Daly City City Council
September 12, 2022

 
 

 
 

 


 

 
 





 
 

















 
 
 

 
 

 


 

 
 





 
 














 
 


!"
#$% &'(&%#
 )!*  

*!
 
*+
*, *

!*,-*,

,.,
,



.
+
*+*!/*,*!!*!
 
*  

.

*
 
*  

 *,   /+ * 0 *! 
 


!1+2

 * !

!*,-*,! 

.
*,!*

*

.*,!*
*
! !. *
!
.* 3

*. 

+2 2/
*, *+
*,
*4!,*,*) ,.*,!! . !



 "
 /
. ". 
*!
* ". 
*!!**,
!
 )


+* 



5 6789:;<=>?:8;@   

,.A 02!*!.

,.!  
! 4B 
B 
! *
:><C87D?C



)  *! !D7>;<E?<F
7=G>D/

 *
B
H


! *
+
B
H

 !
. *
0








 
 

 
 

 


 

 
 



 




 
 

















 


 


 


 

 

 

 





 







 

 
 


 


 
 

 
 

 


 

 
 



  !"



 




 
 





 
 
 



#
$


 

 

 

 

 





 







 


 

% 

&
 

 


'() *+,*)'
  - 
!
  
 . 

/0
 

 
 .
1 .23456789:;6.47<  . 

!/= -"
/

/  
 >? 
? 
 

6:8@43A;@

.
#


 A3:78B;8C
39D:AE

 


F

 




F

 
  






 


  
 


!"# $
% &'
"'
( '
& !" ' ) *
+,-./0-

& 12' &3 *
+
4
56*
7
48


* &


*0

+,-./0- 
 &  "'& ) 0*9 

:;<= >?@A;:>B;C:D3' 
'2' 
 '&8  
'  '28
& 3&' *
:;<= >:CEF:>GHD3' 
2' 
 '&8  
'  '28&!"
& 
' 

:;<= >?@A;:>B;C:D3' 

'2 
 '&8
 
'  '28 2*&!"! '


&
' ' 

&(2 82"D "


&
'

 ' I&
 *D&I
" (!"

& ' 


 
 

 
 

 


 

 
 






 
 





 




 







!"#!
$%& '( ) "!*+" ,'+%"
(' "
- ! )
 
./
01 /././
 /
 2/0 .
3/./20.
2
.2
45
6./
2/
0
7
8

909
 
./
01 /././
 /
 2/0 .
//.20.
2
.2
6:
41.
;
6:
49
2/.
/9


./
01 /././
 /
 2/0 .
3/./20.
2
.2
4:
6./
2/
0
7
8

909
(#" ' !
 .
/./  3/2
0/
0 .
/./  .2
/
0 (#" ' ! )+
#"'-<"%!
=()<>  .
?

.
7/0?.
.

8@
45
65
A
321.

;93/
./
02
.  .
./9.
@
45
65
A321/
1.

;93/
./
0?
;
//
02
.
B##'

 3
2 4:
62
.

 2
.0/90
79098


/9 .23
0./
20..

4:
62 .C9 D%"B#D
 .3
//

 ;
./
./?  9.E/92C./  .1
2@
.C1 /E./
E

/
02E.
 .3
//

 ;9.E/92C./  .1

2@
.C1 /E./
E
/
02E.

(<'!+%"D+, 
- ! )

 /
 2.3/33/

0
.:F2C./ 
. C
1/E/GF;./
E
/
0F/

3.
? 
9.

$,+
%"H
 
.3..
0/92
62.0/9
01 /
./
./
3
!'%)
 
1 /./2909

 /
 2.3/33/

0
.:F2C./ 
. C
1/E/GF;./
E
/
0F/

3.
? 
9.
2/9.

./
2./93/
0

: ?

: 9.E/93/


.
30./9.
@
45
65
A321.


;93/
./
0?
;
//
02
.7/
0/8
 
1 /./2909

. /
4 FIJKLMGNOPQMFKGR  F 

90S T.C
/
.0 3
.90
 

.MPNAKJUQA
?..1.

;

UJPGN.VQNW
JOXPU2


. ./


F1
;
Y

 ./0 ./

:/


 


  
 


!"# $
% &'
"'
( '
& !" ' ) *
+,-./0-

& 12' &3 *
+
4
56*
7
48


* &


*0

+,-./0- 
 &9''& )
+,-./0- 

 &' '& ) 0  )'
:;<= >?@A;:>B;C:D3' 
'2' 
 '&8  
'  '28
& 3&' *
:;<= >:CEF:>GHD3' 
2' 
 '&8  
'  '28&!"
& 
' 

:;<= >?@A;:>B;C:D3' 

'2 
 '&8
 
'  '28 2*&!"! '

2(
& 3&' *

2(83 &'
& 
8 ! ( *D
'D "


 





 

  

 


! "!

!#

!

 !"$

 

#%"



$
!$

"
#$&'()*+(,
!#
$!

!-./#
"
#
00!
& 


! "!

!#

!

 !"$

 

1!
$
!$

"
#$2+(,3&'() 456(,3&2()01!
$



0#
. 


! "!

!#

!

 !"$

 

#%"



$
!$

"
#$7&()3+(,
!#
$!

!-./#
"
#
00!



 


#!
! #%"
$
"

& 


#!
! 4#$4!#!


 

8 9

8: " #1!
;!
4#
-
;!
 !
/<6()*6(,*+(=
"%$ 
#
!#7>'450%
!

$

"
# "& 4!


0 !<6()*6(,*+(="%$ #!
 
#
!#
&?450%
!

;#2>'45!




$

"
#
@

 ##%$&'A)3.A,$4!!
! #$
#"

04
.-#
00!/
&

0#!# $#%

!#$##4"!#"!.6()3+2(,$
B0! C @C 4 #%"
!
4

4
 !"45

!#
!#; 4! 0#D

0$B4
! 
 2?

"$#<B 
D!2'

D!


$
D!1
!
4& #%"
!
4

4
 !"45#4!0#D

0$B4
! 

2?

"$#<B 
D!2'

D!

$
D!1
!

8  C  

 !

 !"$#%"

%""%#


4
2("3E$B4
!  B

D!
FE2'45

D!

E

%#!;!"  0#

 G
 #%"#

0$6(,$"

0#
4

! "!


!#

"%


 
! "!

!#
"$#00!

& !

 !"$#%"

%""%#


4
2("3E$B4
!  B

D!
FE2'45

D!

E

%#!;!"  0#
$

!0!

!#$1

0%


4
2AH?(36A;2H?(3+A 0#D

0%



". 
%

0 !<6()*6(,*+(="%$ 
#
!#
2>'450%
!

;#2>'45!




$

"
#-

4
/
& 
! "!

!#$
00!
#!1 #
&'+AH.(
#!1 #&
&AH>(
#!1 #.
&.AH>(
#!1 #2
&2AH>(

!
&'>AH7(
#!1 #?
&?AH>(

&6.AH (

&

2"&
&


&.4&2
&

"


6'



) EIJKLMFNOPQMEKFR  2?E6& 7>

0S&' TB

#
!

! %!
#
0
! 1 
MPN=KJUQ=
#;"!
# 
'65&7
6'
UJPFNVQNWJOXPU$>2'
 #


H?E& 
5+(YAH'(  
#4!
!# 1


5+(YAH'( &

#!
!# 1

H


1!

 
 

 
 

 


 

 
 





 
 












 


 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 


 

 
 





 
 









 


 




 


 
 
 

!" #$%#"


&'('(&
( )
((
(*+ 

,'( -+&
( '&
'('
 .
&
./
&(

0.( 
'+('(/
 '+('+

( &*
(&  +&.+ '+('
.
 .
&''(
./
+(
'&,
(-

.
&.'+(
(( /+(1
*
&   &*('+/'+


0.&*('+2*
(&



&'('( ((. 

(& )((
(*+ 

,'( -+&
( '&


 (
3 456789:;<=869>   


'+? @1(+ .
'+  &
8<:A65B=A
'('C'+('
 (
D
B5<9:E=:F&5;G<B2


& (

&

D
H

  (
 ((.D
H

 (+ (
&
(.


 
 

 
 

 


 

 
 





 
 





 






 !" !#!$%" &
%
!!'"!($) "
$%
*
 ! +$)",$,
"!  %

 !" 

-'$#$-.'!'

/-"
! 
 )$! !$
.#$  )$! 
)"0$'
"!$ ($
"$!"$
 "$ )-$
) $
 )$! #$-
%

-"'$ "" !$,#$-.
$)!"
*'!+

-"'$
-$, )$! '$!
! .$)!"1 #(
 
(! )$. $)"'

/-"(! )$2($
"$!"$


"



 !" !
$" !"!- %
'0!"
&
!!'"!($) "
$%
*
 ! +$)",$,
"!  %


0  
 

 
 

 


 

 
 





 
 






$" !
3 %456789:;<=8%69>  % 


, )$? @"1
!
")$ -
" )$
 
"8<:A65B=A

 !" C )$! 
 "$!

D

B5<9:"E=:F5;G<B2


" "$!

%
D
H

 (
$ "$!
0"$(

D
H


-$) "$!
"@

$,

 









 





 


 ! "


#$$
# 




#
%
%

&





'%




#


&



#

#(
#
 )

# 

*#




 

%


#
%


# %





$%

&
#

+
#
!,"
# %


%
$#

 




&#

- 
*#
#)

  

#
&


+
.
'%



#
/

*#





*




 
+
% 

(









 



 ! "


#$$
# 



*(
#
$






#





# $

#) $
# $

#
#
, 

0 123456789:536;  )
 <


$

= , >-
#



 %

#



+ 
597?32@:?

A#
*

$#
+ #

,B
,@2967C:7D28E9@/<),

 #


*

.F ,G*.

#   #
#*#
+ #

June 27, 2022
60 STATION AVENUE DRAFT

TRANSPORTATION STUDY
60 STATION AVENUE, DALY CITY, CA

Inside front cover
Page Intentionally blank

60 Station Avenue DRAFT
Transportation Study
60 Station Avenue, Daly City, CA
Prepared for:

City of Daly City
Prepared by:

Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
155 Grand Avenue, Suite 505
Oakland, CA 94612
510.839.1742
Project Manager: Mike Alston, R.S.P.

Project Principal: Mike Aronson, P.E.

Project Engineer: Kim Dao
Project #: 26460
June 27, 2022

Page Intentionally blank

CONTENTS
Introduction and Summary...................................................................................... 4 Introduction............................................................................................................ 4 Summary................................................................................................................. 6 Existing Conditions .................................................................................................... 7 Project Site Conditions & Land Uses.................................................................... 7 Traffic conditions, circulation, and hazards ....................................................... 7 Parking .................................................................................................................... 9 Transit Service......................................................................................................... 9 Bicycle Conditions............................................................................................... 10 Walking Conditions.............................................................................................. 11 Emergency Vehicle Access ............................................................................... 11 Project Analysis........................................................................................................ 13 Project Description .............................................................................................. 13 Project Trip Generation....................................................................................... 15 Local Transportation Analysis ................................................................................ 16 Site Access and On-Site Circulation.................................................................. 16 Driveway Sight Distance..................................................................................... 16 Pedestrian Issues.................................................................................................. 16 Bicycle Issues........................................................................................................ 16 Transit Issues.......................................................................................................... 17 Parking .................................................................................................................. 17 Vehicle Queueing ............................................................................................... 17 Hazards and Emergency Vehicle Access........................................................ 18 Transportation Impact Analysis............................................................................. 19 CEQA Significance Criteria ................................................................................ 19 Project Impact Analysis....................................................................................... 20

60 Station Avenue Draft Transportation Study
June 27, 2022 Introduction and Summary
Kittelson & Associates ii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Project Study Area ......................................................................................................................5 Figure 2. Bicycle Facilities.........................................................................................................................12 Figure 3. Site Plan ......................................................................................................................................14 Figure 4. Self-Storage Facilities ................................................................................................................24 Figure 5: Distance to Self-Storage Facilities ...........................................................................................25

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Existing Project Site Activity .........................................................................................................9 Table 2. Trip Generation Rates................................................................................................................15 Table 3. Trip Generation Estimates..........................................................................................................15 Table 5: Population by Self Storage Access Distance, Primary Trade Area ......................................22

APPENDICES
Appendix A: Scope of Work
Appendix B: Elevation Sheet
Appendix C: Turning Movement Counts
Appendix D: Self Storage Market Study

60 Station Avenue Draft Transportation Study
June 27, 2022 Introduction and Summary
Kittelson & Associates iii
Page intentionally blank.

60 Station Avenue Draft Transportation Study
June 27, 2022 Introduction and Summary
Kittelson & Associates 4

INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
Kittelson & Associates, Inc., (Kittelson) has prepared this transportation study of the proposed 60 Station Avenue self-storage facility (“project”) in Daly City, California. This study analyzes the potential transportation impacts and effects of the proposed project. The topics analyzed and the analysis approach are identified in the approved scope of work (included as Appendix A).

The project is analyzed with respect to potential environmental impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and for transportation effects on local circulation and safety.

The project study area is defined as Station Avenue between W. Cavour Street to the north and School Street to the south (see Figure 1).

INTRODUCTION

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project proposes to construct up to a five-story, 105,000-square-foot self-storage facility, including 1,010 square feet of onsite office and 8,880 square feet of onsite parking and up to 924 rentable self-storage units. The project site is currently occupied by an existing 16,800-square-foot wholesale sales facility, located at the southwest corner of Station Avenue and Dixon Court (Assessor’s Block/Lot 003-293-120).

SCOPE OF TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS
The transportation impact analysis includes two levels of evaluation:
 Local transportation analysis
 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) transportation analysis Local Transportation Analysis
The local transportation analysis evaluates the project’s effects on the transportation system relative to City of Daly City’s standards. The transportation issues considered in the local transportation analysis include:
 Site access and circulation
 Driveway sight distance
 Pedestrian issues
 Bicycle issues
 Transit issues
 Parking
 Vehicle queuing
 Hazards and emergency vehicle access
CEQA Transportation Analysis
The CEQA transportation analysis includes four transportation impact areas:
a. Conflicts with circulation system programs

60 Station Avenue Draft Transportation Study
June 27, 2022 Introduction and Summary
Kittelson & Associates 5
b. Vehicle-miles of travel (VMT)
c. Hazards
d. Emergency access
These are the transportation impact areas that may be considered in environmental documentation for the project. Other transportation issues would not be part of the environmental evaluation under CEQA but may be considered as part of a local transportation analysis.

Figure 1. Project Study Area

60 Station Avenue Draft Transportation Study
June 27, 2022 Introduction and Summary
Kittelson & Associates 6

SUMMARY

LOCAL TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS
 The site provides for adequate vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian circulation.  Available sight distance for drivers exiting the project site along Dixon Court is adequate.  The project provides sidewalks and a curb ramp at the southwest corner of Station Avenue and Dixon Court, so a person walking could adequately access all other pedestrian facilities, including City sidewalks, surrounding the project site as per City Policy CE-20.4 and City Policy CE-20.7.
 The project does not conflict with existing or planned bicycle facilities or circulation.  The proposed project would not obstruct, conflict with, or degrade local access to any bus stops or routes. However, bus stops are close enough to provide adequate transit accessibility for project employees or visitors.
 City Municipal Code 17.34.020 does not provide a schedule of required parking spaces specifically for self-storage uses, so project parking supply was evaluated with respect to City requirements for similar uses. The project supplies sufficient parking to satisfy the requirements.
 No queuing issues would be expected for vehicles accessing the project site.  The project would not have an adverse effect on emergency vehicle access.

CEQA TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS
 The 60 Station Avenue project would not have any signficant impacts on the transportation sytem in terms of conflicts with plans, VMT, hazards or emergency access.  Project-specific VMT analysis indicates the project would not increase regional VMT relative to existing conditions.

60 Station Avenue Draft Transportation Study
June 27, 2022 Existing Conditions
Kittelson & Associates 7

EXISTING CONDITIONS
This section documents existing traffic, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian conditions in the study area. Analysis and discussion is based on the following:
 Field observations conducted from 7 – 9 AM on Thursday, October 28th, 2021, during which time the typical AM peak period overlaps with morning school arrival. (The typical PM peak period and afternoon school dismissal do not overlap.) Observations included noting any traffic queuing or operational issues, the level of parking turnover along Dixon Court, and whether any site employees or visitors appear to park along Dixon Court.  Field observations included circulation and activity around Jefferson High School. The school bell at Jefferson High School on Thursdays rings at 8:30 AM.  Turning movement counts at the project driveway (located at the intersection of Station Avenue / W. Moltke Street) collected from 12 AM through 7 PM on Thursday, October 28th, 2021, to capture the typical hours of operation of the existing site (typically 1 AM – 3 PM) and into the PM peak period. Data collection included hourly parking lot occupancy (parking and loading) to estimate parking demand throughout the day.

PROJECT SITE CONDITIONS & LAND USES
The project site is currently occupied by an existing 16,800-square-foot wholesale sales facility, located at the southwest corner of Station Avenue and Dixon Court (Assessor’s Block/Lot 003- 293-120). The project site includes an existing driveway along Station Avenue serving an onsite parking lot with space for approximately five vehicles and a loading dock with capacity for approximately four trucks. The typical hours of operation for the existing land use are 1 AM to 3 PM.

TRAFFIC CONDITIONS, CIRCULATION, AND

HAZARDS

ROADWAY NETWORK
The City of Daly City 2030 General Plan (2030 General Plan) Circulation Element defines the City’s roadway network, categorized by size, volume of traffic, and how each is connected to the larger regional transportation network.1 The Circulation Element identifies all of the roadways within the project study as local streets, defined thusly:

They provide access from larger roadways to destinations within a residential or business district. Local streets may be loop streets, cul-de-sacs, or straight connections between two collector streets, and are typically not signalized. Travel distance to a collector typically does not exceed one-half of a mile. Right-of-way widths typically range from 50 1Available online at https://www.dalycity.org/363/General-Plan.

60 Station Avenue Draft Transportation Study
June 27, 2022 Existing Conditions
Kittelson & Associates 8
to 60 feet, and capacity does not typically exceed 800 ADT. Local streets are designed for relatively low speed travel with parking permitted on both sides of the street.

Station Avenue
Station Avenue is a north-south local street running from north of West Cavour Street to West Market Street. Station Avenue terminates north of the project site, backing up to Jefferson High School. North of the project site on Station Avenue is a district school bus yard. Station Avenue is a two-way, two-lane road (approximately 35 feet wide curb-to-curb) without a striped centerline. Street parking is present on both sides and is well utilized in the AM peak hour. Station Avenue does not include bicycle facilities and is not a designated bicycle route. Station Avenue includes continuous sidewalks on both sides of the road within the study area.

West Cavour Street
West Cavour Street is a west-east local street running between Station Avenue and Bruno Avenue. West Cavour Street is a two-way, two-lane road without a striped centerline and with street parking on both sides. West Cavour Street also sits just south of Jefferson High School and terminates at Bruno Avenue just south of the Jefferson High parking driveway access. West Cavour Street does not include bicycle facilities and is not a designated bicycle route within the study area. West Cavour Street includes continuous sidewalks on both sides of the road within the study area.

West Moltke Street
West Moltke Street is a west-east local street running between Station Avenue and Mission Street.

West Moltke Street is a two-way, two-lane road without a striped centerline and with street parking on both sides. The west end of West Moltke Street lines up with the existing project driveway. West Moltke Street does not include bicycle facilities and is not a designated bicycle route within the study area. West Moltke Street includes continuous sidewalks on both sides of the road within the study area.

School Street
School Street is a west-east collector street running between Junipero Serra Boulevard and Mission Street, a major highway (State Route 82). School Street is a two-way, two-lane road with a striped centerline and street parking on both sides. School Street includes ground floor commercial fronting the streetscape within the study area. School Street is classified as an existing Class III Bicycle Facility2 and includes shared lane markings in both directions. School Street includes continuous sidewalks on both sides of the road within the study area.

Dixon Court – please add a description for Dixon Court

TRAFFIC CIRCULATION
The project site is located on the Station Avenue block facing West Moltke Street between West Cavour Street and School Street. In a 15-minute window during observations (8:15-8:30 AM) at the project site, approximately 25 vehicles traveled on Station Avenue from north to south, likely 2 Please refer to Bicycle Facility Classifications on Page 6 for definitions

60 Station Avenue Draft Transportation Study
June 27, 2022 Existing Conditions
Kittelson & Associates 9
coming from or through West Cavour Street. The school bell at Jefferson High School on Thursdays rings at 8:30 AM.

Traffic levels at the Station Street / School Street intersection fluctuate within weekday AM peak hour. During the peak 15 minutes of observation corresponding with the Jefferson High School bell, queues extended to and never exceeded 8 vehicles in the eastbound direction. These were the maximum queues observed. No hazardous conditions or behavior (e.g., speeding, conflicts) were observed at the intersection.

Project Site Activity
Parking lot occupancy and loading on the project site was observed using video cameras on October 28th from 12 AM to 7 PM. As Table 1 shows, a daily total of 47 vehicles were observed entering or exiting the parking lot--25 entering the parking lot and 22 leaving. The peak hour in the AM for parking lot activity was 5:55 AM to 6:55 AM, with 5 vehicles leaving and 4 vehicles entering.

Table 1: Existing Project Site Activity
Hour Driveway Activity
In Out Total
12:00 AM – 2:55 AM 0 0 0
3:00 AM – 5:50 AM 5 0 5
5:55 AM – 6:55 AM (Peak) 4 5 9
7:00 AM – 9:55 PM 11 7 18
10:00 AM –12:55 PM 4 6 10
1:00 PM – 3:55 PM 1 4 5
4:00 PM – 6:55 PM 0 0 0
Total 25 22 47
Source: Quality Counts Driveway Ins & Outs, October 28th, 2021 (see Appendix B)

PARKING
In general, street parking along Station Avenue and School Street is highly utilized, and little parking turnover was observed along these roadways during the AM peak hours.

The project has frontage along Dixon Court, which includes parking on both sides of the street.

Drivers typically park perpendicular to the curb o the south side of the street and parallel on the north side. During the weekday AM peak period, very little parking turnover was observed (one vehicle left and one vehicle parked in a 15-minute period). Additionally, no employees were observed entering into the project site at 60 Station Avenue or properties surrounding it after parking on Dixon Court: employees appear to use the onsite parking exclusively.

TRANSIT SERVICE
The project site is served by local and regional public transit, including SamTrans (San Mateo County Transit District) bus service and Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) rail service.

60 Station Avenue Draft Transportation Study
June 27, 2022 Existing Conditions
Kittelson & Associates 10
 The closest SamTrans bus stop is 0.2 miles away from the proejct site at Junipero Serra Boulevard & School Street. This stop serves the 25 bus route and the 121 bus route. o The 25 bus is a schoolday only bus route; it travels south to westbound on weekday mornings and east to northbound on weekday afternoons to serve school trips. .
o The 121 bus route (Pope/Bellevue – Skyline College) runs about every hour every day with shorter hours on weekends.
 Another bus stop is 0.3 miles away from the project site at Mission Street & School Street, which serves the 24 route & route ECR.
o The 24 bus is a schoolday only bus route; it travels southbound on weekday mornings and northbound on weekday afternoons to serve school trips. o Route ECR runs about every 20 minutes on weekdays and every 30 minutes on weekends along El Camino Real/Misison Street from the Palo Alto Transit Center to the Daly City BART Station.
 The nearest BART stations are accessible via a 1.1 mile or 0.8-mile trip to the Daly City Station or Colma Station, respectively. Weekday peak hour headways range from between 15 minutes (toward San Francisco) to 30 minutes (away from San Francisco) on the four BART lines serving Daly City.

BICYCLE CONDITIONS

BICYCLE FACILITY CLASSIFICATIONS
Bicycle facilities include four classes, primarily based on the level of separation from vehicular traffic.
 Class I bikeway (bicycle path)— This is a dedicated path for people biking and walking that does not permit motorized travel.
 Class II bikeway (bicycle lane)—This is a portion of the roadway network that has been striped and signed for bicycle use. Implementation of Class II bicycle facilities requires sufficient right-of-way between the vehicle stream and the curb or curbside parking. Bicycle lanes are typically used along collector or arterial streets with medium to high traffic volumes, providing additional travel space for bicyclists along busy roadway segments.  Class III bikeway (bicycle route)— This is a bikeway that primarily serves to connect other facilities and destinations in the bikeway network. These routes include signage but do not have roadway markings or striping to indicate reserved space for the bicyclists. Bicyclists traveling on Class III facilities must share travel lanes with vehicle traffic.  Class IV bikeway (cycle track)— This is a dedicated, separated, and protected on-street lane for bicyclists. Cycle tracks (or “protected bicycle lanes”) are typically used along streets with high traffic volumes and high speeds, providing additional protection for bicyclists using vertical separation, such as concrete curb or safe-hit posts.

60 Station Avenue Draft Transportation Study
June 27, 2022 Existing Conditions
Kittelson & Associates 11

EXISTING AND PLANNED BICYCLE FACILITIES
School Street is the only designated existing bicycle facility within the project study area. It is a designated Class III bicycle facility. The Walk Bike Daly City plan was approved and published in February 2020 and includes priority improvements.3 There are no recommended changes to existing bicycle facilities within the project study area.

EXISTING BICYCLE ACTIVITY
Field observations indicated a modest level of bicycle activity in the project study area. In one 15-minute period during field observations in the AM peak hour, about five bicyclists were observed riding through School Street / Station Avenue. A majority of those bicyclists were riding e-bikes (School Street runs uphill from west to east). Some people biking appeared to be school aged. Some were observed biking on the sidewalk.

WALKING CONDITIONS

EXISTING PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
All streets within the vicinity of the project provide continuous, well-maintained sidewalks. The Station Avenue & School Street intersection is an all-way stop-controlled intersection and provides high-visibility marked crosswalks (i.e., ladder striping) across all intersection legs.

Diagonal curb ramps are provided at all crossings within the project area, with the exception of the Station Avenue & School Street intersection. Station Avenue & School Street has diagonal curb ramps with yellow tactile domes on its southern side.

Sidewalk widths on Station Avenue vary. South of the project site, they are approximately 7.5 feet wide on the west side and 9.5 feet wide on the east side. North of the project site, they are approximately 7 feet wide on both sides. The only noticeable obstruction to pedestrians is a utility pole that is placed on the sidewalk right in front of the project site. The utility pole narrows the walkable width of the sidewalk almost by half.

WALKING ACTIVITY
Field observations indicate a high level of pedestrian activity in the project study area in the weekday AM peak hour. In one 15-minute period during field observations in the AM peak hour, there were approximately 15 pedestrians observed walking through the School Street & Station Avenue intersection. Many people walking appeared to be school aged and were walking in the direction of Jefferson High School. Jefferson High School can be accessed by West Cavour Street and Bruno Avenue.

EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS
The nearest fire and police stations to the project site are the following:
 Colma Fire Protection District – 0.6 miles away, southeast, at 50 Reiner Street in Colma  North County Fire Station No. 92 – 1.2 miles away, northeast at 18 Bepler Street in Daly City 3 Available at https://www.walkbikedalycity.org/.

60 Station Avenue Draft Transportation Study
June 27, 2022 Existing Conditions
Kittelson & Associates 12
 Broadmoor Police Department – 0.4 miles away to the west, at 388 88th Street  Daly City Police Department – 0.5 miles away to the west at 333 90th Street During field observations, no emergency vehicles were observed. Station Avenue is a local street that does not serve as a common emergency vehicle route. There is no significant queuing on School Street, and the street would provide ample room for drivers to yield right-of-way to emergency vehicles.

Figure 2. Bicycle Facilities

60 Station Avenue Draft Transportation Study
June 27, 2022 Project Analysis
Kittelson & Associates 13

PROJECT ANALYSIS

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project proposes to construct up to a five-story, 105,000-square-foot self-storage facility, including 1,070 square feet of onsite office and 8,700 square feet of onsite parking. The number and design of storage units is not finalized but would range up to 924 rentable units with an expected average unit size of 70 square feet.

The site plan is presented in Figure 3. Vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian access would be provided on Station Avenue and Dixon Court, with vehicle entrances on Station Avenue and vehicle exits to Dixon Court. The existing perpendicular parking along the south side of Dixon Court would be converted to parallel parking, providing four street parking spaces between the project driveway and the west terminus of Dixon Court and red curb to restrict parking between the driveway and Station Avenue. The existing 70-foot-wide curb cut and driveway on Station Avenue would be replaced with a 24-foot-wide curb cut for driveway access.

As shown in the site plan, the project would provide 12 vehicle parking spaces and a bike rack to park two bicycles.

The project’s garage includes a door with 13-foot-tall clearance, which is sufficient to accommodate a typical 17-foot-long truck (the elevation plan is provided in Appendix B).

60 Station Avenue Draft Transportation Study
June 27, 2022 Project Analysis
Kittelson & Associates 14
Figure 3. Site Plan

60 Station Avenue Draft Transportation Study
June 27, 2022 Project Analysis
Kittelson & Associates 15

PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
Kittelson used published trip generation rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition to determine the estimated trip generation for the project.

Trip generation of the project components were estimated for weekday daily trips and for the weekday AM and PM peak hours. The trip generation rates include trips generated by employees and visitors to the proposed development. Trips for the proposed project were estimated using data provided by ITE and shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Trip Generation Rates
Trip Generation Rates
Land Use ITE
Code
Rate Weekday
Daily
Weekday AM Peak
Hour
Weekday PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
Mini
Warehouse
151 Per
KSF

1.51 60% 40% 0.10 47% 53% 0.17
Source: Kittelson and Associates, Inc., 2022; Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2017.

Notes: KSF denotes thousand square feet
Using the values in Table 2, the proposed trip generation was calculated and compared to the trips observed at the existing facility. This results in a calculation for net-new trips presented in Table 3.

Table 3. Trip Generation Estimates
Trip Generation Estimates
Land Use Size
(KSF)
Weekday
Daily
Weekday AM Peak
Hour
Weekday PM Peak
Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
Existing Uses
Wholesale Sales Facility1 16.8 47 4 5 9 1 3 4
Proposed Uses
Mini Warehouse (ITE
Code 151)
105 159 7 4 11 8 10 18
Net New Trips
Net New Trips 112 3 -1 2 7 7 14
1: Based on observation data (see Table 1)
Source: Kittelson and Associates, Inc., 2022; Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2017.

Notes: KSF denotes thousand square feet
Overall, the proposed use of 60 Station Avenue would result in an increase of 112 weekday daily trips. The proposed project would generate 14 additional trips for the PM peak hour and two added AM peak hour trips.

60 Station Avenue Draft Transportation Study
June 27, 2022 Local Transportation Analysis
Kittelson & Associates 16

LOCAL TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS
The local transportation impact analysis assesses how the study area’s transportation system would operate with the implementation of the proposed project. The topics listed below were analyzed with respect to existing conditions; no long-range cumulative scenarios were developed for local transportation analysis.

SITE ACCESS AND ON-SITE CIRCULATION
The project site plan, presented in Figure 3, shows the proposed project access points. Site vehicle access would include an entry-only access point on Station Avenue and an exit-only access point along Dixon Court. Traffic volumes on both streets are low and vehicles entering or exiting the project would not be expected to conflict with street traffic.

The garage, which includes 13 feet of vertical clearance, would accommodate a typical 17- foot truck. For reference, U-Haul moving trucks require 12 feet of vertical clearance. Therefore, the site can accommodate site traffic.

DRIVEWAY SIGHT DISTANCE
Site vehicle circulation would include entry-only access on Station Avenue and exit-only access along Dixon Court. Sight distance for exiting vehicles is therefore not a concern along Station Avenue. Drivers exiting the site will need sight distance along Dixon Court. Dixon Court is a deadend local street with perpendicular parking along the project frontage and does not serve any through traffic. The driving speeds would be low and would not create sight distance conflict concerns. The curb space between the exiting driveway on Dixon Court and the intersection with Station Avenue would be painted red to restrict parking; this restriction would provide room to accommodate exiting vehicles’ turning movements.

PEDESTRIAN ISSUES
As noted in the Walking Conditions section, the study area includes sidewalks, crosswalks, and curb ramps. As the project site plan (Figure 3) shows, the project will provide sidewalks along its frontage on Station Avenue and Dixon Court. The project does not include any design elements or features that conflict with existing policies, plans, or ordinances related to pedestrian access or facilities.

The project provides sidewalks and a curb ramp at the corner of Station Avenue and Dixon Court, so a person walking could adequately access all other pedestrian facilities, including City sidewalks, surrounding the project site as per City Policy CE-20.4 and City Policy CE-20.7.

BICYCLE ISSUES
The project is not located along any existing or planned bicycle facilities and does not include any design or programmatic features that conflict with any existing policies, plans, or ordinances related to bicycle access or facilities. The project overall complies with the City’s Policy Task CEPage 720 of 737 60 Station Avenue Draft Transportation Study
June 27, 2022 Local Transportation Analysis
Kittelson & Associates 17

20.1, as it would provide adequate infrastructure for its users in the form of sidewalks and driveways. There was very little bicycle activity observed on Station Avenue (the majority of the activity was on School Street, which already includes a Class III Bicycle facility) as well as low driving speeds.

The project would comply with bicycle parking requirements in the California Green Building Code by providing one two-bike rack. The rack would be located along the project’s frontage on the Station Avenue sidewalk and would be readily accessible for people biking to and from the site.

TRANSIT ISSUES
The closest SamTrans bus stop is 0.2 miles away from the site (at 60 Station Avenue) at Junipero Serra Boulevard & School Street. The nearest BART stations are accessible via a 1.1 mile or 0.8- mile trip to the Daly City Station or Colma Stations, respectively. The proposed project would not obstruct, conflict with, or degrade local access to any bus stops or routes. However, bus stops are close enough to provide adequate transit accessibility for project employees or visitors.

PARKING
The project’s parking supply was reviewed and compared to City Municipal Code 17.34.020.

Because the Code does not provide parking minimum specifications for self-storage facilities, the Planning Division has established a parking standard based on requirements for similar uses.

Therefore, staff has applied a parking rate of one space for every 75 storage units. With a maximum proposed 924 units, the project would be required to provide a minimum of 12 parking spaces. The proposed project does include 12 parking spaces; the project supplies sufficient parking to satisfy the requirement.

The project would be required to comply with bicycle parking requirements in the California Green Building Code by providing one two-bike rack. As shown in the site plan in Figure 3, the project meets this requirement. The rack would be located along the project’s frontage on the Station Avenue sidewalk and would be readily accessible for people biking to and from the site.

VEHICLE QUEUEING
The project proposes to provide 12 parking spaces and an onsite (within the garage) loading space. Based on the trip generation estimates (Table 3), the maximum estimate of vehicles coming in at the peak hour for the project site is 8. The project parking supply and the off-street loading area would be more than adequate to serve the peak hour arrivals. Additionally, the enter-only and exit-only access points and one-way traffic flow through the site would help reduce vehicle conflicts.

The garage door can accommodate typical vehicles expected to access the site. Vehicle size relates to storage unit size: larger storage units would attract trips in larger trucks. With an expected average unit size of 70 square feet, the project would attract primarily personal vehicles and the occasional smaller (10-foot-long or 15-foot-long) moving trucks, which could be accommodated in the project garage. No parking demand/supply mismatch is expected, and as a result vehicle queues are not expected.

60 Station Avenue Draft Transportation Study
June 27, 2022 Local Transportation Analysis
Kittelson & Associates 18
Therefore, no significant queuing issues would be expected for vehicles accessing the project site.

HAZARDS AND EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS
As described in the Emergency Vehicle Access section on page 11, the project would not have adverse effect on emergency vehicle access.

60 Station Avenue Draft Transportation Study
June 27, 2022 Transportation Impact Analysis
Kittelson & Associates 19

TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS
This section assesses how the study area’s transportation system would operate with construction of the proposed project. The analysis includes effects that would result in significant impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines.

CEQA SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Appendix G Environmental Checklist Form describes four recommended categories of impacts related to transportation and traffic. These categories are recommended for formal environmental review of projects but are referenced as appropriate for this TIA.

The proposed project’s impact would be considered significant if it would:
a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. b. Conflict with or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b). c. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). d. Result in inadequate emergency access.

Significance criteria “b” is related to the implementation of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as the primary performance metric consistent with Senate Bill 743 as described below.

SENATE BILL 743
Senate Bill 743 (SB 743) was signed into law in September 2013. Senate Bill 743 (Steinberg, 2013) required changes to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines regarding the analysis of transportation impacts. The purpose of SB 743 is to promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses.

Prior to implementation of SB 743, CEQA transportation analyses of individual projects typically determined impacts on the circulation system in terms of roadway delay and/or capacity usage at specific locations, such as street intersections or freeway segments. The SB 743 changes include the elimination of auto delay, level of service (LOS), and other similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion as a basis for determining significant impacts.

Under SB 743, a project’s effect on automobile delay shall not constitute a significant environmental impact. Therefore, level of service (LOS) and other similar vehicle delay or capacity metrics can no longer serve as transportation impact metrics for CEQA analysis. The California Office of Planning and Research (OPR) updated the CEQA Guidelines and provided a final technical advisory in December 2018, which recommends vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts under CEQA. The California Natural Resources Agency certified and adopted the CEQA Guidelines including the Guidelines section

60 Station Avenue Draft Transportation Study
June 27, 2022 Transportation Impact Analysis
Kittelson & Associates 20
implementing SB 743. The changes have been approved by the Office of the Administrative Law and are now in effect.

Revisions to CEQA transportation analysis requirements do not preclude the application of local general plan policies, municipal and zoning codes, conditions of approval, or any other planning requirements through a city’s planning approval process. These requirements aim to ensure adequate operation of the transportation system in terms of transportation congestion measures related to vehicular delay and roadway capacity.

PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS
CRITERION A: CONFLICT WITH APPLICABLE PLAN, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY
The proposed project replaces an existing wholesale sales facility with a self-storage facility along a local roadway. Relationship to applicable plans, ordinances, and policies is described below:
 Circulation system: The proposed project and vehicular access provided do not conflict with any characteristics of local roadways as described in the Traffic conditions, circulation, and hazards sections of this report.
 Transit system: The proposed project would not obstruct, conflict with, or degrade local access to any bus stops or routes. The project would be accessible to existing transit service.  Bicycle facilities: The project is not located along any existing or planned bicycle facilities and does not include any design or programmatic features that would conflict with any existing policies, plans, or ordinances related to bicycle access or facilities.  Pedestrian facilities: As noted in the Walking Conditions section, the study area includes sidewalks, crosswalks, and curb ramps. The project would provide sidewalks along its frontage on Station Avenue and Dixon Court. The project does not include any design elements or features that conflict with existing policies, plans, or ordinances related to pedestrian access or facilities.

Impact Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, the project’s impact is considered less than significant.

CRITERION B: VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED
The second significance criterion (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision b) is related to the implementation of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as the primary performance metric. The following criteria are used to assess a significant impact related to VMT consistent with the City of Daly City’s Draft Transportation Analysis Guidelines:
 A project meeting one of the City’s screening criteria (listed below) may be presumed to have a less-than-significant impact:
o Small projects

60 Station Avenue Draft Transportation Study
June 27, 2022 Transportation Impact Analysis
Kittelson & Associates 21
o Provision of affordable housing
o Local-serving retail
o Project located in a high-quality transit area (HQTA) o Project located in a low VMT area
 Residential projects with a VMT/capita or office projects with a VMT/employee greater than 15 percent below the corresponding existing San Mateo County regional average may indicate a significant impact.
 Retail projects causing a net increase in total VMT may indicate a significant impact.  For other land use projects, the City will make a determination of applicable thresholds on a case-by-case basis based on the land use type, project description, and setting. The determination of the applicable threshold will be made at the time of each application review.

PROJECT ANALYSIS
Because the proposed project is not a residential, office, or retail project, none of the abovelisted evaluation measures and thresholds directly apply. However, self-storage most closely resembles retail: a majority of trips are made by customers rather than by employees. Therefore, the VMT evaluation below assesses whether, per the TIS guidelines, the total VMT for the region with and without the project would increase. If so, a significant impact occurs.

The City of Daly City maintains a travel demand model which can be used to evaluate the VMT changes associated with many types of land uses. A comparison of travel model analysis with and without the project would theoretically evaluate the proposed project against this criterion.

However, the city’s travel demand model does not include self-storage facilities and therefore does not provide information on the specialized trips associated with these facilities.

Therefore, two evaluation methods were determined:

1. Obtain market study information for the proposed facility or a similar facility to identify the expected geographic extents of a customer base. Use market study information and identify nearby self-storage facilities to illustrate the potential for new or replacement trips.

2. Compare existing trips at the project site to estimated new trips and, along with average trip length estimates, determine whether an increase or decrease in total VMT is likely.

Market Analysis
For the first method, Kittelson obtained a market analysis study for a proposed nearby selfstorage facility: 800 Cesar Chavez Street in San Francisco—included as Appendix C. That study defined a primary trade area (PTA) of five miles, meaning that the customer base will be drawn from a roughly five mile radius. This PTA is an indication that self-storage functions much like a local-serving retail use, drawing a majority of its customer base from a nearby local area.

As of December 2021, there are 20 existing self-storage facilities within a five-mile radius of the project site. Figure 4 shows these along with the proposed project. To analyze the potential impact the proposed project would have on access and travel distances for residents within the PTA, Kittelson analyzed access for residents within the PTA.

60 Station Avenue Draft Transportation Study
June 27, 2022 Transportation Impact Analysis
Kittelson & Associates 22
Population estimates were obtained from the 2015-2019 American Communities Survey for Census block groups within the five-mile radius depicted in Figure 4. Census block groups were subdivided based on the closest self-storage facility, and a population-weighted average distance to the nearest self-storage facility was calculated for the PTA. Without the proposed project, the mean distance to the nearest self-storage facility for residents in the PTA is 0.88 miles.

The portion of the population within the PTA by nearest available self-storage facility is given in Table 4.

Table 4: Population by Self Storage Access Distance, Primary Trade Area Distance to Nearest Self Storage (mi) Percent of Population 0 – 0.5 39%

0.5 - 1 26%
1 – 2.5 29%

2.5 – 3.6 5%

3.6+ 0
The same access and trip length characteristics were calculated with the addition of the proposed project. The results were virtually unchanged. The weighted average distance to the nearest facility would be 0.88 miles and the share of the population by distance to nearest facility would be the same as in Table 4.

The addition of the proposed project would provide marginally better access to self-storage facilities for the population within the PTA. The access distances for Census block groups and subgroups with the proposed project is shown in Figure 4.

The analysis shows that a nominal portion of the population would have a reduced distance to their nearest facility with the project but not enough to significantly affect the statistics for the full PTA. Likewise, were this analysis to be expanded to a regional basis (beyond the five-mile radius PTA), the effects would be further muted. The addition of the proposed project shows no significant impact to self-storage access or expected trip patterns on a regional basis. The proposed project would not increase regional VMT.

Comparison of Trip Counts and Lengths
Table 3 in the Project Trip Generation section presented the existing and estimated new project trips at the project site. The existing land use generates approximately 47 trips per day, and the proposed project would be expected to generate 159 trips per day.

The available data do not account for a breakdown of employee versus visitor trips. Trips to and from the existing wholesale/sales facility would be a mix of employee trips and delivery trips. Trips to and from the proposed project would be a mix of employee trips and customer trips.

An estimate is that half of the observed existing trips are employee trips. The Daly City travel demand model provides an average VMT per employee of 11.61 for employment uses within the project’s transportation analysis zone (TAZ). Applying these estimates, 24 daily trips of 11.61 miles generates 279 daily vehicle miles traveled. The remainder of trips to and from the project site would be truck delivery trips, which the City’s analysis guidelines indicate should be excluded from VMT analysis.

60 Station Avenue Draft Transportation Study
June 27, 2022 Transportation Impact Analysis
Kittelson & Associates 23
The majority of trips at the proposed project would be made by customers. There would be very few employees at the site (1 or 2) on any given day. Based on the market analysis presented in the preceding section, the average trip length to the nearest self-storage facility in the project area is 0.88 miles. However, customers may choose from available options within their PTA, and not all would choose the nearest facility, so an average trip length of double the average or 1.8 miles may be reasonable. The 159 daily trips of 1.8 miles each would generate 286 daily vehicle miles traveled. Since the project would be mostly replacing longer employee trips with shorter customer trips, the total VMT change would not be expected to be significant.

Further, the above analysis does not account for the fact that most or all of the proposed project customer trips would be replacement trips rather than new trips. The market analysis referenced in the preceding section and included in Appendix D indicate that the demand for self-storage facilities is derived from residential population and density. Therefore, most of the estimated project trips would likely be replacement trips rather than newly generated trips and would not add to VMT in the city or region.

Impact Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, the project’s impact is considered less than significant.

60 Station Avenue Draft Transportation Study
June 27, 2022 Transportation Impact Analysis
Kittelson & Associates 24
Figure 4. Self-Storage Facilities

60 Station Avenue Draft Transportation Study
June 27, 2022 Transportation Impact Analysis
Kittelson & Associates 25
Figure 5: Distance to Self-Storage Facilities

60 Station Avenue Draft Transportation Study
June 27, 2022 Transportation Impact Analysis
Kittelson & Associates 26
CRITERION C: GEOMETRIC DESIGN AND INCOMPATIBLE USE HAZARDS The type of land use included as part of the proposed project is similar to existing and surrounding uses on Station Avenue and School Street, which are zoned for office, mixed use, and residential per the 2030 General Plan. The project site plan includes the provision of offstreet parking and would not attract vehicle types or sizes that could not be accommodated by the roadway network or site circulation plan.

The sight distance and circulation were reviewed in the Local Transportation Analysis section and do not present any hazards.

Impact Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, the project’s impact is considered less than significant.

CRITERION D: EMERGENCY ACCESS
As described in the Emergency Vehicle Access section, the project is not located along a major emergency vehicle route or in close proximity to any fire stations, police departments, hospitals or other emergency service dispatchers. The street network would provide adequate emergency access to the project.

Impact Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, the project’s impact is considered less than significant.

60 Station Avenue Draft Transportation Study
June 27, 2022 Transportation Impact Analysis
Kittelson & Associates Page 27
Appendix A: Scope of Work

60 Station Avenue Draft Transportation Study
June 27, 2022 Transportation Impact Analysis
Kittelson & Associates Page 28
Appendix B Elevation Sheet

60 Station Avenue Draft Transportation Study
June 27, 2022 Transportation Impact Analysis
Kittelson & Associates Page 29
Appendix C Turning Movement Counts

60 Station Avenue Draft Transportation Study
June 27, 2022 Transportation Impact Analysis
Kittelson & Associates Page 30
Appendix D: Self Storage Market Study

STEVE COURTER WAY

EXISTING CURB CUT

SADDLE BACK

CARTER STREET

COW PALACE
SYUFY

MARTIN STREET
EVA
A
EVA

FUTURE STREET CONNECTION
C
B

FUTURE STREET CONNECTION

UNIT COUNTS
PARCEL 4 STORY
A
B
C
TOTAL
120
20 (2 ST)
112
252
LEGEND

COMMON USABLE OPEN SPACE
A
B
C
INCOME RESTRICTED APARTMENTS PH 1

SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
INCOME RESTRICTED APARTMENTS PH 2
B B
A
D
D
E
E
A
© SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INC, 2021
No Copies, transmissions, reproductions, or electronic manipulation of any portion of these drawings in whole or in part are to be made without the express permission of SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INCORPORATED. All design indicated within these drawings are property of SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INCORPORATED. All copyrights reserved © 2018.

Carter Street / Martin Street Apartments
Daly City, CA
A1.00

SITE PLAN
07/07/2022
0' 30' 60' 120'
TRUE
NORTH

PROJECT
NORTH

© SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INC, 2021
No Copies, transmissions, reproductions, or electronic manipulation of any portion of these drawings in whole or in part are to be made without the express permission of SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INCORPORATED. All design indicated within these drawings are property of SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INCORPORATED. All copyrights reserved © 2018.

Carter Street / Martin Street Apartments
Daly City, CA
A2.00

SECTIONS
06/14/2022
0' 10' 20' 40'
A2.00 1" = 20'-0"
1 SECTION A
A2.00 1" = 20'-0"
2 SECTION B

© SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INC, 2021
No Copies, transmissions, reproductions, or electronic manipulation of any portion of these drawings in whole or in part are to be made without the express permission of SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INCORPORATED. All design indicated within these drawings are property of SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INCORPORATED. All copyrights reserved © 2018.

Carter Street / Martin Street Apartments
Daly City, CA
A2.01

SECTIONS
06/14/2022
0' 5' 20' 10'
A2.01 1" = 10'-0"
1 SECTION D
A2.01 1" = 10'-0"
2 SECTION E