MELROSE DRIVE EXTENSION PROJECT VISUAL IMPACT ANALYSIS December 2009 Prepared for: CITY OF OCEANSIDE 300 North Coast Highway Oceanside, California 92054 VISUAL IMPACT ANALYSIS MELROSE DRIVE EXTENSION PROJECT December 2009 Prepared by: ________________________________ Amy Hoffman, ASLA Landscape Architect CLA 5212 Reviewed by: R. Brad Lewis, ASLA Project Landscape Architect CLA 2657 Melrose Drive Extension Project Visual Impact Analysis TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title Page I. PURPOSE OF STUDY........................................................................................................1 II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................................1 A. Project Location .......................................................................................................1 B. Project Description ...................................................................................................1 III. ASSESSMENT METHOD ..................................................................................................7 IV. VISUAL ENVIRONMENT OF THE PROJECT ................................................................8 A. Project Setting ..........................................................................................................8 V. EXISTING VISUAL RESOURCES .................................................................................12 A. FHWA Method of Visual Resource Analysis ........................................................12 B. Existing Visual Resources .....................................................................................12 C. Existing Visual Quality ..........................................................................................21 VI. VIEWER RESPONSE .......................................................................................................22 A. Methods of Predicting Viewer Response ...............................................................22 B. Existing Viewer Sensitivity ...................................................................................22 C. Viewer Exposure and Awareness ..........................................................................24 VII. VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT ..................................................................................27 A. Thresholds of Significance ....................................................................................27 B. Method of Assessing Project Impacts ....................................................................28 C. Existing Visual Character and Quality ..................................................................29 D. Analysis of Project Effects and Determination as to Significance/Conformance with Stated Significance Criteria ...........................................................................34 E. Cumulative Impacts ...............................................................................................81 VIII. MITIGATION MEASURES .............................................................................................85 IX. CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................................85 X. CERTIFICATIONS AND QUALIFICATIONS ...............................................................87 XI. REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................88 i LIST OF FIGURES Follows Number Title Page 1 Regional Map ..............................................................................................................2 2 Location Map ..............................................................................................................2 3 Study Area with Alternative Alignments ....................................................................2 4 Typical Project Sections .............................................................................................2 5 Land Use .....................................................................................................................8 6 Viewshed Map ..........................................................................................................10 7 Photograph and Key View Location Map ................................................................14 8 Typical Photographs 1 and 2.....................................................................................14 9 Typical Photographs 3 and 4.....................................................................................14 10 Typical Photographs 5 and 6.....................................................................................16 11 Typical Photographs 7 and 8.....................................................................................16 12 Typical Photographs 9 and 10...................................................................................18 13 Typical Photographs 11 and 12.................................................................................18 14 Typical Photographs 13 and 14.................................................................................18 15 Key Views .................................................................................................................30 16 Alternative A, Key View 1, Simulation 1 ................................................................34 17 Alternative A, Key View 2, Simulation 2 ................................................................38 18 Alternative A, Key View 3, Simulation 3 ................................................................38 19 Alternative B, Key View 1, Simulation 4 ................................................................40 20 Alternative B, Key View 2, Simulation 5 ................................................................44 21 Alternative B, Key View 3, Simulation 6 ................................................................44 22 Alternative C, Key View 1, Simulation 7 ................................................................46 23 Alternative C, Key View 2, Simulation 8 ................................................................48 24 Alternative C, Key View 3, Simulation 9 ................................................................50 25 Cumulative Projects within Project Viewshed .........................................................82 LIST OF TABLES Number Title Page 1 Change to Visual Quality of Key Views by Project Alternative ..............................51 2 Land Use Goals, Objectives and Policies Consistency Evaluation ..........................60 3 Cumulative Projects within Project Viewshed .........................................................83 ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This visual impact assessment was prepared to evaluate the proposed extension of Melrose Drive between two existing termini at North Santa Fe Avenue and Spur Avenue. The proposed project (Project) is located in the eastern portion of the City of Oceanside (City) and unincorporated areas of San Diego County (County), as well as a small portion in the City of Vista, and includes three alternative roadway alignments. The proposed roadway would include three lanes in each direction, a sidewalk and bike lane on each side of the roadway, and a 10-foot-wide median. Manufactured slopes would be planted with either native or erosion control vegetation, and regularly-spaced trees would be planted in the median and at street edges. Noise attenuation barriers are required for each alternative, as well. Most would be five feet tall, and would be placed at the edge of the Project grading footprint. The site spans and abuts a variety of land uses, including suburban and rural residential uses, agricultural facilities, and the open space within Guajome County Park and Rancho Guajome Adobe. The visual environment within and surrounding the Project study area is diverse and encompasses single-family houses; roadways of various sizes; open space encompassing native vegetation, streams and ponds; an equestrian facility with vivid red stable buildings; and several commercial nursery properties, some with visually dominant white greenhouses structures. Having articulated the visual character and quality existing conditions, the visual assessment team, including two County-listed visual analysts and licensed landscape architects, evaluated potential modifications to the existing conditions as a result of implementation of the Project. Potential Project impacts were evaluated based on the degree of contrast between the existing views and proposed Project elements. The team also evaluated the Project’s consistency with County, City, City of Vista, and community plans and ordinances related to visual resources. This assessment generally follows Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) guidelines for evaluating visual impacts, while considering County and City Significance Criteria specific to the Project and the region. The team evaluated three Key Views and simulations of the proposed alternatives as seen from those Key Views. The visual environment of the Key Views would be changed by the proposed Project, and the visual quality would be composed of different elements; however, the visual quality of the proposed Project for the most part would be similar to the existing visual environment, and would cause a low level of change. This minor level of change in the visual quality of the views in combination with the large number of viewers on each roadway represented by the key views indicates that each