Agenda, second session — San Bruno City Council, September 22, 2026 (part 2 of 2)

8 2
6 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:

The action is not a project subject to CEQA. City Council’s action is not considered a “Project” per CEQA Guidelines and therefore no further environmental analysis is required.

RECOMMENDATION:

Consider adoption of a Resolution approving the Amended and Restated City Manager Employment Agreement Between the City of San Bruno and Alex D. McIntyre.

ALTERNATIVES:

1. Do not adopt a Resolution approving the amended and restated agreement.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution with Exhibit A – Amended and Restated City Manager Employment Agreement Between the City of San Bruno and Alex D. McIntyre

112 of 263

1 3
2 7
6 RESOLUTION NO. 2026 - __

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BRUNO APPROVING

THE AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF SAN BRUNO AND ALEX D. MCINTYRE
WHEREAS, the City of San Bruno and Alex D. McIntyre (“Manager”) entered into that certain City Manager Employment Agreement, dated as of July 1, 2023, which the parties amended pursuant to that certain First Amendment to City Manager Employment Agreement, dated as of January 9, 2024, Second Amendment to Employment Agreement, dated as of July 1, 2024, Third Amendment to Employment Agreement, dated as of December 1, 2024, Fourth Amendment to Employment Agreement, dated July 1, 2025, and Fifth Amendment to Employment Agreement, dated December 9, 2025. (together, the “Agreement”); and WHEREAS, the parties desire to consolidate the terms of the Agreement into an Amended and Restated Employment Agreement and to amend the Agreement to provide a thirty-six hour standard work week and a winter holiday closure, as provided for the City’s unrepresented employees.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of San Bruno that it hereby approves the Amended and Restated Employment Agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit A.

Exhibit A: Amended and Restated Employment Agreement.
---oOo---
I hereby certify that foregoing Resolution No. 2026 - ___ was introduced and adopted by the San Bruno City Council at a regular meeting on September 22, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers:

NOES: Councilmembers:

ABSENT: Councilmembers:
_________________________________
Lupita Huerta, City Clerk
113 of 263
ATTACHMENT 1
2 3
2 7
6 EXHIBIT A

AMENDED AND RESTATED

CITY MANAGER EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF SAN BRUNO AND ALEX D. MCINTYRE
[see attached]

114 of 263

AMENDED AND RESTATED CITY MANAGER EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN BRUNO AND ALEX D. MCINTYRE
T
his Amended and Restated Employment Agreement ("Agreement") is made as of and entered into as of September 21 , 2026 (the "E ﬀ ective Da t e") by and between the City of San Bruno , a California municipal corporation ("City"), and Alex D. McIntyre, an individual ("Manager").

T
his Agreement supersedes and replaces in its entirety the Employment Agreement dated July 1, 2023, as previously amended, and consolidates the terms of that agreement and all subsequent amendments into this Agreement.

RE
CITALS
A. C
ity desires to employ Manager as City Manager and Manager desires to accept appointment as City Manager.

B
. Manager represents that he has the requisite education, experience, specialized skills and training and is otherwise qualiﬁed to serve as the City Manager.

C. T
he parties desire an amendment to the terms of Manger’s employment to align with the thirty-six hour standard work week and the winter holiday closure, as provided in the Unrepresented Compensation Plan Pilot Program (the “Plan”).

N
OW, THEREFORE, in consideration of these recitals and the performance by the parties of the promises, covenants, and conditions herein contained, the City and Manager agree as provided in this Agreement.

1. A
ppointment of City Manager. City does hereby appoint and employ Manager in the capacity of City Manager and Manager does accept employment upon the terms and conditions set forth herein. This Agreement shall supersede and replace any and all prior agreements between City and Manager.

2. T
erm. Unless sooner terminated, the term of this Agreement shall commence on the Eﬀective Date and terminate on June 30, 2027 ("Term"). The parties may extend the Term until June 30, 2028, by mutual written agreement, on or before January 31, 2027.

3. D
uties and Authority. Manager shall exercise the full powers and perform the duties o f t he p ositio n of Cit y M anag er o f t h e Cit y of Sa n B runo , as se t f ort h i n t he San B ru no Municipal Code, any relevant ordinances, resolutions or regulations, the City Manager job description and under state law, as each of them currently or may in the future exist. Manager shall exercise such other powers and perform such other duties as City Council may from time to time assign. As determined by the City Council, Manager shall serve as representa ti v e t o a n y agency or organization to which the City Council may make appointments. Except as otherwise 115 of 263
ATTACHMENT 1, Exhibit A

Amended and Restated City Manager Employment Agreement Between City of San Bruno & Alex D. McIntyre Page 2 of 10
determined by the City Council, Manager shall serve as Executive Director to any agency, authority or similar entity staﬀed by City.

4. Obligations. Manager shall devote their full energies, interest, abilities and productive time to the performance of this Agreement, and utilize their best eﬀorts to promote City's interests. Manager shall not engage in any activity, consulting service or enterprise, for compensation or otherwise, which is actually or potentially in conﬂict with or inimical to, or which materially interferes with their duties and responsibilities to City. As set forth in Section 4 of this Agreement, Manager shall be exempt from the overtime pay provisions of California law (if any) and federal law and as such is expected to engage in those hours of work that are necessa ry to fulﬁll the obligations of the City Manager position.

5. Salary and Beneﬁts.

A. Base Salary. City shall pay Manager an annual base salary as follows: (i) eﬀective July 1, 2026, the amount of $360,817, and (ii) eﬀective July 1, 2027, the amount of $378,858 if t h e t e r m i s e x t e n d e d t o J u n e 3 0 , 2 0 2 8. The annual salary will be prorated and paid on City's normal paydays, subject to legally permissible or required withholding. Manager's salary is compensation for all hours worked and for all services under this Agreement, including those as an Executive Director or involving any other position, oﬃce or appointment associated with the City. As stated above, Manager shall be exempt from the overtime pay provisions of California law (if any) and federal law.

B. Beneﬁts.

i. Health & Welfare Plan. The City will provide and Manager may participate in the City’s medical program (medical, dental and vision insurance) in an amount equal and on the same basis to that which is provided under the Plan. Upon demonstrating possession of comparable health coverage, Manager may elect to participate in the "opt out beneﬁt" provided by the Plan . Manager may also participate in the City's ﬂexible spending plan. Eligibility and beneﬁts will be as determined by the applicable laws, regulations and plan documents. In the event of a conﬂict between this Agreement and the applicable laws, regulations and plan documents, the latter shall prevail. The City reserv e s t h e r i g h t t o c h a n g e o r d i s c o n ti n u e i t s beneﬁts programs at any time, to the maximum extent permitted by law.

ii. Long Term Disability (LTD), Accidental Death & Dismemberment (AD&D), and other optional insurance coverage. The City will pay 100% of premiums for LTD insurance, which provides up to 66.67% of salary up to the state maximum per month for illness or injury which extends beyond ninety (90) calendar days.

The City will pay 100% of premiums for AD&D insurance at the level of 100% of annual earnings up to a maximum beneﬁt of $300,000. Manager has the option of purchasing insurances made available to other employees under the Plan but not speciﬁcally provided for in this document.

116 of 263

Amended and Restated City Manager Employment Agreement Between City of San Bruno & Alex D. McIntyre Page 3 of 10

iii. Life Insurance. The City will pay 100% of premiums for Life Insurance coverage of 1x of annual earnings up to a maximum beneﬁt of $300,000. Manager may elect to purchase additional life insurance through the City’s insurance carrier.

iv. Retirement. Manager shall be enrolled under City’s retirement plan with CalPERS pursuant to terms of that plan and applicable state law and regulations. Manager qualiﬁes as a “Classic Employee” under the Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act of 2013 and will be covered by City’s formula of 2.7% @ 55. Manager shall make all memb er contributions and there will be no employer paid member contributions. In the event of any conﬂict between this Agreement and the City’s CalPERS contract or the applicable laws and regulations, the latter shall prevail.

v. Holidays. Manager is eligible for nine (9) hours of paid holiday leave for each of the following speciﬁed holidays:

• New Year’s Day
• Martin Luther King Day
• Presidents' Day
• Memorial Day
• Independence Day
• Labor Day
• Veterans Day
• Thanksgiving Day
• Christmas Eve
• Christmas Day
• 2 business days between Christmas Day and New Year’s Day observances (Winter Closure)

Any holiday that falls on Friday will be observed the Thursday before the holiday. Any holiday that f a l l s o n a S a t u r d a y o r S u n d a y w i l l b e o b s e r v e d o n t h e f o l l o w i n g M o n d a y . I n t h e e v e n t t h a t Christmas Eve and Christmas Day fall on a Friday, Saturday, or Sunday, observance of the holidays will occur on the regular business days following Christmas Day.

vi. Vacation. Manager shall accrue 7.080 hours of vacation time per pay period.

a) Annual Cash-out. Manager may elect to cash out accrued vacation time on an annual basis, in accordance with the City’s Annual Leave Cash -out Administrative Procedure, if Manager meets the following requirements (and any others required to meet applicable requirements such as the IRS’s constructive receipt rules):

117 of 263

Amended and Restated City Manager Employment Agreement Between City of San Bruno & Alex D. McIntyre Page 4 of 10
• The election is irrevocable and made in the calendar year prior to cash- out;
• Manager has accrued the number of elected hours in the year of cash- out;
• Manager has taken seventy-two (72) hours of vacation time in the immediate twelve (12) month period preceding the annual cashout; and
• Manager’s vacation time balance does not fall below seventy-two (72) hours once the cash-out is processed.

b) Separation Cash-out. Upon separation from City service, accrued compensable leave shall be fully paid out based on the Manager’s base salary rate at separation.

For the purposes of this section, base salary is deﬁned as the hourly rate as calculated by dividing the published salary schedule’s:

• Annual salary by 1872; or
• Monthly salary by 156; or
• Hourly salary by 1

vii. Sick Leave. Manager shall receive one paid sick day per month. Paid sick leave may be used in accordance with the minimum requirements of California law and as otherwise permitted by Employer. Paid sick leave under this section has no cash value and therefore is no t payable upon termination or separation from employment, regardless of the reason for termination or separation.

viii. Management Leave. Manager shall receive management leave annually as follows: (i) on July 1, 2026, 125 hours, and (ii) on July 1, 2027, 130 hours, if the term is extended to June 30, 2028. This leave carries no cash value upon separation and any unused leave balances as of the ﬁnal full pay period in June shall not carry over to the following ﬁscal year.

ix. Business Expenses; Professional Development. City recognizes that Manager may incur certain reasonable job-related expenses of a non-personal nature. City agrees to reimburse or to pay such business expenses incurred by the Manager in the course of his duties. Manager shall submit such expenses according to City's normal expense reimbursement procedures. All expenses must be supported by documentation meeting City's normal requirements and must be submitted within time limits established by City. City s hall pay reasonable sums for professional dues and subscriptions for Manager necessary in the judgment of the City Council for Manager's continued participation in associations and organizations, which memberships are necessary and desirable for the contin ued professional development of Manager and for the good of the City, including attendance at conferences held by the League of California Cities, International City Management Association, and California City Management Foundation. Notwithstanding the for egoing, the City Council shall have discretion to establish

118 of 263

Amended and Restated City Manager Employment Agreement Between City of San Bruno & Alex D. McIntyre Page 5 of 10
appropriate amounts, in the annual City budget or otherwise, for job -related and professional development expenses and travel costs.

x. Oﬃce Equipment: The City shall provide Manager with a City -issued cellular device and laptop device, including business -related software, to maintain communication with the City Council and City staﬀ. Such equipment and software shall remain the sole property of the City and the City reserves the right to monitor the use of its equipment.

Manager agrees that Manager has no privacy rights in the use of such equipment and the equipment shall be returned upon termination or separation from employment.

xi. Auto Allowance: Any rules, policies or practices to the contrary notwithstanding, Manager shall be provided an auto allowance of Two Hundred Eight Dollars ($208.00) per pay period in exchange for making a vehicle available for the Manager’s use for City-related business and/or functions during, before and after normal work hours. Manager shall comply with all City policies related to the use of his own vehicle, which includes prov iding the City with proof of current automobile insurance with liability limits in the amount set by the City.

xii. Deferred Compensation. Manager may participate in the Deferred Compensation 457(b) plan(s) sponsored by the City, with the City matching bi -weekly contributions. The City will contribute two percent (2%) of the annual base salary to any qualiﬁed deferred compensation pl an on a biweekly pay period basis. For clariﬁcation purposes, Manager’s deferred compensation beneﬁt does not include the City matching contribution provided pursuant to the Plan.

xiii. Bonding. City shall bear the full costs of any ﬁdelity or other bonds required of Manager (if any) under any law or ordinance by virtue of their employment as City Manager.

xiv. Fitness Beneﬁt. Manager is eligible for membership to the City's R e c r e a ti o n & A q u a ti c s C e n t e r a t n o c o s t t o t h e Manager under the City Employee RAC membership administrative policy. The value of the beneﬁt may be taxable.

xv. Work Week and Standard Day Length. The standard full -time work schedule for Manager is thirty -six (36) hours and four (4) working days of Monday through Thursday, for nine (9) hours per day, in a seven (7) day period; provided, however, that in the event that the Plan expires or is terminated, the standard full -time work schedule for Manager will adjust to a forty (40) hour workweek with ﬁve standard business days of Monday through Friday for eight (8) hours per day.

6. Evaluations. The City Council may conduct an evaluation of Manager's performance on an annual basis. Manager will request and schedule such reviews, as appropriate, pursuant to City Council agenda procedures or as otherwise directed by City Council. In addition, the City Council may, but is not required to, review Manager's salary and beneﬁts as part o f the

119 of 263

Amended and Restated City Manager Employment Agreement Between City of San Bruno & Alex D. McIntyre Page 6 of 10
evaluation process or at any other time. Said review and evaluation shall be in accordance with speciﬁc criteria developed jointly by City and Manager. Said criteria may be added to or deleted from as the City Council may from time -to-time determine in co nsultation with the Manager.

Nothing in this paragraph is intended to limit additional interim evaluations or reviews or to limit the normal communications process between the City Council and Manager.

7. Indemniﬁcation. Except as otherwise permitted, provided, limited or required by law, including without limitation California Government Code Sections 825, 995, and 995.2 through 995.8, the City will defend and indemnify Manager, using legal counsel of City's choosing, against legal liability for acts or omissions by Manager occurring in the course and scope of employment under this Agreement. In the event City provides funds for legal criminal defense pursuant to this section and the terms of the Government Code, Manager shall reimburse the City for such legal criminal defense funds if Manager is convicted of a crime involving an abuse of oﬃce or position, as provided by Government Code Sections 53243 - 53243.4. Further, in the event Manager is convicted of a crime invo lving an abuse of oﬃce or position, Manager shall reimburse City for any paid leave or cash settlement, as provided by Government Code Sections 53243 - 53243.4.

8. At-Will Employment Relationship-Termination.

A. Under the terms of this appointment and California Government Code Section 36507, Manager is appointed by and serves at the pleasure of the City Council and is an “at-will” employee. Nothing in this Agreement shall prevent, limit or otherwise interfere with the right of the City to terminate this Agreement and the employment of Manager at any time, with or without cause, as provided in this paragraph. Accordingly, Manager may be terminated: (i) with cause, at any time, upon written notice, and (ii) without cause, by giving thirty (30) calendar days advance written notice to the Manager, unless the parties mutually agree to waive or alter the time required for such notice. Upon termination, the employment relationship shall end.

B. In the event Manager is terminated by the City Council without "cause" before expiration of this Agreement, or any extension thereof, and during such time that Manager is willing and able to perform the duties of the City Manager, City agrees to pay Manage r immediately upon termination a lump sum cash payment equal to their then monthly base salary for a period of twelve (12) months.

C. Any other term of this Agreement notwithstanding, the maximum severance that Manager may receive under this Agreement shall not exceed the limitations provided in Government Code Sections 53260 – 53264, or other applicable law. Further, in the event Manager is convicted of a crime involving an abuse of oﬃce or position, Manager shall reimburse City for any paid leave salary oﬀered pending investigation or cash settlement (including severance), as provided by Government Code Sections 53243 – 53243.4.

120 of 263

Amended and Restated City Manager Employment Agreement Between City of San Bruno & Alex D. McIntyre Page 7 of 10
D. In the event the City terminates Manager for cause, then the City may terminate this Agreement immediately, without providing Manager with any notice, opportunity to be heard, or right of appeal. Manager shall be entitled to only the compensation accrued up to the date of termination, payments for accrued unused vacation leave, and such other termination beneﬁts and payments as may be required by law. Manager shall not be entitled to any severance beneﬁts and payments. For purposes of this Agreement, for “cause” is deﬁned to mean as follows:
i. Conviction of a felony or any oﬀense involving a violation of Manager’s oﬃcial duties;
ii. If, during the term of this Agreement, Manager becomes mentally or physically incapable of performing the City Manager’s functions and duties as set forth in this Agreement with reasonable accommodation, and it reasonably appears such incapacity will last for more than six (6) months; iii. Continued abuse or use of prescription or non- prescription drugs or alcohol that materially aﬀects the performance of City Manager’s duties; iv. Repeated and protracted unexcused absences from the City Manager’s oﬃce and duties;
v. Refusal to comply with a lawful order or instruction issued by a majority of the City Council at a lawfully convened meeting;
vi. Deliberate falsiﬁcation of City records or oﬃcial documents, or instructing a City employee to commit an act which Manager knows or has reason to know is a crime;
vii. Failure and refusal to carry out the duties of the City Manager as set forth in this Agreement;

E. Manager may terminate this Agreement by giving sixty (60) calendar days advance written notice to the City Council, unless the parties mutually agree to waive or alter the time required for such notice.

9. Integration of Agreement. This Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire agreement between the parties and supersedes all prior oral and written agreements, understandings, commitments, and practices between the parties concerning Manager's employment with the City. Each party to this Agreement acknowledges that no representations, inducements, promises or agreements, oral or written, have been made by any party, or anyone acting on behalf of any party, which are not embodied herein, and that no other agreement, statement, or promise not contained in this Agreement shall be valid or binding on either party.

10. Conﬁdential Information. Manager acknowledges and agrees that in the performance of their duties, the City discloses and entrusts him with certain conﬁdential proprietary information. Manager agrees not to directly or indirectly disclose or use at any time any such information, whether it be in the form of records, lists, data, personnel info rmation, reports or otherwise, of a business or technical nature, which was acquired or viewed by Manager during Manager's relationship with the City unless such disclosure is authorized by the City in

121 of 263

Amended and Restated City Manager Employment Agreement Between City of San Bruno & Alex D. McIntyre Page 8 of 10
writing, required by law, or required in the performance of the duties of the City Manager. This provision shall survive the termination or expiration of this Agreement.

11. Method of Amendment. No amendments to this Agreement may be made except by a writing signed and dated by City and Manager.

12. Notices. Any notice to City under this Agreement shall be given in writing to City, by personal service, by overnight delivery service providing conﬁrmation of delivery, or by registered or certiﬁed mail, postage prepaid, addressed to the Chief People Oﬃcer at the City's then principal place of business. Any such notice to Manager shall be given in a like manner and, if deposited with an overnight delivery service or mailed, shall be addressed to Manager at their home address then shown in City's ﬁles. For the purpose of determining compliance with any time limit in this Agreement, a notice shall be deemed to have been duly given (a) on the date of delivery, if served personally on the party to whom notice is to be given, (b) on the next delivery day following deposit with an overnight delivery service or (c) on the third calendar day after mailing, if mailed to the party to whom the notice is to be given in the manner provided in this Section.

13. General Provisions.

A. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is held invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement shall nevertheless remain in full force and eﬀect. If any provision is held invalid or unenforceable with respect to particular circumstances, it shall nevertheless remain in full force and eﬀect in all other circumstances.

B. Entire Agreement. This Agreement sets forth the ﬁnal, complete and exclusive agreement between City and Manager relating to the employment of Manager as City Manager by City. Any prior discussions or representations by or between the parties are merged into and rendered nu ll and void by this Agreement. The foregoing notwithstanding, Manager acknowledges that, except as expressly provided in this Agreement, their employment is subject to City's generally applicable rules and policies pertaining to employment matters, such as those addressing equal employment opportunity, sexual harassment and violence in the workplace.

C. C h o i c e o f L a w a n d V e n u e . This Agreement shall be interpreted and construed pursuant to and in accordance with the local laws of the State of California and all applicable City Codes, Ordinances and Resolutions. The parties agree that venue shall be in San Mateo County, California.

D. Independent Review of Agreement. Manager acknowledges that he has had the opportunity and has conducted an independent review of the ﬁnancial and legal eﬀects of this Agreement. Manager acknowledges that he has made an independent judgment upon the ﬁnancial and legal eﬀects of this Ag reement and has not relied upon any representation of City, its oﬃcers, agents or employees other than those expressly set forth in this Agreement.

122 of 263

Amended and Restated City Manager Employment Agreement Between City of San Bruno & Alex D. McIntyre Page 9 of 10

E. Drafting of Agreement. The Parties hereto acknowledge and agree that although this Agreement has been drafted by City's legal counsel, Manager has reviewed, or had an opportunity to review the terms of this Agreement with their legal counsel. Consequently, the doctrine that ambiguities in an agreement should be resolved against the drafting party shall not be employed in connection with this Agreement and this Agreement shall be interpreted in accordance with its fair meaning.

F. Voluntary Agreement. Manager represents and warrants that they have read carefully and fully understands all the provisions of this Agreement, that they are free to enter into this Agreement and to render the services described in it, that they entering into and performance of this Agreement will not breach or violate or conﬂict with any other agreement (written or oral) to which they are a party, and that they have had an opportunity to consult with their legal counsel prior to entering into this Agreement and has either done so or voluntarily chosen not to do so. Manager is voluntarily entering into this Agreement. The City represents and warrants that it has the right and power to enter into this Agreement.

123 of 263

Amended and Restated City Manager Employment Agreement Between City of San Bruno & Alex D. McIntyre Page 10 of 10

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be signed and executed personally as the date and year ﬁrst written above.

THIS AGREEMENT IS NOT VALID UNTIL SIGNED BY ALL PARTIES

City of San Bruno: Alex D. McIntyre, an individual:

Rico E. Medina, Mayor Alex D. McIntyre

ATTEST: APPROVED TO FORM:

Lupita Huerta, City Clerk Trisha Ortiz, City Attorney

124 of 263

City Council Agenda Item
Staff Report

CITY OF SAN BRUNO
DATE: September 22, 2026
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Joseph D. Toney, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: Consider Adoption of a Resolution Accepting the Legal Description of, Declaring the Public Purpose for, and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Purchase and Sale Agreement with the California Department of Transportation for Acquisition of Excess Right-of-Way Property on San Bruno Avenue West and Authorizing an Expenditure Budget Amendment of $4,779,384.00 in the City’s One-time Revenue Reserve BACKGROUND:

The City has for several years been evaluating opportunities to acquire land for potential City uses ranging from a City Hall relocation, a joint public work and park maintenance facility, public safety facility, parks, or other unidentified municipal purposes.

One of the key considerations in evaluating sites is location and suitability for emergency services buildings in the event of a disaster. The City has worked with the State to identify unused land along Route 35 (Skyline Boulevard), bounded by Skyline Boulevard, San Bruno Avenue West, and Glenview Drive, specifically the southerly portion of a larger 7.00-acre excess right-of-way parcel (APN 019-043-490) owned by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans).

This site was identified as a potential location for a City services building and, most importantly, a site that could house any City facility, including a fire station, as part of seismic assessments conducted at the location with the agreement of Caltrans.

DISCUSSION:

Staff recommends the Council authorize the City Manager to execute the Purchase and Sale Agreement in an amount not to exceed $4,779,384.00, for 49,272 square feet with a valuation of $97.00 per-square-foot as established by independent appraisal, Attachment 4. Caltrans has provided a standard-form Purchase and Sale Agreement – Public Sale (DOT RW 16-05) for the property.
125 of 263
Item 6l.

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
September 22, 2026

Page 2 of 5 ends

Key terms are summarized below:

Term Detail
Seller State of California, Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Purchaser City of San Bruno
Property Director’s Deed No. DD-041065-01-01 (a portion of APN 019-043-490), containing 49,272 square feet (≈ 1.13 acres)
Purchase Price $4,779,384.00
Deposit 10% of purchase price ($477,938.40), applied to the purchase price; no interest accrues
Balance Due Within five calendar days of written notice that the California Transportation Commission (CTC) as approved the Director’s Deed
Condition of Sale Property sold “AS IS”; contingent on CTC approval; funds refunded without interest if CTC does not approve
Indemnification
City agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold Caltrans harmless from liabilities arising from hazardous substances or hazardous substance conditions on the property
“AS-IS” Considerations
Two separate studies by Langan, the City’s environmental and geotechnical consultant, inform the due diligence discussed below. Historical records indicate the site was occupied by a gasoline service station - identified in environmental database records as Jean’s Shell Service - from approximately the mid-1960s until the station was removed in the 1980s. Aerial photographs reviewed as part of the environmental research show fueling islands present at the site as early as 1963 (Figure 1).

Figure 1. 1963 aerial photograph of the subject property, predating the site’s use as a gasoline service station. (Source: historical aerial photograph review cited in Langan’s Phase I Environmental Site Assessment.)

126 of 263

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
September 22, 2026

Page 3 of 5 ends

In 2022 (“Phase 1”), Langan drilled soil borings to depths of up to 33 feet to document subsurface stratigraphy at the site. In October–November 2024 (“Phase 2”), Langan excavated approximately 160 linear feet of fault-investigation trenching to depths of up to 20 feet (Figure 2). This investigation was geotechnical in purpose - to determine whether an active fault rupture could occur across the site and to establish buildable area and structural setback requirements — and was not an environmental assessment.

During the Phase 2 trenching, Langan observed a discrete zone of sand backfill at Trench T-1 that, based on review of 1965 aerial photographs, was likely placed as backfill for a former underground storage tank (UST) that had been located beneath gas pumps along the south side of the site. As documented in Langan’s environmental reporting on this work, no petroleum odors or visual evidence of contamination were observed during the drilling and trenching.

Figure 2. Drone photograph, dated January 30, 2025, showing the Phase 2 fault investigation trenches (T-1 and T-2) and soil borings (B-1 through B-4). (Source: Langan, Phase 2 Fault Investigation Report.) Separately, Langan completed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) of the property, dated August 24, 2026, consistent with ASTM E1527-21 and the U.S. EPA’s All Appropriate Inquiries rule. As part of that assessment, Langan retained a licensed utility-locating firm to perform a ground-penetrating radar (GPR) survey of the accessible portions of the property - scanned in a grid with two-foot spacing, excluding limited areas where vegetation and other obstructions prevented access - to check for any remaining USTs associated with the former service station. That survey, completed August 12, 2026, identified no findings associated with a UST. Combined with the soil boring and trenching results from the fault investigation, Langan concluded that no USTs were located and no petroleum hydrocarbon contamination was noted at the site.

The Phase I ESA identified no Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs), Controlled RECs, Historical RECs, de minimis conditions, or significant data gaps. Consistent with standard ASTM practice, the Phase I ESA conclusions, findings and opinions do not require a Phase II ESA.

127 of 263

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
September 22, 2026

Page 4 of 5 ends

Staff notes that the PSA’s standard indemnification provision (Section 15) requires the City to hold Caltrans harmless for hazardous substance conditions on the property, consistent with the City’s assumption of environmental risk as the incoming owner regardless of the Phase I ESA conclusions, findings and opinions.

Caltrans Approval Process and Timeline
Caltrans excess-land sales of this type require California Transportation Commission (CTC) approval following:

1. City Council adoption of a resolution approving the legal description and purchase agreement and affirming the public purpose of the acquisition;

2. Department of General Services (DGS) notice, allowing other state agencies an opportunity to acquire the property (routine, not expected to be an obstacle); and

3. Submission of the complete package to Caltrans headquarters, generally required 45 or more days ahead of the CTC meeting. On August 25, 2026, Caltrans (John Carlston, District Office Chief) provided the following updated submission deadlines:

CTC Meeting City Must Submit to Caltrans Caltrans Submits to CTC January 2027 By approximately September 16, 2026 By October 16, 2026 March 2027 By approximately October 20, 2026 By November 20, 2026 Planning Commission Finding of Conformity with General Plan Government Code Section 65402 provides, in relevant part, that “no real property shall be acquired. until the location, purpose and extent of such acquisition…have been submitted to and reported upon by the planning agency as to conformity with said adopted general plan or part thereof.” The City’s Planning Commission considered this proposed acquisition at its meeting on September 15, 2026, and adopted the required finding of conformity with the City’s General Plan.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Funding for the land acquisition, $4,779,384.00, is available in the City’s one-time revenue reserve and is consistent with the policy purpose. The attached resolution authorizes a budget amendment, and the land will be held as a Geneal Fund asset pending action on future uses.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:

This Resolution has been reviewed with respect to the applicability of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) ("CEQA") and this action is excluded from the definition of a “project” under Section 15378(b)(4) of the State CEQA Guidelines because “government fiscal activity,” which does not involve commitment to a “specific project which may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment,” is categorically excluded from the definition of “project.” Further, this action is exempt under Section 15061 (b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines (common sense exemption) because it can be "seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment." Finally, Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines (existing facilities exemption) applies, as there is no expansion of existing

128 of 263

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
September 22, 2026

Page 5 of 5 ends

or former use in connection with approval of the acquisition. There are no changes in the use of the property being approved at this time, and therefore it can be seen with certainty that the change in ownership will result in no significant effects on the environment. If, in the future, there are plans to undertake a project involving the property, then that future project will be subject to CEQA review and will be reviewed as appropriate.

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt a resolution accepting the legal description of, declaring the public purpose for, and authorizing the City Manager to execute a purchase and sale agreement with the California Department of Transportation for acquisition of excess right-of-way property on San Bruno Avenue West and authorizing an expenditure budget amendment of $4,779,384.00 in the City’s One-time Revenue Reserve
ALTERNATIVES:

1.Decline to authorize execution at this time and direct staff to continue negotiating the purchase price with Caltrans before returning to Council. This risks missing the January 2027 CTC meeting, with the next opportunity being the March 2027 meeting.

2.Provide alternative direction to staff.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution with Exhibit 1 - Legal Description and Exhibit 2 - Purchase and Sale Agreement

2. Appraisal Report

129 of 263

1 RESOLUTION NO. 2026 - ___

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BRUNO ACCEPTING THE

LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF, DECLARING THE PUBLIC PURPOSE FOR, AND AUTHORIZING

THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT WITH THE

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR ACQUISITION OF EXCESS

RIGHT-OF-WAY PROPERTY ON SAN BRUNO AVENUE WEST AND AUTHORIZING AN EXPENDITURE BUDGET AMENDMENT OF $4,779,384.00 MILLION IN THE CITY’S ONE-

TIME REVENUE RESERVE
WHEREAS, the California Department of Transportation (“Caltrans”) owns certain excess right-of-way real property located on San Bruno Avenue West between Skyline Boulevard and Glenview Drive in the City of San Bruno, San Mateo County, more particularly described in the legal description attached as Exhibit A to Director’s Deed No. DD-041065-01- 01 (a portion of Assessor’s Parcel Number 019-043-490), containing approximately 49,272 square feet (≈ 1.13 acres) (the “Property”); and
WHEREAS, the City of San Bruno (“City”) desires to acquire the Property from Caltrans for a public purpose; and
WHEREAS, Caltrans has prepared and presented to the City a Purchase and Sale Agreement – Public Sale (Caltrans Form DOT RW 16-05) for the Property (the “Purchase and Sale Agreement”), attached hereto as Exhibit 2; and
WHEREAS, an independent appraisal was obtained for the Property, and the sale of the Property to the City is intended to be consistent with fair market value; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Caltrans’ excess land sale procedures, execution of the Purchase and Sale Agreement and conveyance of the Property are subject to approval by the California Transportation Commission (“CTC”); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 65402, provides that “no real property shall be acquired . . . until the location, purpose and extent of such acquisition . . . have been submitted to and reported upon by the planning agency as to conformity with said adopted general plan or part thereof;” and
WHEREAS, the City’s Planning Commission adopted a Resolution finding the proposed acquisition of the property on San Bruno Avenue West between Skyline Boulevard and Glenview Drive, by the City of San Bruno, to be in conformance with the San Bruno General Plan at their meeting on September 15, 2026; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the staff report accompanying this Resolution and desires to authorize the City Manager to execute the Purchase and Sale Agreement and take the actions necessary to complete the acquisition, contingent on the Planning Commissions finding the acquisition is consistent with the General Plan of the City of San Bruno.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of San Bruno as follows:

Section 1. The City Council intends to purchase and accept from the State of California, Department of Transportation (“Caltrans”) the Property as set forth in Exhibit A to Director’s Deed No. DD-041065-01-01, attached hereto as Exhibit 1.

Section 2. The City Council hereby finds and declares that the Property will be used for a public purpose; however, this purchase does not involve any commitment to a specific 130 of 263
ATTACHMENT 1
2 project or development and the City is not committing itself to any definite course of action through this purchase.

Section 4. This Resolution has been reviewed with respect to the applicability of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) ("CEQA") and the City Council hereby finds that this action is excluded from the definition of a “project” under Section 15378(b)(4) of the State CEQA Guidelines because a “government fiscal activity” that does not involve commitment to a “specific project which may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment” is categorically excluded from the definition of “project.” Further, this action is exempt under Section 15061 (b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines (common sense exemption), as it can be "seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment." Further, Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines (existing facilities exemption) applies, as there is no expansion of an existing or former use in connection with approval of the acquisition and there are no changes of use of the Property being approved at this time. Therefore, it can be seen with certainty that the change in ownership will result in no significant effects on the environment. If, in the future there are plans to undertake a project involving the property, then that future project will be subject to CEQA review and will be reviewed as appropriate.

Section 5. The City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager to execute the Purchase and Sale Agreement with Caltrans, attached hereto as Exhibit 2, for the acquisition of the Property in an amount not to exceed $4,779,384.00.

Section 6. The City Manager, or the City Manager’s designee, is hereby authorized to execute all documents and take all actions reasonably necessary or appropriate to carry out the intent of this Resolution, including, the appropriate Certificate of Acceptance, and to enter into any non-substantive amendments to the Purchase and Sale Agreement, provided they are in writing.

Section 7. The City Clerk is directed to file a Notice of Exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15062.

Section 8. The City Council hereby amends the Fiscal Year 2026-27 One-time Revenue Reserve Fund budget by $4,779,384.00 to acquire the real property.

Section 9. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.

Exhibit 1: Legal Description of the Property (Director’s Deed No. DD-041065-01-01) Exhibit 2: Purchase and Sale Agreement – Public Sale (Caltrans Form DOT RW 16-05) ---oOo---
I hereby certify that foregoing Resolution No. 2026 - ___ was adopted by the San Bruno City Council at a regular meeting on September 22, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers:

NOES: Councilmembers:

ABSENT: Councilmembers:
_____________________________
Lupita Huerta, City Clerk

131 of 263

Space above this line for Recorder’s Use
DIRECTOR’S
DEED
GRANT
District County Route Postmile Number
04 SM 35 24.4 DD-041065-01-01
( 041214-01-01)
The S
tate of California, acting by and through its Director of Transportation, hereinafter called STATE, hereby grants to
The C
ity of San Bruno, a California Municipal Corporation,
a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California,
herei
nafter called GRANTEE, that real property in the City of San Bruno, County of San Mateo, State of California, described as follows:

See E
xhibit “A”, attached.

Subj
ect to special assessments if any, restrictions, reservations, and easements of record.

MAIL TAX
STATEMENTS TO:

DOCUMENTARY TRANSFER TAX $

COMPUTED ON FULL VALUE OF PROPERTY CONVEYED, OR

COMPUTED ON FULL VALUE LESS LIENS & ENCUMBRANCES
REMAINING THEREON AT TIME OF SALE.

Signature of declarant or agent determining tax-firm name City of San Bruno Unincorporated
132 of 263
ATTACHMENT 1, Exhibit 1
Number
DD-041065-01-01
Subject also to the following, in accordance with U.S. DOT Order 1050.2A, DOT Standard Title VI Assurances and Non-Discrimination Provisions:

A
. The GRANTEE, for himself/herself, his/her heirs, personal representatives, successors in interest, and assigns, as a part of the consideration hereof, does hereby covenant and agree as a covenant running with the land that:

I
n the event facilities are constructed, maintained, or otherwise operated on the property described in this deed for a purpose for which a U.S. Department of Transportation activity, facility, or program is extended or for another purpose involving the provision of similar services or benefits, the GRANTEE will maintain and operate such facilities and services in compliance with all requirements imposed by the Acts and Regulations (as may be amended) such that no person on the grounds of race, color, or national origin, will be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination in the use of said facilities.

B
. In the event of breach of any of the above Non- discrimination covenants, the STATE will have the right to enter or re- enter the lands and facilities thereon, and the above described lands and facilities will there upon revert to and vest in and become the absolute property of the STATE and its assigns.

133 of 263

Number
DD-041065-01-01
T his conveyance is executed pursuant to the authority vested in the Director of Transportation by law and, in particular, by the Streets and Highways Code.

D
ated ______________________________ STATE OF CALIFORNIA

APPROVED AS TO FORM AND DEPARTMENT OF

PROCEDURE TRANSPORTATION
___
_________________________________ By Dina A. El-Tawansy AT TORNEY Director of Transportation

DEPARTMENT OF

TRANSPORTATION
Certificate of Execution
Required for all Director’s
Deeds
_______________________________
JULIE MCDANIEL, Attorney in Fact
Deputy District Director
Right of Way and Land Surveys
This Space Reserved for
California Transportation Commission
Certification

134 of 263

135 of 263

STATE OF CALIFORNIA • DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT – PUBLIC SALE
DOT RW 16-05 (REV 09/2024)
A m er i c a n s w it h Disabilities Act (ADA) Notice: This document is available in alternative accessible formats. For more information, please contact the Forms Management AUnDit atA (27N9) o23t4-i2c28e4, TTY 711, in writing at Forms Management Unit, 1120 N Street, MS-89, Sacramento, CA 95814, or by email at [email protected].

January 2027
THIS PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT (this "Agreement") is entered into as of [date] by and between the State of California, Department of Transportation ("Caltrans") and City of San Bruno ("Purchaser").

Recitals
A. Caltrans owns the real property commonly known as DD-041065-01-01 (the "Property") and more particularly described as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto.

B. Purchaser is City of San Bruno .

C. The parties wish to provide terms and conditions for Purchaser's purchase of the Property from Caltrans.

NOW THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:

Section 1. Purchase and Sale
Caltrans shall sell the Property to Purchaser and Purchaser shall purchase the Property from Caltrans on the terms and conditions stated in this Agreement.

Sectio n 2. Purchase Price
The purchase price for the Property shall be$ 4,779,384.00 set forth below:
("Purc hase Price"). The Purchase Price shall be paid by Purchaser as a) Payment in Full: Receipt is hereby acknowledged of the Purchase in the amount of Dollars ($ ) in the form of a ( cashier's check certified check money order electronic funds transfer )made payable to the "California Department of Transportation."
OR
b) Purchase Deposit: Purchaser Deposit is equal to a minimum of 10% of the Purchase Price.

Receipt is hereby acknowledged of the Purchase Deposit of Four hundred seventy-seven thousand nine hundred thirty eight Dollars ($ 477,938.00) in the form of a ( cashier's check certified check money order electronic funds transfer) made payable to the
"California Department of Transportation," which without any interest, will be applied to the Purchase Price.

OR
Bidder Deposit: Receipt is hereby acknowledged of the Bidder Deposit of Dollars ($ ) in the form of a ( cashier's check certified check money order electronic funds transfer) made payable to the "California Department of Transportation," which without any interest, will be applied to the Purchase Price.

Purchaser shall remit Purchase Deposit (minus the Bidder Deposit) of Dollars ($ ) by ( cashier's check

certified check money order electronic funds transfer) made payable to the "California Department of Transportation," no later than , which, without any interest, will be applied to the Purchase Price. If the Purchaser fails to remit the additional Purchase Deposit within the timeframe noted, Bidder Deposit is forfeited, and the parcel may be awarded to the second highest bidder. (c) Liquidated Damages: THE PARTIES AGREE THAT THE TOTAL DEPOSIT AMOUNT (PURCHASE DEPOSIT) ARE A REASONABLE

SUM FOR LIQUIDATED DAMAGES SHOULD THIS TRANSACTION FAIL TO CLOSE DUE TO A MATERIAL BREACH OF THIS

AGREEMENT BY PURCHASER, IN THAT, WHEN CONSIDERING ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE DATE OF THIS AGREEMENT, IT WOULD BE IMPRACTICABLE OR EXTREMELY DIFFICULT TO FIX THE ACTUAL DAMAGES. EACH PARTY AGREES THAT THE FOREGOING CONSTITUTES LIQUIDATED DAMAGES AND NOT A FORFEITURE OR PENALTY. d) Balance of Purchase Price. Purchaser shall remit sufficient funds to cover the balance of the Purchase Price Dollars ($ ) ("The Balance") no later than Five Calendar Days from written notice the California Transportation Commision (CTC) has approved the Director's Deed covering the sale tentatively scheduled for . e) Payments shall be delivered to Caltrans, Right of Way Division at 111 grand Avenue, Oakland, CA 94623, Attn: Right of Way, Excess Land Sales

All payments including Bidder Deposit, Purchase Deposit, and Balance of Purchase Price must be in the form of a cashier’s check, certified check, money order, or electronic funds transfer made payable to the “California Department of Transportation.” Caltrans does not accept personal checks. All payments will be retained by Caltrans, not placed in escrow, and no interest will accrue.

136 of 263
ATTACHMENT 1, Exhibit 2
STATE OF CALIFORNIA • DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT – PUBLIC SALE
DOT RW 16-05 (REV 09/2024)
A m er i c a n s w it h Disabilities Act (ADA) Notice: This document is available in alternative accessible formats. For more information, please contact the Forms Management AUnDit atA (27N9) o23t4-i2c28e4, TTY 711, in writing at Forms Management Unit, 1120 N Street, MS-89, Sacramento, CA 95814, or by email at [email protected].

Section 3. Closing and California Transportation Commission Approval Purchaser understands and agrees that this sale is subject to the approval by the CTC, tentatively scheduled for January 2027 . In the event the CTC fails to approve the sale, all monies paid by the Purchaser will be refunded without interest. Caltrans makes no representations or warranty concerning the CTC's approval of this sale.

Caltrans reserves the right to reject any and all bids and cancel the sale in part or in its entirety at any time prior to recordation of the Director’s Deed. In the event of cancellation of the s ale and/or rejection of any bids, payments shall be refunded without interest.

Title will transfer after the balance of the purchase price is received, the CTC approves the sale, and the Director’s Deed is recorded.

Section 4. Disqualified Bids
Caltrans reserves the right to reject any and all offers, and to waive any informality or irregularity in any offer or to accept any offer deemed in the best interest of Caltrans at any time prior to the recordation of the Director’s Deed. Any agreement between two or mor e prospective bidders to see their bid prices, or not to submit bids against each other, for the purpose of purchasing any parcel at a more advantageous price or terms, is prohibited. Where such an agreement comes to the knowledge of Caltrans, any bid made pursuant to such agreement will be disqualified. The above prohibitions do not preclude single bids submitted by one or more persons or entities or both partners or joint ventures or other similar legally permiss ible combination.

Section 5. Close of Escrow
Caltrans will maintain an internal escrow at no charge to Purchaser. Purchaser may open an exter nal escrow at Purchaser's expens e but selection of the escrow company is subject to Caltrans' approval, which Caltrans may withhold for any reason within its discretion. Should Purchaser elect to open an escrow, Purchaser and esc row officer shall notify Caltrans by letter within 10 days from the date of auction. The notification letter shall be mailed directly to Caltrans, Right of Way Division at 111 Grand Ave, Oakland, CA 94623 , Attn: Right of Way, Excess Land Sales . Purchaser agrees to pay any and all fees associated with the external escrow, and any and all recording fees, documentary transfer tax, or any other real estate transaction fees involved in the transaction.

Section 6. Financing
Financing is the responsibility of the Purchaser, together with all costs, including appraisal and loan fees, credit reports, title insurance, premiums, surveys, documentary transfer tax, escrow and recording fees, and any other charges.

Section 7. Extension of the Purchase Period
There may be situations wherein the Purchaser is unable to complete the terms and conditions stated in this Agreement within the time allowed for reasons beyond his/her control. Under these circumstances, Caltrans, at its discretion, may elect to extend the purchase period. A non- refundable charge of 1% of the Purchase Price per month will be made for such extensions. This fee will not be applied to the purchase price and is non-refundable.

Section 8. Closing Cost and Prorations
Purchaser shall pay all necessary City and County fees, including but not limited to, broker’s commission, surveys, escrow, points, recording fees, documentary transfer tax fees, and the premium, if any, for the title insurance policy referred to herein, and any other real estate transaction taxes or fees by whatever name known, including any personal property sales tax, where applicable. Caltrans does not pay broker commission.

Proration of real property taxes and assessments, rents, interest, and other expenses of the property shall be prorated as of the date of recordation.

Section 9. Taxes
The property is currently exempt from local taxes but will return to tax rolls upon recordation of the Director’s Deed to the Purchaser.

137 of 263

Section 10. Title
The Property is believed to be free of any liens, court judgments, loans, Deeds of Trust, and delinquent or unpaid property taxes. The sale of the Property is subject to all matters of public record and any easements, or reservations not of record or that which is reserved by Caltrans.

Caltrans does not assume any liability for any possible encumbrances on the Property.

Purchaser understands and agrees that the right, title, and interest in the Property to be conveyed shall not exceed that vested in the State of California, Department of Transportation, and that Caltrans will furnish no policy of title insurance. If a policy of title insurance is desired, Purchaser may obtain one at Purchaser’s sole expense. The property is being conveyed subject to all title exceptions, any special assessments, restrictions, reservations, or easements, whether or not items are of record, and subject to any reservations contained in the Director’s Deed. Purchaser may examine any information Caltrans has relative to these matters. Purchaser has been given the opportunity to request and inspect all documents, if any, within Caltrans possession regarding the condition of the property.

Section 11. Condition of Property
Purchaser waives any further right to inspect the Property and conduct tests thereon unless otherwise agreed upon by both parties in a signed amendment to this Agreement. The Property is sold “AS IS” in its present physical condition as of the date of this Agreement. Purchaser acknowledges and agrees that they are acquiring the property in its present state and condition as of the date of this Agreement, with all defects both patent and latent, and with all faults of the property whether known or unknown, presently existing or that may hereafter arise, including without limitation, all existing conditions, if any, of lead paint, mold, or other environmental health hazards. Purchaser acknowledges and agrees that Caltrans has not made, does not make, and specifically negates and disclaims any representation, past, present, or future, of, as to, concerning, or with respect to the condition of the property.

Caltrans makes no representation regarding the potential for development, subdivision, zoning, or re-zoning of the Property. Purchaser shall be responsible for compliance with any and all local codes and ordinances for permitted land uses of any kind.

Section 12. No Assignment
Purchaser shall not assign all or any part of the Purchaser's interest in this Agreement without first having obtained the written consent of Caltrans. Any total or partial assignment shall not relieve Purchaser of Purchaser's obligation to this Agreement.

Section 13. Disclaimers
The Property and the fixtures and personal property contained therein, if any, are not new, and have been subject to normal wear and tear.

Purchaser understands that Caltrans makes no express or implied warranty with respect to the condition of any of the Property, fixtures, or personal property. Caltrans makes no oral or written representation regarding the age of improvements, the size and square footage of the parcel or building, or the location of property lines. Apparent boundary line indicators such as driveways, fences, hedges, walls, or other barriers may not represent the true boundary lines which may only be determined by a surveyor. If any of these issues are important to Purchaser's decision to purchase, then Purchaser should investigate the Property independently. Purchaser acknowledges that it has not relied upon any representations by Caltrans with respect to the condition of the Property, the status of permits, zoning, or code compliance.

Purchaser is to satisfy itself concerning these issues.

Section 14. Changes During Transactions
During the pendency of this transaction, Caltrans agrees that no changes in the existing leases, if any leases exist, shall be made, nor new leases or rental agreements entered into, nor shall any substantial alterations or repairs be made or undertaken to the Property without the written consent of the Purchaser. However, Caltrans cannot control vacations by tenants if tenants exercise the vacation clauses defined in their leases.

Section 15. Indemnification
Purchaser shall defend, indemnify, and hold Caltrans and Caltrans' elected and appointed officers, agents, and employees free and harmless from and against any and all liabilities, damages, claims, costs, and expenses (including and without limitation to attorney's fees, legal expenses and costs, and consultant's fees, and investigation and remediation costs) arising in whole or in part from the existence of Hazardous Substances or Hazardous Substance Conditions. The indemnity is intended to address that liability for which Caltrans may be responsible solely out of its mere ownership of said Property. This provision shall survive transfer of the title to said Property and any rescission of said transfer.

When used in this Agreement, "Hazardous Substance" shall mean any substance whose nature and/or quantity of existence, use, manufacture, disposal of effect, render it subject to federal, state, or local regulation, investigation, remediation or removal as potentially injurious to public health or welfare, including the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act or Resource Conservation and Recovery Act as now in effect.

When used in this Agreement, "Hazardous Substance Condition" shall mean the existence on or under Property of a hazardous substance that requires remediation and/or removal and/or to be otherwise mitigated pursuant to applicable law.

138 of 263

Section 16. Destruction of Improvements
If the improvements of the Property are destroyed, materially damaged, or found to be materially defective as a result of such damage prior to Close of Escrow or approval by the CTC, Purchaser may terminate the transaction by written notice delivered to Caltrans, and all Deposits shall be returned to Purchaser.

Section 17. Commissions
Each party represents and warrants to the other party that no broker or finder or other real estate agent is entitled to any commission, finder's fee or other compensation resulting from any action on its part. Purchaser and Caltrans each agree to indemnify the other and defend and hold harmless the other party from and against any loss, cost, or expense, including attorney's fees, incurred by such party, and against any claims, causes of action or the like brought by any broker, finder or similar agent for a commission or fee on account of this Agreement. This section does not prohibit a Purchaser from obtaining a broker at their own expense.

Section 18. Effective Headings
The subject headings of the paragraphs and subparagraphs of this Agreement are included for convenience only and shall not affect the construction or interpretation of any of its provisions.

Section 19. Entire Agreement
This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties pertaining to the subject matter contained in it and supersedes all prior and contemporaneous agreements, representations and understandings of the parties. No supplement, modification or amendment of this Agreement shall be binding unless executed in writing by all the parties.

Section 20. Counterparts
This Agreement may be executed simultaneously in one (1) or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which shall constitute one (1) and the same instrument.

Section 21. Binding on Successors and Assigns
This Agreement shall be binding on, and shall inure to the benefit of, the parties to it and their respective legal representatives, successors, and assigns.

Section 22. Attorney's Fees
If any legal action, arbitration or other proceeding is brought involving a dispute between the parties or arising out of the execution of this Agreement or sale of the Property, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover its costs and reasonable attorney's fees incurred in such action or proceeding, in addition to any other relief to which such party may be entitled.

Section 23. Agreement to Perform Necessary Acts
Each party agrees to perform any further acts and execute and deliver any documents that may be reasonably necessary to carry out the provisions in this Agreement.

Section 24. No Third-Party Beneficiaries
This Agreement is for the sole benefit of the parties hereto. There are no third-party beneficiaries, intended or otherwise.

Section 25. Notices
All notices, requests, demands, and other communications under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been duly given on the date of service if served personally on the person to whom notice is to be given or, on the second (2nd) day after mailing if mailed to the party to whom notice is to be given, by First Class Mail, registered or certified, return receipt requested, postage prepaid and properly addressed as follows:

To Caltrans at:

To Purchaser at:

State of California, Department of Transportation, Right of Way Excess Land Sales, PO Box 23440, MS 11, Oakland, CA 94623

City of San Bruno, 567 El. Camino Real, San Bruno, CA 94066 Any party may change its address for purposes of this paragraph by giving the other party written notice of the new address to the other party contained herein.

Section 26. Governing Law
This Agreement has been negotiated and entered into in the State of California and shall be governed by, construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of California and according to its fair meaning, and not in favor of or against any party.

139 of 263

Section 27. Severability
If any provision of this Agreement is held invalid or unenforceable by any court of final jurisdiction, it is the intent of the parties that all the other provisions of this Agreement be construed to remain fully valid, enforceable and binding on the parties.

Section 28. Survival of Representations and Warranties
All covenants, representations, warranties, and other agreements under this Agreement shall survive the Close of Escrow.

Section 29. Time is of the Essence
Time is of the essence and performance of this Agreement in respect to all provisions of this Agreement that specify a time for performance, and failure to comply with this provision shall be a material breach of this Agreement.

Section 30. Saturdays, Sundays, and Holidays
If any date by which an election or a notice must be given falls on a Saturday, Sunday or holiday, then the date by which an election or notice must be given is extended to 5:00 p.m. on the next business day following such Saturday, Sunday or holiday.

Section 31. Waiver
No breach of any provision of this Agreement can be waived unless in writing. Waiver of any one breach of a provision hereof shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any other breach of the same or any other provision, including the time for performance of any such provision. The exercise by a party of any remedy provided in this Agreement or at law shall not prevent the exercise by that party of any other remedy provided in this Agreement or at law.

Section 32. Default
If there is a default by the Purchaser, Caltrans shall notify the Purchaser the sale is canceled, and liquidated damages shall be retained.

Caltrans may, at its discretion, offer the purchase to the next highest bidder(s) at the existing purchase price, or place the property in another auction.

140 of 263

Section 33. Vesting
Title shall be vested as follows:

City of San Bruno
as Husband and Wife
A Single Man/Woman
A Married Man/Woman as his/her sole and separate property as Joint Tenants
as Tenants in Common
Other (specify)
Additional Terms & Conditions are /
Section 34. Additional Terms & Conditions
are not attached.

I agree that by providing my electronic signature for this form, I agree to conduct business transactions by electronic means and that my electronic signature is the legal binding equivalent to my handwritten signature. I hereby agree that my electronic signature represents my execution or authentication of this form, and my intent to be bound by it.

This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which, together, shall constitute one and the same Agreement. In order to expedite the transaction contemplated herein, to the extent allowable under applicable Law, telecopied signatures or signatures transmitted by electronic mail in so-called “pdf” format may be used in place of original signature on this Agreement. Purchaser and Caltrans intend to be bound by the signatures on the telecopied or e-mailed document, are aware that the other party will rely on the telecopied or e-mailed signatures which shall be of the same force and effect as hand-written signatures, and hereby waive any defense to the enforcement of the terms of this Agreement based on such telecopied or e-mailed signatures.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first written above.

CALTRANS:

Recommended for Approval by:

STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
By: Drew White
Right of Way Agent
By:

Purchaser
Signature:

Signature:

Alex McIntyre
City Manager, City of San Bruno
By: Signature:

Purchaser
APPROVED:

By: Jaspreet Singh
Chief, Excess Land Branch, Right of Way
Signature:

By: Signature:
(Optional)
Dated
Dated
Dated
Dated
Dated

141 of 263

142 of 263

143 of 263
ATTACHMENT 2

San Bruno Fire Department APN: 019-043-490
San Bruno Avenue, Between Skyline Boulevard
and Glenview Drive
San Bruno, California

2825 Watt Avenue Suite 200, Sacramento, California 95821 | www.benderrosenthal.com | 916.978.4900

February 20, 2026
Ari Delay
Fire Chief
San Bruno Fire Department
555 El Camino Real
San Bruno, CA 94066

RE: Appraisal Report
San Bruno Fire Department APN: 019-043-490
San Bruno Avenue, Between Skyline Boulevard and Glenview Drive, San Bruno, California 94066 APN: 019-043-490
Bender Rosenthal, Inc. File No: 25334A
Mr. Delay:

Bender Rosenthal, Inc. is proud to present the appraisal that satisfies the agreed upon scope of work with the City of San Bruno.

The subject property is an unimproved parcel bound by Skyline Road, San Bruno Avenue, and Glenview Drive, in the City of San Bruno.

As you have requested in your engagement letter, we have appraised the above identified property. The purpose of the appraisal assignment is to provide two value conclusions. One of which is to determine the as-is market value (fee simple estate) of the entire 7.00 acre site, and the other is to provide a hypothetical value (fee simple estate) of the southernmost 1.3-acre portion of the site to assist Caltrans in the negotiations with the prospective buyer for the purchase of the excess land disposal unit. Our client is the City of San Bruno and the intended users are the City of San Bruno and Caltrans.

The following table conveys the final opinions of value that are developed in this appraisal:

This is an appraisal report as defined by USPAP. As such, it presents sufficient data, reasoning, and analyses that were used in the appraisal process to develop the appraiser’s opinion of value. The depth of discussion contained in this report is specific to the needs of the client and of the intended use stated in this report. The following report sets forth the descriptive and factual data, the assumptions and conditions affecting the appraisal, and the findings and analyses that lead to and support our value opinion.

144 of 263

145 of 263

146 of 263

San Bruno Fire Department APN: 019-043-490
San Bruno Avenue, Between Skyline Boulevard
and Glenview Drive
San Bruno, California

25334A II

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL .................................................................................................................................................... I EXCESS LAND APPRAISAL TITLE PAGE .................................................................................................................................. I TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................................................................................................... II SENIOR FIELD REVIEW CERTIFICATE-EXCESS LANDS .......................................................................................................... V CERTIFICATE OF APPRASIER-EXCESS LANDS ..................................................................................................................... VI Appraiser’s Certification VII
EXCESS LAND MARKET VALUE SHEET ................................................................................................................................IX EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................................ 1 Aerial Photograph 2
Subject Property Photographs 3
IDENTIFICATION OF ASSIGNMENT ...................................................................................................................................... 5 Property Identification 5
Client Identification 5
Intended Use & Intended Users 5
Purpose 5
Personal Property & Business Intangible 5
Property and Sales History 5
Exposure Time 5
Definition of Market Value 6
Property Rights Appraised 6
Value Scenarios 7
Scope of Work 7
Assistance Provided 7
Sources of Information 8
Subject Property Inspection 8
Assumptions & Limiting Conditions 8
REGIONAL AREA MAP ....................................................................................................................................................... 11 REGIONAL AREA ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................................... 12 Introduction 12
Access and Transportation 12
Population 13
Economic Profile 15
Employment by Industry 16
Housing Demographics 16

147 of 263

San Bruno Fire Department APN: 019-043-490
San Bruno Avenue, Between Skyline Boulevard
and Glenview Drive
San Bruno, California
25334A III
Governmental Forces 17
Environmental Forces 18
Conclusion 18
LOCAL AREA MAP ............................................................................................................................................................. 19 LOCAL AREA ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................................................................... 20 Introduction 20
Demographics 20
Access/Public Transportation 21
Land Use 21
Local Area Summary 22
SITE DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................................................................. 23 Assessor’s Parcel Map 27
PLANNING DESIGNATIONS ............................................................................................................................................... 28 Zoning 28
General Plan 28
MARKET ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................................................ 29 Retail Market Analysis 29
Retail Market Conclusion 31
MARKET ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................................................ 32 Highest and Best Use of the Site, as if Unimproved 33
VALUATION METHODS ...................................................................................................................................................... 34 Valuation Methods and Considerations 34
Cost Approach 34
Sales Comparison Approach 34
Income Capitalization Approach 35
SITE VALUATION 1 ............................................................................................................................................................. 36 36 36
40 40
42 43
45 45
47 Introduction
Comparable Selection
Land Sale Exhibits
Comparable Land Sale Discussion – As Is
Land Value Conclusion - As Is - Buildable Portion
Un-Buildable Land Valuation
Un-Buildable Land Sale Exhibits
Comparable Land Sale Discussion – As Is – Undevelopable Portion Land Value Conclusion – Undevelopable Portion
Land Value Conclusion - As Is
47 148 of 263

San Bruno Fire Department APN: 019-043-490
San Bruno Avenue, Between Skyline Boulevard
and Glenview Drive
San Bruno, California

25334A IV
SITE VALUATION 2 ............................................................................................................................................................. 48 Introduction 48
Comparable Selection 48
Land Sale Exhibits 51
Comparable Land Sale Discussion 51
Land Value Conclusion – Hypothetical Value 53
Conclusion of the As-Is Market Value 54
Conclusion of the Hypothetical Value 54
APPENDIX ......................................................................................................................................................................... 55 Definitions
Qualifications of Appraisers

149 of 263

San Bruno Fire Department APN: 019-043-490
San Bruno Avenue, Between Skyline Boulevard
and Glenview Drive
San Bruno, California

25334A V

SENIOR FIELD REVIEW CERTIFICATE-EXCESS LANDS

150 of 263

151 of 263

152 of 263

153 of 263

San Bruno Fire Department APN: 019-043-490
San Bruno Avenue, Between Skyline Boulevard
and Glenview Drive
San Bruno, California

BENDER ROSENTHAL, INC. 25334A IX

EXCESS LAND MARKET VALUE SHEET

154 of 263

San Bruno Fire Department APN: 019-043-490
San Bruno Avenue, Between Skyline Boulevard
and Glenview Drive
San Bruno, California

BENDER ROSENTHAL, INC. 25334A 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

155 of 263

San Bruno Fire Department APN: 019-043-490
San Bruno Avenue, Between Skyline Boulevard
and Glenview Drive
San Bruno, California

BENDER ROSENTHAL, INC. 25334A 2

AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH

156 of 263

San Bruno Fire Department APN: 019-043-490
San Bruno Avenue, Between Skyline Boulevard
and Glenview Drive
San Bruno, California

BENDER ROSENTHAL, INC. 25334A 3

SUBJECT PROPERTY PHOTOGRAPHS

View of the subject, facing west from Glenview Drive.

Facing southwest from Glenview Drive.

Gated access point along Glenview Drive.

Facing east toward Glenview Drive.

Southern usable portion of the property.

View from Skyline Boulevard.

157 of 263

San Bruno Fire Department APN: 019-043-490
San Bruno Avenue, Between Skyline Boulevard
and Glenview Drive
San Bruno, California

BENDER ROSENTHAL, INC. 25334A 4

SUBJECT PROPERTY PHOTOGRAPHS

Street scene, facing north along Glenview Drive.

Street scene, facing south along Glenview Drive.

Street scene, facing west along San Bruno Avenue W.

Street scene, facing east along San Bruno Ave W.

Street scene, facing northwest along Skyline Boulevard.

Street scene, facing southeast along Skyline Boulevard.

158 of 263

San Bruno Fire Department APN: 019-043-490
San Bruno Avenue, Between Skyline Boulevard
and Glenview Drive
San Bruno, California

BENDER ROSENTHAL, INC. 25334A 5

IDENTIFICATION OF ASSIGNMENT

PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION
The subject property is an unimproved parcel bound to the southwest by Skyline Boulevard, to the southeast by San Bruno Avenue W, and to the east by Glenview Drive, in the City of San Bruno. The Assessor’s parcel number is 019-043- 490.

CLIENT IDENTIFICATION
The client of this specific assignment is the City of San Bruno.

INTENDED USE & INTENDED USERS
The intended use is to assist Caltrans in the negotiations with the prospective buyer for the purchase of the excess land disposal unit. The intended users are the City of San Bruno and Caltrans.

PURPOSE
The purpose of this appraisal is to develop an opinion of the As-Is Market Value (Fee Simple Estate) and the Hypothetical Value (Fee Simple Estate) of the southernmost 1.3-acre portion of the site.

PERSONAL PROPERTY & BUSINESS INTANGIBLE
There is no personal property (FF&E) included in this valuation.

PROPERTY AND SALES HISTORY

CURRENT OWNER
The subject property is currently owned by the State of California, per the most recent Grant Deed (doc# 1986.19537, dated February 14, 1986.

FIVE-YEAR SALE HISTORY
We are not aware of any sale transactions, transfers, listings, pending or recent contracts for sale that have occurred within the last five years. This is based on our interview with the client, and a search utilizing Loopnet, CoStar, public records, MLS and various other sources. Given that the noted previous transaction occurred more than three years ago, we have not reconciled this past indication of market value with our current indication of market value reported herein.

EXPOSURE TIME
Exposure time is influenced by price. That is, a prudent buyer could be enticed to acquire the property in less time if the price were less. Hence, the time span cited below coincides with the value opinions formed herein.

159 of 263

San Bruno Fire Department APN: 019-043-490
San Bruno Avenue, Between Skyline Boulevard
and Glenview Drive
San Bruno, California

BENDER ROSENTHAL, INC. 25334A 6
USPAP Standard rule 1 -2(c)(iv) requires an opinion of exposure time, not marketing time, when the purpose of the appraisal is to estimate market value. The following information from the most recent PwC Real Estate Investor Survey and the comparable sales utilized in the Sales Comparison Approach are used to estimate exposure time for the subject.

The comparable sales presented in this report provide somewhat limited indications of marketing time.

EXPOSURE TIME CONCLUSION
The subject is a commercial parcel that has a gross size of 7.00-acres (305,006 SF) and a net usable area of 5.76 acres (250,906 square feet) in San Bruno, San Mateo County, California. The two valuation scenarios presented in this report consist of the As-Is Market Value and the Hypothetical Value of the southernmost 1.30 acres of the property as if it were a separate, saleable parcel that measures 1.3 acres, or 56,628 square feet. Considering these factors, a reasonable estimate of exposure time for the subject is six to nine months.

DEFINITION OF MARKET VALUE
Per the Caltrans Manual the measure of “just compensation” is “market value.”: 1263.320.

(a) The fair market value of the property taken is the highest price on the date of valuation that would be agreed to by a seller, being willing to sell but under no particular or urgent necessity for so doing, nor obliged to sell, and a buyer, being ready, willing, and able to buy but under no particular necessity for so doing, each dealing with the other with full knowledge of all the uses and purposes for which the property is reasonably adaptable and available. (b) The fair market value of property taken for which there is no relevant, comparable market is its value on the date of valuation as determined by any method of valuation that is just and equitable. (Amended by Stats. 1992, Ch. 7, Sec. 2. Effective January 1, 1993.)

PROPERTY RIGHTS APPRAISED
The property rights appraised constitute the fee simple estate interest.

160 of 263

San Bruno Fire Department APN: 019-043-490
San Bruno Avenue, Between Skyline Boulevard
and Glenview Drive
San Bruno, California

BENDER ROSENTHAL, INC. 25334A 7

FEE SIMPLE INTEREST
Absolute ownership unencumbered by any other interest or estate, subject only to the limitations imposed by the governmental powers of taxation, eminent domain, police power and escheat.2

VALUE SCENARIOS

AS-IS MARKET VALUE
The estimate of the market value of real property in its current physical condition, use, and zoning as of the appraisal date.3

SCOPE OF WORK
The scope of work for this appraisal assignment is outlined below:
 The appraisal analyzes the regional and local area profiles including employment, population, household income and real estate trends. The local area was inspected to consider external influences on the subject.  The appraisal analyzes legal and physical features of the subject including site size, improvement size, flood zone, seismic zone, site zoning, encumbrances, site access and site exposure.  The appraisal includes a retail market analysis for t he San Mateo County market and San Bruno/Millbrae submarket using vacancy, absorption, supply and rent data. Conclusions were drawn for the subject’s competitive position given its physical and locational features, current market conditions and external influences.  The appraisal includes a Highest and Best Use analysis and conclusions have been completed for the highest and best use of the subject property As Vacant . The analysis considered legal, locational, physical and financial feasibility characteristics of the subject site.
 In selecting applicable approaches to value, the appraiser s considered the agreed upon appraisal scope and assessed the applicability of each traditional approach given the subject’s characteristics and the intended use of the appraisal. As a result, this appraisal developed Land Sales Comparison Approach . The values presented represent the As-Is Market Value (Fee Simple Estate) and the Hypothetical Value (Fee Simple Estate) of the southernmost 1.3 acres.
 The assignment was prepared as an Appraisal Report in accordance with USPAP Standards Rules 2, with the analysis stated within the document and representing a fully described level of analysis.  The authors of this report are aware of the Competency Rule of USPAP and meet the standards.

ASSISTANCE PROVIDED
Nicholas Maniscalco provided significant assistance in the preparation of this report, including researching the subject property, regional and local areas, market characteristics, development of the highest and best use, verification of comparable sale data, and valuation under the direct supervision of the signing appraisers.

2 The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, Seventh Edition, Appraisal Institute, Chicago, Illinois, 2022 3 The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, Seventh Edition, Appraisal Institute, Chicago, Illinois, 2022

161 of 263

San Bruno Fire Department APN: 019-043-490
San Bruno Avenue, Between Skyline Boulevard
and Glenview Drive
San Bruno, California

BENDER ROSENTHAL, INC. 25334A 8

SOURCES OF INFORMATION
The following sources were utilized to obtain relevant information:

The lack of unavailable items could affect the results of this analysis. As part of the general assumptions and limiting conditions, the subject is assumed to have no adverse easements or be impacted by adverse environmental conditions.

SUBJECT PROPERTY INSPECTION

ASSUMPTIONS & LIMITING CONDITIONS.

This appraisal report and the value estimates it contains are expressly subject to the following assumptions and/or limiting conditions.

1. Title to the property is marketable.

2. No survey of the property has been made by the appraisers and property lines as they appear on the ground are assumed to be correct.

3. Data, maps, and descriptive data furnished by the client or his/her representatives are accurate and correct.

4. No responsibility is assumed for matters of law or legal interpretation.

5. No conditions exist that would affect the use and value of the property, which are not discoverable through normal, diligent investigation.

6. The valuation is based on information from sources believed reliable, and that such information is correct and accurately reported.

7. The value estimate is made subject to the purpose, date, and definition of value.

8. The report is to be considered in its entirety and use of only a portion will invalidate the appraisal.

162 of 263

San Bruno Fire Department APN: 019-043-490
San Bruno Avenue, Between Skyline Boulevard
and Glenview Drive
San Bruno, California

BENDER ROSENTHAL, INC. 25334A 9

9. This appraisal was made on the premise that there are no encumbrances prohibiting utilization of the property under the appraiser's estimate of highest and best use.

10. Possession of this report or a copy does not carry with it the right of publication nor may it be used for any purpose by anyone other than the client without the previous written consent of Bender Rosenthal, Inc., and then only with proper qualifications.

11. Disclosure of the contents of this appraisal report is governed by the By-Laws and Regulations of the Appraisal Institute. No part of this narrative report may be reproduced by any means nor disseminated to the public in any way without the prior written consent of Bender Rosenthal, Inc.

12. Any person or entity who obtains or reads this report, or a copy, other than the client specified in this report, expressly assumes all risk of damages to themselves or third persons arising out of reliance on this report and waives the right to bring any action based on the appraisal, and neither the appraisers nor the appraisal firm shall have any liability to any such person or entity.

13. The appraiser shall not be required to give testimony or appear in court by reason of this appraisal with reference to the property described in this report unless prior arrangements have been made.

14. No responsibility is assumed for building permits, zone changes, engineering or any other services or duty connected with legally utilizing the subject property.

15. The property appraised may or may not be subject to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). Title III of this act provides for penalties for discrimination in failing "to remove architectural barriers in existing facilities [unless] an entity can demonstrate that the removal is not readily achievable." Unless otherwise noted in this appraisal, it is assumed that the property appraised is not substantially impacted by this law.

16. Unless otherwise stated in this report, the existence of hazardous material, which may or may not be present on the property, was not observed by the appraisers. The appraisers have no knowledge of the existence of such materials on or in the property. The appraisers, however, are not qualified to detect such substances. The presence of such substances as asbestos, urea- formaldehyde foam insulation, or other potentially hazardous materials may affect the value of the property. The value estimate is predicated on the assumption that there is no such material on or in the property that would cause a loss in value. No responsibility is assumed for any such conditions, or for any expertise or engineering knowledge required to discover them. The client is urged to retain an expert in this field, if desired.

17. It is assumed that the property appraised is competently managed and marketed.

EXTRAORDINARY ASSUMPTIONS
The use of the following extraordinary assumption may have impacted the results of the assignment.

1. A preliminary title report was not available for review. During the property inspection, no adverse easements or encumbrances were noted. This appraisal assumes that no adverse easements are present. If questions arise, further research is advised.

163 of 263

San Bruno Fire Department APN: 019-043-490
San Bruno Avenue, Between Skyline Boulevard
and Glenview Drive
San Bruno, California

BENDER ROSENTHAL, INC. 25334A 10

HYPOTHETICAL CONDITIONS
The use of the following hypothetical condition may have impacted the results of the assignment.

1. We were requested by our client to provide two separate opinions of value. The first value (“As -Is”) will encompass the usable areas of the subject site, totaling 7.00 acres (305,006 square feet). The second value (“As-If”) will encompass the southernmost usable portion of the site, totaling 1.30 acres (56,628 square feet).

As the subject property is currently comprised of a single parcel, the second valuation analysis presented in this report is performed under the Hypothetical Condition that the southernmost usable portion of the subject site, measuring 1.30 acres, is a separate, saleable parcel.

164 of 263

San Bruno Fire Department APN: 019-043-490
San Bruno Avenue, Between Skyline Boulevard
and Glenview Drive
San Bruno, California

BENDER ROSENTHAL, INC. 25334A 11

REGIONAL AREA MAP

165 of 263

San Bruno Fire Department APN: 019-043-490
San Bruno Avenue, Between Skyline Boulevard
and Glenview Drive
San Bruno, California

BENDER ROSENTHAL, INC. 25334A 12

REGIONAL AREA ANALYSIS

INTRODUCTION
The subject property is located within San Mateo County, which encompasses 741 square miles of the San Francisco peninsula, just south of the City and County of San Francisco. San Mateo County is included in the San Francisco - Redwood City-South San Francisco Metropolitan Division and is part of the San Francisco Bay Area, the nine counties bordering San Francisco Bay. The county straddles the San Francisco Peninsula with the Santa Cruz mountains running its entire length. The San Francisco International Airport is located at the northern end of the county and Silicon Valley begins at the southern end. The northern and northeast parts of the county, generally fronting San Francisco Bay, are densely populated with largely urban and suburban areas. The deep sou th and west central parts of the county are less densely populated with a more rural environment and coastal beach areas. The county seat is Redwood City.

ACCESS AND TRANSPORTATION

AUTOMOBILE
The major freeways running through San Mateo County are Interstate 280 (Junipero Serra Freeway), U.S. Highway 101 (Bayshore Freeway), and State Route (SR) 92. Interstate 280 and U.S. Highway 101 are roughly parallel freeways extending north-south through the Peninsula. Highway 101 in particular links the downtown districts and employment centers of the Peninsula Bay Shore communities, while I-280 runs along the more sparsely populated hilly spine of the county. Both freeways lead southward to San Jose, California, with Highway 101 continuing southward to Los Angeles, California. Additionally, I-280 and Highway 101 are linked by a short connector freeway, Interstate 380, in San Bruno, California, easing freeway traffic flow leading into San Francisco. State Route 92 is an east-west highway beginning in Half Moon Bay, California, extending across the bay to Hayward, California. Beginning at the junction with I-280, SR-92 transitions from a two-lane highway to a freeway through the cities of San Mateo and Foster City, across the San Mateo (Toll) Bridge and past the junction with Interstate 880 in Hayward. Dumbarton (Toll) Bridge (State Route 84) connects Redwood City and South San Mateo County to Newark and Fremont in South Alameda County across the lower reaches of San Francisco Bay.

RAIL AND TRANSIT
Caltrain is a commuter rail line serving the San Francisco Peninsula and Santa Clara Valley (Silicon Valley). The southern terminus is in San Jose at Tamien station , with weekday rush hour service running as far as Gilroy. The northern terminus of the line is in San Francisco at 4th and King Streets, with 28 regular stops between San Francisco and San Jose. In February 2022, Caltrain had an average weekday ridership o f 11,000 passengers. Connections with the California High Speed Rail are anticipated in the next decade, with stops along the Caltrain corridor at San Francisco’s 4th and King Streets station (to relocate later to the Transbay Transit Center), Millbrae (with connections to nearby San Francisco International Airport), and the San Jose Diridon station.

Beginning at the Millbrae Station, the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) also serves northern San Mateo County, providing access to surrounding Alameda, San Francisco, and Contra Costa Counties. Proximity to BART is considered a major advantage, as commuters can avoid the congestion prevalent along local highways. In addition to Caltrain and BART,

166 of 263

San Bruno Fire Department APN: 019-043-490
San Bruno Avenue, Between Skyline Boulevard
and Glenview Drive
San Bruno, California

BENDER ROSENTHAL, INC. 25334A 13
the San Mateo County Transportation District provides a bus service SamTrans throughout the county and into parts of San Francisco and Palo Alto.

AIRPORTS
San Francisco International Airport (SFO), owned and operated by the City and County of San Francisco, is located in unincorporated San Mateo County adjacent to the cities of Burlingame, Millbrae, and San Bruno. The airport has direct access from the Bayshore Freeway (Highway 101) and is also served by BART. It is the largest airport in the San Francisco Bay Area and the second busiest in California, after Los Angeles International Airport (LAX), with flights to points throughout North America and is a majo r gateway to Europe, the Middle East, Asia, and Australia. In June 2022, SFO served 4,101,200 passengers, an 82.6% increase over the same month in 2021.

Other airports in the County are located in San Carlos and Half Moon Bay, both primarily serving the general aviation needs to the public. However, San Carlos Airport is also designated by the Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) as a reliever airport for San Francisco International Airport, just under 11 miles north on the Bayshore Freeway (Highway 101).

The southern portions of San Mateo County are also served by the Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International Airport (SJC) in Santa Clara County, approximately 20 miles south of Redwood City via the Bayshore Freeway (Highway 101).

San Jose is the largest city in the Bay Area by both population and area, but SJC is the second busiest of the three Bay Area airports by passenger count after SFO. SJC served 15.7 million passengers in 2019, surpassing its previous record of 14.3 million passengers set in 2018. Although still recovering from travel restrictions imposed during the COVID-19 pandemic, passenger traffic in June 2022 surged 132% over the same month in 2021.

POPULATION
According to the California Department of Finance, as of the beginning of 202 5, San Mateo County had an estimated total population of 748,337, a 1.4% decrease from 2024. Population losses occurred in most cities in the county. The most pronounced year -over-year decreases were in Pacifica, Portola Valley, San Bruno, Woodside, and the unincorporated county. The neighboring City/County of San Francisco has experienced a slightly higher rate of recent population decrease. Within San Mateo County, the cities of Belmont, Burlingame, Colma, Menlo Park, Redwood City, and San Mateo experienced increases in population over this period.

167 of 263

San Bruno Fire Department APN: 019-043-490
San Bruno Avenue, Between Skyline Boulevard
and Glenview Drive
San Bruno, California

BENDER ROSENTHAL, INC. 25334A 14
Source: California Department of Finance
The following table illustrates the population projections for San Mateo County and the State of California, per the California Department of Finance.

Source: California Department of Finance
The population of San Mateo County is projected to increase 4.3% from 2025 to 2070. Conversely, the neighboring City/County of San Francisco is projected to experience a population decrease of 0.2%, and the State of California is projected to experience a population decrease of 6.0% over the same period.

% Change % Change
Area 2015-2025 2024-2025
San Mateo County 758,673 765,207 765,726 757,341 744,660 749,670 747,777 748,337 -1.4% 0.1% Atherton 7,057 7,113 7,162 7,111 6,972 7,010 7,030 7,007 -0.7% -0.3% Belmont 27,606 27,924 28,153 27,850 27,244 27,329 27,146 28,206 2.2% 3.9% Brisbane 4,688 4,815 4,855 4,798 4,694 4,722 4,700 4,676 -0.3% -0.5% Burlingame 30,821 31,191 31,325 30,838 30,189 30,588 30,768 31,552 2.4% 2.5% Colma 1,379 1,334 1,293 1,463 1,431 1,434 1,421 1,411 2.3% -0.7% Daly City 105,925 106,085 105,730 104,413 102,559 103,119 102,315 102,155 -3.6% -0.2% East Palo Alto 29,913 30,354 30,280 29,691 29,001 29,129 29,325 29,133 -2.6% -0.7% Foster City 32,909 33,163 33,785 33,426 32,901 33,115 32,856 32,658 -0.8% -0.6% Half Moon Bay 11,724 11,918 11,829 11,600 11,357 11,395 11,333 11,303 -3.6% -0.3% Hillsborough 11,310 11,336 11,355 11,280 11,101 11,203 11,211 11,254 -0.5% 0.4% Menlo Park 32,946 34,525 34,437 33,786 33,058 33,136 33,416 33,311 1.1% -0.3% Millbrae 23,268 23,368 23,400 23,023 22,554 22,821 23,288 23,164 -0.4% -0.5% Pacifica 39,006 38,953 38,871 38,202 37,351 37,610 37,370 37,217 -4.6% -0.4% Portola Valley 4,500 4,496 4,457 4,383 4,284 4,308 4,286 4,285 -4.8% 0.0% Redwood City 81,673 82,872 83,103 82,039 81,987 82,623 82,546 82,073 0.5% -0.6% San Bruno 44,577 44,568 44,212 43,464 42,621 42,801 42,507 42,631 -4.4% 0.3% San Carlos 29,914 30,049 30,176 30,418 29,814 29,876 29,669 29,535 -1.3% -0.5% San Mateo 103,336 105,076 105,875 105,727 103,986 104,795 104,221 104,315 0.9% 0.1% South San Francisco 66,202 66,164 65,730 65,535 64,437 65,147 65,146 65,397 -1.2% 0.4% Woodside 5,448 5,426 5,337 5,262 5,164 5,206 5,176 5,206 -4.4% 0.6% Balance Of County 64,471 64,477 64,361 63,032 61,955 62,303 62,047 61,848 -4.1% -0.3% Incorporated 694,202 700,730 701,365 694,309 682,705 687,367 685,730 686,489 -1.1% 0.1% City/County of San Francisco 855,489 867,378 872,219 857,605 840,348 848,036 845,355 842,027 -1.6% -0.4% State of California 38,810,306 39,273,915 39,503,656 39,369,530 39,179,680 39,228,444 39,420,663 39,529,101 1.9% 0.3%

POPULATION ESTIMATES
1/1/2015 1/1/2017 1/1/2019 1/1/2021 1/1/2022 1/1/2023 1/1/2024 1/1/2025 2025 % Change
Area Estimate 2025-2070
State of California 39,529,101 39,771,423 40,968,090 41,726,601 41,720,611 41,237,997 4.3% City/County of San Francisco 842,027 850,351 855,376 854,788 853,129 840,234 -0.2% San Mateo County 758,673 744,861 756,704 754,928 739,767 713,061 -6.0%

POPULATION PROJECTIONS
2030 2040 2050 2060 2070

168 of 263

San Bruno Fire Department APN: 019-043-490
San Bruno Avenue, Between Skyline Boulevard
and Glenview Drive
San Bruno, California

BENDER ROSENTHAL, INC. 25334A 15

ECONOMIC PROFILE

EMPLOYMENT
Per the California Employment Development Department (EDD), the unemployment rate in the San Francisco -San Mateo-Redwood City MD was 4.3 percent in July 2025, up from a revised 4.2 percent in June 2025, and above the year- ago estimate of 4.2 percent. This compares with an unadjusted unemployment rate of 6.1 percent for California and

4.6 percent for the nation during the same period. The unemployment rate was 4.4 percent in San Francisco County, and 4.3 percent in San Mateo County.

Source: California EDD
Between June 2025 and July 2025, the total number of jobs in the San Francisco-San Mateo-Redwood City MD, which includes the counties of San Francisco and San Mateo, increased by 300 jobs to total 1,144,600 jobs. Government (down 4,700 jobs) accounted for 98 percent of the region’s total month -over reductions amid the summer recess.

Specifically, local government educational services cut 3,600 jobs and state government educational services cut 1,500 jobs. In contrast, private education and health services ( up 1,800 jobs) led month -over gains. Health care and social assistance introduced 2,100 jobs, whereas private educational services curtailed 300 jobs. Financial activities picked up 1,100 jobs. Real Estate and rental and leasing (up 600 jobs) made up over half of the recovery, while finance and insurance rose by 500 jobs. Professional and business services (up 1,000 jobs) registered payroll advances across the board. Professional, scientific, and technical services saw the most growth (up 600), followed by administrative and support and waste management and remediation services (up 300) and management of companies and enterprises (up 100).

Between July 2024 and July 2025, the total number of jobs in the counties of San Francisco and San Mateo decreased by 1,800 jobs, or 0.2 percent. Private education and health services (up 5,000 jobs) dominated year-over employment growth. Health care and social assistance (up 4,300) continues to be the primary driver of these gains. Other services recorded a net increase of 2,100 jobs since last July, led by personal and laundry services (up 1,400 jobs). In contrast, information (down 3,800 jobs) reported the largest year-over decline. Professional and business services experienced a net decrease of 3,300 jobs. Setbacks from professional, scientific, and technical services (down 7,100 jobs) and management of companies and enterprises (down 100) were offset by gains in administrative and support and waste management and remediation services (up 3,900). Other notable year -over job shifts included: financial activities

169 of 263

170 of 263

San Bruno Fire Department APN: 019-043-490
San Bruno Avenue, Between Skyline Boulevard
and Glenview Drive
San Bruno, California

BENDER ROSENTHAL, INC. 25334A 17

Source: California Association of Realtors
As seen in the above chart, toward the earlier half of the last decade, San Mateo County and San Francisco were relatively similar with regard to median house prices. However, since the COVID-19 pandemic, San Mateo County has consistently seen higher prices than San Francisco. A decline in prices was observed in both counties between 2021 and 2023, largely corresponding to an increase in remote work, which allowed many people to keep their jobs while moving to areas with a lower cost of living, as well as t he 2022 interest rate increases. This price decline was more pronounced in San Francisco, which further increased the difference between the two counties. Price growth was observed between 2023 and 2024, although the growth has moderated in San Francisco and remained stagnant in San Mateo County over the last year.

GOVERNMENTAL FORCES
Incorporated cities control land use policy through the use of zoning laws and general plans. Additionally, support services are provided such as schools, police and fire protection, and construction and maintenance of local roadways.

Unincorporated areas within the region are subject to the land use policies established by the local county. County governments also provide some public services including local public transportation.

The main influences on real estate in the San Francisco Bay Area arising from government forces include property taxes and rent control. All real property within the state are subject to real estate taxes, but due to Proposition 13, current and future taxes are straightforward to estimate, eliminating some uncertainty in future operating costs for properties in California.

Within the region, San Francisco and East Palo Alto have implemented rent control policies beyond the state regulations. Differences exist among different jurisdictions, but generally a vacant residential unit can be leased at prevailing market rents. Once leased however, rent increases are regulated and depending on market movements and the length of tenancy of the residents, wide disparities between contract rents and market rents often develop. This

171 of 263

San Bruno Fire Department APN: 019-043-490
San Bruno Avenue, Between Skyline Boulevard
and Glenview Drive
San Bruno, California

BENDER ROSENTHAL, INC. 25334A 18
leads to a great deal of uncertainty when projecting future cash flows of apartment properties that are rent controlled and capitalization rates tend to vary greatly.

ENVIRONMENTAL FORCES
The most powerful geographic influence of the region is the presence of numerous fault zones lacing the area. In 1989, the Loma Prieta earthquake, centered in Santa Cruz County, caused heavy damage throughout the San Francisco Bay Area. This earthquake was the most serious one to affect the San Francisco Bay Area since 1906. Despite the physical damage to buildings and infrastructure caused by the earthquake, the economy of the region suffered no significant long-term consequences. It is assumed that all market participants are aware of the risk posed to properties within this general region. Seismic hazard maps are available online that are published by the California Geological Survey.

CONCLUSION
San Mateo County is characterized by its large proportion of employment in the Professional and Business Sector, largely influenced by the significant presence of technology companies in the County and within the surrounding counties within the larger Bay Area. Like the rest of the Bay Area, San Mateo County has long had high housing costs .

Remote work during the COVID-19 pandemic allowed many of the region’s workers to move to areas with a lower cost of living , which resulted in price reductions in the reg ion, although in recent years, San Mateo County has held consistently higher housing prices than the neighboring San Francisco. A recent increase in unemployment brings some cause for concern, although the long-term impact is yet to be determined.

172 of 263

San Bruno Fire Department APN: 019-043-490
San Bruno Avenue, Between Skyline Boulevard
and Glenview Drive
San Bruno, California

BENDER ROSENTHAL, INC. 25334A 19

LOCAL AREA MAP

173 of 263

San Bruno Fire Department APN: 019-043-490
San Bruno Avenue, Between Skyline Boulevard
and Glenview Drive
San Bruno, California

BENDER ROSENTHAL, INC. 25334A 20

LOCAL AREA ANALYSIS

INTRODUCTION
The subject property is located in the City of San Bruno. Additional description of the surrounding neighborhood and those factors impacting the subject are presented in the following paragraphs.

DEMOGRAPHICS
The following information reflects the demographics for the subject’s area.

POPULATION
The estimate provided by ESRI for the current 2025 population within the subject neighborhood’s 3 mile radius is 134,816 representing a 2.14% change since 2020. ESRI’s 202 5 population estimate for the subject’s 5 mile radius is 245,803, which represents a 2.26% change since 2020.

Looking forward, ESRI estimates that the population within the subject neighborhood’s 3 mile radius is forecasted to decrease to 134,141 by the year 2030. As for the broader area, ESRI forecasts that the population within the subject’s 5 mile radius will decrease to 247,262 over the next five years. The population estimates for the next five years within

174 of 263

San Bruno Fire Department APN: 019-043-490
San Bruno Avenue, Between Skyline Boulevard
and Glenview Drive
San Bruno, California

BENDER ROSENTHAL, INC. 25334A 21
the subject’s 5 mile radius represents a 0.59% decline as well as a (1.25%) decline within the subject’s 1 mile radius for the same period.

HOUSEHOLDS
The estimates provided by ESRI indicate that the number of households within the subject neighborhood’s 3 mile radius is 45,646, which is a 0.25% change since 2020. Within the subject’s broader 5 mile radius, ESRI estimates that the number of households is 82,823, a 0.55% change over the same period of time.

By the year 2030, the estimates provided by ESRI indicate that the number of households within the subject neighborhood’s 3 mile radius will change by (1.31%) to 45,048 households. Additionally, ESRI’s estimate for total households over the next five years within the subject’s broader 5 mile radius indicates an expected change of 0.24% which will result in a total household estimate of 83,025.

Looking back, the number of households in the subject neighborhood’s 3 mile radius changed 4.47% during the ten- year period of 2010 to 2020. Since then it has changed by 0.25%.

INCOME
Income estimates provided by ESRI for the subject neighborhood’s 3 mile radius indicates that the median household income is $149,424 and that the average household income is $188,274. Further, the estimates provided by ESRI indicate that, for the subject’s broader 5 mile radius the median household income is $148,186, and the average household income is $193,247. Given that there are reportedly 82,823 households in the subject’s 5 mile radius, it is estimated that the local effective income is around $16,005,296,281.

ACCESS/PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
The subject’s immediate neighborhood is served by a variety of streets. Skyline Boulevard is part of State Route 35, which runs between San Francisco to the north and State Route 17 to the south. San Bruno Avenue spans the city in a generally east-west fashion. Nearby Interstate 280 spans between San Francisco to the north and San Jose to the south.

Bus service in the area is operated by SamTrans. Both BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) and Caltrain serve San Bruno.

Additionally, the San Francisco International Airport is located just to the east of San Bruno. Overall, the local area is well-served by a variety of transportation options.

LAND USE
Land use in the area surrounding the subject is predominantly characterized by residences, open space, and supportive commercial properties. Residences in the immediate surrounding area are detached single -family homes, although condominiums and apartments are located slightly further out. Crestmoor Canyon is a 76.6 -acre open space area in the neighborhood, owned by the City of San Bruno. A large open space area located just west of the city boundary is home to trails and San Andreas Lake. Commercial uses in the immediate area include a storage facility, gas station with a convenience store, and a grocery store. Further to the east, past Interstate 280, is a larger collection of commercial properties, including corporate offices for YouTube, Google, Walmart, and Verily.

175 of 263

San Bruno Fire Department APN: 019-043-490
San Bruno Avenue, Between Skyline Boulevard
and Glenview Drive
San Bruno, California

BENDER ROSENTHAL, INC. 25334A 22

LOCAL AREA SUMMARY
The subject property is located in an area largely defined by residential uses with open space and supporting commercial properties, with nearby corporate offices of large companies. Home values and incomes in the area are lower than in San Mateo County as a whole, although both are still high relative to a state and national perspective.

Overall, the local area’s characteristics are generally supportive of a variety of commercial uses.

176 of 263

San Bruno Fire Department APN: 019-043-490
San Bruno Avenue, Between Skyline Boulevard
and Glenview Drive
San Bruno, California

BENDER ROSENTHAL, INC. 25334A 23

SITE DESCRIPTION
The subject property consists of one parcel with a total site area of 7.00 acres (305,096 square feet), which is based on information obtained from the San Mateo County Assessor . There are multiple level areas of the subject with some sloping areas between the level areas. Based on appraiser measurements from an aerial, the total area of the sloping topography is 1.24 acres (54,100 square feet) and is considered unbuildable. The th ree level and buildable areas measure approximately 1.27 acres, 3.19 acres an d 1.30 acres for a total of 5.76 acres (250,906 square feet). For the purposes of this report, we have relied on this site area and reserve the right to amend our analysis upon receipt of a formal legal plan. The following summarizes the salient characteristics of the subject site.

Location The subject property is bound to the southwest by Skyline Boulevard, to the southeast by San Bruno Avenue W, and to the east by Glenview Drive in San Bruno, California.

Census Tract 06-081-603802

Surrounding Land Use Land use in the immediate surrounding area includes single -family residences, open space, and commercial properties.

177 of 263

San Bruno Fire Department APN: 019-043-490
San Bruno Avenue, Between Skyline Boulevard
and Glenview Drive
San Bruno, California

BENDER ROSENTHAL, INC. 25334A 24
Accessibility Access to the subject site is considered above average overall.

Exposure & Visibility Exposure of the subject is above average balancing the frontage on Skyline Boulevard, San Bruno Avenue, and Glenview Drive.

Flood Plain Zone X (Unshaded). This is referenced by Panel Number 06081C0127F, dated April 5, 2019. Zone X (unshaded) is a moderate and minimal risk area. Areas of moderate or minimal hazard are studied based upon the principal source of flood in the area.

However, buildings in these zones could be flooded by severe, concentrated rainfall coupled with inadequate local drainage systems. Local storm water drainage systems are not normally considered in a community’s flood insurance study. The failure of a local drainage system can create areas of high flood risk within these zones. Flood insurance is available in participating communities but is not required by regulation in these zones. Nearly 25% of all flood claims filed are for structures located within these zones. Minimal risk areas outside the 1% and 0.2% annual chance floodplains. No BFEs or base flood depths are shown within these zones. (Zone X (unshaded) is used on new and revised maps in place of Zone C.)
Seismic Per the California Geological Survey, the subject property is within an earthquake fault zone, a very small portion of the northern edge of the property is within a landslide zone, and fault traces are located on the subject property. Per our discussion with the property contact, Ari Delay, previous development has been stopped due to the seismic risks associated with the property. However, this was a PG&E proposed electrical substation development. Additionally, our conversations with the City of San Bruno’s Planning Division revealed no legal restrictions associated with these fault characteristics.

178 of 263

San Bruno Fire Department APN: 019-043-490
San Bruno Avenue, Between Skyline Boulevard
and Glenview Drive
San Bruno, California

BENDER ROSENTHAL, INC. 25334A 25
Additionally, other nearby properties have been improved, despite the presence of fault lines. For these reasons, development is considered physically possible on the subject site.

Strong earthquakes generated along any of the active California faults may affect the site depending on the characteristics of the earthquake and the location of the epicenter. In general, the effects should be confined to shaking and/or acceleration (shock waves) and potential damage to structures should be minimized by employing adequate design and construction procedures. Current engineering design, and construction practices, such as the Uniform Building Code, provides the opportunity to reduce earthquake related hazards.

Easements A preliminary title report was not available for review. During the property inspection, no adverse easements or encumbrances were noted. This appraisal assumes that no adverse easements are present. If questions arise, further research is advised. Please refer to Extraordinary Assumption #1.

Soils A detailed soils analysis was not available for review. Per the California Geological Survey, a very small portion of the northern edge of the property is within a landslide zone. Based on the development of nearby properties, the remainder of the site appears to be suitable for similar developments.

Hazardous Waste We have not conducted an independent investigation to determine the presence or absence of toxins on the subject property. If questions arise, the reader is strongly cautioned to seek qualified professional assistance in this matter. Please see the Assumptions and Limiting Conditions for a full disclaimer. As of the date of value, a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment report was not provided.

Per the State Water Resources Control Board GeoTracker website, no cleanup sites are located on the subject site. Three cleanup sites are located within 1,000 feet of the subject; two of which are labeled "Completed - Case Closed", and one is labeled "Open - Site Assessment", although this site is not directly adjacent to the subject. None of the cleanup sites is believed to impact the subject's highest and best use, nor its value.

Please refer to General Limiting Condition Number 16 regarding hazardous materials.

Taxes & Assessment According to San Mateo County, the subject property is currently assessed at $0 and no property taxes are levied against the property. This is typical among properties owned by a public entity. This appraisal assumes a market sale of the subject would enable a property tax rate and dire ct assessments commensurate to similar commercial land properties in the area. Defaulted property tax bills against the subject property total $63,231.60, although per the San Mateo County’s Tax Collector’s office, the delinquent charges are unsecured and are tied to a previous owner instead of the property itself.

179 of 263

San Bruno Fire Department APN: 019-043-490
San Bruno Avenue, Between Skyline Boulevard
and Glenview Drive
San Bruno, California

BENDER ROSENTHAL, INC. 25334A 26
Site Conclusion The subject site represents 7.00 acres of land that is bound between Skyline Boulevard, San Bruno Avenue, and Glenview Drive in the City of San Bruno. The site has three relatively level and buildable portions, totaling approximately 5.76 acres.

The rest of the site (1.24 acres) generally consists of sloping topography that is considered to be unbuildable. The site is within an earthquake fault zone with some fault traces. The seismic conditions of the site have previously impeded development of a substation , which will be addressed in the Highest and Best Use section of this report.

180 of 263

San Bruno Fire Department APN: 019-043-490
San Bruno Avenue, Between Skyline Boulevard
and Glenview Drive
San Bruno, California

BENDER ROSENTHAL, INC. 25334A 27
ASSESSOR’S PARCEL MAP

181 of 263

San Bruno Fire Department APN: 019-043-490
San Bruno Avenue, Between Skyline Boulevard
and Glenview Drive
San Bruno, California

BENDER ROSENTHAL, INC. 25334A 28

PLANNING DESIGNATIONS
ZONING
Per the City of San Bruno, the subject property is within the C-N (Neighborhood Commercial) zone. The purpose of this zone is to serve the limited market area of a specific neighborhood by providing for such uses as apparel and accessory stores, food stores, personal and professional services.

Permitted uses include: apparel and accessory stores; food stores; restaurant and food services without alcoholic beverage sales except drive-in eating places; miscellaneous retail, except non-store retailers and fuel and ice dealers; finance, insurance an d real estate offices; personal services, except laundry, cleaning and garment services, funeral services and crematories, miscellaneous personal services but including garment pressing and agents for laundries and dry cleaners; and any other use which the community development director finds is similar in nature, function or operation to the listed permitted uses.

GENERAL PLAN
Within the City of San Bruno’s General Plan, the subject property has a land use designation of Parks/Open Space. This designation is intended to provide parks, recreation facilities, and open space areas for the general community. Both public and private lands designated for open space are included.

The zoning takes precedence over what uses are currently allowed.

182 of 263

San Bruno Fire Department APN: 019-043-490
San Bruno Avenue, Between Skyline Boulevard
and Glenview Drive
San Bruno, California

BENDER ROSENTHAL, INC. 25334A 29

MARKET ANALYSIS
In this section, market conditions which influence the subject property are analyzed. Overviews of retail supply and demand conditions for the San Mateo County market and San Bruno/Millbrae submarket are presented. Key supply and demand statistics for the most recent quarter, last year and historical averages over the past 10 years are summarized in the tables below.

RETAIL MARKET ANALYSIS

San Mateo County contains roughly 30,782,542 square feet of retail inventory, with a current vacancy rate of 4.6% as of the second quarter of 2025. Rents in the market average $3.19 per square foot. Approximately 196,000 square feet of retail space is under construction in the market.

The San Bruno/Millbrae retail submarket contains roughly 3.8 million square feet of inventory. The submarket has approximately 380,000 square feet of neighborhood center inventory, 380,000 square feet of power center inventory,

183 of 263

San Bruno Fire Department APN: 019-043-490
San Bruno Avenue, Between Skyline Boulevard
and Glenview Drive
San Bruno, California

BENDER ROSENTHAL, INC. 25334A 30
100,000 square feet of strip center inventory, 1.1 million square feet of mall inventory, and 1.8 million square feet of general retail.

The San Bruno/Millbrae retail submarket has a vacancy rate of 8.3% as of the second quarter of 2025. Over the past year, the submarket's vacancy rate has changed by -0.5%, a result of -28,000 square feet of net delivered space and - 5,500 square feet of net absorption. San Bruno/Millbrae's vacancy rate of 8.3% compares to the submarket's five-year average of 8.3% and the 10-year average of 5.5%. Among the retail subtypes, neighborhood center vacancy stands at

3.0%, power center vacancy is 8.1%, strip center vacancy is 6.2%, mall vacancy is 18.1%, and general retail vacancy is

3.5%. The San Bruno/Millbrae retail submarket has roughly 91,000 square feet of space listed as available, for an availability rate of 2.4%.

As of the second quarter of 2025, no retail space is under construction in San Bruno/Millbrae. In comparison, the submarket has averaged 400 square feet of under construction inventory over the past 10 years.

Market rents in San Bruno/Millbrae are $3.19/square foot. Rents have increased by 8.8% year -over-year in San Bruno/Millbrae, compared to an increase of 2.9% across San Mateo County as a whole. Annual rent growth of 8.8% in San Bruno/Millbrae compares to the submarket's five-year average of 0.8% and its 10-year average of 2.1%.

Estimated retail market pricing in San Bruno/Millbrae is $515/square foot compared to the market average of $503/square foot.

RETAIL VACANCY
The following tables provide visual illustration of the long term and short term retail vacancy for the San Mateo County market and San Bruno/Millbrae submarket.

184 of 263

San Bruno Fire Department APN: 019-043-490
San Bruno Avenue, Between Skyline Boulevard
and Glenview Drive
San Bruno, California

BENDER ROSENTHAL, INC. 25334A 31

RETAIL RENTAL RATES
The following tables provide a visual illustration of rental Retail trends for the San Mateo County market and San Bruno/Millbrae submarket in the short and long term:

RETAIL MARKET CONCLUSION
San Mateo County experienced a dramatic increase in retail vacancy during the COVID-19 pandemic and remains at an elevated level. The San Bruno/Millbrae submarket is currently facing even higher vacancy rates, indicating tough conditions in the local area. Rental rates have been increasing in the area, although the rates of increases in recent years is low relative to the period preceding the pandemic. Unsurprisingly, no retail construction is currently underway in the submarket.

185 of 263

San Bruno Fire Department APN: 019-043-490
San Bruno Avenue, Between Skyline Boulevard
and Glenview Drive
San Bruno, California

BENDER ROSENTHAL, INC. 25334A 32
HIGHEST & BEST USE.

Highest and best use may be defined as the reasonably probable use of property that results in the highest value.

There are four criteria used in the highest and best use analysis process. These are: .

1. Legally Permissible Use
What uses are permitted legally under existing zoning, building codes, historic district controls, environmental regulations, deed (private) restrictions, and long-term lease provisions on the site in question?

2. Physically Possible Use
What uses of the site are physically possible, given its size, shape, area, terrain, soils composition, accessibility, assembly potential, and risk potential from natural disasters?

3. Financially Feasible Use
Which possible and permissible uses will produce a positive net return to the owner of the property?

4. Maximally Productive Use
Among the feasible uses, which use will produce the highest residual land value consistent with the rate of return warranted by the market for that use?
As the property is unimproved, we will evaluate the highest and best use of the property as vacant.

LEGALLY PERMISSIBLE USES
Possible uses are constrained by legal restrictions on a property both private and public.

As previously discussed, the subject property is zoned C -N (Neighborhood Commercial) by the City of San Bruno. The purpose of this zone is to serve the limited market area of a specific neighborhood by providing for such uses as apparel and accessory stores, food stores, personal and professional services.

Within the City of San Bruno’s General Plan, the subject property has a land use designation of Parks/Open Space.

Provides parks, recreation facilities, and open space areas for the general community. Both public and private lands designated for open space are included.

186 of 263

San Bruno Fire Department APN: 019-043-490
San Bruno Avenue, Between Skyline Boulevard
and Glenview Drive
San Bruno, California

BENDER ROSENTHAL, INC. 25334A 33
The subject property’s zoning and General Plan land use designations differ significantly in their objectives. During our research of the City’s planning designations for the subject property, we spoke with a representative from the City of San Bruno’s Pla nning Division, who reported that the General Plan designation should align with the zoning for proposed development and that a General Plan amendment would require a staff recommendation, Planning Commission hearing, and pass through City Council, which would take a minimum of four to six months. Although the zoning and General Plan designations do not currently align, this appraisal considers the permitted uses under the C-N zone to be the legally permissible uses of the subject site, as the City’s Planning Division has a process in place to amend the General Plan designation.

PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE USES
The size, topography, and location of the subject are important factors in determining the use of the property. The size of the site can significantly affect the type of development that is possible, as the “economies of scale” notion often comes into play. The subject consists of an irregularly-shaped site with below average overall utility, due to the sloping areas. The subject has above average frontage along three streets. The site’s topography is mixed between sloping areas and three relatively level portions. Each level portion of the property is large enough to support a commercial development. The least likely level area to be developed is t he northernmost portion of the parcel, due to its lack of existing street ingress and egress . Additionally, fault traces run across the central portion of the subject property, indicating that the southernmost level area , which measures approximately 1. 30 acres, is the most likely site for theoretical development. Overall, the subject has level to steeply sloping topography; however, there are multiple level building areas that total 5.76 acres that can support commercial development and the 1.24 acres of steeply sloping topography is considered unbuildable.

FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE USES
A proposed property improvement must be able to deliver an income return that, in turn, generates a market value sufficient to pay for the developmental costs, the undertaking of the risks involved, and a profit appropriate for the development.

As previously mentioned in the Market Analysis section of this report, rental rates have continued to increase in the submarket. However, the submarket is currently experiencing an elevated rate of vacancy and no new commercial construction. For these reas ons, immediate construction of a commercial property is not considered likely, and the financially feasible use of the subject site is to hold for future commercial development on the 5.76 acres of level topography in the mid-to-long-term.

MAXIMALLY PRODUCTIVE USES
The maximally productive use of the subject site is to hold for future commercial development in the mid-to-long-term on the 5.76 acres of level area.

HIGHEST AND BEST USE OF THE SITE AS IF UNIMPROVED.

Considering all the preceding factors, it is my conclusion that the highest and best use of this site is to hold for future commercial development in the mid -to-long term . The most likely buyer is an owner -user or a local or regional developer.

187 of 263

San Bruno Fire Department APN: 019-043-490
San Bruno Avenue, Between Skyline Boulevard
and Glenview Drive
San Bruno, California

BENDER ROSENTHAL, INC. 25334A 34
VALUATION METHODS.

VALUATION METHODS AND CONSIDERATIONS
The initial stages of the appraisal process include the investigation, organization, and analysis of relevant market data and other information that relates to the market value of the subject property. Factors discussed previously that influence value include the San Mateo County region demographics and economic conditions, neighborhood characteristics and features, the market for similar land space, and subject property attributes. All of these need to be considered when rendering the highest and best use conclusion. After a highest and best use conclusion has been made, the possibilities for the property have been sufficiently narrowed so tha t a proper valuation process can be pursued. This section of the report contains the comparable data, the interpretation, analysis, and processing of these data and the conclusions reached about the property's market value.

An appraisal of an improved property typically utilizes up to three valuation approaches:
• The Replacement Cost Approach to Value
• The Sales Comparison Approach to Value
• The Income Capitalization Approach to Value

COST APPROACH
The Cost Approach to Value usually involves estimation of the land value through the sales comparison approach. Then, we estimate the replacement cost of the improvements as if they were new, less a deduction for depreciation, which is computed after analy zing the deficiencies or disadvantages of the existing building compared to a new building.

Depreciation, however, is subjective and difficult to support in the market. The Cost Approach is generally considered a good approach for new or proposed improvements. As the subject property is unimproved land, the Cost Approach is not considered relevant in this analysis. The exclusion of the Cost Approach does not detract from the credibility of this report.

SALES COMPARISON APPROACH
In the Sales Comparison Approach to Value, the subject property should be compared to other similarly improved properties that have recently sold in the market area. The respective sale prices of the comparable properties are adjusted, quantitatively, if possible, based on market data, but at least subjectively based on the appraiser’s knowledge of market behavior, in order to derive an indication of market value. All sale and listing properties were compared based on price per square foot of land, consistent with the market. This approach is a logical one for this appraisal assignment as similar parcels within the region have recently sold.

188 of 263

San Bruno Fire Department APN: 019-043-490
San Bruno Avenue, Between Skyline Boulevard
and Glenview Drive
San Bruno, California

BENDER ROSENTHAL, INC. 25334A 35

INCOME CAPITALIZATION APPROACH
The Income Capitalization Approach to Value is based on the assumption that there is a relationship between the amount of income a property will produce and its value. This approach involves estimating the annual net income the property will earn and converting it into value. This process, called capitalization, is accomplished by dividing the net income, before payment of debt service, by a capitalization rate. This rate will vary as a result of such factors as risk, time, interest or capital investment, and recapture of the depreciating asset. The direct capitalization methodology is not relevant for this assignment as similar properties are not typically purchased as leased investments. The exclusion of the Income Capitalization Approach does not detract from the credibility of this report.

The next step in the appraisal process is the reconciliation or correlation of the value indications generated by the approaches used, as influenced by other pertinent analysis that previously have been developed in the report. The range in value establish ed by these approaches is examined and major emphasis is placed on the approach, or approaches, considered the best indicators of value for the specific appraisal problem being addressed.

189 of 263

San Bruno Fire Department APN: 019-043-490
San Bruno Avenue, Between Skyline Boulevard
and Glenview Drive
San Bruno, California

BENDER ROSENTHAL, INC. 25334A 36
SITE VALUATION 1

INTRODUCTION
In the Sales Comparison Approach, the value of a property is estimated by comparing it with similar, recently sold properties in the surrounding or competing areas. Inherent in this approach is the principle of substitution, which holds that when a property is replaceable in the market, its value tends to be set by the cost of buying an equally desirable property, assuming that no costly delay occurs in making the substitution. All the sale properties were compared based on a price per square foot basis, consistent with the market.

As requested by the client of this assignment, the Sales Comparison Approach will be developed twice in this appraisal report to derive two separate value conclusions. The first value (“As-Is”) will encompass the entirety of the subject site, totaling 7.00 acres (305,006 square feet), but is based on the buildable area, which is 5.76 acres (250,906 square feet) as a developer would not pay dollar for dollar for undevelopable land. We will first value the 5.76 acres of buildable land, followed by undevelopable land sales for this first valuation scenario.

To ensure the most accurate reflection of the subject property’s market value, a Zone of Value (ZOV) methodology has been employed. This approach recognizes that the subject property is not a monolithic land tract but rather a composite of distinct areas w ith differing physical characteristics and functional utilities. Specifically, the subject has been bifurcated into two primary zones: Zone 1 (Buildable Commercial Land) and Zone 2 (Unbuildable Buffer Land).

Because these zones compete in different market segments, two independent datasets were utilized to establish the underlying land values. The final value conclusion is derived from the summation of the concluded values for each respective zone. This additive approach is necessary because the market participants for each zone would typically be distinct, and the utility of one zone does not diminish or overlap with the other. By aggregating the results of these two specific datasets, the appraisal provides a mathematically sound and market -supported "Tota l Value" that accounts for the full spectrum of the property’s unique composition.

The second value (“Hypothetical Value”) will encompass the southernmost usable portion of the site, totaling 1.30 acres (56,628 square feet), as if it were a separate, saleable parcel, as referenced in Hypothetical Condition #1.

COMPARABLE SELECTION
Through the analysis of sales of verified arm’s -length transactions, market value and price trends are identified. The sales utilized are comparable to the subject in physical, functional, and economic characteristics.

A concerted effort was made to locate sales of similar parcels in the subject’s immediate market area. Due to the limited amount of recent transactions, partially influenced by the local area’s high proportion of built-out land, we had to extend our search throughout the Bay Area and back in time. Overall, the comparables utilized in this report are considered the most appropriate sales available for analysis.

190 of 263

191 of 263

San Bruno Fire Department APN: 019-043-490
San Bruno Avenue, Between Skyline Boulevard
and Glenview Drive
San Bruno, California

BENDER ROSENTHAL, INC. 25334A 38

COMPARABLE LAND SALES TABLE AND MAP

192 of 263

San Bruno Fire Department APN: 019-043-490
San Bruno Avenue, Between Skyline Boulevard
and Glenview Drive
San Bruno, California

BENDER ROSENTHAL, INC. 25334A 39

193 of 263

San Bruno Fire Department APN: 019-043-490
San Bruno Avenue, Between Skyline Boulevard
and Glenview Drive
San Bruno, California

BENDER ROSENTHAL, INC. 25334A 40

LAND SALE EXHIBITS

COMPARABLE LAND SALE DISCUSSION – AS IS
Clearly, the results of the analysis of each comparable are not absolute; therefore, the appraiser considers the strengths and weaknesses of the analysis in the reconciliation process by giving more or less weight to specific comparable properties. In the analysis of the individual comparables, property characteristics identified that could have an impact on value are considered. Qualitative adjustments will be considered during the individual comparable write-ups.

It was reported that the sales were either cash or cash equivalent and there were no unusual conditions of sale, unless noted. With regard to changes in market conditions, the sales range in transfer dates from December 2021 to January 2025. Based on discussions with market participants, sale prices have remained relatively stable over the last 2 years; however, sale prices have increased since the 2021 and 2022 sales. In order to quantitatively adjust for sales dates, we have looked into the Market Analysis section of this appraisal. The Market Analysis section shows that rents in the market have increased roughly 3.9% since 2021 to the date of value, and rents in the submarket have increased 7.97%.

Considering this difference, a minor adjustment of 4% is applied for those transactions that took place during 2021 and 2022.

194 of 263

San Bruno Fire Department APN: 019-043-490
San Bruno Avenue, Between Skyline Boulevard
and Glenview Drive
San Bruno, California

BENDER ROSENTHAL, INC. 25334A 41
The following is a discussion of each comparable sale used.

Land Sale 1 ($86/SF) - This is the sale of an 11.22-acre vacant land parcel located at 681 E Trimble Road in San Jose. At the time of sale, it was raw land zoned Industrial Park with a Transit Employment Residential Overlay. The general plan is General Commercial, and a Specific Plan allocation was added to allow for high-density residential. The property sold on January 31, 2025 for $42,000,000 or $86 per square foot. This price is reflective of raw land with no entitlements .

The buyer is The Hanover Company, a developer based in Texas. They have plans for 1,500 apartments, 35,000 square feet of retail space, and a 2.5 -acre park. The sale period was longer than typical due to lawsuits between San Jose, Santa Clara and Milpitas City officials as to who will be responsible for off-site costs. It is noted that at the time of sale, The Hanover Company also purchas ed the adjacent site, which was then resold to Summerhill Homes for redevelopment. The broker explained that the sale of this property has been a long process, beginning with a contract in 2017 with Silicon Sage Properties. This entity has since gone out of business, and COVID happened, which slowed the sale process.

This property is larger than the subject , which is negative on a price per square foot basis, and has inferior industrial zoning. However, this property has a superior location with superior access and a slightly superior shape . Due to the offsetting positive and negative aspects, this property is considered similar to the subject, indicating a unit value for the subject close to $86 per square foot is appropriate.

Land Sale 2 ($118/SF) - This is the sale of two contiguous parcels totaling 10.98 acres located along the southern side of Santa Teresa Street in San Jose. This property sold on May 22, 2023 for $56,500,000, or $118 per square foot. The type of financing was not disclosed. This property is zoned DC (Downtown Primary Commercial) and the General Plan land use designation is split between DT (Downtown) and CD (Commercial Downtown). The property has a slightly irregular, but generally functional shape with leve l topography. Access is via Santa Teresa Street, with additional visibility from State Route 87. The sale contact did not know if utilities were stubbed to the site, although the presence of nearby improved properties indicates that they were at least nearby. Per the State Water Resources Control Board, an open cleanup site is located on this property with a status of “Inactive”. This cleanup site has land use restrictions which refer to a site management plan. The property was purchased to develop a power transmission center. No entitlements were in place at the time of sale.

This property is larger than the subject, which is negative on a price per square foot basis. However, this property has a superior location with superior access and slightly superior shape compared to the subject. For these reasons, this property is considered superior to the subject, indicating a unit value below $118 per square foot for the subject property.

Land Sale 3 ( $82/SF) - This is the 10.48 -acre (456,291 square-feet) sale of vacant commercial land located at 4553 - 4653 N First Street, San Jose, California. The property is situated on the west corner of the signalized intersection of N First Street and Nortech Parkway just north of Highway 237 and approximately 8.5 miles north of Downtown San Jose.

Escrow closed May 2, 2022, for $37,200,000, or $8 2 per square foot, in an all -cash transaction. The buyer said there were no atypical sale conditions. All muni cipal utilities necessary for commercial development are available in in the street. The buyer intends to build an office and warehouse as its new headquarters as soon as necessary permits are obtained. The San Jose General Plan designates the property as CIC, Combination Industrial/Commercial and the zoning A(PD), Planned Development. The site is level to street grade with an irregular shape. According to FEMA, the site is in Flood Zone AE, an area of 1% annual chance flood hazard with a base flood elevation (BFE) of 12-feet.

195 of 263

196 of 263

San Bruno Fire Department APN: 019-043-490
San Bruno Avenue, Between Skyline Boulevard
and Glenview Drive
San Bruno, California

BENDER ROSENTHAL, INC. 25334A 43
ZONE 2: UN-BUILDABLE LAND VALUATION
As previously discussed, a 1.24-acre (54,100 square foot) portion of the subject property is unusable due to topographical constraints. As such, we have added three additional transactions of land that was considered un - buildable in order to further compare to the subject’s un-buildable 1.24 acre segment.

COMPARABLE UN-BUILDABLE LAND SALES TABLE AND MAP

UN-BUILDABLE LAND SALES COMPARISON TABLE
SUBJECT COMP 1 COMP 2 COMP 3
Name San Bruno Fire

689-35-018 351-18-014 015-10-007
Address

S B ,
Between Skyline Cottle Road Stevens Canyon Rd Spreckles Avenue City San Bruno San Jose Cupertino San Jose
State CA CA CA CA
Zip 94066 95123 95014 95002
County San Mateo Santa Clara Santa Clara Santa Clara
Parcel(s) 019-043-490 689-35-018 351-18-001, 351-18-014 015-10-007

SALE INFORMATION
Transaction Price $500 $120,000 $75,000
Transaction Price $/SF $0.01 $0.76 $5.29
Property Rights ¹ Fee Simple Fee Simple Fee Simple
Financing ² Cash Cash Cash
Sale Conditions ³ Arm's-length Arm's-length Arm's-length Expenditures After Sale ⁴ $0 $0 $0
Market Conditions ⁵ 7/18/2025 = 2/13/2025 = 3/7/2023 =
Sale Status Recorded Recorded Recorded
Recording Number 25837052 25765859 25450572
Marketing Status Not Marketed - Open Market Open Market Adjusted $/SF $0.01 $0.76 $5.29

PHYSICAL INFORMATION
Square Feet 54,100 63,672 158,382 14,180
Acres 1.24 1.46 = 3.64 -- 0.34 =
Location Average Above Average + Above Average + Above Average + Access Above Average Below Average - Fair -- Above Average = Exposure Above Average Average - Above Average = Above Average = Shape Irregular Irregular = Irregular = Rectangular +
Zoning C-N HS-d1 = HS-SR = OS =
Topography Sloping Level to Sloping + Steep - Level +
Flood Zone Zone X (Unshaded) Zone D = Zone AE - Zone AE -

OVERALL COMPARISON

CONFIRMATION INFORMATION
Company
Name
Affiliation
Phone
Date
Seller
Robert Weyhe
Seller
(408)772-1928
9/10/2025
Sotheby's International Realty
Dana Cappiello

INFERIOR INFERIOR SUPERIOR
Listing Agent
(415)264-5464
9/11/2025
Compass
Francisco Camberos
Buyer's agent
(408)782-4601
9/12/2025

197 of 263

San Bruno Fire Department APN: 019-043-490
San Bruno Avenue, Between Skyline Boulevard
and Glenview Drive
San Bruno, California

BENDER ROSENTHAL, INC. 25334A 44

COMPARABLE LABEL ADDRESS MILES FROM SUBJECT
COMPARABLE 1 1 Cottle Road, San Jose, CA, 95123 44.3
COMPARABLE 2 2 Stevens Canyon Rd, Cupertino, CA, 95014 29.8 COMPARABLE 3 3 Spreckles Avenue, San Jose, CA, 95002 29.1

198 of 263

San Bruno Fire Department APN: 019-043-490
San Bruno Avenue, Between Skyline Boulevard
and Glenview Drive
San Bruno, California

BENDER ROSENTHAL, INC. 25334A 45

UN-BUILDABLE LAND SALE EXHIBITS

COMPARABLE LAND SALE DISCUSSION – AS IS- UNDEVELOPABLE PORTION Clearly, the results of the analysis of each comparable are not absolute; therefore, the appraiser considers the strengths and weaknesses of the analysis in the reconciliation process by giving more or less weight to specific comparable properties. In the analysis of the individual comparables, property characteristics identified that could have an impact on value are considered. Qualitative adjustments will be considered during the individual comparable write-ups.

With regard to changes in market conditions, the sales range in transfer dates from March of 2023 to July of 2025.

Based on discussions with market participants, sale prices have remained relatively stable over the last 2 years; and no adjustments are necessary.

Land Sale 1: This is the sale of 63,672 square feet of undevelopable land located south of Cottle Road, just outside the city limits of San Jose in the unincorporated Santa Clara County. The property has an irregular shape with level to sloping topography. The majority of the property is encumbered by the Coyote-Alamitos drainage canal for the Santa Clara Valley Water Conservation District. There is no vehicular access, and it has only pedestrian access from Cottle COMPARABLE 1 COMPARABLE 2
COMPARABLE 3

199 of 263

San Bruno Fire Department APN: 019-043-490
San Bruno Avenue, Between Skyline Boulevard
and Glenview Drive
San Bruno, California

BENDER ROSENTHAL, INC. 25334A 46
Road to the west and Oberlin Way to the west. The property is zoned Hillside (HS) per the County of Santa Clara, which limits development, and the purpose is to preserve mountainous lands unplanned or unsuited for urban development.

The property was sold o n July 18, 2025, for $500 in an all -cash transaction ($0.01 per square foot) . The buyer approached the seller about purchasing the property. The seller spent $1,500 a year on weed-eating the property and wanted to give it away.

This sale of undevelopable land is similar to the subject as it is located behind current developments and could be utilized to expand yard areas or increase FAR for those adjacent parcel developments. This property has a superior location in San Jose, and slightly superior topography. However, these superiorities are offset by the inferior access and exposure as it is located behind other parcels. Also, this property wasn’t actively marketed and the seller was extraordinarily motivated to dispose of the site given the annual landscaping costs. Overall, this sale is considered inferior to the subject indicating a unit value for the undevelopable portion to be above $0.01 per square foot.

Land Sale 2: This is the sale of two non-contiguous parcels that total 2.63 acres of undevelopable land located on the eastern side of Stevens Canyon Road, just north of Stevens Creek Reservoir, in an unincorporated area of Santa Clara County. The property has an irregular shape with Steep upward sloping topography with a small flat plateau on top of the hillside. Access to the site is by Four Wheel Drive only. Electricity is available nearby, but would need to be brought to the site for further development. The property would also require a septic system, and no perc and mantle test has been completed. The property was on the market for 404 days before selling on February 13, 2025, for $120,000 ($0.76 per square foot) in an all-cash transaction with no unusual conditions of sale. The property is zoned Hillside (HS) per the County of Santa Clara. The buyers purchased the property with the intention of building a single -family residence despite all the development constraints.

This is the sale of undevelopable land similar to the subject. This property is located in a superior area of Santa Clara County. However, this sale is inferior in size, inferior in access (only a 4 -wheel drive), inferior in topography, and has an inferior FEMA Flood Zone. As such, a value for the subject above $0.76 per square foot is appropriate.

Land Sale 3: This is the sale of 0.344 acres of undevelopable land located on the northeast side of Spreckels Avenue in the City of San Jose, California. The property is a manmade, rectangular-shaped parcel in Alviso Marina that has access from Spreckels Avenue. The si te has a level topography and is at street grade. The property is raw land with a gated chain-link perimeter fence and is zoned Open Space with the City of San Jose. The property was listed on the market for 33 days before selling 50% above the asking pric e on March 17, 2023, for $75,000 (or $5.29 per square foot). The transaction was an all-cash transaction with no unusual conditions of sale. The buyer was a local business that intended to utilize the site for equipment storage.

This is the sale of undevelopable land similar to the subject. This parcel is located in an inferior FEMA Flood Zone (AE).

The one inferior element is more than offset by the superior San Jose location, superior shape, and superior topography which lends overall to superior utility. Overall, a value below $5.29 per square foot is appropriate for the undevelopable portion of the subject.

200 of 263

201 of 263

San Bruno Fire Department APN: 019-043-490
San Bruno Avenue, Between Skyline Boulevard
and Glenview Drive
San Bruno, California

BENDER ROSENTHAL, INC. 25334A 48
SITE VALUATION 2

INTRODUCTION
This section values the subject site by comparing it with substitute land sales or listings within the local market area or in competitive areas throughout the region. Land value is influenced by a number of factors; most notably development and use potential. These factors, as well as others, are factored in the following analysis.

This is the second valuation scenario presented in this appraisal report. By the request of the client, we are appraising the southernmost usable section of the subject site, measuring 1.3 acres. This valuation analysis is performed under Hypothetical Condition #1 as presented earlier in this report, which states that the aforementioned portion of the subject site is appraised as if it were a separate, saleable parcel.

A concerted effort was made to locate sales of similar parcels in the subject’s immediate market area. Due to the limited amount of recent transactions, partially influenced by the local area’s high proportion of built -out space, we had to extend our search throughout the Bay Area and back in time.

Overall, the comparables utilized in this report are considered the most appropriate sales available for analysis.

With regard to elements of comparison, the comparables were analyzed in terms of property rights, financing, conditions of sale, changes in market conditions, location, access, exposure, shape, zoning, topography, utilities, off - site improvements, and flood zone which are market derived. The quantitative adjustment process (using paired sales) requires an abundance of market data to develop the monetary or percentage adjustments for the varying economic and physical characteristics. The research of the current market and the lack of sufficient relevant sales data to develop adjustments, we have elected to develop a qualitative analysis. More specifically, a narrative analysis for the economic and physical characteristics of the comparables is developed for c omparison with the subject property. Comparable data is ranked and then the subject is bracketed by the most comparable sales.

A map of the comparable sales and summary table are on the following pages, followed by a discussion of the comparable sales and comparison to the subject property.

202 of 263

San Bruno Fire Department APN: 019-043-490
San Bruno Avenue, Between Skyline Boulevard
and Glenview Drive
San Bruno, California

25334A 49

203 of 263

San Bruno Fire Department APN: 019-043-490
San Bruno Avenue, Between Skyline Boulevard
and Glenview Drive
San Bruno, California

25334A 50

204 of 263

San Bruno Fire Department APN: 019-043-490
San Bruno Avenue, Between Skyline Boulevard
and Glenview Drive
San Bruno, California

25334A 51

LAND SALE EXHIBITS

COMPARABLE LAND SALE DISCUSSION
Clearly, the results of the analysis of each comparable are not absolute; therefore, the appraiser considers the strengths and weaknesses of the analysis in the reconciliation process by giving more or less weight to specific comparable properties. In the analysis of the individual comparables, property characteristics identified that could have an impact on value are considered. Qualitative adjustments will be considered during the individual comparable write-ups.

It was reported that the sales were either cash or cash equivalent and there were no unusual conditions of sale, unless noted. With regard to changes in market conditions, the sales range in transfer dates from December 2021 to April 2025. Based on discussions with market participants, sale prices have remained relatively stable over the last 2 years; however, sale prices have increased since the 2021 sale . In order to qu antitatively adjust for sales dates, we have looked into the Market Analysis section of this appraisal. The Market Analysis section shows that rents in the market have increased roughly 3.9% since 20 21 to the date of value, and rents in the submarket have increased 7.97%.

Considering this difference, a minor adjustment of 4% is applied for those transactions that took place during 2021 and 2022.

205 of 263

San Bruno Fire Department APN: 019-043-490
San Bruno Avenue, Between Skyline Boulevard
and Glenview Drive
San Bruno, California

25334A 52
The following is a discussion of each comparable sale used.

Land Sale 1 ($100/SF) - This is the sale of two contiguous parcels totaling 0.52 acres, located along the southwestern corner of N Jackson Avenue and Luz Avenue in San Jose. This property sold on April 17, 2025 for $2,250,000, or $100 per square foot. N Jackson Avenue is an arterial street, while Luz Avenue is a neighborhood street. Land use in the surrounding area includes single and multi-family residential, as well as commercial properties. This property is zoned MS-G (Main Street Ground Floor Commercial) with a General Plan land use designation of UV (Urban Village), within the Alum Rock Avenue neighborhood business district. This property is level. Site improvements include paved parking, chain-link fencing, gated access, and a small wooden structure. Electric lighting on site indicates that electrical utilities are stubbed. Neighboring properties indicate that other standard municipal utilities, if not stubbed to the site, are at least in the street.

This comparable has slightly inferior exposure, which is more than offset by the superior (smaller) size . For these reasons, this property is considered superior to the subject, indicating a unit value below $100 per square foot for the subject.

Land Sale 2 ( $76/SF) - This is the sale of six contiguous parcels totaling approximately 0.44 acres located along the northwestern corner of Princeton Avenue and Vassar Street in Half Moon Bay. This property sold on March 7, 2025 for $1,450,000, or $76 per square foot in a cash transaction. Land uses in the surrounding area are predominantly industrial and the coastline is one block down Vassar Street. Within the City of Half Moon Bay, this property is zoned IND (Industrial). This property is not included in the City’s General Plan. San Mateo County gives this property a split zoning designation, with the western three parcels zoned W/DR/CD (Waterfront District/Design Review District/Coastal Development District) and the eastern three parcels zoned W/AO/DR/C D (Waterfront District/Airport Overlay District/Design Review District/Coastal Development District). The County’s General Plan land use designation for this property is General Industrial – Zone W. The shape of this property consists of two abutting, gene rally rectangular shapes with level topography. Site is improved with a water connection, which the broker estimated to be worth $30,000 to $90,000; a power pole that is estimated to be worth $20,000; and pavement that is estimated to be worth $20,000. The site is also improved with perimeter chain link fencing with slats. This property was utilized for boat storage on a month-to-month basis and was purchased by the San Mateo County Harbor District.

This property is smaller than the subject, which is positive on a price per square foot basis. However, this property is inferior in terms of its location, access, exposure, zoning, and off site improvements. For these reasons, this property is considered inferior to the subject, indicating a unit value above $76 per square foot for the subject.

Land Sale 3 ($124/SF) - This is the sale of a 0.69-acre commercial parcel located at 2035 White Oak Lane in Santa Clara.

This property sold on December 15, 2023 for $3,700,000, or $124 per square foot in a cash transaction. This property is zoned CN (Neighborhood Commercial) and has a General Plan land us e designation of Neighborhood Commercial.

The property has a corner location along White Oak Lane, Poinciana Drive, and Lawrence Expressway (two neighborhood connectors and a main thoroughfare, respectively), with a somewhat irregular, but generally functional shape with level topography. The property was previously improved with a strip retail building that burned down several years prior to the sale. Some remaining pavement was still present on the site, although this did not contribute to the sale price. Utilities were in the street, up to the parcel. Shell purchased the property to construct an electric vehicle charging station. The broker believed that Shell paid a high price for the property due to government incentives for electric vehicle infrastructure at the time and believed that a price closer to $80 per square foot would be

206 of 263

207 of 263

San Bruno Fire Department APN: 019-043-490
San Bruno Avenue, Between Skyline Boulevard
and Glenview Drive
San Bruno, California

25334A 54

CONCLUSION OF THE AS-IS MARKET VALUE
This appraisal report contains two valuation scenarios, the first of which is the “as-is” value of the entire subject parcel.

The Sales Comparison Approach indicates a market value of $21,630,000. Therefore, the market value of the Fee Simple Estate interest of the subject property, as of September 3, 2025, subject to the extraordinary and general assumptions and the conditions included in this report, is:

Twenty-One Million, Six Hundred Thirty Thousand Dollars As-Is Market Value

CONCLUSION OF THE HYPOTHETICAL VALUE
The second valuation scenario values the lower 1.3 -acre portion of the subject property under the hypothetical condition it were a separate , saleable parcel, as detailed in Hypothetical Condition #1 in this report. The Sales Comparison Approach indicates a market value of $5,490,000. Therefore, the market value of the Fee Simple Estate interest of the subject property, as of September 3, 2025, subject to the extraordinary and general assumptions and the conditions included in this report, is:

Five Million, Four Hundred Ninety Thousand Dollars
Hypothetical Value

208 of 263

San Bruno Fire Department APN: 019-043-490
San Bruno Avenue, Between Skyline Boulevard
and Glenview Drive
San Bruno, California

BENDER ROSENTHAL, INC. 25334A 55

APPENDIX

209 of 263

San Bruno Fire Department APN: 019-043-490
San Bruno Avenue, Between Skyline Boulevard
and Glenview Drive
San Bruno, California

BENDER ROSENTHAL, INC. 25334A 56

DEFINITIONS

210 of 263

San Bruno Fire Department APN: 019-043-490
San Bruno Avenue, Between Skyline Boulevard
and Glenview Drive
San Bruno, California

BENDER ROSENTHAL, INC. 25334A 57
Definition of an Appraisal
Source: The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, Appraisal Institute,7th Edition P. 9 The act or process of developing an opinion of value, an opinion of value.

Market Value
Source: the Caltrans Manual the measure of “just compensation” is “market value.”:

Code of Civil Procedure - CCP
PART 3. OF SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS OF A CIVIL NATURE [1063 - 1822.60] ( Part 3 enacted 1872. )
TITLE 7. EMINENT DOMAIN LAW [1230.010 - 1273.050]
( Title 7 repealed [comm. with Section 1237] and added by Stats. 1975, Ch. 1275. ) CHAPTER 9. Compensation [1263.010 - 1263.770]
( Chapter 9 added by Stats. 1975, Ch. 1275. )
ARTICLE 4. Measure of Compensation for Property Taken [1263.310 - 1263.330] ( Article 4 added by Stats. 1975, Ch. 1275. )

1263.320.
(a) The fair market value of the property taken is the highest price on the date of valuation that would be agreed to by a seller, being willing to sell but under no particular or urgent necessity for so doing, nor obliged to sell, and a buyer, being ready, willing, and able to buy but under no particular necessity for so doing, each dealing with the other with full knowledge of all the uses and purposes for which the property is reasonably adaptable and available. (b) The fair market value of property taken for which there is no relevant, comparable market is its value on the date of valuation as determined by any method of valuation that is just and equitable.

1. (Amended by Stats. 1992, Ch. 7, Sec. 2. Effective January 1, 1993.) Fair Market Value
Source: Section 1263.320 of the Code of Civil Procedure A) The fair market value of the property taken is the highest price on the date of valuation that would be agreed to by a seller, being willing to sell but under no particular or urgent necessity for so doing, nor obliged to sell, and a buyer, being ready, willing, and able to buy but under no particular necessity for so doing, each dealing with the other with full knowledge of all the uses and purposes for which the property is reasonably adaptable and available.

B) The fair market value of property taken for which there is no relevant, comparable market is its value on the date of valuation as determined by any method of valuation that is just and equitable.

The Code goes on to say that:

The fair market value of the property taken shall not include any increase or decrease in the value of the property that is attributable to any of the following:

A) The project for which the property is taken.

B) The eminent domain proceeding in which the property is taken.

C) Any preliminary actions of the plaintiff relating to the taking of the property.

211 of 263

San Bruno Fire Department APN: 019-043-490
San Bruno Avenue, Between Skyline Boulevard
and Glenview Drive
San Bruno, California

BENDER ROSENTHAL, INC. 25334A 58
Fair Market Value
Source: IRS Regulation 20.2031-1
The price at which the property would change hands between a willing buyer and a willing seller, neither being under any compulsion to buy or to sell and both having reasonable knowledge of relevant facts. The fair market value of a particular item of property includible in the decedent’s gross estate is not to be determined by a forced sale price. Nor is the fair market value of an item of property the sale price in a market other than that in which such item is most commonly sold to the public, taking into account the location of the item wherever appropriate.

Market Rent
Source: The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, Appraisal Institute, 7th Edition, P. 117 The most probable rent that a property should bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair lease transaction, the lessee and lessor each acting prudently and knowledgeably, and assuming the rent is not affected by undue stimulus. Implicit in this definition is the execution of a lease as of a specified date under conditions whereby
• Lessee and lessor are typically motivated;
• Both parties are well informed or well advised, and acting in what they consider their best interests; • Payment is made in terms of cash or in terms of financial arrangements comparable thereto; and • The rent reflects specified terms and conditions typically found in that market, such as permitted uses, use restrictions, expense obligations, duration, concessions, rental adjustments and revaluations, renewal and purchase options, frequency of payments (annual, monthly, etc.), and tenant improvements (TIs).

Full Interest Analysis.

The acquisition of all property rights using the applicable valuation methodology.

Partial Acquisition Interest Analysis.

The partial acquisition interest analysis starts with an opinion of fair market value for the undivided fee interest of the larger parcel using the most applicable method for valuing similar properties. Once the larger parcel value is estimated the following partial acquisition appraisal methodology is utilized:
• Value of the part acquired is based on the contributory value in the larger parcel. • Value of the remainder parcel as part of the larger parcel, is based on its contributory value developed in the larger parcel.
• Value the remainder parcel, after the acquisition and before benefits. When this value is compared to the value of remainder as part of the larger parcel any loss in market value is the measure of damages. • Value the remainder parcel, after the acquisition with benefits. When this value is compared to the value of the remainder without benefits any gain in market value is the measure of benefits. • The opinion of fair market value includes the value of the partial acquisition and the net damages.

212 of 263

San Bruno Fire Department APN: 019-043-490
San Bruno Avenue, Between Skyline Boulevard
and Glenview Drive
San Bruno, California

BENDER ROSENTHAL, INC. 25334A 59
Unit Rule
Source: The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, Appraisal Institute, 7th Edition, P. 197 A valuation premise often applicable in condemnation appraisals. The unit rule has two aspects, the first dealing with ownership interests and the second dealing with physical components. The first aspect of the rule, also referred to as the undivided fee rule, requires that property be valued as a whole rather than by the sum of the values of the various interests into which it may have been carved (such as lessor and lessee, life tenant and remainderman, and mortgagor and mortgagee, etc.). This is an applicat ion of the principle that it is the property, not the interests, that is being acquired.

The second aspect of the rule is that different physical elements or components of a tract of land (such as the value of timber and the value of minerals on the same land) are not to be separately valued and added together.

Undivided Fee Rule
Source: The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, Appraisal Institute, 7th Edition, P. 196 In condemnation appraisal, a rule that states that property is to be valued as if the title were held by a single entity, even if the real property is divided into more than one estate owned by more than one individual or entity.

Retrospective Value Opinion
Source: The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, Appraisal Institute,7th Edition, P. 166 value opinion effective as of a specified historical date. The term retrospective does not define a type of value. Instead, it identifies a value opinion as being effective at some specific prior date. Value as of a historical date is frequently sought in connection with property tax appeals, damage models, lease renegotiation, deficiency judgments, estate tax, and condemnation. Inclusion of the type of value with this term is appropriate, e.g., “retrospective market value opinion.”
Investment Value
Source: The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, Appraisal Institute, 7th Edition, P. 99

1. The value of a property to a particular investor or class of investors based on the investor’s specific requirements. Investment value may be different from market value because it depends on a set of investment criteria that are not necessarily typical of the market.

2. The value of an asset to the owner or a prospective owner given individual investment or operational objectives (may also be known as worth). (IVS)
Extraordinary Assumption
Source: Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, 2024 Edition, P. 4 An assignment-specific assumption as of the effective date regarding uncertain information used in an analysis which, if found to be false, could alter the appraiser’s opinions or conclusions.

213 of 263

San Bruno Fire Department APN: 019-043-490
San Bruno Avenue, Between Skyline Boulevard
and Glenview Drive
San Bruno, California

BENDER ROSENTHAL, INC. 25334A 60
Hypothetical Condition
Source: Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, 2024 Edition, P. 4 A condition, directly related to a specific assignment, which is contrary to what is known by the appraiser to exist on the effective date of the assignment results, but is used for the purpose of analysis.

Jurisdictional Exception
Source: Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, 2024 Edition, P. 5.

An assignment condition established by applicable law or regulation, which precludes an appraiser from complying with a part of USPAP.
“As Is.” The state, condition, or premise in which all existing and known future enhancements, faults, encumbrances, and conditions affecting the property rights being appraised are recognized and taken into account in the valuation process. For instance, the value effect of present or future bond encumbrances, likely extraordinary building costs, etc., would be evaluated. The value is based upon the conditions observed upon the most recent inspection, and as the property physically and legally exists without hypo thetical conditions, assumptions, or qualifications. The “as is” condition is usually the state in which a property is available for purchase.

Leased Fee Estate
Source: The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, Appraisal Institute, 7th Edition, P. 105 An ownership interest held by the lessor, which includes the right to receive the contract rent specified in the lease plus the reversionary right when the lease expires.

Leasehold Estate
Source: The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, Appraisal Institute, 7th Edition, P. 105 The right held by the lessee to use and occupy real estate for a stated term and under the conditions specified in the lease.

Stabilized
A state, condition, or premise under which a property is operating in a normal or usual way: occupancy is at a level that might be expected for an extended period of time, rents are being collected at normal and typical rates (i.e., initial lease-up rent concessions and extraordinary tenant improvement costs have been amortized) and operating expenses have normalized (taxes are fully assessed, etc.).

Exposure Time
Source: Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, 2024 Edition, P. 4 An opinion, based on supporting market data, of the length of time that the property interest being appraised would have been offered on the market prior to the hypothetical consummation of a sale at market value on the effective date of the appraisal.

214 of 263

San Bruno Fire Department APN: 019-043-490
San Bruno Avenue, Between Skyline Boulevard
and Glenview Drive
San Bruno, California

BENDER ROSENTHAL, INC. 25334A 61
Larger Parcel
Source: The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, Appraisal Institute, 7th Edition P. 105 In governmental land acquisitions and in valuation of charitable donations of partial interests in property such as easements, the tract or tracts of land that are under the beneficial control of a single individual or entity and have the same, or an integrated, highest and best use. Elements for consideration by the appraiser in making a determination in this regard are contiguity, or proximity, as it bears on the highest and best use of the property, unity of ownership, and unity of highest and best use. In most states, unity of ownership, contiguity, and unity of use are the three conditions that establish the larger parcel for the consideration of severance damages. In federal and some state cases, however, contiguity is sometimes subordinated to unitary use.

Temporary Easement
Source: The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, Appraisal Institute, 7th Edition P. 190 An easement granted for a specific purpose and applicable for a specific time period. A construction easement, for example, is terminated after the construction of the improvement and the unencumbered fee interest in the land reverts to the owner.

Damage to Remainder
Source: Section 1263.420 of the Code of Civil Procedure Damage to the remainder is the damage, if any, caused to the remainder by either or both of the following:
(a) The severance of the remainder from the part taken. (b) The construction and use of the project for which the property is taken in the manner proposed by the plaintiff whether or not the damage is caused by a portion of the project located on the part taken.

Benefit to Remainder
Source: Section 1263.430 of the Code of Civil Procedure Benefit to the remainder is the benefit, if any, caused by the construction and use of the project for which the property is taken in the manner proposed by the plaintiff whether or not the benefit is caused by a portion of the project located on the part taken.

Easement
Source: The Appraisal of Real Estate (Fifteenth Edition), Appraisal Institute, Chicago, Illinois, 2020, P. 64 An easement is an interest in real estate that transfers use, but not ownership, of a portion of an owner’s property.

Easements usually permit a specific portion of a property to be used for identified purposes, such as access to an adjoining property or as the location of a certain underground utility.

215 of 263

San Bruno Fire Department APN: 019-043-490
San Bruno Avenue, Between Skyline Boulevard
and Glenview Drive
San Bruno, California

BENDER ROSENTHAL, INC. 25334A 62
Conservation Easement
Source: The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, Appraisal Institute, 7th Edition P. 38 An interest in real estate restricting future land use to preservation, conservation, wildlife habitat, or some combination of those uses. A conservation easement may permit farming, timber harvesting, or other uses of a rural nature as well as some types of conservation-oriented development to continue, subject to the easement.

Compensation
Source: Section 1263.310 of the Code of Civil Procedure Compensation shall be awarded for the property taken. The measure of this compensation is the fair market value of the property taken.

Surplus Land
Source: The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, Appraisal Institute, 7th Edition P. 186 Land that is not currently needed to support the existing use but cannot be separated from the property and sold off for another use. Surplus land does not have an independent highest and best use and may or may not contribute value to the improved parcel.

Improvements Pertaining to the Realty
Source: Section 1263.205 of the Code of Civil Procedure. include any machinery or equipment installed for use on property taken by eminent domain, or on the remainder if such property is part of a larger parcel, that cannot be removed without a substantial economic loss or without substantial damage to the prope rty on which it is installed, regardless of the method of installation. In determining whether particular property can be removed "without a substantial economic loss" within the meaning of this section, the value of the property in place considered as a part of the realty should be compared with its value if it were removed and sold.
…the Appraisal Institute
The Appraisal Institute is a national organization of appraisers that self -regulates its members, and the undersigned are designated Members of the Appraisal Institute (MAI). A Member must adhere to the Institute's ethics code and standards.

The U.S. congress has tasked the Appraisal Foundation to set standards and procedures with which state -certified appraisers must comply when appraising property interests involved in federally regulated transactions.

216 of 263

San Bruno Fire Department APN: 019-043-490
San Bruno Avenue, Between Skyline Boulevard
and Glenview Drive
San Bruno, California

BENDER ROSENTHAL, INC. 25334A 63
Excess Land
Source: The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, Appraisal Institute, 7th Edition, P. 66 Land that is not needed to serve or support the existing use. The highest and best use of the excess land may or may not be the same as the highest and best use of the improved parcel. Excess land has the potential to be sold separately and is valued separately.

Leased Fee Interest
Source: The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, Appraisal Institute, 7th Edition, P. 105 The ownership interest held by the lessor, which includes the right to receive the contract rent specified in the lease plus the reversionary right when the lease expires.

Highest and Best Use
Source: The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, Appraisal Institute, 7th Edition P. 88

1. The reasonably probable use of property that results in the highest value. The four criteria that the highest and best use must meet are legal permissibility, physical possibility, financial feasibility, and maximum productivity.

2. The use of an asset that maximizes its potential and that is possible, legally permissible, and financially feasible. The highest and best use may be for continuation of an asset’s existing use or for some alternative use. This is determined by the use that a market participant would have in mind for the asset when formulating the price that it would be willing to bid. (IVS)

3. [The] highest and most profitable use for which the property is adaptable and needed or likely to be needed in the reasonably near future. (Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions)

4. [For fair value determination] The use of a nonfinancial asset by market participants that would maximize the value of the asset or the group of assets and liabilities (for example, a business) within which the asset would be used. (FASB Glossary) The highest and best use of a nonfinancial asset takes into account the use that is physically possible, legally permissible, and financially feasible. (FASB 820-10-35-10B). The highest and best use of a nonfinancial asset establishes the valuation premise used to measure the fair value of the asset, as follows: (a) The highest and best use of a nonfinancial asset might provide maximum value to market participants through its use in combination with other assets as a group (as installed or otherwise configured f or use) or in combination with other assets and liabilities (for example, a business). (b) The highest and best use of the asset might provide maximum value to market participants on a standalone basis. (FASB 820-10-35-10E)
Value in Use
Source: The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, Appraisal Institute, 7th Edition P. 201

1. The amount determined by discounting the future cash flows (including the ultimate proceeds of disposal) expected to be derived from the use of an asset at an appropriate rate that allows for the risk of the activities concerned. (FASB Accounting Standards Codification, Master Glossary)

2. Formerly used in valuation practice as a synonym for contributory value or use value.

217 of 263

San Bruno Fire Department APN: 019-043-490
San Bruno Avenue, Between Skyline Boulevard
and Glenview Drive
San Bruno, California

BENDER ROSENTHAL, INC. 25334A 64
Across the Fence (ATF) Method
Source: The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, Appraisal Institute, 7th Edition P. 3 A land valuation method used in the appraisal of corridors. The across -the-fence method is used to develop a value opinion based on comparison to abutting land.

Special-Purpose Property
Source: The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, Appraisal Institute, 7th Edition P. 178 An improved property with a unique physical design, special construction materials, or a layout that particularly adapts its utility to the use for which it was built and may be costly to modify to another use; also called a special-design property.

Police Power
Source: The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, Appraisal Institute, 7th Edition P. 144 The inherent power of government to regulate property in order to protect public health, safety, and general welfare.

Transportation Corridor
Source: Caltrans Right of Way Manual, Section 7.13.60.00 (Rev 1/2014) A corridor which includes existing operating and nonoperating railroad property with reasonably probable future transportation uses, including railroad tracks, excess width, utility lines, pipelines, fiber-optic lines, etc. These uses must not be speculative.

Operating Railroad Property
Source: Caltrans Right of Way Manual, Section 7.13.60.00 (Rev 1/2014) The property necessary for operation of rail service over the railroad right of way. The area covered by the nonabandoned tracks plus the minimum additional clearance width as set by the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) and/or the safety standards set by the railroad. It may include switching yards, station sites and their parking lots, and crossing gates and associated equipment. All operating railroad property is located within a transportation corridor.

Non-Operating Railroad Property
Source: Caltrans Right of Way Manual, Section 7.13.60.00 (Rev 1/2014) Anything other than operating railroad property; i.e., property which is not required to operate rail service on a right of way. This may include unused right of way where track has been removed, area required for flood protection, grading, land leased to others, administrative properties, etc. It is important to note that railroad property converted to hiking or biking trails might not change the “transportation corridor” status.

218 of 263

San Bruno Fire Department APN: 019-043-490
San Bruno Avenue, Between Skyline Boulevard
and Glenview Drive
San Bruno, California

BENDER ROSENTHAL, INC. 25334A 65

QUALIFICATIONS OF APPRAISERS

219 of 263

220 of 263

221 of 263

Appraisal Review Report

BENDER ROSENTHAL, INCORPORATED APPRAISAL REPORT OF

STATE OF CALIFORNIA PROPERTY

SAN BRUNO AVENUE AT SKYLINE BOULEVARD

SAN BRUNO, CA
SAN MATEO COUNTY APN 019-043-490

PREPARED FOR

ARI DELAY

SAN BRUNO FIRE DEPARTMENT

PREPARED BY

MICHELLE PATTON, MAI, SR/WA

CHAPMAN & PATTON

EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE REVIEW

FEBRUARY 23, 2026

222 of 263

223 of 263

TABLE of CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION
Purpose of the Assignment ........................................................................................................................... 1 Intended User and Client .............................................................................................................................. 1 Intended Use ................................................................................................................................................. 1 Review Appraiser .......................................................................................................................................... 1 Scope of Appraisal Review ........................................................................................................................... 1 Statement of Limiting Conditions ................................................................................................................. 2 Extraordinary Assumptions & Hypothetical Conditions .............................................................................. 2

APPRAISAL REVIEW SUMMARY
Appraisal Report ........................................................................................................................................... 3 Owner of Record ........................................................................................................................................... 3 Interest Appraised ......................................................................................................................................... 3 Size of the Subject ........................................................................................................................................ 3 Comments and Recommendations ................................................................................................................ 3 Highest And Best Use or Permitted Use ....................................................................................................... 3 Improvements ............................................................................................................................................... 3 Income Capitalization Approach .................................................................................................................. 3 Cost Approach .............................................................................................................................................. 3 Sales Comparison Approach ......................................................................................................................... 3 Market Value Conclusions ............................................................................................................................ 6 Appraisal Review Conclusions ..................................................................................................................... 6

CERTIFICATION
Certification of Appraiser ............................................................................................................................. 8

ADDENDA
Appraisal Checklist ..................................................................................................................................... 11 Qualifications .............................................................................................................................................. 12

224 of 263

CHAPMAN & PATTON

Page 1 ends

INTRODUCTION
Purpose of the Assignment
The purpose of this assignment is to determine whether the results of the work under review are credible for the intended user’s intended use and to provide a review appraisal report of the Appraisal Report prepared by Bender Rosenthal, Inc. for content and compliance with the appraisers’ client requirements and with applicable laws and regulations. The Appraisal Report was updated to reflect certain Caltrans requirements for this assignment.

Intended User and Client
The intended user and client of this review report is the City of San Bruno. Caltrans is also an intended user.

Intended Use
The intended use of the reviewer’s opinions and conclusions is to verify compliance with applicable laws and standards of the Appraisal Report prepared by Bender Rosenthal, Inc. The stated intended use of the work under review is to “assist Caltrans in the negotiations with the prospective buyer for the purchase of the excess land disposal unit.”

Review Appraiser
Michelle Patton, MAI, SR/WA, R/W-AC
Certified General Real Estate Appraiser, State of California #AG030012 Chapman & Patton

Scope of Appraisal Review
The Scope of Work includes developing an opinion as to whether the report under review is appropriate and not misleading within the context of the requirements applicable to that work. My review of this Appraisal Report is based on the material submitted in the report, research and discussions with market participants, and my knowledge of the local real estate market. The Appraisal Review Scope of Work is in compliance with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, as applicable, and includes, but is not limited to, the following items:

• Evaluate compliance with various standards and regulations, including the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, California Civil Code of Procedure, and the Code of Professional Ethics and Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Institute.

• Evaluate the appraisal report for support and reasonableness for the opinions and conclusions relating to highest and best use as presented.

• Evaluate the appraisal report for support, relevance and appropriateness of the valuation methodology utilized and conclusions arrived at.

• Evaluate the adequacy of the confirmation of market data, including independent data verification with public records, and where possible, with direct parties to the transactions.

• Provide comments regarding any omissions or technical problems with the appraisal report, such as lack of reasonable support for conclusions, or incorrect calculations.

• As the review appraiser, I made no field review of the Subject property.

225 of 263

CHAPMAN & PATTON

Page 2 ends

• As the review appraiser, I made no independent opinion of value of the Subject property.

Statement of Limiting Conditions
The referenced appraisal and this review are subject to the following assumptions:

1) No responsibility is assumed for legal or title considerations. Title to the property is assumed to be good and marketable unless otherwise stated in this report.

2) The property is appraised free and clear of any or all liens and encumbrances unless otherwise stated in this report.

3) Responsible ownership and competent property management are assumed unless otherwise stated in this report.

4) The appraiser, in the process of conducting the analysis, relied upon information provided by third party professionals. The appraiser is unable to prove the reliability of such data and accepts no responsibility for the accuracy of such data. The review er, during the course of the review, relied, relied upon information provided by the appraiser. Other than as specified in this memorandum, the reviewer is unable to prove the reliability of such data, and reference, accepts no responsibility for the accuracy of such data.

5) Possession of this report, or a copy thereof, does not carry with it the right of publication. It may not be used for any purpose by any person other than the party to whom it is addressed without the written prior consent of the Appraiser, and in any event, only with proper written qualifications and only in its entirety.

6) Neither all nor any part of the contents of this report (especially any conclusions as to value, the identity of the Appraiser, or the firm with which the Appraiser is connected) shall be disseminated to the public through advertising, public relations, news sales, or other media.

7) This review appraisal report is for the sole use of the client, the City of San Bruno, and intended users, which include Caltrans.

Extraordinary Assumptions & Hypothetical Conditions
Please note that all Extraordinary Assumptions could have an effect on the results of this appraisal review.

Extraordinary Assumption: None.

Hypothetical Condition: None.

226 of 263

CHAPMAN & PATTON

Page 3 ends

APPRAISAL REVIEW SUMMARY

Appraisal Report
The Appraisal Report for the vacant land property located at on San Bruno Avenue between Skyline Boulevard and Glenview Drive and identified as San Mateo County APN 019-043-490, was prepared by Craig Strawmier, MAI, AI-GRS and Angela R. Hernandez, MAI, AI-GRS, R/W-AC of Bender Rosenthal Inc., located at 2825 Watt Avenue, Suite 200, Sacramento, CA 95821.

Valuation Date: September 3, 2025
Date of Report: February 20, 2026
Date Review Completed: February 23, 2026

Owner of Record
State of California

Interest Appraised
Fee simple estate

Size of the Subject
~7.00 acres - The appraisal report describes the potential developable portions of the site with 5.76 acres, and the unusable areas with 1.24 acres.

REVIEW COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Highest and Best Use
The work under review states that the highest and best use of the Subject as vacant is to hold for future commercial development in the mid- to-long term. The Appraisal Report demonstrated adequate support and reasonableness for the conclusion of highest and best use.

Improvements
The property is unimproved.

Valuation
The appraisal under review provides an estimate of fair market value under two scenarios; for the entire fee acquisition of the Subject property (7.00 gross acres) and for the partial acquisition of a 1.3-acre portion.

Income Capitalization Approach
The income capitalization approach was not utilized.

Cost Approach
The income capitalization approach was not utilized.

Sales Comparison Approach
The Sales Comparison Approach was fully developed for the Subject property. Given the two valuation scenarios, the market value was estimated separately, with distinct relevant market data.

227 of 263

CHAPMAN & PATTON

Page 4 ends

For Site Valuation 1 – the entire 7.0 -acre Subject property is valued. Within the valuation of the entire property, a contributory value was assigned separately to the buildable and non -buildable portions of the Subject site.

The Appraisal Report included the sales comparison approach with 4 closed sales (sale chart is included below). The market data utilized reflected recent sales within the Subject’s comparative market area.

The unadjusted comparable prices range from $ 20,417,500 to $ 56,500,000 on a site basis , which is equivalent to $85 to $118 per square foot of land. The appraiser made qualitative adjustments to each of the sales, which were reasonable and supported by the narrative regarding size, location, shape, zoning and other factors. The indicated contributory value for the buildable portion of the Subject was reconciled at $86 per square foot, which is equivalent to $21,577,916.

228 of 263

CHAPMAN & PATTON

Page 5 ends

For the unbuildable portion, the Appraisal Report included the sales comparison approach with 3 closed sales (sale chart is included below). The market data utilized reflected recent sales within the Subject’s comparative market area.

The unadjusted comparable prices range from $500 to $120,000 on a site basis, which is equivalent to $0.01 to $5.29 per square foot of land. The appraiser made qualitative adjustments to each of the sales, which were reasonable and supported by the narrative regarding size, location, shape, zoning and other factors.

The indicated contributory value for the unbuildable portion of the Subject was reconciled at $ 1.00 per square foot, which is equivalent to $54,100.

The aggregated contributory values of the buildable and non-buildable areas is shown in the table below.

The appraiser concluded that the market value of the entire property would be supported based on what market participants for each zone would expect.

229 of 263

CHAPMAN & PATTON

Page 6 ends

For Site Valuation 2 – the 1.3-acre southernmost portion of the property was viewed as a separate legal, saleable parcel. For the valuation of this parcel, t he Appraisal Report included the sales comparison approach with 4 closed sales (sale chart is included on the following page ). The market data utilized reflected recent sales within the Subject’s comparative market area.

The unadjusted comparable prices range from $ 1,450,000 to $ 20,417,500 on a site basis , which is equivalent to $76 to $124 per square foot of land. The appraiser made qualitative adjustments to each of the sales, which were reasonable and supported by the narrative regarding size, location, buyers’ motivations and topography. The indicated market value for the Subject was reconciled at $97 per square foot of land, which is equivalent to $5,490,000, when rounded.

230 of 263

CHAPMAN & PATTON

Page 7 ends

The market data utilized is adequate to support the value conclusions of the Subject under both valuation scenarios.

Total Estimated Market Value

• Site Value 1 - Entire 7.0 acres: $21,630,000

• Site Value 2 – 1.30-acre Parcel: $5,490,000

Note: This appraisal review report does not include an independent opinion of value for the subject property.

The valuation of the Subject was adequately supported and the conclusions for market value were appropriate and reasonable.

Severance Damages/Benefits
An analysis of severance damages and/or benefits is not relevant.

Appraisal Review Conclusions
The Bender Rosenthal, Inc. Appraisal Report has been reviewed and I am satisfied that it meets the minimum requirements of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP), California Civil Code of Procedure, and the Code of Professional Ethics and Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Institute. The report is adequate in completeness and consistency utilizing the apparent relevant market data contained in the report for use in the conclusion of the highest and best use of the property under appraisement, subject to the Extraordinary Assumptions and Hypothetical Conditions outlined in the Appraisal Report.

The value opinions stated in the report are adequately supported given the data and analyses presented. The Appraisal Report prepared by Bender Rosenthal, Inc. is recommended for approval for use in negotiating the proposed property swap between the State of California and The City of San Bruno.

231 of 263

CHAPMAN & PATTON

Page 8 ends

Certification of Review Appraiser

1. I have have not personally viewed the subject parcel(s), the comparable sales and the listings contained in the report. I am satisfied with the relative comparability noted.

2. The highest and best use of the property(ies), as shown in the report is reasonable and proper.

3. Gross income multipliers
are supported with factual data
are not applicable

4. The cost approach
is supported with data from recognized sources
is not applicable

5. The income approach
including the capitalization rate, is supported by data from the market is not applicable

6. Damages
are correct and supported in accordance with existing instructions are not applicable

7. Benefits
are correct and supported in accordance with existing instructions are not applicable

8. Construction contract work
is correct and supported in accordance with existing instructions is not applicable

9. The amount listed for each parcel in the certificate is the market value amount approved or recommended for approval to govern negotiation and settlement.

10. I understand that the approved value may be used in connection with a Federal highway project.

11. I have no direct or indirect, present or contemplated future personal interest in such property or in any benefit from the acquisition of such property appraised.

12. The report has been made in conformity with the appropriate Federal and State laws, regulations, and policies and procedures applicable to the appraisal of right of way.

13. That to the best of my knowledge no portion of the value assigned to each property contained in the report consists of items, which are noncompensable under established laws of the State of California.

14. That my salary/compensation is not contingent upon developing or reporting predetermined results.

15. That I believe the information contained in the appraisal report is accurate, but I assume no responsibility for its accuracy.

232 of 263

CHAPMAN & PATTON

Page 9 ends

16. That the amount approved or recommended for approval for each parcel is not a direct amount, but was arrived at fairly without coercion and is based on appraisals and other factual data of record.

17. That any typographical, grammatical, or minor mathematical errors remaining in the report were not considered to either materially affect the concluded value or to mislead the reader in understanding the report and the conclusions contained therein.

18. That the requirements of the Right of Way Manual have been met as evidenced by the Appraisal Checklist, which is attached hereto.

19. That the values expressed in the appraisal report
were not changed in any manner
were changed as specified in the attached Review Appraiser Report

20. The statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct.

21. The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions and are my personal, impartial, and unbiased professional analyses, opinions, and conclusions.

22. I have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of the work under review and no personal interest with respect to the parties involved.

23. I have performed no other services, as an appraiser or in any other capacity, regarding the property that is the subject of the work under review within the three-year period immediately preceding acceptance of this assignment.

24. I have no bias with respect to the property that is the subject of the work under review or to the parties involved with this assignment.

25. My analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Practice.

26. No one provided significant appraisal or appraisal review assistance to the person signing this certification.

27. The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the Code of Professional Ethics and Standards of Professional Practice of the Appraisal Institute.

28. The use of this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Institute relating to review by its duly authorized representatives.

29. As of the date of this report, Michelle Patton has completed the continuing education program for Designated Members of the Appraisal Institute.

February 23, 2026
Date Michelle Patton, MAI, SR/WA, R/W-AC
Certified General Real Estate Appraiser # AG030012

233 of 263

CHAPMAN & PATTON

Page 10 ends

ADDENDA

234 of 263

CHAPMAN & PATTON

Page 11 ends

Appraisal Checklist

County: San Mateo
Route: San Bruno Avenue
Assessor Parcel No. 019-043-490

Appraisers: Bender Rosenthal, Inc. Date of Appraisal: September 3, 2025 Craig Strawmier, MAI, AI-GRS
Angela R. Hernandez, MAI, AI-GRS, R/W-AC

Property Owner: State of CA Property Type: Vacant

Acquisition: Full Fee Acquisition Market Value: $21,630,000 Acquisition: Partial Fee Acquisition Market Value: $5,490,000

Note: This is a checklist of items required for presence, absence, or applicability of these items.

However, additional comments are included as indicated.

235 of 263

CHAPMAN & PATTON

Page 12 ends

CHAPMAN & PATTON

Sierra Office Bend Office
P.O. Box 25 20566 SE Cameron Ave
Standard, CA 95373 Bend, OR 97702
Phone: 209-484-3217 Phone: 925.831.1311
Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]

Michelle Patton MAI, SR/WA, R/W-AC
President, Chapman & Patton

Experience:
2014 - Present Principal Appraiser: Chapman & Patton Sonora, California

2008-2013 Senior Appraiser: Craig Owyang Real Estate, Inc.

Elk Grove, California.

2003-2008 Staff Appraiser: Robert Ford & Associates, Inc.

Modesto, California.

Memberships: The Appraisal Institute
International Right-of-Way Association
National Association of Realtors®
American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers

Appraisal Designations: MAI, Designated Member, Appraisal Institute

Right-of-Way Designation: SR/WA (Senior Right-of-Way Agent – IRWA) R/W-AC (Right-of-Way Appraisal Certification – IRWA)

State Certification: Certified General Real Estate Appraiser State of California (AG030012)

Other Licensure: Real Estate Broker - Bureau of Real Estate State of California (BRE 01767847)

Qualified as an Expert Witness: Alameda County Superior Court Appraiser Profile
Michelle Patton, MAI, SR/WA, R/W-AC was born and raised in California, originally from Danville but now resides in Sonora.

Mrs. Patton began her appraisal career in 2003 with Robert Ford and Associates, a commercial appraisal firm in Modesto, California. In 2009, the firm was purchased by Craig Owyang Real Estate where Mrs. Patton was a senior appraiser for over four years. She officially joined Dean Chapman & Associates as a staff appraiser in 2014. She earned the MAI designation from the Appraisal Institute in 2012 and the SR/WA and R/W -AC (Right -of-Way Appraisal Certification) from the International Right of Way Association in 2017 and 2013, respectively. She served as President on the Northern California Chapter of the Appraisal Institute’s board of directors in 2018. In 2019, she co-authored an article entitled “Transitional Use TCE”, which appeared in Right of Way magazine published by the International Right of Way Association.

236 of 263

CHAPMAN & PATTON

Page 13 ends

Recent Professional Education

• Appraisal of Fast Food Restaurants – (McKissock) April 2024 • 4-Hour Federal and Ca. Statutory and Regulatory Laws – (Appraisal Institute) – November 2022 • Vineyard Valuation Seminar (Appraisal Institute) – November 2020 • Complex Litigation Seminar (Appraisal Institute) – August 2020 • USPAP (Appraisal Institute) – February 2020
• Healthy is the New High Performance for Homes (Appraisal Institute) – January 2019 • 4-Hour Federal and California Statutory and Regulatory Laws – (Appraisal Institute) – Nov 2018 • IRS, Gift and Estate Tax Valuations – (Appraisal Institute) – November 2018 • Vineyard Valuation – (Appraisal Institute) – August 2018 • Business Practices and Ethics (Appraisal Institute) – February 2018 • USPAP (Appraisal Institute) – February 2018
• Zero Net Energy Home Building – (Appraisal Institute) – September 2017 • Bargaining Negotiations (IRWA) – May 2017
• Alternative Dispute Resolution (IRWA) January 2017
• Income Capitalization Approach (IRWA) – January 2017
• Real Estate Engineering (IRWA) – January 2017
• Real Estate Law (IRWA) – January 2017
• Principles of Land Acquisition (IRWA) – August 2016
• Real Estate Negotiation (IRWA) – July 2016
• Easement Valuation (IRWA) - July 2016
• Environmental Process (IRWA) – July 2016
• United States Land Titles (IRWA) – July 2016
• Legal Aspects of Easements (IRWA) – July 2016
• Vineyard Valuation – (Appraisal Institute) – June 2015 • LDAC – Leadership Development Advisory Council – (Appraisal Institute) – May 2015 • Liability, Lawsuits & Damages (Appraisal Institute) – January 2015 • Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (Appraisal Institute) – December 2015 • LDAC - Leadership Development Advisory Council – (Appraisal Institute)- May 2014 • LDAC - Leadership Development Advisory Council – (Appraisal Institute)- May 2013 • Litigation Appraising – Specialized Topics and Applications (Appraisal Institute) – May 2013 • Ethics and the Right of Way Profession (IRWA) – April 2013 • The Valuation of Partial Acquisitions (IRWA) – March 2013 • The Appraiser as an Expert Witness (Appraisal Institute) – February 2013 • Advanced Applications (Appraisal Institute) – February 2011 • Advanced Sales Comparison & Cost Approach (Appraisal Institute) – February 2011 • Advanced Income Capitalization (Appraisal Institute) – January 2011 • General Report Writing & Case Studies (Appraisal Institute) – January 2011

Recent Speaking Engagements

• IRWA – Chapter 42 Spring Conference – Temporary Severance Damages – March 2018 • IRWA – Chapter 42 and Chapter 2 – Transitional Use TCEs – September 2019 • Caltrans Workshop – Transitional Use TCEs – November 2019 • IRWA – Chapter 42 – State vs Federal Rules in Appraisal – Yellow Book – November 2022 • Appraisal Institute Fall Conference – Ask the Experts – Fall 2023 • Appraisal Institute Spring Conference – Confirming the Data – March 2024

237 of 263

CHAPMAN & PATTON

Page 14 ends

Examples of Appraisal Assignments by Michelle Patton

Gas Transmission Line Projects
Variety of property types in Placer County,
Sutter County, Yolo County, San Jose,
Redwood City, Woodside, Lodi, Thornton,
Graton, Tracy, Sacramento, Patterson

High Speed Rail Project
Industrial Property: Fresno
Commercial Properties: Fresno
Agricultural Properties: Corcoran, Fresno,
Selma

Overhead Transmission Line Projects:

Solar Facility: Santa Nella
Orchards: Linden, Buttonwillow, Bakersfield,
Coalinga

Highest and Best Use Consulting
Utility Corridor: Mountain View

Damage from Fire
Residential Land: Santa Cruz

Contaminated Sites
Union City

Misc. Consulting
Highest and Best Use – excess land
Gas Transmission Lines – stigma
Airport District: Rent Study
Parkland Proximity: Effect on Market Value
Property Line Dispute: San Leandro

Railroad Corridor Acquisition
Ione School District: Ione
Road Widening along BNSF: Riverbank
Turn Signal/Road Widening: Riverbank
Underground Utility Easements
Rural Residential/Ag: Bakersfield
Rangeland: Coalinga
Transitional Land: Manteca
Shopping Mall: San Jose
Subsurface Easements: S. San Francisco

Road Widening/Improvement Projects
Balfour Road/Hwy 4: Brentwood
Claribel Road Widening: Riverbank
Bridge Replacement: San Jose
Bridge Replacement: Brentwood
SR-84 Widening: Livermore
SR-101: Carpinteria
BART Station Project: Milpitas
Petaluma
Davis Road: Salinas
Hartnell Road: Salinas
Bridge Replacement: West Point

Possible Encroachment Issues
Fence Line Dispute: Redwood City
Tree Root Encroachment: Pacific Grove
Parking Encroachment: Lafayette

Round About Projects
Bardin Road: Salinas
Danville Boulevard: Alamo
David Avenue: Salinas
Landslides
Pacifica

Title Disputes
Driveway Easement: Mill Valley
Sewer Line Easement: Walnut Creek
Pedestrian Access: Lafayette
Review Appraisal
California High Speed Rail Project
Delta Diablo
Various Review assignments for litigation purposes
County of Sacramento

238 of 263

City Council Agenda Item
Staff Report

CITY OF SAN BRUNO
DATE: September 22, 2026
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Travis M. Karlen, Community Services Director SUBJECT: Consider Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing Staff to Proceed with a Joint Master Planning Process with the San Bruno Park School District for Lions Field and Belle Air Field; Authorizing the City Manager, in Conjunction with the City Attorney, to Execute a Cost Share Agreement with the School District; Authorizing Submittal of a Grant Application to the Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Program (SPP), Round 5; and Determining the Project is Exempt Under the California Environmental Quality Act
BACKGROUND:

Lions Field and Belle Air Field are adjacent recreation sites located near San Francisco International Airport, forming a single contiguous open space that is nonetheless split between two separate owners.

Lions Field is approximately two acres, and the majority is City property, with the corner in right field falling on School District Property. Its synthetic turf field is at the end of its useful life; while the turf continues to pass required safety testing, it has surpassed its expected lifespan and will need to be replaced soon. In 2026, the City completed a pump replacement and lighting upgrade at the site as interim maintenance to preserve field playability until a more comprehensive improvement could be pursued.

Belle Air Field is approximately 5.25 acres, including the 4-H area, and is School District property. It is an unlit grass field with known drainage and flooding concerns, and its irrigation system currently runs on a City-owned backflow device, an example of the operational interdependence between the two sites despite their separate ownership.

The current layout and condition of both sites limit the level of use the property could otherwise support. Neither site is performing to its potential, and improvements to one site are difficult to plan or construct without affecting or requiring cooperation from the other, given the intermingled ownership and shared infrastructure (e.g., irrigation). Additionally, there are ongoing concerns about these aging facilities.

The 2025 Park Assessment, prepared by MIG, identified repair and replacement of aging park infrastructure as the community's top priority, with 73% of the 1,113 survey respondents naming replacement of old and worn amenities as the most important City investment. The Assessment's condition analysis rated Lion's Park among the lower-scoring facilities citywide, and its key directions explicitly named improvement of the Belle Air/Lions Park multiuse field as 239 of 263
Item 6m.

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
September 22, 2026

Page 2 of 4 ends

a priority athletic facility investment. The Assessment thus provides the City's own recently adopted evidentiary basis for treating the field's condition as a documented deferred maintenance liability rather than a discretionary enhancement.

Synthetic turf fields carry a functional service life of roughly 8 to 10 years before the fiber, infill, and drainage layer degrade to the point of requiring full replacement. Staff estimate the replacement cost for Lions Field's turf at approximately $1.7 million in 2028. If the joint master plan does not move forward, the City will need to fund this stand-alone turf replacement within the next two to three years simply to keep the field safe and playable, without the grant leverage, cost-sharing, or site reconfiguration the joint planning process could deliver.

Synthetic turf is also subject to Gmax safety testing; a score exceeding 200 triggers mandatory remediation, up to full field closure, with no discretion to defer. The Synthetic Turf Council recommends a stricter voluntary threshold of 165 Gmax. Proactive replacement through the joint planning process lets the City manage this on its own timeline rather than face forced, unbudgeted closure.

On August 12, 2026, staff from Community Services and Public Works presented the conditions to the San Bruno Park School District Board of Trustees as a discussion item, along with a related grant opportunity (described below) and a concept, arising from the City's Public Facility and Housing Development study, to potentially relocate the City's Corporation Yard to a portion of the Lions Field/Belle Air site.

Staff were transparent with the Board that the City has a long-standing, separately evaluated need to consolidate its Corporation Yard and Parks Yard operations, which today operate as two separate, space-constrained facilities requiring approximately three to three-and-a-half combined acres. The Belle Air/Lions Field site was identified as one of two sites evaluated for this purpose; the other being the District's office site at 500 Acacia Avenue, found likely to be too small and located in a residential area. Staff were clear that the Corp Yard concept is independent of and does not determine whether field improvements move forward; it affects only the scale and configuration of those improvements. This idea would be sorted out in the early stages of master planning.

The Board received the presentation favorably as a discussion item and provided general direction to continue evaluating a joint master planning partnership with the City, without committing to a final scope, the Corp Yard concept, or a funding structure at that time. The Parks and Recreation Commission subsequently voted to support this direction at its August 19, 2026 meeting.

Concurrent with these site conditions, the State of California is offering a competitive grant opportunity well-suited to this project: the Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Program (SPP), Round 5, administered by California State Parks and funded through Proposition 4 (the 2024 climate bond). Approximately $188.5 million is available statewide for new parks and recreation improvements in underserved communities, with a maximum award of $8.5 million per project and no matching funds required; though costs above the award amount must be committed at time of application.

The program is highly competitive and favors projects that demonstrate clear community need and genuine partnership between participating agencies. This is the central reason staff recommend pursuing a joint application with the District rather than City-only improvements.

240 of 263

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
September 22, 2026

Page 3 of 4 ends

The application period is now open, with a submittal deadline of December 17, 2026. This is an aggressive timeline, and an achievable one with focus.

DISCUSSION:

Combining Belle Air and Lions Field into one coordinated redevelopment reads as a stronger, more competitive project than two smaller, disconnected requests. The sites are physically linked: reconfiguration at Lions Field and improvements at Belle Air both depend on adjacent land and shared infrastructure held by the other agency. Because of this, joint planning consolidates design, permitting, and construction costs. It also lets the City and District combine matching funds and community-benefit narratives into a single, stronger application.

Resolving maintenance, access, and scheduling questions now also reduces long-term risk for both agencies, and for the District, offers a chance to share the ongoing maintenance burden rather than carrying it alone. This kind of interagency partnership reflects what SPP scoring criteria reward, and it streamlines CEQA compliance and public engagement though the District should note SPP's required pre-application outreach (typically 30–300 residents across roughly five meetings) becomes a near-term joint responsibility.

SPP requires ownership, a long-term lease, or a documented acquisition plan at time of application. The Department is currently negotiating a Joint Use Agreement (JUA) with the District for other facilities. Given the current split ownership of Lions Field and Belle Air, staff will include this site to satisfy this requirement prior to application submittal. This master planning effort will require continued coordination with the District, as well as engagement with SFO and the 4-H program given their existing relationships to the site.

Master planning would proceed to evaluate two scenarios: one that reserves a portion of the Lions Field parcel for a relocated City Corp Yard and master plans the remainder for maximum play value, and one that removes the Corp Yard from consideration and master plans the full site. Both scenarios deliver meaningful field improvements including new turf, lighting, restrooms, and drainage corrections with the Corp Yard question affecting only the scale and configuration of that investment, not whether it occurs. Known issues that a joint process will need to work through include traffic and student drop-off/pick-up, parking, construction phasing, impacts to 4-H, SFO adjacency, field access, and ongoing maintenance responsibility.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Funding for the Master Planning and conceptual design phase is included in the approved FY 2025–26 CIP budget and is limited to the conceptual design scope. Future phases of the project will be evaluated and considered as part of the FY 2026–27 and subsequent CIP budget processes and will be based on funding available. Costs are eligible for reimbursement beginning on the appropriation date of the grant. The City Council appropriated $60,000 in its Capital Improvement Program for Lion’s Park Master Planning. The total cost of the Master Planning Consultant Fees is $89,769. Since the City’s portion of the project includes the Corp Yard study, staff have requested that the School District pay one-third or $29,923 for the study.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:

The action is not a project subject to CEQA. City Council’s action is not considered a “Project” per CEQA Guidelines and therefore no further environmental analysis is required.

241 of 263

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
September 22, 2026

Page 4 of 4 ends

This action is exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15262 (Feasibility and Planning Studies), as it authorizes only a master planning study for Lions Field/Belle Air Field with no commitment to specific physical development; any resulting project will undergo separate CEQA review when proposed.

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt a resolution authorizing staff to proceed with a joint master planning process with the San Bruno Park School District for Lions Field and Belle Air Field, authorizing the City Manager, in conjunction with the City Attorney, to execute a Cost Share Agreement with the School District, and authorizing submittal of a grant application to the Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Program (SPP), Round 5 and determining the project is exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act.

ALTERNATIVES:

Do not approve a resolution and direct staff.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution

242 of 263

1 RESOLUTION NO. 2026-___

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BRUNO AUTHORIZING

STAFF TO PROCEED WITH A JOINT MASTER PLANNING PROCESS WITH THE SAN BRUNO PARK SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR LIONS FIELD AND BELLE AIR FIELD;

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER, IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY, TO EXECUTE A COST SHARE AGREEMENT WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT; AUTHORIZING

SUBMITTAL OF A GRANT APPLICATION TO THE STATEWIDE PARK DEVELOPMENT AND COMMUNITY REVITALIZATION PROGRAM (SPP), ROUND 5; AND DETERMINING

THE PROJECT IS EXEMPT UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT WHEREAS, Lions Field and Belle Air Field are adjacent recreation sites near San Francisco International Airport, forming a single contiguous open space split between two owners, sharing infrastructure such as a City-owned backflow device serving Belle Air Field's irrigation, and each in need of improvement, with Lions Field's synthetic turf beyond its useful life and Belle Air Field having known drainage and flooding concerns; and WHEREAS, on August 12, 2026, staff presented these site conditions, a related grant opportunity, and a concept to potentially relocate a portion of the City's Corporation Yard to the site, to the San Bruno Park School District Board of Trustees, which responded favorably and directed staff to continue evaluating a joint master planning partnership, and the Parks and Recreation Commission voted to support this direction on August 19, 2026; and WHEREAS, the State of California, through California State Parks, is offering the Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Program (SPP), Round 5, funded through Proposition 4, with a maximum award of $8.5 million per project, no matching funds required, and a submittal deadline of December 17, 2026, and the program favors projects demonstrating genuine partnership between agencies, making a joint City/District application stronger and more competitive than City-only improvements; and WHEREAS, SPP requires ownership, a long-term lease, or a documented acquisition plan at the time of application, and the Department is currently negotiating a Joint Use Agreement (JUA) with the School District that will be expanded to include this site to satisfy that requirement, with this effort also requiring coordination with San Francisco International Airport and the 4-H program given their existing relationships to the site; and WHEREAS, master planning would evaluate two scenarios, one reserving a portion of Lions Field for a relocated City Corporation Yard and one removing that concept from consideration, with both scenarios delivering meaningful field improvements including new turf, lighting, restrooms, and drainage corrections; and
WHEREAS, funding for the master planning and conceptual design phase is included in the approved FY 2025-26 Capital Improvement Program budget, the total cost of the Master Planning Consultant fees is $89,769, and, because the City's portion of the project includes a Corporation Yard feasibility study, staff have requested that the School District fund one-third of that cost, or $29,923, with a Cost Share Agreement to be executed to memorialize this arrangement; and
WHEREAS, staff finds that the master planning process contemplated by this Resolution is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15262, as a feasibility or planning study for possible future actions 243 of 263
ATTACHMENT 1
2 that the City has not approved, adopted, or funded, with any future project to be evaluated for environmental impacts if and when funding is available and approval is granted; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of San Bruno as follows:

1. The City Council hereby authorizes staff to proceed with a joint master planning process with the San Bruno Park School District for Lions Field and Belle Air Field; authorizes the City Manager, in conjunction with the City Attorney, to negotiate and execute a Cost Share Agreement with the School District; and authorizes staff to submit a grant application, and execute any documents necessary in connection therewith, to the Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Program (SPP), Round 5.

2. The City Council finds that the actions authorized by this Resolution are exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15262, for the reasons set forth above, and that this Resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption. ---oOo---
I hereby certify that foregoing Resolution No. 2026 – ___ was introduced and adopted by the San Bruno City Council at a regular meeting on September 22, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers:

NOES: Councilmembers:

ABSENT: Councilmembers:
_________________________________
Lupita Huerta, City Clerk

244 of 263

City Council Agenda Item
Staff Report

CITY OF SAN BRUNO
DATE: September 22, 2026
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Dan Venezia, Parks Services Manager
SUBJECT: Consider Adoption of a Resolution Approving Buckeye Park and Catalpa Tot Lot as the Fiscal Year 2026-27 Playground Replacement Priorities, Consistent with the Recommendation of the Parks and Recreation Commission, Authorizing Staff to Proceed with Project Development and Pursuing the GameTime National Demonstration Site Grant, and Determining the Project is Exempt Under the California Environmental Quality Act
BACKGROUND:

The City of San Bruno’s park system plays an important role in supporting recreation, wellness, and community connection. The 2025 San Bruno Park Assessment prepared by MIG identified aging playground equipment as one of the City’s major park improvement needs. Many of the City’s playgrounds are now approaching or beyond their expected useful life and will require replacement over the coming years.

The Park Assessment found that playground conditions vary throughout the City and that several locations have aging equipment, worn surfacing, and accessibility needs. Community input also identified repair and replacement of playgrounds and other park amenities as a high priority.

To begin addressing these needs, the City established a multi-year playground replacement program. Forest Lane Park was selected as the Fiscal Year 2025-26 project and was completed using City funding along with grant funding through GameTime’s National Demonstration Site Grant Program.

For Fiscal Year 2026-27, the City has budgeted $500,000 for the Playground Replacement Program. Staff, in concert with a Parks and Recreation Commission Ad Hoc Committee, reviewed the Park Assessment along with playground conditions, expected use, neighborhood benefit, and the geographic distribution of recent park improvements to identify the next locations for investment.

On September 16, 2026, the Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed the Ad Hoc Committee’s proposed priorities and voted to forward a recommendation to the City Council to approve Buckeye Park and Catalpa Tot Lot as the Fiscal Year 2026-27 playground replacement priorities and to authorize staff to proceed with project development and the GameTime grant process.
245 of 263
Item 6n.

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
September 22, 2026

Page 2 of 3 ends

DISCUSSION:

Based on this review, the Commission is recommending Buckeye Park and Catalpa Tot Lot as the Fiscal Year 2026-27 playground upgrade priorities. These two locations provide an opportunity to address aging playground equipment while continuing to distribute park improvements throughout San Bruno.

Buckeye Park is an established neighborhood park with an older playground and regular park use. While the playground was rated in fair condition, its age, expected use, and location make it a good candidate for replacement before the equipment reaches a more significant level of deterioration.

Catalpa Tot Lot has older playground equipment and a more immediate replacement need. An upgrade at Catalpa would provide an opportunity to improve the play area, accessibility, and overall value of the park for the surrounding neighborhood.

Staff intends to pursue the same GameTime National Demonstration Site Grant Program used for the Forest Lane Park playground project. At this time, final designs and project costs have not been developed for either location. With the Commission’s recommendation and City Council approval, staff will work with GameTime to develop playground concepts, confirm grant funding, and refine project costs.

Once concepts and costs are developed, staff will conduct public outreach on the proposed improvements, including pop-up events at Buckeye Park and Catalpa Tot Lot to gather resident input, before bringing the concepts back to the Commission for feedback and returning to the City Council for approval. Following Council approval, staff will proceed through the City's standard procurement process and begin construction.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The Fiscal Year 2026-27 Capital Improvement Program includes $500,000 for the Playground Replacement Program. No individual project amount has been established for Buckeye Park or Catalpa Tot Lot at this time. Staff will develop project costs and work with designers to maximize the City allocation as playground concepts and grant funding are finalized. If the combined project costs exceed the available budget, any additional funding request would be brought to the City Council for consideration.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:

The action is not a project subject to CEQA. City Council’s action is not considered a “Project” per CEQA Guidelines and therefore no further environmental analysis is required.

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt a resolution approving Buckeye Park and Catalpa Tot Lot as the Fiscal Year 2026-27 playground replacement priorities, consistent with the recommendation of the Parks and Recreation Commission, authorizing staff to proceed with project development and pursuing the GameTime National Demonstration Site Grant, and determining the project is exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act.

246 of 263

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
September 22, 2026

Page 3 of 3 ends

ALTERNATIVES:

1. Direct staff to focus on other playground replacements in the parks system.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution

247 of 263

1 RESOLUTION NO. 2026 - ___

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BRUNO APPROVING BUCKEYE PARK AND CATALPA TOT LOT AS THE FISCAL YEAR 2026-27 PLAYGROUND

REPLACEMENT PRIORITIES, CONSISTENT WITH THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE

PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION, AUTHORIZING STAFF TO PROCEED WITH

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND PURSUING THE GAMETIME NATIONAL

DEMONSTRATION SITE GRANT, AND DETERMINING THE PROJECT IS EXEMPT UNDER

THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
WHEREAS, the City’s park system supports recreation, wellness, and community connection, and the 2025 San Bruno Park Assessment identified aging playground equipment as a major improvement need, with community input confirming playground repair and replacement as a high priority; and
WHEREAS, the City established a multi-year Playground Replacement Program, completing Forest Lane Park in Fiscal Year 2025-26 with City funding and a GameTime National Demonstration Site Grant, and the Fiscal Year 2026-27 Capital Improvement Program includes $500,000 for the next phase; and
WHEREAS, staff and a Parks and Recreation Commission Ad Hoc Committee reviewed the Park Assessment, playground conditions, expected use, neighborhood benefit, and the geographic distribution of recent improvements, and identified Buckeye Park and Catalpa Tot Lot as the next priorities; and
WHEREAS, on September 16, 2026, the Parks and Recreation Commission recommended that the City Council approve Buckeye Park and Catalpa Tot Lot as the Fiscal Year 2026-27 priorities and authorize staff to proceed with project development and the GameTime grant process; and
WHEREAS, Buckeye Park’s playground, though in fair condition, warrants replacement given its age and use, and Catalpa Tot Lot has older equipment and a more immediate need, such that upgrades to both would improve play value, accessibility, and neighborhood benefit; and WHEREAS, staff intends to pursue GameTime grant funding, develop concepts and costs, and conduct public outreach before returning to the Commission and Council for further approval; no individual project budget has yet been established, and any additional funding need will be brought back to Council; and
WHEREAS, the action contemplated by this Resolution is not a “Project” as defined under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines, and therefore no further environmental review is required.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of San Bruno as follows:

1. Approves Buckeye Park and Catalpa Tot Lot as the Fiscal Year 2026-27 Playground Replacement Program priorities, consistent with the recommendation of the Parks and Recreation Commission;
248 of 263 ATTACHMENT 1
2 2. Authorizes staff to proceed with project development for the Buckeye Park and Catalpa Tot Lot playground replacements, including developing concepts, refining project costs, and conducting public outreach, and to pursue grant funding through the GameTime National Demonstration Site Grant Program; and

3. The City Determines that the action approved by this Resolution is not a “Project” subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) under the CEQA Guidelines, and that no further environmental review is required. ---oOo---
I hereby certify that foregoing Resolution No. 2026 – ___ was introduced and adopted by the San Bruno City Council at a regular meeting on September 22, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers:

NOES: Councilmembers:

ABSENT: Councilmembers:
_________________________________
Lupita Huerta, City Clerk

249 of 263

City Council Agenda Item
Staff Report

CITY OF SAN BRUNO
DATE: September 22, 2026
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Matthew Lee, P.E., Public Works Director
Ana Morales, Management Analyst
SUBJECT: Receive Study Session on the Downtown Paid Parking Program and Provide Direction on Financial Stabilization
BACKGROUND:

The purpose of this study session is to provide the City Council with an assessment of the Downtown Paid Parking Program’s (Program) financial trajectory and to present policy options to address the Program’s projected FY27 funding gap of $557,547 (Table 1). Staff will use the study session to receive City Council feedback before returning with a formal action item at a future meeting.

Table 1: Adopted Budget
FY27
Revenue
Paid parking $575,000
Citations 585,000
Total Revenue $1,160,000
Expenditures
Supplies, Materials & Services $1,357,645
Staff Allocations* 94,428
Internal Service Charges 265,474
Total Expenditures $1,717,547
Surplus/(Deficit) ($557,547)
Program Origin
One of the primary policy drivers of the Program was the identified need to improve parking turnover on San Mateo Avenue most specifically studied in the Transit Corridors Specific Plan1 (TCP) and Downtown Parking Management Plan2 (DPMP). The TCP, adopted by the City Council on February 12, 2013, articulates the community’s vision for revitalized commercial corridors and encouraged consideration of paid parking to maintain parking availability and turnover. 1 https://www.sanbruno.ca.gov/634/Transit-Corridors-Plan 2 https://www.sanbruno.ca.gov/628/Downtown-Parking-Management-Plan 250 of 263
Item 7a.

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
September 22, 2026

Page 2 of 14 ends

1 2
6 7
The DPMP, accepted by the City Council on January 22, 2019, supported a parking management approach by documenting the imbalance between high-demand on-street parking and underused off-street parking facilities. As summarized in the November 2024 Staff Report, the DPMP found that on-street parking on San Mateo Avenue was heavily used during both weekdays and weekends, especially during peak morning and evening periods, often exceeding 100% occupancy. By contrast, many City parking lots were below 85% occupancy during those same periods, and public off-street facilities were generally less used during the day when employees and short-term visitors were in the area. The DPMP recommended establishing paid parking downtown to encourage short-term parking and increased turnover on San Mateo Avenue, while directing long-term parkers into City lots.

This led to the City launching the Program in April 2024 to improve turnover, support local businesses, and better manage curbside demand within the downtown core. The Program currently includes 681 paid parking spaces, consisting of on-street parking spaces and spaces within nine public parking lots, with operational and enforcement support provided through the City’s parking contractor, LAZ Parking (LAZ), kiosks provided by T2 Systems, and a mobile parking application provided by ParkMobile.

At the time the Parking Enterprise Fund and initial Program contracts were authorized in April 2023, the financial discussion relied on an early planning-level projection which assumed that the Program, once fully installed and operational, would produce a substantial net positive fiscal impact.

The April 2023 projection5, shown in Figure 1, estimated that metered parking could generate between approximately $225 and $309 per space per month, based on a survey of other cities, and used a median estimate of approximately $2.688 million in annual meter revenue. When combined with increased citation revenue, the projection estimated approximately $3.018 million in annual new revenue in Years 2 through 5 and a five-year net fiscal impact of approximately $9.83 million after vendor and metering costs.

Figure 1: April 2023 Planning-Level Projection Summary
5 https://sanbruno.ca.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_04112023-1815 251 of 263
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
September 22, 2026

Page 3 of 14 ends

1 2
6 7
Actual Programmatic Revenues
Table 2 compares the original planning-level revenue projection with actual paid parking and citation revenue for the first three fiscal years of operation. Because the Program launched in April 2024, the FY24 comparison reflects only the initial months of paid parking operations and is therefore less directly comparable to FY25 and FY26, when the Program operated for the full fiscal year. FY25 and FY26 provide a more meaningful comparison because the original projection assumed the Program would be operating at a more mature level in Years 2 and 3.

Table 2: Actual Program Operating Revenue Comparison
Fiscal
Year
Program
Year
Projected
Revenue
Actual
Revenue Difference Percent Difference
FY24 Year 1 $593,952 $160,536 ($433,416) 73.0% below projection FY25 Year 2 $3,018,120 $1,270,631 ($1,747,489) 57.9% below projection FY26 Year 3 $3,018,120 $1,147,111 ($1,871,009) 62.0% below projection As shown in Table 2, actual paid parking and citation revenue has been materially lower than projected. While the FY24 variance reflects the partial-year nature of the Program’s launch, FY25 and FY26 show that even after transaction activity increased and then remained relatively consistent, combined paid parking and citation revenue remained substantially below the original projection.

The original projection was prepared before the City had actual paid parking transaction history, post-implementation utilization data, or a mature operating budget for the Program. As with many new programs, several early assumptions regarding paid parking revenue, citation revenue, customer behavior, implementation timing, and ongoing operating costs proved more optimistic than actual experience once the Program was deployed. The Program’s actual transactions, paid parking revenue, and citation revenue trends are discussed in greater detail below in the Parking Program Transaction and Revenue Trend section.

While the original projection assumed significant revenue growth once the Program was fully operational, actual results have varied by fiscal year.

As shown in Figure 2, FY24 included 93,464 transactions and $160,536 in total revenue, consisting entirely of paid parking revenue. Because the Program launched in April 2024, these numbers reflect only the initial months of paid parking operations.

In FY25, activity increased to 382,101 transactions and $1,270,631 in total revenue, consisting of $648,659 in paid parking revenue and $621,972 in citation revenue. FY26 included 377,387 transactions and $1,147,111 in total revenue, consisting of $578,387 in paid parking revenue from kiosks and ParkMobile, and $568,724 in citation revenue.

While FY26 transaction activity remained relatively consistent with FY25, total revenue declined by approximately $123,520.

252 of 263

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
September 22, 2026

Page 4 of 14 ends

1 2
6 7
Figure 2: Parking Program Transactions and Revenue Trend Actual Programmatic Expenses
The Program budget reflects the cost of operating, maintaining, administering, and enforcing the Program on an ongoing basis. Earlier budgets and projections were prepared before the City had full operating experience with the parking kiosks, payment systems, citation processing, customer service needs, signage changes, vendor coordination, and staff support required after implementation.

As the Program has matured, the budget has been updated to more accurately capture these ongoing operating costs, including parking technology and payment system support, citation and permit processing, updated signage, intergovernmental cost allocations, training, materials, enhanced meter maintenance, and City staff time.

Table 3 provides the preliminary close for FY26 by operating expense category.

Table 3: Actual Program Operating Expense Comparison
Expenses FY24 Actuals FY25 Actuals FY26
(Actuals)
Supplies, Materials & Services $326,293 $480,061 $611,577 Staff Allocations* $0 $0 $175,141
Internal Service Charges $105,886 $158,829 $227,730
TOTALS $432,179 $638,890 $1,014,448
*The Estimated Actual expenditures include staff allocations reflecting an increased level of staff support as the program completed its transition from launch to regular operations.

Over the Program’s history, the most significant changes are related to how the ongoing management and support costs of the Program are now reflected in the budget. As the Program moved from launch into regular operations, the City gained a better understanding of the level of vendor coordination, kiosk maintenance, enforcement support, citation and permit processing,

253 of 263

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
September 22, 2026

Page 5 of 14 ends

1 2
6 7
customer service, financial tracking, signage updates, administrative oversight, and interdepartmental support needed to operate the Program.

Because the City does not currently have dedicated parking staff, including a dedicated Parking Manager, responsibilities are distributed across multiple City staff, departments, and vendor partners. This includes contract administration, financial tracking, vendor coordination, customer service, policy analysis, enforcement coordination, signage and field implementation, and preparation of City Council reports and resolutions. While not ideal, this is the best we can do for now.

Capital Startup and Equipment Replacement
In 2023, the General Fund advanced $2 million to establish the Parking Fund Enterprise. Funds were used for cash flow necessary to procure equipment and installation of the paid parking infrastructure. Given the evolving nature of the Program, the City has deferred repayment of the advance pending financial stabilization of operating revenues and expenditures. In addition, as a self-sustaining Enterprise Fund, the Program has not established a long-term capital replacement sinking fund to provide for equipment upgrades and replacements when current infrastructure reach end of useful life. Staff recommends an annual equipment replacement reserve of $100,000.

As of FY27, the Program’s finances have not allowed for funding these obligations.

For informational purposes, Table 4 provides an illustrative estimate of how the Program’s outstanding obligations could grow if annual debt service and depreciation are deferred. The example applies a 3.4% annual escalator based on the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics’ July 2026 CPI-U 12-month increase. Because the Program launched in April 2024, the estimate assumes that the annual debt service/depreciation amount began in FY24.

Table 4: Illustrative Growth of Outstanding Program Obligations if Deferred Fiscal Year Program Year Estimated Outstanding
Obligation if Deferred
FY24 Year 1 $2,100,000
FY28 Year 5 $2,535,176
FY33 Year 10 $3,167,732
As demonstrated in Table 4, if repayment of the Program’s outstanding obligations continues to be deferred, the amount to be addressed would continue to grow over time. This distinction is important when comparing the options presented later in this report, because the options are primarily focused on reducing or eliminating the FY27 operating deficit, while separate direction would still be needed regarding how and when to address the Program’s broader outstanding obligations.

Program Considerations
Downtown Storefront Activity Context
Downtown storefront activity may also affect paid parking demand. Based on a recent storefront count within the paid parking area conducted in mid-July, there are approximately 145 storefronts along streets where paid parking applies, including 125 open storefronts and 20 vacant storefronts.

This represents an estimated storefront vacancy rate of approximately 14% within the paid parking area.

The 14% storefront vacancy rate should be viewed as context rather than a direct measure of parking demand. Published retail vacancy benchmarks vary significantly by geography, format,

254 of 263

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
September 22, 2026

Page 6 of 14 ends

1 2
6 7
tenant mix, and measurement method, and there does not appear to be a single national bench- mark specifically for suburban Central Business District storefront vacancy. Broader national and regional retail benchmarks are generally lower, with CBRE reporting a 4.9% national retail availability rate in Q2 20267 and Kidder Mathews reporting Western U.S. retail vacancy rates of

5.0% for suburban retail and 7.3% for urban retail during the same period8. However, these broader figures are not direct comparisons to San Bruno’s smaller, unanchored downtown commercial district. Downtown-type districts may also perform differently than suburban retail overall, and storefront vacancy can be highly localized.

While storefront vacancy is not the only factor affecting parking activity, it may influence customer visits, employee parking demand, short-term turnover, and overall paid parking transactions. The Council initiative Elevate San Bruno9 includes work related to General Plan and zoning updates, including the Central Business District, as well as infrastructure planning that may support future investment and reduce vacancies over time. However, vacancy rates are also influenced by broader market demand, tenant economics, ownership decisions, lease terms, building conditions, and competition from other commercial areas, which are not fully within the City’s control.

Therefore, paid parking performance should be evaluated alongside downtown business activity, customer behavior, and the overall level of activity in the paid parking area.

Council-Directed Policy Changes Since Inception
In addition to storefront activity and actual revenue performance, the Program’s current financial position also reflects several policy changes made after implementation. Since Program inception, policy changes include where paid parking should apply, when paid parking should be required, how off-street parking should be priced, and how the Program should support downtown businesses and employees.

Although these changes were responsive to implementation concerns and community feedback, they reduced revenue or increased Program costs compared with the original fiscal assumptions.

Table 5 summarizes the estimated annual revenue impact of the primary policy changes.

Table 5: Estimated Annual Revenue Impact of Policy Changes Change Resolution / Action Estimated Annual
Revenue Impact
Eliminate paid on-street parking between
8:00 AM and 10:00 AM Resolution No. 2025-48a $110,000
Add discounted $0.50 one-hour off-street
parking option and absorb the $0.10
credit card transaction fee
Resolution No. 2025-64 $32,100
Remove paid parking on El Camino Real Resolution No. 2025-64 $27,000 Adopt discounted off-street parking
permit program for business owners and
employees, including complimentary
annual off-street permits
Resolution No. 2023-115 $50,760
Estimated Total Annual Revenue Impact $219,860
7 https://www.cbre.com/insights/figures/q2-2026-us-retail-figures 8 https://kidder.com/retail-outlook-western-us-market-forecast/ 9 https://elevatesanbruno.org/

255 of 263

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
September 22, 2026

Page 7 of 14 ends

1 2
6 7
Green Zones
Green zones are another policy and revenue consideration within the paid parking area. The City currently has six existing unpaid/free green zone spaces within the paid parking area that are enforced by LAZ. These spaces are intended to support short-term parking activity; however, because they are not currently paid spaces, they do not contribute parking revenue to the Program even though they are located within the paid parking environment and require enforcement support.

As shown in Table 6, staff evaluated the revenue impact of converting the six existing unpaid/free green zone spaces to paid green zone spaces at the existing $0.75 per 20-minute rate. The estimate is based on applying that rate to the City’s current on-street utilization assumptions.

Because these spaces already function as short-term parking spaces within the paid parking area, the estimate assumes they would continue to be used at a level generally consistent with current on-street demand. Under those assumptions, each existing unpaid/free green zone space is estimated to generate approximately $7,250 per year if converted to a paid green zone, and converting all six existing spaces would generate approximately $43,500 annually.

For comparison, if City Council is interested in adding new unpaid/free green zones, initial estimates show that converting an existing regular paid on-street parking space into a new unpaid/ free green zone would result in an estimated annual revenue loss of approximately $5,650 per space. This is because the space currently generates paid parking revenue as a regular on-street space; once converted to an unpaid/free green zone, it would continue to require enforcement and support short-term parking activity but would no longer generate parking revenue.

Table 6: Estimated Green Zone Revenue Impact
Green Zone Scenario Estimated Annual
Revenue Impact
Convert one existing unpaid/free green zone space to a paid green zone $7,250
Convert six existing unpaid/free green zone spaces to paid green zones $43,500
Utilization Trends and Pricing Framework
In addition to the revenue considerations discussed above, including policy changes and green zones, utilization remains a central policy factor because the adopted parking framework is intended to manage parking availability and turnover, not only generate revenue. Under Resolution No. 2023-115, the Program is based on a target parking occupancy rate of 85%, with meter rates set at an amount deemed appropriate to achieve that target. This means the Program is intended to keep approximately 85% of parking spaces occupied while maintaining approximately 15% availability, particularly during peak periods. This approach supports parking turnover, reduces the time needed to find an available space, and helps ensure that the most convenient parking spaces remain accessible to customers and visitors.

The City’s Parking Regulations also provide administrative authority for implementing rate adjustments within the City Council-adopted framework. Ordinance No. 1963, adopted by the City Council on June 10, 2025, amended the Parking Regulations to replace the Chief of Police with the City Manager for management of the Paid Parking Program, including authority related to parking meter areas, paid parking rate ranges, enforcement days and hours, time limits, and the methodology for periodic adjustment of paid parking rates. As a result, the rate adjustments

256 of 263

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
September 22, 2026

Page 8 of 14 ends

1 2
6 7
discussed later in this report would be implemented within the City Council-adopted rate framework and applicable authority.

This utilization-based framework reflects the policy direction, planning work, and industry-standard approach that preceded implementation of the Program, including the City’s Transit Corridors Specific Plan13 (TCP) and Downtown Parking Management Plan14 (DPMP). As described in the November 12, 2024 Staff Report15, the TCP, adopted by the City Council on February 12, 2013, articulates the community’s vision for revitalized commercial corridors and encouraged consideration of paid parking. The TCP also called for a pricing strategy aimed at achieving an 85% occupancy target in all areas, with higher pricing in high-demand areas and lower pricing in lower-demand areas to maintain parking availability and turnover.

The DPMP, accepted by the City Council on January 22, 2019, further supports this approach by documenting the imbalance between high-demand on-street parking and underused off-street parking facilities. As summarized in the November 2024 Staff Report, the DPMP found that on- street parking on San Mateo Avenue was heavily used during both weekdays and weekends, especially during peak morning and evening periods, often exceeding 100% occupancy. By contrast, many City parking lots were below 85% occupancy during those same periods, and public off-street facilities were generally less used during the day when employees and short-term visitors were in the area. The DPMP recommended establishing paid parking downtown to encourage short-term parking and increased turnover on San Mateo Avenue, while directing long-term parkers into City lots.

Now that the Program has been implemented, staff is using current parking data to evaluate whether the same utilization patterns identified in the DPMP continue to exist and to determine how rates should be adjusted within the adopted 85% utilization framework. Consistent with this policy framework, staff’s current utilization methodology is based on a 5:00 PM peak period, which was identified by reviewing daily parking activity over a four-month period in 2026. The methodology begins with paid parking transaction data and then adjusts for vehicles that may occupy spaces without appearing in paid transaction data, including permit holders, accessibility placard vehicles, unpaid vehicles, cited vehicles, and similar non-revenue uses. Staff has also conducted four field verification counts to compare the calculated utilization against observed parking conditions and confirm that the methodology reasonably reflects actual occupancy.

As shown in Table 7, the most recent April, May, and June data show that on-street utilization has been at or above the 85% target, while off-street utilization remains well below the target. This is consistent with the historical pattern identified in the DPMP and supports a pricing strategy that places more emphasis on on-street rate adjustments, where demand is strongest, and more caution on off-street increases, where additional available capacity remains.

Table 7: Three-Month Utilization by Parking Type
Area April May June 3-Month Average
On-Street 90.30% 91.13% 83.33% 88.3%
Off-Street 57.60% 64.34% 60.07% 60.7%
Total 68.50% 72.90% 69.64% 70.3%
13 https://www.sanbruno.ca.gov/634/Transit-Corridors-Plan 14 https://www.sanbruno.ca.gov/628/Downtown-Parking-Management-Plan 15 https://sanbruno.ca.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_11122024-2221

257 of 263

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
September 22, 2026

Page 9 of 14 ends

1 2
6 7
Comparison to Other San Mateo County Paid Parking Programs Because the City’s adopted framework relies on both utilization data and rate-setting policy, staff also reviewed other paid parking programs in San Mateo County to provide additional context for how San Bruno’s current rates compare to nearby jurisdictions. This comparison is not intended to replace the City’s utilization-based approach, but helps inform whether potential rate adjustments would remain generally consistent with regional parking practices.

As shown in Figure 3, based on the comparison of nearby San Mateo County cities with available data, San Bruno’s standard on-street rate of $1.50 per hour is within the range of rates charged by other downtown paid parking programs. On-street rates reviewed generally range from $0.50 to $2.00 per hour, with some cities using different rates by location, time limit, or parking district. San Bruno’s current off-street rate structure remains comparatively low, particularly the $0.50 one-hour off-street rate, when compared with other city-operated parking lots and garages reviewed. Off- street rates in the comparison cities vary more widely, ranging from low-cost long-term meter rates or flat-rate lots to hourly garage and lot rates of approximately $0.75 to $3.00 per hour, depending on the jurisdiction and facility type.

Figure 3: San Mateo County Rate Comparison Summary
The comparative research also shows that San Bruno is not alone in using an occupancy or utilization framework to guide parking rate policy. South San Francisco and Redwood City both reference parking occupancy or utilization as part of their parking management approach. This supports using utilization data as the basis for rate discussions, while still recognizing that local policy choices, customer experience, and downtown business needs. Most important from a fiscal sustainability perspective, however, is the program’s ability to support its operating costs with a General Fund subsidy which requires drawing resources away from other city services in a budget constrained environment.

258 of 263

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
September 22, 2026

Page 10 of 14 ends

1 2
6 7
Where We Are Now
The preceding sections show that the FY27 funding gap is the result of several overlapping factors rather than a single issue. The program is a success if the measure of success is achieving an 85% occupancy rate for on-street parking during peak use periods. Elimination of the program will likely result in a return to difficulty finding parking which merchants had previously cited as diminishing foot traffic. Nonetheless, the program’s funding gap is a budget issue that requires active management. It also requires a policy discussion about what, if anything, should change in the Program’s current structure, and how the City should balance cost recovery, customer experience, downtown business needs, implementation timing, and General Fund support.

DISCUSSION:

This section presents the three policy options for City Council consideration. City Council feedback will help staff refine the preferred approach for formal consideration at a future meeting.

Option 1: No Changes/Continue Operating at a Deficit
Under this option, the projected FY27 operating deficit of $557,547 would remain unresolved and would need to be funded by another source, most likely the General Fund. This option would also not address the broader outstanding Program obligation, which is estimated to be approximately $2.42 million by FY27 if the principal balance and annual debt service/depreciation amounts are deferred.

The City Council would make no immediate rate, fee, or programmatic changes and would continue operating the Parking Fund under the current structure. This approach would preserve the current customer experience and avoid additional near-term changes to rates, paid parking areas, parking hours, green zones, or business permit policies.

However, continuing the Program under the current structure would likely require a similar annual operating subsidy in future years, subject to changes in revenues, expenditures, utilization, enforcement activity, and adopted budgets. As a result, Option 1 would maintain the Program as currently structured in the near term but would defer both the operating funding solution and the separate long-term obligation associated with establishing the Program.

Option 2: Full Revenue Package
Under this option, the projected FY27 operating deficit of $557,547 would be eliminated if revenue assumptions are realized, with the proposed revenue actions estimated to generate approximately $604,517 annually. This option would address the operating deficit, but would not, by itself, resolve the broader outstanding Program obligation, which is estimated to be approximately $2.42 million by FY27 if the principal balance and annual debt service/depreciation amounts are deferred.

Staff would return with a revenue package that includes all of the actions identified in this report, including restoring prior Council-directed policy changes, implementing a targeted rate increase, and converting the six existing unpaid/free green zone spaces to paid green zone spaces.

The estimated revenues shown in Table 8 are planning-level estimates based on information available at this time. The estimates assume that parking behavior, transaction volume, compliance, payment patterns, and parking demand remain generally consistent with the baseline data used for this analysis, and that there are no material changes to downtown parking activity, enforcement conditions, or customer behavior following implementation.

259 of 263

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
September 22, 2026

Page 11 of 14 ends

1 2
6 7
Table 8: Full Revenue Package Summary
Group Proposed Actions
Estimated
Annualized
Revenue
Estimated
FY27
General
Fund
Support
Restore Prior
Council-
Directed
Actions
Reinstate paid parking along El Camino
Real
Restore on-street paid parking from 8:00 AM
to 10:00 AM
Restore the prior off-street rate of $1.00 for
up to two hours by removing the discounted
$0.50 one-hour option and discontinuing the
City’s absorption of the $0.10 credit card
transaction fee
Discontinue complimentary annual off-street
permits for downtown businesses
$219,860
Targeted Rate
Increase
(Table 9)
Implement a:
o75% on-street increase
o30% off-street increase
Rounded up to the next $0.05 where
applicable.
ParkMobile users would continue to pay the
additional $0.30 transaction fee on top of the
increased rates.
$341,157
Paid Green
Zones
Convert the six existing unpaid/free green
zone spaces to paid green zone spaces at
the existing $0.75 per 20-minute rate.
$43,500
Estimated
Total
Full package implemented as one revenue
strategy. $604,517
$0 operating
subsidy, if
assumptions
are realized
Table 9: Sample of Rate Increases
Type Time Current Rate New Rate*
On-street 20 minute $0.75 $1.35
On-street 1 hour $1.50 $2.65
On-street Max 2 hours $3.00 $5.25
Off-street 2 hours $1.00 $1.30
Off-street 5 hours $2.00 $2.60
Off-street 10 hours $3.50 $4.55
*ParkMobile users would continue to pay the additional $0.30 transaction fee on top of the increased rates.

If the Program generates net revenue after operating costs are addressed, staff recommends that City Council consider how that revenue should be allocated between outstanding Program obligations and potential downtown improvements. This could include repayment of the outstanding Program obligation, debt service and depreciation, or establishment of a repayment plan before allocating future net revenue to downtown-supportive improvements, such as

260 of 263

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
September 22, 2026

Page 12 of 14 ends

1 2
6 7
wayfinding, parking lot maintenance, streetscape amenities, pedestrian improvements, or other improvements in the downtown area.

Option 3: Two-Year Glidepath for Stabilization and Data-Informed Cost Recovery Under this option, the City would take an initial stabilization step by reversing policy changes introduced since Program inception as identified in the Background section of this report; namely the:

1. Elimination of paid on-street parking between 8:00 AM and 10:00 AM;

2. Addition of discounted $0.50 one-hour off-street parking option and absorption of the $0.10 credit card transaction fee;

3. Removal of paid parking from El Camino Real; and

4. Adoption of a discounted off-street parking permit program for business owners and employees, including complimentary annual off-street permits These policy changes are estimated to generate approximately $219,860 in annual revenue (Table 10). This would reduce, but not eliminate, the projected FY27 operating deficit of $557,547.

If implemented for a partial fiscal year, the amount of FY27 revenue recognized would depend on the effective date of the changes. This option would not, by itself, resolve the broader outstanding Program obligation, which is estimated to be approximately $2.42 million by FY27 if the principal balance and annual debt service/depreciation amounts are deferred.

The purpose of this option is to stabilize the Program before considering additional rate increases, changes to green zones, or expanded enforcement strategies. The Program’s current financial analysis relies on planning-level estimates, utilization assumptions, projected customer behavior, and limited post-implementation operating history. While these estimates are useful for evaluating policy options, they do not provide the same level of data necessary to establish a clear, long-term fiscal program that ultimately drives actual revenue and utilization.

Under this option, staff would return with actions to restore the prior Council-directed changes, including reinstating paid parking along El Camino Real, restoring on-street paid parking from 8:00 AM to 10:00 AM, restoring the prior off-street rate structure by removing the discounted $0.50 one- hour option and discontinuing the City’s absorption of the $0.10 credit card transaction fee, and discontinuing complimentary annual off-street permits for downtown businesses.

After implementation, staff would monitor actual transaction activity, paid parking revenue, citation revenue, utilization, customer behavior, enforcement activity, permit activity, and downtown business conditions. This data would provide a stronger basis for evaluating the Program’s market value and determining whether additional changes are needed to move the Program toward greater cost recovery. Potential Year 2 actions could include targeted rate adjustments, changes to green zones, increased enforcement frequency, additional permit policy changes, or other programmatic adjustments. Increased enforcement may temporarily increase citation revenue as users adjust to the Program’s requirements, but the long-term objective would be improved compliance, turnover, and fiscal sustainability rather than citation revenue alone.

The benefit of this approach is that it allows the City to restore a portion of the Program’s revenue capacity while avoiding immediate rate increases based primarily on projections. It also allows staff to evaluate the actual impact of the restored policy changes before recommending whether additional rate increases, green zone changes, or enforcement adjustments are appropriate. The trade-off is that the Program would continue to require General Fund support during the

261 of 263

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
September 22, 2026

Page 13 of 14 ends

1 2
6 7
stabilization period, and the operating deficit would not be fully resolved unless future data supports additional revenue or cost-recovery actions.

Table 10: Glidepath Summary
Step Proposed Actions
Estimated
Annualized
Revenue
Estimated
General Fund
Support
Year 1: Stabilize
Program
Restore Prior Council-Directed Actions:
oReinstate paid parking along El
Camino Real
oRestore on-street paid parking from
8:00 AM to 10:00 AM
oRestore the prior off-street rate of
$1.00 for up to two hours by
removing the discounted $0.50
one-hour option and discontinuing
the City’s absorption of the $0.10
credit card transaction fee
oDiscontinue complimentary annual
off-street permits for downtown
businesses
o
$219,860
Approximately
$337,687
annualized, before
any partial-year
adjustment
Year 1: Data Collection
Monitor actual paid parking revenue,
citation revenue, transactions,
utilization, permit activity, enforcement
activity, customer behavior, and
downtown business conditions after
the restored policy changes are
implemented.

N/A N/A
Year 2: Evaluate
Market Value and Cost
Recovery
Use Year 1 data to determine whether
targeted rate adjustments, paid green
zone changes, increased enforcement
frequency, permit policy changes, or
other programmatic adjustments are
warranted.

To be
determined
based on actual
data
To be determined
based on actual
data
CONCLUSION:

The Downtown Paid Parking Program remains an important tool for managing parking availability, turnover which ultimately improves access in the downtown core. However, the Program’s financial performance has differed from the original planning assumptions, and the FY27 budget reflects an operating gap that requires policy direction.

Staff prefers Option 3 because it provides a measured approach to stabilizing the Program before considering additional rate increases or green zone changes. By restoring prior Council-directed policy changes first, the City can recover a portion of the projected operating deficit, gather actual revenue and utilization data, and make a more informed decision about the Program’s market value, rate structure, and long-term cost-recovery strategy. Staff will return at a future meeting with a refined recommendation based on City Council direction.

262 of 263

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
September 22, 2026

Page 14 of 14 ends

1 2
6 7
PROGRAMMATIC ALTERNATIVES:

City Council may also direct staff to evaluate alternatives that would change the Program’s current policy framework before staff returns with a recommended action. These alternatives could include pausing or modifying the 85% utilization target, continuing the Program without requiring full cost recovery, accepting an ongoing operating deficit supported by the General Fund or another funding source, prioritizing repayment or reduction of outstanding Program obligations, or modifying service levels, enforcement coverage, parking hours, paid parking areas, permit policies, or kiosk deployment.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no direct fiscal impact associated with receiving this study session update and providing feedback. Future fiscal impacts would depend on City Council direction.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:

The action is not a project subject to CEQA. City Council’s action is not considered a “project” per CEQA Guidelines and therefore no further environmental analysis is required.

ALTERNATIVES:

1. See Programmatic Alternatives section above
RECOMMENDATION:

Receive Study Session on the Downtown Paid Parking Program and Provide Direction on Financial Stabilization
263 of 263

San Bruno City CouncilSeptember 22, 2026

San Bruno City Council
September 22, 2026