587, Construct a tennis court, Studies & Reports!Yf E
DEC 3 1 1998
CITY OF ROLLING MILLS
APPLICATION NO:
•
Cep Rolling
APPENDIX I
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL STUDY
QUESTIONNAIRE
NAME & ADDRESS OF APPLICANT:
LOCATION OF PROJECT:
PROPOSED PROJECT:
•
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(310) 377-1521
FAX: (310) 377-7288
E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com
ORIGINAL FILED
NOV 0 41998
LOS ANGELES, COUNTY CLERK
ZONING CASE NO. 587
MR. HUSSAIN SHAIKH
86 SADDLEBACK ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
28 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
(LOT 103-A-RH)
The applicant is requesting the following:
(1) Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of a
proposed cabana,
(2) Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of a
proposed guest house,
(3) Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of a
proposed tennis court, and
(4) Site Plan Review to permit the construction of a new
cabana structure, a new guest house structure, a new
hobby structure, the relocation of an existing barn, and a
new tennis court that requires grading at an existing
single family residence.
BOOK, PAGE & PARCEL NO.: 7569-007-008
EXISTING GENERAL PLAN
LAND USE DESIGNATION: Residential Agricultural -Suburban - 2 acre minimum net
lot area.
EXISTING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
PRESENT LAND USE:
ZONING CASE NO. 587
RA-S-2, Residential Agricultural -Suburban - 2 acre minimum
net lot area.
Same.
Single family residential.
I-1
•«
Printed on Recycled Papc;r.
• •
LOCATION MAP: Attached.
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.
ZONING CASE NO. 587
1-2
(3) Commercial office building employing more than 1,000
persons or encompassing more than 250,000 square feet of
floor space.
(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 cabana, a guest house, a
hobby structure, relocation of the existing barn, and 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 5.039 acre site with a large estate -size single story ranch
style residence, swimming pool, barn and corral. 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.
These residential areas also consist of undulating hillsides and knolls covered
by grasses and mature shrubs and trees with some areas being heavily
ZONING CASE NO. 587
1-3
wooded. The same native birds and 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 N o N/A
X _
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
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. 587
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: October 29, 1998 LOLA UNGAR, PLANNING DIRECTOR
tett, 1441144
[Signature] c
ZONING CASE NO. 587
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 adequately 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. 587
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):
❑x
LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
0
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or 0 0
polices adopted by agencies with jurisdiction
over the project
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the 0 0
vicinity?
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. 0 0
impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from
incompatible land uses)?
0
❑x
ZONING CASE NO. 587
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 ❑ ❑x
established community (including a low-income
or minority community)?
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local 0 0 ❑
population projections?
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either 0 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 ❑
b) Seismic ground shaking? 0 0 0
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? 0
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? ❑ 0 0
e) Landslides or mudflows? 0 0 ❑
❑ ❑
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil 0 0
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill?
g)
Subsidence of the land?
h) Expansive soils?
i) Unique geologic or physical features?
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
o o
o o
o o
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, ❑ 0
or the rate and amount of surface runoff?
b) Exposure of people or property to water related 0 0
hazards such as flooding?
c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration 0 0
of surface water quality (e.g. temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity)?
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any
water body?
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of
water movements?
O
0
0
p
O
❑x
El
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
0
El
p
0
0
p
❑x
0
0
0
0
El
0
0
0
p
0
ZONING CASE NO. 587 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?
❑ ❑ ❑
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? 0 0 0
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of
groundwater otherwise available for public water
supplies?
❑ ❑ ❑
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to 0 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
cause any change in climate?
d) Create any objectionable odors?
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
O 0 0
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., 0 0
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to 0 0 0
nearby uses?
d) Insufficient parking capacity on -site or off -site? 0 ❑ 0
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? 0 0 0
0
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
g)
Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?
0
O 0 0
❑ ❑ ❑
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
0
❑x
p
El
p
❑x
El
0
0
El
❑x
El
p
❑x
El
p
0
0
ZONING CASE NO. 587 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 El ❑
oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)?
d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal 0 0
pool)?
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
❑ ❑
p
❑x
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation ❑ 0 0
plans?
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and 0 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?
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ 0 0
❑ ❑ 0
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of 0 0 0
potential health hazards?
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable ❑ ❑ 0
brush, grass, or trees?
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? 0 ❑ x❑
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ❑ 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?
b) Police protection?
c) Schools?
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
e) Other governmental services?
o ❑ ❑
o ❑ ❑
o o ❑
o ❑ ❑
o ❑ ❑
ID
0
p
El
0
El
❑x
0
0
0
0
❑x
❑x
0
ZONING CASE NO. 587
1-10
• •
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
XI I. 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
❑ ❑
b) Communications systems? 0 ❑ 0
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities?
d) Sewer or septic tanks?
e) Storm water drainage?
f) Solid waste disposal?
g) Local or regional water supplies?
XI II. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑
0
o ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
o o o
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? 0 0 0
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? 0 0 0
c) Create light or glare? 0 0 Ox
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources?
b) Disturb archaeological resources?
c) Affect historical resources?
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change
which would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within
the potential impact area?
XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreations facilities?
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? 0 0 0
❑ ❑
❑x
o ❑ 0
o o o
o ❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑x
❑x
0
0
0
❑x
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
El
0
0
ZONING CASE NO. 587 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 ❑ 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.
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
CI
O
❑x
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses 0 0 0 0
and state where they are available for review.
ZONING CASE NO. 587
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 accessory structures and a tennis court,
related erosion impacts will be less than significant.
Mitigation 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 structures, the introduction of impervious surface materials
ZONING CASE NO. 587 1-13
•
and irrigation systems. However, due to the nominal increase in development 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.
c. The applicants propose a septic tank system for the project. As septic tank leach field
effluent percolate into the watershed, some discharge into surface waters downstream
may occur. The impact generated from the addition of three accessory structures, a tennis
court, and the relocation of a barn however, will be Tess than significant.
Mitigation Measures
3. The property owner shall be required to conform with County Health
Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of septic tanks.
Item V. AIR QUALITY
d. While increased development of three accessory structures and 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, a butterfly which
had not been seen in the Rolling Hills area since May, 1986, is listed by 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 endangered species
and on the Concerned list of the State, and in a recent census, 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 Rancho 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
three accessory buildings and 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
three accessory buildings and a tennis court. But after construction, noise is not expected
to be a significant environmental impact.
Item XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
d. The applicants propose a septic tank system for the project. The impact generated from
the addition of three accessory structures and a tennis court, however, will be less than
significant.
ZONING CASE NO. 587
1-14
• •
Item XIII AESTHETICS
c. Residential building materials are carefully regulated by the Building and Construction
Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance and the Community Association. Buildings are limited to
one story in height. 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.
Mitigation Measures
4. 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
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. 587
1-15