Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem No. 35CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE , REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL TO: HONORABLE.MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: RON MOLENDYK, CITY MANAGER DATE: MARCH 23, 1993 SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW OF INDUSTRIAL,PROJECT NO'. 92 -1 NORMAN INDUSTRIES, 32371 CORYDON ROAD pAl[AbxVUly l.J .. - At its regular meeting of March 3,- 19,93, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the above referenced request to construct an office /warehouse . metal building by unanimous vote. (Exhibits, Staff Report and Minutes included) PROJECT DESCRIPTION Construction of a 36,000 square -foot office /warehouse building. The building will serve as an expansion and will provide additional office /storage space to the existing facility and approved warehouse /office use. Areas of major concerns raised at the Planning Commission were: The applicant requested a two (2) year design review approval rather that the standard one (1) year.. The Planning Commission Chair stated that one year was sufficient time and that the applicant had the opportunity to seek yearly extensions. • Current flood conditions, the applicant stated that the" building would not be constructed until the Outflow Channel is functional. Staff indicated that the building would be constructed above the floodplain (1,265 msl) in compliance with Ordinance No. 858. The Planning Commission added condition number 36 to address the potential of flooding and the parking area. • Landscaping buffer proposed for the site is currently under water. The applicant requested that a condition be added to address scheduling for landscaping. The Planning Commission added condition number 20.a. to address the landscape scheduling. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt Negative Declaration No 93 -1, and approve Industrial Project No. 92 -1 based on Exhibits A thru F, the following Findings and subject to the attached Condition of Approval. FINDINGS 1. Subject to the attached conditions of approval, the proposed projects as defined is not anticipated to result in any significant environmental impact. AGENDA ITEM WO. PAGE OF 3� REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL MARCH 23, 1993 PAGE TWO SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW OF INDUSTRIAL PROJECT NO. 92 -1 NORMAN INDUSTRIES, 32371 CORYDON ROAD 2. This project as proposed and defined is in substantial compliance with the Goals, Policies and Objectives of the General Plan. 3. Conditions and safeguards, including guarantees and evidence if compliance with conditions, have been incorporated into the approval of the subject project to ensure development of the property in accordance with the objectives of Chapter 17.82 and the planning district in which the site is located. 4. Special circumstances, as indicated in the Staff Report, are present on the project site and in the proposed design which warrant approval of a metal building on the site. PREPARED BY: Armando G. Villa, Assistant Planner. REVIEWED BY: APPROVED BY: APPROVED FOR AGENDA LISTING: \I- 92 -1.RPT i AGENIDA 1 T EIYI NO. 3J6 PAGE Z OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR INDUSTRIAL PROJECT NO 92 -1 PLANNING DIVISION 1. Design review approval for Industrial Project No. 92 -1 will lapse and be void unless building permits- are.issued within one (1) year. An extension of time, up to one (1) year per extension, may be granted by the Planning Commission prior to the expiration of the initial Design Review approval upon application by the developer one (1) month prior to expiration. 2. Prior to issuance of building permits, applicant shall provide assurance that all required approvals and /or clearances from Army Corps of Engineers have been met. 3. Conditions of approval shall be reproduced on page one of building plans prior to their acceptance by Building. Division. All Conditions of Approval shall be met prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and release of utilities. 4. All site improvements shall be constructed as indicated on the approved plot plan and elevations. Revisions to approved site plans or building elevations shall be subject to the review of the Community Development Manger.. All plans submitted for Building Division Plan Check shall conform with the submitted plans as modified by Conditions of Approval, or the Planning Commission through subsequent action. 5. Structure shall be placed on -site as depicted'on the plot plan and /or as modified by, the Community .Development Manager or designee. 6. Trash enclosures: shall -be constructed per City standards as approved by the Community Development Manager or designee, prior to issuance of building permit. 7. All roof mounted or ground support air conditioning units or other mechanical equipment incidental to development shall be architecturally screened or shielded by landscaping so that they are not visible from neighboring property or public streets. Any roof mounted central-swamp coolers shall also be screened, and screening plan shall be approved by the Community.Development Manager, prior to issuance of building permit. S. The project shall connect to sewer if a sewer line is within 200 feet of the project boundary unless it is demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Chief Building Official that this is infeasible. If the project does not connect to sewer, applicant shall submit a Soils Report which includes a sewage disposal plan referenced to the grading plan and approved by the Riverside County Health Department. 9. All exterior on -site lighting shall'be shielded and directed on -site so as not to create glare onto neighboring property and streets or allow illumination above the horizontal plane of the fixture. The light fixture proposed is to match the architecture of the building. 10. All loading zones shall be clearly marked with yellow striping and shall meet City Standards for loading zones. This project shall be designed so that every unit is provided with a 12' x 20' (twelve -foot by twenty -foot) loading space as required by the City Municipal Code. 11. Construction trailers utilized during construction shall be approved by the Planning Division. AGENDA ITEM NO. PACE 3 OF 54 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR INDUSTRIAL PROJECT NO 92-1 12. All exterior downspouts shall be painted to match the building. 13. Materials and colors depicted on the materials board shall be used unless modified by the Community Development Manager or. designee. 14. Prior to issuance of building permits, applicant shall provide assurance that all required fees to the Lake Elsinore Unified School District have been paid. 15. Prior to issuance of building permits, applicant shall provide assurance that all requirements of the Riverside County Fire Department have been met. 16. Prior to issuance of building permits, applicant shall pay park -in -lieu fee in effect at time of building permit issuance. 17. Any signage shall be approve by the Community Development Manager of designee. 18. The existing mobile caretakers residence and greenhouse (Quonset huts) shall be landscaped to screen these structures from Corydon Street. Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City's Landscape Architect. 19. Prior to issuance of building permits, applicant shall provide assurance that the building is.not situated within the restricted areas under the Alquist Priolo Act. 20. Prior to issuance of building permits, applicant shall provide a soils report for approval by the Engineering Department. a) Given that the proposed landscaping is within the Lake Elsinore Floodplain and given current flood conditions scheduling for landscaping for the project shall be as follows: The portion that runs along the Quonset huts and the chainlink fence between the park shall be planted by time of occupancy. Completion of the landscaping will occur within one year from the date the ,Lake Elsinore Outflow Channel is functional and /or flood waters have receded elevation of planting. A Landscaping Bond shall be posted with the City. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 21. All Public Works requirements shall be complied with as a condition of development as specified in the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code at the time a building permit is issued. 22. Dedicate underground water rights to the City (Municipal Code,. Title 16, Chapter 16.52.030). Document can be obtained from the Engineering Department. 23. The parcel -shall have direct access to public right -of -way or be, provided with a minimum 30 foot ingress and egress easement to public right -of -way. 24. Pay all Capital Improvements and Plan Check fees (Municipal Code, Title 16, Chapter 16.34; Resolution No. 85 -26) . 25. Submit a "Will- Serve" letter to the City .Engineering Department, from the applicable water agency stating that water and sewer arrangements have been made for this project. Submit this letter prior to applying for building permit.. AGENDA ITEM NO. PACE O� CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR INDUSTRIAL PROJECT NO-, 92 -1 26. Applicant shall obtain all necessary 'off -site easements for off -site grading from the adjacent property owners prior to grading approval. 27. On -site drainage shall.be.cofiveyed to a public facility or accepted by the adjacent property owner by a letter., of drainage acceptance or conveyed, to a drainage easement, or conveyed to the Lake Elsinore Floodplain. 28. All natural drainage traversing';the site shall be conveyed through site or. provided for by a method approved by the City Engineer, . 29. Developer shall contribute $7,500 towards the design and construction of a traffic signal at the intersection of Corydon and Mission Trail. This development will increase traffic at the intersection at least 58 and should contribute 58 towards construction. 30. Meet all the requirements of Chapter 15.68 of the Municipal Code regarding floodplain management. 31. Meet all the requirements of Chapter. 15.64 of the Municipal Code regarding flood hazard regulation. 32. Developer shall be subject to all Master Planned Drainage fees & will receive credit for all Master Planned, Drainage facilities constructed. 33. If grading exceeds 50 cubic yards,. grading plans shall be prepared by a civil.engineer and approved prior to grading permit. Prior to any grading the applicant shall obtain a grading permit and post..appropriate.security.. 34. If applicable, the owner shall provide the city with proof of his having filed a Notice of Intent with the Regional Water Quality Control Board for a National Pollutants Discharge Elimination Permit (NP,DEP) with a storm water pollution prevention plan. (SWPPP)`_prior to a grading permit. 35. No improvements shall be constructed below the 1,265' msl (Ordinance 858). 36. The building •footprint lies above the 1,265 msl (mean sea level), but below the 1,267 msl,,,(Exhibit "B "). According to Ordinance No. 858, building structures are permitted on areas higher than 1,265 msl. To alleviate and /or mitigate potential flooding, the building pad elevation will be required to be 1,266.5 msl and the finish floor will be required to be 1,267 msl. The parking area lies below the 1,265 msl. According to Ordinance No. 858, Section 15.68.052, no buildings or improvements, and artificial changes.in the topography are permitted below the 1,265 msl. Engineering and Planning has agreed to allow the parking area to be made of three (311) of decomposed granite compacted at 95 %. AGENDA ITE.-A NO. � atr 36 3 -3=93 & -__ Planning Commission Minutes March 3, 1993 Page 9 X- FAMILY RESIDENCE - 32925 KEVIN PLACE CONTINUED CARRIED Y UNANIMOUS VOTE TO APPROVE SINGLE- EAMIEY RESIDENCE AT 329255WIN PLACE BASED ON THE FINDINGS -AFID SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF�PPROVAL LISTED IN THE 'STAFF REPORT WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENT: .. � � - Condition No. 9: A si��ot (6') high reenforced masonry 11 an wood fence shall be /'�constructed a the side and rear /I property lines an hall conform to / section o the 080 (Fen and Walls), subject to the approval of.th unity Development Manager or designee pr r to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. 5. Industrial Project 92 -1 - Norman Industries - Assistant Planner Villa presented a request for Minor Design Review of a 36,000 square foot office /warehouse building, located at 32371 Corydon.Road. Chairwoman Brinley asked if there was anyone representing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Mr. Mark Brody, representing Norman Industries, stated that they support staff's report. He then requested the following amendments: Staff Report, Page 3, under ANALYSIS third paragraph last sentence change the word "finished" to "functional ". Condition 1, that Minor-Design Review be granted for 2 years, given the flooding conditions. Condition 27, the language "or conveyed to the Lake Elsinore Floodplain" be added. Condition 340 preface condition by -- adding "if applicable ", because the grading is less than five acres and this permit does not apply. Condition 29, questioned the 5% impact. From our understanding, our impact on that intersection is far less than the 5 %. Requested relief from the full assessment. Mr. Brody then stated that he would answer any questions. Commissioner Gilenson referred to the letter submitted by Mr. Brody and asked if he was dropping number 20.a., 28 and 32. Mr. Brody stated that conditions 28 and 32, are no longer a concern, will drop. Would like to add condition 20.a., regarding landscaping. Commissioner Wilsey asked if they intend to inhabit this building when completed, get a Certificate of Occupancy - -use the building, but not able to do the landscaping. Mr. Brody responded in the affirmative, stating there is a 6 -7 foot difference and it does seem odd that we could be in the building and not complete the landscaping. He gave reference to the contours and stated they are prepared to post a bond. He then proposed that condition 20.a. read as follows: Condition 20.a. Given that the proposed landscaping is AGENDA tTEt:1 k0. ��? PACE ...4 n, 3P Planning Commission Minutes March 3, 1993 Page 10 within the Lake Elsinore Floodplain and given current flood conditions scheduling for landscaping for the project would be as follows: half of the landscaping would be planted by time of occupancy. Completion of the landscaping would occur within one year from the date the Lake Elsinore Outflow Channel is finished. A bond could be posted with the City. Chairwoman Brinley suggested the word "finished" be changed to "functional ". Commissioner Neff suggested the word "could" be changed to "shall ". Discussion ensued on the proposed landscape condition, preference is for landscaping *and not the posting of a bond; property . being in the floodplain 'and the results of flooding upon landscaping. Commissioner Bullard, r'eferred'to the posted rendering, and stated the portion that runs along the- Quonset huts and the chainlink fence between the park must be landscaped. Even if the Outflow Channel is functional there could still be flood water at that location. Suggested language "landscaping shall be completed within one year after flood waters have receded elevation of planting ". Commissioner Gilenson commented on: • Page 2 of the Staff Report, Potential Flooding concerns, asked if these were referencedcto a particular condition. • Page 3 of the 'Staff Report, .under Analysis third and fourth paragraph of the Staff Report, asked if these were referenced to a particular condition. Assistant Planner'Villa responded in the negative, and stated that a condition can be added. City Planner Christen stated the plans illustrate the building pad elevation and finished floor elevation. • Suggested a condition be added, that the construction of the building will not be initiated until the Outflow Channel is functional. • Asked Mr. O'Donnell to address condition 29 and applicant's letter with regard to 'same. Mr. O'Donnell addressed the following conditions: Condition '27, no problem with the modification as requested. Condition 29, this development will generate an additional 200 trips, which is about 4 %. This does not consider the impacts on other signals which will be affected and is estimated at 1 %, for a total of 5 %. Condition 34, no problem with modification if under five acres. Federal law requires permit if five acres or more. Chairwoman Brinley commented on condition number 1, stating she would like to see it remain as written. AGENDA i T c6d N0. PA ^e -7 OF 36 Planning Commission Minutes March 3, 1993 Page 11 • • m_1, Discussion ensued on the number of extensions that could be granted. There being no further discussion, Chairwoman Brinley called for a motion. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER GILENSON, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION 93 -1 AND APPROVAL OF INDUSTRIAL PROJECT 92 -1 BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS:, Condition 20.a.: Given that the proposed landscaping is within the Lake Elsinore Floodplain and given current flood conditions scheduling for landscaping for the project shall be as follows: The portion that runs along the Quonset huts and the chainlink fence between the park shall be planted by time of occupancy. Completion of the landscaping will occur within one year from the date the Lake Elsinore Outflow Channel is functional and /or flood waters have receded elevation of planting. A Landscaping Bond shall be posted with the City. Condition 27: On -site drainage shall be conveyed to a public facility or accepted by the adjacent property owner by, a letter of drainage acceptance or conveyed to a drainage easement, or conveyed to the Lake Elsinore Floodplain. Condition 34: If applicable, the owner shall provide the city with proof of his having filed a Notice of Intent with the Regional Water Quality Control Board for a National Pollutants Discharge Elimination Permit (NPDEP) with a storm water pollution prevention plan. (SWPPP) prior to a grading permit. Condition 36: The building footprint lies above the 1,265 msl (mean sea level), but below the 1,267 msl (Exhibit "B "). According to Ordinance No. 858, building structures are permitted on areas higher than 1,265 msl. To alleviate and /or mitigate potential flooding, the building pad elevation will be required to be 1,266.5 msl and the finish floor will be required to be 1,267 msl. The parking area lies below the 1,265 msl. According to Ordinance No. 858, Section 15. 68.052, no. buildings or improvements, and artificial changes in the topography are permitted below the 1,265 msl. Engineering and Planning has agreed to allow the parking area to be made of three (311) of decomposed granite compacted at 95 %. ACENDA {T PA NO..S 1 PAGE % OF 3b CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: KEVIN SHEAR, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MANAGER FOR: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 3, 1993. SUBJECT: INDUSTRIAL PROJECT NO. 92 -1 OWNER /APPLICANT Mr. Norman Brody Norman Industries,'Inc.' 6251 Laurel Canyon Blvd. - North Hollywood, Ca. 91606 REQUEST Design review approval of an office /warehouse building. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is proposing to construct a 36,000 square -foot office /warehouse building. The building will serve as an expansion. and will provide additional office /storage space to the existing facility and approved warehouse /office use. PROJECT LOCATION The project site is located in the extreme southeast end of the City. It is approximately 7.58 acres located on the west side of , Corydon Road approximately five hundred feet'(5001):south of Como Street at 32371 Corydon Road. (APN 370- 120 -006) ENVIRONMENTAL BETTING BACKGROUND The site is presently developed with an existing 45,000 square foot warehouse /manufacturing /showroom metal building, office trailer, several greenhouse (Quonset huts) buildings used for storage, and associated parking facilities. This existing metal building was approved by the City Council in November of 1982 and was constructed under a Community Development Block Grant loan program for flood reconstruction as a result of the 1980 floods. In 1986, I 86 -1 was approved by both, the Planning Commission and City Council. The approval consisted of an 18,500 square -foot metal building, to provide additional, warehousing and office for the facility. Although the building and use were not clearly.allowed AGENDA ITEM NO. IL PAGE 9 OF 36 EXISTING LAND USE OZ NING GENERAL PLAN Project Site Warehouse Use C -P Specific Plan Area "H" North Warehouse Use C -P Specific Plan Area "H" East Industrial Use C -P Specific Plan Area "H" South Residential R -1 County (mobile homes) Residential west Vacant Recreation Specific Plan Area "H" BACKGROUND The site is presently developed with an existing 45,000 square foot warehouse /manufacturing /showroom metal building, office trailer, several greenhouse (Quonset huts) buildings used for storage, and associated parking facilities. This existing metal building was approved by the City Council in November of 1982 and was constructed under a Community Development Block Grant loan program for flood reconstruction as a result of the 1980 floods. In 1986, I 86 -1 was approved by both, the Planning Commission and City Council. The approval consisted of an 18,500 square -foot metal building, to provide additional, warehousing and office for the facility. Although the building and use were not clearly.allowed AGENDA ITEM NO. IL PAGE 9 OF 36 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 3, 1993 PAGE TWO RE: INDUSTRIAL PROJECT NO. 92 -1 in the CP zone, the former Community Development Director determined the use and building to be in substantial consistency with the allowed uses in the CP Zone (Exhibit A). The building was never constructed and approvals are now expired. SPECIAL PROJECT CONCERNS Zoning Inconsistency While reviewing the project background, staff discovered that the previously approved use and building were not clearly allowed within the proposed Commercial Park (C -P) Zoning District. The former Community Development Director determined that the proposed use was in substantial consistency with the uses allowed by right under the Commercial Park (C -P) Zoning District (Exhibit A). The applicant proposes to warehouse commodities such as silk flowers, oil paintings, and decorative flower boxes, which will be sold to supermarkets and florist. These uses are permitted in the CP Zone, but the wholesale and warehousing is not. potential Flooding The subject site has no noticeable features and is relatively flat with one gradually sloping area. It is within an area that is subject to flooding. The building footprint lies above the 1,265 msl (mean sea level) but below the 1,267 msl (Exhibit "B "). According to Ordinance No. 858, building structures are permitted on areas higher than 1,265 msl. To alleviate and /or mitigate potential flooding, the building pad elevation will.be required to be 1,266.5 msl and the finish floor will be required to be 1,267 msl. The parking area lies below the 1,265 msl. According to Ordinance No. 858, Section 15.68.052, no buildings or improvements, and artificial changes in the topography are permitted below the 1,265 msl. Paving the parking area would constitute an improvement or change in topography, therefore would not be permitted. Engineering and Planning has agreed to allow the parking area to be constructed of three. inch (311) decomposed granite compacted at 95 %. Site Plan Although the three parcels belong to the same owner, the parcel the building will be built on is landlocked. Staff recommends that the parcels be combined or an easement be recorded. The Condition will be worded as follows: The parcel shall have direct access to public right -of- way or be provided with a minimum 30 foot ingress and egress easement to public right -of -way. Aesthetics In the past, City Council policy has been 'to discourage the construction and approval of metal buildings. There are several special circumstances which warrant the installation of a metal building on this particular site. These are:. 1. The proximity to an identified potential active earthquake fault which could create greater damage to a tilt -up concrete building or masonry building. 2. There already exist a much larger, plain metal building on the site and adjacent to the site. AGENDA ITEM NO. PAGE ID OF 3G REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 3, 1993 PAGE THREE RE: INDUSTRIAL PROJECT NO. 92 -1 3. The proposed building will be situated behind the already approved building which will not be visible from any existing right -of -way. 4. The applicant proposes to shield the building with a landscape buffer along the sides and rear portions of the site. ANALYSIS Being that the project, as proposed, will be an expansion of the approved use, will generate approximately thirty (30) jobs and that the City Council has previously allowed this type of use and building and has assisted the applicant to obtain grants for the reconstruction of a building damaged as a result of the 1980 floods, staff does not foresee any other major concerns other than the above mentioned. In terms of zoning consistency, the land use remains consistent with the existing vicinity and approved use. The construction of the levee has allowed construction above the 1,265 msl. To mitigate potential flooding, the building will be constructed so that the finish floor exceeds the 1,267 msl (Exhibit B). Also, the applicant has indicated that the construction of the building will not be initiated until the outflow channel is finished. To alleviate aesthetic concerns, the building will be screened by a landscaping buffer around the project boundary. Such buffer will be reviewed by the City's Landscape Architect (Exhibit °F"). In terms of parking, the proposed building will be required to provide 56 parking spaces. The approved 45,000 square foot building requires 65 parking spaces for a total of 121 spaces. The applicant proposes 146 parking spaces which exceeds the requirements. An Initial Study was prepared for the above referenced project and it identified no significant environmental impacts. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), staff prepared Negative Declaration No`. 93 -1 which states that the project is not expected to have a significant adverse impact on the environment. It is recommended that the Planning Commission recommend the City Council adopt Negative Declaration No 93 -1, and approve Industrial Project No. 92 -1 based on Exhibits A thru F, the following Findings and subject to the attached Condition of Approval. FINDINGS 1. Subject to the attached conditions of approval, the proposed projects as defined is not anticipated to result in any significant environmental impact. 2. This project as proposed and defined is in substantial compliance with the Goals, Policies and Objectives of the General Plan. AGENDA ITEM NO. PAGE N OF 34 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 31 1993 PAGE FOUR RE: INDUSTRIAL PROJECT NO. 92 -1 3. Conditions and safeguards, including guarantees and evidence of compliance with conditions, have been incorporated into the approval of the subject project to ensure development of the property in accordance with the objectives of Chapter 17.82 and the planning,district in which the.site is located.. 4. Special circumstances, as indicated in the Staff Report, are present on the project site and in the proposed design which warrant approval of a metal building on the site. Prepared by: Armando G. Villa, Assistant Planner Reviewed by: , Community Approved for Planning Commission: : \I92 -1.RPT "PWllis Rogers, Assistant City Manager I r;CENDA ITEM W. PAGE IL- OF- 5(0 - ITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR INDUSTRIAL PROJECT NO 92 -1 PLANNING DIVISION 1. Design review approval for Industrial Project._No. 92 -1 will lapse and be void unless building permits are, issued within one (1) year. An extension of time, up to one (1) year per extension, may be granted by the Planning Commission prior to the expiration of the initial Design.Review approval upon application by the ;developer 'one (1) month prior to expiration. 2. Prior to issuance of building permits,. applicant shall provide assurance that all required approvals.and /or clearances from Army Corps of Engineers have been met. 3. Conditions of approval shall be reproduced .on page one of building plans prior to their acceptance by Building Division. All Conditions of Approval shall be met prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and release of utilities. 4. All site improvements shall be constructed as indicated on the approved plot plan and elevations. Revisions to approved site plans or building elevations shall be subject to the review of the Community Development Manger. All plans submitted for Building Division Plan Check shall conform with the.submitted plans as modified by Conditions of Approval, or the Planning Commission through subsequent action. 5. Structure shall be placed on -site as depicted 'on the plot plan, and /or as modified by the Community .Development Manager or designee. 6. Trash "enclosures shall,.be. constructed per City standards as approved by the Community Development Manager or designee, prior to issuance of building permit. 7. All roof mounted or ground support air conditioning units or other mechanical equipment incidental to development shall be architecturally screened or shielded by landscaping so that they are not visible from neighboring property or public streets. Any roof mounted`centraL swamp coolers shall also be screened, and screening plan shall be approved by the Community Development Manager, prior to issuance of building permit. 8. The project "shall.connect to sewer if .a sewer line is within. 200 feet of the project boundary unless it is demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Chief Building Official that this is infeasible. = If the,. project does not connect" to sewer; applicant shall submit a Soils Report which includes "a sewage disposal plan referenced to the grading plan and approved by the Riverside County Health. Department. 9. All exterior on -site lighting shall be shielded and directed on -site so as not to create glare onto neighboring property and streets or allow illumination above the horizontal plane of the:fixture. The light fixture proposed is to-match the architecture of the building. 10. All loading zones shall be clearly marked with yellow striping and shall meet City Standards for loading zones. This project . shall be designed.so that every unit is provided with a:12' x- 201 (twelve -foot by twenty -foot) loading space as-required by the City Municipal Code. 11. Construction trailers utilized during construction shall be approved by the Planning Division. AGENDA ITV4 NO. P,v /3 n� CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR INDUSTRIAL PROJECT NO 92 -1 12. All exterior downspouts shall be painted to match the building. 13. Materials and colors depicted on the materials board shall be used unless modified by the Community Development Manager or designee. 14. Prior to issuance of building. permits; applicant shall provide assurance that all required fees to the Lake Elsinore Unified, School District have been paid. 15. Prior to issuance of building permits, applicant shall provide assurance that all requirements of the Riverside County Fire Department have been met. 16. Prior to issuance of building permits, applicant shall pay park -in -lieu fee in effect at time of building permit issuance. 17. Any signage shall be approve by the Community Development Manager of designee. 18. The existing mobile caretakers residence and greenhouse (Quonset huts) shall be landscaped to screen these structures from Corydon Street. Plans shall be reviewed and 'approved by the City's Landscape Architect. 19. Prior to issuance of building permits, applicant shall provide assurance that the building is not situated within the restricted areas under the Alquist Priolo Act. 20. Prior to issuance of building permits, applicant shall provide a soils report for approval by the Engineering Department. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 21. All Public Works requirements shall be. complied with as a condition of development as specified in the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code at the time a building permit is issued. 22. Dedicate underground water rights to the City (Municipal Code, Title 16, Chapter 16.52.030). Document can be obtained from the Engineering Department. 23. The parcel shall have direct access to public right -of -way or be provided with a minimum 30 foot ingress and egress easement to public right -of -way. 24. Pay all Capital Improvements and Plan Check fees (Municipal Code, Title 16, Chapter 16.34; Resolution No. 85 -26) 25. Submit a "Will -Serve" letter to the City Engineering Department, from the applicable water agency stating that water and sewer arrangements. have been made for this project. Submit this letter prior to applying for building permit. 26. Applicant shall obtain all necessary off -site easements for off -site grading from the adjacent property owners prior to grading approval. 27. On -site drainage shall be conveyed to .a public. facility or accepted by the adjacent property owner by, a letter of drainage acceptance or conveyed to a drainage easement. 28. All natural drainage traversing the site shall be conveyed through site or provided for by a method approved by the City. Engineer. AGENDA ITEM NO. PAGE I`% OF 3(o CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR INDUSTRIAL PROJECT NO 92 -1 29. Developer shall contribute $7,500 towards the design and construction of a traffic signal at the intersection of Corydon and Mission Trail. This development will increase traffic at the intersection at least 5% and should contribute 5% towards construction. 30. Meet all the requirements of Chapter 15.68 of the Municipal Code regarding floodplain management. 31. Meet all the requirements of Chapter 15.64 of the Municipal Code regarding flood hazard regulation. 32. Developer shall be subject to all Master Planned Drainage fees & will receive credit for all Master Planned Drainage facilities constructed. 33. If grading exceeds 50 cubic yards, grading plans shall be prepared by a civil engineer and approved prior to grading permit. Prior to any grading the applicant shall obtain a grading permit and post appropriate security. 34. The owner shall provide the city with proof of his having filed a Notice of Intent with. the Regional Water Quality Control Board for a National Pollutants Discharge Elimination Permit (NPDEP) with a storm water pollution prevention plan. (SWPPP) prior to a grading permit. 35. No improvements shall be constructed below the 1,265' msl (Ordinance 858). AGENDA ITEM NO. P,',GE I s O-r 3G VICINITY MAP SUBJECT -SITE PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 3, 1993 MINOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR INDUSTRIAL PROJECT 92 -1 32371 CORYDON ROAD AGENDA ITEM NO.� P. - /y OF 310 f i I f i i i EXHIBIT "A" :. �� ,� tt :�iK i'iil-I rb�:��Yr an� r rt1 x!11 y�l •�iw� a' • b i �. j,. 1' • i A • .. f : LY 4 nn— C[A�F p'jyyy�J/•. • �G! i+} 1 �'.a � �w }i f1, I'k, � ! G v - tiOiRRNL1A1giTNrLET�r�r "� "' RY ;" i� �.Cr' jY4 *Y r•,,,L' FAKE ltSWWLCAPFC* mAWi . �;. CY• •' S sY; �a')Y ki i{ y #' ` d Te WWW (71ali7ad17a r � p " c !io W i 1": L N i. t •lE• i r 41 - y`,,.', � a � ` (t ,•i+t } ^, �1+�} }''"1M+�f+�i•.r awl},,, } 'y^l'" � r+j; i • jr :Yt ae. �{ . � t MENORJINDtli ? r >~: a r e = ,y "t fi tf l�nirYrd alf a4 } v yu r yJrTt •i i :. iY x=- r+r.�v [ °Y, a},►ia?tY }"r4c4`a(, ir"�;:. rk .t TD: NOTE TO F13E FROM: Nelson Hiller. community Developmemt'Difector '° " '. +� DATE: July I8. 1986 s(BJECT: Zoning Consistency Daterminatl0n for Norsan Industries Y •`r �. *,� +'" Varehouae Constriction (Industrial Pro(ett 1 a6�1) k.• r a;. e' r 4 r �, 1'r • '�p BACUROLMD: „r + a (', ca Y i. < . { i xy�y A t - '! tY. - '•. NI . �7. t �} ti • f ` Vir 'y'1' h'y 'it.' 3 The :,u Is :Dread 'gyp. (old toning tbee �iN .tfiet) uses include those of W.:­-!" a + �•ayj,��'�{yP = >t,a u'"a� a. 1 v A�.,�';.i�.�i/>ir Yr ?7W�'y k� �S` ;Y /.17'�l�'. i''' W�>.�4•Y{.� C-2 per.i Ltea uses `tnclube ty;�yF ��yyw++ B Car,. tcs.': .nuraeTe`rntMn,`bvitdtay�;iT�d, Ir >. . il, Y. F.: h.o Y► .c Oak. ess,� ;•a. �.a ai, jl5r'+ �y k j .t IIp C. •other, tosines of >tn:reprtses':uh1 1A he opt ion to <x'v* k• i, of the Planning Dir*tor hire been late'es.�r•(ned to be: ; 1. Stmilar to businesses or, Is as, to section B. 2. Not more detrimental or incompatible with C-2 District 3 than those listed in subsection B.• r'w MTERMIRATIOM: i The Director of Community Development has determined that the ores pro- Posed for Noncan Industries which include light assembly, staining. shipping and warehousing of flower and gift products is similar to and_. not more detrimental than ceramics manuflcture and is therefore a per - ■fitted use in the present CP Zoning District. i AC—END ; ITMM NO. PAG- l7 OF 3l0 NEGATIVE DECLARATION INDUSTRIAL PROJECT NO. 92 -1 PREPARED FOR: Norman Industries 6251 Laurel Canyon B1. North Hollywood, Ca. 91606 PREPARED BY: City of Lake Elsinore 130 South Main Street Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 January, 1993 GC= -1 \:)A ITEIA N0. P^ n= i$ OF 36 NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 93 -1 INDUSTRIAL PROJECT NO. 92 -1 CITY OF LAIC: ELSINORE PROJECT hOCATION - The project site is located in the extreme southeast end of Lake Elsinore. It is 7.58 acres located on the west side of,Corydon Road approximately five hundred feet (500') south of Commo Street at 32371 Corydon Road. (APN.370- 120x006) OJECT SIZE AND DESCRIPTION Norman Industries is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of a 36,000 square -foot warehouse /distribution. metal building to provide additional storage /office space to the existing facility. Project approval requires the following discretionary approvals by the City of Lake Elsinore. 1. Certification of Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) . Acceptance of environmental. documentation in accordance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and City of Lake Elsinore requirements.. This Negative Declaration is prepared for the proposed plan and design standards and requires certification with the final decision on the plan. 2. Industrial Project No. 92 -1. Design Review approval of a� 36,000 square -foot warehouse metal building. CONTACT PERSONS The lead agency for preparing this Negative Declaration is the City of Lake Elsinore Planning Department. Armando G. Villa Assistant Planner Planning Department City of Lake Elsinore 130 South Main Street Lake Elsinore, CA 92330 PERSONS AND AGENCIES CONSULTED Bryan Defendall, Riverside County Fire Department Carol Fisher, Lake Elsinore Unified School District Donald A. Hemme, Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District Alan Keseloff, Souther California Gas Company 1 AGENDA ITEM NO. PAGE I OF 36 SCOPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS This environmental analysis evaluates the potential impacts resulting from the development of the 36,000 square -foot warehouse metal building. It takes into consideration that this proposal is merely an expansion of the already approved industrial use. Since the project is an expansion of the allowed use, it is not expected that this development will have a significant adverse impact on the environment. Furthermore, since the majority of the surrounding area is already developed with similar uses, it is believed that effects resulting from this development would be generally the same as existing conditions. No mitigation measures are required at this time. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the following evaluates those issues and topics checked off as either "yes ", "no ", or "maybe" in the attached environmental checklist form which pertain to the proposed Historic Downtown Plan and Design Standards. As permitted in Section 15150 of the CEQA Guidelines, environmental documents, including Negative Declarations, can incorporate by reference all or portions of other documents that are a matter of public record. The information presented in this Negative Declaration is based, in part, upon another environmental document entitled "Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan ", prepared by PHR in 1990. Copies of this document is available for review at the Lake Elsinore City Hall; 130 S. Main Street; Lake Elsinore, California 92530; ph: (909) 674 -3124. 2 AGENDA ITEM NO.�_ PACE LV OF 3S° VICINITY MAt� WE ESINNE, i \\ \ Qr LEMON Noy `T TKAD. : Ic 1 VINWITY MAP 5"71 ZolzYPON Ppe LAKE E CA. 192- I Nl�Tlq Few, PBCLAKA11ON AGENDA ITEM NO. PACE ZI OF 3� I. INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE Background 1. Name of Proponent: Norman Industries. Inc. 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 6251 Laurel Cyn, North Hollywood. CA 91606: (818) 763 -2458 3. Date of Checklist: January 3. 1993 4. Agency Requiring Checklist: City of Lake Elsinore Planning 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable: Industrial Project No.92 -1 Design Review of a 36.000 square -foot metal building. II. Environmental Impacts Explanation of all "yes ", "no ", and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets. Yes Maybe No 1. EARTH. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? _ _ X b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? X C. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? _ _ X d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? X e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? X f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of 4 AGENDA ITEM NO. alS PAGE 7'?' OF N6 5 AGENDA ITEM NO. Q L PACE 2 GF !Pi a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? — X g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or, similar hazards? X 2. AIR. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? X b. The creation of objectionable odors? _ — X C. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, - either locally or regionally? X 3. WATER. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents,.or the course of direction of-water . movements, in either marine or fresh waters? X b. Changes in absorption rates,, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? X C. Alterations to the course or . loss of flood waters? X d. Change in the amount of surface water . in any water body? _ . X e. Discharge into surface waters,. or in any alteration of surface water quality,, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? X f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters ?, X g. Change in the quantity of ground 5 AGENDA ITEM NO. Q L PACE 2 GF !Pi Yes Maybe No waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? _ _ X h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? _ _ X i. Exposure of people or property to water - related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? X _ Flood Zone Designation: A15 /S 100 -Year Flood Level: 1.265 a.s.l. 4. PLANT LIFE. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? X b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? X C. Introduction of new species of . plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? X d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? X 5. ANIMAL LIFE. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)? X b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? X 6 AGENDA ITEM NO.� PA GC tq OF C. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or' result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? 6. NOISE. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe_ noise levels? 7 LIGHT AND GLARE Will the proposal produce new light or glare? 8. LAND USE. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the, present or planned land use of an area? 9. NATURAL RESOURCES. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural resources? 10. RISK OF UPSET. Will the proposal involve: a. A risk of an ekplosion:or the release of hazardous substances (including but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan'or an emergency evacuation plan? " 11. POPULATION. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human 7 Yes Maybe No X — X X X X X X -X —X AGENDA ITEM NO.,Z_ ZC/ 3!� Pr:.. J OF °�� 12. 13. a. b. C. d. e. f. 14. Yes Maybe No population of an area? X HOUSING. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? _ TRANSPORTATION /CIRCULATION. Will the proposal result in: Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? Effects on parking facilities, or demand for new parking? _ Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and /or goods? _ Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? PUBLIC SERVICES. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. b. C. d. e. f. 15. X X X X X X Fire protection? X Police protection? X Schools? X Parks or other recreational facilities? X Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? _ X Other governmental services? X ENERGY. Will the proposal result in: 8 AGENDA ITEM NO. Yes Maybe No a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? X b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources,of energy,; or require the development of new sources of_ energy? _ 16. UTILITIES. Will the proposal result in a need.for new systems, or . substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural-gas? _ b. Communications systems ?, _ C. Water? d. Sewer or septic,tanks? e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? g. Street lighting annexation and /or improvements ?,. 17. HUMAN HEALTH. Will the proposal' result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? 18. AESTHETICS. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view ?. 19. RECREATION. Will the proposal result in an impact upon'the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 20. CULTURAL RESOURCES. 9 X X IX X _ X IRM — X AGENDA ITEM NO. PArc i 7 OF 3b Yes Maybe No a.. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or. historic archaeological site? X b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure or object? _ _ X C. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? X d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? X 21. 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 examples of the major periods of 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 10 AGENDA ITEM NO. P.AGE Z $ 0 F_;*_ Yes Maybe No C. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or .more separate resources where the impact on each. resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) Z III. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation (Narrative description of environmental evaluation is attached) IV. Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation: 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 the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Date Signatur Armando G. Villa, Asst, Planner For the City" of Lake, Elsinore 11 A 2ND'A ITEM N0.142S' DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 93 -1 INDUSTRIAL PROJECT NO. 92 -1 1. EARTH a. No. Although the proposal will require the creation of a building pad, the building pad will be compacted per the Engineering Department requirements and as a result should not result in unstable earth conditions. b. No. All development disrupt the soil to some degree. For development of this size and scale, it may cause some disruption but not to the level of significance. c. No. Development of the proposed project will require minimal grading; however, it will not substantially'alter the existing topography because the area is relatively flat. d. No. No unique geologic or physical condition are located on the site according to the General Plan EIR approved in 1990. e. No. All development disrupt the soil to some degree. For development of this size and scale, the disruption is not expected to be significant. f. No. No changes in deposition or erosion is expected due to the fact that the development is only a 36,000 square -foot metal building. g. Maybe. The project may expose people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failures or similar hazards because the Wildomar Fault traverses adjacent to the proposed building. However prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant will be required to prepare a geologic report and comply with the Alquist Priolo Act requirements. 2. AIR a. Maybe. Depending on the amount of traffic generated by the project, an increase in carbon monoxide and particulate emissions may occur. The impact is not considered significant since the air emission from this project is only an incremental impact to the area's air quality. b. No. The proposed project should not create any objectionable odors to the area's climate. 12 AGENDA ITEM NO. � 3D OF NO C. No. The proposed project should not alter the area's climate because the proposal is only a metal building. 3. WATER a. No. No changes in currents or the course or direction of water movements would +.occur ;with the proposed 36,000 square -foot storage building pad. b. No. The proposed pad may create some changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff. However, for a pad this size, it is not anticipated that the impact' will. be substantial . nor significant. 'c. No. No changes to the course or flow of floodwaters would occur. Drainage patterns will continue to flow, to the streets and channels. d. No. No changes would occur in =the amount of surface water in any water body as a result of the .approval of the project. e. No. No significant impacts to surface waters or water quality are anticipated with the approval of the project. The project is only a.36,000 square -foot metal building. f. No. The direction or rate of flow of groundwater would not be directly affected by the approval of the metal building. g. No. The proposed project will not interfere with the direction or rate of flow of.ground waters. h. No.. No substantial reduction in the amount of public water is 'anticipated as a result of the,-approval of the metal building. i. Maybe. Portions of the site are situated. within areas subject to flooding. The construction of the levee should mitigate flooding. The pad elevation will_,be raised to 1,270 a.s.l. therefore keeping areas within the storage building out of flooding exposure., .4. PLANT LIFE a. No. The proposed project would not change the diversity of species or deterioration of vegetation; the development is not of a scale or type which - :could significantly affect these resources. The General Plan EIR. does not identify species in the vicinity.. b. No. Likewise, -no' unique, rare or endangered species of plants would be significantly affected. 13 AGEUDA ITEM N0. 91+��( -� PAuc i!� OF —,*-" c. No. No new plant species or barriers to replenishment of existing plant species would result. d. No. The proposed project would not reduce acreage for agriculture crops; the development is not of a. scale or type which could significantly affect these resources. 5. ANIMAL LIFE a. No. The proposed project would not change the diversity of species or numbers of any species of animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, insects, birds or other land animals; the development would not be of a scale or type which could significantly affect these resources. b. No. Likewise, no unique, rare or endangered species of animals would be significantly reduced. c. No. No new species of animals or barrier to migration of existing animal species would result. d. No. There would be no known deterioration of existing fish or wildlife habitat as a result of the approval of the project. 6. NOISE a. No. while construction, the noise level is expected to temporarily increase. The noise level may increase depending on the amount of traffic. For development of this scale, it is not anticipated to be.substantial. b. No. People would not be exposed to noise levels which exceed City standards, due to the aforementioned reason. 7. LIGHT AND GLARE No. The proposed project would not expose people to new light or glare. The development is not of a scale or type which could significantly create light and glare effects. 8. LAND USE No. The proposed project .would not substantially alter present or planned land uses nor create conflict with any designations, objectives or policies of any adopted plans of the City of Lake Elsinore. The proposed 36,000 square -foot building is an expansion of the allowed use and building established at that location. 14 AGENDA ITEM NO.� PAr= 3- OF 36 9. NATURAL RESOURCES a. No. The proposed project would not increase the rate of use of any natural resource.. The development is not of a scale or type which could significantly utilize these resources. b. No. The proposed project would not substantially deplete any nonrenewable natural resource, due to the aforementioned reason. 10. RISK OF UPSET a. No. The operating tenant does not use any hazardous materials in their operations. b. No. The proposed project will not interfere with the emergency response plan because it is only a metal building. 11. POPULATION No. The approval of the project would have no impact on the location, distribution, density or growth rate of human population. 12. HOUSING No. The approval of the proposed project would have no impact upon existing housing and would not _result in creating a demand for additional housing. 13. TRANSPORTATION /CIRCULATION a. No. Although the proposed project will create additional traffic in and out of the site, it will not be substantial because of the scale and type. The traffic generated by this development will be incremental and it is anticipated that it will not be an impact to Corydon Road. b. No. Although the proposed project will require additional parking, it is not anticipated that the approval of the proposed project will create parking overspills. The plan provides an adequate number of parking spaces. c. No. No substantial impacts to the existing transportation facilities are anticipated as a result of the approval of the proposed project. The General Plan, Circulation Plan designated Corydon Road as a major arterial (100' -120' ROW) is AGENDA ITEM NO.: PAC= 33 OF D d. No. The approval of the proposed project.would not alter present patterns of circulation or movement of people and /or goods. e. No. The approval of the proposed project would not alter waterborne, rail or air traffic. f. No. The approval of the proposed project would not increase traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians. 14. PUBLIC SERVICE a. No. Since the project is a 36,000 square -foot metal building it is not anticipated that there will be a need for fire protection. b. No. The approval of the proposed project would have no effect upon or result in the need for new or altered police protection services. c. No. The approval of the proposed project would not create a need for new or additional school activities. d. No. The approval of the proposed project would not create a need for new or additional parks or other recreational facilities. e. No. No impacts are anticipated upon the maintenance of public facilities or roads as a result of the approval of the proposed project f. No. No impacts to other governmental services are anticipated as a result of the approval of the proposed project. 15. ENERGY a. No. Approval of the proposed project would not result in the use of abnormally high amounts of fuel or energy. b. No. No substantial increases in demand upon existing sources of energy or requirements for the development of new sources of energy are anticipated as a result of the approval of the proposed project. 16. UTILITIES a. No. The approval of the proposed project will not create a substantial demand for additional power (electricity) or natural gas. 16 AGENDA ITEM /gNO. PAGE OF 36 b. No. The approval of the proposed project would not create a substantial demand for additional communications systems. C. No. No new demands for domestic water would be created with the approval of the proposed project. d. No. No new demands for sewer facilities or septic tanks would be created if the proposed project is approved. e. No. The approval of the proposed project would not necessitate new storm water drainage improvements. f. No. The approval of the proposed project will not create substantial amounts of solid waste and /or disposal. 17. HUMAN HEALTH 14. a. No. The approval of the proposed project would not result in the creation of potential health hazards because it is only a metal building. b. No. The approval of the proposed project would not result in the exposure of people to potential health hazards because of the aforementioned reasons. No. The proposed project will not obstruct nor will it create an aesthetically offensive site. The proposal is compatible with the surrounding areas. The proposal will be screened with a landscaping buffer. 19. RECREATION No. The approval of the proposed project would not create any impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities. FT@I IN Ks —ORTYA a. No. The approval of the proposed project would not result in the destruction of any archeological, prehistoric or historic sites. According to the General Plan EIR, no known sites exist within in the vicinity. b. No. The approval of the proposed project is not anticipated to have any adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure or object due to the aforementioned reasons. 17 AGENDA ITEM NO. U OF. . c. No. Likewise, the approval of the proposed project is not anticipated to adversely affect any unique ethnic cultural values. d. No. No known existing religious or sacred uses would be impacted as the result of the approval of the proposed project according to the General Plan EIR. 21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF a-d. No. The proposed project will not significantly affect the natural environment,. have long term environmental impacts or have considerable cumulative impacts. 18 /,,-c '0. {TEN, N 77 �Oc I� OF 34