~ Alternatives ~

Alternative locations for the Specific Plan do not exist because Brooktrails Township is an existing community established under existing law.

6.2 NO PROJECT
Analysis of the No-Project alternative is required under CEQA. For purposes of definition, the No Specific Plan alternative is synonymous with the description of the No Project alternative. This is because the Specific Plan is defined as the project, and without the project there would be no Specific Plan. Alternative Development Scenario #1 described below is analogous to the No-Project (no Specific Plan) alternative because the existing Township water supply can provide up to about 2,000 residences, and no Specific Plan would be prepared without the need for a new reservoir to supply water to more than 2,000 residences, due to circumstances surrounding the issue of growth within Brooktrails Township as explained previously (see Section 2 of this EIR, Project Description, regarding the need for and origination of the Specific Plan).

Although Brooktrails was conceived and the land subdivided prior to the enactment of the California Environmental Quality Act, development of the Township with over 6,000 residential units as originally envisioned is not feasible without environmental evaluation because of the determination of need for the Specific Plan. Therefore, development not exceeding 2,000 residences is the respective limit of growth within the Township without the Specific Plan.

The No Project alternative includes maintenance of the existing environment at the 2,000 unit level as a basis for comparison of the other alternatives considered. No development beyond the existing 1,279 unit count (includes lodge units), cannot realistically be considered because the water and sewer infrastructure needed to accommodate up to 2,000 units is currently in place, and Township development above the existing level would not be inconsistent with the Mendocino County General Plan.

6.3 ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS
Up to and throughout preparation of the Specific Plan, the Brooktrails TCSD Board of Directors has embraced a planning process which involved the public in helping to develop a new vision and plan for the future of the community. Prior to January 1995, members of the community had participated in two Community Congress meetings, a Community Vision Focus Group process to develop a vision for the Community, a Bay Area Focus Group meeting, and a community survey of issues of concern to Brooktrails residents. The Board also kept members of the public apprised of the planning process through a quarterly newsletter.

In January of 1995, the Township initiated the process of forming a Specific Plan Advisory Committee consisting of Brooktrails property owners. In working with the Advisory Committee, the first step was to prepare and present for review a series of potential growth scenarios for Brooktrails Township, up to and including Township buildout as originally envisioned when Brooktrails was established. Five Alternative Development Scenarios were developed and presented for review and discussion, together with the criteria and considerations documenting the origin of each Scenario. The Scenarios included the following:

Fixed Growth Scenario #1: 2,000 Units

Low Growth Scenario #2: 2,500 Units

Medium Growth Scenario #3: 3,500 to 4,000 Units

Medium-High Growth Scenario #4: 5,000 Units

High Growth Scenario #5: 6,000 Units

The ultimate objective was for the Advisory Committee and District Board of Directors to agree on a series of Development Scenarios for testing in terms of environmental practicality, consistency with the Preliminary Goals and Objectives of the Community Vision Focus Group Report as adopted by the Township Board of Directors, consistency with the provisions of the Mendocino County General Plan, and to assess each Scenario for economic feasibility.

Meetings involving the Specific Plan preparers and Specific Plan Advisory Committee members were held on the evenings of April 19 and April 26, 1995. The purpose of these meetings was for the Specific Plan preparers to present the Alternative Development Scenarios as developed to date and related information to the Advisory Committee, and record comments from the Advisory Committee Members regarding the Alternative Development Scenarios and related matters. As a result of these two meetings, the Advisory Committee provided recommendations regarding each of the various Alternative Development Scenarios, and adjustments were made accordingly.

Following the April 19 and April 26, 1995 Specific Plan Advisory Committee meetings, the Alternative Development Scenarios were presented to the Community Services District Board of Directors for consideration on the evening of May 9, 1995 at the Brooktrails Community Center.

After presentation of the Alternative Development Scenarios, the Board approved the Development Scenarios, with modifications as recommended by the Advisory Committee, for feasibility testing, with the objective of selecting one community size for preparing the Brooktrails Township Specific Plan.

The following discussion is a review of the potential environmental implications of initiating either of the five Alternative Development Scenarios. Potential risk of adverse environmental impact by subject area is provided to facilitate evaluation of the alternative development scenarios. Generally, order of magnitude of impact risk is provided where possible.

For clarification, as used in this discussion, "no impact risk" is defined as no perceived risk of adverse environmental impact. "Low impact risk" is defined as minor or short-term risk of adverse environmental impact (not a moderate or high risk). "Moderate impact risk" is defined as less than high but not excessive long-term risk of adverse environmental impact (not a low or high risk). "High impact risk" is defined as high substantial short or long-term risk of adverse environmental impact. Although this analysis is an assessment of impact risk, mitigation measures are explained where appropriate to provide a frame of reference for the reader to understand the potential level of effort that would be required to mitigate identified impacts to relative levels of insignificance.

6.3-1 Fixed Growth Scenario #1: 2,000 Units (No Specific Plan Project)

Land Use Scenario #1 would create the least risk of land use impact of all the development scenarios. New Development would be infill development and primarily residential in character (there could be some locally-serving commercial uses), with no discernable land use conflicts. This alternative would provide maximum ability to capitalize on a program of reassembling and combining lots, particularly in high constraint areas, to achieve larger developable parcels than currently exists. Four-thousand, five-hundred and ninety-nine lots would be available for this purpose. Because development would be expected to be mostly residential, significant, incompatible land uses would not be expected (no or low land use impact risk).

Traffic and Circulation Circulation improvements are currently warranted, including a second access road, regardless of additional development in the Township (refer to Section 3.1.2, Traffic and Circulation, for further information). Because of limited development, Scenario #1 would be expected to generate low traffic and circulation impacts when compared to buildout potential for the Township (see Scenario #5 discussion for buildout impacts).

Under Alternative Development Scenario #1, Sherwood Road would fall below Level of Service (LOS) C during the PM peak hour from U.S. 101 to Primrose Drive. Birch Street would exceed its residential street capacity. In addition. the two Signalized intersections on Main Street in Willits (at State Route 20 and Commercial Street), are projected to operate at LOS E or F in the mid-term, regardless of Brooktrails' growth. The implications for Brooktrails are that even with a second or third access route, traffic may not be able to reach these gateways without considerable delays.

Mitigation would include a second access route by 1998 to avoid Sherwood Road exceeding LOS C. In addition, Sherwood Road should be improved (shoulders, left-turn pockets), from Birch Street to Primrose Drive. State Route 20 between the southern access route and Main Street should be upgraded to urban arterial standards (shoulders, left-turn pockets), and Primrose Drive should be upgraded to a collector street between the southern access route and Clover Road.

Visual Quality Of all the Alternative Development Scenarios, alternative #1 would create the least risk of altering existing visual resources or changing the semi-rural character of the Township. This is because the Township lotting pattern is already established and future development would occur on a random basis as infill development within the established lotting pattern. Significant opportunities to enhance existing open space through unimproved lot reassembly would exist under this development scenario (no or low visual quality impact risk).

Utilities and Public Services Additional demands would be placed on utilities and public services, but, Fixed Growth Scenario #1 would be the least intense of the development scenarios. There would be no new dam construction or associated impacts of building a dam (low utilities and public services impact risk). It should also be noted that improvements in Township public services and utilities have been accounted for in The Township Five Year Capital Improvement Plan (for the 1995-2000 period), adopted by the Township Board of Directors through Resolution 1995-22 on June 20, 1995.

Of all Development Scenarios, Scenario #1 would place the least increase in demand on emergency services, health and human services (social services, mental health services, hospital and medical services), and public elementary and secondary education facilities and services.

Soils and Seismicity Through potential lot reassembly, alternative #1 would afford the greatest opportunity to avoid development on steep slopes or within unstable soils, areas of high constraint to development (no or low soils and seismicity impact risk).

Drainage and Water Quality Scenario #1 would generate the least increase in stormwater runoff of all the alternatives, thus affording the least risk of impact to the flow capacity of existing streams, minimizing the potential for sedimentation and adverse water quality impacts (low drainage and water quality impact risk). Water quality impacts would also include hydrocarbons and other chemicals in runoff resulting from vehicular use.

Vegetation and Wildlife Scenario #1 would minimize disturbance to forest habitat because of reduced development. Scenario #1 would generate the least risk to existing wetlands and riparian habitat because of the reduced increase in population as compared to Scenarios #2 through #5 (low vegetation and wildlife impact risk).

Air Quality Scenario #1 would minimize potential air quality impacts because of the reduced development profile as compared with the other alternatives with higher populations. However, emissions under this scenario would still be considered significant per AQMD criteria. In the year 2020, motor vehicle trips associated with Scenario #1 would emit approximately 2030 lb/day of CO, 180 lb/day of ROG, 310 lb/day of NOx and 870 lb/day of PM10. Due to expected future improvements in motor vehicle emission controls, total future vehicular emissions of CO and ROG under Scenario #1 are projected to be lower than vehicular emissions from existing Brooktrails buildout. But future NOx and PM10 emissions would increase because vehicular emission control enhancements would not overcome the adverse effect of increased trip generation. Projected total future emissions under Scenario #1 -- including miscellaneous household sources -- would be: 3940 lb/day of CO, 590 lb/day of ROG, 420 lb/day of NOx and 1090 lb/day of PM10.

Emissions of CO and ROG would decline relative to existing levels. NOx emissions would increase relative to existing levels, but the increase would be below the AQMD significance criterion. PM10 emissions would increase relative to existing levels, substantially exceeding the AQMD significance criterion.

When emissions under Scenario #1 are compared to those which would result from the existing Brooktrails land uses under the same future year scenario, reductions in overall Brooktrails-related emissions due to future improvements in vehicular emissions controls are factored out of the analysis. Relative to this future baseline, the increase in emissions under Scenario #1 would exceed AQMD significance criteria for CO, ROG, NOx and PM10.

Noise Scenario #1 would minimize adverse noise impacts because of reduced development density and population compared to the other alternatives, and reduced increase in traffic generation (low noise impact risk).

6.3-2 Low Growth Scenario #2: 2,500 Units

Land Use New development would be infill development in a random lot selection pattern, and primarily residential in character, consistent with existing residential land use. As with Scenario #1, Scenario #2 would provide significant ability to capitalize on a program of reassembling and combining lots, particularly in high constraint areas, to achieve larger developable parcels than currently exists. Four-thousand and sixty-five lots would be available for this purpose. Because development would be expected to be mostly residential (some commercial development could occur), significant, incompatible land uses would not be expected (no or low land use impact risk).

Traffic and Circulation Circulation improvements are currently warranted, including a second access road. Increased development over Fixed Growth Scenario #1 would create an increased need for circulation improvements (low traffic and circulation impact risk). For example, assuming the transportation improvements were in place as called for under Scenario #1, additional improvements would be required under Scenario #2. Because the Sherwood Road/U.S.

101 intersection would fall to LOS D, capacity improvements at the intersection would need to be explored, including a new free right turn lane, widening of Main Street to four lanes, and possibly adding dual left turn lanes.

Visual Quality Under Low Growth Scenario #2, there would be a low risk of altering visual resources or changing the existing community character because of scattered infill development throughout an established lotting pattern. There would be a significant opportunity to enhance existing open space if desired, through a potential program of reassembling and combining lots (low visual quality impact risk). The sense of Brooktrails as a rural to semi-rural community would be maintained under Scenario #2 because of the reduced development profile.

Utilities and Public Services Under Scenario #2. there would be additional demands placed on utilities and public services, but there would correspondingly be less demand than under the increased Development Scenarios #3, #4 and #5. There would be no new dam construction or associated impacts of building a dam. Instead, additional water through the use of wells would be required for domestic use. Scenario #2, with up to 2,500 residential units, would trigger the need for a new sewer main to Willits. In addition, pending verification of flow records, the Willits wastewater treatment plant may require expansion under Scenario #2 because the treatment plant receives wastewater from Brooktrails (moderate utilities and public services impact risk).
Scenario #2 would place an increase in demand on emergency services, health and human services (social services, mental health services, hospital and medical services), and public elementary and secondary education facilities and services.

Soils and Seismicity Through potential lot reassembly, alternative #2 would afford significant opportunities to avoid development on steep slopes or within unstable soils, areas of high constraint to development (no or low soils and seismicity impact risk).

Drainage and Water Quality Ð Scenario #2 would provide an increase in the amount of stormwater runoff over Fixed Growth Scenario #1 because of the increased area of construction, but the increase in intensity and amount of runoff would be less than development scenarios #3, #4 and #5. Scenario #2 would generate less risk of impact to the capacity of existing streams and constructed drainage facilities than would Development Scenarios #3, #4 and #5, and minimize the potential for adverse water quality impacts through sedimentation as compared to Development Scenarios #3, #4 and #5 (low drainage and water quality impact risk). Water quality impacts would also include increased risks of hydrocarbons and other chemicals occurring in runoff resulting from increased vehicular use, fertilizers and pesticides.

Vegetation and Wildlife Ð Scenario #2 would require more disturbance to forest habitat than Fixed Growth Scenario #1 because of increased development. There would continue to be a reduced risk of adverse impact to existing wetlands and riparian habitat because of the reduced development density. Unimproved lots in high risk constraint areas would be available for reassembly and recombining to augment and enhance existing open space if desired (low vegetation and wildlife impact risk).

Air Quality Alternative #2 would generate more vehicular traffic than Fixed Growth Scenario #1 because of the greater population base, potentially adversely affecting air quality due to increased vehicular, heating, cooling and fireplace emissions. In the year 2020, motor vehicle trips associated with Scenario #2 would emit approximately 2590 lb/day of CO, 230 lb/day of ROG, 390 lb/day of NOx and 1110 lb/day of PM10. For each of these pollutants, total emissions (including household-related sources) would exceed AQMD significance criteria.

Noise - Alternative #2 would generate more vehicular traffic and bring more people into the Township than Fixed Growth Scenario #1, increasing noise levels over what would be generated under Scenario #1 (low noise impact risk). Noise mitigation would include increased building setbacks from roadways.
6.3-3 Medium Growth Scenario #3: 3,500 to 4,000 Units

Land Use Ð New development would be infill development, and primarily residential, consistent with existing land uses. At this level of development, it would be expected that most of the more easily developable lots (lots that are not steeply sloping or heavily forested), would be developed and other lots that are in high constraint areas or without sewer hookups would remain for development. Residential density would be greater than under Scenario #2, but because new development would be mostly residential, consistent with existing residential land uses, there would be no discernable land use conflicts.
Under Medium Growth Scenario #3, there would remain the ability to capitalize on a program of reassembling and combining lots, particularly in high constraint areas, to achieve larger developable parcels. Under Scenario #3A, two-thousand, nine-hundred and ninety-eight lots would be available for this purpose. Under Scenario #3B, two-thousand, four-hundred and 663 lots would be available for this purpose. Because development would be expected to be mostly residential (some commercial development could occur), significant, incompatible land uses would not be expected (no or low land use impact risk).

Traffic and Circulation & Circulation improvements are currently warranted, including a second access road. Increased development above Low Growth Scenario #2 would create an increased need for circulation improvements (moderate traffic and circulation impact risk).
Under Scenario #3A at 3,500 units, and with the circulation improvements identified for Scenarios #1 and #2, Sherwood road would operate at capacity (LOS C), from U.S. 101 to Birch Street. A second, southern access route would operate at about 65% of capacity. Primrose Drive would operate at LOS C/D between the southern access route and Clover Road, carrying about 683 vehicles per hour. However, because of local commercial land uses, approximately 500 external vehicle trips per day could be saved, but there would also be generated a similar number of trips on local streets adjacent to the commercial uses. State Route 20 would operate at LOS F between Main Street and the southern access route during the AM and PM peak hours. State Route 20 would need to be widened to a four-lane arterial between Main Street and the southern access route.

In addition, under Scenario #3B at 4,000 units, the second southern access route would begin to reach its capacity of about 1,200 vehicle trips per hour. Primrose Drive between the southern access route and Clover Road would function as an arterial street, while Primrose Drive between Clover Road and Poppy Drive would function as a collector street. Congestion on Main Street in Willits could force additional vehicles onto Primrose Drive to reach the southern access route. Mitigation would include signalizing the Clover Road/Primrose Drive intersection, and signalizing the Primrose Drive/Sherwood Road intersection.

Visual Quality Scenario #3 would pose an increased risk of altering visual resources or changing the existing community character because of increased, more dense, urban infill development throughout an established lotting pattern. The Township would begin to take on the character of a suburban community under Scenario #3A rather than appear as a semi-rural or rural community, with an increased appearance of a suburban community under Scenario #3B. However, there would remain a significant opportunity to enhance existing open space through unimproved lot reassembly under this development scenario, including unimproved lots located in high risk constraint areas (moderate visual quality impact risk).

Utilities and Public Services Additional demands would be placed on utilities and public services under Alternative #3, but these demands would be the less than Alternative Development Scenarios #4 and #5. Scenario #3A at 3,500 units would require additional water for domestic use through increasing the capacity of Lake Ada Rose and/or Lake Emily in conjunction with the use of wells and conservation efforts. The creation of additional water impoundment areas would generate environmental impacts associated with construction of the new impoundments; these impacts would need to be determined in advance of construction.

Scenario #3A would require a new sewer main to Willits to dispose of its wastewater, and possible expansion of the Willits wastewater treatment plant as explained for Alternative Development Scenario #2. The same would be true for Scenario 3B, except in this case, Alternative #3B, at 4,000 units, would trigger a major threshold decision since Alternative #3B would involve the construction of a new minimum-size reservoir that, together with existing water supplies, could support up to 4,000 units and provide water for fish flows (moderate utilities and public services impact risk).

Scenario #3 would place an increase in demand on emergency services, health and human services (social services, mental health services, hospital and medical services), and public elementary and secondary education facilities and services.

Soils and Seismicity Through potential lot reassembly, alternative #3 would afford opportunities to avoid development on steep slopes or within unstable soils, areas of high constraint to development (no or low soils and seismicity impact risk).

Drainage and Water Quality Scenario #3 would generate an increase in the amount of stormwater runoff over Low Growth Scenario #2, but the increase in intensity and amount of runoff would be less than for Scenarios #4 and #5. Scenario #3 would generate less risk of impact to the capacity of existing streams and constructed drainage facilities than Scenarios #4 and #5. Water quality impacts also include hydrocarbons and other chemicals in runoff resulting from increased vehicular use, fertilizers and pesticides that find their way into the drainage system. This condition is typical of urban development.

Vegetation and Wildlife Ð Scenario #3 would generate more disturbance to forest habitat because of increased development as compared to Alternative Development Scenarios #1 and #2. As with all the Alternative Development Scenarios, there would be reduced risk to existing wetlands and riparian habitat to the extent unimproved lots in high risk constraint areas would be reassembled to create larger lots (moderate vegetation and wildlife impact risk).

At this juncture, it should be noted that when the Township was formed, approximately 2,500 acres of the 5,200 acre Brooktrails Township was dedicated to the Brooktrails Resort Improvement District (to which the Community Services District is the legal successor) to be preserved as a conservation area. This conservation area, also known as Brooktrails Redwood Park, consists of all of the land within the Township not slated for development. Major portions of the conservation area intermingle between existing lotted areas (areas available for development). The conservation area is to be held and maintained as a public trust for the benefit of existing and future owners of property within the Township.

The Redwood Park Master Plan divides the parklands into three use areas: active use, neighborhood use and passive use. Under Alternative Development Scenario #3, it is the conservation area lands that would be of primary concern with respect to increased potential vegetation and wildlife impacts because of the larger population base. There would be increased pressure for use of the active, neighborhood and passive use areas potentially affecting existing vegetative resources, open space use and development cutting off wildlife migration routes, increased noise affecting wildlife, and increased potential for vehicle/wildlife collisions.

Air Quality Scenario #3 would generate more vehicular traffic than Fixed Growth Scenario #1 or Low Growth Scenario #2, potentially adversely affecting air quality. In the year 2020, motor vehicle trips associated with Scenario #3 would emit approximately 3700-4260 lb/day of CO, 330-380 lb/day of ROG, 560-650 lb/day of NOx and 1590-1830 lb/day of PM10. For each of these pollutants, the total emissions (including household-related sources) would exceed AQMD significance criteria.

Noise Scenario #3 would generate more vehicular traffic and bring more people into the Township than Fixed Growth Scenario #1 or Low Growth Scenario #2, increasing noise levels over what would be generated under Scenario #1 and #2 (moderate noise impact risk). Noise mitigation would include increased building setbacks from roadways.

6.3-4 Medium-High Growth Scenario #4: 5,000 Units
 
Land Use New development would be infill development, and primarily residential, consistent with existing land uses. As with Medium Growth Scenario #3, under Scenario #4 at this higher level of development potential, it would be expected that most of the more easily developable lots (lots that are not steeply sloping or heavily forested), would be developed and other lots that are in high constraint areas or without sewer hookups would remain available for development.

Traffic and Circulation Circulation improvements are currently warranted, including a second access road. Increased development over Medium Growth Scenario #3 would create increased need for circulation improvements. There would be increased risk of peak hour congestion under this growth scenario (high traffic and circulation impact risk).

With the circulation improvements identified for Scenarios #1, #2 and #3 in place, under Scenario #4 both Sherwood Road and the southern access route would operate over capacity. Sherwood Road would require additional improvements (shoulders, left-turn pockets), between Primrose Drive and Lupine Way. Daphne Way would function as a collector street, and the Sherwood Road/U.S. 101 intersection would fall to LOS F.

Mitigation would require constructing a third access route to relieve Sherwood Road and the southern access route. Based on approximately 40 new dwelling units per year, Scenario #4 would not occur until about the year 2065. It is likely that a U.S. 101 Bypass would be constructed prior to the year 2065, at which point a third access route could connect to a freeway interchange. The Primrose Drive/southern access route would require signalization.

Visual Quality There would be a substantially increased risk of altering visual resources or changing the existing community character because of increased development under Scenario #4, even though the development would be infill development. This is because of increased density and intensity of development within the existing lotting pattern. The Township would take on the character of a suburban community rather than a semi-rural or rural community. There would be a reduced opportunity to create larger developable parcels and/or augment open space because there would be fewer lots to be selected for following through on a lot reassembly program (high visual quality impact risk).

Utilities and Public Services Scenario #4 would place additional demands on utilities and public services. This alternative would require the construction of a new dam on Willits Creek to provide a new source of municipal water supply to enable increased development and provide water for required fish flows. Environmental impacts of constructing the dam and impoundment area would need to be determined. There would be an increase in fire risk because of the increased population and intensified use of the landscape, which would in turn intensify demand on the service potential of men and equipment of the Brooktrails Fire Department (high utilities and public services impact risk).

Scenario #4 would require a new sewer main to Willits to dispose of its wastewater, in addition to possible expansion of the Willits wastewater treatment plant as explained for Alternative Development Scenario #3. Scenario #4 would place an increase in demand on emergency services, health and human services (social services, mental health services, hospital and medical services), and public elementary and secondary education facilities and services; these impacts cannot quantitatively be defined at this time.


Soils and Seismicity Scenario #4 would afford fewer opportunities to reassemble lots into larger developable parcels in the effort to avoid development on steep slopes or within unstable soils, areas of high constraint to development (moderate soils and seismicity impact risk).

Drainage and Water Quality Scenario #4 would provide an increase in the amount of runoff over Alternative Development Scenarios #1, #2 and #3, but would be less than full buildout of the Township. Water quality impacts also include hydrocarbons and other chemicals in runoff resulting from vehicular use, and pesticides and fertilizers found in urban development situations.

Vegetation and Wildlife Scenario #4 would generate increased disturbance to forest habitat because of increased development in comparison to Alternative Development Scenarios #1, #2 and #3. There would be increased risk to maintaining existing open space conditions, wetlands and riparian habitat because of the greater local population base. Fewer unimproved lots in high risk constraint areas would be available for reassembly than under Development Scenarios #1, #2 and #3 (high vegetation and wildlife impact risk).

Air Quality & Scenario #4 would generate more vehicular traffic than Scenarios #1, #2 and #3. In the year 2020, motor vehicle trips associated with Scenario #4 would emit approximately 8070 lb/day of CO, 720 lb/day of ROG, 1230 lb/day of NOx and 2870 lb/day of PM10. For each of these pollutants, the total emissions (including household- related sources) would exceed AQMD significance criteria (high air quality impact risk).

Noise Scenario #4 would generate more vehicular traffic and bring more people into the Township than Scenarios #1, #2 and #3, increasing noise levels over what would be generated under either alternative of less intense development (high noise impact risk). Noise mitigation would include increased building setbacks from roadways.

6-3.5 High Growth Scenario #5: 6,000 Units

Land Use New development under Scenario #5 would be infill development coinciding with the existing lotting pattern. The overall level of density and intensity of land use would be greater than all other Alternative Development Scenarios because of community buildout. There would, however, remain some ability to capitalize on a program of reassembling and combining lots, particularly in high constraint areas, to achieve larger developable parcels. Three-hundred and twenty-six lots would be available for this purpose. It would be expected that under Scenario #5, only the most difficult lots to be developed would remain for assembly to create larger, developable parcels. Because development would be expected to be mostly residential (some commercial development could occur), significant, incompatible land uses would not be expected (low land use impact risk).

Traffic and Circulation Circulation improvements are currently warranted, including a second access road. Community buildout would create a correspondingly increased need for circulation improvements within the Township and possibly the City of Willits. There would be a
substantially increased risk of peak hour congestion under this growth scenario (high traffic and circulation impact risk).
For example, Scenario #5 would result in traffic volumes which exceed the capacity of an improved Sherwood Road, a new two-lane southern access route, and a new two-lane access route connecting east to U.S. 101. At this point, Brooktrails would have a population approximating 15,000 and would no longer be considered a rural environment. Rural standards applied to Sherwood Road would no longer be applicable, and LOS D rather than LOS C would be more appropriate. With LOS D standards, the available capacity would be 4,104 vehicles per hour versus a peak hour traffic flow of 4,070 vehicles. It is unlikely the volume of traffic generated by Brooktrails could be absorbed by the local circulation system.
Primrose Drive, Daphne Way and Clover Road would all function as arterials, carrying in excess of 600 vehicles during the peak PM period. A commercial center would save about 637 external trips, but would also add the same number of trips to adjacent streets within the Township.

Visual Quality Under buildout, there would be a significantly increased risk of altering existing visual resources or changing the existing community character because of increased development, even though the development would be infill development over an existing lotting pattern. This would be because of increased density and intensity of development throughout the Township. The Township would take on the character of a suburban community rather than a semi-rural or rural community as currently exists. There would be minimal opportunity to create larger developable parcels and/or augment open space because there would be correspondingly fewer lots to be selected for following through on a lot reassembly program (high visual quality impact risk).

Utilities and Public Services Buildout would place additional demands on utility systems and public services. As with Medium-High Growth Scenario #4 at 5,000 units, under Scenario #5, a new dam would need to be constructed on Willits Creek to provide an additional source of domestic water supply to enable community buildout and provide water for required fish flows. Environmental impacts of constructing the dam and impoundment area would need to be determined.
As with the other Alternative Development Scenarios, Scenario #5 would require a new sewer main to Willits to dispose of wastewater in addition to possible expansion of the Willits wastewater treatment plant as explained for Scenarios #3 and #4. There would be an increase in fire risk because of the increased population and intensified use of the landscape, which would in turn intensify demand on the service potential of fire fighters and equipment of the Brooktrails Fire Department (high utilities and public services impact risk).
Scenario #5 would place an increased demand on emergency services, health and human services (social services, mental health services, hospital and medical services) and public elementary and secondary education facilities services. These impacts cannot be quantified at this time.

Soils and Seismicity Scenario #5 would afford fewer opportunities to avoid development on steep slopes, areas of high constraint to development. Owners of currently unimproved lots in high constraint areas would either not be able to build because of the costs to mitigate existing conditions, or be forced to acquire whatever remaining adjacent parcels may be developable, if they continue to desire to build. Extensive mitigation required in high constraint areas could generate additional environmental impacts such as habitat removal, excessive grading, soil slippage, increased runoff, erosion and potential stream sedimentation (high soils and seismicity impact risk).

Drainage and Water Quality Buildout would generate an increase in the amount of stormwater runoff above all other Alternative Development Scenarios. The ability of the existing drainage system and local creeks to adequately handle increased stormwater runoff would need to be determined (high drainage and water quality impact risk). Under buildout, water quality impacts would be increased because of hydrocarbons and other chemicals in runoff resulting from vehicular use, fertilizers and pesticides.

Vegetation and Wildlife Buildout would require increased disturbance to forest habitat because of increased development over all other Alternative Development Scenarios. There would be significantly increased risk to maintaining existing open space conditions, and increased risk of adverse impact to existing wetlands, riparian habitat and wildlife migration corridors because of the increased resident population base and intensified land use (high vegetation and wildlife impact risk).

Air Quality Buildout would generate more vehicular traffic than the other Alternative Development Scenarios because of the increased population. Accordingly, there would be increased risk of adversely affecting existing air quality because of vehicular, heating, cooling and fireplace emissions. In the year 2020, motor vehicle trips associated with Scenario #5 would emit approximately 13,000 lb/day of CO, 1160 lb/day of ROG, 1970 lb/day of NOx and 3780 lb/day of PM10. For each of these pollutants, total emissions (including household-related sources) would exceed AQMD significance criteria" (high air quality impact risk).

Noise Buildout would generate more vehicular traffic and bring more people into the Township than Alternatives #1, #2, #3 and #4, increasing noise levels over what would otherwise be generated under reduced development. It would be expected that under buildout conditions, traffic noise would become objectionable to area residents, particularly residents living in more hilly areas where traffic would be accelerating up steep grades generating higher engine noise (high noise impact risk). Noise mitigation would include increased building setbacks from roadways, noise walls or earth beams. Given that many residences would already have been constructed prior to buildout, it is unlikely that noise impacts could be adequately mitigated throughout the Township.

Conclusion
The objective was to provide the early identification of an Alternative Development Scenario that would accommodate some level of growth while minimizing the potential for adverse environmental impact risk. The above environmental evaluation of the Alternative Development Scenarios indicates that Fixed Growth Scenario #1 with 2,000 residential units would provide the least risk of environmental impact. However, as explained previously, Scenario #1 is analogous to the No-Project alternative because the existing Township water supply can provide up to about 2,000 units.

Medium Growth Scenario #3 (3,500 to 4,000 units), Medium-High Growth Scenario #4 (5,000 units), and High Growth Scenario #5 (6,000 units), would pose greater environmental impact risk than Low Growth Scenario #2 (2,500 units). Scenario #2 would not pose land use conflicts; would create less demand for traffic and circulation improvements than Scenarios #3, #4 and #5; would pose lower visual quality and community character impact as compared to more intense development scenarios #3, #4 and #5; Scenario #2 would not require the addition of a new reservoir or increase in the capacity of Lake Ada Rose and/or Lake Emily; would allow significant opportunity to avoid development on steep slopes or in other areas of high constraint to development through potential lot reassembly; would pose reduced fire hazard risk as compared to higher development alternatives, and would generate substantially less risk of impact to the capacity of existing streams, vegetation and wildlife habitat, air quality and noise than Scenarios #3, #4 and #5.

Table 6.3-1 provides a summary of potential major environmental impact changes between the Alternative Development Scenarios by issue area (i.e., Land Use, Vegetation and Wildlife). While Scenario #3B would entail some increased risk of adverse impact to environmental resources over Scenario #2 at 2,500 units or Scenario #3A at 3,500 units, a more significant comparison can be drawn between Scenarios #3B and #4. In comparison to Scenario #4 with 5,000 units, Scenario #3B would not create as much additional pressure to build in high constraint areas (see Table 6.3-1), would not create as much of an appearance of a suburban community, would allow for the construction of a smaller reservoir than required for Scenarios #4 or #5, and there would be a reduced risk of adverse impact to environmental resources. It was therefore concluded that the optimum community size would be Medium Growth Scenario #3B with 4,000 units. Scenario #3B was determined to provide an optimum balance between the need for environmental protection and the economic costs of expanding infrastructure and/or limiting growth, and was the Development Scenario selected by the Township Board of Directors on which to prepare the Specific Plan.


6.4 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE

Based on the foregoing, Scenarios #1 and #2 that limit development within the Township would appear most consistent with the proposed goals and objectives of the Brooktrails Township Focus Group Report. While the goals and objectives tend to support the Brooktrails Township Vision Statement, a key element in the Vision Statement, "& what the environment can sustainably support, while keeping within our prudent financial ability" may in fact point to a somewhat higher growth scenario than Scenarios #1 and #2 as being the optimum community size. Indeed, balancing the need to protect and maintain environmental resources with the economic feasibility of accommodating a specified level of growth within the Township is a key consideration.

However, of all the Alternative Development Scenarios, Low Growth Scenario #2 at 2,500 units (excludes Scenario #1 as the No Project Alternative), would appear to be the Environmentally Superior Alternative and would be most consistent with the proposed goals and objectives of the Brooktrails Township Focus Group Report recommendations.