These standards are met based on the findings provided previously at EC 9.8090(4)(b), which <br />are incorporated herein by reference. <br />EC 9.8440(4): The proposal will not be a significant risk to public health and safety, <br />including but not limited to soil erosion, slope failure, stormwater or flood hazard, or <br />an impediment to emergency response. <br />These standards are met based on the findings provided previously at EC 9.8090(7), which are <br />incorporated herein by reference. <br />EC 9.8440(5): The proposal complies with all of the following standards (An approved <br />adjustment to a standard pursuant to the provisions beginning at EC 9.8015 of this <br />land use code constitutes compliance with the standard.): <br />a) EC 9.2000 through 9.3915 regarding lot dimensions and density requirements for <br />the subject zone. <br />This criterion does not apply because the development is not changing the existing lot <br />dimensions and there is no density requirement in the C-2 zone. <br />b) EC 9.6500 through 9.6505 Public Improvement Standards. <br />These standards are met based on the findings provided previously at EC 9.8090(8)(b), which <br />are incorporated herein by reference. <br />c) EC 9.6706 Development in Flood Plains through EC 9.6709 Special Flood Hazard <br />Areas - Standards. <br />These standards do not apply because the subject property has been removed from the special flood <br />hazard area as mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) on Flood Insurance <br />Rate Map (FIRM) No. 41039C-1107-F, dated June 2, 1999, per Letter of Map Revision 06-10-1342213. <br />d) EC 9.6710 Geological and Geotechnical Analysis. <br />The standards for geotechnical analysis are inapplicable in this instance, as the proposed <br />development is in areas of slope less than 5% and does not include the dedication or construction <br />of a new public street or alley, or the construction of public drainage or wastewater facilities. <br />e) EC 9.6730 Pedestrian Circulation On-Site. <br />The previous Site Review analysis (SR 05-4) found that the onsite sidewalks provide adequate <br />pedestrian circulation. One connection exists between the onsite building and the public <br />sidewalk on Oroyan Avenue. Two additional sidewalks exist within the parking lot area; these <br />Hearings Official Decision (CU 16-1; SR 16-2) 15 <br />241