Volume 2: Draft Gorst Planned Action Environmental Impact Statement

GORST PLANNED ACTION EIS | SUMMARYHazardous MaterialsUnder all of the alternatives future redevelopment of contaminated sites would presumably occur, potentiallyresulting in the release of hazardous materials to soil, groundwater, and surface water, or exposure of workers andthe public to these materials. Most of these potential impacts would occur within the UGA, at industrial sites.Contaminants from existing sites within the study area could continue to be transported off of these sites as aresult of stormwater and flooding issues. Such movement of contaminants would continue to impact surfacewater, groundwater, and soil resources within the study area. These impacts would be greatest under Alternative1, and lower under Alternatives 2 and 3, which would address stormwater and flooding issues in the UGA as well aslimit future land clearing in areas of protection in the watershed. Contaminated sites would be avoided duringproject design when possible. Implementing the mitigation approaches described above would reduce adverseeffects on human health and the environment.Land Use PatternsUnder all alternatives, the Gorst Creek watershed in general, and the Gorst UGA in particular, would experienceadditional growth in population and employment. Vacant land in the Gorst UGA is anticipated to be developed,and some existing properties would redevelop over time. While the overall land use pattern in the area would beirreversibly changed, anticipated impacts can be mitigated with design and development standards.Socio-EconomicsPopulation, employment and housing will increase under any of the alternatives reviewed, to different degrees.Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 have the most growth in population and Alternatives 1 and 2 the most growth inemployment. Additional growth in any of the scenarios will increase the demand for the development of housingand commercial uses. The additional growth will also result in secondary impacts on the natural and builtenvironment and to the demand for utilities and public services, which is addressed in the appropriate sections ofthis EIS. Regarding the character of the local economy, there are no potential significantly adverse impacts areidentified from the anticipated growth in population and employment.AestheticsNew 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.Cultural ResourcesThe impacts on cultural resources caused by new development associated with all studied alternatives could besignificant and unavoidable, depending on the nature and proximity of the proposed development project.Draft | June 2013 1-42