exterior grade and extend to at least 6’ in height. The majority of buildings along Camino del Mar have larger display windows with easily accessible doors. Below are two photographs that illustrate the use of these larger windows and door entries. Visual Impact Assessment VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012 Page | 18 The architectural style varies, from Tudor and Scandinavian architecture to Polynesian hip roof styles. Though of different heights and scales, these two buildings are good examples of period and style consistent structures that add to the sense of place of Del Mar. Other buildings do not portray much of a style and are either dominated by the front lot parking areas or tend to be modern architecture with limited indoor/outdoor spatial connections. Visual Impact Assessment VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012 Page | 19 Street Character: Just as the buildings are architecturally varied, the sidewalk conditions and building placements along Camino del Mar are varied as well. The sidewalk is sometimes constructed of brick pavers, concrete, or a combination of materials. Buildings are sometimes set back to accommodate larger café areas and planting areas and other times buildings are placed in a zero lot line condition. The photograph below (upper left) shows two buildings with two different setbacks. The building on the left has incorporated the additional setback distance for a covered porch and clothing sales rack while the building on the right is utilizing the space for exterior cafe seating. Larger setbacks can also be used to create courtyards or additional exterior space to be shared amongst buildings. The photograph below (right) shows two buildings with a building between that is setback more than 10’. This large setback allows for some relief from the building edge, but also provides an area of larger outdoor sale opportunities or alternatively a café or restaurant. Variations in setbacks enhance the streetscape experience and add interest to the physical environment while creating opportunities for additional exterior uses. The addition of different sidewalk materials and varied building setbacks contribute to the unique character of this area. The variation between design elements indicates that changes to the area will not dramatically contrast or “stand out” by being different. A unifying design element is missing from this portion of Del Mar. Efforts in the future may attempt to provide uniformity through the walkway materials, street lights, benches and plant material found along the corridor. Recently, some efforts have been made in terms of adding a “Del Mar” branding to its benches and trash receptacles. Also, many of the sidewalk areas recently added are providing a consistent exposed chipped rock aggregate that will help to provide a unifying element along the street. Many buildings along Camino del Mar address the pedestrian experience successfully. Although the average sidewalk width is approximately 10’, the sidewalk contains many streetscape elements including, benches, planter boxes with small shrubs, outdoor cafes, clothing racks, signage and other human scaled elements. The photograph at the left illustrates an example of how street elements set the character of the streetscape. Visual Impact Assessment VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012 Page | 20 Plazas associated with some of the larger developments are often activated by outside eating and sitting areas. Shade, water features and defined spaces are often included. Though both examples have outdoor spaces at the front of the buildings, the image on the left lacks activation of its space based on adjacent land uses and lack of seating facilities. Some buildings do not have clear windows that encourage window-shopping and others are negatively affected by the angle parking that forces the walkways away from the street. Visual Impact Assessment VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012 Page | 21 There is a great deal of variety in rooflines and overall forms, as well as setbacks and parking areas. Many of the streetscapes are highly detailed with plant material, overheads, seating and fountains. Very nice examples include those with a great integration of interior or exterior spaces or those that have used plant material and seat walls to define a transitional space from public to private. Visual Impact Assessment VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012 Page | 22 Some areas have great spatial definition, some created away from the street while others are spatially flat and linear with limited façade variations that define the street wall. The street wall varies and is often determined by the sidewalk and angle off-street parking. Pedestrians are not always up against the road edge, which makes for a non-contiguous street edge. Visual Impact Assessment VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012 Page | 23 4.34.4 Project Viewshed and Views Viewshed Definition: the natural environment that is visible from one or more viewing points (Merriam-Webster). From a Geographic information systems (GIS) standpoint, viewsheds can be described as the determination of visibility of a surface DEM (digital elevation model) by one or more observer points located on that surface. The visibility of each surface cell center is determined by comparing the altitude angle of the cell center (surface) with the altitude angle to the local horizon of each observer point. The local horizon is computed by considering the intervening terrain between the point of observation and the current cell center. If the point lies above the local horizon, it is considered visible (see Figure 4-2). The landform surface model was obtained from an existing digital elevation model. The resolution of each surface cell analyzed in the model is 10 meters by 10 meters, or approximately 1,076 square feet. Viewshed Processes: A viewshed for a single vantage point may be run across a surface in order to predict what can be seen from that single vantage point. This is valuable in validating whether areas across the surface are visible or not from that specific location. This does not, however, give us quantitative information about the degree of visibility for a given area. To simulate how many project features, or how much project area can be seen, a viewshed can be run from the project features (or area) using this surface. Many visual test points are used in these models and the visible points can be added up to give an idea of the overall extent of the Viewshed. The dynamics of the Del Mar visual environment requires the development of two distinctively different viewshed types. Views of the Pacific Ocean are an important aspect of living in Del Mar. They affect property values and the quality of life. Though one large body of water, the ocean in visual terms has: a horizon line or background view; an open water view or middle ground view; and a coastal beach / shore view or a foreground view. The proposed buildings on Camino del Mar have the potential of blocking views of the ocean by interceding or piercing the view corridor. A viewshed model was developed first to determine the leading edge of the ocean as seen by all of the residents on the slopes east of Camino del Mar. Then, the leading edge of this view was selected and a viewshed model was developed to show the areas that can see the multiple points along this linear leading edge in the ocean. Interceding buildings along Camino del Mar, as well as other topography in the area, determine what can see this leading edge and what cannot (see Figure 4-4). It should be noted that vegetation and other buildings outside the Specific Plan area are not in the model, so the results should be considered as the worst-case situation. The real viewshed model can be dramatically less than this due to other buildings and vegetation. The computer model was then modified to include increased building heights allowed in the Specific Plan and another viewshed model was calculated (see Figure 4-5). Finally, the difference between the current viewshed and the proposed viewshed based on the building height differences was calculated (see Figure 4-6). Using the processes above, the viewsheds to the project and from the project were analyzed. As shown in Figure 4-7, the majority of the buildings along Camino del Mar are visible from residences located uphill between Camino del Mar and Luneta Drive and again at the residences to the north and south of Crest Drive. Locations along Camino del Mar also have high visibility of other buildings along Camino Del Mar. The remaining areas within the City have a low to moderate visibility of the buildings along Camino del Mar. Visual Impact Assessment VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012 Page | 24 Figure 4-2: Viewshed and Human Eyesight Dynamics Visual Impact Assessment VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012 Page | 25 A second series of viewshed models were developed that show the visibility of the buildings themselves, without regard to the background ocean views. This second viewshed model was run showing the areas that can see the current buildings along Camino del Mar. Then the computer model was adjusted by increasing building heights to 30’ with variable roof heights from 26’ to 30’ (see Figure 4-8). The difference between the building heights and their affect on the viewshed extent is shown on Figure 4-9. The view corridor summary map shown on Figure 4-10, illustrates where view corridors exist through the Specific Plan area to the Pacific Ocean. This analysis indicates locations of primary, secondary, intermittent and partial ocean view corridors. Generally, primary view corridors consist of the east-west streets that extend through the Plan area to the bluffs. The secondary views corridors originate from roadways located to the east of the Plan area along streets that either do not go all the way through Camino del Mar, or where the angle of the streets a few blocks to the east of the Specific Plan area, allow for additional views to the west. The analysis also locates where intermittent views of the ocean are visible from Camino del Mar, generally where buildings are currently missing, or large gaps between buildings are available. In some cases, the elevation along Camino del Mar, affords some minor views towards the northwest, over existing single story buildings. Finally, this analysis determines where private parcels along Camino del Mar, have portals, gaps or plazas on the street that allow users of Camino del Mar to see small portions of ocean views. However, most of these views are very confined or are currently blocked by other buildings and trees. The Viewshed summary map also indicates areas to the east of Camino del Mar that have been grouped into view categories. Upper slopes east of Camino del Mar above a certain elevation (shown in light yellow), see entirely over the buildings along Camino del Mar. In some cases, they may see the views of buildings in the specific plan area, but they are not blocking middle-ground views of the ocean beyond the beach, nor do they interrupt the horizon line. Whether buildings are 14’ or 30’ from this area, their presence would not be considered a blocking of a view corridor to the ocean. This zone is overlaid on the Viewshed maps indicating visibility of the trend line in the ocean. Those area that are a very pale yellow, do not have visibility of the ocean, due to interceding topography and canyon landforms. Those that have an orange to red color showing through the pale yellow, have increasing degrees of visibility of the ocean. The lower slopes show in bright yellow on Figure 4-10, are those from approximately one to two blocks east of Camino del Mar. Depending on topography, these roadway segments and private parcels, potentially have a small portion of their views blocked by buildings that are 26’ or taller. Several existing buildings currently block views of the lower portions of the ocean, and dozens of mature trees also interrupt these views. In general, a building between 26’ and 30’ would be part of the viewing scene of the middle-ground from this area, and the near shoreline out past the trend line (shown on Figures 4-3 to 4-6). The horizon line is not likely to be interrupted by buildings up to 30’. The next zone shown on Figure 4-10 (in red) includes parcels that are generally from ½ block to 1 block from Camino del Mar. These properties do have views blocked off by buildings on the east side that are greater than 14’ in height and buildings on the west side of about 20’-24’ in height. Some views do exist from this location, but most of these properties are either commercial properties on the back side of the eastern lots on Camino del Mar, or front the alley. Finally, the green zone shows areas along Camino del Mar that have there views of the ocean completely blocked by any building that is 6’ to 14’ in height. Visual Impact Assessment VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012 Page | 26 Figure 4-3: Determining Ocean Views from Slopes This figure shows the ocean views as seen from the slopes east of Camino del Mar. The deeper the red, the more houses (indicated with black dots) that can see this part of the ocean. Visual Impact Assessment VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012 Page | 27 Figure 4-4: Viewshed Trendline with Existing Buildings along CDM Viewshed of the trendline (dashed line) on the ocean determined to be the most visible part of the near ocean that most structures on the slopes east of Camino del Mar can see (given current buildings and landforms that block views). Visual Impact Assessment VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012 Page | 28 Figure 4-5: Viewshed Trendline with Proposed Buildings along CDM Viewshed of the ocean (trendline) given increased building heights (from 26’ to 30’ variable roofline) along Camino del Mar. Visual Impact Assessment VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012 Page | 29 Figure 4-6: Viewshed Trendline Net Difference Net difference of areas where portions of the view of the ocean (trendline) would be partially blocked by building heights along Camino del Mar versus existing building heights. Visual Impact Assessment VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012 Page | 30 Figure 4-7: Viewshed of Existing Buildings along CDM Areas in color indicate those areas of Del Mar that can see existing buildings along Camino del Mar. Red areas can see most all buildings, whereas areas with no color see no buildings. Visual Impact Assessment VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012 Page | 31 Figure 4-8: Viewshed of the Proposed Buildings along Camino del Mar The viewshed shown indicates areas that can see the existing and proposed buildings. New buildings have replaced existing buildings where it has been assumed the site would redevelop. Visual Impact Assessment VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012 Page | 32 Figure 4-9: Viewshed Net Difference of Building Heights Net difference of properties affected by changes in building heights (note that blue colors indicate minor change in visibility while orange indicates a more dramatic change). Visual Impact Assessment VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012 Page | 33 Figure 4-10: Ocean Viewsheds and View Corridors Along and Through Camino del Mar Visual Impact Assessment VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012 Page | 34 Most of the east to west streets have views of the ocean, but the amount of ocean seen can vary dramatically as you head to the east, where just one block will allow you to see over most buildings. Views heading north or southbound on Camino del Mar are much more limited. Where they do appear, it is the result of a break in building masses and where mature plant material does not exist. A few midblock views can be seen between buildings. A portion of the ocean can be seen from across from the east side of the street, though more dramatic views can be seen from the west side. Visual Impact Assessment VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012 Page | 35 Other openings exist, but contain a large amount of walls or landscaping that blocks most of the view. Current buildings block most of the views as seen from the road or sidewalk. Even a depressed 14’ building cannot be seen over the top from this side. Where buildings are missing, views do exist. Views over buildings occur once you head east up the streets and gain altitude. Views over the west side buildings from the first half block eastward only occur over the top of 14’ buildings. It is likely that buildings at 26’ to 30’ will not be seen over unless you travel east of the alleyway. Visual Impact Assessment VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012 Page | 36 5.0 EXISTING VISUAL RESOURCES AND VIEWER RESPONSE 5.1 Methods used for Visual Resource Analysis Individual visual resources, when combined, make up the uniqueness of visual character. The visible individual components of a landscape include landform, landcover, water bodies, vegetation and man-made development. Step 1: Identify Visual Character – Visual character is descriptive and non-evaluative, which means it is based on defined attributes that are neither good nor bad in themselves. A change in visual character cannot be described as having good or bad attributes until it is compared with the viewer response to that change. If there is public preference for the established visual character of a regional landscape and resistance to a project that would contrast that character, then changes in the visual character can be evaluated. Step 2: Assess Visual Quality – Visual quality is evaluated by identifying the vividness, intactness and unity present in the viewshed. This method should correlate with public judgments of visual quality well enough to predict those judgments. This approach to evaluating visual quality can also help identify specific methods for mitigating each adverse impact that may occur as a result of a project. The three criteria for evaluating visual quality can be defined as follows: Vividness is the visual power or memorability of landscape components as they combine in distinctive visual patterns. Intactness is the visual integrity of the natural and man-built landscape and its freedom from encroaching elements. It can be present in well-kept urban and rural landscapes, as well as in natural settings. Unity is the visual coherence and compositional harmony of the landscape considered as a whole. It frequently attests to the careful design of individual manmade components in the landscape. Visual Impact Assessment VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012 Page | 37 5.2 Existing Visual Resources 5.2.1 Scenic Resources The City of Del Mar begins at the edge of the Pacific Ocean and follows the topography up toward the east. Many residences and businesses in Del Mar have views of the ocean. Under the California Coastal Act of 1976, scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas are considered and protected as a visual resource. Permitted development should be sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas. The act also requires minimizing the alteration of natural landforms to assure that they are visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and, where feasible, to restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas. View of Pacific Ocean from residential neighborhood along 10th Street Visual Impact Assessment VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012 Page | 38 There are a diverse collection of street trees in the Village Plan area, including Eucalyptus species, and Monterey Pines and Torrey Pines along Camino del Mar in the medians and throughout the residential neighborhoods. The Tree Ordinance (Section 23.50) of the Del Mar Municipal Code provides for the orderly protection of trees, including the following measures: B. In the interest of the public health, safety and welfare, as well as general aesthetics of the community and the importance of the ecology of the area, the City of Del Mar finds it necessary to encourage conservation of trees and the application of management techniques to create a healthy, diverse urban forest, including but not limited to pruning, thinning, trimming, shaping, and selective planting and removal of trees and vegetation within the City of Del Mar on private as well as public property. [Ord. 749] C. The species Torrey Pine, the species Monterey Cypress, and all species of trees located within the Central Commercial zone and the environmentally sensitive Open Space Overlay zone are of particular significance to the City, and should therefore be protected to conserve the environmental qualities of the City. Specimen Torrey Pines are found throughout the City of Del Mar Visual Impact Assessment VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012 Page | 39 The Del Mar Municipal Code designates the Historic Preservation Overlay Zone (HP-OZ). The HP-OZ protects the architectural and historic integrity of certain historically significant properties located within the City, but also provides the means to designate additional properties as historically significant. Within the HP-OZ, no building, improvement, structure, or portion thereof shall be erected, constructed, demolished, relocated, converted, altered, or enlarged, nor shall any lot or premises be excavated or graded unless approved by the Design Review Board. The City of Del Mar has two designated Historical Sites. Both Stratford Square (1438– 1454 Camino del Mar; 225 West 15th Street) and the City Library (1309 Camino del Mar) have HP-OZ designations and have been designated by the City as historic landmark properties. The Del Mar Library and Eucalyptus trees along Camino del Mar Stratford Square Visual Impact Assessment VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012 Page | 40 Adjacent to the Plan area are other parcels with the HP-OZ designation, including a linear parcel west of the Post Office along the east side of the railroad tracks, the Powerhouse park located west of Coast Boulevard, and the Ivan Gayler Trust located adjacent to the east side of the Plan area, north of 15th Street. Powerhouse Park The State Scenic Highway Program lists highways that are either eligible for designation as a scenic highway or are already designated as a scenic highway. Designation as a scenic highway depends on how much of the natural landscape travelers can see the scenic quality of the landscape, and the extent to which development intrudes on the traveler's enjoyment of the view (Caltrans, 2010). While there are no state designated or eligible scenic highways in the area listed in the California Scenic Highway Program, the Community Plan does designate scenic roadways. Camino del Mar is a scenic roadway and views of the Pacific Ocean and visual resources such as bluffs and trees are to be protected. Jimmy Durante Boulevard (formerly Turf Road), Crest Road, Carmel Valley Road, Coast Boulevard, and Del Mar Heights Road are also considered scenic roadways. Visual Impact Assessment VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012 Page | 41 5.2.2 Existing Visual Character The City of Del Mar is made up of an eclectic style of architecture, landscape, parking areas, and streetscapes. Camino del Mar is the visually prominent road through the city. It is made up of two travel lanes in both directions with bike lanes and either parallel or angled parking along much of its edges. In most locations, the north and southbound lanes are divided by landscaped medians with mature trees and a variety of smaller shrubs and groundcover. The pedestrian walkways adjacent to the road have variable widths due to a variety of building setbacks. The walks are sometimes difficult to navigate because they are discontinuous and the widths are inadequate for the number of people along the walk during peak times. The walkway surfaces and landscape along the road is also made up of a variety of materials and includes a few large trees. There is a consistent change in elevation and landform from the ocean moving toward the east. The majority of the buildings in Del Mar are limited to two stories in order to protect ocean views. The architecture is a mixture of historical and modern styles but also contain a few obsolete or poorly detailed buildings that detract from the visual intactness of this corridor. The common design form found along the eclectic collection of architectural treatments, is the dominance of human scale and visual interest provided by the variety of shops and outdoor spaces. The changes in building materials, display of public art or shop items for sale, all carry with it, a very human scale. The primary concentration of businesses includes office, retail, restaurants, and hotels located along Camino del Mar. The residential areas take advantage of the ocean views and are located to both the east and west of Camino Del Mar. The beach and adjacent bluffs along with Powerhouse Park provide recreational opportunities. 5.2.3 Existing Visual Quality The visual quality of each character unit is shown in Table 5-1: Visual Quality Assessment of Character Units. This qualitative evaluation takes into account the vividness, intactness, and unity of the study area. Table 5-1: Visual Quality Assessment of Character Units Character Unit Vividness Intactness Unity Overall Visual Quality Civic Low to Moderate Low Low Low Residential Moderate Moderate High Moderate Commercial Moderate Moderate Low Moderate Hotel and Plaza High High High High Vacant / Parking Low Low Low Low Street and Streetscape Moderate Moderate Low Moderate Recreation High High High High Visual Impact Assessment VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012 Page | 42 5.3 Methods of Predicting Viewer Response Viewer response is composed of two elements: viewer sensitivity and viewer exposure. These elements combine to form a method of predicting how the public might react to visual changes brought about by a project. Viewer sensitivity is defined both as the viewers’ concern for scenic quality and the viewers’ response to change in the visual resources that make up the view. Local values and goals may confer visual significance on landscape components and areas that would otherwise appear unexceptional in a visual resource analysis. Even when the existing appearance of a project site is uninspiring, a community may still object to projects that fall short of its visual goals. Viewer exposure is typically assessed by measuring the number of viewers exposed to the resource change, type of viewer activity, duration of their view, speed at which the viewer moves, and position of the viewer. High viewer exposure heightens the importance of early consideration of design, art, and architecture and their roles in managing the visual resource effects of a project. 5.3.1 Existing Viewer Groups, Viewer Sensitivity, and Viewer Exposure A summary of the viewer sensitivity and exposure can be found in Table 5-2 and are described below. A total of 7 viewer groups include pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, retail workers or customers, and hotel and restaurant workers or customers, office workers, and residents were considered. Pedestrians are individuals utilizing adjacent walks within the project area. The view of the project would be in the foreground for this group and as a pedestrian moving along the corridor of Camino del Mar, the viewing duration would be short to moderate, depending on their walking speed and dwell time in front of shops and restaurants. Pedestrians using this area have a moderate sensitivity to visual change. Many of the pedestrians are visitors to Del Mar and don’t frequently visit the area to notice changes. Bicyclists are individuals biking along Camino del Mar. Del Mar sits along a popular route that runs along the coast and bicyclists throughout the region use the bike lanes along Camino del Mar. The number of bicyclists is moderate when comparing them to the quantity of other viewer groups such as vehicular drivers, but still significant enough to note. Similar to the pedestrians, the project is in the foreground as bicyclists are travailing through the project area, but the viewing duration is short resulting in low viewer exposure and low viewer sensitivity. Motorists are drivers and passengers utilizing surface streets in the project area. The viewer sensitivity to change is moderate to low. There are existing views to the ocean along Camino del Mar and through street corridors running in the east/west direction also exist to see views of the ocean. Camino del Mar is sometimes unfavorably used as an alternative route to Interstate 5 which runs in the north / south direction, parallel to Del Mar Village. This roadway is often congested during night and morning commute times. It is also congested during weekends and when special events such as the San Diego County Fair and Del Mar Racetrack are running resulting in a high quantity of viewers. The viewing duration is short and the project is in the foreground of the view resulting in a moderate viewer exposure. Visual Impact Assessment VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012 Page | 43 Retail Workers or Customers are individuals working or purchasing goods or service in the project area. This viewer group has a moderate viewer exposure. The quantity of viewers and the viewing duration is moderate, and the view of the project is in the foreground. Retail workers and customers have a moderate sensitivity to the view and changes. They are often concerned with the aesthetic and visibility of storefronts or blockage of business façades and the visual relationship of the immediate visual environment. Hotel/ Restaurant Workers or Customers are individuals working or procuring services at a hotel or restaurant within the project area. This group has a high sensitivity to changes in the visual environment. They rely on the visual resource of the ocean to create a unique experience for patrons or customers. They are also concerned with the façade of the buildings and visibility of immediate surroundings and aesthetics. The proposed project is in the foreground of this viewer group’s view. The viewing duration is moderate and the quantity of viewers is moderate resulting in a moderate viewer exposure. Office Workers are individuals working in a business within the project study area. There is a low quantity of viewers within this group, but the viewing duration is moderate to high. The view of the proposed project is in the foreground. The viewer exposure and viewer sensitivity to changes are low to moderate. This viewer group does not rely on the visual resources to enhance their business, but it is an added benefit. Homeowners/Residents are individuals owning homes adjacent to the project. There are no residents within the project boundary; however, due to the topography of Del Mar, the gradual slope up from the ocean in the eastern direction results in residents with views to the project. Residents have a high viewer exposure because of their long viewing duration, and close proximity to the project. The quantity of viewers is high, and under the existing Del Mar Municipal Code, individual residents’ private views are protected as seen by an owner’s designated primary viewing room. In addition, many of the residents in Del Mar have a partial or full view of the ocean from their residence and so the viewer sensitivity is high to visual changes. Visual Impact Assessment VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012 Page | 44 Table 5-2: Summary of Viewer Groups Viewer Group Quantity of Viewers Viewing Duration Distance from Viewer to Project Corridor Viewer Exposure Viewer Sensitivity Pedestrian Moderate Short to Moderate Foreground Low Moderate Bicyclist Low Short Foreground Low Low Motorist High Short Foreground Moderate Low to Moderate Retail Worker or Customer Moderate Moderate Foreground Moderate Moderate Hotel / Restaurant Worker or Customer Moderate Moderate Foreground Moderate High Office Workers Low Moderate Foreground Low to Moderate Low to Moderate Home Owners High Long Foreground to Middleground High High Visual Impact Assessment VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012 Page | 45 6.0 VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 6.1 Method of Assessing Impacts The visual impacts of a project under CEQA are determined by assessing the visual resource change due to the project and predicting viewer response to that change. Visual resource change is the sum of the change in visual character and change in visual quality. The first step in determining visual resource change is to assess the compatibility of the proposed project with the visual character of the existing landscape. The second step is to compare the visual quality of the existing resources with projected visual quality after the project is constructed. The viewer response to project changes is the sum of viewer exposure and viewer sensitivity to the project. The resulting level of visual impact is determined by combining the severity of resource change with the degree to which people are likely to oppose the change. This project is particularly interested in impacts to view corridors. The process for view quality impacts is to first determine the extent of view corridors, model a viewshed and then determine if the project is likely to block a view corridor of distant viewing scenes of the ocean. 6.2 Definition of Visual Impact Levels This document will use the following levels of impact to determine significance: Low - Minor adverse change to the existing visual resource, with low viewer response to change in the visual environment. May or may not require mitigation. Moderate - Moderate adverse change to the visual resource with moderate viewer response. Impact can be mitigated within five years using conventional practices. Moderately High - Moderate adverse visual resource change with high viewer response or high adverse visual resource change with moderate viewer response. Extraordinary mitigation practices may be required. Landscape treatment required will generally take longer than five years to mitigate. High – A high level of negative change to the resource or a high level of viewer response to visual change such that architectural design and landscape treatment cannot mitigate the impacts. Viewer response level is high. Based on CEQA thresholds, a High or Moderately High Adverse impact would be considered as a significant impact. 6.3 Analysis of Candidate Key Views It is necessary to select a number of possible key viewpoints that most clearly display the visual effects of the project. These candidate key views represent the primary viewer groups that would potentially be affected by the project. Based on fieldwork, viewer groups, probable changes, viewing duration, and viewer sensitivity, candidate key views were selected and building massings were draped over the existing conditions to help understand the impacts of the Specific Plan. Descriptions of the candidate key views can be found in Appendix A. Visual Impact Assessment VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012 Page | 46 6.4 Analysis of Key View Simulations Because the study area is visible from a very large area, key views that most clearly display the visual effects of the project have been selected for simulation. These key views represent areas where visually prominent project features would affect existing views. The existing visual quality of each of these key views and the initial contrasts have been evaluated and discussed below. 6.4.1.1 Key View Simulation “A” This key view looks northbound on the west side of Camino del Mar, south of the 12th Street intersection and is depicted in Figure 6-1. Existing Visual Quality / Character The existing visual character of the buildings in the key view are uniform in scale. The mature trees and planting along the street also create a uniform view and are considered to be visual resources contributing to the character of the area. However, large gaps in storefronts along Camino del Mar create a visual environment that is not intact for a pedestrian or motorist. Proposed Project Features This series of simulations depicts a transition of the proposed allowable building heights. The first image shows the infill of buildings, which would include the allowable increase 14 feet for the first floor. The second image shows a second story on the west side of Camino del Mar for a total of 26 feet. The third image shows the building with a four-foot maximum articulated roof for a total of 30 feet. Note that a partial parking reconfiguration is shown on this image, representing a probable phasing whereby portions of blocks adjacent to new development will be reconfigured while other portions may remain with “town and country” (storefront parking on private property) parking until redeveloped. Change to Visual Quality / Character The proposed changes have a low visual contrast and may actually increase the visual quality of the streetscape as seen by a pedestrian or motorist along Camino del Mar. There is an opportunity to improve the vividness and unity of the space through the design of the pedestrian environment. The building heights are not excessive in terms of scale and massing compared with other buildings along Camino del Mar. The articulated roofline (30’) does not increase the appearance of height above the flat roof (26’) version. No existing views along this segment of Camino del Mar will be affected by these changes. Viewer Response The reaction to the proposed changes will not likely be negative from this view point. The majority of the viewers include motorist bicyclists and pedestrians. Their sensitivity and exposure to the view is low to moderate mostly because of the short viewing duration and with the exception of the motorists, the low quantity of viewers. Resulting Visual Impact Overall, the resulting visual impact of this view has a low adverse change and might actually improve the uniformity, intactness, and vividness of the view. The changes to the view would not require mitigation and would be considered less than significant. Visual Impact Assessment VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012 Page | 47 Figure 6-1: Key View Simulation “A” Visual Impact Assessment VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012 Page | 48 6.4.1.2 Key View Simulation “B” This view looks north on the east side of Camino del Mar south of the 12th Street intersection and is depicted in Figure 6-2. Existing Visual Quality / Character Same as Simulation “A”. Proposed Project Features Same as Simulation “A”. Change to Visual Quality / Character Same as Simulation “A”. Viewer Response Same as Simulation “A”. Resulting Visual Impact Overall, the resulting visual change of this key view would only have a low adverse change and might actually improve the uniformity, intactness, and vividness of the view. The changes to the visual environment would not require mitigation and would be considered less than significant. Visual Impact Assessment VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012 Page | 49 Figure 6-2: Key View Simulation “B” Visual Impact Assessment VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012 Page | 50 6.4.1.3 Key View Simulation “C” This key view looks north on Camino del Mar just south of the intersection at 11th Street and is depicted in Figure 6-3. Existing Visual Quality / Character The majority of the buildings on the west side of Camino del Mar are blocked by mature trees and planting in the median. Along the east side of the street, the buildings, landscape and setbacks are not vivid, nor are they uniform. The pedestrian environment is disrupted by the parallel parking along the street and in front of store fronts. For a pedestrian or a motorist, the visual experience is not intact nor would it be considered a high visual quality area. Proposed Project Features The proposed project features include the reconfiguration of the street to include angled parking, improved streetscape, infill of buildings, and the roundabout at the intersection. Additional parkway planting is proposed to improve the pedestrian environment, while assuring that the visibility through the traffic circle is open and clear for safety purposes as well as to make sure that trees do not block view corridors from the east to the west on 11th. Change to Visual Quality / Character The proposed changes have a low visual impact and may actually increase the intactness of the view as seen by a pedestrian or motorist. The proposed features would eliminate a large mature tree in the existing median reducing the vividness of the median, but it would be replaced by other trees on the parkway side of the street. Overall, the walkway environment and the roundabout itself, will increase the visual quality of the area due to increased landscaping, improved paving materials and the decrease in the scale of the street resulting from the proposed improvements in the street. Viewer Response The reaction to the proposed changes will not likely be negative from this view point. The majority of the viewers include motorist bicyclists and pedestrians. Their sensitivity and exposure to the view is low to moderate mostly because of the short viewing duration and with the exception of the motorists, the low quantity of viewers. Overall, the scale to these viewers is positive and the pedestrian and vehicular environments have been clarified and improved in visual quality. Resulting Visual Impact Overall, the resulting visual impact of this view has a low adverse change and might actually improve the uniformity, intactness, and vividness of the view and improve the visual environment. Because the large mature tree would be eliminated, the replacement of this tree in the immediate visual area is assumed to be part of the project as proposed. Visual Impact Assessment VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012 Page | 51 Figure 6-3: Key View Simulation “C” Visual Impact Assessment VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012 Page | 52 6.4.1.4 Key View Simulation “D1” This view looks west from the library patio adjacent to Camino del Mar and is depicted in Figure 6-4. Existing Visual Quality / Character This view is high in intactness and visual quality. This is an important view of the ocean. In addition, the architectural character represented in the view along Camino del Mar is vivid and characteristic of Del Mar in its pedestrian scaled buildings, Spanish style architecture, large storefront windows, and diverse pedestrian environments. Proposed Project Features Proposed project features include an extension of the height toward the back of the parcel with an upper level building, while the pedestrian scaled architecture is maintained along Camino del Mar. The preservation of the front portion of these very human-scaled and high visual quality buildings is important and it is assumed that the Design Review Board process would require something similar to what is shown in the simulationssuch design features. Note that the proposed roadway and parking is not simulated in this view, since the primary concern here is of view corridor blockage and building massing and scale and its affect on the existing character. Change to Visual Quality / Character The proposed project will have a highly adverse affect on the view corridor from this location due to blockage of the view of the ocean from this public viewing location. However, the number of viewers is considered to be low. But, because of the view quality the impact should still be considered significant. The height difference between a 26’ flat roof and the 30’ articulated roof would be not different since they both would block the views in this location. The impact to the existing scale and character of the storefronts and adjacent buildings is considered to be a moderately adverse impact. Much of the character and scale is left intact as seen in the simulation. The overall height increase, though it impacts the view corridor, it does not impact the scale and massing or the visual character of the storefronts. Viewer Response This view represents what a person sitting on the library patio would see. The number of viewers and viewer duration is low resulting in a low viewer exposure. The viewer sensitivity would be high. This is an important view of the ocean and the viewers would be concerned and notice this change. Viewer response to the changes in the building massing and scale compared to the adjacent building and streetscape environment would not be considered high. Resulting Visual Impact Overall, the resulting impact on the view corridor from a public viewing place would be moderate to highly adverse and considered potentially significant. Though a limited number of viewers are likely to see this, it would still be considered potentially significant. Ultimately, the Design Review Ordinance would not allow future development to substantially block scenic views and the potentially significant view impact would be avoided. The changes to the visual quality and character of the area would also not be considered significant, given the assumptions that the DRB review process requirementswould result in a similar design as shown in the simulation. Visual Impact Assessment VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012 Page | 53 Figure 6-4: Key View Simulation “D1” Visual Impact Assessment VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012 Page | 54 6.4.1.5 Key View Simulation “D2” This view looks northwest from the east side of Camino del Mar in front of the library and is depicted in Figure 6-5. Existing Visual Quality / Character This view is highly intact. Different from Key View D1, there is not a view of the ocean in this view given the height and position of the existing buildings. Again, the architectural character represented in the view along Camino del Mar is vivid and characteristic of Del Mar in its pedestrian scaled buildings, Spanish style architecture, large storefront windows, and a diverse pedestrian environment. In addition, the streetscape provides uniformity for the character of the area. Proposed Project Features Proposed project features include the existing architecture and extended building height on the back side of the parcel. Setback and stepbacks are indicated in the rendering to create visual interest and protect the first floor scaled buildings that do establish some of the character of the village. The pedestrian realm is enhanced with outdoor dining, shopping, seating, and plantings where setbacks occur along Camino del Mar. Change to Visual Quality / Character By maintaining some of the existing architectural character, on the front of the parcel facing Camino del Mar, the change to the view scene and visual character is moderate. The pedestrian scale of the buildings are maintained and the visual character remains intact. But the overall change to the visual environment is not considered to be that dramatic. Viewer Response Depending on a viewer’s outlook and opinion, some viewers may consider this change objectionable while others may not. The reaction to the proposed changes will not likely be overly negative from this viewpoint, but they may be adverse. The majority of the viewers including cyclists and pedestrians, will see this view from a transitory or moving perspective. Their sensitivity and exposure to the view is low to moderate mostly because of the short viewing duration, movement and low quantity of viewers. Resulting Visual Impact The resulting impact on the view corridor from this public viewing place would be low and would not be considered significant. The changes to the visual quality and character of the area would not be considered significant, given the assumptions that the DRB review process would result in a similar design as shown in the simulation. Visual Impact Assessment VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012 Page | 55 Figure 6-5: Key View Simulation “D2” Visual Impact Assessment VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012 Page | 56 6.4.1.6 Key View Simulation “E” This view looks west to the ocean across Camino del Mar from the north side of 12th Street at Maiden Lane and is depicted in Figure 6-6. Existing Visual Quality / Character This view represents a typical view corridor to the ocean found on most of the numbered streets running in an east/west direction. The view is considered to be highly intact, though it is partially blocked by mature vegetation. This is also typical of most of the view corridors in the study area. These views are important to the City of Del Mar and create a vivid view and uniform rhythm of views when driving, riding or walking down the street. This is an important view of the ocean though it is somewhat interrupted by large mature trees in the middle ground and background. However, enough of a view still exists to be of concern. Based on the simple simulations, it can be seen that most of the view to the ocean is maintained with the proposed building heights of 14’, 26’ or 30’. The side stepback on the second floor is considered to be important to protecting this view corridor. Proposed Project Features Proposed features in this view include the new building heights. The chamfer at the corner lots will help to keep some of the view corridor when approaching from the north or south as a pedestrian. In addition, the ten-foot stepback on the upper floor helps to maintain the views to the ocean and the view corridor so it is not excessively blocked. Change to Visual Quality / Character The change to the visual quality and character would be moderate to low. The massings of the buildings are similar to the existing forms, though higher. The visual quality of the existing buildings on the west side are not high. Replacement buildings are likely to have a higher visual and design quality. The existing vegetation is already partially blocking the scenic vista to the ocean and would not be affected by the project. Viewer Response Currently residents, retail workers and customers have a partial view of the ocean that is interrupted by mature plant material. The viewer exposure and sensitivity to these changes would be low. The extended heights on the buildings do not completely remove the view of the ocean and the scenic vista is maintained. The proposed scale is not out of character with other buildings in the area. Resulting Visual Impact The resulting visual impact of this view would be considered low to moderately adverse. The scenic vista to the ocean is mostly preserved, though a small notch would be affected. This blockage would not be considered significant. The change to the visual character and quality is also considered to be low to moderate. Depending on the final design of replacement buildings, the visual character could be improved along with the overall visual quality. Visual Impact Assessment VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012 Page | 57 Figure 6-6: Key View Simulation “E” Visual Impact Assessment VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012 Page | 58 6.4.1.7 Key View Simulations “F1, F2, F3, and F4” Key view F1 looks west to Camino del Mar from the south side of 14th Street near the intersection and is depicted in Figure 6-7. Key view F2 looks west to Camino del Mar from the south side of 14th Street, mid-block and is depicted in Figure 6-8. Key view F3 looks west to Camino del Mar from the south side of 14th Street at Maiden Lane and is depicted in Figure 6-9. Key View F4 looks west to Camino del Mar from the intersection of 14th Street and Luneta Drive is depicted in Figure 6-10. Existing Visual Quality / Character This series of views is typical of the view corridors to the ocean from the numbered streets running in an east/west direction. This view is consistent along Camino del Mar and is highly intact. These views are important to the City of Del Mar and are typical of residential views on the lower slopes east of Camino del Mar. The view of the ocean is blocked by existing buildings when a viewer is standing at Camino del Mar. Where there are no buildings, the view is partially blocked by mature trees in the background. Moving up the hillside to the east, the views to the ocean open up and more of the vista is revealed. Change to Visual Quality / Character The proposed building heights from a massing and scale perspective are not in contrast with other buildings in this area. The changes to the visual quality are also not likely to negatively contrast with the current setting, assuming a Design Review Board process that will assure that elements of the Del Mar Village are repeated and existing high quality architecture and storefronts are preserved. Viewer Response Currently residents, retail workers and customers have a partial view of the ocean that is interrupted by mature plant material and overhead powerlines. The viewer exposure and sensitivity to these changes would be moderate. The extended heights on the buildings do not completely remove the view of the ocean and the scenic vista is maintained by the preservation of the view corridor on one of the lots. The view could actually be improved if the background utilities were removed. Also, increased public views would be possible with the development of a Paseo plaza open to the public, between these buildings. The removal of surface parking would also be an improvement. Resulting Visual Impact The resulting visual impact of this view would be considered low to moderately adverse. The scenic vista to the ocean is mostly preserved, though a portion would be affected from the lower slope within the first half block from Camino del Mar. A moderately adverse impact that would be considered less than significant would result to the views in this corridor. A low to moderately adverse impact that is also less than significant, would result to the character of the area, assuming that the Design Review Board process would result in a similar form and character of as show in previous simulations. Visual Impact Assessment VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012 Page | 59 Figure 6-7: Key View Simulation “F1” Visual Impact Assessment VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012 Page | 60 Figure 6-8: Key View Simulation “F2” Visual Impact Assessment VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012 Page | 61 Figure 6-9: Key View Simulation “F3” Visual Impact Assessment VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012 Page | 62 Figure 6-10: Key View Simulation “F4” Visual Impact Assessment VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012 Page | 63 6.4.1.8 Key View Simulation “G” This view looks north to the intersection of Camino del Mar and is depicted in Figure 6-11. Existing Visual Quality / Character The majority of the buildings on the east side of Camino del Mar are blocked by mature trees and plantings in the median. Along the west side of the street, the buildings, landscape and setbacks are neither vivid nor uniform. The pedestrian environment is disrupted by the parallel parking along the street and in front of storefronts. For a pedestrian, the visual experience is not intact. In addition, there are gaps in the building storefronts along Camino del Mar. Within the view, the trees in front of the library are an important visual element and enhance the visual character of the area. Proposed Project Features The simulation shows a series of images to depict a sequence of potential build out and roadway environment changes. The second image shows the realignment of the street to include angled parking, a bike lane, the realignment of the sidewalk, and one lane of traffic. The last image includes building infill and other enhancements to the pedestrian environment. Change to Visual Quality / Character The proposed changes have a low visual impact and may actually increase the intactness of the view as seen by a pedestrian or motorist experiencing the space along Camino del Mar. The overall scale and dominance of the roadway does improve and is not as expansive and vehicular dominant. Viewer Response The reaction to the proposed changes will not likely be negative from this view point. The majority of the viewers include motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians. Their sensitivity and exposure to the view is low to moderate mostly because of the short viewing duration and with the exception of the motorists, a low quantity of viewers. Resulting Visual Impact Overall, the resulting visual impact to this key view would be a low adverse change since some of the visual environment would be improved through new design features and new spatial organization and visual interest improvements. The proposed project changes would not be considered to be significant. Visual Impact Assessment VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012 Page | 64 Figure 6-11: Key View Simulation “G” Visual Impact Assessment VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012 Page | 65 6.5 Impact Assessment Summary The City of Del Mar does not currently have guidelines for determining significant thresholds. Therefore, CEQA, Appendix G was used to determine the level of impacts the project is likely to cause. The following criteria apply: Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Many of the vistas in Del Mar are currently blocked by mature shrubs and trees or other existing buildings and landforms. There are scattered scenic vistas throughout Del Mar of the ocean depending on the topographic setting of the viewer. The most substantial scenic vistas of the ocean occur at the streets running west and east. The Village Specific Plan takes these vistas into account by requiring stepbacks from the side streets on the upper levels and a chamfer corner at the first level of proposed corner lots buildings. This design detail helps to reduce the adverse visual impacts associated with view corridor blockage, but does not completely eliminate adverse effects on views not located along the east-west street corridors. The proposed changes would potentially result in a moderate impact on some scenic vistas not located along east-west street corridors, such as View D1 and mitigation may be required. Ultimately, the Design Review Ordinance requires projects to be designed so that they do not unreasonably block significant public coastal views or scenic views from the primary living area of residences. With the implementation of the Design Review Ordinance through the Design Review Board review process, potentially significant scenic vista impacts would be mitigated.Therefore, the proposed project is considered to have a significant impact on scenic vistas. This impact would be considered unmitigable. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within the Village area defined by the Specific Plan Boundary? The traffic circles and the realignment of the street have the potential to reduce the number of mature trees found along Camino del Mar. Other trees will be removed, but many more will be added as a result of the proposed new developments and streetscape improvements. These tree removals and additions would have the potential for either an adverse or positive change to the visual environment depending on the viewer and the viewer location. The removal of mature trees could potentially open views to the ocean. However, the trees along Camino del Mar are also considered to be characteristic of the Del Mar setting and are a scenic resource and help to strengthen the vividness of the City. The proposed specific plan does not make recommendations to remove or modify any existing historic buildings; therefore, there are no adverse changes to the historic buildings. The view of the ocean must be considered as a scenic resource. The increase in building heights proposed in the Village Specific Plan may result in a full or partial blocked view of the ocean for a variety of viewer groups. As a viewer moves up the hillside to the east, the resulting visual impact becomes less adverse because of the changing perspective resulting from rising topography. The combination of these changes would result in a moderate to high visual impact and would need to be mitigated. Therefore, a significant impact to scenic resources and visual resources would be expected, some of which can be mitigated through replacement of visual resources and the Design Review Board review process. Visual Impact Assessment VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012 Page | 66 Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? The existing character of Del Mar is moderate in vividness, intactness, and unity. Most of the existing inconsistencies are the varying building setbacks and the lack of a visually identifiable pedestrian environment. The proposed changes in the Village Specific Plan would create a uniform visual environment. The proposed changes would result in a low visual impact and in some situations, would actually improve the visual character and quality of the site. There may be some circumstances where visual character may be removed and not replaced with the same level of pedestrian scale, building material quality and overall character. However, it is assumed that through the application of design guidelines and the Design Review Board process, that projects will be of a higher quality and will address the visual character of the area and any removal of character elements will be replaced by new improvements. Therefore, the proposed project is not expected to have a significant impact on the visual character or visual quality of the specific plan area. Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Shade calculations on adjacent residential units were completed for the longest day of the year, December 22. Using computer modeling, it has been determined that the proposed increase in the height of the building will not result in a low adverse change to the shadow pattern on adjacent buildings. Existing conditions currently result in a partial shade pattern on the façade of residential buildings at 8am; however, the shade pattern disappears from the façade by 9am. The same is true when the building heights are increased. Computer modeling was also used to evaluate the shade patterns on Camino del Mar during the equinox and solstice. The models showed an increase in shadow patterns as the building heights increased. During the longest day of the year, shadow patterns form the buildings on the west side of the street stretched to the median by mid afternoon, but did not shade the entire corridor of Camino del Mar. The proposed setbacks and articulation in the buildings will result in more light coming through the buildings to Camino del Mar, and therefore results in a low adverse change. The proposed building height increase would result in a low adverse change to the glare and ambient light into the nighttime sky. This impact would not be considered to be significant. Visual Impact Assessment VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012 Page | 67 7.0 VISUAL MITIGATION 7.1 Visual Mitigation Options Visual mitigation for moderate to highly adverse project impacts addressed in the key view simulation assessments of the previous chapter, are discussed below. Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce impacts of the project. • Because it is impossible to determine the impact on individual residents within this study, the proposed project is subject to design review to guard against unreasonable view blockage from public areas or from neighboring properties. Story poles will be erected to fully determine visual impact of individual residence as part of the Design Review process. The Design Review Board will review the proposed development’s affect on individual residence on a project-by project basis. The views will be evaluated from each residence, based on the property owner’s primary viewing location within the residence. • The proposed Village Specific Plan required stepbacks and the articulation of roofs on buildings. This variety in architecture will result in more light into the project and adjacent residential units as well as increased visual interest. • Mature trees are considered to be a scenic resource and add to the vividness and intactness of the City. A few of these trees may be disturbed with the realignment of median and the addition of roundabouts per the improvements in the Village Specific Plan. A tree replacement or relocation plan should be created and implemented to reduce the visual impacts because of the tree removal. Any tree requiring removal should be replaced with a tree of similar size or relocated in close proximity to the existing tree without blocking scenic views to the ocean. • Where setbacks of the proposed building occur on Camino del Mar, the space between the building and curb shall be utilized for the pedestrian. Amenities such as awnings, outdoor dining, seating, shopping, and plant material must be used to enhance the pedestrian scale. • Cohesive site amenities should be utilized throughout the Del Mar Village to create visual intactness in the urban setting. This will improve the unity and intactness of the Village and enhance the visual pedestrian setting. Consistent site amenities are shown on the following pages. Visual Impact Assessment VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012 Page | 68 7.2 Visual Impacts After Mitigations • Substantial impacts on scenic vistas With the implementation of Design Review Board review, the use of story poles, setbacks, stepbacks and corner lot 45 degree chamfers on corner lots, the significant impact on scenic vistas would be avoided. The Design Review Ordinance would ultimately not allow redevelopment that would substantially impact scenic vistascan be lessened but they would remain significant after mitigations. Since the view blockage cannot be eliminated, its impacts would be, but not to a level below significance. • Substantial impacts on visual resources With the protection of significant tree resources found in the corridor and the replacement of trees that are to be removed in accordance with the Tree Ordinance, this significant impact on visual resources in the specific plan area, would be reduced to below a level of significance. The mitigation assumes that approximately 50% of the biomass removed, would be replaced and that this bio- mass would grown to approximately 75% of the removed tree resources within a 3-5 year period. Visual Impact Assessment VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012 Page | 69 Benches with City Branding Sidewalks with a consistent finish and a minimum width throughout the Village Tree Grates Visual Impact Assessment VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012 Page | 70 Planting Signage with City Branding Trash and Recycling Receptacle with City Branding Visual Impact Assessment VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012 Page | 71 8.0 REFERENCES Camino del Mar Streetscape Plan, Andrew Spurlock Martin Poirier Landscape Architects, December 1996. The Community Plan for the City of Del Mar, California, March 1976 with 1985 amendments. U.S.D.O.T., Federal Highway Administration, Office of Environmental Policy, Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projects, U. S. Department of Transportation. Visual Impact Assessment VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012 Page | A-1 APPENDIX A CANDIDATE KEY VIEWS The locations of these keyviews are shown on the photo location map on the following page. Based on fieldwork, viewer groups, probable changes, viewing duration, and viewer sensitivity, candidate key views were selected and building massings were draped over the existing conditions to help understand the impacts of the Specific Plan. The yellow masses indicate a maximum building envelope for the west side of Camino del Mar, and the red buildings represent the maximum building envelopes on the east side of the street. Please note the massing overlays are not intended to look realistic in any manner, and foreground elements have not been removed, so some perspective distortions do exist in these graphics. Visual Impact Assessment VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012 Page | A-2 Candidate Key View Photo Location Visual Impact Assessment VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012 Page | A-3 Candidate Key View #1 This view looks west from the north side of 15th Street at 412 15th. This view is not recommended for simulation. This view shows the affect of the 30’ maximum height on the ocean view; it does not interrupt the horizon line. Candidate Key View #1 Visual Impact Assessment VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012 Page | A-4 Candidate Key View #2 This view looks southwest from the north side of 15th Street at 412 15th. This view is not recommended for simulation since the proposed changes will not interrupt the horizon line. Candidate Key View #2 Visual Impact Assessment VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012 Page | A-5 Candidate Key View #3 This view looks west from the north side of 15th Street at 383 15th. This view is not recommended for simulation since potential changes do not fully block the horizon. Candidate Key View #3 Visual Impact Assessment VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012 Page | A-6 Candidate Key View #4 This view looks west from the parking lot east of Maiden between 14th Street and Parish. This view is not recommended for simulation since current regulations would block view. Candidate Key View #4 Visual Impact Assessment VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012 Page | A-7 Candidate Key View #5 This view looks west from the east side of Maiden between 14th and 15th Street. This view is not recommended for simulation since it would be blocked by current regulations. Candidate Key View #5 Visual Impact Assessment VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012 Page | A-8 Candidate Key View #6 This view looks west from the south side of 14th street at 349 14th. This view is not recommended for simulation because the existing foreground vegetation blocks the proposed changes. Candidate Key View #6 Visual Impact Assessment VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012 Page | A-9 Candidate Key View #7 This view looks west from the south side of 14th street at 323 14th. This view is not recommended for simulation as a sequence as the building in the foreground will most likely not change. Candidate Key View #7 Visual Impact Assessment VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012 Page | A-10 Candidate Key View #8 This view looks west from the north side of 14th Street at 327 14th. This view is not recommended for simulation it be used in a sequence with Error! Reference source not found.and Error! Reference source not found.. Candidate Key View #8 Visual Impact Assessment VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012 Page | A-11 Candidate Key View #9 This view looks west from the southeast side of the intersection of 14th Street and Maiden. This view is not recommended for simulation as the building in the foreground will most likely not change. Candidate Key View #9 Visual Impact Assessment VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012 Page | A-12 Candidate Key View #10 This view looks west from the northwest side of the intersection of 14th Street and Maiden. This view is not recommended for simulation, but shows a sequence of views to the horizon line the with Error! Reference source not found.. Candidate Key View #10 Visual Impact Assessment VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012 Page | A-13 Candidate Key View #11 This view looks west from the north side of 14th Street at 309 14th. This view is not recommended but shows how the view corridor could be kept open if development was not allowed in the street extension. Candidate Key View #11 Visual Impact Assessment VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012 Page | A-14 Candidate Key View #12 This view looks west from the east side of Camino del Mar between 13th Street and 14th Street. This view is not recommended for simulation since no ocean view exists. Candidate Key View #12 Visual Impact Assessment VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012 Page | A-15 Candidate Key View #13 This view looks west from the north side of 13th Street at the Del Mar. This view is not recommended for simulation since only a minor view opening exists. Candidate Key View #13 Visual Impact Assessment VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012 Page | A-16 Candidate Key View #14 This view looks west from the north side of 13th Street at the Del Mar. This view is not recommended for simulation since only a minor view opening exists. Candidate Key View #14 Visual Impact Assessment VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012 Page | A-17 Candidate Key View #15 This view looks west from the south side of 13th Street at 305. This view is not recommended for simulation since a 14’ building would block the view. Candidate Key View #15 Visual Impact Assessment VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012 Page | A-18 Candidate Key View #16 This view looks west from the east side of Camino del Mar at 1247 Camino Del Mar. This view is not recommended for simulation since a 14’ building would block the view. Candidate Key View #16 Visual Impact Assessment VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012 Page | A-19 Candidate Key View #17 This view looks west from the north side of 12th Street at 38112th. This view is not recommend for simulation but shows the stepbacks on the side street and the heavy vegetation blocks some views. Candidate Key View #17 Visual Impact Assessment VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012 Page | A-20 Candidate Key View #18 This view looks west from the south side of 12th Street at 389 12th. This view is not recommended for simulation due to the background vegetation. Candidate Key View #18 Visual Impact Assessment VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012 Page | A-21 Candidate Key View #19 This view looks south at the intersection of 11th Street and Camino del Mar. This view is not recommended for simulation since the existing buildings most likely will not change with the proposed heights and FAR’s. Candidate Key View #19 Visual Impact Assessment VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012 Page | A-22 Candidate Key View #20 This view looks west from the south side of 11th Street at 331 11th. This view is not recommended for simulation since too much vegetation blocks the view. Candidate Key View #20 Visual Impact Assessment VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012 Page | A-23 Candidate Key View #21 This view looks west from the south side of 11th Street at 317 11th. This view is not recommended for simulation but shows a corner lot setback and could show a roundabout in the simulation as well. Candidate Key View #21 Visual Impact Assessment VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012 Page | A-24 Candidate Key View #22 This view looks northwest from the south side of 10th Street at 411 10th. This view is not recommended for simulation, but shows the proposed building are less of an impact moving up the hill. Candidate Key View #22 Visual Impact Assessment VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012 Page | A-25 Candidate Key View #23 This view looks south at the intersection of 9th Street and Camino del. This view is not recommended for simulation of the roundabout. Candidate Key View #23 From:Davina To:WPCtestimony Subject:Testimony on Hawsii General Plan Date:Friday, November 1, 2024 10:07:38 AM This General Plan needs to be thrown out and redone! Here are a some reasons why: It is too vague. The language is not clear what the plan wishes to accomplish. There are MANYconcerning sections that sound like rights, freedoms, and property are at risk with this plan. Page 111, section 17.4: "Land use application shall identify as early as possible any existing orpotential active living corridors that should be incorporatedinto the counties open space network." This sounds like you'll be looking at people's property to take for open space because they apply for land use. That is not Pono and is an invasion of privacy! 2.2 Biocultural Stewardship Goal (1.13): "Incentive private land management practices that enhance natural resources and values and when appropriate pursuethe acquisitions of lands for the protections of natural resources." We've seen your incentives like the tax incentives on Maui, which is costing people thousands if they don't do what the government wants. You want toacquire land to protect natural resources and values. Who gets to decide what are naturalresources and values? Whose values are they? Why do you think it's your right to "pursue"acquiring someone's private property?!! You have an entire section on climate change that looks to take away many freedoms and rights. Did you know there are close to 2K credentialed scientists from around the world that state there isno climate danger? https://clintel.org/world-climate-declaration/ The reason for this narrative is thechange these policies will create will increase the pocket book of investors in renewable energy as it reduces freedoms for the general population. Page 116, 19.7: "Concurrency reviews should incorporate reduction in vehicle miles traveled to mitigate traffic impacts and achieve sustainability and demand management goals." TheConstitution says we have the right to travel! It is not the right of the Planning department to"demand" that your management goals reduce that right! Anything that reads, "Reduce vehicle miles traveled" should be removed from this plan! Please take a look at this pdf that shares a lot more issues with this general plan. https://www.standtogetherhawaii.com/_files/ugd/86fc0c_b34739e4c99c461685de4c0207bf286e.pdf This General Plan must be redone with the people and the feature keiki in mind, which this plan does not do! With Aloha & Gratitude,Davina Mar Live Aloha Love Now Download full resolution images Available until Nov 28, 2024 From:Steven Shropshire To:WPCtestimony Subject:Testimony Winward Planning Commision - General Plan Date:Tuesday, October 29, 2024 3:34:45 PM Attachments:pastedGraphic.png pastedGraphic_1.png October 28, 2024 Windward Planning Commision 101 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Dear Planning Commision Member, Thank you for the opportunity to provide the following comments and concerns regarding the2045 Draft General Plan. I purchased my Papaikou property TMK:(3) -2-7-004:25 in 2001. One of the key factors in mydecision to purchase this parcel was the fact that it was designated in the LUPAG as “LowDensity Urban” (LDU). The current draft of the 2045 General Plan is proposing to change this designation from LDUto Important Agriculture (IA), which I believe would be a strategic error for the followingreasons. This parcel of land has been designated for urban expansion for the past 60 years, due to it’sstrategic location and available infrastructure. That was true then, and is even more validtoday, and will become critically important in the years ahead given the current struggle toprovide workforce housing for Hawaii’s people. Attached are some of the other reasons why the parcel should remain in LDU for yourconsideration. 1. Available infrastructure Water- A County well and storage tank is available to the parcel with possible upgradesrequired, Note- an 10”water service line was recently installed adjacent to property. Ample water (aquifer) is available at site for private wells. Waste Water -The County waste water facility has ample capacity to service 300+ homes,with sewage transmission lines currently installed at site. Note- Building more than 50 homesrequires a waste water treatment system, which would be cost prohibitive.. Electrical -Phase 3 power available to site. Bus service is available to the site. School- Kalanianaole School K-6 adjacent to the site. Property adjoins the Hawaii Belt Road which will minimize the impact on smaller feederstreets. Property has a large number of existing interior roadways, thus reducing the overall projectcost. Property is outside of Lava Zones 1&2. Ocean access- A residential project will be required to provide recreational access to ocean aswell as providing needed parking. Urban infill vs sprawling growth- The property is surrounded by residential neighborhoods onall sides. 2. Affordable Housing Crisis Thousands of people that are currently waiting for housing will be given an opportunity to livein a unique community that offers ocean recreation, farming, walkability and closerconnections between neighbors. Needed services will be made available in the neighborhood commercial center (medicalclinic, Kupuna and Keiki care, cafe etc..) Project has wide ranging support with various groups including Native Hawaiians, Habitat forHumanity, Hope Services etc 3. Agriculture and Housing Available agricultural land on Hawaii island - It is estimated that less than 4% of HawaiiIsland is used for growing crops. The subject parcel represents a fraction of a percent ofavailable agricultural land on the island. There is more than enough ample land available onHawaii island alone to feed our entire state’s population, many times over. The proposed agricultural community concept will provide residents with individual gardenplots which will enable them to grow food on the undeveloped portion of the site (which isestimated to be at least 40 acres). The existing land use patterns of large oceanfront agricultural parcels has predominately beenthe creation of gentleman estates, which are normally gated and screened from the highwayusing dense vegetation and do not benefit the greater community. 2. Smart Growth Principles- These nationally recognized principles are intended to identifya common ground where developers, environmentalists, public official, community membersand others to find acceptable ways to accommodate growth. Agrivillages are a mix of agriculture, housing, commercial services and open space andare an example of providing smart growth. Papaikou Agrivllage will be a model project for the island and the state Green energy, agriculture, access to ocean and recreation, commercial services, pocketneighborhood, closer community relationships (plantation villages). Walkable healthyneighborhoods- The project is already a favorite spot for families to walk their dogs, strollersetc. Pocket Neighborhoods design increases socialization within the community. Project Architectis Ross Chapin, Founder of the “pocket neighborhood” design concept (https://pocket-neighborhoods.net). Project Summary The agrivillage project is a clustered residential community integrated with agriculture,designed for mixed-income and multigenerational residents. The primary layout features“pocket neighborhoods,” where 6-12 homes are grouped around shared spaces, promotingneighborly interaction. The concept of “agrarian urbanism” extends beyond food production,encouraging a lifestyle centered on farm-to-table activities. Residents are expected tocontribute time and effort to the community’s food system instead of maintaining traditionalsuburban lawns. Key project objectives include: • Safe and inviting entry: Traffic-calming measures and pedestrian crossings connect thecommunity to Papaikou Village.• Affordable housing: A mix of housing types and tenure (rentals, land trusts) caters to variousincome levels, including low- to middle-income families.• Agrarian ecosystem: Agricultural lots for commercial and part-time farmers, communitygardens, and communal ag-processing hubs are available.• Neighborhood commercial area: A village heart fosters social interaction and provides dailyservices.• Balanced privacy and community: Homes are designed to nest together withoutcompromising privacy while shared spaces encourage interaction.• Public amenities: A shoreline trail, beach access, and a pedestrian network supportwalkability and outdoor activities.• Energy efficiency: Solar power and electric carts reduce energy and transportation costs.• Special needs accommodations: Homes can be equipped with universal design features, and a care home operator is sought to support senior residents. Project Mix:The project aims for LEED Neighborhood Development certification and AARP Livability Index standards. It includes a variety of residential options like single-family homes,duplexes, apartments, live-work units, and farm lots. Affordable units will be available for both rental and ownership, targeting income groups from 30% to 120% of the Area MedianIncome (AMI). Marketing efforts will focus on diverse household types, including farmworkers, Section 8 participants, empty nesters, and young families interested inagriculture. Shropshire Group LLC is in the process of finalizing a 201H application and intends to begin the community engagement process in early 2025. We urge you to please reconsider the proposed IA designation and maintain the parcelsexisting LDU designation. Thank you for your time and consideration. Aloha, Steve ShropshireP.O. Box 1146Hilo, HI 96721steve@alohagreen.com808-895-0372 How the project supports the Hamakua Community Development Plan SECTION 3: PREFERRED LAND USE & SETTLEMENT PATTERNS Pūpūkahi i holomua “Unite to move forward" 3.1 Land Use & Settlement Patterns This section of the CDP guides future land use development and permitting to be consistentwith CDP objectives and policies. Specifically, to reduce rural sprawl and infrastructure costs,it focuses future residential development in existing villages and towns and seeks to preservelarge productive agricultural lands for agriculture by accommodating rural-residentialdevelopment close to these urban centers. It directs new residential development away fromcoastal areas and encourages the clustering of developments to leave natural buffer areas. Itplans urban areas with appropriately-scaled densities that complement the rural character ofthe area.It provides guidance to the Planning Department on change of zone and variance priorities,and stipulates the types of areas and regulatory processes that are appropriate for industrialdevelopment. It also directs the County to engage communities interested in town-levelplanning. 3.1.1 Community ObjectiveOf the Community Objectives adopted by the Steering Committee (see Section 1.7.1Community Objectives, above), the following are related to the preferred settlement pattern: Objective : Direct future settlement patterns that are sustainable and connected. HonorHāmākua’s historic and cultural assets by concentrating new development in existing,walkable, mixed-use town centers while limiting rural sprawl. Objective : Protect and nurture Hāmākua’s social and cultural diversity and heritage assets,including sacred places, historic sites and buildings, and distinctive plantation towns. Objective : Protect and restore viable agricultural lands and resources. Protect and enhanceviewscapes and open spaces that exemplify Hāmākua’s rural character. 3.1.2 General Plan Settlement FrameworkThe General Plan articulates the overall County’s preferred settlement pattern in section 14.1:The future improvement and development objectives are directed toward making urbanand rural centers more efficient, livable, and safe. Growth should be encouraged in terms ofrenewing older areas or extending existing areas. The creation of new urban and rural centersshould be initiated only when it is in the public interest and must be accompanied bycommitments from both government and the private sector for the development of basiccommunity and public facilities and services. Infrastructure costs less when new residentialareas are located near existing highways, water and sewer lines, and employment centers. 4. How the project support’s the 2045 Draft General Plan Development and Resilient Communities DRAFT 25 Table 4: Land Use Challenges Infrastructure • Low infrastructure capacity and high costs to develop new systems. • Stateland use designations and related requirements within or adjacent to Urban Growth Areas limit the ability to increase densities. Existing single-family dwellings and lot sizes fail to achieve the desired density. •Landowners and developers may incur the costs of constructing and operating private systems or upgrades due to the insufficiency and lack of wastewater systems in manyareas. The shortage of licensed operators also increases operating costs and makes it more difficult to establish new private systems. • County roadway standards aren’tmodernized and remain a major cost to development. • Pervasive strip mall infrastructure and minimal transit-oriented developments pairedwith disconnected routes create congestion issues for commercial areas. Regulations • Building code requirements affect construction costs and the ability to create multi-usebuildings. • Multiple layers of land use control and review require coordination between governmentagencies at the state and county levels. • There are varying layers of code that are conflicting or inconsistent. Code requirements are also limited in integrating climatemitigation goals around reduced building materials and non-car-centric design. • The current regulatory process dictates that the State Land Use Commission must presideover boundary amendments that exceed 15 acres, which limits the efficiency of ensuring consistency in the land use pattern. • Zoning must be updated in certain areas to reflectshifting trends and land use preferences. • There is no Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program to preserve open space and achieve density to remain consistent withthe desired land use pattern. • The State's historic review process has been cumbersome. Funding and Financing • There is a need for gap financing that exceeds what a singlelender or incentive program can fill. • Additional capacity in development financing and specific community development financing is needed to increase the production ofprojects in the County. • There is high demand for a limited pool of incentives and financing subsidies for affordable housing. • Affordable housing projects in the Countyface higher financing gaps than projects elsewhere in the State. Market Conditions • There are inconsistencies between development costs and prices the market can support.• Greenfield development in areas such as Puna is significantly cheaper than infill development in existing urban areas. • Lower household incomes result in lowerpurchasing power, which makes underserved subdivisions the primary market for many homebuyers. • Challenging site characteristics such as soil conditions and topographyincrease development costs. • Market cycles and permitting requirements often do not coincide resulting in uncertainty and increases in processing times and costs. Thesechallenges are exacerbated by performance conditions based on time versus appropriate mitigation conditions. Land Use Compatibility • Legacy zoning, such as industrial landsfrom the sugar plantation era, is not always consistent with the community's vision. • Productive agricultural land use designations often do not coincide with productiveagricultural activities. • There is a common perception that all development is contrary to protecting natural and cultural resources. Public Engagement • NIMBYism canpresent barriers to collaborative processes. • General misunderstanding and misinformation about land use policies can delay and disrupt strategic land use patterns. • Public hearing processes can become political rather than regulatory processes.Performance conditions are essentially requirements or obligations that an applicant must complete before certain rights or obligations can take effect. Not In My Backyard(NIMBY) is a characterization of opposition by residents to proposed developments in their local area, often due to concerns about potential negative impacts on theenvironment, property values, and quality of life. NIMBY protests have evolved over time, impacting the gentrification of neighborhoods and housing affordability.Sustainable Development and Resilient Communities DRAFT 26 Table 5: Land Use Opportunities Infrastructure • County departments are encouraged to develop acollaborative infrastructure capacity plan with prioritization of projects based on desired growth areas and preferred density as identified by the General Plan. • Coordinate withthe Department of Health (DOH) to address unique land use situations on the island related to individual wastewater systems (IWS) and prioritization of resources. •Increase housing density by utilizing additional dwelling units (ADU) in existing residential districts served by adequate utilities. • Facilitate innovative public andprivate partnerships in infrastructure investment for targeted growth areas. • County departments can provide greater flexibility in privately owned and maintainedinfrastructure concurrency requirements. Regulations • Remove barriers to residential development in the appropriate districts to reduce development timelines, increasehousing stock availability, and increase affordability. • Review and update the Building and Zoning Codes to allow for more flexibility. • Collaborate across State and Countyagencies to facilitate efficient and effective land use processes. • Advocate allowing for County-initiated State Land Use Commission District Boundary Amendments to meetthe preferred land use pattern. • Program the initiation of rezoning in targeted growth areas. • Support and streamline the process of infill development. • The most direct rolethat the County plays in economic development is through land use regulation (i.e., permitting efficiency, transparency, predictability, and certainty) and property taxpolicy. • Invest in the provision of strategic infrastructure including roads, water, and/or wastewater improvements to encourage higher density development in targeted areas. •Work with the State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD) to determine when there is a need to review a project related to the identification of cultural sites and practices. •Work with SHPD to create standards related to the assessment of a project’s effects on cultural sites and practices. • Establish a framework for cultural impact assessmentsincluding recognizing findings and recommendations of prior cultural impact assessments within the same ahupuaʻa for new projects. Funding and Financing •Partner with the State and other counties to create a capacity-building plan for County departments, local developers, and community stakeholders. • Leverage differentfinancing mechanisms to support development and redevelopment, including Business/Community Improvement Districts, Tax Increment Financing, CommunityFacilities Districts, and Opportunity Zones. • Seek and pursue additional capital stack opportunities and tax incentives for (re)development. Market Conditions • Diversifyeconomic drivers. • Utilize creative solutions and partnerships to encourage, support, and prioritize infill development before expanding to greenfield areas. • Make vacantand underutilized government-owned lands available for affordable housing or other (re)development, especially in or adjacent to urbanized areas with adequate orexpandable infrastructure. • Seek to acquire land for affordable housing developments and other redevelopment opportunities. Land Use Compatibility • Eliminate unpermittednon-conforming uses and ensure proper land use patterns to ensure urban areas are used accordingly. • Strategically use zoning to ensure proximate compatible andcomplementary uses that improve the vitality of urban areas. • Regularly evaluate supply and demand to prioritize needed land use challenges. Public Engagement •Encourage affordable housing projects to meet the needs of neighborhoods (YIMBYs). • Apply strategies to engage stakeholders that go beyond legal notice requirements. •Reinforce the alignment between community values and the General Plan and Community Development Plans. • Demonstrate smart growth development. https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=rm&ogbl#inbox? compose=GTvVlcSDZqbWVpwHWkqFCvfcklLbQTPmjCXxfJfBDNzhHngMlxcxfHmJSHxLqpnJVmkWdHXgRZsWP Click to Download Testimony - Windward Planning Commission .pages.zip 996 KB Click to Download zoning and General Plan Maps.pages 1.2 MB Click to Download Papaikou Agrivillage Kickoff Meeting #1.pdf 13.9 MB Click to Download Papaikou Site Plan v1 (7).pdf 13.3 MB October 28, 2024 Windward Planning Commision 101 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Dear Planning Commision Member, Thank you for the opportunity to provide the following comments and concerns regarding the 2045 Draft General Plan. I purchased my Papaikou property TMK:(3) -2-7-004:25 in 2001. One of the key factors in my decision to purchase this parcel was the fact that it was designated in the LUPAG as “Low Density Urban” (LDU). The current draft of the 2045 General Plan is proposing to change this designation from LDU to Important Agriculture (IA), which I believe would be a strategic error for the following reasons. This parcel of land has been designated for urban expansion for the past 60 years, due to its’ strategic location and available infrastructure. That was true then, and is even more valid today, and will become critically important in the years ahead given the current struggle to provide workforce housing for Hawaii’s people. Attached are some of the other reasons why the parcel should remain in LDU for your consideration. 1.Available infrastructure Water- A County well and storage tank is available to the parcel with possible upgrades required, Note- 10”water service line was recently installed adjacent to property. Ample water (aquifer) is available at site for private wells. Waste Water -The County waste water facility has ample capacity to service 300+ homes, with sewage transmission lines currently installed at site. Note- Building more than 50 homes requires a waste water treatment system, which would be cost prohibitive.. Electrical -Phase 3 power available to site. Bus service is available to the site. School- Kalanianaole School K-6 adjacent to the site. Property adjoins the Hawaii Belt Road which will minimize the impact on smaller feeder streets. Property has a large number of existing interior roadways, thus reducing the overall project cost. Property is outside of Lava Zones 1&2. Ocean access- A residential project will be required to provide recreational access to ocean as well as providing needed parking. Urban infill vs sprawling growth- The property is surrounded by residential neighborhoods on all sides. 2. Affordable Housing Crisis Thousands of people that are currently waiting for housing will be given an opportunity to live in a unique community that offers ocean recreation, farming, walkability and closer connections between neighbors. Needed services will be made available in the neighborhood commercial center (medical clinic, Kupuna and Keiki care, cafe etc..) Project has wide ranging support with various groups including Native Hawaiians, Habitat for Humanity, Hope Services etc 3. Agriculture and Housing Available agricultural land on Hawaii island - It is estimated that less than 4% of Hawaii Island is used for growing crops. The subject parcel represents a fraction of a percent of available agricultural land on the island. There is more than enough ample land available on Hawaii island alone to feed our entire state’s population, many times over. The proposed agricultural community concept will provide residents with individual garden plots which will enable them to grow food on the undeveloped portion of the site (which is estimated to be at least 40 acres). The existing land use patterns of large oceanfront agricultural parcels has predominately been the creation of gentleman estates, which are normally gated and screened from the highway using dense vegetation and do not benefit the greater community. 2. Smart Growth Principles- These nationally recognized principles are intended to identify a common ground where developers, environmentalists, public officials, community members and others to find acceptable ways to accommodate growth. Agrivillages are a mix of agriculture, housing, commercial services and open space and are an example of providing smart growth. Papaikou Agrivllage will be a model project for the island and the state Green energy, agriculture, access to ocean and recreation, commercial services, pocket neighborhood, closer community relationships (plantation villages). Walkable healthy neighborhoods- The project is already a favorite spot for families to walk their dogs, strollers etc. Pocket Neighborhoods design increases socialization within the community. Project Architect is Ross Chapin, Founder of the “pocket neighborhood” design concept (https://pocket- neighborhoods.net). Project Summary The agrivillage project is a clustered residential community integrated with agriculture, designed for mixed-income and multigenerational residents. The primary layout features “pocket neighborhoods,” where 6-12 homes are grouped around shared spaces, promoting neighborly interaction. The concept of “agrarian urbanism” extends beyond food production, encouraging a lifestyle centered on farm-to-table activities. Residents are expected to contribute time and effort to the community’s food system instead of maintaining traditional suburban lawns. Key project objectives include: • Safe and inviting entry: Traffic-calming measures and pedestrian crossings connect the community to Papaikou Village. • Affordable housing: A mix of housing types and tenure (rentals, land trusts) caters to various income levels, including low- to middle-income families. • Agrarian ecosystem: Agricultural lots for commercial and part-time farmers, community gardens, and communal ag-processing hubs are available. • Neighborhood commercial area: A village heart fosters social interaction and provides daily services. • Balanced privacy and community: Homes are designed to nest together without compromising privacy while shared spaces encourage interaction. • Public amenities: A shoreline trail, beach access, and a pedestrian network support walkability and outdoor activities. • Energy efficiency: Solar power and electric carts reduce energy and transportation costs. • Special needs accommodations: Homes can be equipped with universal design features, and a care home operator is sought to support senior residents. Project Mix: The project aims for LEED Neighborhood Development certification and AARP Livability Index standards. It includes a variety of residential options like single-family homes, duplexes, apartments, live- work units, and farm lots. Affordable units will be available for both rental and ownership, targeting income groups from 30% to 120% of the Area Median Income (AMI). Marketing efforts will focus on diverse household types, including farmworkers, Section 8 participants, empty nesters, and young families interested in agriculture. Shropshire Group LLC is in the process of finalizing a 201H application and intends to begin the community engagement process in early 2025. We urge you to please reconsider the proposed IA designation and maintain the parcels existing LDU designation. Thank you for your time and consideration. Aloha, Steve Shropshire P.O. Box 1146 Hilo, HI 96721 steve@alohagreen.com 808-895-0372 How the project supports the Hamakua Community Development Plan SECTION 3: PREFERRED LAND USE & SETTLEMENT PATTERNS Pūpūkahi i holomua “Unite to move forward" 3.1 Land Use & Settlement Patterns T his section of the CDP guides future land use development and permitting to be consistent with CDP objectives and policies. Specifically, to reduce rural sprawl and infrastructure costs, it focuses future residential development in existing villages and towns and seeks to preserve large productive agricultural lands for agriculture by accommodating rural-residential development close to these urban centers. It directs new residential development away from coastal areas and encourages the clustering of developments to leave natural buffer areas. It plans urban areas with appropriately-scaled densities that complement the rural character of the area. It provides guidance to the Planning Department on change of zone and variance priorities, and stipulates the types of areas and regulatory processes that are appropriate for industrial development. It also directs the County to engage communities interested in town-level planning. 3.1.1 Community Objective Of the Community Objectives adopted by the Steering Committee (see Section 1.7.1 Community Objectives, above), the following are related to the preferred settlement pattern: Objective : Direct future settlement patterns that are sustainable and connected. Honor Hāmākua’s historic and cultural assets by concentrating new development in existing, walkable, mixed-use town centers while limiting rural sprawl. Objective : Protect and nurture Hāmākua’s social and cultural diversity and heritage assets, including sacred places, historic sites and buildings, and distinctive plantation towns. Objective : Protect and restore viable agricultural lands and resources. Protect and enhance viewscapes and open spaces that exemplify Hāmākua’s rural character. 3.1.2 General Plan Settlement Framework The General Plan articulates the overall County’s preferred settlement pattern in section 14.1:The future improvement and development objectives are directed toward making urban and rural centers more efficient, livable, and safe. Growth should be encouraged in terms of renewing older areas or extending existing areas. The creation of new urban and rural centers should be initiated only when it is in the public interest and must be accompanied by commitments from both government and the private sector for the development of basic community and public facilities and services. Infrastructure costs less when new residential areas are located near existing highways, water and sewer lines, and employment centers. 4. How the project support’s the 2045 Draft General Plan Development and Resilient Communities DRAFT 25 Table 4: Land Use Challenges Infrastructure • Low infrastructure capacity and high costs to develop new systems. • State land use designations and related requirements within or adjacent to Urban Growth Areas limit the ability to increase densities. •Existing single-family dwellings and lot sizes fail to achieve the desired density. • Landowners and developers may incur the costs of constructing and operating private systems or upgrades due to the insufficiency and lack of wastewater systems in many areas. The shortage of licensed operators also increases operating costs and makes it more difficult to establish new private systems. • County roadway standards aren’t modernized and remain a major cost to development. • •Pervasive strip mall infrastructure and minimal transit-oriented developments paired with disconnected routes create congestion issues for commercial areas. Regulations • Building code requirements affect construction costs and the ability to create multi-use buildings. • •Multiple layers of land use control and review require coordination between government agencies at the state and county levels. • There are varying layers of code that are conflicting or inconsistent. Code requirements are also limited in integrating climate mitigation goals around reduced building materials and non- car-centric design. • The current regulatory process dictates that the State Land Use Commission must preside over boundary amendments that exceed 15 acres, which limits the efficiency of ensuring consistency in the land use pattern. • Zoning must be updated in certain areas to reflect shifting trends and land use preferences. • There is no Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program to preserve open space and achieve density to remain consistent with the desired land use pattern. • The State's historic review process has been cumbersome. Funding and Financing • There is a need for gap financing that exceeds what a single lender or incentive program can fill. • Additional capacity in development financing and specific community development financing is needed to increase the production of projects in the County. • There is high demand for a limited pool of incentives and financing subsidies for affordable housing. • Affordable housing projects in the County face higher financing gaps than projects elsewhere in the State. Market Conditions • There are inconsistencies between development costs and prices the market can support. • Greenfield development in areas such as Puna is significantly cheaper than infill development in existing urban areas. • Lower household incomes result in lower purchasing power, which makes underserved subdivisions the primary market for many homebuyers. • Challenging site characteristics such as soil conditions and topography increase development costs. • Market cycles and permitting requirements often do not coincide resulting in uncertainty and increases in processing times and costs. These challenges are exacerbated by performance conditions based on time versus appropriate mitigation conditions. Land Use Compatibility • Legacy zoning, such as industrial lands from the sugar plantation era, is not always consistent with the community's vision. • Productive agricultural land use designations often do not coincide with productive agricultural activities. • There is a common perception that all development is contrary to protecting natural and cultural resources. Public Engagement • NIMBYism can present barriers to collaborative processes. • General misunderstanding and misinformation about land use policies can delay and disrupt strategic land use patterns. • Public hearing processes can become political rather than regulatory processes. Performance conditions are essentially requirements or obligations that an applicant must complete before certain rights or obligations can take effect. Not In My Backyard (NIMBY) is a characterization of opposition by residents to proposed developments in their local area, often due to concerns about potential negative impacts on the environment, property values, and quality of life. NIMBY protests have evolved over time, impacting the gentrification of neighborhoods and housing affordability. Sustainable Development and Resilient Communities DRAFT 26 Table 5: Land Use Opportunities Infrastructure • County departments are encouraged to develop a collaborative infrastructure capacity plan with prioritization of projects based on desired growth areas and preferred density as identified by the General Plan. • Coordinate with the Department of Health (DOH) to address unique land use situations on the island related to individual wastewater systems (IWS) and prioritization of resources. • Increase housing density by utilizing additional dwelling units (ADU) in existing residential districts served by adequate utilities. • Facilitate innovative public and private partnerships in infrastructure investment for targeted growth areas. • County departments can provide greater flexibility in privately owned and maintained infrastructure concurrency requirements. Regulations • Remove barriers to residential development in the appropriate districts to reduce development timelines, increase housing stock availability, and increase affordability. • Review and update the Building and Zoning Codes to allow for more flexibility. • Collaborate across State and County agencies to facilitate efficient and effective land use processes. • Advocate allowing for County- initiated State Land Use Commission District Boundary Amendments to meet the preferred land use pattern. • Program the initiation of rezoning in targeted growth areas. • Support and streamline the process of infill development. • The most direct role that the County plays in economic development is through land use regulation (i.e., permitting efficiency, transparency, predictability, and certainty) and property tax policy. • Invest in the provision of strategic infrastructure including roads, water, and/or wastewater improvements to encourage higher density development in targeted areas. • Work with the State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD) to determine when there is a need to review a project related to the identification of cultural sites and practices. • Work with SHPD to create standards related to the assessment of a project’s effects on cultural sites and practices. • Establish a framework for cultural impact assessments including recognizing findings and recommendations of prior cultural impact assessments within the same ahupuaʻa for new projects. Funding and Financing • Partner with the State and other counties to create a capacity- building plan for County departments, local developers, and community stakeholders. • Leverage different financing mechanisms to support development and redevelopment, including Business/Community Improvement Districts, Tax Increment Financing, Community Facilities Districts, and Opportunity Zones. • Seek and pursue additional capital stack opportunities and tax incentives for (re)development. Market Conditions • Diversify economic drivers. • Utilize creative solutions and partnerships to encourage, support, and prioritize infill development before expanding to greenfield areas. • Make vacant and underutilized government-owned lands available for affordable housing or other (re)development, especially in or adjacent to urbanized areas with adequate or expandable infrastructure. • Seek to acquire land for affordable housing developments and other redevelopment opportunities. Land Use Compatibility • Eliminate unpermitted non-conforming uses and ensure proper land use patterns to ensure urban areas are used accordingly. • Strategically use zoning to ensure proximate compatible and complementary uses that improve the vitality of urban areas. • Regularly evaluate supply and demand to prioritize needed land use challenges. Public Engagement • Encourage affordable housing projects to meet the needs of neighborhoods (YIMBYs). • Apply strategies to engage stakeholders that go beyond legal notice requirements. • Reinforce the alignment between community values and the General Plan and Community Development Plans. • Demonstrate smart growth development. Design Process Kickoff Meeting #| 03.16.2023 Papaikou Agrivillage ROSS CHAPIN ARCHITECTS The Kubala Washatko Architects Design Process Kickoff Meeting #| 03.16.2023 Papaikou Agrivillage ROSS CHAPIN ARCHITECTS The Kubala Washatko Architects Ross Chapin Architects 4110,500 +35 + 2,000 + ACRES OF MASTER PLANNING YE A R S IN PRACTICE EMPLOYEES PLANNING PROJECTS COMPLETED PROJECTS 30 TWORECIPIENT OF A I A C O M M IT TE E O N THE ENVIRONMENT (COTE) TOP TEN PROJECTS LABELCERTIFICATION SERVICES WE OFFER Site Master Planning Programming Code and Zoning Review Stakeholder Outreach Architecture Interior Design Graphic Design Wayfinding + Signage Sustainable Design Phasing Options Fund Raising Support Historic Preservation Cost Estimating Recreation Facility Design TKWA is a full-service architecture, urban planning, and interior design studio with offices in Milwaukee, Cedarburg, and Seattle. We embrace a design philosophy of Wholeness, where the built environment supports and enhances both human activity and natural living systems. D E S I G N F I R M I N WI TO BECOME A PU B LI C B E N E F IT CORPORATION F1RST BY THE NUMBERS STATE +NATIONALDESIGNAWARDS O V E R O V E R OFFICE LOCATIONS 98The Kubala Washatko Architects + PJA ArchitectsSave the ChimpsRequest for Qualifications The Kubala Washatko Architects Rainwater Management Reduce hard paving Slow down site water to allow absorption into ground and reduce erosion Design water efficient landscaping, drought tolerant, native plants Consider bioswale buffers where site water moves toward lake, etc. Strong Communities Diverse communities are more sustainable Provide a variety of housing size and affordability Ensure equity and access to all Create a network of walkable neighborhoods Recycle buildings and reduce waste Work with local systems, materials, and means Daylight and Views Design building to allow free daylighting, consider building orientation and relationship to sun A properly considered window arrangement could result in no use of electric lights during the day Consider views to increase the feeling of connection to the outdoors Provide properly designed overhangs to reduce heat gain into the building Solar Access Take advantage of the free energy provided by the sun Position the buildings to face the sun Consider hot water solar to reduce reliance on gas or electrical water heating Consider photovoltaic systems to product energy Locate outdoor rooms to create ‘micro climates’ to extend outdoor use on cool days and seasons Energy Efficiency Design and specify energy efficient lighting systems, install only the most efficient lamp types etc. Consider long lamp life options to reduce maintenance, costs, etc. Choose energy efficient appliances, fans, pumps and equipment Choose efficient kitchen equipment Efficient Building Skin Design highly efficient building skin, reduce thermal bridging, provide higher insulation systems Specify efficient window systems w/ low ‘U’ value glazing Reduce air infiltration by installing air locks, good window and door weather stripping, etc. Keep sun off of glazing as possible to reduce heat gain, overhangs, porches, etc. Water Efficiency Strive to close the water cycle loop Protect all water bodies and wetlands Use the available water onsite to provide all water needs Cleanse runoff from roofs and paving before reintroducing back into the ground Rainwater harvesting + gravity fed gardens Grey water systems Engineered wetlands Low-flow or no-flow plumbing fixtures On demand water heating Fresh Air / Natural Ventilation Provide operable windows w/ screens to reduce mechanical cooling loads Provide high/low windows to allow natural gravity ventilation Consider whole house fan for air movement and night cooling Sustainable Design StrategiesOUR SHARED PHILOSOPHYOur studios share and embrace a design philosophy of Wholeness, where the built environment supports and enhances both human activity and natural living systems. The idea of sustainability is a natural extension of wholeness-based thinking and is integrated into every project. SUSTAINABLE DESIGN. ALWAYS. The Leopold Legacy Center is a LEED© Platinum net-zero energy facility recognized as the world’s first carbon neutral building by the United States Green Building Council. RCA + TKWA use an integrated, whole-building approach to sustainability that is both proven and pragmatic. Our shared goal is to integrate sustainable design principles into highly functional and aesthetically pleasing buildings that are sensitive to occupant health and well-being. We are leaders in the design of innovative, high-performance buildings that meet LEED standards for efficient energy and resource use. TKWA designed the Leopold Legacy Center, the world’s first building recognized by LEED as carbon neutral in operation. LEOPOLD LEGACY CENTER Baraboo, WI WHOLENESS IS OUR WORLDVIEW It shapes how we act, conceive our work, organize our activities,and interact with the natural world, our built environment, and our community. Of all the forces that might have shaped the way we do our work, Wholeness rises above competing concerns, systems, schools of thought, and philosophies. We strive to provide a workplace culture that reflects the wholeness we wish to see in the world—this means doing great work but also having a full life outside of work. We are committed to equity, diversity, fair pay and benefits, and the wellness of every staff member. These values make our studios places where our staff stick around. San Juan Community Home Trust 7 Wholeness is our World View Sustainability is a natural result of wholeness-based thinking Habitat for Humanity's vision is a world where everyone has a decent place to live. Anchored by the conviction that safe and decent affordable housing provides a critical foundation for breaking the cycle of poverty. •Helped 42 million+ people construct, rehabilitate, or preserve homes around the world since 1976. •Advocate for fair and just housing policy and provide training and access to resources. •Non-profit Christian ministry; Works in more than 70 countries welcoming people of all races, religions, and nationalities to partner. Work with individuals within the community that demonstrate the following:  1. Willingness to Partner 2. Need for simple and decent affordable housing 3. Ability to pay back a no-profit loan Goals for Today We want to talk about: •Design Process (5 minutes) •Pocket Neighborhoods (10 minutes) •Agrivillage Case Studies (10 minutes) •Initial Patterns & Discussion (50+ Minutes) We want to learn from you: •Your reaction to the presentation •What are the real issues to resolve? •What must this project include to be successful? Design Process •Listening to neighbors, community stakeholders, officials, others •Respecting the land and people •Drawing out a broad range of site & community issues, concerns, needs, and potentials •Writing Patterns that address the issues and embody the values of the community •Use Patterns to develop the design and evaluate it •Check in and elicit feedback •Continue the listening •Refine the design The goal of writing Patterns is to gain a deeper understanding of how buildings and site can be configured to support both human activity and natural processes in a harmonious way. Listening intently and writing Patterns helps identify the deeper social, spiritual, and emotional values inherent in a place. This process offers solutions for making a place more alive, more functional, and more community oriented. It also gives everyone involved a measuring stick by which to evaluate the design. Everyone becomes an informed critic. Patterns can be used to build consensus, solve problems, and build trust within communities. Design Process: Pattern Writing Staff + Volunteer Hearth Issue In the workplace, if it is not always easy and natural for the staff and volunteers working to informally engage one another, an entire level of communication fails to take place. Regular staff meetings, newsletters and memos cannot come close to replacing informal interchange between staff members and volunteers. Solution Create a place away from the public realm where staff would typically go to make copies, get a cup of coffee, etc. Give this place enough room for a number of small conversations to occur simultane-ously. Provide informal seating and a view to the outside if possible. The Hearth should be along the main thoroughfare traveled by the majority of the staff during the day. Lockers for use by the volunteers should be nearby to help facilitate interaction. Water Is Treasure Issue Unfortunately, our culture tends to see rainwater as a waste product; piping, storing and treat-ing it as though it were sewage. The fate of wastewater from buildings also tends to be ignored, but also has a large environmen-tal impact in terms of centralized treatment facilities. Solution Rain should be allowed to slowly be absorbed by the land where it falls. Minimize use of hard paving surfaces and where used, make it permeable. Rainwater that comes off roofs should be slowed down, collected and/or reintro-duced to the local water table. In the process, water can become a visual and acoustic part of daily life and consciousness at the Center. Where practical, use captured and treated water to replenish and restore ponds and lakes. Treat all effluent generated on site with a local Constructed Wetland. These methods for dealing with waste-water should be made visible, cre-ating educational opportunities to researchers and visitors. They will also work to reduce the need for external water supply to the site. Living Sustainability Issue Rowe Woods can’t really be con-sidered ‘Green’ or ‘Sustainable’ from a LEED perspective, except for the fact that several historic structures are being reused. A gap exists between current practices and aspirations for the future. Solution Set a series of small steps that will lead CNC toward an ultimate state, where every action is one that regenerates the biotic community. Let habitat and species bio-diver-sity remain the target for ecological restoration efforts, remembering that introduced heritage horticulture is also an important feature of this site. For existing buildings focus on energy conservation and maintenance. New buildings should reach a high state of demonstrable sustainability, with features that support and explain the Center’s mission. In concert with on-going land management plans restore wetlands, streams, meadow, prairie and forests. Heart of Rowe Woods Issue What constitutes the heart of Rowe Woods? A visitor, without a strong mental mapping of the center of gravity for the property, will not develop a strong sense of place. Solution Establish an identifiable edge to the area that constitutes the core of the property. Establish visual cues for visitors signifying when one has arrived, and that they are at the property’s epicenter. This must be true for visitors arriving by car or bus, as well as hikers returning from the trails. It may be possible to identify the heart of Rowe Woods via a pri-mary path that strings the site’s major structures together. DESIGN APPROACHWe believe this Pattern Writing process—which can be completed within a normal programming time schedule—is the best possible way to define key issues and ensure that they remain prominent throughout the lifespan of a project. Pattern Writing has been successfully used on many TKWA projects. The following examples are patterns that were written for Cincinnati Nature Center. These examples are representative of the types of patterns that will be uniquely developed for any project. Pattern Examples Positive Outdoor Space Issue “Outdoor spaces which are merely left over between buildings will, in general, not be used.” - Christopher Alexander Solution Always consider the placement and general shaping of buildings and outdoor spaces simultaneously. Provide outdoor spaces with the edges necessary to give them room-like character-istics. Recognize that the spaces and activities that occur between buildings are as important as the buildings themselves. 2322The Kubala Washatko Architects + PJA Architects Pattern Examples Essential Patterns Continue Discovery Write Patterns Clarify Vision Begin Site Studies MARCH Project Kickoff Establish Process Meet with Community Begin Discovery Background Research Embryonic Patterns Case Studies Site Analysis APRIL Site Studies Finalize Patterns Site Organizations & Plans Key Features Permutations Get feedback APRIL Virtual Meeting #1 Virtual Meeting #3 Site Plan Development Finalize Site Plan Building Footprints Landscape Design Provide Metrics MAY Virtual Meeting #4 Presentation Community Forum Special Meetings Documentation JUNE Virtual Meeting #5 Papaikou Agrivillage Timeline Virtual Meeting #2 pocket neighborhoods meeting the housing challenge in small groups, conversation is spontaneous Scale of Sociability Rhody 847Moho 744Moho 744Brightside 784Brightside 784Brightside 784 Brightside 784 Rhody 847 Brightside 784Brightside 784Brightside 784 Brightside 784 Brightside 784 Brightside 784 Brightside 784 Brightside 784Twindy 720Twindy 720Twindy 720Twindy 720Twindy 720Twindy 720Brightside 784 Brightside 784 Brightside 784 Rhody 847Rhody 847Rhody 847Cabo 544Cabo 544 Rhody 847 Rhody 847 Cabo 544Cabo 544Rhody 847Rhody 847Rhod y Rhody 847 Cabo 544Cabo 544Twindy 720Twindy 720Cabo 544Cabo 544C a b o 5 4 4 0 80’40’ Site Plan Moho 744 Moho 744 Moho 744Moho 744 Moho 744 Moho 744 Moho 583 Moho 583 Cabo 544 Moho 583 Moho 583 Moho 583 Moho 583Moho 583Moho 583Moho 583Moho 583Moh o 58 3 Mo h o 58 3 Mo h o 58 3 Moho 583Moho 583 Moho 583Moho 583 Moho 583 Moho 583 Moho 744Moho 744Moho 744 Brightside 784Brightside 784Moho 744Moho 744Moho 583Moho 583Moho 583 HALE OLA O MOHOULIROSS CHAPIN ARCHITECTsPost Office Box 1595 • Langley, Washington 98260T: (360) 929-9007 • E: ross@rosschapin.com • W: rosschapin.com12/16/2116 February 2021 Hilo, Hawaii Hawaii Island Community Land Development Corporationv1.371 Site Plan 2.118 10 12 11 14 10 10 4 dog park resident storage units N'hood Commons Building cover'd hard court lawnnative lava maintenance resident storage units tot lot covered space "pocket neighborhood" community storage garbage & recycling 30' setback parking bus shelter Project Data Existing Zoning Proposed ZoningA-1a RM-4 Setbacks (FT) front 30 20 rear 30 20 side 20 8' 1st flr + 2' thereafter Height Limits 35 120 FAR NA NA Parking requirements SF & DF 2 per unit 2 per unit MF NA 1.25 per unit Proposed Plan Site Area (acres)9.3 Units 1-bedroom 33 2-bedroom 57 Total units 90 Density (units/acre)9.7 Parking total count 180 disabled 17 per unit 2.0 per bedroom 1.2 Code UFAS Construction Type V M O H O U L I S T R E E T community g a r d e n community g a r d e n community gardenfff f f f Neighborhood private back yard public street hoodpocket sneighbor of nearbypocket neighbor ss eight key design patterns of pocket neighborhoods Agrivillage Case Studies 016 MILEY BARN SHED KITCHENPAVILION TENT / GATHERING SAFE CROSSINGMONUMENT SIGNHALF-MILEY LOOPHOTM VEGETABLE GARDENS Nourish Farms will become a regional hub for good food education and promotion of local, sustainable farming practices. —— Our goal is to educate and empower people to make wholesome food choices through experiential learning. In this case, through learning to grow and harvest food, composting, and better understanding the food system. VISION Nourish FarmsProposed Plan N HOTM VEGETABLE GARDENS PRAIRIE (WET) PRAIRIE (WET) FRUIT BUSHES ORCHARD BERRY TRELLIS S T R AW B E R R I E S BERRY TRELLIS GRAPE T R E L L I S FLOWE R S / P O L L I N A T O R S ANIMAL HUSBANDRYAPIARY COMPOSTHAL F -M I L EY LOO P PICTURE AREA WETLAND WETLAND WHEELCHAIR ACCESSIBLE GARENS COMPOST SUNDIAL OLD ORCHARDSENSORYGARDENFLOWERS HOOPHOUSE LEGEND Vegetable Garden Wetland Flowers/Pollinators Prairie Grass Orchard Grass/Trees Picture Area/Manicured Gardens Animal Husbandry 014 ISSUE It is hard to evaluate the ecosystem impact of a process if we can’t see how it affects and is affected by other parts of the ecosystem. SOLUTION Make the flow of water, nutrients, and energy visible wherever possible. This can be through signage, but it is more useful to see the actual flow. ISSUE Isolation from the farm is increased with each stair, room hallway, and door through which one must pass to get to an outside door. Every interior space that is denied views of the working farm is disconnected from the mission of the organization. SOLUTION Provide access to adjacent porches and gardens from a variety of common areas in the each building. Maximize the opportunities for quality views from other spaces like offices, classrooms, and meeting rooms. Visible Flows Connected to the Outdoors ISSUE The efficient movement of people, animals, materials and vehicles is critical to a working farm. Compromising that ‘working path’ for any reason will negatively impact the efficacy of the farm for years to come. SOLUTION Devise the geometry and character of the working circulation of the farm first, followed by how the interested public and school children will interact with that same path to glean insights into small scale farming practices. Farm Tour Follows Working Path 011Site Master PlanNourish Farms ISSUE There is a nostalgic stereotype of the picturesque farm: a pretty cluster of buildings against a sea of rolling green fields. The reality of a working farm is messier. When creating a demonstration farm, it is tempting to try and present the illusion of the “pretty” farm and hide the “messy” working parts. SOLUTION Put the farm front and center. Find ways to celebrate the so-called “messy stuff” wherever possible. Instead of screening compost, equipment storage, and operational areas behind buildings or ornamental landscaping, make these elements prominent features in the site. This will not only give the property a unique quality, but also promote the educational message that you can and should try this at home. ISSUE Nourish Farms has many educational goals in addition to other activities, such as event hosting, that generate revenue to support the organization. If these goals were addressed as separate solutions, it could create a kind of “agricultural theme park”–one activity station after another with no consis- tent narrative or message. SOLUTION The ideal farm is a complete ecosystem, where water, nutrients, and energy are exchanged and balanced. Byproducts of one process become inputs to other processes and nothing is truly “thrown away.” Consider how each part of Nourish Farms, from its buildings to its site to its revenue-generating events, can be treated as elements of the farm ecosystem. ISSUE If facility rentals begin to drive decision-making, the educational mission of Nourish Farms may be compromised. On the other hand, if Nourish doesn’t provide good accommodations for rental patrons, they will take their busi- ness elsewhere and financial support for the educational mission will suffer. SOLUTION Always consider the balance between educational and revenue-gener- ating activities. Ensure that spaces which are largely revenue-generating have proximity, views, and signage that connects to the educational mission of Nourish. Farm Front and Center Farming as Ecosystem Balancing Revenue With Mission 013Site Master PlanNourish Farms ISSUE We tend to think of site landscaping primarily in terms of ornamental plant- ings. This would be a mistake on a working farm. SOLUTION No ornamental-only plants! Consider all site landscaping elements as part of the farm ecosystem. That doesn’t mean that every plant needs to be human food, just that it is part of the same system. For example, flowering plants for pollinators are okay, but not non-native annuals in pots for deco- ration. ISSUE It would be unfortunate if a visitor’s first encounter with Nourish Farms were a parking lot or even the front door to a building. SOLUTION Create an edible garden as the first welcoming element of Nourish Farms. The garden should have discernible edges, be they buildings, trees, low walls, shrubs, grasses or forbs. ISSUE On the farm, if it is not easy and natural for the staff and volunteers to in- formally engage one another, an entire level of communication fails to take place. Regular staff meetings, newsletters and memos cannot come close to replacing informal interchange between staff members and volunteers. SOLUTION Create a place away from the public realm where staff would typically go to make copies, check their mail, get a cup of coffee, etc. Give this place enough room for a number of small conversations to occur simultaneously. Provide informal seating and access and view to the outside if possible. The Hearth should be along the main thoroughfare traveled by the majority of the staff during the day. Lockers for use by the volunteers should be nearby to help facilitate interaction. Edible Landscape Welcome Garden The Staff Hearth 012 ISSUE Responsible and regenerative practices can seem like an “all or nothing” proposition. If people get the impression that they are always failing to do the best thing, then they may give up trying at all. SOLUTION Meet each person where they are. The demonstration areas and educational exhibits should display a spectrum of options leading to more sustainable, regenerative practice. Be honest about the way that Nourish itself is less than perfect. Visitors leave with a sense that there is always a way to do something a bit better. ISSUE Nourish Farms has a lot of goals and ideas for its 13-acre property. If we simply cut the property into a whole lot of small plots, it could become disor- ganized and cumbersome to navigate. SOLUTION Create a roughly half-mile loop pathway that serves as a central hub serv- ing each of the plots on the farm. This loop will have to cross the entry road safely and will also help connect the farm to the school. All or Something The Miley Loop ISSUE Unfortunately our culture tends to see rainwater as a waste product; piping, storing and treating it as though it were sewage. SOLUTION Rain should be allowed to slowly be absorbed on the land where it falls. Local subsurface movement of water must be understood before proposing any structure that might disrupt that flow. Minimize the use of hard paving surfaces and where used, make it permeable. Rainwater that comes off the roof should be slowed down, collected and/or reintroduced to the local wa- ter table. Consider using grey-water to irrigate crops. In the process, water can become a visual and acoustic part of daily life and consciousness at the farm. Water As Treasure Bayview Commons Madison, Wisconsin Thai Farm Village Initial Patterns Copyright © 2023 The Kubala Washatko Architects, Inc.All Rights Reserved 255922 P R O J E C T N U M B E R February 14, 2023 D A T E S H E E T T I T L E P R O J E C T O W N E R Habitat for Humanity Hawaii Island P.O. Box 4619 Kailua-Kona, HI The Kubala Washatko Architects, Inc. Papaikou, HI Ku'u Papaikou Agrivillage 40'50'60'70'80'90'100 '110 '120' 120' 110' 110' 120' 130' 140' 150'160'160'170'170'160' 160' 150'150'170' 160' 170' 150' 140' 140'130'120' 110 '110'100'90'80' 70' 60' 50' 100'90'90'100' 110'20'-0" 100'-0" 2 0'-0" N 1000'0 Existing Site Plan Papaikou Agrivillage Initial Patterns Initial Patterns Prompting questions: •What are the real issues on the ground and in the community that need to be addressed? •What must this project include to be successful? Initial Patterns Regional AGRARIAN HARMONY DIVERSITY AFFORDABLE HOMES AGING IN COMMUNITY NEIGHBORHOOD SCHOOL AG COLLABORATORS LOCAL MATERIALS INTENTIONAL NEIGHBORING SELF GOVERNANCE COMMUNITY FACILITATOR CARE OF THE COMMONS Site MAIN STREET TO THE SHORE PUBLIC-PRIVATE SITE GRADIENTS COMING HOME FOLLOW THE LAND INCREMENTAL GROWTH THE PERCH AGRIVILLAGE AS ECO-SYSTEM CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT VILLAGE CENTER GROWING ON DISPLAY PLACES TO WORK, PLACES TO WATCH FARMER’S MARKET AGRICULTURAL WORK HUB FOOD BUYING CLUB COMMUNITY GIFT GARDEN EVERYWHERE EDIBLE LANDSCAPE GREEN SWEAT EQUITY MAKER’S SPACES DAILY MIGRATIONS VISIBLE FLOWS SOLAR ROOFS ENGINEERED WETLANDS HIERARCHY OF STREETS ACTIVATING THE STREET SLOW STREETS CORRALLING THE CAR PLANTED PARKING REMOTE PARKING MARKET SQUARE PEDESTRIAN NETWORK WALKING PATH NETWORK TRAIL TO THE BEACH ON-SITE ELECTRIC CARTS SHARED VEHICLES LOCAL VAN SERVICE EV CHARGING PARK-RIDE BUS STOP BICYCLE SHEDS UNIVERSAL DESIGN INDEPENDENT LIVING HOME ASSISTED LIVING HOME OFF GRID RENTAL DIGNITY WEATHERING A STORM STORES, SHOPS, CAFES & MORE Sub-Neighborhood MAKER’S SPACES LIVE-WORK SCALE OF SOCIABILITY SHARED COMMONS TEACHING KITCHEN COMMONS BUILDINGS & GARDENS LAYERS OF PERSONAL SPACE PUBLIC TO PRIVATE GRADIENTS FRONT SIDE / BACK SIDE RESIDENT STORAGE MIX OF HOUSE FORMS, SIZES HOME GROWS WITH FAMILY Building HAWAIIAN LIVING EACH HOME UNIQUE OUTDOOR LIVING ROOM-SIZED FRONT PORCH NESTED HOUSES FULL-USE SIDE YARDS SIDE YARD LIVING SIMPLE STABLE SHELLS NATURAL VENTILATION FRONT DOOR ON THE COMMONS EYES ON SHARED SPACE ROOMS WITH WHOLENESS BEDROOM ON THE MAIN LEVEL ENOUGH STORAGE Initial Patterns GREEN = SUSTAINABLE PATTERN Regional AGRARIAN HARMONY DIVERSITY AFFORDABLE HOMES AGING IN COMMUNITY NEIGHBORHOOD SCHOOL AG COLLABORATORS LOCAL MATERIALS INTENTIONAL NEIGHBORING SELF GOVERNANCE COMMUNITY FACILITATOR CARE OF THE COMMONS Site MAIN STREET TO THE SHORE PUBLIC-PRIVATE SITE GRADIENTS COMING HOME FOLLOW THE LAND INCREMENTAL GROWTH THE PERCH AGRIVILLAGE AS ECO-SYSTEM CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT VILLAGE CENTER GROWING ON DISPLAY PLACES TO WORK, PLACES TO WATCH FARMER’S MARKET AGRICULTURAL WORK HUB FOOD BUYING CLUB COMMUNITY GIFT GARDEN EVERYWHERE EDIBLE LANDSCAPE GREEN SWEAT EQUITY MAKER’S SPACES DAILY MIGRATIONS VISIBLE FLOWS SOLAR ROOFS ENGINEERED WETLANDS HIERARCHY OF STREETS ACTIVATING THE STREET SLOW STREETS CORRALLING THE CAR PLANTED PARKING REMOTE PARKING MARKET SQUARE PEDESTRIAN NETWORK WALKING PATH NETWORK TRAIL TO THE BEACH ON-SITE ELECTRIC CARTS SHARED VEHICLES LOCAL VAN SERVICE EV CHARGING PARK-RIDE BUS STOP BICYCLE SHEDS UNIVERSAL DESIGN INDEPENDENT LIVING HOME ASSISTED LIVING HOME OFF GRID RENTAL DIGNITY WEATHERING A STORM STORES, SHOPS, CAFES & MORE Sub-Neighborhood MAKER’S SPACES LIVE-WORK SCALE OF SOCIABILITY SHARED COMMONS TEACHING KITCHEN COMMONS BUILDINGS & GARDENS LAYERS OF PERSONAL SPACE PUBLIC TO PRIVATE GRADIENTS FRONT SIDE / BACK SIDE RESIDENT STORAGE MIX OF HOUSE FORMS, SIZES HOME GROWS WITH FAMILY Building HAWAIIAN LIVING EACH HOME UNIQUE OUTDOOR LIVING ROOM-SIZED FRONT PORCH NESTED HOUSES FULL-USE SIDE YARDS SIDE YARD LIVING SIMPLE STABLE SHELLS NATURAL VENTILATION FRONT DOOR ON THE COMMONS EYES ON SHARED SPACE ROOMS WITH WHOLENESS BEDROOM ON THE MAIN LEVEL ENOUGH STORAGE Initial Patterns Regional AGRARIAN HARMONY DIVERSITY AFFORDABLE HOMES AGING IN COMMUNITY NEIGHBORHOOD SCHOOL AG COLLABORATORS LOCAL MATERIALS INTENTIONAL NEIGHBORING SELF GOVERNANCE COMMUNITY FACILITATOR CARE OF THE COMMONS Site MAIN STREET TO THE SHORE PUBLIC-PRIVATE SITE GRADIENTS COMING HOME FOLLOW THE LAND INCREMENTAL GROWTH THE PERCH AGRIVILLAGE AS ECO-SYSTEM CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT VILLAGE CENTER GROWING ON DISPLAY PLACES TO WORK, PLACES TO WATCH FARMER’S MARKET AGRICULTURAL WORK HUB FOOD BUYING CLUB COMMUNITY GIFT GARDEN EVERYWHERE EDIBLE LANDSCAPE GREEN SWEAT EQUITY MAKER’S SPACES DAILY MIGRATIONS VISIBLE FLOWS SOLAR ROOFS ENGINEERED WETLANDS HIERARCHY OF STREETS ACTIVATING THE STREET SLOW STREETS CORRALLING THE CAR PLANTED PARKING REMOTE PARKING MARKET SQUARE PEDESTRIAN NETWORK WALKING PATH NETWORK TRAIL TO THE BEACH ON-SITE ELECTRIC CARTS SHARED VEHICLES LOCAL VAN SERVICE EV CHARGING PARK-RIDE BUS STOP BICYCLE SHEDS UNIVERSAL DESIGN INDEPENDENT LIVING HOME ASSISTED LIVING HOME OFF GRID RENTAL DIGNITY WEATHERING A STORM STORES, SHOPS, CAFES & MORE Sub-Neighborhood MAKER’S SPACES LIVE-WORK SCALE OF SOCIABILITY SHARED COMMONS TEACHING KITCHEN COMMONS BUILDINGS & GARDENS LAYERS OF PERSONAL SPACE PUBLIC TO PRIVATE GRADIENTS FRONT SIDE / BACK SIDE RESIDENT STORAGE MIX OF HOUSE FORMS, SIZES HOME GROWS WITH FAMILY Building HAWAIIAN LIVING EACH HOME UNIQUE OUTDOOR LIVING ROOM-SIZED FRONT PORCH NESTED HOUSES FULL-USE SIDE YARDS SIDE YARD LIVING SIMPLE STABLE SHELLS NATURAL VENTILATION FRONT DOOR ON THE COMMONS EYES ON SHARED SPACE ROOMS WITH WHOLENESS BEDROOM ON THE MAIN LEVEL ENOUGH STORAGE RED = NEEDS DISCUSSION Thank You! ROSS CHAPIN ARCHITECTS The Kubala Washatko Architects