HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 171-10 Zone Ord Sec StorageRESOLUTION NO. 171-10
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
*************
ADOPTIIVG A NEGATIVE DECLARATiON TO AMEND ZONING ORDINANCE CHAPTER 8.12
(ZONING DISTRICTS AND PERMITTED USE OF LAND) TO ALLOW MINI-STORAGE AS A
PERMITTED USE IN THE M-1 (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL) ZONING DISTRICT AND CHAPTER 8.28
(INDUSTRIAL ZONtNG DISTR{CTS) TO fDENTiFY THE M-1 (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL) ZONING
DISTRICT AS CONSISTENT WITH THE BUSINESS PARK/INDUSTRIAL AND OUTDOOR
STORAGE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 8,160 SQUARE FOOT MINI-STORAGE BUILDING AND THE
CONVERSION OF 4,650 SQUARE FEET OF AN EXISTING WAREHOUSE BUILDING TO MINI-
STORAGE USES AT
DUBLIN SECURITY STORAGE CITY-WIDE
6005/6015 SCARLETT COURT (APN 941-0550-033 & 941-0550-034)
PLPA 2010-00005 & PLPA-2010-00006
WHEREAS, Glenn Kierstead, property owner and business owner of Dublin Security Storage
located at 6005/6015 Scarlett Court has requested a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to allow Mini-
Storage as a permitted use in the M-1 (Light Industrial) Zoning District; and
WHEREAS, the requested amendments would also have the effect of permitting Mini-Storage
uses in PD (Planned Development) Zoning Districts that allow M-1 (Light Industrial) uses; and
WHEREAS, Staff is also recommending a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Section
8.28.020.B.4 (General Plan Consistency) to identify the M-1 (Light Industrial) Zoning District as being
consistent with the Business Park/Industrial and Outdoor Storage General Plar~ Land Use; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Kierstead has also requested approval of a Site Development Review to
construct a new 8,160 square foot mini-storage building and to convert 4,650 square feet of an
existing warehouse buiiding to mini-storage uses at Dublin Security Storage (the "Project"); and
WHEREAS, the Project is located in an M-1 (Light Industrial) Zoning District and has a
General Plan Land Use designation of Business Park/Industrial and Outdoor Storage; and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with State Guidelines
and City Environmental Regulations require that certain projects be revievired for environmental
impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the CEQA, an Initial Study/Negative Declaration has been prepared
for the Project and was circulated for public review from October 2, 2010 to October 22, 2010; and
WHEREAS, no comments were received on the Negative Declaration during the public review
period; and ~
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted to the City of Dublin Planning Commission on
November 9, 2010 recommending City Council adoption of a Negative Declaration to allow Mini-
Storage as a permitted use in the M-1 (Light Industrial) Zoning District and comparable PD (Planned
Development) Zoning Districts and to identify the M-1 (Light Industrial) Zoning District as consistent
with the Business Park/Industrial and Outdoor Storage General Plan Land Use designation; and
Page 1 of 2
WHEREAS, the Staff Report submitted to the City of Dublin Planning Commission also
recommended approval of a Site Development Review to construct a new 8,160 square foot mini-
storage building and to convert 4,650 square feet of an existing warehouse building to mini-storage
uses at Dublin Security Storage; and
WHEREAS, any Site Development Review approval will be contingent upon City Council
approval of the proposed Negative Declaration and Zoning Ordinance Amendments; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said application on November
9, 2010 and adopted a Resolution recommending City Council adoption of the Negative Declaration;
and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted to the City of Dublin City Council on December 7,
2010 recommending City Council adoption of a Negative Declaration to allow Mini-Storage as a
permitted use in the M-1 (Light Industrial) Zoning District and comparable PD (Planned Development)
Zoning Districts and to identify the M-1 (Light Industrial) Zoning District as consistent with the
Business Park/Industrial and Outdoor Storage General Plan Land Use designation; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and consider the proposed Negative Declaration, all said
reports, recommendations and testimony herein above set forth and used its independent judgment
to evaluate the project.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council does hereby adopt the
Negative Declaration for the Dublin Security. Storage Zoning Ordinance Amendment and Site
Development Review attached as Exhibit A to this Resolution and incorporated herein by reference.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 7th day of December, 2010, by the following votes:
AYES: Councilmembers Biddle, Hart, Hildenbrand, Swalwell, and Mayor Sbranti
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
~.~--' .~~'~~~
Mayor
ATTEST:
, `1
City Clerk
Reso No. 171-10, Adopted 12-7-10, Item 6.1 Page 2 of 2
~'~ ~F DU81~~ lE~t7 ~~~~ .
~ U1
~1~ sz
\ (~~ f~/ CiTY OF DUBLIN
~'~, ~ % NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Title: PLPA-2010-00006 Dublin Security Storage Zoning Ordinance Amendment
. and Site Development Review
Project Description: The project proposes amendments to the Dublin Zoning Ordinance to
identify the M-1 (Light Industrial) Zoning District as consistent with the
Business Park/Industrial and Outdoor Storage General Plan Land Use
and to allow Mini-Storage as a permitted use in the M-1 (Light
Industrial) Zoning District. The pro}ect also includes Site Development
Review for the expansion of Dublin Security Storage, an existing mini-
storage facility. The expansion incfudes the construction of an 8,160.
square foot mini-storage building and the conversion of 4,650 square
. feet of an existing 8,600 square foot building for mini-storage uses.
Dublin Security Storage.is located at 6005/6015 Scarlett Court.
Project Location: 6005/6015 Scarlett Cou-t, M-1 (Light Industrial) Zoning Districts
Citywide and PD (Planned Development) Zoning Districts with
underlying M-1 uses Citywide
Name of Proponent: City of Dublin
- Attn: Marnie R. Waffle, Senior Planner
Community Development Department
100 Civic P{aza, Dublin CA 94568 ~
Determination: I hereby find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on
the environment and therefore a NEGATIVE DECLARATION has been
prepared.
Jeri Ra , AICP, Community Development Director Da'te
Copies of the Initial Study documenting the reasons to support the above finding are available at the City
of Dublin, Community Development Department, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568, or by calling (925)
833-6610.
Date Fublished:
Date Posted:
Date Notice.Mailed:
Considered by:
On:
N.O. D. filed:
Council Resolution No
__~..___._.__ EXHIBIT A TO
Page 1 of 25 ~ H.^4N.~~~y,~~~_,~~~ ~~ ATTACHMENT 9
~~~ ~~
O~ Dlr~ .
~
'/<<
19~
~y ~ ~ v~~~
'~ ~11
,.,,~- -~ 8'~
1
~- 1
,
~ _~~
~
Dublin Security Storage Zoning Ordinance Amendment
and Site Development Review
Initial Study/Negative Declaration
Planning Application PLPA-2010-00006
Lead Agency
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
September 2010
~.
Page 2 of 25 ~ . ~
~~ ~~
~
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Environmental Checklist Form - Initial Study ...........................................................:...... 4
Project Description ...................:...................................................................................... 5
Figure 1: Dublin General Plan Land Use Map ................................................................ 7
Figure 2: Dublin Zoning Map .......................................................................................... 8
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected .................................................................... 9
Environmental Determination ........................................................................................ 10
Environmental Impacts .................................................................................................. 11
Assessment of Environmental Impacts ......................................................................... 12
Aesthetics .....................................:.....................................................................:.... 12
A~gricultural Resources ............................................................................................. 13
Air Quality ~
................................................................................................................ 13
~ Biological Resources ......................:........................................:............................... 14
Cultural Resources ......................................................................:........................... 15
Geology and Soils .....................:.............................................................................. 16
Hazards and Hazardous Materials ........................................................................... 17
Hydrology and Water Quality` ............:..................................................................... 18
Land Use and Planning ........................................................................................... 20
Mineral, Resources .......................:........................................................................... 20
Noise ........................................................................................................................ 21
Population and Housing ............................................................................................ 22
Public Services .....................................:.................................................................. 22
Recreation .....................................................................................:............... 23
.........
Transportation and Traffic .................................:..................................................... 23
Utility and Services Systems ...........:......~.................................................................. 24
Mandatory Findings of Significance .....................:................................................... 25
~
Page 3 of 25 .~'._ _ . r _~_. ~..,w~..~~~_e -.~..T~ .
~ 1~
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM - INITIAL STUDY
~ This Initial Study has been prepared in accord with the provisions of the California Environmental
- Quality Act (CEQA) to assess the potential environmental impact of implementing the proposed
project described below. The Initial Study consists of a completed environmental checklist and a
brief explanation of the environmental topics addressed in the checklist.
1. Project Title:
Dublin Security Storage Zoning Ordinance
Amendments and Site Development Review
2. Lead Agency Name/Address:
3. Contact Person/Phone Number:
4. Project Location:
~.
~" 5. Project Sponsor's Name/Address:
6. General Plan Designation:
City of Dublin
Community Development Department
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Marnie R. Waffle, Senior Planner
City of Dublin
Community Development Department
(925) 833-6610
6005/6015 Scarlett Court
Citywide, M-1 (Light Industrial) Zoning Districts
Citywide, PD (Planned Development Zoning
Districts with underlying M-1 uses)
City of Dublin
Community Development Department
100 Civic Plaza ~
Dublin, CA 94568
Business Park/Industrial & Outdoor Storage
Business Park/Industrial
Industrial Park
7. Zoning:
Citywide, M-1 (Light Industrial) ~
Citywide, .PD (Planned Development with
underlying M-1 uses)
8. Surrounding land uses and setting:
9. Public Agency Required Approvals:
.:
Various, Citywide
None
Page 4 of 25
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
~~9~
The project proposes amendments to the Dublin Zonin Ordinance ~
g to identify the M-1 (Light ,.
Industrial) Zoning District as consistent with the Business Park/Industrial and Outdoor Storage
General Plan Land Use and to allow Mini-Storage as a permitted use in the M-1 (Light Industrial)
Zoning District. The project also includes Site Development Review for the expansion of Dublin
Security Storage, an existing mini-storage facility. The expansion includes the construction of an
8,160 square foot mini-storage building and the conversion of 4,650 square feet of an existing
8,600 square foot building for mini-storage uses. Dublin Security Storage is located at 6005/6015
Scarlett Court.
Business Park/Industrial and Outdoor Storage General Plan Land Use
The Business Park/Industrial and Outdoor Storage Land Use is located within the Primary
Planning Area (see Figure 1). The Dublin General Plan defines Business Park/Industrial and
Outdoor Storage as inclusive of Business Park/Industrial uses which include non-retail businesses
that do not involve heavy trucking or generate nuisances due to emissions, noise or open uses.
Floor area ratios range from .30-.40 and include areas such as Clark Avenue and Sierra Court.
Residential uses are not permitted within the Business Park/Industrial~land use.
In addition to Business Park/Industrial Uses, the Business Park/Industrial and Outdoor Storage
land use allows for retail and manufacturing activities that are conducted outdoors such as mobile
home or construction materials storage and includes areas such as Scarlett Court. Floor area
ratios range from .25-.40. •
According to the General Plan Land Use Map, the Scarlett Court area and the south side of
Houstori Place are designated as Business Park/Industrial and Outdoor Storage; no other areas
of the City currently have this designation. The Scarlett Court area is zoned M-1 (Light Industrial)
and the south side of Houston Place is zoned PD (Planned Development) with underlying C-2
(General Commercial) and M-1 (Light Industrial) uses.
The Dublin Zoning Ordinance identifies consistency between General Plan land uses and zoning
districts. The M-1 zoning district is consistent with the Business Park/Industrial and Industrial
Park land uses. No mention is made of Business Park/Industrial and Outdoor Storage.
Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 9; Amend Chapter 8.28 (Industrial Zoning Districts) to
include Business Park/Industrial and Outdoor Storage as consistent with the M-1 Zoning District
(Section 8.28.020.B.4).
M-1 (Liaht Industrial) Zoninq District
Mini-Storage is currently a permitted use in the C-2 (General Commercial) Zoning District and is.
defined in the Dublin Zoning Ordinance as follows,
The term Mini-Storage shall mean storage or warehousing service within a
building(s) primarily for individuals to store personal effects and by businesses to
store materia/s for operation of an industrial or commercial enterprise located .
elsewhere. Incidenta/ uses in a mini-storage may include the . repair and -
maintenance of materials stored by the tenant but in no case may storage spaces in
~ Page 5 of 25~.~..~~~.._ ~~_~.,~.~~..,_~....~..._~~,.~
. . ~I/ ~ ~~.
~
a Mini-Storage facility function as an independent retail, wholesale, business or
service use. ~
~ Mini-Storage was a permitted use in the M-1 district under the~Alameda County Zoning Ordinance
which the City of Dublin adopted .upon incorporation in 1982. In 1997, the Zoning Ordinance
underwent a wholesale revision and it is presumed that at that time Mini-Storage was eliminated
as a permitted use in the M-1 district.
Two mini-storage facilities were established in the M-1 district prior to the 1997 Zoning Ordinance
revisions and continue to operate today. These mini-storage facilities are located at 6265 Scarlett
Court (U-Haul) and 6005/6015 Scarlett Court (Dublin Security Storage). The Zoning Ordinance is
proposed to be amended to allow Mini-Storage as a permitted use in the M-1 district. This would
allow Dublin Security Storage to expand their existing facility as described above and also has the
potential to allow for the future development of Mini-Storage ~in other M-1 districts throughout the
City. Mini-storage facilities are typically one-story, sometimes two-story, but future development
would be limited by the 45-foot maximum height standard in the M-1 district. Mini-storage
facilities tend to be low-intensity ~ uses with few employees. Large-truck traffic or regular
commercial deliveries would not typically be expected.
Currently, the City of Dublin has three M-1 zoning district areas: Scarlett Court, Sierra Court and
a parcel of land located at 11711 Dublin Blvd. Some PD (Planned Development) zoning districts
may also have an underlying M-1 zoning designation. One such district is located along ~
Dougherty Road and includes Houston Place (See Figure 2). The M-1 district permits a range of
light industrial uses such as research and development labs, trucking te[minals, and warehousing
and distribution. All of the M-1 and PD districts affected by the proposed amendment already
~:. permit light industrial uses. All new uses in the affected districts also require Site Development
` Review and related site-specific environmental review.
All of the aforementioned areas which have
and not anticipated to redevelop in the near
amendment woiald allow for Mini-Storage
redevelopment occu~.
an M-1 zoning designation are currently developed
future. However, the proposed Zoning Ordinance
uses to be established in these areas should
Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2: Amend Chapter 8.12 (Zoning Districts and Permitted
Uses of Land) to add Mini-Storage (Use Type) as a permitted use in the M-1 zoning district
(Section 8.12.050 Commercial Use Types).
Site Development Review
The project also includes the expansion of an existing mini-storage facility. The applicant, Dublin
Security Storage, is proposing to construct an 8,160 square foot mini-storage building and convert
4,650 square feet of an existing 8,600 square foot building for mini-storage use at 6005/6015
Scarlett Court. Tk~e site is located within an M-1 (Light Industrial) Zoning District and has a
General Plan Land Use of Business Park/Industrial and Outdoor Storage. The proposed project
complies with all applicable development standards for the M-1 district, including, height, parking
landscaping, etc. Any Site Development Review approval to expand the existing mini-storage use
is contingent upon approval of the Zoning Ordinance Amendments described above to identify the
~ M-1 zoning district as consistent with the Business Park/Industrial and Outdoor Storage General
= Plan Land Use and to allow mini-storage as a permitted use in the M-1 zoning district.
Page 6 of 25
Di7BLI N GEAiERAL PLAN (Figuset_ta)
~~ L r1 N D U S E Pv] A P as amen~ed shrough lanuary, 2010
It+b~ySar+i~c+~5/Opon SP~ce Cmrmwciay4u3ussid Rasldantlal fivv~tny Aro~ lanits °'^~
- ""
~
~ C.~..dP~rk
~Cv.aCe,wn.vl
M176:l.'i{rl~giulwfl[leipriWG.aF--~-y ~
~~..,r..r.an. M+ ~~~ ~~-^--~
Aa.~j °f9 ~n!' ~
~
~ '
,
~ ~R
~1~iiii7a~en .R'd7/C6u '
-
R~ea.iMa~
. E~Roi.~v1~QD1.6~JySd
t
O
e
2
~
~ 74invy1lvwiyJVtiia~r2ay . ~~.,n
. ~ , , .-~~~
m
1V.~e~S~.adP '..y/...6n.dry wi.srw ~
~ ~"'*`a9 .
.
~Ki~l3aheadCa~v+~.dai • °"`
as
ad~jcJ
il
-
Y~•
lav0.vi~'Rait"ei+~40'4S3ia.~ 1
~
~.~+_
6~;~+' IdDJG' s`..a+..u.~~.~ '•~~~._' •-~
~,-s.~a,..~.~co~+ ~c~~+c aYc~.sa~ '-.;s.~.F.a~~.~a~as.aoa~~ ~1r.~a~ct ~:t.r j=~ ?c=-
~ n~.e~ ~~~ ~San+.a,~.s~~a.~~ca-»nar 7 ~'~awe,.. ,r'~" ~ 'c: F ""~ --
~ /ukLJ~.iI~L'S. ~~laY -A4d,..fJi~;a,r~9RaL~l~ti1-2SOdq~+d Ts"-VaQ~yJucmcUom "'+~••~~ ~ ~~
"~ ~ ::~~
T
~: ~
~ ~ ~°hrlgTsS~'i
~
.~.,~..~a,.~~. - F'~'O.zil` _ _ 'C"SI•~,~Ix1 .
.-w~
. Gqdlirwe+en r,'
`~
~ a~~ ~
:~ ~-~°
~
~~
~ „~::~
-~... :~~~ ..~~~. .
.
o~„ ~ - ~ ;~ _
-
~
~
Page 7 of 25
~3~
~
~
FIGURE 2. DUBLIN ZONING MAP
~ ~U~LIN Zfl~i~1T~ 1VIAP~~.
as smended eBraug~ OE~rt6 18, 200$
~
~:.
~~ .
~.
.='
. .
hherai . Adldtntlal Cvm~l . f.dust+Ud 7ri-Vafley R[yinn J~risdreHan Bonndsies
~ ~ '~"as'w ~1 ~ '~ r+xur A~+ar~nr ca ~ m~:~srma. Xo ~ ,a~ucwr,~~ ~' ' _ I o„~l.r:ara .n.w~...a...
K+ ~ 1~Wm/Aaw'~mem ~ c.W - ~a~myen ~d ~ iqkM~e+?ar .
u ~ ~~ ~ tro -~M1y R.~ntur
#~9 ~y+ty6'lltGellml ~
Gt - RdWCb~ciKfY
~ _ ~'Y~~~ ~ denr
~
~ M9W-f+T~'AMMtl1tlN
~''~ F~TMwei!xA~a!
G] ~ s~.++riLmwn~ ~ O~tlO~Yi~.L~M}efldw
~~ lFdLM~e~ . ~W
Page 8 of 25
~~~~
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental facto : ~
rs 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.
- Aesthetics -. Agricultural Resources - Air Quality
- Biological Resources - Cultural Resources - Geology/Soils
-
,~ Hazards and
Hazardous Materials - Hydrology/Water
Quality . - Lanct Use/ Planning
- Mineral Resources - Noise - Population/Housing
- Public Services
' - Recreation - Transportation/
Circulation
- Utilities/Service
S stems - Mandatory Findings of
Si nificance. -
~
~
•
.____~..o-_...~. ..~.~...8=_.~ .~._~..~..~,a ~.._.__,~P.~. ~,._~ t..~-.~_ ~~e~
Page 9 of 25
~~~ ~~
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
X 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 revisions in the
project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. 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"potentially significant impact" or
"potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one
effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable
legal standards, a.nd 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the
earlier analysis as described on atiached sheefis. An ENVIRONMENTAL INIPACT
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, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier .EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable
standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or
NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required..
lXY1 ~~-~ ~o~.~~.Q.~,
Signature
MQ ~rr~ i~ t~ . W Q-~-~ L~
Printed name
~~
!(~.OI. i0
Date
ci ~-y a~ ~ub1 i ~
For
Page 10 of 25 ~ ~'w~~~~~ ~Q~
~~~ ~~o
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
This assessment of environmental impacts assesses the potential impacts of the Zoning ~
Ordinance Amendments to identify the M-1 (Light Industrial) Zoning District as consistent with the
Business Park/Industrial and Outdoor Storage General Plan Land Use and to allow Mini-Storage
as a permitted use in the M-1 (Light Industrial) Zoning District and the Site Development Review
for the construction of an 8,160 square foot mini-storage building and the conversion of 4,650
square feet of an existing 8,600 square foot building for mini-storage uses, in accordance with the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Sources used to determine potential environmental impacts include the following:
1~ City of Dublin General Plan, adopted February 11, 1985 (updated to January 19, 2010)
2) City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance, adopted September 2, 1997
3) Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy, adopted January 4, 2006.
4) Trip Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 8th Edition.
Copies of all the documents referenced above are available for public review at the City of Dublin
Community Development Department, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568.
''~
~
Page 11 of 25 c~~~~ ~~~_ ~T.~~~:~^
~7~ ~~
ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
•' I. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista? ~
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
- Less Than
Significant
with
Miti ation Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
X
X
X
X
a) Less Than Significant Impact. The project will have a less than significant impact on a scenic
vista. While the Zoning Ordinance Amendments create the potential for future development in the
IVI-1 zoning district, portions of which are located adjacent to Interstate 580 which is a designated
scenic corridor, all of the affected districts are developed sites in developed areas and future
~~~development would be subject to the M-1 district 45-foot height limit. With so few sites affected by
the amendment and with the applicable height limit, any potential effects would be less than
significant: The expansion of the existing mini-storage facility at 6005/6015 Scarlett Court is
adjacent to Interstate 580 but will not obstruct views of scenic vistas. The site is fully developed
and the construction of a new 8,160 square foot mini-storage building will not be readily visible
from any public right-of-way.
b) No Impact. Ttie project will have no impact to scenic resources. The affected sites are all
developed and the General Plan identifies no sensitive resources on the sites. The expansion of
the existing mini-storage facility at 6005/6015 Scarlett Court is located on a fully developed site
where no scenic resources are present. ~
c) Less Than Significant Impact. The project will have a less than significant impact on. the
visual character and quality of the site and surroundings. While the Zoning Ordinance
Amendments create the potential for future development of mini-storage facilities in the M-1 zoning
district, all of the affected sites are already developed, located in developed areas and already
permit other light industrial uses. Compliance with applicable development standards, such as
setbacks, building height and landscaping will be evaluated through future Site Development
Review and related project-specific environmental review to ensure that any future development of
mini-storage facilities will be attractive and compatible with surrounding uses. The expansion of
the existing mini-storage facility at 6005/6015 Scarlett Court will include the construction of a new
8,160 square foot building that complies with all applicable M-1 development standards and will
.: have ~a less than signifcant impact on the visual character and quality of the site and surroundings.
~J~~ The building will be designed with colors and materials that are consistent with other buildings on
the site and will be centrally located on the site and not readily visible from surrounding properties.
Page 12 of 25
~~~ I ~
d) Less Than Significant Impact. The project will not create a significant new source of light or
glare as M-1 sites in the City are developed and already subject to urban level light and glare.
Future development of mini-storage uses in the M-1 zoning district will require project-specific .~
environmental review; however, impacts are not anticipated as no special high-intensity lighting is
required beyond current security lighting regulations and the storage buildings usually do not have
windows and thus would not be a source of increased nighttime light and glare. The expansion of
the existing mini-storage facility at 6005/6015 Scarlett Court will include exterior wall mounted
lighting in accordance with the City of Dublin Non-Residential Security Ordinance and will be glare
shielded and oriented towards the grountl. This will ensure that any new sources of light will not
cause any spillover onto adjacent properties.
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland),
as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,
or a Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of Farmland,
to non-agricultural use?
Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Impact . with Impact ~
Miti ation
X
X
~X
a-c) No Impact. The project will have no impact to agricultural resources. There is no farmland,
agricultural uses or Williamson Act contracts within any of the M-1 zoning districts. All properties
within the M-1 district are fully developed with non-agricultural uses and do not contain any
farmland. Surrounding sites are also largely developed with a variety of uses none of which are
agricultural or contain farmland. ~
III. AIR QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality
Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Impact with Impact
Miti ation
X
X
X
~
.
Page 13 of 25 ~~T~~_~~~~~ ~~ ~~~~~
~~ ~ b
9
•
standard (including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)? .
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
substanfial number of people? ~
Potentially
Significant
Impact Less Than
Significant
with
Miti ation Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
X
X
a-c) No Impact. The project will have no impact to air quality. The affected M-1 and PD districts
alreatly allow development. The Zoning Ordinance Amendments create the potential for future
mini-storage development in those districts. The facilities are low intensity uses with low traffic
generation and little or no pollutant emissions from the facilities • themselves. All future
development of mini-storage uses in the M-1 and PD districts will require Site Development
Review and related project-specific environmental review. The expansion of mini-storage uses at
6005/6015 Scarlett Court is consistent with the Dublin General Plan Land Use of Business
Park/Industrial and Outdoor Storage and the adopted Floor Area Ratios for this land use. The
expansion will generate significantly less vehicular trips (2.50 daily trips per 1,000 square feet of
gross floor area) than if the site were developed with light industrial uses (6.97 daily trips per
1,000 square feet of gross floor area).
d-e) No Impact. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District defines sensitive receptors as
.. facilities where sensitive receptor population groups (children, the elderly, the acutely ill and the
chronically ill) are likely to be located. These land uses includes residences, schools,
playgrounds, child care centers, hospitals and medical clinics; none of these sensitive uses are on
or adjacent to the affected sites. Mini-storage facilities would not create objectionable odors.
This project involves the expansion of an existing mini-storage facility in a light industrial zoning
district where there are no sensitive receptor population groups nor would the project create
objectionable odors.
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly
or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special
~ status species in local or regional plans, policies,
or regulations, or by the Galifornia Department of
Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife ~
Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
• community identified in local or regional plans,
~ policies, and regulations or.by the California
Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and
Potentially
Significant
Impact Less Than
Significant
with
Miti ation Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
~
X
X
Page 14 of 25
go ~~
~
Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited
to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through
direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption,
or other means? ~
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
fl Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Communi~ty
Conservation Plan or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Potentially
Significant
Impact Less Than
Significant
with
Miti ation Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
~
~
X
X
X
X
~
a-d) No Impact. The project will have no impact to biological resources. The Zoning Ordinance •
Amendments create the potential for future development of mini-storage facilities in the M-1
district but do not approve any specific development. All future development of mini-storage uses
in the M-1 and PD districts will require Site Development Review and related project-specific
environmental review; however, no impacts would be anticipated as no sensitive biological
resources currently exist on the affected sites. The expansion of mini-storage uses at 6005/601.5
Scarlett Court will occur on a fully developed site within a light industrial zoning district where no
wildlife species, wetlands or other biological resources exist.
e-fl No Impact. The project is consistent with the Dublin General Plan and other adopted policies
related to preservation and protection of biological resources. The City has no adopted habitat
conservation plans. There are no protected trees present within the project site.
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in
§ 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.~?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Impact with Impact
Miti ation
X
X
X
~
Page 15 of 25
~l ~~
~~
.
~.
geologic feature? ~
d) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Impact with Impact
Miti ation
X
a-d) No Impact. The project will have no impact to cultural resources: The Zoning Ordinance
Amendments create the potential for future development of mini-storage facilities in the M-1 and
some PD districts. The affected sites are developed and have already been subject to grourid
disturbance. All future development of mini-storage uses in the M-1 and PD districts will require
Site Development Review and related project-specific environmental review. Public Works
standard conditions of approval include procedures to be followed if unexpected cultural
resources are discovered during excavation. Under these circumstances, no cultural resources
impacts will occur. The expansion of mini-storage uses at 6005/6015 Scarlett Court will occur on
a fully developed site that has no historic structures and no known archaeological or
paleontological resources. The project will comply with the Conservation Element of the Dublin
General Plan and Dublin Zoning Ordinance Chapter 8.48 (Archaeological Resources
Regulations).
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. 1~Vould the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects; including the risk of
loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
Potentially
Significant
Impact Less Than
Significant
with
Miti ation Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
X
X
. X
X
X
X
X
ii) Strong. seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a'
result of the projecf, and potentially result in on-
or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
~ .subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
.: d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
~~ Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial risks to life or
Page 16 of 25
~~ ~~
property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water
disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of waste water?
Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Impact with Impact
Miti ation
X
a-d) Less Than . Significant Impact. The project will have a less than significant impact on
geology and soils. The Zoning Ordinance Amendments will allow for the future development of
mini-storage uses within the M-1 (Light Industrial) Zoning District and some PD districts in a
region that is susceptible to rupture of earthquake faults, seismic ground shaking, seismic related
ground failure and landslides. The Seismic Safety Element of the Dublin General Plan addresses
impacts related to ground shaking, ground rupture, and soil based hazards. One of the guiding
policies of this Element states that, "geologic hazards shall be mitigated or development shall be
located away from geological hazards in order to preserve life, and protect property". All of the
affectetl sites are developed and located in developed areas. None are located in an Earthquake
Fault Zone (formerly Alquist Priolo Zone) and all construction would be subject to state building
codes. Adherence to the Seismic Safeiy Element will result in a less than significant impact. The
expansion of mini-storage uses at 6005/6015 Scarlett Court will" adhere to the Seismic Safety
Element of the Dublin General Plan resulting in a less than significant impact. All project
construction will adhere to the Building Codes in effect at the time of permit issuance including
seismic safety resulting in a less than significant impact. ~
e) No Impact. The project is served by public sewer and water therefore the use of septic
systems or alternative wastewater disposal systems will not be utilized.
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the proiect:
a) Create a significant. hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset/accident conditions involving the release
of hazardous materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would it create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
Page 17 of 25
Potentially
Significant
Impact Less Than
Significant
with
Miti ation Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
X
X
X
X
•
~
.
g3 ~ b
9
. :
e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project result in a
safety hazard for people residing or working in
the project area?
~ For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the
project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk
of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
Potentially
Significant
Impact Less Than
Significant
with
Miti ation Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
X
X
X
X
a-h) No Impact. The project will have no impact related to hazards or hazardous materials as
these materials or substances would not typically be used in a mini-storage facility. The Zoning
... Ordinance Amendments create the potential.for future mini-storage develapment in the M-1 and
some PD districts; all such developmenf would be subject to existing height regulations and M-1
performance standards limiting explosive materials, contaminants and other hazards. Given the
nature of the mini-storage use and compliance with existing regulations, the amendments would
not create hazards or hazardous i~naterials impacts. The expansion ~mini-storage uses at
. ~ 6005/6015 Scarlett Court is not within an airport land use plan or in the vicinity of a private airstrip.
The site is not located near any wildlands and therefore will not interfere with any emergency
evacuation plans and will not create any risk of wildland fires.
VII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interFere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that,there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local groundwater
table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-
existing nearby wells would drop to a level which
would not support existing land uses or planned
~~ uses for which permits have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern
Page 18 of 25
Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Impact with Impact
Miti ation
X
X
X
~~~~
of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a
manner which would result in substantial erosion
~ or siltation on- or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern
of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flc~oding on- or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm
water drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff?
fl Otherwise substantially. degrade water quality?
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard
area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard
Boundary. or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other
flood hazard delineation map? ~
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area
structures which would impede or redirect flood
flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk
of loss, injury or death involving flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure of a
levee or dam? ~
j)_ Expose people or structures to a significant risk
of loss, injury or death involving inundation by
seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
Poter•.~i :Ily
Signifiicant
Impact Less Thari
Significant
with
Miti ation Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
~
~
~
a-fl Less Than Significant Impact. The project will- have a less than significant impact on
hydrology and water quality. The Zoning Ordinance Amendments create the potential for future
mini-storage development in the M-1 and some PD districts; the affected sites are developed, in
developed areas with existing public water and storm drainage facilities. Mini-storage facilities are
not high demand water users and any future development would be subject to Public Works
standards for drainage. The affected sites are relatively flat so any future development would not
be expected to create soil erosion. Future re-development on existing developed sites would not ~
be expected to increase runoff. Like any future mini-storage development, the expansion of mini-
storage uses at 6005/6015 Scarlett Court will conform to Alameda County Flood Control and
Water Quality District, Zone 7 requirements and will meet the water quality standards of the City
of Dublin's NPDES permit and the Alameda County Urban Runoff Clean Water program.
Additionally; a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be required, listing Best
Management Practices which reduce the potential for water quality degradation during •
construction and post construction activities.
Page 19 of 25 ~~~~ ~ ~~~~
~s~ ~~
g) No Impact. The project is limited to allowing Mini-Storage as a permitted use in the M-1 (Light
Industrial) Zoning District and PD districts allowing M-1 uses, and allowing the expansion of an
existing mini-storage facility. Housing is not permitted in the M-1 district. •
..: ~ .
h) Less Than Significant Impact. Based on Federal Emergency Management.Agency (FEMA)
Flood Insurance Rate Maps portions of the M-1 district are located within a designated 100-year
flood hazard area and would be subject to building code requirements to raise the ~sites abaove
flood levels. The expansion of mini-storage uses at 6005/6015 Scarlett Court will conform to all
local building codes including raising the finish floor by 1-foot above flood level.
i j) No Impact. ~ Compliance with building codes will ensure no flooding impacts. There are no
large bodies of water on or near the affected sites that would cause seiche hazards; all of the
sites are inland and. relatively flat and would not be affected by tsunami or mudflow.
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established comr~-iunity?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy,
or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over
the project (including, but not limited to the
general plan, specific plan, local coastal
program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an -
environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
plan or natural community conservation plan?
Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant .
Impact with fmpact "
Miti ation
X
~
X
X
a-c) No Impact. The project will have no impact to land use and planning. The Zoning .
Ordinance Amendments will allow for the establishment of mini-storage uses in the. M-1 district
where mini-storage has historically been a permitted use and in some PD districts. The
ame.ndments are consistent with General Plan land use designations and industrial development
policies. The City has no adopted habitat conservation plans. The expansion of mini-storage
uses at 6005/6015 Scarlett Court will occur on a site where mini-storage was established as a
permitted use and has operated with no adverse impacts to land use or planning.
X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-
important mineral resource recovery site
- delineated on a local general plan, specific plan
or other land use plan?
Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Impact with ~ Impact ~
Miti ation
X
X
~ Page 20 of 25 ~. ~ T~~~
~~ ~ ~~
a-p~ No impact. ~ ne project will have no impact to mineral resources as there are no mineral
resource sites in the City. The expansion of mini-storage uses at 6005/6015 Scarlett Court will
occur on a developed site and the construction of the new building will be located within a paved ~
area currently utilized for vehicle storage:
XI. NOISE. Would the project:
a) Expose persons to or generate noise levels in
excess of standards established in the local
general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
b) Expose persons to or generate excessive
ground borne vibration or ground borne noise
levels?
c) Result in a substantial permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
d) Result in a substantial temporary or periodic
increase in ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use
- plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels? ~
fl For a project within the vicinity of a private.
airstrip, would the project expose people residing
or working in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
Potentially
Significant
Impact Less Than
Significant
with
Miti ation Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
a-fl No Impact. The project will not expose persons to noise levels in excess of noise standards
adopted in the Noise Element of the Dublin Genera Plan or create excessive noise levels. The
Zoning Ordinance Amendments will not result in an increase in ambient noise levels and will not
impact any property located within an airport land use plan or near a private airstrip. The Zoning
Ordinance Amendments create the potential for future development of mini-storage facifities in
the M-1 and some PD districts but such uses are typically low intensity and do not involve high
construction, traffic, operational or other noise generation. Any future mini-storage development
would also be subject to the City's noise standards. The expansion of mini-storage uses will not
expose persons to noise levels in excess of noise standards adopted in the Noise Element of the
Dublin Genera Plan or create excessive noise levels. Noise related to construction of the new
building will be negligible and temporary. The project site is not located within an airport land use
plan or near a private airstrip.
~
.
Page 21 of 25
~~~~ ~
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
.':
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,
either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
c) ~isplace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere? ~
Potentially Less Than Less. Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant ,
Impact with Impact
Miti ation
X
X
X
a-c) No Impact. The project will have no impacts to population or housing. The Zoning Ordinance
Amendments are limited to identifying the M-1 (Light Industrial) Zoning District as consistent with
the Business Park/Industrial and Outdoor Storage General Plan Land Use and allowing Mini-
Storage as a permitted use in the M-1 (Light Industrial) Zoning District. Residential uses are not
permitted in the Business Park/Industrial and Outdoor Storage land use and none are currently
located within the areas designated for Business Park/lndustrial and Outdoor Storage. While the
Zoning Ordinance Amendments create the potential for future development of mini-storage
facilities in the M-1 district, all of the sites are already designated for development and served by
~ public utilities and services. As such, the amendments would not induce growth in areas not
~ planned for development. The expansion of mini-storage uses at 6005/6015 Scarlett Court will
~ not induce substantial population growth or displace existing housing or people. The project site
is developed with existing mini-storage uses..
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project:
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the. provision of
new or physically altered governmental facilities,
need for new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response
times or other performance objectives for any of
the public services:
Fire Protection?
Police Protection?
Schools?
~ Parks? .
- Other Public Facilities?
Potentially
Significant
, Impact Less Than
Significant
with
Miti ation Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
X
X
X
X
X
Page 22 of 25 mT~~~ ~i~+~
g~' ~ ~°0
a) No Impact. Tfie project will have no impacts to public services. The affected sites are in urban
developed areas currently served by public services and utilities. New development of mini-
storage facilities pursuant to the amendments would be subject to payment of the City's Public ~
Facilities Fees, as applicable. The expansion of mini-storage uses at 3005/6015 Scarlett Court
will not result in substantial adverse physical impacts to fire protection, police protection, schools,
parks or any.other public facility. ~
XIV. RECREATION. Would the project:
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would occur
or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
Potentially
Significant
Impact Less Than
Significant
with
Miti ation Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impacf
X
X
a-b) No Impact. The project will have no impacts to recreation. The affected sites are planned
for development in the General Plan and future development would be subject to applicable
Public Facilities Eees for the provision of parks and recreational facilities. The expansion of mini-
storage uses at 6005/6015 Scarlett Court will not increase the use of existing parks or recreational ~
facilities or require the construction of additional recreational facilities.
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial
in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity
of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial
increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the
volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion
at intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a
level of service standard established by the
county congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,
~including either an increase in traffic levels or a
change in location that result in substantial
safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
Potentially
Significant
Impact Less Than
Significant
with
Miti ation Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
X
X
X
X
~:
Page 23 of 25 ~ 'T~ .~"_ _ .,,._..4T__. ~-.~~.,,
~~b~ ~
.
equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
fl Result in inadequate parking capacity?
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs supporting alternative transportation
(e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
Potentiaily
Significant
Impact Less Than
Signifcant
with
Miti ation Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
X
X
X
a-g) No Impact. The project will have no impacts to transportation or traffic. All of the affected
sites are currently planned for. light industrial uses that would have been assumed in the City's
transportation planning and subject to Traffic Impact Fees, as appropriate. Like future mini-
storage development, the expansion of mini-storage uses at 6005/6015 Scarlett Court is
negligible, generating significantly less vehicular trips (2.50 daily trips per 1,000 square feet of
gross floor area) than if the site were developed with light industrial uses (6.97 daily trips per
1,000 square feet of gross floor area).
VI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of
the applicable Regional Water Quality Control
Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new
water or wastewater treatment facilities or~
expansion of existing facilities, the constrt~ction
of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new
storm water drainage facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve
the project from existing entitlements and
resources, or are new or expanded entitlements
needed? ~
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater
~ treatment provider which serves or may serve
the project that it has adequate capacity to serve
the project's projected demand in addition to the
provider's existing commitments?
fl Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project's solid
i; waste disposal needs?
~ g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes
and regulations related to solid waste?
Page 24 of 25
Poieniially
Significant
Impact
. Less Than
Significant
with
Miti ation Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
~~
~ ~
a-g) No Impact. The project will have no impact to utilities or service systems. The affected sites
are already planned for development and receive public water and sewer service from the Dublin ~
San Ramon Services District. Mini-storage facilities are low intensity uses with minimal water `:.,;
demand and wastewater generation; future development of such uses would not be anticipated to
cause water demand or wastewater generation beyond that projected in utility planning. New
development of mini-storage facilities would be subject to Public Facilities Fees, as applicable.
The expansion of mini-storage uses at 6005/6015 Scarlett Court will not adversely affect water
supplies, wastewater treatment capacity or landfill capacity and will comply with all regulations
related to solid waste.
XVII. 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?
b) 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)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings; either directly or indirectly?
Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Impact with Impact
Miti ation
X
X
X
a) No Impact. The preceding analysis indicates that the proposed project will not have a
significant adverse impact on biological, cultural or historical resources.
~
b) No Impact. All of the affected sites are already planned for urban level development of light
industrial uses. The amendments affect relatively few sites in Dublin, and with low intensity of
mini-storage uses, are not expected to result ~in cumulatively considerable impacts. The
preceding analysis indicates that the proposed project at 6005/6015 Scarlett Court will not have a
significant adverse impact, individually or cumulatively.
c) No Impact. Based on the preceding Initial Study, no substantial adverse effects to human ~
beings, either directly or indirectly have been identified. ~
Page 25 of 25 ~~~~~~~~ -~+~~~9N.~y~.~