View Attachment A — Oakland City Council, July 30, 2024 (part 2 of 2)

2. Noise Regulations
Allowable noise levels are defined in City of Oakland Planning Code Section 17.120.050 - Noise, which states as follows:
"All activities shall be so operated that the noise level inherently and regularly generated by these activities across real property lines shall not exceed the applicable values indicated in Subsection A., B., or C. as modified where applicable by the adjustments indicated in Subsection D. or E.

A. Residential Noise Standards ... (N/A)
B. Commercial Noise Level Standards. The maximum allowable noise levels received by any land use activity within any Commercial Zone area ... are described in Table 17.120.02
Table 17.120.02

MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE RECEIVING NOISE LEVEL STANDARDS
Cumulative Minutes in Either
the Daytime or Nighttime Anytime
One Hour Time Period
` 20 65
10 70
5 75
1 80
0 85
C. Industrial Noise Standards ... (N/A)
D. In the event that the measured ambient noise level exceeds the applicable noise level standard in any category above, the stated applicable noise level shall be adjusted so as to equal the ambient noise level.

E. Each of the noise level standards specified above in Subsections A., B., and C. shall be reduced by (5) five dBA for a simple tone noise such as a whine, screech, or hum, noise consisting primarily of speech or music, or for recurring impulsive noise such as hammering or riveting.

F. Noise Measurement Procedures. Utilizing the "A" weighting scale of the sound level meter and "slow" meter response (use fast meter response for impulsive type sounds), the noise level shall be measured at a position or positions at any point on the receiver's property. In general, the microphone shall be located four (4) to five (5) feet above the ground; ten (10) feet or more from the nearest reflective surface, where possible. However, in those cases where another elevation is deemed appropriate, the latter shall be utilized."
(Subsection D implies that ambient noise level measurement is a necessary element of the assessment. Subsection E is assumed to be applicable since the noise is primarily speech.) 5315 College

Page 3 ends

3. Sound Level Measurement Method
Sound level data was obtained using SPL Graph acoustic analysis software by Studio Six Digital installed in smartphones. Data was sampled at one-second intervals to approximate "Slow" sound level meter response; the system used "A-weighted" frequency response.

Instruments were calibrated prior to use with a source traceable to national standards.

The SPL Graph system provides a time-stamped list of the individual data values. These were sorted after acquisition to find the statistical percentile values corresponding to Ln criteria used in the Planning Code. The convention in the following analysis is to use the average noise level L20 as a single descriptor for use in discussion.

One system logged sound levels continuously at a fixed station and saved the data at the end of each one-hour record. This system used a micW type I436 measurement microphone.

Short-term measurements were made at various other locations around the site using a similar analysis system and the smartphone internal mic. This roving system logged sound levels at one-second intervals and saved the data at the end of each record of length three to ﬁve minutes.

4. Site Noise Survey
Figure 2 shows measurement stations used for the site ambient noise survey. Fixed Stations A and B recorded long-term trends of traffic noise from College Avenue on different days.

Station A is the nominal location of the proposed play yard. Roving Stations 1 through 7 were used during one session for coincident short-term data to map traffic noise spatial pattern by using the correlations between roving stations and the fixed station.

Figure 2 - Site Noise Survey Stations
4123567BA
5315 College

Page 4 ends

The dominant noise source near the project, especially at the front of the building, is vehicle traffic on College Avenue immediately to the east of the site. Noise level is slightly lower at the rear of the project lot due to distance and partial screening by adjacent buildings. Traffic noise level is significantly lower at Station 3 due to near-complete screening by the project building.

This noise is highly variable in both loudness and character, depending on vehicle mix, speed and separation. The traffic flow is intermittent, as influenced by the timing of nearby traffic lights at the intersections with Broadway and Manila.

A secondary source of ambient noise, especially at the rear of the lot, is traffic on Interstate Route 24, an elevated eight-lane freeway with median rail line about 2000 feet to the Northwest of the site. This noise is essentially steady and broadband with only occasional discrete anomalous events; it is audible during lulls in the dominant College Avenue traffic, and it constitutes the residual sound level or noise floor in the project vicinity.

5. Site Survey Results
The first survey session consisted of continuous recording at Station A from 2 p.m. November 30 through 4 p.m. December 1. The microphone was on a mast outside a window at a distance of three feet from the building and eight feet above the ground.

Figure 3 is a typical hourly survey record; Figure 4 is a 5-minute detail of the full hour.

The detail shows a series of peaks as vehicles pass by, at a rate of about ten per minute; larger peaks are trucks or buses. The residual noise level is about 52 dB.

Figure 3 - Typical Hourly Survey Record
Figure 4 - Hourly Record Detail

5315 College

Page 5 ends

Table 1 lists values of Ln metrics found in analysis of data from five survey sessions at Stations A and B. The table also lists the overall averages of L20 - L0 values.

Table 1a - Site Noise Survey Station A
Date Time Station L20 L10 L05 L01 L0
11/30 2 - 7 p.m. A 55 56 57 60 70
12/01 7 - 11 a.m. A 54 56 58 62 78
12/01 12 - 4 p.m. A 53 55 56 60 71
Average 54 56 57 61 73
A second survey session consisted of continuous recording at Station B on December 8.

The microphone was positioned on a mast outside a window at a distance of two feet from the building and twelve feet above the ground. Portions of the data from 10:00 a.m. to Noon on 12/08 were omitted due to interference from another non-traffic noise source, such as nearby construction activity.

Table 1b - Site Noise Survey Station B
Date Time Station L20 L10 L05 L01 L0
12/08 8 - 10 a.m. B 55 58 60 68 73
12/08 12 - 5 p.m. B 54 56 57 62 80
Average 54 57 58 61 77
The value L20 = 54 dB is used as the basis for reference in the following discussions.

6. Traffic Noise Pattern
A short-term survey was used to assess the variance of traffic noise with respect to location around the property; results are Shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5 - Noise Pattern A roving sound level meter took short-term records at seven locations, with coincident data taken by the
continuous recorder. The roving and base data were
compared to find the difference in sound levels.

Highest sound levels are along the east side of the lot near the dominant source of traffic noise, College
Avenue.

Sound levels along the west side lot line are similar to the base stations except at the middle, where the house
provides significant shielding from the traffic sound path.

The west side of the house is slightly exposed to noise from Route 24, audible only during lulls in local traffic. 535152535454636162
5315 College

Page 6 ends

7. Play Yard Noise Survey
A series of sound level measurements was conducted from November 20 to December 5 at a facility similar to the project as shown in Figure 6. This is located at 1370 Marin Avenue in Albany, at the corner of Santa Fe Avenue. The lot has play yard areas at the side and rear of a two-story house, separated by a low fence.

Location C was used as the base station for continuous data recording and observation of yard activities; it has a direct view of both play yards, at a distance of about 30 feet from the center of each. Other stations along the yard perimeter were used for coincident short-term data to find the variance of play yard noise with location. Stations A and B were used for initial observations but were later dismissed due to excessive traffic noise.

Stations D thru G were used to observe the shielding effect of the school building on sound paths from the side yard to the rear yard.

Figure 6 - Play Yard Noise Survey Stations
Maximum enrollment of the school is 36, with typically 30 - 32 in attendance. The play yards are used for two sessions each day; the younger kids (3's) use the rear yard and the older kids (4's) use the side yard.

The morning session is split into two halves, with 3's in the rear yard from 10:30 to 11:15 and 4's in the side yard from 11:15 to 12:00.

The afternoon session is from 3:15 to 5:00, with the side yard used the entire time and the rear yard used part time.

SIDEYARDABCDEFGREAR YARDSANTA FE AVENUE

MARIN AVENUE
5315 College

Page 7 ends

8. Play Yard Survey Results
Figure 7 shows examples of data from play yard noise surveys.

Figure 7 - Typical Play Yard Noise 11/20/23
`
Table 2 lists values of Ln metrics found in analysis of data from four survey sessions on three days. These represent periods of maximum attendance, activity and noise.

The table also lists the overall averages of values for L20 - L01 and the overall maximum value for L0.

Table 2 - Play Yard Noise Survey Summary
Date Time L20 L10 L05 L01 L0 Kids
11/20 10-11a.m. 68 71 74 79 83 10- 14
11/20 4 - 5 p.m. 65 68 71 74 81 17 - 28
11/28 4 - 5 p.m. 65 69 71 77 82 11 - 27
12/05 4 - 5 p.m. 68 72 75 78 83 15 - 28
Average 67 70 73 77 83
Overall average value of L20 = 67 dB @ 30' is taken as the basis for the following analysis.

5315 College

Page 8 ends

9. Noise Prediction Method
Sound path analysis includes the effects of sound divergence with distance and diffraction around barriers. The sound level Divergence Attenuation term (Ad) between two points located at distances D1 and D2 from a source is calculated using the formula:

Ad = 10 log(D2 / D1), dB
This means that the sound level decreases by about 3 dB if the distance is doubled or increases by 3 dB if the distance is halved.

The barrier attenuation or Insertion Loss (IL) between two points is a function of the Fresnel Number (N), which is the difference (∆) between the length of the direct sound path and the length of the actual sound path around the barrier, compared to the Wavelength (W) of the sound.

N = 2 x ∆ / W
The IL value is determined using the following formula, derived from empirical studies by Maekawa et.al. Practical barrier IL values range from 5 dB to a maximum limit of about 20 dB.

IL = 10 log(3 + 20 N)

10. Noise Prediction Sound Paths
Figure 8 shows locations of sound paths around surrounding structures that act as sound barriers. Point A at the play yard center is 5' above the ground, as are Points B, C and D at the project lot line. Point E is at the third story of Building 5299. Points F, G and H are at the second story of Building 5297. Points I and D are along the only direct sound path from A. Point J is at the second story of Building 5305/5309/5313.

Figure 8 - Sound Path Locations
Barrier Insertion Loss
IL, dB
0 4
8 12
16 20
Fresnel Number
0 1 2 3 4
52995297530553095313AHJGFEIBCD
5315 College

Page 9 ends

11. Noise Prediction - Base Case
Figure 9 shows the barrier geometries used to find the difference ∆ between direct and indirect sound paths. Paths in the horizontal plane go around buildings; paths in the vertical plane go over buildings.

Figure 9 - Sound Path Geometries

BCDEFGH I

26.424.823.153.6A34.826.120.257.6AAAAAAA

35.6 19.850.268.8

20.537.836.592.3
108.123.522.364.6
133.2
120.6

34.8AJ40.796.226.1
AB36.67.925.0
AJ
C

46.618.834.3
A15.918.834.3
AE17.831.133.7

65.733.7AF75.733.8AG99.633.8A133.2 H107.6

91.7 94.9

57.6 53.6

65.8 31.35.497.0

HORIZONTALPLANEVERTICALPLANE
5315 College

Page 10 ends

Table 3 lists the barrier calculations used to predict sound levels using the method of Section 7, based on a source of 67 dB at 30' with wavelength of one foot (i.e., 1000 Hz). Insertion Loss values are limited to a maximum of 20 dB for high Fresnel numbers.

Table 3 - Barrier Calculations
Figure 10 shows the results of Base Case sound path predictions. Sound levels at most receiver locations are from 42 to 46 dB except at H, which has a sound path close to a barrier edge. Locations D and I are on direct sound paths and have sound levels in excess of the limit L20 = 60 dB allowed by the Planning Code.

Figure 10 - Predicted Play Yard Noise, Base Case
BARRIER CALCULATIONS: 67 dB @ 30', 1000 Hz
VERT. PLANEABACADAEAFAGAHAIAJ
DIRECT PATH53.657.635.668.892.3108.1133.2120.696.2
INDIRECT PATH74.381.1 70.194.8110.4133.7 101.6
PATH DIFFERENCE20.723.5 1.32.52.30.5 5.4
FRESNEL NUMBER41.447.0 2.65.04.61.0 10.8
INSERTION LOSS20.020.0 17.420.019.813.6 20.0
DISTANCE ATTEN.2.52.80.73.64.95.66.56.05.1
TOTAL ATTEN.22.522.80.721.024.925.320.16.025.1
SPL 444466464242476142
HORIZ. PLANEABACADAEAFAGAHAIAJ
DIRECT PATH53.657.635.665.891.7108.1133.2120.696.2
INDIRECT PATH69.569.0 82.699.4109.0133.4 99.7
PATH DIFFERENCE15.911.4 16.87.70.90.2 3.5
FRESNEL NUMBER31.822.8 33.615.41.80.4 7.0
INSERTION LOSS20.020.0 20.020.015.910.4 20.0
DISTANCE ATTEN.2.52.80.73.44.95.66.56.05.1
TOTAL ATTEN.22.522.80.723.424.921.516.96.025.1
SPL 444466444246506142
1 614444664642465042
5315 College

Page 11 ends

12. Noise Prediction - Alternate Case
A sound barrier wall could be used to block the direct sound path through the gap between buildings 5303 and 5315. This would be a vertical extension to the security fence between the play yard and the adjacent public access walkway.

Figure 11 - Sound Wall Location
Table 4 lists the results of a study to determine the effect of sound wall height. The direct sound paths to locations D, H and I were analyzed for barrier heights of 8 to 14 feet. The study shows that a height of 8' would reduce sound levels to about 52 dB. Figure 12 shows the results of Alternate Case sound path predictions with 8' barrier hight.

Table 4 - Sound Wall Height Study
Figure 12 - Predicted Play Yard Noise With 8' Barrier

SOUNDWALL
BARRIER CALCULATIONS: 67 dB @ 30', 1000 Hz
VERT. PLANE ABACADAEAFAGAHAIAJ
DIRECT PATH 53.657.635.668.892.3108.1133.2120.696.2
INDIRECT PATH74.381.1 70.194.8110.4133.7 101.6
PATH DIFFERENCE20.723.5 1.32.52.30.5 5.4
FRESNEL NUMBER41.447.0 2.65.04.61.0 10.8
INSERTION LOSS20.020.0 17.420.019.813.6 20.0
DISTANCE ATTEN.2.52.80.73.64.95.66.56.05.1
TOTAL ATTEN.22.522.80.721.024.925.320.16.025.1
SPL 444466464242476142
HORIZ. PLANEABACADAEAFAGAHAIAJ
DIRECT PATH 53.657.635.665.891.7108.1133.2120.696.2
INDIRECT PATH69.569.0 82.699.4109.0133.4 99.7
PATH DIFFERENCE15.911.4 16.87.70.90.2 3.5
FRESNEL NUMBER31.822.8 33.615.41.80.4 7.0
INSERTION LOSS20.020.0 20.020.015.910.4 20.0
DISTANCE ATTEN.2.52.80.73.44.95.66.56.05.1
TOTAL ATTEN.22.522.80.723.424.921.516.96.025.1
SPL 444466444246506142
SOUND WALL CALCULATIONS: 67 dB @ 30', 1000Hz
VERT. PLANEAD-8AD-10AD-12AD-14AH-8AH-10AH-12AH-14AI-8AI-10AI-12AI-14 DIRECT PATH 35.635.635.635.6133.2133.2133.2133.2120.6120.6120.6120.6 INDIRECT PATH36.137.138.540.1133.3133.6134134.9120.8121.2121.7122.4 PATH DIFFERENCE0.51.52.94.50.10.40.81.70.20.61.11.8
FRESNEL NUMBER1.03.05.89.00.20.81.63.40.41.22.23.6
INSERTION LOSS13.618.020.020.08.512.815.418.510.414.316.718.8 DISTANCE ATTEN.0.70.70.70.76.56.56.56.56.06.06.06.0
TOTAL ATTEN.14.418.720.720.714.919.321.925.016.520.422.824.8 SPL 534846465248454251474442
1 52995297530553095313AHJGFEIBC514444534642465242D
5315 College

Page 12 ends

13. Code Compliance Assessment
Commercial Zone noise level standards of Planning Code Section 17.120.050.B, when reduced by 5 dB per the noise characteristic penalty listed in 17.120.050.D, are as follows:

L20 L10 L05 L01 L0
60 65 70 75 80
The ambient sound levels at Stations A and B as summarized in Table 1 do not exceed the values listed above, so the condition of 17.120.050.E does not apply and the above values are the defining allowable limits.

Table 5 lists the LN values at office exterior locations for the alternate case prediction, based on the statistical distribution of the overall average survey result from Table 2. The table shows that the predicted play yard noise of the alternate case is significantly less than the allowable limit in all statistical categories.

Table 5 - Code Compliance Assessment

14. Barrier Construction
Since the barrier insertion loss will be no more than 20 dB, it is not necessary for the wall to be particularly massive, i.e., concrete or masonry. The barrier must be continuous, without any gaps at the bottom or between panel elements.

Recommended barrier design is to use 4 x 4 wood fence framing with a concrete footing to prevent gaps due to damage caused by fence material in contact with damp soil. Each side should have a facing of about one inch thickness. Siding of genuine or faux wood board material should have shiplap or tongue-in-groove edges to prevent gaps between boards; genuine wood should be clear grain and free of knot holes, kiln dried to prevent shrinkage that might cause gaps. Alternate face material for one or both sides is plywood sheathing with cement stucco face.

Recommended barrier height is 8' above the ground elevation at the play yard. The fence top would be 4' above the project porch near the play yard and about 6' above the elevation of the adjacent easement walkway pavement.

SITE BARRIER CALCULATIONS: 67 dB @ 30', 1000 Hz
VERT. PLANE AB AC AD AE AF AG AH AI AJ
DIRECT PATH 53.657.635.668.892.3108.1133.2120.696.2
INDIRECT PATH 74.381.1 70.194.8110.4133.7 101.6
PATH DIFFERENCE20.723.5 1.3 2.5 2.3 0.5 5.4
FRESNEL NUMBER41.447.0 2.6 5.0 4.6 1.0 10.8
INSERTION LOSS 20.020.0 17.420.019.813.6 20.0
DISTANCE ATTEN. 2.5 2.8 0.7 3.6 4.9 5.6 6.5 6.0 5.1
TOTAL ATTEN. 22.522.80.7 21.024.925.320.16.0 25.1
SPL 44 44 66 46 42 42 47 61 42
HORIZ. PLANE AB AC AD AE AF AG AH AI AJ
DIRECT PATH 53.657.635.665.891.7108.1133.2120.696.2
INDIRECT PATH 69.569.0 82.699.4109.0133.4 99.7
PATH DIFFERENCE15.911.4 16.87.7 0.9 0.2 3.5
FRESNEL NUMBER31.822.8 33.615.41.8 0.4 7.0
INSERTION LOSS 20.020.0 20.020.015.910.4 20.0
DISTANCE ATTEN. 2.5 2.8 0.7 3.4 4.9 5.6 6.5 6.0 5.1
TOTAL ATTEN. 22.522.80.7 23.424.921.516.96.0 25.1
SPL 44 44 66 44 42 46 50 61 42
SOUND WALL CALCULATIONS: 67 dB @ 30', 1000Hz
VERT. PLANE AD-8AD-10AD-12AD-14AH-8AH-10AH-12AH-14AI-8AI-10AI-12AI-14 DIRECT PATH 35.635.635.635.6133.2133.2133.2133.2120.6120.6120.6120.6 INDIRECT PATH 36.137.138.540.1133.3133.6134134.9120.8121.2121.7122.4 PATH DIFFERENCE0.5 1.5 2.9 4.5 0.1 0.4 0.8 1.7 0.2 0.6 1.1 1.8 FRESNEL NUMBER1.0 3.0 5.8 9.0 0.2 0.8 1.6 3.4 0.4 1.2 2.2 3.6 INSERTION LOSS 13.618.020.020.08.5 12.815.418.510.414.316.718.8 DISTANCE ATTEN. 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 TOTAL ATTEN. 14.418.720.720.714.919.321.925.016.520.422.824.8 SPL 53 48 46 46 52 48 45 42 51 47 44 42
L20 L10 L05 L01 L0
CODE LIMIT60 65 70 75 80
PROJECT 42 45 48 52 58
44 47 50 54 60
46 49 52 56 62
52 55 58 62 68
1 5315 College

Page 13 ends

15. Conclusions
The site sound level survey did not include stations in the adjacent property parking lot. The following discussion is based on cursory observations made on the initial project walk-around.

Traffic noise level in the parking lot is similar to that at the rear of the project, i.e., a steady residual sound level of about 52 dB due to Route 24 traffic with a variable sound level of 55 dB average and 70 dB maximum due to College Avenue traffic.

The loudest project noise outdoors at stations near office buildings, with the alternate case including the sound barrier, is about 52 dB average and 70 dB maximum at location H. This means that the project noise level is slightly less than the ambient noise level, so the project noise may be audible at times. The project noise will be more audible when a peak in playground activity coincides with a lull in traffic.

The sound level inside offices on the adjacent property will be a function of the sound level outdoors and the noise reduction provided by office windows facing the parking lot.

Building 5305/5309/5313 windows appear to have double-hung wood frames with single glazing; this type of assembly provides about 15 dB of noise reduction, so interior noise level due to traffic is about 40 dB average and 55 dB maximum. The project noise will be about 10 dB less than the traffic noise and therefore inaudible.

Building 5297 windows appear to be double-hung metal frames with single glazing; there are numerous through-the-window air conditioning units, apparently one for each office.

This arrangement provides noise reduction of only about 10 dB due to sound passage thru the air conditioners. Interior noise level at location H due to both traffic and the project will be about 45 dB average and 60 dB maximum; the project noise will be slightly audible some of the time and more audible when a peak in playground activity coincides with a lull in traffic. Interior noise level at location F due to the project will be about 10 dB less than the traffic noise and therefore inaudible.

This Report Prepared by:

Nicholas Krause, P.E.
exp.9-31-20229/30/20239/30/2025
Nicholas Krause, P.E.
2635 Monte Vista Ave.

El Cerrito, CA 94530
(510) 685-9987
[email protected]
EXPERIENCE Four decades of design and engineering work in the construction industry, with a specialty of sound and vibration control
EDUCATION Redwood High School, Larkspur CA - Class of 1967 1967 - 1972 U.C. Berkeley, Mechanical Engineering - BSME 1972 Emphasis on machinery dynamics and acoustics
1974 - 1975 U.C. Berkeley - Mechanical Engineering
Graduate research in vibration, impact and wave propagation REGISTRATION Professional Engineer (Mechanical # 17831) California 1976 - 2025 WORK HISTORY:
1976 - 1977 FMC Associates, San Francisco - Mechanical Engineer Central power plants and distribution systems for government facilities 1978 - 1993 Bechtel Group, San Francisco - Sound and Vibration Engineer Noise standards and practices development for company policies Project noise prediction, planning and management
Environmental noise measurements for compliance verification Noise problem assessment and correction
Structure and piping system vibration assessment surveys Rotating machinery balance and bearing condition assessment Temporary instruments used to identify control dynamics faults Structural integrity test instrument fabrication and installation 1994 - 2000 Krause Engineering Services, San Luis Obispo - Noise Consultant Traffic noise surveys and building design for noise plan compliance Interior noise insulation design and testing for building code compliance Environmental noise impact studies for proposed developments Sound level surveys for community noise impact assessment Sound absorption treatments for room ambience management Mechanical equipment noise and vibration controls
2001 - 2023 Krause Acoustics, El Cerrito - Senior Consultant Noise insulation studies for residential and mixed-use projects Environmental noise surveys and impact assessment
Mechanical equipment noise measurements and mitigations Facility noise surveys and noise abatement programs
Construction noise monitoring for ordinance compliance assessment Sound absorption treatments for room ambience management Engineering studies provided by Krause Acoustics:

Exterior Noise Insulation
Apartment Complexes - Oakland, Pismo Beach, San Leandro, San Luis Obispo, San Mateo Homes - Arroyo Grande, Berkeley, Mountain View, Oakland, San Mateo, San Rafael Hotels and motels - Avila Beach, King City, San Luis Obispo, Shell Beach Mixed use developments - El Cerrito, El Sobrante, Oakland, San Luis Obispo, Santa Maria Residential developments - Atascadero, Oakland, Paso Robles, Shell Beach, Templeton Interior Noise Insulation
Business offices - Avila Beach, Berkeley, San Luis Obispo Dental offices - Berkeley, Templeton
Manufacturing plants - Berkeley, Hayward, Nipomo, Paso Robles, San Luis Obispo Residences and hotels - Berkeley, King City, Larkspur, Oakland, San Francisco Senior care centers - San Luis Obispo, Santa Maria
Community Noise Assessment
Airport area hotel and casino - Las Vegas
Amphitheaters - Kensington, Paso Robles, Santa Maria
Car washes - Buellton, Cambria, El Cerrito
Commercial retail centers - Nipomo, Redding, Yuba City
Construction sites - Avila Beach, Berkeley, Las Vegas, Milpitas, Oakland County landfill expansion - San Luis Obispo
HV AC Equipment - Alameda, Lafayette, Piedmont
Miniature golf / go-cart track - Morro Bay
Restaurants and taverns - Berkeley, Oakland
School playgrounds - Berkeley, Cambria, Oakland, Santa Ynez Sound Absorption Treatments
Community activity rooms - Arroyo Grande, Santa Maria
Churches - Alameda. Santa Maria
Health clubs - Oakland, Piedmont, Pismo Beach, Tiburon.

Music studios - Lucas Valley, Oakland, San Francisco, San Rafael Open plan offices - Berkeley, San Francisco, San Luis Obispo, Restaurants - Avila Beach, Berkeley, Oakland, San Luis Obispo, Shell Beach Schools - Nicasio, Santa Ynez, Tomales
Machinery Noise Reduction
Generator power systems - Berkeley, Nipomo
HV AC systems - Alameda, Arroyo Grande, Berkeley, San Rafael Juice bottling production line - Berkeley
Municipal water wells and pipelines - Atascadero, Berkeley, Nipomo Power plant lube oil system - Avila Beach

5315 College Ave, Oakland, CA 94618-1416, Alameda County

APN:
014-1249-011-03

CLIP:
8912800378

OWNER INFORMATION
Owner Name
Marashi Mahta
Tax Billing Zip
94618
Owner Name 2
Shafiei Mehdi
Tax Billing ZIP + 4 Code
1712
Tax Billing Address
5690 Broadway Ter
Owner Occupied
No
Tax Billing City & State
Oakland, CA

LOCATION INFORMATION
Census Tract
4003.00
Flood Zone Code
X
Mailing Carrier Route
C001
Flood Zone Panel
06001C0059G
Subdivision
Vernon Park
Flood Zone Date
08/03/2009
School District
Oakland
Within 250 Feet of Multiple Flood Z
one
No
Comm College District Code
Peralta Jt

TAX INFORMATION
APN
014-1249-011-03
Lot #
3 Tax Area
17001
% Improved
50%
Block ID
M
Legal Description
OFFICIAL RECS 4 PG 8 BLK M PA
RT OF LOT 3

ASSESSMENT & TAX
Assessment Year
2023
2022
2021
Assessed Value - Total
$1,111,800
$182,067
$178,497
Assessed Value - Land
$555,900
$119,528
$117,185
Assessed Value - Improved
$555,900
$62,539
$61,312
YOY Assessed Change ($)
$929,733
$3,570
YOY Assessed Change (%)
510.65%
2%
Tax Year
Total Tax
Change ($)
Change (%)
2021
$4,144
2022
$4,604
$460

11.1%
2023
$17,549
$12,945
281.16%

CHARACTERISTICS
Lot Acres

0.0857
Construction
Wood
Lot Sq Ft
3,734
Effective Year Built
1892
Style
L-Shape
Building Class
D
Gross Area
987
County Use Code
One To Five Story Office Build
Building Sq Ft
987
Universal Land Use
Office Building
Quality
Average
# of Buildings
1 MORTGAGE HISTORY
Mortgage Date
03/10/2022
03/10/2022
Mortgage Amount
$295,000
$295,000
Mortgage Lender
Private Individual
Private Individual
Borrower Name
Shafiei Mehdi
Shafiei Mehdi
Borrower Name 2
Marashi Mahta
Marashi Mahta
Mortgage Purpose
Resale
Resale
Mortgage Type
Private Party Lender
Private Party Lender
Property Details

Courtesy of Jake Allen, MetroList Services, Inc
Generated on:
02/07/24
The data within this report is compiled by CoreLogic from public and private sources. The data is deemed reliable, but is not guaranteed. The accuracy of the data contained herein can be independently verified by the recipient of this report with the applicable county or municipality.

Page
1 /
1 Krause Acoustics 2635 Monte Vista Ave.

El Cerrito, CA 94530
Tel (510) 685-9987
[email protected]
To: City of Oakland
250 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza
Oakland CA 94612
Attn: Neil Gray, Senior Planner
Date: January 2, 2024
Re: Case PLN22189
5315 College Ave. Oakland
Preschool Play Yard Noise Study

1. Introduction
The proposed project is a preschool in a renovated residence. Adjacent property at 5295 College has three office buildings used by health practitioners around an off street parking lot, along with a retail shop and restaurants fronting on College Avenue. Figure 1 shows the project and identifies the buildings on the adjacent lot; both properties are zoned CN-l.

Figure 1 - Project Setting
The primary study objective is to assess the potential impact of project operations with respect to performance standards defined in Chapter 17.120 of the Oakland Planning Code.

A secondary objective is to describe the effect of project noise as perceived inside the adjacent buildings, to address the issue of potential noise intrusion into consultation offices.

The study is based on a sound level survey at the project site to classify existing traffic noise and a play yard noise survey at local preschool. The study uses sound path analysis of the proposed project arrangement to predict the emissions of a similar play yard operation located at the project site.

COLLEGE AVENUE5295NPARKING
5295529952975305530953035301
5313531553215324MANILA
5315 College

Page 2 ends

Page 3 ends

Instruments were calibrated prior to use with a source traceable to national standards.

One system logged sound levels continuously at a fixed station and saved the data at the end of each one-hour record. This system used a micW type I436 measurement microphone.

Figure 2 - Site Noise Survey Stations
4123567BA
5315 College

Page 4 ends

Figure 3 is a typical hourly survey record; Figure 4 is a 5-minute detail of the full hour.

The detail shows a series of peaks as vehicles pass by, at a rate of about ten per minute; larger peaks are trucks or buses. The residual noise level is about 52 dB.

Figure 3 - Typical Hourly Survey Record
Figure 4 - Hourly Record Detail

5315 College

Page 5 ends

Table 1 lists values of Ln metrics found in analysis of data from five survey sessions at Stations A and B. The table also lists the overall averages of L20 - L0 values.

6. Traffic Noise Pattern
A short-term survey was used to assess the variance of traffic noise with respect to location around the property; results are Shown in Figure 5.

Highest sound levels are along the east side of the lot near the dominant source of traffic noise, College
Avenue.

Sound levels along the west side lot line are similar to the base stations except at the middle, where the house
provides significant shielding from the traffic sound path.

The west side of the house is slightly exposed to noise from Route 24, audible only during lulls in local traffic. 535152535454636162
5315 College

Page 6 ends

Stations D thru G were used to observe the shielding effect of the school building on sound paths from the side yard to the rear yard.

The morning session is split into two halves, with 3's in the rear yard from 10:30 to 11:15 and 4's in the side yard from 11:15 to 12:00.

The afternoon session is from 3:15 to 5:00, with the side yard used the entire time and the rear yard used part time.

SIDEYARDABCDEFGREAR YARDSANTA FE AVENUE

MARIN AVENUE
5315 College

Page 7 ends

8. Play Yard Survey Results
Figure 7 shows examples of data from play yard noise surveys.

The table also lists the overall averages of values for L20 - L01 and the overall maximum value for L0.

5315 College

Page 8 ends

Ad = 10 log(D2 / D1), dB
This means that the sound level decreases by about 3 dB if the distance is doubled or increases by 3 dB if the distance is halved.

N = 2 x ∆ / W
The IL value is determined using the following formula, derived from empirical studies by Maekawa et.al. Practical barrier IL values range from 5 dB to a maximum limit of about 20 dB.

IL = 10 log(3 + 20 N)

Figure 8 - Sound Path Locations
Barrier Insertion Loss
IL, dB
0 4
8 12
16 20
Fresnel Number
0 1 2 3 4
52995297530553095313AHJGFEIBCD
5315 College

Page 9 ends

Figure 9 - Sound Path Geometries

BCDEFGH I

26.424.823.153.6A34.826.120.257.6AAAAAAA

35.6 19.850.268.8

20.537.836.592.3
108.123.522.364.6
133.2
120.6

34.8AJ40.796.226.1
AB36.67.925.0
AJ
C

46.618.834.3
A15.918.834.3
AE17.831.133.7

65.733.7AF75.733.8AG99.633.8A133.2 H107.6

91.7 94.9

57.6 53.6

65.8 31.35.497.0

HORIZONTALPLANEVERTICALPLANE
5315 College

Page 10 ends

Page 11 ends

Table 4 - Sound Wall Height Study
Figure 12 - Predicted Play Yard Noise With 8' Barrier

Page 12 ends

Table 5 - Code Compliance Assessment

Page 13 ends

The sound level inside offices on the adjacent property will be a function of the sound level outdoors and the noise reduction provided by office windows facing the parking lot.

Building 5297 windows appear to be double-hung metal frames with single glazing; there are numerous through-the-window air conditioning units, apparently one for each office.

This Report Prepared by:

Nicholas Krause, P.E.
exp.9-31-20229/30/20239/30/2025

Letter EMY
WI #23-141

February 8, 2024

Matthew S. Keasling, Esq.

Taylor, Wiley & Keasling
500 Capitol Mall, Suite 1150
Sacramento, California 95814
SUBJECT: Comments on Proposed Child Daycare Center at 5315 College Avenue Noise Study, Oakland, PLN22189

Dear Mr. Keasling,

Per your request, we have reviewed the analysis prepared by Mr. Nicholaus Krause of Krause Acoustics, dated January 2, 2024 (Noise Study). We have also reviewed the City of Oakland Approval Letter for this project, dated October 12, 2023 (Approval) and the project Design Review Drawings, dated April 20, 2023 (Drawings). The proposed project involves lifting the existing residential wood- framed structure to sit atop a new basement and full height ground floor level, which would also relocate the structure slightly to the west. The project would allow a maximum of 48 children who could potentially use the yard or sing and play indoors at various times of the day from 7 AM to 7 PM.

The project is surrounded by psychotherapy offices to the west (5305, 5309, 5315 College Ave) and southwest (5297 College Ave), commercial/retail to the north (5321 College Ave) and south (5301/5303 College Ave), and College Avenue to the east. There is also a higher floor of psychotherapy offices at 5299 College Avenue which has line of site to the subject building.

Residences are located further west and to the east across College Avenue. It is our understanding that this project has applied for a Categorical Exemption.

Wilson Ihrig is an acoustical consulting firm that has practiced exclusively in the field of acoustics since 1966. During our almost 58 years of operation, we have prepared hundreds of noise studies for Environmental Impact Reports and Statements. We have one of the largest technical laboratories in the acoustical consulting industry. We also utilize industry-standard acoustical programs such as Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM), SoundPLAN, and CadnaA. In short, we are well qualified to prepare environmental noise studies and review studies prepared by others.

WILSON IHRIG
Proposed Child Daycare 5315 College

Page 2 ends

Adverse Effects of Noise1
The health effects of noise are real and, in many parts of the country, pervasive.

Noise-Induced Hearing Loss. If a person is repeatedly exposed to loud noises, he or she may experience noise-induced hearing impairment or loss. In the United States, both the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) promote standards and regulations to protect the hearing of people exposed to high levels of industrial noise.

Speech Interference. Another common problem associated with noise is speech interference. In addition to the obvious issues that may arise from misunderstandings, speech interference also leads to problems with concentration fatigue, irritation, decreased working capacity, and automatic stress reactions. For complete speech intelligibility, the sound level of the speech should be 15 to 18 dBA higher than the background noise. Typical indoor speech levels are 45 to 50 dBA at 1 meter, so any noise above 30 dBA begins to interfere with speech intelligibility. The common reaction to higher background noise levels is to raise one’s voice. If this is required persistently for long periods of time, stress reactions and irritation will likely result.

Cardiovascular and Physiological Effects. Human’s bodily reactions to noise are rooted in the “fight or flight” response that evolved when many noises signaled imminent danger. These include increased blood pressure, elevated heart rate, and vasoconstriction. Prolonged exposure to acute noises can result in permanent effects such as hypertension and heart disease.

Impaired Cognitive Performance. Studies have established that noise exposure impairs people’s abilities to perform complex tasks (tasks that require attention to detail or analytical processes), and it makes reading, paying attention, solving problems, and memorizing more difficult. This is why there are standards for classroom background noise levels and why offices and libraries are designed to provide quiet work environments.

Projects with Mitigation Do Not Qualify for Categorical Exemptions Per CEQA, a Categorical Exemption can only be applied to projects which have no significant effects.

Per Title 14, 15300.2 (c), “a categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.” Thus, a project that has significant, or potentially significant, effects cannot qualify for a categorical exemption. If a measure can be identified which lowers the impact below the significance threshold, then a significant impact has been identified and the project requires an Environmental Impact Report, or at the very least a Mitigated Negative Declaration. The Noise Study identifies that a sound wall is required to reduce sounds from the play yard to meet the identified noise limit. This barrier would shield the play yard as shown in Figure 11 and Figure 12, but this barrier does not appear in the project drawings, and thus the barrier is not part of the proposed project. The Noise Study has identified a mitigation measure, and for this reason the project does not qualify for a categorial exemption.

1 More information on these and other adverse effects of noise may be found in Guidelines for Community Noise, eds B Berglund, T Lindvall, and D Schwela, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, 1999. (https://www.who.int/docstore/peh/noise/Comnoise-1.pdf)

WILSON IHRIG
Proposed Child Daycare 5315 College

Page 3 ends

Baseline Ambient Environment Lacks Information
The Noise Study presents statistical calculations measured over several hours in Tables 1a and 1b.

Given that the standard of care for a Categorical Exemption is to address potentially significant effects which may be caused by “unusual circumstances”, the Noise Study must characterize worst case scenarios, not typical conditions. Thus, since the neighboring psychotherapy offices rely on quiet conditions it is vital to characterize the existing ambient by identifying the quietest 50 minute periods occurring during project operating hours. Psychotherapy sessions are typically conducted in 50 minute increments, and they do not always start on the hour. The background noise can be characterized by the noise level exceeded 99% of the time, or L99. See Figure 1, which was measured at the porch level of 5309 College Avenue in 2023 on December 21 (partial), 26, 27 and 28 (partial).

Figure 1 Background (L99)
To demonstrate that these results in Figure 1 are comparable to the noise environment shown in the Noise Study, Figure 2 shows the L20 and L10 measured at the same time as data shown in Figure 1.

These data are directly comparable to the L10 results shown in Tables 1a and 1b of the Noise Study, demonstrating that despite the different dates the noise environment was similar to the Noise Study environment. Thus, the background noise levels shown in Figure 1 should be valid to consider for the purposes of CEQA, which show an average value around 48 dBA. 123 6 9Noon3 6 912
L99Thu 12-21-23L99Tu 12-26-23L99Wed 12-27-23L99Thu 12-28-2330405060708090100

WILSON IHRIG
Proposed Child Daycare 5315 College

Page 4 ends

Figure 2 Frequently Occurring Noise (L10, left), Noise Levels Exceeded 20% of the time (L10, right)

Thresholds of Significance are Not Properly Developed
Per the CEQA noise checklist2, the noise analysis should address the impacts from temporary and permanent (operational) noise and vibration sources, and it should evaluate whether the project noise would generate a substantial increase in the ambient noise. As noted above the standard of care for the Noise Study that supports a Categorical Exemption is to assess the noise impacts from worst case scenarios. These are presented as if these would be sufficient The Noise Study identifies only the noise limits from the City of Oakland Planning Code (17.120.050) and the L20 noise exceedance limit of 60 dBA has been applied to operational noise sources such as children at play. The Approval Attachment B cites the City of Oakland’s Standard Conditions of Approval (SCA) as if those measures would be sufficient to avoid any impacts. SCA #26 affirms that the project would be subject to the Planning Code, but it also cites the Municipal Code section that addresses Nuisances. Per 8.18.010 “excessive or annoying noises” are prohibited near sensitive uses.

The Noise Study lacks thresholds to evaluate the following:
 Substantial noise increases over the existing background and ambient on an on-going and variable basis,
 Significance of noise and vibration during construction of the project (Table 17.120.04),  Significance of daily and intermittent noises from daycare activities such as children at play and group singing to cause annoyance or speech interference in nearby psychotherapy offices,

2 Available online https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/environmental-analysis/documents/ser/ceqa- checklist-a11y.docx
123 6 9Noon3 6 912
L10Thu 12-21-23L10Tu 12-26-23L10Wed 12-27-23L10Thu 12-28-2330405060708090100123 6 9Noon3 6 912 L20Thu 12-21-23L20Tu 12-26-23L20Wed 12-27-23L20Thu 12-28-2330405060708090100

WILSON IHRIG
Proposed Child Daycare 5315 College

Page 5 ends

 Significance of noises from daycare activities to interfere with concentration in nearby offices while psychotherapists prepare notes and review medical studies.

Additionally, it may be difficult to quantify the potentially significant effect of stress caused by the proposed project on psychotherapists and their patients if the proposed project increases and changes the noise environment and generates uncertainty for the future.

Impact Analyses are Incomplete
Children at Play and Singing
The Noise Study does not appear to provide any information regarding the maximum number of children permitted for the project. The Approval cites that the project proposes a maximum occupancy of 48 children. The Noise Study measured approximately 10 to 28 children at the 1370 Marin Avenue facility which has a maximum capacity of 36 (Noise Study p. 6). Scaling for number of children, if all children at the project are outside at play, the results should be increased by at least 2 dBA and possibly by 7 dBA.

The sound paths used in the Noise Study assume a source height of 5 feet (Section 10, page 8) at the center of the play yard. The play structure shown on Drawing C0.3 indicates that the platform height is 48” (4 feet), and accounting for the height of the children (30 to 41” or 2.5 to 3.5 feet), the source height should be 7 feet high.

While the effects of shielding provided by the existing building have been taken into account in the Noise Study, the reverberant conditions where the voices reflect between buildings has not been taken into account, and this effect could add another 2 to 3 dBA to the results shown for the Base (Figure 10, page 10).

The Approval letter makes an unsubstantiated claim on page 4, per Section 17.134.050 item 1, which claims that neighbors would be "... buffered from noise produced at the landscaping and walls at the side and rear property...”. The Drawings do not show any walls that would reduce noise. The Noise Study, prepared in January 2024 after the Approval letter was provided in October 2023, evaluates an Alternate Case with a sound barrier which is not included in the project. The Noise Study provides no evaluation of the benefits of landscaping.

Lively activities and fun would also occur indoors during periods of the day. It is reasonable to contemplate a concert or party where all 48 of the children could sing together, possibly with the windows open, and this could be significant. The Noise Study does not consider this possibility. With singing or similar activity occurring on the second floor with windows open there would be direct line of sight to the offices at 5299 College Avenue.

Substantial Increase in the Ambient
Even though traffic on College Avenue is variable, the character of vehicle noise is different from noise generated by children’s voices emanating from a day care facility. There is a reasonable possibility that during what happens to be a quiet time of the day the children could generate sound that may be significant. The Noise Study does not consider this possibility.

WILSON IHRIG
Proposed Child Daycare 5315 College

Page 6 ends

With a background level around 48 dBA, the project noise from some children in the play yard would be as much as 13 dBA higher than the background (Figure 10, page 10) near the residence at 5324 Manila Ave. This would be perceived as more than twice as loud as the existing background environment.

Construction Noise and Vibration
Significant changes are being made to the existing site and structure; the existing building would be lifted and rotated. These actions will require demolition equipment and activities, excavation and vacuum trucks, concrete pump trucks, hammering, pneumatic tools, etc. The overall construction work would last several months, and it is possible that specific activities would last more than 10 days. Most common types of construction equipment and machinery used for this kind of project can generate maximum noise levels of 75 to 90 dBA3 at a distance of 50 feet. With at least two in operation at the same time, the total noise could reach 78 to 88 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. The property line of 5315 College is closer than 40 feet to its nearest psychotherapy neighbor, and it could experience a noise level of 80 to 90 dBA at the façade if equipment is sited at the closest edge of the property. This would be well above the ambient exterior environment and would be substantial, significant and potentially unavoidable. At the interior of the nearby psychotherapy offices the noise level would be reduced by 10 to 15 dBA, or about 63 to 78 dBA at 50 feet distance, or 65 to 80 dBA at 40 feet distance which would cause speech disturbance.

In fact, Approval on page 13, Standard Conditional Use Item #13 would allow extreme construction noise (over 90 dBA). Such noise would also cause speech interference and greatly disrupt therapy sessions at nearby psychotherapy offices and generate significant and potentially unavoidable impacts.

Approval page 14, Item #24 cites noise reduction measures, claiming that some of them could achieve 5 to 10 dBA, but even with these measures, construction noise would still be greater than 45 dBA inside the psychotherapy offices and be significant and unavoidable.

Approval page 14,Item 25 requires a construction noise management plan if the project might exceed 90 dBA. As demonstrated above, most of the construction activities would be significant and unavoidable. A construction noise management plan should be required regardless of whether extreme noise would be generated, and it should also include provisions for temporary noise barriers or sound blankets to reduce construction noise by a minimum 15 dBA at all psychotherapy offices facing the construction. Even so, the construction noise would still be significant and unavoidable.

Mitigation Measures are Inadequate
The Noise Study incorrectly concludes that the children’s voices will be inaudible (last two paragraphs, page 13). As the traffic on College Avenue is variable, such statements must be based on comparison with the background noise level. With a background level around 48 dBA, the children’s voices would need to be reduced to 38 dBA or less to be hard to hear. Thus, based on the modeled

3 FHWA Construction Noise Handbook, available online
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/construction_noise/handbook/handbook09.cfm

WILSON IHRIG
Proposed Child Daycare 5315 College

Page 7 ends

noise results in the Noise Study with the 8 feet high barrier (Figure 12, page 11), the children’s voices would be 42 to 52 dBA which would still allow voices to be heard. Since the children’s voices would be substantially different in character from traffic on College Avenue or distant noise from Highway 24, the children’s voices would be clearly audible at many times of the day.

As noted above, the Noise Study provided no analysis of construction noise and vibration and necessary mitigation measures. The Noise Study also does not contemplate other group events, such as singing, or events that could occur indoors with the windows open (on the second floor). The analysis of children at play could underrepresent the noise as it does not appear to include all of the children who could be outside at any given time. The recommended sound barrier is not sufficient to mitigate the sound from children at play. The noise impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

Please feel free to contact me with any questions on this information.

Very truly yours,

WILSON IHRIG

Deborah A. Jue, INCE-USA
Principal

wilson ihrig 5315 proposed day care020924.docx

DEBORAH JUE
Principal

Since joining Wilson Ihrig in 1990, Ms. Jue has been involved in many projects from environmental assessments and entitlements through design development, construction documents and construction administration support. As an acoustical consultant, she has authored or provided input for many environmental documents and technical studies in accordance with NEPA and California’s CEQA regulations, most of them related to surface transportation. Deborah has over 32 years of experience addressing impacts related to rail transit noise and vibration, highway noise, and construction-related noise, hydroacoustics, and vibration. She is keenly interested in finding solutions and providing clear communication to affected stakeholders to help achieve broad support. She also understands the importance of and brings experience effectively collaborating with multi-disciplinary teams to address noise and vibration impacts on sensitive resources including avian and aquatic/marine species in the SF Bay Area. She has a keen interest in finding solutions and providing clear communication to affected stakeholders to help achieve broad support.

As part of her work, Deborah, is a senior technical lead on highway and rail noise models, environmental analyses for all types of projects, and planning for long-term construction noise and vibration, and is also an integral part of the management team for the company.

Education
 M.S. in Mechanical Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, 1998  B.S. in General Engineering: Acoustics, Stanford University, 1988

Professional Associations (Member)
 American Society of Mechanical Engineers
 Acoustical Society of America
 National Council of Acoustical Consultants
 Institute of Noise Control Engineering
 Women Transportation Seminar (WTS)
 Transportation Research Board, AEP80 Standing Committee Member (2021-2024)

Project Experience
CEQA Peer Reviews, CA
Peer review of noise and vibration analyses prepared per CEQA. These projects have primarily focused on the construction and operation of new facilities included residential in-fill, office and mixed-use projects, and educational buildings.

California Department of Justice Warehouse Noise Analysis, CA Analyzed typical warehouse scenarios to determine appropriate buffer distances to address potential impacts from heavy truck and warehouse operations per CEQA requirements.

Houston Metro Next, Houston, TX
Evaluation of temporary construction impacts for bus rapid transit project along existing bus corridor near residential and university land use, including temporary shoofly railroad track relocation per NEPA.

WILSON IHRIG
Deborah Jue – Page 2

Oregon DOT, Rose Quarter Peer Review, Portland, OR
Conducted peer review of the noise analysis prepared by Oregon DOT to address community concerns and provide recommendations.

Tren Urbano, Puerto Rico (1998-1999)
Assisted with noise and vibration projections and mitigation evaluation for the new light rail system at adjacent noise sensitive and residential areas per NEPA.

BART Extensions Program (1990-2005)
Tasks during environmental and engineering phases included measurement and characterization of existing ambient noise and vibration levels; characterization of vibration propagation; prediction of groundborne noise and vibration and airborne noise expected from BART operations; recommendations for mitigation measures, including vibration and noise control design features for elements such as trackwork, trackbed, stations, ventilation structures, yards and shops, and median and highway barriers; and support for Technical Report on noise and vibration; and review of contractor and engineering submittals.

BART San Francisco International Airport Extension
For EIR/EIS and during engineering design, made projections of the groundborne noise and vibration at residences and buildings adjacent to the BART SFO at-grade, tunnel and aerial alignment. During construction: assisted with long-term noise and vibration monitoring.

LA Metro Blue Line (1992-1994), Los Angeles, CA
Characterization of vibration propagation; prediction of ground-borne noise and vibration and airborne noise expected from LRT operations; recommendations for mitigation measures, including vibration and noise control design features for elements such as trackwork and trackbed; preparation of Technical Report on noise and vibration; and support of a Supplemental FEIS document.

LA Metro Crenshaw (2010-2011) and DB 2013-2020, Los Angeles, CA Noise and vibration impact analysis and mitigation evaluation services for the FEIS/FEIR, Preliminary Engineering Design and Final Design for new 8.5-mile Light Rail Transit corridor from Crenshaw to LAX. Responsible for identification of noise and vibration sensitive buildings, and for evaluation and control of groundborne and wayside noise and vibration.

LA Metro Regional Connector (2010-present, Los Angeles, CA Responsible for determining mitigation for noise and vibration from rail transit operations, subway station acoustics, construction noise and vibration effects, and noise control for auxiliary facilities in support for the FEIS/FEIR and coordinated field work and analysis through the Preliminary Engineering and the Construction Phases of the project.

Santa Clara VTA Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Extension, Tunnel Extension Preliminary Engineering SEIR and EIS (2004-2008)
Extension of the BART system into San Jose. Evaluation of emergency ventilation fan noise at surface locations.

Santa Clara VTA BART Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Extension, Phase II (2020+) Tunnel extension through San Jose for the BART system. Services have included support for environmental clearance of the new tunnel depth during Final Design, and evaluation of emergency

WILSON IHRIG
Deborah Jue – Page 3

ventilation noise at the underground stations, noise from ancillary noise from the yard and stations, and review of station acoustical treatment needs, and design services during construction.

Santa Clara VTA Vasona Junction Extension SEIR (2009-2012) Evaluated noise and vibration impacts from light rail system extension.

California High Speed Rail Caltrain Corridor EIR/EIS, San Francisco to San Jose Provided regional environmental/engineering noise and vibration services for this 47-mile HSR corridor that is part of the proposed statewide HSR system, including extensive ambient noise and vibration measurement surveys; numerous site vibration characteristic measurements; environmentally sensitive receptor identification; development of noise and vibration prediction models for HST operations; prediction of wayside noise and vibration levels for HST operations; evaluation of environmental noise and vibration impacts using FRA procedures and criteria, and determining need for and type of noise and vibration mitigation.

Caltrain Peninsula Corridor Electrification EIR/EA, CA (2013-2016) Provided noise and vibration analysis. Project tasks include documenting the existing noise and vibration ambient conditions, analysis of noise and vibration from project and construction-phase impacts. This project is part of the Caltrain Modernization Program and involves update of the EIR/EA previously completed in 2009.

MARTA On-Call Services, Atlanta, GA (2015-present)
Developed update for system-wide noise and vibration criteria and noise and vibration measurement protocols. Assisted with noise and vibration projections and mitigation evaluation for North Line AA/DEIS, and evaluation of traffic noise impacts at North Springs Station.

SFMTA Better Market Street, San Francisco, CA (2018-2019) Vibration technical analysis, including internal review of environmental section for CEQA.

WMATA Outer Branch Avenue Segment (1993-1994), DC
Measurement and analysis of ambient noise and vibration, projections of construction noise and operational noise and vibration impacts; recommendations for mitigation; preparation of Technical Reports on noise and vibration and support of the environmental document. Analysis of noise from yard operations, including wheel squeal, in support of FSEIS.

WMATA Glenmont Route and Yard, Inner E Route, Green Line F Route, DC (1991-1992) Measurement and analysis of ambient noise and vibration, projections of construction noise and operational noise and vibration impacts; recommendations for mitigation; preparation of Technical Reports on noise and vibration and support of the FEIS document.

Irvington Tunnel/Alameda Siphons Alternatives Project, Fremont/Alameda County, CA The Project will increase the reliability of transmitting Hetch Hetchy and/or SVWTP water from Alameda East Portal to the Bay Division Pipelines by constructing a new 132-inch tunnel along a southern alignment. Work involved conducting an environmental noise and vibration impact assessment for the project per CEQA.

East Bay Municipal Utilities District – Walnut Creek and Lafayette Water Treatment Plant Improvements, CA
Preparation of noise section for EIR. Analyzed the potential airborne noise and vibration impacts at residences and other noise-sensitive uses near the project sites from construction and operation.

WILSON IHRIG
Deborah Jue – Page 4

East Bay Municipal Utilities District – Quarry, San Leandro CA Per CEQA, analyzed the potential airborne noise and vibration impacts at residences and other noise-sensitive uses near the project site from construction and operation.

San Francisco Public Utilities Commission – Central Bayside Sewer Interceptor, CA Per CEQA, analyzed the potential airborne noise, groundborne noise and vibration impacts at residences, medical facilities, and other noise-sensitive uses near the construction sites and from tunneling during construction. The potential airborne and hydroacoustic effects on marine mammals was also analyzed.

San Francisco Public Utilities Commission – Southeast Plant New Headworks Replacement, CA Per CEQA, analyzed the potential airborne noise and vibration impacts at residences and other noise-sensitive uses near the construction site.

San Francisco Public Utilities Commission - Crystal Springs/Polhemus Bypass Tunnel, San Francisco and San Mateo Counties, CA
Per CEQA, analyzed the potential airborne noise, groundborne noise and vibration impacts at residences near the two access shafts and above the proposed water (drinking water transport) tunnel (8 to 10 ft diameter) from construction activities.

Caltrans D7 and LACMTA State Route 710 North Environmental Study; Pasadena, CA Screening Analysis for environmental vibration impacts for the various alternative alignments, in accordance with FTA guidelines, and conducting an environmental vibration impact analysis in accordance with CEQA and NEPA for the DEIS/DEIR phase.

Caltrans D4, Central Freeway Reconstruction, San Francisco, CA Project Manager. Noise impact alternatives analysis of options for Central Freeway Reconstruction/Replacement, including noise survey and computer modeling with Caltrans SOUND32 Noise Prediction Model interfaced to a digitizer. An evaluation and analysis of Caltrans EA/FONSI (Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact) was later performed for a proposed new alternative.

Santa Clara VTA, Capitol Corridor, CA
Environmental noise and vibration analysis per CEQA, including future motor vehicle traffic noise levels, assessment of noise impacts to numerous residential buildings, determination of the need for mitigation, and the evaluation of the effectiveness of sound barrier walls.

5315 College Ave Daycare Center
Dec.8, 2023 PHA Transportation Consultants
1 PHA Transportation Consultants
2711 Stuart Street Berkeley CA 94705
Phone (510) 848-9233

December 22, 2023

Jesse Yang
Taylor and Wiley
500 Capitol Mall, Suite 1150
Sacramento, CA 95814

Dear Jesse Yang,

In response to your request, we have conducted a traffic study to review the conditions associated with the proposed daycare center at 5315 College Avenue, Oakland, on a site currently occupied by a small law office that closed in April 2022.

Before conducting our traffic analysis, we obtained and reviewed the traffic report prepared for the proposed daycare center. Our review indicated that the traffic report evaluated only the potential trip generation of the proposed daycare center, but neglected important factors such as the overall environmental setting of the Project site, hours and operational characteristics of the Project, site-generated traffic distribution, access, parent drop-off and pick up, employee parking, and traffic safety. Below is our analysis focusing on key factors that were neglected but are crucial for the proposed daycare center.

Environmental Settings

As proposed, the daycare center would be located on the west side of College Avenue just north of Cliffton Avenue. College Avenue is a two-lane north-south arterial road with one northbound lane and one southbound lane connecting Broadway in the City of Oakland and the University of California Berkeley Campus in Berkeley. Within the city limits of Oakland bike lanes, parking lanes, and pedestrian sidewalks are provided on both sides of the road between Claremont Avenue and Broadway. The center of the road between Alcatraz Avenue and Broadway is stripped with solid double-yellow lines. This means no passing but making left turns into private driveways to access local properties is permitted. College Avenue measures about two miles long between Boadway in Oakland and the UC Berkeley Campus.

The land use along the Oakland side of the road is mostly retail and commercial with a high concentration of restaurants near the proposed Project site. The land use along the Berkeley side is a mixture of retail and residential.

5315 College Ave Daycare Center
Dec.8, 2023 PHA Transportation Consultants
2 College Avenue currently carries about 7,720 vehicles a day based on a recent traffic survey conducted just south of Bryant Avenue in late November 2023 after the Thanksgiving Holiday.

The posted speed limit along College Avenue is 25 mph. However, the Oakland Municipal Code designates a 20 mph speed limit between Alcatraz Avenue and Broadway on College Avenue, while the Berkeley side (between Alcatraz Avenue and the UC Berkeley Campus) has an adopted speed limit of 25 mph citywide. Traffic at the two nearest intersections at Broadway and Manila Avenue is controlled by traffic lights. There are two pedestrian crosswalks in the area; one in front of the proposed Project site and one at Bryant Avenue at College Avenue.

Neither of these pedestrian crosswalks has pedestrian push-buttons to alert motorists.

Because of the nature of College Avenue as an arterial road, high commercial and retail use in the area, and the traffic lane configurations, the proposed site is not ideal for a daycare center.

Figure 1 shows the location of the proposed Project site and the College Avenue layout.

Figure 1 Project Site Location and the Layout of College and Bryant Avenues (Source: Google Maps)

Site Traffic Generation and Site Access

According to the traffic study obtained from the City of Oakland, the proposed daycare center is expected to generate 36 trips during the morning peak hour and another 36 trips during the afternoon peak hour. Based on the Project information provided in the applicant's application, the proposed daycare center will operate between 8 am and 6 pm Mondays through Fridays and will have 48 students and up to 10 employees. Assuming 20% (approx.10 students) of the students would be from the surrounding neighborhoods within walking distance to the daycare center, and that all employees will use alternative transportation such as public transits and Project
Site
5315 College Ave Daycare Center
Dec.8, 2023 PHA Transportation Consultants
3 bicycles, the remaining 38 students will generate 76 vehicle trips in the morning peak hour (38 drop off trips and then 38 drive off after the drop off). In the afternoon the site will generate another 76 trips (38 trips as parents come in to pick up their children and then 38 trips when parents drive off afterward. This is well above the 36 am and 36 pm trip estimates from the city-provided traffic study.

The city-provided traffic study shows no directional site traffic distribution. Based on the layout of the area street system, site-related traffic (parent traffic) is expected to travel to and from the north and south via College Avenue; some will travel to and from the east via Bryant Avenue while some will travel to and from the west via Cliffton Avenue.

Based on our review of the College Avenue layout and configurations, parents accessing the Project site from the north via College Avenue to drop off their children would be able to do so with little problems but will be difficult for them to travel back to the north on College Avenue.

They will have to make a U-turn or three-point U-turn on College Avenue in front of the proposed Project site, which is difficult and unsafe as they have to face descending traffic traveling from the Broadway direction in the south. During our field observation, we did not see motorists making U-turns on College Avenue near the Project site. It should be noted that while parents can make a U-turn on College Avenue, California Vehicle Code 22102 states that it is an offense to make a U-turn in a “business district”. A business district is an area where at least 50% of the property bordering the street is occupied by businesses and a driver can access them from the road.

According to our speed survey, the majority (85th percentile) of the northbound vehicles descending from the south via Broadway were traveling at 30 mph, while the southbound traffic traveled about 28 mph, both are over the city’s 20 mph speed limit for the Oakland section of College Avenue.

To circle back on College Avenue to go north parents could make a quick U-turn near the intersection with Bryant Avenue, or turn into Bryant Avenue and make a three-point U-turn there. However, making a quick U-turn at the College Avenue and Bryant Avenue intersection while possible is not a safe maneuver due to the high-speed traffic coming from Broadway and pedestrian crosswalks there. Bryant Avenue is a residential street that measures about 30 feet wide with parking on both sides and multiple driveways. Making a three-point U-turn also could be challenging. Alternatively, parents could continue to drive south from in front of the Project site, make a right-turn at Clifton Avenue, then a right-turn at Manila Avenue, and finally make a left-turn at College Avenue to travel back north.

Parents coming from the south via Broadway, east via Bryant Avenue, or west via Cliffton Avenue will all have to face similar problems either dropping off or picking up their children. To drop off their children they will either have to make a three-point U-turn on College Avenue to circle back to park their cars in front of the proposed daycare center as there are no left-turn pockets on College Avenue. This maneuver is difficult because of the parking lanes and bike lanes on both sides of College Avenue. Or they will have to park their vehicles on the opposite 5315 College Ave Daycare Center
Dec.8, 2023 PHA Transportation Consultants
4 side of the proposed daycare center, and then walk across the street to drop off or pick up their children.

There is a pedestrian crosswalk in front of the proposed daycare site, but there are no pedestrian push buttons to stop traffic. Our field observation indicated that not all motorists yield to pedestrians. In all, vehicle access for the Project site is poor, particularly for a daycare center.

Drop-off and Pick-up

Based on the traffic study provided by the City of Oakland, the proposed daycare center would not provide a drop-off and pickup lane within the site. Parent drop-off and pickup would have to be accommodated in front of the site on College Avenue. Our site review indicated that the entire frontage of the Project is about 75 feet long and has one paid marked parking space and one marked handicapped parking space, plus a 35-foot-long frontage that includes a painted red curb and the pedestrian crosswalk next to the Project site (See Figure 2).

Figure 2 Project Site Frontage (Source: Google Maps)

In reality, the Project site frontage is very short and can accommodate one vehicle. This will not be able to handle the demand during drop-off and pickup times. Since the proposed project is a daycare center, as opposed to an elementary school where kids are older and can get in and out of the vehicle without much help, parents at daycare in this case would have to get out of their vehicles to unstrap and strap their children to get their children out from the child seat to 20’ Paid
Space
20’ Handicapped
Space
35’ Painted Curb
including a crosswalk
Project
Site
5315 College Ave Daycare Center
Dec.8, 2023 PHA Transportation Consultants
5 walk them to and from the facility. This maneuver may take several minutes, causing parents to arrive from behind to park at the handicapped space or double-park on the bike lane blocking the bike lane and creating an unsafe situation.

Currently, ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers), a national transportation engineering organization that develops national standards, and policies, and promotes professional development and ethics, does not have a standardized methodology to determine school drop- off lane requirements. In general engineering experience and practice, the drop-off/pickup lane length is estimated based on the number of students who need to be dropped off and picked up by vehicles during peak times, usually in the afternoon as picking up students generally would take longer as parents tend to arrive earlier to wait for their kids to come out.

Research and surveys performed at five middle and elementary schools by Hatch Mott Macdonald, a North American Engineering Design Firm indicated that about 1.6 to 2.0 feet of queuing space should be provided for each enrolled student in designing the drop-off lane; research conducted by North Carolina Department of Transportation indicated 1.65 feet per student; and research conducted by The Texas Transportation Institute indicated 1.5 feet per student. The traffic study obtained from the City of Oakland did not have student enrollment information but estimated 36 trips based on the square footage of the facility. Assuming a 38- student enrollment (48 minus 10 students who are from within the neighborhood and without being driven) and a design estimate of 2.0 feet per student, the daycare center would need a 76-foot-long drop-off/pickup lane. For a daycare center, the drop-off/pick-up lane may need to be longer since it takes longer for parents to load and unload their children into and out of the vehicles. The proposed daycare center, with only one 20-feet paid parking space, will not have adequate space for parent drop-off and pick-up. The proposed daycare center will also need approval from the city to use the paid space and handicapped space for drop off/pick up.

Parking Availability in the Vicinity

The proposed daycare center will not provide parking on the site. Because of that, we conducted a parking survey in the area to identify whether or not there are parking spaces available to accommodate the parking needs of the estimated 10 employees.

The parking surveys were conducted over 2 days 7:30, 8:30, and 9:30 in the morning and then 4:00, 5:00, and 6:00 in the afternoon on Tuesdays and Wednesdays on College Avenue, Clifton Avenue, and Bryant Avenue, after the Thanksgiving holiday in November. Parked cars were counted once on top of the above designated hours. The survey areas are within walking distance and the days and hours were designed to capture available parking spaces at times when employees and parents are expected to arrive and leave the school.

The survey results indicated that there were 44 marked parking spaces on both sides of College Avenue between Manila Avenue and Broadway; 28 unmarked spaces on Clifton Avenue, both sides of the street between College Avenue and Manila Avenue; 40 spaces on Bryant Avenue, 5315 College Ave Daycare Center
Dec.8, 2023 PHA Transportation Consultants
6 both sides of the street between College Avenue and Ada Street. Parking spaces on Clifton Avenue and Bryant Avenue are unmarked and are estimated by first measuring the block length, subtracting driveways and painted curbs, and then dividing by 20 feet, the length of a standard marked parking space. Parking spaces along College Avenue occupied by sidewalk/curb-dining booths were not included in the survey.

The survey results also indicated that there are available parking spaces on College Avenue and to some extent on Clifton Avenue. However, they both have a maximum 2-hour restriction or require permits and as such will not be able to accommodate employee parking, they may, however, accommodate parent parking for short periods when dropping off and picking up their children. There are no parking restrictions or permits required on Bryant Avenue, but Bryant Avenue was mostly fully parked during the survey hours. It will be difficult for employees and parents to find parking there. Figure 3 shows the parking survey zones.

5315 College Ave Daycare Center
Dec.8, 2023 PHA Transportation Consultants
7 Figure 3 Parking Survey Zones (Source: Google Maps)

5315 College Ave Daycare Center
Dec.8, 2023 PHA Transportation Consultants
8 Study Area Parking Survey (Day 1- November 28)
Survey Zone
Space 7:30 8:30 9:30 4:00 5:00 6:00
Taken
Free
Taken
Free
Taken
Free
Taken
Free
Taken
Free
Taken
Free
Paid Parking (2-hour Limit)
A: College Ave (Manila-Broadway (West side) 23 4 19 8 15 14 9 21 2 15 8 17 6 B: College Ave (Manila-Broadway East side) 21 5 16 11 10 10 11 23 -2 20 1 22 -1 Total Paid Parking Spaces 44 9 35 19 25 24 20 44 0 35 9 39 5

Residential Street Parking
C: Clifton St. (College Ave-Manila Ave. 2-hour Limit or Permit ) 28 12 16 22 6 19 9 27 1 24 4 22 6 D: Bryant Ave. (College Ave.-Ada St. No Restriction) 40 42 -2 48 -8 48 -8 48 -8 46 -6 42 -2 Total Residential Street Free Parking 68 54 14 70 -2 67 1 75 -7 70 -2 64 4

Survey Zone Capacity Calculations:

For College Ave., the capacity is defined by the number of marked parking spaces

For Bryant and Clifton Ave., the capacity is estimated by the following formula:

(Block length minus painted curbs, driveways, and space that is too short for a passenger car)/20’( standard parking space length) Clifton Ave has a 2-hour limit or residential permits. Bryant Ave. has no restrictions and no permit requirement.

Taken: The space is occupied by a car.

Free, the space is available.

5315 College Ave Daycare Center
Dec.8, 2023 PHA Transportation Consultants
9 Study Area Parking Survey (Day 2- November 29)

Survey Zone
Space 7:30 8:30 9:30 4:00 5:00 6:00
Taken
Free
Taken
Free
Taken
Free
Taken
Free
Taken
Free
Taken
Free
Paid Parking (2-hour Limit)
A: College Ave (Manila-Broadway (West side) 23 5 18 13 10 14 9 25 -2 25 -2 20 3 B: College Ave (Manila-Broadway East side) 21 6 15 10 11 13 8 22 -1 22 -1 23 -2 Total Paid Parking Spaces 44 11 33 23 21 27 17 47 -3 47 -3 43 1

Residential Street
C: Clifton St. (College Ave-Manila Ave. 2-hour Limit/Permit ) 28 15 13 20 8 25 3 30 -2 25 3 17 11 D: Bryant Ave. (College Ave.-Ada St. No Restriction) 40 39 1 46 -6 46 -6 48 -8 48 -8 36 4 68 54 14 66 2 71 -3 78 -10 73 -5 53 15
Total Residential Street Free Parking

Survey Zone Capacity Calculations:

For College Ave., the capacity is defined by the number of marked parking spaces

For Bryant and Clifton Ave., the capacity is estimated by the following formula:

(Block length minus painted curbs, driveways, and any space too short for a passenger car)/20’( standard parking space length)

Clifton Ave has a 2-hour limit or residential permits. Bryant Ave. has no restrictions and no permit requirement.

Taken: The space is occupied by a car.

Free, the space is available.

5315 College Ave Daycare Center
Dec.8, 2023 PHA Transportation Consultants
10 Traffic Safety

There were two recently reported traffic collisions on College Avenue at the intersection with Bryant Avenue according to the TIMS, Transportation Injuries Mapping System at the University of California at Berkeley. TIMS compiles traffic collision data obtained from SWITRS, the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System is a database that serves as a means to collect and process data gathered from a collision scene.

While two traffic collisions do not constitute a collision hotspot, the layout of the intersection and the angle where Bryant Avenue approaches College Avenue makes it difficult for parents turning out to park their vehicles in front of the site. It is also likely that some parents will make a quick U-turn from in front of the daycare site to travel back north on College Avenue after dropping off their children. This maneuver means they will face traffic coming out from Bryant Avenue and the high descending vehicle speed from Broadway. As discussed previously, the vehicle speed recorded on College Avenue just south of the proposed daycare site in the northbound declining section is about 30 mph, well over the designated speed limit of 20 mph.

The proposed site may not be a good location for a daycare center.

Conclusion

In summary, College Avenue is an arterial road connecting the cities of Oakland and Berkeley, and providing access to and from the University of California Berkeley Campus. The land use pattern on College Avenue and in particular near the site is all commercial and retail and not compatible with a daycare center. The layout of College Avenue with parking lanes and bike lanes on both sides of the street, difficult site access for vehicles and turnaround, the angle at which Bryant Avenue connects with College Avenue, and the high vehicle speed coming down from Broadway, coupled with the lack of adequate drop-off, pick-up and parking for employees, are reasons why we believe the proposed site is a poor location for a daycare facility

Please feel free to call if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Pang Ho, AICP
PHA Transportation Consultants

Attachment:

Daily Traffic Volume Count, Vehicle Speed Survey

Attachment
College Avenue Traffic Count Data
Proposed Daycare
5315 College Avenue
Location: College Ave, S/O Bryant Ave
Date Range: 11/27/2023 - 12/3/2023
Site Code:

NB SB Total NB SB Total NB SB Total NB SB Total NB SB Total NB SB Total NB SB Total NB SB Total 12:00 AM - - - 14 22 36 17 21 38 - - - - - - - - - - - - 16 22 37 1:00 AM - - - 7 5 12 8 10 18 - - - - - - - - - - - - 8 8 15 2:00 AM - - - 7 5 12 7 6 13 - - - - - - - - - - - - 7 6 13 3:00 AM - - - 8 2 10 1 5 6 - - - - - - - - - - - - 5 4 8 4:00 AM - - - 7 6 13 6 6 12 - - - - - - - - - - - - 7 6 13 5:00 AM - - - 25 14 39 34 12 46 - - - - - - - - - - - - 30 13 43 6:00 AM - - - 52 37 89 64 42 106 - - - - - - - - - - - - 58 40 98 7:00 AM - - - 165 104 269 159 98 257 - - - - - - - - - - - - 162 101 263 8:00 AM - - - 290 182 472 303 197 500 - - - - - - - - - - - - 297 190 486 9:00 AM - - - 264 193 457 254 203 457 - - - - - - - - - - - - 259 198 457 10:00 AM 0 0 0 281 225 506 299 206 505 - - - - - - - - - - - - 290 216 506 11:00 AM 258 213 471 301 237 538 208 31 239 - - - - - - - - - - - - 255 134 389 12:00 PM 299 245 544 321 256 577 146 30 176 - - - - - - - - - - - - 234 143 377 1:00 PM 287 266 553 278 244 522 102 37 139 - - - - - - - - - - - - 190 141 331 2:00 PM 278 234 512 330 275 605 0 0 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - 165 138 303 3:00 PM 318 330 648 334 325 659 1 0 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - 168 163 330 4:00 PM 344 331 675 340 343 683 0 0 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - 170 172 342 5:00 PM 326 277 603 349 308 657 2 1 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - 176 155 330 6:00 PM 260 240 500 256 258 514 0 0 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - 128 129 257 7:00 PM 160 178 338 185 218 403 0 0 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - 93 109 202 8:00 PM 111 116 227 152 149 301 0 0 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - 76 75 151 9:00 PM 60 90 150 78 108 186 0 0 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - 39 54 93 10:00 PM 39 34 73 46 58 104 0 0 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - 23 29 52 11:00 PM 15 29 44 22 36 58 0 0 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - 11 18 29 Total 2,755 2,583 5,338 4,112 3,610 7,722 1,611 905 2,516 - - - - - - - - - - - - 2,862 2,258 5,119 Percent 52% 48% 53% 47% 64% 36% - - - - - - - - 56% 44% AM Peak 11:00 11:00 11:00 11:00 11:00 11:00 08:00 10:00 10:00 - - - - - - - - - - - - 08:00 10:00 10:00 Vol. 258 213 471 301 237 538 303 206 505 - - - - - - - - - - - - 297 216 506 PM Peak 16:00 16:00 16:00 17:00 16:00 16:00 12:00 13:00 12:00 - - - - - - - - - - - - 12:00 16:00 12:00 Vol. 344 331 675 349 343 683 146 37 176 - - - - - - - - - - - - 234 172 377

1. Mid-week average includes data between Tuesday and Thursday. 11/27/2023 11/28/2023 11/29/2023 11/30/2023 12/1/2023 12/2/2023Time Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Mid-Week Average12/3/2023 1 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469
[email protected]
Location:

Count Direction:

Date Range:

Site Code:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
135 7,300 631 5 380 18 0 5 3 2 0 0 0

1.6% 86.1% 7.4% 0.1% 4.5% 0.2% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 54 5,913 766 2 353 4 0 6 3 0 0 0 0

0.8% 83.3% 10.8% 0.0% 5.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 189 13,213 1,397 7 733 22 0 11 6 2 0 0 0

1.2% 84.8% 9.0% 0.0% 4.7% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% FHWA Vehicle Classification
Class 1 - Motorcycles Class 8 - Four or Fewer Axle Single-Trailer Trucks Class 2 - Passenger Cars Class 9 - Five-Axle Single-Trailer Trucks Class 3 - Other Two-Axle, Four-Tire Single Unit Vehicles Class 10 - Six or More Axle Single-Trailer Trucks Class 4 - Buses Class 11 - Five or fewer Axle Multi-Trailer Trucks Class 5 - Two-Axle, Six-Tire, Single-Unit Trucks Class 12 - Six-Axle Multi-Trailer Trucks Class 6 - Three-Axle Single-Unit Trucks Class 13 - Seven or More Axle Multi-Trailer Trucks Class 7 - Four or More Axle Single-Unit Trucks
Vehicle Classification Report Summary
College Ave, S/O Bryant Ave
Northbound / Southbound
11/27/2023 to 11/30/2023
Total
FHWA Vehicle Classification
Direction Total
Volume
Northbound
Southbound
15,580
7,101
8,479
1 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469
[email protected]
Location: College Ave, S/O Bryant Ave
Date Range: 11/27/2023 to 11/30/2023
Site Code:

Northbound
Total
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Volume
12:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
9:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
10:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
11:00 AM 4 221 25 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 258
12:00 PM 7 266 17 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 299
1:00 PM 6 254 21 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 287
2:00 PM 7 247 13 0 10 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 278
3:00 PM 1 279 27 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 318
4:00 PM 6 303 24 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 344
5:00 PM 8 290 16 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 326
6:00 PM 2 238 11 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 260
7:00 PM 2 144 6 0 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 160
8:00 PM 3 89 9 0 9 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 111
9:00 PM 0 52 2 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60
10:00 PM 0 33 1 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39
11:00 PM 0 12 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15
46 2,428 173 0 104 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 0

1.7% 88.1% 6.3% 0.0% 3.8% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Monday, November 27, 2023
FHWA Vehicle ClassificationTime
Total 2,755
2 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469
[email protected]
Location: College Ave, S/O Bryant Ave
Date Range: 11/27/2023 to 11/30/2023
Site Code:

Southbound
Total
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Volume
12:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
9:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
10:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
11:00 AM 0 174 23 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 213
12:00 PM 2 196 33 0 13 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 245
1:00 PM 2 218 26 0 18 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 266
2:00 PM 1 202 18 1 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 234
3:00 PM 1 287 33 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 330
4:00 PM 2 297 28 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 331
5:00 PM 1 242 25 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 277
6:00 PM 1 213 21 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 240
7:00 PM 0 158 13 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 178
8:00 PM 1 96 14 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 116
9:00 PM 2 76 8 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90
10:00 PM 0 25 6 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34
11:00 PM 1 21 4 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29
14 2,205 252 1 107 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0

0.5% 85.4% 9.8% 0.0% 4.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Monday, November 27, 2023
FHWA Vehicle ClassificationTime
Total 2,583
3 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469
[email protected]
Location: College Ave, S/O Bryant Ave
Date Range: 11/27/2023 to 11/30/2023
Site Code:

Northbound
Total
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Volume
12:00 AM 1 9 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14
1:00 AM 0 5 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7
2:00 AM 0 4 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7
3:00 AM 0 6 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8
4:00 AM 0 4 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7
5:00 AM 0 15 2 0 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25
6:00 AM 2 43 3 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 52
7:00 AM 5 133 13 0 13 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 165
8:00 AM 10 247 26 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 290
9:00 AM 6 213 31 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 264
10:00 AM 5 244 24 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 281
11:00 AM 5 258 26 0 11 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 301
12:00 PM 6 280 21 0 13 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 321
1:00 PM 6 241 15 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 278
2:00 PM 7 280 29 1 11 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 330
3:00 PM 8 299 18 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 334
4:00 PM 6 288 32 1 12 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 340
5:00 PM 8 306 23 0 9 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 349
6:00 PM 5 227 13 2 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 256
7:00 PM 1 159 16 0 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 185
8:00 PM 1 133 7 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 152
9:00 PM 0 69 3 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 78
10:00 PM 0 37 2 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 46
11:00 PM 0 16 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22
82 3,516 312 4 185 6 0 5 1 1 0 0 0

2.0% 85.5% 7.6% 0.1% 4.5% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4,112Total Tuesday, November 28, 2023
FHWA Vehicle ClassificationTime
4 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469
[email protected]
Location: College Ave, S/O Bryant Ave
Date Range: 11/27/2023 to 11/30/2023
Site Code:

Southbound
Total
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Volume
12:00 AM 0 14 6 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22
1:00 AM 0 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
2:00 AM 0 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
3:00 AM 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
4:00 AM 0 3 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
5:00 AM 0 8 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14
6:00 AM 0 25 5 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37
7:00 AM 0 82 13 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 104
8:00 AM 0 149 20 0 12 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 182
9:00 AM 2 146 34 0 10 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 193
10:00 AM 1 185 27 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 225
11:00 AM 1 185 38 0 12 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 237
12:00 PM 1 212 27 0 15 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 256
1:00 PM 1 208 25 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 244
2:00 PM 2 234 25 0 13 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 275
3:00 PM 2 270 43 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 325
4:00 PM 4 293 30 0 14 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 343
5:00 PM 1 274 29 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 308
6:00 PM 3 230 18 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 258
7:00 PM 1 195 17 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 218
8:00 PM 1 129 13 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 149
9:00 PM 0 88 14 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 108
10:00 PM 0 46 9 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 58
11:00 PM 0 28 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36
20 3,011 400 0 172 3 0 2 2 0 0 0 0

0.6% 83.4% 11.1% 0.0% 4.8% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3,610Total Tuesday, November 28, 2023
FHWA Vehicle ClassificationTime
5 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469
[email protected]
Location: College Ave, S/O Bryant Ave
Date Range: 11/27/2023 to 11/30/2023
Site Code:

Northbound
Total
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Volume
12:00 AM 0 13 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17
1:00 AM 0 4 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8
2:00 AM 0 4 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7
3:00 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
4:00 AM 0 4 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
5:00 AM 1 27 2 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34
6:00 AM 0 45 5 1 9 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 64
7:00 AM 0 141 9 0 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 159
8:00 AM 1 255 35 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 303
9:00 AM 3 211 26 0 12 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 254
10:00 AM 2 253 28 0 14 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 299
11:00 AM 0 186 13 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 208
12:00 PM 0 126 11 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 146
1:00 PM 0 84 12 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 102
2:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3:00 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:00 PM 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
6:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
9:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
10:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
11:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7 1,356 146 1 90 10 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

0.4% 84.2% 9.1% 0.1% 5.6% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1,611Total FHWA Vehicle ClassificationTime
Wednesday, November 29, 2023
6 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469
[email protected]
Location: College Ave, S/O Bryant Ave
Date Range: 11/27/2023 to 11/30/2023
Site Code:

Southbound
Total
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Volume
12:00 AM 0 15 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21
1:00 AM 0 4 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10
2:00 AM 0 4 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
3:00 AM 0 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
4:00 AM 0 4 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
5:00 AM 0 7 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12
6:00 AM 0 31 5 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42
7:00 AM 0 75 11 0 10 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 98
8:00 AM 1 148 37 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 197
9:00 AM 1 154 28 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 203
10:00 AM 1 168 22 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 206
11:00 AM 5 25 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31
12:00 PM 4 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30
1:00 PM 7 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37
2:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:00 PM 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
6:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
9:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
10:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
11:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
20 694 114 1 74 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

2.2% 76.7% 12.6% 0.1% 8.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 905Total Wednesday, November 29, 2023
FHWA Vehicle ClassificationTime
7 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469
[email protected]
Location: College Ave, S/O Bryant Ave
Date Range: 11/27/2023 to 11/30/2023
Site Code:

Northbound
Total
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Volume
12:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
9:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
10:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
11:00 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
12:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
9:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
10:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
11:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1Total Thursday, November 30, 2023
FHWA Vehicle ClassificationTime
8 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469
[email protected]
Location: College Ave, S/O Bryant Ave
Date Range: 11/27/2023 to 11/30/2023
Site Code:

Southbound
Total
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Volume
12:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
9:00 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
10:00 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
11:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
12:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2:00 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
3:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
9:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
10:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
11:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3Total Thursday, November 30, 2023
FHWA Vehicle ClassificationTime
9 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469
[email protected]
Location: College Ave, S/O Bryant Ave
Date Range: 11/27/2023 to 11/30/2023
Site Code:

Total Study Average
Northbound
Total
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Volume
12:00 AM 0 7 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10
1:00 AM 0 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
2:00 AM 0 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
3:00 AM 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
4:00 AM 0 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
5:00 AM 0 14 1 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19
6:00 AM 1 29 3 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38
7:00 AM 2 91 7 0 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 108
8:00 AM 4 167 20 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 197
9:00 AM 3 141 19 0 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 173
10:00 AM 2 124 13 0 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 146
11:00 AM 2 166 16 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 191
12:00 PM 3 168 12 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 191
1:00 PM 3 145 12 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 167
2:00 PM 4 132 11 0 5 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 153
3:00 PM 2 145 11 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 163
4:00 PM 4 197 19 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 228
5:00 PM 5 199 13 0 7 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 225
6:00 PM 2 155 8 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 172
7:00 PM 1 101 7 0 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 115
8:00 PM 1 74 5 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 87
9:00 PM 0 40 2 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 46
10:00 PM 0 23 1 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28
11:00 PM 0 9 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12
39 2,138 185 1 116 6 0 1 0 1 0 0 0

1.6% 86.0% 7.4% 0.0% 4.7% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Note: Average only condsidered on days with 24-hours of data. 2,487Total
FHWA Vehicle ClassificationTime
10 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469
[email protected]
Location: College Ave, S/O Bryant Ave
Date Range: 11/27/2023 to 11/30/2023
Site Code:

Total Study Average
Southbound
Total
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Volume
12:00 AM 0 10 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14
1:00 AM 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
2:00 AM 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
3:00 AM 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
4:00 AM 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
5:00 AM 0 5 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9
6:00 AM 0 19 3 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26
7:00 AM 0 52 8 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 66
8:00 AM 0 99 19 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 126
9:00 AM 1 100 21 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 132
10:00 AM 1 89 12 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 109
11:00 AM 2 96 15 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 120
12:00 PM 2 109 15 0 7 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 134
1:00 PM 3 114 13 0 7 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 138
2:00 PM 1 109 11 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 127
3:00 PM 1 139 19 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 164
4:00 PM 2 197 19 0 6 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 225
5:00 PM 1 172 18 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 195
6:00 PM 1 148 13 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 166
7:00 PM 0 118 10 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 132
8:00 PM 1 75 9 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 89
9:00 PM 1 55 7 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 66
10:00 PM 0 24 5 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31
11:00 PM 0 16 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21
17 1,753 226 0 104 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0

0.8% 83.4% 10.7% 0.0% 4.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Note: Average only condsidered on days with 24-hours of data. 2,103Total
FHWA Vehicle ClassificationTime
11 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469
[email protected]
Location: College Ave, S/O Bryant Ave
Date Range: 11/27/2023 to 11/30/2023
Site Code:
3-Day (Tuesday - Thursday) Average
Northbound
Total
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Volume
12:00 AM 0 7 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10
1:00 AM 0 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
2:00 AM 0 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
3:00 AM 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
4:00 AM 0 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
5:00 AM 0 14 1 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19
6:00 AM 1 29 3 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38
7:00 AM 2 91 7 0 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 108
8:00 AM 4 167 20 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 197
9:00 AM 3 141 19 0 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 173
10:00 AM 2 166 17 0 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 193
11:00 AM 2 148 13 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 170
12:00 PM 2 135 11 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 155
1:00 PM 2 108 9 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 126
2:00 PM 2 93 10 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 109
3:00 PM 3 109 7 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 122
4:00 PM 3 144 16 1 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 171
5:00 PM 4 154 12 0 5 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 177
6:00 PM 3 114 7 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 130
7:00 PM 1 80 8 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 94
8:00 PM 1 67 4 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 78
9:00 PM 0 35 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40
10:00 PM 0 19 1 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24
11:00 PM 0 8 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12
35 1,840 173 2 105 7 0 2 0 0 0 0 0

1.6% 85.0% 8.0% 0.1% 4.9% 0.3% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2,164Total FHWA Vehicle ClassificationTime
12 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469
[email protected]
Location: College Ave, S/O Bryant Ave
Date Range: 11/27/2023 to 11/30/2023
Site Code:
3-Day (Tuesday - Thursday) Average
Southbound
Total
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Volume
12:00 AM 0 10 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14
1:00 AM 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
2:00 AM 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
3:00 AM 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
4:00 AM 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
5:00 AM 0 5 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9
6:00 AM 0 19 3 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26
7:00 AM 0 52 8 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 66
8:00 AM 0 99 19 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 126
9:00 AM 1 100 21 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 132
10:00 AM 1 118 16 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 144
11:00 AM 2 70 13 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 89
12:00 PM 2 79 9 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 95
1:00 PM 3 79 8 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 93
2:00 PM 1 78 8 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 91
3:00 PM 1 98 16 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 119
4:00 PM 2 147 15 0 7 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 173
5:00 PM 1 137 15 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 155
6:00 PM 2 115 9 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 130
7:00 PM 1 98 9 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 111
8:00 PM 1 65 7 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 76
9:00 PM 0 44 7 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 54
10:00 PM 0 23 5 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30
11:00 PM 0 14 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18
18 1,457 196 0 91 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

1.0% 82.6% 11.1% 0.0% 5.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1,764Total FHWA Vehicle ClassificationTime
13 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469
[email protected]
Location: College Ave, S/O Bryant Ave
Direction: Northbound / Southbound
Date Range: 11/27/2023 to 11/30/2023
Site Code:
0 - 10 10 - 15 15 - 20 20 - 25 25 - 30 30 - 35 35 - 40 40 - 45 45 - 50 50 - 55 55 - 60 60 - 65 65 - 70 70 - 75 75 - 80 80 - 85 85 + 57 435 1,640 3,210 2,381 641 82 14 2 2 5 1 0 0 2 4 3

0.7% 5.1% 19.3% 37.9% 28.1% 7.6% 1.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 141 220 930 2,269 2,289 979 222 42 7 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0

2.0% 3.1% 13.1% 32.0% 32.2% 13.8% 3.1% 0.6% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 198 655 2,570 5,479 4,670 1,620 304 56 9 2 6 1 0 0 3 4 3

1.3% 4.2% 16.5% 35.2% 30.0% 10.4% 2.0% 0.4% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50th Percentile (Median) 23.4 mph Mean (Average) Speed 23.3 mph

28.4 mph 10 mph Pace 18.7 - 28.7 mph

31.5 mph Percent in Pace 68.5 %
50th Percentile (Median) 24.9 mph Mean (Average) Speed 24.8 mph

30.6 mph 10 mph Pace 20.1 - 30.1 mph

34.2 mph Percent in Pace 64.2 %
Vehicle Speed Report Summary
Total Study Percentile Speed Summary Total Study Speed Statistics 85th Percentile
15,580
7,101
8,479
SouthboundSouthbound
NorthboundNorthbound
Total
Southbound
Northbound
Total
VolumeDirection
Speed Range (mph)
95th Percentile
85th Percentile
95th Percentile
1 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469
[email protected]
Location: College Ave, S/O Bryant Ave
Date Range: 11/27/2023 to 11/30/2023
Site Code:

Northbound
Total
0 - 10 10 - 15 15 - 20 20 - 25 25 - 30 30 - 35 35 - 40 40 - 45 45 - 50 50 - 55 55 - 60 60 - 65 65 - 70 70 - 75 75 - 80 80 - 85 85 + Volume 12:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
9:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
10:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
11:00 AM 1 18 54 112 59 10 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 258
12:00 PM 2 17 61 112 94 10 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 299
1:00 PM 3 16 53 125 73 16 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 287
2:00 PM 3 7 50 117 67 26 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 278
3:00 PM 1 14 69 132 87 11 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 318
4:00 PM 2 36 116 112 66 9 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 344
5:00 PM 2 14 56 143 81 23 1 2 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 326
6:00 PM 2 5 43 103 86 19 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 260
7:00 PM 5 6 21 64 49 14 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 160
8:00 PM 2 2 13 27 48 17 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 111
9:00 PM 0 1 2 14 32 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60
10:00 PM 1 1 3 2 18 11 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39
11:00 PM 0 0 0 1 7 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15
24 137 541 1,064 767 183 25 3 0 1 4 0 0 0 2 4 0

0.9% 5.0% 19.6% 38.6% 27.8% 6.6% 0.9% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 50th Percentile (Median) 23.2 mph Mean (Average) Speed 23.3 mph 85th Percentile 28.3 mph 10 mph Pace mph
95th Percentile 31.3 mph Percent in Pace 69.0 %
Total

18.5 - 28.5
Time
2,755
Monday, November 27, 2023
Speed Range (mph)
Daily Percentile Speed Summary Speed Statistics
2 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469
[email protected]
Location: College Ave, S/O Bryant Ave
Date Range: 11/27/2023 to 11/30/2023
Site Code:

Southbound
Total
0 - 10 10 - 15 15 - 20 20 - 25 25 - 30 30 - 35 35 - 40 40 - 45 45 - 50 50 - 55 55 - 60 60 - 65 65 - 70 70 - 75 75 - 80 80 - 85 85 + Volume 12:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
9:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
10:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
11:00 AM 1 7 24 77 74 24 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 213
12:00 PM 1 2 19 100 87 34 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 245
1:00 PM 1 0 12 122 88 36 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 266
2:00 PM 0 15 19 88 89 18 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 234
3:00 PM 4 15 70 117 81 41 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 330
4:00 PM 0 18 87 113 92 18 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 331
5:00 PM 1 7 29 94 109 28 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 277
6:00 PM 2 2 12 75 102 42 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 240
7:00 PM 4 6 20 59 60 23 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 178
8:00 PM 0 0 4 13 45 43 9 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 116
9:00 PM 4 2 3 15 35 24 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90
10:00 PM 0 2 0 3 9 15 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34
11:00 PM 0 0 0 4 9 10 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29
18 76 299 880 880 356 59 14 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.7% 2.9% 11.6% 34.1% 34.1% 13.8% 2.3% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50th Percentile (Median) 25.1 mph Mean (Average) Speed 25.1 mph 85th Percentile 30.4 mph 10 mph Pace mph
95th Percentile 33.6 mph Percent in Pace 68.18 %
2,583Total
Daily Percentile Speed Summary Speed Statistics

20.0 - 30.0
Monday, November 27, 2023
Speed Range (mph)Time
3 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469
[email protected]
Location: College Ave, S/O Bryant Ave
Date Range: 11/27/2023 to 11/30/2023
Site Code:

Northbound
Total
0 - 10 10 - 15 15 - 20 20 - 25 25 - 30 30 - 35 35 - 40 40 - 45 45 - 50 50 - 55 55 - 60 60 - 65 65 - 70 70 - 75 75 - 80 80 - 85 85 + Volume 12:00 AM 0 1 1 1 4 4 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14
1:00 AM 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7
2:00 AM 0 1 0 1 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7
3:00 AM 0 0 0 3 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8
4:00 AM 0 0 0 1 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7
5:00 AM 0 0 2 3 9 9 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25
6:00 AM 0 0 4 4 22 16 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 52
7:00 AM 0 2 14 41 73 29 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 165
8:00 AM 0 2 26 101 122 29 7 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 290
9:00 AM 0 6 35 126 76 20 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 264
10:00 AM 0 9 52 97 105 17 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 281
11:00 AM 1 22 75 126 69 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 301
12:00 PM 3 35 97 109 67 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 321
1:00 PM 2 15 58 118 64 20 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 278
2:00 PM 2 14 75 158 65 15 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 330
3:00 PM 3 18 79 142 69 19 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 334
4:00 PM 5 26 100 141 55 11 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 340
5:00 PM 4 31 127 138 41 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 349
6:00 PM 3 23 64 98 53 14 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 256
7:00 PM 2 15 33 54 68 12 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 185
8:00 PM 0 12 25 51 48 13 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 152
9:00 PM 0 1 6 33 21 14 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 78
10:00 PM 0 0 2 5 22 16 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 46
11:00 PM 0 0 1 4 8 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22
25 233 876 1,556 1,070 299 37 10 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1

0.6% 5.7% 21.3% 37.8% 26.0% 7.3% 0.9% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50th Percentile (Median) 23.0 mph Mean (Average) Speed 23.0 mph 85th Percentile 28.1 mph 10 mph Pace mph
95th Percentile 31.3 mph Percent in Pace 67.5 %
Time
4,112Total
Tuesday, November 28, 2023
Speed Range (mph)
Daily Percentile Speed Summary Speed Statistics

18.6 - 28.6
4 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469
[email protected]
Location: College Ave, S/O Bryant Ave
Date Range: 11/27/2023 to 11/30/2023
Site Code:

Southbound
Total
0 - 10 10 - 15 15 - 20 20 - 25 25 - 30 30 - 35 35 - 40 40 - 45 45 - 50 50 - 55 55 - 60 60 - 65 65 - 70 70 - 75 75 - 80 80 - 85 85 + Volume 12:00 AM 0 0 0 0 8 8 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 22
1:00 AM 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
2:00 AM 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
3:00 AM 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
4:00 AM 0 0 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
5:00 AM 0 0 2 2 2 5 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14
6:00 AM 0 0 2 3 7 12 12 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37
7:00 AM 0 0 3 18 45 22 14 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 104
8:00 AM 0 1 14 41 65 46 13 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 182
9:00 AM 0 3 15 59 73 36 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 193
10:00 AM 0 8 39 52 87 34 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 225
11:00 AM 2 13 49 72 64 31 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 237
12:00 PM 4 21 57 93 59 15 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 256
1:00 PM 2 4 29 87 86 33 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 244
2:00 PM 2 10 55 92 77 31 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 275
3:00 PM 2 13 47 156 86 19 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 325
4:00 PM 4 20 84 136 86 11 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 343
5:00 PM 2 12 67 123 84 19 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 308
6:00 PM 2 12 36 99 80 25 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 258
7:00 PM 2 8 33 76 70 25 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 218
8:00 PM 3 3 15 36 59 28 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 149
9:00 PM 0 1 3 24 41 23 13 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 108
10:00 PM 0 0 0 6 18 21 12 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 58
11:00 PM 0 0 3 7 11 11 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36
25 130 553 1,186 1,113 458 119 19 5 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0

0.7% 3.6% 15.3% 32.9% 30.8% 12.7% 3.3% 0.5% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50th Percentile (Median) 24.6 mph Mean (Average) Speed 24.7 mph 85th Percentile 30.4 mph 10 mph Pace mph
95th Percentile 34.3 mph Percent in Pace 63.99 %
Time
3,610Total
Speed Range (mph)
Daily Percentile Speed Summary Speed Statistics

19.6 - 29.6
Tuesday, November 28, 2023
5 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469
[email protected]
Location: College Ave, S/O Bryant Ave
Date Range: 11/27/2023 to 11/30/2023
Site Code:

Northbound
Total
0 - 10 10 - 15 15 - 20 20 - 25 25 - 30 30 - 35 35 - 40 40 - 45 45 - 50 50 - 55 55 - 60 60 - 65 65 - 70 70 - 75 75 - 80 80 - 85 85 + Volume 12:00 AM 0 0 2 3 9 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17
1:00 AM 0 0 0 2 3 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8
2:00 AM 0 1 0 2 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7
3:00 AM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
4:00 AM 0 0 1 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
5:00 AM 0 1 0 7 11 11 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34
6:00 AM 0 2 3 10 33 11 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 64
7:00 AM 1 3 11 40 71 32 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 159
8:00 AM 4 15 33 111 110 27 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 303
9:00 AM 1 16 34 105 81 15 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 254
10:00 AM 2 18 74 123 67 14 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 299
11:00 AM 0 5 27 75 77 23 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 208
12:00 PM 0 4 24 73 40 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 146
1:00 PM 0 0 14 38 34 15 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 102
2:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3:00 PM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2
6:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
9:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
10:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
11:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8 65 223 590 544 159 20 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

0.5% 4.0% 13.8% 36.6% 33.8% 9.9% 1.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 50th Percentile (Median) 24.6 mph Mean (Average) Speed 24.2 mph 85th Percentile 29.0 mph 10 mph Pace mph
95th Percentile 31.9 mph Percent in Pace 71.1 %
Total 1,611
Daily Percentile Speed Summary Speed Statistics

19.0 - 29.0
Wednesday, November 29, 2023
Speed Range (mph)Time
6 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469
[email protected]
Location: College Ave, S/O Bryant Ave
Date Range: 11/27/2023 to 11/30/2023
Site Code:

Southbound
Total
0 - 10 10 - 15 15 - 20 20 - 25 25 - 30 30 - 35 35 - 40 40 - 45 45 - 50 50 - 55 55 - 60 60 - 65 65 - 70 70 - 75 75 - 80 80 - 85 85 + Volume 12:00 AM 0 0 1 5 10 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21
1:00 AM 0 0 0 1 4 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10
2:00 AM 0 0 2 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
3:00 AM 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
4:00 AM 0 0 0 1 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
5:00 AM 0 0 0 0 5 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12
6:00 AM 0 0 0 1 9 24 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42
7:00 AM 0 1 1 22 43 21 7 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 98
8:00 AM 1 3 15 46 78 42 10 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 197
9:00 AM 2 4 17 55 80 37 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 203
10:00 AM 3 5 34 68 62 27 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 206
11:00 AM 21 1 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31
12:00 PM 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30
1:00 PM 37 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37
2:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:00 PM 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
6:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
9:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
10:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
11:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
95 14 78 203 296 165 44 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

10.5% 1.5% 8.6% 22.4% 32.7% 18.2% 4.9% 1.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50th Percentile (Median) 26.2 mph Mean (Average) Speed 24.3 mph 85th Percentile 32.1 mph 10 mph Pace mph
95th Percentile 35.6 mph Percent in Pace 57.02 %
Time
Total 905

21.7 - 31.7
Wednesday, November 29, 2023
Speed Range (mph)
Daily Percentile Speed Summary Speed Statistics
7 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469
[email protected]
Location: College Ave, S/O Bryant Ave
Date Range: 11/27/2023 to 11/30/2023
Site Code:

Northbound
Total
0 - 10 10 - 15 15 - 20 20 - 25 25 - 30 30 - 35 35 - 40 40 - 45 45 - 50 50 - 55 55 - 60 60 - 65 65 - 70 70 - 75 75 - 80 80 - 85 85 + Volume 12:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
9:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
10:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
11:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
12:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
9:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
10:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
11:00 PM 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

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% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 50th Percentile (Median) 0.0 mph Mean (Average) Speed 89.5 mph 85th Percentile 0.0 mph 10 mph Pace mph
95th Percentile 0.0 mph Percent in Pace 100.0 %
Time
Total 1
Thursday, November 30, 2023
Speed Range (mph)
Daily Percentile Speed Summary Speed Statistics

79.6 - 89.6
8 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469
[email protected]
Location: College Ave, S/O Bryant Ave
Date Range: 11/27/2023 to 11/30/2023
Site Code:

Southbound
Total
0 - 10 10 - 15 15 - 20 20 - 25 25 - 30 30 - 35 35 - 40 40 - 45 45 - 50 50 - 55 55 - 60 60 - 65 65 - 70 70 - 75 75 - 80 80 - 85 85 + Volume 12:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
9:00 AM 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
10:00 AM 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
11:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
12:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2:00 PM 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
3:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
9:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
10:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
11:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
100.0% 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% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50th Percentile (Median) 0.0 mph Mean (Average) Speed 0.8 mph 85th Percentile 0.0 mph 10 mph Pace mph
95th Percentile 0.0 mph Percent in Pace 100 %
3 Daily Percentile Speed Summary Speed Statistics
.0 - 10.0
Total
Time
Thursday, November 30, 2023
Speed Range (mph)
9 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469
[email protected]
Location: College Ave, S/O Bryant Ave
Date Range: 11/27/2023 to 11/30/2023
Site Code:

Northbound
Total
0 - 10 10 - 15 15 - 20 20 - 25 25 - 30 30 - 35 35 - 40 40 - 45 45 - 50 50 - 55 55 - 60 60 - 65 65 - 70 70 - 75 75 - 80 80 - 85 85 + Volume 12:00 AM 0 0 1 1 4 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10
1:00 AM 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
2:00 AM 0 1 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
3:00 AM 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
4:00 AM 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
5:00 AM 0 0 1 3 7 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20
6:00 AM 0 1 2 5 18 9 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38
7:00 AM 0 2 8 27 48 20 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 107
8:00 AM 1 6 20 71 77 19 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 198
9:00 AM 0 7 23 77 52 12 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 172
10:00 AM 1 7 32 55 43 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 146
11:00 AM 1 11 39 78 51 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 191
12:00 PM 1 14 46 74 50 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 192
1:00 PM 1 8 31 70 43 13 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 167
2:00 PM 1 5 31 69 33 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 151
3:00 PM 1 8 37 69 39 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 164
4:00 PM 2 21 72 84 40 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 227
5:00 PM 2 15 61 94 41 10 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 226
6:00 PM 2 9 36 67 46 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 172
7:00 PM 2 7 18 39 39 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 115
8:00 PM 1 5 13 26 32 10 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 89
9:00 PM 0 1 3 16 18 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 47
10:00 PM 0 0 2 2 13 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27
11:00 PM 0 0 0 2 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12
16 128 476 932 705 197 25 4 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0

0.6% 5.1% 19.1% 37.5% 28.4% 7.9% 1.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Note: Average only condsidered on days with 24-hours of data. 50th Percentile (Median) 23.4 mph Mean (Average) Speed 23.3 mph 85th Percentile 28.4 mph 10 mph Pace 18.7 - 28.7 mph 95th Percentile 31.5 mph Percent in Pace 68.5 %
Time
Total 2,486
Speed Range (mph)
Total Study Percentile Speed Summary Total Study Speed Statistics Total Study Average
10 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469
[email protected]
Location: College Ave, S/O Bryant Ave
Date Range: 11/27/2023 to 11/30/2023
Site Code:

Southbound
Total
0 - 10 10 - 15 15 - 20 20 - 25 25 - 30 30 - 35 35 - 40 40 - 45 45 - 50 50 - 55 55 - 60 60 - 65 65 - 70 70 - 75 75 - 80 80 - 85 85 + Volume 12:00 AM 0 0 0 2 6 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14
1:00 AM 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
2:00 AM 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
3:00 AM 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
4:00 AM 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
5:00 AM 0 0 1 1 2 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8
6:00 AM 0 0 1 1 5 12 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26
7:00 AM 0 0 1 13 29 14 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 66
8:00 AM 0 1 10 29 48 29 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 126
9:00 AM 1 2 11 38 51 24 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 132
10:00 AM 1 3 18 30 37 15 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 107
11:00 AM 6 5 20 38 35 14 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 121
12:00 PM 9 6 19 48 37 12 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 133
1:00 PM 10 1 10 52 44 17 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 136
2:00 PM 1 6 19 45 42 12 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 129
3:00 PM 2 7 29 68 42 15 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 164
4:00 PM 1 13 57 83 59 10 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 225
5:00 PM 1 6 32 72 64 16 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 194
6:00 PM 1 5 16 58 61 22 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 166
7:00 PM 2 5 18 45 43 16 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 132
8:00 PM 1 1 6 16 35 24 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 88
9:00 PM 1 1 2 13 25 16 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65
10:00 PM 0 1 0 3 9 12 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31
11:00 PM 0 0 1 4 7 7 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22
37 63 272 662 686 297 68 14 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.8% 3.0% 13.0% 31.5% 32.7% 14.1% 3.2% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Note: Average only condsidered on days with 24-hours of data. 50th Percentile (Median) 24.9 mph Mean (Average) Speed 24.8 mph 85th Percentile 30.6 mph 10 mph Pace 20.1 - 30.1 mph 95th Percentile 34.2 mph Percent in Pace 64.2 %
2,100
Total Study Average
Speed Range (mph)
Total Study Percentile Speed Summary Total Study Speed Statistics Time
Total
11 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469
[email protected]

PHA Transportation Consultants
2711 Stuart Street Berkeley CA 94705
Phone (510) 848-9233

January 25, 2024

Jesse Yang
Taylor and Wiley
500 Capitol Mall, Suite 1150
Sacramento, CA 95814

Dear Jesse Yang,

In response to your request, we have conducted a review of the updated traffic impact study for the proposed daycare center at 5315 College Avenue, Oakland dated 11/20/2023. Our review indicated that the updated traffic impact study is inadequate as it fails to provide a realistic site traffic generation, fails to provide realistic and workable solutions to address traffic operation and circulation during drop-off and pick-up times, and fails to evaluate and discuss site access issues. Below are our comments listed corresponding to the numbers marked on the attached updated traffic study provided by the City of Oakland.

1. The project description describes the size of the facility, zoning code, and county assessor parcel information but omits to provide the number of students, teachers/employees, and hours of operation. Those are critical aspects in evaluating traffic impact.

As indicated, the facility has a total of 4,699 square feet but only 3,050 square feet is dedicated to children, while the rest is the basement for storage. We believe the basement is a part of the facility and should be considered in the trip generation analysis. In other words, the size of the facility should be 4,699 square feet and not 3,050. Further, the project application submitted by the applicant indicated the daycare center would have 48 students and 10 teachers/employees. The traffic study should use these figures to estimate site traffic generation instead of the size of the facility since students and teachers are the trip makers and as such will provide more realistic trip generation estimates.

2. Table 1, as noted above, the basement is part of the daycare center and should be included in the trip generation analysis as it can be converted and used as classrooms or play areas at any time. As such, the trip generation analysis should be revised to 4,669 square feet (4.66) instead of 3,050 (3.05) square feet which would result in a higher trip generation. Further, as shown above, the applicant’s project application indicated the daycare center would have 48 students and up to 10 employees. Assuming 20% (approx.10 students) of the students would be from the surrounding neighborhoods within walking distance to the daycare center, and that all employees will use alternative transportation such as public transits and bicycles, the remaining 38 students will generate 76 vehicle trips in the morning peak hour (38 drop off trips and then 38 drive off after the drop off). In the afternoon the site will generate another 76 trips (38 trips as parents come in to pick up their children and then 38 trips when parents drive off afterward. This is well above the 36 am and 36 pm trip estimates from the city- provided traffic study

3. It’s not appropriate to apply the Oakland Multimodal Trip Generation Adjustment and Mode Split (Tables 2 and 3) in this case since the adjustment factors are based on distance from BART and Amtrak, with which parents are not likely to use to drop off or pick up the kids. Because of that, any trip adjustment/deduction based on these factors should be removed.

4. Public Transit Accessibility may benefit teachers/employees but will not likely reduce or minimize parent drop-off and pick-up traffic as parents will most likely drive their kids to the daycare center.

5. While there are parking spaces available on College Avenue near the site. They are all paid spaces with two-hour maximum limits. Parents may be able to use the paid parking when dropping off or picking up their kids, but teachers/employees will not be able to use them due to the time restriction. Further, parking spaces on the east side of College Avenue are not a good option for parents as they would have to carry or walk with their kids to cross the street facing high vehicle speed despite the crosswalk in front of the site.

6. The drop-off pick-up plan indicates there are two on-street parking spaces in front of the site. Based on our field observation, there is only one and a half space, plus a handicapped space. It’s not likely the City would agree to convert them for the daycare center use.

Converting the paid parking space to a green curb means a loss of city revenues and handicapped parking. Without adequate parking spaces, parent traffic during drop-off and pick-up times would likely block the street and the bike lane due to insufficient parking on the site and in front of the site. Staff assisting parents during drop-off and pick-up time may improve drop-off and pick-up operation but would not reduce parent traffic. Carpool programs may work for other types of businesses but not for a daycare center as kids are needed to be secured in their child seats in their parent’s car.

The updated traffic impact study fails to discuss problems and solutions with site access, particularly for traffic coming from the south direction (Broadway) and east direction (Bryant Avenue) since it would be difficult to turn around on College Avenue.

In conclusion, the updated traffic impact study is inadequate, it underestimated the site traffic generation, failed to address the site access difficulty for parents coming from the east and south directions, and failed to provide realistic solutions to address traffic operation and circulation issues during drop-off and pick-up times.

Please call me if you have any questions regarding our review and comments.

Sincerely,

Pang Ho AICP
Principal

CITY OF OAKLAND
D
ALZIEL BUILDING • 250 FRANK H. OGAWA PLAZA • SUITE 3315 • OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94612 Planning and Building Department (510) 238-3941
Bureau of Planning FAX (510) 238-6538
TDD (510) 238-3254
Se
nt Via Email
O
ctober 12, 2023
M
ehdi Shafiei
5690 Broadway Terrace
Oakland, CA 94618
[email protected]
RE
: Case File No. PLN22189; 5315 College Avenue; APN: 014 124901103 D
ear Mr. Shafiei:

Y
our application, as described below, has been approved for the reasons stated in Attachment A, which contains the findings required to support this decision. Attachment B contains the Conditions of Approval for the project. This decision is effective ten (10) days after the date of this letter unless appealed pursuant to the procedures set forth below.

T
he following table summarizes the proposed project:

Proposal: Addition and alteration to an existing commercial structure for a childcare (Community Education Civic) activity for 48 students.

Planning Permits Required: Minor Conditional Use Permit for a community education civic activity.

Regular Design Review for alterations to an existing facility.

General Plan: Neighborhood Center Mixed Use
Zoning: CN-1
Environmental Determination: 15301 of the State CEQA Guidelines: Minor alterations to existing facilities; and 15183 – Projects Consistent with a Community Plan, General Plan, or Zoning
Historic Status: Potential Designated Historic Property (PDHP): OCHS Survey rating:

C3
City Council District: 1
I
f you, or any interested party, seeks to challenge this decision, an appeal must be filed by no later than ten (10) calendar days from the date of this letter. An appeal shall be on a form provided by the Bureau of Planning of the Planning and Building Department, and submitted via email to : (1) Neil Gray, Planner IV, and [email protected], (2) Robert Merkamp, Zoning Manager, at [email protected], and (3) Catherine Payne, Development Planning Manager, at [email protected]. The appeal form is available online at https://www.oaklandca.gov/documents/appeal-application-form. The appeal shall state specifically wherein it is claimed there was error or abuse of discretion by the Zoning Manager or decision- making body or wherein the decision is not supported by substantial evidence. Applicable appeal fees in the amount of $2,599.09 in accordance with the City of Oakland Master Fee Schedule must be paid within five (5) calendar days of filing the appeal.

ATTACHMENT C
PLN22189; 5315 College Avenue Page 2

If the fifth (5th) calendar day falls on a weekend or City holiday, appellant will have until the end of the following City business day to pay the appeal fee. Failure to timely appeal (or to timely pay all appeal fees) will preclude you, or any interested party, from challenging the City’s decision in court. The appeal itself must raise each and every issue that is contested, along with all the arguments and evidence in the record which supports the basis of the appeal; failure to do so may preclude you, or any interested party, from raising such issues during the appeal and/or in court. However, the appeal will be limited to issues and/or evidence presented to the Zoning Manager prior to the close of the previously noticed public comment period on the matter. For further information, see the attached Interim City Administrator Emergency Order No. 3 and Interim Procedures for Appeals of City Planning Bureau Decisions for Development Projects.

If the ten (10) day appeal period expires without an appeal, you are expected to contact Neil Gray in order to receive the signed Notice of Exemption (NOE) certifying that the project has been found to be exempt from CEQA review. It is your responsibility to record the NOE and the Environmental Declaration at the Alameda County Clerk’s office at 1106 Madison Street, Oakland, CA 94612, at a cost of $50.00 made payable to the Alameda County Clerk. Please bring the original NOE related documents and five copies to the Alameda County C lerk, and return one date stamped copy to the Bureau of Planning, to the attention of Neil Gray, Planner IV. Pursuant to Section 15062(d) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, recordation of the NOE starts a 35- day statute of limitations on court challenges to the approval under CEQA. The NOE will also be posted on the City website at https://aca.accela.com/OAKLAND/Welcome.aspx.

If you have any questions, please contact the case planner, Neil Gray, Planner IV, at (510) 238-3878 or [email protected], however, this does not substitute for filing of an appeal as described above.

Very Truly Yours,

ROBERT D. MERKAMP
Zoning Manager

cc: Ronnie Turner: [email protected]
Naomi Schiff: [email protected]
Chris Buckley: [email protected]
John Allen: [email protected]

Attachments:

A. Findings
B. Conditions of Approval, including Standard Conditions of Approvals

PLN22189; 5315 College Avenue Page 3

ATTACHMENT A: FINDINGS

This proposal meets all the required findings of the Oakland Planning Code (OMC Title 17) and the No Net Loss findings of California Government Code Section 65863 (B)(2) as set forth below and which are required to approve your application. Required findings are shown in bold type; reasons your proposal satisfies them are shown in normal type.

Section 17.136.050 Regular Design Criteria for Nonresidential Facilities and Signs

1. That the proposal will help achieve or maintain a group of facilities which are well related to one another and which, when taken together, will result in a well-composed design, with consideration given to site, landscape, bulk, height, arrangement, texture, materials, colors, and appurtenances; the relation of these factors to other facilities in the vicinity; and the relation of the proposal to the total setting as seen from key points in the surrounding area. Only elements of design which have som e significant relationship to outside appearance shall be considered, except as otherwise provided in Section 17.136.060 .

The proposed addition underneath and to the rear of the existing structure will result in a well -composed design and will relate to structures on College Avenue. The trim, sill, and recess on new windows , the front patio, and other architectural details visible from the street will match the existing building. Further, the home will be rotated to be perpendicular to the street, which will be consistent with other structures on College Avenue. The stairs required on the north side of the building are required for egress under the Building Code but will be screened by a wall with siding that will match the existing and proposed building. The rear addition will have windows and roof forms that will relate to the existing but remain appropriately distinguished from the historic building.

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

As described in Finding #1, t he proposal is consistent with the historic design of the building and , when constructed, will be compatible with other Craftsman style buildings in the neighborhood. The building height will be consistent with other structures in the neighborhood.

3. That the proposed design conforms in all significant respects with the Oakland General Plan and with any applicable design review guidelines or criteria, district plan, or development control map which have been adopted by the Planning Commission or City Council.

The site is located in the Neighborhood Center Mixed Use area under the General Plan’s Land Use and Transportation Element (LUTE). The intent of the area is: “to identify, create, maintain and enhance mixed use neighborhood commercial centers. These centers are typically characterized by smaller scale pedestrian -oriented, continuous street frontage with a mix of retail, housing, office, active open space, eating and drinking place, personal and business services, and small scale educational, cultural, or entertainment uses.” The LUTE contains the following Neighborhood Objective: “Provide f or healthy, vital, and accessible commercial areas that help meet local consumer needs in the neighborhoods.” The proposal is consistent with the following LUTE Policies:

• Policy N12.3 Making Day Care Available. High quality day care should be available th roughout Oakland, appropriately sited and designed based on its capacity and attributes. The City should, when appropriate and feasible, require major development projects to provide on and off-site facilities or other means to address potential child care inadequacies and encourage the inclusion of child care centers in major residential and commercial developments near transit centers, community centers, and schools.

• Policy N5.2 Buffering Residential Areas. Residential areas should be buffered and reinf orced from conflicting uses through the establishment of performance -based regulations, the removal of non-conforming uses, and other tools.

• Polciy T2.2 Guiding Transit-Oriented Development. Transit-oriented developments should be pedestrian PLN22189; 5315 College Avenue Page 4

oriented, encourage night and day time use, provide the neighborhood with needed goods and services, contain a mix of land uses, and be designed to be compatible with the character of surrounding neighborhoods.

Section 17.134.050 – General Use Permit Criteria:

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

As described in a traffic analysis prepared for the project, the proposal will not have a harmful effect on traffic or surrounding streets. Nearby residential neighborhoods and adjacent commercial facilities will be buffered from noise produced at the facility by landscaping and walls at the side and rear property lines of the site. The scale of the building will be consistent with other buildings in the neighborhood, and, as conditioned, the proposal will not block traffic or endanger students walking to the center.

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

The development will have ample room at the site for playground space and the open floor plan is appropriate for the use of children for play and activities. As described above, the proposed additions are compatible with the Rockridge District and the building.

3. That the pr oposed development will enhance the successful operation of the surrounding area in its basic community functions, or will provide an essential service to the community or region.

The proposal will provide essential childcare services to the community.

4. That the proposal conforms to all applicable design review criteria set forth in the design review procedure at Section 17.136.070.

Design Review Findings, above.

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

See “General Plan Analysis”, above.

Section 17.33.030 Additional CUP Criteria for the CN-1 Zone

1. That the proposal will not detract from the character desired for the area; The existing building is not amenable to a pedestrian shopping experience because of its Craftsman home design. In particular, including a storefront window and removing the grade separation between the sidewalk and ground floor would not be consistent with the historic design of the building. As such, the proposal to provide ground floor childcare activities will not detract from the area. Further, the pedestrian experience will be improved by bringing activity to the property instead of the office uses that have previously been at the site.

2. That the proposal will not impair a generally continuous wall of building facades; PLN22189; 5315 College Avenue Page 5

The project site is not part of a generally continuous wall of building facades.

3. That the proposal will not weaken the concentration and continuity of retail facilities at ground level, and will not impair the retention or creation of an important shopping frontage; The site is not part of an important shopping frontage because it contains a Craftsman building originally designed as a home. It is setback from the street and not attached to neighboring commercial buildings. The historic above-grade entrance and residential facade is not appropriate for retail uses.

4. That the proposal will not interfere with the movement of people along an important pedestrian street; The proposal will not extent into the sidewalk and will not, therefore, impede pedestrian movement.

5. That the proposal will conform in all significant respects with any applicable district plan which has been adopted by the City Council.

See “General Plan Analysis”, above.

California Government Code Section 65863 (b)(2) No Net Loss Findings

If a city, county, or city and county, by administrative, quasi-judicial, legislative, or other action, allows development of any parcel with fewer units by income category than identified in the jurisdiction’s housing element for that parcel, the city, county, or city and county shall make a written finding supported by substantial evidence as to whether or not remaining sites identified in the housing element are adequate to meet the requirements of Section 65583.2 and to accommodate the jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need pursuant to Section 65584. The finding shall include a quantification of the remaining unmet need for the jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need at each income level and the remaining capacity of sites identified in the housing element to accommodate that need by income level.

No Net Loss Finding 1: The City of Oakland adopted its current 2023-2031 Housing Element on January 31, 2023. The Housing Element identifies the realistic capacity for housing production throughout the current 2023-2031 Planning Period. This capacity accommodates the Regional Housing Needs Allocation, as well as a buffer, which ensures that if certain identified sites are not developed at the realistic capacity, that there would remain a sufficient numb er of units available to meet Oakland's Housing Needs. (See Housing Element, Appendix C, Table C-2.) For purposes of this finding, the buffer is calculated on a quarterly basis according to progress made during the 2023-2031 Planning Period.

Oakland's remaining lower income regional housing needs assessment is 8,021 dwelling units while Oakland's current capacity is 9,992 lower income units, a surplus of 1,971 units. [“Lower income” includes very low income (VLI) and low income (LI) units.]

Oakland’s remaining moderate income regional housing needs assessment is 4,264 dwelling units, while Oakland's current capacity is 4,993 moderate income units, a surplus of 729 units.

Oakland's remaining above moderate-income regional housing needs assessment is 7,084 dwelling units, while Oakland's current capacity is 16,229 above moderate-income units, a surplus of 9,145 units.

No Net Loss Finding 2: The proposed project is located on a site that is identified in the City of Oakland 2023-2031 Housing Element as a Housing Element Opportunity Site.

( ) YES
(X) NO

No Net Loss Finding 3: The proposed project meets the following criteria.

PLN22189; 5315 College Avenue Page 6

(X ) The proposed project is a non-residential development located on a site that was not identified in the City of Oakland 2023-2031 Housing Element. Therefore, the project has no impact on the City’s housing capacity.

( ) The proposed project includes residential development and is located on a site that was not identified in the City of Oakland 2023-2031 Housing Element. Therefore, the project results in an increase in the City’s housing capacity equal to the total units proposed.

No Net Loss Finding 4: The City of Oakland 2023-2031 Housing Element identifies the following realistic capacity for the site.

Lower income units (VLI/LI): NA__________________
Moderate income units: NA_______________
Above moderate-income units: NA______________
Total units: NA_________________

(X) The proposed project is a non-residential development.

( ) The proposed project includes residential development.

Therefore, an analysis of potential net loss must be made, as documented below.

No Net Loss Finding 5: The proposed project includes the following residential unit count:

Lower income units (VLI/LI): NA __________________
Moderate income units: NA _______________
Above moderate-income units: NA ______________
Total units: NA _________________

The project therefore will result in a net increase or net loss of units as compared to the City’s Housing Element projections as follows

Lower income units (VLI/LI): NA __________________
Moderate income units: NA _______________
Above moderate income units: NA ______________
Total units: NA _________________

PLN22189; 5315 College Avenue Page 7

ATTACHMENT B: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

The proposal is hereby approved subject to the following Conditions of Approval:

Part 1: Standard Conditions of Approval – General Administrative Conditions

1. Approved Use
The project shall be constructed and operated in accordance with the authorized use as described in the approved application materials, and the approved plans dated 5/2/23, as amended by the following conditions of approval and mitigation measures, if applicable (“Conditions of Approval” or “Conditions”).

2. Effective Date, Expiration, Extensions and Extinguishment This Approval shall become effective immediately, unless the Approval is appealable, in which case the Approval shall become effective in ten (10) calendar days unless an appeal is filed. Unless a different termination date is prescribed, this Approval shall expire from the Approval date, or from the date of the final decision in the event of an appeal, unless within such period a complete building permit application has been filed with the Bureau of Building and diligently pursued towards completion, or the authorized activities have commenced in the case of a permit not involving construction or alteration. Upon written request and payment of appropriate fees submitted no later than the expiration date of this Approval, the Director of City Planning or designee may grant a one-year extension of this date, with additional extensions subject to approval by the approving body. Expiration of any necessary building permit or other construction-related permit for this project may invalidate this Approval if said Approval has also expired. If litigation is filed challenging this Approval, or its implementation, then the time period stated above for obtaining necessary permits for construction or alteration and/or commencement of authorized activities is automatically extended for the duration of the litigation.

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

4. Minor and Major Changes
a. Minor changes to the approved project, plans, Conditions, facilities, or use may be approved administratively by the Director of City Planning.
b. Major changes to the approved project, plans, Conditions, facilities, or use shall be reviewed by the Director of City Planning to determine whether such changes require submittal and approval of a revision to the Approval by the original approving body or a new independent permit/approval. Major revisions shall be reviewed in accordance with the procedures required for the original permit/approval. A new independent permit/approval shall be reviewed in accordance with the procedures required for the new permit/approval.

5. Compliance with Conditions of Approval
The project applicant and property owner, including successors, (collectively referred to hereafter as the “project applicant” or “applicant”) shall be responsible for compliance with all the Conditions of Approval and any recommendations contained in any submitted and approved technical report at his/her s ole cost and expense, subject to review and approval by the City of Oakland.

The City of Oakland reserves the right at any time during construction to require certification by a licensed professional at the project applicant’s expense that the as -built project conforms to all applicable requirements, including but not limited to, approved maximum heights and minimum setbacks. Failure to construct the project PLN22189; 5315 College Avenue Page 8

in accordance with the Approval may result in remedial reconstruction, permit revocation, permit modification, stop work, permit suspension, or other corrective action.

Violation of any term, Condition, or project description relating to the Approval is unlawful, prohibited, and a violation of the Oakland Municipal Code. The City of Oakland reserves the right to initiate civil and/or criminal enforcement and/or abatement proceedings, or after notice and public hearing, to revoke the Approval or alter these Conditions if it is found that there is violation of any of the Conditions or the provisions of the Planning Code or Municipal Code, or the project operates as or causes a public nuisance. This provision is not intended to, nor does it, limit in any manner whatsoever the ability of the City to take appropriate enforcement actions. The project applicant s hall be responsible for paying fees in accordance with the City’s Master Fee Schedule for inspections conducted by the City or a City-designated third-party to investigate alleged violations of the Approval or Conditions.

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

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

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

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

10. Special Inspector/Inspections, Independent Technical Review, Project Coordination and Monitoring The project applicant may be required to cover the full costs of independent third- party technical review and City monitoring and inspection, including without limitation, special inspector(s)/inspection(s) during times of extensive or specialized plan-check review or construction, and inspections of potential violations of the Conditions of Approval.

The project applicant shall establish a deposit with Engineering Services and/or the Bureau of Building, if directed by the Director of Public Works, Building Official, Director of City Planning, Director of Transportation, or designee, prior to the issuance of a construction-related permit and on an ongoing as-needed basis.

PLN22189; 5315 College Avenue Page 9

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

Part 2: Standard Conditions of Approval –Environmental Protection Measures

12. Trash and Blight Removal
Requirement: 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 mult i-family residential projects, the project applicant shall install and maintain trash receptacles near public entryways as needed to provide sufficient capacity for building users.

When Required: Ongoing
Initial Approval: N/A
Monitoring/Inspection: Bureau of Building

13. Graffiti Control
Requirement:
a. During construction and operation of the project, the project applicant shall incorporate best management practices reasonably related to the control of graffiti and/or the mitigation of the impacts of graffiti. Such best management practices may include, without limitation:
i. Installation and maintenance of landscaping to discourage defacement of and/or protect likely graffiti- attracting surfaces.
ii. Installation and maintenance of lighting to protect likely graffiti-attracting surfaces. iii. Use of paint with anti-graffiti coating.
iv. Incorporation of architectural or design elements or features to discourage graffiti defacement in accordance with the principles of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED). v. Other practices approved by the City to deter, protect, or reduce the potential for graffiti defacement.
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).

When Required: Ongoing
Initial Approval: N/A
Monitoring/Inspection: Bureau of Building

14. Landscape Plan
a. Landscape Plan Required
Requirement: 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 PLN22189; 5315 College Avenue Page 10

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:
https://www.oaklandca.gov/documents/oakland-street-tree-species-list-august-2023 and https://www.oaklandca.gov/documents/standard-specifications-for-street-tree-planting, respectively), and with any applicable streetscape plan.

When Required: Prior to approval of construction-related permit Initial Approval: Bureau of Planning
Monitoring/Inspection: N/A
b. Landscape Installation
Requirement: 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.

When Required: Prior to building permit final
Initial Approval: Bureau of Planning
Monitoring/Inspection: Bureau of Building
c. Landscape Maintenance
Requirement: 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 req uired fences, walls, and irrigation systems shall be permanently maintained in good condition and, whenever necessary, repaired or replaced.

When Required: Ongoing
Initial Approval: N/A
Monitoring/Inspection: Bureau of Building

15. Lighting
Requirement: 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.

When Required: Prior to building permit final
Initial Approval: N/A
Monitoring/Inspection: Bureau of Building

16. 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 act ive 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 tra ck-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.

PLN22189; 5315 College Avenue Page 11

e. All demolition activities (if any) shall be suspended when average wind speeds exceed 20 mph. f. All trucks and equipment, including tires, shall be washed off prior to leaving the site. g. Site accesses to a distance of 100 feet from the paved road shall be treated with a 6 to 12 inch compacted layer of wood chips, mulch, or gravel.

When Required: During construction
Initial Approval: N/A
Monitoring/Inspection: Bureau of Building

17. 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 mini mized 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. Diese l 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 D istrict if specifically requested), the project applicant shall provide written documentation that fleet requirements have been met.

When Required: During construction
Initial Approval: N/A
Monitoring/Inspection: Bureau of Building

18. Asbestos in Structures
Requirement: 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.

When Required: Prior to approval of construction-related permit Initial Approval: Applicable regulatory agency with jurisdiction Monitoring/Inspection: Applicable regulatory agency with jurisdiction

19. Archaeological and Paleontological Resources – Discovery During Construction PLN22189; 5315 College Avenue Page 12

Requirement: 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 unnece ssary 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 measur es (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 informat ion 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 m oving 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.

When Required: During construction
Initial Approval: N/A
Monitoring/Inspection: Bureau of Building

20. Human Remains – Discovery During Construction
Requirement: Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(e)(1), in the event that human skeletal remains are uncovered at the project site during construction activiti es, 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.

When Required: During construction
Initial Approval: N/A
Monitoring/Inspection: Bureau of Building

21. Erosion and Sedimentation Control Measures for Construction Requirement: 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 PLN22189; 5315 College Avenue Page 13

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.

When Required: During construction
Initial Approval: N/A
Monitoring/Inspection: Bureau of Building

22. Source Control Measures to Limit Stormwater Pollution Requirement: Pursuant to Provision C.3 of the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit issued under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), the project applicant is encouraged to incorporate appropriate source control measures to limit pollution in stormwater runoff. These measures may include, but are not limited to, the following:
a. Stencil storm drain inlets “No Dumping – Drains to Bay;” b. Minimize the use of pesticides and fertilizers;
c. Cover outdoor material storage areas, loading docks, repair/maintenance bays and fueling areas; d. Cover trash, food waste, and compactor enclosures; and e. Plumb the following discharges to the sanitary sewer system, subject to City approval:
i. Discharges from indoor f loor mats, equipment, hood filter, wash racks, and, covered outdoor wash racks for restaurants;
ii. Dumpster drips from covered trash, food waste, and compactor enclosures; iii. Discharges from outdoor covered wash areas for vehicles, equipment, and accessories; iv. Swimming pool water, if discharge to on-site vegetated areas is not feasible; and v. Fire sprinkler test water, if discharge to on-site vegetated areas is not feasible.

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

23. Construction Days/Hours
Requirement: 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.

When Required: During construction
Initial Approval: N/A
Monitoring/Inspection: Bureau of Building
PLN22189; 5315 College Avenue Page 14

24. Construction Noise
Requirement: 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, i mpact 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 pneuma tically 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 themselve s 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.

When Required: During construction
Initial Approval: N/A
Monitoring/Inspection: Bureau of Building

25. Extreme Construction Noise
a. Construction Noise Management Plan Required
Requirement: Prior to any extreme noise generating construction activities (e.g., pier drilling, pile driving and other activities generating greater than 90dBA), the project applicant shall submit a Construction Noise Management Plan prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant for City review and approval that contains a set of site-specific noise attenuation measures to further reduce construction impacts associated with extreme noise generating activities. The project applicant shall implement the app roved 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.

When Required: Prior to approval of construction-related permit Initial Approval: Bureau of Building
Monitoring/Inspection: Bureau of Building

PLN22189; 5315 College Avenue Page 15

b. Public Notification Required
Requirement: 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.

When Required: During construction
Initial Approval: Bureau of Building
Monitoring/Inspection: Bureau of Building

26. Operational Noise
Requirement: 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.

When Required: Ongoing
Initial Approval: N/A
Monitoring/Inspection: Bureau of Building

27. Capital Improvements Impact Fee
Requirement: The project applicant shall comply with the requirements of the City of Oakland Capital Improvements Fee Ordinance (chapter 15.74 of the Oakland Municipal Code).

When Required: Prior to issuance of building permit
Initial Approval: Bureau of Building
Monitoring/Inspection: N/A

28. Construction Activity in the Public Right-of-Way
a. Obstruction Permit Required
Requirement: 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.

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

Initial Approval: Department of Transportation
Monitoring/Inspection: Department of Transportation
PLN22189; 5315 College Avenue Page 16

c. Repair of City Streets
Requirement: 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.

When Required: Prior to building permit final
Initial Approval: N/A
Monitoring/Inspection: Department of Transportation

29. Bicycle Parking
Requirement: 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.

When Required: Prior to approval of construction-related permit Initial Approval: Bureau of Planning
Monitoring/Inspection: Bureau of Building

30. Transportation Impact Fee
Requirement: The project applicant shall comply with the requirements of the City of Oakland Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance (chapter 15.74 of the Oakland Municipal Code).

When Required: Prior to issuance of building permit
Initial Approval: Bureau of Building
Monitoring/Inspection: N/A

31. Construction and Demolition Waste Reduction and Recycling Requirement: 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.

When Required: Prior to approval of construction-related permit Initial Approval: Public Works Department, Environmental Services Division Monitoring/Inspection: Public Works Department, Environmental Services Division

32. Underground Utilities
Requirement: 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.

When Required: During construction
PLN22189; 5315 College Avenue Page 17

Initial Approval: N/A
Monitoring/Inspection: Bureau of Building

33. Recycling Collection and Storage Space
Requirement: The project applicant shall comply with the C ity of Oakland Recycling Space Allocation Ordinance (chapter 17.118 of the Oakland Planning Code). The project drawings submitted for construction-related permits shall contain recycling collection and storage areas in compliance with the Ordinance. For residential projects, at least two (2) cubic feet of storage and collection space per residential unit is required, with a minimum of ten (10) cubic feet.

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

When Required: Prior to approval of construction-related permit Initial Approval: Bureau of Planning
Monitoring/Inspection: Bureau of Building

34. Employee Rights
Requirement: The project applicant and business owners in the project shall comply with all state and federal laws regarding employees’ right to organize and bargain collectively with employers and shall comply with the City of Oakland Minimum Wage Ordinance (chapter 5.92 of the Oakland Municipal Code).

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

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

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

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

When Required: Payment of in-lieu fees and/or plans showing fulfillment of public art requirement – Prior to Issuance of Building permit
Installation of art/cultural space – Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy Initial Approval: Bureau of Planning
Monitoring/Inspection: Bureau of Building
PLN22189; 5315 College Avenue Page 18

Part 3: Project Specific Conditions of Approval

36. Transportation Plan
Requirement: The applicant shall submit and have approved a transportation plan to limit traffic disruption on College Avenue and assure the safety of students and other patrons on the business. The plan shall include:

A. Two passenger loading areas in front of the parcel for the use of dropping off and pickup up students during peak hours.

B. A plan to stagger drop off times during morning peak hours to reduce congestion in front of the site.

C. An advertised carpool program to be included in literature for parent/guardians.

D. A crossing guard at the intersection of College and Bryant Avenues during peak hours to assist in street crossing and assure that drop off is not creating double parking on College Avenue.

E. A review and inspection by the Bureau of Planning and the Department of Transportation after six and twelve months of operation to assure the center is adhering to the transportation plan.

When Required: Prior to Issuance of Building Permit
Initial Approval: Bureau of Planning/Department of Transportation Monitoring/Inspection: Bureau of Building

37. Window Details
Requirement: The applicant shall submit and have approved details of the windows, including cross sections. The plans shall show the windows having the same trim, sill, and recess, as the existing windows.

When Required: Prior to Issuance of Building Permit
Initial Approval: Bureau of Planning
Monitoring/Inspection: Bureau of Building

Applicant Statement

I have read and accept responsibility for the Conditions of Approval. I agree to abide by and conform to the Conditions of Approval, as well as to all provisions of the Oakland Planning Code and Oakland Municipal Code pertaining to the project.

__________________________________
Name of Project Applicant

__________________________________
Signature of Project Applicant

__________________________________
Date

Oakland City CouncilJuly 30, 2024

Oakland City Council
July 30, 2024