Volume 2: Draft Gorst Planned Action Environmental Impact Statement

GORST PLANNED ACTION EIS | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES• Critical area buffersIn addition other City or County regulations such as those governing signage, lighting, and landscaping wouldapply.Future design guidelines developed with the Preferred Alternative would likely establish discretionary review offuture development proposals focusing on the design of the public realm and those portions of privatedevelopment sites that directly affect the public realm. The design guidelines are intended to promote walkability,complete streets, identifiable character, the efficient and coordinated use of land and infrastructure, and LID.Accordingly, the design guidelines may address:• Streetscape guidelines• Site planning guidelinesThe streetscape guidelines apply to the design of public rights-of-way. Streetscape guidelines would address:• Design of the roadway, including width of travel, bicycle, and parking lanes• Design of the curb zone, which includes street trees and other amenities and infrastructure• The sidewalk• The transitional zone, which is the area between the sidewalk and edge of right-of-way• Building frontage elements such as the provision of weather protection where buildings abut the right-of-wayThe streetscape guidelines could vary based on type of roadway.The site planning guidelines associated with the Preferred Alternative would likely address the design of individualbuilding sites with regard to several aspects, including:• Building orientation, including the location of entrances• Building façade, including street-facing windows, building articulation, and blank wall limitations• Parking and vehicular access, including location of parking, curb cuts, shared parking, and pedestrianaccessibilitySignificant Unavoidable Adverse ImpactsNew development and redevelopment would result in changes to the current aesthetic conditions of the studyarea under all alternatives. The significance of visual impacts on the study area depends in large part on the valuesof those viewing the changes as well as the overall character and quality of the architectural and urban designfeatures incorporated into future development.Under all alternatives, temporary character and shading impacts would result from different building heightsbetween adjacent properties as development of individual sites occurs. Currently, most properties in the studyarea are at low rise scales and have not developed to the extent allowed under present zoning. In some cases theaction alternatives would allow greater heights than present zoning. Impacts would diminish as redevelopmentbecomes more widespread throughout the study area. Existing and potential development regulations regardingheight limits, setbacks, and screening would mitigate for such impacts.The overall aesthetic character of the study area would change under all alternatives as development andredevelopment occurs. All alternatives would be subject to mitigation measures in the form of policies,development regulations, and design standards that will mitigate for potentially adverse aesthetic impacts orresult in a positive change to the aesthetic character of the study area. Therefore, no significant unavoidableadverse impacts on aesthetics are anticipated.Draft | June 2013 3-128