The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About83-50 REZONES 21 OF 22a wit 6M, � V ' i �i 1l xTEMS INCORPORATED BY :TfDF� RENC7 ava.leble f,or review at the Planning De artment P ,. 7 County Center Drive, Oro r;ille) 4 I. , Geotechnical Report for Canyon Park Estates SOWer Storage Ponds' Anderson Cie otechnical"Consul. tants, Inc., June 1982. Revietvr of Fiscal Thfo.rmation: Canyon,Parlr, 8state� - Rec77t, Ii usrath & Associates June 28, 1982. Pure Protection Requirements for Quaff] Canyon Tentative' Subn-4vis1 Map - Cali.foxn a Department of rores"try, October 19.8; 4. Letter from Ed. McLaughlin, President Butte County raxm I' Buredu, november 8, - 1.9`8 2 5. Tentative Waste Discharge Re Oirernents for Canyon Park 'Estates California Regional Water aly Control Board, :November '18, 6. Planning Directpr's ;Repol-t for Quail Canyon. TentativeSubdiv°ision, November 22, 1: 82. 7. Letter with Advisory Agency Conditions, December 1.0 1982. I„ n. , 1 xi, 1 rs ti o, ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS 31 " ALTERNATIVES 32 GROWTH INDUCTING 'IMPACTS 3 APPENDICES I. PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONTACTED <' 36' 2. REFERENCES 37` 3. GEOLOGIST'S REPORTS' 4, GROUNDIVATER REPORT 56, 5. PLANT SURVEY, REPORT 64 6. WILDLIFE SURVEY REPORT 74 7. ARCHAEOLOGISTS REPORT, 79 8. MOBILE SOURCE EMISSIONS ANALYSTS 85 9. PROJECT' INITIAL STUDY 87- 10. COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR ANDRESPONSES114 PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS ON DRAFT ETR AND RESPONSES 12. LIST OF THOSE COMMENTING ON PROJECT _ AND DRAFT E I R 13. COST/gE. ENUE A4ALXS2S 14.' SPECIFIC PLAN FOR CANYON PARK ES'T`ATES IS. COMMENTS RECEIVED AT THE JULY 20, 1982 BOARD MEETINGAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT RESPONSES I 16.' ,SUPPLEMENT ON CUMULATIVE IMPACTS, LETTERS, L, PROK !STATE AGENCIES RESPONSES, SEWAGE DXSPOSAr, SYSTEM UPDATE LIST 0`F FIGURES 1. REGIONAL, LOCATION 3 2. PROJECT AREA 4 3. SITE PLAN 5 4. SITE TOPOGRAPHY 5. PERCENTAGE OF EMISSIONS FROM MAJOR STATIONARY AND AREA 'SOURCES IVITHIN BUTTE COUNTY 1I 6. PROPOSED DFVtt'OPTIENTS IN THE PROJECT AREA 15 x .4 i � G OMIA��ENU Art ci�xsrs 1AP1. Exp I x s'anyon. ?ark Ls�;ates , Spaci£ic Plan; County Service firer PA-C ktezone 8.1 31 and Tentative Subdivision INTRODUCTION The f'oi owing very basic cost"rovenue analysis is limited in several respects. V. Infl. There is no attempt toi estimate future in rates in estimating costs and revenues 2, project completion. The, analysis assumes fall, buildout, and those costs and revenues associated with full buildout in 1982 dollars_, In reality, the project, ma)r not be fully .completed for several years; unimproved lots may be resold several 'times, b0fdtfD someone actually builds on them, However in some cafe ories, eg schools, bath costs and r revenues would rise and decline concurrently, maintaining similar cast-revenue, ratios for analysis of a phased develop- menti, or full buildout. C Marginal vs 0 ortuiiit costs. M 3• pp ,,y any analysts contend' that marginal estimates for pub- service service costs (i.e., incremental consumption or use of reserve capacif:y) is more. Valid than overall per capita ar per uizit averate;s, The latter astien's- ibl continue to recount y iin�l,tial investments or p1jantom 'Output/irvestment which doesn't actually occur,Uther Critics maintain that opportunity casts for future expansion of fac s and labor must be included ilitie 9-since use of an incremental amount of reserve capad' is den an . that amount' to another p y y. individual. Per capita calculations more closely, approximate the' so costs.' A related problem concerns methods of data collection an6 sto e. 'Dataas often stared or catisgorzed in such a manner that precludes , -1» i ,nti ra o rynF 77777 later= epar, mental Meinjotandom, a: Butte County Board of Supervisors,. Planning. Department suer�cz': DRAKE/ISOM, 'REZONE $ -50 (DRAKE/iso anre: Duly 31 1986 Attached for'� ;your 'continued hearing an August �, ;1986 are the following: is Copy of motion of intent w June 26, 1986. 2. Addendums to EIR for Second SupplemernE�., First Supplement and original EIR,, Staff has reviewed the minutes and meetzng records between November 19'82 to present to determine if new 'significant environmental points were xaised iahich required Viten a' wri response (Section ,15132 of the CEQA,Guideline ). We did not find `new issues that had not been adequately addressed in writing in some part of the EIR. In some cases, the minutes of meetings for the Advisory Agency and planning Commission contain verbal responses by County staff members or :Planning Commissioners to issues raised. These verbal responses augmented written iesponpes. or information included as part of the EIR. SAS: J -mc . c,c: Administxative Office County Counsel Drake Tomes St t n ,f FINAL EI'R ; four EI CANYO PARK 9STATES y Butte County, California c� Rezone From S -H, Scenic Highway and Ui Unclassified':. - to, R -C (Resource Conservation,)' and A -R, (Agricultural Residential) or, A --SR (;Agricultural -Suburban Residential):. or SR -1/2 (Suburban Residential -• 1/2 Acre Paroels); 0 FR -1/2.; (Foothill Recreational, Excluding Hobby' Mining P,r-o'vis�ions 'I Y' Butts County Planning Department Reviewed,y Butte -County Planning Department it 7 County Center: Drive Oroville, CA 95968 July, 1986 SCR# 80122311 - W hi-.' APPENDIX XVl _ Board responses to comments contained in letter from Mr. John Luvaas to Butte County 'Planning Commission dated May 20, 1985. First`Issue: ApptbVal of this project prior_ to the "Overall Foothill Plan" and "Deer Herd. Study" completion. RObponsdtl The Butte County Planning Commission has held numerous hearings on and recommended tYat this Board adopt ,the "Cohasset-Forest Ranch PlanningArea Plan" whose boundaries include this project. Mr. Stephen Streeter, Senior Planner, in a memorandum to the Butte County. Planning Commission dated; 5-29=85 (attached hereto and made a part hereof) conclusively shows that this ,project will meet or exceed' all standards suggested in the Cohasset-Forest Ranch Planning Area Plan. Respecting the Deer Herd 'Study; this projec was, directed to the Department of Fish and Game for comment relative to its impact on the resident and migratory deer herds in this area. By letter dated 3-11-85 from said department, this,pro7,ect design will avoid any, deleterious,effects that rural residential' projects have on deer herd's. Second Issue: Lot Sizes Less than,, 1 Acre. The -second supplement to the EIR addresses an alternative plan layout making individual lots 1 acre in area, and restricting most of that area to be retained in its natural state. If this alternative is approved, all lots would be the appropriate size. Third Issue; Scenic Highways Res onset Project conditions require that homes be " located' 'out of the view of Highway;?32, nor that) they be. "architec;turally compatible" with the nat.i.ve vegetation, if located within 350 feet from the centerline of Highway 32 '(the 'extent of the existing S-H zone-andscenic highway> element). These home would then be in character with and in harmony, with the . Fifth Issue; Sewage Disposal. System Response: The Canyon 'Park Estates Sewage Disposal. System Was designed in accordance with the requirements :of the California Water. Quality Control 'Board (see First Supplement to EIR). The Regional Board issued' waste discharge requirements and has standard reporting requirements to ensure non-polluting operation of the system {see ItemS, Supplementary Information incorporated by reference into the. Furst Supplement to the EIR.). The Superior. Court in acting upon a lawsuit. brought,"by the Friends of the Foothills, found the system desig , the Elia covering itj and the Water Quality Standards sufficient to pre)tec't the existing envj ohmdhtal quality of the area. Mr. Luvaas has brought forth no facts to cause us to doubt the viability of the system 'nor the truthfulness of the assertions-put forth by the Regional Water Board. His questions about who would be responsible to rectify any future unforeseen failure are answered by the formation of the CSA #841 the County-Service Area formed to accept that responsibility. Sixth Issue: Wildlife Reduction Response: As stated numerous times, this,project has''been approved by the 'Department of Fish and Game. Its, impact upon wildlife has, been carefully and thoughtfully mitigated through previous design changes required by this Hoard., Mr. Luvaas presents no new Evidence, either personal or from experts in the field, that the Department of F h and Game has erred in it determinations on this prof ect s ,effects . These comments shall be supplementary to those prepared by the staff in response to Mr. Luvaas' letter. TABLEOF CONTENTS PAGE SUMMARY 1 INTRODUCTION 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Geneal Project 3 Sewage Treatment System 7 ENVIRONMENTAL BAS=NXj IMPACTS AND MI11 GATI:ONS Topography Geology 11` Soils 12 Hydrology' 13' Water Quality ` 13 Climate 14 ; Habitat 15 Wildlife Archaeology 15 Access16 Utilities 1F Electricity 16 Water Supply 16 Selvage Disposal 18 Vector Production 19 Safety 19 Aesthetics 20.- ADVERSE IMPACTS WHICH CANNOT BE ,AVOIDED IF THE PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED 20 GROWTH INDUCING. IMPACTS 20 ALTERNATIVES Wastewate), Alternatives 21 Yater Supply A1t.ernat ves 22 APPENDICES Or ani g zations Contacted 25 2. Refeoencesd N 3. Soil Pit Logs and, Location Mads 2`I 4, Climate Data and Eng ineer! 's Water Balahce Calculat ons' ` 37' 5. Comments, on ETR Suppiemont and Responses 6. List of those .dommcr0:i g on EIS. f,6r Quail Canyon Tentata De Subdivision 7. Items Incorporated by Re£exonce` Al APPENi3iX % ITEMS !'NCORPORATEDU REFERENCE (ava'!able for review at the Planning Department,. 7 County Center brlVe, 0rov" lle) 1. Geo'technieal Report fox Canyon 'Para Estates Sewer Storage Ponds'- Anderson Geotechnical Consultants, Tnc.,. lune 1982.' 2. Rev ew of Fiscal Information: Canyon Park Estates Recht, Hausrath c, Assoc:iates,, June 2,8, '1982. 3. Fire Protection Requirements for Quail_CanYon Tentative Subdivision riap Caliiorn'a Department of Forestry, October 1982. 4. Letter from Fd McLaughlin, President - Butte County Farrn Bureau, N'ovembe'r 8,; 1982. 5. Tentative Waste Discharge. Requirements for <Canyon Park Estates Regional 'Water Quality Control Board, Noveriber 18, 187fornia. 6� Planni,n,g Directcax's Pepbrt for Quail Canyon Tentative Subdivision, November 29, 1982. 7. Letter Stith Adv sory,Agency Conditions, December 1, 1982. l 1 1 • rt ANALYSIS OF, IMPACTS 31 ALTERNATIVES 32 GROWTEi INDUCING ID1PACTS 35 APPENDICES 1» PERSONSAND ORGANIZA'T'IONS CONTACTED 6 2. REFERENCES 37 3. GEOLOGIST'S REPORT 39' 4.' GROUNDWATER REPORT 56 S. PLANT SURVEY REPORT 64 6. WILDLIFE SURVEY REPOT 74 7 • ARCHAEOLOGIST'S REPORT 79 8 Mitt SOURCE EMISSIONS ANALYSIS g'S 9.. PROJECT IN,ITIAL STUDY 87 10 COMMENTS' ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 11. PUBLIC HEARING COhm1ENTS ON DRAFT BIR AND RESPONSES 12. LIST OF THOSE COMMENTING ON PROJECT AND DRAFT El R, 13. COST REVENUE ANALYSIS . _.. 14. SPECIFIC PLAN FOR CANYON PARK ESTATES 15. COMMENTS RECEIVED AT THE JULY 20, 1982-; BOARD MEETING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT RESPONSES 16. SUPPLEMENT ON CUMI7LATIVE IMPACTS, LRTTRRS PROWSTATE AGENCIES, RESPONSE Sr SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM UPDATE LIST OF FIGURES 1. REGIONAL LOCATION 2. PROJECT AREA 3 4 3, SI,TE PLAN 5 4. SITE TOPOGRAPHY 7 5 PERCENTAGE OF EMISSION$ PROM MAJOR STATIONARY" AND AREA _80URCES WITHIN BUTTE COUNTY 11 6. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS IN THE PROJECT AREA 15, Canyon, Pat], Estates 8,1-31„ SCH #80122311 APPENDIX 16 May 28,;1982 st I. SUpple.'fhent, on Cijm'ul atiVe Impacts June 22. 1982 a State Clearinghouse letters with letters from the De of Cons 4me p a'rt,ment ervation, the Depar nt.of Fish. and Game'. and ,;Caltrans, Division of Aeronautics b. Planning Department, responses to the three letters from "StAte, agencies -an dum from Antho 6mor ny J. Landis, R,e:gional Wate Quality. Co:Q,t-rol, Board, entitled "Update on Canyon P. a, r k Estate'wSystem, Selvage Disposal m �Butte County" Sy. July 16 19821 Ivo Letter.from t1118 C, Rolls of Rolls, Anderson and Rolls totha Regional Wat6T Quality Control 'Board, July 21, 1982 TABLE OF CONTENTS -PAGE SUMMARY 1 Y INT RODUCTI ON 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION General. Project 3 Sewage Treatment System "7 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE, ;IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS Topography 11 Geology 11 soils 12 Hydrology 13 Water Quality 13 Climate 14- Habitat - 15 Wildlife 15 .' Archaeology 15 Access 16 Utilities 16 Electricity Water Supply 16 16 Sewage Di,spo8a1 , lg Vector Production 19 Safety 1J Aesthetics 20 ADVERSE IMPACTS- WHICH CANNON' BE AVOIDED IF THE PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED 26. GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS,.20 ALTERNATIVES Wastewator Alternatives 21 Water Supply Alternatives; 22" APPENDICES `1. Persons and OrganizR,tiohs Contacted 25 3. Soil P tteLogs I and Lvea� tion Map 46',Climate Data and Engineer's Water Ba,lance� Cale ulations, 3� 5. Comments on ElR Stpplement and Rds'oOases` G . List o� those coimnenti'ig on EIR dor. Quail. Canyon Teritati,ve;- Subdivision 7. items :Cncotporatec by Re'erence; i� 5 LIST OF j?1'GTJ0$ I,, Project area 4 2. Site PI-axi', 3ti'Wa. qteWz�eer Treatment Facilities 8 Location4. f ia Test Pits so 5 Pond Cross JO: ro r SLIMMARY' _ � ' This. 3�bp'otrt, jdescra bes the wa ewate; treatment system prOposed. for : Canyon Park . t6tatos s' Vdk 1 "' on, in6xud6d' i's a review of Changes made in the;orag3nal protect as a result of enpiranmental ',review .and tie puf�l� c hearing` process..-" , "Sewage will 'receive primary treatment° in septic'' tanks:' tffl,ul is , will drain or be pufnped into ponds .for secondary treatment;. Disposaa,.o,tt. ,secondary effli tints.''a " `Ill be' ccomplisbed` by a comb nation of evaporati6t 4nd irrigation of a `'5'` act's' pas ure xea:,. ,Housing units' area�,iit3t; pates to 'be built.'at` 5-15 ',units per , year providing' time to check °the adequacy of sys�em' design;. Also included' in this report 3 s 'a description ari`d eiral-- :uation"qf, the.rcommunity, water system. Potential, impacts are, tho8ei re Lted� to degradation o ground and surface water supplies, production of .mosq,uitos, safety,. and, fiscal�' impg6ts: pot 6ntial v. impacts have ,been 'incoZ.wl)s,rated "into ,praaect de's3gn n;d r -» viewed �bti! -. state i and local wattei quality 'arid h0.aIth df`� i a'Is. Design mitigations include:' isolation of primary efl"ents: from ground and surf,acel water; disposal of effluent's through evaporation, and irrigation; forin0.ti6n ' of a ' County Sev ice r; Area; o.r maintenance and operate c►n cos�:s"; and nos' oi' Hcirrie= owner's. Association Funds for emergency repairs and capital replacements, i i INTRODUCOx",. The rQriginal ;project,lies ,been ,edr as; a�' resu'lt the envizonmental review, o,overriber`, process,! which .boga'n rn i 9$t7, and as aresu]t of refinements,, in ,ave l.able, a. revisedfproject des.cript an , ;xn.c,lud.e°d jn th. s :supplrrient wa 11. 'emphasiue these ..changes . This supplement, is being: prepared. in..aecordance'::wii,h. .1 Soction 057 (suibSequent;'EIR) and, 1 067.5 (supplement to an , the Mate ErR � Guidea:3,nes to ,;pxov de additiona'J >en riron- mental analysis of t.he,proj,eet'�s: sewage disposal system" )Water system and alon - with. the g'xnal Environmental Impar, Deport dor Canyr�t Park Estates, Butte. �Caunty, Calxiarn3a_=Speci�fi:c Plan and PAC 1ezot�c, certified by th? ,Butte Count, Bcard .` . y of ' Siz er-=: v' s p ars on July 22 198 Will provide environmental documentation for the tentative subdvisi on. map . from E 3 lead, Iandtreshe' scb wexe swig ht onsi ble afenhts..�supp`learent, p g. .�, a.� well as fzfcm those, who cTemonstrat; d an in by ,,appearin.g, at� previ,6us ;public hearings; and from persons res iding,:adjacent. to Littlg-;Chico Cxeel� immediately ;downstream from th,e project site,(St3786n Canyon:), Copies of ,all:, comment letters roceived ax'e, on,'` ile wit.hathe County Planning Depaxtment and the dEveloper's'°office. 1�� 7 2 � WIN , k' f✓ r WIF r,4Y 1,."I4 ,. j�. \L . y lttalMli-+>•, Ak , 2 -71?r4 AN .1'1$ ) )a.tX't"Y,F«4.Fn.+=;<iwSAllr IR+ U .5+.'n.�,w F r�YG �S4Wuei..rYM aW,w{ u f �h W M1 r M t ggr i Sewage disposal will. be provided by p t,se tic. 'anks and Ir gravity or low pressure linos -with a centralized ;disposal Water will be provided by a community system,consYsting of yells, storage tanks, and distribution lines. ' Electric and tol.epbone lines lie adjacent to the 'property,Along Highway t,32 { and ettend into the site" from Stilson Canyon'Road, The, Cali- ternia Division of Forestry, in coop;erat<ion with Rune`° CbWity, Fire Department,- is responsible for ,i? xe protection, and the Butte County Sher,iff's�Department is responsible fox police protection. Fire services wi17, be.supplement.ed with a volunteer i:ire,department, and the area will be covenanted to'' participate in afire protection as8ossmenti district. I Sherif services will be supplemented with a private security patrol.! - Children living at the project site will attend Chico Senior:,` High, Chico Junior high, and Parkview Elementary Schools. The major differences between the foregoing "current,pro- ject description", and the ''project description,, used in 198Q Y are., Y 1, One lot'has been eliminated, 2. In addition to the common open space being ownold.W " the homeowner's Association, a public land trust, will be given an easement over it in perpetuity, to assure its permanence as open space. 3. The small dam and pond on Little Chaco Creek havo' been eliminated, 4. The current site p<lan removes all Lots from critical wildlife habitat areas. 5. Secondary, access has been eliminated and and only, emergency access wil 15e pr�ogided across adjo,inirig properties to the north: 6. Domestic water will be, ,provided by A,de.ep community well,. and distributed th'rou'gh a system ox, storage tanks and lines. Springs will not be uta.lizad'. 7: Supplemental ,f"ire and 'police' protection measures have '"been in;cosporated, a ntathe�'pxo j�ect t ` at no cost to the County,' 3. A community lea.chi:ield wiz 7 not be employed for cls- posal; of sewage effluent. : The rezoning to PA -C included 32 mini."g4at'ion measuresJcon- ditibns. The project applicant will, request that. these same mitigation measures%co . r�di tions apply" to -the t`entativ`e map, in the event. that the PA -C zoning is rescinded'. ; 7 l� ° K •••�� •� im"u Uvwv Ju Luuz zrom *une unname'al intermittent f vtreaM channel. They will be constructedby excavation and emban'kmentri because of the slope of the site's Pond bottoms s; will be level. (See Figure 5) Interiox pond.dike slopes will. be in 2:1 ratio, exterior slopes will be 1J:1. T1ie tops of y L ,; the dikes will be` 12 feet wide. Dikes will be co:nstru'cted of ' on-site. soils, :nixed at the ratio, and in the manner; recommen;= ded .by Andersoii.Geotechnical. Consultants. Ponds 4 and 5,will have a 1-9 foot apron of cobbles at the bottom of the•'dike Operation :and Maintenance nearest the 100 year floodplain of Litt le Chico Creek' to pre - Operation and maintenanceo the system, including, septic Fl elude any erosion during extreme high water ears K y Pond. and. irrigation disposal area designs include drainage systems to interce.nt subsurface seepage and direct it :around the ponds anci,pasture area. The period between pond construe - tion and eventual use .(3-7 gears) will allow for obse rvata,on of y unused, ponds during the winter and spring months to detect any ' seepage areas not currently known, or found during construction, Additional drains can be added, if necessary, befcre the ponds begin filling With effluent Operation :and Maintenance # Operation and maintenanceo the system, including, septic Fl tanks, will be administered as a CountyService Area formed as a required mitigation for the project. The operati" on and: ]r maintenance activities will be supervised: by a Gradc`IY 0erti- fied Wastewater Treatment Plant Operator, The P project engineers are producing a manual providing specific details required for A proper. maintenance and operation. of this system. Six n to the funds collected annually ly far, the County I Service Area, homeowners � rea, h vners will be, assessed to provide -,for capital replacement and emergency repair funds The developer will pest a bond adequate for the completion of the full waste-= Water treatment facility and any modifications necessary (e'.g;, :N i;ricreased subsurface drains) to ensureproper operation and efficiency. Water ;quality monitoring of Little Chico Creek current conducted by the developer above and below the project, must' r be`contin' ued to detect any indication of surface 'Water degrada-- f thin. Should any degrada-ti,on be 'de'tected, add axonal treat- trierit, such as a chlorination;`unit, can be added. 'l. 7t K 1 MAXI.MUR CUT '21.' F POND BOTTOM C�iA"IMUM FILL 22 SOO� �- ,. ". E L 4 85.5 ----r 4,94.5 Ell Gll[IATER MARK: y 1 FIELD OBSERtJ'A E`XZST NO G120dNDPROFILE EDGE OF WATER. Y vm GHICo C]kl.]E'K 7-2:1.--82 STA 2,OQ 520 MA IMUM CUT 18:' 'POND HO'PTQM MAXIMUM FILL 21'� 50U EL. 485; 5 -n9.S 1#IG>WATER'_MART k'IELD OBSEVATON 460_ E X' I S 7 I,iVG .�. �.._....,�. • ...:�._...�.. _.,._ � GROU EDGE OF WA EIR irxTxLE �H cco citEt STIP 14.0 7-21..,g2 pj G' PNC? �1 S.. ECT I N ` o 401ea . . ... � . _ raw w�. FEET .. irrrrinrnwr r nr r.� irrwnwrw.eraeewwraa+� ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE, IMPACTSAND MITIGATIONS The ,general project and enVironmehtal baselines are described in -d.otn.,il ins he oertifi d Bina]. �F: R itcr CnnyQn,., 'park`Estates Specific Paan .and t�e.suppl�zner�t, fox -,the reZbne and are summarized in this supplement, Only spec3f,,ic details on, geology, soils, hydrology and c1:i atol og haye ,added ,been, +� this" aspect o thy` prr�,j ect ,„ The 0r3 Bina] env?ranment 'l ase1 inesurveys were completed' iIl Iviarch, .1 8.0 and, an< Er�,yat mon- mental Assessment was prepared in Apjil y .x.980., Since ,that. l time, additional so is and hydrologic studi,cs have heez� .con- ducted, primarily to determine the fest mt�thod for wast waster �;da.sposal: ' ; TOPOGAALPHY - The wastewater` ponds and ixrigatian field are, located, an the canyon floor in an ax�a Where existi;r�g, surface slopes;; are ''After approximately, 14 percent. c'onstruction,� .the. pond..bo,itonis gill `be approximately 'I pvel , 18'_20 6e.t higher than the high_ water level of Little Chico Creek GEOLOGY Of the four geolog c units exposed oil the project site, Chico, Lovejoy, Tuscan and Recent Alluvitim, only the' last two are exposed in 'the area of the sewage treatment facility..L They are inderlain a,t thby, some de ; the P� : .. �,ovo,7oy and Chico , are exposed Formations w in other areas In the Vl-01n;i,ty A detailed,de'hich scriptibn of area and project geology is found in Appendix 3 of the Final Environmental Impact Report, for Canyon Park Estates, Butte County, Califoxnia-Speci`fic Plan PA-C Rezone. A thin band of alluvi-um deposits are visible along the banks of Little Chico Creek adjacent to the wastewater treat- Ment facility. The facilitles -themselves are on Tuscan Foie mation with a la er of volcanic tuff nnd�rlyi;ng a mixture of c1,ay, silt, $andyand, cobbles, Potentialim acts There are no potential adverse impacts upon the geology of this area. h�itations None. required, n ' SOILS Soils on the site are of the Topmes series, dark brown clayey sands with., a variable gravel concept. These'soilsj are 1 '5®? loot in depth overlying weathered. volcanic. smudflow, nd quiff bieec.'ia. Twenty-two test pits were excavated an,d'.examined hY Gary Anderson of`Anderson Geotechnical Consultants,`Inc« The location of, these test pits relative, to the .pond , s' tes are indicated in liigure 4. " The logs of these test pits are ft - eluded' as Appendix 3. These .test pits indicate •a relatively 'uniform soil profile in the pond, araa..'The proposed "pard cllzsters axe ra, ncentrated in the area originally designated for Ponds 1-3. The alternate pond sites have been eliminated The irrigation disposal: area has a 1-2 foot surface j ayer' of very wet, black sandy clay. Beneath this layer is a layer of gray clay varying in thickness from 2:-4 feet. ; These la yers are underlain by weathered volcanic tuffwith water. see�zage in some areas.The surfaae`layers'will. be dewatered by an interception ditch 'Which will divert uphill drainage,around the pasture area. Soils excavated from the pond areas and diversion ditches will be mixed and compacted to form the dikes' around the ,ponds, and at the foot of the disposal. area: Potential Impact The 100 -year flood plain of Little Chico Creek may reach the northwest corner of Pond 5 and .could undercut- or orode a portion of the dike. Mit f gat"i ori A 1-2 foot high apron of crhles will be placed on the dike at this location to proven,," erosive action: rc i MitiaatLons i A A community ,service -ar- ra will be establi8hed for Waste- A, treatment and disposal, to avoid" the _problems created elsewhere ,by ,peptic tank l eachlield systems; Community `systems are subject to more vigorous local and •state ArequiremOhts and inspection processes than,,individual. on-site systems; °Inspec- tions Qf the ponds and' eventually :the irrigation: areawill be carriedout, daily by a qualified sewi. age reatTfierA plant operator {Cl ass I.V • This. operator will also be responsible forannual septic -tank inspection; and for roVlacetent o,f • low pressure inter- cep 4or.pumps when necessary. Twofunds will be established., Onq will, be established to cover all costs of constructing the ultimate' wastewater facility. The ponds will be constructed in, Phase T, but.a bond or trust` fund'wil.l, be established to ensure that Ponds" 4 and" 5' meet design ; standards when they are• brought into 'use, " 'Additional'ly, :money will be available to install the 'sprinlcl:er system. as, Rorids 4 and 5 reach capacity` ecause the Service' Area can, onJ. 8 County ycollect Du'nds to - meet current 'expenses, the homeowner's Association will:establish EL reserve fund for emergency repairs and "for long' term re nlace- ment of septic tanks, pumps and; related equlpment. ChTMAT1 Climate condition in the canyons east o.t the,Sacramento Valley is similar to the Mediterranean climate of the valley itself, with micro-cl:imato differences due to the wind patterns and the amount of vegetation re*' I to the oPen space` avea: Generally, the canyon rims, will. have gentle east-west summer breezes a.n areas without: dense tree or brush cover.." 'The canyon door, willhays late-nxgYit very early morning"downslope drain- age wind patterns and stronger up-canyon flows' in. `late afternoon. The area witli, the ponds may receive slightly les's rainfall i heavy winter storms because o the narrowness of",. canyon. The precipita ;ion, and, evap;arat;3on data used y, tb,6 project engineers to, design pond sizes. and volumes are, those developed, from the, California State university at Chico •Farm Station and the'' former : station at TJOP`l.anJt" Intro.du,etion.I Gardens; .the south of Chico; 'hese data are', summarized in Apperldiix 4::! Potential. impacts There are" no ,potent3,al' impacts: +l�^ I.l _ ,y Potential Impacts No impacts are expected.. Mitigations" None required. y ACCESS Th s jeep tar ail ,currently " conne. tLs the wastewater treatment' Area to" the rest of the project. Th' w3. 1 be replaced by a grave led all-weather service road., The abandoned and the :new roads stem will- - jeep eeniate at the, ponds. Y ll be ll Lerzri Potential impacts No impacts are predicted. Mitigations. - None required; 'UTILITIES Electricity Electrical service will be pr07iided from the PQ&E lines withiz~. the subdivision t . pOW.er _the jiit station rr3gatian A standby Pumps: generatax''Will: be P.rov3;ded as a, b ckup' power' source. Pote.ntcial.- Impacts major .advan,t;age "ot, tllei pond system; is its Inw 'energy, demands.?he.n thero,ject ruches buildout .off. the residential units) at d the 3 xrig;ation di l s;pos )old, is " use"d;,° small tmaunts: gy, will run the umps . Th, ens `" P rgy usage should not be sb"grii:�xcar�t y I Mitigations None ec uxed.,, Water l ,� ._P.. rive exp Lorataxy wells were' drilled and 3 ^ P the 5 were, 'testeQn�site springs were 4, -so evaluatedpY' tix pot'sntial cant,ributons to a 'communi.ty wager 'supp.y ox dor analivdfi�tl " dwelling units. The xeeuits ind3cavte a much gxeater groundwate potehtial than had been "antit;3 Patedt accardi ng to JQft Andpzson, ci nsult3n ; Ga,v i 1 F40 110er. t C Sewage Disposal ' As indicated in the prb ect a—Icription, the proposed pro- n G system. Septic t''anks a ect is a community wastewater treativE will provide primary treatment and,the secondary effluent will L)e� dispose,d .of primarily by evaporat ;ori. Following site will be.-irrigat,ec . _ ure heavy ra'i`n years a 5+ acre past, with secondary effluent as 'a su plemental disposa. methdd,. P Potential Zm acts` p Opponents; of the p roje;ct have stated their concerns about' selected method of wast'e� the adequacy and efficiaency of the water disposal. Included is a concern about the possibility for corrections or, alternatives if problems do develop. Mitigations , The ponds and irrigation "system have been designed with ca�tacity criteria, at worst case, most conservative figures as of Regional. Water Quality Control Boa Engineer, the request A. Landis. They havebeenreviewed by State and County per 80,gall6ns sonnet. Sewage production has been calculated at day Cgpcd) The weighted average cited in E.P:A. per capita per s`�udi.es is 44 gpcd, with a range of 8 to ]01,.6 gpcd. The. cur- show 'er rent Uniform 'Building: `Co-tka requires water eonser ring which further wastewater production and toilet fixtures, ,reduce to about 33 gpcd. The `UBC requirement Indicates`a more probable Volume of 280`, 500 gallons per Month. or .42% of design capac�ty be 34� 5 inches compared. to the Precipitation is as to of 26.72, a difference of over 800,000" gallons .Per year average in the storage requirementsEvaporation losses have also, been (1.28 x Cl aas A reduced from a calculated Si. 5' inches per year Pan) to 71 inches per year. Capacity provided by `the two i'eet of, freeboard, and the to the Uniform Building Code standards reduced average flows due "reserve's capacity of 6.76 Million gallons annually, produces a twice the predicted storage needed. Irrigation,will not be excopt'ionall.y high rainfall, years, necessary except ,following be used' as the pro3eet completes buildout to p�^ovide but wi11 badditional reserve of over 5 million gallons per year.° Since the houses in, Canyon Park Estates will be, iiidividu- there will. be Mime to confirm a11 constructed, custom homes, 'cori'struction and dosigix. The engineers Piave the adequacy of that it will take seven houses to completely utilize estimated Ponds 1 through 0, using their worst case calculation; this' the integrity of all ponds (Appendix 4)' During;period, AESTHETICS , C Potential. Impacts' y. x Septic eii°liients`°.can .creal;e' adore if improperly hAnciled, ',specially if' Pond daes not' m_aint al n' ° an aquate water" level Mitigation Initially; until development• produces sufficient 'effluent to keep .Pond,, 1 at a• d'epth'' of one feat or.' greater,; supplemental water will b& ,added to tnaihtain volume` aiid depth.` . A special line protected by an aii, gap trap, will 'be used to supply the necessary water; ADNERSE IMPACTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF THE FPRo.JECT IS IMPLEMENTED Since the pro j ec't covered by this 871ppleMOnt; s a , was'te- water treatteiht system desi)gne- & to preveixt impacts, particularly the degradation of surface and groundwater supplies,, no adverse unmitigable impacts Itvill be created. The community water supply system is not interconnected car dependent upon any other water system and Will , s 11 not create any adverse impacts.` GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS The ,proposed wastewater faci.lity is a of ,requirement state and1oc�7, he1t1Y° au and 18 designed to serve only Canyon Park Estates. It is, t'hevefOre- not OW ' in- du�cing« Si'mil'arly; the' comimunity. `wfLter `system, wi]'1 sertie only this -project and'will not ihdu.ce or 'iaeili-tate any other de- velolment, f