Item 10 - EA ZOA 93-04
AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY
INITIATED BY:
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
James L. Bowersox, City Man~
Reba Wright-Quastler, Director of Planning serViCeS\v~~
October 26, 1993
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Environmental Assessment and Zoning Ordinance Amendment 93-06
ABSTRACT
An ordinance of the City of Poway, California adopting Section 17.26.100 to 17.26.300
of the Poway Municipal Code establishing inclusionary housing requirements.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The issuance of a negative declaration (indicating no significant adverse environmental
impacts anticipated) is recommended.
-
FISCAL IMPACT
The proposed in-lieu fee wi 11 provide revenue to the City to assist in meeting the
City's low- and moderate-income housing requirements.
ADDITIONAL PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
Public notice was published in the Poway News Chieftain and notice was mailed to Mark
Gordon, GVCA Community Protection Chairman.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council issue a negative declaration, hold first reading
of the draft ordinance, and set second reading for November 9, 1993.
ACTION
OCT 26 1993 ITEM 10.
1 OF 19
CITY OF POWAY
AGENDA REPORT
INITIATED BY:
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
James L. Bowersox, City Man~
Reba Wright-Quastler, Director of Planning Services t~
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
October 26, 1993
SUBJECT:
Environmental Assessment and Zonina Ordinance Amendment
93-06: An ordinance of the City of Poway, California adopting
Sections 17.26.100 to 17.26.300 of the poway Municipal Code
establishing inclusionary housing requirements.
BACKGROUND
The housing Element which was adopted in November 1991 establishes an
inclusionary requirement of 15 percent of all new housing units; however, it
acknowledges that, due to the nature of development in Poway, many projects will not
be able to provide the units on-site or will result in fractional unit requirements. An in-
lieu fee option is therefore proposed for "for-sale" housing developments. Rental
projects would be required to provide the inclusionary units as part of the project.
On December 10, 1991, the City Council adopted an interim inclusionary housing
ordinance and directed staff to prepare a permanent ordinance that would establish a
sliding-scale in-lieu fee, based in part on the zoning of the parcel to be developed and
partly on the size of the house to be built, which would average approximately
$10,500 per unit.
FINDINGS
Staff has considered the impacts of a fee which would average $10,500 and has
discussed this issue with the Housing Subcommittee of the City Council. Staff
recommends that a sliding-scale, two-part fee be adopted but that the average fee be
approximately $3,000 rather than $10,500. The reasons for this recommendation are
as follows:
1. The gap analyses which were done for Carlsbad and San Diego suggest that it
costs a private developer approximately $10,500 per market rate unit to fund a
15 percent set-aside requirement.
2. The Carlsbad and San Diego gap analyses were done some time ago and
assumed interest rates that were considerably higher than current levels (San
Diego assumed 9 percent and Carlsbad assumed 10 percent).
OCT 2 61993 ITEM 10.. I
2 OF 19
Agenda Report
October 26, 1993
Page 2
3. It is not unreasonable that the public should bear part of the burden of providing.
affordable housing. A 50-50 split between the developer and Redevelopment
set-aside funds is suggested.
4. In-lieu fees collected will be used by the City or the Redevelopment Agency to
"buy-down" existing housing or otherwise assist in the provision of housing.
The City's involvement should lower marketing, equity and finance costs to the
projects which will further reduce the gap.
Staff further recommends that the following fee schedule be adopted:
$1.00 per square foot in excess of 1000 square feet plus a base fee depending
on the zone of the lot to be built on as follows, with an overall maximum fee of
$4,500:
RA
RC,MHP
RS-7
RS-4
RS-3, 2
RS-1, RR-A,B,C
$250
$500
$1000
$1500
$2000
$2500
If this fee structure had been in place, the average in-lieu fee for building permits
issued in Poway in 1990, 1991 and 1992 would have been $2,979.13.
ENViRONMENTAL REViEW
The issuance of a negative declaration (indicating no significant adverse
environmental impacts anticipated) is recommended.
FISCAL IMPACT
The proposed in-lieu fee will provide revenue to the City to assist in meeting the City's
low- and moderate-income housing requirements. The amount will depend on the
number of housing units built in the City and the number of developers who opt to pay
the in-lieu fee rather than providing the units on site. There will be no significant cost
impacts to the City.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
Public notice was published in the poway News Chieftain and notice was mailed to
Mark Gordon.
OCT261993 ITEM 10.,"
3 OF 19
Agenda Report
October 26, 1993
Page 3
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council issue a negative declaration, hold first
reading of the draft ordinance and set second reading for November 9, 1993.
JLB:RWQ
Attachments:
A. Proposed Ordinance
B. Negative Declaration
C. Environmental Initial Study
E,ICITY\PI.ANNINGIREPORnZOA9306.AGN
OCT 26 1993 ITEM 10. '
It OF 19
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF POWAY, CALIFORNIA
ADOPTING SECTIONS 17.26,100 - 300 OF THE POWAY MUNICIPAL CODE
TO CREATE AN INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ORDINANCE
(lOA 93-06)
WHEREAS, on November 19, 1991 the City Council of the City of poway
comprehensively amended the General Plan to provide for the adoption within one year
of an inclusionary zoning ordinance to require developers to set aside 15 percent of
housing units within a project as affordable housing; and
WHEREAS, said amendment was enacted in order to comply with the Housing
Element mandates of Government Code Section 65580 et seq; and
WHEREAS, on December 10, 1991 the City adopted Ordinance No. 349 pertaining
to the set aside of affordable housing units effective for a period of 45 days; and
WHEREAS, on January 21,1992 the City adopted Ordinance No. 350 extending
Ordinance 349; and
WHEREAS, the findings set forth in the General Plan with respect to the need for
affordable housing in the City of poway are true and correct and are adopted by this
reference; and
WHEREAS, the updated General Plan which was adopted on November 19,1991
established the requirement that 15 percent of housing units be set aside as affordable
units and the environmental impact report adopted for the November 1991 comprehensive
amendment to the General Plan is hereby found to completely and accurately describe
all potential impacts of such requirement.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Poway does hereby amend
the poway Municipal Code to adopt Sections 17.26.100 - 300 as follows:
Section 17.26.100
Affordable to very low income households means (a) housing selling at a price that is no
more than 2.5 times an annual income equal to 50 percent of the median income for a
one-person household for a studio unit, of the median income of a two-person household
for a one-bedroom unit, of the median income of a four-person household for a two-
bedroom unit and of the median income of a five-person household for a three- or more
bedroom unit; or (b) housing renting at a monthly rent that does not exceed 30 percent
of 50 percent of the median income of a one-person household for a studio unit, of the
median income of a two-person household for a one-bedroom unit, of the median income
of a four-person household for a two-bedroom unit, and of the median income of a five-
person household for a three- or more bedroom unit.
Affordable to low income households means (a) housing selling at a price that is no more
than 2.5 times an annual income equal to 80 percent of the median income for a one-
5 OF 19
OCT261993 ITEM 10"
Ordinance No.
Page 2
person household for a studio unit, of the median income of a two-person household for
a one-bedroom unit, of the median income of a four-person household for a two-bedroom
unit and of the median income of a five-person household for a three- or more bedroom
unit; or (b) housing renting at a monthly rent that does not exceed 30 percent of 80
percent of the median income of a one-person household for a studio unit, of the median
income of a two-person household for a one-bedroom unit, of the median income of a
four-person household for a two-bedroom unit and of the median income of a five-person
household for a three- or more bedroom unit.
Deed restriction means an attachment to the grant deed to an affordable unit which
purpose is to assure continuing affordability of the unit over time. The term of the deed
restriction shall not be less than 30 years.
In-lieu fee means a fee paid as an alternative to the provision of inclusionary units.
Median income means the median household income as established by the Department
of Housing and Urban Development for the San Diego Standard Metropolitan Area.
Section 17.26.200
INCLUSIONARY REQUIREMENTS
A. Affordable Housina Set Aside.
6 OF 19
1.
Multiple-family residential development review, the application for which was
not complete until after the effective date hereof, shall provide that 15
percent of the units created shall affordable to very-low income households
and the continued affordability shall be guaranteed by recorded deed
restriction providing such set aside. Such a development review project
which does not so provide shall be denied as inconsistent with the Housing
Element of the General Plan.
2.
Single-family residential development or minor development review, the
application for which was not complete until after the effective date hereof,
shall provide that 15 percent of the units created shall be affordable to low
income households and the continued affordability shall be guaranteed by
recorded deed restriction providing such set aside. Such development
review project which does not so provide shall be denied as inconsistent
with the Housing Element of the General Plan.
3.
Inclusionary units may be provided either on-site or at a different location
within the City of Poway.
4.
Inclusionary units should be reasonably disbursed throughout the
development, should contain on the average the same number of bedrooms
as the market rate units in the development, and should be compatible with
the design and use of remaining units in terms of appearance, materials,
OCT 26 1993 ITEM 10
Ordinance No.
Page 3
and finish quality. The applicant shall have the option of reducing the
interior amenity levels and square footage of inclusionary units, provided all
units conform to the requirements of the City Building and Housing Codes.
B. Develooment Incentives
1. Any development that includes inclusionary units shall be entitled to a
density bonus at least equal to the percentage of inclusionary units or other
development incentives of equivalent financial value if the density bonus is
infeasible.
2. Developers may seek to utilize any available federal and state subsidies in
tandem with inclusionary units. The City shall provide assistance to
developers to obtain such subsidies.
3. The City shall exercise its discretionary power with regard to zoning,
planning, and subdivision requirements related to minimum lot size, floor
areas, parking, open space requirements, streets, sidewalks, the provision
of other public improvements, and permit fees in such a manner as to
facilitate the economic feasibility of housing projects with inclusionary units.
Section 17.26.300
iN-LIEU ALTERNATiVE
A. The developer of "for-sale" housing may, in lieu of providing required inclusionary
housing on-site or off-site, pay a fee to the City in accordance with the provisions
of this section.
B. Fractional unit requirements shall be met through the payment of a proportional
share of the in-lieu fee established in this section.
C. For each unit constructed for which an in-lieu fee is paid, the fee shall be as
follows:
D. Any payment made pursuant to this section shall be deposited in a Reserve
Account in the General Fund to be used only for the development or acquisition
of very-low and low income housing.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30)
days after the date of its passage; and before the expiration of fifteen (15) days
after its passage, it shall be published once with the names and members voting
for and against the same in the Poway News Chieftain, a newspaper of general
circulation published in the City of Poway.
7 OF 19
..
DCT261993 ITEM 10..' t
Ordinance No.
Page 4
Introduced and first read at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Poway held the day of 1993, and thereafter PASSED and ADOPTED at a
regular meeting of the said City Council held the day of , 1993
by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Don Higginson, Mayor
Marjorie K. Wahlsten, City Clerk
IE:CIlY\PLANNING\REPORl\ZOA9308.ORO
OCT261993 ITEM 10.. I
8 OF 19
~ITY OF POWA'r
DON HIGGINSON. Mayor
BOB EMERY. Deputy Mayor
B. TONY SNESKO. Councilmember
SUSAN CALLERY. Councilmember
MICKEY CAFAGNA. Councilmember
CITY OF POWAY
NEGATiVE DECLARATiON
1. Name and Address of Applicant: City of Poway
13325 Civic Center Drive, Poway, CA 92064
2. Brief Description of Project: General Plan 93-03C amends the Land Use Element
of the General Plan to incorporate various amendments to the Housing Element
in resoonse to HCD comments and to permit develooment of eight units oer acre
in the RS-7 (6-7 du/net acre) zone. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 93-05 amends
the development standards for the RS-7 zone Zonina Ordinance Amendment 93-06
establishes a oermanent inclusionary housina ordinance and Zoning Ordinance
Amendment 93-08 oermits mixed-use develooment in commercial zones uoon
aooroval of a Conditonal Use Permit.
3. In accordance with Resolution 83-084 of the City of Poway, implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, the City of poway has determined that
the above project will not have a significant effect upon the environment. An
Environmental Impact Report will not be required.
4. Minutes of such decision and the Initial Study prepared by the City of poway are
on file in the Department of Planning Services of the City of Poway.
5. This decision of the City Council of the City of poway is final.
Contact Person:
James H. Lvon
Phone: (619) 748-6600
Approved by:
Date:
Reba Wright-Quastler, Ph.D., AICP
L, " 19
Mailing Address:
@ Printed on Rec/cleo Paper
OCT 2 6 1993 ITEM 1
.1 ,
.,
City Hall Located at 13325 Civic Center Drive
P.O. Box 789, Poway, California 92074-0789 . (619) 748-6600, 695-1400
DATE:
APPLICANT:
CITY OF POWAY
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
October 1. 1993
City of Powav
PROJECT: General Plan Amendment 93-03C and Zoning Ordinance Amendment 93-05,06 and 08
PROJECT LOCATION:
City-wide
I. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanation of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.)
YES MAYBE NO
1. Soils and Geology. Will the proposal have
10 OF 19
significant impacts in:
a.
Unstable ground conditions or in changes
in geologic relationships?
Disruptions, displacements, compaction, or
burial of the soil?
Change in topography or ground surface
contour intervals?
The destruction, covering, or modification
of any unique geologic or physical features?
Any potential increase in wind or water
erosion of soils, affecting either on- or
off-site conditions?
-L
-L
b.
-L
c.
d.
-L
-L
e.
f.
Changes in erosion, siltation, or
deposition?
J__
g.
Exposure of people or property to geologic
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides,
mudslides, ground failure, or similar
hazards?
-L
00T261993 ITEM 10., '
YES MAYBE .llil.
2. Hvdroloav. Will the proposal have significant
impacts in:
a. Changes in currents, or the course in
direction of flowing streams, rivers, or
ephemeral stream channels? - - X
b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns, or the rate and amount of
surface water runoff? . - - -L
c. Alterations to the course or flow of
flood waters? --l
d. Change in the amount of surface water in
any body of water? -L
e. Discharge into surface waters, or any alter-
action of surface water quality? -L
f. Alteration of groundwater characteristics? -L
g. Change in the quantity of groundwaters,
either through direct additions, or with-
drawals, or through interference with an
aquifer?
Quality? -L
Quantity? -L
h. The reduction in the amount of water other-
wise available for public water supplies? - - -L
i. Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as flooding or seiches? - - -L
3. Air Quality. Will the proposal have significant
impacts in:
a. Constant or periodic air emissions from
mobile or indirect sources? -L
Stationary sources? -L
b. Deterioration of ambient air quality andlor
interference with the attainment of appli-
cable air quality standards? - - -L
c. Alteration of local or regional climatic
conditions, affecting air movement moisture
or temperature? - - -L
11 OF 19 OCT 2 6 1993 ITEM 10.. ,
YES MAYBE 1::&.
4. ..ElQrg. Will the proposal have significant
results in:
a. Change in the characteristics of species,
including diversity, distribution, or number
of endangered species of plants? - - ----2L
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare, or endangered species of plants? - - ----2L
c. Introduction of new or disruptive species
of plants into an area? - - ----2L
d. Reduction in the potential for agricultural
production? - - ----2L
5. Fauna. Will the proposal have significant
results in:
a. Change in the characteristics of species,
including diversity, distribution, or
numbers of any species of animals? - - ----2L
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare, or endangered species of animals? - - ----2L
c. Introduction of new or disruptive species
of animals into an area, or result in a
barrier to the mitigation or movement of
animals? - - ---1L
d. Deterioration or removal of existing fish
or wildlife habitat? - - ---1L
6. Poculation. [Will the proposal] have significant
results in:
a. [Will the proposal] alter the location, distri-
bution, density, diversity, or growth rate of
the human population of an area? - - ---1L
b. [Will the proposal] affect existing housing,
or create a demand for additional housing? - - ---1L
12 OF 19 OCT 2 6 1993 ITEM 10.. ,
7. Socio-Economic Factors. Will the proposal have
significant results in:
a.
b.
Change in local or regional socio-economic
characteristics, including economic or
commercial diversity, tax rate, and property values?
Will project costs be equitably distri-
buted among project beneficiaries, i.e.,
buyers, taxpayers, or project users?
8. Land Use and PlanninQ Considerations. Will the
proposal have significant results in:
a.
A substantial alteration of the present or
planned land use of an area?
b.
A conflict with any designations, objectives,
policies, or adopted plans of any govern-
mental entities?
c. An impact upon the quality or quantity of
existing consumptive or non-consumptive
recreational opportunities?
TransDortation. Will the proposal have significant
results in:
9.
13 OF 19
a.
Generation of substantial additional vehicular
movement?
b.
Effects on existing streets, or demand for
new street construction?
c.
Effects on existing parking facilities, or
demand for new parking?
d.
Substantial impact upon existing transpor-
tation systems?
e.
Alterations to present patterns of circu-
lation or movement of people andlor
goods?
Alteration to or effects on present and
potential water-borne, rail, mass transit,
or air traffic?
Increases in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians?
f.
g.
YES MAYBE NO"
-L
x
-L
-L
-L
-X..
-X..-
-L
-X..
-X..
-X..
_ _-X..
OCT 2 61993 ITEM 10., I
YES MAYBE NO
10. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal have
significant impacts in:
a. A disturbance to the integrity of archaeo-
logical, paleontological, andlor historical
resources? - - ---.L
11. Health. Safetv. and Nuisance Factors. Will the
proposal have significant results in:
a. Creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard?
b. Exposure of people'to potential health
hazards? - - ---.L
c. A risk of explosion or release of hazardous
substances in the event of an accident? - - ---.L
d. An increase in the number of individuals or
species of vector or parthenogenic organisms
or the exposure of people to such organisms? ---.L
e. Increase in existing noise levels? ---.L
f. Exposure of people to potentially dangerous
noise levels? ---.L
g. The creation of objectionable odors? ---.L
h. An increase in light or glare? ---.L
12. Aesthetics. Will the proposal have significant
results in:
a. The obstruction or degradation of any scenic
vista or view? - - ---.L
b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive
site? - - ---.L
c. A conflict with the objective of designated
or potential scenic corridors? - - ---.L
OCT 2 61993 ITEM 10.
14 OF 19
13. Utilities and Public Services. Will the proposal
have significant need for new systems, or alter-
ations to the following:
a.
1.
Electric power?
b.
Natural or packaged gas?
c.
Communications systems?
d.
Water supply?
e.
Wastewater facilities?
Flood control structures?
g.
h.
Solid waste facilities?
Fire protection?
i.
Police protection?
j.
Schools?
k.
Parks or other recreational facilities?
I.
Maintenance of publiC facilities, including
roads and flood control facilities?
m.
Other governmental services?
14. Energy and Scarce Resources. Will the proposal
have significant impacts in:
15 OF 19
a.
Use of substantial or excessive fuel or
energy?
Substantial increase in demand upon existing
sources of energy?
An increase in the demand for developmeAt of
new sources of energy?
An increase or perpetuation of the consump-
tion of non-renewable forms of energy, when
feasible renewable sources of energy are
available?
Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable
or scarce natural resources?
b.
c.
d.
e.
YES MAYBE NO
---1L.
---1L.
---1L.
---1L.
---1L.
---1L.
---1L.
---1L.
-L
~
---1L.
-L
-L
-X_
--A-.
-L
-A"
x
OCT 2 6 1993ITEM 1~
15. Mandatory Findings of Sianificance.
YES MAYBE .till....
a.
Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of fish
or wildlife species, cause a fish or wild-
life population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or animal community, reduce the
number of restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal, or eliminate
important examples of the major periods
of the California history or prehistory?
-X..
b.
Does the project have the potential to
achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of
long-term, environmental goals? (A short-
term impact on the environment is one which
occurs in a relatively brief, definitive
period of time while long-term impacts will
endure well into the future.)
-X..
c.
Does the project have impacts which are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (Cumulatively considerable
. means that the incremental effects of an
individual project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effect of
past projects, and probable future
projects. )
-X..
d.
Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
-X..
II. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
(Le., of affirmative answers to the above questions plus a discussion of proposed mitigation.
measures.)
16 OF 19
SEE ATTACHED PAGES
OCT 26 1993 ITEM 10.
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
1. SOILS and GEOLOGY - General Plan Amendment 93-03C proposes to amend the Land Use
Element of the General Plan to the reduce the minimum lot size in the RS-7 zone from 6,000 square
feet to 4,500 square feet and to extend the potential development density from 7 to 8 unitS per acre.
Given that a development project proposed under the existing or revised land use designation is likely
to encumber the entire site, the potential addition of one single family lot per acre would not adversely
impact soil or other geologic conditions. Hydrologic, biologic, socio-economic, cultural, health, safety,
and nuisance factors, aesthetics, utilities and energy and scarce resources are not expected to be
directly impacted as a result of the proposed text changes to the General Plan. These specific issues
would be evaluated under the environmental review associated with a site specific project. The
proposed corresponding zoning ordinance amendments provide only text changes and will not create
any direct or secondary impacts on the environment.
2.
HYDROLOGY
See Item # 1
3. AIR QUALITY - The potential increase of one single family lot within the RS-7 zone, would add
approximately ten vehicle trips per unit per day cumulatively impacting the air quality of the local air
basin. With a very limited number of undeveloped parcels designated RS-7 within the city and large
enough to support a subdivision of five or more single family homes, the potential cumulative impact
_ permitted by the proposed redesignation is not considered significant. The level of impact will be
3valuated is association with a site speCific project.
4.
FLORA
See Item # 1
5.
FAUNA
See Item # 1
6.
POPULATION
See Item # 1
7.
SOCIO-ECONOMIC FACTORS
See Item # 1
8. LAND USE and PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS - The proposed General Plan amendment and
corresponding zoning ordinance amendments modify the existing Residential Single Family-7land use
and zoning designations that require a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet and up to seven units per
acre. The revision would reduce the minimum lot size to 4,500 square feet and increase the potential
density to eight unit per acre. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 93-06 establishes an inclusionary housing
ordinance and Zoning Ordinance Amendment 93-08 permits mixed-use development in the commercial
zones. None of these applications represent a substantial alteration of the parameters of the existing
land use, zoning designation or development standards. The other ordinance amendments respond
to the needs and methods required to encourage affordable housing. Each of the applications
proposes text amendments and have no direct environmental impact. As such, the impacts not
considered significant. Environmental issues associated with the implementation of the amendments
will be considered with a site specific project.
OCT261993 ITEM 10
17 OF 19
10. CULTURAL RESOURCES
11. HEALTH, SAFETY, and NUISANCE FACTORS
12. AESTHETICS
13. UTILITIES and PUBLIC SERVICES
14. ENERGY and SCARCE RESOURCES
18 OF 19
See Item # 1
See Item # 1
See Item # 1
See Item # 1
See Item # 1
OCT 2 61993 ITEM 10 .
___JI..I.I
!3
o
o
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on
the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant
effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this
case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have
been added to the project. A DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the
environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
DATE~r/ /ffY SIGNATU
19 OF 19
OCT2 6 1993 ITEM 10. I