Oakland City Council
September 19, 2023

#1
Oakland City Planning Commission STAFF REPORT
Case File Number PLN-18532, PLN18532-PUDF-01 & PLN18532- ER01 April 19, 2023 Location: 4315, 4365,4368 Lincoln Ave.

Assessor’s Parcel Number APN 29A-1367-4-4,29A-1367-1-14, and 29-1009-6 Proposal: Expansion of the existing Head Royce School campus to the former Lincoln Children’s Center site at 4368 Lincoln to create a unified, 22-acre K-12 school.  The Project proposes a tunnel crossing under Lincoln Avenue and/or an at-grade pedestrian crossing. The permitted student enrollment would increase from 906 students to 1,250 students.

Applicant: Rachel E. Skiffer: Head of School
Phone Number: 510 228-1515 Email [email protected] Owner:  Head-Royce School
Case File Number:  PLN-18532, PLN18532PUDF-01and PLN18152- ER01 Planning Permits Required: Planned Unit Development, Final Development Permit, Conditional Use Permit General Plan:  Institutional; Hillside Residential
Zoning:  RD-1; RH-4
Environmental Determination: The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was published November 5, 2021. The FEIR was published February 21,2023 for certification.

Historic Status:  PDHP C-3
City Council District:  4
Status: Under Review.

Staff Recommendation  Certify EIR, and approve land use entitlements Finality of Decision: Appealable to City Council.

For further information:  Rebecca Lind: Phone: (510) 672-1474 or by e-mail: [email protected].

Attachment A-1
Oakland City Planning Commission April 19, 2023
Case File Number PLN-18532, PLN18532PUDF-01and PLN18152- ER01

Oakland City Planning Commission April 19, 2023
Case File Number PLN-18532, PLN18532PUDF-01and PLN18152- ER01

SUMMARY
The purpose of the April 19, 2023 public hearing is to consider certification of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Head Royce School Expansion Project and entitlements for a proposed amendment to the 2016 Planned Unit Development Permit that governs the existing school. The proposed amendment expands the educational use to the 8-acre site of the former Lincoln Children’s Center at 4368 Lincoln to create a new “South Campus” and increases enrollment by 344 students. The PUD would be implemented in three phases. The Head Royce School (School) requested consolidated review of the Planned Unit Development Plan (PUD) and the Final Development Plans (FDP) for the first two phases.

In compliance with CEQA, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared and published for certification. The EIR concludes that approval of the Project would result in no significant impacts, no significant and unavoidable (SU) impacts, and no cumulative impacts.

The City of Oakland is the Lead Agency pursuant to CEQA and prepared the EIR for the Project. Staff published a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an EIR on February 1, 2019. A scoping session was held before the Oakland Planning Commission (PC) on February 20, 2019 and the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board (LPAB) on March 11, 2019. The Notice of Availability (NOA) for the DEIR was prepared and released on November 5, 2021, beginning a 45-day public comment period with the comment period ending December 20, 2021. Hearings on the DEIR were held on December 13,2021 at the LPAB and on December 15,2021 at the PC. A Final EIR was prepared responding to comments and published February 21, 2023.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The PUD application includes a master plan for the buildout of the site and includes the following proposals:
• Retention of the existing School site plan and facilities authorized in the original PUD from 2006 as amended in 2016 for new school buildings and in 2018 for athletic field use at the adjoining Ability Now site at 4500 Lincoln Ave.
• Expansion of the Head Royce School campus civic education use to the former Lincoln Children’s Center site at 4368 Lincoln (new South Campus),
• Increasing enrollment 1-2% per year for a 20-year period to a maximum of 1,250 students, • Construction of a new “South Campus consisting of:
o 4 remodeled buildings totaling 27,500 sf (including 3 historic resource structures), o 3 new buildings including a 15,900-sf multiuse performing arts center, a 1,500-sf pavilion and a 1,000 sf maintenance building,
o A new Loop Road providing access to the campus and establishing student drop-off and pickup on private property, o Tree protection and removal, grading, landscaping and drainage necessary to support these improvements; and
• Parking for 344 cars.
• Connection between the existing (North) and proposed new South campus:
o Two at- grade pedestrian crossings, and
o A pedestrian tunnel, to be constructed during Phase III, under Lincoln Avenue extending from the existing North campus to the proposed Pavilion building on the South campus.

The FDP for Phases I and II of the PUD includes:
• Cap of student enrollment at 1050 students during the first two phases, • Demolition of Buildings 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11,
• Restoration and reuse of Buildings 0, 1, 2 (identified as historic resources) for classrooms, • Interior remodeling of Building 9 for reuse as classroom and/or administrative purposes, • Construction of a Commons area, walking paths, upgraded playfields and outdoor classroom spaces, Oakland City Planning Commission April 19, 2023
Case File Number PLN-18532, PLN18532PUDF-01and PLN18152- ER01

• Construction of a minimum 20-foot-wide Loop Road with stacking capacity for approximately 60 cars that provides access to the campus and includes dedicated off street drop off and pick up areas, • Reconfiguration of existing parking lots to provide 138 spaces on the South Campus, • Planting plan and landscape design for outdoor spaces including a multi-purpose commons area with seating, outdoor classrooms, study patio, teaching garden for growing edible plants, water garden perennially activated by stormwater, boulder garden and play spaces, • Lighting plan,
• Wayfinding signage plan,
• Off- site improvements that include 2 crosswalks that connect the existing (North) and proposed South campuses, an ADA accessible crosswalk at Alida Street, • Stormwater Plan, and
• Grading/Erosion Control.

PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
The Head-Royce School (Existing Campus) is located on Lincoln Avenue, approximately 0.4 miles south of Highway 13, and 0.9 miles north of I-580. The existing school is proposed to become the “North Campus”. The existing 14-acre School campus is developed with 13 buildings used for school facilities. It includes two properties: one at 4315 Lincoln Avenue that houses classrooms, administrative space and other school buildings; Athletic practice facilities and parking are currently allowed by Conditional Use permit on 4500 Lincoln Avenue, owned by Ability Now, on a leasehold basis. The proposed South Campus parcel is located at 4368 Lincoln Ave. The parcel generally slopes up from southwest to northwest with a 56- foot change in grade across the site. The site is accessed by three points along Lincoln Ave. Existing development includes eleven (11) buildings formerly used by the Lincoln Children’s Center.

GENERAL PLAN ANALYSIS
The General Plan Land Use and Transportation Element (LUTE) classifies the project site as “Hillside Residential” for 4325 and 4465 Lincoln Avenue. (Existing Campus) and as “Institutional” for 4368 Lincoln Ave (Proposed South Campus).

The intent of the “Institutional” land use classification is to create, maintain, and enhance areas appropriate for educational facilities, cultural and institutional uses, health services, and medical uses as well as other uses of similar character. The Project is consistent with the Institutional classification and the objectives that support it. The Project updates the South Campus to serve educational uses at an intensity far below 8.0 FAR
The intent of the “Hillside Residential” land use classification is to create, maintain, and enhance neighborhood residential areas that are characterized by detached, single unit structures on hillside lots.

An existing Planned Unit Development Permit governs the allowed land uses on the North Campus, permitting institutional uses. The proposed changes to the North Campus consist of the opening for the pedestrian tunnel and the increase in the roof and interior ceiling height of an existing gymnasium.

ZONING
Zoning on the Existing Campus parcels is RH4/S9. Zoning on the proposed South Campus parcel is RD-1.

Table I Zoning Analysis
Development
Standard
Applicable Regulations Compliance
Existing Campus RH-4 Proposed South Campus Analysis
RD-1
Land Use
Activities
Community Education Civic
Use (K-12 School)
Community Education Civic
Use (K-12 School)
CUP required
Oakland City Planning Commission April 19, 2023
Case File Number PLN-18532, PLN18532PUDF-01and PLN18152- ER01

Facility Enclosed Non-Residential
Open Non-Residential
Enclosed Non- Residential
Open Non-Residential
Permitted
Development
Standard
Applicabl Regulations
Existing Campus RH-4
Applicable Regulaltiions
Proposed South Campus RD-1
Compliance
Analysis
Height Maximum wall height 25 ft.

Maximum height with pitched
roof 30 ft.

For Community Education
Civic Use Up to 75’with a CUP
(Section 17.108.020)
Required setbacks to be
increased by 1 foot for each
additional foot of height over
the standard.

Height may be exceeded by
projections allowed in

17.108.030 to the extent
allowed by CUP
Maximum wall height 25ft.

Maximum height with pitched
roof 30 ft.

For Community Education
Civic Use Up to 75’with a CUP
(Section 17.108.020)
Required setbacks to be
increased by 1 foot for each
additional foot of height over
the standard.

Height may be exceeded by
projections allowed in

17.108.030 to the extent
allowed by CUP
A CUP may be
required for the
height of the
proposed
Performing Arts
Building in Phase
III. Design of the
building is not
submitted but the
applicant estimated
height at 32’

Conforming for
rehabilitated one
story structures
Setbacks 20 ft front 5 ft side,20’ rear 20 ft front 5 ft side,20’ rear Conforming NonResidential
FAR
.20 proposed.

8.0 allowed.

Conforming
Lot coverage 15% Conforming
Parking Planning Code based parking minimums are superseded by State regulations. No parking maximum is required.
344 parking spaces
are proposed.

Bicycle 1 space/20 students, 1 space/employee 24 spaces are required for new construction. 40 long term bicycle parking spaces are proposed.

Conforming
PUD: Processing includes design review and combined processing with a required CUP. Phasing is allowed.

Combined processing of the PDP and FDP is allowed.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
As stated earlier in this report, the City prepared and published an EIR for the project). 1 The EIR analyzes
potentially significant environmental impacts in the following categories: Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources including Historic Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Global Climate Change, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use Planning, Noise, Transportation, Utilities, Wildfire and Emergency Evacuation.

The EIR did not identify significant and unavoidable impacts that could not be reduced below adopted thresholds of significance by standard conditions of approval and/or mitigation measures.

Project Alternatives
The CEQA alternatives include:
• Alternative 1, No Project: The No Project Alternative includes the existing conditions at the time the notice of preparation was published.
1 The EIR for the project is available on the City’s website at: https://www.oaklandca.gov/resources/currentenvironmental-review-ceqa-eir-documents-2011-present Oakland City Planning Commission April 19, 2023
Case File Number PLN-18532, PLN18532PUDF-01and PLN18152- ER01

• Alternative 2: Minor Development Alternative caps enrollment at 906 students but includes demolition of 8 buildings and restoration and reuse of Buildings 0, 1, 2 (historic resources), and reuse of Building 9 for administrative purposes. There would be no change to the current operations for School drop-offs and pick-ups that occur along Lincoln Avenue, and the underground pedestrian tunnel and the Performing Arts building would not be constructed. • Alternative 3: Reduced Alternative would limit student enrollment to 1050 students; It includes all of improvements identified for Alternative 2, plus a new Loop Road for off street drop-off and pick-up and at grade crossing at Lincoln Ave linking the campuses. The underground pedestrian tunnel and the Performing Arts building included in the PUD would not be constructed.

Alternative 2 is considered the environmentally superior alternative. EIR Alternatives 2 and 3 correspond to the Phase I and II improvements and student enrollment proposed in the FDP.

KEY ISSUES AND IMPACTS
There are 4 entitlement actions before the Planning Commission.

Planned Unit Development (Attachment D)
This entitlement authorizes integrated development of the proposed existing (North) and South campuses including amendments to and consolidation of prior conditions of approval, operational requirements, parking location and allowed numbers of spaces, maximum enrollment, and the general location of proposed improvements and phasing.

Final Development Permit Combined Phase I and II (Attachment E) The final development plan (FDP) provides a detailed level of design to indicate fully the ultimate operation and appearance of the development. The FDP also specifies off-site improvements required for project implementation.

Conditional Use Permit
A CUP can be processed as part of the PUD however, the required CUP findings must still be made.

The proposed Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is required for expansion of the Community Education Civic Use in the RD-1 zone.

A second CUP will be required for height of the proposed Performing Arts Center in Phase III. This proposed building is not yet designed but in the PUD project description is described as “approximately 32 feet in height”. Plans for the building will be prepared as part of the Phase III FDP. If the building is over 25 ft. high in its primary wall or over 30’ high with a pitched roof it will require a CUP for height as part of that FDP review.

Design Review
Staff is requesting that the Planning Commission review the design issues directly rather than refer the project to the DRC. The design review for the combined Phase I and II FDP primarily involves review of the historic resource buildings, and site planning elements. The major structures proposed in the PUD are the Performing Arts Center and the pedestrian tunnel which will not come before the City until the Phase III FDP is reviewed. Modifications to the historic resource buildings were referred to the LPAB and their recommendations to the Planning Commission are provided in the following analysis section.

Oakland City Planning Commission April 19, 2023
Case File Number PLN-18532, PLN18532PUDF-01and PLN18152- ER01

ANALYSIS
PUD and Combined Phase I and II FDP
Analysis of the PUD and FDP focuses on the following issues:

1. Loop Road
Development of the loop road on the South Campus and the potential to remove drop-off and pick- up activity from Lincoln Avenue and improve traffic flow in the neighborhood. a) The City’s transportation consultant developed a model of the stacking capacity of the loop road, which demonstrates improved functionality on Lincoln Avenue for through traffic.

2. Parking
a) Existing Condition.

The 2016 PUD Conditions of Approval required a minimum 154 spaces on the existing (North Campus) and allowed additional shared spaces on the former Lincoln Children’s site as well as unlimited shared spaces on other institutional use sites in the vicinity. The school has been using the existing 129 spaces on the former Lincoln Children’s Center site since closure of the previous use and an additional 38 shared spaces at the Greek Orthodox Church. The 2016 PUD Conditions of Approval also defined “special events” as “events creating more than a 50-vehicle parking demand and allowed this parking as shared parking offsite.”
b) Recent changes in state law (AB 2097) eliminate City requirements for minimum parking for certain classes of development projects. The City Attorney’s office determined that the Head Royce PUD Extension project is subject to AB 2097 so the City will not analyze minimum parking requirements. Where parking is proposed by the applicant, it may be reviewed as a part of an applicable discretionary review and City requirements other than the standard for minimum number of spaces considered. In this case Planning Code Section 17.116.180, Conditions for off-street parking or loading relating to off-site parking, may be applied through the PUD process.
c) Student and employee parking demand is estimated as a maximum of 350 spaces at full buildout of 1,250 students based on a 2//22 Parking Demand Analysis(Attachment H) prepared for the School by the transportation consultant Nelson Nygaard. The report addresses the average daily school parking demand only and does not include parking for special events.

d) The PUD proposes up to 344 dedicated spaces
 328 spaces on land owned by the School including:
• Up to 190 spaces on the North campus with up to 36 of these spaces added through stacked parking. As enrollment increases in Phase III, the applicant would either add stacked parking in Lot F on the North Campus or reduce parking demand by prohibiting some or all students from driving to school. Currently, approximately 90 students (juniors and seniors) have permits to drive to campus and park.
• 138 spaces on the proposed South campus achieved by re-stripping the existing parking areas to add 9 spaces, and
Oakland City Planning Commission April 19, 2023
Case File Number PLN-18532, PLN18532PUDF-01and PLN18152- ER01

• Retention of an additional 16 shared parking off site at adjacent institutional sites such as Ability Now, the Greek Orthodox Church and the First Oakland Temple.
e) The Combined Phase I and II FDP proposes phased parking to provide:
 At entitled enrollment of 1050 students: 330 spaces including:
• 154 parking spaces on the North Campus
• 138 parking spaces on the South campus
• 38 shared spaces at the Greek Orthodox Church
f) Parking Recommendation
It is recommended that up to 344 parking spaces be allowed to meet Parking Demand as projected by Nelson Nygaard with a minimum overflow to surrounding sites.  Phased Parking for Combined Phase I and II may include 330 spaces including:
• Phased increase in parking spaces to a total of 292 on both campuses. • Shared use of up to 38 parking spaces at the Greek Orthodox Church for a total of 330 parking spaces with a parking agreement approved by the City Attorney for off-site parking per 17.116.180 Conditions for off-street parking or loading.  The PUD may include up to 344 spaces including:
• 190 spaces on the North Campus and 138 spaces on the South Campus • Increase parking by 36 stacker spaces.
• Revision of the shared use parking agreement at the Greek Orthodox Church at occupancy of Phase III to allow 16 spaces with a written parking agreement approved by the City Attorney or reduce off site spaces with reduction of parking demand.
 Requested additional overflow parking for “special events” defined in the 2016 PUD Conditions of Approval as “events creating more than a 50-vehicle parking demand” may be located at adjacent institutional use parking lots with a written parking agreement between the Head Royce School and the property owner approved by the City Attorney Parking Recommendation Summary
Phase Existing
North
Campus
Existing
South
Campus
New
North
Campus
New
South
Campus
Off Site* Total Off site
For
Events
Phase
II
154 129 0 9 38 330 Unlimited*
Phase
III
154 138 36
stacked
0 Up to 16 344 Unlimited*
* Requires parking agreement approved by the City Attorney This staff recommendation is drafted in the attached conditions of approval.as Condition 29.

3. Bicycle Parking
a) Existing bicycle racks are provided on the North Campus adjacent to Whittle St. 40 new spaces are provided on the South Campus adjacent to the passenger drop off area at the loop road entry as shown on the detail drawing below. An additional detail showing the design of bicycle parking and rack functionality is required to demonstrate consistency Oakland City Planning Commission April 19, 2023
Case File Number PLN-18532, PLN18532PUDF-01and PLN18152- ER01

with Planning Code Section 17.117.070 Location and design of required bicycle parking.

This requirement is drafted in the site-specific conditions of approval as Condition 41.

4. Transportation Demand Management Report (TDM) (Attachment I) The TDM implements strategies reducing dependence on single occupancy vehicles. a) The TDM as submitted is inconsistent with project mitigation identified through CEQA requiring the project to increase modal spit by 15% and increase the required carpooling, bus riding, and bicycle modes to 34.5% of trips. The TDM will need to be updated to reflect this standard.
b) Additional sections of the TDM that address parking and special events will need to be updated consistent with the Conditions of Approval. This requirement is included in the Conditions of Approval as Condition 30.

5. Emergency evacuation.
a) A new emergency evacuation plan is required as a project mitigation. This requirement is drafted in the SCAMMRP (Attachment C). See Mitigation Measure Wildfire and Emergency Evacuation-1, Emergency Evacuation Plan.
b) An additional emergency evaluation route opposite Camelia Place will be provided voluntarily by the School to accommodate public egress through school property in both directions from the Loop Road in the event of an emergency. A draft condition of approval requiring this emergency evacuation route is drafted as Condition 46.

6. Potential noise associated with special events.
a) Site specific noise mitigation is required for outdoor events such as high school graduation and is included in the SCAMMRP (Attachment C). See Noise-3, Noise from Special Events and Mitigation Measure Noise-3B, Special Event Notifications and Restrictions.

7. Phasing with a delayed submittal of 6 years for Phase III. a) As stated earlier in this report, the applicant is requesting 3 Phases and is now combining Phases I and II in a combined FDP. The two major structures proposed in the PUD, the performing arts building and the pedestrian tunnel under Lincoln Avenue, will not occur until Phase III. The request is to allow the final FDP to be submitted 6 years from the PUD approval date. Staff supports this request because a series of FDPs for a 3- phase project may be submitted in 2- year increments which results in the same overall time frame. This submittal timeframe request is included in the project specific conditions of approval as Condition 17.

8. Off Site Improvements
a) The FDP includes horizontal improvements (Exhibit F) for improvements in the City rightof-way. It establishes pedestrian circulation between the two campuses, provides ADA Oakland City Planning Commission April 19, 2023
Case File Number PLN-18532, PLN18532PUDF-01and PLN18152- ER01

access and reduces parking on Lincoln Avenue to facilitate turn lanes accessing the Loop Road.
b) A new signalized crosswalk is provided at the entry to the Loop Road. c) An existing crosswalk is relocated to the exit of the Loop Road. d) Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) timing will be provided for both Loop Road signals, and timing cards that time all pedestrian crossings at 3ft/sec will be submitted to OakDOT for review. This requirement is drafted in the project specific conditions of approval as Condition 42.
e) ADA crossing will be provided at the intersection of Lincoln Avenue and Alida Street extending from existing curb cuts.
o The Applicant will conduct a stop sign warrant analysis at the intersection of Alida and Lincoln Avenues. If a stop sign is warranted, applicant will install it in coordination with OakDOT. If a stop sign is not warranted, applicant will install a rapid rectangular flashing beacon at this Intersection. Design will be documented as part of the PX permit process. This requirement is drafted in the project specific conditions of approval as Condition 42.
f) Curb colors and loading/parking regulations are provided for the Lincoln Avenue frontages, including on the east side of Lincoln Avenue north and south of the new proposed crosswalk at the southern Loop Rd exit.
g) A “Signal Ahead” sign and a Radar Speed sign are to be relocated from their present locations.
h) A programmatic solution is required to ensure that students can receive aid in crossing Lincoln Avenue upon request. If a shuttle solution is infeasible, then the City would accept a written commitment to provide a phone number for students to call for assistance from on-site staff. Such a solution is necessary to ensure that the applicant is responsible for providing safe passage across Lincoln for disabled students, given that they are unable to provide ADA-compliant cross slopes at the two new Loop Rd crosswalks. The requirement is drafted in the project specific conditions of approval as Condition 42.

9. Stormwater
a) The Stormwater Plan identifies areas of impervious improvements in the FDP including roof, asphalt and landscape, self-retaining improvements including hardscape and landscape features and pervious landscape. These areas are mapped on the site plan by drainage management areas (DMA) shown on FDP pages CO 21 through CO22.The analysis of required bioretention is based on Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program C.3 Stormwater Technical Guidance.
b) The total drainage area without bioretention is 337,757 sf. The proposal has a retention requirement of 6,713 sf and 9,113 sf of bioretention is provided in 22 bio-retention areas.

Details of the analysis are provided on FDP page C0.23. (See Attachment E) CUP for Expansion for Educational Use
Staff supports the CUP for the following reasons. CUP findings are provided in Attachment A.

1. The site was previously the home of the Lincoln Children’s Center, an institutional use that included a mental health service center and residential school facility.

2. The redevelopment proposes an intensity of use consistent with the previous institutional use of the site at a scale that is similar to the surrounding neighborhood which includes both single family and institutional uses.

Oakland City Planning Commission April 19, 2023
Case File Number PLN-18532, PLN18532PUDF-01and PLN18152- ER01

Design Review

1. Design Review of the Historic Buildings
The remaining issue for this topic involves the degree of window restoration and the design of proposed ADA ramps. The LPAB made a recommendation to the applicant to further modify these project features which the applicant did not implement.
a) Background
The Historic Resource Evaluation prepared as part of the DEIR technical reports (Appendix 7A) concluded that three buildings on the campus qualify as individual historic resources for the purposes of CEQA and are eligible for the California Register. These include Building 0 (Junior Alliance Hall), Building 1 (Mary A. Crocker Cottage), which both have revised 2021 ratings of Ba/3 and Building 2 (Grace L. Trevor Cottage). It also concluded that the 8-acre former Lincoln Children’s Center site does not qualify as an historic district.

The buildings are distinctive examples of the Spanish Colonial Revival style. They are designated in the proposal as Building O (aka Junior Alliance Hall), designed by W.G. Corlett; Building 1 (aka Mary Crocker Cottage), designed by Reed and Corlett; and Building 2 (aka Grace L Trevor Cottage), also designed by Reed and Corlett. Review of these buildings is regulated through the Design Review Findings from Planning Code Sections 7.136.050.C and 17.136.050.D and the modifications to the facades are subject to the Secretary of the Interior Standards for revisions to the exterior of the buildings. b) Landmark Preservation Advisory Board. Recommendation The Board had two design concerns.
 ADA Standards A new stucco clad ADA ramp is proposed on the west elevation of Building 1.  Historic Steel Stash Windows. The project was evaluated for consistency with Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation, and the window retention program fell short of full compliance with one of the ten criteria (Criterion 6, Deteriorated Historic Features). The proposal was revised to increase salvage and reuse of existing historical windows to address this issue and improve compliance with the standards, but the Board requested additional modifications.  The Board recommended that the Planning Commission adopt a Condition of Approval to rehabilitate all historic steel windows at Building 0 to improve compliance with the Secretary of Oakland City Planning Commission April 19, 2023
Case File Number PLN-18532, PLN18532PUDF-01and PLN18152- ER01

the Interior Rehabilitation Standard 6, Deteriorated Historic Features with the additional requirements that the applicant provide the following information. • Revise the scale of new window patterning on Building 1 and 2 to be more consistent with historic windows,
• Review the size and scale of the ADA ramp at Building 1 west elevation to be consistent with the historic context, and
• Submit the historic drawings/renderings when presenting to the Planning Commission.  The Board also recommended certification of the Head Royce School Expansion Project EIR to the Planning Commission.

The Applicant provided the historic drawing/renderings for Buildings 1 and 2 (Attachment G) and advised as follows.

The applicant thanks the Landmark Preservation Advisory Board for its comments about the windows on Buildings 1 and 2, and the accessible ramp on the west elevation of Building 1. The applicant has reviewed the current plans for alternative approaches, contacted board members for further clarification on their comments, and referenced the Secretary of Interior's Standards for rehabilitation. After this thorough review, the applicant agrees with the findings of the City's independent consultant that the current design is a compliant solution and does not anticipate further changes.

A recommendation requiring the Applicant to provide additional documentation for review by the City is drafted in the site-specific conditions of approval as Condition 43.

2. Regular Design Review
The project site plan and improvements are subject to the General Design Review Findings as part of the PUD. This review is completed as part of the FDP review.

The FDP Site Plan includes a high amenity Commons area, walking paths, upgraded playfields and outdoor classroom spaces and landscaping. Overall, the design concept provides buffering of the adjacent residential areas and sightlines into the interior of the campus from the public street.

Staff recommends that the Planting Schedule and Planting Plan shown on Plan Sheet L6.1.00 be amended to show Lupinus Alpifrons in place of Lupinus Arboreus as part of the Coastal Native Mix as the Arboreus is typically associated with dune plantings. This recommendation is drafted in the project specific conditions of approval as Condition 44.

Design Review findings including the general findings and the historic buildings findings are provided in Attachment A.
a) Landscape Design for Outdoor Spaces
Several different outdoor spaces are proposed. The multipurpose commons with seating will provide assembly space and function as instructional space and study space. Several types of outdoor classrooms are proposed including a study patio with a gravel pad and boulders/logs for seating, teaching garden for growing edible plants, water garden perennially activated by stormwater, boulder garden and play spaces. The landscape palette includes native plant groups with low water use.

Materials are chosen to maximize impervious surface.

The Planting Schedule and Planting Plan shown on Plan Sheet L6.1.00 and Sheet L6.1.0 .2.00 include 5 planting groups with mixes of plant materials in the variety and sizes. These materials are summarized in Table I.

Oakland City Planning Commission April 19, 2023
Case File Number PLN-18532, PLN18532PUDF-01and PLN18152- ER01

b) Tree Protection/Removal and Transplant
There are 395 trees on the Project site. The Project would protect in-place or relocate approximately 254 trees and add approximately 88 large new trees and 34 small trees/shrubs to provide visual screening. Larger retained trees primarily provide screening on the perimeter of the site where tree removal was not required for construction of campus features.

Table 1
CA Coastal Native Mix (COA) 15,925 sf
C-3 Bio filter mix (C3 Bio) 14,320 sf
Seed mix for meadow (MEA) 143,930 sf
4 types of new large trees
• Coast Live oak maximum spread 25’
• California sycamore0-30 ‘
• Big Leaf maple 20-35'
• Western Redbud 15
Quantity Size
14 36’Box
50 15 Gal
10 15 Gal
14 5 Gal
4 types of new small trees/shrubs
• California Buckeye
• Coffee berry
• Toyon
• St Helen manzanita
Quantity Size
7 5 Gal
12 5 Gal
15 5 Gal
5 24’box
Lawn 11,700 sf
c) Fencing
Four fence types are proposed as shown in Table 2. The Acoustic Board Perimeter fence is combined with a retaining wall as shown on the FDP Section plan page FDP-L3.01 to provide visual and noise buffering.

A detail drawing is not provided for the retaining wall and will be required as a project specific condition of approval as drafted on Condition 45.

Oakland City Planning Commission April 19, 2023
Case File Number PLN-18532, PLN18532PUDF-01and PLN18152- ER01

Table 2 Fence Typologies
Type Location Height
Acoustic Board on
Board
Perimeter 6’
Metal Slat Lincoln Ave Not specified
Post and Rope Planted Trails Not specified
Chain Link Playfield 10’
d) Material Palette Architecture
The material palette includes clay roof tile, off white exterior wall stucco, and dark brown steel windows.
e) Material Palette Paving/Hardscape/Seating
Plan Sheet L1.2.00 specifies materials and includes illustrations of various types of hardscapes and seating in the common areas, walkway and outdoor classrooms. This information is summarized in Table 3.

Table 3
Material Quantity Use Area
Sawed premium concrete (Concrete CIP) 13,500 sf Walkways Wood decking (WRC) 3,600 sf Board ramps/commons
Stabilized Granitecrete Paving 14,000 sf Circulation
Granitecrete Paving 7,130 sf Circulation
Pea Gravel paving 3,000 sf Soft patio
Stone paving 225 sf Labyrinth
Salvaged timber seats 25 Outdoor classrooms
Oakland City Planning Commission April 19, 2023
Case File Number PLN-18532, PLN18532PUDF-01and PLN18152- ER01

Salvaged timber logs 120 Outdoor classrooms
Boulders 40 Outdoor classrooms
Salvaged timber stumps 78 Outdoor classrooms
Gravel aggregate for french drain 2,800 sf.
f) Wayfinding Signage
A comprehensive system of 23 wayfinding signs is proposed with consistent colors font type and materials. Signage types are summarized in Table 4. The color schedule is white, dark green and light green (see sheet FDP-GR.0.01).

Table 4 Wayfinding Signs
Sign type Number Sign Size Letter Size Design
EO 1 South Campus Gateway 1 5.5’ wide

14.75’ tall
53/4 “
7/8 “
Painted Metal Letter Forms
Blind pin mounted to face of
wall
EO2Vehicle Entrance at Loop
Road
6 3.2” tall
wide 4.5
3”

2.7”:

Two painted aluminum plates
wrapped around two wooden
posts
EO3Vehicle Directional 3 3.0 wide

4.5” tall
2 .78” Two painted aluminum plates
wrapped around two wooden
posts
EO4 Orientation Map 2 3.11 x 3.1.
3’ pole
3” Removable plate with map
graphic fastened to frame
E05 Pedestrian Access
Directional
5 8’ wide

4.5’ tall
5” symbols Painted aluminum sign plates
wrapped around a wooden
post
E06 Building identification
Freestanding
3 5’4” wide
2’4” wide
3” Two painted aluminum plates
wrapped around two wooden
posts
EO7Building Identification
Wall Mounted
2 1.9” wide

7.25” tall

1.25” Painted aluminum sign
mounted to wall
EO8 Building Identification
Dimensional Letters
1 3” 23/8”
wide
3” Painted metal letter forms
Blind pined to face of surface
Oakland City Planning Commission April 19, 2023
Case File Number PLN-18532, PLN18532PUDF-01and PLN18152- ER01

g) Lighting
Four types of outdoor light fixtures are provided for exterior building mounted lighting, Eleven types of campus lighting are provided. See sheet P-A1.13.

Issues for Resolution
Staff recommendations for minor changes to the proposed PUD and FDP that require resolution are identified in the Analysis section and Conditions of Approval (Attachment B) The Planning Commission’s review and concurrence, modification or removal of these recommendations is requested.

Draft
Condition
Issue Summary
COA 29 Parking Onsite, Shared an
Event parking
328 on site spaces, 16 off-site at buildout Phase III.
292 on site spaces, 38 off site spaces with a parking
agreement Phase II
Event spaces off-site with a parking agreement
Oakland City Planning Commission April 19, 2023
Case File Number PLN-18532, PLN18532PUDF-01and PLN18152- ER01

COA 30 TDM Update TDM document to address modal split,
SCAMMRP and COA consistency.

COA 41 Bicycle parking Design detail required.

COA 17 Phasing 6-year timeline for the final FDP submittal, 2 years to building permit submittal for all Phases
COA 42 Offsite improvements Alida St ADA access including stop sign warrant or flashing beacon; Reporting pedestrian crossings to
OakDOT; Programmatic solution to assist students
COA 43 Historic Resource Buildings
Windows and ADA ramp
Provide addition documentation addressing the LPAB
recommendation.

COA 44 Planting Palette Changes to Coastal Native Mix
COA 45 Perimeter fencing/retaining
wall
Require a design detail.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. Adopt the attached California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) findings, including certification of the EIR and rejection of the alternatives as infeasible, and adopt the Standard Conditions of Approval/Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
(SCAMMRP), as attached at Attachment C.
.

2. Approve the PUD, including the request for a 6-year timeframe for submittal of the Phase III FDP, and approve the FDPs for the combined Phases I and II, including the Horizontal improvements, subject to the attached findings and SCAMM/RP and Conditions. of Approval as amended if needed.

Prepared by:

Rebecca Lind
Planner IV
Reviewed by:

Catherine Payne
Development Planning Manager
Bureau of Planning
Approved for forwarding to the Planning Commission:

Ed Manasse Deputy Director
Bureau of Planning
For Robert Merkamp, Acting Deputy Director
Oakland City Planning Commission April 19, 2023
Case File Number PLN-18532, PLN18532PUDF-01and PLN18152- ER01

ATTACHMENTS:

A. Findings Approval
B. Conditions of Approval
C. SCAMMRP
D. PUD Plans
E. FDP Plans
F. Horizontal FDP
G. Historic Plans for Resource Buildings 1 and 2
H. Parking Demand Management Report
I. Transportation Demand Management Report
NOTE:

The Draft and Final EIRs were provided under separate cover for review and consideration by the Planning Commission, and is available to the public on the City’s website at: https://www.oaklandca.gov/resources/current-environmentalreview-ceqa-eir-documents-2011-present.

Oakland City Planning Commission April 19, 2023
Case File Number PLN-18532, PLN18532PUDF-01and PLN18152- ER01

ATTACHMENT A

FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEOA) FINDINGS, INCLUDING

CERTIFICATION OF THE EIR, ADOPTION OF MITIGATION MEASURES, REJECTION OF

ALTERNATIVES, AND ADOPTION OF A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING

PROGRAM
I. INTRODUCTION
These Findings are made pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Res. Code section 21000 et seq. (CEQA)), the CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs. title 14, section 15000 et seq.) and the City of Oakland CEQA Procedure and Guidelines (Chapter 17.158 of the Oakland Municipal Code) by the City of Oakland Planning Commission in connection with the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the Head-Royce School Planned Unit Development (PUD) Project (Case File Number PLN18532-ER01), SCH# 2019029032. The EIR includes the Draft EIR and Response to Comments/Final EIR. The Response to Comments/Final EIR is referred to herein as the “Final EIR or FEIR”.

These CEQA Findings are included as part of this Exhibit 1 and attached and incorporated by reference into each staff report, resolution and ordinance associated with approval of the Project. The Standard Conditions of Approval/Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (SCAMMRP) for the Project are attached as Exhibit 2 to the CEQA Resolution for the Project. All Exhibits and attachments are incorporated by reference into each other, and into the ordinance or resolution to which the Exhibits are attached.

These Findings are based on substantial evidence in the entire administrative record, and references to specific reports and specific pages of documents are not intended to identify those sources as the exclusive basis for the findings.

II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION and PROJECT OBJECTIVES
A. Project Description

These Finding address the Project as described in Chapter 3 of the Draft EIR, and with the Proposed Changes to the Project as more fully described in Chapter 2 of the Final EIR. As described in the Draft EIR, Head-Royce School is an independent co-educational college preparatory day school for students in kindergarten through the 12th grade. The existing Head-Royce School Campus is located on the northerly side of Lincoln Avenue, approximately 0.4 miles south of Highway 13 and 0.9 miles north of I-580. HeadRoyce school proposes to expand its existing Campus to the former Lincoln site (or proposed South Campus) on the southerly side of Lincoln Avenue to create a larger, 22-acre K-12 school with increased enrollment.

The Project proposes to connect these two sites via an underground tunnel below Lincoln Avenue and/or with at-grade pedestrian crossings across Lincoln Avenue, and to redevelop the former Lincoln site to support its proposed increased enrollment. The Head-Royce School Planned Unit Development (PUD) Project would include phased construction and operation of the South Campus. The Project proposes to remove eight of the twelve existing buildings on the proposed South Campus, none of which has been identified as an historic resource. The Project proposes interior renovation and reuse of Building 9 (built in Oakland City Planning Commission April 19, 2023
Case File Number PLN-18532, PLN18532PUDF-01and PLN18152- ER01

1999 and originally used as a dormitory) for classroom and administrative use, with no significant changes to the exterior. Three of the existing buildings on the proposed South Campus are to be rehabilitated and reused for ongoing School purposes. The EIR identifies each of these three buildings as historic resources from the 1929 to 1935-era (Building 0, the Junior Alliance Hall originally constructed in 1935; Building 1, the Mary A. Crocker Cottage originally constructed in 1929-1930, and Building 2, the Grace L. Trevor Cottage originally constructed in 1929-1930).

The Project proposes to construct three new buildings on the proposed South Campus. A new Performing Arts Center would provide the School’s theater, dance and music groups with practice, performance and classroom space, and will be a place for the School to hold assemblies, concerts, meetings and host speakers.

A new Link Pavilion would be a multi-use meeting room and gallery space, and would provide elevator access from the Pavilion to the pedestrian tunnel entrance. The third new building on the proposed South Campus would be a storage building.

A new internal one-way Loop Road would ring the internal perimeter of the proposed South Campus. It would have an entrance driveway off Lincoln Avenue at the easterly (upper) end of the proposed South Campus, and the exit onto Lincoln at the westerly (lower) end of the proposed South Campus. The new Loop Road would providing on-Campus circulation and off-street queuing space for vehicles. All vehicle picking-up and dropping-off activity at the School would occur along this Loop Road, rather than as currently occurs along Lincoln Avenue.

The Project proposes to add 25 new on‐site parking spaces, and to retain and redesign the 129 paved parking spaces that currently exist, for a net of 154 total parking spaces on the proposed South Campus. The Project proposes two options for providing a pedestrian connection between the existing and proposed South Campus. The first option is to construct a pedestrian tunnel under Lincoln Avenue to connect the existing Campus to the proposed South Campus. The second option is to use only the two at-grade crossings of Lincoln Avenue for all pedestrian connections between the existing and proposed South Campuses. The two at-grade crossings will be permanent, but the extent to which these at-grade crossings are used will be substantially lessened with construction of the pedestrian tunnel.

The landscape design for the Project proposes a central Commons, three outdoor wood deck classrooms, a “walking labyrinth”, outdoor farming in raised planters, and a series of ADA-accessible paths that provide access to buildings within the proposed South Campus, plus secondary paths with stairs.

The Project proposes to increase permitted enrollment up to 1,250 students, representing an increase of 344 additional students over the currently allowed enrollment of 906. Enrollment increases are proposed to occur in increments of no more than 20 additional students each year, up to the maximum permitted enrollment over an approximate 17 to 20-year period. The School expects that the majority of increased student enrollment will occur in the high school grades, where demand is the greatest.

The Project applicant proposes to construct the Project in phases, with two or more Final Development Plans. A full description of the proposed Project analyzed in the EIR is included in Chapter 3 of the Draft EIR, with additional information pertaining to Proposed Changes to the Project as provided in Chapter 2 of the Final EIR, all of which are incorporated herein by reference. The proposed changes include no longer pursuing an easement from the property that abuts the proposed South Campus, resulting in a shift in the alignment of the upper portion of the proposed Loop Road and a decrease of 16 parking spaces as compared to the design of the original Project. Changes are proposed to the exterior designs for renovation of Building 0 and Building 2, with salvage and reuse of many of the historical steel sash windows on Building 0, and removal of originally proposed ADA ramps at Building 2. Project changes also include removal of a loading dock from the proposed Performing Arts Center.

Oakland City Planning Commission April 19, 2023
Case File Number PLN-18532, PLN18532PUDF-01and PLN18152- ER01

Based on a review of the EIR it is determined that the impacts of the proposed Project with the Proposed Changes were analyzed in the FEIR in sufficient detail to analyze reasonably foreseeable impacts, as discussed in Sections VIII, IX and X below.

B. Project Objectives
The objectives of the proposed Project are as follows:

1. Expand the School’s educational facilities to the proposed South Campus by rehabilitating three existing buildings (Buildings 0, 1 and 2) that are identified under current City records as historic resources; utilize one additional existing building (Building 9) for school-related purposes; build new facilities that address current and future educational needs; and improve vehicular and pedestrian circulation, parking and grounds.

2. Use existing outdoor space for outdoor classrooms.

3. Construct a new Performance Arts Center for student curriculum relating to theater, music, dance and culture.

4. Gradually increase permitted Schoolwide enrollment by 344 students over currently allowed enrollment, to a maximum student population of 1,250 students (at an anticipated enrollment increase rate of approximately 1 percent to 2 percent per year for a 20-year period).

5. Remove on-street drop-off and pick-up from Lincoln Avenue and remove parent use of Alida Loop by developing an internal, one-way circulation loop driveway on the proposed South Campus. The driveway will provide off-street drop-off and pick-up space, eliminate pick up and drop off activities (other than for buses) from Lincoln Avenue, and create a new vehicle circulation pattern that reduces turn-around traffic in adjacent neighborhoods.

6. Integrate the existing Campus and the proposed South Campus for pedestrians with an underground pedestrian tunnel below Lincoln Avenue, to reduce at-grade crossings.

7. Reconfigure and increase the number of off-street parking spaces on the proposed South Campus (and/or the existing Campus as may be necessary), to meet parking demands at buildout and to minimize neighborhood parking and disruption.

8. Use new buildings placed on the proposed South Campus to create a central commons for student interactions and to provide for noise attenuation.

9. Achieve LEED Gold standards on the renovation of existing buildings and on the new construction of the Performing Arts Center and Link Pavilion.

10. Improve drainage through better stormwater management.

III. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF THE PROJECT
Pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the City published a Notice of Preparation (NOP) on February 1, 2019. Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15082 (Notice of Preparation and Determination of Scope of EIR), that NOP indicated that an EIR would be prepared for the Head-Royce School Planned Unit Development (PUD) Project and invited comments on the scope of the Draft EIR (DEIR). A 45-day public scoping period for the Draft EIR ended on March 11, 2019. Public scoping sessions were conducted by the Oakland Planning Commission on February 20, 2019, and the Oakland Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board (LPAB) on March 11, 2019. The NOP was sent to property owners within 300 feet of the Project site, responsible and trustee agencies, organizations, and other interested parties. A notice was published in the newspaper, and a copy of the NOP was sent to the State Clearinghouse to solicit statewide agency participation in determining the scope of the EIR, and to the County Clerk, who posted the NOP for public notice. All comments received on the NOP are included in Appendix 1B: Responses to Notice of Preparation of the DEIR.

A DEIR was prepared for the Project to analyze its environmental impacts. Pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, a Notice of Availability/Notice of Release and the DEIR were published on November Oakland City Planning Commission April 19, 2023
Case File Number PLN-18532, PLN18532PUDF-01and PLN18152- ER01

5, 2021, announcing the availability of the DEIR for public review and comment. The Notice of Availability/Notice of Release of the DEIR was distributed to appropriate state and local agencies, posted at the Project site, mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the Project site, and mailed to individuals who have requested to be notified of official City actions on the Project. Copies of the DEIR were also distributed to appropriate federal, state and local agencies, City officials including the Planning Commission, and made available for public review at the City of Oakland’s Department of Planning and Building, Planning and Zoning Division (250 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Suite 2214) and on the City’s website.

The DEIR was properly circulated for a 45-day public review period ending on December 20, 2021.

During the public review and comment period on the DEIR the City held two public meetings on the DEIR; one before the Oakland Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board (LPAB) on December 13, 2021; and a second public hearing before the Oakland City Planning Commission on December 15, 2021. Consistent with Alameda County’s Shelter in Place Orders and guidance from the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, the DEIR was made available in digital form and public hearings on the DEIR were held remotely.

The City encouraged agencies and interested parties to submit written comments on the DEIR electronically via email. Written comments were submitted to the City of Oakland Bureau of Planning by mail, email or by fax. Oral comments were received at each of the two public hearings. By the end of the comment period, the City received oral or written comments from 287 commenters. Of those 287 comment letters, 57 letters included comments on the adequacy and/or accuracy of the DEIR, and 230 letters expressed support for the Project and the EIR conclusions. A list of the commenters commenting on the adequacy and/or accuracy of the DEIR is provided in Chapter 4, Responses to Individual Comments Letters on the DEIR.

The City has prepared written responses to comments on environmental issues received during the public review and comment period for the DEIR. These comments and the “Response to Comments” are provided in the Final EIR (FEIR). Chapter 3 of the FEIR provides “Master Responses to Comments” that respond collectively to comments received from many commenters. Chapter 4 of the FEIR provides all written comments (submitted by email, by mail or by hand), together with individual responses to comments not addressed in Chapter 3. Chapter 5 of the FEIR provides responses to all oral comments received at the meeting of the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board and at the hearing conducted by the Oakland City Planning Commission. Due to the large volume of text contained in the DEIR and its appendices, the FEIR does not contain the full text of the DEIR, which remains available in a separate volume. Both the DEIR and FEIR are incorporated herein by reference.

The DEIR and FEIR, and all supporting technical documents under City of Oakland Case PLN18532-ER01, and all of the documents submitted to or relied on by the City in preparation of the DEIR and FEIR constitute the "EIR" referenced in these Findings.

Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15097 (Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting) require public agencies to establish monitoring or reporting programs for projects approved by a public agency whenever approval involves the adoption of specified environmental findings related to an EIR. Accordingly, as Lead Agency, the City has prepared a Standard Conditions of Approval/Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (SCA/MMRP) for the Project; the Draft SCA/MMRP is included as Appendix 2 to the FEIR. The intent of the SCA/MMRP is to track and successfully implement the SCAs and mitigation measures identified within the EIR and is adopted as part of the Project to avoid or mitigate significant effects on the environment. The SCA/MMRP is designed to ensure compliance with the SCAs and mitigation measures during and after Project implementation.

The FEIR was made available for public review on February 22, 2023, 13 days prior to the duly noticed March 6, 2023, Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board meeting and 43 days in advance of the April 5, Oakland City Planning Commission April 19, 2023
Case File Number PLN-18532, PLN18532PUDF-01and PLN18152- ER01

2023, Oakland Planning Commission public hearing. Notice of, and access to, the FEIR was provided to those state and local agencies that commented on the NOP and/or DEIR. Notice was also submitted electronically to the State Clearinghouse CEQAnet web portal, mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the Project site, and mailed to individuals who have specifically requested to be notified of official City actions on the Project. Notice of and access to the FEIR was provided to City officials, including the Planning Commission and the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board, and was made available for public review on the City’s website. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, responses to public agency comments on the DEIR have been published and made available to all commenting agencies at least 10 days prior to the final certification hearing. The City Planning Commission has had an opportunity to review all comments and responses thereto prior to consideration of certification of the EIR and prior to taking any action on the Project.

IV. THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
The record upon which all findings and determinations related to the approval of the Project are based includes the following:

1. The EIR and all documents referenced in or relied upon by the EIR.

2. All information (including written evidence and testimony) provided by City staff to the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board and City Planning Commission relating to the EIR, the approvals, and the Project.

3. All information (including written evidence and testimony) presented to the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board and City Planning Commission by the environmental consultant and sub-consultants who prepared the EIR, or incorporated into reports presented to the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board and Planning Commission.

4. All information (including written evidence and testimony) presented to the City from other public agencies relating to the Project or the EIR.

5. All final applications, letters, testimony, reports, studies, memoranda, maps and presentations presented by the Project sponsor and its consultants to the City in connection with the Project.

6. All final information (including written evidence and testimony) presented at any City public hearing or City workshop related to the Project and the EIR.

7. For documentary and information purposes, all City-adopted land use plans and ordinances, including without limitation general plans, specific plans and ordinances, together with environmental review documents, all documents referenced in and relied upon in such environmental review documents, findings, mitigation monitoring programs and other documentation relevant to planned growth in the area.

8. The Standard Conditions of Approval for the Project and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (SCA/MMRP) for the Project.

9. All other documents comprising the record pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21167.6(e).

The City has relied on all of the documents listed above in reaching its decisions on the Project, even if not every document was formally presented to City decision-making bodies or City Staff as part of the City files generated in connection with the Project. Without exception, any documents set forth above not found in the Project files fall into one of two categories. Many of them reflect prior planning or legislative decisions of which the City decision-making bodies were aware in approving the Project (see City of Santa Cruz v. Local Agency Formation Commission (1978) 76 Cal.App.3d 381, 391-392; Dominey v. Department of Personnel Administration (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 729, 738, fn. 6.). Other documents influenced the expert advice provided to City Staff or consultants, who then provided advice to the City decision-making bodies for the Project. For that reason, such documents form part of the underlying factual basis for the City’s decisions relating to approval of the Project (see Pub. Resources Code section 21167.6, subd. (e)(10); Browning-Ferris Industries v. City Council of City of San Jose (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 852, 866).

Oakland City Planning Commission April 19, 2023
Case File Number PLN-18532, PLN18532PUDF-01and PLN18152- ER01

The custodian of the documents and other materials that constitute the record of the proceedings upon which the City's decisions are based is the Director of City Planning, Department of Planning and Building, Bureau of Planning, or his/her designee. Such documents and other materials are located at 250 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Suite 2214, Oakland, California, 94612.

V. NO RECIRCULATION REQUIRED DUE TO ABSENCE OF SIGNIFICANT NEW

INFORMATION
The Oakland Planning Commission recognizes that the FEIR incorporates information obtained and produced after the DEIR was completed, and that the FEIR contains additions, clarifications and modifications. The Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the Final EIR and all of this information. The new information added in the Final EIR merely clarifies and makes insignificant changes to an adequate DEIR, and does not add significant new information to the DEIR that would require recirculation of the EIR under CEQA. The new information added to the EIR does not involve a new significant environmental impact, a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant environmental impact, or a feasible mitigation measure or alternative considerably different from others previously analyzed that the Project sponsor declines to adopt and that would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the Project. No information indicates that the DEIR was inadequate or conclusory or that the public was deprived of a meaningful opportunity to review and comment on the DEIR. Thus, recirculation of the EIR is not required.

The Planning Commission finds that the changes and modifications made to the EIR after the DEIR was circulated for public review and comment do not individually or collectively constitute significant new information within the meaning of Public Resources Code section 21092.1, or CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5.

VI. CERTIFICATION OF THE EIR
In accordance with CEQA, the Oakland Planning Commission certifies the EIR based on the following findings:

1. The EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the City’s CEQA procedures.

2. The Planning Commission has independently reviewed and considered the record and the EIR prior to making its decision to certify the EIR and taking any action to approve the Project.

3. By these findings, the Planning Commission confirms, ratifies, and adopts the findings and conclusions of the EIR as supplemented and modified by these findings. The EIR and these findings represent the independent judgment, review and analysis of the City and the Oakland Planning Commission.

4. The EIR provides information to the decision-makers and the public on the environmental consequences of the Project.

5. The Planning Commission recognizes that the EIR may contain clerical errors. The Planning Commission reviewed the entirety of the EIR and bases its determination on the substance of the information it contains.

6. The EIR adequately discusses the potential adverse environmental effects, ways that such effects might be mitigated, and alternatives to the project that would reduce or avoid such adverse effects.

The Planning Commission certifies that the EIR is adequate to support all actions in connection with the approval of the Project and all other actions and recommendations necessary for approval of the Project.

Oakland City Planning Commission April 19, 2023
Case File Number PLN-18532, PLN18532PUDF-01and PLN18152- ER01

The Planning Commission certifies that the EIR is adequate to support approval of the Project, and any minor modifications to the Project as described in the EIR.

VII. STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND

REPORTING PROGRAM
Public Resources Code section 21081.6 and CEQA Guidelines section 15097 require the City to adopt a mitigation monitoring and reporting program to ensure that the mitigation measures and revisions to the Project identified in the EIR are implemented. The SCA/MMRP is attached as Exhibit 2 to the CEQA Resolution for the Project and incorporated by reference, and will be included in the conditions of approval for the Project approval actions. The SCA/MMRP satisfies the requirements of CEQA.

The standard conditions of approval and mitigation measures set forth in the SCA/MMRP are specific and enforceable, and are capable of being fully implemented by the efforts of the City of Oakland, the applicant and/or other identified public agencies of responsibility. As appropriate, some SCAs and mitigation measures define performance standards to ensure no significant environmental impacts will result. The SCA/MMRP adequately describes implementation procedures and monitoring responsibility in order to ensure that the Project complies with the adopted SCAs and mitigation measures.

The City will adopt and impose the SCAs and feasible mitigation measures as set forth in the SCA/MMRP as enforceable conditions of approval. The City has adopted measures to substantially lessen or eliminate all significant effects where feasible.

The SCAs and mitigation measures to be incorporated into and imposed upon the Project approval will not themselves have new significant environmental impacts or cause a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant environmental impact that were not analyzed in the EIR. In the event that an SCA or mitigation measure recommended in the EIR has been inadvertently omitted from the SCA/MMRP, that SCA or mitigation measure is adopted and incorporated from the EIR into the SCA/MMRP by reference and shall be imposed as a condition of approval.

VIII. FINDINGS REGARDING IMPACTS
In accordance with Public Resources Code section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines sections 15091 and 15092, the Oakland Planning Commission adopts the findings and conclusions regarding impacts and mitigation measures that are set forth in the EIR and summarized in the SCA/MMRP, which are incorporated herein by reference. These findings are summaries of conclusions regarding impacts and SCAs/mitigation measures that are set forth in the EIR. They do not repeat the full discussions of environmental impacts, SCAs and mitigation measures, and related explanations contained in the EIR. The Planning Commission ratifies, adopts and incorporates, as though fully set forth herein, the analysis, explanations, findings, responses to comments and conclusions of the EIR. The Planning Commission adopts the reasoning of the EIR, staff reports, and presentations provided by the staff and the Project sponsor as may be modified by these findings.

The Planning Commission recognizes that the environmental analysis of the Project raises controversial environmental issues, and that a range of technical and scientific opinion exists with respect to those issues.

The Planning Commission acknowledges that there are differing and potentially conflicting expert and other opinions regarding the Project. By its review of evidence and analysis presented in the record, the Planning Commission has acquired a better understanding of the breadth of this technical and scientific opinion and Oakland City Planning Commission April 19, 2023
Case File Number PLN-18532, PLN18532PUDF-01and PLN18152- ER01

of the full scope of the environmental issues presented. In turn, this understanding has enabled the Planning Commission to make fully informed, thoroughly considered decisions after taking account of the various viewpoints on these important issues and reviewing the record. These findings are based on substantial evidence as defined in CEQA Guidelines section 15384, and a full appraisal of all viewpoints expressed in the EIR and in the record, as well as other relevant information in the record of the proceedings for the Project.

IX. POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT BUT MITIGABLE IMPACTS
Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081(a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines sections 15091(a)(1) and 15092(b), and to the extent reflected in the EIR and the SCA/MMRP, the Planning Commission finds that changes or alterations have been required of the Project or incorporated into the Project as mitigation measures. These mitigation measures avoid or mitigate the Project’s potentially significant effects on the environment to a less than significant level as identified in the EIR. These changes and/or alterations required of, or incorporated into the Project are discussed below in Sections IX and X. The following potentially significant impacts of the Project will be reduced to a less than significant level through implementation of mitigation measures required of the Project, as set forth in the EIR and SCA/MMRP.

A. Noise
Noise-3, Noise from Special Events: The School anticipates that certain Special Events that have been occurring on the North Campus would now occur at the South Campus. These Special Events would include high school graduation and lower grade level promotion ceremonies, Special Events held at the Performing Arts Center building, and social events to be held at the renovated Building 0 near Lincoln Avenue. Special Events to be held indoors are not anticipated to be audible off-site, and no outdoor Special Events would occur at nighttime (between 10:00 pm to 7:00 am). A significant impact from Special Events would be identified if these events were to generate noise levels that would exceed the noise level standards of the Oakland Noise Ordinance. For noise sources that consist primarily of speech or music with discernable meaning, these noise standards have been adjusted down by 5 dBA. Whereas OMC Section 17.120.050 specifically provides that these standards apply to noise levels “inherently and regularly generated by activities across real property lines”, the EIR analysis conservatively applies these standards to non-regular events such as graduation ceremonies, special events at the Performing Arts Center, and events at the Building 0 deck. No exceedance of the noise standards is anticipated to occur during indoor/outdoor social gatherings held at the Building 0 deck. Noise levels would be similar to or lower in level than existing daytime noise levels at the adjacent residences and would be below the adjusted daytime thresholds. This is a less than significant impact. Noise levels during gatherings after a Special Event at the Performing Arts Center could exceed the nighttime standard and the adjusted nighttime standards at residences on Alida Court if the activity occurred after 10:00 p.m. Gatherings extending into nighttime hours would be a potentially significant impact.

The EIR recommends Mitigation Measure Noise-3B, Special Event Notifications and Restrictions. This mitigation requires that all evening events at the Performing Arts Center be completed by 9:00 pm, with all post event gatherings, event traffic, and exterior clean-up activities completed by 10:00 pm. By limiting outdoor activity on the South Campus to no later than 10:00 p.m., this measure would avoid holding events when the more stringent nighttime noise thresholds apply. Noise levels during gatherings after a Special Event at the Performing Arts Center noise would not exceed the applicable daytime noise thresholds, and this impact would be reduced to less than significant. Noise levels generated during large graduation ceremonies and promotion events held in the Commons are anticipated to exceed the adjusted daytime thresholds established by the City of Oakland Noise Ordinance at nearby residences. These three events would occur only once each per year and would only occur during daytime hours. Nevertheless, because Oakland City Planning Commission April 19, 2023
Case File Number PLN-18532, PLN18532PUDF-01and PLN18152- ER01

these special events are projected to exceed the noise standard, they would be considered significant noise impacts.

To address these noise impacts, the EIR recommends Mitigation Measure Noise-3A, Special Event Sound System Design Parameters, which would require Head-Royce School to have an acoustic engineer design and install a speaker array system designed to lower the noise “spillover” from the system to no greater than between 52 and 53 dBA Leq at the southerly and easterly property lines. By designing the PA sound system per Mitigation Measure Noise-3A, the resulting noise levels at all identified sensitive receptors would meet applicable noise thresholds. These measures would reduce the noise impacts associated with large Special Events to levels of less than significant.

Noise 5, Groundborne Vibration: Construction-related vibration levels are not anticipated to exceed 0.3 in/sec PPV at off-site structures but could exceed the historic building threshold of 0.25 in/sec at on-site historic buildings. Construction activities associated with the Project would include demolition of certain existing site improvements, site preparation, grading and excavation, trenching and foundation work, new building construction, paving, and construction of the underground pedestrian crossing using a jacked-box methodology. Pile driving, which typically produces the highest vibration levels, is not anticipated be used for Project construction, and explosives will not be uses for excavation of the pedestrian undercrossing or any other component of the Project. Due to the short-term nature of Project construction activity, the primary concern is the potential to damage a structure.

The EIR relies on California Department of Transportation’s vibration thresholds of 0.25 in/sec PPV to minimize the potential for cosmetic damage to sensitive historic structures, and 0.3 in/sec PPV as the threshold at which there is a risk of damage to older residential structures. Heavy construction located within 25 feet of any structure would have the potential to exceed the historic structure vibration threshold of 0.25 in/sec PPV, and heavy construction located within 18 feet of any structure would have the potential to exceed the normal/conventional construction threshold of 0.3 in/sec PPV. Vibration generated by construction activities would be perceptible inside nearby structures but is not expected to result in any architectural damage to surrounding buildings. The effects of construction-related ground borne vibrations to off-site buildings would be less than significant. Based on the construction feasibility evaluation conducted for the pedestrian undercrossing (McMillen Jacobs, 2019), construction using a jacked box method is not anticipated to produce vibration levels that would adversely affect nearby residences or onCampus structures. The jacking processes would involve slow advancement of the tunnel using hydraulic equipment. Excavation of the ground in front of the advancing box will be by hydraulic excavator-type equipment. Vibrations from this equipment would be similar to those generated from typical roadway construction. On-site historic structures could be exposed to vibration levels exceeding the 0.25 in/sec PPV vibration threshold when construction is located within 25 feet. This would apply to on-site historic Buildings 0, 1, and 2.

Although impacts to on-site properties would not normally be considered an impact under CEQA, the EIR recommends Mitigation Measure Noise-5, Vibration Reduction near Historic Structures, which includes practices necessary to minimize damage to on-site historic structures. With implementation of the practices identified in Mitigation Measure Noise-5, construction-related vibration levels near on-site historic structures would be less than the historic structure threshold of 0.25 in/sec. and would minimize potential damage to on-site historic structures to a less than significant level.

B. Transportation
Transp-1, Vehicle Miles Traveled: The VMT per population generated by the Project would not exceed the Project-specific VMT threshold. The threshold of significance for the Project is 15 percent below the VMT per total school population, assuming a 30 percent non-SOV mode share (consistent with the current TDM Oakland City Planning Commission April 19, 2023
Case File Number PLN-18532, PLN18532PUDF-01and PLN18152- ER01

Plan requirement), or 33.6 VMT/population. The calculated VMT generated by the Project is approximately

27.3 VMT/population. Since the VMT generated by the Project is below the significance threshold, the Project would have a less than significant impact on VMT. However, it is possible that Head-Royce School’s TDM performance rate could drop to 30% percent non-SOV mode share under its current PUD requirements (i.e., at the School’s discretion). Such a drop in TDM performance would result in the School no longer meeting the 15% reduction in VMT as required under the Draft EIR threshold.

To safeguard against this possibility, the Final EIR provides for Mitigation Measure Transportation-1, TDM Performance Requirement, which commits the School to maintaining an average of 34.5% (or 15% greater than its prior requirement of 30%) of its school-year student enrollment traveling by modes other than single occupancy vehicles. A survey of alternative travel modes shall occur during each of the two independent monitoring periods carried out during the school year, and the counts shall be averaged over the two (2) monitoring periods. However, the School may elect to conduct additional third party monitoring and the counts shall be averaged overall additional academic year monitoring periods. Alternative travel modes shall include walking, biking, carpooling or taking a bus.

C. Wildfire and Emergency Evacuation
Fire-2, Emergency Evacuation Plans: Per the City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, the City encourages development of plans, in conjunction with fire jurisdictions, specifically for evacuation or sheltering in place of schoolchildren during periods of high fire danger. The City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan recognizes that overloading of streets near schools by parents attempting to pick-up their children during these periods can restrict access by fire personnel and equipment. Head-Royce School’s current Emergency Preparedness Manual instructs parents to not attempt to pick up their students during an emergency until receiving instructions from the School that it is safe for students to be picked-up. The DEIR included a list of evacuation planning recommendations that recognize Head-Royce School has already invested substantial thought in development of their evacuation plan to safeguard its students, but that additional items should be further addressed. These additional items include the infeasibility of shelter-in-place in most wildfire situations, the route and destination of an evacuation from Campus, the loss of power and communication with officials and parents, and the identification of egress points.

Based on comments on the DEIR, the FEIR includes Mitigation Measure Wildfire and Emergency Evacuation-1, Emergency Evacuation Plan. Pursuant to this mitigation measure, Head-Royce School shall be required to prepare a stand-alone Emergency Evacuation Plan for the School, to be prepared by a professional emergency evacuation expert. Selection of the most appropriate and effective details of such an Emergency Evacuation Plan for the School will be conducted by a professional emergency evacuation expert to be retained by the School and subject to review and approval by the Oakland Fire Department, with input from Emergency Services, OPD Traffic Division, and the Public Works’ Transportation Planning staff.

The School and their professional emergency evacuation expert shall coordinate with the City of Oakland on the details of this Emergency Evacuation Plan, which shall address, at a minimum, the following considerations: a) establishing communication connections with emergency alert systems; b) removing existing physical obstacles throughout the Campus that hinder a viable pedestrian evacuation and improve egress pathways, gates, stairs, gate openings, and ADA compliance to better prepare for an emergency evacuation; c) establish accountability procedures for managing a pedestrian evacuation; d) identify evacuation destination(s); e) vetting the Plan prior to adoption with review and approval by the Oakland Fire Department; and f) training and exercises to be well prepared with an emergency reflex response to a disaster. This Emergency Evacuation Plan for the School will help improve and bolster the effectiveness of a pedestrian evacuation under emergency conditions, further increase student safety in the event of an Oakland City Planning Commission April 19, 2023
Case File Number PLN-18532, PLN18532PUDF-01and PLN18152- ER01

extreme wildfire event and reduce potentially conflicting cumulative evacuation conditions from the Oakland/Berkeley hills to a less than cumulatively significant level.

X. POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS ADDRESSED THROUGH STANDARD

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The Planning Commission finds, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081(a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines sections 15091(a)(1) and 15092(b), and to the extent reflected in the EIR and the SCA/MMRP, that uniformly applied development policies and/or standards (hereafter called "Standard Conditions of Approval" or SCAs) have previously been adopted by the City. When applied to future projects, these SCAs have been found to mitigate impacts to a substantial degree. To the extent that no such findings were previously made, the Planning Commission hereby finds and determines that the SCAs substantially mitigate environmental impacts (as detailed below). No substantial new information exists to show that the SCAs will not substantially mitigate the impacts of the Project and/or cumulative impacts.

The following potentially significant impacts of the Project will be reduced to a less than significant level through implementation of Standard Conditions of Approval required of the Project, as set forth in the EIR and SCA/MMRP. In the case of a conflict between the language in the EIR and the SCA/MMRP, the language in the EIR controls. Note that the EIR also contains references to the SCAs that are not CEQArelated and are not required to address CEQA impacts. However, the EIR provides these additional referenced SCAs to provide additional information to the decision-makers and public.

Aesthetics
Aesthetics-3, Light and Glare: The Project will add new sources of light which will be visible from off-site locations and may emit substantial glare that may adversely affect nighttime views in the area. Pursuant to SCA Aesthetics-2: Lighting, all proposed new exterior lighting fixtures must be adequately shielded to a point below the light bulb, with a reflector to prevent unnecessary glare onto adjacent properties. With implementation of SCA Aesthetics-2, the Project’s potential adverse effects related to lighting and glare onto adjacent properties would be reduced to levels of less than significant.

Air Quality
Air-3, Community Health Risks from Toxic Air Contaminants – Construction: During construction, the Project’s sources of toxic air contaminants could expose sensitive receptors to substantial levels of toxic air contaminants (TACs) from diesel particulate matter (DPM). These TAC emissions could result in an increase in cancer risk levels greater than 10 in one million to the nearest sensitive receptor and could increase annual average PM2.5 concentrations to greater than 0.3 micrograms per cubic meter at other nearby sensitive receptors. The EIR’s calculations for the increased cancer risk attributed to Project construction at nearby sensitive receptors includes application of BAAQMD- recommended age sensitivity factors to reflect the greater sensitivity of infants and small children to cancer-causing TACs. The maximum concentrations for DPM and PM2.5 occur at a single-family residence southeast of the Project site along Charleston Street (the maximally exposed individual, or MEI). Pursuant to SCA Air-3, Diesel Particulate Matter Controls - Construction Related, the Project applicant shall ensure that all off-road diesel equipment is equipped with the most effective Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategies (VDECS) available for the engine type as certified by CARB. Tier 4 engines automatically meet this requirement. This equipment must be properly maintained and tuned in accordance with manufacturer specifications and verified through an equipment inventory submittal and Certification Statement. As shown in Table 5-5 of the DEIR, with Oakland City Planning Commission April 19, 2023
Case File Number PLN-18532, PLN18532PUDF-01and PLN18152- ER01

implementation of SCA requirements for all diesel-powered construction equipment to use engines rated and certified as Tier 4, construction-related health risks would not exceed single-source thresholds and would be less than significant.

Air-3, Community Health Risks from Toxic Air Contaminants – Operations: Operation of the Project would have long-term emissions from mobile sources (i.e. traffic) and stationary sources (i.e. generators). The California Department of Transportation EMFAC2017 (CT-EMFAC2017) emissions model was used to estimate DPM, organic TAC and PM2.5 roadway emissions, based on the increase in Project-related traffic volumes as contained in the Traffic Impact Study. The Project-related traffic on the Loop Road is estimated to be 1,184 daily trips using the upper school drop-off/pick-up area (including on-site parking and other trips, and 1,066 daily trips using the lower/middle school drop-off/pick-up area – all circulating on the Loop Road. Average hourly Project-related traffic volumes were then used to calculate TAC and PM2.5 emissions along the Loop Road. Dispersion modeling of TAC and PM2.5 emissions was conducted using the U.S. EPA AERMOD dispersion model. The Loop Road and drop-off/pick-up areas were evaluated with the model, using a series of traffic volumes along the Loop Road. The maximum increased lifetime cancer risks and annual PM2.5 concentrations for individual receptors were then computed, using modeled TAC and PM2.5 concentrations and BAAQMD-recommended methods. Additionally, the Project is assumed to include two 150-kW emergency diesel generators with an approximately 201 HP engine. Pursuant to SCA Air-5, Stationary Sources of Air Pollution (Toxic Air Contaminants), the Project’s diesel engines would be subject to CARB’s Stationary Diesel Airborne Toxics Control Measures (ATCM) and will require permits from the BAAQMD. As part of the BAAQMD permit requirements for toxics screening analysis, the engine emissions will have to meet Best Available Control Technology for Toxics (TBACT) and pass the toxic risk screening level of less than ten in a million. Sources of air pollutant emissions complying with all applicable BAAQMD regulations generally are not considered to have a significant air quality or community health risk impact. As shown in Table 5-6 of the DEIR, operational related health risks would not exceed single-source thresholds and would be less than significant.

Air-3, Community Health Risks from Toxic Air Contaminants – Construction and Operations Combined:

The total health risk impacts from the Project are represented by the combination of construction and operational sources. The same sensitive receptor identified as the construction-period MEI is also the MEI for all Project emissions. At this location, the MEI would be exposed to one year of construction cancer risks and 29 years of operational cancer risks. The maximum cancer risks from construction and operation activities of the Project would exceed the single-source significance threshold, with a cancer risk of 29.3 per million attributed to construction, and a cancer risk of approximately 5.2 per million attributed to operational emissions. The PM2.5 concentration and HI from combined construction and operation activities would not exceed the single-source significance threshold. As shown in Table 5-7 of the DEIR, with implementation of SCA Air-3, Diesel Particulate Matter Controls - Construction Related, the total Project-related community health risks and hazards (for construction and operations, combined) would not exceed the single-source thresholds, and the Project’s combined construction and operational health risks would be reduced to levels of less than significant.

Cumulative Air Quality Effects: Other than the cumulative health risks from toxic air pollutants presented above, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. Emissions from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects all contribute to the region’s air quality on a cumulative basis. However, few individual projects are of sufficient size to cause regional non-attainment of ambient air quality standards.

Thresholds for air quality impacts as used in this EIR are set such that projects that do not meet the thresholds are considered to lead to cumulatively considerable air quality impact. With implementation of identified SCAs, air quality emissions associated with the Project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative air quality impacts.

Oakland City Planning Commission April 19, 2023
Case File Number PLN-18532, PLN18532PUDF-01and PLN18152- ER01

Biological Resources
Biology-3, Wetlands: The Project will not have a substantial direct adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. No wetlands or other waters of the U.S. or the State are present on the Biology Study Area, and the Project would have no direct impacts on State or federally protected wetlands or aquatic habitats. However, wetlands and other waters of the U.S. and/or the State are present adjacent to the Biology Study Area in the off-site stormwater channel. Potential indirect impacts to water quality in this channel could occur from Project construction and operational activities located upslope of the channel if runoff increases in intensity or frequency. Pursuant to SCA Hydrology-1: State Construction General Permit, a Notice of Intent must be filed with the State Water Board prior to the start of any Project-related construction or demolition, and the Project applicant must submit a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and other required permit registration documents to SWRCB.

The SWPPP must be developed and maintained during construction of the Project, and it must include the use of Best Management Practices (BMPs) to protect water quality until the site is stabilized. Standard permit conditions under the Construction General Permit require that the applicant utilize various measures including on-site sediment control BMPs, damp street sweeping, temporary cover of disturbed land surfaces to control erosion during construction, and utilization of stabilized construction entrances and/or wash racks, among other factors. Pursuant to SCA Hydrology-2: NPDES C.3 Stormwater Requirements for Regulated Projects, the Project must also implement BMPs and incorporate Low Impact Development practices into the Project’s design to prevent stormwater runoff pollution, promote infiltration, and hold/slow down the volume of water coming from the site after construction has been completed. In order to meet these permit and policy requirements, projects must incorporate the use of green roofs, impervious surfaces, tree planters, grassy swales, bio-retention and/or detention basins, among other factors. These regulatory requirements will reduce the potential for the Project to cause indirect impacts to water quality in the nearby off-site drainage channel during Project construction and operational activities to less than significant.

Biology-4, Wildlife Movement and Nursery Sites: The Biology Study Area is entirely developed and is located within a dense matrix of urban development. The stormwater channel located adjacent to the site does not provide an important movement pathway for aquatic or terrestrial wildlife species as it is surrounded by extremely steep vertical walls, and the majority of its length is located underground. The Project would not fragment natural habitats. Any common, urban-adapted wildlife species that currently move through the site will continue to be able to do so following Project construction. The Project would not interfere with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors in the site vicinity. However, construction disturbance during the nesting season for birds could result in the incidental loss of eggs or nestlings.

Pursuant to SCA Biology-1: Tree Removal during Bird Breeding Season, all Projects that involve removal of a tree shall not, to the extent feasible, remove any tree and/or other vegetation suitable for nesting birds during the bird breeding season of February 1 to August 15. If tree removal must occur during the bird breeding season, all trees to be removed shall be surveyed by a qualified biologist to verify the presence or absence of nesting raptors or other birds. If the survey indicates the potential presence of nesting raptors or other birds, the biologist (in consultation with the CDFW) shall determine an appropriately sized buffer around the nest in which no work will be allowed until the young have successfully fledged. With implementation of this SCA, the CDFW regulatory requirements for protecting native migratory birds (including raptors) will be met, and the Project’s effects on nesting native migratory birds during tree removal will be less than significant.

Biology-5, Conflict with the City of Oakland’s Tree Protection Ordinance: Of the 480 total existing trees inventoried on the Project site, 321 trees are identified as protected trees pursuant to the definitions of the Oakland City Planning Commission April 19, 2023
Case File Number PLN-18532, PLN18532PUDF-01and PLN18152- ER01

City Tree Protection Ordinance. Of the 321 total protected trees on the site; 35 protected trees (11%) are recommended for removal because they are in poor condition and should be removed for safety; 86 protected trees (27%) are indicated for removal; 31 protected trees (10%) are considered transplant candidates; and 169 protected trees (52%) would be preserved and retained. Of the 121 protected trees indicated for removal, 30 are natives. The Project’s proposed removal of protected trees would not fundamentally conflict with the City of Oakland’s Tree Protection Ordinance. Pursuant to SCA Bio-2: Tree Permit and pursuant to OMC Chapter 12.36 (the Protected Tree Ordinance), the Project applicant is required to obtain a Tree Permit for the removal or pruning of any protected tree, and to abide by all conditions of that permit. Native protected trees that are to be removed (not including transplanted trees) must be replaced per the City’s Code, Section 12.36.060. With review and approval of a Tree Permit for the removal of protected trees, and implementation of all conditions of that permit (including tree protection measures and tree replacement plantings), potential impacts pertaining to a conflict with the City’s Tree Protection Ordinance will be less than significant.

Biology-6, Compliance with the City of Oakland Creek Protection Ordinance: The stormwater channel that is located adjacent to and south of the Biology Study Area likely meets the definition of a creek. This channel has a day-lighted (i.e. not culverted) channel with a bed and bank, is hydrologically connected via a culvert to other waters downstream and conveys seasonal flows. As an off-site feature, the Project will avoid direct impacts to this stormwater channel. However, Project-related construction will occur between 20 feet from the top of bank and 100 feet from the centerline of the creek, and earthwork involving more than three cubic yards of material will occur more than 20 feet from the top of bank. Grading and construction activities have the potential to erode the underlying soil and result in increased sedimentation and pollution of water within this creek. Pursuant to the requirements SCA Hydro-3: Creek Protection Plan and the City’s Creek Protection Ordinance, the Project will be required to obtain a Creek Permit (assumed to be a Category 3 permit) for those elements of the Project listed above. Pursuant to that permit, a Creek Protection Plan (to be reviewed and approved by the City) must incorporate Best Management Practices (BMPs) to protect indirect adverse effects to the creek both during construction and after construction.

Construction-period BMPs must incorporate all applicable erosion, sedimentation, debris and pollution controls. Post-construction BMPs shall prevent any substantial increase in stormwater runoff volume or velocity into the creek, shall include site design measures to reduce the amount of impervious surface runoff to the creek, and shall include energy dissipation at any new drainage outfalls to the creek to slow the velocity of the runoff, maximize infiltration and minimize erosion. With review, approval and implementation of a Creek Protection Plan according to these requirements, potential impacts pertaining to a conflict with the City’s Creek Protection Ordinance will be less than significant.

Cumulative Biological Resource Effects: Cumulative impacts to biological resources may arise due to the linking of impacts from past, current and reasonably foreseeable future projects pursuant to the City General Plan. Cumulative impacts to biological resources depend on the relative magnitude of adverse effects, as compared to the relative benefits of avoiding impacts or minimizing impacts pursuant to applicable CEQA mitigation measures and regulatory requirements for each project. In the absence of avoidance, minimization, compensatory mitigation and conservation measures, cumulatively significant impacts on biological resources would occur. However, all cumulative projects that may affect biological resources similar to those affected by the Project will be subject to CEQA and to the same regulatory requirements, and these requirements will similarly mitigate cumulative impacts on sensitive habitats, special-status species and other biological resources. Regardless of the magnitude and significance of cumulative impacts that result from other projects, the Head-Royce School South Campus Redevelopment Project is not expected to have a substantial effect on biological resources and will implement SCAs as described above to reduce its impacts to less than significant levels. Provided the Project successfully incorporates these SCAs, the Project will not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative effects on biological resources.

Oakland City Planning Commission April 19, 2023
Case File Number PLN-18532, PLN18532PUDF-01and PLN18152- ER01

Cultural Resources
Cultural-2, Vibratory Damage to Historic Buildings: The Project’s construction activity has the potential to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of historical resources (Buildings 0, 1 and 2) from ground borne vibration associated with the proposed pedestrian tunnel excavation. Pursuant to SCA Cultural-4: Vibration Impacts on Adjacent Historic Structures, the Project applicant must prepare and submit a Vibration Analysis for City review and approval. The Vibration Analysis shall establish a preconstruction baseline condition, and threshold levels of vibration that could damage the structure. The Vibration Analysis shall identify design means and methods of either tunnel excavation or building protection to be used to prevent damage to on-site historic Buildings 0, 1 and 2. With implementation of a Vibration Analysis and establishing threshold levels of vibration that could damage these historic structures, potential vibration impacts to these historic buildings will be reduced to less than significant.

Cultural-3, Cultural Resources: The Project site contains no known cultural resources that might be disturbed or adversely affected by the Project. However, during ground disturbing activities associated within the Project, it is possible that currently unidentified historic-period archaeological or cultural resources could be discovered and disturbed. Pursuant to SCA Cultural-1: Archaeological and Paleontological Resources – Discovery during Construction, all work within 50 feet of any historic or prehistoric subsurface cultural resources that may be discovered during ground disturbing activities shall be halted. The project applicant shall notify the City and consult with a qualified archaeologist or paleontologist, as applicable, to assess the significance of the find. If any find is determined to be significant, appropriate avoidance measures as recommended by the consultant and approved by the City must be followed unless avoidance is determined unnecessary or infeasible by the City. Feasibility of avoidance shall be determined with consideration of factors such as the nature of the find, project design, costs, and other considerations. If avoidance is unnecessary or infeasible, other appropriate measures (e.g., data recovery, excavation) shall be instituted. Work may proceed on other parts of the Project site while measures for the cultural resources are implemented. With implementation of avoidance measures or other appropriate measures (e.g., data recovery, excavation), impacts related to the unanticipated discovery of historic or prehistoric subsurface cultural resources will be reduced to less than significant.

Cultural-4, Tribal Cultural Resources: The Project site contains no known Tribal cultural resources, and the Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a known tribal cultural resource.

However, it is possible that, during ground disturbing activities associated within the Project, currently unidentified Tribal cultural resources could be discovered and disturbed. A records search of the NAHC Sacred Lands File was completed, and the results were negative. Seven Native American tribal groups were contacted to elicit information regarding Tribal cultural resource, and representatives of two of the seven Tribes responded. The representative of the North Valley Yokuts Tribe responded that they are unaware of the Project site being culturally sensitive, and the representative of The Confederated Villages of Lisjan was provided with additional information but did not respond back. The absence of specific site information does not indicate the absence of cultural resources, and ground-disturbing activities associated within the Project may discover currently unidentified and unknown Tribal cultural resources. In the event that Native American Tribal cultural resources are discovered during ground disturbing activities, SCA Cultural-1:

Archaeological and Paleontological Resources – Discovery during Construction will require that all work within 50 feet of the resource be halted, and workers shall avoid altering the materials and their context until a qualified professional archaeologist has evaluated the situation and provided appropriate recommendations. Project personnel should not collect cultural resources. Native American resources include chert or obsidian flakes, projectile points, mortars, and pestles; and dark friable soil containing shell and bone dietary debris, heat-affected rock, or human burials. A tribal representative shall be consulted to determine an appropriate mitigation plan (including monitoring and data recovery), with specific steps and timeframe to be stipulated. Work near the found tribal cultural resource may only resume upon completion of a mitigation plan and/or recovery of the tribal cultural resource. With implementation of SCA Cultural- Oakland City Planning Commission April 19, 2023
Case File Number PLN-18532, PLN18532PUDF-01and PLN18152- ER01

1, impacts related to the unanticipated discovery of tribal cultural resources will be reduced to less than significant.

Cultural-5, Discovery of Human Remains: Although there is no reason to expect a discovery of human remains at the site, there is a remote possibility of such an occurrence. In the event that Native American human remains, or any funerary objects are discovered, the provisions of the California Health and Safety Code (and SCA Cultural-3: Human Remains) would be followed. If any remains are recognized as being of Native American origin, the County Coroner is responsible for contacting the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours. The Commission has various powers and duties to provide for the ultimate disposition of any Native American remains, as does the assigned Most Likely Descendant. With implementation of SCA Cultural-3, impacts related to the unanticipated discovery of human remains will be reduced to less than significant.

Cumulative Historic and Cultural Resource Effects: The City is unaware of any other past, present or future reasonably foreseeable projects in the general vicinity of the Project that have, or may, result in significant cumulative impacts on historic resources. Compliance with regulatory requirements and mitigation measures identified for the Project would ensure the Project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to any other potential future cumulative historic resource impacts. The Project will have no impact on historic resources, and thus will not contribute to any such potential future cumulative effects on historic resources. Historic archaeological resources associated with the City’s historic development may exist throughout the City. Similar to the Project, ground-disturbing activities associated with past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects have the potential to disturb historic archaeological resources and tribal cultural resources. These cumulative construction activities could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of archaeological or tribal cultural resources. As with the Project, regulatory requirements and SCAs will be required of all present and reasonably foreseeable future projects in areas where such resources are likely to be present. With implementation of applicable regulatory requirements and SCAs, the Project in combination with other past, present, and future reasonably foreseeable projects would not result in significant cumulative impacts on archaeological or tribal cultural resources, and the Project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative cultural resource impacts.

Geology and Soils
Geology-2, Seismic Ground Shaking: With implementation of all applicable regulatory requirements and SCAs, the Project would not, directly or indirectly, potential cause substantial adverse effects involving strong seismic ground shaking. The 2012 Rockridge Geotechnical Report judges that very-strong to violent shaking could occur at the site during a large earthquake on the Hayward Fault or one of the other active regional faults, potentially causing significant damage in structures that are not adequately engineered. The proposed pedestrian tunnel is also in close proximity to the Hayward Fault and will be susceptible to strong ground shaking generated during earthquakes on this fault, as well as nearby faults. Pursuant to SCA Geo1: Construction-Related Permits, all new construction and renovations to existing structures will require construction-related permits and approvals issued by the City of Oakland. These permits require compliance with all standards, requirements and conditions contained in the City’s construction-related codes, including but not limited to the CBC, the Oakland Building Code and the Oakland Grading Regulations to ensure structural integrity and safe construction. Current industry standards for geotechnical practices and seismic structural design as included in the most recent version of the CBC incorporate design measures to reduce the potential for catastrophic damage during strong to violent seismic-related ground shaking.

All new construction and renovation pursuant to the Project will occur in accordance with the CBC and local City requirements and would reasonably reduce the potential damage and personal injury from ground shaking to less than significant levels. Pursuant to SCA Geo-2: Soils Report, a design-level geotechnical Oakland City Planning Commission April 19, 2023
Case File Number PLN-18532, PLN18532PUDF-01and PLN18152- ER01

investigation will be performed for each new building and site improvement. The investigations conducted pursuant to these soil reports will determine final design parameters for earthwork, foundations, foundation slabs and any surrounding related improvements (including utilities, parking lots, roadways and sidewalks).

Pursuant to SCA Geo-1: Construction-Related Permits, the proposed tunnel will be designed in accordance with the requirements of California Building Code (CBC) Section 1613 and ASCE 7-16. The proposed tunnel will therefore need to be designed to withstand seismic shaking and temporary increases in lateral earth pressure (earthquake load). Development of seismic loading will be determined as part of the project final design evaluations. Implementation of the City’s SCA Geo-1 (Construction-Related Permits) and SCA Geo-2 (Soils Report) fully address the substantial adverse effects involving strong seismic ground shaking, requiring site-specific design-level investigations be developed for each new and/or renovated building and other site improvements, including the proposed pedestrian tunnel. Implementation of these SCAs would reduce potential impact from ground shaking to less than significant because they require preparation, review and approval of site-specific and design-level investigations consistent with applicable regulations (e.g., CBC) that ensure construction methods that minimize seismic exposure risk.

Geology-3, Slope Instability: Portions of the Project site include geologic units or soils that are unstable or that may become unstable because of the Project. With implementation of all applicable regulatory requirements and SCAs, and additional mitigation measures, the Project would not result in on- or off-site landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence or collapse. An on-site fill slope on the southern side of Building 9 has displayed indications of minor instability since its construction. The fill was placed in the mid to late 1940’s and was likely placed without engineering control such as ground preparation, adequate compaction, sub-drainage and a proper keyway. Based on the geotechnical investigation of this slope, Rockridge Geotechnical has concluded that the fill prism on this slope may be prone to earthquake-induced deformation during a strong earthquake. SCA Geology-2: Soils Report requires the Project applicant to submit a soils report that shall contain, at a minimum, field test results and observations regarding the nature, distribution and strength of existing soils, and recommendations for appropriate grading practices and project design, and the project applicant shall implement the recommendations contained in the approved report during project design and construction. In furtherance of SCA Geo-2, the August 2020 Rockridge Geotechnical and Geological Evaluation includes recommendations (Recommendations Geo3A: Stability of Slope below Building 9) to address surface drainage improvements, slope reconstruction and retaining walls to mitigate the potential for future slope instability under static and seismic conditions.

With implementation of all recommendations, Rockridge concludes the potential for future slope instability at the Project site would be low. Implementation of site-specific recommendations for the fill slope south of (below) Building 9 would reduce the risk of slope failure, and potential impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.

Geology-4, Surface Settlement and Ground Movement – Tunneling: Head-Royce School proposes to construct a tunnel below Lincoln Avenue, linking the proposed South Campus) to the existing school.

Surface settlement commonly occurs during tunnel excavation, and ground loss during tunnel excavation and construction operations could result in settlement of overlying road and/or utilities. Pursuant to SCA Geo-1: Construction-Related Permits, tunnel construction will require applicable permit approvals issued by the City of Oakland, requiring compliance with all standards, requirements and conditions contained in the City’s construction-related codes, including but not limited to the CBC, the Oakland Building Code and the Oakland Grading Regulations. These standards ensure structural integrity and safe construction, including industry standards for seismic structural design as included in the most recent version of the CBC.

Construction of the tunnel will occur in accordance with the CBC and local City requirements and would reasonably reduce potential damage from surface settlement and ground movement during tunneling. In furtherance of SCA Geo-1, the 2019 McMillen Jacobs Conceptual Design and Constructability Evaluation Report (which has been peer-reviewed by the City’s geotechnical engineering consultants) includes Recommendations Geo-4A: Concept Design and Constructability Recommendations for Pedestrian Tunnel.

Oakland City Planning Commission April 19, 2023
Case File Number PLN-18532, PLN18532PUDF-01and PLN18152- ER01

All recommendations for appropriate tunnel design, construction methods and dewatering practices that are included in the McMillen Jacobs Report must be implemented during the Project’s tunnel design and construction. Pursuant to final grading plans, the Oakland Building Services Division will also review the engineering analysis for the Project’s tunneling plans and accompanying detailed engineering drawings.

These detailed engineering plans must demonstrate implementation of all recommendations from the 2019 McMillen Jacobs Conceptual Design and Constructability Evaluation Report, and those engineering documents must be approved by Building Services prior to any excavation, grading, or construction activities associated with the pedestrian tunnel. Pursuant to SCA Standard-1, special inspectors, independent technical reviews and monitoring expertise of independent third-party technical and special inspectors may be needed. With implementation of all recommendations form McMillen Jacobs, including lowering the tunnel invert and providing face support and continuous pre-support measures will help reduce the impact of ground losses and potential settlement to a degree that repairs will be similar to routine pavement repair – i.e., less than significant. Additional consideration may be needed for addressing settlement impacts to the existing utilities beneath the road, but this work is also anticipated to be similar to routine utility construction.

The recommended design and construction considerations listed in these recommendations are considered typical for a tunnel constructed in an urban area, such that a jacked box approach to construction of the tunnel can be implemented successfully and without significant ground loss or land settlement. With implementation of all applicable regulatory requirements, SCAs and recommendations from the 2019 Cahill and McMillen Jacobs Conceptual Design and Constructability Evaluation, the Project would not create a substantial risk to life or property due to surface settlement or ground loss, and impacts would be less than significant.

Geology-5, Expansive Soils: With implementation of all applicable regulatory requirements and SCAs, the Project would not create substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property due to the presence of expansive soil. Laboratory test results for a limited number of soil samples indicate the presence of highly plastic soils. Evidence of expansive soil was also indicated in field observations of distressed pavements and concrete flatwork at this site. Pursuant to SCA Geo-2: Soils Report, a design-level geotechnical investigation will be performed for each new building and site improvement. The investigations conducted pursuant to these soil reports will determine final design parameters for earthwork, foundations, foundation slabs and any surrounding related improvements. In furtherance of SCA Geo-2, the 2012 Rockridge Geotechnical Report includes Recommendations Geo-5A: Grading Practices for Expansive Soils, which provides recommendations for appropriate grading practices to be implemented as part of the Project’s overall design. These practices include moisture-conditioning the expansive soil subgrade, providing select and non-expansive fill below pavements and concrete flatwork and behind retaining walls, and by properly managing surface and subsurface drainage to prevent water from collecting beneath pavement or behind below-grade walls. Implementation of the City’s SCA Geo-2 (Soils Report) and grading practices as recommended in the 2012 Rockridge Geotechnical Report fully addresses the adverse effects associated with expansive soils and would reduce potential impact from expansive soils to a less than significant level.

Geology-6, Substantial Soil Erosion or Loss of Topsoil: With implementation of all applicable regulatory requirements, future development pursuant to the Project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. Of the approximately 8-acre proposed South Campus property, the Project would entail grading activities that would occur on approximately 5.1 acres, or approximately 64% of the site. The most substantial cut grading activities would be conducted for excavation of the proposed pedestrian tunnel entrance near Lincoln Avenue, and other substantial cut grading would occur near the upper entrance to the Loop Road and cuts into the slope uphill from the proposed Performing Arts building. Overall, the Project would result in total cuts of approximately 13,800 cubic yards (CY) of soil, fills of approximately 8,100 CYs, and a net export of approximately 5,700 CY of soil. The additional quantity of tunneled material to Oakland City Planning Commission April 19, 2023
Case File Number PLN-18532, PLN18532PUDF-01and PLN18152- ER01

be removed and hauled off-site is approximately 1,300 CY. During and after the grading operation, exposure of newly excavated and newly placed soil could be subject to substantial wind and water erosion if not properly controlled. Pursuant to SCA Geo-3: Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan for Construction, the Project applicant is required to prepare and submit an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan to the City for review and approval. The Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan must include measures such as short-term erosion control planting, waterproofing of slopes with covering, check dams, interceptor ditches, benches, storm drains, dissipation structures, diversion dikes, retarding berms and barriers, devices to trap and filter sediment, and stormwater retention basins to be implemented during construction. Pursuant to the Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan, no grading may occur during the wet weather season (October 15 through April 15) unless specifically authorized in writing by the Bureau of Building. The requirements of SCA Geo-3, which require all reasonable and feasible erosion control measures, will would reduce the potential impacts associated with substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil to less than significant.

Cumulative Geologic Effects: The geographic context for the analysis of impacts resulting from geologic hazards is generally site-specific rather than cumulative in nature. Each development site has a different set of geologic considerations that would be subject to specific site development and construction standards.

As such, the potential for cumulative geologic impacts to occur is limited. Construction associated with all cumulative development is required to conform to the provisions of applicable federal, State, county and city laws and ordinances, including but limited to the California Building Code, City building codes and applicable City SCAs. With adherence to all relevant plans, codes and regulations pertaining to building design and construction, cumulative development would provide adequate levels of safety and cumulative geologic impacts would be less than significant. The Project would not present a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative geologic impacts.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hazards-1, Cortese List - Exposure to Site Contamination: The Project site is not located on a site included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, and as a result does not represent a significant hazard to the public or the environment. The Project site has been used by Head-Royce for storage of school-related materials and parking, and has not been used to transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials. Recent (January 2020) reviews of applicable DTSC and SWQCB databases have not identified any new listings of known contaminate soil or groundwater at the site or in the immediate surroundings. The City of Oakland imposes numerous SCAs to reduce the potential for contaminated site conditions (known or unknown) to result in hazards to the public or the environment.

Pursuant to SCA Hazards-2: Hazardous Building Materials and Site Contamination, the School is required to submit their Phase I Environmental Site Assessment report to the City for review and approval. This report does not include any recommendations for remedial action for hazardous materials. Additionally, SCA Hazards-1: Hazardous Materials Related to Construction provides for actions needed under circumstances if soil, groundwater or other environmental medium with suspected contamination is encountered unexpectedly during construction activities. With implementation of these SCAs, hazards to public and environmental health related to known, as well as unknown hazardous contamination will be reduces to less than significant levels.

Hazards-2, Hazardous Building Materials – Disposal and Use of Hazardous Building and Construction Materials:

Demolition of existing buildings on the proposed South Campus will likely encounter existing hazardous building materials, and the Project’s construction activities will likely utilize construction materials and fuels considered hazardous. Handling, spills or accidents with these materials or chemicals could result in a significant impact to the health of workers and the environment. The 2012 Phase I ESA cites several previous asbestos abatement activities that have been performed at the site, subsurface transformers have Oakland City Planning Commission April 19, 2023
Case File Number PLN-18532, PLN18532PUDF-01and PLN18152- ER01

been identified along Lincoln Avenue, and fluorescent lighting is present in most buildings. Based on the age of some of the buildings on the Project site, PCB-containing light ballasts and construction materials may be present. Additionally, based on the pre-1982 construction dates of several on-site buildings, leadbased paint may be present. Project construction activities may also involve the use, transport and disposal of hazardous materials such as gasoline, diesel fuel, lubricating oil, hydraulic oil, lubricating grease, automatic transmission fluid, paints, solvents, glues, and other substances used during construction. Prior to approval of demolition, grading or building permits, SCA Hazards-2: Hazardous Building Materials and Site Contamination requires the Project applicant to prepare and submit a comprehensive assessment documenting the presence or lack thereof of ACMs, lead-based paint, PCBs and any other building materials or stored materials classified as hazardous. If any of these hazardous materials are present, the Project applicant is required to submit specifications for the stabilization and/or removal of these hazardous materials in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations. SCA Air-6, Asbestos in Structures requires compliance with all applicable laws and regulations regarding demolition and renovation of ACM, including California Code of Regulations Title 8, California Business and Professions Code Division 3, California Health and Safety Code Sections 25915-25919.7, and BAAQMD Regulation 11 Rule 2. During construction activities, SCA Hazards-1: Hazardous Materials Related to Construction requires the construction contractors to implement BMPs to minimize potential negative effects on groundwater, soils, and human health. With implementation of these SCAs, hazards to workers, the public and the environment related to hazardous building materials will be reduced to less than significant levels.

Hydrology and Water Quality
Hydrology-1, Water Quality during Construction: During construction activities, the Project does have the potential to violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, and result in substantial erosion or siltation that could affect the quality of receiving waters or otherwise substantially degrade water quality.

The Project would involve grading activities during the construction phase and during and immediately after these grading operations, newly exposed soil would be subject to substantial water erosion if not properly controlled. Project construction would also involve use of motorized heavy equipment including trucks and grading equipment that require fuel, lubricating grease and other fluids. Accidental chemical release or spill from a vehicle or large equipment could affect surface water. Such spills could become washed into the on-site drainages and eventually the Bay or could infiltrate into soil affecting groundwater quality. Pursuant to SCA Hydro-1: Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan for Construction, the Project applicant will be required to submit an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan for the Project and will be required to implement the approved Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan during all grading operations.

No grading operations will be allowed during the wet weather season (October 15 through April 15) unless specifically authorized in writing by the Bureau of Building. Pursuant to SCA Hydro-2: State Construction General Permit, the Project applicant will be required to comply with all regulations and requirements of the Construction General Permit issued by the SWRCB. The Project applicant will need to submit a Notice of Intent (NOI), a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and other required permit registration documents to SWRCB, and then file evidence of compliance with these state permit requirements with the City.

The SWPPP will be required to include a detailed description of construction materials, practices and equipment storage and maintenance, as well as a list of pollutants likely to contact stormwater. Site-specific erosion and sedimentation control practices will need to be identified, a list of measures demonstrating how the discharge of materials to the stormwater system will be eliminate or reduce (including site-specific BMPs) must be documented and approved, and an inspection and monitoring program established. Each of these SWRCB permit approvals and requirements shall be obtained prior to approval of the Project’s grading permit. With implementation of City-required SCAs Hydro-1 and Hydro-2, the Project’s potential impacts pertaining to water quality and sedimentation during construction would be reduced to a level of less than significant.

Oakland City Planning Commission April 19, 2023
Case File Number PLN-18532, PLN18532PUDF-01and PLN18152- ER01

Hydrology-2, Water Quality during Operations: During operations, the Project does have the potential to violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements that could affect the quality of receiving waters or otherwise substantially degrade water quality. The Project site will include new impervious surfaces including paved streets, parking lots and building rooftops, and stormwater that flows over these impervious does not infiltrate through these surfaces, but runs off these surfaces as stormwater runoff.

Stormwater runoff picks up pollutants like oil and grease, heavy metals, bacteria, trash, sediment and other pollutants from the urban landscape. The Project has the potential to contribute to an increased amount of non-point sources of pollutants in the runoff from the site. Increased pollutant load in stormwater runoff can harm local creeks, lakes and the Bay waters, as these pollutants directly affect water quality. Since the Project creates or replaces more than 10,000 square feet of new or existing impervious surface area, it is considered a Regulated Project under the NPDES C.3 requirements, and C.3 source control, site design, and treatment requirements apply.

Pursuant to SCA Hydro-3: NPDES C.3 Stormwater Requirements for Regulated Projects, the Project applicant must comply with requirements of the applicable Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit. The project applicant is required to submit a Post-Construction Stormwater Management Plan to the City for review and approval with the project drawings submitted for site improvements and shall implement the approved Plan during construction. The Project applicant is also required to enter into a maintenance agreement with the City, providing for acceptance of the responsibility for the adequate installation/ construction, operation, maintenance, inspection, and reporting of any on-site stormwater treatment measures, and providing for legal access to the on-site stormwater treatment measures to verifying and inspect the on-site stormwater treatment system. The Project’s proposed Preliminary Stormwater Control Plan includes both source control measures to limit stormwater pollution, and stormwater treatment measures to remove pollutants from stormwater runoff. Based on peer-review of the Project’s Preliminary Stormwater Control Plan, the post-construction stormwater treatment facilities provided for the Project are in general conformance with Alameda County Clean Water Program, Provision C.3 of the MRP, and thus also consistent with SCA Hydro-3: NPDES C.3 Stormwater Requirements for Regulated Projects. These requirements reduce impacts to surface water quality from new development on downstream receiving water. With implementation of these measures pursuant to a Final Stormwater Control Plan to be submitted to the City for review and approval with detailed Project drawings submitted for site improvements, and implemented during construction, post-construction operational impacts of the Project on stormwater quality will be less than significant.

Hydrology-4, Groundwater: The Project will not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. Existing storm drainage systems in the Project Area currently intercept most rainfall and runoff waters, thus limiting the amount of groundwater recharge that occurs.

The Project will not result in increased runoff from the site, and the minor amount of retained stormwater will minimally increase the volume of surface water that can filter into the ground and recharge groundwater basins, but such increase in potential infiltration would not be substantial. Groundwater is likely to be encountered during construction of the tunnel. Depending on the volume and pollutant loads of nonstormwater discharges associated with construction dewatering during tunnel excavation, different regulatory requirements apply. Pursuant to SCA Hydro-2: State Construction General Permit, the Project applicant will be required to comply with all regulations and requirements of a Construction General Permit, a statewide low-threat discharge Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR), or a site-specific NPDES permit may be required. Implementation of the Construction General Permit and/or statewide low-threat discharge Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) or site-specific NPDES permit requirements will reduce potential water quality impacts from groundwater dewatering activities during construction to a less than significant level. Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be required and incorporated into individual SWPPPs and other permits prior to approval of grading permits, providing an acceptable level of water quality protection.

Oakland City Planning Commission April 19, 2023
Case File Number PLN-18532, PLN18532PUDF-01and PLN18152- ER01

Hydrology-6, Conflict with the City of Oakland Creek Protection Ordinance: Portions of the Project’s improvements are within 100 feet of the Laguna Branch of Peralta Creek, including portions of the Loop Road, retaining walls, fill, and stormwater treatment measures. Uncontrolled erosion and sedimentation from these improvements could adversely affect this creek, in direct conflict with the Creek Protection Ordinance. As a project with exterior development that is beyond a 20-foot setback from the top of bank of the creek, but within 100 feet of the centerline of the creek, the Project qualifies for a Category III Creek Permit. Pursuant to SCA Hydro-5: Creek Protection Plan, all such projects require a Category III or IV Creek Protection Permit. Creek Permit applications must provide a Creek Protection Plan that describes the BMPs that will be employed to assure construction activity will not adversely affect the creek bank, riparian corridor or water quality. The Creek Protection Plan is reviewed and approved by the City, together with project drawings submitted to the City for site improvements. Per the applicant’s pre-permit memorandum pursuant to a Creek Permit application, construction-period erosion control measures will include construction fencing, a silt fence near the property line, and straw wattles placed on contour and spaced across the slope between the improvements and the construction fence. The channelized drainage and point source runoff will be managed on-site with check dams and sediment basins. Pursuant to SCA Hydro-2, the Project will also be required to implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan to ensure that construction activities comply with stormwater runoff regulations. The Project will be required to obtain and comply with all applicable regulations and requirements of the City of Oakland Creek Permit, thereby protecting waterbodies. The proposed South Campus is likely to be determined to be a “Creekside property”. The creek is not on the proposed South Campus site, but the site is contiguous to the off-site Laguna Branch of Peralta Creek on the adjacent properties. As such, the Project will be required to implement SCA Hydro-6: Vegetation Management on Creekside Properties, requiring additional BMPs for managing vegetation prior to, during, and after construction.

Cumulative Hydrology Effects: The Project will not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative impacts on hydrology or water quality. With implementation of applicable regulatory requirements, cumulative impacts to hydrology and water quality would be less than significant, and the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative hydrology or water quality impact. All present and reasonably foreseeable construction projects are required to comply with the same regulatory requirements as the Project, which are designed to control the discharge of construction-period stormwater pollutants. All regulated cumulative development projects are required to implement Stormwater Management Plans that comply with applicable C.3 provisions, and to incorporate post-construction stormwater controls and low-impact development (LID) measures. Development pursuant to the Project will not contribute to potential cumulative effects that might alter the course of Sausal Creek or Peralta Creek, contribute to cumulative siltation effects, or increase the rate or amount of cumulative runoff that contributes to Sausal Creek, Peralta Creek or the Bay.

Noise
Noise-1, Construction Noise: Construction of the Project would include demolition of existing development, site preparation, grading and excavation, trenching and foundations, building construction, paving, and construction of the pedestrian tunnel undercrossing. Pile driving is not anticipated for Project construction. Tunnel excavation will be conducted using a jacked box (jack and bore) methodology and will not include the use of explosives. Noise impacts resulting from this construction will depend on the noise generated by various pieces of construction equipment, the timing and duration of noise-generating activities, the distance between construction noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors, any shielding provided by intervening structures or terrain, and ambient noise levels. Each of the Project’s construction phases would include a different mix of operating equipment. The highest noise levels from this equipment are typically generated during demolition of existing structures, when impact tools are used.

Oakland City Planning Commission April 19, 2023
Case File Number PLN-18532, PLN18532PUDF-01and PLN18152- ER01

The Project does not propose to use any equipment classified as extreme noise generators (i.e., construction equipment that would generate noise levels greater than 90 dBA at a distance of 50 feet, such as pile drivers or impact hammers) under typical construction conditions, or at nominal distances of 50 feet or less from adjacent residences. At 50 feet from construction noise sources, maximum instantaneous noise levels generated during the Project’s construction phases on the South Campus are calculated to range from 81 to 90 dBA Lmax. Residence that back up adjacent to the Project site and within approximately 50 feet of construction would be subject to hourly average noise levels calculated to range from 78 to 86 dBA Leq.

Without further noise attenuation, the Project’s construction noise would exceed the performance standard of the City Noise Ordinance (i.e., 65 dBA at residential properties) at unshielded residences located within 500 feet of construction activities, and especially at immediately adjacent residences.

Pursuant to SCA Noise-1: Construction Days/Hours, the permitted hours for the Project’s general construction activities would be limited. Implementation of SCA Noise-2: Construction Noise and SCA Noise-3: Extreme Construction Noise will require the Project applicant to implement practical noise reduction measures to control and reduce noise emitted by construction equipment using best-available noise controls. SCA Noise-4: Project-Specific Construction Noise Reduction Measures requires the Project applicant to submit a Construction Noise Management Plan containing a set of Project-specific noise attenuation measures to reduce construction noise impacts on adjacent sensitive receptors. The Noise Study prepared for this EIR includes such recommended noise reduction measures to address Project-specific construction-period noise impacts to adjacent sensitive receptors and to minimize the noise impact at the adjacent property boundaries wherever possible.

Pursuant to SCA Noise-5: Construction Noise Complaints, the Project applicant is required to establish procedures for responding to and tracking complaints received pertaining to construction noise. Even with implementation of all of the City-required SCAs, construction noise would remain well above ambient daytime noise levels in the adjoining neighborhoods, especially at those residences that are immediately adjacent to the Project site. The Oakland Municipal Code standards that pertain to construction noise (OMC Section 17.120.050(G): Temporary Construction and Demolition Noise) allow for an exemption to the otherwise applicable threshold of 65 dBA as the maximum allowable construction noise over more than 10 days, if an acoustical analysis is performed and that acoustic analysis recommends measures to reduce construction noise impacts. The recommendations listed above pursuant to SCA Noise-1 through Noise-5 would reduce construction noise levels emanating from the site, limit construction hours, and minimize disruption and annoyance. With implementation of these noise controls and recognizing that noise generated by construction activities would occur over a temporary period, the temporary increase in ambient noise levels during construction would be less than significant.

Utilities and Service Systems
Utilities-1, Water Supplies: The total increased water demand attributed to the Project is estimated as the increased domestic water consumption attributed to the increase in students and faculty (2,330 gpd), plus the increment of additional outdoor irrigation attributed to the increased landscaped surfaces at the proposed South Campus (300 gpd), for 2,630 total gpd. The water demands of the existing Head-Royce Campus, plus these additional demands of the Project, are fully assumed in the EBMUD Demand Study’s projection of water demands by year 2040. EMBUD’s 2040 Water Supply management Program (WSMP) concluded that EBMUD’s existing water supplies are estimated to be sufficient to meet projected demand to year 2040 in normal and wet year conditions, and that the combination of rationing, conservation, and raw and recycled water would satisfy increased customer demand even during drought years through 2040.

Supplemental water supplies will be needed to keep rationing at a lower level and to meet the need for water in drought years, and EBMUD will continue to study several supplemental supply components as part of the WSMP 2040 Portfolio.

Oakland City Planning Commission April 19, 2023
Case File Number PLN-18532, PLN18532PUDF-01and PLN18152- ER01

With implementation of SCA Utilities-1: Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and Utilities-2: Green Building Requirements, the Project will participate in required water conservation programs and practices.

As with all land uses with the EBMUD service area, the Project may also be subject to water rationing as may be imposed by EBMUD during drought year conditions. Because the Project is not located within the EBMUD Recycled Water Project area (which generally includes portions of West Oakland, Downtown, and Jack London Square), the Project is not required to provide for the use of recycled water for feasible recycled water uses, as would otherwise be required pursuant to City SCAs and Section 16.08.030 of the Oakland Municipal Code. Based on the above applicable SCAs and regulatory requirements, the Project will have sufficient water supplies available from EBMUD to serve its water demands and those of other reasonably foreseeable future development, during normal and multiple dry years.

Utilities-4, Utility Service Connections: The Project will require relocation or construction of new or expanded water distribution, wastewater collection, and electric power, natural gas and telecommunication facilities. The construction or relocation of these utility connections will not cause significant environmental effects. The Project will require new water services (domestic, fire and irrigation systems), sewer connections and storm drain connections, and updated electrical, gas and communication system infrastructure. The relocation or construction of new utility connection will be required to comply with all construction related SCAs as identified in the EIR. Additionally, pursuant to SCA Utilities-3: Sanitary Sewer System, the project applicant will be required to submit a Sanitary Sewer Impact Analysis to the City, including an estimate of pre-project and post-project wastewater flows from the Project site.

If this analysis indicates a net increase in wastewater flow that exceeds projected increases in wastewater flow, the Project applicant would be required to pay Sanitary Sewer Impact Fees in accordance with the City’s Master Fee Schedule. Pursuant to SCA Utilities-4: Underground Utilities, the project applicant will also be required to underground all new utilities serving the project. Utilities under the control of other agencies (such as PG&E) shall be placed underground if feasible, and all utilities shall be installed in accordance with standard specifications of the serving utilities. With implementation of all applicable SCAs and regulatory requirements, the construction or relocation of utility connections will not cause significant environmental effects.

Utilities-5, Solid Waste: The Project would not generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. The Project would comply with federal, State and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste. The Project is estimated to generate between approximately 0.6 pounds of waste per person per day, or 1 pound of waste per student per day. Using these waste generation rates, The Project (at 344 additional students and 17 additional staff) may generate between 220 and 344 pounds of waste per day. The Project’s incremental contribution to total waste managed at the Transfer Station represents a very small fraction of the transfer station’s average daily outflow, and an even smaller fraction of the permitted maximum disposal capacity at the Altamont Landfill. The Project’s impact on the capacity of local solid waste infrastructure would be less than significant.

Pursuant to SCA Utilities-5: Construction and Demolition Waste Reduction and Recycling, the Project applicant will be required to prepare and implement a Construction and Demolition Waste Reduction and Recycling Plan, specifying the methods by which construction will provide for the diversion of construction and demolition debris from landfill disposal, in accordance with current City requirements. During Project operations and pursuant to SCA Utilities-6, Recycling Collection and Storage Space, the Project applicant will provide recycling collection and storage areas at the Project site that are in compliance with City Ordinance requirements. With implementation of all regulatory requirements and the extension of School programs for waste diversion and source reduction, the Project will comply with federal, State and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste and will not impair attainment of citywide solid waste reduction goals.

Oakland City Planning Commission April 19, 2023
Case File Number PLN-18532, PLN18532PUDF-01and PLN18152- ER01

Wildfire and Emergency Evacuation
Fire-1, Wildland Fires: The Project is located in the Oakland Hills, an area that exhibits a complex wildfire environment that presents a significant risk to public and firefighter safety and to the built and natural environment. This region has been subject to numerous damaging wildland fires. The region is influenced by local extreme wind and weather conditions with steep and varied terrain and containing a complex mosaic of different vegetation types. It is one of the highest risk areas in the country for devastating wildland urban interface (WUI) fires. The Project is located within a portion of the Oakland Hills within the City of Oakland-designated Very High Wildfire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ). Head-Royce School has prepared a Vegetation Management Plan in compliance with SCA Fire-1, Designated Very High Fire Severity Zone – Vegetation Management, as required for all projects involving construction of new facilities located in the Designated Very High Fire Severity Zone. The Vegetation Management Plan has been developed to provide an enhanced level of safety at the Head-Royce School from wildfire, by meeting defensible space requirements. Pursuant to SCA Fire-1 requirements, this Vegetation Management Plan includes a map depicting the fuel management area, and the separate fuel management zones where different vegetation treatments are required. A list of treatment performance standards are provided for each fuel management zone, with a list of recommendations for implementing treatments, including sufficient information to provide clear instructions to contractors performing the fuel management work.

Details regarding spacing, pruning heights and volumes of litter/chips are provided. Diagrams indicate fuel types present on the property and current vegetation condition, as well as images needed to support specific fuels management and treatment recommendations. Additional recommendations are included in the Vegetation management Plan to perform vegetative treatments on other properties owned by Head-Royce School when it lies within the Defensible Space Zone. Furthermore, pursuant to SCA Fire-3, Compliance with Other Requirements, all new buildings and building remodeling will be required to comply with all other applicable federal, state and local laws and code requirements, including but not limited to those imposed by the City’s Bureau of Building and the Fire Marshal. These Code requirements include all State and City Fire Code requirements for fire protection and life safety systems, fire service features and materials and construction methods for fire-safe structures. With implementation of the Vegetation Management Plan and required construction-period requirements, the Project will comply with all Defensible Space requirements of the California and Oakland Fire Codes, and fire risks associated with the Project will be reduced to levels considered acceptable pursuant to these Code requirements (i.e., less than significant).

XI. SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
Pursuant to Public Resources Code sections 21081(a)(3) and 21081(b), and CEQA Guidelines sections 15091, 15092 and 15093, and to the extent reflected in the EIR and the SCA/MMRP, the Planning Commission finds that the Project would not result in any impacts that would remain significant and unavoidable with imposition of all feasible Standard Conditions of Approval and mitigation measures as listed above.

XII. FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES
The Planning Commission finds that specific economic, social, environmental, technological, legal or other considerations make infeasible the alternatives to the Project described in the EIR for the reasons stated below, and that the Project should be approved.

Oakland City Planning Commission April 19, 2023
Case File Number PLN-18532, PLN18532PUDF-01and PLN18152- ER01

The EIR evaluated a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project that were described in the EIR (DEIR Chapter 18) which are hereby incorporated by reference. The three alternatives analyzed in detail in the EIR represent a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that reduce one or more significant impacts of the Project and/or provide decision-makers with additional information about Project. The Project alternatives include: a) a No Project Alternative, b) a Minor Development Alternative, and c) a Reduced Alternative. The EIR also identified an environmentally superior alternative that was considered to have the least number of environmental impacts if implemented. In the absence of a practical and reasonable No Project alternative wherein the Project site is preserved in its existing condition, Alternative 2 (the Minor Development Alternative) is environmentally superior as compared to the Project and other alternatives. On balance, the potential environmental effects of Alternative 2 and the Project are both able to be mitigated to less than significant levels. The environmental effects of Alternative 2 are comparatively less than those of the Project, but the differences as measured against CEQA threshold criteria are not substantial (i.e., there are few significant impacts or potentially significant that would be completely avoided under Alternative 2, as compared to the Project). There are no significant impacts of the Project that can only be reduced or avoided by consideration of Alternative 2. Alternative 2 would result in impacts that are comparably less than the impacts of the Project, and therefore Alternative 2 is environmentally superior to the Project and all other alternatives considered in this EIR.

The Planning Commission certifies that it has independently reviewed and considered the information on the alternatives provided in the EIR and in the record. The EIR reflects the Planning Commission's independent judgment as to alternatives. The Planning Commission finds that the Project provides the best balance between the Project sponsor's objectives, the City's goals and objectives, and the Project's benefits as described in the Staff Report. While the Project may cause some significant impacts, mitigation measures and the City’s SCAs identified in the EIR mitigate all of these impacts to a less than significant level. The alternatives and environmentally superior alternative evaluated in the EIR are not necessary to reduce or avoid any significant and unavoidable environmental effects of the Project, and are rejected for the following reasons. Each individual reason presented below constitutes a separate and independent basis to reject the Project alternative as being infeasible, and, when the reasons are viewed collectively, provide an overall basis for rejecting the alternative as being infeasible.

A. Alternative #1: No Project
The Project site has an existing General Plan land use designation of Institutional, and is currently zoned Residential Detached (RD-1). Whereas disapproval of the Project would not involve any efforts toward permanent preservation of the Project site as open space, the practical results on non-approval would likely lead to a proposal for some other institutional use of the site, or the development of detached single unit residences with the potential for a limited range of commercial uses. Under this alternative, use of the former Lincoln site by Head-Royce School would continue to be limited to surplus parking, there would be no increase over the currently permitted maximum enrollment of 906 students, and no additional faculty or staff positions would be needed. The 12 existing buildings on the former Lincoln site, including the three historic buildings (Buildings 0, 1 and 2) would remain as they are today. There would be no rehabilitation of the three existing historic buildings, and these buildings would not be used for any School-related functional purposes such classrooms or administrative functions. No interior upgrades or renovations to these buildings would occur. Vehicular access to the former Lincoln site would continue to be limited to the two existing driveways off Lincoln Avenue. No additional vehicular access to or through the former Lincoln site would be provided. The existing 129 paved parking spaces on the former Lincoln site would remain available for the School’s use as surplus and overflow parking. All student drop-off and pick-up activity would continue to occur along Lincoln Avenue, as would public and private bus loading and unloading. The loading zones for AC Transit and private buses would be maintained on Lincoln Avenue.

No new traffic signals would be installed, and existing traffic signals would remain. The current Transportation Policy Guide and TDM program for the School’s identified “Loop” through public streets Oakland City Planning Commission April 19, 2023
Case File Number PLN-18532, PLN18532PUDF-01and PLN18152- ER01

in the adjacent, downhill neighborhood would remain as-is, as would use of the Mormon Temple parking lot near Highway 13 as a staging area for afternoon pick-up. No grading or earthwork would occur at the site, and no new electrical, gas, communication, sewer, water, fire, or irrigation utility systems would be installed.

This Alternative is rejected as infeasible because: a) it would not accomplish any of the objectives for the Project; b) it would not provide for the rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of the three existing historic buildings on the site; c) it would not return the site to productive use; and d) it would not alleviate traffic congestion at the existing drop-off and pick-up locations for the School along Lincoln Avenue.

B. Alternative 2: Minor Development Alternative
Under the Minor Development Alternative, there would be no increase in student enrollment at the School.

Enrollment would remain capped at a maximum of 906 students. Physical changes at the proposed South Campus site pursuant to the Minor Development Alternative would include demolition of eight existing buildings; restoration and rehabilitation of Buildings 0, 1 and 2 for reuse as classroom and/or School administrative purposes; and reuse of Building 9 for classroom and/or School administrative purposes.

Alternative 2 also includes improvements for outdoor gathering spaces, improvement and reuse of the existing playfield at the proposed South Campus for outdoor recreational activity, and tree removal as necessary to implement those physical improvements listed above. The Minor Development Alternative would not include any other physical improvements on the proposed South Campus, and no change to the existing Campus. There would be no change to the current operations for School drop-offs and pick-ups that occur along Lincoln Avenue, and the underground pedestrian tunnel and the Performing Art building would not be constructed. A PUD amendment would be required to allow expansion of the Head Royce School onto the former Lincoln site to establish a new proposed South Campus under this Alternative.

The Minor Development Alternative is rejected because it would not achieve most of the Project objectives.

While this alternative could restore and rehabilitate the historic Buildings 0, 1 and 2 for reuse as classroom and/or School administrative purposes, there is no certainty that the School would elect to implement improvement to these historic buildings without the additional beneficial uses of the site as proposed pursuant to the Project. The Minor Development Alternative is rejected as infeasible because: a) it would not accomplish most of the objectives for the Project; b) it would not return the site to fully productive use; and c) it would not alleviate traffic congestion at the existing drop-off and pick-up locations for the School along Lincoln Avenue. There are no significant impacts of the Project that can only be reduced or avoided by consideration of the Minor Development Alternative (Alternative 2).

C. Alternative 3: Reduced Alternative
The Reduced Alternative would provide for a reduced incremental increase in student enrollment, increasing from the current cap at a maximum of 906 students with an increase of 144 students, to a total student enrollment of 1,050 students. Physical improvements at the proposed South Campus pursuant to the Reduced Alternative would include all of the improvements identified for the Minor Development Alternative (Alternative 2). Additionally, the Reduced Alternative would include the new Loop Road with off-street drop-off and pick-up locations, new/relocated traffic signals along Lincoln Avenue, and pedestrian crossings of Lincoln Avenue at the at-grade crossings. The number of parking spaces on the proposed South Campus would be incrementally increased to accommodate the expected increased demand.

Tree removal would be conducted as necessary to implement the physical improvements listed above.

Under the Reduced Alternative, the underground pedestrian tunnel and the Performing Arts Center building would not be constructed. A PUD amendment would be required to allow expansion of the Head Royce School onto the former Lincoln site to establish a new proposed South Campus under this Alternative.

Oakland City Planning Commission April 19, 2023
Case File Number PLN-18532, PLN18532PUDF-01and PLN18152- ER01

The Reduced Alternative is rejected because: a) it would not achieve the Project objectives to the same extent as the proposed Project; b) it would not return the site to fully productive use; c) it would not alleviate traffic congestion at the existing drop-off and pick-up locations for the School along Lincoln Avenue; d) it would not provide for construction of a new Performance Arts Center for student curriculum relating to theater, music, dance and culture; and e) it would not integrate the existing and proposed South Campus together with an underground pedestrian tunnel below Lincoln Avenue, reducing the number of student atgrade crossings. There are no significant impacts of the Project that can only be reduced or avoided by consideration of the Reduced Alternative (Alternative 3).

Preliminary Planned Unit Development Permit Findings (PUD/PDP) A Preliminary Planned Unit Development Permit may be granted only if it is found that the development (including conditions imposed under the authority of Sections 17.142.060 and

17.140.030) conforms to all of the following criteria, as well as to the planned unit development regulations in Chapter 17.142:

A. That the location, design, size, and uses are consistent with the Oakland General Plan and with any other applicable plan, development control map, or ordinance adopted by the City Council.

General Plan. The proposed Project consists of the approval of a proposal to integrate an existing but current vacant 8-acre campus (formerly the Lincoln Child Center—a residential school for emotionally disturbed youth) into the existing 14-acre campus of the Head-Royce School (“HRS”). The project contemplates the demolition of eight existing non-historic buildings, rehabilitation and reuse of four existing buildings for administration and classroom space (three of which retain historic features), construction of two new buildings, landscaping, and new vehicular and pedestrian circulation on the former Lincoln Child Center Campus (the “South Campus”). The two new buildings consist of the approximately 1,500 square-foot Link Pavilion and approximately 16,500 square-foot multi-use performance arts building with up to 450 seats, resulting in the net addition of approximately 894 square feet on the South Campus.

In addition, the Project proposes a privately owned and maintained pedestrian tunnel to connect the South Campus to the current HRS Campus (the “North Campus”). Limited new construction is proposed on the North Campus, consisting of an accommodation of the north end of the underground pedestrian tunnel and the lifting of the roof of the building known as the MEW to better function as a gymnasium (its original purpose.).

The South Campus, where the bulk of the construction is proposed, has a General Plan designation of Institutional. The Institutional General Plan land use classification is intended to create, maintain, and enhance areas appropriate for educational facilities, cultural and institutional uses, health services and medical uses as well as other uses of similar character. The maximum FAR for this classification is 8.0.

Policies that support the Institutional classification are Neighborhood Objectives N2 and N5.

The Project is consistent with the Institutional classification and the objectives that support it. The Project updates the South Campus to serve educational uses at an intensity far below 8.0 FAR (the Project would have an intensity of 0.13 FAR, which is less than the intensity of the North Campus). Further, the Project is consistent with Neighborhood Objective N2 and its supporting policies:

Objective N2 states: Encourage adequate civic, institutional, and educational facilities located within Oakland, appropriately designed and sited to serve the community. The Project expands the educational Oakland City Planning Commission April 19, 2023
Case File Number PLN-18532, PLN18532PUDF-01and PLN18152- ER01

facilities in Oakland through the sensitive redesign of the South Campus that rehabilitates the best of the existing buildings and adds new facilities that address today’s educational needs. The new structures are designed to work with the existing campus, but not to mimic it so it is clear which buildings are old and which are new and sited to allow easy and safe school and community access to the performance arts building.
• Policy N2.1 states: Designing and Maintaining Institutions. As Institutional uses are among the most visible activities in the City and can be sources of community pride, high-quality design and upkeep/maintenance should be encouraged. The facilities should be designed and operated in a manner that is sensitive to surrounding residential and other uses. The Project would result in the maintenance and improvement of the South Campus. The Project maintains the three buildings on the South Campus that retain historic integrity and one other building and rehabilitates these buildings. In addition, the Project adds two new high-quality, energy efficient buildings designed to meet LEED Gold standards. As discussed above, the buildings are designed and would be operated in a manner that is sensitive to surrounding residential uses. • Policy N2.3 states: Supporting Institutional Facilities. The City should support many uses occurring in institutional facilities where they are compatible with surrounding activities and where the facility site adequately supports the proposed uses. The proposed performance arts building would add enhance the school’s ability to expose its students to the performance and enjoyment of theater, music, dance and culture.
• Policy N2.5 states: Balancing City and Local Benefits of Institutions. When reviewing land use permit applications for the establishment or expansion of institutional uses, the decision-making body should take into account the institution’s overall benefit to the entire Oakland community, as well as its effects upon the immediately surrounding area. The Project would benefit the City by expanding HRS’s enrollment, thereby allowing HRS to accept more of the many students (many from Oakland) who seek to go there. As discussed above, the Project would resolve some of the past conflicts between HRS’s operations and residents by creating enough space to allow vehicular drop off and pick up operations to occur entirely within the South Campus.

The North Campus, where only minimal work is proposed, has the General Plan designations of Hillside Residential and Detached Unit Residential. The Hillside Residential designation is intended for low-density neighborhood residential uses. The Detached Unit Residential designation is intended for residential areas with single-family homes, with appropriate allowances for schools and other small scale civic institutions.

An existing Planned Unit Development Permit governs the allowed land uses on the North Campus, permitting institutional uses. The proposed changes to the North Campus consist of the opening for the pedestrian tunnel and the increase in the roof and interior ceiling height of an existing gymnasium.

In sum, the Project’s location, design, size, and uses are consistent with the Oakland General Plan.

Zoning. The South Campus, where the bulk of the construction is proposed, is zoned RD-1. Under the City’s Planning Code, the RD-1 district is intended to accommodate detached, single unit structures and a limited range of commercial uses. The North Campus is zoned RH-4 (See Figure 3.02). The RH-4 district is intended to create, maintain, and enhance areas for single-family dwellings on minimum lot sizes of 6,500 to 8,000 square feet and a limited range of civic uses, and is typically appropriate in already developed areas of the Oakland Hills.

K–12 schools are classified as a Community Education Civic Use in the City’s Planning Code. (OPC, §

17.10.180.) Community Education Civic Uses are conditionally permitted in the RH-4 and RD-1 zones. (OPC, § 17.13.030, Table 17.13.01: § 17.15.030, Table 17.15.01.) In the RD-1 zoning district, where the bulk of new development would occur, the minimum lot size is 5,000 square feet and maximum height is 30 feet for structures located on lots with a footprint slope of less than 20 percent and between 35 to 40 feet Oakland City Planning Commission April 19, 2023
Case File Number PLN-18532, PLN18532PUDF-01and PLN18152- ER01

for structures located on lots with a footprint slope equal to or greater than 20 percent. (OPC, § 17.15.050, Tables 17.15.03 and 17.15.06.) Civic facilities developed in the RD-1 zoning district are conditionally permitted to exceed the applicable height limits up to a height of 75 feet. (OPC, § 17.108.020.) The tallest proposed building, the Performing Arts Center, would be approximately 32 feet, meeting the zoning requirements without a CUP.

Uses and structures that are conditionally allowed under the zoning code are also allowed through processing of a PUD. (OPC, § 17.134.110.) Whenever a conditional use permit is required for a proposal also requiring a planned unit development permit, the City must confirm that the Project conforms to the applicable use permit criteria. (OPC, § 17.134.110.) As discussed below, the Project conforms to the applicable use permit criteria.

The Project is thus consistent with the Property’s applicable zoning controls.

B. That the location, design, and size are such that the development can be well integrated with its surroundings, and, in the case of a departure in character from surrounding uses, that the location and design will adequately reduce the impact of the development.

The Project would be well integrated in location, size, and design with its surroundings, making it compatible with its surroundings. The majority of the Project is located on property designated for institutional uses and all the Project is on property used for institutional uses for almost 100 years. HRS has operated in a predominantly residential area for decades and has worked with neighbors to minimize use conflicts. To that end, the Project includes a new loop on the South Campus that would be used for drop off and pick up and is long enough to accommodate all anticipated private vehicles. Busses would still use Lincoln Avenue. In addition, the design and size of the proposed buildings are in keeping with the historical scale of buildings on the North and South Campuses. The Project results in less than 900 square feet of new building area on the South Campus and therefore would not be a significant departure from existing conditions. The new buildings have a contemporary design that complements the existing architecture both on and off the Project site. The performance arts building incorporates a lot of glass, which acts to make the building mass seem smaller than it would if the building were a predominantly opaque material.

The pedestrian tunnel not only integrates the North and South Campuses with each other, but also reduces the potential for conflicts between the campus community and surrounding residents. Rather than disrupt traffic by crossing at grade, HRS community members can safely walk between the North and South Campuses through a below-grade pedestrian passage. Because it is underground, the pedestrian tunnel integrates well with its surroundings.

The Project will minimize conflicts with surrounding residential uses. For example, the site design strategy is to reuse previously developed and paved areas to maintain as much mature vegetation as possible, particularly along the Project site’s edges that border residential development. The Project would add features, including a new turn-around area, to improve circulation and would not substantially increase the intensity of institutional uses on the site. The Project would relocate a parking lot that is now near residences to the other side of the site and replace it with landscaped areas that better compliment nearby residential uses. The Project also adds a circulation loop that would eliminate the need for HRS to use Lincoln Avenue as part of its drop off and pick up travel area, which will reduce the potential for conflicts between school and residential vehicular traffic on Lincoln Avenue.

The proposed use would not be residential and would occur mainly from 7:00 am to 6:30 pm on weekdays, with some school activities such as play rehearsals, band practices, and school meetings occurring on weekends or after 6:30 pm, and in summers from 7:30 am to 6:00 pm on weekdays only (HRS also is permitted a limited number of special events that can occur outside these hours). Given the improved Oakland City Planning Commission April 19, 2023
Case File Number PLN-18532, PLN18532PUDF-01and PLN18152- ER01

circulation and parking, small additional amount of additional space for institutional uses and reduced overall time the site is used for institutional uses, the Project will not result in new conflicts between its uses and surrounding residential uses.

In sum, the location, design, and size are such that the development can be well integrated with its surroundings and is not a departure from uses existing on the Project site and includes features that would reduce impacts on nearby residents.

C. That the location, design, size, and uses are such that traffic generated by the development can be accommodated safely and without congestion on major streets and will avoid traversing other local streets.

The Project would comply with HRS’s TDM and other traffic reducing programs and requirements. To maintain maximum feasible flow and minimize use of local streets during peak traffic hours (drop off and pick up) HRS would continue to enforce its extensive traffic management rules.

In addition, to further reduce safety concerns and the potential for congestion, the Project includes a new loop designed to accommodate private vehicular drop off and pick up operations within the South Campus.

The Project also adds a new signalized intersection at the northeast corner of the South Campus along Lincoln Avenue to provide safe access to the South Campus. The Lincoln Avenue right-of-way will be reconfigured to accommodate a downhill left-turn pocket and an uphill right-turn pocket. Parallel parking spaces along the south side of Lincoln Avenue will be removed to accommodate this modification. Egress from the South Campus is controlled by a new signalized intersection at the northwest corner of the South Campus, which would replace the signal that currently controls the pedestrian crosswalk at the Head-Royce Gatehouse. With these modifications, the Project is anticipated to improve existing traffic conditions.

In sum, the Project’s location, design, size, and uses are such that traffic generated by the Project can be accommodated safely and without unsafe congestion on major streets and will mostly avoid traversing other local streets.

D. That the location, design, size, and uses are such that the residents or establishments to be accommodated will be adequately served by existing or proposed facilities and services.

The Project can be adequately served by existing services and facilities. The Project would result in use of the South Campus that is consistent with its historical use. For this reason, the Project likely would not require additional fire protection, police services, wastewater, potable water, or solid waste disposal needs beyond what was used by Lincoln Child Center when it was fully operational. In sum, the location, design, size, and uses of the Project are such that HRS’s operations would be adequately served by existing facilities and services.

E. That the location, design, size, and uses will result in an attractive, healthful, efficient, and stable environment for living, shopping, or working, the beneficial effects of which environment could not otherwise be achieved under the zoning regulations.

Project’s location, design, size and uses will result in an attractive, healthful, efficient and stable environment for education and community uses that could not be achieved under the existing zoning regulations. The Project would rehabilitate the three historic buildings on the South Campus and renovate one other building, providing much needed updates, as well as improve the landscaping. In addition, the Project provides a better drop off/pick up solution than HRS currently has, a new performance arts building, additional outdoor teaching space, and a pedestrian link between the North and South Campuses that would not disrupt traffic. None of these benefits would be possible under the Project site’s residential zoning. The Project would be healthful and efficient because it would comply with all state and local laws that demand Oakland City Planning Commission April 19, 2023
Case File Number PLN-18532, PLN18532PUDF-01and PLN18152- ER01

use of Green Building materials, low VOC architectural coatings, and energy-efficient buildings (the new buildings would be designed to meet LEED Gold requirements).

In sum, the PUD permit allows the construction of an integrated master plan campus, including a new community asset (the performance arts building) and better transportation operations, that would not be possible under the Project site’s existing zoning.

F. That the development will be well integrated into its setting, will not require excessive earth moving or destroy desirable natural features, will not be visually obtrusive and will harmonize with surrounding areas and facilities, will not substantially harm major views for surrounding residents, and will provide sufficient buffering in the form of spatial separation, vegetation, topographic features, or other devices.

As noted above, the proposed Project would be well integrated into its setting, will not be visually obtrusive and will harmonize with surrounding areas and facilities. The discussion below addresses the following issues: (1) earth moving and maintenance of desirable natural features, (2) visual compatibility with surroundings and protection of views, and (3) buffering in the form of spatial separation and vegetation.

Earth Moving and Maintenance of Desirable Natural Features. The Project would not require substantial earth moving, although the construction of the pedestrian tunnel will result in more earth moving than an at-grade pedestrian crossing. However, the safety benefits of separating pedestrians from vehicles more than makes up for the additional required earth moving. The proposed construction is on previously developed areas that are already fairly flat. In addition, the Project is designed to preserve the site’s desirable natural features, including the majority of mature trees and sloping topography.

Visual Compatibility and Protection of Major Views. The Project would be visually compatible with the institutional buildings already on the Project site. The Project adds two buildings to the South Campus that would complement the remaining, mainly Spanish Colonial Revival style buildings. The new buildings have the same simple massing as the existing buildings, but update the materials, providing voids (windows) for walls where Spanish Colonial Revival style would have stucco. These buildings also visually connect the North and South Campuses by introducing some of the design language of the North Campus to the South Campus. The transparency of the new buildings also acts to reduce the perceived mass and integrate the buildings into both the campus and surrounding areas. The proposed pedestrian tunnel would not have much of a visual impact because it is underground. There are no public scenic views in the area that would be affected by the Project, which would not obscure any bay views.

Buffering through Spatial Separation and Vegetation. The Project provides ample space between the property line and proposed buildings. This space would include vegetation to provide a visual buffer between the Project and adjacent residences. In addition, of the 395 trees on the Project site, the Project would protect in place or through relocation approximately 254 trees and add approximately 50 new trees that would provide visual screening.

Final Development Permit Findings (FDP)

1. The final plan shall conform in all major respects with the approved preliminary development plan. The final plan shall include all information included in the preliminary development plan plus the following: the location of water, sewerage, and drainage facilities; detailed building and landscaping plans and elevations; the character and location of signs; plans for street improvements; and grading or earth-moving plans. The final plan shall be sufficiently detailed to indicate fully the ultimate operation and appearance of the development.

Oakland City Planning Commission April 19, 2023
Case File Number PLN-18532, PLN18532PUDF-01and PLN18152- ER01

The combined Phase I and II FDP conforms in all major respects with the PDP and the proposed phasing schedule. It includes the information required by the Planning Code at a scale that allows the City to review the ultimate operation and appearance of the Project. For example, the FDP includes floor plans and elevations for Buildings 0, 1, and 2, a topographic survey and a demolition plan, arborist report, tree protection and removal schedule, grading, erosion control, stormwater management, landscape plan, architectural and plant material schedules, irrigation plan, lighting plan, and wayfinding signage program.

The plan also includes plans addressing off-site improvements.

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS
.

Section 17.134.050 – Conditional Use Permit
A. The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed development will be compatible with, and will not adversely affect, the livability or appropriate development of abutting properties and the surrounding neighborhood, with consideration to be given to harmony in scale, bulk, coverage, and density; to the availability of civic facilities and utilities; to harmful effect, if any upon desirable neighborhood character; to the generation of traffic and the capacity of surrounding streets; and to any other relevant impact of the development.

The Project’s location, size, design, and operating characteristics would be compatible with and not adversely affect the livability of abutting properties and the surrounding neighborhood.

Location. The Project would be located in an area designed for institutional uses that has long been used for institutional uses. The Project site is large enough to ensure that the project is appropriately set back from neighboring residential uses.

Size (Scale and Bulk). The Project would result in approximately 894 net additional square feet on the South Campus and therefore is in keeping with the overall size of development that has historically been on the campus. The performance arts building would be taller than the buildings to be demolished due to the unique height requirements of theater space, which require a ceiling high enough to allow full-height backdrops to be raised out of view, sloped floors, and adequate space above the ceiling and under the roof to accommodate the complex sound, lighting, and mechanical systems necessary for stage performances.

The building would be set back from the property line a sufficient distance such that its height would not adversely affect surrounding areas. In addition, as noted above, the building is predominantly glass, causing it to appear less bulky than a similarly sized building constructed of solid materials. The other proposed building is only 1,500 square feet and would be smaller than the majority of residential homes in the nearby neighborhood.

Design. The Project design is contemporary and intended to complement the existing buildings that would be retained on the South Campus, while echoing some of the North Campus buildings. As noted above, the lightness that can be achieved through the use of modern materials prevents the proposed buildings from appearing bulky or out of scale for their setting.

Operating Characteristics. The Project would improve HRS’s current operating characteristics by creating a new loop road contained entirely in the South Campus for drop off and pick up. This internal loop will replace the current drop off and pick up procedures, which make use of the Mormon Temple parking lot and Lincoln Avenue. The Project also would add signals to Lincoln Avenue to facilitate safe entry to and Oakland City Planning Commission April 19, 2023
Case File Number PLN-18532, PLN18532PUDF-01and PLN18152- ER01

egress from the South Campus. In addition, the Project proposes an underground pedestrian connection between the North and South Campuses to maximize student safety and minimize potential conflicts with neighborhood vehicular travel. Finally, unlike the former use of the South Campus, which was a twentyfour hour residential care facility for youth, the Project would use the Property during school hours only.

This change will reduce the potential for nighttime operational conflicts with the adjacent residential community.

Availability of Civic Facilities. The Project is an expansion of an existing civic facility that serves Oakland residents and the larger East Bay community. As such it adds to the provision of civic facilities in the community.

B. The location, design, and site planning of the proposed development will provide a convenient and functional living, working, shopping, or civic environment, and will be as attractive as the nature of the use and its location and setting warrant.

As discussed above, the Project will improve HRS’s transportation operations and thereby decrease potential conflicts with the neighborhood, making life more convenient and functional for both HRS community members and neighbors. Specifically, the Project is organized to allow a loop drive to encircle the South Campus. By pushing the loop towards the edges of the property, the loop will be long enough to accommodate HRS’s drop off and pick up queues. This design also allows the center of the South Campus to be a pedestrian space free from conflicts with vehicular traffic. The pedestrian tunnel also is designed to provide a convenient and safe way for people to move between the North and South Campuses without disrupting traffic. The proposed new landscaping and rehabilitation of the remaining buildings on the South Campus will increase the site’s attractiveness, as will the addition of a well-designed, high quality performance arts building.

C. The proposed development will enhance the successful operation of the surrounding area in its basic community functions, or will provide an essential service to the community or region.

The Project enhances the successful operation of the surrounding streets by providing space for HRS to have its drop off and pick up procedures occur completely on its property. In addition, the Project provides an essential service to the community through expansion of educational opportunities at one of Oakland’s premiere independent schools.

D. The proposal conforms with all applicable Regular Design Review criteria set forth in Section

17.136.050 of the Oakland Planning Code.

The Project complies with all applicable Regular Design Review criteria. Please refer to the Regular Design Review findings submitted in conjunction with this application.

E. The proposal conforms in all significant respects with the Oakland General Plan and with any other applicable plan or development control map which has been adopted by the City Council.

The proposed Project consists of the approval of a proposal to integrate an existing but currently vacant 8- acre campus (formerly the Lincoln Child Center—a residential school for emotionally disturbed youth) into the existing 14-acre campus of the Head-Royce School (“HRS”). The project contemplates the demolition of eight existing non-historic buildings, rehabilitation and reuse of four existing buildings for administration and classroom space (three of which retain historic features), construction of two new buildings, landscaping, and new vehicular and pedestrian circulation on the former Lincoln Child Center Campus (the “South Campus”). The two new buildings consist of the approximately 1,500 square-foot Link Pavilion and Oakland City Planning Commission April 19, 2023
Case File Number PLN-18532, PLN18532PUDF-01and PLN18152- ER01

approximately 16,500 square-foot multi-use performance arts building with up to 450 seats, resulting in the net addition of approximately 894 square feet on the South Campus. In addition, the Project proposes a privately owned and maintained pedestrian tunnel to connect the South Campus to the current HRS Campus (the “North Campus”). Limited new construction is proposed on the North Campus, consisting of an accommodation of the north end of the underground pedestrian tunnel and the lifting of the roof of the building known as the MEW to better function as a gymnasium (its original purpose.).

The South Campus, where the bulk of the construction is proposed, has a General Plan designation of Institutional. The Institutional General Plan land use classification is intended to create, maintain, and enhance areas appropriate for educational facilities, cultural and institutional uses, health services and medical uses as well as other uses of similar character. The maximum FAR for this classification is 8.0.

Policies that support the Institutional classification are Neighborhood Objectives N2 and N5.

The Project is consistent with the Institutional classification and the objectives that support it. The Project updates the South Campus to serve educational uses at an intensity far below 8.0 FAR (the Project would have an intensity of 0.13 FAR, which is less than the intensity of the North Campus). Further, the Project is consistent with Neighborhood Objective N2 and its supporting policies:

Objective N2 states: Encourage adequate civic, institutional, and educational facilities located within Oakland, appropriately designed and sited to serve the community. The Project expands the educational facilities in Oakland through the sensitive redesign of the South Campus that rehabilitates the best of the existing buildings and adds new facilities that address today’s educational needs. The new structures are designed to work with the existing campus, but not to mimic it so it is clear which buildings are old and which are new, and sited to allow easy and safe school and community access to the performance arts building.
• Policy N2.1 states: Designing and Maintaining Institutions. As Institutional uses are among the most visible activities in the City and can be sources of community pride, high-quality design and upkeep/maintenance should be encouraged. The facilities should be designed and operated in a manner that is sensitive to surrounding residential and other uses. The Project would result in the maintenance and improvement of the South Campus. The Project maintains the three buildings on the South Campus that retain historic integrity and one other building and rehabilitates these buildings. In addition, the Project adds two new high-quality, energy efficient buildings designed to meet LEED Gold standards. As discussed above, the buildings are designed and would be operated in a manner that is sensitive to surrounding residential uses. • Policy N2.3 states: Supporting Institutional Facilities. The City should support many uses occurring in institutional facilities where they are compatible with surrounding activities and where the facility site adequately supports the proposed uses. The proposed performance arts building would add enhance the school’s ability to expose its students to the performance and enjoyment of theater, music, dance and culture.
• Policy N2.5 states: Balancing City and Local Benefits of Institutions. When reviewing land use permit applications for the establishment or expansion of institutional uses, the decision-making body should take into account the institution’s overall benefit to the entire Oakland community, as well as its effects upon the immediately surrounding area. The Project would benefit the City by expanding HRS’s enrollment, thereby allowing HRS to accept more of the many students (many from Oakland) who seek to go there. As discussed above, the Project would resolve some of the past conflicts between HRS’s operations and residents by creating enough space to allow vehicular drop off and pick up operations to occur entirely within the South Campus.

The North Campus, where only minimal work is proposed, has the General Plan designations of Hillside Residential and Detached Unit Residential. The Hillside Residential designation is intended for low-density Oakland City Planning Commission April 19, 2023
Case File Number PLN-18532, PLN18532PUDF-01and PLN18152- ER01

neighborhood residential uses. The Detached Unit Residential designation is intended for residential areas with single-family homes, with appropriate allowances for schools and other small scale civic institutions.

An existing Planned Unit Development Permit governs the allowed land uses on the North Campus, permitting institutional uses. The proposed changes to the North Campus consist of the opening for the pedestrian tunnel and the increase in the roof and interior ceiling height of an existing gymnasium.

Design Review Findings
Section 17.136.050 . Regular Design Review Criteria for Non-Residential Facilities

1. The proposal will help achieve or maintain a group of facilities which are well related to one another and which, when taken together, will result in a well-composed design, with consideration given to site, landscape, bulk, height, arrangement, texture, materials, colors, and appurtenances; the relation of these factors to other facilities in the vicinity; and the relation of the proposal to the total setting as seen from key points in the surrounding area.

Only elements of design which have some significant relationship to outside appearance shall be considered.

The Project would create a unified campus for HRS with buildings and outdoor spaces that are well related to each other and result in a well-composed design of old and new buildings in a landscaped setting:

Site. The Project responds to site conditions. Through the organization of the buildings, landscape, and drive aisles, the Project reorganizes the pedestrian and vehicular movement on the South Campus. This reorganization increases safety and provides better flow than currently exists. The design also considers site by locating the community-oriented performance arts building near residences and surface parking away from nearby residences. In addition, through careful placement of the new buildings, the Project creates a new central quad for student interactions and to provide a central green space. The quad would be surrounded by hills and buildings, providing natural noise attenuation.

Landscape. The Project has been designed to maintain over half of the on-site trees and would add educational gardens as well as native and ornamental trees to the Project site. The Project would include a central quad (approximately 65 feet by 170 feet) consisting of a sloped and terraced landscape with an interactive water feature and shade garden.

Bulk, Height, Texture, Materials, Colors and Appurtenances. Consideration also was given to bulk, height, texture, materials, colors, and appurtenances. The Project proposes two new buildings, resulting in an 894-square-foot net increase of building area. Thus, the intensity of building on the South Campus would not drastically change. However, there would be fewer buildings, with one of the proposed new buildings being larger than most of the other buildings on the South Campus. To ensure that building did not seem too bulky, its predominant exterior wall material is glass. The modern design of the new buildings echoes the design of buildings on the North Campus, integrating the two into a cohesive whole.

The tallest new building would be 65 feet, which is not out of scale with other institutional buildings in the area.

2. The proposed design will be of a quality and character which harmonizes with, and serves to protect the value of, private and public investments in the area:

The Project would be of a quality and character that harmonizes with, and service to protect the value of, private and public investments in the area. The Project would renovate several buildings on the South Campus and add a new, high-quality performance arts facility that serves both HRS and the community as Oakland City Planning Commission April 19, 2023
Case File Number PLN-18532, PLN18532PUDF-01and PLN18152- ER01

well as one other new building. These buildings would be designed to meet LEED Gold requirements and be made of high-quality, durable materials. The renovated and new buildings, along with upgraded landscaping and well-designed pedestrian and vehicular circulation would protect the value of investments in the area.

3. The proposed design conforms in all significant respects with the Oakland General Plan and with any applicable district plan or development control map which has been adopted by the City Council.

General Plan. The proposed Project consists of the approval of a proposal to integrate an existing but currently vacant 8-acre campus (formerly the Lincoln Child Center—a residential school for emotionally disturbed youth) into the existing 14-acre campus of the Head-Royce School (“HRS”). The project contemplates the demolition of eight existing non-historic buildings, rehabilitation and reuse of four existing buildings for administration and classroom space (three of which retain historic features), construction of two new buildings, landscaping, and new vehicular and pedestrian circulation on the former Lincoln Child Center Campus (the “South Campus”). The two new buildings consist of the approximately 1,500 square-foot Link Pavilion and approximately 16,500 square-foot multi-use performance arts building with up to 450 seats, resulting in the net addition of approximately 894 square feet on the South Campus.

In addition, the Project proposes a privately owned and maintained pedestrian tunnel to connect the South Campus to the current HRS Campus (the “North Campus”). Limited new construction is proposed on the North Campus, consisting of an accommodation of the north end of the underground pedestrian tunnel and the lifting of the roof of the building known as the MEW to better function as a gymnasium (its original purpose.).

The South Campus, where the bulk of the construction is proposed, has a General Plan designation of Institutional. The Institutional General Plan land use classification is intended to create, maintain, and enhance areas appropriate for educational facilities, cultural and institutional uses, health services and medical uses as well as other uses of similar character. The maximum FAR for this classification is 8.0.

Policies that support the Institutional classification are Neighborhood Objectives N2 and N5.

The Project is consistent with the Institutional classification and the objectives that support it. The Project updates the South Campus to serve educational uses at an intensity far below 8.0 FAR (the Project would have an intensity of 0.13 FAR, which is less than the intensity of the North Campus). Further, the Project is consistent with Neighborhood Objective N2 and its supporting policies:

Objective N2 states: Encourage adequate civic, institutional, and educational facilities located within Oakland, appropriately designed and sited to serve the community. The Project expands the educational facilities in Oakland through the sensitive redesign of the South Campus that rehabilitates the best of the existing buildings and adds new facilities that address today’s educational needs. The new structures are designed to work with the existing campus, but not to mimic it so it is clear which buildings are old and which are new, and sited to allow easy and safe school and community access to the performance arts building.
• Policy N2.1 states: Designing and Maintaining Institutions. As Institutional uses are among the most visible activities in the City and can be sources of community pride, high-quality design and upkeep/maintenance should be encouraged. The facilities should be designed and operated in a manner that is sensitive to surrounding residential and other uses. The Project would result in the maintenance and improvement of the South Campus. The Project maintains the three buildings on the South Campus that retain historic integrity and one other building and rehabilitates these buildings. In addition, the Project adds two new high-quality, energy efficient buildings designed Oakland City Planning Commission April 19, 2023
Case File Number PLN-18532, PLN18532PUDF-01and PLN18152- ER01

to meet LEED Gold standards. As discussed above, the buildings are designed and would be operated in a manner that is sensitive to surrounding residential uses. • Policy N2.3 states: Supporting Institutional Facilities. The City should support many uses occurring in institutional facilities where they are compatible with surrounding activities and where the facility site adequately supports the proposed uses. The proposed performance arts building would add enhance the school’s ability to expose its students to the performance and enjoyment of theater, music, dance and culture.
• Policy N2.5 states: Balancing City and Local Benefits of Institutions. When reviewing land use permit applications for the establishment or expansion of institutional uses, the decision-making body should take into account the institution’s overall benefit to the entire Oakland community, as well as its effects upon the immediately surrounding area. The Project would benefit the City by expanding HRS’s enrollment, thereby allowing HRS to accept more of the many students (many from Oakland) who seek to go there. As discussed above, the Project would resolve some of the past conflicts between HRS’s operations and residents by creating enough space to allow vehicular drop off and pick up operations to occur entirely within the South Campus.

The North Campus, where only minimal work is proposed, has the General Plan designations of Hillside Residential and Detached Unit Residential. The Hillside Residential designation is intended for low-density neighborhood residential uses. The Detached Unit Residential designation is intended for residential areas with single-family homes, with appropriate allowances for schools and other small scale civic institutions.

An existing Planned Unit Development Permit governs the allowed land uses on the North Campus, permitting institutional uses. The proposed changes to the North Campus consist of the opening for the pedestrian tunnel and the increase in the roof and interior ceiling height of an existing gymnasium.

This proposal meets all the required findings under Sections 17.136.050C and 17.136050.D. as set forth below and which are required to approve the application. Required findings are shown in bold type and the reasons the proposal satisfies them are shown in normal type. In addition, findings have been developed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Res. Code, § 21000 et seq.; “CEQA”) and the CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs. Title 14, § 15000 et seq.). The basis to approve the Project and related permits are not limited to the findings contained herein, but also includes the information contained in the March 6, 2023 Staff Report to the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board (LPAB), the conditions of approval and the Standard Conditions of Approval/Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (SCAMMRP), the EIR prepared for the Project, and the entire administrative record, hereby incorporated by reference.

SECTION 17.136.050 C. For Local Register Properties that are not Landmarks or located in the S7 or S-20 Zone:

1. That for additions or alterations, the proposal will not substantially impair the visual, architectural, or historic value of the affected site or facility. Consideration shall he given to design, form, scale, materials, texture, lighting, landscaping, Signs, and any other relevant design element or effect, and, where applicable, the relation of the above to the original design of the affected facility.

Building 0 (Junior Alliance Hall), and Building 1 (Mary A. Crocker Cottage), both have revised ratings of B3 based on the analysis in the Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE) completed for the project and these buildings qualify as Local Register Properties based on Policy 3.8 and the Definition of “Local Register” in the Appendix of the City of Oakland General Plan Historic Preservation Element.

Building 0 and Building 1 are both proposed for rehabilitation and re-use consistent with the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation as documented in the HRE. p.107-114, 133, 134; DEIR Chapter 7 Cultural Resources Attachment B p.49-60.

Oakland City Planning Commission April 19, 2023
Case File Number PLN-18532, PLN18532PUDF-01and PLN18152- ER01

• Building 0 will be used as a community performance center, which is consistent with its original use as an auditorium. Building 1 will be used for offices and classrooms, and the changes required to accommodate these uses are primarily interior alterations. • The historic character of the property will be retained and preserved as the majority of characterdefining features of these buildings will be either retained or restored. Their mass, fenestration, stucco cladding, roof forms and clay tile roofing, and decorative features will generally be retained and rehabilitated.
• An exterior terrace will be constructed at the southeast corner of Building 0, replacing an asphalt parking area, but will not significantly alter any of the historic character, materials, features or spatial relationships of the building.
• An accessible entry ramp will be constructed at the East Elevation of Building 1, the ramps will feature compatible stucco-clad walls.
• All Type 2 windows are proposed to replace incompatible, non-original aluminum sash windows.

Replacement wood shutters, and replacement balconettes will be designed based on available historical design drawings. No features that are not documented in historical architectural drawings are proposed to be added. In cases where new windows or doors are proposed they would be clearly contemporary in style and material, with undivided lites and slim aluminum frames, which avoids any potential for a false sense of historical development. • A number of features added outside the period of significance that detract from the integrity of the buildings are to be removed. These features include exterior stairways, aluminum-sash windows with incompatible design (operability and pattern of lites) and added doorways. • Most extant character-defining features will be fully retained or minimally altered at Buildings 0, 1 and 2, including distinctive materials, features, finishes and examples of craftsmanship.

Specifically:
• At Building 0, the large steel sash windows along the north (Lincoln Avenue) façade will be retained, as will the stucco cladding, gable roof with terra cotta clay tiles, three covered entry porches, pilasters, and terra cotta tile vents.
• At both Building 1 the stucco cladding, gable roof with terra cotta clay tiles, decorative features surrounding the windows and doors, chimney tops, balconettes, plastered-wood grilles, decorative leader heads, and terra cotta tile vents will all be retained. • The arched partially glazed wood panel door at the east façade of Building 1 is proposed to be repaired or replicated to meet egress path requirements. • Several smaller steel sash windows at Building 0 are to be replaced with compatible double-glaze steel sash windows (Type 2).
• Most of the extant historic features and materials at Buildings 0 and 1 will be retained in place, including siding, roofing, decorative details around the windows, clay tile vents, and plastered wood grilles.
• Several extant original windows, metal balcony railings and brackets, and lintel details that have become weathered or damaged over time, are to be repaired and repainted in place. If it is necessary to propose chemical or physical treatments, these methods would not involve the use of harmful treatments (no sandblasting or power washing) that would damage the historic elements. • The proposed demolition of non-historic buildings and site features would not have a negative effect on the historic resources, their spatial relationships, or their environment. • Signage and lighting do not detract or overwhelm the historic design or historic features. • The proposed adjacent new buildings and site features, including the Performing Arts Center, Link Pavilion, and Link Tunnel, are physically separated from the historic Buildings 0, and 1. If any of the adjacent new buildings or features were demolished in the future, there would be no detrimental effects on Buildings 0 or 1.

Oakland City Planning Commission April 19, 2023
Case File Number PLN-18532, PLN18532PUDF-01and PLN18152- ER01

• The proposed adjacent new buildings and site features, including the Performing Arts Center, Link Pavilion, Link Tunnel and landscape materials are sited such that they will not impair existing views of the historic buildings from the public right-of-way.

SECTION 17.136.050.D. For Potential Designated Historic Properties that are not Local Register Properties:

That for additions or alterations,

1. The design matches or is compatible with, but not necessarily identical to, the property's existing or historical design; or

2. The proposed design comprehensively modifies and is at least equal in quality to the existing design and is compatible with the character of the neighborhood; or

3. The existing design is undistinguished and does not warrant retention and the proposed design is compatible with the character of the neighborhood.

Building 2, (Grace L. Trevor Cottage) has a confirmed ratings of C3 based on the analysis in the Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE) completed for the project and qualifies as a Potential Designated Historic Property that is not a Local Register Property based on Policy 3.8 and the Definition of Local Register in the Appendix of the City of Oakland General Plan Historic Preservation Element. .

Criterion 1. The design matches or is compatible with, but not necessarily identical to, the property's existing or historical design.

Building 2 is proposed for rehabilitation and re-use consistent with the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation as documented in the HRE. p.107-114, 133, 134; DEIR Chapter 7 Cultural Resources Attachment B p.49-60.
• The majority of character-defining features of Building 2 will be either retained or restored. The building’s mass, fenestration, stucco cladding, roof forms and clay tile roofing, and decorative features will generally be retained and rehabilitated.
• All Type 2 windows are proposed to replace incompatible, non-original aluminum sash windows.

Replacement wood shutters, and replacement balconettes will be designed based on available historical design drawings.
• Most of the extant historic features and materials at Building 2 will be retained in place, including siding, roofing, decorative details around the windows, clay tile vents, and plastered wood grille.

ATTACHMENT B: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The proposal is hereby approved subject to the following Conditions of Approval:

Part 1: Standard Conditions of Approval –
General Administrative Conditions

1. Approved Use
The project shall be constructed and operated in accordance with the authorized use as described in the approved Planned Unit Development (PUD) permit for PLN 18532 and PLN18532PUD F01, including Staff Report of April 19, 2023 and the approved plans including the Index of Figures and Tables Head Royce School Preliminary Development Plan (PDP) Revision 6.27.22, Head Royce School Combined Phase I and Phase II Final Development Plan (FDP) dated 1/28/22 and submitted 2/2/22, and Head Royce School Off-Site Improvement Project 1/31/23, as amended by the following conditions of approval and mitigation measures (“Conditions of Approval” or “Conditions”).

The authorized use allows extension of the Community Education Civic Land Use for a K-12 private school previously approved in PUD 04-400 PUDF07-520, and REV13-003 to the 8-acre property at 4368 Lincoln Avenue to integrate a new South Campus at 4368 Lincoln Avenue with the existing school (North Campus at 4315 Lincoln Avenue) as one school regulated through one revised Planned Unit Development (PUD) permit.

The Conditions of Approval for PLN18532 and PLN18532PUDF01 supersede the previous Conditions of Approval for REV13-003, PUD04-400, PUDF07-520 and DS09-224 and incorporate by reference the Conditions of Approval for PLN16425 related to use of the athletic fields at 4500 Lincoln Avenue.

2. Effective Date, Expiration, Extensions and Extinguishment This Approval shall become effective immediately, unless the Approval is appealable, in which case the Approval shall become effective in ten (10) calendar days unless an appeal is filed.

Unless a different termination date is prescribed, this Approval shall expire unless the following has occurred:
(1) within two (2) years of the Approval, the Applicant files a complete building permit application with the Bureau of Building for Phases I and II, and diligently pursues the building permit towards completion,
(2) within six (6) years of the Approval, the Applicant files its Final Development Plan (FDP) for approval of Phase III and
PLN-18532, PLN18532-PUDF-01 & PLN18532- ER01 Attachment B - Page 2 (3) within two (2) years of approval of the FDP for Phase III, the Applicant files a complete building permit application with the Bureau of Building for Phase III, and diligently pursues the building permit towards completion.

Upon written request and payment of appropriate fees submitted no later than the expiration date of this Approval, the Director of City Planning or designee may grant a one-year extension of the above dates, with additional extensions subject to approval by the approving body. Expiration of any necessary building permit or other construction-related permit for this project may invalidate this Approval if said Approval has also expired. If litigation is filed challenging this Approval, or its implementation, then the time period stated above for obtaining necessary permits for construction or alteration and/or commencement of authorized activities is automatically extended for the duration of the litigation.

3. Compliance with Other Requirements
The Applicant shall comply with all other applicable federal, state, regional, and local laws/codes, requirements, regulations, and guidelines, including but not limited to those imposed by the City’s Bureau of Building, Fire Marshal, Department of Transportation, and Public Works Department. Compliance with other applicable requirements may require changes to the approved use and/or plans. These changes shall be processed in accordance with the procedures contained in Condition of Approval #4.

4. Minor and Major Changes
a. Minor changes to the approved project, plans, Conditions, facilities, or use may be approved administratively by the Director of City Planning. A minor change to the project may occur with the submittal of FDP Phase III for the design and entitlements pertaining to height of the proposed Performing Arts Center when that building is designed. The PUD submittals show a massing drawing with an estimated height of 32’, which would require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) pursuant to Planning Code Section 17.108.020 for increased height for a civic activity.

Any changes in the proposed height of the Performing Arts Center shall be processed with the Phase III FDP entitlement review.
b. Major changes to the approved project, plans, Conditions, facilities, or use shall be reviewed by the Director of City Planning to determine whether such changes require submittal and approval of a revision to the Approval by the original approving body or a new independent permit/approval. Major revisions shall be reviewed in accordance with the procedures required for the original permit/approval. A new independent permit/approval shall be reviewed in accordance with the procedures required for the new permit/approval. Factors to consider when determining if a revision is major include, but are not limited to, the following: the permitted uses of the project, the density or intensity of uses in the project, substantial changes to height, design, envelope, massing or size of improvements or provisions for dedications associated with the project, or changes that will result in any of the circumstances requiring further environmental review pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines section 15162 or 15163.

PLN-18532, PLN18532-PUDF-01 & PLN18532- ER01 Attachment B - Page 3

5. Compliance with Conditions of Approval
a. The project applicant and property owner, including successors, (collectively referred to hereafter as the “Project Applicant” or “Applicant”) shall be responsible for compliance with all the Conditions of Approval and any recommendations contained in any submitted and approved technical report at his/her sole cost and expense, subject to review and approval by the City of Oakland.
b. The City of Oakland reserves the right at any time during construction to require certification by a licensed professional at the Applicant’s expense that the as-built project conforms to all applicable requirements, including but not limited to, approved maximum heights and minimum setbacks. Failure to construct the project in accordance with the Approval may result in remedial reconstruction, permit revocation, permit modification, stop work, permit suspension, or other corrective action.
c. Violation of any term, Condition, or project description relating to the Approval is unlawful, prohibited, and a violation of the Oakland Municipal Code. The City of Oakland reserves the right to initiate civil and/or criminal enforcement and/or abatement proceedings, or after notice and public hearing, to revoke the Approval or alter these Conditions if it is found that there is violation of any of the Conditions or the provisions of the Planning Code or Municipal Code, or the project operates as or causes a public nuisance. This provision is not intended to, nor does it, limit in any manner whatsoever the ability of the City to take appropriate enforcement actions.

The Applicant shall be responsible for paying fees in accordance with the City’s Master Fee Schedule for inspections conducted by the City or a City-designated third-party to investigate alleged violations of the Approval or Conditions.

6. Signed Copy of the Approval/Conditions
A copy of the Approval letter and Conditions shall be signed by the Applicant, attached to each set of permit plans submitted to the appropriate City agency for the project, and made available for review at the project job site at all times.

7. Blight/Nuisances
The project site shall be kept in a blight/nuisance-free condition. Any existing blight or nuisance shall be abated within sixty (60) days of approval, unless an earlier date is specified elsewhere.

8. Indemnification
a. To the maximum extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall defend (with counsel acceptable to the City), indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Oakland, the Oakland City Council, the Oakland Redevelopment Successor Agency, the Oakland City Planning Commission, and their respective agents, officers, employees, and volunteers (hereafter collectively called “City”) from any liability, damages, claim, judgment, loss (direct or indirect), action, causes of action, or proceeding (including legal costs, attorneys’ fees, expert witness or consultant fees, City Attorney or staff time, expenses or costs) (collectively called “Action”) against the City to attack, set aside, void or annul this Approval or implementation of this Approval. The City may elect, in PLN-18532, PLN18532-PUDF-01 & PLN18532- ER01 Attachment B - Page 4 its sole discretion, to participate in the defense of said Action and the Applicant shall reimburse the City for its reasonable legal costs and attorneys’ fees. b. Within ten (10) calendar days of the filing of any Action as specified in subsection (a) above, the Applicant shall execute a Joint Defense Letter of Agreement or Common Interest Agreement with the City, acceptable to the Office of the City Attorney, which memorializes the above obligations. These obligations and the Joint Defense Letter of Agreement or Common Interest Agreement shall survive termination, extinguishment, or invalidation of the Approval. Failure to timely execute the Letter of Agreement does not relieve the Applicant of any of the obligations contained in this Condition or other requirements or Conditions of Approval that may be imposed by the City.

9. Severability
The Approval would not have been granted but for the applicability and validity of each and every one of the specified Conditions, and if one or more of such Conditions is found to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction this Approval would not have been granted without requiring other valid Conditions consistent with achieving the same purpose and intent of such Approval.

10. Special Inspector/Inspections, Independent Technical Review, Project Coordination and Monitoring
The Applicant may be required to cover the full costs of independent third-party technical review and City monitoring and inspection, including without limitation, special inspector(s)/inspection(s) during times of extensive or specialized plan-check review or construction, and inspections of potential violations of the Conditions of Approval. The Applicant shall establish a deposit with Engineering Services and/or the Bureau of Building, if directed by the Director of Public Works, Building Official, Director of City Planning, Director of Transportation, or designee, prior to the issuance of a construction-related permit and on an ongoing as-needed basis.

11. Public Improvements
The Applicant shall obtain all necessary permits/approvals, such as encroachment permits, obstruction permits, curb/gutter/sidewalk permits, and public improvement (“p-job”) permits from the City for work in the public right-of-way, including but not limited to, streets, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, utilities, and fire hydrants. Prior to any work in the public right-of-way, the applicant shall submit plans for review and approval by the Bureau of Planning, the Bureau of Building, Engineering Services, Department of Transportation, and other City departments as required. Public improvements shall be designed and installed to the satisfaction of the City.

12. Compliance Matrix
The Applicant shall submit a Compliance Matrix, in both written and electronic form, for review and approval by the Bureau of Planning and the Bureau of Building that lists each Condition of Approval (including each mitigation measure if applicable) in a sortable spreadsheet. The PLN-18532, PLN18532-PUDF-01 & PLN18532- ER01 Attachment B - Page 5 Compliance Matrix shall contain, at a minimum, each required Condition of Approval, when compliance with the Condition is required, and the status of compliance with each Condition. For multi-phased projects, the Compliance Matrix shall indicate which Condition applies to each phase. The Applicant shall submit the initial Compliance Matrix prior to the issuance of the first construction-related permit and shall submit an updated matrix upon request by the City.

13. Construction Management Plan
Prior to the issuance of the first construction-related permit, the Applicant and his/her general contractor shall submit a Construction Management Plan (CMP) for review and approval by the Bureau of Planning, Bureau of Building, and other relevant City departments such as the Fire Department, Department of Transportation, and the Public Works Department as directed. The CMP shall contain measures to minimize potential construction impacts including measures to comply with all construction-related Conditions of Approval (and mitigation measures if applicable) such as dust control, construction emissions, hazardous materials, construction days/hours, construction traffic control, waste reduction and recycling, stormwater pollution prevention, noise control, complaint management, and cultural resource management (see applicable Conditions below). The CMP shall provide project-specific information including descriptive procedures, approval documentation, and drawings (such as a site logistics plan, fire safety plan, construction phasing plan, proposed truck routes, traffic control plan, complaint management plan, construction worker parking plan, and litter/debris clean-up plan) that specify how potential construction impacts will be minimized and how each construction-related requirement will be satisfied throughout construction of the project.

14. Standard Conditions of Approval / Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (SCAMMRP)
a. All mitigation measures identified in the Head Royce School Planned Unit Development Project EIR are included in the Standard Condition of Approval / Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (SCAMMRP), which is included in these Conditions of Approval and are incorporated herein by reference, as Attachment C to the Staff Report, and are considered additional Conditions of Approval of the project.

The Standard Conditions of Approval identified in the Head Royce School Planned Unit Development Project EIR are also included in the SCAMMRP, and are, therefore, also incorporated into these Conditions by reference but are not repeated in these Conditions. To the extent that there is any inconsistency between the SCAMMRP and these Conditions, the more restrictive Condition(s) shall govern. In the event a Standard Condition of Approval or mitigation measure recommended in the Head Royce School Planned Unit Development Project EIR has been inadvertently omitted from the SCAMMRP, that Standard Condition of Approval or mitigation measure is adopted and incorporated from the Head Royce School Planned Unit Development Project EIR into the SCAMMRP by reference, and adopted as a Condition of Approval.

The Applicant and property owner shall be responsible for compliance with the requirements of any submitted and approved technical reports, all applicable mitigation measures adopted, and PLN-18532, PLN18532-PUDF-01 & PLN18532- ER01 Attachment B - Page 6 with all Conditions of Approval set forth herein at his/her sole cost and expense, unless otherwise expressly provided in a specific mitigation measure or Condition of Approval, and subject to the review and approval by the City of Oakland. The SCAMMRP identifies the timeframe and responsible party for implementation and monitoring for each Standard Condition of Approval and mitigation measure. Unless otherwise specified, monitoring of compliance with the Standard Conditions of Approval and mitigation measures will be the responsibility of the Bureau of Planning, with overall authority concerning compliance residing with the Environmental Review Officer. Adoption of the SCAMMRP will constitute fulfillment of the CEQA monitoring and/or reporting requirement set forth in section 21081.6 of CEQA. b. Prior to the issuance of the first construction-related permit, the Applicant shall pay the applicable mitigation and monitoring fee to the City in accordance with the City’s Master Fee Schedule.

15. Employee Rights
Requirement: The Applicant and business owners in the project shall comply with all state and federal laws regarding employees’ right to organize and bargain collectively with employers and shall comply with the City of Oakland Minimum Wage Ordinance (Chapter

5.92 of the Oakland Municipal Code).

When Required: Ongoing
Initial Approval: N/A
Monitoring/Inspection: N/A

16. Public Art for Private Development
Requirement: The project is subject to the City’s Public Art Requirements for Private Development, adopted by Ordinance No. 13275 C.M.S. (“Ordinance”). The public art contribution requirements are equivalent to one-half percent (0.5%) for the “residential” building development costs, and one percent (1.0%) for the “non-residential” building development costs.

The contribution requirement can be met through: 1) the installation of freely accessible art at the site; 2) the installation of freely accessible art within one-quarter mile of the site; or 3) satisfaction of alternative compliance methods described in the Ordinance, including, but not limited to, payment of an in-lieu fee contribution. The Applicant shall provide proof of full payment of the in-lieu contribution and/or provide plans, for review and approval by the Planning Director, showing the installation or improvements required by the Ordinance prior to issuance of a building permit.

Proof of installation of artwork, or other alternative requirement, is required prior to the City’s issuance of a final certificate of occupancy for each phase of a project unless a separate, legal binding instrument is executed ensuring compliance within a timely manner subject to City approval.

PLN-18532, PLN18532-PUDF-01 & PLN18532- ER01 Attachment B - Page 7 When Required: Payment of in-lieu fees and/or plans showing fulfillment of public art requirement – Prior to Issuance of Building permit
Installation of art/cultural space: Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.

Initial Approval: Bureau of Planning
Monitoring/Inspection: Bureau of Building
Part 2: Project-Specific Conditions of Approval

17. Phasing
Requirement: Three phases, each requiring a Final Development Permit (FDP), are authorized with this Permit. Phases may be combined or constructed separately.

Phase I
• Demolition of eight non-historic buildings (Buildings 4-8, 10, 11 and 12, restoration and reuse of three historic buildings (Buildings 0, 1 and 2), and reuse of non-historic Building 9;
• Construction of Commons, outdoor classrooms, walking paths, and landscaping; • Maintenance of existing maximum enrollment of 906 students; and • Drop off and pick up on Lincoln Avenue.

Phase II
• Enrollment increase to a maximum of 1,050 students upon the completion of the internal loop road;
• New drop-off/pick-up using internal Loop Road with new traffic signals at Lincoln Avenue with 1 relocated and 1 new pedestrian crosswalk; • Phased increase in parking spaces to a total of 292 on both campuses; and • Shared use of up to 38 parking spaces at the Greek Orthodox Church for a total of 330 parking spaces for Phase II with a parking agreement approved by the City Attorney.

Phase III
• Enrollment increase to a maximum of 1,250 students upon completion of the pedestrian tunnel;
• Approval of pedestrian tunnel under Lincoln Avenue;
• Phased increase in parking spaces up to a total of 328 on both campuses. • Shared use of up to 16 parking spaces at the Greek Orthodox Church for a total of 344 parking spaces with a parking agreement approved by the City Attorney; • Construction of a new Performing Arts Center with up to 450 seats; and • Construction of a 1,500 square-foot Link Pavilion.

PLN-18532, PLN18532-PUDF-01 & PLN18532- ER01 Attachment B - Page 8 When Required: The FDPs for Phases I and II are part of this Approval. The FDP for Phase III shall be submitted for approval within six (6) years from the date of this Approval, unless an extension of this Approval is otherwise granted. The building permit applications for each FDP approval shall be submitted within two (2) years of approval of the FDP, and diligently pursued towards completion.

Initial Approval: Bureau of Planning
Monitoring/Inspection: Bureau of Planning

18. School Enrollment
Requirement: Increased enrollment is limited up to a maximum of twenty (20) students each year, commencing with completion of the internal loop road. A maximum of 1,050 students is allowed following completion of the internal loop road and before completion of the underground pedestrian tunnel. No more than 1,250 students are allowed following completion of the underground pedestrian tunnel. No enrollment fluctuation resulting in enrollment above 1,250 students is allowed.

When Required: Construction Permits for Phase II
Initial Approval: Bureau of Planning
Monitoring/Inspection: Bureau of Planning

19. Enrollment Monitoring
Requirement: The school shall submit annual enrollment numbers to the California Department of Education in accordance with state law, with a copy to the Planning Bureau.

When Required: October 15th of each year, unless a different compliance deadline is required.

Monitoring/Inspection: Planning Bureau

20. Employee Reporting
Requirement: The school shall submit annual employee numbers to the California Department of Education in accordance with state law, with a copy to the Planning Bureau.

When Required: October 15th of each year, unless a different compliance deadline is required.

Monitoring/Inspection: Planning Bureau

21. Hours of Academic, After School and Childcare Operation Requirement: Head Royce School’s hours of operation, for academic, childcare and afterschool programs, are from 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. Athletic practices, including outdoor practices, may commence at 6:30 a.m. on weekdays. Outdoor athletic practices and games shall end by 7:30 p.m. or sundown, whichever is earlier. No field-wide lighting may be installed on the athletic field. Special Events, as defined in Condition #24, do not include: indoor PLN-18532, PLN18532-PUDF-01 & PLN18532- ER01 Attachment B - Page 9 activities involving only School students, faculty, staff and members of the board of trustees such as play rehearsals, standardized testing, band practices, and meetings of student organizations, faculty committees and meetings of the board of trustees. Since these activities are not considered Special Events, they may occur after 6:30 p.m. on weekdays and between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on weekends.

When Required: Ongoing
Monitoring/Inspection: Planning Bureau

22. Summer Program Enrollment / Operations
Requirement:

1. The maximum Summer Program enrollment is 780 students per session. Summer Program hours are from 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. over the summer from Monday through Friday only.

2. Summer Program includes two, three (3) week sessions spanning six weeks generally beginning the third week in June through the last week in July.

3. The Summer Program may have evening or weekend Special Events. However, those Special Events will be included in the maximum number of Special Events listed below.

4. The playing fields or pool shall not be used prior to 8:00 AM.

5. The School shall operate the Summer Program and shall not lease, partner, or loan the Summer Program to another operator or organization.

6. Unless otherwise noted, all Conditions of Approval that apply to School operations apply to the Summer Program.

When Required: Ongoing
Monitoring/Inspection: Planning Bureau

23. Events
Requirement: The school shall be entitled to use of the school facilities for all of the following:

1. Any events in the normal operation of a school that include students, prospective students, parents, prospective parents, faculty, administration, staff and/or alumni. .

2. Any school-related events in which outside organizations are invited to participate with members of the school community, such as league athletic events, shared testing days, school dances, performances, counseling or instruction by outside organizations for the school community, educational meetings for faculty or staff neighborhood safety meetings_ professional faculty and staff development, alumni events, fund raising events, or similar normal and customary school-related events,
PLN-18532, PLN18532-PUDF-01 & PLN18532- ER01 Attachment B - Page 10

3. Any shared use of the school’s parking lots, field or gymnasium by the school’s institutional neighbors (limited only to the Greek Orthodox Church, the Church of Latter Day Saints, all located on Lincoln Avenue), and (iv) use of school facilities on the weekends by neighbors with key cards.

This approval does not permit Community Assembly or Group Assembly uses as defined in the planning code or use of the school facilities as a venue for hire by outside organizations. The school is not permitted to rent or loan out any of its facilities.

When Required: Ongoing
Monitoring/Inspection: Planning Bureau

24. Limitation 0n Special Events / Days and Hours of Operation Requirement:

1. A “Special Event” is defined as a gathering resulting in fifty (50) or more visitor vehicles on the site. A Special Event does NOT include indoor activities involving only School students, faculty, staff and members of the board of trustees such as play rehearsals, standardized testing, band practices, and meetings of student organizations, faculty committees and meetings of the board of trustees. In addition, neighborhood meetings are not considered to be Special Events.

2. The School and the Summer Program shall be permitted to hold Special Events at the Head Royce School campus subject to the following:

PLN-18532, PLN18532-PUDF-01 & PLN18532- ER01 Attachment B - Page 11 a. During school academic, childcare and afterschool program hours of operation, Mondays through Fridays, the School is permitted an unlimited number of Special Events.

However, those events for which 50 or more visitor vehicles are expected must follow Condition #30 Section D, Procedures for Special Events. b. The school shall be permitted a maximum of eighty-five (85) evening Special Events per school year during the hours of 7:00 p.m. to 9:30 p.m.
c. All Special Event participants shall have left the campus and the lot locked by 10:00 p.m.

School dances shall end by 10:30 p.m., with all participants leaving by 11:00 p.m. d. The School shall be permitted a maximum of fifty-five (55) Saturday daytime Special Events per school year during the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and 10 Saturday evening Special Events per school year during the hours of 6:00 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. e. The School shall be permitted a maximum of eight (8) Sunday Special Events per school year during the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
f. The School shall be permitted a maximum of ten (10) single day summer Special Events during the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
g. No Special Events shall be held that have not been published on the school calendar thirty (30) days in advance, or emailed to immediate neighbors one month in advance. If more than one Special Event occurs on a single day, each Special Event shall count as a separate event. Parking rules for Special Events are outlined in Condition #30, Transportation Demand Management.
h. The School shall post an annual calendar on its website and provide the website link to the Neighborhood Committee described in Condition #35, Neighborhood Committee, at the beginning of the School year listing all Special Events and the anticipated number of visitor vehicles that will be generated for each event. The School is permitted an additional ten (10) total weekday evening events that are not on identified on the annual calendar, provided that the Neighborhood Committee is provided a 30-day notice of such addition and those events shall not take place during weekends or the summer.

When Required: Ongoing
Monitoring/Inspection: Head Royce School /Planning Bureau

25. Private vehicle drop-off and pick-up during the period from project entitlement through construction of the internal Loop Road, off-site improvements, all student drop-off and pick-up areas and site plan improvements related to pedestrian circulation Requirement: Existing pick-up and drop-off on Lincoln Avenue will continue from project entitlement through construction of the internal Loop Road, off-site improvements, and all student drop off and pick up areas and site plan improvements related to pedestrian circulation.

The Applicant shall continue monitoring procedures for the morning drop-off and afternoon pick-up queue during the school year as well as during any summer program PLN-18532, PLN18532-PUDF-01 & PLN18532- ER01 Attachment B - Page 12 operations. The procedures and monitoring forms are included in the TDM Plan. The Applicant shall implement the monitoring procedures by either: (1) retaining a qualified independent traffic consultant to monitor the extent of the queue along Lincoln Avenue or (2) hiring a qualified independent traffic consultant, approved by the Bureau of Planning, to train at least two (2) supervising monitors to implement and supervise the monitoring procedures.

Any new supervising monitor must be trained directly by the independent traffic consultant. If the School’s drop-off or pick-up queue extends for more than sixty (60) seconds in any single monitoring period (excluding delays due to extenuating circumstances such as a traffic accident) past the School’s upper driveway and the red “no parking” zone above the driveway along the north side of Lincoln Avenue and extending into the “Keep Clear” zone, the School shall implement as many of the following actions, and continue to implement these actions, as would be necessary to accomplish the necessary reduction in the length of the queue:
• Implement staggered morning drop-off and afterschool pickup times. • Stagger the afterschool bus pick-up times so that the buses are loaded and leave prior to the start of pickup.
• Discourage early arrival for pickup within the Transportation Policy Guide and during an annual back to school traffic presentation.
• Increase public and private bus ridership in addition to those already in effect at the time of the queueing violation.

When Required: From project entitlement through construction of Phase I and Phase II.

Monitoring/Inspection: Head Royce School /Planning Bureau

26. Private vehicle drop-off and pick-up upon completion of the internal Loop Road, offsite improvements, all student drop-off and pick-up areas and site plan improvements related to pedestrian circulation
Requirement: Upon completion of the internal Loop Road, off-site improvements, all student drop-off and pick-up areas and site plan improvements related to pedestrian circulation, private vehicle drop-off and pick-up shall take place on the South Campus along the School’s internal loop road, to be constructed as part of Phase II of the Approval.

Except during emergencies, no access to the South Campus will be allowed from Charleston Street. Private vehicle drop-off and pick-up shall be prohibited on Lincoln Avenue, provided that drivers may legally park on Lincoln Avenue and walk their student onto campus. Drivers will be instructed not to use the “Alida Loop” to reverse direction on Lincoln Avenue or to reverse direction by U-turns or three point turns in private driveways. Drop-off will use the two-lane, PLN-18532, PLN18532-PUDF-01 & PLN18532- ER01 Attachment B - Page 13 one-way loop driveway entering the South Campus at the middle entrance and exiting at the lower entrance. The outside lane will be used primarily for passing/through traffic and the inner lane for merging and moving into/out of the drop-off zones. The internal loop road shall provide sufficient queuing space for approximately sixty (60) vehicles.

1. Buses: Private school bus and public bus drop off and pick up may take place on either side of Lincoln Avenue in designated bus zones.

2. The School shall provide an integrated network of circulation assistants and traffic monitors to manage the drop-off and pick-up of students, control the sidewalks, monitor the crosswalks, and report incidents. Traffic monitors and circulation assistants shall wear bright- colored vests.

When Required: Ongoing
Monitoring/Inspection: Head Royce School /Planning Bureau and Public Works Agency, Traffic Engineering Division

27. Monitoring Private vehicle drop-off and pick-up upon completion of internal loop road Requirement: Monitoring to ensure compliance with the internal loop road drop-off and pick-up requirements and related reporting shall take place for three one-week periods, once at the beginning of each School semester, and once at the beginning of the Summer Program session.

The number of monitoring sessions and the duration of the monitoring period for each school year shall be determined by the City of Oakland’s Transportation Services Division, Oakland Traffic Safety Division and Bureau of Planning based in part of the school’s performance in enforcing the use of the internal loop road for drop-off and pick-up.

In accordance with the TDM, either a qualified independent traffic consultant or two (2) trained monitors shall monitor the Lincoln Avenue queues during after-school pick-up (3:00 p.m. to 3:45 p.m.) and morning drop-off (7:55 a.m. to 8:30 a.m.) by recording observations of the traffic operations on Lincoln. The monitoring persons shall also note the number of buses in the queue at each monitoring time. The Director of Operations shall prepare a report at the end of every week during each monitoring period based on the information gathered, sign the report, and submit to the Bureau of Planning
When Required: Ongoing
Monitoring/Inspection: Head Royce School /Planning Bureau and Public Works Agency, Traffic Engineering Division
PLN-18532, PLN18532-PUDF-01 & PLN18532- ER01 Attachment B - Page 14

28. Staging Area
Requirement: Written authorization from the off-site property owner, subject to approval by the City Attorney, is required for use of an off-site staging area to control traffic flow on Lincoln Avenue for pick-up and drop-off. An updated authorization for the existing staging area at the Oakland California Temple shall be required to reflect revised project conditions. Should an existing area become unavailable for use during the pick-up or drop off process, the School shall promptly institute one of the alternative means of maintaining the queue in compliance with these conditions as set forth in Conditions #25 and #26. The School shall institute that alternative within thirty (30) days of the unavailability of the Mormon Oakland California Temple. Alternative potential staging areas could be considered with property owner authorization.

When Required: Ongoing
Monitoring/Inspection: Planning Bureau

29. Parking
Requirement:
a. At full build-out enrollment (1,250 students), the School may provide a maximum of 344 off-street parking spaces based on the Parking Demand Analysis by the transportation consultant, Nelson Nygard 2/22, for student and employee use. The PUD may include:

1. 190 spaces on the North Campus including 36 stacker space and 138 spaces on the South Campus;

2. Revision of the shared use parking agreement at the Greek Orthodox Church at occupancy of Phase III to allow 16 spaces with a written parking agreement approved by the City Attorney or reduce off-site spaces with reduction of parking demand.

When Required: Prior to Occupancy Permit for Phase III
Monitoring/Inspection: Planning Bureau
b. Phased Parking for Combined Phase I and II may include 330 spaces, including:

1. Phased increase in parking spaces to a total of 292 on both campuses.

2. Shared use of up to 38 parking spaces at the Greek Orthodox Church for a total of 330 parking spaces with a parking agreement approved by the City Attorney for off-site parking per 17.116.180 Conditions for off-street parking or loading.

When Required: Prior to Occupancy Permit for Combined Phase I and II Monitoring/Inspection: Planning Bureau
c. Additional overflow parking limited to “special events”, defined as events creating more than a 50-vehicle parking demand, may be located at adjacent institutional use parking lots with a written parking agreement between the Head Royce School and the property owner that is reviewed and approved by the City Attorney.

PLN-18532, PLN18532-PUDF-01 & PLN18532- ER01 Attachment B - Page 15 When Required: Ongoing
Monitoring/Inspection: Planning Bureau

30. Transportation Demand Management
Requirement: The applicant shall maintain a TDM plan during both the regular school year and during the Summer Program. Among other things, the TDM shall implement A-G of this Condition, as set forth below.

A. Traffic Circulation and Management
The School shall continue to implement policies to ensure that: 1) the drop-off and pick-up process is managed effectively and efficiently; 2) traffic on neighborhood streets is minimized; and 3) safe driving behaviors are encouraged. These policies include:

1. Continuation of before and after-school childcare programs to reduce the number of peak vehicles arriving and departing the campus.

2. Maintenance of detailed, written instructions of the vehicle pick-up and drop-off process for the purpose of increasing efficiency in the pick-up and drop-off operation. These procedures, which will be incorporated into an updated Transportation Policy Guide (Guide), shall include, but are not limited to, how to access the vehicle drop-off/pick-up areas, a map showing the specific area where vehicle drop-off and pick-up is permitted, and rules regarding safe practices for entering and exiting vehicles. The School shall actively discourage and communicate the dangers of picking up students on streets other than the designated drop-off area, as part of the Guide, parent meetings, Back to School nights, and other means. The Guide shall specifically discourage early arrival for afternoon pick-up. The summer program shall follow the Transportation Policy Guide.

3. Compliance with Condition and 26.

4. Circulation Assistants: During morning drop-off and afternoon pick-up periods, the Applicant shall assign seven (7) adults in the morning and nine (9) adults in the afternoon to assist with the efficient flow of pick-up and drop-off traffic in approximately the locations listed below, subject to refinement per discussion with the City planning staff.

Morning Drop-Off: To facilitate arrivals, Head-Royce School will provide circulation assistants beginning thirty (30) minutes prior to the start of school and extending to the start of classes.at the following locations.
• Intersection of loop road (east driveway) and Lincoln Avenue • Lincoln Ave near Gatehouse
• Head-Royce back gate at Whittle Avenue
• South Campus West Drop-off
• South Campus East Drop-off
• Lincoln Avenue, Exit Loop
PLN-18532, PLN18532-PUDF-01 & PLN18532- ER01 Attachment B - Page 16 • Lincoln Avenue, North side
• Afternoon Pick-up: Monitors will be in place twenty (20) minutes prior to school dismissal until 3:45pm or the queue has been eliminated. Recommended locations and duties for monitors are as follows:
• Intersection of loop road (east driveway) and Lincoln Avenue • Staging area at the Oakland Temple parking lot
• Lincoln Avenue near Gatehouse
• Loop Road (2 monitors)
• East and West Pick-up area (1 monitor in each position) • Top of the Gatehouse entrance stairs
• Lincoln Avenue, North side
• Head-Royce back gate at Whittle Avenue
• The school shall have a sufficient number of qualified alternates on campus during every morning and afternoon drop-off time to ensure that the minimum number of traffic personnel is always met. All traffic assistants shall wear colored safety vests. The summer program shall have at least as many circulation assistants as the school year program.

PLN-18532, PLN18532-PUDF-01 & PLN18532- ER01 Attachment B - Page 17 B. Parking management strategies
The School shall implement parking management strategies to ensure that 1) the School minimizes parking in the neighborhood; 2) School-related parking does not disrupt traffic; and there are incentives to reduce single-occupancy vehicles.

1.Through its TDM and Transportation Policy Guide, the School’s policy shall be to direct staff, students and visitors to park in the School’s off-street spaces at 4315 and at 4368 Lincoln Avenue and on Lincoln Avenue above the Gatehouse and direct them not to park on the side streets in the neighborhood.

2. The School shall continue to pay for a Residential Permit Parking program on Alida Avenue, Alida Court and Linette Court through the City of Oakland unless the neighbors on these streets withdraw their request to maintain this permit program.

3. Staff who contract with the school to carpool shall be given on-site priority spaces relative to non-carpooling staff in order to reduce single occupancy vehicles,

4. Students shall be directed by the School to park in off-street parking on campus. Students that contract with the school to carpool shall be given on-site priority spaces in order to reduce single occupancy vehicles.

5. The School shall not exceed the maximum allowed parking spaces per the Planned Unit Development approval of 344 spaces at all times, including the Summer Program. In its Transportation Policy Guide, the School shall define “single-occupancy vehicle” as a vehicle with the one driver and one non-driving student or child.

PLN-18532, PLN18532-PUDF-01 & PLN18532- ER01 Attachment B - Page 18 C. Auto Trip Reduction Program

1. The School shall discourage single-student and single parent/student driving in the Transportation Policy Guide and implement policies with a goal of reducing single occupant vehicles arriving or departing the School. The Auto Trip Reduction Program shall be included in the TDM and address all four modes of transportation (pedestrian, bicycle, carpooling/vanpooling, and transit), including:

2. The Applicant shall continue to sponsor and provide private buses (or an equivalent service and capacity as existing conditions).

3. The Applicant shall continue to subsidize an AC Transit bus pass to students and faculty as long as AC Transit bus service is available. The Applicant shall assign a Transportation Coordinator who will provide carpooling and ride matching services to parents who are interested in carpooling.

4. Consistent with Mitigation Measure Transportation 1 from the project EIR, once it has exceeded a 906 student enrollment, the School shall commit to maintain an average of 34.5% an increase of 15% of the prior requirement) of its school-year student enrollment traveling by modes other than single occupancy vehicles. A survey of alternative travel modes shall occur during each of the two independent monitoring periods carried out during the school year pursuant to Condition # 30(G) and the counts shall be averaged over the two (2) monitoring periods. However, the School may elect to conduct additional third-party monitoring and the counts shall be averaged overall additional academic year monitoring periods. Alternative travel modes shall include walking, biking, carpooling or taking a bus.

D. Special Events
The Applicant shall establish transportation procedures for Special Events to 1) ensure that Special Events are managed efficiently and effectively; and 2) minimize traffic and parking in the neighborhood. The Applicant shall anticipate the attendance of Special Events and note this on the School’s calendar. At least two weeks prior to a Special Event, the School shall confirm the anticipated number of vehicles and distribute the appropriate parking locations and restrictions to the attendees and Neighborhood Liaison Committee. For all Special Events, the School shall direct visitors not to park on neighborhood streets and instead encourage them to park in off-street lots or on either side of Lincoln Avenue above the gatehouse.

For single or cumulative Special Events on the same day that will generate between 50 and 150 people, the School shall provide sufficient parking either at 4315 or 4368 Lincoln Avenue. For single events or cumulative events on the same day expected to be between 150 and 400 people, the School shall provide parking on campus as a priority. Overflow parking may located at adjacent institutional use parking lots such as the Oakland California Temple, the Greek Orthodox Church and Ability Now Bay Area with a written parking agreement between the Head School and the property owner that is reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. For events exceeding 400 people, an off-site alternative, with a shuttle or valet system, is required.

PLN-18532, PLN18532-PUDF-01 & PLN18532- ER01 Attachment B - Page 19 Traffic Monitors during Special Events: The purpose of traffic monitors during Special Events is to direct cars away from neighborhood streets and into off-street parking or onto Lincoln Avenue above the gatehouse. Single or cumulative events with fifty (50) or fewer visitor vehicles people are not considered Special Events per Condition #24 and do not require a traffic monitor.

However, parking signs shall be posted along Lincoln Avenue. Single or cumulative events with 50-150 people shall require one monitor along Lincoln Avenue near the corner of Lincoln and Alida and another monitor at the Whittle Gate. Single or cumulative events between 50 and 200 people shall require four (4) monitors. Monitors will be stationed at the following streets to direct cars to parking provided for the event: Whittle Gate, Lincoln Avenue south of the gate house, Alida Street between Lincoln and Laguna Avenue, and Alida Court. Single or cumulative events over 200 people shall require six (6) monitors, unless an off-site shuttle service is used. In addition to the streets listed above, the monitors will be stationed at the following streets: Tiffin Avenue between Whittle and Lincoln Avenue, and Burlington Street.

The traffic monitors shall wear a colored safety vest, carry digital cameras, and provide adequate information to the school in order to identify the Special Event parking violators and for the school to implement the enforcement policy. Monitors shall be in the neighborhoods 15 minutes prior to any event.

The Applicant shall provide a live hotline number to reach an event manager during Special Events to be used to report violations or complaints. Enforcement of violations of Traffic Safety Rules (see subsection (F) below) observed during Special Events shall be handled in the manner set forth in subsection F below and the TDM.

E. Communication
The Applicant shall establish communication protocols to 1) institutionalize and encourage good neighbor parking and driving behavior; 2) ensure that the School community drives in a safe manner; and 3) ensure the rules are clearly communicated, including:

PLN-18532, PLN18532-PUDF-01 & PLN18532- ER01 Attachment B - Page 20 Traffic Safety Rules: The TDM contains a list of Traffic Safety Rules that are designed specifically to increase safety of the school community and the neighborhood. The TDM also includes a list of “Good Neighbor Rules” designed to decrease impacts to neighbors.

The Applicant shall continue to maintain a Transportation Policy Guide. The Guide shall include, but not be limited to the following: Vehicle drop-off and pick-up procedures designed to promote an efficient operation; bus loading procedures; Traffic Safety Rules; “Good Neighbor Rules” including blocking driveways, u-turns in neighbor’s driveways; Transit Subsidy Program; Special Event Traffic and Parking Rules; and consequences for violations. If revised to reflect the updated TDM Plan, the Transportation Policy Guide shall be submitted to Bureau of Planning, Transportation Services Divisions, and OPD-Traffic Safety for review.

The Applicant shall distribute the Transportation Policy Guide to each student’s parent/guardian.

Each student’s parent/guardian will need to provide written acknowledgement of receipt of the Policy Guide, and acceptance of its policies as a condition of enrollment. The School shall submit a record of each family’s acknowledgement of receipt in a form acceptable to the City if requested. The project applicant shall hold a parent meeting at the beginning of each school year to discuss the traffic and parking. If rules change significantly, as determined by the Director of the Bureau of Planning, after the beginning of the school year, the project applicant shall hold another meeting. A City staff member may attend. The Applicant shall annually review the Transportation Policy Guide and submit the Transportation Policy Guide for review by the Bureau of Planning, Transportation Services Division, and OPD-Traffic Safety staff.

F. Enforcement of Traffic Safety Rules and Event Traffic and Parking The School shall implement and maintain a system to identify and track persons who violate the School’s Traffic Safety Rules as set forth in the TDM. Good Neighbor Rules as set forth in the TDM shall not be considered Traffic Safety Rules subject to enforcement by the Bureau of Planning. Violations of the Vehicle Code are enforced by the Oakland Police Department.

During the pick-up and drop-off periods: The School shall assign four (4) traffic monitors to implement and monitor the Traffic Safety Rules. The monitors shall be placed at:

1. Whittle Gate;

2. Lower crosswalk on Lincoln Avenue;

3. Crosswalks at loop road entrance on Lincoln Avenue ( 2 monitors); and

4. The traffic monitors shall wear a safety vest, carry digital cameras, and provide adequate information to the school in order to identify the rule violators and for the school to implement the traffic safety rule enforcement policy. Monitors shall be in the neighborhoods 15 minutes prior to scheduled pick-up and drop-off times.

PLN-18532, PLN18532-PUDF-01 & PLN18532- ER01 Attachment B - Page 21 G. Compliance Reporting

1. The Applicant shall hire a qualified traffic consultant, approved by the Director of Planning or designee, to monitor compliance with the traffic-related conditions in the Conditions of Approval and the approved TDM. Specifically, the independent monitors shall verify compliance by:
• Counting the number of traffic assistants and monitors present during drop-off and pickup periods, • Observing the drop-off and pick-up traffic flow and recommending measures to ensure smooth operations to the City,
• Collecting the number of violations that have been reported from Head Royce’s database and recommending measures to reduce violations,
• Recording parking occupancy in all Head Royce parking lots, • Monitoring Whittle Avenue and Alida for School —related parking, and • Reviewing the Auto Trip Reduction Program and related documents as determined satisfactory by the Director of Planning, to meet the alternative transportation mode percentage.

PLN-18532, PLN18532-PUDF-01 & PLN18532- ER01 Attachment B - Page 22

2. The independent monitor shall monitor the School’s compliance with the traffic-related conditions of approval as implemented by the TDM two times per school year and once during the Summer Program. The independent traffic consultant shall submit a written report within two weeks of the monitoring summarizing the results of the monitoring session. The reports shall include recommendations to remedy potential infractions of the traffic-related conditions of approval, if appropriate to the Bureau of Planning. Such measures proposed by the independent traffic consultant must be approved by the City of Oakland prior to implementation. Upon City of Oakland approval of enhanced or additional TDM measures, the project applicant shall be given four weeks after the approval to implement the recommended measures.

3. The School shall have one semester to cure any traffic-related violations of the conditions of approval. If after invoking enhanced or additional TDM measures the School still does not meet its traffic-related Conditions of Approval based on the independent monitors reports submitted to the City of Oakland, the Bureau of Planning may refer the matter to the City of Oakland Planning Commission for scheduling of a compliance hearing to determine whether the School’s approvals should be revoked, altered, or additional conditions of approval imposed. This could include a permanent reduction in enrollment. The City of Oakland can also impose penalties on a per infraction fee basis pursuant to the City’s Master Fee Schedule based on the observations of city officials, the Oakland Police Department, or the independent monitors. In determining whether reduced enrollment or other remedies are appropriate, the City of Oakland shall consider if the School has demonstrated a good faith effort to comply with the traffic-related conditions of approval. It will be up to the School to provide evidence to the City of Oakland of good faith efforts for review.

When Required: Ongoing
Monitoring/Inspection: Planning Bureau

31. Student Enrollment Increase or “Future Construction” Requirement: The Applicant shall apply for a new or amended PUD Permit for any student enrollment increase over 1,250 students on the Head Royce campus site, or change in permitted activities, including but not limited to any physical expansion of Head Royce School’s operations at 4315 or 4368 Lincoln Avenue or any other “Future Construction” associated with increasing Head Royce School’s operations. The City may require a revision to the existing Planned Development Permit or revisions to the Final Development Permit consistent with procedures in Condition #4.

Future Construction is defined for purposes of this condition as: new, wholly reconstructed, or relocated school buildings, any expansion of floor area (as defined by Planning Code), new enclosed buildings or portions of buildings. The last enrollment and staffing form submitted to the California Department of Education shall be required as part of the application documents.

For purposes of this condition, Future Construction does not include features such as unenclosed decks/balconies, stairs, walkways, patios, courtyards, fences, walls and retaining walls, trellises PLN-18532, PLN18532-PUDF-01 & PLN18532- ER01 Attachment B - Page 23 or other landscape features, interior remodeling of an existing building, storage sheds of 300 square feet or less, or repair of existing building features. Projects of this type would require permitting per Planning Code requirements but would not trigger PUD review.

When Required: Upon a request for a change to the PUD.

Monitoring/Inspection: Planning Bureau

32. Operational Noise.

Requirement: Noise levels from the activity, property, or any mechanical equipment on site or as a result of school operations shall comply with the performance standards of Chapter 17.120 of the Oakland Planning Code and Chapter 8.18 of the Oakland Municipal Code. If noise levels exceed these standards, the activity causing the noise shall be abated until appropriate noise reduction measures have been installed and compliance verified by the Planning and Zoning Division and Building Services. No outdoor amplified sound equipment shall be used on the campus without a permit from the City Administrators office. For the purposes of this permit, “amplified sound equipment” includes bull horns, air horns, or loudspeakers.

When Required: Ongoing
Monitoring/Inspection: Planning Bureau

33. Whittle and Lincoln Avenue Properties
Requirement: The properties located at 4200, 4220, 4280-82 and 4286 Whittle Avenue and 4233 Lincoln Avenue shall be limited solely to permitted residential uses as defined in the Oakland Planning Code and the School will not merge the lot without obtaining an amendment to the PUD as a Major Change.

The School shall maintain the residential character and uses of these houses and ensure that the houses maintain their structural integrity. These properties shall not be used for additional School parking, School staging of materials or equipment, School storage (including storage of maintenance equipment) or school deliveries or student pick-up or drop-off. The gate in the existing fence between 4200 and 4220 Whittle and the School property shall be posted with a No Trespassing sign and locked (with keys provided only to residents of these properties), except a push bar or similar unlatching system may be installed on the School side of the gate only to allow for exit in an emergency.

When Required: Ongoing
Monitoring/Inspection: Planning Bureau
PLN-18532, PLN18532-PUDF-01 & PLN18532- ER01 Attachment B - Page 24

34. Whittle Gate Access
Requirement: Access to the school through Whittle Gate shall be limited as follows: Deliveries to the School shall be directed to Whittle Gate and South Campus in accordance with Condition #25. The Applicant may provide pedestrian card access to the Whittle Gate to students or employees who walk or bike to School. The School may provide up to twenty-two (22) vehicle access cards to faculty, staff or disabled visitors to park in the parking spaces in the School’s lower parking lot. Disabled students may be dropped off at the Whittle gate. Each year, the School shall deactivate the cards and issue new cards. Monitoring of the Whittle Gate shall take place in accordance with Condition #30. The number of pedestrian and vehicle passes distributed each year shall be submitted to the Planning and Zoning Division. The School shall install signs identifying the appropriate access points and access restrictions, if any, to the School property.

When Required: Ongoing
Monitoring/Inspection: Planning Bureau

35. Neighborhood Liaison Committee /Point of Contact/Complaints.

Requirement: The Applicant shall invite interested representatives from the surrounding neighborhood streets, including but not limited to, Upper Lincoln, Lower Lincoln, Alida Court and Whittle Avenue neighborhood (Neighborhood Committee) to meet with a representative from the School administration, the Director of Neighborhood Relations (or his or her designee) and a member of the board of trustees, in order to resolve conflicts and maintain communications between the school and the surrounding neighborhoods. The School shall convene the Neighborhood Committee at least twice a year, with one meeting held at the end of the school year prior to the start of the Summer Program. The date/time/location shall be mutually agreed to by the Neighborhood Committee and the School. Invitations to the meeting with a written agenda shall be mailed at least ten (10) days prior to the scheduled meeting to the Neighborhood Committee, the City Council’s office for district 4, the planning director or designee, and all residents immediately abutting and adjacent to the School. The School shall increase the number of meetings if determined to be necessary by City Bureau of Planning staff. School shall provide notice of these meetings to City staff who may attend.

No later than thirty (30) days after this approval and ongoing, the Applicant shall designate a representative, or series of representatives, on site, to act as the primary point(s) of contact and as a complaint manager. The procedures and protocols to track and timely respond and resolve complaints/concerns raised by neighbors, or others relating to the school’s operations, including but not limited to traffic, noise, etc. are contained in the TDM Plan. One of the purposes of this condition is to have the project applicant timely respond and resolve complaints prior to involvement by Building Services Code Compliance Division, unless the complaint is related to imminent threats to public health or safety. The School shall provide neighbors with a daytime and evening contact number for the complaint manager. Complaints will be responded to within PLN-18532, PLN18532-PUDF-01 & PLN18532- ER01 Attachment B - Page 25 48 hours. In addition, the School shall provide neighbors with a 24-hour emergency hotline number for use in the event of an emergency.

When Required: Ongoing
Monitoring/Inspection: Planning Bureau

36. Deliveries.

Requirement: All deliveries, except US Mail, Fed-Ex and UPS trucks and a once-a-year mulch delivery to the playground area, must access the School via the Whittle Gate, the upper parking lot area or on the South Campus by means of the internal loop driveway. Except as noted above, no deliveries are permitted along Lincoln Avenue. Deliveries must be scheduled for 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on weekdays, except for deliveries to the café which may commence at 7:00 a.m. on weekday operation hours only and no overnight parking or idling is permitted. The School shall provide a live daytime and evening contact number for the complaint manager.

When Required: Ongoing
Monitoring/Inspection: Planning Bureau

37. Emergency Management and Preparedness Plan.

Requirement: The Applicant shall develop an Emergency Management Plan (“EMP”) that incorporates the recommendations in Mitigation Measure Wildfire and Emergency Evacuation-1 from the Final EIR, and submit to Planning and Zoning Division, Transportation Services Division, OPD-Traffic Safety, and the Fire Marshall, for review and consultation. The plan shall discuss emergency evacuation procedures that will facilitate emergency vehicle access to the neighborhood during School pick-up and drop-off operations. The Applicant shall implement the final EMP.

When Required: Prior to Construction Permit
Monitoring/Inspection: Planning Bureau

38. Fire Protection Bureau Occupancy Review
Requirement: The Applicant shall cooperate and coordinate with the Fire Services Department to conduct yearly occupancy and fire safety inspections of the school, fire drills and unannounced future site visits. The resulting Fire Department report(s), and any follow-ups, shall be sent to the Planning and Zoning Division for review.

When Required: Ongoing
Monitoring/Inspection: Planning Bureau
PLN-18532, PLN18532-PUDF-01 & PLN18532- ER01 Attachment B - Page 26

39. Fire Department Site Visits
Requirement: The Applicant shall coordinate with the Oakland Fire Marshal’s Office to make periodic unannounced visits to the school (the frequency, timing, and types of visits should be at the Fire Marshal’s discretion based on need for visits and compliance by the school) to verify that adequate emergency vehicle access is being maintained during peak pick-up and drop-off periods. The Fire Marshal should consult with the School to identify modifications to the circulation rules, if emergency access problems are identified.

When Required: Ongoing
Monitoring/Inspection: Fire Marshal

40. Temporary Parking Plan
Requirement: As part of the Construction Management Plan required in Condition #13 the Applicant shall prepare a parking plan demonstrating how adequate school parking can be provided during demolition and redevelopment of the South Campus parking lots. Temporary use of off-site parking lots may be considered with authorization of the off-site property owners and approval of the City Attorney.

When Required: Prior to Construction Permits for Phase II Monitoring/Inspection: Planning Bureau

41. Bicycle Parking
Requirement: A plan detail documenting of the design and functionality of racks to be installed on the South Campus is required consistent with Planning Code Section 17.117.080.

When Required: Prior to Construction Permits for Phase II Monitoring/Inspection: Planning Bureau

42. Transportation-Related Off-site Improvements
Requirement: The Applicant shall construct and/or implement the following transportationrelated off-site improvements prior to construction-related permits for Phase II:
(1) LPI timing will be provided for both Loop Road signals, and timing cards will be submitted for review to OakDOT that time all pedestrian crossings at 3ft/sec; PLN-18532, PLN18532-PUDF-01 & PLN18532- ER01 Attachment B - Page 27 (2) ADA crossing will be provided at the intersection of Lincoln and Alida Street extending from existing curb cuts;
(3) A stop sign warrant analysis shall be conducted at the intersection of Alida and Lincoln Avenues. If a stop sign is warranted, applicant will install it in coordination with Oakland DOT. If a stop sign is not warranted, applicant will install a rapid rectangular flashing beacon at this Intersection. Design will be documented as part of the PX permit process; and
(4) A programmatic solution is required to ensure that students can receive aid in crossing Lincoln Avenue upon request. If a shuttle solution is infeasible, then the City would accept a written commitment to provide a phone number for students to call for assistance from on-site staff. Such a solution is necessary to ensure that the Applicant is responsible for providing safe passage across Lincoln for disabled students, given that they are unable to provide ADA-compliant cross slopes at the two new Loop Road crosswalks
When Required: Prior to Construction Permits for Phase II Monitoring/Inspection: Planning Bureau

43. Design of Replacement Windows and ADA Requirements for Historic Resource Buildings 0, 1 and 2
Requirement: The Applicant shall submit additional documentation to Planning staff concerning the feasibility of rehabilitating all historic steel windows at Building 0 to improve compliance with the Secretary of the Interior Rehabilitation Standard 6, Deteriorated Historic Features, the scale of new window patterning on Building 1 and 2 for consistency with historic windows, and the size and scale of the ADA ramp at Building 1 west elevation for consistency with the historic context.

When Required: Prior to Construction Permits for Phase II Monitoring/Inspection: Planning Bureau

44. Coastal Native Mix Plant Material
Requirement: The Applicant shall amend the Planting Schedule and Planting Plan shown on Plan Sheet L6.1.00 to show Lupinus Alpifrons in place of Lupinus Arboreus as part of the Coastal Native Mix.

When Required: Prior to Construction Permits for Phase II Monitoring/Inspection: Planning Bureau
PLN-18532, PLN18532-PUDF-01 & PLN18532- ER01 Attachment B - Page 28

45. Retaining Wall
Requirement: Provide a detailed drawing of the retaining walls shown on the FDP Section plan page FDP-L3.01 for the combined Acoustic Board Perimeter fence and retaining wall.

When Required: Prior to Construction Permits for Phase II Monitoring/Inspection: Planning Bureau

46. Additional Emergency Evacuation Route
An additional emergency evaluation route opposite Camelia Place will be provided voluntarily by the School to accommodate public egress through their property in the event of an emergency.

When Required: Prior to Construction Permits for Phase II Monitoring/Inspection: Planning Bureau Fire Department
Applicant Statement
I have read and accept responsibility for the Conditions of Approval. I agree to abide by and conform to the Conditions of Approval, as well as to all provisions of the Oakland Planning Code and Oakland Municipal Code pertaining to the project. __________________________________
Name of Project Applicant
__________________________________________
Signature of Authorized Agent of Project Applicant
__________________________________
Date
PLN-18532, PLN18532-PUDF-01 & PLN18532- ER01 Attachment B - Page 29 Standard Conditions of Approval/Mitigation Monitoring Program (SCAMMP) Head Royce School Planned Unit Development (PUD) Project, Final EIR Page A-1 Standard Conditions of Approval/Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Implementation/Monitoring
When Required Initial Approval Monitoring/ Inspection
Aesthetics, Shadow and Wind
SCA Aesthetics-1, Landscape Plan

1. Landscape Plan Required: The project applicant shall submit a final Landscape Plan for City review and approval that is consistent with the approved Landscape Plan. The Landscape Plan shall be included with the set of drawings submitted for the construction-related permit and shall comply with the landscape requirements of chapter 17.124 of the Planning Code.

2. Landscape Installation: The project applicant shall implement the approved Landscape Plan, unless a bond, cash deposit, letter of credit or equivalent instrument acceptable to the Director of City Planning is provided. The financial instrument shall equal the greater of $2,500 or the estimated cost of implementing the Landscape Plan based on a licensed contractor’s bid.

3. Landscape Maintenance: All required planting shall be permanently maintained in good growing condition and, whenever necessary, replaced with new plant materials to ensure continued compliance with applicable landscaping requirements. The property owner shall be responsible for maintaining planting in adjacent public rights-of-way. All required fences, walls, and irrigation systems shall be permanently maintained in good condition and, whenever necessary, repaired or replaced.

Prior to approval of
construction-related
permit
Prior to building permit
final
Ongoing
Bureau of Planning
Bureau of Planning
N/A
N/A
Bureau of Building
Bureau of Building
SCA Aesthetics-2, Lighting: Proposed new exterior lighting fixtures shall be adequately shielded to a point below the light bulb and reflector to prevent unnecessary glare onto adjacent properties.

Prior to building permit
final
N/A Bureau of Building
SCA Aesthetics-3, Trash and Blight Removal: The project applicant and his/her successors shall maintain the property free of blight, as defined in chapter 8.24 of the Oakland Municipal Code. For nonresidential and multifamily residential projects, the project applicant shall install and maintain trash receptacles near public entryways as needed to provide sufficient capacity for building users.

Ongoing N/A Bureau of Building
SCA Aesthetics-4, Graffiti Control:

1. During construction and operation of the project, the project applicant shall incorporate best management practices reasonably related to the control of graffiti and/or the mitigation of the impacts of graffiti. Such best management practices may include, without limitation:
a. Installation and maintenance of landscaping to discourage defacement of and/or protect likely graffiti-attracting surfaces
b. Installation and maintenance of lighting to protect likely graffiti-attracting surfaces c. Use of paint with anti-graffiti coating
d. Incorporation of architectural or design elements or features to discourage graffiti defacement in accordance with the principles of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED)
e. Other practices approved by the City to deter, protect, or reduce the potential for graffiti defacement
Ongoing N/A Bureau of Building
Standard Conditions of Approval/Mitigation Monitoring Program (SCAMMP) Head Royce School Planned Unit Development (PUD) Project, Final EIR Page A-2 Standard Conditions of Approval/Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Implementation/Monitoring
When Required Initial Approval Monitoring/ Inspection

2. The project applicant shall remove graffiti by appropriate means within seventy-two (72) hours. Appropriate means include the following:
a. Removal through scrubbing, washing, sanding, and/or scraping (or similar method) without damaging the surface and without discharging wash water or cleaning detergents into the City storm drain system.
b. Covering with new paint to match the color of the surrounding surface c. Replacing with new surfacing (with City permits if required) Air Quality
SCA Air-1, Dust Controls – Construction Related: The project applicant shall implement all of the following applicable dust control measures during construction of the project:

1. Water all exposed surfaces of active construction areas at least twice daily. Watering should be sufficient to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. Increased watering frequency may be necessary whenever wind speeds exceed 15 miles per hour. Reclaimed water should be used whenever feasible.

2. Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard (i.e., the minimum required space between the top of the load and the top of the trailer).

3. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.

4. Limit vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour.

5. All demolition activities (if any) shall be suspended when average wind speeds exceed 20 miles per house (mph).

6. All trucks and equipment, including tires, shall be washed off prior to leaving the site.

7. Site accesses to a distance of 100 feet from the paved road shall be treated with a 6 to 12 inch compacted layer of wood chips, mulch, or gravel.

During construction Bureau of Building Bureau of Building SCA Air-2, Criteria Air Pollutant Controls - Construction Related: The project applicant shall implement all of the following applicable basic control measures for criteria air pollutants during construction of the project as applicable:

1. Idling times on all diesel-fueled commercial vehicles over 10,000 lbs. shall be minimized by shutting equipment off when not in use, or reducing the maximum idling time to two minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485, of the California Code of Regulations). Clear signage to this effect shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.

2. Idling times on all diesel-fueled off-road vehicles over 25 horsepower shall be minimized by shutting equipment off when not in use, or reducing the maximum idling time to two minutes.

Fleet operators must develop a written policy as required by Title 23, Section 2449, of the California Code of Regulations (“California Air Resources Board Off- Road Diesel Regulations”).

During construction Bureau of Building Bureau of Building Standard Conditions of Approval/Mitigation Monitoring Program (SCAMMP) Head Royce School Planned Unit Development (PUD) Project, Final EIR Page A-3 Standard Conditions of Approval/Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Implementation/Monitoring
When Required Initial Approval Monitoring/ Inspection

3. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. Equipment check documentation should be kept at the construction site and be available for review by the City and the Bay Area Air Quality District as needed.

4. d) Portable equipment shall be powered by grid electricity if available. If electricity is not available, propane or natural gas generators shall be used if feasible. Diesel engines shall only be used if grid electricity is not available and propane or natural gas generators cannot meet the electrical demand.

5. Low VOC (i.e., ROG) coatings shall be used that comply with BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 3:

Architectural Coatings.

6. All equipment to be used on the construction site shall comply with the requirements of Title 13, Section 2449, of the California Code of Regulations (“California Air Resources Board OffRoad Diesel Regulations”) and upon request by the City (and the Air District if specifically requested), the project applicant shall provide written documentation that fleet requirements have been met.

SCA Air-3, Diesel Particulate Matter Controls-Construction Related: The project applicant shall implement appropriate measures during construction to reduce potential health risks to sensitive receptors due to exposure to diesel particulate matter (DPM) from construction emissions. The project applicant shall choose one of the following methods:

1. The project applicant shall retain a qualified air quality consultant to prepare a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) in accordance with current guidance from the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and Office of Environmental Health and Hazard Assessment to determine the health risk to sensitive receptors exposed to DPM from project construction emissions. The HRA shall be submitted to the City (and the Air District if specifically requested) for review and approval. If the HRA concludes that the health risk is at or below acceptable levels, then DPM reduction measures are not required. If the HRA concludes that the health risk exceeds acceptable levels, DPM reduction measures shall be identified to reduce the health risk to acceptable levels as set forth under subsection b below. Identified DPM reduction measures shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits and the approved DPM reduction measures shall be implemented during construction. -or2. All off-road diesel equipment shall be equipped with the most effective Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategies (VDECS) available for the engine type (Tier 4 engines automatically meet this requirement) as certified by CARB. The equipment shall be properly maintained and tuned in accordance with manufacturer specifications. This shall be verified through an equipment inventory submittal and Certification Statement that the Contractor agrees to During construction Bureau of Building Bureau of Building Standard Conditions of Approval/Mitigation Monitoring Program (SCAMMP) Head Royce School Planned Unit Development (PUD) Project, Final EIR Page A-4 Standard Conditions of Approval/Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Implementation/Monitoring
When Required Initial Approval Monitoring/ Inspection
compliance and acknowledges that a significant violation of this requirement shall constitute a material breach of contract.

SCA Air-5, Stationary Sources of Air Pollution (Toxic Air Contaminants): The project applicant shall incorporate appropriate measures into the project design in order to reduce the potential health risk due to on-site stationary sources of toxic air contaminants. The project applicant shall choose one of the following methods:

1. The project applicant shall retain a qualified air quality consultant to prepare a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) in accordance with California Air Resources Board (CARB) and Office of Environmental Health and Hazard Assessment requirements to determine the health risk associated with proposed stationary sources of pollution in the project. The HRA shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. If the HRA concludes that the health risk is at or below acceptable levels, then health risk reduction measures are not required. If the HRA concludes the health risk exceeds acceptable levels, health risk reduction measures shall be identified to reduce the health risk to acceptable levels. Identified risk reduction measures shall be submitted to the City for review and approval and be included on the project drawings submitted for the construction-related permit or on other documentation submitted to the City. The approved risk reduction measures shall be implemented during construction and/or operations as applicable.
- or -

2. The project applicant shall incorporate the following health risk reduction measures into the project. These features shall be submitted to the City for review and approval and be included on the project drawings submitted for the construction-related permit or on other documentation submitted to the City:
a. Installation of non-diesel fueled generators, if feasible, or; b. Installation of diesel generators with an EPA-certified Tier 4 engine or engines that are retrofitted with a CARB Level 3 Verified Diesel Emissions Control Strategy, if feasible During construction Bureau of Building Bureau of Building SCA Air-6, Asbestos in Structures: The project applicant shall comply with all applicable laws and regulations regarding demolition and renovation of Asbestos Containing Materials (ACM). These include but are not limited to California Code of Regulations, Title 8; California Business and Professions Code, Division 3; California Health and Safety Code sections 25915-25919.7; and Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Regulation 11, Rule 2, as may be amended. Evidence of compliance shall be submitted to the City upon request.

During construction Bureau of Building Bureau of Building Biological Resources
SCA Biology-1, Tree Removal during Bird Breeding Season: To the extent feasible, removal of any tree and/or other vegetation suitable for nesting of birds shall not occur during the bird-breeding season of February 1 to August 15 (or during December 15 to August 15 for trees located in or near Prior to removal of
trees
Bureau of Planning Bureau of Building
Standard Conditions of Approval/Mitigation Monitoring Program (SCAMMP) Head Royce School Planned Unit Development (PUD) Project, Final EIR Page A-5 Standard Conditions of Approval/Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Implementation/Monitoring
When Required Initial Approval Monitoring/ Inspection
marsh, wetland, or aquatic habitats). If tree removal must occur during the bird breeding season, all trees to be removed shall be surveyed by a qualified biologist to verify the presence or absence of nesting raptors or other birds. Pre-removal surveys shall be conducted within 15 days prior to the start of work and shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. If the survey indicates the potential presence of nesting raptors or other birds, the biologist shall determine an appropriately sized buffer around the nest in which no work will be allowed until the young have successfully fledged. The size of the nest buffer will be determined by the biologist in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and will be based on the nesting species and its sensitivity to disturbance. In general, buffer sizes of 200 feet for raptors and 50 feet for other birds should suffice to prevent disturbance to birds nesting in the urban environment, but these buffers may be increased or decreased, as appropriate, depending on the bird species and the level of disturbance anticipated near the nest.

SCA Biology-2, Tree Permit:

1. Tree Permit Required: Pursuant to the City’s Tree Protection Ordinance (OMC chapter 12.36), the project applicant shall obtain a tree permit and abide by the conditions of that permit.

2. Tree Protection during Construction: Adequate protection shall be provided during the construction period for any trees that are to remain standing, including the following, plus any recommendations of an arborist:
a. Before the start of any clearing, excavation, construction or other work on the site, every protected tree deemed potentially endangered by said site work shall be securely fenced off at a distance from the base of the tree, to be determined by the project’s consulting arborist. Such fences shall remain in place for duration of all such work. All trees to be removed shall be clearly marked. A scheme shall be established for the removal and disposal of logs, brush, earth and other debris that will avoid injury to any protected tree. b. Where proposed development or other site work is to encroach upon the protected perimeter of any protected tree, special measures shall be incorporated to allow the roots to breathe and obtain water and nutrients. Any excavation, cutting, filling, or compaction of the existing ground surface within the protected perimeter shall be minimized. No change in existing ground level shall occur within a distance to be determined by the project’s consulting arborist from the base of any protected tree at any time. No burning or use of equipment with an open flame shall occur near or within the protected perimeter of any protected tree.
c. No storage or dumping of oil, gas, chemicals, or other substances that may be harmful to trees shall occur within the distance to be determined by the project’s consulting arborist from the base of any protected trees, or any other location on the site from which such substances might enter the protected perimeter. No heavy construction equipment or construction materials shall be operated or stored within a distance from the base of any protected trees to be determined by the project’s consulting arborist. Wires, ropes, or Prior to approval of
construction-related
permit
During construction
Permit approval by Public
Works Department, Tree
Division; evidence of
approval submitted to
Bureau of Building
Public Works Department,
Tree Division
Bureau of Building
Bureau of Building
Standard Conditions of Approval/Mitigation Monitoring Program (SCAMMP) Head Royce School Planned Unit Development (PUD) Project, Final EIR Page A-6 Standard Conditions of Approval/Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Implementation/Monitoring
When Required Initial Approval Monitoring/ Inspection
other devices shall not be attached to any protected tree, except as needed for support of the tree. No sign, other than a tag showing the botanical classification, shall be attached to any protected tree.
d. Periodically during construction, the leaves of protected trees shall be thoroughly sprayed with water to prevent buildup of dust and other pollution that would inhibit leaf transpiration.
e. If any damage to a protected tree should occur during or as a result of work on the site, the project applicant shall immediately notify the Public Works Department and the project’s consulting arborist shall make a recommendation to the City Tree Reviewer as to whether the damaged tree can be preserved. If, in the professional opinion of the Tree Reviewer, such tree cannot be preserved in a healthy state, the Tree Reviewer shall require replacement of any tree removed with another tree or trees on the same site deemed adequate by the Tree Reviewer to compensate for the loss of the tree that is removed. f. All debris created as a result of any tree removal work shall be removed by the project applicant from the property within two weeks of debris creation, and such debris shall be properly disposed of by the project applicant in accordance with all applicable laws, ordinances, and regulations.

3. Tree Replacement Plantings: Replacement plantings shall be required for tree removals for the purposes of erosion control, groundwater replenishment, visual screening, wildlife habitat, and preventing excessive loss of shade, in accordance with the following criteria:
a. No tree replacement shall be required for the removal of nonnative species, for the removal of trees which is required for the benefit of remaining trees, or where insufficient planting area exists for a mature tree of the species being considered. b. Replacement tree species shall consist of Sequoia sempervirens (Coast Redwood), Quercus agrifolia (Coast Live Oak), Arbutus menziesii (Madrone), Aesculus californica (California Buckeye), Umbellularia californica (California Bay Laurel), or other tree species acceptable to the Tree Division.
c. Replacement trees shall be at least twenty-four (24) inch box size, unless a smaller size is recommended by the arborist, except that three fifteen (15) gallon size trees may be substituted for each twenty-four (24) inch box size tree where appropriate. d. Minimum planting areas must be available on site as follows: for Sequoia sempervirens, three hundred fifteen (315) square feet per tree, for other species listed, seven hundred (700) square feet per tree
e. In the event that replacement trees are required but cannot be planted due to site constraints, an in lieu fee in accordance with the City’s Master Fee Schedule may be substituted for required replacement plantings, with all such revenues applied toward tree planting in city parks, streets and medians.

Prior to building permit
final
Public Works Department,
Tree Division
Bureau of Building
Standard Conditions of Approval/Mitigation Monitoring Program (SCAMMP) Head Royce School Planned Unit Development (PUD) Project, Final EIR Page A-7 Standard Conditions of Approval/Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Implementation/Monitoring
When Required Initial Approval Monitoring/ Inspection
f. The project applicant shall install the plantings and maintain the plantings until established.

The Tree Reviewer of the Tree Division of the Public Works Department may require a landscape plan showing the replacement plantings and the method of irrigation. Any replacement plantings that fail to become established within one year of planting shall be replanted at the project applicant’s expense.

Cultural Resources
SCA Cultural-1: Archaeological and Paleontological Resources – Discovery during Construction:

1. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(f), in the event that any historic or prehistoric subsurface cultural resources are discovered during ground disturbing activities, all work within 50 feet of the resources shall be halted and the project applicant shall notify the City and consult with a qualified archaeologist or paleontologist, as applicable, to assess the significance of the find. In the case of discovery of paleontological resources, the assessment shall be done in accordance with the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards. If any find is determined to be significant, appropriate avoidance measures recommended by the consultant and approved by the City must be followed unless avoidance is determined unnecessary or infeasible by the City. Feasibility of avoidance shall be determined with consideration of factors such as the nature of the find, project design, costs, and other considerations. If avoidance is unnecessary or infeasible, other appropriate measures (e.g., data recovery, excavation) shall be instituted. Work may proceed on other parts of the project site while measures for the cultural resources are implemented.

2. In the event of data recovery of archaeological resources, the project applicant shall submit an Archaeological Research Design and Treatment Plan (ARDTP) prepared by a qualified archaeologist for review and approval by the City. The ARDTP is required to identify how the proposed data recovery program would preserve the significant information the archaeological resource is expected to contain. The ARDTP shall identify the scientific/historic research questions applicable to the expected resource, the data classes the resource is expected to possess, and how the expected data classes would address the applicable research questions. The ARDTP shall include the analysis and specify the curation and storage methods. Data recovery, in general, shall be limited to the portions of the archaeological resource that could be impacted by the proposed project. Destructive data recovery methods shall not be applied to portions of the archaeological resources if nondestructive methods are practicable. Because the intent of the ARDTP is to save as much of the archaeological resource as possible, including moving the resource, if feasible, preparation and implementation of the ARDTP would reduce the potential adverse impact to less than significant. The project applicant shall implement the ARDTP at his/her expense.

3. In the event of excavation of paleontological resources, the project applicant shall submit an excavation plan prepared by a qualified paleontologist to the City for review and approval. All During construction N/A Bureau of Building
Standard Conditions of Approval/Mitigation Monitoring Program (SCAMMP) Head Royce School Planned Unit Development (PUD) Project, Final EIR Page A-8 Standard Conditions of Approval/Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Implementation/Monitoring
When Required Initial Approval Monitoring/ Inspection
significant cultural materials recovered shall be subject to scientific analysis, professional museum curation, and/or a report prepared by a qualified paleontologist, as appropriate, according to current professional standards and at the expense of the project applicant.

SCA Cultural-3: Human Remains – Discovery during Construction: Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(e) (1), in the event that human skeletal remains are uncovered at the project site during construction activities, all work shall immediately halt, and the project applicant shall notify the City and the Alameda County Coroner. If the County Coroner determines that an investigation of the cause of death is required or that the remains are Native American, all work shall cease within 50 feet of the remains until appropriate arrangements are made. In the event that the remains are Native American, the City shall contact the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), pursuant to subdivision (c) of section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. If the agencies determine that avoidance is not feasible, then an alternative plan shall be prepared with specific steps and timeframe required to resume construction activities. Monitoring, data recovery, determination of significance, and avoidance measures (if applicable) shall be completed expeditiously and at the expense of the project applicant.

During construction N/A Bureau of Building
SCA Cultural-4: Vibration Impacts on Adjacent Historic Structures or Vibration-Sensitive Activities:

The project applicant shall submit a Vibration Analysis prepared by an acoustical and/or structural engineer or other appropriate qualified professional for City review and approval that establishes pre-construction baseline conditions and threshold levels of vibration that could damage the structure and/or substantially interfere with activities located at adjacent historic resources within or near the project. The Vibration Analysis shall identify design means and methods of construction that shall be utilized in order to not exceed the thresholds. The applicant shall implement the recommendations during construction.

Prior to construction Bureau of Building Bureau of Building Project Improvement Recommendation - Retain and Rehabilitate All Historic Steel Sash Windows:

Page & Turnbull recognizes and appreciates that the large historic steel sash windows at the north façade of Building 0, which are visible from the public right-of-way along Lincoln Avenue, are proposed to be retained and repaired as necessary. Page & Turnbull recommends that, except in demonstrated cases of severe deterioration beyond repair, all historic steel windows at Building 0 be retained and rehabilitated in order to fully comply with Rehabilitation Standard 6. Per Rehabilitation Standard 6, repair, rehabilitation, and thermal upgrading should be pursed as primary strategy before considering replacement with compatible, in-kind replacement windows (such as the Type 2 windows indicated in the Project). While double-glazed windows have increased thermal performance, there are other ways to improve thermal performance of existing historic steel sash windows. Furthermore, overall thermal performance of the building may be accomplished through improved insulation of wall and roof assemblies, while retaining all historic steel sash windows.

Prior to Design Review
approval
Planning Commission Bureau of Building
Standard Conditions of Approval/Mitigation Monitoring Program (SCAMMP) Head Royce School Planned Unit Development (PUD) Project, Final EIR Page A-9 Standard Conditions of Approval/Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Implementation/Monitoring
When Required Initial Approval Monitoring/ Inspection
Geology and Soils
SCA Geo-1: Construction-Related Permit(s): The project applicant shall obtain all required construction-related permits/approvals from the City. The project shall comply with all standards, requirements and conditions contained in construction-related codes, including but not limited to the Oakland Building Code and the Oakland Grading Regulations, to ensure structural integrity and safe construction.

Prior to approval of
construction-related
permit
Bureau of Building Bureau of Building
SCA Geo-2: Soils Report: The project applicant shall submit a soils report prepared by a registered geotechnical engineer for City review and approval. The soils report shall contain, at a minimum, field test results and observations regarding the nature, distribution and strength of existing soils, and recommendations for appropriate grading practices and project design. The project applicant shall implement the recommendations contained in the approved report during project design and construction.

Prior to approval of
construction-related
permit
Bureau of Building Bureau of Building
Detailed Recommendations in Furtherance of SCA Geo-2: Pursuant to the grading permit requirements found in the Oakland Municipal Code, design and construction considerations are recommended in the August 2020 Rockridge Geotechnical and Geological Evaluation, Stability of Slope Below Building (Appendix 8F), as recommended pursuant to peer-review by the City’s geotechnical engineering consultants, EnGeo. Based on their site investigations, Rockridge recommends that the surface drainage at the rear of Building 9 be improved, and that the slope below Building 9 be partially reconstructed to mitigate the potential for future slope instability under static and seismic conditions. Further detailed recommendations are presented below.

1. Surface Drainage Improvements
a. Four roof drain downspouts at the rear of Building 9 currently discharge onto the ground surface adjacent to the building. The two easternmost roof drains may have contributed to slope instability and should be connected to solid buried pipes that discharge near the base of the reconstructed slope. The end of the discharge pipes should be designed with a “T” and a gravel pad to mitigate the potential for ground-surface erosion. b. The ground surface behind the eastern-most 80 feet of Building 9 is currently uneven with some areas sloping toward the building, some areas being relatively level, and some areas sloping away from the building. To reduce the potential for ponding and concentrated surface flow onto the slope face, this area should be re-graded so that the ground surface slopes down away from Building 9 and towards the top of the slope at a consistent gradient of five percent.
c. Much of the slope below Building 9 has been recently cleared and is covered with wood chips. To mitigate the potential for surface erosion after construction of the Project’s proposed improvements, the final graded slopes (where not already currently covered with erosion-resistant vegetation (should be planted with deep-rooted vegetation to reduce the potential for surface erosion.

Prior to approval of
construction-related
permit
Bureau of Building Bureau of Building
Standard Conditions of Approval/Mitigation Monitoring Program (SCAMMP) Head Royce School Planned Unit Development (PUD) Project, Final EIR Page A-10 Standard Conditions of Approval/Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Implementation/Monitoring
When Required Initial Approval Monitoring/ Inspection
c. The slopes should be covered with an erosion control blanket to minimize surface erosion until the vegetation matures.

2. Slope Reconstruction
a. The fill slope below the eastern-most 80 feet of Building 9, as well as the 80-foot long section of fill slope east of Building 9, should be reconstructed as an engineered fill slope during construction of the proposed future site improvements. b. The inclination of the final slope should not exceed 2:1 (horizontal: vertical) unless reinforced with geogrid. A geogrid-reinforced slope as steep as 1.5:1 is feasible; however, installation of geogrid reinforcement would require significantly more cutting into the existing slope than for reconstruction of an unreinforced slope. c. It should be assumed that the outer 10 feet of the current slope consists of non-engineered fill that should be excavated and then replaced as engineered fill after installation of a keyway and subdrains. Several test pits should be excavated into this slope face prior to site grading to further investigate the existing fill thickness. d. Reconstruction of the slope should consist of excavating the existing fill from the slope face (if the fill extends behind a line inclined at 1:1 from the top of the slope, it may be left in place since it will be buttressed with the engineered fill). The excavation at the top of the slope should extend no closer than 10 horizontal feet from the rear of Building 9 and should be inclined no steeper than 1:1. A keyway that is at least 10 feet wide and extends at least four feet into competent bedrock or very stiff/dense native soil should be excavated as the projected toe of the engineered fill slope. The base of the keyway should be sloped back into the hillside at an inclination of at least two percent. e. Below Building 9, subdrains should be installed at the back of the keyway, within 10 feet (vertically) from the top of the slope, and at approximately mid slope. East of Building 9, subdrains should be installed in the keyway and within 10 feet (vertically) from the top of the slope. Subdrains should discharge water via solid pipe to a suitable downslope discharge point protected from erosion with a gravel blanket. f. The engineered fill placed to repair the slope should be keyed and benched into competent native soil and/or bedrock with benches being about eight feet wide. The soil and bedrock materials encountered at the site are suitable for reuse as engineered fill, provided they are free of significant organics, rocks or lumps larger than four inches in greatest dimension, and organic material. If imported fill is required, it should consist of material that is free of hazardous substances, contain no rocks larger than four inches in greatest dimension, and have a plasticity index (PI) not exceeding 12. Fill should be placed in horizontal lifts not exceeding eight inches in uncompacted thickness, moisture-conditioned to above optimum moisture content, and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction.

Standard Conditions of Approval/Mitigation Monitoring Program (SCAMMP) Head Royce School Planned Unit Development (PUD) Project, Final EIR Page A-11 Standard Conditions of Approval/Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Implementation/Monitoring
When Required Initial Approval Monitoring/ Inspection
g. The finished surface of the slope should be track-walked and protected from erosion by deep-rooted, fast-growing vegetation prior to winter. The surface should be covered with appropriate erosion control material to minimize surface erosion prior to maturation of the plants.

3. Retaining Walls: Current plans call for installation of low retaining walls as part of the site improvements.
a. Permanent retaining walls should be designed to resist lateral earth pressure imposed by the retained soil and surcharge pressure, where appropriate. Where permanent walls will be restrained from movement at the top and/or sides, they should be designed for at-rest conditions.
b. Walls that retain soil and are not restrained from rotation may be designed for appropriate active pressures (as presented in Appendix 8F). The recommended design pressures are appropriate for walls that are fully drained.
c. Walls that retain more than six feet of soil should be designed for the more critical loading condition of static or seismic conditions.

Detailed Recommendations in Furtherance of SCAs Geo-1 and Geo-2: In furtherance of SCAs Geo-1 and Geo-2 and pursuant to the grading permit requirements found in the Oakland Municipal Code, the following design and construction considerations are recommended in the 2019 Cahill and McMillen Jacobs Conceptual Design and Constructability Evaluation (as also peer-reviewed by the City’s geotechnical engineering consultants, EnGeo):

1. The final alignment of the tunnel should be selected such that the length of the jacked box is minimized to reduce required jacking loads as much as possible. This can be accomplished by constructing the portals as close to the property lines as feasible.

2. The jacked box will require construction of a soldier pile wall to aid in mobilizing passive reaction forces for jacking.

3. Due to the size of the tunnel, design of a jacked box will have to assume a relatively simple geometry and an internal clear width not to exceed 18 feet (this clearance does not include any internal finishes, such as lighting, architectural finishes, waterproofing, etc.)

4. For stiff/dense soil and rock conditions, overcut may be needed ahead of the box to facilitate advancing the box. Steel sheeting on the box roof and bentonite slurry lubricant will be required to minimize friction and maintain jacking forces.

5. Depending on rock strength and the presence of soil and mixed face ground within the tunnel profile, temporary face support measures may be required to prevent ground loss. Options for face support will likely consist of sloping of the face, and installation of fiberglass face bolts, face shotcrete, or breasting.
6 The jacked box construction of the tunnel will require pre-support of the ground prior to commencing excavation. Settlement of existing utilities overlying the tunnel can likely be addressed through exposing and providing structural strengthening, or by providing Prior to approval of
construction-related
permit
Bureau of Building Bureau of Building
Standard Conditions of Approval/Mitigation Monitoring Program (SCAMMP) Head Royce School Planned Unit Development (PUD) Project, Final EIR Page A-12 Standard Conditions of Approval/Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Implementation/Monitoring
When Required Initial Approval Monitoring/ Inspection
temporary bypass across the tunnel zone of influence. During final design, a detailed evaluation of overcutting, advance lengths, and settlement should be carried out once the construction approach is finalized. Specific measures anticipated for this project to address settlement include installation of pre-support measures such as a grouted pipe canopy or ground freezing prior to excavation, application of face support measures, and monitoring of overlying structures during construction to confirm no unanticipated ground movements develop as a result of tunnel excavation.
7 Vertically shored excavations will be required at the portal locations. The actual extent of shoring will be dependent on the presence of nearby utilities, structures, construction methods/sequencing, and final grading requirements. An anchored shotcrete wall is likely the most economical means of supporting vertical cuts for both temporary and permanent conditions.
8 If rock conditions are encountered, tieback lengths are anticipated to be approximately 25 to 35 feet in length. Tiebacks would be drilled in 3 to 4-inch holes, fully grouted, and staggered at a pattern spacing of about 6-foot vertical by 6-foot horizontal. For soil conditions, anchor lengths/loads will be larger with a tighter spacing. Shotcrete facing will also be required for temporary and permanent shoring. For permanent walls, anchors will need to be double corrosion protected (DCP) and designed for seismic conditions.

9. If encroachment limitations prevent the use of anchors for temporary walls, the system can be internally braced using steel struts and soldier piles. If the shored material consists of soil in this case, soldier piles may be required.

10. In all cases, shoring walls should be designed for drained conditions and incorporate weep holes, or strip/mat drains behind the facing.

11. To protect existing facilities from the effects of tunnel and portal construction, installation of monitoring instruments along Lincoln Avenue will be required to monitor ground/utility movements and surface settlement. Prior to commencing excavation, utility monitoring points and surface settlement arrays should be installed within the influence zone of the tunnel and portal excavations. Monitoring of these points should be performed on a regular basis during construction (daily or more frequently). Baseline readings will need to be taken to establish elevations prior to construction.
12 Following completion of tunneling, monitoring should continue until readings stabilize or until such time that construction activities no longer warrant active monitoring. Actual monitoring locations will need to be determined after utility locations have been verified.

13. Settlement thresholds and corrective actions will need to be established as part of the final design and prior to starting construction.

Detailed Recommendations for Grading Practices for Expansive Soils in Furtherance of SCA Geo-2:

In furtherance of SCA Geo-2 and pursuant to the grading permit requirements found in the Oakland Prior to approval of
construction-related
permit
Bureau of Building Bureau of Building
Standard Conditions of Approval/Mitigation Monitoring Program (SCAMMP) Head Royce School Planned Unit Development (PUD) Project, Final EIR Page A-13 Standard Conditions of Approval/Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Implementation/Monitoring
When Required Initial Approval Monitoring/ Inspection
Municipal Code, the following grading practices are recommended in the 2012 Rockridge Geotechnical Report:

1. Positive surface drainage should be provided around all buildings to direct surface water away from foundations and below-grade walls. To reduce the potential for water ponding adjacent to buildings, the ground surface within a horizontal distance of five feet from the buildings should slope down away from the buildings with a surface gradient of at least two percent in unpaved areas, and one percent in paved areas.

2. Roof downspouts should be discharged into controlled drainage facilities to keep the water away from the foundations, below-grade walls, pavements, and concrete flatwork.

3. Water-intensive landscaping around the perimeter of buildings should be avoided to reduce the amount of water introduced to the expansive clay subgrade.

4. Aggregate base (AB) courses beneath any new pavements and pedestrian walkways located adjacent to landscape beds should be constructed with thickened concrete edges that extend though the AB and into the underlying clay subgrade.

5. Systems for storm water treatment (infiltration basins, rain gardens, bio-retention systems, vegetated swales, flow-through planters, etc.) should be provided with underdrains and impermeable liners, and not designed for filtration into the subgrade.

SCA Geo-5: Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan for Construction:

1. Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan Required: The project applicant shall submit an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan to the City for review and approval. The Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan shall include all necessary measures to be taken to prevent excessive stormwater runoff or carrying by stormwater runoff of solid materials on to lands of adjacent property owners, public streets, or to creeks as a result of conditions created by grading and/or construction operations. The Plan shall include, but not be limited to, such measures as short-term erosion control planting, waterproof slope covering, check dams, interceptor ditches, benches, storm drains, dissipation structures, diversion dikes, retarding berms and barriers, devices to trap, store and filter out sediment, and stormwater retention basins. Off-site work by the project applicant may be necessary. The project applicant shall obtain permission or easements necessary for off-site work. There shall be a clear notation that the plan is subject to changes as changing conditions occur. Calculations of anticipated stormwater runoff and sediment volumes shall be included, if required by the City. The Plan shall specify that, after construction is complete, the project applicant shall ensure that the storm drain system shall be inspected and that the project applicant shall clear the system of any debris or sediment.

2. Erosion and Sedimentation Control during Construction: The project applicant shall implement the approved Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan. No grading shall occur during the wet weather season (October 15 through April 15) unless specifically authorized in writing by the Bureau of Building.

Prior to approval of
construction-related
permit
During construction
Bureau of Building
N/A
N/A
Bureau of Building
Standard Conditions of Approval/Mitigation Monitoring Program (SCAMMP) Head Royce School Planned Unit Development (PUD) Project, Final EIR Page A-14 Standard Conditions of Approval/Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Implementation/Monitoring
When Required Initial Approval Monitoring/ Inspection
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
SCA Hazards-1: Hazardous Materials Related to Construction: The project applicant shall ensure that Best Management Practices (BMPs) are implemented by the contractor during construction to minimize potential negative effects on groundwater, soils, and human health. These shall include, at a minimum, the following:

1. Follow manufacture’s recommendations for use, storage, and disposal of chemical products used in construction

2. Avoid overtopping construction equipment fuel gas tanks

3. During routine maintenance of construction equipment, properly contain and remove grease and oils

4. Properly dispose of discarded containers of fuels and other chemicals

5. Implement lead-safe work practices and comply with all local, regional, state, and federal requirements concerning lead (for more information refer to the Alameda County Lead Poisoning Prevention Program), and

6. If soil, groundwater, or other environmental medium with suspected contamination is encountered unexpectedly during construction activities (e.g., identified by odor or visual staining, or if any underground storage tanks, abandoned drums or other hazardous materials or wastes are encountered), the project applicant shall cease work in the vicinity of the suspect material, the area shall be secured as necessary, and the applicant shall take all appropriate measures to protect human health and the environment. Appropriate measures shall include notifying the City Fire Prevention Bureau, Alameda County Environmental Health, and other applicable regulatory agencies, and implementation of the actions described in these agencies’ conditions of approval, as necessary, to identify the nature and extent of contamination. Work shall not resume in the area(s) affected until the measures have been implemented under the oversight of the City or regulatory agency, as appropriate.

During construction N/A Bureau of Building
SCA Hazards-2, Hazardous Building Materials and Site Contamination

1. Hazardous Building Materials Assessment: The project applicant shall submit a comprehensive assessment report to the Bureau of Building, signed by a qualified environmental professional, documenting the presence or lack thereof of asbestos-containing materials (ACMs), leadbased paint, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and any other building materials or stored materials classified as hazardous materials by State or federal law. If lead-based paint, ACMs, PCBs, or any other building materials or stored materials classified as hazardous materials are present, the project applicant shall submit specifications prepared and signed by a qualified environmental professional, for the stabilization and/or removal of the identified hazardous materials in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations. The project applicant shall implement the approved recommendations and submit to the City evidence of approval for Prior to approval of
demolition, grading, or
building permits
Bureau of Building Bureau of Building
Standard Conditions of Approval/Mitigation Monitoring Program (SCAMMP) Head Royce School Planned Unit Development (PUD) Project, Final EIR Page A-15 Standard Conditions of Approval/Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Implementation/Monitoring
When Required Initial Approval Monitoring/ Inspection
any proposed remedial action and required clearances by the applicable local, state, or federal regulatory agency.

2. Environmental Site Assessment Required: The project applicant shall submit a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment report, and Phase II Environmental Site Assessment report if warranted by the Phase 1 report, for the project site for review and approval by the City. The report(s) shall be prepared by a qualified environmental assessment professional and include recommendations for remedial action, as appropriate, for hazardous materials. The project applicant shall implement the approved recommendations and submit to the City evidence of approval for any proposed remedial action and required clearances by the applicable local, state, or federal regulatory agency.

3. Health and Safety Plan Required: The project applicant shall submit a Health and Safety Plan for the review and approval by the City in order to protect project construction workers from risks associated with hazardous materials. The project applicant shall implement the approved Plan.

4. Best Management Practices (BMPs) Required for Contaminated Sites (Item 4 text omitted because it is not applicable to the project, which is not on a contaminated site) Prior to approval of
construction-related
permit
Applicable regulatory
agency with jurisdiction
N/A
Applicable regulatory
agency with jurisdiction
Bureau of Building
N/A
Applicable regulatory agency
with jurisdiction
Bureau of Building
N/A
Hydrology and Water Quality
SCA Hydro-1: Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan for Construction

1. Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan Required: The project applicant shall submit an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan to the City for review and approval. The Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan shall include all necessary measures to be taken to prevent excessive stormwater runoff or carrying by stormwater runoff of solid materials on to lands of adjacent property owners, public streets, or to creeks as a result of conditions created by grading and/or construction operations. The Plan shall include, but not be limited to, such measures as short-term erosion control planting, waterproof slope covering, check dams, interceptor ditches, benches, storm drains, dissipation structures, diversion dikes, retarding berms and barriers, devices to trap, store and filter out sediment, and stormwater retention basins. Off-site work by the project applicant may be necessary. The project applicant shall obtain permission or easements necessary for off-site work. There shall be a clear notation that the plan is subject to changes as changing conditions occur. Calculations of anticipated stormwater runoff and sediment volumes shall be included, if required by the City. The Plan shall specify that, after construction is complete, the project applicant shall ensure that the storm drain system shall be inspected and that the project applicant shall clear the system of any debris or sediment.

2. Erosion and Sedimentation Control During Construction: The project applicant shall implement the approved Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan. No grading shall occur during the wet Prior to approval of
construction-related
permit
During construction
Bureau of Building
N/A
N/A
Bureau of Building
Standard Conditions of Approval/Mitigation Monitoring Program (SCAMMP) Head Royce School Planned Unit Development (PUD) Project, Final EIR Page A-16 Standard Conditions of Approval/Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Implementation/Monitoring
When Required Initial Approval Monitoring/ Inspection
weather season (October 15 through April 15) unless specifically authorized in writing by the Bureau of Building.

SCA Hydro-2, State Construction General Permit: The project applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Construction General Permit issued by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). The project applicant shall submit a Notice of Intent (NOI), Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and other required Permit Registration Documents to SWRCB. The project applicant shall submit evidence of compliance with Permit requirements to the City.

Prior to approval of
construction-related
permit
State Water Resources
Control Board; evidence
of compliance submitted
to Bureau of Building
State Water Resources Control
Board
SCA Hydro-4, NPDES C.3 Stormwater Requirements for Regulated Projects

1. Post-Construction Stormwater Management Plan Required: The project applicant shall comply with the requirements of Provision C.3 of the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit issued under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). The project applicant shall submit a Post-Construction Stormwater Management Plan to the City for review and approval with the project drawings submitted for site improvements, and shall implement the approved Plan during construction. The Post-Construction Stormwater Management Plan shall include and identify the following:
a. location and size of new and replaced impervious surface b. directional surface flow of stormwater runoff
c. location of proposed on-site storm drain lines
d. site design measures to reduce the amount of impervious surface area e. source control measures to limit stormwater pollution f. stormwater treatment measures to remove pollutants from stormwater runoff, including the method used to hydraulically size the treatment measures; and hydromodification management measures, if required by Provision C.3, so that post-project stormwater runoff flow and duration match pre-project runoff.

2. Maintenance Agreement Required: The project applicant shall enter into a maintenance agreement with the City, based on the Standard City of Oakland Stormwater Treatment Measures Maintenance Agreement, in accordance with Provision C.3, which provides, in part, for the following:
a. The project applicant accepting responsibility for the adequate installation/construction, operation, maintenance, inspection, and reporting of any on-site stormwater treatment measures being incorporated into the project until the responsibility is legally transferred to another entity, and
b. Legal access to the on-site stormwater treatment measures for representatives of the City, the local vector control district, and staff of the Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Region, for purposes of verifying the implementation, operation and maintenance of the on-site stormwater treatment measures, and to take corrective action if necessary. The maintenance agreement shall be recorded at the County Recorder’s Office at the applicant’s expense.

Prior to approval of
construction-related
permit
Prior to building permit
final
Bureau of Building
Bureau of Building
Bureau of Building
Bureau of Building
Standard Conditions of Approval/Mitigation Monitoring Program (SCAMMP) Head Royce School Planned Unit Development (PUD) Project, Final EIR Page A-17 Standard Conditions of Approval/Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Implementation/Monitoring
When Required Initial Approval Monitoring/ Inspection
SCA Hydro-5, Creek Protection Plan

1. Creek Protection Plan Required: The project applicant shall submit a Creek Protection Plan for review and approval by the City. The Plan shall be included with the set of project drawings submitted to the City for site improvements and shall incorporate the contents required under section 13.16.150 of the Oakland Municipal Code including Best Management Practices (“BMPs”) during construction and after construction to protect the creek. Required BMPs are identified below.

2. Construction BMPs Requirement: The Creek Protection Plan shall incorporate all applicable erosion, sedimentation, debris, and pollution control BMPs to protect the creek during construction. The measures shall include, but are not limited to, the following:
a. On sloped properties, the downhill end of the construction area must be protected with silt fencing (such as sandbags, filter fabric, silt curtains, etc.) and hay bales oriented parallel to the contours of the slope (at a constant elevation) to prevent erosion into the creek. b. The project applicant shall implement mechanical and vegetative measures to reduce erosion and sedimentation, including appropriate seasonal maintenance. One hundred (100) percent biodegradable erosion control fabric shall be installed on all graded slopes to protect and stabilize the slopes during construction and before permanent vegetation gets established. All graded areas shall be temporarily protected from erosion by seeding with fast growing annual species. All bare slopes must be covered with staked tarps when rain is occurring, or expected.
c. Minimize the removal of natural vegetation or ground cover from the site in order to minimize the potential for erosion and sedimentation problems. Maximize the replanting of the area with native vegetation as soon as possible. d. All work in or near creek channels must be performed with hand tools and by a minimum number of people. Immediately upon completion of this work, soil must be re-packed and native vegetation planted.
e. Install filter materials (such as sandbags, filter fabric, etc.) acceptable to the City at the storm drain inlets nearest to the project site prior to the start of the wet weather season (October 15); site dewatering activities; street washing activities; saw cutting asphalt or concrete; and in order to retain any debris flowing into the City storm drain system. Filter materials shall be maintained and/or replaced as necessary to ensure effectiveness and prevent street flooding.
f. Ensure that concrete/granite supply trucks or concrete/plaster finishing operations do not discharge wash water into the creek, street gutters, or storm drains. g. Direct and locate tool and equipment cleaning so that wash water does not discharge into the creek.
h. Create a contained and covered area on the site for storage of bags of cement, paints, flammables, oils, fertilizers, pesticides, or any other materials used on the project site that Prior to approval of
construction-related
permit
Prior to approval of
construction-related
permit
Bureau of Planning
Bureau of Planning
N/A
N/A
Standard Conditions of Approval/Mitigation Monitoring Program (SCAMMP) Head Royce School Planned Unit Development (PUD) Project, Final EIR Page A-18 Standard Conditions of Approval/Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Implementation/Monitoring
When Required Initial Approval Monitoring/ Inspection
have the potential for being discharged to the creek or storm drain system by the wind or in the event of a material spill. No hazardous waste material shall be stored on site. i. Gather all construction debris on a regular basis and place it in a dumpster or other container which is emptied or removed at least on a weekly basis. When appropriate, use tarps on the ground to collect fallen debris or splatters that could contribute to stormwater pollution.
j. Remove all dirt, gravel, refuse, and green waste from the sidewalk, street pavement, and storm drain system adjoining the project site. During wet weather, avoid driving vehicles off paved areas and other outdoor work.
k. Broom sweep the street pavement adjoining the project site on a daily basis. Caked-on mud or dirt shall be scraped from these areas before sweeping. At the end of each workday, the entire site must be cleaned and secured against potential erosion, dumping, or discharge to the creek, street, gutter, or storm drains. l. All erosion and sedimentation control measures implemented during construction activities, as well as construction site and materials management shall be in strict accordance with the control standards listed in the latest edition of the Erosion and Sediment Control Field Manual published by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).
m. Temporary fencing is required for sites without existing fencing between the creek and the construction site and shall be placed along the side adjacent to construction (or both sides of the creek if applicable) at the maximum practical distance from the creek centerline.

This area shall not be disturbed during construction without prior approval of the City.

3. Post-Construction BMPs Requirement: The project shall not result in a substantial increase in stormwater runoff volume or velocity to the creek or storm drains. The Creek Protection Plan shall include site design measures to reduce the amount of impervious surface to maximum extent practicable. New drain outfalls shall include energy dissipation to slow the velocity of the water at the point of outflow to maximize infiltration and minimize erosion.

4. Creek Landscaping Requirement: The project applicant shall include final landscaping details for the site on the Creek Protection Plan, or on a Landscape Plan, for review and approval by the City. Landscaping information shall include a planting schedule, detailing plant types and locations, and a system to ensure adequate irrigation of plantings for at least one growing season. Plant and maintain only drought-tolerant plants on the site where appropriate as well as native and riparian plants in and adjacent to riparian corridors. Along the riparian corridor, native plants shall not be disturbed to the maximum extent feasible. Any areas disturbed along the riparian corridor shall be replanted with mature native riparian vegetation and be maintained to ensure survival.

5. Creek Protection Plan Implementation Requirement: The project applicant shall implement the approved Creek Protection Plan during and after construction. During construction, the Prior to approval of
construction-related
permit
Prior to approval of
construction-related
permit
Bureau of Planning
Bureau of Planning
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bureau of Building
Standard Conditions of Approval/Mitigation Monitoring Program (SCAMMP) Head Royce School Planned Unit Development (PUD) Project, Final EIR Page A-19 Standard Conditions of Approval/Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Implementation/Monitoring
When Required Initial Approval Monitoring/ Inspection
project applicant shall regularly monitor all erosion, sedimentation, debris, and pollution control. The City may require that a qualified consultant (paid for by the project applicant) inspect the control measures and submit a written report of the adequacy of the control measures to the City. If measures are deemed inadequate, the project applicant shall develop and implement additional and more effective measures immediately.

During construction;
ongoing
SCA Hydro-6, Vegetation Management on Creekside Properties: The project applicant shall comply with the following requirements when managing vegetation prior to, during, and after construction of the project:

1. identify and leave “islands” of vegetation in order to prevent erosion and landslides and protect habitat

2. trim tree branches from the ground up (limb-up) and leave tree canopy intact

3. leave stumps and roots from cut down trees to prevent erosion

4. plant fire-appropriate, drought-tolerant, preferably native vegetation

5. provide erosion and sediment control protection if cutting vegetation on a steep slope

6. fence off sensitive plant habitats and creek areas if implementing goat grazing for vegetation management

7. obtain a Tree Permit before removing a Protected Tree (any tree 9 inches diameter at breast height or dbh or greater and any oak tree 4 inches dbh or greater, except eucalyptus and Monterey pine)

8. do not clear-cut vegetation - this can lead to erosion and severe water quality problems and destroy important habitat

9. Do not remove vegetation within 20 feet of the top of the creek bank. If the top of bank cannot be identified, do not cut within 50 feet of the centerline of the creek or as wide a buffer as possible between the creek centerline and the development

10. do not trim/prune branches that are larger than 4 inches in diameter

11. do not remove tree canopy

12. do not dump cut vegetation in the creek

13. do not cut tall shrubbery to less than 3 feet high, and

14. do not cut short vegetation (e.g., grasses, ground-cover) to less than 6 inches high Ongoing N/A Bureau of Building
Noise and Vibration
SCA Noise-1, Construction Days/Hours: The project applicant shall comply with the following restrictions concerning construction days and hours:

1. Construction activities are limited to between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, except that pier drilling and/or other extreme noise generating activities greater than 90 dBA shall be limited to between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.

2. Construction activities are limited to between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturday. In residential zones and within 300 feet of a residential zone, construction activities are allowed During construction N/A Bureau of Building
Standard Conditions of Approval/Mitigation Monitoring Program (SCAMMP) Head Royce School Planned Unit Development (PUD) Project, Final EIR Page A-20 Standard Conditions of Approval/Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Implementation/Monitoring
When Required Initial Approval Monitoring/ Inspection
from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. only within the interior of the building with the doors and windows closed. No pier drilling or other extreme noise generating activities greater than 90 dBA are allowed on Saturday.

3. No construction is allowed on Sunday or federal holidays.

Construction activities include, but are not limited to, truck idling, moving equipment (including trucks, elevators, etc.) or materials, deliveries, and construction meetings held on-site in a nonenclosed area.

Any construction activity proposed outside of the above days and hours for special activities (such as concrete pouring which may require more continuous amounts of time) shall be evaluated on a caseby-case basis by the City, with criteria including the urgency/emergency nature of the work, the proximity of residential or other sensitive uses, and a consideration of nearby residents’/occupants’ preferences. The project applicant shall notify property owners and occupants located within 300 feet at least 14 calendar days prior to construction activity proposed outside of the above days/hours. When submitting a request to the City to allow construction activity outside of the above days/hours, the project applicant shall submit information concerning the type and duration of proposed construction activity and the draft public notice for City review and approval prior to distribution of the public notice.

SCA Noise-2, Construction Noise: The project applicant shall implement noise reduction measures to reduce noise impacts due to construction. Noise reduction measures include, but are not limited to, the following:

1. Equipment and trucks used for project construction shall utilize the best available noise control techniques (e.g., improved mufflers, equipment redesign, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures and acoustically attenuating shields or shrouds) wherever feasible.

2. Except as provided herein, impact tools (e.g., jackhammers, pavement breakers, and rock drills) used for project construction shall be hydraulically or electrically powered to avoid noise associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically powered tools. However, where use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust shall be used; this muffler can lower noise levels from the exhaust by up to about 10 dBA. External jackets on the tools themselves shall be used, if such jackets are commercially available, and this could achieve a reduction of 5 dBA. Quieter procedures shall be used, such as drills rather than impact equipment, whenever such procedures are available and consistent with construction procedures.

3. Applicant shall use temporary power poles instead of generators where feasible

4. Stationary noise sources shall be located as far from adjacent properties as possible, and they shall be muffled and enclosed within temporary sheds, incorporate insulation barriers, or use other measures as determined by the City to provide equivalent noise reduction.

During construction N/A Bureau of Building
Standard Conditions of Approval/Mitigation Monitoring Program (SCAMMP) Head Royce School Planned Unit Development (PUD) Project, Final EIR Page A-21 Standard Conditions of Approval/Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Implementation/Monitoring
When Required Initial Approval Monitoring/ Inspection

5. The noisiest phases of construction shall be limited to less than 10 days at a time. Exceptions may be allowed if the City determines an extension is necessary and all available noise reduction controls are implemented.

SCA Noise-3, Extreme Construction Noise

1. Construction Noise Management Plan Required: Prior to any extreme noise generating construction activities (e.g., pier drilling, pile driving and other activities generating greater than 90dBA), the project applicant shall submit a Construction Noise Management Plan. This Plan shall e prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant for City review and approval that contains a set of site-specific noise attenuation measures to further reduce construction impacts associated with extreme noise generating activities. The project applicant shall implement the approved Plan during construction. Potential attenuation measures include, but are not limited to, the following:
a. Erect temporary plywood noise barriers around the construction site, particularly along on sites adjacent to residential buildings;
b. Implement “quiet” pile driving technology (such as pre-drilling of piles, the use of more than one pile driver to shorten the total pile driving duration), where feasible, in consideration of geotechnical and structural requirements and conditions; c. Utilize noise control blankets on the building structure as the building is erected to reduce noise emission from the site;
d. Evaluate the feasibility of noise control at the receivers by temporarily improving the noise reduction capability of adjacent buildings by the use of sound blankets for example and implement such measure if such measures are feasible and would noticeably reduce noise impacts; and
e. Monitor the effectiveness of noise attenuation measures by taking noise measurements.

2. Public Notification Required: The project applicant shall notify property owners and occupants located within 300 feet of the construction activities at least 14 calendar days prior to commencing extreme noise generating activities. Prior to providing the notice, the project applicant shall submit to the City for review and approval the proposed type and duration of extreme noise generating activities and the proposed public notice. The public notice shall provide the estimated start and end dates of the extreme noise-generating activities, and describe noise attenuation measures to be implemented.

Prior to approval of
construction-related
permit
During construction
Bureau of Building
Bureau of Building
Bureau of Building
Bureau of Building
SCA Noise-4, Project-Specific Construction Noise Reduction Measures: The project applicant shall submit a Construction Noise Management Plan prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant for City review and approval that contains a set of site-specific noise attenuation measures to further reduce construction noise impacts on adjacent sensitive receptors or businesses. The project applicant shall implement the approved Plan during construction.

Prior to approval of
construction-related
permit
Bureau of Building Bureau of Building
Standard Conditions of Approval/Mitigation Monitoring Program (SCAMMP) Head Royce School Planned Unit Development (PUD) Project, Final EIR Page A-22 Standard Conditions of Approval/Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Implementation/Monitoring
When Required Initial Approval Monitoring/ Inspection
SCA Noise-5, Construction Noise Complaints: The project applicant shall submit to the City for review and approval a set of procedures for responding to and tracking complaints received pertaining to construction noise, and shall implement the procedures during construction. At a minimum, the procedures shall include:

1. Designation of an on-site construction complaint and enforcement manager for the project;

2. A large on-site sign near the public right-of-way containing permitted construction days/hours, complaint procedures, and phone numbers for the project complaint manager and City Code Enforcement unit;

3. Protocols for receiving, responding to, and tracking received complaints; and

4. Maintenance of a complaint log that records received complaints and how complaints were addressed, which shall be submitted to the City for review upon the City’s request.

Prior to approval of
construction-related
permit
Bureau of Building Bureau of Building
SCA Noise-7, Operational Noise: Noise levels from the project site after completion of the project (i.e., during project operation) shall comply with the performance standards of chapter 17.120 of the Oakland Planning Code and chapter 8.18 of the Oakland Municipal Code. If noise levels exceed these standards, the activity causing the noise shall be abated until appropriate noise reduction measures have been installed and compliance verified by the City.

Ongoing N/A Bureau of Building
Recommendation Noise-2, Audible Pedestrian Crosswalk Signals: During installation the audible pedestrian crosswalk signal at the lower driveway of the Loop Road, the volume levels should be set according to the following guidance:
a) The WALK indication must be audible from the beginning of the associated crosswalk. b) The pushbutton locator tones must be responsive to ambient sound levels and audible at a distance of 6 to 12 feet from the pushbutton, or to the building line, whichever is less. c) The audible pedestrian crossing signal microphone should be mounted as close as possible to the position of the pedestrian who is waiting to cross the associated street. d) Manufacturers typically set a default maximum and minimum output level on signal devices.

The settings should be checked.
e) At no time should sound be more than 5 dB above ambient sound (except by special actuation for audible beaconing).
f) The sound level of the crosswalk signal speakers must be carefully set and evaluated at the time of installation, and then checked at a time with different traffic volumes to assure that settings are correct. It is better to install pedestrian signals with volumes that may be too low and adjust upwards as needed. If volumes are set too high initially, problems can arise with neighboring residents.
g) Audible pedestrian crosswalk signals that respond to ambient sound are available. However, pre-set automatic volume adjustment or automatic gain controls cannot assure that the volume meets the criterion above. With the selection of signals that respond to ambient sound, the above practices should be undertaken at several time during the daytime and Prior to approval of
construction-related
permit
Bureau of Building Bureau of Building
Standard Conditions of Approval/Mitigation Monitoring Program (SCAMMP) Head Royce School Planned Unit Development (PUD) Project, Final EIR Page A-23 Standard Conditions of Approval/Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Implementation/Monitoring
When Required Initial Approval Monitoring/ Inspection
nighttime period to ensure that the response is appropriate to meet the needs of the pedestrians, while not causing conflicts with adjacent neighbors.

Mitigation Measure Noise-2, Loading Dock Noise Reduction Strategies: The following measured are recommended to reduce noise generated during loading dock activities:
a) Prohibit unnecessary idling of delivery vehicles
b) Avoid noise generating events such as the slamming of gates and loading doors and the dropping of materials.

During Operations Bureau of Building Bureau of Building Mitigation Measure Noise-3, Special Event Notifications and Restrictions: The following requirements pertaining to School-sponsored Special Events at the Project site shall be implemented:
a) Ensure that all evening events at the Performing Arts Center are completed by 9:00 pm, with all post event gatherings, event traffic, and exterior clean-up activities completed by 10:00 pm.
b) Notify residences in the surrounding area of scheduled large outdoor events, including upper school graduation and lower and middle school promotion. Notification should be given at the time of the release of the annual school calendar and again within a few weeks of the event.

Ongoing N/A Bureau of Building
SCA Noise-8, Vibration Impacts on Adjacent Structures or Vibration-Sensitive Activities: The project applicant shall submit a Vibration Analysis prepared by an acoustical and/or structural engineer or other appropriate qualified professional for City review and approval that establishes preconstruction baseline conditions and threshold levels of vibration that could damage the structure and/or substantially interfere with activities. The Vibration Analysis shall identify design means and methods of construction that shall be utilized in order to not exceed the thresholds. The applicant shall implement the recommendations during construction.

Prior to approval of
construction-related
permit
Bureau of Building Bureau of Building
Mitigation Measure Noise-5, Vibration Reduction near Historic Structures: Although impacts to onsite properties would not normally be considered an impact under CEQA, the following practices are recommended to minimize damage to on-site historic structures. a) Avoid the use of vibratory rollers and other heavy construction equipment within 20 feet of on-site Buildings 0, 1, and 2.
b) Use smaller equipment to minimize vibration levels below the limits. c) Select demolition methods not involving impact tools. d) Avoid dropping heavy objects or materials near on-site Buildings 0, 1, and 2.

During construction N/A Bureau of Building
Transportation and Circulation
SCA Transportation-1: Construction Activity in the Public Right-of-Way

1. Obstruction Permit Required: The project applicant shall obtain an obstruction permit from the City prior to placing any temporary construction-related obstruction in the public right-ofway, including City streets, sidewalks, bicycle facilities, and bus stops.

Prior to approval of
construction-related
permit
Bureau of Building Bureau of Building
Standard Conditions of Approval/Mitigation Monitoring Program (SCAMMP) Head Royce School Planned Unit Development (PUD) Project, Final EIR Page A-24 Standard Conditions of Approval/Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Implementation/Monitoring
When Required Initial Approval Monitoring/ Inspection

2. Traffic Control Plan Required: In the event of obstructions to vehicle or bicycle travel lanes, bus stops, or sidewalks, the project applicant shall submit a Traffic Control Plan to the City for review and approval prior to obtaining an obstruction permit. The project applicant shall submit evidence of City approval of the Traffic Control Plan with the application for an obstruction permit. The Traffic Control Plan shall contain a set of comprehensive traffic control measures for auto, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian accommodations (or detours, if accommodations are not feasible), including detour signs if required, lane closure procedures, signs, cones for drivers, and designated construction access routes. The Traffic Control Plan shall be in conformance with the City’s Supplemental Design Guidance for Accommodating Pedestrians, Bicyclists, and Bus Facilities in Construction Zones. The project applicant shall implement the approved Plan during construction.

3. Repair of City Streets: The project applicant shall repair any damage to the public right-of way, including streets and sidewalks, caused by project construction at his/her expense within one week of the occurrence of the damage (or excessive wear), unless further damage/excessive wear may continue. In such case, repair shall occur prior to approval of the final inspection of the construction-related permit. All damage that is a threat to public health or safety shall be repaired immediately.

Prior to approval of
construction-related
permit
Prior to building permit
final
Department of
Transportation
N/A
Department of Transportation
Department of Transportation
SCA Transportation-2, Bicycle Parking: The project applicant shall comply with the City of Oakland Bicycle Parking Requirements (chapter 17.118 of the Oakland Planning Code). The project drawings submitted for construction-related permits shall demonstrate compliance with the requirements.

Prior to approval of
construction-related
permit
Bureau of Planning Bureau of Building
SCA Transportation-4: Transportation and Parking Demand Management 1: Transportation and Parking Demand Management (TDM) Plan Required: The project applicant shall submit a Transportation and Parking Demand Management (TDM) Plan for review and approval by the City.

A. The goals of the TDM Plan shall be the following:

1. Reduce vehicle traffic and parking demand generated by the project to the maximum extent practicable.

2. Achieve the following project vehicle trip reductions (VTR): Projects generating 50-99 net new a.m. or p.m. peak hour vehicle trips: 10 percent VTR, and Projects generating 100 or more net new a.m. or p.m. peak hour vehicle trips: 20 percent VTR

3. Increase pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and carpool/vanpool modes of travel. All four modes of travel shall be considered, as appropriate.

4. Enhance the City’s transportation system, consistent with City policies and programs.

B. The TDM Plan should include the following:

1. Baseline existing conditions of parking and curbside regulations within the surrounding neighborhood that could affect the effectiveness of TDM strategies, including inventory of parking spaces and occupancy if applicable.

2. Proposed TDM strategies to achieve VTR goals (see below).

Prior to approval of
planning application
Bureau of Planning N/A
Standard Conditions of Approval/Mitigation Monitoring Program (SCAMMP) Head Royce School Planned Unit Development (PUD) Project, Final EIR Page A-25 Standard Conditions of Approval/Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Implementation/Monitoring
When Required Initial Approval Monitoring/ Inspection

3. For employers with 100 or more employees at the subject site, the TDM Plan shall also comply with the requirements of Oakland Municipal Code Chapter 10.68 Employer-Based Trip Reduction Program.

C. The following TDM strategies must be incorporated into a TDM Plan based on a project location or other characteristics. When required, these mandatory strategies should be identified as a credit toward a project’s VTR.

1. Bus boarding bulbs or islands as required by Code or when: A bus boarding bulb or island does not already exist and a bus stop is located along the project frontage; and/or a bus stop along the project frontage serves a route with 15 minutes or better peak hour service and has a shared bus-bike lane curb

2. Bus shelter as required by Code or when: A stop with no shelter is located within the project frontage, or the project is located within 0.10 miles of a flag stop with 25 or more boardings per day

3. Concrete bus pad as required by Code or when: A bus stop is located along the project frontage and a concrete bus pad does not already exist

4. Curb extensions or bulb-outs as required by Code or when identified as an improvement within site analysis

5. Implementation of a corridor-level bikeway improvement as required by Code or when: A buffered Class II or Class IV bikeway facility is in a local or county adopted plan within 0.10 miles of the project location; and the project would generate 500 or more daily bicycle trips

6. Implementation of a corridor-level transit capital improvement as required by Code or when: A high-quality transit facility is in a local or county adopted plan within 0.25 miles of the project location; and the project would generate 400 or more peak period transit trips

7. Installation of amenities such as lighting; pedestrian-oriented green infrastructure, trees, or other greening landscape; and trash receptacles per the Pedestrian Master Plan and any applicable streetscape plan: always required

8. Installation of safety improvements identified in the Pedestrian Master Plan (such as crosswalk striping, curb ramps, count down signals, bulb outs, etc.) as required by Code or when: Improvements are identified in the Pedestrian Master Plan along project frontage or at an adjacent intersection

9. In-street bicycle corral as required by Code or when a project includes more than 10,000 square feet of ground floor retail, is located along a Tier 1 bikeway, and on-street vehicle parking is provided along the project frontages.

10. Intersection improvements (including but not limited to visibility improvements, shortening corner radii, pedestrian safety islands, accounting for pedestrian desire lines) as required by Code or when identified as an improvement within site analysis Standard Conditions of Approval/Mitigation Monitoring Program (SCAMMP) Head Royce School Planned Unit Development (PUD) Project, Final EIR Page A-26 Standard Conditions of Approval/Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Implementation/Monitoring
When Required Initial Approval Monitoring/ Inspection

11. New sidewalk, curb ramps, curb and gutter meeting current City and ADA standards - always required

12. No monthly permits and establish minimum price floor for public parking (may also provide a cash incentive or transit pass alternative to a free parking space in commercial properties) as required by Code or if proposed parking ratio exceeds 1:1000 sf. (commercial)

13. Parking garage is designed with retrofit capability as required by Code or optional if proposed parking ratio exceeds 1:1.25 (residential) or 1:1000 sf. (commercial)

14. Parking space reserved for car share as required by Code or when a project is providing parking and the project is located within downtown. One car share space reserved for buildings between 50 – 200 units, then one car share space per 200 units.

15. Paving, lane striping or restriping (vehicle and bicycle), and signs to midpoint of street section - typically required

16. Pedestrian crossing Improvements as required by Code or when identified as an improvement within site analysis

17. Pedestrian-supportive signal changes as required by Code or when identified as an improvement within operations analysis

18. Real-time transit information system as required by Code or when: A project frontage block includes a bus stop or BART station and is along a Tier 1 transit route with 2 or more routes or peak period frequency of 15 minutes or better

19. Relocating bus stops to far side as required by Code or when a project is located within

0.10 mile of any active bus stop that is currently near-side

20. Signal upgrades (including typical traffic lights, pedestrian signals, bike actuated signals, transit-only signals) as required by Code or when Project size exceeds 100 residential units, 80,000 sf. of retail or 100,000 sf. of commercial; and Project frontage abuts an intersection with signal infrastructure older than 15 years

21. Transit queue jumps as required by Code or when identified as a needed improvement within operations analysis of a project with frontage along a Tier 1 transit route with 2 or more routes or peak period frequency of 15 minutes or better

22. Trenching and placement of conduit for providing traffic signal interconnect as required by Code or when Project size exceeds 100 units, 80,000 sf. Of retail, or 100,000 sf. of commercial; and Project frontage block is identified for signal interconnect improvements as part of a planned ITS improvement; and a major transit improvement is identified within operations analysis requiring traffic signal interconnect

23. Unbundled parking as required by Code or if proposed parking ratio exceeds 1:1.25 (residential)
D. Other TDM strategies to consider include, but are not limited to, the following:

Standard Conditions of Approval/Mitigation Monitoring Program (SCAMMP) Head Royce School Planned Unit Development (PUD) Project, Final EIR Page A-27 Standard Conditions of Approval/Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Implementation/Monitoring
When Required Initial Approval Monitoring/ Inspection

1. Inclusion of additional long-term and short-term bicycle parking that meets the design standards set forth in chapter five of the Bicycle Master Plan and the Bicycle Parking Ordinance (chapter 17.117 of the Oakland Planning Code), and shower and locker facilities in commercial developments that exceed the requirement.

2. Construction of and/or access to bikeways per the Bicycle Master Plan; construction of priority bikeways, on-site signage and bike lane striping

3. Installation of safety elements per the Pedestrian Master Plan (such as crosswalk striping, curb ramps, count down signals, bulb outs, etc.) to encourage convenient and safe crossing at arterials, in addition to safety elements required to address safety impacts of the project.

4. Installation of amenities such as lighting, street trees, and trash receptacles per the Pedestrian Master Plan, the Master Street Tree List and Tree Planting Guidelines and any applicable streetscape plan.

5. Construction and development of transit stops/shelters, pedestrian access, way finding signage, and lighting around transit stops per transit agency plans or negotiated improvements.

6. Direct on-site sales of transit passes purchased and sold at a bulk group rate (through programs such as AC Transit Easy Pass or a similar program through another transit agency).

7. Provision of a transit subsidy to employees or residents, determined by the project applicant and subject to review by the City, if employees or residents use transit or commute by other alternative modes.

8. Provision of an ongoing contribution to transit service to the area between the project and nearest mass transit station prioritized as follows: 1) Contribution to AC Transit bus service; 2) Contribution to an existing area shuttle service; and 3) Establishment of new shuttle service. The amount of contribution (for any of the above scenarios) would be based upon the cost of establishing new shuttle service (Scenario 3).

9. Guaranteed ride home program for employees, either through 511.org or through separate program.

10. Pre-tax commuter benefits (commuter checks) for employees

11. Free designated parking spaces for on-site car-sharing program (such as City Car Share, Zip Car, etc.) and/or car-share membership for employees or tenants.

12. On-site carpooling and/or vanpool program that includes preferential (discounted or free) parking for carpools and vanpools

13. Distribution of information concerning alternative transportation options

14. Parking spaces sold/leased separately for residential units. Charge employees for parking, or provide a cash incentive or transit pass alternative to a free parking space in commercial properties.

Standard Conditions of Approval/Mitigation Monitoring Program (SCAMMP) Head Royce School Planned Unit Development (PUD) Project, Final EIR Page A-28 Standard Conditions of Approval/Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Implementation/Monitoring
When Required Initial Approval Monitoring/ Inspection

15. Parking management strategies including attendant/valet parking and shared parking spaces

16. Requiring tenants to provide opportunities and the ability to work off-site

17. Allow employees or residents to adjust their work schedule in order to complete the basic work requirement of five eight-hour workdays by adjusting their schedule to reduce vehicle trips to the worksite (e.g., working four, ten-hour days; allowing employees to work from home two days per week).

18. Provide or require tenants to provide employees with staggered work hours involving a shift in the set work hours of all employees at the workplace or flexible work hours involving individually determined work hours.

E. The TDM Plan shall indicate the estimated VTR for each strategy, based on published research or guidelines where feasible. For TDM Plans containing ongoing operational VTR strategies, the Plan shall include an ongoing monitoring and enforcement program to ensure the Plan is implemented on an ongoing basis during project operation. If an annual compliance report is required, as explained below, the TDM Plan shall also specify the topics to be addressed in the annual report.

2. TDM Implementation – Physical Improvement Requirements: For VTR strategies involving physical improvements, the project applicant shall obtain the necessary permits/approvals from the City and install the improvements prior to the completion of the project.

3. TDM Implementation – Operational Strategy Requirements: For projects that generate 100 or more net new a.m. or p.m. peak hour vehicle trips and contain ongoing operational VTR strategies, the project applicant shall submit an annual compliance report for the first five years following completion of the project (or completion of each phase for phased projects) for review and approval by the City. The annual report shall document the status and effectiveness of the TDM program, including the actual VTR achieved by the project during operation. If deemed necessary, the City may elect to have a peer review consultant, paid for by the project applicant, review the annual report. If timely reports are not submitted and/or the annual reports indicate that the project applicant has failed to implement the TDM Plan, the project will be considered in violation of the Conditions of Approval and the City may initiate enforcement action as provided for in these Conditions of Approval. The project shall not be considered in violation of this Condition if the TDM Plan is implemented but the VTR goal is not achieved.

Prior to building permit
final
Ongoing
Bureau of Building
Department of
Transportation
Bureau of Building
Department of Transportation
SCA Transportation-5, Transportation Impact Fee: The project applicant shall comply with the requirements of the City of Oakland Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance (chapter 15.74 of the Oakland Municipal Code).

Prior to issuance of
building permit
Bureau of Building N/A
SCA Transportation-6, Plug-In Electric Vehicle (PEV) Charging Infrastructure

1. PEV-Ready Parking Spaces: The applicant shall submit, for review and approval of the Building Official and the Zoning Manager, plans that show the location of parking spaces equipped with full electrical circuits designated for future PEV charging (i.e. “PEV-Ready) per the Prior to Issuance of
Building Permit
Bureau of Building Bureau of Building
Standard Conditions of Approval/Mitigation Monitoring Program (SCAMMP) Head Royce School Planned Unit Development (PUD) Project, Final EIR Page A-29 Standard Conditions of Approval/Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Implementation/Monitoring
When Required Initial Approval Monitoring/ Inspection
requirements of Chapter 15.04 of the Oakland Municipal Code. Building electrical plans shall indicate sufficient electrical capacity to supply the required PEV-Ready parking spaces.

2. PEV-Capable Parking Spaces: The applicant shall submit, for review and approval of the Building Official, plans that show the location of inaccessible conduit to supply PEV-capable parking spaces per the requirements of Chapter 15.04 of the Oakland Municipal Code.

Building electrical plans shall indicate sufficient electrical capacity to supply the required PEVcapable parking spaces.

3. ADA-Accessible Spaces: The applicant shall submit, for review and approval of the Building Official, plans that show the location of future accessible EV parking spaces as required under Title 24 Chapter 11B Table 11B-228.3.2.1, and specify plans to construct all future accessible EV parking spaces with appropriate grade, vertical clearance, and accessible path of travel to allow installation of accessible EV charging station(s).

Mitigation Measure Transportation-1, TDM Performance Requirement: Once the School exceeds a student enrollment of 906 students, the School shall commit to maintain an average of 34.5% (or 15% greater than its prior requirement of 30%) of its school-year student enrollment traveling by modes other than single occupancy vehicles (i.e., a 34.5% TDM rate). To monitor and enforce this TDM rate, a survey of alternative travel modes and on-site monitoring by an independent third party shall occur during each of two independent monitoring periods carried out during the school year, and the counts shall be averaged over the two (2) monitoring periods. However, the School may elect to conduct additional third party monitoring, and the counts shall be averaged over all of the academic year monitoring periods. Alternative travel modes shall include walking, biking, carpooling or taking a bus.

Two times per year Bureau of Planning Bureau of Building Utilities and Service Systems
SCA Utilities-1, Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance: The project applicant shall comply with California’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (WELO) in order to reduce landscape water usage.

For any landscape project with an aggregate (total noncontiguous) landscape area over 2,500 sq. ft., the project applicant shall implement the Performance Measures in accordance with the WELO. Prior to construction, the project applicant shall submit the Project Information (detailed below) and documentation showing compliance with Appendix D of California’s Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance.
a. Performance Measures: Prior to construction, the project applicant shall prepare and submit a Landscape Documentation Package for review and approval, including the following:

1. Project information (date, applicant and property owner name, project address, total landscape area, project type (new, rehabilitated, cemetery, or home owner installed), water supply type and water purveyor, checklist of documents in the package, project contact information, and applicant signature and date with the statement: “I agree to Prior to approval of
construction-related
permit
Bureau of Planning Bureau of Building
Standard Conditions of Approval/Mitigation Monitoring Program (SCAMMP) Head Royce School Planned Unit Development (PUD) Project, Final EIR Page A-30 Standard Conditions of Approval/Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Implementation/Monitoring
When Required Initial Approval Monitoring/ Inspection
comply with the requirements of the water efficient landscape ordinance and submit a complete Landscape Documentation Package.”

2. Water Efficient Landscape Worksheet, including Hydro-zone Information Table and Water Budget Calculations with Maximum Applied Water Allowance (MAWA) and Estimated Total Water Use

3. Soil Management Report

4. Landscape Design Plan

5. Irrigation Design Plan, and

6. Grading Plan
b. Upon installation of the landscaping and irrigation systems, and prior to the final of a construction-related permit, the Project applicant shall submit a Certificate of Completion, and landscape and irrigation maintenance schedule, for review and approval by the City. The Certificate of Completion shall also be submitted to the local water purveyor and property owner or his or her designee.

SCA Utilities-2, Green Building Requirements

1. Compliance with Green Building Requirements during Plan-Check: The project applicant shall comply with the requirements of the California Green Building Standards (CALGreen) mandatory measures and the applicable requirements of the City of Oakland Green Building Ordinance (chapter 18.02 of the Oakland Municipal Code)

2. Compliance with Green Building Requirements during Construction: The project applicant shall comply with the applicable requirements of CALGreen and the Oakland Green Building Ordinance during construction of the project.

3. Compliance with Green Building Requirements after Construction: Prior to the finalizing the Building Permit, the Green Building Certifier shall submit the appropriate documentation to City staff and attain the minimum required point level.

Prior to approval of
construction-related
permit
During construction
Prior to final approval
Bureau of Planning Bureau of Building
SCA Utilities-3, Sanitary Sewer System: The project applicant shall prepare and submit a Sanitary Sewer Impact Analysis to the City for review and approval in accordance with the City of Oakland Sanitary Sewer Design Guidelines. The Impact Analysis shall include an estimate of pre-project and post-project wastewater flow from the project site. In the event that the Impact Analysis indicates that the net increase in project wastewater flow exceeds City-projected increases in wastewater flow in the sanitary sewer system, the project applicant shall pay the Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee in accordance with the City’s Master Fee Schedule for funding improvements to the sanitary sewer system.

Prior to approval of
construction-related
permit
Public Works Department,
Department of
Engineering and
Construction
N/A
SCA Utilities-4, Underground Utilities: The project applicant shall place underground all new utilities serving the project and under the control of the project applicant and the City, including all new gas, electric, cable, and telephone facilities, fire alarm conduits, street light wiring, and other wiring, conduits, and similar facilities. The new facilities shall be placed underground along the project’s During construction N/A Bureau of Building
Standard Conditions of Approval/Mitigation Monitoring Program (SCAMMP) Head Royce School Planned Unit Development (PUD) Project, Final EIR Page A-31 Standard Conditions of Approval/Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Implementation/Monitoring
When Required Initial Approval Monitoring/ Inspection
street frontage and from the project structures to the point of service. Utilities under the control of other agencies, such as PG&E, shall be placed underground if feasible. All utilities shall be installed in accordance with standard specifications of the serving utilities.

SCA Utilities-5, Construction and Demolition Waste Reduction and Recycling: The project applicant shall comply with the City of Oakland Construction and Demolition Waste Reduction and Recycling Ordinance (chapter 15.34 of the Oakland Municipal Code) by submitting a Construction and Demolition Waste Reduction and Recycling Plan (WRRP) for City review and approval, and shall implement the approved WRRP. Projects subject to these requirements include all new construction, renovations/alterations/modifications with construction values of $50,000 or more (except R-3 type construction), and all demolition (including soft demolition) except demolition of type R-3 construction. The WRRP must specify the methods by which the project will divert construction and demolition debris waste from landfill disposal in accordance with current City requirements. The WRRP may be submitted electronically at www.greenhalosystems.com or manually at the City’s Green Building Resource Center. Current standards, FAQs, and forms are available on the City’s website and in the Green Building Resource Center.

Prior to approval of
construction-related
permit
Public Works Department,
Environmental Services
Division
Public Works Department,
Environmental Services Division
SCA Utilities-6, Recycling Collection and Storage Space: The project applicant shall comply with the City of Oakland Recycling Space Allocation Ordinance (chapter 17.118 of the Oakland Planning Code).

The project drawings submitted for construction-related permits shall contain recycling collection and storage areas in compliance with the Ordinance. For residential projects, at least two (2) cubic feet of storage and collection space per residential unit is required, with a minimum of ten (10) cubic feet.

For non-residential projects, at least two (2) cubic feet of storage and collection space per 1,000 square feet of building floor area is required, with a minimum of ten (10) cubic feet.

Prior to approval of
construction-related
permit
Bureau of Planning Bureau of Building
SCA Utilities-7, Storm Drain System: The project storm drainage system shall be designed in accordance with the City of Oakland’s Storm Drainage Design Guidelines. To the maximum extent practicable, peak stormwater runoff from the project site shall be reduced by at least 25 percent compared to the pre-project condition.

Prior to approval of
construction-related
permit
Bureau of Building Bureau of Building
Wildfire
SCA Fire-1, Designated Very High Fire Severity Zone – Vegetation Management a. Vegetation Management Plan Required: The project applicant shall submit a Vegetation Management Plan for City review and approval, and shall implement the approved Plan prior to, during, and after construction of the project. The Vegetation Management Plan may be combined with the Landscape Plan otherwise required by the Conditions of Approval. The Vegetation Management Plan shall include, at a minimum, the following measures:

1. Removal of all tree branches and vegetation that overhang the horizontal building roof line and chimney areas within 10 feet vertically

2. Removal of leaves and needles from roofs and rain gutters Prior to approval of
construction-related
permit
Oakland Fire Department Oakland Fire Department
Standard Conditions of Approval/Mitigation Monitoring Program (SCAMMP) Head Royce School Planned Unit Development (PUD) Project, Final EIR Page A-32 Standard Conditions of Approval/Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Implementation/Monitoring
When Required Initial Approval Monitoring/ Inspection

3. Planting and placement of fire-resistant plants around the house and phasing out flammable vegetation, however, ornamental vegetation shall not be planted within 5 feet of the foundation of the residential structure

4. Trimming back vegetation around windows

5. Removal of flammable vegetation on hillside slopes greater than 20%; Defensible space requirements shall clear all hillsides of non-ornamental vegetation within 30 feet of the residential structure on slopes of 5% or less, within 50 feet on slopes of 5 to 20% and within 100 feet or to the property line on slopes greater than 20%

6. All trees shall be pruned up at least ¼ the height of the tree from the ground at the base of the trunk

7. Clearing out ground-level brush and debris; and All non-ornamental plants, seasonal weeds & grasses, brush, leaf litter and debris within 30 feet of the residential structure shall be cut, raked and removed from the parcel

8. Stacking woodpiles away from structures at least 20 feet from residential structures

9. If a biological report, prepared by a qualified biologist and reviewed by the Bureau of Planning, identifies threatened or endangered species on the parcel, the Vegetation Management Plan shall include islands of habitat refuge for the species noted on a site plan and appropriate fencing for the species shall be installed. Clearing of vegetation within these islands of refuge shall occur solely for the purpose of fire suppression within a designated Very High Fire Severity Zone and only upon the Fire Code Official approving specific methods and timeframes for clearing that take into account the specific flora and fauna species.
b. Fire Safety Prior to Construction: The project plans shall specify that prior to construction, the project applicant shall ensure that the project contractor cuts, rakes and removes all combustible ground level vegetation project to a height of 6” or less from the construction, access and staging areas to reduce the threat of fire ignition per Sections 304.1.1 and 304.1.2 of the California Fire Code.
c. Fire Safety during Construction: The project applicant shall require the construction contractor to implement spark arrestors on all construction vehicles and equipment to minimize accidental ignition of dry construction debris and surrounding dry vegetation. Per section 906 of the California Fire Code, during construction, the contractor shall have at minimum three (3) type 2A10BC fire extinguishers present on the job site, with current SFM service tags attached and these extinguishers shall be deployed in the immediate presence of workers for use in the event of an ignition.
d. Smoking Prohibition: The project applicant shall require the construction contractor to implement a no smoking policy on the site and surrounding area during construction, per Section 310.8 of the California Fire Code.

Prior to approval of
construction-related
permit
During construction
During construction
Oakland Fire Department
N/A
N/A
Oakland Fire Department
Bureau of Building
Bureau of Building and Oakland
Fire Department
Standard Conditions of Approval/Mitigation Monitoring Program (SCAMMP) Head Royce School Planned Unit Development (PUD) Project, Final EIR Page A-33 Standard Conditions of Approval/Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Implementation/Monitoring
When Required Initial Approval Monitoring/ Inspection
SCA Fire-2, Fire Safety Phasing Plan: The project applicant shall submit a Fire Safety Phasing Plan for City review and approval, and shall implement the approved Plan. The Fire Safety Phasing Plan shall include all of the fire safety features incorporated into each phase of the project and the schedule for implementation of the features.

Prior to approval of
construction-related
permit
Oakland Fire Department Bureau of Building
SCA Fire-3, Compliance with Other Requirements: The project applicant shall comply with all other applicable federal, state, regional, and local laws/codes, requirements, regulations, and guidelines, including but not limited to those imposed by the City’s Bureau of Building, Fire Marshal, Department of Transportation, and Public Works Department. Compliance with other applicable requirements may require changes to the approved use and/or plans.

Mitigation Measure Wildfire and Emergency Evacuation-1, Emergency Evacuation Plan: Pursuant to each phased Final Development Plan for the Project, Head-Royce School shall be required to prepare a stand-alone Emergency Evacuation Plan for the School, to be prepared by a professional emergency evacuation expert. This Plan shall consider those recommendations as provided in Appendix 16B of the Draft EIR, as well as those additional recommendations as included in Mr. Weisgerber’s peer review/comment letter. Selection of the most appropriate and effective details of such an Emergency Evacuation Plan for the School will be conducted by the professional emergency evacuation expert to be retained by the School, and subject to review and approval by the Oakland Fire Department, with input from Emergency Services, Oakland Police Department, and the Oakland Department of Transportation. The School and their professional emergency evacuation expert shall coordinate with the City of Oakland on the details of this Emergency Evacuation Plan, which shall address, at a minimum, the following considerations:
a) Establish communication connections with emergency alert systems: This may include developing a liaison relationship with the Liaison Officer designated by the City of Oakland Emergency Operations Plan, or a direct report to the City of Oakland Emergency Operations Center and/or OFD Operations Center (as do public schools). Establish a power-independent communication connection with the Emergency Management System to maintain emergency response communications in the event of an emergency and for real time updates. Consider participating in Alameda County’s public alert system provided by Everbridge (called AC Alert), which Oakland first-responders use to broadcast incident-specific messages for any event. b) Remove existing physical obstacles throughout the Campus (both North and South): Appendix 16B of the Draft EIR provides a list of physical obstacles that hinder a viable pedestrian evacuation, and provides recommendations that Head-Royce should address to improve egress pathways, gates, stairs, gate openings, and ADA compliance to better prepare for an emergency evacuation.
c) Establish accountability procedures for managing a pedestrian evacuation: These procedures should ensure a methodology for managing and accounting for all primary grade children Pursuant to each
phased Final
Development Plan for
the Project
Oakland Fire Department,
With input from
Emergency Services,
Oakland Police
Department, and the
Oakland Department of
Transportation.

Oakland Fire Department
Standard Conditions of Approval/Mitigation Monitoring Program (SCAMMP) Head Royce School Planned Unit Development (PUD) Project, Final EIR Page A-34 Standard Conditions of Approval/Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Implementation/Monitoring
When Required Initial Approval Monitoring/ Inspection
during an evacuation, with responsibilities assigned to faculty and staff (and potentially older students) to ensure that all students are safely managed under emergency mass evacuation conditions. This may include classroom “all clear” verification, identifying “rally points” along the travel route, and head count verification that all students have reached the designated evacuation assembly point.
d) Identify evacuation destination(s): Primary, secondary, and tertiary evacuation destinations should be established, and vetted for conflict with any other City emergency plans. The predesignated assembly points should be communicated to all parents and guardians, with methodologies for adequately communicating emergency evacuation information, and instructions on how reunification with their students is to be achieved. No at-school reunification should be permitted under an evacuation condition (i.e., parents and guardians shall not be permitted to pick-up their children by driving to Campus). e) Vetting the Plan prior to adoption: The Head-Royce School Board should thoroughly review the Evacuation Plan commensurate with the review and approval process by the Oakland Fire Department. The Plan must have School support to ensure that it is fully implemented, and that all accountability procedures have been fully vetted by the School’s administration. f) Training and Exercises: The School shall ensure that all faculty, staff, students, and parents are fully trained on the evacuation plan, with a minimum of semi-annual exercises observed by the OFD, to ensure that the Campus is well indoctrinated toward an emergency reflex response to a disaster.

Index of Figures and Tables for the
Head-Royce School Preliminary
Development Plan

INDEX OF FIGURES AND TABLES

FIGURES
Figure 1.01: Project Location
Figure 3.01: General Plan Designation
Figure 3.02: Zoning Diagram
Figure 4.01: Existing and Proposed PUD Boundaries
Figure 4.02: Existing Traffic Loop
Figure 4.03: Existing On-Campus Parking Locations
Figure 4.04: Proposed Renovation and Demolition
Figure 4.05: Existing Parking Lot D
Figure 4.06: Existing Building 0 from South
Figure 4.07: Existing Building 1 from South
Figure 4.08: Existing Play Fieldv
Figure 4.09: Existing Canopy and Play Structure
Figure 4.10: Existing Paved Area
Figure 4.11: Existing Building 2 from Northwest
Figure 4.12: Existing Parking Lot C and Building 9
Figure 5.01: Illustrative Master Plan
Figure 5.02: Proposed & Renovated Structures
Figure 5.03: Proposed & Existing Conditions
Figure 5.04: Historic photo of Building H (MEW) as a gymnasium Figure 5.05: Existing theater in Building H
Figure 5.06: Existing classroom in Building M
Figure 5.07: North Campus Re-Programming
Figure 5.08: Vehicular Access & Circulation
Figure 5.09: Vehicular Access & Circulation Diagram
Figure 5.10: Proposed Parking Plan
Figure 5.11: Proposed & Existing Lincoln Avenue Alighments Figure 5.12: Existing condition at end of Charleston
Figure 5.13: Existing pedestrian gate at Charleston
Figure 5.14: Pedestrian & Bicycle Circulation
Figure 5.15: Pedestrian Access & Circulation Diagram
Figure 5.16: View of Existing North Campus Patio
Figure 5.17: View of Proposed North Campus Patio and Link Figure 5.18: Plan and Section Through Link
Figure 5.19: Landscape Design
Figure 5.20: Tree Protection & Transplantation
Figure 5.21: Proposed Material Palette
Figure 5.22: East-West Site Section Looking South
Figure 5.23: North-South Site Section Looking East
Figure 5.24: North-South Site Section Through Quad and Tunnel Figure 5.25: Grading and Drainage Plan
Figure 5.26: Proposed South Campus Outdoor Space
Figure 5.27: Aerial View of Proposed Campus
Figure 5.28: Proposed Commons and Performing Arts Center Figure 5.29: Proposed View of South Campus and Link Pavilion from Lincoln Avenue
TABLES
Table 4.01 Existing Parking Summary
Table 4.02 Existing Area Summary
Table 5.01 Proposed Area Summary
Table 5.02 Proposed Parking Summary
Table 5.03 Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance
Table 5.04 Proposed Cut and Fill
2 3
4 5
6 8
9 10
10 10
10 11
11 11
11 12
13 15
16 16
16 17
18 19
20 21
23 23
22 23
24 24
25 26
27 29
30 30
30 31
32 33
34 34
7 7
14 19
28 28
SKIDMORE, OWINGS & MERRILL | COX, CASTLE & NICHOLSON LLP 2 Figure 1.01: Project Location
©2018 Google
South Campus
Practice Field
North Campus
2000’
SKIDMORE, OWINGS & MERRILL | COX, CASTLE & NICHOLSON LLP 3 Institutional
Hillside Residential
Detached Unit Residential LINCOLN AVE.

LINNET AVE.

WHITTLE AVE.

CHARLESTON ST.

CAMELLIA PL
0 1/4” 1/2” 1” 2”
0 3” 1’ 2’ 4’
0 6” 2’ 4’ 8’
0 1’ 4’ 8’ 16’
0 2’ 8’ 16’ 32’
0 4’ 16’ 32’ 64’
0 8’ 32’ 64’ 128’
0 25’ 50’ 100’ 200’
0 25’ 100’ 200’ 400’
0 75’ 150’ 300’ 600’
0 50’ 200’ 400’ 800’
(A) 1’ =
(G) 1/2
(J) 1/4”
(M) 1/8
(P) 1/16
(S) 1/32
(T) 1/64
(1) 1” =
(2) 1” =
(3) 1” =
(4) 1” =
Figure 3.01: General Plan Designation
SKIDMORE, OWINGS & MERRILL | COX, CASTLE & NICHOLSON LLP 4 RD-1
RH-4 / S-9
RH-4
RD-1 / S-9
LINCOLN AVE.

LINNET AVE.

WHITTLE AVE.

CHARLESTON ST.

CAMELLIA PL
0 1/4” 1/2” 1” 2”
0 3” 1’ 2’ 4’
0 6” 2’ 4’ 8’
0 1’ 4’ 8’ 16’
0 2’ 8’ 16’ 32’
0 4’ 16’ 32’ 64’
0 8’ 32’ 64’ 128’
0 25’ 50’ 100’ 200’
0 25’ 100’ 200’ 400’
0 75’ 150’ 300’ 600’
0 50’ 200’ 400’ 800’
(A) 1’ = 1
(G) 1/2”
(J) 1/4”
(M) 1/8”
(P) 1/16
(S) 1/32
(T) 1/64
(1) 1” = 1
(2) 1” = 2
(3) 1” = 3
(4) 1” = 4
Figure 3.02: Zoning Diagram
SKIDMORE, OWINGS & MERRILL | COX, CASTLE & NICHOLSON LLP 5 LINCOLN AVE.

LINNET AVE.

WHITTLE AVE.

CHARLESTON ST.

CAMELLIA PL
4465 Lincoln
29A-1367-1-14
4315 Lincoln
29A-1367-4-4
4368 Lincoln
29-1009-6
Perkins Road
29-1009-27
4500 Lincoln
29-1009-10-5
0 1/4” 1/2” 1” 2”
0 3” 1’ 2’ 4’
0 6” 2’ 4’ 8’
0 1’ 4’ 8’ 16’
0 2’ 8’ 16’ 32’
0 4’ 16’ 32’ 64’
0 8’ 32’ 64’ 128’
0 25’ 50’ 100’ 200’
0 25’ 100’ 200’ 400’
0 75’ 150’ 300’ 600’
0 50’ 200’ 400’ 800’
(A) 1’ =
(G) 1/2
(J) 1/4”
(M) 1/8
(P) 1/16
(S) 1/32
(T) 1/64
(1) 1” =
(2) 1” =
(3) 1” =
(4) 1” =
Figure 4.01: Existing and Proposed PUD Boundaries
Proposed
Existing
SKIDMORE, OWINGS & MERRILL | COX, CASTLE & NICHOLSON LLP 6 NTS
©2018 Google
Figure 4.02: Existing Traffic Loop
SKIDMORE, OWINGS & MERRILL | COX, CASTLE & NICHOLSON LLP 7 Table 4.01 Existing Parking Summary
North Campus Cars
Lot E 20
Lot F 134
Subtotal North 154
South Campus
Lot A 12
Lot B 10
Lot C 45
Lot D 62
Subtotal South 129
Total Existing Parking 283
Table 4.02 Existing Area Summary
North Campus Residential (SF) Non-Residential (SF) Total (SF) Buildings A-N - 163,403 163,403
South Campus
Proposed Renovation
Building 0 - 6,150 6,150
Building 1 - 7,1501 7.150
Building 2 - 7,2001 7,200
Building 9 6,8502 - 6,850
Subtotal Renovation 6,850 20,500 27,350
Proposed Demolition
Building 3 - 1,420 1,420
Building 4 - 2,068 2,068
Building 5 - 1,225 1,225
Building 6 5,769 - 5,769
Building 7 - 1,475 1,475
Building 8 3,024 - 3,024
Building 10 - 825 825
Building 11 - 700 700
Subtotal Demolition 8,793 7,713 16,506
Subtotal South Campus 15,643 28,213 43,856
Existing Area Total 15,643 SF 191,616 SF 207,259 SF
1 Buildings 1 and 2: Permitted
conversion to administrative buildings.
2 Unoccupied
SKIDMORE, OWINGS & MERRILL | COX, CASTLE & NICHOLSON LLP 8 A C
B
E
F
D
LINCOLN AVE.

LINNET AVE.

WHITTLE AVE.

CHARLESTON ST.

CAMELLIA PL
Primary Vehicular Path
Staff & Service Parking
Bus Drop-Off / Loading
Drop-Off Zone
0 1/4” 1/2” 1” 2”
0 3” 1’ 2’ 4’
0 6” 2’ 4’ 8’
0 1’ 4’ 8’ 16’
0 2’ 8’ 16’ 32’
0 4’ 16’ 32’ 64’
0 8’ 32’ 64’ 128’
0 25’ 50’ 100’ 200’
0 25’ 100’ 200’ 400’
0 75’ 150’ 300’ 600’
0 50’ 200’ 400’ 800’
0 100’ 250’ 500’ 1000’
(A) 1’ =
(G) 1/2
(J) 1/4”
(M) 1/8
(P) 1/16
(S) 1/32
(T) 1/64
(1) 1” =
(2) 1” =
(3) 1” =
(4) 1” =
(5) 1” =
Figure 4.03: Existing On-Campus Parking Locations
SKIDMORE, OWINGS & MERRILL | COX, CASTLE & NICHOLSON LLP 9 LINCOLN AVE.

LINNET AVE.

WHITTLE AVE.

CHARLESTON ST.

CAMELLIA PL
LINCOLN AVE.

WHITTLE AVE.

CHARLEST
1 2
5 0
4 10
3 9
6 B
A
E
D
H
K
I
J
L
M
N
7 11
8 Proposed Renovation
Proposed Demolition
0 1/4” 1/2” 1” 2”
0 3” 1’ 2’ 4’
0 6” 2’ 4’ 8’
0 1’ 4’ 8’ 16’
0 2’ 8’ 16’ 32’
0 4’ 16’ 32’ 64’
0 8’ 32’ 64’ 128’
0 25’ 50’ 100’ 200’
0 25’ 100’ 200’ 400’
0 75’ 150’ 300’ 600’
0 50’ 200’ 400’ 800’
0 100’ 250’ 500’ 1000’
(A) 1’ =
(G) 1/2
(J) 1/4”
(M) 1/8
(P) 1/16
(S) 1/32
(T) 1/64
(1) 1” =
(2) 1” =
(3) 1” =
(4) 1” =
(5) 1” =
Figure 4.04: Proposed Renovation and Demolition
SKIDMORE, OWINGS & MERRILL | COX, CASTLE & NICHOLSON LLP 10 Figure 4.05: Existing Parking Lot D Figure 4.06: Existing Building 0 from South Figure 4.07: Existing Building 1 from South Figure 4.08: Existing Play Field SKIDMORE, OWINGS & MERRILL | COX, CASTLE & NICHOLSON LLP 11 Figure 4.09: Existing Canopy and Play Structure Figure 4.10: Existing Paved Area Figure 4.11: Existing Building 2 from Northwest Figure 4.12: Existing Parking Lot C and Building 9 SKIDMORE, OWINGS & MERRILL | COX, CASTLE & NICHOLSON LLP 12 LINCOLN AVE.

WHITTLE AVE.

CHARLESTON ST.

LINNET AVE.

CAMELLIA PL
North Campus South Campus
0 1/4” 1/2” 1” 2”
0 3” 1’ 2’ 4’
0 6” 2’ 4’ 8’
0 1’ 4’ 8’ 16’
0 2’ 8’ 16’ 32’
0 4’ 16’ 32’ 64’
0 8’ 32’ 64’ 128’
0 25’ 50’ 100’ 200’
0 25’ 100’ 200’ 400’
0 75’ 150’ 300’ 600’
0 50’ 200’ 400’ 800’
0 100’ 250’ 500’ 1000’
(A) 1’ =
(G) 1/2
(J) 1/4”
(M) 1/8
(P) 1/16
(S) 1/32
(T) 1/64
(1) 1” =
(2) 1” =
(3) 1” =
(4) 1” =
(5) 1” =
Figure 5.01: Illustrative Master Plan
Note: See Figures 5.22 through 5.24 for sections.

SKIDMORE, OWINGS & MERRILL | COX, CASTLE & NICHOLSON LLP 13 LINCOLN AVE.

CHARLESTON ST.

LINNET AVE.

Bldg. 0
Bldg. 1 Bldg. 2
Bldg. 9
Performing Arts Center
195’ x 75’
Play Field
65’ x 150’
Link Pavilion
25’ x 55’
Pedestrian Gate
(E) Pedestrian Gate
Maintenance Building
36’ x 30’
Vehicular Gate
Vehicular Gate
Link Tunnel
20’
10’
120’
60’
20’
25’
0 1/4” 1/2” 1” 2”
0 3” 1’ 2’ 4’
0 6” 2’ 4’ 8’
0 1’ 4’ 8’ 16’
0 2’ 8’ 16’ 32’
0 4’ 16’ 32’ 64’
0 8’ 32’ 64’ 128’
0 25’ 50’ 100’ 200’
0 25’ 100’ 200’ 400’
0 75’ 150’ 300’ 600’
0 50’ 200’ 400’ 800’
(A) 1’ =
(G) 1/2
(J) 1/4”
(M) 1/8
(P) 1/16
(S) 1/32
(T) 1/64
(1) 1” =
(2) 1” =
(3) 1” =
(4) 1” =
(5) 1” =
Figure 5.02: Proposed & Renovated Structures
Note: All dimensions approximate. See Figures 5.22 through 5.24 for sections.

SKIDMORE, OWINGS & MERRILL | COX, CASTLE & NICHOLSON LLP 14 1 Basement levels will not count for purposes of calculating Floor Area Ratio (FAR) but are included here for informational purposes.

Table 5.01 Proposed Area Summary
North Campus Level Non-Residential (SF) Total (SF)
Buildings A-N All 163,403 163,403
South Campus
Renovated Buildings
Building 0 B1 1,650 1,6501
Building 0 1 4,500 4,500
Building 1 B1 700 700
Building 1 1 3,225 3,225
Building 1 2 3,225 3,225
Building 2 B1 700 700
Building 2 1 3,225 3,225
Building 2 2 3,275 3,275
Building 9 1 6,850 6,850
Subtotal Renovation 27,350 27,350
New Construction
Link Pavilion 1 1,500 1,500
Performing Arts Center 1 12,800 12,800
Performing Arts Center 2 3,100 3,100
Maintenance Building 1 1,000 1,000
Subtotal New Construction 18,400 18,400
Subtotal South Campus 42,150 45,750
Existing Area Total 205,553 SF 209,153 SF
SKIDMORE, OWINGS & MERRILL | COX, CASTLE & NICHOLSON LLP 15 LINCOLN AVE.

CHARLESTON ST.

LINNET AVE.
0 1/4” 1/2” 1” 2”
0 3” 1’ 2’ 4’
0 6” 2’ 4’ 8’
0 1’ 4’ 8’ 16’
0 2’ 8’ 16’ 32’
0 4’ 16’ 32’ 64’
0 8’ 32’ 64’ 128’
0 25’ 50’ 100’ 200’
0 25’ 100’ 200’ 400’
0 75’ 150’ 300’ 600’
0 50’ 200’ 400’ 800’
(A) 1’ =
(G) 1/2
(J) 1/4”
(M) 1/8
(P) 1/16
(S) 1/32
(T) 1/64
(1) 1” =
(2) 1” =
(3) 1” =
(4) 1” =
(5) 1” =
Figure 5.03: Proposed & Existing Conditions
Existing Building
Existing Sitework
Note: See Figures 5.22 through 5.24 for sections.
(E) Pedestrian Gate
SKIDMORE, OWINGS & MERRILL | COX, CASTLE & NICHOLSON LLP 16 Figure 5.06: Existing classroom in Building M
Figure 5.05: Existing theater in Building H
Figure 5.04: Historic photo of Building H (MEW) as a gymnasium SKIDMORE, OWINGS & MERRILL | COX, CASTLE & NICHOLSON LLP 17 LINCOLN AVE.

WHITTLE AVE.

Figure 5.07: North Campus Re-Programming
0 1/4” 1/2” 1” 2”
0 3” 1’ 2’ 4’
0 6” 2’ 4’ 8’
0 1’ 4’ 8’ 16’
0 2’ 8’ 16’ 32’
0 4’ 16’ 32’ 64’
0 8’ 32’ 64’ 128’
0 25’ 50’ 100’ 200’
0 25’ 100’ 200’ 400’
0 75’ 150’ 300’ 600’
(A) 1’ =
(G) 1/2
(J) 1/4”
(M) 1/8
(P) 1/16
(S) 1/32
(T) 1/64
(1) 1” =
(2) 1” =
(3) 1” =
Bldg. N
Bldg. M
Bldg. L
Bldg. J
Bldg. K
Bldg. H
Bldg. I
Bldg. E
Bldg. A
Bldg. B
Bldg. D
SKIDMORE, OWINGS & MERRILL | COX, CASTLE & NICHOLSON LLP 18 LINCOLN AVE.

CHARLESTON ST.

LINNET AVE.
0 1/4” 1/2” 1” 2”
0 3” 1’ 2’ 4’
0 6” 2’ 4’ 8’
0 1’ 4’ 8’ 16’
0 2’ 8’ 16’ 32’
0 4’ 16’ 32’ 64’
0 8’ 32’ 64’ 128’
0 25’ 50’ 100’ 200’
0 25’ 100’ 200’ 400’
0 75’ 150’ 300’ 600’
0 50’ 200’ 400’ 800’
(A) 1’ =
(G) 1/2
(J) 1/4”
(M) 1/8
(P) 1/16
(S) 1/32
(T) 1/64
(1) 1” =
(2) 1” =
(3) 1” =
(4) 1” =
(5) 1” =
Figure 5.08: Vehicular Access & Circulation
Lower/Middle School Drop Off
Loading Area A
Upper School Drop Off
Vehicular Gate
Vehicular Gate
Note: See Figures 5.22 through 5.24 for sections.

SKIDMORE, OWINGS & MERRILL | COX, CASTLE & NICHOLSON LLP 19 Figure 5.09: Vehicular Access & Circulation Diagram
LINCOLN AVE.

CHARLESTON ST

LINNET AVE
Table 5.02 Proposed Parking Summary
North Campus Cars
Lot E 20
Lot F 1701
Subtotal North 190
South Campus
Lot A 138
Subtotal South 138
Total Proposed Parking 328
1 36 of these parking spaces will be added through stacked parking.

SKIDMORE, OWINGS & MERRILL | COX, CASTLE & NICHOLSON LLP 20 A
E
F
LINCOLN AVE.

WHITTLE AVE.

CHARLESTON ST.

LINNET AVE.

CAMELLIA PL
0 1/4” 1/2” 1” 2”
0 3” 1’ 2’ 4’
0 6” 2’ 4’ 8’
0 1’ 4’ 8’ 16’
0 2’ 8’ 16’ 32’
0 4’ 16’ 32’ 64’
0 8’ 32’ 64’ 128’
0 25’ 50’ 100’ 200’
0 25’ 100’ 200’ 400’
0 75’ 150’ 300’ 600’
0 50’ 200’ 400’ 800’
0 100’ 250’ 500’ 1000’
(A) 1’ =
(G) 1/2
(J) 1/4”
(M) 1/8
(P) 1/16
(S) 1/32
(T) 1/64
(1) 1” =
(2) 1” =
(3) 1” =
(4) 1” =
(5) 1” =
Figure 5.10: Proposed Parking Plan
Primary Vehicular Path
Staff & Service Parking
Bus Drop-Off / Loading
Drop-Off Zone
Note: See Figures 5.22 through 5.24 for sections.

Location of Stacked Parking
SKIDMORE, OWINGS & MERRILL | COX, CASTLE & NICHOLSON LLP 21 CLEAR KEEP CLEAR KEEP CLEAR KEEP CLEAR KEEP

S/W PKNG THRU THRU PKNG S/W
60’ ROW

S/W THRU LEFT TURN THRU PKNG S/W
60’ ROW

S/W PKNG THRU THRU PKNG S/W
60’ ROW

S/W THRU LEFT TURN THRU PKNG S/W
60’ ROW
Existing
Existing

SOUTH CAMPUS

NORTH CAMPUS

SOUTH CAMPUS

NORTH CAMPUS
Proposed
Proposed
Figure 5.11: Proposed & Existing Lincoln Avenue Alighments SKIDMORE, OWINGS & MERRILL | COX, CASTLE & NICHOLSON LLP 22 LINCOLN AVE.

CHARLESTON ST.

LINNET AVE.
0 1/4” 1/2” 1” 2”
0 3” 1’ 2’ 4’
0 6” 2’ 4’ 8’
0 1’ 4’ 8’ 16’
0 2’ 8’ 16’ 32’
0 4’ 16’ 32’ 64’
0 8’ 32’ 64’ 128’
0 25’ 50’ 100’ 200’
0 25’ 100’ 200’ 400’
0 75’ 150’ 300’ 600’
0 50’ 200’ 400’ 800’
(A) 1’ = 1
(G) 1/2”
(J) 1/4”
(M) 1/8
(P) 1/16
(S) 1/32
(T) 1/64
(1) 1” = 1
(2) 1” =
(3) 1” =
(4) 1” =
(5) 1” =
Figure 5.14: Pedestrian & Bicycle Circulation
At Grade Pedestrian
Signal Crossing
(Option A & B)
Link Tunnel
(Option A Only)
Pedestrian Gate
Note: See Figures 5.22 through 5.24 for sections.
(E) Pedestrian Gate
SKIDMORE, OWINGS & MERRILL | COX, CASTLE & NICHOLSON LLP 23 Figure 5.15: Pedestrian Access & Circulation Diagram
At Grade Pedestrian
Signal Crossing
(Option A & B)
Link Tunnel
(Option A Only)
LINCOLN AVE.

Figure 5.13: Existing pedestrian gate at Charleston
Existing gate to remain in place.

Figure 5.12: Existing condition at end of Charleston
Chain link fence may be replaced with a stucco wall in similar character to the adjacent perimeter wall.

SKIDMORE, OWINGS & MERRILL | COX, CASTLE & NICHOLSON LLP 24 Figure 5.17: View of Proposed North Campus Patio and Link Figure 5.16: View of Existing North Campus Patio
SKIDMORE, OWINGS & MERRILL | COX, CASTLE & NICHOLSON LLP 25 North Campus +388’ +378’ South Campus +396’ Link Pavilion Link Plan 18’-0” 12’-0”
Section A-A’: Typical Enlarged Section Through Link
Lincoln Avenue
A
A’
Property Line
Figure 5.18: Plan and Section Through Link
Property Line

4.98%
SKIDMORE, OWINGS & MERRILL | COX, CASTLE & NICHOLSON LLP 26 LINCOLN AVE.

CHARLESTON ST.

LINNET AVE.

Commons
Labyrinth
Outdoor Classroom
Commons
Accessible Path
0 1/4” 1/2” 1” 2”
0 3” 1’ 2’ 4’
0 6” 2’ 4’ 8’
0 1’ 4’ 8’ 16’
0 2’ 8’ 16’ 32’
0 4’ 16’ 32’ 64’
0 8’ 32’ 64’ 128’
0 25’ 50’ 100’ 200’
0 25’ 100’ 200’ 400’
0 75’ 150’ 300’ 600’
0 50’ 200’ 400’ 800’
(A) 1’ = 1
(G) 1/2”
(J) 1/4”
(M) 1/8
(P) 1/16
(S) 1/32
(T) 1/64
(1) 1” = 1
(2) 1” =
(3) 1” = 3
(4) 1” = 4
(5) 1” = 5
Figure 5.19: Landscape Design
Play Field
Note: See Figures 5.22 through 5.24 for sections.

SKIDMORE, OWINGS & MERRILL | COX, CASTLE & NICHOLSON LLP 27 LINCOLN AVE.

CHARLESTON ST.

LINNET AVE.

Quercus Agrifolia, Coastal Live Oak
To Remain and Be Protected
Sequoia Sempervirens, Coast Redwood
To Remain and Be Protected
0 1/4” 1/2” 1” 2”
0 3” 1’ 2’ 4’
0 6” 2’ 4’ 8’
0 1’ 4’ 8’ 16’
0 2’ 8’ 16’ 32’
0 4’ 16’ 32’ 64’
0 8’ 32’ 64’ 128’
0 25’ 50’ 100’ 200’
0 25’ 100’ 200’ 400’
0 75’ 150’ 300’ 600’
0 50’ 200’ 400’ 800’
0 100’ 250’ 500’ 1000’
(A) 1’ =
(G) 1/2
(J) 1/4”
(M) 1/8
(P) 1/16
(S) 1/32
(T) 1/64
(1) 1” =
(2) 1” =
(3) 1” =
(4) 1” =
(5) 1” =
Figure 5.20: Tree Protection & Transplantation
Note: See Figures 5.22 through 5.24 for sections.

Various Tree
Eucalyptus, Liquidambar, Pinus, Cedrus, etc.

To Remain and Be Protected
Target Tree to Transplant on Site
Native Coastal Live Oak or Coastal Redwood
Target Tree to Be Removed
Native Coastal Live Oak or
Coastal Redwood
SKIDMORE, OWINGS & MERRILL | COX, CASTLE & NICHOLSON LLP 28 Table 5.03 Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance
(WELO) Data1
Use Acreage
Building Footprint 0.81
Parking/Roadway 2.18
Open Space - Turf 0.17
Open Space - Non-Turf1 3.94
Open Space - Hardscape 0.91
Proposed Area Total 8.01 acres
1 Area includes proposed easement with 4500 Lincoln Avenue. 2 All planting is California native.

Table 5.04 Proposed Cut and Fill
Area Cut (CY) Fill (CY) Net (CY)
Loop Road 4,500 1,800 2,700
Interior Site 9,200 4,200 5,000
Total 13,700 6,000 7,700
SKIDMORE, OWINGS & MERRILL | COX, CASTLE & NICHOLSON LLP 29 Quercus agrifolia
Coast Live Oak
Stained Wood
Cement Plaster
Cast-In-Place Concrete
Aluminum Panels and Sunshades
Concrete Pavers
Wood Decks
Nature Play Areas
Stone/Lawn Steps
Nature Trails
Salvia ‘Bee’s Bliss’
Creeping Sage
Lavandula x intermedia Phenomenal
Lavender
Olea europaea
Olive Tree
Arctostaphylos
Pacific Mist
Convolvulus cneorum
Silverbush
Platunus racemosa
California Sycamore
Ceanothus hearstiorum
Flat Ceanothus
Anigozanthos ‘Bush Pearl’
(Dwarf Pink Kangaroo Paw)
Arctostaphylos manzanita
Common Manzanita
Agrostis pallens
Seashore Bent Grass
Salvia ‘Sizzle’
Figure 5.21:

Proposed Material Palette
SKIDMORE, OWINGS & MERRILL | COX, CASTLE & NICHOLSON LLP 30 444’ 412’ 396’ 424’ 455’ 444’ 412’ 455’ 444’ 428’ 412’ Figure 5.22: East-West Site Section Looking South Figure 5.23: North-South Site Section Looking East Figure 5.24: North-South Site Section Through Quad and Tunnel

KEY PLAN

5.22 5.23

5.24 Building 1 Building 2
Performing Arts CenterDashed line at roof indicates potential area for solar panels Building 2 Performing Arts Center (Beyond) Building 9 (Beyond) Building 9 (Beyond)
32’
Link Pavilion Performing Arts Center Building 9 (Beyond) Tunnel 0 1/4” 1/2” 1” 2” 0 5 10 20 40mm
0 10 20 40 80mm
0 200mm 100 25 50
0 50 100 200 400mm
0 100 200 400 800mm0 0.25 0.50 1 2m0 0.5 1 2 4m
0 1 2 4 8m0 2 5 10 20m
0 20 50 100 200m
0 5 10 20 40m0 10 20 40 80m
0 3” 1’ 2’ 4’
0 6” 2’ 4’ 8’0 1’ 4’ 8’ 16’0 2’ 8’ 16’ 32’0 4’ 16’ 32’ 64’ 0 8’ 32’ 64’ 128’0 25’ 50’ 100’ 200’
0 25’ 100’ 200’ 400’0 75’ 150’ 300’ 600’0 50’ 200’ 400’ 800’0 100’ 250’ 500’ 1000’ (A) 1’ = 1’ 1:1
1:21:51:101:201:501:1001:2001:5001:10001:20001:5000
(G) 1/2” = 1’(J) 1/4” = 1’(M) 1/8” = 1’(P) 1/16” = 1’(S) 1/32” = 1’(T) 1/64” = 1’(1) 1” = 100’(2) 1” = 200’(3) 1” = 300’(4) 1” = 400’(5) 1” = 500’ SKIDMORE, OWINGS & MERRILL | COX, CASTLE & NICHOLSON LLP 31 LINCOLN AVE.

CHARLESTON ST.

LINNET AVE.
0 1/4” 1/2” 1” 2”
0 3” 1’ 2’ 4’
0 6” 2’ 4’ 8’
0 1’ 4’ 8’ 16’
0 2’ 8’ 16’ 32’
0 4’ 16’ 32’ 64’
0 8’ 32’ 64’ 128’
0 25’ 50’ 100’ 200’
0 25’ 100’ 200’ 400’
0 75’ 150’ 300’ 600’
0 50’ 200’ 400’ 800’
(A) 1’ =
(G) 1/2
(J) 1/4”
(M) 1/8
(P) 1/16
(S) 1/32
(T) 1/64
(1) 1” =
(2) 1” =
(3) 1” =
(4) 1” =
(5) 1” =
Figure 5.25: Grading and Drainage Plan
Permeable Paving
Bioswale
Note: See Figures 5.22 through 5.24 for sections.

SKIDMORE, OWINGS & MERRILL | COX, CASTLE & NICHOLSON LLP 32 Figure 5.26: Proposed South Campus Outdoor Space
SKIDMORE, OWINGS & MERRILL | COX, CASTLE & NICHOLSON LLP 33 Figure 5.27: Aerial View of Proposed Campus
SKIDMORE, OWINGS & MERRILL | COX, CASTLE & NICHOLSON LLP 34 Figure 5.28: Proposed Commons and Performing Arts Center Figure 5.29: Proposed View of South Campus and Link Pavilion from Lincoln Avenue