Daly City City Council
January 10, 2022

UNIT JR-2
UNIT 1A UNIT 1A
UNIT 2C UNIT 2C UNIT 1B
UNIT 2B
UNIT 1A
UNIT 3A UNIT 1A UNIT 1A UNIT 1A
UNIT 2E-2
UNIT 2C UNIT 2C UNIT 1B UNIT 2E-2
UNIT 2A-1
UNIT 2A-1
UNIT JR-2
UNIT 2A-1
UNIT 2A-1
UNIT 1C-1
UNIT 3B
UNIT 2A-1
UNIT 1A UNIT 1A UNIT 3A
UNIT 2A-1 UNIT 2A-1 UNIT 2A-1
UNIT 1C-2
UNIT JR-1
UNIT 2E-1
UNIT JR-1 UNIT 2E-1
UNIT 1A
A3.1
1 A3.1 2
A3.0
2 1 A3.0
UNIT 1C-1
UNIT 2A-1
UNIT 3A
STAIR
3'-0"
UNIT 1A
© 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 © 2021. 1/16" = 1'-0"

SERRAMONTE DEL REY, PARCEL B

DALY CITY, CA
A2.5
5TH FLOOR PLAN
4/21/2021
TRUE
NORTH
0' 8' 16' 32'

T R
UNIT JR-2
UNIT 1A UNIT 1A UNIT 1A
UNIT 2A-2 UNIT 2D UNIT 1B UNIT 2B
UNIT JR-3
UNIT 3A UNIT 1A UNIT 1A

AMENITY

ROOF TERRACE
UNIT 2D UNIT 2D
UNIT 1C-1
UNIT 2F
UNIT 2A-1
UNIT 1A UNIT 1A UNIT 3A
UNIT 2A-2 UNIT 2A-2
UNIT JR-1
UNIT 2E-2
UNIT 2E-2 UNIT JR-1
A3.1
1 A3.1 2
A3.0
2 1 A3.0
UNIT 1C-1
UNIT 2A-1
UNIT 3A
UNIT 2A-2 UNIT 1C-2
UNIT 2A-1
STAIR
UNIT 1A
UNIT JR-2
UNIT 1A
STAIR
UNIT 1D
UNIT 1D
UNIT 1D
© 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 © 2021. 1/16" = 1'-0"

SERRAMONTE DEL REY, PARCEL B

DALY CITY, CA
A2.6
6TH FLOOR PLAN
4/21/2021
TRUE
NORTH
0' 8' 16' 32'

A3.1
1 A3.1 2
A3.0
2 1 A3.0
STAIR
STAIR
© 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 © 2021. 1/16" = 1'-0"

SERRAMONTE DEL REY, PARCEL B

DALY CITY, CA
A2.7

ROOF PLAN
4/21/2021
TRUE
NORTH
0' 8' 16' 32'

COMPOSITE WD. SIDING PLASTER 3
PTD. MTL. SUNSHADE
ALUM. PANEL

TILE CLADDING
WD. TRELLIS
MTL. SUNSHADE

VINYL WINDOW
PLASTER 3
COMPOSITE WD. SIDING
NORTH

ACCESS WAY
BOARD FORMED CONCRETE TILE CLADDING PTD. MTL. RAILING
ALUM. PANEL PLASTER 3

COMPOSITE
WD. SIDING
PLASTER 1
PLASTER 3

BOARD FORMED CONCRETE

STONE CLADDING

CEMENTITIOUS
PANELS

PLASTER FRAME
PTD. MTL. SUNSHADES

VINYL WINDOWS

ENTRY DRIVE
PTD. MTL. CANOPIES
PTD. MTL. ALUM. STOREFRONT

BOARD FORMED CONCRETE
© 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 © 2021. 1/16" = 1'-0"

SERRAMONTE DEL REY, PARCEL B

DALY CITY, CA
A3.0

EAST & NORTH ELEVATION
4/21/2021
A3.0 1/16" = 1'-0"
1 EAST ELEVATION (OVERLOOK PARK)
A3.0 1/16" = 1'-0"
2 NORTH ELEVATION (SERRAMONTE BLVD.)

VINYL WINDOW
PLASTER 1
ALUM. PANEL
PLASTER 3
PLASTER 2
PAINTED MTL. TRELLIS
PTD. MTL. FASCIA

CEMENTITIOUS SIDING
PLASTER 3

CORTEN PANELS
PLASTER 2
PTD. STEEL
PLASTER 3
PTD. MTL. RAILING

JULIET BALCONY
WD. TRELLIS
COMPOSITE WD. SIDING
PTD. MTL. TRELLIS

TILE CLADDING
PLASTER 3

ENTRY DRIVE
PREFINISHED ALUM.

STOREFRONT

PAINTED METAL CANOPY

WITH SIGNAGE

OVERLOOK PARK
73'-6" TO TOP OF PARAPET
EL. 481.0'
AVG. GRADE ELEVATION
PLASTER 1
PTD. MTL. SUNSHADE
PLASTER 3
PTD. MTL RAILING
PTD. MTL. TRELLIS

STONE CLADDING

ANODIZED

STOREFRONT

GLAZING
PLASTER 3

CEMENTITIOUS PANEL

CORTEN PANEL
COMPOSITE PTD. MTL. SUNSHADE
WD. SIDING
ALUM. PANEL

TILE CLADDING
SERRAMONTE BLVD. NORTH DRIVE
73'-6" TO TOP OF PARAPET
EL. 481.0'
AVG. GRADE ELEVATION

RETAIL SIGNAGE / BANNERS

PAINTED METAL CANOPY WITH SIGNAGE
PREFINISHED ALUM.

STOREFRONT
© 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 © 2021. 1/16" = 1'-0"

SERRAMONTE DEL REY, PARCEL B

DALY CITY, CA
A3.1

SOUTH & WEST ELEVATION
4/21/2021
A3.1 1/16" = 1'-0"
1 SOUTH ELEVATION (NORTH DRIVE)
A3.1 1/16" = 1'-0"
2 WEST ELEVATION (ENTRY DRIVE)

ENTRY DRIVE TERRACE

OVERLOOK PARK

RETAIL PARKING

PARKING

RESIDENTIAL
481.0'
(AVG. GRADE ELEVATION)
73'-6" TO TOP OF PARAPET

RESIDENTIAL

COURTYARD

PARKING

PARKING

BIKE PARKING

AMENITY

NORTH DRIVE
73'-6" TO TOP OF PARAPET
481.0' (AVG. GRADE ELEVATION)
© 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 © 2021. 1/16" = 1'-0"

SERRAMONTE DEL REY, PARCEL B

DALY CITY, CA
A4.0

BUILDING SECTIONS
4/21/2021
A4.0 1/16" = 1'-0"
1 EAST - WEST SECTION (FACING NORTH)
A4.0 1/16" = 1'-0"
2 NORTH - SOUTH SECTION (FACING EAST)
A
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 © 2021. 1/8" = 1'-0"

SERRAMONTE DEL REY, PARCEL B

DALY CITY, CA
A5.0

UNIT PLANS
4/21/2021
A5.0 1/8" = 1'-0"
1 UNIT ST/JR-1
A5.0 1/8" = 1'-0"
2 UNIT ST/JR-2
A5.0 1/8" = 1'-0"
3 UNIT 1A
A5.0 1/8" = 1'-0"
4 UNIT 1B
A5.0 1/8" = 1'-0"
5 UNIT 1C
A5.0 1/8" = 1'-0"
6 UNIT 2A-1
A5.0 1/8" = 1'-0"
8 UNIT 2B
A5.0 1/8" = 1'-0"
9 UNIT 2C
A5.0 1/8" = 1'-0"
10 UNIT 2D
A5.0 1/8" = 1'-0"
11 UNIT 2E
A5.0 1/8" = 1'-0"
12 UNIT 3A
A5.0 1/8" = 1'-0"
13 UNIT 3B
A5.0 1/8" = 1'-0"
7 UNIT 2A-2
A5.0 1/8" = 1'-0"
14 UNIT 2F
A5.0 1/8" = 1'-0"
15 UNIT 1D

DALY CITY INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM

JUHSD COUNCIL COMMITTEE
DATE: July 6, 2021
TO: JUHSD Council Committee
Juslyn Manalo, Mayor
Glenn Sylvester, Councilmember

FROM: Carmelisa Morales, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment GPA-04-21-014998
Planned Development PD-04-21-014997
Design Review DR-04-21-015000
Major Subdivision SUB-04-21-014999
699 Serramonte Boulevard – Serramonte Del Rey Campus Redevelopment ______________________________________________________________________________

BACKGROUND
The Serramonte Del Rey Precise Plan (PD-31) was approved for the Serramonte Del Rey Campus located at 699 Serramonte Boulevard in Daly City in 1985 and allowed up to 175 residential units and approximately 700,000 square feet (sq. ft.) of office space. An amendment to the Precise Plan (PD-31A) was approved in January 2020 for the northwest section of the site (Parcel A) to allow for the construction of a JUHSD faculty and staff housing project which is currently under construction.

The property currently consists of a main building occupied by JUHSD offices and non-profit organizations, temporary buildings, surface parking, and construction activity for JUHSD faculty and staff housing. There is also a school garden located in the southwest corner of the project site. This garden was started 20 years ago and used by JUHSD for adult education as a demonstration garden. Since the garden is used by JUHSD for educational purposes, members of the public must fill out volunteer and liability forms to use the garden.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Staff has received an application from Jefferson Union High School District (JUHSD) that proposes a new Precise Plan for the campus (see Attachment A – Draft Precise Plan). The proposed Precise Plan would allow for the redevelopment of the campus to include up to 1,235 units of affordable and market-rate rental housing, up to 14,000 sq. ft. of neighborhood-serving retail/commercial uses, and 1,400 sq. ft. allocated for a Head Start childcare facility. The existing garden would be removed, but JUHSD intends to install raised planter beds at their new adult education building located at 123 Edgemont Drive. The site would be divided into seven development parcels and additional street parcels with public access easements. Build-out of the site is anticipated to be over a ten-year period.

JUHSD is also seeking design review approval for the proposed development on Parcel B, which would include a six-story, 201-unit mixed-use building with approximately 345 parking spaces and approximately 8,000 sq. ft. of retail space, a park, play structure, and various amenities for residents (see Attachment B – Parcel B Project Plans). The building would have a maximum height of 74 feet to the top of the parapet (85 feet to the top of the elevator shaft).

GPA-04-21-014998, PD-04-21-014997, DR-04-21-015000, SUB-04-21-014999 June 6, 2021 699 Serramonte Boulevard – Serramonte Del Rey Campus Redevelopment Project Page 2 The proposed project requires an amendment to the General Plan to change the designation to Commercial – Mixed Use (C-MU), a new Planned Development due to the significant changes proposed for the site, Design Review and a Major Subdivision. Design review approval for proposed Parcels C through F would occur as subsequent applications.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required for this project. David J. Powers & Associates (DJP&A) has been retained to prepare the EIR. The Notice of Preparation which provides interested parties with the opportunity to provide input regarding the scope and content of the environmental information to be addressed in the EIR was filed with the County and distributed to interested parties on May 6, 2021. Staff received several comments during the 30- day comment period which will be used to develop the scope of the EIR. Staff and DJP&A are currently working with JUHSD to prepare the project description of the EIR and obtain the required information and reports to prepare the EIR. Tribal cultural resources consultation has also started pursuant to the requirements of Senate Bill 18 and Assembly Bill 52.

PRELIMINARY PLAN AND PRECISE PLAN REVIEW
The Preliminary Plan for the proposed project will be scheduled for an upcoming Planning Commission meeting and City Council meeting. At this stage, the Planning Commission and City Council will review the proposed land use, circulation, and overall site design of the proposed project. The Planning Commission may recommend approval, conditional approval, or denial of the Preliminary Plan to the City Council. The Planning Commission’s action will be forwarded to the City Council for approval, conditional approval, or denial.

The project will then move forward to the Precise Plan stage where the applicant will finalize their proposal and make any revisions necessary to address comments from the Planning Commission and City Council. The EIR will also be finalized and circulated pursuant to CEQA.

The final steps of this stage will be a Planning Commission meeting and City Council meeting.

The Planning Commission will make a recommendation on the project and the City Council will make the final determination of approval, conditional approval, or denial of the project.

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
JUHSD also submitted proposed terms for a Development Agreement that will need to be further analyzed by staff and presented to the City Council for approval. The current proposal provides considerations for development phasing, parks and open space requirements, fees, off-site improvements, and most notably affordable housing.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the JUHSD City Council Committee review the information and attachments presented and provide any preliminary comments or concerns.

GPA-04-21-014998, PD-04-21-014997, DR-04-21-015000, SUB-04-21-014999 June 6, 2021 699 Serramonte Boulevard – Serramonte Del Rey Campus Redevelopment Project Page 3 Respectfully submitted,
Carmelisa Morales
Associate Planner
Attachments
Attachment A – Draft Precise Plan
Attachment B – Parcel B Project Plans

1 DALY CITY INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 5, 2021
TO: Affordable Housing Committee
Mayor Juslyn C. Manalo
Councilmember Glenn Sylvester
FROM: Tatum Mothershead, Director of Economic and Community Development Betsy ZoBell, Housing and Community Development Supervisor Lenelle Suliguin, Housing Coordinator

SUBJECT: Serramonte Del Rey Redevelopment/Affordable Housing Staff is seeking comments and direction from the Affordable Housing Committee on the proposed affordable housing elements of the Serramonte Del Rey redevelopment proposed by the Jefferson Union High School District.

Background
The JUHSD Precise Plan envisions a multi-phased project that will result in approximately 1,235 rental residential units. In April, and in anticipation of a development agreement stipulating the terms of the development, the Jefferson Union High School District proposed discussion points for a potential Development Agreement relating to the Precise Plan for the 22 - acre Serramonte Del Rey former high school site (See Attachment A to this report). In addition to a description of project phasing, parking ratios and the schedule for planning entitlements the discussion points for a potential Development Agreement describe how the project will provide affordable housing and meet the terms of the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.

The City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance requires that 10% of the units built in a residential project be designated as Inclusionary Units and made available to lower income households with incomes at or below 80 Percent of the area median. For the JUHSD Precise Plan this would be 124 affordable units..

Additionally, the Ordinance requires that the units shall be provided concurrently with the market rate units and be geographically disbursed in the Project. For a phased development, each phase would be required to include ten percent affordable units.

The provision of affordable housing described in the discussion points for a Potential Development Agreement has implications for the overall Serramonte Del Rey redevelopment site plan. If it is determined that affordable housing arrangements described in the discussion points for a Potential Development Agreement are infeasible or unacceptable to the City, an

2 overall revision of the proposed Precise Plan will be needed in order for the project to meet the requirements of the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.

JUHSD Affordable Housing Proposal For Serramonte Del Rey The discussion points for a Potential Development Agreement for the Serramonte Del Rey campus envision a total of 123 affordable units to be developed pursuant to the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance at build out. Twelve of these units will be provided within the District staff housing complex currently under construction on Parcel A and are subject to the terms of the Affordable Housing Agreement executed in October 2020. The affordable units provided on Parcel A and memorialized in the Affordable Housing Agreement fully comply with the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.

The majority of the Serramonte Del Rey affordable units (100) would be provided on Parcel C and would be constructed after construction of 313 market rate units on Parcels A and B and prior to occupancy of units proposed for Parcels D, E or F. The affordable units on Parcel C would be provided as a stand-alone affordable housing development.

The remaining 11 affordable units would be provided on Parcels E and/or F. The discussion points for a potential Development Agreement indicate that a Certificate of Occupancy for the 100 affordable units on Parcel C would be issued prior to occupancy of any other units at Parcels D, E and F.

Discussion
Inconsistencies with Inclusionary Housing Ordinance
The affordable housing proposed by JUHSD for the Serramonte Del Rey site is not strictly consistent with the terms of the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance in two ways:

1. The City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance requires that affordable units are phased in at the same time as the market rate units. Subsequent to the development of housing for District staff on Parcel A, the JUHSD proposal envisions completion of 201 market rate1 units on Parcel B before any affordable housing units for the general public are developed. The result of this phasing is that the 20 inclusionary units required from the 200 units developed on Parcel B, would be delayed for an estimated two years until the 100 affordable units on Parcel C are constructed.

2. The City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance requires that affordable units are physically distributed equally throughout a development. In the JUHSD proposal, the majority of the affordable units would be concentrated on one of six parcels.

Other Considerations
1 The District’s Discussion Points reference the possibility that the 201 units within Parcel B may be developed as Moderate Income housing. A decision about this will be made later in the development process.

3 x Affordable Housing Finance - As general rule, affordable housing developments of the sort envisioned for Parcel C require significant local jurisdiction subsidy in order to be financially feasible, typically a minimum of $50,000 per unit. Since the affordable units are required under the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, it is not anticipated that the City would provide any forms of financial subsidy to the project. JUHSD and/or the developer selected to build the affordable units would be responsible for raising the necessary subsidy financing to complete the affordable housing development. The City may wish to emphasize this point in the development agreement. x Selection of Affordable Housing Developer - The JUHSD has not selected a developer for the 100 affordable units on Parcel C. The City may wish, as a condition of the Development Agreement, to set basic criteria for the selection of the Parcel C developer as well as confirmation of the proposed project’s overall development feasibility. x Project Phasing - The phasing of units described in the discussion points for a potential Development Agreement does not specifically limit construction of Parcels D, E and/or F until the affordable units within Parcel C have a Certificate of Occupancy. The City may wish to impose stronger restrictions and conditions on the construction of Parcels D, E and or F relative to the development of affordable units on Parcel C. As drafted, the discussion points for a potential Development Agreement could permit construction of units on Parcels D, E and F before construction and occupancy of the affordable units on Parcel C are completed and/or occupied. Rather than linking occupancy of units within Parcels D, E and/or F to the Certificate of Occupancy for Parcel C, the City might want to link issuance of building permit for these latter phases to the Parcel C Certificate of Occupancy.
x Income Target Clarification - The discussion points to potential Development Agreement make reference to certain units affordable housing at moderate income, an income target not referenced in the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance for rental housing. The purpose of this income target needs clarification.

x Obligations and In Lieu Fee - It is not clear from the discussion points to a potential Development Agreement what will happen to the affordable housing obligation created by Parcel B development in the event the 100 percent affordable development envisioned for Parcel C does not go forward. Staff recommends the Development Agreement include language to ensure Parcel B affordable obligations are met regardless of the Parcel C development status. One option would be to require the developer to post a bond that would result in payment of the estimated $9 million alternative in lieu fee associated with Parcel B in the event the 100 affordable are not built by a specified date.

Recommendation
When we meet on October 18 staff seeks the Committee’s comments and direction on the proposed phasing and physical distribution of affordable units proposed plan for providing affordable units within the Serramonte Del Rey redevelopment project.

DALY CITY INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM

JUHSD COUNCIL COMMITTEE
DATE: December 15, 2021
TO: JUHSD Council Committee
Juslyn Manalo, Mayor
Glenn Sylvester, Councilmember

FROM: Carmelisa Morales Lopez, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment GPA-04-21-014998
Planned Development PD-04-21-014997
Design Review DR-04-21-015000
Major Subdivision SUB-04-21-014999
699 Serramonte Boulevard – Serramonte Del Rey Campus Redevelopment ______________________________________________________________________________

UPDATES
A joint Affordable Housing Committee and Jefferson Union High School District (JUHSD) Council Committee meeting was held on October 18, 2021. The JUHSD Council Committee discussed the project with staff and the applicant and provided feedback. The Committee requested additional information related to various topics such as affordable housing, building height, finances and fiscal benefits for the City, open space, the garden on-site, traffic, and tribal consultation. The Committee also requested a zoning comparison of the 1985 Serramonte Del Rey Precise Plan to the proposed Precise Plan. JUHSD provided their responses (see Attachment A – JUHSD Comments and Responses) to the City Council prior to the October 25, 2021 City Council meeting. Staff also prepared the requested zoning comparison which is included as Attachment B – Serramonte Del Rey Campus Zoning Comparison. There was not enough time to discuss the affordable housing component of the project. The Affordable Housing Committee meeting was rescheduled to November 15, 2021.

At the October 25, 2021 City Council meeting, JUHSD presented their project and provided updates and responses to the City Council and public’s feedback from the September 27, 2021 City Council meeting. After receiving public comment, the City Council continued review of the Preliminary Plan to the January 10, 2022 City Council meeting to allow for additional time for the City Council to review the project and public comments and the Affordable Housing Committee to meet with the applicant to discuss the Affordable Housing Plan.

At the November 15, 2021 Affordable Housing Committee meeting, the Committee discussed the project’s Affordable Housing Plan with the applicant and staff. The Committee requested additional information from the applicant and another meeting to continue discussions.

Today’s meeting is a joint meeting between the JUHSD City Council Committee and Affordable Housing Committee.

BACKGROUND
The Serramonte Del Rey Precise Plan (Planned Development 31 (PD-31)), the zoning for the Serramonte Del Rey campus, was approved in 1985 and allowed up to 175 residential units and

GPA-04-21-014998, PD-04-21-014997, DR-04-21-015000, SUB-04-21-014999 December 15, 2021 699 Serramonte Boulevard – Serramonte Del Rey Campus Redevelopment Project Page 2 approximately 700,000 square feet (sq. ft.) of office space within the campus area. The General Plan land use designation for the campus is Commercial – Office (C-O) which is compatible with the uses permitted in the 1985 Precise Plan. The hillside areas surrounding the campus are designated for Open Space Preservation (OSP) as shown below. The project area is located within the purple dashed box.

In January 2020, the City Council approved an amendment to the Precise Plan (PD-31A) for the northwest section of the Serramonte Del Rey campus to allow for the construction of a 122-unit (110 market rate and 12 affordable apartment units) housing project for JUHSD faculty, staff, and their families (Parcel A). The approval also included an amendment to the General Plan to change the land use designation of the site to Residential – High Density (R-HD). This project is currently under construction and is expected to be completed in early 2022.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
In April 2021, staff received an application from JUHSD that proposes a new Precise Plan for the 22-acre campus (see Attachment C – Draft Precise Plan).

Precise Plan
Figure 2.1 below from the Precise Plan shows the campus at full build-out as proposed. JUHSD anticipates build out to take 10-15 years.

GPA-04-21-014998, PD-04-21-014997, DR-04-21-015000, SUB-04-21-014999 December 15, 2021 699 Serramonte Boulevard – Serramonte Del Rey Campus Redevelopment Project Page 3 The Precise Plan would allow the campus to be redeveloped to include the following:
• 1,235 units of affordable and market-rate rental housing (inclusive of 122-unit apartment building under construction on Parcel A). Minimum of 10 percent would be affordable housing as required by the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. • Up to 14,000 square feet (sq. ft.) of neighborhood-serving retail/commercial uses • Building heights ranging from 77 to 150 feet. Some buildings would be required to be stepped back at a maximum of 55 feet.
• New Head Start childcare facility on Parcel C
• Public recreational trails and parks (Central Green and Overlook Park) • Demonstration garden proposed for removal. JUHSD plans to install raised planter beds at their new adult education building located at 123 Edgemont Drive, formerly Westmoor Park. The Office of the State Architect is processing the adult education building project. • Seven development parcels and additional street parcels with public access easements Parcel B Development
JUHSD is also seeking design review approval for the proposed development on Parcel B (see Attachment D – Parcel B Project Plans; Landscape Plan from Attachment D also provided below), which would include:

Parcel A Parcel B
Parcel F
Parcel D
Parcel C
Parcel E

GPA-04-21-014998, PD-04-21-014997, DR-04-21-015000, SUB-04-21-014999 December 15, 2021 699 Serramonte Boulevard – Serramonte Del Rey Campus Redevelopment Project Page 4 • Six-story mixed-use building with approximately 201 market rate apartment units, 345 parking spaces, 8,000 sq. ft. of retail space, and various residential amenities • A park that would include a play structure. JUHSD has also informed staff that they plan to add a community garden within the park, but it is not in the current development plans for Parcel B submitted to the City.

REQUIRED ENTITLEMENTS
The proposed project requires the following entitlements:
• Amendment to General Plan to change the land use designation to Commercial – Mixed Use
• New Planned Development
• Design Review for proposed Parcel B development
• Major Subdivision
• Certification of the Environmental Impact Report
Design review approval for proposed Parcels C through F would occur as subsequent applications.

GPA-04-21-014998, PD-04-21-014997, DR-04-21-015000, SUB-04-21-014999 December 15, 2021 699 Serramonte Boulevard – Serramonte Del Rey Campus Redevelopment Project Page 5

PHASING PLAN
Figure 7.1 below shows the phasing plan for the development proposed in the Precise Plan. As mentioned in the sections above, the JUHSD faculty and staff housing project (Parcel A) is under construction. The proposed development on Parcel B is the next project slated for construction.

TIMELINE
The following timeline outlines events and activities related to the proposed project:
1985 Original Precise Plan (PD-31) approved by City Council 2001 Garden for JUHSD Adult Education course started (Source: JUHSD); locally known as the Serramonte Therapeutic Day School Garden. 2019 Garden listed as a “Community Garden” by San Mateo County without the knowledge/permission of JUHSD. Designation was later removed. (Source: JUHSD)
Jan. 2020 PD-31A, General Plan Amendment, and JUHSD Faculty & Housing Project (Parcel A) approved by City Council
July – Oct. 2020 JUHSD submitted Pre-Application for proposed Precise Plan. Staff provided preliminary feedback to JUHSD on proposal.

Oct. – Nov. 2020 JUHSD conducted neighborhood and community outreach for proposed Precise Plan (Source: serramontedelrey.org)

GPA-04-21-014998, PD-04-21-014997, DR-04-21-015000, SUB-04-21-014999 December 15, 2021 699 Serramonte Boulevard – Serramonte Del Rey Campus Redevelopment Project Page 6 Dec. 2020 JUHSD conducted Community Outreach Meetings for proposed Precise Plan
April 2021 Entitlement Application for proposed Precise Plan and Parcel B development submitted
May – June 2021 Notice of Preparation Comment Period for Environmental Impact Report.

Public Scoping Meeting conducted on May 19, 2021
July 2021 JUHSD City Council Committee Meeting (see Attachment E – July 6, 2021 JUHSD City Council Committee Meeting Staff Report)
Aug. 3, 2021 Planning Commission Review of Preliminary Plan (Recommended Approval)
Sept. 27, 2021 City Council Review of Preliminary Plan (Continued to Date Certain) Oct. 18, 2021 City Council JUHSD & Affordable Housing Committee Meeting Oct. 25, 2021 City Council Review of Preliminary Plan (Continued to Date Certain) Nov. 15, 2021 City Council Affordable Housing Committee Meeting Dec. 15, 2021 City Council JUHSD & Affordable Housing Committee Meeting Jan. 10, 2022 City Council Review of Preliminary Plan (Scheduled)

ZONING & GENERAL PLAN
As discussed in the previous sections above, JUHSD is proposing to redevelop the campus into a new commercial-mixed use neighborhood. The proposed Precise Plan would create a new Planned Development for the campus.

Regarding the General Plan, the proposed Precise Plan would allow commercial uses on the ground level and residential uses on the upper levels of buildings proposed on each parcel with the exception of the future Head Start facility on Parcel C. JUHSD is therefore requesting to change the land use designation on the entire campus to Commercial – Mixed Use (C-MU).

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
David J. Powers & Associates (DJP&A) has been retained to prepare the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The EIR is currently being prepared and must be circulated and finalized prior to Precise Plan review of this project. Tribal cultural resources consultation was also completed pursuant to the requirements of Senate Bill 18 and Assembly Bill 52. Staff did not receive any

GPA-04-21-014998, PD-04-21-014997, DR-04-21-015000, SUB-04-21-014999 December 15, 2021 699 Serramonte Boulevard – Serramonte Del Rey Campus Redevelopment Project Page 7 consultation requests from the list of tribes provided by the Native American Heritage Commission.

PRELIMINARY PLAN & PRECISE PLAN REVIEW
During the Preliminary Plan of the proposed project, the Planning Commission and City Council review the proposed land use, circulation, and overall site design of the proposed project.

If approved by the City Council on January 10, 2022, the project will then move forward to the Precise Plan stage where the applicant will finalize their proposal and make any revisions necessary to address comments from the Planning Commission and City Council. The EIR will also be finalized and circulated pursuant to CEQA.

The final steps of this stage will be a Planning Commission meeting and City Council meeting.

The Planning Commission will make a recommendation on the project and the City Council will make the final determination of approval, conditional approval, or denial of the project.

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
JUHSD also submitted proposed terms for a Development Agreement that will need to be further analyzed by staff and presented to the City Council for approval. The current proposal provides considerations for development phasing, parks and open space requirements, fees, off-site improvements, and most notably affordable housing.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the JUHSD City Council Committee review the information and attachments presented and provide any preliminary comments or concerns.

Respectfully submitted,
Carmelisa Morales Lopez
Associate Planner
Attachments
Attachment A – JUHSD Comments and Responses
Attachment B – Serramonte Del Rey Campus Zoning Comparison Attachment C – Draft Precise Plan
Attachment D – Parcel B Project Plans
Attachment E – July 6, 2021 JUHSD City Council Committee Meeting Staff Report Attachment F – October 18, 2021 JUHSD City Council Committee Staff Report

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES:

CITY COUNCIL PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW

SERRAMONTE DEL REY PRECISE PLAN
SEPTEMBER 27, 2021

1. What are the Trade-Offs to Preserve the Garden in Current Location? • Units Displaced. Keeping the garden in its current size and location, and retaining the Central Green, displaces up to 300 units of housing. Redesigning the project to accommodate the garden (and eliminating the Central Green) would displace approximately 150 housing units, which is 13.5% of the 1,113 units (Parcels B through F) of the plan.

Reducing the number of housing units significantly impacts necessary revenues to the District.
• Impact to Neighborhood Livability. Keeping the garden in its current location and size would require a redesign of the project. To minimize the loss of housing units, the garden would displace the Central Green, the community heart and main public gathering space of the plan. This results in an oversized garden amenity serving a few neighbors, rather than create a central public space with broad community appeal. The current plan is based on efficient use of the land that maximizes the value of the revenue to the District. Eliminating the central feature of the plan and creating irregular/atypical parcel sizes would reduce the project’s marketability to the development and investment community compared to the current design.
• Density. There are no other sites to locate high-rise construction in the plan to increase density and accommodate units displaced by keeping the garden. Successful development of the first two phases would be a condition for market acceptance of high-rise construction (up to fourteen stories) in the last phase. Increasing building heights beyond what is currently planned would be infeasible due to a change in construction type that results in higher construction costs than the current and anticipated real estate market can build. • District Proposed Community Garden. The District is proposing a community garden in the first phase of the project at Overlook Park, available for resident and community use. This minimizes loss of housing, does not displace the central park and avoids costly redesign.

This is an efficient use of the site, rather than an oversized amenity serving a few neighbors at the periphery of the plan.

2. What is the District’s Affordable Housing Plan in addition to the faculty and staff housing? • Faculty and Staff Housing. Faculty and Staff Housing is the first step to relocate District offices, redevelop the site and create a new neighborhood. The Faculty and Staff Housing is not a stand-alone project with teachers living in isolation on an abandoned school site. It is part of a neighborhood with community serving retail, park space, and larger residential community. 12 of the 122 units of Faculty and Staff Housing are deed restricted as lowincome units with rent set at up to 70% AMI. • Affordable Housing Plan.
▪ Plan provides more low-income rental housing than required (111 units at or below 70% AMI + 14 units at or below 80% AMI = 125 low-income units out of 1,113 units = 11%).

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES:

CITY COUNCIL PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW

SERRAMONTE DEL REY PRECISE PLAN
SEPTEMBER 27, 2021
2 ▪ Develops affordable housing before it is required – 100+ units at Parcel C are built out before parcels D, E, and F are built.
▪ Brings an affordable housing developer to the team to build the affordable housing.

They are experts at affordable housing finance solutions and at delivering necessary supportive services to residents and further streamlines coordination with the City and City reporting.
▪ Requests that the 20 BMR units from the proposed 201 unit first phase Parcel B project be built with Parcel C.
▪ At build-out, 20 percent of the entire 1,235 unit neighborhood will include rental housing affordable to low- and moderate-income individuals and families, including teachers and staff who want to live in Daly City. Please refer to item 3 below.

3. What is the Percent Affordable for other disadvantaged populations? • Intellectual or Developmental Disabilities. The District is discussing allocating a portion of the affordable housing units to individuals with intellectual or developmental disabilities.

Rents for these units would likely be considered to be extremely low or very low income.

4. Can the District Continue Community Dialogue to meet the District’s goals and Preserve the Garden?
• The District is open to continuing a dialogue with the garden advocates and is proposing to build a new community garden in a different location. Key points for consideration are:
o The area has never been a community garden. It is an adult and special education instructional garden initiated by JUHSD.
o The District has met numerous times with garden advocates regarding their activities on District property to transform an instructional garden into a community garden.
o Gardeners are to be volunteers in support of instructional use of the garden; not utilized by the few individuals who are appropriating school property for private use and claim it is for community use.
o The instructional garden started 15 years ago over the tennis courts; it was never an organic, natural landscape. The hillside and site were mass graded in 1965. o The few garden advocates are continuing to expand the garden area without permission of the District, regard for hillside stability, or respect for the District’s insurance liability. They have been using District water to flood the area. Recent expansion of the garden area under hillside trees could create a fire hazard adjacent to the homes along Saint Francis Boulevard.
o There has been homeless living there and illicit activity. Staff have found needles and other drug paraphernalia and the police were brought in to investigate a realistic looking firearm that turned out to be a bb gun. There has also been harassment and intimidation of staff and teachers to the point that they do not feel

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES:

CITY COUNCIL PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW

SERRAMONTE DEL REY PRECISE PLAN
SEPTEMBER 27, 2021
3 it is safe for themselves or their students. As it is, the space can no longer be used for instruction.
o There are no historic, archaeological, cultural, or Native American resources on site, and there were no tribal consultations requested by any tribal representatives per the noticing requirements of SB 18, AB 52 California and federal statutes.

5. Why, What, When and Where regarding High Rise Buildings • District Revenue. High rise rental housing enables a higher number of units to be built at higher land lease revenues for the District.
• Height and Location. High rise construction is up to 14 stories and 150 feet in height. This is the height permitted per the City Council adopted 1985 Precise Plan and is 105 feet lower than the height permitted for the recently approved Serramonte Views project (255 feet).

The high rise towers are organized east-west to minimize visibility to residents on St. Francis Boulevard. The two 14 story buildings are set back from Serramonte Boulevard to minimize visibility from the street. Increasing building heights would be infeasible due to a change in construction type that results in a higher construction cost. There are no other sites in phase one and two to locate high-rise construction in the plan to accommodate units displaced by keeping the garden.
• Market Appeal. The master plan parcelizes the site based on real-world building types to appeal to the development and investment community. Market appeal is essential to attract private investment in an unproven environment and maximize ground lease revenue thru public/private partnerships. Successful development of the first two phases is a condition for market acceptance of two high-rise buildings to be constructed in the last phase.

6. What is the estimated revenue from the Development that the District anticipates? • Due to the confidential nature of such discussions, JUHSD recommends meeting individually with City Council members to discuss project finances.

7. Respect Ohlone/Indigenous interests (Can’t just move the garden) • Acknowledgement. The District acknowledges the history of the Ramaytush Ohlone, and the loss of ancestral lands along the Peninsula. The District is committed to ongoing discussions with those of Native American descent. The District reached out to all Ohlone who are officially recognized to represent tribal interests per the California Native American Heritage Commission, to discuss District plans. As mentioned previously, there were no tribal consultations requested by any tribal representatives per SB 18, AB 52 California and federal statutes.
• No Resources On-Site. Per Tribal consultation per SB 18, there are no sacred lands, archaeological remains or historic cultural practices on site. • Offerings. The District is open to a collaborative dialogue with Native American descendants.

Offers have been made to discuss ways to promote cultural awareness and to provide designated locations for gatherings.

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES:

CITY COUNCIL PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW

SERRAMONTE DEL REY PRECISE PLAN
SEPTEMBER 27, 2021
4 8. What is the Cost/Benefit to City?
• Fiscal Benefits. BAE Urban Economics has performed a Fiscal Impact Analysis of the project which is attached. BAE estimates the net fiscal impact to Daly City, after accounting for services provided by Daly City to the project residents, to range from $800,000 to $1.3M per year at full build out.

9. What Daly City income levels can afford the market rate housing? • This has not yet been determined.

10. Protect seasonal wetland at community garden?
• There has been no determination as to whether wetlands exist within the garden area; and will likely require input from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. The small area in question is currently being addressed in the biological resources studies as a component of the EIR.

11. Traffic?
• This topic is being addressed in the EIR, which is currently underway.

Project Endorsements
• California Federation of Teachers
• Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo
• Jefferson Council PTA
• Josh Becker, State Senator
• Terner Center for Innovative Housing, U.C. Berkeley
• Bay Area Council

COMMENTS FROM 2x2 MEETING
OCTOBER 18, 2021

1. Is Parcel A in the Precise Plan?
Yes. Parcel A is included in the Precise Plan, and the total dwelling unit count of 1,235 units includes Parcel A. Parcel A, along with Parcel B, are considered the first phase of the Development.

2. Are there Changes to the Plan?
Yes. JUHSD proposes a Community Garden in the first phase of the project, located at Overlook Park, available for resident and public/community use. It is a community gathering place that will be inviting, attractive, and accessible for families and children. Gardeners will have their own plots to grow organic fruits and vegetables. There is outdoor space for meetings, classes and outdoor education, directly visible and accessible for community use.

3. Is the Central Green Park Publicly Accessible?
Yes. The Central Green is a public neighborhood park, accessible for use by anyone. Other publicly accessible parks and open spaces in the project include Overlook Park, Recreation Trail, and Retail Plaza, among others.

4. Why is the EIR happening before approval of the Preliminary Plan? The Environmental Impact Report is prepared as part of the application for project approval to inform decision-making on the potential environmental effects of the project. Starting the EIR early in the process enables early public notice of the project and early input to identify potential impacts for analysis.

5. What are the parking impacts of the residents of 1,235 units? Is parking subterranean? The parking is not subterranean. Rather, the proposed design guidelines anticipate that most of the parking will be built under each residential project. The parking study prepared by Fehr and Peers, traffic and parking consulting engineers, recommended that the proposed parking ratio of 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit for the overall project results in an appropriate parking supply for the multi-family housing to be built. Parking for the retail and Head Start is also provided on-site and is in addition to the residential parking supply.

6. Can a solution be achieved with the garden advocates to preserve garden facilities at the current location as the District accommodated Head Start to remain on-site? Preserving the garden in its current location and size would prohibit the District from developing a financially feasible plan. The District is proposing a new community garden on-site, relocated to a more visible, accessible and inviting location as part of Overlook Park. It will be built in the first phase of development.

Preserving Head Start in its current location also would have prohibited the District from developing a financially feasible plan. Head Start agreed to relocate their facilities on-site, in a safer and more accessible location adjacent to affordable housing, where daycare and services can be co-located. This enabled the District is efficiently located buildings, streets and open space onsite.

COMMENTS FROM 2x2 MEETING
OCTOBER 18, 2021
6 Unlike Head Start, the garden advocates are indifferent to the District’s financial needs. They are unwilling to explore alternative locations for the garden. They claim that the garden must remain in its current location, adjacent to and part of the hillside setting. The District understands their desire to have a natural setting for the garden. The District has located a community adjacent to the east hillside in a neighborhood park with a children’s play area and open space connected to and part of the east hillside woodland ecological area.

7. Why are high-rises needed at this site?
The proposal calls for up to two high rise towers with building heights not exceeding the building heights (150’) permitted under the precise plan approved by the City Council in 1985. These two buildings are expected to provide the density needed to make the overall undertaking financially viable for the District. We expect that these two high rise residential towers will be built out in the third phase of the project on Parcels E and F, when the community is established and can support the proposed amenities of the site.

8. What is the status of the Fire Department review of the Plan? Is there a plan for the trucks to service a fire? What are the other buildings in Daly City that have been built or approved that are high rise construction?
The District’s team met with the North County Fire Authority to review life safety requirements and receive feedback on project plans. The District updated plans per County Fire Authority feedback regarding life safety and emergency access requirements. As part of the project approval process, the District and the Authority will continue working together to ensure that fire apparatus and personnel can effectively provide emergency services.

High-rise buildings (where the top habitable floor is above 75’) in Daly City include Seton Medical Center, DC Station, and the recently approved Serramonte Views.

9. What is the outreach to Native American Tribes in the EIR? What is the Documentation? How did they Respond?
The District reached out to all Ohlone descendants who are officially recognized to represent tribal interests per the California Native American Heritage Commission to discuss District plans. There were no responses. The City, as part of the EIR process, also reached out to Ohlone representatives per California SB 18 and AB 52 statutes. Again, there were no tribal consultations requested by any tribal representatives. The cultural resources study by Origer & Associates found that there are no sacred lands, archaeological remains or historic cultural practices on site.

10. What is the record on Ohlone land prior to JUHSD? Can I see a Title Search? Please see the attached Cultural Resources Study prepared by Eileen Barrow of Origer & Associates. She gives an ethnographic history of the Ramaytush linguistic group of the Ohlone/Costanoan people who lived along the San Francisco Peninsula, as well as a brief history of the impact of Spanish missionaries, land grants and private ownership of the area.

Although all of San Mateo County, including the site, were lands occupied by the Ohlone people prior to Spanish settlement, the attached Title Report gives no indication that any Native Americans have a claim to ownership or use of this site as recognized by California law.

COMMENTS FROM 2x2 MEETING
OCTOBER 18, 2021
7 11. What are the sizes of the Existing and Proposed Gardens? The existing instructional garden was approximately 13,000 square feet in 2005 when built and grew to approximately 30,000 square feet when the faculty and staff housing project was approved in 2019. Garden advocates are continuing to expand it to 35,000 square feet, and they continue expand their use of the area daily, without consultation or approval of the District.

The proposed Community Garden has been right sized to 3,400 square feet based on the anticipated demand, as part of more than 30,000 total square feet of publicly accessible parks and open space in Phase 1 including Overlook Park and Retail Plaza. At full buildout, the Serramonte Del Rey Neighborhood will provide approximately 1.9 to 2 acres (80,000 to 90,000 square feet) of publicly accessible parks and open space. This is in addition to privately accessible green space.

In comparison to comparable community gardens including Bay Meadows, the proposed Community Garden in Overlook Park is sized appropriately relative to the residential units to be built in Phase 1. As phases 2 and 3 are built, the Community Garden in Overlook Park could be expanded to accommodate additional gardening plots if demand exceeds the plots provided in Phase 1.

12. Are the Garden Plots Assigned? Are They open to Residents and Community Members? As is consistent with other community gardens, gardening plots in the proposed Community Garden will be assigned to individual gardeners. The plots will be available to residents of the housing in the Serramonte Del Rey Neighborhood, as well as any Daly City resident. We are open to discussing reserving a percentage of the plots for neighbors and other community members to ensure they are able to garden.

13. How does the proposed Precise Plan vary from the 1985 Plan? We understand that Daly City Planning Staff will provide a zoning comparison of the Precise Plan to the 1985 PD, but generally, the old plan was primarily for office and the new plan is primarily residential. The building heights are the same and the new plan provides significantly more publicly accessible parks and open space.

14. How does the Plan contribute to greenhouse gases and Daly City’s ability to meet the requirements of SB 32?
The purpose of the EIR is to disclose potential environmental impacts of the project. Per California Environmental Quality Act guidelines, the project’s impact on greenhouse gas emissions will be analyzed to determine if there is a significant impact, and if so, what mitigations would be required to reduce the significance of the impacts. The City’s EIR consultant is undertaking this work.

15. What is the status of the EIR?
The City’s EIR consultant, David J. Powers & Associates, is under contract and the District has paid fees for them to conduct the work. The Notice of Preparation was issued May 6, 2021. The initial public scoping meeting was conducted on May 19, 2021. The consultants are working on the administrative draft document which is estimated to be complete before the end of the year.

16. Has the issue of bicycle safety been addressed at the Parcel B Driveway?

COMMENTS FROM 2x2 MEETING
OCTOBER 18, 2021
8 Yes, while there has been a concern raised about this driveway, the District’s transportation consultants, Fehr and Peers, nationally respected experts in multi-modal transportation, reviewed the pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular safety of the Parcel B Driveway. The design has incorporated their best practice suggestions:
• All vehicular traffic in and out of parking will be only right turn in and right turn out on to Serramonte Boulevard.
• No left turns for vehicles are permitted in and out of the garage. • The garage is only for residents who are familiar with the project thereby reducing risk of inexperienced driver behavior.
• All retail customers will use the driveway at the Retail Plaza for parking, not along Serramonte Boulevard.
• Obstructions to view for bicyclists and drivers are eliminated. • Outdoor queuing space is provided for vehicles leaving the garage to increase driver visibility of pedestrians and bicyclists.

17. Is there EV charging infrastructure?
Yes. Every building will meet or exceed both the city’s municipal code and the state of California’s code requiring EV charging infrastructure. At least 25% of the market-rate units will have Level 2 EV ready charging infrastructure. All other market-rate units will be provided with Level 1 EV ready charging infrastructure.

18. Has a parking demand study been completed?
Yes. Fehr and Peers has analyzed future parking demand and supply to ensure there will be sufficient parking in the plan area for all uses. A parking survey will be performed at completion of Phase 1 to confirm the parking supply meets parking demand. If there is any imbalance, the District will work with the City to adjust the amount of parking needed with the build out of the plan area.

19. Affordable housing concerns
We look forward to discussing the proposed Affordable Housing Plan with the City Council’s Affordable Housing Subcommittee at your earliest convenience.

Attachments:

Fiscal Impact Analysis
Title Report
Cultural Resources Study
Parking Demand Study

bae urban economics
Fiscal Impact Analysis and Market Study for the
Serramonte Del Rey Precise Plan Area
Prepared for Jefferson Union High School District and Brookwood Advisors April 16, 2021

bae urban economics
San Francisco Sacramento Los Angeles Washington DC New York City 2560 9
th St., Suite 211 803 2nd St., Suite A 448 South Hill St., Suite 701 1140 3rd St. NE, 2nd Floor 234 5th Ave.

Berkeley, CA 94710 Davis, CA 95616 Los Angeles, CA 90013 Washington, DC 20002 New York, NY 10001 510.547.9380 530.750.2195 213.471.2666 202.588.8945 212.683.4486 www.bae1.com
April 16, 2021
Ms. Tina Van Raaphorst
Associate Superindendent
Jefferson Union High School District
Mr. Chris White
Vice President and Development Manager
Brookwood Advisors
Dear Ms. Van Raaphorst and Mr. White:

BAE Urban Economics, Inc. (“BAE”) is pleased to submit this fiscal impact analysis and market study for the proposed Serramonte Del Rey Project in Daly City. We look forward to any comments that the City of Daly City might have and after their receipt we can issue a final report.

Sincerely,
David Shiver Stephanie Hagar, MCP Chelsea Guerrero, MCP Principal Associate Principal Senior Associate

Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................ i FIA Findings ................................................................................................................................... i Market Study Findings ................................................................................................................. ii FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................... 1 Purpose and Background ............................................................................................................1 Project Development Program ....................................................................................................1 General Fund Fiscal Impacts.......................................................................................................3 Summary of Net Fiscal Impact to the City of Daly City General Fund .................................... 15 North County Fire Authority Fiscal Impacts ............................................................................. 16 MARKET STUDY ....................................................................................................................... 17 Site Description and Location .................................................................................................. 17 Daly City Office Market.............................................................................................................. 19 National and Regional Office Trends ....................................................................................... 21 Bay Area Reflects National Office Trends................................................................................ 22 Conclusion Market Feasibility of Class A Office at the Site .................................................... 30 APPENDIX A – DALY CITY OFFICE DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY SITES ................................ 32 APPENDIX B – OFFICE DEVELOPMENT CASE STUDIES ........................................................... 34

List of Tables
Table 1: Development Program at Buildout.................................................................................... 2 Table 2: Current Daly City Service Population, 2020 ..................................................................... 3 Table 3: Current (2020) Assessed Value of Project Site................................................................ 5 Table 4: Projected Change in Annual Property Tax Revenue at Buildout and Stabilization ........ 7 Table 5: Projected Change in Annual Property Tax In-Lieu of Vehicle License Fee Revenue at Buildout and Stabilization ................................................................................................................ 8 Table 6: Estimated Annual Taxable Expenditures per Resident.................................................... 9 Table 7: Projected Net Change in Annual General Fund Sales Tax Revenue from Resident and Worker Spending at Buildout and Stabilization............................................................................10 Table 8: Projected Change in Annual Business License Tax Revenue at Buildout and Stabilization.....................................................................................................................................12 Table 9: Projected Change in Annual UUT, Franchise Fee, and Fines Revenues at Buildout and Stabilization.....................................................................................................................................13 Table 10: Summary of Net Change in Annual General Fund Revenues at Buildout and Stabilization.....................................................................................................................................13 Table 11: Daly City General Fund Operating Expenditures, FY 2019-20 Budget.......................14 Table 12: City of Daly City General Fund Expenditure Impacts from the Project........................15 Table 13: Annual Net Fiscal Impact to the City of Daly City General Fund .................................16 Table 14: Daly City Office Market Characteristics ........................................................................19 Table 15 San Francisco Peninsula/San Mateo County Office Market.......................................24

List of Figures
Figure 1: Office Location Criteria ..................................................................................................... iii Figure 2: Site Location, Daly City ...................................................................................................18 Figure 3 San Francisco Bay Area Office Development Trends ...................................................23 Figure 4: Existing Class A Office in Northern San Mateo County.................................................24 Figure 5: Class A Office Projects Under Construction, Approved and Proposed.........................25 Figure 6: Class A Office Projects Under Construction, Approved and Proposed.........................26 Figure 7: Summary of Traditional Suburban Office Park Case Studies......................................27 Figure 8: Summary of Suburban TOD and Urban Office Development......................................29 Figure 9: Daly City Priority Development areas.............................................................................32 Figure 10: Class A Office Redwood City.........................................................................................35 Figure 11: Class A Office San Mateo – Bay Meadows and El Camino & 92 Area ......................37 Figure 12: Class A Office/Life Science South San Francisco ......................................................39 Figure 13: Shadelands Office Park, Walnut Creek .......................................................................41 Figure 14: Northgate District, San Rafael .....................................................................................43 Figure 15: Marina Village Office Park, Alameda ...........................................................................45

i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Jefferson Union High School District (“JUHSD”) and Brookwood Advisors engaged BAE to prepare both a fiscal analysis of the JUHSD’s proposed Del Rey Precise Plan at 699 Serramonte Boulevard in the City of Daly City, California (“Project”) and a market study that evaluated the level of market support for office/R&D use which is large component of the current permitted use of a 22-acre site that the JUHSD seeks to change to residential use.

The Project would include construction of up to 1,113 residential units (beyond the 122 units currently under construction) and up to 14,000 square feet of community-serving commercial retail space, with a current assumption being 8,000 square feet of retail in the Project. This report first presents the fiscal impact analysis (“FIA”) and the FIA is followed by the market analysis.

FIA Findings
Selected FIA findings are summarized in the following table. In addition to the base scenario, the FIA also evaluates an alternate program that would rely on bond financing as a funding mechanism, which JUHSD is considering for Parcel B. The physical development program would be consistent between both scenarios, with the difference being that the base case program includes 990 market-rate units and 123 affordable units, while the alternate program includes 780 market-rate units and 123 affordable units along with an additional 210 moderate income units on Parcel B.

As shown below, the FIA estimates that both program scenarios would have a positive net fiscal impact on the City of Daly City’s annual General Fund operating budget. The base case program would result in a net positive fiscal impact of nearly $1.3 million per year once the project achieves stabilized occupancy. This net impact is equal to approximately 1.4 percent of the City’s total 2019/20 Fiscal Year Adopted General Fund budget. The alternate program would result in a net positive annual fiscal impact of approximately $822,200, which equates to approximately 0.9 percent of the 2019/20 Fiscal Year Adopted General Fund operating budget.

Currently, the site generates approximately $365,300 ad valorem property tax revenue towards the General Fund with no prospective additional development viable under the site’s existing permitted uses. 1
1 See the Market Study section of this report for an analysis of the market support for the existing permitted office use.

ii
Selected Net Fiscal Impact Findings for the Project at Buildout

Market Study Findings
Based upon a site inspection, neighborhood tour, careful review of market data and evaluation of historic and current office development trends, BAE finds that the JUHSD’s Serramonte Del Rey site is not a competitive location to attract office development. The site has no overall potential for office development whether that is Class A, back office, biotech and/or medical office use undertaken by either commercial developers or corporate end users. This conclusion is based upon the site’s characteristics as well as Daly City’s relative position in the regional economy and San Mateo County office market. Office development has been a permitted use at the site since 1985, yet only one medical office building was built in the ensuing 35 years. If office demand and rents would support developing new buildings, it would have occurred during the multiple real estate market cycles that have occurred since 1985.

BAE based its analysis on real estate market data as of the end of 2019 and market research conducted during February and March of 2020. The economic impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic have been significant and abrupt with short-term reduction of office demand driven by shelter-in-place orders. The long-term impact of the pandemic on the regional office market demand is uncertain and will likely change the regional office market dynamics, both in terms of overall demand and space design, but likely not in a manner that would change the finding that the JUHSD site is not a viable office development location.

JUHSD Site Characteristics
BAE has identified key office location criteria that are used by commercial developers and end users to select sites for office development (see Figure 1, below). These criteria are based upon BAE’s ongoing discussions with commercial developers active in the Peninsula Market and technology company real estate representatives, as well as upon BAE’s recent experience with other commercial projects for public agencies and private parties on the Peninsula. BAE evaluated both the JUHSD site and other alternative locations in the market area against these criteria.

All figures in 2021 dollars
Base Case Alternate
ANNUAL GENERAL FUND IMPACTS Program Program
New Revenues $2,814,031 $2,338,179
New Expenditures ($1,515,933) ($1,515,933)
Net Fiscal Impact $1,298,098 $822,246
See report for explanation of Project, methodology, and limiting conditions.

Source: BAE, 2021. Page 252 of 783

iii
• Critical Mass. At 22 acres, the site lacks the size to accommodate the scale of office development necessary to establish a new successful employment center with a distinct identity. An example of critical mass is South San Francisco’s 500-acre life science district east of Highway 101. This city has continued to strengthen its role as a biotech cluster, adding 1.6 million square feet of new Class A office over the past ten years along with additional new development planned by Genentech, its anchor end user. Other large sites for new office development can be found in San Francisco south of Mission Bay, Redwood City, the Peninsula/Highway 101 Corridor, and potentially elsewhere in Daly City.

Figure 1: Office Location Criteria
Source: BAE, 2020.
• Walkable to BART/Caltrain. Proximity to public transit, in particular BART and Caltrain, is highly desirable to office tenants. While the site is served by Samtrans bus service, it is over two miles from the Colma BART Station, well beyond the typical half-mile that otherwise, everything else being equal, would make the site attractive as a mixed-use, transit-oriented development that is preferred by office tenants. Reflecting market demand for office space near transit, Daly City’s own Class A office inventory is adjacent or near the Daly City BART Station.

iv
• Employment Center. Office businesses like to be near other office businesses –this is an agglomeration effect that is seen throughout the Bay Area. The site is not located in a recognized employment center and it is located in a primarily residential neighborhood with multi-family residential developments defining the northern and southern gateways after exiting Highway 1 to reach Serramonte Boulevard. The site is set back approximately 400 feet south of Highway 1 and a half-mile from Interstate 280. An office project here cannot offer visibility and identity that is often desired by corporate end users and/or tenants.
• Highway 101/Caltrain Corridor. Almost all existing, planned, and proposed Class A office space in the Northern San Mateo County market is located along the Highway 101 and Caltrain corridor. As of the end of 2019, seven million square feet of new office projects were under construction along this portion of the corridor along. An additional 30 million square feet are under construction, entitled, or proposed from Hunters Point and Candlestick Point in San Francisco though the corridor to Menlo Park at the southern end of San Mateo County, reflecting its strong gravitational market pull. The Serramonte Del Rey site is at a distinct disadvantage by not being located on this corridor.
• Authenticity/Placemaking. Commercial office developers and end users increasingly seek locations that offer a sense of urban or small-town authenticity and a mix of uses including office with residential and retail goods and services. The City of Redwood City has successfully leveraged its historic downtown and Caltrain Station to accommodate significant new office (as well as residential) development. The City of San Mateo has successfully guided the redevelopment of the Bay Meadows racetrack as a new attractive location for technology offices, in walkable, transit-oriented locations with new housing. The JUHSD site does not offer the same opportunity for placemaking due to its location away from the BART, or Caltrain stations, or the City’s Top of the Hill commercial district. Daly City itself has opportunities for mixed use office development at its BART Station and other high visibility sites. • Tech Company Appeal/Cool Factor. Developers are building office space to meet the changing office needs of employers. Technology and life science companies in the Bay Area fiercely compete for skilled labor and tend to cluster to make job changes less costly and disruptive to the employee. To be competitive and attract top talent, employers tend to select facilities that provide a ‘cool factor,’ e.g., unique setting, site design, architecture, and package of amenities that are attractive to the Millennial and Generation Z workforce. The JUHSD site is not well suited to be competitive due to its small size, relatively inferior location, and lack of visibility. • No Cap on Office Development. Cities such as San Francisco and Redwood City have adopted legislation that places a cap on office development that serves as a barrier to

v
entry for new office development. The Serramonte Del Rey site has an advantage by its location in Daly City that has no overall city-wide cap of office space. There is no barrier to developing the office space that was entitled for the site in 1985. • Rents Justify New Office Construction? Financial feasibility is driven by the relationship between the rents a developer can charge and the cost to develop their office project.

While office rents have been strong enough to justify new construction along the Highway 101/Caltrain corridor and, potentially at Daly City’s BART Station, the locational disadvantages of the Serramonte Del Rey site would likely result in a project not being able to achieve the rents necessary to support project development costs and provide a market rate of return to investors.

Daly City Office Market Trends
Located outside the Highway 101/Caltrain Corridor, the office sector in Daly City has failed to gain traction over the past few decades despite the presence of two BART stations and City efforts and investment to stimulate Class A office development during the longest economic expansion in U.S. history. This finding is based upon the following observations:
• Daly City has only two Class A office buildings that are located at the Daly City BART Station and together they comprise 438,000 square feet. The Redevelopment Agency project, Pacific Plaza development, is an example of modest success of attracting Class A office space after utilizing its redevelopment tools (including site assemblage and subsidies). However, a recent sale of the property in 2018 was for significantly less that its replacement cost which indicates continued weakness in the Class A sector despite adjacency to a BART station.
• Both Class A buildings changed ownership recently and have experienced increasing occupancy and rents as they benefited from their location in proximity to BART.

However, Daly City recently marketed three sites near the Daly City BART station to the commercial developer community; the City has reported that these sites did not receive interest for office use.
(This space intentionally left blank)

1 FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
This section of the report presents the FIA for the Project.

Purpose and Background
The Project site is a portion of a larger 50-acre site that was entitled for 500,000 to 700,000 square feet of office space and residential uses in 1985. The project would include the redevelopment of a portion of the larger 50-acre site into multifamily residential and ancillary retail uses with a mix of market rate and affordable housing.

Like most new development, the proposed project is expected to increase demands on local government services and infrastructure and generate new revenues for local government through additional taxes and fees. This FIA provides an analysis of the effects that the proposed project will have on the City of Daly City’s revenues and municipal service costs in order to estimate the net fiscal impact that the proposed project would have on the City’s General Fund. Except as otherwise noted in the text, the annual ongoing fiscal impact of the Project is described in constant 2021 dollars, based on the future point in time when the Project would be fully built out and would have achieved stabilized operations.

Project Development Program
The Project analyzed in this FIA would include construction of 1,113 residential units and 8,000 square feet of community-serving commercial retail space. The Project site currently contains 140,000 square feet of existing office, religious, and educational uses. The existing buildings would be demolished as part of the Project.

Table 1 on the next page summarizes the existing uses on the site and the development program for the proposed Project at full buildout. This analysis evaluates the potential fiscal impacts of two alternative development program scenarios. The total amount of development is the same in each scenario with the differences driven by the affordability mix of the residential units. As shown below, the base case program would consist of 123 affordable units and 990 market rate units. The alternate program would provide an additional 210 moderate income units, resulting in a total of 333 affordable units and 780 market rate units at full buildout.

Table 1 also includes assumptions about the anticipated resident population, employment, and service population associated with the Project. Accepted practice in fiscal impact analysis is to define a City’s service population as all residents plus one third of the workers who work within the City. Calculating service population in this way reflects the fact that employees, who generally spend less time in the community than residents, tend to generate a smaller share of

2 demand for services. As shown, the proposed project is anticipated to accommodate 2,752 new residents and 27 employees at full buildout, or a net increase of 2,705 service population members after accounting for the estimated existing employment on the site (167 employees).

Table 1: Development Program at Buildout

Base Case Alternate
Program Program
Residential Units
Affordable Units 123 333
Studio 0 17
1-Bedroom 55 155
2-Bedroom 62 135
3-Bedroom 6 26
Market Rate Units 990 780
Studio 81 64
1-Bedroom 471 371
2-Bedroom 343 270
3-Bedroom 95 75
Total New Residential Units 1,113 1,113
Commercial Square Feet
New Retail Square Feet 8,000 8,000
Existing Office Square Feet (140,000) (140,000)
Net Change in Commercial Square Feet (132,000) (132,000) Service Population
New Residents (a) 2,752 2,752
New Employees (b) 27 27
New Service Population (c) 2,761 2,761
Existing Employees (Estimate) (167) (167)
Existing Service Population (Estimate) (c) (56) (56)
Net Change in Service Population (c) 2,705 2,705
Notes:
(a) Resident population estimate is based on the average number of residents per unit by unit type:

Studio: 1 resident per unit
1-Bedroom: 2 residents per unit
2-Bedroom: 3 residents per unit
3-Bedroom 4 residents per unit
(b) Employee estimate is based on average employment density:
300 square feet per employee
(c) Service population equals the resident population plus a portion of the employee population to reflect the reduced service demand from commercial uses. To estimate service population, each employee is multiplied by: 1/3 Sources: Brookwood Advisors; BAE, 2021. Page 257 of 783

3 General Fund Fiscal Impacts
This section of the FIA summarizes the projected ongoing annual fiscal impacts from the proposed Project. The analysis is focused on Daly City’s General Fund, as this represents the portion of the City’s budget that finances key public services. To pay for these services, the City’s General Fund is dependent on discretionary revenue sources such as property taxes, sales taxes, transient occupancy taxes, and various local fees and taxes. The following sections detail the scope of the analysis and the underlying methodologies and assumptions used to estimate fiscal impacts from the Project.

Fiscal Impact Analysis Methodology
This FIA uses a variety of methods to estimate the projected change in City revenues and service costs that would be associated with the Project. The cost of providing municipal services is often based on the number of persons served, as are some sources of municipal revenues. In general, as the “service population” increases, there is a need to hire additional public safety and other government employees, as well as a need to increase spending on equipment and supply budgets. Some municipal revenues, such as franchise fees and fines, also generally increase as the service population increases. The analysis therefore relies in large part on an average cost and average revenue approach, based on the City’s current costs and revenues per member of the current service population. This approach is based on the key assumption that future development will generate costs and revenues at the same average rate as the existing service population.

As shown in Table 2, the Daly City’s current daytime population consists of 109,142 residents and 22,350 employees, resulting in a service population of 116,592 (100 percent of residents plus one-third of workers). The fiscal impact analysis uses this service population figure to derive current expenditures and revenues per service population member.

Table 2: Current Daly City Service Population, 2020
Daly City 2020
Residents (a) 109,142
Employment (b) 22,350
Service Population (c) 116,592
Notes:
(a) Estimate per CA Dept. of Finance, 2020.
(b) Estimate per Esri.
(c) Service population equals the resident population
plus a portion of the employment population to reflect
reduced demand from commercial uses. To estimate
service population, each employee is multiplied by:
1/3
Sources: California Dept. of Finance; Esri; BAE, 2021. Page 258 of 783

4 While an average revenue approach is appropriate for some revenue sources, the fiscal analysis presented in this report bases projected revenues from most major sources of revenue on statutory requirements and other factors governing each source of revenue. The projections for property tax, property tax in-lieu of vehicle license fees, and sales tax revenue are based on the specific attributes of the proposed project and factors used to allocate revenues from these sources to the City of Daly City. Additional methodological details and assumptions are provided in the discussions of individual cost and revenue projections below.

All cost and revenue projections are expressed in constant 2021 dollars at a future point in time when the Project would be fully built out.

Projected Annual Revenue Impacts
The following subsections provide an overview of the major City General Fund revenue sources that would be impacted by the Project and the estimated revenue that the proposed project would generate from each source. This section also details the assumptions and methodology used to estimate the revenue impacts associated with the Project.

Property Taxes/Possessory Interest Taxes. The property taxes that accrue to a City are a function of the assessed value of real property and the City’s share of the property tax collected for each parcel. Property in California is subject to a base 1.0 percent property tax rate, which is shared among local jurisdictions including the County, City, and special districts.

The State requires that a portion of property tax revenues also be allocated to countywide Education Revenue Augmentation Funds (“ERAF”) to offset state expenditures on local public schools. In addition to the base 1.0 percent tax rate, additional taxes and special assessments apply to most properties to pay for local voter-approved debt or other special purposes. These additional taxes and charges vary by location and are restricted for specific uses. This analysis evaluates impacts to the City’s General Fund operating budget, which receives a share of the base 1.0 percent property tax but does not receive revenue from additional taxes and special assessments.

Table 3 shows the current taxable assessed value of the Project site net of existing property tax exemptions for the nonprofit owner-occupant and the nonprofit tenants on site. The Project site is owned by the JUHSD, which is exempt from property tax. Many of the existing tenants on the site are nonprofit and governmental entities that also qualify for a property tax exemption, and therefore the space that these tenants occupy does not generate any property tax revenue. However, a small number of tenants on the site are not exempt from property tax liability. For these entities, the County Assessor charges possessory interest tax based on the value of each entity’s interest in the site and the property tax that would typically apply to this value. As shown, the current net taxable assessed value of the Project site totaled $2.0 million as of the 2020-2021 tax year.

5 Table 3: Current (2020) Assessed Value of Project Site The JUHSD plans to retain ownership of the Project site and to pursue development of the proposed Project under long-term ground leases. While JUHSD will continue to receive a property tax exemption for the site, any non-exempt uses on the site, including market-rate residential units, will be responsible for paying possessory interest tax in place of a property tax payment. The annual possessory interest tax revenue that would accrue to the City of Daly City will depend on the value of each non-exempt entity’s interest in the site and the property tax split that typically applies to the Project site.

The San Mateo County Assessor determines the value of a possessory interest using three different metrics: (i) the construction cost approach; (ii) the comparables approach; and (iii) the income approach. The construction cost approach values the possessory interest of new improvements based on the construction cost for new development on a site and adds an estimated land value based on comparable land sales to get to a total value for the site. The comparables approach values the possessory interest based on recent sales of similar developments. The income approach values the possessory interest based on the capitalized value of the income that the property generates. The County Assessor could use a combination of these three metrics to determine the value of the possessory interest for the project site. In some cases, the Assessor applies a discount to the value of the possessory interest of property subject to a ground lease because the land and improvements revert back to the property owner at the end of the ground lease. However, the Assessor would likely not apply a reversion in the case of the proposed Project because the site would be offered under a long-term ground lease.

Taxable
Parcel Number Improvements Land Total Value Exemptions Net Value 091-211-230 $0 $1,285,000 $1,285,000 $0 $1,285,000
Unsecured Bill Number
2020-003502 $197,000 $184,152 $381,152 $0 $381,152
2020-004768 $40,000 $40,000 $80,000 $0 $80,000
2020-010959 $8,000 $8,000 $16,000 $0 $16,000
2020-010960 $123,500 $123,500 $247,000 $0 $247,000
2020-007186 $9,000 $9,000 $18,000 $18,000 $0
2020-014485 $29,000 $29,000 $58,000 $58,000 $0
2020-005766 $15,000 $15,000 $30,000 $30,000 $0
2020-004442 $52,000 $52,000 $104,000 $104,000 $0
2020-005261 $7,500 $7,500 $15,000 $15,000 $0
2020-000934 $12,000 $12,000 $24,000 $24,000 $0
2020-002971 $159,500 $159,500 $319,000 $319,000 $0
Total Net Taxable Value (2020) $2,009,152
Note: Excludes assessments for personal property & fixtures Sources: San Mateo County Treasurer-Tax Collector; BAE, 2021.

Assessed Value, 2020

6 Like privately-owned property, possessory interests in California are subject to a 1.0 percent base tax rate on the assessed value, which is shared among various local jurisdictions and special districts. The specific distribution of the base 1.0 percent base tax depends on the tax rate area (TRA) where the property is located. To estimate future property tax revenues resulting from the Project, this analysis estimates the new assessed value that the County assessor would assign to the property and then applies the applicable tax rate.

BAE used rent estimates provided by the applicant and standard development assumptions to estimate the market value of the market rate residential and commercial components of the Project at full buildout and stabilization, based on a capitalized value approach. This analysis assumes that the affordable residential component of the Project would be exempt from possessory interest tax due to the property tax exemption for affordable housing. The estimated valuation is presented in 2021 dollars and is based on the projected net operating income for each use type, using market rental rates provided by the applicant and standard assumptions regarding occupancy, operating expenses, and cap rates. Based on the assumptions shown in Table 4, the estimated assessed market value is approximately $747.7 million for the base case program and approximately $590.1 million for the alternate program.

Based on the City’s share of property tax revenues (18 percent) from the project site, the net change in assessed value at buildout and stabilization after accounting for the existing site net taxable value would result in a net increase of approximately $1.4 million in annual possessory interest tax revenue to the City’s General Fund under the base case program. The alternate program would result in a net increase of approximately $1.1 million at buildout and stabilization. The alternate program would generate less possessory interest tax than the base program because the alternate program has a larger share of affordable units, and thus a larger share of units that are exempt from possessory interest tax. (This space intentionally left blank)

7 Table 4: Projected Change in Annual Property Tax Revenue at Buildout and Stabilization
Property Tax In-Lieu of Vehicle License Fee Revenues. Beginning in FY 2005-2006, the State ceased to provide “backfill” funds to counties and cities in the form of Motor Vehicle In-Lieu Fees (VLF) as it had through FY 2004-2005. As a result of the financial restructuring enacted as part of the State’s budget balancing process, counties and cities now receive revenues from the State in the form of what is known as property tax in-lieu of vehicle license fees, or ILVLF. This State-funded revenue source is tied to a city’s total assessed valuation. In FY 2005-2006, former VLF revenues were swapped for ILVLF revenues, which set the local jurisdiction’s ILVLF “base.” The base increases each year thereafter in proportion to the increase in total assessed valuation within the jurisdiction. For example, if total assessed valuation increases by five percent from one year to the next, the ILVLF base and resulting revenues would increase by five percent.

Base Case Alternate
Program Program
Projected New Assessed Value (a) $747,689,432 $590,055,916 Less: Existing Assessed Value ($2,009,152) ($2,009,152) Net Change in Assessed Value $745,680,280 $588,046,764
1% Property Tax Base $7,456,803 $5,880,468
Net Change in City Property Tax Revenue $1,355,883 $1,069,255 Assumptions
Daly City Share of 1% Property Tax in TRA 05-036 18%
Assessed Value Assumptions Base Case Alternate
Market-Rate Residential
Number of Units 990 780
Average Monthly Rent (b) $4,268 $4,268
Vacancy Rate 5% 5%
Average Annual Expense per Unit $13,000 $13,000
NOI (per unit) $35,655 $35,655
Commercial
NNN Rent (per sq. ft. per year) $36.00 $36.00
Vacancy Rate 5% 5%
NOI (per sq. ft.) $34.20 $34.20
Residential NOI $35,298,648 $27,811,056
Residential Capitalization Rate 4.75% 4.75%
Commercial NOI $273,600 $273,600
Commercial Capitalization Rate 6.00% 6.00%
Estimated Market Value $747,689,432 $590,055,916
Notes:
(a) The estimated market value of the Project is based on the projected net operating income for each use type, using current market rents and standard assumptions regarding occupancy, operating expenses, and cap rates. (b) Average market-rate rent based on an assumed rent equal to $5 per square foot per month, based on information provided by the project applicant.

Sources: San Mateo County Treasurer-Tax Collector; Brookwood Group; BAE, 2021. Page 262 of 783

8 As shown in Table 5, in fiscal year 2015-16 the City received approximately $8.6 million in property tax ILVLF revenue. This amounts to approximately $0.84 per $1,000 in assessed value. Given the projected net change in taxable assessed value associated with each scenario shown below, annual General Fund ILVLF revenues would increase by approximately $629,300 under the base case program and approximately $496,300 under the alternate program.

Table 5: Projected Change in Annual Property Tax In-Lieu of Vehicle License Fee Revenue at Buildout and Stabilization
Sales Taxes. The Project would generate sales tax revenue for the City of Daly City as new residents and workers make taxable purchases in Daly City. In addition, the new commercial space that is included in the proposed Project would generate City sales tax revenue to the extent that new and existing workers, residents, and other individuals make taxable purchases at businesses that occupy these spaces. Taxable sales in these new commercial spaces would be supported at least in part by spending among the new residents and workers that are associated with the Project, and therefore this analysis does not include an estimate of sales tax revenue from the new commercial space. In other words, the FIA calculates sales tax revenue from new resident and employee spending and does not separately calculate revenues from new commercial space to avoid double counting these revenues. In addition to avoiding double-counting, this approach is more reasonable than estimating taxable sales from new commercial space because the mix of tenants in future commercial spaces is currently unknown and could include a high share of tenants that generate little or no taxable sales.

Taxable transactions that take place in the City of Daly City are subject to a 9.25-percent sales tax. This total includes the statutory 1.0-percent Bradley-Burns sales tax, of which 95 percent (i.e., 0.95 percent of the sale price) accrues to the City of Daly City while the remaining five percent (i.e., 0.05 percent of the sale price) accrues to San Mateo County. Apart from the City’s share of the Bradley-Burns sales tax, all other sales tax revenues from taxable transactions that take place in Daly City accrue to other governmental agencies, including the State of California.

Base Case Alternate
Program Program
Projected Net Change in Assessed Value $745,680,280 $588,046,764 Net Change in ILVLF Revenue $629,281 $496,254
Assumptions
In-Lieu of Vehicle License Fee (ILVLF) Revenue, FY 2015-16 $8,624,640 Total Citywide Assessed Value, FY 2015-16
ILVLF Revenue per $1,000 in Assessed Value $0.84
Sources: San Mateo County Assessor; BAE, 2021.
$10,219,953,118

9 Taxable Sales from Resident Spending. According to data from the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration shown in Table 6, annual taxable retail sales averaged $10,193 per person in Daly City and $15,812 per person in San Mateo County in 2019. Consistent with this data, the analysis assumes that San Mateo County residents, including residents of Daly City, average approximately $15,812 per person in annual taxable purchases. An evaluation of sales leakage by category suggests that Daly City residents generally leave the City to make at least some purchases in most retail categories, likely due to the limited availability of goods in the City in these categories. Consistent with the City’s capture rates, the analysis assumes that Daly will capture little spending in these high leakage categories. To be conservative, the analysis assumes a maximum capture rate of 85 percent of sales in all categories, with a lower capture rate for those categories with an estimated current capture rate under 85 percent. This results in an estimate that new residents will spend approximately $9,637 per person in taxable expenditures in Daly City each year (see Table 6). This amount provides an estimate of annual average taxable expenditures by Daly City residents at outlets located in Daly City, and is lower than the total taxable sales per capita in Daly City because the total City taxable sales figure includes purchases by people who do not live in Daly City.

Table 6: Estimated Annual Taxable Expenditures per Resident

Sales Estimated Estimated
San Mateo Leakage % of Sales New Sales in
Business Category Daly City County (b) in City (c) Daly City (d) Retail and Food Services
Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers $1,769 $2,581 -31% 69% $1,769 Home Furnishings and Appliance Stores $328 $1,202 -73% 27% $328 Bldg. Matrl. and Garden Equip. & Supplies $597 $1,389 -57% 43% $597 Food and Beverage Stores $721 $941 -23% 77% $721
Gasoline Stations $1,299 $1,525 -15% 85% $1,299
Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores $1,542 $1,160 33% 85% $986 General Merchandise Stores $938 $1,706 -45% 55% $938
Food Services and Drinking Places $2,339 $3,167 -26% 74% $2,339 Other Retail (e) $661 $2,140 -69% 31% $661
Total $10,193 $15,812 $9,637
Notes:
(a) 2019 data inflated to 2020 dollars. Population estimates from the CA Department of Finance were used to calculate 2019 per capita sales:

Daly City: 109,710
San Mateo County: 774,231
(b) Retail spending by Daly City residents is assumed to be equal to per capita spending paterns in San Mateo Co.

If fewer dollars per capita are spent in Daly City than in San Mateo County, the analysis assumes the difference leaks out to other retailers in the County. A zero percent leakage indicates that Daly City residents can get all their shopping needs met in the City. Negative figures indicate Daly City receives a net injection, i.e. more sales than are likely attributable to just City residents.
(c) Based on data in column (b); estimates the percentage of resident spending within a category that will occur in Daly City. While zero percent leakage indicates residents could meet their shopping needs within the City, shoppers are still likely to seek goods and services outside of Daly City. To be conservative, the maximum capture has been estimated at 85 percent of taxable sales per resident.
(d) Equals (Taxable Sales per Capita in San Mateo County) x (Estimated % of Residents' Sales in City). Estimates assume the City will capture most or all of new residents' retail spending in categories with low/no leakage and little spending in high leakage categories.

Sources: CA State Dept. of Finance; CA Dept. of Tax and Fee Administration; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics; BAE, 2021.

Taxable Sales Per Capita

10 Taxable Sales from Worker Spending. To estimate taxable expenditures made by workers, this analysis uses data from the International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC) survey of office worker spending. The ICSC survey provides estimates of worker spending near work by store category, including both taxable and non-taxable purchases. The taxable expenditure estimate used in this analysis reflects adjustments to the ICSC survey findings to remove a portion of spending at drug and grocery stores, most of which is typically not subject to sales tax under California State law, as well as all spending on services and entertainment, which is generally not taxable. The analysis makes a conservative assumption that Daly City will capture one-half of the estimated total annual worker spending on taxable purchases. This results in an estimate that workers in Daly City spend an average of approximately $3,074 per year on taxable purchases within Daly City.

Net Change in General Fund Sales Tax Revenue from Resident and Worker Spending. Table 7 shows the estimated net change in total taxable sales from resident and worker spending in Daly City that would be attributable to the proposed Project. As shown, new residents in the Project would spend an estimated $26.5 million per year on taxable purchases in Daly City under both program scenarios. Annual taxable expenditures among workers would decrease by approximately $431,400 due to the net loss in on-site employment following demolition of the existing buildings on-site. Based on the resulting net change in annual taxable sales in Daly City (approximately $26.1 million) and the City’s share of sales tax revenue, annual General Fund sales tax revenue would increase by approximately $247,800 at stabilization.

Table 7: Projected Net Change in Annual General Fund Sales Tax Revenue from Resident and Worker Spending at Buildout and Stabilization Base Case Alternate
Program Program
Resident Spending
Net Change in Residents 2,752 2,752
Per Capita Taxable Sales in Daly City (a) $9,637 $9,637 Net Change in Annual Taxable Resident Spending $26,519,719 $26,519,719 Worker Spending
Net Change in Workers (140) (140)
Taxable Sales in Daly City per Worker (b) $3,074 $3,074 Net Change in Annual Taxable Worker Spending ($431,433) ($431,433) Annual Sales Tax Revenue
Net Change in Annual Citywide Taxable Sales $26,088,287 $26,088,287 Daly City Share of Sales Tax Receipts 0.95% 0.95%
Net Change in General Fund Sales Tax Revenue $247,839 $247,839 Notes:
(a) See Table 6.
(b) Based on data from International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC), Office-Worker Retail Spending in a Digital Age, 2012. Spending estimates were adjusted to 2020 dollars and adjusted to remove non-taxable spending on services and entertainment as well as a portion of spending at drug and grocery stores. Figures assume that retail establishments in Daly City capture 50 percent of total employee spending.

Sources: ICSC, 2012; CA Department of Finance; CA Department of Tax and Fee Administration; BAE, 2021. Page 265 of 783

11 Business License Fees. Business license fees are charged to businesses operating in the City at varying rates based on the type of business. Most businesses, including retail outlets and commercial/office rental properties, are charged at a rate of $1.10 per every $1,000 in annual gross receipts. Residential rental properties pay fees equal to $5.50 per every $1,000 in annual gross receipts. Qualifying non-profits are exempt from paying business license taxes.

BAE relied on rental rate data provided by the applicant to estimate the total annual gross receipts from the market-rate rental apartments and commercial property included in the Project. An average sales per square foot assumption was used to estimate the annual gross receipts tax that would be paid by the new retail tenants occupying the new commercial space.

The analysis assumes that existing uses on the project site generate little or no business license tax revenue because the site is owned by a nonprofit entity and most tenants are nonprofit entities. Based on these assumptions shown in Table 8, the base case program is projected to result a net increase of approximately $268,700 in annual business license tax revenue at stabilization. Although the alternate program is expected to generate less business license tax revenue due to the fewer number of market-rate rental units, the projected net change in annual business license tax revenue is still significant, exceeding $212,500 annually at stabilization.
(This space intentionally left blank)

12 Table 8: Projected Change in Annual Business License Tax Revenue at Buildout and Stabilization
Other Revenues. According to the FY 2019-20 Adopted Budget, the City generates approximately six percent of General Fund revenues from Utility User Tax (“UUT”), five percent of General Fund revenues from franchise fees, and four percent of General Fund revenues from fines and forfeitures. All of these revenue sources tend to increase as the City’s service population grows. UUT revenues are generated from the usage of gas, electricity, telephone and cable television services and are primarily dependent on service population. Franchise fees are generally set as a percentage of gross receipts and increase as expenditures on utilities, such as gas and electricity, increase. Fine revenues are primarily collected by the Police Department from parking and traffic citations and would be expected to increase as the residential base of the City grows. As shown in Table 9, General Fund revenues from these three sources combined totaled approximately $13.5 million in FY 2019-20, or $115.44 per member of the service population. Assuming a commensurate increase in the amount of Base Case Alternate
Program Program
New Business License Tax Revenue $268,749 $212,552
Market-Rate Apartments $264,928 $208,731
Commercial Leases $301 $301
New Retail Establishments $3,520 $3,520
Existing Business License Tax Revenue N/A (a) N/A (a)
Net Change in Business License Tax Revenue $268,749 $212,552 Assumptions
Business License Tax Schedule (tax per $1,000 in total gross receipts) General Businesses $1.10
Residential Rental Property $5.50
Commercial/Office Leases $1.10
Base Case Alternate
Est. Total Annual Gross Receipts - Rental Apartments
Number of New Market-Rate Rental Units 990 780
Weighted Average Monthly Rent per Unit (b) $4,268 $4,268 Vacancy Adjustment 5% 5%
Est. Total Annual Gross Receipts from Rental Apartments $48,168,648 $37,951,056 Est. Total Annual Gross Receipts - Commercial Leases
New Commercial Square Feet 8,000 8,000
NNN Rent (per sq. ft. per year) (b) $36.00 $36.00
Vacancy Adjustment 5% 5%
Est. Total Annual Gross Receipts from Commercial Leases $273,600 $273,600 Est. Total Annual Gross Receipts - New Retail Establishments New Commercial Square Feet 8,000 8,000
Annual Sales per Square Feet $400 $400
Est. Total Annual Gross Receipts from New Retail Establishments $3,200,000 $3,200,000 Notes:
(a) This analysis assumes that the project site currently generates little or no business license tax revenue because the site is owned by a nonprofit entity and most tenants are nonprofit entities. (b) Commercial and market-rate apartment rents are based on information provided by the project applicant. Apartment rents assume an average rent equal to $5 per square foot per month.

Sources: City of Daly City; Brookwood Advisors; BAE, 2021. Page 267 of 783

13 revenue collected each year, the Project would generate additional revenues of approximately $312,300 per year at buildout and stabilization under both scenarios.

Table 9: Projected Change in Annual UUT, Franchise Fee, and Fines Revenues at Buildout and Stabilization

Summary of Annually Recurring General Fund Revenues
As shown in Table 10, the base case program would result in a net increase of approximately $2.8 million in annual General Fund revenues to the City of Daly City at buildout and stabilization. The total annual General Fund revenue attributable to the alternate program is estimated to total $2.3 million. Most of these revenues would be from property tax and property tax in lieu of vehicle license fees. Revenues from sales tax, franchise fees, and fines would make up approximately 29 percent of the total under the base case program and approximately 33 percent of the total under the alternate program.

Table 10: Summary of Net Change in Annual General Fund Revenues at Buildout and Stabilization
Base Case Alternate
Program Program
Net Change in Service Population from Project (a) 2,705 2,705 Annual Revenue per Service Population $115.44 $115.44
Net Change in UUT, Franchise Fee, and Fines Revenue $312,280 $312,280 Assumptions FY 2019-20
Annual UUT Revenue $5,753,754
Annual Franchise Fee Revenue $4,236,246
Annual Fines and Forfeitures Revenue $3,468,904
Total Annual Revenue $13,458,904
Citywide Service Population (a) 116,592
Annual Revenue per Service Population $115.44
Note:
(a) Service population equals the resident population plus one-third of the employee population.

Sources: City of Daly City; BAE, 2021.

Base Case Alternate
Program Program
Property Tax $1,355,883 $1,069,255
ILVLF $629,281 $496,254
Sales Tax $247,839 $247,839
Business License $268,749 $212,552
UUT, Franchise Fees, and Fines $312,280 $312,280
Total General Fund Revenue $2,814,031 $2,338,179
Source: BAE, 2021. Page 268 of 783

14 Projected Annual Service Cost Impacts
As the City’s service population increases, the City typically needs to increase General Fund expenditures in order to maintain existing levels of service, with some exceptions for General Fund expenditures that tend to be relatively fixed and do not need to increase to respond to changes in the service population. To estimate the costs that would likely increase as the service population increases, BAE analyzed the City’s budgeted General Fund expenditures from the 2019/2020 Fiscal Year adopted budget. Adjustments were made to deduct the portion of costs that would not be expected to be impacted by the proposed Project. The analysis also accounts for the charges for service and other department revenues that offset variable costs in each department. Table 11 shows the resulting estimated variable costs, net of these adjustments and offsetting revenues. As shown, the City’s net variable costs currently total an estimated $560.37 annually per member of the service population. This means that the City would need to add $560.37 to its annual budget for each new member of the service population (i.e., $560.37 per resident and $186.79 per worker) to maintain current levels of service.

Table 11: Daly City General Fund Operating Expenditures, FY 2019-20 Budget Table 12 applies the current net variable costs per member of the service population to the service population associated with the Project to estimate the General Fund expenditure impacts associated with the Project. The projected expenditures account for increases in ongoing operating costs (e.g., salaries), but do not account for any one-time capital General Fund
FY 2019-20 Less: Net % Variable Net Variable Expenditures General Fund Offsetting Gen. Fund Due to General Fund per Service General Fund Expenditures Revenue (a) Expenditures Growth (b) Expend. (c) Population (d) General Government
City Council $263,230 $0 $263,230 10% $26,323 $0.23
City Clerk $542,879 ($120,025) $422,854 10% $42,285 $0.36 City Attorney $1,115,955 $0 $1,115,955 10% $111,596 $0.96 City Manager $1,881,254 ($164,607) $1,716,647 10% $171,665 $1.47 City Treasurer $48,585 $0 $48,585 10% $4,859 $0.04
Econ. & Community Dev. $4,110,198 ($3,635,564) $474,634 10% $47,463 $0.41 Finance & Admin Svcs $2,605,581 ($17,600) $2,587,981 10% $258,798 $2.22 Fire $21,214,159 ($1,537,497) $19,676,662 95% $18,692,829 $160.33 Human Resources $1,127,030 $0 $1,127,030 10% $112,703 $0.97 Library & Recreation $10,673,211 ($1,680,279) $8,992,932 90% $8,093,639 $69.42 Police $36,873,842 ($554,681) $36,319,161 95% $34,503,203 $295.93 Public Works $4,137,945 ($724,356) $3,413,589 80% $2,730,871 $23.42 Non-Departmental $5,699,001 ($311,553) $5,387,448 10% $538,745 $4.62 Total Expenditures $90,292,870 $81,546,708 $65,334,978 $560.37 Notes:
(a) Some expenditures are directly recovered through charges for services, license fees, and permit fees. (b) Assumes that a percentage of costs will not be impacted by growth; variable costs are assumed to increase as the service population increases.
(c) Expenditures less departmental revenue less fixed costs. (d) Service population equals the resident population plus one-third of the employee population. 2020 Citywide service population: 116,592
Sources: Daly City FY 2019-20 Operating Budget; BAE, 2021. ($8,746,162)

15 improvements that would be necessary to serve the Project. As shown, the base program and alternate program would both increase the City’s total annual General Fund expenditures by approximately $1.5 million, which equates to approximately 1.7 percent of the total FY 2019- 20 Adopted Budget General Fund operating budget. Police Department expenses account for roughly one-half of the total net increase in expenditures associated with the Project. Fire department expenditures account for approximately 29 percent of the total new costs.2 Table 12: City of Daly City General Fund Expenditure Impacts from the Project Summary of Net Fiscal Impact to the City of Daly City General Fund Table 13 summarizes the annual recurring net General Fund fiscal impact of the Project at full build out and stabilized occupancy in 2021 dollars. As shown, both programs would generate a positive net fiscal impact at buildout and stabilization. The base case program would increase the City’s annual General Fund revenues by approximately $2.8 million and increase the City’s annual General Fund expenditures by approximately $1.5 million, resulting in a net positive fiscal impact of almost $1.3 million per year once the project achieves stabilized occupancy. This net impact is equal to approximately 1.4 percent of the City’s total 2019/20 Fiscal Year Adopted General Fund budget. The alternate program would result in a net positive annual fiscal impact of approximately $822,000, which equates to approximately 0.9 percent of the 2019/20 Fiscal Year Adopted General Fund operating budget. The alternate program 2 The following page discusses impacts to the North County Fire Authority in more detail.

General Fund
Expenditures
per Service
General Fund Population (a) Total (b) % of Total Total (b) % of Total General Government
City Council $0.23 $611 0.0% $611 0.0%
City Clerk $0.36 $981 0.1% $981 0.1%
City Attorney $0.96 $2,589 0.2% $2,589 0.2%
City Manager $1.47 $3,983 0.3% $3,983 0.3%
City Treasurer $0.04 $113 0.0% $113 0.0%
Economic & Community Dev. $0.41 $1,101 0.1% $1,101 0.1% Finance & Admin Services $2.22 $6,005 0.4% $6,005 0.4%
Fire $160.33 $433,720 28.6% $433,720 28.6%
Human Resources $0.97 $2,615 0.2% $2,615 0.2%
Library & Recreation $69.42 $187,792 12.4% $187,792 12.4% Police $295.93 $800,559 52.8% $800,559 52.8%
Public Works $23.42 $63,363 4.2% $63,363 4.2%
Non-Departmental $4.62 $12,500 0.8% $12,500 0.8%
Total Expenditures $560.37 $1,515,933 100% $1,515,933 100% Notes:
(a) See Table 11.
(b) Equal to net General Fund operating expenditures per service population multiplied by the net new service population associated with the proposed Project.

Sources: Daly City FY 2019-20 Operating Budget; BAE, 2021.

Base Case Program Alternate Program

16 has a lower net positive fiscal impact only because it provides a larger number of affordable units, which results in a larger share of the units being eligible for a property tax exemption and a business license tax exemption.

Table 13: Annual Net Fiscal Impact to the City of Daly City General Fund North County Fire Authority Fiscal Impacts
The North County Fire Authority is a Joint Powers Authority that was established in 2003 to provide joint management, administration, and training for the fire department personnel in the cities of Brisbane, Daly City, and Pacifica. The Authority was established to provide more efficient and cost-effective fire services to member cities and better utilize available resources.

The range and levels of services provided by the Authority are determined at the local level by each individual member agency. Each City is responsible for providing the financial and other resources needed to provide fire services within its own jurisdiction. Currently there are five fire stations located in the City of Daly City. The project site is located within Station 94’s primary response area. Although the Project is anticipated to increase the demand for fire services in Daly City, the overall fiscal impact to the Authority from the Project would be neutral because the City of Daly City would be responsible for covering any additional costs needed to maintain levels of service. Therefore, the additional cost for fire services due to the Project would be borne by the City, rather than the Fire Authority. As shown in Table 12 of this report, the City’s costs to provide fire services to the Project would total an estimated $435,000 per year, which would be paid to the Fire Authority to offset the additional cost for fire services attributable to the Project.

Base Case Alternate
Program Program
Total General Fund Revenue $2,814,031 $2,338,179
Property Tax $1,355,883 $1,069,255
ILVLF $629,281 $496,254
Sales Tax $247,839 $247,839
Business License $268,749 $212,552
UUT, Franchise Fees, and Fines $312,280 $312,280
Total General Fund Expenditures ($1,515,933) ($1,515,933) General Government ($8,277) ($8,277)
Economic & Community Dev. ($1,101) ($1,101)
Finance & Admin Services ($6,005) ($6,005)
Fire ($433,720) ($433,720)
Human Resources ($2,615) ($2,615)
Library & Recreation ($187,792) ($187,792)
Police ($800,559) ($800,559)
Public Works ($63,363) ($63,363)
Non-Departmental ($12,500) ($12,500)
Net Fiscal Impact $1,298,098 $822,246
Source: BAE, 2021. Page 271 of 783

17 MARKET STUDY
The proposed Project would change the existing permitted office use to a higher number of permitted residential units with limited retail commercial use. This section of the report presents an evaluation of the level of market support for the existing permitted office use since it represents a significant use under the site’s existing entitlements.

Site Description and Location
Daly City Location
The Site is located within Daly City, the largest city in San Mateo County with a population of 109,122. The American Community Survey by the Census for 2018, identified 64,871 Daly City residents in the labor force. Of those, almost one third worked in Daly City. The City has a significant retail and commercial tax and employment base with two major shopping centers.

Site Location and Adjacent Uses
Within the Serramonte neighborhood of Daly City, the Site is situated in the northern portion of the Precise Plan area, bounded by Serramonte Boulevard, Callan Boulevard, Hickey Boulevard and St. Francis Boulevard. (See Figure 2 on next page). It has a sloped topography and existing groves of evergreen trees creating a buffer from the neighboring uses. To the east is the Chinese Cemetery, to the north medium density apartment complexes, and to the west, single-family homes. To the south are medium density apartments and medical office uses.

Generally framed by Interstate 280 and State Routes 35 and 1, the Serramonte neighborhood of Daly City was developed in the late 1960s and early 1970s as a residential neighborhood with commercial uses near Interstate 280. The Serramonte Plaza shopping center is a successful 1.1 million square foot regional shopping center, which expanded by 250,000 square feet in 2018 and is currently undergoing additional redevelopment. While the Site is within walking distance of the Serramonte Plaza and easily accessed from the neighboring highways, it is over 2 miles from a BART station.
1985 Precise Plan
In 1985, Daly City adopted the Serramonte Del Rey Precise Plan (“Precise Plan”) that delineated land uses for the 50-acre site owned by JUHSD and ground leased to a real estate developer, Southwest Diversified. The Precise Plan permitted a phased, mixed-use project on the 30 developable acres with between 200 to 575 housing units and between 740,000 and

1.2 million square feet of office space. Several parcels were designated to be either office or residential. Three to twelve story buildings are allowed in the Precise Plan. In January 2020, Daly City revised the Precise Plan to include the JUHSD faculty and staff housing project at the northwest corner of the Serramonte Del Rey site.

18 Development and Leasing History
The underlying concept when the Precise Plan was adopted in 1985 to create a first-class office park that could attract build-to-suit corporate tenants seeking office space at larger floor plates and lower prices than could be found in San Francisco. An apartment complex, Serramonte Ridge, was developed in 1987 on 9.6 acres and has 396 units in six three-story buildings. One office building of 76,000 square feet, 901 Campus Drive, was built in the Precise Plan area in 1990 on 2.77 acres and is leased for medical uses. The initial developer constructed the apartments and the 901 Campus Drive office building but did not exercise their option to develop the second phase on the northern portion of the site. In the intervening decades, JUHSD closed the high school, moved in its district offices, and leased space to a mix of tenants.

Figure 2: Site Location, Daly City

More recently, 2.7 acres were leased to a charter high school that opened in 2019, on a site designated for office use. Under construction now are 122 units of housing for employees of JUHSD on 3.9 acres at the northwest corner of the plan area.

19 The analysis below addresses the remaining development capacity of the site identified for as much as 700,000 square feet of office.

Daly City Office Market
Overall Daly City Office Market
Daly City has an inventory of approximately 1.5 million square feet of office space in 81 office buildings, according to data obtained from the CoStar Group, a national real estate market data provider. The 16 buildings larger than 20,000 square feet. include 1.2 million square feet as shown in Table 14 below. Medical office buildings account for a significant amount of Daly City’s office inventory, including those which are part of the Seton Hospital Campus and the Kaiser Medical Office building at 395 Hickey Blvd, built in 2002. The office building at the site, 901 Campus Drive, a three-story, 75,000 square foot Class B office building, was built in 1990. It is a medical office building anchored by the Palo Alto Medical Foundation and Campus Surgery Center. The building was 80 percent occupied as of the end of 2019. It sold in June 2018 for $30 million, or $395 per square foot, which is significantly less than the replacement cost (currently over $800 or more per square foot for Type I construction) Table 14: Daly City Office Market Characteristics
Source: CoStar, BAE 2020
Note that the 2100 Junipero Serra building, built in 2001, and the Kaiser facility built, in 2002, are the newest office buildings in Daly City. Although Daly City has relatively low office vacancy rates, no new office is proposed as the rents are not high enough to support new construction.

Current proposed projects in Daly City only include very modest amounts of office space included in mixed-use projects. Appendix A provides a discussion of the opportunity sites in Daly City that could be developed for office uses.

Vacancy 3-4-2020 Vacancy 3-4-2020
Sq.ft. # Sq.ft. % Sq.ft. # Sq.ft. %
General Office
Class A 438,173 43,280 2 10% 438,173 43,280 2 10%
Class B 202,477 4,861 8 2% 181,121 4,861 5 3%
Class C 218,517 5,062 33 2% 40,910 - 2 0%
Subtotal 859,167 53,203 43 6% 660,204 48,141 9 7%
Medical Office
Class B 398,494 28,487 7 7% 362,378 26,918 4 7%
Class C 228,116 11 - 0% 176,981 - 3 0%
Subtotal 626,610 28,487 18 5% 539,359 26,918 7 5%
Total 1,485,777 81,690 61 5% 1,199,563 75,059 16 6%
All Buildings Buildings < 20,000 sq.ft.

20 Daly City Class A Office Market
There are two Class A office buildings in Daly City3, both located on Junipero Serra near the Daly City BART Station. The following is a brief summary of these two properties. 2171 Junipero Serra Boulevard, a seven-story, 55,000 square foot building completed 1989 that is one half mile from the Daly City BART station and has visibility from Highway 280 as well as ocean views. It was the first high-rise built in Daly City and, in 1990, the City purchased a 51 percent share of the building to avoid default by the developers. The City held that ownership stake for over a decade. The building traded for $24 million in 2016, a value of $436 per square foot., significantly less than costs of new construction. In 2017, almost 13,000 square feet were vacant, a 23% vacancy rate. The new ownership upgraded the building and substantially increased occupancy. At the present, there are no suites advertised to lease and rental rates are not available.
2001 Junipero Serra Boulevard, a nine-story, 383,000 square foot building that was built in 2001 with direct access to the Daly City BART station. As of March 2020, this building is 91 percent occupied with 43,000 square feet. available for lease at an asking rate of $4.65 per square foot per month on a full-service basis. This building was part of a significant redevelopment project, Pacific Plaza, by the City of Daly City. Pacific Plaza included land acquisition and sale to a developer at a cost less than the City’s cost for the land to create a first-class office building in Daly City.

Situated off Interstate 280 and adjacent to the Daly City BART Station, the building offers large floor plates, views, and 1,753 parking spaces. The multi-tenant building is anchored by the global headquarters of Genesys, a contact center technology provider (with jobs reported in the range of 250 to 499 in Daly City). Other tenants include Kome Japanese Seafood & Grill Buffet, Bank of America, Subway and Satellite Healthcare. This was developed as a mixed-use retail and office investment including a retail and multi-plex movie theater. This property sold in 2018 for $114.5 million, or $299 per square foot. a cost much less than replacement costs (currently over $800 per square foot for Type I construction) reflecting both the need to renovate and the separation of the retail and office projects. This sale also indicates how a Class A office property has struggled in one of the City’s best locations near a BART Station, strongly suggesting that office at the Site would be extremely difficult to realize.

Other Development Trends in Daly City
Daly City is experiencing real estate development in sectors other than office. Retail center expansions and several new hotels have been approved in the last several years. Daly City 3 CoStar shows the Serramonte Business Center, at 455 Hickey Boulevard as Class A. BAE’s assessment is that this building is Class B due to the location and quality of improvements. The building was originally built in 1982 as a single user building for First Nationwide Bank data processing functions which relocated from Daly City in 1990.

21 has also seen a series of residential projects, many with over 300 units, under construction, including the JUHSD project adjacent to the Site and another 2,300 units approved by the City but not yet under construction. Serramonte Plaza received City approvals in 2018 to build 65,000 square feet of medical office buildings as part of master plan upgrade for the entire center. The owner has developed the first phase of its retail expansion and has second phase under development but has not yet moved forward with the office portions of the project. It should be noted that in today’s market, many medical providers prefer locations in shopping centers since they offer access and visibility on high traffic arterials which would give the Serramonte Plaza a decided advantage over the JUHSD site for this use.

National and Regional Office Trends
Office Trends in the 1980s
During the 1980s, the national trend was for new office development to locate in suburban office parks designed for ease of auto accessibility in contrast to the historic trend to concentrate office development in Central Business District. The preferred suburban location was close to residential neighborhoods with high-end executive housing and direct access to major freeways and highways. Buildings were primarily two to three stories and situated in the center of large surface parking fields. In the Bay Area, large suburban office parks were constructed in Marin County, South San Francisco, Brisbane, Walnut Creek, San Ramon, Pleasanton, Concord, Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, Redwood City, San Jose, and elsewhere along the Highway 101, Interstate 680, and Interstate 580 corridors.

Even at that time, not all suburban locations were suitable for office development. In an office market study prepared in 1991 for San Mateo County, the City of Daly City, and the San Mateo Transit District as part of the BART Colma Station Specific Plan (adopted in 1994), BAE found that demand for Class A office space in the vicinity of the Colma BART Station would be weak and that land designated for new Class A office space could be undeveloped between ten and twenty years given location factors and then-market conditions4. In fact, the SamTrans Park and Ride site at the Colma Station, entitled in 1993 for over 200,000 square feet of office, remains undeveloped in 2020 and is under consideration for residential uses.

San Francisco, which had previously been the locus of corporate offices, saw increasing rents and new restrictions on office development in the 1980s. Suburban office development followed the labor force as corporations moved out of San Francisco (e.g. Chevron to Bishop Ranch) and new tech companies created identity campuses (e.g. Autodesk in Marin, Sun Microsystems in Menlo Park) in suburban locations. Universities also were a driver of 4 See County of San Mateo, City of Daly City, San Mateo County Transit District, Office Market Feasibility Study:

Colma BART Station Specific Plan/EIR, prepared by BAE Urban Economics, October 1991.

22 development, in particular Stanford Industrial park which is home to many technology companies.

At the time that the Serramonte Del Rey site was planned as an apartment and office campus, the developer was targeting similar office users to those drawn to the East Bay office parks, however there was no development interest beyond the first medical office building at the Serramonte Del Ray site and Phase II office development never materialized. The project site was not as competitive at attracting office uses as the substantially larger scale sites in the Eastbay with their more favorable development environments, including better weather and better freeway access to a large pool of white-collar and executive labor. During this same period, subsidies were required to develop and sustain the two Class A office projects located near the Daly City BART station in the 1980s.

Current Office Market Trends
Since the 1980s and 1990s, the national office market has undergone a remarkable transformation that has resulted in many suburban office parks struggling to retain tenants and maintain rents commensurate with Class A properties. Driving these changes to the office sector was a shift in corporate location preferences, employee lifestyle preferences, and workspace design. Office workers increasingly demonstrate a preference for workplace locations that offer proximity to public transportation, bicycle and pedestrian access, attractive retail and service offerings, and entertainment options. In response to this shift in preferences among workers, companies are seeking office locations that offer urban-style amenities rather than traditional, auto-oriented suburban office parks that offer fewer transit options and urban lifestyle amenities.

Bay Area Reflects National Office Trends
These trends can be observed in the Bay Area, especially where San Francisco and San Jose have seen intensification of office development in the last decade. Between those two regional centers, new office development is clustering along the Highway 101 and Caltrain corridors from San Francisco’s Mission Bay district to downtown San Jose. The Highway 101 corridor and parallel Caltrain line together have a strong gravitational pull for technology, finance, and life-science businesses. New office deliveries and office properties with the highest rents are typically located in this corridor. Many Peninsula cities have downtown Caltrain stops, have retained their authentic town character and offer retail and service amenities in a walkable setting.

San Francisco Peninsula/San Mateo County Class A Office Trends Genentech’s choice of South San Francisco in the 1970s spurred the development of one of the largest office/R&D markets outside of the region’s core cities of San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland. Business location decisions throughout the recent economic expansion have transformed the Highway 101 corridor in San Mateo County with major employment centers

23 emerging with clusters of Class A office and life-science development, in Brisbane, Burlingame, Foster City, San Bruno, San Mateo, and Redwood City.

Figure 3 San Francisco Bay Area Office Development Trends Source: BAE, 2020.

Table 2, on the next page, summarizes the Class A office market in San Mateo County and the southern portions of San Francisco. Figure 4 shows the seven million square feet of Class A space existing in Northern San Mateo County. The strength of South San Francisco’s growth is shown in the fact that in the past ten years, all of new Class A office and life-science space constructed in Northern San Mateo County has been in South San Francisco. Figure 5 shows the 16 million of additional projects are under construction, entitled and proposed along the Highway 101 corridor in Northern San Mateo county.

Connecting the San Francisco and San Jose economies, Caltrain stations have emerged as attractive locations for new Class A office and life-science development. Peninsula cities are building up, near transit stations, creating density of jobs and housing opportunities. Looking forward, Hunters Point, Candlestick Park, Brisbane, South San Francisco, and San Carlos each have significant unbuilt, entitled properties for additional office and life-science uses in large scale office park settings that will continue to out-complete locations within Daly City. In total, these sites include 30 million square feet either under construction as of the end of 2019 or in the development pipeline, shown in Figure 6.

24 Table 15 San Francisco Peninsula/San Mateo County Office Market Millions of Building Square Feet
(a) Genetech's proposed master plan change to allow 4 million additional square feet is not included. (b) includes City of Burlingame, City of San Mateo, and the Foster City/Redwood City Shores submarket. (c) Includes City of Menlo Park, City of Redwood City, and the Belmont/San Carlos submarket. (d) San Francisco has approved projects at Candlestick and Hunters Point that allow office and R&D product.

Source: CoStar, local planning departments, BAE 2020.

Figure 4: Existing Class A Office in Northern San Mateo County All Existing Buildings –7 Million Square Feet Built 2010 to 2019 1.6 Million Square Feet Source: CoStar, BAE 2020.

Existing
12/2019
Under
Construction
Planned/
Proposed
Daly City 0.4 - -
Milbrae - 0.2 0.2
San Bruno 0.3 - 2.4
South San Francisco 5.7 3.3 (a) 3.0
Brisbane 0.8 0.6 6.5
North San Mateo County 7.2 4.0 12.2
Central San Mateo County (b) 10.6 1.4 0.6
South San Mateo County (c) 6.1 1.6 11.0

13.3 5.7 23.2
Southern San Francisco (d) 2.8
Total 23.9 7.1 26.6 Page 279 of 783

25 Figure 5: Class A Office Projects Under Construction, Approved and Proposed Northern San Mateo County, 16 Million square feet

Source: CoStar, BAE 2020

26 Figure 6: Class A Office Projects Under Construction, Approved and Proposed San Mateo County, Candlestick, and Hunter’s Point, 30 Million square feet

Source: CoStar, BAE 2020

27 Case Studies – Traditional Suburban vs Suburban TOD and Urban Environments To better understand why the Serramonte Del Rey site has failed to realize the 1985 plan of corporate office campus, BAE reviewed six office development case studies. Three are suburban, single-use office parks built when the 1985 Precise Plan was conceived. In contrast, BAE reviewed three San Mateo County environments that are currently attracting new office development and rapidly urbanizing around transit. Appendix B presents discussion of all six markets and this review substantiates BAE’s assessment that office development is not supported at the Site.

Suburban Environments
The suburban, single use office parks reviewed were Shadelands in Walnut Creek, Marina Village in Alameda, and the Northgate district in San Rafael. Figure 7 summarizes the case studies.

Figure 7: Summary of Traditional Suburban Office Park Case Studies Source: BAE, 2020.

Several key observations can be made from the suburban office park case studies:
• All three suburban office parks had significantly more site acreage than the JUHSD Site, which supported an initial critical mass of office space when developed. • Developers in all three parks developed Class A office space. The market now classifies all but two of the office properties as Class B or Class C, indicating that either the design and functionality of the buildings fell out of favor with tenants or that

28 property owners did not find it financially feasible to reinvest in their properties to maintain a Class A product.
• Office development was automobile centric with surface parking lots located around office buildings. All three have inferior access to public transportation and office employees generally have to drive to patronize retail and services in the area, which is counter to the current national trend of locating new office in urban, transit-oriented locations.
• Rent growth over the past five years has been less than ten percent across the three office parks, a rate of growth that significantly lower than rental increases for properties in stronger markets such as the downtowns of Walnut Creek, Oakland, and San Rafael and the Highway 101 corridor on the Peninsula in San Mateo County. • The three case study office parks did not experience any new office development over close to two business cycles, including the recent 10-year recovery from the Great Recession, reflecting a shift in preference by office tenants to other locations with more amenities and access to public transit and where prevailing rents support new construction which provides highly functional Class A product. • Overall, the 1985 Precise Plan for the Site was formulated to permit an office park with the same locational profile as these traditional suburban office parks that are currently struggling in the market.

(This space intentionally left blank)

29 San Mateo County Suburban TOD and Urban Office Development Three San Mateo County transit-oriented locations were considered as a contrast to the office envisioned with the Serramonte del Rey Precise Plan. These three locations are downtown Redwood City, San Mateo near the Hillsdale and Hayward Park Caltrain Stations, and South San Francisco’s biotech/technology campuses. The success of these markets is summarized in Figure 8.

Figure 8: Summary of Suburban TOD and Urban Office Development Source: BAE, 2020.

BAE’s overall findings related to the review of Suburban TOD and urban office developments in San Mateo County are:
• Competition for workers drives companies to prioritize locating Class A office in urban, transit-oriented locations. Millennial and Generation Z workers do not typically want to drive and prefer public transit or other alternative forms of mobility (walking, biking, and ridesharing).

30 • A significant concentration of office space and business activity is needed in one location to create agglomeration economics needed to create an industrial cluster such as bio-tech, which requires much larger land area than the 22 acres available at the JUSHD site.
• New development is occurring at densities significantly above the classic one-to-three story suburban office. Buildings built between 2015 and 2019 have ranged from four to ten stories in height and the proposed projects continue, and in some cases accelerate, the trend to mid-rise buildings. Bay Meadows in San Mateo has termed itself “mid-urban,” a position between central business district urban and a traditional suburban campus.
• Increasing highway congestion has made transit access and neighboring housing a significant priority for businesses.
• Redwood City and the San Mateo locations include significant place-making with significant housing and retail creating a 24-7 destination.

Conclusion Market Feasibility of Class A Office at the Site After review of the overall office development trends, Daly City office building performance, and the recent and planned office development in sites competitive with JUHSD’s Serramonte Del Rey site, BAE concludes that it is not suitable for office development. Since 1985, developers have chosen to invest in other locations including cases where significant entitlement process were required.

Today, office market users seek the following location attributes:
• Walkable to high-performing transit including BART and Caltrain. • Accessible to highways and offering visible locations for branding. • Authentic locations with retail, restaurants, and entertainment fostering an urbane experience.
• Technology and biotech companies tend to cluster together. It takes significant place making, such as the Bay Meadows experience to create a new location. • Locational factors are critical to attracting talent so that companies are willing to pay premium rents for locations that meet their workforce priorities.

As the costs of development are similar across San Francisco Peninsula locations, developers will build where they anticipate the highest rents and the least risk to lease up a project.

Developers, seeking to meet the end user requirements, also seek out either sites that are big

31 enough to create a vibrant mixed-use environment or infill sites situated within an already active business district. As Redwood City’s downtown plan and the Bay Meadows plan demonstrate, cities can create entitlement frameworks to foster office development, yet the underlying economic growth and user location preferences drive the timing. The Serramonte Del Rey Precise Plan experience shows that entitling office uses is not sufficient to draw development if the site does not meet current user requirements.

Across the greater market, there are substantial development opportunities that will continue to out compete the JUHSD site, including Daly City sites near or adjacent to the Daly City BART Station, including sites near BART in Daly City.

32 APPENDIX A – DALY CITY OFFICE

DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY SITES
As has been the case for many years, the incorporated area within the Daly City limits is almost completely built out. According to a vacant land analysis in the City’s Housing Element, as few as 25 acres of privately-owned vacant or underutilized land remain in the City, with most of those being most appropriate for housing uses. BAE sought to identify the potential sites for office development in Daly City likely to be successful in attracting developer interest.

All cities in the San Francisco Bay Area were asked to designate Priority Development Areas (PDAs). These PDAs are transit-oriented, infill development opportunity areas within existing communities that are expected to host the majority of future development. Daly City has two such areas, Bayshore Neighborhood and the Mission BART Corridor, as shown below. Note that the Serramonte Del Rey site is not in a PDA due to its locational attributes.

Figure 9: Daly City Priority Development areas

33 Several sites were transferred to the City from its former redevelopment agency that could offer opportunities for office development that are much closer to BART and better meet the requirements of office users. These include:

Pacific Plaza Phase II and III. The Pacific Plaza project is adjacent to Daly City BART. This site is 2.36 acres adjacent to the 2001 Junipero Serra Building. Plans are approved for 270,000 square feet of additional office space and a 200+ room full-service hotel. The City is currently negotiating with developers for these sites for a hotel, an expansion of Duggan Mortuary, and a automobile dealership.

Cow Palace and neighboring sites. The City’s General Plan traffic modeling analyzed combining the approximately 70-acre site with 12 acres of adjacent City owned land and 11 acres privately owned property. The City has assumed the ultimate buildout of the three aforementioned properties to include 1,700 new dwelling units in a higher density format and 300,000 square feet of retail/office commercial in a multi-story) format.

SamTrans Park and Ride Lot (3451 Junipero Serra Boulevard). This approximately 12.8-acre site was analyzed as 215,000 square feet of office in the General Plan traffic analysis.

However, it is also under discussion for a residential transit-oriented development, high density project. This property is owned by the San Mateo County Transit District and consists of an existing parking lot that provides daily paid parking for use by patrons to the Colma BART Station.

Daly City BART Station Delong Street Parking Lot (500 John Daly Boulevard). This property is owned by the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) and consists of a functioning 263-space parking lot on an 8-acre site just east of the Daly City BART Station. The Daly City BART station area plan envisions residential as the TOD project for this site.

34 APPENDIX B – OFFICE DEVELOPMENT CASE

STUDIES
To assess the Serramonte Del Ray site in the regional context, BAE reviewed the office markets in six other suburban locations to garner insights from both older, traditional suburban office parks and from newer suburban TOD and urban office environments. Three San Francisco Peninsula office markets, competitive with Daly City that have been strongly performing are discussed below. Three San Francisco Bay area suburban office parks, similar to the initial vision of Serramonte Del Rey, that have not been successful are also reviewed.

These cases studies provide perspective to the office development prospects for the subject site potential for a 20+ acre office campus.

Suburban TOD and Urban San Mateo County Class A Office Submarkets

Downtown Redwood City
In 2011, Redwood City adopted the Downtown Precise Plan creating development parameters for 500,000 square feet of new office and 2,500 housing units as well as hotel and retail development. That plan, and the strong economy, has spurred significant office development as shown below. The City first invested in civic improvements to create a new public space, Courtyard Square, and to entitle the plan that allowed for development to proceed. Prior to the implementation of this plan, the last office building built in downtown Redwood City was in 2001. Downtown Redwood City includes historic office and commercial buildings, a theater, and retail offering a walkable, urban experience for downtown office workers.

In 2015, Kilroy Development completed Crossing 900, a two building, 347,000 square foot project on an almost 3-acre site acquired from the City. Box, Inc., a technology company leased the complex. Three additional buildings were completed in 2018, totaling 189,000 square feet and are fully leased. The City is considering recently submitted plans to redevelop Redwood City's Sequoia Station, that include one 17-story office building, three 10-story buildings, two 8-story buildings, and one 7-story building totaling 1,635,000 square feet. If the requisite General Plan and height limit increases are approved, the 17-story building would be the tallest building within Redwood City and the project would more than double the Class A office inventory.

Over the last five years, rents for Class A office space in downtown Redwood City have increased by 42 percent, from $6 monthly per square foot to $8.66. Redwood City now has office rents that can rival Menlo Park as the highest in the County. To note, about 1½ miles from downtown Redwood City, Stanford University has developed the first phase of its 35 acre, Redwood City Campus with four office buildings totaling 570,000 square feet, a 1,057-space parking structure and has plans to grow that facility to 1.5 million square feet and 2,700 employees.

35 Figure 10: Class A Office Redwood City
Bay Meadows and Highway 92 & El Camino This case study focuses on in two areas of San Mateo adjacent to the Hayward Park and Hillsdale Train stations: Bay Meadows and the office parks neighboring the junction of Highway 101 and 92 and El Camino Real. These two neighboring areas represent an interesting comparison. Bay Meadows has been the creation of a new mixed-use district while the area’s older, suburban parks, have transitioned to be more transit and technology tenant focused. The City adopted the San Mateo Rail Corridor Redwood City, CA
No Class
42% chan
72% of C
536,000 s
Office Market Performance Metrics
Office Class A Summary, Q4 2019 Redwood City Downtown Average Office Class A Rents (PSF), 2015 - 2019 Number of Buildings 8 Year Redwood City Downtown
Inventory (sf) 744,361 2015 (Q4) (a) $6.09
Vacant (sf) 0 2016 (Q4) $7.12
Vacancy Rate 0.0% 2017 (Q4) $7.68
Avg Gross Asking Rent (psf) (a) $8.66 2018 (Q4) $8.49
2019 (Q4) $8.66
Under Construction, Q4 2019
Buildings Under Construction 3 % Change 2015-2019 42.2% Under Construction Inventory (sf) 178,268
Sources: CoStar, 2020; BAE, 2020.

New Deliveries (sf), Q1 2015 - Q4 2019 536,485
Note:
(a) Asking rents reflect direct gross leases. 4Q2015 rent is a sublease rent, as there were not direct leases, that quarter Sources: CoStar, 2020; BAE, 2020.

District Description
Key Trends

0.7 million sq. ft. office inventory
No Class Vacancy as of 4Q2019
$8.66 monthly/ per sq. ft. Class A Rent
42% change in rents 2015-2019
72% of Class is new since 2015
536,000 sq.ft.

Downtown Redwood City is
between El Camino and 101
and includes the San Mateo
County offices. Redwood
City Caltrain Station offers
access to San Francisco and
San Jose. 2011 Precise Plan
guides development.

36 Transit Oriented Development Plan in 2005 to guide development in the area and to allow for increased density in a largely built out city. In total, this area now has 2.7 million square feet of Class A office, an increase of 1.1 million square feet since 2015 with an additional 210,000 square feet under construction and 367,000 square feet planned. At the end of 2019, 3.3 percent of the Class A space was vacant.

Bay Meadows - 160+ Acres. The project has been built in phases, with the first phase completed in 2003. The project consists of 82 acres on the former practice track including: an 83,000 square foot neighborhood shopping center anchored by Whole Foods and Crunch fitness, 250,000 square feet of office, 575 apartments, and Franklin Templeton Investments headquarters campus, with 570,000 square feet built by 2003. In 2019, two additional buildings totaling 245,000 square feet completed the build out. When developed in 2001, the Franklin Templeton campus was isolated from other development, as a drive-to, suburban office park.

The second phase of Bay Meadows on 83 acres includes: 1,145 residential units mostly at townhome density, 767,000 square feet of office space, and 93,000 square feet of retail and restaurant space. The project includes a private high school that opened in 2014 as one of the first buildings as well as three public parks. The project includes five office buildings, designed for technology companies as single user buildings. Survey Monkey took the first building in 2015. The strong market response to the first buildings at Bay meadows lead the developer to increase the size of the two commercial buildings from 92,000 to 184,000 for Station 1 and 98,000 to 183,000 for Station 5. CoStar reports a monthly asking rent of $6.95 per square foot for the yet to be built Station 5 at Bay Meadows, again reflecting the strong market.

Highway 92 and El Camino. Roughly one million square feet of Class A office was in place in 2003 in the general area near the Hayward Park Caltrain station and the junction of Highway 92 and 101 as well as along El Camino Real. Since 2015, 300,000 square feet have been added and another 400,000 significantly upgraded, resulting in a desirable office location with rents doubling in the last decade. In 2017, Beacon Capital Partners acquired 1825, 1855 and 1875 Grant, mid-rise office buildings built in the mid-1980s and renovated to meet current tenant requirements including adding amenities. While having the visible, auto-oriented location at 101 and 92 and suburban parking area, the property was marketed based on its access to Caltrain. This project, “The Crossroads,” traded in early 2019 for $662 per square foot.

In 2017, Hines completed two new Class A buildings at 400 and 450 Concar totaling 305,000 square feet adding to the existing 200,000 square feet of office in the center. Centrally located near the intersection of U.S. Hwy. 101 and Interstate 92, the highly visible property is directly adjacent to the Hayward Park Caltrain station. In early 2019, 400/450 Concar sold for $1,050 per square foot. Transitioning old commercial centers to apartments has enhanced the creation of a pedestrian scale neighborhood. In 2017, Station Park Green, a TOD project

37 with 35,000 square feet of new retail and 599 rental housing units to the corner of Concar & Delaware replaced former Kmart on the 12-acre site supporting the overall transformation of this area. The City is considering a second 700+ unit residential project on a 14-acre shopping center in this area.

Figure 11: Class A Office San Mateo – Bay Meadows and El Camino & 92 Area San Mateo, CA -- Bay Meadows and El Camino & 92
Key Trends

2.7 million sq

5.9% change
40% of Class

1.1 million sq
Office Market Performance Metrics
Office Class A Summary, Q4 2019 Average Office Class A Rents (PSF), 2015 - 2019 Bay Meadows/
El Caminio & 92 Year
Bay Meadows/
El Caminio & 92
Number of Buildings 21 2015 (Q4) $5.07
Inventory (sf) 2,667,704 2016 (Q4) $4.62
Vacant (sf) 88,121 2017 (Q4) $5.21
Vacancy Rate 3.3% 2018 (Q4) $5.18
Avg Gross Asking Rent (psf) (a) $5.37 2019 (Q4) $5.37
Under Construction, Q4 2019 % Change 2015-2019 5.9%
Buildings Under Construction 4
Under Construction Inventory (sf) 209,860 Sources: CoStar, 2020; BAE, 2020.

New Deliveries (sf), Q1 2015 - Q4 2019 1,122,745
Note:
(a) Asking rents reflect direct gross leases. CoStar data is not complete on rents for the newly constructed buildings. (b) CoStar data increased to include the full Franklin Templeton office campus of over 750,000 sq. ft.

Sources: CoStar, 2020; BAE, 2020.

Market Description
Key Trends

2.7 million sq. ft. office inventory

3.3% Class A Vacancy as of 4Q2019
$8.66 monthly/ per sq. ft. Class A Rent

5.9% change in rents 2015-2019
40% of Class A is new since 2015

1.1 million sq.ft. built since 2015
Proximity to the Hayward Park and
Hillsdale Caltrain stations has fostered
office development. Bay Meadows
project has created new office complex
with significant amenties and access to
Caltrain as well as housing and retail.

Office parks along 92 have seen
renovation and new buildings with the
addition of TOD housing. Franklin Templeton HQ

38 South San Francisco, Biotech Cluster. South San Francisco’s transformation to an employment center started earlier than Redwood City or San Mateo. Genetech in 1977 leased former heavy industrial space in South San Francisco and began the process of creating a new industry. The location was near research universities, medical centers, and SFO airport but separate from the residential neighborhoods to allay any concerns about this new industry.

Genetech’s building use is roughly equal parts office space, lab space and manufacturing.

With a series of Master Plans, the City has developed land use controls to foster the growth of Genetech. Genetech has a campus of 4.9 million square feet on over 200 acres and 10,000 employees. Genetech is working with South San Francisco to increase development allowed in their campus to nine million square feet to accommodate an additional 12,000 employees.

Including Genetech, South San Francisco has over 200 biotech companies and over 11.5 million square feet of laboratory, office and manufacturing space already in operation in an area of over 500 acres, as reported by the City. South San Francisco has approved additional three million square feet of life science related development that will be built in the next ten years. Recent trends include demolishing older low-rise buildings to build new mid-rise buildings. While not classically transit oriented, this area has ferry access to the East Bay and access to Caltrain and BART. Employers use shuttle buses to access transit and provide commute buses for employees.

REITs are creating new campuses in South San Francisco, investing in the entitlement, infrastructure and beginning construction prior to identifying a tenant. Frequently buildings are leased during construction creating a market dynamic of substantial additions to inventory without increasing vacancy. Additionally, technology companies beyond biotech are choosing South San Francisco, some relocating from San Francisco for lower tax rates and rental rates.

Campuses include amenities to create an attractive work environment and foster social connections.

Key projects include:
• BioMed Realty Trust’s 1.25 million square feet Pacific Gateway campus, • HCP Investment’s 884,000 square feet Britannia Cove campus, under construction • Alexandria’s 291,000 square feet of office/R&D campuses. • Kilroy is constructing 2.5 million square feet of office and open space adjacent to Oyster Point.

South San Francisco differs from Redwood City and San Mateo as it has not included residential uses in the core office parks as the biotech industry preferred separation from residential uses. Instead, South San Francisco has fostered additional housing in its downtown and areas neighboring the Caltrain station, with almost 700 units permitted between 2015 and 2019 and an additional 3,000 housing units in the development pipeline.

39 Figure 12: Class A Office/Life Science South San Francisco

South San Francisco, CA Market Description
Key Trends

5.8 million sq. ft. office inventory

4.9% Vacancy as of 4Q2019
26% increase in office rents
42% change in R&D rents
51% of Class is new since 2015
Over 500 acres with 15 campus
for biotech/life science and
technology companies. Newer
developments are mid-rise
construction included two
building on the west side of
101. 3 million square feet is
under construction and another
3 million is proposed.

Office Class A Summary, Q4 2019 (a) South San Francisco Average Office Class A Rents (PSF), 2015 - 2019 (b) Number of Buildings 33 Class A
Inventory (sf) 5,688,694 Year Office -- FS R&D -- NNN
Vacant (sf) 271,162 2015 (Q4) $3.56 $3.50
Vacancy Rate 4.8% 2016 (Q4) $4.32 $2.75
2017 (Q4) $5.35 $4.59
2018 (Q4) $5.07 $5.34
Under Construction, Q4 2019 2019 (Q4) $4.50 $4.99
Buildings Under Construction 7
Under Construction Inventory (sf) 2,977,728 % Change 2015-2019 26.4% 42.6% New Deliveries (sf), Q1 2015 - Q4 2019 1,611,768
(a) Includes Class A office buildings larger than 50,000 square feet. Biotech business are also in Class B and C buildings and R&D/industrial space; thus other metrics of the overall size of the biotech sector are larger for South San Francisco. (b) Rents are as reported by Colliers as the CoStar database did not include sufficient information.

Sources: CoStar, 2020; BAE, 2020. Page 294 of 783

40 Traditional Suburban Office Parks

At the regional level, tenant preferences for proximity to transit has resulted in many traditional suburban office parks built in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s (without amenities and a variety of mobility options) now experiencing weak leasing and rents. BAE identified three office parks in the Bay Area that were considered Class A development when constructed and initially leased but now face challenges as less favored business locations:

Shadelands Office Park in Walnut Creek, Northgate District in San Rafael, and Marina Village Office Park in Alameda.

Shadelands Office Park, Walnut Creek. This 240-acre office park with approximately 1.3 million square feet is located off of Ygnacio Valley Road. It is approximately 2.4 miles from the Pleasant Hill/Contra Costa Center BART Station and 3.0 miles from the Walnut Creek BART station. Shadelands Office Park was one of the first Class A suburban office parks developed in the Bay Area with most of its construction occurring in the 1970s and 1980s. Originally, this office park attracted a wide range of businesses and nonprofits: from sole proprietors and small businesses in professional services to large anchor corporations, such as Del Monte Foods whose headquarters is still located in Shadelands.

Over time, the office inventory in this park has become dated and is now largely considered Class B and Class C space. Only one building, 2700 Ygnacio Valley Boulevard, offering 107,146 square feet is identified as Class A and it reports a high vacancy at the end of the fourth quarter 2019 (63.4 percent). One major Shadeland’s tenant, the University of California-managed U.S. Department of Energy’s Joint Genome Institute, left its long-time Shadelands facility at the end of 2019 to move to the Berkeley campus to be near its faculty, scientists, and amenities. The district’s tenant base is largely comprised of firms providing medical services. Overall, the district’s vacancy rate is 12.1 percent which is somewhat higher than the seven to ten percent vacancy rate that typically indicates a balanced relationship of supply and demand. Tenants are attracted to the district for its low rents but rents are not high enough to justify new construction. No new office construction has occurred since 2001.

Over the past five years office rents across all three classes in Shadelands have risen by approximately 6.8 percent between the end of the fourth quarter 2015 and the end of the fourth quarter 2019, compared to an overall rise of 35.9 percent for office in the Downtown Walnut Creek generally5. The last reported rate for the Class A office property at 2700 Ygnacio Valley Boulevard is $2.20 monthly per square foot on a full-service basis. This is in contrast to the reported Class A rental rate of $4.27 monthly per square foot for office in downtown Walnut Creek that has a BART station and retail and service amenities. 5 Note that a meaningful change for Class A office cannot be estimated since there is only one building in the Shadelands inventory.

41 Figure 13: Shadelands Office Park, Walnut Creek

Shadelands Business Park, Walnut Creek
District Description Key Trends
Shadelands Business Park is located in the 1.3 million sq. ft. office inventory northwestern part of Walnut Creek. It is approximately 12.1% vacancy rate

2.4 miles from the Pleasant Hill/Contra Costa Center $2.03 monthly/ per sq. ft. asking rent - All classes BART and approximately 3 miles from the Walnut Creek 6.8% change in rents 2015-2019 BART. No new construction since 2001
Shadelands Business Park, Walnut Creek
Summary, Q4 2019 Class A Classes A, B, C
Number of Buildings 1 45
Inventory (sf) 107,146 1,322,739
Vacant (sf) 67,940 159,797
Vacancy Rate 63.4% 12.1%
Avg Gross Asking Rent (psf) (a) - $2.03
Note:
(a) Asking rents reflect direct gross leases.

Sources: CoStar, 2020; BAE, 2020.

Office Building Class
Average Office Rents (PSF), 2015 - 2019
Year Class A Classes A, B, C
2015 (Q4) $1.85 $1.90
2016 (Q4) $2.25 $2.01
2017 (Q4) $2.25 $2.10
2018 (Q4) $2.20 $2.07
2019 (Q4) - $2.03
% Change
2015-19 NA 6.8%
Sources: CoStar, 2020; BAE, 2020.

Shadelands Business Park

42 Northgate/Civic Center District, San Rafael. This district is north of downtown San Rafael along Highway 101 in central Marin County between the Mall at Northgate/Manual T. Freitas Parkway to the south and Lucas Valley Road to the north. This district is comprised of approximately 731,600 square feet office space on over 80 acres (excluding the Mall at Northgate and other retail properties). Access to this district is primarily by automobile although it served by Marin Transit bus service. There is a newly opened SMART commuter train station 0.4 miles to the south of the Mall at Northgate, but to access that station is poor:
one must walk along Merrydale Road around the Mt. Olivet Cemetery and a public storage facility to reach it. The district’s retail is primarily located within the Mall at Northgate but this center is a traditional mall with surrounding parking fields hampering pedestrian access.

The district was built out primarily in the 1960s and 1970s with additional modest construction in the 1980s. Only one new office complex was built in the 1990s and the threebuilding Vineyard Business Center on Redwood Highway was developed in 2004. CoStar reports only one Class A office property, the 130,000 square foot Regency Center at 100 Smith Ranch Road. Overall the district’s vacancy rate is 6.2 percent which is somewhat lower than the seven to ten percent vacancy rate that typically indicates a balanced relationship of supply and demand. In contrast, Class A buildings in Downtown San Rafael had less than a 3 percent vacancy rate at the end of the fourth quarter of 2019. Tenants are attracted to the Northgate district for its low rents but rents are not high enough to justify new construction.

No new office has occurred since 2004.

Over the past five years office rents across all three classes in the Northgate District have risen by approximately 9.4 percent between the end of the fourth quarter 2015 and the end of the fourth quarter 2019, compared to an overall rise of 17.1 percent for Downtown San Rafael office generally6. The last reported rate for the Class A office property at 100 Smith Ranch Road is $3.25 monthly per square foot on a full-service basis. This is in contrast to the reported Class A rental rate of $4.00 monthly per square foot for offices at the Rafael Town Center in downtown San Rafael that has a highly accessible SMART station and downtown retail and service amenities. Bio-Marin, one of Marin County’s largest private employers, has recently received entitlements to expand its office and labs in downtown with a new 207,000 square foot development. A knowledgeable office property owner contacted by BAE confirmed that tenant prospects prefer a downtown San Rafael location. 6 Again, similar to the Shadelands case study, a meaningful change for Class A office cannot be estimated since there is only one building in this district’s Class A inventory.

43 Figure 14: Northgate District, San Rafael

44 Marina Village Office Park, Alameda. The Marina Village Office Park is located in the City of Alameda across the Oakland estuary from Jack London Square and downtown Oakland. It is situated off of Webster Street at the southern end of the Webster and Posey Tubes that connect Alameda to downtown Oakland. The office park is approximately 1.5 miles east of the Alameda Ferry Terminal that links Alameda and downtown Oakland to San Francisco. While this office park is within a half mile the Capitol Corridor Oakland Station and another ferry terminal at Jack London Square, there is no pedestrian or bike access; bus access takes approximately a half hour compared to eight minutes auto.

Marina Village consists of approximately 1.1 million square feet of office and research space that stands on over 200 acres and includes 32 buildings. This office park was developed starting in 1979 and continuing through the 1990s, with the bulk of space constructed during the 1980s. CoStar does not show any of the office properties as Class A office; all are either Class B or C properties. The overall vacancy rate for the district is 18.1 percent as of the end of the fourth quarter 2019, which is significantly higher than the seven to ten percent vacancy rate that typically indicates a balanced relationship of supply and demand. Tenants are attracted to the district for its low rents and the office park is home to many technology companies that have sought less expensive locations as office rents have risen sharply in San Francisco and Oakland. With an average reported rent at $2.82 monthly per square foot at the end of the fourth quarter 2019, rents are not high enough to justify new construction. No new office has occurred since 2001.

Over the past five years office rents across all three classes in the Marina Village have risen by approximately 7.6 percent between the end of the fourth quarter 2015 and the end of the fourth quarter 2019, compared to an overall rise of 71 percent for all classes of office in downtown Oakland.

45 Figure 15: Marina Village Office Park, Alameda

100 Pringle Avenue | Suite 600 | Walnut Creek, CA 94596 | (925) 930-7100 | Fax (925) 933-7090 www.fehrandpeers.com
Memorandum
Date: April 22, 2021
To: Alan Katz and Chris White, Brookwood Advisors
From: Bill Burton, PE
Subject: Serramonte Del Rey Precise Plan Parking Demand Analysis SF19-1060
This Technical Memorandum discusses the residential parking demand analysis prepared for the Jefferson Union High School District’s Serramonte Del Rey Precise Plan (“Project”). The Project proposes a mix of uses including 1,235 multi-family dwelling units, including below market rate housing for district faculty and staff, and up to 14,000 square feet of neighborhood retail on the site of the former Serramonte High School (699 Serramonte Boulevard, Daly City). The purpose of this analysis is to provide an evaluation of the Daly City’s residential parking requirement and the Project’s anticipated parking demand based on the best available current data.

Daly City Parking Requirements
Table 1 summarizes residential parking requirements based on Daly City’s Municipal Code.

Table 1: Daly City Parking Requirements
Housing Type Size Code Required
Parking
Multi-Family Housing
Studio Units/Jnr 1 Bedroom Units 129 units 1.0 spaces per unit 129 1 Bedroom Units 461 units 1.5 spaces per unit 692
2+ Bedroom Units 645 units 2 spaces per unit 1,290
Residential Subtotal 2,111
Retail 14,000 s.f. 1 space per 300 s.f. 47
TOTAL CODE PARKING REQUIREMENT 2,158
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2021; Daly City Municipal Code Section 17.34.020 - Schedule of parking requirements.

Alan Katz and Chris White
April 22, 2021

To meet the residential parking requirement set forth in Daly City’s Municipal Code, the Project would need to provide 2,111 total parking spaces for the 1,235 total housing units. Forty-seven off-street parking spaces would be required for the retail portion of the Project.

Methodology
To estimate the Project’s anticipated residential parking demand, we employed the following methodologies:

1. Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Parking Generation Manual, 5th Edition

2. City and Census Tract-level vehicle ownership data collected from the American Community Survey

3. Analyzing potential parking reductions through the implementation of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies
ITE Parking Generation
The ITE Parking Generation Manual summarizes a collection of parking demand data observations made globally by land use type. Table 2 presents the average ITE parking generation for Low-toMid-Rise Apartments and High-Rise Apartments, the housing types this Project proposes.

Table 2: ITE Parking Generation
Housing Type Average Parking Generation Rate
Low-to-Mid-Rise Apartment 1.23 spaces/unit
High-Rise Apartment 1.37 spaces/unit
Source: ITE Parking Generation Manual, 5th Edition, 2018 The ITE Parking Generation Manual indicates that a range of 1.2 to 1.4 spaces/unit would be enough to satisfy the parking demand of the proposed housing types. However, the average parking generation rate presented in the ITE Parking Generation Manual does not account for mobility or land use patterns specific to Daly City or the neighborhood’s context. ITE data is collected in predominantly suburban areas with traditionally little transit service and a low rate of walk and bike trips. Thus, it normally presents a conservative estimate of a potential project’s parking demand.

Alan Katz and Chris White
April 22, 2021

Average Vehicle Ownership per Household
City and neighborhood average vehicle ownership data collected from the American Community Survey provides a more localized snapshot of residential parking demand. Table 3 summarizes citywide and census tract vehicle ownership data for the Project site based on household type and size.

Table 3: Average Vehicle Ownership by Household Type and Household Size Geographic Scale Household Type Household Size Average Vehicle Ownership
Census Tract 6015.02, San
Mateo County
Studio 1-Person 0.87
1-Bedroom 2-Person 1.49
2-Bedroom 3-Person 1.59
3-Bedroom 4+ Person 2.00
AVERAGE VEHICLE OWNERSHIP (CENSUS TRACT) 1.52
Daly City
Studio 1-Person 0.92
1-Bedroom 2-Person 1.65
2-Bedroom 3-Person 2.03
3-Bedroom 4+ Person 2.60
AVERAGE VEHICLE OWNERSHIP (CITY) 1.92
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2021; American Community Survey, 2019 5-Year Estimates The average household vehicle ownership for the census tract the project is in is 1.52 vehicles/household, lower than the City’s average of 1.92. There are two reasons why the censustract data is a good indicator of the proposed project. First, the census-tract consists of several multi-family housing complexes, reflecting the nature of the proposed project. Second, renters in both the census tract and in Daly City are less likely to own a vehicle. The average vehicle ownership rate for renters is 1.41 vehicles/household within the census tract and 1.55 for Daly City.

Changing Trends in Parking
Several ongoing and future societal and technological trends are influencing the demand for vehicular parking. In the highly urbanized areas of Northern California such as San Francisco and Oakland, parking code requirements and automobile ownership have been in decline in recent years. On-going and future changes that are influencing the need for parking include:

Alan Katz and Chris White
April 22, 2021

• Increasing use of Transportation Network Companies (Uber, Lyft, etc.) • Car share and bike sharing programs
• Shuttles and subsidized employer transit
• Demographic trends
• Freelancing, telecommuting, work from home
• Increases in preferences for urban living
• Internet shopping, prevalence of delivery services
• Micromobility
• Travel Demand Management Measures
• Autonomous Vehicles
It is likely that these trends will continue to put downward pressure on the need for vehicular parking, with the pressure spreading from the highly urbanized areas over time.

Universal Stall Sizes
The project should also consider using universal parking stall sizes rather than the traditional standard/compact model. While Daly City’s Municipal Code (Section 17.34.030) describes the use of standard 8.5’x19’ (26’ aisles) stall sizes and small car spaces of an 8.5’x16’ (24’ aisles) dimension.

The employment of a more modern “universal” stall approach would use a standard 8.5’x18’ (24’ aisles) space for all parking spaces.

The use of a universal parking stall size has several benefits. In project design, it allows for a more efficient layout and deployment of space. When all stalls and aisles are of uniform width, the parking layout does not shrink and grow throughout the garage or surface lot. The resultant lost or unused space can be considerably smaller. In operation, the common phenomenon of large vehicles parking in small spaces does not occur. When large vehicles park in small car spaces they frequently spill over into adjacent spaces, making the overall lot usage less efficient.

A number of local and western region cities have converted to the universal stall model. These include Foster City, Hillsboro, Alameda County, Denver, and Pasadena, among others.

Conclusions/Findings
This analysis compares the Project’s anticipated residential parking demand with the Daly City Municipal Code’s parking requirement. Given the Project’s mix and size of units, the Daly City Municipal Code would require the Project to provide 2,111 parking spaces for 1,235 total units. On average, the parking requirement would be 1.71 parking spaces/unit. However, the methodology

Alan Katz and Chris White
April 22, 2021

employed to estimate anticipated residential parking demand for the Project indicates that demand can be satisfied with a lower supply of parking.
• ITE Parking Generation 5th Edition estimates for low-to-mid-rise apartments and high-rise apartments indicate that the Project may provide enough parking at a rate of 1.2 to 1.4 spaces/unit.
• Average vehicle ownership data for the Project’s census tract is 1.52 spaces/unit. The average vehicle ownership rate for renters is 1.41 vehicles/unit within the census tract and 1.55 for Daly City.

Based on the analysis conducted, an average parking supply of 1.5 spaces/unit is recommended for the market rate portions of the Project. The affordable housing portions of the Project would provide parking at a ratio of 1.0 spaces/unit, in alignment with State law. It should also be noted that the demand for parking has generally declined at urban multi-family housing in the Bay Area in recent years. On-going and future trends, including carshare, TNCs and the penetration of autonomous vehicles into the marketplace are likely to continue and potentially accelerate this phenomenon.

Cultural Resources Study for the
Serramonte Del Rey Project
Located on a Portion of the Property at
699 Serramonte Boulevard
Daly City, San Mateo County, California
Eileen Barrow, MA/RPA
January 25, 2021
Revised
February 26, 2021

Cultural Resources Study for the
Serramonte Del Rey Project
Located on a Portion of the Property at
699 Serramonte Boulevard
Daly City, San Mateo County, California
Prepared by:

Eileen Barrow, MA/RPA
Tom Origer & Associates
Post Office Box 1531
Rohnert Park, California 94927
(707) 584-8200
Prepared for:

Brookwood Advisors
One Embarcadero Center, Suite 500
San Francisco, California 94111
January 25, 2021
Revised
February 26, 2021

i

ABSTRACT
Tom Origer & Associates conducted a cultural resources study for the Serramone Del Rey Project, located on a portion of the property at 699 Serramonte Boulevard, Daly City, San Mateo County, California. The study was requested by Bruce Brubaker of PlaceWorks, Inc. and authorized by Alan Katz and Chris White of Brookwood Advisors. This study was conducted to meet the requirements of the City of Daly City and those of the California Environmental Quality Act. The purpose of this report is to identify potential historical resources other than Tribal Cultural Resources, as defined in Public Resources Code [PRC] 21074 (a)(1)(A)-(B) and discussed in the Regulatory Context section). Tribal Cultural Resources are defined in Public Resources Code [PRC] 21074 (a)(1)(A)-(B). Tribal cultural resources may include Native American archaeological sites, but they may also include other types of resources such as cultural landscapes or sacred places. The identification and appropriate treatment of tribal cultural resources is determined through government-to-government consultation with tribes thus cannot be identified as part of this study.

The project proponent is proposing to develop the property into multi-residential housing and retail space.

This study included archival research at the Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, examination of the library and files of Tom Origer & Associates, Native American contact, and field inspection of the study area. The former Jefferson High School building is located within the study area; it should be examined by an architectural historian to determine if it is eligible for inclusion on the California Register of Historical Resources.

This report contains information about the locations of archaeological sites. For the protection of these resources, this report, and such location information, should not be publicly circulated.

Synopsis
Project: Serramonte Del Rey
Location: 699 Serramonte Boulevard, Daly City, San Mateo County APN: A portion of 091-211-230
Quadrangles: San Francisco South 7.5’ series
Study Type: Intensive
Scope: ~18.5 acres
Field Hours: 2 person-hours
NWIC #: 20-1210
TOA #: 2020-065
Finds: No archaeological resources. The high school building was constructed in 1970 and should be examined by an architectural historian to determine if it meets criteria for inclusion on the California Register of Historical Resources.

ii
Key Personnel
Eileen Barrow
Ms. Barrow conducted archival research, conducted the fieldwork, and authored this report. Ms. Barrow has been with Tom Origer & Associates since 2005. She holds a Master of Arts in cultural resources management from Sonoma State University. Mrs. Barrow's experience includes work in compliance with local ordinances, California Environmental Quality Act, National Environmental Policy Act, and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requirements. Her professional affiliations include the Society for American Archaeology, the Society for California Archaeology, the California Historical Society, and the Sonoma County Historical Society.

iii

CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................................i Synopsis..............................................................................................................................................i Key Personnel....................................................................................................................................ii INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................1 REGULATORY CONTEXT..................................................................................................................1 Resource Definitions.........................................................................................................................2 Significance Criteria..........................................................................................................................2 PROJECT SETTING..............................................................................................................................3 Study Area Location and Description ...............................................................................................3 Cultural Setting..................................................................................................................................5 STUDY PROCEDURES AND FINDINGS...........................................................................................9 Native American Contact ..................................................................................................................9 Native American Contact Results......................................................................................................9 Archival Research Procedures...........................................................................................................9 Archival Research Findings...............................................................................................................9 Field Survey Procedures..................................................................................................................11 Field Survey Findings......................................................................................................................11 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS....................................................................................11 Archaeological Recommendations..................................................................................................11 Built Environment Recommendations.............................................................................................12 Accidental Discovery ......................................................................................................................12 SUMMARY..........................................................................................................................................12 MATERIALS CONSULTED...............................................................................................................13 APPENDIX A: Native American Contact

FIGURES
Figure 1.Project vicinity (adapted from the 1980 San Francisco 1:250,000-scale USGS map).............1 Figure 2.Study area location (adapted from the 1980 San Francisco South 7.5’ USGS topographic map)...4 Figure 3. Overview photo of the study area, facing south-southeast......................................................5 TABLES
Table 1. North Bay/San Francisco Bay Area Chronology......................................................................7 Table 2. Studies within a Quarter-mile of the Study Area....................................................................11

1 INTRODUCTION
This report describes a cultural resources study for the Serramonte Del Rey Project, located on a portion of the property at 699 Serramonte Boulevard, Daly City, San Mateo County, California (Figure 1). The study was requested by Bruce Brubaker of PlaceWorks, Inc. and authorized by Alan Katz and Chris White of Brookwood Advisors. This study was conducted in compliance with the requirements of the City of Daly City and those of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The project consists of the development of the property into multi-residential housing and retail space. Documentation pertaining to this study is on file at Tom Origer & Associates (File No. 2020-065).

REGULATORY CONTEXT
The State of California requires that cultural resources be considered during the environmental review process. This process is outlined in CEQA and accomplished by an inventory of resources within a study area and by assessing the potential that historical resources could be affected by development.

The term “Historical Resources” encompasses all forms of cultural resources including prehistoric and historical archaeological sites and built environment resources (e.g., buildings, bridges, canals), that would be eligible for inclusion on the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register).

An additional category of resources is defined in CEQA under the term “Tribal Cultural Resources” (Public Resources Code Section 21074). They are not addressed in this report because Tribal Cultural Resources are resources that are of specific concern to California Native American tribes, and knowledge of such resources is limited to tribal people. Pursuant to CEQA, as revised in July 2015, such resources are to be identified by tribal people in direct, confidential consultation with the lead agency (PRC §21080.3.1).

This cultural resources study was designed to satisfy environmental issues specified in the CEQA and Figure 1. Project vicinity (adapted from the 1980 San Francisco 1:250,000-scale USGS map).

2 its guidelines (Title 14 CCR §15064.5) by: (1) identifying historical resources within the project area; (2) offering a preliminary significance evaluation of the identified cultural resources; (3) assessing resource vulnerability to effects that could arise from project activities; and (4) offering suggestions designed to protect resource integrity, as warranted.

Resource Definitions
Historical resources are classified by the State Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) as sites, buildings, structures, objects, and districts, and each is described by OHP (1995) as follows.

Site. A site is the location of a significant event, a prehistoric or historic occupation or activity, or a building or structure, whether standing, ruined, or vanished, where the location itself possesses historic, cultural, or archaeological value regardless of the value of any existing structure.

Building. A building, such as a house, barn, church, hotel, or similar construction, is created principally to shelter any form of human activity. “Building” may also be used to refer to a historically and functionally related unit, such as a courthouse and jail, or a house and barn.

Structure. The term “structure” is used to distinguish from buildings those functional constructions made usually for purposes other than creating human shelter.

Object. The term “object” is used to distinguish from buildings and structures those constructions that are primarily artistic in nature or are relatively small in scale and simply constructed. Although it may be, by nature or design, movable, an object is associated with a specific setting or environment.

District. A district possesses a significant concentration, linkage, or continuity of sites, buildings, structures, or objects united historically or aesthetically by plan or physical development.

Significance Criteria
When a project might impact a cultural resource, the project proponent is required to conduct an assessment to determine whether the impact may be one that is significant. Consequently, it is necessary to determine the importance of resources that could be impacted. The importance of a resource is measured in terms of criteria for inclusion on the California Register. A resource may be important if it meets any one of the criteria, or if it is already listed on the California Register or a local register (Title 14 CCR, §4852).

An important resource is one which:

1. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States.

2. Is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history.

3 3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction, or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values.

4. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation.

In addition to meeting one or more of the above criteria, eligibility for the California Register requires that a resource retains sufficient integrity to convey a sense of its significance or importance. Seven elements are considered key in considering a property’s integrity: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.

The OHP advocates that all resources over 45 years old be recorded for inclusion in the OHP filing system (OHP 1995:2), although the use of professional judgment is urged in determining whether a resource warrants documentation.

PROJECT SETTING
Study Area Location and Description
The study area can be found on the eastern slope of the coastal hills between the Pacific Ocean from San Francisco Bay. It is located on a portion of the property at 699 Serramonte Boulevard (APN 091- 211-230), Daly City, San Mateo County as shown on the San Francisco South 7.5’ USGS topographic map (Figure 2). This part of Daly City is largely comprised of residential subdivisions; however, a cemetery rests to the east and a shopping center to the northeast of the study area. Figure 3 provides an overview of the study area.

The study area consists of approximately 18.5-acres of land situated on an artificial flat created when the property was developed for a high school in 1970. The western edge of the property rises somewhat steeply upslope while the eastern edge drops somewhat steeply downslope. The natural slope of the property would have been 10% prior to development. The study area lies at what was once the headwaters of a small drainage that flowed east into Colma Creek (Givler and Sowers 2007). Prior to the development of the study area, this drainage would have been the closest source of fresh water.

The geology of the majority of the study area consists of sandstone, siltstone, and claystone of the Merced Formation which was formed during the lower Pleistocene and upper Pliocene epochs (~1.94 to 3.26 million years ago) (Bonilla 1998). A small portion of the study area was once the top of a drainage. This drainage area was categorized as slope debris and ravine fill, comprised of stony silty to sandy clay formed during the Pleistocene and Holocene epochs (2.58 million years ago to the present) (Bonilla 1998).

Soils within the study area consist of Orthents and Urban-land Orthents (Kashiwagi and Hokholt 1991:

Sheet 3). Orthents are very shallow to very deep well-draining soils found on alluvial fans, coastal terraces, and hills. This soil has been cut and filled for development (Kashiwagi and Hokholt 1991:29).

Urban land-Orthents are places where asphalt, concrete, buildings, and other structures cover soil, or soils are that have been cut and filled for urban development. Land containing Orthents and Urban landOrthents is used for homesite, urban, and recreational development (Kashiwagi and Hokholt 1991:35- 36).

4 Figure 2. Study area location (adapted from the 1980 San Francisco South 7.5’ USGS topographic map).

5 Figure 3. Overview photo of the study area, facing south-southeast.

Cultural Setting
Prehistory
The concept of prehistory refers to the period of time before events were recorded in writing and vary worldwide. Because there is no written record, our understanding of California prehistory relies on archaeological materials and oral histories passed down through generations. Early archaeological research in this area began with the work of Max Uhle and Nels Nelson. Uhle is credited with the first scientific excavation in California with his work at the Emeryville Shellmound in 1902, and Nelson spent several years (1906 to 1908) surveying the San Francisco Bay margins and California coast for archaeological sites (Nelson 1909). In the 1930s, archaeologists from Sacramento Junior College and the University of California began piecing together a sequence of cultures primarily based on burial patterns and ornamental artifact from sites in the lower Sacramento Valley (Lillard et al. 1939; Heizer and Fenenga 1939). Their cultural sequence became known as the Central California Taxonomic System (CCTS), which identified three culture periods termed the Early, Middle, and Late Horizons, but without offering date ranges. Refinement of the CCTS became a chief concern of archaeologists as the century progressed with publications by Richard Beardsley (1948, 1954) and Clement Meighan (1955) based on materials excavated by the University of California archaeological survey.

In 1973, David Fredrickson synthesized prior work, and in combination with his own research, he developed a regional chronology that is used to this day, albeit modified for locality-specific circumstances. Fredrickson’s scheme shows that native peoples have occupied the region for over 11,000 years (which is supported by Erlandson et al. 2007), and during that time, shifts took place in their social, political, and ideological regimes (Fredrickson 1973). While Fredrickson's chronology was adopted by many archaeologists, Beardsley's cultural sequence was adopted by others creating a roughly North Bay-South Bay division in usage.

In 1960, the first study of obsidian hydration as a dating tool for archaeologists was published (Friedman and Smith 1960). This study showed that the chemical composition of the obsidian and temperature affect the hydration process. It was not until the 1980s that research into this dating method was conducted for the North Bay Area which has four major obsidian sources. In 1987, Thomas Origer

6 devised a hydration chronology for the North Bay Area. This chronology was developed by pairing micron readings taken from stylistically distinctive projectile points and pairing them with radiocarbon dates. Origer was able to develop a hydration rate for Annadel and Napa Valley obsidian sources as a result of his study. Later, Tremaine (1989, 1993) was able to develop comparison constants among the four primary obsidian sources in the North Bay Area.

The development of obsidian hydration rates for the four, primary San Francisco Bay Area obsidian sources have provided archaeologists the ability to obtain dates from sites that could not previously be dated due to lack of diagnostic artifacts or organic material suitable for radiocarbon dating. Origer was able to support and refine Fredrickson's chronology dating tools diagnostic of certain periods (Origer 1987). In an effort to bridge the differences between chronologies, Milliken et al. (2007: Figure 8.4) presented a concordance for comparing time periods, cultural patterns, and local variations for the San Francisco Bay Area. Milliken included Dating Scheme D, as presented by Groza in 2002, which is a refinement of previous radiocarbon-based temporal sequences for the San Francisco Bay Area. More recently, Byrd, Whitaker, Mikkelsen, and Rosenthal (2017) called upon archaeologists to abandon previous temporal sequences in favor of Scheme D, further refined in Groza et al. 2011. Table 1 assimilates Scheme D, Fredrickson’s (1973) chronology, and the obsidian hydration dating scheme from Origer (1987). Note that the Early, Middle, Late Horizon scheme is still evident though refinements have been made within those categories.

Early occupants appear to have had an economy based largely on hunting, with limited exchange, and social structures based on the extended family unit. Later, milling technology and an inferred acorn economy were introduced. This diversification of economy appears to be coeval with the development of sedentism and population growth and expansion. Sociopolitical complexity and status distinctions based on wealth are also observable in the archaeological record, as evidenced by an increased range and distribution of trade goods (e.g., shell beads, obsidian tool stone), which are possible indicators of both status and increasingly complex exchange systems.

These horizons or periods are marked by a transition from large projectile points and millingslabs, indicating a focus on hunting and gathering during the Early Period, to a marine focus during the Middle Period evidenced by the number of shellmounds in the Bay Area. The Middle Period also saw more reliance on acorns and the use of bowl-shaped mortars and pestles. Acorn exploitation increased during the Late Period and the bow and arrow were introduced.

Prehistoric archaeological site indicators expected to be found in the region include but are not limited to: obsidian and chert flakes and chipped stone tools; grinding and mashing implements such as slabs and hand-stones, and mortars and pestles; and locally darkened midden soils containing some of the previously listed items plus fragments of bone, shellfish, and fire-affected stones.

7 Table 1. North Bay/San Francisco Bay Area Chronology
Temporal
Period1
Approximate
Time Range1
~ Hydration
Interval (μ) 2
Scheme D
Periods3
Approximate
Time Range3
~ Hydration
Interval (μ) 2
Historical < AD 1800 <1.20 Historic Mission AD 1835 to AD 1770 1.10 - 1.27 Upper
Emergent AD 1800 to AD 1500 1.21 - 1.84 Late 2 AD 1770 to AD 1520 1.28 - 1.80 Lower
Emergent AD 1500 to AD 1000 1.85 - 2.58
Late 1b AD 1520 to AD 1390 1.81 - 2.02
Late 1a AD 1390 to AD 1265 2.03 - 2.22
Middle/Late
Transition AD 1265 to AD 1020 2.23 - 2.55
Middle 4 AD 1020 to AD 750 2.56 - 2.88
Upper Archaic AD 1000 to 500 BC 2.59 - 4.05
Middle 3 AD 750 to AD 585 2.89 - 3.06
Middle 2 AD 585 to AD 420 3.07 - 3.23
Middle 1 AD 420 to 200 BC 3.24 - 3.80
Early/Middle
Transition 200 BC to 600 BC 3.81 - 4.13
Middle Archaic 500 BC to 3000 BC 4.06 - 5.72
Early 600 BC to 2100 BC 4.14 - 5.18
Lower Archaic 3000 BC to 6000 BC 5.73 - 7.23
Paleo-Indian 6000 BC to 8000 BC 7.24 - 8.08+
μ = microns
1 based on Fredrickson (1994)
2 based on Napa Glass Mountain rate by Origer (1987) and Effective Hydration Temperature value from the vicinity of Santa Rosa, Sonoma County
3 based on Groza et al. (2011)

8 Ethnography
Linguists and ethnographers tracing the evolution of languages have found that most of the indigenous languages of the California region belong to one of five widespread North American language groups (the Hokan and Penutian phyla, and the Uto-Aztecan, Algic, and Athabaskan language families). The distribution and internal diversity of four of these groups suggest that their original centers of dispersal were outside, or peripheral to, the core territory of California, that is, the Central Valley, the Sierra Nevada, the Coast Range from Cape Mendocino to Point Conception, and the Southern California coast and islands. Only languages of the Hokan phylum can plausibly be traced back to populations inhabiting parts of this core region during the Archaic period, and there are hints of connections between certain branches of Hokan, such as that between Salinan and Seri, that suggest that at least some of the Hokan languages could have been brought into California by later immigrants, primarily from the Southwest and northwestern Mexico (Golla 2011).

Linguistic evidence shows that between 10,000 and 4,000 years ago inhabitants in the area were PreHokan speakers, and by 6,000 years ago Hokan languages had developed in the San Francisco Bay Area (Moratto 2004:551). Moratto (2004:552-557) hypothesized that about 4,000 years ago Penutian (Utian) speakers began to migrate into the area from the lower Sacramento Valley and established in the East Bay Area. He further hypothesized that Proto-Costanoan people originated in the East Bay Area, and early Costanoans spread to the peninsula by about 3,200 years ago (Moratto 2004:554).

At the time of European settlement, the study area was situated within the area controlled by the Ramaytush linguistic group of the Ohlone/Costanoan (Levy 1978). The Ohlone/Costanoan were hunter-gatherers who lived in rich environments that allowed for dense populations with complex social structures (Kroeber 1925). They settled in large, permanent villages about which were distributed seasonal camps and task-specific sites. Permanent villages were occupied throughout the year and satellite sites were visited to procure particular resources that were especially abundant or only seasonally available. Sites often were situated near fresh water sources and in ecotones where plant life and animal life were diverse and abundant.

Between 1777 and 1797, Spanish missionaries established seven missions in Costanoan territory disrupting Costanoan lifeways and cultural identities and decimated the population. Richard Levy (1978) estimated that Costanoans numbered 10,000 in 1770 and less than 2,000 in 1832 as new diseases were introduced, leading to higher mortality rates and lower birth rates.

For more information about the Ohlone/Costanoan see Bean (1994), Margolin (1978), Milliken (1995), and Teixeira (1997).

History
Historically, the study area lies on the boundary between the Buri Buri land grant and the Public Lands of San Mateo County (GLO 1864, 1867). Rancho Buri Buri was officially granted to José Antonio Sanchez in 1835, though he may have received it as early as 1827 (Cowan 1977:21; Hoover et al. 1966:402). The rancho was confirmed to his heirs (José de la Cruz Sanchez and others) in 1872. In 1866, the portion of the study area within Public Lands was granted to John Bartlett and John Wesley Locker. The grant was for military service and it does not appear either man lived on their land. By 1894, it appears the study area was under the ownership of an Edward and an Ellen Barry (Bromfield 1894).

9 Historic period site indicators generally include: fragments of glass, ceramic, and metal objects; milled and split lumber; and structure and feature remains such as building foundations and discrete trash deposits (e.g., wells, privy pits, dumps).

STUDY PROCEDURES AND FINDINGS
Native American Contact
A request was sent to the State of California’s Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) seeking information from the Sacred Lands File and the names of Native American individuals and groups that would be appropriate to contact regarding this project. Letters and awere also sent to the following groups as well as a follow-up call and a follow-up email when no contact was received:

Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista
Costanoan Rumsen Carmel Tribe
Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan
Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area The Ohlone Indian Tribe
This contact does not constitute consultation with tribes. They are meant to notify the tribe and provide a preliminary opportunity to voice concerns regarding the project. It is recognized that the tribes are under no obligation to identify Tribal Cultural Resources to us at this time.

Native American Contact Results
The NAHC replied with a letter dated January 19, 2021, which indicated that the Sacred Lands File has no information about the presence of Native American cultural resources in the immediate project area.

A list of additional contacts was provided.

The author spoke with Ann Marie Sayers of the Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan. She said she did not remember receiving the email and asked to have it resent to her and she would look it over.

This email was sent and when the author followed-up with another call, it was not answered and the voicemail box was full so a message could not be left.

Voicemails were left at Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista and The Ohlone Indian Tribe. An attempt was made to leave a message with the Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area, but the voicemail box was full. The phone number listed on the NAHC’s list for the Costanoan Rumsen Carmel Tribe has been disconnected. An internet search showed a different number for the tribal office, but when this was called, it too had been disconnected. For all four of the above listed tribes where voicemails were left, or attempted to be left, a follow-up email was sent.

No other comments have been received as of the revised date of this report. A log of contact efforts is appended to this report, along with copies of correspondence (see Appendix A).

Archival Research Procedures
Archival research included examination of the library and project files at Tom Origer & Associates.

This research is meant to assess the potential to encounter archaeological sites and built environment

10 within the study area. Research was also completed to determine the potential for buried archaeological deposits.

A review (NWIC File No. 20-1210) was completed of the archaeological site base maps and records, survey reports, and other materials on file at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC), Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park by facility staff. Sources of information included but were not limited to the current listings of properties on the National Register, California Historical Landmarks, California Register, and California Points of Historical Interest as listed in the OHP’s Historic Property Directory (2012) and the Built Environment Resources Directory (2021).

The OHP has determined that structures in excess of 45 years of age could be important historical resources, and former building and structure locations could be important archaeological sites. Archival research included an examination of 19th and 20th-century maps and aerial photographs to gain insight into the nature and extent of historical development in the general vicinity, and especially within the study area.

Ethnographic literature that describes appropriate Native American groups, county histories, and other primary and secondary sources were reviewed. Sources reviewed are listed in the “Materials Consulted” section of this report.

A model for predicting a location’s sensitivity for buried archaeological sites was formulated by Byrd et al. (2017) based on the age of the landform, slope, and proximity to water. A location is considered to have the highest sensitivity if the landform dates to the Holocene, has a slope of five percent or less, is within 150 meters of freshwater, and 150 meters of a confluence. Note, the Holocene Epoch is the current period of geologic time, which began about 11,700 years ago, and coincides with the emergence of human occupation of the area. A basic premise of the model is that archaeological deposits will not be buried within landforms that predate human colonization of the area. Calculating these factors using the buried site model (Byrd et al. 2017:Tables 11 and 12), a location’s sensitivity is scored on a scale of 1 to 10 and classed as follows: lowest (<1); low (1-3); moderate (3-5.5); high (5.5-7.5); highest (>7.5). Incorporating King’s (2004) analysis of buried site potential, the probability of encountering buried archaeological deposits for each class is as follows:

Sensitivity Score1 Classification1 Probability2
<1 Lowest <1 %
1-3 Low 1-2 %
3-5.5 Moderate 2-3%

5.5-7.5 High 3-5%
>7.5 Highest 5-20%
1 Byrd et al. 2017
2 King 2004
Archival Research Findings
Archival research found that the study area had not been subjected to a cultural resources survey. No cultural resources have been documented within the study area. No studies have been conducted within a quarter-mile, but four studies have been conducted within a half-mile of the study area (Table 2). One resource has been recorded within a half-mile of the study area and it is the Macy’s at the Serramonte Mall located 0.36 miles (Bevk 2015).

11 Table 2. Studies within a Half-mile of the Study Area Author Date S#
Moore and Losee 2015 47111
Spillane 2014 46397
Travers 2011 43972
Young 1976 3140
There are no reported ethnographic sites within one mile of the study area (Levy 1978).

A review of 19th and 20th-century maps and aerial photos shows no buildings or structures within the study area until 1970, at which time the Jefferson Union High School was constructed (Bromfield 1894, 1910; GLO 1864, 1868; USACE 1939, 1943; USGS 1896, 1899, 1915, 1947, 1950, 1956, 1968).

Based on landform age, our analysis of the environmental setting, and incorporating Meyer and Kaijankoski (2017) analysis of sensitivity for buried sites shows that there is a moderate potential (3.3) for buried archaeological site indicators.

Field Survey Procedures
An intensive field survey was completed by Eileen Barrow on June 16, 2021. Two hours were spent in the field and field conditions were sunny but cool. Surface examination consisted of examining places where the ground surface was exposed. The majority of the study area is covered with asphalt and buildings. A hoe was used as needed to remove duff and vegetation to expose the ground surface.

Field Survey Findings
Archaeology
Field survey of the study area found no archaeological site indicators.

Built Environment
There are six buildings within the study area. Three are permanent buildings consisting of the former high school, an adult school, and one building used by Comcast, and three are portable buildings.

DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
No archaeological site indicators were found within the study area. Application of the buried sites model indicates a moderate potential for buried resources. With the exception of the former high school building, none of the other buildings within the study area meet the age threshold to be considered potentially important.

Archaeological Recommendations
No recommendations are warranted.

12 Built Environment Recommendations
As the former high school building meets the threshold age for being considered important, it should be examined by an architectural historian to determine if it meets criteria for inclusion on the California Register.

Accidental Discovery
In keeping with the CEQA guidelines, if archaeological remains are uncovered, work at the place of discovery should be halted immediately until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the finds (§15064.5 [f]). Prehistoric archaeological site indicators include: obsidian and chert flakes and chipped stone tools; grinding and mashing implements (e.g., slabs and handstones, and mortars and pestles); bedrock outcrops and boulders with mortar cups; and locally darkened midden soils. Midden soils may contain a combination of any of the previously listed items with the possible addition of bone and shell remains and fire-affected stones. Historic period site indicators generally include: fragments of glass, ceramic, and metal objects; milled and split lumber; and structure and feature remains such as building foundations and discrete trash deposits (e.g., wells, privy pits, dumps).

The following actions are promulgated in the CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(d) and pertain to the discovery of human remains. If human remains are encountered, excavation or disturbance of the location must be halted in the vicinity of the find, and the county coroner contacted. If the coroner determines the remains are Native American, the coroner will contact the NAHC. The NAHC will identify the person or persons believed to be most likely descended from the deceased Native American.

The most likely descendent makes recommendations regarding the treatment of the remains with appropriate dignity.

SUMMARY
Tom Origer & Associates completed a cultural resources study for the Serramonte Del Rey Project, located on a portion of the property at 699 Serramonte Boulevard, Daly City, San Mateo County, California (Figure 1). The study was requested by Bruce Brubaker of PlaceWorks, Inc. and authorized by Alan Katz and Chris White of Brookwood Advisors. This study was conducted in compliance with the requirements of the City of Daly City and those of the CEQA. No archaeological resources were found during the course of this study. The former high school building is greater than 50 years old and should be examined by an architectural historian to determine if it meets eligibility criteria for inclusion on the California Register. Documentation pertaining to this study is on file at Tom Origer & Associates (File No. 2020-065).

13 MATERIALS CONSULTED
Barbour, M. and J. Major, ed.
1988 Terrestrial Vegetation of California. California Native Plant Society.

Bean, L. J.
1994 The Ohlone Past and Present: Native Americans of San Francisco Bay Region. Series ed.

Sylvia Brakke Vane, Ballena Press Anthropological Papers no. 42: Menlo Park.

Beardsley, R.
1948 Culture Sequences in Central California Archaeology. In American Antiquity Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 1-28.
1954 Temporal and Areal Relationships in Central California Archaeology. Reports of the University of California Archaeological Survey 24-25. Berkeley, California.

Bevk, A.
2015 Primary Record for P-41-002418. Document on file at the Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.

Bonilla, M.
1999 Preliminary Geologic Map of the San Francisco South 7.5’ Quadrangle and part of the Hunters Point 7.5’ Quadrangle, San Francisco Bay Area, California. United States Geological Survey.

Menlo Park, California.

Bromfield, D.
1894 Official map of San Mateo County, California. Schmidt Label & Lith. Co. San Francisco. 1910 Official map of San Mateo County, California. Britton & Rey. San Francisco.

Byrd, B., A. Whitaker, P. Mikkelsen, and J. Rosenthal
2017 San Francisco Bay-Delta Region Context and Research Design for Native American Archaeological Resources Caltrans District 4. On file at the Caltrans District 04 Office of Cultural Resource Studies, Oakland, California.

Byrd, B., A. Whitaker, P. Mikkelsen, J. Rosenthal, J. Meyer, and P. Kaijankoski 2017 Discovering Sites: Geoarchaeological Approaches to Site Sensitivity and Predictive Modeling.

In, San Francisco Bay-Delta Region Context and Research Design for Native American Archaeological Resources Caltrans District 4. B. Byrd, A. Whitaker, P. Mikkelsen, and J.

Rosenthal. Pp 4-1 through 4-13. On file at the Caltrans District 04 Office of Cultural Resource Studies, Oakland, California.

Cowan, R.
1977 Ranchos of California: A List of Spanish Concessions 1775-1822 and Mexican Grants 1822- 1846. Academy Library Guild, Fresno, California.

Department of Parks and Recreation
1976 California Inventory of Historical Resources. State of California, Sacramento.

Erlandson, J., T. Rick, T. Jones, and J. Porcasi

14 2007 One if by Land, Two if by Sea: Who Were the First Californians? In: California Prehistory:

Colonization, Culture, and Complexity. (pp 53-62) T. Jones and K. Klar, editors. AltaMira Press. Lanham, MD.

Fredrickson, D.
1973 Early Cultures of the North Coast Ranges, California. Ph.D. dissertation. Department of Anthropology, University of California, Davis.
1994 Archaeological Taxonomy in Central California Reconsidered. In Toward a New Taxonomic Framework for Central California Archaeology, edited by R. E. Hughes, pp. 91-103.

Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility, volume 52.

University of California, Berkeley.

Friedman, I. and R. Smith
1960 A New Dating Method Using Obsidian: Part I, The Development of a Method. American Antiquity. 25(4): 476-522.

General Land Office (GLO)
1864 Plat of the Rancho Buri Buri. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 1868 Plat of Township 3 South, Range 6 West, Mount Diablo Base Meridian. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.

Givler, R. and J. Sowers
2007 Creek and Watershed Map of Daly City & Vicinity. Oakland Museum of California. Oakland.

Golla, V.
2007 Linguistic Prehistory. In California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity edited by T. Jones and K. Klar, pp. 71-82. Alta Mira Press, Lanham, Maryland.

Groza, R.
2002 An AMS Chronology for Central California Olivella Shell Beads. Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, San Francisco State University, San Francisco, California.

Groza, R., J. Rosenthal, J. Southon, and R. Milliken
2011 A Refined Shell Bead Chronology for Late Holocene Central California. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 31(2):13-32.

Heizer, R. and F. Fenenga
1939 Archaeological Horizons in Central California. American Anthropologist, Vol. 41, pp. 378- 399.

Hoover, M., H. Rensch, E. Rensch, and W. Abeloe
1966 Historic Spots in California. 3rd edition. Stanford University Press, Stanford.

Hoover, M., H. Rensch, E. Rensch, W. Abeloe, and D. Kyle 1990 Historic Spots in California. 4th edition. Stanford University Press, Stanford. 2002 Historic Spots in California. 5th edition. Stanford University Press, Stanford.

Kashiwagi, J. and L. Hokholt

15 1991 Soil Survey of San Mateo County, eastern part, and San Francisco County, California. United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service in cooperation with the University of California Agricultural Experiment Station.

Kroeber, A.
1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 78, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Levy, R.
1978 Costanoan. In California edited by R. Heizer, pp. 485-495. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, W. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Lillard, J., R. Heizer, and F. Fenenga
1939 An Introduction to the Archaeology of Central California. Sacramento Junior College Department of Anthropology, Bulletin 2, pp. 93, figs. 20 and map, pls. 31).

Margolin, M.
1978 The Ohlone Way. Heyday Books, Berkeley, California.

Meighan, C.
1955 Archaeology of the North Coast Ranges, California. Reports of the University of California Archaeological Survey No. 30. University of California, Berkeley.

Meyer, J. and J. Rosenthal
2007 Geoarchaeological Overview of the Nine Bay Area Counties in Caltrans District 4. Document S-33600 on file at the Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.

Milliken, R.
1995 A Time of Little Choice: The Disintegration of Tribal Cultural in the San Francisco Bay Area 1769-1810. Series ed. Thomas Blackburn, Ballena Press Anthropological Papers no. 43: Menlo Park.

Milliken, R., R. Fitzgerald, M. Hylkema, R. Groza, T. Origer, D. Bieling, A. Leventhal, R. Wiberg, A.

Gottsfield, D. Gillette, V. Bellifemine, E. Strother, R. Cartier, and D. Fredrickson 2007 Punctuated Cultural Change in the San Francisco Bay Area. In California Prehistory:

Colonization, Culture, and Complexity, edited by Terry L. Jones and Kathryn Klar, pp. 99-124.

Altamira Press, Walnut Creek, California.

Moore, H. and C. Losee
2015 FCC Form 521, Collocation Submission Packet, Section 106 Review, Proposed AT&T Mobility LLC Telecommunications Site, AT&T Site No. CCL05415, 1 Serramonte Center, Daly City, CA. Document S-47111 on file at the Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.

Moratto, M.
1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, San Francisco. 2004 California Archaeology. 2
nd edition. Academic Press, San Francisco.

Munz, P. and D. Keck
1973 A California Flora and Supplement. University of California Press, Berkeley.

16 Nelson, N.
1909 Shellmounds of the San Francisco Bay Region. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 7(4). Berkeley.

Office of Historic Preservation (OHP)
1995 Instructions for Recording Historical Resources. California Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento.
2012 Historic Property Directory. Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento. 2021 Built Environment Resources Directory. Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento.

Origer, T.
1987 Temporal Control in the Southern North Coast Ranges of California: The Application of Obsidian Hydration Analysis. Papers in Northern California Anthropology, Number 1, Berkeley.

Spillane, T.
2014 Archaeological Overview and Assessment: Indigenous Sites of the GGNRA, 2014. Document S-46397 on file at the Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.

Teixeira, L.
1997 The Costanoan/Ohlone Indians of the San Francisco and Monterey Bay Area: A Research Guide. Ballena Press: Menlo Park.

Travers, A.
2011 Cultural Resources Analysis, Hwy 35 Hickey/Ensite #11059 (181544), Skyline and Hickey Boulevard, Pacifica, San Mateo County, California 94044, EBI Project No. 61114323.

Document S-43972 on file at the Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.

Tremaine, K.
1989 Obsidian as a Time Keeper: An Investigation in Absolute and Relative Dating. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park. 1993 Temporal Ordering of Artifact Obsidians: Relative Dating Enhanced Through the Use of Accelerated Hydration Experiments. In There Grows a Green Tree, edited by Greg White, Pat Mikkelsen, William Hildebrandt, and Mark E. Basgall. University of California, Department of Anthropology, Center for Archaeological Research at Davis, No. 11, Davis, California, 265- 275.

United States Army Corps of Engineers
1939 San Mateo, California tactical map. War Department, Washington, D.C. 1943 San Mateo, California tactical map. War Department, Washington, D.C.

United States Geological Survey
1896 San Mateo, California. 15’ series map. Geologic Survey, Washington, D.C. 1899 San Mateo, California. 15’ series map. Geologic Survey, Washington, D.C.

17 1915 San Mateo, California. 15’ series map. Geologic Survey, Washington, D.C. 1947 San Francisco South, California. 7.5’ series map. Geologic Survey, Washington, D.C. 1950 San Francisco South, California. 7.5’ series map. Geologic Survey, Washington, D.C. 1956 San Francisco South, California. 7.5’ series map. Geologic Survey, Washington, D.C. 1968 San Francisco South, California. 7.5’ series map. Geologic Survey, Washington, D.C.

Young, D.
1976 Archaeological Survey Report for Resurfacing and Reconstruction Shouders of Highway on 4- SM-1-45.4/46.5. Document S-3140 on file at the Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.

APPENDIX A
Native American Contact
Copies of Correspondence

Native American Contact Efforts
Serramonte Del Rey Project
699 Serramonte Boulevard
Daly City, San Mateo County
Organization Contact Action Results
Native American Heritage
Commission
Letter
12/29/20
The NAHC replied with a letter dated January
19, 2021, which indicated that the Sacred
Lands File has no information about the
presence of Native American cultural
resources in the immediate project area. A list
of additional contacts was provided.

Amah Mutsun Tribal Band
of Mission San Juan
Bautista
Irene Zwierlein Letter
12/29/20
Followup call
2/25/21
Followup email
2/25/21
Left a voicemail for Ms. Zwierlein. I told Ms.

Zwierlein that I would email her information
about the project and asked her to respond
either via email or my cell phone if she had
any comments, questions, or concerns about
the project.

No response has been received as of the
revised date of this report.

Costanoan Rumsen Carmel
Tribe
Tony Cerda Letter
12/29/20
Followup call
2/25/21
Followup email
2/25/21
The phone numbe provided on the NAHC list
is no longer in service. A search on the
internet brought up a website for the tribe
with a 909-623-7889 number for the main
office, but this was no longer in service as
well.

No response has been received as of the
revised date of this report.

Native American Contact Efforts
Serramonte Del Rey Project
699 Serramonte Boulevard
Daly City, San Mateo County
Organization Contact Action Results
Indian Canyon Mutsun
Band of Costanoan
Ann Marie
Sayers
Letter
12/29/20
Followup call
2/25/21
Followup email
2/25/21
I spoke with Ms. Sayers who said that it was
likely she had received our letter but did not
recall. I told her that I would email her with a
copy of the letter and map we sent for her
review and asked her to call or email with
any questions or concerns she may have
about the project.

No response has been received as of the
revised date of this report.

Muwekma Ohlone Indian
Tribe of the San Francisco
Bay Area
Monica
Arellano
Letter
12/29/20
Followup call
2/25/21
Followup email
2/25/21
Ms. Arellano’s voicemail box was full, so an
email was sent with a copy of the letter and
map with information about the project.

No response has been received as of the
revised date of this report.

The Ohlone Indian Tribe Andrew Galvin Letter
12/29/20
Followup call
2/25/21
Followup email
2/25/21
Left a voicemail for Mr. Galvan. I told Mr.

Galvan that I would email her information
about the project and asked him to respond
either via email or my cell phone if he had any
comments, questions, or concerns about the
project.

No response has been received as of the
revised date of this report.

Sacred Lands File & Native American Contacts List Request

NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION
1550 Harbor Blvd., Suite 100
West Sacramento, CA 95691
(916) 373-3710
(916) 373-5471 – Fax
[email protected]
Information Below is Required for a Sacred Lands File Search Project: Serramonte Del Rey Precise Plan
County: San Mateo
USGS Quadrangles
Name: San Francisco South
Township 3S Range 6W Section(s) 13, Rancho Buri Buri Land Grant MDBM Date: December 29, 2020
Company/Firm/Agency: Tom Origer & Associates
Contact Person: Taylor Alshuth
Address: PO Box 1531
City: Rohnert Park Zip: 94927
Phone: (707) 584-8200 Fax: (707) 584-8300
Email: [email protected]
Project Description:

The project area is approximately 18.2 acres. The project proponent is proposing to construct a new development with over 1000 residential units and 10,000 square feet for retail uses.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor

NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION

January 19, 2021
Taylor Alshuth, Associate
Tom Origer & Associates
Via Email to: [email protected]

Re: Serramonte Del Rey Precise Plan Project, San Mateo County Dear Mr. Alshuth:

A record search of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF) was completed for the information you have submitted for the above referenced project. The results were negative. However, the absence of specific site information in the SLF does not indicate the absence of cultural resources in any project area. Other sources of cultural resources should also be contacted for information regarding known and recorded sites.

Attached is a list of Native American tribes who may also have knowledge of cultural resources in the project area. This list should provide a starting place in locating areas of potential adverse impact within the proposed project area. I suggest you contact all of those indicated; if they cannot supply information, they might recommend others with specific knowledge. By contacting all those listed, your organization will be better able to respond to claims of failure to consult with the appropriate tribe. If a response has not been received within two weeks of notification, the Commission requests that you follow-up with a telephone call or email to ensure that the project information has been received.

If you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from tribes, please notify me. With your assistance, we can assure that our lists contain current information.

If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at my email address: [email protected].

Sincerely,
Sarah Fonseca
Cultural Resources Analyst
Attachment

CHAIRPERSON
Laura Miranda
Luiseño

VICE CHAIRPERSON
Reginald Pagaling
Chumash

SECRETARY
Merri Lopez-Keifer
Luiseño

PARLIAMENTARIAN
Russell Attebery
Karuk

COMMISSIONER
William Mungary
Paiute/White Mountain
Apache

COMMISSIONER
Julie TumamaitStenslie
Chumash

COMMISSIONER
[Vacant]

COMMISSIONER
[Vacant]

COMMISSIONER
[Vacant]

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
Christina Snider
Pomo

NAHC HEADQUARTERS
1550 Harbor Boulevard
Suite 100
West Sacramento,
California 95691
(916) 373-3710
[email protected]
NAHC.ca.gov

Amah MutsunTribal Band of
Mission San Juan Bautista
Irenne Zwierlein, Chairperson
789 Canada Road
Woodside, CA, 94062
Phone: (650) 851 - 7489
Fax: (650) 332-1526
[email protected]
Costanoan
Costanoan Rumsen Carmel
Tribe
Tony Cerda, Chairperson
244 E. 1st Street
Pomona, CA, 91766
Phone: (909) 629 - 6081
Fax: (909) 524-8041
[email protected]
Costanoan
Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of
Costanoan
Kanyon Sayers-Roods, MLD
Contact
1615 Pearson Court
San Jose, CA, 95122
Phone: (408) 673 - 0626
[email protected]
Costanoan
Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of
Costanoan
Ann Marie Sayers, Chairperson
P.O. Box 28
Hollister, CA, 95024
Phone: (831) 637 - 4238
[email protected]
Costanoan
Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe
of the SF Bay Area
Monica Arellano,
20885 Redwood Road, Suite 232
Castro Valley, CA, 94546
Phone: (408) 205 - 9714
[email protected]
Costanoan
The Ohlone Indian Tribe
Andrew Galvan,
P.O. Box 3388
Fremont, CA, 94539
Phone: (510) 882 - 0527
Fax: (510) 687-9393
[email protected]
Bay Miwok
Ohlone
Patwin
Plains Miwok
1 of 1
This list is current only as of the date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resource Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code.

This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources assessment for the proposed Serramonte Del Rey Precise Plan Project, San Mateo County.

PROJ-2021-
000270
01/19/2021 11:51 AM
Native American Heritage Commission
Native American Contact List
San Mateo County
1/19/2021

Tom Origer & Associates
Archaeology / Historical Research
P.O. Box 1531, Rohnert Park, California 94927 ♦ www.origer.com Phone (707) 584-8200 December 29, 2020
Irenne Zwierlein
Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista
789 Canada Road
Woodside, CA 94062
RE: Serramonte Del Rey Precise Plan, Daly City, San Mateo County Dear Ms. Zwierlein:

I write to notify you of a proposed project within San Mateo County, for which our firm is conducting a cultural resources study. This notification does not constitute formal consultation. The Serramonte Del Rey Precise Plan consists of the development of over 1,000 units of housing and around 10,000 square feet for retail uses, in Daly City. The City of Daly City is reviewing the for CEQA compliance.

Enclosed is a portion of the San Francisco South, Calif. 7.5’ USGS topographic quadrangle showing the project location.

Sincerely,
Taylor Alshuth
Associate
Email: [email protected]

Tom Origer & Associates
Archaeology / Historical Research
P.O. Box 1531, Rohnert Park, California 94927 ♦ www.origer.com Phone (707) 584-8200 December 29, 2020
Tony Cerda
Costanoan Rumsen Carmel Tribe
244 E. 1st Street
Pomona, CA 91766
RE: Serramonte Del Rey Precise Plan, Daly City, San Mateo County Dear Mr. Cerda:

I write to notify you of a proposed project within San Mateo County, for which our firm is conducting a cultural resources study. This notification does not constitute formal consultation. The Serramonte Del Rey Precise Plan consists of the development of over 1,000 units of housing and around 10,000 square feet for retail uses, in Daly City. The City of Daly City is reviewing the for CEQA compliance.

Enclosed is a portion of the San Francisco South, Calif. 7.5’ USGS topographic quadrangle showing the project location.

Sincerely,
Taylor Alshuth
Associate
Email: [email protected]

Tom Origer & Associates
Archaeology / Historical Research
P.O. Box 1531, Rohnert Park, California 94927 ♦ www.origer.com Phone (707) 584-8200 December 29, 2020
Ann Marie Sayers
Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan
PO Box 28
Hollister, CA 95024
RE: Serramonte Del Rey Precise Plan, Daly City, San Mateo County Dear Ms. Sayers:

I write to notify you of a proposed project within San Mateo County, for which our firm is conducting a cultural resources study. This notification does not constitute formal consultation. The Serramonte Del Rey Precise Plan consists of the development of over 1,000 units of housing and around 10,000 square feet for retail uses, in Daly City. The City of Daly City is reviewing the for CEQA compliance.

Enclosed is a portion of the San Francisco South, Calif. 7.5’ USGS topographic quadrangle showing the project location.

Sincerely,
Taylor Alshuth
Associate
Email: [email protected]

Tom Origer & Associates
Archaeology / Historical Research
P.O. Box 1531, Rohnert Park, California 94927 ♦ www.origer.com Phone (707) 584-8200 December 29, 2020
Monica Arellano
Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of the SF Bay Area
20885 Redwood Road, Suite 232
Milpitas, CA 95036
RE: Serramonte Del Rey Precise Plan, Daly City, San Mateo County Dear Ms. Arellano:

I write to notify you of a proposed project within San Mateo County, for which our firm is conducting a cultural resources study. This notification does not constitute formal consultation. The Serramonte Del Rey Precise Plan consists of the development of over 1,000 units of housing and around 10,000 square feet for retail uses, in Daly City. The City of Daly City is reviewing the for CEQA compliance.

Enclosed is a portion of the San Francisco South, Calif. 7.5’ USGS topographic quadrangle showing the project location.

Sincerely,
Taylor Alshuth
Associate
Email: [email protected]

Tom Origer & Associates
Archaeology / Historical Research
P.O. Box 1531, Rohnert Park, California 94927 ♦ www.origer.com Phone (707) 584-8200 December 29, 2020
Andrew Galvan
The Ohlone Indian Tribe
PO Box 3388
Fremont, CA 94539
RE: Serramonte Del Rey Precise Plan, Daly City, San Mateo County Dear Mr. Galvan:

I write to notify you of a proposed project within San Mateo County, for which our firm is conducting a cultural resources study. This notification does not constitute formal consultation. The Serramonte Del Rey Precise Plan consists of the development of over 1,000 units of housing and around 10,000 square feet for retail uses, in Daly City. The City of Daly City is reviewing the for CEQA compliance.

Enclosed is a portion of the San Francisco South, Calif. 7.5’ USGS topographic quadrangle showing the project location.

Sincerely,
Taylor Alshuth
Associate
Email: [email protected]

Tina Davis
Senior Escrow Officer
Stewart Title Guaranty Company -
Commercial Services
100 Pine Street, Suite 450
San Francisco, CA 94111-5106
(415) 633-1260 Phone
(415) 986-5973 Fax
[email protected]

PRELIMINARY REPORT
Order No. : 20000300114
Title Unit No. : 30
Your File No. :

Buyer/Borrower Name : Jefferson Union High School District Seller Name :

Property Address: 699 Serramonte Boulevard, Daly City, CA 94015 In response to the above referenced application for a Policy of Title Insurance, Stewart Title Guaranty Company Commercial Services (SF) hereby reports that it is prepared to issue, or cause to be issued, as of the date hereof, a Stewart Title Guaranty Company Policy or Policies of Title Insurance describing the land and the estate or interest therein hereinafter set forth, insuring against loss which may be sustained by reason of any defect, lien or encumbrance not shown or referenced to as an Exception on Schedule B or not excluded from coverage pursuant to the printed Schedules, Conditions, and Stipulations of said Policy forms.

The printed Exceptions and Exclusions from the coverage and Limitations on covered Risks of said policy or policies are set forth in Exhibit A attached. The policy to be issued may contain an arbitration clause.

When the Amount of Insurance is less than that set forth in the arbitration clause, all arbitrable matters shall be arbitrated at the option of either the Company or the Insured as the exclusive remedy of the parties. Limitations on Covered Risks applicable to the CLTA and ALTA Homeowner’s Policies of Title Insurance which establish a Deductible Amount and a Maximum Dollar Limits of Liability for certain coverages are also set forth in Exhibit A. Copies of the policy forms should be read. They are available from the office which issued this report.

Please read the exceptions shown or referred to below and the exceptions and exclusions set forth in Exhibit A of this report carefully. The exceptions and exclusions are meant to provide you with notice of matters, which are not covered under the terms of the title insurance policy and should be carefully considered.

It is important to note that this preliminary report is not a written representation as to the condition of title and may not list all liens, defects, and encumbrances affecting title to the land.

This report, (and any supplements or amendments thereto) is issued solely for the purpose of facilitating the issuance of a policy of title insurance and no liability is assumed hereby. If it is desired that liability be assumed prior to the issuance of a policy of title insurance a binder or commitment should be requested.

Dated as of March 15, 2021 at 7:30 a.m. Update No. 2
Leah Deffenbaugh, Title Officer
When replying, please contact: Tina Davis, Escrow Officer Stewart Title Guaranty Company - Commercial Services
100 Pine Street, Suite 450
San Francisco, CA 94111-5106
(800) 366-7839
File No.: 20000300114
Prelim Report COM

PRELIMINARY REPORT
The form of Policy of Title Insurance contemplated by this report is:
® CLTA Standard Coverage Policy
® CLTA/ALTA Homeowners Policy
® 2006 ALTA Owner's Policy
® 2006 ALTA Loan Policy
® ALTA Short Form Residential Loan Policy
˝ Informational Report

SCHEDULE A
The estate or interest in the land hereinafter described or referred to covered by this report is:

Fee
Title to said estate or interest at the date hereof is vested in:

Jefferson Union High School
File No.: 20000300114
Prelim Report COM

LEGAL DESCRIPTION
The land referred to herein is situated in the State of California, County of San Mateo and described as follows:

PARCEL A, "PARCEL MAP OF THE LANDS OF JEFFERSON UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, DALY CITY, SAM MATEO, CALIFORNIA", FILED ON DECEMBER 18, 1985 IN BOOK 56 OF PARCEL MAPS, PAGES 68 AND 69, SAN MATEO COUNTY RECORDS.

APN: 091-211-230
APN: 091-211-230
(End of Legal Description)
File No.: 20000300114
Prelim Report COM

SCHEDULE B
At the date hereof, exceptions to coverage in addition to the printed exceptions and exclusions contained in said policy or policies would be as follows:

Taxes:

A.

B.

C.

D.

E.

Intentionally deleted
General and special city and/or county taxes, bonds or assessments which may become due on said land, if an when title to said land is not longer vested in a government or quasi-governmental agency. Tax parcel(s) for said land are currently shown as 091-211-230.

The lien of supplemental taxes, if any, assessed pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 75) of the revenue and taxation code of the State of California.

Assessments, if any, for Community Facility Districts affecting said land which may exist by virtue of assessment maps or notices filed by said districts. Said assessments are collected with the County Taxes.

Property taxes, which are a lien not yet due and payable, including any assessments collected with taxes, to be levied for the fiscal year 2021 - 2022.

Exceptions:

1. 2.

3. 4.

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions as set forth in an instrument, but omitting, except to the extent permitted by any applicable federal or state law, covenants or restrictions, if any, based on race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, handicap, sexual orientation, marital status, ancestry, source of income, disability, medical condition, or other unlawful basis.

Recorded : December 24, 1985, Series No. 85-137673, Official Records Said Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions provide that a violation thereof shall not defeat or render invalid the lien of any mortgage or deed of trust made in good faith and for value. Said Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions DO NOT provide for reversion of title in the event of a breach thereof. Said Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions have been modified by an instrument, recorded October 15, 1986, Series No. 86-128948, Official Records.

The requirement that the Company be presented with a letter from the Serramonte Del Rey Owner's Association stating that all liens/dues are current.

An easement for access, landscaping, wires, pipes, conduits related to street lighting and storm drains and rights incidental thereto in favor of FSW Associates, Ltd. as set forth in a document recorded December 24, 1985, Series No. 85-137675, Official Records, affects: reference is made to said document for full particulars. No representation is made as to the present ownership of said easement.

An easement for access, landscaping, wires, pipes, conduits related to street lighting and storm drains and rights incidental thereto in favor of First Southwest, a General Partnership as set forth in a document recorded December 24, 1985, Series No. 85-137683, Official Records, affects:
reference is made to said document for full particulars. No representation is made as to the present ownership of said easement.

File No.: 20000300114
Prelim Report COM

5. 6.

7. 8.

9. 10.

11. 12.

13. 14.

15. 16.

Option for Ground Lease, executed by and between Jefferson Union High School District, as optionor and First Southwest, a General Partnership as optionee, upon the terms and conditions contained therein, recorded December 24, 1985, Series No. 85-137684, Official Records. The interest of First Southwest, a General Partnership under said option was assigned to Serramonte Del Rey Joint Venture, by assignment recorded July 16, 1986, Series No. 86-081600, Official Records.

An easement for access, landscaping, wires, pipes, conduits related to street lighting and storm drains and rights incidental thereto in favor of Serramonte Del Rey Venture as set forth in a document recorded October 1, 1987, Series No. 87-151216, Official Records, affects: reference is made to said document for full particulars. No representation is made as to the present ownership of said easement.

An easement for access, landscaping, wires, pipes, conduits related to street lighting and storm drains and rights incidental thereto in favor of Serramonte Ridge Owners Association as set forth in a document recorded October 1, 1987, Series No. 87-151217, Official Records, affects:
reference is made to said document for full particulars. No representation is made as to the present ownership of said easement.

Terms and Conditions as contained in that certain document entitled “Site Lease” dated as of August 1, 2019, executed by and between JEFFERSON UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, as lessor and PUBLIC PROPERTY FINANCING CORPORATION OF CALIFORNIA, as lessee, recorded August 13, 2019, as Instrument/File No. 2019-064297, of Official Records.

Terms and Conditions as contained in that certain document entitled “Lease Agreement” dated as of August 1, 2019, executed by and between PUBLIC PROPERTY FINANCING CORPORATION OF CALIFORNIA, as lessor and JEFFERSON UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, as lessee recorded August 13, 2019, as Instrument/File No. 2019-064298, of Official Records.

Terms and Conditions as contained in that certain document entitled “Assignment Agreement” dated as of August 1, 2019, by and between PUBLIC PROPERTY FINANCING CORPORATION OF CALIFORNIA and THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST COMPANY, N.A., as Trustee, recorded August 13, 2019, as Instrument/File No. 2019-064299, of Official Records.

Terms and Conditions as contained in that certain document entitled “Trust Agreement” dated as of August 1, 2019, by and between THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST COMPANY, N.A., as Trustee, PUBLIC PROPERTY FINANCING CORPORATION OF CALIFORNIA and JEFFERSON UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT as disclosed by the Assignment Agreement shown as Exception No. 10 above.

Water rights, claims or title to water in or under said land, whether or not shown by the public records.

Minerals of whatsoever kind, subsurface and surface substances, including but not limited to coal, lignite, oil, gas, uranium, clay, rock, sand and gravel in, on, under and that may be produced from the Land, together with all rights, privileges, and immunities relating thereto, whether or not appearing in the Public Records or listed in Schedule B. The Company makes no representation as to the present ownership of any such interests. There may be leases, grants, exceptions or reservations of interests that are not listed.

Any lien or right to a lien, for services, labor, or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the Public Records.

Any and all unrecorded leases.

Any facts, rights, interests or claims which are not disclosed by the public records but which could be ascertained by making inquiry of the parties in possession of the herein described land.

File No.: 20000300114
Prelim Report COM

17. 18.

19. 20.

21. 22.

Any easements, liens (including but not limited to any Statutory Liens for labor or materials arising from any on-going or recently completed works of improvement), encumbrances, facts, rights, interest or claims which are not shown by the public records but which could be ascertained by an inspection of the herein described land.

Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortages in area, encroachments or any other facts which a correct survey of the herein described land would disclose which are not shown by the public records and the requirement that said survey meets with the minimum standards for ALTA/ NSPS land title surveys.

If ALTA Survey is obtained, said ALTA survey needs to be certified to Stewart Title Guaranty Company.

The requirement that this Company be provided with a suitable Owner's Affidavit.

The Company reserves the right to make additional exceptions and/or requirements upon review of the Owner's Affidavit.

PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT THE DATA AND INFORMATION FROM THE PUBLIC RECORDS

CONTAINED HEREIN WILL NEED TO BE UPDATED PRIOR TO CLOSING AS THE COUNTY

RECORDER AND THE COURTS WERE CLOSED AND/OR LIMITED AS A RESULT OF THE CORONAVIRUS PANDEMIC. IF THE INFORMATION FROM THE COUNTY RECORDER AND

THE COURTS IS NOT AVAILABLE THERE WILL BE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS IN ORDER TO CLOSE AND INSURE THIS TRANSACTION. PLEASE CONTACT YOUR LOCAL TITLE OFFICER FOR DETAILS.

Matters contained in document entitled Affordable Housing Agreement Jefferson Union High School District Faculty and Staff Housing Project by and between City of Daly City, a municipal corporation and Jefferson Union High School District, a union high school district recorded November 24, 2020 as Instrument No. 2020-134449 of Official Records. (End of Exceptions)
File No.: 20000300114
Prelim Report COM

NOTES AND REQUIREMENTS
A.

B.

C.

D.

E.

F.

G.

H.

I.

J.

Property taxes for the fiscal year 2020 - 2021 shown below are paid. For proration purposes the amounts are:
1st Installment: $8,060.40
2nd Installment: $8,060.40
Parcel No.: 091-211-230
Code Area/Tracer No.: 05-036
Property taxes for the fiscal year 2019 - 2020 shown below are paid. For proration purposes the amounts are:
1st Installment: $340.30
2nd Installment: $340.30
Parcel No.: 091-211-230
Code Area: 05-036
If you have knowledge of any other transfers or conveyances, please contact your title officer immediately for further research and review. The only transfers or conveyances shown in the public records within 24 months of the date of this report are:

None
There are no items in this preliminary report that will cause Stewart Title Guaranty Company to decline to attach the CLTA Endorsement Form 116.01-06 (or similar ALTA 22-06 equivalent), indicating that there is located a Public School, known as 699 Serramonte Boulevard, Daly City, CA 94015.

All Transactions - Seller(s) and Buyer(s) or Borrowers are provided as attachments Stewart Title’s document entitled “Acknowledgement of Receipt, Understanding and Approval of STG Privacy Notice for Stewart Title Companies and Stewart’s Affiliated Business Arrangement Disclosure Statement” along with those individually named documents for your review and acknowledgment prior to closing.

All Transactions - Buyer(s)/Seller(s)/Borrower(s) are provided Stewart Title’s Preliminary report for review and acknowledgment prior to closing. Buyer(s) approval to include the Preliminary Report items that remain as exceptions to the title policy.

Purchase Transactions Only - Seller(s)/Owner(s) are provided Stewart Title’s Owner’s Affidavit and Indemnity for completion prior to closing.

There are no items in this preliminary report that will cause Stewart Title Guaranty Company to decline to attach the CLTA Endorsement Form 100.2-06 (or a similar ALTA 9 equivalent), or, if applicable, the CLTA Endorsement Form 115.1-06 (or a similar ALTA 4 equivalent) or CLTA Endorsement Form 115.2-06 (or a similar ALTA 5 equivalent) to an ALTA Loan Policy, when issued.

A Preliminary Change of Ownership Report must be completed by the transferee (buyer) prior to the transfer of property in accordance with the provisions of Section 480.3 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. The Preliminary Change of Ownership Report should be submitted to the recorder concurrent with the recordation of any document effecting a change of ownership. If a document evidencing a change of ownership (i.e. Deed, Affidavit-Death Joint Tenant) is presented to the recorder for recording without a preliminary change of ownership report, the recorder may charge an additional $20.00.

Some counties, including San Francisco, require that a Transfer Tax Affidavit be completed and signed by the Grantor for each deed submitted for recording. This is in addition to a Preliminary File No.: 20000300114
Prelim Report COM

K.

L.

Change of Ownership Report.

In addition to County Transfer Tax (which is most typically $1.10 per thousand), any conveyance may be subject to a City Transfer and/or Conveyance Tax, as follows:

Alameda $12.00 per thousand
Albany $11.50 per thousand
Berkeley $1,500,000 and less = $15.00 per thousand
$1,500,001 and above = $25.00 per thousand
Culver City $4.50 per thousand
Emeryville $12.00 per thousand
Hayward $8.50 per thousand
Los Angeles $4.50 per thousand
Mountain View $3.30 per thousand
Oakland $300,000 or less = $10.00 per thousand
$300,001 to $2,000,000 = $15.00 per thousand
$2,000,001 to $5,000,000 = $17.50 per thousand
$5,000,001 and above = $25.00 per thousand
Palo Alto $3.30 per thousand
Petaluma $2.00 per thousand
Piedmont $13.00 per thousand
Pomona $2.20 per thousand
Redondo Beach $2.20 per thousand
Richmond $100 to $999,999 = $7.00 per thousand
$1,000,000 to $2,999,999 = $12.50 per thousand
$3,000,000 to $9,999,999 = $25.00 per thousand
$10,000,000 and above = $30.00 per thousand
Riverside $1.10 per thousand
Sacramento $2.75 per thousand
San Leandro $6.00 per thousand
City and County of
San Francisco
Up to $250,000 = $5.00 per thousand
$250,000 to $999,999 = $6.80 per thousand
$1,000,000 to $4,999,999 = $7.50 per thousand
$5,000,000 to $9,999,999 = $22.50 per thousand
$10,000,000 to $24,999,999 = $27.50 per thousand
Above $25,000,000 = $30.00 per thousand
(Do not add the additional $1.10 for County Tax, it is included) San Jose $3.30 per thousand
San Mateo $5.00 per thousand
San Rafael $2.00 per thousand
Santa Monica $3.00 per thousand
Santa Rosa $2.00 per thousand
Vallejo $3.30 per thousand
Woodland $1.10 per thousand
File No.: 20000300114
Prelim Report COM

CALIFORNIA "GOOD FUNDS" LAW
California Insurance Code Section 12413.1 regulates the disbursement of escrow and sub-escrow funds by title companies. The law requires that funds be deposited in the title company escrow account and available for withdrawal prior to disbursement. Funds received by Stewart Title Guaranty Company Commercial Services (SF) via wire transfer may be disbursed upon receipt. Funds received via cashier’s checks or teller checks drawn on a California Bank may be disbursed on the next business day after the day of deposit. If funds are received by any other means, recording and/or disbursement may be delayed, and you should contact your title or escrow officer. All escrow and sub-escrow funds received will be deposited with other escrow funds in one or more non-interest bearing escrow accounts in a financial institution selected by Stewart Title Guaranty Company Commercial Services (SF). Stewart Title Guaranty Company Commercial Services (SF) may receive certain direct or indirect benefits from the financial institution by reason of the deposit of such funds or the maintenance of such accounts with the financial institution, and Stewart Title Guaranty Company Commercial Services (SF) shall have no obligation to account to the depositing party in any manner for the value of, or to pay to such party, any benefit received by Stewart Title Guaranty Company Commercial Services (SF). Such benefits shall be deemed additional compensation to Stewart Title Guaranty Company Commercial Services (SF) for its services in connection with the escrow or sub-escrow.

If any check submitted is dishonored upon presentation for payment, you are authorized to notify all principals and/or their respective agents of such nonpayment.

File No.: 20000300114
Prelim Report COM

EXHIBIT "A"

LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Order No.: 20000300114
Escrow No.: 20000300114
The land referred to herein is situated in the State of California, County of San Mateo, and described as follows:

PARCEL A, "PARCEL MAP OF THE LANDS OF JEFFERSON UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, DALY CITY, SAM MATEO, CALIFORNIA", FILED ON DECEMBER 18, 1985 IN BOOK 56 OF PARCEL MAPS, PAGES 68 AND 69, SAN MATEO COUNTY RECORDS.

APN: 091-211-230
APN: 091-211-230
(End of Legal Description)

AFFILIATED BUSINESS ARRANGEMENT DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Date: April 14, 2021
Escrow No.: 20000300114
Property: 699 Serramonte Boulevard, Daly City, CA 94015 From: Stewart Title Guaranty Company - Commercial Services This is to give you notice that Stewart Title Guaranty Company - Commercial Services (“Stewart Title”) has a business relationship with Stewart Solutions, LLC, DBA – Stewart Specialty Insurance Services, LLC (“Stewart Insurance”). Stewart Information Services Corporation owns 100% of Stewart Insurance and Stewart Title of California. Because of this relationship, this referral may provide Stewart Title a financial or other benefit.

Set forth below is the estimated charge or range of charges for the settlement services listed. You are NOT required to use the listed provider(s) as a condition for purchase, sale, or refinance of the subject Property. THERE ARE FREQUENTLY OTHER SETTLEMENT SERVICE PROVIDERS AVAILABLE WITH SIMILAR SERVICES. YOU ARE FREE TO SHOP AROUND TO DETERMINE THAT YOU ARE RECEIVING THE BEST SERVICES AND THE BEST RATE FOR THESE SERVICES.

Stewart Insurance Settlement Service Charge or range of charges Hazard Insurance $400.00 to $6,500.00
Home Warranty $255.00 to $ 780.00
Natural Hazard Disclosure Report $ 42.50 to $ 149.50
Escrow No.: 20000300114
ABA Disclosure 2007 BP SCE

CLTA Preliminary Report Form
Exhibit A (Revised 06-03-11)

CALIFORNIA LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION
STANDARD COVERAGE POLICY – 1990

EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE
The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy and the Company will not pay loss or damage, costs, attorneys' fees or expenses which arise by reason of:

1. (a) Any law, ordinance or governmental regulation (including but not limited to building or zoning laws, ordinances, or regulations) restricting, regulating, prohibiting or relating (i) the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the land; (ii) the character, dimensions or location of any improvement now or hereafter erected on the land; (iii) a separation in ownership or a change in the dimensions or area of the land or any parcel of which the land is or was a part; or (iv) environmental protection, or the effect of any violation of these laws, ordinances or governmental regulations, except to the extent that a notice of the enforcement thereof or a notice of a defect, lien, or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy. (b) Any governmental police power not excluded by (a) above, except to the extent that a notice of the exercise thereof or notice of a defect, lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy.
(b) Any governmental police power not excluded by (a) above, except to the extent that a notice of the exercise thereof or notice of a defect, lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy.

2. Rights of eminent domain unless notice of the exercise thereof has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but not excluding from coverage any taking which has occurred prior to Date of Policy which would be binding on the rights of a purchaser for value without knowledge.

3. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters:
(a) whether or not recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but created, suffered, assumed or agreed to by the insured claimant; (b) not known to the Company, not recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but known to the insured claimant and not disclosed in writing to the Company by the insured claimant prior to the date the insured claimant became an insured under this policy; (c) resulting in no loss or damage to the insured claimant; (d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy; or (e) resulting in loss or damage which would not have been sustained if the insured claimant had paid value for the insured mortgage or for the estate or interest insured by this policy.

4. Unenforceability of the lien of the insured mortgage because of the inability or failure of the insured at Date of Policy, or the inability or failure of any subsequent owner of the indebtedness, to comply with the applicable doing business laws of the state in which the land is situated.

5. Invalidity or unenforceability of the lien of the insured mortgage, or claim thereof, which arises out of the transaction evidenced by the insured mortgage and is based upon usury or any consumer credit protection or truth in lending law.

6. Any claim, which arises out of the transaction vesting in the insured the estate of interest insured by this policy or the transaction creating the interest of the insured lender, by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy, state insolvency or similar creditors' rights laws.

EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE - SCHEDULE B, PART I
This policy does not insure against loss or damage (and the Company will not pay costs, attorneys' fees or expenses) which arise by reason of:

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

Taxes or assessments which are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the public records.

Proceedings by a public agency which may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings, whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by the public records.

Any facts, rights, interests, or claims which are not shown by the public records but which could be ascertained by an inspection of the land or which may be asserted by persons in possession thereof.

Easements, liens or encumbrances, or claims thereof, which are not shown by the public records.

Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, or any other facts which a correct survey would disclose, and which are not shown by the public records.
(a) Unpatented mining claims; (b) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (c) water rights, claims or title to water, whether or not the matters excepted under (a), (b) or (c) are shown by the public records.

Any lien or right to a lien for services, labor or material not shown by the public records. (Rev. 06-03-11)
File Number: 20000300114

CLTA HOMEOWNER’S POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE (02-03-10)
ALTA HOMEOWNER’S POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE

EXCLUSIONS
In addition to the Exceptions in Schedule B, You are not insured against loss, costs, attorneys' fees, and expenses resulting from:

1. Governmental police power, and the existence or violation of those portions of any law or government regulation concerning:
a. building;
b. zoning;
c. land use;
d. improvements on the Land;
e. land division;
f. environmental protection.

This Exclusion does not limit the coverage described in Covered Risk 8.a., 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 23 or 27.

2. The failure of Your existing structures, or any part of them, to be constructed in accordance with applicable building codes. This Exclusion does not limit the coverage described in Covered Risk 14 or 15.

3. The right to take the Land by condemning it. This Exclusion does not limit the coverage described in Covered Risk 17.

4. Risks:
a. that are created, allowed, or agreed to by You, whether or not they appear in the Public Records; b. that are Known to You at the Policy Date, but not to Us, unless they are recorded in the Public Records at the Policy Date; c. that result in no loss to You; or
d. that first occur after the Policy Date - this does not limit the coverage described in Covered Risk 7, 8.e., 25, 26, 27 or 28.

5. Failure to pay value for Your Title.

6. Lack of a right:
a. to any land outside the area specifically described and referred to in paragraph 3 of Schedule A; and b. in streets, alleys, or waterways that touch the Land.

This Exclusion does not limit the coverage described in Covered Risk 11 or 21.

7. The transfer of the Title to You is invalid as a preferential transfer or as a fraudulent transfer or conveyance under federal bankruptcy.

LIMITATIONS ON COVERED RISKS
Your insurance for the following Covered Risks is limited on the Owner's Coverage Statement as follows:
* For Covered Risk 16, 18, 19, and 21 Your Deductible Amount and Our Maximum Dollar Limit of Liability shown in Schedule A.

The deductible amounts and maximum dollar limits shown on Schedule A are as follows:

Your Deductible Amount Our Maximum Dollar Limit of Liability Covered Risk 16: 1% of Policy Amount or $2,500.00 $10,000.00 (whichever is less)
Covered Risk 18: 1% of Policy Amount or $5,000.00 $25,000.00 (whichever is less)
Covered Risk 19: 1% of Policy Amount or $5,000.00 $25,000.00 (whichever is less)
Covered Risk 21: 1% of Policy Amount or $2,500.00 $5,000.00 (whichever is less)
(Rev. 06-03-11)
File Number: 20000300114

2006 ALTA LOAN POLICY (06-17-06)

EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE
The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy, and the Company will not pay loss or damage, costs, attorneys' fees, or expenses that arise by reason of:

1. (a) Any law, ordinance, permit, or governmental regulation (including those relating to building and zoning) restricting, regulating, prohibiting, or relating to
(i) the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the Land;
(ii) the character, dimensions, or location of any improvement erected on the Land; (iii) the subdivision of land; or
(iv) environmental protection;
or the effect of any violation of these laws, ordinances, or governmental regulations. This Exclusion 1(a) does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 5.
(b) Any governmental police power. This Exclusion 1(b) does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 6.

2. Rights of eminent domain. This Exclusion does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 7 or 8.

3. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims, or other matters (a) created, suffered, assumed, or agreed to by the Insured Claimant; (b) not Known to the Company, not recorded in the Public Records at Date of Policy, but Known to the Insured Claimant and not disclosed in writing to the Company by the Insured Claimant prior to the date the Insured Claimant became an Insured under this policy; (c) resulting in no loss or damage to the Insured Claimant; (d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy (however, this does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 11, 13, or 14); or
(e) resulting in loss or damage that would not have been sustained if the Insured Claimant had paid value for the Insured Mortgage.

4. Unenforceability of the lien of the Insured Mortgage because of the inability or failure of an Insured to comply with applicable doingbusiness laws of the state where the Land is situated.

5. Invalidity or unenforceability in whole or in part of the lien of the Insured Mortgage that arises out of the transaction evidenced by the Insured Mortgage and is based upon usury or any consumer credit protection or truth-in-lending law.

6. Any claim, by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy, state insolvency, or similar creditors' rights laws, that the transaction creating the lien of the Insured Mortgage, is
(a) a fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent transfer, or
(b) a preferential transfer for any reason not stated in Covered Risk 13(b) of this policy.

7. Any lien on the Title for real estate taxes or assessments imposed by governmental authority and created or attaching between Date of Policy and the date of recording of the Insured Mortgage in the Public Records. This Exclusion does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 11(b).

The above policy form may be issued to afford either Standard Coverage or Extended Coverage. In addition to the above Exclusions from Coverage, the Exceptions from Coverage in a Standard Coverage policy will also include the following Exceptions from Coverage:

EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE
This policy does not insure against loss or damage (and the company will not pay costs, attorneys' fees or expenses) which arise by reason of:

1. (a) Taxes or assessments that are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the Public Records; (b) proceedings by a public agency that may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings, whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by the Public Records.

2. Any facts, rights, interests, or claims that are not shown by the Public Records but that could be ascertained by an inspection of the Land or that may be asserted by persons in possession of the Land.

3. Easements, liens or encumbrances, or claims thereof, which are not shown by the Public Records.

4. Any encroachment, encumbrance, violation, variation, or adverse circumstance affecting the Title that would be disclosed by an accurate and complete land survey of the Land and not shown by the Public Records.

5. (a) unpatented mining claims; (b) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (c) water rights, claims or title to water, whether or not the matters excepted under (a), (b) or (c) are shown by the public records.

6. Any lien or right to a lien for services, labor or material not shown by the public records. (Rev. 06-03-11)
File Number: 20000300114

2006 ALTA OWNER'S POLICY (06-17-06)

EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE
The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy, and the Company will not pay loss or damage, costs, attorneys' fees, or expenses that arise by reason of:

1. (a) Any law, ordinance, permit, or governmental regulation (including those relating to building and zoning) restricting, regulating, prohibiting, or relating to
(i) the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the Land;
(ii) the character, dimensions, or location of any improvement erected on the Land; (iii) the subdivision of land; or
(iv) environmental protection;
or the effect of any violation of these laws, ordinances, or governmental regulations. This Exclusion 1(a) does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 5.
(b) Any governmental police power. This Exclusion 1(b) does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 6.

2. Rights of eminent domain. This Exclusion does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 7 or 8.

3. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims, or other matters (a) created, suffered, assumed, or agreed to by the Insured Claimant; (b) not Known to the Company, not recorded in the Public Records at Date of Policy, but Known to the Insured Claimant and not disclosed in writing to the Company by the Insured Claimant prior to the date the Insured Claimant became an Insured under this policy; (c) resulting in no loss or damage to the Insured Claimant; (d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy (however, this does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 9 and 10); or
(e) resulting in loss or damage that would not have been sustained if the Insured Claimant had paid value for the Title.

4. Any claim, by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy, state insolvency, or similar creditors' rights laws, that the transaction vesting the Title as shown in Schedule A, is
(a) a fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent transfer; or
(b) a preferential transfer for any reason not stated in Covered Risk 9 of this policy.

5. Any lien on the Title for real estate taxes or assessments imposed by governmental authority and created or attaching between Date of Policy and the date of recording of the deed or other instrument of transfer in the Public Records that vests Title as shown in Schedule A.

The above policy form may be issued to afford either Standard Coverage or Extended Coverage. In addition to the above Exclusions from Coverage, the Exceptions from Coverage in a Standard Coverage policy will also include the following Exceptions from Coverage:

EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE
This policy does not insure against loss or damage (and the company will not pay costs, attorneys' fees or expenses) which arise by reason of:

1. (a) Taxes or assessments that are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the Public Records; (b) proceedings by a public agency that may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings, whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by the Public Records.

2. Any facts, rights, interests or claims which are not shown by the public records but which could be ascertained by an inspection of the land or by making inquiry of persons in possession thereof.

3. Easements, liens or encumbrances, or claims thereof, which are not shown by the public records.

4. Any encroachment, encumbrance, violation, variation, or adverse circumstance affecting the Title that would be disclosed by an accurate and complete land survey of the Land and that are not shown by the Public Records.

5. (a) unpatented mining claims; (b) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (c) water rights, claims or title to water, whether or not the matters excepted under (a), (b) or (c) are shown by the public records.

6. Any lien or right to a lien for services, labor or material not shown by the public records. (Rev. 06-03-11)
File Number: 20000300114

STG Privacy Notice
Stewart Title Companies
WHAT DO THE STEWART TITLE COMPANIES DO WITH YOUR PERSONAL INFORMATION? Federal and applicable state law and regulations give consumers the right to limit some but not all sharing. Federal and applicable state law regulations also require us to tell you how we collect, share, and protect your personal information. Please read this notice carefully to understand how we use your personal information. This privacy notice is distributed on behalf of the Stewart Title Guaranty Company and its title affiliates (the Stewart Title Companies), pursuant to Title V of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA).

The types of personal information we collect and share depend on the product or service that you have sought through us. This information can include social security numbers and driver's license number.

All financial companies, such as the Stewart Title Companies, need to share customers' personal information to run their everyday business—to process transactions and maintain customer accounts. In the section below, we list the reasons that we can share customers' personal information; the reasons that we choose to share; and whether you can limit this sharing. .

Reasons we can share your personal information. Do we share Can you limit this sharing? For our everyday business purposes— to process your
transactions and maintain your account. This may include running the business and managing customer accounts, such as processing transactions, mailing, and auditing services, and responding to court orders and legal investigations.

Yes No
For our marketing purposes— to offer our products and services to you.

Yes No
For joint marketing with other financial companies No We don't share For our affiliates' everyday business purposes— information about your transactions and experiences. Affiliates are companies related by common ownership or control. They can be financial and non-financial companies. Our affiliates may include companies with a Stewart name; financial companies, such as Stewart Title Company Yes No
For our affiliates' everyday business purposes— information about your creditworthiness. No We don't share
For our affiliates to market to you — For your convenience, Stewart has developed a means for you to opt out from its affiliates marketing even though such mechanism is not legally required.

Yes Yes, send your first and last name, the email
address used in your transaction, your
Stewart file number and the Stewart office
location that is handling your transaction by
email to [email protected] or fax to
1-800-335-9591.

For non-affiliates to market to you. Non-affiliates are companies not related by common ownership or control. They can be financial and non-financial companies.

No We don't share
We may disclose your personal information to our affiliates or to non-affiliates as permitted by law. If you request a transaction with a non-affiliate, such as a third party insurance company, we will disclose your personal information to that non-affiliate. [We do not control their subsequent use of information, and suggest you refer to their privacy notices.]

SHARING PRACTICES
How often do the Stewart Title Companies notify me
about their practices?
We must notify you about our sharing practices when you request a transaction.

How do the Stewart Title Companies protect my
personal information?
To protect your personal information from unauthorized access and use, we use security measures that comply with federal law. These measures include computer, file, and building safeguards.

How do the Stewart Title Companies collect my
personal information?
We collect your personal information, for example, when you ß
ß request insurance-related services
provide such information to us
We also collect your personal information from others, such as the real estate agent or lender involved in your transaction, credit reporting agencies, affiliates or other companies.

What sharing can I limit? Although federal and state law give you the right to limit sharing (e.g., opt out) in certain instances, we do not share your personal information in those instances.

Contact us: If you have any questions about this privacy notice, please contact us at: Stewart Title Guaranty Company, 1360 Post Oak Blvd., Ste. 100, Privacy Officer, Houston, Texas 77056 File No.: 20000300114 Page 1
Revised 01-01-2020

Effective Date: January 1, 2020
Privacy Notice for California Residents
Pursuant to the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (“CCPA”), Stewart Information Services Corporation and its subsidiary companies (collectively, “Stewart”) are providing this Privacy Notice for California Residents (“CCPA Notice”). This CCPA Notice supplements the information contained in Stewart’s existing privacy notice and applies solely to all visitors, users and others who reside in the State of California or are considered California Residents (“consumers” or “you”). Terms used but not defined shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the CCPA.

Information Stewart Collects
Stewart collects information that identifies, relates to, describes, references, is capable of being associated with, or could reasonably be linked, directly or indirectly, with a particular consumer, household, or device. Most of the information that Stewart collects in the course of its regular business is already protected pursuant to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA). Additionally, much of this information comes from government records or other information already in the public domain. Personal information under the CCPA does not include:
ü
ü
ü
Publicly available information from government records.

Deidentified or aggregated consumer information.

Certain personal information protected by other sector-specific federal or California laws, including but not limited to the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), GLBA and California Financial Information Privacy Act (FIPA).

Specifically, Stewart has collected the following categories of personal information from consumers within the last twelve (12) months:

Category Examples Collected?
A. Identifiers. A real name, alias, postal address, unique personal identifier, online identifier, Internet Protocol address, email address, account name, Social Security number, driver's license number, passport number, or other similar identifiers.

YES
B. Personal information categories listed in
the California Customer Records statute
(Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.80(e)).

A name, signature, Social Security number, physical characteristics or description, address, telephone number, passport number, driver's license or state identification card number, insurance policy number, education, employment, employment history, bank account number, credit card number, debit card number, or any other financial information, medical information, or health insurance information. Some personal information included in this category may overlap with other categories.

YES
C. Protected classification characteristics
under California or federal law.

Age (40 years or older), race, color, ancestry, national origin, citizenship, religion or creed, marital status, medical condition, physical or mental disability, sex (including gender, gender identity, gender expression, pregnancy or childbirth and related medical conditions), sexual orientation, veteran or military status, genetic information (including familial genetic information).

YES
D. Commercial information. Records of personal property, products or services purchased, obtained, or considered, or other purchasing or consuming histories or tendencies. YES E. Biometric information. Genetic, physiological, behavioral, and biological characteristics, or activity patterns used to extract a template or other identifier or identifying information, such as, fingerprints, faceprints, and voiceprints, iris or retina scans, keystroke, gait, or other physical patterns, and sleep, health, or exercise data.

YES
F. Internet or other similar network activity. Browsing history, search history, information on a consumer's interaction with a website, application, or advertisement.

YES
G. Geolocation data. Physical location or movements. YES H. Sensory data. Audio, electronic, visual, thermal, olfactory, or similar information. YES I. Professional or employment-related
information.

Current or past job history or performance evaluations. YES J. Non-public education information (per the
Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act
(20 U.S.C. Section 1232g, 34 C.F.R. Part
99)).

Education records directly related to a student maintained by an educational institution or party acting on its behalf, such as grades, transcripts, class lists, student schedules, student identification codes, student financial information, or student disciplinary records.

YES
K. Inferences drawn from other personal
information.

Profile reflecting a person's preferences, characteristics, psychological trends, predispositions, behavior, attitudes, intelligence, abilities, and aptitudes.

YES
File No.: 20000300114 Page 2
Revised 01-01-2020

Stewart obtains the categories of personal information listed above from the following categories of sources:
ü
ü
ü
Directly and indirectly from customers, their designees or their agents (For example, realtors, lenders, attorneys, etc.) Directly and indirectly from activity on Stewart’s website or other applications.

From third-parties that interact with Stewart in connection with the services we provide.

Use of Personal Information
Stewart may use or disclose the personal information we collect for one or more of the following purposes:
ü
ü
ü
ü
ü
ü
ü
ü
ü
ü
ü
ü
ü
ü
To fulfill or meet the reason for which the information is provided.

To provide, support, personalize, and develop our website, products, and services.

To create, maintain, customize, and secure your account with Stewart.

To process your requests, purchases, transactions, and payments and prevent transactional fraud.

To prevent and/or process claims.

To assist third party vendors/service providers who complete transactions or perform services on Stewart’s behalf.

As necessary or appropriate to protect the rights, property or safety of Stewart, our customers or others.

To provide you with support and to respond to your inquiries, including to investigate and address your concerns and monitor and improve our responses.

To personalize your website experience and to deliver content and product and service offerings relevant to your interests, including targeted offers and ads through our website, third-party sites, and via email or text message (with your consent, where required by law).

To help maintain the safety, security, and integrity of our website, products and services, databases and other technology assets, and business.

To respond to law enforcement or regulator requests as required by applicable law, court order, or governmental regulations.

Auditing for compliance with federal and state laws, rules and regulations.

Performing services including maintaining or servicing accounts, providing customer service, processing or fulfilling orders and transactions, verifying customer information, processing payments, providing advertising or marketing services or other similar services.

To evaluate or conduct a merger, divestiture, restructuring, reorganization, dissolution, or other sale or transfer of some or all of our assets, whether as a going concern or as part of bankruptcy, liquidation, or similar proceeding, in which personal information held by us is among the assets transferred.

Stewart will not collect additional categories of personal information or use the personal information we collected for materially different, unrelated, or incompatible purposes without providing you notice.

Disclosure of Personal Information to Affiliated Companies and Nonaffiliated Third Parties Stewart does not sell your personal information to nonaffiliated third parties. Stewart may share your information with those you have designated as your agent in the course of your transaction (for example, a realtor or a lender). Stewart may disclose your personal information to a third party for a business purpose. Typically, when we disclose personal information for a business purpose, we enter a contract that describes the purpose and requires the recipient to both keep that personal information confidential and not use it for any purpose except performing the contract.

We share your personal information with the following categories of third parties:
ü
ü
ü
ü
ü
Service providers and vendors (For example, search companies, mobile notaries, and companies providing credit/debit card processing, billing, shipping, repair, customer service, auditing, marketing, etc.) Affiliated Companies
Litigation parties and attorneys, as required by law.

Financial rating organizations, rating bureaus and trade associations.

Federal and State Regulators, law enforcement and other government entities In the preceding twelve (12) months, Stewart has disclosed the following categories of personal information for a business purpose:

Category A: Identifiers
Category B: California Customer Records personal information categories Category C: Protected classification characteristics under California or federal law Category D: Commercial Information
Category E: Biometric Information
Category F: Internet or other similar network activity
Category G: Geolocation data
Category H: Sensory data
Category I: Professional or employment-related information Category J: Non-public education information
Category K: Inferences
Consumer Rights and Choices
The CCPA provides consumers (California residents) with specific rights regarding their personal information. This section describes your CCPA rights and explains how to exercise those rights.

File No.: 20000300114 Page 3
Revised 01-01-2020