Brisbane City Council
February 19, 2026

- 1 -
CITYof BRISBANE
Thursday, February 19, 2026 at 6:30 PM ● Hybrid Meeting 50 Park Place, Brisbane, CA The public may observe/participate in City Council meetings using remote public comment options or attending in person. The City Council may take action on any item listed in the agenda.

TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL

IN PERSON
Location: Community Meeting Room 50 Park Place, Brisbane, CA 94005 To address the City Council on any item – whether on the posted agenda or not – please fill out a Request to Speak Form located in the Community Meeting Room Lobby and submit it to the City Clerk. Speakers are not required to submit their name or address.

REMOTE PARTICIPATION
Members of the public may participate in the City Council meeting by logging into the Zoom Webinar listed below. City Council meetings may also be viewed live and/or on-demand via the City’s YouTube Channel, youtube.com/brisbaneca, or on Comcast Ch. 27. Archived videos may be replayed on the City’s website, brisbaneca.org/meetings. Please be advised that if there are technological difficulties, the meeting will nevertheless continue if remote participation is available.

The agenda materials may be viewed online at brisbaneca.org at least 72 hours prior to a Regular Meeting, and at least 24 hours prior to a Special Meeting.

Remote Public Comments:

Remote meeting participants may address the City Council via Zoom Webinar. Aside from commenting personally while in the Zoom Webinar, you can also use the call in number. The public comments received will be noted for the record during Oral Communications 1 and 2 or during an agenda item. We encourage you to email comments on or not on agenda items in advance of the meeting to [email protected]. That email address, however, will not be monitored during the meeting and emails received during the meeting will not be responded to or brought to the attention of the City Council during the meeting.

Join Zoom Webinar: zoom.us (please use the latest version: zoom.us/download) brisbaneca.org/cc-zoom
Webinar ID: 991 9362 8666
Call In Number: 1 (669) 900-9128
Note: Callers dial *9 to “raise hand” and dial *6 to mute/unmute.

City Council Meeting Agenda
1 February 19, 2026 - 2 - 6:30 PM

SPECIAL ASSISTANCE
If you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at (415) 508-2113. Notification in advance of the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.

WRITINGS THAT ARE RECEIVED AFTER THE AGENDA HAS BEEN POSTED Any writings that are received after the agenda has been posted but before 4pm of the day of the meeting will be available for public inspection at the front lobby in City Hall and on the internet (brisbaneca.org/meetings). Any writings that are received after 4pm of the day of the meeting will be distributed to the Council and made available for public inspection at the front lobby and on the internet the day after the meeting (brisbaneca.org/meetings). 6:30 P.M. CALL TO ORDER – PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

ROLL CALL
A. Remote Attendance Under the Just Cause Provisions of the Brown Act

ADOPTION OF AGENDA
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS NO. 1

CONSENT CALENDAR
B. Approve Minutes of Closed Session City Council Meeting of January 29, 2026 C. Approve Minutes of Closed Session City Council Meeting of January 30, 2026 D. Approve Minutes of Closed Session City Council Meeting of February 2, 2026 E. Approve Minutes of Closed Session City Council Meeting of February 5, 2026 F. Approve Minutes of City Council Meeting of February 5, 2026 G. Receive 2025 Annual Mandated Fire and Life Safety Inspections Report H. Adopt a Resolution Establishing Procedures for Placing Matters on the Agenda of a City Council Meeting
I. Adopt Amended Public Arts Implementation Guidelines Approving Revisions to the Membership of the Public Art Advisory Committee
2 February 19, 2026 - 3 - 6:30 PM

NEW BUSINESS
J. Consider Adoption of a Resolution Establishing Procedures for Recessing and Reconvening a Meeting in the Event of a Disruption of Telephonic or Audiovisual Service During a Meeting and the Efforts That Will Be Made to Restore Service

OLD BUSINESS
K. Development Impact Fees Workshop
(Staff recommend council continue discussion on proposed development impact fees and provide direction and feedback on fee setting.)

STAFF REPORTS
L. City Manager’s Report- City Updates and Upcoming Activities

MAYOR/COUNCIL MATTERS
M. Recruitment Update
N. Countywide Assignments and Subcommittee Reports
i. Parkside 2 Ad Hoc Subcommittee Update
ii. Report Out on Subcommittee Meetings
iii. Upcoming Subcommittee Meetings
O. Written Communications
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS NO. 2

ADJOURNMENT
3 File Attachments for Item:

B. Approve Minutes of Closed Session City Council Meeting of January 29, 2026 4 BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL

ACTION MINUTES

CITY COUNCIL CLOSED SESSION MEETING AGENDA
THURSDAY, JANUARY 29, 2026
HYBRID MEETING, 25A PARK PLACE ANNEX CONFERENCE ROOM,
BRISBANE, CA 94005
3:30 P.M. CALL TO ORDER
A. Approval of the Closed Session Agenda
B. Public Comment. Members of the public may address the Councilmembers on any item on the closed session agenda
C. Adjournment into Closed Session
D. Public Employment; Title: City Attorney, pursuant to Government Code Section 54957 Mayor Mackin called the meeting to order at 3:34 P.M.

Councilmember Davis made a motion, seconded by Councilmember O’Connell to approve the Closed Session Meeting agenda as it stands. The motion passed unanimously by all present.

Ayes: Councilmembers Davis, Kern, Lentz, O’Connell and Mayor Mackin Noes: None

Absent: None
Abstain: None
There was no public comment. Mayor Mackin adjourned the meeting into Closed Session.

REPORT OUT OF CLOSED SESSION
City Attorney McMorrow reported that direction was provided to staff regarding the public employment item for City Attorney services.

ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:00 P.M.

Ingrid Padilla, City Clerk
5 B.

File Attachments for Item:

C. Approve Minutes of Closed Session City Council Meeting of January 30, 2026 6 BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL

ACTION MINUTES

CITY COUNCIL CLOSED SESSION MEETING AGENDA
FRIDAY, JANUARY 30, 2026
HYBRID MEETING, 25A PARK PLACE ANNEX CONFERENCE ROOM,
BRISBANE, CA 94005
10:00 A.M. CALL TO ORDER
A. Approval of the Closed Session Agenda
B. Public Comment. Members of the public may address the Councilmembers on any item on the closed session agenda
C. Adjournment into Closed Session
D. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Government Code, Section 54956.9 (d). Number of Cases: One E. Public Employment; Title: City Attorney, pursuant to Government Code Section 54957 Mayor Mackin called the meeting to order at 10:05 A.M.

Staff made the request to delete Public Employment Item E.

Councilmember O’Connell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Lentz to approve the Closed Session Meeting agenda as amended. The motion passed unanimously by all present.

Ayes: Councilmembers Davis, Kern, Lentz, O’Connell and Mayor Mackin Noes: None

Absent: None
Abstain: None
There was no public comment. Mayor Mackin adjourned the meeting into Closed Session.

REPORT OUT OF CLOSED SESSION
City Attorney McMorrow reported that direction was provided to staff regarding the anticipated litigation and the public employment item was removed from the agenda.

ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 12:54 P.M.

Ingrid Padilla, City Clerk
7 C.

File Attachments for Item:

D. Approve Minutes of Closed Session City Council Meeting of February 2, 2026 8 BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL

ACTION MINUTES

CITY COUNCIL CLOSED SESSION MEETING AGENDA
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2026
HYBRID MEETING, 50 PARK PLACE CITY HALL CONFERENCE ROOM, BRISBANE, CA 94005
3:30 P.M. CALL TO ORDER
A. Approval of the Closed Session Agenda
B. Public Comment. Members of the public may address the Councilmembers on any item on the closed session agenda
C. Adjournment into Closed Session
D. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Under Government Code section 54956.7
Title: City Manager
E. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
Under Government Code section 54956.7
Negotiators: Members of the Brisbane City Council
Unrepresented Employee: City Manager

Mayor Mackin called the meeting to order at 3:33 P.M.

Councilmember O’Connell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Lentz to approve the Closed Session Meeting agenda as it stands. The motion passed unanimously by all present.

Ayes: Councilmembers Davis, Kern, Lentz, O’Connell and Mayor Mackin Noes: None

Absent: None
Abstain: None
There was no public comment. Mayor Mackin adjourned the meeting into Closed Session.

REPORT OUT OF CLOSED SESSION
City Attorney McMorrow reported that direction to consultant regarding the public employee performance evaluation and conference with labor negotiators.

ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:30 P.M.

Ingrid Padilla, City Clerk
9 D.

File Attachments for Item:

E. Approve Minutes of Closed Session City Council Meeting of February 5, 2026 10 BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL

ACTION MINUTES

CITY COUNCIL CLOSED SESSION MEETING AGENDA
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 2026
HYBRID MEETING, 50 PARK PLACE CITY HALL CONFERENCE ROOM, BRISBANE, CA 94005
5:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER
A. Approval of the Closed Session Agenda
B. Public Comment. Members of the public may address the Councilmembers on any item on the closed session agenda
C. Adjournment into Closed Session
D.CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Government Code, Section 54956.9 (d). Number of Cases: One

Mayor Mackin called the meeting to order at 5:05 P.M.

Councilmember Lentz made a motion, seconded by Councilmember O’Connell to approve the Closed Session Meeting agenda as it stands. The motion passed unanimously by all present.

Ayes: Councilmembers Davis, Kern, Lentz, O’Connell and Mayor Mackin Noes: None

Absent: None
Abstain: None
There was no public comment. Mayor Mackin adjourned the meeting into Closed Session.

REPORT OUT OF CLOSED SESSION
City Attorney McMorrow reported that direction was provided to staff regarding the anticipated litigation.

ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:22 P.M.

Ingrid Padilla, City Clerk
11 E.

File Attachments for Item:

F. Approve Minutes of City Council Meeting of February 5, 2026 12 BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL

ACTION MINUTES

CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 2026
HYBRID MEETING, 50 PARK PLACE, BRISBANE, CA 94005
6:30 P.M. CALL TO ORDER – PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Mackin called the meeting to order at 6:30 P.M. and led the Pledge of Allegiance.

ROLL CALL
A. Consider any request of a City Councilmember to attend the meeting remotely under the “Emergency Circumstances” of AB 2449
No requests were made under Roll Call Item A.

Councilmembers Present: Councilmembers Davis, Kern, Lentz, O’Connell and Mayor Mackin Councilmembers Absent: None
Staff Present: City Manager Dennis, Assistant City Manager Fernandez, City Clerk Padilla, City Attorney McMorrow, Finance Director Yuen, Acting Community Development Director Ayres, City Engineer Bozorginia, Parks and Recreation Director Leek, Admin Management Analyst Brown and Admin Management Analyst Ibarra

ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Council has requested to remove Item N. (Continue Discussion on Proposed Development Impact Fees) to be discussed at a future Council meeting. Councilmember Davis, made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Lentz to adopt the agenda as it stands. The motion was carried unanimously by all present.

Ayes: Councilmembers Davis, Kern, Lentz, O’Connell and Mayor Mackin Noes: None

Absent: None
Abstain: None
13 F.

City Council Meeting Minutes
February 5, 2026

REPORT OUT OF CLOSED SESSION
City Attorney McMorrow reported on the following closed session meetings:
• January 29, 2026: Direction was provided to staff regarding the public employment item for City Attorney services.
• January 30, 2026: Direction was provided to staff regarding the anticipated litigation and the public employment item was removed from the agenda.
• February 2, 2026: Direction was provided to consultant regarding the public employee performance evaluation and conference with labor negotiators.
• February 5, 2026: Direction was provided to staff regarding the anticipated litigation item.

ORAL COMMUNICATIONS NO. 1
No member of the public wished to speak.

CONSENT CALENDAR
B. February 2026 as Black History Month Proclamation
C. Approve Minutes of City Council Meeting of January 15, 2026 D. Approve Minutes of City Council Special Meeting of January 15, 2026 E. Approve Minutes of City Council Special Meeting of January 20, 2026 F. Accept Investment Report as of December 2025
G. Accept 2025 Cycle 3 Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Grant Funding and Approve of Local Match
(Staff recommends adoption of a resolution of support and commitment requesting the San Mateo County Transportation Authority prepare a funding agreement for Cycle 3 TDM grant funding in the amount of $500,000 and approve the required 18 percent local match from the General Fund in the amount of $88,990.)
H. Approve Purchase of Electric Sub-Compact Street Sweeper (Staff recommends approval of the purchase of one Madvac LS125 Electric Sub-Compact Street Sweeper in the amount of $276,807 (pre-tax) through the Sourcewell cooperative purchasing program and authorize staff to issue a purchase order.)
I. Approve Request to Seek Donations/Sponsorships for the 2026 Summer Concerts in the Park Series (This community-based fundraising approach diminishes the burden on the City’s general fund.

Consistent with past fundraising efforts, staff aspire to secure $10,000-$13,000 in sponsorships and donations.)
14 F.

City Council Meeting Minutes
February 5, 2026

J. Receive Update on Affordable Housing Rehabilitation Grant Program Councilmember Kern, made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Davis to approve Consent Calendar Items B-J. The motion was carried unanimously by all present.

Ayes: Councilmembers Davis, Kern, Lentz, O’Connell and Mayor Mackin Noes: None

Absent: None
Abstain: None

NEW BUSINESS
K. Discuss and Provide Direction to Staff on Healthpeak Contribution to Fund a Renewable Energy Project
Assistant City Manager Fernandez reported that staff recommends that the City Council provide feedback on potential renewable energy projects that could be used with the $300,000 contribution that the developer of the Shore at Sierra Point project will be making to the City.

After council questions, Paul Bouscal recommended a project that involved the wall in the Marina and a solar structure.

Council directed staff to work with Mayor Mackin, due to her Peninsula Clean Energy knowledge, and bring back the item at a future Council meeting for further discussion.

L. Receive Parcel R Update and Consider Approval of Contract Amendment for CMG Landscape Architecture
(Staff recommends the City Council receive an update regarding Sierra Point Park planning efforts and consider approval of the amended proposal from CMG Landscape Architecture. CMG’s amended proposal to complete the planning effort for Parcel R totals $73,386 which is less than the amount already encumbered from Fund 455 to support this project.)
City Manager Dennis reported an amendment to the contract is being proposed with CMG to support Sierra Point Park planning efforts. This includes development of conceptual designs within the footprint of Parcel R, and the estimated cost for such design. The goal is to create a 100% Final Concept Design that will reflect feasible park amenities and landscaping within Parcel R based on community input. The intent of the Final Concept Design is to be shovel ready and built in phases based on available funding sources.

After Council questions, Michale Barnes, Leesa Greenlee, Julie Sims, and Mike Chandler advocated for the council to approve the contract and were supportive of the Sierra Point Park planning efforts. Paul Bouscal commented that the plans should include ground squirrel proofing.

After Council discussion, staff was directed to bring back information on the geotechnical work needed on Parcel R. Councilmember Kern, made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Davis to approve the amended proposal from CMG Landscape Architecture. The motion was carried unanimously by all present. 15 F.

City Council Meeting Minutes
February 5, 2026

Ayes: Councilmembers Davis, Kern, Lentz, O’Connell and Mayor Mackin Noes: None

Absent: None
Abstain: None

OLD BUSINESS
M. Discuss Agenda Setting and Placement of Items on Council Agendas City Manager Dennis recommended that the City Council adopt a policy that formalizes the Council’s agenda setting process.

After Council questions and no public comment, staff was directed to return to a future Council meeting with a policy for agenda setting with the following guidelines: the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tempore meet with staff and provide their collective feedback on the next agenda. If there is disagreement between the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tempore as to whether a particular item should go on a particular agenda, a third person, i.e., person still serving on the Council who was most recently Mayor will decide the issue.

Secondly, with the placement of items on Future Agendas, staff was directed to have the following policy: that at the end of each meeting, a line item called “Future Agenda Items” be discussed. At this time, the Mayor will call for future agenda items. If two members of the Council approve, staff will produce materials for a future meeting. The City Manager’s Office will determine the best time to recommend bringing the item forward, depending on resources and other factors.

N. Continue Discussion on Proposed Development Impact Fees and Provide Direction and Feedback on Fee Setting
Item N. was removed from the agenda this evening and will be discussed at a future Council meeting.

STAFF REPORTS
O. City Manager’s Report- City Updates and Upcoming Activities City Manager Dennis reported on upcoming activities and news within Brisbane and neighboring municipalities.

MAYOR/COUNCIL MATTERS
P. Countywide Assignments and Subcommittee Reports
i. Parkside 2 Ad Hoc Subcommittee Update
ii. Report Out on Subcommittee Meetings
iii. Upcoming Subcommittee Meetings
Council provided updates on their subcommittee meetings and county assignments. Councilmember Lentz also made a request to add the following item to a future council meeting: geotechnical study for Parcel R. 16 F.

City Council Meeting Minutes
February 5, 2026

Q. Written Communications
Written communication was received from the following members of the public:
• Helmstadt (1-21-26) Please Preserve Nature
• Farkas (1-21-26) Request to Consider Water Cost Allocation • Salmon (1-20-26) Brisbane Marina Issues
• Cossins (1-28-26) Proposed Development On San Bruno Mountain • Hoger (2-4-26) Support for Amendment to the Contract For Sierra Pt Parcel R Concept Plan • Rill (2-3-26) Invitation from Supervisors Jackie Speier and Ray Mueller • California Local Cannabis Score Cards (2-3-26 ) Getting It Right from the Start 2025 • Schooley (1-30-26) San Bruno Mountain Is Once Again Under Threat • Rodriguez (2-4-26) Park at the Marina
• Barnes (2-4-26) Sierra Point Parcel R Contract Amendment • Trigonis (2-5-26) Marina Park
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS NO. 2
No members of the public wished to speak.

ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Mackin adjourned the meeting at 8:40 P.M.

Ingrid Padilla
City Clerk
17 F.

File Attachments for Item:

G. Receive 2025 Annual Mandated Fire and Life Safety Inspections Report 18 2025 Annual Mandated Fire and Life Safety Inspections

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: February 19, 2026
From: Acting Deputy Fire Chief Craig Wittner
Subject: 2025 Annual Mandated Fire and Life Safety Inspections Recommendation
It is requested that the City Council acknowledge that North County Fire Authority has completed required annual mandated fire and life safety inspections within the City of Brisbane for 2025.

Background
To ensure the health and safety of the public through a mandated fire and like safety program, California Health and Safety Code 13146.2 requires all fire departments including North County Fire Authority to perform and report annually with sections 13146.2 and 13146.3 of the California Health and Safety Code, inspections in every occupancy used as a public or private school, hotel, motel, lodging house, apartment house, and certain residential care facilities.

Requesting the City Council of the City of Brisbane acknowledge fulfillment of the requirements of the in compliance with Health and Safety Code Sections 13146.2 and 13146.3, the North County Fire Authority reports the following relating to those inspections:

A. EDUCATIONAL GROUP E OCCUPANCIES: Total 3
Educational Group E occupancies are generally those public and private schools, usedby more than six persons at any one time for educational purposes through the 12th grade. During calendar year 2025, the North County Fire Authority inspected 3 Group E occupancies, buildings, structures and/or facilities. This is a compliance rate of 100% for this reporting period; and
19 G.
2025 Annual Mandated Fire and Life Safety Inspections
B. RESIDENTIAL GROUP R OCCUPANCIES: Total 52
Residential Group R occupancies are generally those occupancies containing sleeping units, and include hotels, motels, apartments (three units or more), etc. as well as other residential occupancies, including those designated as residential care facilities. These residential care facilities have several different sub-classifications, and they may contain residents or clients that have a range of needs, including those related to custodial care, mobility impairments, cognitive disabilities, etc. The residents may also be nonambulatory or bedridden. During calendar year 2025, the North County Fire Authority inspected all 52 Group R occupancies, buildings, structures and/or facilities. This is a compliance rate of 100% for thisreporting period.

Fiscal Impact
None
__________________________________ ___________________________________ Craig Wittner, Acting Deputy Fire Chief Jeremy Dennis, City Manager 20 G.

File Attachments for Item:

H. Adopt a Resolution Establishing Procedures for Placing Matters on the Agenda of a City Council Meeting
21 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: February 19, 2026
From:

Subject:

Jeremy Dennis, City Manager
Resolution for Agenda Setting and Placement of
Items on a Council Agenda
Recommendation
Staff recommend that the City Council adopt a resolution that formalizes the Council’s agenda setting process and the procedures for a Council member to place an item on agenda.

Background
The City Council has utilized informal procedures to determine the agendas for future council meetings and informal procedures when Council members want to place an item on a future agenda. Adoption of this resolution would establish written procedures for both.

Current practice has been for the City Manager to share the agenda with the Mayor prior to the upcoming council meeting. Any changes to the agenda directed by the Mayor typically aim to ensure that each meeting is appropriately scheduled and balanced in terms of content and duration, along with other relevant recommendations. There is no current practice associated with councilmembers requesting items on a future agenda. Councilmembers directed staff at the February 5, 2026 City Council Meeting to draft a policy establishing procedures for placing matters on the agenda of a city council meeting, involving the Mayor and Mayor Pro-Tempore, or at the request of other Council members.

Discussion
The procedures outlined in the resolution include the following:

1. City Council Regular Meeting Agenda Setting: The City Manager will create a draft agenda. The Mayor and Mayor Pro Tempore will meet with the City Manager and provide their collective input concerning the upcoming and future agendas, taking into consideration factors such as number of items and the likelihood that any particular item will take significant time for public input and/or Council discussion.

If there is disagreement between the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tempore as to whether a particular item should go on a particular agenda, a third person, i.e., person still serving on the Council who was most recently Mayor will decide the issue.

2. The Placement of Items on an Agenda by Council Members: At the end of each meeting, a line item called “Future Agenda Items” will be discussed. At this time, the Mayor will ask other Council members if anyone has an item for a future agenda. If two members of the Council (including the Mayor or the Mayor Pro Tempore) request an item be placed on a future agenda, the City Manager will place the item on a future agenda, taking into consideration staff time to prepare the item, the number of other items on an agenda, and the likelihood that that an item will take significant time for public input and/or Council discussion.
1 22
H.

3. Placement of Items at a Special Meeting. The City Manager, in consultation with the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tempore, shall place items on the agenda of a Special Meeting.

Fiscal Impact
Adopting either policy has no fiscal impact.

Attachments
Resolution 2026-XX
Jeremy Dennis, City Manager
2 23
H.

RESOLUTION NO. 2026 -XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF BRISBANE ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES

FOR PLACING MATTERS ON THE AGENDA OF A CITY COUNCIL MEETING WHEREAS, for any City Council meeting, there must be an agenda posted and published so that members of the public know what items will be discussed by the City Council at that meeting; and
WHEREAS, currently there are no adopted procedures for establishing the placement of items on future council agendas and all Council members should have input; and WHEREAS, the purpose of this Resolution is to set forth how Council members may place an item on a City Council agenda;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the following procedures are established for City Councilmembers requesting items to be placed on the agenda:

1. City Council Regular Meeting Agenda Setting: The City Manager will create a draft agenda. The Mayor and Mayor Pro Tempore will meet with the City Manager and provide their collective input concerning the upcoming and future agendas, taking into consideration factors such as number of items and the likelihood that any particular item will take significant time for public input and/or Council discussion. If there is disagreement between the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tempore as to whether a particular item should go on a particular agenda, a third person, i.e., person still serving on the Council who was most recently Mayor, will decide the issue.

2. The Placement of Items on an Agenda by Council Members: At the end of each meeting, a line item called “Future Agenda Items” will be discussed. At this time, the Mayor will ask other Council members if anyone has an item for a future agenda. If two members of the Council (including the Mayor or the Mayor Pro Tempore) request an item be placed on a future agenda, the City Manager will place the item on a future agenda, taking into consideration staff time to prepare the item, the number of other items on an agenda, and the likelihood that that an item will take significant time for public input and/or Council discussion.

3. Placement of Items at a Special Meeting. The City Manager, in consultation with the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tempore, shall place items on the agenda of a Special Meeting. 3 24
H.

THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of Brisbane this 19th day of February 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
________________________________
MAYOR

OF THE CITY OF BRISBANE
ATTEST
_____________________________________

CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF BRISBANE
4 25
H.

File Attachments for Item:

I. Adopt Amended Public Arts Implementation Guidelines Approving Revisions to the Membership of the Public Art Advisory Committee
26 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: February 19, 2026
From: Jeremy Dennis, City Manager
Subject: Revision to the Structure of the Public Art Advisory Committee Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt amended Public Arts Implementation Guidelines that will reflect revisions to the membership of the Public Art Advisory Committee (PAAC) by replacing the seats held by two City Council members and seats held by two Parks and Recreation Commission members with at large appointments from Brisbane residents.

Background
The Brisbane Public Art Advisory Committee (PAAC) is the City Committee entrusted with ensuring that all public art projects in the City of Brisbane adhere to the program criteria and guidelines for the selection of an artist or artist team, artwork, and artwork location as outlined in the Public Arts Implementation Guidelines. Membership of the PAAC is set forth in the PAAC Guidelines. Membership of the current PAAC consists of two Parks and Recreation Commissioners, two City Councilmembers, and three Brisbane Community members. Among the community members, there must be one individual professionally engaged in the art community, one individual employed by or owning a Brisbane business, and the remaining seat may be filled by either a resident of Brisbane or an employee/owner of a Brisbane business.

While serving on the Committee and for one year after vacating their seat, PAAC members are ineligible to propose public art projects.

Discussion
At a Special City Council meeting held on January 15, 2026, the City Council decided on its assignments for 2026. During this process, it discussed the structure of the PAAC. To align the PAAC with other Council appointed committees and commissions, Council unanimously agreed that the membership on the PAAC should be revised. This revision involves replacing the seats held by two City Council members and seats held by two Parks & Recreation Commission members with four Brisbane residents. The recruitment for those seats will be conducted in the coming months. Membership for the three existing community seats will remain unchanged. In order to effectuate this change, Council must approve revised Guidelines, and such Guidelines are attached. In order to maintain a quorum should the PAAC need to meet, 1 27
I.
the Council and Park and Recreation membership will continue until the four new members have been selected and appointed.

As to the new members, staff recommend that four new seats be filled by Brisbane residents without regard to whether the person is professionally engaged in the artistic community or whether person owns a business in Brisbane
Council will continue to have final approval of any public art project, after taking into consideration the recommendation of the PAAC.

Fiscal Impact
There is no fiscal impact in revising the membership of the PAAC.

Attachments:

1. Revised Public Arts Implementation Guidelines
________________________
Jeremy Dennis, City Manager
2 28
I.

Public Art Implementation Guidelines
City of Brisbane
Amended by the City Council on 9/18/2025
Purpose
The City of Brisbane adopted a Public Arts Ordinance in 2014 in order to increase citizens’ appreciation of art, to improve quality of life, and to enhance Brisbane’sidentity as a unique community within the greater Bay Area. Additionally, public art should stimulate creativity, imagination, induce creative conflict, and add a unique human quality to the community environment and enrich public spaces. A city rich in art becomes an outdoor cultural museum accessible to everyone. Public art can and should be an integral part of the design and the planning process of all development.

Mission
The mission for public art in the City of Brisbane isto support community identity, unity, and pride through diverse artwork that grabs attention and distinguishes a unique sense of place.

Goals

1. Community Involvement – A community develops a specific identity and character over time.

Residents are uniquely qualified to provide insight into the types of public artwork that are best suited for the community depending on the size of the project. Those who reside in the community are encouraged to participate in the selection process of public art pieces by participating at public meetings.

2. Diversity of Art – The collection should be diverse in its representation of artists and artistic styles and be reflective of the ethnic and cultural diversity of the community.

3. Creation of Sense of Place – Art is important to our common experience because it brings focus, importance, and cohesion to public spaces. Public art develops images and provides experiences that reflect the historical and cultural essence of a community. Public art transforms public spaces by giving them context and relevance and making them places of community interest and pride.

Public art has the potential to improve the appearance of an entire business block; to heighten the ethnic, historical or cultural aspects of the community and to attract foot traffic to an area that formerly had little or none.

4. Artist Participation – By encouraging collaboration between artist, architects, and engineers, we can provide an aesthetic dimension that expands possibilities for creating public spaces for the community.

Definitions
• Artist: An individual or team of individual artists whose body of work and professional activities demonstrate serious ongoing commitment to the fine arts. Members of architectural, engineering, design or landscaping firms retained for the design and construction of a 3 29
I.
development project covered by these Guidelines shall not be considered artists for the purpose of meeting the requirement to provide public art.
• Arts professional: An individual who works in the fine arts field (such as arts consultant, fine arts curators, fine arts collectors, art critics, or art educators). • Artwork or work of art: All forms of original creations of visual arts, including but not limited to:
1) sculpture in any material or combination of materials; 2) painting- all media including portable and permanently affixed works, such as murals and frescoes; 3) graphic arts, print making and drawing; 4) mosaics; 5) photography; 6) crafts in clay, fiber and textiles, wood, metal, plastics and other materials; 7) calligraphy; 8) stained glass; and 9) mixed media – any combination of forms or media, including collage.
• Artwork cost: Artwork cost is the total amount budgeted by the City for a public artwork project. • Building valuation: The total dollar amount of all construction permits for the same development project using the latest building valuation data as set forth by the International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO) building valuation.
• Conceptual design plan: The initial phase of the approval of public artwork that includes review of the artist’s or artist team’s qualifications, conceptual artwork design, and artwork location. • Deaccession: Refers to the permanent removal of a work of art from a collection. • Design: Artwork detailing project design, including scale drawings within site context, sealed by an engineer, if required.
• Fabrication: A detailed description of the methods of fabrication as well as any uncommon or unusual details regarding the approach to creating an artwork piece. • Final design plan: The final phase of the approval of public artwork that involves consideration of a highly defined proposal that conforms to the concept previously considered and approved by the Committee.
• In-lieu contribution: In place of an approved artwork on the site, a developer may elect to pay to the City an amount equal to the program allocation set forth in the Public Arts Ordinance. In-lieu fees shall be submitted to the City and deposited into the Public Art Fund before the issuance of a building permit for the development project except when a different time period is approved by the Community Development Director and Parks and Recreation Director. • Installation: A detailed description of the installation procedure if the artwork will not be fabricated directly on the selected site. Installation would include the construction of any required footings or foundation.
• Public art: Any permanent display of a work of visual art that was specifically designed to be located on a site where it would be easily accessible to the public, either on private or public property within the City of Brisbane.
• Public Art Advisory Committee: A committee made of 2 Parks and Recreation Commissioners as designated by the Parks and Recreation Commission, 2 Council Members, and 3 Brisbane Community members, appointed by City Council. The Community members shall serve two-year terms and one of whom will be professionally engaged in the art community, one of whom will be an employee or owner of a business located in Brisbane, and the other member may be either a resident of Brisbane or an owner or employee of a business located in Brisbane. Members of 4 30
I.
the Public Art Advisory Committee will be ineligible to propose public art projects while they serve on the Committee and for 1 year after they leave the Committee. • Public art fund: An interest-bearing account that is managed by the City Manager, or designee, into which public art funds, including donated funds, in-lieu funds and/or public art grant funds are deposited.
• Public Art Master Plan: The Public Art Master Plan, adopted by the City Council in 2025, is a strategic guide for developing and managing the city's public art program. It outlines the vision, goals, and policies for incorporating art into public spaces, and defines processes for artselection, acquisition, maintenance, and deaccession.
• Public place: An interior or exterior area on public or private property that is easily accessible by and highly visible to the general public.
• Request for Proposals (RFP): A formal document published by the City to solicit bids or proposals from prospective artists for projects under $75,000.
• Request for Qualifications (RFQ): A formal document published by the City to solicit bids or proposals from prospective artists for projects $75,000 or more.

General Procedure
Public artwork is limited to permanent, or semi-permanent (i.e. loaned art on rotation), visual works of art, as opposed to performing, written, or temporary art. Visual art includes but is not limited to murals, sculptures, artist-designed landscape features, streetscape features, earthworks, environmental installations, and water and digital displays.

Any money donated to or collected through the Building Permit process will be deposited in the Public Art Fund. The City Manager, or designee, shall administer the funds and establish accounting records according to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). The City Manager or designee will authorize all disbursementsfrom the Public Art Fund. The accountshall not be added to the City’s General Fund.

The process for selecting the public piece to be installed will depend on whether or not the artwork is commissioned by the City of Brisbane or by a private person or entity.

All privately installed Public Art will be reviewed by a Public Art Advisory Committee. The Public Art Advisory Committee is responsible for reviewing and making decisions on conceptual design plans submitted by a developer of a project subject to the public art requirement.

Additionally, on an annual basis the Public Art Advisory Committee will meet to review the balance of funds in the Public Art Fund to determine if they should propose any projects be initiated and commissioned by the City.

The Public Art Advisory Committee shall ensure all public art projects meet the public art selection criteria as outlined in the Public Art Master Plan for selection of an artist or artist team, artwork, and artwork location established in this procedure, before submittal of the Final Design Plan to the City Council. 5 31
I.

The following procedure will be used to review and approve public art projects:

Public Art Selection process for private developers on private property A process map within the Public Art Master Plan outlines the procedure for public art initiated by private developers. Options for private developers include:
1) contributing the required amount to the city’s Public Art Fund; 2) procuring public art themselves with support from the Public Art Advisory Committee; or 3) executing a public art project independently.

In options 2 and 3, the private developer must submit detailed design plans to the Public Art Advisory Committee for review, including artist qualifications and budget details. The Public Art Advisory Committee may make a recommendation concerning the project to the City Council for consideration.

Between options 2 and 3, it is in the better interest of the private developer to follow option 2 in order to include the community in the public art process and thereby build goodwill, as well as to increase the likelihood of receiving City Council approval.

For option 2:

1. The project contact will meet with the designated staff from the City prior to submitting concept design plans.

2. The Public Art Advisory Committee will assess project goals and internal capacity and make a determination whether to facilitate the developer’s art procurement process. If the Public Art Advisory Committee elects to take on the project, it will follow the City’s Public Art selection process for City-initiated projects as outlined in the Public Art Master Plan. Alternatively, the Public Art Advisory Committee may refer the developer to a public art partner (e.g. an independent firm) to support the developer’s process of art procurement.

For options 2 and 3:

3. Once artwork is selected, the developer will submit the required documentation to appropriate City staff for review. Proposals must include preliminary sketches, photographs, or other documentation of sufficient descriptive clarity to indicate the nature of the proposed work.

4. An appraisal or other evidence of the value of the proposed artwork, including acquisition and installation costs. If the value of a proposed artwork (by past records of comparable work sold, etc.) cannot be verified, City staff may choose to have the artist’s proposal and or/other completed works appraised by a qualified art appraiser selected by the City. The developer will pay up-front for any art appraisal service fees. This expense will be deducted from the total artwork allocation cost.

5. Preliminary plans must contain such detailed information as may be required by the Public Art Advisory Committee to adequately evaluate the location of the artwork in relation to the 6 32
I.
proposed development, including compatibility with the character of adjacent conforming developed parcels and existing neighborhood if necessary.

6. A preliminary budget must show the proposed public art project is consistent with the public art ordinance requirements.

7. Within 30 days of receiving a completed application, the Public Art Advisory Committee will hold an open meeting to discuss the proposed project. The meeting will be noticed to all properties within 1,000 feet of the property and posted as required by law. With the agreement of the developer, the meeting may take place more than 30 days from receiving the completed application.

The proposed artwork project will be reviewed using the following criteria as applied to the supporting documentation and past projects:

Artistic quality (vision, originality, and craftsmanship); Context (architectural, historical, geographical, and socio-cultural context of the site); quality and permanency of materials; maintenance;safety; diversity of artists; representation in the existing collection of publicly-accessible artworks; and diversity of artworks (media, scale, style, intention) in the existing collection of publicly accessible artworks.

8. The Public Art Advisory Committee will make a recommendation on the proposed artwork to the City Council.

9. The City Council will have the final approval for any public artwork project. If the Council does not approve the proposed project, it can refer the item back to the Advisory Committee for reconsideration.

10. All costs of maintaining a privately installed Public Art work will be the expense of the private entity unless the City accepts the Public Art piece as a donation. Refer to the art donation policy in the Public Art Master Plan.

Public Art selection process for the City of Brisbane

1. A process map within the Public Art Master Plan outlines the procedure for selecting public art initiated by the city. The Public Art Advisory Committee will recommend to the City Council the amount of money from the Public Art Fund to be used on any publicly installed public art pieces and the breakout between Administrative and Maintenance costs of the project. The Public Art Advisory Committee will also recommend a location for the art project, type of artwork when appropriate, process for involving the community, and method of calling for artists.

2. The Council will approve available funds for the artwork and solicit members to be part of an Art Selection Committee, if needed.

3. The Public Art Advisory Committee shall select an artist, or group of artists, through a public process using one of the following methods:
a. Request for Qualifications (RFQ), for projects $75,000 or more b. Request for Proposals (RFP), for projects under $75,000 c. Invitational competition.
7 33
I.

4. The Public Art Advisory Committee will rank various artist proposals during open public meetings at which the community may participate, after which the Committee will make a recommendation to the City Council for the award of an artist contract.

5. The City Council shall consider the Public Art Advisory Committee’s recommendations on the artist or artist group and then make a decision.

6. The Public Art Advisory Committee, any outside professional hired by the City for assisting with the selection of the artwork, and the appropriate City staff (as needed for the particular project) shall meet regularly with the selected artist, or group of artists, in developing the Conceptual Design Plan that meets the artwork and location criteria.

7. Once the Conceptual Design Plan has been approved by the Public Art Advisory Committee, the artist or artist’s team shall refine the project objectives and the Conceptual Design Plan according to the direction of the Public Art Advisory Committee.

8. The final design will be approved by the City Council.

Use of Funds
All funds appropriated for public art will be deposited in the Public Art Fund. The City Council shall authorize projects for funding as prescribed in the public art implementation guidelines. In circumstances where it is not feasible to incorporate artistic features into a particular project, such money will be pooled and used for art in other projects. Disbursements shall be made in connection with projects approved by City Council. Nothing herein prohibits the City from soliciting or receiving grants, donations, bequests or gifts from private or public sources.

For individual pieces of art, the Public Art Advisory Committee will recommend to the City Council what percentage of the funds will be set aside for the Public Art, Maintenance and Administration, and Education based on the guidelines below and those established in the Public Art Master Plan:

1. Public Art Funds
No less than sixty-five percent (65%) of the fees collected shall be directed for Public Art Acquisition and may be spent for the following purposes:
a) Artists’ services and fees.
b) Acquisition of art.
c) Artist selection processes, including jury selection costs and model or design fees.

No more than fifteen percent (15%) of the money collected may be directed for maintenance and curatorial services:
a) Identifying plaques
b) Repair, maintenance, surveys, curatorial services, and other conservation work necessary to keep all artworks in the City collection in standard condition.

No more than twenty percent (20%) of the fee may be directed for Public Art Administration and may be spent for the following purposes:
a) Project administration.
8 34
I.
b) Community education programs, publicity, dedications, temporary ephemeral projects, and other purposes as recommended by the Public Art Advisory Committee and approved by the City Council.
9 35
I.

File Attachments for Item:

J. Consider Adoption of a Resolution Establishing Procedures for Recessing and Reconvening a Meeting in the Event of a Disruption of Telephonic or Audiovisual Service During a Meeting and the Efforts That Will Be Made to Restore Service
36

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: February 19, 2025
From: Ingrid Padilla, City Clerk and Jeremy Dennis, City Manager Subject: Procedures for recessing and reconvening a meeting in the event of a disruption of telephonic or audiovisual service during a meeting and the efforts that will be made to restore service
Recommendation
Adopt a resolution establishing the procedures the City Council, and its Commissions and Committees, will use for recessing and reconvening a meeting in the event of a disruption of telephonic or audiovisual service during a meeting and describing the efforts that will be made to restore service.

Background
The Ralph M. Brown Act (the State’s Open Meeting Law) requires that all open and public meetings shall include an opportunity for members of the public to attend via a two-way telephonic service or a two-way audio-visual platform, except if adequate telephonic or internet service is not operational at the meeting location. Typically, City Council, Commission, and Committee open and public meetings are conducted in the Community Meeting Room at 50 Park Place in Brisbane, the City Hall Conference Room at 50 Park Place or the Annex Conference Room at 25A Park Place, with all three locations providing the opportunity for members of the public to attend meetings via a two-way telephonic service and a two-way audio visual platform.

The Brown Act also requires that because the City Council has elected to provide a two-way audio visual platform, the City Council (and its Commissions and Committees) must publicly post and provide a call-in option, and activate any automatic captioning feature during the meeting if an automatic captioning function is included with the two-way audiovisual platform and the City Clerk (and the Clerk’s equivalent at Commission and Committee meetings) have publicly posted and provided a call-in option, and activated any automatic captioning feature during the meeting.

From time to time, however, there may be a disruption of telephonic or internet service occurring during the meeting and the Brown Act now requires the City Council to approve at a noticed public meeting in open session, and not on a consent calendar, a policy to address the procedures for recessing and reconvening a meeting in the event of a disruption and the efforts that the City Council and its Commissions and Committees shall make to attempt to restore the service.
1 37
J.

That policy is set forth in the attached resolution and staff is recommending the resolution be adopted. If the policy is adopted, it will apply to City Council, and the City’s Commissions and Committees.

Discussion
If a disruption of telephonic or internet service prevents members of the public from attending or observing the meeting via the two-way telephonic or two-way telephonic audiovisual platform occurs during the meeting, the City Council and its Commissions and Committees shall recess the open session of the meeting for at least one hour and make a good faith effort to restore the service.

If the disruption occurs in the Community Meeting Room at City Hall, good faith efforts include:
• Indicating to the meeting operator to connect back to the call/restart Zoom and checking if the Zoom software is current.
• Having the operator log in to Zoom on the streaming computer and connect to the Zoom Webinar (bypassing the Zoom Room PC) and having the operator feed the broadcast switcher (Tricaster) with the feed from the streaming computer. • Having the operator put a slide or lower-thirds graphic up for those viewing the broadcast on Comcast Ch. 27 indicating that there are technical difficulties and that the meeting will resume shortly.

Notwithstanding these efforts, if after an hour the disruption of telephonic or internet service continues to be disrupted but the legislative body decides to continue the meeting, the legislative body must adopt a finding by roll call vote that good faith efforts to restore service, as described above, have been made but that the public interest in continuing the meeting outweighs the public interest in remote public access.

The operator will then put up a slide advising viewers to attend the meeting in person at the agendized meeting location.

On the other hand, if legislative body decides not to continue meeting, the Mayor or Chairperson will announce that the meeting will adjourn. The operator will then follow the normal adjournment/end-of-broadcast procedure. i.e., putting up the standard slide to visit the City’s website, brisbaneca.org/meetings for more information on upcoming meetings.

Somewhat different procedures will apply if the disruption occurs at the Annex Conference Room or the City Hall Conference Room. Those good faith efforts would include:
• Restarting Zoom and checking if the Zoom software is current 2 38
J.

• Checking the AC power to the Owl conferencing equipment and that the Owl’s software is current
• Restarting the laptops or finding a replacement device to host the Zoom.

As above, if after an hour the disruption of telephonic or internet service continues to be disrupted, but the legislative body decides to continue the meeting, the legislative body must adopt a finding by roll call vote that good faith efforts to restore service, as described above, have been made but that the public interest in continuing the meeting outweighs the public interest in remote public access.

And, as above, if the legislative body decides not to continue meeting, the Mayor or Chairperson will announce that the meeting will adjourn, and the social media post and meeting webpage will be updated to reflect that announcement.

Note that the disruptions discussed in the agenda report are different than disruptions to meeting caused by behaviors by persons attending the meeting, whether in person or remotely. Procedures for recessing and reconvening meetings based on those kinds of disruptions have been provided separately.

Fiscal Impact
There is no direct fiscal impact in adopting this resolution. Should there be disruptions in the telephonic or internet service during the meeting, there may be incidental costs to restore service.

Attachment
Resolution establishing the procedures the City Council, and its Commissions and Committees, will use for recessing and reconvening a meeting in the event of a disruption of telephonic or audiovisual service during a meeting and describing the efforts that will be made to restore service.
_________________________ ________________________
Jeremy Dennis, City Manager Ingrid Padilla, City Clerk
3 39
J.
1 RESOLUTION NO. 2026-XX

RESOLUTION APPROVING PROCEDURES FOR RECESSING AND RECONVENING A

MEETING IN THE EVENT OF A DISRUPTION OF TELEPHONIC OR AUDIOVISUAL SERVICE

DURING A MEETING AND DESCRIBING THE EFFORTS THAT WILL BE MADE TO RESTORE

SERVICE
WHEREAS, the Ralph M. Brown Act (the State’s Open Meeting Law) requires that all open and public meetings shall include an opportunity for members of the public to attend via a two-way telephonic service or a two-way audio visual platform, except if adequate telephonic or internet service is not operational at the meeting location; and WHEREAS, the location of Brisbane City Council, Commission, and Committee open and public meetings are typically conducted in the Community Meeting Room at 50 Park Place, the Annex Conference Room at 25A Park Place, or the City Hall Conference Room at 50 Park Place, with all locations providing the opportunity for members of the public to attend meetings via a two-way telephonic service and a two-way audio visual platform; and WHEREAS, the Brown Act also requires that because the City Council has elected to provide a two-way audio visual platform, the City Council shall publicly post and provide a call-in option, and activate any automatic captioning feature during the meeting if an automatic captioning function is included with the two-way audiovisual platform; and WHEREAS, the City Clerk (and the Clerk’s equivalent at Commission and Committee meetings) have publicly posted and provided a call-in option, and activated any automatic captioning feature during the meeting; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has provided the public with an opportunity to provide public comment in accordance with Government Code, section 94954.3 via the two-way telephonic or two-way audio visual platform and has ensured the opportunity for members of the public participating via a two-way telephonic or two-way audiovisual platform to provide public comment with the same time allotment as a person attending a meeting in person; and
WHEREAS, from time to time there may be a disruption of telephonic or internet service occurring during the meeting and the Brown Act now requires the City Council to approve at a noticed public meeting in open session, and not on a consent calendar, a policy to address the procedures for recessing and reconvening a meeting in the event of a disruption and the efforts that the City Council and its Commissions and Committees shall make to attempt to restore the service.

NOW, THEREFORE, the Brisbane City Council approves and adopts the following procedures it and its Commissions and Committees will follow concerning recessing and reconvening meetings if during the meeting there is a disruption of telephonic or internet 4 40
J.
2 service and the efforts the City Council and its Commissions and Committees will undertake to attempt to restore the service.

Section 1. If a disruption of telephonic or internet service that prevents members of the public from attending or observing the meeting via the two-way telephonic or two-way telephonic audiovisual platform occurs during the meeting, the City Council and its Commissions and Committees shall recess the open session of the meeting for at least one hour and make a good faith effort to restore the service as set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The City Council and its Commissions and Committees will not reconvene the open session of the meeting until at least one hour following the disruption or until telephonic or internet service is restored, whichever is earlier.

Section 2. The City Council may meet in closed session during the disruption period.

Section 3. This resolution shall become effective immediately upon its adoption.

This resolution was adopted by the Brisbane City Council at its regular meeting, in open session and not on the consent calendar, on _________, 2026 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Mayor of the City of Brisbane
Approved as to form:

City Attorney
City Clerk, City of Brisbane
5 41
J.

EXHIBIT A
Proceduresfor Recessing and Reconvening Meetingsin the Event of a Disruption of Telephonic or Internet Service
Meeting Location: Community Meeting Room, City Hall

1. Indicate to the meeting operator to connect back to the call/restart Zoom. Check if Zoom software is current.

2. The operator will log in to Zoom on the streaming computer and connect to the Zoom Webinar (bypassing the Zoom Room PC). Operator would feed the broadcast switcher (Tricaster) with the feed from the streaming computer.

Tricaster would still manage the cameras and in-room audio.

3. The operator will put a slide or lower-thirds graphic up for those viewing the broadcast on Comcast Ch. 27 indicating that there are technical difficulties and that the meeting will resume shortly.

4. If after an hour the disruption of telephonic or internet service continues to be disrupted, and the legislative body decides to continue the meeting, the legislative body shall adopt a finding by roll call vote that good faith efforts to restore service, as described in sections 1, 2, and 3 above, have been made and that the public interest in continuing the meeting outweighs the public interest in remote public access.

5. The operator will then put up a slide advising viewers to attend the meeting in person at the agendized meeting location.

6. If the legislative body decides not to continue meeting, the Mayor or Chairperson will announce that the meeting will adjourn. The operator will then follow the normal adjournment/end-of-broadcast procedure – put up the standard slide to visit the City’s website, brisbaneca.org/meetings for more information on upcoming meetings.

Meeting Location: Annex Conference Room and City Hall Conference Room

1. Staff will restart the Zoom and check if Zoom software is current.

2. Staff will check the AC power to the Owl conferencing equipment and that the Owl’s software is current.

3. Staff will restart the laptops or find a replacement device to host the Zoom.

4. If after an hour the disruption of telephonic or internet service continues to be disrupted, and the legislative body decides to continue the meeting, the legislative shall adopt a finding by roll call vote that good faith efforts to restore service, as described in sections 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, have been made and that the public interest in continuing the meeting outweighs the public interest in remote public access.

5. If the legislative body decides not to continue meeting, the Mayor or Chairperson will announce that the meeting will adjourn; the social media post and meeting webpage will be updated to reflect that announcement.
6 42
J.

File Attachments for Item:

K. Development Impact Fees Workshop
(Staff recommend council continue discussion on proposed development impact fees and provide direction and feedback on fee setting.)
43 Impact Fees (Continued)

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date:

From:

Subject:

February 19, 2026
Christina Fernandez, Assistant City Manager
Impact Fees (continued)
Recommendation
Staff recommend the City Council continue the discussion on Development Impact Fees and provide staff with feedback and direction on these fees for the purpose of scheduling a public hearing at which time Council would decide whether to adopt some or all of the fees and the amount(s) thereof.

Background
City Council is considering the adoption of a comprehensive set of Development Impact Fees (DIFs) to ensure that new development pays its share of capital improvements and affordable housing needed to support growth. Adoption of these DIFs must comply with California’s Mitigation Fee Act (AB 1600), which mandates a clear connection (“nexus”) between new development, the need for the capital improvements or affordable housing, and the fees imposed.

Nexus Studies & Fee Categories:

Four nexus studies were completed to establish the legal and policy basis for fees to fund:
• Parks, Park and Recreation Facilities, Open Space and Trails • Affordable Housing (Commercial Linkage Fee)
• Transportation
• Public Facilities (e.g., Library, General Government, Police, Fire) Each study quantifies infrastructure or other needs caused by new development, allocates costs by land use, and calculates the maximum justifiable fee per unit or square foot. Nexus Studies are included in Attachment 1 following a copy of the January 15, 2026 staff report.

Key Findings:
• Legal Compliance: Fees must be based on demonstrated need, benefit, and proportionality. They cannot be used for maintenance or correcting existing deficiencies.
1 44
K.

Impact Fees (Continued)
• Fee Structure:
o Residential (Single Family & Multifamily): Fees are calculated for Public Facilities, Parks etc. and Transportation. Affordable housing is not included. o Commercial, Hotel, Office, Industrial, R&D/Life Science, Warehouse: Each has a tailored fee structure based on impact and all DIFs will apply to these uses other than affordable housing.
o Comparative Analysis: Brisbane’s maximum justifiable fees are generally higher than those in neighboring cities, but the Council may set fees at any level up to the maximum.
• Policy Flexibility: Fee setting is a policy decision. The Council should balance setting the fees with economic competitiveness and their impact on development feasibility.

Discussion
At the January 15, 2026 City Council meeting, Council determined additional time was necessary to review the nexus studies and jurisdictional fee comparison survey. Council also directed staff to provide a matrix to help guide the Council’s discussion around fee setting. A matrix is attached for this purpose. (Attachment 2)
Additionally, as a part of this discussion, Council had the following follow-up questions:
• Why are some of the fee categories not 1:1 when comparing the fees in other cities? o Cities have various names for different development impact fees. To ensure that the city is comparing the right fees with other cities’ fees, the fees have been titled generally: for example, Public Facilities include what some other cities include as General Government, Library, Public Safety, Utilities, and Childcare.

The other categories, such as Parks, Affordable Housing and Transportation/Traffic generally track how those DIFs are characterized in other cities.
• May impact fees be charged for expansions?
o Impact fees may be applied to expansions if those improvements increase demand on the various categories for which DIFs may be imposed (e.g., significant square footage expansion). Many jurisdictions set thresholds (such as minimum square footage) to capture only substantial expansions. This aligns with the principle that fees must have a “rational nexus” to the impact of development.
• Are impact fees one-time fees?
2 45
K.

Impact Fees (Continued)
o Yes, impact fees are one-time fees collected typically at the time of issuance of a building permit, though many cities have adopted fee deferral programs and State law requires deferral of DIFs for residential developments to certificate of occupancy.
• May impact fees be deferred?
o Yes, impact fees may be deferred, either as a matter of policy (in order to encourage development) or be law. Currently, fees associated with certain residential developments are deferred until occupancy. Millbrae, Ontario, and Placer County, have deferral programs in place aligning with SB 937, which allows for impact fee deferrals for designated residential development projects.

In Millbrae, a developer can request to defer impact fee payments by entering into a formal agreement with the City. The agreement is recorded as a lien against the property, ensuring the City can collect fees even if ownership changes. The requests must be submitted at the time of the building permit application, so the agreement can be prepared before permit issuance. The City manages and tracks unpaid fees in the City’s permitting system. AB 874, introduced in January and being discussed in Committee, goes even further. It would reduce the economic impact of building affordable housing by requiring non-school local agencies to allow qualified affordable rental and ownership housing projects to repay development impact fees over up to 55 years with a low rate of interest on the remaining balance.
• Rather than use impact fees, may the City impose these fees through a development agreement?
o Yes, but few project developers request development agreements. Generally, large development projects will request a development agreement and development agreements may be used as an alternative to imposing impact fees through an ordinance. But since few development projects request or need a development agreement, the City would collect relatively few DIFs if such were limited to development agreements. One benefit of using a Development Agreement to collect funds equivalent to impact fees otherwise required by ordinance is that the use of such funds is not restricted by the Mitigation Fee Act.
• When may the City start collecting the fees?
o If an ordinance is adopted, the ordinance goes into effect 60 days after adoption. Generally, the City may collect impact fees at the time of issuance of a building permit. However, SB 937 amended California Government Code §66007 under the Mitigation Fee Act, prohibiting local agencies from requiring payment of 3 46
K.

Impact Fees (Continued)
Development Impact Fees (DIFs) for certain residential projects until the final inspection or issuance of a certificate of occupancy (or temporary certificate). • May impact fees be used for operations and maintenance? o Impact fees cannot be used for operations, maintenance, or repairs. They are restricted to funding capital improvements and affordable housing needed to serve new development.

Fiscal Impact
The fiscal impact varies dependent on the number and type of development projects in the pipeline and how the fees are set.

Attachments

1. Impact Fee Staff Report & associated attachments – 01/15/26

2. Matrix for Council use
___________________________________ ___________________________________ Christina Fernandez, Assistant City Manager Jeremy Dennis, City Manager 4 47
K.

Impact Fees

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: January 15, 2025
From: Christina Fernandez, Assistant City Manager
Subject: Development Impact Fees
Recommendation
Staff recommends the City Council receive a report on proposed Development Impact Fees and provide direction and feedback on fee setting.

Background
On September 7, 2023 and October 19, 2023, staff provided updates to the City Council concerning Development Impact Fees (DIF), including an informational report discussing the legal authority of the City to impose DIF. The report laid out the need to identify and establish the need, benefit, and proportionality of such fees in order to impose DIF. Council agreed that new development should contribute to capital improvements to mitigate the impacts of new development on the community. Council expressed concern over constraints of utilizing DIF, for example, that DIF cannot be used for routine maintenance and services.

Council directed staff to prepare several nexus studies to establish the need, benefit, and proportionality of proposed Development Impact Fees. Those studies include:

1. Development Impact Fee for Parks and Recreation

2. Development Impact Fee on commercial development for Affordable Housing

3. Development Impact Fee for Transportation

4. Development Impact Fee for Public Facilities
Council directed Staff to finish all four nexus studies and to move forward with a feasibility study, if required, to assess the impact of all DIFs on development in the City, i.e, would adopting such fees, in an amount permitted under the law, render development in the City, as a practical matter, infeasible.

A feasibility study was conducted for an affordable housing DIF (see Discussion below for more detail), but the cost of conducting additional feasibility studies for the other fees is costly and time consuming. Feasibility studies are not legally required to implement DIF, and the majority of cities do not conduct feasibility studies in setting their rates but base fees by comparing rates with other cities that share similarities including size, proximity, and economic makeup. 5 48
K.

Impact Fees
AB 1600, known as the Mitigation Fee Act, provides procedural and substantive provisions that sets forth the requirements for establishing, increasing, and imposing development impact fees. To align with these requirements, all four nexus studies established (1) need, (2) benefit, and (3) proportionality. Regarding need, a DIF must show that the new development will create a need for the item to be funded by the DIF and without the infusion of fees from new development, the community would be negatively impacted. Concerning benefit, the study must show that new development will benefit from the item to be funded by DIF. To establish proportionality, it must show that the DIF is proportional to the impact created by a particular development. Due to these requirements, there is no “one fits all” development impact fee that may be imposed and the City undertook four separate nexus studies. Different methodologies are employed to allocate costs and calculate fees. For more detail, please see Attachments 1-4.

The final nexus study, the Public Facilities Impact Fee study was finalized in October 2025, completing all four nexus studies.

Currently, the only fee that Brisbane imposes on development is the parkland dedication fee on residential development (Brisbane Municipal Code Section 16.24.020 and 16.24.030), the authority of which stems from State Law (the Quimby Act). If the residential development is for more than 50 lots and the land within the proposed subdivision will properly accommodate public recreational facilities, the subdivider must dedicate an area for such purposes on the basis of three acres for each 1000 population within the subdivision, assuming 2.35 persons per household. If the residential development is for 50 lots or fewer, the subdivider is to pay a fee based on the following formula: the number of proposed units times 2.35 persons per household, divided by 1000 times three acres times the fair market value of one acre of the subject property as determined by the planning director.

While not a DIF, developers of certain residential and commercial properties must also contribute to the City’s Public Art Fund (Brisbane Municipal Code Section 15.85.050). For commercial projects that have building development costs between $1M and $5M the developer must contribute one percent of such costs of to the public art fund. Commercial projects that have development costs above $5M must either contribute one percent of such costs or devote a comparable amount for the acquisition and installation of publicly accessible art. Residential projects with ten to 20 units must contribute one half of one percent of the building development costs to the fund. For residential projects with more than 20 units, the developer must contribute one percent of the building development costs to the fund.

Regardless of the number of units, if the development costs are above $10M, the developer must contribute one percent of the development costs or dedicate a comparable amount for the acquisition and installation of publicly available art. Low- or moderate-income housing is exempt from these provisions.

Discussion
The completed nexus studies provide a clear connection between new development and the need for development impact fees relating to housing (for commercial projects), parks, park 6 49
K.

Impact Fees
and recreation facilities, transportation, and public facilities. They also demonstrate the maximum justifiable fee for each of the proposed impact fees. The maximum justifiable fee is data driven by quantifying infrastructure needs created by growth, estimated capital costs, allocating those costs by land uses, and translating these costs into per unit or per square footage.

The final nexus studies were finalized in late 2025, prompting City staff to engage Matrix Consulting Group (Matrix) to provide a comparative, or benchmarking, survey to help guide the City in setting the fees at the appropriate levels. While the nexus study sets the maximum justifiable fee, it does not mean that the market can absorb it. The comparison survey shows what nearby cities are charging developers and may help the City identify whether proposed fees are unusually high or low. The comparison survey assists policy makers in determining what nearby cities with similar markets are charging for their fees. Fee setting is a policy decision dependent on how competitive the City wishes to be with developers.

Comparison Surveys typically select comparable jurisdictions based on size, growth, and urban form. The following cities were selected for comparison to Brisbane:
• San Bruno
• Millbrae
• South San Francisco
• Emeryville
• Burlingame
• Daly City
Five of the six cities are located in San Mateo County, and many have similar growth patterns and urban form. For the complete comparison survey, please see Attachment 5.

For each development type, please view the Impact Fees of the six cities noted above. As the names of impact fees vary by city, Matrix identified the total impact fees charged in each city in general buckets including General Government, Housing, Library, Parks & Recreation, Childcare, Public Safety, Transportation, and Utilities. (As discussed below, the names attributable to those “buckets” do not fully correlate to names of fees proposed in Brisbane.) The nexus studies and proposed development impact fees undertaken by the City would translate into the following:

Title of Nexus Study Title of City of Brisbane
Proposed Impact Fee
Comparative Study Title
Brisbane Commercial Linkage
Fee Nexus Analysis
Affordable Housing
Development Impact Fee for
Commercial Development
Housing
7 50
K.

Impact Fees
Parks and Recreation Impact
Fee Study
Parks and Recreation
Facilities Development
Impact Fee
Parks & Recreation
Brisbane Transportation
Impact Fee (TIF) Nexus Study
Transportation Development
Impact Fee
Transportation
Public Facilities Impact Fee
Study
Public Facilities Development
Impact Fee
General Government
As noted in the Background, in 2023, the City engaged ECONorthwest to prepare an updated nexus and feasibility study for the affordable housing fee for commercial development, including hotel, retail, office, life sciences, and warehouse uses. ECONorthwest’s updated feasibility analysis determined that under then-current market conditions, only warehouse development could potentially absorb an affordable housing impact fee (commercial linkage fee). The updated feasibility analysis acknowledges that development markets are cyclical and provides a toolkit for setting appropriate fee levels anticipating future market upswings.

1. Single Family Residential:

If Brisbane were to employ the same categories of fees as do other jurisdictions, i.e, General Government, Library, Parks and Recreation, Public Safety and Transportation, as proposed, the maximum DIF that the City could impose for single family residential development would be $68,138 (General Government, $31,121; Library, $7678; Parks and Recreation, $26,949; Public Safety, $4991; and Transportation, 2399. Note that staff is not recommending any affordable housing fees for single family residential development.) By comparison, Daly City’s DIF for residential development is only $29,825 (General Government, $1,150, Library, $1,050, Parks and Recreation, $22,450, Public Safety, $2,675, and Transportation, $2,500).

With the exception of Transportation, Daly City’s fees are well below the maximums set forth in the nexus studies. The black line on the chart below indicates the overall average. Of the six cities, only San Bruno and Millbrae are above average in their DIF for single family residential developments. For single family residential developments, San Bruno’s highest DIF is for Housing at $94,625 and much smaller DIFs relate to Public Safety, Utilities, Transportation, and Parks & Recreation. Millbrae’s only DIF for single family residential development is for General Government.
8 51
K.

Impact Fees

2. Multifamily Residential:

If Brisbane were to employ the same categories of fees as do other jurisdictions, i.e., General Government, Library, Parks and Recreation, Public Safety and Transportation, as proposed, the maximum DIF that the City could impose for multifamily residential development would be $9,021,005 (General Government, $2,765,340; Library, $682,380; Parks and Recreation, $4,482,000; Public Safety, $660,240; and Transportation, $431,845. Note that staff is not recommending any affordable housing fees for multifamily residential development.) By comparison, Daly City’s DIF for multifamily residential development is only $2,808,000 (General Government, $82,800, Library, $75,000, Parks and Recreation, $1,616,400, Public Safety, $192,600, and Transportation, $180,000).

When compared to the surveyed cities, San Bruno and Millbrae are significantly above average whereas South San Francisco, Burlingame, and Daly City are below average. Emeryville’s fees are set at average. For multifamily residential developments, San Bruno and Millbrae are again above average in the totality of their DIF. San Bruno’s largest DIF is attributed to Housing at $6,309,000 followed by Parks and Recreation at $3,462,008. San Bruno’s other DIFs make up much smaller portions of the total fees. Millbrae is also above average in their DIF for multifamily residential with a single DIF for General Government at $10,257,482. 9 52
K.

Impact Fees

3. Research & Development/Office:

Five of the six cities combined R&D and Office into one land use type. The only city to differentiate between the two is Emeryville. Brisbane’s total maximum justifiable fee is $13,456,050 (comprising of General Government, $357,950; Housing, $12,150,000; Parks and Recreation, $335,050; Public Safety, $92,550; and Transportation, $520,500). For Research & Development and Office, the majority of cities’ total impact fees are at or below the average.

Only South San Francisco and San Bruno’s total impact fees are above average and not by a significant amount. South San Francisco’s total impact fees are above average, of which the Transportation DIF takes up the majority of those costs at $1,757,500. San Bruno’s total impact fee is also above average with the Housing DIF making up the majority of those fees at $876,000.

4. Hotel:

As it relates to hotel developments, the comparison was made based on an average hotel size of 75,000 square feet with 120 rooms. The City’s total maximum justifiable fee is $20,688,187 (comprising of General Government, $561,240; Housing, $19,050,000; Parks and Recreation, 10 53
K.

Impact Fees
$93,840; Public Safety, $571,080; and Transportation, $412,027). The cities of Millbrae, Daly City, and Emeryville have total impact fees below the average whereas San Bruno and Burlingame are above average. South San Francisco fees for hotels are average. The Housing DIF makes up the largest portion of San Bruno’s total impact fees at $1,314,000. Burlingame’s total impact fees are also above average and the majority of this is made up of their Transportation DIF.

5. Industrial:

For industrial developments, the total maximum justifiable fee for the City is $37,399,200 (comprising of General Government, $751,650; Housing, $34,650; Parks and Recreation, $1,005,150; Public Safety, $480,900; and Transportation, $511,500). The total impact fees for the cities of San Bruno, Emeryville, and Daly City are average whereas Millbrae and Burlingame have lower than average fees. South San Francisco is the only city with total impact fees that are above average for industrial developments. The majority of the total impact fees for South San Francisco is attributed to the Transportation DIF at $2,373,000.

6. Commercial or Retail Development:
11 54
K.

Impact Fees
For commercial or retail development, the City’s maximum justifiable fee is $1,728,346 (comprising of General Government, $28,224; Housing, $1,480,500; Parks and Recreation, $15,635; Public Safety, $53,312; and Transportation, $150,675). Only the cities of San Bruno and South San Francisco have above average total impact fees. The cities of Millbrae, Emeryville, Burlingame, and Daly City have lower than average fees. Of San Bruno’s total impact fees, the largest DIF is for Utilities at $50,050. South San Francisco also has above average total impact fees, of which, transportation makes up the highest percentage at $108,255.

A comparison of the total impact fee averages per development type are listed below per city.

San Bruno Millbrae SSF Emeryville Burlingame Daly City
Single Family
Residential
Above
Average
Above
Average
Below
Average
Below
Average
Below
Average
Below
Average
Multifamily
Residential
Above
Average
Above
Average
Below
Average
Average Below
Average
Below
Average
R&D/Office Above
Average
Below
Average
Above
Average
Below
Average
Average Below
Average
Hotel Above
Average
Below
Average
Average Below
Average
Above
Average
Below
Average
Industrial Average Below
Average
Above
Average
Average Below
Average
Average
12 55
K.

Impact Fees
Commercial/Retail Above
Average
Below
Average
Above
Average
Below
Average
Below
Average
Below
Average
Conclusion
The nexus study offers the legal basis for determining the highest possible fees, while the comparative study helps us understand how to set these fees and their potential impact on future development. Input from the Council is essential to determine how competitively the City wants to establish development impact fees for different land uses, ensuring that the fees align with the Council’s policy objectives. Once it is determined how the Council wishes to proceed, staff will provide a recommendation on development impact fees for each of the four DIFs per the Mitigation Fee Act. The next steps are a mandatory public hearing at a future Council meeting with a public notice 10 days prior. The resolution adopting the fee must include written findings showing the purpose of the fee, use of the fee, and the reasonable relationship between the fee and the development’s impacts. Any fee may not be imposed until at least 60 days after adoption. Additionally, there are annual reporting requirements, such as the AB 1600 Report which recently went to Council in December.

Fiscal Impact
The fiscal impact is unknown at this time and dependent on Council feedback.

Attachments

1. Brisbane Commercial Linkage Nexus Study and Feasibility Analysis

2. Brisbane Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study

3. Brisbane Transportation Impact Fee Nexus Study

4. Brisbane Public Facilities Impact Fee Study

5. Brisbane Development Impact Fee Comparative Survey
___________________________________ ___________________________________ Christina Fernandez, Assistant City Manager Jeremy Dennis, City Manager 13 56
K.

ECONorthwest | Portland | Seattle | Los Angeles | Eugene | Bend | Boise | econw.com 1 DATE: September 1, 2023
TO: Julia Ayres; City of Brisbane
FROM: Chris Blakney, Katherine Buck, Mackenzie Visser; ECONorthwest SUBJECT: Commercial Linkage Fee Nexus Analysis and Maximum Fee Calculations Executive Summary
ECONorthwest conducted a commercial Linkage Fee nexus study for the City of Brisbane, CA.

This study establishes the “nexus” between new commercial development and the need for affordable housing for the resulting workers. The City of Brisbane previously completed a Linkage Fee nexus study in 2015 to examine the relationship between the affordable housing need and commercial development that adds jobs for hotel, retail/restaurants/services, and office/research and development/medical office uses. This study is an update to the previous study and utilizes the same methodology, however it expands the land use categories to analyze the impacts from potential hotel, retail (including restaurants and personal services), traditional office (including medical office), life sciences and research and development, and industrial (warehouse) prototypes.

For each commercial type, we established the number of potential new workers, their estimated wages, and the resulting number of households qualifying for affordable housing based on the Department of Housing and Urban Development thresholds. These thresholds are based off the Area Median Income, calculated as $140,000 for a family of two for the area (the average household size is 2.4 people in Brisbane). Using this data, we categorized households into very low, low, moderate, and above moderate incomes.

Next, we calculated the cost of developing both rental and for-sale housing. By comparing the cost of development against the potential revenue generated by new households, we established the affordability gap across all new households by commercial development type. Finally, we used a standardized development size to calculate a maximum fee per square foot to cover the entire affordability gap. Our analysis shows that there is a nexus between new commercial development and an increased need for affordable housing. These results are shown in Exhibit 1.

Exhibit 1: Maximum Commercial Linkage Fees
Source: ECONorthwest
New Households
Requiring Affordable
Housing
Affordability Gap for All
New Worker Households
Size of
Prototype
(SF)
Maximum
Fee per SF
Hotel 58 $25,389,937 100,000 $254
Retail, Restaurants
and Personal
Services
91 $42,327,494 100,000 $423
Office and Medical
Office
101 $40,548,404 100,000 $405
Life Sciences and
R&D 70 $24,292,838 100,000 $243
Warehouse 56 $23,141,625 100,000 $231
14 57
K.

ECONorthwest 2
It is important to note that these are not the recommended fees for adoption; they are the maximum fees that Brisbane could charge to offset the increased demand for affordable housing created by new commercial development in the City.

Commercial Linkage Fee Nexus Analysis
Before a city or county may adopt a development impact fee, it must conduct a nexus study to determine the reasonable relationship between the fee’s purpose and the impact on affected development types. This commercial linkage fee nexus study establishes the “nexus” between new commercial development and the need for additional housing affordable for the resulting new workers. In this section, we determined the demand created for new housing units affordable to very low-income, low-income, and moderate-income workers as a result of new commercial development.

Define Commercial Prototypes
ECONorthwest analyzed the links between jobs and housing for five different commercial development prototypes:
▪ Hotel includes full-service hotels, limited-service hotels, motels, and other lodging. ▪ Retail, restaurants, and services includes retail stores, restaurants, and personal care spaces accommodating businesses like nail salons and drycleaners. ▪ Office, medical office includes traditional office buildings, open floor-plan offices, medical offices.
▪ Life Sciences, Research and Development (R&D) includes specialized spaces for highly advanced manufacturing and research, and spaces for laboratories and office for tenants involved in the study and development of scientific discoveries. ▪ Warehousing is a secondary type of industrial building generally used for storage and/or distribution.

These prototypes represent major types of new commercial buildings recently constructed or proposed in the area. For illustrative purposes, each prototype was assumed to be 100,000 square feet. Building characteristics of each prototype, based on recent development projects, are shown below.

Exhibit 2: Commercial Prototypes
Source: ECONorthwest, CoStar, City of Brisbane
Hotel Retail Office Life
Sciences
Warehouse
Gross Building Area 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 Podium Parking Area 66,500 150,150 150,150 150,150 150,150 Gross Building Area
Including Podium Parking
166,500 250,150 250,150 250,150 250,150
Efficiency 100% 95% 85% 85% 95%
Net Leasable Area 100,000 95,000 85,000 85,000 95,000
Hotel Rooms 133 0 0 0 0
Parking Spaces (Podium) 133 300 300 300 300
Floor Area Ratio 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2
15 58
K.

ECONorthwest 3
Land Area (Acres) 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7
Land Area (SF) 31,250 31,250 31,250 31,250 31,250
Estimate of New Workers by Prototype
For each building protype, we defined an average employment density based on the previous 2015 Brisbane linkage fee nexus study as well as a review of other recently completed linkage fee nexus studies in the Bay Area.1 Exhibit 3 shows the average employment density and total workers for each prototype, based on an assumed prototype size of 100,000 square feet.

Exhibit 3: Employment Density by Prototype
Source: ECONorthwest, Vernazza Wolfe Associates, Inc., Strategic Economics 2015 Commercial Prototype Prototype Size (sf) Average Density Number of Workers in Prototype
Hotel 100,000 SF 1,000 SF per worker 100 workers
Retail, Restaurant, Services 100,000 SF 667 SF per worker 150 workers Office, Medical Office 100,000 SF 333 SF per worker 300 workers Life Sciences, R&D 100,000 SF 333 SF per worker 300 workers Warehouse 100,000 SF 1,000 SF per worker 100 workers
Number of Worker Households by Prototype
We then calculated the number of worker households by dividing the number of workers for each prototype by the average number of wage-earners per household in Brisbane. According to U.S. Census American Community Survey (ACS) data, there is an average of 1.65 workers per household in Brisbane as of 2021.

Exhibit 4: Number of Worker Households by Prototype
Source: ACS 5-Year Data Tables, 2017-2021
Commercial Prototype Number of New
Workers
Workers per Household Number of New
Households
Hotel 100 workers 1.65 61 households
Retail, Restaurant,
Services
150 workers 1.65 91 households
Office, Medical Office 300 workers 1.65 182 households
Life Sciences, R&D 300 workers 1.65 182 households
Warehouse 100 workers 1.65 61 households
Calculate Wages of New Workers
To calculate employee wages, ECONorthwest first established a list of industries associated with each prototype using industry data from the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW). The industries (by NAICS code) associated with each prototype are shown in Exhibit 17 through Exhibit 20 in the appendix.

Next, we used U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data to identify occupations associated with each industry. Because the national level BLS data is the most detailed available, we calibrated the national BLS occupational matrix to match the County’s employment distribution. First, using the BLS National Occupational Matrix, we recorded each occupation’s share of each 1 Other reviewed nexus fee studies include Santa Rosa (2019), San Bruno (2015), San Jose (2020), San Mateo County (2015), and Culver City (2020).
16 59
K.

ECONorthwest 4
individual industry associated with each prototype. We then added these shares together by occupation to get each occupation’s total share of industries in each of the five prototypes. We then multiplied these occupational by the share of San Mateo employees in each industry by prototype to get the distribution of San Mateo occupations for each of the five prototypes, which is shown in Exhibits 17-21 of the Appendix.

We used average wage data for each occupation from the San Francisco-Redwood City-San Mateo Metro Division, the smallest geographic level at which wage data are available, provided by the California Employment Development Department. By weighting this data with the distribution of workers by occupation we calculated an average wage for each prototype, shown in Exhibit 5 below.

Exhibit 5: Average Annual Wage by Prototype
Source: ECONorthwest; Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), December 2022; California Employment Development Department; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Commercial Prototype Weighted Annual Wage
Hotel $56,123
Retail, Restaurant, Services $48,624
Traditional Office, Medical Office $101,396
Life Sciences, R&D $121,813
Warehouse $67,028
The complete occupational mix and wage estimates for each prototype are located in the Appendix.

Calculate Household Incomes of New Workers
We then estimated household incomes for each prototype based on the employee wages calculated above, assuming the income of a second wage earner would be similar to the wage of the first. To calculate household incomes from the wage data calculated above, we multiplied the average worker wages by the number of wage-earners per household (1.65 workers per ACS data).2 This methodology for calculating household income aligns with the previous Brisbane Nexus Fee Study from 2015, as well as other nexus studies conducted in the Bay Area.

Next, we used income thresholds established by the California Housing and Community Development Department (HCD) to determine thresholds for very low, low, moderate, and above moderate incomes. According to ACS data, the average household size in the City of Brisbane is 2.4 members; we have used the HCD income thresholds based on a household size of two members. Exhibit 6 shows the income limits by income category, based on San Mateo County’s area median income.

Exhibit 6: Household Income Categories
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development, 2023 Commercial Prototype Weighted Annual Wage
Very Low Income (< 50% AMI) $74,600
Low Income (51-80% AMI) $119,300
Moderate Income (81%-120% AMI) $168,000
2 We attempted to use Census Public Use Microdata Samples (PUMS) to determine the median household income for groups with occupations within the industries of interest but the 6-digit SOC code along with the size of the desired region made the estimates unreliable and unavailable.
17 60
K.

ECONorthwest 5
Above Moderate Income (>120% AMI) > $168,000
We then sorted the new worker households into the income categories above. As shown in Exhibit 7, the majority of new households associated with the hotel prototype are in the very low- and low-income categories (41% and 45%, respectively). The majority of new households associated with the retail, restaurants, and services prototype are in the very low-income category (77%). For the office and medical office prototype, roughly 36% of new households are in the low-income category, and roughly 44% are above moderate income. For life sciences, the majority of new households are in the above moderate-income category, with 19% of new households in the low-income category and 16% in the moderate-income category. Finally, roughly 75% of new households associated with the warehouse prototype are in the low-income category.

Exhibit 7: Number of Worker Households by Income
Source: ECONorthwest
Prototype Number of Employee Households
Hotel
Very Low Income (< 50% AMI) 26
Low Income (51-80% AMI) 27
Moderate Income (81%-120% AMI) 5
Above Moderate Income (>120% AMI) 3
Total: 61 households
Retail, Restaurants, and Services
Very Low Income (< 50% AMI) 70
Low Income (51-80% AMI) 16
Moderate Income (81%-120% AMI) 5
Above Moderate Income (>120% AMI) 0
Total: 91 households
Office, Medical Office
Very Low Income (< 50% AMI) 17
Low Income (51-80% AMI) 66
Moderate Income (81%-120% AMI) 18
Above Moderate Income (>120% AMI) 81
Total: 182 households
Life Sciences and R&D
Very Low Income (< 50% AMI) 5
Low Income (51-80% AMI) 35
Moderate Income (81%-120% AMI) 30
Above Moderate Income (>120% AMI) 112
Total: 182 households
Warehouse
Very Low Income (< 50% AMI) 5
Low Income (51-80% AMI) 46
Moderate Income (81%-120% AMI) 5
Above Moderate Income (>120% AMI) 5
Total: 182 households
We removed the above moderate-income households from the following steps of this analysis, as these households would likely be able to afford market-rate housing in the area. 18 61
K.

ECONorthwest 6
Housing Affordability Gap
The housing affordability gap is calculated as the difference between what each income threshold can afford to pay for housing and the development cost of that housing unit. To calculate the affordability gap, ECONorthwest used the following methodology:

1. Estimated affordable rents and sales prices, using Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) established income thresholds.3

2. Estimated housing development costs, using pro forma analysis and current cost and market data.

3. Calculated the housing affordability gap, based on the difference between the values established in Steps 1 and 2.

Estimate Affordable Rents and Sales Prices
First, ECONorthwest calculated the maximum amount that households at each income level (very low, low, and moderate incomes) can afford to pay for housing. Above, these income thresholds were defined as a range, with very low-income households earning less than 50% AMI, low-income households earning between 51% and 80% of the AMI, and moderate-income households earning between 81% and 120% of the AMI. To calculate affordable housing costs, we have used a midpoint value in these ranges for the low and moderate incomes, defined as 70% and 90% of the AMI for renters, respectively. Homeowners were assumed to be moderate income households with slightly higher incomes than renters and are defined as earning 110% of the AMI.

To calculate affordable rental and sales prices for each income group, we used the following assumptions:
▪ Affordable housing costs: Affordable housing costs were defined as 30% of gross monthly income for renters, and 35% of gross monthly income for homeowners. ▪ Utilities: Utility allowances were calculated by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for San Mateo County for 2023. Housing units were assumed to be powered by natural gas, and both renters and owners were assumed to pay heating, cooking, water heating, and other electric costs. Owners were also assumed to pay water and trash collection.
▪ Unit types: For this analysis, rental housing was assumed to include studios, one-, two-, and three-bedroom units. Ownership housing was assumed to one-, two-, and threebedroom units. In addition, ownership housing was assumed to be condominiums, as these types of units are typically significantly lower priced than single family homes in the area. In general, the unit size for each household was assumed to be one less bedroom than household bedrooms (for example, a three-person household would require a twobedroom unit). ▪ Homeownership costs: For ownership housing, affordable home sales prices were calculated based on what a household at 110% of the AMI could afford to pay on a mortgage. These calculations assumed a 7% mortgage interest rate for a 30-year loan 3 HUD provides data at the county or metropolitan statistical area (MSA) level; San Mateo County is included in the San Francisco MSA.
19 62
K.

ECONorthwest 7
(based on recent 2023 mortgage interest rates) after a 5% down payment on the home. In addition, these calculations assumed a monthly $300 homeowner association fee, as well as property taxes and homeowner insurance costs.

Affordable rents were calculated as affordable renter housing costs less utility allowances (full calculations are located in the Appendix). Below, affordable rents are shown in Exhibit 8 by unit size, defined by the number of household members.

Exhibit 8: Affordable Rent Prices, San Mateo County
Source: ECONorthwest, Department of Housing and Urban Development (2023), San Mateo County Department of Housing (2023)
Affordable Rents Studio (1 Person
HH)
1 Bedroom (2
Person HH)
2 Bedroom (3
Person HH)
3 Bedroom (4-5
Person HH)
Very Low Income
(50% AMI)
$1,510 $1,721 $1,907 $2,162
Low Income
(70% AMI)
$2,161 $2,464 $2,744 $3,128
Moderate Income
(90% AMI)
$2,820 $3,237 $3,635 $4,184
Affordable home sales prices were calculated as affordable homeowner housing costs less utility allowances, homeowner association fees, and property taxes and insurance. Below, affordable home prices are shown in Exhibit 9 by unit size, defined by number of household members.

Exhibit 9: Affordable Home Sales Prices, San Mateo County Source: ECONorthwest, Department of Housing and Urban Development (2023), San Mateo County Department of Housing (2023)
Affordable Sales Price 1 Bedroom (1-2 Person
HH)
2 Bedroom (3 Person
HH)
3 Bedroom (4-5 Person
HH)
Moderate Income
(110% AMI)
$538,873 $653,157 $755,357
Full calculations for affordable housing costs are located in Exhibit 28 in the Appendix.

Estimate Housing Development Costs
Next, ECONorthwest calculated the cost per unit of developing housing in the Brisbane area for both rental and ownership products. To do so, we used a pro forma analysis to analyze the cost of building a rental multifamily apartment prototype and a for-sale condominium multifamily prototype, each with 100 units. This pro forma analysis considered land acquisition costs, hard costs, soft costs (including permitting fees, contingencies, and a condominium wrap insurance policy), and developer fees. Below, prototype and cost assumptions are shown in Exhibit 10. 20 63
K.

ECONorthwest 8
Exhibit 10: Affordable Housing Pro Forma Development Assumptions and Cost Data Source: ECONorthwest, CoStar
Rental Housing For-Sale Housing
Land area (acres) 2.6 3.6
Gross building area 139,706 189,155
Residential area 74,500 97,500
Number of units 100 100
Parking type Structured Structured
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 0.79 0.74
Density (units per acre) 39 28
Average unit size 745 975
Land cost per square foot of land $100 $100
Land cost per residential square foot $149 $160
Hard cost per gross square foot $245 $244
Hard costs per residential square foot $459 $474
Soft costs as a share of hard costs
(includes developer fees and contingency)
32% 32%
Soft costs per residential square foot $148 $153
Total costs per gross square foot $404 $406
Total costs per residential square foot $757 $787
Cost Estimates by Unit Size
Next, we used the cost per square foot estimates calculated above in Exhibit 10 to determine average cost per unit for different unit sizes. For both rental and ownership products, average unit sizes were derived via market research of existing products in the Brisbane area and San Mateo County.

Exhibit 11: Rental Housing Unit Sizes and Development Costs Source: ECONorthwest, CoStar
Unit Type Estimated Cost per Net SF Unit Size (net SF) Development Costs Studio $757 500 $378,369
1-Bedroom $757 700 $529,716
2-Bedroom $757 1,000 $756,737
3-Bedroom $757 1,200 $908,085
Exhibit 12 shows the average unit areas by unit size and the associated development costs for for-sale units, based on the cost per square foot estimates calculated in Exhibit 10.

Exhibit 12: For Sale Housing Unit Sizes and Development Costs Source: ECONorthwest, CoStar
Unit Type Estimated Cost per Net SF Unit Size (net SF) Development Costs 1-Bedroom $787 700 $550,892
2-Bedroom $787 1,000 $786,989
3-Bedroom $787 1,200 $944,387
Calculate the Housing Affordability Gap
Finally, we calculated the housing affordability gap, or the difference between affordable revenues and the cost of developing units. This gap is determined as the fee amount that would be necessary to make developing affordable housing feasible, assuming no other housing subsidies.
21 64
K.

ECONorthwest 9
Exhibit 13 shows the affordability gap calculation for rental units. For rental units, the affordability gap is defined as the difference between the per-unit cost of development established in Exhibit 11 and the supportable debt per unit. The supportable debt is calculated based on the net operating income per unit (annual income less vacancy expenses and operating expenses) based on each income threshold’s affordable rent, calculated in Exhibit 8. 4 The
supportable debt is then subtracted from each unit’s development costs to establish the affordability gap for each unit type; finally, these values are averaged to calculate an average affordability gap by affordability threshold.

Exhibit 13: Housing Affordability Gap for Rental Housing Source: ECONorthwest, Department of Housing and Urban Development Income
Level and
Unit Type
Unit
Size
(SF)
Maximum
Monthly
Rent
Net
Operating
Income
Available
for Debt
Service5
Supportable Debt6Development CostsAffordability
Gap
Very Low Income (50% AMI)
Studio 500 $1,510 $18,123 $10,149 $125,938 $378,369 $252,431 1-
Bedroom
700 $1,721 $20,649 $11,563 $143,491 $529,716 $386,225
2-
Bedroom
1,000 $1,907 $22,887 $12,817 $159,043 $756,737 $597,694 3-
Bedroom
1,200 $2,162 $25,940 $14,526 $180,255 $908,085 $727,830 Average Affordability Gap: $491,045
Low Income (70% AMI)
Studio 500 $2,161 $25,929 $14,520 $180,182 $378,369 $198,186 1-
Bedroom
700 $2,464 $29,571 $16,560 $205,491 $529,716 $324,225
2-
Bedroom
1,000 $2,744 $32,925 $18,438 $228,798 $756,737 $527,939 3-
Bedroom
1,200 $3,128 $37,535 $21,019 $260,830 $908,085 $647,255 Average Affordability Gap: $424,404
Moderate Income (90% AMI)
Studio 500 $2,820 $33,843 $18,952 $235,177 $378,369 $143,192 1-
Bedroom
700 $3,237 $38,841 $21,751 $269,909 $529,716 $259,808
2-
Bedroom
1,000 $3,635 $43,623 $24,429 $303,139 $756,737 $453,598 3-
Bedroom
1,200 $4,184 $50,210 $28,117 $348,909 $908,085 $559,176 Average Affordability Gap: $353,943
Exhibit 14 shows the affordability gap for for-sale units. For for-sale units, the affordability gap is calculated as the difference between the per-unit cost of development (established in Exhibit 4 Vacancy expense is assumed to be 5% of rents, and operating expenses are assumed to be 25% of rents. 5 Uses a debt service coverage ratio of 1.25.
6 Assumes an interest rate of 7% for a 30-year loan.
22 65
K.

ECONorthwest 10
12) and the sale price affordable to moderate incomes (shown in Exhibit 9). As with rental housing, the affordability gaps for each bedroom size were averaged to calculate an average affordability gap for for-sale housing affordable at 110% of the AMI.

Exhibit 14: Housing Affordability Calculation for For-Sale Condominium Housing Source: ECONorthwest, Department of Housing and Urban Development Income Level and Unit Type Unit Size (SF) Affordable Sales Price
Development
Costs
Affordability Gap
Moderate Income (110% AMI)
1-Bedroom 700 $538,873 $550,892 $12,019
2-Bedroom 1,000 $653,157 $786,989 $133,832
3-Bedroom 1,200 $755,357 $944,387 $189,030
Average Affordability Gap: $111,627
Finally, we summarized these results and averaged the affordability gap across renter and owner households, shown in Exhibit 15 below. As very low-income and low-income households are unlikely to be able to purchase a home, the affordability gap for these income thresholds is equal to the average gap for rental units.

Exhibit 15: Average Housing Affordability Gap by Income Group Source: ECONorthwest
Income Level Rental
Gap
Ownership Gap Average Affordability Gap
Very Low Income (50% AMI) $491,045 N/A $491,045
Low Income (70% AMI) $424,402 N/A $424,402
Moderate Income (90%-110% AMI) $353,943 $111,627 $232,785 23 66
K.

ECONorthwest 11
Maximum Linkage Fees
Using the number of new households in each income category associated with each prototype (calculated in Exhibit 7) and the affordability gaps calculated in Exhibit 15, we calculated the total affordability gap for new worker households for each prototype. By dividing the total gap by the area (in square feet) for each commercial prototype, we established the maximum linkage fee per square foot, shown in Exhibit 16 below. It is important to note that these are not the recommended fees for adoption; they are the maximum fees that Brisbane could charge to offset the increased demand for affordable housing created by new commercial development in the City.

The maximum fees are high, largely because of the extremely high cost of developing housing in the San Francisco Bay Area and San Mateo County generally. In addition, the maximum fees have increased since the 2015 nexus study, likely due to the increasing gap between housing development costs, market rate housing costs, and wages (particularly for lower income workers) over this time period.

Exhibit 16: Maximum Commercial Linkage Fees
Source: ECONorthwest
New Households
Requiring Affordable
Housing
Affordability Gap for All
New Worker Households
Size of
Prototype
(SF)
Maximum
Fee per SF
Hotel 58 $25,389,937 100,000 $254
Retail, Restaurants
and Personal
Services
91 $42,327,494 100,000 $423
Office and Medical
Office
101 $40,548,404 100,000 $405
Life Sciences, R&D 70 $24,292,838 100,000 $243
Warehouse 56 $23,141,625 100,000 $231
24 67
K.

ECONorthwest 12
Appendix
Exhibit 17: Definition of Industries for Hotel Prototype Source: Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), December 2022 NAICS
Code
Description Percent Total Workers in
Prototype
721 Accommodations 100.0%
Total: 100.0%
Exhibit 18: Definition of Industries for Retail, Restaurants and Services Prototype Source: Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), December 2022 NAICS
Code
Description Percent Total Workers in
Prototype
7225 Restaurants and other eating places 39.0%
4451 Grocery and convenience retailers 10.7%
4552 Warehouse clubs, supercenters, and other
general merchandise retailers

5.1%
8111 Automotive repair and maintenance 4.8%
4561 Health and personal care retailers 3.8%
4441 Building material and supplies dealers 3.7%
4411 Automobile dealers 3.6%
8121 Personal care services 2.7%
4551 Department stores 2.5%
8129 Other personal services 2.5%
4581 Clothing and clothing accessories retailers 2.3%
4591 Sporting goods, hobby, and musical instrument
retailers

2.1%
4492 Electronics and appliance retailers 1.7%
5321 Automotive equipment rental and leasing 1.6%
4491 Furniture and home furnishings retailers 1.6%
4599 Other miscellaneous retailers 1.3%
4237 Hardware, and plumbing and heating
equipment and supplies merchant wholesalers

1.2%
8123 Dry cleaning and laundry services 1.1%
4594 Office supplies, stationery, and gift retailers 0.9% 4413 Automotive parts, accessories, and tire retailers 0.8% 4452 Specialty food retailers 0.8%
4595 Used merchandise retailers 0.8%
4231 Motor vehicle and motor vehicle parts and
supplies merchant wholesalers

0.8%
8122 Death care services 0.8%
7224 Drinking places (alcoholic beverages) 0.7%
4453 Beer, wine, and liquor retailers 0.5%
4582 Shoe retailers 0.5%
4583 Jewelry, luggage, and leather goods retailers 0.4% 4233 Lumber and other construction materials
merchant wholesalers

0.4%
4592 Book retailers and news dealers 0.3%
8113 Commercial and industrial machinery and
equipment (except automotive and electronic)
repair and maintenance

0.2%
25 68
K.

ECONorthwest 13
8112 Electronic and precision equipment repair and
maintenance

0.2%
4442 Lawn and garden equipment and supplies
retailers

0.2%
8114 Personal and household goods repair and
maintenance

0.2%
4593 Florists 0.2%
4412 Other motor vehicle dealers 0.1%
7225 Restaurants and other eating places 0.0%
8122 Death care services 0.0%
4571 Gasoline stations 0.0%
5322 Consumer goods rental 0.0%
5323 General rental centers 0.0%
5324 Commercial and industrial machinery and
equipment rental and leasing

0.0%
5615 Travel arrangement and reservation services 0.0%
Total: 100.0%
Exhibit 19: Definition of Industries for Traditional Office and Medical Office Prototype Source: Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), December 2022 NAICS
Code
Description Percent Total Workers
in Prototype
5417 Scientific research and development services 19.1% 5415 Computer systems design and related services 10.1% 5132 Software publishers 8.5%
5613 Employment services 5.1%
5617 Services to buildings and dwellings 4.5%
5239 Other financial investment activities 3.9%
5511 Management of companies and enterprises 3.6%
5182 Computing infrastructure providers, data processing, web hosting, and related services

3.6%
6214 Outpatient care centers 3.2%
5416 Management, scientific, and technical consulting services 2.9% 7223 Special food services 2.6%
5412 Accounting, tax preparation, bookkeeping, and payroll services

2.5%
5222 Nondepository credit intermediation 2.4%
6215 Medical and diagnostic laboratories 2.1%
5616 Investigation and security services 2.1%
6211 Offices of physicians 2.0%
5413 Architectural, engineering, and related services 2.0% 6212 Offices of dentists 1.8%
5411 Legal services 1.8%
3345 Navigational, measuring, electromedical, and control instruments manufacturing

1.5%
5313 Activities related to real estate 1.5%
5242 Agencies, brokerages, and other insurance related
activities

1.4%
5221 Depository credit intermediation 1.3%
5419 Other professional, scientific, and technical services 1.2% 26 69
K.

ECONorthwest 14
5611 Office administrative services 1.1%
6213 Offices of other health practitioners 1.0%
3391 Medical equipment and supplies manufacturing 0.9%
5121 Motion picture and video industries 0.8%
5312 Offices of real estate agents and brokers 0.6%
5223 Activities related to credit intermediation 0.6%
5231 Securities and commodity contracts intermediation and brokerage

0.6%
3353 Electrical equipment manufacturing 0.4%
5171 Wired and wireless telecommunications (except satellite) 0.4% 5418 Advertising, public relations, and related services 0.4% 5131 Newspaper, periodical, book, and directory publishers 0.4% 5619 Other support services 0.3%
5614 Business support services 0.3%
3344 Semiconductor and other electronic component
manufacturing

0.3%
5414 Specialized design services 0.3%
5241 Insurance carriers 0.2%
5611 Office administrative services 0.2%
5241 Insurance carriers 0.2%
5161 Radio and television broadcasting stations 0.1%
5259 Other investment pools and funds 0.1%
3342 Communications equipment manufacturing 0.1%
5331 Lessors of nonfinancial intangible assets (except
copyrighted works)

0.0%
6211 Offices of physicians 0.0%
5122 Sound recording industries 0.0%
5416 Management, scientific, and technical consulting services 0.0% 5413 Architectural, engineering, and related services 0.0% Total: 100.0%
Exhibit 20: Definition of Industries for Life Sciences Prototype Source: Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), December 2022 NAICS
Code
Industry % Employees
5417 NAICS 5417 Scientific research and development services 62.7% 5511 NAICS 5511 Management of companies and enterprises 11.9% 5416 NAICS 5416 Management, scientific, and technical consulting services 9.5% 6215 NAICS 6215 Medical and diagnostic laboratories 6.9% 3345 NAICS 3345 Navigational, measuring, electromedical, and control instruments manufacturing

5.0%
5419 NAICS 5419 Other professional, scientific, and technical services 3.9% Total: 100%
Exhibit 21: Definition of Industries for Warehouse Prototype Source: Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), December 2022 NAICS Code Industry % Employees
4930 Warehousing and Storage 24%
27 70
K.

ECONorthwest 15
4885 Truck Transportation 29%
4840 Freight and Transportation Arrangements 47%
Total: 100%
Exhibit 22: Wages and Distribution of Occupations, Hotel Prototype Source: ECONorthwest; Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), December 2022; California Employment Development Department; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics SOC
Code
Occupational Title % of Total
Hotel
Workers
Average
Annual
Wage
11-0000 Management Occupations
11-9081 Lodging Managers 2.50% $92,618
11-1021 General and Operations Managers 1.98% $166,029
11-9051 Food Service Managers 0.42% $74,812
11-2022 Sales Managers 0.52% $188,903
11-3031 Financial Managers 0.31% $202,480
11-9199 Managers, All Other 0.21% $195,920
11-3121 Human Resources Managers 0.10% $187,456
11-9141 Property, Real Estate, and Community Association Managers 0.10% $87,619 11-2021 Marketing Managers 0.10% $208,880
Weighted Average Annual Wage 6.25% $135,073
13-0000 Business and Financial Operations Occupations 0.00% 13-1121 Meeting, Convention, and Event Planners 0.42% $84,051 13-2011 Accountants and Auditors 0.63% $112,447
13-1071 Human Resources Specialists 0.42% $103,287
13-1199 Business Operations Specialists, All Other 0.21% $101,412 13-1020 Buyers and Purchasing Agents 0.10% $90,147
13-1161 Market Research Analysts and Marketing Specialists 0.21% $116,548 Weighted Average Annual Wage 1.98% $102,637
15-0000 Computer and Mathematical Occupations
15-1232 Computer User Support Specialists 0.10% $78,794 Weighted Average Annual Wage 0.10% $78,794
25-0000 Education, Training, and Library Occupations
25-3021 Self-Enrichment Teachers 0.10% $62,154
Weighted Average Annual Wage 0.10% $62,154
27-0000 Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media
Occupations
27-2022 Coaches and Scouts 0.10% $65,840
27-3031 Public Relations Specialists 0.10% $92,207
Weighted Average Annual Wage 0.21% $79,024
31-0000 Healthcare Support Occupations
31-9011 Massage Therapists 0.31% $64,730
Weighted Average Annual Wage 0.31%
33-0000 Protective Service Occupations 0.00% $76,120
33-9032 Security Guards 1.98% $47,017
28 71
K.

ECONorthwest 16
Weighted Average Annual Wage 1.98% $47,017
35-0000 Food Preparation and Serving Related Occupations 35-1011 Chefs and Head Cooks 0.73% $69,525
35-1012 First-Line Supervisors of Food Preparation and Serving Workers

1.25% $57,630
35-2021 Food Preparation Workers 0.63% $42,583
35-3011 Bartenders 1.88% $43,847
35-3031 Waiters and Waitresses 5.10% $40,380
35-9011 Dining Room and Cafeteria Attendants and Bartender Helpers

2.08% $39,957
35-9021 Dishwashers 0.94% $39,368
35-2014 Cooks, Restaurant 3.13% $44,409
35-3041 Food Servers, Nonrestaurant 0.94% $47,984
35-9031 Hosts and Hostesses, Restaurant, Lounge, and Coffee Shop 0.83% $38,674 35-3023 Fast Food and Counter Workers 0.83% $39,414
35-2012 Cooks, Institution and Cafeteria 0.21% $51,210
35-2015 Cooks, Short Order 0.10% $41,048
35-9099 Food Preparation and Serving Related Workers, All Other 0.21% $40,878 35-2019 Cooks, All Other 0.10% $44,546
Weighted Average Annual Wage 18.96% $44,031
37-0000 Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance
Occupations
37-1011 First-Line Supervisors of Housekeeping and Janitorial Workers

2.19% $64,872
37-2012 Maids and Housekeeping Cleaners 23.65% $47,256
37-3011 Landscaping and Groundskeeping Workers 1.04% $51,682 37-2011 Janitors and Cleaners, Except Maids and Housekeeping Cleaners

2.40% $44,898
37-1012 First-Line Supervisors of Landscaping, Lawn Service, and Groundskeeping Workers Weighted Average Annual Wage 29.38% $48,624
39-0000 Personal Care and Service Occupations
39-1022 First-Line Supervisors of Personal Service Workers 0.10% $55,446 39-3091 Amusement and Recreation Attendants 0.73% $38,406 39-5092 Manicurists and Pedicurists 0.10% $40,101
39-5094 Skincare Specialists 0.10% $50,112
39-6011 Baggage Porters and Bellhops 0.73% $42,306
39-6012 Concierges 0.42% $47,678
39-9032 Recreation Workers 0.63% $42,387
39-9041 Residential Advisors 0.10% $49,351
39-3011 Gambling Dealers 1.98% $44,851
39-1013 First-Line Supervisors of Gambling Services Workers 0.52% $71,963 39-9099 Personal Care and Service Workers, All Other 0.10% $41,072 39-3093 Locker Room, Coatroom, and Dressing Room Attendants 0.10% $45,255 39-3031 Ushers, Lobby Attendants, and Ticket Takers 0.10% $41,187 39-7010 Tour and Travel Guides 0.10% $47,832
Weighted Average Annual Wage 5.83% $46,292
41-0000 Sales and Related Occupations
41-1011 First-Line Supervisors of Retail Sales Workers 0.10% $57,904 41-1012 First-Line Supervisors of Non-Retail Sales Workers 0.10% $105,977 29 72
K.

ECONorthwest 17
41-2011 Cashiers 0.63% $38,957
41-2021 Counter and Rental Clerks 0.10% $44,954
41-2031 Retail Salespersons 0.31% $43,043
41-3091 Sales Representatives of Services, Except Advertising, Insurance, Financial Services, and Travel
Weighted Average Annual Wage 2.50% $77,235
43-0000 Office and Administrative Support Occupations
43-1011 First-Line Supervisors of Office and Administrative Support Workers

2.40% $83,476
43-3051 Payroll and Timekeeping Clerks 0.10% $70,817
43-4051 Customer Service Representatives 0.31% $53,875
43-4171 Receptionists and Information Clerks 0.31% $46,410 43-4181 Reservation and Transportation Ticket Agents and Travel Clerks

0.31% $50,737
43-6011 Executive Secretaries and Executive Administrative Assistants

0.10% $94,596
43-4081 Hotel, Motel, and Resort Desk Clerks 15.63% $42,405 43-3031 Bookkeeping, Accounting, and Auditing Clerks 1.35% $61,925 43-9061 Office Clerks, General 0.73% $51,810
43-6014 Secretaries and Administrative Assistants, Except Legal, Medical, and Executive 43-2011 Switchboard Operators, Including Answering Service 0.10% $54,000 43-5071 Shipping, Receiving, and Inventory Clerks 0.10% $49,292 43-5032 Dispatchers, Except Police, Fire, and Ambulance 0.10% $46,736 Weighted Average Annual Wage 21.98% $49,570
45-0000 Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Occupations
45-2093 Farmworkers, Farm, Ranch, and Aquacultural Animals 0.10% $45,335 Weighted Average Annual Wage 0.10% $45,335
47-0000 Construction and Extraction Occupations
47-1011 First-Line Supervisors of Construction Trades and Extraction Workers

0.00% $108,978
47-2031 Carpenters 0.10% $81,183
47-2141 Painters, Construction and Maintenance 0.10% $65,145 Weighted Average Annual Wage 0.21% $73,164
49-0000 Installation, Maintenance, and Repair Occupations 49-9071 Maintenance and Repair Workers, General 6.56% $61,607 49-1011 First-Line Supervisors of Mechanics, Installers, and Repairers

0.63% $94,340
49-9091 Coin, Vending, and Amusement Machine Servicers and Repairers

0.10%
49-9021 Heating, Air Conditioning, and Refrigeration Mechanics and Installers

0.10% $76,939
Weighted Average Annual Wage 7.40% $63,721
51-0000 Production Occupations
51-3011 Bakers 0.10% $43,019
51-6011 Laundry and Dry-Cleaning Workers 1.98% $43,923
51-8021 Stationary Engineers and Boiler Operators 0.10% $107,182 Weighted Average Annual Wage 2.19% $46,892
30 73
K.

ECONorthwest 18
53-0000 Transportation and Material Moving Occupations
53-6021 Parking Attendants 0.31% $41,730
53-7062 Laborers and Freight, Stock, and Material Movers, Hand 0.10% $46,694 53-7065 Stockers and Order Fillers 0.10% $44,304
Weighted Average Annual Wage 0.52% $43,238
Total 100% $56,123
Exhibit 23: Wages and Distribution of Occupations, Office Prototype Source: ECONorthwest; Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), December 2022; California Employment Development Department; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics SOC Code Occupational Title % of Total
Office/ R&D/
Medical Office
Workers
Average
Annual
Wage
11-0000 Management Occupations $182,794
11-1011 Chief Executives 0.35% $277,159
11-1021 General and Operations Managers 4.04% $166,029
11-2021 Marketing Managers 0.65% $208,880
11-2022 Sales Managers 0.53% $188,903
11-3021 Computer and Information Systems Managers 1.24% $222,368 11-3031 Financial Managers 1.11% $202,480
11-9041 Architectural and Engineering Managers 1.26% $211,825 11-9199 Managers, All Other 1.37% $195,920
Weighted Average Annual Wage 10.55% $193,345
13-0000 Business and Financial Operations Occupations
13-1071 Human Resources Specialists 1.41% $103,287
13-1111 Management Analysts 0.94% $133,161
13-1151 Training and Development Specialists 0.40% $93,874 13-1161 Market Research Analysts and Marketing Specialists 1.04% $116,548 13-2011 Accountants and Auditors 1.42% $112,447
13-2052 Personal Financial Advisors 0.07% $171,889
13-2072 Loan Officers 1.30% $105,910
13-1199 Business Operations Specialists, All Other 1.87% $101,412 13-2051 Financial and Investment Analysts 0.45% $129,565 Weighted Average Annual Wage 8.90% $110,894
15-0000 Computer and Mathematical Occupations
15-1211 Computer Systems Analysts 1.11% $138,386
15-1231 Computer Network Support Specialists 0.14% $90,574 15-1232 Computer User Support Specialists 0.76% $78,794 15-1241 Computer Network Architects 0.42% $161,662
15-1244 Network and Computer Systems Administrators 0.67% $121,277 15-1251 Computer Programmers 0.82% $132,360
15-1252 Software Developers 3.80% $168,107
Weighted Average Annual Wage 7.72% $145,419
17-0000 Architecture and Engineering Occupations
17-2011 Aerospace Engineers 0.43% $156,296
17-2051 Civil Engineers 1.40% $118,596
17-2061 Computer Hardware Engineers 1.04% $194,282
17-2071 Electrical Engineers 1.07% $141,791
31 74
K.

ECONorthwest 19
17-2112 Industrial Engineers 0.73% $126,365
17-2141 Mechanical Engineers 1.62% $141,095
17-3011 Architectural and Civil Drafters 0.58% $78,006
17-2072 Electronics Engineers, Except Computer 0.64% $146,927 17-2199 Engineers, All Other 0.98% $134,380
17-3023 Electrical and Electronic Engineering Technologists and Technicians

0.47% $76,889
17-1011 Architects, Except Landscape and Naval 0.71% $117,966 17-3029 Engineering Technologists and Technicians, Except Drafters, All Other

0.56% $62,920
Weighted Average Annual Wage 10.23% $130,355
19-0000 Life, Physical, and Social Science Occupations
19-1021 Biochemists and Biophysicists 1.56% $134,996
19-2031 Chemists 1.15% $103,360
19-4021 Biological Technicians 1.99% $67,556
19-4031 Chemical Technicians 0.56% $62,206
19-4061 Social Science Research Assistants 0.59% $69,781 19-1042 Medical Scientists, Except Epidemiologists 3.17% $141,834 19-2041 Environmental Scientists and Specialists, Including Health

0.32% $114,614
19-4099 Life, Physical, and Social Science Technicians, All Other 0.79% $79,138 19-4031 Chemical Technicians 0.56% $62,206
Weighted Average Annual Wage 10.70% $105,082
21-0000 Community and Social Service Occupations
21-1015 Rehabilitation Counselors 0.04% $53,066
21-1022 Healthcare Social Workers 0.17% $99,733
21-1023 Mental Health and Substance Abuse Social Workers 0.28% $89,862 21-1093 Social and Human Service Assistants 0.34% $54,941 21-1094 Community Health Workers 0.07% $69,917
21-1014 Substance Abuse, Behavioral Disorder, and Mental Health Counselors

0.00% $46,438
21-1021 Child, Family, and School Social Workers 0.09% $76,758 21-1091 Health Education Specialists 0.11% $81,091
21-1099 Community and Social Service Specialists, All Other 0.02% $68,674 21-1012 Educational, Guidance, and Career Counselors and Advisors

0.07% $83,853
Weighted Average Annual Wage 1.19% $76,297
23-0000 Legal Occupations
23-1011 Lawyers 0.41% $204,129
23-2011 Paralegals and Legal Assistants 0.11% $80,967
23-2093 Title Examiners, Abstractors, and Searchers 0.03% $57,821 Weighted Average Annual Wage 0.54% $168,553
25-0000 Education, Training, and Library Occupations
25-3031 Substitute Teachers, Short-Term 0.06% $52,298
25-9045 Teaching Assistants, Except Postsecondary 0.02% $44,253 25-3099 Teachers and Instructors, All Other 0.08% $76,580 Weighted Average Annual Wage 0.16% $62,889
27-0000 Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media
Occupations
27-1011 Art Directors 0.04% $167,299
27-2012 Producers and Directors 0.38% $126,943
27-3031 Public Relations Specialists 0.33% $92,207
32 75
K.

ECONorthwest 20
27-3042 Technical Writers 0.29% $124,172
27-3043 Writers and Authors 0.08% $123,505
27-1014 Special Effects Artists and Animators 0.05% $126,178 27-3023 News Analysts, Reporters, and Journalists 0.08% $67,877 27-4011 Audio and Video Technicians 0.05% $66,932
Weighted Average Annual Wage 1.29% $112,585
29-0000 Healthcare Practitioners and Technical Occupations 29-1071 Physician Assistants 0.15% $179,462
29-1141 Registered Nurses 2.17% $158,923
29-1171 Nurse Practitioners 0.32% $191,702
29-1292 Dental Hygienists 0.04% $123,178
29-2061 Licensed Practical and Licensed Vocational Nurses 0.47% $78,178 29-1229 Physicians, All Other 0.14% $253,210
29-1249 Surgeons, All Other 0.01% $534,921
29-1215 Family Medicine Physicians 0.07% $291,993
29-1021 Dentists, General 0.03% $185,805
29-9021 Health Information Technologists and Medical
Registrars

0.07% $104,205
Weighted Average Annual Wage 3.46% $156,680
31-0000 Healthcare Support Occupations
31-1131 Nursing Assistants 0.31% $54,433
31-9091 Dental Assistants 0.09% $58,907
31-9092 Medical Assistants 0.97% $57,695
31-1120 Home Health and Personal Care Aides 0.33% $38,035 Weighted Average Annual Wage 1.71% $53,317
33-0000 Protective Service Occupations
33-9032 Security Guards 4.87% $47,017
33-1099 First-Line Supervisors of Protective Service Workers, All Other

0.02% $98,506
Weighted Average Annual Wage 4.89% $47,222
35-0000 Food Preparation and Serving Related Occupations 35-1012 First-Line Supervisors of Food Preparation and Serving Workers

0.03% $57,630
35-2021 Food Preparation Workers 0.03% $42,583
35-3011 Bartenders 0.02% $43,847
35-3031 Waiters and Waitresses 0.07% $40,380
35-9011 Dining Room and Cafeteria Attendants and Bartender Helpers

0.02% $39,957
35-9021 Dishwashers 0.03% $39,368
35-3023 Fast Food and Counter Workers 0.10% $39,414
35-2012 Cooks, Institution and Cafeteria 0.03% $51,210
35-3041 Food Servers, Nonrestaurant 0.02% $47,984
35-2014 Cooks, Restaurant 0.03% $44,409
Weighted Average Annual Wage 0.38% $43,040
37-0000 Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance
Occupations
37-1011 First-Line Supervisors of Housekeeping and Janitorial Workers

0.41% $64,872
37-2012 Maids and Housekeeping Cleaners 0.74% $47,256
37-2021 Pest Control Workers 0.55% $52,211
37-3011 Landscaping and Groundskeeping Workers 3.63% $51,682 33 76
K.

ECONorthwest 21
37-2011 Janitors and Cleaners, Except Maids and Housekeeping Cleaners

5.95% $44,898
37-1012 First-Line Supervisors of Landscaping, Lawn Service, and Groundskeeping Workers

0.52% $72,931
Weighted Average Annual Wage 11.79% $49,407
39-0000 Personal Care and Service Occupations
39-1022 First-Line Supervisors of Personal Service Workers 0.02% $55,446 39-9011 Childcare Workers 0.04% $42,532
39-9032 Recreation Workers 0.02% $42,387
39-3031 Ushers, Lobby Attendants, and Ticket Takers 0.21% $41,187 39-2021 Animal Caretakers 0.28% $43,479
Weighted Average Annual Wage 0.56% $42,980
41-0000 Sales and Related Occupations
41-1012 First-Line Supervisors of Non-Retail Sales Workers 0.11% $105,977 41-2031 Retail Salespersons 0.34% $43,043
41-3021 Insurance Sales Agents 1.26% $103,787
41-9041 Telemarketers 0.03% $42,521
41-3091 Sales Representatives of Services, Except Advertising, Insurance, Financial Services, and Travel

1.10% $106,827
41-3031 Securities, Commodities, and Financial Services Sales Agents

0.34% $119,701
41-4011 Sales Representatives, Wholesale and Manufacturing, Technical and Scientific Products

0.55% $128,326
41-4012 Sales Representatives, Wholesale and Manufacturing, Except Technical and Scientific Products

0.29% $103,787
Weighted Average Annual Wage 4.03% $103,801
43-0000 Office and Administrative Support Occupations
43-1011 First-Line Supervisors of Office and Administrative Support Workers

1.26% $83,476
43-3021 Billing and Posting Clerks 0.36% $57,611
43-3071 Tellers 0.06% $45,514
43-4051 Customer Service Representatives 2.65% $53,875
43-4171 Receptionists and Information Clerks 1.06% $46,410 43-6011 Executive Secretaries and Executive Administrative Assistants

0.88% $94,596
43-9061 Office Clerks, General 2.40% $51,810
43-6014 Secretaries and Administrative Assistants, Except Legal, Medical, and Executive

2.09% $60,598
43-3031 Bookkeeping, Accounting, and Auditing Clerks 1.26% $61,925 43-6013 Medical Secretaries and Administrative Assistants 0.71% $54,517 Weighted Average Annual Wage 12.71% $60,615
45-0000 Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Occupations
45-2092 Farmworkers and Laborers, Crop, Nursery, and
Greenhouse

0.15% $44,294
45-2011 Agricultural Inspectors 0.00% $62,685
Weighted Average Annual Wage 0.15% $44,738
47-0000 Construction and Extraction Occupations
47-1011 First-Line Supervisors of Construction Trades and Extraction Workers

0.07% $108,978
47-2031 Carpenters 0.10% $81,183
47-2073 Operating Engineers and Other Construction Equipment Operators

0.04% $95,692
34 77
K.

ECONorthwest 22
47-2111 Electricians 0.18% $106,733
47-4011 Construction and Building Inspectors 0.32% $115,036 47-2152 Plumbers, Pipefitters, and Steamfitters 0.07% $95,014 47-2141 Painters, Construction and Maintenance 0.02% $65,145 Weighted Average Annual Wage 0.79% $104,749
49-0000 Installation, Maintenance, and Repair Occupations 49-9071 Maintenance and Repair Workers, General 0.65% $61,607 49-2022 Telecommunications Equipment Installers and
Repairers, Except Line Installers

0.02% $79,044
49-9099 Installation, Maintenance, and Repair Workers, All Other 0.16% $55,778 49-1011 First-Line Supervisors of Mechanics, Installers, and Repairers

0.16% $94,340
49-2098 Security and Fire Alarm Systems Installers 0.35% $69,823 Weighted Average Annual Wage 1.34% $67,234
51-0000 Production Occupations
51-4041 Machinists 0.15% $70,003
51-9111 Packaging and Filling Machine Operators and Tenders 0.19% $50,133 51-9198 Helpers--Production Workers 0.17% $40,567
51-2090 Miscellaneous Assemblers and Fabricators 1.11% $45,163 51-9199 Production Workers, All Other 0.46% $50,746
51-9061 Inspectors, Testers, Sorters, Samplers, and Weighers 0.68% $59,129 51-2028 Electrical, Electronic, and Electromechanical
Assemblers, Except Coil Winders, Tapers, and Finishers

0.19% $50,690
Weighted Average Annual Wage 2.95% $50,917
53-0000 Transportation and Material Moving Occupations
53-3032 Heavy and Tractor-Trailer Truck Drivers 0.16% $66,311 53-7051 Industrial Truck and Tractor Operators 0.35% $53,668 53-7062 Laborers and Freight, Stock, and Material Movers, Hand 2.75% $46,694 53-7064 Packers and Packagers, Hand 0.58% $42,018
53-3033 Light Truck Drivers 0.10% $53,090
Weighted Average Annual Wage 3.94% $47,584
Total 100.00% $101,396
Exhibit 24: Wages and Distribution of Occupations, Retail Prototype Source: ECONorthwest; Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), December 2022; California Employment Development Department; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics SOC Code Occupational Title % of Total
Retail
Workers
Mean
Annual
Wage
11-0000 Management Occupations
11-1021 General and Operations Managers 2.31% $166,029
11-2022 Sales Managers 0.01% $188,903
11-9051 Food Service Managers 2.45% $74,812
Weighted Average Annual Wage 4.77% $119,155
13-0000 Business and Financial Operations Occupations
13-1051 Cost Estimators 0.15% $105,456
13-1071 Human Resources Specialists 0.01% $103,287
13-1151 Training and Development Specialists 0.29% $93,874 13-1161 Market Research Analysts and Marketing Specialists 0.15% $116,548 13-2011 Accountants and Auditors 0.02% $112,447
13-1199 Business Operations Specialists, all other 0.01% $101,412 35 78
K.

ECONorthwest 23
13-1020 Buyers and Purchasing Agents 0.01% $90,147
Weighted Average Annual Wage 0.64% $102,764
33-0000 Protective Service Occupations
33-9032 Security Guards 0.14% $47,017
Weighted Average Annual Wage 0.14% $47,017
35-0000 Food Preparation and Serving Related Occupations 35-2021 Food Preparation Workers 6.06% $42,583
35-3031 Waiters and Waitresses 23.67% $40,380
35-9011 Dining Room and Cafeteria Attendants and Bartender Helpers

3.18% $39,957
35-9021 Dishwashers 4.47% $39,368
35-2014 Cooks, Restaurant 15.88% $44,409
35-1012 First-Line Supervisors of Food Preparation and Serving Workers

12.41% $57,630
35-2011 Cooks, Fast Food 11.26% $37,617
Weighted Average Annual Wage 76.93% $43,688
37-0000 Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance
Occupations
37-2011 Janitors and Cleaners, Except Maids and Housekeeping Cleaners

0.48% $44,898
Weighted Average Annual Wage 0.48% $44,898
41-0000 Sales and Related Occupations
41-1011 First-Line Supervisors of Retail Sales Workers 0.16% $57,904 41-2011 Cashiers 5.42% $38,957
41-2031 Retail Salespersons 0.16% $43,043
Weighted Average Annual Wage 5.74% $39,606
43-0000 Office and Administrative Support Occupations
43-1011 First-Line Supervisors of Office and Administrative Support Workers

0.05% $83,476
43-4051 Customer Service Representatives 0.27% $53,875
43-4051 Office Clerks, General 0.27% $51,810
43-3031 Bookkeeping, Accounting, and Auditing Clerks 0.46% $61,925 43-5071 Shipping, Receiving, and Inventory Clerks 0.01% $49,292 Weighted Average Annual Wage 1.05% $58,284
47-0000 Construction and Extraction Occupations 0.00%
47-2121 Glaziers 0.01% $75,843
Weighted Average Annual Wage 0.01% $75,843
49-0000 Installation, Maintenance, and Repair Occupations 49-3021 Automotive Body and Related Repairers 0.97% $66,830 49-3023 Automotive Service Technicians and Mechanics 2.11% $65,028 49-3031 Bus and Truck Mechanics and Diesel Engine Specialists 0.22% $78,130 49-3093 Tire Repairers and Changers 0.07% $46,971
49-9071 Maintenance and Repair Workers, General 0.32% $61,607 49-1011 First Line Supervisors of Mechanics, Installers, and Repairers

0.41% $94,340
Weighted Average Annual Wage 4.10% $68,472
36 79
K.

ECONorthwest 24
51-0000 Production Occupations
51-1011 First-Line Supervisors of Production and Operating Workers

0.01% $87,146
51-3011 Bakers 0.58% $43,019
Weighted Average Annual Wage 0.59% $43,682
53-0000 Transportation and Material Moving Occupations
53-3031 Driver/Sales Workers 3.61% $44,082
53-6031 Automotive and Watercraft Service Attendants 0.33% $41,060 53-7061 Cleaners of Vehicles and Equipment 1.38% $42,762 53-7062 Laborers and Freight, Stock, and Material Movers, Hand 0.03% $46,694 53-3033 Light Truck Drivers 0.19% $53,090
53-7065 Stockers and Order Fillers 0.01% $44,304
Weighted Average Annual Wage 5.55% $43,889
Total 100% $48,624
Exhibit 25: Wages and Distribution of Occupations, Life Sciences Prototype Source: ECONorthwest; Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), December 2022; California Employment Development Department; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics SOC
Code
Occupation Title % of
Occupations
in Prototype
Average
Annual
Wage
11-0000 Management Occupations
11-1011 Chief executives 0.41% $277,159
11-1021 General and operations managers 3.86% $166,029
11-2011 Advertising and promotions managers 0.02% $163,810 11-2021 Marketing managers 0.91% $208,880
11-2022 Sales managers 0.63% $188,903
11-2032 Public relations managers 0.18% $163,304
11-3012 Administrative services managers 0.41% $138,888 11-3013 Facilities managers 0.17% $125,276
11-3021 Computer and information systems managers 1.56% $222,368 11-3031 Financial managers 1.22% $202,480
11-3051 Industrial production managers 0.49% $172,009
11-3061 Purchasing managers 0.30% $169,427
11-3071 Transportation, storage, and distribution managers 0.16% $132,716 11-3111 Compensation and benefits managers 0.02% $173,115 11-3121 Human resources managers 0.45% $187,456
11-3131 Training and development managers 0.10% $177,916 11-9021 Construction managers 0.04% $148,728
11-9039 Education administrators, all other 0.06% $112,717 11-9041 Architectural and engineering managers 1.09% $211,825 11-9051 Food service managers 0.04% $74,812
11-9111 Medical and health services managers 0.69% $156,628 11-9121 Natural sciences managers 2.34% $228,899
11-9141 Property, real estate, and community association managers 0.06% $87,619 11-9151 Social and community service managers 0.02% $92,720 11-9199 Managers, all other 1.55% $195,920
Weighted Average Annual Wage 16.80% $192,531
13-0000 Business and Financial Operations Occupations
13-1020 Buyers and purchasing agents 0.83% $90,147
37 80
K.

ECONorthwest 25
13-1031 Claims adjusters, examiners, and investigators 0.01% $82,394 13-1041 Compliance officers 0.74% $106,770
13-1051 Cost estimators 0.04% $105,456
13-1071 Human resources specialists 1.14% $103,287
13-1075 Labor relations specialists 0.01% $92,431
13-1081 Logisticians 0.50% $95,519
13-1082 Project management specialists 2.02% $135,030
13-1111 Management analysts 2.03% $133,161
13-1121 Meeting, convention, and event planners 0.10% $84,051 13-1131 Fundraisers 0.08% $86,009
13-1141 Compensation, benefits, and job analysis specialists 0.16% $99,764 13-1151 Training and development specialists 0.50% $93,874 13-1161 Market research analysts and marketing specialists 1.59% $116,548 13-1199 Business operations specialists, all other 2.19% $101,412 13-2011 Accountants and auditors 1.68% $112,447
13-2020 Property appraisers and assessors 0.01% $95,564 13-2031 Budget analysts 0.10% $99,593
13-2041 Credit analysts 0.04% $115,534
13-2051 Financial and investment analysts 0.57% $129,565 13-2052 Personal financial advisors 0.05% $171,889
13-2053 Insurance underwriters 0.01% $108,297
13-2054 Financial risk specialists 0.05% $147,887
13-2061 Financial examiners 0.02% $140,729
13-2072 Loan officers 0.08% $105,910
13-2082 Tax preparers 0.02% $71,571
13-2099 Financial specialists, all other 0.15% $114,300

14.71% $114,075
15-0000 Computer and Mathematical Occupations
15-1211 Computer systems analysts 1.31% $138,386
15-1212 Information security analysts 0.67% $157,170
15-1221 Computer and information research scientists 0.45% $225,366 15-1231 Computer network support specialists 0.17% $90,574 15-1232 Computer user support specialists 0.75% $78,794 15-1241 Computer network architects 0.46% $161,662
15-1242 Database administrators 0.20% $128,950
15-1243 Database architects 0.11% $176,025
15-1244 Network and computer systems administrators 0.76% $121,277 15-1251 Computer programmers 0.93% $132,360
15-1252 Software developers 4.30% $168,107
15-1253 Software quality assurance analysts and testers 0.46% $133,592 15-1254 Web developers 0.13% $121,411
15-1255 Web and digital interface designers 0.11% $137,501 15-1299 Computer occupations, all other 0.67% $140,999
15-2011 Actuaries 0.02% $129,942
15-2031 Operations research analysts 0.45% $114,989
15-2041 Statisticians 0.48% $133,195
15-2051 Data scientists 0.59% $162,582
15-2099 Mathematical science occupations, all other 0.06% $75,278

13.08% $147,248
17-0000 Architecture and Engineering Occupations
17-1021 Cartographers and photogrammetrists 0.01% $112,523 17-2011 Aerospace engineers 0.47% $156,296
38 81
K.

ECONorthwest 26
17-2031 Bioengineers and biomedical engineers 0.41% $127,159 17-2041 Chemical engineers 0.26% $107,978
17-2051 Civil engineers 0.11% $118,596
17-2061 Computer hardware engineers 1.15% $194,282
17-2071 Electrical engineers 1.01% $141,791
17-2072 Electronics engineers, except computer 0.70% $146,927 17-2081 Environmental engineers 0.11% $132,078
17-2111 Health and safety engineers, except mining safety engineers and inspectors

0.08% $122,841
17-2112 Industrial engineers 0.86% $126,365
17-2131 Materials engineers 0.14% $114,170
17-2141 Mechanical engineers 1.37% $141,095
17-2171 Petroleum engineers 0.10% $145,844
17-2199 Engineers, all other 0.99% $134,380
17-3011 Architectural and civil drafters 0.01% $78,006
17-3012 Electrical and electronics drafters 0.01% $92,488 17-3013 Mechanical drafters 0.08% $84,961
17-3023 Electrical and electronic engineering technologists and technicians

0.49% $76,889
17-3025 Environmental engineering technologists and technicians 0.02% $77,875 17-3026 Industrial engineering technologists and technicians 0.18% $76,133 17-3027 Mechanical engineering technologists and technicians 0.35% $74,843 17-3028 Calibration technologists and technicians 0.07% $80,984 17-3029 Engineering technologists and technicians, except drafters, all other

0.50% $62,920
17-3031 Surveying and mapping technicians 0.01% $76,885

9.50% $131,988
19-0000 Life, Physical, and Social Science Occupations
19-1012 Food scientists and technologists 0.08% $113,158 19-1013 Soil and plant scientists 0.28% $96,381
19-1021 Biochemists and biophysicists 1.70% $134,996
19-1022 Microbiologists 0.47% $117,210
19-1023 Zoologists and wildlife biologists 0.07% $95,482 19-1029 Biological scientists, all other 1.16% $110,508 19-1041 Epidemiologists 0.06% $113,332
19-1042 Medical scientists, except epidemiologists 3.58% $141,834 19-1099 Life scientists, all other 0.13% $139,487
19-2012 Physicists 0.78% $189,198
19-2021 Atmospheric and space scientists 0.13% $124,440 19-2031 Chemists 1.21% $103,360
19-2032 Materials scientists 0.14% $117,042
19-2041 Environmental scientists and specialists, including health 0.38% $114,614 19-2042 Geoscientists, except hydrologists and geographers 0.11% $117,928 19-2043 Hydrologists 0.01% $119,541
19-2099 Physical scientists, all other 0.20% $124,639
19-3011 Economists 0.15% $167,644
19-3022 Survey researchers 0.15% $84,626
19-3033 Clinical and counseling psychologists 0.13% $128,973 19-3039 Psychologists, all other 0.06% $128,140
19-3041 Sociologists 0.13% $113,637
19-3051 Urban and regional planners 0.01% $122,798
19-3091 Anthropologists and archeologists 0.20% $81,182 39 82
K.

ECONorthwest 27
19-3093 Historians 0.06% $92,037
19-3099 Social scientists and related workers, all other 0.33% $85,554 19-4021 Biological technicians 2.18% $67,556
19-4031 Chemical technicians 0.55% $62,206
19-4042 Environmental science and protection technicians, including health

0.11% $72,488
19-4061 Social science research assistants 0.65% $69,781 19-4092 Forensic science technicians 0.01% $94,678
19-4099 Life, physical, and social science technicians, all other 0.81% $79,138 19-5011 Occupational health and safety specialists 0.23% $112,559 19-5012 Occupational health and safety technicians 0.02% $65,387

16.30% $112,570
21-0000 Community and Social Service Occupations
21-1012 Educational, guidance, and career counselors and advisors 0.06% $83,853 21-1018 Substance abuse, behavioral disorder, and mental health counselors

0.09% $62,877
21-1021 Child, family, and school social workers 0.01% $76,758 21-1022 Healthcare social workers 0.02% $99,733
21-1091 Health education specialists 0.08% $81,091
21-1093 Social and human service assistants 0.09% $54,941 21-1099 Community and social service specialists, all other 0.01% $68,674

0.37% $71,344
23-0000 Legal Occupations
23-1011 Lawyers 0.46% $204,129
23-2011 Paralegals and legal assistants 0.11% $80,967

0.57% $180,141
25-0000 Education, Training, and Library Occupations
25-3099 Teachers and instructors, all other 0.06% $76,580 25-9031 Instructional coordinators 0.09% $81,283

0.09% $81,283
27-0000 Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media
Occupations
27-1011 Art directors 0.03% $167,299
27-1021 Commercial and industrial designers 0.02% $116,693 27-1022 Fashion designers 0.02% $102,028
27-1024 Graphic designers 0.20% $91,091
27-1025 Interior designers 0.01% $86,378
27-1026 Merchandise displayers and window trimmers 0.03% $50,208 27-2012 Producers and directors 0.02% $126,943
27-3031 Public relations specialists 0.39% $92,207
27-3041 Editors 0.15% $90,019
27-3042 Technical writers 0.32% $124,172
27-3043 Writers and authors 0.10% $123,505
27-3091 Interpreters and translators 0.11% $92,113
27-4011 Audio and video technicians 0.01% $66,932
27-4021 Photographers 0.10% $76,893
27-4031 Camera operators, television, video, and film 0.00% $73,440 27-4032 Film and video editors 0.00% $94,098
27-4099 Media and communication equipment workers, all other 0.00% $68,000

1.53% $100,752
29-0000 Healthcare Practitioners and Technical Occupations 29-1051 Pharmacists 0.02% $168,824
40 83
K.

ECONorthwest 28
29-1071 Physician assistants 0.01% $179,462
29-1123 Physical therapists 0.01% $123,442
29-1124 Radiation therapists 0.01% $165,024
29-1131 Veterinarians 0.37% $148,014
29-1141 Registered nurses 0.42% $158,923
29-1171 Nurse practitioners 0.07% $191,702
29-1229 Physicians, all other 0.09% $253,210
29-2010 Clinical laboratory technologists and technicians 2.26% $77,952 29-2031 Cardiovascular technologists and technicians 0.01% $92,109 29-2032 Diagnostic medical sonographers 0.20% $135,057
29-2033 Nuclear medicine technologists 0.02% $151,491
29-2034 Radiologic technologists and technicians 0.38% $122,571 29-2035 Magnetic resonance imaging technologists 0.17% $129,264 29-2042 Emergency medical technicians 0.01% $82,351
29-2043 Paramedics 0.01% $72,921
29-2052 Pharmacy technicians 0.02% $59,969
29-2056 Veterinary technologists and technicians 0.64% $56,960 29-2061 Licensed practical and licensed vocational nurses 0.03% $78,178 29-2072 Medical records specialists 0.19% $68,810
29-2099 Health technologists and technicians, all other 0.11% $72,937 29-9021 Health information technologists and medical registrars 0.08% $104,205 29-9092 Genetic counselors 0.01% $137,160
29-9099 Healthcare practitioners and technical workers, all other 0.09% $86,836

5.24% $100,112
31-0000 Healthcare Support Occupations
31-1120 Home health and personal care aides 0.04% $38,035 31-1131 Nursing assistants 0.02% $54,433
31-9092 Medical assistants 0.15% $57,695
31-9093 Medical equipment preparers 0.01% $71,638
31-9094 Medical transcriptionists 0.05% $55,759
31-9096 Veterinary assistants and laboratory animal caretakers 0.60% $44,755 31-9097 Phlebotomists 1.18% $57,985
31-9099 Healthcare support workers, all other 0.10% $58,895

2.15% $53,969
33-0000 Protective Service Occupations
33-9021 Private detectives and investigators 0.01% $82,094 33-9032 Security guards 0.21% $47,017
33-9099 Protective service workers, all other 0.01% $60,847

0.23% $49,470
35-0000 Food Preparation and Serving Related Occupations 35-1012 First-line supervisors of food preparation and serving workers

0.02% $57,630
35-2014 Cooks, restaurant 0.01% $44,409
35-3023 Fast food and counter workers 0.02% $39,414
35-3031 Waiters and waitresses 0.01% $40,380

0.07% $46,480
37-0000 Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance
Occupations
37-2011 Janitors and cleaners, except maids and housekeeping cleaners

0.22% $44,898
37-2012 Maids and housekeeping cleaners 0.01% $47,256
37-3011 Landscaping and groundskeeping workers 0.03% $51,682 41 84
K.

ECONorthwest 29

0.41% $45,978
39-0000 Personal Care and Service Occupations
39-1022 First-line supervisors of personal service workers 0.00% $55,446 39-2021 Animal caretakers 0.31% $43,479

0.32% $43,632
41-0000 Sales and Related Occupations
41-1011 First-line supervisors of retail sales workers 0.03% $57,904 41-1012 First-line supervisors of non-retail sales workers 0.09% $105,977 41-2011 Cashiers 0.03% $38,957
41-2021 Counter and rental clerks 0.01% $44,954
41-2031 Retail salespersons 0.06% $43,043
41-3011 Advertising sales agents 0.02% $87,298
41-3021 Insurance sales agents 0.03% $103,787
41-3031 Securities, commodities, and financial services sales agents

0.08% $119,701
41-3091 Sales representatives of services, except advertising, insurance, financial services, and travel

1.06% $106,827
41-4011 Sales representatives, wholesale and manufacturing, technical and scientific products

0.72% $128,326
41-4012 Sales representatives, wholesale and manufacturing, except technical and scientific products

0.44% $89,460
41-9011 Demonstrators and product promoters 0.02% $48,881 41-9022 Real estate sales agents 0.01% $72,777
41-9031 Sales engineers 0.11% $159,629
41-9041 Telemarketers 0.06% $42,521
41-9099 Sales and related workers, all other 0.04% $78,750

2.80% $106,815
43-0000 Office and Administrative Support Occupations
43-1011 First-line supervisors of office and administrative support workers

0.93% $83,476
43-2011 Switchboard operators, including answering service 0.01% $54,000 43-3011 Bill and account collectors 0.10% $58,962
43-3021 Billing and posting clerks 0.37% $57,611
43-3031 Bookkeeping, accounting, and auditing clerks 1.13% $61,925 43-3051 Payroll and timekeeping clerks 0.09% $70,817
43-3061 Procurement clerks 0.03% $58,701
43-3071 Tellers 0.01% $45,514
43-3099 Financial clerks, all other 0.01% $74,233
43-4041 Credit authorizers, checkers, and clerks 0.01% $62,160 43-4051 Customer service representatives 1.61% $53,875
43-4071 File clerks 0.03% $51,299
43-4111 Interviewers, except eligibility and loan 0.33% $54,845 43-4131 Loan interviewers and clerks 0.07% $61,523
43-4141 New accounts clerks 0.01% $54,596
43-4151 Order clerks 0.03% $48,577
43-4161 Human resources assistants, except payroll and
timekeeping

0.15% $57,404
43-4171 Receptionists and information clerks 0.60% $46,410 43-4199 Information and record clerks, all other 0.10% $62,758 43-5011 Cargo and freight agents 0.02% $54,613
43-5021 Couriers and messengers 0.32% $41,626
43-5032 Dispatchers, except police, fire, and ambulance 0.04% $46,736 42 85
K.

ECONorthwest 30
43-5061 Production, planning, and expediting clerks 0.40% $67,345 43-5071 Shipping, receiving, and inventory clerks 0.32% $49,292 43-5111 Weighers, measurers, checkers, and samplers,
recordkeeping

0.00% $50,700
43-6011 Executive secretaries and executive administrative assistants

0.94% $94,596
43-6013 Medical secretaries and administrative assistants 0.36% $54,517 43-6014 Secretaries and administrative assistants, except legal, medical, and executive

1.45% $60,598
43-9021 Data entry keyers 0.17% $47,648
43-9041 Insurance claims and policy processing clerks 0.05% $64,087 43-9051 Mail clerks and mail machine operators, except postal service

0.01% $43,268
43-9061 Office clerks, general 1.38% $51,810
43-9071 Office machine operators, except computer 0.01% $48,805 43-9081 Proofreaders and copy markers 0.00% $67,168
43-9111 Statistical assistants 0.06% $72,796
43-9199 Office and administrative support workers, all other 0.12% $60,466

11.30% $61,358
45-0000 Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Occupations
45-2011 Agricultural inspectors 0.00% $62,685
45-2092 Farmworkers and laborers, crop, nursery, and greenhouse 0.13% $44,294 47-1011 First-line supervisors of construction trades and extraction workers

0.02% $108,978
47-2031 Carpenters 0.01% $81,183
47-2061 Construction laborers 0.03% $61,169
47-2111 Electricians 0.08% $106,733
47-4011 Construction and building inspectors 0.05% $115,036

0.32% $77,788
49-0000 Installation, Maintenance, and Repair Occupations 49-1011 First-line supervisors of mechanics, installers, and repairers 0.11% $94,340 49-2022 Telecommunications equipment installers and repairers, except line installers

0.02% $79,044
49-2091 Avionics technicians 0.01% $94,027
49-2094 Electrical and electronics repairers, commercial and industrial equipment

0.04% $83,604
49-3011 Aircraft mechanics and service technicians 0.06% $90,866 49-3023 Automotive service technicians and mechanics 0.01% $65,028 49-3031 Bus and truck mechanics and diesel engine specialists 0.01% $78,130 49-3042 Mobile heavy equipment mechanics, except engines 0.01% $75,244 49-9021 Heating, air conditioning, and refrigeration mechanics and installers

0.02% $76,939
49-9041 Industrial machinery mechanics 0.11% $80,395
49-9043 Maintenance workers, machinery 0.01% $73,391
49-9062 Medical equipment repairers 0.01% $88,258
49-9071 Maintenance and repair workers, general 0.45% $61,607 49-9099 Installation, maintenance, and repair workers, all other 0.01% $55,778

0.89% $72,969
51-0000 Production Occupations
51-1011 First-line supervisors of production and operating workers 0.33% $87,146 51-2028 Electrical, electronic, and electromechanical assemblers, except coil winders, tapers, and finishers

0.71% $50,690
43 86
K.

ECONorthwest 31
51-2090 Miscellaneous assemblers and fabricators 0.39% $45,163 51-4031 Cutting, punching, and press machine setters, operators, and tenders, metal and plastic

0.01% $48,544
51-4033 Grinding, lapping, polishing, and buffing machine tool setters, operators, and tenders, metal and plastic

0.01% $47,093
51-4041 Machinists 0.15% $70,003
51-4081 Multiple machine tool setters, operators, and tenders, metal and plastic

0.03% $47,615
51-4111 Tool and die makers 0.01% $69,235
51-4121 Welders, cutters, solderers, and brazers 0.09% $62,686 51-9011 Chemical equipment operators and tenders 0.01% $71,003 51-9023 Mixing and blending machine setters, operators, and tenders

0.06% $65,215
51-9061 Inspectors, testers, sorters, samplers, and weighers 0.50% $59,129 51-9111 Packaging and filling machine operators and tenders 0.07% $50,133 51-9124 Coating, painting, and spraying machine setters, operators, and tenders

0.01% $57,412
51-9161 Computer numerically controlled tool operators 0.03% $54,671 51-9162 Computer numerically controlled tool programmers 0.01% $77,853 51-9198 Helpers--production workers 0.01% $40,567
51-9199 Production workers, all other 0.16% $50,746

2.57% $58,310
53-0000 Transportation and Material Moving Occupations
53-1047 First-line supervisors of transportation and material moving workers, except aircraft cargo handling supervisors

0.05% $71,293
53-2012 Commercial pilots 0.01% $234,239
53-3031 Driver/sales workers 0.01% $44,082
53-3032 Heavy and tractor-trailer truck drivers 0.10% $66,311 53-3033 Light truck drivers 0.04% $53,090
53-3053 Shuttle drivers and chauffeurs 0.02% $43,546
53-3099 Motor vehicle operators, all other 0.01% $52,622 53-7051 Industrial truck and tractor operators 0.04% $53,668 53-7062 Laborers and freight, stock, and material movers, hand 0.33% $46,694 53-7063 Machine feeders and offbearers 0.01% $43,921
53-7064 Packers and packagers, hand 0.03% $42,018
53-7065 Stockers and order fillers 0.18% $44,304

0.83% $53,031
Grand Total 100.00% $121,813
Exhibit 26: Wages and Distribution of Occupations, Warehouse Prototype Source: ECONorthwest; Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), December 2022; California Employment Development Department; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics SOC
Code
Row Labels % of
Occupations
Average
Annual
Wage
11-0000 Management Occupations
11-1011 Chief executives 0.18% $277,159
11-1021 General and operations managers 2.69% $166,029
11-2021 Marketing managers 0.09% $208,880
11-2022 Sales managers 0.36% $188,903
44 87
K.

ECONorthwest 32
11-3012 Administrative services managers 0.18% $138,888 11-3013 Facilities managers 0.03% $125,276
11-3021 Computer and information systems managers 0.09% $222,368 11-3031 Financial managers 0.23% $202,480
11-3071 Transportation, storage, and distribution managers 1.14% $132,716 11-3121 Human resources managers 0.06% $187,456
11-9199 Managers, all other 0.20% $195,920

5.24% $167,697
13-0000 Business and Financial Operations Occupations
13-1020 Buyers and purchasing agents 0.08% $90,147
13-1031 Claims adjusters, examiners, and investigators 0.03% $82,394 13-1041 Compliance officers 0.40% $106,770
13-1051 Cost estimators 0.03% $105,456
13-1071 Human resources specialists 0.50% $103,287
13-1081 Logisticians 1.08% $95,519
13-1082 Project management specialists 0.17% $135,030
13-1111 Management analysts 0.12% $133,161
13-1141 Compensation, benefits, and job analysis specialists 0.03% $99,764 13-1151 Training and development specialists 0.25% $93,874 13-1161 Market research analysts and marketing specialists 0.23% $116,548 13-1199 Business operations specialists, all other 0.47% $101,412 13-2011 Accountants and auditors 0.74% $112,447
13-2041 Credit analysts 0.03% $115,534
13-2051 Financial and investment analysts 0.03% $129,565 13-2099 Financial specialists, all other 0.03% $114,300

4.22% $105,276
15-0000 Computer and Mathematical Occupations
15-1211 Computer systems analysts 0.09% $138,386
15-1231 Computer network support specialists 0.06% $90,574 15-1232 Computer user support specialists 0.20% $78,794 15-1242 Database administrators 0.03% $128,950
15-1244 Network and computer systems administrators 0.09% $121,277 15-1252 Software developers 0.13% $168,107
15-1253 Software quality assurance analysts and testers 0.03% $133,592 15-1299 Computer occupations, all other 0.11% $140,999

0.74% $121,263
17-0000 Architecture and Engineering Occupations 22,300 $60.92 17-2112 Industrial engineers 0.05% $126,365

0.05% $126,365
19-0000 Life, Physical, and Social Science Occupations
19-5011 Occupational health and safety specialists 0.16% $112,559 19-5012 Occupational health and safety technicians 0.05% $65,387

0.21% $101,180
27-0000 Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media
Occupations
27-1026 Merchandise displayers and window trimmers 0.03% $50,208 27-3031 Public relations specialists 0.03% $92,207

0.06% $73,398
33-0000 Protective Service Occupations
45 88
K.

ECONorthwest 33
33-1099 First-line supervisors of protective service workers, all other 0.03% $98,506 33-9032 Security guards 0.16% $47,017
33-9099 Protective service workers, all other 0.10% $60,847

0.29% $56,569
37-0000 Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance
Occupations
37-2011 Janitors and cleaners, except maids and housekeeping cleaners 0.31% $44,898

0.31% $44,898
41-0000 Sales and Related Occupations
41-1012 First-line supervisors of non-retail sales workers 0.09% $105,977 41-2031 Retail salespersons 0.03% $43,043
41-3091 Sales representatives of services, except advertising, insurance, financial services, and travel 0.52% $106,827 41-4012 Sales representatives, wholesale and manufacturing, except technical and scientific products 0.32% $89,460
41-9099 Sales and related workers, all other 0.09% $78,750

1.05% $97,485
43-0000 Office and Administrative Support Occupations
43-1011 First-line supervisors of office and administrative support workers 2.13% $83,476
43-3011 Bill and account collectors 0.09% $58,962
43-3021 Billing and posting clerks 0.48% $57,611
43-3031 Bookkeeping, accounting, and auditing clerks 1.75% $61,925 43-3051 Payroll and timekeeping clerks 0.13% $70,817
43-3061 Procurement clerks 0.03% $58,701
43-4011 Brokerage clerks 0.06% $69,722
43-4051 Customer service representatives 2.41% $53,875
43-4071 File clerks 0.03% $51,299
43-4151 Order clerks 0.24% $48,577
43-4161 Human resources assistants, except payroll and timekeeping 0.06% $57,404 43-4171 Receptionists and information clerks 0.11% $46,410 43-4181 Reservation and transportation ticket agents and travel clerks 0.03% $50,737 43-4199 Information and record clerks, all other 0.03% $62,758 43-5011 Cargo and freight agents 7.19% $54,613
43-5021 Couriers and messengers 0.05% $41,626
43-5032 Dispatchers, except police, fire, and ambulance 2.37% $46,736 43-5061 Production, planning, and expediting clerks 0.65% $67,345 43-5071 Shipping, receiving, and inventory clerks 2.13% $49,292 43-5111 Weighers, measurers, checkers, and samplers, recordkeeping 0.26% $50,700 43-6011 Executive secretaries and executive administrative assistants 0.14% $94,596 43-6014 Secretaries and administrative assistants, except legal, medical, and executive 1.07% $60,598
43-9021 Data entry keyers 0.26% $47,648
43-9061 Office clerks, general 2.37% $51,810
43-9199 Office and administrative support workers, all other 0.03% $60,466

24.12% $56,922
47-0000 Construction and Extraction Occupations
47-2061 Construction laborers 0.05% $61,169
46 89
K.

ECONorthwest 34
47-2073 Operating engineers and other construction equipment operators

0.10% $95,692

0.15% $84,184
49-0000 Installation, Maintenance, and Repair Occupations 49-1011 First-line supervisors of mechanics, installers, and repairers 0.26% $94,340 49-2094 Electrical and electronics repairers, commercial and industrial equipment 0.03% $83,604
49-3031 Bus and truck mechanics and diesel engine specialists 2.12% $78,130 49-3042 Mobile heavy equipment mechanics, except engines 0.08% $75,244 49-9041 Industrial machinery mechanics 0.03% $80,395
49-9043 Maintenance workers, machinery 0.03% $73,391
49-9071 Maintenance and repair workers, general 0.62% $61,607 49-9098 Helpers--installation, maintenance, and repair workers 0.10% $49,539 49-9099 Installation, maintenance, and repair workers, all other 0.03% $55,778

3.27% $75,209
51-0000 Production Occupations
51-1011 First-line supervisors of production and operating workers 0.06% $87,146 51-2090 Miscellaneous assemblers and fabricators 0.17% $45,163 51-4121 Welders, cutters, solderers, and brazers 0.05% $62,686 51-6031 Sewing machine operators 0.03% $40,308
51-9061 Inspectors, testers, sorters, samplers, and weighers 0.22% $59,129 51-9111 Packaging and filling machine operators and tenders 0.05% $50,133 51-9198 Helpers--production workers 0.03% $40,567
51-9199 Production workers, all other 0.03% $50,746

0.62% $55,622
53-0000 Transportation and Material Moving Occupations
53-3031 Driver/sales workers 0.33% $44,082
53-3032 Heavy and tractor-trailer truck drivers 32.14% $66,311 53-3033 Light truck drivers 2.64% $53,090
53-3099 Motor vehicle operators, all other 0.05% $52,622 53-6051 Transportation inspectors 0.08% $79,733
53-7051 Industrial truck and tractor operators 6.25% $53,668 53-7061 Cleaners of vehicles and equipment 0.13% $42,762 53-7062 Laborers and freight, stock, and material movers, hand 10.92% $46,694 53-7063 Machine feeders and offbearers 0.28% $43,921
53-7064 Packers and packagers, hand 1.18% $42,018
53-7065 Stockers and order fillers 5.66% $44,304

59.67% $57,970
Total 100.00% $67,038
Exhibit 27: Affordable Rents Calculations in San Mateo County by Household Size Source: ECONorthwest, Department of Housing and Urban Development (2023), San Mateo County Department of Housing (2023)
Persons per Household 1 2 3 4 5
Very low income (50% AMI) $65,050 $74,350 $83,650 $92,900 $100,350 Maximum monthly housing cost $1,626 $1,859 $2,091 $2,323 $2,509 Utility deduction $116 $138 $184 $230 $278
47 90
K.

ECONorthwest 35
Maximum available for rent $1,510 $1,721 $1,907 $2,093 $2,231 Maximum household income $91,070 $104,090 $117,110 $130,060 $140,490 Maximum monthly housing cost $2,277 $2,602 $2,928 $3,252 $3,512 Utility deduction $116 $138 $184 $230 $278
Maximum available for rent $2,161 $2,464 $2,744 $3,022 $3,234 Moderate income (90% AMI) $117,090 $133,830 $150,570 $167,220 $180,630 Maximum monthly housing cost $2,927 $3,346 $3,764 $4,181 $4,516 Utility deduction $107 $109 $129 $152 $176
Maximum available for rent $2,820 $3,237 $3,635 $4,029 $4,340 Exhibit 28: Affordable Home Sales Price Calculations in San Mateo County by Household Size Source: ECONorthwest, Department of Housing and Urban Development (2023), San Mateo County Department of Housing (2023)
Persons per Household 1 2 3 4 5
Moderate Income (110% AMI) $143,110 $163,570 $184,030 $204,380 $220,770 Maximum monthly housing cost $4,174 $4,771 $5,368 $5,961 $6,439 Monthly deductions:

Utilities $107 $109 $129 $152 $176
HOA dues $300 $300 $300 $300 $300
Property taxes and insurance $600 $700 $800 $900 $1,000 Monthly income available for
mortgage
$3,167 $3,662 $4,139 $4,609 $4,963
Maximum mortgage amount $476,030 $550,395 $622,054 $692,780 $745,995 Maximum affordable sales price $499,832 $577,915 $653,157 $727,419 $783,295 48 91
K.

ECONorthwest | Portland | Seattle | Los Angeles | Eugene | Bend | Boise | econw.com 1 DATE: March 27, 2024
TO: Community Development Department, City of Brisbane
FROM: Chris Blakney, Katherine Buck (ECOnorthwest)
SUBJECT: Brisbane Commercial Linkage Feasibility Analysis Background and Summary
In 2020, the City of Brisbane commissioned a Commercial Linkage Fee Analysis that evaluated three commercial prototypes: office, biotech (life sciences), and hotel. Century Urban prepared the 2020 analysis, which was an update to a 2015 nexus study prepared for the City by Vernazza Wolfe Associates and Strategic Economics. Since preparing these previous studies, the City has not to date adopted a commercial linkage fee.

In this analysis, ECOnorthwest updates and expands on the previous analyses to reflect changing commercial market conditions, modeling five commercial prototypes: hotel, retail, office, life sciences, and warehouse. Of these prototypes, only warehouse development is economically viable under current market conditions and could potentially have sufficient value to absorb a commercial linkage fee without adverse impacts to the development market. 1 The hotel and office results from this study are consistent with previous findings. Commercial markets are currently exhibiting adverse market conditions across the Bay Area and nationwide; these markets have been negatively impacted by COVID-19, shifts in demand, and potential oversaturation in the Bay Area. For example, market research showed high levels of hotel development in 2019, which likely did not achieve predicted profitability due to COVID19. Under these market assumptions, it is unlikely that a developer would pursue hotel development in an already oversaturated market in the intermediate-term. Office and retail markets have also seen downturns nationwide as consumer preferences shift towards remote work, ecommerce, and changing patterns in retail space utilization influence development trends. In addition, a significant pipeline of life sciences development in the area combined with uncertain financing resources and high construction costs have made developers cautious about moving forward with new life sciences development.

Prototypes and Fee Levels
As described in the previous section, this analysis evaluates linkage fees for five commercial prototypes: hotel, retail, office, life sciences, and warehouse. Building characteristics for each prototype were based on the Brisbane zoning code and recently built or proposed projects in Brisbane, including development scenarios proposed in the Baylands Specific Plan. The inputs for gross building area and land area (acres and square feet) are standard assumptions used to conduct fee studies and do not reflect the average gross building area or lot size for new 1 Using an average land cost of $250 per square foot; as land costs may vary, we conducted sensitivity testing on land costs (see Exhibit 7).
49 92
K.

ECONorthwest 2
development in Brisbane. Building efficiency inputs represent the industry standard assumptions for efficiencies by protype. Details for each characteristic are shown in Exhibit 1.

Exhibit 1: Commercial Prototypes
Source: ECONorthwest, CoStar, City of Brisbane
Hotel Retail Office Life Sciences Warehouse
Gross Building Area 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 Podium Parking Area 66,500 166,500 182,000 150,000 0
Gross Building Area
Including Podium Parking 166,500 266,500 282,000 250,000 100,000 Efficiency 100% 95% 85% 85% 95%
Net Leasable Area 100,000 95,000 85,000 85,000 95,000
Hotel Rooms 133 0 0 0 0
Total Parking Spaces2 133 333 364 300 100
Podium Parking Spaces 133 333 364 300 0
Surface Parking Spaces 0 0 0 0 100
Floor Area Ratio 26.7 26.7 26.7 26.7 26.7
Land Area (Acres) 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.4
Land Area (SF) 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 60,000
Fee Levels
We tested four fee scenarios, shown below. For Scenario 1, fees were set at the maximum allowable fee from the associated Nexus Study completed as part of this study. The other fee scenarios ($5 per square foot, $10 per square foot, and $20 per square foot) were chosen based on the previous linkage study and the fee levels in other nearby jurisdictions.

Exhibit 2: Tested Fees
Source: ECONorthwest
Fee Amounts: Hotel Retail Office Life Sciences Warehouse Baseline $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Scenario 1 $254 $423 $405 $243 $231
Scenario 2 $20 $20 $20 $20 $20
Scenario 3 $10 $10 $10 $10 $10
Scenario 4 $5 $5 $5 $5 $5
Methodology
We used a pro forma model to measure the financial feasibility of the commercial prototypes using a return on cost model. It is important to note that findings in this analysis are based on the performance of these generic prototypes and current observations of market inputs like lease rates, land costs, construction costs, interest rates, and cap rates. Project specific analysis with unique characteristics (such as a low land basis or a developer with untraditional return thresholds) could yield different results.
2 Parking minimums were determined by standards outlined in the Brisbane code section 17.34.020. With the exception of the warehouse prototypes, all prototypes have podium parking based on a review of recent development as well as space constraints in the City.
50 93
K.

ECONorthwest 3
Pro Forma Inputs
Revenues
We used Cushman & Wakefield market data as well as data from CoStar—a third-party data provider—for the North San Mateo County sub-market to estimate revenues for commercial development. For all prototypes except hotel, we used triple-net (NNN) rent per square foot estimates, and thus assumed operating expenses were included in rent rates. For the hotel prototype, we calculated revenues based on current revenue per available room (RevPAR) data.

Income assumptions used in the analysis are shown in Exhibit 3 below.

Exhibit 3: Pro Forma Income Assumptions
Source: ECONorthwest, CoStar, Cushman & Wakefield
Hotel Retail Office
Life
Sciences Warehouse
Income Metric RevPAR Per sf Per sf Per sf Per sf
Rents (NNN for all
prototypes except hotel) $69,350 $45 $70 $80 $25
Gross Annual Revenue $9,223,550 $4,275,000 $5,950,000 $6,800,000 $2,375,000 Vacancy Rate (% of
Gross Income)
Included in
RevPAR 10% 10% 10% 10%
Operating Expenses (%
of Gross Income) 70% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Annual Net Operating
Incomes $2,767,065 $3,847,500 $5,355,000 $6,120,000 $2,137,500 Costs
Cost estimates include hard costs (including construction materials and labor), land costs, soft costs, contingencies, and developer profit. For the retail, office, and warehouse prototypes, we used costs based on the National Building Cost Manual, developer interviews, and prior regional pro forma work. For life sciences development, costs are largely driven by high fit-out costs to equip the development with infrastructure to support life sciences research and development. To establish life sciences construction costs, we used data from the Cushman & Wakefield Life Sciences Fit-Out Cost Guide and chose a cost assumption on the lower end of the range. Finally, for hotel costs, we used the HVS Hotel Cost Estimating Guide and include costs for Furniture, Fixtures, and Equipment (FF&E). Cost estimates for hard and soft costs are shown in Exhibit 4.
51 94
K.

ECONorthwest 4
Exhibit 4: Pro Forma Cost Assumptions
Source: ECONorthwest, National Building Cost Manual, HVS Hotel Cost Estimating Guide, Cushman & Wakefield Life Sciences Fit-Out Cost Guide, CoStar
Hotel Retail Office Life Sciences Warehouse
Building Costs
per SF $407 $251 $354 $700 $100
Total Building
Costs $40,704,625 $25,098,942 $35,432,895 $70,000,000 $10,000,000 Parking Costs
(Podium) $6,750,000 $15,000,000 $18,000,000 $18,000,000 $0 Total
Construction
Costs $47,454,625 $40,098,942 $53,432,895 $88,000,000 $10,500,000 Soft Costs $7,967,371 $6,829,512 $10,129,757 $16,095,784 $2,942,416 Contingency $5,220,009 $4,410,884 $5,877,618 $9,680,000 $1,155,000 Developer Fee $2,871,005 $2,425,986 $3,232,690 $5,324,000 $635,250 Total Costs $63,513,010 $53,765,324 $72,672,961 $119,099,784 $15,232,666 Return on Cost Thresholds
Return on cost thresholds are shown below, based on a review of current capitalization rates and market conditions.

Exhibit 5: Capitalization Rates and Return on Cost Thresholds Source: ECONorthwest
Hotel Retail Office
Life
Sciences Warehouse
Return on Cost
Threshold

7.5% -

7.75%

7.0% -

7.25%

7.0% -

7.25%

7.0% -

7.25%

7.0% -

7.25%
Land Costs
To estimate local land costs, we analyzed recent land transactions in CoStar for the Northern San Mateo County area in the last two years. Land is very expensive in the area, with an average cost of roughly $345 per square foot overall and an average cost of $253 for parcels between one and two acres. Below, the table below shows major property transactions postJanuary 2022, which had an average cost per square foot of $257 and ranged from $77 per square to $394 per square foot.

Exhibit 6: Property Sales, 2022-2023
Source: CoStar
Property Type Sale Price Land Area SF Sale Price/ Sf Sale Date Retail $1,100,000 2,792 $394 2/22/2023
Retail $750,000 3,014 $249 1/6/2023
Office $49,800,000 174,240 $286 9/1/2022
Retail $750,000 2,665 $281 4/8/2022
Retail (Neighborhood Center) $4,250,000 55,321 $77 3/3/2022 Because of the variation in land costs across San Mateo County, we tested multiple land values in the pro forma. For each prototype, we tested land values at $250 per square foot (to reflect the rough average of land in the City based on CoStar data collection) and $77 per square foot 52 95
K.

ECONorthwest 5
(based on the City’s recent acquisition of the Bank of America site) to solve for the required price of land to make each prototype feasible using a return on cost threshold of 7%. The pro forma includes the costs associated with the existing city fees as part of the soft costs.

While only the warehouse prototype is feasible with land values of $250, the office prototype would also become feasible if land values were $73 per square foot, and the retail prototype would be feasible if land values were $30 per square foot; however, there are no recent comparable land sales at this price point in the area. Based on the market assumptions used for the analysis, the hotel and life sciences prototypes are not feasible on-the-margin at any land value without additional subsidy. We are aware the City is processing entitlements for two life sciences developments and a hotel. However, we do not have access to the project specific cost data, and if these projects were able to purchase land at a lower price point, secure financing at a lower interest rate, or accept a lower return on cost than the current market rate assumptions, then it would improve the feasibility of these prototypes.

Exhibit 7: Land Costs by Prototype
Source: CoStar, ECONorthwest
Hotel Retail Office Life Sciences Warehouse
Return on cost for
land at $250 per
square foot 3.64% 5.81% 6.29% 4.65% 7.07%
Total land costs at
$250 per square
foot $12,500,000 $12,500,000 $12,500,000 $12,500,000 $15,000,000 Return on cost for
land at $77 per
square foot 4.11% 6.69% 7.01% 4.98% 10.83%
Total land costs at
$77 per square
foot $3,750,000 $3,750,000 $3,750,000 $3,750,000 $4,500,000 Land value needed
to reach 7% return
on cost
-$478 per
square foot
$30 per
square foot
$73 per
square foot
-$640 per
square foot
$261 per
square foot
Total land budget
to reach 7% return
on cost -$23,919,061 $1,484,549 $3,649,592
-
$31,998,408 $15,642,389
The results below are calculated using the CoStar average land value of $250 per square foot.

Results
Baseline results, as well as results for each fee scenario, are shown below.

Hotel
The hotel prototype had the lowest return on cost result of 3.64%, with an annual net revenue of roughly $2.8 million and a total development cost of $63.5 million. The low feasibility of the hotel prototype is likely due to the high cost of development (due largely to furniture, fixtures, and expenditures, or FF&E), as well as high operating costs. Risk associated with hotel 53 96
K.

ECONorthwest 6
development is likely also reflected in the capitalization rates for hotel development in the area, pegged at 8.7% per CoStar as of 2023. Based on the market rate assumptions for hotel development, additional fees imposed on this prototype could limit hotel development until the market improves.

Exhibit 8: Financial Feasibility of Hotel Prototype
Source: ECONorthwest
Hotel Nexus Fee % of TDC Return on Cost Feasible?
Baseline $0 0.0% 3.64% No
Scenario 1 $254 25.0% 2.73% No
Scenario 2 $20 2.0% 3.55% No
Scenario 3 $10 1.0% 3.59% No
Scenario 4 $5 0.5% 3.62% No
Retail
At current market rents, new retail projects are estimated to earn an annual net operating income of $3.8 million, with a total development cost of roughly $53.8 million. Using these inputs, the retail prototype has a return on cost estimate of 5.8%; as this is below the minimum target threshold of 7%, new retail development is likely not feasible in Brisbane. To be feasible, retail rents in Brisbane would need to be $54 per square foot, or roughly 20% higher.

Exhibit 9: Financial Feasibility of Retail Prototype
Source: ECONorthwest
Retail Nexus Fee % of TDC Return on Cost Feasible?
Baseline $0 0.0% 5.81% No
Scenario 1 $423 39.0% 3.54% No
Scenario 2 $20 1.8% 5.64% No
Scenario 3 $10 0.9% 5.72% No
Scenario 4 $5 0.5% 5.76% No
Office
The office prototype has an annual net revenue of $5.3 million and a total development cost of $72.7 million. Using these inputs, the office prototype has a return on cost estimate of 6.3%, below the minimum target threshold of 7%. To achieve the minimum thresholds, office rents would need to be $78 per square foot, or just over 11% higher. 54 97
K.

ECONorthwest 7
Exhibit 10: Financial Feasibility of Office Prototype
Source: ECONorthwest
Office Nexus Fee % of TDC Return on Cost Feasible?
Baseline $0 0.0% 6.29% No
Scenario 1 $405 32.2% 4.26% No
Scenario 2 $20 1.6% 6.14% No
Scenario 3 $10 0.8% 6.21% No
Scenario 4 $5 0.4% 6.25% No
Life Sciences
The life sciences prototype has an annual net revenue of roughly $6.1 million and a total development cost of $119.1 million. Overall, the life sciences prototype has a return on cost estimate of 4.65%, below the minimum threshold for feasibility. To be feasible, life sciences rents would need to be $120, or 50% higher.

While life sciences construction continues to occur in Brisbane and the Bay Area, there is currently a vast amount of life sciences space in the development pipeline. In addition, current construction costs, high interest rates, and a cooling venture capital funding market all contribute to flattening forecasted rents and perceived risk in the industry. Given these factors, it is likely that developers are approaching projects more cautiously than in prior years and are holding off on development. However, individual life sciences developments may still occur based on the project specific cost details and the developer’s risk profile; we understand that there are two life sciences development proposals for Sierra Point that are currently in the entitlements phase.

Exhibit 11: Financial Feasibility of Life Sciences Prototype Source: ECONorthwest
Life Sciences Nexus Fee % of TDC Return on Cost Feasible? Baseline $0 0.0% 4.65% No
Scenario 1 $243 15.6% 3.93% No
Scenario 2 $20 1.3% 4.58% No
Scenario 3 $10 0.6% 4.62% No
Scenario 4 $5 0.3% 4.63% No
Warehouse
The warehouse prototype has a net annual revenue of $2.1 million and a total development cost of $15.2 million. Overall, the warehouse prototype has a return on cost estimate of 7.07%, above the minimum threshold for feasibility. This prototype could sustain a fee up to $20 per square foot and maintain development feasibility.

Exhibit 12: Financial Feasibility of Warehouse Prototype Source: ECONorthwest
Warehouse Nexus Fee % of TDC Return on Cost Feasible?
Baseline $0 0.0% 7.07% Yes
Scenario 1 $231 43.3% 4.01% No
Scenario 2 $20 3.8% 6.63% Yes
Scenario 3 $10 1.9% 6.84% Yes
Scenario 4 $5 0.9% 6.96% Yes
55 98
K.

ECONorthwest 8
Policy Considerations
Timing of Fee Adoption
While the analysis shows that development is currently not feasible for the protypes (excluding warehouses), the lack of feasibility is primarily due to current market and macroeconomic trends and City fees are not the sole obstacle impacting the financial feasibility of new development. Therefore, the City of Brisbane could consider adopting or phasing in a linkage fee now, so when market conditions are more favorable the City already has the fee in place and can capture the linkage fee revenue from new development. This also allows the City to capture fee revenue if there are new developments that happen in the interim. The City could consider phasing in a sliding-scale fee that could be increased over time as market conditions improve.

Other Development Fees
Other development fees proposed by the City will impact the feasibility of new development and the City is considering a new development impact fee to support parks. However, any new fee on development would impact the commercial linkage fee analysis.

Current city fees (including permit fees, plan checking fees, processing fees, school district developer fees, seismic fees, and art fees) are shown for each prototype in the table below.

Exhibit 13: City of Brisbane Fees
Source: City of Brisbane
Hotel Retail Office Life Sciences Warehouse
Total city fees $665,294 $589,677 $726,750 $1,082,100 $285,400 Total city fees/ square foot of
gross floor area $6.65 $5.90 $7.27 $10.82 $2.85
Impact fees per square foot of
gross floor area (includes school
district fee, seismic fees, and art
fees) $5.66 $4.90 $6.27 $9.83 $1.86
Parking Requirements
Results are particularly sensitive to parking requirements. For this analysis, we used the minimum parking thresholds established in 17.34.020, and assumed podium parking for all prototypes except the warehouse prototype. While podium parking is generally more expensive than surface parking, there was not a large difference in return on cost results due in large part to land costs in the area. Because of the number of stalls required, a developer would need to acquire a much larger piece of land to provide surface parking; on a per stall basis, surface parking results in being slightly more expensive. However, the total number of stalls required has a high impact on the return on cost results across prototypes. To potentially incentivize 56 99
K.

ECONorthwest 9
these development types (and potentially make an additional fee feasible), the City could consider reducing minimum parking requirements, particularly for developments with proximity to transit.

Market Sensitivity Testing
To understand how different (and improved) market conditions could impact development feasibility, we created three scenarios in which the key assumptions underlying the pro forma analysis could change, summarized in the table below. The scenarios are not predictions about future market conditions, and they do not rely on complex economic forecasting models.

Instead, they are coherent and plausible future market conditions designed to show the sensitivity of the feasibility analysis. Various components of each scenario could change at different rates and even in opposite directions than as suggested by the scenarios. The target return on cost would be based on the developer’s willingness to accept the project return, and would be impacted by the developer’s risk profile.

Exhibit 14: Market Sensitivity Testing Scenarios
Source: ECONorthwest
Baseline Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C
Rent Growth from Baseline 100% 103.5% 110.5% 117.5%
Construction Cost Growth from Baseline 100% 102.5% 107.5% 112.5% Vacant Land Value 100% 102.0% 106.0% 110.0%
Target return on cost 7.0% 6.5% 5.75% 5.0%
Scenario A is closest to the baseline conditions and most likely in the immediate future. Rent, operating expense, and construction cost growth rates of 2.5 percent to 3.5 percent are within a normal range over a one-year period. Additionally, as market conditions improve, developers may feel more comfortable accepting a lower return on costs in a less risky market.

Scenario B represents a relatively good economic condition compared to the baseline scenario, in which potential rents increase faster than construction and land costs. Although it is not likely to occur in the immediate future, it might be possible in the next few years. Still, other macroeconomic changes and new policies from federal and state governments can impact how much the scenario’s assumptions change by.

Scenario C represents very good economic conditions potentially far in the future, in which developers are comfortable accepting a 5% return on cost. However, it is uncertain when or if these conditions might occur, and a 5% return threshold being acceptable in the market would require is sizable shift in conditions.

Exhibit 15 shows the return on cost results for each prototype under each scenario, with feasible returns in bold. Under Scenario A, the warehouse is still the only prototype that is feasible; however, under Scenarios B and C, the retail and office prototypes are also feasible, with the life science prototype nearing feasibility.
57 100
K.

ECONorthwest 10
Exhibit 15: Market Sensitivity Testing Results
Source: ECONorthwest
Scenario Hotel Retail Office Life Sciences Warehouse
Baseline 3.64% 5.81% 6.29% 4.65% 7.07%
Scenario A 3.67% 5.85% 6.34% 4.69% 7.15%
Scenario B 3.72% 5.94% 6.43% 4.75% 7.29%
Scenario C 3.77% 6.02% 6.51% 4.80% 7.42%
While these results should not be used to inform policy today, they could indicate that a fee could potentially be feasible in the future, for some prototypes more than others. Key indicators that the development market could be improving include:
▪ Increased land or real estate transactions in the City. ▪ Increased permitting activity, particularly for larger projects and commercial development.
▪ If vacancies are lower and space tends to be leased quickly, it could indicate increased demand in the market which could potentially support higher rents. ▪ Changes to the macroeconomic environment, including stabilized interest rates and construction costs.

If development markers are positive, the City should consider updating this fee study to ensure development likelihood and calibrate the fee to current market conditions. In the interim, the City could consider taking steps to help facilitate future development, such as:
▪ Considering zoning changes or development agreements that increase developer flexibility, such as reducing parking requirements.
▪ Temporarily waiving, reducing, or deferring impact fees, property taxes, permitting fees to help offset development costs.
▪ Investing in infrastructure improvements, including utilities, roads, transit, etc. in any target development areas to reduce upfront infrastructure costs for developers. ▪ Providing land, infrastructure, or funding to help reduce developer costs and risks, especially for projects that could attract future jobs or development. 58 101
K.

Final Report
Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study
December 19, 2022
nbsgov.com
Prepared by:

Corporate Headquarters
32605 Temecula Parkway, Suite 100
Temecula, CA 92592
59 Toll free: 800.676.7516 102
K.

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................. S-1 Organization of the Report ....................................................................................................... S-1 Development Data ................................................................................................................... S-1 Impact Fee Analysis .................................................................................................................. S-2 Recovery of Administrative Costs ............................................................................................. S-4 Impact Fee Summary ................................................................................................................ S-4 Chapter 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................1-1 Purpose ..................................................................................................................................... 1-1 Legal Framework for Developer Fees ....................................................................................... 1-1 Recent Legislation .................................................................................................................... 1-6 Impact Fee Calculation Methodology ...................................................................................... 1-8 Facilities Addressed in this Study ........................................................................................... 1-10 Chapter 2. Development Data .............................................................................................2-1 Setting....................................................................................................................................... 2-1 Study Area and Time Frame ..................................................................................................... 2-1 Development Types .................................................................................................................. 2-1 Residential Development and Population ................................................................................ 2-2 Units of Development .............................................................................................................. 2-3 Demand Variables .................................................................................................................... 2-3 Impact Fees for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) ................................................................... 2-4 Population and Employees per Unit ......................................................................................... 2-5 Existing and Future Development ............................................................................................ 2-5 Growth Potential ...................................................................................................................... 2-7 Chapter 3. Park Land and Park Improvements ......................................................................3-1 Service Area .............................................................................................................................. 3-1 Methodology ............................................................................................................................ 3-1 Demand Variable ...................................................................................................................... 3-1 Existing Level of Service ............................................................................................................ 3-2 Cost Per Capita ......................................................................................................................... 3-3 Impact Fees per Unit ................................................................................................................ 3-3 Projected Revenue ................................................................................................................... 3-5 Updating the Fees .................................................................................................................... 3-6 Nexus Summary ........................................................................................................................ 3-6 60 103
K.

Chapter 4. Recreation Facilities ...........................................................................................4-1 Service Area .............................................................................................................................. 4-1 Methodology ............................................................................................................................ 4-1 Demand Variable ...................................................................................................................... 4-1 Existing Level of Service ............................................................................................................ 4-2 Existing Level of Service - Cost Per Capita ................................................................................ 4-2 Impact Fees per Unit ................................................................................................................ 4-3 Projected Revenue ................................................................................................................... 4-3 Updating the Fees .................................................................................................................... 4-4 Nexus Summary ........................................................................................................................ 4-4 Chapter 5. Open Space and Trails ........................................................................................5-1 Service Area .............................................................................................................................. 5-1 Methodology ............................................................................................................................ 5-1 Demand Variable ...................................................................................................................... 5-1 Existing Level of Service ............................................................................................................ 5-2 Existing Level of Service - Cost Per Capita ................................................................................ 5-2 Impact Fees per Unit ................................................................................................................ 5-3 Projected Revenue ................................................................................................................... 5-4 Updating the Fees .................................................................................................................... 5-5 Nexus Summary ........................................................................................................................ 5-6 Chapter 6. Implementation .................................................................................................6-8 Adoption ................................................................................................................................... 6-8 Administration .......................................................................................................................... 6-9 Requirements Imposed by AB 602 ......................................................................................... 6-13 Training and Public Information ............................................................................................. 6-14 Recovery of Administrative Costs ........................................................................................... 6-14 Appendices
Fee Comparison Appendix A
61 104
K.

City of Brisbane Page S-1
Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study
October 25, 2022
The City of Brisbane has retained NBS Government Finance Group to prepare this study to analyze the impacts of new development on the City’s parks, recreation facilities, open space and trails and to calculate impact fees based on that analysis. The methods used in this study are intended to satisfy all legal requirements of the U. S. Constitution, the California Constitution and the California Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Sections 66000 et seq.).

Organization of the Report
Chapter 1 of this report provides an overview of the legal requirements for establishing and imposing such fees, and methods that can be used to calculate impact fees.

Chapter 2 contains data on existing and future development that is used in this report.

Chapters 3 through 5 analyze the impacts of development on specific types of facilities and calculate impact fees for those facilities. The facilities addressed in this report are listed by chapter below:

Chapter 3. Park Land and Park Improvements
Chapter 4. Recreation Facilities
Chapter 5. Open Space and Trails

Chapter 6 contains recommendations for adopting and implementing impact fees, including suggested findings to satisfy the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act.

Development Data
Chapter 2 of this report presents estimates of existing development in Brisbane and projections of future development in the City out to 2040. Brisbane is largely built-out except for an area known as the Baylands, a 700-acre former landfill and industrial site which is being planned for development as a mixed-use neighborhood with the potential to more than double the City’s population and employment.

Table 2.1 in Chapter 2 shows the population per unit for residential development and employees per unit for various types of non-residential development. Table 2.2 shows estimates of existing development in terms of units, population and employees. Table 2.3 shows a forecast of future development to buildout, and Table 2.4 shows a forecast of total development at buildout. The data in those tables is used to calculate impact fees and to project potential revenue for impact fees calculated in this report.

It should be noted that to comply with recent amendments to the Mitigation Fee Act, residential impact fees are calculated in this study for unit size ranges in square feet, rather than by unit type (e.g., single-family or multi-family) which was common practice in the past.
62 105
K.

City of Brisbane Page S-2
Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study
October 25, 2022
Impact Fee Analysis
The impact fee analysis for each type of facility addressed in this report is presented in a separate chapter of this report. In each case, the relationship between development and the need for a particular type of facility is defined in a way that allows the impact of additional development on facility needs to be quantified. The impact fees are based on the cost of facilities and other capital assets needed to mitigate the impacts of additional development.

All of the fees calculated in this report are based on capital costs and may be spent only for land and capital improvements of the types identified in this report. The following paragraphs briefly discuss the approach used to calculate impact fees for each type of facility addressed in this study.

Chapter 3 - Impact Fees for Park Land and Park Improvements. Chapter 3 of this report calculates impact fees for both park land acquisition and park improvements. It is important to clarify when the park land impact fees calculated in this study would apply to residential development.

The City has an existing Quimby Act ordinance that requires dedication of park land or payment of fees in lieu of dedication by residential subdivisions. That means the park land acquisition impact fees calculated in Chapter 3 would not apply to residential subdivisions but would apply to new residential development that does not involve a subdivision or parcel map. The park land impact fees would also apply to all new non-residential (e.g., commercial and industrial) development in Brisbane. Unlike the impact fees for park land acquisition, the impact fees for park improvements calculated in Chapter 3 are intended to apply to all new residential and non-residential development in the City, including residential subdivisions.

Impact fees for park land and park improvements calculated in this report are based on the existing level of service as required by recent amendments to the Mitigation Fee Act.

For park land and park improvements, that level of service is defined in terms of acres of existing parks per capita of existing service population. For purposes of the impact fee calculations, that level of service is converted into per-capita costs for park land and park improvements using estimates of per-acre costs for park land acquisition and park improvements.

Service population is used in impact fee calculations in this study to represent the impact of development on the need for parks, recreation facilities, open space and trails. Service population is a weighted composite of resident population and employees working in Brisbane. Residents are included to represent the demand created by residential development and employees are included to represent the demand created by nonresidential development.

Residents are given a weight of 1.0 and employees are given different weights for different types of facilities in this study. For parks, employees are given a weight of 0.25, meaning that one employee represents 25% as much demand as one resident. 63 106
K.

City of Brisbane Page S-3
Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study
October 25, 2022
See Chapter 3 for detailed analysis and calculation of impact fees for park land and park improvements. Table S.1, later in this Executive Summary shows the amounts of the impact fees calculated in this report.

Chapter 4 – Impact Fees for Recreation Facilities. Chapter 4 calculates impact fees for Brisbane’s recreation facilities. Impact fees for recreation facilities calculated in this report are based on the existing level of service as required by recent amendments to the Mitigation Fee Act. For recreation facilities, that level of service is defined in terms of the replacement cost of existing facilities per capita of existing service population.

As discussed in the previous section, service population is a weighted composite of resident population and employees working in Brisbane. Residents are included to represent the demand created by residential development and employees are included to represent the demand created by non-residential development.

Residents are given a weight of 1.0 and employees are given different weights for different types of facilities in this study. For recreation facilities, employees are given a weight of 0.1, meaning that one employee represents 10% as much demand as one resident.

See Chapter 4 for more detail on the calculation of impact fees for recreation facilities.

Table S.1, later in this Executive Summary shows the amounts of the impact fees calculated in this report.

Chapter 5 - Impact Fees for Open Space and Trails. Chapter 5 of this report calculates impact fees for both open space land acquisition and trail improvements. Impact fees for open space and trails calculated in this report are based on the existing level of service as required by recent amendments to the Mitigation Fee Act. For open space land acquisition and trail improvements, that level of service is defined in terms of the replacement cost of existing facilities per capita of existing service population.

As discussed in previous sections, service population is a weighted composite of resident population and employees working in Brisbane. Residents are included to represent the demand created by residential development and employees are included to represent the demand created by non-residential development.

Residents are given a weight of 1.0 and employees are given different weights for different types of facilities in this study. For open space and trails, employees are given a weight of 0.25, meaning that one employee represents 25% as much demand as one resident.

See Chapter 5 for detailed analysis and calculation of impact fees for open space and trails. Table S.1, later in this Executive Summary shows the amounts of the impact fees calculated in this report.
64 107
K.

City of Brisbane Page S-4
Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study
October 25, 2022
Recovery of Administrative Costs
In the next section, following Table S.1, an administrative charge is calculated to recover the City’s costs for complying with administrative and reporting requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act and for periodic updates to this impact fee study. That administrative charge is added to the impact fees in Table S.2.

Impact Fee Summary
Impact fees per unit calculated in this report are summarized in Table S.1, below.

Table S.2 on the next page shows the proposed impact fees from Table S.1 with the addition of a 0.55% administrative fee to cover annual administrative costs and periodic impact fee update studies. That percentage is calculated as the estimated annual administrative cost ($3,500) plus the average annual cost of preparing an impact fee update study every five years ($5,600) divided by the projected annual revenue from impact fees calculated in this report ($1,665,491). The annual revenue estimate assumes that total revenue of $33,309,816 will be collected over 20 years. Potential revenue from impact fees calculated in this report is shown in Chapters 3, 4 and 5. No revenue is projected for the park land impact fees because it isn’t possible to know how much future residential development will pay Quimby Act fees in lieu of park land dedication instead of the park land impact fees calculated in this study. The administrative charge proposed in this section should not be applied to any in-lieu fees collected pursuant to the City’s park land dedication ordinance, since those fees are not addressed here.

Table S.1: Summary of Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Impact Fees Development
Type Units 1
Park
Land
Park
Imprvmts
Recreation
Facilities
Open Sp/
Trails Total
Residential <800 Sq. Ft. Unit DU $ 14,842 $ 2,438 $ 5,096 $ 1,499 $ 23,875 Residential 800-1,200 Sq. Ft. Unit DU $ 15,479 $ 2,543 $ 5,315 $ 1,563 $ 24,900 Residential 1,200-2,100 Sq. Ft. Unit DU $ 16,116 $ 2,648 $ 5,533 $ 1,627 $ 25,925 Residential >2,100 Sq. Ft. Unit DU $ 16,753 $ 2,752 $ 5,752 $ 1,692 $ 26,949 Commercial KSF $ 3,185 $ 523 $ 437 $ 322 $ 4,467
Lodging Room $ 557 $ 92 $ 77 $ 56 $ 782
Office KSF $ 4,778 $ 785 $ 656 $ 482 $ 6,701
Industrial KSF $ 1,752 $ 288 $ 241 $ 177 $ 2,457
Public Facilities KSF $ 4,778 $ 785 $ 656 $ 482 $ 6,701 1 DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area; Room = guest room or suite 65 108
K.

City of Brisbane Page S-5
Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study
October 25, 2022
The impact fees calculated in this report are intended to represent the maximum amounts justified by the data and analysis presented in this report. The City Council may choose to adopt no fees, or any fees up to the amounts shown in the tables above, and may choose to adopt those fees with or without the administrative charge reflected in Table S.2.

Table S.2: Summary of Parks, Rec, Open Space and Trails Impact Fees Incl 0.55% Admin Charge Development
Type Units 1
Park
Land
Park
Imprvmts
Recreation
Facilities
Open Sp/
Trails Total
Residential <800 Sq. Ft. Unit DU $ 14,924 $ 2,452 $ 5,124 $ 1,507 $ 24,006 Residential 800-1,200 Sq. Ft. Unit DU $ 15,564 $ 2,557 $ 5,344 $ 1,572 $ 25,037 Residential 1,200-2,100 Sq. Ft. Unit DU $ 16,205 $ 2,662 $ 5,564 $ 1,636 $ 26,067 Residential >2,100 Sq. Ft. Unit DU $ 16,845 $ 2,767 $ 5,784 $ 1,701 $ 27,097 Commercial KSF $ 3,203 $ 526 $ 440 $ 323 $ 4,492
Lodging Room $ 560 $ 92 $ 77 $ 57 $ 786
Office KSF $ 4,804 $ 789 $ 660 $ 485 $ 6,738
Industrial KSF $ 1,761 $ 289 $ 242 $ 178 $ 2,471
Public Facilities KSF $ 4,804 $ 789 $ 660 $ 485 $ 6,738 1 DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area; Room = guest room or suite 66 109
K.

City of Brisbane Page 1-1
Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study
October 25, 2022
Purpose
The purpose of this study is to analyze the impacts of development on the need for parks and recreation facilities provided by the City of Brisbane and to calculate impact fees based on that analysis. This report documents the approach, data and methodology used in this study to calculate impact fees.

The methods used to calculate impact fees and in-lieu fees in this report are intended to satisfy all legal requirements governing such fees, including provisions of the U. S.

Constitution, the California Constitution and the California Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Sections 66000-66025.

Legal Framework for Developer Fees
This brief summary of the legal framework for development fees is intended as a general overview. It was not prepared by an attorney and should not be treated as legal advice.

U. S. Constitution. Like all land use regulations, development exactions, including impact fees, are subject to the 5th Amendment prohibition on taking of private property for public use without just compensation. Both state and federal courts have recognized the imposition of impact fees on development as a legitimate form of land use regulation, provided the fees meet standards intended to protect against “regulatory takings.” A regulatory taking occurs when regulations unreasonably deprive landowners of property rights protected by the Constitution.

In two landmark cases dealing with exactions, the U. S. Supreme Court has held that when a government agency requires the dedication of land or an interest in land as a condition of development approval or imposes ad hoc exactions as a condition of approval on a single development project that do not apply to development generally, a higher standard of judicial scrutiny applies. To meet that standard, the agency must demonstrate an "essential nexus" between such exactions and the interest being protected (See Nollan v.

California Coastal Commission, 1987) and make an” individualized determination” that the exaction imposed is "roughly proportional" to the burden created by development (See Dolan v. City of Tigard, 1994).

Until recently, it was widely accepted that legislatively enacted impact fees that apply to all development in a jurisdiction are not subject to the higher standard of judicial scrutiny flowing from the Nollan and Dolan decisions. But after the U. S. Supreme Court decision in Koontz v. St. Johns Water Management District (2013), state courts have reached conflicting conclusions on that issue.

In light of that uncertainty, any agency enacting or imposing impact fees would be wise to demonstrate a nexus and ensure proportionality in the calculation of those fees. 67 110
K.

City of Brisbane Page 1-2
Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study
October 25, 2022
Defining the “Nexus.” While courts have not been entirely consistent in defining the nexus required to justify exactions and impact fees, that term can be thought of as having the three elements discussed below. We think proportionality is logically included as one element of that nexus, even though it was discussed separately in Dolan v. Tigard. The elements of the nexus discussed below mirror the three “reasonable relationship” findings required by the Mitigation Fee Act for establishment and imposition of impact fees.

Need or Impact. Development must create a need for the facilities to be funded by impact fees. All new development in a community creates additional demands on some or all public facilities provided by local government. If the capacity of facilities is not increased to satisfy the additional demand, the quality or availability of public services for the entire community will deteriorate. Impact fees may be used to recover the cost of development-related facilities, but only to the extent that the need for facilities is related to the development project subject to the fees.

The Nollan decision reinforced the principle that development exactions may be used only to mitigate impacts created by the development projects upon which they are imposed. In this study, the impact of development on facility needs is analyzed in terms of quantifiable relationships between various types of development and the demand for public facilities based on applicable level-of-service standards. This report contains all of the information needed to demonstrate compliance with this element of the nexus.

Benefit. Development must benefit from facilities funded by impact fees. With respect to the benefit relationship, the most basic requirement is that facilities funded by impact fees be available to serve the development paying the fees. A sufficient benefit relationship also requires that impact fee revenues be segregated from other funds and expended in a timely manner on the facilities for which the fees were charged. Nothing in the U.S. Constitution or California law requires that facilities paid for with impact fee revenues be available exclusively to development projects paying the fees.

Procedures for earmarking and expenditure of fee revenues are mandated by the Mitigation Fee Act, as are procedures to ensure that the fees are either expended in a timely manner or refunded. Those requirements are intended to ensure that developments benefit from the impact fees they are required to pay. Thus, over time, procedural issues as well as substantive issues can come into play with respect to the benefit element of the nexus.

Proportionality. Impact fees must be proportional to the impact created by a particular development project. Proportionality in impact fees depends on properly identifying development-related facility costs and calculating the fees in such a way that those costs are allocated in proportion to the facility needs created by different types and amounts of development. The section on impact fee methodology, below, describes methods used to allocate facility costs and calculate impact fees that meet the proportionality standard.

California Constitution. The California Constitution grants broad police power to local governments, including the authority to regulate land use and development. That police 68 111
K.

City of Brisbane Page 1-3
Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study
October 25, 2022
power is the source of authority for local governments in California to impose impact fees on development. Some impact fees have been challenged on grounds that they are special taxes imposed without voter approval in violation of Article XIIIA. However, that objection is valid only if the fees charged to a project exceed the cost of providing facilities needed to serve the project. In that case, the fees would also run afoul of the U. S.

Constitution and the Mitigation Fee Act.

Articles XIIIC and XIIID, added to the California Constitution by Proposition 218 in 1996, require voter approval for some “property-related fees,” but exempt “the imposition of fees or charges, as a condition of property development.” Thus, impact fees are exempt from those requirements.

The Mitigation Fee Act. California’s impact fee statute originated in Assembly Bill 1600 during the 1987 session of the Legislature and took effect in January 1989. AB 1600 added several sections to the Government Code, beginning with Section 66000. Since that time, the impact fee statute has been amended from time to time, and in 1997 was officially titled the “Mitigation Fee Act.” Unless otherwise noted, code sections referenced in this report are from the Government Code.

The Mitigation Fee Act does not limit the types of capital improvements for which impact fees may be charged. It defines public facilities very broadly to include "public improvements, public services and community amenities." Although the issue is not specifically addressed in the Mitigation Fee Act, it is clear both in case law and statute (see Government Code Section 65913.8) that impact fees may not be used to pay for maintenance or operating costs. Consequently, the fees calculated in this report are based on the cost of capital assets only.

The Mitigation Fee Act does not use the term “mitigation fee” except in its official title.

Nor does it use the more common term “impact fee.” The Act simply uses the word “fee,” which is defined as “a monetary exaction, other than a tax or special assessment…that is charged by a local agency to the applicant in connection with approval of a development project for the purpose of defraying all or a portion of the cost of public facilities related to the development project ….”
To avoid confusion with other types of fees, this report uses the widely accepted terms “impact fee” and “development impact fee” which both should be understood to mean “fee” as defined in the Mitigation Fee Act.

The Mitigation Fee Act contains requirements for establishing, increasing and imposing impact fees. They are summarized below. It also contains provisions that govern the collection and expenditure of fees and requires annual reports and periodic re-evaluation of impact fee programs. Those administrative requirements are discussed in the implementation chapter of this report.

Required Findings. Section 66001 (a) requires that an agency establishing, increasing or imposing impact fees, must make findings to:

1. Identify the purpose of the fee
69 112
K.

City of Brisbane Page 1-4
Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study
October 25, 2022

2. Identify the use of the fee; and

3. Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between the use of the fee and the development type on which it is imposed

4. Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the facility and the type of development on which the fee is imposed In addition, Section 66001 (b) requires that in any action imposing a fee as a condition of approval of a development project by a local agency, the local agency shall determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility or portion of the public facility attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed.

Some legal experts are of the opinion that the requirements of Section 66001 (a) apply when impact fees are based on a legislatively adopted fee schedule, while the requirements of Section 66001 (b) apply when impact fees are based on an administratively imposed (ad hoc) assessment. 1
The requirements outlined above are discussed in more detail below.

Identifying the Purpose of the Fees. The broad purpose of impact fees is to protect public health, safety and general welfare by providing for adequate public facilities. The specific purpose of the fees calculated in this study is to fund construction of certain capital improvements that will be needed to mitigate the impacts of planned new development on City facilities, and to maintain an acceptable level of public services as the City grows.

This report recommends that findings regarding the purpose of an impact fee should define the purpose broadly, as providing for the funding of adequate public facilities to serve additional development.

Identifying the Use of the Fees. According to Section 66001(a)(2), if a fee is used to finance public facilities, those facilities must be identified. A capital improvement plan may be used for that purpose but is not mandatory if the facilities are identified in a General Plan, a Specific Plan, or in other public documents. Section 66002 (b) requires that such capital improvement plans must be updated annually.

However, a new provision in Section 66016.5, which was added by AB 602 in 2021, requires that large jurisdictions adopt a capital improvement plan as part of an impact fee study. That requirement applies to impact fee studies adopted after January 1, 2022. “Large jurisdiction” means a county of 250,000 or more or any city within that county.

The statute does not provide any detail about what must be included in the capital improvement plan or how it should relate to the impact fee study. And, that new 1 See “The Mitigation Fee Act’s Five-Year Findings Requirement: Beware Costly Pitfalls” by Glen Hansen, Senior Council, Abbott and Kindermann and Rick Jarvis, Managing Partner, Jarvis, Fay and Gibson, presented at the 2022 League of California Cities City Attorneys Spring Conference 70 113
K.

City of Brisbane Page 1-5
Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study
October 25, 2022
requirement is inconsistent with the original language of Section 66001(a)(2), so it is unclear whether the annual update requirement in Section 66002(b) applies.

Reasonable Relationship Requirement. As discussed above, Section 66001 requires that, for fees subject to its provisions, a "reasonable relationship" must be demonstrated between:

1. the use of the fee and the type of development on which it is imposed;

2. the need for a public facility and the type of development on which a fee is imposed; and,

3. the amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed.

Although some legal experts contend that the third of these only pertains to “ad hoc” fees that are not part of a legislatively adopted fee schedule, we believe that all three are part of a complete “nexus” or “reasonable relationship” framework as discussed earlier. These three reasonable relationship requirements address the nexus and proportionality requirements often cited in court decisions as the standard for defensible impact fees.

The term “dual rational nexus” is often used to characterize the standard used by courts in evaluating the legitimacy of impact fees. The “duality” of the nexus refers to (1) an impact or need created by a development project subject to impact fees, and (2) a benefit to the project from the expenditure of the fees.

However, although proportionality is reasonably implied in the dual rational nexus formulation, it was explicitly required by the Supreme Court in the Dolan case, and we prefer to list it as the third element of a complete nexus.

Development Agreements and Reimbursement Agreements. The requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act do not apply to fees collected under development agreements (see Govt. Code Section 66000) or reimbursement agreements (see Govt. Code Section 66003). The same is true of fees in lieu of park land dedication imposed under the Quimby Act (see Govt. Code Section 66477).

Existing Deficiencies. In 2006, Section 66001(g) was added to the Mitigation Fee Act (by AB 2751) to clarify that impact fees “shall not include costs attributable to existing deficiencies in public facilities,…” The legislature’s intent in adopting this amendment, as stated in the bill, was to codify the holdings of Bixel v. City of Los Angeles (1989), Rohn v.

City of Visalia (1989), and Shapell Industries Inc. v. Governing Board (1991).

That amendment does not appear to be a substantive change. It is widely understood that other provisions of law make it improper for impact fees to include costs for correcting existing deficiencies.

However, Section 66001(g) also states that impact fees “may include the costs attributable to the increased demand for public facilities reasonably related to the development project in order to (1) refurbish existing facilities to maintain the existing 71 114
K.

City of Brisbane Page 1-6
Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study
October 25, 2022
level of service or (2) achieve an adopted level of service that is consistent with the general plan.” (Emphasis added.)
Impact Fees for Existing Facilities. Impact fees may be used to recover costs for existing facilities to the extent that those facilities are needed to serve additional development and have the capacity to do so. In other words, it must be possible to show that fees used to pay for existing facilities meet the need and benefit elements of the nexus.

Recent Legislation
Several new laws enacted by the State of California in 2019 to facilitate development of affordable housing will affect the implementation of in-lieu fees and impact fees calculated in this study. Below are brief overviews of some key bills passed in 2019.

SB 330 – The Housing Crisis Act of 2019. Amendments to existing law contained in SB 330 prohibit the imposition of new approval requirements on a housing development project once a preliminary application has been submitted. That provision applies to increases in impact fees and in-lieu fees, except when the resolution or ordinance establishing the fee authorizes automatic, inflationary adjustments to the fee or exaction.

AB 1483 – Housing Data: Collection and Reporting. AB 1483 requires that a city, county or special district must post on its website a current schedule of its fees and exactions, as well as associated nexus studies and annual reports. Updates must be posted within 30 days.

SB 13 – Accessory Dwelling Units. SB 13 prohibits the imposition of impact fees on accessory dwelling units (ADUs) smaller than 750 square feet and provides that impact fees for ADUs of 750 square feet or more must be proportional to the square footage of the primary dwelling unit. The proportionality requirement means that impact fees for ADUs of 750 square feet or more must be calculated on a case-by-case basis during the approval process.

Existing law requires a water or sewer connection fee or capacity charge for an accessory dwelling unit requiring a new or separate utility connection to be based on either the accessory dwelling unit’s size or the number of its plumbing fixtures. SB 13 revises the basis for calculating the connection fee or capacity charge to either the accessory dwelling unit’s square feet or the number of its drainage fixture units.

AB 602 – Amendments to the Planning and Land Use Law and the Mitigation Fee Act.

AB 602, which was passed and signed in 2021, adds section 65940.1 to the Planning and Land Use Law requiring cities, counties and special districts that have internet websites to post schedules of fees, exactions and affordability requirements, annual fee reports, and an archive of nexus studies on that website, and to update that information within 30 days after any changes.

AB 602 also adds Section 66016.5 to the Mitigation Fee Act imposing several new requirements for impact fees that go into effect on January 1, 2022, including:
72 115
K.

City of Brisbane Page 1-7
Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study
October 25, 2022
 A nexus study must identify the existing level of service for each facility, identify the proposed new level of service (if any), and explain why the new level of service is appropriate.
 If a nexus study supports an increase in an existing fee the local agency shall review the assumptions of the nexus study supporting the original fee and evaluate the amount of the fees collected under the original fee.  Large jurisdictions (counties over 250,000 and cities within those counties) must adopt a capital improvement plan as part of the nexus study.  All impact fee nexus studies shall be adopted at a public hearing with at least 30 days’ notice, and the local agency shall notify any member of the public that requests notice of intent to begin and impact fee nexus study of the date of the hearing.
 Nexus studies shall be updated at least every eight years, from the period beginning on January 1, 2022.
 A nexus study adopted after July 1, 2022, shall calculate a fee imposed on a housing development project proportionately to the square footage of proposed units in the development. A nexus study is not required to comply with this requirement if the local agency makes certain findings specified in the law. A local agency that imposes a fee proportionately to the square footage of units in the development shall be deemed to have used a valid method to establish a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the development.
 Authorizes any member of the public, including an applicant for a development project, to submit evidence that impact fees proposed by an agency fail to comply with the Mitigation Fee Act, and requires the legislative body of the agency to consider such evidence and adjust the proposed fee if deemed necessary.

SB 9, the California Housing Opportunity and More Efficiency (“HOME”) Act. SB 9 facilitates the subdivision of existing residential lots and allows for ministerial approval (without discretionary review or hearings) of no more than two dwelling units, including duplexes, on parcels zoned for single-family dwellings if the property satisfies certain requirements. To qualify under SB 9 the property must be located within either an urbanized area or urban cluster, as designated by the United States Census Bureau, or for unincorporated areas, within the boundaries of an urbanized area or urban cluster.

The law allows for qualifying lot splits to be approved ministerially upon meeting certain requirements. Each parcel may not be smaller than forty (40%) percent of the original parcel size and each parcel must be at least one thousand two hundred (1,200) square feet in size unless permitted by local ordinance. The parcel must be limited to residential use.

The law does not allow demolition or alteration of certain types of dwellings, including:
(a) housing that is subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to 73 116
K.

City of Brisbane Page 1-8
Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study
October 25, 2022
affordable levels; (b) housing subject to rent control; (c) housing that has been tenant-occupied in the last three years; or (d) housing located in a historic district. In addition, the proposed development may not demolish more than 25% of the exterior structural walls of an existing unit, unless expressly permitted by a local ordinance.

A local agency may impose objective zoning standards, subdivision standards, and design standards unless they would preclude either of the two units from being at least 800 square feet in floor area.

No setback may be required for an existing structure, or a structure constructed in the same location and dimensions as an existing structure. Otherwise, a local agency may require a setback of up to four feet from the side and rear lot lines. Off-street parking of up to one space per unit may be required by the local agency, unless the project is located within a half-mile walking distance of a high-quality transit corridor or a major transit stop, or if there is a car share vehicle within one block of the parcel. If a local agency makes a written finding that a project would create a specific, adverse impact upon public health and safety or the environment without a feasible way to mitigate such impact, the agency still may deny the project.

It is impossible to predict how much SB 9 will affect the number of future residential units constructed in the City. Unlike recent laws dealing with accessory dwelling units, SB 9 does not address the imposition of impact fees on the new dwelling units it allows, and it appears at this point that such units would be subject to the same impact fees as other new residential development.

Impact Fee Calculation Methodology
Any one of several legitimate methods may be used to calculate impact fees. The choice of a particular method depends primarily on the service characteristics of, and planning requirements for, the facility type being addressed. To some extent they are interchangeable, because they all allocate facility costs in proportion to the needs created by development.

Allocating facility costs to various types and amounts of development is central to all methods of impact fee calculation. Costs are allocated by means of formulas that quantify the relationship between development and the need for facilities. In a cost allocation formula, the impact of development represented by some attribute of development such as added population or added vehicle trips that represent the impacts created by different types and amounts of development.

Plan-Based or Improvements-Driven Method. Plan-based impact fee calculations are based on the relationship between a specified set of improvements and a specified increment of development. The improvements are typically identified in a facility plan, while the development is identified in a land use plan that forecasts potential development by type and quantity.

Using this method, facility costs are allocated to various categories of development in proportion to the service demand created by each type of development. To calculate 74 117
K.

City of Brisbane Page 1-9
Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study
October 25, 2022
plan-based impact fees, it is necessary to determine what facilities will be needed to serve a particular increment of new development.

With this method, the total cost of eligible facilities is divided by total units of additional demand to calculate a cost per unit of demand (e.g. a cost per capita for parks). Then, the cost per unit of demand is multiplied by factors representing the demand per unit of development (e.g. population per unit) to arrive at a cost per unit of development.

This method is somewhat inflexible in that it is based on the relationship between a specific facility plan and a specific land use plan. If either plan changes significantly the fees will have to be recalculated.

Capacity-Based or Consumption-Driven Method. This method calculates a cost per unit of capacity based on the relationship between total cost and total capacity of a system.

It can be applied to any type of development, provided the capacity required to serve each increment of development can be estimated and the facility has adequate capacity available to serve the development. Since the cost per unit of demand does not depend on the particular type or quantity of development to be served, this method is flexible with respect to changing development plans.

In this method, the cost of unused capacity is not allocated to development. Capacitybased fees are most commonly used for water and wastewater systems, where the cost of a system component is divided by the capacity of that component to derive a unit cost.

However, a similar analysis can be applied to other types of facilities. To produce a schedule of impact fees based on standardized units of development (e.g. dwelling units or square feet of non-residential building area), the cost per unit of capacity is multiplied by the amount of capacity required to serve a typical unit of development in each of several land use categories.

Standard-Based or Incremental Expansion Method. Standard-based fees are calculated using a specified relationship or standard that determines the number of service units to be provided for each unit of development. The standard can be established as a matter of policy or it can be based on the level of service being provided to existing development in the study area.

Using the standard-based method, costs are defined on a generic unit-cost basis and then applied to development according to a standard that sets the number of service units to be provided for each unit of development.

Park in-lieu and impact fees are commonly calculated this way. The level of service standard for parks is typically stated in terms of acres of parks per thousand residents. A cost-per-acre for park land or park improvements can usually be estimated without knowing the exact size or location of a particular park. The ratio of park acreage to population and the cost per acre for parks is used to calculate a cost per capita. The cost per capita can then be converted into a cost per unit of development based on the average population per dwelling unit for various types of residential development. 75 118
K.

City of Brisbane Page 1-10
Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study
October 25, 2022
Facilities Addressed in this Study
Impact/in-lieu fees for the following types of facilities are addressed in this report:
 Park Land and Park Improvements
 Recreation Facilities
 Open Space and Trails
Each of those facilities is addressed in a separate chapter of this report, beginning with Chapter 3. Chapter 2 contains data on existing and future development used in the impact fee analysis.
76 119
K.

City of Brisbane Page 2-1
Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study
October 25, 2022
This chapter presents data on existing and future development that will be used to calculate impact fees in subsequent chapters of this report.

The information in this chapter may be used to establish levels of service, analyze facility needs, and allocate the cost of capital facilities among various types of development.

Land use and development data in this chapter are based on information from the U.S.

Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS), the California Department of Finance (DOF) Demographic Research Unit, the City of Brisbane Community Development Department and other sources as noted in this chapter.

Setting
Brisbane is located in northern San Mateo County adjacent to San Francisco Bay about 2 miles south of San Francisco. Most of Brisbane lies west of the Bayshore Freeway (U. S.

Highway 101), which closely borders the Bay through much of the City. Brisbane is largely built-out except for an area known as the Baylands, a 700-acre former landfill and industrial site which is being planned for development as a mixed-use neighborhood with the potential to more than double the City’s population and employment.

Study Area and Time Frame
The study area for this study is the area within Brisbane’s city limits. The timeframe for this study extends from the present time to 2040. By which time Brisbane is expected to be fully built out. However, the time required for buildout will depend on the rate at which development occurs, and although buildout is expected to occur by 2040, the impact fee calculations do not depend on the rate or timing of development.

Development Types
Traditionally, impact fees for residential development are based on unit types such as single-family, multi-family and mobile home units. However, AB 602, enacted in 2021, added Section 66016.5 to the Government Code. That section requires that, “[a] nexus study adopted after July 1, 2022, shall calculate a fee imposed on a housing development project proportionately to the square footage of proposed units of the development.” It further states that “[a] local agency that imposes a fee proportionately to the square footage of the proposed units of the development shall be deemed to have used a valid method to establish a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the development.”
Consequently, the residential development categories used in this study are based on unit size rather than the type of unit. The complete list of development categories used in this study is shown below.
 Residential: < 800 Sq. Ft.
77 120
K.

City of Brisbane Page 2-2
Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study
October 25, 2022
 Residential: 800 – 1,200 Sq. Ft.
 Residential: >1,200 – 2,100 Sq. Ft.
 Residential: > 2,100 Sq. Ft.
 Commercial
 Lodging
 Office
 Industrial
 Public Facilities
Residential. As discussed above, the residential development categories used in this study are based on unit size and do not distinguish by unit type (e.g., single-family or multifamily). Residential development is any development made up primarily of dwelling units intended for long-term occupancy.

Commercial. As defined in this study, the Commercial category includes development intended primarily to accommodate retail commercial and service commercial uses and may include restaurants, service stations, banks, and similar or related uses.

Lodging. This category includes hotels, motels, bed and breakfast establishments and similar lodging uses.

Office. The Office category includes development intended for general office or medical office uses.

Industrial. This category includes development intended to accommodate research, manufacturing, warehouse and business park uses.

Public Facilities. This category includes government buildings and other public or quasipublic facilities including public schools. Parks are excluded because they do not create impacts on the types of facilities addressed in this report. In many cases, the City may lack authority to charge impact fees to development in this category, or in the case of City facilities, it would be impractical to do so.

Residential Development and Population
The chart on the next page shows the California Department of Finance (DOF) official January 1 population estimates for the City of Brisbane for the years from 2012 through 2022 except that the 2020 population is based on the 2020 Census count.

The population chart shows essentially no population growth from 2014 to 2019 and then bumps up in 2020 indicating that DOF estimates for the years prior to 2020 were low. The DOF numbers for 2021 and 2022 are slightly below the 2020 Census figure. 78 121
K.

City of Brisbane Page 2-3
Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study
October 25, 2022
According to the official
2010 and 2020 Census
population counts, Brisbane
has grown a total of 13.3%
from 4,282 in 2010 to 4,851
in 2020.

This study uses data from
the U. S. Census Bureau’s
2020 American Community
Survey to calculate the
population per dwelling unit
factors for each category of
residential development
defined in this study. Those factors are shown in Table 2.1.

Units of Development
In this study, quantities of existing and planned development are measured in terms of certain units of development. Those units are discussed below.

Dwelling Units. Dwelling units (DUs) are the most commonly used measure of residential development. The dwelling unit is the standard unit for residential development in this study.

Building Area. For non-residential development other than lodging, gross building area in thousands of square feet (KSF) is used as the standard unit of development.

Lodging. For the Lodging category, the standard unit of development is a room, meaning a guest room or suite.

Demand Variables
In calculating impact fees, the relationship between facility needs and development must be quantified in cost allocation formulas. Some measurable attribute of development (e.g., population) is used in those formulas to reflect the impact of different types and amounts of development on the demand for specific public services and the facilities that support those services.

Those attributes are referred to in this study as “demand variables.” Demand variables are selected either because they directly measure service demand created by various types of development, or because they are reasonably correlated with that demand.

Service Population. In this study, service population is used to represent the demand created by development for parks, recreation facilities and trails. Service population is a weighted composite of population and employees working in the City. Resident population is included to represent the impacts of residential development and 0 1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Population
Year
Brisbane Population
2011-2021
79 122
K.

City of Brisbane Page 2-4
Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study
October 25, 2022
employees of businesses in the City are included to represent the impacts of nonresidential uses, such as commercial, office and industrial development.

Because the impact of one new resident is not necessarily the same as the impact of one new employee, the employee component is weighted relative to the population component to reflect their relative impacts on the demand for certain types of facilities.

In this study, residents (population) are assigned a weight of 1.0. The weight assigned to employees varies depending on how much employees are expected to use a certain type of facility. Based on discussions with City staff regarding expected use of parks and recreation facilities by non-resident employees, employees are given a weight of 0.25 for parks, open space and trails. For other recreation facilities, employees are given a weight of 0.1.

Tables 2.2 through 2.4 later in this chapter show the existing and future population and employee numbers used in this study. Since service population weights differ by the type of facility being analyzed, those weights are applied in Chapters 3 through 5 where the impact fees are calculated.

Impact Fees for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
Recent amendments to Section 65852.2 of the Government Code provide that impact fees may not be imposed on ADUs smaller than 750 square feet. It also establishes the following requirement for impact fees imposed on ADUs of 750 square feet or more:
“Any impact fees charged for an accessory dwelling unit of 750 square feet or more shall be charged proportionately in relation to the square footage of the primary dwelling unit.”
The effect of that requirement is that impact fees for ADUs must be calculated on a caseby-case basis, considering the size of both the primary unit and the ADU.

Although it is not spelled out in Section 65852.2, we think it is obvious that when calculating ADU impact fees in cases where the primary unit is a single-family detached unit, the starting point for the proportionality calculation is the fee that applies to the single-family unit. The law also allows for ADUs on lots or parcels where the primary unit is a multi-family unit. In that situation, it seems logical that the ADU impact fee should be proportional to the impact fee that applies to the multi-family unit, but we think ADUs within multi-family developments are likely to be rare and we don’t address them further.

The formula for calculating proportional ADU impact fees would be:

Primary unit impact fee X (ADU square feet / Primary unit square feet) One implication of that formula is that, for an ADU of a particular size, a larger primary unit results in lower impact fees for the ADU.
80 123
K.

City of Brisbane Page 2-5
Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study
October 25, 2022
For example, if the ADU is 1,000 square feet and the primary unit is 2,000 square feet, the proportional impact fee for the ADU would be 50% of the impact fee that would apply to the primary unit. But if the primary unit is 1,200 square feet, the impact fee for the same-sized ADU would be 83.33% of the primary unit fee.

It seems likely that discrepancy is an unintended consequence of language in Section 65852.2 that was not thoroughly considered before adoption. As noted previously, for impact fee studies adopted after July 1, 2022, AB 602 requires impact fees for all types of residential units to be proportional to the square footage of a unit. Impact fees based on square footage for primary units will tend to reduce the inequity created by the proportionality language of Section 65852.2 because the fees that apply to a smaller primary unit would be less than the fees that apply to a larger primary unit. However, it may be a number of years before most cities in California adopt residential impact fees based on square footage. Based on surveys NBS has conducted, it appears that most California cities and counties are applying the proportionality requirement as written.

Population and Employees per Unit
Table 2.1 shows the population-and-employees-per-unit factors for various types of development as used in this study.

Existing and Future Development
Tables 2.2 through 2.4 present data on existing and future development in Brisbane. Data from those tables will be used throughout this report. Table 2.2 shows existing development as of January 2022.

Table 2.1: Population and Employees per Unit
Development Dev Pop per Employees
Type Units 1
Unit 2per Unit 3
Residential <800 Sq. Ft. Unit DU 2.33
Residential 800-1,200 Sq. Ft. Unit DU 2.43
Residential 1,200-2,100 Sq. Ft. Unit DU 2.53
Residential >2,100 Sq. Ft. Unit DU 2.63
Commercial KSF 2.00
Lodging Room 0.35
Office KSF 3.00
Industrial KSF 1.10
Public Facilities KSF 3.00
1 Units of development: DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area; Room = guest room or suite
2 Population per unit for residential development estimated by NBS based on American Community Survey (ACS) 2020 5-year estimates for distribution of units by number of bedrooms (Table B25041) 3 Employees per unit estimated by NBS
81 124
K.

City of Brisbane Page 2-6
Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study
October 25, 2022
It should be noted that existing and future residential development figures are not shown for each unit size category. Because no data are available on the mix of unit sizes for existing or future development, residential units and population for all unit size categories are grouped into the “all residential” category in these tables.

Table 2.3 on the next page presents a forecast of future development in the City.

Table 2.2: Existing Development as of January 2022
Development Dev Existing Existing Existing
Types Units 1
Units 2Pop 3Empl 4
All Residential DU 2,039 4,851
Commercial KSF 890.0 1,780
Lodging Room 387 135
Office KSF 356.3 1,069
Industrial KSF 3,209.1 3,530
Public Facilities KSF 85.3 256
Total 4,851 6,770
1 Units of development: DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area; Room = guest room or suite;
2 Existing residential units from the California Department of Finance (DOF) 2022 E-5 report
3 Existing population based on the 2020 Census and assumes no growth from 2020 to 2022 as reported by the Brisbane Community Develop- ment Department
4 Total existing employees estimated by the Brisbane Community Development Department; the breakdown of jobs by development type based on the 2021 ESRI Business Summary for Brisbane 82 125
K.

City of Brisbane Page 2-7
Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study
October 25, 2022
Table 2.4 shows forecasted buildout development in the City. The numbers in that table sum the existing development from Table 2.2 and forecasted future development from Table 2.3.

Growth Potential
The numbers in the foregoing tables indicate that between 2022 and buildout, the City’s population could increase by 133% while the number of employees working in the City could increase by 345%. The impact fees calculated in this report are intended to provide the City with the means to provide the parks, recreation facilities and trails needed to serve that growth.

Table 2.3: Forecasted Future Development to Buildout
Development Dev Future Future Future
Types Units 1
Units 2Pop 3Empl 4
All Residential DU 2,637.0 6,460
Commercial KSF 1,897.5 3,795
Lodging Room 600.0 210
Office KSF 4,262.7 12,788
Industrial KSF 5,601.8 6,162
Public Facilities KSF 150.0 450
Total 6,460 23,405
1 Units of development: DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area; Room = guest room or suite;
2 Future units estimated by the Brisbane Community Development Dept.; estimates include buildout of the Baylands Specific Plan Area 3 Future population = residential units X pop. per unit from Table 2.1 4 Future employees = non-residential units X empl. per unit from Table 2.1 Table 2.4: Buildout Development
Development Dev Buildout Buildout Buildout
Types Units 1Units Population Employees
All Residential DU 4,676 11,311
Commercial KSF 2,788 5,575
Lodging Room 987 345
Office KSF 4,619 13,857
Industrial KSF 8,811 9,692
Public Facilities KSF 235 706
Total 11,311 30,175
Note: Buildout development in Table 2.4 = existing development from Table 2.2 plus forecasted future development from Table 2.3 1 Units of development: DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area; Room = guest room or suite;
83 126
K.

City of Brisbane Page 3-1
Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study
October 25, 2022
This chapter calculates impact fees for both park land acquisition and park improvements.

Chapter 16.24 of the Brisbane Municipal Code requires that residential subdivisions dedicate land for parks or pay fees in lieu of dedication pursuant to the Quimby Act (Govt.

Code Section 66477) which is part of the Subdivision Map Act. Consequently, the park land impact fees calculated in this chapter would not apply to any residential subdivision that dedicates park land or pays in-lieu fees required by Chapter 16.24.

Since in-lieu fees and impact fees for park land acquisition are based only on the cost of land and do not cover the cost of park improvements, this chapter calculates a separate impact fee for park improvements. Impact fees for park land and park improvements, as well as for other facilities addressed in this report are governed by the Mitigation Fee Act.

To be clear, the park improvement impact fees calculated in this chapter are intended to be charged in addition to any dedication of park land or payment of park land in-lieu fees or impact fees by a development project. Park improvement impact fees, if enacted by the City, would apply to all new development in Brisbane, separately from contributions toward acquisition of park land.

Service Area
Impact fees calculated in this chapter are intended to apply to all new development in the City, except that impact fees for park land acquisition would not apply to any development project that dedicates park land or pays fees in lieu of dedication pursuant to the Quimby Act.

Methodology
This chapter calculates impact fees using the standard-based method discussed in Chapter 1. Standard-based fees are calculated using a specified relationship or standard that determines the number of service units to be provided for each unit of development.

In this case, the standard used to calculate impact fees for park land and park improvements is the existing level of service, which is defined as the City’s current ratio of park acres to service population. That level of service is shown in Table 3.2 later in this chapter. The makeup of the service population used in this report is discussed in Chapter 2 and in the next section.

Demand Variable
A “demand variable” is a quantifiable attribute of development that is used in impact fee calculation formulas to represent the impact of development. The demand variable used to calculate park impact fees in this chapter is service population.

As discussed in Chapter 2, service population is a weighted composite variable made up of resident population and employees working in Brisbane. Residents are included in the 84 127
K.

City of Brisbane Page 3-2
Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study
October 25, 2022
service population to represent the demand created by residential development and employees are included to represent the demand created by non-residential development.

In all cases, residents are assigned a weight of 1.0, but the weighting of employees varies for different types of facilities in this report. For purposes of calculating park impact fees, employees are assigned a weight of 0.25, meaning that the demand created by an employee of a business in Brisbane equals one-quarter of the demand created by a resident of the City.

Existing Level of Service
In 2021, AB 602 added Section 66016.5 to the Mitigation Fee Act. That section requires, after January 1, 2022, that the level of service used in an impact fee study must be compared with the existing level of service. If the level used in the impact fee study exceeds the existing level of service, an explanation is required. The impact fees calculated in this chapter are based on the existing level of service as shown in Table 3.2 on the next page, so there is no level-of-service issue in the calculation of impact fees in this chapter with respect to Section 66016.5.

Table 3.1 lists the City’s existing parks and shows City-owned park acreage and acres of parks improved by the City.

Table 3.1: Existing Parks
Park City-Owned Improved
Name Location Park Acres 1Park Acres
Community Center Park 250 Visitacion Avenue 0.12 0.12
Community Park 5 Old County Road 2.82 2.82
Brisbane Dog Park 50 Park Place 0.54 0.54
Firth Park and Canyon 201 Glen Park Way 0.27 0.27
Fisherman's Park @ Brisbane Lagoon 0.25 0.25
Mission Blue Complex 475 Mission Blue Drive 4.95 3.85
Quarry Road Park 399 San Francisco Ave 0.20 0.20
Tot Lot Playground/Park 4 Solano Street 0.25 0.25
Marina Park Sierra Point Parkway 3.00 3.00
Skatepark Old County Rd & Park Ln 0.12 0.12
Basketball Courts (2) Old County Rd & Park Ln 0.16 0.16 Tennis Courts (2) 1 Solano St School Land 0.34
Total 12.67 11.91
Source: City of Brisbane Parks and Recreation Department; acreage shown for the Mission Blue Complex excludes the site of the Mission Blue Center 1 "School land" means that a facility was constructed by the City on land owned by a school district
85 128
K.

City of Brisbane Page 3-3
Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study
October 25, 2022
Table 3.2 calculates the existing level of service in terms of acres per capita of service population for improved park land in the City. The level of service used in this chapter is based on improved park acres because a 2019 decision by the California Court of Appeal in Boatworks, LLC v. City of Alameda found that parks not yet open to the public could not be used as the basis for establishing the existing level of service used to calculate park impact fees.

Cost Per Capita
Table 3.3 calculates the cost per capita for park land acquisition and park improvements based on the existing acres per capita from Table 3.2 and the estimated cost per acre for park land and park improvements.

In the next section, the per-capita costs from Table 3.3 are used to calculate impact fees per unit of development.

Impact Fees per Unit
Park Land Acquisition. Table 3.4 on the next page shows the calculation of park land impact fees per unit of development, by development type. Those fees are calculated using per-capita costs for park land acquisition from Table 3.3 and service population per unit. Service population per unit for residential development = population per unit from Table 3.2: Existing Level of Service - Parks
Total Improved
Park Acres 1
Existing Service
Population 2
Existing Acres
per Capita 3

11.91 6,544 0.00182
1 See Table 3.1
2 Existing service population for parks = existing population + (existing employees X 0.25)
3 Existing acres per capita of service population = existing acres / existing service population
Table 3.3: Cost per Capita - Park Land and Park Improvements Fee Type
Acres per
Capita 1
Cost per
Acre2
Cost per
Capita3
Park Land Acquisition 0.00182 $ 3,500,000 $ 6,370.00
Park Improvements 0.00182 $ 575,000 $ 1,046.50
1 See Table 3.2
2 Park land acquisition cost per acre based on recent land purchase by the City; park improvement cost per acre estimated by the City 3 Cost per capita = acres per capita X cost per acre
86 129
K.

City of Brisbane Page 3-4
Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study
October 25, 2022
Table 2.1. Service population per unit for non-residential development = 0.25 X employees per unit from Table 2.1.

Park Improvements. Table 3.5 on the next page shows the calculation of park improvement impact fees per unit of development, by development type. Those fees are calculated using per-capita costs for park improvements from Table 3.3 and service population per unit. Service population per unit for residential development = population per unit from Table 2.1. Service population per unit for non-residential development =

0.25 X employees per unit from Table 2.1.

Table 3.4: Impact Fees per Unit - Park Land Acquisition Development
Type Units 1
Cost per
Capita 2
Service Pop
per Unit 3
Impact Fee
per Unit 4
Residential <800 Sq. Ft. Unit DU $6,370.00 2.330 $ 14,842.10 Residential 800-1,200 Sq. Ft. Unit DU $6,370.00 2.430 $ 15,479.10 Residential 1,200-2,100 Sq. Ft. Unit DU $6,370.00 2.530 $ 16,116.10 Residential >2,100 Sq. Ft. Unit DU $6,370.00 2.630 $ 16,753.10 Commercial KSF $6,370.00 0.500 $ 3,185.00
Lodging Room $6,370.00 0.088 $ 557.38
Office KSF $6,370.00 0.750 $ 4,777.50
Industrial KSF $6,370.00 0.275 $ 1,751.75
Public Facilities KSF $6,370.00 0.750 $ 4,777.50
1 Units of development: DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 square gross square feet of building area; Room = guest room or suite
2 See Table 3.3
3 Service population per unit for residential development = population per unit from Table 2.1; service population per unit for non-residential development = 0.25 X em- ployees per unit from Table 2.1
4 Impact fee per unit = cost per capita X service population per unit 87 130
K.

City of Brisbane Page 3-5
Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study
October 25, 2022
Projected Revenue
This report does not estimate potential revenue from park land acquisition impact fees because many new residential units may be in subdivisions which are subject to City’s Quimby Act park land dedication or in-lieu fee requirements rather than the park land impact fees which would apply to non-subdivision projects. We have no way of forecasting how many future residential units would be subject to the park land impact fees calculated in this chapter, so we do not project potential revenue from those fees.

However, since the park improvement impact fees would apply to all new residential development in the City, potential revenue from those impact fees is projected in Table

3.6. Because we are unable to forecast the number of new units that will be constructed in each residential unit size category, potential revenue is projected in Table 3.6 on the basis of added service population and the cost per capita of service population.

Table 3.5: Impact Fees per Unit - Park Improvements
Development
Type Units 1
Cost per
Capita 2
Service Pop
per Unit 3
Impact Fee
per Unit 4
Residential <800 Sq. Ft. Unit DU $1,046.50 2.330 $ 2,438.35 Residential 800-1,200 Sq. Ft. Unit DU $1,046.50 2.430 $ 2,543.00 Residential 1,200-2,100 Sq. Ft. Unit DU $1,046.50 2.530 $ 2,647.65 Residential >2,100 Sq. Ft. Unit DU $1,046.50 2.630 $ 2,752.30 Commercial KSF $1,046.50 0.500 $ 523.25
Lodging Room $1,046.50 0.088 $ 91.57
Office KSF $1,046.50 0.750 $ 784.88
Industrial KSF $1,046.50 0.275 $ 287.79
Public Facilities KSF $1,046.50 0.750 $ 784.88
1 Units of development: DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 square gross square feet of building area; Room = guest room or suite
2 See Table 3.3
3 Service population per unit for residential development = population per unit from Table 2.1; service population per unit for non-residential development = 0.25 X em- ployees per unit from Table 2.1
4 Impact fee per unit = cost per capita X service population per unit 88 131
K.

City of Brisbane Page 3-6
Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study
October 25, 2022
Updating the Fees
The impact fees calculated in this chapter are based the current estimated cost of park land and improvements. We recommend that the fees be reviewed annually and adjusted as needed using local cost data or an index such as the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index (CCI). See the Implementation Chapter for more on indexing of fees.

Nexus Summary
As discussed in Chapter 1 of this report, Section 66001 of the Mitigation Fee Act requires that an agency establishing, increasing or imposing impact fees, must make findings to:

Identify the purpose of the fee;
Identify the use of the fee; and,
Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between:
a. The use of the fee and the development type on which it is imposed; b. The need for the facility and the type of development on which the fee is imposed; and
c. The amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development project.

Satisfying those requirements also ensures that the fees meet the “rational nexus” and “rough proportionality” standards enunciated in leading court decisions bearing on impact fees and other exactions. (For more detail, see “Legal Framework for Impact Fees” in Chapter 1.) The following paragraphs explain how the impact fees calculated in this chapter satisfy those requirements.

Table 3.6: Projected Revenue - Park Improvement Impact Fees Development Added Cost per Projected
Type Service Pop 1
Capita 2Revenue 3
All Residential 6,460 $1,046.50 $ 6,760,390
Commercial 949 $1,046.50 $ 993,129
Lodging 53 $1,046.50 $ 55,465
Office 3,197 $1,046.50 $ 3,345,661
Industrial 1,541 $1,046.50 $ 1,612,657
Total $ 12,767,300
1 See Table 2.3; added service population for residential development = added population; added service population for non-residential development = 0.25 X added employees
2 See Table 3.5
3 Projected revenue = added service population X cost per capita 89 132
K.

City of Brisbane Page 3-7
Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study
October 25, 2022
Purpose of the Fee: The purpose of the impact fees calculated in this chapter is to mitigate the impact of new development on the need for parks in Brisbane.

Use of the Fee. Impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to provide additional parks to mitigate the impacts of new development in the City.

As provided by the Mitigation Fee Act, revenue from impact fees may also be used for temporary loans from one impact fee fund or account to another.

Reasonable Relationship between the Use of the Fee and the Development Type on Which It Is Imposed. The impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to provide additional parks to serve the needs of added service population associated with new development in Brisbane.

Reasonable Relationship between the Need for the Facilities and the Type of Development on Which the Fee Is Imposed. New development will increase the need for parks to maintain the existing level of service, as described earlier in this chapter. Without additional parks, the increase in service population associated with new development in the City would result in a reduction in the level of service provided to the entire City.

Reasonable Relationship between the Amount of the Fee and the Facility Cost Attributable to the Development Project. The amount of the park impact fees charged to a development project will depend on the increase in service population associated with that project. The fees per unit of development calculated in this chapter for each type of development are based on the estimated average service population per unit for that type of development in Brisbane. Thus, the fee charged to a development project reflects the impact of that project on the need for parks in the City. 90 133
K.

City of Brisbane Page 4-1
Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study
October 25, 2022
This chapter calculates impact fees for recreation facilities needed to maintain the existing level of service in Brisbane as the City grows.

Service Area
Impact fees calculated in this chapter are intended to apply to all new development in the City.

Methodology
This chapter calculates impact fees using the standard-based method discussed in Chapter 1. Standard-based fees are calculated using a specified relationship or standard that determines the number of service units to be provided for each unit of development.

In this case, the standard used to calculate impact fees for recreation facilities is the existing level of service, which is defined as the current relationship between the replacement cost of existing recreation facilities and the existing service population. That level of service is shown in Table 4.2 later in this chapter. The makeup of the service population used in this report is discussed in Chapter 2 and in the next section.

Demand Variable
A “demand variable” is a quantifiable attribute of development that is used in impact fee calculation formulas to represent the impact of development. The demand variable used to calculate recreation facilities impact fees in this chapter is service population.

As discussed in Chapter 2, service population is a weighted composite variable made up of resident population and employees working in Brisbane. Residents are included in the service population to represent the demand created by residential development and employees are included to represent the demand created by non-residential development.

In all cases, residents are assigned a weight of 1.0 but the weighting of employees varies for different types of facilities in this report. For purposes of calculating impact fees for recreation facilities, employees are assigned a weight of 0.1, meaning that the demand created by one employee is one-tenth of the demand created by one resident of the City.

That weight is lower than the employee weight used in Chapter 3 for park land and park improvements and in Chapter 5 for Open Space and Trails because the experience of City staff indicates that employees of businesses in the City place substantially less demand on the types of recreation facilities addressed in this Chapter substantially than they do on parks, open space and trails.
91 134
K.

City of Brisbane Page 4-2
Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study
October 25, 2022
Existing Level of Service
In 2021, AB 602 added Section 66016.5 to the Mitigation Fee Act. That section requires that, after January 1, 2022, the level of service used in an impact fee study must be compared with the existing level of service. If the level used in the impact fee study exceeds the existing level of service, an explanation is required. The impact fees calculated in this chapter are based on the existing level of service as shown in Table 4.2 below, so there is no level-of-service issue with respect to Section 66016.5.

Table 4.1 lists the City’s existing recreation facilities with their replacement cost, including land. Replacement cost is used here as an indicator of the cost of constructing additional facilities to serve new development.

Existing Level of Service - Cost Per Capita
Table 4.2 calculates the existing level of service in terms of a cost per capita of service population for the City’s existing recreation facilities.

Table 4.1: Existing Recreation Facilities
Park Site Land Building Facility Impact Fee
Name Location Acres 1
Value 2Sq Feet 3Repl Cost 4Cost Basis 5
Brisbane Community Pool 2 Solano St 0.62 2,169,421$ 3,066 2,085,698$ $ 4,255,119 Childcare Modular 500 San Bruno Av School Land 0$ 1,920 400,000$ $ 400,000 Community Center/Library 250 Visitacion Av 0.11 385,675$ 5,449 2,077,660$ $ 2,463,335 Mission Blue Center 475 Mission Blue Dr 0.65 2,275,000$ 7,200 1,981,290$ $ 4,256,290 Silverspot Cooperative 4 Solano St 0.06 216,942$ 2,700 498,582$ $ 715,524 Total 1.44 $ 5,047,039 17,269 $ 7,043,230 $ 12,090,269
1 Site acres provided by the City of Brisbane Parks and Recreation Department; "In Park" means the facility is located in a park on acreage already covered by the park land impact fees; "School Land" means the facility was constructed by the City on land owned by a school district
2 Site value = site acres X park land acquisition cost per acre from Table 3.3 in Chapter 3 3 Building square feet from the City's insured property schedule or the Parks and Recreation Department 4 Facility replacement cost includes both the fixed asset value and furniture, fixtures and equipment from the City's insured property schedule, where applicable
5 Impact fee cost basis is the sum of the land value and the facility replacement cost Table 4.2: Existing Level of Service - Recreation Facilities Impact Fee
Cost Basis 1
Existing Service
Population 2
Cost per
Capita 3
$12,090,269 5,528 $2,187.10
1 See Table 4.1
2 Existing service population for parks = existing population + (0.1 X existing employees)
3 Cost per capita = impact fee cost basis / existing service population
92 135
K.

City of Brisbane Page 4-3
Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study
October 25, 2022
In the next section, the per-capita costs from Table 4.2 are used to calculate impact fees per unit of development.

Impact Fees per Unit
Table 4.3 shows the calculation of recreation facilities impact fees per unit of development, by development type. Those fees are calculated using per-capita costs from Table 4.2 and service population per unit. Service population per unit for residential development = population per unit from Table 2.1. Service population per unit for nonresidential development = 0.1 X employees per unit from Table 2.1.

Projected Revenue
Table 4.4. projects potential revenue from the recreation facilities impact fees based on the cost per capita of service population and service population per unit.

Table 4.3: Impact Fees per Unit - Recreation Facilities Development
Type Units 1
Cost per
Capita 2
Service Pop
per Unit 3
Impact Fee
per Unit 4
Residential <800 Sq. Ft. Unit DU $2,187.10 2.330 $ 5,095.93 Residential 800-1,200 Sq. Ft. Unit DU $2,187.10 2.430 $ 5,314.64 Residential 1,200-2,100 Sq. Ft. Unit DU $2,187.10 2.530 $ 5,533.35 Residential >2,100 Sq. Ft. Unit DU $2,187.10 2.630 $ 5,752.06 Commercial KSF $2,187.10 0.200 $ 437.42
Lodging Room $2,187.10 0.035 $ 76.55
Office KSF $2,187.10 0.300 $ 656.13
Industrial KSF $2,187.10 0.110 $ 240.58
Public Facilities KSF $2,187.10 0.300 $ 656.13
1 Units of development: DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area; Room = guest room or suite
2 See Table 4.2
3 Service population per unit for residential development = population per unit from Table 2.1; service population per unit for non-residential development = 0.1 X empl- oyees per unit from Table 2.1
4 Impact fee per unit = cost per capita X service population per unit 93 136
K.

City of Brisbane Page 4-4
Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study
October 25, 2022
Updating the Fees
The impact fees calculated in this chapter are based the current estimated cost of recreation facilities. We recommend that the fees be reviewed annually and adjusted as needed using local cost data or an index such as the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index (CCI). See the Implementation Chapter for more on indexing of fees.

Nexus Summary
As discussed in Chapter 1 of this report, Section 66001 of the Mitigation Fee Act requires that an agency establishing, increasing or imposing impact fees, must make findings to:

Identify the purpose of the fee;
Identify the use of the fee; and,
Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between:
a. The use of the fee and the development type on which it is imposed; b. The need for the facility and the type of development on which the fee is imposed; and
c. The amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development project.

Satisfying those requirements also ensures that the fees meet the “rational nexus” and “rough proportionality” standards enunciated in leading court decisions bearing on impact fees and other exactions. (For more detail, see “Legal Framework for Impact Fees” in Chapter 1.) The following paragraphs explain how the impact fees calculated in this chapter satisfy those requirements.

Table 4.4: Projected Revenue - Recreation Facilities Impact Fees Development Added Cost per Projected
Type Service Pop 1
Capita 2Revenue 3
All Residential 6,460 $2,187.10 $ 14,128,642
Commercial 380 $2,187.10 $ 831,097
Lodging 21 $2,187.10 $ 45,929
Office 1,279 $2,187.10 $ 2,797,296
Industrial 616 $2,187.10 $ 1,347,251
Total $ 19,150,216
1 See Table 2.3; added service population for residential development = added population; added service population for non-residential development = 0.1 X added employees
2 See Table 4.3
3 Projected revenue = added service population X cost per capita 94 137
K.

City of Brisbane Page 4-5
Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study
October 25, 2022
Purpose of the Fee: The purpose of the impact fees calculated in this chapter is to mitigate the impact of new development on the need for recreation facilities in Brisbane.

Use of the Fee. Impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to provide additional recreation facilities to mitigate the impacts of new development in the City.

As provided by the Mitigation Fee Act, revenue from impact fees may also be used for temporary loans from one impact fee fund or account to another.

Reasonable Relationship between the Use of the Fee and the Development Type on Which It Is Imposed. The impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to provide additional recreation facilities to serve the needs of added service population associated with new development in Brisbane.

Reasonable Relationship between the Need for the Facilities and the Type of Development on Which the Fee Is Imposed. New development will increase the need for recreation facilities to maintain the existing level of service, as described earlier in this chapter. Without additional recreation facilities, the increase in service population associated with new development in the City would result in a reduction in the level of service provided to the entire City.

Reasonable Relationship between the Amount of the Fee and the Facility Cost Attributable to the Development Project. The amount of the recreation facilities impact fees charged to a development project will depend on the increase in service population associated with that project. The fees per unit of development calculated in this chapter for each type of development are based on the estimated average service population per unit for that type of development in Brisbane. Thus, the fee charged to a development project reflects the impact of that project on the need for recreation facilities in the City. 95 138
K.

City of Brisbane Page 5-1
Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study
October 25, 2022
This chapter calculates impact fees for open space land acquisition and trail improvements needed to maintain the existing level of service in Brisbane as the City grows.

Service Area
Impact fees calculated in this chapter are intended to apply to all new development in the City.

Methodology
This chapter calculates impact fees using the standard-based method discussed in Chapter 1. Standard-based fees are calculated using a specified relationship or standard that determines the number of service units to be provided for each unit of development.

In this case, the standard used to calculate impact fees for open space and trails is the existing level of service. The existing level of service for open space land is defined as the current relationship between the value of the existing City-owned open space land and the existing service population. The existing level of service for trail improvements is defined as the current relationship between the replacement cost of the City’s existing trails and the existing service population. Those levels of service are shown in Table 5.2 later in this chapter. The makeup of the service population used in this report is discussed in Chapter 2 and in the next section.

Demand Variable
A “demand variable” is a quantifiable attribute of development that is used in impact fee calculation formulas to represent the impact of development. The demand variable used to calculate impact fees for open space and trails in this chapter is service population.

As discussed in Chapter 2, service population is a weighted composite variable made up of resident population and employees working in Brisbane. Residents are included in the service population to represent the demand created by residential development and employees are included to represent the demand created by non-residential development.

In all cases, residents are assigned a weight of 1.0 but the weighting of employees varies for different types of facilities in this report. For purposes of calculating impact fees for open space and trails, employees are assigned a weight of 0.25, meaning that the demand created by an employee is one-quarter of the demand created by a resident of the City.

That is the same employee weight used in Chapter 3 to calculate impact fees for park land and park improvements.
96 139
K.

City of Brisbane Page 5-2
Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study
October 25, 2022
Existing Level of Service
In 2021, AB 602 added Section 66016.5 to the Mitigation Fee Act. That section requires, after January 1, 2022, that the level of service used in an impact fee study must be compared with the existing level of service. If the level used in the impact fee study exceeds the existing level of service, an explanation is required. The impact fees calculated in this chapter are based on the existing level of service as shown in Table 5.2 below, so there is no level-of-service issue with respect to Section 66016.5.

Table 5.1 lists the acreage and estimated value of the City’s existing open space parcels and the estimated replacement cost of trail improvements. Replacement cost is used here as an indicator of the cost of constructing additional facilities to serve new development.

Existing Level of Service - Cost Per Capita
Table 5.2 calculates the existing level of service in terms of a cost per capita of service population for the City’s existing open space land and improved trails.

Table 5.1: Existing Open Space and Trails
Park Open Space Open Space Trail Trail Trail Square Trail Name Acres 1
Land Value 2Length (LF) 3 Width (Ft) 4Feet 5Impr Cost 6 Costaños Canyon 1.01 80,800 $ 416 10.0 4,160 83,200$
Crocker Trail 5.45 $ 11,880 436,364 12.0 142,560 2,851,200$ Firth Canyon 1.68 134,400 $ 0$
Quarry Road Trail 1.19 95,200 $ 2,640 10.0 26,400 528,000$ Total 9.33 $ 746,764 $3,462,400
1 Open space acres provided by the City of Brisbane Parks and Recreation Department 2 Open space land based on $80,000 per acre
3 Trail length in linear feet
4 Trail width in feet
5 Trail improvements in square feet provided by the Brisbane Parks and Recreation Department 6 Trail improvement cost = square feet of trail improvements X $20.00 per square foot 97 140
K.

City of Brisbane Page 5-3
Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study
October 25, 2022
In the next section, the per-capita costs from Table 5.2 are used to calculate impact fees per unit of development.

Impact Fees per Unit
Impact Fees per Unit – Open Space Land Acquisition. Table 5.3 shows the calculation of open space land acquisition impact fees per unit of development, by development type.

Those fees are calculated using per-capita costs from Table 5.2 and service population per unit. Service population per unit for residential development = population per unit from Table 2.1. Service population per unit for non-residential development = 0.25 X employees per unit from Table 2.1.

Table 5.2: Existing Level of Service - Open Space and Trails Cost Component
Impact Fee
Cost Basis 1
Existing Service
Population 2
Cost per
Capita 3
Open Space Land $ 746,764 6,544 $114.12
Trail Improvements $ 3,462,400 6,544 $529.14
1 See Table 5.1; impact fee cost basis = existing land value for open space land and trail improvement cost for trails
2 Existing service population for parks = existing population + (0.25 X existing employees)
3 Cost per capita = impact fee cost basis / existing service population Table 5.3: Impact Fees per Unit - Open Space Land Acquisition Development
Type Units 1
Cost per
Capita 2
Service Pop
per Unit 3
Impact Fee
per Unit 4
Residential <800 Sq. Ft. Unit DU $114.12 2.330 $ 265.91 Residential 800-1,200 Sq. Ft. Unit DU $114.12 2.430 $ 277.32 Residential 1,200-2,100 Sq. Ft. Unit DU $114.12 2.530 $ 288.73 Residential >2,100 Sq. Ft. Unit DU $114.12 2.630 $ 300.14 Commercial KSF $114.12 0.500 $ 57.06
Lodging Room $114.12 0.088 $ 9.99
Office KSF $114.12 0.750 $ 85.59
Industrial KSF $114.12 0.275 $ 31.38
Public Facilities KSF $114.12 0.750 $ 85.59
1 Units of development: DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 square gross square feet of building area; Room = guest room or suite
2 See Table 5.2
3 Service population per unit for residential development = population per unit from Table 2.1; service population per unit for non-residential development = 0.25 X em- ployees per unit from Table 2.1
4 Impact fee per unit = cost per capita X service population per unit 98 141
K.

City of Brisbane Page 5-4
Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study
October 25, 2022
Impact Fees per Unit – Trail Improvements. Table 5.4 shows the calculation of trail improvement impact fees per unit of development, by development type. Those fees are calculated using per-capita costs from Table 5.2 and service population per unit. Service population per unit for trail improvement impact fees is identical to the service population per unit for open space land acquisition.

Projected Revenue
Projected Revenue – Open Space Land Acquisition Impact Fees. Table 5.5. projects potential revenue from the open space land acquisition impact fees based on the cost per capita of service population and service population per unit.

Table 5.4: Impact Fees per Unit - Trail Improvements
Development
Type Units 1
Cost per
Capita 2
Service Pop
per Unit 3
Impact Fee
per Unit 4
Residential <800 Sq. Ft. Unit DU $529.14 2.330 $ 1,232.89 Residential 800-1,200 Sq. Ft. Unit DU $529.14 2.430 $ 1,285.80 Residential 1,200-2,100 Sq. Ft. Unit DU $529.14 2.530 $ 1,338.71 Residential >2,100 Sq. Ft. Unit DU $529.14 2.630 $ 1,391.63 Commercial KSF $529.14 0.500 $ 264.57
Lodging Room $529.14 0.088 $ 46.30
Office KSF $529.14 0.750 $ 396.85
Industrial KSF $529.14 0.275 $ 145.51
Public Facilities KSF $529.14 0.750 $ 396.85
1 Units of development: DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 square gross square feet of building area; Room = guest room or suite
2 See Table 5.2
3 Service population per unit for residential development = population per unit from Table 2.1; service population per unit for non-residential development = 0.25 X em- ployees per unit from Table 2.1
4 Impact fee per unit = cost per capita X service population per unit 99 142
K.

City of Brisbane Page 5-5
Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study
October 25, 2022
Projected Revenue – Trail Improvement Impact Fees. Table 5.6. projects potential revenue from the open space land acquisition impact fees based on the cost per capita of service population and service population per unit.

Updating the Fees
The impact fees calculated in this chapter are based on the current estimated cost of value of the City’s existing open space parcels and the current estimated replacement cost for trail improvements. We recommend that the fees be reviewed annually and adjusted as needed using local cost data or an index such as the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index (CCI). See the Implementation Chapter for more on indexing of fees.

Table 5.5: Projected Revenue - Open Space Land Impact Fees Development Added Cost per Projected
Type Service Pop 1
Capita 2Revenue 3
All Residential 6,460 $114.12 $ 737,234
Commercial 949 $114.12 $ 108,303
Lodging 53 $114.12 $ 6,049
Office 3,197 $114.12 $ 364,851
Industrial 1,541 $114.12 $ 175,863
Total $ 1,392,300
1 See Table 2.3; added service population for residential development = added population; added service population for non-residential development = 0.25 X added employees from Table 2.3
2 See Table 5.2
3 Projected revenue = added service population X cost per capita Table 5.6: Projected Revenue - Trail Improvement Impact Fees Development Added Cost per Projected
Type Service Pop 1
Capita 2Revenue 3
All Residential 6,460 $529.14 $ 3,418,217
Commercial 949 $529.14 $ 502,150
Lodging 53 $529.14 $ 28,044
Office 3,197 $529.14 $ 1,691,647
Industrial 1,541 $529.14 $ 815,398
Total $ 6,455,457
1 See Table 2.3; added service population for residential development = added population; added service population for non-residential development = 0.25 X added employees from Table 2.3
2 See Table 5.2
3 Projected revenue = added service population X cost per capita 100
143
K.

City of Brisbane Page 5-6
Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study
October 25, 2022
Nexus Summary
As discussed in Chapter 1 of this report, Section 66001 of the Mitigation Fee Act requires that an agency establishing, increasing or imposing impact fees, must make findings to:

Identify the purpose of the fee;
Identify the use of the fee; and,
Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between:
a. The use of the fee and the development type on which it is imposed; b. The need for the facility and the type of development on which the fee is imposed; and
c. The amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development project.

Satisfying those requirements also ensures that the fees meet the “rational nexus” and “rough proportionality” standards enunciated in leading court decisions bearing on impact fees and other exactions. (For more detail, see “Legal Framework for Impact Fees” in Chapter 1.) The following paragraphs explain how the impact fees calculated in this chapter satisfy those requirements.

Purpose of the Fee: The purpose of the impact fees calculated in this chapter is to mitigate the impact of new development on the need for open space and trails in Brisbane.

Use of the Fee. Impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to provide additional open space and trails to mitigate the impacts of new development in the City.

As provided by the Mitigation Fee Act, revenue from impact fees may also be used for temporary loans from one impact fee fund or account to another.

Reasonable Relationship between the Use of the Fee and the Development Type on Which It Is Imposed. The impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to provide additional open space and trails to serve the needs of added service population associated with new development in Brisbane.

Reasonable Relationship between the Need for the Facilities and the Type of Development on Which the Fee Is Imposed. New development will increase the need for open space and trails to maintain the existing level of service, as described earlier in this chapter. Without additional open space and trails, the increase in service population associated with new development in the City would result in a reduction in the level of service provided to the entire City.

Reasonable Relationship between the Amount of the Fee and the Facility Cost Attributable to the Development Project. The amount of the open space and trails impact fees charged to a development project will depend on the increase in service population associated with that project. The fees per unit of development calculated in this chapter for each type of development are based on the estimated average service 101
144
K.

City of Brisbane Page 5-7
Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study
October 25, 2022
population per unit for that type of development in Brisbane. Thus, the fee charged to a development project reflects the impact of that project on the need for open space and trails in the City.
102
145
K.

City of Brisbane Page 6-8
Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study
October 25, 2022
This chapter of the report contains recommendations for adoption and administration of impact fees, and for the interpretation and application of the development impact fees and in-lieu fees calculated in this study. It was not prepared by an attorney and is not intended as legal advice.

Statutory requirements for the adoption and administration of fees imposed as a condition of development approval (impact fees) are found in the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Sections 66000 et seq.).

Adoption
The form in which development impact fees are enacted should be determined by the City attorney. The specific requirements are different for impact fees under the Mitigation Fee Act, and for park land dedication and in-lieu fees under the Quimby Act. The latter requirements must be adopted by ordinance and are subject to the same noticing and public hearing procedures as any ordinance.

Procedures for adoption of fees subject to the Mitigation Fee Act, including notice and public-hearing requirements, are specified in Government Code Sections 66016 and 66018. It should be noted that Section 66018 refers to Government Code Section 6062a, which requires that the public hearing notice be published at least twice during the 10- day notice period. However, Section 66016.5 added by AB 602 in 2021 requires that impact fee nexus studies be adopted at a public hearing with at least 30-days’ notice.

Government Code Section 66017 provides that fees subject to the Mitigation Fee Act do not become effective until 60 days after final action by the governing body.

Actions establishing or increasing fees subject to the Mitigation Act require certain findings, as set forth in Government Code Section 66001 and discussed in Chapter 1 of this report.

Examples of findings that could be used for impact fees calculated in this study are shown below. The specific language of such findings should be provided by the City Attorney. A more complete discussion of the nexus for each fee can be found in individual chapters of this report.

Sample Finding: Purpose of the Fee. The City Council finds that the purpose of the impact fees hereby enacted is to protect the public health, safety and welfare by requiring new development to contribute to the cost of public facilities needed to mitigate the impacts of new development.

Sample Finding: Use of the Fee. The City Council finds that revenue from the impact fees hereby enacted will be used to provide public facilities needed to 103
146
K.

City of Brisbane Page 6-9
Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study
October 25, 2022
mitigate the impacts of new development in the City and identified in the 2022 City of Brisbane Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study by NBS. 2 Sample Finding: Reasonable Relationship: Based on analysis presented in the 2022 City of Brisbane Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study by NBS, the City Council finds that there is a reasonable relationship between:
a. The use of the fees and the types of development projects on which they are imposed; and,
b. The need for facilities and the types of development projects on which the fees are imposed.

Administration
The California Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Sections 66000 et seq.) mandates procedures for administration of impact fee programs, including collection and accounting, reporting, and refunds. References to code sections in the following paragraphs pertain to the California Government Code.

Notices and Statute of Limitations. Section 66006 (f) provides that a local agency, at the time it imposes a fee for public improvements on a specific development project, "... shall identify the public improvement that the fee will be used to finance." The required notification could refer to the improvements identified in this study or to a capital improvement plan.

Section 66020 (d) (1) requires that the agency, at the time it imposes an impact fee, provide a written statement of the amount of the fee and written notice of a 90-day period during which the imposition of the fee can be protested. Failure to protest imposition of the fee during that period may deprive the fee payer of the right to subsequent legal challenge.

Section 66022 (a) provides a separate procedure for challenging the establishment of an impact fee. Such challenges must be filed within 120 days of enactment.

Collection of Fees. Section 66007(a) provides that a local agency shall not require payment of fees by developers of residential projects prior to the date of final inspection, or issuance of a certificate of occupancy, whichever occurs first. 2 According to Gov’t Code Section 66001 (a) (2), the use of the fee may be specified in a capital improvement plan, the General Plan, or other public documents that identify the public facilities for which the fee is charged. The findings recommended here identify this impact fee study as the source of that information. Also note that Section 66016.5 (a)(6) requires that large jurisdictions adopt a capital improvement plan as part of an impact fee nexus study. That requirement applies in counties of 250,000 or more and cities in those counties, so it does apply to Brisbane. 104
147
K.

City of Brisbane Page 6-10
Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study
October 25, 2022
However, "utility service fees" (not defined, but likely referring to water and sewer connections) may be collected upon application for utility service. In a residential development project of more than one dwelling unit, Section 66007 (a) allows the agency to choose to collect fees either for individual units or for phases upon final inspection, or for the entire project upon final inspection of the first dwelling unit completed.

Section 66007 (b) provides two exceptions when the local agency may require the payment of fees from developers of residential projects at an earlier time: (1) when the local agency determines that the fees “will be collected for public improvements or facilities for which an account has been established and funds appropriated and for which the local agency has adopted a proposed construction schedule or plan prior to final inspection or issuance of the certificate of occupancy” or (2) the fees are “to reimburse the local agency for expenditures previously made.”
Statutory restrictions on the time at which fees may be collected do not apply to nonresidential development.

Notwithstanding the foregoing restrictions, some cities collect impact fees for all facilities at the time building or grading permits are issued, and builders may find it convenient to pay the fees at that time.

In cases where the fees are not collected upon issuance of building permits, Sections 66007 (c) (1) and (2) provide that the City may require the property owner to execute a contract to pay the fee, and to record that contract as a lien against the property until the fees are paid.

Earmarking and Expenditure of Fee Revenue. Section 66006 (a) mandates that fees be deposited “with other fees for the improvement in a separate capital facilities account or fund in a manner to avoid any commingling of the fees with other revenues and funds of the local agency, except for temporary investments, and expend those fees solely for the purpose for which the fee was collected.” Section 66006 (a) also requires that interest earned on the fee revenues be placed in the capital account and used for the same purpose.

The language of the law is not clear as to whether depositing fees "with other fees for the improvement" refers to a specific capital improvement or a class of improvements (e.g., street improvements).

We are not aware of any municipality that has interpreted that language to mean that funds must be segregated by individual projects. And, as a practical matter, that approach would be unworkable because it would mean that no pay-as-you-go project could be constructed until all benefiting development had paid the fees. Common practice is to maintain separate funds or accounts for impact fee revenues by facility category (i.e., streets, park improvements), but not for individual projects.

Impact Fee Exemptions, Reductions, and Waivers. In the event that a development project is found to have no impact on facilities for which impact fees are charged, such project must be exempted from the fees.
105
148
K.

City of Brisbane Page 6-11
Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study
October 25, 2022
If a project has characteristics that will make its impacts on a particular public facility or infrastructure system significantly and permanently smaller than the average impact used to calculate impact fees in this study, the fees should be reduced accordingly to meet the requirement that there must be a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed. The fee reduction is required if the fee is not proportional to the impact of the development on relevant public facilities.

In some cases, an agency may desire to voluntarily waive or reduce impact fees that would otherwise apply to a project as a way of promoting goals such as affordable housing or economic development. Such a waiver or reduction is within the discretion of the governing body but may not result in increased costs to other development projects. So, the effect of such policies is that the lost revenue must be made up from sources other than impact fees.

Credit for Improvements Provided by Developers. If the City requires a developer, as a condition of project approval, to dedicate land or construct facilities or improvements for which impact fees are charged, the City should ensure that the impact fees are adjusted so that the overall contribution by the developer does not exceed the impact created by the development.

In the event that a developer voluntarily offers to dedicate land, or construct facilities or improvements in lieu of paying impact fees, the City may accept or reject such offers, and may negotiate the terms under which such an offer would be accepted. Excess contributions by a developer may be offset by reimbursement agreements.

Credit for Existing Development. If a project involves replacement, redevelopment or intensification of previously existing development, impact fees should be applied only to the portion of the project that represents a net increase in demand for relevant City facilities, applying the measure of demand used in this study to calculate that impact fee.

Annual Report. Section 66006 (b) (1) requires that once each year, within 180 days of the close of the fiscal year, the local agency must make available to the public the following information for each separate account established to receive impact fee revenues:

1. A brief description of the type of fee in the account or fund;

2. The amount of the fee;

3. The beginning and ending balance of the account or fund;

4. The amount of the fees collected and interest earned;

5. Identification of each public improvement on which fees were expended and the amount of the expenditures on each improvement, including the percentage of the cost of the public improvement that was funded with fees;

6. Identification of the approximate date by which the construction of a public improvement will commence, if the City determines sufficient funds have been collected to complete financing of an incomplete public improvement; 106
149
K.

City of Brisbane Page 6-12
Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study
October 25, 2022

7. A description of each inter-fund transfer or loan made from the account or fund, including interest rates, repayment dates, and a description of the improvement on which the transfer or loan will be expended;

8. The amount of any refunds or allocations made pursuant to Section 66001, paragraphs (e) and (f).

The annual report must be reviewed by the City Council at its next regularly scheduled public meeting, but not less than 15 days after the statements are made public, per Section 66006 (b) (2).

Five-Year Findings and Refunds under the Mitigation Fee Act. Prior to 1996, The Mitigation Fee Act required that a local agency collecting impact fees was required to expend or commit impact fee revenue within five years or make findings to justify a continued need for the money. Otherwise, those funds had to be refunded. SB 1693, adopted in 1996 as an amendment to the Mitigation Fee Act, changed that requirement in material ways.

Now, Section 66001 (d) requires that, for the fifth fiscal year following the first deposit of any impact fee revenue into an account or fund as required by Section 66006 (b), and every five years thereafter, the local agency shall make all of the following findings for any fee revenue that remains unexpended, whether committed or uncommitted:

1. Identify the purpose to which the fee will be put;

2. Demonstrate the reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it is charged;

3. Identify all sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financing of incomplete improvements for which impact fees are to be used;

4. Designate the approximate dates on which the funding necessary to complete financing of those improvements will be deposited into the appropriate account or fund.

Those findings are to be made in conjunction with the annual reports discussed above. If such findings are not made as required by Section 66001, the local agency could be required to refund the moneys in the account or fund, per Section 66001 (d).

Once the agency determines that sufficient funds have been collected to complete financing on incomplete improvements for which impact fee revenue is to be used, it must, within 180 days of that determination, identify an approximate date by which construction of the public improvement will be commenced (Section 66001 (e)). If the agency fails to comply with that requirement, it must refund impact fee revenue in the account according to procedures specified in Section 66001 (d).

For a useful discussion of the foregoing requirements, see “The Mitigation Fee Act’s FiveYear Findings Requirement: Beware Costly Pitfalls” by Glen Hansen, Senior Counsel, 107
150
K.

City of Brisbane Page 6-13
Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study
October 25, 2022
Abbott and Kindermann, and Rick Jarvis, Managing Partner, Jarvis, Fay and Gibson, presented at the 2022 League of California Cities City Attorneys Spring Conference.

Indexing of In-Lieu/Impact Fees. In-lieu fees and impact fees calculated in this report are based on current costs and should be adjusted periodically to account for changes in the cost of facilities or other capital assets that will be funded by those fees. That adjustment is intended to account for escalation in costs for land, construction, vehicles and other relevant capital assets. The Engineering News Record Building Cost Index (BCI) and Construction Cost Index (CCI) are useful for indexing construction costs. Where land costs are covered by an impact fee or in-lieu fee, land costs should be adjusted based on changes in local land prices.

Requirements Imposed by AB 602
In 2021, the California Legislature passed AB 602 and the Governor signed it into law. AB 602 creates some new requirements for impact fees that will go into effect in 2022. The new law amends Government Code Section 65940.1 and adds Section 66016.5 to impose the following requirements:
1) A city, county or special district that has an internet website shall post on its website:
a) A current written schedule of fees, exactions and affordability requirements applicable to a proposed housing development project, and shall present that information in a manner that identifies the fees, exactions and affordability requirements that apply to each parcel and the fees that apply to each new water and sewer utility connection
b) All zoning ordinances and development standards and specifying the zoning, design and development standards that apply to each parcel c) A list of the information that will be required from any applicant for a development project, as specified in Government Code Section 69540 d) The current and five previous annual fee reports required by Government Code Section 66006 and Subsection 66013 (d).
e) An archive of impact fee nexus studies, cost of service studies or equivalent conducted on or after January 1, 2018.
2) The above information shall be updated within 30 days of any changes 3) A City or County shall request from a development proponent, upon issuance of a certificate of occupancy or final inspection, the total amount of fees and exactions associated with the project for which the certificate it issued. That information must be posted on the website and updated at least twice a year. 4) Before adoption of an impact fee, an impact fee nexus study shall be adopted. 108
151
K.

City of Brisbane Page 6-14
Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study
October 25, 2022
5) When applicable, the nexus study shall identify the existing level of service for each public facility, identify the proposed new level of service and explain why the new level of service is appropriate
6) If a nexus study supports the increase of an existing fee, the local agency shall review the assumptions of the nexus study supporting the original fee and evaluate the amount of the fees collected under the original fee.
7) A nexus study adopted after July 1, 2022, shall calculate a fee imposed on a housing development project proportionately to the square footage of the proposed units of the development. A local agency that imposes a fee proportionately to the square footage if the proposed units of the development shall be deemed to have used a valid method to establish a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the development. A nexus study is not required to comply with this requirement if the agency makes certain findings outlined in the statute. 8) Large jurisdictions as defined in Section 53559.1 (d) of the Health and Safety Code (counties of 250,000 or more and cities in those counties) shall adopt a capital improvement plan as part of a nexus study.
9) All studies shall be adopted at a public hearing with at least 30-days’ notice, and the local agency shall notify any member of the public that requests notice of intent to begin an impact fee nexus study of the date of the hearing. 10) Studies shall be updated at least every eight years, beginning on January 1, 2022.

Training and Public Information
Effective administration of an impact fee program requires considerable preparation and training. It is important that those responsible for collecting the fees, and for explaining them to the public, understand both the details of the fee program and its supporting rationale.

It is also useful to pay close attention to handouts that provide information to the public regarding impact fees. Impact fees should be clearly distinguished from other fees, such as user fees for application processing, and the purpose and use of particular impact fees should be made clear.

Finally, anyone responsible for accounting, capital budgeting, or project management for projects involving impact fees must be fully aware of the restrictions placed on the expenditure of impact fee revenues. Fees must be expended for the purposes identified in the impact fee nexus study in which they were calculated, and the City must be able to show that funds have been properly expended.

Recovery of Administrative Costs
To recover the cost of periodic impact fee update studies and ongoing staff costs for capital budgeting, annual reports, five-year updates and other requirements of the 109
152
K.

City of Brisbane Page 6-15
Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study
October 25, 2022
Mitigation Fee Act, an administrative charge may be added to the impact fees calculated in this report. See the Executive Summary for a discussion of an administrative charge to recover some costs for administration and updating of impact fees. 110
153
K.

APPENDIX A
Fee Comparison
Prepared by NBS for the City of Brisbane
111
154
K.

APPENDIX A
City of Brisbane - Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Comparison Type of Brisbane Foster Redwood San South San
Impact Fee Units Proposed 1
Belmont 2Burlingame 3City 4City 5Carlos 6Francisco 7
Residential - Single-Family (Brisbane >2,100 Square Feet) Park Land DU $ 16,753 $ 41,043 See Footnote $ 30,826 See Footnote $ 2,976 Park Improvements DU $ 2,752 $ 17,590 $ 590 $ 14,926 $ 15,950 $ 7,953 $ 26,148 Recreation Facilities DU $ 5,752 Included Included
Open Space/Trails DU $ 1,692 Included Included
Total $ 26,949 $ 58,633 $ 590 $ 14,926 $ 46,776 $ 7,953 $ 29,124 Residential - Multi-Family (Brisbane 800-1,200 Square Feet) Park Land DU $ 15,479 $ 27,362 See Footnote $ 26,468 See Footnote $ 1,759 Park Improvements DU $ 2,543 $ 11,660 $ 350 $ 11,639 $ 13,695 $ 3,977 $ 15,462 Recreation Facilities DU $ 5,315 Included Included
Open Space/Trails DU $ 1,563 Included Included
Total $ 24,900 $ 39,022 $ 350 $ 11,639 $ 40,163 $ 3,977 $ 17,221 Lodging
Park Land Room $ 557 $ 2,162 $ 3,795
Park Improvements Room $ 92 $ 427 $ 910 $ 1,119 $ 6,571 Recreation Facilities Room $ 77 Included Included
Open Space/Trails Room $ 56 Included Included
Total $ 782 $ 427 $ 0 $ 910 $ 3,281 $ 0 $ 10,366
Commercial
Park Land KSF $ 3,185 $ 3,510 $ 938
Park Improvements KSF $ 523 $ 710 $ 118 $ 2,350 $ 1,820 $ 3,158 Recreation Facilities KSF $ 437 Included Included
Open Space/Trails KSF $ 322 Included Included
Total $ 4,467 $ 710 $ 118 $ 2,350 $ 5,330 $ 0 $ 4,096
Office
Park Land KSF $ 4,778 $ 5,110 $ 833
Park Improvements KSF $ 785 $ 2,370 $ 172 $ 6,240 $ 2,640 $ 2,957 Recreation Facilities KSF $ 656 Included Included
Trails KSF $ 482 Included Included
Total $ 6,701 $ 2,370 $ 172 $ 6,240 $ 7,750 $ 0 $ 3,790 Industrial
Park Land KSF $ 1,752 $ 1,650 $ 394
Park Improvements KSF $ 288 $ 950 $ 56 $ 3,510 $ 860 $ 1,398 Recreation Facilities KSF $ 241 Included Included
Trails KSF $ 177 Included Included
Total $ 2,457 $ 950 $ 56 $ 3,510 $ 2,510 $ 0 $ 1,792
General Note: Cities other than Brisbane shown in this comparison table do not have specific impact fees for either recreation facilities or trails; where the cells for those fees show the notation "included," it means that documentation reviewed for this comparison indicated that it was the city's intent to include those uses within the meaning of "park improvements"; however, other cities may also include recreation facilities and/or trails within the meaning of park improvements
1 Brisbane park land fee is based on the park land impact fee for non-subdivision projects; Brisbane Quimby in-lieu fee is determined case-by-case
2 Belmont park land fee is based on the Quimby Act fee in-lieu of park land dedication 3 Burlingame has no impact fees or in-lieu fees for park land acquisition 4 Foster City has a Quimby Act ordinance that requires dedication of park land or payment of fees in lieu of dedication for residential development; in-lieu fees are determined case-by-case; the City has no park land impact fees for non-residential development; park impact fees for lodging are based on square footage; this comparison assumes an average overall building area of 425 square feet per hotel room 5 Redwood City has adopted park land in-lieu fees for residential subdivisions and park land impact fees for residential development not involving a subdivision in the same amount 6 San Carlos has a Quimby Act ordinance that requires dedication of park land or payment of fees in lieu of dedication for residential development; in-lieu fees are determined case-by-case; the City has no park land or park improvement impact fees for non-residential development; San Carlos adds a $700 administrative fee to the amounts shown in the table
7 South San Francisco charges multi-family residential impact fees for park land acquisition and park improvements based on the number of units in a building; multi-family impact fees shown in this table are for the 20-49 unit category
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free: 800.676.7516 12/19/2022 Page 1 of 1 112
155
K.

Brisbane
Transportation
Impact Fee (TIF)
Nexus Study
Prepared for:

City of Brisbane
February 14, 2025
SF24-1354
113
156
K.

This page was intentionally left blank.
114
157
K.

Table of Contents
Introduction................................................................................................................................... 1 Background .................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Approach........................................................................................................................................ 2 District Structure ........................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Fee Categories ............................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Population and Employment Rates ...................................................................................................................................... 4 Land Use Inputs ............................................................................................................................................................................ 5 Trip Generation ............................................................................................................................................................................. 8 Infrastructure Inputs ................................................................................................................................................................... 8 Nexus Analysis and Fee Calculations......................................................................................... 12 Assumptions .................................................................................................................................................................................12 Cost Estimates .....................................................................................................................................................................12 Existing Deficiencies .........................................................................................................................................................12 Cost Attribution ..................................................................................................................................................................13 Fee Calculations and Application ........................................................................................................................................14 Summary of Required Program Elements ................................................................................ 16 Fundamental Nexus Requirements .....................................................................................................................................16 Additional Elements ..................................................................................................................................................................17 Attachments
Attachment A: Project Cut Sheets
Attachment B: Updating Fees with Future Candlestick Interchange Cost Estimate 115
158
K.

List of Figures
Figure 1: Study Area ............................................................................................................................................................................ 3 List of Tables
Table 1: City of Brisbane Household and Employment Projections, excluding Baylands Specific Plan ............. 5 Table 2: Land Use Projects Approved Since 2015 .................................................................................................................. 6 Table 3: Brisbane Land Use Growth within TIF Districts ........................................................................................................ 7 Table 4: PM Peak Hour Trip Generation for TIF Land Use Categories ............................................................................. 8 Table 5: Project List ........................................................................................................................................................................... 10 Table 6: Cost Attribution by Project Type ................................................................................................................................ 13 Table 7: Total Project Costs Eligible for Inclusion in TIF..................................................................................................... 14 Table 8: Maximum Fees by TIF District and Land Use Category ..................................................................................... 15 116
159
K.

Brisbane Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) Nexus Study
February 2025
1 Introduction
The City of Brisbane (City) expects significant population and employment growth that requires transportation capital improvements to meet the demands of new development. The City hired Fehr & Peers to create the Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) Nexus Study to study cost sharing of the needed transportation capital improvements. In collaboration with the City of Brisbane, transportation capital improvement projects necessary to accommodate anticipated growth were identified, along with their estimated costs. The study identifies fees for transportation improvements across the city for each land use type expected to be built.

Background
A fee program is required to operate pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act, also known as California Assembly Bill 1600 (AB 1600) or California Government Code Sections 66000 et seq., which governs impact fees in California. Fees charged pursuant to this legislation are used to build capital facilities needed to serve the demands generated by new development. Fees are not used to correct existing deficiencies but rather are intended to address future needs. There must be a demonstrated relationship, or “nexus,” between the amount of the fee, the cost of the facilities, and the types of development on which the fee is imposed.
117
160
K.

Brisbane Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) Nexus Study
February 2025
2 Approach
District Structure
The nexus analysis in Brisbane is structured with a district approach that groups infrastructure projects according to the specific development areas most responsible for the need. This approach contrasts with a citywide approach which would be agnostic to the locations of infrastructure and land development projects within the City. City staff preferred a district approach because new development and corresponding infrastructure improvements are concentrated in discrete areas of the City.

The TIF is structured into the following three districts:
• Baylands
• Sierra Point
• West Brisbane
Figure 1 displays the general location of these districts. Any future expansion of the Recology site that occurs within Brisbane would be included within the Baylands area. Including Guadalupe Quarry in the West Brisbane TIF District may be infeasible under current circumstances because the site is not currently within the city limits of Brisbane. The Guadalupe Quarry project will be solely responsible for constructing site access improvements as a part of the project description or mitigation measures/conditions of approval, including on Quarry Road, secondary access drive, and multi-modal improvements on South Hill Drive. However, if Guadalupe Quarry is incorporated within the City and the TIF in the future, then it would be included within the West Brisbane TIF District.
118
161
K.

Guadalupe Canyon Parkway
San Bruno
Mtn. State and
County Park
San Bruno
Mtn. ER
San Bruno
Mtn. SP
Bayshore Boulevard
Geneva Avenue
Lagoon Road
Sierra Point Parkway
Tunnel Avenue
San Bruno Avenue
Bea�y Road
Quarry Road
Valley Drive
Park Lane
Brisbane
Lagoon
Candlestick
Point State
Recreation Area
South Hill Drive
Old County
Road
North Hill Drive
Marina Boulevard
Shoreline Court
Brisbane TIF Infrastructure Projects
Figure 1
Brisbane City Limit 1 TIF Infrastructure Project (Location) Corridor Infrastructure Project
Baylands
West Brisbane
Sierra Point
Proposed Roadways 2 TIF Infrastructure Project (Corridor) Project Funding Source
1 General fund for bicycle and
pedestrian improvements as
identified in the BPMP.

Specific locations to be identified as
part of further study.
8 BPMP Improvements
6 5
4d
4b 4c
4a
3b
3a
2b
2a
1 7
119
162
K.

Brisbane Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) Nexus Study
February 2025
4 Fee Categories
Based on the City’s input and the types of land uses anticipated per the City’s General Plan and available Specific Plan documents, the fee categories for this TIF study are:
• Office
• Life science / R&D
• Hotel
• Industrial
• Warehouse
• Residential
• Retail
Traffic generated by new residential uses is accounted for in the nexus analysis and proportional allocation of fees; however, based on direction from staff, impact fees will not be levied for residential uses outside of the Baylands TIF District. This will result in an impact fee program that is not fully funded (i.e., the total amount in collected fees will not fully pay for the improvements assumed in the impact fee program), because the proportion of costs attributable to new residential development outside of the Baylands TIF District will need to be covered through other funding sources. This study has calculated the number of trips anticipated to be generated by new residential land uses outside of the Baylands TIF District and found it to be less than 10 percent of the total future trips generated by new growth in the City.

Population and Employment Rates
We used population and employment rates from the Brisbane Baylands Transportation Impact Assessment (Fehr & Peers, 2024) and Fiscal Impact Analysis of The Baylands Specific Plan (Economic & Planning Systems, Inc., 2022) to estimate demand allocation among the various land use categories. Future growth projections are usually presented in units of population and employment, whereas fees are typically charged based on square footage of building area, so equivalency rates were needed to convert between different units of measurement. The rates for relevant fee categories are summarized below. • Office = 310 square feet per employee1
• Life Science/R&D = 350 square feet per employee2
• Hotel = 1 employee per room1
1 Per Fiscal Impact Analysis of The Baylands Specific Plan (Economic & Planning Systems, Inc., 2022) and employee densities used in Brisbane Baylands Transportation Impact Assessment, Table C-4 in Appendix C.1 2 This density aligns with employee densities used in the Brisbane Baylands Transportation Impact Assessment, Table C-4 in Appendix C.1.
120
163
K.

Brisbane Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) Nexus Study
February 2025
5 • Industrial = 500 square feet per employee3
• Warehouse = 1,000 square feet per employee4
• Residential = 2.23 persons per dwelling unit5
• Retail = 580 square feet per employee
The Baylands TIA references the ITE Trip Generation Manual land use code 710 per employee rate for all employment uses, which has the largest dataset for employment-based uses. Therefore, ITE land use code 710 is appropriate to represent the trip generating characteristics of employees for the employment land uses presented above (note that it excludes residential and hotel land uses).

Land Use Inputs
This section summarizes the anticipated land use growth within the City of Brisbane that results in the need for the infrastructure improvements included in the TIF Nexus Study. Table 1 presents Brisbane’s General Plan household and employment projections between 2015 and 2050 used in the cumulative impact analyses for the Baylands Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (Baylands EIR). The growth projections in Table 1 exclude the Baylands Specific Plan. The Baylands Specific Plan was incorporated into the General Plan via an amendment through Measure JJ in 2018.

Table 1: City of Brisbane Household and Employment Projections, excluding Baylands Specific Plan
Households Employment
2015 2050 2015–2050 2015 2050 2015–2050
1,910 2,713 +803 10,465 14,865 +4,400
Notes:

1. Does not include development of the Baylands Specific Plan.

Source: Baylands Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report, Table 7-1. City of Brisbane, 2022.

Since 2015, some development projects included within the General Plan projections were approved and therefore would not be subject to paying the TIF and are not included within the TIF calculations. These approved development projects, in addition to the remaining General Plan Buildout that could be included in the TIF, are presented in Table 2.
3 Industrial land uses are not presented in the Baylands studies so the employment density is cited from the Commercial Linkage Fee Nexus Analysis prepared for the City of San Jose (July 2020). 4 Warehouse land uses are not presented in the Baylands studies. The employment density is 2,000 square feet per employee from the Commercial Linkage Fee Nexus Analysis prepared for the City of San Jose (July 2020). Based on the Guadalupe Quarry EIR, 2,000 square feet per employee is on the lower range of anticipated employees for warehouse projects, with 1,200 to 1,500 employees at the 1.3 msf facility as the upper range of employment.

Therefore, 1,000 sf per employee is used to represent this upper range. 5 Fiscal Impact Analysis of The Baylands Specific Plan (Economic & Planning Systems, Inc., 2022). 121
164
K.

Brisbane Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) Nexus Study
February 2025
6 Table 2: Land Use Projects Approved Since 2015
Development TIF District Residential
Uses (Units)
Commercial Uses
Quantity
(1,000 sf)
S.F. per
Employee Employees
The Shore at Sierra Point (Biotech) Sierra Point 0 540 350 1,543 The Shore at Sierra Point (Retail) Sierra Point 0 15 580 26 Genesis Marina Sierra Point 0 422 350 1,206
3750-3780 Bayshore Boulevard West
Brisbane 30 0 -- 0
25 Visitacion Ave. Mixed-Use Project West
Brisbane 2 0.734 580 1
213 Visitacion Ave. Mixed-Use Project West
Brisbane 4 0.283 580 1
18 Visitacion Ave. Mixed-use Project West
Brisbane 2 0.400 580 1
Subtotal – Approved Projects -- 38 978 -- 2,778
Brisbane General Plan Buildout
(from Table 1) -- 803 -- -- 4,400
Total – Remaining General Plan
Buildout not yet Approved -- 765 -- -- 1,622
Notes: sf = square feet; rate per residential unit is assumed to be 2.23 persons per household Source: Metis, Fehr & Peers. From Brisbane Baylands Transportation Impact Assessment (June 2024), Appendix B.4 Baylands EIR Master Cumulative Project List.

Brisbane’s Housing Element anticipates that all housing growth outside of the Baylands Specific Plan would occur in West Brisbane, including 246 households in the Parkside Specific Plan, 134 other units in West Brisbane, and 40 auxiliary dwelling units (ADU’s). While the location of the remaining housing units to fulfill the General Plan Buildout is unknown, Fehr & Peers assumed that it would occur within the West Brisbane district as additional housing units are not allowed in the Baylands and Sierra Point TIF districts.

Fehr & Peers assumed that the remaining General Plan Buildout employment shown in Table 2 would be incorporated within planned development in Sierra Point and Guadalupe Quarry.

Table 3 presents the anticipated remaining land use growth in the City of Brisbane for each TIF district.

Note that this land use growth does not include minor construction projects or tenant improvements nor projects that are already entitled.
122
165
K.

Brisbane Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) Nexus Study
February 2025
7 Table 3: Brisbane Land Use Growth within TIF Districts Development TIF District Residential
Uses (Units)
Commercial Uses
Quantity
(1,000 sf or
rooms)6
S.F. per
Employee or
Employees per
Room
Employees
Baylands Specific Plan1 Baylands 2,200 7,000 -- 19,480
Residential Baylands 2,200 -- -- --
Office Baylands -- 6,397.8 -- 18,503
Retail Baylands 0 102.2 580 177
Hotel6 Baylands 0 800 1 800
Other Pipeline Projects
Sierra Point Towers2 Sierra Point 0 853.22 -- 2,373
Sierra Point Hotel and Life
Sciences3 Sierra Point 0 1,165.62 -- 2,526
Life Science / R&D Sierra Point 0 328.81 400 822
Office Sierra Point 0 328.81 300 1,096
Hotel Sierra Point 0 608 1 608
Guadalupe Quarry4 West Brisbane -- 1,322 1,000 1,322
Total Pipeline Projects -- 0 3,340.84 -- 6,221
Remaining General Plan
Buildout after Other
Pipeline Projects5
West Brisbane 765 -- -- 0
Total (City of Brisbane w/
Quarry) -- 2,965 10,341 -- 25,701
Total (City of Brisbane
w/o Quarry) -- 2,965 9,019 -- 24,379
Notes: s.f. = square feet

1. Baylands Specific Plan size and employees matches the EIR project description. The Baylands Specific Plan was not included in the Table 2 General Plan Buildout totals and therefore is shown separately from the other Pipeline Projects.

2. Sierra Point Towers employees based on 2022 project description from the project applicant.

3. Sierra Point Hotel and Life Science employees split based on discussion with City staff in 2022.

4. Guadalupe Quarry square feet per employee represents the upper range of potential employees at the project site based on information provided by the project applicant.

5. The remaining General Plan Buildout includes the total residential units and employees from Table 2 minus the pipeline projects presented in the above table. The remaining General Plan Buildout employees would be zero as the number of employees proposed as a part of the pipeline projects exceeds the number of employees anticipated in the Brisbane General Plan.

6. For Hotel uses, the values shown represent the number of rooms and the number of employees (based on the assumption of 1 employee per room). All other uses reported in 1,000 sf.

Source: Metis, Fehr & Peers. From Brisbane Baylands Transportation Impact Assessment (June 2024), Appendix B.4 Baylands EIR Master Cumulative Project List.
123
166
K.

Brisbane Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) Nexus Study
February 2025
8 Trip Generation
Once the land use assumptions were established, the trip generation associated with those land uses was calculated. The PM peak hour trip rates for each land use category were used since this period typically represents the highest trip generation of the day. Vehicle trip rates for the Brisbane Baylands EIR, Sierra Point project EIRs, and Guadalupe Quarry EIR will be used for those projects to reflect trip making behavior within the City of Brisbane, accounting for the TDM measures required by Brisbane Municipal Code 10.52. When updating the TIF Nexus Study, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip rates should be used for other land use categories if no locally appropriate trip rates are available.

Table 4 presents the PM Peak Hour trip generation for TIF land use categories.

Table 4: PM Peak Hour Trip Generation for TIF Land Use Categories Land Use
Baylands Sierra Point West Brisbane
Quantity Trip Rate Trips Quantity Trip Rate Trips Quantity Trip Rate Trips Residential 2,200 du 0.30 661 - - - 765 0.36 275
Office 6,397.8 ksf 0.55 3,519 1,182 ksf 0.85 1,008 - - - Retail 102.2 ksf 5.39 551 - - - - - -
Hotel 800 rooms 0.43 344 608 rooms 0.59 359 - - -
Life science /
R&D - - - 328.81 ksf 0.85 - - - -
Warehouse - - - - - - 1,322 ksf 0.16 205
Total - - 5,075 - - 1,367 - - 480
Notes: du = dwelling unit; ksf = 1,000 square feet
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2025. Vehicle trip rates derived from the Brisbane Baylands EIR, Sierra Point project EIRs, and Guadalupe Quarry EIR.

Infrastructure Inputs
A list of major transportation improvement projects in the City of Brisbane evaluated as part of the TIF is included in Table 5. These projects were identified based on review of past studies and coordination with the City of Brisbane. Attachment A includes cut sheets that summarize key attributes for each transportation improvement project that would be included in the TIF, including:
• Project ID
• Project name
• Project description
• Concept plans if available
• TIF district
• Total project cost estimate
124
167
K.

Brisbane Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) Nexus Study
February 2025
9 • Assumed TIF contribution
The transportation improvement projects are generally organized by complexity and how they relate together. The most complex is the Candlestick Interchange (also known as Harney Interchange) due to the shared regional funding agreements outlined in the 2013 Bi-County Study.6 This project is significant in scope and will require funding sources from multiple agencies. Further, the design and cost estimate for the Candlestick Interchange is over a decade old and subject to change. Therefore, the Candlestick Interchange has been separated from the baseline fee calculations in this nexus study. This approach accounts for the Candlestick Interchange based on the current cost estimate per the 2013 Bi-County Study while providing flexibility for future updates to the Bi-County study to update the scope and cost estimate for the Candlestick Interchange. The Geneva Avenue Extension and other transportation changes were included in the 2013 Bi-County study but are not included in this TIF as they are either part of project descriptions (e.g., the Geneva Avenue Extension is a part of the Baylands) or may no longer be required. Information supporting the assumed fee requirements of the nexus study is contained in Table

7.2 Cumulative Projects List of the Baylands Specific Plan EIR. 6 https://www.sfcta.org/projects/bi-county-transportation-study 125
168
K.

Brisbane Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) Nexus Study
February 2025
10 Table 5: Project List
ID Name Description Total Project
Cost
Assumed TIF
Contribution TIF District(s)
1 Candlestick
Interchange
Reconfiguration
The Candlestick Interchange
Reconfiguration would address deficient
conditions that would arise with land use
growth in both San Mateo and San
Francisco counties, and thus will require
significant coordination among several
jurisdictions, including the cities of Brisbane,
Daly City, San Francisco, and Caltrans.
$195,000,0001 $42,344,516
Baylands,
West Brisbane,
Sierra Point
2a
Bayshore
Corridor Mobility
Plan
The Bayshore Mobility Plan sets forth the
design plan for Bayshore Boulevard
required by Program C.1.b of the City of
Brisbane General Plan.
$10,000,0002 $8,532,096
Baylands,
West Brisbane,
Sierra Point
2b
Bayshore
Boulevard / San
Bruno Avenue
Signalization
The Bayshore Boulevard and San Bruno
Avenue Intersection Improvement is part of
the greater Bayshore Boulevard Mobility
Plan (see Project 2a), to accommodate
traffic and land use growth in West
Brisbane.
$850,0003 $850,000 West Brisbane
3a
Sierra Pt Pkwy /
Lagoon Road /
US 101
Southbound
Ramp
Roundabout
As documented in the Brisbane Baylands
Transportation Impact Assessment, a
roundabout is the preferred configuration
for the rebuilt intersection of Sierra Point
Parkway, Lagoon Road, and the U.S. 101
Southbound Ramp Terminal to reduce offramp queues from extending back onto the mainline with the addition of traffic
generated by the Baylands Specific Plan and
land use growth in Sierra Point.
$1,025,0002 $1,025,0003 Baylands,
Sierra Point
3b Sierra Point Bay
Trail Gap Closure
As documented in the Brisbane Baylands
Transportation Impact Assessment, with the
addition of the Bay Trail segment north of
Lagoon Road and the change in land uses
proposed by the Baylands Specific Plan and
in Sierra Point would create demand for
walking and bicycling travel along this
segment of Sierra Point Parkway.
$1,715,000 $1,715,000 Baylands,
Sierra Point
4a
Sierra Pt Parkway
/ Marina Blvd
(West) /
Shoreline Court
Roundabout
Operational and safety improvements to
the intersection Sierra Point Parkway /
Marina Boulevard (West) / Shoreline Court
to support the increase in multi-modal
travel associated with the increased density
of Sierra Point.
$3,280,000 $3,280,000 Sierra Point
126
169
K.

Brisbane Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) Nexus Study
February 2025
11 ID Name Description Total Project
Cost
Assumed TIF
Contribution TIF District(s)
4b
Sierra Pt Parkway
/ Marina Blvd
(East) / Shoreline
Court
Roundabout
Operational and safety improvements to
the intersection Sierra Point Parkway /
Marina Boulevard (East) to support the
increase in multi-modal travel associated
with the increased density of Sierra Point.
$2,000,000 $2,000,000 Sierra Point
4c
Sierra Point
Parkway
Terminus
Roundabout
Operational and safety improvements to
the terminus of the Sierra Point Parkway at
the Brisbane Marina driveways to support
the increase in multi-modal travel
associated with the increased density of
Sierra Point and facilitate vehicle access to
9000 Marina Boulevard.
$2,000,000 $2,000,000 Sierra Point
4d
Sierra Point
Internal MultiUse Pathway
Safety improvements to connect other
proposed Class 1 pathways to provide a
complete internal network for multi-modal
travel in support of the increased density of
Sierra Point.
$4,000,000 $4,000,000 Sierra Point
5 Parkside Precise
Plan: Park Lane
Implement Park Lane street section of the
Parkside Precise Plan to accommodate land
use changes.
$1,200,000 $1,200,000 West Brisbane
6 Parkside Precise
Plan: Old County
Road
Implement Old County Road street section
of the Parkside Precise Plan to
accommodate land use changes.
$100,000 $100,000 West Brisbane
7 Valley Drive
Improvements
Implement Valley Drive bicycle and
pedestrian improvements per the 2017
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan and the
findings from the Crocker Park Technical
Assistance Panel.
$3,000,0003 $3,000,000 West Brisbane
8 BPMP
Improvements
General fund for bicycle and pedestrian
improvements as identified in the BPMP.

Specific locations to be identified as part of
further study.
$1,132,0004 $1,132,000
Baylands,
West Brisbane,
Sierra Point

1. The Candlestick Interchange Project cost will change once a new Bi-County study is released. This value represents the full cost of the project. The cost of the project is shared with jurisdictions outside of the City of Brisbane per Table ES-3 of BiCounty Study. Access the 2013 Bi-County Study: https://ccag.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/BiCounty-FinalReport_.pdf

2. Project contributions to Projects 2a and 3a were calculated using a “select link” analysis as described in Fee Calculations and Application section. These projects will not be fully funded by the TIF program.

3. A signal or roundabout were identified as mitigation for land use growth in Sierra Point and Baylands to reduce vehicle queues from extending onto U.S. 101. Therefore, the full cost of this improvement is included in the TIF and assigned to development in these two TIF districts.

4. Cost estimate per email direction from Randy Breault in September and October 2024. 127
170
K.

Brisbane Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) Nexus Study
February 2025
12 Nexus Analysis and Fee Calculations
Assumptions
Cost Estimates
Individual project costs in Table 5 are presented in current year (2025) dollars. Once the fee program is adopted, inflation will be accounted for by escalating the individual fee rates annually per the Engineering News-Record’s Construction Cost Index. This is an industry standard approach for determining fee escalation and is used for other similar impact fee programs. Given that some of the projects have prior mitigations identified for the sites, the City of Brisbane will need to provide information about how much money was gathered for these mitigations to provide a credit for the new project cost estimate.

Existing Deficiencies
One of the key functions of a fee program is to charge fees to new development to fund new development’s proportional share of transportation improvements that are needed to serve the demand generated by new development. The purpose of an impact fee is not to correct existing deficiencies.

Therefore, it is necessary to determine whether there are existing deficiencies in the roadway network that may be related to or affected by those proposed projects, so that the deficiencies can be accounted for in the fee calculations.

To determine whether there exist any deficiencies within the facilities contained within the list of transportation improvement projects, available traffic operations analysis for each facility presented in Table 5 was compared against the local performance threshold. The traffic operations analyses are contained within recent EIR documents, including the Bayshore Baylands EIR and the Sierra Point Towers EIR. Based on our review of these documents, all facilities within the list of transportation improvement projects currently operate acceptably and there are no existing deficiencies that need to be accounted for in this nexus analysis.

Beyond the question of existing deficiencies, the available planning documents indicate that autooriented infrastructure within the Sierra Point TIF District is anticipated to become deficient in the future as the planned land use changes will increase multi-modal travel beyond what can be supported by the existing infrastructure. Automobile travel to and from Sierra Point will be constrained by the existing ramp terminal and the two-lane segment of Sierra Point Parkway under US 101; the multi-modal improvements included within this study will provide a complete network of low-stress bicycle and walking facilities, in addition to shuttle stops, to allow for travel by multiple modes into and out of Sierra Point. For this reason, intersections along Sierra Point Parkway that were originally planned to be signalized are now being designed to have roundabouts, and the cost difference between these planned improvements is assumed in this TIF study.
128
171
K.

Brisbane Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) Nexus Study
February 2025
13 Cost Attribution
To identify the proportion of project cost attributable to new development and thus eligible for inclusion in the TIF, two separate methodologies will be employed depending on project type. Table 6 summarizes these two approaches. For roadway projects, cost attribution will be based on projected vehicle trip usage of the new facilities. For multi-modal enhancement projects, cost attribution will be based on population and employment proportions.

Table 6: Cost Attribution by Project Type
Project Type Basis for cost attribution
Roadway projects (including interchanges, ramps,
roundabouts, intersections, and those roadways that
would be deficient with the land use change)
Proportion of vehicle trips assigned to each facility
(using select link function in the City of Brisbane subarea VISUM model) Multi-modal enhancements (including Bicycle and
Pedestrian Master Plan, Local Road Safety Plan, and Bay Trail projects)1
Proportion of future population and employment
contributed by new development
Notes:

1. Project 3b, the Sierra Point Bay Trail Gap Closure, has its fee split 50% / 50% between the Baylands and Sierra Point TIF districts. This reflects a shared benefit of the proposed Class I bike facility for Baylands residents and Sierra Point employees.

Source: Fehr & Peers.
129
172
K.

Brisbane Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) Nexus Study
February 2025
14 Fee Calculations and Application
The project cost estimates attributable to the TIF in Table 5 are distributed to individual TIF districts. The following projects have costs shared across multiple TIF districts:
• Project 1, the Candlestick Interchange Reconfiguration Project, has costs allocated to all three TIF districts per the proportional cost allocation in Table ES-3 of the 2013 Bi-County Study. • Project 2a, the Bayshore Corridor Mobility Plan, has costs allocated to all three TIF districts based on the number of trips generated by each TIF district in the 2040 Baylands Cumulative Plus Project PM submodel of the CCAG travel demand model. This information was obtained from the model using a “select link” procedure to track the usage of each facility by travelers crossing TIF district boundaries. This project is not fully funded through the TIF because other regional passthrough trips account for a share of the new trips that benefit from this project. • Project 3a, Sierra Point Parkway / Lagoon Road / US-101 Southbound Ramp Roundabout, has the full costs allocated between the Baylands and Sierra Point TIF districts as this project is called out as a mitigation measure in the EIR’s for development in these two districts to address LOS and queuing impacts. Similar to Project 2a, the costs are distributed between the two districts based on the 2040 Baylands Cumulative Plus Project PM submodel of the CCAG travel demand model. (Note to reviewer: Split is approximately 50/50 based on the model. We are confirming that this split includes both the planned and approved Sierra Point projects that originally created impacts and contributed money to improvements at this location.)
• Project 3b, the Sierra Point Bay Trail Gap Closure, has its fee split 50% / 50% between the Baylands and Sierra Point TIF districts. This reflects a shared benefit of the proposed Class I bike facility for Baylands residents and Sierra Point employees. The Baylands project will roughly double the number of residents living in Brisbane, meaning the employers in Sierra Point will draw a substantial number of their local employees from the Baylands area, and the residents, employees, and visitors of both districts will benefit from closing the gap in this regional trail.

Table 7 presents the summation of project costs eligible for inclusion in the TIF program by district.

Table 7: Total Project Costs Eligible for Inclusion in TIF Baylands Sierra Point West Brisbane
$40,524,004 $20,109,863 $10,544,745
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2025.

The total project costs in each TIF district shown in Table 7 were divided by the number of trips generated in that district to establish a cost per trip. The cost per trip was multiplied by the trip rate for each land use type within a TIF district to calculate the maximum TIF contribution for each land use (e.g., per square foot or per 1,000 square feet, or per dwelling unit, or per hotel room).

Table 8 presents the maximum fee rates for each land use category and TIF district. 130
173
K.

Brisbane Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) Nexus Study
February 2025
15 Table 8: Maximum Fees by TIF District and Land Use Category Land Use Category Baylands Sierra Point West Brisbane
Residential (Dwelling Unit) $2,399.14 - $7,897.93
Office (SF) $4.39 $10.41 -
Retail (SF) $43.05 - -
Hotel (Room) $3,433.56 $7,204.58 -
Warehouse/Quarry (SF) - - $3.41
Life Science (SF) - $10.41 -
Source: Fehr & Peers.

When comparing the fees across TIF districts, the fees in the Baylands TIF District are lower than those in the other districts because the Baylands TIF district contains significantly more development across which to distribute costs. It should be noted that the Brisbane Baylands project is also responsible for directly funding additional infrastructure improvements beyond those included in this TIF Nexus Study, such as the Geneva Avenue Roadway Extension and the Sierra Point Roadway Improvements.

The fees described in this report reflect maximum fees the City could adopt as part of the TIF. The City may choose to adopt fee amounts that are less than the maximum fees shown in this report; this may require additional funding sources to cover the costs for the projects in this nexus study. 131
174
K.

Brisbane Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) Nexus Study
February 2025
16 Summary of Required
Program Elements
This report provides a detailed discussion of the elements of the City of Brisbane Transportation Impact Fee program and explains the analytical techniques used to develop this nexus study. The report addresses the following fee program elements required by the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Section 66000 et seq), as summarized below.

Fundamental Nexus Requirements
Section 66001 contains several fundamental requirements that an agency must document when establishing or imposing an impact fee.

1. Identifying the purpose of the fee
The TIF program is established for the purpose of supporting local public infrastructure improvements and facilities needed to mitigate the traffic-related impacts of new development in the City of Brisbane.

2. Identifying how the fee will be used and the facilities to be funded through the fee The fee is used to help fund capital improvement projects that will accommodate future transportation needs throughout the City of Brisbane. Table 5 identifies the projects eligible to be funded through the fee.

3. Determining a reasonable relationship between the fee’s use and the type of development on which the fee is imposed
As described in this report, different types of development generate traffic with different characteristics. The maximum fee calculations presented in Table 8 account for these characteristics by calculating the travel-related characteristics of different land use types. These considerations account for the differential impacts on the transportation system generated by different development types.

4. Determining a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facility and the type of development on which the fee is imposed
The need for the facilities listed in Table 5 has been established through local and regional planning processes prepared by the City of Brisbane and member agencies of the Bi-County Study.
132
175
K.

Brisbane Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) Nexus Study
February 2025
17 5. Determining a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility (or portion of facility) attributable to new development This report describes the calculations applied to determine the cost of the public facility that is attributable to new development in the City of Brisbane, accounting for the effects of existing deficiencies. Thus, a reasonable effort has been made to quantitatively establish the relationship between the fees charged in the TIF program and the costs of public improvements attributable to new development within the City of Brisbane.

Additional Elements
Due to recent changes in state legislation, Section 66016.5 now defines several additional elements beyond the fundamental nexus requirements that have historically been part of the Mitigation Fee Act.

These additional elements include the following:
• If a nexus study supports the increase of an existing fee, review the assumptions of the nexus study supporting the original fee and evaluate the amount of fees collected under the original fee.

This Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) Nexus Study is the first in the City of Brisbane. Future updates should review its assumptions and evaluate the fees collected under the original fee. • Calculate a fee imposed on a housing development project proportionately to the square footage of proposed units of the development, or explain why that would not be an appropriate metric for calculating fees.

The nexus study fees on housing developments use one fee level for all unit types. Trip rates used to estimate trips generated from residential developments are based on the Baylands Environmental Impact Reports and its analysis which was conducted by Fehr & Peers. The average trip rate from the Baylands EIR assumes an average of 2.23 residents per unit, as allowed by the City of Brisbane’s Measure JJ (2018), which allows a maximum average population density of 2.23 residents per unit for the Baylands project.

The Mitigation Fee Act requires that there be a demonstrated relationship between the fee being charged to a new development and the level of demand that development places on public facilities and services. As described previously, the calculations presented in Table 8 account for these characteristics by calculating the travel-related characteristics of different land use types.

These considerations account for the differential impacts on the transportation system generated by different development types in different TIF districts. There is no available reference document that directly links trip generation rates to the square footage of a housing unit. Given the lack of readily available reference data about how the size of a housing unit might be related to the demand that unit would place on the transportation system, some agencies in California have undertaken statistical analyses to attempt to better understand that relationship. 133
176
K.

Brisbane Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) Nexus Study
February 2025
18 Several of these recent statistical analyses have found limited information available from which to derive conclusions. The analyses cite some sources of information that link trip generation rates to the number of people living in a housing unit, although those sources often present values that are averaged over large geographic areas and the results can differ substantially; for example, some analyses cite the 2017 National Household Travel Survey which indicates that a 4-person household in California generates 12.6 daily trips, while others cite a 2012 national report on Travel Demand Forecasting: Parameters and Techniques that indicates a 4-person household generates 16.1 daily trips. These analyses then estimate the relationship between the number of people living in a house and the square footage of the house using US Census data, and then combine those factors to estimate trip generation rates by house size.

An alternative approach has been taken in Western Riverside County, where an analysis was done based on actual trip generation rates and house size data collected from residential neighborhoods throughout that region. This locally-specific analysis found that single-family house size explained approximately one-half of the variation in trip generation rates, while the other half of the variation was related to other economic and demographic factors such as household income, number of residents with jobs, number of school-age children in the household, number of vehicles owned by the residents, and other factors. In addition, the relationship between single-family house size and trip generation rates was found to hold only for houses up to 2,500 square feet; for larger houses, the statistical relationship was much less strong.

No statistically significant relationship was found for multi-family developments.

In light of the lack of consistent and available sources of data to support conclusions about how housing units of varying sizes affect the transportation system, the Brisbane Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) Nexus Study has determined that square footage is not currently an appropriate metric to use in calculating fees on residential developments, nor is there substantial evidence that the current method of calculating fees is disproportionate to a residential development’s effects on the transportation system.
• In large jurisdictions, adopt a capital improvement plan as a part of the nexus study.

For this purpose, a large jurisdiction is defined as a county with a population of at least 250,000 and all the cities within that county, so the City of Brisbane would meet the definition of a large jurisdiction. The City of Brisbane regularly prepares a capital improvement program (CIP) to guide the expenditure of funds on capital improvements in the City. Before a particular project receives any funds from this TIF program, that project should be included in the City’s CIP and the amount of TIF funds allocated to the project should be identified. • Nexus studies must be updated at least every eight (8) years.

This nexus study and associated fee calculations will need to be updated by 2032-33. 134
177
K.

Attachment A:

Project Cut Sheets
135
178
K.

Candlestick Interchange Reconfiguration

BAYLANDS
1 TIF District
Shared - Baylands (primary), West
Brisbane, Sierra Point
Location
US-101 Candlestick Park Interchange
Total Project Cost Estimate
$ 195,000,000 (from 2013 Bi-County
Study)
Assumed TIF Contribution (from 2013
Bi-County Study)*
$ 42,344,516
$ 35,880,000 - Baylands
$ 1.284,467 - West Brisbane
$ 5,180,049 - Sierra Point
* Allocation of assumed TIF
contribution is based on proportional
cost responsibility per Table ES-3
“Cost-Participation Percentages
and Amounts, by Automobile Trip
Generation Method” in the Bi-County
Transportation Study.

The Candlestick Interchange Reconfiguration would address deficient conditions that would arise with land use growth in both San Mateo and San Francisco counties, and thus will require significant coordination among several jurisdictions, including the cities of Brisbane, Daly City, and San Francisco and Caltrans. The project includes a reconfiguration of the existing US-101 interchange at Candlestick Park/Harney Way to accommodate the extension of Geneva Avenue by the Baylands Specific Plan from its current terminus at Bayshore Boulevard, over Caltrain, and to a new access point from US-101 to Harney Way.

A 2013 Project Study Report (2013 PSR) by Caltrans and a 2015 Genera Avenue Interchange/Extension Baylands Direct Connector Study by Biggs Cardosa include the following components:
• Southbound ramps converge on existing intersection, off-ramp is new structure and on-ramp footprint remains the same
• Northbound ramps converge on new intersection, off-ramp uses existing footprint and on-ramp has a new structure
• BRT enters around southbound ramps
• Bridge over US-101 towards Beatty Ave (configuration not described) The project was evaluated in the Bi-County Transportation Study (2013) lead by the SFCTA and in partnership with several agencies from both sides of the San FranciscoSan Mateo county line, as a potential transportation improvement needed to address significant current and anticipated land use growth. The project has also been considered during the planning of the Candlestick Point-Hunters Point Shipyard and Schlage Lock (now Baylands North) master plans in San Francisco and Baylands in Brisbane. Conceptual designs of the project have been preapred as part of these studies and projects; however, given the time elapsed since prior studies, the interchange design would need to be updated to reflect the current land uses and design standards.

As further described Bi-County Transportation Study (2011), the funding strategy determined “fair-share” contributions from public and private entities involved in the study area. The project’s total estimated cost is $195,000,000, with Baylands responsible for $35,880,000, other proposed Brisbane TIF districts responsible for $21,840,000, and the remaining $137,280,000 shared across other jurisdictions, development projects, and stakeholders. Given the time elapsed since these estimates were prepared, updated cost estimates are recommended for the revised interchange design noted above.

Source: Geneva Ave Interchange/Extension Baylands Direct Connector Study (2015), Biggs Cardosa Associates, Inc.

WEST BRISBANE SIERRA PT

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

KEY INFORMATION
136
179
K.

Bayshore Corridor Mobility Plan 2a
TIF District
Shared - Baylands, West Brisbane,
Sierra Point
Location
Bayshore Boulevard (Brisbane)
Total Project Cost Estimate
$ 10,000,000
Assumed TIF Contribution*
$ 8,532,096
$ 2,476,433 - Baylands
$ 4,034,865 - West Brisbane
$ 2,020,799 - Sierra Point
* Allocation of assumed TIF
contribution is based on growth in
traffic volumes.

The Bayshore Mobility Plan sets forth
the design plan for Bayshore Boulevard
required by Program C.1.b of the City
of Brisbane General Plan. General Plan
Policy C.1 calls for the City’s roadway
system to be designed “to emphasize
mobility for Brisbane residents and
businesses, accommodate bicycle
and pedestrian in addition to
vehicular movement, and provide for
comfortable and safe travel within the
community to shopping, employment,
and recreation, as well as to transit
and the Highway 101 freeway.” The
Bayshore Mobility Plan consists of a
road diet, improved local access, and
Source: Bayshore Mobility Plan: Concept Design Recommendations (2024), Fehr & Peers

BAYLANDS WEST BRISBANE SIERRA PT

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

KEY INFORMATION
road safety improvements consistent
with the conceptual plans presented
in the Bayshore Mobility Plan:

Concept Design Recommendations
memorandum included as an
appendix to the Brisbane Baylands
Transportation Impact Assessment
Report. The Bayshore Mobility Plan
would address deficient conditions
that would occur due to the growth
in demand for multi-modal travel
resulting from the land use changes.

Given the citywide role of Bayshore
Boulevard for travel within Brisbane,
the funding for the Bayshore Mobility
Plan would be shared among the
three districts based on the percent of
vehicle traffic generated by the land
use growth on Bayshore Boulevard
from each district. This project would
be implemented in tandem with the
Baylands Specific Plan, which includes
access changes along Bayshore
Boulevard between Geneva Avenue in
the north and the future Campus Drive
intersection in the south.
137
180
K.

TIF District
West Brisbane
Location
Bayshore Boulevard / San Bruno
Avenue
Total Project Cost Estimate
$ 850,000
Assumed TIF Contribution*
$ 850,000 - West Brisbane
* Allocation of assumed TIF
contribution is based on growth in
traffic volumes.

The Bayshore Boulevard and San Bruno Avenue Intersection Improvement is part of the greater Bayshore Boulevard Mobility Plan (see Project 2a), to accommodate traffic and land use growth in West Brisbane. The project could be funded as part of Project 2a or could be funded separately as an interim improvement prior to implementation of the entire plan (with a credit applied to the rest of Project 2a). The mast arm at Bayshore/San Bruno was already completed as indicated in the TIF Contribution.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

KEY INFORMATION
Bayshore Boulevard / San Bruno Avenue Signalization 2b

WEST BRISBANE
Source: Bayshore Mobility Plan: Concept Design Recommendations (2024), Fehr & Peers Note: Figure shows the signal with Bayshore Mobility Plan in place. 138
181
K.

Sierra Pt Pkwy / Lagoon Road /
US 101 Southbound Ramp Roundabout 3a
TIF District
Baylands and Sierra Point
Location
US-101 Southbound Ramps, Sierra
Point Parkway, and Lagoon Road
Total Project Cost Estimate
$ 1,025,000
Assumed TIF Contribution*
$ 1,025,000
$ 512,500 - Baylands
$ 512,500 - Sierra Point
* Allocation of assumed TIF
contribution is based on growth in
traffic volumes. As documented in the Brisbane Baylands Transportation Impact Assessment, a roundabout is the preferred configuration for the rebuilt intersection of Sierra Point Parkway, Lagoon Road, and the U.S. 101 Southbound Ramp Terminal to reduce off-ramp queues from extending back onto the mainline with the addition of traffic generated by the Baylands Specific Plan and land use growth in Sierra Point. A roundabout would replace the traffic signal required as a part of TRAF-1 P3RE MMRP, with a credit for the $1,025,000 for design and construction costs already paid by the Sierra Pt LLC applicant .

A roundabout at this location will be completed in tandem with the realignment of Lagoon Road as proposed in the Baylands Specific Plan. The roundabout will require Caltrans approval and is expected to include the following features based on the Brisbane Baylands Transportation Impact Assessment:
• Two left turn lanes from westbound U.S. 101 Southbound Off-Ramp to southbound Sierra Point Parkway
• Two right turn lanes from northbound Sierra Point Parkway onto the U.S. 101 Southbound On-Ramp
• Taper down to one-lane in each direction on Sierra Point Parkway south of the roundabout
• One lane in each direction on Lagoon Road (west leg) and Sierra Point Parkway (north leg)
• Class 1 trail crossings for the Bay Trail across the north and west legs would include features that meet the design standards outlined in the Brisbane Baylands Transportation Impact Study: Supplemental Design Guidelines, which are based on Caltrans and Bay Trail standards.

Source: The Baylands Specific Plan (2023), Universal Paragon Corporation

BAYLANDS

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

KEY INFORMATION

SIERRA PT
139
182
K.

TIF District
Baylands and Sierra Point
Location
Sierra Point Parkway between Lagoon
Road and Marina Boulevard
Total Project Cost Estimate
$ 1,715,000
Assumed TIF Contribution*
$ 1,715,000
$ 857,500 - Baylands
$ 857,500 - Sierra Point
* The Sierra Point Bay Trail Gap
Closure, has its fee split 50% / 50%
between the Baylands and Sierra Point
TIF districts. This reflects a shared
benefit of the proposed Class I bike
facility for Baylands residents and
Sierra Point employees.

As documented in the Brisbane Baylands Transportation Impact Assessment, with the addition of the Bay Trail segment north of Lagoon Road and the change in land uses proposed by the Baylands Specific Plan and in Sierra Point would create demand for walking and bicycling travel along this segment of Sierra Point Parkway. With these land uses changes, this segment would represent a 1.2 mile deficient gap in the “all ages and abilities” network for people walking and bicycling, as identified by MTC’s Active Transportation Network and Bay Trail Plans, between the proposed pathways in Baylands and Sierra Point. A Bay Trail compliant Class I multi-use pathway on this segment would close this network gap and would allow commuter and recreational travelers to walk or bike safely between Bay Trail pathways at Sierra Point and the rest of the City of Brisbane and other nearby communities.

This Bay Trail segment would connect in the north to the proposed Class 1 multi-use pathways included in the Baylands Specific Plan south of Lagoon Road and east of the Sierra Point Parkway extension north of Lagoon Road. This connection is identified in the San Mateo County Comprehensive Bicycle Plan’s Backbone Network. In the north, the Bay Trail would cross Sierra Point Parkway and Lagoon Road on the north and west legs of the intersection, as described for Project 3a. In the south, the Bay Trail would travel under the U.S. 101 underpass on the west / south side of Sierra Point Parkway and connect to the Bay Trail and other multi-use pathways on the south and east legs of the U.S. 101 Northbound Ramp Terminal. Class 1 trail crossings would include features that meet the design standards outlined in the Brisbane Baylands Transportation Impact Study:

Supplemental Design Guidelines, which are based on Caltrans and Bay Trail standards.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

KEY INFORMATION
Sierra Point Bay Trail Gap Closure 3b BAYLANDS SIERRA PT Source: The Baylands Specific Plan (2023), Universal Paragon Corporation The Bay Trail Gap Closure would occur on
the west side of Sierra Point Parkway and
connect to other Bay Trail Segments and Class I
pathways.
140
183
K.

Sierra Pt Parkway / Marina Blvd (West) /
4a Shoreline Court Roundabout
TIF District
Sierra Point
Location
Sierra Point Parkway and Marina
Boulevard (West)
Total Project Cost Estimate
$ 3,280,000
Assumed TIF Contribution*
$ 3,280,000 - Sierra Point
* Allocation of assumed TIF
contribution is based on growth in
traffic volumes.

The Sierra Point Sub-Area includes operational and safety improvements to the intersection Sierra Point Parkway / Marina Boulevard (West) / Shoreline Court to support the increase in multimodal travel associated with the increased density of Sierra Point.

The project includes the installation of a dual-lane roundabout to address deficient future traffic operations with the build out of land uses in Sierra Point. This project replaces a previous proposal to signalize the intersection from the prior Sierra Point EIR (TRAF3 P3RE MMRP), with a credit for the $1,540,000 for design and construction costs already paid by the Sierra Pt LLC applicant .

The roundabout would improve traffic flow and multi-modal safety compared to the previously proposed signalized intersection by reducing vehicle speeds and crossing distances for people walking and bicycling. New Bay Trail connections would be provided through the roundabout to connect the existing Bay Trail segments in Sierra Point to the northwest and southeast of the intersection, Project 3b (Sierra Point Parkway Bay Trail Gap Closure), and Project 5 (Sierra Point Internal Multi-Use Pathway). Class 1 trail crossings would include features that meet the design standards outlined in the Brisbane Baylands Transportation Impact Study: Supplemental Design Guidelines, which are based on Caltrans and Bay Trail standards.

Source: City of Brisbane

SIERRA PT

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

KEY INFORMATION
141
184
K.

Sierra Pt Parkway / Marina Blvd (East) /
4b Shoreline Court Roundabout
TIF District
Sierra Point
Location
Sierra Point Parkway and Marina
Boulevard (East)
Total Project Cost Estimate
$ 2,000,000
Assumed TIF Contribution*
$ 2,000,000 - Sierra Point
* Allocation of assumed TIF
contribution is based on growth in
traffic volumes.

The Sierra Point Sub-Area includes operational and safety improvements to the intersection Sierra Point Parkway / Marina Boulevard (East) to support the increase in multi-modal travel associated with the increased density of Sierra Point. The project includes the installation of a single-lane roundabout to replace the existing all-way stop sign with four lane approaches on Sierra Point Parkway and Marina Boulevard. The roundabout and associated reduction from four to two lanes on Sierra Point Parkway and Marina Boulevard approaching the intersection would reduce vehicle speeds and crossing distances for people walking and bicycling. These would enhance the comfort and safety for people walking and bicycling within Sierra Point and thus encourage the replacement of vehicle trips with walking and bicycling trips. New Bay Trail connections would be provided through the roundabout on the north leg to connect Project 5 (Sierra Point Internal Multi-Use Pathway) with the pathway through the 9000 Marina Boulevard property to Project 4C (Sierra Point Parkway Terminus Roundabout). Class 1 trail crossings would include features that meet the design standards outlined in the Brisbane Baylands Transportation Impact Study: Supplemental Design Guidelines, which are based on Caltrans and Bay Trail standards.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2024

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

KEY INFORMATION

SIERRA PT
See Project 4c
142
185
K.

TIF District
Sierra Point
Location
Sierra Point Parkway at Brisbane
Marina
Total Project Cost Estimate
$ 2,000,000
Assumed TIF Contribution*
$ 2,000,000 - Sierra Point
* Allocation of assumed TIF
contribution is based on growth in
traffic volumes.

The Sierra Point Sub-Area includes operational and safety improvements to the terminus of the Sierra Point Parkway at the Brisbane Marina driveways to support the increase in multi-modal travel associated with the increased density of Sierra Point and facilitate vehicle access to 9000 Marina Boulevard. The project includes the installation of a single-lane roundabout to replace the existing all-way stop sign with right-turn channelized slip lanes. The roundabout, reduction from four to two lanes on Sierra Point Parkway, and reconfiguration of driveway access into the Brisbane Marina would simplify vehicle access while allowing vehicles to use the roundabout to access the proposed driveway and loading zones for 9000 Marina Boulevard. Reduced crossing distances for people walking and bicycling and a designated Class 1 connection would provide continuous access all the way from the Sierra Point Gateway to the Brisbane Marina and Bay Trail segment. These would enhance the comfort and safety for people walking and bicycling throughout Sierra Point and thus encourage the replacement of vehicle trips with walking and bicycling trips.

Class 1 trail crossings would include features that meet the design standards outlined in the Brisbane Baylands Transportation Impact Study: Supplemental Design Guidelines, which are based on Caltrans and Bay Trail standards.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

KEY INFORMATION
Sierra Point Parkway Terminus Roundabout 4c SIERRA PT
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2024
See Project 4b
143
186
K.

Sierra Point Internal Multi-Use Pathway
Sierra Point Parkway
Bayshore Freeway
Shoreline Court
Bayshore Boulevard
Marina Boulevard
Sierra Point Improvements
Figure 2
Existing Class I Trail
Existing Class II Bike Lane
Proposed Class I Trail
Proposed Class II Bike Lane
Proposed or Enhanced Pedestrian Crossing
Proposed On-Street Shuttle Stop
Proposed Roundabout
4d
TIF District
Sierra Point
Location
Sierra Point District
Total Project Cost Estimate
$ 4,000,000
Assumed TIF Contribution*
$ 4,000,000 - Sierra Point
* Allocation of assumed TIF
contribution is based on growth in
traffic volumes.

The Sierra Point Sub-Area includes safety improvements to connect other proposed Class 1 pathways to provide a complete internal network for multi-modal travel in support of the increased density of Sierra Point. This project includes the installation of a class 1 pathway around the central parcel of Sierra Point Parkway in coordination with the Sierra Point Towers project and high-visibility crosswalks with crossing enhancements consistent with those outlined in the Brisbane Baylands Transportation Impact Study:

Supplemental Design Guidelines. This would enhance the comfort and safety for people walking and bicycling throughout Sierra Point and thus encourage the replacement of vehicle trips with walking and bicycling trips.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

KEY INFORMATION

SIERRA PT
144
187
K.

TIF District
West Brisbane
Location
Park Lane between 145 Park Lane and
Old County Road
Total Project Cost Estimate
$ 1,200,000
Assumed TIF Contribution*
$ 1,200,000 - West Brisbane
* Allocation of assumed TIF
contribution is based on growth in
traffic volumes.

Implement Park Lane street section of the Parkside Precise Plan to accommodate land use changes:
• Maintain established street alignments.
• Within existing public rights-of-way, narrow the travel lanes and medians to allow excess width to be converted into bike lanes and/or sidewalks according to figure above
• Maintain existing curb edges and stormwater flowlines unless otherwise authorized by the City Engineer.
• Add bulb-outs along parking lanes. Landscaping bulbs in the parking lane may be considered at key locations if the adjacent parkway does not provide sufficient width for appropriate landscaping.
• Plant trees in the Brisbane Approved Street Tree List along all roadways to help articulate the street edge and open areas, provide pedestrians with a buffer from motorized traffic, and offer shade and wind protection along sidewalks and pathways • Require a clear, unobstructed contiguous, minimum eight-footwide ADA accessible boarding and unboarding area at all transit shelters
Source: Parkside Precise Plan (2017), City of Brisbane

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

KEY INFORMATION
Parkside Precise Plan: Park Lane
5 WEST BRISBANE
145
188
K.

TIF District
West Brisbane
Location
Old County Rd between San Francisco
Ave and Bayshore Blvd
Total Project Cost Estimate
$ 100,000
Assumed TIF Contribution*
$ 100,000 - West Brisbane
* Allocation of assumed TIF
contribution is based on growth in
traffic volumes.

KEY INFORMATION
Parkside Precise Plan: Old County Road 6 WEST BRISBANE
Implement Old County Road street section of the Parkside Precise Plan to accommodate land use changes:
• Maintain established street alignments.
• Within existing public rights-of-way, narrow the travel lanes and medians to allow excess width to be converted into bike lanes and/or sidewalks according to figure above
• Maintain existing curb edges and stormwater flowlines unless otherwise authorized by the City Engineer.
• Add bulb-outs along parking lanes. Landscaping bulbs in the parking lane may be considered at key locations if the adjacent parkway does not provide sufficient width for appropriate landscaping.
• Plant trees in the Brisbane Approved Street Tree List along all roadways to help articulate the street edge and open areas, provide pedestrians with a buffer from motorized traffic, and offer shade and wind protection along sidewalks and pathways • Require a clear, unobstructed contiguous, minimum eight-footwide ADA accessible boarding and unboarding area at all transit shelters
The Class II Bicycle Lanes are planned to be included in an upcoming repaving project, and therefore will be removed from the total cost (~$80,000).

Source: Parkside Precise Plan (2017), City of Brisbane

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
146
189
K.

TIF District
West Brisbane
Location
Valley Drive from Bayshore Blvd to
Silverspot Dr
Total Project Cost Estimate
$ 3,000,000
Assumed TIF Contribution*
$ 3,000,000 - West Brisbane
* Allocation of assumed TIF
contribution is based on growth in
traffic volumes.

Implement Valley Drive bicycle and pedestrian improvements per the 2017 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan and the findings from the Crocker Park Technical Assistance Panel. Improvements include the following:
• Install Class II bike lanes from Bayshore Blvd to Silverspot Dr • Extend existing median islands and pedestrian cages at Crocker Trail and City Hall
• Add median islands, pedestrian cages, and yield teeth at two existing locations
Source: Crocker Park Technical Assistance Panel (2014), City of Brisbane

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

KEY INFORMATION
Valley Drive Improvements 7

WEST BRISBANE
147
190
K.

Attachment B:

Updating Fees with Future Candlestick
Interchange Cost Estimate
148
191
K.

The Candlestick Interchange represents the largest project cost of the projects included in this TIF. Since the cost estimate for the Candlestick Interchange project will likely be updated in the future, this report also provides the fee calculations for each land use category and TIF district exclusive of the Candlestick Interchange project. This information can serve as the basis from which to calculate a revised maximum fee rate with an updated cost estimate for the Candlestick Interchange.

Table 9 presents the maximum fee rates for each land use category and TIF district, exclusive of the Candlestick Interchange Project. These fee rates are significantly lower than those presented in Table 8 because they exclude the Candlestick Interchange project, which represents the largest cost of the projects included in this TIF.

Table 9: Maximum Fee Calculations Without the Candlestick Interchange Project Land Use Category Baylands Sierra Point West Brisbane
Residential (Dwelling
Unit) $274.94 - $6,935.87
Office (SF) $0.50 $7.73 -
Retail (SF) $4.93 - -
Hotel (Room) $393.48 $5,348.77 -
Warehouse/Quarry (SF) - - $2.99
Life Science (SF) - $7.73 -
Source: Fehr & Peers
Should the City of Brisbane include an updated cost estimate for the Candlestick Interchange project in the TIF, the fees for all TIF districts will need to be revised since the costs for the Candlestick Interchange are distributed across all TIF districts.

To update the maximum fee values, use the values in Table 9 to perform the following calculations:

1. Determine each TIF District’s share of Candlestick Interchange costs: allocate the total cost (i.e., dollar value) of the Candlestick Interchange project to each Brisbane TIF district (Baylands, Sierra Point, West Brisbane).

2. Calculate the percentage of growth: Calculate the percentage of growth (e.g., ratio) for each TIF district that results from adding the fees for the Candlestick Interchange in Step 1 to the baseline total costs for each TIF district below. These values would replace the values presented in Table 7, and sum to the total cost for all projects excluding the Candlestick Interchange. ▪ Baylands: $4,644,004
▪ Sierra Point: $9,260,278
▪ West Brisbane: $14,929,824
149
192
K.

Calculate the percentage growth as:

𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝐶𝐶 𝐶𝐶 − 𝐵𝐵 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝐶𝐶 𝐶𝐶
𝐵𝐵 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝐶𝐶 𝐶𝐶
× 100

3. Adjust all fee categories in each TIF district: Apply the percentage of growth for each TIF district in Step 2 to all fee categories in the TIF district. For each fee category in the table (e.g., Residential, Office), apply the percentage growth calculated in Step 2. Multiply each fee by:
(1 + 𝑃𝑃 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑃𝑃 𝐺𝐺 ℎ)
Example: If the percentage growth is 10%, a $100 fee would increase to $110.

As previously stated, the fees described in this report reflect maximum fees the City could adopt as part of the TIF. The City may choose to adopt fee amounts that are less than the maximum fees shown in this report; this may require additional funding sources to cover the costs for the projects in this nexus study. 150
193
K.

Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
Final Report
October 10, 2025

151
194
K.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ S-1 Organization of the Report...............................................................................................S-1 Development Data ...........................................................................................................S-1 Impact Fee Analysis........................................................................................................... S1 Impact Fee Summary........................................................................................................S-3 Findings ............................................................................................................................S-4 Chapter 1. Introduction ......................................................................................................1-1 Purpose.............................................................................................................................1-1 Legal Framework for Impact Fees....................................................................................1-1 Recent Legislation ............................................................................................................1-5 Impact Fee Calculation Methodology ..............................................................................1-7 Impact Fees for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) ...........................................................1-8 Facilities Addressed in this Study .....................................................................................1-8 Chapter 2. Development Data.............................................................................................2-1 Study Area ........................................................................................................................2-1 Time Frame.......................................................................................................................2-1 Development Types..........................................................................................................2-1 Demand Variables............................................................................................................2-4 Demand Factors ...............................................................................................................2-8 Existing and Future Development....................................................................................2-8 Chapter 3. Library ...............................................................................................................3-1 Methodology ....................................................................................................................3-1 Service Area......................................................................................................................3-1 152
195
K.

Demand Variable..............................................................................................................3-1 Level-of-Service Standard ................................................................................................3-1 Existing Library Facility .....................................................................................................3-2 Impact Fees per Unit........................................................................................................3-3 Projected Revenue ...........................................................................................................3-3 Planned Improvements....................................................................................................3-3 Updating the Fees ............................................................................................................3-4 Nexus Summary................................................................................................................3-4 Chapter 4. General Government Facilities...........................................................................4-1 Methodology ....................................................................................................................4-1 Service Area......................................................................................................................4-1 Demand Variable..............................................................................................................4-1 Level-of-Service Standard ................................................................................................4-1 Existing General Government Facilities ...........................................................................4-2 Impact Fees per Unit........................................................................................................4-3 Projected Revenue ...........................................................................................................4-3 Planned Improvements....................................................................................................4-4 Updating the Fees ............................................................................................................4-4 Nexus Summary................................................................................................................4-4 Chapter 5. Police Department Facilities...............................................................................5-1 Methodology ....................................................................................................................5-1 Service Area......................................................................................................................5-1 Demand Variable..............................................................................................................5-1 Level-of-Service Standard ................................................................................................5-1 Existing Police Department Facilities...............................................................................5-2 153
196
K.

Impact Fees per Unit........................................................................................................5-3 Projected Revenue ...........................................................................................................5-4 Updating the Fees ............................................................................................................5-4 Planned Improvements....................................................................................................5-4 Nexus Summary................................................................................................................5-4 Chapter 6. Fire Department Facilities..................................................................................6-1 Methodology ....................................................................................................................6-1 Service Area......................................................................................................................6-1 Demand Variable..............................................................................................................6-1 Level-of-Service Standard ................................................................................................6-1 Planned Fire Department Facilities..................................................................................6-2 Impact Fees per Unit........................................................................................................6-3 Projected Revenue ...........................................................................................................6-4 Updating the Fees ............................................................................................................6-4 Planned Improvements....................................................................................................6-4 Nexus Summary................................................................................................................6-4 Chapter 7. Implementation.................................................................................................7-1 Adoption...........................................................................................................................7-1 Administration..................................................................................................................7-1 Requirements Imposed by AB 602...................................................................................7-5 Training and Public Information.......................................................................................7-6 154
197
K.

City of Brisbane Page S-1
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
October 10, 2025
Executive Summary
The City of Brisbane retained NBS Government Finance Group to prepare this study to analyze the impacts of new development on several types of City capital facilities and to calculate impact fees based on that analysis. The methods used in this study satisfy all legal requirements of the U. S. Constitution, the California Constitution and the California Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Sections 66000 et seq.).

Organization of the Report
Chapter 1 of this report provides an overview of the legal requirements for establishing and imposing such fees, and methods that can be used to calculate impact fees.

Chapter 2 contains data on existing and future development used in this report.

Chapters 3 through 6 analyze the impacts of development on specific types of facilities and calculate impact fees for those facilities. The facilities addressed in this report are listed by chapter below:

Chapter 3. Library
Chapter 4. General Government Facilities
Chapter 5. Police Department Facilities and Vehicles
Chapter 6. Fire Department Facilities, Apparatus and Vehicles Chapter 7 contains recommendations for adopting and implementing impact fees.

Development Data
Chapter 2 of this report presents estimates of existing development in Brisbane and a forecast of future development through buildout. Chapter 2 also establishes values for factors such as population per unit, service population per unit, and police and fire calls per unit that are used in the impact fee calculations.

It is important to note that because of some provisions of AB 602 that were incorporated into the Mitigation Fee Act, effective in 2022, impact fee categories for residential development in this study are defined in terms of unit-size categories, broken down by square footage ranges.

Prior to the adoption of AB 602 it was common practice to base residential impact fees on unit type categories (e.g., single-family or multi-family units).

Impact Fee Analysis
The impact fee analysis for each type of facility addressed in this report is presented in a separate chapter. In each case, the relationship, or nexus, between development and the need for a particular type of facility is defined in a way that allows the impact of additional development on facility needs to be quantified.
155
198
K.

City of Brisbane Page S-2
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
October 10, 2025
The impact fees are based on capital costs for facilities and other capital assets needed to mitigate the impacts of additional development. Impact fees may not be used for maintenance or operating costs. Impact fees calculated in this study are intended to recover only new development’s proportionate share of the cost of facilities. Costs for correcting existing deficiencies in City facilities must be funded by non-impact fee funds.

The following paragraphs briefly discuss the methods used to calculate impact fees for each of the facility types addressed in this study.

Library. Impact fees for library facilities in Chapter 3 are calculated using the existing inventory method discussed in Chapter 1, which means that the library impact fees are based on the existing level of service for those facilities in Brisbane. The existing level of service is defined as the replacement value of existing library facilities per capita of existing population.

To calculate that cost per capita, the estimated replacement cost for the existing library is divided by the existing population. That cost per capita is then multiplied by the estimated population per unit for each type of residential development defined in this study to get an impact fee per unit for each type of residential development. Because added population is associated with new residential development, the library impact fees apply only to residential development.

General Government. Impact fees general government facilities in Chapter 4 are calculated using the existing inventory method discussed in Chapter 1, which means that impact fees for general government facilities are based on the existing level of service for those facilities in Brisbane. The impact of development on the need for those facilities is represented by the added service population associated with new development in the City. The existing level of service is defined as the replacement cost of existing facilities per capita of existing service population.

To calculate that cost per capita, the estimated replacement cost for existing general government facilities is divided by the existing service population. That cost per capita is then multiplied by the estimated service population per unit for each type of development defined in this study to get an impact fee per unit for each type of development.

Police Facilities and Vehicles. The police impact fees in Chapter 5 are calculated using the existing inventory method discussed in Chapter 1, which means that impact fees for police facilities and vehicles are based on the existing level of service for those assets in Brisbane. The existing level of service is based on the replacement cost of the Police Department’s existing capital assets.

The impact of development on the need for those assets is represented by the added calls for service per year associated with various types of new development in the City. The replacement cost of existing Police Department capital assets is divided by the existing calls for service per year to get a cost per call for service per year.

As part of this study, NBS analyzed the distribution of Police Department calls for service for a full year to determine the average number of calls per unit per year generated by different types of development. The impact fees are calculated as the cost per call for service multiplied by the calls per unit per year associated with each type of development defined in this study. The police impact fees apply to all types of new development in the City. 156
199
K.

City of Brisbane Page S-3
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
October 10, 2025
Fire Station. Unlike the other impact fees calculated in this study, which use the existing inventory method, the fire impact fees in Chapter 6 are calculated using the planned facilities method. That method bases the impact fees on a forecast of future development to buildout along with the estimated cost of additional facilities, apparatus and vehicles needed to serve that future development.

The impact of new development on Fire Department facilities, apparatus and vehicles is represented in this study by the number of Fire Department calls for service per year generated by development in the City. As part of this study, NBS analyzed the distribution of fire calls for service for a full year to determine the average number of calls per unit per year generated by different types of development.

A cost per call for service per year is calculated by dividing the estimated cost of planned new Fire Department facilities, apparatus and vehicles by the projected number of calls for service per year generated by new development in the City to buildout. Then, an impact fee per unit is calculated by multiplying that cost per call by the number of calls for service per unit per year generated by each category of development defined in this study.

The reason that the fire impact fees are calculated using the system plan method is that the projected revenue from those fees is exactly equal to the cost of the new assets. In this case, impact fees calculated by either the existing inventory method or the system plan method would result in projected impact fee revenue that would exceed the cost of the new assets needed to serve future development.

Impact Fee Summary
Table S.1 shows the impact fees calculated in this report. Blank areas in the table indicate that some impact fees are not calculated for non-residential development.

Because Brisbane has no existing impact fees, there is no need to compare the proposed impact fees with any existing impact fees.

Table S.1: Summary of Proposed Impact Fees
Development
Type Units 1Library
General
Gov't Police Fire Total
Residential <800 Sq. Ft. Unit DU $ 1,944 $ 3,708 $ 395 $ 2,611 $ 8,658 Residential 800-1,200 Sq. Ft. Unit DU $ 3,791 $ 7,230 $ 621 $ 3,046 $ 14,688 Residential 1,200-2,100 Sq. Ft. Unit DU $ 5,734 $ 10,938 $ 847 $ 3,482 $ 21,001 Residential >2,100 Sq. Ft. Unit DU $ 7,678 $ 14,646 $ 1,073 $ 3,917 $ 27,314 Commercial KSF $ 3,795 $ 9,657 $ 5,566 $ 19,018
Hotel/Motel Room $ 2,201 $ 2,452 $ 2,305 $ 6,959
Office KSF $ 3,804 $ 186 $ 479 $ 4,469
Life Science/R&D KSF $ 3,369 $ 327 $ 1,523 $ 5,220
Industrial KSF $ 2,358 $ 2,811 $ 392 $ 5,561
Warehouse KSF $ 1,179 $ 570 $ 740 $ 2,489
1 DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area; Room = guest room or suite 157
200
K.

City of Brisbane Page S-4
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
October 10, 2025
The impact fees calculated in this report are the maximum amounts justified based on the data used to support the calculations. The City Council may choose to adopt impact any of the proposed impact fees at any level up to the amounts shown in Table S.1.

Findings
As discussed in Chapter 1 of this report, the Mitigation Fee Act (Govt. Code Section 66001) requires that in any action establishing, increasing, or imposing a fee as a condition of development approval, the local agency must do all of the following:

1. Identify the purpose of the fee.

2. Identify the use to which the fee is to be put (a capital improvement plan is now required for that purpose).

3. Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the fee’s use and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed.

4. Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facility and the type of development on which the fee is imposed.

5. When the fee is imposed as a condition of approval on a development project, determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility or portion of the public facility attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed.

In addition, as discussed in Chapter 2, we recommend that the City Council adopt the following findings pursuant to Government Code Section 66016.5(a)(5)(B) to justify the use of tiered square footage ranges for residential development in this study rather than a fixed fee-per-square-foot approach:

1. A fixed fee-per-square-foot approach would not reflect the actual impact of differentsized residential units on the facilities addressed in this study and would not meet the rough proportionality standard set forth in Dolan v. Tigard.

2. The use of tiered square footage ranges rather than a fixed fee per square foot approach better reflects the relationship between the fees charged and the actual burden imposed by various types of development.

3. Calculating impact fees for tiered square footage ranges rather than a fixed fee per square foot still ensures that smaller developments are not charged disproportionate fees because that approach allows the impact fees to be tailored to the actual impacts created by smaller developments, while protecting larger units from excessive fees. 158
201
K.

City of Brisbane Page 1-1
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
October 10, 2025
Chapter 1. Introduction
Purpose
The purpose of this study is to analyze the impacts of development on the need for certain capital facilities and other capital assets provided by the City of Brisbane and to calculate impact fees based on that analysis. This report documents the approach, data and methodology used in this study to calculate impact fees.

The impact fees calculated in this report are intended to satisfy all legal requirements governing such fees, including provisions of the U. S. Constitution, the California Constitution and the California Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Sections 66000-66025).

Legal Framework for Impact Fees
This brief summary of the legal framework for development fees is intended as a general overview. It was not prepared by an attorney and should not be treated as legal advice.

U. S. Constitution. Like all land use regulations, development exactions, including impact fees, are subject to the 5th Amendment prohibition on taking of private property for public use without just compensation. Both state and federal courts have recognized the imposition of impact fees on development as a legitimate form of land use regulation, provided the fees meet standards intended to protect against “regulatory takings.” A regulatory taking occurs when regulations unreasonably deprive landowners of property rights protected by the Constitution.

In two cases dealing with exactions, the U. S. Supreme Court has held that when a government agency requires the dedication of land or an interest in land as a condition of development approval or imposes exactions as a condition of approval on a development project, the agency must demonstrate an "essential nexus" between such exactions and the interest being protected (See Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 1987) and make an “individualized determination” that the exaction imposed is "roughly proportional" to the burden created by development (See Dolan v. City of Tigard, 1994). In April 2024, the U. S. Supreme Court ruled that Impact fees, even legislatively adopted impact fees, are subject to Nollan and Dolan.

Defining “Nexus.” The nexus required to justify exactions and impact fees can be thought of as having the three elements discussed below. We think proportionality is logically included as one element of that nexus, even though it was discussed separately in Dolan v. Tigard. The elements of the nexus discussed below mirror the three “reasonable relationship” findings required by the Mitigation Fee Act for establishment and imposition of impact fees.

1. Need or Impact. An agency imposing impact fees must demonstrate that a development project subject to those fees will create a need for the facilities to be funded by the impact fees.

All new development in a community creates additional demands on some or all public facilities provided by local government. If the capacity of facilities is not increased to satisfy the additional demand, the quality or availability of public services for the entire community will deteriorate. 159
202
K.

City of Brisbane Page 1-2
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
October 10, 2025
Impact fees may be used to recover the cost of development-related facilities, but only to the extent that the need for facilities is related to the development project subject to the fees.

The Nollan decision reinforced the principle that development exactions may be used only to mitigate impacts created by the development projects upon which they are imposed. In this study, the impact of development on facility needs is analyzed in terms of quantifiable relationships between various types of development and the demand for public facilities based on applicable level-of-service standards. This report contains all of the information needed to demonstrate compliance with this element of the nexus.

2. Benefit. An agency imposing impact fees must demonstrate that a development project subject to those fees will benefit from the facilities funded by the impact fees. With respect to the benefit relationship, the most basic requirement is that facilities funded by impact fees be available to serve the development paying the fees. A sufficient benefit relationship also requires that impact fee revenues be segregated from other funds and expended in a timely manner on the facilities for which the fees were charged. Nothing in the U.S. Constitution or California law requires that facilities paid for with impact fee revenues be available exclusively to development projects paying the fees.

Procedures for earmarking and expenditure of fee revenues are mandated by the Mitigation Fee Act, as are procedures to ensure that the fees are either expended in a timely manner or refunded. Those requirements are intended to ensure that developments benefit from the impact fees they are required to pay. Thus, over time, procedural issues as well as substantive issues can come into play with respect to the benefit element of the nexus.

3. Proportionality. An agency imposing impact fees must demonstrate that the amount of those fees is proportional to the impact created by development projects subject to the fees.

Proportionality in impact fees depends on properly identifying development-related facility costs and calculating the fees in such a way that those costs are allocated in proportion to the facility needs created by different types and amounts of development. The section on impact fee methodology, below, describes methods used to allocate facility costs and calculate impact fees that meet the proportionality standard.

California Constitution. The California Constitution grants broad police power to local governments, including the authority to regulate land use and development. That police power is the source of authority for local governments in California to impose impact fees on development. Some impact fees have been challenged on grounds that they are special taxes imposed without voter approval in violation of Article XIIIA. Impact fees calculated in this report do not exceed the cost of providing facilities needed to serve new development and, thus, are not special taxes requiring voter approval pursuant to Article XIIIA.

Articles XIIIC and XIIID, added to the California Constitution by Proposition 218 in 1996, require voter approval for some “property-related fees,” but exempt “the imposition of fees or charges, as a condition of property development.” Thus, impact fees are exempt from those requirements.

The Mitigation Fee Act. California’s impact fee statute originated in Assembly Bill 1600 during the 1987 session of the Legislature and took effect in January 1989. AB 1600 added several 160
203
K.

City of Brisbane Page 1-3
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
October 10, 2025
sections to the Government Code, beginning with Section 66000. Since that time, the impact fee statute has been amended from time to time, and in 1997 was officially titled the “Mitigation Fee Act.” Unless otherwise noted, code sections referenced in this report are from the Government Code.

The Mitigation Fee Act does not limit the types of capital improvements for which impact fees may be charged. It defines public facilities very broadly to include "public improvements, public services and community amenities." Although the issue is not specifically addressed in the Mitigation Fee Act, both case law and statute (see Government Code Section 65913.8) clarify that impact fees may not be used to pay for ongoing maintenance or operating costs. Consequently, the fees calculated in this report are based on the cost of capital assets only.

The Mitigation Fee Act does not use the term “mitigation fee” except in its official title. Nor does it use the common term “impact fee.” The Act simply uses the word “fee,” which is defined as “a monetary exaction, other than a tax or special assessment…that is charged by a local agency to the applicant in connection with approval of a development project for the purpose of defraying all or a portion of the cost of public facilities related to the development project ….” To avoid confusion with other types of fees, this report uses the widely accepted term “impact fee” which should be understood to mean “fee” as defined in the Mitigation Fee Act.

The Mitigation Fee Act contains requirements for establishing, increasing and imposing impact fees. They are summarized below. It also contains provisions that govern the collection and expenditure of fees and requires annual reports and periodic re-evaluation of impact fee programs. Those administrative requirements are discussed in the implementation chapter of this report.

Required Findings. Section 66001 (a) requires that an agency establishing, increasing or imposing impact fees, must make findings to:

1. Identify the purpose of the fee

2. Identify the use of the fee; and

3. Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between the use of the fee and the development type on which it is imposed

4. Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the facility and the type of development on which the fee is imposed In addition, Section 66001 (b) requires that in any action imposing a fee as a condition of approval of a development project by a local agency, the local agency shall determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility or portion of the public facility attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed.

The requirements outlined above are discussed in more detail below.

Identifying the Purpose of the Fees. The broad purpose of impact fees is to protect public health, safety and general welfare by providing for adequate public facilities. The specific purpose of the 161
204
K.

City of Brisbane Page 1-4
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
October 10, 2025
fees calculated in this study is to fund acquisition or construction of certain capital assets that will be needed to mitigate the impacts of planned new development on District facilities, and to maintain an acceptable level of public services as the District grows.

This report recommends that findings regarding the purpose of an impact fee should define the purpose broadly, as providing for the funding of adequate public facilities to serve additional development.

Identifying the Use of the Fees. According to Section 66001(a)(2), if a fee is used to finance public facilities, those facilities must be identified. A capital improvement plan may be used for that purpose but is not mandatory if the facilities are identified in a General Plan, a Specific Plan, or in other public documents. Section 66002 (b) requires that if a capital improvement plan is used to identify the facilities, it must be updated annually.

However, a new provision in Section 66016.5(a)(6), which was added by AB 602 in 2021, requires that large jurisdictions adopt a capital improvement plan as part of an impact fee study. That requirement applies to impact fee nexus studies adopted after January 1, 2022. “Large jurisdiction” means a county of 250,000 or more or any city within that county. Section 66002 (a) states that the capital improvement plan shall indicate the approximate location, size, time of availability and estimates of cost for all facilities or improvements to be financed with the fees.

That amendments contained in AB 602 appears to override the original language of Section 66001(a)(2), so that a capital improvement plan (CIP) is no longer optional. A CIP is now required for all new impact fee nexus studies adopted by large jurisdictions. The annual update requirement for the CIP appears to remain in effect.

Reasonable Relationship Requirement. As discussed above, Section 66001 requires that, for fees subject to its provisions, a "reasonable relationship" must be demonstrated between:

5. the use of the fee and the type of development on which it is imposed;

6. the need for a public facility and the type of development on which a fee is imposed; and,

7. the amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed.

Development Agreements and Reimbursement Agreements. The requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act do not apply to fees collected under development agreements (see Govt. Code Section 66000) or reimbursement agreements (see Govt. Code Section 66003). The same is true of fees in lieu of park land dedication imposed under the Quimby Act (see Govt. Code Section 66477).

Existing Deficiencies. In 2006, Section 66001(g) was added to the Mitigation Fee Act (by AB 2751) to clarify that impact fees “shall not include costs attributable to existing deficiencies in public facilities…” The legislature’s intent in adopting this amendment, as stated in the bill, was to codify the holdings of Bixel v. City of Los Angeles (1989), Rohn v. City of Visalia (1989), and Shapell Industries Inc. v. Governing Board (1991).

Section 66001(g) also states that impact fees “may include the costs attributable to the increased demand for public facilities reasonably related to the development project in order to (1) 162
205
K.

City of Brisbane Page 1-5
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
October 10, 2025
refurbish existing facilities to maintain the existing level of service or (2) achieve an adopted level of service that is consistent with the general plan.” (Emphasis added.) Impact Fees for Existing Facilities. Impact fees may be used to recover costs for existing facilities to the extent that those facilities are needed to serve additional development and have the capacity to do so. In other words, it must be possible to show that fees used to pay for existing facilities meet the need and benefit elements of the nexus. As a practical matter, such fees are difficult to implement unless the fees are needed to repay outstanding debt related to the facilities in question.

Recent Legislation
Several new laws enacted by the State of California since 2019 to facilitate development of affordable housing bear on the implementation of impact fees calculated in this study. Below are brief overviews of some key bills passed since 2019.

SB 330 – The Housing Crisis Act of 2019. SB 330 (amended and clarified in 2021 by SB 8) contained a variety of amendments designed to promote affordable housing. Among them was a provision in Government Code Section 65589.5 that prohibits the imposition of new approval requirements on a housing development project once a preliminary application has been submitted. That provision applies to increases in impact fees except when the resolution or ordinance establishing the fee authorizes automatic, inflationary adjustments to the fee or exaction. These provisions will remain in effect until January 1, 2030.

AB 1483 – Housing Data: Collection and Reporting (2019). AB 1483 added Section 65490.1 to the Government Code, and requires that a city, county or special district must post on its website a current schedule of its fees and exactions, as well as associated nexus studies and annual reports. Updates must be posted within 30 days.

SB 13 – Accessory Dwelling Units (2019). SB 13 amended Government Code Section 65852.2 to prohibit the imposition of impact fees on accessory dwelling units (ADUs) smaller than 750 square feet and to require that impact fees for ADUs of 750 square feet or more must be proportional to the square footage of the primary dwelling unit. The proportionality requirement means that impact fees for ADUs of 750 square feet or more must be calculated on a case-by-case basis during the approval process.

Existing law requires a water or sewer connection fee or capacity charge for an accessory dwelling unit requiring a new or separate utility connection to be based on either the accessory dwelling unit’s size or the number of its plumbing fixtures. SB 13 revises the basis for calculating the connection fee or capacity charge to either the accessory dwelling unit’s square feet or the number of its drainage fixture units.

AB 602 – Amendments to the Planning and Land Use Law and the Mitigation Fee Act (2021). AB 602 adds Section 65940.1 to the Planning and Land Use Law requiring cities, counties and special districts that have internet websites to post schedules of fees, exactions and affordability requirements, annual fee reports, and an archive of nexus studies on that website, and to update that information within 30 days after any changes.
163
206
K.

City of Brisbane Page 1-6
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
October 10, 2025
AB 602 also adds Section 66016.5 to the Mitigation Fee Act imposing several new requirements for impact fees that went into effect in 2022, including:
▪ A nexus study must identify the existing level of service for each facility, identify the proposed new level of service (if any), and explain why the new level of service is appropriate.
▪ If a nexus study supports an increase in an existing fee the local agency shall review the assumptions of the nexus study supporting the original fee and evaluate the amount of the fees collected under the original fee.
▪ Large jurisdictions (counties over 250,000 and cities within those counties) must adopt a capital improvement plan as part of the nexus study.
▪ All impact fee nexus studies shall be adopted at a public hearing with at least 30 days’ notice, and the local agency shall notify any member of the public that requests notice of intent to begin and impact fee nexus study of the date of the hearing. ▪ Nexus studies shall be updated at least every eight years, from the period beginning on January 1, 2022.
▪ A nexus study adopted after July 1, 2022, shall calculate a fee imposed on a housing development project proportionately to the square footage of proposed units in the development. A nexus study is not required to comply with this requirement if the local agency makes certain findings specified in the law. A local agency that imposes a fee proportionately to the square footage of units in the development shall be deemed to have used a valid method to establish a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the development.
▪ Authorizes any member of the public, including an applicant for a development project, to submit evidence that impact fees proposed by an agency fail to comply with the Mitigation Fee Act, and requires the legislative body of the agency to consider such evidence and adjust the proposed fee if deemed necessary.

AB 516 – Amendments to the Mitigation Fee Act (2023). AB 516, which took effect on January 1, 2024, amends Government Code Section 66006 to add certain requirements to the annual reports mandated by that section. Specifically, Section 66006 now requires that:
▪ Annual reports indicate whether construction on public improvements identified in previous annual reports began on the approximate date shown in the previous annual report; and,
▪ If a project failed to start construction on schedule, the annual report must explain the reason for the delay and provide a revised approximate date when construction will begin.

AB 516 also amends Section 66023 to provide that when a person requests an audit of a fee or charge levied by a local agency, that audit may address when revenue generated by that fee or charge is scheduled to be expended, and when the public improvement to be funded by that fee 164
207
K.

City of Brisbane Page 1-7
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
October 10, 2025
or charge is scheduled to be completed. Prior to this amendment, the only stated purpose of such an audit was to determine whether such a fee or charge exceeds the amount reasonably necessary to cover the cost of any product, public facility or service provided by the local agency.

Impact Fee Calculation Methodology
The methods used to calculate impact fees in this study are designed to comply with all of the legal requirements discussed earlier in this chapter. Any one of several legitimate methods may be used to calculate impact fees. The choice of a particular method depends primarily on the service characteristics of, and planning requirements for, the type of facility being addressed. To some extent those methods are interchangeable, because they all allocate facility costs in proportion to the needs created by development.

Allocating facility costs to various types and amounts of development is central to all methods of impact fee calculation. Costs are allocated by means of formulas that quantify the relationship between development and the need for facilities. In a cost allocation formula, the impact of development is represented by some attribute of development such as added population or added vehicle trips that represent the impacts created by different types and amounts of development.

Although it is not mandatory, this study adopts the nomenclature used in the Impact Fee Nexus Study Templates prepared by the Terner Center for Housing Innovation at UC Berkeley to describe impact fee calculation methods. Those templates were prepared for The California Department of Housing and Community Development pursuant to Section 50466.5 of the Health and Safety Code and are cited in AB 602.

Planned Facility Method. With this method, impact fees are calculated so that new development will pay for the planned expansion of facilities at the future standard attributable to new development. To calculate the cost per unit of demand, the cost of planned facilities is divided by the amount of demand that will be created by new development. The impact fees depend on the cost of planned future facilities and a plan for future development, so the fees should be recalculated if facility plans or development plans change.

Existing Inventory Method. With this method, impact fees are calculated so that new development will fund expansion of facilities at the same standard currently used to serve existing development. To calculate the cost per unit of demand, the value of existing facilities is divided by the amount of demand associated with existing development. This method allows impact fees to be calculated without a list of planned facilities, but such a list is required by AB 602 as part of a Capital Improvement Plan that must be adopted with any new impact fee nexus study. This approach can be used to calculate impact fees for many types of public facilities but is usually not appropriate for facilities such as transportation improvements or water, wastewater or drainage systems where improvement needs must be determined by engineering analysis.

System Plan Method. With this method, impact fees are calculated so that new development pays for its share of the cost of an integrated system of facilities at the future standard attributable to new development. To calculate the cost per unit of demand, the value of existing 165
208
K.

City of Brisbane Page 1-8
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
October 10, 2025
facilities plus the cost of planned facilities is divided by the combined demand associated with both existing development and planned development. This approach is especially appropriate for impact fees for fire protection and EMS facilities because new facilities must be planned to integrate geographically with existing facilities.

Impact Fees for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
SB 477, enacted in 2024, relocated and consolidated California’s ADU laws into a new Government Code Chapter (Chapter 13, Division 1, Title 7). Recent amendments to ADU law provide that impact fees may not be imposed on ADUs smaller than 750 square feet and establish the following requirement for impact fees imposed on ADUs of 750 square feet or more:
“Any impact fees charged for an accessory dwelling unit of 750 square feet or more shall be charged proportionately in relation to the square footage of the primary dwelling unit.”
The proportionality requirement depends on the square footage of both the primary unit and the ADU, which necessitates that impact fees for ADUs be calculated on a case-by-case basis.

Consequently, this report does not calculate a schedule of impact fees for ADUs. The formula for calculating proportional ADU impact fees is:

Primary unit impact fee X (ADU square feet / Primary unit square feet) Facilities Addressed in this Study
Impact/in-lieu fees for the following types of facilities are addressed in this report:
▪ Libraries
▪ General Government Facilities
▪ Police Facilities and Vehicles
▪ Fire Department Facilities, Apparatus and Vehicles
Each of those facilities is addressed in a separate chapter of this report, beginning with Chapter

3. Chapter 2 contains data on existing and future development used in the impact fee analysis. 166
209
K.

City of Brisbane Page 2-1
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
October 10, 2025
Chapter 2. Development Data
This chapter presents data on existing and future development that will be used to calculate impact fees in subsequent chapters of this report. The information in this chapter may be used to establish levels of service, analyze facility needs, and/or allocate the cost of capital facilities between existing and future development and among various types of new development.

Study Area
The study area for the City of Brisbane (City) in this study is the planning area defined in the City’s current General Plan which was adopted in 1994. That area encompasses both the existing City and the small Sphere of Influence consisting primarily of open space.

Time Frame
Planned future development in this study is forecasted to buildout of the remaining developable land in the City. The methods used to calculate impact fees in this study do not depend on the timing of future development.

Development Types
The development types for which impact fees are calculated in this report are discussed below.

Impact fees calculated in this report are intended to be applied based on actual land uses rather than zoning or general plan land use designations. For mixed use development projects, impact fees should be applied to each type of development within the project, consistent with the number of units of development of each type within the project.

Residential Development. Traditionally, impact fees for residential development are based on the type of unit, e.g., single-family, multi-family or mobile home. However, Government Code Section 66016.5(a)(5)(A) which was added to the Mitigation Fee Act by AB 602 in 2021 contains the following requirement:
“A nexus study adopted after July 1, 2022, shall calculate a fee imposed on a housing development project proportionately to the square footage of proposed units of the development. A local agency that imposes a fee proportionately to the square footage of the proposed units of the development shall be deemed to have used a valid method to establish a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the development”
But that requirement is not absolute. Section 66016.5(a)(5)(B) provides that a nexus study is not required to comply with Section 66016.5(a)(5)(A) if the local agency makes a finding that includes all of the following:

1. An explanation as to why square footage is not the appropriate metric to calculate fees imposed on a housing development project.

2. An explanation that an alternative basis of calculating the fee bears a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden imposed by the development.

3. That other policies in the fee structure support smaller developments or otherwise ensure that smaller developments are not charged disproportionate fees. 167
210
K.

City of Brisbane Page 2-2
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
October 10, 2025
The proportionality requirement in Section 66016.5(a)(5)(A) is often interpreted to mean that impact fees must have a linear relationship to unit square footage. That means the fees must increase by the same amount for every added square foot of unit size. Such a fee structure results in impact fees that are necessarily five times as high for a 3,000 square-foot single-family unit as for a 600 square apartment. That type of fee structure is justified only if the actual impact of a 3,000 square-foot unit is five times greater than the impact of a 600 square-foot unit.

Otherwise, the impact fees could violate the “rough proportionality” requirement set forth in the U. S. Supreme Court in Dolan v. Tigard [512 U. S. 374 (1994)]. The recent U. S. Supreme Court decision in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado [601 U. S. __ (2024)] made clear that Dolan applies to all impact fees, whether they are applied ad hoc or legislatively adopted.

This study uses several attributes of development, including added population, added police calls for service per year and added fire calls for service per year, to represent the impact of new development on different types of City facilities. We use those attributes to represent the demand created by various types of development for public services and the capital facilities and other capital assets needed to support those services.

What we see in analyzing patterns of service demand is that the relationship between unit size and service demand doesn’t conform to a linear model. While the potential for added population may be five times as great for the largest residential units compared with the smallest units, that increase is not linear. In the real world, population per unit does not increase in a tiny increment for each added square foot. It increases in a stairstep fashion, jumping from one person to two persons to three persons per unit and so on.

It is not feasible to get specific data on police and fire calls by unit size, but in our experience, the difference in the average number of police and fire calls-per-unit-per-year generated by singlefamily as opposed to multi-family residential units does not justify a flat impact fee per square foot. So, a fee structure that results in large units paying five times as much as small units would appear disproportionate to the actual demand created by units of different sizes for some types of facilities.

This study breaks down residential development into tiered square-feet-per-unit ranges and calculates an impact fee for each range or category. That approach allows impact fees to be graduated by unit size while avoiding the distortions that result from a rigid, fixed fee per square foot approach, and while respecting the need for rough proportionality between the fees and the impact of development as set forth in Dolan v. Tigard.

Based on the foregoing discussion, we propose that the City of Brisbane City Council adopt the following findings pursuant to Government Code Section 66016.5(a)(5)(B) to justify the use of tiered square footage ranges for residential development in this study rather than a fixed feeper-square-foot approach:

1. A fixed fee-per-square-foot approach would not reflect the actual impact of differentsized residential units on the facilities addressed in this study and would not meet the rough proportionality standard set forth in Dolan v. Tigard. 168
211
K.

City of Brisbane Page 2-3
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
October 10, 2025

2. The use of tiered square footage ranges rather than a fixed fee per square foot approach better reflects the relationship between the fees charged and the actual burden imposed by various types of development.

3. Calculating impact fees for tiered square footage ranges rather than a fixed fee per square foot still ensures that smaller developments are not charged disproportionate fees because that approach allows the impact fees to be tailored to the actual impacts created by smaller developments, while protecting larger units from excessive fees.

As discussed above, residential development categories are defined in this study by ranges of unit sizes rather than by unit types (e.g., single-family or multi-family) as is the case for the City’s existing impact fees. Unit-size ranges used to define residential development in this study are listed below.
▪ Residential <800 Square Feet per Unit
▪ Residential >800-1,200 Square Feet per Unit
▪ Residential <1,200-2,100 Square Feet per Unit
▪ Residential >2,100 Square Feet per Unit
Each of these unit-size ranges is typical of units with a certain number of bedrooms, ranging from studio and one-bedroom apartments up to single-family units with four or more bedrooms.

Non-Residential Development. Non-residential development types used in this study are:
▪ Commercial
▪ Hotel/Motel
▪ Office
▪ Life Science/R&D
▪ Industrial
▪ Warehouse
The impact fees calculated in this report are intended to be applied to development projects, or portions of projects, based on the actual type of development being constructed. Except for the Hotel/Motel category, which is measured in terms of guest rooms, the non-residential development types listed above are measured in terms of gross leasable floor area in thousands of square feet (KSF).

Public Facilities, Public Schools and Parks. In addition to the development types listed above, the development tables presented later in this chapter include public (government) facilities, public schools and parks. The City does not impose impact fees on those uses, either because of legal constraints or because it would be imposing the fees on itself, which serves no purpose.

However, those uses do create measurable impacts on some services, including law enforcement and fire protection/emergency medical services, and they are included in the impact fee analysis so that the impacts associated with those exempt uses can be distinguished from demand associated with fee-paying development types.
169
212
K.

City of Brisbane Page 2-4
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
October 10, 2025
Other types of Development. The development types for which impact fees are calculated in this study will encompass most new development in the City, but there may be some development projects that don’t fit very well within any of the established fee categories. In such cases, it is possible for City staff to calculate a project-specific impact fee at the time a project is approved.

For example, to calculate a customized police impact fee, it would be necessary to estimate the number of police calls for service per year that will be generated by the project, based on the number of calls generated by similar existing uses in the City. Then, that number would be multiplied by the cost per call calculated in this study to arrive at the police impact fee for the project. Customized impact fees for other facility types could be calculated in a similar manner.

Demand Variables
To calculate impact fees, the relationship between facility needs and development must be quantified in cost allocation formulas. Certain measurable attributes of development (for example, added population) are used as “demand variables” in those formulas to represent the impact of different types of development on various types of facilities.

Demand variables are selected either because they directly measure the service demand created by various types of development, or because they are reasonably correlated with that demand.

For example, the need for parks in a community is typically defined in terms of the relationship between population and acres of parks. As population grows, more parks are needed to maintain that relationship. Logically, then, the increase in population related to new residential development is an appropriate yardstick, or demand variable, for use in measuring the impact of development on the need for additional parks.

Demand variables have specific values for each type of development defined in this study. Those values may be referred to as “demand factors.” So, if the demand variable used to calculate impact fees for a particular type of facility is added population, the demand factor for a specific category of residential development would be the population per dwelling unit for that category.

Demand variables used in this study are discussed below. Specific demand factors can be found in Table 2.3.

Population. Population is used in this study as the demand variable for libraries. The need for those facilities is driven largely by the added population associated with residential development.

They are not impacted substantially by non-residential development. The specific population per unit factors used in this study are shown in Table 2.1, below and in Table 2.3 Table 2.1 shows the estimated average population per unit for each residential unit-size category.

The unit-size categories shown in Table 2.1 are based on the number of bedrooms per unit, as shown in American Community Survey (ACS) Table B25041, which also shows the number of units in each category. Average population per unit is assumed to increase with unit size. The estimated population per unit factors are adjusted using the overall average population per unit and total population as controls. The results are cross-checked against ACS Table B25001 which shows the mix of household sizes in the City.
170
213
K.

City of Brisbane Page 2-5
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
October 10, 2025
Service Population. Some types of City facilities are impacted by both residential and nonresidential development so population alone does not represent all of the impacts of development on those facilities. For facilities like City Hall, where the impact of development cannot be measured by a specific demand variable such as vehicles trips or police or fire calls for service, a variable called service population is commonly used to represent the impact of development.

Service population is a composite variable that includes both residents of the City and employees of businesses in the City. Resident population is included to represent the impacts of residential development. Employees are included to represent the impacts of non-residential uses, such as commercial, office and industrial development.

Because the impact of one new resident is not necessarily the same as the impact of one new employee, various components of the service population are weighted to reflect their relative impacts on demand for certain types of facilities.

Service population is intended to approximate the number of people creating the demand for service on an average day. It is difficult to estimate that number precisely for several reasons.

Some residents work in the City, some residents commute to work outside the City, and some residents don’t work at paid jobs. In addition, non-residents may be pre-sent in the City for work, shopping, recreation, or any number of other reasons.

In this study, residents are assigned a weight of 1.0. Our estimate of the average number of hours per week that residents spend in the City is based in part on an analysis of Census Bureau data on how many residents work in the city and how many commute to work outside the City. In addition, we assume the average resident spends eight hours a week outside the City for activities like shopping and recreation. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) data for 2022 show that about 60% of Brisbane residents aged 16 and over are employed, and that about 78% of employed residents work outside the City.

Table 2.1. Population per Unit by Unit Size
Unit Size No. of No. of % of Pop at 2.25 Est Pop Adjusted in Sq Ft 1
Bedrms Units 2Units per Unit 3
per Unit 4Pop 5
<800 0 or 1 557 26.3% 1,253 1.00 557
800-1,200 2 646 30.5% 1,454 1.95 1,260
>1,200-2,100 3 634 30.0% 1,427 2.95 1,870
>2,100 4+ 279 13.2% 628 3.95 1,102
Total/Average 2,116 100.0% 4,761 2.26 4,789
1 Estimated square-feet-per-unit ranges based on number of bedrooms 2 Distribution of units by number of bedrooms from American Community Survey (ACS) Table B25041, 2022 1-Year estimates
3 Population for all units in each square-footage range if all units were occupied by the overall average of 2.25 persons per unit
4 Estimated population per unit by NBS
5 Adjusted population = number of units X estimated population per unit 171
214
K.

City of Brisbane Page 2-6
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
October 10, 2025
Assuming that out-commuters spend 47.5 hours a week (9.5 hours per day) outside the City for work and commuting, and that all residents spend an average of eight hours a week outside the City for shopping and recreation leads us to the conclusion that out- commuters spend an average of 112.5 (168 - 47.5 - 8 = 112.5) hours per week in the City. Assuming other residents spend 160 (168 - 8 = 160) hours per week in the City, the weighted average for all residents is 141.5 hours per week in the City. Dividing that number by 168 hours per week gives us a weight of 0.842 for all residents (population) of the City.

Service population weights for employees associated with different types of development are based on estimates of the number of hours per week businesses of a certain type are in operation. This study assumes that retail and service commercial businesses operate 12 hours a day, 7 days a week (84 hours). For professional offices, industrial uses and public facilities, that number is estimated to be 45 hours (9 hours a day, 5 days a week). The weights assigned to employees of businesses associated with various types of non- residential development are based on the hours per week of operation divided by 168 total hours per week. The hours per week for each development as well as the weighting factor for each type of development are shown in Table 2.2, below. It should be noted that since all students in the K-12 Schools category are assumed to be residents of the City, the non-residential service population weight for that category is zero.

The service population weights shown in Table 2.2 are intended to allow a balanced allocation of costs among non-residential development types.

Finally, for simplicity, all of the service population base weights are normalized by dividing them by residential base weight of 0.842 so that the normalized weight for population equals 1.0 and weight for each of the non-residential components is increased proportionately. The resulting service population weights are shown in Table 2.2. Service-population-per-unit factors based on the normalized service population weights are shown in Table 2.3.

Table 2.2: Service Population Weights
Development Avg Hrs Total Hrs Base Svc Pop Normalized
Type per Wk 1per Week Weight 2Svc Pop Wt 3
Residential 141.5 168.0 0.842 1.000
Commercial/Retail 84.0 168.0 0.500 0.594
Hotel/Motel 84.0 168.0 0.500 0.594
Office 45.0 168.0 0.268 0.318
Life Science/R&D 45.0 168.0 0.268 0.318
Industrial 45.0 168.0 0.268 0.318
Warehouse 45.0 168.0 0.268 0.318
Public Facilities 45.0 168.0 0.268 0.318
1 Expected average hours per week of business operation 2 Base service population weight = average hours per week / total hrs per week 3 Service population weight normalized to residential service population weight = base population weight / residential base service population weight 172
215
K.

City of Brisbane Page 2-7
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
October 10, 2025
Police Calls for Service. Demand for police services is impacted by both residential and nonresidential development in the City. In this study, the number of police calls for service per unit per year is used to represent the demand for police services by various types of development. The calls-for-service factors used in this study are based on analysis by NBS of a random sample of all calls for service received by the City of Brisbane Police Department for a one-year period from April 1 2023 to March 31 2024.

During that period, the City of Brisbane Police Department logged about 15,500 calls. A random sample of 600 calls was classified by development type based on address or location. Calls that could not be associated with a particular type of development were excluded from the analysis.

The percentage of sampled calls associated with each type of development defined in this study was applied to the one-year count of calls to get the number of calls generated by each type of development for the year. The number of calls for each type of development was divided by the number of existing units for that type of development to arrive at the average number of calls per unit per year for that category.

Because it is not possible to determine individual call rates for residential units by square footage in the analysis of police calls for service, the overall average calls per unit per year for all residential units is used as the midpoint in estimating calls-for-service factors for the residential unit size categories used in this study and the factors are scaled up and down from that midpoint relative to unit size. The overall range of call rates from the smallest to the largest units is adjusted for consistency with the extent of differences in call rates for single-family and multi-family units.

Police calls per unit per year for each type of development defined in this study is shown in Table

2.3. Fire Authority Calls for Service per Year. Fire protection, emergency medical response and other services are provided in the City by the North County Fire Authority (NCFA), which also serves Daly City and Pacifica. Demand for the services provided by NCFA is impacted by both residential and non-residential development. In this study, the number of calls for service per unit per year from Brisbane to NCFA is used to represent the demand for fire protection and emergency response services by various types of development in the City. The calls-for-service factors used in this study are based on analysis by NBS of a random sample of all 2023 calls for service from the City of Brisbane to NCFA.

In 2023, NCFA logged about 600 calls for service in Brisbane. As part of this study, NBS analyzed a random sample of 400 of those calls and classified them by development type based on address.

Calls that could not be associated with a particular type of development were excluded from the analysis.

The percentage of sampled calls associated with each type of development defined in this study was applied to the total number of 2023 calls to get the full number of calls generated by that type of development for the year. Then, the number of calls per year was divided by the number of existing units for each type of development to arrive at the average number of calls per unit per year.
173
216
K.

City of Brisbane Page 2-8
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
October 10, 2025
Because it is not possible to determine individual call rates for residential units by square footage in the analysis of fire calls for service, the overall average calls per unit per year for all residential units is used as the midpoint in estimating calls for service factors for the unit size categories used in this study. The factors are scaled up and down from that midpoint relative to unit size. The overall range of call rates from the smallest to the largest units is adjusted for consistency with the extent of differences in call rates for single-family and multi-family units. Fire calls-per-unitper-year for each type of development defined in this study are shown in Table 2.3.

Demand Factors
Table 2.2 shows the values of demand factors used in this study for each type of development.

Existing and Future Development
Tables 2.4 through 2.6, beginning on the next page, present summaries of existing and future development by development type in Brisbane. Table 2.4 shows estimated existing development as of January 1, 2024.

Table 2.3: Demand Factors
Development Dev Pop per Employees Svc Pop PD Calls Fire Calls Type Units 1 Unit 2per Unit 3per Unit 4per Unit 5per Unit 6 Residential <800 Sq. Ft. Unit DU 1.00 1.00 0.70 0.120
Residential 800-1,200 Sq. Ft. Unit DU 1.95 1.95 1.10 0.140 Residential 1,200-2,100 Sq. Ft. Unit DU 2.95 2.95 1.50 0.160 Residential >2,100 Sq. Ft. Unit DU 3.95 3.95 1.90 0.180 Commercial KSF 1.72 1.02 17.11 0.256
Hotel/Motel Room 1.00 0.59 4.34 0.106
Office KSF 3.23 1.03 0.33 0.022
Life Science/R&D KSF 2.86 0.91 0.58 0.070
Industrial KSF 2.00 0.64 4.98 0.018
Warehouse KSF 1.00 0.32 1.01 0.034
Public Facilities KSF 3.00 0.95 4.78 0.105
Public Schools Students 1.36 0.006
Parks Acres 72.17 0.333
1 Units of development: DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area; Room = guest room or suite
2 See Table 2.1
3 Employees per unit provided by the City of Brisbane Community Development Department 4 Service population per unit estimated based on residents and employees weighted by factors in Table 1.2 5 Police Department calls for service per unit per year based on analysis of a random sample of all 2023 calls; calls for service rates for residential unit size categories based on the range of actual rates for single-family, multi-family and mobile home units
6 Fire Department calls for service per unit per year based on analysis of a random sample of all 2023 calls; calls for service rates for residential unit size categories based on the range of actual rates for single-family, multi-family and mobile home units
174
217
K.

City of Brisbane Page 2-9
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
October 10, 2025
Table 2.5, on the next page, shows projected future development in Brisbane to buildout.

Table 2.4: Existing Development as of January 2024
Development Dev Existing Existing Existing Existing Existing Existing Types Units 1Units 2Pop 2
Empl 3Svc Pop 4PD Calls 5Fire Calls 6
All Residential DU 2,076 4,645 4,645 3,414 323
Commercial KSF 125.1 216 128 2,140 32
Hotel/Motel Room 387 387 230 1,681 41
Office KSF 695.4 2,243 713 253 15
Life Science/R&D KSF 561.0 1,603 510 358 39
Industrial KSF 756.6 1,513 481 2,776 14
Warehouse KSF 4,356.4 4,356 1,385 3,237 148
Public Facilities KSF 85.3 256 81 408 9
Public Schools Students 337 459 2
Parks Acres 12.0 866 4
Total 4,645 10,574 8,174 15,592 627
1 Units of development: DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area; Room = guest room or suite;
2 Existing residential units and population from the California Department of Finance (DOF) 2024 E-5 report; existing hotel/motel rooms provided by the City of Brisbane; existing non- residential units provided by the Brisbane Community Development Department 3 Existing employees = existing units X employees per unit from Table 2.3 4 Existing service population = existing units X service population per unit from Table 2.3 5 Existing police department calls for service per year by development type based on analysis by NBS of a random sample of 2023 Brisbane Police Department calls for service 6 Existing fire department calls for service per year by development type based on analysis by NBS of a random sample of 2023 Brisbane Police Department calls for service 175
218
K.

City of Brisbane Page 2-10
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
October 10, 2025
Table 2.6 on the next page shows projected total development in Brisbane at buildout.

Table 2.5: Forecasted Future Development to Buildout
Development Dev Added Added Added Added Added Added
Types Units 1Units 2Pop 3Empl 4Svc Pop 5PD Calls 6Fire Calls 7 All Residential DU 3,003 6,607 6,607 4,474 480
Commercial KSF 140.0 241 143 2,395 36
Hotel/Motel Room 1,408.0 1,408 836 6,116 149
Office KSF 2,770.6 8,937 2,842 914 61
Life Science/R&D KSF 5,366.5 15,333 4,876 3,113 376
Industrial KSF (69.4) (139) (44) (346) (1)
Warehouse KSF 1,156.0 1,156 368 1,168 39
Public Facilities KSF 121.2 364 116 579 13
Public Schools Students 478.5 652 3
Parks Acres 17.0 1,230 6
Total 6,607 27,300 15,743 20,295 1,161
1 Units of development: DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area; Room = guest room or suite;
2 Added units estimated by the Brisbane Community Development Department; estimates include buildout of the Baylands Specific Plan Area; future units for Public Facilities, Public Schools and Parks assumed to increase at the same rate as population 3 Added population assumes an average of 2.2 occupants per added residential unit 4 Added employees = added non-residential units X employees per unit from Table 2.3 5 Added residential service population = added population; added non-residential service population = added non-residential units X service pop per unit from Table 2.3 6 Added Police Dept calls for service per year = added units X PD calls per unit from Table 2.3; added residential calls per year based on an average of 1.49 calls per unit 7 Added Fire Department calls for service per year = added units X Fire calls per unit from Table 2.3; added residential calls per year based on an average of 0.16 calls per unit 176
219
K.

City of Brisbane Page 2-11
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
October 10, 2025
The numbers presented in Tables 2.4 through 2.6 indicate that projected growth in the City between 2024 and buildout will represent large percentage increases of 142% in population and 258% in employment, mostly as a result of development in the Baylands Specific Plan Area. The impact fees calculated in this report are intended to pay for capital facilities and other capital assets needed by the City to serve that additional development.

Table 2.6: Buildout Development
Development Dev Buildout Buildout Buildout Buildout Buildout Buildout Types Units 1
Units 2Pop 2Empl 2Svc Pop 2PD Calls 2Fire Calls 2
All Residential DU 5,079 11,252 11,252 7,888 803
Commercial KSF 265.1 457 271 4,535 68
Hotel/Motel Room 1,795.0 1,795 1,066 7,797 190
Office KSF 3,466.0 11,181 3,556 1,167 76
Life Science/R&D KSF 5,927.5 16,936 5,386 3,471 415
Industrial KSF 687.2 1,374 437 2,430 12
Warehouse KSF 5,512.4 5,512 1,753 4,405 187
Public Facilities KSF 206.5 620 197 987 22
Public Schools Students 815.5 1,111 5
Parks Acres 29.0 2,096 10
Total 11,252 37,875 23,917 35,887 1,789
1 Units of development: DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area; Room = guest room or suite;
2 Figures in this table = the sum of the corresponding figures from the Tables 2.4 and 2.5 177
220
K.

City of Brisbane Page 3-1
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
October 10, 2025
Chapter 3. Library
This chapter calculates library impact fees for the City of Brisbane. The existing Brisbane Library is part of the San Mateo County library system. The City’s existing library is located at 163 Visitacion Avenue. It was funded by a number of sources including the City’s general fund, donations from library supporters, and a loan from the County.

Methodology
This chapter calculates impact fees using the existing inventory method discussed in Chapter 1.

With that method, impact fees are based on the existing level of service so that the impact fees will provide the funding needed to maintain the existing level of service as the City grows.

Service Area
Brisbane’s existing and future libraries will serve all residents of the City. The impact fees calculated in this chapter are intended to apply to all residential development in the City unless the fees for a project are limited by statute or established by a development agreement.

Demand Variable
A “demand variable” is a quantifiable attribute of development that is used in impact fee calculation formulas to represent the impact of development. The demand variable used to calculate impact fees for the library in this chapter is population.

Population is used for that purpose because the need for libraries is almost universally defined in terms of the population to be served. Because added population is associated with new residential development, the impact fees calculated in this chapter are intended to apply only to residential development.

Population per dwelling unit varies by development type, so the average population per unit is estimated for each residential unit size category defined in this study. Those individual population-per-unit factors are shown in Table 2.1 in Chapter 2 and are used in the library impact fee calculations in Table 3.3, later in this chapter.

Level-of-Service Standard
The level-of-service standard used in this study to calculate impact fees for libraries is the existing level of service. That level is defined as the replacement cost of the City’s existing library divided by the existing population, which results in a cost per capita. To calculate an impact fee per unit, that cost per capita is multiplied by the population per unit for each residential unit size category defined in this study.

In 2021, Section 66016.5 was added to the Mitigation Fee by Act AB 602. That section requires, after January 1, 2022, that the level of service used in an impact fee study must be compared 178
221
K.

City of Brisbane Page 3-2
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
October 10, 2025
with the existing level of service. If the level used in the impact fee study exceeds the existing level of service, an explanation is required.

Because the library impact fees calculated in this chapter are based on the existing level of service, those fees present no issue with respect to the statute.

Existing Library Facility
Table 3.1 shows key data about Brisbane’s existing library, including its current replacement cost which is combined with the land value of the library site to arrive at the impact fee cost basis.

The current principal balance of the loan from San Mateo County is deducted from the impact fee cost basis to reflect the City’s current equity in the library.

Table 3.2 divides the City’s net impact fee cost basis for the library by the City’s existing population to calculate the existing level of service in terms of a cost per capita.

In the next section, the cost per capita from Table 3.2 is used to calculate library impact fees per unit for each residential unit size range defined in this study.

Table 3.1: Existing Library Facilities
Building Site Facility Land Impact Fee
Facility Sq Feet 1Acres 2Repl Cost 3Value 4
Cost Basis 5
Brisbane Library 7,629 0.29 $ 8,977,520 $ 1,015,000 $ 9,992,520 Outstanding Balance on Loan from San Mateo County as of April 2025 $ (963,333) Total $ 9,029,187
1 Building square feet provided by the City of Brisbane 2 Site acres provided by the City of Brisbane
3 2020 construction cost provided by the City of Brisbane escalated 38% to 2024 cost using the California Construction Cost Index
4 Land value based on $3,500,000 per acre
5 Impact fee cost basis = facility replacement cost + land value Table 3.2: Library Existing Level of Service
Impact Fee Existing Cost per
Cost Basis 1 Population 2 Capita 3
$9,029,187 4,645 $1,943.85
1 See Table 3.1
2 See Table 2.4
3 Cost per capita = impact fee cost basis / existing
population
179
222
K.

City of Brisbane Page 3-3
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
October 10, 2025
Impact Fees per Unit
Table 3.3 shows the calculation of library impact fees per unit of residential development by unit size category. Those fees are calculated using the per-capita cost from Table 3.2 and population per unit factors from Table 2.1.

Projected Revenue
Table 3.4 projects potential revenue from the library impact fees. That projection is based on the cost per capita from Table 3.2 and the added population from Table 2.5.

The projected revenue shown in Table 3.4 assumes that future development in the City will occur as forecasted in Chapter 2. It does not account for limits on impact fees set by development agreements for some future projects.

Planned Improvements
Details regarding planned expenditure of the library impact fees can be found in the City’s Capital Improvement Plan.

Table 3.3: Impact Fees per Unit - Library
Development Cost per Population Impact Fee
Type Units 1
Capita 2 per Unit 3 per Unit 4
Residential <800 Sq. Ft. Unit DU $1,943.85 1.00 $ 1,943.85 Residential 800-1,200 Sq. Ft. Unit DU $1,943.85 1.95 $ 3,790.51 Residential 1,200-2,100 Sq. Ft. Unit DU $1,943.85 2.95 $ 5,734.36 Residential >2,100 Sq. Ft. Unit DU $1,943.85 3.95 $ 7,678.21 1 Units of development: DU = dwelling unit
2 See Table 3.2
3 See Table 2.3
4 Impact fee per unit = cost per capita X population per unit Table 3.4: Projected Revenue - Library Impact Fees
Development Added Cost per Projected
Type Population 1
Capita 2Revenue 3
All Residential 6,607 $1,943.85 $ 12,842,245
Total $ 12,842,245
1 See Table 2.5
2 See Table 3.2
3 Projected revenue = added population X cost per capita 180
223
K.

City of Brisbane Page 3-4
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
October 10, 2025
Updating the Fees
The impact fees calculated in this chapter are based on estimated current replacement costs for the for the existing library. We recommend that the fees be reviewed annually and adjusted as needed using the most current cost estimates. The City will be required to update the nexus study at least every eight years, per Government Code Section 66016.5(a)(8).

Nexus Summary
As discussed in Chapter 1 of this report, Section 66001 of the Mitigation Fee Act requires that an agency establishing, increasing or imposing impact fees, must make findings to:

Identify the purpose of the fee;
Identify the use of the fee; and,
Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between:
a. The use of the fee and the development type on which it is imposed; b. The need for the facility and the type of development on which the fee is imposed; and
c. The amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development project.

Satisfying those requirements also ensures that the fees meet the “rational nexus” and “rough proportionality” standards enunciated in leading court decisions bearing on impact fees and other exactions. (For more detail, see “Legal Framework for Impact Fees” in Chapter 1.) The following paragraphs explain how the impact fees calculated in this chapter satisfy those requirements.

Purpose of the Fee: The purpose of the impact fees calculated in this chapter is to provide additional library facilities to maintain the existing level of service for libraries in Brisbane.

Use of the Fee. Impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to pay for additional library facilities to serve new residential development in the City.

Reasonable Relationship between the Use of the Fee and the Development Type on Which It Is Imposed. The impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to pay for additional library facilities needed to serve additional residential development in Brisbane at the currently existing level of service in terms of the relationship between facility cost and population.

Reasonable Relationship between the Need for the Facilities and the Type of Development on Which the Fee Is Imposed. Added population associated with new residential development will increase the need for library facilities in Brisbane. The library impact fees will provide funding for additional library facilities needed to maintain the existing level of service for libraries in Brisbane.
181
224
K.

City of Brisbane Page 3-5
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
October 10, 2025
Reasonable Relationship between the Amount of the Fee and the Facility Cost Attributable to the Development Project. The amount of the library impact fees charged to a development project will depend on the increase in population associated with that project. The fees per unit of development calculated in this chapter for each type of residential development are based on the estimated average population per unit for that type of development in Brisbane. Thus, the fee charged to a development project reflects the impact of that project on the need for libraries in the City.
182
225
K.

City of Brisbane Page 4-1
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
October 10, 2025
Chapter 4. General Government Facilities
This chapter calculates impact fees for general government facilities in Brisbane, including City Hall, the City Hall Annex and the corporation yard.

Methodology
This chapter calculates impact fees using the existing inventory method discussed in Chapter 1.

With that method, impact fees are based on the existing level of service so that the impact fees will provide the funding needed to maintain the existing level of service as the City grows.

Service Area
Brisbane’s general government facilities serve all development in the City. The impact fees calculated in this chapter are intended to apply to all new development except new public facilities, unless the fees for a project are limited by statute or established by a development agreement.

Demand Variable
A “demand variable” is a quantifiable attribute of development that is used in impact fee calculation formulas to represent the impact of development. The demand variable used to calculate impact fees for the general government in this chapter is service population.

As discussed in Chapter 2, service population is used in cases where facilities serve both residential and non-residential development and there is no other single demand variable that better represents the demand created by development for a certain type of facility.

The residential component of service population is the same population used to calculate impact fees for facilities such as libraries, that only serve residential development. The non-residential component of service population is based on the number of employees associated with various types of non-residential development, but those employee numbers are weighted as discussed in Chapter 2. The service population per unit factors are shown in Table 2.3 and are used in Table

4.3 to calculate impact fees per unit for general government facilities.

Level-of-Service Standard
The level-of-service standard used in this study to calculate impact fees for general government facilities is the existing level of service. That level is defined as the replacement cost of the City’s existing general government facilities divided by the existing service population, which results in a cost per capita. To calculate an impact fee per unit, that cost per capita is multiplied by the service population per unit for each development type defined in this study.

In 2021, Section 66016.5 was added to the Mitigation Fee by Act AB 602. That section requires, after January 1, 2022, that the level of service used in an impact fee study must be compared with the existing level of service. If the level used in the impact fee study exceeds the existing level of service, an explanation is required.
183
226
K.

City of Brisbane Page 4-2
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
October 10, 2025
Because the general government facilities impact fees calculated in this chapter are based on the existing level of service, those fees present no issue with respect to the statute.

Existing General Government Facilities
Table 4.1 shows key data about Brisbane’s existing general government facilities, including its current replacement cost which is combined with the land value of the general government facilities sites to arrive at the impact fee cost basis. Outstanding debt related to existing facilities is deducted from the impact fee cost basis so that it reflects only the City’s equity in those facilities.

Table 4.2, on the next page, divides the City’s net impact fee cost basis for the general government facilities by the City’s existing service population to calculate the existing level of service in terms of a cost per capita of service population.

Table 4.1: Existing General Government Facilities
Building Site Facility Land Impact Fee
Facility Sq Feet 1
Acres 2Repl Cost 3Value 4Cost Basis 5
City Hall 18,025 1.04 $ 18,025,000 $ 3,634,750 $ 21,659,750 City Hall Annex 5,260 1.55 $ 5,500,000 $ 5,425,000 $ 10,925,000 Corp Yard Office/Shops/Storage 10,800 2.00 $ 5,158,000 $ 5,158,000 Outstanding Debt on City Hall/Police Building (City-Hall Share = 72%) $ (2,264,400) Outstanding Debt on City Admin Office Annex $ (5,170,000) Total 34,085 4.59 $ 28,683,000 $ 9,059,750 $ 30,308,350 1 Building square feet provided by the City of Brisbane is the share of the combined City Hall/Police building occupied by City Hall
2 Site acres provided by the City of Brisbane; City Hall share of site for combined City Hall/Police building estimated by NBS at 67% of the total 1.55 acre site 3 Facility replacement cost provided by the City of Brisbane 4 Land value based on $3,500,000 per acre
5 Impact fee cost basis = facility replacement cost + land value; outstanding debt from City Hall/ Police Station remodeling/expansion = City Hall portion (72%) of principal balance on 2014 bonds; City Hall share of debt based on share of building square feet; outstanding debt on City Hall Annex renovation = principal balance on 2023 bonds; outstanding debt provided by the City of Brisbane Finance Department
Table 4.2: Existing Level of Service - General Government Impact Fee Existing Service Cost per
Cost Basis 1 Population 2Capita 3
$30,308,350 8,174 $3,707.90
1 See Table 4.1
2 See Table 2.4
3 Cost per capita = impact fee cost basis / existing service population
184
227
K.

City of Brisbane Page 4-3
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
October 10, 2025
In the next section, the cost per capita from Table 4.2 is used to calculate impact fees per unit for general government facilities for each type of development defined in this study.

Impact Fees per Unit
Table 4.3 shows the calculation of impact fees per unit for general government facilities. Those fees are calculated using the per-capita cost from Table 4.2 and service population per unit factors from Table 2.1.

Projected Revenue
Table 4.4 projects potential revenue from the general government impact fees. That projection is based on the cost per capita from Table 4.2 and the added service population from Table 2.5.

Table 4.3: Impact Fees per Unit - General Government Facilities Development
Type Units 1
Cost per
Capita 2
Svc Pop
per Unit 3
Impact Fee
per Unit 4
Residential <800 Sq. Ft. Unit DU $3,707.90 1.00 $ 3,707.90 Residential 800-1,200 Sq. Ft. Unit DU $3,707.90 1.95 $ 7,230.41 Residential 1,200-2,100 Sq. Ft. Unit DU $3,707.90 2.95 $ 10,938.31 Residential >2,100 Sq. Ft. Unit DU $3,707.90 3.95 $ 14,646.22 Commercial KSF $3,707.90 1.02 $ 3,795.10
Hotel/Motel Room $3,707.90 0.59 $ 2,201.16
Office KSF $3,707.90 1.03 $ 3,803.84
Life Science/R&D KSF $3,707.90 0.91 $ 3,369.12
Industrial KSF $3,707.90 0.64 $ 2,358.38
Warehouse KSF $3,707.90 0.32 $ 1,179.19
Public Facilities KSF $3,707.90 0.95 $ 3,537.58
1 Units of development: DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area; Room = guest room or suite
2 See Table 4.2
3 Service population per unit; see Table 2.3
4 Impact fee per unit = cost per capita X service population per unit Table 4.4: Projected Revenue - General Gov't Impact Fees Development Added Svc Cost per Projected
Type Population 1Capita 2Revenue 3
All Development 15,628 $3,707.90 $ 57,945,959
Total $ 57,945,959
1 See Table 2.5; added service population in this table does not include added service population generated by public facilities 2 See Table 4.2
3 Projected revenue = added service population X cost per capita 185
228
K.

City of Brisbane Page 4-4
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
October 10, 2025
The projected revenue shown in Table 4.4 assumes that future development in the City will occur as forecasted in Chapter 2. It does not account for limits on impact fees set by development agreements for some future projects.

Planned Improvements
Details regarding expenditure of the general government impact fees can be found in the City’s Capital Improvement Plan.

Updating the Fees
The impact fees calculated in this chapter are based on estimated current replacement costs for the City’s existing general government facilities. We recommend that the fees be reviewed annually and adjusted as needed using the most current cost estimates. The California Cost Index, published by the Department of General Services and the Engineering News Record Building Cost Index (BCI) can be useful for indexing construction costs over time. The City will be required to update the nexus study at least every eight years, per Government Code Section 66016.5(a)(8).

Nexus Summary
As discussed in Chapter 1 of this report, Section 66001 of the Mitigation Fee Act requires that an agency establishing, increasing or imposing impact fees, must make findings to:

Identify the purpose of the fee;
Identify the use of the fee; and,
Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between:
a. The use of the fee and the development type on which it is imposed; b. The need for the facility and the type of development on which the fee is imposed; and
c. The amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development project.

Satisfying those requirements also ensures that the fees meet the “rational nexus” and “rough proportionality” standards enunciated in leading court decisions bearing on impact fees and other exactions. (For more detail, see “Legal Framework for Impact Fees” in Chapter 1.) The following paragraphs explain how the impact fees calculated in this chapter satisfy those requirements.

Purpose of the Fee: The purpose of the impact fees calculated in this chapter is to provide additional general government facilities to maintain the existing level of service for general government facilities in Brisbane.

Use of the Fee. Impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to pay for additional general government facilities to serve new development in the City. 186
229
K.

City of Brisbane Page 4-5
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
October 10, 2025
Reasonable Relationship between the Use of the Fee and the Development Type on Which It Is Imposed. The impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to pay for additional general government facilities needed to serve additional development in Brisbane at the currently existing level of service in terms of the relationship between facility cost and service population.

Reasonable Relationship between the Need for the Facilities and the Type of Development on Which the Fee Is Imposed. Added service population associated with new development will increase the need for general government facilities in Brisbane. The general government facilities impact fees will provide funding for additional general government facilities needed to maintain the existing level of service in Brisbane.

Reasonable Relationship between the Amount of the Fee and the Facility Cost Attributable to the Development Project. The amount of the general government facilities impact fees charged to a development project will depend on the increase in service population associated with that project. The fees per unit of development calculated in this chapter for each type of development are based on the estimated average service population per unit for that type of development in Brisbane. Thus, the fee charged to a development project reflects the impact of that project on the need for general government facilities in the City. 187
230
K.

City of Brisbane Page 5-1
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
October 10, 2025
Chapter 5. Police Department Facilities
This chapter calculatesimpact fees for Police Department facilities in Brisbane. Brisbane currently has one police station which shares a building with City Hall.

Methodology
This chapter calculates impact fees using the existing inventory method discussed in Chapter 1.

With that method, impact fees are based on the existing level of service so that the impact fees will provide the funding needed to maintain the existing level of service as the City grows.

Service Area
Brisbane’s Police Department facilities serve all development in the City. The impact fees calculated in this chapter are intended to apply to all new development except for public facilities, unless the fees for a project are limited by statute or established by a development agreement.

Demand Variable
A “demand variable” is a quantifiable attribute of development that is used in impact fee calculation formulas to represent the impact of development. The demand variable used to calculate impact fees for Police Department facilities in this chapter is police calls for service per year.

The police calls-per-unit-per-year factors used to calculate impact fees for police facilities are shown in Table 2.3 in Chapter 2 and are used in Table 5.4 in this chapter to calculate impact fees per unit for each type of development defined in this study.

Level-of-Service Standard
The level-of-service standard used in this study to calculate impact fees for Police Department facilities is the existing level of service. That level is defined as the replacement cost of the City’s existing Police Department facilities divided by the existing number of calls per year, which results in a cost per call. To calculate impact fee per unit, by development type, that cost per call is multiplied by the number of calls per unit per year for each development type defined in this study.

In 2021, Section 66016.5 was added to the Mitigation Fee by Act AB 602. That section requires, after January 1, 2022, that the level of service used in an impact fee study must be compared with the existing level of service. If the level used in the impact fee study exceeds the existing level of service, an explanation is required.

Because the impact fees for Police Department facilities calculated in this chapter are based on the existing level of service, those fees present no issue with respect to the statute. 188
231
K.

City of Brisbane Page 5-2
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
October 10, 2025
Existing Police Department Facilities
Table 5.1 shows key data about Brisbane’s existing police station, including its current replacement cost which is combined with the land value of the Police Department’s share of the City Hall/police station site to arrive at the impact fee cost basis. The police station’s share of outstanding debt related to existing facilities is deducted from the impact fee cost basis so that it reflects only the City’s equity in the existing facility.

Table 5.2 shows an inventory of the Brisbane Police Department’s vehicle fleet. The replacement cost of those vehicles will be included in the cost basis for the impact fees calculated in this chapter. Leased vehicles are not considered in this analysis.

Table 5.1: Existing Police Department Facilities
Building Site Facility Land Impact Fee
Facility Sq Feet 1Acres 2Repl Cost 3Value 4
Cost Basis 5
Police Facility 7,056 0.51 $ 7,056,000 $ 1,790,250 $ 8,846,250 Outstanding debt on City Hall/Police Station (Police Bldg share = 28%) $ (915,195) $ 7,931,055
1 Building square feet provided by the City of Brisbane is the share of the combined City Hall/Police building occupied by the Police Department 2 Site acres provided by the City of Brisbane; Police Dept share of site for combined City Hall/Police building estimated by NBS at 33% of the total 1.55 acre site 3 Facility replacement cost provided by the City of Brisbane 4 Land value based on $3,500,000 per acre
5 Impact fee cost basis = facility replacement cost + land value; outstanding debt from City/Hall Police Station remodeling/expansion = Police Station portion (28%) of the principal balance on the 2014 bonds; Police Station share of debt based on share of building square feet; outstanding debt provided by the City of Brisbane Finance Dept.

Table 5.2: Existing Police Department Vehicles and Equipment No. of Model Repl Cost Impact Fee
Units Year Make Model Assignment per Unit 1Cost Basis 2 3 2020 Chevrolet Tahoe Patrol $ 84,040.00 $ 252,120.00
1 2015 Ford Explorer Patrol $ 76,551.00 $ 76,551.00
2 2017 Ford Explorer Patrol $ 76,551.00 $ 153,102.00
1 2023 Chevrolet Tahoe Patrol $ 87,314.00 $ 87,314.00
1 2020 Ford Explorer Chief $ 56,164.00 $ 56,164.00
1 2019 Ford F150 CSO $ 69,761.00 $ 69,761.00
2 2021 Harley Road King Traffic Motor $ 39,786.00 $ 79,572.00 16 Sworn Officer Personal Safety Equipment $ 6,041.00 $ 96,656.00 Total $ 871,240.00
1 Vehicle cost per unit includes equipment
2 Impact fee cost basis = number of units X replacement cost per unit 189
232
K.

City of Brisbane Page 5-3
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
October 10, 2025
Table 5.3 divides the combined impact fee cost basis for Police Department facilities and vehicles by the number of existing calls for service to calculate the existing level of service in terms of a cost per call for service per year.

In the next section, the cost per call from Table 5.3 is used to calculate impact fees per unit for Police Department facilities for each type of development defined in this study.

Impact Fees per Unit
Table 5.4 shows the calculation of impact fees per unit for Police Department facilities. Those fees are calculated using the per-capita cost from Table 5.3 and calls-per-unit-per-year factors from Table 2.3.

Table 5.3: Existing Level of Service - Police Facilities Impact Fee Existing Calls Cost per
Cost Basis 1 for Service 2Call 3
$8,802,295 15,592 $564.54
1 Impact fee cost basis = sum of impact fee cost basis from Table

5.1 and Table 5.2
2 See Table 2.4
3 Cost per call = impact fee cost basis / existing calls for service per year
Table 5.4: Impact Fees per Unit - Police Facilities
Development
Type Units 1
Cost per
Call 2
Calls
per Unit 3
Impact Fee
per Unit 4
Residential <800 Sq. Ft. Unit DU $564.54 0.70 $ 395.18
Residential 800-1,200 Sq. Ft. Unit DU $564.54 1.10 $ 620.99 Residential 1,200-2,100 Sq. Ft. Unit DU $564.54 1.50 $ 846.81 Residential >2,100 Sq. Ft. Unit DU $564.54 1.90 $ 1,072.62 Commercial KSF $564.54 17.11 $ 9,657.19
Hotel/Motel Room $564.54 4.34 $ 2,452.17
Office KSF $564.54 0.33 $ 186.30
Life Science/R&D KSF $564.54 0.58 $ 327.43
Industrial KSF $564.54 4.98 $ 2,811.41
Warehouse KSF $564.54 1.01 $ 570.18
Public Facilities KSF $564.54 4.78 $ 2,699.20
1 Units of development: DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area; Room = guest room or suite
2 See Table 5.3
3 Police calls per unit; see Table 2.3
4 Impact fee per unit = cost per call X calls per unit
190
233
K.

City of Brisbane Page 5-4
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
October 10, 2025
Projected Revenue
Table 5.5 projects potential revenue from the police impact fees. That projection is based on the cost per call from Table 5.3 and the calls per unit per year from Table 2.5.

The projected revenue shown in Table 5.5 assumes that future development in the City will occur as forecasted in Chapter 2. It does not account for limits on impact fees set by development agreements for some future projects.

Updating the Fees
The impact fees calculated in this chapter are based on estimated current replacement costs for the City’s existing Police Department facilities. We recommend that the fees be reviewed annually and adjusted as needed using the most current cost estimates. The City will be required to update the nexus study at least every eight years, per Government Code Section 66016.5(a)(8).

The California Cost Index, published by the Department of General Services and the Engineering News Record Building Cost Index (BCI) can be useful for indexing construction costs over time.

The City will be required to update the nexus study at least every eight years, per Government Code Section 66016.5(a)(8).

Planned Improvements
Details regarding expenditure of the police impact fees can be found in the City’s Capital Improvement Plan.

Nexus Summary
As discussed in Chapter 1 of this report, Section 66001 of the Mitigation Fee Act requires that an agency establishing, increasing or imposing impact fees, must make findings to:

Identify the purpose of the fee;
Identify the use of the fee; and,
Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between:
a. The use of the fee and the development type on which it is imposed; Table 5.5: Projected Revenue - Police Impact Fees
Development Added Calls Cost per Projected
Type For Service 1
Call 2Revenue 3
All Development 17,834 $564.54 $ 10,068,024
Total $ 10,068,024
1 See Table 2.5; added calls for service in this table do not include calls generated by public facilities, public schools or parks 2 See Table 5.3
3 Projected revenue = added calls for service X cost per call 191
234
K.

City of Brisbane Page 5-5
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
October 10, 2025
b. The need for the facility and the type of development on which the fee is imposed; and
c. The amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development project.

Satisfying those requirements also ensures that the fees meet the “rational nexus” and “rough proportionality” standards enunciated in leading court decisions bearing on impact fees and other exactions. (For more detail, see “Legal Framework for Impact Fees” in Chapter 1.) The following paragraphs explain how the impact fees calculated in this chapter satisfy those requirements.

Purpose of the Fee: The purpose of the impact fees calculated in this chapter is to provide additional Police Department facilities and vehicles to maintain the existing level of service for those facilities in Brisbane.

Use of the Fee. Impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to pay for additional Police Department facilities and vehicles to serve new development in the City.

Reasonable Relationship between the Use of the Fee and the Development Type on Which It Is Imposed. The impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to pay for additional Police Department facilities and vehicles needed to serve new development in Brisbane at the currently existing level of service in terms of the relationship between facility cost and calls for service per year.

Reasonable Relationship between the Need for the Facilities and the Type of Development on Which the Fee Is Imposed. Added calls for service associated with new development will increase the need for Police Department facilities and vehicles in Brisbane. The police impact fees will provide funding for additional Police Department facilities and vehicles needed to maintain the existing level of service in Brisbane.

Reasonable Relationship between the Amount of the Fee and the Facility Cost Attributable to the Development Project. The amount of the police impact fees charged to a development project will depend on the increase in calls for service associated with that project. The fees per unit of development calculated in this chapter for each type of development are based on the estimated average calls per unit per year for that type of development in Brisbane. Thus, the fee charged to a development project reflects the impact of that project on the need for Police Department facilities and vehicles in the City.
192
235
K.

City of Brisbane Page 6-1
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
October 10, 2025
Chapter 6. Fire Department Facilities
This chapter calculates impact fees for Fire Department facilities, apparatus and vehicles in Brisbane. Fire protection and emergency response services in Brisbane are provided by the North County Fire Authority (NCFA). Brisbane currently has one fire station which is owned by the City and operated by NCFA. The City and NCFA are planning to construct one additional fire station to serve future development in the City.

Methodology
Unlike the other impact fees calculated in this report, the fire impact fees are calculated using the planned facilities method discussed in Chapter 1. With that method, impact fees are based on the cost of providing additional facilities, apparatus and vehicles needed to serve new development.

The reason that the fire impact fees are calculated using the planned facilities method instead of the existing inventory method used to calculate other impact fees in this study is that impact fees based on the existing inventory method would generate impact fee revenue in excess of the cost of the planned future fire station with its new apparatus and vehicles. NBS also calculated fire impact fees based on the system plan method and found the same to be true in terms of projected impact fee revenue exceeding the cost of planned improvements.

Service Area
Brisbane’s Fire Department facilities serve all development the City. The impact fees calculated in this chapter are intended to apply to all new development except for public facilities, unless the fees for a project are limited by statute or established by a development agreement.

Demand Variable
A “demand variable” is a quantifiable attribute of development that is used in impact fee calculation formulas to represent the impact of development. The demand variable used to calculate impact fees for Fire Department facilities in this chapter is fire calls for service per year.

The fire calls-per-unit-per-year factors used to calculate impact fees for Fire Department facilities in this chapter are shown in Table 2.3 in Chapter 2 and are used in Table 6.4 in to calculate impact fees per unit for each type of development defined in this study.

Level-of-Service Standard
The level-of-service standard used in this study to calculate impact fees for Fire Department facilities is the relationship between the estimated cost of the City’s planned new fire station and its associated apparatus and vehicles and the number of additional calls for service per year that will be generated by future development in the City to buildout. That level of service is defined as a cost per call for service, calculated by dividing the estimated cost of the new fire station and 193
236
K.

City of Brisbane Page 6-2
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
October 10, 2025
associated assets by the projected number of calls for service per year to be generated by new development between 2025 and buildout of available land in Brisbane.

This level of service standard is consistent with the use of the planned facilities method discussed in the Methodology section above
In 2021, Section 66016.5 was added to the Mitigation Fee by Act AB 602. That section requires, after January 1, 2022, that the level of service used in an impact fee study must be compared with the existing level of service. If the level used in the impact fee study exceeds the existing level of service, an explanation is required.

In fact, the level-of-service standard discussed above is lower than the existing level of service in terms of cost per call for service, so the impact fees calculated in this chapter present no issue with respect to the statute. The cost per call shown in Table 6.3 on the next page is $21,759.45, whereas the cost per call for the existing level of service based on the value of existing assets and existing calls for service would be $31,080.39.

Planned Fire Department Facilities
Table 6.1 shows key data about Brisbane’s planned future fire station, including estimated cost costs for land and construction. The impact fee cost basis in Table 6.1 is the sum of the land and construction costs.

Table 6.2 on the next page lists the new apparatus and vehicles that will be needed to equip the new fire station. The cost of the additional apparatus and vehicles will be included in the cost basis for the impact fees calculated in this chapter. Table 6.2 also includes the cost of firefighter personal protective equipment for additional firefighters needed to staff a second fire station.

Table 6.1: Planned Future Fire Department Facilities
Building Site Facility Land Impact Fee
Facility Sq Feet 1Acres 2
Constr Cost 3Cost 4Cost Basis 5
Baylands Station 12,000 1.50 $ 14,400,000 $ 5,250,000 $ 19,650,000 1 Building square feet provided by North County Fire Authority 2 Site acres provided by North County Fire Authority
3 Facility construction cost based on $1,200 per square foot 4 Land value based on $3,500,000 per acre
5 Impact fee cost basis = facility replacement cost + land value Table 6.2: Future Fire Station Apparatus, Vehicles and Equipment Replacement Impact Fee
Units Description Cost per Unit 1Cost Basis 3
1 Ladder Truck $ 3,000,000 $ 3,000,000
1 Type 1 Engine $ 1,700,000 $ 1,700,000
2 Administrative Vehicle $ 100,000 $ 100,000
18 Personal Protective Equipt $ 45,662 $ 821,916
Total $ 5,621,916
194
237
K.

City of Brisbane Page 6-3
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
October 10, 2025
Table 6.3 divides the combined impact fee cost from Tables 6.1 and 6.2 by the projected increase in fire calls for service per year to arrive at a cost per call for service per year.

In the next section, the cost per call from Table 6.3 is used to calculate impact fees per unit for additional Fire Department facilities and other capital assets needed to serve projected future development in Brisbane. Impact fees are calculated for each type of development defined in this study.

Impact Fees per Unit
Table 6.4 showsthe calculation of impact fees per unit for planned new Fire Department facilities, apparatus and vehicles. Those fees are calculated using the cost per call from Table 6.3 and fire calls-for-service-per-unit per year factors from Table 2.1.

Table 6.3: Cost per Call per Year - Planned Fire Dept. Facilities/Equipment Cost Impact Fee Added Calls Cost per
Component Cost Basis 1 for Service 2Call 3
Planned Facilities $ 19,650,000 1,161 $ 16,918.91
Future Station Apparatus, Vehicles, Equipt $ 5,621,916 1,161 $ 4,840.54 Total $ 25,271,916 1,161 $ 21,759.45
1 See Tables 6.1 and 6.2
2 See Table 2.5
3 Cost per call = impact fee cost basis / added calls for service per year Table 6.4: Impact Fees per Unit - Fire Department Facilities Development
Type Units 1
Cost per Call
2 Fire Calls
per Unit 3
Impact Fee
per Unit 4
Residential <800 Sq. Ft. Unit DU $21,759.45 0.12 $ 2,611.13 Residential 800-1,200 Sq. Ft. Unit DU $21,759.45 0.14 $ 3,046.32 Residential 1,200-2,100 Sq. Ft. Unit DU $21,759.45 0.16 $ 3,481.51 Residential >2,100 Sq. Ft. Unit DU $21,759.45 0.18 $ 3,916.70 Commercial KSF $21,759.45 0.26 $ 5,565.97
Hotel/Motel Room $21,759.45 0.11 $ 2,305.27
Office KSF $21,759.45 0.02 $ 478.71
Life Science/R&D KSF $21,759.45 0.07 $ 1,523.16
Industrial KSF $21,759.45 0.02 $ 391.67
Warehouse KSF $21,759.45 0.03 $ 739.82
Public Facilities KSF $21,759.45 0.11 $ 2,294.94
1 Units of development: DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area; Room = guest room or suite
2 See Table 6.3
3 Fire Calls per unit; see Table 2.3
4 Impact fee per unit = cost per call X calls per unit
195
238
K.

City of Brisbane Page 6-4
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
October 10, 2025
Projected Revenue
Table 6.5 projects potential revenue from the fire impact fees. That projection is based on the cost per call from Table 6.3 and the calls per unit per year from Table 2.5.

The projected revenue shown in Table 6.5 is equal to the cost of the planned new fire station and its associated apparatus and vehicles. The projected revenue calculation assumes that future development in the City will occur as forecasted in Chapter 2. It does not account for limits on impact fees set by development agreements for some future projects.

Updating the Fees
The impact fees calculated in this chapter are based on estimated costs for the City’s planned future Fire Department facilities, apparatus and vehicles. We recommend that the fees be reviewed annually and adjusted as needed using the most current cost estimates. The City will be required to update the nexus study at least every eight years, per Government Code Section 66016.5(a)(8). The California Cost Index, published by the Department of General Services and the Engineering News Record Building Cost Index (BCI) can be useful for indexing construction costs over time. The City will be required to update the nexus study at least every eight years, per Government Code Section 66016.5(a)(8).

Planned Improvements
Details regarding expenditure of the fire impact fees can be found in the City’s Capital Improvement Plan.

Nexus Summary
As discussed in Chapter 1 of this report, Section 66001 of the Mitigation Fee Act requires that an agency establishing, increasing or imposing impact fees, must make findings to:

Identify the purpose of the fee;
Identify the use of the fee; and,
Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between:

Table 6.5: Projected Revenue - Fire Impact Fees
Development Added Calls Cost per Projected
Type for Service 1Call 2
Revenue 3
All Development 1,140 $21,759.45 $ 24,808,440
Total $ 24,808,440
1 See Table 2.5; added calls for service in this table do not include calls generated by public facilities, public schools or parks 2 See Table 6.3
3 Projected revenue = added service population X cost per capita 196
239
K.

City of Brisbane Page 6-5
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
October 10, 2025
a. The use of the fee and the development type on which it is imposed; b. The need for the facility and the type of development on which the fee is imposed; and
c. The amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development project.

Satisfying those requirements also ensures that the fees meet the “rational nexus” and “rough proportionality” standards enunciated in leading court decisions bearing on impact fees and other exactions. (For more detail, see “Legal Framework for Impact Fees” in Chapter 1.) The following paragraphs explain how the impact fees calculated in this chapter satisfy those requirements.

Purpose of the Fee: The purpose of the impact fees calculated in this chapter is to provide additional Fire Department facilities apparatus and vehicles to maintain the existing level of service for those facilities in Brisbane.

Use of the Fee. Impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to pay for additional Fire Department facilities, apparatus and vehicles to serve new development in the City.

Reasonable Relationship between the Use of the Fee and the Development Type on Which It Is Imposed. The impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to pay for additional Fire Department facilities, apparatus and vehicles needed to serve new development in Brisbane at the currently existing level of service in terms of the relationship between facility costs and calls for service per year.

Reasonable Relationship between the Need for the Facilities and the Type of Development on Which the Fee Is Imposed. Added calls for service associated with new development will increase the need for Fire Department facilities, apparatus and vehicles in Brisbane. The fire impact fees will provide funding for additional Fire Department facilities, apparatus and vehicles needed to serve planned future development in Brisbane.

Reasonable Relationship between the Amount of the Fee and the Facility Cost Attributable to the Development Project. The amount of the fire impact fees charged to a development project will depend on the increase in calls for service associated with that project. The fees per unit of development calculated in this chapter for each type of development are based on the estimated average calls per unit per year for that type of development in Brisbane. Thus, the fee charged to a development project reflects the impact of that project on the need for new Fire Department facilities, apparatus and vehicles in the City.
197
240
K.

City of Brisbane Page 7-1
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
October 10, 2025
Chapter 7. Implementation
This chapter of the report summarizes requirements for adoption and administration of impact fees, calculated in this study. It was not prepared by an attorney and is not intended as legal advice.

Statutory requirements for the adoption and administration of fees imposed as a condition of development approval (impact fees) are found in the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Sections 66000 et seq.).

Adoption
The form in which development impact fees are enacted should be determined by the City Attorney.

Procedures for adoption of fees subject to the Mitigation Fee Act including notice and public-hearing requirements are specified in Government Code Sections 66016 and 66018. It should be noted that Section 66018 refers to Government Code Section 6062a, which requires that the public hearing notice be published at least twice during the 10-day notice period. However, Section 66016.5 added by AB 602 in 2021 requires that impact fee nexus studies be adopted at a public hearing with at least a 30-day notice.

Government Code Section 66017 provides that fees subject to the Mitigation Fee Act do not become effective until 60 days after final action by the governing body.

Actions establishing or increasing fees subject to the Mitigation Act require certain findings, as set forth in Government Code Section 66001 and discussed in Chapter 1 of this report.

Administration
The California Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Sections 66000 et seq.) mandates procedures for administration of impact fee programs, including collection and accounting, reporting, and refunds. References to code sections in the following paragraphs pertain to the California Government Code.

Notices and Statute of Limitations. Section 66006 (f) provides that a local agency, at the time it imposes a fee for public improvements on a specific development project, "... shall identify the public improvement that the fee will be used to finance." The required notification could refer to the capital improvement plan that must now be adopted with each new impact fee nexus study.

Section 66020 (d) (1) requires that the agency, at the time it imposes an impact fee, provide a written statement of the amount of the fee and written notice of a 90-day period during which the imposition of the fee can be protested. Failure to protest imposition of the fee during that period may deprive the fee payer of the right to subsequent legal challenge.

Section 66022 (a) provides a separate procedure for challenging the establishment of an impact fee.

Such challenges must be filed within 120 days of enactment.

Collection of Fees. Section 66007, as amended by SB 937 in 2024, provides that, with some exceptions, a local agency shall not require payment of impact fees by developers of residential development projects prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy, or first temporary certificate of occupancy, whichever occurs first. That provision does not apply if construction of the 198
241
K.

City of Brisbane Page 7-2
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
October 10, 2025
residential development does not begin within five years of the date upon which the building permit is issued.

An exception that allows utility service fees to be collected when an application for service is received, is now limited to the cost of “connection activities.” Local agencies may require payment of fees prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy under certain conditions, including if the fees are to reimburse the agency for expenditures previously made, unless the project reserves at least 49% of residential units for occupancy by lower income households. For such projects, the local agency may require posting of a performance bond or letter of credit from a federally insured depository institution to guarantee payment when the fees are eligible for collection.

In cases where the fees are not collected upon issuance of building permits, Sections 66007 (d) (1) and (2) provide that the City may require the property owner to execute a contract to pay the fee, and to record that contract as a lien against the property until the fees are paid. The local agency may not charge interest or other fees on any amounts deferred pursuant to Section 66007.

If a residential development contains more than one dwelling, the local agency may determine whether the fees or charges described shall be paid on a pro rata basis for each dwelling when it receives its certificate of occupancy, on a pro rata basis when a certain percentage of the dwellings have received their certificate of occupancy, or on a lump-sum basis when all the dwellings in the development receive their certificate of occupancy.

Statutory restrictions on the time at which fees may be collected do not apply to non-residential development.

Earmarking and Expenditure of Fee Revenue. Section 66006 (a) mandates that fees be deposited “with other fees for the improvement in a separate capital facilities account or fund in a manner to avoid any commingling of the fees with other revenues and funds of the local agency, except for temporary investments, and expend those fees solely for the purpose for which the fee was collected.” Section 66006 (a) also requires that interest earned on the fee revenues be placed in the capital account and used for the same purpose.

The language of the law is not clear as to whether depositing fees "with other fees for the improvement" refers to a specific capital improvement or a class of improvements (e.g., street improvements). Common practice is to maintain separate funds or accounts for impact fee revenues by facility category (i.e., streets, park improvements), but not for individual projects.

Impact Fee Exemptions, Reductions, and Waivers. In the event that a development project is found to have no impact on facilities for which impact fees are charged, such project must be exempted from the fees.

If a project has characteristics that will make its impacts on a particular public facility or infrastructure system significantly and permanently smaller than the average impact used to calculate impact fees in this study, the fees should be reduced accordingly to meet the requirement that there must be a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed. The fee reduction is required if the fee is not proportional to the impact of the development on relevant public facilities. 199
242
K.

City of Brisbane Page 7-3
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
October 10, 2025
In some cases, an agency may desire to voluntarily waive or reduce impact fees that would otherwise apply to a project as a way of promoting goals such as affordable housing or economic development.

Such a waiver or reduction is within the discretion of the governing body but may not result in increased costs to other development projects. So, the effect of such policies is that the lost revenue must be made up from sources other than impact fees.

Credit for Improvements Provided by Developers. If the City requires a developer, as a condition of project approval, to dedicate land or construct facilities or improvements for which impact fees are charged, the City should ensure that the impact fees are adjusted so that the overall contribution by the developer does not exceed the impact created by the development.

In the event that a developer voluntarily offers to dedicate land, or construct facilities or improvements in lieu of paying impact fees, the City may accept or reject such offers and may negotiate the terms under which such an offer would be accepted. Excess contributions by a developer may be offset by reimbursement agreements.

Credit for Existing Development. If a project involves replacement, redevelopment or intensification of previously existing development, impact fees should be applied only to the portion of the project that represents a net increase in demand for relevant City facilities, applying the measure of demand used in this study to calculate that impact fee.

Annual Report. Section 66006 (b) (1) requires that once each year, within 180 days of the close of the fiscal year, the local agency must make available to the public the following information for each separate account established to receive impact fee revenues:

1. A brief description of the type of fee in the account or fund;

2. The amount of the fee;

3. The beginning and ending balance of the account or fund;

4. The amount of the fees collected and interest earned;

5. Identification of each public improvement on which fees were expended and the amount of the expenditures on each improvement, including the percentage of the cost of the public improvement that was funded with fees;

6. Identification of the approximate date by which the construction of a public improvement will commence, if the City determines sufficient funds have been collected to complete financing of an incomplete public improvement;

7. A description of each inter-fund transfer or loan made from the account or fund, including interest rates, repayment dates, and a description of the improvement on which the transfer or loan will be expended;

8. The amount of any refunds or allocations made pursuant to Section 66001, paragraphs (e) and (f).

The annual report must be reviewed by the City Council at its next regularly scheduled public meeting, but not less than 15 days after the statements are made public, per Section 66006 (b) (2).

Five-Year Findings and Refunds under the Mitigation Fee Act. Prior to 1996, The Mitigation Fee Act required that a local agency collecting impact fees was required to expend or commit impact fee 200
243
K.

City of Brisbane Page 7-4
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
October 10, 2025
revenue within five years or make findings to justify a continued need for the money. Otherwise, those funds had to be refunded. SB 1693, adopted in 1996 as an amendment to the Mitigation Fee Act, changed that requirement in material ways.

Now, Section 66001 (d) requires that, for the fifth fiscal year following the first deposit of any impact fee revenue into an account or fund as required by Section 66006 (b), and every five years thereafter, the local agency shall make all of the following findings for any fee revenue that remains unexpended, whether committed or uncommitted:

1. Identify the purpose to which the fee will be put;

2. Demonstrate the reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it is charged;

3. Identify all sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financing of incomplete improvements for which impact fees are to be used;

4. Designate the approximate dates on which the funding necessary to complete financing of those improvements will be deposited into the appropriate account or fund.

Those findings are to be made in conjunction with the annual reports discussed above. If such findings are not made as required by Section 66001, the local agency could be required to refund the moneys in the account or fund, per Section 66001 (d).

Once the agency determines that sufficient funds have been collected to complete financing on incomplete improvements for which impact fee revenue is to be used, it must, within 180 days of that determination, identify an approximate date by which construction of the public improvement will be commenced (Section 66001 (e)). If the agency fails to comply with that requirement, it must refund impact fee revenue in the account according to procedures specified in Section 66001 (d).

For a useful discussion of the foregoing requirements, see “The Mitigation Fee Act’s Five-Year Findings Requirement: Beware Costly Pitfalls” by Glen Hansen, Senior Counsel, Abbott and Kindermann, and Rick Jarvis, Managing Partner, Jarvis, Fay and Gibson, presented at the 2022 League of California Cities City Attorneys Spring Conference.

Audit Requests. Section 66023 provides that any person may request an audit to determine whether any fee or charge levied by a local agency exceeds the amount reasonably necessary to cover the cost of any product, public facility, as defined in Section 66000, or service provided by the local agency. The legislative body of the local agency may retain an independent auditor to conduct the audit but is not required to conduct an audit if an audit has been performed for the same fee within the previous 12 months.

The agency shall retain an independent auditor to conduct an audit only if the person who requests the audit deposits with the local agency the amount of the local agency’s reasonable estimate of the cost of the independent audit. At the conclusion of the audit, the local agency shall reimburse unused sums, if any, or the requesting person shall pay the local agency the excess of the actual cost of the audit over the amount that was deposited.

However, if the local agency fails to comply with the annual report requirement of Section 66006 following the establishment, increase or imposition of a fee, but requires payment of that fee in 201
244
K.

City of Brisbane Page 7-5
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
October 10, 2025
connection with the approval of a development project for three consecutive years, the agency shall not require a deposit for the independent audit and shall pay the cost of the audit.

Indexing of Impact Fees. Impact fees calculated in this report are based on current costs and should be adjusted periodically to account for changes in the cost of facilities or other capital assets that will be funded by those fees. That adjustment is intended to account for escalation in costs for land, construction, vehicles and other relevant capital assets. The California Construction Cost Index published by the Department of General Services and the Engineering News Record Building Cost Index (BCI) are useful for indexing construction costs. Where land costs are covered by an impact fee or in-lieu fee, land costs should be adjusted based on changes in local land prices. Estimated costs for vehicles and equipment can be based on vendor quotes.

Requirements Imposed by AB 602
This section repeats information about AB 602 which is also included in Chapter 1. In 2021, the California Legislature passed AB 602 and the Governor signed it into law. AB 602 creates some new requirements for impact fees that went into effect in 2022. The new law amends Government Code Section 65940.1 and adds Section 66016.5 to impose the following requirements:
1) A city, county or special district that has an internet website shall post on its website:
a) A current written schedule of fees, exactions and affordability requirements applicable to a proposed housing development project, and shall present that information in a manner that identifies the fees, exactions and affordability requirements that apply to each parcel and the fees that apply to each new water and sewer utility connection b) All zoning ordinances and development standards and specifying the zoning, design and development standards that apply to each parcel
c) A list of the information that will be required from any applicant for a development project, as specified in Government Code Section 69540
d) The current and five previous annual fee reports required by Government Code Section 66006 and Subsection 66013 (d).
e) An archive of impact fee nexus studies, cost of service studies or equivalent conducted on or after January 1, 2018.
2) The above information shall be updated within 30 days of any changes 3) A City or County shall request from a development proponent, upon issuance of a certificate of occupancy or final inspection, the total amount of fees and exactions associated with the project for which the certificate is issued. That information must be posted on the website and updated at least twice a year.
4) Before adoption of an impact fee, an impact fee nexus study shall be adopted. 5) When applicable, the nexus study shall identify the existing level of service for each public facility, identify the proposed new level of service and explain why the new level of service is appropriate
202
245
K.

City of Brisbane Page 7-6
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
October 10, 2025
6) If a nexus study supports the increase of an existing fee, the local agency shall review the assumptions of the nexus study supporting the original fee and evaluate the amount of the fees collected under the original fee.
7) A nexus study adopted after July 1, 2022, shall calculate a fee imposed on a housing development project proportionately to the square footage of the proposed units of the development. A local agency that imposes a fee proportionately to the square footage if the proposed units of the development shall be deemed to have used a valid method to establish a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the development. A nexus study is not required to comply with this requirement if the agency makes certain findings outlined in the statute.
8) Large jurisdictions as defined in Section 53559.1 (d) of the Health and Safety Code (counties of 250,000 or more and cities in those counties) shall adopt a capital improvement plan as part of a nexus study.
9) All studies shall be adopted at a public hearing with at least 30-day's notice, and the local agency shall notify any member of the public that requests notice of intent to begin an impact fee nexus study of the date of the hearing.
10) Studies shall be updated at least every eight years, beginning on January 1, 2022.

Training and Public Information
Effective administration of an impact fee program requires considerable preparation and training. It is important that those responsible for collecting the fees, and for explaining them to the public, understand both the details of the fee program and its supporting rationale.

It is also useful to pay close attention to handouts that provide information to the public regarding impact fees. Impact fees should be clearly distinguished from other fees, such as user fees for application processing, and the purpose and use of particular impact fees should be made clear.

Finally, anyone responsible for accounting, capital budgeting, or project management for projects involving impact fees must be fully aware of the restrictions placed on the expenditure of impact fee revenues. Fees must be expended for the purposes identified in the impact fee nexus study in which they were calculated, and the City must be able to show that funds have been properly expended. 203
246
K.
0 Single-Family
Sq. ft. 2,500
Jurisdiction General Govt Housing Library Parks & Rec Childcare Public Safety Transportation Utilities Total Cost / Sq. Cost / Unit Overall Average Brisbane - Max. Just. Fee $31,121 $0 $7,678 $26,949 $0 $4,991 $2,399 $0 $73,138 $29.26 $73,138 $51,762 Brisbane - Recommended $0 $0.00 $0 $51,762
San Bruno $2,167.94 $94,625.00 $20,630.79 $1,531.95 $4,512.55 $2,967.99 $126,436 $50.57 $126,436 $51,762 Millbrae $77,887.79 $77,888 $31.16 $77,888 $51,762
South San Francisco $833.77 $34,821.41 $4,165.32 $1,668.06 $8,327.00 $49,816 $19.93 $49,816 $51,762 Emeryville $4,950.00 $3,319.00 $8,269 $3.31 $8,269 $51,762 Burlingame $2,756.00 $2,383.00 $590.00 $1,079.00 $1,573.00 $781.00 $9,162 $3.66 $9,162 $51,762 Daly City $1,150.00 $1,050.00 $22,450.00 $2,675.00 $2,500.00 $9,175.00 $39,000 $15.60 $39,000 $51,762 Overall Avg $20,990 $94,625 $1,422 $16,688 $4,165 $1,739 $4,046 $4,308 $51,762 $20.70 Avg Cost / SF $8.40 $37.85 $0.57 $6.68 $1.67 $0.70 $1.62 $1.72 Avg Cost / Unit $20,990 $94,625 $1,422 $16,688 $4,165 $1,739 $4,046 $4,308 Brisbane Calculated Fee $31,121 $7,678 $26,949 $4,991 $2,399

$0
$20,000
$40,000
$60,000
$80,000
$100,000
$120,000
$140,000
Brisbane - Max.

Just. Fee
Brisbane -
Recommended
San Bruno Millbrae South San
Francisco
Emeryville Burlingame Daly City
Impact Fees
Single-Family Residential - 2,500 sq. ft.

General Govt Housing Library Parks & Rec Childcare
Public Safety Transportation Utilities Overall Average
204
247
K.

Multi-Family
# of Units 180
Sq. Ft. / Unit 1,000
Sq. ft. 180,000
Acres 4.13
Jurisdiction General Govt Housing Library Parks Childcare Public Transportation Utilities Total Cost / Sq. Cost / Unit Overall Average Brisbane - Max. Just. Fee $2,765,340 $682,380 $4,482,000 $660,240 $431,845 $9,021,805 $50.12 $50,121 $7,252,624 Brisbane - Recommended $0 $0.00 $0 $7,252,624
San Bruno $366,152 $6,309,000 $3,462,008 $275,522 $628,501 $501,529 $11,542,712 $64.13 $64,126 $7,252,624 Millbrae $10,257,482 $10,257,482 $56.99 $56,986 $7,252,624 South San Francisco $111,796 $3,233,792 $558,983 $223,619 $869,137 $4,997,327 $27.76 $27,763 $7,252,624 Emeryville $6,285,060 $857,880 $370,620 $7,513,560 $41.74 $41,742 $7,252,624 Burlingame $294,480 $5,400,000 $254,700 $63,000 $115,200 $198,900 $70,380 $6,396,660 $35.54 $35,537 $7,252,624 Daly City $82,800 $75,600 $1,616,400 $192,600 $180,000 $660,600 $2,808,000 $15.60 $15,600 $7,252,624 Overall Avg $2,750,229 $5,998,020 $147,365 $1,846,616 $558,983 $201,735 $449,432 $410,836 $7,252,624 $40.29 $40,292 Avg Cost / SF $15.28 $33.32 $0.82 $10.26 $3.11 $1.12 $2.50 $2.28 Avg Cost / Unit $15,279 $33,322 $819 $10,259 $3,105 $1,121 $2,497 $2,282 Brisbane Fee $15,363 $3,791 $24,900 $3,668 $2,399
$0
$2,000,000
$4,000,000
$6,000,000
$8,000,000
$10,000,000
$12,000,000
$14,000,000
Brisbane - Max.

Just. Fee
Brisbane -
Recommended
San Bruno Millbrae South San
Francisco
Emeryville Burlingame Daly City
Impact Fees
Multi-Family 180 units; 180,000 sq. ft. - Total Impact Fees General Govt Housing Library Parks Childcare
Public Safety Transportation Utilities Overall Average
205
248
K.

R&D / Office
Sq. ft. 50,000
Acres 1.15
Jurisdiction General Govt Housing Library Childcare Parks & Rec Public Transportation Utilities Total Cost / Sq. Overall Average Brisbane - Max. Just. Fee $357,950 $12,150,000 $335,050 $92,550 $520,500 $13,456,050 $269.12 $1,431,046 Brisbane - Recommended $0 $0.00 $1,431,046
San Bruno $62,500 $876,000 $577,500 $38,500 $465,000 $115,000 $2,134,500 $42.69 $1,431,046 Millbrae $258,278 $730,000 $988,278 $19.77 $1,431,046
South San Francisco $869,000 $7,000 $76,000 $178,000 $66,000 $1,757,500 $2,953,500 $59.07 $1,431,046 Emeryville $265,000 $167,000 $177,500 $609,500 $12.19 $1,431,046 Burlingame $32,000 $1,250,000 $5,900 $17,500 $90,500 $22,100 $1,418,000 $28.36 $1,431,046 Daly City $46,000 $41,000 $106,000 $21,500 $268,000 $482,500 $9.65 $1,431,046 Avg Impact Fee $99,695 $798,000 $24,000 $76,000 $232,100 $57,000 $502,400 $135,033 $1,431,046 $28.62 Avg fee / sq. ft. $1.99 $15.96 $0.48 $1.52 $4.64 $1.14 $10.05 $2.70 Brisbane Fee $7,159 $243 $6,701 $1,851 $10.41
$0
$2,000,000
$4,000,000
$6,000,000
$8,000,000
$10,000,000
$12,000,000
$14,000,000
$16,000,000
Brisbane - Max.

Just. Fee
Brisbane -
Recommended
San Bruno Millbrae South San
Francisco
Emeryville Burlingame Daly City
Impact Fees
Research and Development - Total Impact Fees
General Govt Housing Library Childcare Parks & Rec
Public Safety Transportation Utilities Overall Average
206
249
K.

R&D / Office
Sq. ft. 20,000
Acres 0.46
Jurisdiction General Govt Housing Library Childcare Parks & Rec Public Transportation Utilities Total Cost / Sq. Overall Average Brisbane - Max. Just. Fee $161,660 $8,100,000 $134,020 $13,300 $87,800 $8,496,780 $424.84 $581,252 Brisbane - Recommended $0 $0.00 $581,252
San Bruno $25,000 $350,400 $231,000 $15,400 $186,000 $46,000 $853,800 $42.69 $581,252 Millbrae $103,311 $292,000 $395,311 $19.77 $581,252
South San Francisco $347,600 $2,800 $30,400 $71,200 $26,400 $703,000 $1,181,400 $59.07 $581,252 Emeryville $106,000 $97,000 $93,800 $296,800 $14.84 $581,252 Burlingame $12,800 $500,000 $2,360 $7,000 $36,200 $8,840 $567,200 $28.36 $581,252 Daly City $18,400 $16,400 $42,400 $8,600 $107,200 $193,000 $9.65 $581,252 Avg Impact Fee $39,878 $319,200 $9,600 $30,400 $100,390 $22,800 $205,520 $54,013 $581,252 $29.06 Avg fee / sq. ft. $1.99 $15.96 $0.48 $1.52 $5.02 $1.14 $10.28 $2.70 Brisbane Fee $8,083 $405 $6,701 $665 $4.39
$0
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
$6,000,000
$7,000,000
$8,000,000
$9,000,000
Brisbane - Max.

Just. Fee
Brisbane -
Recommended
San Bruno Millbrae South San
Francisco
Emeryville Burlingame Daly City
Impact Fees
Research and Development - Total Impact Fees
General Govt Housing Library Childcare Parks & Rec
Public Safety Transportation Utilities Overall Average
207
250
K.

Hotel
# of Rooms 120
Sq. Ft. / Room 500
Sq. ft. 75,000
Acres 1.72
Jurisdiction General Govt Housing Library Childcare Parks & Rec Public Transportation Utilities Total Cost / Room Cost / Sq. Overall Average Brisbane - Max. Just. Fee $561,240 $19,050,000 $93,840 $571,080 $412,027 $20,688,187 $172,402 $275.84 $1,137,194 Brisbane - Recommended $0 $0 $0.00 $1,137,194
San Bruno $24,380 $1,314,000 $226,838 $15,294 $245,161 $196,250 $2,021,924 $16,849 $26.96 $1,137,194 Millbrae $230,264 $527,027 $757,291 $6,311 $10.10 $1,137,194 South San Francisco $435,000 $3,000 $22,500 $108,750 $23,250 $371,603 $964,103 $8,034 $12.85 $1,137,194 Emeryville $397,500 $99,000 $167,160 $663,660 $5,531 $8.85 $1,137,194 Burlingame $69,750 $900,000 $12,900 $38,025 $546,375 $53,775 $1,620,825 $13,507 $21.61 $1,137,194 Daly City $63,000 $56,760 $145,560 $162,120 $367,920 $795,360 $6,628 $10.60 $1,137,194 Avg Impact Fee $96,849 $714,705 $29,880 $22,500 $111,872 $55,532 $298,484 $205,982 $1,137,194 $9,477 $15 Avg fee / sq. ft. $1.29 $9.53 $0.40 $0.30 $1.49 $0.74 $3.98 $2.75 Avg Fee / Room $807.07 $5,955.88 $249.00 $187.50 $932.27 $462.77 $2,487.37 $1,716.52 $9,476.62 Brisbane Fee $4,677 $254 $782 $4,759 $3,433.56
$0
$5,000,000
$10,000,000
$15,000,000
$20,000,000
$25,000,000
Brisbane - Max.

Just. Fee
Brisbane -
Recommended
San Bruno Millbrae South San
Francisco
Emeryville Burlingame Daly City
Impact Fees
Hotel (120 rooms; 75,000 sq. ft.) - Total Impact Fees
General Govt Housing Library Childcare Parks & Rec
Public Safety Transportation Utilities Overall Average
/
208
251
K.

Industrial
Sq. ft. 150,000
Acres 3.44
Jurisdiction General Govt Housing Library Childcare Parks & Rec Public Safety Transportation Utilities Total Cost / Sq. Ft. Overall Average Brisbane - Max. Just. Fee $751,650 $34,650,000 $1,005,150 $480,900 $511,500 $37,399,200 $249.33 $1,274,724 Brisbane - Recommended $0 $0.00 $1,274,724
San Bruno $73,500 $688,500 $45,000 $558,000 $216,000 $1,581,000 $10.54 $1,274,724 Millbrae $262,191 $262,191 $1.75 $1,274,724
South San Francisco $7,500 $90,000 $253,500 $72,000 $2,373,000 $2,796,000 $18.64 $1,274,724 Emeryville $795,000 $198,000 $366,000 $1,359,000 $9.06 $1,274,724 Burlingame $45,750 $8,400 $24,900 $171,900 $94,200 $345,150 $2.30 $1,274,724 Daly City $63,000 $57,000 $144,000 $255,000 $786,000 $1,305,000 $8.70 $1,274,724 Avg Impact Fee $111,110 $795,000 $32,250 $90,000 $287,100 $71,475 $744,780 $365,400 $1,274,724 $8.50 Avg fee / sq. ft. $0.74 $5.30 $0.22 $0.60 $1.91 $0.48 $4.97 $2.44 Brisbane Fee $5,011 $231 $6,701 $3,206 $3.41
$0
$5,000,000
$10,000,000
$15,000,000
$20,000,000
$25,000,000
$30,000,000
$35,000,000
$40,000,000
Brisbane - Max.

Just. Fee
Brisbane -
Recommended
San Bruno Millbrae South San
Francisco
Emeryville Burlingame Daly City
Impact Fees
Industrial - 60,000 sq. ft. - Total Impact Fees
General Govt Housing Library Childcare Parks & Rec Public Safety Transportation Utilities Overall Average 209
252
K.

Commercial / Retail
Sq. ft. 3,500
Jurisdiction General Govt Housing Library Childcare Parks & Rec Public Safety Transportation Utilities Total Cost / Sq. Ft. Overall Average Brisbane - Max. Just. Fee $28,224 $1,480,500 $15,635 $53,312 $150,675 $1,728,346 $493.81 $78,860 Brisbane - Recommended $0 $0.00 $78,860
San Bruno $2,835 $26,075 $2,870 $41,930 $50,050 $123,760 $35.36 $78,860 Millbrae $35,763 $23,065 $58,828 $16.81 $78,860
South San Francisco $10,150 $280 $2,870 $5,320 $1,855 $108,255 $128,730 $36.78 $78,860 Emeryville $18,550 $9,310 $21,630 $49,490 $14.14 $78,860 Burlingame $3,255 $24,500 $602 $1,775 $25,498 $2,510 $58,139 $16.61 $78,860 Daly City $2,345 $2,100 $5,355 $24,150 $20,265 $54,215 $15.49 $78,860 Avg Impact Fee $11,049 $19,066 $1,190 $2,870 $10,327 $2,964 $44,293 $24,275 $78,860 $22.53 Avg fee / sq. ft. $3.16 $5.45 $0.34 $0.82 $2.95 $0.85 $12.66 $6.94 Brisbane Fee $8,064 $423 $4,467 $15,232 $43.05
$0
$200,000
$400,000
$600,000
$800,000
$1,000,000
$1,200,000
$1,400,000
$1,600,000
$1,800,000
$2,000,000
Brisbane - Max.

Just. Fee
Brisbane -
Recommended
San Bruno Millbrae South San
Francisco
Emeryville Burlingame Daly City
Impact Fees
Commercial or Retail - 3,500 sq. ft.

General Govt Housing Library Childcare Parks & Rec Public Safety Transportation Utilities Overall Average 210
253
K.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 A B C D E F G
Development Type Low (Score=1) Medium (Score=2) High (Score=3) Total Votes Comments Recommended Level Single Family Residential
Multifamily Residential
Hotel
Industrial
R&D / Office
Commercial / Retail
211
254
K.

File Attachments for Item:

M. Recruitment Update
255