HomeMy WebLinkAbout84-45B MOOSEBERRY/BURREU GPA/REZ (3)4;
MIX i6.8
DEHR ;' APEIIC li'TA IN Bt3T"TE COUNTY
i
1'
i
1
II 1
-
;1
■� �■i yes � � � � � � � �
� a� � w r �
POPULATION RESEARCH UNIT"
iUMMI�RY REPORT
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
BUTTE CONTROLLED COUNTY POPUWAON ESTIMATES
FOR 1-1,-115 PACE4DATE
PRINTED 04/26/85
---------- POPULATION --__-»»_..- ---------------------
HOUSING UNITS.—o— ------------------ m.. PUP.
HOUSE- MOBILE; CROP
QITY TOTAL HOLDS HOMES QUARTERS TOTAL SINCI
-PER
5 OR MOBILE OCCU- HGUSE-
2 TO 4 MORE
,E
HOMES PIED VACANT HOLD
BtCGS �. 1459 145.9 9O 0 562 466
_-w.-^ ----__ -----------------------------------
42 15 39 531 5.52 2.748
5
-•»...--------------^--^-------.•-__-..----...$2
31163
CHICA--_----_M^^---_-^--•w---6-_ 28288 61 2875 13344 6710
-w- w_ • --.r --"- ►..i -'- -s
-------
1992 4606 36 12499 6433 2.263
»—-------------------
GRIDLEY 4263 4191 10 92 1811 1552
----------------------------------
108 145
---- -- -- --- —.- - ----------- --- ------------------ --- ----' -r—
oRoViLLE
6 16119 8.95 2:-542
--- ------------ -----------.mak.---w_»� --------w------.
9963 9652 320 311 ----^--^- 11,540 2633
-------^--^_--•---------•---'----_».---------------------------
497 1176 234 4198 7.53 2.299
PARADISE 2004 23681 3281 5`13 10833 7786
--- --------------,--------•--------------
576 507 1964 10094 6.82 2.346
f%pRa%aMMNNNNA;1{NRNRMM%N%li Mi7{aM71N1►11IiNNNIf%li%gf%t11 i/NggAi1.#!tll1F 11%NNg1F%qNN%MIFNNNNf111►6Ntlq/IRtlN%%NMNNN�HFiiM11l�N i1Ntl%16NM1►NtltlIF7M4lMNNMMf1f
Mf►tlANtll11MM• .
TOTAL INCORPORATED 71062 67271 3768' 3791 31090 19141
3215 6449 2219 28911 6.89 2.322
N+IN.M«Na%1f%M%NMMNNNR16KNa R%N1111N NqA%11fNajlMwagaii#INnlsNlsNftltll/11aaaMllNNra N11MNNN1►11NtliYaN#MfNkN:►lgaNgIF11N%gN14 MIFtl1Ftl MNtlNNsltlNtlNll.Atl161 r9F1ltltltli►#!!�
cn UNINCORPORATED 89909 89361 16185 548 38681 24873
2664 2810 8334 35231 8406 2.536
MN11N«N%aM%N%N%NN%RNMM«N 4444:44**f; 1l lit* *0*4 **4 it* NM1ig1ltlNN%%%a«RNNq%f NMNNMgf1lM Ngff.Mtll�MIf%%NN1[MN%MgUMNNNN;11{Ntl�itRf%*MM1flFf MNtlpNNMM%kMIF- ---'
%N1►Nq%MM%%%NN%M.MN%NR+►:%aNR%a%RR%If1MNN%NM1F%NRRNKs{RNN11NN74NNMilMNN%NIlRNNNNM%NNtlN%%NRf%1iNNNNR1faRNMtl;11N%%MMif%tl#If►bNNNtlF{ftlfpN%.,
TOTAL COUNTY 16697T 156632 19953 4339 69771 44028
5679 9259 106'°'i3 64208 7.97 2.439
it pw
r
r.
A, IRENDIX'16,9 RRF_ASQ11ABI ,ANT
CIPAT RD 'FUTURE
PROJECTS IN THE ARS
The following list identifies
all city and
county projects
which are
m'rrent, v-
proposedor reasonably foreseeable
in the
area bounded by Lindo
Channell
State
route $2'the proposed Eaton
Avenue 'extension
and Esplanade
(a)
TRIP ENDS,
Ann North Valley Plaza
Various
Commercial
5,964'
GPA/REt BCPC (Chico Area,GP)
Various
Residential
(91
du)
904
RE7 Marshall
42-34-49
Residential
(4
du)
40`
TPta 'Na&y.'_ _ _-
44-7946
Residential
(2
du)
20:
TPN Rottshalk
42-34-47
Residential
(3
du,)
30
TPM Fuller
42-34-49
Residential
(2
du)
20
TPN Marshall
42-63-1A
Residential
(4
du)
40
TPM Fletcher,
42-09-28
Residential
(3
du)
30
4o
TP14 Nichols,
42-34-26
Residential
(4
du)
TPM 'Brow n
42-01-35
Re idential
(4
du)
40
'UP Chino Iron Works .-. -__.
43-20;-,05
Cofi nercial
VAR Jacobs
42-07-38
Residential
U4
multi
24'0
units)
-
REZ Arnold Pacific.
06-15,,71
Commercial
0,439
TPN.HaII
42-34-21
Residential
(, 4'
du)
40
TPM Marshall.
42-94-124
Residential
(7
du)`
id
UP .Ashby -
06-17::28
Residential
(120
du)
1f260
TPM Showbird
42-34.110
Residential
(4
du)
46
TPM, Brazell
42=34-25
Residential
(2
du)
90
TPM
jo-07-57
Residential
(2
du)
20
TPM Marongiu
42-3443
Residential
(2''du)
20
TPM Ohs
42-$4-05
Residential
(;3
du)
30
TPM Measter
42-34-49
Residential
(4
dpi)
20
16.9=1
f
I
UP Turner
42=06_13
Residential Cid u)
10
Is"
42-05-5T
Residential (15 du)
1r,0
TOTAi,
305 dwellin units
g
1 7,537
(a) Reasonably Anticipated is
Projects (Tuttle, 1986).
defined as
Proposed, pending and
approved
TPM Tentative Parcel''Map
GPA General Plata Amendment
REZ Rezone_
UP
Use Permit
YAR Variance
16.9-2
1'.
X15.1 0 METHODOLOGIES AND.ASSUMPTIONS FOP ESTIMATING THE_COSTS'OF_
<
RECOMMENDED MI TIGATIOH (1986 DOLLARZ.; j
TRA' C *LITIGATION
County Road Improvement Standards $1,1344,125 or $2,262,825
SRS -1 standard_ $1,144,125
Road Widths• 36 feet
Cost per squre foot: $1.25
_.
ROAD SEGMENT LINEAL -FEET SQUAREFOOT
DOST
Muir - SR 32 to Bell 3,600'` 129,600
Rodeo - Muir to H6nshaW 4'
$162,0#10
,,,�00 162,000
Nord -.Bell to East 5.,850 210,000
$202,500
$263,250
Guynn Bell, to East 4;950 1780200
Alamo Bell to East
$222,7511
3,825: 137,700
Henshaw " Nord to Alamo 2.700 200
JX5,425
$122,12
121 00,
Total
915,300
_
$1044,125
FRS -2 standard = $2,262,825
Same as SRS -1 standard plus sidewalk, curb and gutter at $44 ;per
lineal foot
6f roadway ($22 per lineal foot on one side of the street):
(25,425 feet) $44 (feet) _ $1,118,700
SOUroe Earth Metri48 Incorporated; 1986; Edell,1586.
Roadway Realignments $7,500'
Bell/Muir
Bell/Nord
Bell/Gwynn
Bell/Alamo
.!Rodeo/Nord
Land costs - $0 (see Figure 13.10-1)
'
Areas to be Abandoned/ sold are approximately equal to areas to be
wired/bow
q /bought. Any difference wdald,alte)4 projected,costs at a
rate of
$0 foot Land Assumes 5roper`ty to be
uise(land 0And aabandoned
,acquired Vacant ._'
land would bep urchased-'for
an
equivalent price
Paving costs = $1,250 per intersetA16n for intersections
-Road improvements estimates include almost -All of the paging for realignments.
NdWeV6ew approximately, 1',000 square; feet of additional paving would
be
required at new i4traootioha to al:lOW for eight turning inovements
-- $1,25Q.
Other costs - stop sighs, street signs = $100 :jeer sign. This cost
should be
avoided 'with standard construetibn techniques it o relocate existing
signs.
Source; Earth Metrics 7nobrporated, 1986; Mello 1986:
16.1011
_
-
K, E. Y
AREA TO ABANDON/SELL
ri
'MEED AREA TO ACQUIRE/BUY
PROP09ED REALIGNMENT t
EXISTING ROADWAYS �
-N e
.01
O a o a O
r0 'r r' ,'a�a°oa�paa°a�9�p
a a°u
X I°v°go�uo°anaapapop
:� " np°aaba°o°oao°argi0000'000'Qo
' a°°o°noau�n�a°aa°aaaada0a0n°n
o a°o°o°n°.no°o°a°onn°o°o°o
N � qo°Dana°°000S�'�,nya°on$noaa°°o°o°aQo
♦�
,.,.rnooa°aopaoas*�aaoo°aanaaanaao°o
0 a.unbgpOgon
a u n u 4 n 00,060.0 m o c a
O or
O°apo°°°a°o°Wno°ana mpnananooana° 1
44.
00 0000 aoa°n°a°n°aaan�m°apaoapaga
I
aonnao°an°°n°°a°0°°°o°°oa°a°ao°°
nnoooaq oo°aangao°unaonn°aoouaaooncanoae a°oOooo/ no °anaaooa°ooaoaoo°oaa°oa
'001"I
1
co co'o 0100
_. aVp°aOq°a�
., °aop as
°npnptx�p�pc
o00
n°°°oar
RIGHT OF 'WAY
°bp op
aaaa.o
aooi
iQ rw-5 actor.
ti T'l• °uan �..
O ar
. Y of
81§10
earth SCALE
FIGURE 0 "1a-1 APPROXIMATION Or ROAbC,iAY REALIGN?ffiNTRE I 00IRMENTS.
-•�r�metrics N
,r
t
16.10-3
0 l
+14$
'E
�I
ELIC S R CFS
�'
Barm Drainage Tnfrastrueture
,ren Truxl '
1320 LF 48" Pipeline @ $105/LF
= $138,600
13.20 LF 60" Pipeline @ $150/LF
= $198,000
ar80 LF 54" Pipeline @ $130/LF
= $2184400
�.
1650 LF 72" Pipeline @ $190/LF
= $313,500
,2'110 LF 84" Pipeline @ $230/LF
= $485,300
outlet Structure -= $3,000,
n�ft Trunk
�...,. --
1"20 LF 42" Pipeline @ $ 95/LF
= $125,400
1320 LF 54" Pipeline @ $130/LF
= $171,600
1020 LF 60" Pipeline @ $150/LF
= $153r000
AC" Trunk
1320 LP 4P Pipeline @ $105/LF
= $138,600
1320 LF 54" Pipeline @ $130/LF
$171i*600
+�
1980 LF 60 Pipeline 6 $150/LF
_ $297;000
a,E TTrtsxik
1350 LP 54" Pipeline @ $130/LF
= $175,500
--1550-LF 660pipeline-@ $170tLF
= -$229,500
2070 LF 84" Pipeline @ $230/,LF
= $4760100
Outlet Structure = $3,000
'Railroad o F
000
60 LF / orewidJack SPRR/@$250/LF_ $15,000
"F" Trunk
750 LF 39" P ptl.ine @ $65/LF =
$48,750
6p LF Bore 'and Jack SPHR @ $1204F
= $7F200
750 LF 48" Pipeline @ $854F
$63,750
r
60 LF Bore and Jack SPAR @ $150/LF
=19,000
"H„ Trunk
1400 LF 66" Pipeline @ $150/LF
= $210;,00
NeN Channel Construction
SUddd to Stu it �Ba�on) Avenue -
2500 L1 '.
Excavate and Shape @ $8b/L�'
- $215,000
Ounite L3ring @ $50/LF = $125000
Fencing � ;,200 'LF 9 $7/LF it 80,460
ibF10-5
a
H/,W Acquisittan = $105,000
gjjrface Drain Crossing = $20,000
',"real
(in 1984 dollars) $,165,200
�'.ive percent ncrF4ase per year ; :r 'two years
(`1986 dollars)
= $#,59',133.
Additionally, the Storm Drainage Maintenance
B
Fee would be
u to $5
$ per
dwelling unit per year.
g
4
F f
,,Source, Earth Metrics Ineorporrated, 1986 .,dell, 1986•
Rolls
Anderson Rolls,
1984, Bird, 1986.
Cot�thection to Sewer = $3:190x500 (a
...-.
Infrastructure - Main Line Extension 'Fee and Sewer Lines throughthe Site
PIPE
UNIT'
LOCATION OF LINE, LENuTH<
DIAMETER
COST'
AMOONT
Treatment dant to Site to 26,130 £t.
36"
$80
$2,094400
$ 59,100`
,.
Alamo -Bell to Hehshaw 21700 ft.
3,600 ft.;
6n
6"'
$22
$22
$, 79,200
Guynn-Bell to Hehshaw
fiord -Bell to Henshaw 4,560 ft,
6"
$22
$ 99,000
Rodeo -Muir to 1,500 ft.
southeast 1,500 ft.
b"
$22
$ 33f000
Muir--Be1I to Rodeo 10800 ft.
ft.
10n
_ 161'
$25
$25__,
$ 1150,000
150:000
8eI1-Trunk Line to- Alamo
$2,961j000
Total
Annexation. Cost = !tone (a
.p per
Treatment Plant 'Expansion Fee - $850
duelling unit
= 229)500'
(a) Refer to Response to Comment
p -1, Edell, 1986;
8oUrce Earth Meteics.Incor orated, 1986
Rolls
Andersan Molls,`
1984.
i
r
16.10=6
W
JANE DOLAtY
�"'�. .� • 1u/I ■ati8ti it C0w0 b, 11 ■.Ct
} v ► o'e" J144. Cii-CO C•li004%1A frrA
_ _ _ .2.
L7
April 29, 1986 1 j.outd ask that the Board direct stat! to inform the Reglonaf
Cater ovist y that Board that the Board views Irpiemeatatioe bf
he provisions o! the
POO riiiei. bltrate Action Plan Along the following
RECEI
r visors E ® 1« area and of a toirunity water systtai throughout tied urban
.r-1 t4, County of .� Board of Supervisors area and to h1gA nitrat¢ areas.
n C.?15
Cr7 �" Ororlll�y Center bet"veIll Wi
CA J5965 the the water
information from and the cooperation' of
q I� cni iiteK Purveyor In the cOmounity: Cal water. Jt ayiy
Deer board 1Mnbare ury a u�co mean the county rill need to request the asslsta,u a of Elly
OY P,Ir,c, in implementing /fnahcing Uctptabie to the cosimAitli.
Re: Nitrate A2tion Ptaei ^
It n also mita assisting the nelghbcrhoods outside the
urban area In forgoing e,utual witer "C
'" At our meeting of April other entity to finance and operate A wAterhsupply,. �s or 'font 1
14 Omer to send the we lettNa� we directed the A+u+(ristrattve DD y' r t
Control Board. our acttbnsj anis th&I reporting 0( them,lhavter ,eo 2• As soon as it 1% available the taunt r�
Quality the tits Will seek the,;nost aflordaDle In
ptoa f �leaent
kilth
to be to teat .We are abandoning the Nitrate Action Pli+n and
.� This conclusion is not and wale. P the Starve -0 lnlaitioan. This mutt tarediitely entail
,ice g Chico-- systema, ellr►natton of existing dry *I)$,
-ground water robleas to
9. Qevelopment of
� efforts
Alternatives
o solve the rou
r7
We still have a Nithe entire urban
trite Action Plan and Are Continuing to : area and dontinued invetatioq oto f financing methods otAer
operate under Its provisions. Se" tic than an Areawide assessment district,
40 be Authorttcd based on the Plin$ and Permits
standards9
in susaary, the Board takes the fact of nitrate cant. ,nation
in our gruunr, water as A Sarcous natter We also recogniip that
.-e What we dfif ab nd :, was the fOrlilaEton of in assessment district any Solution(-/ We seat o ioplement'rust elle k the needs and finances
Ea i I that would r yulre the people mf the unintprporated area of ihlcb of ourSo utioncommunity, t
ar
to pay the entire Lost or ser,erij Stora drains and water treatrrcnC
pi Plant a+mansion. We did this because thaso
-fiord i,'hese actions And it; 1s not file to ask then tel do so Id not
Since elY.
C t' We will tontinur to work to develop alternative plans in .:rn
�• sul:tatton Mith the. Ne tonal Water b•
City of Chito, and the g Quality Control Board. the
P:nplc of the Chico urbaq Area,
Jahe oalan
We Will need to etviett and revise the prnvtsions of ewe Nitrate.tupoevisor w Qiitrlct` 2
lon Plan to better reflect turrent infortna aK Jbr!lnn
Action
K� must be Chinged mostly 6e�ause t ti a And perplans cct Ch # f Adain3strative d'ffiter
e, the deadlines for approval Of Stt, ;and stb`rar drain piepens
Canploted, ihls dela, IS Sometbing orer�whichint�elaboard hAt CIt� Council
had no conerni, Without thfs plan tit is impossible to develop .City Manager
County Pub1IC Morks Ogre
finbncin Aitcrnativei and 1 leroen'tltlon timelines. "'un
PMannln director
true With extension of toev+unity Mater supply throughbute the County i'ublir Nealth Dlrettbr
uratic area !nd to high nitrate Areas.
[ounty tovfronaiental Neilth Oire=tor
L\
' 1LIO
I m METHODS
16.12 DISt�i}SSIUI� OF PUBZMPROZ E�iEIvT FIiAtt
An it- 1'uWc Swvtae Coxu and Fkmwby MirVw&
FLwa1
General; Gavarnment
FINANCINGMETHOD
When current taxes cannot cover costs, local governments must
'
PPr on a longterm basis either
ent blic
- through bonded indebt dness o leasebacks from nonprofit
�r
corporations. Total bonded debt resulting from a proposed develog-
ment its estimated on the basis of the cost of specific <capital
improvement projects to be financed. It is, h6weveri necessary for
budgeting purposes to estimate the annual int p ` pp l
rca pita
payments, or lease payments,-, associated withes specific
P
improvements. The timing of future revenues, to relation to the
218
16 12-1
i�
4
1
�itCbi s PUbUC 3yt%Uo Cant tied Ftir ctv Meflmds r
pLWwbV Mefhods
F
.
timing of payments for long-term obligations, also becomes an 1
important consideration when preparing 'capital improvement plans I
and approving specific projects.
'I r
Bonded indebtedness
Local jurisdictions sell four types of bonds to finance capital •�
if
improvements; general obligation bonds, assessment bonds, tax"
issued by or
allocation bonds,and ,revenue bonds. -;Bonds a city
county with a guarantee ofpayment (full' faith and credit) are known ,
as eneral obligation (G.O0 bonds. Because they offer good security
an tax- ree interest, the interest rate on the G.O. bonds (hence, the
cost of the debt to the issuing jurisdiction) is less than that of the
other types of bonds. General obligation bonds must ;be approved by j
two-thirds of the voters. Spec provisions, however: can be J
created by the state Legislature for unusual situations. for
instance, the Bay Area .Rapid Transit District's major bond issue
required approval by 60% of the. voters.
bond is often used in California to finance capital
The assessmL-ht
improvements. Each landowner in the area to be served by the
the bonded
j
capital improvement is assessed a pro rata share of
re are two sre are two, types of assessment
- In California, the
bonds
Each bond is
Improvement Act of 1.911 (< ka 1911 Act Bondsk
issued against a specific parcel for its pro rata share of the
- , total indebtedness. The k� ty or county Treasurer 4tnds a
"owner twice yearly for principal
separate billing to each fF;'t�cel
and interest due, and transmits the money to the bondholder.
In the event of delinquency, the bondholder's only recourse is
similar to foreclosing a mortgage
IMProvement Act of 1915 (aka 1.913 Act Bondsh 'These are
to S,0 0 issue ag� nst the whole i
'
sella n s e� ., :000
assessment district. E'rincpal and in are billed on the
regular tax bill (not as a Wrates but in flat amounts). Ih the
event of delin q�.�ency, the city or county may sell the
to raise funds: and are also 'required--if
delinquent properties
that and t ley 'a tax rate
fffor
,0
" count y to meet the
o p to 0.1Or'throuB throetbtirces ughout thecity
delinquencyu.
2The Municipal ImprdVement Act of 1913 authorizes bond
differs from the 1911 Act
issues for municipal ,improvements and
on the basis of timing of assessments and bond sales.
basis-
r
Principally
Bonds; however~ are not under this Act.
16.1"2-2
w l
V
FEWd Malyda laUk -evict cawb and pbwc6V MWW*
}I
f7�artct� alethixii.
Although interest on assessment and G.O. bonds is limited to �%, the
pI�
bonds can be sold at less than par (their face value) to make them
marketable. Effectively, the bond price is discounted to raise the
Yield In order to make the bond issue competitive with alternative
investment opportunities. The issuance of assessment bonds in
California may be initiated by either the owners of 60%
of the land
in question or a legislative body, such as a city or county or certain
special districts. WhirA a public utility district
may not do so, the
county, may issue assessment bonds,on the district's behalf.
A mandator p�
y procedure exists for ial assessments initiated by
`
'
legislative bodies. Because the exact amount ot, the_ special.
a!
assessment and its apportionment amon P
g Property owners is not
pe y
known when an agency designates an assessment
area, the jurisdic-
tion must l"Ad a protest hearing once the costs are determined.
Financing initiated by a legislative body may, be negated
by protest
from owners of 50% be ► pre of either the value of land. to be
assessed or the front footage. An exception occurs when the County
Health Officer has recommended the project as necessary to the.
public health and there is a four-fifths affirmative
vote of the
legislative body overruling the protest.
The third form of bonded indebtedness is the tax allocation bond.
These bonds are ones for which certain tax revenue is a" llocate_910
pay for debt service. Redevelopment .agencies using tax increment
financing earmark the tax funds for repaying this type of bond.
Bond buyers are, therefore, greatly concerned
about the -security of
tax allocation bondsii since no agency guarantees debt service
on
these bonds,,the potential buyer evaluates the security of the bond
on the basis of the certainty (�t the 'Projected tax revenues.
'
Bond buyers are usually not 'NTY1 liar with the economics of the° area
issuing the bonds and thus adopt rasher conservative criteria foe
their evaluation. or.e
consequence ofphis a� that bond buyers will
not purchase bonds un '11 the improv -Vents tN1 will bring in the
projected tax revenues have been completed. Uki.-wise, they usually
require that projected talc r�� F'eolues be more than sufficient for debt
service, usually 1,5 times the debt service.
California statutes set limits on the amount of bonded indebtedness,
a local jurisdiction may incur for bonds to be repaid bygeneral
property tax revenues- The limit for counties and individual school
districts is A of the local jurisdiction's assessed value while for
cities this limit is 1596 and for unified school districts 10%
Sou=ce Califdthia Office of ,Planning and Reseateh, Economic
1.12-3
BELL MU;IR MITIGATION MEASURES'
New residential: development shall be proplbited within 200 'feet of
the Greenline.
Contribute a pro rata share towards construction of tho following
i' inproYemen t s; e
a. Re,a.l ignmenti. of 'Bel l/Muir-, i3el l/Nord, Bell/:Guynn., Sall/Alamo,
and Rodeo/Nord Intersections.
b. Lefty-turn pockets at Esplanade/Henshaw and Esplenade!"Lassen.
a;. El amination- of, on-street parking_(striping, si.ens) -alone
Esplanade from 100 feet 'north of Lassen to 100 fent South of
Henshaw
d I nsta 1 l traffic signals at East/Nor;-d! East/Gwynn, East, -Cuss i ck
and East/Alamo:
e; Widen East Avenue to five lanes involving '1 3 add 1 t ona l feel
from Alamo, halfway to Guynn and a 26-root widening from
Highway 32 halfway to Guynn
f . A storm drainage culvert in East Avenue needed for w i dc- i ng
(3e)
g y W i den Muir from Nord to 'Highway 32, Guyrin from, Henshaws to East)
and Al auto from Renshaw to East to,, the-`SRS- j orRS-_2 sta#tdard
pursuant to Department of Pub 1ic Works,
3...
At, the t i mc? of development, :Widen al 1 project roads to SPS-1 no
sdewa`lk).or R.S=2 standard.:
4-
All structures to comply with se 1-sm l c requ l reinen is o f the Lr�a t fl�rm
Building Code and recommends' d lateral force roqu i r+`ments prepares!'
by the !Structural Eng i nebr, Assoc 1 at i ori of Cali fora l e.
5.
r.
Lim i t "roadwork and donstructt l ori to nonwk^a l'ny sQasott
A l l parr-, e l s wshou l d be 1.-'0 "1 acres each or l anger and Lit a i 1-6'h� d
natural dra i nag,§ system : Wrlder'groUhd drainage to be prov l diEed to
;r.
proV i dg di a
All parcels shat 1�` }naG4 to accommadteE.a9tl-year stojm.
13
!hdlvidual septic tanks and ieach`fieltis shall comply with the
N i trate Act - zs 6N
i ori f� l an . All l atice l s to �onne�c.t to eo(i1CnU�1 i t � er.
:9
Al`1 parse l s sha'l 'l be ser+ted by t pressur l ted Nator system by
extending Gal Water lines.
Brian.Kennedy
Earth rietracs
859 Cowan Road
Burlii;.game; CA 9401.0
Dear Brian.
This ;Letter is intended to summarize comments made by the
Planning Commission, June 251 19,86, on the Bell -Muir Draft
Environmental Impart Report (DEIR). Because of the nature
of their comments, a response should be prepared for their
August 13, 1.986 meeting as provided for in Section A.lb
of the contract.
The, comments generated by the Notice of Preparation and
Clearinghouse house should be addressed at this time. These:
responses :vtill be an addendum to the DEIII because of the
short time and to minimize printing costs. As we
agreed; when the final EIR is; prepared-, this addendum and
all other responses, 'to comments will be incorporated into
the `body of the document,.
Since the staff designated in your response to the County's
PX on this ro ect has 'not yet been utiIizedr their
p
expertise should be employed in preparing the responses to }
comments in their particular field. Specifically in the
area of drainage, we are looking forward to review3,ng the
work of Barrett -Harris. Your proposal had indicated they
would be retained to prepare a drainage plan
SacifII c comments made by the: Commission and that need to
be addressed are listed 'below:
1. Determine all infrastructure necessary to Support
l
acre,deve16pment. Pae 2.3 of the contract states
hDiscuss public services of ddvelopment and general
d.Xpected associated costs' including sewers, storm
atains water supply, roadways r fire and police
}►trotectiori, and: other Utilities and services'►.
5ubmiss on of a drainaga. plan should answer many of
thL- Commissions concerns about drainage. Quantitative
dhta on seder improvements should be submI tied.
;x
Ir
MAY J 9 1986
May 16, 1986. 00*", 66064
To: Butte County Planning Depart ment
AttOn6. Ms Laura Tuttle
Fromi Cussiek Area Neighborhood Council
Subject: Questions and Comment Re: Bell -Muir Environmental
Impact Report.
The Council, is pleased to have the opportunity to tra`ll'smi`t
its reactions to the draft ExR whose conclusions would have
definite impacts on our primary area of concern.
EI:R Page Number Comment
2=5; We strongly concur with the mitigation. pro
posed for narrow, sub -standard roads
2-6 We agree with mitigation measuresproposedwith respect to the western extension,
xtension of Eaton
Road. We suggest that access to theproposed.
extension from the south should be limited to
one. point, „e.g. ; Rodeo or Guynn to provide seri-
vice access for the subject area but not sub -
regional traffic service.
2--7) We agree strongly with the proposed ►ni"ti
2-81 - gat on rieastires for storm water run off, septic,
2-9) tank use, and for a planned sewage line extent-'
sion into areas where future densities mandate
such facilities.
2-10 We concur with mitigation measures proposed
for fire protection.
Commentary .regarding `school facilities et-
pansion is inadequate as i provides policy
makjing blodies no guidance and ignores the purpose "
of this ETR:
2-i1 We concur with the proposed roads policy.
2'-1.2' We agree stror►gly with mitigation measures
proposed: for library ,funding, A strong, adequate-
ly funded library syst,ein is esseritial. 'fdr edu-
cation of future genorations as wet- as educat3,ori
and cultural eri.ridhmerit of the present adult
population in the Chico gtaa.,
Comments in'the draft regarding reer+eatioft-
al facilities need to be expanded ; o rli,rectly
speak to such needs in the larger area west of
the 98planade and north. of Undo Channel, it s
eohde va'bl.e that one or .more such faeilities
might properly be located with ft the study area,
anti should theref'o're be planned for.
z
v
NO
I
Ouff Co.
1984
Oducation:
OravJle,. CsCifs�tnty;
Stanford Uni.ver'sity, B.S. Civil Engineering
Siegistrati on '
Engineer-in-T,:a. ning, in California
Membership:
American WaterWorks Associ,atiott
Employment=
1981-date:
.t� Harris arris & Associates, Inca Duties
incldengineering design, research and
..computations,.. and the preparation of dans,'_
s ecitications, reports., contract documents
p
and cost estimates.
Summer 1980:
J'. C. Zimmerman, Inc. - Performed technical
k
aide duties iri the Milwaukee, WI Water Pollu-
tion Abatement Program Office, primarily for
the cons-tt ction Mhagement Division. Inter-,-
fated with the Milwaukee Metropolitan, Sewerage
District in the, evaluat,:on of existing treat-
ment facilities* Responsible for the coordin-
ation of tech aide stt ff.
Summer 19791
City of Hartford, WI - Served as Assistant to
-
the city Engineer. Duties included assisCing__
-
in the preparation;l
of T
pans, survey work,
calculations, and inspection of the City
Improvement projects
Sumtne.r 1978: _
Howard, Needles r: Tammen and Be;rgendoff.Per-
formed technical.. aide duties in the M3l4atxkee,
14I Water Pollution Abatement program Office,
Assisted in the evaluation of sewer system
d4sign .alternatives.
Pxpoilende:
Mariposa Public 'titil,ity District, Maripo;sa.t CA
t ��agteWAter rrir,�ttnlnit and Disposal. Facili-ties
.s.sted In the design of an 0.6 mgci waste-
watvr tlreattnen't plant to replace the existing
treatment. plant,including the preparation of
plans., specifications and contract documentsa
Portions of the: existing facilities tae:,re u
3,zbd i.n the new design.
Mariposa Buklic Utility Dist-rict, Mariposa, CA
-grater Ticeatment Vacili.ties - Assisted, in the
prelimi'naty design of improvements to the
existing wafer treatment 'f6c1li,ty
U Navy, Moffett Pield� CA - Responsible for
the de, 'ign of over 11 000 feet of hater train
I
JANE M. ROZGA - mage 2
Develop mitigation measures .to minimize effects of erosion ;and sediment
- deposit due to construction and post construction runoff.
Develop aitigation measures in terms of erosion prevention measures (such
- 'as hydromnlching, avoidance of earthwork during the rainy season, and use
of rapid growing ground covers to minimize surface exposure time).
Discuss existing area drainage patterns, including present flood risks.
Describe immediate receiving Waters and available data on. water quality
of such receiving waters.
Describe prior investigations of hydrology/water quality for this area,
including work of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Describe existing groundwater conditions based upon available darts and
- potential groundwater impacts caused by the project.
- Describe impacts of the General Plan Amendment, including potential
adverse water quality impacts .frare runoff alteration,
- Discuss likely impacts upon drainage patterns and watercourses resulting
troy construction activity and future storm drains. This 'analysis will
include increased runoff, expected level of erosion and sedimentation,
altered water quality; and downstream drainage impacts to the receiving
waters where storm drains discharge.
Develop mitigation measures to minimize runoff impacts, including methods
of early ;revege tation of exposed earth surfaces, use , of seanipervoug
walWays and other surfaces.,- --
Develop and diisouss iaitigati�on 'measures for construction activities, such
as ,soil redistribution 049-i grading and fill)j drainage of futu re
cage discharge points. !litigation measure
development, and drainage
considering the requirement-of construotion
"discussion would incl
practices, such as u3e of we,ter bare and',other runoff. and erosion control
methods, and use of appropriate drainage storaBe in on site ponds that
could serve as part
of project landscaping. Methods bf.limiting runoff
through use of semipervious wal'laiays and parking surfaces will also be
,
addressed.
:TIi,AF rry A-ub. CI�L.�T�S2�
Suacsaarize existing telLffie da otterfecm priorlabie aethtries trsffie studias
in the area, CAL-TRANS, and h
esi
Discuss the lahg term roadway and transit improvements proposed for the
focal area and b%poeted uchedule of these; improvements.
•
Provide an analysis 'o! the project impacts. A specific output of the
traf,fio study will be to q r given one set impact of this
Amendment for one " future year
tiettieral Plan, uantify the cumulative traffic iof buildout
assumptions (arid compare to no Qeneral Plan Amendment)
Determine trip generation factors which are ebordsentattVia of the
proposed rises.
2=2
Estimate vehicle miles traveled and total number of trip ends attracted
to the entire area, and compare to ther no General Plan Amendment
alternative.
Evaluate traffic impacts on key arterials In terms ;or Peals hour.
Identify` any circulation problems in the sty area p
p �� posed by new tri.
generation associated with the General Plan Amendment.
Discuss the potential vehicular traffic conflicts between automobiles,
bicycles and pedestrians.
Evaluate the ability of emergent�*7 service vehicles to access the area.
Develop ;a set of mitigation measures, if needed, and other improvements
to alleviate
to evviate a functional adverse impacts of the General Flan
� pa
ycnnnMTrS jFmT.rC S .RST CEG kin t7,T1LtTi8S
Provide a general inventory of services `presently available to the Chico
area.
Generally discuss ;plans for service expansion planned by Butte County or
other public agencies that could affect the Chico area,
Discuss ,public services of development and general expectod associated
costs, including sewers, -storm 4ra ns; Water supply, roAdwayst; fire and
police protection and other utilities and services.
Discuss' temporary impacts upon private sector construction economy and
discuss support business, if any, needed to serve the completed prCdeot.
Discuss social and recreational impacts of development including
availability of school, library; hospital, parks and other servicas to
existing residents and to future area residents. Discuss economic
impacts upon existing and future residents due to gror[th in demand ror
social services.
iIrR CEPA M' bAtn n . itaks
Prepare sections covering expoded chanes to the errvironment frau. the
proposed actiion: irretrievablle commitment of resources due to
implementation of the propoted action; unav:.idgble,'' sigriifzcant itip cts
of the proposed project (list only, with dross reference to the section of.
the DEIR in which effecta were described); and ` the relationship or amort
term "versus long term impacts of the proposed action.
Z-3
i
j earth
metrics incorporated
859 COWAN ROAD, 8URLING' ME, CALIFORNIA 94010
i
(415; 607.71o3
'TRANSMITTAL
. Stephen.Streeter
T
DATE.' 2-3-86 $756
EM FILE:,
Sena.ar, Planner
Materials borrowed from your
SUBJECT:
Ct)unty Center
P1aafting Department
7 County Center Drica_._
Oroville, Cel 95965
;ARE SENDI90
VIA:
r4: Enclosed
❑ Regular Mail ❑ Express Mail ❑ Cot,rier
Under separate cover
0 United Parcel ❑ _� _.
TSE FOLLOWING ITEMS:
-jiZo . or
Copies
Desoriptibn
i
Butte Count iand Ue Element,-and Revision - -
Seismie Safety Eletent
1
Safety Element
1 1Patadiso 'Uppea_Ridge EIR
THESE ARE TRANSMITTEDz
�)g in aacordanoe� With Out afire ement
,As requester± ' ❑ Approved As submitted
OFOe Your Use/intattatioft
❑ For "Your signature ❑ -
❑lor reviewand gomment
❑ For your approval 0 ,
RErKJiR1CS Please identif an ,bther materials that I should return: Consume„ is
k
Ede11 and T.aurn Tuttle.
Thank_.You.-
[� None ❑ '1 fully executed copy' ❑ Retun of mater
RETURN R04aIRED: ais by
COPT TQ
FROM fCennedy
Planner/ prof cot Maitagex
IF ''EhCL08UP8S ARE NOT AS N611Dy PLEASE I &IFY CIS. '
arth
metpics-._ orPerated
B59 COWAN ROAD. BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010
151 697,7103
u1+R Co. Manning
TRANSMITTAL
FEB 5 1bui
OrOA110, Gall ormla
TO: tds. Laura M. Tuttle
DATE: 2/44�85 EM FILE': -8756
ASSOciat:e Planner
stra Ev �; .Ad nistra ive D aff 'R
-- .TR fnr I ha
County Center
Genera ,?�1an lmenda►ent Atin1��ti�4on AS-4 45
7 County Center Drive
(Mooberry-Burre171 for h RoT7 hr -
Orovil.le, CA 95965
Property
WE ARE sAVbisa:,
' IA
Enclosed
Under separate cover
Regular Mail fl Express Mail ❑ courier
❑ United Parcel ❑
THE FOJ LOiiII+TG ITEMS.
No. r, f
Copied
Deacript,ioti
of the above-mentioned re ort
' 3E ARE TAUSMITTEDt'
❑ in aocordante faith our cement
agr
For Y tion
❑ As requested ❑ A pproved as submitted
❑ For
❑ For reviE�rgand oomin "at
your sf gnai+dre []
❑"Porour A e
Y Pp oYal ❑
Rffi�ARIC9 r`
RLTpAa1 RRCt tTRIM titny
a:xoouted copy ❑ Return of Ina tez+ials by
COPY
- .,..__...
FROM Brian Kennedy
Pr�ii ect.taneter
rF ENCLbSURES°/ ARE SOT �S NOTEDi PLEASE NiTlF'Y 'Us.
. j ,
r '
_
.
)- .
' th
metriGs
inccarporhated
859 COWAN RLV,. L4,)ANNG.Am Cr1LIFORNIA 0016
anning
(415169"7 1103
TRANSMITTAL
NOV 4 1065
Orovilla, i,%alirarah
'TOt Ms. Laura Tuttle
D, A- i0-29-85 , EM BILE: 8756
Butte County Planning department _
-
SUBJECT; Mooberry-Burrel General Plan .Amendment
7 COunt.-v Center brie
OrbVille, CA 9596$
------------------
NB ARE SElPDINf3;
V1A.
Enclosed
❑; under separate cover
Regular Mail ❑ EXpress Mail ❑ Courier
Q United Paroel []
THE ROLLOWING ITEM
NO, of
Copies
Description
Contrac-1 s3-ned Earth 2fetrfcs
'TEJON 019 1RAAT.9MMEDsEE�rja_
gr event
or,accordanoe with our, a e
your use%information
❑ As requested ❑' Approved as submitted
❑ Por signature
0 For revjeWr and Comment
your
01 For your approval ❑ -
RR1C3
RJSTD�tII A4#ZRED: ❑Lobo; Q t taily,
exeouted' co '
p3' cdi:ut`ia of material,§ by
IrOP2 `1°0 _
Ceotge 1L Bali.
_ ..
V' ce Ptesident
1�' ENCLOStTi�RS AREOT AS NO'TEDy„%SE NOT [FY %T.+c
,_ ..,
r
,...�.�' rt h
mE . r c
859 COWAN ROAD,. 8IJRLINGl>,ME,,CAi.IFOiXlr11A 94010
�4t5M 69T•7(13
TA►I'iIITTAL
f
M's 'Laura Tut t;l. e
_, 3/_ 28/86_..: L: .875
DATE= � — ---'-' --'
10. .
DRIB for r General 7?lan. Amendment
Assoo3.te Planner
SUBJECT:
1 r�
Application #83-35 (Mooberr;y Burrell for' the
County Canter
7 County Center Drive
BE11^1fuir Propertyr µ
—
j orovil,l e, CA: 95965
i
B AiiF SBIiD:
4IA:
C9 Enclosed❑
Regular Mail ❑ 9xpress Mail ❑ COurierr
( Under separate cover
13 United Parcel ❑ _
Trig FOLLai; ITEMS
�No. of
I
Description
io"opies
4
of the .c'vnv6 mentioned
report.
[211 accordance xitb Our agreement
❑Ars Y'eq aced ❑f Approved as submitted
❑
Ca Fiyt� Your,'use%information
For gnature
❑ JFor� yoapproval 1:3,....
L� V'r review and comtaent
R�C1Yl4a(� QgYRE s ],None. ❑ 1'
uliy ibxee,ute$ copy t]Return of materials by
Brawn K
-—"'
Coot TO _
-ennedy._
.. W
"P1anEier)$ro j ec t hta:s�gg�r..:. �r
TF E1 cx:OSQRF� QRS OT�a Nafgbo
PLUS9 Ka X15.
17
I
�•all*ea rt tEll
ca
'
85e COWAN BURLINGAN. E, Cbi1'~o-RN1A--�
g40i0
X4151697.7103,
TRANSMITTAL
TO ,aura Tuftle
DATBS -3/14/86 Edi FILE: 87,.;j6�..._
Associate Planners Butte County SUBJECT; DEI.R General elan Ameridmem_,�_
`County Center
A2plication X184,45 (manberry - $urr�l.17 _
7 County Center t)ri.V6, ---�
for the.B�Muir Property AnproVat i=Lt
,.Oro ,ill.e; „SCA 95165
WE IRS SENEIrI:
�►IAa
Cj Enclosed
❑ Nader separate cover,
Q Regular Maid Express Mail. 0 Courier
0 United Parcel
THa FOLLownm TTSFS3=
No. of
-
-------
Copier
bescriptiop
l:
A) �rova'l brai=L >;Itt
Mme$ ART 'RANSM a"IEDs
❑ in aecordanoe pith oUr r4regent
For your usOinform tioti<
Q As requested ❑ approved as submitted
❑:nor
For review and dom8ie,nt
r=oar signatttrQ ❑
>+ _.. - .�...
Q ,. or yotus approval 0
FE�'U Align EU# 0 gone CI i ruz.;iy ezeout 6d '060 ❑ Return ot. materials her
dot To
px,Awidr/Ptosdt Hatiager,,.j_
F RN( 08UR, :� AU a1s"; NO'T Al!0T1�t
,' i PI►HAS$ CJS.-
I
IJ ✓„;
To
Will Randolph, County In Officer
a
;From _ g
m: B. rcher, Dire^tor of D1.annin �
Sub';ect BELL MUIR GENERAL, PLAN AMENDMENTB
(urrell Letter')
Date: July 27, 198'9
T,be Board on May a, 1987 adopted a formal motion: of inten- to q.
,approve a General, Plan Amendment that would rel.ocater the "I�Green
,Lune (urban limit boundary) in the Bell Muir area. The motion JC
,9lIzo certified the final environmental im-oact report (FEIR) for^
the 'project but stipulated that the General Plan Amendment would
dot be fnaled until two things occurred:
� ofdrainage
ditttitt
theSowners to provide the area be formed for the ar
a at the initia
Pro e..P - y '
"financing for. •
construction and maintenance of. necessary improvements..
a>.. The area to be: included in the'trafic study that is
currently being done for the northtgest Chico Area: and the
Eaa: st Avenue Corridor and means 4o'im
(findings). prement the study
ILdditionally, the motion l--of intent provided that "other impacts
az identified in the BelMuir EIR be addressed in a policy
sttatement to be a tart . of the General Plan Amendment.” The
"othe!x impacts r# would be those identified on pages 2-4 through. '2
17 (51" the V81R. (copy ate.ached)
Pr_oi; to the formal motion of intent on May 5s 1987 the Board,
e form of a motions directed that specific issues .0
hat had.
in the
been 'discussed in 'Che FEIR; be, included as t�olicy and requested'
staff. to develop language that would, at the time of rezoning,-_
;recruire all development to °be connected to California rezoning,,
The
Board also .required that infrastructure, i,.e.i road widening
within the area and traffic lights on Bast Avenue be addressed
regaz`ding the pro-rata share for the subject area and that
contribution to the fire station fund and installation of
hydrants was to also r�be included, in the draft policy statement,,
�
The board also di.rectad that the relationship of the areas usd of
septic tanks be considered regarding whether or not the Nitrate.
Ad"ion Plan would have to be amended, They also acknowledged
that the urban limit sphere of influence would be amended witY
j
the ap troval of the subyect project, but that these actions would
be sub_,equent to the project approval::
A recommendation for any portion of the Baarddl motion of iritent�
parti�u,Larl.y if the Boards' intent is Lo establish development
s44ndArdt, should .reference the mitigations reconviended in the
rEiR,� even though the F1r�ard may taish to Md�ify those mitigatiorns..
'Staff has not developed,a "draft policy statement" regarding the
remaining mitigations, as xequest�id by the
Board a`t their May 5,
1987 meeting, There has also been no Nitrate action 'Plan review
requested regarding whether
or not the Plan would have to be
amended
The traffic study, referred to by the Board, was never
ocomplished, therefore, there is limited
information readily
available regarding traffic impacts, P A computer program has been
developed for thehico
Urban Area by Butte County, Association of
Oovernments that is intended to be utilized for traffic
studies
fwlthin the urban area. Unfortunately the Bell. Muir area is
,outside the traffic
model urban limits therefore to include the
area would: require additional programming by the consultant
a"'stimated cost to be $700 to $1000i
ACTION
&gct;mmendation. �, k
t a
1Accept Public Works recommendation for storm drainage
improvements; and
q
„ `� �hat; they
Z. Notify property'an licants/owners r'
the ey should: initiate
formation of a Drainage District for construction and
maintenance of required improvements; and',
3 Notify the applicants/property owners that either a traffic,
impact study must be submitted for
the subject area or the
estimated cost of $:1,000.00 for expanding the Chico urban
Traffic
Area Model, to include the subject area, mast be
deposited_with the County. - ->
Refer General Plan Amendment to Environmental i4ealth for
report or possible Nitrate Action
Plan Amendment; and
5 Direct Planning sta:f to draft a policy statem'
applicable, at Ent,
" traffic lights, fire rezoning, regardang water, roads
9 stat3,on, fund and hydrants,
� •��� °"
and
w d
"'.���
�. H � � �� k � * . � I{a ' kT' J �.� 'J�% � �� P•` F�a 4 F Ikr :9*, ♦, �, � � aA ,.k
6 . Direct Manning sta tear. the
t�Y
y.''
policy statement wiY1
rf anticipate' that the standards will be these applicable to
a
one (1) acre parcel. {not 1,661 acres) and
7« Notify' icants/ /prone
erty owners that4acsoecific2opingorsubdivisions ations for
Of ppertycannot befavorably considered until
the Board has mads=: a final
"
decisi on on their General Plan AMeadmeat application.
8, Continue this item and have staff put back on the agenda
when responses are ready,
BAX y Jmc
�ncicsti�re
cc Public Works
Attachments, Board ;Minutes
MitigationMeasures
I
K
S�:-175 Closed hearing - Joseph Burrell appeal of the Planning
Commission's' denial of Donna Mooberry/Joe Burrell' General Plan
amendment (item on which a draft environmental impact report has
been prepared) frLm orchard and field crops to agricultural
residential on property zoned) A-5 (agricultural - five acre
parcels) located on both sides of Muir. .Avenue south of Bell Road,
West of; Alamo Avenue, Chico (File 84-45).,. (Report from SuPervisors
Dolan and Vercruse on pos ,ble mitigation measures and
implementation procedure. (from 2/10/87)
Motion: MAIE MOTION OF INTENT TO APPROVE THIO, GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT FOR THE AREA WITH THIS STIPULATION THAT TWO
THINGS OCCUR:(1) THAT A DRAINAGE DISTRICT BE FORMED FOR
THE AREA. AT TPE INITIATION OF THr, PROPERTY ")WNERS THERE
AND THAT, (2) THE BELL NUIR AREA BE INCLUDED In THE
TRAFFIC "S UDY' THAT IS CURRENTLY BEING DONE ALONG THE EAST
AVENU , CORRIDOR AS PART OF THAT STUDY AREA AND THAT
y ]EC6MMENDATIONS FROX THAT STUDY INCLUDE BELL MUIR AS PART
OF h {
CContsd ONLYTHEIR SZUDYINGSTH$ A'REANASNP TiiRT MOULD Bk TO. INCLUDE NOT
ART OF THE Ovi;RALL ;BUT ALSO TO
INCLUDE THE AREA AS PART OF' THE RESOLUTION FOR WHATEVEtt
TEr, PROSHARE,TBE REQUIRED FOR . THE IMPROOAlENT5,
?f4*
EDED. RATHOSETWO THIRGS SHOULD BE DONE PRIOR TO THE
TINALIZAT OR OF THE GENER&,L PLAN 'XEKDMENT.
SECONDLY
TWE VEft OTHER CONRAISED REGARDING BOTH
AN
!"RASTRUOTURE NEEDS D' EAVIRON TAL CONCERNS AND AFTtA
THOSE TWO THT?tGS OCCUR AND THE G. P i. COULD MOVE FORWARD I
VOULD LIKE TO iEiCLUDE Aa POLICY AND REQUEST THAT STAFF
DEVELOP -LANGUAGE THAT FOR WHATEVER REZONE MIGHT OCCUR;
7XREA1!TER, CONNECTIONS TO CAL WAVER BE REQUIR9D WITHIN
THAT AREA FOR ANY FUTURE UVELOPhENTi THAT ALSO THE
'WRASTRUCTIlkt, THE ROAD STRUCTURE INSIDE THE AREA, THE
IMPROVEMENTS THAT MIGHT BE NEEDED FOR ROAD WIDENING AND
TRAFFIC LIGHTS ON EAST AVENUE
THE PRO RATA SHARE or
11AT BE REQUIRED, CONTRIBUTION TO FIRE FUND AND HYB�ANTS
AND THE AMENDMENT TO THE NITFATE ACTION PLAN OR HOW THE
AREA, USE OF SEPTIC TANKS IN THIS AREA WOULD RN ATE TO THE
NITRATE ACTION PLAN WILL ALSO BE DONE AT THAT TINE. JfE
RELLZZE T SPHERE OF INS'
ETCETERA WOULD BE or I$pLftNCE# THE URBAN BOUNDARY LIN&I
HE
D IF THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDHgNT`
CAME THROUGH THE ?CITRATE ACTION PLAN WOULD HAVE to BE
ADbAESSED AT THAT TIME BECAUSE ITWOULD BECOME PART OF
HICOOURBA AREA ,AND THAT THOSE TAIJ168 WOULD BE DEALT
NITH
THE CICO RBAN,,HE G.P.GPAMENDMENT,
M S
Vote.. 1 AB` 2 Y 3 Y 4 Y S At (Motion ;cartie'd)
CMO ON ASF' IM'!"' M IAS MADE to0k^,T TO A PUBLIC HEARINQ': ?iEARTiVG `
DATE FOR THE PUBLSC
HEA11N0 ON THE MOTION or- ;SNTEtiT; SET POR MY 5,
Ai' ,.00 A.M.
COUt�t& �WA1�D bl SUPER'VISOA9 kt WdEs AorA 1, 19$1 lr