Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout83-50 REZONES 22 OF 22ly Lel- �J, Dsadyabtages Existing CI ivus, . ua'i is liavo not, 0t, . st at ar,d:, 7 ocal health autho,ritq r�?tzi ceme"nts on a number of, occasions'. The end substancewhile resembingaimu��, ,t�,lrIF ,sup- ports many .w1 01 e' pathogens'.; '{ as Greywater, frain thin 'latznclry kitchen and, bathroom, t muse still' be disposed o in sim,lar to regu-- lar effluents,,ar a Special ven'tila ion an hum idity„sensor' .units would, be necessary to maintain aerobic conditions and prevent odors. Alternative 3 - N'o _;Project The no project alternative would ,essence cam no eom- .9,m munity treatment system. Each.,homeowner would be responsible for an on-site disposal system,. Advantages • This would eliminate the need for a CbUnty Axes ,Sdrvice and make ” each homeowner <respon"siba."e fir their 'own sys- tem, presumably septic tanks with leachliles or waterless, non"composting toilet and grey water .4ystem. Disadvants or Leachl ne failures that : have ocourred downstream in Stilson Canyon and in Butte Creek Canyon suggest that some systems would fail gild both ground and surface water could be degraded, e Because individual systems do not require or get; t�i0, attention paid (.ommunity, disposal. systBins, fal, wiles E could go undetected for long periods of time. WATER SUPPLY ALTERNATTVS alternative 1 -,Provide Backup Wells and lbcornorate S" rin s Into_the C ommunity7 This would`use all three kI nown groundwater sources and smaller systems could 'se rve 'one or mare clusters , Advantares a This could provide a greater flow rate and tap a s,er;�es of aquifers , (Tuscan,. Lovejoy, Chico), W Fai lure of a single We11 or pump would notbe a5 critical ji�j/ 1 —� l d Is�r�+ ��+���f'.'. t A !'• yr),,: lfJ r x f r � ���•y ,y,, :y •t��ai i '�1 This wool di pro��fia�ly teduce the number of 'units `•that cauldf;.bethe valley floor. o F SIR, 1 ����ft a�4 ii d T'bi'sadvantagle „o 1 i . Residenti aG, uSxs` ti� ' .o�r�ld use . a variety of rourees and dents �Canyxi1 lower Stilson connecti000�passibl�icontamoin- ated alluvial and ol,�er shadow "groundwater sources. <<® More homes wogl.d.,be. --,laded 'cin .the' east side o the u' canyon iIaor to talo advaxitage, o_, the mox0 , lertti±U1 water supplies under Doi Mii Ridge; Deve�.'opment • in costs would incre�4se,. ae, wo would,- r.educt ion ,;Wildji.fe habitat • 1fl`t4 , 1 u ., APPENDII m PERSONS 'AND "ORGi4NIZA;'PIONS`'CONTACTEb � Couat'y of.But te 'Stephen S teeter' Serie or Panner xMi il Tom Reed Envr.rni � nenta Sanitarian f4 �- i . Butte 'County Mosuito Abatement District William l 'agelti. a Manager, 'State 0,,f 'Californ;l;a - .I Ij. �. Anthony T, Landiso"Senior Water � R a �. y Corit:roi Engineer I Ron. Dass, Office of Planning and Research Rolls Anderson & Rdlis Ellis Rol] s, Principal Eng-Ineer. . Mike ° Byrd,, Eng ineer^ Jon Ande rst>n Engineer' and HydraRo.gi:st :r J. D. Drake�, Homes , Jeve ` 8616ter ! y T k i CV 4 -26- c ' a z t 7� Viw- 1 4i ui I +, NOP l;ttoxs here ma,] etil,.t�t; aha followingirsnns and oxganizat i ons' Mazy Rennin ; ' Janet `& Sutherland Si mPson R 5 Box 79B; Rt "q Box 79A Chico CA 55926 Chico CA 95926 Gary & Eva Ir cauda Sara &' Breyator C^reec,ih. Rt S' Box 79V8 101. W 2iad 'AVe Chico CA:95926 Chico CA 95926 . John &(evul ine Sul-i'van Michael & Susnri Baird .Rt 5 Boy, 19D835011 Stilson CAiiybn Chico CA, gS926 Chico CA95926 Donald $4, stlary Aichcy pry Tuxhe RT 5 Bo `i'9 P 0 Box 3651 Chic+� (:, 95i!"Ei Chico CA 95927 Patricia& jarrel1 Smith Steve & Margaret '41Vo..b ' Rt 5 Box'79Lid, Rt 5 Box 79-3 Chico 'CA; 95926 Chico CA 95926 Vivian & Mirka Pozar aohn 4 Joan SGk�ooAi�g 801 East Ave- , Mala. #35 Rt 5 Oox 79JA " Chico CA 95926 .C+ icb CA 9592 5 Bill & je' anne Whiney Boli & dean :11�L1,ti �;arr . Rt 5 Box 79-3A Rt 5 Box 1901 .. Chico CA 9592.6 Chico CA 95126 Bill & Sally Chandler, June Graney P 0 'Box 3336 Rt 5 Box 79M Chico CA 95927 Chico CA 95926 Tommy & Bonita Clinton George & Barbera Hyde Rt 5' Box 19-:7 at 5 Bo X, 79,E Chico CA 95926 Chico CA 95926 Gerald & Carol Te ander Marvin &Beulah Crites Rt 5 BMX 791) Rt 5 Box 79-2 Chica CA 95926 Chico, CA 95926 -26- Donald & Sandra plandhard Rt 5 Box79--Qum Flo & Eaw,ard ()p trn6y Chico CA 95926. bu'g Road Chico CA 950,26 Doris & Henry. Pets x�an, Rt 8U -t'6 Chu Pl `Department ,5 BoX ,79L Ch�xco. -CA 95 26 °ty nn n 7 Cou nt G�, ,9 r oviileC `' �,99� ; 5 Attn _ James & Xol.anda ,W stcott: Ftt 5 Box '79S ChIto C:Lt� Cau. cil Chico CA 95926 5th and Main < Chico' :CA 95925 ttnaara Justin &Nova 'Smith Rt Spp��Bo/�c7(0!- John Lu+ruas. Ghi(:V CA 9Q326:., j Ch Chico 520 01iVe Street q �Y� Chico: CA `95'926: Deanne & Barbara Con Rt 5 Box, '79C Conklin Marone & Jack Ledbetter 'Rt f Chico CA.` ;3592.6 56. Bo:� 89 Chi ca CA r'y Go7ad. Sceales &`Bro.jjij :arcl 897` Filbert :Ave R- 5 `Bow 79R ` 1. Chico 'CA 95926 G hada CA 95926; Bruce &Pat .Burke 266 Cohasset Lane Chita GA 95926 Roger Cale Butte A4eadows Stage Chico CA 95926 Ellen Sanders Butte Meadows Stage Chico CA 95926 Kelly Meagher -98 Honey Run, Road Chico CA 95926 Dana Wallace :Lazy S Lane Chico CA 95026 j> i r APPENDIX 2 �REFERENCLS AS& Anderson, Gary A. 1982`. G_eotechn.ica] Report fox Canyon tr PAr' Sewer. Ponds, Eutt County; Cam nia `-., Anders' , Jon M. 1382, Ground 'Water Develoment` =-`Can' a Park Estates;, Ohicaal y Cifornia (Update of 1980'.Report), Butte County. 1982. Final _ EIR and Supp'] �in�nfi� �� r : Ca`nybn,` P.�rl Estates binges, Ray.1982, statural Systems for Water Po],lut on Control. Van Nostrand Reinhold Environmental Engineering Series. Schmidt, C.J. ,, Wm., C8oyle; � et a1.. 1,480� Design Manual .' Onsite Wastewaters Treatment atU Disposal Systems. EPA 625/1-80-012 State '"'Water Resources Control Board, Water Rights' Worksho P Se,ss' lon, 4 March 1981. Proposed Order Den ' Denying �etitlon for beterminat�on of Righ�,s of Various Claimants t to he Water ot:, ,Little Chi co Creek and its Tributaries Hut,t,e _.in_ County,''ineludes the,. rewaliminar nanonvesti g Jan 198�,.� and Geology andel Groundwat,er H drolo y gy of the Lower Reach', of Little Chico Creek (1980),; t r i r ~'F,Y4,1*14 OX;, S'n5�} l,9CAt4.+k;,i".',q FM .A9 bh'r N�SA4i r:rX. hF'M A`..rX{,.rw: t f �`Y.:.i, k.kUY.3.�:Fn' .G, ..—.., PRrk=4akLerrR._ Zw,t•',y: •.FtPM1't )a.. jdS1.K,XeF'A .,-.:h.: Y`[�'�.. $-Y'.J �� d+ 5 ri *il ' All `, y,i +SKr icy. .. ��,.•rr ff 1, r t r� SOIL PTT LAGS AND LOCATION MAP r� i „ r t r } 4 1� 0 ,f f. OU•�•j •IN i.'.4YMlf d NO ,100 . y ' fVlir. ItI[4.IION• pi„/lwj, „ '+ OY7C°IPTION IN•PLitY ' `'_ nY+YN Smote ,. •, _ Par y OF, LNRY OIMIIV 7 '� date Exca vatted' SI7j92.. MT •p7111UM D[N7iTT CaI[M IN NO ,06 p 1�0�110•i` •i», 41,1•wq OpCpINYION IN'•P�.CC • . + •. r n _ Ir It f.: •fYYi .: +•r.r Or L40{,Y Ou.•j 1) iDat a Excavated DAY NOS/UR[ YNij. + C [Nt Test Trench 70. x«%• 1 ° ° dark 'brown,; very, mo.ia�t, stiff CLAY-SA71D D' Test Trench 2 wfita gravel' y o Dar brown, mofi k. Uro st, stiff CLAY -SAPID r,..Yi Tan, very dense, ,moist tuff +; 2• + tea• /.• °, r ' Drown., cobbl ,. c�a o. SAND, moist, Y y y A q• 401r r .- - - - - �� dense: a. S, a"'is & y r . a; ; Nore' weathered looks IIke sfiltstone wtth r �• ; , �soroe. c�rbonadeous layers . -��� •►"„ t Tal" ver, dense tU.ff , tl.. Ai4' 4 •w y ^ 7 •dote 1 D. , b "PAV, 11• e`pa'f l ,# r . a e •i+ 'french terminated at 11,5 feet y s12, rs • • •l,fi, ,f q d two 4.1 A 15, #4 f rN Trench, t'er`minated a. k 15 fdr.t "Very= diffIC-U1 t- to'Oxcava;te.. , , �a X. Lsg of Tett Trench 1' L.oy of_'(•est Trench CIDf+I" ;:irY6i a _ I CIDf+I" ;:irY6i LLY. � 4�,ri otscuriibN^ " fUr 1 a SayM.l , dm �1 t " I Oa'tA �xcavated�, /) OiNe . 0, T(?s[ Trench 3. • ,i �� Dark, brow)l mo{i't, stiff, CLAY�$AI10 )`. wt,f minor scatta;red gravel Tan, moist; very-dense,'weathered tu(f i .Dt • 3, r, 14 0, a • 7'= Trench terminated,at 6.5 fleet Date Excavated: 5/7/62 Test Treb.ch 4 ai park oroowwni 'very m� oist dense GLA N with; jr"�yel 2'. Grey -brown, cobblY/gr2jvelly CLAY with sand 0 • lap - brown , very moist,- dense, cobble/� .' 5: gravel with clay-sand.mbttix. (.50rode y • as O� Otp, x s.a.t) ). _ A 0 ..°�a. 7. o• t�,r41f I i ' J"+ Tari dehse. wet tuff 4ib Trench terminated,at 10 'feet Logs of Test Trehches 3 and q Logs of 'Tett 7'0004hes 5, and 6 , Am , r; Obf ib.Wit 40o s C111►iiON f1: iN OttS,y„t Aq l #1 On p R.1,Atir i 1 - Mr wutliAr 0—l" Data EX"VilAed;. 5/7/82 t ot„'rt cartA(( • 0 lest,_ 7rencfi 7 p _ ... , 0 Black, wet,, stiff, sandy CLAY 2, an, weathered, veryiiTense tuff a P P,1I • d•'Trench terminated at 3 feet - date excavated, `5/7/82 0 : .. Test- Trench 8 P88-1 6" to e" black clay, very wet At ledge Very hardi unwepthered tuff k 2. GA ;below tan, weatheoed tuff i41 1Ip � .i �Trehch terodnated at 3 feet F 8dto, 'En avatedt W/82 i ' r �' Blac k -grey, ;me isg, clayey: &gryD 1 ,, • • �'�afae Tan, very, agoe tuff. Trert+h terminatedt 3 feet 1. ugs 0f 1est Treoche,8 7, 8, antl 9 Log's of ,'restrrcnches 10 and 11 t►i111 ;b 141 P, iCC !N hA IACL r�pN �•^•+ q + OLLCP1�11°M ill PLACL %"PLL L04 0 .i1Ni1 • Ou"Irflosl •. R!1 �'�"" � Date 1 rcav:ated: 5/1/92 aIi DLNfILY Ptr .MOIfTWC CW ICM I • t IN iER -N0 raca(ifw p1- s.w�i M,nlaI 6a,1M I Date. Cxcavated; 5/1/82 ' CRY -. oCMUT#5 Iq,fil/IC tlin[LM ,. ...., .....:..r ... .... ..:. - nl. OF .r. 0• Test Trench 12 Q• Tevt" . • + grown., egoist stiff CLAY--SAtID • o " Dark brawn CLAY -SAND with t10 with gravel • • ° 1 , ,• ayers of dense to an welded ;1"1nter1 p�j; tuff (looks"tike sIIt'stone) .J Tan, .highly weathered, dense Cuff 3. 3. 4• p,d.,P'.q 4• py�4Y ., ...... Ojv,e'v , 5• ' Very dense aridA)fF cult to excavate6, 6• d�nae. `, ,, , kr ppi + 7 7 a P 6 iA b r �, D AyD1� + t • 10 • pV4y��d4 , � '®.41ater entering:holo • Tr h to ted at enc rmina 10 feet � 12 Very dense layer ofof Weil cemented '..'• .: ;' . � .'.. tuff.: Date E;kcavated: 5/7/82 r I •1 •. Less Weathered tan, tuff ; + 7FC A b " .lq• ;+ 0! Test.rrenc h l a 1 ,j•; Brown, cobblY-gravelly-el;ayey' SANG I .ls• CVQFs; r Oopb Grey; moist;- Vary dense, Volcanic 2• ped 'Rap mudfloW eeeh,t ltforMllti,•oil' h Trench termi'na,ted po6, At, 18, feet' • i P �,• Trench termi-natea' at eet , r Lag of rest Trench 12 Logs of Test frenches 11 and 14 tt I �';. .S iN •.'AMICI„ Y arfh swhx too' • .,.:. �oain►fiow: icuOok DAY mus Iok rux o..7n + CaVa,ted: 5/7L82. - bcnfifx cawTlar fest T,rencll' 1.5 1 5PR15 ;W 7 - 7 r , QoQa Broisngrey;inoist,„volcanic nu�ftlw°' puo ,t. 0 -9-90 pZ! 0 F3• pa'p� i renc termtnae a ee Date Excavated: D` Test Trench 16 %v b Brown, cobbly-gravelly-clayey SAND p 2� 10. G `B'ii f�t�r`ey volcaniti :mudflow, dense , I� Bo�D :ra, V ;5 Treted` nch terminaa`E, 3, feet { s' Ld's of Tdst Trenchbs 15, a0d,6 Logs of Test Trenches 1i; 18, and 10: 4j i ' tIPIN �,h :. SW KC t ► .;• Ntl lOUtWN ■.:i,wr - OLKIIIDTIo � �� -- rl IN. OI. iC I i' b*vN: 'ati S1NPiC "'~' . _ p• TLLT "Z St.p1.L', ,+ q+�•.I:, Da:te CXc aVa ted:;: 5/%/�. �' - �blfTue[ n5'NjITY 4oNrLNt - rCCY No lOGf10N oucmt q„i,Nw, _ bnv rgiTruet L yE1 'tiwP.n+ i. / e C ,:; OLN�1 rr LOMrRM Test Trench 2D' Dr'own� dory, stiff, clayey SAND 4riGhi 0' u, Test" •Trench 22 ' 1 + roots + O) ia' ' Blown, dry, f1rm, silty SANG with Tan -y 611ow ' Moi "st, veCy detfs:e C'obbIds" ('roundd"d) "tn 6,, to 1 ,LPD2q. dam, Volck, mu'dfloW ri c 2: v, Q • 3= Drown very moist, firm cobb y, graVefloy, sandy'S E w4h S ' ., D clay f ' Tr;enc tem aC h r"in etl at 4 feet y o a 16 d Ddte Excavated; 5/7182 1' At P 6 feet some boulders u to. 24" 0, ; E m st, v a ery' ease, s g�htly "cdaiettked . C� fies't Tren'th"21 ..:.... ' to tufa' With carbon de osit's P la ers) •' l . Dark brown, dry, slightly clayey' SILT 8, ., Trench terminated at 8 feet - • 2 os Drown, mo'15G, firm, slightly clayey' ,r •, ,.o SAND W ith cobbles/gravel/bou dors r / JJ5 � 4, o,a i 6 a ♦p ;}`• 8rawiti, ^wet>, lrin'`to" �66se; 5lfgiitly 7• ;T 3i1ty ` with SAND:,m nor oh ay and" some"' ' �,'• grave • �: :r Very wet; grey,brownti ;rm ND GI AY` Layers wtth sdme vel .l0 �Uater s.G;ep1.Nh {nto�6d;ttoln. o.f kren.ch — w. Trench terminaked at 1[l"feet A " df u , Logs of lest Trenehes 20 and'21 Log of Test Trench. 22 APPENDIX 4 CLIMATE DATA AND ENGINEER S MATER 'BALANCE 'CALCULATIONS b !V` j, y�F A,{ l p1i.1, L CANYONF14 ZZ GE D%SPL35A�, PhANT r. DESIGN FLOW 109 -Homes 2»5 persons/home 80 .G.P.C.D. Daily F1 ow (10�.�) =,21j800 GPD 21.,800 x 3.6:5 663,:083 gal/month 12 Use 663,000 gal/nonth IRRIGATION TOTAL USEAiiLE MAxil IRRZG EVA,P-ORATION EVAPORATION ( 5 , ACRES ) MONTH ,(INCHES) (0. 75 't TOTAL INCHES) (GALLONS). JAN. 1.5 No Irrigation FEB. 2.0 No Irrigation 4.0 No Irrigation A'FR:. 5.0' 3.5 475,200 MAY 10.0 7, 5, 11018;200 JUNE 10.0: 7.5 1,018,240: JULY 11 .0 8.0 1 , 68,6: ,10 0 AUG'. 11.G 8.9 1086,100 SEPT. 8.0 6. p 814`,600- OCT'. 4 ; 0 3.0 407,300 NOV'. 3. 0 ; No Irrigation DEC. 1.5 No Irrigation T' OTAi 50, 905.,,70a`' io 41 ..8J", 7934 rage fZ �o, 0 cA xa1 R.1 R - L SEG7A.GE Di5P.05AY., PLANT PRECIPITATIONAND, EVAPORATION t NbRN1AL 19.79 r 1�ES GLV DESIGN DSO�ITii PRECTP •, PRECIP." P ECxP . (INCHES) (INCHES) ('fNCFIES) ` ` (ntlfi S) JAN, , 5: 58 1,6,16 7:0,h, ., 1.5 01 6.63, 61 0 . I O: ., 2-� MAR; 3..09 3'.64 4,: Q , 4.0,- , APR, 2.43 1. 87 3,0 5►,0 MAY; .94 .32 1: 0 . 10. 0, ,TUNE . 4 6 .00 1.0 . 1,0.0 , JULY - .01 .00 0:Q 11. 0i AUG. .13 .83 0:0, SEPT. .27 .29 05 8.0, QCT. 1.67 2.49 2.0 4.0 NOV 3. 32 4-6 7 DECk>. 4.81, 5.34 6.• 0 1.5 I; 26•'72 3,.2;24 34.5 71.0,. io 41 ..8J", -�`i9' r. , ..,titer 7 �•, ,� ; „ r i; 1 , .,� y� "r CA:1YbN SEWAGE- DARK DISPOSAL PLANT" POND DATA DEPTH ARTA POND '# 4 AREA POND #5 TOTAL' AREA A (FEEfi.).` (SQUARES') ''� (SQUARE (SQA�E�' FEET) 0 47,200 41,300 881500 1 ;' 49,00`0' ,.,=•42,900 91�90A 2 . 50,70'b 44,600 , 95 r'300 _ 3 52,600: 46,3.00 98,00'0 3.5 5,500 47,200 1.00-07,00* 4.'54,400 48,100 102,500 5 56,300 49,800 106;Z'00 6 581200 51, 6'0 t1 109,800 7 60,20'0 53,500 1,137°00 100) (7) (7:48•). 5:,272,652 gallobs (maximum storage capacity iri ponds 4 & 5 at a.7 depth) M AREti SOTTO' 'TOP AREA +y AREA AT 31 DEPTH POND' NO. (,;SQUARE TFEET) (SQUARE FEET) (SQUAAk,. VEST) 1 3, 360 6, 4'Q0 d. 4 r 00.0, 2 6,<88,0 11., 200 0, 000 3 211000 28,500 24,600 4 47,200 64,300 5 41,300 57,300 Total 1.'07,700 Total 38,500 i "40� 01' 'r Cts 'a'F2 ASI )LIV a I'z StIomes� p ay �. .. riric Lva'poration Ont ,ii i,���' ; t Ponds 1, 2, � 3; 1i DOMESTxC � ' SEWAGE'DESIGN INFLOW PRECIP PRECZP. VOLUME DESIGN EVAP. ►1b a Tli (GALLONS) (INCHES) (GALLCINS VAP. {INCHES); VOLUME (GALLONS) BALANCE (;GALLONS) 9 42,60p 0,5 .141400 _ 8.0 173,500 0 10 42,,002. a, ar,500 4,0 _ , 86 800 �, 3,3QQ 11 42,600 9:0 114,900 3.0 -65,100 1.05700 ' 12 42,500 6.0 3.72,40.0 1.5- --32,500 288,200 42?600 7.0 20.181. 1.5 - 32,50Q 499,400 2 42,600 6,0 172,400 2.0 , 43,400 671 oop 3 42,600 4.0 11:,,4,900 4.0 - 86'y800 , 4 42, 6003, p 8`6, 2011 108't 500 762, 000: ,. 5 -92,600, ],a, 2 7 00 10,Q - 2 , X0,0 6 6.15,,400; 6 „ 4.2, 6a0 .. �. a� . 27,70.0 1p.0 -2.16,500 46'8800 7 42,660 0 -238,600 272,800 - 8 _±2, 6.0 p a . 2 �8,6pp 76. eop, 511,200 34:5"- g$9, pb�� 7� 1_, 540.,1.00 homes) Cz.�Si, too) w - 14bb: G4.0602 0 gajlors%znon Based on 46,100 SF (fop areas "ponds 1, 2, 3 .',Based on average at 1 So ep h = 3'8 , 500 31, 29.0 = 34 ---w-- 0 ,870 8.P Use 34,800 SF 2 Q Maximum design water volume �1a mumstoraga �vol,ume ---,,: 3'1 240 {7.48 0 ) .. -- 7 2 ; SO 0 8 gal `[:A JYOU PAt ` r f?OSAL :PLANTOT ,. ' 41dVAt;C pbOMOST7G :.. 2 O .. ., ,,i G ,,.• PRECIPi VOLUME EVAPs PONDP EVA . SEWAQE. IRRIG. DESIGN(- (PONDS 1,1, DESIGN VOLUME DEPTHPONb AREA VOLUMEINPLO�J pISPOSAL PRECIP.' 3','4,5) EVAP. (PONDS ],2-,3) (PONDS 4 & 5) (PONDS 4 & 5) (PONDS 4,& 5) nALANPE F1ON'Pll (GALLONS) (GALLONS) (INCffES) (GALLONS) (If7CfIE5) (GALLON S) (�EE'11) (SQUARE I1'.) (GALLONS) (GALLONS) 9 6f3,OD0` 014,400` 0,5°52,'3D0 8.0 " -192,000 0 80,;500' *441,300 0 10�d07,300' 2.0 +209,100 A.,O - 96,000 0 Otf'500<,'s -220,700 140,100 11 6G3 000 0 4.0 •410,100 3.0 72,000 1 91,900 -171,900 905,300 12 663,000 0 6.0 +627,200 1.5 - 36,000 3 90,900 - 92,5002,147,000 1 6630,006 „ 0 7.0 '+731,100 1.5 '.' :; - 36,000 4500 .- -' 99;,6d6 3, 403, 900 2 663,000 0` 6.0 +627,200 ;2.0 W 40,000 5106 300 -132300 41519,800 ►h G3 3 643,000 0 4.0 +410,100 4.0 i96io0o - 6 102,800 -27�`,OOA` 5,2311100 4 663,000' -475,200 3;0 +313,600 5.0 -1201000 7 1130700 -354,400" 5,=258,10b�3 5 663,000'- 1,'9"18,200 10 +104,566 1010' = •-240,000 6. 100,9,00 , , ,' -604,404 4;083,000 6 663000 -1 O:B 20fr 1 , ! 1;0 +104 500 r 10.0 -24D,000' 5 10G,100 -661,400. 2+930x900 i 663,000 `.-L,086,100' 0 0 iL.D -264,060 3 96,900 -6781100 1;565,700 0 6."`' Ad 100 ti3 ,000 1 0 0 11.0 '' =2641000 1 91,900 6;30,100' 246,500 7/45Ci,000 y5,.905,700 34'.:511 ' ,y' Uased on Cop area inside dikes oE<,Pcinds 1-5 (167;000 SP),. fi2� Dase'd on constant: 31 depth in Ponds 1, 2,• & 31i Area - 30,500 Sfi Na#imum design water �toiume' � yy 44 , T.RiATMmN PUNT 00ERATION- FOR PIInSED DEVELOPMENT ' 1'1:7sh 31 Homes: Pond EVaporaticn Only Homes .2-100., Pond Evaporation and Irrigation y D01,1 `CIC DESIGN; POND pEPTFI POND' ' ARIA EVA,P. VOi UMC EVA- P. VOLUME INPLOW ' VOLUME (GALLONS) F NCGES VOLULOi ( ) (GALLONS) EVAI+. (xNCl1`L5) PONDS 4 6 5 (FEET) PONDS, 4 & 5 (SQUARE FT.) PONDS 4 G.5 PONDS 1,2;3 AAL ANCF: 11ON`CH, (GALLONS) (GALLONS}. (GALLONS} 9 108,600 0. 52,300 B.0 J U 88,500 444y300 -192,000 0 10 188,600 2.0 209,100 4.0 0 ies, 500 - 220,700 - 96,0OU 81;,000 11 88 600 4.0 4,19,100 3.0 ' 3. y1,30;0 - 17490.0 _72,000 -443,000 12 1081666, 6.0 627,200' 1.0 2 95,300 � 99,1p0 36,000 '1 134,50Q - F 1 188,600 7.0 7311o700 5., 1 3 g8=,900 92,500 36,000 1>,926;`3.00 W 188,600 6.0 627,200' 2.6 3 90,900 123300 -48000 2;570,800 3', 188,600 4.0 418,100 4.0 4 102j500 0 -255;600 -.960000 2,825;'900 4 .1880600 3.0 313,600, 5,0 4 102 500 � .31,9,500 - 120000 2 ;888,6�r 00 5 1.88,600 ," 10.0 '. 3 08,000 - 616,500 --240;000 2;325;200 6 188, 600 104 , , 1.0 500 °10, 3066, 1; ', .a'63.6"560 240 000 � 1, '761 ''800 7 188 600 0 0 11..0 2 95,300 65r3,400 -+264#000 1,033,,000 Ir 188,6600 iO 11.0 `1 91,906, : fi30ylOp -264,006 327,500 27263,200 34.5" 30606,300 71" 4,233,400 1,7Q4,000 1 �•� (31 (fomes) (245) (66)� 0200 "GPD "='' 188,60b ' a17.6n�s%oath 9 N Based on 167,700 sSF (top area ponds 1. through 5); (_y. laased on 3' constant d6pth in ponds, l; 2,` & Masimum design wakero Volume as i . l kRlrytlNR G, 6RAWN 1R Gorernor IH AND YU�LFARE NCl star aP cAtgr �N, R—HEALT , ©PA{?Tt1tT OF HEALTH SERVICES 2135 AKARf3'AV' Nug, RooM 14 n �:.. REDDING, CA 106001' 16) 2Ab b3a5 ,y „y, ; I.. 1ri 82 ;! 9GT 2 U1114,82 October 25, 11982 C7Qcr�llla, �lifc-min Butte Jaunty 11ealth Department 7 county Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 Attention: Lynn Vanhart Director of Environmental, I-iealth Review of the EIR for the Canyon Park Estates Project indicates lagoons are, a possible treatment and dis1 - posal method for septic tank effluent. The FSR a7 so; -indicates the possibility, ,off usa ng ;;k�e :� agooned; septic tank, effluent fox irrigating p:as; ur. o land, The; report s+P,tes that some `of the home;, 1a] the proposed develop- Ynent will require low pressure` tiitmping ,systems to pump, the septic tank eff lu'ent into tae^,rad 1"ector �.ir�es' and/ox to the 'sewage lagoons, Experience with iggoons used to treat septic tank of fluent shows severe odors are likely at times , particularly at night or earlymorning As; recommended in the "Design Guide", (mailed earlier), iagaons should be located at least �-mile downwind from built up areas.` proposed wastewater reclamation operations must comply with the IlVastewater Reclamation Criteria", (copy enclosed'), to ensure that the u`;se of reclaimed water for the specified purposes does not impose undue risks to health4 individual home sewage pumping stations pose a particular concern for a potential cross-tontAminatioh hazard with the domestic water supply. It is recommended that a political entity, such as a sEwor maintenance distar ct,, be formed to exercise control oiler the operation and maintenance of the sewage lift,stations and collectx'on system, anther, L. Sturm; P,E, Associate Sanitary Engineer Sanitary £ng'ineering 'Br. inch �4 GLS : vs tiuff0 Cd, PfaMing Cof=,. ,. . Encl , o c.r, r . : r t Or0v1lle, i.atira+�liq, TI, h, i ., ,�, kG � �1 �t14 �:" {,.1 �k�+i'„Mrj + ,� e"� ��°F y 1� p 1 gi� rw, } _ •`y u Parkview School Capaci+ty 48S students Parkview enrollment 798Z��33'' 361, students Addi ii.onal cap�iciy 12.4 +students , Parkview"School Quail-Canyon 25 students Bidwell Heights 50 students r 14 W116 House ' 5 students Southgate', Acre Southgate Acres 2 9 students Country'" Club yaks l c s tudents Skansen 2 Skansen 3 2$ students Stilson Ranch S7 students 234 Total V4-students 1'24 Student' stations avai1ab" , { 1�aver; capacity r. 0 �I 1 RESPONSES TO .Ct3mmr- NTS,e COMMENTS ,,Leiter rom butte Counts/ nfosqUito Abctteme.t D.isrict ,f The dLstr,zct regkeets• ;that the Mitigations an page . 19 the rre- quirrq;d for gpnroVaZ of the project.. R E S P 0 MSE;The mitigations on pa e 19 should' be a re uire.d * conditiQ placed on thee. subdivision mn.p:. 9 , x CQA4btENT: Ca iforrs a De partment of ReaZth Seryz.ced/Sgnitarra Rsn. -eri tlS J; Vetpa,rtineint personnet axpra6. ed donicorn P11,th th�'px+Qx mi•ty of the axidaa art Zagoans ;to ho es and state tha<t ind.z.r1'idual: Zow pr.essure system poses a papticutar concern for potent aZ mass_ ;contar#ination hazard with: the ,dorne•stic water,,syp.p.Zy. They recommend- fo m'atio:n of a se,weige maintenance dtistr.ict. RESPONSE.,ESRESPONSE.,ThThedevelo er has p- rUp osed a special asses smen p district, (Cou,tty Service Area) with a qualiti.ed operator to rum and maintain the Sewerage treatment and water systems The proximity of home sites to the treatment lagoons ensures that any odor problems will be ,dealt with pr amptly. Singe most of the home sites are on the canyon floor, the quaxter- mike separation would be inadequate. Prompt treatment is preferable to development of a significant odor problem. Those homes using low pressure systems rather than grayit'y drainage' to move effluent to the lagoon area will comply with all recommended safety -features to prevent cross contain- ina't on. Low pressure effluent lines will not be placed in the same utility trench as water lines. i F pt�nnin4�0mm' -. ,��ltiarnsa l7�ovi1lai i. EtESPONSES TO COXjm' ENT COMMENT-: Let tors> from, Ghtica . Unz fi ad S'at'' ha0Z DiS*rzct � nn; V T.he Sc,hool Dist-rq,a .reo.ahrmends tTt i project' ap Zra94 Z beN" die aged pending an agreement'and 1 be ai, en t to Ca,unty vii&ti,�,, trio for financing abas,gr+oom; '.for apace nhw. studen.ts.,, AESPONS,1a: 'The School District has requested the impbsit' on ; TT— -an .impact assessment for temporary school rooms by thio City of Chico and is malting a, similar -to ;request Putte County. While the District will face potential: overcrowding from the many currently proposed or approved rezones there, is still space in existing schools. The exact amount of available. sps.ce depends upon utilization patterns, including space used f'or special programs. In the parkview School two special' classrooms are used for the programs. Zn: addit ,ort,, 43 students have been allowed to transfer to karkvi 11, ,rom other schools within the district. The: -exact number of students generated by the Quail Canyon Project cannot be accurately predicted,, it .;is .probtable, .hqw- ever, that they will be fewer than the districtwwide­average of 0.43/DU. The proposed j e ' pro'ect will consist of ex-lus,Jy homes with an older average age; of occupants. If pwner,sh ' in ;the Iagenridge, area can be 'typical, then up. to one-half, of the residents Will be upwardly, 'mabile', '. existing Chico �resi- dentis who presently have children in the school ' -'district A more probable number af, new children from Quail. Canyon, is 125: fewer at buildout or which m aSr talo 8-x years. The: County should con i,nue to prooess d`evelopmet applicat,ipns up to the building permit ,sta re. the point at ;whi'ch'the 'school impaction fees will be sires �. Ttte School Distrrict hasnet With the: Chico City Counci:7 , with tv{o ,Counity Supervisors" °in 'for attendance, and asked establishment of an as's'essment ,.fee.; Local developers are currently trying to negotiate ar eq`'ui't- able fee: schedule Before the next meeting of the CUSD Board with City and'. Coun"ty officrials P140n9aanm Butto Ga. rOv la 19$z I aliigiuid STI cY turte Ca Planning Cvn�tn NOV 19R rnia ' 114 West Seventh Avenue Ciico, California 95926 0 (9,16► :142.5991 Novemb'dr 15," 1,089 gtephe'n .8treeter Butte PUTining Depaa rtment 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA, 95965 RE School Impact- Mitigat ons-Quail'Cathyon bear 'SteVe Briclosed is some additional Wotdi` to add to our earlier`1rp, spon'se 'to `C.'U, 8. D. comm'ehts, ll In the ovont that a 'school impact fee is hot ri'e oto ated then the school district may 'make findings under Go'ver, hmefit ,Code .,section 65971. If these findings Ire supported >�iy substantial, evidence, and are Made'and concurred in. by thy„ Psor �n0.nce establ�:shirg° sc �oa�•d of . su ery Y then an ord .. hd6i 'impaction p pn fees may be established ptuxsuant co �a 'ernmehIV. dode sEO"tion 65974. `An eh rens mi •p 't i at zon rneas`rlre dor this ;project g should be:'* �. Mitigation iEas ixe : Building pe mid; appy ica ions l bit resi- dentes in this subdivision shall be subject'to any'Schodl` mitigation fees established by an ordinance enacted prior to the filing of such applications. In view of such school impactmitigation measure, it is not necessary to delay action on the tentative subdivision map, since significant adverse impact to 'the schools can feasibly be mitigated by imposing appropriate .Fees at the building Permit stage of deVe;lopment. The public benefit of a.Voiding increased housing costs clue to mapping delay overrides any, potentia:F sohool impacts since such impacts can be fens bly" mitiga,t�ed► ►t ` Since a y, Albert J. Beck, PYh.D Principal and Senior Analyst" Apt: yr TII. e.i r J JrY C -Fe��• ITEMS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE (available for review', at the Planning Department; " 7 Gaunt Center Drive,'.Orovlle) y 3�. Geotechnical Report for Canyon Park Estates Sewer Storage Ponds - Anderson Geotechnical Consultants, Inca, June 1982. 2. Review of Fiscal Informati.on:i Canyon 'Park Estates - Recht, Hausrath & Associates, June 28, 1.9.82. Fire Protection Requirements for Quail Canyon Tentative Subdivision Map - Cal:ifornia Department of Forestay, October 19`82: 4 Letter from Ed McLaughlin, President - Butte County Farm Bureau, November 8, 1982. 5. Tentative Waste Discharge Requirements, for Canyon Park F'states - California Regional Water Quality Control Board, November 18 I 6. Planning Director l s Report for Quail, Canyon Tentative Subdivision, November 2.2, 1082- 1. ' Letter with Advisory Agency Condit ins, December 1, 1982. 1. STRICTURES ON THE SITE WOtnD BE SU$JECT TO EARTHQUAKE GROUND-SHAKING, WHICH IS AVOIDED OR MITIGATED BY CONDITIONS 20, 21, AND 22; AND MITIGATION MEASURES 25 AND 26, 2 STOE21vlWATER RUNOFF-EROSION WOULD INCREASE, WHICH IS AVOIDED OR MITIGATED BY. CONDITIONS 6, 7, 19 AND 201 AND MITIGATION MEASUi2ES 24, 29, �4 ANLI 36. - i 3 TRAFFIC AND REiyATRD AIR POLLUTION AND ENERGY CONSUMPTION WOULD.INCREASE, WHIG, IS AVOIDED OR MITIGATED BYt CONDITIONS 2, 3, 4f 6, 10, 11, 12 AND 16, i AND MITIGATION MEASURE 33 4. SOME WILDLIFE HABTTATS WOULD BE REDUCED ON SITE, WHICH IS AVOIDED OR MITIGATED BY9 MITIGATION MEASURES 25; 30 AND 32., 5, DEMAND FOR PUBLIC SERVICES AND ELECTRICAL ENERGY' WOULD INCREASE, WHICH IS,.AVOIDED OR MITIGATED 8Y CONDITIONS 7r 9,;.10, 14, 18, 19, 20 AND 21 AND MITIGATION MEASURES 24, 25 26, 3:3, 34, 35, 36 AND 37, 6 RESIDENTS WOULD SE 'EXPOSED TO POTENTIAL PUBLIC STEALTH PAPBLEMS,, WHICH IS AVOIDED OR MITIGATED BY CONDITIONS 7, 9, 14, 18, 19, 20, 21, AND 22'; AND MITIGATION MEASURES 24, 25, 26, 34, 36 AND 37. I FURTHER MOVE THAT WE REJECT THE ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT AT THIS TI ME VOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS-' Tx(E FIRST ALTERNATIVE, NO PROJtCT, IS BEING RP-JECTED BECAUSE THE PRESENT PROJECT PROVIDES HOUSING X-^ COMPETES WITH THE GENERAL PLAN AND THE APPI41CANT HAS OT ,ILL MITIGATE SIGNIFICANT IMPACT'S. ALTERNATIVE TWO, THE PROPOSAL FOR A MODIFIED SITE PLAN, IF BEING REJECTED AT THIS TIME BECAUSE THIS PRESENT PROJECT HAS INCLUDED Sr)ME' REVISIONS AND THE ORIGINAL SITE PLAN FOR THE PROJECT MITIGATES POSSIBLE, IMPACTS,: FURTHER, THEE MODIFIED SITE PLAN WOULD CAUSE GREATER?VISUAL IMPACTS; ALTERNATIVE THREE, THE PROPOSAL FOR A HIGHER DENSITYr 15 BEING REJECTED AT THIS TIME BECAUSE A` HIGHER DENSITY i�RWECT' COULD INCREASE Tfit POTENTIAL FOR IMPACTS; BY THE SUBDIVISION YNCIaUDIN13 IMPACTS ON WILDLIFE. i��AR F Vp 5RV1S0,RS m I K S -,Dec rw1 r 7 4 19 2 'x. a w, 5. THE PRO,7ECT WILL PROVIDE JOBS DURING THE CON— { STRUGTION PHASE ASCD PROJECT`RESIDENTS WILL CONTRIBUTE Td THE LOCA, ECONOMY; AND THE SOAP FURVER FINDS THAT THE PROJECT A5 APPP�OVED ; IS IN CONFOM ANCE WITH ALL ELEMENTS ,'OE THE BUTTE COUrTx^Y GE:4ERAL PLAN. , m S VOTV: i Y 2 N, 3 Y 4 Y 5 W (Motion carr;Lec3 0,0 OF -SUPth' i50RS p�,m�rs1 r .4, ,1Ei2 -:r �n - i v XNALYSIS OF IMPACTS 31 ALTE R14AT IVES 32. GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS 35 APPENDICES 1. PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONTACTED' 2. REFERENCES 39 3.. GEOLOGIST'S REPORT 56 4 GROUNDWATER REPORT_ 64 5, PLANT SURVEY REPORT 74` 5. WILDLIFE SURVEY REPORT 79 7. ARCHAEOLOGIST'S REPORT 8. MOBILE SOURCE EMISSIONS ANALYSIS 87 9. PROJECT INITIAL STUDY 10, COMMENTS ON DRAFT ETR AND PT,-SP;ONSES - 11. PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS ON DRAFT ETR AND RESPONSES 12. LIST OF THOSE COMMENTING ON PROJECT AND DRAFT E �.�,..... ......... r.. _._° 13 COST/MY NUE, ANALYSIS 14. SPECIFIC PLAN FOR CANYON PARK ESTATES 15. COMMENTS RECEIVED AT THE JULY 2 0 , 19 81 BOARD MEETING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT RESPONSES 16. SUPp7L2MENT ON CoMULATM 'IMPACTS, L-TTERS PROM 'STAVE AGENCIES's RESPONSES, SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM tPDATE LIST OF FIGURES 1. REGIONAL LOCATION 2, PROJECT AREA 3.SITE PLAN 5 4, SITE TOPOGRAPHY 7 5 PERCENTAGE OF EMISSIONS PROM MAJOR STATIONARY AND AREA SOURCES WITHIN BUTTE COUNTY I.I r, PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS IN THE PROJECT AREA 15 - }i co��avDNU �1I�ALYSY's d AS�E�ITDIX l Canyon ;Park;` Dstates t Specific P] an, '6ou O"Service Area, ?,A C R Rorie (61-31) and Tentative Subdivision INT RODUdTIQN The Following vc: basic cost -revenue analysis is limited in several respects..:.::., 1. Inflation. There `is ,, o atte,np.t to estimate future inflation rates; in estimating costs 'ox.d revenues* P � completion. The analysis assumes full buildout, and 2. ro'ec.t e those costs and revenues associated wit -,.-full buildout in 1982 dollars. Inreallty, the project may nit be fully oompleted for several years; UPJ'Slptoved lots may be resold several times, before someone actually builds on them. However, in some categories., eg., schools, both costs, axed revenues would rise and decline concurrently, maintaining similar cost -revenue patios for analysis of a phased develop" . ment or full buildout. 3. Marginalvs, Opportunity costs. Many analysts contend that marginal es;tiMates for public service costs (,x.e. incremental P r consumption or use of ;reserve capacity) is more, valid than overall per capita or per unit averages.;The: latter ostens- ibly continue to recount initial investments Or, phantom output /investment which down°t actually occur. Other critics maintain.that_opportunty costs for future expansion of facilities and labor must be included, since use of an.incrementa8. amount of reserve capacity is denying that amount to another individual". Per capita calculations more closely: approximate these costs . A related' problem 'coneepns m6thods of data collection and sto' ge. Data is often ' stored or categorized. in such a manner that preclude: 1 '