HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 103-97 ZonOrd Exempt CEQA RESOLUTION NO. 103 - 97
A RESOLUTION OF ~ CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
ESTABLISHING THAT THE COMPREHENSIVE REVISION
OF THE DUBLIN ZONING ORDINANCE IS EXEMPT FROM THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
WItEREAS, a comprehensive revision of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance has been
prepared; and
WItEREAS, the proposed comprehensive revision of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance is a
revision of an existing Ordinance and would not create more development potential or have
significant environmental effects beyond that of the existing Zoning Ordinance; and
WItEREAS, the revised Ordinance, like the existing Ordinance, provides for the
regulation of land development projects which would themselves be subject to environmental
review; and
WltEREAS, an Initial Study was prepared by the staffofthe City of Dublin Department
of Community Development through a process of in-house office review which examined the
nature and effect of proposed changes to the Zoning Ordinance. The initial study is attached as
Exhibit 1 and is incorporated therein be reference, and
WHEREAS, staff determined that there would be n° impacts to Land Use and Planning,
Population and Housing, Geologic Problems, Water, Air Quality, Transportation/Circulation,
Biological Resources, Energy and Mineral Resources, Hazards, Noise, Public Services, Utilities
and Service Systems, Aesthetics, Cultural Resources, or Recreation; and
WltEREAS, staff determined that the project does not 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; and
WHEREAS, staff determined, that the project does not have the potential to achieve
short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals; and
WItEREAS, staff determined, that the project does not have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable; and
WHEREAS, staff determined, that the project does not have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly; and
WFIEREAS, the Planning Commission at a public heating on July 22, 1997, on the
comprehensive revision of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance also reviewed the draft Initial Study and ·
recommended that this project be found exempt from CEQA under CEQA guidelines
[15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that revising the
Zoning Ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment; and
WHEREAS, at the Planning Commission public hearing on the comprehensive revision of
the Dublin Zoning Ordinance no new information was discovered that would change the results or
conclusions of the Initial Study, and
WltEREAS, the City Council considered the Planning Commission's recommendation to
find the Zoning Ordinance revision exempt from CEQA at a public hearing on August 19, 1997.
NOW TItEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: the City Council of the City of Dublin finds
that the attached Initial Study for the comprehensive revision of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance
demonstrates that this project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that revising the Zoning Ordinance
may have a significant effect on the environment.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 19th day of August, 1997.
AYES:
Councilmembers Barnes, Burton, Howard, Lockhart and Mayor Houston
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
ATTEST:
~.pa9 502Wc2isros
K2/G/resoceqa. doc
Mayor
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
8.
Project title: Comprehensive Revision of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance
Lead agency name and address: CiD' of Dublin, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568
Contact person and phone number:
Project location: Citywide
Project sponsor's name and address:
General plan designation: N/A
Dennis Carrington (510) 833-6610
City of Dublin, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568
7. Zoning: N/A
Description of project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the proje~ and any
secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
Comprehensive revision of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. Revision of the Zoning Ordinance to bring it into conformity with law and
with current planning practice.
10.
Surrounding land uses and setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings) N/A
Other public agencies whose approval is required (eo._~., permits, financina approval, or participation agreement.) None
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a
"Potentially Significant impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
[] Land Use and Planning
[] Population and Housing
[] Geological Problems
[] Water
[] Air Quality
[] Transportation/Circulation
[] Biological Resources
[] Energy and Mineral Resources
[] Hazards
[] Noise
[] MandatoD' Findings of Significance
[] Public Services
[] Utilities and Service Systems
[] Aesthetics
[] Cultural Resources
[] Recreation
ENVIRON1VIENT.~L IMPACTS:
Potentially
Sign~ficam
I'otentittlly
$ignifican~
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Wouidthe proposal:
a) Conflict with genera] plan designation or zoning? (Source ~: 2 )
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by
agencies with jurisdiction over the project? ( 2 )
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? ( 2 )
d) Affect a~icu]tural resources or operations (e.g., impacts to soils or
farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)?
(2)
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established
community (including a low-income or minority, community)?
(2 )
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections?
(2 )
b) Induce substantial,arowth in an area either directly or indirectly (co.=.,
through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)? ( 2 )
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? ( 2 )
HI. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? ( 2 )
b) Seismic ground shaking? ( 2 )
c) Seismic ~ound failure, including liquefaction? ( 2 )
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? ( 2 )
e) Landslides or mudftows?'( 2 )
f) Erosion, changes in topo=m'aphy or unstable soil conditions from
excavation, grading, or fill? ( 2 )
g) Subsidence of land? ( 2 )
h) Expansive soils? ( 2 )
i) Unique geologic or physical features? ( 2 )
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, .drainage patterns, or the rate and mount
of surface runofP. ( 2 )
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as
flooding? ( 2 )
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water
qualiD, (e,g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? ( 2 )
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? ( 2 )
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
Potentially
Significant
tmpac~
]ncorporolcd
[]
'[2
[]
[]
Potentially
Significant
Unlesx
Mitigation
incorporated
]ml~t~ct
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[2.
[]
than
$~gNficam
hnpac!
:\'o Impact
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements?
(2
f) Change in the quanti~, of ground waters, either through direct
additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts
or excavations or through substantial loss of ~oundwater recharge
capability? ( 2 )
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ( 2 )
h) Impacts to ~oundwater quality? ( 2 )
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of~oundwater otherwise
available for public water supplies? ( 2 )
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or
projected air quality, violation? ( 2 )
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( 2 )
c) Alter ak movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in
climate? ( 2 )
d) Create objectionable odors? ( 2 )
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION.
Would the proposal result in:
~ a)
· b)
Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ( 2 )
Hazards to safety from desig-n features (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
(-* )
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? ( 2 )
d) Insufficient parking capacity onsite or offsite? ( 2 )
e) h~?ards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ( 2 )
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation
(e.g., but turnouts, bicycle racks)? ( 2 )
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? ( 2 )
[]
[]
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal result in impacts to:
a)
Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but
not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds? ( 2 )
Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)? ( 2 )
Locally designated natural communities (e.g., oak forest, coastal
habitaL etc.)? ( 2 )
Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and vernal pool)? ( 2 )
Potentially
Significant
lmpact
Potential(v
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
incorporated
Significant
Impact
A'o Impact
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( 2 )
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans ? ( 2 )
b) Use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner?
(2 )
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?
(2 )
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances
(including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)?
(2 )
Possible interference with an emergency response plan or eme~ency
evacuation plan? ( 2 )
The creation of any health hazard or potential health ha?*rds? ( 2 )
Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health h~zards?
(-* )
Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, gr~s, or trees?
(-~ )
X. NOISE. Would the pr°Posal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( 2 )
b) Ex~posure of people to severe noise levels? ( 2
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal result in a need for
new or altered government services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? ( 2 )
b) Police protection? ( 2 )
c) Schools? ( 2 )
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( 2
e) Other government services ( 2 )
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? ( 2 )
b) Communications systems? ( 2 )
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? ( 2
d) sewer or septic ranks? ( 2 )
[] [] []
e) Storm water drainage? ( 2 ) [] []
f) Solid waste disposal? ( 2 ) [] []
g) Local or regional water supplies? ( 2 ) [] []
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or highway? ( 2 )
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetics effect? ( 2
c) Create light or glare? ( 2 )
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? ( 2 )
b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( 2 )
c) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect
unique ethnic cultural values? ( 2 )
d) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact
area? ( 2 )
XV. RECREATION. Would the pr oposah
a)
Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other
recreational facilities? ( 2 )
Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( 2 )
Referenced .information sources utilized for this analysis include the
following:
1)
_~)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
Determinationbased on location of project;
Determinationbased on staff office review;
Determination based on field review;
Determinationbased on the City of Dublin General Plan;
Determination based on the City of Dublin Zoning
Ordinance;
Determination based on the Easter Dublin General Plan
Amendment and Specific Plan Final EIR and Addendum;
Not applicable.
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 ora rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California history or prehistory? [] [] [] 1~I
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) [] [] [] I~
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly? [] [] [] 1~
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
a)
b)
c)
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, progr~ EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been
adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify
the following on attached sheets:
Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately
anal.x~ed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation
measures which are incorporated or ref'med from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific
conditions for the project.
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1)
A brief explanation is required for ail 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 fails
outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as welI as
general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project- specific screening
analysis).
2) 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.
3) "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.
4)
"Negative Declaration: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation
measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less 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 XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced).
5)
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately
ana132ed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)CD). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section XVII at
end of the checklist. ~
6)
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. See the sample question be]ow. A source list should be
attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
7) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different ones.
Sample Question:
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Would the propOSal result in potential impacts involving:
Potentiall3,
Potentially Significam
Significant Unless Lexx ttm~z
Impact 3~itigation SJg~t~can/
Incorporated Impact
Impact
a) Landslides or mudslides? (1,6) [] [] [] []
(Attached source list explains that 1 is the general plan, and 6 is a USGS topo map. This answer would probably not need further
explanation.)
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I fred that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the enVironment because it can be seen with certainty
that there is no possibility that the proposed project may have a significant effect upon the environment (Section 15061 (b)(3), and
that the project is therefore EXEMPT from the California Environmental Quality Act.
[] I fred that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION
will be prepared.
I fred that atthouglh the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect
in this case bemuse the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
[] I fred 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 l ) 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 fred that althoug~h 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.
Printed Name ~'~__b-~,ot~ [__~. ~__~p_._C~_~2_,~,.)~_~.F.c.~ For