SECTION 2.0 PROPOSED PROJECT AND ALTERNATIVES

Transcription

1 SECTION 2.0 PROPOSED PROJECT AND ALTERNATIVES

2 SECTION 2.0 PROPOSED PROJECT AND ALTERNATIVES The Proposed Project and project alternatives are described in this section. This section also summarizes the potential environmental consequences associated with each alternative as well as the protective measures and Best Management Practices (BMPs) incorporated into the project to reduce potential adverse impacts to environmental resources. A summary of each development alternative and associated components is included in Table 2-1. The project alternatives evaluated in the Environmental Assessment (EA) include: Alternative A residences and community facilities with municipal water and wastewater service (Proposed Project); Alternative B residences and community facilities with onsite water and wastewater; Alternative C - 55 residences and community facilities with onsite water and wastewater; and Alternative D - No-Action Alternative. Project Components TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES Alternatives A B C Single-family houses Cottages (Townhouses) High-density units Total Units Community Center 18,809 SF* 18,809 SF 18,809 SF Roundhouse 2,500 SF 2,500 SF 2,500 SF Retreat 2,707 SF 2,707 SF 2,707 SF Water Source Municipal Onsite wells Onsite wells Wastewater Option SOURCE: Williams + Paddon, 2009 *Note: Square Feet (SF) Municipal Onsite wastewater treatment plant, surface water disposal Onsite wastewater treatment plant, onsite disposal Analytical Environmental Services 2-1 Lytton Residential Development

3 2.1 ALTERNATIVE A - PROPOSED PROJECT Alternative A consists of two main components: (1) placing seven parcels that roughly total 92 acres (APNs , , , , , , and ) into Federal trust status, and (2) construction of 147 residential units and associated facilities. Alternative A is described in more detail below LAND TRUST ACTION Alternative A consists of the fee simple conveyance of the approximately 92-acre site into Federal trust status for the benefit of the Tribe. This trust action would shift civil regulatory jurisdiction over the 92 acres from the State of California and Sonoma County to the Tribe and the federal government; the State and County would continue to exercise criminal jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C and other federal laws pertaining to jurisdiction in Indian country RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT The Tribe would develop the project site to provide approximately 147 residential units. A site plan for Alternative A is shown in Figure 2-1. The residential units would include 95 singlefamily detached houses, 24 cottage-style houses, and 28 high-density housing units (Table 2-1). Rural roadways would be constructed to provide access to the residences ASSOCIATED FACILITIES As shown in Figure 2-1, a Tribal community center, retreat, and a roundhouse would be included as part of the proposed development. The community center would be approximately 19,000 square feet (sf) in size and located in the central southern portion of the project site. It would include a lounge area, bathroom facilities, and administrative offices. The roundhouse would be situated west of the community center and would include approximately 2,500 sf. The retreat would be located northwest of the roundhouse and would consist of approximately 2,700 sf. Signage would be included for all community facilities. A detailed breakdown of each facility, including the components and approximate sizes of each facility, are displayed in Table PUBLIC SERVICES The Town of Windsor s Police Department (WPD) contracts with the Sonoma County Sheriff s Department (SCSD) for law enforcement services. Both the WPD and the SCSD would serve the project site. Pursuant to the Cooperative Fire Protection Agreement (Appendix I) between the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and State of California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire), CalFire would provide fire protection and emergency medical services. Electric, telephone, and cable services would be extended to the site through contracts with the appropriate agency, if required. Analytical Environmental Services 2-2 Lytton Residential Development

4 SOURCE: Williams-Paddon, 3/5/2009; AES, 2009 Lytton Residential Development EA / Figure 2-1 Site Plan Alternative A

5 TABLE 2-2 TRIBAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ONSITE FACILITIES Structure Usage Room Square Footage (sf) Community Center Social Entry Lobby 400 Banquet Pre-function 750 Banquet Hall 4,250 Catering Kitchen 450 Banquet Storage 250 Multi-Purpose (3 room each at 625 sq ft) 1,875 Restrooms 480 Electrical and Telephones 250 Janitorial 75 Subtotal 8,780 Administrative Entry/Reception 175 Private Offices (15 rooms each at 144 sq ft) 2,160 Open Office 750 Work Room 200 Break Room 200 Conference Room 375 Storage 250 Restrooms 350 Subtotal 4,460 Wellness Entry/Reception 200 Treatment Room (3 rooms each at 120 sq ft) 360 Private Office 144 Work Room 225 Storage 150 Restrooms 150 Subtotal 1,229 Amenity Subtotal 14,469 Circulation, Misc. at 30% 4,340 Total Community Subtotal 18,809 Roundhouse Spiritual Round House Ceremonial Space 2,500 Retreat Social Entry Lobby 150 Pre-function Lounge 350 Banquet Room 1,000 Catering Kitchen 250 Restrooms 250 Storage 100 Subtotal 2,100 Circulation, Misc. at 30% 607 Total Retreat Subtotal 2,707 Combined Total of Amenities 24,016 Source: Williams and Paddon, 2009 Analytical Environmental Services 2-4 Lytton Residential Development

6 2.1.5 WATER SUPPLY Water would be supplied from the Town of Windsor s public water supply system, under an agreement to be negotiated between the parties. The primary water supply for the Windsor water system is wells located near the Russian River, northwest of the project site. Two large diameter water transmission mains transport water from the well field to the town for distribution. One of the two transmission mains is an 18-inch diameter main that parallels Windsor River Road, immediately north of the project site. Two connections would be made to this water main to serve the site. Each of these connections would include a meter and backflow prevention facilities, if required. The Tribe would install an onsite water distribution system and water quality standards would be adopted by the Tribe that would be no less stringent than Federal water quality and Federal Safe Drinking Water Act standards. Inspections of the water supply system and water quality by the USEPA would ensure compliance with applicable safe drinking water standards. The proposed water connection is discussed in more detail in Appendix B WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL Under this alternative, the Tribe would enter into an agreement with the Town of Windsor for sewer service. The Town is responsible for the treatment, storage, and disposal of the Town s wastewater. A sewage lift station and approximately 3,200 feet of force main would be constructed to pump the wastewater from the proposed Tribal community to a manhole located near the intersection of Windsor River Road and Starr Road (approximately a half mile from site). The existing Windsor Wastewater Treatment, Reclamation, and Disposal Facility would have sufficient treatment and disposal capacity to serve the Proposed Project (Appendix B). The Tribe would adhere to local regulations for extending sewer mainlines to the project site, including the Town s Sanitary Sewer Management Plan ROADWAYS As shown in Figure 2-1, rural roadways would be constructed to provide access to onsite residences and facilities. Three main project access driveways from Windsor River Road are proposed. Stop signs would be installed at these three project access driveways. The rural roadways would be 24-feet wide two-lane asphalt travel ways, with gravel shoulders consistent with Sonoma County Subdivision and Fire Safe Standards. Signage would be provided for the new roadways PROJECT CONSTRUCTION The project components would be constructed after the 92-acre property has been placed into federal trust. Construction would involve earthwork, placement of concrete foundations, steel and wood structural framing, masonry, electrical and mechanical work, building finishing, and paving, among other construction trades. Construction of the project is anticipated to begin in 2010 and end in A worksite safety plan would be prepared for construction. Analytical Environmental Services 2-5 Lytton Residential Development

7 2.1.9 PROTECTIVE MEASURES AND BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Protective measures and BMPs have been incorporated into the project design to eliminate or substantially reduce environmental impacts from the project. These measures and BMPs are discussed below. Land Resources All structures would meet the California Building Code (CBC) requirements for the site, including the seismic design criteria of the most recent edition of the Uniform Building Code (UBC) for Seismic Zone 4. Protective coatings for buried steel facilities would be used for construction on corrosive soil. Water Resources Areas outside of buildings and roads would be kept as permeable surfaces to the extent practicable; either as vegetation or high infiltration cover, such as mulch, gravel, or turf block. Pedestrian pathways would use a permeable surface where possible, such as crushed aggregate or stone with sufficient permeable joints (areas between stone or brick if used). Existing vegetation would be retained where possible. Roof down spouts would be directed to splash blocks and not to underground stormdrain systems. Runoff from rooftops, and other impervious areas would be directed to vegetated areas to help treat and infiltrate stormwater prior to leaving the site. Runoff from roadways would filter though rock-lined swales and bio-swales. All storm drains would be equipped with silt and grease traps to remove oils, debris, and other pollutants. Storm drain inlets would also be labeled No Dumping Drains to Streams and Rivers. Permanent energy dissipaters would be included for drainage outlets. Rock rip-rap energy dissipaters would be installed at the point of release of concentrated flow. High water-demand plants would be minimized in landscaping plans. Native and drought-tolerant plant species (trees, shrubs, and ground cover) would be emphasized. Water-efficient fixtures and appliances would be installed in residences and community facilities. Air Quality The following measures would reduce project related greenhouse gas emissions related to climate change: Analytical Environmental Services 2-6 Lytton Residential Development

8 Buildings would be sited to take advantage of shade, prevailing winds, and sun screens to reduce energy use. Buildings would be designed to include efficient lighting and lighting control systems. Energy efficient heating and cooling systems as well as appliances would be installed in residences and community facilities. Solar or wind power systems would be utilized where feasible. Biological Resources All identified heritage trees would be preserved to the maximum extent feasible. Native trees with greater than nine inches diameter at breast height (DBH) within the Sonoma County valley oak habitat (VOH) Combining District would be preserved to the maximum extent feasible. Native trees with greater than nine inches DBH within mixed riparian habitats would be preserved to the maximum extent feasible. Public Services Structural fire protection would be provided through compliance with Uniform Fire Code requirements for commercial structures of this size. The Tribe would ensure that appropriate water supply and pressure is available for emergency fire flows. The community center would be equipped with an early detection system that ensures an initial response to any fire alarm (automatic, local, or report). This would rely on automatic sprinkler systems in the occupied areas and smoke detection, along with automatic sprinkler systems, in the areas of the facility that are normally unoccupied, such as storerooms and mechanical areas. All structures would be constructed in accordance with all Uniform Building Codes, as adopted or supplemented by Sonoma County. Noise Houses would be designed to locate outdoor spaces away from the sound path of travel in order to minimize noise levels for existing offsite houses in the vicinity of the project site. Visual Resources Signage for all streets and community facilities would be subtly incorporated into the landscape. Lighting would only occur at street intersections and parking areas for the community facilities. The lighting would consist of pole mounted lights limited to 18 feet and would be required to have cut-off lenses. Analytical Environmental Services 2-7 Lytton Residential Development

9 2.2 ALTERNATIVE B - ONSITE WATER AND WASTEWATER As with Alternative A, Alternative B would include placing the 92-acre site into federal trust status for the benefit of the Tribe; however under Alternative B, onsite water and wastewater facilities would be built. The Tribe would develop the site to provide 147 residential units including 95 single-family houses, 24 cottage style houses, and 28 high-density housing units, identical to Alternative A (Table 2-1). Alternative B would include the same associated community facilities as Alternative A. These facilities include a Tribal community center, roundhouse, and retreat facility (Figure 2-2). A detailed breakdown of each facility, including the components and approximate sizes of each facility, are displayed in Table 2-2. As with Alternative A, the same rural roadways would be constructed to provide access to the residences and community facilities. Signage would also be provided for streets and community facilities PUBLIC SERVICES Public service providers under Alternative B would be the same as those presented for Alternative A WATER SUPPLY Alternative B would include an onsite water supply obtained from the development of groundwater production wells. The primary production well would be located southeast of the planned retreat facility, as shown in Figure 2-2. A secondary well would be located near the water storage tank located northwest of the roundhouse (Figure 2-2) WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL Alternative B includes an onsite wastewater treatment facility and approximately 30 acres of landscaped area for recycled water irrigation during summer months. As shown in Figure 2-2, the treatment plant would be located either in the northwest corner of the site (option #1) or in the southeast corner of the site (option #2). Treated effluent would be used for irrigation during the summer and discharged during the winter pursuant to an NPDES permit that would be issued by the USEPA. For wastewater treatment facility option #1, treated effluent would be discharged into an onsite drainage that flows into the roadside drainage ditch along Windsor River Road, which then flows to a former gravel pit adjacent to the Russian River (Figure 5 of Appendix E). For wastewater treatment facility option #2, treated effluent would be discharged into an unnamed tributary located along the eastern boundary of the project site, which flows into Windsor Creek south of the project site. Windsor Creek connects to Mark West Creek, which eventually connects to the Russian River. Analytical Environmental Services 2-8 Lytton Residential Development

10 SOURCE: Williams-Paddon. 3/5/2009; AES, 2009 Lytton Residential Development EA / Figure 2-2 Site Plan Alternative B

11 2.2.4 ROADWAYS As with Alternative A, rural roadways would be constructed to provide access to onsite residences and facilities (Figure 2-2). If wastewater treatment facility option #1 is chosen, access to the facility would be provided from a nearby existing driveway PROJECT CONSTRUCTION Project construction measures would be similar to those described for Alternative A PROTECTIVE MEASURES AND BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Protective measures and BMPs would be similar to those described for Alternative A. However, the following additional measures would be implemented: Sodium hypochlorite and citric acid would be stored in the chemical room of the wastewater treatment facility. The storage and metering facilities would be located inside a chemical spill containment area, sized to contain 150 percent of the storage volume in case of an unintentional release. The sodium hypochlorite would be stored in a 55-gallon drum and the citric acid would be stored as dry material and then in a 50-gallon mixing tank when needed. The wastewater treatment facility would incorporate an active odor control system, consisting of a packaged biofilter with an active carbon absorption unit. 2.3 ALTERNATIVE C - REDUCED INTENSITY WITH ONSITE WATER AND WASTEWATER Alternative C would include placing the 92-acre site into federal trust status for the benefit of the Tribe, as discussed under Alternative A. The Tribe would develop the site to provide 55 residential units including 35 single-family homes, 12 cottage-style houses, and eight highdensity housing units (Figure 2-3). As with the other development alternatives, onsite features would include a community center, roundhouse, and retreat facilities. A breakdown of each community facility with the components and approximate sizes of each structure is included in Table 2-1. Alternative C would include the same rural roadways to provide access to the residences and community facilities. The water supply system would include similar facilities as Alternative B. Wastewater generated on the site would be treated at an onsite water reclamation facility (WRF) located in the central southern portion of the project site. All treated effluent would be disposed of onsite. No treated effluent would be discharged into surface water PUBLIC SERVICES Public service providers under Alternative C would be similar to those presented for Alternative A. Analytical Environmental Services 2-10 Lytton Residential Development

12 SOURCE: Williams-Paddon, 3/5/2009; AES, 2009 Lytton Residential Development EA / Figure 2-3 Site Plan Alternative C

13 2.3.2 WATER SUPPLY Alternative C would include a similar but proportionately smaller water supply system as Alternative B WASTEWATER FACILITIES As with Alternative B, wastewater would be treated at an onsite wastewater treatment facility; however, under Alternative C, only 11.7 acres of irrigation land is required and a large treated effluent storage basin would be constructed (Figure 2-3). No surface water discharge would occur under this alternative. The treatment plant would be located in the central southeast portion of the project site and the storage basin would be located in the southeast corner of the project site. During the winter months, treated effluent would be stored in the storage basin; while in the summer months, treated effluent would be used for landscape irrigation throughout the property ROADWAYS As with Alternative A, rural roadways would be constructed to provide access to onsite residences and facilities. Three main project access driveways from Windsor River Road are proposed, as shown in Figure PROJECT CONSTRUCTION Project construction would be similar to what is described for the Alternative A PROTECTIVE MEASURES AND BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Protective measures and BMPs would be similar to those described for Alternatives A and B. However, the following additional measures for the effluent storage basin would be implemented: The storage basin would be lined using 60 millimeter high density polyethylene liner, equipped with draining systems and level monitors. The storage basin would be fenced and gated for vehicular access. A minimum of two feet would be maintained between the high groundwater level and the basin bottom. 2.4 ALTERNATIVE D - NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE Under the No-Action Alternative, the 92-acre site would not be placed into trust for the benefit of the Tribe and would not be developed as identified under the Proposed Project. Jurisdiction of the property would remain within Sonoma County. Ultimately, the 92-acre site could be developed by the Tribe with the property owned in fee, or by a private party, consistent with local zoning. However, for the purposes of the environmental analysis in this EA, it is assumed that the property would remain as rural residences and oak woodland habitat and would not be further developed. Analytical Environmental Services 2-12 Lytton Residential Development

14 2.5 COMPARISON OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND ALTERNATIVES Among the project alternatives evaluated in Section 4.0, the Proposed Project and Alternative B both include 147 housing units and the same associated community facilities. However, Alternative B would include onsite water and wastewater facilities, whereas the Proposed Project (Alternative A) would connect to municipal water and sewer services. Alternative C would result in construction of only 55 housing units, with the same community facilities as the other two project alternatives, as well as on-site water and wastewater facilities. Under Alternative D, the No-Action Alternative, no development would occur on the property for the foreseeable future. Impacts to land resources would be proportionally greatest under Alternative B, due to the larger project footprint needed for construction of the water and wastewater facilities. This would require additional site grading compared to the Proposed Project. Alternative C would require slightly less grading than the Proposed Project, and substantially less than Alternative B. The No-Action Alternative would have no effect on land resources. Water resources would likewise be impacted the most by Alternative B. This alternative would result in a greater area of impermeable surfaces than either the Proposed Project or Alternative C. Alternative B would have water demands identical to the Proposed Project; however, this alternative would obtain water from the local aquifer. Alternative C would also use groundwater, but the quantities would be substantially less due to the reduced number of housing units. The Proposed Project would use no groundwater. Under Alternative B, treated effluent would be used for irrigation during the summer and discharged to surface water during the winter, which would require a NPDES permit from USEPA. Because of the substantially reduced quantity of effluent that would result under Alternative C, all effluent would be utilized for on-site irrigation during summer and stored in a basin during the winter; therefore, a NPDES discharge permit would not be required. Potential impacts to groundwater and surface water quality associated with on-site effluent disposal would be proportionally greater for Alternative B than Alternative C. The Proposed Project would need no NPDES discharge permit, and would result in no impacts to surface water or groundwater quality due to on-site effluent discharge. No impacts to water resources would result from Alternative D. Construction and operational emissions of criteria air pollutants and greenhouse gases would be similar under both the Proposed Project and Alternative B; however, these emissions would be proportionally lower under Alternative C due to the reduced amount of construction and the reduction in residential vehicle trips generated. Operation of the WRF under Alternatives B or C could result in objectionable odors; the Proposed Project would have no such potential effect. Under Alternative D, no impacts to air quality would occur. Due to the larger development footprint of Alternative B, as well as the operation of the WRF, potential impacts to biological resources would be greatest under this alternative. Impacts to Analytical Environmental Services 2-13 Lytton Residential Development

15 sensitive habitats, potential jurisdictional waters of the U.S., native trees, and special-status species would all be lessened under the Proposed Project, and would be less still under the substantially reduced development area of Alternative C. No impacts to biological resources would occur under Alternative D. Potential impacts to cultural resources resulting from inadvertent discovery of previously unknown subsurface archaeological or paleontological sites would increase proportionally to the amount of ground disturbance; therefore, Alternative B would have the greatest potential for adverse effects to cultural resources. The Proposed Project would involve less ground-disturbing construction work, thereby reducing the potential for these impacts. Alternative C has the smallest construction footprint, and would consequently have the least potential to affect cultural resources of the three project alternatives. The No-Action Alternative would not result in impacts to cultural resources. No impacts to socioeconomic conditions and environmental justice would result from the Proposed Project or Alternatives B, C, or D. Alternatives A and B would generate the same number of vehicle trips, due to the identical number of housing units. Impacts to the local transportation network from these two alternatives would therefore be similar. Alternative C includes fewer housing units and would therefore generate fewer vehicle trips. Impacts to the transportation system would be proportionally lessened under this alternative. Alternative D would generate no vehicle trips, and would therefore cause no impacts to transportation and circulation. Buildout of Alternatives A, B, and C would result in the construction of residences, a community center, a roundhouse, and a retreat. Alternatives B and C also include the addition of two groundwater wells and a wastewater treatment facility. All three alternatives are compatible with the surrounding land uses, and similar residential densities currently occur in the project vicinity. Alternative C would have the least effect on land use as it would result in the lowest residential density. Alternative D would have no impact on local land use. Alternatives A and B would have equal impacts on solid waste, electricity, natural gas, telecommunications, law enforcement, fire protection and emergency medical services, public schools, and parks and recreation. Alternative C would have proportionally less impact on these services because of the reduced number of residents requiring these utilities and services. Alternative D would have no impact on public services and utilities. Alternative A would have the greatest impact on municipal water supply and wastewater treatment facilities, as it is the only alternative that would connect to these facilities. This alternative would result in an increase of potable water demand and municipal wastewater treatment. Alternatives B, C, and D would not result in an increase in demand for municipal water supply or wastewater treatment. Analytical Environmental Services 2-14 Lytton Residential Development

16 Impacts related to construction noise would be greatest under Alternative B, due to the larger development footprint. Alternative A would have a slightly lessened noise impact, as construction would take place in a somewhat smaller area and for a shorter duration of time. Operational noise would be similar under these two alternatives. Under Alternative C, construction activity would be reduced in duration and/or intensity when compared with Alternative A and B, and operational noise would be lessened due to the smaller number of residents. No noise-related impacts would occur under Alternative D. Impacts related to hazardous materials would be greatest under Alternatives B and C, due to the storage of hazardous materials (sodium hypochlorite and citric acid) for the onsite wastewater facilities, whereas the Proposed Project would connect to the municipal water and sewer services and would not require the use of these chemicals. No hazardous material impacts would occur under Alternative D. Visual resource impacts would be greatest under Alternative B, due to the on-site water and wastewater facilities and maximum number of housing units, which would be partially visible to local sensitive receptors and drivers on Eastside and Windsor River Roads. The Proposed Project would include an equal number of houses, but would not include the on-site water and wastewater facilities. Alternative C would include the on-site water and wastewater facilities; however, it would include fewer than half of the housing units. No visual impacts would occur under Alternative D. While both Alternatives A and B meet the Tribe s objectives of providing a cohesive residential community large enough to accommodate its members, Alternative A would result in fewer potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed development activities. Alternative C would result in proportionally fewer environmental impacts than the Proposed Project and Alternative B, but would not meet the project objectives since it would include fewer than half of the housing units, when compared to the two other development alternatives. While the No- Action alternative would not result in any of the environmental effects identified for the Proposed Project or Alternatives B and C, this alternative would not meet the Tribe s objectives of providing a sufficient number of housing units for Tribal members, or community facilities for Tribal functions. Analytical Environmental Services 2-15 Lytton Residential Development