Document elcerrito_gov_doc_c5541258bc

Exhibit 1 Attachment B 1 FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FOR THE SAN PABLO SPECIFIC PLAN (Public Resources Code, section 21000 et. seq.) I. INTRODUCTION The Specific Plan ("project") represents a collaborative planning effort between the cities of El Cerrito and Richmond to identify a shared vision for the future of San Pablo Avenue, identify improvement needs, and adopt implementing regulations that can be applied consistently in the Plan area. A major goal of the planning effort is to achieve a coordinated, cohesive environment and character in the Plan area through a Form-Based Code (FBC); multi-modal transportation goals and policies, recommended streetscape design improvements, and design standards as part of the Complete Streets Plan; and infrastructure improvements. The Specific Plan: 1. Form-Based Code The Specific Plan Form-Based Code (FBC) supports the community vision of a vibrant, walkable, sustainable, and transit-oriented corridor that respects surrounding neighborhoods. As discussed in chapter 3 (Project Description) of this EIR, the FBC is organized by Transect Zones within a framework of Downtown, Midtown, and Uptown areas. The Transect Zones regulate the building heights, parking requirements, and land uses for new development in the El Cerrito portion of the Plan area. The zones are defined primarily by walking distance to the BART stations. 2. Complete Streets Plan The Complete Streets Plan provides direction for the redesign and development of the street right- of-way (ROW) in the Plan area, such as travel lanes, intersections, bike lanes, cycletracks, crosswalks, and medians. The Plan also provides guidance for the pedestrian realm of the ROW. The Complete Streets Plan aims to create a streetscape environment that balances the needs of all users and encourages “mode shift” to increase the percentage of pedestrians, cyclists, and transit users. ---PAGE BREAK--- Exhibit 1 Attachment B 2 3. Infrastructure Systems The Specific Plan (especially the Infrastructure Systems chapter) includes infrastructure goals and policies, and recommends feasible improvements to infrastructure systems to support the Plan objectives. The systems evaluated in the plan include water, wastewater, storm drainage, and dry utilities gas, electric, cable). Development Capacity Assumptions The Plan area development capacity assumptions used for the impact analyses in this program EIR are first based on projections provided by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) for the Plan area, then on entitled and planned projects in the City of El Cerrito and the City of Richmond, and projections for the construction of projects consistent with the Form-Based Code development standards. For the purpose of this EIR, ABAG Plan Bay Area growth projections were applied to the new development standards, including on-site parking, site layout and height parameters, to assume a realistic growth projection for the Specific Plan area. These design standards were developed to be consistent with the goals of Plan Bay Area: climate protection, adequate housing, healthy and safe communities, open space and agricultural preservation, equitable access, economic vitality, and transportation system effectiveness, but incorporate locally refined data more telling of the development feasibility of the Specific Plan than would be possible on a regional planning level (also see EIR chapter 14, Population and Housing). No site-specific, individual development proposals would be approved as part of the Specific Plan EIR certification process; any such individual project would be subject to its own CEQA review, including evaluation against the Specific Plan EIR. The Specific Plan requires the following approvals: Implementation of the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan for the parcels within the City of El Cerrito’s jurisdiction would require, but not be limited to, the following discretionary approvals:  Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report  Adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program  Adoption of the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan for the parcels within the City of El Cerrito; adoption of the Richmond Livable Corridors Form-Based Code development standards for the parcels within the City of Richmond, and amendment to the Richmond Livable Corridors Regulating Plan to add the areas within the Specific Plan  Adoption of General Plan amendments and zoning changes as necessary to ensure consistency between the Specific Plan and each jurisdiction’s respective General Plan and zoning code  Discretionary review as necessary, including CEQA review, for future individual public and private development proposals in the Plan area ---PAGE BREAK--- Exhibit 1 Attachment B 3 II. PROJECT OBJECTIVES The City Council has determined that the Project has been designed to meet the following objectives: Goal A: Strengthen Sense of Place. Strategy 1: Articulate the distinctive role and identity of each focus area: Downtown, Midtown, and Uptown. Strategy 2: Reinforce a distinguishing sense of place by responding to existing assets such as the Ohlone Greenway and key views. Strategy 3: Optimize placemaking in all developments. Strategy 4: Attract pedestrian activity to key nodes to foster community and identify places of Interest Goal B: Ensure Return on Investment. Strategy 1: Maximize TOD (transit-oriented development) potential (BART and AC Transit). Strategy 2: Stimulate investment in vacant/underutilized sites at key focus areas. Strategy 3: Build on recent and planned private and public investments. Strategy 4: Leverage all investments to catalyze new investments. Strategy 5: Help the City achieve long-term financial sustainability. Goal C: Encourage Practical and Market Friendly Development. Strategy 1: Provide development clarity to encourage investment. Strategy 2: Incorporate flexible development codes that respond to constrained parcels, surrounding context, and the market. Strategy 3: Allow ground floor residential development to provide flexibility and expand the Specific Plan area’s residential base. Goal D: Enhance and Humanize the Public Realm. Strategy 1: Design streets for living instead of just driving through reStreet placemaking principles. Strategy 2: Make large blocks human-scale through midblock connections. Strategy 3: Create new gathering places to serve the needs of existing and new users. Strategy 4: Promote environmental sustainability. Strategy 5: Celebrate and strengthen the unique natural context. Goal E: Catalyze Mode Shift. Strategy 1: Promote infill development through increased land use intensity close to existing transit infrastructure. Strategy 2: Reduce parking requirements to encourage transit use, reduce reliance on the private automobile, and allow valuable land to be utilized for more intense and active uses. Strategy 3: Strengthen pedestrian and bicycle connectivity through existing and new connections and infrastructure. Strategy 4: Improve connectivity between the Green Belt (Wildcat Canyon Trail) and the Blue Belt (Bay Trail) through pedestrian and bicycle connections. ---PAGE BREAK--- Exhibit 1 Attachment B 4 Specific Plan Guiding Principles  strengthen a sense of place;  ensure return on investment;  encourage practical and market friendly development;  enhance and humanize the public realm; and  catalyze mode shift. III. GENERAL FINDINGS AND OVERVIEW A. Procedural Background Calif o rnia E n vi r on m en t a l Q u a l i ty Act ( “ CEQA ” ) G u id e l in e s re q u i r e p re pa rat i o n o f a n EIR w he n a le a d a g en cy de t e r m i ne s t h a t t he re is e v id en ce t ha t a p l a n o r p roject ma y ha v e a si g n i f ica n t e f fe ct on the environment . T h e City de cid e d to p r e pa re a n EIR f o r t h e S pe c i f ic Plan pu rsu a n t to st a te an d lo c a l g u i d e l i ne s f o r i m p l e me n ti n g CEQA. T h e C i ty e lec t e d n o t to p re p a re a n I n iti a l S t ud y Ch e c kl i st in f a v o r o f p r e pa r ing a p ro g ra m - le v e l EIR a s p e r m it t e d i n S e cti o n 1 50 6 0 o f the CEQA Guidelines. On April 4, 2014 t h e C i ty ci r c u la te d a No t ice o f Pre p a r a ti o n ( “ N O P f o r 3 0 c a le n d a r da y s to he lp id en t i f y t h e t y p e o f i mpa c ts t h a t c ou ld re s u lt f r o m t h e S pe c i f ic Pla n , a s w e ll a s po t en t ial a re a s o f c on tro v e rs y . T h e NOP w a s ma i l e d to pub l i c a g en cies ( i n clu d ing th e S t a te C l ea r i n g hou s e o r g an i z a ti on s, a n d i nd i v id ua ls l i k e ly t o b e i n t e res t e d in t h e S pe c i f ic Pl a n a n d its po t en ti a l i mpa c ts, incl ud ing t ho s e w h o re q ue st e d to rec e i v e no tic e s o n t h e Pl a n . I n add iti o n , t h e NOP w a s po st e d o n t h e C i t y ’s w eb sit e . A pub l i c sc op ing m e e ti n g w a s he ld o n April 10 , 2014 . C o m m en ts re c e i v e d b y t h e C i ty o n t h e NOP an d a t t h e p ub l i c sc op ing m ee ti n g w e re c on sid e red during preparation of the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR was made available for public and agency review on June 3, 2014. Copies of the Notice of Availability (“NOA”) of the Draft EIR were mailed to public agencies (including the State Clearinghouse (SCH #[PHONE REDACTED])), organizations, and individuals likely to be interested in the Specific Plan and its potential impacts, including those who requested to receive notices about the Plan. In addition, copies of the Draft EIR were distributed to public agencies (including the State Clearinghouse). Copies of the Draft EIR were made available at the Community Development Department, at the El Cerrito Library, and on the City’s website. A public comment session on the Draft EIR was held before the Planning Commission on July 9, 2014. The CEQA-mandated 45-day public comment period for the Draft EIR ended on July 21, 2014. All comments on the Draft EIR concerning environmental issues received during the public comment period were evaluated and responded to in writing by the City as the Lead Agency in accordance with Section 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines. The comments on the Draft EIR, changes to the Draft EIR, and the written responses were incorporated into a Final EIR that was published on August 28, 2014. Copies of the Final EIR were made available at the Community Development Department, on the City’s website, and at the El Cerrito Library. ---PAGE BREAK--- Exhibit 1 Attachment B 5 A duly and properly noticed public hearing was scheduled before the Planning Commission of the City of El Cerrito on September 4, 2014, and all persons interested and expressing a desire to comment were heard. The Planning Commission, having fully reviewed, considered and evaluated all the testimony and evidence submitted, voted affirmatively to recommend to the City Council to find that the Final EIR was prepared in compliance with CEQA and to recommend that findings be made as required by CEQA. A du ly an d p ro p e r l y no tic e d p ub l i c h ea r i n g w a s sc he d u led b e f o re t h e City C o un cil o f t h e C i ty o f El Cerrito o n September 22, 2014 , a n d a ll p e rso n s i n t e rest e d a n d e x p ressing a de si r e to c om me n t were heard. B. Record of Proceedings and Custodian of Record For purposes of CEQA and these Findings, the record of proceedings consists of the following documents and testimony: The NOP, comments received on the NOP or at the scoping meeting, and all other public notices issued by the City in conjunction with the Plan; The Draft San Pablo Specific Plan released for public review on June 3, 2014 and the revised Draft San Pablo Specific Plan released on August 28, 2014; The Draft EIR for the Project (June 3, 2014), appendices to the EIR, and technical materials cited in the document; All comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the public comment period on the Draft EIR; The Final EIR for the Plan, including comments received on the Draft EIR, responses to those comments, text revisions to the Draft EIR, the technical appendices, and technical materials cited in the document, as well as all comments and staff responses entered into the record orally or in writing between June 3, 2014 and July 21, 2014; The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Plan; All reports, studies, memoranda, maps, staff reports, or other planning documents related to the Plan prepared by the City, or consultants to the City with respect to the City’s compliance with the requirements of CEQA and with respect to the City’s action on the Plan; All do c u m e n ts s ub m it t e d t o t h e City (inclu d i n g th e P l a nn ing C o mm i ssion a n d City Co un ci l ) by o t he r pub l i c a g en cies o r m em be r s o f t h e pub l i c in c o n n e cti o n w ith th e EIR , up through the close of the public hearing on September 22, 2014; Any minutes and/or verbatim transcripts of all information sessions, public meetings, and public hearings held by the City in connection with the EIR; ---PAGE BREAK--- Exhibit 1 Attachment B 6 All matters of common knowledge to the Commission and Council, including, but not limited to: The El Cerrito General Plan and other applicable policies; (ii) The El Cerrito Zoning Ordinance and other applicable ordinances; (iii) Information regarding the City’s fiscal status; and (iv)Applicable City policies and regulations; and Any other materials required for the record of proceedings by Public Resources Code Section 21167.6(e). The documents described above comprising the record of proceedings are located in the Community Development Department, City of El Cerrito, 10890 San Pablo Avenue, El Cerrito, CA 9453. The custodian of these documents is the Community Development Director or his/her designee. C. Findings Are Determinative T h e se C i ty o f El Cerrito f in d i n g s re q u i re d u n de r C EQA f o r t h e S pe c i f ic Pl a n ( “ Fin d in g s ” ) a re t h e C i t y ’s f in d in g s un d e r CEQA (P ub . Res ou rces C ode , § 21 0 0 0 e t s e q an d CE Q A G u i d e l i ne s ( C a l. Co d e o f Re g u l a ti on s, T itle 1 4 , § 1 50 0 0 e t s e q rela t ing to t h e Pl a n . The Fin d i n g s p ro v ide t h e w r i t te n ana l y sis an d c on clus i on s o f t h e Co u n cil r e g a rding t h e Pla n ’s en v i r onmen t a l i m p a cts, m iti g a ti o n me a s u res an d p roje c t a lt e rn a ti v e s t ha t, in t h e C o un ci l ’s v ie w , jus t i f y a p p ro v a l o f t h e P la n . All m iti g a ti o n mea s u res l i st e d be l o w in t h is Fin d i n g s do c u me n t a re i n clu d e d in a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”). In certifying the Final EIR, the City Council recognizes that there may be differences in and among the different sources of information and opinions offered in the document and testimony that make up the EIR and the administrative record; that experts disagree; and that the City Council must base its decision and these findings on the substantial evidence in the record that it finds most compelling. Therefore, by these findings, the City Council ratifies, clarifies, and/or makes insignificant modifications to the EIR and resolves that these findings shall control and are determinative of the significant impacts of the Project. The mitigation measures proposed in the EIR have been adopted and included in the MMRP, substantially in the form proposed in the EIR, with such clarifications and non- substantive modifications as the City Council has deemed appropriate to implement the mitigation measures. The MMRP is expressly incorporated into the Project. The findings and determinations in this Exhibit B are to be considered as an integrated whole and, whether or not any subdivision of this Exhibit B fails to cross-reference or incorporate by reference any other subdivision of this Exhibit B, any finding or determination required or permitted to be made shall be deemed made if it appears in any portion of this document. All of the text included in this document constitutes findings and determinations, whether or not any particular caption sentence or clause includes a statement to that effect. ---PAGE BREAK--- Exhibit 1 Attachment B 7 Each finding in this Exhibit B is based on the entire record. The omission of any relevant fact from the summary discussions below is not an indication that a particular finding is not based in part on the omitted fact. Many of the mitigation measures identified in this Exhibit B may have the effect of mitigating multiple impacts conditions imposed primarily to mitigate traffic impacts may also secondarily mitigate air quality impacts, etc.). The City Council has not attempted to exhaustively cross-reference all potential impacts mitigated by a particular mitigation measure; however, any failure to cross-reference shall not be construed as a limitation on the potential scope or effect of any such mitigation measure. IV. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS A. SCENIC VISTAS Aesthetics Impact 4-1: Project Impacts on Scenic Vistas. Specific Plan implementation could interfere with scenic views of Mt. Tamalpais, the Golden Gate Bridge, the San Francisco skyline, the East Bay Hills, and Albany Hill from public rights-of-way (roadways and sidewalks), the two BART station platforms (El Cerrito Plaza and El Cerrito Del Norte), and areas of lower elevation hillside homes located in El Cerrito and Richmond. Aesthetics Mitigation 4-1. For future City decision-making actions for individual project proposals under the Specific Plan, Specific Plan Section 2.02 (Administration of Regulating Code) shall be implemented as it applies to the proposal’s potential effect on scenic vistas. The City shall require evaluation (including visual simulations, if deemed necessary) of the proposal’s visual effect as viewed from important on-site and off-site viewpoints, including public rights-of-way of east-west streets (roadways and sidewalks) and the two BART station platforms in the Specific Plan area (El Cerrito Plaza and El Cerrito Del Norte). The evaluation shall address the proposal’s effect on views of Mt. Tamalpais, the Golden Gate Bridge, the San Francisco skyline, the East Bay Hills, and Albany Hill. This mitigation shall be enforceable by its incorporation into the Specific Plan as a City-adopted policy and shall be implemented through subsequent permits, conditions, agreements, or other measures consistent with Specific Plan Section 2.02. Mitigation Measure Aesthetics 4-1 has been incorporated into the MMRP. Findings. Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record before the Planning Commission and City Council, the City Council finds that: 1. Effects of Mitigation: Changes or alterations have been incorporated into the project that lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR, although not to a level of insignificance. Incorporation of this measure would reduce the impact on scenic vistas. 2. Remaining Impacts: Because the outcome of this decision-making process for any individual, future proposals cannot be guaranteed within the framework of this program EIR, the impact is considered significant and unavoidable. ---PAGE BREAK--- Exhibit 1 Attachment B 8 3. Finding. Because the outcome of future decision making process is cannot be guaranteed to work within the framework of the program EIR, No alternative (including the No Project alternative) or additional mitigation measures have been identified that would reduce this impact to a level of insignificance, and as a consequence mitigation to a level of insignificance is infeasible. (14 California Code of Regulations §15091(a)(3)) ---PAGE BREAK--- Exhibit 1 Attachment B 9 B. CULTURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES. Impact 7-1: Destruction/Degradation of Historic Resources. There may be one or more properties or features within the plan area that meet the CEQA definition of a historic resource, including properties or features already listed, or properties or features eligible for listing, in a local, State, or Federal register of historic resources. Future development projects that are otherwise consistent with the proposed Specific Plan may cause substantial adverse changes in the significance of one or more such historic resources. Substantial adverse changes that may occur include physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of one or more historic resources or its immediate surroundings such that the resource is "materially impaired." The significance of a historic resource would be considered potentially "materially impaired" when and if an individual future development project proposes to demolish or materially alter the physical characteristics that justify the determination of its significance (CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5[b]). Mitigation 7-1. For any individual discretionary project within the Specific Plan area that the City determines may involve a property that contains a potentially significant historic resource a recorded historic resource or an unrecorded building or structure 50 years or older), the resource shall be evaluated by City staff, and if warranted, shall be assessed by a qualified professional on the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) list of consultants who meet the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards to determine whether the property is a significant historical resource and whether or not the project may have a potentially significant adverse effect on the historical resource. If, based on the recommendation of the qualified professional, the City determines that the project may have a potentially significant effect, the City shall require the applicant to implement the following mitigation measures: Adhere to one or both of the following Secretary of the Interior’s Standards:  Secretary of Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings; or  Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. The qualified professional shall make a recommendation to the City as to whether the project fully adheres to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, and any specific modifications necessary to do so. The final determination as to a project's adherence to the Standards shall be made by the City body with final decision-making authority over the project. Such a determination of individual project adherence to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards will constitute mitigation of the project historic resource impacts to a less than- significant level (CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5). If measure is not feasible, the historic resource shall be moved to a new location compatible with the original character and use of the historical resource, and its historic features and compatibility in orientation, setting, and general environment shall be retained, such that the resource retains its eligibility for listing on the California Register. ---PAGE BREAK--- Exhibit 1 Attachment B 10 If neither measure nor measure is feasible, a project-specific EIR shall be required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, particularly in order for specific project alternatives to be designed and evaluated. If after that CEQA process, neither measure nor is found to be feasible, then the City shall, as applicable and to the extent feasible, implement the following measures in the following order: Document the historic resource before any changes that would cause a loss of integrity and loss of continued eligibility. The documentation shall adhere to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Architectural and Engineering Documentation. The level of documentation shall be proportionate with the level of significance of the resource. The documentation shall be made available for inclusion in the Historic American Building Survey (HABS) or the Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) Collections in the Library of Congress, the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), and the Bancroft Library, as well as local libraries and historical societies, such as the El Cerrito Historical Society. Retain and reuse the historic resource to the maximum feasible extent and continue to apply the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards to the maximum feasible extent in all alterations, additions, and new construction. Through careful methods of planned deconstruction to avoid damage and loss, salvage character defining features and materials for educational and interpretive use onsite, or for reuse in new construction on the site in a way that commemorates their original use and significance. Interpret the historical significance of the resource through a permanent exhibit or program in a publicly accessible location on the site or elsewhere within the Specific Plan area. Implementation of measures and/or would reduce a significant impact on historic resources. Mitigation Measure HR 7-1 has been incorporated into the MMRP. Findings. Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record before the Planning Commission and City Council, the City Council finds that: 1. Effects of Mitigation: Changes or alterations have been incorporated into the project that lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR, although not to a level of insignificance. This program EIR is prohibited from speculating on the details of any future individual development proposal and its potential impact on a historic resource, and the City cannot determine with certainty that this mitigation measure would reduce the potential impact of any individual project on a historic resource to a less-than-significant level. 2. Remaining Impacts: The impacts to cultural and historic resources would remain significant and unavoidable. ---PAGE BREAK--- Exhibit 1 Attachment B 11 3. Finding: No alternative (including the No Project alternative) or additional mitigation measure has been identified that would reduce this impact to a level of insignificance, and as a consequence mitigation to a level of insignificance is infeasible. (14 California Code of Regulations §15091(a)(3)). ---PAGE BREAK--- Exhibit 1 Attachment B 12 C. NOISE Impact 13-3: Construction Noise. Businesses and residences would be intermittently exposed to high levels of noise throughout the 2040 plan horizon. Construction would elevate noise levels at adjacent businesses and residences by 15 to 20 dBA or more. Mitigation 13-3. Construction equipment shall be well-maintained and used judiciously to be as quiet as practical. The following measures, when applicable, are recommended to reduce noise from construction activities:  Equip all internal combustion engine-driven equipment with mufflers that are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment.  Utilize “quiet” models of air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology exists.  Locate stationary noise generating equipment as far as feasible from sensitive receptors when sensitive receptors adjoin or are near a construction area.  Prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines.  Pre-drill foundation pile holes to minimize the number of impacts required to seat the pile.  Construct solid plywood fences around construction sites adjacent to operational business, residences, or noise sensitive land uses.  A temporary noise control blanket barrier could be erected, if necessary, along building facades facing construction sites. This mitigation would only be necessary if conflicts occurred which were irresolvable by proper scheduling. Noise control blanket barriers can be rented and quickly erected.  Route construction-related traffic along major roadways and as far as feasible from sensitive receptors  Ensure that construction activities (including the loading and unloading of materials and truck movements) are limited to the hours of 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM on weekdays and between the hours of 9:00 AM and 8:00 PM on weekends and holidays.  Ensure that excavating, grading, and filling activities (including warming of equipment motors) are limited to between the hours of 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM on weekdays and between the hours of 9:00 AM and 8:00 PM on weekends and holidays.  Businesses, residences, or noise sensitive land uses adjacent to construction sites shall be notified of the construction schedule in writing. Designate a “construction liaison” who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The liaison would address complaints starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and institute reasonable measures to correct the problem.  Conspicuously post a telephone number for the liaison at the construction site. Mitigation Measure NOISE 13-3 has been incorporated into the MMRP. Findings. Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record before the Planning Commission and City Council, the City Council finds that: ---PAGE BREAK--- Exhibit 1 Attachment B 13 1. Effects of Mitigation: Constraints to daily construction times have been noted and a list of ways to lessen noise impacts have been included. Changes or modifications have been incorporated into the project that lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR, although not to a level of insignificance. 2. Remaining Impacts: The impact of increased noise on businesses and residences during construction is significant and unavoidable. 3. Finding: No alternative (including the No Project alternative) or additional mitigation measure has been identified that would reduce this impact to a level of insignificance, and as a consequence mitigation to a level of insignificance is infeasible. (14 California Code of Regulations §15091(a)(3)). Impact 13-4: Construction-Related Vibration. Residences, businesses, and historic structures could be exposed to construction-related vibration during the excavation and foundation work of buildings. Mitigation 13-4. The following measures are recommended to reduce vibration from construction activities:  Avoid impact pile driving where possible. Drilled piles causes lower vibration levels where geological conditions permit their use.  Avoid using vibratory rollers and tampers near sensitive areas.  In areas where project construction is anticipated to include vibration-generating activities, such as pile driving, in close proximity to existing structures, site-specific vibration studies shall be conducted to determine the area of impact and to present appropriate mitigation measures that may include the following: - Identify sites that would include vibration compaction activities (such as pile driving) and have the potential to generate ground-borne vibration, and the sensitivity of nearby structures to ground-borne vibration. Vibration limits shall be applied to all vibration-sensitive structures located within 200 feet of the project. A qualified structural engineer should conduct this task. - Develop a vibration monitoring and construction contingency plan to identify structures where monitoring would be conducted, set up a vibration monitoring schedule, define structure specific vibration limits, and address the need to conduct photo, elevation, and crack surveys to document before and after construction conditions. - Design construction contingencies that would be implemented when vibration levels approached the limits. - At a minimum, conduct vibration monitoring during initial demolition activities and during pile driving activities. Monitoring results may indicate the need for more or less intensive measurements. - When vibration levels approach limits, suspend construction and implement contingencies to either lower vibration levels or secure the affected structures.  Conduct post-survey on structures under either of these circumstances: when construction monitoring has indicated high vibration levels or when complaints of damage have been made due to construction activities. Make appropriate repairs or compensation when damage has resulted from construction activities. ---PAGE BREAK--- Exhibit 1 Attachment B 14 Mitigation Measure Noise 13-4 has been incorporated into the MMRP. Findings. Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record before the Planning Commission and City Council, the City Council finds that: 1. Effects of Mitigation: Changes or alterations have been incorporated into the project that lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR, although not to a level of insignificance. Even with the above mitigation measures it may not be possible to avoid using pile drivers, vibratory rollers, and tampers entirely during construction facilitated by the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan. Due to the density of development in the area, some of these activities may take place near sensitive areas. In these cases, the mitigation measures listed above may not be sufficient to reduce groundborne vibrations below a level of significance. 2. Remaining Impacts: The Specific Plan would have a significant and unavoidable impact resulting from construction related vibration. 3. Finding: No alternative (including the No Project alternative) or additional mitigation measures have been identified that would reduce this impact to a level of insignificance, and as a consequence mitigation to a level of insignificance is infeasible. (14 California Code of Regulations § 15091(a)(3)) D. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Impact 16-1: Cumulative Traffic Impacts. The project would have a significant cumulative impact, relative to the City’s current LOS standard of D, at San Pablo Avenue/Cutting Boulevard, which would fall from LOS D in the Cumulative No Project case to LOS E in the Cumulative with Project case. Mitigation 16-1. Adoption and full implementation of the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan/Complete Streets Plan is projected to reduce auto trips relative to the baseline assumption in the impact analysis, which would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. Furthermore, adoption of the plan would change the City’s LOS standard of D to an LOS goal of E, which should be considered in conjunction with the multi-modal LOS standards for transit, pedestrian and bicycle modes, with transit and pedestrian modes being the primary priorities in the corridor. This would also render the impact less-than-significant. However, because the projected mode shift cannot be guaranteed, and adoption of the proposed new multi-modal LOS goals as defined in the draft plan cannot be assured. Mitigation Measure TRAN 16-1 has been incorporated into the MMRP. Findings. Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record before the Planning Commission and City Council, the City Council finds that: 4. Effects of Mitigation: Changes or alterations have been incorporated into the project that lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR, although not to a level of ---PAGE BREAK--- Exhibit 1 Attachment B 15 insignificance. Because the projected mode shift cannot be guaranteed, and adoption of the proposed new multi-modal LOS goals as defined in the draft plan cannot be assured, the City cannot determine with certainty that this mitigation measure would reduce the potential impact cumulative traffic impacts to a less-than-significant level. 5. Remaining Impacts: The impacts to cumulative traffic would remain significant and unavoidable. 6. Finding: No alternative (including the No Project alternative) or additional mitigation measure has been identified that would reduce this impact to a level of insignificance, and as a consequence mitigation to a level of insignificance is infeasible. (14 California Code of Regulations §15091(a)(3)). V. FINDINGS FOR SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AVOIDED OR MITIGATED TO A LESS-THAN-SIGNIFICANT LEVEL Potentially significant impacts of the Specific Plan are listed below with applicable mitigation measures, all of which are included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan. For each of the impacts listed, the City Council finds that changes or alterations have been required in the Specific Plan, through the adoption of the MMRP, to mitigate or avoid the significant impacts on the environment (14 California Code of Regulations §15091(a)(1)), as described in this Section V . A. AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES Impact 4-2: Project Light and Glare Impacts. The San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan anticipates development on the surface parking lots around the El Cerrito Plaza and El Cerrito Del Norte BART stations. As part of this development, new parking structures for the BART stations and for other new development are anticipated. These parking structures may result in light and glare from vehicles using the parking structure at night. In addition, future multi-story buildings (or renovations) in the Specific Plan area, if faced in reflective materials reflective glass), could result in glare impacts on adjacent and nearby properties. Mitigation 4-2. Project developers (including but not limited to BART) shall install landscaping and incorporate other measures into and around any Specific Plan area future parking structure(s) (light source shielding, etc.) as necessary to ensure that potential light and glare from vehicles would be avoided toward the Ohlone Greenway, residential uses, and other sensitive uses, consistent with El Cerrito City Resolution 82-9 and the El Cerrito design review process. Regarding reflective building materials, for all future development in the Specific Plan area, facades shall be of non-reflective materials, and windows shall incorporate non- reflective coating. Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before the Planning ---PAGE BREAK--- Exhibit 1 Attachment B 16 Commission and City Council, the City Council finds that: 1. Effects of Mitigation: The mitigation has been incorporated in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”) and it will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. The City finds that the utilizing the design review process and requiring facades to be constructed from non-reflective materials will cause the impact to be less than significant with implementation of the mitigation measure. 2. Remaining Impacts: Any remaining impacts related to impacts of light and glare would not be significant. Impact 5-1: Construction Period Emissions. Implementation of the Specific Plan would result in short-term emissions from construction activities associated with subsequent development, including site grading, asphalt paving, building construction, and architectural coating. Emissions commonly associated with construction activities include fugitive dust from soil disturbance, fuel combustion from mobile heavy-duty diesel- and gasoline- powered equipment, portable auxiliary equipment, and worker commute trips. During construction, fugitive dust, the dominant source of PM10 and PM2.5 emissions, is generated when wheels or blades disturb surface materials. Uncontrolled dust from construction can become a nuisance and potential health hazard to those living and working nearby. Demolition and renovation of buildings can also generate PM10 and PM2.5 emissions. Off-road construction equipment is often diesel-powered and can be a substantial source of NOX emissions, in addition to PM10 and PM2.5 emissions. Worker commute trips and architectural coatings are dominant sources of ROG emissions. The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines do not identify plan-level thresholds that apply to construction. Although construction activities at individual project sites are expected to occur during a relatively short time period, the combination of temporary dust from activities and diesel exhaust from construction equipment poses both a health and nuisance impact to nearby receptors. In addition, NOX emissions during grading and soil import/export for large projects may exceed the BAAQMD NOX emission thresholds. Mitigation 5-1. Implement the following BAAQMD-recommended measures to control particulate matter emissions during construction. These measures would reduce diesel particulate matter and PM10 from construction to ensure that short-term health impacts to nearby sensitive receptors are avoided or reduced: Dust (PM10) Control Measures:  Water all active construction areas at least twice daily and more often during windy periods. Active areas adjacent to residences should be kept damp at all times.  Cover all hauling trucks or maintain at least two feet of freeboard.  Pave, apply water at least twice daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas. ---PAGE BREAK--- Exhibit 1 Attachment B 17  Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas and sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible  soil material is deposited onto the adjacent roads.  Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas previously graded areas that are inactive for 10 days or more).  Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil binders to exposed stockpiles.  Limit traffic speeds on any unpaved roads to 15 mph.  Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible.  Suspend construction activities that cause visible dust plumes to extend beyond the construction site.  Post a publically visible sign(s) with the telephone number and person to contact at thLead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.  Additional Measures to Reduce Diesel Particulate Matter and PM 2.5 and other construction emissions:  The developer or contractor shall provide a plan for approval by the City or BAAQMD demonstrating that the heavy-duty (>50 horsepower) off-road vehicles to be used in the construction project, including owned, leased and subcontractor vehicles, will achieve a project wide fleet- average 20 percent NOX reduction and 45 percent particulate reduction compared to the most recent CARB fleet average for the year 2011.  Clear signage at all construction sites shall be posted indicating that diesel and gasoline equipment standing idle for more than five minutes shall be turned off. This would include trucks waiting to deliver or receive soil, aggregate, or other bulk materials. Rotating drum concrete trucks could keep their engines running continuously as long as they were on-site or adjacent to the construction site.  The contractor shall install temporary electrical service whenever possible to avoid the need for independently powered equipment compressors).  Properly tune and maintain equipment for low emissions. Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before the Planning Commission and City Council, the City Council finds that: 1. Effects of Mitigation: The mitigation has been incorporated in the MMRP. The City finds that implementing the following BAAQMD-recommended measures to control particulate matter emissions during construction will reduce the impacts caused by diesel ---PAGE BREAK--- Exhibit 1 Attachment B 18 particulate matter and PM10 to ensure that short-term health impacts to nearby sensitive receptors are to a less-than-significant level. 2. Remaining Impacts: Any remaining impacts related to impacts of diesel particulate matter and PM10 would not be significant. Impact 5-2: Impacts of Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) on Sensitive Receptors. Implementation of the Specific Plan would result in the potential construction of a variety of projects. This construction would result in short-term emissions of diesel particulate matter (DPM), a TAC. Construction would result in the generation of DPM emissions from the use of off-road diesel equipment required for site grading and excavation, paving, and other construction activities. The amount to which the receptors are exposed (a function of concentration and duration of exposure) is the primary factor used to determine health risk potential exposure to TAC emission levels that exceed applicable standards). Health-related risks associated with diesel-exhaust emissions are primarily linked to long- term exposure and the associated risk of contracting cancer. The calculation of cancer risk associated with exposure to TACs is typically based on a 70-year period of exposure. The use of diesel- powered construction equipment, however, would be temporary and episodic and would occur over a relatively large area. Cancer risk and PM2.5 exposure would have to be analyzed through project-level analysis to identify the potential for significant impacts and measures to reduce those impacts to less-than-significant. Mitigation 5-2. Require project-level construction health risk assessment. Construction health risk assessment shall be required on a project-by- project basis, either through screening or refined modeling, to identify impacts and, if necessary, include performance standards and industry-recognized measures to reduce exposure. Reduction in health risk can be accomplished through, though is not limited to, the following measures:  Construction equipment selection;  Use of alternative fuels and engine retrofits, temporary line power or electric equipment;  Modified construction schedule; and  Implementation of BAAQMD Basic and/or Additional Construction Mitigation Measures for control of fugitive dust. Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before the Planning Commission and City Council, the City Council finds that: 1. Effects of Mitigation: The mitigation has been incorporated in the MMRP and will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. The City finds that the requirement for a project-level construction health risk assessment is feasible and will reduce the impacts of TACs of sensitive receptors during construction to a less-than-significant level. 2. Remaining Impacts: Any remaining impacts related to impacts of TACs of sensitive receptors during construction would not be significant. ---PAGE BREAK--- Exhibit 1 Attachment B 19 Impact 5-3: Toxic Air Contaminant Exposure - Long-Term Operations. The Specific Plan would allow growth of new residential land uses that could include sensitive receptors, as well as new non-residential land uses that would be potential new emissions sources. Typically, these sources would be evaluated through the project-specific BAAQMD permit process or the CEQA process to identify and mitigate any significant exposures. However, some sources that would not be required to undergo such a review, such as truck loading docks or truck parking areas, may have the potential to cause significant increases in TAC exposure. While average daily traffic along Specific Plan area surface streets is not readily available, the roadway screening analysis tables indicate that health risk from high volume surface streets such as Central Avenue, Carlson Boulevard, and Potrero Avenue would be less-than- significant at average daily traffic volumes (ADT) of 40,000 vehicles or less at a distance of 10 feet. If projects under the Specific Plan are located within close proximity to surface streets with daily traffic volumes higher than 40,000 ADT this would represent a potentially significant impact. Mitigation 5-3. Implement the following measures in site planning and building designs to reduce TAC and PM2.5 exposure where new receptors are located within the overlay distances identified above:  Future development under the Specific Plan that includes sensitive receptors (such as schools, hospitals, daycare centers, or retirement homes) located within the overlay distances from highways and stationary sources shall require site-specific analysis to determine the level of TAC and PM2.5 exposure, or for projects located near surface streets with daily traffic volumes exceeding 40,000 ADT. This analysis shall be conducted following procedures outlined by BAAQMD. If the site- specific analysis reveals significant exposures, such as cancer risk greater than 10 in one million or cumulative cancer risk greater than 100 in one million, additional measures shall be employed to reduce the risk to below the threshold. If this is not possible, the sensitive receptors shall be relocated.  Future non-residential developments would be evaluated through the CEQA process or BAAQMD permit process to ensure that they do not cause a significant health risk in terms of excess cancer risk greater than 10 in one million, acute or chronic hazards with a Hazard greater than 1.0, or annual PM2.5 exposures greater than 0.3 µg/m3, or a significant cumulative health risk in terms of excess cancer risk greater than 100 in one million, acute or chronic hazards with a Hazard Index greater than 10.0 or annual PM2.5 exposures greater than 0.8 µg/m3.  For significant cancer risk exposure, as defined by BAAQMD, indoor air filtration systems shall be installed to effectively reduce particulate levels to a less-than-significant level. Project sponsors shall submit performance specifications and design details to demonstrate that lifetime residential exposures would result in less-than- significant cancer risks (less than 10 in one million chances or 100 in one million for cumulative sources).  Air filtration systems installed shall be rated MERV-13 or higher, and a maintenance plan for the air filtration system shall be implemented. ---PAGE BREAK--- Exhibit 1 Attachment B 20  Trees and/or vegetation shall be planted between sensitive receptors and pollution sources, if feasible. Trees that are best- suited to trapping particulate matter shall be planted, including the following: Pine (Pinus nigra var. maritime), Cypress (X Cupressocyparis leylandii), Hybrid popular (Populus deltoids X trichocarpa), and Redwoods (Sequoia sempervirens).  Sites shall be designed to locate sensitive receptors as far as possible from any freeways, roadways, diesel generators, distribution centers, and rail lines.  Operable windows, balconies, and building air intakes shall be located as far away from these sources as feasible. If near a distribution center, residents shall not be located immediately adjacent to a loading dock or where trucks concentrate to deliver goods. Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before the Planning Commission and City Council, the City Council finds that: 1. Effects of Mitigation: The mitigation has been incorporated in the MMRP and will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. The City finds that the requirement for the following measures in site planning and building designs will reduce the impacts of TACs to a less-than-significant level. 2. Remaining Impacts: Any remaining long term impacts related to TACs would not be significant. ---PAGE BREAK--- Exhibit 1 Attachment B 21 B. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Impact 6-1: Potential Impacts on Nesting Birds and Roosting Bats. The Specific Plan is intended to improve and expand the natural environment in the Specific Plan area, including the use of native and drought-tolerant plants (a beneficial environmental measure). Without a proactive mitigation procedure in place, Specific Plan implementation could inadvertently result in the removal of existing trees containing nests or eggs of migratory birds, raptors, or bird species during the nesting season, which would be considered an "unlawful take" under the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and USFW provisions protecting migratory and nesting birds. In addition, roosting bats, several species of which are protected under the federal and State Endangered Species Acts, might be disturbed. Mitigation 6-1. The removal of trees, shrubs, or weedy vegetation shall be avoided during the February 1 through August 31 bird nesting period to the extent possible. If no vegetation or tree removal is proposed during the nesting period, no further action is required. If it is not feasible to avoid the nesting period, the project applicant shall retain a qualified wildlife biologist to conduct a survey for nesting birds no sooner than 14 days prior to the start of removal of trees, shrubs, grassland vegetation, buildings, grading, or other construction activity. Survey results shall be valid for 21 days following the survey; therefore, if vegetation or building removal is not started within 21 days of the survey, another survey shall be required. The area surveyed shall include all construction sites, access roads, and staging areas, as well as areas within 150 feet outside the boundaries of the areas to be cleared or as otherwise determined by the biologist. In the event that an active nest is discovered in the areas to be cleared, or in other habitats within 150 feet of construction boundaries, clearing and construction shall be postponed for at least two weeks or until a wildlife biologist has determined that the young have fledged (left the nest), the nest is vacated, and there is no evidence of second nesting attempts. 2) A qualified biologist shall conduct pre-construction surveys for bats and suitable bat roosting habitat at work sites where culverts, structures and/or trees would be removed or otherwise disturbed prior to the initiation of construction. If bats or suitable bat roosting habitat is detected, CDFW shall be notified immediately for consultation and possible on-site monitoring. Actions and can be implemented simultaneously. Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before the Planning Commission and City Council, the City Council finds that: 1. Effects of Mitigation: The mitigation has been incorporated into the MMRP and will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. The City finds that the pre-construction surveys and measures for the avoidance of active nests and bats are feasible and will reduce potential impacts to nesting birds and bats to a less-than-significant level. 2. Remaining Impacts: Any remaining impacts to nesting birds and bats would not be significant. ---PAGE BREAK--- Exhibit 1 Attachment B 22 C. CULTURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES Impact 7-2: Potential for Disturbance of Buried Archaeological Resources, Including Human Remains. Development facilitated by the Specific Plan could disturb unrecorded sensitive archaeological resources in the plan area. Mitigation 7-2. During the City’s standard project-specific environmental checklist review process for all future, discretionary, public improvement and private development projects in the Specific Plan area, the City shall determine the possible presence of, and the potential impacts of the action on, archaeological resources. For discretionary projects involving substantial ground disturbance (more than 10,000 square feet), the City shall require individual project applicants or environmental consultants to contact the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) to determine whether the particular project is located in a sensitive area. Future discretionary development projects that CHRIS determines may be located in a sensitive area--i.e., on or adjoining an identified archaeological site--shall proceed only after the project applicant contracts with a qualified archaeologist to conduct a determination in regard to cultural values remaining on the site and warranted mitigation measures. In general, to make an adequate determination in these instances, the archaeologist shall conduct a preliminary field inspection to assess the amount and location of visible ground surface, determine the nature and extent of previous impacts, and assess the nature and extent of potential impacts. Such field inspection may demonstrate the need for some form of additional subsurface testing excavation by auger, shovel, or backhoe unit) or, alternatively, the need for on-site monitoring of subsurface activities during grading or trenching). If a significant archaeological resource is identified through this field inspection process, the City and project applicant shall seek to avoid damaging effects on the resource. Preservation in place to maintain the relationship between the artifact(s) and the archaeological context is the preferred manner of mitigating impacts on an archaeological site. Preservation may be accomplished by:  Planning construction to avoid the archaeological site;  Incorporating the site within a park, green space, or other open space element;  Covering the site with a layer of chemically stable soil; or  Deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement. When in-place mitigation is determined by the City to be infeasible, a data recovery plan, which makes provisions for adequate recovery of culturally or historically consequential information about the site, shall be prepared and adopted prior to any excavation being undertaken. Such studies shall be submitted to the CHRIS Northwest Information Center. If Native American artifacts are indicated, the studies shall also be submitted to the Native American Heritage Commission. ---PAGE BREAK--- Exhibit 1 Attachment B 23 Identified cultural resources shall be recorded on form DPR 422(archaeological sites). Mitigation measures recommended by these two groups and required by the City shall be undertaken, if necessary, prior to and during construction activities. A data recovery plan and data recovery shall not be required if the City determines that testing or studies already completed have adequately recovered the necessary data, provided that the data have already been documented in an EIR or are available for review at the CHRIS Northwest Information Center (CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4[b]). In the event that subsurface cultural resources are otherwise encountered during approved ground-disturbing activities for a plan area construction activity, work in the immediate vicinity shall be stopped and a qualified archaeologist retained to evaluate the finds following the procedures described above. Project personnel shall not collect cultural resources. If human remains are found, special rules set forth in State Health and Safety Code section 7050.5 and CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4(b) shall apply. Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before the Planning Commission and City Council, the City Council finds that: 1. Effects of Mitigation: The mitigations have been incorporated into the MMRP and will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. The City finds that the requirement for a site- specific cultural resources study and technical report meeting state and federal requirements performed by a qualified archaeologist or equivalent cultural resources professional and treatment plans for identified resources as well as resources discovered during construction are feasible and will reduce potential impacts to archaeological resources to a less-than-significant level. 2. Remaining Impacts: Any remaining impacts to archaeological resources would not be significant. Impact 7-3: Potential for Disturbance of Paleontological Resources. Development facilitated by the Specific Plan could disturb unrecorded paleontological resources in the plan area. Mitigation 7-3. During the City’s standard project-specific environmental checklist review process for all future, discretionary, public improvement and private development projects in the Specific Plan area, the City shall determine the possible presence of, and the potential impacts of the action on, paleontological resources. For projects involving substantial ground disturbance (more than 10,000 square feet), the City shall require individual project applicants to carry out the following measures: Education Program. Project applicants shall implement a program that includes the following elements: ---PAGE BREAK--- Exhibit 1 Attachment B 24  Resource identification training procedures for construction personnel;  Spot-checks by a qualified paleontological monitor of all excavations deeper than seven feet below ground surface; and  Procedures for reporting discoveries and their geologic context. Procedures for Resources Encountered. If subsurface paleontological resources are encountered, excavation shall halt in the vicinity of the resources, and the project paleontologist shall evaluate the resource and its stratigraphic context. The monitor shall be empowered to temporarily halt or redirect construction activities to ensure avoidance of adverse impacts to paleontological resources. During monitoring, if potentially significant paleontological resources are found, “standard” samples shall be collected and processed by a qualified paleontologist to recover micro vertebrate fossils. If significant fossils are found and collected, they shall be prepared to a reasonable point of identification. Excess sediment or matrix shall be removed from the specimens to reduce the bulk and cost of storage. Itemized catalogs of material collected and identified shall be provided to a local museum repository with the specimens. Significant fossils collected during this work, along with the itemized inventory of these specimens, shall be deposited in a local museum repository for permanent curatorship and storage. A report documenting the results of the monitoring and salvage activities, and the significance of the fossils, if any, shall be prepared. The report and inventory, when submitted to the City, shall signify the completion of the program to mitigate impacts on paleontological resources. Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before the Planning Commission and City Council, the City Council finds that: 1. Effects of Mitigation: The mitigation has been incorporated into the MMRP and will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. The City finds that the requirement to educate earth moving crews on the appearance of fossils, procedures to follow if any are discovered, and ensuring that a paleontologist assess the significance of any fossil find, and recovers it, if appropriate are feasible and would reduce potential impacts to paleontological resources to a less-than- significant level. 2. Remaining Impacts: Any remaining impacts to paleontological resources would not be significant. D. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Impact 8-1: Potential Ground Instability Impacts. The potential for ground instability can depend on specific, highly localized underlying soil conditions. Determination of liquefaction, differential settlement, lateral spreading, and subsidence potential in the Specific Plan area would require site-specific geotechnical studies for future individual development proposals. Possible ground instability conditions, if not properly engineered for, could result in associated significant damage to project buildings and other improvements. ---PAGE BREAK--- Exhibit 1 Attachment B 25 Mitigation 8-1. Subject to City review and approval, complete and implement the geotechnical mitigation recommendations identified in the required site-specific geotechnical investigations and engineering studies, in coordination with City grading permit and building permit performance standards. Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before the Planning Commission and City Council, the City Council finds that: 1. Effects of Mitigation: The mitigation has been incorporated into the MMRP and will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. The City finds that the requirement for site-specific geotechnical investigations and engineering studies would reduce potential impacts related to geologic stability to a less-than- significant level. 2. Remaining Impacts: Any remaining impacts related to geologic stability resources would not be significant. E. NOISE Impact 13-1: Noise and Land Use Compatibility. Residential land uses facilitated by the Specific Plan would be exposed to exterior noise levels exceeding 60 dBA Ldn from traffic noise and 70 dBA Ldn from BART noise. Future noise levels would exceed El Cerrito’s noise and land use compatibility standards. Mitigation 13-1. Future development would be exposed to outdoor noise levels exceeding acceptable levels as defined in the El Cerrito General Plan. Noise levels inside residential structures proposed in such noise environments would exceed 45 dBA Ldn, the local established land use compatibility threshold. In areas where residential developments would be exposed to an Ldn of greater than 60 dBA, El Cerrito General Plan Policy H3.9 requires the evaluation of mitigation measures for specific projects.  Utilize site planning to minimize noise in residential outdoor activity areas (shared outdoor space in multi-family developments) by locating the areas behind noise barriers, the buildings, in courtyards, or orienting the terraces to alleyways rather than streets, whenever possible. The goal is a maximum noise level of 60 dBA Ldn from roadway traffic and 70 dBA Ldn from BART noise. The City of El Cerrito requires project-specific acoustical analyses to achieve interior noise levels of 45 dBA Ldn or lower, and the adopted instantaneous noise levels in residential units exposed to exterior noise levels greater than 60 dBA Ldn should not exceed 50 dBA Lmax in bedrooms and 55 dBA Lmax in other rooms. Building sound insulation requirements would need to include the provision of forced-air mechanical ventilation in noise environments exceeding 60 dBA Ldn so that windows could be kept closed at the occupant’s discretion to control noise. Special building construction techniques sound rated windows and building facade treatments) may be ---PAGE BREAK--- Exhibit 1 Attachment B 26 required where exterior noise levels exceed 65 dBA Ldn. These treatments include, but are not limited to, sound rated windows and doors, sound rated exterior wall assemblies, acoustical caulking, etc. The specific determination of what treatments are necessary will be conducted on a unit-by-unit basis during project design. Results of the analysis, including the description of the necessary noise control treatments, will be submitted to the City, along with the building plans, which shall be revised as necessary or approved prior to issuance of a building permit. Feasible construction techniques such as these would adequately reduce interior noise levels to 45 dBA Ldn or lower and meet instantaneous noise limits.  Similar to above, noise insulation features shall be considered on a case-by-case basis for noise- sensitive offices and commercial uses proposed where noise levels exceed 65 dBA Ldn, in order to meet adopted noise standards. Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before the Planning Commission and City Council, the City Council finds that: 1. Effects of Mitigation: The mitigation has been incorporated into the MMRP and will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. The City finds that the requirement for site-specific consideration outside noise levels and appropriate requirement of project- specific acoustical analyses would reduce potential impacts to noise and land use compatibility to a less-than- significant level. 2. Remaining Impacts: Any remaining impacts to noise and land use compatibility resources would not be significant. Impact 13-2: Commercial Development Noise. The San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan would introduce commercial uses adjacent to residential land uses. Specific tenants for the commercial uses have not been identified, but uses would probably include retail stores, grocery stores, restaurants, or cafes. New commercial development proposed along with or next to residential development could result in noise levels exceeding City standards. Typical noise levels generated by loading and unloading would be similar to noise levels generated by truck movements on local roadways. Mechanical equipment would also have the potential to generate noise and would be a potential noise impact. Mitigation 13-2. New commercial development proposed in the same building as or adjacent to residential development could result in noise levels exceeding City standards.  Noise levels at residential property lines from commercial development shall be maintained not in excess of the general plan and municipal code limit for the City of El Cerrito. The approval of the commercial development shall require a noise study demonstrating how the business--including loading docks, refuse areas, and ventilation systems--would meet these requirements and would be consistent with the City’s noise standards.  Ensure that noise-generating activities, such as maintenance activities and loading and unloading activities, are limited to the hours of 7:00 AM to 9:00 PM. ---PAGE BREAK--- Exhibit 1 Attachment B 27 Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before the Planning Commission and City Council, the City Council finds that: 1. Effects of Mitigation: The mitigation has been incorporated into the MMRP and will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. The City finds that the requirement for approval of commercial development near residences to complete a noise study ensuring that the business would be consistent with the City’s noise standards and reduce potential impacts to commercial development noise to a less-than- significant level. 2. Remaining Impacts: Any remaining impacts related to commercial development noise would not be significant. VI. GROWTH INDUCING EFFECTS The City Council finds that implementation of the Specific Plan could result in a net increase in housing and population in the Specific Plan area over existing conditions, as explained in Section 3.5 (Development Capacity Assumptions) and Chapter 14 (Population and Housing) of this EIR. The net increases through the horizon year of 2040 would be approximately 1,706 residential units and 3,840 residents. This capacity forecast is based on entitled and planned projects included in the development capacity assumptions, plus the potential development of projects in the Plan area consistent with the Form-Based Code development standards. The direct increase in residential units and population could have an indirect economic “multiplier” effect, generating additional employment in the broader region. No substantial, detrimental, growth-inducing effect is expected. Specific Plan implementation would not extend roads or infrastructure through undeveloped or low-density areas; one of the main objectives of the Specific Plan is to facilitate new development efficiently and effectively in an area where roads and infrastructure already exist (see Chapter 3, Project Description). Any future individual development proposals outside the Plan area would require standard local review of associated development applications, including CEQA-mandated development specific environmental review, to ensure that any adverse environmental impacts are adequately addressed. These existing requirements and procedures would be expected to avoid or reduce the potential environmental impacts of such secondary growth inducement associated with the Specific Plan to less-than-significant levels, except where specific CEQA statements of overriding consideration are adopted. VII. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES A. Background - Legal Requirements Section 15126.6(f) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR include a "reasonable range of alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would avoid or ---PAGE BREAK--- Exhibit 1 Attachment B 28 substantially lessen any significant effects of the project." Based on the analysis in the EIR, the Project would be expected to result in significant and unavoidable impacts in the impact areas of Scenic Vistas, Historic Resources; Construction Noise; Construction-Related Vibration; and Cumulative Traffic Impacts. The EIR alternatives were designed to avoid or reduce these significant unavoidable impacts, and to further reduce impacts that were found to be less than significant. The City Council has reviewed the significant impacts associated with the reasonable range of alternatives as compared to the Project, and in evaluating the alternatives has also considered each alternative's feasibility, taking into account a range of economic, environmental, social, legal, and other factors. In evaluating the alternatives, the City Council has also considered the important factors listed in the Statement of Overriding Considerations listed in Section IX below. Public Resources Code Section 21081(b)(3) provides that when approving a project for which an EIR has been prepared, a public agency may find that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. ---PAGE BREAK--- Exhibit 1 Attachment B 29 B. Identification of Project Objectives The CEQA Guidelines state that the “range of potential alternatives to the proposed project shall include those that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic purposes of the project and could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects” of the project (CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(a)). The project objectives are listed in Section II of these Findings. C. Alternatives Analysis in EIR CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(c)) states that the “range of potential alternatives to the proposed project shall include those that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic purposes of the project and could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects” of the project. The “range of alternatives” is governed by the “rule of reason” which requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit an informed and reasoned choice by the decision-making body and informed public participation (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)). The Final EIR describes the alternatives considered and compares their impacts to the Project. The EIR evaluated four alternatives to the Project:  The No Project Alternative,  The Plan Bay Area 2040 Growth Allocations  The Mitigation of Significant Unavoidable Impacts; and  The Alternative Project Location. Alternative 1: No Project Alternative The No Project alternative is discussed on pages 20-3 to 20-6of the EIR. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6 when a project is a revision to an existing land use or regulatory plan, the No Project alternative is the continuation of the existing land use or regulatory plan for the project site. The No Project alternative assumes existing General Plan designations and zoning would remain in place, and permitted building heights and development intensities would not increase. In addition, none of the public realm improvements called for in the Specific Plan (such as pocket parks, widened sidewalks, and parking garages) would be undertaken. Future development under the No Project alternative would occur, but would be undertaken in accordance with existing regulations including applicable project- specific environmental review. Explanation: The No Project alternative would result in the continuation of existing conditions in the Plan area. Compared to the Specific Plan, the potential environmental impacts from the No Project alternative would be of lesser or similar intensity than the Specific Plan in the areas of air quality, biological resources geology, hazards, noise, transportation, cultural resources, population and housing, soils and seismicity, and public services and utilities. The No Project alternative could have greater intensity of impacts than the Specific Plan in the areas of greenhouse gases and climate change, hydrology and water quality, although these would not increase so much as to ---PAGE BREAK--- Exhibit 1 Attachment B 30 create a new significant impact. Compared to the other alternatives, the No Project alternative has several impacts at a lesser intensity than the Specific Plan. This alternative also has threee resource areas that have a greater intensity of impact compared to the Specific Plan and is the only alternative to have greater impacts than the Specific Plan. However, this is also the only alternative that would avoid some significant and unavoidable cumulative traffic impacts. Findings: Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the No Project Alternative, and therefore, this alternative is rejected for the following reasons: 1. With fewer new housing units, less population growth, and less pedestrian, bicycle, and transit circulation and connectivity no Specific Plan), the No Project alternative would be less effective in achieving the project objectives (listed Section II of this document), especially Goal A, Goal B, Goal D, and Goal E. 2. The No Project alternative would also not realize many of the benefits proposed by the Specific Plan. The development allowed under the existing zoning and General Plan would provide many fewer residential opportunities in the Specific Plan area (415 fewer new residential units than what is included in the Specific Plan).  Revitalize underutilized parcels and buildings;  Expand shopping, dining and neighborhood services to ensure a vibrant downtown. 3. Finally, by not including shade and view considerations, the No Project alternative would be less likely to ensure that Plan area development is sensitive to and compatible with adjacent neighborhoods. Alternative 2: Reduced Project Under Alternative 2, the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan would be adopted, but the net new residential development capacity assumptions for the plan area would be those listed in the Plan Bay Area “Final Forecast of Jobs, Population and Housing, Housing Growth by Jurisdiction and PDA/Investment Area, Contra Costa County” (July 2013). The boundaries of the San Pablo Avenue Corridor PDA described in Plan Bay Area match the Specific Plan area. Plan Bay Area shows growth of 1,010 net new residential units in the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Area between 2010 and 2040. Plan Bay Area does not provide population estimates for the PDAs; using the 2.25 persons per unit, population growth under Plan Bay Area would be 2,273. The proposed Specific Plan forecasts 1,706 net new residential units and population growth of 3,840 between 2010 and 2040 (see EIR Chapter 14, Population and Housing). From a policy perspective, Alternative 2 is considered substantially consistent with the adopted El Cerrito General Plan. ---PAGE BREAK--- Exhibit 1 Attachment B 31 The Reduced Project alternative is discussed on pages 20-7 to 20-9 of the EIR. Alternative 2 would result in 696 fewer new residential units and 1,567 fewer new residents than the proposed Specific Plan. Under the alternative, the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan would be adopted. Explanation: The Reduced Project alternative would result in a land use plan similar to the Specific Plan, but with a reduced amount of total development. Compared to the Specific Plan, the potential impacts from the reduced project alternative would be less substantial than those of the Specific Plan in the areas of air quality, biology, geology, greenhouse gases and climate change and soils. It would be approximately the same in terms of aesthetics and visual resources, cultural resources, hydrology and water quality, noise, population and housing, and public services and utilities. One significant and unavoidable impact of cumulative traffic would be reduced to a level of insignificance. This alternative would not result in any impacts that would be greater in intensity than those of the Specific Plan. CEQA requires the identification of an Environmentally Superior Alternative among the alternatives to the project. The Environmentally Superior Alternative is the alternative that would avoid or substantially lessen, to the greatest extent, the environmental impacts associated with the project while feasibly obtaining most of the major objectives of the project. Project Alternative 2 was determined to be the Environmentally Superior Alternative because it would lessen many of the impacts of the Specific Plan while meeting many of the project objectives. Findings: The Reduced Project Alternative is less desirable than the Project. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the Reduced Project Alternative, and therefore, this alternative is rejected for the following reasons: 1. Alt hou g h t h e R e du c e d Project Alt e rn a ti v e ha s bee n f o u n d to b e t h e en v i r onme n t a l l y s upe r i o r a lt e rn a ti v e , it only reduces one s i g n i f ic a n t an d una v o id ab l e i mpa c ts o f t h e Project to a le v e l o f insi g n i f ic a n c e . S i g n i f ic a n t an d u n a v o id ab le i m pa cts re g a rding aesthetic and visual resources, cultural resources, and noise would remain. 2. While the Reduced Project Alternative lessens Project impacts, this reduction is due entirely to fewer people residing in, and less development in, the Plan area. Those not residing on this site would be displaced to housing located in other areas, which could be located at a greater distance from public transit, services and employment and generate per capita emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases equal to or greater than those generated by the Project. Commercial development not occurring on the site would also be displaced to other areas. Consequently, environmental impacts may not be lessened on a statewide or regionwide basis. If the housing or commercial development is displaced to locations within the City, impacts on population and housing and public utilities and energy would remain essentially the same, and greenhouse gas emissions per service area population would likely be higher because there would be less access to public transit. 3. With fewer new housing units and less population growth, Alternative 2 would be less effective in achieving the project objectives (listed at the beginning of this chapter) related to maximizing pedestrian- and transit-oriented development (see Goal A, Goal B, Goal D, ---PAGE BREAK--- Exhibit 1 Attachment B 32 and Goal Alternative 3: Mitigation of Significant Unavoidable Impacts. The Reduced Commercial/Retail Space Alternative is discussed on pages 20-9 to 20-11 of the EIR. Under Alternative 3, the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan would be adopted, and the EIR development capacity assumptions would remain the same. However, EIR-identified significant unavoidable impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant levels. These significant unavoidable impacts are listed below; their full descriptions are in the appropriate EIR chapter (Impact 4-1 is in Chapter 4; Impact 7-1 is in Chapter 7, etc.).  Impact 4-1: Project Impacts on Scenic Vistas  Impact 7-1: Destruction/Degradation of Historic Resources  Impact 13-3: Construction Noise  Impact 13-4: Construction-Related Vibration  Impact 16-1: Cumulative Traffic Impacts Both the proposed Specific Plan and Alternative 3 forecast 1,706 net new residential units and population growth of 3,840 between 2010 and 2040 (see EIR Chapter 14, Population and Housing). From a policy perspective, Alternative 3 is considered substantially consistent with the adopted El Cerrito General Plan. (see EIR Chapter 18, Project Consistency With Local and Regional Plans, Tables 18.1 and 18.2). Alternative 3 would result in revisions to the proposed Specific Plan in order to reduce the EIR-identified significant unavoidable impacts to less-than- significant levels. Under this alternative, a revised Specific Plan would be adopted. Explanation: Under Alternative 3, the project’s significant unavoidable impact on: Scenic Vistas (Impact 4-1) would be reduced to a less-than-significant level by revising Form- Based Code (FBC) Section 2.05.03.01.03 (View Design Guidelines). The section would be revised to make those guidelines mandatory standards and not only “strongly recommended” guidelines. The revision would prohibit any new development that would interfere with scenic views of Mt. Tamalpais, the Golden Gate Bridge, the San Francisco skyline, the East Bay Hills, and Albany Hill from public rights-of-way (roadways and sidewalks), the two BART stations (El Cerrito Plaza and El Cerrito del Norte), and areas of lower elevation hillside homes located in El Cerrito and Richmond. Historic Resources (Impact 7-1) would be reduced to a less-than-significant level by requiring that no historic resource be demolished and that changes to historic resources adhere to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings or Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings, or be moved to a new location such that the resource retains its eligibility for listing on the California Register (see Mitigation 7-1 [a and Construction noise and construction-related vibration impacts (Impacts 13-3 and 13-4) would be reduced to less-than significant levels by adjusting the cumulative construction schedules of ---PAGE BREAK--- Exhibit 1 Attachment B 33 approved projects - including their locations, activities, and time periods - so that construction noise and vibration would be reduced to what the City would codify as a less-than-significant level the City would prepare and adopt “cumulative construction noise and vibration regulations”). Traffic impacts, specifically the San Pablo Avenue/Cutting Boulevard intersection (Impact 16-1) would be reduced to a less-than-significant level by mandating the mode shift evaluated in Chapter 16 (Transportation and Circulation) of this EIR. This might be accomplished by requiring traffic monitoring for each future individual development, then requiring as necessary more aggressive Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies to meet the mode shift. Findings: The Mitigation of Significant Unavoidable Impacts Alternative is less desirable than the Project. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the Mitigation of Significant Unavoidable Impacts Alternative, and therefore, this alternative is rejected for the following reasons: 1. The City of El Cerrito would like to state without exception that no view will be blocked, no historic resource removed, no exceptional construction related vibration or noise will occur and that everyone will meet or exceed our highest expectations for mode shift. However, that is simply not practical for three reasons. 1. There may be a project that is so compelling, the community decision makers may determine that is acceptable to allow one or more of those impacts to exist. 2. Mandating maximum compulsory mode shift is neither always possible nor enforceable. 3. Before the capacity of planning year horizon is met, future decision makers may have different values than the one who authored this Plan. 2. Alternative 3 w ould be less effective in achieving Goal B and Goal C of the project objectives (listed at the beginning of this chapter) because the mandated reduction of the identified significant unavoidable impacts might be considered infeasible within the particular context of a future, site-specific development proposal. Related to Goals B (Ensure Return on Investment) and C (Encourage Practical and Market Friendly Development), the City might not attract a desired potential development if an applicant considers Alternative 3 too restrictive and lacking the flexibility to formulate innovative, feasible solutions between the City and the applicant. Alternative 4: Alternatives Considered But Rejected, Alternative Project Location The Reduced Residential alternative is discussed on pages 20-11 to 20-13 of the EIR. Section 15126.6(a) of the CEQA Guidelines states, “An EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic project objectives but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project[.]” Further, section 15126.6(c) explains, “Among the factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR are: failure to meet most of the basic project objectives, (ii) infeasibility, or (iii) inability to avoid significant environmental effects.” To help clarify the meaning of “feasibility,” CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6(f)(1) (Rule of Reason/Feasibility) states, “Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, ---PAGE BREAK--- Exhibit 1 Attachment B 34 general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries...and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control, or otherwise have access to the alternative site….No one of these factors establishes a fixed limit on the scope of reasonable alternatives.” Explanation :El Cerrito is an incorporated city surrounded by other communities. The 206- acre Specific Plan area is surrounded by existing development. The San Pablo Avenue corridor has been identified in several adopted plans--including the El Cerrito General Plan and Plan Bay Area--as an area of growth due in part to its convenient location in the Bay Area and to the infrastructure already in place transportation network, BART, utility systems). This situation provides an opportunity to accommodate projected growth while preserving existing, adjacent, single family and other low density neighborhoods. An alternative location for the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan would not be feasible. In essence, implementation of the Specific Plan in an alternative location would result in a new mixed use neighborhood in another place more distant from the two El Cerrito BART stations and existing infrastructure. None of the proposed Specific Plan objectives related to enhancing the existing plan area environment--especially those pertaining to the plan area’s location in, and contribution to, a regional network of communities and transportation opportunities—would be attained. In addition, the CEQA Guidelines provide that the alternatives evaluated in an EIR should be selected based on their ability to avoid or substantially lessen the significant Impacts of the proposed project. Even if an alternative location for the project could implement the project objectives, only those locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant impacts of the project need to be considered in the EIR. In the case of the proposed San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan, for identified significant unavoidable impacts, these impacts cannot be avoided or substantially reduced by additional, feasible mitigation measures or due to the programmatic EIR analysis appropriate for the long-term Specific Plan, the details of site-specific, future development proposals are not known at this time. Transferring these unavoidable and other potentially significant impacts to an alternative location would still substantially affect the environment, possibly worse than in the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan area, where coordinated infrastructure, plans, regulations, and services are already in place to help mitigate potential environmental impacts. Finding: Because an alternative project location would be infeasible, would not achieve the project objectives, and would not necessarily avoid or lessen the significant impacts of the project and might result in new significant impacts, an alternative that would involve a different project location was eliminated from further detailed consideration. No further evaluation of alternative project locations is required under CEQA. VIII. CHANGES TO THE SPECIFIC PLAN, CIRCUMSTANCES AND NEW INFORMATION The City Council finds that no significant new information within the meaning of Public Resources Code § 21092.1 and State CEQA Guidelines § 15088.5 has been added to the EIR since the Draft EIR was circulated for public review. In responding to comments, CEQA does not require the EIR ---PAGE BREAK--- Exhibit 1 Attachment B 35 authors to conduct every test or perform all research or study suggested by commenters. Rather, the EIR authors need only respond to significant environmental issues and need not provide all of the information requested by the reviewers, as long as a good faith effort at full disclosure is made in the EIR (CEQA Guidelines sections 15088, 15132, and 15204). The City Council finds that the public has had a meaningful opportunity to comment upon all substantial adverse environmental effects of the Plan and all feasible ways to mitigate or avoid such effects. As applicable to the CEQA process, the Draft EIR refers to components of the Specific Plan and summarizes or quotes those components. After public release of the June 2014 Specific Plan document and the Draft EIR, City of El Cerrito staff made revisions to the Specific Plan (“Revisions to June 2014 Final Draft”), including in response to concerns raised by the public. In some cases, revisions to the June 2014 Specific Plan have resulted in parallel revisions to the Draft EIR. These EIR revisions are included as part of Final EIR section 3 (Revisions to the Draft EIR). City Council finds that none of the criteria listed in CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5 (Recirculation of an EIR Prior to Certification) has been met as a result of the revisions. IX. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS RELATED TO THE PROJECT FINDINGS The City Council adopts and makes the following Statement of Overriding Considerations regarding the significant unavoidable impacts of the Project. After review of the entire administrative record, the City Council finds that, pursuant to CEQA section 21081(b) and CEQA Guidelines section 15093, specific economic, legal, social, technological and other benefits of the Project outweigh the Project’s unavoidable adverse impacts and the City Council finds that the significant and unavoidable adverse impacts are acceptable in light of the Project’s benefits. A. Significant Unavoidable Impacts With respect to the foregoing findings and in recognition of those facts that are included in the entire administrative record, the City has determined that the Project would result in significant unavoidable transportation impacts, as described in Section IV of these Findings. The City hereby finds that, where possible, changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project that substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR. The project and the MMRP incorporate all feasible mitigation measures to reduce potential environmental impacts to the greatest extent feasible. The City further finds that there are no additional feasible mitigation measures or alternatives that could be imposed or adopted to eliminate the significant and unavoidable impacts listed above. These impacts could not be reduced to a less- than-significant level by feasible changes, mitigation measures or alternatives to the Project. B. Overriding Considerations ---PAGE BREAK--- Exhibit 1 Attachment B 36 The City Council has carefully balanced the benefits of the Project against any adverse impacts identified in the EIR that could not be feasibly mitigated to a level of insignificance. The City Council finds that each of the specific environmental, economic, fiscal, social, housing and other overriding considerations set forth below constitutes a separate and independent ground for a finding that the benefits of the Project outweigh its significant adverse environmental impacts and is an overriding consideration warranting approval of the Project. The City Council specifically adopts and makes this Statement of Overriding Considerations regarding the significant unavoidable impacts of the Project and the anticipated benefits of the Project. Substantial evidence in the record demonstrates the City would derive the following substantial public benefits from adoption and implementation of the Project: 1. The Project is the product of a transparent, multi-year process designed to develop community consensus. The Project has benefitted from unprecedented levels of public outreach and participation, and has been informed by appropriate analyses. In addition to large attendance at the community workshops, the Planning Commission and City Council both conducted a detailed and public review of the Draft Specific Plan and provided clear direction that has been comprehensively addressed. As a result, the Project is reflective of the community’s diverse preferences and goals. 2. The Project will enhance the public realm, through an integrated network of public spaces, including widened sidewalks, plazas and parks, that invites strolling and public gathering and allows for community life, identity and sense of place. The Project’s comprehensive public space network supports a more active, vibrant downtown and healthier living by encouraging walking, biking and social gathering. 3. The Project will create a more active, vibrant urban area, with a mix of commercial and residential uses that complement and support one another and bring vitality, including increased retail sales, to the area. In addition, the Project will establish standards and guidelines that encourage development of underutilized and vacant land on San Pablo Avenue while ensuring a building character that is modulated visually interesting. 4. The Project recognizes and promotes healthy living and activity by encouraging walking, biking and access to transit as alternatives to vehicular use, supported by widened sidewalks and new bicycle facilities; enhanced public spaces; development intensity focusing on the two BART stations; and a greater mix and diversity of uses. The Project takes a comprehensive approach to sustainability and carbon emissions reduction, utilizing standards integrated with best practices and guidelines for both public and private improvements. The Project also encourages context sensitive design. X. SEVERABILITY If an y t e r m , p r o v is i on , o r po rti o n o f t h e se Fi n d in g s o r t h e a p p l i c a ti o n o f t he s e Fi n d in g s t o a pa rticu l a r sit ua t i o n is he ld b y a c ou rt t o b e in v a l i d , v o id o r un en f o rc e ab l e , t h e re m a ini n g p ro v is i on s o f t he se Fin d i n g s, o r t he ir a p p l i c a ti o n t o o t h e r a cti o n s rel a t e d t o t h e P l an , s ha ll continue in full force and effect unless amended or modified by the City.