4.1 land use, plans and policies - city of oakland€¦ · 4.1 land use, plans and policies ... the...

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, Standard Conditions of Approval, and Mitigation Measures

ABSMC Summit Campus Seismic Upgrade and 4.1-1 ESA / 207376 Master Plan Project Draft EIR December 2009

4.1 Land Use, Plans and Policies This section describes the existing land uses, adopted General Plan land use classifications, and zoning designations on and around the ABSMC Summit Campus project site. This section also describes the applicable plans and policies that guide development in the project area and evaluates the project’s consistency with these plans and policies and other existing land use regulations.

Following the discussion of the project’s relationship to various plans and policies, this section identifies any potentially significant land use impacts and, if necessary, appropriate mitigation measures or standard conditions of approval. Pursuant to the City’s amendment to the Oakland General Plan (City of Oakland, 2005), as well as Section 15358(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, mitigation measures are proposed only to address physical impacts that may result from the project.

4.1.1 Land Use Classifications and Zoning The project site is located in the City of Oakland, less than one mile north1 of the downtown area (see Figure 3-1 in Chapter 3, Project Description). The project site is within the City’s S-1 zoning district2. The General Plan land use classification of the project site is Institutional. The surrounding areas to the east, west, and south of the project site are within the Community Commercial land use classification, reflecting the Telegraph Avenue and Broadway commercial strips. Farther west, properties are within the Urban Residential land use classification. Farther east, properties are within the Mixed Housing Type land use classification. Beneath the I-580/I-980/SR 24 interchange is Grove Shafter Park, designated as Urban Open Space and owned by Caltrans. To the north, across I-580, properties are within the Mixed Housing Type and Neighborhood Center land use classification. Mosswood Park, designated as Urban Open Space, is located between Broadway, Webster Street, I-580, and West MacArthur Boulevard Northeast of the project site, across I-580 and Broadway, are Kaiser Medical Center properties, which are within the Institutional land use classification.

The S-1 (Special Zoning—Medical Center) classification extends southward to 28th Street. S-1 (Special Zoning—Medical Center) and S-5 (Special Zoning—Broadway Retail Frontage Interim Combining) apply to properties between the Broadway commercial corridor and the project site (please see Figure 4.1-1, below). Zoning classifications C-40 (Commercial Zoning—Community Thoroughfare) and S-4 (Special Zoning—Design Review) apply to the Telegraph Avenue commercial corridor. C-40 and S-5 apply to the Broadway commercial corridor. R-70 (Residential Zoning—High Density) and R-80 (Residential Zoning—High-rise Apartment) apply to properties between the Telegraph Avenue commercial corridor and the I-980. C-40 and S-4 apply to properties on the east side of Brook Street and the southeast side of Piedmont Avenue. R-50 (Residential Zoning—Medium Density) applies to properties farther east. Grove Shafter Park is designated as OS (NP) (Open Space Zoning—Neighborhood Park). North of I-580,

1 For purposes of this EIR, and following Oakland convention, Broadway runs north-south, and MacArthur

Boulevard and streets parallel to it run east-west. 2 S-1 is the Special Zoning—Medical Center zoning district.

R-70

OS(CP)C-25

C-28

R-70

OS(NP)

OS(NP)

R-36

R-50C-10

C-40

R-70

C-40*/S-4OS (AMP)

OS (LP)

R-80

R-80

R-80/S-5C-40*/S-4

C-40*/S-5

S-1/S-5

S-1

C-25R-80C-30/S-4

SUMM

IT ST

TELEGRAPH AVE

BR

OA

DW

AY

ELM ST

30TH ST

HAWTHORNE AVE

36TH ST

37TH ST

29TH ST

MCCLURE ST

980

580

Alta Bates Summit Medical Center (ABSMC) Summit Campus Seismic Upgrade and Master Plan EIR . 207376

Figure 4.1-1General Plan Land Use and Zoning Designations

SOURCE: City of Oakland

Urban Residential

Mixed Housing Type Residential

Neighborhood Center Mixed Use

Community Commercial

Institutional

Urban Open Space

R-36

R-50

R-70

R-80

OS(AMP)

OS(CP)

OS(NP)

C-10

C-25

C-28

C-30

C-40

C-40*

S-1

S-4

S-5

small Lot

Medium Density

Residential High Density

Residential High Density Apartment

Active Mini-Park

Open Space Community Park

Neighborhood Park

Local Retail

Office Commercial

Commercial Shopping District

District Thoroughfare

Community Thoroughfare

Community Thoroughfare with Additional Regulations

Medical Center

Design Review

Broadway Retail Frontage Interim

Zoning Boundary

Land Use Designations

Zoning Designations

PROJECTSITE

4.1-2

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, Standard Conditions of Approval, and Mitigation Measures 4.1 Land Use, Plans and Policies


the C-28 (Commercial Zoning—Shopping District) applies to properties along Telegraph Avenue. R-70 applies to residential properties between Telegraph Avenue and Webster Street, and the OS (CP) (Open Space Zoning—Community Park) applies to Mosswood Park. North of I-580 and across Broadway, KX (Special Zoning—Kaiser Permanente) applies to the Kaiser Medical Center.

4.1.2 Environmental Setting

Site Vicinity Land Uses The project site is located between two major transportation and commercial corridors: Broadway and Telegraph Avenue. In addition, the project site is near the I-580/I-980/SR 24 interchange. An I-580 eastbound exit ramp intersects with Webster Street and 34th Street, as well as with Broadway southbound. East of the project site, MacArthur Boulevard leads to I-580 eastbound and westbound, which interchanges with I-980 and SR 24. In addition, south of the project site, 27th Street leads to I-980 northbound and SR 24. The project vicinity (generally one-half mile around the project site) contains a mix of commercial, institutional, educational, urban residential, and parking uses.

The Telegraph Avenue and Broadway corridors provide access to a variety of commercial activities and urban residential neighborhoods that have a mix of housing types and densities. Access to and from the MacArthur BART Station of the Pittsburgh/Bay Point and Richmond Lines is approximately one-half mile north at Telegraph Avenue and 40th Street. ABSMC provides a free shuttle service to and from the station.

East of the Project Site Broadway, one of the main north-south routes through Oakland, is 200 feet east of the project site. Along Broadway, between Grand Avenue and 42nd Street, is Oakland’s Broadway Auto Row, a two-mile stretch of used and new car dealer facilities. This area includes large showrooms, surface parking lots for the auto dealerships, and repair shops. It is interspersed with other uses, including a grocery store, small offices, and restaurants. Farther east are a mix of apartment and detached residential properties.

South of the Project Site Immediately south of the project site is an area of mixed uses, including residential, commercial, and light manufacturing, including portions of Auto Row. At 2619 Broadway is the First Presbyterian Church of Oakland, a neo-Gothic cathedral and landmark in the neighborhood. Farther south, across 27th Street, light industrial uses and surface parking lots are the primary uses. As noted above, downtown Oakland is farther south. Uses in the downtown district include commercial office, movie theaters, galleries, libraries, commercial retail and museums. Outdoor venues and activities include farmers’ markets, performance venues and public art.



West of the Project Site Directly west of the project site is the Telegraph Avenue commercial corridor, occupied by a mix of neighborhood and regional retail uses, small office buildings, institutional uses, and residential uses in both detached buildings and on the upper floors of some mixed-use buildings. Farther west, between Telegraph Avenue and I-980, are a mix of apartment buildings and detached residential buildings. At the interchange of I-580/I-980/SR 24 is Grove Shafter Park.

North of the Project Site One block north of the project site is I-580. Across I-580 is the Telegraph Avenue commercial corridor to the northwest, detached residential houses between Telegraph Avenue and Webster Street, and Mosswood Park between Webster Street and Broadway. On the north side of I-580 on both sides of Broadway is Kaiser’s Oakland Medical Center.

Project Site Land Use The project site is located in the “Pill Hill” area of Oakland in Alameda County. As shown in Figure 3-2 in Chapter 3, the ABSMC project site is generally bounded by 30th Street to the south, Webster Street to the east, 34th Street to the north and Telegraph Avenue and Elm Street to the west. Land uses on the existing property consist primarily of institutional medical offices, patient care, educational uses, surface and structured parking, and dormitory space (currently vacant) in several multi-story buildings. Medical uses include the hospital, support staff spaces, doctors’ offices, and emergency care centers. The Summit Campus comprises three major complexes: the Peralta Pavilion, the Providence Pavilion, and the Merritt Pavilion. The Peralta Pavilion, on 30th Street between Summit Street and Telegraph Avenue, houses outpatient services and the Samuel Merritt University. Associated with the Peralta Pavilion is the Peralta Medical Office Building, a 53,000 square-foot building on the east side of Telegraph Avenue. The Providence Pavilion, between 30th Street, Summit Street, Webster Street, and Hawthorne Avenue, houses portions of the hospital care facilities and medical offices. Associated with the Providence Pavilion is the Providence Medical Office Building, with 133,000 square-feet of administrative and medical offices. The Merritt Pavilion, between Hawthorne Avenue, Webster Street, and 34th Avenue, includes emergency care facilities and patient care facilities, totaling more than 545,000 square feet. A large, two-level concrete and landscaped courtyard is located behind (to the east) of the existing Samuel Merritt University building, on the eastern portion of the project area. Landscaped walkways and sitting areas are located throughout the ABSMC Summit Campus.

In addition to these major complexes, smaller buildings on site house a variety of uses. Approximately 10,000 square feet of administrative offices are located in two buildings on Elm Street. The Samuel Merritt University Health Education Center includes more than 45,000 square feet of educational space. There are currently 2,189 off-street parking spaces on the entire campus, with an additional 540 on-street spaces throughout. The West Parking Garage, just to the south of the project site across 30th Street, includes 477 spaces. A complete list of existing buildings, square footages, and current uses is provided in Table 3-1, in Chapter 3, Project Description.



4.1.3 Regulatory Setting

City Plans, Policies, and Regulations Presented below are applicable plans and major policies and regulations that pertain to the proposed project, followed by a discussion of the project’s overall consistency (or inconsistency) with each plan. Several land use plans, policies, and regulations apply to the project site. Consistent with CEQA, not every Oakland General Plan policy that could apply to the project is included here. The policies listed below are those that most directly pertain to the project and that emerged as points of interest or controversy during the environmental review and community input processes.

City of Oakland General Plan Conflicts with a General Plan do not inherently result in a significant effect on the environment within the context of CEQA. As stated in Section 15358(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, “[e]ffects analyzed under CEQA must be related to a physical change.” Section 15125(d) of the Guidelines states that EIRs shall discuss any inconsistencies between the proposed project and applicable General Plans.

Further, Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines (Environmental Checklist Form) makes explicit the focus on environmental policies and plans, asking if the project would “conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation . . . adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect” (emphasis added). Even a response in the affirmative, however, does not necessarily indicate the project would have a significant effect, unless a physical change would occur. To the extent that physical impacts may result from such conflicts, such physical impacts are analyzed elsewhere in this document.

Regarding a project’s consistency with the General Plan in the context of CEQA, the Oakland General Plan states the following:

The General Plan contains many policies which may in some cases address different goals, policies and objectives and thus some policies may compete with each other. The Planning Commission and City Council, in deciding whether to approve a proposed project, must decide whether, on balance, the project is consistent (i.e., in general harmony) with the General Plan. The fact that a specific project does not meet all General Plan goals, policies and objectives does not inherently result in a significant effect on the environment within the context of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). (City Council Resolution No. 79312 C.M.S.; adopted June 2005)

Land Use and Transportation Element The City adopted the Land Use and Transportation Element (LUTE) of the General Plan on March 24, 1998. The LUTE identifies policies for utilizing Oakland’s land as change takes place and sets forth an action program to implement the land use policy through development controls and other strategies. The LUTE shows the project site within the Institutional classification. The intent and desired character of this classification are described below.

• Institutional: The intent of the Institutional classification is “to create, maintain, and enhance areas appropriate for educational facilities, cultural and institutional uses, health



services and medical uses as well as other uses of similar character.” The desired character and uses include “educational and cultural facilities, institutions, health services, and medical facilities. Under certain conditions, mixed use housing and commercial development that supports these institutional areas may be allowed.” The maximum floor-area ratio (FAR)3 is 8.0, and different and development standards to address edge conditions near residential areas and the need for expansion space may be addressed by zoning.

LUTE objectives and policies that apply to the project are listed and discussed below:4

• High-quality design and upkeep/maintenance of institutions should be encouraged. Ensure that facilities are designed and operated in a manner that is sensitive to surrounding residential and other uses. (Policy N2.1, Designing and Maintaining Institutions)

• Provision of government and institutional services should be distributed and coordinated to meet the needs of City residents. (Policy N2.2, Providing Distributed Services)

• The City should support many uses occurring in institutional facilities where they are compatible with surrounding activities and where the facility site adequately supports the proposed uses. (Policy N2.3, Supporting Institutional Facilities)

• New large-scale community, government, and institutional uses should be located outside of areas that are predominantly residential. Preferably, they should be located along major thoroughfares with easy access to freeways and public transit or in the Downtown. (Policy N2.4, Locating Services Along Major Streets)

• When reviewing land use permit applications for the establishment or expansion of institutional uses, the decision-making body should take into account the institution’s overall benefit to the entire Oakland community, as well as its effects upon the immediately. (Policy N2.5, Balancing City and Local Benefits of Institutions)

• Site design, architecture and operating practices of community facilities should be compatible with the area’s desired character, and should include public art where possible. (Policy N2.7, Designing Community Facilities)

• Institutions designated with the Institutional land use classification should be required to present Long Range Operation and Development Plans to the City Planning Commission. While these plans could be binding or non-binding, they should present realistic information regarding the continued operation and/or expansion of the facilities. The City suggests that substantial public input be built into the process of developing the plans. The plans could be required as a part of development applications, or on a periodic basis. (Policy N2.8 Long Range Development Planning)

• Existing businesses and jobs within Oakland which are consistent with the long-range acceptance of this Plan should, whenever possible, be retained. (Policy I/C1.2, Retaining Existing Buildings)

• Adequate cultural, social and support amenities designed to serve the needs of workers in Oakland should be provided within close proximity of employment centers. (Policy I/C1.8 Providing Support Amenities Near Employment Centers)

3 Floor-area ratio (FAR) is gross floor area of a building divided by total site area, excluding parking. 4 The LUTE includes objectives and policies that pertain to five policy areas: Industry and Commerce (I/C),

Transportation and Transit-Oriented Development (T), Downtown (D), Waterfront (W), and Neighborhoods (N). The alpha designators indicate the appropriate LUTE objectives and policies.



• The City will require new development, rebuilding, or retrofit to incorporate design features in their projects that encourage use of alternative modes of transportation such as transit, bicycling, and walking. (Policy T4.1, Incorporating Design Features for Alternative Travel)

• The City should make efforts to improve the visual quality of streetscapes. Design of the streetscape, particularly in neighborhoods and commercial centers, should be pedestrian oriented, including lighting, directional signs, trees, benches, and other support facilities. (Policy T6.2, Improving Streetscapes)

Project Consistency with LUTE Policies. The project would be consistent with the various LUTE policies that support the continued existence and expansion of the ABSMC Summit Campus and seek to promote the City’s overarching LUTE policies.

Phase 1 of the project includes demolition of the 69,674-square-foot Bechtel Hall, the associated two-level courtyard, and Town Court Classrooms along Hawthorne Avenue. A new 11-story, 230,000-square-foot Patient Care Pavilion would be constructed in its place. In addition, the 232 parking spaces of the Peralta Pavilion parking lot (accessible from Telegraph Avenue and Hawthorne Avenue) would be removed and a new, seven-story, approximately 392,000-square-foot parking garage (1,067 spaces) would be constructed in its place. Phase 1 would enhance the current ABSMC properties with approximately 230,000 square feet of new and well-designed patient care facilities, 814 net new parking spaces, as well as enhanced open space. The new patient care facilities would also bring the hospital into compliance with the seismic safety requirements of Senate Bill 1953. This bill requires all hospitals in California to rebuild, retrofit, or close by 2013, all general acute-care inpatient buildings at risk of collapsing during a strong earthquake, and to have the ability to be fully operational following a major earthquake by 2030 (see State Policies and Legislation, below).

Future phase(s) of the project would demolish 17,382 square feet of existing administrative buildings, remove 109 off-street parking spaces, and construct a new 175,000-square-foot medical office building, which includes approximately 10,000 square feet of retail space, a 72,500-square-foot classroom building, and a 32,000-square-foot fitness center.

The upgrading, replacement, and on-site expansion of the ABSMC facilities would improve the visual quality and safety of the campus. They would allow for expansion of services to City residents and workers by intensifying uses on the existing site instead of expanding off-site. These uses would therefore remain compatible with surrounding uses. The proposed project is therefore consistent with LUTE policies regarding location, retention, and support of institutional uses.

Historic Preservation Element (HPE) The City adopted the Historic Preservation Element (HPE) on March 8, 1994, and amended it on July 21, 1998. The Preservation Element provides a strategy for preserving historically significant resources throughout the city. HPE objectives and policies that apply to the project are listed and discussed below:



• Avoid or Minimize Adverse Historic Preservation Impacts Related to Discretionary City Actions. The City will make all reasonable efforts to avoid or minimize adverse effects on the Character-Defining Elements of existing or Potential Designated Historic Properties, which could result from private or public projects requiring discretionary City actions. (HPE Policy 3.1)

• Historic Preservation and Discretionary Permit Approvals. For additions or alterations to Heritage Properties or Potential Designated Historic Properties requiring discretionary City permits, the City will make a finding that: (1) the design matches or is compatible with, but not necessarily identical, to the property’s existing or historical design; or (2) the proposed design comprehensively modifies and is at least equal in quality to the existing design and is compatible with the character of the neighborhood; or (3) the existing design is undistinguished and does not warrant retention and the proposed design is compatible with the character of the neighborhood.

• For any project involving complete demolition of Heritage Properties or Potential Designated Historic Properties requiring discretionary City permits, the City will make a finding that: (1) the design quality of the proposed project is at least equal to that of the original structure and is compatible with the character of the neighborhood; or (2) the public benefits of the proposed project outweigh the benefit of retaining the original structure; or (3) the existing design is undistinguished and does not warrant retention and the proposed design is compatible with the character of the neighborhood. (HPE Policy 3.5)

• Property Relocation Rather than Demolition. As a condition of approval for all discretionary projects involving demolition of existing or Potential Designated Historic Properties, the City will normally require that reasonable efforts be made to relocate the properties to an acceptable site. (HPE Policy 3.7)

Project Consistency with HPE Policies. The above policies from the Historic Preservation Element generally encourage, but do not mandate, the preservation of Oakland’s historic resources, within the context of and consistent with other General Plan goals, objectives, and policies. So, for example, the admonition in HPE Historic Preservation Goal 2 against “the unnecessary destruction” of historic buildings and HPE Policy 3.1’s direction to employ “all reasonable efforts to avoid or minimize adverse effects” on historic resources are reviewed against the proposed project’s provision of new medical, medical office, education, and parking space in the Pill Hill area of Oakland. Further discussion of the determination of consistency is presented in Section 4.7, Cultural Resources.

Open Space, Conservation and Recreation Element (OSCAR) The City adopted the Open Space, Conservation and Recreation Element (OSCAR) on June 11, 1996. The OSCAR addresses the management of open land, natural resources, and parks in Oakland. Many of the policies directly relate to significance criteria, and where applicable, the project’s consistency with those policies are summarized here and referenced to the appropriate impact analysis section in this EIR. OSCAR policies that apply to the project are listed and discussed below5:

5 The OSCAR policies that pertain to the project address Open Space (OS) and Conservation (C), and are indicated

by these alpha designators.



• Where there is broad community and local support and where legally permissible, allow local street closures as a way of creating new parks, plazas, and garden sites in urban neighborhoods. (Policy OS-2.6)

• Retain open space at Oakland’s universities, colleges, and other institutions where such open space provides recreational, aesthetic, conservation, or historic benefits to the community… Such areas should not be converted to development unless they are replaced in kind with comparable areas or facilities in the immediate vicinity.

• Protect the character of existing scenic views in Oakland, paying particular attention to (a) views of the Oakland Hills from the flatlands; (b) views of downtown and Lake Merritt; (c) views of the shoreline; and (d) panoramic views from Skyline Boulevard. (Policy OS-10.1)

• New development should minimize adverse visual impacts and take advantage of opportunities for new vistas and scenic enhancement. (Policy OS-10.2)

• Discourage the removal of large trees on already developed sites unless removal is required for biological, public safety, or public works reasons. (Policy CO-7.4, Tree Removal)

• Regulate new development in a manner that protects soil from degradation and misuse or other activities, which significantly reduce its ability to support plant and animal life. Design all construction activities to ensure that soil is well secured so that unnecessary erosion, siltation of streams, and sedimentation of water bodies does not occur. (Policy CO-1.1, Soil Loss in New Development)

• Minimize hazards associated with soil contamination through the appropriate storage and disposal of toxic substances, monitoring of dredging activities, and clean up of contaminated soils. In this regard, require soil testing for development of any site (or dedication of any parkland or community garden) where contamination is suspected due to prior activities on the site. (Policy CO-1.2, Soil Contamination Hazards)

• Emphasize water conservation and recycling strategies in efforts to meet future demand. (Policy CO-4.1, Water Conservation)

• Require use of drought-tolerant plants to the greatest extent possible and encourage the use of irrigation systems, which minimize water consumption. (Policy CO-4.2, Drought-Tolerant Landscapting)

• Encourage regional development patterns, which make environmentally sound use of water resources. (Policy CO-4.4, Reclaimed Wastewater Requirements)

• Encourage groundwater recharge by protecting large open space areas, maintaining setbacks along creeks and other recharge features, limiting impervious surface where appropriate, and retaining natural drainage patterns within newly developing areas. (Policy CO-5.1, Protection of Groundwater Recharge)

• Employ a broad range of strategies, compatible with the ACCWP, to: (a) reduce water pollution associated with stormwater runoff; (b) reduce water pollution associated with hazardous spills, runoff from hazardous material areas, improper disposal of household hazardous wastes, illicit dumping, and marina “live-aboards”; and (c) improve water quality in Lake Merritt to enhance the lake’s aesthetic, recreational, and ecological functions. Actions are pretreatment of runoff, storm drain maintenance, litter and debris removal,



street sweeping improvements, mitigation of road construction and dredging impacts, hazardous spills prevention, cleanup of estuary hot spots, litter law enforcement, public education of urban runoff hazards, Lake Merritt catch basins and trash receptacles, improved sewage collection and treatment, and intergovernmental coordination. (Policy CO-5.3, Control of Urban Runoff)

• Protect rare, endangered, and threatened species by conserving and enhancing their habitat and requiring mitigation of potential adverse impacts when development occurs within habitat areas. (Policy CO-9.1, Habitat Protection)

• Promote land use patterns and densities which help improve regional air quality conditions by: a) minimizing dependence on single passenger autos; (b) promoting projects which minimize quick auto starts and stops, such as live-work development, and office development with ground-floor retail space; (c) separating land uses which are sensitive to pollution from the sources of air pollution; and (d) supporting telecommuting, flexible work hours, and behavioral changes which reduce the percentage of people in Oakland who must drive to work on a daily basis. (Policy CO-12.1, Land Use Patterns which Promote Air Quality)

• Require that development projects be designed in a manner that reduces potential adverse air quality impacts. This may include: a) the use of vegetation and landscaping to absorb carbon monoxide and to buffer sensitive receptors; b) the use of low –polluting energy sources and energy conservation measures; c) designs which encourage transit use and facilitate bicycle and pedestrian travel. (Policy CO-12.4, Design of Development to Minimize Air Quality Impacts)

• Require construction, demolition and grading practices which minimize dust emissions. (Policy CO-12.6)

• Encourage the use of energy-efficient construction and building materials. Encourage site plans for new development that maximize energy efficiency (Policy CO-13.3, Construction Methods and Materials).

The project site is not located within or in proximity to an area guided by a Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan. Therefore, the project would not conflict with such plans.

Project Consistency with OSCAR Element Policies. The ABSMC project site is an approximately 20.40-acre developed area, with buildings that accommodate medical, educational, office, and parking uses. As discussed previously, Phase 1 of the proposed project would redevelop a surface parking lot and the site of existing buildings, resulting in the construction of one tower of patient care facilities and one parking garage. This new construction would result in about 230,000 square feet of additional patient care and medical office space, as well as 814 net new parking spaces. These new uses would not displace existing open space. This phase would be consistent with the OSCAR policies that regarding open space retention, project design, minimization of visual impacts, and construction practices.

Future phase(s) of the project would demolish 17,382 square feet of existing administrative buildings, remove 109 off-street parking spaces, and construct a new 175,000-square-foot medical office building (with approximately 10,000 square feet of retail space), a 72,500-square-foot classroom



building, and a 32,000-square-foot fitness center. In addition, the closure and landscaping of the Summit Street right of way would add 0.8 acres of open space to the site. These new spaces would not displace existing open space. This phase would also be consistent with OSCAR policies.

Housing Element Adopted in June 2004, the Housing Element includes a review and assessment of the City’s performance in implementing the previous Housing Element (adopted in 1992), an assessment of current and future housing needs, an inventory of resources (including sites suitable for development of housing for all economic levels), governmental and non-governmental constraints to meeting those needs, and a statement of the City’s goals, policies and quantified objectives for meeting its housing needs.

The Housing Element contains a number of policies that address the provision of housing throughout the City and that focus on actions that require implementation by the City, including the following policy:

• Continue to use regulatory controls to limit the loss of housing units due to their conversion to non-residential use (Policy 5.5).

Project Consistency with Housing Element Policies. The existing Bechtel Hall building, located at 350 Hawthorne Avenue, contains 80 dormitory rooms (each housing one or two students), although the building has been vacant since the end of the 2008–2009 academic year. As discussed in Chapter 3 of this Draft EIR, the project will be required to obtain a Conditional Use Permit for demolition of Bechtel Hall. Pursuant to the Oakland Planning Code Chapter 17.09.040, these dormitory units are considered rooming units and part of the City’s housing stock. As stated in Section 4.11, Population, Housing, and Employment, the proposed project would displace existing housing, but not in substantial numbers necessitating construction of replacement facilities elsewhere.

Oakland Safety Element The City adopted the Safety Element of the Oakland General Plan in November 2004. The Safety Element includes goals that address the effects that safety hazards can pose to the health and safety of Oakland’s populations, Oakland’s economic welfare, and Oakland’s natural resources. Specific policies and detailed actions are identified to address public safety, geologic hazards, fire hazards, hazardous materials, and flooding hazards. Given the topics that are addressed in the Safety Element, most of its policies generally apply citywide. However, Safety Element policies that apply to the project are listed and discussed below:

• Continue, enhance or develop regulations and programs designed to minimize seismically related structural hazards from new and existing buildings. (Policy GE-3)

• Continue, enhance or implement programs that seek to reduce the risk of structural fires. (Policy FI-2)

• Maintain and enhance the city’s capacity to prepare for, mitigate, respond to, and recover from disasters and emergencies. (Policy PS-1)



• Minimize the potential risk to human and environmental health and safety associated with the past and present use, handling, storage and disposal of hazardous materials. (Policy HM-1)

• Reduce the public’s exposure to toxic air contaminants through appropriate land use and transportation strategies. (Policy HM-2)

• Continue to strengthen city programs that seek to minimize the storm-induced flooding hazards. (Policy FL-2)

Project Consistency with Safety Element Policies. The project would not conflict with any of the above Safety Element policies. The EIR addresses the project’s specific effects regarding subjecting people and property to hazardous conditions (Section 4.9, Hazardous Materials and Hazards; Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality), all of which are less than significant or reduced to less than significant after implementation of mitigation measures or standard conditions of approval. In addition, the project is specifically required as a seismic upgrade to meet the requirements of the Alquist Hospital Facilities Seismic Safety Act of 1983 and Senate Bill 1953 (please see below), which would improve seismic stability and safety of campus buildings.

Noise Element The City adopted Oakland’s Noise Element on June 21, 2005. The Noise Element analyzes and quantifies current and projected noise levels from various sources that contribute to the community noise environment. These noise levels are depicted on noise contour maps that are used to guide land use decisions to reduce noise impacts, especially on sensitive receptors. The Noise Element also includes a land use-noise compatibility matrix that illustrates the degree of acceptability of exposing various sensitive land uses to noise. The Noise Element contains policies and actions that direct the City’s (or other appropriate agencies’) efforts to carry out the noise policies. However, the overall Noise Element policy that applies to the project is the following:

• Ensure the compatibility of existing and, especially, of proposed development projects, not only with neighboring land uses, but also with their surrounding noise environment. (Policy 1)

• Protect the noise environment by controlling the generation of noise by both stationary and mobile noise sources. (Policy 2)

Project Consistency with Noise Element Policies. The project site is generally located in a noise environment along major transportation corridors, including I-580, I-980 and SR 24. As stated in Section 4.5 of this EIR, implementation of Standard Condition NOI-4, Interior Noise, would ensure that interior noise level standards would be met at the proposed hospital site and that impacts would be less than significant. In addition, the noise analysis finds that increased noise resulting from the project (traffic related and operational) would result in a less-than-significant impact. Consistent with the City’s Noise Ordinance and the Oakland Noise Element, standard conditions of approval and project mitigation measures would be implemented to the extent feasible, and that would reduce temporary construction impacts to less than significant levels.



Bicycle Master Plan In December 2007, the City Council adopted the Oakland Bicycle Master Plan Update (BMP). Among other standards, the Bicycle Master Plan contains a series of recommendations, including spaces for short-term and long-term parking for bicycles as well as the design and layout of that parking.

• Develop and improve Oakland’s bikeway network. (BMP Policy 1A, Bikeway Network)

• Promote secure and conveniently located bicycle parking at destinations throughout Oakland. (BMP Policy 1D, Parking and Support Facilities)

Project Consistency with Bicycle Master Plan Policies. The proposed project is consistent with the City of Oakland Bicycle Master Plan in that the proposed project does not preclude the master plan from being implemented. The project does include bicycle parking and changing facilities that encourage bicycle activity. The proposed project would not alter Telegraph Avenue, which is proposed to be a Class II6 bicycle facility. The proposed project would realign the Hawthorne Avenue / Webster Street intersection, which is part of the proposed Class IIIb7 bicycle boulevard for Webster Street. The realignment would improve sight distance, vehicle channelization, and slow vehicle speeds which are consistent with a bicycle boulevard. Mitigation measures previously identified in this environmental study include installations of pavement markings and signs to indicate Webster Street as a Class IIIb bicycle boulevard along the project site frontage.

In addition, the project would incorporate short- and long-term bicycle parking and storage facilities within the project at a level consistent with the City’s Bicycle Ordinance. (See additional information on planned bikeway facilities in the project vicinity in Section 4.3, Transportation, Circulation, and Parking, in this EIR.)

Pedestrian Master Plan In November 2002, the City Council adopted the Pedestrian Master Plan as part of the LUTE. The Pedestrian Master Plan identifies policies and implementation measures for achieving LUTE policies that promote a walkable city. The Plan designates a Pedestrian Route Network throughout Oakland and identifies a “City Route” on Broadway north of MacArthur Boulevard, and a “District Route” on Piedmont Avenue. The following Pedestrian Master Plan policies are most relevant to the project:

• Improve pedestrian crossings in areas of high pedestrian activity where safety is an issue. (PMP Policy 1.1, Crossing Safety)

• Use traffic signals and their associated features to improve pedestrian safety at dangerous intersections. (PMP Policy 1.2, Traffic Signals)

6 Class II Bicycle Lanes – These facilities provide a dedicated area for bicyclists within the paved street width

through the use of striping and appropriate signage. These facilities are typically 5 to 6 feet wide. 7 Class IIIb Bicycle Boulevards – These facilities are found along residential streets with low traffic volumes.

Assignment of right-of-way to the route, traffic calming measures and bicycle traffic signal actuation are used to prioritize through-trips for bicycles.



• Strive to maintain a complete sidewalk network free of broken or missing sidewalks or curb ramps. (PMP Policy 1.3, Sidewalk Safety)

• Create and maintain a pedestrian route network that provides direct connections between activity centers. (PMP Policy 2.1, Route Network)

• Implement pedestrian improvements along major AC Transit lines and at BART stations to strengthen connections to transit. (PMP Policy 2.3, Safe Routes to Transit)

• Encourage the inclusion of street furniture, landscaping, and art in pedestrian improvement projects. (PMP Policy 3.1 Streetscaping)

• Promote land uses and site designs that make walking convenient and enjoyable. (PMP Policy 3.2, Land Use)

Project Consistency with Pedestrian Master Plan Policies. The project would support relevant policies of the Pedestrian Master Plan by providing a safe and inviting environment for pedestrians, and by potentially improving safety near a community facility and institution. The project site represents a significant pedestrian node in the City and, as such, safe and efficient pedestrian access to, from, and within campus should be accommodated. The facilities comprising the project site are dispersed across several blocks in a dense urban setting. As a result, pedestrians traveling between the different buildings and parking facilities must cross roadways. Pedestrian facilities include sidewalks, crosswalks, and pedestrian signals. Sidewalks are provided on all of the existing roadways in the study area, and vary in width from 5 to 10 feet. Signalized intersections in the vicinity of the project site provide striped crosswalks and pedestrian signal heads. Unsignalized intersections in the vicinity of the project site provide striped crosswalks across some approaches.

Scenic Highways Element In September 1974, the City adopted the Scenic Highways Element, which sets a framework for designated and potential scenic highways and routes throughout the City and policies for establishing and preserving such routes. Scenic Highways policies that apply to the project are listed and discussed below:

• All or portions of visually significant trafficways are eligible for future designation as scenic routes and for the protective restrictions that may be appropriate thereto. (General Policies, #2)

• Urban development should be related sensitively to the natural setting. (General Policies, #3)

• High standards for preserving and enhancing natural landforms and vegetation should be established and maintained to regulate all activities related to earthwork and the removal of trees, shrubs, or ground cover. (General Policies, #4)

• Panoramic vistas and interesting views now available to the motorist should not be obliterated by new structures. (Scenic Highways/MacArthur Policy 3)

• New construction within the scenic corridor should demonstrate architectural merit and a harmonious relationship with the surrounding landscape. (Scenic Highways/MacArthur Policy 4)



Project Consistency with Scenic Highways Policies. The project site is not located within a scenic corridor, nor does it obstruct panoramic vistas or interesting views currently available to a motorist. The nearest designated scenic highway is the Oakland segment of I-580, located north of the site. The redevelopment of the property would not obliterate views now available from I-580. Section 4.2, Visual Quality and Shadow, discusses potential impacts to Visual Resources. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the City’s Scenic Highways Element.

Oakland “Transit First” Policy The “Transit First” resolution, passed by the City Council on October 29, 1996, recognizes the importance of striking a balance between economic development opportunities and the mobility needs of those who travel by means other than the private automobile. The policy favors modes that have the potential to provide the greatest mobility for people, rather than vehicles.

Project Consistency with Oakland’s “Transit First” Policy. New employees and visitors of the redeveloped ABSMC property generated by the project would increase the demand for transit service in the area. As discussed in Section 4.3, Traffic and Circulation, the project would at least maintain, but strive to enhance, existing pedestrian and bicycle access facilities such as the closure and landscaping of Summit Street, widening of sidewalks, and access to BART and public transit. The existing project site sustains a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program, including a BART Shuttle, discounted fare passes, and a carpooling program. The proposed project would build upon this TDM program to encourage more employees and visitors to shift from driving alone to other modes of travel. Potential measures include transit ticket subsidies, awareness programs, direct transit sales, providing a guaranteed ride home program, and parking management strategies.

Oakland Sustainable Development Initiative Adopted by the City Council in 1998, Oakland’s Sustainable Development Initiative seeks to enhance the environmental sustainability of City operations and private development within the City. The major objectives of the Initiative include the following: economic development; employment training and continuing education; encouragement of in-fill housing, mixed use development, and sustainable (“green”) building; making City operations and services a model of sustainable practices; and increasing community involvement. The Sustainable Development Initiative provides voluntary guidelines intended to preserve environmental health and increase economic development.

Project Consistency with Oakland Sustainable Development Initiative. As discussed above, the proposed project would provide in-fill institutional development, provide pedestrian links within ABSMC Summit Campus, and continue shuttle service to provide access to the MacArthur BART Station. The project applicant will implement many of the sustainability strategies in the design and construction of the Patient Care Pavilion outlined in the Green Guide for Health Care. The proposed project would therefore support the Oakland Sustainable Development Initiative. (See detailed discussion of the Initiative in Section 4.4, Air Quality, within the discussion of greenhouse gas emissions and climate change.)



Broadway/MacArthur/San Pablo Redevelopment Plan The Broadway / MacArthur / San Pablo Project Area comprises 676 acres in two areas in north Oakland. The Broadway / MacArthur sub-area incorporates Broadway Auto Row and Telegraph Avenue between 27th and 42nd Streets. The San Pablo sub-area incorporates the portion of San Pablo Avenue from 53rd to 67th Street.

The Redevelopment Plan was adopted on July 25, 2000. The objectives of the plan are to use tax-increment financing to stimulate in-fill development and land assembly of underutilized parcels; stimulate adaptive re-use and preservation of building stock; attract new businesses and retain existing businesses; improve transportation and public infrastructure; stimulate home ownership; and revitalize commercial areas. The 2004–2009 implementation plan currently comprises façade improvements, tenant improvements, streetscape improvements, neighborhood project initiatives, and public-private development projects.

Project Consistency with the Broadway / MacArthur / San Pablo Redevelopment Plan. The ABSMC Summit Campus is located inside the Broadway / MacArthur sub-area of the Redevelopment Plan. The plan’s goals include the following: to provide in-fill development, to improve transportation and public facilities, and to attract and retain employment. The proposed project, with its new development of existing surface lots, as well as expansion of office and medical space, would further these goals.

Broadway / Valdez District Specific Plan The City is currently preparing a specific plan for Broadway’s Auto Row, extending from Grant Avenue in the south to I-580 in the north, and including the arterials of 27th and Valdez Streets (approximately .8 miles in length). The Broadway corridor area currently features a large number of multi-acre surface parking lots used as auto sales lots. These properties represent significant, transformative redevelopment opportunities. If the key opportunity sites on Broadway were developed as mixed-use comparison retail and housing, the total development the area could support includes approximately 1,700 housing units and 1 million square feet of retail space. The Specific Plan will be drafted through 2009 and 2010.

Project Consistency with Broadway/Valdez District Specific Plan. The Summit Campus project site is located outside, but directly west of, Broadway’s Auto Row. The Broadway/Valdez District Specific Plan would not conflict with the existing or proposed uses within the hospital campus. In addition, the City will consider the adjacency to the ABSMC project site when crafting the Specific Plan. Housing that could be developed along the Broadway corridor could be occupied by workers at the Summit Campus and students at Samuel Merritt University, and the conversion of several large auto lots into retail spaces could provide retail services for the Summit Campus and the rest of the Pill Hill area. The proposed project would therefore benefit from the Broadway/Valdez District Specific Plan. There is no conflict between the two.



General Plan Land Use Designation and Zoning Regulations The project site proposed for development is within the General Plan Institutional Land Use Designation and the S-1 Medical Center Zone.

The Institutional Land Use Designation is intended to “create, maintain, and enhance areas appropriate for educational facilities, cultural and institutional uses, health services and medical uses as well as other uses of similar character (City of Oakland, 1998). Permitted uses within this designation include educational and cultural facilities, institutions, health services, and medical facilities. The proposed project’s medical, medical office, and educational uses would be consistent with this designation.

The S-1 Zoning District is intended to create, preserve, and enhance areas devoted primarily to medical facilities and auxiliary uses, and is typically appropriate to compact areas around large hospitals (City of Oakland, 2008). Specific controls of the S-1 District are as follows below.

Design Review As required in Code Chapter 17.74.020, no Local Register Property, Building Facility, Mixed Use Development, Telecommunications Facility, Sign, or other associated structure can be built or altered in exterior appearance unless the plans have been subject to design review, pursuant to Chapter 17.136, and when applicable, Sign regulations in Chapter 17.104. The proposed project would be subject to non-residential design review criteria, and would therefore be consistent with this provision. For further discussion of design review, please see Impact VIS-2 in Chapter 4.2 of this EIR.

Activities In S-1 Districts, permitted residential activities are permanent, residential care in a one-family dwelling, and semi-transient activities. Permitted civic activities are essential services, limited child-care, community assembly and education, non-assembly cultural, health care and telecommunications activities. Medical services are the only principally permitted commercial activities (Code Chapter 17.74.030). The medical services, education, and health care activities of the proposed project are therefore, permitted activities in the S-1 District.

Facilities In S-1 Districts, one-family, two-family, and multifamily dwellings, as well as rooming houses, are permitted residential facilities. Enclosed non-residential facilities are also permitted. Residential, special, development, realty, civic, and business signs are permitted, and specific micro telecommunications facilities are permitted (Code Chapter 17.74.030). The enclosed non-residential facilities of the project are therefore, permitted in the S-1 District.

Special Regulations As stated in Code Section 17.74.080, special regulations apply to the demolition of a facility containing rooming unit or to the conversion of a living unit to a nonresidential activity, pursuant



to Chapter 17.102.230. As stated there, “the demolition of a facility containing, or intended to contain, rooming units, or the conversion of a living unit from its present or last previous use by a Permanent Residential Activity, a Semi-Transient Residential Activity, or a Transient Habitation Commercial Activity to its use by a nonresidential activity other than Transient Habitation Commercial is only permitted in a nonresidential zone upon the granting of a conditional use permit pursuant to the conditional use permit procedure in Chapter 17.134. The only exception to this requirement are conversions in the HBX-1, HBX-2 or HBX-3 zones, and units in a One-Family or Two-Family Residential Facility. Such permit may be granted only upon determination that the proposed demolition or con-version conforms to the general use permit criteria set forth in the conditional use permit procedure and to at least one of the following additional use permit criteria:

1. That the facility proposed for demolition or the living unit proposed for conversion is unoccupied and is, or is situated in, a residential building that has been found, determined, and declared to be substandard or unsafe pursuant to Section 15.08.350(B) of the Oakland Housing Code; or

2. That a replacement rental unit, comparable in affordability and type to each unit proposed for demolition or conversion, will be added to the city's housing supply prior to the proposed demolition or conversion taking place; or

3. That the benefits to the city resulting from the proposed demolition or conversion will outweigh the loss of a unit from the city's housing supply; or

4. That the conversion will be an integral part of a rehabilitation project involving both residential and nonresidential activities, and that the rehabilitation project would not be economically feasible unless some nonresidential activity were permitted within it.

The project will be required to obtain a Conditional Use Permit for demolition of Bechtel Hall at 370 Hawthorne Avenue because it currently contains rooming units. The proposed project would therefore be consistent with the Conditional Use Permit Requirement.

Chapter 12.102.230 also requires that tenant assistance be provided to the permanent tenants of buildings proposed for demolition, including advanced noticing, relocation allowance, and tenant referral. As stated in Chapter 17.10.110, permanent residential activities exclude institutional living arrangements like those of 370 Hawthorne Street. Therefore, the proposed project would not be required to grant tenant assistance.

Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Chapters 17.74.080 and 17.102.230 of the Code.

Signs Code Chapter 17.104.030 requires that signs in S-1, S-2, S-3, and S-15 zones be subject to design review prior to construction or an altered exterior appearance. Signs are limited in area to one square foot for each one foot of lot frontage for interior lots, or 0.5 square feet for each foot of lot frontage for corner lots, with a maximum of 200 square feet on any one property. Signs may not exceed the heights of buildings to which they are attached. The proposed project’s signs would



undergo design review to ensure adherence to Code Chapter 17.104.030, and the project would therefore meet this requirement.

Dimensions In S-1 Districts, the maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of any facility shall be 4.0, except that this ratio may be exceeded by ten percent on any corner lot and may also be exceeded by ten percent on any lot which faces or abuts a public park at least as wide as the lot (Code Chapter 17.74.130). There are no maximum height requirements in S-1 zones except in cases where the property is adjacent to a residential zone (Code Chapter 17.74.140). Front and rear yards depths of 10 feet are required, and side yards of 10 feet are required on side streets (Code Chapter 17.74.150). Yard requirements may be waived, however, pursuant to Planned Unit Development regulations (Code Chapter 17.142.100)

FAR As stated in Chapter 17.142.110, when calculating the FAR for Planned Unit Developments like the proposed project (see below), the land area shall be based on the entire land area within the development, excluding publicly dedicated streets, freeways, alleys, and paths.

As shown in Table 4.1-1, the proposed project would result in an FAR of 1.97, which is below the permitted 4.0 FAR of S-1 Districts.

TABLE 4.1-1 FLOOR AREA RATIO—ABSMC SUMMIT CAMPUS

Stage Land Area Built Square

Footage FAR

Existing ABSMC Summit Campus 888,624 1,437,659 1.62

Phase 1 Project 888,624 1,556,039 1.75

Total Buildout 923,472 1,818,157 1.97 SOURCE: ABSMC, 20-Apr-09

The proposed project would seek a waiver of yard requirements, pursuant to Code Chapter 17.142.100. Therefore, the proposed project would meet required FAR, height, and yard requirements of S-1 zones.

Special Regulations for Planned Unit Developments Large integrated developments on two or more tracts which total 60,000 square feet and separated only by a street or other right-of-way in S-1 Districts are subject to the planned unit development (PUD) regulations in Code Chapter 17.142 (17.74.180(b)). In developments approved pursuant to those regulations, certain uses may be permitted in addition to those otherwise allowed in the S-1 zone. PUD regulations encourage the appropriate development of tracts large enough to allow



comprehensive planning, and provide flexibility in certain regulations to promote harmonious variety of uses, shared services and facilities, and compatibility with surrounding areas. Additional activities are permitted subject to approval of the PUD, including commercial activities of general food sales, convenience markets, fast-food restaurants, and convenience sales and services.

The proposed project, which would result in an additional 380,498 square feet of building space, would be required to obtain a PUD Permit. It would therefore comply with this chapter of the Planning Code.

Parking The proposed project would not provide adequate parking capacity as required in Code Section 17.116 (see Draft EIR Section 4.3, Transportation, Circulation and Parking).

As stated in Table 4.3-35, the Planning Code requires the project to provide 298 off-street automobile parking spaces for Phase 1, and an additional 579 spaces (877 total off-street spaces required) at project buildout. Table 4.3-37 shows that Phase 1 of the proposed project would comply with Code requirements by providing 814 net new off-street parking spaces (compared to 298 required). However, future phases of the proposed project would not comply with Code requirements as there would be a loss of 109 off-street spaces (compared to 579 required). At buildout, the proposed project would provide a total of 705 net new off-street spaces, which would be 172 spaces short of the 877 total off-street spaces required. Thus, the project would have a project-specific parking shortfall and therefore not meet the parking requirements in the Planning Code, and a variance would be required.

City of Oakland Standard Conditions of Approval and Uniformly Applied Development Standards Imposed as Standard Conditions of Approval There are no City of Oakland Standard Conditions of Approval specific to land use.

4.1.4 State Policies and Legislation

The Alquist Hospital Facilities Seismic Safety Act of 1983 and Senate Bill 1953 The Alquist Act mandates that all hospitals within the state comply with the regulations developed by the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD). The Alquist Act mandates that essential hospital facilities remain operational after an earthquake and provide full acute care medical services. California State Senate Bill 1953 (SB 1953), adopted in February 1994, amends the Alquist Act to include specific deadlines for compliance. If a facility is to remain a general acute care hospital facility beyond the dates specified in SB 1953, it must have a comprehensive seismic evaluation report and compliance plan to attain specified structural and nonstructural performance categories, which must be on file with OSHPD in accordance with these regulations. SB 1953 mandates that each general acute care hospital facility must be conform to certain seismic performance category levels for structural and non-structural building systems by



specified timeframes to 2030. The Providence Pavilion complies with all standards that will be come applicable under SB 1953. The Merritt Pavilion complies with all currently applicable standards, but the existing South Wing would not meet the standards to continue operations beyond January 1, 2013. The primary purpose of the project is the meet the requirements of SB 1953.

4.1.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Significance Criteria The project would have a significant impact on the environment if it would:

1. Physically divide an established community;

2. Result in a fundamental conflict between adjacent or nearby land uses;

3. 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

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

As previously indicated (under OSCAR Policies), the project is not located in or near an area guided by a Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan.

Approach to Analysis This EIR analysis evaluates the project’s compatibility with applicable plans and policies in order to determine the potential for significant environmental impacts. As discussed in the Setting section of this chapter, the General Plan has determined that the “the fact that a specific project does not meet all General Plan goals, policies, and objectives does not inherently result in a significant effect on the environment within the context of [CEQA]” (City of Oakland, 2005). In addition, the project site and its proposed uses were evaluated in terms of their compatibility with existing land uses adjacent and in proximity to the project site.

Physical Division of an Established Community and Compatibility with Nearby Land Uses

Impact LU-1: The project would redevelop and expand buildings at the ABSMC Summit Campus property between Webster Street, 34th Street, Telegraph Avenue, and 30th Street, but would not result in the physical division of an existing community or conflict with nearby land uses. (Less than Significant)

Phase 1 of the project would demolish the existing Bechtel Hall and rear courtyard, as well as the building at 461 34th Street. It would replace these facilities with an 11-story Patient Care Pavilion hospital tower and two new backup generators, respectively. In addition, Phase 1of the project



would demolish the buildings at 422 Hawthorne Avenue and 435 Hawthorne Avenue. These buildings and the Lower Peralta Parking lot would be replaced by a new parking garage west of the existing Providence Garage on Summit Street. Finally, in Phase 1, two existing buildings on Elm Street would be demolished and a 69-space surface parking lot would be built in their place. The sites where the new facilities would be located are currently occupied with dormitory facilities (vacant), office, patient care, loading, and surface parking uses that would be demolished for this phase of the project.

Future phase(s) of the project would demolish three existing administrative and office buildings on Summit Street and 30th Street, and construct a new five-story medical office building in their place. In place of the surface parking lot on Elm Street constructed in the Phase 1, a four-story classroom building, and a one-story fitness center on top of the parking garage built in Phase 1. The sites where these new facilities would be located are currently occupied by administrative office buildings.

The project site is in proximity to the Broadway Auto Row to the east and south and the Telegraph Avenue commercial corridor to the west. I-580 separates the project site from the residential neighborhood to the north.

Overall, the project would result in taller and larger structures than currently exist on the project site and would expand and intensify existing uses. Future phase(s) would also add institution-serving retail spaces and a fitness center. The new buildings, however, would be both within the existing boundaries of the campus and concentrated along the Summit Street corridor, away from adjacent neighborhoods. The proposed project would therefore respect the existing “edges” of the respective adjacent neighborhoods, and the implementation of the proposed project would not result in their division. Further, the future phase(s) of the project specifically propose closing Summit Street to vehicular traffic, thereby creating a pathway intended partly to facilitate pedestrian access to and through the project site.

Because the project site, Broadway’s Auto Row, and the Telegraph Avenue commercial corridor are in an established community, as are several subareas of smaller neighborhoods within this region of Oakland, no aspect of the proposed project would result in a physical division, physically or perceptually.

Mitigation: None required.

_________________________

Land Use Compatibility / Change in Environment

Impact LU-2: The project would not conflict with applicable land use plans and policies adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. (Less than Significant)



As stated at the beginning of this chapter, applicable plans and major policies and regulations that pertain to the proposed project are presented above, followed by a discussion of the project’s overall consistency (or inconsistency) with each plan. Although several land use plans, policies, and regulations that apply to the project site are listed in this chapter, not every Oakland General Plan policy that could apply to the project is included here.8 The policies listed above are those that most directly pertain to the project. Conflicts between a project and applicable policies do not constitute significant physical environmental impacts in and of themselves. A policy inconsistency is considered a significant adverse environmental impact only when it is related to a policy adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect and it is anticipated that the inconsistency would result in a significant adverse physical impact based on the established significance criteria.

The land uses proposed by the project are consistent with adopted policies and General Plan land use designations. As stated above, the proposed project would be consistent with the existing zoning district (S-1). Actual development would be restricted by the limits, standards, and guidelines (building height, setbacks, etc.) prescribed by the current applicable zoning designation and at the discretion of the City through the discretionary review of the project.

The project site is not located within or in proximity to an area guided by a Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan. Therefore, the project would not conflict with such plans. For further discussion of impacts related to biological resources, including Oakland’s Tree Protection Ordinance, please see Section 4.6, Biological Resources.

As stated above, the proposed project would not conflict with the Kaiser Oakland Medical Center Plan, the Broadway / Valdez Retail Corridor Specific Plan, or the Broadway / MacArthur / San Pablo Redevelopment Plan.


_________________________

Impact LU-3: The project would not result in a fundamental conflict between adjacent and nearby land uses, particularly with respect to any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. (Less than Significant)

The project, primarily the redevelopment and on-site intensification of existing institutional space within the ABSMC property, would be compatible with the surrounding mix of uses in the area. Office/commercial, patient care, retail, and residential activities exist within the ABSMC property boundaries. Office/commercial, retail, residential, and auto care facilities exist along the Broadway and Telegraph Avenue corridors, west, east, and south of the project site. Nearby residential uses include single family and multi-family dwellings to the south, to the north (across I-580), as well as a mix of residential properties west across Telegraph Avenue and east across Broadway. The

8 This is consistent with CEQA requirements.



proposed redevelopment would add to the institutional and patient care services in the area, as well as open space along the Summit Street corridor.

The project would be compatible with and sensitive to existing land uses of the surrounding area, and no environmental impacts in the area of land use, plans and policies are identified. To the extent that the proposed project my result in a physical change to the environment, any resulting potential environmental effects have been identified and fully analyzed in relevant topical sections of Chapter 4 (i.e., Air Quality, Noise, Transportation, Circulation and Parking, etc.).


_________________________

Cumulative Land Use, Plans and Policies Impacts

Cumulative Context The geographic context considered for the cumulative land use, plans and policies impacts includes the surrounding area that, when combined with the proposed project area, could result in cumulative land use, plans and policies impacts. Given the nature of the potential impacts analyzed for this topic, the geographic scope would generally include the Broadway Auto Row and the Telegraph Avenue Commercial Corridor between downtown to the south and MacArthur Boulevard to the north. Projects within this area, and on the City of Oakland’s Active Major Development Projects list, are listed in Table 4-1.

Impact LU-4: The proposed project, combined with cumulative development in the defined geographic area, including past, present, existing, approved, pending, and reasonably foreseeable future development, does not reveal any significant adverse cumulative impacts in the area. (Cumulative Impact: Less than Significant)

Past projects in this area are included in the existing setting described in this section and in the introduction for this chapter. Present projects would include any projects currently under construction within the geographic context area, including the Broadway/MacArthur/San Pablo Redevelopment Plan. Reasonably foreseeable future projects are those that could be developed or occur in the geographic context area by 2030 are described in Table 4-1. They include the Broadway / Valdez District Specific Plan, the Kaiser Hospital Medical Center, and Courthouse Condominiums.

As concluded in this section, the proposed project would not result in any significant impacts resulting from physically dividing an established community or conflicting with any land use plan, policy or regulation adopted for purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The proposed project site is the ABSMC Summit Campus, bound markedly by roadways on each side, as well as I-580 one block to the north. Other development could not combine with the proposed project to result in a cumulative effect on an established community. Similarly, because the proposed project does not result in a conflict with a land use plan, policy or regulation in manner that could result in a significant environmental effect, whether other present or future



development would have such a conflict, the effect would not combined to create cumulative “conflict.”

In addition, past projects have, and present and reasonably foreseeable future projects would be, subject to development guidance contained within the General Plan, Specific Plan and/or the to ensure land use compatibility. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the proposed project, combined with cumulative development in the defined geographic area, including past, present, existing, approved, pending, and reasonably foreseeable future development, would result in a cumulative impact with respect to land use, plans and policies. Thus, the proposed project would not result in a significant cumulative land use, plans and policies impact.


_______________________________

References – Land Use, Plans and Policies California State Senate, Senate Bill 1953, Chaptered 09/22/94, http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/93-

94/bill/sen/sb_1951-2000/sb_1953_bill_940922_chaptered, accessed March 13, 2009, published 1994.

City of Oakland, Bicycle Master Plan. Part of the Land Use and Transportation Element of the Oakland General Plan, adopted December 2007.

City of Oakland, Redevelopment Plan for the Broadway / MacArthur / San Pablo Redevelopment Project, adopted July 25, 2000, amended March 6, 2007.

City of Oakland, Broadway / MacArthur / San Pablo Redevelopment Project: Five-Year Implementation Plan 2004 – 2009. http://www.business2oakland.com/main/documents/Broadway_MacArthur2004implementationplan.pdf. accessed September 8, 2009.

City of Oakland, CEQA Thresholds / Criteria of Significance Guidelines, http://www.oaklandnet.com/government/ceda/revised/AttachH.pdf, published July 15, 2008.

City of Oakland, City of Oakland Planning Code. CEDA: Planning and Zoning. http://www.municode.com/resources/gateway.asp?pid=16490&sid=5, accessed September 8, 2009.

City of Oakland, Envision Oakland, City of Oakland General Plan, Land Use and Transportation (LUTE) Element, as amended through March 24, 1998.

City of Oakland, Historic Preservation: An Element of the Oakland General Plan, adopted March 8, 1994, as amended July 21, 1998.

City of Oakland, Interactive Zoning and General Plan Map. http://gismaps.oaklandnet.com/cedap/?Accept=Accept, accessed March 11, 2009 (2009).

City of Oakland, Noise Element of the Oakland General Plan, adopted June 2005.



City of Oakland, Open Space, Conservation and Recreation (OSCAR), An Element of the Oakland General Plan, adopted June 1996.

City of Oakland, Pedestrian Master Plan, Part of the Land Use and Transportation Element of the City of Oakland’s General Plan. November 12, 2002.

City of Oakland, Protect Oakland, City of Oakland General Plan, Safety Element, Adopted November 2004.

City of Oakland, Scenic Highways, An Element of the Oakland Comprehensive (General) Plan adopted September 1974.

City of Oakland, General Plan and Zoning Map. CEDA. http://www.oaklandnet.com/government/ceda/revised/planningzoning/zoningsection/General%20Plan%20and%20Zoning%20Map_20081210_Addendum20090320.pdf, accessed May 2009. Published December 10, 2008.

City of Oakland, Oakland Sustainable Development Initiative. CEDA: Planning and Zoning. http://www.oaklandnet.com/government/CEDA/revised/planningzoning/Sustainability/default.html, accessed March 13, 2009, published 2009.

4.1 land use, plans and policies - city of oakland€¦ · 4.1 land use, plans and policies ... the...

Documents