Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout82-62 BIDWELL HEIGHTS SPECIFIC PLAN 2 OF 2PROOF OF SERVICE G tt rl,,„ewed the r sOparate Pr 7ot oloerplcO lOr eacfr persOo nt�!?Vdd) a . a. � sumons Complaint �, U'„iendOd summons �Pmended corn � plaint b. On defendant (Name): � A ) , a C. By serving (1) r2l COfendant (z) , Other (Nqt� o end title or relatlonshl to r d, [ By delivery at , �:' G u ; u,.. -7- P t1lrun served); home �] business `' r ' �, `1y, "` "'i�r'F'<t� %: •y! (2) Time op � , ,, � (1) :Dale of: (3) Address: /� W. �. By mailing (1) Cate of. r �o 4)'d tt CJ 2 Mannar Of service: (Check' proper box) t2) Place of: a,,( Personal cervico. B Substituted service onecorpnrlat onr�unl cooperated as 415.10) leaving, during usual Office hours; copies (n the Office f thetperson ionls rnO�pY ftn1 - ra r , P)+ I public entity, By was in; charge and thereaftor mailing (by firsocissa mall; Postage re , the place where the copies Were iefY, (CCP 415.21)aa)) - th the parson who apparenlly p 9 p ►2ald) eoples tq the parson served at' c [�] Substituted survlce on natural parson, minor, IncompO(ent, or cgpoldiy house, usual place of abode, or usual piece or businOss of the person :inrved In the member Of the household or a person a t°' BY leaving copies at the dNtoging' years of ago, apparently In charge of the office or ptacopresence of othe f businessA Oto oasts 1r8' g who was informed of the malt, postage prepaid) copied to the person seravetl atrthef lace Wh®fey and thereafter maHing (by firs -class (Attach separate declaration or etf davit afaling acts rolled on to eslsblinh ruaaonable !he copies were oft. (CCP 415,20(b)) attemiillrld personal service.) d• 0 Niall and acknowledgmentdiligence In first to ether with two copies of the form of notice and a service, first-class mall or a(rmaU) copies to the person served, 9 pl addressed to the sender; (CCP 415.30) (Attarft comp) ted ®ahnowl®d ginend and A; return: envelope, postage prepaid, e, Q CoH[flcrd or registered mall 0ervlca. By mailing to address outside California with return receipt requested) copies to tit® person served. gmant of y registered other evidence of actual; delive to tete (by registered or certified' airmail (CCP 415.40) (Attach signed return receipt or Other (Speclfy code section); rY person smrveat,) [] Additlonal page Is attached, 3. The notice to the , person served (Item 2 on the co 41P.30, 415.10, and 474); Py of the summons served) was complRfelS as follows (CCPa, Q As Individual defendant, b. As file person sued under the fictitlOus name of, Ci d On behalf of; • Under, , �Q-•-� CCP 416 10 (Corpo'ration r .J CCP 41 ^ ) CJ CCP 416.60 6,,,0 t-06funct corporatfon) (Minor)Ej M CCP 416,40 © CCP 416,70 (Incompetent) Other; (A'ssoclation or partnership) CJ CCP 416,90 (Individual) d. Q by personal detivory on (Data), . , At the time of service I was at least 16 oars of a e and nota ar ` °S. Foe for sorvice. S, y g p ty to INS action. 6. Person serVing a. ] Not a registered California- process, server, a. (.� Cnlftornla sftaNlf,,lnarshai, or co'nstabie' ED Registered Callfornla process server, f Narne, address and telephone.rlumber and. C, ( Employee or Independent Contractor of a< It appllc®ble, county of raglafratlon and number; reglstorod California process server, d, d Ekem;pt /agistrtrflon under, true, d Prof, Code: 2' rrp 0(b) tleclelre undor penefty of p'orlury Chet the faregoing' i 'true and correct and `that, t is declsration It exocutod (For C°Iifornla sheriff, marphal or Constable use onl on t certify that the lure tiln y) at (Pince); this corllficate !s executed nl(D ! �AncJ C6060 and snd iltat r� rr Ea' California. + at (Place): + + , , California; A doclare[ion a der enol o "'-1- G p ., en'sffldrsvll Isle Wred. h� 1 PorWrt! must be eipn�{n Gmlllornfn 'or In rr aiielo that AUlhorlxmo we o! doolaSrotla, rruln Ilace o A ��1ih4davilr'olhbrprr(o f an '�Q Ptunrgncj coram, CUSSI'CK AREA NEICHBORHCOD COUNCIL Gr�uallrrGaliforrt September 16, 1985 Butte County Planning Commission yCDrive, Oroville,California 95965 Dear Planning commissioners,. The Cussick Area Neighborhood Council has recently come to the realization that the current County policy regavding approval of aps a private ratistreets efuture roblemseforrcel bothmprropertytOwners,ethel�County is crea or the City of Chico. Because private street standards often fall well below those of streets accepted for dedication, ex- perience in hundreds of California jurisdictions has shown that in urban settings property owners will, request that thea,r sub- standard streets be accepted for dedication when they learn the cost of maintaining them and the difficulty of obtaining 100alo cooperation from abutting property owners. The County or the City then finds its self in a no win situa- tion when asked to accept dedication of substandard streets. If they refuse, they become unpopular with that segment of their constituency,, but if they accept dedication and street main- tenance costs-rise, the taxpayers in general. axe unhappy. The savings to the developer and/or the initial property owners is not worth the ultimate consequence of an area full of poorly maintained streets a decade or more hence. Either prop- erty values will suffer or the cost of government will rise,, or both. The Neighborhood Council is concerned that some recW;,tly approved streets in our area will experience the proLiJems cited; above, and believes that it is imperative that the County under- take to critically evaluate its Curren'- street dedication polis- ies in the Chico area, if riot in all parts of the county where densities exceed 1 du. per five acres. It will be noted above that we have included tentative parcel maps,,since the present "four by fouring"practice, of many hand developers is lead' g to all the '`problems we have previous°lynoted. We believe the question of private streets and "four by fouting in orb,an areassoon a merit your recommendation of sta.,, studies and Y ,The recently approvLd subdivision p at the NFA corner of Cusick and East Avenue and an older land divesion mid, block east of Alamo axe cases .n point.. t^ Table C-4 AN LOW—LEVEL BUDGET FORFOR ECONOMIC PROMOTIONAL ORG�.N1ZATION COUNTYOTION Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Tear -4 Year. 5 • Personnel Executive director $35,000,00 $36,750.00 $38,587.50 $40,,516.88 $42,542.72 , 14,586.08 Secretary 12,000.00 ry.7 000.00 12,600.00 49,350.00' 13,230.00 51 13,891.50 54', 8 5 ,128.1? Total labor 3enefits, at 30% ► 14,100.00 14,805.00 64,155.00 15,545.25 f�7,.362. 5 16,322.51 70, 30,89 17,138.64 74,267.43 Total, labor and benefits 61,10.0.0Q hent and utilities 7,200.00 7,56.0.00 7,938.00 8,334,90 8,751.65 Communications 3,000.00 3,150.00 3,307.50 3,472.88 3,646.52 Office supplies and equipment 6,000.00 6,300.00 6,615.00 6,945.75 7,293.04 Promotional materials 4,000+00 4,200.00' 4,410.00 4,630..50 4,867.03 , Advertising, and publicity 1,200.00 1,2`60.00 1,323.00 1,389.15 1,458.61 Travel and entertainment 18,000.00 18,900.00 19,845.00 20,837:25 21,875.1: Trade show attendance 1,500.00 1,575.00 1,653.7`5 1,736,.44 1,873.26 ;fiscal aneous 6,000.00 6,300.00 6,615.00 6,945:75 7,293.04. Total $108,000.00 $113,400.00 $119,070.00 $125,021.50 $131,274.68 n a PC) Box 698 - Ghia). 01 95927, 9'16-P91014 Oc+tobet 23, 1989 '1 GREATER CHICO AREA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY TASK FORCE FROM. SUBCOMMITTEE ON PROGRAM OF WORK ,MEMBERS: BRUCE NORLIE, AUDREY TAYLOR, ROBIN WILSON,, DAN SULLIVAN, SHELTON ENO.CHS TIM FLYNN, AND DOUG GUILLION. RE PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE PROGRAM OF WORK TO CARRY OUT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN THE GREATER CHICO AREA. Rr}�. SRI REPORT, SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT ON ORGANIZATION, PURPOSE STATEMENTS AND JOB DESCRIPTIONS FROM SOLANO AND SACRAMENTO COUNTIES. Bufte Co. Planning i'.pttra, 2, 5 4 �roy�lle, Cdlifarra?q' PROJECTS �,. Survey and analyze local industries for capabilis'ics and needs. 2. Identify target industries that; a. are compatible with local business and quality of life. b. are services not currently provided, c. have a primary economic base outside the local area, • d. can use our community's resources, ie; University, work force,; etc.. 3. grogram to gene, an lement a marketing ). d Develop and ixnp e pursue busin658 in the targeted industries. 4. Create an operating budget and reporting system that maximizes sales contacts and minimize data collection and producing literature_, 5. ort program through businesses and Develop a Community Supp g the media to identify industry Zorttact leads. 6: Coordinate with BC.EDC all local, county, and state develop- ment programs. t r. - i ORGANIZATIONAL RESPONSI-BILITIES JOB DESCRIPTION TITLE: Executive Director REPORTS TO.s The:: Board of Directors through the President of the Board. SCOPE.- Plan, organize and direct the sales and market- in,g program. Focus the financial and physical Capabilities of the Board Of Directors on bringing, new in- dustry and commerce to the Greater Chico Area. Encourage the stability and expansion of resi- dent industries wherever possible 'to preserve existing jobs_. Cooperate with governmental and civic agencies to attract new industrial and commercial enterprises. Assist, local government to build better opportunities for new capital investment and development by commercial, institutional, and industrial enterprises, with special efforts devoted'to service and labor-intensive industries. RESPONSIBILITIES: 1. To identify proapective commercial and in- dustrial'organizations which are contem=- plating expansion or relocation. 2. To vigorously pursue direct_ sales efforts by personal visit, by telephone, by utili- oBard members communityleaders, and appropriate invitation's for visits to enable prospects to become acquainted with the unique advantages of the Chico area., 3. To periodical ]y review the printed materials Used in sales, and marketing programs. (newl'98organized) 3 -26-84/p > Ah COMMITTEE: COi�OMIC-.D nPMWsTR81FAY-EWM•DATE CALLING D ATTENDANCE LIST DATE NAME PHONE �L h Jere Bolster .895=3931 ` 4A Alan Burchett n�u,) 891-6111_... t%`,� � .u• � Fred Davis 895-4.802 �� \ 1✓ ►/� Jane Dolan 891-6600; Shelton Enochs 343-9748 1�"f'� ✓�'" �C� t,fi� Tim Flynn Ln,8 23# 893-6715 l.•L�1v'Ru� t�tl `�'�.�'Y '8`77-6110: � e"`•. i� • l� '- \ °�: � �' • Doug Gu.illon Ln.8 26# 891-1531 ��; +�� ' � "n LL Jerry Hughes Ln.9 320 342-4281; Bob Jeffries 89173001 Jim King 343--4444 W1:.�i� Bettye Kircher 5347460.1 ��� \, clif � Thomas Lando 895-4850 ` L1,`' + �h°, 'a �•` '{`L --B�-1-�•NtC1id 1 s "'� �y 345-4330 .Martin Nichols 534-4631 Bruce Norl i e Ln . 8 32# 891-4215 i ��` . 4 ✓, Mike Orr 891-8900 Dr Lee Reeder 895-2484 ✓� I4A-- ' so John 711er Dave Schmidt%fAudrey (In ern) 4ayor 893-8732 Dain. Sul3-van, Ph.D. 895- Sue Vanella 342-0680 Q` Walton Walker (Ron Miller)• 89- 531-1473 (J" Moe West 895-1144. 11Ntv, V;;-\- Hi l da Wheeler 891-2800 a irsC 891=4031 v tit U` W P U, ►'�`� Robin Wilson 895-5201. -�- � Jim L, ynchi Ln,9 41# 893` 8926 . Jim Staff"nback 891 -6698 Roger Swanson 891-6474:, STREET FACILITY IMPROVEMENT FEE ALTERNATE 24 (ALL USES .. 15,0FAU 'FUNDING) A. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT' 1. Over 640 sq.ft. Gross Floor Area (GFA) $ 680/unit 2 Under 640 sq.ft. Pross Floor Area (GFA`) $ 340/unit E. N0N RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. 1. Retail Commercial ....................... $ 3.40 sq.ft.GFA 2.. -Office Commercial .......... .............5 1.19 sa.ft.GFA 3. Industrial, ............:,............:.y .47 sq.ft.GFA C. OTHER DEVELOPMENT .1,. Hospitals ....................... .....$ 969/bed 2. Convalescent Hospital....:.... $ 221/bed 3. Lodging .(Hotel/Motel)...................S 850/room D. ADJUST?FENT FOR DEVELOPMENTS OVERSIZING STREETS 1: Village Park Assessment District ... 240 reduction o£ 2e 2. Eastwood Assessment District ........ 24% reduction of fee 3 Foothill Park ............ ........ 24% reduction of 4Lee j� . I eo,r.,wl'rc4Yt!'�.Y.�7?.�i1T:JW.h�e'#,�1�s�_y - i CHART NO. 1 STREET FACILITY IMPROVEMENT FEE_ (ALL USES. - 15% FAU FUNDING) A. RE=SIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 1. .. over 640 sq. ft. Gross Floor Area (GFA). ........ $530/unit $265/unit. 2 Under 640 sq ft. .Gross Floor Area (GFA)......... :.....�.... R. NON RESI'DENTI'AL DEVELOPMENT ... $2.65 sq.ft.GFA 1. Retail Commercial .. .... • .. $ .93 sq.ft.GFA 2. Commercial •• Office Commer .. ..... _ ... S .37 sq .ft.GFA 3. Industrial . C. OTHER DEVELOPMENT $757/bed 1. Hospitals .. ..:....,.. ... .. .'. S173/bed 2, Convalescent .; .... .. ..: ... t�Hospitals .. $664/room 3.. Lodging (Hotel/Motel) ....... ....... p. AOUSTMENT FOR DEVELOPMENTS OVERSIZING STREETS I I i Village Park Assessment District .•••••`..... 24% reduction 24% reduction of fee of fee 2: ..••'• Eastwood Assessment District .. -24'j reduction of fee 3 Foothill Park . . ... ...... .... ., CHART N0. 2 STREET FACILITY IMPROVEMENT FEE (1t Gas Tax Reduces fee 15.4% - 15% F'AU Funding) A. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 1. Over 640 sq. ft. Gross Floor Area (GFA) .._. ...n..... .... $450/'unit 2. Under 640 sq. ft-. Gross Floor Area (GFA) .................. $223'/unit B. NON RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 1. Retail Commercial .... .......... ........ ,.... $2,23 sq.ft.GFA - 2. Office Commercial .,,. .. .. $ .75 sgift.GFA 3. Industrial ... ... ,.... .. . .4..., $ .31 sq,ft,GFA C; OTHER DEVELOPMENT 1, Hospitals ... ... $640/bed 2. Convalescent Hospitals _ , „ $147/bed 3. Lodging (Hotel/Motel) ... ... $559/bed D. ADJUSTMENT FOR'DEVELOPMENTS OVERSIZING STREETS 1,' Village Park Assessment District ...............,...24% reduction of foe 2. Eastwood Assessment District ... .............a.....24% reduction of fee 3. Foothill Park .... ............ ...., ... ,.24% reduction of fee CHART NO. 3 STREET FACILITY IMPROVEMENT FEE ( sales tax - 15% FAU Funding) A. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 1. Over 640 sq; ft. Gross Floor Area (GFA) ................ ;.... $0 2. lander 640 sq. ft. Gross Floor Area (GFA) ;...... .......:.... $0 B. NON RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 1. Retail Commercial.................. ae............ ....; ..... . 2. Office Commercial ............ si .. .... ;,.: $0 3. Industrial............ ........ .............. ........... ... �0 C. OTHER DEVELOPMENT 1. Hospitals .....: ......... ....•................. ... .. $0 $0 2. Convalescent Hospitals ..................... ........:.. . 3. Lodging (Hotel/Motel) ..-. ... .. $0 D. ADJUSTMENT FOR DEVELOPMENTS OVERSIZING STREETS 1. Village Park Assessment District .............241 reduction of fee 2. Eastwood Assessment District ........,..,......24% reduction of flee 3. Foothill Park ...........:....................241 reduction of fee Alftk CHART NO. 4 STREET FACILITY IMPROVEMENT FEE (First Year Implementation - 15% FAU Funding A. RESIDENTIAL 1st Yr. DEVELOPMENT 2nd Yr. — 3rd Yr. 1. 1. Over 640 so. ft. GFA .... ...$1-77/Unit $353/Unit $530/Unit 2. Under 640 sq. ft. GFA ... .$ 89/Unit $176/Unit $265/Unit 5. NON RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT I. Retail Commercial (sq.ft.GFA)....... $ I.88 $1.77 $2.65 2, Office Commercial (sq.ft.GFA)...... $ .31 $ .62 $ 3. Industrial (sq.ft.GFA), .. ..$ .13 $ .24 ,93 $ i37 Ci OTHER DEVELOPMENT 1. 2. Hosp;tals........ .......... ...... $254/bed Convalescent Hospitals............ $ 58/bed $503/bed $115/bed $757/bed $173/bed • 3. Lodging (,Hotel/Motel).,— ....... i. $222/room $44.2/room $664/room D. ADJUSTMENT FOR DEVELOPMENTS QVERSIZING STREETS I. Village Park Assessment District...:....,.24% reduction of fee 2. Eastwood Assessment District .............24/ reduction of fee 3. foothill Park ................. .24% reduction of fee CHART NO. 5 STREET FACILITY IMPROVEMENT FEE ( 1� Gas Tax Reduces Fee by $80 - 15% FAU Funding) lst Year 2nd Year 3rd Year A. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT $177/Unit $273/Unit + $80 GT $450/Unit + $80 GT .. 1. Over 640 sq. ft. GFA ...,+..`:....,... '$ 89/Unit $ 96/Unit + $80 GT $185/Unit + $80 GT` 2. Under 640 sq. ft:, GFA ....... . .... ... {3. NON RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 50 + $ GT $2.24 + $ 41 GT 1. Retail Commercial (sq.ft.GFA)........... . (q ....$ 88 .27 $1.52 + $ .10 GT $ `71 $ 2. Office Commercial s .ft.GFA)d... $ .13 $ . 2O -� $ .04 GT + .06 GT $ .,31 $ 3. Industrial (sq.ft:GFA). ....: C. OTHER DEVELOPMENT $423/Bed + $80 GT $677/Bed + $80 GT l,. Hospitals .......:................:.....$254/Bed 2, Convalescent Hospitals ........:....•$ 58/:Bed.. $ 35/Bed + $80 GT $80 GT $ 93/Bed + $8b GT $684/Room $80 GT 3. Lodging (Hotel/Motel) ...........:......$222/Room $362/'Room D. ADJUSTMENT FOR DEVELOPMENTS OVERSIZING SYREETS 1`. Village Park_ Assessment District :,..•............ .... 24% reduction of fee 24l reduction of fee 2. Eastwood Assessment District .......................... 24/ reduction of fee 3. Foothill Park - .•..•... (2� Gas Tax Reduces Fee by $160 - 15% FAU Funding) A. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT $177/Unit $193/Unit + $160 GT $3`70/Unit + $160 GT .j..........:+... 1. Over 640 s.ft.GFA FA $ 89/Unit $ 16/Unit + $1.60 GT $105/Unit $160 sqg........::..:.... �. Under 640s _ B. NON RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT $1.22 17 $ GT $1.83 + $ .82 GT ..; $ 88 1. Retail Commercial (sq.it.GFA).••.... . $ .55 $ + $ .19 GT $ '.64 * $ .29 GT 2: Office Commercial (Sq -ft -GFA) ........ .31 $;13 .43 � $.17+$.07GT $ $.IIGT .26 + t,GFA)` 3. Industrial (sq.f +... .+. C. OTHER DEVELOPMENT $254/Bed $343/5ed + $160 GT $597/Bed + $160 G T 1. Hospitals .•...:.......... ;........... $ 53/Bed $ 0/lied + $rt60 GT $ 13/Bed + $160 GT .. 2. Convalescent Hospitals . .... .... $222/Room $282/Roo m + $160 GT: $504/Room +.:$160 Gt 3. -Lodging (Hotel/Mo'te1) ..............; D. ADJUSTMENT FOR DEVELOPMENTS OVERSIZING STREETS (Same as 0` above) 1 Tetrachloroethylene (13CE} is. a moderately volatile chlorinated hydro carbon which has important commerci;l applications in the rlry cleaning of fabrics and in the degreasing of fabricated nretAl parts. It is estimated that approximately 265,000 metric tons were produced in tile` Unitcd States `in 19f32. Approximately 90 percent of production is estimated to be released eventually to the atmosphere. Recause PCE is relatively insoluble in water (150 mg/L) and has a vapor pressure of 19 torr at 25°C, PC1 in natural waters would be conveyed to the atmosphere rapidly, through ovaporation. 'there are no known or expected natural sources of emissions. PCE has been detected in tie ambient (natural envi rorimr,nt`) ai r of a variety of urban and nonurban areas of the Unitod Rote() rnd other regions of the world. Levels can range from trace amounts in rural oreas to as much as - 10 parts per billion (ppb) or 0.068 mg/m3 in sono large urban centers. The global average background level is estimated at about. 25 parts per tr'illio'n (PPt) or 0.175 x 10-3 mg/m3. PCL has been detocted loss frequently in wager; it has been monitoredin surface and drinking waters, conerally at levels ietween 1 and 2. ppb. In certain instances involving contamination of ground water, much higher levels have been reported. Although there is vert limited information on the behaviorof NCE in soil:, PCE can be cixiitrcteri to leach through soils of low (< 01 percent) organic, carbon contr.nL . The amount of PCi= adsorbed to soils is dependent on the partition coefficient, the organic carbon content,, and the concentration of PCE in the liquid phase. In the trapasphere, a region of the ; trnosphere extending to between C �rgor~s photochemical ant. 15 kilometers above the earth s surface, PCE undE degradation to the extent that its eSt.jIllatedr li'fetime is appreciably less; than 1 year. Little PCE is expected to ba conveyed tr) the stratosphere. Recent studies have .,shownthat, :,tnreal atmospheres; neither atomic chlorine- nor hydroxy radical- nduced pilotooxidation of SCE generates substantial concentrations of ozone or other oxidants; thus, PCL is not believed to be a significant factor in production of photothemically induced pollution often experienced near large urban centers. Because' of the reduced solar flux ,in reinter and seasons} variations in hydroxy radical con cent ratiot, PCE level$ in ambient air are expected to be higher 'in winter than in summer. On a daily 1W� CY) basis, PCE, levels fluctuate considerably.. rably. Inhalation is the principal -rout(? of concern by which Ingestion of drinking water contaminated b PCE enters the body. PCE s r---�id-=y andy?rtually carr letely absorbed�s another important concern. ,; while pulmonary uptake of PCE during inhalation �n po my oral administrationex, tional to exposure duration and the air concentration; e is 'linearly proper y Phys �} also influenced b E �on;`Pulmonary uptake is cal activity and body mass: . . Tfie Metabolism and pharmacokinetics of PCE are highly contingent on its ties. Controlled inhalation studies with human V- physicochemical suggest that whole -bed olunteers (at 100 ppm) Y steady-state conditions are not established within short exposure periods (e°8 hours) tissue is slow, stead because partitioning into adipose steady-state '(the r�atr?.at which whole bad by clearance) may require considerably longer e Y uptake is balanced distributes widely into body tissues, p nods of exposure; PCE by the pulmonary excretion of unchan e parPCE is eliminated from the body mainly Of PCE occurs, metaholism, is dose-dependent nt Li Mi ted ted metabo`li s►n humans; in humans saturation would not be ex ei;t saturable in ►nice ►rats and 'aR.Proximate 100 expected until ;air exposure levels ppm (678 mg/1113) or greater, The principal site of IS to the liver where PCE is oxidized to PCE oxi metabolism trichloroace�tie acid. Controlled studies withhr�rnansh)ravrerearranges to PCE metabolism urinar� ( ,� tricltloroacetic acid) represent', dernanstrated that 1 to 3 percent of the CE abarGeO during > -hour exposures to betty (678atou2�112 of mg/1113).. een 1'Q While the metabolic profiles of PCE are..not ppm fully established in mice rats + yet of differences in the' pathways i n and ms ns there is no convincing evidence to cavalentlY bind, in vitro and in vivo ptoreS PCS metabolites are known Protein d l i i --- ,_._+ cellular r +' rot les such as Since tissue -bound meta,balites leave a slow rat over, cumulative cellular heir e e of turn-� o gus may occur in humanswith chroric exposure. Indices of hepatotoxicit Y of PCE in the rat and mouse have been shown to 9 ly correlative with the dose-dependent be na gat _ ur e of-_ } , hi h Excluding carcinogenicity as an e;rtd point t 10E metabo,l�r;;$M. mental animals, coupled toxicity to in ex,peri»' p with limited human Bata Derived principals f overexposure situations, suggest ti7at ton t, Y from ng r.rtn exposure of humarjs to Y ')' environmental levels found or expected ,(Y0 ppb or less) of PCE is not likely to present a health concern. �. ,... _ .�5 Decrementsin task performance and coordination are the first gross signs of central nervous system (CNS) and behavioralalterations observed in con trolled human studies in which individuals were' exposed to about 100 ppm (678 mg/m 3 p More sensitive tests, howevr�rwoulIdhave to lie per for u to 7 hours " formed to determine if PCE affects the nervous system at ,even lower cdncentra- t i o n Transient liver damage in humans is \� generally as ociate�l with short-term exposures greatly in excess of 100 ppm (678 in rodent species tested, intermittent or prolonged exposure to PCE has bees observed to _result in liver and kidney ,damage at levels exceeding 200 ppnj (10 356 m m33 i g/ ). Since ambient air levels are generally orders of magnitude lower than that associated with liver damage, long -tem exposure of humans to ambient air or water levels Would not be expected to cause adverse liver or kidney effects. Similarly, ambient air and water levels of PCE are unlikely to cause adverse effects upon the heart. �amu:? ►� The mammalian animal tests performed to date do not indicate any signi`fi.. J1 u4- cant teratogenic potential of PCE in the species tested. On this basis, there is no evidence to suggest that the conceptus is uniquely susceptible to the effects" of PCE. The anatomical effects observed primarily reflect delayed a i�VA development and generally can be considered reversible, It is fmporCant to note, however, that the reversible nature of an embryonic/fetal effect in one ' s'peci es might, in another s,peci e,s, be manifested in a' more serious and i rre- versib:le manner. The teratogenic potential, of PCE for huma`ris is unknown. PCE has been evaluated for its ability to cause cienc, mutation, chromoso- mal aberrations, unscheduled DNA synthesis, and mitotic recombination., These rr. tests were conducted using bacteria, Drosophila; yeast, cultured mammalian c l'I wholes mammal systems, and cytogenetic analyses Of exposed humans. Cor� twin technical and conanercial samples of PCE elicited increased responses th the Aires bacteria] test, a Yeast mitotic recombination` assay, a host-rnediat.ed assay using Salm__onerlla, and DNA repair tests. Exogenous me'taboli'c activation was noir required for detectifon of these increased effects, In general:, the re-sponses were weak and were; observed at high carlCentrations that were cyto toxic; doseWdepe' dont relationships were not established. The positive ,. �( findings may be the result of mutagenic contaminants and/or added stabilizers, Several other tests of commercial and technical samples of PCE have been '_reported as negative. The epoxide of PCG, which is thought to be the active biological intermediate, was found to be positive in bacterial stu-dies. In a gavage 'bioassay, PCE: has induced'a statistically significant increase ors ifi both male and female B60F1 (ni'ca. No carcinogenic effects were observed i of malignant liver tum 'n lifetime studies of rats ex osed to PC p r. in gavage and inhalation bioassays; however, these latter studies iiad diminished sensitivity to detect a response due to excessive dose-related mortality, in the gavage study and a y low dose level in the inhalation study, Intraperitoneal injecii,on of PGE in St -rain A mice did not produce an increased incidence of pulmonary adenomas,; mouse skin initiation -promotion experiments also did not show a tumor 'response. However, because of inherent limitations in these assays, the negative results tin not detract from the positive findings of liver tumors in mice. A cohort study of dry-cleaning workers exposed to PCG showed that workers were at an elevated risK of colon cancer mortality; however, the elevated risk cannot be totally assigned to PCG since as many as one-half of the workers may have been exposed to petroleum distillates in their working history. Other studies that found an association between cancer Arid employment in the dry cleaning industry did hot identify the dry-cleaning solvents to which the { �en;pl ogees were exposed'., The positive response in both male and 'female mire constitutes a signal4 that PCE and/or its reactive metabolites might be a carcinogen for humans. In terms of strength of evidence in animaltest systems, the mouse bioassay constitutes limited evidencel. ,Yµ According to the Agency's Proposed Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, the cancer evidence of PCE in animal test systems is I i mi ted'r and the cancer ev'i deric+S in epidemiologic studies is inconclusive; The overal l wei zght••of-�evi dente cl ass�i fi cati on dor PGE would }ae G,roup C i ,e, „ ,,� a possible hU(ian carcinotlen. vas t'6/e 3— /�✓e i 6olaw 4/y"� When the criteria of thelnternational Adencyfor Research :0,0 Cancer (If1RC) a're applied; the aniawl data supporting the carcinogenicity of PCG i"s cl ossified asp limited. Because ex stin'p ep�eN rnioltgic data for PGE is inconcl�rs`ve,_,. -.., ,its overall IARC ranking sltould'«be Group, mea ing that the Y ... o �.®o ,, � " �� a ���������������a6 �a������ COMPL,F.rEB SUMMARY SPRRAD SHER'Y' C0U111y 1 2 3 1: 5 4 T 0 9 10 13 t2 13 11 15 1( 1? 10 19 ZO 21 2 '3 -21 25 26 27. 20 25 30 31 32 35 31 35 36: 37 3e J9 10 11 Q 13 11 15 'IF o -0 19 50 51 52: 53 51 576. 04 57 6o. 09 60 1.1 k 4] 41 67.66 47 48 N 70 71 . 'Z 73 111OHCOo ( t 1 f 1 t I 1 2, 1 t f 1 I U 3 i 50 t 1 l S 1 t 7 1 1 1 1 l 1 t t 1 0U i 5 1 1 ; 1 1 l ! COLIIVERII� 1 1, 1 T! 1 1 2: 1 1 1' 1 1 1 a 1 'I 1 S i t 1 30 ! o. 1 1 i 1 5 :- t t 3 1 '4 t ! 1!BUM . COLUsn 1. LOSro 1 5: 1 1. 2: I..1 1 1 1 1 1 f. 1 t t 25 1.. 1 co"TRn 1.. dEL 'IlflNrE I. 1 I f f. 7 f. ! 1: ! 1 1 1 I l t 1 1 I: , 1 EL•001dm I 1. t 5 1. a 1 1. 1 1 1. 2 1 1 t tl i 1 1 1 ! t 1 1 1 1 I t !S' I 0. 1- I !. ► 1.. 1 i 1 ,r 1 1 9 1 1 5 2 1 1 t 1 1 1 ! 1 1 11 t l 1 1' :1 1 60 f 1 0.rRESH - 1: 2 1 2 l t f: f S t - GLOM 1. 2. 1 k 5 i 1. '2' 1 I I I 1 :1. 1 1 L 1 1 Y 1 f 10 1 YY. 1 1 1 1 9. 2 1 1' Y 1 t INt "unDo I1 1 1 T 1 1: 1 1 ,t t 1 1 I :L: 1 i' 1 L 1 35 1 30 1 0. I' 1: l.. I- Z 1 1_ I IC'i]i1IM. f. IAL 1 4'. 1 I 10 1' 1 2 t1. 1 1 'A 1 A IMY'0 t. 0104 1. '1 1. a. 1. 1 1 t -.I I 1. '1. '1 1 1 : 1 1 _. -Imms t 1 I t 1 5 3 1 1 1 f! 1: 1 l 1 1 't k 1 1' 211 1 0. t. 1 1. 1 '5Lma t 1A55EN 1 1 t 1 5 1 1 1 1 1- 1 1 1 1 1 L0& 101oELES 1 1 1 1. 1: 5 1 1 0 l f 1 .t -! l i 1 1 l 1 1 1 1 - 1 L S 1 1 1. 1 so 1 '0. '1 t. 1. 1. 2 2 L 1 3 1 1. 1 1 rmDERp 1 S, 5 1 I 2 1 1 1 1 1 } 1 i 1: L l00 1 t5 1 1 0. 1- t_ 1 '1 1 1 1 1 5: 1 "5 1 i! 1 t 5 t 1 1' 1 6 1 1 1 2' l 1,. 1 1 1 t. 1. 1 1 ,l i 1 ll 1 1 2 1 1 2 7 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 tlnR]PO•,.11 t: I 1 1 1 1. 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 :{. t 1 t 1 1 1 25 1 0. t 1. I 1 1. 1 MEMOl1CIR0. : I t1ERCEO 1 1 1 1' 7 t0 1 i. t Z l 1. 1 i 1 1 1 1 t 1 30 1 l -0. l I 1 1 7 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 1 t. 1 t I. I I f 3 f so 1 i' / 1 f 1 2 i. ! 3 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 r4m 1 1 1 :S '.1- 1 2' 1 1 1 1 1" 1 1 1 1 S 1 1 1.. OOMtER£V. 1 :C 9 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 '1 1 too 1 1 0. 1 1 :1 1 1 I1RYii I 1. 1: 1 1 :2 'd 2 ! I1 1 1. 1 1 1 1` 1.. - 1 1 I 170 1 25 1 1 S 1 0i. I I.- 1. 1 9, l 5' 1 1 2 1] 1 2!! 1. �4 1. MEvnm 1 1 5 1 i 2 t 1. 1 t t 1 i 1 1 T7 0. 1 1 f - 1. Y 1 2 1 2. ' 1 '3' 1. :1 1 1 1 1. 1. i ORIMOE 1' ! 1: 1 a 1 1 -0 1 r: 1 ! i 1 1 1- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1. 1 1 1 I 1 3' 2 1 I! 1 :� 1 2 1 2 1 i PLACER 3 1 1 7 1 1 1# 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 J 1: 1 t 75 1 0'. 1 1 Y 1 1 1 a. z L a. 2 1 1 6 1. a 1 a 1 6 f 5 t 5 1 _5 1 1 1 1 _! 1 1 ' 1 1 6 1 5 1 6 '1 1 1- 7 1 1 1 :1 1 1 RJUEJiS10E I - 1 : 1 5 l 1 1 ! L t 1 1' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 too.. 1 1 1. 1 1 1 5 2 1 1 l SACRAmmto 1' I 1. 1 t0 1 -. 1 A: 1 1 1 1 1- S I 1 i - f I+ 10 t Sn11 o"Ito 1 SM 0ER"nRol NO. 1 I 1 1 5 1 -9 1 1 1 f 1 2 1 1 :1. 1 1 1 1 1 1. '1 1 1 1 i' t 25, 1 ,MI 1 0 -t 5 1 5" 1 1 1 '5 1 1 - SAN F MICIS40 t 1 11. 2 1 '1 2 '.1 2 1 '2 1 1 1 2 1 2 l- 2 1 1 SAN ,10now" - 1 1 1 ! 7 1 1 2. l f 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 i t 1. 1 1 1 L -t1: SRA LUIS OOJs1'0 1. 1 1 b 1 3 I 2 l 1 1 1 .i 1 i ► I 1 1 1' - 1 5 2 1. ! 1 6 1 41 t 1 1!- 1 7 1 1 1 1. 1 t 1 SAN IIArEO 1 1 !: 1 :a 1 I q 1 ; 1 1 1' 1 1 i 1. Y' 1 1 1 f :. 1 I ..1 Y 1 sAMTn. t#R: t- 2 :t 1 5 l 1. '1 1 a 1 1. 1: 1! 1 '1 1, 1 :75 1 0. i S.- 1 I> 0 2 I1 f 3 1 1 1 1 1.. 2. 1! S1M1TR CY.IM39: 1 SAMTA CRW I. 1 1 I` 1 7 1 5 1 1. 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7a. 1 l 1- 1' 1 1 1 11 1 5 1 1 1 1, 1 1 ST", 1 MRS i t -1 5 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1. ` 3 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 75, 1 0. 1 1 1 - t t 1 1 1 3 1 1 is 3 1. 1 SIERRfI0. 1 1 1 5o t 1 0. l 1 S 1 1 - 1 3 - 1 2 1 1 sl sktY0l1 t 1 10 1 1 1 t t 1 1 1 1 1 L i t 5 2 1 5[;1.11110 1 1. 1 to I t 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1. 1 1 1. 1 30 1 0. 1 I 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 1 3 5rmmn 1. 1 I. 1 10 t - 1 1. 1 1 1' t 1 1. 't t t 1 1 1 1 S0. so. 1 I 0-. 0. 1 1 1. 1 1 2:: 2 1 1 2 1 :1 l 1 Oc ! 1' 1 i_ 1 : 1 1 10' 2 9 2 1. 2. is 2 t '1- surrm?3� 5UtrER i 1 1: L :7 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ! f t-. 1 35 1 0. 1 1 t t t It 1 1 2 1 ,: 1 WMA 1 mtmtY 1 3 3 1 1 7 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 L 1 1 1 1 1 1 So 1 0: 1 1 i 1 T 2 t 1 1 1 2 1 1` '1 3 1 1 1 5 1 '5 t 1 NOIRE 1 1' t 1 1 7 l 1 1 l 2 l 1. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1! ! 1 1. 1 0 i 1' 1 1 1 ! 1 1 1 1 I rU01 "It 1 1 f t ." 1, 1 2 t 2 1 t S 1' 1 l 1 I, "1 t t 1 1 1 1 t 1 f 1 '.1 35 So 1 0: { t 1 1 7 2 1 'I d 3� f 7 1 a 1 3' f 1 l I 1 'VERMA 1 l i 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i t I 50. 1 1 o. 0: :1. 1 1 ; A T 2 1 '1 ] 1 1 3 'l 2 - T 2- 5 3 1 '2 1 1 VOLO. ' 1 1 1 7 t 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1� 1 1 t 1 1 1 i] 1. 1 2 1 1- VtraR i 0, 16 7 0. ] 1 13'13 ]B 5 3 1 50 l8 1 23 33 w,: t l 1 10 20 56'52 t t t 1 13 57 53 51 10 it 27 1 1 1 I ]0 y 20 33.;25 30 .1:16 31 ,� 1� L � 15 12 � 7 37 17 'SO 7 21'11 12 164 165 ]0 37 31 0l 1 2 1 5; l a a al: 1 '� 31 02 27 77 25 61 20 >II 16 13 � �B l 54, October 5, 1985