SU0012885 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

i the project to provide for the maintenance, operation and improvement of the systems. Provision of a community water supply would be accomplished with a minimum of two on-site wells with the capacity to serve the . 36 additional units. The water demands for this alternative - are expected to be the same as those for the proposed project and are F. not expected to significantly affect the area-wide water table. An added benefit of this alternative would be improved fire , protection. The County Fire Ordinance requires that fire hydrants be provided in subdivisions with community water systems whereas they would not be required for the proposed project if individual wells are utilized . FThis alternative proposes the use of a public drainage system as opposed to the individual on-site storm water retention ponds. Two alternative drainage schemes would be feasible with this alternative. They include either terminal drainage to Calaveras River or an on-site community infiltration basin. These systems would require that the subdivision be designed to facilitate drainage of all project roadways to storm drain outfalls into the Calaveras River or to an on-site infiltration basin. For the terminal drainage system, impacts to the Calaveras River would be minor. Based on the Rational Method, the projected impacts would result in a 3 to 5 percent increase in the 100-year peak flow for the Calaveras River. An infiltration basin would retain all stormwater within the project boundaries and could be located away from individual septic system leachfields. A drawback to providing an on-site infiltration system would be that the site acreage available for development would be reduced by a minimum of two acres in order to accommodate this system. I As an option, the use of a package4 wastewater treatment 1 plant may be considered if on-site soils are determined to I. be unsuitable for leachfields or seepage pit disposal . however, i the method of disposal of the treated effluent would have to ensure that impacts to groundwater or surface water do not occur. This may present a problem, given the limited acreage of the project site . Furthermore, the use of such a system for only 36 units may not be cost effective. If development of parcels within the expanded study area occurs, it would be economically feasible to combine the use of a packaged wastewater treatment plant for a greater number of units. fi 69