TS PO
P
O
T
S
STOP
P
O
T
S
S
T
O
P
TS PO
STOP
SERRAMONTE BOULEVARD
CALLAN BOULEVARD
ENTRY DRIVE
NORTH DRIVE
EAST DRIVE
TO HIGHWAY 1
OVERLOOK PARK
27'-6"
21'-0"
39'-6"
33'-6"LINE OF GARAGE BELOW 26'-1"
34'-0"
LOADING ZONE
RESIDENT PARKING
RETAIL PARKING
RETAIL
RETAIL LOBBY AMENITY AMENITY
BIKE PARKING
NORTH ACCESS WAY
HILLSIDE AREA
© 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" = 30'-0"
SERRAMONTE DEL REY, PARCEL B
DALY CITY, CA
A1.0
SITE PLAN
4/21/2021
ABC
© SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INC, 2018
No Copies, transmissions, reproductions, or electronic manipulation of any portion of these drawings in whole or in part are to be made without the express permission of SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INCORPORATED. All design indicated within these drawings are property of SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INCORPORATED. All copyrights reserved © 2018.
JUHSD PRECISE PLAN
DALY CITY, CA.
A1.0
Precise Plan
9/23/2019
0' 30' 60' 120'
L-10
08/25/2023
SECTION ELEVATIONS
TS PO
POTS
STOP
POTS
STOP
TS PO
STOP
SERRAMONTE BOULEVARD
CALLAN
BO
U
L
EVARD
ENTRY DRIVE
NORTH DRIVE
EAST DRIVE
TO HIGHWAY 1
OVERLOOK PARK
27'-6"
21'-0"
39'-6"
33'-6"LINE OF GARAGE BELOW 26'-1"
34'-0"
LOADING ZONE
RESIDENT PARKING
RETAIL PARKING
RETAIL
RETAIL LOBBY AMENITY AMENITY
BIKE PARKING
NORTH ACCESS WAY
HILLSIDE AREA
© 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" = 30'-0"
SERRAMONTE DEL REY, PARCEL B
DALY CITY, CA
A1.0
SITE PLAN
4/21/2021
© SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INC, 2018
No Copies, transmissions, reproductions, or electronic manipulation of any portion of these drawings in whole or in part are to be made without the express permission of SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INCORPORATED. All design indicated within these drawings are property of SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INCORPORATED. All copyrights reserved © 2018.
JUHSD PRECISE PLAN
DALY CITY, CA.
A1.0
Precise Plan
9/23/2019
0' 30' 60' 120'
L-11
08/25/2023
OPEN SPACE DIAGRAM
NORTH ACCESS WAY
SERRAMONTE BOULEVARD
ENTRY DRIVE
KEY NAME AREA LEVEL
PEDESTRIAN STREETSCAPE 6,505 SF GROUND FLOOR
RETAIL PLAZA 6,965 SF GROUND FLOOR
LANDSCAPE (<10%) 5,390 SF GROUND FLOOR
COURTYARD & TERRACE 24,360 SF GROUND/2ND
*PRIVATE BALCONIES OR DECKS 2,585 SF ALL LEVELS
ROOF TERRACE 1,346 SF 6TH FLOOR
SUBTOTAL 47,151 SF
PARK(<10%) 22,295 SF GROUND FLOOR
RECREATION TRAIL 5,985 SF GROUND FLOOR
SUBTOTAL 28,280 SF
TOTAL 75,431 SF
*SEE ARCHITECTURE DRAWINGS FOR PRIVATE BALCONY & DECK AREAS
USEABLE OPEN SPACE SUMMARY
30 20
10 HB
30 20
10 HB
30 20
10 HB
STOP
POTS
STOP
POTS
STOP
STOP
STOP
7.00 SERRAMONTE BOULEVARD
CALLAN
BO
U
L
EVARD
ENTRY DRIVE
NORTH DRIVE EAST DRIVE
TO HIGHWAY 1
OVERLOOK PARK HILLSIDE AREA
COMMUNITY
GARDEN
PLAYGROUND
RETAIL
BIKE
GARAGE
ENTRY
RETAIL BIKE ENTRY
LOBBY
AMENITY
AMENITY
TERRACE
PARKING GARAGE
© SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INC, 2023
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 © 2023. 1" = 30'-0"
SERRAMONTE DEL REY, PARCEL B
DALY CITY, CA
A1.0
SITE PLAN
8/25/2023
TRUE
NORTH
0' 15' 60' 30'
S
T
O
P
S
T
O
P
A4.0
1 A4.0
1 RES. TRASH
CLUB ROOM
NORTH LOBBY
SOUTH RETAIL
A3.1
1 A3.1 2
A3.0
2 1 A3.0
STAIR
A4.0
B2
A
FITNESS
NORTH RETAIL
DN
23'-0"
EXIT
EXIT
34 SPACES 22 SPACES
34 SPACES
34 SPACES
24'-0"
23'-5"
34 SPACES
34 SPACES
22 SPACES
1 2
ACC
3 4
ELEC.
MAIL
VAN
ELEC.
22 SPACES 34 SPACES
5 6
7 8
9 10
STAIR
BICYCLE STORAGE
BICYCLE STORAGE LEASING LOBBY
25'-8 7/8"
16 ACC
17 18 19 20 21
21 RETAIL SPACES
22 23 24 25 26 27
3027 SF
2773 SF
UP
DN
11 12
UP
RETAIL TRASH
7'-9" HI.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
UP
27'-1 3/4"
36'-8 3/8"
28 29
127 RESIDENTIAL SPACES
301 TOTAL RESIDENTIAL SPACES
174 RESIDENTIAL SPACES
13 14 15
31 32 33
16 SPACES
DN
DN
9'-0" 8'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 5'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 5'-0" 9'-0"
24'-0"
24'-0"
24'-0"
GARAGE
ENTRY
NORTH DRIVE
ENTRY DRIVE
9'-0" 5'-0" 12'-0"
VAN VAN VAN
5'-0" 12'-0"
9'-0" 8'-0" 9'-0"
© SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INC, 2023
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 © 2023. 1/16" = 1'-0"
SERRAMONTE DEL REY, PARCEL B
DALY CITY, CA
A2.1
GROUND FLOOR PLAN
8/25/2023
TRUE
NORTH
0' 8' 16' 32'
UNIT JR-2
UNIT 1A UNIT 1A UNIT 3A
UNIT 2A-1 UNIT 1A UNIT 2A-1
UNIT 2B
UNIT 1A
UNIT 1A UNIT 1A UNIT 1A UNIT 1A UNIT 2E-1
UNIT 2A-1 UNIT 1A UNIT 2E-1
UNIT 2A-1
UNIT 2A-1
UNIT 2A-1
UNIT 2A-1
UNIT 1C-1
UNIT 3B
UNIT 2A-1
UNIT JR-2
UNIT 1A UNIT 1A
UNIT 2A-1 UNIT 2A-1 UNIT 2A-1 UNIT 1C-2
UNIT JR-1
UNIT 2E-1
UNIT 3A UNITJR-1
TR
A4.0
1 A3.1
1 A3.1 2
A3.0
2 1 A3.0
A4.0
2 UNIT 1C-1
UNIT 2A-1
UNIT 2E-1
UNIT 2A-1
UNIT 2A-1
SEATING AREA
UP
DN
IDF
COURTYARD
ELEV.
LOBBY
DN
© SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INC, 2023
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 © 2023. 1/16" = 1'-0"
SERRAMONTE DEL REY, PARCEL B
DALY CITY, CA
A2.2
2ND FLOOR / PODIUM PLAN
8/25/2023
TRUE
NORTH
0' 8' 16' 32'
UNIT JR-2
UNIT 1A UNIT 1A UNIT 1A
UNIT 2A-1 UNIT 2A-1 UNIT 1A
UNIT 2B
UNIT 1A
UNIT 1A UNIT 1A UNIT 1A UNIT 1A
UNIT 2E-1
UNIT 2A-1 UNIT 2A-1 UNIT 1A UNIT 2E-1
UNIT 2A-1
UNIT 2A-1
UNIT JR-2
UNIT 1C-1
UNIT 3B
UNIT 2A-1
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 3A
A4.0
1 A3.1
1 A3.1 2
A3.0
2 1 A3.0
A4.0
2 UNIT 1C-1
UNIT 2A-1
UNIT 3A
UNIT 2A-1
STAIR
UNIT 2A-1
UNIT 1A
ELEV.
LOBBY
© SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INC, 2023
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 © 2023. 1/16" = 1'-0"
SERRAMONTE DEL REY, PARCEL B
DALY CITY, CA
A2.3
3RD FLOOR PLAN
8/25/2023
TRUE
NORTH
0' 8' 16' 32'
UNIT JR-2
UNIT 1A UNIT 1A UNIT 3A
UNIT 2A-1 UNIT 2A-1 UNIT 1A
UNIT 2B
UNIT 1A
UNIT 1A UNIT 1A UNIT 1A UNIT 1A UNIT 2E-1
UNIT 2A-1 UNIT 2A-1 UNIT 1A UNIT 2E-1
UNIT 2A-1
UNIT 2A-1
JR 1BR
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
A4.0
1 A3.1
1 A3.1 2
A3.0
2 1 A3.0
A4.0
2 UNIT 1C-1
UNIT 2A-1
UNIT 3A
UNIT 2A-1
STAIR
UNIT 2A-1
0"
ELEV.
LOBBY
© SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INC, 2023
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 © 2023. 1/16" = 1'-0"
SERRAMONTE DEL REY, PARCEL B
DALY CITY, CA
A2.4
4TH FLOOR PLAN
8/25/2023
TRUE
NORTH
0' 8' 16' 32'
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 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
A4.0
1 A3.1
1 A3.1 2
A3.0
2 1 A3.0
A4.0
2 UNIT 1C-1
UNIT 2A-1
UNIT 3A
STAIR
3'-0"
UNIT 1A
UNIT 1B
ELEV.
LOBBY
© SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INC, 2023
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 © 2023. 1/16" = 1'-0"
SERRAMONTE DEL REY, PARCEL B
DALY CITY, CA
A2.5
5TH FLOOR PLAN
8/25/2023
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
A4.0
1 A3.1
1 A3.1 2
A3.0
2 1 A3.0
A4.0
2 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
ELEV.
LOBBY
© SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INC, 2023
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 © 2023. 1/16" = 1'-0"
SERRAMONTE DEL REY, PARCEL B
DALY CITY, CA
A2.6
6TH FLOOR PLAN
8/25/2023
TRUE
NORTH
0' 8' 16' 32'
A3.1
1 A3.1 2
A3.0
2 1 A3.0
STAIR
STAIR
© SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INC, 2023
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 © 2023. 1/16" = 1'-0"
SERRAMONTE DEL REY, PARCEL B
DALY CITY, CA
A2.7
ROOF PLAN
8/25/2023
TRUE
NORTH
0' 8' 16' 32'
PLASTER 3
ALUM. PANEL
TILE CLADDING
WD. TRELLIS
PTD. MTL. SUNSHADE
VINYL WINDOW
PLASTER 3
COMPOSITE WD. SIDING
NORTH
ACCESS WAY
BOARD FORMED CONCRETE WD. GRAIN ALUMINUM BATTENS PT. MTL. RAILING ALUM. PANEL COMPOSITE WD. SIDING
PLASTER 1
PLASTER 3
BOARD FORMED CONCRETE
STONE CLADDING
CEMENTITIOUS PANELS
PLASTER FRAME
PTD. MTL. SUNSHADES
ENTRY DRIVE
PTD. MTL. ALUM.
STOREFRONT
WD. GRAIN ALUMINUM BATTENS
VINYL WINDOWS
PLASTER 3
© SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INC, 2023
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 © 2023. 1/16" = 1'-0"
SERRAMONTE DEL REY, PARCEL B
DALY CITY, CA
A3.0
EAST & NORTH ELEVATION
8/25/2023
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
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
WD. TRELLIS
TILE CLADDING
PLASTER 3
ENTRY DRIVE
PREFINISHED ALUM.
STOREFRONT
PTD. MTL. CANOPY WITH SIGNAGE
OVERLOOK PARK
73'-6" TO TOP OF PARAPET
EL. 481.0'
AVG. GRADE ELEVATION
ALUM. PANEL
PLASTER 3
PTD. MTL. SUNSHADE
PTD. MTL RAILING
PTD. MTL. TRELLIS
STONE CLADDING
PLASTER 3
CEMENTITIOUS PANEL
CORTEN PANEL
COMPOSITE WD. SIDING PTD. MTL. SUNSHADE
ALUM. PANEL
TILE CLADDING
NORTH DRIVE
SERRAMONTE BLVD.
73'-6" TO TOP OF PARAPET
EL. 481.0'
AVG. GRADE ELEVATION
RETAIL SIGNAGE / BANNERS
PTD. MTL. CANOPY WITH SIGNAGE
PREFINISHED ALUM. STOREFRONT
PLASTER 1
© SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INC, 2023
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 © 2023. 1/16" = 1'-0"
SERRAMONTE DEL REY, PARCEL B
DALY CITY, CA
A3.1
SOUTH & WEST ELEVATION
8/25/2023
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 PIT BEYOND
RESIDENTIAL
481.0'
(AVG. GRADE ELEVATION)
73'-6" TO TOP OF PARAPET
PODIUM
80'-6" TO TOP OF PARAPET
86'-6" TO TOP OF PENTHOUSE
RESIDENTIAL
COURTYARD
PARKING
AMENITY
NORTH DRIVE
73'-6" TO TOP OF PARAPET
481.0' (AVG. GRADE ELEVATION) 76'-6" TO TOP OF PENTHOUSE © SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INC, 2023
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 © 2023. 1/16" = 1'-0"
SERRAMONTE DEL REY, PARCEL B
DALY CITY, CA
A4.0
BUILDING SECTIONS
8/25/2023
A4.0 1/16" = 1'-0"
1 EAST - WEST SECTION (FACING NORTH)
A4.0 1/16" = 1'-0"
B 2 NORTH - SOUTH SECTION (FACING EAST)
© SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INC, 2023
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 © 2023. 1/8" = 1'-0"
SERRAMONTE DEL REY, PARCEL B
DALY CITY, CA
A5.0
UNIT PLANS
8/25/2023
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
539 SF
607 SF
745 SF
649 SF
750 SF
691 SF
1080 SF
0' 4' 8' 16'
1007 SF
1171 SF
931 SF
890 SF
1159 SF
1242 SF
1350 SF
1505 SF
1 DRAFT - PLANNED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONE PD-31B
SERRAMONTE DEL REY PRECISE PLAN
The purpose and intent of these Planned Development Standards is to replace the oning regulations contained in Planned Development Zoning District PD-31 for that portion of Planned Development PD-31 identified in the Serramonte Del Rey Precise Plan (Attachment “A”) and replace PD-31A in its entirety with revised regulations, which shall be known as Planned Development Zoning District PD-31B.
I. GENERAL
1. When these Planned Development standards conflict with other sections of the Zoning Ordinance, these standards shall prevail only to the extent of the conflict. Where these planned development standards do not provide regulations, the Zoning Ordinance1 shall apply as to the most similar land use or standard.
2. The contents of the Serramonte Del Rey Precise Plan dated September 1, 2023 (Attachment "A”) are hereby incorporated by reference. When these Planned Development standards conflict with Serramonte Del Rey Precise Plan, these standards shall prevail only to the extent of the conflict.
II. OBJECTIVE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
A. LAND USE
A.1 Permitted Uses
The following uses are permitted by right as part of Planned Development Zone PD-31:
1. RESIDENTIAL USES
Accessory dwelling units as permitted by the California Government Code Apartment buildings meeting the density prescription contained herein Townhouses2
1 The Zoning Ordinance provisions that apply shall be those consistent with the Development Agreement, including without limitation its covenants concerning vested rights and, notwithstanding anything provision herein, nothing in the PD-31 zoning is intended to supersede the Development Agreement.
2 Three story walk-up apartment townhouses are permitted as part of a multi-family residential of at least four stories on any parcel. Up to 15 walk-up apartment townhouses are permitted on a single parcel, not to exceed a maximum number of 40 walkup apartment townhouses for the plan area.
2 Live work dwelling units3
2. COMMERCIAL USES4,5, 6
Athletic clubs and health studios
Assembly uses, including churches, lodges, and social and meeting halls Business and trade schools
Childcare facilities, day care centers, and play gyms
Food sales on a temporary basis, including farmer’s markets and food truck sales where such uses are conducted on hardscape surfaces and do not displace any existing parking space
Offices use including professional office, medical and dental office, and medical clinics Veterinarian offices
Personal service uses, including nail and hair salons, massage businesses where employees are licensed by the State of California
Restaurants that do not provide a drive-through window
Retail uses, including retail sales of beer, wine, and distilled spirits. where less than 50 percent of the store stock retail value is such products Seasonal temporary uses (e.g. Christmas store)
3. COMMUNITY SERVICE USES4
Community center
Library
4. PUBLIC UTILITY AND PUBLIC SERVICE USES7
3 Live-work units combine residential and non-residential uses. Live-work units require business owner occupancy of the unit and that no less than 50 percent of the floor area is workspace. Live-above is permitted, where residential living space is above the workspace, including a separation between the two uses, so that the commercial section can be independently leased out for limited use. Occupants of a live-work unit are required to maintain either a Daly City business license, or a Home Occupation Permit per City code requirements, and as permitted by San Mateo County, such as a microenterprise home kitchen operation.
Live-work uses are not included in retail/commercial floor area limits. 4 The uses prescribed in this list shall be permitted when proposed within a building containing residential uses that meet the density prescription identified in this ordinance. They shall not be permitted in freestanding buildings. 5 Other commercial uses not listed here can be permitted at discretion of the Planning Manager. 6 When a use is not specifically listed, it shall be assumed that when the unlisted use is similar to or less objectionable than a permitted use, such use shall be permitted in the district to the same requirements of the most similarly listed use. Otherwise, the use shall be presumed to be not allowed.
7 The uses prescribed in this list shall be permitted when proposed on parcels containing residential uses that meet the density prescription identified in this ordinance. They shall not be permitted unless proposed in conjunction with residential buildings.
3 Pumping stations
Public utility buildings
Wireless communications facilities in accordance with the regulations specified in Chapter
17.39 of the Municipal Ordinance
A.2 Use Permits
The following uses are permitted with a Use Permit in PD 31 zone:
At the Community Garden at Overlook Park on Parcel B, a Use Permit is required to replace the Community Garden with park and open space uses, including active and passive recreation, landscaping and structures incidental to such use. The City shall issue a use permit if the applicant demonstrates substantial evidence the Community Garden is not being substantially utilized, is being misused by any members of the community, or has otherwise become infeasible to operate.
A.3 Prohibited Uses
The following uses are not permitted with a Use Permit in PD-31 zone:
1. RESIDENTIAL USES
Single-family attached or detached residential uses, and other similar uses, that do not meet the density prescription contained herein
2. COMMERCIAL USES
Retailers where more than 10 percent of the retail value of the store stock are firearms, such as handguns and long guns, in an open shopping format, or firearm parts, or any business that engages in the repair of firearms and/or firearm parts.
Retail sales where 50 percent or more of the store stock retail value is products that are beer, wine, and distilled spirits.
Retailer ales where 50 percent or more of the store stock retail value is products containing tobacco, electronic cigarettes, personal vaporizers, or electronic nicotine delivery systems
Vehicle or equipment rental and vehicle storage
Car wash and detailing shops
Manufacturing uses
Restaurants and any other uses providing a drive-through window Service stations, including operational and physical expansions thereto.
4 A.4 Development Density
A.4.1 Residential
a. Maximum residential units permitted on each parcel are shown in Table 3.3 Permitted Residential Density by Parcel. The sum of the total residential units developed on all parcels A-F shall not exceed 1,235 units. Any two of parcels D, E and F may be developed with high-rise buildings up to 14 stories up to parcel maximums. There is no maximum residential density in dwelling units/acre. b. Minimum residential density for any parcel shall be 45 dwelling units/acre and minimum density for the Precise Plan area overall shall be no less than 60 dwelling units per acre.
c. Minimum lot size shall be 10,000 square feet, Minimum lot width shall be 25 feet. d. For the purpose of calculating minimum residential density, land area shall include the building and covered parking area of a parcel not including park, open space, private streets, private accessways, paths and trails, setbacks and hillsides with slopes greater than three percent.
A.4.2 Commercial
a. Parcels may provide retail/commercial square footage on the ground floor up to the maximum in Table 3.3, however the total retail/commercial square footage for the overall buildout of the Plan Area is limited to 14,000 sq.ft.
Table 3.3 Permitted Density by Parcel
PARCEL NUMBER MAXIMUM
RESIDENTIAL UNITS
MAXIMUM RETAIL -
COMMERCIAL
SQUARE FOOTAGE
MINIMUM
RESIDENTIAL
DENSITY OR UNITS
Parcel A 122 0 122
Parcel B 210 6,000 sq.ft. 45 DU/AC per parcel
60 DU/AC per plan area
Parcel C 152 8,000 sq.ft.* 45 DU/AC per parcel
60 DU/AC per plan area
Parcel D 270 8,000 sq.ft. 45 DU/AC per parcel
60 DU/AC per plan area
5 Parcel E 330 8,000 sq.ft. 45 DU/AC per parcel
60 DU/AC per plan area
Parcel F 400 8,000 sq.ft. 45 DU/AC per parcel
60 DU/AC per plan area
*Parcel C is permitted to build up to 2,800 sq. ft of daycare center facilities within its allotment of retail/commercial square footage.
A.5 Building Height
Permitted building height for the Plan Area is shown in Figure 3.3 Building Heights. For Parcels A, B, C, D, E and F, the height limit for a podium shall be 90 feet, and for Parcels D, E and F the height limit for a tower shall be 150 feet. Buildings can be any height up to these limits, provided the project meets the minimum density standard set forth herein. Townhouses shall be constructed with a minimum three-story building height. Multi-family building shall be constructed with a predominant building height of a four-story minimum.. Stepbacks are required at 65 feet in height, with locations as shown on Figure 3.3 Building Heights. Exceptions to the height limit are:
A.5.1 Ornamental architectural features, such as turrets, parapets, corner towers, or other accentuating features.
A.5.2 Mechanical and roof-mounted elevator core equipment up to a maximum of 18 feet above maximum height, provided their combined coverage does not exceed 30% of building roof area. Equipment less than four feet above maximum height is exempt from the coverage calculation.
A.5.3 Architectural and landscape screening designed to conceal mechanical and roof mounted equipment.
A.5.4 Sustainability elements, such as photovoltaic cells, small-scale wind turbines suitable for residential development, storm water catchment / treatment equipment, solar water heating equipment.
A.5.5 Enclosed amenity spaces to a height of 12 feet where roof is designed as an accessible outdoor common area if coverage of enclosed amenity space is no more than 30 percent of building roof area.
6 A.6 Street Frontage
The Precise Plan utilizes build-to lines to define urban street and park frontages for buildings.
Figure 3.4 Street Frontages indicates the location and percentage of building walls required to be located at a build-to line. A build-to line sets the location of the primary building wall. Table 3.4 Location of Build-to Line for Parcels specifies the distance in feet of the build-to line from a parcel boundary. Together, these standards set the location and street wall for buildings throughout the neighborhood.
Table 3.4: Location of Build-to-Line for Parcels
PARCEL FRONTAGE BUILD-TO LINE
Parcel A Entry Drive
Access Drive West
N/A
N/A
Parcel B Entry Drive
North Drive/Access Drive North
Varies from 7.5 feet to 28 feet from north to south
43 feet
Parcel C East Drive
Access Drive South
2 feet
25 feet 9 inches
Parcel D
East Drive
Access Drive North
Access Drive South
6 feet
40 feet
40 feet
7 Parcel E
East Drive
West Drive
West Drive (southside)
Central Green
14 feet
10 feet
15 feet (setback measured from Public Access
Easement)
10 feet (setback measured from Public Access
Easement)
Parcel F West Drive
Access Drive West
10 feet
40 feet
Building frontage standards are:
A.6.1 The building frontage on all parcels shall comply with the percentage of building that is required to be aligned along the build-to-line, as shown in Figure 3.4.
A.6.2 The primary wall of a building shall align with the build-to line. The primary wall can be located up to 6 feet from a build-to-line. Ground floor building frontages may be recessed from the build-to line.
A.6.3 Balconies and other projections above 16’ from ground level may encroach across the build-to line up to 6 feet, provided such projections meeting Building and Fire Codes, and do not interfere with underground infrastructure.
8 A.6.4 Building entry canopies, arcades, and galleries are permitted to encroach up to 15 feet across the build-to-line.
A.6.5 Stairs to podium level courtyards overlooking parks, stoops, and appropriate fencing can encroach up to 10’ on the park side of a build-to line.
A.7 Ground Floor Use
The distribution of ground floor uses is essential to creating an active pedestrian environment.
Figure 3.5 Ground Floor Use identifies the location, type and orientation of ground floor uses by parcel for the Plan Area. Five types of ground floor uses are defined as follows:
A.7.1 Mixed- Use. This requires a ground floor use of one or more of: retail, café, restaurant uses with outdoor dining, building entries, residential lobbies, commercial, or community uses that attract pedestrian activity with physical access and visibility to and from the adjacent sidewalk.
A.7.2 Active Residential Use. Ground floors shall have one or more of the following:
commercial or community uses; main building entry, residential lobby, residential amenity spaces, and individual ground floor residential unit entrances. Ground floor residential unit entrances shall be accessible units at grade or elevated ground floor units with transitional space such as a stoop or porch not greater than five feet in height above grade.
A.7.3 Residential Use. This requires ground floor residential use, such as residential units without individual unit entries accessible from the street (which can have a back porch, garden, or patio), or other residential use, and excludes parking, loading and services areas.
A.7.4 Parking, Loading and Service Use. The location for parking, loading and service uses fronting streets, yards and accessways.
A.7.5 Required Street Frontages. Where Mixed-Use, Active Residential Use, and Residential Use frontages are required:
• No more than one 24’ wide vehicle access driveway or two 12’ wide vehicle access driveways are permitted. Loading docks are not permitted at active ground floor use frontages.
• Blank walls are limited to a length of 30’ maximum. Walls opening to structured parking areas at the ground floor are limited to 60’ maximum.
9 A.8 Setbacks
The perimeter of the Plan Area shall have the following setbacks along neighboring properties or street right-of-way. These are minimum setback dimensions. For build-to lines, see Table
3.4. Table 3.5: Setbacks
LOCATION SETBACK
North Perimeter Property Line 20 feet from Serramonte Boulevard East Perimeter Property Line 75 feet from Callan Boulevard
10 South Perimeter Property Line
Parcel C: 7.5 feet
Parcel E: 10 feet from pedestrian public access easement Parcel F: 40 feet
West Perimeter Property Line 30 feet
Within a parcel Minimum separation between buildings shall comply with local and state building codes.
Side yard 6 feet up to 90 feet in height, 10 feet above 90 feet in height.
B. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN
Buildings conforming to the architectural design standards will visually and functionally fit and contribute to the pedestrian-oriented urban realm of the Plan Area. Architectural design standards define the architectural character, form and function of buildings including building massing, façade composition, architectural details, materials, color, and sustainability features.
B.1 Architectural Character
Architectural character is the appearance of a building created by its form, function, construction technology and visual features.
B.1.1 Buildings shall be of high quality, contemporary architectural design. Contemporary architectural design is 21st century design: it reflects current trends in architecture.
Contemporary architectural design does not adhere to a particular style of set of standards; rather, it seeks to distinguish itself from the past by incorporating the latest innovations in building technology and design.
B.1.2 Buildings shall not directly reference historic architectural styles or use materials associated with specific periods or styles.
B.1.3 Building shall not use terracotta tile roofing, mansard roofs, asphalt roof tiles or shingles.
B.1.4 Ribbon windows and flat building facades shall not be permitted.
B.1.5 Auto-oriented ground floor building design, such as continuous, open to the street, at grade covered parking spaces and extended curb cuts, shall not be permitted.
Proportion
Proportion is the correspondence of the size of building elements to human scale, to each other and to the whole building, thus creating a balanced, harmonious composition of elements that achieve a visually coherent architectural aesthetic related to scale of human experience.
11 B.1.6 The size of the pedestrian, podium, and tower levels shall be in proportion to one another.
B.1.7 Visual discord due to the mixing of too many differently shaped and sized building elements, forms, colors, or textures, shall not be permitted.
B.1.8 Random, oversized building elements shall not be permitted.
B.2 Building Massing
Building massing is the three-dimensional configuration of a building’s size and shape.
Vertically organized massing standards for pedestrian, podium and skyline levels are:
Pedestrian Level
B.2.1 To create a pedestrian level setback for active uses with occupied floor above, pedestrian level façade setbacks from the build-to-line shall not exceed 10 feet.
B.2.2 Where Active Uses or Required Building Entry, Lobby or Residential Amenity Space uses are required, the minimum floor-to-floor height for the ground floor shall be no less than 14 feet where there is amenity space.
Podium Level
Podium level building massing shapes the spatial definition of the public realm. Building street walls up to 90 feet are considered the podium level.
B.2.3 The first one to three levels of all buildings shall be differentiated from the upper floors to provide a visual support for the floors above. They shall have high quality materials appropriate for a pedestrian environment.
B.2.4 Stepbacks are required as shown on Figure 3.3, Building Heights. Where required, stepbacks shall be no higher than 65 feet above grade with the building set back no less than six feet from the street wall.
Tower Level
The tower, or skyline level consists of all building levels above 90 feet from grade. The skyline level contributes to the visual identity of the Plan Area.
B.2.5 Tower massing shall extend to ground level to visually anchor the tower to the ground.
B.2.6 Towers extending to ground shall be set back 10 feet minimum from the build-to line.
B.2.7 Towers shall be oriented in an east-west direction to minimize impacts to views from residences along Saint Francis Boulevard.
12 B.2.8 Each tower shall not exceed a massing envelope of 240 feet long by 150 feet wide.
B.2.9 A minimum separation of 60 feet shall be provided between any two towers or portions of skyline level building massing.
B.2.10 Towers are not permitted adjacent to the central open space.
B.3 Façade Composition
Façade composition is the organization of horizontal massing of the overall shape of a building to be relation to human scale experience.
Façade Modulation
B.3.1 Long continuous facades that extend the length of a parcel or city block shall not be permitted. Buildings over 100 feet in width shall provide vertical breaks in building massing in the form of projections and recesses to reduce the overall scale of the building.
B.3.2 Occupiable projections, such as balconies or bay windows, are permitted to project up to six feet from building face above streets and open spaces above the pedestrian level, in accordance with the City’s building and fire codes. The recess or projection shall be a minimum of 3 feet in depth..
B.3.3 The façade shall be divided into segments of 30 to 60 feet in width using one or more of the design approaches below:
o Vertical shifts
o Balconies or bay windows
o Corner expression
o Volumetric recesses (including balconies)
o Volumetric projections
o Change of Material: to achieve modulation by a change of material, the material change must occur for at least 20% of the façade and must change in plane at least 18 inches in depth from the facade.
Fenestration
Fenestration is the arrangement of the location, grouping and scale of windows and doors as part of the wall system that comprises the façade of a building.
B.3.4 Building fenestration shall incorporate recessed and/or projecting window bays, balconies, canopies, and architectural elements, contrasting surfaces, and/or a rhythm to the building’s light and shadow.
13 B.3.5 Avoid featureless expanses of fenestration that eliminate a sense of human scale.
Blank Facades
A blank façade is a building wall without any windows or doors, and is a featureless expanse with no variation in plane in terms of horizontal and vertical projections, openings or change in materials.
B.3.6 Ground floor blank facades at building walls facing public spaces or streets greater than 50 feet are not be permitted.
B.3.7 At the ground floor, blank facades longer than 50 feet shall provide landscaping, public art or architectural relief with design interest to the satisfaction of the Planning Division.
Ground Floor Design
B.3.8 Transparent windows, storefronts, show windows, building entries, dwelling entries, and/or other active uses shall be placed along street and public open space frontages, as required in the Ground Floor Active Frontage standards.
B.3.9 Doors or sliding windows shall be used by ground-floor restaurants, eating and beverage services to enable outdoor dining along sidewalks and plazas.
Windows and Doors
The selection, design and proportion of windows and doors highly influence the appearance of a building.
Entries
B.4.1 Buildings shall have identifiable main entrances that are directly visible and accessible from public rights-of-way. An entry canopy, recessed building volume, a sculptural volume, change in scale or identifiable architectural treatments are acceptable features.
B.4.2 In mixed-use buildings, residential entries are to be differentiated from commercial entries.
B.4.3 Pedestrian seating and bicycle parking shall be located near building entrances.
Windows
B.4.4 Upper story windows shall provide architectural details, such as sills, or lintels, that recess or project from the facade.
B.4.5 Reflective glazing is not permitted.
14 B.4.6 Non-reflective coatings, low-emissivity glass, external shade devices and other elements shall be used.
Materials and Color
Materials and color play a powerful role in creating the visual experience of a building. For the exterior of buildings:
B.5.1 Building materials, colors and finishes shall be coordinated to create a visually harmonious color palette appropriate for a family-oriented residential neighborhood, consistent with contemporary building design.
B. 5.2 High quality building materials and architectural detailing, with a preference for natural materials at the ground level, shall be used where people directly experience buildings.
B.5.3 Changes in color, texture or materials shall be used to differentiate architectural elements and building massing.
B.5.4 Avoid monolithic use of color, where an entire building is one color or tone.
B.5.5 Avoid garish, or discordant use of color.
C. PARKING AND LOADING
C.1 Parking Ratios6
C.1.1 The following parking ratios are currently anticipated for Parcels B through F:
• The parking ratio for residential units is zero7 to 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit8. • The Applicant may increase parking above the foregoing ratio if supported by a parking analysis prepared by a qualified traffic engineer. 9 6 The City finds that all parking standards that differ from the Daly City municipal code are designed and necessary to maintain the unity or livability of the Project.
7 Per AB-2097, cities can no longer impose minimum parking requirements on new developments within a half-mile of major public transit stops, for which the Serramonte Del Rey Neighborhood qualifies. The state legislation does not prevent property owners from building parking and JUHSD anticipates providing the appropriate amount of parking that balances the supply and demand generated for the proposed project, based upon JUHSD analysis. These regulations shall explicitly not require a maximum number of parking spaces for any use.
8This may vary, based on AB-2097, see C.1.3.
9 Parking ratios are based on current conditions and assumptions. The City and JUHSD acknowledge that future parking demand will be in considerable flux over the lifetime of the Development Agreement, and may increase or decrease significantly. The intent of this approach is to provide adequate parking within the Precise Plan area based on demand as determined by a parking analysis study provided at the Applicant’s discretion that will be based on objective analysis by a qualified traffic engineer demonstrating reductions to parking impacts to on-street parking in the surrounding neighborhood.
15 • By way of example, at Parcel C, if the parking ratio for the affordable housing is 0.5 parking space per dwelling unit, such is permissible because it falls within the foregoing range of parking ratios. Development of Parcel C may provide parking at a parking ratio up to 1.5 spaces/unit, To the extent parking is provided, the parking ratio will be included in the documents submitted to the City for review and approval of Parcel C.
C.1.2 Parking for pick-up and drop-off for the Head Start Program at Parcel C may be accommodated by on-street parking marked by appropriate signage, with such signage reserving parking spaces for this use during the appropriate hours.
C.1.3 Overflow parking for Parcel A may be accommodated within the Plan Area with surface parking, on-street parking, or within future parking podiums or structures on Parcels B through F. To the extent that JUHSD demonstrates that overflow parking is not needed for a particular development, it will be eliminated as a requirement in the future.
C.1.4 Residential parking can be accommodated in mechanical puzzle lifts.
C.1.5 No more that 10% of residential parking can be tandem, and tandem spaces may only be assigned to users of the same dwelling unit. Tandem units may be designed as either front to rear spaces or mechanical puzzle lift spaces.
C.1.6 Parking Enforcement: JUHSD or a delegee will be responsible for enforcement of any parking rules on JUHSD property. If private parking restrictions for on-street parking are put in place, parking spaces available for public use will be designated to access publicly accessible parkland, trails, and open space during time periods of private parking restrictions.
C.1.7 One bicycle parking stall per unit shall be provided and accessible from street level, unless otherwise mandated by the building code. Bicycle parking, if in excess of one stall per unit, can be located anywhere on site.
C.2 Design of Off-Street Parking and Loading
C.2.1 Parking shall be located behind, within, or under buildings, or within separate structures.
Surface parking areas are prohibited between any building and Entry Drive, North Drive, East Drive and West Drive street frontages.
C.2.2 Parking stall and drive aisle dimensions for each parcel may comply with either approach below, or a combination of both approaches:
• The current City standards for off-street parking (including the ratio of standard spaces to compact spaces) at the time of the Applicant’s submittal for conformance review, and/or
16 • A “Uni-stall” standard size parking space which is based upon a stall dimension of 8’–6” x 18’–0”, unless constrained by a wall on one or both sides, in which case the minimum stall width will be 9’–0” minimum. The drive aisle shall maintain a minimum of 24’ clear.
C.2.3 For mixed-use projects, shared parking is encouraged to allow uses with different peak hours of operation to utilize off-street parking facilities of other buildings in the Precise Plan.
C.2.4 Loading docks and service areas shall be located at the rear of the development or inside parking structures for parcels deeper than 80 feet, separate from parking areas. For smaller parcels, loading docks and service areas must be located on the side street, wherever possible. Loading zones should not disrupt the flow of traffic within a given project area.
C.2.5 Loading docks shall be located on Access Drives North, South, and West. If this is not possible, loading docks may be provided on East, North or West Drive, if enclosed within a building.
C.3 Vehicle and Bicycle Access
C.3.1 Location of vehicular parking entrances shall be as follows:
• Parcel A shall be accessed from Access Drive West.
• Parcel B shall be accessed from Entry Drive or Access Drive North; or any combination of these.
• Parcel C shall be accessed from Access Drive South, or any combination of these. • Parcel D shall be accessed from Access Drive North, Access Drive South; or both. • Parcel E shall be accessed from East Drive or West Drive; or both. • Parcel F shall be accessed from West Drive or Access Drive West; or both.
C.3.2 Vehicular entries shall be located a minimum of 100 feet from intersections and crosswalks except for driveways located along access ways.
C.3.3 Bicycle access shall be from street level, and not required through garage entrances.
Bicycle storage for each building shall be accessible from ground level, as close to the driveway entry as practicable, and clearly signed. Bicycles in excess of one per unit can be stored anywhere on site.
C.4 Vehicle Access Design
C.4.1 Two-way vehicular entrances designed as a single driveway shall have a maximum width of 24’.
17 C.4.2 Where a driveway crosses a sidewalk, clearly demarcate the sidewalk across the entire width of the driveway by using colored paving or materials.
C.4.3 On-street parking may be provided in the form of parallel parking or angled parking.
C.5 Parking Structures
Parking for mixed-use and residential buildings can be in underground, partially above-ground, or above-ground garages.
C.5.1 Above-ground garages not screened by residential uses shall include façade treatments or screening.
C.5.2 Parking garages shall be lined with ground floor active uses or residential entries where indicated per street frontage requirements, and designed with building façades that screen structural elements of the garage where not required by street frontage requirements.
C.5.3 The design of entries to parking garages shall not be more prominent on the building façade than the primary pedestrian entry.
C.5.4 Above-ground parking garages shall be designed with human scale design elements that complement and do not contrast with buildings and public spaces of the Precise Plan.
C.5.5 Parcels B, C, D, E, and F may contain above-ground parking garages.
C.5.6 Parking structure lighting shall be designed to avoid direct glare towards adjacent residential buildings.
C.6 Bicycle Facilities
C.6.1 Bicycle parking should be near building entrances and bicycle routes for user convenience.
C.6.2 Bicycle parking shall accommodate a range of bicycle types, including standard bicycles, E-bikes, tandem bicycles, and trailers.
C.6.3 On-street bicycle parking shall be separated from automobile parking by use of a landscaped buffer or curb.
C.6.4 Off-street bicycle parking shall be in secure locations in each building in the Precise Plan area.
18 D. OPEN SPACE
Open Space Requirement
Projects within the Plan Area shall provide a minimum of 150 sq. ft. of open space per dwelling unit10. The requirement for open space is to be met parcel-by-parcel through a combination of the following:
• Publicly accessible private open space, which are public spaces, such as park, trails, and open space areas, which are publicly accessible to residents, visitors, and public. Such spaces may have limited hours of availability.
• Private open space such as balconies, patios, or other open spaces for the exclusive use of an individual unit.
• Common open space such as communal open spaces or recreational areas with access limited to tenants of a residential or mixed-use development. Examples include at grade open space or plazas, podium level courtyards, rooftop terraces, and similar areas that can provide communal amenities, such as swimming pools, play areas, and cabanas.
Allocation of open space can be off-site of the specific parcel and within the Plan Area, including the areas designated by easement, such as allocation to Overlook Park, Central Green, South Point Park and the Recreation Trail at parcels B, C and D.
The Recreation Trail, Overlook Park, Central Green, and South Point Park will be counted towards satisfaction of the Open Space requirements for individual parcels as designated by the JUHSD. The allotted Open Space will be assigned to a specific parcel at the time the parcel is submitted for conformance review. The Community Garden to be constructed as part of Overlook Park shall be constructed with the parcel B development.
The open space at the Retail Plaza at Entry Drive is allocated to Parcel B exclusively.
Land that does not meet the City’s gradient criteria for usable space (e.g., excessive slopes in the Hillside Area) will not be counted toward satisfaction of open space required for any parcel.
D.1 Common Open Space
D.1.1 Buildings shall provide spatial enclosure for common open spaces to create privacy, limit views from streets, and wind protection.
D.1.2 Common open space shall be visible and accessible to and from building amenity areas. 10Per Daly City zoning code section 17.38.020 requirement for 150 sq. ft. of usable open space.
19 D.2 Private Open Space
D.2.1 Private open spaces shall be directly accessible from the unit and large enough to permit outdoor activities with a minimum of five feet width and depth.
D.2.2 Private open space shall be constructed with high quality durable materials.
D.2.3 Fencing or screening between ground floor private open spaces shall permit visibility in and out of the open space for the top 18 inches.
E. LANDSCAPE DESIGN
E.1 Hillside Woodlands
To care for the hillside wooded areas to reduce fire hazards, enhance existing vegetation and promote urban forestry, the Precise Plan requires:
E.1.1 A tree succession operations plan for aging mature trees prepared by a qualified arborist will guide the replacement of existing trees over time due to age or fire vulnerability.
E.1.2 Removed trees shall be replaced with a diverse plant ecology governed by the area’s unique coastal/Mediterranean climate including evergreen and deciduous species as recommended by an arborist.
E.1.3 The project’s wooded hillside perimeter to the west and east shall be cleaned of surface and ladder fuels. Replacement trees shall include evergreen and deciduous species as described in the Project Tree List.
E.2 Planting
E.2.1 Plant material shall be comprised of at least 75% drought tolerant plant species. Planting plans shall comply with Daly City’s Water Conservation in Landscaping regulations and the Water Use Classification of Landscape Species (WUCOLS).
E.2.2 Where turf grass is used, low water use hybrids and/ or no mow varieties shall be used. A variety of shrubs and ground covers should be used to create layering around building foundations, keeping shrubs at or below windowsills. Plant selections should be such that sightlines remain open and clear, and places of concealment are not fostered. Plants should be used to screen above-ground utilities. Along streets and sidewalks, plants shall be used in planters within the right of way to create spatial separation between sidewalk and vehicular traffic.
E.2.3 Pollinator plants that attract native birds and insects should be used strategically in locations well-suited to attract and sustain native populations. Use of fruiting plant
20 material should occur away from hardscape areas to prevent staining of pavements and to minimize maintenance.
E.3 Planters
E.3.1 Landscape planters within any private street shall be a minimum of four feet wide.
E.3.2 Tree wells shall be 4’x 4’ minimum. Tree grates shall be cast iron with a baked oil finish in plaza areas and be an ADA accessible design consistent with the neighborhood.
E.3.3 Where landscape planting is provided under trees, planters shall be 4’ W x 6’ L minimum.
E.3.4 Planted medians shall provide at least a five feet wide planting area in addition to a minimum 12 inches wide maintenance band at the back of curb consisting of concrete, pavers, or fixed cobbles.
E.4 Site Irrigation
E.4.1 Site Irrigation systems shall comply with all local and state requirements as of time of project approval, and shall meet the City’s water efficiency regulations.
E.4.2 All irrigation equipment shall be controlled with weather-based controllers located in easily accessible, locked stainless steel pedestal boxes. The equipment shall include flow sensors and automatic shut off valve capability with a wi-fi based alarm system to alert maintenance controller team(s).
E.4.3 Irrigation systems shall provide quick couplers or hose bibbs in lockable wall boxes in all common use areas.
E.5 Soil & Drainage
E.5.1 On-grade planting areas shall be comprised of amended topsoil import or amended native soil as required, based on a soil analysis report and soil laboratory recommendations.
Excavation, clearing and grubbing, or soil preparation shall occur within established tree protection zones as per the advice of a landscape architect or arborist.
E.5.2 Planting areas shall by dressed with a 3-inch layer of mulch.
E.5.3 Cast iron or similar drain grates shall be used in turf and pedestrian circulation areas.
Landscape planters shall be drained with cast iron, decorative metal, plastic or similar flat or atrium-style grates and factory-fabricated bodies.
21 E.6 Site Furnishings
E.6.1 Site furnishings shall be comprised of materials designed to withstand outdoor conditions.
E.6.2 Short term bicycle parking shall be dispersed throughout the Plan Area, as required to meet project requirements, city standards, and bicycle parking standards. Bicycle racks shall be galvanized, vinyl covered, or stainless steel, and meet all City requirements. In ground- or surface-mounted attachment is acceptable.
E.6.3 Seating shall be provided at retail, parks, open spaces, adjacent to the trails, and in front of primary building lobbies. Benches shall be made of metal and/or wood. Where wood is used, it should be thermally modified, or a suitable hardwood built to withstand weather and heavy public usage.
E.6.4 Café tables with chairs shall be movable with a variety of sizes for public use in gathering spaces and shall be constructed of materials suitable for outdoor public usage.
E.6.5 At least one drinking fountain shall be provided at each of the following: Overlook Park, Central Green, and the Recreation Trail. Dog bowl and water bottle filling attachments are recommended but not required.
E.6.6 Within Overlook Park, Applicant shall provide play equipment for children ages two through twelve. Play areas will be designated for children between the ages of two to five and for ages five to twelve years old.
Any community garden shall provide raised beds and a regular water service connection with water spigot at 100-foot intervals.
E.7 Trees
E.7.1 Trees within the street right of way, in plazas, and high-visibility open space areas shall be provided in 24-inch box size or larger and be secured with at least three tree stakes or below-grade root ball guying systems appropriate for the windy conditions found in Daly City. Above-ground cabling guying shall not be used in public spaces. Trees shall be pruned up to 6 feet to 8 feet clear off the ground or as required by ADA or City guidelines.
E.7.2 Individual developments within the Plan Area shall use trees that are provided in minimum 15-gallon size or larger for no greater than 50 percent of the trees planted. All other trees shall be box-specimen.
E.7.3 Entries at the north and south shall have unique tree plantings, and the design of these planting shall be approved by the Planning Division.
22 E.7.4 Seasonal interest shall be created with deciduous trees providing spring flowers and fall color.
E.7.5 Driveway entries, curb cuts, and curb ramps shall be constructed of concrete and shall match sidewalks to provide a consistent look and feel for hardscape along vehicular and pedestrian circulation routes.
E.7.6 Enhanced finishes and/or striping shall be used at the master plan entry, at all driveway entries, and at all crosswalks.
E.8 Trail and Paths
E.8.1 Trail surfaces shall be asphalt or concrete, provide for adequate clearances along the edges and overhead, and be suitable for their intended use. Refer to trail sections in Chapter 5 for trail dimensions.
E.8.2 Signage, ornamental landscaping, and trees shall be provided along the trail system to enhance user experience.
E.9 Stormwater Management
E.9.1 Project submittals shall comply with the Precise Plan’s phased, performance-based approach to stormwater management, consistent with the San Mateo County Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit, and Daly City’s municipal code pertaining to stormwater management. Projects shall minimize the amount of paved area. Where feasible, paved areas shall include “green” stormwater collection and treatment, and employ Low Impact Development (LID) features that minimize surface water runoff. LID features may include bioretention systems, swales, green roofs, and permeable pavers.
E.9.2 Stormwater retention features that minimize runoff into streets, parking lots, landscaped areas, and open spaces shall be incorporated, where feasible. Stormwater retention features include drainage swales and rain gardens.
E.10 Open Space Landscaping Standards
E.10.1 Landscaping shall define the edges of paths, plazas, and seating areas.
E.10.2 Trees shall be planted to shade walkways, gathering areas, parking, and other larger expanses of pavement.
E.10.3 Landscaping in setback areas shall create a transition zone between the sidewalk and street-level residential units and entries.
E.10.4 Landscaped areas shall be regularly maintained to keep them aesthetically pleasing, and to remove dead and dying plants.
23 E.10.5 Gateway or entry points shall be emphasized with distinctive trees and plants.
E.10.6 Existing trees, to the extent feasible, and healthy, are to be preserved and integrated into site designs.
E.10.7 To reduce water usage, all development shall employ water-efficient irrigation techniques, including micro–irrigation, drip systems, and weather-based irrigation controllers, instead of conventional sprinklers.
E.10.8 Native, drought-tolerant, or well-adapted tree and plant species shall be used.
E.10.9 Seasonal and year-round flowering shrubs and trees shall be located where they can be most appreciated by site users and passersby, such as adjacent to walks and open space areas, or as frames for building entrances and stairs.
E.10.10 All landscaped areas shall be designed by a landscape professional to the satisfaction of the Planning Division.
F. SIGNAGE
Where this section does not set standards, the Applicant and City staff shall use the Daly City Municipal Code. City review and approval of wayfinding signage shall be part of Conformance Review Where there is a conflict with the Daly City sign ordinance, this Precise Plan governs.
F.1 Signage Standards
F.1.1 Signs within the Plan Area shall comply with all regulations stated in the City’s Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 17.32) unless otherwise specified in the Precise Plan.
F.1.2 Signs shall be made of high-quality, durable, and environmentally friendly materials.
F.1.3 Multi-tenant development anchor-identity signs should be complementary to any Plan Area signage or established by the Master Developer. Individual property owners will be allowed to use letter styles, but the overall sign should have one consistent material for letters and background.
F.2 Monument/Gateway Signage
F.2.1 The Precise Plan shall include up to two freestanding monument/gateway signs: at the Serramonte Boulevard and Entry Drive intersection and at the West Drive and Campus Drive intersection, which form major entry points to the Plan Area.
F.2.2 If provided, a single gateway or monument sign at the southern portion of the Plan Area near the round‐about shall be located at Parcel E and be less than 4 feet high. The sign shall not obstruct sightlines for drivers to the extent safety is compromised.
24 F.2.3 If provided, a single gateway or monument sign at the northern portion of the Plan Area near the Retail Plaza shall be located at Parcel B. It may either be less than 4 feet high and no longer than 20 feet, or may be a tower structure‐‐either integrated with the Parcel B building corner or separate from the building. If an integrated tower structure, the structure shall not project more than five feet beyond the face of the building in any direction. If an independent tower structure, it may not be greater than 32 feet in height and not more than 64 sq. ft. in area. The maximum face area of signage of the tower structure shall not exceed 200 sq. ft.
F.2.4 Gateway or monument signs shall not have internal illumination but will be lighted with externally mounted luminaires.
F.3 Building Signage
F.3.1 The physical design of signage shall conform to the architectural detailing of the associated building and shall be in proportion to the surface onto which such signage is mounted, as determined by the Planning Division.
F.3.2 Signage shall not obstruct architectural details such as recesses, structural bays, or windows.
F.3.3 Externally illuminated or halo lit signsshall be required. The use of internally lighted or box type signs are prohibited. Internally lighted signs measuring 2 sq. ft. or less are allowed.
F.3.4 No more than three (3) building residential signs shall be provided per building. These shall be limited to address number, street name, and/or a building name if desired. If only one is provided, it shall be placed close to the main entry to the building. If signage is provided at more than one location, a minimum of one shall be placed close to the main entry. The second and third can be located such that the top of the signage is not greater than 25’ feet from grade. The aggregate sign area shall not exceed 150 sq. ft.
F.3.5 Durable, vandal-resistant materials and finishes shall be utilized for address signs.
F.3.6 Conduit, tubing, or raceways shall be concealed. Transformers and other equipment for the signage shall also be concealed.
F.4 Storefront Signage
F.4.1 Signage for multi‐tenant retail buildings shall be developed to minimize potential visual conflict, clutter, and competition.
F.4.2 Maximum size for sign area per retail tenant is 30 sq. ft. on the face of a building. A second sign per retail tenant, not exceeding 20 sq. ft., may be hung as either a banner or a
25 rigid sign perpendicular to the building face. Either of these two sign types may be attached to a building’s architectural canopy.
F.4.3 For ground floor retail uses, hanging or projecting signs should be located near the front entry of a store. Coordinate with the overall design of the street wall. Hanging or projecting signs shall meet Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) clearance requirements.
F.4.4 Ancillary retail space or leasing offices shall be signed in a manner consistent with the storefront signage standards in this section.
F.5 Prohibited Signs
Prohibited signs include:
F.5.1. Signs which rotate, move mechanically or by the wind, flash, blink or reflect light by means of a polished or mirrored surface.
F.5.2 Open flames, balloons, loudspeakers used to call attention to a product, service, or a property.
F.5.3 Signs which identify or advertise a product or service not available on the premises.
F.5.4 Externally illuminated signs where the source of light is directly visible or cause glare or reflections that are a traffic hazard or nuisance.
F.5.5 Signs which emit or reflect light by means of direct fluorescence, phosphorescence, or “day‐glow” colors.
F.5.6 Any sign illumination which exhibits undue glare.
F.5.7 Any sign placed or displayed on vehicles parked primarily for the purpose of displaying the sign. (This does not apply to food trucks that are parked while they provide service.) F.5.8 Internally lit signs where the entire face of the sign is illuminated, rather than just the graphics.
F.5.9 Advertising bench signs, unless required by SamTrans at Serramonte Blvd.
F.5.10 Off‐site directional signs.
F.5.11 Roof signs.
F.5.12 Outdoor advertising billboard signs.
F.5.13 Abandoned signs.
26 G. LIGHTING
See Figure 3.8 Lighting Diagram. A uniform lighting approach will contribute to overall community aesthetic and ensure safety for walkways, bikeways, and roadways11.
G.1 General Lighting Standards
G.1.1 Lighting shall incorporate dark sky principles by shielding fixtures to prevent light from emitting above a 90-degree angle. Any lighting source located on parking or rooftop parking shall be a full cutoff type.
G.1.2 Light shall be designed to minimize glare and light trespass into neighboring buildings and properties.
G.1.3 High-efficiency technology such as LED lighting with advanced controls shall be utilized to minimize energy consumption.
G.1.4 The use of energy–efficient, long-life LEDs with light color rendered as a warm white (maximum K 3000) is encouraged.
G.2 Street Lighting
G.2.1 Provide streetlights in general locations shown on Figure 3.8, Lighting Diagram for Locations.
G.2.2 Streetlights shall comply with Daly City standards.
G.3 Pedestrian Lighting
G.3.1 Provide pedestrian lighting in general locations shown on Figure 3.8, Lighting Diagram.
Additional locations for pedestrian lighting are along pedestrian pathways in open spaces and in surface parking areas.
G.3.2 Pedestrian lighting shall not be taller than 25 feet in height.
G.3.3 Pedestrian lighting may be integrated with streetlighting by providing additional luminaires facing the sidewalk on streetlight poles, installed at a lower height than street luminaries.
G.3.4 Lighting in surface parking lots and service areas shall be directed away from surrounding buildings and properties using fixtures that minimize light trespass and glare. 11For Parcel A, no additional lighting is required to what is installed.
27 G.4 Lower Illumination Pedestrian Lighting
G.4.1 Commercial grade bollards, step lights, and path lights shall be used as appropriate along pedestrian walkways and plazas.
G.4.2 Nighttime lighting for recreational uses in parks and public spaces should be unobtrusive and control glare.
G.5 Building Lights
G.5.1 Lighting should be integrated into the design of buildings and building architecture to highlight significant architectural features such as signs, entrances, walkways, or storefront displays.
G.5.2 Building facades may be illuminated using shielded fixtures to highlight architectural features.
H.1 Definitions
Active Ground Floor Use: Active ground floor uses are land uses that generate pedestrian activity at the interior and exterior of buildings at the ground floor at streets and public spaces.
Active uses can be retail, commercial, educational, artistic, institutional or community uses such as a community room or daycare.
Amenity Space: Residential amenity space may include co-working space, health, and wellness, grab and go snack items, pet amenities and other shared or community uses that can be visible to the street.
Building Envelope: The building envelope defines the spatial area within which permitted density can be configured. The Precise Plan defines the allowable building envelope horizontally by block size and required street frontage and vertically by building height, massing, and guidance for pedestrian, podium, and skyline levels of architectural design.
Build-to Line: The build-to line for a parcel is the line where the façade of the building, or the podium street wall, is located, parallel to and measured perpendicular from the property line.
Corner Expression: Corner expression is accentuating building massing at the joining of two facades with a projected, recessed, or vertical change in building massing.
Face of Curb: The face of curb is the vertical sloping surface of the side of a roadway curb, not including bulb-outs, curb extensions, curb-cuts, or pull-outs for drop off and loading zones.
Height: The height for a building is calculated from the building’s Average Finished Grade to the top of the parapet at the building’s primary roof. The Average Finished Grade is the average
28 of the high and low elevations at the building’s exterior adjacent to North Drive, West Drive, East Drive, or Entry Drive, or the three access drives leading from East Drive or West Drive.
Massing: Massing is the three-dimensional bulk of a building in terms of general shape, form, height, width, and depth.
Pedestrian Level: Pedestrian level is the design of the ground floor public experience shaped by active ground floor use, diversity of use, and street frontage design.
Podium Level: The podium level is the portion of the building above the ground floor and below the skyline level that provides spatial definition to the adjacent street or public space.
Primary Building Wall: The primary building wall is the building façade. Window or wall recesses or projections are not counted as primary building wall or façade of the building.
Privately-Owned, Public Open Space: Privately-owned outdoor space that functions as public space but may have limited hours of availability.
Property Line locations: Property line locations to measure Build-to lines are measured from the face-of-curb for publicly accessible private streets, a designated property line along an access drive, or back of sidewalk along public streets.
Public Realm: The public realm is exterior urban space shaped by buildings comprised of publicly accessible streets, parks, open spaces, pathways, and civic facilities.
Street Wall: The street wall is the continuous façade of a building that establishes the edge of the public realm for a street or public space.
Skyline Level: The Skyline level is the uppermost occupiable portion of the building above the podium level. The Skyline level contributes to the overall urban form and skyline of the plan area.
Setback: The required minimum distance for the placement of a building measured from a property line, face of curb or another feature.
Streetscape: The visual character of a street comprised of the travel way, bike facilities, sidewalk, site access, landscape, paving, street furniture, building frontage, open space, views, and other perceptible urban features.
Stepback: Stepback is a horizontal recess applied to the upper floor or floors of a building to reduce shadow area on the adjacent street or open space.
Transparency: Pedestrian level building design that creates visibility and permeability between the building and the adjacent sidewalk or public space.
29 Vertical Shift: Vertical shift is variation in the roof line or vertical massing of the building or building elements.
III. IMPLEMENTATION
I. MAINTENANCE
Subject to the provisions of any applicable State law, the following shall apply:
I.1.1 Master Association. Prior to the issuance of any building permit to construct any market-rate residential unit in the project, the Jefferson Union High School District (District) shall formand perpetually maintain a Master Association for the Serramonte Del Rey Neighborhood (“Master Association”). The Master Association shall be selfgoverning and govern common areas for the term of the Precise Plan uses are in operation. The purpose of the Master Association, among other responsibilities, shall be to maintain all common areas within the Precise Plan area including streets, parks, and other areas not maintained by individual parcel developers that are not dedicated or otherwise conveyed to a public agency in a neat, safe and healthful condition, including the ongoing removal of litter throughout. Until the Master Association is formed, the District is responsible for the foregoing.
I.1.2 Maintenance Plan. A maintenance plan for roadway, park, and utility maintenance shall be submitted by the applicant and approved by the City prior to the issuance of any building permit to implement the project. A litter control maintenance plan shall be submitted that includes provision for on-goingletter and garbage control. The maintenance plan shall be incorporated into the CC&R’s in connection with the creation of the Master Association at the discretion of the District and recorded at such time.
Minimum Requirements for Trash and Litter Disposal shall be as follows:
• All trash shall be confined in approved receptacles and enclosures. Any building permit application submitted to the City for review shall be accompanied by a letter from the trash hauler indicating that the proposed trash receptacles provided in the building for which the permit is sought to meet the hauler’s requirements for quantity, size, and accessibility.
• All unenclosed materials, equipment and/or supplies of any kind shall be maintained within approved enclosure areas. Any stacked or stored items shall not exceed the height of the enclosure.
• All trash and storage enclosures shall be properly maintained in accordance with approved plans.
• All waste materials generated by the development, such as cardboard boxes, skids, garbage, litter, etc., must be stored in the enclosure for disposal. • No waste material shall be visible at any time.
• All enclosures shall be designed to conceal the contents.
30 • All enclosures should be kept clean and free of odor.
I.1.3 Maintenance and Repair - Master Association. The Master Association shall develop a maintenance plan (including a street sweeping, street surface repair and replacement, and garbage disposal plan approved by the Planning Division and theDepartment of Public Works) for the upkeep of common areas, private streets, and infrastructure. The Master Association will be responsible for the maintenance, litter removal and repairs of publicly accessible common areas that are not part of individual parcel development, including streets, sidewalks, bicycle lanes, parks, open spaces, trails and paths, utilities and improvements in streets including temporary and permanent storm water features, street lighting, landscaping, planter strips, street furniture and the fixtures, furniture and equipment located in the parks.
I.1.4 Maintenance and Repair - Parcel Specific Responsibilities. Parcel Developers or, if the property interests of such Developers are conveyed, their successors in interest, are responsible the maintenance, replacement, repairs and litter removal for on-site improvements on their respective parcels, including exterior equipment, fixtures, walls, roofs, windows, doors and other architectural, landscaping and publicly accessible common areas on private parcels in a clean, sanitary and attractive condition. The Developer of a parcel shall be responsible for the maintenance, replacement, repairs and cleaning of improvements within exclusive easements on their parcel.
I.1.5 Budget. The Master Association shall prepare an annual budget to fund the costs incurred in maintaining the publicly accessible common facilities. The Master Association shall undertake an inventory of publicly accessible common area improvements requiring maintenance, litter removal and repairs, such that each phase of development is adequately budgeted for maintenance and operations of improvements. Landscape maintenance budget shall include consideration of level of maintenance and operation expenses commensurate to the anticipated level of use of park and recreational facilities.
The Master Association may employ or contract out to perform maintenance, litter removal and repairs..
31 J. PHASING
J.1 Timing. The sequence and timeline of development will ultimately depend on market conditions. The pace of development will fluctuate with the regional economy, capital expectations and availability, costs for development and the conditions of the Daly City housing market.
J.2 Public Improvements. For each phase of development there are corresponding street, park, open space improvements and utilities necessary to support development of individual parcels per Table 7.1 and as shown in Figure 7.1.
Table 7.1: Parcel Phasing and Public Improvements
PHASE PARCEL STREETS PARKS AND
OPEN SPACE
1 B
• Entry Drive
• North Drive
• North Access Way
• Callan Boulevard improvements within
parcel
• Entry Drive Plaza
• Overlook Park
• Eastside Recreation Trail
within parcel
2 C
• South Access Way
• Callan Boulevard improvements within
parcel
• If Parcel C before Parcel D: East Drive
from Campus Drive to South Access
Way
• Eastside Recreation Trail
within parcel
D
• East Drive from North Access Way to
South Access Way
• North Access Way
• South Access Way
• Callan Boulevard improvements within
parcel
• Eastside Recreation Trail
within parcel
3 E • West Drive from North Drive to
Campus Drive
• Central Green
• South Point Park
F • West Drive from North Drive to
Campus Drive • Westside Walking Trail
Notes:
1. If Parcel E is built before Parcels C and D, then East Drive and North Drive will be constructed including the roundabout.
2. If Parcel F is built before Parcels C. D and E, then West Drive and the roundabout will be constructed.
3. Serramonte Boulevard and Highway 1 ramp intersection improvements will be constructed with the first market rate development per the Development Agreement.
4. Bike lanes on Campus Drive to Hickey Blvd will be constructed concurrent with the roundabout.
32 5. See Development Agreement for timing of additional off-site improvements.
6. A Storm Drain Memo shall be submitted for conformance review for each phase in accordance with the Master Plan Drainage Memo. At Building Permit submittal: a Hydrology & Hydraulics report based on final design will be provided with the Building Permit submittal in accordance with the Master Plan Drainage Memo.
7. The first parcel of Parcel B and Parcel D to develop is required to build North Access Way from their building to the curb across the access way, so there is a two-way paved travel way. The subsequent parcel is required to complete the sidewalk, landscaping and storm water treatment facilities between their building and the curb on their side of the North Access Way.
8. The first parcel of Parcel C and Parcel D to develop is required to build South Access Way from their building to the curb across the access way, so there is a two-way paved travel way. The subsequent parcel is required to complete the sidewalk, landscaping and storm water treatment facilities between their building and the curb on their side of the South Access Way.
9. The Head Start facility may be located on other parcels.
10. See the Tentative Map for utility improvements associated with each parcel. On and off parcel utility improvements in the Precise Plan Area shall be sized to support buildout of the Precise Plan.
11. The chronology of phasing in Table 7.1 is not intended to be binding, and the number of phases, number of units, and timeline for the project build-out will ultimately depend on market conditions. The rate of the buildout of housing will fluctuate with the regional economy, capital expectations and availability, costs for development and the conditions of the Daly City housing market. For the purposes of assessing consistency with the Table 7.1 for conformance review, a reviewer shall assess whether development of a listed parcel includes the streets, park, open space utilities needed to support the development of the parcel and future phases of development.
K. CONFORMANCE REVIEW
K.1.1 Purpose. Conformance Review is the Precise Plan’s ministerial, streamlined process to approve proposed projects “as-of-right” that demonstrate Plan Consistency with the Precise Plan and Entitlement Documents and Compliance with the Objective Development Standards of the Precise Plan, as defined below. Design Review is not required for projects ministerially approved “as-of-right.” K.1.2 Plan Consistency. Plan Consistency is the review of project submittal documents for conformance to:
1. Serramonte Del Rey Precise Plan (Attachment “A”) requirements for the scope and phasing of park, open space, street, accessway, storm water, water, wastewater, utility, emergency access, and on and off-site transportation improvements associated with each parcel per Precise Plan Figure 7.1 Phasing, Table 7.1 Development Phasing and Appendix C: Civil Engineering Exhibits, and
2. Entitlement Document requirements of the Development Agreement, Tentative Map, Conditions of Approval, Inclusionary Housing Agreement and the Mitigation and Monitoring program.
K.1.3 Compliance with Objective Development Standards ("Compliance"). Compliance with objective development standards is the review of project submittal documents for
33 conformance with the Precise Plan’s Objective Development Standards as listed in Section II above.
K.1.4 Variance from Numerical Standards and Precise Plan.
Deviations from the numerical standards in Section II above may be permitted by up to 20 percent for any parcel, upon approval by the Planning Division. Deviations from the minimum and maximum densities prescribed in Table 3.3, the requisite amount of private open space (150 square feet per dwelling unit), and the quantity and general location of common open space shall not be permitted.
Modification or reconfiguation of the Precise Plan pattern of streets and blocks, shape of open space areas, site layout, orientation or location of buildings, architectural or landscape elements may be permitted provided all other Objective Design Standard can be met Deviations from the approved roadway configurations, including lane provision and width, shall not be permitted unless approved by the Department of Public Works.K.1.5 Submittal Requirements. Submittal requirements shall include documentation as set forth in the 2023 Daly City Municipal Code Section 17.28.030 C. 2. (a) – (f), Procedure for Application for Planned Development of the Daly City Zoning Ordinance, and shall include a completed Conformance Review Check List, as attached to the Precise Plan as Appendix A, and any additional information requested by the Planning Manager. Submittal requirements for minor modifications to approved and constructed projects to be per Planning Manager request.
K.1.5 Review Process and Timing.
1. Pre-submittal conference. Upon request of the Applicant, the Planning Manager shall convene a pre-submittal conference to review the scope of the project, submittal requirements, conformance review process, timeline, and staff availability. It is an opportunity for the Applicant and the design team to ask technical questions to prepare a submittal. The Planning Manager, City Engineer, and Development Coordinating Committee members shall attend upon request.
2. Submittal. The Applicant shall submit documentation as described under "Submittal Requirements" above.
3. Conformance Review. The Planning Manager, designated staff or third-party consultants shall conduct the Conformance Review per the responsibilities described in Table 7.2. The Planning Manager shall coordinate reviewer
34 comments and provide them to the Applicant no later than 45 business days after filing a project submittal.
12 4. Determination. The Planning Manager shall review the project submittal and reviewer comments to determine whether the submittal is plan consistent and standards compliant and therefore approved as-of-right.
If the Planning Manager deems a project application inconsistent with the Precise Plan or Entitlement Documents, and/or non-compliant with the Objective Development Standards in Section II, prior to a decision to deny approval of the proposed project, the Planning Manager shall provide the Applicant with written documentation as to what elements of the submittal are not in conformance.13 The Applicant can revise the submittal and resubmit. The Planning Manager, upon receipt of the re-submittal, shall make their determination. Total City Review Time from submittal to determination shall not exceed 90 business days. 14 If the City fails to complete Conformance Review per the above timing requirements, the submittal shall be deemed to be conforming with the Precise Plan and Entitlement Documents, planning review shall be complete, and requested permits shall be issued.
5. Notification of Determination. The Planning Manager shall communicate in writing to the Applicant the Planning Manager's determination.
6. Appeal. A Conformance Review determination may be appealed within 20 business days to the City Manager by the Applicant. City Manager shall make a determination within 20 business days of receipt of the appeal. The City Manager’s decision on appeal shall be final and not appealable.
K.1.6 Review Criteria. The following criteria shall guide the determination of plan consistency and standards compliance:
12 Notwithstanding anything in this chapter, to the extent the Permit Streamlining Act or other State Law applies for shorter deadlines, the regulations in such laws shall govern. 13 This process is separate and independent from the Planning Manager's coordination and provision of any reviewer comments on the Applicant's initial project submittal, as required under the "Review Process and Timing" section of this Chapter.
14 For this paragraph, "City Review Time" shall mean the time, measured in business days, taken by the City to review a project submittal and provide comments to the applicant or render a Conformance Review decision. City Review Time does not include the Applicant’s time from the date of receiving comments to the date of resubmitting a revised project submittal responsive to comments.
35 • All Figures in the Precise Plan illustrate the general arrangement and relationships among parcels, buildings, streets, accessways, parks and open spaces, and exact compliance or conformance is not required so long as other objective criteria are met. • The final configuration of parcels, buildings, streets, accessways, parks and open spaces are subject to refinement, and exact compliance or conformance is not required so long as other objective criteria are met.
• Consistency and conformance with the Precise Plan shall be construed rationally and shall accommodate unforeseen solutions or innovation that can occur over the extended build-out of the Precise Plan. Notwithstanding the above, no deviations are permitted to minimum residential densities and minimum open space area requirements.
K.1.7 Standards Interpretation. The nature of the Objective Standards is such that consistency determinations are ministerial, without the exercise of discretion.
Accordingly, it is not anticipated there will be cause for interpretation of these standards by the City. In the unforeseen event that interpretation is required, the Planning Manager shall make any interpretation of the Precise Plan’s development standards required to evaluate the proposed project, and shall inform the reviewer of any interpretations as needed. The Planning Manager shall include any interpretations as part of its written determination of consistency with the objective development standards of the Precise Plan.
K.1.8 Staffing. The Planning Manager shall check on staff availability prior to the presubmittal conference to meet the conformance review timeline. If staffing is not available, the City can designate a third-party consultant to be paid for by Applicant.
Consultants shall have professional planning experience on similar projects. The Applicant shall pay all reasonable staff coordination and third-party consultant costs.
K.1.9 Staff or Consultant Review Responsibilities. Staff or consultant review responsibilities are per Table 7.2, Reviewer Responsibilities.
• The Planning Manager shall provide oversight and make all Conformance Review determinations.
• Staff of consultant shall compare the project submittal, Conformance Check List, and applicable plan elements, standards and requirements of the Precise Plan and the Entitlement Documents.
• Reviewers are to provide written comments on plan consistency to the Planning Manager. In the case where the reviewer concludes inconsistency with plan elements, or non-compliance to objective development standards, the reviewer shall identify specific objective standards to be addressed to achieve a consistency. • If requested by the Applicant, the Planning Manager and any reviewers shall meet with the Applicant to discuss steps to resolve any comments.
36 The Planning Manager shall consider the recommendations of the reviewers, and shall make the final determination for approval, approval with conditions, or denial of the submittal based on objective criteria as set forth herein.
Table 7.2: Reviewer Responsibilities
RESPONSIBILITY REVIEWER
PLAN
CONSISTENCY
STANDARDS
COMPLIANCE
PLANNING
MANAGER
STAFF OR
THIRD-PARTY
CONSULTANT
(IF RETAINED)
CITY
ENGINEER
DEVELOPMENT
COORDINATING
COMMITTEE15
HOUSING AND
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
MANAGER
Phasing X X
Parks X X
Streets X X X
Utilities, off-site
transportation
Improvements
X X X
Development
Agreement X
Final Map X
MMRP X X X
Inclusionary
Housing
Agreement
X
Tentative Map and
Conditions of
Approval
X X
Land use and
urban design X X
New Buildings X X
Parks X X
Streetscapes X X
Exceptional
Projects16 X X X X X
15 Development Coordinating Committee includes Planning Division, Building Division, Engineering Division, Department of Water and Wastewater Resources, North County Fire Authority and other committee members as deemed appropriate by the Planning Manager.
16 For exceptional projects, Planning Manager to determine at pre-application conference what type of review and staffing is required.
37 RESPONSIBILITY REVIEWER
Minor
modifications to
existing buildings
& facilities
X X X
IV. PLAN AMENDMENTS
Amending the Precise Plan shall follow the requirements of the Daly City Municipal Code section 17.28.020 (I) as of the date of approval of the Precise Plan. This Municipal Code section is included as a part of Supporting Documents provided with this Precise Plan.
V. SUBDIVISIONS
Subdivision of parcels shall conform to the requirements of the Precise Plan and the Daly City Municipal Code Title 16 Subdivisions.
VI. INCLUSIONARY HOUSING
The following requirements are subject to the terms and exceptions provided in the affordable housing agreement:
A. Construction of inclusionary units is required within the Planned Development Zone PD31 area pursuant to an Affordable Housing Plan.
B. This Precise Plan authorizes flexibility in timing of construction and geographic distribution of inclusionary units throughout the PD-31 area to allow for a greater number of inclusionary units and deeper level of affordability than the minimum levels required by the City Ordinance.
C. The Precise Plan requires, for Parcels B-F, not less than 20 percent of the total number of total residential units completed at final build-out to be affordable housing, consisting of
13.5% low-income units at no greater than 60% AMI and 6.5% moderate income units at no greater than 120% AMI. One market rate residential building can be constructed prior to construction of affordable units. 150 low-income affordable units are planned to be located on Parcel C. The subsequent phases after the first market rate building and the first residential structure built on Parcel C have been constructed can be phased and include unit counts proposed by the developer in any way such that the overall percentage of affordable units does not drop below 20% of all constructed residential units at Parcels B-F at any time consisting of 13.5% low-income units and 6.5% moderate income units.
38 VII. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
All proposals for development shall be subject to the mitigation measures specified in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) certified by the City Council as part of this Precise Plan.
VIII. ENTITLEMENT DOCUMENTS
The term "Entitlement Documents" shall refer to all the below except the Precise Plan. • General Plan Amendment. By Resolution No. [], City Council approved text and map amendments to the General Plan to enable high density residential and mixed-use residential development.
• Precise Plan. By Resolution No. [], City Council approved the Serramonte Del Rey Precise Plan, which modified land use designations and created a new street and open space network.
• Development Agreement. The District and the City of Daly City entered into a Development Agreement to secure vested development rights and terms. • Affordable Housing Agreement. The District and the City of Daly City entered into an Affordable Housing Agreement to secure rights and terms for the Project’s Affordable Housing Plan.
• Tentative Map and Conditions of Approval. The City Council approved a Tentative Map indicating the subdivision of the District lands into parcels with infrastructure and open space improvements, including Conditions of Approval.
• Mitigation and Monitoring and Reporting Program. The City of Daly City, as the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) prepared the project’s Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to disclose to the City, public and other agencies the environmental impacts of the project. By Resolution No. [] the City certified the EIR for the project, adopted findings, statement of overriding considerations [if needed] and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). The Precise Plan is consistent with and will implement the MMRP as approved by the City Council.
20284220.5
Hanson Bridgett LLP
425 Market Street, 26th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105
SEAN R. MARCINIAK
PARTNER
DIRECT DIAL (925) 746-8471
DIRECT FAX (925) 746-8498
E-MAIL [email protected]
January 9, 2024
Re: Jefferson Union High School District Serramonte Precise Plan Project Dear Honorable Members of the City Council:
Our office represents the Jefferson Union High School District (the "District") in its development of a new mixed-use project at 699 Serramonte Boulevard (the "Project"). As this project nears its hearing date, we recognize the City Council will be fielding many different questions and issues. By this letter, we merely ask the City Council keep in mind something that might get lost in the deluge of information, as it concerns the housing crisis, and urgency is necessary:
The Project is crucial to the City meeting its fair share housing requirements assigned under the applicable Regional Housing Needs Allocation ("RHNA").
We feel it is necessary to point this out because some Project opponents have alleged the Project is inconsistent with the City's RHNA requirements. The very opposite is true.
At buildout, the Project will consist of 1,113 new residential units in Daly City, not including the existing 122 units of District faculty housing. These apartments include 150 new low-/very lowincome units, 73 new affordable moderate-income units, and 890 above-moderate-income units.
As shown in the chart below, the City needs these units for its December 2023 Draft Housing Element (i.e., the City's blueprint for meeting RHNA requirements) to work. Failing to meet RHNA requirements would result in time-consuming revisions to the Draft Housing Element, and the City would risk losing substantial zoning powers under the Housing Accountability Act.
Type of Unit Units Required
Under RHNA
Citywide Units
With Project
Citywide Units
Without Project
End Result Without
Project
Lower-Income 2,105 2,139 1,989 116 units below RHNA
Moderate-Income 762 9431 870 108 units above RHNA
Above-Moderate
Income
1,971 2,0122 1,122 849 units below RHNA
Total Units 4,838 5,094 3,981 857 units below RHNA
1 The City's Draft Housing Element does not reflect the latest iteration of the Project, which will provide 150 lowerincome units, 73 moderate-income units, and 890 above-moderate income units. This number has been adjusted to reflect that 73 moderate-income units will be provided, as opposed to the 27 moderate-income units listed in the Draft Housing Element.
2 Pursuant to the above footnote, this number has been adjusted to reflect that 890 above-moderate-income units will be provided, as opposed to the 936 listed in the Draft Housing Element.
Hon. Members of the Daly City Council
c/o Ms. K. Annette Hipona, City Clerk
333 - 90th Street
2nd Floor
Daly City, CA 94015
Hon. Members of the Daly City Council
January 9, 2024
20284220.5
Under State law, the City's Housing Element must provide an inventory of planned projects and sites for future development that provides a realistic path to satisfy the City's RHNA requirement, and for all income levels throughout the 2023-2031 planning period. 3 If, at any
time, the City finds that its identified inventory is insufficient to accommodate its remaining RHNA, the City must take immediate action to amend its Housing Element to either add previously unidentified residential sites or rezone non-residential sites to correct for the shortfall.4 A city that fails to do so risks losing its power to deny housing projects in the future, including those that do not comply with the City's zoning and General Plan (i.e., Builder's Remedy projects). As shown in the above table, approval of the Project is instrumental to avoid these results.
In other words, without the Project, the City would need to immediately revise its Housing Element to rezone new non-residential sites in such a manner that would realistically allow for the development of 116 additional lower-income units and 849 additional above-moderateincome units – about 20% of the City's entire RHNA allocation.
Please note, this issue before the City is an urgent one, as the deadline for adopting a housing blueprint expired on January 31, 2023, more than a year ago. Meanwhile, the region's welldocumented housing crisis, as the City knows, has not abated in any respect, resulting in poverty and homelessness. (See Gov. Code 65589.5(a)(2).)5 The City's December 2023 Draft Housing Element, incorporated herein by this reference, documents this urgency. It provides the City's population will increase to 120,000 City residents in 2030, which represents about a 20 percent increase over the 2022 population. The City's low vacancy rate, aging housing stock, large percentage of overcrowded households, and sky-rocketing housing prices, as discussed extensively in the Draft Housing Element, underscore the need to act quickly. For instance, a single person making a moderate income cannot now afford to buy a home in Daly City. There is an urgent need to adopt the Project, which is a cornerstone in the City's housing blueprint.
The District remains in strong support of the City's goals to achieve its fair share of RHNA and adopt a 2023-2031 Housing Element that fully complies with State law. The District is proud of the essential role that the Project plays in these efforts, and looks forward to continuing to work with the City to make the vision of the Project and more housing options in Daly City a reality.
Sincerely,
Sean R. Marciniak
Partner
cc: Clients
City of Daly City Planning Staff
Rose Zimmerman, City Attorney, City of Daly City
3 See Gov. Code, §§ 65863(a); (b). 4 Id. 5 See also the California Department of Housing and Community Development's report entitled California's Housing Future: Challenges and Opportunities," incorporated by this reference and available here:
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/plans-reports/docs/SHA_Final_Combined.pdf
bae urban economics
San Francisco Sacramento Los Angeles Washington DC New York City 2600 10th St., Suite 300 803 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
Memorandum
To: Tina Van Raaphorst, Associate Superintendent
Jefferson Union High School District
From: David Shiver, Principal
Kathleen Diohep, Vice-President
Date: July 10, 2020; REVISED DECEMBER 28, 2023
Re: Office Market Assessment and Fiscal Impact Review for Serramonte Del Rey Site, Daly City, California
Introduction and Purpose
BAE Urban Economics, Inc. (“BAE”) has been engaged to prepare an analysis of the office market position for the 22-acre site owned by the Jefferson Union High School District (“JUHSD”) and a review of the fiscal impact of residential development in Daly City, California.
This site, a former high school, is a portion of a larger 50-acre site that was entitled for 500,000 to 700,000 square feet of office space plus residential in 1985 (“the Site”).
BAE is an award-winning urban economics and public-benefit real estate and urban economics consultancy. Since 1986, BAE has completed more than 2,300 projects for clients that include public agencies, non-profit organizations, financial institutions, and private developers throughout the US. BAE has prepared hundreds of market studies, financial feasibility studies, and highest and best use analyses for a variety of commercial, residential, and institutional product types.
This analysis evaluates the site’s potential to attract commercial office use. The analysis utilizes market-based location criteria for office development, set in the geographic and historic context of real estate development in Daly City, San Mateo County, and the San Francisco Bay Area over the past 35 years.
This analysis also presents the results of the fiscal impact analysis of three recently approved residential projects in Daly City to demonstrate the potential for residential development contemplated for the JUHSD site to generate positive fiscal benefits to the City.
2 Key Findings – Market Viability of Office Use
Daly City Overview
Known as the "Gateway to the Peninsula", Daly City is located central to two of the Bay Area's major job growth zones of San Francisco and San Mateo counties, and is a regional hub for retail, healthcare, and small business. Because of its central location, diversified economy, excellent transportation links, and a growing young and productive labor force, Daly City's future for economic growth is bright.
JUHSD Site Characteristics
To assess the viability of office use at the site, BAE 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.
1. 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.
2. 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 and this BART Station positions Daly City to capture future office tenant demand.
3. 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
3 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. However, the Daly City BART Station area is an existing business center that can attract other businesses.
Figure 1 Office Location Criteria
Source: BAE, 2020.
4. 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.
4 5. 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.
6. 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 in contrast to other areas of Daly City.
7. 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 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.
8. 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.
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 despite its being situated in a highly attractive and vibrant community. 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
5 upon the site’s characteristics as well as its 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.
Key Findings - Fiscal Impact of Alternative Residential Use Overview
BAE reviewed three FIAs for new residential development in Daly City and has made the following findings regarding the direct fiscal impacts:
• The three FIA analyses prepared recently for Daly City projects all indicate that residential development at the scale and density of in-fill development projects, such as what is being considered for the Serramonte Del Rey site, can yield net positive impacts.
• New residential development injects additional retail spending power into the city that can support its existing and expanded retail centers and corridors. • Daly City has well-performing retail centers such as the Westgate Mall and Serramonte Plaza with a wide offering of retail stores that draw shoppers from both inside and outside the city. However, the City’s retail sector faces continued pressure from ecommerce and the uncertain impacts of the current Covid-19 pandemic. • Daly City can support the long-term sustainability of these centers by adding new residents. Each new resident, from which a higher percent of spending can be captured locally, netting more retail sales than under a situation faced by many other cities where new residents chose to go outside the city for a significant portion of their shopping.
Indirect Fiscal Benefit
6 There is as well an important indirect fiscal benefit associated with new residential development specifically at the Serramonte Del Rey site. JUHSD intends to ground lease the Site for development which will generate an ongoing stream of cash rental payments. This new source of revenue will enhance JUHSD’s operating budget and thus improve the quality of education in Daly City.
Improved school quality has been documented to increase housing values in the community that the schools serve. This, in turn, will increase tax revenues for both JUHSD and Daly City, therefore stimulating a virtuous cycle that improves the quality of City services and school district operations.
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
7 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.
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
8 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.
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 1 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 1: 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 yet high enough to support new Vacancy 3-4-2020 Vacancy 3-4-2020
Sq.ft. # Sq.ft. % Sq.ft. # Sq.ft. %
General Office
Class A 438,173 2 43,280 10% 438,173 2 43,280 10%
Class B 202,477 8 4,861 2% 181,121 5 4,861 3%
Class C 218,517 33 5,062 2% 40,910 2 - 0%
Subtotal 859,167 43 53,203 6% 660,204 9 48,141 7%
Medical Office
Class B 398,494 7 28,487 7% 362,378 4 26,918 7%
Class C 228,116 11 - 0% 176,981 3 - 0%
Subtotal 626,610 18 28,487 5% 539,359 7 26,918 5%
Total 1,485,777 61 81,690 5% 1,199,563 16 75,059 6%
All Buildings Buildings < 20,000 sq.ft.
9 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 offer potential for office development.
Daly City Class A Office Market
There are two Class A office buildings in Daly City, 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 has also seen a series of residential projects, many with over 300 units, under construction,
10 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 conditions1. 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 development, in particular Stanford Industrial park which is home to many technology companies.
1 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.
11 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 emerging with clusters of Class A office and life-science development, in Brisbane, Burlingame, Foster City, San Bruno, San Mateo, and Redwood City.
12 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.
13 Table 2 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 3.0 (a)
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
14 Figure 5: Class A Office Projects Under Construction, Approved and Proposed Northern San Mateo County, 16 Million square feet
Source: CoStar, BAE 2020
15 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
16 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
17 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)
18 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).
19 • 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 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
20 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.
(This space intentionally left blank)
21 Fiscal Analysis of Alternative Residential Uses
An alternative use for the Site is residential and this section of the report addresses the fiscal impact of residential uses in a setting such as Daly City.
New residential development has traditionally been viewed by many local land use decisionmakers as a fiscal negative (e.g., not generating sufficient new general fund tax revenue to cover incremental costs). However, a growing body of fiscal impact analyses (“FIAs”) for projects in the Bay Area demonstrate that new residential development can have a significant net positive fiscal impact.
Daly City has recently analyzed three office projects for their impact on local tax revenues and service requirements. BAE reviewed these three studies and adjusted to remove any tax revenues from proposed retail to identify the portion of the fiscal impact due to the housing use.
Westlake Shopping Center – 179 Units Rental Housing
The center owner, Kimco Realty Corporation, received entitlements in 2017 to redevelop a portion of the Westlake Shopping Center to mixed use with 35,458 square feet of replacement retail and 179 units of rental apartments. With a 1.95-acre site, this is a density of 92 units per acre. The FIA was prepared by the developer at the request of the City and the FIA indicates a positive fiscal impact to the general fund, totaling approximately $163,900 annually in 2017 dollars from the residential portions of the project, $916 per unit per year.
City Ventures, Serra Station – 75 Townhomes
The second project is a proposed townhome and retail development with a 35,000 square foot retail program at 3301 Junipero Serra Boulevard being undertaken by City Ventures and approved in late 2019. The project, on 3.92 acres, results in a density of 19 units per acre.
The FIA was prepared by Economic Planning Systems, Inc. in 2017 and indicates a positive fiscal impact to the general fund of approximately $164,700 annually from the residential components of the project, $2,196 per unit per year.
Equity Residential, 6401 Mission – 170 units of Rental Housing The City is currently finalizing a project with Equity Residential to build apartments on a 0.36- acre site, at a density of 472 units per acre in a ten-story2. A fiscal study prepared by ALH Urban Economics found a fiscal benefit of the project of $183,400 in 2019 dollars, $1,079 per unit per year.
2 The calculation of density does not include the land area for a garage constructed in an earlier phase that the proposed project will connect to.
22 FIA Implications for New Residential Projects in Daly City • The three FIA analyses prepared recently for Daly City projects all indicate that residential development at the scale and density of in-fill development projects, such as what is being considered for the JUHSD site, can yield net positive impacts. • New residential development injects additional retail spending power into the city that can support its existing and expanded retail centers and corridors. • Daly City has well-performing retail centers such as the Westgate Mall and Serramonte Plaza with a wide offering of retail stores that draw shoppers from both inside and outside the city. However, the City’s retail sector faces continued pressure from ecommerce and the uncertain impacts of the current Covid-19 pandemic. • Daly City can support the long-term sustainability of these centers by adding new residents. Each new resident, from which a higher percent of spending can be captured locally, netting more retail sales than under a situation faced by many other cities where new residents chose to go outside the city for a significant portion of their shopping.
23 APPENDICES
Appendix A: Daly City Office Opportunity Sites
Appendix B: Office Development Case Studies
24 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
25 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 an 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.
26 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.
27 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 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 Redwood City, CA
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.
28 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 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
29 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
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
30 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 lifescience 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.
31 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.
32 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 generally3. 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. 3 Note that a meaningful change for Class A office cannot be estimated since there is only one building in the Shadelands inventory.
33 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
34 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 generally4. 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. 4 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.
35 Figure 14: Northgate District, San Rafael
36 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.
37 Figure 15: Marina Village Office Park, Alameda
Water Supply Assessment for
Jefferson Union High School
District Master Plan Project
Prepared for
City of Daly City
Daly City, California
December 2021
201 North Civic Drive, Suite 115
Walnut Creek, CA 94595
Water Supply Assessment for
Jefferson Union High School District Master Plan Project Prepared for
City of Daly City
Daly City, California
December 2021
Kevin Kai, P.E.
December 17, 2021
California License C 60024
Engineer in Responsible Charge
ii
Table of Contents
List of Figures .............................................................................................................................................. iii List of Tables ................................................................................................................................................ iv List of Abbreviations ..................................................................................................................................... v Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 1
1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 1-1
1.1 Purpose and Scope of Water Supply Assessment ............................................................... 1-1
1.2 Proposed Jefferson Union High School District MP Project ................................................. 1-1
1.3 Service Area Description ........................................................................................................ 1-5
1.3.1 Service Area Location .............................................................................................. 1-5
1.3.2 Service Area Climate ................................................................................................ 1-6
1.3.3 Daly City Water System ............................................................................................ 1-7
1.3.4 Existing and Projected Demographics .................................................................... 1-8
2. Existing and Projected Water Demands ........................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 Historical Water Demand ....................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 JUHSD Site – Current and Historical Demand ...................................................................... 2-2
2.3 Projected Water Demand....................................................................................................... 2-3
2.3.1 Daly City Water System Projected Water Demands ............................................... 2-3
2.3.2 Estimated JUHSD MP Project Water Demands ...................................................... 2-3
2.4 Total Projected Water Demand ............................................................................................. 2-4
3. Water Supplies .................................................................................................................................. 3-1
3.1 Purchased Water .................................................................................................................... 3-1
3.1.1 Description ............................................................................................................... 3-1
3.1.2 Legal Constraints ..................................................................................................... 3-2
3.1.3 SFPUC Physical Constraints and Possible Limitations on Delivery Capacity ....... 3-3
3.1.4 SFPUC Additional Water Supplies ........................................................................... 3-4
3.2 Groundwater ........................................................................................................................... 3-5
3.2.1 Description ............................................................................................................... 3-5
3.2.2 Conjunctive Use ....................................................................................................... 3-7
3.2.3 Constraints on Groundwater Sources ..................................................................... 3-8
3.2.4 Groundwater Reliability ........................................................................................... 3-8
3.3 Recycled Water ....................................................................................................................... 3-9
3.3.1 Description ............................................................................................................... 3-9
3.3.2 Encourage Future Recycled Water Use ................................................................ 3-10
3.4 Total Projected Water Supply .............................................................................................. 3-11
4. Availability of Water Supplies ............................................................................................................ 4-1
Jefferson Union High School District Master Plan Project Table of Contents iii
4.1 Water Supply and Demand Comparison ............................................................................... 4-1
4.1.1 Normal Year .............................................................................................................. 4-1
4.1.2 Single Dry Year ......................................................................................................... 4-1
4.1.3 Multiple Dry Years .................................................................................................... 4-2
4.2 WSA Determination ................................................................................................................ 4-6
4.2.1 Additional Water Supplies ....................................................................................... 4-7
5. Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................ 5-1
6. References ......................................................................................................................................... 6-1 Appendix A: 2020 UWMP Packet (including SFPUC Common Language) and 03.30.21 Projection Revisions ................................................................................................................................................................A Appendix B: Figure LUE-1, Existing Land Use and Figure LUE-3, Future Land Use, in the Daly City 2030 General Plan .......................................................................................................................................... B Appendix C: JUHSD Phasing Plan ............................................................................................................... C Appendix D: South Westside Basin GWMP ................................................................................................ D Appendix E: BAWSCA Tier 2 Drought Implementation Plan ...................................................................... E List of Figures
Figure 1-1. Jefferson Union High School District MP project site - existing .......................................... 1-3 Figure 1-2. Jefferson Union High School District MP project site - proposed ....................................... 1-4 Figure 1-3. Daly City water service area and project location ............................................................... 1-6 Figure 3-1. Diagram of City and County of San Francisco’s RWS ......................................................... 3-1 Figure 3-2. South Westside Basin ........................................................................................................... 3-6 Figure 3-3. RGSR proposed project groundwater wells ......................................................................... 3-8 Figure 4-1. Scenario 1: Supply and demand comparison – Without Bay-Delta Plan ........................... 4-5 Figure 4-2. Scenario 2: Supply and demand comparison – With Bay-Delta Plan ................................ 4-6
Jefferson Union High School District Master Plan Project Table of Contents iv
List of Tables
Table 1-1 Jefferson Union High School District MP Project Land Uses at Buildout ............................. 1-5 Table 1-2. Monthly Average Climate Data Summarya ............................................................................ 1-7 Table 1-3. Daly City Population Current and Projected .......................................................................... 1-8 Table 2-1. Historical Potable Water Demands ....................................................................................... 2-2 Table 2-2. JUHSD Site Demand in Gallons ............................................................................................. 2-2 Table 2-3. Projected Water Demands by Use Type (without the proposed JUHSD MP Project)a ........ 2-3 Table 2-4. JUHSD MP Project Projected Buildout Water Demand ........................................................ 2-4 Table 2-5. Total Projected Water Demand .............................................................................................. 2-4 Table 3-1. Groundwater Volume Pumped by Daly City ........................................................................... 3-9 Table 3-2. Historical Recycled Water Uses ........................................................................................... 3-10 Table 3-3. Current and Projected Recycled Water Uses (MGY)a .......................................................... 3-10 Table 3-4. Expand Future Recycled Water Use .................................................................................... 3-11 Table 3-5. Normal Year Water Supplies, Projected (MGY) ................................................................... 3-11 Table 4-1. Normal Year Supply and Demand Comparison (MGY) ......................................................... 4-1 Table 4-2. Single-Dry Year Water Supply and Demand Comparison, MGY – Scenario 1 Without Bay-Delta Plan ............................................................................................................................................................ 4-2 Table 4-3. Single Dry Year Water Supply and Demand Comparison, MGY – Scenario 2 With Bay-Delta Plan ............................................................................................................................................................ 4-2 Table 4-4. Multiple Dry Years Supply and Demand Comparison, MGY – Scenario 1 Without Bay-Delta Plan ............................................................................................................................................................ 4-3 Table 4-5. Multiple Dry Years Supply and Demand Comparison, MGY – Scenario 2 With Bay-Delta Plan ............................................................................................................................................................ 4-4
Jefferson Union High School District Master Plan Project Table of Contents v
List of Abbreviations
ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments
amsl above mean sea level
BARWRP Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program
BAWSCA Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation
Agency
BC Brown and Caldwell
BDP Bay-Delta Plan
CASGEM California Statewide Groundwater Elevation
Monitoring
CIMIS California Irrigation Management Information
System
CWS California Water Service Company
Daly City City of Daly City
DSS Decision Support System
DWR Department of Water Resources
ETo evapotranspiration
ft2 square foot/feet
°F degrees Fahrenheit
gpm gallons per minute
GWMP Groundwater Management Plan
GSA Groundwater Sustainability Agency
GSP Groundwater Sustainability Plan
GSR groundwater storage and recovery
I-280 Interstate 280
ISG Individual Supply Guarantee
ISL Interim Supply Limitation
JUHSD Jefferson Union High School District
LOS level of service
MG million gallons
mgd million gallons per day
MGY million gallons per year
MP Master Plan
NSMCSD North San Mateo County Sanitation District
RWS Regional Water System
SCADA supervisory control and data acquisition
system
sf square foot/feet
SFPUC San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
SGMA Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
Strategy BAWSCA’s Long-term Reliable Water Supply
Strategy
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
WSA Water Supply Assessment
WSAg Water Supply Agreement
WSAP Water Shortage Allocation Plan
WSIP Water System Improvement Program
WWTP wastewater treatment plant
ES-1
Executive Summary
On behalf of the City of Daly City (Daly City), Brown and Caldwell (BC) prepared this Water Supply Assessment (WSA) for the proposed Jefferson Union High School District (JUHSD) Master Plan (MP) Project. BC has prepared the WSA in accordance with California Water Code sections 10910 through 10915.
The projected available annual potable water supplies under non-drought periods (normal conditions) for the Daly City water system in 2045 are 2,819 million gallons (MG), and the estimated potable demand is 2,206 million gallon per year (MGY), where 86 MG is from the proposed project demand. Thus, BC has determined that Daly City would have access to sufficient water supplies to serve the proposed JUHSD MP Project in normal water supply conditions, but our analyses projects shortages if State of California Department of Water Resources (DWR) implements the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment.
However, due to the proposed Bay-Delta Plan Amendment, this report identifies some projected shortages and uncertainties regarding future dry-year supplies. BC based this determination on the following information:
• Both groundwater and surface water would supply the water needed to serve the proposed project.
Currently, Daly City purchases treated surface water from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC). Historically, SFPUC has delivered sufficient surface water supplies. This analysis incorporates reductions in surface water supplies from SFPUC of up to 20 percent of average in dry years per the 2020 Daly City UWMP; however, according to the SFPUC Common Language letter (Appendix A), SFPUC faces potential for further reductions of its supply due to scenarios associated with the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment that could affect water available to Daly City from the Regional Water Supply adversely. • Daly City has limited ability to increase groundwater pumping from the Westside Basin to enhance water supply reliability and address added demands. Daly City currently has a sustainable yield of 1,252 MGY anticipated through 2045. However, Daly City has identified other undeveloped groundwater resources outside the Westside Basin that it currently considers developing. If such resources come to fruition, they could substantially overcome shortfalls in its dependence on the Regional Water Supply during droughts with the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment in place.
• Recycled water currently serves irrigation demands within Daly City and to nearby golf courses, which lowers the estimated demands for potable water and further enhances overall water supply reliability.
City’s recycled water expansion project (to be completed by 2035) would expand recycled water use and further enhance the groundwater availability.
Jefferson Union High School District Master Plan Project Executive Summary ES-2
This page intentionally left blank.
1-1
Section 1
Introduction
This section discusses the purpose and scope of the Water Supply Assessment (WSA) and describes both the proposed Jefferson Union High School District (JUHSD) Master Plan (MP) Project and the existing City of Daly City (Daly City) water system.
1.1 Purpose and Scope of Water Supply Assessment
Brown and Caldwell prepared this WSA to document the availability of water supplies to serve Daly City and the proposed JUHSD project. Senate Bill 610, now codified as California Water Code sections 10910 and 10911, requires land use planning entities that are evaluating certain large development projects to request an assessment with an affirmative written verification of sufficient water supplies from the water supply entity that will provide water for the project. Applicable developments are those that would have a water demand that would be equivalent or greater than the amount of water used by a 500-dwelling unit project or would increase the number of service connections by at least 10 percent. A water supplier prepares such a WSA in conjunction with a project’s land-use approval process and must evaluate the sufficiency of the water supplies available to the water supplier to meet existing and anticipated future demands including the demand associated with the proposed development. The WSA must include the project’s demand over a 20- year horizon that recognizes normal years, single and multiple dry years. For supply and demand information, BC used supply and demand information from the Daly City 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), which has a 25-year horizon.
The WSA must identify any existing water supply entitlements, water rights, or water service contracts held by the water supplier or that are relevant to the identified water supply for the proposed project. The WSA also must document water quantities received in prior years by the public water system.
If the public water supplier relies on groundwater supplies, the WSA must describe all groundwater basins that will supply the proposed project. For each unadjudicated basin, the WSA should indicate whether DWR has identified the basin as overdrafted or has projected that the basin will become overdrafted if present management conditions continue. Furthermore, the WSA should provide a detailed description of the efforts undertaken in the basin to eliminate the long-term overdraft condition.
1.2 Proposed Jefferson Union High School District MP Project JUHSD is developing a master plan for the expansion of the Workforce Housing District located at 699 Serramonte Boulevard in Daly City. The project improvements include five new high-density residential buildings, a mixed-use building, pedestrian pathways, landscaping, surface parking, and utilities. The project will include removing an existing school building, four modular buildings, parking lots, and roadways.
The proposed JUHSD MP Project will modify an existing 20-acre institutional site as indicated on Figure LUE1, Existing Land Use, in the Daly City 2030 General Plan https://www.dalycity.org/363/General-Plan (Appendix B). As shown on Figure 1-1, the site is bounded by Serramonte Boulevard to the north, St. Francis Boulevard to the west, Campus Drive to the south, and Callan Boulevard to the east. As shown on Figure 1-2, prepared by BKF Engineers, and provided to Brown and Caldwell (BC) on April 28, 2021 (Appendix C), JUHSD will build out the proposed project in three phases over 8 to 15 years. It will remove 168,816 square feet (sf) of school and construct up to 1,240 new residential units, up to 1,854 parking units, and 24,427 sf of mixed retail/restaurant space. Per Figure LUE-3, Future Land Use, the Daly City 2030 General Plan shows land use
Jefferson Union High School District Master Plan Project Section 1 1-2
on the site as Commercial Office (C-O); therefore, Daly City may need to rezone the site to be consistent with the proposed project.
Jefferson Union High School District Master Plan Project Section 1 1-3
Figure 1-1. Jefferson Union High School District MP project site - existing
Jefferson Union High School District Master Plan Project Section 1 1-4
Figure 1-2. Jefferson Union High School District MP project site - proposed
Jefferson Union High School District Master Plan Project Section 1 1-5
Table 1-1 summarizes the proposed (buildout) land uses and size of the proposed JUHSD MP Project.
Table 1-1 Jefferson Union High School District MP Project Land Uses at Buildout Land Use No. of Units
Approximate Areaa
ft2
Demolition of existing buildings 5 <170,000>
Multi-family residential (high-rise option) 1,240 1,426,000 Retail/Restaurant - 24,000
Institutional - 1,400
Parking 1,854 587,000
Total increase at buildout above existing
development - 1,868,000
a. Approximate total building areas of all floor levels within the exterior walls as provided by the developer. ft2 = square foot/feet
1.3 Service Area Description
This section describes the existing Daly City service area, location, climate, water system, and demographics.
1.3.1 Service Area Location
Daly City serves water to all residents and businesses within its city limits. Daly City does not serve two unincorporated pockets surrounded generally by the Daly City boundaries. Figure 1-3 presents the location of the JUHSD MP Project within the Daly City service area.
Jefferson Union High School District Master Plan Project Section 1 1-6
Figure 1-3. Daly City water service area and project location Located in the northern part of San Mateo County adjacent to the southern boundary of the City and County of San Francisco, Daly City is bounded on the east by the cities of South San Francisco, Colma, and Brisbane; San Bruno Mountain; and state and county parks. On the south, it is bounded by the cities of Pacifica and South San Francisco, and on the west by the Pacific Ocean. Topography is typical of the northern California coast. Near Daly City, the coast range rises to an elevation of 600 feet above mean sea level (amsl). A 2-mile-wide valley separates the coast range from San Bruno Mountain, which rises to a peak elevation of 1,300 feet amsl.
1.3.2 Service Area Climate
As described in the 2020 UWMP, the Pacific Ocean moderates Daly City’s climate. Precipitation typically occurs from November through March. No agency directly measures precipitation for Daly City proper; however, BC has assumed Daly City’s standard average evapotranspiration (ETo), rainfall, and temperature are relatively close to the data from California Irrigation Management Information System (CIMIS) stations located in Castroville and Pescadero. In the 2020 UWMP, BC presented data from two stations since the Castroville station used in the 2015 UWMP was deactivated in November 2019. Data from 1983 to 2019
Jefferson Union High School District Master Plan Project Section 1 1-7
are from the Castroville Station and data from December 2019 and after are from the Pescadero station.
The Castroville CIMIS station was in the Monterey Bay region, about 100 miles from Daly City; the Pescadero station is located within San Mateo County, about 40 miles from Daly City. Both stations are at locations that are representative of Daly City’s climate from the ocean side of San Francisco. Coastal fog during the summer months and relatively mild winter temperatures produces mean monthly minimum temperatures between 38- and 52-degrees Fahrenheit (°F) and mean monthly maximum temperatures between 58 and 65°F.
Table 1-2 summarizes the standard average ETo, rainfall, and temperature for Daly City using the representative Castroville and Pescadero CIMIS stations.
Table 1-2. Monthly Average Climate Data Summarya
Month
Standard Monthly Average
ETo (inches)
Average Total Rainfall
(inches)
Average Temperature (°F)
Maximum Minimum
January 1.63 2.71 59.0 38.9
February 2.00 2.77 59.5 40.1
March 3.08 2.18 59.9 42.2
April 3.99 1.03 60.3 42.6
May 4.62 0.44 60.9 45.5
June 4.69 0.26 62.1 48.6
July 4.18 0.15 62.4 52.0
August 3.67 0.41 63.2 52.3
September 3.14 0.42 64.5 49.9
October 2.66 0.68 65.4 45.1
November 1.79 1.46 62.1 40.7
December 1.44 2.46 58.5 38.1
Total 36.89 14.97 NA NA
a. Data recorded January 1983 to November 2019 from Castroville Station 19, data recorded December 2019 to December 2020 from Pescadero Station 253, CIMIS www.cimis.water.ca.gov accessed on January 25, 2020.
1.3.3 Daly City Water System
Daly City receives a large portion of its water supply from San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) and supplements the SFPUC supply with groundwater pumped from local wells. Historically, during dry periods, groundwater makes up a large proportion (up to 45 percent) of Daly City’s supply; however, based on a conjunctive use agreement with SFPUC, Daly City last used groundwater in 2015. Daly City also uses tertiary recycled water from the North San Mateo County Sanitation District (NSMCSD) Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) wherever feasible to offset potable/aquifer water demands.
The Daly City water system mainly consists of a groundwater well field, currently with four active wells, approximately 200 miles of water distribution pipelines, 19 pumping facilities with a combined capacity of 21,500 gallons per minute (gpm) with the largest pump at each facility taken out of service, 12 SFPUC turnouts, 11 interties to other systems (City of Brisbane, CWS, North Coast County Water District, Westborough Water District), pressure reducing valves, a centralized supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system, an office building, three maintenance yards, and 13 reservoirs with 23.1-milliongallon (MG) capacity in total. The reader can find more information in Section 3.4 of the 2020 UWMP.
Jefferson Union High School District Master Plan Project Section 1 1-8
1.3.4 Existing and Projected Demographics
This section describes current and projected population of the service area with the proposed project based on information from the 2020 UWMP. The discussion also includes information on social, economic, and demographic factors as well as land use trends potentially affecting water management planning in the service area.
1.3.4.1 Service Area Population
Daly City is currently the most populous city in San Mateo County. Table 1-3 presents population data from the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency’s (BAWSCA) Decision Support System (DSS) model, based on and derived from the Association of Bay Area Governments’ (ABAG) population projections.
Projections suggest that City population as used for this analysis will reach approximately 131,000 in 2045.
BC did not adjust the population to include any portion of the water system outside of City limits since such areas are small.
Table 1-3. Daly City Population Current and Projected
Year 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Populationa 112,374 115,671 119,147 123,020 127,028 131,037 a. Population for Daly City is from the DSS model, which is based on ABAG projections.
According to Daly City’s 2030 General Plan, even with projected increased population and economic growth, Daly City has little physical land available for proposed developments. Daly City estimates in the General Plan that it is approximately 98 percent built out and has limited opportunity to add new developments, except for infill space and redevelopment of existing parcels, such as the JUHSD MP project. Daly City surrounds the unincorporated Broadmoor Village but provides no water service there. According to the General Plan, Daly City’s predominant land use remains lower-density residential development. Although this land use pattern will remain true for quite some time, the density of new developments approved by Daly City has increased markedly in recent years. Increasing development pressures and regional land use policies intended to promote more Bay Area residents living closer to where they work will place additional pressures on Daly City to allow private redevelopment of older buildings and increases in residential densities. The General Plan provides additional information on this topic.
Daly City is a center for retail trades, primarily home furnishings, appliances, apparel, general merchandise, and eating and drinking establishments. Major shopping areas include Serramonte Shopping Center, Westlake Shopping Center, Pacific Plaza, and the Mission Street retail corridor.
Interstate 280 (I-280), running north and south, divides Daly City into two geographically distinct areas with different development characteristics. Older neighborhoods of medium-density and single-family housing are located east of I-280. Small corner markets and strip developments characterize businesses in this area.
West of I-280 development is newer, primarily built after 1949. In this area, lower-density, single-family homes are concentrated around shopping centers often dedicated to serving a region rather than a local population. Daly City has limited manufacturing enterprises located near the Cow Palace in the Bayshore neighborhood east of I-280.
2-1
Section 2
Existing and Projected Water
Demands
This section describes historical and projected water demand for Daly City with and without the JUHSD MP Project.
Per California Water Code 10910, the information included in a WSA is dependent on whether the proposed development was accounted for in the most recently adopted UWMP. In this case, it is uncertain whether the population-based 2020 UWMP demand projections for 2025–2045 included the JUHSD MP Project.
The basis of the 2020 UWMP demand projections is as follows:
• Daly City used the DSS model to project both long-range water demands and conservation savings. To forecast water demands, the DSS model relies on demographic and employment projections, combined with the effects of natural fixture replacement resulting from plumbing codes implemented to forecast demands.
• In 2020, BAWSCA updated the DSS model using the 2018 base water use, long-term population, employment growth projections for 2020–2045, continued and latest conservation programs, and an assumed short-term drought recovery between 2019 and 2023. The DSS model demands based on the 2013 ABAG demographic projections and included projected passive (plumbing and buildout code) and active conservation savings. The reader can find detailed methodology information in BAWSCA’s Regional Water Demand and Conservation Projections (BAWSCA, 2020). • The latest DSS modeling also assumed a 5 percent flat increase to outdoor water demand to account for climate change.
For the purposes of this WSA and to be conservatively high, BC added projected demands for the proposed JUHSD MP Project to the projected demands included in the 2020 UWMP.
2.1 Historical Water Demand
Table 2-1 presents Daly City’s historical water demand in 5-year increments. Water use decreased noticeably from 2005 to 2020.
Jefferson Union High School District Master Plan Project Section 2 2-2
Table 2-1. Historical Potable Water Demands
Use Typeb Additional Description
Historical Water Use (MGY)a
2005a 2010a 2015b 2020c
Single-family 1,434 1,273 1,113 1,146
Multi-family Includes apartments, duplexes, and condominiums 630 557 513 529 CII Commercial, Industrial, Institutional/Governmental 410 391 364 227 Landscape 80 43 45 51
Losses Treated water distribution system 132 119 158 221 Other Hydrant flushing, and traveling meter (contractor) 13 13 - - Total 2,698 2,395 2,193 2,174
a. Source: Water Supply Assessment for Serramonte Center Expansion b. Source: 2015 UWMP
c. Source: City staff
MGY = million gallons per year
2.2 JUHSD Site – Current and Historical Demand
Currently, the JUHSD has two water service accounts:
• Comcast Cable Communications (Comcast)
• Serramonte High School
Table 2-2 provides the JUHSD current and historical water demand.
Table 2-2. JUHSD Site Demand in Gallons
Year Comcast Serramonte High School Total Use
2006 22,000 135,000 157,000
2007 24,000 105,000 129,000
2008 32,000 117,000 149,000
2009 37,000 93,000 130,000
2010 36,000 79,000 115,000
2011 19,000 97,000 116,000
2012 10,000 84,000 94,000
2013 10,000 69,000 79,000
2014 15,000 85,000 100,000
2015 11,000 101,000 112,000
2016 6,000 91,000 97,000
2017 6,000 92,000 98,000
2018 7,000 84,000 91,000
2019 6,000 61,000 67,000
2020 7,000 26,000 33,000
Jefferson Union High School District Master Plan Project Section 2 2-3
2.3 Projected Water Demand
This section describes the projected water demands for the existing Daly City water system and for the proposed JUHSD MP Project.
2.3.1 Daly City Water System Projected Water Demands
The projected demands presented in this document are from Daly City’s 2020 UWMP. Daly City began implementing an aggressive water conservation program in 2000 and has had a consistently low per capita water demand (i.e., less than 100 gallons per capita daily [gpcd] since 1977). Table 2-3 shows the projected water demand for the Daly City water system by use type. The table does not include demands from the proposed JUHSD MP Project. The decreasing water use projections in this table account for both passive and active water savings measures that Daly City currently has in placed or plans to implement in the future.
Table 2-3. Projected Water Demands by Use Type (without the proposed JUHSD MP Project)a Use Type Additional Description
Projected Water Use (MGY)
2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Single-family 1,100 1,080 1,073 1,076 1,081
Multi-family Includes apartments, duplexes, and condominiums 491 481 476 476 477 CII Commercial, Industrial, Institutional/Governmental 339 340 344 349 355 Landscape 55 56 58 60 61
Losses Treated water distribution system 149 144 144 145 146 Total Potable Demand 2,134 2,101 2,095 2,106 2,120
a. Demand projections include climate change demand increase and passive and active water savings as described in the 2020 UWMP Section
4.3 2.3.2 Estimated JUHSD MP Project Water Demands
BC estimated the JUHSD MP Project water demands by combining unit water demand factors as developed in the Near- and Long-Term Water Resources Planning Technical Memorandum (BC, 2012) for each land use type with the square footage or dwelling units proposed. The total projected demand for the JUHSD MP Project is approximately 86.0 MGY or about 235,600 gallons per day. Table 2-4 presents the estimated water demands for the proposed JUHSD MP Project used in this WSA.
Jefferson Union High School District Master Plan Project Section 2 2-4
Table 2-4. JUHSD MP Project Projected Buildout Water Demand JUHSD MP Project
No. of
Units
Approximate
Areaa
(sf)
Approximate
Number of
Occupants
Per Unitb Land Use
Unit
Water
Demandsc,d
Average
Day
Demandse,
gpm
Average
Day
Demandsf
MGY
Phase 1 - Parcel B
Apartment 201 231,150 3.12 Multiple-Family Residential 60 gpcd 26.1 13.7 Retail/Restaurant - 24,427 - Restaurant 0.135 gpsfpd 2.3 1.2 Subtotal 201 255,577 - - - 28.4 14.9
Phase 2 - Parcels C1/C2/D
Apartment - C1 100 115,000 3.12 Multiple-Family Residential 60 gpcd 13.0 6.8 Headstart - C2 - 1,400 - Preschool 0.135 gpsfpd 0.1 0.1 Apartment – D (high-rise option) 269 309,350 3.12 Multiple-Family Residential 60 gpcd 35.0 18.4 Subtotal - C1/C2 369 425,750 - - - 48.1 25.3
Phase 3 - Parcels E/F
Apartment – E (high-rise option) 330 379,500 3.12 Multiple-Family Residential 60 gpcd 42.9 22.5 Apartment – F (high-rise option) 340 391,000 3.12 Multiple-Family Residential 60 gpcd 44.2 23.2 Phase 3 Subtotal 670 770,500 - - - 87.1 45.8
Total Residential 1,240 1,426,000 - - - 161.2 84.7
Total Other
(retail/restaurant/preschool)
- 25,827 - - - 2.4 1.3
Project Total 1,240 1,451,827 - - - 163.6 86.0
a. Approximate total building areas of all floor levels within the exterior walls from developer. b. Approximate number of occupants are from Near- and Long-Term Water Resources Planning (BC, 2012). c. Unit Water Demands per Unit from Near- and Long-Term Water Resources Planning (BC, 2012). Residential: 3.12 people per unit and 60 gpcd.
Restaurant/Preschool: 0.135 gpsfpd
d. gpcd = gallons per capita per day, gpsfpd = gallons per ft2 per day. e. Demand is averaged over 24 hours.
f. Average day demands converted to MGY.
2.4 Total Projected Water Demand
Table 2-5 presents the projected demand for Daly City, including the proposed JUHSD MP Project. The developer expects to complete Phases 1 and 2 by 2027 and anticipates full buildout (Phase 3) by 2031.
Table 2-5. Total Projected Water Demand
Projected Water Demand, MGY
2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Existing systema 2,134 2,101 2,095 2,106 2,120
Demolition of existing JUHSD siteb - - - - -
JUHSD MP Projectc
40 (Phases 1 and 2)
86 (Phases 1, 2, and 3)
86 (Phases 1, 2, and 3)
86 (Phases 1, 2, and 3)
86 (Phases 1, 2, and 3)
Total 2,174 2,187 2,181 2,192 2,206
a. Projected potable demand includes water losses and other uses from 2020 UWMP. b. City staff provided demands for the existing JUHSD site; however, demands for 2016 through 2020 are less than 0.1 MGY. c. Projected potable demand for the proposed JUHSD MP Project is from Table 2-4.
Jefferson Union High School District Master Plan Project Section 2 2-5
This page intentionally left blank.
3-1
Section 3
Water Supplies
Daly City has three sources of water supply: purchased surface water, groundwater, and recycled water. This section describes existing and projected water supplies and water supply reliability.
3.1 Purchased Water
Daly City receives water from the City and County of San Francisco’s regional water system (RWS), operated by SFPUC. The RWS draws its supply predominantly from the Sierra Nevada, delivered through the Hetch Hetchy aqueducts, but also includes treated water produced by SFPUC from its local watersheds and treatment facilities in Alameda and San Mateo counties (see Figure 3-1 for major system components). The reader can find more information from the SFPUC 2020 UWMP.
Figure 3-1. Diagram of City and County of San Francisco’s RWS Source: www.sfwater.org
3.1.1 Description
Hydrology, physical facilities, and the institutional parameters that allocate the water supply from the Tuolumne River constrain the amount of imported water available to SFPUC’s retail and wholesale customers. Due to these constraints, SFPUC depends highly on reservoir storage to increase reliability of its water supplies.
Jefferson Union High School District Master Plan Project Section 3 3-2
SFPUC serves its retail and wholesale water demands with an integrated operation of local Bay Area water production and imported water from Hetch Hetchy, which accounts for about 85 percent of the RWS supply.
In practice, the local watershed facilities operate to capture local runoff.
The Alameda and Peninsula watersheds provide the remaining 15 percent of the SFPUC water system. The Alameda watershed, located in the East Bay, represents about half of the local watershed supplies, with water captured and stored in two reservoirs: Calaveras and San Antonio. The Peninsula watershed captures runoff in three reservoirs - Crystal Springs, San Andreas, and Pilarcitos - and represents the remaining half of the SFPUC local supply.
SFPUC treats these local supplies at the Sunol Valley Water Treatment Plant in Alameda County and the Harry Tracy Water Treatment Plant in San Mateo County, which contribute 60 to 65 million gallons per day (mgd) and 40 to 45 mgd, respectively.
3.1.2 Legal Constraints
Several legal agreements limit the amount of water that Daly City can receive from SFPUC, summarized below. As described in the Individual Supply Guarantee (ISG) subsection, Daly City’s ISG is 4.292 mgd. 2009 WSAg (Current Agreement through 2034). The WSAg defines, in large part, the SFPUC business relationship between San Francisco and its wholesale customers. The WSAg addresses the rate-making methodology SFPUC uses in setting wholesale water rates for its wholesale customers in addition to addressing water supply and water shortages for the RWS. The WSAg has a 25-year term with an option to extend its term.
In terms of water supply, the WSAg provides for 184 mgd (expressed on an annual average basis) “Supply Guarantees” to SFPUC’s wholesale customers, subject to reduction, to the extent and for the period made necessary by reason of water shortage because of drought, emergencies, or by malfunctioning or rehabilitation of the RWS. The WSAg does not guarantee that SFPUC will meet peak daily or hourly customer demands when its annual usage exceeds the Supply Guarantees. SFPUC’s wholesale customers have agreed to the 184-mgd Supply Guarantees allocation, with each entity’s share of the Supply Assurance set forth in Attachment C to the WSAg. The Supply Assurance survives termination or expiration of the WSAg and Daly City’s Individual Water Sales Contract with San Francisco.
As described in Section 8 of the SFPUC 2020 UWMP, SFPUC RWS supply availability is provided in the Water Shortage Allocation Plan (WSAP) between the SFPUC’s Retail and Wholesale Customers which is referred to as Tier 1 of the WSAP. The WSAP further allocates the supplies amongst Wholesale Customers (BAWSCA Members) under Tier 2 of the WSAP to derive available supply for each wholesale customer including Daly City.
ISG, Indefinite Duration. San Francisco has a perpetual commitment (Supply Assurance) to deliver 184 mgd to its 24 permanent wholesale customers collectively. The Supply Assurance is allocated among the 24 permanent wholesale customers through the ISG, which represents each wholesale customer’s allocation of the 184 mgd Supply Assurance. Although the WSAg and accompanying Water Supply Contract expire in 2034, the Supply Assurance (which quantifies San Francisco’s obligation to supply water to its individual wholesale customers) survives their expiration and continues indefinitely.
3.1.2.1 Adoption of the 2018 Bay-Delta Plan Amendment
In December 2018, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) adopted amendments to the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary (Bay-Delta Plan Amendment) to establish water quality objectives to maintain the health of the Bay-Delta ecosystem. State law requires that SWRCB regularly review this plan. The adopted Bay-Delta Plan Amendment was developed with the stated goal of increasing salmonid populations in three San Joaquin River tributaries (the Stanislaus, Merced, and Tuolumne rivers) and the Bay-Delta. The Bay-Delta Plan Amendment requires the
Jefferson Union High School District Master Plan Project Section 3 3-3
release of 30 to 50 percent of the “unimpaired flow” on the three tributaries from February through June in every year type. SFPUC modeling of the new flow standard assumed that the required release is 40 percent of unimpaired flow.
If SWRCB implements the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment, SFPUC will be able to meet the projected water demands in normal years but would experience supply shortages in single or multiple dry years.
Implementation of the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment will require rationing in all single and multiple dry years.
SFPUC has initiated an Alternative Water Supply Planning Program to ensure that San Francisco can meet its retail and wholesale customers’ water needs, address projected dry year shortages, and limit rationing to a maximum 20 percent systemwide in accordance with adopted SFPUC policies. This program, currently in the early planning stages, is meant to meet future water supply challenges and vulnerabilities, such as environmental flow needs and other regulatory changes; earthquakes, disasters, and emergencies; population and employment increases; and climate change. As the region faces challenges both known and unknown, SFPUC is considering this suite of diverse non-traditional supplies and leveraging regional partnerships to meet retail and wholesale customers’ needs through 2045.
SWRCB has stated that it intends to implement the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment on the Tuolumne River by 2022, assuming all required approvals are obtained by that time; however, implementation of the Plan Amendment is uncertain for multiple reasons as described in Appendix A.
As described in the SFPUC Common Language (February 3, 2021) and SFPUC 2020 UWMP:
“The adoption of the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment may significantly impact the supply available from the RWS. SFPUC recognizes that the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment has been adopted and that, given that it is now state law, we must plan for a future in which it is fully implemented. SFPUC also acknowledges that the plan is not self-implementing and therefore does not automatically go into effect. SFPUC is currently pursuing a voluntary agreement as well as a lawsuit which would limit implementation of the Plan. With both processes occurring on an unknown timeline, SFPUC does not know currently when the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment is likely to go into effect. As a result, it makes sense to conduct future supply modeling for a scenario that doesn’t include implementation of the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment, as that represents a potential supply reliability scenario.”
Given the uncertainties surrounding implementation of the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment and how those amendments if implemented will affect the SFPUC’s, and thereby Daly City’s, water supply, this WSA analyzes water supply and demand through 2045 under two scenarios:
Scenario 1: No implementation of the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment or the March 1st Proposed Voluntary Agreement
Scenario 2: Implementation of the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment These two scenarios provide a bookend for the possible scenarios regarding RWS supplies. The standardized tables in the SFPUC 2020 UWMP contains the future scenario that assumes implementation of the BayDelta Plan Amendment starting in 2023; this WSA also will use a 2023 implementation date assumption for Scenario 2 tables. Section 4 and Appendix E provide the supply allocations to Daly City under these scenarios.
3.1.3 SFPUC Physical Constraints and Possible Limitations on Delivery Capacity Physical limitations during wet and average conditions. During wet and average conditions, the RWS may have enough water available from rainfall and the Sierra snowpack, but physical limitations may prevent SFPUC from fully delivering such water to its customers in the City and County of San Francisco as well as its wholesale customers during peak demand periods. These limitations result from hydraulic bottlenecks in its pipelines and tunnels, as well as fixed water treatment plant capacity at SVWTP and HTWTP. To relieve these bottlenecks, SFPUC plans to replace existing pipelines or tunnels with larger-diameter conduits or build new,
Jefferson Union High School District Master Plan Project Section 3 3-4
parallel conduits. These facilities are generally critical during periods of peak demand (i.e., a series of hot summer or fall days). To enhance SFPUC’s water supply system’s ability to meet identified service goals for water quality, seismic reliability, delivery reliability, and water supply, SFPUC has undertaken the Water System Improvement Program (WSIP), approved October 31, 2008 and is approximately 96% complete as of 2021.
Physical limitations during drought conditions. During drought conditions, the hydraulic limitations in SFPUC’s delivery system will be a lesser concern and the problem will instead be relative supply. In most years, the system can meet required deliveries. If local runoff is low and Bay Area storage reservoirs are low, then SFPUC must bring more Sierra water than normal into the Bay Area to augment local supplies. During such periods, the existing conveyance capacity across the San Joaquin Valley could be limiting.
3.1.4 SFPUC Additional Water Supplies
Considering the adoption of the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment and the resulting potential limitations to RWS supply during dry years, SFPUC is increasing and accelerating its efforts to acquire additional water supplies and exploring other projects that would increase overall water supply resilience. As described in Section 7 of the SFPUC 2020 UWMP, SFPUC nears completion of its WSIP but faces new and continued factors that are impacting supply reliability; SFPUC plans to initiate a new Alternative Water Supply Planning Program whose aim is to address future potential supply shortfalls, with a goal to prepare an Alternative Water Supply Plan by July 2023.
3.1.4.1 SFPUC Water System Improvement Program
The WSIP will deliver capital improvements aimed at enhancing SFPUC’s ability to meet its water service mission of providing high-quality water to customers in a reliable, affordable, and environmentally sustainable manner.
Capital projects under consideration to develop additional water supplies include surface water storage expansion, recycled water expansion, water transfers, desalination, and potable reuse. SFPUC also is considering developing related policies and ordinances, such as funding for innovative water supply and efficiency technologies and requiring potable water offsets for new developments. The SFPUC 2020 UWMP presents a more detailed list and descriptions of these efforts.
3.1.4.2 Alternative Water Supply Planning Program1
SFPUC has increased and accelerated its efforts to acquire additional water supplies and explore other projects that would increase overall water supply resilience through the Alternative Water Supply Planning Program, which included the following projects:
• Daly City Recycled Water Expansion (regional, normal- and dry-year supply) • Alameda County Water District-Union Sanitary District Purified Water Partnership (regional, normal- and dry-year supply))
• Crystal Springs Purified Water (regional, normal- and dry-year supply)) • Los Vaqueros Reservoir Expansion (regional, dry-year supply) • Bay Area Brackish Water Desalination (regional, normal- and dry-year supply)) • Calaveras Reservoir Expansion (regional, dry-year supply) • Groundwater banking
• Inter-basin collaborations
1 Text from this section is copied and paraphrased from BAWSCA’s Final Common Language for BAWSCA Member Agencies’ 2021 UWMPs.
Jefferson Union High School District Master Plan Project Section 3 3-5
If SFPUC and its partners can implement all the projects identified through the current planning process, the RWS still would experience a supply shortfall to meet projected needs. Furthermore, each of the supply options being considered has its own inherent challenges and uncertainties that may affect the SFPUC’s ability to implement it.
Given the limited availability of water supply alternatives - unless the supply risks are significantly reduced or needs change significantly - SFPUC will continue to plan, develop, and implement all project opportunities that can help bridge the anticipated water supply gaps during droughts. In 2019, the SFPUC completed a survey among water and wastewater agencies within the service area to identify additional opportunities for purified water. Such opportunities remain limited, but the SFPUC continues to pursue all possibilities.
3.2 Groundwater
Daly City extracts groundwater from the basin known as the South Westside Basin (Basin 5-35 as defined by DWR). Daly City has five available wells with a combined capacity of about 2,950 gpm (4.25 mgd or 1,551 MGY); Daly City will use no more than five wells simultaneously because the sixth well serves as a backup well. The A Street Well is currently out of service because of elevated nitrate concentrations in the pumped water.
In December 2014, Daly City, along with SFPUC, City of San Bruno, and CWS entered into a comprehensive Groundwater Supply and Recovery (GSR) Agreement among the municipal pumpers within the South Westside Basin Aquifer to self-limit pumping within the aquifer at no more than 6.90 mgd, from which Daly City’s aggregated designated quantity is an annual average rate of 3.43 mgd (1,252 MGY or 2,382 gpm).
3.2.1 Description
The aquifer that underlies most of Daly City is within the South Westside Basin. The North and South Westside Basins underly parts of San Francisco and northern San Mateo counties. The basins extend from Golden Gate Park in the north and past the San Francisco Airport in the south. The basins extend to the west beneath the Pacific Ocean at least as far as the San Andreas Fault, and to the east an unknown distance beneath San Francisco Bay. The cities of San Francisco, Daly City, South San Francisco, Colma, San Bruno, Millbrae, and parts of Burlingame and Hillsborough lie above the basins. Figure 3-2 shows the approximate outline of the South Westside Basin.
Jefferson Union High School District Master Plan Project Section 3 3-6
Figure 3-2. South Westside Basin
Source: WRIME 2012
In 1997, to respond to the benefits of managing the basin and ensure local control of the process, SFPUC, the cities of San Bruno and Daly City together with CWS, formed a partnership to develop a groundwater management plans (GWMP) for the Westside Basin that includes the following elements:
• Groundwater storage and quality monitoring
• Saltwater intrusion control
• Conjunctive use
• Recycled water
• Source water protection
The GWMP was completed in 2012.
In 2014, the California Legislature enacted the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), with subsequent amendments in 2015. The SGMA requires groundwater management in priority groundwater basins, which includes the formation of GSAs and the development of GSPs for groundwater basins or subbasins that are designated by DWR as medium or high priority.
The priority designation of groundwater basins was established as part of the California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring (CASGEM) Program. The CASGEM Groundwater Basin Prioritization is a statewide ranking of groundwater basin importance that incorporates groundwater reliance and focuses on
Jefferson Union High School District Master Plan Project Section 3 3-7
basins producing more than 90 percent of California’s annual groundwater. The CASGEM Program has ranked the Westside Basin (CASGEM basin number 2-35) as “very low” priority.
The SGMA directs DWR to identify groundwater basins and subbasins in conditions of critical overdraft. DWR identified such basins in Bulletin 118, 1980, and Bulletin 118, Update 2003 (DWR, 2003); the Westside Basin was not identified (DWR, 2003). In August 2015, DWR issued an updated final list of critically overdrafted basins, which did not include Westside Basin (DWR, 2016).
In January 2016, Daly City, San Bruno, and CWS entered into a joint funding agreement to develop a groundwater sustainability plan (GSP) for the South Westside Basin. The 2012 South Westside Basin GWMP will transition into a SGMA-compliant GSP through modifications and additions. The participants will coordinate the South Westside Basin GSP with the North Westside Basin GSP to ensure that both GSPs use the same data and methodologies, as required by GSP regulations. Currently, the Westside Basin Partners also are exploring options to form a groundwater sustainability agency (GSA), but no GSA has been formed for the South Westside Basin as of 2021.2 Daly City entered into a Memorandum of Agreement for the South Westside Basin GSP with the City of San Bruno and CWS in November 2017. A GSP is currently being developed and is due in January 2022.
3.2.2 Conjunctive Use
Daly City entered into a pilot conjunctive use program with SFPUC to enhance regional water resource management by storing water in wet years and recovering that water for use during dry years. The project’s first phase, concluded in November 2003, took advantage of the availability of surplus SFPUC system water at a reduced cost. In return, Daly City agreed to use additional SFPUC surface water (“In Lieu Water”) and reduce pumping groundwater from the South Westside Basin. This action created the opportunity to observe basin response from recharge that takes place from the reduced groundwater pumping. The second phase of conjunctive use began in March 2004 and continued into 2011 and had promising results.
The demonstration project assessed, in part, the feasibility of a permanent program. As tentatively outlined, the program would:
• Increase groundwater levels in the South Westside Basin • Reduce the potential for seawater intrusion
• Develop increased SFPUC system yield from the overall surface and groundwater system • Potentially improve water-quality conditions at Lake Merced Initial results from this project showed that groundwater levels increased within the basin. Daly City has an added benefit of saving its local resource, which would result in enhanced emergency and drought protection. With the promising results of the pilot conjunctive use program, as one of the WSIP projects, the Regional Groundwater Storage and Recovery Project (RGSR) proceeded with the construction of up to 16 new recovery wells and associated facilities, such as pumping systems, pipelines, and chemical treatment equipment. Figure 3-3 provides a schematic of the RGSR proposed groundwater wells. As of Fall 2020, the project is more than 76 percent complete, with 12 of the 13 Phase 1 wells constructed and undergoing testing, and construction of the final Phase 1 well station underway.3 The test wells for two Phase 2 well stations have been completed, and a sixteenth well site has been selected. This regional groundwater storage project started construction in 2015 and SFPUC anticipates construction completion in winter of 2021.
2 Per San Mateo Plain Groundwater Basin Assessment (County of San Mateo, July 2018), no GSA has been formed for the South Westside Basin.
3 SFPUC provides updates on its Regional Groundwater Storage & Recovery Project online at: https://sfwater.org
Jefferson Union High School District Master Plan Project Section 3 3-8
Figure 3-3. RGSR proposed project groundwater wells
Source: SFPUC 2021
The RGSR provided a significant benefit to Daly City for a water supply insurance policy as well as a systemwide benefit. SFPUC determined that the reduction in groundwater pumping will result in a water savings account of up to 61,000 acre-feet in the South Westside Basin. Work to date completed an available groundwater yield assessment for extended periods on the South Westside Basin. For further detail, see Daly City’s Permit Amendment to Domestic Water Supply System Number 4110013 (BC, 2016).
The WSAg describes “put” and “take” concepts associated with conjunctive water use. SFPUC is installing new wells as a systemwide asset of SFPUC (thereby becoming a joint asset), the terms for which the reader can find in the 2009 WSAg, Section 3.17. Under this section, Daly City would defer payment of stored conjunctive use water until actual extraction of that water occurs; Daly City would pay SFPUC at the thenapplicable wholesale rate of SFPUC system surface water. Under the RGSR program, SFPUC would provide surface water “In Lieu Water” to Daly City beyond the ISG amount in Normal Years.
3.2.3 Constraints on Groundwater Sources
Daly City chloraminates and fluoridates its groundwater and blends it with SFPUC water in its pump station wet wells to meet customer demands. SFPUC treats the water that it wholesales to Daly City. It is supplied with a chloramine disinfectant residual and fluoride. Daly City adjusts the output of its wells and the flow rate of water it purchases from SFPUC to create a blended water quality that consistently meets all State and federal maximum contaminant levels.
3.2.4 Groundwater Reliability
Historically, Daly City has pumped less than the designated sustainable yield of 1,252 MGY. Daly City anticipates continued groundwater reliability as part of its ongoing efforts. Table 3-1 shows Daly City did not
Jefferson Union High School District Master Plan Project Section 3 3-9
pump any groundwater over the past 5 years, instead SFPUC provided “In Lieu Water” to meet water demand, so the South Westside Basin could recharge.
Table 3-1. Groundwater Volume Pumped by Daly City
Groundwater Type Location or Basin Name
Volume Pumped, MGY
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Alluvial basin South Westside Basin 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0 0 0
Notes: Daly City did not pump any groundwater from 2016 to 2020 to allow for groundwater recharge. Daly City’s groundwater production was replaced by SFPUC surface water for “In Lieu Water” banking.
3.3 Recycled Water
Recycled water is not a source of water supply for the proposed JUHSD MP project. Municipal recycled water is municipal wastewater treated to a specified quality to enable it to be used again for a beneficial purpose.
For this WSA, recycled water means only municipal recycled water, that is, water that NSMCSD has treated and discharged from its municipal wastewater facility. This section provides information on recycled water and its potential as a resource for Daly City. The elements of this section include current water recycling systems and the potential for water recycling in the service area.
3.3.1 Description
In 2004, Daly City completed a $7.5 million tertiary treatment project at the NSMCSD WWTP. The upgrades provided Daly City with an unrestricted tertiary recycled water capacity of 2.77 mgd, or 1,011 MGY.
On average, Daly City uses approximately 274 MGY of its unrestricted tertiary recycled water. The recycled water program pumps recycled water for irrigation of five golf courses (two Olympic Club courses, San Francisco, Lake Merced, and Harding Park), two city parks (Westlake and Marchbank), and median strips along John Daly Boulevard, Junipero Serra Boulevard, and the Westlake off ramp.
Table 3-2 shows the historical recycled water use from 2009 through 2020.
Jefferson Union High School District Master Plan Project Section 3 3-10
Table 3-2. Historical Recycled Water Uses
Year Recycled Water (MGY)a
2009 191
2010 178
2011 147
2012 190
2013 373
2014 259
2015 278
2016 405
2017 521
2018 186
2019 118
2020 10
a. Provided by City staff
Table 3-3 presents the projected future reuse water demands in Daly City’s service area. The projected recycled water usage of 550 MGY derives from the most recent maximum yearly usage recorded in 2017.
Table 3-3. Current and Projected Recycled Water Uses (MGY)a Beneficial Use Type Potential Beneficial Uses Level of Treatment 2020b 2025 2030 2035 2040 Landscape irrigationc (excludes
golf courses)
City parks and medians (plus
cemeteries for projected future
use in 2025–40)
Disinfected tertiary 3 250 250 250 250
Golf course irrigation Used for all but greens Disinfected tertiary 7 300 300 300 300 Total 10 550 550 550 550
a. This table does not include Colma projected demands. Most of the recycled water distributed does not replace a potable water supply. Increase in future years is contingent on an additional recycled water facility being constructed for watering cemeteries in Colma and/or for groundwater regeneration. Per Alternative Water Supply Planning Quarterly Report (December 2020), this project is anticipated to be in operation by 2035. b. Due to a digester project at the WWTP, the 2020 tertiary recycled water production amounts were much lower than typical. c. Landscape recycled water use is dependent on financial and regulatory factors as well as demands for recycled water.
3.3.2 Encourage Future Recycled Water Use
The 1999 Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program (BARWRP) Master Plan presents an assessment of potential recycled water use in 2010, 2025, and 2040.
Along with other SFPUC wholesale customers and members of the Westside Basin Partners, Daly City has participated in discussions for an expanded recycled water plant as presented in the BAWSCA Strategy (CDM Smith, 2012). Daly City and SFPUC are pursuing the Feasibility of Expanded Tertiary Recycled Water Facilities Project, which will increase the recycled water supply available for irrigation to 1.25 mgd (City and SFPUC, 2020). Daly City recycled water expansion project includes a 1.25-mgd expansion of the existing City recycled water treatment, transmission, and distribution system. The additional recycled water would serve irrigation customers within the Town of Colma, and include cemeteries, city parks, schools, a golf course, and/or groundwater recharge. The project could operate by 2035. Per the Alternative Water Supply Planning Quarterly Update (December 8, 2020), Daly City completed a Mitigated Negative Declaration under the
Jefferson Union High School District Master Plan Project Section 3 3-11
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in September of 2017, and 30% design for the project has been completed.
The Town of Colma irrigation customers currently use private groundwater wells that extract groundwater from the Westside Basin or potable water distributed via CWS’s South San Francisco System to irrigate turf and other landscaping. Converting these irrigation customers to recycled water users would leave otherwise extracted groundwater available for other portable uses. Daly City’s recycled water expansion project is designed to meet the Colma irrigation customers’ estimated combined annual demand for 639 irrigation acres.
Daly City and its partners have not developed a specific recycled water expansion implementation schedule; however, based on similar projects, it is anticipated that implementation, including planning and environmental review, preliminary design, final design, and construction, will take about six years after the parties decide to move forward. Table 3-4 summarizes these proposed plans to expand recycled water use.
Table 3-4. Expand Future Recycled Water Use
Name of Action Description
Planned
Implementation Year
Expected Increase in Recycled
Water Use (MGY)
City recycled water
expansion
Landscape irrigation for Town of Colma (includes
cemeteries, city parks, and schools) 2035 457
Total 457
Additionally, Daly City and NSMCSD are evaluating the possibility of expanding recycled water treatment capacity.
3.4 Total Projected Water Supply
Tables 3-5 summarizes the projected water supplies for an average climate year during which SFPUC does not curtail surface water deliveries. If SFPUC imposes surface water curtailments, Daly City would use a greater supply of groundwater as described in Section 3.2. Section 4 summarizes dry year availability of these supplies.
Table 3-5. Normal Year Water Supplies, Projected (MGY)
Water Supplya
Additional Detail
on Water Supply
2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Reasonably
Available
Volume
Reasonably
Available
Volume
Reasonably
Available
Volume
Reasonably
Available
Volume
Reasonably
Available
Volume
Purchased water ISG 1,567 1,567 1,567 1,567 1,567
Groundwaterb Sustainable Yield per
GSR 1,252 1,252 1,252 1,252 1,252
Total 2,819 2,819 2,819 2,819 2,819
a. Daly City UWMP 2020
b. Some or all Daly City’s groundwater production may be replaced by SFPUC surface water for “In Lieu Water” banking.
4-1
Section 4
Availability of Water Supplies
This section compares projected water supplies and demands and describes water shortage expectations.
4.1 Water Supply and Demand Comparison
In this WSA, Sections 2 and 3 discuss water demands and supply, respectively. This section provides a comparison of normal, single, and multiple dry years supply and demand for Daly City with the JUHSD MP project demands included.
4.1.1 Normal Year
Table 4-1 compares the projected normal year water supplies with demand and shows that sufficient supply that will meet the projected demands through 2045.
Table 4-1. Normal Year Supply and Demand Comparison (MGY) Use Type 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Projected Supply totals
a 2,819 2,819 2,819 2,819 2,819
Purchased (ISG) 1,567 1,567 1,567 1,567 1,567
Groundwaterc(Sustainable Yield per GSR) 1,252 1,252 1,252 1,252 1,252 Projected Demand totals
b 2,174 2,187 2,181 2,192 2,206
Difference (supply minus demand) 645 632 638 627 613
a. The supply totals are taken from this WSA in Section 3.4, originally from the 2020 UWMP. b. The demand totals are from Section 2.4 which includes the proposed JUHSD MP Project. c. Some or all Daly City’s groundwater production may be replaced by SFPUC surface water for “In Lieu Water” banking.
4.1.2 Single Dry Year
Table 4-2 and Table 4-3 compare the projected water supplies to the demands for a single dry year. Under Scenario 1 Without Bay-Delta Plan, the reduced purchased water supply values are based on the 2020 actual City purchase of 3.97 mgd and SFPUC projections of continued decreased demands through 2045 when the estimated City purchase would be 3.43 mgd, which is 20 percent less than the contractual ISG of
4.292 mgd. Under Scenario 2 With Bay-Delta Plan, SFPUC then applies cutbacks ranging from 36% in 2025 to 46% in 2045 for single dry year. As described in Section 3, Daly City has partnered with SFPUC through the RGSR Program to make more groundwater available during drought years; however, blending with surface water from SFPUC to maintain safe water quality levels (i.e., control excess nitrate and possibly Chromium VI in the ground water through dilution), must be considered when devising a solution to address these dry year shortfalls.
Jefferson Union High School District Master Plan Project Section 4 4-2
Table 4-2. Single-Dry Year Water Supply and Demand Comparison, MGY – Scenario 1 Without Bay-Delta Plan Use Type 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Supply totals 2,555 2,537 2,526 2,515 2,504
Purchaseda
(% of ISG)b
1,303
(83)
1,285
(82)
1,274
(81)
1,263
(81)
1,252
(80)
Groundwater
(Sustainable Yield per GSR)
1,252 1,252 1,252 1,252 1,252
Demand totals 2,174 2,187 2,181 2,192 2,206
Difference (supply minus demand) 381 350 345 323 298
Note: This table provides single dry year water supply and demand for the Without Bay-Delta Plan Amendment scenario. Water supply reductions are applied to the projected purchased water supply, not the actual ISG amount. a. Appendix E: Table A, BAWSCA Tier 2 Drought Implementation Plan. b. Percentages are dry year supply allocation divided by 4.292 mgd ISG.
Table 4-3. Single Dry Year Water Supply and Demand Comparison, MGY – Scenario 2 With Bay-Delta Plan Use Type 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Supply totals 2,084 2,070 2,062 2,055 1,935
Purchaseda
(% of ISG)b
832
(53)
818
(52)
810
(52)
803
(51)
683
(44)
Groundwater
(Sustainable Yield per GSR)
1,252 1,252 1,252 1,252 1,252
Demand totals 2,174 2,187 2,181 2,192 2,206
Difference (supply minus demand) (90) (117) (119) (137) (271) Note: This table provides single dry year water supply and demand for the With Bay-Delta Plan Amendment scenario. Water supply reductions are applied to the projected purchased water supply, not the actual ISG amount. a. Appendix E: Table G2-K2, BAWSCA Tier 2 Drought Implementation Plan. b. Percentages are dry year supply allocation divided by 4.292 mgd ISG.
4.1.3 Multiple Dry Years
Table 4-4 and Table 4-5 compares the projected water supplies to the demands for multiple dry years. Under Scenario 1 Without Bay-Delta Plan, SFPUC will apply additional 15 percent cutbacks to the fourth and fifth consecutive dry years starting in 2045. Under Scenario 2 With Bay-Delta Plan, SFPUC will apply cutbacks ranging from 36 percent in 2025 to 54 percent in 2045 for multiple dry years.
Jefferson Union High School District Master Plan Project Section 4 4-3
Table 4-4. Multiple Dry Years Supply and Demand Comparison, MGY – Scenario 1 Without Bay-Delta Plan 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
First year
(Single dry year)
Supply total 2,555 2,537 2,526 2,515 2,504
Purchaseda
(% of ISG)b
1,303
(83%)
1,285
(82%)
1,274
(81%)
1,263
(81%)
1,252
(80%)
Groundwater
(Sustainable Yield per GSR)
1,252 1,252 1,252 1,252 1,252
Demand total 2,174 2,187 2,181 2,192 2,206
Differencec 381 350 345 323 298
Second year
Supply total 2,555 2,537 2,526 2,515 2,504
Purchaseda
(% of ISG)b
1,303
(83%)
1,285
(82%)
1,274
(81%)
1,263
(81%)
1,252
(80%)
Groundwater
(Sustainable Yield per GSR)
1,252 1,252 1,252 1,252 1,252
Demand total 2,174 2,187 2,181 2,192 2,206
Differencec 381 350 345 323 298
Third year
Supply total 2,555 2,537 2,526 2,515 2,504
Purchaseda
(% of ISG)b
1,303
(83%)
1,285
(82%)
1,274
(81%)
1,263
(81%)
1,252
(80%)
Groundwater
(Sustainable Yield per GSR)
1,252 1,252 1,252 1,252 1,252
Demand total 2,174 2,187 2,181 2,192 2,206
Differencec 381 350 345 323 298
Fourth year
Supply total 2,555 2,537 2,526 2,515 2,351
Purchaseda
(% of ISG)b
1,303
(83%)
1,285
(82%)
1,274
(81%)
1,263
(81%)
1,099
(70%)
Groundwater
(Sustainable Yield per GSR)
1,252 1,252 1,252 1,252 1,252
Demand total 2,174 2,187 2,181 2,192 2,206
Differencec 381 350 345 323 145
Fifth year
Supply total 2,555 2,537 2,526 2,515 2,351
Purchaseda
(% of ISG)b
1,303
(83%)
1,285
(82%)
1,274
(81%)
1,263
(81%)
1,099
(70%)
Groundwater
(Sustainable Yield per GSR)
1,252 1,252 1,252 1,252 1,252
Demand total 2,174 2,187 2,181 2,192 2,206
Differencec 381 350 345 323 145
Note: This table provides multiple dry year water supply and demand for the Without Bay-Delta Plan Amendment scenario. Water supply reductions are applied to the projected purchased water supply, not the actual ISG amount. For example, there is a 12.4% cutback to the projected purchase of 3.01 mgd in the 4th and 5th consecutive dry year of 2045, but 0% cutback in all other years. a. Appendix E: Tables A, N, and O2, BAWSCA Tier 2 Drought Implementation Plan. b. Percentages are dry year supply allocation divided by 4.292 mgd ISG. c. Difference is supply minus demand. A positive number represents a supply surplus. A negative number (number in parentheses) represents a deficit.
Jefferson Union High School District Master Plan Project Section 4 4-4
Table 4-5. Multiple Dry Years Supply and Demand Comparison, MGY – Scenario 2 With Bay-Delta Plan 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
First year
(Single dry year)
Supply total 2,084 2,070 2,062 2,055 1,935
Purchaseda
(% of ISG)b
832
(53%)
818
(52%)
810
(52%)
803
(51%)
683
(44%)
Groundwater
(Sustainable Yield per GSR)
1,252 1,252 1,252 1,252 1,252
Demand total 2,174 2,187 2,181 2,192 2,206
Differencec (90) (117) (119) (137) (271)
Second year
Supply total 1,967 1,953 1,946 1,938 1,935
Purchaseda
(% of ISG)b
715
(46%)
701
(45%)
694
(44%)
686
(44%)
683
(44%)
Groundwater
(Sustainable Yield per GSR)
1,252 1,252 1,252 1,252 1,252
Demand total 2,174 2,187 2,181 2,192 2,206
Differencec(207) (234) (235) (254) (271)
Third year
Supply total 1,967 1,953 1,946 1,938 1,935
Purchaseda
(% of ISG)b
715
(46%)
701
(45%)
694
(44%)
686
(44%)
683
(44%)
Groundwater (Safe Yield) 1,252 1,252 1,252 1,252 1,252
Demand total 2,174 2,187 2,181 2,192 2,206
Differencec(207) (234) (235) (254) (271)
Fourth year
Supply total 1,967 1,953 1,946 1,858 1,832
Purchaseda
(% of ISG)b
715
(46%)
701
(45%)
694
(44%)
606
(39%)
580
(37%)
Groundwater
(Sustainable Yield per GSR)
1,252 1,252 1,252 1,252 1,252
Demand total 2,174 2,187 2,181 2,192 2,206
Differencec(207) (234) (235) (334) (374)
Fifth year
Supply total 1,967 1,953 1,887 1,858 1,832
Purchaseda
(% of ISG)b
715
(46%)
701
(45%)
635
(41%)
606
(39%)
580
(37%)
Groundwater
(Sustainable Yield per GSR)
1,252 1,252 1,252 1,252 1,252
Demand total 2,174 2,187 2,181 2,192 2,206
Differencec(207) (234) (294) (334) (374)
Note: This table provides multiple dry year water supply and demand for the With Bay-Delta Plan Amendment scenario. Water supply reductions are applied to the projected purchased water supply, not the actual ISG amount. a. Appendix E: Table G2-K2, BAWSCA Tier 2 Drought Implementation Plan. For reference, the purchased projections for 2025-2045 are 3.57,
3.52, 3.49, 3.46, and 3.43 mgd, respectively, as shown in Table A of Appendix E. The percent cutback to wholesale customers is provided in Table E and range from 36% to 54%. Table G2-K2 applies the Table E cutbacks to the purchase projections in Table A. b. Percentages are dry year supply allocation divided by 4.292 mgd ISG. c. Difference is supply minus demand. A positive number represents a supply surplus. A negative number (number in parentheses) represents a deficit.
Jefferson Union High School District Master Plan Project Section 4 4-5
Figure 4-1 and Figure 4-2 provide the supply vs. demand information in a visual format using the data from tables and information presented earlier in this section.
Figure 4-1. Scenario 1: Supply and demand comparison – Without Bay-Delta Plan
Jefferson Union High School District Master Plan Project Section 4 4-6
Figure 4-2. Scenario 2: Supply and demand comparison – With Bay-Delta Plan
4.2 WSA Determination
This section presents the WSA supply determination summary.
Scenario 1 - No Implementation of the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment or the Voluntary Agreement:
Daly City has sufficient water supply to meet all its expected future water demands, including the demands of the proposed Project, in normal, single, and multiple dry years scenarios.
Scenario 2 - Implementation of the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment:
Under this Scenario, Daly City has sufficient water supplies to serve the Project in normal years; however, supplies are insufficient to meet demand in single and multiple dry years.
With the implementation of the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment, the SFPUC RWS is projected to experience significant shortfalls in single and multiple dry years starting as soon as 2023 and through 2045, regardless of whether the proposed project is constructed. These significant shortfalls are a result of implementation of the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment and to a lesser extent are attributed to the incremental demand associated with the proposed project.
Jefferson Union High School District Master Plan Project Section 4 4-7
Although the WSAP does not address implications to supply during system-wide shortages above 20%, the WSAP indicates that if system-wide shortage greater than 20% were to occur, SFPUC RWS supply would be allocated between retail and Wholesale Customers per the rules corresponding to a 16-20% system-wide reduction, subject to consultation and negotiation between the SFPUC and its Wholesale Customers to modify the allocation rules.
During single and multiple dry years starting as soon as the year 2023, the estimated year of implementation of the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment, Daly City’s total projected water supplies cannot meet the projected demands, including those of the proposed JUHSD MP project. The supply shortfalls are anticipated to range from 90-271 MGY in a single dry year and 207-374 MGY in multiple dry years.
4.2.1 Additional Water Supplies
To meet future demands and to cope with the reductions of dry year purchased water supplies that would result if DWR implements the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment, Daly City would need to take some or all of the following approaches:
1. Consider options for additional supply – Some options may include, but are not limited to, water transfers from other SFPUC wholesale customers, further groundwater exploration/development outside the existing developed groundwater basin, increased recycled water use, and/or increased conservation.
For example, a new well producing 500 gpm (263 MGY) would make up nearly all the projected shortfalls under Scenario 2 in a single dry year. Refer to 2020 UWMP to see additional projects to reduce any anticipated shortfall.
2. Reduce water demands on a temporary basis by implementing Daly City’s water shortage contingency plan as presented in Section 8 of the 2020 UWMP.
3. Decline projects seeking development approval – An obvious solution to the increasing supply deficit is to not approve further future development unless the developer clearly demonstrates a secured water right apart from Daly City’s supplies that said developer can deliver to Daly City as a right in perpetuity.
5-1
Section 5
Conclusions
In accordance with the requirements of California Water Code sections 10910 through 10915, the WSA has determined that Daly City has sufficient water supplies available to serve the proposed JUHSD MP Project under Scenario 1 – No Bay-Delta Plan implementation. BC has based this conclusion on the availability of water supply for the proposed project primarily on the following findings:
• The projected available potable water supplies under non-drought conditions for the Daly City water system in 2045 are 2,819 MGY, and the estimated potable demand including this proposed development project is 2,206 MGY. Thus, BC has determined that sufficient Daly City water supplies are available to serve the proposed JUHSD MP Project under Scenario 1. • Both groundwater and surface water supplies would provide water supplies needed to serve the proposed project. Historically, SFPUC has delivered sufficient treated surface water supplies to Daly City.
This analysis incorporates reductions in surface water supplies from SFPUC of up to 20 percent of average in dry years per the 2020 UWMP; however, according to the SFPUC Common Language letter (Appendix A), SFPUC faces potential for further reductions of its supply due to the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment that could adversely affect water available to Daly City from the Regional Water Supply.
Nevertheless, this WSA identifies projected shortages and uncertainties regarding future supplies under Scenario 2 - Implementation of the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment. BC based this determination on the following information:
• Under Scenario 2, Daly City expects to experience shortfalls in single and multiple dry years starting as soon as 2023 and through 2045, regardless of whether the proposed project is constructed. These shortfalls result from implementation of the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment and to a lesser extent are attributed to the incremental demand associated with the proposed project. Dry year shortfalls would range from 90-374 MGY over the next 25 years, which represent of 4 to 17 percent of demands. While the supply planning analysis uses a yearly time step, shortfalls can be more severe for summer months when demands are higher.
• Daly City has limited ability to increase groundwater pumping from the Westside Basin to enhance water supply reliability and address added demands. Daly City currently has a sustainable yield of 1,252 MGY anticipated through 2045. However, Daly City has identified other undeveloped groundwater resources outside the Westside Basin that it currently considers developing. If such resources come to fruition, they could substantially overcome shortfalls in its dependence on the Regional Water Supply during droughts with the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment in place.
• Recycled water currently serves irrigation demands within Daly City and to nearby golf courses, which lowers the estimated demands for potable water and further enhances overall water supply reliability.
City’s recycled water expansion project (to be completed by 2035) would expand recycled water use and further enhance the groundwater availability.
Jefferson Union High School District Master Plan Project Section 5 5-2
This page intentionally left blank.
6-1
Section 6
References
BAWSCA. 2020. BAWSCA Regional Water Demand and Conservation Projections. December 2020.
BAWSCA. 2021. Final Common Language for BAWSCA Member Agencies’ 2020 UWMPs, March 2021.
BAWSCA. Board Policy Committee Meeting Minutes. October 2019.
Brown and Caldwell. City of Daly City 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2020.
Brown and Caldwell. Near- and Long-Term Water Resources Planning Technical Memorandum. City of Daly City. July 2012.
Brown and Caldwell. Permit Amendment to Domestic Water Supply System Number 4110013, January 2016.
Brown and Caldwell. Water Supply Assessment for Serramonte Center Expansion. City of Daly City. January 2015.
California Department of Water Resources. California’s Groundwater Bulletin 118 – Update 2003. Accessed at:
http://www.water.ca.gov/pubs/groundwater/bulletin_118/california's_groundwater__bulletin_118_- _update_2003_/bulletin118_entire.pdf October 2003.
California Department of Water Resources. Guidebook for Implementation of Senate Bill 610 and Senate Bill 221 of 2001.
October 8, 2003.
CDM Smith. Long-Term Reliable Water Supply Strategy, Strategy Phase II Final Report. BAWSCA. February 2015.
City of Daly City. Daly City 2030 General Plan. Adopted March 25, 2013. Housing Element Revised March 9, 2015.
Delta Stewardship Council. 2013. The Delta Plan – Ensuring a reliable water supply for California, a healthy Delta ecosystem, and a place of enduring value. 2013
Delta Stewardship Council. Amended July 2019. The Delta Plan – Ensuring a reliable water supply for California, a healthy Delta ecosystem, and a place of enduring value. 2019
DWR. 2016. Final List of Critically Overdrafted Groundwater Basins, January. http://www.water.ca.gov/groundwater/sgm/pdfs/COD_BasinsTable.pdf Accessed February 2016.
Maddaus Water Management et al. BAWSCA Water Conservation Implementation Plan. September 2009.
SFPUC, Alternative Water Supply Planning Quarterly Update. December 8, 2020 SFPUC, Regional Groundwater Storage and Recovery. https://sfwater.org Accessed October 30, 2019.
SFPUC. Fiscal Year 2018-19 Annual Report Water System Improvement Program. San Francisco Public Utilities Commission.
August 2019.
SFPUC. UWMP Language for BAWSCA. San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. February 2021.
SFPUC. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. June 2021.
SFPUC. Water Supply Agreement (WSAg) between the City and County of San Francisco and Wholesale Customers in Alameda County, San Mateo County and Santa Clara County. July 2009.
SFPUC. WSIP Overview. https://sfwater.org/ Accessed October 9, 2019.
Western Regional Climate Center. Western U.S. Climate Historical Summaries, Climatological Data Summaries. https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca7767. Accessed October 30, 2019.
WRIME. South Westside Basin Groundwater Management Plan, July 2012.
Jefferson Union High School District Master Plan Project A
Appendix A: 2020 UWMP Packet (including SFPUC
Common Language) and 03.30.21 Projection Revisions
Reference for supply reliability language. For drought allocation, use Appendix E (latest version of projections) instead.
Jefferson Union High School District Master Plan Project A
This page intentionally left blank.
155 Bovet Road, Suite 650, San Mateo, CA 94402 ph 650 349 3000 fx 650349 8395 www.bawsca.org
March 16, 2021
The following list of documents have been provided to the Member Agencies by BAWSCA to facilitate preparation of their 2020 UWMPs. Please contact Danielle McPherson at [email protected] or Negin Ashoori at [email protected] if you have any questions.
1. BAWSCA Common Language (Feb 10, 2021)
2. SCPUC Common Language (Feb 3, 2021)
3. Memo on UWMP Procedures, Legal Updates and Best Practices (Feb 2, 2021) a. Attachment 1: Sample Notice of Public Hearing
b. Attachment 2: Sample Notification Letter to Other Agencies c. Attachment 3: Sample Advertisement
4. Memo on SFPUC Supply Reliability Letter and Drought Cutbacks (Updated: Feb 18, 2021) a. Attachment A: SFPUC Supply Reliability Letter (Jan 22, 2021) b. Attachment B: 2020 UWMP Drought Cutbacks/Allocations (Updated March 1, 2021)
5. Common Language about Rate Impacts of Water Shortages (March 4, 2021)
1. BAWSCA Common Language
Common Language for BAWSCA Member Agencies’
2020 UWMP Updates
BAWSCA
Description of BAWSCA
BAWSCA provides regional water reliability planning and conservation programming for the benefit of its 26 member agencies that purchase wholesale water supplies from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC). Collectively, the BAWSCA member agencies deliver water to over 1.8 million residents and nearly 40,000 commercial, industrial and institutional accounts in Alameda, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties.
BAWSCA also represents the collective interests of these wholesale water customers on all significant technical, financial, and policy matters related to the operation and improvement of the SFPUC’s Regional Water System (RWS).
BAWSCA’s role in the development of the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) updates is to work with its member agencies and the SFPUC to seek consistency among UWMP documents.
Regional Water Demand and Conservation Projections
In June 2020, BAWSCA completed the Regional Water Demand and Conservation Projections Report (Demand Study).1 The goal of the Demand Study was to develop transparent, defensible, and uniform demand and conservation savings projections for each Wholesale Customer using a common methodology to support both regional and individual agency planning efforts and compliance with the new statewide water efficiency targets required by Assembly Bill (AB) 1668 and Senate Bill (SB) 606.
Through the Demand Study process, BAWSCA and the Wholesale Customers (1) quantified the total average-year water demand for each BAWSCA member agency through 2045, (2) quantified passive and active conservation water savings potential for each individual Wholesale Customer through 2045, and (3) identified 24 conservation programs with high water savings potential and/or member agency interest. Implementation of these conservation measures, along with passive conservation, is anticipated to yield an additional 37.3 MGD of water savings by 2045. Based on the revised water demand projections, the identified water conservation savings, increased development and use of other local supplies by the Wholesale Customers, and other actions, the collective purchases of the BAWSCA member agencies from the SFPUC are projected to stay below 184 MGD through 2045.
As part of the Demand Study, each Wholesale Customer was provided with a demand model that can be used to support ongoing demand and conservation planning efforts, including UWMP preparation.
1 Phase III Final Report: http://bawsca.org/uploads/pdf/BAWSCA_Regional_Water_Demand_and_ Conservation%20Projections%20Report_Final.pdf
1. BAWSCA Common Language
Long-Term Reliable Water Supply Strategy
BAWSCA’s Long-Term Reliable Water Supply Strategy (Strategy), completed in February 2015, quantified the water supply reliability needs of the BAWSCA member agencies through 2040, identified the water supply management projects and/or programs (projects) that could be developed to meet those needs, and prepared an implementation plan for the Strategy’s recommendations.
When the 2015 Demand Study concluded it was determined that while there is no longer a regional normal year supply shortfall, there was a regional drought year supply shortfall of up to 43 MGD. In addition, key findings from the Strategy's project evaluation analysis included:
Water transfers represent a high priority element of the Strategy. Desalination potentially provides substantial yield, but its high effective costs and intensive permitting requirements make it a less attractive drought year supply alternative.
Other potential regional projects provide tangible, though limited, benefit in reducing dryyear shortfalls given the small average yields in drought years.
Since 2015, BAWSCA has completed a comprehensive update of demand projections and engaged in significant efforts to improve regional reliability and reduce the dry-year water supply shortfall.
Water Transfers. BAWSCA successfully facilitated two transfers of portions of Individual Supply Guarantee (ISG) between BAWSCA agencies in 2017 and 2018. Such transfers benefit all BAWSCA agencies by maximizing use of existing supplies. BAWSCA is currently working on an amendment to the Water Supply Agreement between the SFPUC and BAWSCA agencies to establish a mechanism by which member agencies that have an ISG may participate in expedited transfers of a portion of ISG and a portion of a Minimum Annual Purchase Requirement. In 2019, BAWSCA participated in a pilot water transfer that, while ultimately unsuccessful, surfaced important lessons learned and produced interagency agreements that will serve as a foundation for future transfers. BAWSCA is currently engaged in the Bay Area Regional Reliability Partnership2 (BARR), a partnership among eight Bay Area water utilities (including the SFPUC, Alameda County Water District, BAWSCA, Contra Costa Water District, Santa Clara Valley Water District) to identify opportunities to move water across the region as efficiently as possible, particularly during times of drought and emergencies.
Regional Projects. Since 2015, BAWSCA has coordinated with local and State agencies on regional projects with potential dry-year water supply benefits for BAWSCA’s agencies. These efforts include storage projects, indirect/direct water reuse projects, and studies to evaluate the capacity and potential for various conveyance systems to bring new supplies to the region.
BAWSCA continues to implement the Strategy recommendations in coordination with BAWSCA member agencies. Strategy implementation will be adaptively managed to account for changing conditions and to ensure that the goals of the Strategy are met in an efficient and cost-effective manner. On an annual basis, BAWSCA will reevaluate Strategy recommendations and results in conjunction with development of the BAWSCA’s FY 2021-22 Work Plan. In this way, actions can be modified to accommodate changing conditions and new developments. 2 https://www.bayareareliability.com/
1. BAWSCA Common Language
Making Conservation a Way of Life Strategic Plan
Following the 2014-2016 drought, the State of California (State) developed the “Making Water Conservation a California Way of Life” framework to address the long-term water use efficiency requirements called for in executive orders issued by Governor Brown. In May of 2018, AB 1668 and SB 606 (collectively referred to as the efficiency legislation) went into effect, which built upon the executive orders implementing new urban water use objectives for urban retail water suppliers.
BAWSCA led its member agencies in a multi-year effort to develop and implement a strategy to meet these new legislative requirements. BAWSCA’s Making Conservation a Way of Life Strategic Plan (Strategic Plan) provided a detailed roadmap for member agencies to improve water efficiency. BAWSCA implementing the following elements of the Strategic Plan:
Conducted an assessment of the agencies’ current practices and water industry best practices for three components of the efficiency legislation that, based on a preliminary review, present the greatest level of uncertainty and potential risk to the BAWSCA agencies. The three components were:
1. Development of outdoor water use budgets in a manner that incorporates landscape area, local climate, and new satellite imagery data.
2. Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional water use performance measures.
3. Water loss requirements.
Organized an Advanced Metering Infrastructure symposium to enable information exchange, including case studies, implementation strategies, and data analysis techniques.
Initiated a regional CII audit pilot program, which BAWSCA aims to complete in 2021.3 Implemented a regional program for water loss control to help BAWSCA agencies comply with regulatory requirements and implement cost-effective water loss interventions.
Engaged with the SFPUC to audit meter testing and calibration practices for SFPUC’s meters at BAWSCA agency turnouts.
Finally, BAWSCA's Demand Study developed water demand and conservation projections through 2045 for each BAWSCA agency. These projects are designed to provide valuable insights on long-term water demand patterns and conservation savings potential to support regional efforts, such as implementation of BAWSCA’s Long-Term Reliable Water Supply Strategy.
3 Efforts on the CII audit pilot program stalled in March 2020 due to the COVID 19 pandemic and related shelter-inplace orders.
1. BAWSCA Common Language
Tier Two Drought Allocations
The Wholesale Customers have negotiated and adopted the Tier Two Plan, referenced above, which allocates the collective Wholesale Customer share from the Tier One Plan among each of the 26 Wholesale Customers. These Tier Two allocations are based on a formula that takes into account multiple factors for each Wholesale Customer including:
Individual Supply Guarantee;
Seasonal use of all available water supplies; and
Residential per capita use.
The water made available to the Wholesale Customers collectively will be allocated among them in proportion to each Wholesale Customer’s Allocation Basis, expressed in millions of gallons per day (mgd), which in turn is the weighted average of two components. The first component is the Wholesale Customer’s Individual Supply Guarantee, as stated in the WSA, and is fixed. The second component, the Base/Seasonal Component, is variable and is calculated using the monthly water use for three consecutive years prior to the onset of the drought for each of the Wholesale Customers for all available water supplies. The second component is accorded twice the weight of the first, fixed component in calculating the Allocation Basis. Minor adjustments to the Allocation Basis are then made to ensure a minimum cutback level, a maximum cutback level, and a sufficient supply for certain Wholesale Customers.
The Allocation Basis is used in a fraction, as numerator, over the sum of all Wholesale Customers’ Allocation Bases to determine each Wholesale Customer’s Allocation Factor. The final shortage allocation for each Wholesale Customer is determined by multiplying the amount of water available to the Wholesale Customers’ collectively under the Tier One Plan, by the Wholesale Customer’s Allocation Factor.
The Tier Two Plan requires that the Allocation Factors be calculated by BAWSCA each year in preparation for a potential water shortage emergency. As the Wholesale Customers change their water use characteristics (e.g., increases or decreases in SFPUC purchases and use of other water sources, changes in monthly water use patterns, or changes in residential per capita water use), the Allocation Factor for each Wholesale Customer will also change. However, for long-term planning purposes, each Wholesale Customer shall use as its Allocation Factor, the value identified in the Tier Two Plan when adopted.
Per WSA Section 3.11, the Tier One and Tier Two Plans will be used to allocate water from the Regional Water System between Retail and Wholesale Customers during system-wide shortages of 20% or less. For Regional Water System shortages in excess of 20%, San Francisco shall (a) follow the Tier 1 Shortage Plan allocations up to the 20% reduction, (b) meet and discuss how to implement incremental reductions above 20% with the Wholesale Customers, and (c) make a final determination of allocations above the 20% reduction. After the SFPUC has made the final allocation decision, the Wholesale Customers shall be free to challenge the allocation on any applicable legal or equitable basis. For purposes of the 2020 UWMPs, for San Francisco Regional Water System (RWS) shortages in excess of 20%, the allocations among the Wholesale Customers is assumed to be equivalent among them and to equal the drought cutback to Wholesale Customer by the SFPUC.
1. BAWSCA Common Language
The Tier Two Plan, which initially expired in 2018, has been extended by the BAWSCA Board of Directors every year since for one additional calendar year. In November 2020, the BAWSCA Board voted to extend the Tier Two Plan through the end of 2021.
SFPUC’s Efforts to Develop of Alternative Water Supplies With the adoption of the Bay-Delta Plan Phase 1 (Bay-Delta Plan) by the State Water Resources Control Board in December of 2018, coupled with the uncertainties associated with litigation and the development of Voluntary Agreements that, if successful, would provide an alternative to the 40% unimpaired flow requirement that is required by the Bay-Delta Plan, BAWSCA redoubled its efforts to ensure that the SFPUC took necessary action to develop alternative water supplies such that they would be in place to fill any potential gap in supply by implementation of the Bay-Delta Plan and that the SFPUC would be able to meet its legal and contractual obligations to its Wholesale Customers.
In 2019, BAWSCA held numerous meetings with the SFPUC encouraging them to develop a division within their organization whose chief mission was to spearhead alternative water supply development. On June 25, 2019, BAWSCA provided a written and oral statement to the Commissioners urging the SFPUC to focus on developing new sources of supply in a manner similar to how it addressed the implementation of the Water System Improvement Program (WSIP). BAWSCA urged that a new water supply program was called for, with clear objectives, persistent focus, a dedicated team, adequate funding, and a plan for successful execution. The SFPUC Commission supported BAWSCA’s recommendation and directed staff to undertake such an approach.
In early 2020, the SFPUC began implementation of the Alternative Water Supply Planning Program (AWSP), a program designed to investigate and plan for new water supplies to address future long-term water supply reliability challenges and vulnerabilities on the RWS.
Included in the AWSP is a suite of diverse, non-traditional supply projects that, to a great degree, leverage regional partnerships and are designed to meet the water supply needs of the SFPUC Retail and Wholesale Customers through 2045. As of the most recent Alternative Water Supply Planning Quarterly Update, SFPUC has budgeted $264 million over the next ten years to fund water supply projects. BAWSCA is heavily engaged with the SFPUC on its AWSS efforts.
BAWSCA Conservation Programs
BAWSCA manages a Regional Water Conservation Program comprised of several programs and initiatives that support and augment member agencies’ and customers’ efforts to use water more efficiently. These efforts extend limited water supplies that are available to meet both current and future water needs; increase drought reliability of the existing water system; and save money for both the member agencies and their customers.
The implementation of the Regional Water Conservation Program builds upon both the Water Conservation Implementation Plan (WCIP, completed in September 2009) and the Regional Demand and Conservation Projections Project (Demand Study, completed in June of 2020).
These efforts include both Core Programs (implemented regionally throughout the BAWSCA service area) and Subscription Programs (funded by individual member agencies that elect to participate and implement them within their respective service areas).
1. BAWSCA Common Language
BAWSCA’s Core Conservation Programs include organizing classes open to the public on topics such as water efficient landscape education and water-wise gardening, assistance related to automated metering infrastructure, and other associated programs that work to promote smart water use and practices. BAWSCA’s Subscription Programs include numerous rebate programs, educational programs that can be offered to area schools, technical assistance to member agencies in evaluating water loss, and programs to train and certify contractors employed to install water efficient landscape. In total, BAWSCA offers 22 programs to its member agencies and that number continues to grow over time.
Each fiscal year, BAWSCA prepares an Annual Water Conservation Report that documents how all of BAWSCA’s 26 member agencies have benefitted from the Core Conservation Programs. Additionally, the report highlights how all 26 member agencies participate in one or more of the Subscription Programs offered by BAWSCA, such as rebates, water loss management and large landscape audits. The Demand Study indicates that through a combination of active and passive conservation, 37.3 MGD will be conserved by BAWSCA’s member agencies by 2045.
.
2. SFPUC Common Language
Common Language for BAWSCA Member Agencies’ 2020 UWMPs
Tier One Drought Allocations
In July 2009, San Francisco and its Wholesale Customers in Alameda County, Santa Clara County, and San Mateo County (Wholesale Customers) adopted the Water Supply Agreement (WSA), which includes a Water Shortage Allocation Plan (WSAP) that describes the method for allocating water from the Regional Water System (RWS) between Retail and Wholesale Customers during system-wide shortages of 20 percent or less. The WSAP, also known as the Tier One Plan, was amended in the 2018 Amended and Restated WSA.
The SFPUC allocates water under the Tier One Plan when it determines that the projected available water supply is up to 20 percent less than projected system-wide water purchases.
The following table shows the SFPUC (i.e, Retail Customers) share and the Wholesale Customers’ share of the annual water supply available during shortages depending on the level of system-wide reduction in water use that is required. The Wholesale Customers’ share will be apportioned among the individual Wholesale Customers based on a separate methodology adopted by the Wholesale Customers, known as the Tier Two Plan, discussed further below.
Level of System-Wide
Reduction in Water Use
Required
Share of Available Water
SFPUC Share Wholesale Customers Share
5% or less
6% through 10%
11% through 15%
16% through 20%
35.5%
36.0%
37.0%
37.5%
64.5%
64.0%
63.0%
62.5%
The Tier One Plan allows for voluntary transfers of shortage allocations between the SFPUC and any Wholesale Customer as well as between Wholesale Customers themselves. In addition, water “banked” by a Wholesale Customer, through reductions in usage greater than required, may also be transferred.
As amended in 2018, the Tier One Plan requires Retail Customers to conserve a minimum of 5% during droughts. If Retail Customer demands are lower than the Retail Customer allocation (resulting in a “positive allocation” to Retail1) then the excess percentage would be re-allocated to the Wholesale Customers’ share. The additional water conserved by Retail Customers up to the minimum 5% level is deemed to remain in storage for allocation in future successive dry years.
The Tier One Plan will expire at the end of the term of the WSA in 2034, unless mutually extended by San Francisco and the Wholesale Customers.
The Tier One Plan applies only when the SFPUC determines that a system-wide water shortage exists and issues a declaration of a water shortage emergency under California Water Code 1 See Water Supply Agreement, Water Shortage Allocation Plan (Attachment H), Section 2.1.
2. SFPUC Common Language
Section 350. Separate from a declaration of a water shortage emergency, the SFPUC may opt to request voluntary cutbacks from its Retail and Wholesale Customers to achieve necessary water use reductions during drought periods.
Tier Two Drought Allocations
The Wholesale Customers have negotiated and adopted the Tier Two Plan, referenced above, which allocates the collective Wholesale Customer share from the Tier One Plan among each of the 26 Wholesale Customers. These Tier Two allocations are based on a formula that takes into account multiple factors for each Wholesale Customer including:
Individual Supply Guarantee;
Seasonal use of all available water supplies; and
Residential per capita use.
The water made available to the Wholesale Customers collectively will be allocated among them in proportion to each Wholesale Customer’s Allocation Basis, expressed in millions of gallons per day (mgd), which in turn is the weighted average of two components. The first component is the Wholesale Customer’s Individual Supply Guarantee, as stated in the WSA, and is fixed. The second component, the Base/Seasonal Component, is variable and is calculated using the monthly water use for three consecutive years prior to the onset of the drought for each of the Wholesale Customers for all available water supplies. The second component is accorded twice the weight of the first, fixed component in calculating the Allocation Basis. Minor adjustments to the Allocation Basis are then made to ensure a minimum cutback level, a maximum cutback level, and a sufficient supply for certain Wholesale Customers.
The Allocation Basis is used in a fraction, as numerator, over the sum of all Wholesale Customers’ Allocation Bases to determine each wholesale customer’s Allocation Factor. The final shortage allocation for each Wholesale Customer is determined by multiplying the amount of water available to the Wholesale Customers’ collectively under the Tier One Plan, by the Wholesale Customer’s Allocation Factor.
The Tier Two Plan requires that the Allocation Factors be calculated by BAWSCA each year in preparation for a potential water shortage emergency. As the Wholesale Customers change their water use characteristics (e.g., increases or decreases in SFPUC purchases and use of other water sources, changes in monthly water use patterns, or changes in residential per capita water use), the Allocation Factor for each Wholesale Customer will also change. However, for long-term planning purposes, each Wholesale Customer shall use as its Allocation Factor, the value identified in the Tier Two Plan when adopted.
The Tier Two Plan, which initially expired in 2018, has been extended by the BAWSCA Board of Directors every year since for one additional calendar year. In November 2020, the BAWSCA Board voted to extend the Tier Two Plan through the end of 2021.
Individual Supply Guarantee
San Francisco has a perpetual commitment (Supply Assurance) to deliver 184 mgd to the 24 permanent Wholesale Customers collectively. San Jose and Santa Clara are not included in the Supply Assurance commitment and each has temporary and interruptible water supply
2. SFPUC Common Language
contracts with San Francisco. The Supply Assurance is allocated among the 24 permanent Wholesale Customers through Individual Supply Guarantees (ISG), which represent each Wholesale Customer’s allocation of the 184 mgd Supply Assurance. [Name of Agency’s] ISG is _______ mgd.
2028 SFPUC Decisions (formerly 2018 SFPUC Decisions)
[Note: This section is intended to be optional language that individual BAWSCA member agencies may use.]
In the 2009 WSA, the SFPUC committed to make three decisions before 2018 that affect water supply development:
Whether or not to make the cities of San Jose and Santa Clara permanent customers, Whether or not to supply the additional unmet supply needs of the Wholesale Customers beyond 2018, and
Whether or not to increase the wholesale customer Supply Assurance above 184 mgd.
Events since 2009 made it difficult for the SFPUC to conduct the necessary water supply planning and CEQA analysis required to make these three decisions before 2018. Therefore, in the 2018 Amended and Restated WSA, the decisions were deferred for 10 years to 2028.
Additionally, there have been recent changes to instream flow requirements and customer demand projections that have affected water supply planning beyond 2018. As a result, the SFPUC has established an Alternative Water Supply Planning program to evaluate several regional and local water supply options. Through this program, the SFPUC will conduct feasibility studies and develop an Alternative Water Supply Plan by July 2023 to support the continued development of water supplies to meet future needs.
Reliability of the Regional Water System
In 2008, the SFPUC adopted Level of Service (LOS) Goals and Objectives in conjunction with the adoption of WSIP. The SFPUC updated the LOS Goals and Objectives in February 2020.
The SFPUC’s LOS Goals and Objectives related to water supply are:
2. SFPUC Common Language
Program Goal System Performance Objective
Water Supply – meet
customer water
needs in nondrought and drought
periods
Meet all state and federal regulations to support the proper operation of the water system and related power
facilities.
Meet average annual water demand of 265 mgd from the
SFPUC watersheds for retail and Wholesale Customers
during non–drought years for system demands consistent
with the 2009 Water Supply Agreement.
Meet dry-year delivery needs while limiting rationing to a maximum 20 percent system-wide reduction in water
service during extended droughts.
Diversify water supply options during non-drought and drought periods.
Improve use of new water sources and drought
management, including groundwater, recycled water,
conservation, and transfers.
.
Factors Impacting Supply Reliability
Adoption of the 2018 Bay-Delta Plan Amendment
In December 2018, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) adopted amendments to the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary (Bay-Delta Plan Amendment) to establish water quality objectives to maintain the health of the Bay-Delta ecosystem. The SWRCB is required by law to regularly review this plan. The adopted Bay-Delta Plan Amendment was developed with the stated goal of increasing salmonid populations in three San Joaquin River tributaries (the Stanislaus, Merced, and Tuolumne Rivers) and the Bay-Delta. The Bay-Delta Plan Amendment requires the release of 30-50% of the “unimpaired flow”2 on the three tributaries from February through June in every year type. In SFPUC modeling of the new flow standard, it is assumed that the required release is 40% of unimpaired flow.
If the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment is implemented, the SFPUC will be able to meet the projected water demands presented in this UWMP in normal years but would experience supply shortages in single dry years or multiple dry years. Implementation of the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment will require rationing in all single dry years and multiple dry years. The SFPUC has initiated an Alternative Water Supply Planning Program to ensure that San Francisco can meet its Retail and Wholesale Customer water needs, address projected dry years shortages, and limit rationing to a maximum 20 percent system-wide in accordance with adopted SFPUC policies. This program is in early planning stages and is intended to meet future water supply challenges and vulnerabilities such as environmental flow needs and other regulatory changes; earthquakes, disasters, and emergencies; increases in population and employment; and climate 2 "Unimpaired flow represents the natural water production of a river basin, unaltered by upstream diversions, storage, or by export or import of water to or from other watersheds." (Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary (Dec. 12, 2018) p.17, fn. 14, available at https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/plans_policies/docs/2018wqcp.pdf.)