Loading...
593, Construct Tennis Court, Staff Reports (2)• • City 0/ i20 tines i/'/ INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377.1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com PROJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 593 The applicant is requesting Site Plan Review to permit the construction of a proposed tennis court that requires grading at an existing single family residence at 16 Crest Road West (Lot 74-A-MS), Rolling Hills, CA. Application has been filed with the City of Rolling Hills for approval of the project known as ZONING CASE NO. 593 to be at 16 Crest Road West (Lot 74-A-MS). Rolling Hills. CA and to be implemented by Mr. Robert Naaelhout. The request is briefly described as: A proposal to construct a new tennis court that requires grading at a lot where there is an existing single family residence. Pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines of the City of Rolling Hills, the Lead Agency has analyzed the project and determined that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment. Based on this finding, the Lead Agency prepared this NEGATIVE DECLARATION. FINDINGS OF NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECT: BASED ON THE ATTACHED INITIAL STUDY, AND CONDITION(S) (IF APPLICABLE), IT HAS BEEN DETERMINED THAT THE PROJECT WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. A period of at least 20 days from the date of publication of the notice of this NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be provided to enable public review of the project specifications, the Initial Study and this document prior to the final adoption of the NEGATIVE DECLARATION by the Lead Agency. A copy of the project specifications is on file in the offices of The City of Rolling Hills. 2 Portuguese Bend Road. Rolling Hills. CA 90274. Date: January 5, 1999 By: Lola Ungar, Planni irector ®Printed on Recycled Paper. • eify ofieotting JUL INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cltyofrh@aol.com NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the Planning Commission of the City of Rolling Hills will hold a Public Hearing at 7:30 PM on Tuesday, January 19, 1999, in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, CA for the purpose of receiving public input regarding the following: ZONING CASE NO. 593, a request for a Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of a proposed tennis court that requires grading at an existing single family residence at 16 Crest Road West (Lot 74-A-MS), Rolling Hills, CA. MUNICIPAL CODE APPLICATIONS: Section 17.16.210 (A)(7) - Conditional Use Permit required for tennis court. After reviewing the Initial Study for the project, staff has determined that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because mitigation measures have been added to the project. Accordingly, a Negative Declaration has been prepared. Any person is welcome to review the subject application and plans prior to the public hearing at the City Hall Administration Building located at 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, CA. If you challenge the approval or denial of this subdivision application in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. Publish in Palos Verdes Peninsula News on January 9, 1999. ®Printed on Recycled Paper. • C./ ' -AS TITLE Vicinity Map APPLICANT Mr. Robert Nagelhout ADDRESS 16 Crest Road West, Rolling D.R. /50 -D / /7G-A P4346. / • 1 / .�55•A s�:?A QASO -AG`' 55•A $4J?4s (owes /SCE AG sitar "01 1 55.0 ' 55•B restrr;w.l /6 . .1. 93 4 /2 .,./7 Ac NO. 2 PORT11GU Si WAD ID. IOl1IOG HILLS. CALK. 10274 CASE NO. Zoning Case No. WI Hills, CA SITE J APPLICATION NO: • Ciiy pRolling APPENDIX I CITY OF ROLLING HILLS PLANNING DEPARTMENT INITIAL STUDY QUESTIONNAIRE • INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 ZONING CASE NO. 593 NAME & ADDRESS OF APPLICANT: Mr. Robert Nagelhout 1521 Nelson Avenue Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 LOCATION OF PROJECT: PROPOSED PROJECT: BOOK, PAGE & PARCEL NO EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com 16 CREST ROAD WEST (LOT 74-A-MS), ROLLING HILLS The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of a proposed tennis court that requires grading at an existing single family residence. . 7569-022-005 Residential Agricultural -Suburban - 2 acre minimum net lot area. EXISTING ZONING: RA-S-2, Residential Agricultural -Suburban - 2 net lot area. PROPOSED ZONING: PRESENT LAND USE: LOCATION MAP: Same. Single family residential. Attached. acre minimum ZONING CASE NO. 593 I-1 ®Printed on Recycled Paper. • • I. APPLICABILITY OF THE INITIAL STUDY A. Is the proposed action a "project" as defined by CEQA? (See Section I. of the City's CEQA Guidelines. If more than one application is filed on the same site, consider them together as one project). X Yes No 1. If the project qualifies for one of the Categorical Exemptions listed in Section I.C. of the City's CEQA Guidelines, is there a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect due to special circumstances? Yes X No N/A II. INITIAL STUDY REVIEW A. Does the project require a 30-day State Clearinghouse review for any of the following reasons? Yes X No 1. The lead agency is a state agency. 2. There is a State "responsible agency" (any public agency which has discretionary approval over the project). 3. There is a State "trustee agency" (California Department of Fish and Game, State Department of Parks and Recreation, University of California, and State Lands Commission). 4. The project is of Statewide or areawide significance including the following: (A) A proposed local general plan, element, or amendment thereof for which an EIR was prepared. (B) A project which would interfere with the attainment or maintenance of State or national air quality standards including: (1) A proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling units. (2) A proposed shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000 persons or encompassing more than 500,000 square feet of floor space. (3) Commercial office building employing more than 1,000 persons or encompassing more than 250,000 square feet of floor space. ZONING CASE NO. 593 1-2 • • (4) A proposed hotel/motel development of more than 500 rooms. (5) A proposed industrial, manufacturing or processing plant, or industrial park planned to house more than 1,000 persons occupying more than 40 acres of land, or encompassing more than 650,000 square feet of floor area. (C) A project which would substantially affect sensitive wildlife habitats including but not limited to riparian for rare and endangered species as defined by Fish and Game Code Section 903. (D) A project which would interfere with attainment of regional water quality standards as stated in the approved areawide waste water management plan. III. PROJECT ASSESSMENT A. Project Description: The applicant is proposing the construction of a new tennis court that requires grading at a lot where there is an existing single family residence. B. Description of the Project Site: (Describe the project site as it exists at the present time, including information on topography, and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures on the site, and use of the structures.) The project site is a 2.624 acre site with a large estate -size single story ranch style residence, garage and swimming pool that is under construction. The surrounding areas of the homesite consist of undulating hillsides and knolls covered by grasses and mature shrubs and trees, with some areas being heavily wooded. Native birds and animals frequent the area such as sparrows, crows, raccoons, possum, skunks, gophers, and an occasional fox. C. Surrounding Land Uses: The surrounding properties consist of single family residential building sites as well as a continuation high school, administrative offices, the Palos Verdes Peninsula Transit Authority, and a district maintenance yard all under the auspices of the Palos Verdes Unified School District at the west side of the property. These residential and school district areas also consist of undulating hillsides and knolls covered by grasses and mature shrubs and trees with some areas being heavily wooded.. The school district property also provides expansive parking areas for its various uses. The same native birds and ZONING CASE NO. 593 1-3 animals frequent the area such as sparrows, crows, raccoons, possum, skunks, gophers, and an occasional fox. D. Is the proposed project consistent with: City of Rolling Hills General Plan Applicable Specific Plan City of Rolling Hills Zoning Ordinance South Coast Air Quality Management Plan Congestion Management Plan Regional Comprehensive Plan Yes No N/A X X X X X E. Have any of the following studies been submitted? Geology Report Hydrology Report Soils Report Traffic Study Noise Study Biological Study Native Vegetation Preservation Plan Solid Waste Generation Report Public Services/ Infrastructure Report X Historical Report Archaeological Report Paleontological Study Line of Sight Exhibits Visual Analysis Slope Map Fiscal Impact Analysis Air Quality Report Hazardous Materials/Waste ZONING CASE NO. 593 1-4 • • IV. DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: (Select one) X I find that 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 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. 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 all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. This initial study was prepared by: Date: January 5, 1999 LOLA UNGAR, PLANNING DIRECTOR [Signature] ZONING CASE NO. 593 1-5 • • V. EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or (Mitigated) Negative Declaration. In this case a discussion should identify the following: A. Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. NONE. B. Impacts adeauately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. C. Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site - specific conditions for the project. ZONING CASE NO. 593 1-6 • • EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: VI. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis). VII. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. VIII. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. IX. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section V, "Earlier Analysis," above may be cross-referenced). X. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. See Section 15063(c)(3)(D) of the State CEQA Guidelines. Earlier analyses are discussed in Section V, above. XI. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): El Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? 0 0 0 ❑x b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or 0 0 0 ❑x polices adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the 0 0 0 0 vicinity? d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. 0 0 0 Ex impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? ZONING CASE NO. 593 1-7 • • Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an 0 0 0 px established community (including a low-income or minority community)? I I. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local 0 0 0 population projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area either 0 ❑ 0 directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable 0 0 0 housing? III. GEOLOGICAL PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? 0 0 0 b) Seismic ground shaking? 0 0 0 c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? 0 0 0 d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? 0 0 0 e) Landslides or mudflows? 0 0 0 f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil 0 0 0 Cl conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? g) Subsidence of the land? 0 0 Ox 0 h) Expansive soils? 0 0 0 0 i) Unique geologic or physical features? 0 0 p 0 IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, 0 0 0 0 or the rate and amount of surface runoff? b) Exposure of people or property to water related 0 0 0 0 hazards such as flooding? c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration 0 0 0 of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any 0 0 0 water body? e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of 0 0 0 water movements? El 0 p p ❑x El El El p El 0 ZONING CASE NO. 593 1-8 • • Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either 0 0 0 through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? 0 0 0 h) Impacts to groundwater quality? 0 0 0 i) Substantial reduction in the amount of 0 0 0 groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to 0 0 ❑ an existing or projected air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? 0 0 0 c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or 0 0 0 cause any change in climate? d) Create any objectionable odors? 0 0 VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? 0 0 0 ❑x b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., 0 0 0 sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to 0 ❑ 0 nearby uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on -site or off -site? 0 0 0 e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? 0 0 0 f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their 0 0 habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage 0 0 trees)? El ❑x El ❑x El ❑x 0 O El 0 ❑x El El El El O El 0 0 ZONING CASE NO. 593 1-9 • • Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., 0 0 Mx 0 oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal 0 0 Ex 0 pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? 0 ❑ ❑x 0 VI II. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation 0 0 0 plans? b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and 0 0 ❑ inefficient manner? c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ 0 0 ❑ 0 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 0 0 0 Xl. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? 0 0 0 b) Police protection? 0 0 0 c) Schools? ❑ ❑ 0 d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? 0 0 0 e) Other governmental services? 0 0 0 ❑x El ❑x CI ZONING CASE NO. 593 1-10 • • Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? 0 0 0 b) Communications systems? 0 0 0 c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution 0 ❑ 0 facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks? 0 0 0 e) Storm water drainage? 0 0 0 f) Solid waste disposal? 0 0 0 g) Local or regional water supplies? 0 0 0 XI I I. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? 0 0 0 b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? 0 0 0 c) Create Tight or glare? 0 0 Ox XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? 0 0 b) Disturb archaeological resources? 0 0 c) Affect historical resources? 0 0 0 0 0 d) Have the potential to cause a physical change 0 0 0 which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within 0 0 0 the potential impact area? XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or 0 0 0 regional parks or other recreations facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? 0 0 0 0 El 0 0 0 0 El 0 0 0 ID 0 El 0 0 0 0 ZONING CASE NO. 593 1-11 • • Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade 0 0 0 ❑x the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important example of the major period of California history or prehistory? XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important example of the major period of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects and the effects of probable future projects.) d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier Analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. See Section 15063(c)(3)(D) of the State CEQA Guidelines. In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets. a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ p El O ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ZONING CASE NO. 593 1-12 • • Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which 0 0 0 0 effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less 0 0 0 0 than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site - specific conditions for the project. The following analysis is a description of the findings contained in the Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Issues Checklist Form which preceded this page. A detailed discussion of all potential environmental impacts checked "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated," and "Less Than Significant Impact" is provided, along with appropriate mitigation measures. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Item III. GEOLOGICAL PROBLEMS. f-i. Although approval of the project will result in future disruptions, displacements, compaction, or overcrowding of the soil, during future construction these will occur in order to preserve the integrity of the property. Any displacement and recompaction of the soil will be required to conform with local ordinances and engineering practices and should not cause a significant environmental impact. Also, during future construction, there will be removal of natural vegetative cover, potentially causing an increase in soil erosion by wind action or storm water runoff. This reduction of vegetative cover and the increased runoff associated with the movement of soil may cause a slight increase in the soil deposition, siltation, or erosion in or near the ocean. As the movement of soil is limited to a tennis court, related erosion impacts will be less than significant. Mitiaation Measures 1. The applicant shall prepare and submit to the City 15 sets of a preliminary grading plan showing proposed drainage facilities, structures, driveways, building pad(s), stable, corral, and blue line streams, for the lot at least 30 days prior to the Planning Commission hearing on the project application. 2. The property owner shall be required to conform with local ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence. Item !V. WATER a. The proposed project may alter drainage patterns, increase runoff and reduce water absorption by the placement of the tennis court, the introduction of impervious surface materials and irrigation systems. However, due to the nominal increase in development ZONING CASE NO. 593 1-13 • • proposed and permitted by the General Plan, the impacts are not expected to be substantial. b. No major floodplains exist in the City. Flood waters generally flow through the canyon areas. The General Plan does not permit development in the canyons, and so changes in the course or flow of floodwaters is not anticipated. Item V. AIR QUALITY d. While increased development of a tennis court will generate slight increases in objectionable odors during construction, the resultant impact on air quality will be less than significant. Item VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. a-e. Any additional development within the City will reduce the amount of native vegetation which will be replaced, in some instances, by non-native species. But, due to the limited growth proposed, this impact will be Tess than significant. In addition, the General Plan and Zoning Code set forth policies which encourage the retention and use of native drought tolerant vegetation in landscaping. No known rare and endangered species of plants exist in the City. As further development occurs in Rolling Hills, the natural habitat of the area will be slightly reduced. But, the impact of the current proposal is expected to be less than significant. Large lot, estate density development proposed for this project provides the opportunity to retain substantial amounts of existing habitat. The Palos Verdes Blue Butterfly, a butterfly which had not been seen in the Rolling Hills area since May, 1986, is listed b y the Federal Government as endangered. In 1994, the Palos Verdes Blue was seen at the nearby San Pedro Fuel Depot Station and is currently being studied by the State Department of Fish and Game. The local California gnatcatcher is on the Federal list of threatened species and on the Concerned list of the State, and in a recent census, a number of pairs were located in the adjacent City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Several other animals do occur, however, that are considered as candidates for protection by either the Federal Government or the State Government. Target species for the Palos Verdes Peninsula Area that are also being studied by the State of California Department of Fish and Game are the Cactus Wren and the Coast Horned Lizard. The impact of the proposed future development of a tennis court will be less than significant. Item X. NOISE a. During the duration of future construction, there will be noise related to the construction of a tennis court. But after construction, intermittent recreational noise is not expected to be a significant environmental impact. Item XIII AESTHETICS c. Tennis court lighting is not permitted. Light and glare impacts therefore are expected to be less than significant. Item XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES a-b. While prior tilling and dry farming may have disrupted potential remains, grading prior to construction may uncover a cultural resource. Mitiaation Measures 3. In the event that subsurface material of an archaeological, paleontological or other cultural resource is encountered during project grading or development, all grading and construction shall cease in the immediate ZONING CASE NO. 593 1-14 area, and the find shall be left untouched until a qualified professional archaeologist or paleontologist, whichever is appropriate, is contacted and called in to evaluate the find and makes recommendations as to disposition, mitigation or salvage. The developer shall incur the cost of such professional investigation. The developer shall comply with the mitigation measures recommended and approved by the City for the disposition, mitigation or salvage of such material. ZONING CASE NO. 593 1-15