HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Reso 10-52 Dublin Security Storage Neg Dec/ZO RESOLUTION NO. 10-52
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNC{L ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO
AMEND THE DUBLIN ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW MINI-STORAGE AS A
PERMITTED USE IN THE M-1 (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL) ZONING DISTRICT AND TO I',
IDENTiFY THE M-1 (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL) ZONIM1IG DISTRICT AS CONSISTENT ~~I
WITH THE BUSINESS PARK/INDUSTRIAL AND OUTDOOR STORAGE j
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AND FOR THE EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING MINt- I~
STORAGE FACILITY L4CATED AT 6005/6015 SCARLETT COURT I
(APN 941-0550-033 AND -034)
PLPA-2010-00005 & PLPA-2Q10-00006 I
~
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 Plan 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 building 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/fndustrial and Outdoor Storage; and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with State
Guidelines and City Environmental Regulations require that certain projects be reviewed for
environmental impacts and that environmentaf docurnents 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 4ctober
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
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, the Staff Report submitted to the Gity 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 Deve{opment Review approval wil{ be contingent upon City Council
approval of the proposed Negative Declaration and Zoning Ordinance Amenciments; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a pub{ic hearing on said application on
November 9, 2010; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said hearing was given in all respects as required by law;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission 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 based on the Staff Report analysis the
Dublin Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council 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 9~' day of November 2010 by the following vote:
AYES: King, Brown, Schaub, Wehrenberg
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN: Swalwell
9
. : ~ `t V~., ~MY~ ~
~
Planr~ing C mmission Chair
ATTEST:
Plan ng anager
G:IPA#120101PLPA-20?0-00006 Dublin Security Storage Rez SDRIPC 11.09.101Att 8 PC Reso Neg Dec Final.doc
2 Of 2
RESOLUTION NO. xx-10
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
ADOPTING 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 ZONING DISTRICTS) TO IDENTIFY 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
8.28.020.6.4 (General Plan Consistency) to identify the M-1 (Light Industrial) Zoning District as
being consistent with the Business Park/Industrial and Outdoor Storage General Plan 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 building to mini-storage uses at Dublin Security Storage (the "ProjecY'); 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 reviewed 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-
EXHIBIT A TO
ATTACHMENT 8
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, 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 BY the City Council of the City of Dublin on this
_ day of 2010, by the following votes:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
G:IPA#120101PLPA-2010-00006 Dublin Security Storage Rez_SDRIPC 11.09.1014tt 8 Draft CC Reso Neg Dec Final.doc
2of2
OF DpB~
i9~ ~az
CITY OF DUBLIN
~`ILIFOR~ 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 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.
Project Location: 6005/6015 Scarlett Court, 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 Plaza, 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 Date
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 Published:
Date Posted:
Date Notice.Mailed:
Considered by:
On:
N.O.D. filed:
Council Resolution Na
Page 1 of 25
l1I ~ 1 ~
19 82
~~LIFO~~~
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
Agricultural 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
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: City of Dublin
Community Development Department
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
3. Contact Person/Phone Number: Marnie R. Waffle, Senior Planner
City of Dublin
Community Development Department
(925) 833-6610
4. Project Location: 6005/6015 Scarlett Court
Citywide, M-1 (Light Industrial) Zoning Districts
Citywide, PD (Planned Development Zoning
Districts with underlying M-1 uses)
5. Project Sponsor's Name/Address: City of Dublin
Community Development Department
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
6. General Plan Designation: 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: Various, Citywide
9. Public Agency Required Approvals: None
_.a_._...._....~,~ . . _ w..._._... _ . ,
Page 4 of 25
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 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 Stora4e 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
Houston 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. 1: 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 (Liqht 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 materials for operation of an industrial or commercial enterprise located
elsewhere. Incidental 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
. _
_ ___......_,..~.~__.p__.~~._.___
Page 5 of 25
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 terminals, 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 an M-1 zoning designation are currently developed
and not anticipated to redevelop in the near future. However, the proposed Zoning Ordinance
amendment would allow for Mini-Storage uses to be established in these areas should
redevelopment occur.
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. The 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.
.a. ...,_...r _ . r....._...~ _
Page 6 of 25
FIGURE 1. DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP
D U B L 1 N G E N E R A L P L A N (Figure 1-lai
~ L A N D U S E M A P as amenOed ihrough January, 2010
- .
\ r
IW~~~ 4M~N IWVYp Mu
. . . " . .
-
r
nbbvs.-ftlww«,lpac. cannwmvu.&avid wd.N" PWm.gAwurms
w0..~w+:y.r..arro~•uyy ~Wrora
~ M~i~ ~r`;~.~„ra..~:r - ~o..y~rr.arpo.ae~yy
~'•+r~„c~,;r, ~s^~+~.,~.ey~.~.a` ~,:,~b,pti^iar.+nP~.u~/~l C~lw...u `r i~-
~ ~rr',-...~'~
- ~t~ ~M+.w+h+ ~~inI~J.Gr.~Yti•r.ir~,.~ aoyq t,:Val.yh„bAetle,a ~~,.-s;. ioi ~
~~i..rw4*+rd ~~y.o.~4rara'rRa~•~VV•q Wt~ prra~Ttii"ste tr~... tsi
'.--••••r-. ~qr,r,.yly,o,w.e.r...+.rwoc» p~y ~~ie`R'n`aucs
4...~++
.p.... '
Page 7 of 25
FIGURE 2. DUBLIN ZONING MAP
W; DUBLIN ZONING MAP 1--~--
af amendeA tAreuqh March li, 2008
~
IMand6 ..j
i
i
~W . INY/&*b1 Ce1nam-Y1 IqAush4I TIPMy RWpp J11rWLUUM BCllftries
4MaAO`e k.I Osftk#~u~ CO _ Or~oMnYM1v M! _ Y.lwsYM ~r~?cp ~
R: _ l~wwt/Artl:V^i^~ C.M - Wy'NU'I.plLbwbnM' ~I.1 _ LyiIfDNYIN
~ ~ala~ bl~lorn
x4 L::3
Gl _ MWCeen. F.) _ IwwyliWnNM
RM _ MJP-~~e11~'11u1NaYM C-l f iu/CawnaiM O i4Y0Ynytim••..
~~fG\ue~IfafAaf _
~?~m~n1~
Page 8 of 25
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 ImpacY' as indicated by the checklist on the
following pages.
- Aesthetics - Agricultural Resources - Air Quality
- Biological Resources - Cultural Resources - Geology/Soils
- Hazards and - Hydrology/Water - Land Use/ Planning
Hazardous Materials Quality
- Mineral Resources - Noise - Population/Housing
- Public Services - Recreation - Transportation/
Circulation
- Utilities/Service - Mandatory Findings of -
S stems Si nificance
. . . _ . _ . ~ . . .
. _ . , . . .V,e__....
Page 9 of 25
1
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, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the
earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, 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.
v(Y1oA,Y~'k l34k-SL 10.01.10
Signature Date
MQYhi-e. 1. V\la-~-~L~ ci+y o~ "Dt,lbliyl
Printed name For
._.4~__. . _:_.:.._..e . . ..r .
Page 10 of 25
ENVIRONMENTALIMPACTS
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.
_ .r.._. __.._r_ . _ ...............M
Page 11 of 25
1
ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Impact with Impact
Miti ation
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic X
vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock X
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its X
surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime X
views in the area?
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
M-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. The 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 significant impact on the visual character and quality of the site and surroundings.
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
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 ground. This will ensure that any new sources of light will not
cause any spillover onto adjacent properties.
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would the project:
Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Impact with Impact
Miti ation
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland),
as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the X
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, X
or a Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or X
nature, could result in conversion of Farmland,
to non-agricultural use?
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:
Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Impact with Impact
Miti ation
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the X
applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air X
quality violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the X
project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality
Page 13 of 25
1
Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact
' Significant Significant Significant
Impact with Impact
Miti ation
standard (including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
X
pollutant concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
X
substantial number of people?
a-c) No Impact. The project will have no impact to air quality. The affected M-1 and PD districts
already 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:
Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Impact with Impact
Miti ation
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, X
or regulations, or by the California 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, X
policies, and regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and
Page 14 of 25
Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Impact with Impact
Miti ation
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 X
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 X
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 X
preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community X
Conservation Plan or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
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 6005/6015
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 preseroation 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:
Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Impact with Impact
Miti ation
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in X
§ 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource X
pursuant to §15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique X
paleontological resource or site or unique
.a.,____ _ . ..._.F..._ .
Page 15 of 25
Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact
' Significant Significant Significant
Impact with Impact
Miti ation
geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those X
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
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 ground
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. Would the project:
Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Impact with Impact
Miti ation
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 X
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including X
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides? X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of X
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- X
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 X
(1994), creating substantial risks to life or
Page 16 of 25
Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Impact with Impact
Miti ation
property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water X
disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of waste water?
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
affected 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 Safety 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 ro'ect:
Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Impact with Impact
Miti ation
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, X
or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable X
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 X
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 X
result, would it create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
Page 17 of 25
Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Impact with Impact
Miti ation
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 X
public use airport, would the project result in a
safety hazard for people residing or working in
the project area?
fl For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project result in a safety X
hazard for people residing or working in the
project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or X
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 X
urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
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 development in the M-1 and
some PD districts; all such development 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 materials 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 ro'ect:
Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Impact with Impact
Miti ation
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste X
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 X
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 X
_ . . . _ . . . ~ _ . . _ . .
Page 18 of 25 •
Y
Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Impact with Impact
Miti ation
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 X
substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding on- or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm X
water drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff?
fl Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard
area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard X
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 X
flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk
of loss, injury or death involving flooding, X
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 X
seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
a-f) 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
1
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:
Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Impact with Impact
Miti ation
a) Physically divide an established community? X
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 X
program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation X
plan or natural community conservation plan?
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:
Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Impact with Impact
Miti ation
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the X
region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-
important mineral resource recovery site X
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan
or other land use plan?
Page 20 of 25
a-b) No Impact. The 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:
Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Impact with Impact
Miti ation
a) Expose persons to or generate noise levels in
excess of standards established in the local X
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 X
levels?
c) Result in a substantial permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above X
levels existing without the project?
d) Result in a substantial temporary or periodic
increase in ambient noise levels in the project X
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 X
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 X
or working in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
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 facitities 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
1
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Impact with Impact
Miti ation
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,
either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (for X
example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of X
replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement X
housing elsewhere?
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/Industrial 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:
Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Impact with Impact
Miti ation
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? X
Police Protection? X
Schools? X
Parks? X
Other Public Facilities? X
. . , . _ _._,w.
Page 22 of 25
a) No Impact. The 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:
Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Impact with Impact
Miti ation
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial X
physical deterioration of the facility would occur
or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of X
recreational facilities which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
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 Fees 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:
Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Impact with Impact
Miti ation
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 X
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 X
coun4y 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 X
change in location that result in substantial
safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous X
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
. „ . _ . _...A . M_. _ . _ _
Page 23 of 25
1
Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Impact with Impact
Miti ation
equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? X
fl Result in inadequate parking capacity? X
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs supporting alternative transportation X
(e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
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 ro'ect:
Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Impact with Impact
Miti ation
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of
the applicable Regional Water Quality Control X
Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new
water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction X
of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new
storm water drainage facilities or expansion of X
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 X
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 X
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 projecYs solid X
waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes
and regulations related to solid waste? X
_.m._, . . . _ n _ .,..n.._.
Page 24 of 25
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.
Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Impact with Impact
Miti ation
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 X
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 X
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 X
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
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.
. _ r.. R.. -...,._wW..
Page 25 of 25
1