The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About567 Airport Boulevard - Technical Study (2)Traffic Impact Analysis Report REVISED REPORT Burlingame Bay Office Builc�ing at 567 Airport Blvd City of Burlingame, California September 24, 2021 Burlingame Bay Traffic Impact Study Contents ExecutiveSummary ........................................................................................................................................ 1 1.0 I ntroduction .............................................................................................................................................. 5 1.1 Study Intersections and Scenarios ....................................................................................................................................5 2.0 Study Methodology ................................................................................................................................. 9 2.1 Vehicle Miles Traveled ...........................................................................................................................................................9 2.2 Level of Service Analysis Methodology .........................................................................................................................10 2.3 Level of Service Standards ..................................................................................................................................................12 3.0 Existing Conditions ................................................................................................................................ 13 3.1 Existing Setting and Roadway System ...........................................................................................................................13 3.2 Existing Pedestrian Facilities ..............................................................................................................................................14 3.3 Existing Bicycle Facilities ......................................................................................................................................................15 3.4 Existing Transit Facilities ......................................................................................................................................................15 3.5 Existing Traffic Conditions ..................................................................................................................................................17 3.6 Intersection Level of Service Analysis — Existing Conditions .................................................................................22 4.0 Existing plus Project Conditions .......................................................................................................... 24 4.1 Project Trip Generation ........................................................................................................................................................24 4.2 Project Trip Distribution and Assignment ....................................................................................................................25 4.3 Intersection Level of Service Analysis — Existing plus Project Conditions ........................................................27 4.2 Intersection Queuing Analysis ..........................................................................................................................................29 4.3 Vehicle Miles Traveled .........................................................................................................................................................31 � 5.0 Background (Existing plus Approved and Reasonably Foreseable Projects) Conditions .............. 34 5.1 Intersection Level of Service Analysis — Background No-Project Conditions ...............................................34 6.0 Background plus Project Conditions ................................................................................................... 37 6.1 Intersection Level of Service Analysis — Background plus Project Conditions ...............................................37 6.2 Intersection Queuing Analysis ..........................................................................................................................................38 7.0 Cumulative No-Project Conditions (2040) .......................................................................................... 43 7.1 Intersections Level of Service Analysis — Cumulative No-Project Conditions ................................................43 8.0 Cumulative plus Project Conditions .................................................................................................... 46 8.1 Intersection Level of Service Analysis — Cumulative plus Project Conditions ................................................46 � Page � i TJKM Burlingame Bay Traffic Impact Study 8.2 Intersection Queuing Analysis ..........................................................................................................................................47 9.0 Additional Analysis ................................................................................................................................ 52 9.1 Site Access ................................................................................................................................................................................52 9.2 On-Site Circulation ................................................................................................................................................................53 9.3 Parking ........................................................................................................................................................................................53 9.4 North Shoreview Neighborhood analysis ..............................................................................................................56 Conclusions................................................................................................................................................... 59 Tables Table 1: Signalized Intersection Delay and LOS Definitions .............................................................................................11 Table 2: Unsignalized Intersection Delay and LOS Definitions ........................................................................................ 11 Table3: Existing Transit Services .................................................................................................................................................17 Table 4: Intersection Level of Service Analysis — Existing Conditions ........................................................................... 22 TableS: Project Trip Generation .................................................................................................................................................. 24 Table 6: Intersection Level of Service Analysis — Existing plus Project Conditions .................................................. 27 Table 7. 95th Percentile Queue Lengths at Selected Turn Lanes .....................................................................................30 Table 8: VMT Reductions & Proposed TDM Measures ......................................................................................................33 Table 9: Intersection Level of Service Analysis —Background Conditions ...................................................................35 Table 10: Intersection Level of Service Analysis — Background plus Project Conditions ...................................... 38 Table 11. 95th Percentile Queue Lengths at Selected Turn Lanes ..................................................................................40 Table 12: Intersection Level of Service Analysis — Cumulative Conditions .................................................................44 Table 13: Intersection Level of Service Analysis — Cumulative plus Project Conditions ........................................47 Table 14: 95t'' Percentile Queue Lengths at Selected Turn Lanes ..................................................................................49 Figures Figure1: Vicinity Map .........................................................................................................................................................................7 Figure2: Conceptual Site Plan ........................................................................................................................................................8 Figure 3a: Existing Pedestrian Facilities .................................................................................................................................... 18 Figure3b: Existing Bicycle Facilities ............................................................................................................................................ 19 Figure 3c: Existing Transit Facilities ............................................................................................................................................20 Figure3d: Existing Lane Geometry .............................................................................................................................................21 Page � ii TJKM Burlingame Bay Traffic Impact Study Figure 4: Existing Conditions Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ................................................................................................. 23 Figure 5: Project Trip Distribution and Assignment .............................................................................................................26 Figure 6: Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ................................................................................................ 28 Figure 7: Background Conditions Peak HourTraffic Volumes ........................................................................................36 Figure 8: Background plus Project Conditions Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ...............................................................42 Figure 9: Cumulative No-Project Conditions Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ...................................................................45 Figure 10: Cumulative plus Project Conditions Peak Hour Traffic Volumes .............................................................. 51 Figure11: Parking Site Plan ...........................................................................................................................................................55 Appendices Appendix A— Existing & Cumulative Turning Movement Counts Appendix B— Existing Conditions Intersections Level of Service and Queueing Worksheets Appendix C— Existing plus Project Conditions Intersections Level of Service and Queueing Worksheets Appendix D— CCAGNTA Travel Demand Model VMT Outputs Appendix E- SB 743 Implementation TDM StrategyAssessment, Fehr & Peers Appendix F- Proposed TDM Plan Appendix G— Background Conditions Intersections Level of Service and Queueing Worksheets Appendix H— Background plus Project Conditions Intersections Level of Service and Queueing Worksheets Appendix I— Cumulative Conditions Intersections Level of Service and Queueing Worksheets Appendix J— Cumulative plus Project Conditions Intersections Level of Service and Queueing Worksheets � r _-� � _� � � r- Page � iii TJ KM eurlingame Bay Traffic Impact Study This report summarizes the results of the Traffic Impact Study (TIS) conducted for the proposed 241,054 sq. ft. office building, to be located at 567 Airport Blvd in the City of Burlingame. The proposed office building would be located between the existing 555 and 577 Airport Blvd office buildings. In addition, the project would also construct a 5.5 level parking garage with 1,132 spaces plus 387 surface stalls for a total of 1,519 parking spaces to serve all three buildings. Both the proposed office building and parking garage would utilize the existing access points to the 555 and 577 Airport Blvd site. The purpose of this report is to evaluate the project's traffic impacts to the surrounding transportation system pursuant to requirements under CEQA. To evaluate the impacts on the transportation infrastructure due to the addition of traffic from the proposed project, the study intersections were evaluated in accordance with the standards set forth by the level of service (LOS) policies of the City of Burlingame and the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG). Additionally, because three of the study intersections are located in the City of San Mateo, LOS policies from this jurisdiction were also considered for these intersections. Project Trip Generation TJKM developed estimated project trip generation for the proposed project based on published trip generation rates from the ITE publication Trip Generation (10�h Edition). TJKM used published trip rates for the ITE land use General Office Building (710) for this project. The proposed project is expected to generate 2,338 total daily trips, including 278 net new a.m. peak hour trips (239 in, 39 out) and 276 net new p.m. peak hour trips (44 in, 232 out). Vehide Mi(es Traveled In the project vicinity, the C/CAG-VTA Travel Demand Model generates daily commute VMT per employee of 17.9Z for the baseline model year of 2015. With the incorporation of the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan required by the City's 2030 Climate Action Plan the daily commute VMT per employee is expected to be 12.45. This is more than 15 percent below the countywide average of 16.74. Based on the OPR recommended significance threshold, the proposed project would have a less-than- significant impact on VMT. Existing Conditions Under this scenario, all of the study intersections operate within applicablejurisdictional standards during the a.m. peak hour, and all study intersections operate acceptably in the p.m. peak hour. Existing plus Project Conditions Under this scenario, all of the study intersections would continue to operate within applicable jurisdictional standards during a.m. peak hour, and all study intersections operate acceptably in the p.m. peak hour. The addition of project trips caused the intersection of Airport Blvd & Anza Blvd to experience an increase in delay (by 20.6 seconds), however the intersection continues to operate acceptably. Based on the City of Burlingame and City of San Mateo level of service criteria, the project is expected to have a less-than-significant impact at all the study intersections. Page �1 TJ KM Burlingame Bay Traf fic Impact Study � Background Conditions Background Conditions are similar to Existing Conditions, but with the addition of traffic from approved and other reasonably foreseeable developments within the vicinity of the proposed project. The projects included in Background Conditions were selected in consultation with City of Burlingame staff. Under this scenario, all of the study intersections would continue to operate within applicable jurisdictional standards during the a.m. peak hour, and all study intersections would operate acceptably in the p.m. peak hour. Traffic conditions would be more constrained under this scenario than in Existing Conditions, but would still operate acceptably based onjurisdictional level of service criteria. Background plus Project Conditions Under this scenario, all of the study intersections would continue to operate within applicable jurisdictional standards during the a.m. peak hour and the p.m. peak hour. TJKM revised the peak hour factor at two intersections which resulted in an acceptable LOS D for both intersections. Based on the City of Burlingame level of service criteria, the project is expected to have a less-than-significant impact at all study intersections in this scenario. Cumulative Conditions The Cumulative No-Project Conditions analysis forecasts how the study area's transportation system would operate with the full build-out of the project in combination with the growth and changes of the surrounding community by the year 2040. Under this scenario, all project intersections except one operate acceptably in both peak hours. The signalized intersection of Broadway & Carolan Ave operates at LOS E in the a.m. peak hour and LOS D in the p.m. peak hour under this scenario. Cumulative plus Project Conditions Under this scenario, all project intersections except one operate acceptably in both peak hours. The signalized intersection of Broadway & Carolan Ave would continue to operate unacceptably in the a.m. peak hour (LOS E in the a.m. peak hour, and LOS D in the p.m. peak hour). The increase in delay at the intersection operating at unacceptable LOS would be less than five seconds. Based on the City of Burlingame level of service criteria, the project is expected to have a less-than-significant impact at all the study intersections. Site Access and On-Site Circulation Access to the proposed office buildings will utilize two existing driveways from Airport Blvd that currently provide access to both 555 and 577 Airport Blvd. Sight distance at the western driveway is considered to �.._ be adequate; however, at the eastern driveway there are two trees obscuring eastbound traffic from the driveway. It is recommended that both trees be heavily trimmed to provide adequate sight distance at the eastern driveway. For the on-site circulation, TJKM concluded that the site plan will operate acceptably and provide adequate on-site circulation and access to parking spaces. The proposed project does not conflict with existing and planned pedestrian or bicycle facilities and will add trips to existing transit facilities, which can be accommodated by the existing transit capacity. Site access and circulation are [ considered adequate, provided that the sight distance issue at the eastern driveway is resolved. �--� Page �2 TJKM Burlingame Bay Traffic Impact Study Parking Based on the City of Burlingame's Zoning Code, the project would require a 1/300 sq. ft. ratio for parking spaces, which totals 1,683 spaces. However, the project is proposing a 3/1,000 sq. ft. parking ratio based on the implementation of the TDM plan that will reduce the need for parking. Based on this proposal, the project would require 724 parking spaces for the proposed office building, plus an additional 780 parking spaces for the existing office buildings, and 15 parking spaces for recreational shoreline access. The proposed project would utilize 387 surface parking spaces, as well as construct a 5.5-level parking structure with 1,132 spaces, meeting City requirements. The proposed parking supply of 1,519 stalls would therefore be adequate under City of Burlingame requirements and would not produce any parking impacts on surrounding parcels or roadways. Queuing Analysis Queuing operations were analyzed at all signalized study intersections with dedicated left- and right-turn lanes, under Existing, Background, and Cumulative Conditions, with and without the proposed project. Although not a significant impact under CEQA; the analysis is presented for informational purposes. Under Existing Conditions, the intersections of Broadway & Rollins Rd, Broadway & US-101 SB Ramps, Bayshore Hwy & US-101 NB Ramps, Airport Blvd & Anza Blvd, N. Bayshore Blvd & Peninsula Ave, and Airport Blvd & Coyote Point Dr/Peninsula Ave. experience queue overflows at one or more turn lanes, during one or both peak hours. Under Existing plus Project Conditions, the same turn lanes would experience overflows during the same peak hours, plus the addition of the westbound left movement at Airport Blvd & Anza Blvd. The addition of project trips would create a new queue overflow of 65 feet at this turn lane, an 85 foot increase from Existing Conditions. A split phase signal timing with the conversion of the westbound through lane to a shared westbound through/left lane would help to mitigate the queues; however, the intersection still operates acceptably from an LOS standpoint. Elsewhere, the project would increase queues outside of the storage pocket by more than one car length at one additional intersection: Airport Blvd & Coyote Point Dr. /Peninsula Ave. However, at Airport Blvd & Coyote Point Dr/Peninsula Ave, the movement was already experiencing overflows in the Existing Conditions, and the project would only increase the queue by slightly over one car length. TJKM adjusted the peak hour factor at this intersection, and the queue reduced below Existing No Project conditions. The project would increase all other Existing queue lengths by no more than one car length. Under Background Conditions, six study intersections experienced overflowing queues at one or more movements in the a.m. or p.m. peak hour, or both. The addition of project trips would cause one additional intersection to experience queue overflows: Airport Blvd & US-101 NB Ramps. Three movements in this scenario would experience queue increases by more than one car length with the addition of project trips, at Airport Blvd & US-101 NB Ramps, and Airport Blvd & Anza Blvd. The project would increase all other Background queue lengths by no more than one car length. Under Cumulative Conditions, nine study intersections experienced overflowing queues at one or more movements in the a.m. or p.m. peak hour, or both. The addition of project trips would cause three movements at three different intersections to increase queues by more than one car length: at Airport Page �3 TJKM Burlingame Bay Traf fic Impact Study Blvd & Anza Blvd, Airport Blvd & US-101 NB Ramps, and Airport Blvd & Coyote Point Dr/Peninsula Ave. The project would increase all other Cumulative queue lengths by no more than one car length. North Shoreview Neighborhood The N. Shoreview neighborhood in San Mateo has substantial issues related to cut-through traffic, but the 567 Airport project traffic will not significantly exacerbate the issues. It was observed that about two- thirds of the traffic entering the neighborhood is from the west of freeway, not from Burlingame's Bayfront area. TJKM offers the following related recommendations: 1. The City of San Mateo should continue to evaluate the origin and destination of traffic entering the N. Shoreview neighborhood in the afternoon commute to determine what share is actually cut- through traffic vs. residents returning to their homes from work. 2. TJKM does not recommend improving the overflowing westbound left turn lane on Peninsula Avenue serving N. Bayshore-bound traffic. It would be difficult to make improvements, but the on- going congestion could deter that portion of the traffic that might intend to cut through the neighborhood. The freeway improvements described in this report are all important, but the addition of southbound ramps on Peninsula Avenue would seem to significantly improve freeway access, potentially reducing the cut-through issue in the North Shoreview neighborhood. Recommendations Trim the trees to the west of the East Project Driveway to mitigate sight distance issues for eastbound traffic along Airport Blvd. � � � � � � � —,- Page �4 TJ KM eurlingame eay Traffic Impact Study This report summarizes the results of the Traffic Impact Study (TIS) conducted for the proposed office building, located at 567 Airport Blvd in the City of Burlingame. The project would add an additional 241,054 sq. ft. building adjacent to the two existing buildings at 555 and 577 Airport Blvd, which have a combined square footage of 259,733. The existing buildings are currently occupied by a mixture of office tenants. Primary access to the project site would be provided by two existing driveways off of Airport Blvd that currently provide access to 555 and 577 Airport Blvd. This chapter discusses the TIS purpose, project study area, analysis scenarios and methods, and criteria used to identify significant impacts. Figure 1 shows the study area and project site location. Figure 2 shows the project's conceptual site plan. TJKM evaluated traffic conditions at 12 study intersections during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours on a typical weekday. The study intersections were selected in consultation with the City of Burlingame staff. The peak periods observed for purposes of taking local traffic counts were between 7-9 a.m. and 4-6 p.m. on weekdays. Although two-hour peak period traffic counts were conducted, the highest single one-hour period recorded for each was used in the analysis. Throughout this report, these peak hours are identified as the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, respectively. The study intersections and associated traffic controls are as follows: 1. Airport Blvd at Project Driveway W(One-Way Stop) 2. Airport Blvd at Project Driveway E(One-Way Stop) 3. Bayshore Hwy at Broadway/Airport Blvd (Signalized) 4. California Dr at Broadway (Signalized) 5. Carolan Ave at Broadway (Signalized) 6. Rollins Rd at Broadway (Signalized) 7. Broadway at US-101 SB Ramps (Signalized) 8. Bayshore Hwy at US-101 NB Ramps (Signalized) 9. Airport Blvd at Anza Blvd (Signalized) 10. Airport Blvd at US-101 NB Ramps (Signalized) 11. N. Bayshore Blvd at Peninsula Ave (Signalized) 12. Airport Blvd at Coyote Point Dr/Peninsula Ave (Signalized) The traffic analysis is based on the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour levels of service for ten signalized intersections and two unsignalized intersections. Of the twelve study intersections, none are designated as a Congestion Management Program (CMP) intersection. This study addresses the following six traffic scenarios: • Existing Conditions — This scenario evaluates the study intersections based on existing traffic volumes, lane geometry and traffic controls. Page �5 TJ KM eurlingame Bay Traffic Impact Study • Existing plus Project Conditions — This scenario is identical to Existing Conditions, but with the addition of traffic from the proposed project. . Background (Existing plus Approved Projects) Conditions — This scenario is similar to Existing Conditions, but with the addition of traffic from approved and reasonably foreseeable developments within the vicinity of the proposed project. • Background plus Project Conditions — This scenario is identical to Background Conditions, but with the addition of traffic from the proposed project. • Cumulative Conditions (2040) — This scenario considers the development of the city and surrounding communities to the year 2040. Traffic volumes for nine of the study intersections under Cumulative 2040 conditions were taken from the City's recent General Plan Update EIR. The remaining three intersections were expanded using growth factors. • Cumulative plus Project Conditions — This scenario is identical to Cumulative Conditions, but with the addition of traffic from the proposed project. ■ r � ■ --� � � ■ � r � � �,- Page �6 TJKM Burlingame Bay TlS Figure 1: Vicinity Map �� , � / a� a� oa �� F%\ d�'�o LEGEND RPdr ...... Project Site � Study Intersections � Caltrain Station Rollins Rd Cd �O�d7 A�e Cd��foi . 'i/d 0 r � P�e �e ��o �a� Fdsf � <� �e eP a� �J�`�A P�e �a�a �o �e �aP � �� / Qe A�rPorr Blvq o` � / o�e Lo'� "1f� \ P� �`a N A 141-024�04/O1/2020 TJ KM ��■ � � � ! ! � � � � � � � ! S � � � � � Burlingame Bay TIS Figure 2: Project Site Plan /- ' / p1RP�1.V0 _ � � �, I / I � %/ / / (E) +33 Airport BNd � i/ � y % � � �i / �i� ,r'� ` , �r �_ li , � —� \ � �" �'.� Parking Sweture ` � , , ��.\ Suha•=5a�s ( O � .,\ -� .: I I J� � .�� , , , �� ; i /� ! � �.� r}'�_�,... _ � I �� I , � - i . � / . /.', . ' ..��.� / / / � I I - �� I /� • • •. ��) `r � ' I � ,r• . . ✓ � . �.• 1, �" ��• ' ( I � � � ....� ' ,r dJ� _ O� _•�yc� � ( �'/ -$ � " �� _ ; i . j ,_ . f� L� / � ' �-, !/ , i ._.--��._ � , l' � /7 '�' i i z � Key Notes i�� j Tru� Ercoure wia De nerY ta 555 Moorl B vd �'J �' �� (-) f,E�TransbrrierbDefka�akA (� lmh Eneaeun mE ONrv�y fa 577 Arpaf BNd �;� Neweui6iqsswoera�a+lmS+qoaiJrrashencuare ` i SldmMvk+ TreaCnont Aroa . ; Ou�eeor Paws �^;� QMoorS�nMgAno , •; wo ecoc � � a�+e �: (EI PuDc Miess Arn „) (EI B�y Trdn 1; BCOC Puh'c xrbR.S WAIY�q ,''J IElTmsbm�¢rqRen'ar+ ! % M) Tnriskrtndan0 �NI Ert�erqent.y GaM2ta b Sernoe B Ep 555 MDat 61M •; L�wpe Savened Sa.+w veN end E�p�anl ;"i Sbtm Dqn Punpa b Rlman anE bB SueenM. �E} TrasA Eridoa�m b De Rln10�'!d ,�: S55 and 577 Arom 8u� 6ngx are f�cYidM kom V�e Smoe d Wak e: �F�.��,5�� :: ��.�.,g --- ��w�n \ �t� an airport nrva � � , . �! ,�/ " 1 e ru�n � � U�� IJ �,E� 555 Airporl Blvd / ' I� {E] 615AMpM81vd �\� rn,s�v _ y�`�� I e� f � 5s'ums . F'I .. . c NI.05�d iN5t5v � � � ��• . � �� _ _ � j L-----_ � s- � � �� _ -- I . . , -I--- , , ' � 4 , �� . ��.�^^"�� _ I .. � , ;, . � �'J---^-- _�_ J_ :.,y- � �I --„ a` r,> � .. =l, Al _ I I - -- - - _ � `_�_ ------� :_-- --- ___ ` -`---,- - ----- � ----------- ---J � . �_�; _ -__•_- -� __ , , i , , . .,- ' Buding�nwLaqoon � ---------- ---� � .L�`� �' 141-024�05/07/2020 TJKM eurlingame Bay Tra f fic Impact Study Traffic impacts related to the proposed project were evaluated for both compliance with applicable regulatory documents and environmental significance as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In accordance with the Technical Advisory published by the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR), a qualitative and quantitative VMT analysis forms the basis of the CEQA analysis for the proposed project. As of July 1, 2020, intersection level of service (LOS) can no longer be used to determine significant impacts for the purpose CEQA. Although level of service is no longer used for identifying impacts under CEQA, level of service analysis is still used for determining consistency with adopted agency plans and standards. �. � � __ 1 �� - . . . . . This study includes a qualitative and quantitative analysis of VMT generated by the proposed project. The qualitative analysis discusses the general characteristics of daily VMT generated by the proposed land use and how VMT characteristics of the project site would be changed with the proposed project. Because SB 743 is intended to encourage the development of communities that reduce vehicular GHG with land use patterns that site residences near the employment and commercial sites residents visit frequently, and because the VMTs of freight/delivery trips are not relevant to this purpose, those trips were not included in this VMT analysis. As the City of Burlingame does not have an adopted VMT standard or guidelines, this study uses guidelines and recommendations provided in the OPR Technica( Advisory. For office projects, the OPR Technical Advisory recommends that lead agencies analyze the home-based commute VMT per employee that would be generated at the project site. The advisory provides several recommended screening criteria lead agencies may consider in determining whether detailed VMT analysis is required. When such analysis is required, projects that are similar to existing nearby uses can be evaluated based on existing VMT at the project location. Existing VMT may be determined through use of a travel demand model. The City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG) licenses the countywide travel demand model for San Mateo County from the Santa Clara County Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). The C/CAG-VTA model is optimized for use in Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties. Recommended Screening Criteria The OPR advisory suggests the following screening criteria that lead agencies may use for identifying projects that can be presumed to have a less-than-significant impact: • Small projects, typically generating or attracting fewer than 110 trips per day • Map based screening: residential and office projects located in areas with low VMT, and that incorporate similar features, will tend to exhibit similarly low VMT. • Near high quality transit stop/station, if certain density, land use, and parking criteria are met • Locally serving retail projects up to 50,000 sq. ft. • 100 percent affordable housing units at infill locations • Institutional/government and public service uses • Projects located in low VMT zones (residential, office, and mixed use) Page �9 TJ KM Burlingame eay Trof fic Impact Study Significance Standards The state of California provides lead agencies latitude in adopting standards of significance for evaluating VMT impacts associated with land use projects. For office projects, the OPR advisory recommends the following threshold: • A proposed project exceeding a level of 15 percent below existing regional VMT per employee may indicate a significant transportation impact. Lead agencies are provided latitude in determining the appropriate region for considering employment VMT. Consistent with methodologies adopted by congestion management agencies in Santa Clara County (VTA), Alameda County (Alameda CTC), and Contra Costa County (CCTA), this study uses the countywide employment VMT of 16.74 as the basis for findings of significance. .. � Level of Service (LOS) is a qualitative measure that describes operational conditions as they relate to the traffic stream and perceptions by motorists and passengers. The LOS generally describes these conditions in terms of such factors as speed and travel time, delays, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort, convenience, and safety. The operational LOS are given letter designations from A to F, with A representing the best operating conditions (free-flow) and F the worst (severely congested flow with high delays). Intersections generally are the capacity-controlling locations with respect to traffic operations on arterial and collector streets in urban areas. Signalized Intersections The study intersections under traffic signal control were analyzed using either the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) Operations Methodology for signalized intersections described in Chapter 18 (HCM 2010), or the HCM 2000 methodology. Three of the study intersections (Broadway & US-101 SB Ramps, N. Bayshore Blvd & Peninsula Ave, and Airport Blvd & Coyote Point Dr/Peninsula Ave) use non-standard signal phasing and as such were unable to be analyzed using HCM 2010. For these three intersections, HCM 2000 was utilized. In all scenarios, signal timing was optimized where appropriate. These methodologies determine LOS based on average control delay per vehicle for the overall intersection during peak hour intersection operating conditions. Control delay includes initial deceleration � delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration delay. The average control delay for signalized intersections was calculated using Synchro 10 analysis software and was correlated to a LOS designation as shown in Table 1. Unsignalized Intersections The study intersections under stop control (unsignalized) were analyzed using the 2010 HCM Operations Methodology for unsignalized intersections described in Chapter 20 (HCM 2010). LOS ratings for stop- sign controlled intersections are based on the average control delay expressed in seconds per vehicle. At the side street, one-way or two-way stop controlled intersections, the control delay is calculated for each movement, not for the intersection as a whole. For approaches composed of a single lane, the control delay is computed as the average of all movements in that lane. The weighted average delay for the entire intersections is presented for all-way stop controlled intersections. The average control delay for � Page �10 TJ KM eurlingame eay Traf fic Impact Study unsignalized intersections was calculated using Synchro 10 analysis software and was correlated to a LOS designation as shown in Table 2. Table 1: Signalized Intersection Delay and LOS Definitions Average Level of Service Description Control Delay Signal progression is extremely favorable. Most vehicles arrive during the A green phase and do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also 10.0 or less contribute to the very low vehicle delay. Operations characterized by good signal progression and/or short cycle B lengths. More vehicles stop than with LOS A, causing higher levels of 10.1 to 20.0 average vehicle delay. Higher delays may result from fair signal progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear at this level. The � 20.1 to 35.0 number of vehicles stopping is significant, though may still pass through the intersection without stopping. The influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable signal progression, � 35.1 to 55.0 long cycle lengths, or high volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable. This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally indicate poor signal progression, long cycle lengths, and E 55.1 to 80.0 high volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios. Individual cycle failures occur frequently. This level of delay is considered unacceptable by most drivers. This condition often occurs with oversaturation, that is, when arrival flow rates greater than F exceed the capacity of the intersection. Poor progression and long cycle 80.0 lengths may also be major-contributing causes of such delay levels. Source: Highway Capacity Manual 2010, Chapter 18 (Transportation Research Board, 2010) Average Control Delay per Vehicle in seconds Table 2: Unsignalized Intersection Delay and LOS Definitions Level of Service Description Average Control Delay A B C D E Little or no traffic delay Short Traffic delays Average traffic delays Long traffic delays Very long traffic delays <_10 >10-15 >15-25 >25 - 35 >35-50 F Extreme traffic delays >50 Source: Highway Capacity Manual 2010, Chapter 20 (Transportation Research Board, 2010) Average Control Delay per Vehicle in seconds Page �11 TJ KM Burlingame Bay Traffic Impact Study ��.� �_F, . :)F �� ,�� STr;':G, __v_ Although level of service is no longer used for identifying impacts under CEQA, level of service analysis is still used for determining consistency with adopted agency plans and standards. Where standards refer to significant environmental impacts, this analysis instead identifies these as significant inconsistencies with adopted plans. City of Burlingame The City of Burlingame General Plan EIR establishes significant impact criteria to determine if a project has significant adverse impacts on traffic conditions at a signalized or unsignalized intersection. Citywide, the LOS standard is LOS D. The projected-generated increase in traffic is considered to have a significant impact if it meets either of the following criteria: . Degrades the AM or PM peak hour from an acceptable LOS D(55 seconds/vehicle) or better under Existing or No Project Conditions to an unacceptable LOS E or worse under Project Conditions except when LOS E is determined by the City of Burlingame as acceptable due to costs of mitigation or when there would be unacceptable impacts; or • Degrades the AM or PM peak hour operating at LOS E or F under Existing or No Project Conditions by increasing the delay per vehicle by five seconds or more. � The City of Burlingame does not have specified criteria for determining significant impacts to unsignalized intersections. However, previous traffic studies completed for projects in the City of Burlingame have stated that a project would have a significant adverse impact on traffic conditions at an unsignalized intersection with an unacceptable level of service (LOS E or F) on any approach if the project adds at least 10 trips for any peak hour. City of San Mateo The City of San Mateo has set the following guidelines to determine of a project creates a significant adverse impact on traffic conditions at a signalized intersection if for any peak-hour: • The level of service at the intersection degrades from an acceptable mid-LOS D(average delay of less than 45 seconds) or better under existing conditions to an average delay of longer than 45 seconds; or • The level of service at the intersection has an average delay longer than 45 seconds under existing conditions and the addition of the project trips causes the average delay at the intersection to increase by four (4) or more seconds For unsignalized intersections, a significant impact is said to be satisfactorily mitigated when measures are implemented that would restore intersection level of service to pre-project Background or Cumulative conditions, or better. � , � r Page �12 TJ KM Burlingame Bay Traffic Impact Study This section describes existing conditions in the immediate project site vicinity, including roadway facilities, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and available transit service. In addition, existing traffic volumes and operations are presented for the study intersections, including the results of LOS calculations. Relevant roadways adjacent to the project site are discussed below: US Highway 101 (US-101) is an eight- to ten-lane freeway with a posted speed limit of 65 miles per hour (mph). The north-south freeway connects Burlingame with nearby cities, such as South San Francisco and San Mateo, and regional destinations, such as San Francisco and San Jose. It also provides access to the greater freeway network with direct connections to Interstate 80, Interstate 380, Interstate 280, State Route 92, and State Route 84. Airport elvd is a four lane arterial road that provides access to several hotels and office parks along the Burlingame shoreline, including the proposed project site. There is currently a dedicated left-turn lane near the project's western driveway, which provides direct access to the proposed project site. The posted speed limit along Airport Blvd is 35 mph. Airport Blvd has no on-street vehicle parking, but does include Class II bike lanes and continuous sidewalks directly adjacent to the project (east of the project, current construction activities temporarily interrupt the continuity of the sidewalks and bike lanes). The current project being constructed directly east of the proposed 567 Airport Bivd has resulted in a new alignment for Airport Blvd. just east of the project in conjunction with the construction of a new office complex. The alignment has changed by eliminating a 90 degree intersection and replacing it with a curving diagonal alignment located within the new office complex. Anza Blvd is a short four-lane, north-south collector with a posted speed limit of 35 miles per hour near the project site. The facility provides direct access between Airport Blvd and NB US-101. Anza Blvd has no on-street parking south of Airport Blvd, but does have a Class I path along the west side of the roadway, providing pedestrian and bicycle access. Old Bayshore Highway is a four to six-lane, east-west arterial with a posted speed of 35 mph. The facility provides access between Broadway and Airport Blvd to US-101 NB, as well as several hotels in the area. North of Burlingame, Old Bayshore Highway provides access to San Francisco International Airport. Near the study intersections, there are sidewalks on both sides of the street and bike lanes between Broadway and US-101 NB Ramps, and painted sharrows west of US-101 NB Ramps. Broadway is a two to six-lane, north-south arterial with a posted speed of 25 to 35 mph. Broadway provides access to Burlingame's Broadway business district, the Broadway Caltrain station, and to US-101 SB ramp intersections. Sidewalks are provided on both sides, and bike lanes exist north of Rollins Way. Adjacent to Broadway is a pedestrian overpass over US-101. California Drive is a two to four-lane arterial with a posted speed of 35 mph. California Drive extends from Millbrae BART to Peninsula Ave, where it continues into San Mateo as San Mateo Dr. It provides access between Broadway and Burlingame's downtown, as well as both Broadway and Burlingame Caltrain Page �13 TJ KM Burlingame Boy Traffic Impact Study stations. Sidewalks are provided on at least one side for the majority of California Dr, and bike lanes are provided on both sides west of Broadway. Rollins Road is a two to four-lane, generally east-west arterial with a posted speed limit of 35 mph. Rollins Road runs parallel to US-101 and connects Burlingame to both Millbrae and San Mateo. The facility has sidewalks on at least one side for most of its length, and connects to the Broadway/US-101 pedestrian bridge. Carolan Dr is a two-lane arterial/collector roadway that extends from Broadway to North Ln, where it becomes East Ln. West of Oak Grove Ave, Carolan Dr is designated as a Neighborhood Arterial, while east of Oak Grove Ave it is a designated Neighborhood Collector. It provides access to residential uses and Burlingame High School. Bike lanes are provided on both sides between Broadway and Oak Grove Ave, as well as sidewalks on at least one side. Carolan Ave has a speed limit of 35 mph. Peninsula Ave/Coyote Point Dr is a two to four-lane arterial roadway in San Mateo that extends from EI Camino Real tojust north of US-101, where it dead ends at Coyote Point Recreation Area. For part of its length, Peninsula Ave forms the boundary between Burlingame and San Mateo. Sidewalks are provided on both sides for the majority of its length. Peninsula Ave has a speed limit of 35 mph. N. Bayshore elvd is a two-lane arterial roadway in San Mateo that acts as a frontage road for US-101 NB. It extends from Peninsula Ave to the US-101/3'd Ave interchange, where it bends and becomes 2�d Ave. N. Bayshore Blvd provides access for nearby residential areas to US-101 NB. A Class I path is available on the north side of the roadway between Peninsula Ave and E. Poplar Ave. N. Bayshore Blvd has a speed limit of 35 mph. Walkability is defined as the ability to travel easily and safely between various origins and destinations without having to rely on automobiles or other motorized travel. The ideal "walkable" community includes wide sidewalks, a mix of land uses such as residential, employment, and shopping opportunities, a limited number of conflict points with vehicle traffic, and easy access to transit facilities and services. Pedestrian facilities consist of crosswalks, sidewalks, pedestrian signals, and off-street paths, which provide safe and convenient routes for pedestrians to access the destinations such as institutions, � businesses, public transportation, and recreation facilities. In the project vicinity, most of the study intersections which are signalized are equipped with countdown pedestrian signal heads and cross walks. Only the intersection of Old Bayshore Hwy & US-101 NB does not have crosswalks or pedestrian signal heads. It should be noted that not all of the signalized study intersections have crosswalks on all legs of the intersection. Crosswalks are not present at either of the unsignalized intersections, located at both of the project driveways. The project area has a mostly complete network of sidewalks. Currently, there are continuous sidewalks on both sides of the roadway on Broadway, Peninsula Ave, and parts of Airport Blvd, Rollins Rd, and Old Bayshore Hwy. Sidewalks are present on one side of the street on portions of Airport Blvd, Rollins Rd, Carolan Ave, California Dr, and Bayshore Blvd. There is a sidewalk gap of approximately 0.4 miles on Airport Blvd between Peninsula Ave and the Burlingame City Limit. Several off-street Class I paths exist in the area of Airport Blvd; most of � Page �14 TJ KM Burlingame Bay Traffic Impact Study which provide access to the San Francisco Bay shoreline. At the project site, there is direct access to the San Francisco Bay Trail on the project's eastern and southern boundaries. There is also a Class I pedestrian bridge over US-101 at Broadway. The existing pedestrian facilities in the study area are shown in Figure 3a. Bicycle paths, lanes and routes are typical examples of bicycle transportation facilities, which are defined by Caltrans as being in one of the following four classes: Class I Multiuse Trail — a completely separated facility designed for the exclusive use of bicyclists and pedestrians with crossing points minimized. Class II Bike Lane —a designated lane for the exclusive or semi-exclusive use of bicycles with through travel by motor vehicles or pedestrians prohibited, but with vehicle parking and cross-flows by pedestrians and motorists permitted. Class III Bike Route —a route designated by signs or pavement markings and shared with pedestrians and motorists. Class IV Separated Bikeway — an on-street facility reserved for use by bicyclists, with physical separation between the bikeway and travel lanes. Physical separation consists of vertical elements that may include curbs, landscaping, bollards, or parking lanes. The San Francisco Bay Trail is a Class I multiuse trail that passes ciose to the project site, running approximately parallel to Airport Blvd along the San Francisco Bay shoreline to the north and south of the project site. A small amount of parking at the project site is provided for trail users and direct access is located along the southern and eastern boundaries of the project site. Class I paths also exist east of Airport Blvd and continue into San Mateo, where they connect with Coyote Point Recreation Area. Additional Class I connections are proposed in the project area in the Burlingame General Plan; mostly to connect existing trails with one another and provide more shoreline access. Class II bike lanes are provided on portions of Airport Blvd, California Dr, Rollins Rd, Carolan Ave, Howard Ave, and Peninsula Ave. On California Dr and Carolan Ave, the Class II bike facilities have been enhanced with high-visibility green paint. Currently, the City of Burlingame is updating its Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan; which will include new projects proposed for implementation. The most recent update to this plan occurred in 2004. The existing bicycle facilities in the study area are shown in Figure 3b. . -F - Existing transit service to the project area is provided by the San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans), Caltrain, the Burlingame Trolley, and the Burlingame Bayside Shuttle. Such services are described below and in Table 3. SamTrans - SamTrans provides bus service to various communities in San Mateo County, including Burlingame. It operates local, express, and school buses and is a paratransit service provider. Buses are generally equipped with front-loading racks that can hold up to two bicycles. In the immediate vicinity of the proposed project, Routes ECR, #46, #292, #397, and #398 provide service to the project site and vicinity. The closest SamTrans bus stop is located 500' west of the Bayshore Hwy & Airport Blvd/Broadway intersection, served by Route 292. Page �15 TJKM eurlingame Bay Traffic Impact Study Caltrain - Caltrain provides commuter rail service in and between San Francisco, the Peninsula, and the South Bay. Caltrain currently operates between downtown San Francisco and San Jose Diridon station, with limited trips further south to Gilroy. Caltrain operates between 4:30 a.m. and 1:30am on weekdays. During the a.m. and p.m. peak commute periods, train service runs at 30-minute intervals to each destination. The closest Caltrain stations to the project site are the Broadway station (located at Broadway & California Dr) and the Burlingame Station (located at Burlingame Ave & California Dr). However, the Broadway station currently only has weekend service between the hours of 8:OOam and 11:OOpm, operating at 60-minute intervals. The closest station to the project site with weekday service is Burlingame station. Caltrain also provides a direct connection to Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) at the Millbrae station. � Burlingame Trolley — The Burlingame Trolley is a free service provided by the City of Burlingame, the Broadway Business Improvement District, the Downtown Burlingame Improvement District, and several hotels in the area. It currently operates between 11:50am and 9:44pm, seven days a week, circulating between Downtown Burlingame, the Broadway Business District, Burlingame Caltrain, and several hotels along Airport Blvd. Currently, the closest stop to the project area is located at the Hilton Hotel, directly across the street from the project site. Burlingame Bayside Shuttle — The Burlingame Bayside Shuttle is a commuter shuttle operated by the San Mateo County Transportation Demand Management Agency, also known as Commute.org. The shuttle operates during the peak commute hours of 7:OOam-9:45am and 3:52pm-6:53pm, and connects commuters between the Millbrae BART/Caltrain station and office parks and hotels along Rollins Rd, Adrian Rd, Bayshore Hwy, and Airport Blvd. The closest stop to the project site is located directly adjacent to the project at the corner of Airport Blvd and Bay View PI. The existing transit facilities in the study area are shown in Figure 3c. , , , , , � �- Page �16 TJKM Burlingame Bay Traffic Impact Study Table 3: Existing Transit Services Weekdays Weekend Route From To Operating Headway Operating Headway # Hours (minutes) Hours (minutes) ECR 46 292 Daly City Palo Alto 4:00 a.m. - 4:45 a.m. - 15-30 20-30 BART Transit Center 1:45 a.m. 2:00 a.m. California/ Burlingame AM/PM peak 2 AM runs, 4 Broadway School only PM runs �� Hillsdale Mall Drumm/Clay 4:00 a.m.-2:40 30 peak/60 4:00 a.m.- 30 peak/60 San Mateo San Francisco a.m. off peak 2:30 a.m. off peak 397 Palo Alto Drumm/Clay 12:45 a.m.- 60 ... ... Transit Center San Francisco 6:15 a.m. 398 Redwood City Mission/Clay 5:00 a.m. - 45 peak/ 6:00 a.m. - 60 Transit Center San Francisco 11:00 p.m. 60 off-peak 11:00 p.m. San 5:30 a.m.- 30 peak/60 8:00 a.m. - Caltrain San Francisco 90 Jose/Gilroy 12:35 a.m. off peak 11:40 p.m. Trolle Downtown Airport/Bay 11:50 a.m.- 45 11:50 a.m.- 45 y Burlingame View 9:45 p.m. 9:45 p.m. Bayside Airport/Bay AM/PM peak 15-30 min in Millbrae BART ... ... Shuttle View only each peak Source: SamTrans, Caltrain, San Mateo Silicon Valley Visitors Bureau, Commute.org TJKM evaluated existing traffic conditions at selected study intersections during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours on a typical weekday. Intersection turning movement counts of vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians were collected during weekday a.m. peak period (7:00-9:00 a.m.) and p.m. peak period (4:00-6:00 p.m.) on May 30, 2018. For ten of the study intersections, counts were utilized from the Burlingame Topgolf TIS completed by Fehr & Peers as it was recent and close to the proposed project. For the two project driveways, counts were estimated based on ITE Trip Generation rates and counts from nearby intersections. Turning movement counts and all traffic count data sheets that were available to TJKM are included in Appendix A. Note that in the Topgolf study the volumes along the Broadway corridor were balanced to account for driveway access, and in TJKM's study volumes were balanced at study intersections #3, 8, 9, and 10; therefore some intersections may not exactly match the volumes found in Appendix A. Lane geometries and traffic control at each study intersection are illustrated in Figure 3d and in each subsequent figure with turning movement counts. � � Page �17 TJKM Burlingame Bay TIS Figure 3a: Existing Pedestrian Facilities 0 � r � � ! a"� �a� 0�0 0` Rollins Rd A Cd r��d7 ��e Cd�� fo�h'dO� F��,a LEGEND ''%oo �Par ...... Project Site '`' a Q Study Intersection � — Sidewalk (Both Sides) —� Sidewalk (One Side) �� Crosswalk � Sidewalk Gap � P�e �e ��o Da�' 9 Fd �� P,i P,I �e �aP• 5J j o`O �Qe .� AirPort B� � �a s\ 0 Pe /�d N � iai-oza � oaiov2ozo TJ KM Burlingame eay T/S Figure 3b: Existing Bicycle Facilities �, Rollins Rd Cd�o/ d n��e Cd /�f�r 7id O � F�C LEGEND d''%��9 �'d/ ...... Project Site �iljl �e eP a� 0J�\\�A P,� s�a�a �,o �e \aP 5J o`° /Qe A�rpO�t B/vq �ls� \ Pe �`o- Q Study Intersection Class I Bike Path 4a -- Class II Bike Lane N — Class III Bike Route � �a�-oza � oaiovzozo TJKM Burlingame Bay TIS Figure 3c: Existing Transit Facilities � � / a� a� 0�0 �� . � Rollins Rd Cd ro/d�q� P cd/�f��'d o � � �e / o° V� �a�' �. Airpa�t glv ��. .. �.. _H...�,. . _ _ ,�._ . d ,,,, �. �e �P �a� �J\`c P�¢ �a�a �O o` c` / �e -�° Lo 9�\� A� P `'+ f}'ejL d Burlingame Station P�e L E G E N D �c� .`�SJ�a rd��' m Fdrr(' Qec� ...,.. Project Site °9edi 94 Q Study Intersections — Samtrans ECR — Samtrans 292 •�--� Samtrans 46 Samtrans 397 Burlingame Trolley " — Samtrans 398 Burlingame Bayside Shuttle A ia�-oza � oaiov2ozo TJKM Figure 3d: Existing Conditions Lane Geometry Burlingame Boy TIS Airport Blvd / Airport Blvd / Airport Blvd / Broadway California Drive / Carolan Avenue / Rollins Road / �'' Pro ect Drivewa West Pro ect Drivewa East `�'" Old Ba hore Hi hwa Broadwa � Broadwa �= Broadwa J Y 1 Y YS 9 Y Y Y Y � ..�, � � � � � � � `�- �J � l. � -- � � � l� � �" � l,l�� L � `� ° o � o � a `� m � m m ,� AirportBlvd � AirportBlvd OldBayshoreHwy CardanAve Califomi� Rollira Rd� �. 03� � ow `T' � `� ��T� � �T�' �TT�' .� ��TT� o � � o � a a � m � �US101 SB Ramps / Old Bayshore Highway / Airport Blvd / Airport Blvd / „ Bayshore Blvd / Airport Blvd / Peninsula Broadway U5101 NB Ramps Anza Blvd �� US101 NB Ramps � Peninsula Avenue ��' Ave / Coyote Point Dr v < _ 1 1"� �1 � F m � o m ,� `� � Q � � � � � a i� � � ,° US101 SB Ramp Old Bayshore Mvy � Ba ae Blvd � �, Airport Blvd Airport Blvd Airport Blvd - v > 11'�f' _; o `�`�'r' � `l� (' � o `� r' f � � � `1`lt � � � � � a � /�a� ,�a io � � Airport Blvd ��a \6ayrho�P y°y. ��a tia Pc � 101 � Rollins Rd Cd �O�d7 ��e Cd/�for 7idO � �e / o'� V� �a� � LM ,�.-.: ,� � . � _.. �..-_ . � �y� \ P�p/ � _� � ............................: A��pOrt B/vd P,e �e aP a� �,o'P o` c` / & �° c,° z Pi " 141-024�08/OS/2021 TJKM � Project Site Study Intersections � Caltrain Station XX AM Peak Hour Volumes (XX) PM Peak Hour Volumes Burlingame Bay Traffic Impact Study 3.6 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS — EXISTING CONDITIONS This scenario evaluates the study intersections based on existing traffic volumes, lane geometry and traffic controls, as described above. The results of the LOS analysis using the HCM 2010, HCM 2000 methodology and Synchro 10 software program for Existing Conditions are summarized in Table 4. Field verification of existing intersections, lane configurations, and traffic controls were also conducted and provided the basis for the LOS analysis for Existing Conditions. Where appropriate, signal timing was optimized in Synchro 10. Under this scenario, all of the study intersections operate within applicable jurisdictional standards during the a.m. peak hour, and all study intersections operate acceptably in the p.m. peak hour. LOS worksheets are provided in Appendix B. � _ � - = - �Infeisec ion i�Peal� _- �� _'— = � /D Intersechor�� - _ - - � - � -_ - - _ _ � C ro � Hour �� e--��LOS? � Airport Blvd & Project One-Way AM 12.3 B Driveway W Stop Control pM 13.6 B 2 Airport Blvd & Project One-Way AM 9.2 A Driveway E Stop Control pM 9.8 A Bayshore Hwy & AM 243 C 3 Broadway/Airport Blvd Signal PM 30.1 C 4 California Dr & Broadway Signal AM 31.9 C PM 31A C 5 Carolan Dr & Broadway Signal AM 14.5 B PM 12.4 B Signal AM 21.5 C 6 Rollins Rd & Broadway PM 22.2 C _ Broadway & US-101 SB Signal AM 25.6 C � Ramps* PM 20.5 C 8 Bayshore Hwy & US-101 Signal AM 25.2 C NB Ramps PM 28.9 C . Signal AM 30.1 C 9 Airport Blvd & Anza Blvd PM 32.2 C Airport Blvd & US-101 NB Signal AM 15.3 B 10 Ramps PM 17.1 B ___ _. _ __. N. Bayshore Blvd & Signal AM 14.3 B � � Peninsula Ave* PM 16.2 B ____ _ _ Airport Blvd & Coyote Signal AM 17.4 B 12 Point Dr/Peninsula Ave* PM 16.6 B Notes: AM - morning peak hour, PM - evening peak hour 1. Whole intersection weighted average control delay expressed in seconds per vehicle for signalized and all-way stop controlled intersections. Total control delay for the worst movement is presented for side-street stop - controlled intersections. 2. LOS = Level of Service * LOS calculated using HCM 2000 methodology Bold indicates unacceptable operational conditions based on applicable jurisdictional standards. Page �22 �r�,cM Table 4: Intersection Level of Service Analysis - Existing Conditions Figure 4: Existing Conditions Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Burlingame Bay TIS Airport Blvd / Airport Blvd / Airport Blvd / Broadway California Drive / Carolan Avenue / Rollins Road / '� Project Driveway West Project Driveway East ` Old Bayshore Highway Broadway Broadway Broadway �� > � �o mi� ogm 0 0 0 0 0 0 � �3 (124) �� °c°, Airport Blvd 283 (353) � o � � � 106 (20) � � o 0 0 o f a U5101 SB Ramps / � Broadway �� 3 � � 3 � � � m` 363 (156)�' 689(940)� � /3a� o,�a �� i p oao ��m F 223 (124) o m� r � :� G"i 3 � 3 � 298 (239) `� 8� 3 � 70 (13) Airport Blvd Q ` � 283 (353) � � 0 (0) � � o � °1 0 o N a` � m v a 6�� m r� r.i � 443 (375) o�� 69 (39) ry n N � � 353 (168) ��I Q F 74 (1 � I� I ° F 378 (393) I_ ° '� I� I � E-183 (67) ,� �� 5 m E, y m '� ��3� ��"► m �_.,.�__ ,,.._ E� y m ,� 105 (42) 70 (149) J 8 (12)—� 579 p85) � �. � � ��,�a� � T � 401(303) C N � 333 (3� —� �� v �m� ��31�� `"�N v Old Bayshore Highway / U5101 NB Ramps �F v�� ;'� � �7(18) � � 359 (220) E � 902 (664) Old Bayshore Hwy Z� � � a c,z>�' 227 (572)� o m � m ��74�� v Airport Blvd / Anza Blvd v�� N � � � `-� Airport BNd ios (a�—�' 328 (300)—� 32 (25)� � ?g (2p) � 119 (165) � 46 (745) � � � T N N m m � � Airport Blvd °�a edy��r \P ti,� e\,a tia Pc � 101 � Rollins Rd cd ��/d�q� \ Cd��fo� n�d �� N A �e / o� �� a�' �� Airport Blvd / U5101 NB Ramps F 117 (77) 1 � «5� Airport Blvd 103 (281)—I z� � 11 (28) � o � � � � m �� i L• �.. .. : . �,� � 1 N � m �^ > Bayshore Blvd / � Peninsula Avenue � � �O � a � � � � �_- '� na n9� c a � 277 (246) Ba hae Blvd � � a, � � �1�-.. ., �,.� edy� P� P� .......................... Airpor� Blvd � e P�, �e / a� �o� Rollirx Rd � � r 747 (330) � 5%�Z�� 98(172)� � � m Airport Blvd / Peninsula Ave / Coyote Point Dr � `° °' a° G� n, :: n � � � o u° Ai Blvd v � Q� i5ps��' � 719 (646) � � � `��.'' c �m a o � � o` c` / �e (.°�� 141-024�04/06/2020 � Project Site � Study Intersections �d Caltrain Station XX AM Peak Hour Volumes (XX) PM Peak Hour Volumes Burlingame Bay Tra�c Impact Study This analysis scenario presents the impacts of the proposed project at the study intersections and surrounding roadway system. This scenario is identical to Existing Conditions, but with the addition of traffic from the proposed project. The project would add a 241,054 square foot (sq. ft.) office building adjacent to two existing office buildings with a combined square footage of 259,733. The existing buildings are currently occupied by a mixture of office tenants. 4.� PROJECT TRIP GENERATION TJKM developed estimated project trip generation for the proposed project based on published trip generation rates from the ITE publication Trip Generation (lOt�' Edition). TJKM used published trip rates for the ITE land use General Office Building (ITE Code 710) for this project. The proposed project is expected to generate 2,338 total daily trips, including 278 new a.m. peak hour trips (239 in, 39 oUt) and 276 new p.m. peak hour trips (44 in, 232 out). Since the proposed project is not replacing any existing uses, existing driveway counts had to be estimated, in order to establish the peak hour trips generated by the existing uses. The counts were generated through the use of ITE Trip Generation rates and based on occupancy rates of the existing buildings provided by the properry managers. These counts were incorporated into the Existing Conditions traffic counts and utilized under the Existing Conditions and Background Conditions scenarios. For the Cumulative Conditions scenario, full occupancy of the existing buildings was assumed and driveway counts were based on the full square footage of the buildings, calculated using ITE rates. No new driveway counts were collected, due to the inability to collect traffic counts during the COVID-19 pandemic. It should be noted that for the purposes of this analysis, the square footage of the building was assumed to be 240,000 sq. ft. based on a now outdated plan. Subsequent design refinements (after these analyses were completed) resulted in an actual square footage of the proposed building of 241,054 sq. ft. The slight increase in building area does not impact the results and conclusions of this analysis. Table 5 shows the trips expected to be generated by the proposed project. Table 5: Project Trip Generation Daily A.M. Peak P.M. Peak land Use (/TE Size Code) Rate Trips Rafe /n:0ut ln Out - Tota! Rate In:Ouf In Out Total GeneralOffice 240.00 KSF 9.74 2,338 1.16 86:14 239 39 278 1.15 16:84 44 232 276 Building (710) Total Trips 2,338 239 39 278 44 232 276 Notes: 1. Trip Generation, l0`h Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), 2017 - - Page �24 �,�jKNI Burlingame Bay Traffic Impact Study 4.2 PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT Trip distribution is a process that determines in what proportion vehicles would be expected to travel between the project site and various destinations outside the project study area. Assignment determines the various routes that vehicles would take from the project site to each destination using the calculated trip distribution. Trip distribution assumptions for the proposed development project were developed based on the existing travel patterns and TJKM's knowledge of the study area. The distribution assumptions for the proposed project are as follows: • 25 percent to/from Anza Blvd & US-101 NB to the west • 20 percent to/from Airport Blvd & US-101 NB to the east • 15 percent to/from Bayshore Hwy & US-101 NB to the west • 15 percent to/from Peninsula Ave to the southeast • 10 percent to/from Broadway to the southwest • 5 percent to/from US-101 SB via Broadway • 5 percent to/from California Dr east of Broadway • 5 percent to/from N. Bayshore Blvd east of Peninsula Ave Figure 5 illustrates the trip distribution and net project trip assignment at the study intersections expected from the proposed development. The assigned project trips were then added to traffic volumes under Existing Conditions to generate Existing plus Project Conditions traffic volumes. Page �25 �� Figure 5: Project Trip Distribution and Assignment Burlingame Bay TIS Airport Blvd / Airport Blvd / Airport Blvd / Broadway California Drive / Carolan Avenue / Rollins Road / �' Project Driveway West Project Driveway East " Old Bayshore Highway Broadway ` Broadway "' Broadway ..� � �� m N� � � � � � � � � � '� iz cz) � � `° � 0 r95(181 I � o o � o ,�, � ,�r ¢ � m I m m` � CardanAve Airport BNd Airport Blvd Old Bayshore Hwy Califomia Dr Rollirx Rd �' � o (� � m,' 3 � � � T iaa 26) � .. �, � M � � � � � � o �-+ no � N m m � N a � m U5101 SB Ramps / o Broadway � � � 3 �D N � � � N m US101 SB Ramp 12 (2) � ,o m R t / �� a3 o�D 0� Old Bayshore Highway / U5101 NB Ramps � 6 (3� �Y � m z o E �^ m � Airport Blvd Airport Blvd / Anza Blvd Airport Blvd 64 (15)--> <-14 (82) � 10 (5� � � ��a ��ho. \P ti,� 0\�a P� � � 101 Rollins Rd cd��d�q�P y�P�e Cd��f Vt° o�n�do� �a`�- Airport Blvd / �Z' U5101 NB Ramps <— 47 (9) AirpatBlvd � 8(4n—� z 7 (46) � o � � � � Bayshore Blvd / Airpart Blvd / Peninsula � Peninsula Avenue Ave / Coyote Point Dr >" a � ^ N � O � .'__. N d �D N .�+ � � C �2�2� 0 a v Ba e Blvd � a�g� �� E g �q� � � � m c a � \P�� __ _ . �_. . ._ . _ . . , � Airport 8/vd o` fi / �e c,��° N TJKM � .' Project Site � Caltrain Station Q Study Intersections Trip Distribution �e eP Aa� ��c 6� �� / �a� �,o XX AM Peak Hour Volumes (XX) PM Peak Hour Volumes ec P°/\ \ 141-024�04/06/2020 Burlingame Bay Traffic Impact Study 4.3 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS - EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS The intersection LOS analysis results for Existing plus Project Conditions are summarized in Table 6. Under this scenario, all of the study intersections would continue to operate within applicable jurisdictional standards during a.m, peak hour, and all study intersections operate acceptably in the p.m. peak hour. The addition of project trips caused the intersection of Airport Blvd & Anza Blvd. to experience a large increase in delay of 20.6 seconds. However the intersection would continue to operate acceptably. Based on the City of Burlingame and City of San Mateo level of service criteria, the project is expected to have a less-than-significant impact at all the study intersections. Figure 6 shows projected turning movement volumes at all the study intersections for Existing plus Project Conditions. LOS and queueing worksheets are provided in Appendix C. Table 6: Intersection Level of Service Analysis - Existing plus Project Conditions Intersection -- .'Peak : Existing Condi�ions �C! ` � Infersection Controt Hour ; Average LOSZ Average tOSz Change , - - Delay� _ _ Detay' _ in Defay� __ _ __ _ _ -- � Airport Blvd & Project One-Way AM 12.3 B 13.8 B 1.5 Driveway W Stop Control PM 13.6 B 18.9 C 53 2 Airport Blvd & Project One-Way AM 9.2 A 93 A 0.1 Driveway E Stop Control pM 9.8 A 10.6 B 0.8 Bayshore Hwy & AM 24.3 C 24.2 C -0.1 3 Broadway/Airport Blvd Signal PM 30.1 C 30.0 C -0.1 4 California Dr & Broadway Signal AM 31.9 C 32.0 C 0.1 PM 31.0 C 31.2 C 0.2 5 Carolan Dr & Broadway Signal AM 14.5 B 14.6 B 0.1 PM 12.4 B 123 B -0.1 Signal AM 21.5 C 21.7 C 0.2 6 Rollins Rd & Broadway PM 22.2 C 22.2 C 0.0 Broadway & US-101 SB Signal AM 25.6 C 27.1 C 1.5 � Ramps* PM 20.5 C 20.9 C 0.4 $ Bayshore Hwy & US-101 Signal AM 25.2 C 26.1 C 0.9 NB Ramps PM 28.9 C 30.9 C 2.0 Signal AM 30.1 C 30.7 C 0.6 9 Airport Blvd & Anza Blvd PM 32.2 C 52.8 D 20.6 Airport Blvd & US-101 NB Signal AM 15.3 B 16.0 B 0.7 10 Ramps PM 17.1 B 18.7 B 1.6 N. Bayshore Blvd & Signal AM 14,3 B 14.6 B 0.3 11 peninsula Ave* PM 16.2 B 16.4 B 0.2 _ Airport Blvd & Coyote Signal AM 17.4 B 18.2 B 0.8 � 2 Point Dr/Peninsula Ave* PM 16.6 B 16.6 B 0.0 Notes: AM - morning peak hour, PM - evening peak hour, Weekend - Saturday noon peak hour, Bold indicates unacceptable operational conditions based on applicable jurisdictional standards. Red indicates significant impact. 1. Whole intersection weighted average control delay expressed in seconds per vehicle for signalized and all-way stop controlled intersections. Total control delay for the worst movement is presented for side-street stop - controlled intersections. 2. LOS = Level of Service 3. Change in average delay between Existing and Existing plus Project Conditions. Average delay may be reduced with the addition of project traffic to non-critical movements. *LOS calculated using HCM 2000 methodology _ Page �27 ��TJKM Figure 6: Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Airport Blvd / �`' Project Driveway West 0 0 0 0 0 o t_ � �124) �� o�a, Airport Blvd 283 (353) � � � � � 250 (46) � o �• o 0 � Coo a` � US701 SB Ramps / Broadway �m �� I o y m US1U1 Stl Ftamp ,t� r� 375 (158)� g� � 689 (940)� 3 5 o � �v � / �� aa3 �� 0 Cd��/ dqqLP Cd /�f�� . n,d� r P,e �e ��O Da� Carolan Avenue / Rollins Road / Broadway Broadway f� N O� Q � O N � � M ^y� 3 � 298 (239) � � m 3 0 35 � m � 69 (39) j� j m � 353 (168) �+ � y o E; y o <-183(6/) Cardan Ave � 105 (42) � � Rdlins Rd � ^ 147 (330) � � � � o m�- 57(204)� � aO1,_o � "� � 96(172)� ^ o m � Bayshore Blvd / Airport Blvd / Peninsula Peninsula Avenue ��' Ave / Coyote Point Dr > �� a N � m Y �0 9, � � 186 (81) r � o � � a � 277 (246� � �, u° Ba ae Blvd T � A��B� '�. T a 16(7� � � v 727 (693)� c � "�.-' � a�i o `�' �� a � e P'�� Burlingame Bay TIS o` �c` / �e `a�o �e P� Airport Blvd / Project Driveway East t— 223 (124) � 165(31) Airport Blvd Q ` � 283 (353) � I 0(0)� � Q� 0 ov a N Old Bayshore Highway / U5101 NB Ramps �F v�� ;�� 7(18) � t— 359 (220) E � 908 (699) Old Bayshae .M�y Z� � � 8(12)� 227($72)� o m n � 88(174)� � � � v Airport Blvd / Broadway °�' Old Bayshore Highway r O � > C' v^ m �°� � o '� 6 m I Q �14(16) '1 ,�ism Old Bayshore Hwy 106(156)� �� 8 (12)—� � C N � 579 (/85)� o N n 1D m � � Airport Blvd / Anza Blvd Q�� m � 28 (20) I I I Q � 133 (247) E� �r y � 56 (202) Airport Blvd � 105 (46) � 412 i315)—� � � ,�^�L, 32(25)� m m � � Airport Blvd °ja edyS��r \P ti� �\�a P�,a � � 101 � Rollins Rd California Drive / Broadway V V N N � � � � 445 (3� I � I ° t— 378 (393) E� y m � �1(3� Califania Dr � � � 401 (303) � 333 (330) —� � � v 22(31)� ^� � N � Airport Blvd / U5101 NB Ramps E-164 (86) `� �aa c�zs� Airpat Blvd � 111 (328)--> z� 16(/4)� o �� m � �., � L.-.� r._� ,�e / �a� ,ro AirPort 8/vd �y�P k�'�/ :...................... � N 141-024�04/06/2020 T1KM � ....� Project Site Q Study Intersections 6'� Caltrain Station XX AM Peak Hour Volumes (XX) PM Peak Hour Volumes Burlingame Bay Tra�c Impact Study 4.2 INTERSECTION QUEUING ANALYSIS The 95th percentile queue lengths were calculated for informational purposes at the signalized study intersections under Existing and Existing plus Project Conditions. Table 7 details the existing traffic volumes, added project trips, and queue lengths at all dedicated turn lanes at the signalized study intersections. For locations with dual turn lanes providing varying amounts of storage, the average storage length is provided. The 95th percentile queue lengths are rounded to the nearest five feet and assume an average vehicle length of 25 feet. Queue lengths are averaged among all lanes within a lane g rou p. Queuing operations were analyzed at all signalized study intersections with dedicated left- and right-turn lanes, under Existing, Background, and Cumulative Conditions, with and without the proposed project. Under Existing Conditions, the intersections of Broadway & Rollins Rd, Broadway & US-101 SB Ramps, Bayshore Hwy & US-101 NB Ramps, Airport Blvd & Anza Blvd, N. Bayshore Blvd & Peninsula Ave, and Airport Blvd & Coyote Point Dr/Peninsula Ave would experience queue overflows at one or more turn lanes, during one or both peak hours. Under Existing plus Project Conditions, the same turn lanes would experience overflows during the same peak hours, plus the addition of the westbound left movement at Airport Blvd & Anza Blvd. The addition of project trips would create a new queue overflow of 65 feet at this turn lane, an 85 feet increase from Existing Conditions. A split phase signal timing with the conversion of the westbound through lane to a shared westbound through/left lane would help to mitigate the queues; however, the intersection still operates acceptably from an LOS standpoint. Elsewhere, the project would increase queues outside of the storage pocket by more than one car length at one additional intersection: Airport Blvd & Coyote Point Dr. /Peninsula Ave. However, at Airport Blvd & Coyote Point Dr/Peninsula Ave, the movement was already experiencing overflows in the Existing Conditions, and the project would only increase the queue by slightly over one car length. Nonetheless, TJKM adjusted the peak hour factor from 0.92 to 1.0 and the queue reduced below Existing No Project conditions. The project would increase all other Existing queue lengths by no more than one car length. Queuing worksheets for each scenario are provided in Appendix B and Appendix C. Page �29 �� Burlingame Bay Traffic Impact Study Table 7. 95th Percentile Queue Lengths at Selected Turn Lanes Existing Existing plus Conditions Project Conditions ID Study Intersection �ne Storage Peak Existing Queue Queue Change Group Length Hour Volume Length Length in Queue 3 Bayshore Hwy & Eastbound AM 70 55 75 20 Broadway/Airport Left 360 PM 149 75 80 5 Blvd Southbound AM 4 15 15 0 Left 210 PM 4 10 10 0 Southbound AM 102 25 30 5 Right 115 PM 140 30 50 20 4 Broadway & Eastbound 2Z5 AM 401 190 190 0 California Dr Left PM 303 145 145 0 Westbound AM 44 55 55 0 Left 95 PM 37 50 50 0 Westbound 350 AM 443 125 140 15 Right PM 375 70 70 0 Northbound AM 3 10 10 0 Left 50 pM 10 15 15 0 5 Broadway & Westbound 200 AM 298 60 60 0 Carolan Dr Right PM 239 45 45 0 Northbound AM 0 0 0 0 Left 40 PM 1 5 5 0 Southbound 125 AM 103 80 80 0 Left PM 182 115 115 0 6 Broadway & Rollins Eastbound 130 AM 147 70 70 0 Rd Left PM 330 145 145 0 Eastbound AM 98 15 15 0 Right 110 PM 172 35 35 0 Westbound 160 AM 353 135 135 0 Right PM 168 35 35 0 Northbound AM 187 75 75 0 Left 90 PM 131 60 60 0 Southbound AM 218 105 105 0 Left 2�� PM 398 � 80 180 0 Southbound AM 262 50 50 0 Right 155 PM 105 20 20 0 Eastbound 200 AM 689 80 80 0 � Broadway & US- Right PM 940 125 125 0 101 SB Ramps Northbound AM 471 125 140 15 Right 105 PM 547 65 65 0 Eastbound AM . 8 20 . 20 0 Old Bayshore Hwy �eft 205 PM 12 25 25 0 Eastbound AM 88 5 5 0 8 & US-101 NB Right �� PM 174 50 50 0 Ramps Northbound AM 344 3Q5 320 15 Left � 30 PM 137 115 110 -5 _ _ _ Eastbound 90 AM 105 130 135 5 9 Airport Blvd & Anza Left PM 46 55 60 5 Blvd Westbound AM 46 55 65 10 Left 210 PM 145 190 130 -60 Page �30 �� Burlingame Bay Traffic Impact Study Existing Existing plus Conditions Project Conditions ID Study Intersection �ne Storage Peak Existing Queue Queue Change Group Length Hour Volume Length Length in Queue Northbound 230 AM 176 130 185 55 10 Airport Blvd & US- Left PM 60 45 55 10 101 NB Ramps Northbound AM 633 35 40 5 Right 230 PM 440 75 110 35 11 N. Bayshore Blvd & Southbound 100 AM 48 50 50 0 Peninsula Ave Left PM 162 145 160 15 Airport Blvd & AM 1054 400 365 -35 12 Coyote Point Northbound 85 Left PM 655 210 220 10 DNPeninsula Ave Notes: 95"' percentile queue lengths expressed in feet, rounded to the nearest five feet * Average storage per lane, where dual turn lanes provide different storage lengths Bold indicates queue length exceeds storage capacity Red indicates queue length increases by more than one vehicle length 4.3 VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED Compliance with Senate Bill (SB) 743 included replacement of LOS with VMT for purposes of assessing traffic impacts under CEQA described in new Section 15064.3 of the CEQA Guidelines that applied statewide beginning on July 1, 2020. Lead agencies have discretion to choose the most appropriate methodology to evaluate a project's vehicles miles traveled, including whether to express the change in absolute terms, per capita, per household or any other measure. Most jurisdictions, including the City of Burlingame, do not yet have an adopted VMT threshold. For the purposes of this study, the screening guidelines and significance thresholds recommended in the OPR Technical Advisory are utilized, as discussed in section 2.1. As noted above, the OPR advisory recommends a significance threshold for office projects of 15 percent below existing regional VMT per employee. For office projects, OPR also recommends home-based work (commute) VMT per employee as the appropriate metric for evaluating impacts. TJKM used the C/CAG- VTA travel demand model to determine the existing commute VMT per employee at the project location and countywide. TJKM also took into account the effect of the proposed TDM plan required under the City's 2030 Climate Action Plan. Under City requirements, the TDM program would need to peak hour trips by at least 20 percent, via strategies that encourage mode shifting and which would thus also reduce VMT. As the proposed project would construct a new office building in a location containing primarily other office buildings, the proposed project would normally be expected to generate the same 17.92 average commute VMT per employee as existing uses in the project location. As discussed below, with the measures included in the required TDM plan, the daily commute VMT per employee for the Project is expected to be 12.45. With a countywide average commute VMT per employee of 16.74, the significance threshold 15 percent below that average would be 14.23. As the proposed project would construct a new office building in a r.�-.--_— Page �31 t'�`'�1 KM �--� Burlingame Bay Traffic /mpact Study location containing primarily other office buildings, the proposed project would normally be expected to generate the same average commute VMT per employee. In order to fall below the significance threshold, the project's VMT per employee would need to be reduced by at least 20.6 percent. As discussed below, the required TDM plan is expected to reduce the project's VMT generation by approximately 30.5 percent. With this program in place, the project is expected to generate 12.45 VMT per employee. Based on the OPR recommended significance threshold, the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact on VMT. In summary, the key metrics for this VMT analysis are: • Countywide average: 16.74 VMT per employee a. Significance threshold: 14.23 (85 percent of countywide average) • TAZ #1949, existing: 17.92 VMT per employee • Required VMT reduction to avoid impact: 20.6% • VMT reduction from TDM plan: 30.5% • Project VMT with TDM plan: 12.45 VMT per worker VMT outputs from the C/CAG-VTA travel demand model are attached in Appendix D. Effects of Required TDM Program on Project VMT Based on research summarized by Fehr & Peers in 2019 (included in Appendix E), a robust TDM program has the potential to substantially reduce employee VMT. The project applicant has prepared a TDM plan, which focuses on mode shifting commute trips from single occupancy vehicles to alternate modes including transit, carpools, and biking or watking. The proposed TDM plan, dated November 6, 2020, is included in Appendix F. The proposed plan was prepared in accordance with strategies and guidance provided in the C/CAG Guidelines for lmp(ementing the Land Use Component of the Congestion Management Program. Table 8 provides a summary of specific VMT-reduction measures that are included in the proposed TDM plan, with their corresponding estimated reductions. It should be noted that the C/CAG Guidelines provide generous estimates of trip credits for a variety of TDM measures, and that the City requires that peak hour trips be reduced by at least 20% via a TDM plan. The proposed plan would provide credits in excess of the entire peak hour trip generation, with all credits due to mode shifting. The proposed TDM program would include measures such as subsidized transit passes, facilitating ride sharing, providing information on local transportation facilities and services, providing on-site amenities for bicycle commuters including showers and changing areas, and recommending telecommuting and alternative work schedules. In particular, the TDM plan requires a TDM coordinator, a minimum level of transit subsidy, provision of a shuttle to Caltrain/BART, and ongoing monitoring via employee surveys about travel behavior. As discussed in section 3.4, there is currently a free shuttle that connects the Millbrae BART/Caltrain station with Airport Boulevard, with the nearest stop located at Bay View Place. The City of Burlingame also operates a free shuttle to the Broadway Caltrain station with the nearest stop at the Hilton Hotel across the street from the project site. These shuttles provide crucial last mile connectivity and make it more likely that employees would utilize transit-related benefits such as free or discounted transit passes for Caltrain and/or BART. Although these shuttle stops exist already, the project TAZ does not include these as transit connections, and the travel demand model predicts only three percent transit Page �32 �.�T�KIN Burlingame Bay Traffic Impact Study use among employees. As such, the actual VMT reduction for the proposed project due to �hese shuttle stops is assumed to be moderate. As of 2021 it appears that a large proportion of office workers intend to work from home full or part time indefinitely, and so the relative VMT reduction for telecommuting and alternative work schedules is assumed to be high. Estimated reductions for other measures, within the range provided by Fehr & Peers, were conservative and generally based on the trip credit assumptions outlined in the C/CAG guidelines. As shown in Table 8, relatively conservative VMT reduction estimates, based on the proposed TDM plan, would result in a total reduction of 30.5 percent. This would reduce the project's VMT generation to 12.45 VMT per worker, below the applicable significance threshold of 14.23. Table 8: VMT Reductions & Proposed TDM Measures CAPCOA Strategies' VMT Reductions � Gomments Category # Strategy F&P Min. Max. Pro'ect Rangez Estimate3 Existing stops for two free shuttle routes Land LUT-5 Increase Transit 3.1.5 0-5.8% 0% 5.8% 3% within �/z mile. Not accounted for in Use/Location Accessibility existing TAZ data... TRT-3 Provide Ride- 3.43 2.5-83% 2.5% 8.3% 3% Sharing Programs TRT-4 Implement Tenants required to provide minimum 3.4.4 Subsidized or Discounted 0-16% 0% 16% 8% transit subsidy of $20/month for 25% of Transit Program employees TRT-6 Encourage Commute TDM plan lists as optional. Recommend 3.4.6 Telecommuting and Alt. 0.2-4.5% 0.2% 4.5% 4.5% Trip this be required. Work Schedules Reduction Marketing organized by required TDM TRT-7 Implement CTR 3.4.7 0.9-26% 0.6% 26% 8% coordinator. TDM plan lists as optional. Marketing Recommend this be required. TRT-11 Employer- 3.4.11 sponsored 1.4-6.8°/a 1.4°/o 6.8% 4% Required under TDM plan. vanpool/shuttle Total 5% 67.4% 30.5% Notes: ' Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures, California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), August 2010 Z 58 743 /mp(ementation TDM StrofegyAssessment, Fehr & Peers, February 2019 3 Based on trip credit guidelines in C/CAG Guidelines for Imp(ementing the Land Use Component of the Congestion Management Program, C/CAG, 2000 Page �33 �'��JIClVI Burlingame Bay Traffic Impact Study This scenario is similar to Existing Conditions, but with the addition of traffic from approved and other reasonably foreseeable developments within the vicinity of the proposed project that would use the roadway network under review for this project. The projects included in Background Conditions were selected in consultation with City of Burlingame staff. Approved and other reasonably foreseeable developments located within the immediate vicinity of the project and relevant to this analysis are: • 1& 45 Adrian Court residential development • 1095 Rollins Road Apartments • SFO Technology Center, 1300 Bayshore Hwy • 1499 Bayshore Hwy Hotel • Burlingame Point Office Park, 300 Airport Blvd • Burlingame Topgolf, 250 E. Anza Blvd . 1008-1028 Carolan Ave & 1007-1025 Rollins Rd Multi-Family Development Figure 7 shows projected turning movement volumes at all the study intersections for Background No- Project Conditions for a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The turning movement counts under Background No- Project Conditions are a combinations of Background counts and Existing Conditions - No Project Counts. The Background conditions were developed using available turning movement counts from each project's Traffic Impact Analysis. The trips were distributed throughout the network based on that available information from the Traffic Impact Analysis reports. S.1 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS- BACKGROUND NO-PROJECT CONDITIONS The results of the LOS analysis using the HCM 2010 & 2000 methodology and Synchro 10 software program for Background Conditions are summarized in Table 9. Where appropriate, signal timing was optimized. Under this scenario, all of the study intersections would continue to operate within applicable jurisdictional standards during the a.m. peak hour, and all study intersections would operate acceptably in the p.m. peak hour. Traffic conditions would be more constrained under this scenario than in Existing Conditions, but would still operate acceptably based onjurisdictional level of service criteria. LOS and queueing worksheets are provided in Appendix G. .,�-_---_- P a g e � 34 ��11�CM Burlingame Bay Traffic Impact Study Table 9: Intersection Level of Service Analysis -Background Conditions ' - _ . Background ' ID /nfersection . - /nterseciion Peak Conditions - Control _ Flour Average LOSZ , -- __ Delay' _ __. _ -- - _ -- � Airport Bivd & Project One-Way AM 15.8 C Driveway W Stop Control pM 15.2 C Z Airport Blvd & Project One-Way AM 9.9 A Driveway E Stop Controi PM 10.2 B Bayshore Hwy & AM 28.9 C 3 Broadway/Airport Blvd Signal PM 48.6 D AM 40.3 D 4 California Dr & Broadway Signal PM 32.0 C AM 19.0 B 5 Carolan Dr & Broadway Signal PM 12.9 B Signal AM 25.4 C 6 Rollins Rd & Broadway pM 23.1 C � Broadway & US-101 SB Signal AM 51.9 D Ramps* PM 22.9 C $ Bayshore Hwy & US-101 Signal AM 29.0 C NB Ramps PM 32.6 C Signal AM 34.6 C 9 Airport Blvd & Anza Bivd pM 35.0 D 10 Airport Blvd & US-101 NB Signal AM 19.0 B Ramps PM 19.6 B N. Bayshore Blvd & Signal AM 14.0 B 11 peninsula Ave* PM 16.1 B Airport Blvd & Coyote Signal AM 17.8 B 12 Point Dr/Peninsula Ave* PM 17.9 B Notes: AM — morning peak hour, PM — evening peak hour 1. Whole intersection weighted average control delay expressed in seconds per vehicle for signalized and all-way stop controlled intersections. Total control delay for the worst movement is presented for side-street stop — controlled intersections. 2. LOS = Level of Service * HCM 2000 methodology used Bold indicates unacceptable operational conditions based on applicable jurisdictional standards. Page �35 � �� Figure 7: Background Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Burlingame eay TIS Airport Blvd / Airport Blvd / Airport Blvd / Broadway California Drive / Carolan Avenue / Rollins Road / �'- Project Driveway West Project Driveway East Old Bayshore Highway Broadway Broadway Broadway � � t�1 � Nq� .�- .-. N � �� j � V L � O N � V 0 0 o F 324 (144) �"� '° m� 3 ��n � 3 � 323 (245) N� 1O 3 � 0I 0 0 � 324 (144) � 70 (13) � � o � 6 (75) `� `� � � 467 (392) o m � ,�, 81 (41) `� q 430 (186) _ I �� I Q F 19 (33) I� I o t— 383 (396) ° � I I I m F' 187 (68) 0 (0) I r y � 16 ��n EJ y m ��3� ` m Cardan Ave E� � y � 109 (43) Airpat Blvd Airport Blvd Old Bayshore Hwy Califomia Dr Rollirn Rd 468 (424) � � � � � 468 (424) —> . � � � 158 (204) � ''� � � 409 (31 � � � � � � � � 169 (339) � � � � 106 (20) � o 0 0 0 (0) � � � 74 (14)—> � � � � 326 (33�—> � or"'i L.�, o �' � 57 (Z07)� '�r' `�$� � � o n�� o o N 790 (1040)� m M� 1O 22 (32) � N� m� 105 (17�� m a � a � � � � � U5101 56 Ramps / 0 Broadway a� C a �� 3 j m � m y US101 SB Ramp � � 451 (188)� 690(970)� N �� or � p T Old Bayshore Highway / Airport Blvd / Airport Blvd / US101 NB Ramps Anza Blvd �L U5101 NB Ramps � F `-' O � ;�� 7(18) � F' S64 (289) E � 942 (671) Old Bayshore ,Hwy Z� � � 1 8 (12)—J 285 p90)� o � � � ioi (za�� Airport Blvd �� N � � y Airport Bhrei 150 (59) � 524 (374)—I as c�>—y, � 28 �20� F-144 (782) <-127 (89) � 52 (152) � 974 (642) Airpat Blvd 136 (406) � z� � � � � �c�� o � � N`�� .� Bdy� \P� P� �a� �hO�e ti� / a� a3 oa 0� �,,a a0 P� � � � 101 Rollins Rd Cd�o�O'nq�e y¢P,e Cd�� io fo�n�dO� Oa�!- Bayshore Blvd / Peninsula Avenue � ; � m Q ryry N ry r � ' �� 167 (69) a �258(18� � Ba e Blvd � � � m g A��port B/vd �e / �a� �O � ._, .._ -.__.. � �. . _ � . . e P'�i Airport Blvd / Peninsula Ave / Coyote Point Dr ., � ` �� a r� :: � � o V Airpoit Blvd � � ,s na>,' 758 (782) � � '��-' � v $� a � o` c` / �e c,°�� N 141-024�04/06/2020 TJKM � ..� Project Site � Study Intersections �d Caltrain Station XX AM Peak Hour Volumes (XX) PM Peak Hour Volumes Burlingame Bay Traffic Impact Study This scenario is identical to Background No-Project Conditions, but with the addition of projected traffic from the proposed project. Project trip generation, distribution, and assignment for the proposed project are identical to that assumed under Existing plus Project Conditions. 6.1 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS — BACKGROUND PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS The intersection LOS analysis results for Background plus Project Conditions are summarized in Table 10. Under this scenario, all but one of the study intersections would continue to operate within applicable jurisdictional standards during the a.m. peak hour, and all of the study intersections would operate acceptably in the p.m. peak hour. At the signalized intersections of Broadway & US-101 SB Ramps and Airport Blvd & Anza Blvd TJKM adjusted the peak hour factor to bring the intersections into acceptable levels of service. Adjusting the peak hour factor is standard practice when an intersection nears unacceptable operating conditions.. Based on the City of Burlingame and City of San Mateo level of service criteria, the project is expected to have a less-than-significant impact at all study intersections in this scenario. Figure 8 shows projected turning movement volumes at all the study intersections for Background plus Project Conditions. LOS and queueing worksheets are provided in Appendix H. � Page �37 �� TJKM Burlingame Bay Traf fic Impoct Study Table 10: Intersection Level of Service Analysis - Background plus Project Conditions � _ � -- _ _ =-� � � � ��kg �d=`-� Ba� grownd� pt�s Pro� ID� � Ir►tersecttQ�� lntersectcon� �- _P�alr �-� -C�on�'� i�ns � �'�-'` _ .�n �iti�s� _ - ��-' - � __� � � � �� :��"�"� - Contr_o! �- = F�ou�' ra � ��_ Ave � 4hange _ -- � = Y. -_ � - - - _ _ .-_ � __= ��--�� el �� :0� '�� OS � Delcr�- - - : � = _ Q y _ - _ � _ x i_ ...� - - - - �- - ._.: . ___.- �.�_ � _�, _._. __- - __._ � __ � Airport Blvd & Project One-Way AM 12.3 B 18.4 C 2.6 Driveway W Stop Control PM 13.6 B 23.1 C 7.9 2 Airport Blvd & Project One-Way AM 9.2 A 10.0 6 0.1 Driveway E Stop Control pM 9.8 A 11.0 B 0.8 Bayshore Hwy & AM 24.3 C 28.8 C -0.1 3 Broadway/Airport Blvd Signal PM 30.1 C 48.0 D -0.6 4 California Dr & Broadway 5 Carolan Dr & Broadway 6 7 8 9 Rollins Rd & Broadway Broadway & US-101 SB Ramps* Bayshore Hwy & US-101 NB Ramps Airport Blvd & Anza Blvd Signal Signal Signal Signal Signal Signal AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM 31.9 31.0 14.5 12.4 21.5 22.2 25.6 20.5 25.2 28.9 30.1 32.2 C C B B C C C C � � � 413 32.7 19.5 12.8 25.7 23.1 42.0 23.9 29.6 34.5 37.6 52.1 D C B B C C D C C C D D 1.0 0.7 0.5 -0.1 0.3 0.0 16.4 1.0 0.6 1,9 3.0 19.9 Airport Blvd & US-101 NB Signal AM 15.3 B 19.8 B 0.8 10 Ramps PM 17.1 B 21.7 C 2.1 N. Bayshore Blvd & Signal AM 143 B 14.3 B 03 � � Peninsula Ave* PM 16.2 B 16.4 B 0.3 Airport Blvd & Coyote Signal AM 17.4 B 18.1 B 0.3 12 Point Dr/Peninsula Ave* PM 16.6 B 18.6 B 0.7 Notes: AM - morning peak hour, PM - evening peak hour, Weekend - Saturday noon peak hour, Bold indicates unacceptable operational conditions based on applicablejurisdictional standards. Red indicates significant impact. 1. Whole intersection weighted average control delay expressed in seconds per vehicle for signalized and all-way stop controlled intersections. Total control delay for the worst movement is presented for side-street stop - controlled intersections. 2. LOS = Level of Service 3. Change in average delay between Background and Background plus Project Conditions. Average delay may be reduced with the addition of project traffic to non-critical movements. 4. Change in critical volume to capacity ratio between Background and Background plus Project Conditions * HCM 2000 methodology used 6.2 INTERSECTION QUEUING ANALYSIS The 95t" percentile queue lengths were calculated for informational purposes at the signalized study intersections under Background and Background plus Project Conditions. The project would add trips to dedicated left- and right-turn lanes at two of the four intersections with dedicated turn lanes. Table 11 details the existing traffic volumes, added project trips, and queue lengths at all dedicated turn lanes at the signalized study intersections. For locations with dual turn lanes providing varying amounts of storage, the average storage length is provided. The 95t" percentile queue lengths are rounded to the nearest five feet and assume an average vehicle length of 25 feet. Queue lengths are averaged among all lanes within a lane group. �� Page �38 �, Burlingame Bay Traff'ic Impact Study Under Background Conditions, six study intersections experienced overflowing queues at one or more movements in the a.m. or p.m. peak hour, or both. The addition of project trips would cause one additional intersection to experience queue overflows: Airport Blvd & US-101 NB Ramps. Three movements in this scenario would experience queue increases by more than one car length with the addition of proj�ct trips at Airport Blvd & US-101 NB Ramps, and Airport Blvd & Anza Blvd. The project would increase all other Background queue lengths by no more than one car length. Queuing worksheets for each scenario are provided in Appendix G and Appendix 1. � Page �39 �� JtCM Burlingame Bay Tra f fic Impact Study � Table 11. 95th Percentile Queue Lengths at Selected Turn Lanes ID Study Intersection 3 Bayshore Hwy & Broadway/Airport Blvd 4 Broadway & California Dr 5 Broadway & Carolan Dr 6 Broadway & Rollins Rd � Broadway & US- 101 5B Ramps Old Bayshore Hwy 8 & US-101 NB Ramps 9 Airport Blvd & Anza B Ivd Lane Group Eastbound Left Southbound Left Southbound Right Eastbound Left Westbound Left Westbound Right Northbound Left Westbound Right Northbound Left Southbound Left Eastbound Left Eastbou nd Right Westbound Right Northbound Left Southbound left Southbound Right Eastbound Riqht Northbound Right Eastbound Left Eastbound Right Northbound Left Eastbound Left Westbound Left Background Background plus Conditions Project Conditions Storage Peak Queue Queue Change Length Hour Length Length in Queue 360 AM 115 135 20 PM 100 105 5 210 AM 15 15 0 PM 10 10 0 115 AM 55 55 0 PM 40 50 10 225 AM 220 220 0 PM 160 165 5 95 AM 70 70 0 PM 50 50 0 350 AM 270 285 15 PM 75 70 -5 50 AM 10 10 0 PM 15 15 0 200 AM 115 125 10 PM 50 50 0 40 AM 0 0 0 PM 5 5 0 125 AM 115 120 5 PM 150 150 0 _ 130 AM 105 110 5 PM 155 155 0 110 AM 35 35 0 PM 40 40 0 160 AM 350 355 5 PM 50 50 0 g� AM 95 95 0 PM 70 70 0 200 AM 135 135 0 PM 200 200 0 155 AM 50 50 0 PM 30 30 0 200 AM 90 95 5 PM 130 130 0 105 AM 325 365 40 PM 65 65 0 205 AM 20 20 0 PM 25 25 0 170 AM 25 25 0 PM 85 90 5 130 AM 390 415 25 PM 160 155 -5 90 AM _ 195 195 0 PM 70 70 0 AM 75 85 10 210 PM 200 285 85 ��- Page �40 �jtct�n Burlingame Bay Traffic Impact Study ID Study Intersection �ne Group Northbound �� Airport Bivd & US- Left 101 NB Ramps Northbound Right 11 N. Bayshore Blvd & Southbound Peninsula Ave Left Airport Blvd & 12 Coyote Point Northbound Dr/Peninsula Ave Left Background Background plus Conditions Project Conditions Storage Peak Queue Queue Change Length Hour Length Length in Queue 230 AM 200 295 95 PM 55 60 5 230 AM 200 245 45 PM 155 165 10 100 AM 50 50 0 PM 185 195 10 AM 425 450 25 $S PM 240 240 0 Notes: 95`h percentile queue lengths expressed in feet, rounded to the nearest five feet * Average storage per lane, where dual turn lanes provide different storage lengths. Bold indicates queue length exceeds storage capacity Red indicates queue length increases by more than one vehicle length � Page �41 � ��±�TJKM Figure 8: Background Plus Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Burlingame Bay TIS Airport Blvd / Airport Blvd / Airport Blvd / Broadway California Drive / Carolan Avenue / Rollins Road / � Project Driveway West Project Driveway East Old Bayshore Highway Broadway Broadway Broadway m� a �� iDmG N�� 0 0 0 > v v� =`e '""a 0 0 o F 324 (144) m N�.• m��n 3 � fv r� 3 � 323 (245) �`� `� 3 F 324 (144) 165 (31) � O1 � o � 6 (1 S) `� � � 479 (394) o �+ � � 81 (41) `" � `� q � 430 (18� �� 0(0) � I� I �-19 (33) I� I m � 383 (396) yI I_ o � I I I o t-187 (68) E' y a ,� 16l» E' `� ��3� � 1`� m Cardan Ave E, � y m � 109 (43) Airport glvd �� Airport Blvd Old Bayshore FMy Califania Dr Rdlirs Rd 468 (424) —> � � 468 (424) —> � � � 194 (211)� m � � � 409 (31 n � � � � � � � 169 (339) � � � � 250 (q� � � � o 0 0 (0) � Q � 14 (14)� v `� � � 326 (33� —� � m Ln o � � 57 (207) � `�r' � � o p� o � Q o N 790 (1640)� m M� iD 22 (32) � �� N n 105 (17�� m O U5101 56 Ramps / Broadway � �� N � 3 � j � � o y m 463 (19D1� I � � 690 (970)� � � r �� / �� a� oa �� Old Bayshore Highway / U5101 NB Ramps �F "'�� 7(78) I � I F' S64 (289) E� y � 948 (106) Old Bayshore .FMry Z� � � 8 (12) �� 285 (/901—> o � � m`� 101 (24�� v Airport Blvd / Anza Blvd �� C �. `� a v u, `"� `a � 28 (20) I I I Q F-158 264) E' '�' `-� ,`' az czo9) Airport Bhrti � � � 150 (59) � 608(389)—> � � .L, 45 (36)� N ``y � � Airport Blvd ��a 6c`yShor \P ti� �\�a P�,a � � 101 � Rollins Rd cd ��/d�q� \ Cd /'f0� . 4�d � r P�e �e ��O Da�' �e �eP a \�CA �J �e / �a� �,o TJKM � ....� Project Site Q Study Intersections � Caltrain Station Airport Blvd / �Z US101 NB Ramps F 174 (98) � 974 (6421 Airport Blvd 144 (453j —� z� � 27 (90? � o � � � �� m � Bdy� \P� P� �� 4 .� Bayshore Blvd / Peninsula Avenue S �, > C N N N � � c �179(711 � � a �258(18� w Ba ae Blvd � � �Q � �i 8 Airport Blvd / Peninsula Ave / Coyote Point Dr � ` �� a n � :: � � o V Ai Blvd v � ¢ � > 18p8)� � 766(829)� � � � c � m a � �-- ' '"� � - AirPort Blvd XX AM Peak Hour Volumes (XX) PM Peak Hour Volumes o` c` / �� `o,�o 141-024�04/06/2020 Burlingame Bay Traffic Impact Study The Cumulative No-Project Conditions analysis forecasts how the study area's transportation system wowld operate with the full build-out of the project in combination with the growth and changes of the surrounding community by the year 2040. The City of Burlingame recently updated their General Plan and as part of the EIR completed a traffic study that projected traffic conditions to 2040 at nine of the study intersections. For the remaining three intersections, traffic conditions were projected to 2040 using a yearly growth factor. Total peak hour intersection entering volumes at four nearby intersections on Airport Blvd and Peninsula Ave were used to establish an average annual traffic growth factor of 1.03 percent per year. This growth factor was applied to 2018 intersection turning movement volumes at the remaining three intersections not covered by the General Plan study to project estimated 2040 conditions. Trips from the near term developments in the Background Conditions were not included in this scenario, as it is assumed that they are included in the fully built 2040 scenario of the General Plan, and as such included in the General Plan's 2040 traffic counts. As noted above, TJKM adjusted the peak hour factor to 1.00 and used optimized signal timings instead of existing signal timings where appropriate. This may result in a Level of Service improvement when comparing the Cumulative and Background conditions for both with and without project scenarios. Figure 9 shows projected turning movement volumes at all the study intersections for Cumulative Conditions for a.m., p.m. and weekend peak hours. 7.1 INTERSECTIONS LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS - CUMULATIVE NO-PROJECT CONDITIONS The intersection LOS analysis results for Cumulative No-Project Conditions are summarized in Table 12. Under this scenario, all project intersections except one operate acceptably in both peak hours. The signalized intersection of Broadway & Carolan Ave operates at LOS E in the a.m. peak hour and LOS D in the p.m. peak hour under this scenario. Most intersections did not experience significant increases in delay when compared to Existing Conditions. The greatest increase in delay was realized at the Broadway & Carolan Ave intersection, where delay increased by 62.1 seconds in the a.m, peak hour and 41.8 seconds in the p.m. peak hour. It should be noted that the City of Burlingame is in the planning stages of the Broadway Grade Separation project, which will provide a grade separated crossing for Broadway at the Caltrain tracks. It is likely that the Broadway & Carolan Ave intersection would be significantly modified and that traffic operations would improve in the area as a result. All other intersections increased delay from Existing Conditions by no more than 13 seconds. LOS and queueing worksheets are provided in Appendix i. Page �43 ��TJKM Burlingame Bay Traffic Impact Study Table 12: Intersection Level of Service Analysis - Cumulative Conditions --- " - � � Crr►»ulateue' ` " - -- - - Interseition � Peuk ` Co�iteons - _ ID _: In#e�sect�qn_ - � - -Ch�rnqe -' Co►itr`ol = Hou�- Axera�e -� `� Z _ -__ : = _ _ ��,. � LOS�. _ _ from ` ; - > � � , � � � -_ --Emsting - _._�__ _-_ _ - _ ----- - -� ,_ � -- - - _----__ --- � Airport Blvd & Project One-Way AM 12.0 B -0.3 Driveway W Stop Control pM 15.9 C 23 2 Airport Blvd & Project One-Way AM 8.9 B -03 Driveway E Stop Control pM 9.7 A -0.1 Bayshore Hwy & AM 26.1 C 1.8 3 Broadway/Airport Blvd Signal PM 36.9 D 6.8 4 California Dr & Broadway Signal AM 26.6 C -5.3 PM 24.6 C -6.4 5 Carolan Dr & Broadway Signal AM 76.6 E 62.1 PM 54.2 D 41.8 Signai AM 20.9 C -0.6 6 Rollins Rd & Broadway .� PM 26.4 C 4.2 Broadway & US-101 SB Signal AM 342 C 8.6 � Ramps* PM 33.5 C 13.0 Bayshore Hwy & US-101 Signal AM 25.2 C 0.0 $ NB Ramps PM 38.4 D 9.5 Signal AM 35.9 D 5.8 9 Airport Bivd & Anza Blvd P M 42.2 D 10.0 Airport Blvd & US-101 NB Signal AM 21.0 C 5.7 10 Ramps PM 22.5 C 5.4 N. Bayshore Blvd & Signal AM 15.8 B 1.5 11 peninsula Ave* PM 21.5 C 5.3 Airport Blvd & Coyote Signal AM 1$.8 B 1.4 12 Point Dr/Peninsula Ave* PM 21.5 C 4.9 Notes: AM - morning peak hour, PM - evening peak hour 1. Whole intersection weighted average control delay expressed in seconds per vehicle for signalized and all-way stop controlled intersections. Total control delay for the worst movement is presented for side-street stop - controlled intersections. 2. LOS = Level of Service * HCM 2000 methodology used Bold indicates unacceptable operational conditions based on applicablejurisdictional standards. Page �44 �� Figure 9: Cumulative Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Burlingame Bay TIS + Airport Blvd / Airport Blvd / Airport Blvd / Broadway California Drive / .� Carolan Avenue / Rollins Road / Project Driveway West Project Driveway East Old Bayshore Highway Broadway - Broadway ° Broadway �� m� �� 0 00 �� iOnm �� o F— 367 (303) � � m �r� m �o � 0 0 0 ,-. �- ,n � � � F 367 (303) � 103 (18) � � "' o � 2 (10) m ^y' � � ( ) � m � 3 6z8 (490) v � � 3 0 0 � ,� � 122 190 o m,� � 1(89) `� n� q 30fi (243) �� I Q F" 21 (3� I� I m F 284 264) �� m � I� I o E-151 (63) �� ,r 38 (44) E' y ,� 3814� E' y 0° 82 31 HI tlNO 147 (300) —> � � � 155(30)� � �oo o � d N � U5101 SB Ramps / Broadway s ,. o � .- m 1 � � y � m 472 (292) �- 13(1)—I 663 (1023)� �� Airport Blvd o ` � 147 (300) —� ` I 0 (0) � � � g °1 0 � o �. a � �_._�__ ...._ � ( ) Old Bayshore Hwy � � � 81 (179)� �` 19 (18)� � o � � 565 (1121)� o �, � `^ m Old Bayshore Highway / US701 NB Ramps � F u'�� 7(18) �� I � 453 (313) �� `'� ,� 829 (!45) Old Bayshore Mvy Z� � � 8„Z) � 227(702)� o a n � 90 (188) � � N .... � � � v Airport Blvd Airport Blvd / Anza Blvd �, ,. �� m � 55 (�) � � y � Q F— 366 (217) � 152 (220) Airport Blvd 139 (329) � 148 (159)—► Z8 (2�� m�G � m o � � Califomia Dr . � � � 587 (495� � 251 (236)—> � ,`^n 5, 14 (37� � � � N +� Airport Blvd / US101 NB Ramps F 167 (103) � 1209 (685) Airport 81vd 133 (486)—� z� � 15 (59) � o � � ;� c � � m ry o� ..�. , � ��a eay''h �rP Hyy /3�� aa �o � �,a a� P� � � 101 Rollins Rd Cd�o/ dn q�P eP�e � Cd��fa� . �-V�� n�d �� pa � �� o m � � � Rollir�s Rd � � � 102 (258) � � gt v 80 (289)—> 25 102(211)� � ^ � M � Bayshore Blvd / Peninsula Avenue m �: ' m � �N � � C ,�� 328(89) , o � 244 (255) Ba ae Blvd �r � N T O N 1 L _ J edy N `��0i Airport Blvd / Peninsula Ave / Coyote Point Dr N C `" " a � � dm� 1 � o tj v Aiz �Blvd , '� � � � 903(811) ' ^ry � C � c 01 m � d � � Airport B/vq � �e �eP Aa ��o 0� �e / �a� �o o` c` / �e c.°�� N 141-024�04/06/2020 T1KM � ....� Project Site Q Study Intersections � Caltrain Station XX AM Peak Hour Volumes (XX) PM Peak Hour Volumes Burlingame Bay Traffic Impact Study This scenario is identical to Cumulative No-Project Conditions, but with the addition of projected traffic from the proposed project. Trip generation, distribution, and assignment for the proposed project are identical to that assumed under Existing plus Project Conditions. As noted above, TJKM adjusted the peak hour factor to 1.00 and used optimized signal timings instead of existing signal timings where appropriate. This may result in a Level of Service improvement when comparing the Cumulative and Background conditions for both with and without project scenarios. It should be noted that traffic flow and intersection operations along the Broadway corridor could be significantly improved with the planned Burlingame Broadway Grade Separation Project. This would remove the at-grade railroad crossing on Broadway between Carolan Ave and California Dr, directly adjacent to the Broadway Caltrain station. Currently, this project is in the planning stages. 8.1 I NTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS — CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS The intersection LOS analysis results for Cumulative plus Project Conditions are summarized in Table 13. Under this scenario, all project intersections except one operate acceptably in both peak hours. The signalized intersection of Broadway & Carolan Ave would continue to operate unacceptably in the a.m. peak hour (LOS E in the a.m. peak hour, and LOS D in the p.m. peak hour). The increase in delay as a result of the project at the intersection operating at unacceptable LOS would be less than five seconds. Based on the City of Burlingame and City of San Mateo level of service criteria, the project is expected to have a less-than-signi�cant impact at all the study intersections. Figure 10 shows projected turning movement volumes at all the study intersections for Cumulative plus Project Conditions. LOS and queueing worksheets are provided in Appendix J. Page �46 ��]KM Burlingame Bay Traffic Impact Study Table 13: Intersection Level of Service Analysis - Cumulative plus Project Conditions Cumulative Cumulative fntersection Peak Conditions plus Project /D Intersection Conditions Control Hour qverage. Z Average 2 Change . --- - Delay' --._ LOS Delay' _ LOS in De(ay3 _ _-- _ -- - - __-- .. -- _ � Airport Blvd & Project One-Way AM 12.0 B 13.4 B 1.4 Driveway W Stop Control pM 15.9 C 253 D 9.4 2 Airport Blvd & Project One-Way AM 8.8 A 8.9 A 0.1 Driveway E Stop Control pM 9.8 A 10.6 B 0.8 Bayshore Hwy & AM 26.1 C 26.0 C -0.1 3 Broadway/Airport Blvd Signal PM 36.9 D 36.8 D -0.1 4 California Dr & Broadway Signal AM 26.6 C 26.8 C 0.2 PM 24.6 C 24.8 C 0.2 5 Carolan Dr & Broadway Signal AM 76.6 E 76.4 E -0.2 PM 54.2 D 53.8 D -0.4 Signal AM 20.9 C 20.9 C 0.0 6 Rollins Rd & Broadway PM 26.4 C 26.5 C 0.1 � Broadway & US-101 56 Signal AM 34.2 C 36.3 D 2.1 Ramps* PM 33.5 C 35.0 D 1.5 $ Bayshore Hwy & US-101 Signal AM 25.2 C 25.8 C 0.6 NB Ramps PM 38.4 D 42.2 D 3.8 Signal AM 35.9 D 39.5 D 3.6 9 Airport Blvd & Anza Blvd P M 42.2 D 46.4 D 4.2 Airport Blvd & US-101 NB Signal AM 21.0 C 21.6 C 0.6 10 Ramps PM 22.5 C 25.5 C 3.0 N. Bayshore Blvd & Signal AM 15.8 B 16.6 B 0.8 11 peninsula Ave* PM 21.5 C 22.0 C 0.5 Airport Blud & Coyote Signal AM 18.8 B 19.3 B 0.5 12 Point Dr/Peninsula Ave* PM 21.5 C 23.1 C 1.6 Notes: AM - morning peak hour, PM - evening peak hour, Weekend - Saturday noon peak hour, Bold indicates unacceptable operational conditions based on applicablejurisdictional standards. Red indicates significant impact. 1. Whole intersection weighted average control delay expressed in seconds per vehicle for signalized and all-way stop controlled intersections. Total control delay for the worst movement is presented for side-street stop - controlled intersections. 2. LOS = Level of Service 3. Change in average delay between Cumulative and Cumulative plus Project Conditions. Average delay may be reduced with the addition of project traffic to non-critical movements. 4. Change in critical volume to capacity ratio between Cumulative and Cumulative plus Project Conditions * HCM 2000 methodology used S.Z INTERSECTION QUEUING ANALYSIS The 95th percentile queue lengths were calculated for informational purposes at the signalized study intersections under Background and Background plus Project Conditions. The project would add trips to dedicated left- and right-turn lanes at two of the four intersections with dedicated turn lanes. Table 14 details the queue lengths at all dedicated turn lanes at the signalized study intersections. For locations with dual turn lanes providing varying amounts of storage, the average storage length is provided. The 95th percentile queue lengths are rounded to the nearest five feet and assume an average vehicle length of 25 feet. Queue lengths are averaged among all lanes within a lane group. �,�- Page �47 �=��TJKM Burlingame Bay Traffic Impact Study Under Cumulative Conditions, nine study intersections experienced overflowing queues at ohe or more movements in the a.m. or p.m. peak hour, or both. The addition of project trips would cause three movements at three different intersections to increase queues by more than one car length: at Airport Blvd & Anza Blvd, Airport Blvd & US-101 NB Ramps, and Airport Blvd & Coyote Point Dr/Peninsula Ave. The project would increase all other Cumulative queue lengths by no more than one car length. The project would increase all other Background queue lengths by no more than one car length. Queuing worksheets for each scenario are provided in Appendix I and Appendix J. ��,� Page �48 Burlingame Bay Traffic Impact Study 7 � Table 14: 95th Percentile Queue Lengths at Selected Turn Lanes Cumulative Cumulative plus Conditions Project Conditions ID Study Intersection �ne Storage Peak Queue Queue Change Group Length Hour Length Length in Queue 3 Bayshore Hwy & Eastbound AM 70 90 20 Broadway/Airport Left 360 PM 110 110 0 Blvd Southbound AM 10 10 0 Left 210 pM 20 20 0 Southbound AM 10 15 5 Right 115 PM 25 50 25 4 Broadway & Eastbound AM 240 240 0 California Dr Left 225 PM 200 200 0 Westbound AM 50 50 0 Left 95 PM 55 55 0 Westbound AM 10 20 10 Right 350 PM 45 45 0 Northbound AM 10 10 0 Left 50 PM 25 25 0 5 Broadway & westbound 200 AM 235 235 0 Carolan Dr Right PM 80 80 0 Northbound AM 0 0 0 Left 40 PM 0 0 0 Southbound AM 300 300 0 Left � 25 PM 480 480 0 6 Broadway & Rollins Eastbound 130 AM 45 50 5 Rd Left PM 140 140 0 Northbound AM 330 350 20 Left 130 PM 135 135 0 Eastbound AM 185 185 0 Left 90 PM 380 390 10 9 Airport Blvd & Anza AM 200 220 20 Blvd Westbound Left 210 pM 235 325 90 Eastbound AM 15 20 5 Right 110 PM 55 55 0 Westbound 160 AM 110 115 5 Right PM 55 55 0 Northbound AM 105 100 -5 Left 90 PM 50 50 0 Southbound AM 100 100 0 Left 200 pM 225 225 0 Southbound AM 50 50 0 Right 155 PM 20 20 0 Eastbound AM 75 75 0 Broadway & US- Right 200 PM 215 215 0 101 SB Ramps Northbound AM 210 230 20 Right 105 PM 140 145 5 Eastbound AM 20 20 0 Old Bayshore Hwy Left 205 PM 25 25 0 Eastbound AM 10 10 0 & US-101 NB Right �� PM 65 65 0 Ramps - Page �49 � ��KM Burlingame Bay Traff'ic Impact Study Cumulative Cumulative plus Conditions Project Gonditions ID Study Intersection �ane Storage Peak Queue Queue Change Group Length Hour Length Length in Queue Northbound 230 AM 275 380 105 10 Airport Blvd & US- Left PM 155 160 5 101 NB Ramps Northbound AM 60 70 10 Right 230 PM 185 190 5 N. Bayshore Blvd & Southbound AM 50 55 5 �� Peninsula Ave �eft 100 PM 225 240 15 Airport Blvd & Northbound AM 550 585 35 12 Coyote Point . Left 85 PM 305 310 5 Dr/Peninsula Ave Notes: 95th percentile queue lengths expressed in feet, rounded to the nearest five feet * Average storage per lane, where dual turn lanes provide different storage lengths. Bold indicates queue length exceeds storage capacity Red indicates queue length increases by more than one vehicle length Page �50 �t][Ct�A � Figure 10: Cumulative Plus Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Burlingame Bay TIS Airport Blvd / Airport Blvd / Airport Blvd / Broadway California Drive / Carolan Avenue / Rollins Road / �" Project Driveway West Project Driveway East Old Bayshore Highway Broadway �� Broadway Broadway �o � ��s N� ��o > 0 0 0 <— 367 (303) ��, � m � r 3 1 ��" ; � 638 (490) iO �� 3 � F 367 (303) 198 (36) � � " 0 2 (10) m � � � "� 134 (192) o � „�i � � n � `�° �306 �63� ) ( � � � � 0 (0) I I I � � 21 (3� � � I ° � 284 (264) � � � o ,r 121 89) � � � o � y �.+ `� �� a � (�� y °° � �q� m `n g2 (3�) Cardan Ave qi g� Airport Blvd Old Ba hore Hw Califomia Dr Rolliru Rd � n � �� 147 (300) —> o � � � 147 (300) —> � � � 117 (1861� 3 � � � 587 (495) � � � � � � � 102 (25&) � � � ,�; 299 (56) o 0 0(0) u Q m^ 19 (18)� � o C_^ , � 251 (73� —> �� o ^,.,� 80 (289) � o�. �" o �oo � o o °i 565(1121)� m $i � ^' �4�3�� `� „4� � o co 102(211)� � � � a a m � � � U5101 56 Ramps / � Broadway o� � m � �� I I o r- y m US101 SB Ramp � � 484 (294) � 6 �:, 13(1)� o � 663(1023)� N p � / a� a3 oa Q�` Old Bayshore Highway / US101 NB Ramps � F "'�'- �7(78) I � I t'— 453 (313) E' y � 835 (780) Old Bayshore .Fiwy Z� � � 8(12)� 227 (7021� o ? r � 90 (188) v� •.• � _ � a Airport Blvd Airport Blvd / Anza Blvd �, � �� > � n `�•� m � 55 (98) � � `-� � Q E— 380 (299) � 162 Q77) Airport Blvd � � � 139 (329) � Z32 (174)—> �' � 1O 28(21)� � a, � �m ��a Bdl sh �rP ti� �\�a tia Pc � �' 101 Rollins Rd cd�o�d /7,9LP eP,e � Cd�i f ��o °rn�dO� �a �� Airport Blvd / U5101 NB Ramps F 274 (172) � 1209 (685) Airport Blvd 141 (533)—> z� � 22 (105) � o `r.�� N � N � m � � � Bdy �P `�pi :................. � Bayshore Blvd / '� Peninsula Avenue > �� a m v N � ^ a c �340(91) � � � � 244 (255) � Ba hae Blvd tr C ... � �i Airpa�r B/vd o` c` / �� `a�o N : Project Site � Study Intersections � Caltrain Station TJKM � ..... J� eP AaF �� J Airport Blvd / Peninsula Ave / Coyote Point Dr ^� o �� a � � a � � o v° Airport Blvd �.: Q� � 20(94)� � 911 (858) � � �- � a n�i � � �e / �a� �O XX AM Peak Hour Volumes (XX) PM Peak Hour Volumes 141-024�04/06/2020 Burlingame Bay Traffic Impact Study The following sections provide additional analyses of other transportation issues associated with the project site, including: • Site access and impacts; • On-site circulation • Parking analysis; • Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis; The analyses in these sections are based on professional judgment in accordance with the standards and methods employed by traffic engineers. Although operational issues are not considered CEQA impacts, they do describe traffic conditions that are relevant to describing the project environment. 9.1 SiTE AccEss This section analyzes site access and internal circulation for vehicles, pedestrians and bicycles based on the site plan presented in Figure 2(dated March 27, 2020). TJKM reviewed internal and external access for the project site for vehicles, pedestrians, and bicycles. Vehicle Access Primary access to the project site would be provided by two existing driveways that currently provide access from Airport Blvd to the 555 and 577 Airport Blvd office buildings. Sight distance for vehicles exiting the project driveway was evaluated. Based on prevailing speeds of 35 mph, there is adequate sight distance at the western driveway to both eastbound and westbound conflicting traffic. At the eastern driveway, the sight distance is adequate for westbound conflicting traffic. However, the available sight distance to eastbound conflicting traffic is marginal and may be obstructed by two trees directly adjacent to the driveway. However, it should be noted that as the driveway would not be moved, the project would not worsen existing sight distance issues. TJKM recommends that the trees be pruned to remove the visual obstructions for vehicles exiting the eastern driveway. Vehicle access to the project site is considered adequate and would not result in any significant impacts to the nearby roadways. Pedestrian Access Pedestrian access would be via internal sidewalks connecting to existing sidewalks on Airport Blvd and via the San Francisco Bay Trail Class I path that runs along the southern and eastern boundaries of the project site. There are crosswalks at most major intersections near the project site, with pedestrian signal heads at signalized intersections. Existing pedestrian facilities provide continuous paths to the nearby locations, such as Broadway Caltrain, the Broadway Business district, nearby hotels, and recreational areas. However, as shown in Figure 3a, existing sidewalk facilities on Airport Blvd are discontinuous as it enters the City of San Mateo, leaving an approximately 0.4 mile gap. The City of Burlingame is also in process of updating its Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, which will result in new projects. A significant impact occurs if the proposed project conflicts with applicable or adopted policies, plans or programs related to pedestrians facilities or otherwise decreases the performance or safety of pedestrian facilities. The proposed project will not result in any such conflicts. Pedestrian access to the project site is considered adequate and would not result in any significant impacts to the nearby pedestrian facilities. r�,;��_�� Page �52 � Burlingame Bay Tra�c Impact Study Bicycle Access There are existing Class II bike lanes provided parts of Airport Blvd, Broadway, California Dr, Carolan Ave, Rollins Rd, and Peninsula Ave. The San Francisco Bay Trail, a Class I multiuse trail, connects several locations along the Burlingame Shoreline, including the project site itself. Additional Class I connections are planned in the project area, notably east of the Sanchez Channel, connecting to other existing pathways. The City is also in process of updating its Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, which will result in new projects. The City of San Mateo is also nearing completion on a Bicycle Master Plan update, which includes projects along Coyote Point Dr and Peninsula Ave. An impact to bicyclists occurs if the proposed project disrupt existing bicycle facilities; or conflict or create inconsistencies with adopted bicycle system plans, guidelines, and policies. A significant impact occurs if the proposed project conflicts with applicable or adopted policies, plans or programs related to bicycle facilities or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of bicycle facilities. The proposed project will not result in any such conflicts. Bicycle access to the project site is considered adequate and would not result in any significant impacts to the nearby bicycle facilities. Transit A proposed project is considered to have a significant impact on transit if it conflicts with existing or planned transit facilities, or is expected to generate additional transit trips and does not provide adequate facilities for pedestrians and bicyclists to access transit routes and stops. The project site is adequately served by the transit service, as shown in Figure 3c. Shuttle and transit stops are located at several locations along Airport Blvd, including across the street from the project site. The project is expected to produce higher than normal transit demand and will be implementing an on-site Transportation Demand Management program. Spread among multiple bus routes, the existing transit service can accommodate the proposed demand. Therefore, transit access to the project site is considered adequate and would not result in any significant impacts to the nearby transit network. g.2 ON-SITE CIRCULATION As shown in Figure 2, the project site will be accessed by two existing driveways on west and north of the proposed building. These driveways will be used to access the existing 555 and 577 Airport, the proposed 567 Airport, and the proposed parking garage. The interior circulation roads will include surface parking as well. The driveways and interior circulation roads will primarily be 26 feet wide, with sections as wide as 29 feet, not including surface parking spaces. There is adequate space for vehicles to maneuver into and out of parking spaces and garages. The project would also provide adequate space for trucks and emergency vehicles to access the site and maneuver as needed, with adequate turning radii for truck access. On-site circulation is considered adequate. 9.3 PARKING Based on the City of Burlingame's Zoning Code, the project would require a 1/300 sq. ft. ratio for parking spaces, which totals 1,683 spaces. However, the project is proposing a 3/1,000 sq. ft. parking ratio based on the implementation of a TDM plan that will reduce the need for parking. Based on this proposal, the project would require 724 parking spaces for the proposed office building, plus an additional 780 parking y=:� - _ Page �53 �=; �=��IG11+1 �- Burlingame Bay Traffic Impact Study spaces for the existing office buildings, and 15 parking spaces for recreational shoreline access. As shown in a site parking diagram dated May 7, 2020 (Figure 11), the proposed project would utilize 387 surface parking spaces, construct a 5.5-�evel parking structure with 1,132 spaces, as well as provide 15 additional parking spaces for recreational shoreline access to the adjacent San Francisco Bay Trail, meeting City requirements. Additionally, the parking supply will contain 32 ADA accessible stalls, 32 electric vehicle charging stations, 13 additional EV ready stalls, and 14 stalls for vanpools or clean air vehicles. 10 additional ADA stalls and 8 EV ready stalls will be provided in the surface parking lot. These will all meet the California Building Code requirements for ADA access, and the Green building code for EV charging stalls. The proposed parking supply of 1,519 stalls would therefore be adequate under City of Burlingame requirements and would not produce any parking impacts on surrounding parcels or roadways. �� Page �54 Burlingome Bay TlS Figure 11: Site Parking Diagram � /. �' �./� � � % � A1R� 1.VD --- �' � �I � �// j (E� 433 AirpoR BNd i � % � / i � i� / I �I / ��\ / I i� � \ /�� / \ \ � % �\ Parlcing StnKture �I j•.� \ .. Su�xe•S5lxs � / �A / \ �� \`�. ., � . -.� -.� .. � —'_J. Q��O U \\\� , • -... . .' ' P� j , �.- � . . � . �1 - -- --� � ;; � II -�-- - ' � .. I I /' /, / `,'�`� . •.• � .,��. / (� _. (E) 533 Airport Blvd . , � / - � � . �y. � / . � \ �' ' � �.' • , � , `�� / � '� �' /�\ �� • • . • ' s �� V � PARKING STALL TYPES 0 ADASTAL�(9'%'8'� � �,�,�s,��X,a� 0 VANPOOL 1 CLEAN AIR STPlI 0 EV MSTALIED STl1: 0 EV READY 9TMl j� BC�C STALL Q COIAOACT STILLI 16' x 1 T) � SIANbA1tU SIQL 1Bb' X itl'I r,�m�w aanaMwn -t-- -,�--,.-- EdIIGl:. . .. 1'w'-' _ __IMRIYI. , , , ,� _ _ u� '. .' � �OfM 1 � 1'.t� _.It�.l.i/.�f.'NiDY�11UYS�O1fIAIDh 'yV1V\vl'J4Y ��4 . .��w . YLRYlS — - ----- --'1 r.wnrui� � + �av,a�.rs�1.s•• O�t[YGS'�Y_TI�.V,IR4 .� _ ..- 1>, mv � i� v . . . ` . \ . 'a. .�-. f9 .�o . wx�.7..., i ., - n _ _ -1� . , '_' -�- .. — .__ . ,-- � - r . . : � ` . �. � • f� I . _ . _. __ . ' _ _ _ 1,1 ..._ . . . . . .. _ . ." �f .• . ron_ .. / / �\� I � ['.Kal� 11 _ __ . il • , �1 • / �. ' � � ' / . " 1 / �.. ` . " ' - . , � � T 1 : � ' .i � �� ! '. . C � 1 �� . � � � �� . . . - ' � _ __ ._._ .._ _A __�--___ � � \ . 1� . / - � __� -r:L �� I � "_. 1 L .' � ', � � (E) 571 AirpoR Blvd ' I �'• . � ti�' j , � ; � , s� (N) 56� Airport BNd � ,/ (E� 555AirpoR BMd / ; I� � {E) 615AkportBHA �� ,1� a�in� � � � � 211,Cb15' � 5e1da 1 �� _ �' ;./ ti0579q /"'-� � i � \ � ,� � G . _�. - _`�� , ' �' . � ,ti-, / \� i � 1----------- - �_ � �.v� � - — - -- � �---- --- -- ---- _ __ _ I � � ----------- _--- ----------------- _--------- ,_----------�- ----1 i `� , � Budinpomelagoon ` `------ ---- ---� I J1.�� v 141-024�05/07/2020 TJKM Burlingame Bay Tra�c Impact Study 9.4 NORTH SHOREVIEW NEIGHBORHOOD ANALYSIS This section is to respond to a request from a resident of the North Shoreview Neighborhood in San Mateo. It was requested that this document address the project's potential impacts on the neighborhood along with identifying potential cumulative impacts of 567 Airport and other major projects in the Bayfront area on the same neighborhood. Current Situation The North Shoreview Neighborhood in San Mateo is bounded on the north by the Poplar Creek Golf Course near Coyote Point, on the west by U.S. 101, on the south by E. Third Avenue and by San Francisco Bay on the east. .[Note: In this section, U.S. 101 is assumed to run north-south and Peninsula Ave. is assume to run east-west.] Neighborhood access from the north is limited to N. Bayshore Boulevard, essentially a freeway frontage road in San Mateo. On the south, S. Norfolk Street provides the main access. The neighborhood is subject to cut-through traffic, primarily in the p.m. commute period. Commuters are anxious to save time by avoiding freeway congestion. Quoting from the request and field checked by TJKM, "During the PM commute hours, south- and east-bound drivers (to Foster City, the East Bay, and other point south) often cut through the North Shoreview neighborhood as an alternative to a congested US-101 and SR-92. This is particularly true of drivers leaving the Burlingame Bayfront area. Such drivers enter the neighborhood via N. Bayshore Blvd. at Peninsula Ave., fan out through neighborhood streets, and converge again at the outlet on Norfolk Street and Third Ave. This often causes tremendous traffic congestion and related impacts to North Shoreview." The impacts on the residential neighborhood are substantial and include congestion, impacted intersections and frustrations on the part of both the residents and the cut-through commuters. The City of San Mateo has adopted Traffic Action Plans for its 28 neighborhoods, in an attempt to quantify neighborhood traffic problems and resident concerns and develop solutions. The City met with the North Shoreview neighborhood in May of 2016 to conduct a forum. A Traffic Forum Steering Committee (TFSC), comprised of volunteer residents, met later in the year to develop and prioritize their top 10 concerns. In February 2017 a draft Traffic Action Plan for the North Shoreview neighborhood was released. When the prioritized list of concerns is mapped, it shows that most of the top 10 are on routes utilized by cut-through traffic. The number one priority of the TFSC was to prohibit left turns during the evening commute for southbound S. Norfolk Street at E. Third Avenue, the desired movement for nearly all of the cut-through traffic. The prohibition would be relatively easy to implement, but City officials predicted that it would create new problems by promoting non-compliance by commuters and pushing vehicles into other areas. The recommended action was therefore not enacted. At the October 9, 2019 meeting of the San Mateo Sustainability and Infrastructure Committee, the City staff provided an update of the status of Traffic Action Plans in the City. In North Shoreview the list had grown to 22 items. Of these, 13 were described as completed with no further action planned. Of the remaining items three were described as on-going. These include the top two concerns related to cut- r��- P a g e � 56 Burlingame Bay Traffic Impact Study through traffic plus a school congestion problem located on a cut-through route. The staff notes that solutions in the North Shoreview area require diversion techniques to counteract the speeding and cut- through traffic. In summary, the on-going cut-through neighborhood problems do not have an easy solution. Cut-through Sources and Solutions As is the case with most cut-through traffic problems, commuters are seeking ways to reduce their travel time. In this instance, in the afternoon the southbound commute on U.S. 101 and its interchange with SR 92 are congested as is the eastbound approach to the San Mateo Bridge. Even access to southbound 101 is difficult from some places. The Peninsula/101 interchange has no southbound ramps, meaning accessing the southbound 101 lanes requires the use of surface streets — Peninsula Avenue to N. Humboldt Street to E. Poplar Avenue — all of which are heavily used during commute periods. Three improvement projects, expected to improve conditions to make afternoon travel on southbound U. 5. 101 more attractive, are in various stages of progress. The U.S. 101 Express Lane project is adding one lane in each direction from the south county line to I-380, which includes the area of interest. Also, the left lane in each direction will be converted to express lanes. This project is scheduled to be completed in 2022. Several near-term and long-term improvements to the U.S. 101/SR 92 interchan�e have been identified for future implementation. A project to add southbound ramps to the U.S. 101/Peninsula Avenue interchanae is undergoing environmental review. This project will relocate the existing southbound ramps from E. Poplar Avenue to Peninsula. Avenue. Future stages of this project include project design, right of way acquisition and actual construction. This project will facilitate access to the southbound lanes of S.R. 101, including from the Burlingame Bayfront area. These three projects, both individually and collectively, should eventually reduce congestion in the portion of the U.S. 101 corridor that borders the North Shoreview neighborhood. Impacts Related to 567 Airport This traffic study indicates that there will be 276 p.m. peak hour trips generated by this project. The mandated 20 percent reduction related to the project's Transportation Demand Management Plan would reduce this to 221, of which 186 are outbound trips. TJKM projects that 12 p.m. peak hour trips will enter the North Shoreview neighborhood and travel on southbound N. Bayshore Boulevard. TJKM has made no analysis of how many of these trips are made by the project employees returning to their homes in the area. To enter the neighborhood from the project site, motorists must make a left turn from westbound Peninsula Avenue to southbound N. Bayshore Boulevard at the overpass. The report notes that the short left turn lane already overflows with existing (pre-Covid) traffic volumes. Under existing pre-Covid conditions, 493 vehicles enter southbound N. Bayshore Boulevard from Peninsula Avenue. Of these volumes, 331 enter via a right turn from the west and 162 enter from the Bayfront area via the left turn from the east. Thus, one-third of the southbound traffic on N. Bayshore Boulevard originates from or through the Bayfront area and the remaining two-thirds arrives from the west. Page �57 � �:�TJKM Burlingame Bay Traffic Impact Study When the traffic from the current project and previously approved projects is added, traffic on N. Bayshore increases by 14 percent to 560 vehicles. Of these, 60 percent arrives from the west. Traffic from the 567 Airport project constitutes two percent of the southbound N. Bayshore Boulevard traffic. T1KM also examined Cumulative conditions, which are intended to represent General Plan buildout conditions, as depicted in the C/CAG regional traffic forecasting model. In this case, N. Bayshore Boulevard southbound p.m. peak hour traffic increases to 809 vehicles, a 64 percent increase over existing conditions. Under these Cumulative conditions, over 70 percent of the traffic originates from the west side of the freeway. Traffic from the 567 Airport project constitutes about 1.5 percent of the total. TJKM acknowledges that two separate methods were used to forecast future traffic volumes in the area and the distribution assumptions were made by TJKM with review by City of Burlingame staff. However, even a substantial change in the assumptions would show that the 567 Airport project contributes a minor portion of traffic entering the North Shoreview neighborhood. North Shoreview Neighborhood Summary TJKM concludes that the N. Shoreview neighborhood does have substantial issues related to cut-through traffic, but the 567 Airport project traffic will not significantly exacerbate the issues. It was observed that about two-thirds of the traffic entering the neighborhood is from the west of freeway, not from Burlingame's Bayfront area. TJKM offers the following related recommendations: 1. The City of San Mateo should continue to evaluate the origin an_d destination of traffic entering the N. Shoreview neighborhood in the afternoon commute to determine what share is actually cut- through traffic vs. residents returning to their homes from work. 2. TJKM does not recommend improving the overflowing westbound left turn lane on Peninsula Avenue serving N. Bayshore-bound traffic. It would be difficult to make improvements, but the on- going congestion could deter that portion of the traffic that might intend to cut through the neighborhood. The freeway improvements described in this report are all important, but the addition of southbound ramps on Peninsula Avenue would seem to significantly improve freeway access, potentially reducing the cut-through issue in North Shoreview. -=- Page �58 ��T�1KM Burlingame Bay Traffic Impact Study In the project vicinity, the C/CAG-VTA Travel Demand Model generates daily commute VMT per employee of 17.92 for the baseline model year of 2015. With the incorporation of the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan required by the City's General Plan, the daily commute VMT per employee is expected to be 12.45. This is, more than 15 percent below the countywide average of 16.74. Based on the OPR recommended significance threshold, the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact on VMT. The proposed project is expected to generate 2,338 total daily trips, including 278 new a.m. peak hour trips (239 in, 39 out) and 276 net new p.m. peak hour trips (44 in, 232 out). Under Existing Conditions, all of the study intersections operate within applicable jurisdictional standards during the a.m. peak hour, and all study intersections operate acceptably in the p.m. peak hour. Under Existing plus Project Conditions, all of the study intersections would continue to operate within applicable jurisdictional standards during a.m. peak hour, and all study intersections operate acceptably in the p.m. peak hour. The addition of project trips caused the intersection of Airport Blvd & Anza Blvd see a significant increase in delay (by 20.6 seconds), however the intersection continues to operate acceptably. Based on the City of Burlingame and City of San Mateo level of service criteria, the project is expected to have a less-than-significant impact at all the study intersections. Under Background Conditions, all of the study intersections would continue to operate within applicable jurisdictional standards during the a.m. peak hour, and all study intersections would operate acceptably in the p.m. peak hour. Traffic conditions would be more constrained under this scenario than in Existing Conditions, but would still operate acceptably based on jurisdictional level of service criteria. Under Background plus Project Conditions, all of the study intersections would continue to operate within applicable jurisdictional standards during the a.m. peak hour and the p.m. peak hour. TJKM revised the peak hour factor at two intersections which resulted in an acceptable LOS D for both intersections. Based on the City of Burlingame level of service criteria, the project is expected to have a less-than-significant impact at all study intersections in this scenario. Under Cumulative Conditions, all project intersections except one operate acceptably in both peak hours. The signalized intersection of Broadway & Carolan Ave operates at LOS F in the a.m. peak hour and LOS E in the p.m. peak hour under this scenario. Under Cumulative plus Project Conditions, all project intersections except one operate acceptably in both peak hours. The signalized intersection of Broadway & Carolan Ave would continue to operate unacceptably in both peak hours (LOS F in the a.m. peak hour, _-_-- P a g e � 59 ___,__ _. �� Burlingame Bay Tra�c Impact Study and LOS E in the p.m. peak hour). The increase in delay as a result of the addition of project trips at the intersection operating at unacceptable LOS would be less than five seconds. Based on the City of Burlingame and City of San Mateo level of service criteria, the project is expected to have a less-than-significant impact at all the study intersections. Queuing operations were analyzed for informational purposes at all signalized study intersections with dedicated left- and right-turn lanes, under Existing, Background, and Cumulative Conditions, with and without the proposed project. Under Existing Conditions, the intersections of Broadway & Rollins Rd, Broadway & US-101 SB Ramps, Bayshore Hwy & US-101 NB Ramps, Airport Blvd & Anza Blvd, N. Bayshore Blvd & Peninsula Ave, and Airport Blvd & Coyote Point Dr/Peninsula Ave would experience queue overflows at one or more turn lanes, during one or both peak hours. Under Existing plus Project Conditions, the same turn lanes would experience overflows during the same peak hours, plus the addition of the westbound left movement at Airport Blvd & Anza Blvd. The addition of project trips would create a new queue overflow of 65 feet at this turn lane, an 85 feet increase from Existing Conditions. A split phase signal timing with the conversion of the westbound through lane to a shared westbound through/left lane would help to mitigate the queues; however, the intersection still operates acceptably from an LOS standpoint. Elsewhere, the project would increase queues outside of the storage pocket by more than one car length at one additional intersection: Airport Blvd & Coyote Point Dr/Peninsula Ave. However, at Airport Blvd & Coyote Point Dr/Peninsula Ave, the movement was already experiencing overflows in the Existing Conditions, and the project would oniy increase the queue by slightly over one car length. The project would increase all other Existing queue lengths by no more than one car length. Under Background Conditions, six study intersections experienced overflowing queues at one or more movements in the a.m. or p.m. peak hour, or both. The addition of project trips would cause one additional intersection to experience queue overflows: Airport Blvd & US-101 NB Ramps. Three movements in this scenario would experience queue increases by more than one car length with the addition of project trips, at Airport Blvd & US-101 NB Ramps, and Airport Blvd & Anza Blvd. The project would increase all other Background queue lengths by no more than one car length. Under Cumulative Conditions, nine study intersections experienced overflowing queues at one or more movements in the a.m. or p.m. peak hour, or both. The addition of project trips would cause three movements at three different intersections to increase queues by more than one car length: at Airport Blvd & Anza Blvd, Airport Blvd & US-101 NB Ramps, and Airport Blvd & Coyote Point Dr/Peninsula Ave. The project would increase all other Cumulative queue lengths by no more than one car length. The proposed project does not conflict with existing and planned pedestrian or bicycle facilities and will add trips to existing transit facilities, which can be accommodated by the Page �60 ��r�� Burlingame Bay Traffic Impact Study existing transit capacity. Therefore, the impact to pedestrian, bicycle facilities, and transit facilities is less-than-significant. Vehicle access will be through two existing driveways that currently operate for the 555 and 577 Airport Blvd buildings. Sight distance at the western driveway is considered adequate. At the eastern driveway, the sight distance is adequate for westbound conflicting traffic. However, the available sight distance to eastbound conflicting traffic is marginal and may be obstructed by two trees directly adjacent to the driveway. However, it should be noted that as the driveway would not be moved, the project would not worsen existing sight distance issues. TJKM recommends that the trees be pruned to remove the visual obstructions for vehicles exiting the eastern driveway. Vehicle access to the project site is considered adequate and would not result in any significant impacts to the nearby roadways. TJKM concluded that the site plan will operate acceptably for deliveries, circulation, as well as for trucks and emergency vehicles. Based on the City of Burlingame's Zoning Code, the project would require a 1/300 sq. ft. ratio for parking spaces, which totals 1,683 spaces. However, the project is proposing a 3/1,000 sq. ft. parking ratio based on the implementation of a TDM plan that will reduce the need for parking. Based on this proposal, the project would require 724 parking spaces for the proposed office building, plus an additional 780 parking spaces for the existing office buildings, and 15 parking spaces for recreational shoreline access. The proposed project would utilize 387 surface parking spaces, as well as construct a 5.5-level parking structure with 1,132 spaces, meeting City requirements. The proposed parking supply of 1,519 stalls would therefore be adequate under City of Burlingame requirements and would not produce any parking impacts on surrounding parcels or roadways. TJKM concludes that the N. Shoreview neighborhood in San Mateo does have substantial issues related to cut-through traffic, but the 567 Airport project traffic will not significantly exacerbate the issues. It was observed that about two-thirds of the traffic entering the neighborhood is from the west of freeway, not from Burlingame's Bayfront a rea. Recommendations Trim the trees to the west of the East Project Driveway to mitigate sight distance issues for eastbound traffic along Airport Blvd. Page �61 ��'�`�"T�K141 �.- _�