Oakland City Council
June 2, 2026

In Consultation with
Prepared by
Consistency Determination Checklist
Lincoln Square
Recreation Center Replacement
August 2023

Lincoln Recreation Center Replacement i Consistency Determination Checklist City of Oakland August 2023

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1.0 Introduction and Purpose ................................................................................................ 1 Purpose of the Consistency Determination and Background ................................................. 1 Notice of Determination ......................................................................................................... 4 Section 2.0 Project Information ......................................................................................................... 5 Project Title ............................................................................................................................ 5 Lead Agency Contact ............................................................................................................. 5 Project Applicant .................................................................................................................... 5 Project Location ...................................................................................................................... 5 Assessor’s Parcel Number ...................................................................................................... 5 General Plan Designation and Zoning District ....................................................................... 5 Project-Related Approvals, Agreements, and Permits............................................................ 5 Section 3.0 Project Description .......................................................................................................... 6 Proposed Project ..................................................................................................................... 6 Section 4.0 CEQA Checklist ............................................................................................................ 16 Overview .............................................................................................................................. 16 Aesthetics, Shadow, and Wind ............................................................................................. 18 Air Quality ............................................................................................................................ 26 Biological Resources ............................................................................................................ 32 Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................ 36 Energy ................................................................................................................................... 47 Geology and Soils ................................................................................................................. 49 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................................... 51 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ........................................................................................ 54 Hydrology and Water Quality .............................................................................................. 58 Land Use and Planning ......................................................................................................... 62 Noise ..................................................................................................................................... 64 Population and Housing ........................................................................................................ 69 Public Services, Parks, and Recreation facilities .................................................................. 70 Transportation ....................................................................................................................... 72 Tribal Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................... 76 Utilities and Service Systems ............................................................................................... 78 Section 5.0 References ..................................................................................................................... 82 Section 6.0 Lead Agency and Consultants ....................................................................................... 84

Lincoln Recreation Center Replacement ii Consistency Determination Checklist City of Oakland August 2023
Lead Agency ......................................................................................................................... 84 Consultants ........................................................................................................................... 84 Section 7.0 Acronyms and Abbreviations ........................................................................................ 85

Figures
Figure 3.2-1: Regional Map ................................................................................................................... 7 Figure 3.2-2: Vicinity Map .................................................................................................................... 8 Figure 3.2-3: Aerial Photograph ............................................................................................................ 9 Figure 3.2-4: Site Plan ......................................................................................................................... 10 Figure 3.2-5: Ground Floor Plan .......................................................................................................... 11 Figure 3.2-6: Second Floor Plan .......................................................................................................... 12 Figure 3.2-7: Conceptual Building Elevations – South and North ...................................................... 13 Figure 3.2-8: Conceptual Building Elevations – East and West .......................................................... 14 Figure 4.2-1: Existing Shadows – Summer Sunset .............................................................................. 22 Figure 4.2-2: Existing Shadows – Winter Sunset ................................................................................ 23 Figure 4.2-3: Project Shadows – Spring Equinox and Summer Solstice ............................................. 24 Figure 4.2-4: Project Shadows – Fall Equinox and Winter Solstice .................................................... 25

Photos
Photos 1 & 2 ....................................................................................................................................... 39 Photos 3 & 4 ....................................................................................................................................... 40

Tables
Table 4.3-1: Construction Period Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions ..................................................... 28 Table 4.3-2: Operational Period Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions ...................................................... 29 Table 4.4-1: Summary of Existing Trees On-Site ................................................................................ 35

Appendices
Appendix A: Standard Conditions of Approval
Appendix B: Shadow Study
Appendix C: Air Quality Assessment
Appendix D: Tree Survey
Appendix E: Cultural Resources Survey Report
Appendix F: Equitable Climate Action Plan Consistency Checklist

Lincoln Recreation Center Replacement 1 Consistency Determination Checklist City of Oakland August 2023
SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE

PURPOSE OF THE CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION AND BACKGROUND The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) recognizes that between the date an environmental document is completed and the date the project is fully implemented, one or more of the following changes may occur: 1) the project may change; 2) the environmental setting in which the project is located may change; 3) laws, regulations, or policies may change in ways that impact the environment; and/or 4) previously unknown information can arise. Before proceeding with a project, CEQA requires the Lead Agency to evaluate these changes to determine whether or not they affect the conclusion in the environmental document.

The project proposes to replace the existing recreation center at Lincoln Square Park in the City of Oakland. Lincoln Square Park is within the City’s Lake Merritt Station Area Plan (LMSAP) and the project proposes to implement Policy OS-8 of the LMSAP. Policy OS-8 of the LMSAP states that the City intends to “Continue to maintain the popular Lincoln Square Park, and make improvements on an ongoing basis, responsive to the needs of the community. Potential improvements include: a fitness area addition, a new ‘multi-level building with full sports/fitness facilities’, additional trees and greenery, a computer lab with updated equipment, and other improvements as prioritized by the community.” See also LMSAP, p. 5-7, generally describing Lincoln Square Park and Recreational Center Improvements. The project proposes to replace the existing recreation center at Lincoln Square Park with a new two-story recreation center that would include sports and fitness facilities.

The project would also add trees and greenery to Lincoln Square Park and within the existing sidewalks fronting the new recreation center. A full project description is provided in Section 3.0.

The City of Oakland, as the Lead Agency, has prepared this Consistency Determination for the proposed recreation center improvements in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, California Code of Regulations §15000 et. seq.) and the regulations and policies of the City of Oakland, California. The purpose of the Consistency Determination is to inform decision makers and the general public of the environmental impacts that might reasonably be anticipated to result from development of the proposed project.

1.1.1 Lake Merritt Station Area Plan Environmental Impact Report In December 2014, the City of Oakland certified the Final Environmental Impact Report for the LMSAP (SCH No. 2012032012). The LMSAP encompasses approximately 315 acres generally bound by 14
th Street to the north, 5th Street to the south, Broadway to the west, and 5th Avenue to the east. With a planning horizon to 2035, the LMSAP articulates a roadmap for future development, continued revitalization and economic growth, and community enhancement in the Station Area. The LMSAP EIR determined that most environmental impacts would be less than significant or could be mitigated to a less than significant level. However, it was determined that buildout of the LMSAP would result in the following significant and unavoidable environmental impacts:

• Impact TRAN-2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29: Buildout of the LMSAP would degrade level of service (LOS) and increase average delay beyond acceptable thresholds established by the City during the AM and PM peak hours at several intersections within the Plan Area. Impact AQ-3: Development facilitated by

Lincoln Recreation Center Replacement 2 Consistency Determination Checklist City of Oakland August 2023
the LMSAP would potentially expose sensitive receptors to substantial health risks from toxic air contaminants (TACs) from sources including both diesel particulate matter (DPM) and gaseous emissions. While compliance with the City’s Standard Conditions of Approval would entail the preparation of site-specific health risk assessments which would reduce DPM exposure to a less than significant level, there is no certainty that SCA adherence would reduce risk from gaseous TACs to a less-than-significant level. • Impact AQ-4: Implementation of the LMSAP would not identify existing and planned sources of odors with policies to reduce potential odor impacts and would frequently and for a substantial duration, create or expose sensitive receptors to substantial objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.
• Impact AQ-5: As described in Impact AQ-3 and Impact AQ-4, buildout of the LMSAP could result in substantial health risk impacts and odor impacts. These impacts could contribute toward a significant cumulative impact in combination with other projects throughout the City.
• Impact CUL-1: Future development under the LMSAP would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5. The Plan Area contains 10 City of Oakland Landmark buildings and sites, 27 City- designated historic properties, and 187 other properties that appear to meet the City’s criteria for significant historic resources. Redevelopment activities in the Plan Area would inevitably impact these historic resources. Three historic properties in particular were identified as potential development sites under the LMSAP: 1) the Kaiser Auditorium, 2) 125 2 nd Avenue
(Oakland Unified School District Administration Building), and 3) 121 East 11th Street (Ethel Moore Building).
• Impact CUM CUL-5: The LMSAP would result in impacts to historic resources within the Plan Area. Three major active projects within the City at the time of preparation of the LMSAP EIR were also determined to affect historic resources. The impacts of buildout of the LMSAP, in combination with these three projects and any future projects affecting historic resources could result in a significant cumulative impact on historic resources throughout the City.

1.1.2 Review Criteria
The CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 states that when an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the Lead Agency determined, on the basis of substantial evidence in light of the whole record, one or more of the following:

1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;

2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or

Lincoln Recreation Center Replacement 3 Consistency Determination Checklist City of Oakland August 2023

3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete of the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:

a. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
b. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
c. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or d. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 states that the Lead Agency or a Responsible Agency shall prepare an Addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary, but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 (see above) calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. Therefore, pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Oakland has determined that the project described below does not involve new significant effects beyond those analyzed in the Final EIR for the Lake Merritt Station Area Plan. Therefore, the City of Oakland can take action on the project as being within the scope of the LMSAP EIR. Additionally, no changes or additions to the LMSAP EIR are necessary for implementation of the proposed project. Therefore, an Addendum to the LMSAP EIR is not necessary and this document shall serve as a Consistency Determination to demonstrate that the proposed project needs no further analysis under CEQA.

The City of Oakland, as the Lead Agency, has prepared this Consistency Determination to 1) document the currently proposed project does not trigger any of the conditions calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR or CEQA Addendum, and 2) identify the mitigation identified in the LMSAP EIR remains applicable to the project. The Consistency Determination complies with the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations §15000 et. seq.) and the regulations and policies of the City of Oakland, California.

1.1.3 Previous Mitigation Measures and Standard Conditions of Approval The CEQA Checklist provided in Section 3.0 of this document evaluates the potential project- specific environmental effects of the proposed Lincoln Recreation Center Project and evaluates whether such impacts were adequately covered by the 2014 LMSAP EIR to allow the above‐listed provisions of CEQA to apply. The analysis conducted incorporates by reference the information contained in the LMSAP EIR. The Lincoln Recreation Center Project is legally required to incorporate and/or comply with the applicable requirements of the mitigation measures identified in the 2014 LMSAP EIR. Therefore, the mitigation measures are herein assumed to be included as part of the proposed project, including those that have been modified to reflect the City’s Current standard language and requirements, as discussed below.

Lincoln Recreation Center Replacement 4 Consistency Determination Checklist City of Oakland August 2023
Standard Conditions of Approval Application in General
The City established its Standard Conditions of Approval and Uniformly Applied Development Standards (“SCAs”) in 2008, and they have since been amended and revised several times.1 The City’s SCAs are incorporated into new and changed projects as conditions of approval regardless of a project’s environmental determination. The SCAs incorporate policies and standards from various adopted plans, policies, and ordinances (such as the Oakland Planning and Municipal Codes, Oakland Creek Protection Ordinance, Stormwater Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance, Oakland Protected Trees Ordinance, Oakland Grading Regulations, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements, California Building Code and Uniform Fire Code, among others), which 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 will, substantially mitigate environmental effects.

SCA Application in this CEQA Analysis
Mitigation measures and SCAs identified in the 2014 LMSAP EIR that would apply to the Lincoln Recreation Center Project are listed in Appendix A to this document, which is incorporated by reference into this CEQA Analysis. Because the SCAs are mandatory City requirements, the impact analysis for the proposed project assumes that they will be imposed and implemented, which the project sponsor has agreed to do or ensure as part of the proposed project. If this CEQA Checklist or its appendices inaccurately identifies or fails to list a mitigation measure or SCA, the applicability of that mitigation measure or SCA to the proposed project is not affected.

Most of the SCAs applicable to the Lincoln Recreation Center Project pursuant to the City’s published Standard Conditions of Approval and Uniformly Applied Development Standards document were also identified in the 2014 LMSAP EIR. As discussed specifically in Appendix A to this document, since certification of the LMSAP EIR, the City of Oakland has revised its SCAs, and the most current SCAs (dated December 16, 2020) are identified in this CEQA Analysis.

NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
If the project is approved, the project applicant will file a Notice of Determination (NOD), which will be available for public inspection and posted within 24 hours of receipt at the County Clerk’s Office for 30 days. The filing of the NOD starts a 30-day statute of limitations on court challenges to the approval under CEQA (CEQA Guidelines Section 15075(g)).

1 A revised set of SCAs was recently published by the City of Oakland on December 16, 2020.

Lincoln Recreation Center Replacement 5 Consistency Determination Checklist City of Oakland August 2023
SECTION 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

PROJECT TITLE
Lincoln Recreation Center

LEAD AGENCY CONTACT
Mike Rivera, Planner III
City of Oakland
Bureau of Planning – Zoning Division
250 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Suite 2114
Oakland, CA 94612
(510) 238-6417
[email protected]

PROJECT APPLICANT
City of Oakland
Bureau of Design and Construction, Public Works Department / Project Manager, Henry Choi 250 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Suite 4314
Oakland, CA 94612

PROJECT LOCATION
The project site for the new Lincoln Recreation Center and other related site improvements is located at 250 10
th Street, Oakland, within Lincoln Square Park. Lincoln Square Park is bounded by 11th Street to the north, Harrison Street to the west, 10th Street to the south, and Lincoln Elementary School to the east.

ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBER
002 007100100

GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION AND ZONING DISTRICT
General Plan Designation: Urban Park and Open Space
Zoning District: OS (NP) (Open Space [Neighborhood Park])

PROJECT-RELATED APPROVALS, AGREEMENTS, AND PERMITS
• Conditional Use Permit
• Regular Design Review Permit
• Variance Permit
• Demolition Permit
• Grading Permit
• Tree Removal Permit

Lincoln Recreation Center Replacement 6 Consistency Determination Checklist City of Oakland August 2023
SECTION 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

3.1.1 Project Location
The project site is located within Lincoln Square Park in the City of Oakland (Assessor’s Parcel Number 002 007100100). Lincoln Square Park is bounded by 11th Street to the north, Harrison Street to the west, 10th Street to the south, and Lincoln Elementary School to the east. Lincoln Square Park is approximately 60,359 square feet (or 1.39 acres) in size. Lincoln Square Park currently consists of an existing single-story recreation center, basketball courts, two playgrounds, the Hong Lok Senior Center, a maintenance building, and a four-square court area. Project activities will be focused on the southwest portion of the project site where the existing recreation center is located (250 10 th Street),
with additional renovations occurring within the western portion of the project site (approximately

1.1 acres). The existing recreation center, approximately 26 feet tall and 8,335 square feet in size, will be demolished as part of the project. Regional, vicinity, and aerial maps are shown in Figure

3.2-1 through Figure 3.2-3.

3.1.2 General Plan and Zoning
The project site is designated as Urban Park and Open Space under the City’s General Plan and is zoned OS (NP) (Open Space [Neighborhood Park]). The project site is within the LMSAP boundary and is designated as Open Space under the LMSAP. According to the City’s Planning Code, the OS Zone is intended to create, preserve, and enhance land for permanent use open space to meet the active and passive recreational needs of Oakland residents and to promote park uses which are compatible with surrounding land uses and the City’s natural environment. The General Plan Open Space Conservation and Recreation (OSCAR) Element defines neighborhood parks as being located in residential areas and/or located adjacent to elementary schools.

PROPOSED PROJECT

3.2.1 Recreation Center
The project proposes to demolish the existing single-story, 8,335 square-foot recreation center and construct a new two-story, approximately 22,221 square-foot recreation center. The new recreation center would reach a maximum height of approximately 35 feet to 37 feet tall. The new recreation center would include a gym with an indoor basketball court, five multipurpose rooms, offices, a kitchen connected to one of the multipurpose rooms, restrooms, and a lobby. The new recreation center would also include a roof garden accessible on the second floor. The proposed site plan, floor plans, and conceptual building elevations are shown in Figure 3.2-4 through Figure 3.2-8.

3.2.2 Park Improvements
The two existing basketball courts closest to the existing recreation center would be demolished and reconstructed as part of the project. One basketball court will be rotated 90 degrees from its existing position so that it is perpendicular to 11
th Street. The second court will be re-graded for wheelchair access and drainage and will be repainted to match its existing position. The project would also include small courtyards around the building, new entry trellises, a new passive recreation area along 10 th Street, adjacent to the proposed new recreation center. The passive recreation area would consist of a courtyard with new trees and landscaping, seating, and game tables.

Ashby Avenue
Alcatraz Avenue
Powell Street
7th Street
Adeline Street
M
arket Street
14th Street
Peralta Street
Maritime Street
West Grand Avenue
7th Street
Telegraph Avenue
Mandana Boul evard
Park Boulevard
14th Avenue
23rd Avenue
Foothill Boulevard
Lincoln Avenue
Encinal Avenue
C
entral Avenue
Otis Drive
Park Street
Harrison Street
M
adison Street
Ashby Avenue
Alcatraz Avenue
Powell Street
7th Street
Adeline Street
Mar
ket
Street
14th StreetPeralta Street
Maritim
e Street
West GrandAvenue
7th Street
Tel
eg
raph
Avenue
Mandana Boul evard
Park Boulevard
14th Avenue
23rdAvenue
Foothill Boulevard
Lincoln Avenue
Encina l Avenue
C
entral Avenue
Otis Drive
Park Street
HarrisonStreet
Madison Street
980
580
580
880
880
80 13
13 24
61 260
Emeryville
Piedmont
Oakland
Alameda
Emeryville
Piedmont
Oakland
Alameda
San
oFrancisc
Bay
Project Site
REGIONAL MAP FIGURE 3.2-1
01 .5 3 Miles
/DNH
0HUULWW
UHHW 7XEHXEH
WK 6
W
UG 6W
W K6 W

WK 6W
(PED
UFDGHUR :
WK 6W
-DFNVRQ 6W
WK 6
W
WK 6W
WK
6W
)UDQNOLQ 6W
$OLFH 6W
:DV
KL
QJWRQ 6
W
WK 6W
%U
XVK 6W
0DUWLQ /X
WKHU .LQJ -
&DVWUR 6W
QG
6W
WK 6W
WK 6W
0DUN
HW
6 WK
6W
2DN 6W
0DGLVRQ 6W
WK 6
W
WK 6
W
WK6 W
WK 6W
W
WK
Harrison St
W
ebster St
Harrison St
14th St
Lake M
erritt Blvd
14th St
Webster St
Broadw
ay
Broadway
Lake
M
erritt Blvd
M
arket St
Market St
880
880
980
U.P.R.R.

U.P.R.R.

U.P .R.R.

U.P .R.R.

International Blvd
International Blvd
XXVK 6WV
6W
VK 6WK6VKVK
6W
VK 6WVK
6WWWW6W
66666666W6W6W6W6W6W6W6WWWWW6W
0000000DUN
DDUUN
0DU
N
0D0DU
D
0D0D
D
0DU

UNUNUUUNNNNNNNUDUN
NUN
HHWHWHWHWHWHHWW WK 6WK 6W 66WK 6WKWK 66WKK6KWW

WWWWWWWW
Base Map: ESRI, ArcGIS
0 200 800 1,200 2,000 Feet
Project Site
VICINITY MAP FIGURE 3.2-2

Church
School
Hostel
US Interior
Department
Commercial
Commercial
Commercial
Commercial
Commercial
Residential
Day Care
Center
12th Street
11th Street
10th Street
9th Street
W
ebster Street
Harrison Street
Jackson Street
Alice Street
Alice Street
12th Street
11th Street
10th Street
9th St
reet
Webster Street
Harriso
n Street
Jackso
n Street
Alice Street
Alice Street
Aerial Source: Google Earth Pro, Aug. 8, 2022. Photo Date: Aug. 2020 0 25 150 200 300 Feet
Project Boundary
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH AND SURROUNDING LAND USES FIGURE 3.2-3 Source: City of Oakland, June 17, 2022.

Text
Text
Text
Text
Text
Text
Text
Text
Text
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
11 Locking gate
Wood seatwall around patio and around trees
New SFDSFBUJPO
building
Roof garden planting area
Linear pavers at entry plaza
6’ red metal bench
8’ metal “bamboo” screen
Courtyard with two-color woven paving pattern
New concrete paving
Game table with red seats
Raised stormwater planter with seating
10’ chain-link fence
Vehicle entry
Stormwater planter
Existing tree to remain
Metal “Bamboo” Screen Elevation
The screen provides a separation between passive and active activity areas and protects passive users from basketballs. 12 6
10 7
11 14
15 2
2 4
4 13
33 9
12 1
1 1
1 1
113
5 8
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 10
11 12
13 14
15 9
1 0 8 16 32 48 Feet
SITE PLAN FIGURE 3.2-4
Source: City of Oakland, June 10, 2022.


2)),&(

035

67$*(035

035

0(&+(/(&

:&

:&

6725$*(

*<0

6+2:(5

3$175<
$
6725$*(
$
,7

:20(1
6 
0(1
6 
:&

:&
%
/2%%<

6725$*(
$(/(9$725
.,7&+(1

-$1


67$,5%
67%
6725$*(


+$//:$<

(/(90$&+,1(
5220

67$,5$
67$
+$//:$<

6+2:(5

DN
DN
UP
UP
DN 
5(&<&/,1*
5' - 6" 20' - 10" 1' - 11" 26' - 4" 26' - 6" 24' - 6" 5' - 2" 18' - 4" 9' - 1 1/2" 10 1/2" 40' - 8" 23' - 7" 2' - 0"
13' - 8 1/2" TYP. BTWN 3 & 10
34' - 2" 30' - 4" 45' - 11"

ACCESSIBLE HAND SINK

PREP SINK

POT SINK

BARN DOOR, TYP
ELEC. STOVE
BARN
DOOR
WH
1:12
1:20
1:12

WOOD VENEER

CLOSET DOORS

FURNITURE GRADE

PLYWOOD PANELING
12" WIDE SAND
BLASTED CONC.

SEAT WALL FOUR BIKE RACK

SYSTEMS FURNITURE

DESK AND STORAGE

INTERIOR

STOREFRONT

GLAZED WALL

WOOD PANEL WALL

WITH REESSES FOR
MOUNTING (2) TV'S
AND (4) IPADS.

INTERIOR

STOREFRONT

GLAZED WALL

CUSTOM WOOD AND

GLASS COMMUNITY

EXHIBIT DISPLAT W/

INTEGRAL LIGHTING

INTERIOR

STOREFRONT

GLAZED WALL

IMPACT RESISTANT GWB
@ GYM, TYP.

RESILIENCY PROGRAM AREA
LEVEL 1
FIN. FL
EL + 36'- 4 3/4" / +36.38"
(REF: EL- +36.36)


26' - 6" 20' - 5" 24' - 6" 23' - 6"
FLIP-TOP WOOD STORAGE BENCH, TYP.

KEY LEGEND
POLISHED CONCRETE, U.O.N.

WOOD FLOOR

TERRAZZO
CARPET

MILLWORK

PEDESTOOL PAVERS

PLANTING AREA

DESIGNED BY

DRAWN BY

CHECKED BY

ARCHITECT OF RECORD

DESIGNED BY

DRAWN BY

CHECKED BY

CONSULTANT INFO
x
x

DIVIDER CURTAIN

CURTAIN

STANDING HEIGHT BAR

COUNTER
0 8 16 32 48 Feet
GROUND FLOOR PLAN FIGURE 3.2-5
Source: City of Oakland, June 10, 2022.

OPEN BELOW

 




ROOF GARDEN

MECHANICAL
035

6725$*(
$
035

/2%%<

*<0

$//*(1'(5

:&
$
(/(9$725
6725$*(

67$,5%
67%
:&
%
:&
&
DN
DN
PLANTING AREA. 3:1

ANGLE OF REPOSE,
TYP. @ ALL

PERIMETER PLANTING
5' - 6" 20' - 10" 1' - 11" 26' - 4" 51' - 0" 5' - 2" 18' - 4" 9' - 1 1/2" 10 1/2" 40' - 8" 23' - 7" 2' - 0" 13' - 8 1/2" 13' - 8 1/2" 13' - 8 1/2" 13' - 8 1/2" 13' - 8 1/2" 13' - 8 1/2" 13' - 8 1/2" 34' - 2" 30' - 4" 45' - 11"



PLANTING AREA

KEY LEGEND
POLISHED CONCRETE, U.O.N.

WOOD FLOOR

TERRAZZO
CARPET

MILLWORK

PEDESTOOL PAVERS

PLANTING AREA

DESIGNED BY

CHECKED BY

ARCHITECT OF RECORD

DESIGNED BY

CHECKED BY

CONSULTANT INFO
SECOND FLOOR PLAN FIGURE 3.2-6
Source: City of Oakland, June 10, 2022.

KEY LEGEND

SOLID INFINITE FACADE PANEL WITH
LINER TYPE 1 W/ R=20 SPRAY

INSULATION, TWO LINES OF SEALANT

ALUMINUM FRAME & GLASS CURTAINWALL
SYSTEM. THERMALLY
BROKEN, BOD KAWNEER 1600

PRE FINISHED ALUMINUM PLATE
PTD. AND GALVANIZED STEEL FRAME
FENCE AND GATE WITH MP-E1 PANELSMP-E2 CW-E1
GFRC-E1 MP-E1
INSULATED GLASS UNIT, LOW-E ON #2

LITE, ARGON FILLED, LAMINATED
INSULATED GLASS UNIT, LOW-E ON #2

LITE, ARGON FILLED
GL-E2
GL-E1

SOLID INFINITE FACADE PANEL WITH
LINER TYPE 2 W/ R=20 SPRAY

INSULATION, TWO LINES OF SEALANT
GFRC-E2

SOLID INFINITE FACADE PANEL WITH
LINER TYPE 3 W/ R=20 SPRAY

INSULATION, TWO LINES OF SEALANT
GFRC-E3

HIGH DENSITY CEMENT BOARD W/
EXPOSED FASTNERSCP-E1
Level 1
0"
Level 2
16' - 0"
ROOF
32' - 6"

PARAPET
36' - 0"
GFRC-E2
CW-E2
MP-E1
MP-E2
GL-E1
TYP. PANEL
27' - 0"
27' - 0"9' - 0"
TYP. PANEL
10' - 0" MAX.

Level 1
0"
Level 2
16' - 0"
ROOF
32' - 6"

PARAPET
36' - 0"
GFRC-E1
MP-E1
CW-E1
CW-E1
CW-E1
GL-E1GL-E1
GL-E1
TYP. PANEL
10' - 0" MAX.

TYP. PANEL
27' - 0"
GFRC-E3GFRC-E3
9' - 0" 27' - 0"
TYP. PANEL
17' - 0"9' - 0"
27' - 0"9' - 0"
10’-0” MAX.
27’-0”
27’-0”9’-0”
10’-0” MAX.
27’-0”
27’-0”9’-0”

PARAPET
36’-0”
32’-6”
ROOF
16’-0”
LEVEL 2
0”
LEVEL 1

PARAPET
36’-0”
32’-6”
27’-0”9’-0”
ROOF
16’-0”
LEVEL 2
0”
LEVEL 1

SOUTH ELEVATION

NORTH ELEVATION
CONCEPTUAL BUILDING ELEVATIONS – SOUTH AND NORTH FIGURE 3.2-7 Source: City of Oakland, June 10, 2022.

Level 1
0"
Level 2
16' - 0"
ROOF
32' - 6"

PARAPET
36' - 0"
GFRC-E2
CW-E1
GFRC-E1
MP-E1
GFRC-E3
GL-E1
TYP. PANEL
10' - 0" MAX.
9' - 0"
TYP. PANEL
17' - 0"
9' - 0"
TYP. PANEL
27' - 0"
TYP. PANEL
10' - 0"
Level 1
0"
Level 2
16' - 0"
ROOF
32' - 6"

PARAPET
36' - 0"
MP-E1
GFRC-E3
GFRC-E1
CW-E1
CW-E2
GL-E1
MP-E1
GFRC-E2

OPERABLE GLASS WALL
9' - 0"
TYP. PANEL
27' - 0"
17' - 0"
PANEL
10' - 9" MAX.

TYP. PANEL
27' - 0"
TYP. PANEL
10' - 0" MAX. TYP. PANEL
10' - 0"

KEY LEGEND

SOLID INFINITE FACADE PANEL WITH
LINER TYPE 1 W/ R=20 SPRAY

INSULATION, TWO LINES OF SEALANT

ALUMINUM FRAME & GLASS CURTAINWALL
SYSTEM. THERMALLY
BROKEN, BOD KAWNEER 1600

PRE FINISHED ALUMINUM PLATE
PTD. AND GALVANIZED STEEL FRAME
FENCE AND GATE WITH MP-E1 PANELSMP-E2 CW-E1
GFRC-E1 MP-E1
INSULATED GLASS UNIT, LOW-E ON #2

LITE, ARGON FILLED, LAMINATED
INSULATED GLASS UNIT, LOW-E ON #2

LITE, ARGON FILLED
GL-E2
GL-E1

SOLID INFINITE FACADE PANEL WITH
LINER TYPE 2 W/ R=20 SPRAY

INSULATION, TWO LINES OF SEALANT
GFRC-E2

SOLID INFINITE FACADE PANEL WITH
LINER TYPE 3 W/ R=20 SPRAY

INSULATION, TWO LINES OF SEALANT
GFRC-E3

HIGH DENSITY CEMENT BOARD W/
EXPOSED FASTNERSCP-E1

EAST ELEVATION

WEST ELEVATION
10’-0”
10’-9” MAX.
10’-0”
17’-0”
27’-0”
10’-0” MAX.
10’-0” MAX.
27’-0”9’-0”

PARAPET
36’-0”
32’-6”
ROOF
16’-0”
LEVEL 2
0”
LEVEL 1

PARAPET
36’-0”
32’-6”
ROOF
16’-0”
LEVEL 2
0”
LEVEL 1
17’-0”9’-0”
27’-0”9’-0”
CONCEPTUAL BUILDING ELEVATIONS – EAST AND WEST FIGURE 3.2-8

Lincoln Recreation Center Replacement 15 Consistency Determination Checklist City of Oakland August 2023

3.2.3 Parking and Circulation
The project would not provide any new vehicle parking spaces. On-street parking currently exists on 10th Street and Harrison Street along the park frontages. One vehicular gate and driveway would be provided in the park’s perimeter fence along 11th Street for park maintenance vehicles. Pedestrian access gates would be provided along Harrison Street and 10th Street and the front of the new recreation center would face the center of Lincoln Square Park. The project would provide long-term bicycle parking via a bicycle storage room within the new recreation center. The project would include four long-term bicycle storage spaces inside the new recreation center for staff use and approximately 50 short-term bicycle storage spaces to be provided via bike racks outdoors.

3.2.4 Landscaping and Trees
There are 17 existing trees on-site. The project would remove ten existing trees and plant approximately 36 new trees, resulting in a net increase of 26 trees (43 total trees on-site after project implementation). The project would include approximately 4,200 square feet of new landscaping area. Project landscaping would include stormwater treatment planters along the building perimeters and the roof garden area on the second floor.

3.2.5 Off-Site Improvements
The project would repave the existing sidewalks adjacent to the park boundaries, make improvements to the outdoor light pole fixtures and replace perimeter fencing. The project applicant and AC Transit would coordinate to also install one or more new bus stop sign poles along 11th Street, east of the proposed park maintenance driveway.

3.2.6 Green Building Measures
The project proposes green building and design features such as a bicycle storage room, rooftop solar panels, and a roof garden. The proposed building would operate on 100 percent electric power, in accordance with the City’s All-Electric Construction in Newly Constructed Buildings Code (Oakland Municipal Code Chapter 15.37). The project would also implement the following green building measures:

• Energy efficient fixtures and appliances
• Indoor water use reduction (efficient plumbing)
• Outdoor water use reduction (low-water use landscaping) • Heat island reduction (High solar reflective index materials)

3.2.7 Construction
It is anticipated that the project would be constructed over an approximate 20-month period. It is estimated that construction of the project would require the export of approximately 440 cubic yards of cut and the import of approximately 90 cubic yards of fill, resulting in a net export of 350 cubic yards of soil. It is anticipated that the project would excavate to a maximum depth of approximately five feet below ground surface (bgs). Construction hours would be limited to between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday.

Lincoln Recreation Center Replacement 16 Consistency Determination Checklist City of Oakland August 2023
SECTION 4.0 CEQA CHECKLIST

OVERVIEW
The analysis in this CEQA Checklist provides a summary of the potential environmental impacts that may result from the proposed project. The analysis in this CEQA Checklist also summarizes the impacts and findings of the certified 2014 LMSAP EIR.2 This CEQA Checklist hereby incorporates by reference the LMSAP EIR discussion and analysis of all potential environmental impact topics; only those environmental topics that could have a potential project level environmental impact are included. The following resource areas were determined by the LMSAP EIR to have no potential for project-level impacts and thus, are not discussed further in this CEQA Checklist: 1) Agriculture and Forestry Resources, 2) Mineral Resources, and 3) Wildfire. The Wildfire Section of the CEQA Checklist (Added in December 2018) was not part of the CEQA Checklist analyzed by the 2014 LMSAP EIR. However, the LMSAP EIR did analyze wildfire risks in Section 3.13 Hazards and Hazardous Materials and determined that no adverse impacts would occur due to wildfire hazards within the Planning Area.

This CEQA Checklist provides a determination of whether the proposed project would result in:

• Equal or Less Severity of Impact Previously Identified in the LMSAP EIR; • Substantial Increase in Severity of Previously Identified Significant Impact in the LMSAP EIR; or
• New Significant Impact.

Where the severity of the impacts of the proposed project would be the same as or less than the severity of the impacts described in the LMSAP EIR, the checkbox for “Equal or Less Severity of Impact Previously Identified in the LMSAP EIR” is checked.

If the checkbox for “Substantial Increase in Severity of Previously Identified Significant Impact in the LMSAP EIR” or “New Significant Impact” were checked, there would be significant impacts that are:

• Peculiar to project or project site (per CEQA Guidelines Sections 15183 or 15183.3); • Not identified in the 2014 LMSAP EIR, including off-site and cumulative impacts (per CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, 15168, and 15183);
• Due to substantial changes in the Project (per CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 and 15168); • Due to substantial changes in circumstances under which the Project will be undertaken (per CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15168); and/or
• Due to substantial new information not known at the time the 2014 LMSAP EIR was certified (per CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162, 15168, or 15183).

2 Reference to the “2014 LMSAP EIR” or the “LMSAP EIR” encompasses the Initial Study, Draft EIR, and Final EIR for the Lake Merritt Station Area Plan.

Lincoln Recreation Center Replacement 17 Consistency Determination Checklist City of Oakland August 2023
None of the aforementioned conditions were found for the proposed project, as demonstrated throughout the following CEQA Checklist and in its supporting appendices (Appendix A through Appendix D) that specifically describe how the proposed project meets the criteria and standards specified in the CEQA Guidelines sections identified above.

Lincoln Recreation Center Replacement 18 Consistency Determination Checklist City of Oakland August 2023

AESTHETICS, SHADOW, AND WIND
The following discussion is based, in part, on a Shadow Study prepared for the project by Shah Kawasaki Architects, dated February 2022. A copy of this study is included in Appendix B.

Equal or Less
Severity of Impact
Previously Identified
in the 2014 LMSAP
EIR
Substantial Increase
in Severity of
Previously Identified
Significant Impact in
the 2014 LMSAP
EIR
New Significant
Impact
Except as provided in Public Resources Code
Section 21099, would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a public
scenic vista [NOTE: Only impacts to scenic
views enjoyed by members of the public
generally (but not private views) are
potentially significant.];

b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway?

c) Create a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?

d) Introduce landscape that would now or in the
future cast substantial shadows on existing
solar collectors (in conflict with California
Public Resource Code sections 25980-25986);

e) 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;

f) Cast shadow that substantially impairs the
beneficial use of any public or quasi-public
park, lawn, garden, or open space;

g) Cast shadow on a historic resource, as defined
by CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(a),6
such that the shadow would materially impair
the resource’s historic significance by
materially altering those physical
characteristics of the resource that convey its
historical significance and that justify its
inclusion on or eligibility for listing in the
National Register of Historic Places,
California Register of Historical Resources,
Local Register of historical resources, or a
historical resource survey form (DPR Form
523) with a rating of 1-5;

Lincoln Recreation Center Replacement 19 Consistency Determination Checklist City of Oakland August 2023

Equal or Less
Severity of Impact
Previously Identified
in the 2014 LMSAP
EIR
Substantial Increase
in Severity of
Previously Identified
Significant Impact in
the 2014 LMSAP
EIR
New Significant
Impact
Except as provided in Public Resources Code
Section 21099, would the project:
h) 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

i) Create winds that exceed 36 mph for more
than one hour during daylight hours during the
year. [NOTE: 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. Downtown is defined in the Land
Use and Transportation Element of the
General Plan (page 67) as the area generally
bounded by West Grand Avenue to the north,
Lake Merritt and Channel Park to the east, the
Oakland Estuary to the south and I-980/Brush
Street to the west. The wind analysis must
consider the project’s contribution to wind
impacts to on- and off-site public and private
spaces. Only impacts to public spaces (on- and
off-site) and off-site private spaces are
considered CEQA
impacts. Although impacts
to on-site private spaces are considered a
planning-related non-CEQA issue, such
potential impacts still must be analyzed.]

4.2.1 LMSAP EIR Findings
The LMSAP EIR identified notable scenic vistas along Lake Merritt and the Lake Merritt Channel and toward historic structures such as Kaiser Auditorium and other structures along the edge of Lake Merritt. The Chinatown District and the 7
th Street/Harrison Residential District were identified as having particularly important visual character and qualities. Development under the LMSAP would have the potential to increase light and glare and cast shadows on public open spaces. However, the LMSAP EIR determined that design guidelines and requirements under the General Plan, Estuary Plan, and the LMSAP would preserve views and reduce the potential for future development impacts

Lincoln Recreation Center Replacement 20 Consistency Determination Checklist City of Oakland August 2023
on aesthetics and light and glare to a less than significance level. The LMSAP EIR did not include an analysis of shadows as they relate to impacts on solar heat collection or historic resources, and did not analyze potential wind impacts. These issues were included in the City’s Thresholds of Significance Guidelines at the time the LMSAP EIR was adopted but it was determined that satisfactory analysis would require more detailed information on a project-by-project basis.

4.2.2 Project Analysis
Aesthetics and Light and Glare (Criteria 1a through 1c and 1h) The proposed project would replace the existing recreation center in Lincoln Square Park. The new recreation center would be two-stories and reach a maximum height of 35 feet and 37 feet (exterior wall of south wing building). The majority of the surrounding buildings in the vicinity of Lincoln Square Park are two stories or taller. Given the height of the surrounding buildings, there are no scenic views that are currently visible from the project site. The increased height of the new recreation center would not obstruct any existing views of Lake Merritt, the Lake Merritt Channel, or any other scenic resources. While the 37-foot exterior wall of the south-wing building would require a variance with the Zoning Code, this variance would not result in inadequate lighting nor would it constitute an adverse aesthetics impact for the reasons stated above.

The nearest state scenic highway is the segment of Interstate 580 (I-580) that begins at I-980 in the west and flows southeast until it meets San Leandro Creek. 3 I-580 is located approximately 1.5 miles
north of the project site at its nearest point. At this distance and given the nature of the surrounding buildings, the project site is not visible from I-580. Therefore, the project would not result in any impacts to a State Scenic Highway.

The exterior of the building would primarily be made up of façade panels and would also consist of pre-finished aluminum, metal siding, insulated glass, and aluminum frames. While the façade panels would not be made of reflective materials, the glass and aluminum could potentially result in glare.

However, potential glare resulting from the new recreation building would not be substantially greater than that of the existing recreation building or of the surrounding buildings in the vicinity.

Additionally, the project would increase the number of trees on-site which would give partial shade to the new recreation center, reducing the amount of glare. The new recreation center would include outdoor nighttime lighting. However, this would not represent a change from existing conditions given that the existing recreation center and Lincoln Square Park as a whole includes nighttime lighting.

The project would conform to the City’s Zoning Code, General Plan, and the LMSAP design guidelines. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant aesthetics impact.

Shadow (Criteria 1d through 1g)
As previously described, the proposed new recreation center would generally be of similar height or shorter than the buildings surrounding Lincoln Square Park. Therefore, the proposed new recreation center would not cast shadows on any rooftop solar panels. There are no ground-level solar panels

3 California Department of Transportation. “California State Scenic Highways”. Accessed September 23, 2022. https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-community-livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways

Lincoln Recreation Center Replacement 21 Consistency Determination Checklist City of Oakland August 2023
within the project vicinity. The project is within Lincoln Square Park, a public park and CEQA historic resource (as described further in Section 4.5 Cultural Resources). New shade created by the proposed new recreation center and new trees would not be substantial enough to impair use of the park nor would it alter the park’s significance as a City landmark/historic resource. A shadow study prepared by Shah Kawasaki Architects for the project (see Figure 4.2-1 through Figure 4.2-4, and Appendix B) revealed that shadows cast by the proposed recreation center would not cast shadows on the existing senior center building at Lincoln Square Park during most daylight hours throughout the year. The senior center building would be partially in shadow for short periods of time before sunset, except around the summer solstice, when not only the proposed recreation center but existing buildings west of the project site cover the majority of the site in shadow. Despite the fact that shadows are typically longer in the winter, the sun is positioned more fully behind tall buildings west of the project site during the summer, resulting in the long shadows that cover the project site. Given that existing buildings west of the project site already cast large shadows over the park, new shadows created by the proposed recreation center would result in a negligible impact.

Wind (Criterion 1i)
The proposed new recreation center would be less than 100 feet tall, therefore, a wind study is not required for the project. The proposed recreation center replacement and park improvements would not substantially alter the project site so as to alter the existing wind patterns. The project would not create winds that exceed 36 miles per hour; therefore, the project would have a less than significant wind impact.

4.2.3 Conclusion
Based on an examination of the analysis, findings, and conclusions of the LMSAP EIR, implementation of the proposed project would not substantially increase the severity of significant impacts identified in the LMSAP EIR, nor would it result in new significant impacts related to aesthetics, shadow, or wind that were not identified in the LMSAP EIR. Implementation of SCAs AES‐1, Trash and Blight Removal, AES‐2, Graffiti Control, AES‐3, Landscape Plan, and AES- 4, Lighting (see Appendix A) would be applicable to and would be implemented by the proposed project and would further ensure that aesthetics‐related impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.

JUNE (6 PM) JUNE (8 PM)
Existing
Rec
Center
Senior
Center
Existing
Rec
Center
Senior
Center
EXISTING SHADOWS – SUMMER SUNSET FIGURE 4.2-1
DECEMBER (4 PM)
DECEMBER (5 PM)
Existing
Rec
Center
Existing
Rec
Center
Senior
Center
Senior
Center
EXISTING SHADOWS – WINTER SUNSET FIGURE 4.2-2
SPRING EQUINOX (5 PM) SUMMER SOLSTICE (7 PM)
11th Street
10th Street
Harrison Street
11th Street
10th Street
Harrison Street
LEGEND
Lincoln Square Park
Proposed Rec Center
Senior Center
Lincoln Elementary School
PROJECT SHADOWS – SPRING EQUINOX AND SUMMER SOLSTICE FIGURE 4.2-3 FALL EQUINOX (5 PM) WINTER SOLSTICE (4 PM)
11th Street
10th Street
Harrison Street
11th Street
10th Street
Harrison Street
LEGEND
Lincoln Square Park
Proposed Rec Center
Senior Center
Lincoln Elementary School
PROJECT SHADOWS – FALL EQUINOX AND WINTER SOLSTICE FIGURE 4.2-4

Lincoln Recreation Center Replacement 26 Consistency Determination Checklist City of Oakland August 2023

AIR QUALITY
The following discussion is based, in part, on an Air Quality Assessment prepared for the project by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. dated October 2022. A copy of this report is included in Appendix C.

Equal or Less
Severity of Impact
Previously Identified
in the 2014 LMSAP
EIR
Substantial Increase
in Severity of
Previously Identified
Significant Impact in
the 2014 LMSAP
EIR
New Significant
Impact
Would the project:
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, NO
X,
or PM2.5, or 82 pounds per day of PM10; or
result in maximum annual emissions of 10
tons per year of ROG, NO
X, or PM2.5, or 15
tons per year of PM10; or

b) Contribute to carbon monoxide (CO)
concentrations exceeding the California
Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) of
nine parts per million (ppm) averaged over
eight hours and 20 ppm for one hour;

c) 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 one
million, (b) a noncancer risk (chronic or acute)
hazard index greater than 1.0, or (c) an
increase of annual average PM

2.5 of greater
than 0.3 microgram per cubic meter; or, under
cumulative conditions, resulting in (a) a cancer
risk level greater than 100 in a million, (b) a
noncancer risk (chronic or acute) hazard index
greater than 10.0, or (c) annual average PM

2.5 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 a million, (b) a
noncancer risk (chronic or acute) hazard index
greater than 10.0, or (c) annual average PM

2.5 of greater than 0.8 microgram per cubic meter.

d) Frequently and for a substantial duration,
create or expose sensitive receptors to
substantial objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people

Lincoln Recreation Center Replacement 27 Consistency Determination Checklist City of Oakland August 2023

4.3.1 LMSAP EIR Findings
The 2014 LMSAP EIR identified less than significant impacts regarding consistency with the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan (2010 CAP), with implementation of applicable SCAs. The CAP has since been updated by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). The most recently adopted Clean Air Plan is the 2017 CAP. The LMSAP EIR also identified impacts associated with potential exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial health risks from toxic air contaminants (TACs) from sources including both diesel particulate matter (DPM) and gaseous emissions. The LMSAP EIR identified SCAs to reduce DPM exposure to less than significant levels, but risk from gaseous TACs (plan and cumulative level) would be a significant and unavoidable impact. The LMSAP EIR also identified potential impacts associated with the installation of back‐up generators (a source of TACs) and identified SCAs to reduce the potential effect to less than significant.

Moreover, as discussed further below, BAAQMD does not permit any new generators that may have emissions levels that pose adverse health impacts. The LMSAP EIR was a plan‐level document and did not quantitatively assess criteria air pollutants from construction or operation.

4.3.2 Project Analysis
Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions (Criterion 3a)
Construction Period Emissions
Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. used the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2020.4.0 to estimate emissions from project construction and operation. Emissions generated during construction activities consist of on-site emissions from construction equipment and off-site emissions from worker, hauling, and vendor traffic. Construction is anticipated to last approximately 20 months, or approximately 410 workdays. However, at the time the Air Quality Analysis was prepared for the project, construction was anticipated to last approximately 11 months (247 workdays). A longer construction schedule would result in less equipment use per day, resulting in a reduction in emissions per day than modeled. Therefore, the 11-month assumption used for the Air Quality Analysis summarized below represents a conservative estimate of the project’s construction emissions. The actual daily construction emissions generated by the project over a period of 20 months would be less than the concentrations described below.

SCAs AIR-1 and AIR-2 require construction projects to implement construction dust and criteria air pollutant control measures. The project would involve less than 10,000 cubic yards of soil import/export and thus, would not be required to implement the City’s enhanced dust control measures under SCA AIR-1. SCA AIR-3 requires use of all off-road diesel equipment to 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 the California Air Resources Board (CARB). This requirement will not be necessary if the project retains a qualified air quality consultant to prepare a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) in accordance with current guidance from CARB and the 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.

Lincoln Recreation Center Replacement 28 Consistency Determination Checklist City of Oakland August 2023
Average daily emissions were computed by dividing the total construction emissions by the number of construction workdays. Table 4.3-1 shows average daily construction emissions of ROG, NOX, PM10 exhaust, and PM2.5 exhaust during construction of the project. Project emissions were analyzed as uncontrolled, given that the project could prepare a HRA rather than use VDECS to satisfy the requirements of SCA AIR-3. As indicated in Table 4.3-1, predicted project construction emissions would not exceed the BAAQMD significance thresholds, even without emission control measures incorporated. Since emissions are below the BAAQMD-recommended thresholds, enhanced controls identified in the City’s SCA AIR-2 are not required.

Table 4.3-1: Construction Period Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Scenario ROG NOX PM10 Exhaust PM2.5 Exhaust
Uncontrolled Construction
Emissions 0.30 tons 1.48 tons 0.07 tons 0.06 tons
Average Daily Uncontrolled
Emissions (pounds/day)1 2 lbs./day 12 lbs./day 0.6 lbs./day 0.5 lbs./day BAAQMD Thresholds
(pounds/day) 54 lbs./day 54 lbs./day 82 lbs./day 54 lbs./day Exceed Threshold? No No No No
1Assumes 247 workdays

Construction activities would temporarily generate fugitive dust in the form of PM10 and PM2.5.

Sources of fugitive dust would include disturbed soils at the construction site and trucks carrying uncovered loads of soils. Unless properly controlled, vehicles leaving the site could deposit debris on local streets, which could be an additional source of airborne dust. There are no thresholds for fugitive dust generated by construction, however, in accordance with SCA AIR-1, the project would be required to implement BAAQMD’s best management practices (BMPs) to reduce fugitive dust emissions.

Operational Period Emissions
Project operation would generate emissions from energy usage on-site and vehicles traveling to and from the proposed recreation center. Emissions associated with vehicle travel depend on the year of analysis because emission control technology requirements are phased in over time. Therefore, the earlier the year analyzed in the model, the higher the emission rates utilized by CalEEMod. It was assumed that the project would be operational by 2024 at the earliest.

Annual emissions were predicted using CalEEMod and daily emissions were estimating assuming 365 days of operation per year.
4 Table 4.3-2 shows average daily construction emissions of ROG, NOX, total PM10, and total PM2.5 during operation of the project. The operational period emissions would not exceed the BAAQMD significance thresholds.

4 CalEEMod predicts annual emissions, assuming 365-day operation; however, traffic is assumed to occur only five days per week throughout the year. Therefore, this assessment assumed 260 annual days of operation. Fewer operating days would have lower annual emissions than reported.

Lincoln Recreation Center Replacement 29 Consistency Determination Checklist City of Oakland August 2023
Table 4.3-2: Operational Period Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Scenario ROG NOX PM10 PM2.5
2024 Annual Project Operational
Emissions (tons/year) 0.46 tons 0.24 tons 0.35 tons 0.09 tons BAAQMD Thresholds (tons/year) 10 tons 10 tons 15 tons 10 tons Exceed Threshold? No No No No
2024 Daily Operational
Emissions (pounds/day)
1 2.5 lbs. 1.3 lbs. 1.9 lbs. 0.5 lbs.

BAAQMD Thresholds
(pounds/day) 54 lbs. 54 lbs. 82 lbs. 54 lbs.

Exceed Threshold? No No No No
1Assumes 7-day per week operation (365 days/year)

Carbon Monoxide (Criterion 3b)
Pursuant to BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines and as noted by the City’s CEQA Thresholds of Significance, localized CO concentrations should be estimated for projects in which (a) project- generated traffic would conflict with an applicable congestion management program (CMP) established by the county congestion management agency or (b) project-generated traffic would increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour (or 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited, such as tunnels, parking garages, bridge underpasses, natural or urban street canyons, and below-grade roadways). In Oakland, only the MacArthur Maze portion of Interstate 580 exceeds the 44,000 vehicles per hour screening criteria.

The project would not conflict with the Alameda County Transportation Commission’s 2021 CMP, or any other applicable CMP given that the project would not provide any new vehicle parking spaces, is located near major transit stops, and would not substantially alter the land use of the project site. The project site is approximately 2.2 miles southeast of the MacArthur Maze (interchange of I- 80, I-580, and I-880) and is intended to be a local-serving public facility. Thus, the project is not anticipated to add vehicle traffic to the MacArthur Maze because it is not anticipated to attract visitors that would need to utilize the MacArthur Maze while traveling to the project site from San Francisco or cities north of Oakland.

Toxic Air Contaminants (Criterion 3c)
The project would introduce new sources of TACs during construction (i.e., on-site construction and some truck hauling emissions). During operation, the project would not have substantial sources of localized TAC emissions. While the project would generate new traffic (conservatively estimated at 400 net new daily trips
5), these would be mostly automobile trips that have low rates of TAC emissions and would not lead to significant health risk impacts.

5 Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition. September 2021. Land Use Code 495 (Recreational Community Center.

Lincoln Recreation Center Replacement 30 Consistency Determination Checklist City of Oakland August 2023

Sensitive receptors near the project site include the park users, the Yuk Yau Child Development Center directly to the south, Lincoln Elementary School to the southeast and nearby residences to the northeast. The off-site receptors are located approximately 100 feet at the closest from the project construction area.

Project Health Risk Impacts – Construction
The primary source of TAC emissions from construction work is large construction equipment typically used for groundwork (e.g., grading and excavation). The proposed project would have relatively short durations of that type of work. The total construction period would be approximately 20 months with most heavy construction activity conducted within four months during the demolition and grading/foundation phases. Therefore, the increase in health risks is expected to be minor.

Additionally, the project would be required to comply with SCA AIR-3 Diesel Particulate Matter Controls – Construction Related since the project site is located within a community considered “overburdened” by BAAQMD. To address the requirement, the project could use construction equipment with the most effective VDECS available for the engine types, such as engines that meet U.S. EPA Tier 4 standards. Alternatively, the project could retain an air quality consultant to prepare a HRA in accordance with City and BAAQMD requirements. If the HRA concludes that the health risk is at or below acceptable levels, then the DPM control measures described above may not be required. Adherence to SCA AIR-3 would ensure that health risk impacts caused by the project are below the BAAQMD thresholds.

Project Exposure
The City of Oakland considers exposure of new sensitive receptors to substantial ambient levels of TACs that result in (a) a cancer risk level greater than 100 in a million, (b) a non-cancer risk (chronic or acute) hazard index greater than 10.0, or (c) annual average PM

2.5 of greater than 0.8 micrograms
per cubic meter to be significant. These thresholds are based on TAC sources within 1,000 feet that include stationary sources permitted by BAAQMD, freeways, major roadways with average daily traffic volumes greater than 10,000 vehicles per day, railroads, airports, seaports, and truck distribution centers. Within 1,000 feet of the project site there are five permitted sources by BAAQMD and local roadways. Some local roadways, such as Harrison Street, have traffic levels that are just around 10,000 average daily trips. I-880 is the closest freeway, approximately 1,200 feet west of the project site.

SCA AIR-4, Exposure to Air Pollution (Toxic Air Contaminants) addresses exposure of new sensitive receptors to nearby sources of air pollution. SCA AIR-4 requires that a HRA demonstrate that health risks are at or below acceptable levels, and if not, identify and evaluate measures to reduce risks to acceptable levels.

The City considers sensitive receptors to include residential uses, schools, parks, daycare centers, nursing homes, and medical centers. The proposed project would fall under the category of a park.

Users of the proposed recreation center would not be continually present to exposure of nearby sources of TACs. The City’s thresholds used to judge the significance of these exposures, i.e., cancer risk and annual PM

2.5, are based on chronic or long-term exposure. Users of the site would be

Lincoln Recreation Center Replacement 31 Consistency Determination Checklist City of Oakland August 2023
periodically exposed and not experience significant exposures. There are no nearby sources that pose significant acute exposures.

Odors (Criterion 3d)
The project would generate localized emissions of diesel exhaust, an odor source, during construction equipment operation and truck activity. These emissions may be noticeable by adjacent receptors; however, the odors would be localized and temporary and would not substantially affect people off- site. Project operation would not involve any odor-generating activities that would affect people off- site.

4.3.3 Conclusion
Project criteria air pollutant and TAC emissions during construction and operation were found to be less than significant. Based on an examination of the analysis, findings, and conclusions of the LMSAP EIR, as well as the new analysis presented above utilizing current thresholds, implementation of the proposed project would not result in a new significant impact or more severe impact regarding air quality. SCAs AIR-1 Dust Controls – Construction Related, AIR-2 Criteria Air Pollutant Controls – Construction Related, AIR-3 Diesel Particulate Matter Controls – Construction Related, and AIR-4, Exposure to Air Pollution (Toxic Air Contaminants) (see Appendix A) would be applicable to and implemented by the proposed project to further ensure that air quality impacts associated with the project are less than significant. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required.

Lincoln Recreation Center Replacement 32 Consistency Determination Checklist City of Oakland August 2023

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The following discussion is based, in part, on a Tree Survey prepared for the project by SBCA Tree Consulting, dated February 2022. A copy of this report is included in Appendix D.

Equal or Less
Severity of Impact
Previously Identified
in the 2014 LMSAP
EIR
Substantial Increase
in Severity of
Previously Identified
Significant Impact in
the 2014 LMSAP
EIR
New Significant
Impact
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate, sensitive,
or special status species in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
(CDFW) or United States Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS);

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 CDFW or
USFWS;

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;

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;

Fundamentally conflict with any applicable
habitat conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan;

Lincoln Recreation Center Replacement 33 Consistency Determination Checklist City of Oakland August 2023

Equal or Less
Severity of Impact
Previously Identified
in the 2014 LMSAP
EIR
Substantial Increase
in Severity of
Previously Identified
Significant Impact in
the 2014 LMSAP
EIR
New Significant
Impact
Would the project:
b) 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
Fundamentally conflict with the City
of Oakland Creek Protection
Ordinance (OMC Chapter 13.16)
intended to protect biological
resources.

4.4.1 LMSAP EIR Findings
The LMSAP EIR identified 12 special status species that are known to have the potential to occur within the LMSAP Area. Within the Plan Area, Lake Merritt and the Lake Merritt Channel are places where there are particularly sensitive areas with regard to biological resources. The LMSAP EIR determined that there is no riparian habitat or sensitive natural communities within the Plan Area but vegetation along Lake Merritt Channel may have value for various plants and animals. Lake Merritt, the Lake Merritt Channel, and the Estuary are “waters of the U.S.” and a small portion of Lake Merritt Channel and potentially a minimal amount of adjacent land is classified as wetlands. The LMSAP EIR determined that projects within the Plan Area would have a less than significant impact on these resources with implementation of the City’s SCAs, mitigation measures from the Measure DD Implementation Project EIR (a bond passed by City voters that would involve improvements along the Lake Merritt Channel), and provisions of the Clean Water Act, California Fish and Game Code, and Regional Water Quality Control Board.

The LMSAP EIR also identified that development within the Plan Area could have the potential to impact nesting and migratory birds by creating disturbances during construction activities and creating an increase in bird collisions by erecting new buildings. However, it was determined that these impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of existing regulations and SCAs. Projects within the Plan Area would be subject to the provisions of the City of Oakland’s Tree Protection Ordinance. Furthermore, the LMSAP EIR determined that both new park land and new building development in the Plan Area would likely result in a net increase of trees in the Plan Area given that the identified development sites generally contain very few trees.

Lincoln Recreation Center Replacement 34 Consistency Determination Checklist City of Oakland August 2023

4.4.2 Project Analysis
Special-Status Species, Riparian Habitat, Wetlands, Wildlife Corridors, and Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency (Criterion 4a)
The project site is approximately 0.36 miles west of Lake Merritt and approximately 0.50 miles west of Lake Merritt Channel at its nearest point. The project would have no potential to impact sensitive biological resources associated with Lake Merritt or the Lake Merritt Channel due to its distance from them.

The project site is within an urban neighborhood park in a fully urban area of the City. The majority of the project site is paved and the limited vegetation that exists on-site is landscaping that is maintained by the City. The project site does not contain, nor is it adjacent to any wetlands, riparian habitat, or other sensitive habitat. Due to the urban nature of the project site and the surrounding vicinity, the project site does not contain habitat suitable for supporting special status plant or wildlife species. The project site is not connected to any significant wildlife habitat and thus, does not serve as a wildlife corridor.

The project would remove approximately ten trees. It is possible that migratory and nesting birds utilize the existing trees on-site. The project would be required to implement the City’s SCAs pertaining to protection of nesting birds during the breeding season which would reduce the impact on nesting birds to a less than significant level.

One of the City’s SCAs is SCA 28, which requires that bird collision reduction measures be applied to projects which include glass as part of the building’s exterior and either 1) are located immediately adjacent to a substantial water body (e.g., Lake Merritt), 2) are located immediately adjacent to a recreation area or park larger than one acre and which contains substantial vegetation, 3) include a substantial vegetated or green roof (roofs with growing medium and plants taking the place of conventional roofing) but excluding container gardens, or 4) include an existing or proposed substantial vegetated area (generally contiguous one acre in size or larger) located directly adjacent to project buildings. As previously discussed, the project is not adjacent to Lake Merritt or any other substantial water body. The project would not include a green roof in place of conventional roofing or a vegetated area one acre or larger in size. While the project is located within Lincoln Square Park, which is larger than one acre in size, the site and the park as a whole is urban in nature and does not contain substantial vegetation. As previously described, the site contains limited landscaping.

Lincoln Square Park is primarily developed with hardscape surfaces such as basketball courts, buildings, and a playground. The surrounding area consists of developed urban uses, and there are no substantial vegetated areas adjacent to the site. Therefore, while virtually all buildings present some risk for bird collisions, SCA 28 does not apply to the proposed project and the project building would not have the potential for a significant impact due to bird collisions .

City of Oakland Tree Protection Ordinance and Creek Protection Ordinance (Criterion 4b)
The Tree Survey prepared for the project identified 17 trees within and adjacent to the project site, 16 of which were determined to be Protected Trees under the Oakland Municipal Code. The arborist report only included trees within the boundaries of the project work area, not the entirety of Lincoln Square Park. A summary of the existing trees on-site is provided in Table 4.4-1, below.

Lincoln Recreation Center Replacement 35 Consistency Determination Checklist City of Oakland August 2023

Table 4.4-1: Summary of Existing Trees On-Site
Species Total Number of Trees Number of Protected Trees Golden rain tree (Koelreuteria
paniculate) 2 1
Brisbane box (Lophostemon confertus) 8 8
Southern magnolia (Magnolia
grandiflora) 4 4
Chinese Pistache (Pistacia chinensis) 1 1
Evergreen pear (Pyrus Kawakamii) 1 1
Coastal live oak (Quercus agrifolia) 1 1
Total 17 16

The project would remove eight existing trees on-site consisting of seven protected trees and one non-protected tree. Species of the trees proposed for removal from the project site include four southern magnolia, two golden rain trees, one Chinese pistache, and one evergreen pear. The project would also remove two existing street trees, one along Harrison Street and one along 10 th Street, both
Brisbane box. The project would plant approximately 36 new trees, resulting in a net increase of 26 trees (43 total trees on-site after project implementation). Additionally, the project would be required to implement the City’s SCAs regarding tree removal (SCA BIO-2 and BIO-3) and tree protection (SCA BIO-3). This would reduce the project’s impact on trees to a less than significant level and would ensure compliance with the City’s Tree Protection Ordinance.

The project is not adjacent to any existing creeks and would not involve any work in or near a creek.

Therefore, the project would be in compliance with the City’s Creek Protection Ordinance and would not be required to implement the City’s SCAs pertaining to creek protection.

4.4.3 Conclusion
The proposed project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts related to biological resources than those identified in the LMSAP EIR. The project site does not contain nor is located near any sensitive biological habitat. Certain SCAs identified in the LMSAP EIR would not pertain to the project, such as those pertaining to creek protection or the Creek Protection Ordinance, or Alameda Whipsnake protection measures. SCAs BIO-2, Tree Removal During Bird Breeding Season and BIO-3, Tree Permit (see Appendix A) would be applicable to and implemented by the project to ensure that existing trees and nesting birds are protected during project construction. The LMSAP EIR did not identify any mitigation measures related to biological resources, and none would be needed for the proposed project.

Lincoln Recreation Center Replacement 36 Consistency Determination Checklist City of Oakland August 2023

CULTURAL RESOURCES
The following discussion is based, in part, on a Cultural Resources Survey Report prepared for the project by Archaeological/Historical Consultants dated February 2023. A copy of this document is included in Appendix E.

Equal or Less
Severity of Impact
Previously Identified
in the 2014 LMSAP
EIR
Substantial Increase
in Severity of
Previously Identified
Significant Impact in
the 2014 LMSAP
EIR
New Significant
Impact
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an historical resource as
defined in CEQA Guidelines section
15064.5.14 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 Historical
Resources, 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 dedicated cemeteries?

4.5.1 LMSAP EIR Findings
The LMSAP EIR does not include a project‐level analysis of historic resources, indicating project- level analysis shall be conducted for individual development projects in the LMSAP. The LMSAP EIR further determined that impacts to archaeological resources, paleontological resources, and human remains would be less than significant with the implementation of applicable SCAs. The

Lincoln Recreation Center Replacement 37 Consistency Determination Checklist City of Oakland August 2023
LMPSAP EIR indicates that paleontological sensitivity of the geologic units underlying the Plan Area is considered to be low to moderate.

4.5.2 Project Analysis
Historical Resources (Criterion 4a)
Existing Conditions and Background
Lincoln Square Park
When the city of Oakland was first laid out in the early 1850s, seven squares were set aside for public use, including what is now Lincoln Square Park. These squares were part of Mayor and city founder Horace Carpentier’s vision of a city full of beautiful parks, wide avenues, and shady trees.

Improvements to Lincoln Square Park likely began after 1887 and included curving paths at first.

Various improvements to Lincoln Square Park were made in the 20 th century, many of which were
funded by the local Chinese community. These improvements included a children’s playground and several sports facilities. The existing clubhouse in the park was constructed in 1940, the play area was redesigned in 1969 with the existing Chinese junk boat structure, and the Lincoln Square Recreation Center was opened in 1977. Lincoln Square Park was designated as an Oakland City Landmark in 1983, with the intention to preserve it as a public park, open space, or playground.

No physical elements of the 19
th century park currently exist on-site. The oldest features in the park today are the clubhouse and storage building, both of which date to the 1940s. The clubhouse, also known as the Hong Lok Senior Center, was designed by architect Edward Foulkes and built in the year 1940. The clubhouse is situated along the north side of the park, adjacent to 11 th Street. The
clubhouse is constructed in the Spanish Revival style and consists of brick masonry. It is one story in height, with outer walls that slope slightly inward as they rise, and a hipped clay tile roof with recessed gables rising on the short sides. The clubhouse retains its original window sash and appears to have high integrity.

The storage building is located at the eastern edge of the park. It is a rectangular stucco building with a clay tile roof with gables on the short sides, turned-up eaves, and Chinese-style ornamental projections at the eave corners. The exact date of this building is unknown, but a building with the same shape and location is visible in a 1946 aerial photograph.

Lincoln Square Recreation Center
According to local historian L. Eve Armentrout Ma, the Lincoln Square Recreation Center was a key part of a movement revitalizing and expanding youth programs in the local Chinese community during the 1970s and 80s. According to Gilbert Gong, the current recreation center director, approximately 95 percent of the recreation center users today are from the Asian/Pacific Islander community.

The Lincoln Square Recreation Center was designed by architects Worley K. Wong and Ronald G.

Brocchini. Wong & Brocchini practiced architecture in the Bay Area from 1968 to 1985, focusing on institutional architecture, including office and educational buildings. Worley Wong (1912-1985) is best known, and most highly regarded, for his work in partnership with John Carden Campbell as

Lincoln Recreation Center Replacement 38 Consistency Determination Checklist City of Oakland August 2023
Campbell and Wong, architects, during 1946-1968. The Campbell and Wong partnership has attracted attention from historians due to their role as one of the first prominent firms to popularize the modern A-frame house in the Bay Area. Their residential work is highly regarded and featured in several guidebooks to historic architecture in the Bay Area with their most frequently cited work being the Buddha’s Universal Church at 720 Washington Street, San Francisco. When Campbell and Wong broke up in 1968, Wong began a new partnership with Ronald Brocchini. This partnership lasted until Wong’s death in 1985.

Ronald Brocchini (1929-2022) first worked as an architectural designer in 1948 for Stone, Marraccini, and Patterson in San Francisco. In 1961 Brocchini became an associate architect with Campbell and Wong, before forming a partnership with Wong in 1968. In 1987, two years after Wong’s death, he opened his own firm, Brocchini Architects, in Berkeley. Brocchini retired in 2014 and died in 2022. None of Brocchini’s works appear to have received significant attention from architectural historians.

The Lincoln Square Recreation Center rests upon a concrete perimeter foundation, appears to be clad in textured stucco, and is one story in height. There are two main public entrances and four secondary or service entrances. The primary public entrance is adjacent to 10 th Street side. Here, there are two
entrances, both recessed, and separated by a span of wall that is clad in colorful tiles, which is original to the building’s construction. The wall of tiles is the only ornamented part of the exterior.

The other public entrance is on the north side, at the junction of the west and east wings, and also leads to the lobby; it is also recessed. All of these entrances feature paired doors with full-length glazing, fixed transoms, and sidelights, and are made entirely of anodized aluminum. Regarding the secondary or service entrances, two are recessed. Each of them has a single door with full-length glazing and a fixed transom, and one of the two has sidelights. Both are made of anodized aluminum, just as the main public entrances are. The other two entrances have plain metal doors.

The building’s windows vary greatly in size and shape, and their arrangement or placement is irregular. Their one common element is that all of them are made of anodized aluminum. Original plans supplied by the City of Oakland reveal that all parts of the exterior described above date to the original 1977 construction. The building’s exterior is shown in Photos 1 & 2.

The interior features a hexagonal lobby with round wooden posts at each corner and support beams painted with interlocking hexagonal motifs. The color of the posts and beams is predominantly red, with occasional green bands and stripes, and this lends a Chinese style to the lobby. Original plans reveal these features date to the original 1977 construction. No other Chinese style elements exist elsewhere in the building. The hallway in the east wing is finished in flat plaster, with a linoleum tile floor, and florescent lights. The multi-purpose room, in the west wing, has a high ceiling featuring slightly bowed wooden beams that support the roof, and a sprung hardwood floor painted with lines for a basketball court. The lobby and multi-purpose room are shown in Photos 3 & 4.

Photo 1: Existing Lincoln Square Recreation Center, North and Northeast Façades Source: Archaeological/Historical Consultants, October 2022.

Photo 2: 10th Street Entrances With Tile Mural (South Façade) PHOTOS 1 & 2
Photo 3: Existing Lobby
Photo 4: Existing Multi-Use Room in West Wing
Source: Archaeological/Historical Consultants, October 2022.

PHOTOS 3 & 4

Lincoln Recreation Center Replacement 41 Consistency Determination Checklist City of Oakland August 2023
Historical Analysis
Lincoln Square Park was designated as a City of Oakland Landmark in 1983, and thus, is considered a CEQA historic resource. Lincoln Square Park is associated with two patterns of events that have made a significant contribution to the patterns of local and regional history: 1) as one of the seven original Oakland public squares dedicated by 1853, Lincoln Square is significant in the history of urban planning in Oakland; and 2) Lincoln Square is also significant for its continuous role in public recreation in Oakland’s Chinatown and its connection with the local Chinese American community.

The Lincoln Square Recreation Center was included in a recording of the Park for the Oakland Cultural Heritage Survey (OCHS) Historic Resources Inventory and the description of the Square in the Landmark resolution. However, apart from Lincoln Square Park’s status as an Oakland City Landmark, the existing recreation center itself has not otherwise been previously evaluated or listed under any local, State, or Federal historical resource designation criteria. As described further below, the existing recreation center is not integral to the park’s listing as a City Landmark or historic resource.

CRHR Significance Evaluation
In order for a resource to be eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), it must satisfy all of the following three criteria (A, B, & C):

A. A property must be significant at the local, State, or national level, under one or more of the following four “Criteria of Significance” (these are essentially the same as the NRHP criteria with more emphasis on California history):

1. the resource is associated with events or patterns of events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history and cultural heritage of California or the United States.

2. the resource is associated with the lives of persons important to the nation or to California’s past.

3. the resource embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of

4. the resource has the potential to yield information important to the prehistory or history of the State or the nation (Criterion 4 applies primarily to archaeological sites and only rarely to buildings).

B. the resource retains historic integrity
6; and,
C. it is 50 years old or older (except for rare cases of structures of exceptional significance).

6 The CRHR regulations define “integrity” as “. . . the authenticity of a property’s physical identity, evidenced by the survival of characteristics that existed during the property’s period of significance,” that is, it must retain enough of its historic character or appearance to be recognizable as a historical resource. Following the NRHP integrity criteria, CRHR regulations specify that integrity is a quality that applies to historical resources in seven ways:
location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. A property usually must retain most of these qualities to possess integrity.

Lincoln Recreation Center Replacement 42 Consistency Determination Checklist City of Oakland August 2023
Although historians L. Eve Armentrout Ma and Jeong Huei Ma assert in their publications on Oakland’s Chinese population7 that the Lincoln Square Recreation Center was part of a trend of revitalization and expansion of youth programs during the 1970s and 1980s in Chinatown, this pattern has not made a significant contribution to the broad themes of local or regional history and cultural heritage. Therefore, the building does not appear to be eligible under CRHR Criterion 1.

Historical research did not identify any significant figures in local history associated with the building, thus it does not appear to be significant under CRHR Criterion 2.

The building is an undistinguished example of 1970s Modern architecture. The exterior finish is plain and lacks style references. On the interior, the décor of the hexagonal lobby reflects the Chinese heritage of the area, but the remainder of the interior design is plain. Although the senior architect of the firm of Wong and Brocchini, Worley K. Wong, was considered a highly regarded Bay Area architect, it is primarily for his residential work with an earlier architectural firm, Campbell and Wong. Wong and Brocchini, by contrast, is not well studied and does not appear to be regarded as a significant architectural firm. The Lincoln Recreation Center does not bear resemblance to Campbell and Wong’s residential work, nor their one notable institutional building, Buddha’s Universal Church. For these reasons, the building does not appear to be eligible for the CRHR under Criterion

3. Under CRHR Criterion 4, the Lincoln Square Recreation Center is not a significant or likely source of important information about historic construction materials or technologies that is not otherwise available through documentary evidence. It therefore does not appear to be eligible for the CRHR under Criterion 4.

Oakland Cultural Heritage Survey
The CEQA guidelines give local jurisdictions wide latitude to establish criteria of significance that reflect local history and values. Properties determined eligible for local registers are presumed to be historical resources for the purposes of CEQA, unless substantial evidence demonstrates otherwise.

The City of Oakland maintains the OCHS, which uses a series of criteria to score buildings and sites, and then assigns them values based on a score. Archaeological/Historical Consultants evaluated the Lincoln Recreation Center using the OCHS scoring sheet and determined the building to have a final score of 15.76, which gives it a score of D (Minor Importance). The City’s Historic Preservation Element defines structures of Minor Importance as “Properties which are not individually distinctive but are typical or representative examples of an important type, style, convention, or historical pattern”. As previously described, the Lincoln Recreation Center has good integrity due to the presence of much of the original construction elements, but it lacks clear stylistic features.

City of Oakland Landmark Status
As previously mentioned, Lincoln Square Park is an Oakland City Landmark and is therefore considered a CEQA resource. The Square’s Landmark status is based on its significance as one of the seven squares dedicated for public use on the original Oakland plat. One of only four remaining

7 Ma, L. Eve Armentrout. Hometown Chinatown: The History of Oakland’s Chinese Community. New York:

Routledge. 2000.

Ma, L. Eve Armentrout and Ma, Jeong Huei. The Chinese of Oakland: Unsung Builders . Oakland Chinese History Research Committee. 1982.

Lincoln Recreation Center Replacement 43 Consistency Determination Checklist City of Oakland August 2023
original squares, the city designated Lincoln Square a Landmark in 1983 to preserve it as public space. The character-defining features of Lincoln Square Park that are essential to its historical identify include the following:

• The shape and boundaries of the square, which are the same as they were in 1853; • A sense of open space in the midst of a congested urban district; • The 1940s Clubhouse building, designed by Edwin Foulkes and constructed by WPA workers, which appears individually eligible to the CRHR; and • The square’s history as a focus for indoor and outdoor recreational and community activities in Oakland’s Chinatown since the 1920s.

The Lincoln Square Recreation Center is not considered essential to the historical identity of Lincoln Square Park. Although the Lincoln Square Recreation Center building was standing in 1983 (it had only existed six years at that point) and is included in the description of the City Landmark, it does not meet any of the criteria of the CRHR and does not contribute to or detract from the primary significance of Lincoln Square Park as one of the city’s original seven public squares. Therefore, the Lincoln Recreation Center does not appear to contribute to Lincoln Square’s City Landmark status.

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards
As noted above, Lincoln Square is a CEQA historical resource which is eligible under Criterion 1.

The proposed project is effectively a rehabilitation of a CRHR-eligible resource. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards defines rehabilitation as “the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values.” To determine whether the proposed project would cause a substantial adverse change to this historical resource (as defined at PRC §5020.1(q)), the historic evaluation considered whether the proposed project meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. Below each standard is a discussion of its applicability to the current project, based on the Cultural Resources Survey Report prepared for the project (see Appendix E).

1. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces and spatial relationships.

The proposed project will continue the existing use of Lincoln Square as a recreation facility for the Chinatown community, which has been continuous since the 1920s. The proposed new building, like the old building, occupies the southwest corner of the square and will serve the same function, with expanded capacity.

2. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided.

The contributing physical elements to Lincoln Square are the shape and boundaries of the square, a sense of open space in a congested urban area, and the 1940 clubhouse. The proposed project will have minor effects on the shape of the square and its spatial relationships. The new building will be

Lincoln Recreation Center Replacement 44 Consistency Determination Checklist City of Oakland August 2023
approximately 13,886 square feet larger. However, its location and orientation are similar to that of the old building. The new building will change existing spatial relationships only by providing new access routes to the square via Harrison and 11th Streets, and increasing open space along 10th Street with a new outdoor passive recreation area. Otherwise, the spatial relationships and features that characterize the square will remain unchanged.

3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken.

No conjectural features are proposed as part of the project.

4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved.

The most significant change to Lincoln Square since its creation in 1853 was its transition from an open park to a mixed indoor-outdoor recreation facility circa 1927. Since then, the square has served as a focal point of community and recreational activities in Oakland’s Chinatown, and this function is now a character-defining feature and contributes to the square’s significance under CRHR Criterion

1. Likewise, the 1940 clubhouse building is an element of the square and has acquired historic significance in its own right. The proposed project preserves both of these changes in historical significance, since the new building will provide the same services to the same community in a larger and enhanced space, and the clubhouse will not be affected by the project.

5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved.

6. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence.

7. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used.

Standards 5 through 7 would only apply to the 1940 clubhouse, which is the only structure that contributes to Lincoln Square’s significance. However, no modifications to the clubhouse are proposed by the project.

8. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken.

No archaeological resources are known to be present in the project area, which has low sensitivity for buried archaeological resources.

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,

Lincoln Recreation Center Replacement 45 Consistency Determination Checklist City of Oakland August 2023
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.

With respect to Standards 9 and 10, the proposed new work will not alter or destroy historic materials, features, or spatial relationships. No modifications to CRHR-eligible structures are proposed.

The proposed project meets all of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation.

Therefore, it does not appear to have the potential to cause a substantial adverse effect to the integrity or CRHR eligibility of Lincoln Square.

Off-Site Historical Resources
The following off-site historical resources were identified within the project vicinity:

• The Chinatown commercial district – located Franklin, Webster, and Harrison Streets between 7th and 9th Streets, one block south of the project site. The district contains 45 buildings, of which 29 are contributing. The district was found eligible for the NRHP. • The 7
th/Harrison Square Residential District – located on 7th Street between Harrison to Fallon, including cross streets. About 2/3 of the houses in this area were built between 1889 and 1910. The district was found eligible for the NRHP. • 258 & 270-76 11th Street – designated Area of Secondary Importance by the City of Oakland.

Located across the street to the north of Lincoln Square Park. • 307 10th Street – part of the Chinatown Area of Secondary Importance. Located across the street to the south of Lincoln Square Park.

Several other properties within the project vicinity were identified by Archaeological/Historical Consultants that have either 1) not been evaluated for historical significance, or 2) were evaluated but deemed not historically significant. The project’s only potential physical effects on off-site historical structures would be vibration impacts during project construction. The project would not involve pile-driving, a construction activity that generates particularly strong vibration levels, and the City’s SCAs would ensure that vibration impacts are reduced to a less than significance level (see Section 4.12 Noise).

Therefore, the proposed project would not have a new or more severe impact on a historical resource than was anticipated by the LMSAP EIR.

Archaeological and Paleontological Resources and Human Remains (Criteria 4b through 4d)
A records search covering Lincoln Square Park and a 1/8-mile radius around it was completed at the Northwest Information Center on August 23, 2022. The search identified no resources within the project site. One historic-era archaeological resource consisting of segments of a trolley or railroad

Lincoln Recreation Center Replacement 46 Consistency Determination Checklist City of Oakland August 2023
line was discovered within the project vicinity in the year 2000 during monitoring for a fiber-optic cable conduit. Elements present included ties, straps, spikes, and a ballast. Archaeological/Historical Consultants conducted a site visit at Lincoln Square Park and did not observe any evidence of archaeological resources on-site.

Native American archaeological sites are most often found in areas that are relatively flat and have easy access to a perennial source of fresh water. The project site is flat and the nearest source of fresh water is Glen Echo Creek, located approximately 0.6 miles north of the project site. Lake Merritt, 0.4 miles to the east, is a tidal slough and thus, does not provide fresh water. Given the distance of the site to fresh water and the lack of known resources nearby, the project site was determined by Archaeological/Historical Consultants to have a low sensitivity for Native American archaeological resources.

Lincoln Square Park remained an open park from 1852 until the 1920s when playgrounds and sports facilities began to be constructed on-site. Recreational activities have a very low likelihood of producing stratified deposits of historic-era artifacts, and there is no indication that other types of historic-era archaeological features such as foundations, wells, or privies are likely to be found. Thus, the project site also has a low sensitivity for historic-era archaeological features.

Project construction would involve grading activities, excavation to a maximum depth of five feet bgs, and the export of approximately 440 cubic yards of soil off-site. Therefore, there is the potential to impact unknown archeological resources, as well as potential unknown paleontological resources or human remains, as noted in the LMSAP EIR. However, implementation of the City’s SCAs, as noted in the LMSAP EIR, would ensure that any archaeological resources discovered would be recovered and that appropriate procedures are followed in the event of accidental discovery.

Implementation of the SCAs also would require a qualified paleontologist to document a discovery and that appropriate procedures be followed in the event of a discovery, and would ensure that the appropriate procedures for handling and identifying human remains are followed.

4.5.3 Conclusion
Based on an examination of the analysis, findings, and conclusions of the 2014 LMSAP EIR, the proposed project would not result in any more severe significant impacts identified in the LMSAP EIR, nor would it result in new significant impacts related to cultural resources that were not identified in the LMSAP EIR. Implementation of SCAs CUL‐1, Archaeological and Paleontological Resources – Discovery During Construction and CUL‐3, Human Remains – Discovery During Construction (see Appendix A), would further ensure that potential impacts associated with cultural resources would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.

Lincoln Recreation Center Replacement 47 Consistency Determination Checklist City of Oakland August 2023
ENERGY

Equal or Less
Severity of Impact
Previously Identified
in the 2014 LMSAP
EIR
Substantial Increase
in Severity of
Previously Identified
Significant Impact in
the 2014 LMSAP
EIR
New Significant
Impact
Would the project:
a) Result in a 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?

4.6.1 LMSAP EIR Findings
The City’s CEQA thresholds of significance include energy-related questions in the utilities section.

Thus, these questions were addressed in the LMSAP EIR’s utilities and service systems section. The LMSAP EIR determined that buildout of the LMSAP would result in an incremental increase in the demand for gas and electrical power, but the level of energy required would not be expected to violate applicable federal, state, and local statutes and regulations nor would it be expected to exceed energy service capacities.

4.6.2 Project Analysis
Energy Consumption and Efficiency (Criteria 5a and 5b)
Construction
The anticipated construction schedule assumes the project would be built over a period of approximately 20 months. The overall construction schedule and process is designed to be efficient in order to avoid excess monetary costs. That is, equipment and fuel would not be used wastefully on the site because of the added expense associated with renting, maintaining, and fueling equipment.

Energy is consumed during construction because the use of fuels and building materials are fundamental to construction of new buildings; however, energy would not be wasted or used inefficiently by project construction equipment. Therefore, construction of the proposed project would not consume energy in a manner that is wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary.

Operation
Similar to the existing recreation center, the proposed new recreation center would use energy, in the form of electricity, for lighting, heating, cooling, and use of appliances in the proposed building. The existing recreation center uses approximately 121,929 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity per year.

The proposed new recreation center would use approximately 325,061 kWh of electricity per year 8,

8 Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. Lincoln Recreation Center Air Quality Assessment. Attachment 1: CalEEMod Output, Modeling Information, and BAAQMD Permitted Sources. October 12, 2022.

Lincoln Recreation Center Replacement 48 Consistency Determination Checklist City of Oakland August 2023
resulting in an increase of approximately 203,132 kWh of electricity consumed per year. The new recreation center would not use any natural gas energy, as required by the City’s All-Electric Construction in Newly Constructed Buildings Code (Oakland Municipal Code Chapter 15.37). The project would comply with the standard of Title 24 of the California code of Regulations as well as with the City’s SCAs pertaining to compliance with the green building ordinance. Therefore, consistent with the LMSA EIR, the project would not violate any statutes and regulations relating to energy standards and project operation would not consume energy in a manner that is wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary.

4.6.3 Conclusion
While the LMSAP EIR did not contain a standalone energy section, energy impacts were analyzed in the utilities and service systems section of the LMSAP EIR. Based on an examination of the analysis, findings, and conclusions of the LMSAP EIR, implementation of the proposed project would not substantially increase the severity of significant impacts identified in the LMSAP EIR, nor would it result in new significant impacts related to energy that were not identified in the LMSAP EIR. The project would not require any mitigation measures, the project would result in a less than significant impact on energy resources.

Lincoln Recreation Center Replacement 49 Consistency Determination Checklist City of Oakland August 2023

GEOLOGY AND SOILS

Equal or Less
Severity of Impact
Previously Identified
in the 2014 LMSAP
EIR
Substantial Increase
in Severity of
Previously Identified
Significant Impact in
the 2014 LMSAP
EIR
New Significant
Impact
Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to substantial risk
of loss, injury, or death involving:

- 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;

- Strong seismic ground shaking;
- Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction, lateral spreading, subsidence,
collapse; or

- Landslides;
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil, creating substantial risks to life,
property, or creeks/waterways;

c) 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;

d) Be located above a well, pit, swamp, mound,
tank vault, or unmarked sewer line, creating
substantial risks to life or property;

e) Be located above landfills for which there is
no approved closure and post-closure plan, or
unknown fill soils, creating substantial risks to
life or property ; or

f) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems where sewers are
not available for the disposal of wastewater.

4.7.1 LMSAP EIR Findings
The LMSAP EIR states that the Planning Area does not include an active fault or Alquist-Priolo fault zone, and thus, does not have the risk of fault rupture. However, the Planning Area does fall within severe shaking intensity zones and a substantial portion of the Planning Area along Lake Merritt Channel is also within a zone of very high liquefaction susceptibility. Bay Mud and artificial fills with high clay content are likely to underlie portions of the Planning area and these soils are likely to have the potential to be expansive. However, the LMSAP EIR determined that through compliance

Lincoln Recreation Center Replacement 50 Consistency Determination Checklist City of Oakland August 2023
with the seismic standards of the California Building Code (CBC) and with implementation of SCAs, impacts related to seismic hazards and unstable soils would be less than significant for development occurring under the LMSAP.

4.7.2 Project Analysis
Seismic Hazards, Expansive Soils, and Soil Erosion (Criteria 6a through 6c) The project site is not within a seismic hazard zone and is within a zone of moderate liquefaction susceptibility, as mapped in the LMSAP EIR. The site is flat and not located in a landslide area or in an area of known unstable soil conditions. The proposed project would require a grading permit.

Therefore, per City of Oakland SCAs, the project will be required to prepare an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan. The proposed project also would be required to comply with the CBC’s current seismic standards, which require specific design parameters for construction in various seismic environments per City of Oakland SCAs, to ensure that development of the proposed project would avoid and minimize potential geologic impacts through compliance specifically with local and state regulations governing design and construction practices.

Underground Structures, Landfills, Septic Tanks (Criteria 6d through 6f) Lincoln Square Park was set aside for public use when the City was first founded in the early 1850s.

The existing senior center was constructed on-site in 1940 and the existing recreation center was constructed on-site in 1977. The project site was not formerly used as a landfill and it is not anticipated that any underground structures such as wells, pits, tank vaults, unmarked sewer lines, or septic tanks exist below the project site given that it has been preserved as a public space since the City’s founding.

Conclusion
Based on an examination of the analysis, findings, and conclusions of the 2014 LMSAP EIR, implementation of the proposed project would not result in any new or more significant impacts related to geology and soils than those identified in the LMSAP EIR. Furthermore, implementation of SCA GEO‐1, Construction‐Related Permit(s), and SCA GEO‐2, Soils Report (see Appendix A), would ensure that potential impacts associated with hazardous geologic and soils conditions would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.

Lincoln Recreation Center Replacement 51 Consistency Determination Checklist City of Oakland August 2023

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
The following discussion is based, in part, on an Equitable Climate Action Plan Consistency Checklist prepared for the project. A copy of this checklist is included in Appendix F.

Equal or Less
Severity of Impact
Previously Identified
in the 2014 LMSAP
EIR
Substantial Increase
in Severity of
Previously Identified
Significant Impact in
the 2014 LMSAP
EIR
New Significant
Impact
Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment,
specifically:
1) For a project involving a stationary
source, produce total emissions of more
than 10,000 metric tons of CO2e annually.
[NOTE: Stationary sources are projects
that require a BAAQMD permit to
operate.]
2) 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.
[NOTE: Land use developments are
projects that do not require a BAAQMD
permit to operate.] Consistency with the
2030 ECAP can be shown by either:

a. committing to all of the GHG
emissions reductions strategies
described on the ECAP Consistency
Checklist, or
b. complying with the GHG Reduction
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.

b) Fundamentally conflict with an applicable
plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the
purposes of reducing greenhouse gas
emissions.

Lincoln Recreation Center Replacement 52 Consistency Determination Checklist City of Oakland August 2023

4.8.2 LMSAP EIR Findings
The 2014 LMSAP EIR evaluated the impacts of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions related to the construction and operation of the buildout anticipated under the Planning Area. Buildout of the LMSAP was estimated to generate 3.05 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) per service populations (GHG emissions include amortized construction emissions) with implementation of City policies and SCAs. Therefore, the LMSAP would not exceed the BAAQMD threshold of 4.6 MTCO
2e per service population. For stationary sources, the LMSAP EIR assumed that allowable new commercial and light industrial growth in areas proposed “Flex District” may include new stationary sources, but it would be unlikely that new stationary sources would exceed the BAAQMD threshold of 10,000 MTCO2e. Impacts related to GHG emissions generated from the future developments and stationary sources under the LMSAP would be less than significant. The LMSAP EIR also determined that the LMSAP would not conflict with applicable plans, policies, or regulations adopted to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, such as Assembly Bill 32, the City of Oakland Energy and Climate Action Plan, and other local policies and regulations related to GHG emissions. The LMSAP would generate GHG emissions below the 2020 threshold, which was developed to be consistent with AB 32’s goal, and future developments would be required to comply with the application requirements of the ECAP.

4.8.3 Project Analysis
2030 Equitable Climate Action Plan (Criteria 7a and 7b) Since the adoption of the 2014 LMSAP EIR, the City has updated new GHG thresholds for land use developments that rely on the 2030 Equitable Climate Action Plan, which established targets of 56 percent below 2005 emission levels by 2030 and 83 percent below 2005 emission levels by 2050.

The 2030 target is more aggressive than the Senate Bill 32 target of 40 percent below 1990 emission levels; therefore, the updated City of Oakland GHG thresholds align with the State’s goal. The previous 2014 LSMAP EIR numerical thresholds were based on the 2020 target of 36 percent below 2005 emission levels by 2020.

A project would have less than significant GHG emissions impacts if it demonstrates consistency with the 2030 Equitable Climate Action Plan by either committing to all of the GHG reduction strategies described in the Equitable Climate Action Plan Consistency Checklist or by complying with the GHG reduction Standard Condition of Approval. An Equitable Climate Action Plan Checklist was prepared for the project and is included as Appendix F. The checklist demonstrates that the proposed project would commit to all applicable GHG emission reduction strategies, such as being located within public transit, not adding new parking, and designing the building to be 100 percent electric with no natural gas infrastructure. Furthermore, implementation of the City’s SCAs related to GHG emissions would ensure that the GHG reduction strategies applicable to the project are incorporated into the project design prior to the approval of the construction-related permit.

Therefore, impacts related to the generation of GHG emissions would be less than significant, consistent with the findings of the LMSAP EIR.

Lincoln Recreation Center Replacement 53 Consistency Determination Checklist City of Oakland August 2023

4.8.4 Conclusion
Based on an examination of the analysis, findings, and conclusions of the LMSAP EIR, as well as the new analysis present above per current thresholds, implementation of the proposed project would not result in a new significant impact or more severe impact related to GHG emissions. SCA GHG-1, Project Compliance with the Equitable Climate Action Plan Consistency Checklist (see Appendix A), would be applicable to and implemented by the proposed project to further ensure that GHG impacts associated with the project are less than significant. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required.

Lincoln Recreation Center Replacement 54 Consistency Determination Checklist City of Oakland August 2023

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

Equal or Less
Severity of Impact
Previously Identified
in the 2014 LMSAP
EIR
Substantial Increase
in Severity of
Previously Identified
Significant Impact in
the 2014 LMSAP
EIR
New Significant
Impact
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials;

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;

Create a significant hazard to the public
through the storage or use of acutely hazardous
materials near sensitive receptors;

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;

b) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?

c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?

d) 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;

e) Be located within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, and would result in a significant safety
hazard for people residing or working in the
project area;

f) Fundamentally impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan; or

Lincoln Recreation Center Replacement 55 Consistency Determination Checklist City of Oakland August 2023

Equal or Less
Severity of Impact
Previously Identified
in the 2014 LMSAP
EIR
Substantial Increase
in Severity of
Previously Identified
Significant Impact in
the 2014 LMSAP
EIR
New Significant
Impact
Would the project:
g) Expose people or structures, to a significant
risk of loss, injury, or death involving
wildland fires, including where wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or where are
intermixed with wildlands?

4.9.1 LMSAP EIR Findings
The LMSAP EIR lists and maps known hazardous materials sites within the Planning Area. The project site is not identified as a hazardous materials site. The nearest site identified in the LMSAP EIR is located at 314 10
th Street, approximately 100 feet west of the project site, across Harrison Street. The LMSAP EIR identified the site at 314 10th Street as an Open Clean-up Site under the jurisdiction of the California State Water Board. Potential contaminants of concern included diesel, gasoline, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and other hazardous materials. The LMSAP EIR stated that remediation of contaminated sites is required to occur before or during construction of development projects. The LMSAP EIR determined that existing regulations and implementation of SCAs, impacts related to hazardous materials would be less than significant for development occurring under the LMSAP. The LMSAP EIR determined that no impacts associated with airport hazards or wildland fire hazards would occur with buildout of the LMSAP.

4.9.2 Project Analysis
Hazardous Materials (Criteria 8a through 8c)
Operation of the proposed new recreation center would include the use and storage of small quantities of chemicals on-site for cleaning and maintenance purposes. The small quantities of cleaning and maintenance supplies would be similar in scale to what is currently used on-site by the existing recreation center and the surrounding urban developments. Therefore, operation of the proposed new recreation center would not pose a risk to the public or the environment. Hazardous emissions associated with the project would be less than significant with implementation of the City’s SCAs, as previously described in Section 4.3 Air Quality.

The project site does not have a history of contamination. Lincoln Square Park was designated as a public park in the early 1850s when the City was founded and thus, no land uses have occurred on- site that would have resulted in contamination. The project site is not located on a site included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5 (i.e., the Cortese List).
9 The LMSAP-identified site at 314 10th Street is no longer included on the Cortese List, indicating that the site has since been remediated and the case has been declared closed. There are two sites within the project vicinity that have been added to the Cortese List since the adoption of the LMSAP.

9 CalEPA. “Cortese List Data Resources”. Accessed October 26, 2022. https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/

Lincoln Recreation Center Replacement 56 Consistency Determination Checklist City of Oakland August 2023

The first site is located at 1100 Webster Street, approximately 200 feet north of the project site, at the intersection of Harrison Street and 11
th Street. This site was listed as an active voluntary agreement site in 2016 under supervision of the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). Groundwater and soil vapor at this site were contaminated with lead, petroleum, toxaphene, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that were introduced to the site during operation of a former cold storage facility and automobile dealership and repair center. The site has since been redeveloped with a mixed-use building. Remediation during redevelopment of the site included soil excavation and in-situ groundwater remediation. Additionally, a vapor barrier and soil vapor extraction system were installed at the new building.
10 Given the distance from the project site and the remediation that has taken place at this site, the proposed recreation center project would not risk releasing contaminants associated with this site during earth-moving construction activities.

The second Cortese List site within the project vicinity is located at 285 12 th Street, approximately
200 feet north of the project site, across 11th Street. This site became an active voluntary agreement site in 2020 under supervision of DTSC. This site was previously occupied by a variety of commercial and industrial businesses including an automotive repair shop, carriage repair shop, and stove repair and painting operation. This site is known to contain soils contaminated with total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), VOCs, and metals.

However, groundwater at this site flows to the north/northeast, away from Lincoln Square Park. 11 Thus, the proposed recreation center would not risk releasing contaminants associated with this site during earth-moving construction activities.

Given that the existing recreation center opened in 1977, it is possible that the building may contain asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) and lead-based paint (LBP). These hazardous materials were banned in 1978, after construction of the existing recreation center. As described in SCA AIR-7, Asbestos in Structures, and SCA HAZ-1, Hazardous Materials Related to Construction, the project would be required to implement asbestos and lead-safe work practices and comply with all local, state, and federal regulations concerning ACMs and lead. The project will also be required by law to retain a registered asbestos abatement contractor to remove and dispose of all potentially friable ACMs, in accordance with the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants guidelines, prior to building demolition that may disturb the materials. Cal/OSHA standards shall be followed during demolition activities to protect workers from exposure to ACMs and LBP.

While the project site is located less than a quarter-mile from Lincoln Elementary School, the project would not result in hazardous emissions or the handling of hazardous materials. For the reasons discussed above, the project would not pose a risk to students at Lincoln Elementary School.

10 DTSC. “Envirostor – Webster Eleven (60002362). Accessed October 26, 2022. https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/profile_report?global_id=60002362 11 Roux Associates, Inc. Site Assessment and Report of Findings: 285 12 th Street, Oakland, California. July 22, 2022. Available at:
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/deliverable_documents/5714873373/SAPROF_285%2012th%20Street_Fi nal_July%202022.pdf

Lincoln Recreation Center Replacement 57 Consistency Determination Checklist City of Oakland August 2023
Other Hazards – Emergency Access, Airports, Wildland Fires (Criteria 8d through 8g)
The proposed new recreation center would not alter the existing surrounding roadways and thus, would not interfere with emergency response plans or evacuation plans. The nearest airport to the project site is the Oakland International Airport, located approximately 5.6 miles southeast of the project site. Given this distance, the project site is outside of the airport influence area (AIA) and the airport’s safety compatibility contours established in the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP).
12 Therefore, the project would not result in any airport-related hazards. As noted by the LMSAP EIR, the project site is not within a fire hazard severity zone13 and thus, is not susceptible to wildland fires.

4.9.3 Conclusion
Based on an examination of the analysis, findings, and conclusions of the LMSAP EIR, implementation of the proposed project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials than those identified in the LMSAP EIR.

Implementation of SCA AIR-7, Asbestos in Structures and SCA HAZ-1, Hazardous Materials Related to Construction, (see Appendix A), would further ensure that potential impacts associated with hazardous conditions would be less than significant.

12 Alameda County Community Development Agency. Oakland International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.

December 2010.
13 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. “Fire Hazard Severity Zones Maps”. Accessed October 31, 2022. https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/divisions/community-wildfire-preparedness-and-mitigation/wildland-hazards- building-codes/fire-hazard-severity-zones-maps/

Lincoln Recreation Center Replacement 58 Consistency Determination Checklist City of Oakland August 2023

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

Equal or Less
Severity of Impact
Previously Identified
in the 2014 LMSAP
EIR
Substantial Increase
in Severity of
Previously Identified
Significant Impact in
the 2014 LMSAP
EIR
New Significant
Impact
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards
or waste discharge requirements;
Result in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off-site that would
affect the quality of receiving
waters;
Create or contribute substantial
runoff which would be an additional
source of polluted runoff;
Otherwise substantially degrade
water quality;
Fundamentally conflict with the City
of Oakland Creek Protection
Ordinance (OMC Chapter 13.16)
intended to protect hydrologic
resources?

b) Substantially deplete groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially
with groundwater recharge such that
there would be a net deficit in
aquifer volume or a lowering of the
local groundwater table level (e.g.,
the production rate of preexisting
nearby wells would drop to a level
which would not support existing
land uses or proposed uses for which
permits have been granted)?

Lincoln Recreation Center Replacement 59 Consistency Determination Checklist City of Oakland August 2023

Equal or Less
Severity of Impact
Previously Identified
in the 2014 LMSAP
EIR
Substantial Increase
in Severity of
Previously Identified
Significant Impact in
the 2014 LMSAP
EIR
New Significant
Impact
Would the project:
c) Create or contribute substantial
runoff which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems;

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?

d) Result in substantial flooding on- or
off-site;
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;
Place within a 100-year flood hazard
area structures which would impede
or redirect flood flows; or
Expose people or structures to a
substantial risk of loss, injury, or
death involving flooding?

4.10.1 LMSAP Findings
The LMSAP EIR determined that development under the LMSAP would largely not alter hydrology within the Planning Area because the majority of the development would occur on urban sites that are already paved. Thus, development under the LMSAP would not result in an increase of runoff, increase flooding, impact groundwater recharge, alter drainage patterns, or cause substantial erosion or siltation. Additionally, projects on sites of one acre or more would be required to implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) under the General Construction Permit, and all projects would be subject to the City’s SCAs which would require projects to use Low Impact Development (LID) techniques. Therefore, development under the LMSAP would have a less than significant impact on water quality.

Lincoln Recreation Center Replacement 60 Consistency Determination Checklist City of Oakland August 2023

The LMSAP EIR noted that there is one small 100-year flood zone within the Planning Area that is almost entirely confined to park land along Lake Merritt and the Lake Merritt Channel. One potential development site would be affected by the 100-year flood zone, however, adherence to all building code requirements, the City’s SCAs, and the City’s Creek Protection Ordinance would reduce the potential impact of impeding or redirecting flood flows to a less than significant level. The LMSAP EIR also noted that a small portion of the Planning Area along Lake Merritt Channel is within the tsunami runup zone, however, this zone would not dictate any restriction in land use. The Planning Area is not susceptible to seiche or mudflow.

4.10.2 Project Analysis
Water Quality, Stormwater, and Drainages and Drainage Patterns (Criteria 10a and 10c)
Construction Impacts
Construction activities (e.g., grading and excavation) on the project site may result in temporary impacts to surface water quality. When disturbance of underlying soils occurs, the surface runoff that flows across the site may contain sediments that are discharged into the storm drainage system.

Construction of the proposed project would disturb approximately 1.1-acres of the project site. Since construction of the project would disturb more than one acre of soil, the project would be required to comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Construction Activities pursuant with SCA HYD-1. Additionally, the project would be required to comply with SCA HYD-2, which requires an erosion and sedimentation control plan be submitted prior to construction.

Operational Impacts
The majority of the project site is currently paved with 32,563 square feet of impervious surface (e.g., roof areas, sidewalks, driveways, uncovered parking, and streets). The project would replace 26,791 square feet of existing impervious and increase the impervious surface by 5,772 square feet for a total of 38,335 square feet of impervious surface area. There would be 3,980 square feet of pervious surface area. However, the net increase in impervious surface area would not represent a substantial increase in runoff and the project would not result in a change in drainage patterns on-site.

The project would include site design measures and control measures to manage stormwater on-site.

Site design measures include permeable paving and direct surface run-off into vegetated areas.

Source control measures include Bay Friendly landscaping, low-water vegetation, one self-treating area, and 12 bioretention treatment areas on-site (2,255 square feet of treatment area proposed). The project would include stormwater planters along the perimeter of the proposed recreation center and a total of approximately 4,200 square feet of landscaping area. The project would also be subject to SCA HYD-3 and SCA HYD-7, which encourages incorporation of site design measures to reduce stormwater runoff, installation of source control measures to limit stormwater pollution, and the incorporation of the NPDES C.3 stormwater requirements for small projects, respectively.

Given that the project site is approximately 1.39 acres, the project would be subject to the requirements of the General Construction Permit and would prepare and implement a SWPPP, in addition to the City’s SCAs pertaining to water quality and hydrology. Therefore, consistent with the

Lincoln Recreation Center Replacement 61 Consistency Determination Checklist City of Oakland August 2023
findings of the LMSAP EIR, the project would have a less than significant impact on water quality, stormwater, and drainage.

Groundwater (Criterion 10b)
Currently, the project site is mostly paved and does not function as a groundwater recharge zone. The project would connect to the existing municipal water mains on 11 th Street and 10th Street and would
not draw groundwater on-site. Project construction would involve excavation to a maximum depth of approximately five feet. At this depth, it is unlikely that groundwater would be encountered during project construction. In the event that groundwater is encountered and dewatering is necessary, the dewatering would not substantially lower the groundwater level on-site. The project would be required to implement the City’s pertaining to grading and excavation activities, reducing the project’s impact to a less than significant level.

Flooding and Substantial Risks from Flooding (Criterion 8d) The project site is within Flood Zone X, an area of minimal flood hazard, as designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
14 The project site is not located in a tsunami
hazard zone.15 As stated in the LMSAP EIR, the Planning Area is not susceptible to seiche or mudflows. Therefore, the project would not result in an adverse impact with respect to flood-related risks.

4.10.3 Conclusion
Based on an examination of the analysis, findings, and conclusions of the LMSAP EIR, implementation of the proposed project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts related to hydrology and water quality than those identified in the LMSAP EIR.

Implementation of SCA HYD-1, Erosion and Sedimentation Control Measures for Construction, SCA HYD-2, Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan for Construction, SCA HYD-3, State Construction General Permit, SCA HYD-7, NPDES C.3 Stormwater Requirements for Regulated Projects (see Appendix A), would further ensure that potential impacts associated with hydrology and water quality would be less than significant.

14 FEMA. Flood Insurance Rate Map 06001C0067H. Effective on 12/21/2018. 15 California Department of Conservation. “California Tsunami Maps and Data”. Accessed September 2, 2022. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/tsunami/maps

Lincoln Recreation Center Replacement 62 Consistency Determination Checklist City of Oakland August 2023

LAND USE AND PLANNING

Equal or Less
Severity of Impact
Previously Identified
in the 2014 LMSAP
EIR
Substantial Increase
in Severity of
Previously Identified
Significant Impact in
the 2014 LMSAP
EIR
New Significant
Impact
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Result in a fundamental conflict between
adjacent or nearby land uses;

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; or

d) Fundamentally conflict with any applicable
habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan.

4.11.1 LMSAP Findings
The LMSAP EIR determined that no significant land use impacts would occur through implementation of the LMSAP. The LMSAP EIR determined that the LMSAP proposed to provide more connections to existing communities rather than dividing infrastructure. While the LMSAP proposed changes in zoning, height limits, and character area designations, these changes were found to generally be consistent with the existing character of the Planning Area and the designations and goals of the General Plan. No mitigation measures or SCAs were required to reduce land use impacts of the LMSAP.

4.11.2 Project Analysis (Criteria 11a through 11d)
The project does not propose any changes in zoning or land use designation for the project site. The project proposes to implement Policy OS-8 of the LMSAP by replacing the existing recreation center on-site with a new two-story recreation center with expanded sports and recreation facilities. The Lincoln Recreation Center, and Lincoln Square Park as a whole, would continue to function as a neighborhood park, consistent with the site’s zoning and land use designation. For these reasons, the project would not divide an established community, conflict with adjacent or nearby land uses, or conflict with an applicable land use plan or habitat conservation plan.

Lincoln Recreation Center Replacement 63 Consistency Determination Checklist City of Oakland August 2023

4.11.3 Conclusion
Based on an examination of the analysis, findings, and conclusions of the 2014 LMSAP EIR, the proposed project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts related to land use and planning than those identified in the LMSAP EIR. The LMSAP EIR did not identify any mitigation measures related to land use, and no City of Oakland SCAs directly addressing land use and planning apply to the proposed project.

Lincoln Recreation Center Replacement 64 Consistency Determination Checklist City of Oakland August 2023
NOISE

Equal or Less
Severity of Impact
Previously Identified
in the 2014 LMSAP
EIR
Substantial Increase
in Severity of
Previously Identified
Significant Impact in
the 2014 LMSAP
EIR
New Significant
Impact
Would the project:
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 p.m. to 7 a.m.
on weekdays and 8 p.m. to 9 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);

Lincoln Recreation Center Replacement 65 Consistency Determination Checklist City of Oakland August 2023

Equal or Less
Severity of Impact
Previously Identified
in the 2014 LMSAP
EIR
Substantial Increase
in Severity of
Previously Identified
Significant Impact in
the 2014 LMSAP
EIR
New Significant
Impact
Would 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);
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;
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

f) During either project construction or project
operation expose persons to or generate
groundborne vibration that exceeds the
criteria established by the Federal Transit
Administration (FTA).

g) Be located within an airport land use plan and
would expose people residing or working in
the project area to excessive noise levels; or
Be located within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, and would expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise
levels.

4.12.1 LMSAP EIR Findings
The LMSAP EIR determined that with implementation of SCAs, development under the LMSAP would have less than significant noise impacts during construction and operation periods. The LMSAP EIR determined that activities occurring under the LMSAP could expose residential uses and commercial uses near construction to noise levels exceeding the General Plan standards of 80 and 85 dBA, respectively. However, the LMSAP EIR determined that construction of individual development projects implemented under the LMSAP would be temporary in nature and that associated impacts would be less than significant with implementation of applicable SCAs. The

Lincoln Recreation Center Replacement 66 Consistency Determination Checklist City of Oakland August 2023
LMSAP EIR also determined that construction vibration caused by development under the LMSAP would be less than significant with implementation of the applicable SCAs.

The LMSAP EIR also determined that operation‐period noise associated with projects developed under the LMSAP would be less than significant, with implementation of applicable SCAs.

4.12.2 Project Analysis
Construction and Operational Noise and Vibration, Exposure of Receptors to Noise (Criteria 13a, 13b, 13d, 13e, and 13f)
Construction Noise
Construction activities for the proposed project are anticipated to occur over approximately 20 months. Construction phases would include demolition of the existing recreation center, site preparation, grading, trenching/foundation, building erection, building interior finishing/architectural coating, and paving and landscaping. It is anticipated that the loudest phase of construction would be the demolition phase, which is anticipated to last for approximately one month (20 workdays). The longest single phase of construction would be building interior and exterior finishes, which would last for approximately eight months. The building interior and exterior finishes phase would also be one of the quieter phases of construction because less heavy equipment would be used on-site and a portion of the construction work would occur inside the proposed recreation center, reducing the amount of noise audible to surrounding receptors. Construction hours would be limited to between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday.

The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site are the Yuk Yau Child Development Center, located across 10
th Street from Lincoln Square Park (approximately 140 feet south of the existing recreation center), and Lincoln Elementary School, located adjacent to Lincoln Square Park (approximately 200 feet southeast of the existing recreation center). Project construction would not include pile-driving, an extreme noise-generating activity. Implementation of applicable City of Oakland SCAs would minimize construction noise impacts by limiting hours of construction activities, by requiring best available noise control technology and notification of any local residents of construction activities, and by tracking and responding to noise complaints. As a result, the construction noise impacts of the proposed project would be less than significant, as identified for the LMSAP EIR.

Vibration
As previously mentioned, project construction would not involve pile-driving, an activity that generates particularly high vibration levels. Implementation of SCA NOI‐8, Vibration Impacts on Adjacent Structures or Vibration‐Sensitive Activities, would minimize construction vibration impacts by requiring vibration monitoring for activities adjacent to historic structures, requiring a project and/or its contractors to notify any local residents of construction activities, and to track and respond to vibration complaints.

Lincoln Recreation Center Replacement 67 Consistency Determination Checklist City of Oakland August 2023
Operational Noise
The new recreation center would maintain the same function as the existing recreation center and thus, would not make a substantial permanent noise increase on-site. The site would continue to support outdoor sports activities and would have an expanded capacity for indoor sports and recreational activities. The proposed project would include rooftop mechanical equipment for heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) standardized for noise reduction, as was assumed in the LMSAP EIR. Development of the proposed project would incorporate NOI‐7, Operational Noise, to ensure a less‐than‐significant impact with respect to noise from stationary sources on the project site.

Operation of the new recreation center would not involve any vibration-generating activities.

Traffic Noise (Criterion 13c)
The new recreation center would continue to function as a local-serving recreation center. Using the ITE trip generation rate for recreation centers, the project is estimated to generate approximately 400 net new daily vehicle trips.16 However, this estimate is likely overstated as the project would not add any additional parking to the project site. Additionally, the project site is in a high-quality transit area (see Section 4.16 Transportation) given the proximity of the Lake Merritt Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) station and the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit) bus stop directly serving Lincoln Square Park along the 11th Street project frontage. Vehicle traffic generated by the project would not result in a substantial permanent noise increase in the project vicinity. This is consistent with the LMSAP EIR, which concluded that development within the LMSAP area would not result in a significant traffic-related noise increase.

Exposure to Project Receptors and OSHA Standards (Criterion 13e) CEQA requires the analysis of potential adverse effects of the proposed Plan on the environment.

Potential effects of the environment on the proposed Plan are not legally required to be analyzed or mitigated under CEQA. However, the City of Oakland’s land use compatibility guidelines establish acceptable noise levels for sensitive land uses. The following discussion, therefore, is provided for informational purposes only and does not have bearing on the project’s CEQA analysis.

The City’s maximum acceptable noise level for neighborhood parks is 65 dBA, however, a maximum noise level is not identified for recreation centers. The LMSAP EIR states that many parts of the Planning Area are expected to experience noise levels in excess of the General Plan’s land use compatibility guidelines, and Plan-related traffic will contribute to increased noise. The City of Oakland’s General Plan and Noise Ordinance provide a strong policy framework for minimizing noise impacts in new development. Implementation of the City’s applicable SCAs would require the project to implement interior noise control design measures as necessary. For these reasons, the project would be consistent with the City’s land use compatibility noise guidelines.

Project construction activities could expose construction workers to substantial levels of noise. When not properly protected, employees that work in loud environments can suffer hearing loss from

16 Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition. September 2021. Land Use Code 495 (Recreational Community Center.

Lincoln Recreation Center Replacement 68 Consistency Determination Checklist City of Oakland August 2023
excessive noise exposure. The project and contractor would be required to comply with the California OSHA noise exposure standards to avoid health risks associated with loud work environments. In addition, Oakland has established its own, more restrictive noise exposure standards as Section 17.120 of the Planning Code. For these reasons, the project would not expose persons to noise levels in excess of OSHA standards.

Airport Noise (Criterion 13g)
The nearest airport to the project site is the Oakland International Airport, located approximately 5.6 miles southeast of the project site. Given this distance, the project site is outside of the AIA and the airport’s noise compatibility contours established in the ALUCP. 17 Therefore, the project would not
expose people to excessive airport noise.

4.12.3 Conclusion
Based on an examination of the analysis, findings, and conclusions of the LMSAP EIR, implementation of the proposed project would not substantially increase the severity of impacts identified in the LMSAP EIR, nor would it result in new significant impacts related to noise that were not identified in the LMSAP EIR. Implementation of SCAs NOI‐1, Construction Days/Hours, NOI‐2, Construction Noise, NOI‐3, Extreme Construction Noise, NOI‐7, Operational Noise, and NOI‐8, Vibration Impacts on Adjacent Structures or Vibration‐Sensitive Activities (see Appendix A), would be applicable and would be implemented with the proposed project, and would ensure that noise‐related impacts associated with the proposed project would be less than significant.

17 Alameda County Community Development Agency. Oakland International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.

December 2010.

Lincoln Recreation Center Replacement 69 Consistency Determination Checklist City of Oakland August 2023

POPULATION AND HOUSING

Equal or Less
Severity of Impact
Previously Identified
in the 2014 LMSAP
EIR
Substantial Increase
in Severity of
Previously Identified
Significant Impact in
the 2014 LMSAP
EIR
New Significant
Impact
Would the project:
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.

4.13.1 LMSAP Findings
The LMSAP EIR determined that impacts related to population and housing would be less than significant with development occurring under the LMSAP. No mitigation measures or SCAs would be required. The LMSAP EIR assumes that associated growth in the number of households and population occurring from development under the LMSAP would be in line with regional growth projections, including ABAGʹs 2009 growth forecast for 2035 and would not result in unplanned population growth.

4.13.2 Project Analysis (Criteria 13a through 13c)
The project proposes to replace the existing recreation center in Lincoln Square Park with a new, larger recreation center. The project would not induce any population growth by adding new housing, businesses, or infrastructure. The project would not displace any existing housing or people.

4.13.3 Conclusion
Based on an examination of the analysis, findings, and conclusions of the 2014 LMSAP EIR, the proposed project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts related to population and housing than those identified in the LMSAP EIR. The LMSAP EIR did not identify any mitigation measures related to population and housing, and none would be required for the proposed project. Also, no SCAs would apply.

Lincoln Recreation Center Replacement 70 Consistency Determination Checklist City of Oakland August 2023

PUBLIC SERVICES, PARKS, AND RECREATION FACILITIES

Equal or Less
Severity of Impact
Previously Identified
in the 2014 LMSAP
EIR
Substantial Increase
in Severity of
Previously Identified
Significant Impact in
the 2014 LMSAP
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:
• Fire Protection?
• Police Protection?
• Schools?
• 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

Include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational
facilities which might have a substantial
adverse physical effect on the environment.

4.14.1 LMSAP Findings
The LMSAP EIR determined that the increase in demand for public services (i.e., fire, police, and schools) and park and recreation services from development under the LMSAP would be less than significant. The Oakland Police Department and Fire Department would adjust service capacity as needed and the City is responsible for coordinating service provisions to adjust to the expected increase in demand for these services. New development, including the proposed project, is required to adhere to appropriate building and fire code requirements that would be incorporated into project construction. The Plan area is exceptionally well‐served by libraries, and the LMSAP includes the creation of new parks and open spaces, and improved access to the regional parks system. Potential impacts to public services would be less than significant with implementation of SCAs. No mitigation measures or SCAs were required regarding recreation.

Lincoln Recreation Center Replacement 71 Consistency Determination Checklist City of Oakland August 2023

4.14.2 Project Analysis (Criteria 14a through 14b)
The project proposes to replace the existing recreation center in Lincoln Square Park with a new, larger recreation center. Replacement of the existing recreation center would not create a greater demand upon fire protection services, police protection services, or schools as compared to existing conditions. The project is itself a recreational facility and is intended to accommodate an increased use of the Lincoln Square Recreation Center and Park by replacing the existing facility with a larger recreation center and making improvements to the existing Lincoln Square Park. As described throughout this Consistency Determination Checklist, the project would not result in a substantial adverse physical effect on the environment.

4.14.3 Conclusion
Based on an examination of the analysis, findings, and conclusions of the 2014 LMSAP EIR, the proposed project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts related to public services and parks and recreation services than those identified in the LMSAP EIR and the Previous CEQA Documents.

Lincoln Recreation Center Replacement 72 Consistency Determination Checklist City of Oakland August 2023

TRANSPORTATION

Equal or Less
Severity of Impact
Previously Identified
in the 2014 LMSAP
EIR
Substantial Increase
in Severity of
Previously Identified
Significant Impact in
the 2014 LMSAP
EIR
New Significant
Impact
Would the project:
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);

b) Cause substantial additional vehicle miles
traveled (per capita, per service population,
or other appropriate efficiency measure);

c) Substantially induce additional automobile
travel by increasing physical roadway
capacity in congested areas or by adding new
roadways to the network;

4.15.1 LMSAP EIR Findings
The 2014 LMSAP EIR evaluated level of service (LOS) impacts, traffic safety, and consistency with adopted policies, plans, and programs supporting alternative transportation. For the LOS analysis, 45 intersections and 10 freeway segments within the Planning Area were included. The LMSAP EIR identified 27 significant impacts related to the LOS of various intersections in the existing plus project, interim 2020 plus project, and cumulative 2035 plus project conditions. Of the 27 significant LOS impacts, 16 of the impacts incorporated mitigation measures but only four of the 16 impacts would be reduced to less than significant with incorporation of mitigation. Therefore, 23 of the LOS related impacts were determined to be significant and unavoidable. However, LOS is no longer considered an acceptable metric for analyzing transportation impacts under CEQA pursuant to Senate Bill 743. Lead agencies are now required to evaluate transportation impacts using a vehicle miles traveled (VMT) metric. Therefore, VMT, rather than LOS, is discussed in the analysis below.

The LMSAP EIR concluded that since the proposed LMSAP policies would enhance road user safety within the Planning area, impacts related to traffic safety (e.g., transportation hazards, pedestrian safety, bicyclist safety, bus rider safety, and rail crossing safety) would be less than significant. The LMSAP was also determined to be consistent with the Oakland Pedestrian Master Plan and the Oakland Bicycle Master Plan; therefore, impacts related to consistency with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation would be less than significant.

Lincoln Recreation Center Replacement 73 Consistency Determination Checklist City of Oakland August 2023

4.15.2 Project Analysis
Consistency with Adopted Policies, Plans or Programs Supporting Alternative Transportation (Criterion 14a)
Pedestrian Facilities
The Oakland Walks 2017 Pedestrian Plan Update is the latest pedestrian master plan for the City.

The project would not conflict with the pedestrian plan because it would not limit pedestrian access to the proposed recreation center. The pedestrian facilities in the study area consist of sidewalks, crosswalks, and pedestrian signals at signalized intersections. Existing sidewalks along Harrison Street, 10
th Street, and 11th Street provide pedestrian connections between the project site and other pedestrian destinations in the project vicinity. For these reasons, the project would not conflict with any plans, ordinances, or policies related to pedestrian facilities and impacts would be less than significant impact.

Bicycle Facilities
The 2019 Oakland Bike Plan is the latest bicycle master plan for the City of Oakland. The project site is directly served by a Class II bike lane along 11
th Street. The project would also include more
bicycle parking spaces on-site by providing four long-term bicycle storage spaces inside the new recreation center for staff use and approximately 50 short-term bicycle storage spaces to be provided via bike racks outdoors. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with implementation of the 2019 Oakland Bike Plan. For these reasons, the project would have a less than significant impact.

Transit Facilities
The project site is within a third of a mile of the Lake Merritt BART station. There are also two bus stops along the project site (fronting11
th Street) served by the AC Transit District. Available routes include 29, 33, 40, 88, 96, 840, and 1T. Future staff and recreation center members would be able to access the site easily via public transit services. For these reasons, the project would not conflict with any plans, ordinances, or policies related to transit facilities and impacts would be less than significant impact.

Vehicle Miles Traveled (Criterion 14a and 14b)
Subsequent to the certification of the LMSAP EIR, Senate Bill 743 was enacted and the CEQA Guidelines were updated (see CEQA Guidelines Section 15604.3) to require lead agencies to evaluate transportation impacts using VMT, and a project’s effect on automobile delay is no longer considered an impact under CEQA. Therefore, LOS analysis is not required and the project’s VMT impact is analyzed instead.

The 2017 City of Oakland Transportation Impact Review Guidelines include the following screening criteria that can be used to determine a less than significant VMT impact for projects that meet one or more of the following criteria:
• Small Projects: The project generates fewer than 100 vehicle trips per day; • 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; or

Lincoln Recreation Center Replacement 74 Consistency Determination Checklist City of Oakland August 2023
• Near Transit Stations: The project is located in a Transit Priority Area or within a one-half mile of a Major Transit Corridor or Stop and satisfies the following:
o Has a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of more than 0.75;
o Includes less 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); and
o Is consistent with the applicable Sustainable Communities Strategy (as determined by the lead agency, with input from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission).

VMT Screening
Low-VMT Area Screening Criterion
Based on the Metropolitan Transportation Commission Simulated VMT per Capita by Place18 of Residence, the regional 2020, 2030, and 2040 average VMT are 15, 14.4, and 13.8 miles. The regional average VMT minus 15 percent for 2020, 2030, and 2040 would be 12.75, 12.24, and 11.73 miles, respectively. The project site is located in transportation analysis zone (TAZ) 1454 where the average VMT per capita in 2020, 2030, and 2040 are 3.55, 2.87, and 2.77 miles, respectively. The VMT per capita within the project TAZ are below the regional average VMT minus 15 precent thresholds. Therefore, the project would meet the Low-VMT area screening criterion. Since the project meets the Low VMT Area Screening Criterion, it is presumed that impacts related to VMT would be less than significant.

Roadway Congestion and New Roadways (Criterion 14c)
The project consists of constructing a two-story 22,221 square foot recreation center to replace the existing single-story recreation center. The project would not include the construction of new roadways or modify the existing roadway network. The proposed recreation center would continue to serve the existing community and no new parking spaces would be provided. While the project is conservatively estimated to generate approximately 400 net new daily vehicle trips, 19 this estimate is
likely overstated given that the project would not add any additional parking to the project site and is located in a high-quality transit area. Therefore, the project is not anticipated to cause a need for increasing the physical roadway capacity in congested areas.

4.15.3 Conclusion
Based on an examination of the analysis, findings, and conclusions of the 2014 LMSAP EIR, the proposed project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts related to transportation and circulation than those identified in the LMSAP EIR. The mitigation measures identified by the LMSAP EIR to reduce LOS impacts at specific intersections do not apply to the project. Certain SCAs identified in the LMSAP EIR would not pertain to the project, such as those

18 Metropolitan Transportation Commission. “ Simulated VMT per Capita by Place of Residence”. Accessed October 31, 2022.
https://mtc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=5dac76d69b3d41e583882e146491568b 19 Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition. September 2021. Land Use Code 495 (Recreational Community Center.

Lincoln Recreation Center Replacement 75 Consistency Determination Checklist City of Oakland August 2023
pertaining to improvements in the public right-of-way, transportation demand management, and railroad crossing. Implementation of SCAs TRAN-1, Construction activity in the Public Right-of- Way, TRAN-2, Bicycle Parking. (see Appendix A), would be applicable and would be implemented with the proposed project, and would ensure that transportation‐related impacts associated with the proposed project would be less than significant.

Lincoln Recreation Center Replacement 76 Consistency Determination Checklist City of Oakland August 2023

TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Equal or Less
Severity of Impact
Previously Identified
in the 2014 LMSAP
EIR
Substantial Increase
in Severity of
Previously Identified
Significant Impact in
the 2014 LMSAP
EIR
New Significant
Impact
Would the project cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in Public Resources Code
Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place,
cultural landscape that is geographically defined in
terms of the size and scope of the landscape,
sacred place, or object with cultural value to a
California Native American tribe, and that is:

1) Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)?

2) A resource determined by the lead agency, in
its discretion and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria
set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources
Code Section 5024.1? In applying the criteria
set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources
Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall
consider the significance of the resource to a
California Native American tribe.

4.16.2 LMSAP EIR Findings
The LMSAP EIR did not include a tribal cultural resources section as the CEQA Appendix G checklist did not include a tribal cultural resources section at the time of preparation. The CEQA Guidelines amendments related to AB 52 took effect in 2015. While the LMSAP EIR did not include a tribal cultural resources section, it did include a cultural resources section. The LMSAP EIR determined that impacts to archaeological resources and human remains, which would be inclusive of tribal cultural resources, would be less than significant with implementation of the City’s SCAs.

4.16.3 Project Analysis
As previously described in Section 4.5 Cultural Resources, the project site was determined by Archaeological/Historical Consultants to have a low sensitivity for Native American archaeological resources given the distance of the site from fresh water and the lack of known resources nearby.

Project construction would involve grading activities and the export of approximately 440 cubic yards of soil off-site. Therefore, there is the potential to impact unknown tribal cultural resources.

However, implementation of the City’s SCAs, as noted in the LMSAP EIR, would ensure that any tribal cultural resources discovered would be recovered and that appropriate procedures are followed in the event of accidental discovery.

Lincoln Recreation Center Replacement 77 Consistency Determination Checklist City of Oakland August 2023

4.16.4 Conclusion
Based on an examination of the analysis, findings, and conclusions of the 2014 LMSAP EIR, the proposed project would not result in any more severe significant impacts identified in the LMSAP EIR, nor would it result in new significant impacts related to tribal cultural resources that were not identified in the LMSAP EIR. Implementation of SCAs CUL‐1, Archaeological and Paleontological Resources – Discovery During Construction and CUL‐3, Human Remains – Discovery During Construction (see Appendix A), would further ensure that potential impacts associated with cultural resources would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.

Lincoln Recreation Center Replacement 78 Consistency Determination Checklist City of Oakland August 2023

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

Equal or Less
Severity of Impact
Previously Identified
in the 2014 LMSAP
EIR
Substantial Increase
in Severity of
Previously Identified
Significant Impact in
the 2014 LMSAP
EIR
New Significant
Impact
Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of
the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality
Control Board;

Require or result in construction of new storm
water drainage facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects;

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
effects;

b) 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;

c) 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;

Violate applicable federal, state, and local
statutes and regulations related to solid waste;

Lincoln Recreation Center Replacement 79 Consistency Determination Checklist City of Oakland August 2023

Equal or Less
Severity of Impact
Previously Identified
in the 2014 LMSAP
EIR
Substantial Increase
in Severity of
Previously Identified
Significant Impact in
the 2014 LMSAP
EIR
New Significant
Impact
Would the project:
d) Violate applicable federal, state and local
statutes and regulations relating to energy
standards;

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.

4.17.1 LMSAP Findings
The LMSAP EIR identified less‐than‐significant impacts to utilities and service systems, with the incorporation of City of Oakland SCAs in certain instances where new infrastructure would be required to be constructed. The LMSAP EIR determined that the capacity of existing service systems would meet increased service demand of development analyzed for the LMSAP; wastewater generation would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements or capacity, surface water runoff would not exceed the capacity of the storm drain system, water demand would not exceed available water supplies, and solid waste generated would not exceed landfill capacity.

4.17.2 Project Analysis
Water, Wastewater, and Stormwater (Criteria 16a and 16b) Water
The existing recreation center generates a demand of approximately 0.5 million gallons of water per year.20 The proposed new recreation center would generate a demand of approximately 1.3 million gallons of water per year, resulting in a net increase in demand of 0.8 million gallons of water per year compared to existing conditions. The LMSAP EIR determined that buildout of the LMSAP would result in an increase in demand of 4,307 million gallons of water per year. The water demand of the proposed project would represent approximately 0.02 percent of the anticipated increase in water demand due to buildout of the LMSAP. Therefore, consistent with the LMSAP EIR, the project would not exceed water supplies available or require the construction of new or expanded water facilities.

20 CalEEMod. Appendix D Default Data Tables: Table 9.1 Water Use Rates. October 2017.

Lincoln Recreation Center Replacement 80 Consistency Determination Checklist City of Oakland August 2023
Wastewater
The existing recreation center generates approximately 0.4 million gallons of wastewater per year (or approximately 1,096 gallons per day [gpd]).21 The proposed new recreation center would generate approximately 1.1 million gallons of wastewater per year (or approximately 3,014 gpd), resulting in a net increase of approximately 0.7 million gallons of wastewater per year (or approximately 1,918 gpd) compared to existing conditions. The LMSAP EIR determined that buildout of the LMSAP would result in an increase of 464 million gallons of wastewater per year. The wastewater generated by the proposed project would represent approximately 0.2 percent of the anticipated increase in wastewater generated due to buildout of the LMSAP. Therefore, consistent with the LMSAP EIR, the project would not exceed wastewater treatment capacities or require the construction of new or expanded wastewater facilities.

Stormwater
As previously described under Section 4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality, the project would increase the impervious surface area on-site by approximately 5,772 square feet. However, the project would include landscaping and bioretention areas on-site to reduce the amount of runoff generated on-site.

Additionally, the project would be required to implement the City’s SCAs requiring stormwater control during and after construction. The increase in stormwater runoff on-site would be an incremental increase compared to existing conditions and would not necessitate construction of new or improved stormwater facilities, consistent with the LMSAP EIR.

Solid Waste Services (Criteria 16c)
The existing recreation center generates approximately 48 tons of solid waste per year.22 The proposed new recreation center would generate approximately 126 tons of solid waste per year, resulting in a net increase of approximately 78 tons of solid waste generated per year. The LMSAP EIR determined that buildout of the LMSAP could be accommodated by the five landfills most heavily used by the City of Oakland. The landfills were projected to have closure years ranging from 2019 to 2048. However, Vasco Road Sanitary Landfill and Forward Landfill, Inc., two landfills estimated to have closed in 2019 and 2020 by the LMSAP EIR, are still active. 23,24 The total
permitted throughput of the five landfills that service the City is approximately 30,248 tons of solid waste per day (or 11 million tons of solid waste per year) as estimated by the LMSAP EIR. Solid waste generated by the proposed project would represent less than 0.001 percent of the permitted throughput of the landfills serving the City. Additionally, the project would be required to comply with the City’s SCAs pertaining to waste reduction and recycling. Therefore, consistent with the LMSAP EIR, the project would have a negligible impact on solid waste disposal facilities and would not cause an exceedance of permitted capacities.

21 Wastewater is conservatively estimated at 85 percent of potable water demand. 22 CalEEMod. Appendix D Default Data Tables: Table 10.1 Solid Waste Disposal Rates. October 2017. 23 CalRecycle. “SWIS Facility/Site Details: Vasco Road Sanitary Landfill (01 -AA-0010)”. Accessed October 31, 2022. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/Site/Details/8 24 CalRecycle. “SWIS Facility/Site Summary: Forward Landfill, Inc. (39-AA-0015)”. Accessed October 31, 2022. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/Site/Summary/3106

Lincoln Recreation Center Replacement 81 Consistency Determination Checklist City of Oakland August 2023
Energy (Criteria 16d)
Similar to the existing recreation center, the proposed new recreation center would use energy, in the form of electricity, for lighting, heating, cooling, and use of appliances in the proposed building. The existing recreation center uses approximately 121,929 kWh of electricity per year. The proposed new recreation center would use approximately 325,061 kWh of electricity per year25, resulting in an increase of approximately 203,132 kWh of electricity consumed per year. The new recreation center would not use any natural gas energy, as required by the City. The project would comply with the standard of Title 24 of the California code of Regulations as well as with the City’s SCAs pertaining to compliance with the green building ordinance. Additionally, the project would include rooftop solar panels. Therefore, consistent with the LMSA EIR, the project would not violate any statutes and regulations relating to energy standards or require the construction of new or expanded energy facilities.

4.17.3 Conclusion
Based on an examination of the analysis, findings, and conclusions of the LMSAP EIR, implementation of the proposed project would not substantially increase the severity of significant impacts identified in the LMSAP EIR, nor would it result in new significant impacts related to utilities and service systems that were not identified in the LMSAP EIR. The LMSAP EIR did not identify any mitigation measures related to utilities and service systems, and none would be required for the proposed project. Implementation of SCAs UTIL-1, Construction and Demolition Waste Reduction and Recycling, UTIL-2, Underground Utilities, UTIL-3, Recycling Collection and Storage Space, UTIL-5, Green Building Requirements – Small Project, and UTIL-9, Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (see Appendix A), as well as compliance with Title 24 and CALGreen requirements would ensure that impacts to utilities and service systems would be less than significant, consistent with the LMSAP EIR.

25 Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. Lincoln Recreation Center Air Quality Assessment. Attachment 1: CalEEMod Output, Modeling Information, and BAAQMD Permitted Sources. October 12, 2022.

Lincoln Recreation Center Replacement 82 Consistency Determination Checklist City of Oakland August 2023
SECTION 5.0 REFERENCES
The analysis in this Consistency Determination is based on the professional judgement and expertise of the environmental specialists preparing this document, based upon review of the site, surrounding conditions, site plans, and the following references:

Alameda County Community Development Agency. Oakland International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. December 2010.

Archaeological/Historical Consultants. Cultural Resources Survey Report – Lincoln Square Recreation Center, Oakland. October 2022.

CalEEMod. Appendix D Default Data Tables. October 2017.

CalEPA. “Cortese List Data Resources”. Accessed October 26, 2022. https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/

California Department of Conservation. “California Tsunami Maps and Data”. Accessed September 2, 2022. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/tsunami/maps

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. “Fire Hazard Severity Zones Maps”.

Accessed October 31, 2022.
https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/divisions/community-wildfire-
preparedness-and-mitigation/wildland-hazards-building-codes/fire-hazard-severity-zones- maps/

California Department of Transportation. “California State Scenic Highways”. Accessed September 23, 2022.
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-community- livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways

CalRecycle. “SWIS Facility/Site Details: Vasco Road Sanitary Landfill (01-AA-0010)”. Accessed October 31, 2022. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/Site/Details/8

CalRecycle. “SWIS Facility/Site Summary: Forward Landfill, Inc. (39-AA-0015)”. Accessed October 31, 2022. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/Site/Summary/3106

DTSC. “Envirostor – Webster Eleven (60002362). Accessed October 26, 2022. https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/profile_report?global_id=60002362

FEMA. Flood Insurance Rate Map 06001C0067H. Effective on 12/21/2018.

Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. Lincoln Recreation Center Air Quality Assessment. October 12, 2022.

Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition. September 2021. Land Use Code 495 (Recreational Community Center.

Ma, L. Eve Armentrout. Hometown Chinatown: The History of Oakland’s Chinese Community. New York: Routledge. 2000.

Ma, L. Eve Armentrout and Ma, Jeong Huei. The Chinese of Oakland: Unsung Builders. Oakland Chinese History Research Committee. 1982.

Lincoln Recreation Center Replacement 83 Consistency Determination Checklist City of Oakland August 2023

Metropolitan Transportation Commission. “ Simulated VMT per Capita by Place of Residence”.

Accessed October 31, 2022.
https://mtc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=5dac76d69b3d41e583882e1 46491568b

Roux Associates, Inc. Site Assessment and Report of Findings: 285 12 th Street, Oakland, California.

July 22, 2022. Available at:
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/deliverable_documents/5714873373/SAPROF_28 5%2012th%20Street_Final_July%202022.pdf

SBCA Tree Consulting. Lincoln Square Recreation Center Tree Survey. February 7, 2022.

Lincoln Recreation Center Replacement 84 Consistency Determination Checklist City of Oakland August 2023
SECTION 6.0 LEAD AGENCY AND CONSULTANTS

LEAD AGENCY
City of Oakland
Bureau of Planning
Neil Gray, Planner IV
Mike Rivera, Planner III

CONSULTANTS
David J. Powers & Associates, Inc.

Environmental Consultants and Planners
Akoni Danielsen, President and Principal Project Manager Connor Tutino, Associate Project Manager
Mimi McNamara, Associate Project Manager
Ryan Osako, Graphic Artist

Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc.

Air Quality Consultants
James Reyff, Principal

SBCA Tree Consulting
Consulting Arborists
Steve Batchelder, Certified Arborist
Molly Batchelder, Certified Arborist

Archaeological/Historical Consultants
Cultural Resources Consultants
Daniel Shoup, Principal
Jennifer Ho, Historian and Project Manager
William Kostura, Architectural Historian

Lincoln Recreation Center Replacement 85 Consistency Determination Checklist City of Oakland August 2023
SECTION 7.0 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Bgs Below Ground Surface
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
EIR Environmental Impact Report
NOD Notice of Determination
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
LMSAP Lake Merritt Station Area Plan
SCH State Clearinghouse
SCA Standard Condition of Approval
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NP Neighborhood Park
OS Open Space
TAC Toxic Air Contaminant
CAP Clean Air Plan
BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District
DPM Diesel Particulate Matter
CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
VDECS Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategies
CARB California Air Resources Board
HRA Health Risk Assessment
BMPs Best Management Practices
OMC Oakland Municipal Code
OCHS Oakland Cultural Heritage Survey
CRHR California Register of Historical Resources
kWh Kilowatt-hours
CBC California Building Code
ECAP Equitable Climate Action Plan
GHG Greenhouse Gas
MTCO2e Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent
PCBs Polychlorinated Biphenyls
DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control

Lincoln Recreation Center Replacement 86 Consistency Determination Checklist City of Oakland August 2023
VOCs Volatile Organic Compounds
TPH Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
PAHs Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
AIA Airport Influence Area
ALUCP Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
LID Low Impact Development
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
HVAC Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning
BART Bay Area Rapid Transit
AC Transit Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
LOS Level of Service
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
FAR Floor Area Ratio
TAZ Transportation Analysis Zone

Lincoln Square Recreation Center Replacement Consistency Determination Checklist City of Oakland August 2023
Appendix A – Standard Conditions of Approval

APPENDIX A

PAGE 1

LINCOLN RECREATION CENTER REPLACEMENT PROJECT

STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

This Standard Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (SCAMMRP) is based on the Consistency Dete rmination Checklist prepared for the Lincoln Recreation Center Replacement Project, located at 250 10th Street in the City of Oakland, CA.

This SCAMMRP is in compliance with Section 15097 of the CEQA Guidelines, which requires that the Lead Agency “adopt a program for monitoring or reporting on the revisions which it has required in the project and the measures it has imposed to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects.” The SCAMMRP lists mitigation measures recommend ed in the 2014 LMSAP EIR (Lake Merritt Specific Area Plan-Environmental Impact Report) that apply to the proposed project. The SCAMMRP also lists other SCAs that apply to the proposed project, most of which were identified in the LMSAP EIR and some of which have been subsequently updated or otherwise modified by the City. Specifically, on December 16, 2020, the City of Oakland released a revised se t of all City of Oakland SCAs, which largely still include SCAs adopted by the City on November 3, 2008, along with supplemental, modified, and new SCAs. The SCAs are measures that would mi nimize potential adverse effects that could result from implementation of the proposed project, to ensure the conditions are implemented and monitored. The revised set of the City of Oakland SCAs includes new, modified, and reorganized SCAs; however, none of the revisions diminish or negate the ability of the SCAs considered “environmental protection measures” to minimize potential adverse environmental effects. As such, the SCAs identified in the SCAMMRP reflect the current SCAs only.

Although the SCA numbers listed below may not correspond to the SCA numbers in the 2014 LMSAP EIR, a ll of the environmental topics and potential effects addressed by the SCAs in the LMSAP EIR are included in this SCAMMRP (as a pplicable to the proposed project ). This SCAMMRP also identifies the mitigation monitoring requirements for each mitigation measure and SCA.

To the extent that there is any inconsistency between the Standard Conditions of Approval (SCA ) and Mitigation Moni toring (MM), the more restrictive conditions shall govern; to the extent any MM, recommended measures and/or SCA identified in the LMSAP EIR were inadvertently omitted, they are automatically incorporated herein by reference.

• The first column identifies the SCA, MM or recommended measure applicable to that impact in the LMSAP EIR;
• The second column identifies the monitoring schedule or timing applicable the project; and • The third column names the party responsible for monitoring the required action for the project.

LINCOLN RECREATION CENTER REPLACEMENT PROJECT SCAMMRP
APPENDIX A PAGE 2
Standard Conditions of Approval/Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Implementation/
Monitoring:

Schedule Responsibility
General
SCA GEN-1 (Standard Condition Approval 15) Regulatory Permits and Authorizations from Other Agencies The project applicant shall obtain all necessary regulatory permits and authorizations from applicable resource/regulatory agencies including, but not limited to, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Bay Conservation and Development Commission, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Army Corps of Engineers and shall comply with all requirements and conditions of the permits/authorizations. The project applicant shall submit evidence of the approved permits/authorizations to the City, along with evidence demonstrating compliance with any regulatory permit/authorization conditions of approval.

Prior to activity
requiring
permit/authorizati
on from regulatory
agency
Approval by
applicable
regulatory
agency with
jurisdiction;
evidence of
approval
submitted to
Bureau of
Planning
Aesthetics, Shadow and Wind
SCA AES-1 (Standard Condition of Approval 16) Trash and Blight Removal The project applicant and his/her successors shall maintain the property free of blight, as defined in chapter 8.24 of the Oakland Municipal Code. For nonresidential and 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.

Bureau of
Building
SCA AES-2 (Standard Condition of Approval 17) Graffiti Control 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 Ongoing. Bureau of
Building

LINCOLN RECREATION CENTER REPLACEMENT PROJECT SCAMMRP
APPENDIX A PAGE 3
Standard Conditions of Approval/Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Implementation/
Monitoring:

Schedule Responsibility
(CPTED).
v. Other practices approved by the City to deter, protect, or reduce the potential for graffiti defacement.
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-3 (Standard Condition of Approval 18) Landscape Plan 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 (which can be viewed at http://www2.oaklandnet.com/oakca1/groups/pwa/documents/report/oak042662.pdf and http://www2.oaklandnet.com/oakca1/groups/pwa/documents/form/oak025595.pdf, respectively), and with any applicable streetscape plan.

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.
a) Prior to
building
permit
approval
b) Prior to
building
permit
approval
c) Ongoing.
a) Bureau of
Planning
b) Bureau of
Building
c) Bureau of
Building

LINCOLN RECREATION CENTER REPLACEMENT PROJECT SCAMMRP
APPENDIX A PAGE 4
Standard Conditions of Approval/Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Implementation/
Monitoring:

Schedule Responsibility

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.

SCA AES-4 (Standard Condition of Approval 19): Lighting Proposed new exterior lighting fixtures shall be adequately shielded to a point below the light bulb and reflector to prevent unnecessary glare onto adjacent properties.

Prior to building
permit approval
Bureau of
Building
Air Quality
SCA AIR-1 (Standard Condition of Approval 20) Dust Controls – Construction-Related 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 Ongoing
throughout
demolition,
grading, and/or
construction

Bureau of
Building

LINCOLN RECREATION CENTER REPLACEMENT PROJECT SCAMMRP
APPENDIX A PAGE 5
Standard Conditions of Approval/Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Implementation/
Monitoring:

Schedule Responsibility
layer of wood chips, mulch, or gravel.

SCA AIR-2 (Standard Condition of Approval 21) Criteria Air Pollutant Controls – Construction Related The project applicant shall implement all of the following applicable basic control measures for criteria air pollutants during construction of the project as applicable:
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 to two minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485, of the California Code of Regulations). Clear signage to this effect shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.
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 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 Ongoing
throughout
demolition,
grading, and/or
construction
Bureau of
Building

LINCOLN RECREATION CENTER REPLACEMENT PROJECT SCAMMRP
APPENDIX A PAGE 6
Standard Conditions of Approval/Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Implementation/
Monitoring:

Schedule Responsibility
applicant shall provide written documentation that fleet requirements have been met.

SCA AIR-3 (Standard Condition of Approval 22) Diesel Particulate Matter Controls-Construction Related 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 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.

a) Prior to
issuance of a
construction
related permit
b) During
construction

Bureau of
Planning

Bureau of
Building

LINCOLN RECREATION CENTER REPLACEMENT PROJECT SCAMMRP
APPENDIX A PAGE 7
Standard Conditions of Approval/Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Implementation/
Monitoring:

Schedule Responsibility
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.

SCA AIR-4 (Standard Condition of Approval 23) Exposure to Air Pollution (Toxic Air Contaminants) a) Health Risk Reduction Measures
The project applicant shall incorporate appropriate measures into the project design in order to reduce the potential health risk due to exposure to toxic air contaminants. 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 California Air Resources Board (CARB) and Office of Environmental Health and Hazard Assessment requirements to determine the health risk of exposure of project residents/occupants/users to air pollutants. The HRA shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. If the HRA concludes that the health risk is at or below acceptable levels, then health risk reduction measures are not required. If the HRA concludes that the health risk exceeds acceptable levels, health risk reduction measures shall be identified to reduce the health risk to acceptable levels. Identified risk reduction measures shall be submitted to the City for review and approval and be included on the project drawings submitted for the construction-related permit or on other documentation submitted to the City. The approved risk reduction measures shall be implemented during construction and/or HRA approval:
prior to issuance
of demolition
permit

Implementation:

Ongoing
Bureau of
Planning

Bureau of
Building

LINCOLN RECREATION CENTER REPLACEMENT PROJECT SCAMMRP
APPENDIX A PAGE 8
Standard Conditions of Approval/Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Implementation/
Monitoring:

Schedule Responsibility
operations as applicable.
- or -
ii. 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:
• Installation of air filtration to reduce cancer risks and Particulate Matter (PM) exposure for residents and other sensitive populations in the project that are in close proximity to sources of air pollution.

Air filter devices shall be rated MERV-13 or higher. As part of implementing this measure, an ongoing maintenance plan for the building’s HVAC air filtration system shall be required. • Where appropriate, install passive electrostatic filtering systems, especially those with low air velocities (i.e., 1 mph).
• Phasing of residential developments when proposed within 500 feet of freeways such that homes nearest the freeway are built last, if feasible.
• The project shall be designed to locate sensitive receptors as far away as feasible from the source(s) of air pollution. Operable windows, balconies, and building air intakes shall be located as far away from these sources as feasible. If near a distribution center, residents shall be located as far away as feasible from a loading dock or where trucks concentrate to deliver goods. • Sensitive receptors shall be located on the upper floors of buildings, if feasible. • Planting trees and/or vegetation between sensitive receptors and pollution source, if feasible. Trees that are best suited to trapping PM shall be planted, including one or more of the following: Pine (Pinus nigra var. maritima), Cypress (X Cupressocyparis leylandii), Hybrid poplar (Populus deltoids X trichocarpa), and Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens). • Sensitive receptors shall be located as far away from truck activity areas, such as loading docks and delivery areas, as feasible.
• Existing and new diesel generators shall meet CARB’s Tier 4 emission standards, if feasible. • Emissions from diesel trucks shall be reduced through implementing the following measures, if

LINCOLN RECREATION CENTER REPLACEMENT PROJECT SCAMMRP
APPENDIX A PAGE 9
Standard Conditions of Approval/Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Implementation/
Monitoring:

Schedule Responsibility
feasible:
o Installing electrical hook-ups for diesel trucks at loading docks. o Requiring trucks to use Transportation Refrigeratio n Units (TRU) that meet Tier 4 emission standards.
o Requiring truck-intensive projects to use advanced exhaust technology (e.g., hybrid) or alternative fuels.
o Prohibiting trucks from idling for more than two minutes. o Establishing truck routes to avoid sensi tive receptors in the project. A truck route program, along with truck calming, parking, and delivery restrictions, shall be implemented. b) Maintenance of Health Risk Reduction Measures
The project applicant shall maintain, repair, and/or replace installed h ealth risk reduction measures, including but not limited to the HVAC system (if applicable), on an ongoing and as -needed basis. Prior to occupancy, the project applicant shall prepare and then distribute to the building manager/operator an operation and ma intenance manual for the HVAC system and filter includin g the ma intenance and replacement schedule for the filter.

SCA AIR-7 (Standard Condition of Approval 26) Asbestos in Structures 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

LINCOLN RECREATION CENTER REPLACEMENT PROJECT SCAMMRP
APPENDIX A PAGE 10
Standard Conditions of Approval/Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Implementation/
Monitoring:

Schedule Responsibility
Biological Resources
SCA BIO-2 (Standard Condition of Approval 29) Tree Removal During Bird Breeding Season To the extent feasible, removal of any tree and/or other vegetation suitable for nesting of birds shall not occur during the bird breeding season of February 1 to August 15 (or during December 15 to August 15 for trees located in or near marsh, wetland, or aquatic habitats). If tree removal must occur during the bird breeding season, all trees to be removed shall be surveyed by a qualified biologist to verify the presence or absence of nesting raptors or other birds. Pre-removal surveys shall be conducted within 15 days prior to the start of work and shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. If the survey indicates the potential presence of nesting raptors or other birds, the biologist shall determine an appropriately sized buffer around the nest in which no work will be allowed until the young have successfully fledged. The size of the nest buffer will be determined by the biologist in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and will be based to a large extent on the nesting species and its sensitivity to disturbance. In general, buffer sizes of 200 feet for raptors and 50 feet for other birds should suffice to prevent disturbance to birds nesting in the urban environment, but these buffers may be increased or decreased, as appropriate, depending on the bird species and the level of disturbance anticipated near the nest.

Prior to removal
of trees.
: Bureau of
Planning

Bureau of
Building

SCA BIO-3 (Standard Condition of Approval 30) Tree Permit a) Tree Permit Required
Pursuant to the City’s Tree Protection Ordinance (OM C chapter 12.36), the project applicant shall obtain a tree permit and abide by the conditions of that permit.
b) Tree Protection During Construction
Adequate protection shall be provided during the construction period for any trees which are t o remain standing, including the following, plus any recommendations of an arborist:
i. Before the start of any clearing, excava tion, construction, or other work on the site, every protected tree deemed to be potentially endangered by said site work shall be securely fenced off at a distance from the base of the tree to be determined by the project’s consulting arborist. Such fence s shall remain in place for dur ation of all such work. All trees to be remov ed shall be clearly marked. A scheme shall be established for the removal and disposal of logs, brush, earth and other debris which wi ll avoid injury to Prior to approval
of construction-
related permit
Public Works
Department-
Tree Services
Division

Bureau of
Building

LINCOLN RECREATION CENTER REPLACEMENT PROJECT SCAMMRP
APPENDIX A PAGE 11
Standard Conditions of Approval/Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Implementation/
Monitoring:

Schedule Responsibility
any protected tree.
ii. Where p roposed development or other si te work is to encroach upon the protected per imeter of any protected tree, special measures shall be incorporated to allow the roots to breathe and obtain water and nutrients. Any excavation, cutting, filling, or compaction o f the existing ground surface w ithin the protected perimeter shall be minimized. No change in existing ground level shall occur within a distance to be determined by the project’s consulting arborist from the base of any protected tree at any time. No burning or use of equipment with an open flame shall occur near or within the protected perimeter of any protected tree.
iii. No sto rage or dumping of oil, gas, chemicals, or other substances that may be harmful to trees sh all occur within the distance to be determ ined by the project’s consultin g arborist from the base of any protected trees, or any other location on the site from whic h such substances might enter the protected perimeter. No heavy construction equipment or construction materials shall be operated or stored within a distance from the base of any protected trees to be determi ned by the project’s consulting arborist.

Wires, ropes, or other devices shall not be attached to any protected tree, except as needed for support of the tree. No sign, other than a tag showing the botanical cla ssification, shall be attached to any protected tree.
iv. Periodically during construction, the leaves of protected trees s hall be thoroughly sprayed with water to prevent buildup of dust and other pollution that would inhibit leaf transpiration. v. If any damage to a protected tree should occur during or a s a result of work on the site, the proj ect applicant shall immediatel y notify th e Public Works Department and the project’s consulting ar borist shall make a recommendation to the City Tree Reviewer as to whethe r the damaged tree can be preserved. If, in t he professional opinion of the Tree Revi ewer, such tree cannot be preserve d in a healthy state, the Tree Reviewer shall require replacement of any tree removed with another tree or trees on the same site deemed adequate by the Tree Reviewer to compensate f or the loss of the tree that is removed.
vi. All debris created as a resul t of any tree removal work shall be removed by the project appli cant from the property within two weeks of deb ris creation, and such debris s hall be properly disposed of by the project applicant in accordance with all applicable laws, ordinances, and regulations.

LINCOLN RECREATION CENTER REPLACEMENT PROJECT SCAMMRP
APPENDIX A PAGE 12
Standard Conditions of Approval/Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Implementation/
Monitoring:

Schedule Responsibility
c) Tree Replacement Plantings
Replacement plantings shall b e re quired for tree removals for the purposes of erosion control, groundwater replenishment, visual screening, wildlife habitat, and preventing excessive loss of shade, in accordance with the following criteria:
i. No tree replacement shall be required for th e re moval of nonnative species, for the remova l of trees which is required for the benefit of remaining trees, or where insufficient planting area exists for a mature tree of the species being considered.
ii. Replacement tree species shall consist of Sequoia s empervirens (Coast Redwood), Quercus agrifolia (Coast Live Oak), Arbutus menz iesii (Madrone), Aesculus californica (Califo rnia Buckeye), Umbellularia californica (California Bay Laurel), or other tree species acceptable to the Tree Division. iii. Replacement trees shall be at least twenty-four (24) inch box size, unless a smaller size i s recommended by the arborist, except that th ree fifteen (15) gallon size trees may be substituted for each twenty-four (24) inch box size tree where appropriate.
iv. Minimum planting areas must be available on site as follows:
• For Sequoia sempervirens, three hundred fifteen (315) square feet per tree; • For other species listed, seven hundred (700) square feet per tree. v. In the event that replacement trees are required but cannot be plan ted due to site constraints, an in lieu fee in accordance with the City’s Master Fee Schedule may be substituted for requi red replacement plantings, with all such revenues applied toward tree planting in city parks, streets and medians. vi. The project applica nt shall install the plantings and maintain th e plantings until established. The Tree Reviewer of the Tree Division of the Public Works Department may require a lan dscape plan showing the replacement plantings and the method of irrigation. Any replacement plantings which fail to become established within one year of planting shall be replanted at the project applicant’s expense.

Cultural Resources
SCA CUL-1 (Standard Condition of Approval 32) Archaeological and Paleontological Resources – Discovery During Construction
During
construction
Bureau of
Building

LINCOLN RECREATION CENTER REPLACEMENT PROJECT SCAMMRP
APPENDIX A PAGE 13
Standard Conditions of Approval/Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Implementation/
Monitoring:

Schedule Responsibility
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 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 CUL-3 (Standard Condition of Approval 34) Human Remains – Discovery During Construction During Bureau of

LINCOLN RECREATION CENTER REPLACEMENT PROJECT SCAMMRP
APPENDIX A PAGE 14
Standard Conditions of Approval/Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Implementation/
Monitoring:

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

Building

Geology, Soils and Geohazards
SCA GEO-1 (Standard Condition of Approval 36) Construction-Related Permit(s) The project applicant shall obtain all required construction-related permits/approvals from the City. The project shall comply with all standards, requirements and conditions contained in construction-related codes, including but not limited to the Oakland Building Code and the Oakland Grading Regulations, to ensure structural integrity and safe construction.

Prior to approval
of construction-
related permit
Bureau of
Building

SCA GEO-2 (Standard Condition of Approval 37) Soils Report The project applicant shall submit a soils report prepared by a registered geotechnical engineer for City review and approval. The soils report shall contain, at a minimum, field test results and observations regarding the nature, distribution and strength of existing soils, and recommendations for appropriate grading practices and project design. The project applicant shall implement the recommendations contained in the approved report during project design and construction.

Prior to approval
of construction-
related permit
Bureau of
Building

Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change
SCA GHG-1 (Standard Condition of Approval 41) Project Compliance with the Equitable Climate Action Plan (ECAP) Consistency Checklist
The project applicant shall implement all the measures in the Equitable Climate Action Plan (ECAP) a) Prior to
approval of
construction-
Bureau of
Planning and
Building

LINCOLN RECREATION CENTER REPLACEMENT PROJECT SCAMMRP
APPENDIX A PAGE 15
Standard Conditions of Approval/Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Implementation/
Monitoring:

Schedule Responsibility
Consistency Checklist that was submitted during the Planning entitlement phase. a. For physical ECAP Consistency Checklist measures to be incorporated into the design of the project, the measures shall be included on the drawings submitted for construction-related permits. b. For physical ECAP Consistency Checklist measures to be incorporated into the design of the project, the measures shall be implemented during construction.
c. For ECAP Consistency Checklist measures that are operational but not otherwise covered by these SCAs, including but not limited to the requirement for transit passes or additional Transportation Demand Management measures, the applicant shall provide notice of these measures to employees and/or residents and post these requirements in a public place such as a lobby or work area accessible to the employees and/or residents.
related permit

b) During
construction

c) Ongoing

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
SCA HAZ-1 (Standard Condition of Approval 43) Hazardous Materials Related to Construction The project applicant shall ensure that Best Management Practices (BMPs) are implemented by the contractor during construction to minimize potential negative effects on groundwater, soils, and human health. These shall include, at a minimum, the following:
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), During
construction
Bureau of
Building

LINCOLN RECREATION CENTER REPLACEMENT PROJECT SCAMMRP
APPENDIX A PAGE 16
Standard Conditions of Approval/Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Implementation/
Monitoring:

Schedule Responsibility
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.

Hydrology and Water Quality
SCA HYD- 1 (Standard Condition of Approval 48) Erosion and Sedimentation Control Measur es for Construction
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.

Bureau of
Building

LINCOLN RECREATION CENTER REPLACEMENT PROJECT SCAMMRP
APPENDIX A PAGE 17
Standard Conditions of Approval/Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Implementation/
Monitoring:

Schedule Responsibility
SCA HYD-2 (Standard Condition of Approval 49) Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan for Construction a) Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan Required
The project applicant shall submit an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan to the City for review and approval.

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

Calculations of anticipated stormwater runoff and sediment volumes shall be included, if required by the City. The Plan shall specify that, after construction is complete, the project applicant shall ensure that the storm drain system shall be inspected and that the project applicant shall clear the system of any debris or sediment. b) Erosion and Sedimentation Control During Construction The project applicant shall implement the approved Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan. No grading shall occur during the wet weather season (October 15 through April 15) unless specifically authorized in writing by the Bureau of Building.
a) Prior to
approval of
construction-
related permit
b) During
construction
Bureau of
Building

SCA HYD-3 (Standard Condition of Approval 50) State Construction General Permit The project applicant shall comply with the req uirements of the Construction General Permit issued by the State Water Resources Control Board (S WRCB). The project applicant shal l submit a Noti ce of Intent (NOI), Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and other required Permit Registration Docume nts to SWRCB.

The project applicant shall submit evidence of compliance with Permit requirements to the City.

Prior to approval
of construction-
related permit
State Water
Resources
Control Board;
evidence of
compliance
submitted to
Bureau of
Building

LINCOLN RECREATION CENTER REPLACEMENT PROJECT SCAMMRP
APPENDIX A PAGE 18
Standard Conditions of Approval/Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Implementation/
Monitoring:

Schedule Responsibility
SCA HYD-7 (Standard Condition of Approval 54) NPDES C.3 Stormwater Requirements for Regulated Projects
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.
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 a) Prior to approval
of construction-
related permit
b) Prior to building
permit final

Bureau of
Planning
Bureau of
Building

LINCOLN RECREATION CENTER REPLACEMENT PROJECT SCAMMRP
APPENDIX A PAGE 19
Standard Conditions of Approval/Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Implementation/
Monitoring:

Schedule Responsibility
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.

Noise
SCA NOI-1 (Standard Condition of Approval 62) Construction Days/Hours The project applicant shall comply with the following restrictions concerning construction days and hours:
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.

During
construction
Bureau of
Building

LINCOLN RECREATION CENTER REPLACEMENT PROJECT SCAMMRP
APPENDIX A PAGE 20
Standard Conditions of Approval/Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Implementation/
Monitoring:

Schedule Responsibility
SCA NOI-2 (Standard Condition of Approval 63) Construction Noise The project applicant shall implement noise reduction measures to reduce noise impacts due to construction.

Noise reduction measures include, but are not limited to, the following:
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 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.

During
construction.

Bureau of
Building

SCA NOI-3 (Standard Condition of Approval 64) Extreme Construction Noise 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 a) Prior to
approval of
construction-
related permit
b) During
construction
Bureau of
Building

LINCOLN RECREATION CENTER REPLACEMENT PROJECT SCAMMRP
APPENDIX A PAGE 21
Standard Conditions of Approval/Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Implementation/
Monitoring:

Schedule Responsibility
activities. The project applicant shall implement the approved Plan during construction. Potential attenuation measures include, but are not limited to, the following:
i. Erect temporary plywood noise barriers around the construction site, particularly along on sites adjacent to residential buildings;
ii. 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;
iii. Utilize noise control blankets on the building structure as the building is erected to reduce noise emission from the site;
iv. 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 v. Monitor the effectiveness of noise attenuation measures by taking noise measurements. 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 end dates of the extreme noise generating activities and describe noise attenuation measures to be implemented.

SCA NOI-7 (Standard Condition of Approval 68) Operational Noise Noise levels from the project site after completion of the project (i.e., during project operation) shall comply with the performance standards of chapter 17.120 of the Oakland Planning Code and chapter 8.18 of the Oakland Municipal Code. If noise levels exceed these standards, the activity causing the noise shall be abated until appropriate noise reduction measures have been installed and compliance verified by the City.

Ongoing Bureau of
Building

LINCOLN RECREATION CENTER REPLACEMENT PROJECT SCAMMRP
APPENDIX A PAGE 22
Standard Conditions of Approval/Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Implementation/
Monitoring:

Schedule Responsibility
SCA NOI-8 (Standard Condition of Approval 69) Exposure to Vibration The project applicant shall submit a Vibration Reduction Plan prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant for City review and approval that contains vibration re duction measures to reduce ground borne vibration to acceptable lev els per Federal Transit Administration (FTA) standards. The applicant shall implement the approved Plan during construction. Potential vibration reduction measures include, but are not limited to, the following:
a) Isolation of foundation and footings using resilient elements such as rubber bearing pads or springs, such as a “spring isolation” system that consists of resilient spring supports that can support the podium or residential foundations. The specific system shall be selected so that it can prop erly s upport the structural loads, and provide adequate filtering of groundborne vibration to the residences above. b) Trenching, which involves excavating soil between the railway and the project so that the vibration path is interrupted, thereby reducing th e vibration levels before they enter the project’s structures. Since the reduction in vibration level is based on a ratio between trench depth and vibration wavelength, additional measurements shall be conducted to determine the vibration wavelengths affecting the project. Based on the resulting measuremen t findings, an adequate trench depth and, if required, suitabl e fill shall be identified (such as foamed styrene packing pellets [i.e., Styrofoam] or low-density polyethylene).

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

Transportation/Traffic
SCA TRAN-1 (Standard Condition of Approval 75) Construction Activity in the Public Right-of-Way a) Obstruction Permit Required
The project applicant shall obtain an obstruction permit from the City prior to placing any temporary construction-related obstruction in the public right-of-way, including City streets, sidewalks, bicycle facilities, and bus stops.
b) Traffic Control Plan Required
In the event of obstructions to vehicle or bicycle travel lanes, bus stops, or sidewalks, the project applicant shall submit a Traffic Control Plan to the City for review and approval prior to obtaining an obstruction permit. The project applicant shall submit evidence of City approval of the Traffic Control Plan with the application for an obstruction permit. The Traffic Control Plan shall contain a set of comprehensive traffic control measures for Prior to approval
of construction-
related permit
Department of
Transportation

LINCOLN RECREATION CENTER REPLACEMENT PROJECT SCAMMRP
APPENDIX A PAGE 23
Standard Conditions of Approval/Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Implementation/
Monitoring:

Schedule Responsibility
auto, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian accommodations (or detours, if accommodations are not feasible), including detour signs if required, lane closure procedures, signs, cones for drivers, and designated construction access routes. The Traffic Control Plan shall be in conformance with the City’s Supplemental Design Guidance for Accommodating Pedestrians, Bicyclists, and Bus Facilities in Construction Zones. The project applicant shall implement the approved Plan during construction.
c) Repair of City Streets
The project applicant shall repair any damage to the public right-of way, including streets and sidewalks, caused by project construction at his/her expense within one week of the occurrence of the damage (or excessive wear), unless further damage/excessive wear may continue; in such case, repair shall occur prior to approval of the final inspection of the construction-related permit. All damage that is a threat to public health or safety shall be repaired immediately.

SCA TRAN-2 (Standard Condition of Approval 76) Bicycle Parking The project applicant shall comply with the City of Oakland Bicycle Parking Requirements (chapter 17.118 of the Oakland Planning Code). The project drawings submitted for construction-related permits shall demonstrate compliance with the requirements.

Prior to Approval
of construction-
related permit
Bureau of
Planning
Bureau of
Building
Utilities and Service Systems
SCA UTIL-1 (Standard Condition of Approval 82) Construction and Demolition Waste Reduction and Recycling
The project applicant shall comply with the City of Oakland Construction and Demolition Waste Reduction and Recycling Ordinance (chapter 15.34 of the Oakland Municipal Code) by submitting a Construction and Demolition Waste Reduction and Recycling Plan (WRRP) for City review and approval, and shall implement the approved WRRP. Projects subject to these requirements include all new construction, renovations/alterations/modifications with construction values of $50,000 or more (except R-3 type construction), and all demolition (including soft demolition) except demolition of type R-3 construction. The WRRP must specify the methods by which the project will divert construction and demolition debris waste from landfill disposal in accordance with current City requirements. The WRRP may be submitted electronically at www.greenhalosystems.com or manually at the City’s Green Building Resource Center. Current standards, FAQs, and forms are available on the City’s website and in the Green Building Resource Center.

Prior to approval
of construction-
related permit.

Public Works
Department,
Environmental
Services
Division

LINCOLN RECREATION CENTER REPLACEMENT PROJECT SCAMMRP
APPENDIX A PAGE 24
Standard Conditions of Approval/Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Implementation/
Monitoring:

Schedule Responsibility
SCA UTIL-2 (Standard Condition of Approval 83) Underground Utilities The project applicant shall place underground all new utilities serving the project and under the control of the project applicant and the City, including all new gas, electric, cable, and telephone facilities, fire alarm conduits, street light wiring, and other wiring, conduits, and similar facilities. The new facilities shall be placed underground along the project’s 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.

Bureau of
Building
SCA UTIL-3 (Standard Condition of Approval 84) Recycling Collection and Storage Space The p roject applicant shall comply wit h the City of Oakland Recycling Space Allocation Ordinance (chapt er

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 storag e 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-5 (Standard Condition of Approval 86) Green Building Requirements – Small Projects 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 measur es and the applicable requirement s of the City of Oakland Green Building Ordinance (chapter 18.02 of the Oakland Muni cipal Code) for projects using the Bay Friendly Basic Landscape Checklist.
i. The following information shall be submitted to the City for rev iew and approval with application for a building permit:
• Documentation showing compliance with Title 24 of the curren t version of the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards.
• Completed copy of the green buildin g checklist approved during the review of a Planning and Zoning permit.
• Permit plans that show in general no tes, detailed design drawings and specification s as necessary a) Prior to
approval of
construction-
related permit
b) During
construction

Bureau of
Building

LINCOLN RECREATION CENTER REPLACEMENT PROJECT SCAMMRP
APPENDIX A PAGE 25
Standard Conditions of Approval/Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Implementation/
Monitoring:

Schedule Responsibility
compliance with the items listed in subsection (b) below. • Other documentation to prove compliance.
ii. The set of plans in subsection (a) shall demonstrate compliance with the following:
• CALGreen mandatory measures.
• All applicable green building measures identified on the checklist approved during the review of a Planning and Zoning permit, or submi ttal of a Request for Revision Pl an-check application that shows the previously approved points that will be eliminated or substituted. b) Compliance with Green Building Requirements During Construction The project applicant shall comply with the applica ble r equirements of CALGreen and the G reen Building Ordinance during construction. The following information shall be submitted to the City for review and approval:
i. Completed copy of the green building chec klists approved during review of the Planning and Zonin g permit and during the review of the Building permit.
ii. Other docum entation as deemed necessary by the City to demonstrate compliance with the Green Building Ordinance.

SCA UTIL-9 (Standard Condition of Approval 90) Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (WELO) The project applicant shall comply with California’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (WELO) in order to reduce landscape water usage. For the specific ordinance requirements, see the link below:
http://www.water.ca.gov/wateruseefficiency/landscapeordinance/docs/Title%2023%20extract%20- %20Official%20CCR%20pages.pdf
For any landscape projec t 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) lands cape area over 2,500 sq. ft., the project applicant shall implement the Performance Measures in accordance with the WELO.

Prescriptive Measures: Prior to construction, the project applicant shall submit the Project Information (detailed Prior to approval
of construction-
related permit
Bureau of
Planning

Bureau of
Building

LINCOLN RECREATION CENTER REPLACEMENT PROJECT SCAMMRP
APPENDIX A PAGE 26
Standard Conditions of Approval/Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Implementation/
Monitoring:

Schedule Responsibility
below) and documen tation showing compliance with Appendix D of California’s Model Water Effici ent Landscape Ordinance (see page 38.14(g) in the link above).

Performance Measures: Prior t o construction, the project applicant shall prepare and submit a Landscape Documentation Package for review and approval, which includes the following:
a) Project Information:
i. Date,
ii. Applicant and property owner name,
iii. Project address,
iv. Total landscape area,
v. Project type (new, rehabilitated, cemetery, or home owner installed), vi. Water supply type and water purveyor,
vii. Checklist of documents in the package, and
viii. Project contacts
ix. Applicant signature and d ate with the statement: “I agree to comply with the requirements o f 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 Allowanc e (MAWA) and Estimated Total Water Use
c) Soil Management Report
d) Landscape Design Plan
e) Irrigation Design Plan, and
f) Grading Plan

LINCOLN RECREATION CENTER REPLACEMENT PROJECT SCAMMRP
APPENDIX A PAGE 27
Standard Conditions of Approval/Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Implementation/
Monitoring:

Schedule Responsibility
Upon installation of the landscaping and irrigation systems, and prior t o the final of a construct ion-related permit, the Project a pplicant shall submit a Certifica te of Completion (see page 38.6 in the link above) and landscape and irrigation maintena nce schedule for review and approval by the City. The Certificate of Completion shall also be submitted to the local water purveyor and property owner or his or her designee.

Lincoln Square Recreation Center Replacement Consistency Determination Checklist City of Oakland August 2023
Appendix B – Shadow Study

30
6HSWHPEHU

$0

30
:
6 (
1 ARIAL_FALL EQUINOX_ 12 PM 2/11/2022
10th Street
11th Street
Harrison Street
Existing
Rec
Center
Existing
Rec
Center
Senior
Center
Senior
Center

30
6HSWHPEHU

$0

30
:
6 (
1 ARIAL_FALL EQUINOX_ 3 PM 2/11/2022
10th Street
11th Street
Harrison Street
Existing
Rec
Center
Existing
Rec
Center
Senior
Center
Senior
Center

30
6HSWHPEHU

$0

30
:
6 (
1 ARIAL_FALL EQUINOX_ 6 PM 2/11/2022
10th Street
11th Street
Harrison Street
Existing
Rec
Center
Existing
Rec
Center
Senior
Center
Senior
Center

30
0DUFK

$0

30
:
6 (
1 ARIAL_SPRING EQUINOX_ 12 PM 2/11/2022
10th Street
11th Street
Harrison Street
Existing
Rec
Center
Existing
Rec
Center
Senior
Center
Senior
Center

30
0DUFK

$0

30
:
6 (
1 ARIAL_SPRING EQUINOX_ 3 PM 2/11/2022
10th Street
11th Street
Harrison Street
Existing
Rec
Center
Existing
Rec
Center
Senior
Center
Senior
Center

30
0DUFK

$0

30
:
6 (
1 ARIAL_SPRING EQUINOX_ 6 PM 2/11/2022
10th Street
11th Street
Harrison Street
Existing
Rec
Center
Existing
Rec
Center
Senior
Center
Senior
Center


30
-XQH
$0

30
:
6 (
1 ARIAL_SUMMER SOLSTICE_12 PM 2/11/2022
10th Street
11th Street
Harrison Street
Existing
Rec
Center
Existing
Rec
Center
Senior
Center
Senior
Center


30
-XQH
$0

30
:
6 (
1 ARIAL_SUMMER SOLSTICE_3 PM 2/11/2022
10th Street
11th Street
Harrison Street
Existing
Rec
Center
Existing
Rec
Center
Senior
Center
Senior
Center


30
-XQH
$0

30
:
6 (
1 ARIAL_SUMMER SOLSTICE_6 PM 2/11/2022
10th Street
11th Street
Harrison Street
Existing
Rec
Center
Existing
Rec
Center
Senior
Center
Senior
Center

30
'HFHPEHU

$0

30
:
6 (
1 ARIAL_WINTER SOLSTICE_ 12 PM 2/11/2022
10th St
11th Street
Harrison Street
Existing
Rec
Center
Existing
Rec
Center
Senior
Center
Senior
Center

30
'HFHPEHU

$0

30
:
6 (
1 ARIAL_WINTER SOLSTICE_ 3 PM 2/11/2022
10th Street
11th Street
Harrison Street
Existing
Rec
Center
Existing
Rec
Center
Senior
Center
Senior
Center

30
'HFHPEHU

$0

30
:
6 (
1 ARIAL_WINTER SOLSTICE_ 6 PM 2/11/2022
10th Street
11th Street
Harrison Street
Existing
Rec
Center
Existing
Rec
Center
Senior
Center
Senior
Center

Lincoln Square Recreation Center Replacement Consistency Determination Checklist City of Oakland August 2023
Appendix C – Air Quality Assessment

LINCOLN RECREATION

CENTER AIR QUALITY

ASSESSMENT
Oakland, California
October 12, 2022
Prepared for:

Connor Tutino
David J. Powers & Associates, Inc.
1736 Franklin Street, Suite 400
Oakland, CA 94612
Prepared by:

James Reyff
429 E. Cotati Avenue
Cotati, CA 94931
(707) 794
-0400
P
roject # 22-116

1 INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this report is to address air quality impacts resulting from the construction and operation of the proposed Lincoln Recreation Center project located within Lincoln Square Park in the City of Oakland, California. The air quality impacts would be associated with construction and operation of the new recreation center with some park improvements. Air pollutants emissions associated with construction and operation of the project were predicted using appropriate models.

In addition, the potential community risk impact to nearby sensitive receptors and the impact of existing toxic air contaminant (TAC) sources affecting the proposed sensitive receptors were evaluated. This analysis addresses those issues following the guidance provided by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD).1

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The Project site is located within Lincoln Square Park that is bounded by 11th Street to the north, Harrison Street to the west, 10th Street to the south, and Lincoln Elementary School to the east.

Lincoln Square Park is approximately 1.39 acres in size. a nd currently consists of an existing single-story recreation center, basketball courts, two playgrounds, the Hong Lok Senior Center, a maintenance building, and a four-square court area.

The project proposes to demolish the existing single -story recreation center and construct a new two-story, approximately 22,221 square -foot recreation center. The new recreation center would include a gym with an indoor basketball court, five multipurpose rooms, a kitchen connected to one of the multipurpose rooms, restr ooms, and a lobby. The new recreation would also include a roof garden accessible on the second floor.

The two existing basketball courts closest to the existing recreation center would also be demolished and reconstructed as part of the project. One basketball court will be rotated 90 degrees from its existing position so that it is perpendicular to 11th Street. The second court will be re - graded for wheelchair access and drainage and will be repainted to match its existing position. The project would also include a new passive recreation area along 10th Street, adjacent to the proposed new recreation center. The passive recreation area would consist of a courtyard with new trees and landscaping, seating, and game tables. The project would not provide any new vehicle parking spaces.

SETTING

The project site is located in Alameda County, which is within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. Ambient air quality standards have been established at both the State and federal level. The Bay Area meets all ambient air quality standards with the exception of ground- level ozone (O3), respirable particulate matter (PM10), and fine particulate matter (PM2.5).

Air Pollutants of Concern

1 Bay Area Quality Management District, 2017. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines . May.

Web: https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en 2 High ozone levels are caused by the cumulative emissions of reactive organic gases (ROG) and nitrogen oxides (NOX). These precursor pollutants react under certain meteorological conditions to form high ozone levels. Controlling the emissions of these precursor pollutants is the focus of the Bay Area’s attempts to reduce ozone levels. The highest ozone levels in the Bay Area occur in the eastern and southern inland valleys that are downwind of air pollutant sources. High ozone levels aggravate respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, reduced lung function, and increase coughing and chest discomfort.

Particulate matter is another problematic air pollutant of the Bay Area. Particulate matter is assessed and measured in terms of respirable particulate matter or particles that have a diameter of 10 micrometers or less (PM 10) and fine particulate matter where particles have a diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less (PM 2.5). Elevated concentrations of PM 10 and PM2.5 are the result of both region-wide (or cumulative) emissions and localized emissions. High particulate matter levels aggravate respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, reduce lung function, increase mortality (e.g., lung cancer), and result in reduced lung function growth in children.

Toxic Air Contaminants

Toxic air contaminants (TAC) are a broad class of compounds known t o cause morbidity or mortality (usually because they cause cancer). TACs are found in ambient air, especially in urban areas, and are caused by industry, agriculture, fuel combustion, and commercial operations (e.g., dry cleaners). TACs are typically found in low concentrations, even near their source (e.g., diesel particulate matter [DPM] near a freeway). Because chronic exposure can result in adverse health effects, TACs are regulated at the regional, State, and federal level.

Diesel exhaust is the predominant TAC in urban air and is estimated to represent about three - quarters of the cancer risk from TACs (based on the Bay Area average). According to the California Air Resources Board (CARB), diesel exhaust is a complex mixture of gases, vapors, and fine particles. This complexity makes the evaluation of health effects of diesel exhaust a complicated scientific issue. Some of the chemicals in diesel exhaust, such as benzene and formaldehyde, have been previously identified as TACs by the CARB, and are listed as carcinogens either under the State's Proposition 65 or under the Federal Hazardous Air Pollutants programs. The most recent Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) risk assessment guidelines were published in February of 2015. 2 Attachment 1 provides a detailed description of the OEHHA assessment methodology used in this analysis.

Sensitive Receptors

There are groups of people more affected by air pollution than others. CARB has identified the following persons who are most likely to be affected by air pollution: children under 16, the elderly over 65, athletes, and people with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases. These groups are classified as sensitive receptors. Locations that may contain a high concentration of these sensitive population groups include residential areas, hospitals, daycare facilities, elder care

2 OEHHA, 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines, The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment.

February.
3 facilities, elementary schools, and parks. For cancer risk assessments, children are the most sensitive receptors, since they are more susceptible to cancer causing TACs. Therefore, new and/or existing residential locations are assumed to include infants and small children. Sensitive receptors near the Project site include the park users, the Yuk Yau Child Development Center directly west, Lincoln Elementary School to the southeast and nearby apartment residences to the northeast.

These receptors are located about 100 feet from the park.

REGULATORY SETTING

Federal Regulations

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sets nationwide ambient air quality standards and emission standards for mobile sources, which include on -road (highway) motor vehicles such trucks, buses, and automobiles, and non-road (off-road) vehicles and equipment used in construction, agricultural, industrial, and mining activities (such as bulldozers and loaders). The EPA also sets nationwide fuel standards.

In the past decade, the EPA has established a number of emission standards for on- and non-road heavy-duty diesel engines used in trucks and other equipment. This was done in part because diesel engines are a significant source of nitrogen oxides, or NO X, and particulate matter (PM 10 and PM2.5) and because the EPA has identified diesel particulate matter as a probable carcinogen.

Implementation of the heavy-duty diesel on-road vehicle standards and the non-road diesel engine standards are estimated to reduce PM and NOX emissions from diesel engines up to 95 percent in 2030 when the heavy- duty vehicle fleet is completely replaced with newer heavy -duty vehicles that comply with these emission standards.3

In concert with the diesel engine emission standards, the EPA has also substantially reduced the amount of sulfur allowed in diesel fuels. The sulfur contained in diesel fuel is a significant contributor to the formation of particulate matter in diesel- fueled engine exhaust. The current standards have reduced the amount of sulfur allowed by 97 percent for highway diesel fuel (from 500 parts per million by weight [ppmw] to 15 ppmw), and by 99 percent for off -highway diesel fuel (from about 3,000 ppmw to 15 ppmw). The low sulfur highway fuel (15 ppmw sulfur), also called ultra-low sulfur diesel (ULSD) is currently required for use by all vehicles in the U.S.

All of the above Federal diesel engine and diesel fuel requirements have been adopted by California, in some cases with modifications making the requirements more stringent or the implementation dates sooner.

State Regulations

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has set statewide ambient air quality standards (CAAQS) and emission standards for on-road and off-road mobile sources that are more stringent than those adopted by the EPA. Several of these regulatory programs aff ect medium and heavy-

3 USEPA, 2000. Regulatory Announcement, Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements. EPA420-F-00-057. December. 4 duty diesel trucks that represent the bulk of DPM emissions from California highways. These regulations include the solid waste collection vehicle (SWCV) rule, in-use public and utility fleets, and the heavy- duty diesel truck and bus r egulations. In 2008, CARB approved a regulation to reduce emissions of DPM and NO X from on -road heavy- duty diesel fueled vehicles. 4 The regulation requires affected vehicles to meet specific performance requirements between 2014 and 2023, with all affected diesel vehicles required to have 2010 model-year engines or equivalent by 2023. These requirements are phased in over the compliance period and depend on the model year of the vehicle.

CARB has also adopted and implemented regulations to reduce DPM and NOX emissions from in- use (existing) and new off -road heavy -duty diesel vehicles (e.g., loaders, tractors, bulldozers, backhoes, off-highway trucks, etc.). The regulations apply to diesel -powered off-road vehicles with engines 25 horsepower (hp) or greater. The regulations are intended to reduce DPM and NOX exhaust emissions by requiring owners to turn over their fleet (replace older equipment with newer equipment) or retrofit existing equipment in order to achieve specified fleet -averaged emission rates. Implementation of this regulation, in conjunction with the Federal off-road equipment engine emission limits for new vehicles, will significantly reduce emissions of DPM and NOX.

To address the issue of diesel emissions in the state, CARB developed the Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel -Fueled Engines and Vehicles 5. In addition to requiring more s tringent emission standards for new on- road and off -road mobile sources and stationary diesel-fueled engines to reduce particulate matter emissions by 90 percent, a significant component of the plan involves application of emission control strategies to existing diesel vehicles and equipment. Many of the measures of the Diesel Risk Reduction Plan have been approved and adopted, including the Federal on- road and non- road diesel engine emission standards for new engines, as well as adoption of regulations for low sulfur fuel in California.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)

BAAQMD has jurisdiction over an approximately 5,600- square mile area, commonly referred to as the San Francisco Bay Area (Bay Area). The District’s boundary encompasses th e nine San Francisco Bay Area counties, including Alameda County, Contra Costa County, Marin County, San Francisco County, San Mateo County, Santa Clara County, Napa County, southwestern Solano County, and southern Sonoma County.

BAAQMD is the lead agency in developing plans to address attainment and maintenance of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards and California Ambient Air Quality Standards. The District also has permit authority over most types of stationary equipment utilized for the proposed project. The BAAQMD is responsible for permitting and inspection of stationary sources; enforcement of regulations, including setting fees, levying fines, and enforcement actions; and ensuring that public nuisances are minimized.

4 Available online: http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/onrdiesel/onrdiesel.htm. Accessed: November 21, 2014. 5 California Air Resources Board, 2000. Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel- Fueled Engines and Vehicles. October.
5 BAAQMD’s Community Air Risk Evaluation (CARE) program was initiated in 2004 to evaluate and reduce health risks associated with exposures to outdoor TACs in the Bay Area.6 The program examines TAC emissions from point sources, area sources, and on- road and off -road mobile sources with an emphasis on diesel exhaust, which is a major contributor to airborne health risk in California. The CARE program is an on-going program that encourages community involvement and input. The technical analysis portion of the CARE program is being implemented in three phases that includes an assessment of the sources of TAC emissions, modeling and measure ment programs to estimate concentration s of TAC, and an assessment of exposures and health risks.

Throughout the program, information derived from the technical analyses will be used to focus emission reduction measures in areas with high TAC exposures and high density of sensitive populations. Risk reduction activities associated with the CARE program are focused on the most at-risk communities in the Bay Area. Overburdened communities are areas located (i) within a census tract identified by the California Communities Environmental Health Scr eening Tool (CalEnviroScreen), Version 4.0 implemented by OEHHA, as having an overall score at or above the 70th percentile, or (ii) within 1,000 feet of any such census tract.7 The BAAQMD has identified six communities as impacted: Concord, Richmond/San Pablo, Western Alameda County, San José, Redwood City/East Palo Alto, and Eastern San Francisco. The project site is within a CARE area and within a BAAQMD overburdened area as identified by CalEnviroScreen as the Project site is scored at the 91th percentile.8

The BAAQMD California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA) Air Quality Guide lines9 were prepared to assist in the evaluation of air quality impacts of projects and plans proposed within the Bay Area. The guidelines provide recommended procedures for evaluating potential air impacts during the environmental review process consistent with CEQA requirements including thresholds of significance, mitigation measures, and background air quality information. They also include assessment methodologies for air toxics, odors, and greenhouse gas emissions. Attachment 1 includes detailed community risk modeling methodology.

BAAQMD Rules and Regulations

The project is not anticipated to have c ombustion equipment that would require a permit from BAAQMD (e.g., emergency generator). Therefore, permits from the Air District are not necessary.

City of Oakland Standard Conditions of Approval

On November 3, 2008, the Oakland City Council formally adopted the Standard Conditions of Approval (SCA). The City of Oakland has adopted Standard Conditions of Approval (adopted

6 See BAAQMD: https://www.baaqmd.gov/community-health/community-health-protection-program/community- air-risk-evaluation-care-program.
7 See BAAQMD: https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/dotgov/files/rules/reg-2-permits/2021- amendments/documents/20210722_01_appendixd_mapsofoverburdenedcommunities -pdf.pdf?la=en. 8 OEHAA, CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Maps https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/report/calenviroscreen- 40 9 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2017. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines . May. 6 2008, as revised), which are uniformly applied to projects under City of Oakland jurisdiction 10.

The following air quality conditions apply to this project:

No. 20 - Dust Controls – Construction Related
Requirement: 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 miles per house (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

Enhanced control will not be needed because the project does involve extensive site preparation nor extensive soil transport.

No. 21 - Criteria Air Pollutant Controls - Construction Related Requirement: The project applicant shall implement all of the following applicable basic control measures for criteria air 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 to two minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485, of the California Code of Regulations). Clear signage to this effect shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. 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 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 deter mined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.

Equipment check docu mentation should be kept at the construction site and be available for review by the City and the Bay Area Air Quality District as needed.

10 City of Oakland, CA. See https://cao-94612.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/Standard-Conditions-of-Approval- December-2020.pdf accessed October 11, 2022
7 d) Portable equipment shall be powered by grid electricity if available. If electricity is not available, propane or natural gas generators s hall 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.

Enhanced control measures will not be needed since the average daily emissions from construction activities will not exceed the CEQA thresholds for construction activity, currently 54 pounds per day of ROG, NOx, or PM2.5 or 82 pounds per day of PM10.

No. 22 - Diesel Particulate Matter Controls-Construction Related

Since the project is located within an area identified as “overburdened” by BAAQMD, application of the following control measure applies.

a. Diesel Particulate Matter Reduction Measures
Requirement: 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 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 8 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) Requirement: 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 Note that Conditio n 23 would not apply since the Project is not located near any sources of air pollution and the types of receptors using the Project would not be continually exposed to high levels of air pollution at the site due to their infrequent use of the site.

Note that Conditions 24 and 25 do not apply since stationary sources and truck loading docks or truck fleets are not sources of air pollution from the Project

No. 26 - Asbestos in Structures
Requirement: The project applicant shall comply with all applicable laws and regulations regar ding demolition a nd 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.

Note that Condition 27 does not apply since the Project will not disturb naturally occurring asbestos.

Significance Thresholds

In June 2010, BAAQMD adopted thresholds of significance to assist in the review of projects under CEQA and these significance thresholds were contained in the District’s 2011 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. These thresholds were designed to establish the level at which BAAQMD believed air pollution emissions would cause significant environmental impacts under CEQA. The 2011 thresholds were challenged in court and w ere mostly upheld. In 2017, BAAQMD updated its CEQA Air Quality Guidelines and included revised significance thresholds. In 2022, BAAQMD revised its GHG thresholds, eliminating quantified emissions limits. The current 9 BAAQMD thresholds were used in this analysis and are summarized in Table 1. Air quality impacts and community health risks are considered potentially significant if they exceed these thresholds. Note that the City of Oakland applies these thresholds when evaluating impacts from projects11.

Table 1. BAAQMD CEQA Significance Thresholds
Criteria Air
Pollutant
Construction Thresholds Operational Thresholds
Average Daily Emissions
(lbs./day)
Average Daily
Emissions (lbs./day)
Annual Average
Emissions (tons/year)
ROG 54 54 10
NOX 54 54 10
PM10 82 (Exhaust) 82 15
PM2.5 54 (Exhaust) 54 10
CO Not Applicable 9.0 ppm (8-hour average) or 20.0 ppm (1-hour average) Fugitive Dust
Construction Dust Ordinance
or other Best Management
Practices
Not Applicable
Health Risks
and Hazards
Single Sources Within
1,000-foot Zone of
Influence
Combined Sources (Cumulative from all sources
within 1000-foot zone of influence)
Excess Cancer
Risk 10 per one million 100 per one million
Hazard Index 1.0 10.0
Incremental
annual PM2.5 0.3 µg/m3 0.8 µg/m3
Note: ROG = reactive organic gases, NO X = nitrogen oxides, PM 10 = course particulate matter or particulates with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers (µm) or less, PM 2.5 = fine particulate matter or particulates with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5µm or less. GHG = greenhouse gases.

11 City of Oakland, CA. 2020. City of Oakland CEQA Thresholds of Significance Guidelines. December 16. 10 AIR QUALITY IMPACTS

Impact AIR-1: Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?

The Bay Area is considered a non- attainment area for ground- level ozone and PM 2.5 under both the Federal Clean Air Act and the California Clean Air Act. The area is also considered non - attainment for PM 10 under the California Clean Air A ct, but not the federal act. The area has attained both State and federal ambient air quality standards for carbon monoxide. As part of an effort to attain and maintain ambient air quality standards for ozone and PM10, the BAAQMD has established thresholds of significance for these air pollutants and their precursors. These thresholds are for ozone precursor pollutants (ROG and NOX), PM10, and PM2.5 and apply to both construction period and operational period impacts.

The California Emissions Estimator Mo del (CalEEMod) Version 2020.4.0 was used to estimate emissions from construction and operation of the site assuming full build- out of the project. The project land use types and size, and anticipated construction schedule were input to CalEEMod.

The CalEEMod model output along with project inputs are included in Attachment 1.

Construction Period Emissions

The existing building would be demolished and a n entirely new recreation center building would be constructed at the project site. Construction activities were modeled using CalEEMod.

These activities would mainly include demolition and building construction; however, phases for site preparation, some minor grading, trenching and paving were included in the modeling. The modeling is described below.

Land Use Inputs

The proposed project land uses were entered into CalEEMod as described in Table 2.

Table 2. Summary of Project Land Use Inputs for Construction Project Land Uses Size Units Acreage
Health Club 22.22 1,00 square feet 1.4

Construction Inputs

CalEEMod computes annual emissions for construction that are based on the project type, size and acreage. The model provides emission estimates for both on- site and off -site construction activities. On-site activities are primarily made up of construction equipment emissions, while off- site activity includes worker, hauling, and vendor traffic. Construction duration and equipment usage were based on CalEEMod default information for projects of those types and sizes.

CalEEMod default assumptions were include d. There would be little site preparation or grading activities. CalEEMod estimates most construction activity that involves equipment usage would 11 occur over 270 workdays. Since the Project construction schedule is 11 months, the duration of activity for computing average daily emissions from CalEEMod total construction emissions was 247 days.

The City’s Standard Conditions of Approval No. 20 and 21 require construction projects to implement construction dust control measures and measures to reduce criteria air pollutant emissions. The Project would not involve extensive site preparation or soil transport; therefore, enhanced measures under No. 20 would not be required. Condition No. 23 requires use of 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. This requirement would not be necessary if the Project applicant retains 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 r eceptors 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.

Summary of Computed Construction Period Emissions

Average daily emissions were computed by dividing the total construction emissions by the number of construction work days. Table 3 shows average daily construction emissions of ROG, NOX, PM10 exhaust, and PM2.5 exhaust during construction of the project. As indicated in Table 3, predicted project emissions would not exceed the BAAQMD significance thresholds. Since emissions are below the BAAQMD-recommended thresholds, enhanced controls identified in the City’s Standard Conditions of Approval No. 21 are not required.

Table 3. Project Construction Period Emissions (Uncontrolled) Scenario ROG NOx PM10 Exhaust PM2.5 Exhaust
Uncontrolled Construction Emissions 0.30 tons 1.48 tons 0.07 tons 0.06 tons Average Daily Uncontrolled Emissions
(pounds/day)1 2 lbs/day 12 lbs/day 0.6 lbs/day 0.5 lbs/day BAAQMD Thresholds (pounds per day) 54 lbs./day 54 lbs./day 82 lbs./day 54 lbs./day Exceed Threshold? No No No No
1Assumes 247 workdays.

There are not thresholds for fugitive dust generated by construction that could lead to nuisance and health impacts. Construction activities would temporarily generate fugitive dust in the form of PM10 and PM2.5. Sources of fugitive dust would include disturbed soils at the construction site and trucks carrying uncovered loads of soils. Unless properly controlled, vehicles leaving the site could deposit debris on local streets, which could be an additional source of airborne dust. In accordance with the City’s Conditions of Approval (No. 20), the project would be required to implement the BAAQMD best management practices to reduce these emissions.

Operational Period Emissions

Land Uses

The project land uses were input to CalEEMod as described above for the construction period 12 modeling.

Model Year

Emissions associated with vehicle travel depend on the year of analysis because emission control technology requirements are phased- in over time. Therefore, the earlier the year analyzed in the model, the higher the emission rates utilized by CalEEMod. This analysis assumed that the project would be fully built out and operating in 2024.

Trip Generation Rates

CalEEMod allows the user to enter specific vehicle trip generation rates. Therefore, the project- specific trip generation rates were calculated from the data provided by the traffic consultant and input into the model. 12 The project would generate 640 daily automobile trips. The daily trip generation was calculated using the size of the project (i.e. new square footage). The CalEEMod default trip lengths were used, which likely overestimates travel distance given the nature of the project site that likely serves the local community.

Energy

CalEEMod defaults for energy use were used, which include the 2019 Title 24 Building Standards.

CalEEMod has a default emission factor of 641.3 pounds of CO 2 per megawatt of electricity produced, which is based on PG&E’s 2008 emissions rate. CalEEMod uses the PG&E published rate of 203.98 pounds CO2 per megawatt of electricity delivered in the year 2018.

Other Inputs

Default model assumptions for emissions associated with solid waste generation and water/wastewater use were applied to the project.

Summary of Computed Operational Period Emissions

Annual emissions were predicted using CalEEMod and daily emissions were estimating assuming 365 days of operation13. Table 4 shows average daily construction emissions of ROG, NO X, total PM10, and total PM2.5 during operation of the project. The operational period emissions would not exceed the BAAQMD significance thresholds.

12 Trip generation rates included along with CalEEMod modeling output in Attachment 1. 13 CalEEMod predicts annual emissions, assuming 365-day operation; however, traffic is assumed to occur only 5 days per week throughout the year. Therefore, this assessment assumed 260 annual days of operation. Fewer operating days would have lower annual emissions than reported. 13 Table 4. Project Operational Period Emissions
Scenario ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5
2024 Annual Project Operational Emissions (tons/year) 0.46 tons 0.24 tons 0.35 tons 0.09 tons BAAQMD Thresholds (tons /year) 10 tons 10 tons 15 tons 10 tons Exceed Threshold? No No No No
2024 Daily Project Operational Emissions (pounds/day)1 2.5 lbs. 1.3 lbs. 1.9 lbs. 0.5 lbs.

BAAQMD Thresholds (pounds/day) 54 lbs. 54 lbs. 82 lbs. 54 lbs.

Exceed Threshold? No No No No
Notes: 1 Assumes 7-day per week operation (365 days/year).

Impact AIR-2: Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?

Project impacts related to increased community risk can occur either by introducing a new source of TACs with the potential to adversely affect existing sensitive receptors in the project vicinity or by significantly exacerbating existing cumulative TAC impacts. This project would introduce new sources of TACs during construction (i.e., on-site construction and some truck hauling emissions).

During operation, the project would not have sources of localized TAC emissions . While the project would generate new traffic (400 new daily trips), these would be mostly automobile trips that have low rates of TAC emissions and would not lead to significant health risk impacts.

Sensitive receptors near the Project site include the park users , the Yuk Yau Child Developm ent Center directly west, Lincoln Elementary School to the southeast and nearby residences to the northeast. These receptors are located about 100 feet from the park.

Project Emissions - Construction

The primary source of TAC emissions from construction work is large construction equipment typically used for groundwork (e.g., grading and excavation). This construction project would have relatively short durations of that type of work. The total const ruction period would be 11 months with most heavy construction activity conducted within one to two months. Because the Project involves mostly demolition and building construction work, construction equipment that emits diesel particulate matter (a TAC) would not be used extensively. Therefore, the increase in health risks is expected to be minor.

The Project must comply with the City’s Condition of Approval 22, Diesel Particulate Matter Controls-Construction Related, since construction activity is proposed in a community considered “overburdened” by BAAQMD. To address the requirement, the Project could use construction equipment with the most effective Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategies (VDECS) available for the engine types, such as engines that meet U.S. EPA Tier 4 standards. Alternatively, the applicant could retain an air quality consultant to prepare a health risk assessment in accordance with City and BAAQMD requirements. If the HRA concludes that the health risk is at or below acceptable levels (see Table 1), then the diesel particulate matter control measures described above may not be required. Adherence to this condition of approval would ensure that health risk impacts caused by the Project are below thresholds.

14 Project Exposure

The City of Oakland considers exposure of new sensitive receptors to substantial ambient levels of TACs that result in (a) a cancer risk level greater than 100 in a million, (b) a non- cancer risk (chronic or acute) hazard index greater than 10.0, or (c) annual average PM 2.5 of greater than 0.8 micrograms per cubic meter to be significant. These thresholds are based on TAC sources within 1,000 feet that include stationary sources permitted by BAAQMD, freeways, major roadways with average daily traffic volumes greater than 10,000 vehicles per day, railroads , airports, sea ports, and truck distribution centers. Within 1,000 feet of the Project site there are 5 permitted sources by BAAQMD and local roadways. Some local roadways, such as Harrison Street, have traffic levels that are just around 10,000 average daily trips. I nterstate 880 is the closest freeway, about 1,200 feet west of the Project site.

The City’s Condition of Approval 23, Exposure to Air Pollution (Toxic Air Contaminants) addresses exposure of new sensitive receptors to nearby sources of air pollution. The City’s condition of approval requires that a health risk assessment demonstrate that health risks are at or below acceptable levels, and if not, identify and evaluate measures to reduce risks to acceptable levels.

The City considers sensitive receptors to include residential uses, schools, parks, daycare centers, nursing homes, and medical centers. This Project would fall under the category of a park. Users of this park recreation center would not be continually present to exposure of nearby sources of TACs. The City’s thresholds used to judge the significance of these exposures, i.e., cancer risk and annual PM 2.5, are based on chronic or long- term exposure. Users of the site would be periodically exposed and not experience significant exposures. There are no nearby sources that pose significant acute exposures.

Supporting Documentation

Attachment 1 includes the CalEEMod output for project construction and operational criteria air pollutant. Also included are any modeling assumptions and the list of nearby BAAQMD permitted sources and their impacts upon the site.

Attachment 1: CalEEMod Output, Modeling Information and BAAQMD Permitted Sources

Unmitigated ROG NOX PM10 Exhaust PM2.5 Exhaust CO2e
Year MT
2023 0.29 1.40 0.06 0.06 217.44
2023 0.005 0.08 0.01 0.002 62.39
2023 0.30 1.48 0.07 0.06 279.83
Tons 0.30 1.48 0.07 0.06 279.83
Pounds/Workdays
2023 2.40 11.97 0.55 0.50 247
Threshold - lbs/day 54.0 54.0 82.0 54.0
Pounds 2.40 11.97 0.55 0.50 0.00
Average 2.40 11.97 0.55 0.50 0.00 247.00
Threshold - lbs/day 54.0 54.0 82.0 54.0
Unmitigated ROG NOX Total PM10 Total PM2.5
Year
Total 0.46 0.24 0.35 0.09
Tons/year 0.46 0.24 0.35 0.09
Threshold - Tons/year 10.0 10.0 15.0 10.0
Pounds Per Day 2.53 1.32 1.90 0.49
Threshold - lbs/day 54.0 54.0 82.0 54.0
Category
Project Existing Project 2030 Existing
Area 0.0004
Energy 30.37
Mobile 373.63
Waste 63.69
Water 1.73
TOTAL 469.43 0.00 0.00 0.00
Net GHG Emissions 469.43 0.00
Service Population 0.00
Per Capita Emissions #DIV/0! #DIV/0!
0 units
CA DOF 1920 = 0 pphh
Average Daily Emissions
EMFAC
Construction Equipment
Total Construction Emissions by Year
Workdays
CO2e
Tons
Total Construction Emissions
Average Daily Emissions
Uncontrolled Construction Criteria Air Pollutants
Operational Criteria Air Pollutants
Tons
Existing Use Emissions
Total Construction Emissions
Net Annual Operational Emissions
Land Use Size Daily Trips New Trips Weekday Trip Gen Weekday Sat Sun Health Club ksf 22.221 640 640 28.80 32.93 20.87 26.73
Rev 18.25 23.38
Traffic Consultant Trip Gen CalEEMod Default

Pollutants ROG NOx CO SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total NBio- CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
YEAR
2023 0.0049 0.0785 0.0655 0.0006 0.0188 0.0053 0.0240 0.0028 0.0023 0.0051 59.7947 0.0029 0.0085 62.3869 2023 0.0039 0.0172 0.0232 0.0000 0.0007 0.0002 0.0009 0.0001 0.0001 0.0002 3.7560 0.0007 0.0006 3.9516 Tons
Summary of Construction Traffic Emissions (EMFAC2021)
Metric Tons
Criteria Pollutants
Toxic Air Contaminants (0.5 Mile Trip Length)
Lincoln Square Recreation Center, Oakland
Alameda County, Annual

1.0 Project Characteristics

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 9/28/2022 12:10 PM
Lincoln Square Recreation Center, Oakland - Alameda County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Climate Zone 5 Operational Year 2024
Utility Company Pacific Gas and Electric Company
0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 63 Health Club 22.22 1000sqft 1.40 22,221.00
Vehicle Trips - Provided trip gen.

Vehicle Emission Factors - EMFAC2021 vehicle emissions factors Alameda County 2024.

Vehicle Emission Factors -
Vehicle Emission Factors -
Fleet Mix - EMFAC2021 fleet mix Alameda County 2024.

Off-road Equipment - CalEEMod defaults - reviewed and approved by project applicant.

Off-road Equipment - Defaults - reviewed and approved by project applicant.

Grading - Grading = 90-cy imported, 440-cy exported.

Demolition - Existing building demo = 8,700-sf
Trips and VMT - EMFAC2021 adjustment 0 trips, pavement demo = 590 tons, building const = 14 concrete truck round trips, paving = 106-cy asphalt.

Off-road Equipment - CalEEMod defaults - reviewed and approved by project applicant.

Off-road Equipment - CalEEMod defaults - reviewed and approved by project applicant.

Off-road Equipment - CalEEMod defaults - reviewed and approved by project applicant.

Off-road Equipment - CalEEMod defaults - reviewed and approved by project applicant.

Off-road Equipment - CalEEMod defaults - reviewed and approved by project applicant.

0.004

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
Project Characteristics -
Land Use - Provided construction sheet and project trip gen - total lot acreage and square footage.

Construction Phase - CalEEMod schedule defaults - reviewed and approved by project applicant.

CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
203.98 CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)

0.033 N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstDustMitigation WaterUnpavedRoadVehicleSpeed 0 15 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 Energy Use - Oakland Reach Code = no nat gas - concert to electricity Water And Wastewater - Wastewater treatment 100% aerobic - no septic tanks or lagoons.

Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - BMPs, tier 4 interim mitigation.

Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim
tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 9.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 3.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 3.00 tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 9/28/2022 12:10 PM
Lincoln Square Recreation Center, Oakland - Alameda County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim
tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 11/14/2023 11/28/2023 tblEnergyUse NT24E 3.36 5.38
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 11/27/2023 12/11/2023 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 11/28/2023 11/14/2023 tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 12/11/2023 11/27/2023 tblFleetMix LDA 0.57 0.53
tblFleetMix LDT1 0.06 0.04
tblEnergyUse T24NG 17.67 0.00
tblFleetMix HHD 0.01 0.01
tblEnergyUse NT24NG 6.90 0.00
tblEnergyUse T24E 1.08 6.26
tblFleetMix MDV 0.11 0.12
tblFleetMix MH 2.4510e-003 2.2130e-003
tblFleetMix LHD2 5.1690e-003 5.7260e-003
tblFleetMix MCY 0.02 0.02
tblFleetMix LDT2 0.18 0.22
tblFleetMix LHD1 0.02 0.02
tblGrading MaterialExported 0.00 440.00
tblGrading MaterialImported 0.00 90.00
tblFleetMix SBUS 3.3700e-004 4.4600e-004
tblFleetMix UBUS 5.7000e-004 9.1400e-004
tblFleetMix MHD 0.01 0.01
tblFleetMix OBUS 7.9200e-004 8.4700e-004
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Excavators
tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber 40.00 0.00
tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.38 0.38
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.51 1.40
tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.37 0.37
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 13.00 0.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 10.00 0.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 2.00 0.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 9.00 0.00
tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber 66.00 0.00
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 4.00 0.00
tblVehicleEF HHD 0.03 0.07
tblVehicleEF HHD 6.63 5.37
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 5.00 0.00
tblVehicleEF HHD 0.02 0.22
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 13.00 0.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 8.00 0.00
tblVehicleEF HHD 1,083.40 859.50
tblVehicleEF HHD 1,374.34 1,579.94
tblVehicleEF HHD 0.35 0.55
tblVehicleEF HHD 3.9270e-003 2.3940e-003
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 9/28/2022 12:10 PM
Lincoln Square Recreation Center, Oakland - Alameda County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied tblVehicleEF HHD 0.04 0.03
tblVehicleEF HHD 0.17 0.14
tblVehicleEF HHD 2.28 2.73
tblVehicleEF HHD 2.3430e-003 2.0020e-003
tblVehicleEF HHD 5.47 4.19
tblVehicleEF HHD 2.59 1.72
tblVehicleEF HHD 0.22 0.25
tblVehicleEF HHD 4.0000e-006 0.00
tblVehicleEF HHD 0.03 0.03
tblVehicleEF HHD 8.9250e-003 8.8830e-003
tblVehicleEF HHD 0.03 0.03
tblVehicleEF HHD 2.2410e-003 1.9100e-003
tblVehicleEF HHD 0.06 0.08
tblVehicleEF HHD 0.04 0.04
tblVehicleEF HHD 1.0000e-006 0.00
tblVehicleEF HHD 0.02 0.02
tblVehicleEF HHD 7.2000e-005 1.2000e-005
tblVehicleEF HHD 0.45 0.35
tblVehicleEF HHD 0.02 0.03
tblVehicleEF HHD 1.0000e-006 3.5000e-005
tblVehicleEF HHD 1.0000e-006 3.5000e-005
tblVehicleEF HHD 7.2000e-005 1.2000e-005
tblVehicleEF HHD 0.01 7.6290e-003
tblVehicleEF HHD 0.01 0.01
tblVehicleEF HHD 3.1000e-005 7.5000e-005
tblVehicleEF HHD 1.0000e-006 0.00
tblVehicleEF HHD 1.0000e-006 0.00
tblVehicleEF LDA 1.8590e-003 2.0990e-003
tblVehicleEF HHD 0.06 0.09
tblVehicleEF HHD 3.1000e-005 7.5000e-005
tblVehicleEF HHD 0.51 0.59
tblVehicleEF HHD 1.0000e-006 0.00
tblVehicleEF LDA 50.77 65.07
tblVehicleEF LDA 4.1360e-003 4.2930e-003
tblVehicleEF LDA 2.16 3.08
tblVehicleEF LDA 239.62 248.92
tblVehicleEF LDA 0.05 0.07
tblVehicleEF LDA 0.53 0.63
tblVehicleEF LDA 1.3710e-003 1.2110e-003
tblVehicleEF LDA 1.6920e-003 1.9470e-003
tblVehicleEF LDA 0.18 0.25
tblVehicleEF LDA 0.04 6.6140e-003
tblVehicleEF LDA 0.02 0.03
tblVehicleEF LDA 0.03 0.04
tblVehicleEF LDA 0.09 0.09
tblVehicleEF LDA 0.03 0.00
tblVehicleEF LDA 1.5560e-003 1.7900e-003
tblVehicleEF LDA 0.04 0.29
tblVehicleEF LDA 0.02 2.3150e-003
tblVehicleEF LDA 1.2630e-003 1.1150e-003
tblVehicleEF LDA 5.0200e-004 6.4300e-004
tblVehicleEF LDA 0.04 0.29
tblVehicleEF LDA 0.21 0.32
tblVehicleEF LDA 2.3700e-003 2.4610e-003
tblVehicleEF LDA 7.0560e-003 8.1540e-003
tblVehicleEF LDA 0.03 0.22
tblVehicleEF LDA 0.09 0.09
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 9/28/2022 12:10 PM
Lincoln Square Recreation Center, Oakland - Alameda County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied tblVehicleEF LDA 0.23 0.34
tblVehicleEF LDT1 3.6820e-003 5.6530e-003
tblVehicleEF LDA 0.01 0.01
tblVehicleEF LDA 0.03 0.22
tblVehicleEF LDA 0.03 0.00
tblVehicleEF LDT1 61.42 87.19
tblVehicleEF LDT1 5.9310e-003 8.9720e-003
tblVehicleEF LDT1 2.35 5.49
tblVehicleEF LDT1 286.88 327.66
tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.06 0.11
tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.83 1.28
tblVehicleEF LDT1 1.6970e-003 1.8510e-003
tblVehicleEF LDT1 2.1880e-003 2.9500e-003
tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.23 0.40
tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.04 8.4540e-003
tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.03 0.04
tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.07 0.12
tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.16 0.17
tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.07 0.00
tblVehicleEF LDT1 2.0120e-003 2.7120e-003
tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.08 0.62
tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.02 2.9590e-003
tblVehicleEF LDT1 1.5610e-003 1.7030e-003
tblVehicleEF LDT1 6.0800e-004 8.6200e-004
tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.08 0.62
tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.31 0.57
tblVehicleEF LDT1 2.8390e-003 3.2390e-003
tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.02 0.02
tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.08 0.50
tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.34 0.62
tblVehicleEF LDT2 2.8980e-003 2.6790e-003
tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.02 0.04
tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.08 0.50
tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.16 0.17
tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.07 0.00
tblVehicleEF LDT2 66.04 86.96
tblVehicleEF LDT2 5.6150e-003 5.8820e-003
tblVehicleEF LDT2 2.77 3.75
tblVehicleEF LDT2 305.96 337.51
tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.06 0.08
tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.70 0.77
tblVehicleEF LDT2 1.3900e-003 1.3310e-003
tblVehicleEF LDT2 1.7150e-003 2.1200e-003
tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.26 0.34
tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.04 8.0990e-003
tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.03 0.04
tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.06 0.06
tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.12 0.08
tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.06 0.00
tblVehicleEF LDT2 1.5770e-003 1.9490e-003
tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.06 0.29
tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.02 2.8350e-003
tblVehicleEF LDT2 1.2800e-003 1.2250e-003
tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.30 0.39
tblVehicleEF LDT2 3.0270e-003 3.3360e-003
tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.01 0.01
tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.06 0.22
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 9/28/2022 12:10 PM
Lincoln Square Recreation Center, Oakland - Alameda County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied tblVehicleEF LDT2 6.5300e-004 8.6000e-004
tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.06 0.29
tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.32 0.43
tblVehicleEF LHD1 5.2020e-003 5.5940e-003
tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.02 0.02
tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.06 0.22
tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.12 0.08
tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.06 0.00
tblVehicleEF LHD1 1.08 2.22
tblVehicleEF LHD1 8.87 8.71
tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.19 0.20
tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.75 0.94
tblVehicleEF LHD1 8.2270e-003 8.4040e-003
tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.01 0.02
tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.03 0.04
tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.06 0.05
tblVehicleEF LHD1 7.2400e-004 6.2100e-004
tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.04 0.04
tblVehicleEF LHD1 791.34 791.19
tblVehicleEF LHD1 11.92 18.39
tblVehicleEF LHD1 9.7150e-003 9.3460e-003
tblVehicleEF LHD1 9.8140e-003 0.01
tblVehicleEF LHD1 8.0900e-004 6.5300e-004
tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.08 0.08
tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.67 0.65
tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.32 0.46
tblVehicleEF LHD1 9.3410e-003 0.01
tblVehicleEF LHD1 2.3100e-004 2.0900e-004
tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.03 0.03
tblVehicleEF LHD1 2.4290e-003 2.3360e-003
tblVehicleEF LHD1 2.5100e-004 2.2800e-004
tblVehicleEF LHD1 7.7400e-004 6.2500e-004
tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.09 0.09
tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.21 0.18
tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.02 0.02
tblVehicleEF LHD1 1.0180e-003 0.00
tblVehicleEF LHD1 1.7640e-003 0.13
tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.07 0.03
tblVehicleEF LHD1 1.7640e-003 0.13
tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.07 0.03
tblVehicleEF LHD1 7.7310e-003 7.7340e-003
tblVehicleEF LHD1 1.1800e-004 1.8200e-004
tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.07 0.12
tblVehicleEF LHD1 8.6000e-005 8.5000e-005
tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.08 0.13
tblVehicleEF LHD2 3.5400e-003 3.6820e-003
tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.11 0.11
tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.21 0.18
tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.03 0.03
tblVehicleEF LHD1 1.0180e-003 0.00
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.68 1.40
tblVehicleEF LHD2 13.53 13.36
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.15 0.15
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.60 0.60
tblVehicleEF LHD2 6.7490e-003 7.0340e-003
tblVehicleEF LHD2 9.1710e-003 0.01
tblVehicleEF LHD2 781.19 841.06
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 9/28/2022 12:10 PM
Lincoln Square Recreation Center, Oakland - Alameda County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.02 0.02
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.09 0.08
tblVehicleEF LHD2 1.6100e-003 1.5400e-003
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.07 0.08
tblVehicleEF LHD2 8.80 11.48
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.01 0.01
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.01 0.02
tblVehicleEF LHD2 1.3170e-003 1.2320e-003
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.09 0.09
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.77 0.83
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.21 0.29
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.01 0.02
tblVehicleEF LHD2 1.2500e-004 1.0100e-004
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.04 0.03
tblVehicleEF LHD2 2.6510e-003 2.6180e-003
tblVehicleEF LHD2 1.3600e-004 1.1000e-004
tblVehicleEF LHD2 1.2600e-003 1.1780e-003
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.10 0.11
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.11 0.10
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.02 0.02
tblVehicleEF LHD2 6.0000e-004 0.00
tblVehicleEF LHD2 1.0140e-003 0.07
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.04 0.02
tblVehicleEF LHD2 1.0140e-003 0.07
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.04 0.02
tblVehicleEF LHD2 7.5600e-003 8.1230e-003
tblVehicleEF LHD2 8.7000e-005 1.1300e-004
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.05 0.07
tblVehicleEF LHD2 1.3000e-004 1.2800e-004
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.05 0.08
tblVehicleEF MCY 0.34 0.17
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.12 0.13
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.11 0.10
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.02 0.02
tblVehicleEF LHD2 6.0000e-004 0.00
tblVehicleEF MCY 61.48 50.62
tblVehicleEF MCY 0.07 0.04
tblVehicleEF MCY 9.13 8.23
tblVehicleEF MCY 215.26 190.21
tblVehicleEF MCY 0.26 0.19
tblVehicleEF MCY 19.81 13.43
tblVehicleEF MCY 2.0940e-003 1.9300e-003
tblVehicleEF MCY 3.0600e-003 3.6100e-003
tblVehicleEF MCY 0.27 0.15
tblVehicleEF MCY 0.01 0.01
tblVehicleEF MCY 0.02 8.6060e-003
tblVehicleEF MCY 1.16 0.60
tblVehicleEF MCY 0.71 3.58
tblVehicleEF MCY 0.49 0.00
tblVehicleEF MCY 2.8790e-003 3.3980e-003
tblVehicleEF MCY 0.80 4.02
tblVehicleEF MCY 5.0400e-003 4.2000e-003
tblVehicleEF MCY 1.9570e-003 1.8070e-003
tblVehicleEF MCY 1.98 1.45
tblVehicleEF MCY 2.1300e-003 1.8800e-003
tblVehicleEF MCY 2.32 1.14
tblVehicleEF MCY 0.56 3.79
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 9/28/2022 12:10 PM
Lincoln Square Recreation Center, Oakland - Alameda County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied tblVehicleEF MCY 6.0800e-004 5.0000e-004
tblVehicleEF MCY 0.80 0.09
tblVehicleEF MCY 2.16 1.57
tblVehicleEF MDV 3.3470e-003 3.5520e-003
tblVehicleEF MCY 2.87 1.36
tblVehicleEF MCY 0.56 3.79
tblVehicleEF MCY 0.71 3.58
tblVehicleEF MCY 0.49 0.00
tblVehicleEF MDV 78.89 104.38
tblVehicleEF MDV 7.4350e-003 8.0030e-003
tblVehicleEF MDV 3.06 4.11
tblVehicleEF MDV 367.78 405.72
tblVehicleEF MDV 0.07 0.10
tblVehicleEF MDV 0.74 0.88
tblVehicleEF MDV 1.4830e-003 1.3610e-003
tblVehicleEF MDV 1.8440e-003 2.1840e-003
tblVehicleEF MDV 0.31 0.44
tblVehicleEF MDV 0.04 8.1890e-003
tblVehicleEF MDV 0.03 0.04
tblVehicleEF MDV 0.07 0.09
tblVehicleEF MDV 0.14 0.10
tblVehicleEF MDV 0.07 0.00
tblVehicleEF MDV 1.6960e-003 2.0080e-003
tblVehicleEF MDV 0.06 0.37
tblVehicleEF MDV 0.02 2.8660e-003
tblVehicleEF MDV 1.3680e-003 1.2540e-003
tblVehicleEF MDV 7.8100e-004 1.0320e-003
tblVehicleEF MDV 0.06 0.37
tblVehicleEF MDV 0.37 0.52
tblVehicleEF MDV 3.6350e-003 4.0090e-003
tblVehicleEF MDV 0.01 0.01
tblVehicleEF MDV 0.06 0.29
tblVehicleEF MDV 0.40 0.57
tblVehicleEF MH 9.2930e-003 0.01
tblVehicleEF MDV 0.02 0.02
tblVehicleEF MDV 0.06 0.29
tblVehicleEF MDV 0.14 0.10
tblVehicleEF MDV 0.07 0.00
tblVehicleEF MH 18.45 23.05
tblVehicleEF MH 0.06 0.07
tblVehicleEF MH 2.07 2.59
tblVehicleEF MH 1,505.16 1,694.28
tblVehicleEF MH 0.02 0.03
tblVehicleEF MH 0.90 1.25
tblVehicleEF MH 0.01 0.01
tblVehicleEF MH 0.02 0.03
tblVehicleEF MH 0.25 0.31
tblVehicleEF MH 0.13 0.04
tblVehicleEF MH 0.03 0.03
tblVehicleEF MH 1.21 1.49
tblVehicleEF MH 2.4300e-004 2.9600e-004
tblVehicleEF MH 0.55 33.38
tblVehicleEF MH 3.2670e-003 3.2930e-003
tblVehicleEF MH 0.02 0.03
tblVehicleEF MH 2.6400e-004 3.2200e-004
tblVehicleEF MH 0.06 0.02
tblVehicleEF MH 0.05 9.04
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 9/28/2022 12:10 PM
Lincoln Square Recreation Center, Oakland - Alameda County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied tblVehicleEF MH 0.09 0.12
tblVehicleEF MH 0.01 0.02
tblVehicleEF MH 0.06 0.08
tblVehicleEF MH 0.01 0.21
tblVehicleEF MH 0.22 0.00
tblVehicleEF MH 0.08 0.11
tblVehicleEF MH 0.01 0.21
tblVehicleEF MH 0.05 9.04
tblVehicleEF MH 0.22 0.00
tblVehicleEF MH 1.8300e-004 2.2800e-004
tblVehicleEF MH 0.55 33.38
tblVehicleEF MHD 0.35 0.65
tblVehicleEF MHD 0.20 0.31
tblVehicleEF MHD 1.3190e-003 0.01
tblVehicleEF MHD 6.7490e-003 7.5590e-003
tblVehicleEF MH 0.10 0.13
tblVehicleEF MHD 2.6790e-003 0.01
tblVehicleEF MHD 0.01 0.02
tblVehicleEF MHD 0.14 0.16
tblVehicleEF MHD 1,042.25 1,225.83
tblVehicleEF MHD 6.73 7.41
tblVehicleEF MHD 0.78 0.91
tblVehicleEF MHD 72.84 158.47
tblVehicleEF MHD 3.0900e-004 1.5240e-003
tblVehicleEF MHD 0.13 0.05
tblVehicleEF MHD 1.44 0.98
tblVehicleEF MHD 1.83 1.44
tblVehicleEF MHD 5.3000e-003 5.2350e-003
tblVehicleEF MHD 0.41 0.85
tblVehicleEF MHD 6.5900e-003 9.5980e-003
tblVehicleEF MHD 7.1000e-005 7.6000e-005
tblVehicleEF MHD 2.9600e-004 1.4580e-003
tblVehicleEF MHD 0.06 0.02
tblVehicleEF MHD 6.8920e-003 0.01
tblVehicleEF MHD 7.7000e-005 8.3000e-005
tblVehicleEF MHD 0.01 0.03
tblVehicleEF MHD 0.01 0.04
tblVehicleEF MHD 0.01 0.02
tblVehicleEF MHD 1.5200e-004 0.00
tblVehicleEF MHD 2.5400e-004 0.02
tblVehicleEF MHD 0.01 5.4690e-003
tblVehicleEF MHD 2.5400e-004 0.02
tblVehicleEF MHD 0.01 5.4690e-003
tblVehicleEF MHD 9.9100e-003 0.01
tblVehicleEF MHD 6.7000e-005 7.3000e-005
tblVehicleEF MHD 0.04 0.04
tblVehicleEF MHD 6.9000e-004 1.4670e-003
tblVehicleEF MHD 0.04 0.05
tblVehicleEF OBUS 8.4040e-003 8.7980e-003
tblVehicleEF MHD 0.02 0.05
tblVehicleEF MHD 0.01 0.04
tblVehicleEF MHD 0.02 0.04
tblVehicleEF MHD 1.5200e-004 0.00
tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.58 0.52
tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.72 0.85
tblVehicleEF OBUS 6.4160e-003 0.01
tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.02 0.03
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 9/28/2022 12:10 PM
Lincoln Square Recreation Center, Oakland - Alameda County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied tblVehicleEF OBUS 2.46 2.82
tblVehicleEF OBUS 84.59 72.86
tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.02 0.02
tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.33 0.29
tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.01 9.4860e-003
tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.11 0.11
tblVehicleEF OBUS 1,439.19 1,592.66
tblVehicleEF OBUS 19.38 23.10
tblVehicleEF OBUS 7.2320e-003 0.02
tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.9300e-004 2.2000e-004
tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.1000e-004 3.4300e-004
tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.13 0.05
tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.26 1.10
tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.82 0.71
tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.4530e-003 0.09
tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.02 0.02
tblVehicleEF OBUS 6.9010e-003 0.02
tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.7700e-004 2.0200e-004
tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.0500e-004 3.2800e-004
tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.06 0.02
tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.12 0.13
tblVehicleEF OBUS 8.0500e-004 6.9400e-004
tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.04 0.07
tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.07 0.11
tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.05 0.05
tblVehicleEF OBUS 6.9000e-004 0.00
tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.07 0.06
tblVehicleEF OBUS 6.9000e-004 0.00
tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.4530e-003 0.09
tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.02 0.02
tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.01 0.02
tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.9200e-004 2.2800e-004
tblVehicleEF SBUS 4.2520e-003 0.16
tblVehicleEF SBUS 6.2910e-003 4.2300e-003
tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.13 0.14
tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.07 0.09
tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.05 0.09
tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.07 0.11
tblVehicleEF SBUS 980.93 1,051.90
tblVehicleEF SBUS 5.28 3.03
tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.91 0.59
tblVehicleEF SBUS 343.38 179.58
tblVehicleEF SBUS 2.99 1.47
tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.34 1.19
tblVehicleEF SBUS 3.34 1.67
tblVehicleEF SBUS 1.14 0.60
tblVehicleEF SBUS 5.9370e-003 3.0110e-003
tblVehicleEF SBUS 2.78 1.04
tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.05 0.03
tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.11 0.14
tblVehicleEF SBUS 7.7000e-005 3.6000e-005
tblVehicleEF SBUS 2.6430e-003 8.4800e-004
tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.01 0.01
tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.02 8.6450e-003
tblVehicleEF SBUS 2.7620e-003 8.8800e-004
tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.74 0.04
tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.32 0.02
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 9/28/2022 12:10 PM
Lincoln Square Recreation Center, Oakland - Alameda County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied tblVehicleEF SBUS 3.7600e-004 0.03
tblVehicleEF SBUS 3.6840e-003 6.5250e-003
tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.02 8.2520e-003
tblVehicleEF SBUS 7.0000e-005 3.3000e-005
tblVehicleEF SBUS 2.6270e-003 2.6950e-003
tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.03 0.02
tblVehicleEF SBUS 3.2760e-003 1.5690e-003
tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.06 0.05
tblVehicleEF SBUS 6.3190e-003 0.02
tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.33 0.15
tblVehicleEF SBUS 1.8000e-004 0.00
tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.48 0.27
tblVehicleEF SBUS 1.8000e-004 0.00
tblVehicleEF SBUS 3.7600e-004 0.03
tblVehicleEF SBUS 3.6840e-003 6.5250e-003
tblVehicleEF SBUS 9.4020e-003 9.5420e-003
tblVehicleEF SBUS 5.2000e-005 3.0000e-005
tblVehicleEF UBUS 1.0810e-003 0.01
tblVehicleEF UBUS 8.27 3.31
tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.04 0.03
tblVehicleEF UBUS 1.12 0.30
tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.07 0.22
tblVehicleEF SBUS 6.3190e-003 0.02
tblVehicleEF UBUS 7.9500e-004 0.02
tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.71 0.28
tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.84 10.62
tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.27 0.16
tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.07 1.51
tblVehicleEF UBUS 1,618.25 1,182.16
tblVehicleEF UBUS 6.0000e-006 4.9000e-005
tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.03 0.04
tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.03 0.03
tblVehicleEF UBUS 5.1750e-003 5.4280e-003
tblVehicleEF UBUS 9.1230e-003 0.12
tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.07 0.11
tblVehicleEF UBUS 8.4600e-004 0.01
tblVehicleEF UBUS 3.8000e-005 0.00
tblVehicleEF UBUS 6.0000e-006 4.5000e-005
tblVehicleEF UBUS 5.7000e-005 0.03
tblVehicleEF UBUS 7.9020e-003 7.6760e-003
tblVehicleEF UBUS 4.9510e-003 5.1840e-003
tblVehicleEF UBUS 8.0000e-006 1.0500e-004
tblVehicleEF UBUS 5.7000e-005 0.03
tblVehicleEF UBUS 4.7200e-003 0.05
tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.01 0.01
tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.02 0.05
tblVehicleEF UBUS 1.8000e-004 0.03
tblVehicleEF UBUS 5.1680e-003 0.05
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 20.87 18.25
tblVehicleEF UBUS 1.15 0.36
tblVehicleEF UBUS 1.8000e-004 0.03
tblVehicleEF UBUS 8.4600e-004 0.01
tblVehicleEF UBUS 3.8000e-005 0.00
tblWater AerobicPercent 87.46 100.00
tblWater AnaerobicandFacultativeLagoonsPercent 2.21 0.00 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 26.73 23.38
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 32.93 28.80
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 9/28/2022 12:10 PM
Lincoln Square Recreation Center, Oakland - Alameda County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied tblWater SepticTankPercent 10.33 0.00

2.0 Emissions Summary
N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4

2.1 Overall Construction
Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
217.4440

0.0403 0.0000 217.4440
Maximum 0.2916 1.3995 1.4838 2.6000e-003 0.0247 0.0621 0.0869 0.0105 0.0597 0.0702 0.0000

0.0597 0.0702 0.0000 216.4376 216.43762.6000e-003 0.0247 0.0621 0.0869 0.01052023 0.2916 1.3995 1.4838 Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
216.4376 216.4376 0.0403 0.0000

0.0111 0.0168 0.0279 4.7300e-
003
2023 0.1633 1.1436 1.6071
N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4
ROG NOx CO SO2
216.4373 216.4373 0.0403 0.0000 217.4438

0.0403 0.0000 217.4438
Maximum 0.1633 1.1436 1.6071 2.6000e-003 0.0111 0.0168 0.0279 4.7300e- 003

0.0168 0.0215 0.0000

0.0168 0.0215 0.0000 216.4373 216.43732.6000e-003

0.00 Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

44.01 18.28 -8.31 0.00 55.01 72.96 67.85 55.00 71.84 69.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
3 7-2-2023 9-30-2023 0.4301 0.3378
2 4-2-2023 7-1-2023 0.4301 0.3378
1 1-2-2023 4-1-2023 0.4624 0.3142

0.00 0.00

2.2 Overall Operational
Unmitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
Highest 0.4624 0.3378

4.0000e-
004

4.0000e-
004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Area 0.0984 0.0000 2.0000e-004
N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4

3.0200e-
003

0.3471 0.0858Mobile 0.3629 0.2415 1.9837

30.0759 30.0759 4.8700e-
003

5.9000e-004 30.3733

0.0000 0.0000 4.2000e-
004
Energy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 25.7088 1.5194 0.0000 63.6925

0.0254 0.0210 373.6265
Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 25.7088

2.8200e-
003

0.0886 0.0000 366.7293 366.72933.9600e-003 0.3441
397.7244 423.8981 1.5514 0.0226 469.4268

1.7500e-
003

1.0300e-003 1.7341
Total 0.4613 0.2415 1.9839 3.9600e-003 0.3441 3.0200e-
003

0.3471 0.0858 2.8200e-
003

0.0886 26.1738

0.0000 0.0000 0.4650 0.9188 1.38370.0000 0.0000Water
Mitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 9/28/2022 12:10 PM
Lincoln Square Recreation Center, Oakland - Alameda County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5

0.0000 0.0000 4.2000e-
004
Energy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 4.0000e-
004

4.0000e-
004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Area 0.0984 0.0000 2.0000e-004
366.7293 366.72933.9600e-003 0.3441 3.0200e-
003

0.3471 0.0858Mobile 0.3629 0.2415 1.9837

30.0759 30.0759 4.8700e-
003

5.9000e-004 30.3733

0.0000 0.0000Water

0.0000 25.7088 1.5194 0.0000 63.6925

0.0254 0.0210 373.6265
Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 25.7088

2.8200e-
003

0.0886 0.0000
ROG NOx CO SO2
397.7244 423.8981 1.5514 0.0226 469.4268

1.7500e-
003

1.0300e-003 1.7341
Total 0.4613 0.2415 1.9839 3.9600e-003 0.3441 3.0200e-
003

0.3471 0.0858 2.8200e-
003

0.0886 26.1738

0.0000 0.0000 0.4650 0.9188 1.3837

0.00 0.00 0.00

3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
5 2
3 Grading Grading 2/1/2023 2/6/2023 5 4
2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 1/28/2023 1/31/2023 Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 1/2/2023 1/27/2023 5 20
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date
5 10
7 Paving Paving 11/28/2023 12/11/2023 5 10
6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 11/14/2023 11/27/2023 5 4
5 Building Construction Building Construction 2/7/2023 11/13/2023 5 200 4 Trenching Trenching 2/1/2023 2/6/2023
Load Factor
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 1.88
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 4
Acres of Paving: 0
Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 33,332; Non-Residential Outdoor: 11,111; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural OffRoad Equipment

0.29 Building Construction Forklifts 1 6.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Cranes 1 6.00 231

0.56 Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73 Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 1 6.00 9

0.41 Paving Pavers 1 6.00 130 0.42
Site Preparation Graders 1 8.00 187

0.74 Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84

0.40 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247

0.36 Paving Rollers 1 7.00 80 0.38
Paving Paving Equipment 1 8.00 132

0.37 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 7.00 97 0.37
Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 97

0.40 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 6.00 97 0.37 Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 1 7.00 247

0.37 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37 Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 9/28/2022 12:10 PM
Lincoln Square Recreation Center, Oakland - Alameda County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

0.45 Trenching Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 3 8.00 46
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Architectural Coating 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT

0.38 Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor Vehicle
Class
Trenching Excavators 1 8.00 158
HHDT
Demolition 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT

10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_MixBuilding Construction 7 0.00 0.00 0.00 HHDT
Paving 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT

10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_MixGrading 4 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Use Cleaner Engines for Construction Equipment
Water Exposed Area
Reduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved Roads

3.2 Demolition - 2023
HHDT
Trenching 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT

10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_MixSite Preparation 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5

21.0866 21.0866 5.3500e-
003

0.0000 21.2202

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0147 0.1432 0.1346 2.4000e-004 6.7700e-
003

6.7700e-003 6.3300e-
003

6.3300e-003 0.0000

0.0000 6.5000e-004 0.0000 0.0000 0.00004.2800e-
003

0.0000 4.2800e-003 6.5000e-
004
Fugitive Dust

5.3500e-
003

0.0000 21.2202
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

6.3300e-
003

6.9800e-003 0.0000 21.0866 21.08662.4000e-004 4.2800e-
003

6.7700e-
003

0.0111 6.5000e-
004
Total 0.0147 0.1432 0.1346

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
ROG NOx CO

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5

0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 2.9000e-004 0.0000 0.0000 0.00001.9300e- 003

0.0000 1.9300e-003 2.9000e-
004
Fugitive Dust
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 9/28/2022 12:10 PM
Lincoln Square Recreation Center, Oakland - Alameda County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

21.0865 21.0865 5.3500e-
003

0.0000 21.2202Off-Road 4.6300e-
003

0.0854 0.1542 2.4000e-004 3.7000e-
004

3.7000e-004 3.7000e-
004

3.7000e-004 0.0000

5.3500e-
003

0.0000 21.2202
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.7000e-
004

6.6000e-004 0.0000 21.0865 21.08652.4000e-004 1.9300e-
003

3.7000e-
004

2.3000e-003 2.9000e-
004
Total 4.6300e-
003

0.0854 0.1542

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
ROG NOx CO

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4

3.3 Site Preparation - 2023
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5

1.5114 1.5114 4.9000e-
004

0.0000 1.5236

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 1.1300e-
003

0.0124 6.6400e-003 2.0000e-005 5.1000e-
004

5.1000e-004 4.7000e-
004

4.7000e-004 0.0000

0.0000 3.0000e-003 0.0000 0.0000 0.00006.2700e-
003

0.0000 6.2700e-003 3.0000e-
003
Fugitive Dust

4.9000e-
004

0.0000 1.5236
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

4.7000e-
004

3.4700e-003 0.0000 1.5114 1.51142.0000e-005 6.2700e-
003

5.1000e-
004

6.7800e-003 3.0000e-
003
Total 1.1300e-
003

0.0124 6.6400e-003

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
ROG NOx CO

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5

1.5114 1.5114 4.9000e-
004

0.0000 1.5236

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.0000e-
004

5.0700e-003 9.8200e-003 2.0000e-005 3.0000e-
005

3.0000e-005 3.0000e-
005

3.0000e-005 0.0000

0.0000 1.3500e-003 0.0000 0.0000 0.00002.8200e-
003

0.0000 2.8200e-003 1.3500e-
003
Fugitive Dust
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 9/28/2022 12:10 PM
Lincoln Square Recreation Center, Oakland - Alameda County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

4.9000e-
004

0.0000 1.5236
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.0000e-
005

1.3800e-003 0.0000 1.5114 1.51142.0000e-005 2.8200e-
003

3.0000e-
005

2.8500e-003 1.3500e-
003
Total 3.0000e-
004

5.0700e-003 9.8200e-003

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
ROG NOx CO

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4

3.4 Grading - 2023
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5

3.6208 3.6208 1.1700e-
003

0.0000 3.6501

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 2.6700e-
003

0.0289 0.0174 4.0000e-005 1.2100e-
003

1.2100e-003 1.1100e-
003

1.1100e-003 0.0000

0.0000 6.8500e-003 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0142 0.0000 0.0142 6.8500e- 003
Fugitive Dust

1.1700e-
003

0.0000 3.6501
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

1.1100e-
003

7.9600e-003 0.0000 3.6208 3.62084.0000e-005 0.0142 1.2100e- 003

0.0154 6.8500e-
003
Total 2.6700e-
003

0.0289 0.0174

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
ROG NOx CO

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5

3.6208 3.6208 1.1700e-
003

0.0000 3.6501

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 7.4000e-
004

0.0127 0.0243 4.0000e-005 7.0000e-
005

7.0000e-005 7.0000e-
005

7.0000e-005 0.0000

0.0000 3.0800e-003 0.0000 0.0000 0.00006.3900e-
003

0.0000 6.3900e-003 3.0800e-
003
Fugitive Dust
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 9/28/2022 12:10 PM
Lincoln Square Recreation Center, Oakland - Alameda County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

1.1700e-
003

0.0000 3.6501
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

7.0000e-
005

3.1500e-003 0.0000 3.6208 3.62084.0000e-005 6.3900e-
003

7.0000e-
005

6.4600e-003 3.0800e-
003
Total 7.4000e-
004

0.0127 0.0243

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
ROG NOx CO

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4

3.5 Trenching - 2023
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5

1.4687

4.7000e-
004

0.0000 1.4687
Total 6.8000e-
004

6.1700e-003 0.0110 2.0000e-005 3.0000e-
004

3.0000e-004 2.8000e-
004

2.8000e-004 0.0000

2.8000e-
004

2.8000e-004 0.0000 1.4569 1.45692.0000e-005 3.0000e-
004

3.0000e-004Off-Road 6.8000e-
004

6.1700e-003 0.0110
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5

1.4569 1.4569 4.7000e-
004

0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5

1.4686

4.7000e-
004

0.0000 1.4686
Total 2.7000e-
004

7.2700e-003 0.0125 2.0000e-005 3.0000e-
005

3.0000e-005 3.0000e-
005

3.0000e-005 0.0000

3.0000e-
005

3.0000e-005 0.0000 1.4569 1.45692.0000e-005 3.0000e-
005

3.0000e-005Off-Road 2.7000e-
004

7.2700e-003 0.0125

1.4569 1.4569 4.7000e-
004

0.0000
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 9/28/2022 12:10 PM
Lincoln Square Recreation Center, Oakland - Alameda County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4

3.6 Building Construction - 2023
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
182.3701

0.0308 0.0000 182.3701
Total 0.1523 1.1710 1.2611 2.2100e-003 0.0515 0.0515 0.0497 0.0497 0.0000

0.0497 0.0497 0.0000 181.5991 181.59912.2100e-003 0.0515 0.0515Off-Road 0.1523 1.1710 1.2611 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
181.5991 181.5991 0.0308 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
182.3698

0.0308 0.0000 182.3698
Total 0.0401 0.9992 1.3479 2.2100e-003 0.0162 0.0162 0.0162 0.0162 0.0000

0.0162 0.0162 0.0000 181.5989 181.59892.2100e-003 0.0162 0.0162Off-Road 0.0401 0.9992 1.3479 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
181.5989 181.5989 0.0308 0.0000
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 9/28/2022 12:10 PM
Lincoln Square Recreation Center, Oakland - Alameda County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker

0.1159
N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2023
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5

1.2766 1.2766 8.0000e-
005

0.0000 1.2785

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 9.6000e-
004

6.5100e-003 9.0600e-003 1.0000e-005 3.5000e-
004

3.5000e-004 3.5000e-
004

3.5000e-004 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000Archit. Coating

8.0000e-
005

0.0000 1.2785
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

3.5000e-
004

3.5000e-004 0.0000 1.2766 1.27661.0000e-005 3.5000e-
004

3.5000e-004Total 0.1168 6.5100e-003 9.0600e-003

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
ROG NOx CO

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker

0.1159
N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5

1.2766 1.2766 8.0000e-
005

0.0000 1.2785

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 2.7000e-
004

5.3000e-003 9.1600e-003 1.0000e-005 2.0000e-
005

2.0000e-005 2.0000e-
005

2.0000e-005 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000Archit. Coating

8.0000e-
005

0.0000 1.2785
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

2.0000e-
005

2.0000e-005 0.0000 1.2766 1.27661.0000e-005 2.0000e-
005

2.0000e-005Total 0.1161 5.3000e-003 9.1600e-003
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 9/28/2022 12:10 PM
Lincoln Square Recreation Center, Oakland - Alameda County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
ROG NOx CO

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker

3.2200e-
003

0.0312 0.0440
N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4

3.8 Paving - 2023
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

1.8700e-
003

0.0000 5.9329
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

1.4200e-
003

1.4200e-003 0.0000 5.8862 5.88627.0000e-005 1.5400e-
003

1.5400e-003Off-Road

1.8700e-
003

0.0000 5.9329
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

1.4200e-
003

1.4200e-003 0.0000 5.8862 5.88627.0000e-005 1.5400e-
003

1.5400e-003Total 3.2200e-
003

0.0312 0.0440

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
ROG NOx CO

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker

1.0700e-
003

0.0286 0.0493
N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

1.8700e-
003

0.0000 5.9329
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

1.1000e-
004

1.1000e-004 0.0000 5.8862 5.88627.0000e-005 1.1000e-
004

1.1000e-004Off-Road

1.8700e-
003

0.0000 5.9329
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

1.1000e-
004

1.1000e-004 0.0000 5.8862 5.88627.0000e-005 1.1000e-
004

1.1000e-004Total 1.0700e-
003

0.0286 0.0493
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 9/28/2022 12:10 PM
Lincoln Square Recreation Center, Oakland - Alameda County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
ROG NOx CO

0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000
CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.3629 0.2415 1.9837 3.9600e-003 0.3441 3.0200e- 003

0.3471 0.0858 2.8200e-
003

0.0886
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2OExhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
373.6265
Unmitigated 0.3629 0.2415 1.9837 3.9600e-003 0.3441 3.0200e- 003

0.3471 0.0858 2.8200e-
003

0.0886 0.0000 366.7293 366.7293

0.0000 366.7293 366.7293 0.0254 0.0210
Annual VMT
Health Club 639.96 405.53 519.53 1,018,061 1,018,061
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT

0.0254 0.0210 373.6265

4.2 Trip Summary Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-byLand Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W 1,018,061

4.3 Trip Type Information
Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Total 639.96 405.53 519.53 1,018,061
OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MHMDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD

4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2

64.10 19.00 52 39 9Health Club 9.50 7.30 7.30 16.90
Historical Energy Use: N

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5

0.000914 0.022782 0.000446 0.002213

5.0 Energy Detail

0.024378 0.005726 0.013799 0.013106 0.000847Health Club 0.530310 0.044990 0.220416 0.120073

0.0000 0.0000Electricity Mitigated
N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

30.0759 30.0759 4.8700e-
003

5.9000e-004 30.3733

4.8700e-
003

5.9000e-004 30.3733
Electricity
Unmitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 30.0759 30.0759

0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000NaturalGas Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 9/28/2022 12:10 PM
Lincoln Square Recreation Center, Oakland - Alameda County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000NaturalGas
Unmitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
Unmitigated
NaturalGas
Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Health Club 0 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000
Mitigated
NaturalGas
Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Health Club 0 0.0000 0.0000 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4

0.0000 0.0000

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Unmitigated
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

5.9000e-004 30.3733
Mitigated
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Total 30.0759 4.8700e-003
Land Use kWh/yr t
o
n
MT/yr
Health Club 325061 30.0759 4.8700e-003 5.9000e-004 30.3733

5.9000e-004 30.3733

6.0 Area Detail

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
Total 30.0759 4.8700e-003
Land Use kWh/yr t
o
n
MT/yr
Health Club 325061 30.0759 4.8700e-003 5.9000e-004 30.3733 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 9/28/2022 12:10 PM
Lincoln Square Recreation Center, Oakland - Alameda County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.0984 0.0000 2.0000e-004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2OExhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total

0.0000 0.0000 4.2000e-
004

6.2 Area by SubCategory
Unmitigated

4.2000e-
004
Unmitigated 0.0984 0.0000 2.0000e-004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 4.0000e- 004

4.0000e-
004

0.0000 4.0000e-
004

4.0000e-
004

0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000Architectural
Coating

0.0116
CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
ROG NOx CO

2.0000e-
005

0.0000 2.0000e-004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

0.0868 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

4.0000e-
004

4.0000e-
004

0.0000 0.0000 4.2000e-
004

0.0000 0.0000 4.2000e-
004
Total 0.0984 0.0000 2.0000e-004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 4.0000e-
004

4.0000e-
004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Landscaping
N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4
Mitigated
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

0.0868 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000Architectural Coating

0.0116

4.0000e-
004

4.0000e-
004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Landscaping 2.0000e-
005

0.0000 2.0000e-004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

7.0 Water Detail

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

4.0000e-
004

4.0000e-
004

0.0000 0.0000 4.2000e-
004

0.0000 0.0000 4.2000e-
004
Total 0.0984 0.0000 2.0000e-004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

1.7341

7.2 Water by Land Use
Unmitigated 1.3837 1.7500e-003 1.0300e-003
Category t
o
n
MT/yr
Mitigated 1.3837 1.7500e-003 1.0300e-003 1.7341
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 9/28/2022 12:10 PM
Lincoln Square Recreation Center, Oakland - Alameda County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Unmitigated
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

1.0300e-003 1.7341
Mitigated
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Total 1.3837 1.7500e-003
Land Use Mgal t
o
n
MT/yr
Health Club 1.31416 /

0.805453

1.3837 1.7500e-003 1.0300e-003 1.7341

1.0300e-003 1.7341

8.0 Waste Detail

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
Category/Year
Total 1.3837 1.7500e-003
Land Use Mgal t
o
n
MT/yr
Health Club 1.31416 /

0.805453

1.3837 1.7500e-003 1.0300e-003 1.7341

63.6925

8.2 Waste by Land Use
Unmitigated
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Unmitigated 25.7088 1.5194 0.0000
CO2e
t
o
n
MT/yr
Mitigated 25.7088 1.5194 0.0000 63.6925
Total CO2 CH4 N2O

0.0000 63.6925
Mitigated
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Total 25.7088 1.5194
Land Use tons t
o
n
MT/yr
Health Club 126.65 25.7088 1.5194 0.0000 63.6925
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 9/28/2022 12:10 PM
Lincoln Square Recreation Center, Oakland - Alameda County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type

10.0 Stationary Equipment

0.0000 63.6925

9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day
Total 25.7088 1.5194
Land Use tons t
o
n
MT/yr
Health Club 126.65 25.7088 1.5194 0.0000 63.6925
User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number

11.0 Vegetation
Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total NBio- CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Hauling 891.28 54415.15 21599.63 389.50 7841.10 3707.80 11548.89 1179.84 1631.53 2811.36 42575284.54 2227.68 6771.89 ######### Vendor 330.11 11568.89 5286.55 79.79 1746.16 611.52 2357.68 262.74 266.15 528.89 8603008.36 342.31 1272.16 ######### Worker 3252.55 2528.10 31848.01 79.04 8027.79 457.87 8485.66 1207.93 163.41 1371.34 7995523.02 289.67 244.21 ######### Total (g) 4473.94 68512.14 58734.19 548.33 17615.05 4777.18 22392.23 2650.50 2061.09 4711.59 59173815.93 2859.66 8288.26 ######### Total (lbs) 9.86 151.04 129.49 1.21 38.83 10.53 49.37 5.84 4.54 10.39 130455.93 6.30 18.27 136058.75 Total (tons) 0.00 0.08 0.06 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 65.23 0.00 0.01 68.03 Total (MT) 59.17 0.00 0.01 61.72
YEAR
2022 0.0049 0.0755 0.0647 0.0006 0.0194 0.0053 0.0247 0.0029 0.0023 0.0052 59.1738 0.0029 0.0083 61.7152 2023 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2024 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 GramsCATEGORY
Summary of Construction Traffic Emissions (EMFAC2021)
Tons
Mix % Adj
ROG_DIURN ROG_HTSK ROG_IDLEX ROG_RESTL ROG_RUNEX ROG_RUNLS ROG_STREX NOX_IDLEX NOX_RUNEX NOX_STREX CO_IDLEX CO_RUNEX CO_STREX SO2_IDLEX SO2_RUNEX SO2_STREX Road Dust PM10
PM10_P
MBW
PM10_P
MTW PM10_ID
LEX
PM10_RU
NEX PM10_STREX
Road
Dust
PM25
PM25_P
MBW
PM25_P
MTW
PM25_IDL
EX
PM25_RUN
EX
PM25_STR
EX
CO2_NBIO
_IDLEX
CO2_NBIO
_RUNEX
CO2_NBIO
_STREX
CH4_IDLE
X CH4_RUNEX CH4_STREX
N2O_IDLEXN2O_RUNEX N2O_STREX
Category 19 22 23 8 9 10
Hauling HHDT 100.0 1 3.53674E-05 1.20898E-05 0.346302254 0 0.01643059 7.5219E-05 2.07757E-07 4.1913354 1.724300856 2.728447576 5.372092 0.5512782 0.002394 0.007629 0.014466033 2.81971E-07 0.079016 0.035532 0.002002 0.026738 1.93482E-07 0.027656 0.008883 0.00191 0.0255786 1.78E-07 859.50342 1579.9395 0.0285222 0.215227 0.074039564 3.82615E-08 0.137909 0.251239484 4.1245E-08 MHD 0.0 0 0.021415608 0.005468738 0.023466688 0 0.0306301 0.04319934 0.041763394 0.8507834 0.976467835 1.436047202 0.650751 0.3088476 0.912225 0.0014667 0.011602106 7.32683E-05 0.045605 0.012 0.001524 0.010039 8.30179E-05 0.015962 0.003 0.001458 0.0095976 7.63E-05 158.47308 1225.8282 7.4113091 0.014797 0.010644367 0.007559413 0.024526 0.161464231 0.00523519 Vendor HHDT 50.0 0.5 1.76837E-05 6.04489E-06 0.173151127 0 0.00821529 3.7609E-05 1.03878E-07 2.0956677 0.862150428 1.364223788 2.686046 0.2756391 0.001197 0.0038145 0.007233017 1.40985E-07 0.039508 0.017766 0.001001 0.013369 9.67409E-08 0.013828 0.004441 0.000955 0.0127893 8.89E-08 429.75171 789.96977 0.0142611 0.107613 0.037019782 1.91308E-08 0.068954 0.125619742 2.0622E-08 MHD 50.0 0.5 0.010707804 0.002734369 0.011733344 0 0.01531505 0.02159967 0.020881697 0.4253917 0.488233918 0.718023601 0.325376 0.1544238 0.456113 0.0007334 0.005801053 3.66342E-05 0.022802 0.006 0.000762 0.005019 4.15089E-05 0.007981 0.0015 0.000729 0.0047988 3.82E-05 79.236542 612.9141 3.7056545 0.007399 0.005322184 0.003779706 0.012263 0.080732115 0.00261759 1 0.010725487 0.002740414 0.184884471 0 0.02353034 0.02163728 0.020881801 2.5210594 1.350384346 2.082247389 3.011421 0.4300629 0.457309 0.0045479 0.01303407 3.67752E-05 0.06231 0.023766 0.001763 0.018388 4.16057E-05 0.021809 0.005941 0.001684 0.0175881 3.83E-05 508.98825 1402.8839 3.7199156 0.115012 0.042341966 0.003779726 0.081217 0.206351857 0.00261762 Worker LDA 50.0 0.5 0.145615632 0.043910063 0 0 0.0040768 0.11210063 0.157551707 0 0.01957746 0.122631817 0 0.3173072 1.540791 0 0.001230287 0.000321624 0.003307 0.004 0 0.000605 0.000973389 0.001157 0.001 0 0.0005577 0.000895 0 124.4605 32.533171 0 0.001049256 0.034091722 0 0.00214625 0.01548711 LDT1 25.0 0.25 0.15379574 0.043051349 0 0 0.00623593 0.1238918 0.141665863 0 0.02986463 0.100134095 0 0.3197057 1.372631 0 0.000809815 0.000215493 0.002114 0.002 0 0.000463 0.000737439 0.00074 0.0005 0 0.0004258 0.000678 0 81.916029 21.797724 0 0.001413352 0.027472659 0 0.002242888 0.01000245 LDT2 25.0 0.25 0.072930711 0.020842554 0 0 0.0026023 0.05566956 0.097837439 0 0.01620027 0.085231283 0 0.1926464 0.937201 0 0.000834047 0.000214933 0.002025 0.002 0 0.000333 0.000529965 0.000709 0.0005 0 0.0003061 0.000487 0 84.377917 21.741143 0 0.000669761 0.021126057 0 0.001470518 0.00946122 1 0.372342083 0.107803966 0 0 0.01291503 0.29166199 0.39705501 0 0.065642359 0.307997195 0 0.8296594 3.850623 0 0.002874149 0.00075205 0.007445 0.008 0 0.001401 0.002240794 0.002606 0.002 0 0.0012897 0.00206 0 290.75444 76.072038 0 0.003132369 0.082690438 0 0.005859657 0.034950780.04499

0.299 0.04499

0.299

0.299 0.04499
Year 2024
Season EmissionType LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH A CH4_IDLEX 0 0 0 0 0.005594 0.003682 0.014797 0.215226592 0.008798 0 0 0.092641 0 A CH4_RUNEX 0.002099 0.005653 0.002679 0.003552 0.008404 0.007034 0.010644 0.074039564 0.010338 0.296064215 0.171144 0.16163 0.012525 A CH4_STREX 0.068183 0.109891 0.084504 0.103636 0.023449 0.014516 0.007559 3.82615E-08 0.025535 0.012290299 0.193485 0.00423 0.027736 A CO_IDLEX 0 0 0 0 0.199535 0.15281 0.650751 5.372091702 0.520829 0 0 1.473366 0 A CO_RUNEX 0.634614 1.278823 0.770586 0.875269 0.935636 0.601618 0.308848 0.5512782 0.848966 3.309457844 13.42866 1.191442 1.248627 A CO_STREX 3.081581 5.490526 3.748804 4.11478 2.221927 1.396877 0.912225 0.002393694 2.824359 1.508325792 8.225897 0.591639 2.588121 A CO2_NBIO_IDLEX 0 0 0 0 8.71285 13.35671 158.4731 859.5034169 72.85778 0 0 179.5786 0 A CO2_NBIO_RUNEX 248.921 327.6641 337.5117 405.7155 791.1867 841.0647 1225.828 1579.939545 1592.656 1182.157269 190.2056 1051.9 1694.28 A CO2_NBIO_STREX 65.06634 87.1909 86.96457 104.3784 18.39444 11.47673 7.411309 0.028522189 23.09541 10.62300365 50.62349 3.03111 23.04502 A NOX_IDLEX 0 0 0 0 0.046639 0.083545 0.850783 4.1913354 0.285943 0 0 1.039454 0 A NOX_RUNEX 0.039155 0.119459 0.064801 0.093421 0.654193 0.825713 0.976468 1.724300856 1.102428 0.276461107 0.599799 1.669332 1.489423 A NOX_STREX 0.245264 0.400536 0.340925 0.438845 0.461895 0.289514 1.436047 2.728447576 0.714762 0.120441768 0.147984 0.604682 0.306586 A PM10_IDLEX 0 0 0 0 0.000653 0.001232 0.001524 0.002002402 0.000343 0 0 0.000888 0 A PM10_PMBW 0.006614 0.008454 0.008099 0.008189 0.07784 0.090808 0.045605 0.079016407 0.05054 0.111636501 0.012 0.044848 0.04495 A PM10_PMTW 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.009346 0.010471 0.012 0.03553156 0.012 0.030705856 0.004 0.010778 0.01317 A PM10_RUNEX 0.001211 0.001851 0.001331 0.001361 0.013653 0.021488 0.010039 0.026737787 0.018307 0.005427867 0.00193 0.008645 0.029362 A PM10_STREX 0.001947 0.00295 0.00212 0.002184 0.000228 0.00011 8.3E-05 1.93482E-07 0.00022 4.91021E-05 0.00361 3.61E-05 0.000322 A PM25_IDLEX 0 0 0 0 0.000625 0.001178 0.001458 0.001910023 0.000328 0 0 0.000848 0 A PM25_PMBW 0.002315 0.002959 0.002835 0.002866 0.027244 0.031783 0.015962 0.027655743 0.017689 0.039072775 0.0042 0.015697 0.015732 A PM25_PMTW 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002336 0.002618 0.003 0.00888289 0.003 0.007676464 0.001 0.002695 0.003293 A PM25_RUNEX 0.001115 0.001703 0.001225 0.001254 0.013022 0.020538 0.009598 0.025578589 0.017494 0.005184479 0.001807 0.008252 0.028043 A PM25_STREX 0.00179 0.002712 0.001949 0.002008 0.000209 0.000101 7.63E-05 1.77899E-07 0.000202 4.51476E-05 0.003398 3.32E-05 0.000296 A ROG_DIURN 0.291231 0.615183 0.291723 0.366821 0.126223 0.073683 0.021416 3.53674E-05 0.093118 0.032164824 4.021976 0.025895 33.38348 A ROG_HTSK 0.08782 0.172205 0.08337 0.099897 0.033408 0.019726 0.005469 1.20898E-05 0.024063 0.011006787 3.576934 0.006525 9.0431 A ROG_IDLEX 0 0 0 0 0.022592 0.017479 0.023467 0.346302254 0.047342 0 0 0.146238 0 A ROG_RESTL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
A ROG_RUNEX 0.008154 0.024944 0.010409 0.014994 0.08698 0.110698 0.03063 0.01643059 0.070473 0.053598244 1.137018 0.045158 0.082312 A ROG_RUNLS 0.224201 0.495567 0.222678 0.286528 0.183099 0.103828 0.043199 7.52188E-05 0.106971 0.025469069 3.789874 0.018628 0.212632 A ROG_STREX 0.315103 0.566663 0.39135 0.523643 0.115792 0.071114 0.041763 2.07757E-07 0.132072 0.045925056 1.44773 0.024212 0.118304 A SO2_IDLEX 0 0 0 0 8.49E-05 0.000128 0.001467 0.007629014 0.000694 0 0 0.001569 0 A SO2_RUNEX 0.002461 0.003239 0.003336 0.004009 0.007734 0.008123 0.011602 0.014466033 0.01545 0.010266397 0.00188 0.009542 0.01662 A SO2_STREX 0.000643 0.000862 0.00086 0.001032 0.000182 0.000113 7.33E-05 2.81971E-07 0.000228 0.000105019 0.0005 3E-05 0.000228 A TOG_DIURN 0.291231 0.615183 0.291723 0.366821 0.126223 0.073683 0.021416 3.53674E-05 0.093118 0.032164824 0.091629 0.025895 33.38348 A TOG_HTSK 0.08782 0.172205 0.08337 0.099897 0.033408 0.019726 0.005469 1.20898E-05 0.024063 0.011006787 3.576934 0.006525 9.0431 A TOG_IDLEX 0 0 0 0 0.032157 0.023956 0.041376 0.594375359 0.063245 0 0 0.270828 0 A TOG_RESTL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
A TOG_RUNEX 0.011871 0.036376 0.015173 0.021817 0.108167 0.129623 0.045642 0.092399818 0.092606 0.356072308 1.359039 0.2154 0.108949 A TOG_RUNLS 0.224201 0.495567 0.222678 0.286528 0.183099 0.103828 0.043199 7.52188E-05 0.106971 0.025469069 3.789874 0.018628 0.212632 A TOG_STREX 0.344999 0.620425 0.428479 0.573321 0.126778 0.077861 0.045726 2.27467E-07 0.144602 0.050282156 1.573636 0.026509 0.129528 A N2O_IDLEX 0 0 0 0 0.000621 0.00154 0.024526 0.137908903 0.009486 0 0 0.025003 0 A N2O_RUNEX 0.004292 0.008972 0.005882 0.008003 0.040058 0.077316 0.161464 0.251239484 0.114786 0.161834463 0.040778 0.140325 0.068557 A N2O_STREX 0.030974 0.04001 0.037845 0.041137 0.037007 0.022914 0.005235 4.12447E-08 0.022831 0.017208206 0.008606 0.003011 0.031727 CalEEMod EMFAC2021 Emission Factors Input
Year 2024
FleetMixLandUseSubType LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Health Club 0.53031 0.04499 0.220416 0.120073 0.024378 0.005726 0.013799 0.013106 0.000847 0.000914 0.022782 0.000446 0.002213 CalEEMod EMFAC2021 Fleet Mix Input
Phase
CalEEMod
WORKER
TRIPS
CalEEMod
VENDOR
TRIPS
Total
Worker
Trips
Total
Vendor
Trips
CalEEMod

HAULING
TRIPS
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor Vehicle
Class
Hauling Vehicle
Class
Worker
VMT
Vendor
VMT
Hauling
VMT
Demolition 13 0 260 0 1210 10.8 7.3 20 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT 2808 0 24200 Site Preparation 8 0 16 0 0 10.8 7.3 20 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT 172.8 0 0 Grading 10 0 40 0 66 10.8 7.3 20 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT 432 0 1320 Trenching 5 0 20 0 0 10.8 7.3 20 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT 216 0 0 Building Construction 10 4 2000 800 28 10.8 7.3 7.3 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT 21600 5840 204.4 Paving 13 0 130 0 25 10.8 7.3 20 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT 1404 0 500 Architectural Coating 2 0 20 0 0 10.8 7.3 7.3 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT 216 0 0 2023 1/2/23 12/11/23 344 247
344 247 Total Workdays
Phase Start Date End Date Days/Week Workdays
Demolition 1/2/2023 1/27/2023 5 20
Site Preparation 1/28/2023 1/31/2023 5 2
Grading 2/1/2023 2/6/2023 5 4
Trenching 2/1/2023 2/6/2023 5 4
Building Construction 2/7/2023 11/13/2023 5 200
Paving 11/14/2023 11/27/2023 5 10
Architectural Coating 11/28/2023 12/11/2023 5 10
Number of Days Per Year
CalEEMod Construction Inputs
Source: EMFAC2021 (v1.0.2) Emission Rates
Region Type: County
Region: Alameda
Calendar Year: 2024
Season: Annual
Vehicle Classification: EMFAC2007 Categories
Units: miles/day for CVMT and EVMT, trips/day for Trips, g/mile for RUNEX, PMBW and PMTW, g/trip for STREX, HOTSOAK and RUNLOSS, g/vehicle/day for IDLEX and DIURN. PHEV calculated based on total VMT.

Region Calendar Y Vehicle Ca Model Yea Speed Fuel Population Total VMT CVMT EVMT Trips NOx RUN NOx IDLEX NOx STRE PM2.5 RU PM2.5 IDL PM2.5 STR PM2.5 PM PM2.5 PM PM10 RU PM10 IDL PM10 STR PM10 PM PM10 PM CO2 RUNE CO2 IDLEX CO2 STREX CH4 RUNE CH4 IDLEX CH4 STREX N2O RUN N2O IDLEX N2O STRE ROG RUN ROG IDLEX ROG STRE ROG HOTS ROG RUN ROG DIUR TOG RUN TOG IDLEX TOG STRE TOG HOTS TOG RUN TOG DIUR NH3 RUN CO RUNEX CO_IDLEX CO_STREX SOx RUNE SOx IDLEX SOx_STREX Alameda 2024 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 6.5121 898.92 898.92 0 130.294 3.38082 0 0.00155 0.00105 0 0.00032 0.005 0.03084 0.00115 0 0.00035 0.02 0.08812 2277.99 0 51.7854 0.09979 0 6.9E-05 0.14194 0 7.5E-05 0.46725 0 0.00038 0.02195 0.13657 1.28479 0.68181 0 0.00041 0.02195 0.13657 1.28479 0.045 30.3602 0 4.34603 0.02252 0 0.00051 Alameda 2024 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 14019.4 1801241 1801241 0 224541 1.76263 69.5128 2.87454 0.02665 0.02983 0 0.00888 0.02714 0.02785 0.03118 0 0.03552 0.07755 1594.13 13594.6 0 0.00072 0.26912 0 0.25116 2.14184 0 0.0154 5.794 0 0 0 0 0.01753 6.59603 0 0 0 0 0.21737 0.07738 84.7911 0 0.0151 0.12873 0 Alameda 2024 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 40.8247 4380.55 0 4380.55 619.199 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00879 0.01382 0 0 0 0.03516 0.03948 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Alameda 2024 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Natural Ga 1044.38 74496.2 74496.2 0 11273.6 0.87887 16.2735 0 0.00157 0.03216 0 0.009 0.04085 0.0017 0.03497 0 0.036 0.11673 1321.24 12198.6 0 1.85099 45.1387 0 0.26934 2.48677 0 0.03696 0.66509 0 0 0 0 1.90105 46.0903 0 0 0 0 0.92088 11.6823 78.6377 0 0 0 0 Alameda 2024 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 550052 2E+07 2E+07 0 2538926 0.04358 0 0.27029 0.00118 0 0.00194 0.002 0.00242 0.00129 0 0.00211 0.008 0.00693 277.236 0 70.8713 0.00236 0 0.07488 0.00474 0 0.03398 0.00911 0 0.34663 0.09676 0.24873 1.48492 0.0133 0 0.37952 0.09676 0.24873 1.48492 0.03453 0.71225 0 3.39843 0.00274 0 0.0007 Alameda 2024 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 2215.14 61148.2 61148.2 0 9283.77 0.24553 0 0 0.01994 0 0 0.002 0.00247 0.02085 0 0 0.008 0.00706 238.071 0 0 0.00146 0 0 0.03751 0 0 0.03144 0 0 0 0 0 0.0358 0 0 0 0 0 0.0031 0.35804 0 0 0.00226 0 0 Alameda 2024 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 44261.7 1965045 0 1965045 217474 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.002 0.00153 0 0 0 0.008 0.00438 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Alameda 2024 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Plug-in Hy 14910.9 670426 333259 337168 61656.4 0.00319 0 0.11671 0.00062 0 0.00207 0.002 0.00133 0.00067 0 0.00225 0.008 0.0038 134.972 0 65.3257 0.00042 0 0.04311 0.00058 0 0.02106 0.00135 0 0.17579 0.04264 0.0385 0.44457 0.00197 0 0.19247 0.04264 0.0385 0.44457 0.0194 0.20433 0 1.36752 0.00133 0 0.00065 Alameda 2024 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 51647.5 1731568 1731568 0 228629 0.11973 0 0.40213 0.00166 0 0.00272 0.002 0.00297 0.00181 0 0.00296 0.008 0.00847 329.056 0 87.4926 0.00568 0 0.11032 0.009 0 0.04016 0.02501 0 0.56891 0.17292 0.49767 2.73461 0.03649 0 0.62288 0.17292 0.49767 2.73461 0.03566 1.28474 0 5.51263 0.00325 0 0.00086 Alameda 2024 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 28.9359 345.631 345.631 0 81.827 1.67333 0 0 0.24265 0 0 0.002 0.0034 0.25362 0 0 0.008 0.00972 421.313 0 0 0.01392 0 0 0.06638 0 0 0.29972 0 0 0 0 0 0.34121 0 0 0 0 0 0.0031 1.68852 0 0 0.00399 0 0 Alameda 2024 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 139.314 5582.72 0 5582.72 660.926 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.002 0.00154 0 0 0 0.008 0.00439 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Alameda 2024 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Plug-in Hy 57.1749 2971.76 1328.31 1643.45 236.418 0.00287 0 0.11671 0.00037 0 0.00139 0.002 0.00135 0.0004 0 0.00151 0.008 0.00384 121.42 0 69.3872 0.00038 0 0.04334 0.00052 0 0.02127 0.00121 0 0.17579 0.02423 0.02096 0.27455 0.00177 0 0.19247 0.02423 0.02096 0.27455 0.01877 0.184 0 1.36752 0.0012 0 0.00069 Alameda 2024 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 250145 9685169 9685169 0 1167778 0.06574 0 0.34553 0.00122 0 0.00197 0.002 0.00285 0.00133 0 0.00214 0.008 0.00816 341.184 0 87.8497 0.00272 0 0.08556 0.0058 0 0.0383 0.01053 0 0.39638 0.08451 0.22602 1.38109 0.01537 0 0.43398 0.08451 0.22602 1.38109 0.03629 0.78197 0 3.79896 0.00337 0 0.00087 Alameda 2024 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 877.456 35171.5 35171.5 0 4158.35 0.05046 0 0 0.00517 0 0 0.002 0.00285 0.0054 0 0 0.008 0.00813 312.402 0 0 0.00063 0 0 0.04922 0 0 0.01352 0 0 0 0 0 0.01539 0 0 0 0 0 0.0031 0.13377 0 0 0.00296 0 0 Alameda 2024 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 1325.77 47543.6 0 47543.6 6768.29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.002 0.00153 0 0 0 0.008 0.00436 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Alameda 2024 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Plug-in Hy 1787.79 88602.9 41482.8 47120.1 7392.53 0.00301 0 0.11671 0.00047 0 0.00168 0.002 0.00134 0.00051 0 0.00182 0.008 0.00382 127.162 0 75.6754 0.0004 0 0.04333 0.00055 0 0.02126 0.00127 0 0.17579 0.02599 0.02365 0.30216 0.00185 0 0.19247 0.02599 0.02365 0.30216 0.01963 0.19264 0 1.36752 0.00126 0 0.00075 Alameda 2024 LHDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 18903 716627 716627 0 281626 0.17558 0.03683 0.65193 0.00151 0 0.0003 0.002 0.0273 0.00165 0 0.00032 0.008 0.078 876.773 119.57 25.9623 0.00863 0.11517 0.0331 0.00986 0.00303 0.05223 0.04324 0.42197 0.16343 0.04715 0.25843 2.65423 0.06309 0.61574 0.17894 0.04715 0.25843 2.65423 0.04489 1.1729 3.75573 3.13607 0.00867 0.00118 0.00026 Alameda 2024 LHDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 9144.83 365640 365640 0 115030 1.60019 1.95112 0 0.03574 0.02716 0 0.003 0.0273 0.03735 0.02839 0 0.012 0.078 633.066 131.557 0 0.00807 0.0051 0 0.09974 0.02073 0 0.17378 0.10976 0 0 0 0 0.19783 0.12495 0 0 0 0 0.17177 0.48199 0.90975 0 0.006 0.00125 0 Alameda 2024 LHDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 59.851 4446.7 0 4446.7 836.081 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.002 0.01365 0 0 0 0.008 0.039 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Alameda 2024 LHDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 2669.25 97703.9 97703.9 0 39767.9 0.16885 0.0368 0.64824 0.00134 0 0.00023 0.002 0.03185 0.00146 0 0.00025 0.008 0.091 990.375 138.602 25.6972 0.00639 0.11536 0.0325 0.00999 0.003 0.05131 0.0297 0.42198 0.15923 0.04417 0.23248 2.45799 0.04334 0.61576 0.17434 0.04417 0.23248 2.45799 0.04497 0.91715 3.76243 3.12771 0.00979 0.00137 0.00025 Alameda 2024 LHDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 3917.35 159736 159736 0 49275.4 1.23312 1.87394 0 0.03242 0.02678 0 0.003 0.03185 0.03388 0.02799 0 0.012 0.091 755.48 209.162 0 0.00748 0.0051 0 0.11903 0.03295 0 0.16099 0.10976 0 0 0 0 0.18328 0.12495 0 0 0 0 0.184 0.41273 0.90975 0 0.00716 0.00198 0 Alameda 2024 LHDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 15.4913 1090.49 0 1090.49 205.058 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.002 0.01593 0 0 0 0.008 0.0455 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Alameda 2024 MCY Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 26267.3 152640 152640 0 52534.6 0.5998 0 0.14798 0.00181 0 0.0034 0.001 0.0042 0.00193 0 0.00361 0.004 0.012 190.206 0 50.6235 0.17114 0 0.19348 0.04078 0 0.00861 1.13702 0 1.44773 3.57693 3.78987 4.02198 1.35904 0 1.57364 3.57693 3.78987 4.02198 0.00875 13.4287 0 8.2259 0.00188 0 0.0005 Alameda 2024 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 134111 4980333 4980333 0 619040 0.09576 0 0.45246 0.00121 0 0.00206 0.002 0.00289 0.00132 0 0.00224 0.008 0.00827 412.55 0 107.157 0.00366 0 0.10674 0.00733 0 0.04234 0.01533 0 0.53963 0.10297 0.29576 1.74629 0.02237 0 0.59083 0.10297 0.29576 1.74629 0.03631 0.90085 0 4.24052 0.00408 0 0.00106 Alameda 2024 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1883.69 72884.4 72884.4 0 8840.99 0.06048 0 0 0.00556 0 0 0.002 0.00291 0.00581 0 0 0.008 0.00831 409.802 0 0 0.00054 0 0 0.06456 0 0 0.01157 0 0 0 0 0 0.01317 0 0 0 0 0 0.0031 0.20024 0 0 0.00388 0 0 Alameda 2024 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 1410.45 50813.8 0 50813.8 7212.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.002 0.00153 0 0 0 0.008 0.00436 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Alameda 2024 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Plug-in Hy 1037.25 49646 23646.2 25999.8 4289.02 0.00306 0 0.11671 0.00055 0 0.00194 0.002 0.00134 0.0006 0 0.00211 0.008 0.00382 129.35 0 93.9827 0.00041 0 0.04324 0.00056 0 0.02117 0.00129 0 0.17579 0.03021 0.02647 0.33046 0.00188 0 0.19247 0.03021 0.02647 0.33046 0.02 0.1959 0 1.36752 0.00128 0 0.00093 Alameda 2024 MH Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 1850.56 17316 17316 0 185.13 0.43321 0 0.42276 0.00169 0 0.00041 0.003 0.01576 0.00184 0 0.00044 0.012 0.04502 1947.37 0 31.7777 0.01542 0 0.03825 0.02638 0 0.04375 0.06717 0 0.16313 12.4699 0.29321 4.60522 0.09802 0 0.17861 12.4699 0.29321 4.60522 0.04487 1.60186 0 3.56886 0.01925 0 0.00031 Alameda 2024 MH Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 701.528 7161.84 7161.84 0 70.1528 4.04316 0 0 0.09175 0 0 0.004 0.01567 0.0959 0 0 0.016 0.04479 1082.36 0 0 0.00552 0 0 0.17053 0 0 0.11891 0 0 0 0 0 0.13537 0 0 0 0 0 0.15754 0.39457 0 0 0.01026 0 0 Alameda 2024 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 1646.78 85631.5 85631.5 0 32948.7 0.47274 0.08858 0.43735 0.00126 0 0.00048 0.003 0.01576 0.00137 0 0.00052 0.012 0.04502 1798.59 538.308 46.5548 0.01486 0.26005 0.04749 0.02311 0.00734 0.03289 0.07378 1.01418 0.26234 0.03435 0.27136 2.69156 0.10765 1.47989 0.28723 0.03435 0.27136 2.69156 0.04498 1.53791 15.1334 5.73022 0.01778 0.00532 0.00046 Alameda 2024 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 14077.5 598408 598408 0 172122 1.06201 12.4311 1.64307 0.01092 0.02124 0 0.003 0.01602 0.01142 0.0222 0 0.012 0.04576 1150.78 2211.53 0 0.00115 0.0104 0 0.18131 0.34843 0 0.0248 0.22385 0 0 0 0 0.02823 0.25484 0 0 0 0 0.21279 0.10104 7.42955 0 0.0109 0.02094 0 Alameda 2024 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 38.5131 1999.76 0 1999.76 498.335 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.003 0.00799 0 0 0 0.012 0.02283 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Alameda 2024 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Natural Ga 147.705 7246.42 7246.42 0 1401.42 0.1349 6.38093 0 0.00118 0.01822 0 0.003 0.01605 0.00129 0.01982 0 0.012 0.04585 993.232 5280.79 0 0.74768 16.8444 0 0.20248 1.07652 0 0.01068 0.24067 0 0 0 0 0.76306 17.1909 0 0 0 0 1.06 3.03058 35.0401 0 0 0 0 Alameda 2024 OBUS Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 610.213 30444.7 30444.7 0 12209.1 0.43338 0.06501 0.39044 0.00094 0 0.00027 0.003 0.01568 0.00103 0 0.0003 0.012 0.0448 1772.79 379.387 31.2965 0.01276 0.1993 0.0346 0.0218 0.00554 0.03094 0.06205 0.74558 0.17897 0.03261 0.14496 2.52468 0.09055 1.08796 0.19595 0.03261 0.14496 2.52468 0.04493 1.37054 5.77048 3.82728 0.01753 0.00375 0.00031 Alameda 2024 OBUS Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 362.926 26876.3 26876.3 0 4298.69 1.86831 12.9172 1.64202 0.03638 0.01494 0 0.003 0.02 0.03802 0.01561 0 0.012 0.05715 1396.4 2676.51 0 0.00374 0.042 0 0.22 0.42168 0 0.08052 0.90421 0 0 0 0 0.09167 1.02937 0 0 0 0 0.21115 0.24882 13.9983 0 0.01322 0.02534 0 Alameda 2024 OBUS Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 0.91894 84.1685 0 84.1685 18.3861 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.003 0.00784 0 0 0 0.012 0.0224 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Alameda 2024 OBUS Aggregate Aggregate Natural Ga 2.06335 133.482 133.482 0 18.3638 0.18618 1.53594 0 0.00108 0.00393 0 0.003 0.01615 0.00117 0.00428 0 0.012 0.04614 1027.56 1222.06 0 0.79206 4.21864 0 0.20948 0.24912 0 0.01132 0.06028 0 0 0 0 0.80836 4.30543 0 0 0 0 1.06 3.26043 7.43259 0 0 0 0 Alameda 2024 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 83.5485 4472.15 4472.15 0 334.194 0.6752 0.92364 0.65161 0.00106 0 0.00065 0.002 0.01572 0.00115 0 0.00071 0.008 0.04492 795.918 2542.04 59.5038 0.0154 2.46338 0.08305 0.03337 0.08651 0.05912 0.07497 10.5993 0.47531 0.1281 0.3657 2.03338 0.1094 15.4665 0.5204 0.1281 0.3657 2.03338 0.045 1.91528 81.9844 11.6145 0.00787 0.02513 0.00059 Alameda 2024 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 403.786 9573.36 9573.36 0 5846.81 2.21097 16.3644 0.64125 0.01198 0.01312 0 0.003 0.01572 0.01252 0.01371 0 0.012 0.04492 1162.04 2142.96 0 0.00144 0.00784 0 0.18308 0.33762 0 0.03102 0.16878 0 0 0 0 0.03532 0.19214 0 0 0 0 0.18518 0.10986 5.80596 0 0.011 0.02029 0 Alameda 2024 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 1.24387 45.5435 0 45.5435 12.73 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00241 0.00786 0 0 0 0.00963 0.02246 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Alameda 2024 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Natural Ga 25.334 637.254 637.254 0 366.837 0.62835 5.31018 0 0.00338 0.01042 0 0.003 0.01572 0.00367 0.01133 0 0.012 0.04492 1268.95 3965.4 0 3.60587 15.7416 0 0.25868 0.80837 0 0.05152 0.22492 0 0 0 0 3.68006 16.0655 0 0 0 0 1.06 12.4452 18.6345 0 0 0 0 Alameda 2024 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 255.003 20852.2 20852.2 0 1020.01 0.03613 0 0.49771 0.00108 0 0.00019 0.00206 0.03223 0.00117 0 0.0002 0.00823 0.09208 983.028 0 43.8982 0.00206 0 0.05079 0.00497 0 0.07111 0.0059 0 0.18978 0.04548 0.10525 0.53167 0.0086 0 0.20778 0.04548 0.10525 0.53167 0.045 0.5613 0 6.23296 0.00972 0 0.00043 Alameda 2024 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 674.847 74225.5 74225.5 0 2699.39 0.37581 0 0 0.00699 0 0 0.00803 0.03838 0.00731 0 0 0.03213 0.10965 1265.4 0 0 0.00318 0 0 0.19936 0 0 0.06847 0 0 0 0 0 0.07794 0 0 0 0 0 0.22 0.07976 0 0 0.01199 0 0 Alameda 2024 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 14.1309 1244.38 0 1244.38 56.5237 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.009 0.01925 0 0 0 0.036 0.055 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Alameda 2024 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Natural Ga 109.787 10105.9 10105.9 0 439.148 0.07667 0 0 0.001 0 0 0.00594 0.03814 0.00104 0 0 0.02375 0.10897 1127.21 0 0 3.09033 0 0 0.22979 0 0 0.04943 0 0 0 0 0 3.15967 0 0 0 0 0 0.97 33.1088 0 0 0 0 0 Air Quality/Noise Construction Information Data Request Project Name: Lincoln Rec Center
See Equipment Type TAB for type, horsepower and load factor Project Size Dwelling Units 1.4 total project acres disturbed s.f. residential Pile Driving? Y/N?
s.f. retail
s.f. office/commercial
Project include on-site GENERATOR OR FIRE PUMP during project OPERATION (not construction)? Y/N? __N__
24,360 s.f. other, specify: Rec Center/Gym IF YES (if BOTH separate values) --> s.f. parking garage spaces Kilowatts/Horsepower: __________ s.f. parking lot spaces Fuel Type: _____________
Construction Days to Location in project (Plans Desired if Available):

Construction Hours am to pm

DO NOT MULTIPLY EQUIPMENT HOURS/DAY BY THE QUANTITY OF EQUIPMENT Quantity Description HP Load Factor Hours/day
Total
Work
Days
Avg.

Hours per
day
HP
Annual
Hours Comments
Demolition Start Date: 1/2/2023 Total phase: 20 Overall Import/Export Volumes End Date: 1/27/2023
1 Concrete/Industrial Saws 81 0.73 8 20 8 9461 Demolition Volume Excavators 158 0.38 0 0 Square footage of buildings to be demolished 1 Rubber-Tired Dozers 247 0.4 8 20 8 15808 (or total tons to be hauled) 3 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 97 0.37 8 20 8 17227 _8,700_ square feet or Other Equipment? _?_ Hauling volume (tons)
Any pavement demolished and hauled _590_ tons
Site Preparation Start Date: 1/28/2023 Total phase: 2
End Date: 1/31/2023
1 Graders 187 0.41 8 2 8 1227
1 Rubber Tired Dozers 247 0.4 7 2 7 1383
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 97 0.37 8 2 8 574
Other Equipment?
Grading / Excavation Start Date: 2/1/2023 Total phase: 4 End Date: 2/6/2023 Soil Hauling Volume
Excavators 158 0.38 0 0 Export volume = 440 cubic yards 1 Graders 187 0.41 8 4 8 2453 Import volume = 90 cubic yards 1 Rubber Tired Dozers 247 0.4 8 4 8 3162
Concrete/Industrial Saws 81 0.73 0 0
2 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 97 0.37 7 4 7 2010
Other Equipment?
Trenching/Foundation Start Date: 2/1/2023 Total phase: 4 End Date: 2/6/2023
1 Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 97 0.37 8 4 8 1148
1 Excavators 158 0.38 8 4 8 1921
Other Equipment?
Building - Exterior Start Date: 2/7/2023 Total phase: 200 Cement Trucks 14 Total Round-Trips End Date: 11/13/2023
1 Cranes 231 0.29 6 200 6 80388 Electric? (Y/N) ___ Otherwise assumed diesel 1 Forklifts 89 0.2 6 200 6 21360 Liquid Propane (LPG)? (Y/N) ___ Otherwise Assumed diesel 1 Generator Sets 84 0.74 8 200 8 99456 Or temporary line power? (Y/N) ___ 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 97 0.37 6 200 6 43068
3 Welders 46 0.45 8 200 8 99360
Other Equipment?
Building - Interior/Architectural Coating Start Date: 11/14/2023 Total phase: 10 End Date: 11/27/2023
1 Air Compressors 78 0.48 6 10 6 2246
Aerial Lift 62 0.31 0 0
Other Equipment?
Paving Start Date: 11/28/2023 Total phase: 10
Start Date: 12/11/2023
1 Cement and Mortar Mixers 9 0.56 6 10 6 302
1 Pavers 130 0.42 6 10 6 3276
1 Paving Equipment 132 0.36 8 10 8 3802
1 Rollers 80 0.38 7 10 7 2128
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 97 0.37 8 10 8 2871
Other Equipment?
Additional Phases Start Date: Total phase:

Start Date:
#DIV/0! 0
#DIV/0! 0
#DIV/0! 0
#DIV/0! 0
#DIV/0! 0
Equipment types listed in "Equipment Types" worksheet tab.

Equipment listed in this sheet is to provide an example of inputs Complete one sheet for each project component It is assumed that water trucks would be used during grading Add or subtract phases and equipment, as appropriate
Modify horsepower or load factor, as appropriate
Complete ALL Portions in Yellow
Asphalt 106 cubic yards or ____ round trips?

10/11/22, 3:46 PM about:blank
about:blank 1/3
Screening Report
Area of Interest (AOI) Information
Area : 4,198,381.02 ft²
Oct 11 2022 15:45:51 Pacific Daylight Time
10/11/22, 3:46 PM about:blank
about:blank 2/3
Summary
Name Count Area(ft²) Length(ft)
Permitted Stationary Sources11 N/A N/A
Permitted Stationary Sources
# FacID FacName Address City Street
1 13728 East Bay Municipal UtilityDist 375 11th Street Oakland CA 2 13929 Alameda County GSA1106 Madison StreetOakland CA 3 20828 Alameda County GSA1111 Jackson StreetOakland CA 4 19039 Hotel Oakland 270 13th Street Oakland CA
5 21029 Pacific RenaissancePlaza 388 9th St, Ste 229Oakland CA 6 23040 Caliber Collision Center149 11th St Oakland CA
7 23954 Windstream 427 14th Street Oakland CA
8 24333 CP VI Franklin, LLC1314 Franklin Ave Oakland CA 9 107875_1 Alameda County-General Services Agncy165 13th St Oakland CA 10 22412 Verizon Wireless(Telegraph & Broadway)1404 Franklin StreetOakland CA 11 111947_1 China Town 76 Unocal#0752 800 Harrison St Oakland CA # Zip County Latitude Longitude Details
1 94,607.00 Alameda 37.80 -122.27 Generator
2 94,612.00 Alameda 37.80 -122.27 Generator
3 94,612.00 Alameda 37.80 -122.27 Generator
4 94,612.00 Alameda 37.80 -122.27 Generator
5 94,607.00 Alameda 37.80 -122.27 Generator
6 94,607.00 Alameda 37.80 -122.27 No Data
7 94,612.00 Alameda 37.80 -122.27 Generator
8 94,612.00 Alameda 37.80 -122.27 Generator
9 94,612.00 Alameda 37.80 -122.27 Gas Dispensing Facility 10 94,612.00 Alameda 37.80 -122.27 Generator
11 94,607.00 Alameda 37.80 -122.27 Gas Dispensing Facility 10/11/22, 3:46 PM about:blank
about:blank 3/3
# NAICS Sector Sub_Sector Industry ChronicHI
1 221,310.00 Utilities Utilities Water Supply andIrrigation Systems0.0978979 2 921,190.00 Public AdministrationExecutive, Legislative,and Other GeneralGovernment Support Other GeneralGovernment Support0.0038180
3 921,190.00 Public AdministrationExecutive, Legislative,and Other GeneralGovernment Support Other GeneralGovernment Support0.0014733
4 721,110.00 Accommodation andFood Services Accommodation Hotels (except CasinoHotels) and Motels0.0008018 5 531,120.00 Real Estate and Rentaland Leasing Real Estate Lessors ofNonresidential Buildings(except Miniwarehouses)0.0123576 6 811,121.00 Other Services (exceptPublic Administration)Repair and MaintenanceAutomotive Body, Paint,and Interior Repair andMaintenance 0.0025234 7 531,312.00 Real Estate and Rentaland Leasing Real Estate Nonresidential PropertyManagers 0.0027168 8 531,110.00 Real Estate and Rentaland Leasing Real Estate Lessors of ResidentialBuildings and Dwellings0.0023754 9 921,190.00 Public AdministrationExecutive, Legislative,and Other GeneralGovernment Support Other GeneralGovernment Support0.0092781
10 517,312.00 Information Telecommunications
WirelessTelecommunicationsCarriers (exceptSatellite)

0.0000061
11 447,110.00 Retail Trade Gasoline StationsGasoline Stations withConvenience Stores0.0183827 # PM2_5 Cancer Risk{expression/expr0}Chronic Hazard Index{expression/expr1} PM2.5{expression/expr2} Count 1 0.0806785 63.266 0.098 0.081 1
2 0.0026230 2.07 0.004 0.003 1
3 0.0007864 0.628 0.001 0.001 1
4 0.0003253 0.518 0.001 0 1
5 0.0578953 45.988 0.012 0.058 1
6 0.0000000 No Data 0.003 No Data 1
7 0.0012512 1.007 0.003 0.001 1
8 0.0028975 2.272 0.002 0.003 1
9 0.0000000 1.937 0.009 No Data 1
10 0.0000296 0.001 0 0 1
11 0.0000000 3.838 0.018 No Data 1
NOTE: A larger buffer than 1000 feet may be warranted depending on proximity to significant sources.

FID Facility ID Facility Name Address City County Source Details Cancer Risk Chronic Hazard Index PM2.5 Distance Cancer Risk Chronic Hazard Index PM2.5 1 991 13728 East Bay Municipal Utility Dist 375 11th Street Oakland Alameda Generator 63.27 0.097898 0.080679 180 m 0.506 0 0.001 2 2068 13929 Alameda County GSA 1106 Madison Street Oakland Alameda Generator 2.07 0.003818 0.002623 275 m 0.281 0 0 3 2987 20828 Alameda County GSA 1111 Jackson Street Oakland Alameda Generator 0.63 0.001473 0.000786 110 m 1.013 0 0.001 4 3160 19039 Hotel Oakland 270 13th Street Oakland Alameda Generator 0.52 0.000802 0.000325 255 m 0.338 0 0 5 4086 21029 Pacific Renaissance Plaza 388 9th St, Ste 229 Oakland Alameda Generator 45.99 0.012358 0.057895 230 m 0.394 0 0 6 5124 23040 Caliber Collision Center 149 11th St Oakland Alameda No Data 0 0.002523 0 No Data 0.003 No Data 7 6084 23954 Windstream 427 14th Street Oakland Alameda Generator 1.01 0.002717 0.001251 425 m 8 6267 24333 CP VI Franklin, LLC 1314 Franklin Ave Oakland Alameda Generator 2.27 0.002375 0.002898 285 m 0.225 0 0 9 6947 107875_1 Alameda County-General Services Agncy 165 13th St Oakland Alameda Gas Dispensing Facility 1.94 0.009278 0 225 m 0.182 0.001 No Data 10 7271 22412 Verizon Wireless (Telegraph & Broadway) 1404 Franklin Street Oakland Alameda Generator 0 6.1E-06 2.96E-05 350 m 0 11 9608 111947_1 China Town 76 Unocal #0752 800 Harrison St Oakland Alameda Gas Dispensing Facility 3.84 0.018383 0 145 m 0.372 0.002 No Data

Lincoln Square Recreation Center Replacement Consistency Determination Checklist City of Oakland August 2023
Appendix D – Tree Survey

SBCA Tree Consulting Phone (510) 787-3075
1534 Rose St. Crockett, CA 94525 Fax (510) 787-3065
[email protected] www.sbcatree.com

SBCA TREE CONSULTING
1534 Rose Street, Crockett, CA 94525
Phone: (510) 787-3075
Fax: (510) 787-3065
Website: www.sbcatree.com

Steve Batchelder, Consulting Arborist Molly Batchelder, Consulting Arborist WC ISA Certified Arborist #228 WC ISA Certified Arborist #9613A CUFC Certified Urban Forester #134 ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified CA Contractor License #(C-27) 53367 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected]

Date: February 7, 2022

To: Merrill Morris
Valerie Conant, Senior Associate Landscape Architect
249 Front St,
San Francisco, CA 94111

Project: Lincoln Square Recreation Center,
Harrison St. between 11th and 12th St.

Oakland, CA 94607

Subject: Tree Survey

Assignment: Arborists were requested to survey all trees within project scope at the Lincoln Square recreation center as requested by Valerie Conant.

City of Oakland Code

According to the City of Oakland municipal code or ordinances 12.36.020 Definitions-

"Protected tree" means a protected tree for the purpose of this chapter is the following:

On any property, Quercus agrifolia (California or Coast Live Oak) measuring four inches dbh or larger, and any other tree measuring nine inches dbh or larger except Eucalyptus and Pinus radiata (Monterey Pine).

Survey Procedure

Data recorded – Arborists recorded data on tree scientific name, common name, DBH, height, spread, structure, health, protected status, suitability for preservation, and relevant notes.

Trees numbers – Each tree was assigned a number which correlates to the tree survey data and Tree Location Map Appendix 2. Trees Tag Numbers: 21-37.

Lincoln Square Recreation Center 2/7/2022
MERRILL MORRIS 2 of 7

SBCA Tree Consulting Phone (510) 787-3075
1534 Rose St. Crockett, CA 94525 Fax (510) 787-3065
[email protected] www.sbcatree.com

Summary

Total trees – Arborist survey identified 17 trees; eight of these are City Street trees. Six (6) species were identified. Sixteen (16) trees are protected trees according to the City Code of Oakland.

Table 1 – Table below summarizes tree survey.

Species Common
Name
Total
Amount
Protected
Tree
Amount
Overall
Suitability
for
Retention
Comments
1 Koelreuteria
paniculata
Golden
Rain Tree 2 1 P-F
These trees both have poor structures
and were noted with included bark
attachments; #35 is co-dominant with
dead wood throughout canopy.
2 Lophostemon
confertus
Brisbane
box 8 8 P-G
The Brisbane box are all City Street
trees planted in pavement cutouts.

Some display roots pillowing over
hardscape and slight hardscape
displacement. These trees have a
variety of defects including poor aspect
ratio, tip die back, poor branch
attachments, and breakouts. #s 24 and
28 are in Poor health condition and not
suitable for retention. #s 23, 25-27 are
nice specimens.
3 Magnolia
grandiflora
Southern
magnolia 4 4 ?-G
All the Magnolias are large, beautiful
specimens that would benefit from
health mitigation; #36 appears
particularly stressed. Internal decay
assessment is recommended for #s 30
and 32. Some defects: surface roots,
included bark, internal decay, and
likely compacted soil.
4 Pistacia
chinensis
Chinese
Pistache 1 1 P
This tree has a history of poor pruning
and a poor structure with crossing
branches and poor attachments.
5 Pyrus
kawakamii
Evergreen
pear 1 1 F
This tree has surface roots in lawn, a
lean, fire blight, and a Co-dominant
embedded bark attachment.
6 Quercus
agrifolia
Coastal
live oak 1 1 G
The foliage on this oak is a little sparse,
some dead and decayed wood in
canopy, bulging trunk, pock marks on
the trunk, and possibly some internal
decay. Neighbors requested clearance
pruning for sports activities. Further ID
assessment recommended.

TOTAL 17 16

Lincoln Square Recreation Center 2/7/2022
MERRILL MORRIS 3 of 7

SBCA Tree Consulting Phone (510) 787-3075
1534 Rose St. Crockett, CA 94525 Fax (510) 787-3065
[email protected] www.sbcatree.com

Health Mitigation

Mulching – The magnolias would benefit from regular mulching using good quality organic mulch (fresh wood chips are best). Mulch helps to reduce soil compaction and retain soil moisture. Recommended material is wood chips generated from tree trimming. Fresh redwood and incense cedar are not acceptable, nor is palm generated mulch. Mulch shall be from tree parts taken from a minimum of 2 meters above ground. Mulch shall not contain soil particles.

Mitigation of soil compaction – The level and depth of soil compaction must be assessed and mitigated.

Tool that are most suitable for mitigation of compacted soil is the water jet. Water jet holes are spaced at 12” triangular spacing. Holes are created 2-3’ deep and to the limits of the canopy drip line.

Procedure can be carried out once a year in early spring.

Appendix Information

1. Survey Data

2. Tree Location Map

End Report

Molly Batchelder, Consulting Arborist
WC ISA Certified Arborist #9613A
Tree Risk Assessment Qualified (TRAQ)

.

Lincoln Square Recreation Center 2/7/2022
MERRILL MORRIS 4 of 7

SBCA Tree Consulting Phone (510) 787-3075
1534 Rose St. Crockett, CA 94525 Fax (510) 787-3065
[email protected] www.sbcatree.com

Photo Supplement
Photo 1. Photo above shows
Magnolia #30 shading
Lophostemon #27. This
magnolia was noted with an
open cavity and internal decay.

Further assessment into the
amount of decayed wood is
necessary to determine
suitability for preservation. Such
assessment can be done with a
resistograph or sonic
tomography.

Photo 2. Photo left shows
Magnolia #33 in good health
and structure and would benefit
from health mitigation. The tree
displayed weeping wet wood,
which is not a cause for concern.

Lincoln Square Recreation Center 2/7/2022
MERRILL MORRIS 5 of 7

SBCA Tree Consulting Phone (510) 787-3075
1534 Rose St. Crockett, CA 94525 Fax (510) 787-3065
[email protected] www.sbcatree.com

Photo 3. Photo left shows Magnolia #36
and significant tip dieback. Health
mitigation, and possibly root and leaf
tissue analysis, are steps necessary for
tree preservation.

Photo 4. Photo below shows Magnolia
#32. There are signs of internal decay
and further risk assessment is
recommended to determine retention
suitability.

Lincoln Square Recreation Center 2/7/2022
MERRILL MORRIS 6 of 7

SBCA Tree Consulting Phone (510) 787-3075
1534 Rose St. Crockett, CA 94525 Fax (510) 787-3065
[email protected] www.sbcatree.com

Photos 5 and 6 – Pear (left) and Pistache
(below) were given fair and poor suitability
ratings, respectively. Both were observed
with structural defects, such as poor
pruning, lean, and bark inclusions.

Lincoln Square Recreation Center 2/7/2022
MERRILL MORRIS 7 of 7

SBCA Tree Consulting Phone (510) 787-3075
1534 Rose St. Crockett, CA 94525 Fax (510) 787-3065
[email protected] www.sbcatree.com

Photo 7 – Photo left shows Lophostemon
#28. The tree was noted with significant
tip dieback, possibly from past hardscape
repairs and root loss.

Photo 8. Photo below shows Coast Live
Oak #29. The tree displays some sparse
foliage and trunk damage. The bulging
trunk observed is a sign of possible
internal decay and is recommended for
further assessment.

End

Lincoln Square Recreation Center Replacement Consistency Determination Checklist City of Oakland August 2023
Appendix E – Cultural Resources Survey Report

CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY REPORT

LINCOLN SQUARE RECREATION CENTER , OAKLAND

PREPARED BY:

JENNIFER HO , WILLIAM KOSTURA, & DANIEL SHOUP

ARCHAEOLOGICAL/HISTORICAL CONSULTANTS

PREPARED FOR: DAVID J POWERS & ASSOCIATES
1736 FRANKLIN STREET, STE 400
OAKLAND , CA 9 4612

APRIL 2023

CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY REPORT
Lincoln Square Recreation Center

CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY REPORT
Lincoln Square Recreation Center
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 1
PREVIOUS STUDIES AND ARCHIVAL RESEARCH 5
RECORD SEARCH RESULTS 5
STATE OF CALIFORNIA LISTINGS 6
CITY OF OAKLAND LOCAL REGISTER 6
SACRED LANDS FILE SEARCH 7
BACKGROUND 8
PREHISTORY 8
ETHNOGRAPHY 8
HISTORY 9
HISTORY OF THE PROJECT AREA 11
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SENSITIVITY 15
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY 15
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS 16
DESCRIPTION OF RESOURCES 17
LINCOLN SQUARE 17
THE LINCOLN SQUARE RECREATION CENTER 25
SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 29
CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES 29
OAKLAND CULTURAL HERITAGE SURVEY 33
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR’S STANDARDS ANALYSIS 35
FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYSIS 35
STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION 35
EFFECTS ANALYSIS 37
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 37
REFERENCES 38

APPENDIX 1: NORTHWEST INFORMATION RECORD SEARCH
APPENDIX 2: SACRED LANDS FILE SEARCH RESULTS
APPENDIX 3: OCHS FORMS
APPENDIX 4: DPR FORMS

CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY REPORT
Lincoln Square Recreation Center

1 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Lincoln Square Park (APN 002 007100100 ) is an approximately 1.4-acre park in the City of Oakland, bounded by 11th Street to the north, Harrison Street to the west, 10th Street to the south, and Lincoln Elementary School to the east. The project applicant proposes to demolish the existing Lincoln Square Recreation Center (250 10th Street), located in the southwest corner of Lincoln Square Park, construct a new two-story recreation center, new outdoor sport courts and new landscaping. The new recreation center would include a gym with an indoor basketball court, five multipurpose rooms , a k itchen, restrooms, a lobby, and a roof garden. Lincoln Square Park was designated an Oakland City Landmark in 1983 and is therefore considered a CEQA resource.

To ensure that that the proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic al or archaeological resource (as defined in the CEQA Guidelines [14 CCR §15064.5]), Archaeological/Historical Consultants (A/HC) of Oakland, California, was retained to complete an archaeological sensitivity assessment of the property, evaluate whether the existing recreation center is eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), and assess and whether the proposed project meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation.

A/HC completed a built environment survey of the Project Area on August 24 , 2022, and an archaeological survey on September 21, 2022. No archaeological resources were noted on the survey, and research suggest s that the Project Area has low sensitivity for buried Native American and historic-era archaeological resources.

Lincoln Square Park is eligible to the CRHR under Criterion 1. Its contributing elements include the shape and boundaries of the square, the 1940 clubhouse building, the presence of open space in a congested urban area, and the continuity of recreational use s by the Chinatown community and general public. Its OCHS rating is A1+ (a resource of highest importance , and a contributor to an Area of Primary Importance) . Lincoln Square Recreation Center , however, appears not eligible for the CRHR and has an Oakland Cultural Heritage Survey rating of D1 - (a building of minor importance, not contributing to a resource of primary importance ).The proposed project meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, because the proposed changes would not adversely affect the integrity of the Lincoln Square or its character- defining features. As such, the proposed project does not appear likely to cause a substantial adverse change to the integrity of a historical resource as defined at 14 CCR §15064.5.

CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY REPORT
Lincoln Square Recreation Center

2 Figure 1: Location Map

CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY REPORT
Lincoln Square Recreation Center

3 Figure 2: Vicinity Map

CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY REPORT
Lincoln Square Recreation Center

4 Figure 3: Project Area Map

CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY REPORT
Lincoln Square Recreation Center

5 PREVIOUS STUDIES AND ARCHIVAL RESEARCH

RECORD SEARCH RESULTS
A records search covering Lincoln Square and a 1/8 -mile radius around it was completed at the Northwest Information Center on August 23, 2022 (NWIC File #22-0157). The search identified no resources within the Project Area. None of the adjacent properties have been found eligible for the CRHR or the National Register of Historic Places (NHRP) . Please see Appendix 1 for the complete NWIC record search results.

Part of the roadway adjacent to Lincoln Square along 12 th Street was studied in 2000 as part of an EBMUD recycled water pipeline project. The study did not identify resources in the vicinity (Chavez and Hupman 2000).

One built environment resource, two districts, and a historic -era archaeological resource have previously been recorded outside the Project Area, but within the search radius:
• 270-276 11 th Street (P- 01-001117), north of the Project Area, is a two- story commercial building built in 1921- 1922. It was evaluated as eligible for the NRHP under Criterion C in 2006 (Supernowicz 2006). However, the State Built Environment Resources Database notes that it was determined ineligible for the NRHP in 2017 (OHP 2022). • The Chinatown commercial district (P -01-003811) is located on Franklin, Webster, and Harrison Streets between 7th and 9th Streets, one block south of the Project Area. The district contains 45 buildings, of which 29 are contributing. The district was found eligible for the NRHP under Criteria A and C (OCHS 1985).
• The 7 th Street/Harrison Square Residential District (P -01-004478) is located on 7 th Street between Harrison to Fallon, including cross streets. About 2/3 of the houses in this area were built between 1889 and 1910. The district was found eligible for the NRHP under Criteria A and C (OCHS 1984c).
• P-01-010530 is a historic-era archaeolog ical resource consisting of segments of a trolley or railroad line below the surface of Webster Street between 10 th and 12 th Streets. Elements
present include ties, straps, spikes, and ballast. The resource was recorded in 2000 during monitoring for a fiber-optic cable conduit, but was not evaluated (Way 2000).

CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY REPORT
Lincoln Square Recreation Center

6 STATE OF CALIFORNIA LISTINGS
No properties within or adjacent to the Project Area are listed as California State Landmarks or California Points of Historical Interest. The Built Environment Resources Directory (OHP 2022) lists four properties adjacent to the Project Area:
• 259 10th St, Fuller Co. Store and Warehouse, built 1925- 1926. Received a 7R (not evaluated) rating in 1994.
• 258 11th St, Marwedel Tool Supply Store and Warehouse. Received a 7R (not evaluated) rating in 1994.
• 270 11th St, Stulsaft Co. Showroom and Warehouse. Received a 7R (not evaluated) rating in 1994.
• 276 11th St, built 1921-1922. Received a 6Y (not eligible for NRHP) rating in 2017.

None of these buildings appear to the authors to be CRHR-eligible.

CITY OF OAKLAND LOCAL REGISTER
The City of Oakland’s local register includes City Landmarks and properties rated A or B in the Oakland Cultural Heritage Survey (OCHS) rating system , along with other properties determined eligible for CRHR or NRHP . Local register properties are historic resources for the purposes of CEQA. In addition, Oakland has two historic district classifications, Areas of Primary Importance (API) and Areas of Secondary Importance (ASI). APIs are areas that appear eligible as NRHP districts (and therefore CEQA historical resources), while ASIs are districts of local interest only (and not CEQA historical resources).

Lincoln Square is Oakland City Landmark # 83-401, designated 12/20/1983. The Landmark covers the area bounded by 10 th, 11th, Harrison, and the former Alice Streets, and is coterminous with the Project Area. The primary significance of the Landmark is as one of the public spaces dedicated on the original town plat. No other local register properties are present within the Project Area.

Two ASIs are adjacent to the Project Area:
• The 258 & 270- 76 11th Street Area of Secondary Importance is made up of two properties across the street to the north of Lincoln Square.
• 307 10th Street, across the street to south of the Project Area, is part of the Chinatown Support ASI.

Five Potential Designated Historic Properties (PDHPs) are adjacent to the Project Area:
• 259 10 th Street was constructed in 1907 and has a rating of Cb+3 (Secondary importance, could improve to primary importance with appropriate restoration, not in an API or ASI). • 307 10th Street was constructed in 1925-1926 and has a rating of C2+ (Secondary importance, located in an ASI).
• 258 11th Street was constructed in 1929-1930 and has a rating of C2+ (Secondary importance, located in an ASI).

CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY REPORT
Lincoln Square Recreation Center

7 • 276 11 th Street was constructed in 1921- 1922 and has a rating of Cb+2+ (Secondary importance, could improve to primary importance with appropriate restoration, located in an ASI).
• 1013 Harrison Street was constructed in 1915 and has a rating of Dc3 (Minor importance, not in an API or ASI).

None of these PDHPs attained a rank of B or greater in the OCHS rating system, and none appear to be historical resources as defined in the CEQA Guidelines.

SACRED LANDS FILE SEARCH
A Sacred Lands File request was submitted to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for the Lincoln Square Recreation Center. Cody Campagne of the NAHC responded on August 30, 2022, that the results were positive and that the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista, the North Valley Yokuts Tribe, and the Confederated Villages of Lisjan should be contacted for further information. A list was provided of Native American tribes to contact who might also have knowledge of cultural resources in the project area. Please see Appendix 2 for the Sacred Lands File search results and tribal consultation list.

CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY REPORT
Lincoln Square Recreation Center

8 BACKGROUND

PREHISTORY
Humans first arrived in the San Francisco Bay area over 10,000 years ago, though little archaeological evidence from this early period has been found to date. The Early Period or Middle Archaic (3500 - 500 cal. BCE) included the introduction of ground stone and shell bead technologies and may have marked initial sedentism, “regional symbolic integration, and increased regional trade in the Bay Area” (Milliken et al. 2007:114- 115, Hylkema 2002:241). About 1900 BCE a population of marsh and bayshore-adapted people, probably ancestral Ohlone/Costanoan-speakers, settled along the East Bay margin, perhaps moving from eastern Contra Costa County (Moratto 1984:277).

The Lower Middle Period (500 BCE-300 CE) is marked by major cultural disruptions, such as the introduction of new bead types, flexed burials, and decorative objects that may represent religious or cosmological beliefs. In the Upper Middle Period (300- 700 CE), another major cultural shift took place, with the collapse of trade networks, site abandonment, and the introduction of new bead forms.

The Late Period or Emergent Period from about CE 1050 to CE 1550 saw new complexity in the Bay region (Milliken et al. 2007:116). The cultural pattern that had emerged by the time of Spanish contact included:
…large populations; a greater number of settlements and more evidence of status differentiation among them; a greater emphasis on gathering vegetal foods, especially acorns; more intensive trade and highly developed exchange systems; the spread of secret societies and cults together with their associated architectural features and ceremonial traits; and, in late prehistory, the appearance of clamshell disk beads as a currency for exchange (Moratto 1984:283).

ETHNOGRAPHY
At the time of contact with the Spanish, the Project Area probably encompassed the territory of the Huchiun and/or the Jalquin peoples. Based on mission records, Milliken believed that the Huchiun, speakers of the Chochenyo dialect of the Ohlone/Costanoan language family, lived in the lands “along the East Bay shore from Temescal Creek…north to the lower San Pablo and Wildcat Creek drainages in the present area of Richmond.” South of the Huchiun were the Jalquin, who held territory along San Leandro Creek and the interior East Bay hills (Milliken 1995:243- 245; Milliken, Shoup & Ortiz 2007:107). The Jalquin (also called Irgin or Yrgin in Mission Registers) were likely bilingual between Bay Miwok and the Chochenyo dialect of the Ohlone/Costanoan language (Levy 1978:485; Golla 2007:75)
Ohlone/Costanoan and Bay Miwok are branches of the Yok -Utian subfamily of the Penutian languages, spoken in central California and along the Pacific Coast as far as southeast Alaska. Penutian speakers seem to have entered central California from the northern Great Basin around 4,000-4,500 years ago and arrived in the San Francisco Bay Area about 1 ,500 years ago, displacing speakers of Hokan languages (Golla 2007:74). This movement may be correlated with the spread of the Windmiller pattern of material culture in the Late Period into the Coast Ranges and San Francisco Bay area (Moratto 1984:553; Levy 1978:486).

CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY REPORT
Lincoln Square Recreation Center

9 Ohlone and Bay Miwok society was organized in independent local tribes of 200-400 people living in semi-permanent villages, with tribes controlling fixed territories averaging 10 to 12 miles in diameter (Milliken et al. 2007:99). Shoup and Milliken (1999:8) note that local tribes “were clusters of unrelated family groups that formed cooperative communities for ceremonial festivals, for group harvesting efforts, and – most importantly – for interfamily conflict resolution.” Hereditary village leaders, who could be male or female, played an important role in conflict resolution, receiving guests, directing ceremonies, organizing food- gathering expeditions, and leading war parties but did not otherwise exercise direct authority (Levy 1978:487). Despite their autonomy, intermarriage between local tribes appears to have been frequent (Milliken 1995:22-24).

Residences were typically round, domed, or conical thatch homes on a frame of poles or branches, with a hearth in the center of the floor and a corresponding smoke hole in the roof. Material culture included complex decorative and utilitarian basketry, shell ornaments, tule boats, feather nets, hair decorations and jackets, and a full suite of bone and stone tools. Tattooing of face, hands, and neck is attested in early ethnographic accounts (Levy 1978:493-493).

Ohlone and Bay Miwok peoples made full use of local food resources and consumed a varied diet.

Acorns from a range of oak species (Coast Live, black, tanbark) were a staple, with buckeye, laurel, and hazelnuts playing a secondary role. Seeds including chia, pine nuts, and a range of grass seeds were harvested: soldiers on the 1776 Anza expedition were fed a kind of ‘tamale’ made of seeds at several Ohlone villages (Milliken 1995:33-34). Berries such as blackberries, strawberries, madrone, grapes, and toyon were also eaten, as were a range of roots (Levy 1978:491). For animal resources, people looked both to the Bay for fish, shellfish, waterfowl, and sea mammals and to the plains and foothills for larger animals such as deer and elk. Compared to other Bay Area regions, settlements in the inland valleys were located farther from the bayshore and took comparative ly greater advantage of foothill and freshwater resources (Milliken et al. 2007:105-106).

At the time of Spanish contact, the population density along the east shore of the San Francisco Bay was 5-6 people per square mile, among the highest in the Bay Area (Milliken, Shoup & Ortiz 2007:64- 65).

HISTORY

EUROPEAN CONTACT AND THE MISSION PERIOD
The Spanish expedition of 1770, led by Pedro Fages, was probably the first direct European contact with the Jalquin. Shortly after, a 1776 expedition led by Juan Bautista de Anza from Monterey into the Bay region also passed near the Project Area (Milliken 1995:36,54). Mission San Francisco was founded in 1776, but few East Bay people moved to the mission until the early 1790s. The first large groups of Huchiun went to Mission San Francisco in the fall of 1794. Between 1797 and 1805, 77 Jalquin went to Mission Dolores, while 152 went to Mission San Jos é (Milliken, Shoup & Ortiz:310).

Indians came into the missions through a mixture of choice, persuasion, and force. Missionized Indians received instruction in Christianity and were compelled to work at agricultural tasks that must have appeared strange to them. More difficult was the loss of personal freedom, brutal treatment by soldiers and priests, and forcible imposition of Catholic beliefs (Milliken 1995:88).

CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY REPORT
Lincoln Square Recreation Center

10 The Huchiun, Jalquin, and other East Bay groups were deeply involved in resistance to the Spanish from 1785 to 1802 (Milliken 1995:102- 103, 141; 155 -156). In 1797, Spanish military actions against native villages in the East Bay included attacks on three Huchiun villages and capture of numerous Huchiun resisters. Such resistance was essentially quelled by 1801. Milliken (1995:170-1) says, “By the end of summer, 1801, the flat plains from the Santa Clara Valley north all along the east side of San Francisco Bay to the present Richmond area were devoid of native villages, with the exception of the San Leandro Creek Jalquin.”
European diseases ran rampant, with death tolls reaching 8% per year (higher among women and children), and Mission livestock grazing began to degrade the local environment, impacting the availability of traditional food resources for those Native Americans who remained outside the Mission system. By 1810, traditional cultures were collapsing throughout coastal and central California (Milliken 1995:221). Disease, dietary deficiency, declining birth rate, and violence resulted in an almost 80% population decline by 1832. This population loss, the mingling of ethnic groups at the missions, and the discouragement of traditional social practices resulted in a widespread disintegration of traditional lifeways by the beginning of the Mexican period.

After independence from Spain in 1821, the Mission system went into terminal decline. In a climate of increasing immigration from Mexico and increasing local population of Californios, the Franciscan missions were secularized and much of their land confiscated between 1834 and 1837 (Shoup and Milliken 1999:109). In turn, large land grants were distributed to prominent Mexican citizens. The era of the Californios, however, was to be short-lived: the U.S. conquest of California in 1847 and California Gold Rush of 1849 drew a vast new wave of settlers to the state. Many either purchased land from Mexican patentees, squatted, or claimed un-granted land.

EARLY HISTORY OF OAKLAND
In August 1820 Governor Vicente de Sola, the last Spanish governor of California, granted Rancho San Antonio to Luis Maria Peralta, who had come to California with the Anza expedition. The rancho was divided amongst Peralta’s four sons; Vicente Peralta received the Encinal de Temescal, which comprised north and central Oakland, Emeryville, and Piedmont. In the early American period, the Mexican ranc hos came under assault from settlers lured to California by the Gold Rush, who, sometimes with violence, illegally overran rancho land. Vicente Peralta sold most of his land in the early 1850s, and internal family in-fighting kept the family in the courts for many years, which “helped to destroy the Peralta patrimony” (Hoover et al. 1990:10).

Settlement in downtown Oakland began in May 1850, when the trio of Edson Adams, Andrew J.

Moon, and Horace Carpentier arrived in the area and, after briefly squatti ng on the land, obtained leases from Vicente Peralta for land in present-day downtown Oakland. They promptly surveyed the leases and began selling lots that did not belong to them (Bagwell 1982:26-27). In May 1852, Carpentier succeeded in having a bill passed in the State Assembly incorporating Oakland, then convinced the trustees to convey the waterfront to him for 37 years or “in fee simple forever” (Bagwell 1982:44) Carpentier, who was elected Oakland’s first may or in 1854, also financed the first bridge over San Antonio Slough (Lake Merritt) to East Oakland in return for the proceeds from a toll bridge (Willard 1988:32).

CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY REPORT
Lincoln Square Recreation Center

11 When first incorporated, t he City of Oakland was centered around today’s downtown and West Oakland districts. East of San Antonio Slough (Lake Merritt), the town of Brooklyn was formed in 1856, then annexed to Oakland in 1872 (Willard 1988:32). The transcontinental railroad reached Oakland in May of 1869. The railroad, together with the city’s ongoing role as a maritime hub, helped spur rapid increased population and industrial growth in Oakland. Oakland became a major city, however, only after the 1906 earthquake, when tens of thousands of earthquake victims who had taken refuge in Oakland decided to stay (Bagwell 1982:58, 174).

OAKLAND CHINATOWN
The 1850s saw large numbers of Chinese immigrating to Oakland from southeastern China. They were an integral part of the city’s early development: building Temescal and Chabot Dams, working for the railroads and other manufacturing industries, farming, shrimping, and opening laundries, groceries, and restaurants. These immigrants faced hostility and prejudice; anti-Chinese sentiment and legislation severely restricted their lives, and they were forced to move from several areas before settling at 8
th and Webster Streets by the 1870s. The following decades brought increased pressure on the Chinese community with the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act and the overall anti-Chinese movement pushing them out of many j obs. Although there were a few families, most of the residents of Chinatown during this time were male workers ; gambling, opium, and prostitution were widespread in the area (Ma and Ma 1982; Wong 2004; City of Oakland 2010).

After the 1906 earthquake, seve ral thousand Chinese refugees from San Francisco elected to remain in Oakland, at least doubling the Chinese population. Over the next few decades, Chinatown businesses prospered, and the community shifted to more of a focus on family life, with numerous schools, community organizations, and sports leagues emerging. Chinatown continued to thrive during World War II thanks to busy shipyards, and the Oakland Chinese population increased by 37% in the 1940s. However when racial housing restrictions were lifted after the war, many residents were finally able to leave Chinatown and live in other parts of the city or Bay Area. Post -war development projects such as the Nimitz Freeway, BART, Laney College, and the Oakland Museum ate away pieces of Chinatown, leading to concerns about the community’s survival. In the 1960s, U.S. immigration law reform allowed increased Asian immigration. That, in combination with a wave of refugees from Southeast Asia after the Vietnam war, led to explosive growth and diversification of the Chinatown community in the late 20
th century (Ma and Ma 1982; Wong 2004; City of Oakland 2010).

HISTORY OF THE PROJECT AREA

LINCOLN SQUARE
When the city of Oakland was first laid out in the early 1850s, seven squares were set aside for public use. Surveyor Julius Kellersberger’s 1853 map is the first official map of Oakland, and it shows the seven public squares: Washington, Franklin, Harrison, Jefferson, Caroline (later Madison), Oakland (later Lincoln), and Lafayette (Bagwell 1982:27-29). These squares were part of mayor and city founder Horace Carpentier’s vision of a city full of beautiful parks, wide avenues, and shady trees. In his first message to the city council in 1854, he urged that “the public squares be inclosed [sic] and embellished at as early a day as the finances of the city will permit” (Wood 1882:561).

CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY REPORT
Lincoln Square Recreation Center

12 Confusion over land titles was a major part of Oakland’s early history, due to the complicated legal process involved in confirming Spanish and Mexican land grants, infighting amongst the Peralta family, and the fact that much of downtown Oakland was sold by Carpentier and his associates, who did not actually own the land (Bagwell 1982:31-32). As a result, the city did not have clear ownership of the seven squares until 1869. That year, Mayor Samuel Merritt had Harrison, Jefferson, Caroline, Oakland (later Lincoln), and Lafayette Squares enclosed with sturdy picket fences to reinforce the city’s claim (Jones 1935:8; Wood 1882:570). Despite Mayor Andrus calling for beautification of the squares in 1879, only Lafayette and Jefferson Squares were improved during this time period (Wood 1882:699; Elliott 1885:67- 68). In 1887, Mayor Davis described most of the squares as “not in an attractive condition” (Jones 1935:10).

Improvements at Oakland Square, bounded by Harrison, Alice, 10 th, and 11th Streets, most likely began
shortly after Mayor Davis’s uncomplimentary description. By 1890, the city was spending $1,000 per year on maintenance for the square, which included park settees purchased in 1898 -99. In 1898, Oakland Square was renamed Lincoln Square in honor of President Abraham Lincoln (Jones 1935:14).

Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps from this time period depict Lincoln Square with symmetrical curving paths (1889 and 1903) and no buildings (1889, 1903, 1911). The neighborhood composition at this time was mostly residential, with a few businesses and Lincoln School located on the block adjacent to the square since 1872 (Ma 1982:56). Chinatown was established at 8 th and Webster Street in the
1870s and expanded over time to encompass the area around Lincoln Square (now called Upper Chinatown); by the early 20
th century, the ethnic makeup of the neighborhood was primarily Chinese, and then later shifted to a more diverse Asian population.

In the 20 th century various improvements were made to the square, many funded by the Chinese community. A children’s playground was installed around 1927, which included “1 field house, 1 (indoor) baseball field, 1 basketball court, 2 handball courts, 2 jumping pits, 1 volleyball court, 1 horse shoe alley, 1 set circular traveling rings, 1 sand box, 1 low slide, 1 low bar, 1 horizontal bar, benches” (OCHS 1984a:4). In 1940, a brick clubhouse designed by Edward R. Foulkes was built on the northeast portion of the square along 11
th Street, replacing the fieldhouse and indoor baseball field (OCHS 1984a:4). Over half of the construction cost was contributed by the Oakland Chinese Center, while labor was provided by Works Progress Administration (WPA) workers (Ma and Ma 1982:82).

In 1969 as part of the Oakland Chinatown Playground Project , the play area was redesigned by landscape architect John Sue of the firm Ribera & Sue , and a Chinese junk boat play structure was installed as its centerpiece (Allen 1997). The Wa Sung Community Service Club was instrumental in both the original installation of the junk, as well as its restoration in 2003 (Wong 2004:87).

The Lincoln Square Recreation Center was opened in 1977. Around that time, the city closed off Alice Street between 10
th and 11th Streets to compensate the Chinatown community for the loss of open play area (Public Works Agency 2004).

Lincoln Square was designated an Oakland City Landmark (#83 -401) in 1983, with the intention to preserve it as a public park, open space, or playground (Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board 1983).

CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY REPORT
Lincoln Square Recreation Center

13 LINCOLN SQUARE RECREATION CENTER
Development and History
The Lincoln Square Recreation Center was built between 1976-1978, funded in part by a Department of Housing and Urban Development grant and community donations. It was designed by architects Wong & Brocchini and built by Junkwock Tom of San Francisco for a total cost of $443,250 (OCHS 1984b). The center was officially dedicated in 1977 (Oakland Tribune 1977).

Mary Anne Roach was the director of the new center from its opening until 2001. According to local historian L. Eve Armentrout Ma, the Lincoln Square Recreation Center was a key part of a movement revitalizing and expanding youth programs in the local Chinese community during the 1970s and 80s (Ma 2000). Under Roach’s direction, the center offered activities and services to all age groups, including arts and crafts, badminton, baseball/softball, basketball, ceramics, cooking, dance, double dutch, gymnastics, teen center, trips, volleyball, and more. The center also hosted special events, including competitions (watermelon eating, basketball, double dutch, and annual snail races) and festivals such as Mid-Autumn and Go Hing. The Children’s Chinese New Year Parade and celebration was held yearly, often beginning at the recreation center and coordinated by Roach (Oakland Parks & Recreation 1978-1996; Oakland Tribune 1979-2002).

City staff, Gilbert Gong is the current Recreation Center Director, having taken over that role in 2001.

In partnership with community organizations, Gong was able to expand hours and programming for the center. The center continues to offer after school programs and summer camp to children from the adjacent Lincoln Elementary School, the neighborhood, and other parts of Oakland. Adult and senior programs include table tennis, Tai Chi, Chinese orchestra, Chinese opera, line dance, and ballroom dance, and are taught by volunteers from community organizations. According to Gong, 95% of the recreation center users are from the Asian/Pacific Islander community. Gong describes the center as “the heartbeat of Chinatown” where people from the neighborhood and surrounding areas come to socialize and connect with the Asian community. Many community and service organizations are associated with the Lincoln Square Recreation Center, among them the Chinese American Citizens Alliance, Toishan Benevolent Association, Friends of Lincoln Square, Wa Sung Community Service Club, and Boy and Girls Scouts (Gong 2022; Oakland Office of Parks & Recreation 2003-2014).

The Architects: Wong & Brocchini
The Lincoln Square Recreation Center was designed by the architectural firm of Worley K. Wong and Ronald G. Brocchini. Wong & Brocchini practiced architecture in the San Francisco Bay Area from 1968 to 1985, focusing on institutional architecture, including office and educational buildings (OAC n.d.; San Francisco Chronicle 1971, 1973, 1974).

Worley Wong (1912-1985) is best known, and most highly regarded, for his work in partnership with John Carden Campbell as Campbell and Wong, archite cts, during 1946-1968. Born in California in 1912, Wong attended St. Mary’s College and graduated with honors from the University of California in Berkeley. The Campbell and Wong partnership has attracted attention from historians. Their prominent Bay Are a firm was one of the first to popularize the modern A -frame house, and their residential work is highly regarded and featured in several guidebooks to historic architecture in the San Francisco Bay Area (Woodbridge 1960, 1988, 1992). Campbell and Wong’s most frequently cited

CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY REPORT
Lincoln Square Recreation Center

14 work is Buddha’s Universal Church at 720 Washington Street , Oakland (Campbell and Wong, 1953- 1960). When Campbell and Wong broke up in 1968, Wong began a new partnership with Ronald Brocchini. This partnership was also long-lasting, persisting until Wong’s death in 1985.

Ronald Brocchini (1929-2022) first worked as an architectural designer in 1948, while still in his teens, for Stone, Marraccini, and Patterson in San Francisco, before receiving BA and MA degrees in architecture from University of California in Berkeley (Marquis Who’s Who n.d.). In 1961 Brocchini became an associate architect with Campbell and Wong in San Francisco, before forming a partnership with Wong in 1968. In 1981 he was elected President of the San Francisco Chapter of the American Institute of Architects, and became a lecturer at the California College of Arts and Crafts, in Oakland (San Francisco Chronicle 1981). In 1987, two years after Wong’s death, he opened his own firm, Brocchini Architects, in Berkeley. He retired in 2014 and died in 2022.

Besides the Lincoln Square Recreation Center, a selection of Wong & Brocchini’s works include:
• Venetia Oaks Senior Housing, 263 N. San Pedro Road, San Rafael (1968) • Noni Eccles Treadwell Ceramic Arts Center (1973) and Raleigh and Claire Shaklee Building (1979), California College of Arts and Crafts, 5212 Broadway, Oakland • Mill Valley Middle School, 425 Sycamore Ave, Mill Valley (1973) • Kirsch Company building, Hayward (1971)
• Fromm and Sichel, Inc. Building, 633 Beach Street, San Francisco (1981) • Transpacific Center, 1000 Broadway, Oakland (1983)
• Lee Mah Electronics Building, 636 Webster Street, Oakland (1984) None of these works appear to have received significant attention from architectural historians.

CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY REPORT
Lincoln Square Recreation Center

15 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SENSITIVITY

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Daniel Shoup of A/HC surveyed the Project Area on September 21, 2022. Dr. Shoup is a Registered Professional Archaeologist with 15 years’ experience in California archaeology. The Project Area was surveyed in transects spaced 5 meters or less apart.

The Project Area is flat and mostly covered with impe rvious surfaces including sidewalks, athletic courts, a playground, and the existing buildings. The western side of the park along Harrison and 10th Streets has moderate soil visibility. Here, trowel probes were used to expose soil beneath grass and wood chips at five locations. All of the soils observed were silty loam, and ranged in color from greyish brown to light brownish grey (Munsell 10YR 5/2 to 10YR 6/2). Though some gravel is present on the surface, the subsoil contains no rock. No archaeological indications were observed.

Figure 4: Trowel probe results at western edge of park (left) and along 10th Street near recreation center entrance (right)

CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY REPORT
Lincoln Square Recreation Center

16 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

NATIVE AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE S ENSITIVITY
Native American archaeological sites are most often found in the places that are relatively flat, have easy access to a perennial source of fresh water, and are covered with s oils deposited during the Holocene era (beginning 11,700 years ago).

The Project Area is flat, and located at approximately 40 feet elevation in an area that was oak woodland in late prehistory. The nearest freshwater stream is Glen Echo Creek, located over 1 kilometer to the north. Lake Merritt, a tidal slough, is located 600 meters to the east. Given the distance of the site from fresh water, and lack of known sites nearby, the Project Area has low sensitivity for Native American archaeological resources.

HISTORIC -PERIOD ARCHAEOLOGICAL SENSITIVITY
Lincoln Park (formerly Oakland Park) was one of the seven squares laid out in the original Oakland plat of 1852. It remained an open park until the 1920s, when playgrounds, sports facilities, and a field house were constructed and most of the park was paved. Recreational activit ies have a very low likelihood of producing stratified deposits of historic-era artifacts, and there is no indication that other types of historic-era archaeological features such as foundations, wells, or privies are likely to be found.

The Project Area thus has low sensitivity for historic-era archaeological resources.

CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY REPORT
Lincoln Square Recreation Center

17 DESCRIPTION OF RESOURCES

LINCOLN SQUARE
Lincoln Square is bounded by Tenth, Eleventh, and Harrison Streets and a pedestrianized block of Alice Street. The square is located in the Oakland Chinatown commercial district, and is surrounded by one to two story commercial, religious, and educational buildings constructed between 1900 and 1980. Lincoln Elementary School is immediately to the east across Alice Street. The built environment and landscaping of the square has elements from several iterations of park planning: 1940, 1969, 1977, and after 2000.

Lincoln Square was dedicated for public use by 1853 as Oakland Square and has maintained the same boundaries since that time. No physical elements of the 19th century park survive. The oldest features in the park today are the clubhouse and storage building, both of which date to the 1940s. The clubhouse was built in 1940 to a design by architect Edward Foulkes. Today called the Hong Lok Senior Center, the clubhouse is situated along the north side of the park, adjacent to Eleventh Street, midway between Harrison and Alice. Constructed in the Spanish Revival style, the clubhouse is rectangular and measures 30 by 100 feet in size. It is one story in height, and brick masonry in construction, with outer walls that slope slightly inward as they rise. The sloping walls and proportions of the bricks suggest adobe construction. The roof is hipped, with recessed gables rising on the short sides, and is covered with clay tiles. Entrances are centered in the three of the four sides and are sheltered by extensions of the roof supported by square, chamfered wooden posts. This clubhouse retains its original window sash and appears to have high integrity.

The storage building, also from the 1940s, is located at the eastern edge of the square. It is a rectangular stucco building measuring 15 by 25 feet. It has a clay tile roof with gables on the short sides, turned- up eaves, and Chinese -style ornamental projections at the eave corners. The date of this building is unknown, but a building with the same shape and location is visible on a 1946 aerial photograph (Jack Amman 1946).

In 1968-1969, the park was redesigned by landscape architect John Sue of the fir m Ribera & Sue.

Elements from this time period include the perimeter wall and fence and the Chinese junk play structure. The perimeter of the park is defined variously by a low course of concrete and a low concrete wall, each of which supports a steel fenc e, and which are punctuated by occasional square concrete posts. These posts have inset panels and are topped by capitals decorated with Chinese designs. At the southeast corner of the park, there is a play structure shaped link a Chinese junk, also built in 1969 and restored in 2003.

Mature magnolia trees are located at irregular intervals along the west side and south sides of the square; several of them are to predate Ribera & Sue’s 1969 redesign, while others may have been planted in 1969 or afterward.

Elements added since 1969 include another play structure of more conventional design at the northeast corner of the square. This area hosted an infant’s play area in 1985, but the current structure appears to have been constructed circa 2000 based on review of aerial photographs (Google Earth 2023). The current Lincoln Square Recreation Center was built in 1977 and is discussed in detail below.

CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY REPORT
Lincoln Square Recreation Center

18 Between the play structures, clubhouse, and the recreation center, the central part of Lincoln Square is paved in concrete and striped with three basketball courts and four foursquare courts. This area was resurfaced and repainted circa 2010.

The square is characterized by activity throughout the day. Groups of children from the adjoining Lincoln School use the play structures during recess, the basketball courts are used by children and adults after school, and groups of adults practice badminton, tai chi, and other sports.

Figure 5: Lincoln Square looking east from Alice Street Figure 6: Chinese junk play structure

CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY REPORT
Lincoln Square Recreation Center

19 Figure 7: Park fence along 11th Street with Chinese style capitals, with Clubhouse at left Figure 8: 1940 Clubhouse south façade
Figure 9: Lincoln Square Recreation Center, north and northeast façades. East wing is at left and west wing at right.

CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY REPORT
Lincoln Square Recreation Center

20 Figure 10: 10th Street entrances with tile mural (south façade) Figure 11: East wing, east façade

CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY REPORT
Lincoln Square Recreation Center

21 Figure 12: East wing, north façade

Figure 13: East wing, south façade

CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY REPORT
Lincoln Square Recreation Center

22 Figure 14: Tenth and Harrison, landscape strip between sidewalk and west façade Figure 15: West wing, north façade, from basketball courts

CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY REPORT
Lincoln Square Recreation Center

23 Figure 16: West wing, south façade from Tenth Street

CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY REPORT
Lincoln Square Recreation Center

24 Figure 17: North entrance (from playground)
Figure 18: Window and stucco detail

CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY REPORT
Lincoln Square Recreation Center

25 THE LINCOLN SQUARE RECREATION CENTER
This building was built in 1977 to designs by the San Francisco architectural firm of Worley K. Wong, Ronald G. Brocchini, and Associates. It is situated in the southwest corner of the square, at the corner of Tenth and Harrison streets. Landscape strips about 10 feet wide wrap around t he corner between the building and the sidewalk, and are covered with grass and magnolia trees. T he Tenth Street entrance is landscaped with a brick patio and picnic tables.

THE EXTERIOR
The building itself rests upon a concrete perimeter foundation, appears to be clad in textured stucco, and is one story in height, though parts rise to greater heights than others. This is most evident when the building is viewed from the playground, looking south. Here one can see that the public entrance and adjacent areas on the north side are low relative to the flanking Multi-purpose Room, in the west wing, and classrooms, in the east wing.

The plan of the building is irregular, consisting of two wings that form an obtuse angle. The larger wing is the west wing, the bulk of which is devoted to a Multi-purpose Room. Two smaller and lower rooms in this wing – a kitchen and a games room – are appended to the east side of the Multi-purpose Room. This wing is not quite rectangular in shape, for two of its corners are shaved and there is an indention for an entrance where it meets the east wing. The east wing is devoted to an entrance lobby, three offices, two meeting and craft rooms, a storage room, restrooms, and a hallway. It also has a shaved corner and is indented for entrances on three sides.

There are two main public entrances and four secondary or service entrances. The primary public entrance is in the Tenth Street side (that is, the south side) of the east wing. Here, there are actually two entrances, both recessed, and separated by a span of wall that is clad in colorful tiles. According to the Historic Resources Inventory for Lincoln Square, this tile mural is original to the building’s construction (OCHS 1984a). The western entrance leads to the lobby, while the eastern entrance is barricaded and is no longer in use. The wall of tiles between them is the only ornamented part of the exterior. The other public entrance is on the north side, at the junction of the west and east wings, and also leads to the lobby ; it is also recessed. All of these entrances feature paired doors with full- length glazing, fixed transoms, and sidelights, and are made entirely of anodized aluminum. Regarding the secondary or service entrances, two are recessed. Each of them has a single door with full-length glazing and a fixed transom, and one of the two has sidelights. Both are made of anodized aluminum, just as the main public entrances are. The other two entrances have plain metal doors.

Windows vary greatly in size and shape, and their arrangement or placement is irregular. Their one common element is that all of them are made of anodized aluminum. Three windows on the north side, to the east of the main public entrance, are almost square in shape. Another window on the north side, just to the west of that entrance, is very elongated and is placed above eye level. Two tripartite windows in the east wing, facing Tenth Street and located to the east of the public entrances, are very large, with transoms. The middle part of each of these opens as a sliding door, most likely for emergency purposes. In the west wing, a narrow band of windows facing Harrison Street and a large, slanted window on the north side of this wing are all above eye level and admit light into the Multi- purpose room. Finally, an entire wall at the southeast corner of the east wing is made of anodized aluminum and is mostly windows, which admit light into a classroom.

CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY REPORT
Lincoln Square Recreation Center

26 Figure 19: Floor Plan based on original architectural plans

CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY REPORT
Lincoln Square Recreation Center

27 Original plans supplied by the City of Oakland (Figure 19) reveal that all parts of the exterior described above date to the original 1977 construction. The consistent use of anodized aluminum for all windows and for almost all doors supports this idea.

THE INTERIOR
The hexagonal lobby of this building features a hexagonal light fixture and a ceiling that radiates lines from the fixture to its six corners. Round wooden posts are placed at each corner of the lobby and support wooden beams painted with interlocking hexagonal motifs. The color of the posts and beams is predominantly red, with occasional green bands and stripes, and this lends a Chinese style to the lobby. Original plans reveal that these features date to the original 1977 construction. They also relate to the Chinese elements of Lincoln Square’s 1969 landscaping. Notably, there are no other Chinese style elements elsewhere in this building, either on the exterior or inside.

The hallway in the east wing is finished in flat plaster, with a tile floor (appar ently linoleum) and fluorescent lights. The Multi- purpose Room, in the west wing, has a high ceiling featuring slightly bowed wooden beams that support the roof, and a sprung hardwood floor painted with lines for a basketball court. A large, slanted window sits well above eye level in the north wall, and additional windows are located on the south wall. Off the Multi- purpose Room to the east are a kitchen and game room.

Figure 20: Multi-purpose room in west wing looking north

CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY REPORT
Lincoln Square Recreation Center

28 Figure 21: Lobby

Figure 22: East wing hallway looking east (left); lobby detail (above)

CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY REPORT
Lincoln Square Recreation Center

29 SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES

CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION
In September 1992, Governor Wilson signed Assembly Bill 2881 which created more specific guidelines for identifying historic al resources during the project review process under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA):

A project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.

For purposes of this section, an historical resource is a resource listed in, or determined eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources. 1 Consequently, under Public Resources Code §21084.1, a historical resource eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) would by definition be a historical resource for purposes of CEQA compliance. The Final Guidelines for nominating resources to the CRHR were published January 1, 1998. Under the regulations, a number of historic al resources are automatically eligible or presumed to be eligible for the CRHR if they have been listed under various state, national, or local historical resource criteria. A historical resource listed in or determined eligible for the NRHP is by definition also eligible for the CRHR. A historic al resource listed in a local historic al resources inventory is presumed to be historically or culturally significant unless the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant (CEQA Guidelines §15064.5(a)(2)).

In order for a resource to be eligible for the CRHR, it must satisfy all of the following three criteria (A, B, & C):

A. A property must be significant at the local, State, or national level, under one or more of the following four “Criteria of Significance” (these are essentially the same as the NRHP criteria with more emphasis on California history):

1. the resource is associated with events or patterns of events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history and cultural heritage of California or the United States.

2. the resource is associated with the lives of persons important to the nation or to California’s past.

3. the resource embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values.

1 California State Assembly, Assembly Bill 2881, Frazee, 1992. An Act to Amend Sections 5020.1, 5020.4, 5020.5, 5024.6 and 21084 of, and to add Sections 5020.7, 5024.1, and 21084.1 to, the Public Resources Code, relating to historical resources.

CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY REPORT
Lincoln Square Recreation Center

30 4. the resource has the potential to yield information important to the prehistory or history of the State or the nation (Criterion 4 applies primarily to archaeological sites and only rarely to buildings).

B. the resource retains historic integrity (defined below); and, C. it is 50 years old or older (except for rare cases of structures of exceptional significance).

The CRHR regulations define “integrity” as “. . . the authenticity of a property’s physical identity, evidenced by the survival of characteristics that existed during the property’s period of significance,” that is, it must retain enough of its historic character or appearance to be recognizable as a historical resource. Following the NRHP integrity criteria, CRHR regulations specify that integrity is a quality that applies to historic al resources in seven ways: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. 2 A property usually must retain most of these qualities to possess integrity.

The retention of specific aspects of integrity is paramount for a property to convey its significance.

As a designated Oakland City Landmark, Lincoln Square is a historical resource under CEQA, and was recorded in 1983- 1984 for the OCHS Historic Resources Inventory and Landmark resolution (Landmark Preservation Advisory Board 1983; OCHS 1984a). Given the passage of time, this report re-evaluates the square and identifies its character -defining features. The 1977 recreation center building has not been previously evaluated or listed under any local, State, or Federal historical resource designation criteria.

CRHR SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATION : LINCOLN SQUARE
CRHR Criteria
Lincoln Square is associated with two patterns of events that have made a significant contribution to the patterns of local and regional history:
• As one of seven original public squares dedicated by 1853, Lincoln Square is significant in the history of urban planning in Oakland.
• Lincoln Square is also significant for its continuous role in public recreation in Oakland’s Chinatown since 1927, when Chinatown community organizations helped fund the construction of an indoor baseball field in the Square. This connection to the local Chinese - American community continued in 1940, when the Oakland Chinese Center funded most of the construction of the clubhouse building. The 1968 landscape design by Ribera and Sue was funded by the Wa Sung Service Club, and local Chinese-American architect Worley Wong was engaged to design the existing recreation center. The square has thus been a focus for recreational activity by the Chinatown community since the 1920s, was designed and built by members of the Oakland Chinese-American community, and played a role in the revitalization of Chinatown and Chinese-American culture in Oakland from the 1960s to the present.

2 The definition of integrity under the California Register follows National Register of Historic Places criteria. Detailed definitions of the qualities of historic integrity are in National Register Bulletin 15, How to Apply National Register Criteria for Evaluation, published by the National Park Service.

CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY REPORT
Lincoln Square Recreation Center

31 In recognition of these contributions, Lincoln Square was designated a City Landmark 1983. As such, the square appears eligible for the CRHR under Criterion 1.

Historical research did not identify any significant figures in local, state, or national history associated with Lincoln Square. Though John Sue and Worley Wong were locally prominent figures in architecture and development, their work at Lincoln Square is not considered an important element of their practice thus it does not appear to be significant under CRHR Criterion 2.

Architecturally, Lincoln Square is a palimpsest of buildings and structures built between 1940 and 1977, reflecting several periods of its development and using contrasting styles. As such, the square as a whole does not embody a distinct architectural style or express high artistic values. Therefore, Lincoln Square does not appear to be eligible for the CRHR under Criterion 3.

Under CRHR Criterion 4, Lincoln Square is not a significant or likely source of important information about historic construction materials or technologies that is not otherwise available through documentary evidence. It therefore does not appear to be eligible for the CRHR under Criterion 4.

Character-Defining Features
The character-defining features of a historical resources are those essential features that convey its historical identity. At Lincoln Square, these include three physical features and one intangible feature:
• The shape and boundaries of the square, which are the same as they were in 1853; • A sense of open space in the midst of a congested urban district; • The 1940s Clubhouse building, designed by Edwin Foulkes and constructed by WPA workers, which appears individually eligible to the CRHR; and • The square’s history as a focus for indoor and outdoor recreational and community activities in Oakland’s Chinatown since the 1920s.

Non-contributing physical features include:
• The 1968-1969 Ribera and Sue landscape design, including the Chinese junk boat play structure, perimeter fence, low wall, and decorative posts; and • The 1977 Lincoln Square Recreation Center, evaluated below.

Integrity Analysis
Integrity is the ability of a property to convey its significance.

Integrity has seven aspects: location,
design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and is assessed with reference to the criteria under which a resource is eligible. Here we review the integrity of the three physical character- defining features of the square.

The shape and boundaries of the square are the same as they were in 1853, and therefore the square has good integrity of location and setting, which are the most important elements of integrity for a resource that is significant for its spatial relationships. Despite changes over time, it retains the feeling of open space in the middle of an urbanized area. As such, it retains the ability to convey its significance as a public park with the same relationship to the urban grid that it had in 1853.

CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY REPORT
Lincoln Square Recreation Center

32 The square maintains a sense of open space in an urban area. This aspect has reduced integrity of design, association, and feeling due to the construction of the 1977 recreation center, but maintains integrity of location and setting sufficient to convey its significance.

The 1940s clubhouse building retains good integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, and feeling. It has lost integrity of association because no other features of the 1920s- 1940s park survive. Overall, however, it retains ample integrity to convey its historical significance.

CRHR SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATION : LINCOLN SQUARE RECREATION CENTER Ma notes that the Lincoln Square Recreation Center was part of a trend of revitalization and expansion of youth programs during the 1970s and 1980s in Chinatown, which is a pattern of local significance.

The recreation center building itself, however, was only one of several facilities at Lincoln Square - along with the playgrounds, basketball courts, and clubhouse – that was related to this theme.

Moreover, it is one of a series of indoor recreation facilities built at Lincoln Square since the 1920s.

The historical pattern, then, is associated with the square as a whole rather than with the building in itself. Therefore, the building does not appear to be eligible under CRHR Criterion 1.

Historical research did not identify any significant figures in local history associated with the building, thus it does not appear to be significant under CRHR Criterion 2.

The building does not appear to be an outstanding example of 1970s Modern architecture. Typically for Modern buildings of this period, the irregular plan and massing are functional, while the exterior finish is plain and lacks style references. The fenestration is irregular and appears uncomposed. Large expanses of the exterior present a blank appearance, especially on the long sides, facing 10 th Street and
the playground to the north. On the interior, the décor of the hexagonal lobby reflects the Chinese heritage of the area, but the remainder of the interior design is utilitarian. Although the senior architect of the firm of Wong and Brocchini, Worley K. Wong , was considered a highly regarded Bay Area architect, it is primarily for his residential work with an earlier architectural firm, Campbell and Wong.

Wong and Brocchini, by contrast, is not well- studied and does not appe ar to be regarded as a significant architectural firm. The subject building bears no resemblance to Campbell and Wong’s houses, nor to their notable institutional building. Neither contemporary comment nor the passage of time has identified this building as an outstanding or significant work, and the evaluators agree with this assessment. For these reasons, the building does not appear to be eligible for the CRHR under Criterion 3.

Under CRHR Criterion 4, the Lincoln Square Recreation Center is not a significant or likely source of important information about historic construction materials or technologies that is not otherwise available through documentary evidence. It therefore does not appear to be eligible for the CRHR under Criterion 4.

CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY REPORT
Lincoln Square Recreation Center

33 OAKLAND CULTU RAL HERITAGE SURVEY

FRAMEWORK FOR EVALUATION
The CEQA guidelines give local jurisdictions wide latitude to establish criteria of significance that reflect local history and values. Properties determined eligible for local registers are presumed to be historical resources for the purposes of CEQA, unless a preponderance of evidence demonstrates otherwise (PRC §21084.1; CCR §15064.5(a)[2]).

The City of Oakland maintains the Oakland Cultural Heritage Survey (OCHS), which is described in the 1994 Historic Preservation Element of the General Plan. The OCHS uses a Kalman-type system adapted from San Francisco Heritage and Parks Canada, in which series of criteria are used to score buildings and sites, then assign them values based on a score. The process differs from the CRHR in that it considers properties in the context of the history of Oakland, rather than in the context of the State or nation. The OCHS criteria include visual quality and design, history and association, and context. A score is assigned for each criterion, and then modified by the property’s integrity. Properties are assigned a rating from A- E based on their score. Properties rated A (highest importance) and B (major importance) are considered part of Oakland’s Local Register of Historic Resources and therefore CEQA resources. Properties with a rating of C (secondary importance) may be eligible for further study, may be potential landmarks, or may be considered for preservation, but are not part of the Local Register without further action by the Landmarks and Preservation Board (City of Oakland 1994). Properties rated D (minor importance) or E (of no particular interest) do not typically enjoy protected status unless they are contributors to NRHP -eligible districts (Areas of Primary Importance).

EVALUATION UNDER OCHS CRITERIA : LINCOLN SQUARE
As previously mentioned, Lincoln Square is an Oakland City Landmark (#83 -401) and is therefore considered a CEQA resource. The Square’s Landmark status is based on its significance as one of the seven squares dedicated for public use on the original Oakland plat.

In terms of visual quality and design, Lincoln Square retains its original shape and boundaries as established in 1853, and is one of only four of the original public squares to survive. Designers Wong & Brocchini and Ribera & Sue are firms of secondary importance in Oakland. The supportive elements of the square are its continuous use for recreation in Chinatown since the 1920s.

In terms of history and association, numerous Asian-American community organizations are associated with the square, but is not closely associated with the formation or development of any particular group. No significant events are known to have taken place there. The building is intimately connected with the historical pattern of recreation, sports, and education in the Chinatown area.

The context of Lincoln Square includes its long continuity of shape, boundaries, and use. It is a notable feature of the neighborhood, but it is not a major city or neighborhood landmark.

The integrity of the square is good overall: it retains its original shape and has maintained a similar function since the 1920s.

CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY REPORT
Lincoln Square Recreation Center

34 Referring to the OCHS scoring sheet (Appendix 3), the property has a final score of 47.2, which gives it a score of A1+ (Highest Importance, a contributor to an Area of Primary Importance) as defined in the Historic Preservation Element:

Highest Importance. Applies to the most outstanding properties, considered clearly eligible for individual National Register and City Landmark designation. Outstanding examples of an impo rtant style, type, or convention, or intimately associated with a person, organization, event, or historical pattern of extreme importance at the local level or major importance at the state or national level (City of Oakland 1994).

EVALUATION UNDER OCHS C RITERIA: LINCOLN SQUARE RECREATION CENTER In terms of visual quality and design, the Lincoln Square Recreation Center is a Modern building whose irregular window size and arrangement and massing gives an overall uncomposed appearance typical of its period of design. The interior design is functional, except for the lobby which is decorated in Chinese style and does not relate to the rest of the building . The firm of Wong and Brocchini were moderately well-known in the region, but not a firm of primary importance.

In terms of history and association, the building has hosted events for many Asian- American organizations since its construction, but is not closely associated with the formation or development of any particular group. No significant events are known to have taken place there. The building is loosely connected with the historical pattern of recreation, sports, and education in the Chinatown area.

Lincoln Square Recreation Center is located within Lincoln Square, but does not contribute to its historical context as a public square active since the 1850s. While it is a recognizable feature of the neighborhood, it is not a major city or neighborhood landmark.

The building has good integrity: its features exhibit minor surface wear, but are in their original locations with all major components intact. The surface wear would be reversible with appropriate maintenance.

Referring to the OCHS scoring sheet (Appendix 3), the property has a final score of 15.76, which gives it a score of D (Minor Importance) as defined in the Historic Preservation Element:

Minor Importance. Properties which are not individually distinctive but are typical or representative examples of an important type, style, convention, or historical pattern (City of Oakland 1994).

Because it is located within an Oakland City Landmark, but does not contribute to the significance of that Landmark, its complete rating as a building appears to be D1 -, a building of minor importance which is non-contributing to an area of primary importance. Because the use of the building relates to the significance of the square for community recreation, the recreation center can be considered D1+ (that is, contributing to an area of primary importance) in terms of its function.

CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY REPORT
Lincoln Square Recreation Center

35 SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR’S STANDARDS ANALYSIS

FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYSIS
As noted above, Lincoln Square is a CEQA historical resource which is eligible under Criterion 1. The proposed project would demolish the existing recreation center and construct a new , larger building with a similar location and orientation. The new building will open onto Harrison Street and 10 th Street, which are currently inaccessible from Lincoln Square. One of the basketball courts at the center of the square would be reconstructed and reoriented, but the number of courts would stay the same.

The new design will relocate the building farther to the west, creating additional open space along 11th Street, where a new passive recreation area with tables will be constructed. The eastern half of the square, including the clubhouse, storage building, playgrounds, basketball courts, and landscape features such as fences, walls, and pillars, would not be altered.

The proposed project, then, is effectively a rehabilitation of a CRHR-eligible resource. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards defines rehabilitation as “the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values.” As noted above, the features of Lincoln Square which convey its values include:
• the shape and boundaries of the square;
• the sense of open space in the middle of a congested urban area; • the 1940 clubhouse building; and
• the square’s history as a focus for indoor and outdoor recreational and community activities in Oakland’s Chinatown since the 1920s.

STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION
To determine whether the proposed project would cause a substantial adverse change to this historical resource (as defined at PRC §5020.1(q)), we consider whether the proposed project meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. Below each standard is a discussion of its applicability to the current project.

1. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces and spatial relationships.

The proposed project will continue the existing use of Lincoln Square as a recreation facility for the Chinatown community, which has been continuous since the 1920s. The proposed new building, like the old building, occupies the southwest corner of the square and will serve the same function, with expanded capacity.

2. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided.

The contributing physical elements to Lincoln Square are the shape and boundaries of the square, a sense of open space in a congested urban area, and the 1940 clubhouse. The proposed project will have minor effects on the shape of the square and its spatial relationships. The new building is larger,

CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY REPORT
Lincoln Square Recreation Center

36 and will cause a minor loss of open space. However, its location and orientation are similar to that of the old building. The new building will change existing spatial relationships only by providing new access routes to the square via Harrison and 11 th Streets, and increasing open space along 10 th Street with a new outdoor passive recreation area. Otherwise, t he spatial relationships and features that characterize the square will remain unchanged.

3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken.

No conjectural features are proposed in the project.

4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved.

The most significant change to Lincoln Square since its creation in 1853 was its transition from an open park to a mixed indoor-outdoor recreation facility circa 1927. Since then, the square has served as a focal point of community and recreational activities in Oakland’s Chinatown, and this function is now a character-defining feature and contributes to the square’s significance under CRHR Criterion

1. Likewise, the 1940 clubhouse building is an element of the square has acquired historic significance in its own right. The proposed project preserves both of these changes in historical significance, since the new building will provide the same services to the same community in a larger and enhanced space, and the clubhouse will not be affected by the project.

5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved.

6. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence.

7. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used.

Standards 5 through 7 would only apply to the 1940 clubhouse , which is the only structure that contributes to Lincoln Square’s significance. However, no modifications to the clubhouse are proposed by the project.

8. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken.

No archaeological resources are known to be present in the project area, which has low sensitivity for buried archaeological resources.

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, s cale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment.

CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY REPORT
Lincoln Square Recreation Center

37 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.

With respect to Standards 9 and 10, the proposed new work will not alter or destroy historic materials, features, or spatial relationships. No modifications to CRHR-eligible structures are proposed.

EFFECTS ANALYSIS
The proposed project meets all of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation.

Therefore, it does not appear to have the potential to cause a substantial adverse effect to the integrity or CRHR eligibility of Lincoln Square.

FINDINGS AND C ONCLUSIONS
As noted above, Lincoln Square appears eligible to the CRHR under Criterion 1. Its contributing elements include the shape and boundaries of the square, the 1940 clubhouse building, the presence of open space in a congested urban area, and the continuity of recreational use by Chinatown community. Its OCHS rating is A1+ (highest importance).

The Lincoln Square Recreation Center does not appear to be a historical resource under CEQA because it does not meet any of the criteria of the CRHR. The Lincoln Square Recreation Center appears to have a rating of D1 - (minor importance) under the OCHS , and therefore does not contribute to the primary significance of Lincoln Square as one of the city’s original seven public squares. Although the building does contribute to Lincoln Square’s significance as a focus for recreation in the Chinatown community, the proposed project would replace it with a new building that would serve the same purpose.

The archaeological sensitivity analysis suggests that the Proje ct Area has low sensitivity for buried Native American archaeological resources as well as historic-era archaeological resources.

The proposed project meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. Despite minor changes to the available open space, the character-defining features of Lincoln Square will not be significantly affected, and the square would remain eligible to CRHR after the proposed project is complete. As such, the proposed project does not appear likely to cause a substantial adverse change to the integrity of a historical resource as defined at 14 CCR §15064.5.

CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY REPORT
Lincoln Square Recreation Center

38 REFERENCES
Allen, Annalee
1997 Exhibit tells Lincoln School’s history. Oakland Tribune 9 February:28. Oakland, CA.

Bagwell, Beth
1982 Oakland: story of a city. Oakland: Oakland Heritage Alliance.

Brown, Mary
2010 Modern Architecture and Landscape Design, 1935-1970. San Francisco Department of City Planning.

City of Oakland
1994 Historic Preservation Element, Oakland General Plan. Available at:
https://www.oaklandca.gov/documents/historic-preservation-element-for-the-general-plan, accessed October 6, 2022.
2010 Lake Merritt Station Area Plan: Existing Conditions and Key Issues Report. Chapter 9:

Historic Resources.

Chavez, David and Jan Hupman
2000 Archaeological Resources Investigations for the EBMUD East Bayshore Recycled Water Project, Alameda County, California. David Chavez and Associates. Northwest Information Center report #S-23778.

Elliott, W. W. (publisher)
1885 Oakland and Surroundings. Originally published by W.W. Elliott, Oakland. Marula Historical Reprint published by Arcadia Publishing, Charleston, SC.

Golla, Victor
2007 “Linguistic Prehistory”, In Terry L. Jones, and Kathryn A. Klar, eds., California Prehistory:

Colonization, Culture, and Complexity. New York: Altamira Press, pp. 71–82.

Gong, Gilbert
2022 Interview at Lincoln Square Recreation Center, August 23, 2022.

Google Earth
2023 Aerial imagery of Oakland, CA, 1993-2023. Accessed February 3, 2023.

Hess, Alan, and Alan Weintraub
2008 Forgotten Modern. Layton, Utah: Gibbs Smith.

Hoover, Mildred Brooke, Hero Eugene Rensch, Ethel Grace Rensch, William N. Abeloe, and Douglas E. Kyle
1990 Historic Spots in California. 4
th edition. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY REPORT
Lincoln Square Recreation Center

39 Hylkema, Mark
2002 Tidal Marsh, Oak Woodlands, and Cultural Florescence in the Southern San Francisco Bay Region. In Jon M. Erlandson and Terry L. Jones, eds. Catalysts to Complexity: Late Holocene Societies of the California Coast. Perspectives in California Archaeology, Volume 6. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology.

Jack Ammann Photographic Engineers
1946 Flight C-GS-CP, Frame 1-16. Available at:
https://mil.library.ucsb.edu/ap_indexes/FrameFinder/, accessed February 2, 2023.

Jones, DeWitt (Editor)
1935 The Seven Squares. In Oakland Parks and Playgrounds, pp. 8-15. The State Emergency Relief Administration, Project No. 3-F2-163. On file, Oakland Cultural Heritage Survey.

Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board
1983 Resolution 1983-15. City of Oakland. On file, Oakland History Center.

Legacy.com
n.d. “Ronald Brocchini (1929-2022).” Accessed October 2, 2022.

Levy, Richard
1978 Costanoan. In Handbook of North American Indians. Vol. 8: California. Washington, DCL Smithsonian Institution.

Ma, L. Eve Armentrout
2000 Hometown Chinatown: The History of Oakland’s Chinese Community. New York: Routledge.

Ma, L. Eve Armentrout and Jeong Huei Ma
1982 The Chinese of Oakland: Unsung Builders. Oakland Chinese History Research Committee.

Marquis Who’s Who (website).
n.d. “Ronald Brocchini, architect.” Accessed October 2, 2022.

Milliken, Randall
1995 A Time of Little Choice: The Disintegration of Tribal Culture in the San Francisco Bay Area, 1769- 1810. Ballena Press, Menlo Park.

Milliken, Randall, Richard T. Fitzgerald, Mark G. Hylkema, Randy Groza, Tom Origer, David G.

Bieling, Alan Leventhal, Randy S. Wiberg, Andrew Gottsfield, Donna Gillette, Viviana Bellifemine, Eric Strother, Robert Cartier, and David A. Fredrickson 2007 Punctuated Culture Change in the San Francisco Bay Area. In California Prehistory:

Colonization, Culture, and Complexity, Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A. Klar, eds. Pp. 99-123.

Altamira Press, Lanham, New York.

Millikin, Randall, Laurence H. Shoup, and Beverly R. Ortiz 2007 Ohlone/Costanoan Indians of the San Francisco Peninsula and their Neighbors, Yesterday and Today.

Archaeological/Historical Consultants, Oakland, CA. Prepared for the National Park Service, Golden Gate National Recreation Area, San Francisco, CA.

CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY REPORT
Lincoln Square Recreation Center

40 Moratto, Michael J.
1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, San Francisco.

Oakland Cultural Heritage Survey (OCHS)
1984a Historic Resources Inventory Form for 250 10
th Street. On file with the Oakland Cultural
Heritage Survey.
1984b Building Permit Reach Form for 250 10th Street. On file with the Oakland Cultural Heritage Survey.
1984c DPR 523 forms for P-01-004478, 7th Street/Harrison Square Residential District, Oakland.

On file, Northwest Information Center.
1985 DPR 523 forms for P-01-003811, Chinatown Commercial District, Oakland. On file, Northwest Information Center.

Oakland Office of Parks & Recreation
1978-9 Activities Catalog. On file, Oakland History Center. 1989 Summer-Fall Skeleton Calendar. On file, Oakland History Center. 1991 Reference Directory of After-School Programs for Children and Youth. On file, Oakland History Center.
1992 Summer Fun Times. On file, Oakland History Center. 1993-4 Fun Times. On file, Oakland History Center.
1996 Summer Fun Times. On file, Oakland History Center. 2000 Inside Oakland. On file, Oakland History Center.
2003 Summer 2003. On file, Oakland History Center.
2008 2008. On file, Oakland History Center.
2011 Spring/Summer. On file, Oakland History Center.
2014 OPR. On file, Oakland History Center.

OHP (California Office of Historic Preservation)
2022 Built Environment Resource Database for Alameda County. Available at:
https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=21387, accessed September 29, 2022.

Online Archive of California (website),
n.d. “Campbell & Wong Associates Collection.” Accessed October 2, 2022.

Oakland Tribune
1977 Traditional Dedication Ceremony. 6 October:72. Oakland, CA. 1979a An International Race. 17 March:1. Oakland, CA.
1979b Warriors back Olympics. 28 July:20. Oakland, CA.
1981a Family gatherings usher in Chinese New Year. 5 February:43 1981b Happy Chinese New Year. 4 February:25. Oakland, CA. 1983 Recreation. 13 December:42. Oakland, CA.
1984 Tuesday. 30 January:9. Oakland, CA.
1987a Mid-Autumn Festival. 4 October:118. Oakland, CA.
1987b Chinatown Festival. 27 September:90. Oakland, CA. 1987c Oakland Chinatown. 13 March:56. Oakland CA
1988 Children. 22 June:25. Oakland, CA.

CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY REPORT
Lincoln Square Recreation Center

41 1989 Chinese New Year. 8 February:8. Oakland, CA.
1991a Ram Royalty. 22 February:23. Oakland, CA.
1991b Blarney Those Snails. 15 March:32. Oakland, CA.
1991c Sports Slam Jam. 17 July:24. Oakland, CA.
1992 Basketball. 22 July:26. Oakland, CA.
1997 Lincoln. 9 November:101. Oakland, CA.
2002 Not So Fast, Snails. 16 March:23. Oakland CA.

Page and Turnbull
2019 “California College of the Arts, Historic Resource Evaluation.” Prepared for Oakland Planning and Building Department.

PCAD (Pacific Coast Architectural Database) (website).
n.d. “Worley K. Wong (Architect)”. Accessed October 2, 2022.

Public Works Agency (City of Oakland) – Park & Building Maintenance Div. 2004 “Lincoln Square Recreation Center” in Inventory 2004. On file Oakland Cultural Heritage Survey.

Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps
1889 Oakland, Sheets 2a, 7b
1903 Oakland (vol.2), Sheets 145, 146
1911 Oakland (vol. 2), Sheets 151, 162, 163
1951 Oakland (vol. 2), Sheets 151, 162, 163

San Francisco Chronicle
1971 Photograph of Kirsch Company headquarters. November 28, p.74. 1973 “A return to Victorian brickwork,” July 1, p.97
1974 “21 Bay Area winners,” December 22, p.54.
1981 “Real Estate Notebook,” December 13, p.5.

Shoup, Laurence H. and Randall T. Milliken
1999 Inigo of Rancho Posolmi: The Life and Times of a Mission Indian. Novato, CA: Ballena Press.

Supernowicz, Dana
2006 DPR 523 forms for P-01-001117, 270-276 11
th Street, Oakland. On file, Northwest
Information Center.

Way, K. Ross
2000 DPR 523 forms for P-01-010530, Webster Street, Oakland. On file, Northwest Information Center.

Willard, Ruth H.
1988 Alameda: California Crossroads. Chatsworth, CA: Windsor Publications, Inc.

Wong, William
2004 Images of America: Oakland’s Chinatown. San Francisco: Arcadia Publishing.

CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY REPORT
Lincoln Square Recreation Center

42 Wood, M. W. (Publisher)
1883 History of Alameda County, California. M.W. Wood, Oakland. Available at https://www.google.com/books/edition/History_of_Alameda_County_California/sxY1A QAAMAAJ, accessed August 31, 2022.

Woodbridge, Sally
1988 “From the Large-Small House to the Large-Large House.” In Sally Woodbridge, ed., Bay Area Houses, Layton, Utah: Gibbs Smith.

Woodbridge, Sally B. and John M.
1960 Buildings of the Bay Area. New York: Grove Press.
1992 San Francisco Architecture. San Francisco: Chronicle Books.

CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY REPORT
Lincoln Square, Oakland

APPENDIX 1: NORTHWEST INFORMATION CENTER RECORD SEARCH

8/23/2022 NWIC File No.: 22-0157

Daniel Shoup
Archaeological/Historical Consultants
609 Aileen Street
Oakland, CA 96409

Re: 22-42 Lincoln Square

The Northwest Information Center received your record search request for the project area referenced above, located on the Oakland West USGS 7.5’ quad(s). The following reflects the results of the records search for the project area and a 1/8 mile radius:

Resources within project area: None

Resources within 1/8 mile radius: P-01-001117; P-01-003811; P-01-004478; P-01-010530

Reports within project area:

S-023778

Resource Database Printout (list): ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed Resource Database Printout (details): ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed Resource Digital Database Records: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed Report Database Printout (list): ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed Report Database Printout (details): ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed Report Digital Database Records: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed Resource Record Copies: ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed Report Copies: ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed OHP Built Environment Resources Directory: ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility: ☐ enclosed ☐ not requested ☒ nothing listed CA Inventory of Historic Resources (1976): ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed Caltrans Bridge Survey: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed Ethnographic Information: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed Historical Literature: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed Historical Maps: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed Local Inventories: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed GLO and/or Rancho Plat Maps: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed Shipwreck Inventory: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed

Soil Survey Maps: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed

Please forward a copy of any resulting reports from this project to the office as soon as possible. Due to the sensitive nature of archaeological site location data, we ask that you do not include resource location maps and resource location descriptions in your report if the report is for public distribution.

If you have any questions regarding the results presented herein, please contact the office at the phone number listed above.

The provision of CHRIS Data via this records search response does not in any way constitute public disclosure of records otherwise exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records Act or any other law, including, but not limited to, records related to archeological site information maintained by or on behalf of, or in the possession of, the State of California, Department of Parks and Recreation, State Historic Preservation Officer, Office of Historic Preservation, or the State Historical Resources Commission.

Due to processing delays and other factors, not all of the historical resource reports and resource records that have been submitted to the Office of Historic Preservation are available via this records search. Additional information may be available through the federal, state, and local agencies that produced or paid for historical resource management work in the search area. Additionally, Native American tribes have historical resource information not in the CHRIS Inventory, and you should contact the California Native American Heritage Commission for information on local/regional tribal contacts.

Should you require any additional information for the above referenced project, reference the record search number listed above when making inquiries. Requests made after initial invoicing will result in the preparation of a separate invoice.

Thank you for using the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS).

Sincerely,

Justin Murazzo
Researcher
Alameda
P-01-001117
P-01-004478
[District]
P-01-003811
[District]
P-01-010530

OAKLAND
WEST 7.5'
S-023778
S-023778
S-023778
S-023778
Northwest Information Center
File #22-0157 25 August 2022 J. Murazzo
May depict confidential cultural resource locations.

Do not distribute.
0 140 280 420 560
Feet
0 25 50 75 100 125
Meters
Resource/Report Map
22-42 Lincoln Square
Project_location
Eighth_mile_buffer
Quad outlines
County outlines
Restricted resources
Resources (points)
Resources (lines)
Resources (polygons)
Resources approx loc
Resource districts
Restricted reports
Reports (points)
Reports (lines)
Reports (polygons)
Reports approx loc
Reports (CFMOU)
Resource Detail: P-01-001117
22-0157 :: 22-42 Lincoln Square
P-01-001117
Identifying information
Primary No.:

Trinomial:

Attributes
General notes
Other IDs:

Recording events
Associated reports
Location information
County: Alameda
Address:

Database record metadata
Entered: 4/1/2005 icrds
Last modified: 12/7/2015 mikulikc
IC actions:

Date User
Collections: No
Management status
Cross-refs:

Disclosure: Unrestricted
270-276 11th Street Self-Storage BuildingName:

Resource type:

Age:

Information base:

Accession no(s):

Facility:

PLSS:

UTMs:

Record status: Verified
Building
Historic
Survey, Analysis, Other
HP06 (1-3 story commercial building)Attribute codes:

USGS quad(s): Oakland West
Type Name
Resource Name 270-276 11th Street Self-Storage Building OHP PRN 4623-1472-0000
Other Stulsaft Co. Showroom and Warehouse
OHP Property Numb 93278
Date Recorder(s) Affiliation Notes
Dana E. Supernowicz Historic Resource Associates8/1/2006a Report No. Year Title Affiliation
2006 Records Search Results and Site Visit for
Cingular Wireless Project # 12951: 276 11th
Street, Oakland, CA (letter report)
S-032029 Archaeological Resources Technology
Address City Assessor's parcel no. Zip code
270-276 11th Street Oakland 2-69-11
Date User Action taken
12/7/2015 mikulikc modified NWIC GIS feature to match correct parcel 1/7/1998 AOApp1 Primary Number Autofill
4/1/2005 jay Appended records from discontinued ICRDS.