View Attachment A3 — Rules & Legislation Committee, October 26, 2023 (part 1 of 2)

1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT

CEQA ANALYSIS
City of Oakland
Bureau of Planning
250 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Suite 2114
Oakland, CA 94612
December 2022
Attachment A3

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................... 1 A. PROJECT OVERVIEW .............................................................................................. 1 B. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ....................................................................................... 2 C. DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION .................................................................................3 II. BACKGROUND—PROGRAM PLANS AND EIRS ............................................................... 5 III. PURPOSE AND SUMMARY OF THIS DOCUMENT ........................................................... 9 A. COMMUNITY PLAN EXEMPTION .......................................................................... 9 B. QUALIFIED INFILL EXEMPTION ............................................................................ 10 C. PROGRAM EIRS AND REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS ........................................... 11 D. CLASS 32 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION ................................................................. 11 E. PREVIOUS MITIGATION MEASURES AND CURRENT STANDARD
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ................................................................................ 12 IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................. 15 A. PROJECT SITE ....................................................................................................... 15 B. DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS ................................................................................... 38 V. CEQA CHECKLIST ........................................................................................................... 41 OVERVIEW ...................................................................................................................... 41 ATTACHMENTS ............................................................................................................. 42 A. AESTHETICS, SHADOW, AND WIND .................................................................... 43 B. AIR QUALITY ........................................................................................................ 54 C. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES .................................................................................... 71 D. CULTURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES .............................................................. 73 E. ENERGY .............................................................................................................. 109 F. GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND GEOHAZARDS ............................................................. 111 G. GREENHOUSE GAS AND CLIMATE CHANGE ..................................................... 115 H. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ........................................................ 119 I. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ................................................................. 125 J. LAND USE, PLANS, AND POLICIES ..................................................................... 129 K. NOISE .................................................................................................................. 132 L. POPULATION AND HOUSING ............................................................................ 150 M. PUBLIC SERVICES, PARKS, AND RECREATION FACILITIES ................................ 153 N. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION ............................................................ 156 O. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ..................................................................... 164

1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS DECEMBER 2022

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ii

ATTACHMENTS
ATTACHMENT A: MITIGATION MEASURES AND STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

AND REPORTING PROGRAM
ATTACHMENT B: PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH COMMUNITY PLAN OR ZONING, PER CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15183
ATTACHMENT C: INFILL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS, PER CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15183.3
ATTACHMENT D: URBAN INFILL EXEMPTION ANALYSIS, PER CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15332
ATTACHMENT E: SHADOW STUDY
ATTACHMENT F: WIND STUDY
ATTACHMENT G: AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ESTIMATES AND

HEALTH RISK ANALYSIS
ATTACHMENT H: SUMMARY OF CULTURAL RESOURCES WITHIN A 0.25-MILE RADIUS ATTACHMENT I: TRAFFIC NOISE OUTPUTS
ATTACHMENT J: TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT MEMO

DECEMBER 2022 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS

TABLE OF CONTENTS
iii
List of Tables
Table I-1 General Project Information .................................................................................... 1 Table IV-1 Project Characteristics .......................................................................................... 25 Table V.B-1 City of Oakland’s Thresholds of Significance ........................................................ 56 Table V.B-2 Summary of CalEEMod Land Use Input Parameters for the Proposed Project .................................................................................................................. 56 Table V.B-3 Summary of CalEEMod Construction Input Parameters......................................... 57 Table V.B-4 Estimated Construction Emissions (Pounds per Day) ............................................ 58 Table V.B-5 Summary of CalEEMod Operation Input Parameters for the Project .................... 59 Table V.B-6 Estimated Emissions from Project Operation ....................................................... 60 Table V.B-7 Health Risks from Project Construction ................................................................ 64 Table V.B-8 Health Risks from Operation of Emergency Generators at the Project Site .......... 66 Table V.B-9 Summary of Cumulative Health Risks at the MEIR ................................................ 68 Table V.G-1 Summary of Average GHG Emissions from Emergency Generator ...................... 116 Table V.K-1 City of Oakland Operational Noise Standards at Receiving Property Line, dBA ...................................................................................................................... 135 Table V.K-2 City of Oakland Construction Noise Standards at Receiving Property Line, dBA ...................................................................................................................... 136 Table V.K-3 Typical Noise Levels from Construction Equipment (dBA Leq) .............................. 138 Table V.K-4 Existing and Existing Plus Project Traffic Noise Levels For the Roadway Segment with Highest Increase, dBA LEQ at 50 Feet? ........................................... 142 Table V.K-5 Modeled Peak Hour Traffic Noise Levels for the Most Impacted Location under Cumulative Scenario, dBA Leq at 50 Feet .................................................... 143 Table V.K-6 Distances to the Nearest Vibration-Sensitive Receptors ...................................... 145 Table V.K-7 Vibration Criteria to Prevent Disturbance – RMS (VdB) ........................................ 146 Table V.K-8 Vibration Criteria to Prevent Damage to Structures ............................................. 146 Table V.K-9 Reference Source Levels For Construction Equipment And The Associated Buffer Distances Required To Prevent Exceedance of FTA Thresholds ................ 147 Table V.N-1 Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled Summary ................................................................ 162 Table V.N-2 Example Downtown Office Project Parking Ratios .............................................. 162

1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS DECEMBER 2022

TABLE OF CONTENTS
iv
List of Figures
Figure IV-1 Project Location .................................................................................................... 16 Figure IV-2 Project Site ............................................................................................................ 18 Figure IV-3 Site Plan ............................................................................................................... 20 Figure IV-4 Rendering – View Looking Southwest.................................................................... 21 Figure IV-5 Rendering – View Looking Northwest ................................................................... 22 Figure IV-6 Rendering – Ground-level Façade .......................................................................... 23 Figure IV-7 Program Diagram ................................................................................................. 24 Figure IV-8 Ground Floor Plan ................................................................................................. 26 Figure IV-9 Mezzanine Floor Plan ............................................................................................. 27 Figure IV-10 Parking Level 1 ...................................................................................................... 28 Figure IV-11 Parking Level 2 ..................................................................................................... 29 Figure IV-12 Parking Level 3 ....................................................................................................... 30 Figure IV-13 Typical Amenity Level ............................................................................................ 31 Figure IV-14 Typical Office Level ............................................................................................... 32 Figure IV-15 Roof Level .............................................................................................................. 33 Figure IV-16 Project Site Section ............................................................................................... 34 Figure IV-17 Site Elevation – North Elevation ............................................................................ 35 Figure IV-18 Site Elevation – East Elevation ...............................................................................36 Figure V.B-1 MEIR and MEIS Locations ......................................................................................63

1 I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this document is to provide required CEQA review for the proposed project. As such, this document includes:
▪ A description of the proposed project.
▪ An assessment of whether the project qualifies for CEQA streamlining pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, as a project that is consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified.
▪ An assessment of whether the project qualifies for CEQA streamlining pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.3 as qualified infill project. ▪ An assessment of whether the project qualifies for CEQA streamlining pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332, as an infill exemption.
▪ An examination of whether there are project-specific significant effects that are peculiar to the project or its site, and that would necessitate preparation of a subsequent or supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

Applicable CEQA sections are described further below, each of which separately and independently provide a basis for CEQA compliance.

A. PROJECT OVERVIEW
The 1431 Franklin Street Office Project (project) proposes to redevelop one parcel on Franklin Street between 14th Street and 15th Street with an office tower. Table I-1 provides general project information.

TABLE I-1 GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION
Project Title 1431 Franklin Street Office Project
Public Case File Number PLN20125
Lead Agency Name and Address
City of Oakland
Bureau of Planning
250 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Suite 2114
Oakland, CA 94612
Staff Contact
Michele Morris
(510) 238-2235
[email protected]
1431 FRANKLIN STREET – CEQA ANALYSIS DECEMBER 2022
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2 Applicant
TC II 1431 Franklin, LLC
564 Market St, Suite 225, San Francisco, CA 64104
Contact: Ross Stackhouse
Project Address 1431 Franklin Street, Oakland, California 94612 Zoning Designation
CBD-P (Central Business District Pedestrian Retail
Commercial Zone)
Height Area 7
General Plan Designation CBD (Central Business District) APN 8-621-8-7
Lot Size 0.48 acres (20,974 square feet)

The existing 20,974-square-foot parcel is currently occupied by a surface parking lot with approximately 81 parking spaces and is located within the Historic Downtown Area of Primary Importance (API). The proposed office tower would have 375,760 gross square feet of office floor area with a maximum height of 410 feet and 6 inches plus mechanical rooftop screening (435 feet and 6 inches at top of mechanical). The tower would include 27 floors consisting of primarily office use, in addition to amenity spaces on the 22nd floor and roof level, as well as a ground-level lobby. The project would accommodate 115 automobile parking stalls in two levels of above- ground, podium-style parking.

B. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
An evaluation of the project is provided in the Chapter V, CEQA Checklist, below. As described above, this evaluation concludes that the project qualifies for exemptions from additional environmental review. The project was found to be consistent with the development intensity and land use characteristics established by the City of Oakland General Plan, and any potential environmental impacts associated with its development were adequately analyzed and covered by the analysis in the applicable Program EIRs, which are the 1998 Land Use and Transportation Element EIR1 and the 2011 Central District Urban Renewal Plan Amendments EIR.2 The analysis included in this CEQA document supports the determination that each of the applicable CEQA streamlining and/or tiering code sections listed below, separately and independently, provide a basis for CEQA compliance as follows: (1) the proposed project qualifies for an exemption per Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 (Projects Consistent with a Community Plan or Zoning); (2) the proposed project qualifies for

1 City of Oakland Community and Economic Development Agency, 1997. Oakland General Plan Land Use and Transportation Element, Draft Environmental Impact Report, October. 2 Oakland Redevelopment Agency, 2011. Draft EIR for the proposed amendments to the Central District Urban Renewal Plan, March.

DECEMBER 2022 1431 FRANKLIN STREET – CEQA ANALYSIS
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
3 streamlining provisions of CEQA under Public Resources Code Section 21094.5 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.3 (Streamlining for Infill Projects); (3) the proposed project qualifies to tier off Program EIRs and EIRs prepared for redevelopment projects per CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 (Program EIRs) and Section 15180 (Redevelopment Projects) as none of the conditions requiring a supplemental or subsequent EIR, as specified in CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 (Subsequent EIRs) and 15163 (Supplement to an EIR), are present; and (4) the proposed project qualifies for streamlining provisions of CEQA as specified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (Infill Development Projects).

The project would be required to comply with the applicable mitigation measures identified in the Program EIRs as modified, and in some cases wholly replaced, to reflect the City’s current standard language and requirements of its Standard Conditions of Approvals (SCAs), as well as any other applicable City of Oakland SCAs (see Attachment A). With implementation of the applicable SCAs, the project would not result in a substantial increase in the severity of significant impacts that were previously identified in the Program EIRs or any new significant impacts that were not previously identified in the Program EIRs. As a result, no further environmental documentation or analysis is required.

C. DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION
This CEQA Analysis is organized into the following chapters:

Chapter I, Executive Summary: Provides a summary of the project and its findings; and summarizes the organization of the CEQA Analysis.

Chapter II, Background – Program Plans and EIRs: This chapter summarizes the previous environmental documents and their impacts, for which this CEQA Analysis is based upon.

Chapter III, Purpose and Summary of this Document: This chapter describes the several CEQA streamlining and/or tiering provisions and CEQA exemptions under which the project qualifies.

Chapter IV, Project Description: This chapter describes the project site, site development history, proposed development, and required approval process.

Chapter V, CEQA Checklist: This chapter summarizes the analysis, findings, and conclusions of previous Oakland Program EIRs as follows: Oakland’s 1998 General Plan Land Use and Transportation Element EIR (1998 LUTE EIR) and the Central District Urban Renewal Plan EIR and Amendments EIR (2011 Renewal Plan EIR). These are referred to collectively throughout this document as the “Program EIRs”. This chapter also provides analysis of each environmental technical topic and describes significance criteria, potential environmental impacts and their level of significance, SCAs relied upon to ensure that significant impacts would not occur, and mitigation measures recommended when necessary to mitigate identified impacts. 1431 FRANKLIN STREET – CEQA ANALYSIS DECEMBER 2022
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
4 Attachments: The attachments include applicable SCAs, consistency with applicable CEQA streamlining guidelines, and the technical analyses and data for shadow, wind, air quality, and greenhouse gas emissions, historic resources, traffic-related noise, and the Transportation Demand Management memo.

5 II. BACKGROUND—PROGRAM PLANS AND EIRS
The project site is addressed in prior City of Oakland planning documents, including the following plans:
▪ 1998 General Plan Land Use and Transportation Element (LUTE)3 ▪ 2011 Central District Urban Renewal Plan Amendments (Renewal Plan)4 In addition, the project site is located within the proposed Downtown Oakland Specific Plan area; however, the plan is currently under development and at the time of this analysis has not been formally adopted. For this reason, the Downtown Oakland Specific Plan is not further mentioned in this CEQA Document and is not relied on for this analysis.

An EIR was prepared and certified for each of these planning documents. The following Program EIRs were considered for this CEQA document (and herein are collectively referred to as the “Program EIRs”):
▪ 1998 Land Use and Transportation Element EIR5
▪ 2011 Central District Urban Renewal Plan Amendments EIR6 Each of these documents is summarized below and hereby incorporated by reference and can be obtained from the City of Oakland Bureau of Planning at 250 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Suite 3315, Oakland, California 94612 or online at: https://www.oaklandca.gov/resources/completed- environmental-review-ceqa-eir-documents

1. 1998 Land Use and Transportation Element EIR
The City of Oakland certified the EIR for its General Plan Land Use and Transportation Element (LUTE) in 1998.7 The LUTE identifies policies for utilizing Oakland’s land as future changes take place and sets forth an action program to implement its land use policy through development controls and other strategies. The LUTE identifies five Showcase Districts8 targeted for continued growth; the project site is located within the Downtown Showcase District, which is intended to promote a mixture of vibrant and unique land uses with around‐the‐clock activity, continued

3 City of Oakland, 1998a. General Plan: Land Use and Transportation Element, March. 4 City of Oakland, 2012. Central District Urban Renewal Plan Amendments, April. 5 City of Oakland Community and Economic Development Agency, 1997, op. cit. 6 Oakland Redevelopment Agency, 2011, op. cit.
7 City of Oakland, 1998b. General Plan: Land Use and Transportation Element, Final EIR, February. 8 The five Showcase Districts includes: The Seaport, Downtown, Mixed-Use Waterfront, the Coliseum Area, and the Airport/Gateway.
1431 FRANKLIN STREET – CEQA ANALYSIS DECEMBER 2022
II. BACKGROUND—PROGRAM PLANS AND EIRS
6 expansion of job opportunities, and growing residential population. The Downtown Showcase District also promotes that “Downtown development should be visually interesting, harmonize with its surroundings, respect and enhance important views in and of the downtown, respect the character, history, and pedestrian-orientation of the downtown, and contribute to an attractive skyline.”9
The 1998 LUTE EIR is considered a Program EIR per CEQA Guidelines Sections 15168, 15183, and 15183.3. As such, subsequent activities under the LUTE are subject to requirements under each of these CEQA Guidelines sections, which are described further in Chapter V, CEQA Checklist.

Applicable mitigation measures identified in the 1998 LUTE EIR are largely the same as those identified in the other Program EIRs prepared after the 1998 LUTE EIR, either as mitigation measures or newer SCAs, the latter of which are described below in Chapter V, CEQA Checklist. 1998 Land Use and Transportation Element EIR Environmental Effects Summary The 1998 LUTE EIR determined that development consistent with the LUTE would result in impacts that would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with the implementation of mitigation measures and/or SCAs. Mitigation is required for the following resource topics:
aesthetics (views, architectural compatibility and shadow only); air quality (construction dust [including particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter] and roadway emissions Downtown, odors); cultural resources (except as noted below as less than significant); hazards and hazardous materials; land use (use and density incompatibilities); noise (use and density incompatibilities, including from transit/transportation improvements such as new facilities for trucks, cars, bicycles, and pedestrians, and major improvements to existing facilities such as widening of 98th Avenue and seismic upgrade and reconfiguration of I-880 freeway interchanges); population and housing (induced growth, policy consistency/clean air plan); public services (except as noted below as significant); and transportation and circulation (intersection operations).

In the 1998 LUTE EIR, less-than-significant impacts were identified for the following resources:

Aesthetics (scenic resources, light and glare); air quality (clean air plan consistency, roadway emissions in Downtown, energy use emissions, local/regional climate change); biological resources; cultural resources (historic context/settings, architectural compatibility); energy; geology and seismicity; hydrology and water quality; land use (conflicts in mixed use projects and near transit); noise (roadway noise Downtown and citywide, multi-family near transportation/transit improvements); population and housing (exceeding household projections, housing displacement from industrial encroachment); public services (water demand, wastewater flows, stormwater quality, park services); and transportation and circulation (transit demand). No impacts were identified for agricultural and forestry resources or mineral resources.

9 City of Oakland, 1998a, op. cit.

DECEMBER 2022 1431 FRANKLIN STREET PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS II. BACKGROUND—PROGRAM PLANS AND EIRS
7 Significant unavoidable impacts were identified for the following environmental resources in the 1998 LUTE EIR: air quality (regional emissions, roadway emissions in Downtown); noise (construction noise and vibration in Downtown); public services (fire safety); transportation and circulation (roadway segment operations); wind hazards; and policy consistency (clean air plan).

Due to the potential for significant unavoidable impacts, a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted as part of the City’s approvals.

The remaining impacts for applicable resource topics identified in the 1998 LUTE EIR were found to have no significant impacts.

2. 2011 Central District Urban Renewal Plan Amendments EIR The Central District Urban Renewal Plan (Renewal Plan) was originally adopted by the Oakland City Council on June 12, 1969, and has been subsequently amended or supplemented on several occasions since then – the latest of which was supplemented in 2011 and adopted in 2012 (herein referred to as the “Proposed Amendments”). The City of Oakland prepared and certified an EIR for the Proposed Amendments to the Central District Urban Renewal Plan (Renewal Plan) EIR in 2011 and amended or supplemented the 2011 Renewal Plan up to April 3, 2012. The 2011 Renewal Plan EIR analyzed the environmental impacts of the redevelopment activities associated with implementation of the proposed amendments to the 2011 Renewal Plan.

The 2011 Renewal Plan area generally encompasses the entire Downtown, which is approximately 250 city blocks (828 acres) in an area generally bounded by Interstate (I-) 980, Lake Merritt, 27th Street, and the Embarcadero. The 2011 Renewal Plan was intended to facilitate future redevelopment activity within the project area consistent with the City of Oakland General Plan.

The 2011 Renewal Plan EIR is considered a Program EIR per CEQA Guidelines Sections 15168 and 15183.3. As such, subsequent activities under the Renewal Plan are subject to requirements under each of the aforementioned CEQA Guidelines sections, which are described further in Chapter V, CEQA Checklist. Applicable mitigation measures identified in the 2011 Renewal Plan EIR are largely the same as those identified in the other various Program EIRs prepared after the 2011 Renewal Plan EIR, either as mitigation measures or newer SCAs, the latter of which are described below in Chapter V.
2011 Central District Renewal Plan EIR Environmental Effects Summary The 2011 Renewal Plan EIR determined that development facilitated by the proposed amendments would result in impacts to the following resources that would be reduced to a less‐ than‐significant level with the implementation of identified mitigation measures and/or SCAs:
aesthetics (light/glare only); air quality (except as noted below as less than significant and significant); biological resources (except no impacts regarding wetlands or conservation plans); 1431 FRANKLIN STREET – CEQA ANALYSIS DECEMBER 2022
II. BACKGROUND—PROGRAM PLANS AND EIRS
8 cultural resources (except as noted below as significant); geology and soils; greenhouse gas emissions; hazards and hazardous materials; hydrology and water quality (stormwater and 100‐ year flooding only); noise (exceeding standards – construction and operations only); traffic/circulation (safety and transit only); utilities and service systems (stormwater and solid waste only).

Less‐than‐significant impacts were identified for the following resources in the 2011 Renewal Plan EIR: aesthetics (except as noted above as less than significant with standard conditions of approval); air quality (clean air plan consistency); hydrology and water quality (except as noted above as less than significant with standard conditions of approval); land use and planning; population and housing; noise (roadway noise only); public services and recreation; traffic/circulation (air traffic and emergency access); and utilities and service systems (except as noted above as less than significant with standard conditions of approval). No impacts were identified for agricultural or forestry resources, and mineral resources.

The 2011 Renewal Plan EIR determined that the proposed amendments combined with cumulative development would have significant unavoidable impacts on the following environmental resources: air quality (toxic air contaminant exposure and odors); cultural resources (historic); and traffic/circulation (roadway segment operations). Due to the potential for significant unavoidable impacts, a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted as part of the City’s approvals.

The remaining impacts for applicable resource topics identified in the 2011 Renewal Plan EIR were found to have no significant impacts.

9 III. PURPOSE AND SUMMARY OF THIS DOCUMENT
The purpose of this CEQA document is to evaluate the potential environmental effects of the 1431 Franklin Street Office Project and to determine whether such impacts were adequately covered under the Program EIRs, referenced above, such that CEQA streamlining and/or tiering provisions and exemptions could be applied. The analysis herein incorporates information from the Program EIRs. It includes a CEQA Checklist (see Chapter V) and supporting documentation to provide comprehensive review and public information for the basis of the CEQA determination.

Based on the environmental evaluation, and as this CEQA Checklist, included in Chapter V, demonstrates, the project qualifies for several CEQA streamlining and/or tiering provisions and CEQA exemptions, each of which separately and independently provide a basis for CEQA compliance. These exemptions and applicable provisions of CEQA related to streamlining and/or tiering and CEQA exemptions, as well as applicable standard conditions of approval, and CEQA requirements related to aesthetics and parking, are described below.

A. COMMUNITY PLAN EXEMPTION
Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 (Projects Consistent with a Community Plan or Zoning) allow streamlined environmental review for projects that are “consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified, except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site.” Section 15183(c) specifies that “if an impact is not peculiar to the parcel or to the project, has been addressed as a significant effect in the prior EIR, or can be substantially mitigated by the imposition of uniformly applied development policies or standards…, then an EIR need not be prepared for the project solely on the basis of that impact.” This analysis considers the evaluation in the 1998 LUTE EIR and 2011 Renewal Plan EIR for the overall project. This CEQA document concludes that the project would not result in significant impacts that (1) are peculiar to the project or project site; (2) were not identified as significant project‐level, cumulative, or off-site effects in the Program EIRs; or (3) were previously identified as significant effects but are determined to have a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the Program EIRs. Findings regarding the project’s consistency with the zoning are included as Attachment B to this document. The project meets the requirements for a community plan exemption, as it is permitted in the zoning district where the project site is located and is consistent with the land uses envisioned for the site. Thus, based on the analysis conducted in 1431 FRANKLIN STREET PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS DECEMBER 2022 III. PURPOSE AND SUMMARY OF THIS DOCUMENT
10 this document, and pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the project qualifies for a community plan exemption.

B. QUALIFIED INFILL EXEMPTION
Public Resources Code Section 21094.5 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.3 (Streamlining for Infill Projects) allow streamlining for certain qualified infill projects by limiting the topics subject to review at the project level, if the effects of infill development have been addressed in a planning level decision, or by uniformly applicable development policies. An infill project is eligible if the project (1) is located in an urban area on a site that either has been previously developed or that adjoins existing qualified urban uses on at least 75 percent of the site’s perimeter; (2) satisfies the performance standards provided in CEQA Guidelines Appendix M; and (3) is consistent with the general use designation, density, building intensity, and applicable policies specified for the project area in either a sustainable communities strategy or an alternative planning strategy.

No additional environmental review is required if the infill project would not cause any new specific effects or more significant effects, or if uniformly applicable development policies or standards would substantially mitigate such effects.

The analysis conducted indicates that the project qualifies for a qualified infill exemption and, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.3, is generally consistent with the required performance standards provided in CEQA Guidelines Appendix M, as evaluated in Attachment C:

Infill Performance Standards, Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.3, of this document. This CEQA document supports that the project would not cause any new specific effects or more significant effects than previously identified in applicable planning level EIRs, and uniformly applicable development policies or standards (referred to herein as SCAs) would substantially mitigate the project’s effects. The project is proposed on a previously developed site in downtown Oakland and is surrounded by urban uses. Furthermore, the project is consistent with the land use, density, building intensity, and applicable policies for the site. The analysis herein considers the analysis in the 2011 Renewal Plan EIR and the 1998 LUTE EIR.

Cumulative level effects of infill development have been addressed in other planning level documents, such as the LUTE and 1998 LUTE EIR and Redevelopment Plan and 2011 Redevelopment Plan EIR, or by uniformly applicable development policies (SCAs) which mitigate such impacts. Based on the streamlining provisions of CEQA Guidelines Sections 15183 and 15183.3, the project’s cumulative effect would be less than significant.

DECEMBER 2022 1431 FRANKLIN STREET PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS III. PURPOSE AND SUMMARY OF THIS DOCUMENT
11 C. PROGRAM EIRS AND REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 (Program EIRs) and Section 15180 (Redevelopment Projects) provide that the 1998 LUTE EIR and 2011 Renewal Plan EIR can be used as Program EIRs in support of streamlining and/or tiering provisions under CEQA. The 2011 Renewal Plan EIR is a Program EIR for streamlining and/or tiering provisions by CEQA Guidelines Section 15168. The section defines the Program EIR as one prepared on a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project and are related geographically and by other shared characteristics. Section 15168 states that “subsequent activities in the Program EIR must be examined in the light of the Program EIR to determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared.” If the agency finds that pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no new effects could occur, or no new mitigation measures would be required, the agency can approve the activity as being within the scope of the project covered by the Program EIR and no new environmental document would be required.

Further, CEQA Guidelines Section 15180 specifies that “if a certified redevelopment plan EIR is prepared, no subsequent EIRs are required for individual components of the redevelopment plan unless a subsequent EIR or supplement to the EIR would be required by Section 15162 or 15163.” The 2011 Renewal Plan EIR is considered a certified redevelopment plan.

Overall, based on an examination of the analysis, findings, and conclusions of the 1998 LUTE EIR and the 2011 Renewal Plan EIR, all of which are summarized in the CEQA Checklist in Chapter V of this document, the potential environmental impacts associated with the project have been adequately analyzed and covered in the Program EIRs. This analysis demonstrates that the project would not result in substantial changes or involve new information that would warrant preparation of a subsequent EIR, per CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 or 15164, because the level of development now proposed for the site is within the broader development assumptions analyzed in the Program EIRs. Therefore, no further review or analysis under CEQA is required.

D. CLASS 32 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION
Public Resources Code Section 21159.21 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15300 to Section 15333 includes a list of classes of projects that have been determined to not have a significant effect on the environment and as a result, are exempt for review under CEQA. Among the classes of projects that are exempt from CEQA review are those projects that are specifically identified as urban in-fill development. CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (Class 32) consists of projects characterized as in-fill development when meeting the following conditions: a) the project is consistent with the applicable zoning designation and regulations; b) the proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than 5 acres substantially surrounded by urban uses; c) the project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species; d) approval of the project would not result in any significant effects related to traffic, noise, air 1431 FRANKLIN STREET PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS DECEMBER 2022 III. PURPOSE AND SUMMARY OF THIS DOCUMENT
12 quality, or water quality; and e) the site can be adequately served by all utilities and public services. The project’s consistency with Class 32 requirements is provided in Attachment D.

E. PREVIOUS MITIGATION MEASURES AND CURRENT STANDARD

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
As described above, the CEQA Checklist provided in Chapter V of this document evaluates the potential project specific environmental effects of the project and evaluates whether such impacts were adequately covered by the Program EIRs previously described in Chapter II, Background-Program Plans and EIRs, to allow the above‐listed provisions of CEQA to apply. The analysis conducted incorporates by reference the information contained in each of the Program EIRs. The project is legally required to incorporate and/or comply with the applicable requirements of the mitigation measures identified in the Program EIRs. Therefore, the mitigation measures are included as part of the project, including those that have been modified to reflect the City’s current standard language and requirements, as discussed below.

1. Standard Conditions of Approval Application in General The City of Oakland established its Standard Conditions of Approval (SCAs) and Uniformly Applied Development Standards in 2008 after certification of the 1998 LUTE EIR. They have since been amended and revised several times. The most recent version of the SCAs was published by the City on December 16, 2020. The City’s SCAs are incorporated into and applied to project approvals as conditions of approval, regardless of a project’s environmental determination. The SCAs incorporate policies and standards from various adopted plans, policies, and ordinances (e.g., Oakland Planning Code and Municipal Code, Creek Protection Ordinance, Stormwater Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance, Tree Protection Ordinance, Grading Regulations, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System [NPDES] permit requirements, Housing Element-related mitigation measures, California Building Code and Uniform Fire Code).

The implementation of these policies and standards have been found to substantially mitigate environmental effects. The SCAs are adopted as requirements of an individual project when it is approved by the City and are designed to, and would, substantially mitigate environmental effects.

Consistent with the requirements of CEQA, a determination of whether the project would have a significant impact was made prior to the approval of the project and, where applicable, SCAs and/or mitigation measures in the Program EIRs have been identified to mitigate those impacts.

In some instances, exactly how the measures/conditions identified will be achieved awaits completion of future studies, an approach that is legally permissible where measures/conditions are known to be feasible for the impact identified; where subsequent compliance with identified federal, state, or local regulations or requirements apply; where specific performance criteria are DECEMBER 2022 1431 FRANKLIN STREET PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS III. PURPOSE AND SUMMARY OF THIS DOCUMENT
13 specified and required; and where the project commits to developing measures that comply with the requirements and criteria identified.

2. Standard Conditions of Approval Application in this CEQA Document Several SCAs would apply to the project because of its characteristics and are triggered by the City of Oakland’s consideration of a discretionary action for the project. Because the SCAs are mandatory City requirements, the impact analyses for new and modified projects assumes that all applicable SCAs will be imposed and implemented by the project in question.

All mitigation measures and applicable SCAs for the project are listed in Attachment A:

Mitigation Measures and Standard Conditions of Approval and Reporting Program, of this document. Some of the SCAs identified in this document apply to the project and were also identified in the 2011 Renewal Plan EIR and 1998 LUTE EIR prior to the City’s application of SCAs; however, the project would be subject to the most recent version of City SCAs.

Aesthetics and Parking Analysis
CEQA Guidelines Section 21099(d) states, “Aesthetic and parking impacts of a residential, mixed- use residential, or employment center project on an infill site located within a transit priority area shall not be considered significant impacts on the environment.”10 Accordingly, aesthetics and parking, for such projects, are no longer to be considered in determining if a project has the potential to result in significant environmental effects for projects that meet all three of the following criteria:
▪ The project is in a transit priority area.11
▪ The project is on an infill site.12
▪ The project is residential, mixed-use residential, or an employment center.13 The project meets each of the above three criteria because it: (1) is located within approximately 500 feet (less than 0.1 miles) of the 12th Street Oakland Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) Station and the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods (Route 6 with 10-

10 CEQA Guidelines Section 21099(d)(1)
11 CEQA Guidelines Section 21099(a)(7) defines a “transit priority area” as an area within 0.5-mile of an existing or planned major transit stop. A "major transit stop" is defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 21064.3 as a rail transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods. 12 CEQA Guidelines Section 21099(a)(4) defines an “infill site” as a lot located within an urban area that has been previously developed, or a vacant site where at least 75 percent of the perimeter of the site adjoins, or is separated only by an improved public right-of-way from, parcels that are developed with qualified urban uses 13 CEQA Guidelines Section 21099(a)(1) defines an “employment center” as a project located on property zoned for commercial uses with a floor area ratio (FAR) of no less than 0.75 and located within a transit priority area. 1431 FRANKLIN STREET PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS DECEMBER 2022 III. PURPOSE AND SUMMARY OF THIS DOCUMENT
14 minute peak headways, Route 18 with 15-minute peak headways, Route 51A with 10-minute peak headways, and Routes 72/72M/72R with 10- to 12-minute peak headways prior to the COVID-19 pandemic); (2) is located on an infill site that is currently developed with a surface parking lot, and within a developed urban area of Oakland that includes commercial, office and residential uses; and (3) would be an employment center.

Therefore, this CEQA document does not consider aesthetics and the adequacy of parking in determining the significance of project impacts under CEQA. The City of Oakland recognizes that the public and decision makers nonetheless may be interested in information pertaining to the aesthetic effects and may desire that such information be provided as part of the environmental review process. Parking is not generally considered for CEQA purposes; however, this information is provided solely for informational purposes and is not used to determine the significance of the environmental impacts of the project, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 21099(d).

15 IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This chapter describes the proposed 1431 Franklin Street Office Project that is the subject of this CEQA document. This chapter provides a description of the project site and existing site conditions, discusses the project details and characteristics, and lists the required project approvals.

A. PROJECT SITE
A description of the project site, including its location site characteristics, surrounding land uses, and existing general plan and zoning designation, is provided below.

1. Location
The project site is in Downtown Oakland on Franklin Street between 14th and 15th streets. It is bounded by several 1- to 4-story older commercial structures to the north and south, a 10-story building to the west, an 18-story building to the southwest, and another surface parking lot across the street to the east. The project site is well served by extensive public transit options.

Access to the 12th Street Oakland BART Station is available to the west on Broadway at the corner of 14th and 13th streets; access to the Tempo Bus Rapid Transit line 1T is available to the west on Broadway and 14th; access to several Alameda County Transit (AC Transit) routes including the 6, 12, 18, 33, 51A, 611, 800, 840, 851; the Broadway Shuttle; and other numerous dedicated bike lanes and connections in the surrounding area. The project site is accessed regionally by vehicle from I-980 and I-880, both with access within a mile of the site.

Figure IV-1 illustrates the location and context of the project site.

2. Existing General Plan and Zoning Designation
The City of Oakland General Plan14 land use classification for the site, as established by the Land Use and Transportation Element (LUTE), is Central Business District (CBD). The intent of the CBD designation is to encourage, support, and enhance the downtown area as a high-density, mixed- use urban center of regional importance and a primary hub for business, communications, office, government, high technology, retail, entertainment, and transportation in Northern California. A discussion of the project’s consistency with relevant land use policies is provided in Section V.J, Land Use, Plans, and Policies. Furthermore, as described above and in the LUTE, the project site is located in the Downtown Showcase District which is intended to promote Downtown

14 City of Oakland, 1998a, op. cit.

ALICE ST

HARRISON ST
17TH ST
11TH ST

SAN PABLO AV

BROADWAY
10TH ST

JEFFERSON ST

CLAY ST

TELEGRAPH AV

WASHINGTON
ST
14TH ST
15TH ST
13TH ST
12TH ST
FRANK H.

OGAWA PLAZA

FRANKLIN ST

WEBSTER ST
19th Street Oakland
BART Station
12th Street Oakland
BART Station
Project Site
Project Vicinity
24 Alameda
Berkeley
Bay Bridge
880
580980
80 Not to Scale
Emeryville
Oakland
Figure IV-1
Project Location
Source: City of Oakland, 2017.
1431 Franklin Street Office Project
N
0 200 400100
Feet
DECEMBER 2022 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
17 development to be visually interesting, harmonize with its surroundings, respect and enhance important views in and of the downtown, respect the character, history, and pedestrian- orientation of the downtown, and contribute to an attractive skyline.

The project site is within the Central Business District Pedestrian Retail Zone (CBD-P), which is intended to enhance the Central Business District through ground-floor pedestrian-oriented, active storefront uses. The parcel is also within the CBD Height Area 7, which permits unlimited height and a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 20.0. A more detailed discussion of the project’s consistency with relevant land use policies is provided in Section V.J, Land Use, Plans, and Policies.

3. Surrounding Land Uses
The project site is within a well-developed, urban, downtown environment with a mix of land uses surrounding the project site, as shown in Figure IV-2. To the north, existing uses include a college (Lincoln University), several commercial buildings (restaurant and offices), and some above ground floor residential uses. Existing uses to the south primarily includes commercial buildings and some above ground floor residential uses. To the west is a 10-story office building with ground-floor retails spaces and an 18-story office building to the southwest. Existing uses to the east opposite Franklin Street include a surface parking lot and several other commercial buildings. Lake Merritt is approximately 2,250 feet northeast of the project site. A more detailed discussion of existing and planned land uses is provided in Section V.J, Land Use, Plans, and Policies.

The project site is located within a 0.25-mile of numerous historic resources, all of which are described below in Section V.D, Cultural and Historic Resources. The project site is also located within the Downtown Historic District Area of Primary Importance (API). An API is a historically or visually cohesive area or property group identified by the Oakland Cultural Heritage Survey (OCHS) which usually contains a high proportion of individual properties with ratings of “C” or higher. Additionally, the project is located within the vicinity of several other APIs —the Leamington Hotel Group, Uptown Commercial, and Lake Merritt APIs — are located near the project area. A more detailed discussion of historic resources is provided in Section V.D, Cultural and Historic Resources.

4. Site Characteristics
The project site is urban in character and is currently developed with an approximately 20,974 square feet surface parking lot containing approximately 81 parking spaces and a guard shack.

The project site is approximately 0.48 acres (20,974 square feet) and is comprised of a single parcel:
▪ 1431 Franklin Street (Assessor’s Parcel Number [APN] 8-621-8-7) The project site is under single, private ownership and is not on the list of hazardous waste and substance sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (Cortese list).

FRANKLIN ST
Project Site
1431 Franklin St
(APN 8-621-8-7)

BROADWAY
15TH ST
14TH ST
13TH ST

TELEGRAPH AVE
1431 Franklin Street Office Project
Figure IV-2
Project Site
Source: Google, 2020.

N 0 150 30075
Feet
DECEMBER 2022 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
19 Photo of existing 1431 Franklin Street site.

Sidewalks line the east (Franklin Street) frontages of the project site. A driveway along Franklin Street provides vehicle access to the site through a driveway along Franklin Street. There is currently no existing landscaping along the Franklin Street frontage. There is a bike lane along the east side of Franklin Street.

3. Project Characteristics
A description of the project, including the proposed development characteristics, circulation and parking, landscaping and streetscape, utilities, and infrastructure improvements, and demolition and site preparation, is provided below.
a. Development Characteristics
The project would involve construction of a 410.5-foot-tall building (456.5 feet at top of mechanical penthouse), with 27 floors and approximately 495,993 gross square feet. The project’s footprint of would cover 100 percent of the project site’s 20,974 square feet.

Uses on the site would include office, automobile parking, bike parking, office lobby, and private open space. The project’s site plan is shown in Figure IV-3 and a rendering of the building are shown in Figures IV-4 through IV-6. Approximately 375,760 square feet would be dedicated to office space, which would be the dominant use; approximately 54,043 square feet for auto parking; approximately 34,355 square feet to open space; approximately 20,429 square feet dedicated to other auxiliary, and support uses; and approximately 11,406 square feet of ground floor space would be for the office lobby. An overview of these project components is shows in Figure IV-7.

1431 Franklin Street Office Project
Figure IV-3
Site Plan
Source: LARGE Architecture, 2022.

N
1431 FRANKLIN ST
Office Entitlement

TIDEWATER CAPITAL
564 Market Street, Suite 225
San Francisco, CA 94104
Page - 35
06/15/2022

OVERALL LOOKING SOUTH-WEST
Source: LARGE Architecture, 2022.

Figure IV-4
Rendering - View Looking Southwest
1431 Franklin Street Office Project
1431 FRANKLIN ST
Office Entitlement

TIDEWATER CAPITAL
564 Market Street, Suite 225
San Francisco, CA 94104
Page - 36
06/15/2022

OVERALL LOOKING NORTH-WEST
Source: LARGE Architecture, 2022.

Figure IV-5
Rendering - View Looking Northwest
1431 Franklin Street Office Project
1431 FRANKLIN ST
Office Entitlement

TIDEWATER CAPITAL
564 Market Street, Suite 225
San Francisco, CA 94104
Page - 37
06/15/2022

FRANKLIN STREET ELEVATION LOOKING SOUTH-WEST
1431 Franklin Street Office Project
Figure IV-6
Rendering - Ground-level Façade
Source: LARGE Architecture, 2022.
1431 FRANKLIN ST
Office Entitlement

TIDEWATER CAPITAL
564 Market Street, Suite 225
San Francisco, CA 94104
Page - 17
06/15/2022
Indoor and outdoor amenities mid tower and on roof
21 floors of office
100 stalls over 3 floors Office lobby and back of house

MECHANICAL AMENITY
OFFICE

PARKING GARAGE LOBBY

PROGRAM DIAGRAM

OFFICE TOWER PROGRAM
1431 Franklin Street Office Project
Figure IV-7
Program Diagram
Source: LARGE Architecture, 2022.

DECEMBER 2022 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
25 The projects FAR would be 19.43.15 These project characteristics are summarized below in Table IV-1.16
TABLE IV-1 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
Characteristic Proposed Project
Floor-Area Ratio 19.43
Height
Floors 27
Height in Feet 410’-6” (at roof)/456’-6” (top of mechanical) Proposed Uses (gsf)
Office 375,760
Open Space 34,355
Parking 54,043
Auxiliary and Support 20,429
Lobby 11,406
Residential 0
Total GSF 495,993
Proposed Parking (number of spaces)
Vehicle Parking Space 115
Bicycle Parking Spaces 63 (42 long term/21 short term) Note: gsf = gross square feet.

Source: Tidewater Capital, 2022.

As shown in Figure IV-8, the ground floor would consist of the building lobby, leasing office, the elevator lobby, vehicle circulation, and building support uses such as mechanical and electrical equipment, and trash areas. Above the ground floor, the project would have a mezzanine as shown in Figure IV-9. Floors two through four would consist of 54,043 vehicular parking area and is shown in Figures IV-10 through IV-12. Floor 22 and the roof of the building would contain approximately 34,355 square feet of open space and amenities. The amenity space is shown in Figure IV-13 and the typical office space floor plan is shown in Figure IV-14. The roof plan is shown in Figure IV-15.

A section of the building is shown in Figure IV-16. Project elevations are provided in Figures IV-17 and IV-18.

15 FAR only considers office, retail, lobby, and some support space uses per Oakland Municipal Code Section

17.09.040. Therefore the project’s total considerable FAR total is 419,480 square feet. 16 At the time of the publication of this CEQA Document, multiple scenarios were being contemplated for the project. The air quality and transportation analysis therefore consider the maximum development potential for the project site at the maximum allowed FAR of 20.0 in order to encapsulate a “worst-case” scenario. This worst-case scenario is described in those respective resource topic sections. 1431 Franklin Street Office Project
Figure IV-8
Ground Floor Plan
Source: LARGE Architecture, 2022.

N
1431 Franklin Street Office Project
Figure IV-9
Mezzanine Floor Plan
Source: LARGE Architecture, 2022.

N
1431 Franklin Street Office Project
Figure IV-10
Parking Floor Plan (Level 2)
Source: LARGE Architecture, 2022.

N
1431 Franklin Street Office Project
Figure IV-11
Parking Floor Plan (Level 3)
Source: LARGE Architecture, 2022.

N
1431 Franklin Street Office Project
Figure IV-12
Parking Floor Plan (Level 4)
Source: LARGE Architecture, 2022.

N
1431 FRANKLIN ST
Office Entitlement

TIDEWATER CAPITAL
564 Market Street, Suite 225
San Francisco, CA 94104
Page - 75
06/15/2022
1431 Franklin Street Office Project
Figure IV-13
Amenity Floor Plan (Level 22)
Source: LARGE Architecture, 2022.

N
 




  

1431 Franklin Street Office Project
Figure IV-14
Typical Oﬃce Floor Plan
Source: LARGE Architecture, 2022.

N
1431 FRANKLIN ST
Office Entitlement

TIDEWATER CAPITAL
564 Market Street, Suite 225
San Francisco, CA 94104
Page - 76
06/15/2022
1431 Franklin Street Office Project
Figure IV-15
Roof Floor Plan
Source: LARGE Architecture, 2022.

N
1431 FRANKLIN ST
Office Entitlement

TIDEWATER CAPITAL
564 Market Street, Suite 225
San Francisco, CA 94104
Page - 59
06/15/2022
Source: LARGE Architecture, 2022.

Figure IV-16
Project Site Section
1431 Franklin Street Office Project
1431 FRANKLIN ST
Office Entitlement

TIDEWATER CAPITAL
564 Market Street, Suite 225
San Francisco, CA 94104
Page - 63
06/15/2022

WEST ELEVATION
T.O. ROOF
410.5’ ABOVE GRADE
Mechanical screen
Punched window pre-cast system with brick
facade and aluminum anodized windows and low-e
glass. Brick color to be determined (Approximate
color shown is proposed)
Amenity deck. Glass enclosure
1431 FRANKLIN ST
Office Entitlement

TIDEWATER CAPITAL
564 Market Street, Suite 225
San Francisco, CA 94104
Page - 61
06/15/2022
Pre-cast system with brick facade. Brick color
to be determined (Approximate color shown is
proposed)

SOUTH ELEVATION
T.O. ROOF
410.5’ ABOVE GRADE
Mechanical screen
Amenity deck. Glass enclosure

AMENITY
309’ ABOVE GRADE
Punched window pre-cast system with brick
facade and aluminum anodized windows and low-e
glass. Brick color to be determined (Approximate
color shown is proposed)
1431 Franklin Street Office Project
Figure IV-17
Site Elevation - South and West Elevation
Source: LARGE Architecture, 2022.

West Elevation South Elevation
1431 FRANKLIN ST
Office Entitlement

TIDEWATER CAPITAL
564 Market Street, Suite 225
San Francisco, CA 94104
Page - 62
06/15/2022

EAST ELEVATION
T.O. ROOF
410.5’ ABOVE GRADE
Mechanical screen
Punched window pre-cast system with brick
facade and aluminum anodized windows and low-e
glass. Brick color to be determined (Approximate
color shown is proposed)
Amenity deck. Glass enclosure

AMENITY
309’ ABOVE GRADE
1431 FRANKLIN ST
Office Entitlement

TIDEWATER CAPITAL
564 Market Street, Suite 225
San Francisco, CA 94104
Page - 60
06/15/2022

NORTH ELEVATION
T.O. ROOF
410.5’ ABOVE GRADE
Mechanical screen
Punched window pre-cast system with brick
facade and aluminum anodized windows and low-e
glass. Brick color to be determined (Approximate
color shown is proposed)
Amenity deck. Glass enclosure

AMENITY
309” ABOVE GRADE
1431 Franklin Street Office Project
Figure IV-18
Site Elevation - North and East Elevation
Source: LARGE Architecture, 2022.

East Elevation North Elevation
DECEMBER 2022 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
37 b. Circulation and Parking
The project site would have one vehicle access point along Franklin Street for entry and exit to the parking levels. The project includes a total of 115 automobile parking spaces on levels two and three. A total of 21 short-term and 42 long-term bicycle parking spaces would be provided on the ground floor of the building. Three loading bays would be located on the ground floor. No changes to the existing street parking along Franklin Street are proposed by the project. c. Landscaping and Streetscape
The project includes a total of 34,355 square feet of group open space intended for use of building occupants only, which would be provided via amenity spaces on level 22 and on the roof.

Landscaping plans for the ground floor and rooftop are shown in Figures IV-13 and IV-15. d. Utilities and Infrastructure Improvements
Utility services are currently provided to existing buildings at and surrounding the project site and would be readily available to serve the project. Water supply and treatment, and wastewater treatment are provided to Oakland by EBMUD. The project site is currently served by sanitary sewer and water lines. Minor connections or modifications to these existing lines would be required to serve a new structure on the project site. The project applicant, the project design, and occupants of the project site would be required to comply with the waste reduction and recycling regulations outlined in Oakland Municipal Code Chapter 15.34. Impacts related to utilities is described in Section V.O, Utilities and Service Systems.

The project is required by City of Oakland standards to qualify for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Silver Certification. As such, the project would include water fixtures that will be specified to reduce water consumption by approximately 35 percent, and include other water saving measures. In addition, the project would be designed with a high efficiency building envelope and would reduce energy use through the use of efficient HVAC systems. Lastly, the project would also include photovoltaic panels to reduce its overall energy consumption.
e. Demolition and Site Preparation
All existing structures and site improvements are planned to be demolished/removed.

Excavation would extend to a maximum of approximately 9 feet below the existing ground surface and require removal of approximately 6,700 cubic yards of soil off-site. 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS DECEMBER 2022 IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
38 f. Construction Operations and Schedule
It is expected that project construction would begin as in 2023 and last approximately 30 months, ending in 2026 when building occupation is anticipated. Construction equipment would include excavators, graders, rubber-tired dozers, tractors, loaders, backhoes, cranes, forklifts, drill rigs, rollers, air compressors, and pumps.

B. DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS
It is anticipated that this CEQA document will provide environmental review of all discretionary approvals and actions required for the project. A number of permits and approvals would be required before project development could be initiated. As lead agency for the project, the City of Oakland would be responsible for the majority of these approvals. The City would require a series of discretionary actions associated with approval of the project, which are described below. Other agencies would have some authority related to the project and its approvals.

1. City of Oakland
Key discretionary actions required by the City of Oakland are outlined below. a. Planning Commission
Environmental Review and CEQA determination, Regular Design Review, and Conditional Use Permit for large projects.
b. Building Department
Demolition, Grading and Building permits including other related on- and off-site work permits.

Permits would also include approval of Post-Construction Stormwater Control Plan demonstrating compliance with Provision C.3 of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Regional Permit (MRP).
c. Oakland Department of Transportation (DOT)
Major and Minor Encroachment permits for all street improvements, and tie-backs17 in the public right-of-way.

17 Tie-backs are a structural element installed in soil or rock to transfer load into the ground.

DECEMBER 2022 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
39 2. Actions by Other Agencies
Responsible agencies that have discretionary approval power over the project, including such actions as issuance of a permit or authorization may include, but are not limited to those listed below.
a. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)
Issuance of permits for installation and operation of the emergency generator. Acceptance of notice of asbestos abatement and demolition activities, if any. b. East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD)
Grant a Special Discharge Permit to discharge construction dewatering to the sanitary sewer and/or approval of new service requests and new water meter installations. c. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
Prior to construction, applicant will submit FAA Form 7460-1, Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration, providing notification of the construction of a structure over 200 feet in height. FAA will issue a notice determining whether the proposed construction is an obstruction.

1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS DECEMBER 2022 IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
40 41
V. CEQA CHECKLIST

OVERVIEW
This CEQA Checklist summarizes the potential environmental impacts that could result from approval and implementation of the project. The analysis in this CEQA Checklist also summarizes the impacts and findings of Program EIRs that covered, specifically or as part of the cumulative analyses; the environmental effects of the project and that are still applicable to the project. As previously indicated, the Program EIRs include the 1998 LUTE EIR and 2011 Renewal Plan EIR.

Given the timespan between the preparations of these EIRs, there are variations in the specific environmental topics addressed and significance criteria; however, as discussed above in Chapter III, Purpose and Summary of this Document, and throughout this Checklist, the overall environmental effects identified in each are largely the same and any significant differences are noted.

This CEQA Checklist hereby incorporates by reference the discussion and analysis in the Program EIRs for all potential environmental impact topics; however, only those environmental topics that could have a potential project-level environmental impact are included in this document. The EIR significance criteria have been consolidated and abbreviated in this CEQA Checklist for administrative purposes; where appropriate, the significance criteria have been updated to reflect current City of Oakland significance criteria established after the Program EIRs were prepared and that now apply to the project.

This CEQA Checklist provides a determination of whether the project would result in:
▪ Equal or Less Severity of Impact Previously Identified in Program EIRs ▪ Substantial Increase in Severity of Previously Identified Significant Impact in Program EIRs ▪ New Significant Impact
Where the severity of the impacts of the project would be the same as or less than the severity of the impacts described in the Program EIRs, the checkbox for Equal or Less Severity of Impact Previously Identified in Program EIRs is checked. The checkboxes for Substantial Increase in Severity of Previously Identified Significant Impact in Program EIRs or New Significant Impact are checked if there are significant impacts that are one or more of the following:
▪ Peculiar to project or project site (per CEQA Guidelines Sections 15183 or 15183.3). ▪ Not identified in the previous EIR (Program EIRs) (per CEQA Guidelines Sections 15183 or 15183.3), including off-site and cumulative impacts (per CEQA Guidelines Section 15183). ▪ Due to substantial changes in the project (per CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 and 15168). 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS DECEMBER 2022 V. CEQA CHECKLIST
42 ▪ Due to substantial changes in circumstances under which the project will be undertaken (per CEQA Guidelines Section 15162).
▪ Due to substantial new information not known at the time the Program EIRs were certified (per CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162, 15183, or 15183.3).

The project will be subject to the City of Oakland applicable SCAs. Most of the SCAs that are identified for the project were identified in the 2011 Renewal Plan Amendment EIR; the 1998 LUTE EIR was developed prior to the City’s application of SCAs. Since certification of the Previous EIRs, the City of Oakland has revised its SCAs, and the most current SCAs are identified in this CEQA Checklist. The project is also required to comply with all applicable mitigation measures identified in the Program EIRs.18 The project sponsor has agreed to incorporate and/or implement the required mitigation measures and/or SCAs as part of the project. This CEQA Checklist includes references to the applicable SCAs, a list of the SCAs is included in Attachment A, and this list is incorporated by reference into the CEQA Checklist. If the CEQA Checklist (including Attachment A) inaccurately identifies or fails to list an SCA, the applicability of that SCA to the project is not affected. If the language describing a mitigation measure or an SCA included in the CEQA Checklist (including Attachment A) is inaccurately transcribed, the language set forth in the Program EIRs or City of Oakland SCAs shall control.

ATTACHMENTS
The following attachments are included at the end of this CEQA Checklist:

A. Mitigation Measures and Standard Conditions of Approval and Reporting Program B. Project Consistency with Community Plan or Zoning, per CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 C. Infill Performance Standards, per CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.3 D. Urban Infill Exemption Analysis, per CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 E. Shadow Study
F. Wind Study
G. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Estimates and Health Risk Analysis H. Summary of Cultural Resources
I. Traffic Noise Outputs
J. Transportation Demand Management Memo

18 These are development standards that are incorporated into projects as SCAs, regardless of a project’s environmental determination, pursuant, in part, to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183. As applicable, the SCAs are adopted as requirements of an individual project when it is approved by the City, and are designed to, and will, substantially mitigate environmental effects. In reviewing project applications, the City determines which of the SCAs are applied, based on the zoning district, community plan, and the type(s) of permit(s)/approvals(s) required for the project. Depending on the specific characteristics of the project type and/or project site, the City will determine which SCA applies to each project.

DECEMBER 2022 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS V. CEQA CHECKLIST
A. AESTHETICS, SHADOW, AND WIND
43 A. AESTHETICS, SHADOW, AND WIND
Would the project:

Equal or
Less Severity
of Impact
Previously
Identified in
Program EIRs
Substantial
Increase
in Severity
of Previously
Identified
Significant
Impact in EIR
New
Significant
Impact
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a public scenic vista; substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings, located within a state or locally designated scenic highway; substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings; or create a new source of substantial light or glare which would substantially and adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area;
☒ ☐ ☐
b. Introduce landscape that would now or in the future cast substantial shadows on existing solar collectors (in conflict with California Public Resource Code Sections 25980
through 25986); or cast shadow that substantially impairs the function of a building using passive solar heat collection, solar collectors for hot water heating, or photovoltaic solar collectors;
☒ ☐ ☐
c. Cast shadow that substantially impairs the beneficial use of any public or quasi-public park, lawn, garden, or open space; or, cast shadow on an historical resource, as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a), such that the shadow would materially impair the resource’s historic significance; ☒ ☐ ☐
d. Require an exception (variance) to the policies and
regulations in the General Plan, Planning Code, or Uniform Building Code, and the exception causes a fundamental
conflict with policies and regulations in the General Plan, Planning Code, and Uniform Building Code addressing the provision of adequate light related to appropriate uses; or ☒ ☐ ☐
e. Create winds that exceed 36 mph for more than one hour during daylight hours during the year. The wind analysis only needs to be done if the project’s height is 100 feet or greater (measured to the roof) and one of the following conditions exist: (a) the project is located adjacent to a substantial water body (i.e., Oakland Estuary, Lake Merritt or San Francisco Bay); or (b) the project is located in Downtown.
☒ ☐ ☐
Since certification of the Program EIRs, the CEQA statutes have been amended related to assessment of aesthetics impacts. CEQA Guidelines Section 21099(d) states, “Aesthetic and parking impacts of a residential, mixed-use residential, or employment center project on an infill site located within a transit priority area shall not be considered significant impacts on the environment.”19 Accordingly, aesthetics is no longer considered in determining if a project has

19 CEQA Guidelines Section 21099(d)(1).
1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS DECEMBER 2022 V. CEQA CHECKLIST
A. AESTHETICS, SHADOW, AND WIND
44 the potential to result in significant environmental effects for projects that meet all three of the following criteria:
a. The project is in a transit priority area.20
b. The project is on an infill site.21
c. The project is residential, mixed-use residential, or an employment center.22 The project meets all three criteria: (1) it in a transit priority area (less than 0.1 miles from the 12th Street BART Station); (2) the project site is an infill site within the urban area of the city of Oakland and is currently developed with a surface parking lot; and (3) the project is an employment center project. Thus, this CEQA document does not consider scenic resources, visual character, and the adequacy of parking in determining the significance of project impacts under CEQA. Nonetheless, the City of Oakland recognizes that the public and decision makers may be interested in information pertaining to the aesthetic effects of a project and may desire that such information be provided as part of the environmental review process.

Because the project meets these criteria as described above, the information below related to aesthetics is provided solely for informational purposes and is not used to determine the significance of the environmental impacts, pursuant to CEQA.

1. Program EIR Findings
Scenic vistas, scenic resources, visual character, light and glare, shadow, and wind were analyzed in the Program EIRs, which found that the effects to these topics, except for wind, would be less than significant. The 1998 LUTE EIR identified potentially significant and unavoidable impacts related to wind hazards.

The 2011 Renewal Plan EIR, which analyzed aesthetics, wind, and shadow, found all remaining impacts to these topics to be less than significant with applicable SCAs.

The 1998 LUTE EIR identified impacts related to scenic resources as less than significant. The LUTE EIR identified potentially significant impacts to visual character by new development that could block views, cast shadows, appear visually incongruous with adjacent low-rise development. Mitigation measures that recommended several zoning development standards were identified to reduce certain potential aesthetic effects to less-than-significant levels.

Mitigation Measure N.1 of the 1998 LUTE EIR requires site specific studies and incorporation of specific design elements to reduce impacts related to wind hazards. The significant and unavoidable findings related to wind, recognize that in some instances wind impacts may not be

20 CEQA Guidelines Section 21099(a)(7), op. cit.
21 CEQA Guidelines Section 21099(a)(4), op. cit.
22 CEQA Guidelines Section 21099(a)(1), op. cit.

DECEMBER 2022 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS V. CEQA CHECKLIST
A. AESTHETICS, SHADOW, AND WIND
45 reduced to a less-than-significant level, even with implementation of feasible wind reducing design elements.

2. Project Analysis
Scenic Vistas, Scenic Resources, Visual Character, and Light and Glare (Criterion 1.a)
The project involves construction of a 410.5-foot (456.5 feet at top of mechanical), 27-story-office tower on a site that is generally flat and contains limited views of Downtown Oakland and the Oakland Hills. Under current conditions (2022), the site is occupied by a surface parking lot containing approximately 81 parking spaces and an associated guard shack. The surrounding area is an eclectic urban environment with a combination of building types and architectural styles and a mix of old and new landscaping. Surrounding building heights significantly vary with single- story commercial structures, to mid-rise buildings, and high-rises up to 40 stories concentrated near the project site.

Scenic Vistas and Resources
The Open Space, Conservation, and Recreation (OSCAR) element of the City of Oakland General Plan identifies views of Downtown and Lake Merritt, the Oakland Hills, and panoramic views from Skyline Boulevard and Grizzly Peak Road as scenic resources that need to be protected.

Given the urban nature of the project’s area and existing development on the project site, views through and from the project site are primarily limited to the immediate developments adjacent to the site due to the flat topography and varied heights of buildings in the area. Therefore, like the findings of the Program EIRs, the project would not significantly affect any scenic vistas or scenic resources.

State Scenic Highway
The project site is approximately 1.25 miles south of the State Scenic Highways segment of I-580 that terminates at State Route (SR) 24. Because the I-580/SR-24 interchange is elevated and the project would be one of the tallest developments in Downtown Oakland, it would be visible to motorists on the designated scenic highway. However, the project is not expected to damage view of scenic resources for motorists on I-580/SR-24 because its size and scale would not substantially interfere with the view from the I-580/SR 24 interchange. Therefore, the project would not impact State Scenic Highways and associated resources under CEQA.

Visual Character
The project site is in Downtown Oakland which features an eclectic mix of development. As described in the LUTE EIR, “visual quality in Downtown Oakland varies from block to block. There 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS DECEMBER 2022 V. CEQA CHECKLIST
A. AESTHETICS, SHADOW, AND WIND
46 are many fine buildings and visual landmarks, but there are also many buildings that are vacant and boarded up. Some blocks appear vibrant and attractive, others appear depressed and deteriorating.” This remains an accurate description of downtown. The site is immediately surrounded by several 1- to 4-story older commercial structures to the north and south, a 10-story building to the west, an 18-story building to the southwest, and another surface parking lot across the street to the east. Within a block of the project site there are several commercial and/or residential mid to high-rise buildings ranging in height from 10 to 40 stories.

The project’s new 27-story office tower in place of a surface parking lot would contribute to the eclectic visual character of downtown falling in the mid to higher range of building heights within a block of the project site. To ensure that the project would be consistent with the historic nature of the surrounding area and adjacent buildings, the project’s design was reviewed by the City of Oakland’s Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board (LPAB) on January 10, 2022, May 2, 2022, and on September 12, 2022. In response to LPAB Feedback, the applicant revised the design of the project to address LPAB, City staff, and the public’s comments and concerns related to design. At the September 12, 2022, meeting, the LPAB reviewed the latest design and recommended approval to the Planning Commission. In addition, at the September 28, 2022, meeting, the Design Review Committee of the Planning Commission reviewed the project for its aesthetic qualities and recommended the project be presented to the Planning Commission. The project's design and height would also be consistent with the intended visual character of the Downtown Showcase District as described in the LUTE with a visually interesting building that harmonizes with the surrounding Downtown and contributes to an attractive skyline.

Furthermore, the project would be consistent with the zoning for the site that does not have a maximum height limit and with the intensity of development evaluated in the LUTE EIR. Such changes were anticipated under the LUTE EIR which found that high rise development could potentially block views, cast shadows, appear visually incongruous with adjacent low-rise development. The recommended mitigation measures required the City to prepare and adopt development standards that support the preferred skyline design. The City has since adopted such standards as part of its zoning updates.

As discussed above, the project has been found by the LPAB and Design Review Committee to be consistent with the area’s visual character and furthermore, complies with the City’s development standards and zoning. As a result, the project’s impacts related to visual character would not be significant.

Light and Glare
Development facilitated by the project would result in additional lighting. While new sources of light would be installed as part of new buildings and site improvements, these new lighting sources would be consistent with typical light and glare conditions with other high-rise developments in the area and other non-residential uses and would not create new sources of DECEMBER 2022 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS V. CEQA CHECKLIST
A. AESTHETICS, SHADOW, AND WIND
47 substantial light and glare that would substantially and adversely affect nighttime views in the area. In addition, implementation of SCA-AES-1: Lighting (#19), which would require exterior lighting fixtures to be adequately shielded to a point below the light bulb and reflector to prevent unnecessary glare onto adjacent properties, would further reduce impacts on visual quality and character associated with lighting and glare.

Shadow (Criteria 1.b through 1.d)
Overview
As described in the 2011 Renewal Plan EIR, the anticipated development in the Renewal Plan Area would not have significant impacts to shade and shadow, and thus, no mitigation measures or SCAs were required. The 1998 LUTE EIR found that high rise development could potentially cast shadows and the recommended mitigation measures requiring the City to prepare and adopt development standards that support the preferred skyline design. The City has since adopted such standards as part of its zoning updates. Both Program EIRs assumed the development of high-rise buildings throughout downtown consistent with the proposed project. An overview of the project’s compliance with relevant standards is provided below in Section V.J, Land Use, Plans, and Policies, the project complies with the City’s development standards and zoning. As such, the project, which is 27-stories, is within the scope of what was analyzed in the LUTE EIR.

Additionally, the circumstances related to shade and shadow, particularly park and open space, which could be impacted by the project’s shadow have not substantially changed since the Program EIRs were certified.

Shadow Study
An updated and site-specific shadow study was completed based on the City of Oakland’s significant threshold criteria for purposes of understanding that such impacts are not considered significant under CEQA. The shadow study is provided in Attachment E: Shadow Study and is summarized below.

Under the City of Oakland thresholds of significance, a project would have a significant shadow impact if it were to:
▪ Introduce landscape that would cast substantial shadows on existing solar collectors; ▪ Cast a shadow that substantially impairs the function of a building using passive solar heat collection, solar collectors for hot water heating, or photovoltaic solar collectors; ▪ Cast a shadow that substantially impairs the beneficial use of any public or quasi-public park, lawn, garden, or open space; or
▪ Cast a shadow on an historic resource such that the shadow would materially impair the resource’s historic significance by materially altering those physical characteristics of the 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS DECEMBER 2022 V. CEQA CHECKLIST
A. AESTHETICS, SHADOW, AND WIND
48 resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its designation as an historic resource.

The shadow analysis (see Attachment E) prepared for the project shows shadows that would be cast by the project at 9:00 a.m., 12:00 p.m., and 3:00 p.m., during the following times:
▪ Summer Solstice (June 21): Exhibits A1-P, A2-P, and A3-P. ▪ Spring/Fall Equinoxes (March 20 and September 22): Exhibits B1-P, B2-P, and B3-P. ▪ Winter Solstice (December 21): Exhibits C1-P, C2-P, and C3-P.

Additionally, graphics showing the extents of the net new shading that would be generated by future projects together with the project near the project site are also presented in Attachment E (see Exhibits A1-C, A2-C, and A3-C for cumulative conditions on the Summer Solstice; Exhibits B1-C, B2-C, and B3-C for cumulative conditions on the spring/fall equinoxes; and Exhibits C1-C, C2-C, and C3-C for cumulative conditions on the winter solstice).

The shadow study shows that between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., the project would generally cast new shadow in the westward direction across 14th Street near the intersection with Clay Street, northwest across 17th Street between Jefferson Street and Martin Luther King Jr.

Way, northward to the intersection of 17th Street and Broadway/Telegraph Avenue, and northeast across 19th Street between Franklin and Webster streets.

Landscape
The project would not introduce any new shadow from landscape features that would affect any existing solar collectors or historic resources.

Solar Collectors
As identified in the shadow analysis, no buildings with solar would be affected by the project’s net new shadow. Therefore, the project would have no impact on solar collectors.

Parks and Open Spaces
There are several parks and open spaces in vicinity of the project site, however only two (Frank Ogawa Plaza and Latham Square) would be affected by the project’s associated shadow and both existed when the LUTE EIR was prepared:
▪ Frank Ogawa Plaza: The publicly accessible park (see number 1 on all Exhibits of Attachment E) would receive net new shading throughout the year. This shading would generally last from approximately 9:00 a.m. to noon. During the affected period, only small portions of the plaza would be affected (typically about 1 to 5 percent of the plaza area at any given time) with most net new shading occurring in August (affecting approximately 15 percent of the plaza area). Project shadow during this time would affect grass areas, public walkways, and the semi-circular amphitheater space adjacent to city hall. However, the vast DECEMBER 2022 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS V. CEQA CHECKLIST
A. AESTHETICS, SHADOW, AND WIND
49 majority of the park would already be cast in shade during these times and the project’s new shadow would only result in an incremental increase over existing conditions. Furthermore, while the project would cast new shade upon on the park at certain times, the project’s shadow would only affect the park during the morning hours and over the course of the year only represent a very small increase over the levels of existing shadow. For these reasons, the increase in shading at the park as a result of the project would not substantially impair the beneficial use of the park.
▪ Latham Square: The publicly accessible open space (see number 2 on all Exhibits of Attachment E) would receive net new shading between mid-September through late March annually. This shading would generally begin at approximately 10:00 a.m. and be present up to 12:40 p.m. During the early fall and late spring around noon, only small portions near the southern tip of the square would be affected for a short duration. On dates closer to the winter solstice (December 21), increasing amount of the square would be affected and for longer durations, starting around 10:00 a.m. and moving off the square to the east around 12:40 p.m. Portions of the plaza most affected would be the southern portions, comprised of the public walkways and small planting areas. Areas towards the north of the square where fixed benches and a fountain are located would be affected only on dates with winter solstice.

While net new shadow would be created throughout half of the year, the northern portions where net new shadow would be most prevalent (where fixed benches and the fountain are located) would only be affected for less than two months annually for a few hours each day.

For these reasons, the increase in shading at the park as a result of the project would not impair the beneficial use of the park.

Because the project’s shadow would only affect nearby parks and open spaces for limited time durations, the presence of new shading cast by the project would not substantially impair the beneficial use of nearby parks or open spaces and would not be a significant impact.

Historic Resources
There are many historic resources in vicinity of the project site including designated landmarks and other buildings noted by the City as having a cultural significance, including:
▪ 575 15th Street
▪ 1529 Clay Street
▪ 1605-1625 Clay Street
▪ 1 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza
▪ 532 16th Street
▪ 350 Frank Ogawa Plaza
▪ 510-516 16th Street
▪ 1611-1627 Telegraph
Street
▪ 300 Frank Ogawa Plaza
▪ 150 Frank Ogawa Plaza
▪ 457 17th Street
▪ 1636 Telegraph Avenue
▪ 1628 Telegraph Avenue
▪ 1615-1617 Broadway
▪ 1500 Broadway
▪ 420 15th Street
▪ 449 15th Street
▪ 1440 Broadway
▪ 420-436 14th Street
▪ 1411 Franklin Street
▪ 401-421 15th Street
▪ 1441 Franklin Street
▪ 1428 Franklin Street
▪ 389 15th Street
▪ 1624 Franklin Street
▪ 394 17th Street
▪ 1709 Webster Street
▪ 1736-1814 Franklin Street
1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS DECEMBER 2022 V. CEQA CHECKLIST
A. AESTHETICS, SHADOW, AND WIND
50 However, only two of these known historic resources (300 Frank Ogawa Plaza [Oakland Rotunda] and 1 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza [Oakland City Hall]) would be affected by shadow from the project.

In addition, the site would affect three known historic APIs23 (Downtown Historic API, 17th Street Commercial API, and Leamington Hotel Group API) in the area that would be affected by the project’s associated shadow.
▪ Oakland Rotunda: The building (see number 6 on all Exhibits of Attachment E) would receive new shading between early November through mid-February. This shading would generally begin at approximately 9:00 a.m. and be present for up to approximately 115 minutes, moving west to east until leaving the rotunda no later than 10:55 a.m. The main historic- defining character of the building, in relation to shadow, belongs to the glass rotunda feature.

Shadow size and duration would be the greatest on dates close to the winter solstice (December 21), with lesser shading size and durations being present on dates further removed. Although new shading as a result of the project would be cast on the rotunda, this would only diminish direct lighting into the building during the morning hours for approximately 4 months a year. In addition, natural lighting would still come through the glass windows located on north side year-round and would not affect their historic and visual character. Lastly, no new net shadow would be cast on the building during most of the year.

Therefore, new project shading would not affect the historic-defining character element of this resource.
▪ Oakland City Hall: The building (see number 3 on all Exhibits of Attachment E) would receive new shading during the morning hours, from late August through early November and again from mid-February through mid-April. During the affected period, shadows would be cast on the eastern facades (both at the base and the lower ½ of the tower portion), as well as the lower rooftop starting at 9:00 a.m. and would be present for up to approximately 65 minutes while moving from across the building towards the north. Shadow size and duration would be the greatest on dates near the fall and spring equinoxes (9/21 and 3/21), with lesser shadow size and duration being present on dates further removed. Although new shading as a result of the project would cast new shadow on the primary façade of City Hall, this would only diminish direct lighting into the building during the morning. In addition, this building doesn’t contain elements such as stained glass that would have their historic status affected by shadow. Thus, intermittent shadows would not affect the historical features or the character of Oakland City Hall.
▪ Downtown Historic API, 17th Street Commercial API, and Leamington Hotel Group API:

Shadows generated by the project would shade several of the other buildings listed as historically significant within these APIs. However, none of these historic buildings (other than the Oakland Rotunda building described above) contain elements such as stained glass

23 An API (Area of Primary Importance) is a geographic area or cluster of buildings which have been idenitified by the City to have historic and cultural significance and are considered historic resources in of themselves.

DECEMBER 2022 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS V. CEQA CHECKLIST
A. AESTHETICS, SHADOW, AND WIND
51 that would have their historic status affected by shadow. Thus, intermittent shadows would not change affect the historical features or the character of these districts.

For these reasons, the presence of new shading cast by the project would not substantially affect historical resources and would not be a significant impact.

Cumulative Effects
The cumulative conditions in the shadow study assess the project’s potential impacts, in addition to other projects in the vicinity that could cast shadow on receptor sites (see Attachment E:

Exhibits A1-C, A2-C, and A3-C for cumulative conditions on the Summer Solstice; Exhibits B1-C, B2-C, and B3-C for cumulative conditions on the spring/fall equinoxes; and Exhibits C1-C, C2-C, and C3-C for cumulative conditions on the winter solstice). The cumulative projects considered in this cumulative analysis include:
▪ 1431 Jefferson Street
▪ 1601 San Pablo Avenue
▪ 1750 Broadway
▪ 1433 Webster Street
▪ 1510 Webster Street
While many of these cumulative projects would generate new shadow at various times of day and year, most of the shadow cast by cumulative projects would not overlap/combine with shadow cast by the project to create any increase shadow coverage further affecting any of the resources described above.

Shadow Summary
The project would not introduce net new shadow that would significantly affect existing solar collectors or historic resources. The project would cast shadows on parks and open spaces; however, the duration of shadow would be limited for a few months out of year and for short periods of time. Lastly, while the project would cast shadows on historic resources, new shade would not materially affect their historical significance. As such, the project would not have any significant impacts relating to shade and shadow.

Wind (Criterion 1.e)
The 1998 LUTE EIR found that development in the Downtown Showcase District (in which the project site is located) could result in significant and unavoidable impacts to wind. The following mitigation was included to minimize wind impacts:
1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS DECEMBER 2022 V. CEQA CHECKLIST
A. AESTHETICS, SHADOW, AND WIND
52 LUTE EIR Mitigation Measure N.1: The City shall require the project sponsors to incorporate specific design elements in the final siting and designs for the high rises that could reduce ground-level winds within the Downtown Showcase District.

The LUTE EIR findings recognize that new development in this district may not be able to reduce wind impacts to below the City’s thresholds. If a project would result in winds exceeding 36 miles per hour (mph) for more than one (1) hour during daylight hours over a one-year period, the impact is considered significant. As part of the City’s approval of the LUTE EIR, a statement of overriding consideration was adopted related to wind and new development in the Downtown Showcase District.

In response to Mitigation Measures N.1 and consistent with the City of Oakland CEQA Thresholds of Significance Guidelines (which requires a wind analysis if the project site is located Downtown and the proposed height exceeds 100 feet), a wind study was prepared for the project to evaluate its wind effects and is included in Attachment F. The wind study assessed the project and potential mitigating design variations at 48 locations within a 1,600-foot radius of the project site, primarily along sidewalks and public rights-of-way for the following scenarios:
▪ Existing Conditions,
▪ Existing Conditions Plus Project, and
▪ Cumulative Conditions Plus Project.

The results of the wind analysis are described below. It should be noted that the wind analysis and results presented were prepared based on a previous design of the building massing; however, it was qualitatively determined by the preparers of the wind analysis that the proposed changes to the designs of the building (e.g., the building as presented in this document) are not significant enough to alter the wind conditions when compared to the original design. Thus, no wind hazard conditions for the assessed configuration would remain the case with the proposed design. See Attachment F for the detailed analysis and Letter of Opinion from the wind study preparers.

Under Existing Conditions average wind speeds were 24 mph. Under Existing Conditions Plus Project, average wind speeds remained the same at 24 mph. Furthermore, at no time during the year does wind speed exceed the City’s hazard wind threshold.

Under Cumulative Conditions Plus Project, the wind study considered cumulative development project conditions within an approximately 1,500-foot radius of the project site. Proposed and approved projects assumed in the cumulative wind study include:
▪ 1100 Clay Street – Phase 2
▪ 1750 Broadway
▪ 415 20th Street
▪ 1510 Webster Street
DECEMBER 2022 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS V. CEQA CHECKLIST
A. AESTHETICS, SHADOW, AND WIND
53 ▪ 1433 Webster Street
▪ Monarch Tower
▪ 285 12th Street
Under Cumulative Conditions Plus Project, the wind speed does not exceed the City’s hazard wind threshold and averaged approximately 23 mph (1 mph below existing conditions).

Consistent with the findings of Impact N.1 of the 1998 LUTE EIR the project’s wind impacts would be less than significant.

3. Conclusion
Consistent with the findings of the Program EIRs, the project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts related to aesthetics, shadow, or wind. The project would be required to implement SCA-AES-1: Lighting (#19) and Mitigation Measure N.1 of the 1998 LUTE EIR. In addition, implementation of the following SCAs would further reduce impacts of the project to aesthetics, shadow, and wind, including: SCA-AES-2: Landscape Plan (#18), SCA-AES-3: Trash and Blight Removal (#16), SCA-AES-4: Graffiti Control (#17), SCA-AES-5: Public Art for Private Development (#92), and SCA-UTIL-5: Underground Utilities (#82). Please see Attachment A for a full description of these mitigation measures and SCAs.

1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS DECEMBER 2022 V. CEQA CHECKLIST
B. AIR QUALITY
54 B. AIR QUALITY
Would the project:

Equal or
Less Severity
of Impact
Previously
Identified in
Program EIRs
Substantial
Increase
in Severity
of Previously
Identified
Significant
Impact in EIR
New
Significant
Impact
a. During project construction result in average daily emissions of 54 pounds per day of ROG, NOX, or PM2.5 or 82 pounds per day of PM10; during project operation result in average daily emissions of 54 pounds per day of ROG, NOX, or PM2.5, or 82 pounds per day of PM10; result in maximum annual
emissions of 10 tons per year of ROG, NOX, or PM2.5, or 15 tons per year of PM10; or
☒ ☐ ☐
b. For new sources of Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs), during either project construction or project operation expose sensitive receptors to substantial levels of TACs under project conditions resulting in (a) an increase in cancer risk level greater than 10-in-1-million, (b) a noncancer risk (chronic or acute) hazard index greater than 1.0, or (c) an increase of annual average PM2.5 of greater than

0.3 microgram per cubic meter; or, under cumulative
conditions, resulting in (a) a cancer risk level greater than 100-in-1 million, (b) a noncancer risk (chronic or acute) hazard index greater than 10.0, or (c) annual average PM2.5 of greater than 0.8 microgram per cubic meter; or expose new sensitive receptors to substantial ambient levels of Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) resulting in (a) a cancer risk level greater than 100-in-1-million, (b) a noncancer risk (chronic or acute) hazard index greater than 10.0, or
(c) annual average PM2.5 of greater than 0.8 microgram per cubic meter.
☒ ☐ ☐

1. Program EIR Findings
The 2011 Renewal Plan EIR, which analyzed air quality, found most impacts to be less than significant with implementation of applicable SCAS; impacts related to exposure from toxic air contaminants (TACs) and odors were found to be significant and unavoidable, even with implementation of SCAs. The 1998 LUTE EIR identified mitigation measures to reduce the impact of criteria pollutant emissions from construction equipment and stationary sources to a less-than- significant level; however, the 1998 LUTE EIR found that increased criteria pollutant emissions from increased traffic, including reduced emissions after implementation of identified mitigation measures, would result in a significant and unavoidable impact. The 1998 LUTE EIR did not quantify or address cumulative health risks, as such analysis was not required when that EIR was prepared.

DECEMBER 2022 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS V. CEQA CHECKLIST
B. AIR QUALITY
55 2. Project Analysis
The project is in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB), which is under the jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). The California Air Resources Board (CARB) and United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) focus on the following air pollutants as regional indicators of ambient air quality:
▪ Carbon monoxide (CO).
▪ Ozone.
▪ Suspended particulate matter—both respirable (PM10) and fine (PM2.5). ▪ Nitrogen dioxide.
▪ Sulfur dioxide.
▪ Lead.

Because these are the most prevalent air pollutants known to be harmful to human health, based on extensive criteria documents, they are referred to as “criteria air pollutants.” In the SFBAAB, the primary criteria air pollutants of concern are CO, ground-level ozone formed through reactions of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and reactive organic gases (ROG), PM10, and PM2.5. The BAAQMD adopted thresholds of significance to assist lead agencies in the evaluation and mitigation of air quality impacts under CEQA.24 The BAAQMD’s thresholds – which were utilized by the City of Oakland in establishing its own thresholds of significance – established levels at which emissions of ROG, NOx, suspended particulate matter, carbon monoxide, TACs, and odors could cause significant air quality impacts. Two fractions of particulate matter emissions are regulated based on aerodynamic resistance: those with diameters equal to or less than 10 microns (PM10) and those with diameters equal to or less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5). These thresholds were developed to represent a cumulatively considerable contribution to regional air quality, and therefore reflect not only project-level thresholds but also cumulative thresholds.

The BAAQMD’s thresholds of significance adopted by the City of Oakland that are used in this CEQA document are summarized in Table V.B-1 below.

Criteria Air Pollutants (Criterion 2.a)
The BAAQMD currently recommends using the most recent version of the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod version 2016.3.2) to estimate construction and operational emissions of criteria air pollutants and precursors for a project. CalEEMod uses widely accepted models for emission estimates combined with appropriate default data for a variety of land use projects that can be used if site-specific information is not available. The default data (e.g., type and power of construction equipment) is supported by substantial evidence provided by regulatory agencies and a combination of statewide and regional surveys of existing land uses.

24 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2017. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, May. 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS DECEMBER 2022 V. CEQA CHECKLIST
B. AIR QUALITY
56 TABLE V.B-1 CITY OF OAKLAND’S THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE Impact Analysis Pollutant Threshold of Significance
Regional Air Quality
(Construction)
ROG 54 pounds/day (average daily emission)
NOx 54 pounds/day (average daily emission)
Exhaust PM10 82 pounds/day (average daily emission)
Exhaust PM2.5 54 pounds/day (average daily emission)
Regional Air Quality
(Operation)
ROG 54 pounds/day (average daily emission)
10 tons/year (maximum annual emission)
NOx 54 pounds/day (average daily emission)
10 tons/year (maximum annual emission)
Exhaust PM10 82 pounds/day (average daily emission)
15 tons/year (maximum annual emission)
Exhaust PM2.5 54 pounds/day (average daily emission)
10 tons/year (maximum annual emission)
Local Community
Risks and Hazards
(Operation and/or
Construction)
Fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5) Best management practices (BMPs) Exhaust PM2.5 (project) 0.3 μg/m3 (annual average)
TACs (project) Cancer risk increase > 10 in one million Chronic hazard index > 1.0
Exhaust PM2.5 (cumulative) 0.8 μg/m3 (annual average)
TACs (cumulative) Cancer risk > 100 in one million
Chronic hazard index > 10.0
Notes: μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter
Source: BAAQMD, 2017. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, May.

The primary input data used to estimate the increase in emissions associated with construction and operation of the project are summarized in Table V.B-2. A copy of the CalEEMod report for the project, which summarizes the input parameters, assumptions, and findings, is provided in Attachment G.

TABLE V.B-2 SUMMARY OF CALEEMOD LAND USE INPUT PARAMETERS FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT Land Use Type CalEEMod Land Use Type Units Unit Amount
Commercial General Office Building Square Feet 441,950
Parking Garage Enclosed Parking with Elevator Spaces 115 Note: The square footage of the general office building and the number of parking spaces reported in Table V.B-2 are based on the most recently updated CEQA scenarios, which include 8,450 more square feet of office building (2% increase) and 20 additional parking spaces compared to the land use parameters modeled in Attachment G. Emission results in Attachment G were conservatively scaled up by 10% to account for these differences.

Source: Attachment G.

DECEMBER 2022 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS V. CEQA CHECKLIST
B. AIR QUALITY
57 Criteria Air Pollutants from Construction
Construction activities generate criteria air pollutant emissions, which can adversely affect regional air quality if emissions exceed the BAAQMD’s thresholds of significance. Project construction activities would include site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and applications of architectural coatings. The primary pollutant emissions of concern during project construction would be ROG, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 from the exhaust of off-road construction equipment and on-road vehicles related to worker vehicles, vendor trucks, and haul trucks. In addition, fugitive dust emissions of PM10 and PM2.5 would be generated by soil disturbance and demolition activities and fugitive ROG emissions would result from the application of architectural coatings and paving. Emissions of ROG, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 during project construction were estimated using the CalEEMod input parameters summarized in Tables V.B-2 and V.B-3.

TABLE V.B-3 SUMMARY OF CALEEMOD CONSTRUCTION INPUT PARAMETERS CalEEMod Input Category Construction Assumptions and Changes to Default Data Construction Phase
CalEEMod applies default equipment usage and construction phase lengths based on the findings of a survey of construction projects less than 5 acres.

The survey results are organized in CalEEMod based on lot acreage size. While the project is approximately 1 acre, the multi-story development projects included in the construction survey were approximately 3 acres. Therefore, the default equipment usage and construction phase lengths fo r a 3-acre lot were used to estimate the total hours of equipment operation (and associated emissions) required to construct the project.

Construction Equipment A drill rig was added to the list because auger cast piles would be used.

Material Movement Approximately 6,700 cubic yards of soil would be off-hauled.

Demolition
Demolition phase was removed from the default construction schedule because the project site is an existing parking lot and no major demolition would occur.

Notes: Demolition and material movement information provided by the project sponsor. Default CalEEMod data was used for all other parameters not described.

Source: See Attachment G.

Project construction would begin as early as July 2022 and last approximately 30 months. The total emissions estimated during construction were averaged over the total working days (770 days) and compared to the City’s thresholds of significance. As shown in Table V.B-4, the project’s estimated emissions for ROG, NOx, and exhaust PM10 and PM2.5 during construction are below the applicable thresholds. Furthermore, the City’s SCA-AIR-1: Criteria Air Pollutant Controls – Construction Related (#21) is also applicable to the project and requires project construction to limit engine idling time, to tune and maintain construction equipment, to only use diesel engines when electric, propane, or natural gas alternatives are not feasible, and to use low ROG coatings on structures. Therefore, emissions of criteria air pollutants from project construction would have a less-than-significant impact on regional air quality. 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS DECEMBER 2022 V. CEQA CHECKLIST
B. AIR QUALITY
58 TABLE V.B-4 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS (POUNDS PER DAY) Emissions Scenario ROG NOx
Exhaust
PM10
Exhaust
PM2.5
Total Emissions 7.3 7.9 0.27 0.25
Thresholds of Significance 54 54 82 54
Exceed Threshold? No No No No
Note: The square footage of the general office building and the number of parking spaces reported in Table V.B-2 are based on the most recently updated CEQA scenarios, which include 8,450 more square feet of office building (2% increase) and 20 additional parking spaces compared to the land use parameters modeled in Attachment G. Emission results in Attachment G were conservatively scaled up by 10% to account for these differences.

Source: See Attachment G.

The generation of fugitive dust PM10 and PM2.5 from soil disturbance activities could adversely affect local air quality. Neither BAAQMD nor the City has a quantitative threshold of significance for fugitive dust PM10 and PM2.5 emissions; however, the BAAQMD considers implementation of best management practices (BMPs) to control dust during construction sufficient to reduce potential impacts to a less-than-significant level. Because construction of the project would require a demolition permit and exceed the screening criterion for general office buildings listed in the BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines, construction of the project would be required to implement the City’s enhanced control measures for construction emissions described under SCA-AIR-2:

Dust Controls – Construction Related (#20), including but not limited to, watering exposed construction areas, application of ground cover or soil stabilizers to disturbed areas, and dust control monitoring. Implementation of the enhanced dust-control measures described under SCA-AIR-2 would satisfy the BAAQMD’s requirement for BMPs during construction. Because implementation of dust-control measures under SCA-AIR-2 would satisfy the BAAQMD’s threshold of significance, the impact on local air quality from dust generated during project construction would be less than significant.

Although the only existing structure that would be removed during project construction is the parking booth, the project is subject to all applicable laws and regulations regarding demolition of asbestos-containing materials enforced through the City’s SCA-AIR-3: Asbestos in Structures (#26). In addition, because naturally occurring asbestos has not been mapped in the vicinity of the project, the dust mitigation measures for asbestos described under the City’s SCA #28:

Naturally Occurring Asbestos would not apply to the project.

With implementation of SCA-AIR-1: Criteria Air Pollutant Controls – Construction Related (#21), SCA-AIR-2: Dust Controls – Construction Related (#20), SCA-AIR-3: Asbestos in Structures (#26), construction of the project would not substantially increase the severity of significant impacts identified in the Program EIRs, nor would it result in new significant impacts related to criteria pollutant emissions from construction that were not identified in the Program EIRs.

DECEMBER 2022 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS V. CEQA CHECKLIST
B. AIR QUALITY
59 Criteria Air Pollutants from Operations
Operational activities generate criteria air pollutant emissions, which can adversely affect regional air quality if emissions exceed the BAAQMD’s thresholds of significance. The primary pollutant emissions of concern during the project’s operation would be ROG, NOx, and exhaust PM10 and PM2.5 from mobile sources, energy use, area sources (e.g., consumer products and architectural coatings), and stationary sources. Project emissions were estimated for 2025, which is the earliest expected year of operation. Since statewide vehicle emission standards are required to improve over time in accordance with the Pavley (Assembly Bill 1493) and Low- Emission Vehicle regulations (Title 13, California Code of Regulations, and Section 1961.2), estimating emissions for the earliest year of operation provides the maximum expected annual emissions. Additional project-specific information used to calculate operation emissions in CalEEMod, including changes to default data, is summarized in Table V.B-5.

TABLE V.B-5 SUMMARY OF CALEEMOD OPERATION INPUT PARAMETERS FOR THE PROJECT CalEEMod
Input Category Operation Assumptions and Changes to Default Data Vehicle
Trips
Daily trip rates for each type of land use were adjusted according to the project traffic analysis for the proposed project (see Section V.N, Transportation and Circulation). These trip estimates account for a 46.9% trip reduction based on the City of Oakland’s Transportation Impact Review Guidelines for development in an urban environment within 0.5-mile of a BART station.

Stationary
Sources
It was conservatively assumed that a 1,000-kilowatt diesel emergency generator would be included for project operation. The diesel generator would be used for non-emergency operation up to 50 hours per year (for routine testing and maintenance).

Note: Default CalEEMod data used for all other parameters not described.

Source: See Attachment G.

The estimated annual and average daily emissions during the operational phase of the project are compared to the City’s thresholds of significance in Table V.B-6. The estimated emissions for ROG, NOx, and exhaust PM10 and PM2.5 were below the thresholds and, therefore, would have a less-than-significant impact on regional air quality. As a result, operation of the project would not substantially increase the severity of significant impacts identified in the Program EIRs, nor would it result in new significant impacts related to criteria pollutant emissions during operation that were not identified in the Program EIRs.

Toxic Air Contaminants (Criterion 2.b)
In addition to criteria air pollutants, local emissions of TACs, such as diesel particulate matter (DPM), are a concern for nearby receptors. TACs include a diverse group of air pollutants that can adversely affect human health. Unlike criteria air pollutants, which generally affect regional air quality, TAC emissions are evaluated based on estimations of localized concentrations and risk assessments. The adverse health effects a person may experience following exposure to any 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS DECEMBER 2022 V. CEQA CHECKLIST
B. AIR QUALITY
60 chemical depend on several factors, including the amount (dose), duration, chemical form, and any simultaneous exposure to other chemicals.

TABLE V.B-6 ESTIMATED EMISSIONS FROM PROJECT OPERATION
Emissions Scenario
Maximum Annual Emissions
(Tons)
Average Daily Emissions
(Pounds)
ROG NOx
Exhaust
PM10
Exhaust
PM2.5

ROG NOx
Exhaust
PM10
Exhaust
PM2.5
Area 2.12 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 11.59 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Energy 0.04 0.38 0.03 0.03 0.23 2.08 0.16 0.16
Mobile 0.37 2.43 0.01 0.01 2.02 13.32 0.08 0.07
Generator 0.06 0.27 0.01 0.01 0.33 1.48 0.05 0.05
Total Project Emissions 2.6 3.1 0.1 0.1 13.8 15.4 0.2 0.2 Thresholds of Significance 10 10 15 10 54 54 82 54
Exceed Threshold? No No No No No No No No
Note: The square footage of the general office building and the number of parking spaces reported in Table V.B-2 are based on the most recently updated CEQA scenarios, which include 8,450 more square feet of office building (2% increase) and 20 additional parking spaces compared to the land use parameters modeled in Attachment G. Emission results in Attachment G were conservatively scaled up by 10% to account for these differences.

Source: See Attachment G.

For risk assessment purposes, TACs are separated into carcinogens and non-carcinogens.

Carcinogens are assumed to have no safe threshold below which health impacts would not occur, and cancer risk is expressed as excess cancer cases per 1 million exposed individuals over a lifetime of exposure. Non-carcinogenic substances are generally assumed to have a safe threshold below which health impacts would not occur. Acute and chronic exposure to non- carcinogens is expressed as a hazard index (HI), which is the sum of expected exposure levels divided by the corresponding acceptable exposure levels. In the SFBAAB, adverse air quality impacts on public health from TACs are predominantly from DPM.

In 1998, CARB identified DPM from diesel-powered engines as a TAC based on its potential to cause cancer and other adverse health effects.25 Project construction would generate DPM and PM2.5 emissions from the exhaust of off-road diesel construction equipment and on-road vehicles (worker, vendor, and haul trucks) accessing the project site. Similarly, project operations would generate DPM and PM2.5 emissions from testing and maintenance of an emergency generator.

DPM and PM2.5 from diesel-powered engines are a complex mixture of soot, ash particulates, metallic abrasion particles, volatile organic compounds, and other components that can contribute to a range of health problems.

25 California Air Resources Board (CARB), 1998. Initial Statement of Reasons for Rulemaking; Proposed Identification of Diesel Exhaust as a Toxic Air Contaminant, June.

DECEMBER 2022 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS V. CEQA CHECKLIST
B. AIR QUALITY
61 The emissions of DPM and PM2.5 from diesel exhaust during construction and operation activities could pose a health risk to nearby sensitive receptors if the associated health risks exceed the BAAQMD’s thresholds of significance. The term sensitive receptor refers to a location where individuals are more susceptible to poor air quality. Sensitive receptors include schools, convalescent homes, and hospitals because the very young, the old, and the infirm are more susceptible than the rest of the public to air-quality-related health problems. Residential areas are also considered sensitive to poor air quality because people are often at home for extended periods, thereby increasing the duration of exposure to potential air contaminants. The existing sensitive receptors in the project’s vicinity include multi-family residences and schools. The BAAQMD recommends evaluating the potential health risks to sensitive receptors located within 1,000 feet of a project’s property boundary that could be exposed to TACs, such as DPM and PM2.5.

Because the project would construct more than 50,000 square feet of non-residential floor area in an area identified on the BAAQMD’s Healthy Places Map,26 the project is subject to SCA-AIR-4:

Diesel Particulate Matter Controls – Construction Related (#22) to conduct a screening-level health risk assessment (HRA) to determine whether additional health risk reduction measures are needed. The following project-level HRA meets the requirements of “method i” in SCA-AIR-4.

Generation of TAC Emissions during Construction
The annual average concentrations of DPM and exhaust PM2.5 concentrations resulting from the project during project construction were estimated within 1,000 feet of the project using the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency’s Industrial Source Complex Short Term (ISCST3) air dispersion model. For this analysis, emissions of exhaust PM10 were used as a surrogate for DPM, which is a conservative assumption because more than 90 percent of DPM is less than 1 micron in diameter.

The input parameters and assumptions used for estimating emission rates of DPM and PM2.5 from off-road diesel construction equipment and on-road vehicles (worker, vendor, and haul trucks) accessing the project site are included in Attachment G.

Daily emissions from construction were assumed to occur from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday. The exhaust from off-road equipment was represented in the ISCST3 model as a series of volume sources with a release height of 5 meters to represent the mid-range of the expected plume rise from frequently used construction equipment. Because less than 1 percent of total construction emissions of DPM and PM2.5 would be generated by on-road vehicles accessing the project site, only the off-road diesel construction equipment was included in the analysis.

A uniform grid of receptors spaced 10 meters apart was placed around the project site as a means of developing isopleths (i.e., concentration contours) that illustrate the dispersion pattern from

26 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2016. Planning Healthy Places, May. 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS DECEMBER 2022 V. CEQA CHECKLIST
B. AIR QUALITY
62 the various emissions sources. Receptor heights were set at 1.8 meters and 4.8 meters to represent ground-level receptors and second-floor receptors, respectively. The ISCST3 model input parameters included 3 years of BAAQMD meteorological data from the Oakland Sewage Treatment Plant weather station located about 2 miles northwest of the project site.

The air dispersion model was used to estimate annual average concentrations of DPM and PM2.5 at the receptors near the project site. Based on the results of the air dispersion model (Attachment G), potential health risks were evaluated for the maximally exposed individual student (MEIS) on the ground floor of a public charter school (Envision Academy of Arts and Technology) serving grades 6-12 about 305 feet to the northeast of the project site, and the maximally exposed individual resident (MEIR) located on the second floor at a mixed-use commercial and apartment building adjacent to the project site to the south. Locations of the MEIR and the MEIS are shown in Figure V.B-1.

In accordance with guidance from the BAAQMD27 and the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA),28 a health risk assessment was conducted to calculate the incremental increase in cancer risk and chronic hazard index (HI) to sensitive receptors from DPM emissions during construction. Analysis of acute non-cancer health hazards from construction activity is not recommended by BAAQMD, nor has a reference exposure level been approved by OEHHA and CARB. The annual average concentration of DPM at the MEIR and MEIS was used to conservatively assess potential health risks to nearby sensitive receptors. The input parameters and results of the health risk assessment are included in Attachment G.

It was conservatively assumed that the MEIR and MEIS would be exposed to an annual average DPM concentration over the entire estimated duration of construction, which is about 2.5 years (30 months). At the MEIR location, the incremental increase in cancer risk from on-site DPM emissions during construction was assessed for a young child exposed to DPM for 3 years starting from infancy in the third trimester of pregnancy. At the MEIS location, the incremental increase in cancer risk from on-site DPM emissions during construction was assessed for a middle school child exposed to DPM for 3 years starting at the age of 11. These exposure scenarios represent the most sensitive individuals who could be exposed to adverse air quality conditions in the vicinity of the project site.

In accordance with SCA-AIR-4: Diesel Particulate Matter Controls – Construction Related (#22), method i, the project would be required to identify and implement health risk reduction measures if the screening health risk analysis shows that the health risks resulting from the project’s uncontrolled construction emissions would exceed the City’s thresholds. Estimates of the health risks at the MEIR and the MEIS from exposure to DPM and PM2.5 concentrations during project

27 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2012. Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards, May.
28 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments, February.

Project Site
Existing Sources
Future Sources
Maximally Exposed Individual Student (MEIS)
Maximally Exposed Individual Resident (MEIR)
1,000-Foot Buﬀer for MEIR
Source: BASELINE Environmental Consulting, 2020.

Figure V.B-1
MEIR and MEIS Locations
1431 Franklin Street Office Project
N
250 5000 125
Feet
1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS DECEMBER 2022 V. CEQA CHECKLIST
B. AIR QUALITY
64 construction are summarized and compared to the City’s thresholds of significance in Table V.B-7. Under the construction scenario without any health risk reduction measures, the estimated chronic HIs for DPM and annual average PM2.5 concentration from construction emissions were below the City’s thresholds for both the MEIR and the MEIS; the excess cancer risk at the MEIS was also below the threshold. However, the excess cancer risk at the MEIR would exceed the City’s threshold. In accordance with SCA-AIR-4, the project will use the following health risk reduction measure: All construction equipment of 100 horsepower or more will be TABLE V.B-7 HEALTH RISKS FROM PROJECT CONSTRUCTION
Emissions Scenario Sensitive Receptor
Diesel Particulate Matter Exhaust PM2.5
Cancer Risk
(per million)
Chronic
Hazard Index
Annual Average
Concentration
(µg/m3)
Construction without
Health Risk
Reduction Measurea
Maximally Exposed
Individual Resident 53.3 0.04 0.17
Maximally Exposed
Individual Student 1.91 0.01 0.02
Construction with
Health Risk
Reduction Measurea
Maximally Exposed
Individual Resident 8.6 0.01 0.03
Maximally Exposed
Individual Student 0.3 <0.01 <0.01
Thresholds of Significance 10 1.0 0.3
Notes: Bold and shaded value exceeds the corresponding threshold. µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter
The square footage of the general office building and the number of parking spaces reported in Table V.B-2 are based on the most recently updated CEQA scenarios, which include 8,450 more square feet of office building (2% increase) and 20 additional parking spaces compared to the land use parameters modeled in Attachment G. Emission results in Attachment G were conservatively scaled up by 10% to account for these differences. a Requiring that all construction equipment of 100 horsepower or more to be equipped with engines certified to meet the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB’s) Tier 4 Final emissions standards, and that all construction equipment less than 100 horsepower to be equipped with engines certified to meet the CARB’s Tier 2 emissions standards or higher and Level 3 diesel particulate filter (DPF).

Source: See Attachment G.
equipped with engines certified to meet the CARB’s Tier 4 Final emissions standards; and all construction equipment with 25 to 100 horsepower will be equipped with engines certified to meet the CARB’s Tier 2 emissions standards or higher and Level 3 diesel particulate filter (DPF).

Currently, Tier 4 engines or installation of Level 3 verified diesel emission control strategies represent the best available control technology for control of DPM and are expected to reduce emissions by 85 percent.29
As shown in Table V.B-7, the engine requirement, detailed above, would reduce the excess cancer risk at the MEIR to below the City’s threshold. The project applicant will prepare a Construction

29 http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/verdev/vt/cvt.htm.

DECEMBER 2022 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS V. CEQA CHECKLIST
B. AIR QUALITY
65 Emissions Minimization Plan (Emissions Plan) in accordance with SCA-AIR-4: Diesel Particulate Matter Controls – Construction Related (#22) to ensure that the engine requirement will be enforced during construction and will submit the Emissions Plan to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. With the implementation of SCA-AIR-4, construction of the project would not substantially increase the severity of significant impacts identified in the Program EIRs, nor would it result in new significant impacts related to the generation of TAC emissions that were not identified in the Program EIRs.

Generation of TAC Emissions during Operation
Compliance with the California Building Code, Section 2702.5, requires that backup emergency generator be used to ensure elevator safety in all building in excess of 75 feet in height. To operate an emergency generator, the project would be required to comply with the BAAQMD’s permit requirements for a stationary source. In accordance with BAAQMD’s Regulation 2-5, New Source Review of Toxic Air Contaminants, the BAAQMD does not issue permits for generators that would result in an excess cancer risk greater than 10 in 1 million or a chronic HI greater than

1.0. These health standards are also enforced through the City’s SCA-AIR-5: Stationary Sources of Air Pollution (Toxic Air Contaminants) (#24), which requires a screening-level health risk assessment of any new stationary source of TACs to ensure the health risks are below acceptable levels. The following HRA meets the requirements of SCA-AIR-5.

This analysis conservatively assumed that the project’s emergency generators would result in the BAAQMD’s maximum permissible excess cancer risk of 10 in 1 million due to emissions of DPM.

However, the infrequent nature of annual testing and maintenance of emergency diesel generators is not likely to result in the maximum health risks thresholds permitted by the BAAQMD. Based on this conservative assumption, the BAAQMD’s Risk and Hazards Emissions Screening Calculator (Beta Version 4.0) 30 was used to estimate the equivalent screening-level health risks values for chronic HI and annual average PM2.5 concentrations. The calculator applies similar methods used to establish the emission threshold levels for TACs reported in the BAAQMD’s Regulation 2-5 and includes the most recent health risk parameters recommended by OEHHA.31 Based on the emission rate for DPM (0.0071 pounds per day) that would result in a cancer risk of 10 in 1 million, the associated fraction of PM2.5 emissions from an emergency generator were estimated using the CARB’s speciation profiles.32 The health risk screening values from the project’s emergency generators were then refined based on the distances from the generator to the MEIR and to the MEIS using the BAAQMD’s Diesel Internal Combustion Engine

30 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2020. Risk and Hazards Emissions Screening Calculator (Beta Version 4.0).
31 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments, February. 32 California Air Resources Board (CARB), 2018. Speciation Profiles Used in ARB Modeling. PMPROF spreadsheet for particulate matter chemical profiles for source categories. Available at: https://www.arb.ca.gov/ ei/speciate/speciate.htm#assnfrac, accessed January 29, 2018. 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS DECEMBER 2022 V. CEQA CHECKLIST
B. AIR QUALITY
66 Distance Multiplier Tool incorporated in the BAAQMD Health Risk Calculator (Beta Version 4.0).33 The supporting health risk calculations are included in Attachment G.

The conservative screening-level health risks to sensitive receptors associated with operation of the emergency generators are summarized and compared to the City’s thresholds of significance in Table V.B-8. The estimated excess cancer risk and chronic HI for DPM and the annual average PM2.5 concentration from operation of the emergency generators would not exceed the City’s thresholds of significance; therefore, the project’s emissions of DPM and PM2.5 during operation of an emergency generators would have a less-than-significant impact on nearby sensitive receptors and no further actions are required to address health risks under the City’s SCA-AIR-5:

Stationary Sources of Air Pollution (Toxic Air Contaminants) (#24). As a result, operation of the project would not substantially increase the severity of significant impacts identified in the Program EIRs, nor would it result in new significant impacts related to the generation of TAC emissions that were not identified in the Program EIRs.

TABLE V.B-8 HEALTH RISKS FROM OPERATION OF EMERGENCY GENERATORS AT THE PROJECT SITE Sensitive Receptor
Diesel Particulate Matter Exhaust PM2.5
Cancer Risk
(per million)
Chronic
Hazard Index
Annual Average Concentration
(µg/m3)
Maximally Exposed Individual Resident 10.0 <0.01 <0.01 Maximally Exposed Individual Student 2.5 <0.01 <0.01
Thresholds of Significance 10 1.0 0.3
Notes: µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter
Source: BAAQMD, 2020. Risk and Hazards Emissions Screening Calculator (Beta Version).

Cumulative TAC Emissions
In addition to a project’s individual TAC emissions during construction and operation, the potential cumulative health risks to sensitive receptors from existing and reasonably foreseeable future sources of TACs were evaluated. Based on their proximity to existing and future sources of TACs, cumulative health risks were estimated at the MEIR to represent the worst-case-exposure scenario for existing sensitive receptors in the project vicinity. The BAAQMD’s online screening tools were used to provide conservative estimates of how much existing and foreseeable future TAC sources would contribute to cancer risk, HI, and PM2.5 concentrations. The individual health risks associated with each source were summed to find the cumulative health risk at the MEIR.

33 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2020, op. cit.

DECEMBER 2022 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS V. CEQA CHECKLIST
B. AIR QUALITY
67 Based on the BAAQMD’s Permitted Stationary Sources Risks and Hazards Screening Tool,34 20 existing stationary sources of TAC emissions were identified within 1,000 feet of the MEIR (Table V.B-9). The BAAQMD’s Diesel Internal Combustion Engine Distance Multiplier Tool was used to refine the screening values associated with these existing stationary sources to represent the attenuated health risks that can be expected with increasing distance from diesel engines, respectively.

Preliminary health risk screening values at the MEIR from exposure to mobile sources of TACs were estimated based on the BAAQMD’s Bay Area modeling of health risks from highways, railroads, and major roadways with an average annual daily traffic (AADT) volume greater than 30,000 vehicles per day. According to the BAAQMD’s modeling of mobile sources, there is no major roadway or highway within 1,000 of the MEIR.35 The BAAQMD also recommends using the Roadway Screening Analysis Calculator to evaluate health risks from roadways with between 10,000 and 30,000 AADT. Based on review of 2020 average annual daily traffic (AADT) volumes forecasted by Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC),36 there are four roadways with an AADT volume between 10,000 AADT and 30,000 AADT within 1,000 feet of the project site. The maximum potential health risks at the MEIR from mobile emissions along these roadways were estimated using the BAAQMD’s Roadway Screening Analysis Calculator37 and the cancer risks were adjusted using a factor of 1.3744 to account for the most recent health risk parameters recommended by OEHHA.38
There are nine proposed foreseeable future developments within 1,000 feet of the MEIR.

Assuming an emergency generator is required for buildings with more than seven stories, six of these developments could involve the operation of emergency diesel generators, as shown in Table V.B-9. The BAAQMD does not issue permits for stationary sources that result in an excess cancer risk greater than 10 in 1 million or a chronic HI greater than 1.0 at the source of emissions.

Conservatively assuming each proposed generator would result in a maximum excess cancer risk of 10 in 1 million due to emissions of DPM, the BAAQMD’s Risk and Hazards Emissions Screening Calculator (Beta Version 4.0) was used to estimate the equivalent screening-level health risks values for chronic HI and annual average PM2.5 concentrations. The health risk screening values

34 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2020. Permitted Stationary Sources Risks and Hazards Screening Tool. Available at: https://baaqmd.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id= 2387ae674013413f987b1071715daa65, accessed December 22, 2020. Last updated on January 2, 2020. 35 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2014. BAAQMD Planning Healthy Places Highway, Major Street, and Rail health risk raster files.
36 Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC), 2014. Countywide Travel Demand Model. Planning Area 1; 2020 Daily Model Vehicle Volumes, July.
37 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2015. Roadway Screening Analysis Calculator, April 16.
38 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2018. Personal communication between Patrick Sutton from Baseline Environmental Consulting and Areana Flores from the BAAQMD, February 5. 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS DECEMBER 2022 V. CEQA CHECKLIST
B. AIR QUALITY
68 from the future generators were then refined based on the distance from each source to the MEIR using the BAAQMD’s Diesel Internal Combustion Engine Distance Multiplier Tool.

Estimates of the cumulative health risks at the MEIR are summarized and compared to the City’s cumulative thresholds of significance in Table V.B-9. With the implementation of SCA-AIR-4:

Diesel Particulate Matter Controls – Construction Related (#22), the excess cancer risk, chronic HI, and annual average PM2.5 concentrations at the MEIR were below the City’s cumulative thresholds of significance. Therefore, the project’s emissions of DPM and PM2.5 during construction and operation would have a less-than-significant cumulative impact on nearby sensitive receptors. Overall, construction and operation of the project would not substantially increase the cumulative severity of significant impacts identified in the Program EIRs, nor would it result in new significant impacts related to the generation of TAC emissions that were not identified in the Program EIRs.

TABLE V.B-9 SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE HEALTH RISKS AT THE MEIR Sources Source Type
Method
Ref
Cancer
Risk
(10-6)
Chronic
Hazard
Index
PM2.5
(μg/m3)
Project
Construction Emissions without health risk
reduction measurea Diesel Exhaust 53.3 0.04 0.17
Construction Emissions with health risk reduction
measurea Diesel Exhaust 8.6 0.01 0.03
Emergency Generators Diesel Generator 1 10.0 <0.01 <0.01 Existing Stationary Sources
MCI dba Verizon Business (Plant #12765) Generators 2,5 24.62 0.01 0.03 KRE 1330 Broadway Owner LLC (Plant #200393) Generators 2,5 7.65 <0.01 0.01 Verizon Wireless (Telegraph & Broadway)
(Plant #22412) Generators 2,5 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Level 3 Communications LLC (Plant #18110) Generators 2,5 0.4 <0.01 <0.01 CIM Properties (Plant #20345) Generator, boiler 2,5 1.52 <0.01 0.01 Oakland 14th Office (Plant #14423) Generators 2,5 0.48 <0.01 <0.01 City of Oakland Envr Scvs Division (Plant #14502) Generators 2,5 0.12 <0.01 <0.01 Alameda County Employees Retirement Assn
(ACERA) (Plant #16713) Generators 2,5 0.05 <0.01 <0.01
Rotunda Partners II (Plant #16713) Generators 2,5 0.51 <0.01 <0.01 Pacific Bell (Plant #13494) Generators 2,5 11.69 0.02 0.02 AC Transit General Office (Plant #14532) Generators 2,5 1.06 <0.01 <0.01 KRE 1221 Broadway Owners LLC (Plant #22058) Generators 2,5 0.62 <0.01 <0.01 Oakland Marriott City Center (Plant #22781) Generator, boiler 2,5 0.9 <0.01 <0.01 DECEMBER 2022 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS V. CEQA CHECKLIST
B. AIR QUALITY
69 TABLE V.B-9 SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE HEALTH RISKS AT THE MEIR Sources Source Type
Method
Ref
Cancer
Risk
(10-6)
Chronic
Hazard
Index
PM2.5
(μg/m3)
Windstream (Plant #23954) Generators 2,5 0.06 <0.01 <0.01 City of Oakland Envr Scvs Division (Plant #14503) Generators 2,5 0.07 <0.01 <0.01 East Bay Municipal Utility Dist (lant #13728) Fire pump, generators (2) 2,5 3.01 0.01 0.10
KBS SOR II Oakland City Center LLC (Plant #24068) Generators 2,5 0.32 <0.01 <0.01 CIM Group (Plant #17739) Generators 2,5 0.02 <0.01 <0.01 Broadway Franklin LLC (Plant #22884) Generator, fire
pump, boiler 2,5 0.53 <0.01 0.01
FEMA (Plant #4779) Generators 2,5 0.06 <0.01 <0.01
Existing Mobile Sources
12th Street (22,409 AADT) Mobile 3,4 1.9 NA 0.02
17th Street (23,204 AADT) Mobile 3,5 1.7 NA 0.02
Harrison Street (13,725 AADT) Mobile 3,6 0.9 NA 0.01
Webster Street (11,566 AADT) Mobile 3,7 1.5 NA 0.02
Future Stationary Sources
2016 Telegraph Generator 1,5 1.8 <0.01 <0.01
1314 Franklin Generator 1,5 1.8 <0.01 <0.01
1433 Webster Generator 1,5 0.8 <0.01 <0.01
1510 Webster Generator 1,5 0.6 <0.01 <0.01
447 17th Street Generator 1,5 0.5 <0.01 <0.01
1261 Harrison Street Generator 1,5 0.5 <0.01 <0.01
Cumulative Health Risks Without Health Risk Reduction Measurea 129 <0.1 0.4 Cumulative Health Risks With Health Risk Reduction Measurea 84 <0.1 0.3 Cumulative Thresholds of Significance 100 10.0 0.8
Notes: Bold and shaded value exceeds the corresponding threshold. µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; NA = not applicable; Ref=reference; AADT=annual average daily traffic Health risk screening values derived using the following BAAQMD tools and methodologies:
1) BAAQMD's Risk and Hazards Emissions Screening Calculator (Beta Version 4.0). 2) BAAQMD's Permitted Stationary Sources Risk and Hazards 3) BAAQMD's Roadway Screening Analysis Calculator.
4) BAAQMD's recommended Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment cancer risk adjustment factor. 5) BAAQMD's Diesel Internal Combustion Engine Distance Multiplier Tool. a Requiring that all construction equipment of 100 horsepower or more to be equipped with engines certified to meet the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB’s) Tier 4 Final emissions standards, and that all construction equipment less than 100 horsepower to be equipped with engines certified to meet the CARB’s Tier 2 emissions standards or higher and Level 3 diesel particulate filter (DPF).

Source: Attachment G.
1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS DECEMBER 2022 V. CEQA CHECKLIST
B. AIR QUALITY
70 3. Conclusion
Consistent with the findings of the Program EIRs, the project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts related to criteria air pollutants, TACs emissions, or cumulative TAC emissions. The project would be required to implement SCA-AIR-1: Criteria Air Pollutant Controls – Construction Related (#21), SCA-AIR-2: Dust Controls – Construction Related (#20), SCA-AIR-3:

Asbestos in Structures (#26), SCA-AIR-4: Diesel Particulate Matter Controls – Construction Related (#22), and SCA-AIR-5: Stationary Sources of Air Pollution (Toxic Air Contaminants) (#24) to ensure impacts to air quality would be less than significant. Please see Attachment A for a full description of the applicable SCAs.

DECEMBER 2022 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS V. CEQA CHECKLIST
C. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

71 C. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

Equal or
Less Severity
of Impact
Previously
Identified in
Program EIRs
Substantial
Increase
in Severity
of Previously
Identified
Significant
Impact in EIR
New
Significant
Impact
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a
candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;
☒ ☐ ☐
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service;
☒ ☐ ☐
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands (as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act) or state protected wetlands, through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means;
☒ ☐ ☐
d. Substantially interfere with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites;
☒ ☐ ☐
e. Fundamentally conflict with the City of Oakland Tree Protection Ordinance (Oakland Municipal Code [OMC]
Chapter 12.36) by removal of protected trees under certain circumstances; or
☒ ☐ ☐
f. Fundamentally conflict with the City of Oakland Creek Protection Ordinance (OMC Chapter 13.16) intended to
protect biological resources.
☒ ☐ ☐

1. Program EIR Findings
The 2011 Renewal Plan EIR found all biological resources topics to either have no or less than significant impacts with implementation of applicable SCAs. The 1998 LUTE EIR found all potential biological resources impacts to be less than significant and therefore no mitigation measures or SCAs were required.
1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS DECEMBER 2022 V. CEQA CHECKLIST
C. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
72 2. Project Analysis
Special-Status Species, Wildlife Corridors, Riparian and Sensitive Habitat, Wetlands, Tree and Creek Protection (Criteria 3.a through 3.f)
The project site is located within a developed area, the majority of which is covered with impervious surfaces. Wildlife and botanical resources present within the project site are adapted to disturbed, urban conditions and would not be adversely affected by implementation of the project. No riparian, wetland, or creek habitat exists within or adjacent to the project site. The project site contains no landscaping or street trees. For this reason, no SCAs related to biological resources would be required.

3. Conclusion
Consistent with the findings of the Program EIRs, implementation of the project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts related to special-status species, wildlife corridors, riparian and sensitive habitat, wetlands, and tree and creek protection than those identified in the Program EIRs. The Program EIRs did not identify any mitigation measures related to biological resources, and none would be needed for the implementation of the project. No SCAs related to biological resources would be required. Please see Attachment A for a full description of the applicable SCAs.

DECEMBER 2022 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS V. CEQA CHECKLIST
D. CULTURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES
73 D. CULTURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES
Would the project:

Equal or
Less Severity
of Impact
Previously
Identified in
Program EIRs
Substantial
Increase
in Severity
of Previously
Identified
Significant
Impact in EIR
New
Significant
Impact
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.5. Specifically, a substantial adverse change includes physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of the historical resource would be “materially impaired.” The significance of an historical resource is “materially impaired” when a project demolishes or materially alters, in an adverse manner, those physical characteristics of the resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion on, or eligibility for inclusion on an historical resource list (including the California Register of Historical Resources, the National Register of Historic Places, Local Register, or historical resources survey form (DPR Form 523) with a rating of 1-5);
☒ ☐ ☐
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.5;
☒ ☐ ☐
c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature; or
☒ ☐ ☐
d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.
☒ ☐ ☐

1. Program EIR Findings
1998 LUTE EIR
The 1998 LUTE EIR, which analyzed cultural and historic resources, found that impacts to these topics would be either significant but mitigatable or less than significant. The 1998 LUTE EIR also found impacts related to archeological resources and demolition of historic resources would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures that are functionally equivalent to current SCAs.

Significant but mitigatable impacts included:

G.2: Excavation of development sites consistent with the Land Use and Transportation Element could unearth archaeological resources. Some of these remains could have scientific or cultural importance.
1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS DECEMBER 2022 V. CEQA CHECKLIST
D. CULTURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES
74 G.3: Many of the City’s historic resources are located Downtown and along transit corridors.

Higher density uses are proposed in these areas and redevelopment is encouraged. This could have direct impacts by increasing the pressure to remove or demolish older buildings, including some historic structures.39
Mitigation measures proposed for significant impacts G.2 and G.3 included:

G.2: Establish criteria and interdepartmental referral procedures for determining when discretionary City approval of ground-disturbing activities should be subject to special conditions to safeguard potential archaeological resources.

G.3a: Amend the Zoning Regulations text to incorporate the new preservation regulations and incentives.

G.3b: Develop and adopt design guidelines for Landmarks and Preservation Districts.40 Less than significant impacts included:

G.1: Excavation of development sites consistent with the Land Use and Transportation Element could unearth paleontological remains. Some of these remains could have scientific importance. However, adoption of the proposed Element would not significantly affect these resources.

G.4: Increased development and more intense development in areas with high concentrations of older structures could have indirect impacts on these structures by changing their context and setting. Even if left intact, the integrity of older buildings could be compromised as larger, modern buildings are erected on adjoining properties. None required.

G.5: The Element’s emphasis on adaptive re-use and live-work development could result in alteration of older buildings and historic structures in a manner that is architecturally incompatible with the structure.41
Mitigation measures were not proposed for any less than significant impacts. 2011 Renewal Plan EIR
Although the LUTE EIR found that mitigation would reduce significant impacts on cultural and historic resources to a less than significant level, the 2011 Renewal Plan EIR, which addresses much of the oldest part of Downtown Oakland, identified significant and unavoidable impacts to

39 LUTE EIR, S-19 and S-20.
40 Ibid.
41 LUTE EIR, S-28.

DECEMBER 2022 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS V. CEQA CHECKLIST
D. CULTURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES
75 historic resources and also found cumulative cultural resources impacts were significant and unavoidable, even with implementation of SCAs and mitigation measures.

The 2011 Renewal Plan EIR included an assessment of known and unknown archaeological resources, paleontological resources, and human remains and found that impacts to these topics would be less than significant with implementation of SCAs. The 2011 Renewal Plan EIR also analyzed historic resources and cumulative cultural resources impacts and found these to be significant and unavoidable, even with implementation of SCAs and Mitigation Measure CUL-1, which would require the avoidance, adaptive reuse, or appropriate relocation of historically significant structures.

The 2011 Renewal Plan EIR included a list of selected historic resources located or partially located within the Central District Redevelopment Project Area, which contained the location of the subject project site.

The 2011 Renewal Plan EIR described:

Although the Project Area has been surveyed by OCHS or others in the recent past, there are likely many other properties that have not yet been identified or evaluated for their potential historical significance, either at federal, state, or local levels. New information or new contexts may be discovered, or properties may not have been 50 years old at the time of the original surveys. By the end of the Redevelopment Plan time limit in 2023, buildings constructed before 1973 will have reached 50 years of age. As such, there may exist numerous other properties in the Project Area that are potentially eligible for listing at federal, state, and local levels and therefore could be considered historical resources for purposes of CEQA Section 15064.5.

The 2011 Renewal Plan EIR identified the Downtown Oakland Historic District (National Register), within which the subject property is located, as a historic resource. The subject property was not in and of itself identified as a historic resource in the 2011 Renewal Plan EIR.

2. Project Analysis
The project would not involve the demolition or physical alteration of any building that is a listed historic resource, but the project site is located in and is part of the Downtown Oakland Historic District, a National Register district, which is a historical resource as defined under CEQA. The project site is also surrounded by many buildings that meet the definition of a historical resource under CEQA. Therefore, this analysis is focused on whether the project would result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of the Downtown Oakland Historic District or adjacent and nearby historical resources and compares any potential impact to those previously identified in the Program EIRs.
1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS DECEMBER 2022 V. CEQA CHECKLIST
D. CULTURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES
76 Cultural and historic resources are sites, buildings, structures, objects, and districts that may have traditional or cultural value for their historical significance. For the purposes of CEQA, a historical resource is a resource listed in, or determined eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources, local register of historical resources, deemed significant under the criteria of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, or formally recognized as a historical resource at the lead agency’s discretion (CEQA Guidelines Section 21084.1). The Oakland General Plan Historic Preservation Element and the Oakland Cultural Heritage Survey classify and provide policy direction for the preservation of historic buildings of all types and of all degrees of significance.

To identify cultural resources within and near the project site, Page & Turnbull conducted site- specific historic research as well as review of information sources such as the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), the Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Built Environment Resources Directory (BERD), and the City of Oakland Planning Department online parcel information portal.

Historical Resources (Criterion 4.a)
(1) Project Site
The approximately 0.48-acre (20,974 square feet) project site is located on the west side of Franklin Street, between 14th Street (south) and 15th Street (north) within the National Register of Historic Places (National Register)-listed Downtown Oakland Historic District (Downtown Historic District) and City of Oakland Downtown Historic Area of Primary Importance (API).42 The project site is currently occupied by a parking lot that is surrounded on three sides (south, west, and north) by the side and rear façades of seven neighboring buildings. Of the 12 other properties on the block bounded by 14th Street, Broadway, 15th Street, and Franklin Street, all are within the Downtown Historic District and API and 10 are identified as contributors to the Downtown Historic District and API.

Review of Sanborn Map Company fire insurance maps indicates that the site contained three residential lots, each with a single residence, as of 1903 (Figure 1). The Ye Liberty Theatre opened at the site in 1904. As depicted on an updated 1911 Sanborn map (Figure 2), the theater occupied most of the parcel but featured a deep setback along Franklin Street. The entrance lobby to the theater was located at 1424 Broadway Street. Built as a venue for live performances as well as motion pictures, the theater was converted to exclusively show motion pictures and was renamed the Central Theatre in 1933.43

42 The boundaries of the National Register-listed Downtown Oakland Historic District and City of Oakland Downtown Historic API are not entirely coterminous.
43 “Curtain Coming Down for Theater,” Oakland Tribune, February 3, 1960, 29.

DECEMBER 2022 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS V. CEQA CHECKLIST
D. CULTURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES
77 Figure 1: 1903 Sanborn map, volume 2, sheet 140, illustrating future project site (approximate boundary outlined red).

Source: ProQuest Digital Sanborn Maps. Edited by Page & Turnbull.

Figure 2: 1911 Sanborn map, volume 2, sheet 153, illustrating future project site (approximate boundary outlined red).

Source: ProQuest Digital Sanborn Maps. Edited by Page & Turnbull.

1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS DECEMBER 2022 V. CEQA CHECKLIST
D. CULTURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES
78 By 1950, the theater had been expanded toward the east property line along Franklin Street, resulting in the building occupying the entire parcel (Figure 3). Storefronts were located along Franklin Street, filling in the area of the site that was left open due to the theater’s original setback. The Oakland Tribune reported in 1960, that the theater, “once one of Oakland’s foremost legitimate theaters,” and noted as containing one the first revolving stages installed in the United States, was slated for demolition and replacement by a 100-car, semi-private parking lot. Along with the theater, the five stores that fronted Franklin Street were also torn down.44 Since 1960, the subject site has remained in use as a parking lot.

Figure 3: 1950 Sanborn map, volume 2, sheet 153, illustrating future project site (approximate boundary outlined red).

Source: ProQuest Digital Sanborn Maps. Edited by Page & Turnbull.

At the request of Page & Turnbull, staff of the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) at Sonoma State University conducted a cultural resources records search on July 28, 2020 (NWIC File No. 20-0195). The records search for previously recorded sites and studies included the project site and a 0.25-mile radius, located on the USGS Oakland West 7.5’ quadrangle. As previously noted, the project site is located within the National Register-listed Downtown Historic District. The project parcel was occupied by a parking lot at the time of district registration, and the 1998 National Register

44 Ibid.

DECEMBER 2022 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS V. CEQA CHECKLIST
D. CULTURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES
79 registration form for the Downtown Historic District identifies the parcel as a “the largest gap in the district,” rather than as a contributor or non-contributor.45 No additional previously recorded or evaluated individual resources located within the project site were identified in the NWIC records search results. Presence in the records search results does not indicate that a property has been found significant, only that it has been evaluated in a report submitted to the NWIC.
1431 Franklin Street is not listed as an individual property in the most recent available version of the California Office of Historic Preservation Built Environment Resources Directory (BERD) for Alameda County, dated March 3, 2020. Absence from this directory indicates that no record of a previous survey or evaluation of the individual property has been submitted to a CHRIS information center.

According to City of Oakland Planning Department online parcel information, the subject property is within the Downtown Historic API. The City of Oakland’s Cultural Heritage Survey (OCHS) does not assign individual ratings to vacant parcels.46 The City of Oakland CEQA Thresholds of Significance Guidelines, dated December 16, 2020, offer guidance regarding the status of properties in the city which are considered historical resources under CEQA. In brief, properties which have been listed or found eligible for listing in the California Register; been assigned California Historical Resource Status Code of 5 or higher in an evaluation recorded on DPR 523 forms; or are included in the City of Oakland’s Local Register are considered historical resources under CEQA. The Local Register includes all Designated Historic Properties (Landmarks, Heritage Properties, Study List Properties, Preservation Districts, and S-7 and S-20 Preservation Combining Zone Properties); and Potential Designated Historic Properties that have an existing rating of “A” or “B” or are located within an Area of Primary Importance.47
While located within the Downtown Historic District and API, the subject property is not a contributor to the National Register-listed district or API. It has not been assigned an OCHS rating of “A” or “B,” and is not a Potential Designated Historic Property (PDHP). The subject property, as an individual parcel; therefore, does not currently appear to meet the criteria for status as a historical resource under CEQA.

45 Oakland Cultural Heritage Survey, National Register of Historic Places Registration Form for the Downtown Oakland Historic District (Oakland: City of Oakland Community and Economic Development Agency, 1998), Section 7, page 7.
46 Oakland Planning and Zoning Map. Available at: http://oakgis.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/ index.html?id=3676148ea4924fc7b75e7350903c7224, accessed October 28, 2021. 47 City of Oakland, CEQA Thresholds of Significance Guidelines, December 16, 2020. 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS DECEMBER 2022 V. CEQA CHECKLIST
D. CULTURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES
80 (2) Surrounding Historic Resources
The project site is located at mid-block on the west side of Franklin Street, between 14th Street (south) and 15th Street (north) in downtown Oakland, within the Downtown Historic District and API. The city block containing the subject property includes 12 buildings, 10 of which are identified as contributors to the National Register-listed Downtown Historic District and API.

A radius of 0.25-mile from the project site was selected for identification of nearby individual resources, historic districts, and age-eligible properties. This radius includes the entirety of the Downtown Historic District and API, as well as other APIs, Areas of Secondary Importance (ASIs), and individual resources.

Attachment H lists individual, age-eligible properties within 0.25-mile of the project site which are listed on the Local Register, or which are identified as Potential Designated Historic Properties (PDHPs) within an API or ASI. Those resources which meet the City of Oakland Thresholds of Significance Guidelines for historical resources under CEQA are noted (Figure 4).

Of 113 properties meeting these criteria identified within the 0.25-mile radius, 65 are considered historical resources for the purposes of CEQA. Most individual CEQA resources within the

0.25-mile radius are also located in an API or ASI; only seven individually eligible historical resources are located outside of an API or ASI.

APIs and ASIs within 0.25-mile of the project site are described in the following paragraphs. APIs and ASIs provide the City of Oakland with a framework for evaluating properties within specific groupings or neighborhoods associated with significant property types and events in the city’s history. There is a total of 55 APIs within the City of Oakland (Figure 5). Of these, eight are within, or substantially within, a 0.25-mile radius of the project site (Figure 4). One additional API overlaps slightly with the 0.25-mile radius. There is a total of 332 ASIs within the City of Oakland.

Of these, five are within, or substantially within, a 0.25-mile radius of the project site. Two additional ASIs overlap slightly with the 0.25-mile radius.

PDHPs which are located within APIs are included in the Local Register, and are thus historical resources under CEQA. Location within an ASI does not confer status as a historical resource under CEQA. However, some properties individually listed on the Local Register due to status as Designated Historic Properties, or OCHS ratings of “A” or “B”, and which are therefore considered historical resources under CEQA, are also located within ASIs.

DECEMBER 2022 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS V. CEQA CHECKLIST
D. CULTURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES
81 Figure 4. Individual resources, APIs, and ASIs within 0.25-mile radius of the project site. Numbers on APIs and ASIs correspond to text descriptions.

Source: City of Oakland and Page & Turnbull, 2021.

1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS DECEMBER 2022 V. CEQA CHECKLIST
D. CULTURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES
82 Figure 5. City of Oakland APIs and ASIs.

Source: City of Oakland, 2021.

DECEMBER 2022 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS V. CEQA CHECKLIST
D. CULTURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES
83 Areas of Primary Importance (API) within 0.25-Mile Radius Downtown Historic District API (Map No. 1)
The subject property is located within the Downtown Historic District API. This district was a hub of commerce throughout the first half of the 20th century, and occupies parts of 17 blocks, including the three full blocks bounded by Broadway, 15thStreet, Franklin Street, 12th Street, City Hall and Frank Ogawa Plaza and several adjacent partial blocks. Notable buildings within the district include City Hall and its related plaza (Frank Ogawa Plaza), and several early 20th century buildings ranging in height from seven to 22 stories between 11th and 17th streets on Broadway, interspersed with many smaller one- to four-story commercial buildings.

The National Register District’s period of significance is 1900-1948, and the district is significant under Criterion A (Events) for association with significant patterns of commercial development, commerce, and themes of politics and government that occurred within the district during the period of significance. Under Criterion C (Architecture), the district is significant as an assemblage of properties that embody the financial, institutional, and civic building typologies and architectural styles that defined the downtown during the period significance, many which were designed by prominent architects and provide distinguished architectural examples. The National Register nomination form for the district, prepared in 1998, describes its significance under this criterion as follows:

Under Criterion C, the district is significant as a well-preserved example of the downtown commercial architecture of a larger American city in the first half of the twentieth century.

The greatest number of its buildings, and the buildings that most strongly define its character, were built between 1903 and 1929, and represent the introduction into Oakland of the steel frame skyscraper, Beaux Arts-influenced architecture, and the City Beautiful movement. These urbane, ambitious buildings display a general unity of style and scale, and represent the work of many of the better-known Bay Area commercial architects of the period. In their siting and relation to each other, with 7- to 24-story skyscrapers punctuating lower construction, they represent an urban design termed "ideal" by City Beautiful planner Werner Hegemann in 1915, and gave Oakland a distinctive and much-photographed skyline that symbolized the city's prominence.48
The majority of the contributing buildings in the district were built between 1901 and 1929 and feature brick or masonry exteriors, two- or three-part vertical composition, classical ornamentation – often employing terracotta. District contributors constructed between 1906 and 1915 are described as having “strong stylistic unity” as follows:

48 Oakland Cultural Heritage Survey, National Register of Historic Places Registration Form for the Downtown Oakland Historic District (Oakland: City of Oakland Community and Economic Development Agency, 1998), 39. 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS DECEMBER 2022 V. CEQA CHECKLIST
D. CULTURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES
84 Physically these buildings are tall (8 to 14 stories), slender, prominently sited on choice corner lots. They are of steel frame or concrete construction, with classical ornament, three-part vertical composition, prominent metal or terra cotta cornices, light-colored brick or terra cotta exteriors, skeletal articulation emphasizing a grid of windows, glass-fronted commercial ground floors, monumental office entries, and often a marble-paneled elevator lobby. They show the influence of the American Renaissance and City Beautiful movements in their lighter colors and massing, and classical rather than Victorian Gothic or Romanesque ornamentation. Where earlier brick blocks, at most four or five stories, had added height with ornamental cupolas and towers, these buildings were themselves the towers. White terra cotta and pale buff pressed brick became popular as facade materials, contrasting with the buildings' red common brick off-street sides. A ground floor bank might be distinguished from other commercial spaces by the absence of tall display windows, and by an imposing vault- or temple-like entry.49
The downtown area historically developed with most of its banks and tall office buildings on the east side of Broadway, and retailers on the west side. This pattern is particularly evident between 13th and 15th streets. Most of the district’s buildings occupy the entirety of their parcels and abut neighboring buildings.50 As stylistic trends changed through the district’s development, later skyscrapers such as the Financial Center Building at the southwest corner of 14th and Franklin streets, built in 1928-1929, embraced Art Deco characteristics while maintaining the brick and terra cotta materiality of earlier towers.

District contributors additionally include groups of lower-rise commercial buildings constructed through the 1920s in two-part compositions, predominantly featuring brick and terra cotta cladding with broadly glazed ground floor primary façades.51 Two district contributors, 1411 and 1441 Franklin Street, are located immediately adjacent to the proposed project site at its Franklin Street frontage with secondary façades overlooking the project site:
▪ 1411 Franklin Street, Athenian Nile Club Building (1901-1902, Local Register, OCHS Rating B+a1+)
o Description: The National Register nomination for the Downtown Oakland Historic District describes the property as follows: “a four-story stuccoed brick turn-of-the- century store and hall building on a corner lot, with stores in the ground floor base and club rooms in the upper three floors. The upper floors have a cylindrical corner bay and slightly projecting end bays. Most of the second and third floor windows are arranged in

49 Oakland Cultural Heritage Survey, op. cit, 43.
50 Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board Staff Report, March 14, 2016,. Case File Number: SP16001. Available at: http://www2.oaklandnet.com/oakca1/groups/ceda/documents/agenda/oak057568.pdf, accessed April 22, 2020. 51 Oakland Cultural Heritage Survey, Downtown Oakland Historic District, 45.

DECEMBER 2022 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS V. CEQA CHECKLIST
D. CULTURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES
85 groups, with panels substituting for some of the windows. All the upper floor windows have deeply recessed double-hung wood sash, most with twelve-light upper sash. The window heights decrease toward the top floor. A cornice and pent roof wrap around the top of the corner bay, forming a low-pitched conical roof with ball finial, echoing the canopy roof over the hall entry on 14th Street. Some of the ground floor storefronts retain glazed wood entry doors and greenish-black marble splash panels.”52 The property does not appear to have changed significantly since this description was written in 1998. o Relationship to Project Site: 1411 Franklin Street is located to the immediate south of the proposed project site, with its character-defining east façade overlooking Franklin Street.

This east façade would be immediately adjacent to the proposed project when viewed from Franklin Street. The north façade, which currently overlooks the project site, consists of painted concrete with setback portions at the upper stories and various sizes and spacings of what appear to be original and non-original window openings. ▪ 1441 Franklin Street, Graneton (William)-Brownell Building (1924, PDHP, OCHS Rating C1+)
o Description: The National Register nomination for the Downtown Oakland Historic District describes the property as follows: “1437-45 Franklin Street is a four-story Beaux Arts store and office building of reinforced concrete construction on an interior lot. The somewhat Venetian facade is designed in a three-part vertical composition with a two- story shaft and a fourth floor capital. The ground floor, which has been remodeled, has two tall recessed storefront bays flanking a recessed upper floor entry. The three upper floors are clad in variegated red pressed brick with mottled terra cotta quoins and other trim. The shaft has three two-story semicircular arched bays with tripartite Chicago-type windows and diamond pattern brickwork on the spandrels. The top floor has three groups of three arched windows separated by twisted engaged columns, and a dark red tile roof.”53 Since this description was written in 1998, the ground-floor storefronts and entry have been replaced, and the upper story wood-frame windows have been replaced with metal windows with matching configurations of lites. The buff-colored terracotta and red brick cladding at the primary façade have been painted a uniform white color, and a metal fire escape at the center bay has been removed.
o Relationship to Project Site: 1437-45 Franklin Street is located immediately north of the proposed project site, with its character-defining east façade overlooking Franklin Street.

This east façade would be immediately adjacent to the proposed project when viewed from Franklin Street. The south façade, which currently overlooks the project site, includes seven multi-lite metal frame windows at the second through fourth stories, and a non-historic mural.

52 Oakland Cultural Heritage Survey, Downtown Oakland Historic District, 32. 53 Oakland Cultural Heritage Survey, Downtown Oakland Historic District, 22. 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS DECEMBER 2022 V. CEQA CHECKLIST
D. CULTURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES
86 Four district contributors have rear façades which abut or overlook the subject property:
▪ 420 14th Street, Elks Hall-Scheeline (Louis) building (1929, Local Register, OCHS Rating Cb-1+)
o Description: The National Register nomination for the Downtown Oakland Historic District describes the property as follows: “412-20 14th Street is a four-story brick commercial building on an interior lot, with four store spaces in the ground floor base and a lodge hall in the three-story upper section. The stuccoed and tiled Art Deco facade is divided into six bays by fluted piers with ornate pointed arch caps projecting above the parapet. The wider bays are further divided by minor pinnacled piers. The window and spandrel heights decrease toward the top floor. The spandrels in the narrow bays are clad with light gold terra cotta tiles with a triangular arch pattern of blue and green tiles. The ground floor storefronts have been remodeled.”54 The ground floor storefronts appear to have been modified some since this description was written in 1998, while the upper three stories at the primary façade appear to have remained unchanged. o Relationship to Project Site: The primary, south façade of 412-420 14th Street overlooks 14ht Street, while its rear, north façade overlooks the proposed project site. The rear façade consists of painted brick with a row of arched window openings at the third story, with utility pipes and conduits, including plumbing vents and other utility lines, running vertically between the windows.
▪ 436 14th Street, Central Bank Building (1925-1926, Local Register, OCHS Rating A1+) o Description: The National Register nomination for the Downtown Oakland Historic District describes the property as follows: “1400-16 Broadway / 424-48 14th Street, the Central National Bank building, is a 16-story (or 15-story and mezzanine) steel-frame and reinforced concrete Beaux Arts skyscraper, rectangular in plan, on a southwest-facing corner lot. It was designed for a bank in its base and mezzanine levels, with offices above.

The building is clad in brown brick with glazed brown terra cotta trim. Ornamentation is early Italian Renaissance, with Romanesque references in the round arches. The original base had giant arched entrances on each facade, high arched windows on the ground level, rusticated terra cotta walls, and bronze window and door frames. The base has been completely remodeled with flat red marble and tan terra cotta panels (further ground floor remodeling is anticipated, as of late 1997). The ten-story shaft, with bays of paired windows and recessed spandrel panels, is framed above and below by arcaded transitional stories with engaged columns. The two-story capital has arched bays of paired arched windows, below a tall, shallow, corbelled cornice.”55 The base appears to retain the non-original marble and terra cotta panels described in the 1998 description.

54 Oakland Cultural Heritage Survey, Downtown Oakland Historic District, 33. 55 Oakland Cultural Heritage Survey, Downtown Oakland Historic District, 13.

DECEMBER 2022 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS V. CEQA CHECKLIST
D. CULTURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES
87 o Relationship to Project Site: The Central Bank Building is located at the southwest corner of the project site, which it overlooks at its north façade. Unlike many buildings on this block whose rear facades consist of unadorned concrete, the Central Bank building features brick cladding, regular rows of double-hung windows, arched window openings and cornices at the upper three stories, and a brick parapet with a square cutout pattern. ▪ 1440 Broadway, Realty Syndicate Building (1910-1911, Local Register, OCHS Rating A1+) o Description: The National Register nomination for the Downtown Oakland Historic District describes the property as follows: “1420-44 Broadway, the Realty Syndicate Building, is a Beaux Arts derivative office building, steel frame with brick curtain walls and concrete floors. It is 10 stories, rectangular in plan, on an interior lot. It is in a three-part vertical composition with a two-story rusticated stone base, a seven-story brick-clad shaft with terra cotta sills, and a one-story polychrome terra cotta capital. A horizontal organization of bays in the pattern 2-1-2-1-2 is carried through the full height of the building. The cornice is copper. Ornamental references are to Renaissance and Baroque architecture. The upper facade is unaltered. On the ground floor one of two monumental entries has been removed, and all storefronts have been remodeled.56 The property does not appear to have changed significantly since this description was written in 1998. o Relationship to Project Site: The rear façade of the building at 1440 Broadway overlooks the project site. This façade consists of painted concrete surfaces, with recesses at the center and south parts of the façade, and regular rows of multi-lite windows at the second through ninth stories.
▪ 421 15th Street, Edward T. Foulkes Building (1924, Local Register, OCHS Rating Cb+1+) o Description: The National Register nomination for the Downtown Oakland Historic District describes the property as follows: “419-21 15th Street is a small two-story steel frame and reinforced concrete building on an interior lot with an unusual marble front and metal classical ornament. It is a single-bay enframed window wall, originally designed for two stores on each level. The ground floor has been remodeled; the second floor retains its polished green-veined black marble surfaces and bronzed metal trim, framing an elongated Palladian window with a marble tympanum panel, pilasters, and slender urns. The facade terminates with a bronzed festoon band, a slightly projecting marble cornice, and a scrolled center parapet with bronzed urn finial.”57 The property does not appear to have changed significantly since this description was written in 1998. o Relationship to Project Site: The primary façade of 421 15th Street overlooks 15th Street between Franklin Street and Broadway. The rear of the building overlooks the proposed project site.

56 Oakland Cultural Heritage Survey, Downtown Oakland Historic District, 15. 57 Oakland Cultural Heritage Survey, Downtown Oakland Historic District, 35-36. 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS DECEMBER 2022 V. CEQA CHECKLIST
D. CULTURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES
88 Four additional contributors to the Downtown Historic District / API are located on the same block as the proposed project parcel but are not directly adjacent:
▪ 401 15th Street, Oakland Title Insurance Building (1921-22, Local Register, OCHS Rating A1+) ▪ 405 15th Street (1922, PDHP, OCHS Rating C1+)
▪ 417 15th Street (1903, PDHP, OCHS Rating C1*)
▪ 449 15th Street (1947-48, Local Register, *b+1+)
Many, but not all, properties within the Downtown Historic District API were listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1998 as contributing buildings within the Downtown Oakland National Register Historic District. Surface parking lots such as the subject parcel are not listed as either contributing or non-contributing properties in the National Register documentation for the district.

The International style office tower at 1330 Broadway, constructed in 1958, and Late Moderne building at 393 13th Street, constructed in 1950 within the Downtown Historic District and API were less than 50 years old when the National Register nomination was prepared in 1998.

However, the nomination noted that these buildings are representative of the continuation of downtown commercial development, and that the tower at 1330 Broadway “remains compatible with the scale and rhythm of the district.”58 The National Register nomination and district boundary do not appear to have been updated since 1998, meaning that the boundary as determined for the National Register nomination has not been expanded or altered otherwise to include any additional contributing properties which reach 50 years of age. Therefore, the properties that were considered contributors as of 1998 appear to remain contributors, and likewise for non-contributing properties.

Recent construction of mid- and high-rise towers, along and within the two blocks immediately east of Broadway, has followed a trend of office tower construction in Downtown Oakland.

Within the Downtown Historic District and API this pattern is represented by the 18-story tower addition and rehabilitation of the historic seven-story Key System Building completed in 2020 at 1100 Broadway.

Uptown Commercial Historic District API (Map No. 2)
The Uptown Commercial District API is located north of Downtown Oakland and north of the subject property along Broadway and Telegraph Avenue. The district is bounded on the north by 21st Street, on the east by Broadway, on the south by 17th Street, and on the west by Telegraph Avenue. The core of the district is located between the intersections of 19th and 20th streets on

58 Oakland Cultural Heritage Survey, Downtown Oakland Historic District, 6.

DECEMBER 2022 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS V. CEQA CHECKLIST
D. CULTURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES
89 Broadway, roughly five blocks north of the project site.59 The district contains 20 buildings, 13 of which are contributors. The district developed in the 1920s and 1930s with shopping and entertainment uses, and many buildings in Classical Revival, Beaux Arts, or Art Deco styles. The Uptown District represents an expansion of the central business district, with luxury shopping establishments such as the 1928 Capwell Store building (currently known as Uptown Station).60 The district includes the Fox and Paramount Theaters, both designated as City Landmarks, among other similarly distinguished historic buildings. The Paramount Theater is the northernmost building in the district.

Downtown Fringe API (Map No. 3)
The Downtown Fringe API is located west of Broadway and includes several buildings constructed during the Downtown Historic District’s period of significance which have been disconnected from the Downtown API core by development that occurred in the 1960s and later. Nonetheless, buildings within this API continue to represent the historic development of commerce in downtown Oakland, forming a distinct cluster west of Broadway. 17th Street Commercial District API (Map No. 4)
This API occupies both sides of the block between Franklin and Webster streets, in addition to the Howden Tile building on the southeast corner of Webster and 17th streets. This grouping of buildings consists of 1920s commercial buildings with long, low massing situated on shallow lots.

Most buildings are two stories with a mezzanine and constructed of brick or concrete with abundant glazing at the primary façade. The district features streetscaping with street trees and period light standards. This block of 17th Street was developed with smaller parcels than those found in nearby downtown blocks during the downtown’s eastward expansion toward Lake Merritt, cutting through formerly residential neighborhoods.61 Lakeside Apartment District API (Map No. 5)
The Lakeside Apartment District occupies portions of five blocks north of 14th Street near Lake Merritt, roughly three blocks east-northeast of the project site. The district is characterized mainly by two- to six-story wood-frame or brick apartment buildings from the 1910s and 1920s, built close together with little or no setbacks. The Malonga Casquelourd Arts Center (originally Women’s City Club), built in 1927-28 is also in the district and is designated as an Oakland Landmark. Architectural styles are varied; building materials are primarily pressed brick with terra

59 Uptown Shopping/Entertainment District – Historic Resources Inventory, 1985. On file at Oakland Cultural Heritage Survey, Oakland, California.
60 Ibid.
61 Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board Staff Report, March 14, 2016, Case File Number: SP16001. Available at: http://www2.oaklandnet.com/oakca1/groups/ceda/documents/agenda/oak057568.pdf, accessed April 22. 2020. 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS DECEMBER 2022 V. CEQA CHECKLIST
D. CULTURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES
90 cotta, or stucco with wood or marble trim. Mid-20th century apartments fill in the long blocks north of the district along Alice, Madison, and Jackson streets, terminating at another early apartment cluster around 19th Street.

King Building Group API (Map No. 6)
The King Building Group consists of five neighboring buildings constructed between 1904 and 1922 that are situated within the block bound by 13th Street (north), 12th Street (south), Webster Street (west), and Harrison Street (east), which lies roughly two blocks southeast of the project site. The King Building Group was developed by the Charles H. King family and “constitute[s] the principal surviving Oakland structures associated with the wheat and lumber baron Charles H. king and his locally prominent descendants…the group provides a good and somewhat unusual example of an early 20th century downtown development project that was carried out in phases.”62 Buildings within the group are characterized by similar minimal setbacks, matching widths, pressed brick exteriors, glazed tile store bases, and Renaissance/Baroque ornamentation.

Additionally, each building “occupies long street frontages and rises one to two stories, except for the four-story focal building.”63 Three of the corner buildings within the group feature similar unifying arcaded façades.64
Coit Building API (Map No. 7)
Coit Building Group consists of four neighboring buildings built between 1910 and 1920, located approximately two blocks east of the project site. The buildings within the group feature no setback, are one to seven stories in height and constructed of brick, and are identified as the Harrison and Coit Hotels, Harrison Apartments, and Coit Commercial Block. The group displays high architectural quality and is unified by surface materials, massing, articulation, ornamentation, and height. The Harrison Hotel is part of a ring of 1910s hotels within a few blocks of 14th and Broadway, built partly in anticipation of the 1915 Panama-Pacific International Exposition in San Francisco, which is a distinctive thematic feature of downtown Oakland.65 Leamington Hotel Group API (Map No. 8)
The Leamington Hotel Group API includes two adjoining reinforced-concrete buildings located at 1800-26 Franklin Street/365-89 19th Street, the southeast corner of 19th and Franklin streets,

62 City of Oakland Planning Commission, Staff Report File Number PLN17-438, March 21, 2018. Available at:
http://www2.oaklandnet.com/oakca1/groups/ceda/documents/agenda/oak069930.pdf, accessed September 3, 2020 . 63 City of Oakland Planning Commission, Staff Report File Number PLN17-438, March 21, 2018. 64 Ibid.
65 National Register of Historic Places Registration Form: Harrison and Fifteenth Streets Historic District, Oakland, Alameda County, California, prepared by Anne Bloomfield, May 3, 1996, entered into National Register November 7, 1996, Section 8, page 8.

DECEMBER 2022 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS V. CEQA CHECKLIST
D. CULTURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES
91 roughly five blocks north of the project site. The Leamington Hotel and its adjoined annex, containing office and assembly spaces, was designated as an Oakland Landmark in 1987.66 The hotel opened in 1926 and was designed by prominent architect William H. Weeks, blending popular Spanish Baroque Revival and Art Deco styles.67 The nine-story buildings feature a three- part composition of base with mezzanine, shaft, and a capital level above the cornice line and are clad in glazed terra cotta and cement plaster with elaborate cast stone ornament. The group, along with the 1928 Capwell store at 20th Street and Broadway – one block west of the subject property – were significant in the development of Oakland’s Uptown area as a luxury commercial district.68
Old Oakland API (Map No. 9)
The Old Oakland API is located to the southwest of the project site and is primarily associated with the emergence of Downtown Oakland in the 1870s, following the completion of the Transcontinental Railroad in 1869. A Staff Report prepared by the Oakland Landmarks Commission describes Old Oakland as follows:

Old Oakland – predominantly 1870s central shopping, office, and hotel district associated with the arrival of the Transcontinental Railroad in 1869. It comprises most of the six square blocks bounded by Broadway, Jefferson, 7th, and 10th streets. Its 31 contributing buildings are mostly zero-setback rectangular blocks, 1 to 4 stories high, in styles reflecting their dates of 1870s-1910s. “Victorian Row” on 9th Street between Broadway and Washington is a solid block of Italianate commercial structures on both sides of the street, considered one of the most distinguished groups of late-Victorian commercial architecture in the West, and was a pioneering historic rehabilitation project in the 1980s. Old Oakland is a locally-designated S-7 historic district and has been formally determined eligible for the National Register; many of its buildings are also individually designated and on the National Register.

It appears that only one of the contributing historic resources located within this API, Delger Block #1 at 901-33 Broadway, lies within the 0.25-mile radius of the project site, standing on the southwestern edge of the project radius at the southwest corner of 9th and Broadway.

66 Oakland General Plan, 1993. Historic Preservation Element, Appendix B, September 1993, page B-1. 67 Leamington Hotel, OaklandWiki. Available at: https://localwiki.org/oakland/Leamington_Hotel, accessed Decemeber 22, 2020.
68 Oakland Cultural Heritage Survey, State of California Historic Resources Inventory Form: Uptown, May 31, 1984. On file at Oakland Cultural Heritage Survey.
1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS DECEMBER 2022 V. CEQA CHECKLIST
D. CULTURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES
92 Areas of Secondary Importance (ASI) within a 0.25-Mile Radius 12th and Webster Street ASI (Map No. 10)
The 12th and Webster Street ASI, located at the southwest corner of 12th and Webster streets, includes four buildings of varying architectural style that have retained varying degrees of historic integrity. The group is located roughly three blocks southeast of the project site. The Webster Block at 1127 Webster Street, a two-story Colonial Revival style commercial building with a brick exterior built in 1911, is listed on the local register. The remaining three buildings within the grouping include: 1101 Webster Street, a three-story altered Queen Anne-Colonial commercial building constructed between 1906-1907; 1115 Webster Street, a Mission Revival style two-story building known as the Robert Howden Store, built in between 1905-1906; and, 375 12th Street, a heavily altered two-story building with ground-floor stores and apartments above built in 1877-

78. Each of these three buildings are PDHPs but are not assigned OCHS ratings that meet the definition of a historic resource under CEQA.
14th and Webster Street ASI (Map No. 11)
The 14th and Webster Street ASI is located along the south side of 14th Street and east of 14th Street contains includes three buildings constructed between 1917 and 1931 each with a height of one- to two-stories, including a mezzanine. 315 and 323 Webster Street feature classical ornamentation and terracotta exterior elements, generally good integrity. The one-story building at 347 Webster Street, located at the southeast corner of 14th and Webster streets and features a glazed terracotta façade with elaborate Art Deco detail. Windows appear to be replacements.

Each of these three buildings are PDHPs but are not assigned OCHS ratings that meet the definition of a historic resource under CEQA.
15th and Webster Street ASI (Map No. 12)
The 15th and Webster Street ASI includes eight buildings, six of which are contributors, located within a 0.25-mile radius of the project site: the Landmark YWCA Building at 1515 Webster Street; Landmark White Building at 1464 Webster Street; Local Register property 389 15th Street; and three additional contributors categorized as PDHPs at 336, 363, and 369 15th Street. Buildings in this ASI are typically approximately two stories in height, excepting the YWCA Building, which is five stories.
17th and Webster Street Group ASI (Map No. 13)
This ASI consists of two adjacent properties, 1608 and 1614 Webster Street, located on the east side of Webster Street between 16th and 17th streets. 1608 Webster Street is a two-story Colonial Revival style office building constructed in 1924 is listed on the Local Register. 1614 Webster DECEMBER 2022 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS V. CEQA CHECKLIST
D. CULTURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES
93 Street is a three-story, mixed use (apartment-over) retail building built in 1906 that is categorized as a PDHP.

Chinatown Support ASI (Map No. 14)
The Chinatown Support ASI is located within the two city blocks bound by 11th Street (north), 9th Street (south), Harrison Street (east), and Webster Street (west), roughly five blocks southeast of the project site and at the southeastern edge of the 0.25-mile radius. The Chinatown Support ASI is located one block north of the Chinatown Commercial API, which lies outside of the 0.25- mile radius. The Chinatown Support ASI contains approximately nine properties with construction dates ranging from 1922 to 1959. Buildings within the district include: 303 10th Street, a two-story commercial building with a restrained Art Deco styling; 343 10th Street, a two- to three-story brick loft building constructed in 1923-1924. 258 and 270-76 11th Street Group ASI (Map No. 15)
This ASI includes adjacent buildings situated along the north side of 11th Street between Harrison Street (east) and Alice Street (west), opposite 11th Street of the site of Oakland Square (250 10th Street/Lincoln Square Park). 258 11th Street was built between 1929-30 and is a one-story-plus mezzanine light-industrial loft building with a brick exterior and steel industrial windows. 276 11th Street is a two-story Renaissance Revival style office building with a gold brick exterior and terracotta ornamentation. Each of these three buildings are PDHPs but are not assigned OCHS ratings that meet the definition of a historic resource under CEQA.

Hotel Menlo Group ASI (Map No. 16)
The Hotel Menlo Group includes four neighboring buildings located along the north side of 13th Street between Webster Street (west) and Harrison Street (east), roughly two blocks southeast of the project site. The Hotel Menlo at 348 13th Street was built between 1913-1914 and is listed on the local register. The seven-story hotel with store building is designed in an early 20th century commercial style with Renaissance/Baroque detailing. The building has a three-part Classical composition with a beige brick exterior. The base of the building retains a prism glass transom, but storefronts have been altered. The heights of the neighboring buildings to the east of the Hotel Menlo step down toward the east. 330 13th Street is a five-story commercial-loft building constructed in 1923, with three prominent storefront bays that terminate with arches at the fifth story, beneath an ornate cornice. 320 13th Street is a locally listed property, built in 1920, which feature Italian Renaissance Revival style design, including classical ornamentation. 1307 Harrison Street, the Pelton-Faustina Building, is a two-story building and is designed in a restrained early 20th century commercial style with a gold brick exterior. 330 13th Street and 1307 Harrison Street are PDHPs that are assigned OCHS ratings that do not meet the definition of historic resource under CEQA.
1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS DECEMBER 2022 V. CEQA CHECKLIST
D. CULTURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES
94 Individual Age-Eligible Properties within a 0.25-Mile Radius The buildings 45 years of age or older within a 0.25-mile radius of the project site vary in height from one to 24 stories, ranging from smaller commercial store buildings to prominent commercial-office towers such as the 14-story Oakland City Hall, 16-story Central Bank Building at 436 14th Street, and 22-story Oakland Tribune building. The buildings within a 0.25-mile radius of the project site range in date of construction from circa 1873, when Italianate commercial blocks and residential buildings found in Old Oakland and other were constructed, to 1975, when commercial-office towers of the more recent past were built. The general character-defining features of buildings in the project vicinity include boxy, rectangular massing, with many properties featuring no setbacks. Commercial buildings of one to four stories in height and built between the 1870s and the 1920s reflect the Italianate and Baroque/Renaissance Revival and Beaux Arts styles that were construct in downtown Oakland between the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Additionally, Art Deco and Modern architectural examples are found within 0.25-mile, including the Art Deco style Financial Center Building at 401-415 14th Street.

Overall, these properties typically feature masonry, terra cotta, and granite exterior cladding materials with repetitive, uniform fenestration.
(3) Project Discussion
A project would have a significant impact on historical resources if it would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. Specifically, substantial adverse changes include physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of the historical resource would be “materially impaired.” In the case of the proposed project, the resource to be altered is the Downtown Historic District and API, within which the subject parcel is located.

The significance of a historical resource is “materially impaired” when a project demolishes or materially alters, in an adverse manner, those physical characteristics of the resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources or local register of historical resources pursuant to section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or its identification in an historical resources survey meeting the requirements of section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code; demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of a historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its eligibility for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources as determined by a lead agency for purposes of CEQA.

In the City of Oakland, a “historical resource” has been defined as a property that is listed in or determined eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources; a resource listed DECEMBER 2022 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS V. CEQA CHECKLIST
D. CULTURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES
95 in Oakland’s Local Register of Historical Resources, unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant; a resource identified as significant (e.g., rated 1–5) in a historical resource survey recorded on Department of Parks and Recreation 523 Series forms, unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant; or a resource that is determined by the Oakland City Council to be historically or culturally significant. 69
The proposed project includes new construction within a National Register and California Register designated historic district and a local API. In addition, the parcel is located directly adjacent to individually significant or contributing historical resources located within the boundaries of the Downtown Historic District and API.

Proposed Project Description
The proposed project (Figure 6 through Figure 9) would include a 27-story building with a maximum height at the main roof of 410 feet, six inches. The office building design has been developed to refer to the three-part massing of many contributors to the Downtown Historic District and API, with a four-story podium, 21-story tower, and 2-story upper portion dominated by a high parapet and rooftop amenities creating a stepped roofline (Figure 6). The rhythm of the proposed façades, both at the podium and tower levels, was developed to refer to the vertical emphasis of taller historic buildings in the Downtown Historic District and API like the 14-story Cathedral Building at 1615 Broadway, a district contributor which is also individually listed on the National Register. The podium height and first through fourth-floor window opening heights of the proposed building were developed in direct response to the heights of openings at the primary facades of the adjacent district contributors, both four stories in height, at 1411 and 1441 Franklin Street (Figure 7). The beige colored brick cladding proposed for the new building was selected to refer to that of the historic Rotunda Building, a contributor to the Downtown Historic District and API located on the west side of Telegraph Avenue between 15th and 16th Streets.

Other proposed exterior finishes include bronze metal fins distinguishing the building’s bays at the podium and tower levels, a pleated glass wall and bronze-colored panels at a recessed 22nd story balcony feature, and a metal panel system with a brushed finish at the rooftop amenity level. The building core would be located at the south side, adjacent to the property line, and would be visually distinguished by a slight projection of the central portion of the façade and narrower window openings (Figure 8).

The façade plane of the proposed building would be coplanar with the façades of the two adjacent buildings facing Franklin Street, addressed 1411 and 1441 (Figure 9). As is typical within the district, the building would extend to its front and side property lines. The top of the tower’s

69 City of Oakland, CEQA Thresholds of Significance Guidelines, December 16, 2020. 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS DECEMBER 2022 V. CEQA CHECKLIST
D. CULTURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES
96 Figure 6. Rendering of proposed project, view southwest.

Source: Large Architecture, June 15, 2022.

Figure 7. Rendering of proposed project, primary (east) façade podium level.

Source: Large Architecture, June 15, 2022.

DECEMBER 2022 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS V. CEQA CHECKLIST
D. CULTURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES
97 Figure 8. Rendering of proposed project, view northwest.

Source Large Architecture, June 15, 2022.

Figure 9. Rendering of proposed project, primary (east) facade podium level, view southwest from Franklin Street.

Source: Large Architecture, June 15, 2022.

1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS DECEMBER 2022 V. CEQA CHECKLIST
D. CULTURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES
98 podium level would correspond to the heights of the rooflines of the adjacent buildings, and floorplates within the podium level would align with those of the neighboring buildings to establish visual continuity of openings along the block face. The proposed full-height ground floor fenestration, which would align in height with that of 1441 Franklin Street to the north, would refer to the typical storefront glazing of commercial buildings within the district, while recessed portions and heavy vertical muntins and mullions would visually break up the ground floor façade to provide variation at the pedestrian level.

Potential Project Impacts
The following discussion of the potential impact of the proposed project to the Downtown Historic District and API is guided by the relevant general principles of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, more specifically the Standards for Rehabilitation. These standards are typically used in review of proposed projects under CEQA as, according to CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(b)(3), a project which is found to comply with the appropriate standards within the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties is “considered as mitigated to a level of less than a significant impact on the historical resource.”70 As the project does not propose to physically alter individual historical resources or district contributors, the focus of the discussion below is informed by Rehabilitation Standards 9 and 10, which are relevant to related new construction:

9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment.

10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.71
These standards primarily consider potential changes in the setting of districts and contributors which are nearby and adjacent to the project site. As one of the seven aspects of integrity defined by the National Park Service in guidance for the evaluation of historic properties, setting denotes the physical environment of a historic resource or district, reflecting “the basic physical

70 Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 14, Section 15064.5(b)(3).
71 Anne E. Grimer, The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring & Reconstructing Historic Buildings (Washington, D.C.: U.S.

Departmetn of the Interior, National Park Service Technical Preservation Services, 2017), 76.

DECEMBER 2022 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS V. CEQA CHECKLIST
D. CULTURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES
99 conditions under which a property was built and the functions it was intended to serve.”72 A resource’s setting may include natural or built environment features, as well as “relationships between buildings and other features or open space.”73
Potential Impacts – Architecture and Façade Characteristics The downtown historic district is characterized by contributors which feature light colored brick or terracotta exteriors, metal and terracotta cornices, classical ornament, broadly glazed commercial ground floors, and a "skeletal articulation emphasizing a grid of windows.”74 The beige colored brick and metal finishes of the proposed building exterior would be compatible overall with the character of the district, as would the regular grid pattern of punched rectangular windows across the podium and tower levels. The ground-floor glazing, while not corresponding to individual commercial spaces as is the case with other nearby district contributors, would be visually divided into five bays, with a slightly recessed central entrance flanked on either side by two broadly glazed bays with proportions similar to those of nearby storefronts.

While employing materials, fenestration patterns, and ground floor proportions which reference and are compatible with the character of nearby district contributors, the proposed design for the office building would be visually distinct as new. It would not include elements of false historicism or attempts to recreate the style of district contributors. The proposed brick cladding would be simple in design and would not emulate decorative bonds or color variations present on some district contributors. Decorative terracotta and metal moldings, such as those at the neighboring district contributor at 1441 Franklin, or classical details, such as at the neighboring district contributor at 1411 Franklin, are not proposed. The proposed tower would share an overall three- part vertical composition, linear vertical design features, and a regular rectangular grid of punched openings with the adjacent tower at the Central Bank Building, 436 14th Street. It would not include arcaded stories, ornamented arched openings, or ornate cornices like the Central Bank Building. This relative simplicity would, when viewed at both the pedestrian level on Franklin Street and from greater distances, allow the more elaborate stylistic features of historic district contributors to remain visually prominent, despite the larger size of the new building at 1431 Franklin Street. The proposed building would not distract from or compete with the existing character of the Downtown Historic District and API in its materials or level of detail.

72 National Park Service, National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, 1997), 45. 73 Ibid.
74 Oakland Cultural Heritage Survey, Downtown Oakland Historic District, 43. 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS DECEMBER 2022 V. CEQA CHECKLIST
D. CULTURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES
100
Potential Impacts – Height and Massing
The proposed project would introduce a much taller building into the Downtown Historic District and API than neighboring and nearby district contributors. At 410 feet, six inches in maximum height, the office tower project would be approximately 175 feet taller than the historic 16-story Central Bank Building at 436 14th Street, which is approximately 235 feet in height. Placement of a relatively tall tower within the heart of the downtown generally aligns with the historical and recent patterns of development in downtown Oakland in which, through successive decades, the city’s tallest buildings or skyscrapers were constructed along the east side of Broadway. Within the Downtown Historic District and API, this is demonstrated by the 16-story Central Bank Building at 436 14th Street, built in 1925-1926, the 18-story International Style office tower at 1330 Broadway, built between 1956-1959 (297 feet in height), and the 18-story tower addition to the Key System Building at 1100 Broadway, completed in 2020 (269 feet in height). While the proposed project would be substantially taller than these existing buildings, the Downtown Historic District and API would retain its characteristic variation with taller buildings interspersed with shorter commercial buildings. This aspect of the district is tangible at the street level where groups of smaller buildings are interspersed with towers, and is also evident in the City’s skyline when viewed from more distant perspectives within the district (Figure 10 through Figure 13).

Construction of the proposed building would fill a gap in the block that was historically occupied by the “Ye Liberty Theatre,” demolished in 1960, and would thus obscure the side and rear facades of six contributors to the Downtown Historic District and API which currently overlook the project site. The side and rear façades of five of these contributors (1411 Franklin Street, 420 14th Street, 1440 Broadway, 421 15th Street, and 1441 Franklin Street), which date between 1901 and 1929, do not contain any features which are important to the character of the Downtown Historic District and API. Further, for the majority of the Downtown Historic District’s 1900-1948 period of significance, the project site was occupied by the Ye Liberty Theater, a three- to four- story building which opened in 1904 and was demolished in 1960. By 1950, a row of one-story commercial buildings filled the setback between the rear of the theater building and the east property line. This theater building and later commercial buildings would have partially or fully obscured the side and rear façades of these five neighboring buildings from viewpoints on Franklin Street.

The upper stories of the rear, north- and east-facing façades of the L-shaped tower of the Central Bank Building at 436 14th Street include character-defining features, with a brick exterior and detailing similar to the building’s prominent street-facing façades along 14th Street and Broadway. These rear-facing façades are currently visible from the Franklin Street public right-of- way between 14th and 15th streets through the proposed project site and would have been visible from Franklin Street above the roof of the Ye Liberty Theater building. The proposed project DECEMBER 2022 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS V. CEQA CHECKLIST
D. CULTURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES
101

Figure 10. Existing and proposed views within district, looking north along Franklin Street from 13th Street, proposed project is at left side of street.

Source: Large Architecture, June 15, 2022.

Figure 11. Existing and proposed views within district, looking south along Franklin Street from approximately one half block north of 15th Street, proposed project is at right side of street.

Source: Large Architecture, June 15, 2022.

1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS DECEMBER 2022 V. CEQA CHECKLIST
D. CULTURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES
102

Figure 12. Existing and proposed views from within district, looking southeast from Frank Ogawa Plaza.

Proposed project is at center, City Hall is at right.

Source: Large Architecture, June 15, 2022.

Figure 13. Existing and proposed views from within district, looking southwest from Broadway and 17th Street.

Proposed project is at left, Cathedral Building is at right.

Source: Large Architecture, June 15, 2022.

DECEMBER 2022 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS V. CEQA CHECKLIST
D. CULTURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES
103
would result in a reduction of visibility of the rear of façade of the Central Bank Building at 436 14th Street from vantage points on 15th and Franklin streets. However, from other perspectives within the district and the vicinity, the Central Bank Building and other district contributors would retain the existing visibility of their primary façades, and the character-defining features which support their inclusion in the district.

While construction of the proposed building within the subject property would span the width of the parcel along Franklin Street, resulting in obstruction of the side and rear elevations of the neighboring buildings within the block, the new construction would not obscure the primary street-facing façades of any district contributors on the same block as the subject property.

Discussion – Integrity of the Downtown Historic District and API In order to qualify for listing in any local, state, or national historic register, a property (such as a building, site, landscape, object, or district) must possess significance under at least one evaluative criterion as described above and retain integrity. Integrity is defined by the California Office of Historic Preservation as “the authenticity of an historical resource’s physical identity evidenced by the survival of characteristics that existed during the resource’s period of significance,” or more simply defined by the National Park Service as “the ability of a property to convey its significance.”75 Seven variables, or aspects, that define integrity are used to evaluate a resource’s integrity—location, setting, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.

A property must possess most or all these aspects in order to retain overall integrity. If a property does not retain integrity, it can no longer convey its significance and is therefore not eligible for listing in local, state, or national registers.

The proposed project would most noticeably alter the character of the Downtown Historic District and API along Franklin Street, with perspectives along Franklin Street between 14th and 15th streets providing the clearest view of the new tower in relation to adjacent district contributors. When viewed from the west, the tower would appear behind contributors which face Broadway and would provide a differentiated and distinguishable backdrop to the Central Bank Building and buildings with lower heights to the immediate north. The location of the project site is at the eastern edge of the district and API where its boundary runs north-south along Franklin between 14th and 15th streets, with properties directly opposite Franklin Street outside of the district boundary. While introducing a distinctly new element, as discussed above, neither the materials and façade details nor the massing and height of the proposed project would significantly impair the ability of the Downtown Historic District and API or its

75 California Office of Historic Preservation, Technical Assistance Series No. 7: How to Nominate a Resource to the California Register of Historical Resources (Sacramento: California Office of State Publishing, September 4, 2001) 11; U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, National Register Bulletin: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, 1995) 44. 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS DECEMBER 2022 V. CEQA CHECKLIST
D. CULTURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES
104
contributors, which comprise numerous buildings across several blocks, to convey their historic character and significance.

The proposed fenestration, materiality and podium massing of the project would be compatible with the generally rectangular forms, masonry exterior materials, and fenestration patterns and types found at most properties of historic age in the vicinity. Heights in the district and API are varied; along Franklin Street the tower would appear much taller than adjacent buildings, but overall, its position in the core of the downtown would not be out of character in terms of the varied pattern of lower, one- to four-story buildings interspersed with early skyscrapers and more modern towers.

Contributing buildings would remain individually unaltered. The character-defining features that represent historic design, original materials, and provide evidence of workmanship associated with construction methods during the district’s period of significance would remain intact. The Downtown Oakland Historic District and API would retain strong associations to the patterns of civic activity and commerce during the early to mid-twentieth century, conveyed by the design quality and stylistic features of its contributors. The new visual element introduced by the proposed building would not interfere with district contributors’ ability to convey their significance to the extent that their eligibility for continued listing in the National Register as part of the Downtown Historic District or as contributors to the Downtown Oakland API would be diminished. Future removal of the proposed project would leave the eligibility for national, state, and local listing of the Downtown Historic District and ASI unimpaired.

Potential Impacts – Other Nearby Resources
The closest nearby resources to the project site outside of the Downtown Historic District API include the Coit Building API at Harrison Street to the east, the 17th Street Commercial District to the northeast between Franklin and Harrison streets, the 14thand Webster Street ASI, 15th and Webster Street ASI, and Hotel Menlo Group ASI to the east. The areas between each API and ASI are defined by a variety of building types, styles, and land uses. Recent developments outside of historic districts, such as the 40-story Atlas building at the east side of Franklin Street between 13th and 14th streets, have created visual barriers between parts of the Downtown Historic District and API and nearby King Building Group API, 14th and Webster Street ASI, and Hotel Menlo Group ASI. While the proposed building would be visible from Franklin Street adjacent to the 15th and Webster ASI, this ASIs contributors are distinguished by details in material, such as terracotta and tile, which would not be altered or visually impacted by the presence of the proposed building.

DECEMBER 2022 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS V. CEQA CHECKLIST
D. CULTURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES
105
Potential Impacts – Construction-Related Impacts to Adjacent Historical Resources The project does not propose to physically alter existing buildings adjacent to the project site.

However, due to the potential for the project to inadvertently physically impact neighboring buildings, including contributors to the Downtown Historic District, through vibration, mass excavation, or accidental mechanical damage, Standard Conditions of Approval and permit conditions should include measures for historic resource protection and damage reporting and repair for neighboring resources. These should include, at a minimum:
▪ Pre-construction survey of adjacent Downtown Historic District contributors to establish baseline documentation of existing conditions;
▪ Development and implementation of a vibration monitoring program for adjacent Downtown Historic District contributors;
▪ Historic resource protection training for site construction staff; ▪ Development and implementation of construction protection specifications for prevention of mechanical damage to adjacent Downtown Historic District contributors; and ▪ Construction monitoring and regular reporting.

Potential Cumulative Impacts
Several projects within the proposed Downtown Specific Plan Area have been completed or are under construction and located within 0.25-mile of the project site. These include:
▪ 1100 Broadway – The Key System Building (18-story tower addition cantilevering over an existing historic building, completed 2020).
▪ 385 14th Street – Atlas Tower (40-story residential tower replaced a parking lot, completed 2020).
▪ 1700 Webster Street (23-story tower replaced a non-historic building, completed 2020). ▪ 1721 Webster Street (25-story tower replaced a non-historic building, completed 2020). ▪ 301 19th Street/1889 Harrison Street (7-story building replaced surface parking, completed 2020).
▪ 1431 Jefferson Street (22-story building replaced surface parking, completed 2022). ▪ 1940 Webster Street (7-story building replaced a non-historic building, completed 2022). ▪ 1433 Webster Street (15-stories, proposed).
▪ 420 13th Street (stories not known, proposed).
▪ 1755 Broadway (38-stories, proposed).
▪ 415 20th Street (41-story tower, proposed).
1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS DECEMBER 2022 V. CEQA CHECKLIST
D. CULTURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES
106
Of these projects, the nearest to the proposed project site include 1100 Broadway, located southwest of the project site within the Downtown Historic District and API; 420 13th Street, located southwest of the project site within the Downtown Historic District and API; the Atlas Tower at 385 14th Street, located southeast of the project site on the southeast corner of 14th and Franklin streets, just outside of the Downtown Historic District and API; and 1433 Webster Street; located one block east of the project site outside the Downtown Historic District and API.

In combination with the currently proposed project, these completed and proposed projects would involve alteration of three separate parcels within the Downtown Historic District and API.

The location of the 1100 Broadway project at the south edge of the district visually separates it from the proposed project site. The potential impact of a proposed project at 420 13th Street is not known, as insufficient details regarding that project are available. The nearby project at 1433 Webster Street would occur one block east of the eastern boundary of the Downtown Historic District and API and would not significantly alter the overall character of the district. The closest project, the Atlas building at 385 14th Street , is approximately 401-feet-tall and would be a similar height compared to the proposed project (approximately 410 feet), and occupies its entire block.

The tower is surrounded on three sides by the Downtown Historic District and API boundary, at 14th Street, Franklin Street, and 13th Street. Construction of the proposed building at 1431 Franklin Street would introduce another new tower close to the 40-story Atlas building, but would not cluster new development such that it would detract from the cohesiveness of the district.

Overall, review of these projects found that they did not or would not cause a significant impact individually or as part of cumulative impacts to the setting of the Downtown Historic District and API. No district contributors would be altered or demolished and the district, on the whole, would retain its setting and distinct groupings of contributing buildings.

Future, not-yet-identified, and hypothetical projects within the district boundary that potentially demolish contributing resources could create a significant cumulative impact on the historic district, depending on the location of future projects and the specific characteristics of the proposed project.

Summary of Potential Impacts
Historical Resources (Criterion D.a)
The proposed office tower project at 1431 Franklin Street, located within the Downtown Historic District and API, would not cause an adverse material change to historical resources. The project does not propose to physically alter district contributors. Although the project would alter the Downtown Historic District and API by developing a parcel located within the district boundary, the proposed design of the building includes materials, fenestration patterns, and podium level massing which would be compatible with the materials and design of district contributors. The DECEMBER 2022 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS V. CEQA CHECKLIST
D. CULTURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES
107
proposed building would not change the setting of the Downtown Historic District and API or its contributors to the extent that their eligibility for designation would be impaired. The relationship of these resources would still be apparent and distinguishable from the new construction brought into the district.

The project would not result in the removal of any character-defining features or cause a significant change in the setting of nearby APIs, ASIs, or individual historic outside the Downtown Historic District and API to the extent that their eligibility for listing at the local, state, or national level would be impaired.

Archaeological and Paleontological Resources and Human Remains (Criteria .b, .c, and .d)
Historic-period archaeological sites and deposits identified in the NWIC records search of a

0.25-mile radius around the project site include remnants of a street railway track along Webster and 11th streets (P-01-010530, P-01-010531), a ca. 1910 water-management feature that was part of a fire suppression system beneath the intersection of 12th and Franklin streets, and an abandoned concrete manhole beneath the existing public right-of-way on 17th Street west of Telegraph Avenue (P-01-010535). The Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) forms on file with the NWIC for these sites and deposits do not include evaluations of significance.

Discovery of buried prehistoric materials was recorded during construction-related excavation in 1913 and 1928 at two locations (recorded in CHRIS records with primary numbers P-01-000042 and P-01-010994) within the 0.25-mile radius of the project site. The records on file with the NWIC for these locations do not include evaluations of significance.

The nearest previously recorded historic-period archaeological features within the vicinity of the proposed project site consist of transportation and water management infrastructure elements beneath public rights-of-way. As the project would not include excavation of public sidewalk or street areas, it is not anticipated that the project would encounter similar remains. However, there is potential for the presence of previously unrecorded historic-period archaeological deposits related to residential use of the site between the late 19th century and ca. 1903, and the Ye Liberty Theatre that occupied the site between 1903 and 1960. In addition, there is the potential for discovery of previously unrecorded prehistoric archaeological deposits within the project site.

No archaeological resources have been previously recorded at the project site. The project would entail excavation to a depth of approximately 9 feet below grade, as well as installation of cast-in- place piles or drilled piers. A July 2019 Preliminary Geotechnical Consultation letter prepared by Langan for the property reports that previous studies in the vicinity have identified between 2,5 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS DECEMBER 2022 V. CEQA CHECKLIST
D. CULTURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES
108
and 8 feet of fill underlain by Merritt Sand.76 As studies have not yet been conducted at the project site, the depth and nature of fill, and previous ground disturbance by development at the site has not yet been identified. Sanborn maps from 1889 and 1903 do not indicate that the three residential buildings occupying the project site had basements. Two small structures depicted on the 1889 map at the rear of the two southernmost parcels (absent from the 1903 map) may correspond to outhouse locations.77 The depth of disturbance and construction associated with the Ye Liberty Theatre’s revolving floor, as noted in 1911 and 1950 Sanborn Maps, is not known.78 As the project site was developed with only a paved parking lot following demolition of the theater, there is the possibility for subsurface remains associated with both the theater and earlier historic-period uses to be preserved under the current parking lot surface. As noted above, there is also potential for discovery of previously unrecorded prehistoric archaeological resources at the project site.

The project would be required to implement the City’s SCAs related to the discovery of archaeological resources, paleontological resources, and human remains during project-related construction, as identified in Attachment A, including: SCA-HIST-1: Archaeological and Paleontological Resources – Discovery During Construction (#32) and SCA-HIST-2: Human Remains – Discovery During Construction (#34). Implementation of these SCAs during project- related geotechnical testing, demolition of the existing parking lot surface, and project-related ground disturbance would reduce potential adverse effects that could result from project activities to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, the project would have a less-than-significant impact to previously unrecorded archaeological or paleontological resources.

3. Conclusion
Consistent with the findings of the Program EIRs, implementation of the project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts related to historical resources or archaeological and paleontological resources than those identified in the Program EIRs. In addition, the project would not demolish any built environment historical resources. Implementation of SCA-HIST-1:

Archaeological and Paleontological Resources – Discovery During Construction (#32), and SCA- HIST-2: Human Remains – Discovery During Construction (#34), would ensure impacts to cultural resources would be less than significant. Please see Attachment A for a full description of the applicable SCAs.

76 Langan, 2019. Preliminary Geotechnical Consultation for 1431 Franklin Street. July 31. 77 Sanborn Map & Publishing Co., Oakland, California, 1889, Sheet 8; Sanborn Map Company, Insurance Maps of Oakland, California, Volume 2, 1903, Sheet 140.
78 Sanborn Map Company, Insurance Maps of Oakland, California, Volume 2, 1911 and 1950, Sheet 153.

DECEMBER 2022 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS V. CEQA CHECKLIST
E. ENERGY
109
E. ENERGY
Would the project:

Equal or
Less Severity
of Impact
Previously
Identified in
Program EIRs
Substantial
Increase
in Severity
of Previously
Identified
Significant
Impact in EIR
New
Significant
Impact
a. Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation.
☒ ☐ ☐
b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.
☒ ☐ ☐

1. Program EIR Findings
The 2011 Renewal Plan EIR included an analysis of energy resources related to supply and need for additional energy facilities and found that impacts to these topics would be less than significant and would not require mitigation measures or SCAs.

The 1998 LUTE EIR included an analysis of energy consumption and found that impacts would be less than significant and would not require mitigation measures or SCAs.

2. Project Analysis
Energy Consumption and Local and State Plans (Criteria 5.a and 5.b) The project would be required to comply with the standards of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations. In addition, the project would be required to implement SCA-UTIL-5: Underground Utilities (#82), which requires all new gas, electric, cable, and telephone facilities underground, and SCA-UTIL-6: Green Building Requirements (#84), which requires compliance with the green building ordinance. The project is required by City of Oakland standards to earn LEED Silver, which would require further energy efficiency measures.

The project would also be consistent with the City’s 2030 Equitable Climate Action Plan (ECAP), which is intended to identify an equitable path toward cost-effectively reducing the City’s local climate emissions, transitioning away from fossil fuel dependence, and ensuring that the City’s communities are resilient to the foreseeable impacts of climate change. More information related to the ECAP is provided in Section V.G, Greenhouse Gas and Climate Change, below. Specific project design features consistent with the ECAP include, but are not limited to, provision of bicycle parking and less than half of the maximum allowable parking, compliance with the Transportation Demand Management plan, certification of LEED Silver rating, and most notably, 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS DECEMBER 2022 V. CEQA CHECKLIST
E. ENERGY
110
exclusion of any natural gas hook-ups. Compliance with the ECAP would further reduce potential impacts related to energy consumption.

As described above, implementation of SCAs and adherence with Title 24 and City of Oakland requirements would ensure no significant impacts related to energy would occur.

3. Conclusion
Consistent with the findings of the Program EIRs, the project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts related to energy than those identified in the Program EIRs.

Implementation of SCA-UTIL-5: Underground Utilities (#82), which requires all new gas, electric, cable, and telephone facilities underground, and SCA-UTIL-6: Green Building Requirements (#84), as well as compliance with Title 24 and City of Oakland policies would ensure that impacts to energy resources would be less than significant. Please see Attachment A for a full description of the applicable SCAs.

DECEMBER 2022 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS V. CEQA CHECKLIST
F. GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND GEOHAZARDS
111
F. GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND GEOHAZARDS
Would the project:

Equal or
Less Severity
of Impact
Previously
Identified in
Program EIRs
Substantial
Increase
in Severity
of Previously
Identified
Significant
Impact in EIR
New
Significant
Impact
a. Expose people or structures to substantial risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map or Seismic Hazards Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault;
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking;
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction, lateral spreading, subsidence, collapse; or
iv. Landslides;
☒ ☐ ☐
b. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Section 1802.3.2 of the California Building Code (2007, as it may be revised), creating substantial risks to life or property; result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil, creating
substantial risks to life, property, or creeks/waterways. ☒ ☐ ☐

1. Program EIR Findings
The 2011 Renewal Plan EIR included an analysis of geology, soils, and geohazards and found that impacts to these topics would be less than significant with implementation of SCAs.

The 1998 LUTE EIR included an analysis of geology, soils, and geohazards and found that impacts to these topics would be less than significant and would not require mitigation measures or SCAs.

2. Project Analysis
Exposure to Risk of Loss, Injury, or Death Involving Fault Rupture, Seismic-Related Shaking, Liquefaction, Lateral Spreading, Subsidence, or Collapse, or Landslides (Criterion 6.a)
The project site is in a seismically active region, and the nearest active fault is the Hayward Fault, which is located approximately 3 miles northeast of the project site.79 The project site would

79 California Geological Survey (CGS), 2010. Fault Activity Map of California (2010). Available at:
http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/fam/, accessed August 27, 2020. 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS DECEMBER 2022 V. CEQA CHECKLIST
F. GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND GEOHAZARDS
112
experience strong to very strong shaking in the event of a major earthquake on a nearby active fault. 80
The project site is not located within or adjacent to an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone.81 Therefore, the project would not result in significant impacts with respect to rupture of a known earthquake fault. The project site is also not within an earthquake-induced landslides hazard zone or liquefaction hazard zone mapped by the California Geological Survey (CGS).82 Based on the relatively flat topography of the project site and surrounding area, landslides would not pose a risk to the project. The project site is fairly level, and there are no free faces that could be susceptible to lateral spreading near the project site. Therefore, potential impacts related to lateral spreading would be less than significant.

A Preliminary Geotechnical Consultation83 was prepared for the project using data previously collected from the site vicinity to evaluate the potential for earthquake-induced geologic hazards including strong ground shaking, liquefaction, and cyclic densification (also referred to as seismic densification) in the vicinity of the project site. The findings of Preliminary Geotechnical Consultation are summarized below.

Borings at nearby sites encountered approximately 2 to 8 feet of fill material below the ground surface. The fill consists of light brown to yellow-brown, loose to medium dense silty sand and silty sand with gravel. The fill is underlain by Merritt Sand which consists of medium dense to very dense clayey sand, sand with clay, and silty sand and extends to depths of approximately 20 to 44 feet. Below this layer are very stiff to hard silty clay, clay, clay with sand, sandy clay, and silt with occasional dense sand layers and gravel layers extending to depths greater than 390 feet. The anticipated high groundwater level at the project site would be approximately 20 feet deep.

Fluctuations in groundwater levels are expected and occur due to many factors including seasonal fluctuation, tides, underground drainage patterns, regional fluctuations, and other factors.84 The Preliminary Geotechnical Consultation included preliminarily estimates of up to 1 inch of potential liquefaction induced settlement in saturated soils and approximately 0.5-inch of seismic densification induced settlement in cohesionless soil above the groundwater level at the project site during a seismic event.85
The Preliminary Geotechnical Consultation indicated that the primary geotechnical issues for the project are: 1) strong ground shaking and seismic hazards; 2) likely presence of a variable

80 Langan, 2020. Preliminary Geotechnical Consultation, 1431 Franklin Street, Oakland, California, April 30. 81 California Department of Conservation, 1982. Special Studies Zones, Oakland West, January 1. 82 California Geological Survey (CGS), 2003. State of California Seismic Hazard Zones, Oakland West Quadrangle Official Map, February 14.
83 Langan, 2020, op. cit.
84 Ibid.
85 Ibid.

DECEMBER 2022 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS V. CEQA CHECKLIST
F. GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND GEOHAZARDS
113
thickness and quality of fill; and 3) appropriate foundation system(s) for the new building. The Preliminary Geotechnical Consultation included the following preliminary conclusions and recommendations: 86
▪ The project site could be underlain by 2 to 10 feet of fill. Because the proposed structure would be at-grade, the potential variability in thickness and quality/relative density of the fill should be evaluated further with respect to differential settlement. ▪ The proposed structure should be supported on a deep foundation system consisting of augered cast-in-place piles or drilled piers that derive their load carrying capacity from skin friction in the Merritt Sand and the underlying very stiff to hard clay. ▪ A design level geotechnical investigation should be performed prior to design of the building foundations for the selected design scheme to confirm the preliminary geotechnical conclusions and recommendations. This investigation should include drilling borings and advancing cone penetrometer tests, as necessary, to evaluate subsurface conditions and obtain soil samples for laboratory testing and analyses. Following the design level investigation and analyses, the geotechnical engineer can provide recommendations for design of the geotechnical aspects of the project.

The Preliminary Geotechnical Consultation also provided preliminary recommendations regarding seismic design criteria, including using Site Class D (stiff soil).87 The project would be required to comply with the City’s SCAs related to geology and soils prior to approval of construction-related permits. This includes SCA-GEO-1: Construction-Related Permit(s) (#36) which would require the project to 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. The project would also be required to comply with SCA-GEO-2: Soils Report (#37) which would require the project to submit a soils report prepared by a registered geotechnical engineer for City review and approval which includes field test results and observations regarding the nature, distribution and strength of existing soils, and recommendations for appropriate grading practices and project design. The recommendations contained in the approved soils report must be implemented during project design and construction.

Compliance with SCAs, as discussed above, would ensure that the project would be designed and constructed to account for and withstand seismic and geologic hazards which could have adverse effects on the project and adjacent properties, thereby minimizing exposure of people and structures to substantial risk of loss, injury, or death during a large regional earthquake.

Therefore, the project would not result in significant impacts with respect to ground shaking and seismic-related ground failure.

86 Ibid.
87 Ibid.
1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS DECEMBER 2022 V. CEQA CHECKLIST
F. GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND GEOHAZARDS
114
Expansive Soil, Erosion or Loss of Topsoil, Creating Substantial Risks to Life, Property, or Creeks/Waterways (Criterion 6.b)
Soils that are clayey could have expansive properties when subject to varying moisture conditions. The Preliminary Geotechnical Consultation88 indicated that the vicinity of the project site is underlain by fill materials (silty sand and silty sand with gravel), Merritt Sand (which is generally not very clayey), and stiff to hard clay. The fill material and Merritt Sand in the vicinity of the project site would not have expansive properties based on the high sand content of these soils, and the stiff to hard clay was identified below the anticipated depth of the water table at the project site, which reduces the potential for shrinkage and expansion. The nature of fill materials directly beneath the project site has not yet been evaluated; however, if the site- specific soils report (as required by SCA-GEO-2) identifies expansive soils beneath the project site, implementation of the recommendations in the soils report would ensure that potential hazards associated with expansive soils would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level through appropriate design and construction practices (e.g., removal of the expansive soils and placement of non-expansive engineered fill, treatment of the expansive soils, and/or appropriate drainage).

As discussed in detail in Section V.I, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this document, soil erosion could occur during project grading and construction. However, as described in Section V.I, implementation of SCA-HYD-1: Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan for Construction (#48) would reduce the potential impacts related to erosion of topsoil to a less-than-significant level.

3. Conclusion
Consistent with the findings of the Program EIRs, implementation of the project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts related to geology, soils, and geohazards than those identified in the Program EIRs. Implementation of SCA-GEO-1: Construction-Related Permit[s] (#36), SCA-GEO-2: Soils Report (#37), and SCA-HYD-1: Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan for Construction (#48) would ensure impacts related to geology, soils, and geohazards would be less than significant. Please see Attachment A for a full description of the applicable SCAs.

88 Ibid.

DECEMBER 2022 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS V. CEQA CHECKLIST
G. GREENHOUSE GAS AND CLIMATE CHANGE
115
G. GREENHOUSE GAS AND CLIMATE CHANGE
Would the project:

Equal or
Less Severity
of Impact
Previously
Identified in
Program EIRs
Substantial
Increase
in Severity
of Previously
Identified
Significant
Impact in EIR
New
Significant
Impact
a. For a project involving a stationary source, produce total emissions of more than 10,000 metric tons of CO2e annually. ☒ ☐ ☐
b. For a project involving a land use development, fail to demonstrate consistency with the 2030 Equitable Climate Action Plan (ECAP) adopted by the City Council on July 28, 2020. Consistency with the 2030 ECAP can be shown either:
• Committing to all the greenhouse gas (GHG) emission
reductions strategies described on the ECAP Consistency Checklist, or
• Complying with the GHG Reduction Plan Standard
Condition of Approval that requires a project-level GHG Reduction Plan quantifying how alternative reduction
measures will achieve the same or greater emissions
than would be achieved by meeting the ECAP
Consistency Checklist.

☒ ☐ ☐

1. Program EIR Findings
The 2011 Renewal Plan EIR found all impacts to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and climate change to be less than significant with implementation of applicable SCAs.

Climate change and GHG emissions were not expressly addressed in the 1998 LUTE EIR. Since information on climate change and GHG emissions was known, or could have been known, when the Program EIR was certified, it is not actually new information as specifically defined under CEQA. This is consistent with the First District Court of Appeal's ruling in Concerned Dublin Citizens v. City of Dublin, 214 Cal.App.4th 1301 (2013).

The project under the Program EIRs is not required to evaluate impacts related to GHG emissions from construction and operation. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) CEQA Guidelines recommend that project-level GHG emissions be quantified and disclosed for the purpose of providing more information to the lead agency and the public. The project would be subject to the City of Oakland’s SCAs.
1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS DECEMBER 2022 V. CEQA CHECKLIST
G. GREENHOUSE GAS AND CLIMATE CHANGE
116

2. Project Analysis
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Generation from Stationary Sources (Criterion 7.a) The City’s threshold of significance recommends that the GHG emissions from a project’s stationary sources be analyzed separately and compared to the threshold of significance for stationary sources of 10,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (MT CO2e) per year. The project would be required to operate an emergency generator for the elevator system, which must comply with the BAAQMD’s permit requirements for a stationary source. It was assumed that one 1,000-kilowatt diesel generator
would be used for non-emergency operation
up to 50 hours per year (for routine testing
and maintenance). As shown in Table V.G-1,
the annual emissions of 26 metric tons CO2e
from the emergency diesel generator are
substantially below the City’s threshold of
10,000 CO2e for stationary sources. Therefore,
routine testing and maintenance of the
emergency generator would have a less-than-
significant impact on global climate change.

Consistency with the Equitable Climate Action Plan (Criterion 7.b) Both BAAQMD and the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (“CAPCOA”) consider GHG impacts to be exclusively cumulative impacts in that no single project could, by itself, result in a substantial change in climate. Therefore, the evaluation of GHG emissions impacts evaluates whether the Project would make a considerable contribution to cumulative climate change effects. The City of Oakland’s current adopted thresholds for GHG emissions rely upon the technical and scientific basis for the City's 2030 Equitable Climate Action Plan (ECAP), which provide substantial evidence that adherence to the 2030 ECAP action items will achieve GHG emissions reduction targets of 56 percent below 2005 levels by 2030 and 83 percent below 2005 levels by 2050. These reduction targets are more aggressive than the State's adopted 2030 reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels (per AB 32). Therefore, reductions below the City of Oakland's efficiency metric also meet the State's adopted 2030 goals.

The City’s threshold of significance recommends that land use development projects demonstrate consistency with the 2030 ECAP, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7. The goal of the ECAP is to identify an equitable path toward cost-effectively reducing the City’s local climate emissions a minimum of 56 percent below the 2005 level by 2030, transitioning away from fossil fuel dependence, and ensuring that all of the City’s communities are resilient to the foreseeable impacts of climate change. The actions and strategies identified by the ECAP were TABLE V.G-1 SUMMARY OF AVERAGE GHG EMISSIONS

FROM EMERGENCY GENERATOR
Stationary Source
CO2e
(MT/year)
Emergency Generator 25.6
Threshold of Significance 10,000
Exceed Threshold? No
Note: MT = metric tons
Source: See Attachment G.

DECEMBER 2022 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS V. CEQA CHECKLIST
G. GREENHOUSE GAS AND CLIMATE CHANGE
117
designed to meet equitable, realistic, ambitious, balanced, and adaptive criteria. The ECAP provides updated actions and strategies to bridge the gaps between the business-as-usual GHG emissions and the City’s 2030 and 2050 GHG reduction goals. The ECAP, as a policy roadmap for the City’s transition to a low-carbon economy, addresses potential GHG reductions in the following sectors: Transportation and Land Use, Buildings, Material Consumption and Waste, Adaptation, Carbon Removal, City Leadership, and Port of Oakland.

The City’s threshold of significance determines whether a development project complies with the ECAP and the City’s GHG emissions reduction targets using the ECAP Consistency Review Checklist (the ECAP Checklist). A project’s impact related to GHG emissions generation is considered less than significant if the project completes the Checklist and can qualitatively demonstrate compliance with the Checklist items.

The project’s ECAP Checklist indicates that the project’s design would meet all the applicable requirements for Transportation and Land Use, Buildings, Material Consumption and Waste, and Carbon Removal.89 Specific project design features consistent with the ECAP include, but are not limited to, provision of bicycle parking and less than half of the maximum allowable parking, compliance with the Transportation Demand Management plan, certification of LEED Silver rating, and exclusion of any natural gas hook-ups. The ECAP Checklist’s requirements related to City Leadership and Adaptation are not applicable to the project. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the City’s 2030 ECAP. Other SCAS required by the City could also reduce GHG emissions further. These include, but are not limited to, preparation and implementation of a Transportation and Parking Demand Management (TDM) Plan under SCA-TRANS-1:

Transportation and Parking Demand Management (#77); compliance with green building requirements under SCA-UTIL-6: Green Building Requirements (#84); and Construction and Demolition Waste Reduction and Recycling Plan under SCA-UTIL-4: Construction and Demolition Waste Reduction and Recycling (#81).

Overall, the project’s GHG emissions from the land use developments would have a less-than- significant impact related to GHG emissions generation. Furthermore, the project would not substantially increase the severity of significant impacts identified in the Program EIRs, nor would it result in new significant impacts related to GHG emissions that were not identified in the Program EIRs.

3. Conclusion
Consistent with the findings of the Program EIRs, implementation of the project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts related GHG emissions than those identified in the Program EIRs. Implementation of SCA-TRANS-1: Transportation and Parking Demand

89City of Oakland, 2021. Equitable Climate Action Plan Consistency Checklist for the 1431 Franklin (Office) Project. September 13.
1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS DECEMBER 2022 V. CEQA CHECKLIST
G. GREENHOUSE GAS AND CLIMATE CHANGE
118
Management (#77), SCA-UTIL-6: Green Building Requirements (#84) and SCA-UTIL-4:

Construction and Demolition Waste Reduction and Recycling (#81) (discussed further in Section V.O, Utilities and Service Systems), would ensure impacts to GHG and climate change would be less than significant. Please see Attachment A for a full description of the applicable SCAs.

DECEMBER 2022 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS V. CEQA CHECKLIST
H. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
119
H. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project:

Equal or
Less Severity
of Impact
Previously
Identified in
Program EIRs
Substantial
Increase
in Severity
of Previously
Identified
Significant
Impact in EIR
New
Significant
Impact
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials;
☒ ☐ ☐
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment;
☒ ☐ ☐
c. Create a significant hazard to the public through the storage or use of acutely hazardous materials near sensitive
receptors;
☒ ☐ ☐
d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 (i.e., the Cortese List) and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment; ☒ ☐ ☐
e. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25-mile of an existing or proposed school;
☒ ☐ ☐
f. Result in less than two emergency access routes for streets exceeding 600 feet in length unless otherwise determined to be acceptable by the Fire Chief, or his/her designee, in specific instances due to climatic, geographic, topographic, or other conditions; or
☒ ☐ ☐
g. Fundamentally impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan.
☒ ☐ ☐

1. Program EIR Findings
The 2011 Renewal Plan EIR found that all impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would be less than significant with implementation of applicable SCAs.

The 1998 LUTE EIR found all impacts related to hazardous materials handling, potential release of hazardous materials, hazardous materials related to construction and demolition, and contamination of soils or groundwater, would be less than significant and would not require mitigation measures or SCAs. The 1998 LUTE EIR also found that impacts related to exposure of construction workers to hazardous materials would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure M.5, which requires the preparation and implementation of site-specific health and safety plans as recommended by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS DECEMBER 2022 V. CEQA CHECKLIST
H. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
120
Mitigation Measure M.5 is functionally equivalent to current SCAs which reduce potential hazardous materials impacts to less-than-significant levels.

2. Project Analysis
Hazardous Materials Use, Storage, and Disposal (Criteria 8.a, 8.b, and 8.c) Operation of the project would not involve the use, storage, or disposal of significant quantities of hazardous materials. The proposed retail and residential uses would involve the use of only small quantities of commercially available hazardous materials (e.g., paint and cleaning supplies).

Construction of the project would involve demolition of the existing asphalt pavement, parking attendant booth, and lighting infrastructure on the project site. There is the possibility of hazardous building materials being present on the project site including the potential for asbestos containing materials (ACMs) and lead paint to be present in the parking attendant booth, the potential for lead to be present in asphalt striping paint and asbestos to be present in asphalt, and the potential for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) to be present in lighting ballasts.

If present and not appropriately removed and disposed of, hazardous building materials could be released into the environment during demolition activities, which may adversely affect construction workers, the public, and/or the environment.

In accordance with the requirements of SCA-HAZ-1: Hazardous Building Materials and Site Contamination (#43), the project applicant must submit a comprehensive assessment report to the Bureau of Building, signed by a qualified environmental professional, documenting the presence or lack thereof of ACMs, lead-based paint, 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 must 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 must 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.

As described in the 2011 Renewal Plan EIR, California Health and Safety Code Section 19827.5 allows local agencies to issue demolition or alteration permits only after the applicant has demonstrated compliance with notification requirements under applicable federal regulations regarding hazardous air pollutants including asbestos. The project would be required to comply with SCA-AIR-3: Asbestos in Structures (#26), which requires the project applicant to comply with all applicable laws and regulations regarding demolition and renovation of ACMs, including but 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 BAAQMD Regulation DECEMBER 2022 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS V. CEQA CHECKLIST
H. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
121
11, Rule 2, as may be amended. Evidence of compliance must be submitted to the City upon request. The project would also be required to comply with SCA-HAZ-2: Hazardous Materials Related to Construction (#42), which requires implementation of lead-safe work practices and compliance with all local, regional, state, and federal requirements concerning lead.

In addition, consistent with the findings of the Program EIRs, the project would be required to properly handle and dispose of electrical equipment, lighting ballasts and other building materials that may be identified to contain PCBs in accordance with the Toxic Substances Control Act and other federal and State regulations.

Construction of the project would involve the use and transport of hazardous materials. These materials could include fuels, oils, paints, and other chemicals used during construction activities.

Handling and transportation of hazardous materials could result in accidental releases or spills and associated health risks to workers, the public, and environment. The project would be required to comply with SCA-HAZ-2: Hazardous Materials Related to Construction (#42), which requires that Best Management Practices (BMPs) are implemented by the contractor during construction to minimize potential negative effects on groundwater, soils, and human health which could occur as a result of hazardous materials handling and storage.

The transportation of hazardous materials is subject to United States Department of Transportation (DOT), Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and state regulations. In 1990 and 1994, the federal Hazardous Material Transportation Act was amended to improve the protection of life, property, and the environment from the inherent risks of transporting hazardous material in all major modes of commerce. The USDOT developed hazardous materials regulations, which govern the classification, packaging, communication, transportation, and handling of hazardous materials, as well as employee training and incident reporting. The California Highway Patrol, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) are responsible for enforcing federal and State regulations pertaining to the transportation of hazardous materials. If a discharge or spill of hazardous materials occurs during transportation, the transporter is required to take appropriate immediate action to protect human health and the environment (e.g., notify local authorities and contain the spill), and is responsible for the spill cleanup. Construction of the proposed project would result in the generation of various waste materials that would require recycling and/or disposal, including some waste materials that may be classified as hazardous waste. Hazardous wastes would be required to be transported by a licensed hazardous waste hauler and disposed of at facilities that are permitted to accept such materials as required by DOT, RCRA, and state regulations.

Compliance with SCA-HAZ-2: Hazardous Materials Related to Construction (#42) and existing regulations as described above would minimize the potential for accidental releases of hazardous materials used during construction and ensure that potential impacts of the project associated with routine transport, use, disposal of hazardous materials would be less than significant. 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS DECEMBER 2022 V. CEQA CHECKLIST
H. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
122
Exposure to Hazardous Materials in the Subsurface, Cortese List (Criteria 8.a and

8.d)
The project site is not included on any of the lists of hazardous materials release sites compiled in accordance with Government Code Section 65962.5, also known as the “Cortese List”.90 A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) 91 was prepared for the project site in 2019, which indicated that historical uses of the project site included residential homes in the late 1800’s to early 1900’s, a theater and small commercial tenant spaces between 1911 and 1960, and a parking lot between 1960 and the present. The Phase I ESA found no environmental concerns at the project site and indicated that there is no available information to suggest that the project site has been adversely impacted by historic uses. The Phase I ESA also indicated that any residual subsurface impacts from potential lead-containing paint on the exterior of the building should be considered de minimis.92
The project would be required to comply with SCA-HAZ-2: Hazardous Materials Related to Construction (#42), which requires that 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 must cease work in the vicinity of the suspect material, the area must be secured as necessary, and the applicant must take all appropriate measures to protect human health and the environment. Appropriate measures would include notifying the City and applicable regulatory agency(ies) and implementation of the actions described in the City’s Standard Conditions of Approval, as necessary, to identify the nature and extent of contamination. Work would not resume in the area(s) affected until the measures have been implemented under the oversight of the City or regulatory agency, as appropriate. Compliance with SCA-HAZ-2 would ensure that unexpected contamination would be dealt with during construction in a manner that would be protective of human health and the environment.

Implementation of SCA-HAZ-1: Hazardous Building Materials and Site Contamination (#43) would replace the requirement for implementation of 1998 LUTE EIR Mitigation Measure M.5, and would require the project applicant to submit a Health and Safety Plan for the review and approval by the City and implement the approved plan to protect project construction workers

90 California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), 2020. Cortese List Data Resources. Available at:
https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/, accessed on August 28. 91 PII Environmental, 2019. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) Report, 1431 Franklin Street, Oakland, California, August 5.
92 The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) E 1527-13 Standard for Phase I ESAs defines de minimis conditions as conditions which generally do not present a threat to human health or the environment and that generally would not be the subject of an enforcement action if brought to the attention of appropriate governmental agencies.

DECEMBER 2022 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS V. CEQA CHECKLIST
H. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
123
from risks associated with hazardous materials and ensure that BMPs are implemented by the contractor during construction to minimize potential hazards related to contaminated soil and groundwater, if encountered.

Implementation of SCA-HAZ-1: Hazardous Building Materials and Site Contamination (#43) and SCA-HAZ-2: Hazardous Materials Related to Construction (#42) would ensure that potential impacts from the project related to potential hazardous materials in the subsurface of the project site would be less than significant.

Hazardous Materials within 0.25-Mile of a School (Criteria 8.e) Envision Academy for Arts & Technology, a public middle and high school, is located approximately 300 feet northeast of the project site at 1515 Webster Street. Oakland School for the Arts, a public middle school and high school, is located approximately 1,200 feet north- northwest of the project site at 530 18th Street.93 Starlite School, a private kindergarten, is located approximately 1,200 feet southeast of the project site at 246 14th Street. No other schools were identified within a 0.25-mile of the project site. The project would not involve the handling of acutely hazardous materials. Consistent with the findings of the 2011 Renewal Plan EIR, compliance with SCAs described above that address potential emissions of hazardous materials during construction would reduce potential impacts from the project related to hazardous emissions or the handling of hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25-mile of a school to a less-than-significant level.

Emergency Access Routes (Criteria 8.f and 8.g)
The project would not permanently alter any existing streets. During construction, the project may require temporary closure of a portion of Franklin Street. The Safety Element of the City of Oakland General Plan94 indicates that the emergency evacuation routes in the vicinity of the project site include Telegraph Avenue, Broadway, Harrison Street, and 14th Street. Construction of the project would not impact these nearby designated evacuation routes. Consistent with the findings of the 2011 Renewal Plan EIR, compliance with traffic control requirements imposed by the City for the permitting of temporary closure of street areas would ensure that appropriate emergency access is maintained at all times during construction activities. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact related to emergency access and evacuation.

93 California Department of Education. California School Directory. Available at: https://www.cde.ca.gov/ schooldirectory/, accessed August 28, 2020.
94 City of Oakland, 2004. General Plan, Safety Element, Figure 7.2. Amended 2012. Available at:
http://www2.oaklandnet.com/government/o/PBN/OurServices/GeneralPlan/DOWD009020, accessed March 5, 2020. 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS DECEMBER 2022 V. CEQA CHECKLIST
H. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
124

3. Conclusion
Consistent with the findings of the Program EIRs, implementation of the project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts related to hazardous materials, exposure, or emergency access routes than those identified in the Program EIRs. Required compliance with the Construction General Permit and implementation of SCA-HAZ-1: Hazardous Building Materials and Site Contamination (#43), SCA-HAZ-2: Hazardous Materials Related to Construction (#42), and SCA-AIR-3: Asbestos in Structures (#26) would ensure that potential impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would be less than significant. Please see Attachment A for a full description of the applicable SCAs.

DECEMBER 2022 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS V. CEQA CHECKLIST
I. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
125
I. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project:

Equal or
Less Severity
of Impact
Previously
Identified in
Program EIRs
Substantial
Increase
in Severity
of Previously
Identified
Significant
Impact in EIR
New
Significant
Impact
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements;
☒ ☐ ☐
b. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off site that would affect the quality of receiving waters;
☒ ☐ ☐
c. Create or contribute substantial runoff which would be an additional source of polluted runoff;
☒ ☐ ☐
d. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality; ☒ ☐ ☐ e. Fundamentally conflict with the City of Oakland Creek Protection Ordinance (OMC Chapter 13.16) intended to
protect hydrologic resources;
☒ ☐ ☐
f. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or proposed uses for which permits have been granted);
☒ ☐ ☐
g. Create or contribute substantial runoff which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems;
☒ ☐ ☐
h. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course, or increasing the rate or amount of flow, of a creek, river, or stream in a manner that would result in substantial erosion, siltation, or flooding, both on- or off-site;
☒ ☐ ☐
i. Result in substantial flooding on- or off-site; ☒ ☐ ☐ j. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area, as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map, that would
impede or redirect flood flows;
☒ ☐ ☐
k. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows; or
☒ ☐ ☐
l. Expose people or structures to a substantial risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding.
☒ ☐ ☐

1. Program EIR Findings
The 2011 Renewal Plan EIR found all impacts related to hydrology and water quality to be less than significant with implementation of applicable SCAs. 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS DECEMBER 2022 V. CEQA CHECKLIST
I. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
126
The 1998 LUTE EIR found all hydrology and water quality impacts to be less than significant and therefore no mitigation measures or SCAs were required.

2. Project Analysis
Water Quality and Creek Protection (Criteria 9.a, 9.b, 9.c, 9.d, and 9.e) The project is located within a highly urbanized environment and there are no lakes, creeks, or other surface waters in the vicinity of the project. Lake Merritt, which is the nearest surface water body, is approximately 2,500 feet to the east and is separated from the project site by urban development. Stormwater runoff from the project site is conveyed to Lake Merritt via underground storm drains and culverts.

Construction of the project would involve demolition, grading, and construction, all of which could, if not properly managed, result in degradation of the quality of stormwater runoff, erosion and/or sedimentation, and adverse effects on downstream receiving waters. The proposed project would require a grading permit and therefore would be required to comply with SCA- HYD-1: Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan for Construction (#48) which requires preparation and implementation of an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan to manage stormwater runoff and minimize erosion and sedimentation through measures such as barriers and devices to trap, store, and filter runoff.

As discussed under Section V.H, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the project would be required to comply with SCA-HAZ-1: Hazardous Building Materials and Site Contamination (#43) and SCA-HAZ-2: Hazardous Materials Related to Construction (#42) which require Best Management Practices (BMPs) to be implemented during construction to minimize potential negative effects on groundwater and receiving waters which could result from inappropriate handling of construction-related hazardous materials (e.g., fuels, oils, and paints) and potentially contaminated soil and groundwater during construction.

As indicated in the Preliminary Geotechnical Consultation95 prepared for the project, the anticipated high groundwater level in the area of the project site is 20 feet below ground surface.

Based on the depth to groundwater, dewatering is not anticipated to be required during project construction. However, if dewatering is required during construction, the dewatering would be subject to permits from East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) or the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), depending on if the discharge were to the sanitary or storm sewer system, respectively. If the water is not suitable for discharge to the storm drain (receiving water), dewatering effluent may be discharged to EBMUD’s sanitary sewer system if special discharge criteria are met. These include, but are not limited to, application of treatment technologies or BMPs which would result in achieving compliance with the wastewater discharge

95 Langan, 2020, op. cit.

DECEMBER 2022 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS V. CEQA CHECKLIST
I. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
127
water quality limits. Discharges to EBMUD’s facilities must occur under a Special Discharge Permit. In addition, per the EBMUD Wastewater Ordinance, “all dischargers, other than residential, whose wastewater requires special regulation or contains industrial wastes requiring source control shall secure a wastewater discharge permit” (Title IV, Section 1). EBMUD also operates its wastewater treatment facilities in accordance with Waste Discharge Requirements issued by the RWQCB, which require rigorous monitoring of effluent to ensure discharges do not adversely impact receiving water quality.

Because the project would involve replacement of over 10,000 square feet of impervious surfaces, the project would be required to comply with Provision C.3 of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Regional Permit (MRP).96 Regulated projects are required to incorporate post-construction stormwater management measures to reduce stormwater pollution from all new and replaced impervious surfaces. The project is a Category “C” Special Project which is qualified for 100 percent Low Impact Development (LID) treatment reduction credits based on the location of the project site, the density achieved by the project (expressed as FAR and dwelling units per acre), and the lack of surface parking. This means up to 100 percent of the amount of runoff for the project’s drainage area may be treated with either one or a combination of the two types of non-LID treatment systems: (1) tree-box-type high flowrate biofilters and (2) vault-based high flowrate media filters.

The project would be required to comply with SCA-HYD-2: NPDES C.3 Stormwater Requirements for Regulated Projects (#53), which requires compliance with provision C.3 of the MRP, and the preparation and implementation of a Post-Construction Stormwater Management Plan, which would include and identify stormwater control and treatment systems. Compliance with SCA- HYD-2 also requires the project applicant to enter into a maintenance agreement with the City, to ensure adequate installation/construction, operation, maintenance, inspection, and reporting of any on-site stormwater treatment measures.

Use of Groundwater (Criterion 9.f)
As discussed above, dewatering is not anticipated to be required during project construction.

However, if dewatering is required during construction, it would be temporary and have only a localized and short-term effect on groundwater levels. Therefore, depletion of groundwater resources associated with construction-period dewatering would be less than significant.

Operation of the project would not involve dewatering or the use of groundwater, as potable water is supplied to the project site by EBMUD.

96 San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), 2015. San Francisco Bay Region Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit, Order No. R2-2015-0049, NPDES Permit No. CAS612008, November 19.
1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS DECEMBER 2022 V. CEQA CHECKLIST
I. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
128
Stormwater Drainage and Drainage Patterns (Criteria 9.g and 9.h) The project site is currently entirely covered with impervious surfaces, totaling approximately

0.48 acres. No increase in impervious surfaces would occur under the project. As described above, stormwater runoff from the project site is currently conveyed to Lake Merritt via underground storm drains and culverts. Stormwater would continue to be conveyed through these same storm drains and culverts as part of the project. Therefore, the project would not increase runoff that could exceed the capacity of existing storm water drainage systems and would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or increase the risk of flooding, erosion or sedimentation.

Flooding and Substantial Risks from Flooding (Criteria 9.i, 9.j, 9.k, and 9.l) Current floodplain mapping prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) indicates that the project site is located outside the 100-year and 500-year flood hazard areas.97 Therefore, development of the project would not be subject to significant impacts with respect to storm-related flooding.

3. Conclusion
Consistent with the findings of the Program EIRs, implementation of the project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts related water quality and creek protection, use of groundwater, stormwater drainage, or flooding than those identified in the Program EIRs.

Implementation of SCA-HAZ-1: Hazardous Building Materials and Site Contamination (#43), SCA-HAZ-2: Hazardous Materials Related to Construction (#42), SCA-HYD-1: Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan for Construction (#48), and SCA-HYD-2: NPDES C.3 Stormwater Requirements for Regulated Projects (#53), would ensure impacts to hydrology and water quality would be less than significant. Please see Attachment A for a full description of the applicable SCAs.

97 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2018. Flood Insurance Rate Map, Alameda County, California and Incorporated Areas, Panel 67 of 725, Map Number 06001C0067H, December 21.

DECEMBER 2022 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS V. CEQA CHECKLIST
J. LAND USE, PLANS, AND POLICIES
129
J. LAND USE, PLANS, AND POLICIES
Would the project:

Equal or
Less Severity
of Impact
Previously
Identified in
Program EIRs
Substantial
Increase
in Severity
of Previously
Identified
Significant
Impact in EIR
New
Significant
Impact
a. Physically divide an established community; ☒ ☐ ☐
b. Result in a fundamental conflict between adjacent or nearby land uses; or
☒ ☐ ☐
c. Fundamentally conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect and actually result in a physical change in the environment. ☒ ☐ ☐

1. Program EIR Findings
The 2011 Renewal Plan EIR found all land use or policy impacts to be less than significant and therefore no mitigation measures or SCAs were required.

The 1998 LUTE EIR analyzed land use compatibility between existing uses and zoning and found that these impacts to be less than significant with implementation of several mitigation measures, which have largely been implemented into the City of Oakland Municipal Code (OMC) or as SCAs. The 1998 LUTE EIR also found a significant and unavoidable effect associated with policy inconsistencies with the Clean Air Plan (resulting from significant and unavoidable increases in criteria pollutants from increased traffic regionally). It identified mitigation measures, which largely align with current City of Oakland SCAs involving TDM and which apply to all projects within the City of Oakland.

2. Project Analysis
Division of Existing Community, Conflict with Land Uses, or Land Use Plans (Criteria 10.a through 10.c)
General Plan and Zoning Designation
The City of Oakland General Plan Land Use and Transportation Element (LUTE) designates the project site as Central Business District (CBD) which is intended to encourage, support, and enhance the downtown area as a high-density, mixed-use urban center of regional importance, and a primary hub for business, communications, office, government, high technology, retail, 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS DECEMBER 2022 V. CEQA CHECKLIST
J. LAND USE, PLANS, AND POLICIES
130
entertainment, and transportation. The project site is within the Central Business District Pedestrian Retail Zone (CBD-P). The CBD-P zone is intended to enhance the Central Business District through ground-floor pedestrian-oriented, active storefront uses and upper story spaces are intended to be available for a wide range of office and residential activities.

The project is consistent with both the intent of the General Plan and Zoning as it would develop a high-rise office tower that would help the City further establish the area as a high-density, mixed-use urban center of regional importance, and a primary hub for business. Additionally given the size of the building and the future employees that will occupy the 27 floors of office space, regular pedestrian activity in and out of the building is anticipated. With the proximity of retail, many restaurants, and plazas in the area, the building occupants are anticipated to substantially increase pedestrian activity help support pedestrian-oriented ground-floor uses in the project site’s vicinity.

Development Standards
The project site is within Height Area 7, which has no maximum tower height limit. However, towers above 250 feet in height require a Conditional Use Permit. In Height Area 7, the maximum building base height is 85 feet and the minimum principal building height is 45 feet. The project would result in the development of a 410.5-foot-high, 27-story building with a base height of approximately 63 feet, placing the project within the development envelope permitted in Height Area 7.

Within Height Area 7, the maximum non-residential FAR is 20.0. Based on the maximum FAR, up to 419,480 square feet of non-residential uses are allowed on the 20,974-square-foot project site.

The project would consist of 407,595 square feet of non-residential area, and thus would have a non-residential FAR of 19.43.98
Division of Existing Communities
Consistent with the findings of the Program EIRs, the project would increase office space in the Downtown Oakland area, specifically within the CBD. Furthermore, the project’s land uses are consistent and compatible with nearby existing and planned commercial, office, and residential land uses. Lastly, the project would be built on land that is already developed, and thus would not create a new physical barrier. For these reasons, the project would not create a division of existing communities and would be consistent with existing uses.

98 Non-residential FAR calculations include square footage totals from office, lobby uses, and applicable support spaces based on Oakland Municipal Code 17.09.040.

DECEMBER 2022 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS V. CEQA CHECKLIST
J. LAND USE, PLANS, AND POLICIES
131

3. Conclusion
Consistent with the findings of the Program EIRs, implementation of the project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts related to land use, plans, or policies than those identified in the Program EIRs. The Program EIRs did not identify any applicable mitigation measures related to land use, and no City SCAs have been identified for the implementation of the project.

1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS DECEMBER 2022 V. CEQA CHECKLIST
K. NOISE
132
K. NOISE
Would the project:

Equal or
Less Severity
of Impact
Previously
Identified in
Program EIRs
Substantial
Increase
in Severity
of Previously
Identified
Significant
Impact in EIR
New
Significant
Impact
a. Generate noise in violation of the City of Oakland Noise Ordinance (Oakland Planning Code Section 17.120.050)
regarding construction noise, except if an acoustical analysis is performed that identifies recommend measures to reduce potential impacts. During the hours of 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. on weekdays and 8:00 p.m. to 9:00 a.m. on weekends and federal holidays, noise levels received by any land use from construction or demolition shall not exceed the
applicable nighttime operational noise level standard;
☒ ☐ ☐
b. Generate noise in violation of the City of Oakland nuisance standards (Oakland Municipal Code Section 8.18.020)
regarding persistent construction-related noise;
☒ ☐ ☐
c. Generate noise in violation of the City of Oakland Noise Ordinance (Oakland Planning Code Section 17.120.050)
regarding operational noise;
☒ ☐ ☐
d. Generate noise resulting in a 5 dBA permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project; or, if under a cumulative scenario where the cumulative increase results in a 5 dBA permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity without the project (i.e., the cumulative condition including the project compared to the existing conditions) and a 3-dBA permanent increase is attributable to the
project (i.e., the cumulative condition including the project compared to the cumulative baseline condition without the project);
☒ ☐ ☐
e. Expose persons to interior Ldn or CNEL greater than 45 dBA for multi-family dwellings, hotels, motels, dormitories and long-term care facilities (and may be extended by local legislative action to include single-family dwellings) per California Noise Insulation Standards (CCR Part 2, Title 24); ☒ ☐ ☐
f. Expose the project to community noise in conflict with the land use compatibility guidelines of the Oakland General Plan after incorporation of all applicable Standard
Conditions of Approval (see Figure 1);
☒ ☐ ☐
g. Expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of applicable standards established by a regulatory agency (e.g., occupational noise standards of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration [OSHA]); or
☒ ☐

☐
DECEMBER 2022 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS V. CEQA CHECKLIST
K. NOISE
133
Would the project:

Equal or
Less Severity
of Impact
Previously
Identified in
Program EIRs
Substantial
Increase
in Severity
of Previously
Identified
Significant
Impact in EIR
New
Significant
Impact
h. During either project construction or project operation expose persons to or generate ground-borne vibration that exceeds the criteria established by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA).
☒ ☐ ☐

1. Program EIR Findings
The 2011 Renewal Plan EIR found that noise and vibration impacts associated with development in the project area would be less than significant with implementation of applicable SCAs, with the exception of the development of the Victory Court Ballpark, which would have significant and unavoidable impacts related to construction noise, special events operational noise, and traffic noise, even with implementation of applicable SCAs. -The 2011 Renewal Plan EIR found that development facilitated by the Renewal Plan would result in construction-related activities that would temporarily increase ambient noise levels in downtown over the duration of construction.

Development could expose nearby residences to noise levels as high as 89 dBA at 50 feet using typical construction methods and up to 105 dBA at 50 feet if pile driving is required. However, with implementation of applicable SCAs pertaining to noise controls, limits on days and hours for construction operation, noise complaint procedures, and measures pertaining to pile driving and other extreme noise generators, impacts from construction noise would be reduced to less than significant levels, with the exception of the Victory Court Ballpark construction. Additional vehicles traveling through the project area as a result of new development facilitated by the Renewal Plan would increase noise levels adjacent to nearby roads by less than 5 dBA and thus is classified as a less-than-significant impact.

The 1998 LUTE EIR found that noise impacts associated with traffic noise increase, changes in map designations, mixed use development, noise compatibility within residential areas, live-work noise compatibility, and transportation improvements would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures L.3, L.4, L.5, and L.7. These mitigation measures are functionally equivalent to the latest City SCAs (#67 and #68). In addition, the 1998 LUTE EIR found that impacts related to short-term increases in noise and vibration due to construction for the Downtown Showcase District and Coliseum Showcase District would be significant and unavoidable, even with implementation of Mitigation L.8 and L.11. 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS DECEMBER 2022 V. CEQA CHECKLIST
K. NOISE
134

2. Project Analysis
Ambient Noise Environment
The primary sources of noise in the vicinity of the project site originate from traffic on I-980 and along major roadways near the project site. Sources of noise from major roadways include: (1) traffic on Broadway, which runs north to south 110 feet west of the project site; (2) traffic on 14th Street, which runs east to west 130 feet south of the project site; and (3) traffic on Franklin Street adjacent to the eastern border of the project site. Based on the roadway noise contours for 2025 in the City of Oakland General Plan, traffic noise levels range from 60 to 65 dBA99 Ldn100 at the project site and vicinity.101,102
Regulatory Background
Chapter 17.120.050 of the Municipal Code establishes performance standards to control dangerous or objectionable environmental effects of noise. The operational noise level standards for residential and commercial zones are presented in Table V.K-1. The construction and demolition noise level standards for residential, commercial and industrial land uses are presented in Table V.K-2. Noise from mechanical heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems, which are required to be housed within an enclosure if located within 200 feet of a residential zone, are prohibited from exceeding the nighttime noise levels presented in Table V.K-2. Chapter 17.120.060 of the Oakland Municipal Code prohibits activities from generating vibration that is perceptible without instruments by the average person at or beyond the lot line of the lot containing such activities. Vibration generated by motor vehicles, trains, and temporary construction or demolition work is exempt from this standard.

Chapter 8.18.010 of the Municipal Code defines nuisance noises and establishes noise enforcement procedures and penalties for excessive and annoying noise. Noise that conflicts with the performance standards established in Chapter 17.120.050 is considered a nuisance noise.

Chapter 8.18.020 prohibits noises between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. that would disturb the peace and comfort of any person. Additionally, the following construction noise control measures are required:

99 dBA is an A-weighted sound level. The sound pressure level in decibels as measured on a sound level meter using the A-weighting filter network. The A-weighting filter de-emphasizes the very low and very high frequency components of the sound in a manner similar to the frequency response of the human ear and correlates well with subjective reactions to noise. All sound levels in this report are A-weighted. 100 Ldn = day/night noise level. The average A-weighted noise level during a 24-hour day, obtained after addition of 10 decibels to levels measured during the night between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. 101 City of Oakland, 2005. City of Oakland General Plan, Noise Element, March. 102 The City of Oakland General Plan notes that existing traffic noise levels are not expected to change substantially over the 20-year period between 2005 and 2025 (i.e., changes in noise levels would not be distinguishable) given the minor changes expected to occur in traffic levels. Therefore, existing noise levels at the project site and in its vicinity are assumed to be the same as what is indicated in the 2025 noise contours.

DECEMBER 2022 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS V. CEQA CHECKLIST
K. NOISE
135
TABLE V.K-1 CITY OF OAKLAND OPERATIONAL NOISE STANDARDS AT RECEIVING PROPERTY LINE, DBA Receiving Land Use
Cumulative
Number of Minutes
in a 1-Hour Period
Maximum Allowable Noise Level (dBA)a,b
Daytime
7:00 a.m.–10:00 p.m.

Nighttime
10:00 p.m.–7:00 a.m.

Residential and Civicc
20 60 45
10 65 50
5 70 55
1 75 60
0 (Lmaxd) 80 65
Anytime
Commercial
20 65
10 70
5 75
1 80
0 (Lmaxd) 85
Industrial
20 70
10 75
5 80
1 85
0 (Lmaxd) 90
a These standards are reduced 5 dBA for simple tone noise, noise consisting primarily of speech or music, or recurring impact noise.
b If the ambient noise level exceeds these standards, the standard shall be adjusted to equal the ambient noise level. c Legal residences, schools and childcare facilities, health care or nursing homes, public open space, or similarly sensitive land uses.
d Lmax is the maximum instantaneous noise level.

Source: City of Oakland Municipal Code Section 17.120.050 Noise.

1. All construction equipment powered by internal combustion engines shall be properly muffled and maintained.

2. Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines is prohibited.

3. All stationery noise-generating construction equipment such as tree grinders and air compressors are to be located as far as is practical from existing residences.

4. Quiet construction equipment, particularly air compressors, are to be selected whenever possible.

5. Use of pile drivers and jack hammers shall be prohibited on Sundays and holidays, except for emergencies and as approved in advance by the Building Official.

1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS DECEMBER 2022 V. CEQA CHECKLIST
K. NOISE
136
TABLE V.K-2 CITY OF OAKLAND CONSTRUCTION NOISE STANDARDS AT RECEIVING PROPERTY LINE, DBA

Daily
7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.

Weekends
9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.

Short-Term Operationsa
Residential 80 65
Commercial, Industrial 85 70
Long-Term Operationsb
Residential 65 55
Commercial, Industrial 70 60
Notes: If the ambient noise level exceeds these standards, the standard shall be adjusted to equal the ambient noise level.

Nighttime noise levels from construction and demolition between the hours of 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. on weekdays and 8:00 p.m. to 9:00 a.m. on weekends and federal holidays are prohibited from exceeding the applicable nighttime operational noise level standards (see Table V.K-1).
a Short-term construction or demolition operation is less than 10 days. b Long-term construction or demolition operation is 10 days or more.

Source: City of Oakland Municipal Code Section 17.120.050 Noise.

Temporary Construction Noise Impacts (Criteria 11.a and 11.b) A development project would result in a significant impact if it were to generate construction noise in violation of the City of Oakland Noise Ordinance (Oakland Planning Code Section

17.120.050) or City of Oakland nuisance standards (Oakland Municipal Code Section 8.18.020).

The primary noise impacts from construction of the project would occur from noise generated by the operation of construction equipment on the project site. Secondary sources of noise during construction would include increased traffic flow from the transport of workers, equipment, and materials to the project site.

Noise from Construction Equipment
Construction is expected to occur over a period of approximately 30 months and would temporarily increase noise levels in the vicinity of the project site. Construction noise levels would vary from day-to-day, depending on a number of factors, including the quantity and condition of the equipment being used, the types and duration of activity being performed, the distance between the noise source and the receptor, and the presence or absence of barriers, if any, between the noise source and receptor. Excavation/grading and foundation work are typically the noisiest phases of construction and would occur during the first phases of construction. The later phases of construction include activities that are typically quieter and that occur within the building under construction because partially constructed building walls can substantially reduce noise levels by providing a barrier for noise between the construction activity and any nearby DECEMBER 2022 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS V. CEQA CHECKLIST
K. NOISE
137
receptors. Auger-cast piles would be used as the foundation system for the project, which would generate noise levels similar to an auger drill rig.103,104 The Noise Element of the Oakland General Plan defines noise-sensitive receptors as land uses whose purpose and function can be disrupted or jeopardized by noise. Noise-sensitive receptors include residences, schools, churches, hospitals, elderly-care facilities, hotels, libraries, and certain types of passive recreational open space.105,106 The nearest noise-sensitive receptors to the project site are: 1) apartments at 1411 Franklin Street adjacent to the project site to the south; 2) apartments at 420 14th Street adjacent to the project site to the south; 3) apartments at 415 15th Street located 45 feet north of the project site boundary; 4) apartments at 417 15th Street located 45 feet north of the project site boundary; 5) Lincoln College at 401 15th Street located 45 feet north of the project site boundary; and 6) Envision Academy for Arts & Technology at 1515 Webster Street located approximately 305 feet to the northeast of the project site.

Table V.K-3 shows typical noise levels associated with various types of construction equipment that may be used during each phase of construction.107 As shown in Table V.K-3, construction noise would range from 69 to 82 dBA Leq at 50 feet. Because the nearest noise-sensitive receptors are adjacent to the project site, construction noise levels would exceed the 65-dBA threshold at the nearest noise-sensitive receptors when heavy construction equipment is operated at or close to the project site boundary.

Implementation of the City of Oakland’s SCAs would reduce the impacts of construction-period noise, as described below.
▪ SCA-NOI-1: Construction Days/Hours (#61) provides limits on the days and hours of construction, which specify that construction activities would be limited to between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday (among other restrictions). This SCA also requires any extension of these work hours be approved in advance by the City and requires property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the project site to be notified of such an extension. ▪ SCA-NOI-2: Construction Noise (#62) requires all construction projects to implement basic noise reduction measures during construction.

103 Auger-cast piles are constructed by rotating a hollow stem continuous flight auger into the soil to a designed depth.
104 Brandon Northart, Urban Planning Partners, Inc. E-mail correspondence with Ivy Tao, Baseline Environmental Consulting, August 4, 2020.
105 A passive recreation area is generally an undeveloped space or environmentally sensitive area that requires minimal development.
106 City of Oakland, 2005,op. cit.
107 The types of construction equipment are based on the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) equipment list.
1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS DECEMBER 2022 V. CEQA CHECKLIST
K. NOISE
138
TABLE V.K-3 TYPICAL NOISE LEVELS FROM CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT (DBA LEQ) Phase Equipmenta
Reference
Noise Levels
at 50 Feet
Site Preparation
Rubber Tired Dozers 81
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 80
Grading
Bore/Drill Rigs 78
Excavators 81
Graders 81
Rubber Tired Dozers 81
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 80
Building Construction
Cranes 77
Forklifts NA
Generator Sets 79
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 80
Welders 69
Paving
Cement and Mortar Mixers 81
Pavers 82
Paving Equipment 82
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 80
Rollers 78
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 76
Notes: NA – Not available. Construction noise levels for forklifts are not available. a The types of construction equipment are based on the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) equipment list.

Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, 2006. FHWA Highway Construction Noise Handbook (for construction equipment noise levels shown above).
▪ SCA-NOI-3: Extreme Construction Noise (#63) requires that the project applicant prepare and implement a Construction Noise Management Plan that contains site-specific noise attenuation measures to reduce construction impacts associated with any anticipated extreme noise generating activities (i.e., activities generating noise levels greater than 90 dBA).
▪ SCA-NOI-4: Construction Noise Complaints (#65) provides additional measures to respond to and track construction noise complaints during construction to allow sources of potentially disruptive construction noise to be quickly controlled or eliminated.

DECEMBER 2022 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS V. CEQA CHECKLIST
K. NOISE
139
As indicated in Table V.K-3, construction equipment could generate noise levels of up to 82 dBA Leq at 50 feet. Noise levels at a known distance from point sources are increased by 6 dBA for every halving of that distance for hard surfaces.108 Because the nearest noise-sensitive receptors are adjacent to the project site, construction noise would be above 90 dBA if heavy construction equipment is operated at the project site boundary. Because the project could generate extreme construction noise (noise levels of greater than 90 dBA), SCA-NOI-3: Extreme Construction Noise (#63) would apply. The types of measures that would effectively reduce construction noise that may be included in the Construction Noise Management Plan include the following:
▪ Equipment positioning. Construction equipment will be positioned as far away from noise- sensitive receptors as possible. For every doubling of the distance between a given receptor and construction equipment for hard surfaces, noise will be reduced by approximately 6 dBA. ▪ Temporary noise barriers placed between the proposed construction activities and nearby receptors. The noise barriers may be constructed from plywood and installed on top of a portable concrete K-Rail system to be able to move and/or adjust the wall location during construction activities. Other noise reduction materials that result in an equivalent or greater noise reduction than plywood may also be used. Noise control blankets may be utilized on the building structure or hung on scaffolding as the building is erected to reduce noise emissions from construction activities. The use of noise control blankets will particularly be targeted to cover the levels of the building that have line of sight with the windows of nearby receptors. The composition, location, height, and width of the barriers during different phases of construction will be determined by a qualified acoustical consultant and incorporated into the Construction Noise Management Plan for the project. A properly designed noise barrier can reduce noise on the order of 5 dBA at some distance from the noise source or receptor, and up to 10 dBA or more if it is placed in close proximity to the receptor or the noise source.
▪ Best available noise control techniques. Best available noise control techniques (e.g., improved mufflers, equipment redesign, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures and acoustically attenuating shields or shrouds) will be used for project equipment and trucks during construction wherever feasible. For example, exhaust mufflers on pneumatic tools can lower noise levels by up to 10 dBA and external jackets can lower noise levels by up to 5 dBA. ▪ Monitoring. Monitoring the effectiveness of noise attenuation measures by taking noise measurements will ensure that the best practices being implemented are effective at reducing noise levels to acceptable levels.
▪ Notification and communication. Notification and open lines of communication with potentially affected nearby receptors is an effective way to manage construction-period noise. When property owners and occupants feel informed about a project’s daily schedule

108 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2013. Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, September.
1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS DECEMBER 2022 V. CEQA CHECKLIST
K. NOISE
140
and duration, they are typically better able to accept potential noise-related inconvenience.

All receptors located within 300 feet of the construction activities will be notified and informed about the project prior to commencing extreme noise generating activities.

The combination of temporary noise barriers, and exhaust mufflers could provide noise reduction of up to 25 dBA. Additionally, a typical building facade with windows closed provides a noise level reduction of approximately 25 dBA.109 Therefore, interior noise levels at nearby receptors would be substantially lower than exterior noise levels.

Please note that once the external structure of a building has been erected, the noisiest phases of construction would be complete and noise from construction equipment inside of the structure would be blocked and attenuated by the structure itself. In addition, the proximity of the project site to noise-sensitive receptors, and the types of construction equipment that would be used as part of the project, are similar to other projects in Downtown Oakland and other urban areas.

Because the project site and its vicinity are part of an established, urbanized area, periodic exposure to construction-related noise and vibration are a common part of the existing environment.

The 2011 Renewal Plan EIR considered construction noise (including pile driving) impacts on noise-sensitive receptors (page 4.10-17). The 2011 Renewal Plan EIR indicates that construction activities could generate noise levels of up to 105 dBA Leq at 50 feet. The 2011 Renewal Plan EIR found the construction noise impacts to be less than significant with implementation of applicable SCAs (equivalent to SCA-NOI-1, SCA-NOI-2, and SCA-NOI-3, and SCA-NOI-4) because they would reduce construction noise impacts to the degree feasible. The proposed project would not involve pile driving and construction noise would range from 69 to 82 dBA Leq at 50 feet (as shown in Table V.K-3), which is lower than what was analyzed in the 2011 Renewal Plan EIR.

Although construction-generated noise could temporarily result in the exposure of the nearest noise-sensitive receptors to noise levels in excess of the Noise Ordinance Standards, consistent with the findings of the 2011 Renewal Plan EIR, implementation of the City of Oakland’s SCAs would reduce the impacts of construction-period noise to the degree feasible, and therefore noise impacts related to construction are considered less than significant.

Noise from Increased Traffic Flow
During construction, secondary sources of noise would include increased traffic flow from the transport of workers, equipment, and materials to the project site. As a worst-case assumption, construction of the project could generate up to 375 truck trips during site preparation over a period of about two weeks. These truck trips could generate noise levels of up to approximately

57.3 dBA Leq during site preparation.110 As discussed above, the ambient noise levels at the project

109 Charles M. Salter Associates Inc., 1998. Acoustics – Architecture, Engineering, the Environment. 110 Numbers of truck trips and duration are based on the California Emissions Model (CalEEMod) (see Attachment F). Traffic noise model outputs are included in Appendix X. FHWA TNM Version 2.5 model was used for these results.

DECEMBER 2022 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS V. CEQA CHECKLIST
K. NOISE
141
site range from approximately 60 to 65 dBA Ldn. Based on the additive properties of noise, the increased truck trips during site preparation could increase ambient noise along local area roadways by up to 1.9 dBA. Because an increase of 3.0 dBA is considered a “just-perceivable” increase, the addition of project-related truck trips would not generate a perceivable increase in noise levels. Therefore, increased vehicle and hauling truck trips along local roadways during construction would not be a significant source of construction-generated noise and the impact would be less than significant.

Operational Noise (Criterion 11.c)
A development project would result in a significant impact if it were to generate operation-period noise in violation of the City of Oakland Noise Ordinance (Oakland Planning Code Section 17.120.050).

The primary noise generated by the long-term operation of the project would occur as a result of the use of HVAC systems. Noise generated from HVAC systems would be subject to SCA-NOI-5:

Operational Noise (#67) that requires all operational noise to comply with the performance standards of Chapter 17.120 of the Oakland Planning Code and Section 8.18 of the Oakland Municipal Code. Therefore, noise generated by the HVAC systems would not violate the City of Oakland operational noise standards during the operational period of the project, and the potential for noise impacts during operation would be less than significant.

Permanent Increase in Ambient Traffic Noise and Cumulative Noise Impact (Criterion 11.d)
A development project would generate a significant increase in ambient traffic noise if it results in a 5-dBA permanent increase in noise levels in the project vicinity. A project is considered to contribute to a significant cumulative impact if (1) the cumulative increase results in a 5-dBA permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity, and (2) 3 dBA of the cumulative increase is attributable to the project.

Traffic Noise Analysis
The assessment of AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes at six intersections near the project site indicates that the highest traffic volume increase of 68 percent would occur along 15th Street between Broadway and Franklin Street (from 90 trips to 151 trips per hour during the PM peak hour).111 The estimated existing and existing plus project traffic noise levels for this roadway segment are summarized in Table V.K-4 below. Based on these estimates, the project would increase traffic noise by about 2.3 dBA along this roadway segment. As this segment would have the greatest predicted increase in project-related traffic, noise increases along other roadway

111 Attachment I.
1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS DECEMBER 2022 V. CEQA CHECKLIST
K. NOISE
142
TABLE V.K-4 EXISTING AND EXISTING PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS FOR THE ROADWAY SEGMENT WITH HIGHEST INCREASE, DBA LEQ AT 50 FEET?
Roadway Segment
Existing
Traffic
Noise Levelsa
Existing +
Project
Traffic
Noise Levelsa
Estimated
Increase
in Noiseb
15th Street between Broadway and Franklin Street (PM peak hour) 53.7 56.0 2.3 a Noise levels were determined using FHWA TNM Version 2.5 model. Traffic noise model outputs are included in Attachment I. Road center to receptor distance is approximately 50 feet. The analysis assumed 95% automobile, 4% medium trucks, and 1% heavy truck under the existing condition and the existing project condition for this roadway segment. Traffic speeds were set at 30 mph.
b Considered significant if the incremental increase in noise from traffic is greater than the existing noise level by 5 dBA Leq.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2020.
segments affected by the project would be less than 2.3 dBA. This is below the 5.0 dBA significance threshold for project-generated traffic noise. As a result, the implementation of the project would not result in a significant increase in traffic noise along local area roadways.

Under cumulative conditions, which considers traffic generated by past, present, and probable future projects, including the project, the assessment of AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes at six intersections near the project site indicates that the most impacted location (the one with the highest traffic noise increase) would occur along 15th Street between Broadway and Franklin Street (from 90 trips to 176 trips per hour during the PM peak hour). The estimated existing and cumulative plus project traffic noise levels for this roadway segment are summarized in Table V.K-5 below. Based on these estimates, the cumulative projects, including the project, would increase traffic noise by about 2.8 dBA along this roadway segment. As this segment would have the greatest predicted increase in traffic, noise increases along other roadway segments affected by the cumulative projects, including the project, would be less than 2.8 dBA. This is below the

5.0 dBA significance threshold for cumulative traffic noise. As a result, the cumulative traffic noise impact would be less than significant.

Noise Exposure during Construction and Operation (Criteria 11.e, 11.f and 11.g) Criterion 11.e does not apply to the project because it would not include multi-family dwellings, hotels, motels, dormitories, or long-term care facilities (and may be extended by local legislative action to include single-family dwellings).

A development project would result in a significant impact to construction workers if it were to generate noise in excess of California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) standards. Construction workers could be exposed to excessive noise from the heavy equipment used during construction of the project as shown in Table V.K-3. However, noise exposure of DECEMBER 2022 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS V. CEQA CHECKLIST
K. NOISE
143
TABLE V.K-5 MODELED PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS FOR THE MOST IMPACTED LOCATION UNDER CUMULATIVE SCENARIO, DBA LEQ AT 50 FEET
Roadway Segment
Existing
Traffic
Noise Levelsa
Cumulative
Plus Project
Traffic
Noise Levelsa
Difference
Between
Cumulative
Plus Project
and
Existingb
15th Street between Broadway and Franklin Street (PM peak hour) 53.7 56.5 2.8 a Noise levels were determined using FHWA TNM Version 2.5 model. Traffic noise model outputs are included in Attachment I. Road center to receptor distance is approximately 50 feet. The analysis assumed 95% automobile, 4% medium trucks, and 1% heavy truck under the existing condition and the existing project condition for this roadway segment. Traffic speeds were set at 30 mph.
b Considered significant if the incremental increase in noise from traffic is greater than the existing noise level by 5 dBA Leq.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2020.
construction workers is regulated by Cal/OSHA. Title 8, Subchapter 7, Group 15, Article 105 of the California Code of Regulations (Control of Noise Exposure) sets noise exposure limits for workers and requires employers who have workers that may be exposed to noise levels above these limits to establish a hearing conservation program, make hearing protectors available, and keep records of employee noise exposure measurements. The construction contractor for the project would be subject to these regulations, and compliance with these Cal/OSHA regulations will ensure that the potential of construction workers to be exposed to excessive noise is less than significant.

A development project would result in a significant impact to occupants of the proposed building if it were to expose those occupants to noise levels greater than those stated in the Oakland General Plan. Occupants of the project would be subject to ambient outdoor noise levels that range from 60 to 65 dBA Ldn.112 This noise environment is regarded as “conditionally acceptable” community noise exposure levels for offices. The City of Oakland General Plan indicates that development within a “conditionally acceptable” environment requires an analysis of noise- reduction requirements, and if necessary, noise-mitigation features in the design.

The implementation of SCA-NOI-6: Exposure to Community Noise (#66) would require compliance with the City of Oakland General Plan. This SCA requires noise reduction measures be incorporated into building design based upon the recommendations of a qualified acoustical engineer. The noise reduction measures would be required to reduce interior noise levels to 50 dBA Leq for offices in accordance with the 2019 California Building Standards Code. Sound Transmission Class (STC) rated windows, exterior doors (such as balcony doors), and exterior walls are commonly used to control interior noise from exterior sources. An STC rating roughly

112 City of Oakland, 2005, op. cit.
1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS DECEMBER 2022 V. CEQA CHECKLIST
K. NOISE
144
equals the decibel reduction in noise volume that a wall, window, or door can provide.113 Given that the ambient noise environment at the project site currently ranges from about 60 to 65 dBA Ldn, the use of sound-rated windows, exterior doors, and exterior walls with STC ratings ranging from about STC 10 to about STC 15 would need to be used in order to reduce interior noise levels from exterior sources to 45 dBA Ldn, thereby satisfying the interior noise standards for offices.

The noise control measures are required to be submitted to the City of Oakland for review and approval prior to the issuance of a construction-related permit. Compliance with SCA-NOI-6 would therefore reduce the potential impact that future occupants of the project would be exposed to excessive or incompatible noise levels to a less-than-significant level.

Construction and Operational Vibration (Criterion 11.h) A development project would result in a significant impact if it were to expose persons to or generate ground-borne vibration that exceeds the criteria established by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA).

Nearby vibration-sensitive receptors include residences and buildings where people normally sleep or institutional land uses with primarily daytime use because vibration may result in disturbance to these land uses. The nearest residential and institutional land uses are shown in Table V.K-6. In certain situations, extreme vibration can cause minor cosmetic or substantial building damage (particularly if older historic structures are located nearby). Historic buildings tend to be more susceptible to vibration (due to age and use of older construction techniques), depending on the condition of the buildings. The nearest historic buildings and other buildings that are sufficiently close to the project site such that they may potentially be affected during project construction are also shown in Table V.K-6.

Tables V.K-7 and V.K-8 summarize the vibration criteria to prevent disturbance of occupants and to prevent damage to structures, respectively. In this analysis, the “Occasional Events” disturbance criterion is applied because the same kind of vibration events are not expected to occur over 70 times per day due to the variance in the types and locations of construction equipment used during construction. The 75-RMS VdB Occasional Events threshold for residences and buildings where people normally sleep is applied to the nearest apartment buildings, while the 78-RMS VdB Occasional Events threshold for institutional land uses with primarily daytime use is applied to Lincoln College and Envision Academy for Arts & Technology.

The vibration criterion for “buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage” is selected to conservatively represent the building category for the historic buildings near the project site while the criterion for “engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster)” is selected to conservatively represent the building category for other buildings near the project site.

113 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), undated. Noise Notebook, Chapter 4 Supplement, Sound Transmission Class Guidance.

DECEMBER 2022 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS V. CEQA CHECKLIST
K. NOISE
145
TABLE V.K-6 DISTANCES TO THE NEAREST VIBRATION-SENSITIVE RECEPTORS Address
Approximate Distance
to the Project Site
and Location
Residential or
Institutional Land Use
Historic Building
(Y/N)
1411 Franklin Street Adjacent Residential N
420 14th Street Adjacent Residential N
415 15th Street 45 feet to the north Residential N
417 15th Street 45 feet to the north Residential Y
401 15th Street 45 feet to the north Institutional Y
1515 Webster Street 305 feet to the northeast Institutional Y 436 14th Street Adjacent NA Y
1440 Broadway Adjacent NA Y
449 15th Street Adjacent NA Y
425 15th Street Adjacent NA Y
421 15th Street Adjacent NA Y
1441 Franklin Street Adjacent NA Y
405 15th Street 45 feet to the north NA Y
401 15th Street 45 feet to the north NA Y
411 15th Street 45 feet to the north NA N
Notes: NA- Not applicable. Land uses are not residential or institutional.

1. Land use information is based on the review of Oakland’s Planning and Zoning Map. Available at:
http://oakgis.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=3676148ea4924fc7b75e7350903c7224, accessed August 28, 2020.

2. Information related to historic resources was provided by UPP.

Sources: Baseline Environmental Consulting, 2020 and Urban Planning Partners Inc., 2020.

Construction activities can result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the equipment, activity, and soil conditions. FTA recommends assessing disturbance and damage potential for each piece of equipment individually.114 The reference vibration levels at 25 feet away from the construction equipment that could be used at the project site are summarized in Table V.K9. Although the table provides one vibration level for each piece of equipment, it should be noted that there is considerable variation in reported ground vibration levels from construction activities, primarily due to variation in soil characteristics. Table V.K-9 also shows the buffer distance that would be required to reduce vibration levels to below the FTA thresholds for disturbance and building damage.

114 Federal Transit Administration (FTA), 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. FTA Report No.0123, September.
1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS DECEMBER 2022 V. CEQA CHECKLIST
K. NOISE
146
TABLE V.K-7 VIBRATION CRITERIA TO PREVENT DISTURBANCE – RMS (VDB) Land Use Category
Frequent
Eventsa
Occasional
Eventsb
Infrequent
Eventsc
Buildings where vibration would interfere with interior operations 65 65 65
Residences and buildings where people normally sleep 72 75 80 Institutional land uses with primarily daytime use 75 78 83 a More than 70 vibration events of the same kind per day or vibration generated by a long freight train. b Between 30 and 70 vibration events of the same kind per day. c Fewer than 30 vibration events of the same kind per day.

Source: FTA, 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. FTA Report No.0123, September.

TABLE V.K-8 VIBRATION CRITERIA TO PREVENT DAMAGE TO STRUCTURES Building Category
PPV
(in/sec)
RMS
(VdB)
Reinforced concrete, steel, or timber (no plaster) 0.5 102 Engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster) 0.3 98
Non-engineered timber and masonry buildings 0.2 94
Buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage 0.12 90 Source: FTA, 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. FTA Report No.0123, September.

Vibration Disturbance
According to the buffer distances calculated in Table V.K-9, Envision Academy for Arts & Technology is located beyond the buffer distance of 85 feet for a vibratory roller and would not exceed the 78-VdB threshold for institutional land uses. However, Lincoln College is located within the buffer distance of 85 feet and the nearest residential receptors are located within the buffer distance of 107 feet. Therefore, construction vibration levels would exceed the 78-VdB threshold at Lincoln College and the 75-VdB threshold at the nearest residential receptors.

The degree to which a person is annoyed by vibration depends on the activity in which they are participating at the time of the disturbance. Vibration would be most annoying when it results in sleep disturbance. Lincoln College contains classrooms and offices where sleep disturbance would not occur. In addition, the exposure of Lincoln College uses in excess of the disturbance thresholds during construction would be limited in duration because the location of construction equipment would vary throughout the day depending on the location where the vibration- generating equipment is being used, and would also vary over the 30-month period of construction of the project. For these reasons, vibration impacts on Lincoln College would be limited in duration and extent and would be less than significant.

DECEMBER 2022 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS V. CEQA CHECKLIST
K. NOISE
147
TABLE V.K-9 REFERENCE SOURCE LEVELS FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT AND THE ASSOCIATED BUFFER

DISTANCES REQUIRED TO PREVENT EXCEEDANCE OF FTA THRESHOLDS Equipment
At 25 Feet Required Buffer Distance from Source
PPV
(in/sec)
RMS
(VdB)
Building
Damage
Threshold

0.12 PPV
(Feet)
Building
Damage
Threshold

0.3 PPV
(Feet)
Human
Annoyance
Threshold
75 VdB
(Residences)
(Feet)
Disturbance to
Institutional
Land Uses
Threshold
78 VdB (School)
(Feet)
Vibratory roller 0.210 94 36 20 107 85
Large bulldozer 0.089 87 20 11 63 50
Loaded truck 0.076 86 18 10 58 46
Small bulldozer 0.003 58 2 1 7 5
Notes:

PPV Peak Particle Velocity. The maximum instantaneous peak of a vibration signal.

RMS Root Mean Square. The average of the squared amplitude of a vibration signal.

Based on vibration levels at 25 feet, the following propagation adjustment was applied to estimate buffer distance required to reduce vibration levels at a receptor to 0.12 in/sec PPV and 0.3 in/sec PPV:

PPV2 = PPV1 x (D1/D2)1.5
Where: PPV1 is the reference vibration level at a specified distance.

PPV2 is the calculated vibration level.

D1 is the reference distance (in this case 25 feet).

D2 is the distance from the equipment to the receiver.

Based on vibration levels at 25 feet, the following propagation adjustment was applied to estimate buffer distance required to reduce vibration levels at a receptor 75 VdB (residential receptor) and 78 VdB (school receptor):

RMS2 = RMS1 – 30 Log10 (D2/D1)
Where: RMS1is the reference vibration level at a specified distance.

RMS2 is the calculated vibration level.

D1 is the reference distance (in this case 25 feet).

D2 is the distance from the equipment to the receiver.

Source: FTA, 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. FTA Report No.0123, September.

Implementation of the City of Oakland’s SCA-NOI-1: Construction Days/Hours (#61) would reduce the impacts of construction-period vibration on the nearest residential receptors. SCA- NOI-1 limits construction activities to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and limits construction with the potential to generate extreme noise (which is generally correlated with the potential to generate high vibration) to the hours between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Therefore, severe vibration would be restricted to normal daytime hours, thereby reducing the likelihood of disturbing residents (i.e., through interfering with sleep). Similarly, as discussed above, the location of construction equipment would vary throughout the day and over the 30- month period of construction of the project. As a result, the potential for construction generated vibration to disturb occupants of adjacent residential buildings is less than significant. 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS DECEMBER 2022 V. CEQA CHECKLIST
K. NOISE
148
Vibration Damage
According to the buffer distances calculated in Table V.K-9, a vibratory roller would have the potential to generate vibration levels in excess of the 0.12-in/sec PPV threshold for historic resources located within 36 feet and 0.3-in/sec PPV threshold for other buildings located within 20 feet. Based on the distances in Table V.K-6, potential damage could occur at the following buildings:
▪ Historic buildings:436 14th Street; 1440 Broadway; 449 15th Street; 425 15th Street; 421 15th Street; 1441 Franklin Street; 405 15th Street; 401 15th Street ▪ Other buildings:1411 Franklin Street, 420 14th Street Construction of the project would be subject to SCA-NOI-7: Vibration Impacts on Adjacent Structures or Vibration-Sensitive Activities (#69). SCA-NOI-7 requires design means and methods of construction to be included in a Vibration Analysis that shall be utilized in order to reduce the potential to exceed the thresholds. Potential means and methods could involve the following restrictions to reduce potential vibration impacts to adjacent buildings at which vibration damage could occur:
▪ No vibratory rollers would be allowed to operate within 36 feet from the adjacent historic buildings or within 20 feet from the other buildings;
▪ Within 20 feet from adjacent historic buildings or 11 feet from the other adjacent buildings, the size of all bulldozers used during any construction phase activities could be limited to D5 dozers or smaller (i.e., those with horsepower (hp) less than 105 hp and operating weight less than 24,000 pounds);
▪ No loaded trucks would be allowed to operate within 18 feet of the adjacent historic buildings or 10 feet of the other adjacent buildings;
▪ No bulldozers of any size would be allowed to operate within 2 feet from the adjacent buildings.
▪ Should site conditions require the use of any of the equipment described above within the buffer distances identified in Table V.K-9, the project applicant should notify the City, identify appropriate measures to reduce vibration impacts and comply with any additional City recommendations.

With implementation of SCA-NOI-7: Vibration Impacts on Adjacent Structures or Vibration- Sensitive Activities (#69), impacts related to vibration damage to adjacent buildings would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.

The long-term operation of the project would not involve the use of any equipment or process that would generate perceptible levels of ground-borne vibration or perceptible levels of ground- DECEMBER 2022 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS V. CEQA CHECKLIST
K. NOISE
149
borne noise. Therefore, operation of the project would have a less-than-significant impact related to ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise.

3. Conclusion
Implementation of the project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts related to construction noise and vibration, ambient noise, or noise exposure than those identified in the Program EIRs. Implementation of SCA-NOI-1: Construction Days/Hours (#61), SCA-NOI-2: Construction Noise (#62), SCA-NOI-3: Extreme Construction Noise (#63), SCA- NOI-4: Construction Noise Complaints (#65), SCA-NOI-5: Operational Noise (#67), SCA-NOI-6:

Exposure to Community Noise (#66), and SCA-NOI-7: Vibration Impacts on Adjacent Structures or Vibration-Sensitive Activities (#69) would ensure impacts related to noise would be less than significant. Please see Attachment A for a full description of the applicable SCAs. 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS DECEMBER 2022 V. CEQA CHECKLIST
L. POPULATION AND HOUSING
150
L. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project:

Equal or
Less Severity
of Impact
Previously
Identified in
Program EIRs
Substantial
Increase
in Severity
of Previously
Identified
Significant
Impact in EIR
New
Significant
Impact
a. Induce substantial population growth in a manner not contemplated in the General Plan, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extensions of roads or other infrastructure), such that additional infrastructure is required but the impacts of such were not previously considered or analyzed;
☒ ☐ ☐
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere in excess of that contained in the City’s Housing Element; or
☒ ☐ ☐
c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere in excess of that contained in the City’s Housing Element.
☒ ☐ ☐

1. Program EIR Findings
The 2011 Renewal Plan EIR found all potential population and housing impacts less than significant and therefore no mitigation measures or SCAs were required.

The 1998 LUTE EIR found that impacts to housing capacity and potential housing displacement would be less than significant and would not require mitigation measures or SCAs. The 1998 LUTE EIR also found impacts related to increased employment growth potential would be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure C.2, which would require the city to maintain a database of underutilized parcels and to assist developers in locating sites for their developments.

While the City’s Housing Element, described below, provides metrics for population and job growth in Oakland, the data relied on Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) projections from the year 2013. The following section utilizes 2018 data from ABAG, as it represents a more current representation of future growth in Oakland. ABAG data has traditionally represented the best available approximation of future population and employment changes in the greater San Francisco Bay Area and is therefore the preferred model when available DECEMBER 2022 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS V. CEQA CHECKLIST
L. POPULATION AND HOUSING
151

2. Project Analysis
Population Growth and Displacement of Housing and People (Criteria 12.a and

12.b)
Development under the project would not displace existing housing units or residents on the project site as there is no existing residential development currently located at the site.

The project would demolish the existing parking toll booth and surface parking lot on the project site to construct a new office building with approximately 375,760 square feet of office space. As a result, the project would result in an increase of approximately 1,127 jobs.115 Construction of the project would also involve temporary employees.

According to the Association of Bay Area Government’s (ABAG’s) Plan Bay Area 2050 Forecasting and Modeling Report116, the Bay Area region is forecasted to add 1.4 million new jobs and 1.4 million new households by 2050. The subregion comprising the cities of Oakland, Piedmont, and Alameda is projected to have an increase of approximately 107,000 households and 83,000 jobs between 2015 and 2050. The approximately 1,127 jobs created by the project would represent a marginal fraction of this projected and planned growth. Job growth in the project would fall well within the range of projected and planned growth for Oakland. As an employment center city, Oakland is both a place of employment and a place of work. The total number of jobs is similar to the number of employed residents of the city. A large share of jobs in Oakland are held by Oakland resident s; currently, about 40 percent, according to recent data from the U. S. Census.117 Another large share of jobs is held by residents of nearby cities and other parts of Eastern San Francisco Bay Area. That pattern is anticipated to apply to future job growth for the project and is not expected to result in unanticipated population growth directly or indirectly.

While the 1998 LUTE EIR identified Mitigation Measure C.2, which requires the City of Oakland to maintain a database of underutilized parcels and to assist developers in locating sites for their developments, this mitigation measure has already been implemented by the City, and thus is not applicable to the project.

3. Conclusion
Consistent with the findings of the Program EIRs, implementation of the project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts related to population growth or displacement than

115 The population associated with the proposed project is based on the 2014 Alameda County Transportation Commission Model used in the transportation analysis which assumes approximately three persons per 1,000 square- feet of office.
116 Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), 2021. Plan Bay Area 2050 Forecasting and Modeling Report, October 2021.
117 U.S. Census Bureau, 2016. 2012-2016 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS DECEMBER 2022 V. CEQA CHECKLIST
L. POPULATION AND HOUSING
152
those identified in the Program EIRs. The Program EIRs did not identify any mitigation measures related to population and housing. In addition, implementation of SCA-PH-1: Jobs/Housing Impact Fee (#70), which would require the applicant to comply with the City’s Jobs/Housing Impact Fee Ordinance (Chapter 15.68 of the Oakland Municipal Code). Please see Attachment A for a full description of this SCA.

DECEMBER 2022 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS V. CEQA CHECKLIST
M. PUBLIC SERVICES, PARKS, AND RECREATION FACILITIES
153
M. PUBLIC SERVICES, PARKS, AND RECREATION FACILITIES
Would the project:

Equal or
Less Severity
of Impact
Previously
Identified in
Program EIRs
Substantial
Increase
in Severity
of Previously
Identified
Significant
Impact in EIR
New
Significant
Impact
a. Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other
performance objectives for any of the following public
services:
i. Fire protection;
ii. Police protection;
iii. Schools; or
iv. Other public facilities.
☒ ☐ ☐
b. Increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated; or ☒ ☐ ☐
c. Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have a substantial adverse physical effect on the environment. ☒ ☐ ☐

1. Program EIR Findings
The 2011 Renewal Plan EIR found all public services and recreational facilities impacts to be less than significant and therefore no mitigation measures or SCAs were required.

The 1998 LUTE EIR found impacts to related to the demand for parks would be less than significant and would not require mitigation measures or SCAs. The 1998 LUTE EIR also found that impacts related to police services, fire protection and emergency medical services, schools, and libraries would be reduced to a less than significant level with policies included in the General Plan or implementation of mitigation measures that are functionally equivalent to the City’s latest SCAs. Lastly, the 1998 LUTE EIR found that impacts related to firefighting and evacuation constraints would be significant and unavoidable even with implementation of a mitigation measure which would require the construction of a fire station in the North Oakland Hills to address the increase in population and housing. However, this specific impact was found to be localized to the Oakland Hills, which consists of areas with narrow street widths, insufficient turning radii, steep slopes, distant fire stations, and where an emergency water supply would be vulnerable to disruption from natural events and is therefore not relevant to projects located in Downtown Oakland.
1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS DECEMBER 2022 V. CEQA CHECKLIST
M. PUBLIC SERVICES, PARKS, AND RECREATION FACILITIES
154

2. Project Analysis
Public Services and Parks and Recreation (Criteria 13.a and 13.b) The project would create demands on public services, parks, and other recreational facilities; however, the development would occur in an urban area already served by these services and facilities. The Program EIRs have determined that the anticipated growth would not impose a burden on existing public services in the Downtown Oakland area and would not create a significant impact.

The project includes a combined total of 34,355 square feet of group usable indoor and private outdoor amenity spaces which would only be accessible to the tenants of the building and minimize the dependency on public parks and other recreation facilities in the vicinity. Public recreational facilities in the project site’s vicinity such as Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Latham Square, Snow Park, Lafayette Square, Lincoln Square Park, and Lake Merritt would be incrementally impacted by the project. Consistent with the findings of the Program EIRs, such impacts would not be considered significant as the size and type of this project falls within the scope of new development considered in the Program EIRs. Additionally, there are no unique circumstances associated with the project compared to other development projects in downtown and development anticipated in the Program EIRs that would increase such impacts to a level of significance. The project could also cause an incremental increase in demand for police and fire protection services; however, adherence to General Plan policies from the LUTE118 (N.12.1:

Developing Public Service Facilities, N.12.2: Making Schools Available, and N.12.5: Reducing Capital Disparities) and Safety Element119 (F1-1: Maintain and enhance the city’s capacity for emergency response, fire prevention and fire-fighting and F1-2: Continue, enhance or implement programs that seek to reduce the risk of structural fires) would mitigate potential impacts to a less-than-significant level consistent with the findings of the LUTE EIR. As described above, the 1998 LUTE EIR did identify one significant and unavoidable impact related public services; however, that particular impact was localized to the Oakland Hills and is not relevant to this project, which is located in Downtown Oakland.

The project is within the development envelope analyzed in the Program EIRs and the increase in demand for public services and recreational facilities is consistent with that analysis, finding no significant impact. Compliance with standard City practices would further ensure the project would have no significant impacts related to services. In addition, adherence to the applicable General Plan’s OSCAR Element120 policies would ensure that any potential impacts to recreational facilities are not significant.

118 City of Oakland, 1998a, op. cit.
119 City of Oakland, 2004. General Plan: Safety Element, November. 120 City of Oakland, 1996. General Plan: Open Space, Conservation, and Recreation Element, June.

DECEMBER 2022 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS V. CEQA CHECKLIST
M. PUBLIC SERVICES, PARKS, AND RECREATION FACILITIES
155
The project could indirectly increase student enrollment at local schools as some future employees of the project’s office space might move to Oakland as result of the project.

The project sponsor with be required to comply with SCA-PS-1: Capital Improvements Impact Fee (#72), which would require the compliance with the requirements of the City of Oakland Capital Improvements Fee Ordinance (chapter 15.74 of the Oakland Municipal Code). Funds deposited into the Capital Improvements Impact Fee Fund, and all interest and investment earnings thereon, shall be used to pay for projects that are required for fire, police, library, parks and recreation, or storm drain services. In addition, pursuant to SB 50,121 the project sponsor would be required to pay school impact fees, which are established to offset potential impacts from new development on school facilities.122 Consistent with the findings of the Program EIRs, compliance with these measures would ensure that any such impacts remain less than significant.

3. Conclusion
Consistent with the findings of the Program EIRs, the project would not result in any significant impacts related to public services, parks, and recreation. Further, based on an examination of the Program EIRs, implementation of the project would not substantially increase the severity of impacts previously identified in the Program EIRs, nor would it result in new significant impacts related to public services, parks, and recreation that were not previously identified in the Program EIRs. In addition, implementation of SCA-PS-1: Capital Improvements Impact Fee (#72), which would require the applicant to comply with the City’s Capital Improvements Impact Fee Ordinance (Chapter 15.74 of the Oakland Municipal Code). Please see Attachment A for a full description of this SCA.

121 Senate Bill 50, 1998 Legislative Session, California 1998. 122 School Facility Source, 2016. School Facility Fee Justification Report for Residential, Commercial, and Industrial Development Projects for the Oakland Unified School District. Available at: http://www.ousd.org/ cms/lib07/CA01001176/Centricity/Domain/95/Oakland%20USD%20-%20Level%20I%202016%20FINAL%2006-06- 2016.pdf, accessed July 20, 2018.
1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS DECEMBER 2022 V. CEQA CHECKLIST
N. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
156
N. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Would the project:

Equal or
Less Severity
of Impact
Previously
Identified in
Program EIRs
Substantial
Increase
in Severity
of Previously
Identified
Significant
Impact in EIR
New
Significant
Impact
a. Conflict with a plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the safety or performance of the circulation system, including transit, roadways, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities (except for automobile level of service or other measures of vehicle delay); or
☒ ☐ ☐
b. Cause substantial additional vehicle miles traveled (per capita, per service population, or other appropriate
efficiency measure); or
☒ ☐ ☐
c. Substantially induce additional automobile travel by increasing physical roadway capacity in congested areas or by adding new roadways to the network.
☒ ☐ ☐

1. Program EIR Findings
The 2011 Renewal Plan EIR found that development facilitated by the Renewal Plan would increase the v/c ratio by more than 0.03 along six roadway segments and that the level of service (LOS) impact would be significant and unavoidable along the identified segments (listed below) except Embarcadero east of 5th Avenue.123
▪ Grand Avenue between Harrison Street and I-580
▪ 7th Street east of Fallon Street
▪ Embarcadero east of Oak Street
▪ Broadway north of Grand Avenue
▪ 5th Avenue south of East 12th Street
A significant and unavoidable impact was also identified in the 2011 Renewal Plan EIR related to railroad crossing safety even after implementation of identified mitigation measures.

The 1998 LUTE EIR also identified significant and unavoidable impacts related to LOS on several roadway segments, including the following highways and arterials:
▪ SR 24 - west of the Caldecott Tunnel (AM/PM)
▪ SR 123 (San Pablo Avenue) - east of Stanford Avenue (AM/PM)

123 The Renewal EIR found that Embarcadero east of 5th Avenue roadway seggment would be reduced to a less- than-significant level with the implementation of mitigation measures identified in the Oak to Ninth EIR. The identified measures have since been constructed as part of the Brooklyn Basin project (formally referred to as Oak to Ninth).

DECEMBER 2022 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS V. CEQA CHECKLIST
N. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
157
▪ SR 260 (Webster-Posey Tubes) (AM/PM)
▪ Embarcadero - Oak Street to 5th Avenue (AM/PM)
▪ Hegenberger Road - I-580 to I-880 (AM/PM)
▪ International (E. 14th) Boulevard - High Street to Hegenberger Road (AM/PM) ▪ San Pablo Avenue (SR 123) - I-580 to Grand Avenue (PM) ▪ Grand Avenue - Harrison Street to I-580 (AM/PM)
While significant and avoidable impacts were identified, none of these described impacts are applicable to this project or site given the project’s site geographical location and expected traffic distribution. Furthermore, on April 14, 2017, the City of Oakland’s Planning Commission adopted new Transportation Impact Review Guidelines for Land Use Development Projects consistent with Senate Bill 743 (Steinberg 2013), implementing a shift from traffic delay metrics to thresholds based on a Vehicle Miles Traveled standard (VMT) in the City of Oakland. The revised thresholds remove automobile delay, as described solely by LOS or similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion, as a significant impact on the environment pursuant to CEQA and replace them with the VMT standard.

2. Project Analysis
On September 21, 2016, the City of Oakland’s Planning Commission directed staff to update the City of Oakland’s CEQA Thresholds of Significance Guidelines related to transportation impacts consistent with SB 743. The revised thresholds remove automobile delay, as described solely by LOS or similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion, as a significant impact on the environment pursuant to CEQA. The recommendation aligns with draft proposed guidance from the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research and the City’s approach to transportation impact analysis with adopted plans and polices related to transportation, which promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses. This section describes the potential impacts of the project on the transportation system. It includes a discussion of significant topics under CEQA and uses VMT standards, instead of LOS standards, as discussed above.

Conflicts with Plans, Ordinances, or Policies Relating to Safety, or Performance of the Circulation System (Criterion 14.a)
The project would replace an existing surface parking lot with a building containing approximately 375,000 square feet of commercial office space. The project proposes a parking garage with 115 parking spaces on floors two through four. The garage would be accessible via a left-in/left-out only driveway on Franklin Street, approximately 150 feet south of 15th Street.

The LUTE, as well as the City’s Public Transit and Alternative Mode and Complete Streets policies, states a strong preference for encouraging the use of non-automobile transportation modes, such as transit, bicycling, and walking. The project would encourage the use of non- 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS DECEMBER 2022 V. CEQA CHECKLIST
N. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
158
automobile transportation modes by providing office space with minimal parking in a dense, walkable urban environment that is well-served by local and regional transit.

The project is consistent with both the City’s 2017 Pedestrian Master Plan (“Oakland Walks”) and the 2019 Bicycle Master Plan (“Let’s Bike Oakland”) as it would not make major modifications to existing pedestrian or bicycle facilities in the surrounding areas and would not adversely affect installation of future facilities.

Adjacent to the project site on Franklin Street, the City of Oakland is currently designing Class 4 protected bicycle lanes that would provide a protected two-way cycle track on the west side of the street. The project would not modify the public right-of-way and would not include features that would adversely affect the installation of this facility. If the protected bike facility on Franklin Street is provided along the project frontage, bicycles traveling in both directions of the protected bike lanes may have a conflict with vehicles entering and exiting the project driveway.

Since the existing parking lot at the project site provides a driveway on Franklin Street, the proposed project would not increase the number of conflict points compared to current conditions. It is recommended that the project sponsor coordinate with the City of Oakland to ensure that adequate sight distance between motorists entering and exiting the driveway and cyclists in both directions of the bike facility, appropriate signage and striping in and around the driveway conflict zone, and appropriate staging locations for attended parking (see Attachment J for more information).

The project would generate an estimated 201 AM peak hour automobile trips and 211 PM peak hour automobile trips.124 Because the project would generate more than 50 peak-hour trips, SCA- TRANS-1: Transportation and Parking Demand (TDM) Management (#77) is required.

Attachment J presents the TDM Plan for the project.

The project is consistent with applicable plans, ordinances, and policies and would not cause a significant impact by conflicting with adopted plans, ordinances, or policies addressing the safety and performance of the circulation system, including transit, roadways, bicycle lanes, and pedestrian paths (except for automobile level of service or other measures of vehicle delay). For these reasons, the project would not conflict with adopted plans, ordinances, or policies resulting in a less-than-significant impact; no mitigation measures are required.

Cause Substantial Additional Vehicle Miles Traveled (Criterion 14.b) VMT Screening
Many factors affect travel behavior, including density of development, diversity of land uses, design of the transportation network, access to regional destinations, distance to high-quality

124 Fehr and Peers, 2020. 1431 Franklin Street Office Project – Transportation and Parking Demand Management Plan (included as Attachment I).

DECEMBER 2022 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS V. CEQA CHECKLIST
N. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
159
transit, development scale, demographics, and transportation demand management. Typically, low-density development that is located at a great distance from other land uses, in areas with poor access to non-single occupancy vehicle travel modes generate more automobile travel compared to development located in urban areas, where a higher density of development, a mix of land uses, and non-single occupancy vehicle travel options are available.

Given these travel behavior factors, most of Oakland has lower VMT per capita and VMT per worker ratios than the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area region due to its density and relation to factors mentioned above. Further, within the City of Oakland, some neighborhoods may have lower VMT ratios than others.

The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research established that the VMT metric is the appropriate metric to fully account for the many factors that affect travel behavior and specifically indicated that VMT should be reported on a per worker basis for office uses, an approach which is also reflected in the City of Oakland’s Transportation Impact Review Guidelines125 (TIRG).

Vehicle Miles Traveled Estimate
Estimating VMT requires the use of travel demand models to fully capture the length of trips on the transportation network, as well as the changes in VMT behavior that may occur with the introduction of the project. This analysis presents use of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Travel Model to fully analyze the VMT impacts of the project. The following describes how the MTC Travel Model estimates VMT.

Neighborhoods within Oakland are expressed geographically in transportation analysis zones, or TAZs, for transportation analysis and other planning purposes. The MTC Travel Model includes 116 TAZs within Oakland that vary in size from a few city blocks in the downtown core, to multiple blocks in outer neighborhoods, to even larger geographic areas in lower-density neighborhoods.

The MTC Travel Model assigns all predicted trips within, across, or to/from the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area region onto the roadway network and the transit system by mode (single- driver and carpool vehicle, biking, walking, or transit) and transit carrier (bus, rail) for a particular scenario.

The travel behavior from the MTC Travel Model is modeled based on the following inputs:
▪ Socioeconomic data developed by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG).

125 City of Oakland, 2017. Transportation impact Review Guidelines, April 14. Available at:
https://www.oaklandca.gov/topics/modernizing-transportation-impact-review, accessed December 22, 2020. 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS DECEMBER 2022 V. CEQA CHECKLIST
N. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
160
▪ Population data created using the 2000 US Census and modified using the open source PopSyn software.
▪ Zonal accessibility measurements for destinations of interest. ▪ Travel characteristics and vehicle ownership rates derived from the 2000 Bay Area Travel Survey (BATS).
▪ Observed vehicle counts and transit boardings.

The daily VMT output from the MTC Travel Model for office uses comes from a tour-based analysis. The tour-based analysis examines the entire chain of trips over the course of a day, not just trips to and from the project site. In this way, all of the VMT for an individual employee is included, not just trips into and out of the person’s home or workplace. For example, an employee leaves their apartment in the morning, stops for coffee, and then goes to the office. In the afternoon, the employee heads out to lunch, and then returns to the office, with a stop at the drycleaners on the way. After work, the employee goes to the gym and then joins friends at a restaurant for dinner before returning home. All the stops and trips within the employee’s day form their “tour.” The tour-based approach would add up the total number of miles driven over the course of her tour and assign it as her daily VMT.

Based on the MTC Travel Model, the regional average daily VMT per worker is 21.8 under 2020 conditions and 20.3 under 2040 conditions.

Thresholds of Significance for VMT
According to the City of Oakland TIRG, the following are thresholds of significance related to substantial additional VMT:
▪ For residential projects, a project will cause substantial additional VMT if it exceeds existing regional household VMT per capita minus 15 percent.
▪ For office projects, a project will cause substantial additional VMT if it exceeds the existing regional VMT per worker minus 15 percent.
▪ For local-serving retail projects126, a project will cause substantial additional VMT if it exceeds the existing regional VMT per worker minus 15 percent.

Because the project is an office project, the criteria used in this analysis is if VMT exceeds the existing regional VMT per worker minus 15 percent.

126 The City of Oakland’s TIRG defines local-serving retail as retail not exceeding 80,000 square-feet of contiguous retail space.

DECEMBER 2022 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS V. CEQA CHECKLIST
N. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
161
VMT Screening Criteria
VMT impacts would be less than significant for a project if any of the following identified screening criteria are met:

1. Small Projects: The project generates fewer than 100 vehicle trips per day.

2. Low-VMT Areas: The project meets map -based screening criteria by being located in an area that exhibits below threshold VMT, or 15 percent or more below the regional average.

3. Near Transit Stations: The project is located in a Transit Priority Area or within a 0.5-mile of a Major Transit Corridor or Stop127 and satisfies the following:
▪ Has a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of more than 0.75.
▪ Does not include more parking for use by residents, customers, or employees of the project than other typical nearby uses, or more than required by the City (if parking minimums pertain to the site) or allowed without a conditional use permit (if minimums and/or maximums pertain to the site).
▪ Is consistent with Plan Bay Area, the applicable Sustainable Communities Strategy (as determined by the lead agency, with input from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission).

VMT Impact Analysis
The project would include 373,000 square feet of commercial office space. Per direction provided in the TIRG, the regional VMT per worker minus 15-percent is used as the threshold of significance. The project satisfies the Low-VMT Area (#2) and Near Transit Stations (#3) criteria, as described below.

Criterion #1: Small Projects
The project would generate more than 100 trips per day and therefore does not meet Criterion #1.

Criterion #2: Low-VMT Area
Table V.N-1 below describes the 2020 and 2040 VMT for TAZ 971 in the MTC Model, the TAZ in which the project is located, as well as the applicable VMT thresholds of 15-percent below the regional average. As shown in Table V.N-1, the 2020 and 2040 average daily VMT (12.7 and 12.0, respectively) per worker in the project TAZ are below the regional average minus 15-percent (18.5 and 17.3 respectively). Therefore, the project would not exceed VMT more than 15-percent below the regional averages, and project impacts with respect to VMT would be less than significant.

127 Major transit stop is defined in CEQA Section 21064.3 as a rail transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods. 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS DECEMBER 2022 V. CEQA CHECKLIST
N. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
162
TABLE V.N-1 DAILY VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED SUMMARY
Land Use
Bay Area TAZ 971
2020 2040
2020 2040
Regional
Average
Regional
Average
Minus 15%
Regional
Average
Regional
Average
Minus 15%
Office (VMT per worker)a 21.8 18.5 20.3 17.3 12.7 12.0
a MTC Model results available at https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=98463b4f73ca43c5944a 5c30648fd689, accessed August 2020.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2020.

Criterion #3: Near Transit Stations
The project would be located about 0.1 miles from the 12th Street Oakland BART station and frequent bus service along Broadway (Route 6 with 10-minute peak headways, Route 18 with 15- minute peak headways, Route 51A with 10-minute peak headways, and Routes 72/72M/72R with 10- to 12-minute peak headways prior to the COVID-19 pandemic). The project would satisfy Criterion # 3 because it would meet the following three conditions:
▪ The proposed project would have a FAR of 20.0, which is greater than 0.75. ▪ The project would include 115 parking spaces. The City of Oakland Municipal Code Section

17.116.080 has no parking minimum requirement and allows up to one space per 300 square feet of ground floor area and one space per 500 square feet of floor area above the ground floor for office use in the CBD-P zone. The Code requires the project to provide between 0 and 758 parking spaces. Table V.N-2 shows the parking ratios for several recently approved office developments in Downtown Oakland. The project would provide a parking ratio of 0.3 spaces per 1,000 square feet, which is less than most of the recently approved projects. The project would not provide more parking than allowed by the Municipal Code, nor would it provide more parking than other typical nearby uses.

TABLE V.N-2 EXAMPLE DOWNTOWN OFFICE PROJECT PARKING RATIOS Development Size
New
Parking Supply
Parking Supply
Ratio
1100 Broadway 312 ksf 0 0.00 spaces per ksf
2 Kaiser Plaza (Option A) 457 ksf 280 0.61 spaces per ksf 2 Kaiser Plaza (Option B) 850 ksf 352 0.41 spaces per ksf T12 588 ksf 205 0.35 spaces per ksf
Eastline – 2100 Telegraph (All Office Final
Development Program) 1,555 ksf 1,690 1.09 spaces per ksf 2201 Valley Street 739 ksf 212 0.29 spaces per ksf
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2020; Urban Planning Partners, 2020.

DECEMBER 2022 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS V. CEQA CHECKLIST
N. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
163
▪ The project is located within the Downtown Oakland & Jack London Square Priority Development Area (PDA) as defined by Plan Bay Area and is therefore consistent with the region’s Sustainable Communities Strategy.

Vehicle Miles Travelled Screening Conclusion
The project would satisfy the Low-VMT Area (#2) and the Near Transit Stations (#3) criteria and is therefore would have a less-than-significant impact related to VMT.

Substantially Induce Additional Automobile Travel by Increasing Physical Roadway Capacity in Congested Areas or By Adding New Roadways to the Network (Criterion 14.c)
The project would not modify the roadway network surrounding the project site. Therefore, the project would not substantially induce additional automobile travel by increasing the physical roadway capacity in congested areas (i.e., by adding new mixed-flow lanes) and would not add new roadways to the network and would have a less-than-significant impact on inducing additional automobile traffic.

3. Conclusion
The project’s potential impacts related to pedestrian, bicycle, transit, emergency access, and design and incompatible use considerations would be less than significant. The project would not result in any other transportation related significant impacts.

Further, implementation of SCA-TRANS-1: Transportation and Parking Demand Management (#77) would be applicable to the project and would ensure that transportation and circulation- related impacts associated with the project would be less than significant.

Consistent with the findings of the Program EIRs, implementation of the project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts related to pedestrian, bicycle, transit, emergency access, or design identified in the Program EIRs. Implementation of SCA-TRANS-1:

Transportation and Parking Demand Management (#77) would ensure no significant CEQA impacts related to transit occur. Additionally, independent of CEQA, the City will require implementation of SCA-TRANS-2: Construction Activity in the Public Right-of-Way (#74), SCA- TRANS-3: Bicycle Parking (#75), SCA-TRANS-4: Transportation Improvements (#76), SCA- TRANS-5: Transportation Impact Fee (#78) and SCA-TRANS-6: Plug-In Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure (#80) would further minimize the already less-than-significant transportation impacts. Please see Attachment A for a full description of the applicable SCAs.

1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS DECEMBER 2022 V. CEQA CHECKLIST
O. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
164
O. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project:

Equal or
Less Severity
of Impact
Previously
Identified in
Program EIRs
Substantial
Increase
in Severity
of Previously
Identified
Significant
Impact in EIR
New
Significant
Impact
a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the San
Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board;
☒ ☐ ☐
b. Require or result in construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, construction of which could cause significant environmental effects;
☒ ☐ ☐
c. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it does not have adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the providers' existing commitments and require or result in construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, construction of which could cause significant environmental effects;
☒ ☐ ☐
d. Exceed water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, and require or result in construction of water facilities or expansion of existing facilities, construction of which could cause significant environmental effects;
☒ ☐ ☐
e. Be served by a landfill with insufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs and require or result in construction of landfill facilities or expansion of existing facilities, construction of which could cause significant environmental effects;
☒ ☐ ☐
f. Violate applicable federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste;
☒ ☐ ☐
g. Violate applicable federal, state, and local statutes and regulations relating to energy standards; or
☒ ☐ ☐
h. Result in a determination by the energy provider which serves or may serve the project that it does not have
adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the providers' existing commitments and require or result in construction of new energy facilities or expansion of existing facilities, construction of which could cause significant environmental effects.
☒ ☐ ☐

1. Program EIR Findings
The 2011 Renewal Plan EIR found all impacts to utilities and service systems to be less than significant with applicable SCAs.

DECEMBER 2022 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS V. CEQA CHECKLIST
O. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
165
The 1998 LUTE EIR, which analyzed utilities and service systems, found all potential impacts to be less than significant after implementation of mitigation measures, which are functionally equivalent to the City’s current SCAs.

2. Project Analysis
Water, Wastewater, and Stormwater (Criteria 15.a through 15.d) The project site is in a built-out urban area, and no new utility infrastructure would be required.

While the project would increase the amount of water needed and wastewater generated in the project area, it does not include any new, less efficient water uses than what was previously evaluated in the Program EIRs. For these reasons, the project would not result in the need for additional water entitlements or water-related facilities.

Wastewater generated by the project would be subject to both primary and secondary treatment and would not violate the wastewater treatment requirements of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. The current project site is composed of entirely impervious surface area. The project thus would not increase this amount and would likely reduce the amount of stormwater generated at the site through landscaping, other infrastructure improvements, and from compliance with City of Oakland requirements.

In addition, implementation of City SCAs would further address any potential impacts on water, wastewater, and stormwater, including: SCA-UTIL-1: Sanitary Sewer System (#86) and SCA- UTIL-2: Storm Drain System (#87). The City of Oakland SCA related to recycled water (SCA #88), would not apply to the project as there is currently no access to recycled water to the site.

Solid Waste Services (Criteria 15.d through 15.f)
Nonhazardous solid waste in the analyzed area is ultimately hauled to the Altamont Landfill and Resource Facility, which as an expected closure date of 2037.128 As such, the Altamont Landfill would have sufficient capacity to accept waste generated by development under the project. In addition, implementation of SCA-UTIL-3: Recycling Collection and Storage Space (#83), would be required and the project would be required to comply with the City of Oakland Recycling Space Allocation Ordinance (Chapter 17.118 of the Oakland Planning Code). Furthermore, implementation of SCA-UTIL-4: Construction and Demolition Waste Reduction and Recycling (#81) would be required of the project, which would require to compliance with the City of Oakland Construction and Demolition Waste Reduction and Recycling Ordinance (Chapter 15.34 of the Oakland Municipal Code). Implementation of these SCAs and adherence with City of Oakland requirements would ensure no significant impacts related to solid waste would occur.

128 Alameda County Waste Management Authority, 2003. Alameda County Integrated Waste Management Plan, amended March 22, 2017.
1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS DECEMBER 2022 V. CEQA CHECKLIST
O. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
166
Energy (Criteria 15.g and 15.h)
As described in Section V.E, Energy, the project would be required to comply with the standards of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations. The project would also be required to implement SCA-UTIL-5: Underground Utilities (#82), which requires all new gas, electric, cable, and telephone facilities underground, and SCA-UTIL-6: Green Building Requirements (#84), which requires compliance with the green building ordinance. The project is required by City of Oakland standards to earn LEED Silver, which would require further energy efficiency measures.

Furthermore, the project applicant has provided their preliminary ECAP checklist and would comply with all of the applicable requirements, which would further reduce the expected amount of energy consumed by the project. Lastly, the project would consume energy expected of a typical office building (or less with implementation of the measures stated previously) and does not feature any components that would result an exceptional amount of energy usage such that additional energy facilities would need to be constructed. Implementation of these SCAs and adherence with Title 24 and City of Oakland requirements would ensure no significant impacts related to energy would occur.

3. Conclusion
The project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts related to water supply, sewer capacity, stormwater drainage facilities, solid waste services, and energy than those identified in the Program EIRs. Consistent with the findings of the Program EIRs, the project would be adequately served by utilities and service systems and all impacts to utilities and service systems would be less than significant with applicable SCAs.

Implementation of SCA-UTIL-1: Sanitary Sewer System (#86), SCA-UTIL-2: Storm Drain System (#87), SCA-UTIL-3: Recycling Collection and Storage Space (#83), SCA-UTIL-4: Construction and Demolition Waste Reduction and Recycling (#81), SCA-UTIL-5: Underground Utilities (#82), SCA- UTIL-6: Green Building Requirements (#84), and SCA-UTIL-7: Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (WELO) (#92), as well as compliance with Title 24 and CALGreen requirements would ensure that impacts to utilities and service systems would be less than significant. Please see Attachment A for a full description of the applicable SCAs.

A-1
ATTACHMENT A: MITIGATION MEASURES AND STANDARD

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND REPORTING PROGRAM
A. Applicable Mitigation Measures
The following applicable mitigation measures from the 1998 LUTE EIR would be required of the project to ensure that any impacts to the environment are reduced to the maximum extent feasible. All other mitigations which are functionally equivalent to the City of Oakland’s Standard Conditions of Approval are discussed are addressed below in the Standard Conditions of Approval table.

Mitigation Measure N.1: The City shall require the project sponsors to incorporate specific design elements in the final siting and designs for the high rises that could reduce ground- level winds within the Downtown Showcase District.

B. Standard Conditions of Approval
The City of Oakland’s Uniformly Applied Development Standards adopted as Standard Conditions of Approval (Standard Conditions of Approval, or SCAs) were originally adopted by the City in 2008 (Ordinance No. 12899 C.M.S.) pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.3) and have been incrementally updated over time. The SCAs incorporate development policies and standards from various adopted plans, policies, and ordinances (such as the Oakland Planning and Municipal Codes, Oakland Creek Protection, Stormwater Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance, Oakland Tree Protection Ordinance, Oakland Grading Regulations, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements, Housing Element-related mitigation measures, Green Building Ordinance, historic/Landmark status, California Building Code, and Uniform Fire Code, among others), which have been found to substantially mitigate environmental effects.

These SCAs are incorporated into projects as conditions of approval, regardless of the determination of a project’s environmental impacts. As applicable, the SCAs are adopted as requirements of an individual project when it is approved by the City, and are designed to, and will, avoid or substantially reduce a project’s environmental effects.

In reviewing project applications, the City of Oakland determines which SCAs apply based upon the zoning district, community plan, and the type of permits/approvals required for the project.

The City of Oakland also will determine which SCAs apply to a specific project based on the specific project type and/or project site characteristics. Because these SCAs are mandatory City requirements imposed on a city-wide basis, environmental analyses assume these SCAs will be implemented by the project, and these SCAs are not imposed as mitigation measures under CEQA.
1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS DECEMBER 2022

ATTACHMENT A
A-2
All SCAs identified in the CEQA document—which is consistent with the measures and conditions presented in the City of Oakland General Plan, Land Use and Transportation EIR (LUTE EIR, 1998) and the 2011 Central District Urban Renewal Plan Amendments EIR (2011 Renewal Plan EIR)—are included herein. To the extent that any SCA identified in the CEQA document was inadvertently omitted, it is automatically incorporated herein by reference. ▪ The first column identifies the SCA applicable to that topic in the CEQA document. ▪ The second column identifies the monitoring schedule or timing applicable to the project. ▪ The third column names the party responsible for monitoring the required action for the project.

In addition to the SCAs identified and discussed in the CEQA document, other SCAs that are applicable to the project are included herein.

The project sponsor is responsible for compliance with any recommendations in approved technical reports and with all SCAs set forth herein at its sole cost and expense, unless otherwise expressly provided in a specific SCA, and subject to the review and approval of the City of Oakland. Overall monitoring and compliance with the SCAs will be the responsibility of the Planning and Zoning Division. Prior to the issuance of a demolition, grading, and/or construction permit, the project sponsor shall pay the applicable mitigation and monitoring fee to the City in accordance with the City’s Master Fee Schedule.

Note that the SCAs included in this document are referred to using an abbreviation for the environmental topic area and are numbered sequentially for each topic area—i.e., SCA-AIR-1, SCA-AIR-2, etc. The SCA titles are also provided—i.e., SCA-AIR-1: Dust Controls – Construction Related (#21).

Standard Conditions of Approval
Implementation/Monitoring
When
Required
Initial
Approval
Monitoring/
Inspection
Aesthetics, Shadow, and Wind
SCA-AES-1: Lighting (#19). 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-AES-2: Landscape Plan (#18).
a. 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. Proposed plants shall be predominantly drought
tolerant. Specification of any street trees shall comply with the Master Street Tree List and Tree Planting Guidelines Prior to approval of
construction-
related permit
Bureau of
Planning
N/A
DECEMBER 2022 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS

ATTACHMENT A
A-3
Standard Conditions of Approval
Implementation/Monitoring
When
Required
Initial
Approval
Monitoring/
Inspection
(which can be viewed at http://www2.oaklandnet.com/
oakca1/groups/pwa/documents/report/oak042662.pdf and
http://www2.oaklandnet.com/oakca1/groups/pwa/documen
ts/form/oak025595.pdf, respectively), and with any
applicable streetscape plan.
b. Landscape Installation
• The project applicant shall implement the approved
Landscape Plan unless a bond, cash deposit, letter of credit, or other 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.

Prior to building
permit final
Bureau of
Planning
Bureau of
Building
c. 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.

Ongoing N/A Bureau of
Buildings
SCA-AES-3: Trash and Blight Removal (#16). 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 multi-family 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-AES-4: Graffiti Control (#17).
a. 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:
i. Installation and maintenance of landscaping to discourage defacement of and/or protect likely graffiti-attracting surfaces.
ii. Installation and maintenance of lighting to protect likely graffiti-attracting surfaces.
iii. Use of paint with anti-graffiti coating.
iv. Incorporation of architectural or design elements or features to discourage graffiti defacement in accordance with the principles of Crime Prevention Through
Environmental Design (CPTED).
v. Other practices approved by the City to deter, protect, or reduce the potential for graffiti defacement.

Ongoing N/A Bureau of
Buildings
1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS DECEMBER 2022

ATTACHMENT A
A-4
Standard Conditions of Approval
Implementation/Monitoring
When
Required
Initial
Approval
Monitoring/
Inspection
b. The project applicant shall remove graffiti by appropriate means within seventy-two (72) hours. Appropriate means include the following:
i. 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.
ii. Covering with new paint to match the color of the
surrounding surface.
iii. Replacing with new surfacing (with City permits if required).

SCA-AES-5: Public Art for Private Development (#92). 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.

Payment of in-lieu
fees and/or plans
showing fulfillment
of public art
requirement – Prior
to Issuance of
Building permit
Bureau of
Planning
Bureau of
Planning
Air Quality
SCA-AIR-1: Criteria Air Pollutants – Construction Related (#21). The project applicant shall implement all of the following applicable basic control measure for criteria pollutants during construction of the project as applicable:
a. Idling times on all diesel-fueled commercial vehicles over 10,000 lbs. shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time of two minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485, of the California Code of Regulations).

Clean signage to this effect shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.
b. Idling times on all diesel-fueled off-road vehicles over 25 horsepower shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to two minutes and fleet operators must develop a written policy as required by Title 23, Section 2449, of the California Code of During construction N/A Bureau of
Building
DECEMBER 2022 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS

ATTACHMENT A
A-5
Standard Conditions of Approval
Implementation/Monitoring
When
Required
Initial
Approval
Monitoring/
Inspection
Regulations (“California Air Resources Board Off-Road Diesel Regulations”).
c. 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.
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.
e. Low VOC (i.e., ROG) coatings shall be used that comply with BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 3: Architectural Coatings.
f. 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 Off-Road 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-2: Dust Controls – Construction Related (#20). The project applicant shall implement all of the following applicable dust control measures during construction of the project:
a. 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.
b. 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).
c. 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. d. Limit vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour. e. All demolition activities (if any) shall be suspended when average wind speeds exceed 20 mph.
f. All trucks and equipment, including tires, shall be washed off prior to leaving the site.
g. 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.
h. Apply and maintain vegetative ground cover (e.g., hydroseed) or non-toxic soil stabilizers to disturbed areas of soil that will be inactive for more than one month. Enclose, cover, water twice During construction N/A Bureau of
Building
1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS DECEMBER 2022

ATTACHMENT A
A-6
Standard Conditions of Approval
Implementation/Monitoring
When
Required
Initial
Approval
Monitoring/
Inspection
daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.).
i. Designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and to order increased watering, as necessary, to prevent transport of dust offsite. Their duties shall include holidays and weekend periods when work may not be in
progress.
j. When working at a site, install appropriate wind breaks (e.g., trees, fences) on the windward side(s) of the site, to minimize wind-blown dust. Windbreaks must have a maximum 50
percent air porosity.
k. Post a publicly visible large on-site sign that includes the contact name and phone number for the project complaint manager responsible for responding to dust complaints and the telephone numbers of the City’s Code Enforcement unit and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. When
contacted, the project complaint manager shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours.
l. All exposed surfaces shall be watered at a frequency adequate to maintain minimum soil moisture of 12 percent. Moisture content can be verified by lab samples or moisture probe.

SCA-AIR-3: Asbestos in Structures (#26). The project applicant shall comply with all applicable laws and regulations regarding demolition and renovation of Asbestos Containing Materials (ACM), including but 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.

Prior to approval of
construction-
related permit
Applicable
regulatory
agency with
jurisdiction
Applicable
regulatory
agency with
jurisdiction
SCA-AIR-4: Diesel Particulate Matter Controls – Construction Related (#22).
a. Diesel Particulate Matter Reduction Measures
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:
i. 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 Prior to approval of
construction-
related permit
Bureau of
Planning
Bureau of
Building
DECEMBER 2022 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS

ATTACHMENT A
A-7
Standard Conditions of Approval
Implementation/Monitoring
When
Required
Initial
Approval
Monitoring/
Inspection
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.
-or-
ii. 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 compliance and acknowledges that a significant violation of this requirement shall constitute a material breach of contract.
b. Construction Emissions Minimization Plan (if required by a above)
The project applicant shall prepare a Construction Emissions Minimization Plan (Emissions Plan) for all identified DPM reduction measures (if any). The Emissions Plan shall be submitted to the City (and the Bay Area Air Quality District if specifically requested) for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. The Emissions Plan shall include the following:
i. An equipment inventory summarizing the type of off-road equipment required for each phase of construction,
including the equipment manufacturer, equipment
identification number, engine model year, engine
certification (tier rating), horsepower, and engine serial number. For all VDECS, the equipment inventory shall also include the technology type, serial number, make, model, manufacturer, CARB verification number level, and
installation date.
ii. A Certification Statement that the Contractor agrees to comply fully with the Emissions Plan and acknowledges
that a significant violation of the Emissions Plan shall constitute a material breach of contract.

Prior to approval of
construction-
related permit
Bureau of
Planning
Bureau of
Building
SCA-AIR-5: Stationary Sources of Air Pollution (Toxic Air Contaminants) (#24). 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:
a. 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 Prior to approval of
construction-
related permit
Bureau of
Planning
Bureau of
Building
1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS DECEMBER 2022

ATTACHMENT A
A-8
Standard Conditions of Approval
Implementation/Monitoring
When
Required
Initial
Approval
Monitoring/
Inspection
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.
- or -
b. 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:
i. Installation of non-diesel fueled generators, if feasible, or; ii. 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.

Geology, Soils, and Geohazards
SCA-GEO-1: Construction-Related Permit(s) (#36). 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 (#37). 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
Greenhouse Gas and Climate Change
SCA-GHG-1: GHG Reduction Plan (#41).
a. Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction Plan Required
The project applicant shall retain a qualified air quality consultant to develop a Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction Plan for City review and approval and shall implement the approved GHG Reduction Plan.

The goal of the GHG Reduction Plan shall be to increase energy efficiency and reduce GHG emissions to below at least one of the Bay Area Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD’s) CEQA
Thresholds of Significance (1,100 metric tons of CO2e per year or 4.6 metric tons of CO2e per year per service population) The GHG Reduction Plan shall include, at a minimum, (a) a detailed GHG emissions inventory for the project under a “business-as-usual” scenario with no consideration of project design features, or other energy efficiencies, (b) an “adjusted” baseline GHG emissions inventory for the project, taking into consideration energy Prior to approval of
construction-
related permit
Bureau of
Planning
N/A
DECEMBER 2022 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS

ATTACHMENT A
A-9
Standard Conditions of Approval
Implementation/Monitoring
When
Required
Initial
Approval
Monitoring/
Inspection
efficiencies included as part of the project (including the City’s Standard Conditions of Approval, proposed mitigation measures, project design features, and other City requirements), and additional GHG reduction measures available to further reduce GHG emissions, and (c) requirements for ongoing monitoring and reporting to demonstrate that the additional GHG reduction measures are being implemented. If the project is to be constructed in phases, the GHG Reduction Plan shall provide GHG emission scenarios by phase.

Potential GHG reduction measures to be considered include, but are not be limited to, measures recommended in BAAQMD’s latest CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, the California Air Resources Board Scoping Plan (December 2008, as may be revised), the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures (August 2010, as may be revised), the California Attorney General’s website, and Reference Guides on Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) published by the U.S. Green Building Council.

The types of allowable GHG reduction measures include the following (listed in order of City preference): (1) physical design features; (2) operational features; and (3) the payment of fees to fund GHG-reducing programs (i.e., the purchase of “carbon credits”) as explained below.

The allowable locations of the GHG reduction measures include the following (listed in order of City preference): (1) the project site; (2) off-site within the City of Oakland; (3) off-site within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin; (4) off-site within the State of California; then (5) elsewhere in the United States.

As with preferred locations for the implementation of all GHG reductions measures, the preference for carbon credit purchases include those that can be achieved as follows (listed in order of City preference): (1) within the City of Oakland; (2) within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin; (3) within the State of California; then (4) elsewhere in the United States. The cost of carbon credit purchases shall be based on current market value at the time purchased and shall be based on the project’s operational emissions estimated in the GHG Reduction Plan or subsequent approved emissions inventory, which may result in emissions that are higher or lower than those estimated in the GHG Reduction Plan.

For physical GHG reduction measures to be incorporated into the design of the project, the measures shall be included on the drawings submitted for construction-related permits.
b. GHG Reduction Plan Implementation During Construction The project applicant shall implement the GHG Reduction Plan during construction of the project. For physical GHG reduction measures to be incorporated into the design of the project, the measures shall be implemented during construction. For physical GHG reduction measures to be incorporated into off-site projects, the project applicant shall obtain all necessary permits/approvals and the measures shall be included on drawings and submitted to the City Planning Director or his/her designee for review and approval.

During Construction Bureau of
Planning
Bureau of
Building
1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS DECEMBER 2022

ATTACHMENT A
A-10
Standard Conditions of Approval
Implementation/Monitoring
When
Required
Initial
Approval
Monitoring/
Inspection
These off-site improvements shall be installed prior to completion of the subject project (or prior to completion of the project phase for phased projects). For GHG reduction measures involving the purchase of carbon credits, evidence of the payment/purchase shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to completion of the project (or prior to completion of the project phase, for phased projects).
c. GHG Reduction Plan Implementation After Construction The project applicant shall implement the GHG Reduction Plan after construction of the project (or at the completion of the project phase for phased projects). For operational GHG reduction measures to be incorporated into the project or off-site projects, the measures shall be implemented on an indefinite and ongoing basis.

The project applicant shall satisfy the following requirements for ongoing monitoring and reporting to demonstrate that the additional GHG reduction measures are being implemented. The GHG Reduction Plan requires regular periodic evaluation over the life of the project (generally estimated to be at least 40 years) to determine how the Plan is achieving required GHG emissions reductions over time, as well as the efficacy of the specific additional GHG reduction measures identified in the Plan.

Annual Report. Implementation of the GHG reduction measures and related requirements shall be ensured through compliance with Conditions of Approval adopted for the project. Generally, starting two years after the City issues the first Certificate of Occupancy for the project, the project applicant shall prepare each year of the useful life of the project an Annual GHG Emissions Reduction Report (“Annual Report”), for review and approval by the City Planning Director or his/her designee. The Annual Report shall be submitted to an independent reviewer of the City’s choosing, to be paid for by the project applicant.

The Annual Report shall summarize the project’s implementation of GHG reduction measures over the preceding year, intended upcoming changes, compliance with the conditions of the Plan, and include a brief summary of the previous year’s Annual Report results (starting the second year). The Annual Report shall include a comparison of annual project emissions to the baseline emissions reported in the GHG Plan.

The GHG Reduction Plan shall be considered fully attained when project emissions are less than either applicable numeric BAAQMD CEQA Thresholds AND GHG emissions are 36 percent below the project’s 2005 “business-as-usual” baseline GHG emissions, as confirmed by the City through an established monitoring program.

Monitoring and reporting activities will continue at the City’s discretion, as discussed below.

Corrective Procedure. If the third Annual Report, or any report thereafter, indicates that, in spite of the implementation of the GHG Reduction Plan, the project is not achieving the GHG reduction goal, the project applicant shall prepare a report for City review and approval, which proposes additional or revised GHG measures to Ongoing Bureau of
Planning
Bureau of
Planning
DECEMBER 2022 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS

ATTACHMENT A
A-11
Standard Conditions of Approval
Implementation/Monitoring
When
Required
Initial
Approval
Monitoring/
Inspection
better achieve the GHG emissions reduction goals, including without limitation, a discussion on the feasibility and effectiveness of the menu of other additional measures (“Corrective GHG Action Plan”).

The project applicant shall then implement the approved Corrective GHG Action Plan.

If, one year after the Corrective GHG Action Plan is implemented, the required GHG emissions reduction target is still not being achieved, or if the project applicant fails to submit a report at the times described above, or if the reports do not meet City requirements outlined above, the City may, in addition to its other remedies, (a) assess the project applicant a financial penalty based upon actual percentage reduction in GHG emissions as compared to the percent reduction in GHG emissions established in the GHG Reduction Plan; or (b) refer the matter to the City Planning Commission for scheduling of a compliance hearing to determine whether the project’s approvals should be revoked, altered or additional conditions of approval imposed.

The penalty as described in (a) above shall be determined by the City Planning Director or his/her designee and be commensurate with the percentage GHG emissions reduction not achieved (compared to the applicable numeric significance thresholds) or required percentage reduction from the “adjusted” baseline.

In determining whether a financial penalty or other remedy is appropriate, the City shall not impose a penalty if the project applicant has made a good faith effort to comply with the GHG Reduction Plan.

The City would only have the ability to impose a monetary penalty after a reasonable cure period and in accordance with the enforcement process outlined in Planning Code Chapter 17.152. If a financial penalty is imposed, such penalty sums shall be used by the City solely toward the implementation of the GHG Reduction Plan.

Timeline Discretion and Summary. The City shall have the discretion to reasonably modify the timing of reporting, with reasonable notice and opportunity to comment by the applicant, to coincide with other related monitoring and reporting required for the project.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
SCA-HAZ-1: Hazardous Building Materials and Site Contamination (#43).
a. 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), lead-based 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 Prior to approval of
demolition,
grading, or building
permits
Bureau of
Building
Bureau of
Building
1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS DECEMBER 2022

ATTACHMENT A
A-12
Standard Conditions of Approval
Implementation/Monitoring
When
Required
Initial
Approval
Monitoring/
Inspection
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 any proposed remedial action and required clearances by the applicable local, state, or federal regulatory agency.
b. 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 I 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.

Prior to approval of
construction-
related permit.

Applicable
regulatory
agency with
jurisdiction
Applicable
regulatory
agency with
jurisdiction
c. 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.

Prior to approval of
construction-
related permit
Bureau of
Building
Bureau of
Building
d. Best Management Practices (BMPs) Required for
Contaminated Sites
The project applicant shall ensure that Best Management Practices (BMPs) are implemented by the contractor during construction to minimize potential soil and groundwater hazards. These shall include the following:
i. Soil generated by construction activities shall be stockpiled on- site in a secure and safe manner. All contaminated soils determined to be hazardous or non-hazardous waste must be adequately profiled (sampled) prior to acceptable reuse or disposal at an appropriate off-site facility. Specific sampling and handling and transport procedures for reuse or disposal shall be in accordance with applicable local, state, and federal requirements.
ii. Groundwater pumped from the subsurface shall be contained on-site in a secure and safe manner, prior to treatment and disposal, to ensure environmental and health issues are resolved pursuant to applicable laws and policies. Engineering controls shall be utilized, which include impermeable barriers to prohibit groundwater and vapor intrusion into the building.

During construction N/A Bureau of
Building
SCA-HAZ-2: Hazardous Materials Related to Construction (#42). 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:

During construction N/A Bureau of
Building
DECEMBER 2022 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS

ATTACHMENT A
A-13
Standard Conditions of Approval
Implementation/Monitoring
When
Required
Initial
Approval
Monitoring/
Inspection
a. Follow manufacture’s recommendations for use, storage, and disposal of chemical products used in construction;
b. Avoid overtopping construction equipment fuel gas tanks; c. During routine maintenance of construction equipment, properly contain and remove grease and oils;
d. Properly dispose of discarded containers of fuels and other chemicals;
e. 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
f. 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 and applicable regulatory agency(ies) and implementation of the actions described in the City’s Standard 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.

Historical Resources
SCA-HIST-1: Archaeological and Paleontological Resources – Discovery During Construction (#32). 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.

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 During construction N/A Bureau of
Building
1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS DECEMBER 2022

ATTACHMENT A
A-14
Standard Conditions of Approval
Implementation/Monitoring
When
Required
Initial
Approval
Monitoring/
Inspection
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.

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 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-HIST-2: Human Remains – Discovery During Construction (#34).

The project applicant shall implement either Provision A (Intensive Pre-Construction Study) or Provision B (Construction ALERT Sheet) concerning archaeological resources.

Provision A: Intensive Pre-Construction Study
The project applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist to conduct a site-specific, intensive archaeological resources study for review and approval by the City prior to soil-disturbing activities occurring on the project site. The purpose of the site-specific, intensive archaeological resources study is to identify early the potential presence of history-period archaeological resources on the project site. At a minimum, the study shall include:
a. Subsurface presence/absence studies of the project site. Field studies may include, but are not limited to, auguring and other common methods used to identify the presence of
archaeological resources.
b. A report disseminating the results of this research. c. Recommendations for any additional measures that could be necessary to mitigate any adverse impacts to recorded and/or inadvertently discovered cultural resources.

If the results of the study indicate a high potential presence of historic-period archaeological resources on the project site, or a potential resource is discovered, the project applicant shall hire a qualified archaeologist to monitor any ground disturbing activities on the project site during construction and prepare an ALERT sheet pursuant to Provision B below that details what could potentially be Prior to approval of
construction-
related permit;
during construction
Bureau of
Building
Bureau of
Building
DECEMBER 2022 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS

ATTACHMENT A
A-15
Standard Conditions of Approval
Implementation/Monitoring
When
Required
Initial
Approval
Monitoring/
Inspection
found at the project site. Archaeological monitoring would include briefing construction personnel about the type of artifacts that may be present (as referenced in the ALERT sheet, required per Provision B below) and the procedures to follow if any artifacts are encountered, field recording and sampling in accordance with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archaeological Documentation, notifying the appropriate officials if human remains or cultural resources are discovered, and preparing a report to document negative findings after construction is completed if no archaeological resources are discovered during construction.

Provision B: Construction ALERT Sheet
The project applicant shall prepare a construction “ALERT” sheet developed by a qualified archaeologist for review and approval by the City prior to soil-disturbing activities occurring on the project site. The ALERT sheet shall contain, at a minimum, visuals that depict each type of artifact that could be encountered on the project site. Training by the qualified archaeologist shall be provided to the project’s prime contractor, any project subcontractor firms (including demolition, excavation, grading, foundation, and pile driving), and utility firms involved in soil-disturbing activities within the project site.

The ALERT sheet shall state, in addition to the basic archaeological resource protection measures contained in other standard conditions of approval, all work must stop and the City’s Environmental Review Officer contacted in the event of discovery of the following cultural materials: concentrations of shellfish remains; evidence of fire (ashes, charcoal, burnt earth, fire-cracked rocks); concentrations of bones; recognizable Native American artifacts (arrowheads, shell beads, stone mortars [bowls], humanly shaped rock); building foundation remains; trash pits, privies (outhouse holes); floor remains; wells; concentrations of bottles, broken dishes, shoes, buttons, cut animal bones, hardware, household items, barrels, etc.; thick layers of burned building debris (charcoal, nails, fused glass, burned plaster, burned dishes); wood structural remains (building, ship, wharf); clay roof/floor tiles; stone walls or footings; or gravestones. Prior to any soil-disturbing activities, each contractor shall be responsible for ensuring that the ALERT sheet is circulated to all field personnel, including machine operators, field crew, pile drivers, and supervisory personnel. The ALERT sheet shall also be posted in a visible location at the project site.

Hydrology and Water Quality
SCA-HYD-1: Erosion and Sedimentation Control Measures for Construction (#48). The project applicant shall implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce erosion, sedimentation, and water quality impacts during construction to the maximum extent practicable. At a minimum, the project applicant shall provide filter materials deemed acceptable to the City at nearby catch basins to prevent any debris and dirt from flowing into the City’s storm drain system and creeks.

During construction N/A Bureau of
Building
1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS DECEMBER 2022

ATTACHMENT A
A-16
Standard Conditions of Approval
Implementation/Monitoring
When
Required
Initial
Approval
Monitoring/
Inspection
SCA-HYD-2: NPDES C.3 Stormwater Requirements for Regulated Projects (#53).
a. 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:
i. Location and size of new and replaced impervious surface; ii. Directional surface flow of stormwater runoff;
iii. Location of proposed on-site storm drain lines;
iv. Site design measures to reduce the amount of impervious surface area;
v. Source control measures to limit stormwater pollution; vi. Stormwater treatment measures to remove pollutants from stormwater runoff, including the method used to hydraulically size the treatment measures; and
vii. Hydromodification management measures, if required by Provision C.3, so that post-project stormwater runoff flow and duration match pre-project runoff.

Prior to approval of
construction-
related permit
Bureau of
Planning; Bureau
of Building
Bureau of
Building

b. 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:
i. 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
ii. 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 the purpose 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 building
permit final
Bureau of
Building
Bureau of
Building
Noise
SCA-NOI-1: Construction Days/Hours (#61). The project applicant shall comply with the following restrictions concerning construction days and hours:

During construction N/A Bureau of
Building
DECEMBER 2022 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS

ATTACHMENT A
A-17
Standard Conditions of Approval
Implementation/Monitoring
When
Required
Initial
Approval
Monitoring/
Inspection
a. 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. b. 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 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.
c. 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 non-enclosed 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 case-by-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-NOI-2: Construction Noise (#62). 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:
a. 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.
b. Except as provided herein, impact tools (e.g., jack hammers, 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 During construction N/A Bureau of
Building
1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS DECEMBER 2022

ATTACHMENT A
A-18
Standard Conditions of Approval
Implementation/Monitoring
When
Required
Initial
Approval
Monitoring/
Inspection
impact equipment, whenever such procedures are available and consistent with construction procedures.
c. Applicant shall use temporary power poles instead of generators where feasible.
d. 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.
e. 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-NOI-3: Extreme Construction Noise (#63).
a. 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 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.

Prior to approval of
construction-
related permit
Bureau of
Building
Bureau of
Building
b. 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 During construction Bureau of
Building
Bureau of
Building
DECEMBER 2022 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS

ATTACHMENT A
A-19
Standard Conditions of Approval
Implementation/Monitoring
When
Required
Initial
Approval
Monitoring/
Inspection
end dates of the extreme noise generating activities and describe noise attenuation measures to be implemented.

SCA-NOI-4: Construction Noise Complaints (#65). 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:
a. Designation of an on-site construction complaint and enforcement manager for the project;
b. 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;
c. Protocols for receiving, responding to, and tracking received complaints; and
d. 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-NOI-5: Operational Noise (#67). 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
SCA-NOI-6: Exposure to Community Noise (#66). The project applicant shall submit a Noise Reduction Plan prepared by a qualified acoustical engineer for City review and approval that contains noise reduction measures (e.g., sound-rated window, wall, and door assemblies) to achieve an acceptable interior noise level in accordance with the land use compatibility guidelines of the Noise Element of the Oakland General Plan. The applicant shall implement the approved Plan during construction. To the maximum extent practicable, interior noise levels shall not exceed the following:
a. 45 dBA: Residential activities, civic activities, hotels b. 50 dBA: Administrative offices; group assembly activities c. 55 dBA: Commercial activities
d. 65 dBA: Industrial activities
Prior to approval of
construction-
related permit
Bureau of
Planning
Bureau of
Building
SCA-NOI-7: Vibration Impacts on Adjacent Structures or Vibration- Sensitive Activities (#69). The project applicant shall submit a Vibrations Analysis prepared by an acoustical and/or structural engineer or other appropriate qualified professional fir 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 the office building at 300 27th Street and the building closest to the project site from Westlake Middle School at 2629 Harrison Street. The Vibration Analysis shall identify design means and methods of construction that shall be utilized in order to not exceed the thresholds. The Prior to approval of
construction-
related permit
Bureau of
Planning
Bureau of
Building
1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS DECEMBER 2022

ATTACHMENT A
A-20
Standard Conditions of Approval
Implementation/Monitoring
When
Required
Initial
Approval
Monitoring/
Inspection
applicant shall implement the recommendations during
construction.

Population and Housing
SCA-PH-1: Jobs/Housing Impact Fee (#70). The project applicant shall comply with the requirements of the City of Oakland Jobs/Housing Impact Fee Ordinance (chapter 15.68 of the Oakland Municipal Code).

Prior to issuance of
building permit;
subsequent
milestones pursuant
to ordinance
Bureau of
Building
N/A
Public Services, Parks, and Recreation Facilities
SCA-PS-1: Capital Improvements Impact Fee (#72). The project applicant shall comply with the requirements of the City of Oakland Capital Improvements Fee Ordinance (chapter 15.74 of the Oakland Municipal Code).

Prior to issuance of
building permit
Bureau of
Building
N/A
Utilities and Service Systems
SCA-UTIL-1: Sanitary Sewer System (#86). 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-UTIL-2: Storm Drain System (#87). 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
SCA-UTIL-3: Recycling Collection and Storage Space (#83). 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 nonresidential 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-UTIL-4: Construction and Demolition Waste Reduction and Recycling (#81). 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
Prior to approval of
construction-
related permit
Public Works
Department,
Environmental
Services Division
Public Works
Department,
Environmental
Services Division
DECEMBER 2022 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS

ATTACHMENT A
A-21
Standard Conditions of Approval
Implementation/Monitoring
When
Required
Initial
Approval
Monitoring/
Inspection
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.

SCA-UTIL-5: Underground Utilities (#82). 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 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.

During construction N/A Bureau of
Building
SCA-UTIL-6: Green Building Requirements (#84).
a. 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).
i. The following information shall be submitted to the City for review and approval with the application for a building permit:
• Documentation showing compliance with Title 24 of the current version of the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards.
• Completed copy of the final green building checklist
approved during the review of the Planning and Zoning
permit.
• Copy of the Unreasonable Hardship Exemption, if granted, during the review of the Planning and Zoning permit.
• Permit plans that show, in general notes, detailed design drawings, and specifications as necessary, compliance
with the items listed in subsection (ii) below.
• Copy of the signed statement by the Green Building
Certifier approved during the review of the Planning and Zoning permit that the project complied with the
requirements of the Green Building Ordinance.
• Signed statement by the Green Building Certifier that the project still complies with the requirements of the Green Building Ordinance, unless an Unreasonable Hardship
Exemption was granted during the review of the Planning and Zoning permit.

Prior to approval of
construction-
related permit
Bureau of
Building
N/A
1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS DECEMBER 2022

ATTACHMENT A
A-22
Standard Conditions of Approval
Implementation/Monitoring
When
Required
Initial
Approval
Monitoring/
Inspection
• Other documentation as deemed necessary by the City to demonstrate compliance with the Green Building
Ordinance.
ii. The set of plans in subsection (i) shall demonstrate compliance with the following:
• CALGreen mandatory measures.
• LEED Silver per the appropriate checklist approved during the Planning entitlement process.
• All green building points identified on the checklist approved during review of the Planning and Zoning
permit, unless a Request for Revision Plan-check
application is submitted and approved by the Bureau of
Planning that shows the previously approved points that will be eliminated or substituted.
• The required green building point minimums in the
appropriate credit categories.
b. 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.

The following information shall be submitted to the City for review and approval:
i. Completed copies of the green building checklists approved during the review of the Planning and Zoning permit and during the review of the building permit.
ii. Signed statement(s) by the Green Building Certifier during all relevant phases of construction that the project complies with the requirements of the Green Building Ordinance.
iii. Other documentation as deemed necessary by the City to demonstrate compliance with the Green Building Ordinance.

During construction N/A Bureau of
Building
c. 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 Final
Approval
Bureau of
Planning
Bureau of
Building
SCA-UTIL-7: Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (WELO) (#89). 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 equal to 2,500 sq. ft. or less. The project applicant may implement either the Prescriptive Measures or the Performance Measures, of, and in accordance with the California’s Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. 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 approval of
construction-
related permit
Bureau of
Planning
Bureau of
Building
DECEMBER 2022 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS

ATTACHMENT A
A-23
Standard Conditions of Approval
Implementation/Monitoring
When
Required
Initial
Approval
Monitoring/
Inspection
Prescriptive Measures: Prior to construction, the project applicant shall submit documentation showing compliance with Appendix D of California’s Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (see website below starting on page 23):
http://www.water.ca.gov/wateruseefficiency/landscapeordinance/do cs/Title%2023%20extract%20-%20Official%20CCR%20pages.pdf Performance Measures: Prior to construction, the project applicant shall prepare and submit a Landscape Documentation Package for review and approval, which includes the following:
a. Project
i. Date,
ii. Applicant and property owner name,
iii. Project address,
iv. Total landscape area,
v. Project type (new, rehabilitated, cemetery, or homeowner installed),
vi. Water supply type and water purveyor,
vii. Checklist of documents in the package, and,
viii. Applicant signature and date with the statement: “I agree to comply with the requirements of the water efficient landscape ordinance and submit a complete Landscape Documentation Package.”
b. Water Efficient Landscape Worksheet
i. Hydrozone Information Table
ii. Water Budget Calculations with Maximum Applied Water Allowance (MAWA) and Estimated Total Water Use
c. Soil Management Report
d. Landscape Design Plan
e. Irrigation Design Plan, and
f. Grading Plan
Upon installation of the landscaping and irrigation systems, 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 Compliance shall also be submitted to the local water purveyor and property owner or his or her designee.

For the specific requirements within the Water Efficient Landscape Worksheet, Soil Management Report, Landscape Design Plan, Irrigation Design Plan and Grading Plan, see the link below. http://www.water.ca.gov/wateruseefficiency/landscapeordinance/docs /Title%2023%20extract%20-%20Official%20CCR%20pages.pdf

1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS DECEMBER 2022

ATTACHMENT A
A-24
Provided below is the table for SCA-TRANS-1: Transportation and Parking Demand Management (#77), section a. Transportation and Parking Demand Management (TDM) Plan Required, subsection iv.

Improvement Required by code or when…
Bus boarding bulbs or islands • 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 Bus shelter • 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
Concrete bus pad • A bus stop is located along the project frontage and a concrete bus pad does not already exist
Curb extensions or bulb-outs • Identified as an improvement within site analysis Implementation of a corridor-level bikeway
improvement
• 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 Implementation of a corridor-level transit
capital improvement
• 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 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
Installation of safety improvements identified
in the Pedestrian Master Plan (such as
crosswalk striping, curb ramps, count down
signals, bulb outs, etc.)
• When improvements are identified in the Pedestrian Master Plan along project frontage or at an adjacent intersection
In-street bicycle corral • 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.

Intersection improvements1 • Identified as an improvement within site analysis New sidewalk, curb ramps, curb and gutter
meeting current City and ADA standards
• Always required
No monthly permits and establish minimum
price floor for public parking2
• If proposed parking ratio exceeds 1:1000 sf. (commercial) Parking garage is designed with retrofit
capability
• Optional if proposed parking ratio exceeds 1:1.25 (residential) or 1:1000 sf. (commercial)
Parking space reserved for car share • If a project is providing parking and a project is located within downtown. One car share space reserved for buildings between 50 – 200 units, then one car share space per 200 units.

Paving, lane striping or restriping (vehicle and
bicycle), and signs to midpoint of street
section
• Typically required
Pedestrian crossing improvements • Identified as an improvement within site analysis

1 Including but not limited to visibility improvements, shortening corner radii, pedestrian safety islands, accounting for pedestrian desire lines.
2 May also provide a cash incentive or transit pass alternative to a free parking space in commercial properties.

DECEMBER 2022 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS

ATTACHMENT A
A-25
Improvement Required by code or when…
Pedestrian-supportive signal changes3 • Identified as an improvement within operations analysis Real-time transit information system • 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
Relocating bus stops to far side • A project is located within 0.10 mile of any active bus stop that is currently near side
Signal upgrades4 • 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
Transit queue jumps • 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 Trenching and placement of conduit for
providing traffic signal interconnect
• 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
Unbundled parking • If proposed parking ratio exceeds 1:1.25 (residential)

3 Including but not limited to reducing signal cycle lengths to less than 90 seconds to avoid pedestrian crossings against the signal, providing a leading pedestrian interval, provide a “scramble” signal phase where appropriate. 4 Including typical traffic lights, pedestrian signals, bike actuated signals, transit-only signals. 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS DECEMBER 2022

ATTACHMENT A
A-26

B-1
ATTACHMENT B: PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH COMMUNITY PLAN
OR ZONING, PER CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15183
Section 15183(a) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines states that “…projects which are consistent with the development density established by the existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was certified shall not require additional environmental review, except as may be necessary to examine whether there are project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site.”
Further, Section 15183 states,
(b) In approving a project meeting the requirements of this section, a public agency shall limit its examination of environmental effects to those which the agency determines, in an initial study or other analysis:
(1) Are peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project would be located, (2) Were not analyzed as significant effects in a prior EIR on the zoning action, general plan or community plan with which the project is consistent, (3) Are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts which were not discussed in the prior EIR prepared for the general plan, community plan or zoning action, or
(4) Are previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information which was not known at the time the EIR was certified, are determined to have a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the prior EIR. (c) If an impact is not peculiar to the parcel or to the project, has been addressed as a significant effect in the prior EIR, or can be substantially mitigated by the imposition of uniformly applied development policies or standards, as contemplated by subdivision (e) below, then an additional EIR need not be prepared for the project solely on the basis of that impact.

Section 15183 (f) states, “An effect of a project on the environment shall not be considered peculiar to the project or the parcel for the purposes of this section if uniformly applied development policies or standards have been previously adopted by the city or county with a finding that the development policies or standards will substantially mitigate that environmental 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS DECEMBER 2022

ATTACHMENT B
B-2
effect when applied to future projects, unless substantial new information shows that the policies or standards will not substantially mitigate the environmental effect.” Project
As discussed in Chapter IV, Project Description, above, the project would be located in developed, urbanized Downtown Oakland. The project would develop a 27-story, approximately 408.5-foot- high building with an additional 43 feet in mechanical. The project includes approximately 375,760 square feet of office space, approximately 54,043 square feet of vehicle parking, approximately 34,355 square feet of open space, and 11,406 square feet for a lobby. It would demolish an existing surface parking lot and construct a new office building with approximately 495,993 gross square feet.

Project Consistency
The City of Oakland completed an update of the General Plan Land Use and Transportation Element (LUTE) in March 1998. The LUTE includes the City's current Land Use and Transportation Diagram as well as strategies, policies, and priorities for Oakland's development and enhancement during a two-decade period. The EIR certified for the LUTE is used to simplify the task of preparing environmental documents on later projects that occur as a result of LUTE implementation.

Section 15183(a) of the CEQA Guidelines states that "…projects which are consistent with the development density established by the existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified shall not require additional environmental review, except as may be necessary to examine whether there are project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site."
As discussed in detail in Chapter II, Background-Program Plans and EIRs, of this document, the analysis in the 1998 LUTE EIR is considered the qualified planning level CEQA documents for this assessment, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.
1998 General Plan Land Use and Transportation Element and EIR As determined by the City of Oakland Bureau of Planning, the proposed land uses are permitted in the zoning district in which the project is located, making the project consistent with the bulk, density, and land uses envisioned for the project site, as outlined below. ▪ The General Plan land use designation for the site is Commercial Business District (CBD). This designation applies to areas suitable for high density mixed-use urban center with a mix of large-scale offices, commercial, urban (high-rise) residential, and infill hotel uses, among many others, in the central Downtown core of the city. The designation is intended to encourage, support, and enhance the downtown area as a high-density, mixed-use urban DECEMBER 2020 2201 VALLEY STREET PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS

ATTACHMENT B
B-3
center of regional importance, and a primary hub for business, communications, office, government, high technology, retail, entertainment, and transportation. The project would provide for office uses on the project site that would be pedestrian-oriented and be a hub for business.
▪ The site is zoned Commercial Business District Pedestrian Retail Commercial Zone (CBD-P).

The CBD-P district is intended to create, maintain, and enhance areas of the Central Business District for ground-level, pedestrian-oriented, active storefront uses while upper story spaces are intended to be available for a wide range of office and residential activities. The project would be consistent with both the intent of the General Plan and Zoning as it would develop a high-rise office tower that would help the City further establish the area as a high-density, mixed-use urban center of regional importance, and a primary hub for business. While the project would not provide any non-office storefront use spaces on the ground floor would, it would provide a setback transparent façade to increase visibility into the building and would also provide office uses on the upper story spaces.
▪ The proposed building would be up to approximately 410-and-a-half feet in height with an additional 46 feet for mechanical rooftop screening and is within Height Area 7, which has no maximum height limit.
▪ The maximum non-residential FAR is 20:1; based on the project site size of approximately 20,974 square feet (approximately 0.48 acres), up to 419,480 square feet of floor area is allowed. The project would create a total of 407,595 gross square feet of non-residential use and therefore have total FAR of 19.43.1
▪ In addition, there are no peculiar aspects of the project that would increase the severity of any of the previously analyzed environmental impacts in the 1998 LUTE EIR. ▪ The Project is consistent with the development goals in the Central District Urban Renewal Plan. The 2011 Renewal Plan Amendments EIR details particular projects and programs that are anticipated to include targeting investments and activities toward certain catalyst projects, infrastructure improvement projects and infill development projects that are consistent with the General Plan. The Project is consistent with at least five major goals of these project and programs:
o Strengthening of the Redevelopment Project Area’s existing role as an important office center for administrative, financial, business service and governmental activities. o Correcting health and safety concerns, improving economic conditions and eliminating physical blight conditions throughout the Redevelopment Project Area.

1 Non-residential use square footage includes uses which are considered active spaces, including office space, retail space, and office lobby.
1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS DECEMBER 2022

ATTACHMENT B
B-4
o Improved environmental design within the Redevelopment Project Area, including creation of a definite sense of place, clear gateways, emphatic focal points and physical design which expresses and respects the special nature of each subarea. o Provision of adequate infrastructure such as public parking, sidewalks, and traffic control.
o Utilization of key transit nodes to support transit-oriented development.

New Significant Effects and Substantial New Information The Project would not cause new specific effects that were not addressed in the 1998 LUTE EIR or the 2011 Renewal Plan Amendments EIR. The analysis of the Project in the CEQA Checklist analysis includes all the resource topics identified as potentially incurring significant unavoidable impacts, and concludes that there would be no impacts that were not analyzed in Previous EIRs.

As these analyses demonstrate, the Project would not substantially increase the severity of the impacts identified in the 1998 LUTE EIR or 2011 Renewal Plan Amendments EIR, nor would it result in new significant impacts that were not identified in these Previous EIRs.

Further, there have been no substantial changes in circumstances following certification of the Previous EIRs that would result in any new specific significant effects of the Project. There is no new information that was not known at the time the 1998 LUTE EIR or 2011 Renewal Plan Amendments EIR were certified that would cause more severe adverse impacts than discussed in the Previous EIRs. There have been no significant changes in the underlying development assumptions, nor in the applicability or feasibility of mitigation measures or SCAs included in the Previous EIRs.

C-1
ATTACHMENT C: INFILL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS,
PER CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15183.3
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15183.3(b) and CEQA Guidelines Appendix M establish eligibility requirements for projects to qualify as infill projects. Table C-1, on the pages following, shows how the project satisfies each of the applicable requirements.

Table C-1
Project Infill Eligibility
CEQA Eligibility Criteria Eligible? / Notes for Project

1. Be located in an urban area on a site that either has been previously developed or that adjoins existing
qualified urban uses on at least 75 percent of the site’s perimeter. For the purpose of this subdivision, adjoin
means the infill project is immediately adjacent to
qualified urban uses, or is only separated from such
uses by an improved right-of-way. (CEQA Guidelines
Section 15183.3[b][1])
Yes
The project site has been previously developed with a surface parking lot and adjoins existing urban uses, as described in Chapter IV, Project Description, above.

2. Satisfy the performance Standards provided in
Appendix M (CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.3[b][2]) as
presented in 2a and 2b below:
—
2a. Performance Standards Related to Project Design.

All projects must implement all of the following:
—
Renewable Energy.

Non-Residential Projects. All nonresidential projects
shall include on-site renewable power generation, such
as solar photovoltaic, solar thermal, and wind power
generation, or clean back-up power supplies, where
feasible.

Residential Projects. Residential projects are also
encouraged to include such on-site renewable power
generation.

Yes
The project would include renewable energy power generation through a rooftop solar photovoltaic array.

Residential Units Near High-Volume Roadways and
Stationary Sources.

If a project includes residential units located within
500 feet, or other distance determined to be
appropriate by the local agency or air district based on local conditions, of a high volume roadway or other
significant sources of air pollution, the project shall comply with any policies and standards identified in the local general plan, specific plan, zoning code, or
community risk reduction plan for the protection of
public health from such sources of air pollution.

If the local government has not adopted such plans or
policies, the project shall include measures, such as
enhanced air filtration and project design, that the lead agency finds, based on substantial evidence, will
promote the protection of public health from sources of air pollution. Those measures may include, among
Not Applicable
According to Section IV (G) of CEQA Appendix M, for mixed-use projects “…the performance standards in this Section that apply to the predominant use shall govern the entire project.” Because the predominant use is office, the requirements for residential projects do not apply.
1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS DECEMBER 2022

ATTACHMENT C
C-2
Table C-1
Project Infill Eligibility
CEQA Eligibility Criteria Eligible? / Notes for Project others, the recommendations of the California Air
Resources Board, air districts, and the California Air
Pollution Control Officers Association.
2b. Additional Performance Standards by Project Type.

In addition to implementing all the features described
in criterion 2a above, the project must meet eligibility requirements provided below by project type.a

Residential. A residential project must meet one of the following:

A. Projects achieving below average regional per capita vehicle miles traveled. A residential project is eligible if it is located in a low vehicle travel area within the
region;
B. Projects located within ½-mile of an Existing Major
Transit Stop or High-Quality Transit Corridor. A
residential project is eligible if it is located within ½-mile of an existing major transit stop or an existing stop
along a high-quality transit corridor; or
C. Low – Income Housing. A residential or mixed-use
project consisting of 300 or fewer residential units all of which are affordable to low income households is
eligible if the developer of the development project
provides sufficient legal commitments to the lead
agency to ensure the continued availability and use of
the housing units for lower income households, as
defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety
Code, for a period of at least 30 years, at monthly
housing costs, as determined pursuant to Section 50053
of the Health and Safety Code.

Not Applicable
According to Section IV (G) of CEQA Appendix M, for mixed-use projects “…the performance standards in this Section that apply to the predominant use shall govern the entire project.” Because the predominant use is office, the requirements for residential projects do not apply.

Commercial/Retail. A commercial/retail project must
meet one of the following:

A. Regional Location. A commercial project with no
single-building floor-plate greater than 50,000 square
feet is eligible if it locates in a low vehicle travel area; or B. Proximity to Households. A project with no single-
building floor-plate greater than 50,000 square feet
located within ½-mile of 1,800 households is eligible.

Office Building. An office building project must meet
one of the following:

A. Regional Location. Office buildings, both commercial and public, are eligible if they locate in a low vehicle travel area; or
B. Proximity to a Major Transit Stop. Office buildings, both commercial and public, within ½-mile of an
existing major transit stop, or ¼-mile of an existing stop along a high-quality transit corridor, are eligible.

Yes, satisfies both A and B.

The project site is located in Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) 971 which has a 2020 and 2040 average daily VMT of 12.57 and

10.612.0, respectively per worker. The project’s TAZ is below the regional average minus 15-percent (18.5 and 17.3
respectively).

The project site is well-served by multiple transit providers: (1) the 12th Street Oakland BART Station, which is located 0.1- miles away; (2) AC Transit has several stops near the project site including, along Broadway (Route 6 with 10-minute peak headways, Route 18 with 15 minute peak headways, Route
51A with 10-minute peak headways, and Routes 72/72M/72R with 10- to 12-minute peak headways prior to the COVID-19 DECEMBER 2022 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS

ATTACHMENT C
C-3
Table C-1
Project Infill Eligibility
CEQA Eligibility Criteria Eligible? / Notes for Project pandemic); and (3) City of Oakland Broadway Shuttle is located approximately 200 feet away.

Schools.

Elementary schools within 1 mile of 50 percent of the
projected student population are eligible. Middle
schools and high schools within 2 miles of 50 percent of the projected student population are eligible.

Alternatively, any school within ½-mile of an existing
major transit stop or an existing stop along a high-
quality transit corridor is eligible.

Additionally, to be eligible, all schools shall provide parking and storage for bicycles and scooters, and shall comply with the requirements of Sections 17213,
17213.1, and 17213.2 of the California Education Code.

Not Applicable
Transit.

Transit stations, as defined in Section 15183.3(e)(1), are eligible.

Not Applicable
Small Walkable Community Projects.

Small walkable community projects, as defined in
Section 15183.3, subdivisions (e)(6), that implement the project features in 2a above are eligible.

Not Applicable

3. Be consistent with the general use designation, density, building intensity, and applicable policies specified for the project area in either a sustainable communities
strategy or an alternative planning strategy, except as provided in CEQA Guidelines Sections 15183.3(b)(3)(A)
or (b)(3)(B) below:
(b)(3)(A). Only where an infill project is proposed within the boundaries of a metropolitan planning organization
for which a sustainable communities strategy or an
alternative planning strategy will be, but is not yet in effect, a residential infill project must have a density of at least 20 units per acre, and a retail or commercial
infill project must have a floor area ratio of at least

0.75; or
(b)(3)(B). Where an infill project is proposed outside of the boundaries of a metropolitan planning organization, the infill project must meet the definition of a “small walkable community project” in CEQA Guidelines
§15183.3(f)(5).
(CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.3[b][3])
Yes
(see explanation below table)
a Where a project includes some combination of residential, commercial and retail, office building, transit station, and/or schools, the performance standards in this section that apply to the predominant use shall govern the entire project.
1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS DECEMBER 2022

ATTACHMENT C
C-4
Explanation for Eligibility Criteria 3 – The adopted Plan Bay Area (2017)1 serves as the Sustainable Communities’ Strategy for the Bay Area, per SB 375. As defined by the Plan, Priority Development Areas (PDAs) are areas where new development will support the needs of residents and workers in a pedestrian-friendly environment served by transit. The project is consistent with the land use designation, density, and building intensity specified in the General Plan as described in Section V.J, Land Use, Plans, and Policies, of this document and summarized below.

The General Plan land use designation for the site is Central Business District (CBD); this classification is intended to encourage, support, and enhance the downtown area as a high- density mixed-use urban center of regional importance, and a primary hub for business, communications, office, government, high technology, retail, entertainment, and transportation.

The proposed office project would be consistent with this designation.

The site is zoned Commercial Business District Pedestrian Retail Commercial Zone (CBD-P). The project would be consistent with the purposes of this the CBD-P district, which is intended to create, maintain, and enhance areas of the Central Business District for ground-level, pedestrian- oriented, active storefront uses while upper story spaces are intended to be available for a wide range of office and residential activities. The project would be consistent with both the intent of the General Plan and Zoning as it would develop a high-rise office tower that would help the City further establish the area as a high-density, mixed-use urban center of regional importance, and a primary hub for business. While the project would not provide any non-office storefront use spaces on the ground floor would, it would provide a setback transparent façade to increase visibility into the building and would also provide office uses on the upper story spaces. The project site is also in Height Area 7, which has no height limit; however, towers above 250 feet in height require a conditional use permit. In Height Area 7, the maximum building base height is 85 feet and the minimum height of any new building is 45 feet. Furthermore, the maximum non- residential FAR is 20.0. Based on the maximum density and FAR, up to 419,480 square feet uses are allowed on the 0.48-acre project site.

The project would result in the development of a 27-story building that would include primarily office uses. The proposed building would have a base height of 62.5 feet, which would be above the minimum base height and below the maximum base height, and a tower height of up to 410- and-a-half feet plus 46 feet for mechanical rooftop screening. The project would also have a FAR of 19.43, with a total of 407,595 FAR-considerable floor area. As such, the project would be consistent with the General Plan, zoning code, and density and intensity requirements.

1 Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), 2017. Plan Bay Area 2040, Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy for the San Francisco Bay Area 2017-2040, July 26.

D-1
ATTACHMENT D: URBAN INFILL EXEMPTION ANALYSIS, PER CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15332
Article 19 of the CEQA Guidelines Section 15300 to Section 15333 includes a list of classes of projects that have been determined to not have a significant effect on the environment and as a result are exempt from review under CEQA. Among the classes of projects that are exempt from CEQA review are those projects that are specifically identified as urban in-fill development. CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (Class 32) consists of projects characterized as in-fill development when meeting the following conditions:
▪ The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations ▪ The proposed development occurs within city limits, on a project site of no more than five acres, substantially surrounded by urban uses
▪ The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare of threatened species ▪ Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality, and
▪ The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.

The analysis presented in the following section provides substantial evidence that the project qualifies for an exemption under CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 as a Class 32 urban in-fill development, would not have a significant effect on the environment, and there are no exceptions to the CEQA exemption.

Table D-1
Project Infill Exemption Analysis
CEQA Eligibility Criteria Eligible? / Notes for Project

1. General Plan and Zoning Consistency (CEQA Guidelines Section 15332[a]): The project is consistent with the
applicable general plan designation and all applicable
general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations.

Yes
As is fully documented above in both Section V.J, Land Use, Plans, and Policies, and in Attachment B, the project is consistent with the applicable General Plan LUTE and its implementing policies, the Central District Urban Renewal Plan, and the applicable regulatory standards of the CBD-P zoning district.

2. Project Location, Size, and Context (CEQA Guidelines Section 15332[b]): The proposed development occurs
within city limits, on a project site of no more than five acres, substantially surrounded by urban uses.

Yes
The approximately 0.48-acre (20,974 square feet) project site is located within the Oakland city limits, and within an urbanized portion of Downtown Oakland. The project site is surrounded on all sides by urban land uses.

3. Endangered, Rare, or Threatened Species (CEQA
Guidelines Section 15332[c]): The project site has no
Yes
As documented above in Section V.C, Biological Resources, the project site consists of a surface parking lot and is surrounded 1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS DECEMBER 2022

ATTACHMENT D
D-2
Table D-1
Project Infill Exemption Analysis
CEQA Eligibility Criteria Eligible? / Notes for Project value as habitat for endangered, rare of threatened
species
on all sides by urban development. There is no vegetation in site or in proposed for removal. The site provides virtually no habitat for any significant plants or animals. Therefore, the project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species.

4. Traffic (CEQA Guidelines Section 15332[d][1]):

Approval of the project would not result in any
significant effects relating to traffic
Yes
As documented above in Section V.N, Transportation and
Circulation, the project would not exceed any of the City’s applicable significance thresholds related to traffic and transportation and any potential impacts would be further reduced to a less-than-significant level with implementation of SCAs (please see Attachment A for a full description of the applicable SCAs):
• Implementation of SCA-TRANS-1: Transportation and
Parking Demand Management (#77)
• SCA-TRANS-2: Construction Activity in the Public Right-of- Way (#74)
• SCA-TRANS-3: Bicycle Parking (#75)
• SCA-TRANS-4: Transportation Improvements (#76)
• SCA-TRANS-5: Transportation Impact Fee (#78)
• SCA-TRANS-6: Plug-In Electric Vehicle Charging
Infrastructure (#80)
With implementation of all required SCAs, the project would not result in any significant effects related to traffic or transportation.

5. Noise (CEQA Guidelines Section 15332[d][2]): Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to noise
Yes
As documented above in Section V.K, Noise, the project could exceed some of the City’s applicable significance thresholds related to noise and vibration, but all potential impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with implementation of SCAs (please see Attachment A for a full description of the applicable SCAs):
• SCA-NOI-1: Construction Days/Hours (#61)
• SCA-NOI-2: Construction Noise (#62)
• SCA-NOI-3: Extreme Construction Noise (#63)
• SCA-NOI-4: Construction Noise Complaints (#65)
SCA-NOI-5: Operational Noise (#67)
SCA-NOI-6: Exposure to Community Noise (#66)
• SCA-NOI-7: Vibration Impacts on Adjacent Structures or Vibration-Sensitive Activities (#69)
With implementation of all required SCAs, the project would not result in any significant effects related to noise or vibration.

6. Air Quality (CEQA Guidelines Section 15332[d][3]):

Approval of the project would not result in any
significant effects relating to air quality
Yes
As documented above in Section V.B, Air Quality, the project could exceed some of the City’s applicable significance thresholds related to air quality, but all potential impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with
implementation of SCAs (please see Attachment A for a full description of the applicable SCAs):

DECEMBER 2020 415 20TH STREET PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS

ATTACHMENT D
D-3
Table D-1
Project Infill Exemption Analysis
CEQA Eligibility Criteria Eligible? / Notes for Project • SCA-AIR-1: Criteria Air Pollutant Controls – Construction Related (#21)
• SCA-AIR-2: Dust Controls – Construction Related (#20) • SCA-AIR-3: Asbestos in Structures (#26)
• SCA-AIR-4: Diesel Particulate Matter Controls –
Construction Related (#22)
• SCA-AIR-5: Stationary Sources of Air Pollution (Toxic Air Contaminants) (#24)
With implementation of all required SCAs, the project would not result in any significant effects related to air quality.

7. Water Quality (CEQA Guidelines Section 15332[d][4]):

Approval of the project would not result in any
significant effects relating to water quality
Yes
As documented above in Section V.I, Hydrology and Water Quality, the project would not exceed any of the City’s applicable significance thresholds related to water quality and any potential impacts would be further reduced to a less-than- significant level with implementation of SCAs (please see Attachment A for a full description of the applicable SCAs):
• SCA-HAZ-1: Hazardous Building Materials and Site
Contamination (#43)
• SCA-HAZ-2: Hazardous Materials Related to Construction (#42)
• SCA-HYD-1: Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan for Construction (#48)
• SCA-HYD-2: NPDES C.3 Stormwater Requirements for
Regulated Projects (#53)
With implementation of all required SCAs, the project would not result in any significant effects related to water quality.

8. Utilities and Public Services (CEQA Guidelines
Section 15332[e]): The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services
Yes
As documented above in Sections V.E, Energy; V.M, Public Services, Parks, and Recreation Facilities; and V.O, Utilities and Services, the project would be adequately services by all needed utilities and all required public services. Furthermore, the project would not exceed any of the City’s applicable significance thresholds related to utilities and public services and all impacts would be further reduced to a less-than- significant level with implementation of SCAs (please see Attachment A for a full description of the applicable SCAs):
• SCA-PS-1: Capital Improvements Impact Fee (#72)
• SCA-UTIL-1: Sanitary Sewer System (#86)
• SCA-UTIL-2: Storm Drain System (#87)
• SCA-UTIL-3: Recycling Collection and Storage Space (#83) • SCA-UTIL-4: Construction and Demolition Waste Reduction and Recycling (#81)
• SCA-UTIL-5: Underground Utilities (#82)
• SCA-UTIL-6: Green Building Requirements (#84)
• SCA-UTIL-7: Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (WELO) (#92)
With implementation of all required SCAs, the project would not result in any significant effects related to utilities and public services.
1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS DECEMBER 2022

ATTACHMENT D
D-4
Exceptions to Categorical Exemptions Checklist
In addition to investigating the applicability of CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (Class 32), this environmental review document also assesses whether any of the exceptions to qualifying for the Class 32 categorical exemption for an Infill Project are present. The following analysis in Table D-2 compares the criteria of CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 (Exceptions) to the project.

Table D-2
Project Infill Exceptions
CEQA Eligibility Criteria Eligible? / Notes for Project

1. Location (CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2[a]): Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of
where the project is to be located – a project that is
ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a particularly sensitive environment be
significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply all instances, except where the project may
impact on an environmental resource of hazardous or
critical concern where designated, precisely mapped,
and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies.

No
The project is not located in a particularly sensitive
environment and would not impact any environmental
resources of hazardous or critical concern as designated, mapped or adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies. Further, this exception is not applicable to the Class 32 exemption.

2. Cumulative Impact (CEQA Guidelines
Section 15332[b]): All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive
projects of the same type in the same place, over time
is significant
No
The project is consistent with the Land Use and Transportation Element (LUTE) of the General Plan, the Central District Urban Renewal Plan, and all applicable zoning regulations and is required to implement all applicable mitigation measures and SCAs identified in those documents’ respective Environmental Impact Reports (EIR) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, which allows for streamlined environmental review, this
environmental review document need not re-consider
cumulative effects already addressed under these EIRs. As addressed ion the project’s CEQA checklist under the topics of historic resources, traffic, noise, and air quality, the project’s potential effects are assessed in relation to the combined cumulative effects of other approved, pending, and reasonably foreseeable future projects of generally the same type, and in the same general vicinity as the project. As concluded in the CEQA Checklist, the project would not make a considerable contribution to any cumulative effects related to traffic, noise, water quality or air quality.

The project would be required to implement applicable City SCAs, which would serve to reduce the project’s construction to cumulative effects to less than significant. Since the project is consistent with the development assumed in the LUTE and Central District EIRs, the project’s potential contribution to cumulative significant effects has already been addressed in the EIR, there are no further cumulative effects associated with the project, and an exception under CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2(b) does not apply to the project.

3. Significant Effect Due to Unusual Circumstances (CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2[c]): A categorical
exemption shall not be used for an activity where there No
As analyzed throughout the CEQA Checklist, the project would not result in any significant effects in the environment. There DECEMBER 2020 415 20TH STREET PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS

ATTACHMENT D
D-5
Table D-2
Project Infill Exceptions
CEQA Eligibility Criteria Eligible? / Notes for Project is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to
unusual circumstances
are no unusual circumstances specific to the project as compared to its surroundings, or to other similar projects that would pose a reasonable possibility of casing a significant effect on the environment.

4. Scenic Highway (CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2[d]):

A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may result in damage to scenic resources,
including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a
highway officially designated as a state scenic highway.

This does not apply to improvements which are
required as mitigation by an adopted negative
declaration or certified EIR.

No
As documented above in Section V.A, Aesthetics, Shadow, and Wind, the project site is approximately 1.25 miles south of the State Scenic Highways segment of I-580 that terminates at State Route (SR) 24. Because the I-580/SR-24 interchange is elevated and the project would be one of the tallest
developments in Downtown Oakland, it would be visible to motorists on the designated scenic highway. However, the project is not expected to damage view of scenic resources for motorists on I-580/SR-24 because its size and scale would not substantially interfere with the view from the I-580/SR 24 interchange.

5. Hazardous Waste Sites (CEQA Guidelines
Section 15300.2[e]): A categorical exemption shall not
be used for a project located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code
No
As documented above in Section V.H, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the project site is not included on any of the lists of hazardous materials release sites compiled in accordance with Government Code Section 65962.5, also known as the “Cortese List”. The Phase I ESA found no environmental concerns at the project site and indicated that there is no available information to suggest that the project site has been adversely impacted by historic uses. Furthermore, the project would not exceed any of the City’s applicable significance thresholds related to hazards and hazardous materials and all impacts would be further reduced to a less-than-significant level with
implementation of SCAs (please see Attachment A for a full description of the applicable SCAs):
• SCA-HAZ-1: Hazardous Building Materials and Site
Contamination (#43)
• SCA-HAZ-2: Hazardous Materials Related to Construction (#42)
• SCA-AIR-3: Asbestos in Structures (#26)
With implementation of all required SCAs, the project would not result in any significant effects related to hazards and hazardous materials.

6. Historical Resources (CEQA Guidelines
Section 15300.2[f]): A categorical exemption shall not
be used for a project which may cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of a historical
resource
No
As documented above in Section V.D, Cultural and Historic Resources, the project would be located within the Central Downtown Area of Primary Importance. However,
development of the project would not result in any significant cultural resources impacts. Furthermore, the project would not exceed any other of the City’s applicable significance
thresholds related to cultural resources and any potential impacts would be further reduced to a less-than-significant level with implementation of SCAs (please see Attachment A for a full description of the applicable SCAs):
• SCA-HIST-1: Archaeological and Paleontological Resources – Discovery During Construction (#32)
1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS DECEMBER 2022

ATTACHMENT D
D-6
Table D-2
Project Infill Exceptions
CEQA Eligibility Criteria Eligible? / Notes for Project • SCA-HIST-2: Human Remains – Discovery During
Construction (#34)
With implementation of all required SCAs, the project would not result in any significant effects related to cultural resources.

E-1
ATTACHMENT E: SHADOW STUDY

1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS DECEMBER 2022

ATTACHMENT E
E-2

Proposed Project (2022 Design)
Existing/Current Shadows
New Shading by Project
Solar Collectors
Parks and Open Spaces
11 Frank Ogawa Plaza
22 Latham Square
Historic Resource Sites
(Only Affected Sites Numbered)
11 575 15th Street
22 1529 Clay Street
33 1605-1625 Clay Street
44 1 City Hall Plaza
5 5 532 16th Street
66 350 Frank Ogawa Plaza
77 510-516 16th Street
88 1611-1627 Telegraph Street
99 300 Frank Ogawa Plaza
q q 150 Frank Ogawa Plaza
w w 457 17th Street
ee 1636 Telegraph Avenue
rr 1628 Telegraph Avenue
tt 1615-1617 Broadway
yy 1500 Broadway
uu 420 15th Street
i i 449 15th Street
oo 1440 Broadway
pp 420-436 14th Street
aa 1411 Franklin Street
ss 401-421 15th Street
d d 1441 Franklin Street
f f 1428 Franklin Street
g g 389 15th Street
h h 1624 Franklin Street
j j 394 17th Street
k k 1709 Webster Street
l l 1736-1814 Franklin Street
LEGEND
11 22
33 44
55 qq
66 8877
ii
aa
oo
pp
uu
yy
ff
hh
jj
kk
ll
tt
ee
ww
11 22
1431 Franklin Street: office SCENARIO
99 ss
dd gg
rr
9:00 AM
June 21
Summer Solstice
Shading diagrams on the Summer Solstice
A1-P
PReviSION
DESIGN
Proposed Project (2022 Design)
Existing/Current Shadows
New Shading by Project
Solar Collectors
Parks and Open Spaces
11 Frank Ogawa Plaza
22 Latham Square
Historic Resource Sites
(Only Affected Sites Numbered)
11 575 15th Street
22 1529 Clay Street
33 1605-1625 Clay Street
44 1 City Hall Plaza
5 5 532 16th Street
66 350 Frank Ogawa Plaza
77 510-516 16th Street
88 1611-1627 Telegraph Street
99 300 Frank Ogawa Plaza
q q 150 Frank Ogawa Plaza
w w 457 17th Street
ee 1636 Telegraph Avenue
rr 1628 Telegraph Avenue
tt 1615-1617 Broadway
yy 1500 Broadway
uu 420 15th Street
i i 449 15th Street
oo 1440 Broadway
pp 420-436 14th Street
aa 1411 Franklin Street
ss 401-421 15th Street
d d 1441 Franklin Street
f f 1428 Franklin Street
g g 389 15th Street
h h 1624 Franklin Street
j j 394 17th Street
k k 1709 Webster Street
l l 1736-1814 Franklin Street
LEGEND
11 22
33 44
55 qq
66 8877
ii
aa
oo
pp
uu
yy
ff
hh
jj
kk
ll
tt
ee
ww
11 22
1431 Franklin Street: office SCENARIO
99 ss
dd gg
rr
12:00 PM
June 21
Summer Solstice
Shading diagrams on the Summer Solstice
A2-P
PReviSION
DESIGN
Proposed Project (2022 Design)
Existing/Current Shadows
New Shading by Project
Solar Collectors
Parks and Open Spaces
11 Frank Ogawa Plaza
22 Latham Square
Historic Resource Sites
(Only Affected Sites Numbered)
11 575 15th Street
22 1529 Clay Street
33 1605-1625 Clay Street
44 1 City Hall Plaza
5 5 532 16th Street
66 350 Frank Ogawa Plaza
77 510-516 16th Street
88 1611-1627 Telegraph Street
99 300 Frank Ogawa Plaza
q q 150 Frank Ogawa Plaza
w w 457 17th Street
ee 1636 Telegraph Avenue
rr 1628 Telegraph Avenue
tt 1615-1617 Broadway
yy 1500 Broadway
uu 420 15th Street
i i 449 15th Street
oo 1440 Broadway
pp 420-436 14th Street
aa 1411 Franklin Street
ss 401-421 15th Street
d d 1441 Franklin Street
f f 1428 Franklin Street
g g 389 15th Street
h h 1624 Franklin Street
j j 394 17th Street
k k 1709 Webster Street
l l 1736-1814 Franklin Street
LEGEND
11 22
33 44
55 qq
66 8877
ii
aa
oo
pp
uu
yy
ff
hh
jj
kk
ll
tt
ee
ww
11 22
1431 Franklin Street: office SCENARIO
99 ss
dd gg
rr
3:00 PM
June 21
Summer Solstice
Shading diagrams on the Summer Solstice
A3-P
PReviSION
DESIGN
Proposed Project (2022 Design)
Existing/Current Shadows
New Shading by Project
Solar Collectors
Parks and Open Spaces
11 Frank Ogawa Plaza
22 Latham Square
Historic Resource Sites
(Only Affected Sites Numbered)
11 575 15th Street
22 1529 Clay Street
33 1605-1625 Clay Street
44 1 City Hall Plaza
5 5 532 16th Street
66 350 Frank Ogawa Plaza
77 510-516 16th Street
88 1611-1627 Telegraph Street
99 300 Frank Ogawa Plaza
q q 150 Frank Ogawa Plaza
w w 457 17th Street
ee 1636 Telegraph Avenue
rr 1628 Telegraph Avenue
tt 1615-1617 Broadway
yy 1500 Broadway
uu 420 15th Street
i i 449 15th Street
oo 1440 Broadway
pp 420-436 14th Street
aa 1411 Franklin Street
ss 401-421 15th Street
d d 1441 Franklin Street
f f 1428 Franklin Street
g g 389 15th Street
h h 1624 Franklin Street
j j 394 17th Street
k k 1709 Webster Street
l l 1736-1814 Franklin Street
LEGEND
11 22
33 44
55 qq
66 8877
ii
aa
oo
pp
uu
yy
ff
hh
jj
kk
ll
tt
ee
ww
11 22
1431 Franklin Street: office SCENARIO
99 ss
dd gg
rr
9:00 AM
March 20 & September 22
Vernal/Autumnal Equinox
Shading diagrams on the Vernal/Autumnal Equinoxes
B1-P
PReviSION
DESIGN
Proposed Project (2022 Design)
Existing/Current Shadows
New Shading by Project
Solar Collectors
Parks and Open Spaces
11 Frank Ogawa Plaza
22 Latham Square
Historic Resource Sites
(Only Affected Sites Numbered)
11 575 15th Street
22 1529 Clay Street
33 1605-1625 Clay Street
44 1 City Hall Plaza
5 5 532 16th Street
66 350 Frank Ogawa Plaza
77 510-516 16th Street
88 1611-1627 Telegraph Street
99 300 Frank Ogawa Plaza
q q 150 Frank Ogawa Plaza
w w 457 17th Street
ee 1636 Telegraph Avenue
rr 1628 Telegraph Avenue
tt 1615-1617 Broadway
yy 1500 Broadway
uu 420 15th Street
i i 449 15th Street
oo 1440 Broadway
pp 420-436 14th Street
aa 1411 Franklin Street
ss 401-421 15th Street
d d 1441 Franklin Street
f f 1428 Franklin Street
g g 389 15th Street
h h 1624 Franklin Street
j j 394 17th Street
k k 1709 Webster Street
l l 1736-1814 Franklin Street
LEGEND
11 22
33 44
55 qq
66 8877
ii
aa
oo
pp
uu
yy
ff
hh
jj
kk
ll
tt
ee
ww
11 22
1431 Franklin Street: office SCENARIO
99 ss
dd gg
rr
12:00 PM
March 20 & September 22
Vernal/Autumnal Equinox
Shading diagrams on the Vernal/Autumnal Equinoxes
B2-P
PReviSION
DESIGN
Proposed Project (2022 Design)
Existing/Current Shadows
New Shading by Project
Solar Collectors
Parks and Open Spaces
11 Frank Ogawa Plaza
22 Latham Square
Historic Resource Sites
(Only Affected Sites Numbered)
11 575 15th Street
22 1529 Clay Street
33 1605-1625 Clay Street
44 1 City Hall Plaza
5 5 532 16th Street
66 350 Frank Ogawa Plaza
77 510-516 16th Street
88 1611-1627 Telegraph Street
99 300 Frank Ogawa Plaza
q q 150 Frank Ogawa Plaza
w w 457 17th Street
ee 1636 Telegraph Avenue
rr 1628 Telegraph Avenue
tt 1615-1617 Broadway
yy 1500 Broadway
uu 420 15th Street
i i 449 15th Street
oo 1440 Broadway
pp 420-436 14th Street
aa 1411 Franklin Street
ss 401-421 15th Street
d d 1441 Franklin Street
f f 1428 Franklin Street
g g 389 15th Street
h h 1624 Franklin Street
j j 394 17th Street
k k 1709 Webster Street
l l 1736-1814 Franklin Street
LEGEND
11 22
33 44
55 qq
66 8877
ii
aa
oo
pp
uu
yy
ff
hh
jj
kk
ll
tt
ee
ww
11 22
1431 Franklin Street: office SCENARIO
99 ss
dd gg
rr
3:00 PM
March 20 & September 22
Vernal/Autumnal Equinox
Shading diagrams on the Vernal/Autumnal Equinoxes
B3-P
PReviSION
DESIGN
Proposed Project (2022 Design)
Existing/Current Shadows
New Shading by Project
Solar Collectors
Parks and Open Spaces
11 Frank Ogawa Plaza
22 Latham Square
Historic Resource Sites
(Only Affected Sites Numbered)
11 575 15th Street
22 1529 Clay Street
33 1605-1625 Clay Street
44 1 City Hall Plaza
5 5 532 16th Street
66 350 Frank Ogawa Plaza
77 510-516 16th Street
88 1611-1627 Telegraph Street
99 300 Frank Ogawa Plaza
q q 150 Frank Ogawa Plaza
w w 457 17th Street
ee 1636 Telegraph Avenue
rr 1628 Telegraph Avenue
tt 1615-1617 Broadway
yy 1500 Broadway
uu 420 15th Street
i i 449 15th Street
oo 1440 Broadway
pp 420-436 14th Street
aa 1411 Franklin Street
ss 401-421 15th Street
d d 1441 Franklin Street
f f 1428 Franklin Street
g g 389 15th Street
h h 1624 Franklin Street
j j 394 17th Street
k k 1709 Webster Street
l l 1736-1814 Franklin Street
LEGEND
11 22
33 44
55 qq
66 8877
ii
aa
oo
pp
uu
yy
ff
hh
jj
kk
ll
tt
ee
ww
11 22
1431 Franklin Street: office SCENARIO
99 ss
dd gg
rr
9:00 AM
December 21
Winter Solstice
Shading diagrams on the Winter Solstice
C1-P
PReviSION
DESIGN
Proposed Project (2022 Design)
Existing/Current Shadows
New Shading by Project
Solar Collectors
Parks and Open Spaces
11 Frank Ogawa Plaza
22 Latham Square
Historic Resource Sites
(Only Affected Sites Numbered)
11 575 15th Street
22 1529 Clay Street
33 1605-1625 Clay Street
44 1 City Hall Plaza
5 5 532 16th Street
66 350 Frank Ogawa Plaza
77 510-516 16th Street
88 1611-1627 Telegraph Street
99 300 Frank Ogawa Plaza
q q 150 Frank Ogawa Plaza
w w 457 17th Street
ee 1636 Telegraph Avenue
rr 1628 Telegraph Avenue
tt 1615-1617 Broadway
yy 1500 Broadway
uu 420 15th Street
i i 449 15th Street
oo 1440 Broadway
pp 420-436 14th Street
aa 1411 Franklin Street
ss 401-421 15th Street
d d 1441 Franklin Street
f f 1428 Franklin Street
g g 389 15th Street
h h 1624 Franklin Street
j j 394 17th Street
k k 1709 Webster Street
l l 1736-1814 Franklin Street
LEGEND
11 22
33 44
55 qq
66 8877
ii
aa
oo
pp
uu
yy
ff
hh
jj
kk
ll
tt
ee
ww
11 22
1431 Franklin Street: office SCENARIO
99 ss
dd gg
rr
12:00 PM
December 21
Winter Solstice
Shading diagrams on the Winter Solstice
C2-P
PReviSION
DESIGN
Proposed Project (2022 Design)
Existing/Current Shadows
New Shading by Project
Solar Collectors
Parks and Open Spaces
11 Frank Ogawa Plaza
22 Latham Square
Historic Resource Sites
(Only Affected Sites Numbered)
11 575 15th Street
22 1529 Clay Street
33 1605-1625 Clay Street
44 1 City Hall Plaza
5 5 532 16th Street
66 350 Frank Ogawa Plaza
77 510-516 16th Street
88 1611-1627 Telegraph Street
99 300 Frank Ogawa Plaza
q q 150 Frank Ogawa Plaza
w w 457 17th Street
ee 1636 Telegraph Avenue
rr 1628 Telegraph Avenue
tt 1615-1617 Broadway
yy 1500 Broadway
uu 420 15th Street
i i 449 15th Street
oo 1440 Broadway
pp 420-436 14th Street
aa 1411 Franklin Street
ss 401-421 15th Street
d d 1441 Franklin Street
f f 1428 Franklin Street
g g 389 15th Street
h h 1624 Franklin Street
j j 394 17th Street
k k 1709 Webster Street
l l 1736-1814 Franklin Street
LEGEND
11 22
33 44
55 qq
66 8877
ii
aa
oo
pp
uu
yy
ff
hh
jj
kk
ll
tt
ee
ww
11 22
1431 Franklin Street: office SCENARIO
99 ss
dd gg
rr
3:00 PM
December 21
Winter Solstice
Shading diagrams on the Winter Solstice
C3-P
PReviSION
DESIGN
Cumulative Projects
1 1 1431 Jefferson Street
2 2 1601 San Pablo Ave
3 3 1750 Broadway
4 4 1433 Webster Street
5 5 1510 Webster Street
11 11
22 22
33 77
33 44
55 44
55 ee
yy
rr
tt
ww
qq
oo
aa
ss
dd
99 11
22 1431 Franklin Street: OFFICE SCENARIO
66 uu
ii pp
88 Proposed Project (2022)
Existing/Current Shadows
New Shading by Project
New Cumulative Shadows
Solar Collectors
Parks and Open Spaces
11 Frank Ogawa Plaza
22 Latham Square
Historic Resource Sites
(Only Affected Sites Numbered)
11 575 15th Street
22 1529 Clay Street
33 1605-1625 Clay Street
44 1 City Hall Plaza
5 5 532 16th Street
66 350 Frank Ogawa Plaza
77 510-516 16th Street
88 1611-1627 Telegraph Street
99 300 Frank Ogawa Plaza
q q 150 Frank Ogawa Plaza
w w 457 17th Street
ee 1636 Telegraph Avenue
rr 1628 Telegraph Avenue
tt 1615-1617 Broadway
yy 1500 Broadway
uu 420 15th Street
i i 449 15th Street
oo 1440 Broadway
pp 420-436 14th Street
aa 1411 Franklin Street
ss 401-421 15th Street
d d 1441 Franklin Street
f f 1428 Franklin Street
g g 389 15th Street
h h 1624 Franklin Street
j j 394 17th Street
k k 1709 Webster Street
l l 1736-1814 Franklin Street
LEGEND
9:00 AM
June 21
Summer Solstice
Cumulative shading diagrams on the Summer Solstice
A1-C
PReviSION
DESIGN
Cumulative Projects
1 1 1431 Jefferson Street
2 2 1601 San Pablo Ave
3 3 1750 Broadway
4 4 1433 Webster Street
5 5 1510 Webster Street
11 11
22 22
33 77
33 44
55 44
55 ee
yy
rr
tt
ww
qq
oo
aa
ss
dd
99 11
22 1431 Franklin Street: OFFICE SCENARIO
66 uu
ii pp
88 Proposed Project (2022)
Existing/Current Shadows
New Shading by Project
New Cumulative Shadows
Solar Collectors
Parks and Open Spaces
11 Frank Ogawa Plaza
22 Latham Square
Historic Resource Sites
(Only Affected Sites Numbered)
11 575 15th Street
22 1529 Clay Street
33 1605-1625 Clay Street
44 1 City Hall Plaza
5 5 532 16th Street
66 350 Frank Ogawa Plaza
77 510-516 16th Street
88 1611-1627 Telegraph Street
99 300 Frank Ogawa Plaza
q q 150 Frank Ogawa Plaza
w w 457 17th Street
ee 1636 Telegraph Avenue
rr 1628 Telegraph Avenue
tt 1615-1617 Broadway
yy 1500 Broadway
uu 420 15th Street
i i 449 15th Street
oo 1440 Broadway
pp 420-436 14th Street
aa 1411 Franklin Street
ss 401-421 15th Street
d d 1441 Franklin Street
f f 1428 Franklin Street
g g 389 15th Street
h h 1624 Franklin Street
j j 394 17th Street
k k 1709 Webster Street
l l 1736-1814 Franklin Street
LEGEND
12:00 PM
June 21
Summer Solstice
Cumulative shading diagrams on the Summer Solstice
A2-C
PReviSION
DESIGN
Cumulative Projects
1 1 1431 Jefferson Street
2 2 1601 San Pablo Ave
3 3 1750 Broadway
4 4 1433 Webster Street
5 5 1510 Webster Street
11 11
22 22
33 77
33 44
55 44
55 ee
yy
rr
tt
ww
qq
oo
aa
ss
dd
99 11
22 1431 Franklin Street: OFFICE SCENARIO
66 uu
ii pp
88 Proposed Project (2022)
Existing/Current Shadows
New Shading by Project
New Cumulative Shadows
Solar Collectors
Parks and Open Spaces
11 Frank Ogawa Plaza
22 Latham Square
Historic Resource Sites
(Only Affected Sites Numbered)
11 575 15th Street
22 1529 Clay Street
33 1605-1625 Clay Street
44 1 City Hall Plaza
5 5 532 16th Street
66 350 Frank Ogawa Plaza
77 510-516 16th Street
88 1611-1627 Telegraph Street
99 300 Frank Ogawa Plaza
q q 150 Frank Ogawa Plaza
w w 457 17th Street
ee 1636 Telegraph Avenue
rr 1628 Telegraph Avenue
tt 1615-1617 Broadway
yy 1500 Broadway
uu 420 15th Street
i i 449 15th Street
oo 1440 Broadway
pp 420-436 14th Street
aa 1411 Franklin Street
ss 401-421 15th Street
d d 1441 Franklin Street
f f 1428 Franklin Street
g g 389 15th Street
h h 1624 Franklin Street
j j 394 17th Street
k k 1709 Webster Street
l l 1736-1814 Franklin Street
LEGEND
3:00 PM
June 21
Summer Solstice
Cumulative shading diagrams on the Summer Solstice
A3-C
PReviSION
DESIGN
Cumulative Projects
1 1 1431 Jefferson Street
2 2 1601 San Pablo Ave
3 3 1750 Broadway
4 4 1433 Webster Street
5 5 1510 Webster Street
11 11
22 22
33 77
33 44
55 44
55 ee
yy
rr
tt
ww
qq
oo
aa
ss
dd
99 11
22 1431 Franklin Street: OFFICE SCENARIO
66 uu
ii pp
88 Proposed Project (2022)
Existing/Current Shadows
New Shading by Project
New Cumulative Shadows
Solar Collectors
Parks and Open Spaces
11 Frank Ogawa Plaza
22 Latham Square
Historic Resource Sites
(Only Affected Sites Numbered)
11 575 15th Street
22 1529 Clay Street
33 1605-1625 Clay Street
44 1 City Hall Plaza
5 5 532 16th Street
66 350 Frank Ogawa Plaza
77 510-516 16th Street
88 1611-1627 Telegraph Street
99 300 Frank Ogawa Plaza
q q 150 Frank Ogawa Plaza
w w 457 17th Street
ee 1636 Telegraph Avenue
rr 1628 Telegraph Avenue
tt 1615-1617 Broadway
yy 1500 Broadway
uu 420 15th Street
i i 449 15th Street
oo 1440 Broadway
pp 420-436 14th Street
aa 1411 Franklin Street
ss 401-421 15th Street
d d 1441 Franklin Street
f f 1428 Franklin Street
g g 389 15th Street
h h 1624 Franklin Street
j j 394 17th Street
k k 1709 Webster Street
l l 1736-1814 Franklin Street
LEGEND
9:00 AM
March 20 & September 22
Vernal/Autumnal Equinox
Cumulative shading diagrams on the Vernal/Autumnal Equinoxes B1-C
PReviSION
DESIGN
Cumulative Projects
1 1 1431 Jefferson Street
2 2 1601 San Pablo Ave
3 3 1750 Broadway
4 4 1433 Webster Street
5 5 1510 Webster Street
11 11
22 22
33 77
33 44
55 44
55 ee
yy
rr
tt
ww
qq
oo
aa
ss
dd
99 11
22 1431 Franklin Street: OFFICE SCENARIO
66 uu
ii pp
88 Proposed Project (2022)
Existing/Current Shadows
New Shading by Project
New Cumulative Shadows
Solar Collectors
Parks and Open Spaces
11 Frank Ogawa Plaza
22 Latham Square
Historic Resource Sites
(Only Affected Sites Numbered)
11 575 15th Street
22 1529 Clay Street
33 1605-1625 Clay Street
44 1 City Hall Plaza
5 5 532 16th Street
66 350 Frank Ogawa Plaza
77 510-516 16th Street
88 1611-1627 Telegraph Street
99 300 Frank Ogawa Plaza
q q 150 Frank Ogawa Plaza
w w 457 17th Street
ee 1636 Telegraph Avenue
rr 1628 Telegraph Avenue
tt 1615-1617 Broadway
yy 1500 Broadway
uu 420 15th Street
i i 449 15th Street
oo 1440 Broadway
pp 420-436 14th Street
aa 1411 Franklin Street
ss 401-421 15th Street
d d 1441 Franklin Street
f f 1428 Franklin Street
g g 389 15th Street
h h 1624 Franklin Street
j j 394 17th Street
k k 1709 Webster Street
l l 1736-1814 Franklin Street
LEGEND
12:00 PM
March 20 & September 22
Vernal/Autumnal Equinox
Cumulative shading diagrams on the Vernal/Autumnal Equinoxes B2-C
PReviSION
DESIGN
Cumulative Projects
1 1 1431 Jefferson Street
2 2 1601 San Pablo Ave
3 3 1750 Broadway
4 4 1433 Webster Street
5 5 1510 Webster Street
11 11
22 22
33 77
33 44
55 44
55 ee
yy
rr
tt
ww
qq
oo
aa
ss
dd
99 11
22 1431 Franklin Street: OFFICE SCENARIO
66 uu
ii pp
88 Proposed Project (2022)
Existing/Current Shadows
New Shading by Project
New Cumulative Shadows
Solar Collectors
Parks and Open Spaces
11 Frank Ogawa Plaza
22 Latham Square
Historic Resource Sites
(Only Affected Sites Numbered)
11 575 15th Street
22 1529 Clay Street
33 1605-1625 Clay Street
44 1 City Hall Plaza
5 5 532 16th Street
66 350 Frank Ogawa Plaza
77 510-516 16th Street
88 1611-1627 Telegraph Street
99 300 Frank Ogawa Plaza
q q 150 Frank Ogawa Plaza
w w 457 17th Street
ee 1636 Telegraph Avenue
rr 1628 Telegraph Avenue
tt 1615-1617 Broadway
yy 1500 Broadway
uu 420 15th Street
i i 449 15th Street
oo 1440 Broadway
pp 420-436 14th Street
aa 1411 Franklin Street
ss 401-421 15th Street
d d 1441 Franklin Street
f f 1428 Franklin Street
g g 389 15th Street
h h 1624 Franklin Street
j j 394 17th Street
k k 1709 Webster Street
l l 1736-1814 Franklin Street
LEGEND
3:00 PM
March 20 & September 22
Vernal/Autumnal Equinox
Cumulative shading diagrams on the Vernal/Autumnal Equinoxes B3-C
PReviSION
DESIGN
Cumulative Projects
1 1 1431 Jefferson Street
2 2 1601 San Pablo Ave
3 3 1750 Broadway
4 4 1433 Webster Street
5 5 1510 Webster Street
11 11
22 22
33 77
33 44
55 44
55 ee
yy
rr
tt
ww
qq
oo
aa
ss
dd
99 11
22 1431 Franklin Street: OFFICE SCENARIO
66 uu
ii pp
88 Proposed Project (2022)
Existing/Current Shadows
New Shading by Project
New Cumulative Shadows
Solar Collectors
Parks and Open Spaces
11 Frank Ogawa Plaza
22 Latham Square
Historic Resource Sites
(Only Affected Sites Numbered)
11 575 15th Street
22 1529 Clay Street
33 1605-1625 Clay Street
44 1 City Hall Plaza
5 5 532 16th Street
66 350 Frank Ogawa Plaza
77 510-516 16th Street
88 1611-1627 Telegraph Street
99 300 Frank Ogawa Plaza
q q 150 Frank Ogawa Plaza
w w 457 17th Street
ee 1636 Telegraph Avenue
rr 1628 Telegraph Avenue
tt 1615-1617 Broadway
yy 1500 Broadway
uu 420 15th Street
i i 449 15th Street
oo 1440 Broadway
pp 420-436 14th Street
aa 1411 Franklin Street
ss 401-421 15th Street
d d 1441 Franklin Street
f f 1428 Franklin Street
g g 389 15th Street
h h 1624 Franklin Street
j j 394 17th Street
k k 1709 Webster Street
l l 1736-1814 Franklin Street
LEGEND
9:00 AM
December 21
Winter Solstice
Cumulative shading diagrams on the Winter Solstice
C1-C
PReviSION
DESIGN
Cumulative Projects
1 1 1431 Jefferson Street
2 2 1601 San Pablo Ave
3 3 1750 Broadway
4 4 1433 Webster Street
5 5 1510 Webster Street
11 11
22 22
33 77
33 44
55 44
55 ee
yy
rr
tt
ww
qq
oo
aa
ss
dd
99 11
22 1431 Franklin Street: OFFICE SCENARIO
66 uu
ii pp
88 Proposed Project (2022)
Existing/Current Shadows
New Shading by Project
New Cumulative Shadows
Solar Collectors
Parks and Open Spaces
11 Frank Ogawa Plaza
22 Latham Square
Historic Resource Sites
(Only Affected Sites Numbered)
11 575 15th Street
22 1529 Clay Street
33 1605-1625 Clay Street
44 1 City Hall Plaza
5 5 532 16th Street
66 350 Frank Ogawa Plaza
77 510-516 16th Street
88 1611-1627 Telegraph Street
99 300 Frank Ogawa Plaza
q q 150 Frank Ogawa Plaza
w w 457 17th Street
ee 1636 Telegraph Avenue
rr 1628 Telegraph Avenue
tt 1615-1617 Broadway
yy 1500 Broadway
uu 420 15th Street
i i 449 15th Street
oo 1440 Broadway
pp 420-436 14th Street
aa 1411 Franklin Street
ss 401-421 15th Street
d d 1441 Franklin Street
f f 1428 Franklin Street
g g 389 15th Street
h h 1624 Franklin Street
j j 394 17th Street
k k 1709 Webster Street
l l 1736-1814 Franklin Street
LEGEND
12:00 PM
December 21
Winter Solstice
Cumulative shading diagrams on the Winter Solstice
C2-C
PReviSION
DESIGN
Cumulative Projects
1 1 1431 Jefferson Street
2 2 1601 San Pablo Ave
3 3 1750 Broadway
4 4 1433 Webster Street
5 5 1510 Webster Street
11 11
22 22
33 77
33 44
55 44
55 ee
yy
rr
tt
ww
qq
oo
aa
ss
dd
99 11
22 1431 Franklin Street: OFFICE SCENARIO
66 uu
ii pp
88 Proposed Project (2022)
Existing/Current Shadows
New Shading by Project
New Cumulative Shadows
Solar Collectors
Parks and Open Spaces
11 Frank Ogawa Plaza
22 Latham Square
Historic Resource Sites
(Only Affected Sites Numbered)
11 575 15th Street
22 1529 Clay Street
33 1605-1625 Clay Street
44 1 City Hall Plaza
5 5 532 16th Street
66 350 Frank Ogawa Plaza
77 510-516 16th Street
88 1611-1627 Telegraph Street
99 300 Frank Ogawa Plaza
q q 150 Frank Ogawa Plaza
w w 457 17th Street
ee 1636 Telegraph Avenue
rr 1628 Telegraph Avenue
tt 1615-1617 Broadway
yy 1500 Broadway
uu 420 15th Street
i i 449 15th Street
oo 1440 Broadway
pp 420-436 14th Street
aa 1411 Franklin Street
ss 401-421 15th Street
d d 1441 Franklin Street
f f 1428 Franklin Street
g g 389 15th Street
h h 1624 Franklin Street
j j 394 17th Street
k k 1709 Webster Street
l l 1736-1814 Franklin Street
LEGEND
3:00 PM
December 21
Winter Solstice
Cumulative shading diagrams on the Winter Solstice
C3-C
PReviSION
DESIGN

F-1
ATTACHMENT F: WIND STUDY AND LETTER OF OPINION

1431 FRANKLIN STREET OFFICE PROJECT – CEQA ANALYSIS DECEMBER 2022

ATTACHMENT F
F-2

PRELIMINARY RESULTS
This document is intended for the sole use of the party to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged and/or confidential. If you have received this in error, please notify us immediately. Accessible document formats provided upon request. ® RWDI name and logo are registered trademarks in Canada and the United States of America

rwdi.com
1431 FRANKLIN STREET

OAKLAND, CA

PEDESTRIAN WIND STUDY
RWDI # 2002586
September 11, 2020

SUBMITTED TO

Brandon Northard
[email protected]

Urban Planning Partners, Inc.
388 17th Street, Suite 230
Oakland, CA 94612
T: 510.251.8210

SUBMITTED BY

Rose Babaei, Ph.D.

Technical Coordinator
[email protected]

Hanqing Wu, Ph.D., P.Eng.

Senior Technical Director / Principal
[email protected]

Dan Bacon
Senior Project Manager / Principal
[email protected]

RWDI
600 Southgate Drive
Guelph, Ontario, N1G 4P6
T: 519.823.1311 x2245
F: 519.823.1316

PEDESTRIAN WIND STUDY
1431 FRANKLIN STREET
RWDI #2002586
September 11, 2020

rwdi.com

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
RWDI was retained to conduct a pedestrian wind assessment for the proposed 1431 Franklin Street development in Oakland, CA (Image 1). Based on our wind-tunnel testing for the two designs of the proposed development (residential and office) under the Existing, Existing + Project, and Project + Cumulative configurations (Images 2A through 2E), and the local wind records (Image 3), the potential wind hazard and comfort conditions are predicted as shown on site plans in Figures 1A through 2E, while the associated wind speeds are listed in Tables 1 and 2.

These results can be summarized as follows:
• Overall, the addition of the proposed project is not expected to have a notable impact on the existing wind hazard and comfort conditions on and around the site. This is due to the long axis of the project being parallel to the predominant local winds and also the project being attached to the its north, south and west neighbour buildings.

• The two proposed designs of the project, office and residential, are similar in height and general geometry. Thus, their wind impact is predicted to be similar.

Wind Hazard Conditions:
• For the existing configuration (without the project), wind speeds at all locations are anticipated to comply with the wind hazard criterion.

• With the addition of the proposed building to the site (existing + project configuration), and the future buildings (project + cumulative configuration), wind speeds at all locations are expected to meet the wind hazard criterion for both the office and residential designs.

Wind Comfort Conditions:
• Wind speeds at 5 locations in the existing configuration (without the project) are expected to exceed the comfort criterion.

• For the existing + project configurations, wind conditions are expected to be generally similar to the existing winds, with wind speeds exceeding the comfort criteria at 6 locations for both the office and residential designs.

• For the project + cumulative configurations, wind conditions are expected to exceed the comfort criterion at 7 locations for both the office and residential designs.

While referring to the Pedestrian Wind Criteria description that follows, we encourage the design team to review the results and assess them against the intended pedestrian usage at specific locations. If there are locations where improved conditions are desired, the RWDI team is prepared to discuss and suggest conceptual wind control strategies. Additional commentary regarding background on wind flow patterns, wind comfort levels, and any further recommendations for wind control measures to help moderate wind activity in areas of high wind activity will be presented within the final report. Prior to issuing we recommend a teleconference session to review the results and discuss the types/locations/feasibilities of possible wind control measures.

PEDESTRIAN WIND STUDY
1431 FRANKLIN STREET
RWDI #2002586
September 11, 2020

rwdi.com Page 1

Image 1: Aerial View of the Project Site and Surroundings (Photo Courtesy of Google™ Earth)

FRANKLIN ST
14TH ST
15TH ST

BROADWAY

PROJECT SITE

PEDESTRIAN WIND STUDY
1431 FRANKLIN STREET
RWDI #2002586
September 11, 2020

rwdi.com Page 2

Image 2A: Wind Tunnel Study Model – Existing Configuration

Image 2B: Wind Tunnel Study Model – Existing + Project (Office) Configuration

Image 2C: Wind Tunnel Study Model – Existing + Project (Residential) Configuration

PEDESTRIAN WIND STUDY
1431 FRANKLIN STREET
RWDI #2002586
September 11, 2020

rwdi.com Page 3

Image 2D: Wind Tunnel Study Model – Project (Office) + Cumulative Configuration

Image 2E: Wind Tunnel Study Model – Project (Residential) + Cumulative Configuration

PEDESTRIAN WIND STUDY
1431 FRANKLIN STREET
RWDI #2002586
September 11, 2020

rwdi.com Page 4

Wind Speed
(mph)

Probability
(%)
Calm 11.8
1-5 14.3
6-10 36.0
11-15 26.4
16-20 8.7
>20 2.8
Annual Winds

Image 3: Directional distribution of winds approaching Metropolitan Oakland International Airport from 1989 to 2019

PEDESTRIAN WIND STUDY
1431 FRANKLIN STREET
RWDI #2002586
September 11, 2020

rwdi.com Page 5

Significan ce Threshold and Comfort Criteria
Significance Threshold
In the City of Oakland, a wind analysis is required if the height of the project is 100 feet or greater (measured to the roof) and one of the following conditions exists: (a) the project is located adjacent to a substantial water body (i.e.

Oakland Estuary, Lake Merritt or San Francisco Bay); or (b) the project is located in downtown. Since the proposed project (approximately 335 feet tall) exceeds 100 feet in height and is located in downtown, it is subject to the thresholds of significance.

For the purposes of this study, the City of Oakland considers a significant wind impact to occur if a project were to “Create winds exceeding 36 mph for more than one hour during daylight hours of the year”. The Planning Code defines these wind speeds in terms of Equivalent Wind Speeds (EWS): average wind speeds adjusted to include the level of gustiness and turbulence. EWS is calculated using the formula provided below, wherein the mean wind speed is increased when the turbulence intensity is greater than 15%:

𝑬𝑾𝑺 = 𝑽𝒎 × (𝟐 × 𝑻𝑰 + 𝟎. 𝟕)
where 𝑬𝑾𝑺 = equivalent wind speed
𝑽𝒎 = mean pedestrian-level wind speed
𝑻𝑰 = turbulence intensity

Wind Comfort
Although not applicable towards Significant Wind Impacts as defined by the City of Oakland, wind comfort speeds have been calculated for informational purposes. Based on the San Francisco Planning Code Section 148, the comfort criteria are that wind speeds (EWS) do not exceed 11 mph for more than 10% of the time during the year, when calculated for daylight hours in substantial pedestrian use areas. A lower wind speed threshold of 7 mph may be considered for public seating areas where calmer wind conditions are ideal.

13TH STREET
14TH STREET
15TH STREET

BROADWAY

FRANKLIN STREET

WEBSTER STREET
8 2723
35 21
48 47
49 50
42 41
43 40
28 20
22 181719
262425
2933
3130
44 45 46
3837
39 36
3432
211615
3467 5
10 9
121311 14

EXISTINGBUILDING

EXISTINGBUILDING
1431 Franklin Street - Oakland, CAFigure:Approx. Scale:Date Revised:True NorthDrawn by:NPDC075150ft Sept. 9, 2020Project #20025861"=150'Pedestrian Wind Hazard ConditionsExistingAnnual HAZARD CATEGORIES:LEGEND:

SENSOR LOCATION:Grade Level
PassExceeded
1AExisting Trees
13TH STREET
14TH STREET
15TH STREET

BROADWAY

FRANKLIN STREET

WEBSTER STREETBUILDINGABOVEREMOVED
8 2723
35 21
48 47
49 50
42 41
43 40
28 20
22 181719
262425
2933
3130
44 45 46
3837
39 36
3432
211615
3467 5
10 9
121311 14

EXISTINGBUILDING

SENSOR LOCATION:Grade Level
PassExceeded
Existing Trees
13TH STREET
14TH STREET
15TH STREET

BROADWAY

FRANKLIN STREET

WEBSTER STREET

BUILDINGABOVEREMOVED
8 2723
35 21
48 47
49 50
42 41
43 40
28 20
22 181719
262425
2933
3130
44 45 46
3837
39 36
3432
211615
3467 5
10 9
121311 14

EXISTINGBUILDING

SENSOR LOCATION:Grade Level
PassExceeded
Existing Trees
13TH STREET
14TH STREET
15TH STREET

BROADWAY

FRANKLIN STREET

WEBSTER STREETBUILDINGABOVEREMOVED
8 2723
35 21
48 47
49 50
42 41
43 40
28 20
22 181719
262425
2933
3130
44 45 46
3837
39 36
3432
211615
3467 5
10 9
121311 14

CUMULATIVEBUILDING

CUMULATIVEBUILDING
1431 Franklin Street - Oakland, CAFigure:Approx. Scale:Date Revised:True NorthDrawn by:NPDC075150ft Sept. 9, 2020Project #20025861"=150'
Isometric View of Building(Office)
HAZARD CATEGORIES:LEGEND:

SENSOR LOCATION:Grade Level
PassExceeded
Existing TreesPedestrian Wind Hazard ConditionsProject (Office) + CumulativeAnnual 1D 13TH STREET
14TH STREET
15TH STREET

BROADWAY

FRANKLIN STREET

WEBSTER STREET

BUILDINGABOVEREMOVED
8 2723
35 21
48 47
49 50
42 41
43 40
28 20
22 181719
262425
2933
3130
44 45 46
3837
39 36
3432
211615
3467 5
10 9
121311 14

CUMULATIVEBUILDING

SENSOR LOCATION:Grade Level
PassExceeded
Existing TreesPedestrian Wind Hazard ConditionsProject (Residential) + CumulativeAnnual 1E 13TH STREET
14TH STREET
15TH STREET

BROADWAY

FRANKLIN STREET

WEBSTER STREET
8 2723
35 21
48 47
49 50
42 41
43 40
28 20
22 181719
262425
2933
3130
44 45 46
3837
39 36
3432
211615
3467 5
10 9
121311 14

EXISTINGBUILDING

EXISTINGBUILDING
1431 Franklin Street - Oakland, CAFigure:Approx. Scale:Date Revised:True NorthDrawn by:NPDC075150ft Sept. 9, 2020Project #20025861"=150'Pedestrian Wind Comfort ConditionsExistingAnnual COMFORT CATEGORIES:LEGEND:

SENSOR LOCATION:Grade Level
1 - 7 mph8 - 11 mph> 11 mph
2AExisting Trees
13TH STREET
14TH STREET
15TH STREET

BROADWAY

FRANKLIN STREET

WEBSTER STREETBUILDINGABOVEREMOVED
8 2723
35 21
48 47
49 50
42 41
43 40
28 20
22 181719
262425
2933
3130
44 45 46
3837
39 36
3432
211615
3467 5
10 9
121311 14

EXISTINGBUILDING

EXISTINGBUILDING
1431 Franklin Street - Oakland, CAFigure:Approx. Scale:Date Revised:True NorthDrawn by:NPDC075150ft Sept. 9, 2020Project #20025861"=150'Pedestrian Wind Comfort ConditionsExisting + Project (Office)Annual 2B Isometric View of Building(Office)
COMFORT CATEGORIES:LEGEND:

SENSOR LOCATION:Grade Level
1 - 7 mph8 - 11 mph> 11 mph
Existing Trees
13TH STREET
14TH STREET
15TH STREET

BROADWAY

FRANKLIN STREET

WEBSTER STREET

BUILDINGABOVEREMOVED
8 2723
35 21
48 47
49 50
42 41
43 40
28 20
22 181719
262425
2933
3130
44 45 46
3837
39 36
3432
211615
3467 5
10 9
121311 14

EXISTINGBUILDING

EXISTINGBUILDING
1431 Franklin Street - Oakland, CAFigure:Approx. Scale:Date Revised:True NorthDrawn by:NPDC075150ft Sept. 9, 2020Project #20025861"=150'Pedestrian Wind Comfort Conditions Annual 2C Isometric View of Building(Residential)
COMFORT CATEGORIES:LEGEND:

SENSOR LOCATION:Grade Level
1 - 7 mph8 - 11 mph> 11 mph
Existing TreesExisting + Project (Residential)
13TH STREET
14TH STREET
15TH STREET

BROADWAY

FRANKLIN STREET

WEBSTER STREETBUILDINGABOVEREMOVED
8 2723
35 21
48 47
49 50
42 41
43 40
28 20
22 181719
262425
2933
3130
44 45 46
3837
39 36
3432
211615
3467 5
10 9
121311 14

CUMULATIVEBUILDING

SENSOR LOCATION:Grade Level
1 - 7 mph8 - 11 mph> 11 mph
Existing TreesPedestrian Wind Comfort Conditions Project (Office) + Cumulative Annual 2D 13TH STREET
14TH STREET
15TH STREET

BROADWAY

FRANKLIN STREET

WEBSTER STREET

BUILDINGABOVEREMOVED
8 2723
35 21
48 47
49 50
42 41
43 40
28 20
22 181719
262425
2933
3130
44 45 46
3837
39 36
3432
211615
3467 5
10 9
121311 14

CUMULATIVEBUILDING

SENSOR LOCATION:Grade Level
1 - 7 mph8 - 11 mph> 11 mph
Existing TreesPedestrian Wind Comfort Conditions Project (Residential) + Cumulative Annual 2E

Table 1: Wind Hazard Conditions

Location
Existing Existing + Project (Office) Existing + Project (Residential) Project (Office) + Cumulative Project (Residential) + Cumulative
Wind
Speed
Exceeded
1 hr/year
(mph)
Hours
per Year
Wind
Speed
Exceeds
Hazard
Criterion
Exceeds
Wind
Speed
Exceeded
1 hr/year
(mph)
Hours
per Year
Wind
Speed
Exceeds
Hazard
Criterion
Hours
Change
Relative
to
Existing
Exceeds
Wind
Speed
Exceeded
1 hr/year
(mph)
Hours
per Year
Wind
Speed
Exceeds
Hazard
Criterion
Hours
Change
Relative
to
Existing
Exceeds
Wind
Speed
Exceeded
1 hr/year
(mph)
Hours
per Year
Wind
Speed
Exceeds
Hazard
Criterion
Hours
Change
Relative
to
Existing
Exceeds
Wind
Speed
Exceeded
1 hr/year
(mph)
Hours
per Year
Wind
Speed
Exceeds
Hazard
Criterion
Hours
Change
Relative
to
Existing
Exceeds
1 25 0 20 0 0 18 0 0 20 0 0 17 0 0
2 28 0 20 0 0 16 0 0 18 0 0 15 0 0
3 21 0 24 0 0 20 0 0 24 0 0 20 0 0
4 20 0 26 0 0 24 0 0 22 0 0 20 0 0
5 29 0 31 0 0 30 0 0 27 0 0 27 0 0
6 19 0 20 0 0 20 0 0 19 0 0 18 0 0
7 22 0 23 0 0 23 0 0 21 0 0 21 0 0
8 22 0 23 0 0 22 0 0 22 0 0 21 0 0
9 21 0 20 0 0 20 0 0 19 0 0 20 0 0
10 18 0 19 0 0 17 0 0 17 0 0 17 0 0
11 23 0 28 0 0 26 0 0 29 0 0 27 0 0
12 19 0 19 0 0 19 0 0 20 0 0 19 0 0
13 34 0 32 0 0 35 0 0 31 0 0 35 0 0
14 24 0 26 0 0 26 0 0 23 0 0 23 0 0
15 26 0 32 0 0 29 0 0 24 0 0 24 0 0
16 21 0 33 0 0 24 0 0 23 0 0 20 0 0
17 21 0 25 0 0 23 0 0 24 0 0 22 0 0
18 24 0 26 0 0 25 0 0 26 0 0 25 0 0
19 35 0 31 0 0 31 0 0 28 0 0 29 0 0
20 23 0 24 0 0 23 0 0 25 0 0 23 0 0
21 29 0 28 0 0 27 0 0 27 0 0 27 0 0
22 23 0 25 0 0 25 0 0 23 0 0 26 0 0
23 21 0 21 0 0 20 0 0 19 0 0 19 0 0
24 18 0 19 0 0 19 0 0 19 0 0 19 0 0
25 19 0 19 0 0 19 0 0 24 0 0 23 0 0
26 22 0 21 0 0 22 0 0 23 0 0 24 0 0
27 22 0 21 0 0 22 0 0 21 0 0 22 0 0
28 27 0 26 0 0 27 0 0 28 0 0 27 0 0
29 30 0 26 0 0 30 0 0 30 0 0 29 0 0

Location
Existing Existing + Project (Office) Existing + Project (Residential) Project (Office) + Cumulative Project (Residential) + Cumulative
Wind
Speed
Exceeded
1 hr/year
(mph)
Hours
per Year
Wind
Speed
Exceeds
Hazard
Criterion
Exceeds Wind
Speed
Exceeded
1 hr/year
(mph)
Hours
per Year
Wind
Speed
Exceeds
Hazard
Criterion
Hours
Change
Relative
to
Existing
Exceeds Wind
Speed
Exceeded
1 hr/year
(mph)
Hours
per Year
Wind
Speed
Exceeds
Hazard
Criterion
Hours
Change
Relative
to
Existing
Exceeds Wind
Speed
Exceeded
1 hr/year
(mph)
Hours
per Year
Wind
Speed
Exceeds
Hazard
Criterion
Hours
Change
Relative
to
Existing
Exceeds Wind
Speed
Exceeded
1 hr/year
(mph)
Hours
per Year
Wind
Speed
Exceeds
Hazard
Criterion
Hours
Change
Relative
to
Existing
Exceeds
30 26 0 25 0 0 25 0 0 23 0 0 25 0 0
31 19 0 20 0 0 19 0 0 19 0 0 19 0 0
32 28 0 29 0 0 29 0 0 24 0 0 25 0 0
33 22 0 22 0 0 22 0 0 20 0 0 22 0 0
34 17 0 19 0 0 17 0 0 18 0 0 17 0 0
35 22 0 26 0 0 22 0 0 26 0 0 22 0 0
36 22 0 22 0 0 22 0 0 21 0 0 22 0 0
37 20 0 19 0 0 20 0 0 19 0 0 19 0 0
38 21 0 20 0 0 21 0 0 20 0 0 20 0 0
39 23 0 22 0 0 22 0 0 22 0 0 22 0 0
40 21 0 21 0 0 22 0 0 21 0 0 21 0 0
41 24 0 24 0 0 24 0 0 24 0 0 24 0 0
42 23 0 22 0 0 23 0 0 22 0 0 23 0 0
43 28 0 28 0 0 28 0 0 27 0 0 27 0 0
44 26 0 21 0 0 23 0 0 20 0 0 21 0 0
45 22 0 25 0 0 23 0 0 23 0 0 23 0 0
46 31 0 30 0 0 31 0 0 28 0 0 29 0 0
47 26 0 27 0 0 26 0 0 27 0 0 26 0 0
48 23 0 22 0 0 22 0 0 21 0 0 22 0 0
49 29 0 31 0 0 29 0 0 29 0 0 29 0 0
50 18 0 19 0 0 18 0 0 19 0 0 18 0 0

Summary
Average
(mph)
Total
Hours
Total
Average
(mph)
Total
Hours
Hours
Change
Total
Average
(mph)
Total
Hours
Hours
Change
Total
Average
(mph)
Total
Hours
Hours
Change
Total
Average
(mph)
Total
Hours
Hours
Change
Total
24 0
0 ---
50 24 0 0
0 ---
50 23 0 0
0 ---
50 23 0 0
0 ---
50 23 0 0
0 ---
50 Table 2: Wind Comfort Conditions

Location
Existing Existing + Project (Office) Existing + Project (Residential) Project (Office) + Cumulative Project (Residential) + Cumulative
Wind
Speed
Exceeded
10% of
Time
(mph)
% of
Time
Wind
Speed
Exceeds
11 mph
(%)
Exceeds
Wind
Speed
Exceeded
10% of
Time
(mph)
% of
Time
Wind
Speed
Exceeds
11 mph
(%)
Speed
Change
Relative
to
Existing
(mph)
Exceeds
Wind
Speed
Exceeded
10% of
Time
(mph)
% of
Time
Wind
Speed
Exceeds
11 mph
(%)
Speed
Change
Relative
to
Existing
(mph)
Exceeds
Wind
Speed
Exceeded
10% of
Time
(mph)
% of
Time
Wind
Speed
Exceeds
11 mph
(%)
Speed
Change
Relative
to
Existing
(mph)
Exceeds
Wind
Speed
Exceeded
10% of
Time
(mph)
% of
Time
Wind
Speed
Exceeds
11 mph
(%)
Speed
Change
Relative
to
Existing
(mph)
Exceeds
1 8 3 10 4 2 8 2 0 10 4 2 8 1 0
2 8 3 6 1 -2 6 1 -2 6 1 -2 6 0 -2
3 7 1 8 2 1 7 1 0 8 2 1 7 1 0
4 6 1 7 3 1 7 2 1 7 1 1 6 1 0
5 10 7 10 7 0 10 8 0 10 7 0 11 10 1
6 7 1 8 2 1 8 1 1 9 2 2 8 2 1
7 9 4 8 3 -1 9 3 0 9 4 0 10 5 1
8 9 3 9 4 0 9 4 0 9 3 0 9 3 0
9 9 4 9 4 0 9 4 0 9 3 0 9 3 0
10 8 1 8 1 0 8 1 0 7 1 -1 8 1 0
11 10 5 11 10 1 10 8 0 12 14 2 e 12 13 2 e
12 8 2 8 2 0 8 2 0 8 2 0 8 2 0
13 9 5 8 3 -1 9 4 0 8 3 -1 9 4 0
14 10 6 10 8 0 10 7 0 10 6 0 10 5 0
15 10 6 11 10 1 11 10 1 11 10 1 10 6 0
16 9 3 11 10 2 10 6 1 11 10 2 9 4 0
17 9 3 9 4 0 9 4 0 10 5 1 9 4 0
18 11 10 12 14 1 e 12 13 1 e 12 15 1 e 11 10 0
19 12 16 e 12 17 0 e 12 17 0 e 12 17 0 e 12 15 0 e
20 10 5 10 7 0 10 7 0 10 8 0 10 5 0
21 9 5 11 10 2 10 7 1 11 10 2 10 8 1
22 9 3 9 4 0 9 5 0 9 4 0 10 8 1
23 9 4 9 3 0 9 3 0 9 2 0 9 4 0
24 7 1 7 1 0 7 1 0 7 1 0 8 2 1
25 9 2 8 1 -1 9 2 0 8 2 -1 8 2 -1
26 8 2 8 2 0 8 2 0 7 2 -1 8 2 0
27 10 8 10 7 0 11 10 1 10 7 0 11 10 1
28 11 10 11 10 0 11 10 0 11 10 0 12 14 1 e
29 9 4 8 3 -1 9 4 0 8 3 -1 9 3 0

Location
Existing Existing + Project (Office) Existing + Project (Residential) Project (Office) + Cumulative Project (Residential) + Cumulative
Wind
Speed
Exceeded
10% of
Time
(mph)
% of
Time
Wind
Speed
Exceeds
11 mph
(%)
Exceeds
Wind
Speed
Exceeded
10% of
Time
(mph)
% of
Time
Wind
Speed
Exceeds
11 mph
(%)
Speed
Change
Relative
to
Existing
(mph)
Exceeds
Wind
Speed
Exceeded
10% of
Time
(mph)
% of
Time
Wind
Speed
Exceeds
11 mph
(%)
Speed
Change
Relative
to
Existing
(mph)
Exceeds
Wind
Speed
Exceeded
10% of
Time
(mph)
% of
Time
Wind
Speed
Exceeds
11 mph
(%)
Speed
Change
Relative
to
Existing
(mph)
Exceeds
Wind
Speed
Exceeded
10% of
Time
(mph)
% of
Time
Wind
Speed
Exceeds
11 mph
(%)
Speed
Change
Relative
to
Existing
(mph)
Exceeds
30 10 6 9 6 -1 10 6 0 10 6 0 11 10 1
31 7 1 7 1 0 7 1 0 8 2 1 8 2 1
32 10 6 9 5 -1 10 6 0 10 6 0 10 8 0
33 9 3 8 3 -1 9 3 0 10 4 1 10 7 1
34 7 1 7 1 0 7 1 0 7 1 0 7 1 0
35 7 1 7 2 0 7 1 0 7 2 0 7 1 0
36 9 4 9 5 0 9 4 0 9 4 0 9 4 0
37 8 2 8 2 0 8 2 0 8 1 0 8 1 0
38 7 1 8 1 1 8 1 1 8 2 1 8 2 1
39 9 4 9 4 0 9 4 0 9 4 0 10 6 1
40 9 4 9 4 0 10 5 1 9 4 0 9 5 0
41 9 4 9 5 0 9 4 0 9 4 0 9 5 0
42 9 5 10 5 1 9 5 0 10 5 1 9 5 0
43 12 12 e 12 13 0 e 12 13 0 e 12 15 0 e 12 15 0 e
44 8 3 9 2 1 8 2 0 8 2 0 8 2 0
45 8 2 8 3 0 8 3 0 9 3 1 9 3 1
46 13 20 e 13 21 0 e 13 21 0 e 13 20 0 e 13 19 0 e
47 12 17 e 13 18 1 e 13 18 1 e 13 19 1 e 13 18 1 e
48 9 4 9 4 0 9 4 0 9 4 0 9 4 0
49 13 18 e 13 21 0 e 13 19 0 e 13 21 0 e 13 18 0 e
50 8 2 8 2 0 8 2 0 8 2 0 8 1 0

Summary
Average
(mph)
Average
(%)
Total
Average
(mph)
Average
(%)
Speed
Change
(mph)
Total
Average
(mph)
Average
(%)
Speed
Change
(mph)
Total
Average
(mph)
Average
(%)
Speed
Change
(mph)
Total
Average
(mph)
Average
(%)
Speed
Change
(mph)
Total
9 5
5 ---
50 9 6 0
6 ---
50 9 5 0
6 ---
50 9 6 0
7 ---
50 9 6 0
7 ---
50 600 Southgate Drive Tel: +1.519.823.1311
Guelph ON Canada Fax: +1.519.823.1316
N1G 4P6 Email: [email protected]
This document is intended for the sole use of the party to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged and/or confidential. If you have received this in error, please notify us immediately. Accessible document formats provided upon request. ® RWDI name and logo are registered trademarks in Canada and the United States of America. rwdi.com
April 27, 2022
Brandon Northart
Urban Planning Partners, Inc.

T: 510.251.8210
E: [email protected]

Re: Pedestrian Wind Study
1431 Franklin Street
RWDI Reference No. 2002586
Dear Brandon,
Rowan Williams Davies & Irwin Inc. (RWDI) conducted a pedestrian wind tunnel study for the proposed 1431 Franklin Street project in Oakland, CA, results of which were presented in a report dated October 13, 2021(see Appendix 1). These results pertain to the two designs of the proposed project (residential and office) within the context of existing and future surroundings.

In Image 1, the residential and office building designs are shown. Since the height and geometry of these two designs are similar, their wind impact on the adjacent and nearby pedestrian areas are comparable. The overall characteristics of these designs are favorable from a pedestrian wind perspective. The longer axis of the building is parallel to the prevailing westerly winds which helps reduce the wind impact of the project at grade level. Moreover, the building is flanked by the existing buildings on the north, south and west sides of the site that helps deflect downwashing winds away from the grade level.

Image 1: Proposed Project Designs Received on August 4, 2020: Office (left) and Residential (Right) Following the completion of the wind tunnel testing and issuing the report, RWDI received updated drawings for both the office and residential buildings on February 7, 2022. Schematic views of the

1431 Franklin Street
RWDI#2002586
April 27, 2022

Page 2 ends

Rules & Legislation CommitteeOctober 26, 2023

Rules & Legislation Committee
October 26, 2023