View Attachment G — Community & Economic Development Committee, November 19, 2024

100 Pringle Avenue | Suite 600 | Walnut Creek, CA 94596 | (925) 930-7100 | Fax (925) 933-7090 www.fehrandpeers.com
Draft Memorandum
Date: December 21, 2020
To: Carla Violet, Urban Planning Partners
Brandon Northart, Urban Planning Partners
From: Bill Burton, Inder Grewal & Diwu Zhou, Fehr & Peers Subject: CCA Oakland Campus Project – Non CEQA Elements WC19-3574
This memorandum summarizes our traffic analysis, site plan assessment, collision analysis, and a transportation and parking demand management plan for the proposed mixed -use development (hereby referred to as the project) at the current California College of the Arts (CCA) campus located at the southeast corner of the Broadway/Clifton Street intersection in Oakland, California. The project site is shown in Figure 1 (all figures and attachments are included at t he end of the memorandum).

This analysis examines the project’s proposed site plan, provided in Attachment A, to develop the CCA Oakland campus property with the following key initial plan elements:
• Construction of 462 residential units focused in two building complexes, one located along the site’s eastern edge and one at the corner of Clifton Street and Broadway; and • Co
nstruction of 16,945 square feet of office space and 1,408 square feet of ground floor café/retail space fronting Broadway
• To
tal of 272 off-street parking spaces, with 255 dedicated to residents and 17 dedicated to employees.

ATTACHMENT G
Non-CEQA Transportation
Analysis
Carla Violet & Brandon Northart
December 21, 2020

Page 2 of 28 ends

Traffic Analysis
This section evaluates how project traffic may affect the neighboring intersections along the Broadway corridor.

Project Travel Characteristics
The amount of traffic associated with the project considers:

1. Trip Generation – The amount of vehicle traffic entering/exiting the project site.

2. Trip Distribution and Assignment – The direction and amount of vehicle trips added to roadways as they approach and depart the project site is projected.

The proposed project trip generation and trip distribution forms the basis for evaluating potential project effects on the surrounding roadway network.

Trip Generation
Trip generation for the proposed project was estimated using the Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition (2017) published by the ITE, as presented in Table 1. The proposed project’s on -site residential, office, and retail uses are expected to generate 2,076 vehicle trips, including 163 morning and 157 evening peak hour trips on a typical weekday. The number of vehicle trips generated by existing CCA uses to be removed was estimated through site observations of travel to and from on-site parking lots. These observations identified approximately 100 daily vehicle trips, including 14 morning and 10 evening peak hour trips on a typical weekday. The net new trips forecast to be generated by the proposed project include 1,976 daily vehicle trips, including 149 morning and 147 evening peak hour trips on a typical weekday.

The project described above and evaluated in Table 1 is the project as proposed and evaluated in the environmental documentation. However, we understand that the project applicant is considering several potential development options which include varying levels of residential and office land uses. The options under consideration would all have similar transportation outcomes.

The detailed intersection analysis presented herein evaluates the development option which would represent the “worst case” from a trip generation and intersection operations perspective. That option would entail an alternative including 300 residential units, 70,000 square feet of office space and 1,408 square feet of grou nd floor commercial. Table 2 presents the results of the trip generation analysis prepared for that “worst case” option.

Carla Violet & Brandon Northart
December 21, 2020

Page 3 of 28 ends

Table 1: Project Trip Generation – CEQA Analysis
Use Setting/
Location Size Daily
Weekday
AM Peak Hour
Weekday
PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
Multifamily
Housing
(Mid-Rise)1
Dense Multi-
Use Urban
462 Occupied
Dwelling Units 1,770 35 96 131 79 47 126
Office2 General Urban/
Suburban 16,945 sq. ft. 170 17 3 20 3 16 19
Café/Retail3 General Urban/
Suburban 1,408 sq. ft. 160 8 6 14 9 5 14
Café/Retail (Internalization – 15%) -24 -1 -1 -2 -1 -1 -2 Project Trip Generation 2,076 59 104 163 90 67 157
CCA Campus Urban Existing to be
removed 100 12 2 14 2 8 10
Existing CCA Campus Trip Generation: -100 -12 -2 -14 -2 -8 -10 Net New Trips: 1,976 47 102 149 88 59 147
Notes:

1. Land use category 221 – Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) in a Dense Multi-Use Urban Setting

2. Land use category 710 – General Office Building in a General Urban/Suburban Setting

3. Land Use Category 932 - High Turnover (Sit Down) Restaurant in a General Urban/Suburban Setting Source: Trip Generation Manual (10th Edition), ITE, 2017; Fehr & Peers, 2020.

As presented in Table 2, the “worst case” option would generate 1,966 daily vehicle trips, including 179 morning and 174 evening peak hour trips on a typical weekday. The net new trips forecast to be generated by th is option include 1, 866 daily vehicle trips, including 165 morning and 164 evening peak hour trips on a typical weekday. The transportation analysis summarized in this memorandum is based on this “worst case” trip generation. However, it should be noted that the options under consideration have similar trip generation characteri stics and would result in similar transportation outcomes and recommendations.

Carla Violet & Brandon Northart
December 21, 2020

Page 4 of 28 ends

Table 2: Project Trip Generation (Worst Case Option)
Use Setting/
Location Size Daily
Weekday
AM Peak Hour
Weekday
PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
Multifamily
Housing
(Mid-Rise)1
Dense Multi-
Use Urban
300 Occupied
Dwelling Units
1,150 23 63 86 51 30 81
Office2 General Urban/
Suburban 70,000 sq. ft. 680 70 11 81 13 68 81
Café/Retail3 General Urban/
Suburban 1,408 sq. ft. 160 8 6 14 9 5 14
Café/Retail (Internalization – 15%) -24 -1 -1 -2 -1 -1 -2 Project Trip Generation 1,966 100 79 179 72 102 174
CCA Campus Urban Existing to be
removed 100 12 2 14 2 8 10
Existing CCA Campus Trip Generation: -100 -12 -2 -14 -2 -8 -10 Net New Trips: 1,866 88 77 165 70 94 164
Notes:

1. Land use category 221 – Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) in a Dense Multi-Use Urban Setting

2. Land use category 710 – General Office Building in a General Urban/Suburban Setting

3. Land Use Category 932 - High Turnover (Sit Down) Restaurant in a General Urban/Suburban Setting Source: Trip Generation Manual (10th Edition), ITE, 2017; Fehr & Peers, 2020.

Carla Violet & Brandon Northart
December 21, 2020

Page 5 of 28 ends

Trip Distribution
Trip distribution for proposed project was estimated by isolating a transportation analysis zone with the proposed project land -use and conducting a select -link analysis using the Alameda County Travel Demand Model. Trip distribution plots based on this tool are provided in Attachment B. The expected trip assignment for the proposed project is presented on Figure 2.

Selection of Study Intersections
Study Intersections are defined within the City of Oakland’s Transportation Impact Review Guidelines for Land Use Development Projects (2017) as:
• All intersection(s) of streets adjacent to the project site; • All signalized intersections(s), all-way stop-controlled intersection(s) or roundabouts where 100 or more peak hour trips are added by the project;
• All signalized intersection(s) with 50 or more project -related peak hour trips AND existing LOS D-E-F; and
• Side-street stop-controlled intersection(s) where 50 or more peak hour trips are added by the project to any individual movement other than the major-street through movement.

The following intersections satisfy the above criteria:

1. Broadway/Broadway Terrace [Adjacent]

2. Broadway/Clifton Street [Adjacent]

3. Broadway/College Avenue [Adjacent]

4. Broadway/Coronado Avenue [100 Trips Added]

5. Broadway/51st Street/Pleasant Valley Avenue [100 Trips Added]

6. Clifton Street/Project Driveway [Adjacent]
Project Impact Assessment
We evaluated traffic operations at the study intersections along the Broadway corridor for the following scenarios:
• Existing No Project Condition – Existing conditions based on multimodal traffic counts collected on Tuesday, January 29, 2019 (Figures 3 and 4). • Existing Plus Project Condition – Existing conditions traffic plus net new traffic generated by the Project (Figure 5);
• Cumulative No Project Condition – Cumulative year conditions based on forecast traffic growth using the Alameda County Travel Demand Model (Figure 6); and Carla Violet & Brandon Northart
December 21, 2020

Page 6 of 28 ends

• Cumulative Plus Project Condition – Cumulative traffic v olumes plus traffic generated by the Project (Figure 7).

The Cumulative conditions analysis reflects overall increases in population and employment growth across the City and region per current projections.

Analysis Tools
The traffic operations analysis uses the Synchro/SimTraffic 10.0 software, based on the procedures outlined in the Transportation Research Board’s Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition. Intersection operation inputs include vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian volumes, lane geometry, signal phasing and timing, pedestrian crossing times, and peak hour factors.

Intersection operations are described using the term “Level of Service” (LOS). LOS is a quantitative measure of the average delay experienced by a driver at the intersection. It ranges from LOS A, with no congestion and little delay, to LOS F, with excessive congestion and delay. Tables 3 and 4 provide descriptions of various LOS and the corresponding ranges of delay.

Intersection Level of Service
Table 5 shows that the addition of project traffic would worsen vehicle delays at the study intersections. The intersection of Broadway/51
st Street serves as a downstream bottleneck for
vehicles traveling southbound along the Broadway corridor, causing upstream queueing impacts at the intersection of Broadway/Broadway Terrance in the morning peak hour in both the Existing and Cumulative scenarios. The intersection of Broadway/51 st Street also becomes a downstream
bottleneck in the evening peak hour in the Cumulative sce nario due to the projected growth in vehicle volumes; the intersection lacks the capacity to serve the projected demand.

The intersection of Broadway/51st Street also serves as an upstream bottleneck for vehicles traveling northbound along the Broadway cor ridor in the evening peak hour. This intersection currently operates independently and is not coordinated with any of the other intersections along the corridor. Simulation results are provided in Attachment C.

Consultant Recommendation 1: Traffic signals at the four signalized study intersections along the Broadway corridor should be interconnected to provide coordination in the southbound direction during the morning peak period and in the northbound direction during the evening peak period.

Carla Violet & Brandon Northart
December 21, 2020

Page 7 of 28 ends

Table 3: Signalized Intersection LOS Criteria
Level of Service Description Delay in
Seconds
A
Progression is extremely favorable and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay.
< 10.0
B Progression is good, cycle lengths are short, or both. More vehicles stop than with LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay. > 10.0 to 20.0 C
Higher congestion may result from fair progression, longer cycle lengths, or both. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear at this level, though many still pass through the intersection without stopping.
> 20.0 to 35.0
D
The influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high V/C ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable.
> 35.0 to 55.0
E
This level is considered by many agencies to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences.
> 55.0 to 80.0
F
This level is considered unacceptable with oversaturation, which is when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. This level may also occur at high V/C ratios below 1.0 with many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be contributing factors to such delay levels.
> 80.0
Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition.

Table 4: Unsignalized Intersection LOS Criteria
Level of Service Description Delay in Seconds
A Little or no delays < 10.0
B Short traffic delays > 10.0 to 15.0
C Average traffic delays > 15.0 to 25.0
D Long traffic delays > 25.0 to 35.0
E Very long traffic delays > 35.0 to 50.0
F Extreme traffic delays with
intersection capacity exceeded > 50.0
Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition.

Carla Violet & Brandon Northart
December 21, 2020

Page 8 of 28 ends

Table 5: Intersection Level of Service Results
Intersection Control Peak
Hour
Existing
No Project
Existing
Plus Project
Cumulative
No Project
Cumulative
Plus Project
Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS
1 Broadway/
Broadway Terrace Signal AM
PM

13.7 8.7
B
A

19.6 13.3
B
B

85.3 72.6
F
E

91.4 76.4
F
E
2 Broadway/
Clifton Street SSSC1 AM
PM
5 (19)
8 (27)
A (C)
A (D)

5.6 (24.1)

8.6 (26.1)
A (C)
A (D)
10 (26)
17 (26)
B (D)
C (D)

12.7 (37.8)

18.9 (52.2)
B (E)
C (F)
3 Broadway/
College Ave Signal AM
PM

12.6 17.3
B
B

13.7 17.6
B
B

20.0 37.0
B
D

22.2 39.0
C
D
4 Broadway/
Coronado Ave Signal AM
PM

12.2 21.8
B
C

14.8 23.1
B
C

20.3 40.8
C
D

22.0 42.6
C
D
5 Broadway/
51st St Signal AM
PM

43.2 51.3
D
D

46.3 62.0
D
E

58.2 89.9
E
F

65.4 91.9
E
F
6 Clifton Street/
Project Driveway SSSC1 AM
PM - - 7.9 (19.0)

23.3 (40.8)
A (C)
B (E) - - 64.4 (>99)

87.8 (>99)
F (F)
F (F)
Notes:

1. SSSC = side street stop-controlled intersection; average delay or LOS is followed by the delay or LOS for the worst movement in parentheses.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2020.

Vehicle Queuing at Clifton Street
The addition of project traffic would substantially increase queuing on the westbound approach at the intersection of Broadway/Clifton Street, as presented in Table 6. The finding above is contingent upon vehicles obeying the existing “KEEP CLEAR” striping on Broadway at the Clifton Street intersections to a llow left turn movements out. Observations have found that this striping is not always followed.

Table 6: Queuing Results – Clifton Street (westbound)
Intersection Control Peak
Hour
Existing
No Project
Existing
Plus Project
Cumulative
No Project
Cumulative
Plus Project
Avg. Max. Avg. Max. Avg. Max. Avg. Max.
2 Broadway/
Clifton Street SSSC1 AM
PM
50 25
75 75
51 48
65 65
50 50
75 75
55 53
76 58
Notes:

1. SSSC = side street stop-controlled intersection;

2. Queue lengths are measured in feet. The average vehicle occupies 25’ feet in queue.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2020.

Carla Violet & Brandon Northart
December 21, 2020

Page 9 of 28 ends

Consultant Recommendation 2: Construct a raised median on Broadway between College Avenue and Broadway Terrance. Left turns into and out of Clifton Street at the intersection of Broadway/Clifton Street would be prohibited with this installation.

On-street parking on the east side of Broadway between College Avenue and Clifton Street should be removed and converted to additional queue storage for the northbound right - turn pocket at the intersection of Broadway/Broadway Terrace and into the project site.

Paint “KEEP CLEAR” pavement markings at the intersection of Broadway/Clifton Street in the right-turn pocket.

Implementation of Recommendations
Implementation of the above recommendation in the existing scenario would improve the project site access, as presented in Table 7, and minimize queuing along the westbound approach at the intersection of Broadway/Clifton Street, as presented in Table 9.

Table 7: Mitigated Intersection Level of Service Results – Existing Conditions Intersection Control Peak
Hour
Existing
No Project
Existing
Plus Project
Existing Plus Project
Plus Mitigation
Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS
1 Broadway/
Broadway Terrace Signal AM
PM

13.7 8.7
B
A

19.6 13.3
B
B

12.1 8.3
B
A
2 Broadway/
Clifton Street SSSC1 AM
PM
5 (19)
8 (27)
A (C)
A (D)

5.6 (9.4)

8.6 (26.1)
A (C)
A (D)

3.7 (7.1)

4.9 (12)
A (C)
A (B)
3 Broadway/
College Ave Signal AM
PM

12.6 17.3
B
B

13.7 17.6
B
B

10.4 13.5
B
B
4 Broadway/
Coronado Ave Signal AM
PM

12.2 21.8
B
C

14.8 23.1
B
C

7.8 17
D
B
5 Broadway/
51st St Signal AM
PM

43.2 51.3
D
D

46.3 62.0
D
E

32.7 43.4
C
D
6 Clifton Street/
Project Driveway SSSC1 AM
PM - - 7.9 (19.0)

23.3 (40.8)
A (C)
B (E)

2.1 (6.4)

5.4 (10.5)
A (A)
A (B)
Notes:

1. SSSC = side street stop-controlled intersection; average delay or LOS is followed by the delay or LOS for the worst movement in parentheses.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2020.

Implementation of the recommendations would similarly not mitigate the failing operating conditions with the project in the cumulative scenario due to capacity limitations at the intersection Carla Violet & Brandon Northart
December 21, 2020

Page 10 of 28 ends

of Broadway/51st Street, as presented in Table 8. This finding is consistent with the results of the Shops at the Ridge EIR analysis (i.e. cumulative LOS F/significant and unavoidable).

Table 8: Mitigated Intersection Level of Service Results – Cumulative Conditions Intersection Control Peak
Hour
Cumulative
No Project
Cumulative
Plus Project
Cumulative Plus
Project Plus Mitigation
Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS
1 Broadway/
Broadway Terrace Signal AM
PM

85.3 72.6
F
E

89.8 76.8
F
E

67.9 56.0
E
E
2 Broadway/
Clifton Street SSSC1 AM
PM
10 (26)
17 (26)
B (D)
C (D)
14 (48)
18 (44)
B (E)
C (E)

8.6 (11.8)

10.6 (22.3)
A (B)
B (C)
3 Broadway/
College Ave Signal AM
PM

20.0 37.0
B
D

22.3 36.5
C
D

19.0 43.9
B
D
4 Broadway/
Coronado Ave Signal AM
PM

20.3 40.8
C
D

23.2 40.7
C
D

16.0 26.6
B
C
5 Broadway/
51st St Signal AM
PM

58.2 89.9
E
F

66.0 91.4
E
F

71.3 82.0
E
F
6 Clifton Street/
Project Driveway SSSC1 AM
PM - - 64.4 (>99)

87.8 (>99)
F (F)
F (F)

3.8 (10.6)

17.5 (36.1)
A (B)
C (E)
Notes:

1. SSSC = side street stop-controlled intersection; average delay or LOS is followed by the delay or LOS for the worst movement in parentheses.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2020.

Table 9: Mitigated Queuing Results – Clifton Street (westbound) Intersection Control Peak
Hour
Existing
Plus Project
Existing
Plus Project
Plus Mitigation
Cumulative
Plus Project
Cumulative
Plus Project
Plus Mitigation
Avg. Max. Avg. Max. Avg. Max. Avg. Max.
2 Broadway/
Clifton Street SSSC1 AM
PM
51 48
65 65
43 42
66 57
55 53
76 58
46 47
69 60
Notes:

1. SSSC = side street stop-controlled intersection;

2. Queue lengths are measured in feet. The average vehicle occupies 25’ feet in queue.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2020.

Carla Violet & Brandon Northart
December 21, 2020

Page 11 of 28 ends

Collision History
Collision data, for the five years between January 01, 2011 and December 31, 2015, was downloaded from the Transportation Injury Management System ( TIMS) database. Table 10 summarizes the collision data by type and location, and Table 11 summarizes the collision data by severity.

Table 10: Collision History by Severity

Location
Collision Severity
Fatal Injured
(severely)
Injured
(visible)
Injured
(complained
of pain)
Intersection
1 Broadway/Broadway Terrace 0 0 0 1
2 Broadway/Clifton Street 0 1 0 0
3 Broadway/College Ave 0 0 0 2
4 Broadway/Coronado Ave 0 0 0 0
5 Broadway/51st St 0 0 0 8
Roadway Segment
6 Broadway from
Broadway Tr to Clinton S 0 0 0 0
7 Broadway from
Clifton St to College Ave 0 0 0 0
8 Broadway from
College Ave to Coronado Ave 0 0 1 0
9 Broadway from
Coronado Ave to 51st St 0 0 2 0
Total Collisions: 0 1 3 11
Source: Transportation Injury Management System, 2011-2015; Fehr & Peers, 2020.

Table 10 shows fifteen collisions reported during the five -year timeframe at the study roadway segments and intersections. Four of the fifteen collisions involved bicycles and/or pedestrians, with three of them being bicycle collisions (See Table 1 1). Eighty percent of the collisions occurred at intersections, with the Broadway/51 st Street and Broadway/College Avenue intersections being the top two collision prone locations. Of the fifteen collisions, approximately 60 percent of the collisions were either broadside or rear end collisions.

Carla Violet & Brandon Northart
December 21, 2020

Page 12 of 28 ends

Table 11: Collision History by Type
Location
Collision Type
Head-
On
Side-
swipe
Rear
End
Broad-
side
Hit
Object
Over-
turned
Vehicle/
Pedestrian Other
Intersection
1 Broadway/Broadway Terrace 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
2 Broadway/Clifton Street 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
3 Broadway/College Ave 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0
4 Broadway/Coronado Ave 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 Broadway/51st St 0 0 4 1 1 0 1 1
Roadway Segment
6 Broadway from
Broadway Tr to Clinton S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7 Broadway from
Clifton St to College Ave 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8 Broadway from
College Ave to Coronado Ave 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
9 Broadway from
Coronado Ave to 51st St 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
Total Collisions: 0 1 6 3 1 0 1 3
Source: Transportation Injury Management System, 2011-2015; Fehr & Peers, 2020.

The following collision trends were noted:
• Motor vehicle collisions resulting from complex design geometry at the i ntersection of Broadway/ Broadway Terrace;
• Motor vehicle rear end collisions at the Broadway/51st Avenue intersection; • Motor vehicle collisions resulting from unsafe speeds at the Broadway/Broadway Terrace intersection;
• Motor vehicle collisions resulting from improper turning at the Broadway/College Avenue intersection;
• Motor vehicle collisions resulting from unsafe speeds at the Broadway/51st Street intersection;
• Pedestrian-involved collisions on the College Avenue roadway segment; and • Bicycle-involved collisions resulting from bicycles travelling the wrong way.

Carla Violet & Brandon Northart
December 21, 2020

Page 13 of 28 ends

Predictive Crash Frequency
The Highway Safety Manual (HSM, 2010) provides a methodology to predict the number of collisions for intersections and street segments based on roadway and intersection characteristics, such as vehicl e and pedestrian volumes, number of lanes, signal phasing, on- street parking, and number of driveways. Table 12 presents the predicted collision frequencies for the five intersections and identified segments using the HSM Predictive Method for Urban and Su burban Arterials and compares predicted and reported collision frequencies; refer to Attachment D.

Since the data was collected between 2011 and 2015, the City of Oakland has made improvements to the study intersections along Broadway. To maintain a direct comparison between the reported and predicted collision frequencies, this analysis assumes uses the intersection geometry and control type from 2015.

Table 12: Predicted Collision Frequencies vs Actual
Location Type1 AADT2
(major)
AADT2
(minor)
Total
Collisions
(Actual)
Collisions
per year
(Actual)
Predicted
Collision
Frequency
Difference3
Intersection
1 Broadway/Broadway
Terrace
3-leg
SG 16,400 7,300 1 0.2 1.4 -1.2
2 Broadway/Clifton Street 3-leg
ST 16,600 500 1 0.2 0.4 -0.2
3 Broadway/College Ave 3-leg
SG 22,400 7,300 2 0.4 1.1 -0.7
4 Broadway/Coronado Ave 4-leg
ST 20,000 1.400 0 0 0.9 -0.9
5 Broadway/51st St 4-leg
SG 20,000 20,700 8 1.6 3.8 -2.2
Roadway Segment
8 Broadway from College
Ave to Coronado Ave 4D 22,400 1 0.2 0.1 +0.1
9 Broadway from
Coronado Ave to 51st St 4D 20,000 2 0.4 0.2 +0.2
Notes:

1. SG = 3 signalized intersection; ST = unsignalized intersection; 4D = 4-lane divided arterial.

2. Average annual daily traffic (AADT) was estimated using the existing PM peak hour counts collected in 2019 multiplied by ten.

3. Negative values indicate that the actual collision frequency is less than the predicted collision frequency for a typical intersection with similar attributes. Positive values indicate that the actual collision frequency is greater than the predicted collision frequency for a typical intersection with similar attributes.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2020.

Carla Violet & Brandon Northart
December 21, 2020

Page 14 of 28 ends

HSM Countermeasures
Table 13 presents potential countermeasures from the HSM that could address some of the issues identified.

Table 13: Potential Countermeasures for Consideration
Countermeasure CMF Value
Provide a southbound left-turn pocket at the
intersection of Broadway/Broadway Terrace. 0.91
Eliminate left turn movements at the intersection of
Broadway/Clifton Avenue
(See Consultant Recommendation 2)

0.49 Install red light cameras at the intersection of
Broadway/51st Street 0.84
Source: Highway Safety Manual, 2010; Fehr & Peers, 2020.

Each countermeasure provides a multiplicative crash -modification factor (CMF) that provides an estimated reduction in collisions per year.

Consultant Recommendation 3 : Construct a southbound left -turn pocket at the intersection of Broadway/Broadway Terrace while maintaining the existing vehicle and bicycle lanes. This can be accomplished by removing on -street parking and realigning the existing through lanes.

Consultant Recommendation 4: At the inte rsection of Broadway/College Avenue, modify the College Avenue approach to align orthogonally with Broadway and relocate the crosswalk to improve pedestrian visibility. Realigning the intersection will also slow vehicle turning speeds.

Carla Violet & Brandon Northart
December 21, 2020

Page 15 of 28 ends

Site Analysis
This section provides a review of site access, circulation, and parking based on the project’s conceptual site plan (Attachment A).

Site Access and Circulation
Vehicular
Vehicular access to and from the site would be provided by three driveways on Clifton Stree t, accessed via an existing unsignalized intersection at Broadway. The unsignalized intersection of Broadway/Clifton Street is located between the closely spaced signalized intersections of Broadway/Broadway Terrace and Broadway/College Avenue . Freeway access is provided via Broadway and 51st Street.

The westernmost project driveway, located approximately 185 feet west of Broadway, would provide vehicular access into (outbound movements would not be allowed) the main building’s parking garage; the driveway also forms an internal loop with the center driveway – creating a one- way passenger loading zone for passenger pickup/drop-off (for TNCs and other users) and moving vans. Vehicles may exit from the center driveway but may not enter. The easternmost driveway would provide vehicular access into and out of the eastern building’s parking garage.

Consultant Recommendation 5: The final site plan should retain three drivewa ys and designate curb space for loading for passenger loading and/or commercial vehicles along the internal loop formed by the westernmost and center project driveways . As shown on the conceptual site plan, the delineation of inbound and outbound movements from the garage versus pick- up and drop- off activity is not well defined. This area should be designed and defined to adequately segregate garage movements from pick-up and drop- off activities.

The westernmost driveway as shown is located approximately 185 feet west of Broadway.

Queuing calculations, presented in a previous section of this report, find that this location is adequately spaced, provided that certain mitigation measures are provided (turn restrictions and signal interconnect).

Carla Violet & Brandon Northart
December 21, 2020

Page 16 of 28 ends

Pedestrian
Pedestrian access to the project site is provided by sidewalks along the project frontage on Broadway and Clifton Street. The preliminary site plan shows pedestrian site access points from both Broadway and Clifton Street. Pedestrian facilities around the site are shown on Figure 8.

Consultant Recommendation 6: Along the project frontage, curb extensions should be constructed at the intersection of Broadway/Clifton Street and Broadway/College Avenue.

Bicycle
Bicycle access to the site is provided by Class II bike lanes on Broadway that extend from 25th Street in the south to the freeway overpass prior to the Caldecott Tunnel. Broadway between 25 th Street and West Grand Avenue is a Class III bicycle route. The preliminary site plan shows bicycle site access points from both Broadway and Clifton Street. The propose d project also includes 460 bicycle parking spaces. The nearest bike share (Ford Go Bike) station is located on the corner of Broadway and Coronado Avenue. Existing and planned bicycle facilities are presented in Figure 9.

Transit
Local and regional transit access to the project site is provided by the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit) bus service and Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) train service. AC transit provides local service to the area via routes 51A and 851 and regional service to San Francisco via routes CB and V. The bus stop nearest to the project site is located at the intersections of Broadway/College Avenue, as shown on Figure 10. Local school bus services are also provided by AC Transit (Lines 605, 660, 662, 682, and 696).

Consultant Recommendation 7: Additional transit amenities are required at the bus stop located along the project frontage, including the construction of a bus boarding island, bus shelter, and concrete bus pad at the intersection of Broadway/College Avenue.

The Rockridge BART Station is located approximately 0 .5 miles northeast of the project site. AC Transit bus routes 51A and 851 provide service between the Rockridge BART Station and the project site.

Emergency Vehicle Access
Factors such as number of access points, roadway width, and proximity to fire stations determine whether a project provides sufficient emergency access. The main project building is contiguous to Broadway and Clifton Street. Access to the eastern building is provided via Clifton Street and a fire Carla Violet & Brandon Northart
December 21, 2020

Page 17 of 28 ends

access road which runs along its eastern boundary. Emergency vehicle access to the interior of the site is available via the main north-south promenade if necessary.

The fire station most likely to serve the site is Oakland Fire Station No. 8 located on 51 st Street, 0.7 miles from the project site. Emergency vehicles would travel along 51 st Street and Broadway to access the project site.

Consultant Recommendation 8: The final site plan should ensure adequate clearance and roadway widths are provided for emergency vehicles access throughout the project site.

Off-Street Parking
The project proposes to provide 272 vehicular parking spaces , 255 for residents and 17 for employees. Of the residential spaces, 220 spaces would be in Building A and 35 in Building B . The proposed vehicular parking supply for the project was evaluated based on available parking demand at similar developments. The proposed parking supply was also compared to the City of Oakland Municipal Code requirements.

Estimated Vehicle Parking Demand
The estimated peak parking demand was predicted using the Parking Generation Manual, 5th Edition (2019), published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), as presented in Table 14.

Table 14: Estimated Peak Parking Demand
Use Size Parking Spaces
Residential1 462 Dwelling Units 465
Office2 16,945 sq. feet 40
Retail/Cafe3 1,408 sq. feet 13
Parking Demand: 518 spaces
Notes:

1. Land use category 221 – Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) in a Dense Multi-Use Urban Setting; P = 1.04 * (X) – 15.22; X = Dwelling Units

2. Land use category 710 – General Office Building in a General Urban/Suburban Setting; P = 2.39 * (X); X = 1000 sq. ft. GFA

3. Land use category 932 – High Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant in a General Urban/Suburban Setting; P = 9.44 * (X); X = 1,000 square feet
Source: Parking Generation Manual (5th Edition), ITE, 2019; Fehr & Peers, 2020.

Carla Violet & Brandon Northart
December 21, 2020

Page 18 of 28 ends

Based on the ITE methodology and statistics the residential portion of the project is expected to generate demand for approximately 465 spaces (approximately 1 .0 vehicle per household) .

Compared to automobile ownership statistics from the American Community Survey for the census tract1, this is significantly lower than the local average (approximately 1.9 vehicles per household).

The entirety of the project is expected to generate demand for approximately 518 spaces.

Parking demand data in the Parking Generation Manual , 5th Edition was largely collected prior to the introduction of Transportation Networking Companies (TNC). With the proliferation of TNC and fleet services, ownership of vehicles will likely decrease in areas that can support alternatives such as walking, biking, and transit for some trip purposes. MTC’s Vital Signs, which monitors key trends in the Bay Area, shows t hat land-use density decreases the need to own a vehicle. Permitted off - street parking reductions are discussed further in the next section.

Municipal Code (Vehicle Parking)
Chapter 17.116 of the City of Oakland’s Municipal Code provides off -street parking requirements based on zoning. The project site, currently zoned RM -3 (Residential - Mixed Housing), is required to provide one parking space for each dwelling unit, one parking space for each six hundred square feet of floor area on the ground floor of a building for the commercial uses, and one parking space for each one thousand square feet of floor area not on the ground floor of a building for the commercial uses. As presented in Table 15, the project is required to provide 490 parking spaces.

1 Automobile ownership for the project Census Tract (4042) was taken from the American Community Survey (2016) – <1% of households have no vehicle, 28% have one, 53% have two, and 18% have three+ vehicles.

Carla Violet & Brandon Northart
December 21, 2020

Page 19 of 28 ends

Table 15: Municipal Code Off-Street Vehicular Parking Requirements Use Size Base Parking
Requirement
Number of Spaces
Base Requirement 35% Reduction1
Residential 462 Dwelling Units 1 space per Dwelling Unit 462 301 Office (Ground
Floor) 10,330 sq. feet 1 space per 600 sq. feet 18 12
Office (Above
Ground Floor) 6,615 1 space per 1,000 sq. feet 7 5
Commercial Use
(Ground Floor)
1,408 sq. feet 1 space per 600 sq. feet 3 2
Off-Street Parking Requirement: 490 spaces 320 spaces
Notes:

1. Off-street parking requirement may be reduced with a conditional use permit if the development is located in a commercial corridor zone by up to fifty percent.

Source: City of Oakland Municipal Code; Fehr & Peers, 2020.

If the development incorporates park ing demand management measures (Subsection

17.116.110.C), the Code allows for reductions of up to 50% in the parking requirement. The parking reduction percentages for the demand management measures described below can be added together to create a greater parking reduction:

1. Affordable housing units that have a base parking minimum of three -quarter space per dwelling unit or more may provide:
a. One-half (1/2) space per affordable housing unit if within a Transit Accessible Area; and b. Three-quarters (3/4) space per affordable housing unit if not within a Transit Accessible Area.

2. A project that is within a Transit Accessible Area receives a thirty percent (30%) reduction in the parking requirement . This reduction cannot be applied to the parking ratio for affordable housing that already receives a reduction above.

3. On-site public or private car share spaces2 reduces the requirement by twenty percent (20%).

4. Off-site public or private car share spaces2 reduces the requirement by ten percent (10%).

2 The project is required to provide three (3) car-share parking spaces that will be counted towards the minimum required parking spaces. The car-share space can be privately operated and maintained by the property owner or provided to a public car-share organization that is accessible to both non-residents and resident subscribers. If off-site, the car-share spaces must be within 600 feet of the building site.

Carla Violet & Brandon Northart
December 21, 2020

Page 20 of 28 ends

5. The provision of month transit passes (placed on a Regional Transit Connection Clipper Card) to each dwelling unit in an amount equal to either one -half the price of an Adult 31 -Day AC Transit Pass or an AC Transit EasyPass, reduces the requirement by ten percent (10%).

6. Subsection 17.117.150 allows a reduction in the total number of off-street automobile parking spaces at the ratio of one automobile space for six bicycle spaces provided in excess of the bicycle parking requirements. (up to 5%).

The project is located directly adjacent to a high-quality transit corridor (Route 51A operates along the Broadway/College Avenue corridors with 10 to 15 -minute peak headways during both the morning and afternoon peak commute periods), and therefore is located within a Transit Accessible Area (30% reduction). The project also provided enough excess bicycle parking to satisfy an additional 5% reduction in the vehicular parking supply. With these reductions the project is required to provide at minimum 301 residential and 19 commercial parking spaces.

Municipal Code (Bicycle Parking)
Chapter 17.117 of the City of Oakland’s Municipal Code provides bicycle parking requirements for new developments based on zoning. The project (zone RM-3) is required to provide one long-term bicycle space for each four dwelling units and one short-term bicycle space for each twenty dwelling units, one long -term bicycle space for each 12,000 square feet of floor area and one short -term bicycle space for each 2,000 square feet of floor area reserved for a limited service café and one long-term bicycle space for each 10,000 square feet of floor area and one short-term bicycle space for each 20,000 square feet of floor area reserved for office.

The project (462 dwelling units) is required to provide 116 long-term bicycle spaces and 24 short- term bicycle spaces for the residential units, two long -term bicycle spaces and two short -term bicycle spaces for the limited service café (minimum requirement), and two long -term bicycle spaces and two short -term bic ycle spaces for the office minimum requirement). In total the development is required to provide 148 bicycle parking spaces - 120 long-term and 28 short-term.

Since the project proposes to provide a total of 460 bicycle parking spaces, the municipal code requirements for quantity of bicycle parking are met as long as the breakdown of long -term and short-term spaces meet the requirements described previously.

The project will also provide an excess of 312 bicycle parking spaces; therefore, the project is allowed to reduce the vehicular parking space requirement by 5%.

Carla Violet & Brandon Northart
December 21, 2020

Page 21 of 28 ends

On-Street Parking
Most streets in the project vicinity provide on-street parking on both sides of the roadway. Figure 11 summarizes the parking conditions on the major streets in the vicinity of the site.

Metered parking is available on Broadway, between Coronado Avenue and Broadway Terrace , and College Avenue. Unmetered parking is available on Clifton Street, Broadway Terrace, other portions of Broadway, and various local streets.

Transportation Demand Management Plan
Per the City of Oakland Standard Conditions of Approval, all land use projects that generate more than 50 net new morning or evening peak hour vehicle trips must prepare a Transportation and Parking Demand Management (TDM) Plan. The following TDM Strategies are re quired under the Transportation Impact Review Guidelines (City of Oakland, 2017):
• Improvements to the existing bus stop located along the project frontage at the intersection of Broadway/College Avenue, including:
o Construction of a bus boarding island with a concrete bus pad to allow buses to stop and board passengers without ever leading the travel lane. The existing bicycle lane would be relocated behind the boarding island. o Installation of a bus shelter to include benches, trash receptacles, and real- time transit information.

The consultant recommends moving the bus stop to the stop bar once the project is constructed; the project will remove the existing driveway on Broadway. • Installation of amenities consistent with the Oakland Walks! Pedestrian Plan Update (City of Oakland, 2017) including pedestrian-scale lighting, trees along the roadway, and public art.
• Construction of new sidewalks, curb ramps, curb, and gutter along the project frontage.

Curb extensions should be constructed along the project frontage when feasible; construct curb extensions at the intersection of Broadway/Clifton Street and Broadway/College Avenue.
• Paving and restriping of roadway to midpoint of street sections adjacent to the project and to accommodate any improvements to improvement safety and site access for vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians.
• Pedestrian crossing improvements at the intersection of Broadway/College Avenue, including:

Carla Violet & Brandon Northart
December 21, 2020

Page 22 of 28 ends

o Construction of curb extension at the crosswalk located along the project frontage; o Construction of raised median on Broadway between College Avenue and Broadway Terrace;
o Realignment of the College Avenue approach to align orthogonally with Broadway and relocating the crosswalk to improve pedestrian visibility. • Signal upgrades to the intersection of Broadway/College Avenue (assuming the signal infrastructure is older than 15 years) , which could include upgrading existing signal equipment and poles to current standards; and
• Trenching and placement of conduit for providing traffic signal interconnect along Broadway if not already constructed.

In addition, the consultant recommends the following TDM measures:
• Inclusion of shower and locker facilities for employees who walk or bike to work; • Free designated parking spaces for on -site car -sharing programs and/or car -sharing memberships for employees or tenants;
• Direct on-site sale of transit passes purchased and s old at a bulk rate (through programs such as AC Transit Easy Pass) and/or provision of a transit subsidy to residents; • Distribution of information concerning alternative transportation options to residents and employees; and
• Unbundled parking for residents to separate the cost to rent a parking space from the cost to rent an apartment.

Projects that generate 100 or more net new morning or evening peak hour vehicle trips are required to submit an annual compliance report for the first five years following co mpletion of the project.

The annual report shall document the status and effectiveness of the TDM program, including the actual vehicle trip reduction achieved by the project during operation.

Potential Traffic Diversions onto Residential Streets Due to Broadway/Clifton Turn Restrictions
The project proposes to take all vehicular access from the Broadway and Clifton Street intersection, which provides access challenges due to the configuration of Broadway. Due to existing inadequate intersection s pacing and other geometric issues, turn restrictions are proposed at the Broadway/Clifton intersection (Consultant Recommendation 2). If implemented , these turn restrictions will only allow access to Clifton Street via right turns in and right turns out. T he restrictions would create the potential for traffic diversions onto neighborhood streets, namely Carla Violet & Brandon Northart
December 21, 2020

Page 23 of 28 ends

Thomas Avenue, Monroe Avenue, Manila Avenue, and Bryant Avenue. To evaluate these potential diversions, the following analysis was conducted:
• Weekday morning and evening peak hour turning movement counts were assembled for the Thomas Avenue/Broadway Terrace, Thomas Avenue/Monroe Avenue, Broadway/Monroe Avenue/Manila Avenue, Manila Avenue/Bryant Avenue and Bryant Avenue/College Avenue intersections. Intersection movement counts were collected using StreetLight Data, with data from Fall 2019 being used as the basis of the counts (current manual turning movement counts were not collected due to the on- going Covid -19 pandemic).
• Potential travel diversions onto local area streets as a result of the turn restriction s at Broadway/Clifton Street were estimated. The anticipated project trip distribution from was used to estimate potential trip diversions onto local area streets along with vehicular travel time runs conducted on potential routes of travel.
• Existing peak hour levels of service at the five intersections listed above were calculated using the methodology set forth in the Transportation Research Board’s Highway Capacity Manual.

Potential Traffic Diversions
Table 16 presents the estimated weekday morning and evening peak hour traffic that may choose to divert onto Thomas Avenue, Monroe Avenue, Manila Avenue, and Bryant Avenue. Estimates were developed by calculating travel times on alternative routes from the Broadway/Broadway Terrace intersection to where project trips are likely to be distributed. As an example, trips that want to turn left out of the project site and travel south on Broadway would have options to complete their trip with this turn being prohibited. Options for restricted outbound left turn movements include:
• Turn right onto Broadway Terrace, left on Thomas Avenue, left on Monroe Avenue, and left back onto Broadway.
• Turn right onto Broadway, left onto Manila Avenue, left onto Bryant Avenue, left onto College Avenue, and back onto Broadway.
• Trips heading toward SR -24, 51st Street, an d the City of Berkeley are considered unlikely to use Thomas Avenue or Monroe Avenue, and instead could travel eastbound down Broadway before turning onto left onto Manila Avenue , depending on their ultimate destination. Many of these trips would choose to continue to travel north bound down Broadway to complete their trip via SR-24.
• Trips destined for northbound College Avenue would likely use Broadway to Manila Avenue before turning right onto College Avenue.

Carla Violet & Brandon Northart
December 21, 2020

Page 24 of 28 ends

Options for restricted inbound left turn movements include:
• Most inbound left turn movements would adjust their paths of travel to arrive from the south on Broadway. As the majority of vehicle trips generated by the project are expected to be residents who would be knowledgeable of turn restrictions, this is considered to be the most likely outcome.
• Trips arriving from the east on Broadway could choose to make a legal u -turn at the Broadway/51
st Street intersection to complete their right turn movement into the project site. This would be the quickest path of travel for a restricted inbound left turn movement.

Table 1 6 presents the maximum anticipated weekday peak hour diversions of traffic onto local neighborhood streets associated with the left turn restrictions.

Table 16: Weekday Peak Hour Potential Neighborhood Traffic Diversions Roadway Morning Peak Hour Evening Peak Hour
Thomas Avenue 30 40
Monroe Avenue 30 40
Manila Avenue 50 60
Bryant Avenue 40 50
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2020.

Intersection Levels of Service
Table 17 summarizes morning and evening peak hour vehicle delay for existing conditions and existing plus project reflecting the maximum anticipated trip diversions for the five intersections mentioned above. The roadway operations analysis indicates that the proposed project is unlikely to degrade intersection operations or contribute to an increase in vehicle delay s. All intersections are expected to function at Levels of Service A or B which is indicative of traffic conditions with low levels of vehicle delay.

Carla Violet & Brandon Northart
December 21, 2020

Page 25 of 28 ends

Table 17: Weekday Peak Hour LOS with Potential Trip Diversions (Due to Left Turn Restrictions at Broadway/Clifton)
Intersection Control
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Existing without
Project
Existing with
Project Mitigation
Existing without
Project
Existing with
Project Mitigation
Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS
1 Thomas
Avenue/Broadway
Terrace
SSSC 1.3 (12.7) A (B) 1.6 (13) A (B) 0.8 (11.6) A (B) 1.1 (12.4) A (B) 2 Thomas
Avenue/Monroe
Avenue
SSSC 1.7 (9.5) A (A) 2.6 (9.9) A (A) 1.5 (10.5) A (B) 2.5(11) A (B) 3 Broadway/Manila
Avenue Signal 8.8 A 9.3 A 10.6 B 11 B
4 Bryant
Avenue/Manila
Avenue
SSSC 3.2 (9.4) A (A) 3.5 (9.5) A (A) 2.4 (9.8) A(A) 2.5 (10.1) A (B) 5 Bryant
Avenue/College
Avenue
SSSC 1.5 (14.4) A (B) 2.2 (15.5) A (C) 0.9 (14) A (B) 1.7 (17.5) A(C) Notes:

SSSC = side street stop-controlled intersection; average delay or LOS is followed by the delay or LOS for the worst movement in parentheses. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2020.

Alameda County Transportation Commission Roadway Analysis A separate analysis of regional roadway was prepared to comply with the requirements of the Alameda County Transportation Commission (Alameda CTC). The Alameda CTC requires the analysis of project impacts to Metropolitan Transportation System (MTS) roadways identified in the congestion management plan (CMP) for development projects that would generate more than 100 PM peak hour trips. As shown in earlier sections, the proposed project would generate more than 100 PM peak hour trips.

This section outlines this roadway analysis, which considers the potential effect of the p roject on freeways, major arterials, and other major roadways as designated by Alameda CTC. Main items of discussion include the geographic scope of the Alameda CTC roadway analysis, the anal ysis method, and the results for 2020 and 2040.

Carla Violet & Brandon Northart
December 21, 2020

Page 26 of 28 ends

Alameda CTC Roadway Analysis Study Area
The following freeway and surface street segments in Oakland were included in this analysis:

1. SR-13 from south of the SR-24 interchange to the I-580 interchange (6 segments)

2. SR-24 from east of the I-580 interchange to west of Broadway (4 segments)

3. Broadway from east of 27th Street to west of Keith Avenue (5 segments)

4. Claremont Avenue from north of Telegraph Avenue to South of College Avenue (5 segments)

5. Grand Avenue from east of MacArthur Boulevard to west of Oakland Avenue (4 segments) Traffic Forecasts
The Alameda Countywide Travel Demand Model was used to forecast 2020 and 2040 traffic volumes on the MTS roadway system. The forecasts for the MTS system differ from the intersection forecasts previously discussed in the following aspects:
• Regional model may not include some minor streets, potentially overstating traffic volumes on the roadways included in the model.
• The MTS roadway analysis reports the outputs of the Alameda CTC model directly on a roadway segment level and the analysis does not consider the added capacity from turn pockets at intersections.

The results of the Alameda CTC model were used to forecast the No Project condition for 2020 and 2040. Project trips were distributed to the MTS roadway segments (including both freeways and surface streets) identified above using the project trip distribution presented in earlier sections. The distribution of project trips onto the MTS segments results in the Project volumes for 2020 and 2040.

Analysis Method
Operations of the MTS freeway and surface street segments were assessed based on volume -to- capacity (V/C) ratios. For freeway segments, a per -lane capacity of 2,000 vehicles per hour was used. For surface streets, a per -lane capacity of 800 vehicles per hour was used. These capacities do not reflect additional capacity provided at intersections through turn pockets. Roadway segments with a V/C ratio greater than 1.0 are assigned LOS F.

Carla Violet & Brandon Northart
December 21, 2020

Page 27 of 28 ends

Performance Criteria
Alameda CTC strives to maintain the performance of the MTS roadway network. Performance issues related to Alameda CTC policy may arise if the project results in the following:
• The addition of project traffic causes a segment’s operation to degrade to LOS F. • The addition of project trips causes the V/C ratio to increase by 0.02 or more on a segment that already operates at LOS F without the project traffic.

Analysis Results
The MTS PM Peak Hour roadway segment analysis under 2020 and 2040 conditions are provided in Attachment E.

Results of the 2020 analysis indicate that the proposed project would not degrade roadway segments to unacceptable levels, nor do any of the roadway segments operate below a LOS E.

In 2040, the addition of project trips would not degrade roadway segments to unacceptable levels.

SR-13 southbound between Broadway Terrace and Moraga Avenue is projected to operate at a LOS F. However, project trips wo uld only result in a 0.0012 increase in the V/C ratio on that segment, well below the 0.02 threshold. The 2040 roadway segment analysis indicates that the proposed project would not result in any policy violations on the roadway segments analyzed.

Conclusions
This completes our traffic analysis, site plan assessment, collision analysis, and a transportation and parking demand management plan for the proposed mixed -use development at the current California College of the Arts (CCA) campus located at the southeast corner of the Broadway/Clifton Street intersection in Oakland, California. Please call Bill at (510) 834-3200 with questions.

Attachments:

Figure 1 Project Site Vicinity
Figure 2 Project Trip Assignment
Figure 3 Existing Conditions Peak Hour Intersection Traffic Volumes Figure 4 Existing Peak Hour Bicycle and Pedestrian Volumes Figure 5 Existing with Project Conditions Peak Hour Intersection Traffic Volumes Figure 6 Cumulative without Conditions Peak Hour Intersection Traffic Volumes Figure 7 Cumulative with Project Conditions Peak Hour Intersection Traffic Volumes Carla Violet & Brandon Northart
December 21, 2020

Page 28 of 28 ends

Figure 8 Pedestrian Facilities
Figure 9 Existing and Planned Bicycle Facilities
Figure 10 Existing Transit Service Near Site
Figure 11 Parking Conditions on Major Streets

Attachment A CCA Oakland Conceptual Site Plan
Attachment B Project Trip Distribution
Attachment C Traffic Simulation Results
Attachment D Urban and Suburban Predictive Method Collision Worksheets Attachment E MTS Roadway Segment Analysis
OaklandOakland
51st St
Broadway
Broadway
Shafter Ave
College Ave
Broadway Terrace
Pleasant Valley Ave
Clifton St
Clifton St
Coronado Ave
1 2
3 4
5 6
...Graphics\Figures\Non-CEQA Memo Figures\Figure 1
Transportation Study Area
Figure 1
Project Site Study Intersection
#
Cumulative with Project Peak Hour
Intersection Traffic Volumes, Lane Configurations and Traffic Controls Appendix C.1 – Figure 6
482 (907)
250 (590)
755 (620)
30 (60)
30 (30)
530 (280)
700 (1,470)
97 (112)
1,250 (880)
35 (20)
32 (27)
142 (88)
300 (330)
797 (1,582)
300 (510)
122 (97)
1,270 (871)
0 (20)
937 (1,652)
40 (50)
20 (60)
10 (20)
10 (40)
10 (20)
1,450 (1,261)
110 (100)
140 (200)
0 (10)
20 (50)
120 (130)
451 (1,041)
140 (280)
171 (271)
350 (850)
150 (100)
227 (230)
831 (464)
422 (657)
355 (410)
530 (510)
170 (140)
124 (65)
0 (0)
0 (0)
52 (102)
0 (0)
0 (0)
STOP
STOP
CCF
BC
G
CE
BC
G
ACC
F
CE
ACE
D
BE
BF
BCE
ACCF
ABCE
ACE
G
E
B

1. Broadway/Broadway Terrace 2. Broadway/Clifton St 3. Broadway/College Ave

4. Broadway/Coronado Ave 5. Broadway/51st St/Pleasant Valley Ave 6. Project Driveway/Clifton St Broadway Terrace
Broadway
Clifton St
Broadway
College Ave
Broadway
Coronado Ave
Broadway
51st St Pleasant Valley Ave
Broadway
Clifton St
Project Driveway
Cumulative without Project Peak Hour
Intersection Traffic Volumes, Lane Configurations and Traffic Controls Appendix C.1 – Figure 5
470 (900)
250 (590)
778 (610)
30 (60)
30 (30)
530 (280)

1. Broadway/Broadway Terrace
700 (1,470)
50 (20)
1,250 (880)
58 (10)
20 (20)
30 (30)

2. Broadway/Clifton St
300 (330)
750 (1,490)
300 (510)
110 (90)
1,170 (820)

3. Broadway/College Ave
0 (20)
890 (1,560)
40 (50)
20 (60)
10 (20)
10 (40)
10 (20)
1,350 (1,210)
110 (100)
140 (200)
0 (10)
20 (50)

4. Broadway/Coronado Ave
120 (130)
430 (1,000)
140 (280)
150 (230)
350 (850)
150 (100)
190 (210)
780 (440)
410 (650)
350 (400)
530 (510)
170 (140)

5. Broadway/51st St/Pleasant Valley Ave
0 (0)
0 (0)
68 (30)
0 (0)
50 (50)
0 (0)

6. Project Driveway/Clifton St
STOP
STOP
CCF
BC
G
CE
BC
G
ACC
F
CE
ACE
D
BE
BF
BCE
ACCF
ABCE
ACE
G
E
B
Broadway Terrace
Broadway
Clifton St
Broadway
College Ave
Broadway
Coronado Ave
Broadway
51st St Pleasant Valley Ave
Broadway
Clifton St
Project Driveway
Existing with Project Peak Hour
Intersection Traffic Volumes, Lane Configurations and Traffic Controls Appendix C.1 – Figure 4
316 (588)
187 (466)
489 (404)
19 (47)
18 (18)
402 (202)
473 (1,034)
91 (103)
862 (590)
29 (16)
30 (20)
139 (79)
246 (272)
564 (1,137)
245 (388)
96 (80)
905 (589)
0 (12)
652 (1,165)
31 (41)
16 (56)
1 (16)
8 (38)
6 (13)
1,037 (869)
107 (95)
142 (188)
0 (2)
12 (48)
83 (89)
317 (735)
97 (191)
121 (200)
241 (596)
103 (67)
165 (163)
598 (330)
294 (462)
245 (283)
369 (358)
119 (93)
124 (65)
0 (0)
0 (0)
52 (102)
0 (0)
0 (0)
STOP
STOP
CCF
BC
G
CE
BC
G
ACC
F
CE
ACE
D
BE
BF
BCE
ACCF
ABCE
ACE
G
E
B

1. Broadway/Broadway Terrace 2. Broadway/Clifton St 3. Broadway/College Ave

4. Broadway/Coronado Ave 5. Broadway/51st St/Pleasant Valley Ave 6. Project Driveway/Clifton St Broadway Terrace
Broadway
Clifton St
Broadway
College Ave
Broadway
Coronado Ave
Broadway
51st St Pleasant Valley Ave
Broadway
Clifton St
Project Driveway
Project Trip Assignment
Figure 2
8 (9)
9 (7)
79 (63)
9 (7)
8 (9)
69 (85)
79 (63)
8 (9)
61 (76)
79 (63)
61 (76)
35 (28)
35 (28)
23 (28)
30 (39)
8 (9) 9 (7)
77 (94)
88 (70)
STOP
STOP
C
C
F
A
AF
C
CF
C
C
C
A
ACF
F
A
F

1. Broadway/Broadway Terrace 2. Broadway/Clifton St 3. Broadway/College Ave

1. Broadway/Broadway Terrace
473 (1,034)
44 (11)
862 (590)
24 (6)
18 (13)
27 (21)

2. Broadway/Clifton St
246 (272)
517 (1,045)
245 (388)
84 (73)
805 (538)

3. Broadway/College Ave
0 (12)
605 (1,073)
31 (41)
16 (56)
1 (16)
8 (38)
6 (13)
937 (818)
107 (95)
142 (188)
0 (2)
12 (48)

4. Broadway/Coronado Ave
83 (89)
296 (694)
97 (191)
100 (159)
241 (596)
103 (67)
128 (143)
547 (306)
282 (455)
240 (273)
369 (358)
119 (93)

5. Broadway/51st St/Pleasant Valley Ave
0 (0)
0 (0)
68 (17)
0 (0)
45 (34)
0 (0)

6. Project Driveway/Clifton St
STOP
STOP
CCF
BC
G
CE
BC
G
ACC
F
CE
ACE
D
BE
BF
BCE
ACCF
ABCE
ACE
G
E
B
Existing Conditions Peak Hour
Intersection Traffic Volumes, Lane Configurations and Traffic Controls Appendix C.1 – Figure 1
Broadway Terrace
Broadway
Clifton St
Broadway
College Ave
Broadway
Coronado Ave
Broadway
51st St Pleasant Valley Ave
Broadway
Clifton St
Project Driveway
OaklandOakland
51st St
Broadway
Broadway
Shafter Ave
College Ave
Broadway Terrace
Pleasant Valley Ave
Clifton St
Clifton St
Coronado Ave
1 2
3 4
5 6
WC19-3574_VolsMap
Vols Map
Figure 1
Project Site Study Intersection
#
...Graphics\Figures\Non-CEQA Memo Figures\Figure 2
Project Site
Study Intersection
#
Signalized Intersection
AM (PM) Peak Hour
Traﬃc Volumes

XX (YY)
Stop SignSTOP

Cumulative with Project Peak Hour
Intersection Traffic Volumes, Lane Configurations and Traffic Controls Appendix C.1 – Figure 6
482 (906)
250 (590)
754 (620)
30 (60)
30 (30)
530 (280)

1. Broadway/Broadway Terrace
700 (1,470)
86 (110)
1,250 (880)
34 (20)
32 (26)
139 (81)

2. Broadway/Clifton St
300 (330)
786 (1,580)
300 (510)
122 (96)
1,267 (865)

3. Broadway/College Ave
0 (20)
926 (1,650)
40 (50)
20 (60)
10 (20)
10 (40)
10 (20)
1,447 (1,255)
110 (100)
140 (200)
0 (10)
20 (50)

4. Broadway/Coronado Ave
120 (130)
446 (1,040)
140 (280)
166 (270)
350 (850)
150 (100)
226 (227)
829 (462)
422 (656)
354 (410)
530 (510)
170 (140)

5. Broadway/51st St/Pleasant Valley Ave
121 (57)
0 (0)
80 (30)
40 (100)
50 (50)
0 (0)

1. Broadway/Broadway Terrace
700 (1,470)
50 (20)
1,250 (880)
58 (10)
20 (20)
30 (30)

2. Broadway/Clifton St
300 (330)
750 (1,490)
300 (510)
110 (90)
1,170 (820)

3. Broadway/College Ave
0 (20)
890 (1,560)
40 (50)
20 (60)
10 (20)
10 (40)
10 (20)
1,350 (1,210)
110 (100)
140 (200)
0 (10)
20 (50)

4. Broadway/Coronado Ave
120 (130)
430 (1,000)
140 (280)
150 (230)
350 (850)
150 (100)
190 (210)
780 (440)
410 (650)
350 (400)
530 (510)
170 (140)

5. Broadway/51st St/Pleasant Valley Ave
0 (0)
0 (0)
68 (30)
0 (0)
50 (50)
0 (0)

1. Broadway/Broadway Terrace
473 (1,034)
80 (101)
862 (590)
28 (16)
30 (19)
136 (72)

2. Broadway/Clifton St
246 (272)
553 (1,135)
245 (388)
96 (79)
902 (583)

3. Broadway/College Ave
0 (12)
641 (1,163)
31 (41)
16 (56)
1 (16)
8 (38)
6 (13)
1,034 (863)
107 (95)
142 (188)
0 (2)
12 (48)

4. Broadway/Coronado Ave
83 (89)
312 (734)
97 (191)
116 (199)
241 (596)
103 (67)
164 (160)
596 (328)
294 (461)
244 (283)
369 (358)
119 (93)

5. Broadway/51st St/Pleasant Valley Ave
121 (57)
0 (0)
68 (17)
40 (100)
45 (34)
0 (0)

1. Broadway/Broadway Terrace
36 (90)
4 (10)
12 (6)
109 (51)

2. Broadway/Clifton St
36 (90)
12 (6)
97 (45)

3. Broadway/College Ave
Broadway Terrace
Broadway
Clifton St
Broadway
College Ave
Broadway
36 (90)
97 (45)

4. Broadway/Coronado Ave
16 (40)
16 (40)
36 (17)
49 (22)
12 (6)4 (10)

5. Broadway/51st St/Pleasant Valley Ave
Coronado Ave
Broadway
51st St Pleasant Valley Ave
Broadway
121 (57)
40 (100)

6. Project Driveway/Clifton St
Clifton St
Project Driveway
STOP
STOP
C
C
F
A
AF
C
CF
C
C
C
A
ACF
F
A
F
304 (581)
187 (466)
484 (394)
19 (47)
18 (18)
402 (202)

1. Broadway/Broadway Terrace
473 (1,034)
44 (11)
862 (590)
24 (6)
18 (13)
27 (21)

2. Broadway/Clifton St
246 (272)
517 (1,045)
245 (388)
84 (73)
805 (538)

3. Broadway/College Ave
0 (12)
605 (1,073)
31 (41)
16 (56)
1 (16)
8 (38)
6 (13)
937 (818)
107 (95)
142 (188)
0 (2)
12 (48)

4. Broadway/Coronado Ave
83 (89)
296 (694)
97 (191)
100 (159)
241 (596)
103 (67)
128 (143)
547 (306)
282 (455)
240 (273)
369 (358)
119 (93)

5. Broadway/51st St/Pleasant Valley Ave
0 (0)
0 (0)
68 (17)
0 (0)
45 (34)
0 (0)

6. Project Driveway/Clifton St
STOP
STOP
CCF
BC
G
CE
BC
G
ACC
F
CE
ACE
D
BE
BF
BCE
ACCF
ABCE
ACE
G
E
B
Existing Conditions Peak Hour
Intersection Traffic Volumes, Lane Configurations and Traffic Controls Figure 3
Broadway Terrace
Broadway
Clifton St
Broadway
College Ave
Broadway
Coronado Ave
Broadway
51st St Pleasant Valley Ave
Broadway
Clifton St
Project Driveway
OaklandOakland
51st St
Broadway
Broadway
Shafter Ave
College Ave
Broadway Terrace
Pleasant Valley Ave
Clifton St
Clifton St
Coronado Ave
1 2
3 4
5 6
WC19-3574_VolsMap
Vols Map
Figure 1
Project Site Study Intersection
#
...Graphics\Figures\Non-CEQA Memo Figures\Figure 3
Project Site
Study Intersection
#
Signalized Intersection
AM (PM) Peak Hour
Traﬃc Volumes

XX (YY)
Stop SignSTOP

Existing Peak Hour Bicycle and Pedestrian Volumes
Figure 4
CF1 (9)
0 (8)
ACF
9 (2)
1 (0)
AF
0 (0)
7 (1)

1. Broadway/Broadway Terrace
Broadway Terrace
Broadway
23 (29)
30 (29)
CC
C C
CF1 (17)
3 (1)
AC
15 (3)
0 (0)
AF
0 (0)
0 (0)

2. Broadway/Clifton St
Broadway
STOP
79 (83)
CC
AC25 (7)
3 (21)
F5 (14)
CF
2 (1)
12 (6)

3. Broadway/College Ave
College Ave
Broadway
80 (99)
26 (49)
C C
CC
ACF0 (2)
4 (24)
0 (2)
ACF1 (1)
1 (1)
1 (0)
ACF
1 (1)
13 (12)
5 (8)
ACF
25 (4)
1 (2)
0 (0)

4. Broadway/Coronado Ave
Coronado Ave
Broadway
14 (16)
18 (18)
38 (38)
42 (31)
C C
CC
C C
CC
ACF0 (1)
4 (26)
0 (1)
ACF0 (0)
0 (1)
0 (1)
ACF
0 (0)
14 (9)
1 (2)
ACF
0 (5)
4 (2)
1 (1)

5. Broadway/51st St/Pleasant Valley Ave
51st St Pleasant Valley Ave
Broadway
12 (14)
20 (16)
50 (31)
67 (24)
C C
CC
C C
CC
OaklandOakland
51st St
Broadway
Broadway
Shafter Ave
College Ave
Broadway Terrace
Pleasant Valley Ave
Clifton St
Clifton St
Coronado Ave
1 2
3 4
5 WC19-3574_VolsMap
Vols Map
Figure 1
Project Site Study Intersection
#
...Graphics\Figures\Non-CEQA Memo Figures\Figure 4
Project Site
Study Intersection
#
Signalized Intersection
Stop Sign
STOP
AM (PM) Peak Hour
Bicycle Volumes
AM (PM) Peak Hour
Pedestrian Volumes

XX (YY)

Cumulative with Project Peak Hour
Intersection Traffic Volumes, Lane Configurations and Traffic Controls Appendix C.1 – Figure 6
482 (907)
250 (590)
755 (620)
30 (60)
30 (30)
530 (280)
700 (1,470)
97 (112)
1,250 (880)
35 (20)
32 (27)
142 (88)
300 (330)
797 (1,582)
300 (510)
122 (97)
1,270 (871)
0 (20)
937 (1,652)
40 (50)
20 (60)
10 (20)
10 (40)
10 (20)
1,450 (1,261)
110 (100)
140 (200)
0 (10)
20 (50)
120 (130)
451 (1,041)
140 (280)
171 (271)
350 (850)
150 (100)
227 (230)
831 (464)
422 (657)
355 (410)
530 (510)
170 (140)
124 (65)
0 (0)
0 (0)
52 (102)
0 (0)
0 (0)
STOP
STOP
CCF
BC
G
CE
BC
G
ACC
F
CE
ACE
D
BE
BF
BCE
ACCF
ABCE
ACE
G
E
B

1. Broadway/Broadway Terrace 2. Broadway/Clifton St 3. Broadway/College Ave

1. Broadway/Broadway Terrace
700 (1,470)
50 (20)
1,250 (880)
58 (10)
20 (20)
30 (30)

2. Broadway/Clifton St
300 (330)
750 (1,490)
300 (510)
110 (90)
1,170 (820)

3. Broadway/College Ave
0 (20)
890 (1,560)
40 (50)
20 (60)
10 (20)
10 (40)
10 (20)
1,350 (1,210)
110 (100)
140 (200)
0 (10)
20 (50)

4. Broadway/Coronado Ave
120 (130)
430 (1,000)
140 (280)
150 (230)
350 (850)
150 (100)
190 (210)
780 (440)
410 (650)
350 (400)
530 (510)
170 (140)

5. Broadway/51st St/Pleasant Valley Ave
0 (0)
0 (0)
68 (30)
0 (0)
50 (50)
0 (0)

6. Project Driveway/Clifton St
STOP
STOP
CCF
BC
G
CE
BC
G
ACC
F
CE
ACE
D
BE
BF
BCE
ACCF
ABCE
ACE
G
E
B
Broadway Terrace
Broadway
Clifton St
Broadway
College Ave
Broadway
Coronado Ave
Broadway
51st St Pleasant Valley Ave
Broadway
Clifton St
Project Driveway
Existing with Project Peak Hour
Intersection Traffic Volumes, Lane Configurations and Traffic Controls Figure 5
312 (588)
187 (466)
493 (401)
19 (47)
18 (18)
402 (202)
473 (1,034)
123 (74)
862 (590)
33 (13)
26 (22)
96 (106)
246 (272)
596 (1,108)245 (388)
92 (82)
866 (614)
0 (12)
684 (1,136)
31 (41)
16 (56)
1 (16)
8 (38)
6 (13)
998 (894)
107 (95)
142 (188)
0 (2)
12 (48)
83 (89)
331 (722)
97 (191)
135 (187)
241 (596)
103 (67)
151 (171)
577 (345)
290 (464)
249 (280)
369 (358)
119 (93)
77 (94)
0 (0)
68 (17)
88 (70)
0 (0)
0 (0)
STOP
STOP
CCF
BC
G
CE
BC
G
ACC
F
CE
ACE
D
BE
BF
BCE
ACCF
ABCE
ACE
G
E
B

1. Broadway/Broadway Terrace 2. Broadway/Clifton St 3. Broadway/College Ave

4. Broadway/Coronado Ave 5. Broadway/51st St/Pleasant Valley Ave 6. Project Driveway/Clifton St Broadway Terrace
Broadway
Clifton St
Broadway
College Ave
Broadway
Coronado Ave
Broadway
51st St Pleasant Valley Ave
Broadway
Clifton St
Project Driveway
Project Trip Assignment
Appendix C.1 – Figure 3
12 (7)
5 (10)
47 (92)
5 (10)
12 (7)
112 (58)
47 (92)
12 (7)
100 (51)
47 (92)
100 (51)
21 (41)
21 (41)
37 (20)
51 (24)
12 (7)5 (10)
124 (65)
52 (102)
STOP
STOP
C
C
F
A
AF
C
CF
C
C
C
A
ACF
F
A
F

1. Broadway/Broadway Terrace 2. Broadway/Clifton St 3. Broadway/College Ave

1. Broadway/Broadway Terrace
473 (1,034)
44 (11)
862 (590)
24 (6)
18 (13)
27 (21)

2. Broadway/Clifton St
246 (272)
517 (1,045)
245 (388)
84 (73)
805 (538)

3. Broadway/College Ave
0 (12)
605 (1,073)
31 (41)
16 (56)
1 (16)
8 (38)
6 (13)
937 (818)
107 (95)
142 (188)
0 (2)
12 (48)

4. Broadway/Coronado Ave
83 (89)
296 (694)
97 (191)
100 (159)
241 (596)
103 (67)
128 (143)
547 (306)
282 (455)
240 (273)
369 (358)
119 (93)

5. Broadway/51st St/Pleasant Valley Ave
0 (0)
0 (0)
68 (17)
0 (0)
45 (34)
0 (0)

6. Project Driveway/Clifton St
STOP
STOP
CCF
BC
G
CE
BC
G
ACC
F
CE
ACE
D
BE
BF
BCE
ACCF
ABCE
ACE
G
E
B
Existing Conditions Peak Hour
Intersection Traffic Volumes, Lane Configurations and Traffic Controls Appendix C.1 – Figure 1
Broadway Terrace
Broadway
Clifton St
Broadway
College Ave
Broadway
Coronado Ave
Broadway
51st St Pleasant Valley Ave
Broadway
Clifton St
Project Driveway
OaklandOakland
51st St
Broadway
Broadway
Shafter Ave
College Ave
Broadway Terrace
Pleasant Valley Ave
Clifton St
Clifton St
Coronado Ave
1 2
3 4
5 6
WC19-3574_VolsMap
Vols Map
Figure 1
Project Site Study Intersection
#
...Graphics\Figures\Non-CEQA Memo Figures\Figure 5
Project Site
Study Intersection
#
Signalized Intersection
AM (PM) Peak Hour
Traﬃc Volumes