Agenda packet — Brisbane City Council, September 17, 2026 (part 2 of 3)

City of Brisbane Page 2-4
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
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 a component of service population rather than as a standalone demand variable. Population per unit factors are converted into service population per unit factors for use in calculating impact fees for residential unit-size categories. The population per unit and service population per unit factors used in this study are shown in Table

2.3 Table 2.1, below, 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.

Page 133 of 303 ends

City of Brisbane Page 2-5
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
Service Population. Many 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.

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.

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 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 Page 134 of 303

City of Brisbane Page 2-6
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
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.

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 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 Page 135 of 303

City of Brisbane Page 2-7
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
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.

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

Page 136 of 303 ends

City of Brisbane Page 2-8
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
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 2.3 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 1Unit 2
per 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 2.2 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 Page 137 of 303

City of Brisbane Page 2-9
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
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 2Empl 3
Svc 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 Page 138 of 303

City of Brisbane Page 2-10
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
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 Page 139 of 303

City of Brisbane Page 2-11
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
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 Page 140 of 303

City of Brisbane Page 3-1
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
Chapter 3. Library
This chapter calculates library impact fees for the City of Brisbane. The City’s existing Brisbane Library is part of the San Mateo County library system. The 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 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 service population.

As discussed in Chapter 2, service population is used to reflect demand from both residential and non-residential. The residential component of service population is the resident population of the City. 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 3.3 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 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 service population, which results in a cost per capita of service population. To calculate an impact fee per unit, that cost per capita is multiplied by the service population per unit for type of development 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.

Page 141 of 303 ends

City of Brisbane Page 3-2
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
Because the library impact fees calculated in this chapter are based on the existing level of service, the impact fees will generate revenue needed for facilities to serve new development to appropriately maintain the same level of service as for the existing service population.

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 service population to calculate the existing level of service in terms of a cost per capita of service population.

In the next section, the cost per capita from Table 3.2 is used to calculate library impact fees per unit for each type of development defined in this study.

Table 3.1: Existing Library Facilities
Building Site Facility Land Impact Fee
Facility Sq Feet 1
Acres 2Repl Cost 3Value 4Cost 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 Service Cost per
Cost Basis 1 Population 2 Capita 3
$9,029,187 8,174 $1,104.625
1 See Table 3.1
2 See Table 2.4
3 Cost per capita of service population = impact fee cost basis / existing service population Page 142 of 303

City of Brisbane Page 3-3
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
Impact Fees per Unit
Table 3.3 shows the calculation of library impact fees per unit of development. Those fees are calculated using the per-capita cost from Table 3.2 and service population per unit factors from Table 2.3.

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 service 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.

Table 3.3: Impact Fees per Unit - Library
Development Cost per Svc Pop Impact Fee
Type Units 1 Capita 2 per Unit 3 per Unit 4
Residential <800 Sq. Ft. Unit DU $1,104.62 1.00 $ 1,104.62 Residential 800-1,200 Sq. Ft. Unit DU $1,104.62 1.95 $ 2,154.02 Residential 1,200-2,100 Sq. Ft. Unit DU $1,104.62 2.95 $ 3,258.64 Residential >2,100 Sq. Ft. Unit DU $1,104.62 3.95 $ 4,363.27 Commercial KSF $1,104.62 1.02 $ 1,130.60
Hotel/Motel Room $1,104.62 0.59 $ 655.75
Office KSF $1,104.62 1.03 $ 1,133.21
Life Science/R&D KSF $1,104.62 0.91 $ 1,003.70
Industrial KSF $1,104.62 0.64 $ 702.59
Warehouse KSF $1,104.62 0.32 $ 351.29
1 Units of development: DU = dwelling unit
2 See Table 3.2
3 Service population per unit; 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 Svc Pop 1
Capita 2Revenue 3
All Development 15,628 $1,104.62 $ 17,262,631
1 Added service population excluding public facilities; see Table 2.5
2 See Table 3.2
3 Projected revenue = added population X cost per capita Page 143 of 303

City of Brisbane Page 3-4
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
Planned Improvements
Details regarding planned expenditure of the library impact fees can be found in the City’s Impact Fee Capital Improvement Plan.

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 described in the City’s Capital Improvement Plan 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.

Page 144 of 303 ends

City of Brisbane Page 3-5
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
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.

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.

Page 145 of 303 ends

City of Brisbane Page 4-1
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
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.

As discussed in Chapter 2, service population is used to reflect demand from both residential and non-residential development.

The residential component of service population is the resident population of the City. The nonresidential 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 of service population. 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.

Because the general government facilities impact fees calculated in this chapter are based on the existing level of service, the impact fees will generate revenue needed for facilities to serve new

Page 146 of 303 ends

City of Brisbane Page 4-2
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
development to appropriately maintain the same level of service as for the existing service population.

Existing General Government Facilities
Table 4.1 shows key data about Brisbane’s existing general government facilities, including their 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 Page 147 of 303

City of Brisbane Page 4-3
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
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
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 Page 148 of 303

City of Brisbane Page 4-4
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
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 Impact Fee 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.

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 described in the City’s Capital Improvement Plan to serve new development in the City.

Page 149 of 303 ends

City of Brisbane Page 4-5
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
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.

Page 150 of 303 ends

City of Brisbane Page 5-1
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
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.

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 fees 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.

Because the impact fees for Police Department facilities calculated in this chapter are based on the existing level of service, the impact fees will generate revenue needed for facilities to serve new development to appropriately maintain the same level of service as for the existing service population.

Page 151 of 303 ends

City of Brisbane Page 5-2
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
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 Page 152 of 303

City of Brisbane Page 5-3
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
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
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 Page 153 of 303

City of Brisbane Page 5-4
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
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 Impact Fee 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 1Call 2
Revenue 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 Page 154 of 303

City of Brisbane Page 5-5
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
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.

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 described in the City’s Capital Improvement Plan 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.

Page 155 of 303 ends

City of Brisbane Page 6-1
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
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 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.

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

Page 156 of 303 ends

City of Brisbane Page 6-2
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
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.

Although the cost per unit of new development based on the planned facilities method discussed above is less than the expenditure required to serve the existing service population in terms of cost per call for service, the level of service for new development will be equivalent with the level of service for the existing service population and appropriate since it will provide the City and NCFA with sufficient resources to respond to the new calls for service from new development in a manner equivalent with the level of service provided to the existing service population. 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 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 Page 157 of 303

City of Brisbane Page 6-3
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
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 6.2: 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
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 Page 158 of 303

City of Brisbane Page 6-4
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
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 estimated 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 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
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
Table 6.5: Projected Revenue - Fire Impact Fees
Development Added Calls Cost per Projected
Type for Service 1
Call 2Revenue 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 Page 159 of 303

City of Brisbane Page 6-5
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
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 Impact Fee 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; 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.

Purpose of the Fee: The purpose of the impact fees calculated in this chapter is to provide additional Fire Department facilities apparatus and vehicles needed to maintain serve future development 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 described in the City’s Capital Improvement Plan 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.

Reasonable Relationship between the Need for the Facilities and the Type of Development on Which the Fee Is Imposed. Geographic expansion of the City associated with new development will increase the need for a second fire station with associated apparatus and vehicles in Brisbane.

Page 160 of 303 ends

City of Brisbane Page 6-6
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
The fire impact fees will provide funding for those 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.

Page 161 of 303 ends

City of Brisbane Page 7-1
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
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 based on advice from 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

Page 162 of 303 ends

City of Brisbane Page 7-2
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
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.

Page 163 of 303 ends

City of Brisbane Page 7-3
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
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

Page 164 of 303 ends

City of Brisbane Page 7-4
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
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

Page 165 of 303 ends

City of Brisbane Page 7-5
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
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

Page 166 of 303 ends

City of Brisbane Page 7-6
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
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.

Page 167 of 303 ends

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

City of Brisbane
September 2, 2026
SF24-1354

Page 168 of 303 ends

This page was intentionally left blank.

Page 169 of 303 ends

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 ........................................................................................ 17 Cost Estimates .............................................................................................................................................................................17 Existing Deficiencies ..................................................................................................................................................................17 Cost Attribution ..........................................................................................................................................................................18 Fee Calculations and Application ........................................................................................................................................18 Fee Calculation Methodology .......................................................................................................................................19 Summary of Required Program Elements ................................................................................ 24 Fundamental Nexus Requirements .....................................................................................................................................24 Additional Elements ..................................................................................................................................................................25 Attachments
Attachment A: Project Cut Sheets
Attachment B: Bayshore Boulevard Cost Attribution Calculations Attachment C: Guidance for Future Updates of the Transportation Impact Fee

Page 170 of 303 ends

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: Transportation Impact Fee Capital Improvement Plan ..................................................................................... 11 Table 6: Allocation of TIF-Eligible Project Costs by District .............................................................................................. 20 Table 7: Land Use Trip Generation and District Cost Allocation Inputs ....................................................................... 21 Table 8: Maximum Fee Calculation by TIF District and Land Use................................................................................... 22

Page 171 of 303 ends

Brisbane Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) Nexus Study
August 2026
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.

Page 172 of 303 ends

Brisbane Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) Nexus Study
August 2026
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. For the purposes of calculating fees, Guadalupe Quarry is included in the West Brisbane TIF District although the site is not currently within the city limits of Brisbane. Fees on development within Guadalupe Quarry would only be charged if the Quarry is incorporated within the City and the TIF in the future. In addition to its TIF obligations, the Guadalupe Quarry project would 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; as a result, it is not anticipated that additional transportation improvements would need to be added to the TIF when the Quarry area is incorporated into the City.

Page 173 of 303 ends

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

Page 174 of 303 ends

Brisbane Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) Nexus Study
August 2026
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 (“Baylands TIA”, 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.

Page 175 of 303 ends

Brisbane Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) Nexus Study
August 2026
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 as described further in Table 3. 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).

Page 176 of 303 ends

Brisbane Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) Nexus Study
August 2026
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.

Page 177 of 303 ends

Brisbane Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) Nexus Study
August 2026
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 for a warehousing use at the project site based on information provided by the project applicant as a part of the 2025 Draft EIR. A separate application was withdrawn and a new application was filed in 2026 for advanced manufacturing uses. If the project is approved and annexed into the City with a specific development plan that results in a different number of employees than assumed in this study, the applicable TIF fee would need to be recalculated based on the approved development program.

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.

Page 178 of 303 ends

Brisbane Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) Nexus Study
August 2026
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 0.85 281 - - -
Warehouse - - - - - - 1,322 ksf 0.16 205
Total - - 5,075 - - 1,648 - - 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
Consistent with AB 602, the infrastructure projects included in the Transportation Impact Fee Program have been identified based on performance objectives that reflect the City's adopted transportation goals and planned transportation network. The text of AB 602 uses the term "level of service" to refer to performance objectives that are used to define the need for capital improvements included in an impact fee program. It is important to note that, in this context, the phrase “level of service” refers to the transportation performance objectives used in the fee program and does not refer to the traffic engineering metric called LOS that measures vehicular delay at intersections.

The projects included in the TIF address transportation facilities that were largely developed under earlier roadway standards, historic development patterns, and automobile-oriented design approaches. The infrastructure improvements included within the TIF align with Brisbane's current General Plan policies emphasizing multimodal mobility, complete streets, safety, connectivity, reduced vehicle dependence,

Page 179 of 303 ends

Brisbane Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) Nexus Study
August 2026
9 lower vehicle miles traveled (VMT), and transportation systems that accommodate planned growth through walking, bicycling, transit, and vehicle travel. The fee-funded projects therefore are essential to achieving the transportation performance objectives identified by the City for future conditions.

The transportation performance objectives used to identify projects for the TIF program come from the City’s currently adopted planning documents, including the General Plan. General Plan Policy C.1 calls for a roadway system that emphasizes mobility for Brisbane residents and businesses, accommodates bicycle and pedestrian movement in addition to vehicular movement, and provides for comfortable and safe travel. General Plan Program C.1.b further calls for improvements to Bayshore Boulevard, the Geneva Avenue extension, and U.S. 101 interchanges through a combination of roadway, intersection, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian improvements while avoiding substantial increases in vehicle miles traveled. The General Plan’s Complete Streets policies also direct the City to design streets to serve all users and integrate sidewalks, bikeways, transit stops, and other multimodal infrastructure into street improvements.

The Baylands Specific Plan similarly emphasizes a multimodal transportation network intended to improve pedestrian, bicycle, and transit connectivity and reduce reliance on automobile travel. The proposed transportation network includes new and improved pedestrian facilities, protected bicycle facilities, transit connections, and mobility hubs, together with a Transportation Demand Management program intended to reduce vehicle trip generation.

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, and align with the performance objectives described above. 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
• Assumed TIF contribution (which is further described in the table footnotes and in the subsequent section of this report on Nexus Analysis and Fee Calculations) 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 current TIF fee 6 https://www.sfcta.org/projects/bi-county-transportation-study

Page 180 of 303 ends

Brisbane Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) Nexus Study
August 2026
10 calculations include the Candlestick Interchange based on the cost estimate and Brisbane cost allocation identified in the 2013 Bi-County Study. Because the interchange design and cost estimate are expected to be updated in the future, Attachment C provides supplemental fee calculations that exclude the Candlestick Interchange and that could be used as a baseline for a future update to the TIF once a revised interchange scope and cost estimate are available. The Geneva Avenue Extension and other transportation changes were also 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.

Page 181 of 303 ends

Brisbane Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) Nexus Study
August 2026
11 Table 5: Transportation Impact Fee Capital Improvement Plan ID Name Description Total Project Cost Assumed TIF Contributio n
TIF
District(s)
Time of
Availability Existing Condition
Planned Condition/
Performance
Objective1
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. $195,000,0002 $42,344,516
Baylands,
West
Brisbane,
Sierra Point
2035
Existing facilities were
designed under prior
roadway standards and
development patterns
that primarily
emphasized vehicle
throughput and do not
fully support the City's
current multimodal
transportation objectives
.

Modernized interchange
and roadway network
supporting safe
multimodal travel,
improved connectivity,
accommodation of
planned growth, and
implementation of
contemporary
transportation design
practices and Complete
Streets principles.
2a Bayshore 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.3 $10,000,000 $5,504,2654
Baylands,
West
Brisbane,
Sierra Point
2035
Existing corridor was
designed primarily for
regional vehicle
circulation and lacks the
multimodal elements
defined in current City
plans and policies.

Corridor improvements
supporting multimodal
travel, safer pedestrian
and bicycle facilities,
transit access, and
implementation of
adopted mobility and
Complete Streets
policies.

Page 182 of 303 ends

Brisbane Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) Nexus Study
August 2026
12 ID Name Description Total Project Cost Assumed TIF Contributio n
TIF
District(s)
Time of
Availability Existing Condition
Planned Condition/
Performance
Objective1
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. $850,000 $850,000 West Brisbane 2035 See Project 2a.
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.5 $1,025,000 $1,025,000 Baylands, Sierra Point 2035
Existing intersection
configurations were
developed under prior
roadway standards and
do not provide the level
of multimodal safety and
accessibility defined in
current City policies.

Improved intersection
operations, reduced
conflict points, shorter
crossing distances,
enhanced bicycle and
pedestrian safety, and
support for future
development.

Page 183 of 303 ends

Brisbane Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) Nexus Study
August 2026
13 ID Name Description Total Project Cost Assumed TIF Contributio n
TIF
District(s)
Time of
Availability Existing Condition
Planned Condition/
Performance
Objective1
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 2035
Existing bicycle and
pedestrian
network contains gaps
that limit continuous
and convenient
multimodal travel.

Continuous active
transportation facilities
connecting regional
destinations and
supporting walking,
bicycling, recreation, and
reduced vehicle trips.
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 2035 See Project 3a.

Page 184 of 303 ends

Brisbane Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) Nexus Study
August 2026
14 ID Name Description Total Project Cost Assumed TIF Contributio n
TIF
District(s)
Time of
Availability Existing Condition
Planned Condition/
Performance
Objective1
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 2035 See Project 3a. 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 multimodal 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 2035 See Project 3a. 4d
Sierra Point Internal MultiUse Pathway
Safety improvements to connect other proposed Class 1 pathways to provide a complete internal network for multimodal travel in support of the increased density of Sierra Point. $4,000,000 $4,000,000 Sierra Point 2035
Existing
transportation network
lacks a complete
multimodal circulation
system connecting
destinations within
Sierra Point.

Complete internal active
transportation network
providing safe and
connected pedestrian
and bicycle access
between employment, recreation, transit, and
shoreline destinations.

Page 185 of 303 ends

Brisbane Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) Nexus Study
August 2026
15 ID Name Description Total Project Cost Assumed TIF Contributio n
TIF
District(s)
Time of
Availability Existing Condition
Planned Condition/
Performance
Objective1
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 2035
Existing roadway
facilities were not
designed to
accommodate planned
future land use patterns
or current multimodal
design objectives.

Transportation facilities
designed to support
multimodal mobility,
safety, accessibility,
network connectivity,
and implementation of
current City
transportation policies.
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 2035 See Project 5.
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. $3,000,0006 $3,000,000 West Brisbane 2035 See Project 5. 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. $1,132,0006 $1,132,000
Baylands,
West
Brisbane,
Sierra Point
2035 See Project 5.

Total $225,302,000 $68,150,781
Notes:

1. Planned transportation conditions and performance standards are based on applicable City of Brisbane General Plan transportation policies, including Policy C.1, Program C.1.b, and Complete Streets Policies C.21-C.24, as well as the multimodal transportation framework established for the Baylands Specific Plan. Time of

Page 186 of 303 ends

Brisbane Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) Nexus Study
August 2026
16 availability is estimated at 2035 consistent with the required network elements anticipated to support the completion of Phase 1 of the Baylands Specific Plan as presented in the Baylands EIR.

2. The values shown as the Total Project Cost and the Assumed TIF Contribution for the Candlestick Interchange Project (Project 1) come from the 2013 Bi-County Study.

The cost of that project is to be shared across multiple jurisdictions per Table ES-3 of the Bi-County Study, so the value shown as Assumed TIF Contribution represents the City of Brisbane share of the project’s cost. The Total Project Cost is likely to change when a new Bi-County Study is completed, in which case the Assumed TIF Contribution would also change and the TIF calculations presented in this report would need to be updated (see Appendix B for more information on this topic). Access the 2013 Bi-County Study: https://ccag.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/BiCounty-Final-Report_.pdf

3. The Bayshore Mobility Plan could consist of a road diet, improved local access, and road safety improvements consistent with the conceptual plans presented in the Bayshore Mobility Plan memorandum included as an appendix to the Brisbane Baylands Transportation Impact Assessment Report:
https://www.brisbaneca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/553/Appendix-F1---Transportation-Impact-Assessment-PDF

4. The Assumed TIF Contribution for Project 2a were calculated using a “select link” analysis as described in the Fee Calculations and Application section of this report and presented in Attachment B. Project 2a will not be fully funded by the TIF program because regional pass-through trips account for a share of the project benefit.

5. 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.

6. Cost estimate per email direction from Randy Breault in September and October 2024.

Source: Fehr and Peers, 2026.

Page 187 of 303 ends

Brisbane Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) Nexus Study
August 2026
17 Nexus Analysis and Fee Calculations
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. For projects with prior mitigation contributions, amounts previously collected for the same improvement will be accounted for as credits against the applicable project cost to avoid recovery of costs already funded through prior development obligations.

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.

Accordingly, the analysis evaluated whether any existing deficiencies are associated with the transportation improvement projects included in the TIF, so that any such deficiencies could be excluded from the fee calculation.

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.

Page 188 of 303 ends

Brisbane Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) Nexus Study
August 2026
18 Certain transportation improvements associated with individual development projects are funded separately from the TIF through development agreements, project-specific mitigation measures, conditions of approval, or other direct development obligations. These improvements are not being included in the TIF because they are the responsibility of individual development projects. For example, the Guadalupe Quarry project would be responsible for site-access improvements on Quarry Road, a secondary access drive, and multimodal improvements on South Hill Drive. This separation helps ensure that TIF revenues are used for the proportional share of improvements needed to accommodate new development rather than to fund either existing deficiencies or project-specific obligations.

Cost Attribution
There are several considerations that go into identifying the proportion of project cost attributable to new development and thus eligible for inclusion in the TIF. The first is whether there are any existing deficiencies to account for that would reduce the proportion of the project’s cost included in the TIF. In this case, no existing deficiencies were identified.

The next step is to consider the data available about the usage of the TIF projects. For the Candlestick Interchange (Project 1), the data available about the usage of that project by new development in Brisbane comes from the Bi-County Study, as has been described earlier, which defines that approximately

21.7% of the responsibility for that project lies with Brisbane; thus, that proportion of the project’s total cost (i.e., $42.3 million out of the total cost of $195 million) is being included in the TIF. The other major road corridor project in the TIF is the Bayshore Mobility Plan (project 2a); that type of project can be evaluated using the City of Brisbane sub-area VISUM model, where a “select link” analysis can estimate the usage of the corridor by travelers from various locations. That select link analysis presented in Attachment B indicated that approximately 45% of the usage on that corridor was from regional passthrough trips, so that proportion of the project’s cost has been removed from the TIF program. For all other TIF projects, the full cost of the project is included in the TIF.

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 Mobility Plan, has its TIF-eligible 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 as presented in Attachment B. This project is not fully funded through the TIF because other regional pass-through trips account for a share of the future trips that benefit from this project.

Page 189 of 303 ends

Brisbane Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) Nexus Study
August 2026
19 • 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 intersection operations and queuing impacts. The project has its fee split 50% / 50% between the Baylands and Sierra Point TIF districts. This reflects a shared benefit of the proposed improvements for Baylands residents and Sierra Point employees.
• 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.

As noted above for Project 1, the 2013 Bi-County Transportation Study developed a cost-participation framework based on projected automobile trip generation associated with future background growth and major planned development projects. The study calculated each stakeholder’s share of future trip growth and used those percentages to proportionally allocate the cost of the Bi-County transportation improvement program. Table ES-3 of the Bi-County Study presents the resulting cost-participation percentages and amounts and serves as the basis for the Candlestick Interchange cost allocation used in this nexus study. The Bi-County Study characterized these allocations as a technical framework for costsharing rather than binding funding commitments and noted that the allocations may require revision as land use assumptions and project cost estimates change.

Fee Calculation Methodology
The calculation of the maximum TIF rates occurs in two primary steps. First, the TIF-eligible cost of each transportation improvement identified in Table 5 is assigned to the TIF district or districts responsible for the need for the improvement. Projects serving a single TIF district are assigned entirely to that district.

For projects serving multiple districts, the project cost is distributed among the applicable districts based on the allocation methodology established for that improvement, as described above.

Table 6 summarizes the allocation of TIF-eligible project costs among the three TIF districts. Projects assigned entirely to one district are shown as a 100 percent allocation to that district. For projects serving multiple districts, the table identifies the applicable allocation basis and resulting dollar amounts.

Page 190 of 303 ends

Brisbane Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) Nexus Study
August 2026
20 Table 6: Allocation of TIF-Eligible Project Costs by District ID Name TIF-Eligible
Cost Allocation Basis Baylands Sierra Point West Brisbane 1 Candlestick
Interchange
Reconfiguration
$42,344,516 2013 Bi-County costparticipation framework and Brisbane district allocation
$35,880,000 $5,180,049 $1,284,467
2a Bayshore Mobility
Plan
$5,504,265 Select-link vehicle trips $2,476,433 $1,010,400 $2,017,432 2b Bayshore Boulevard /
San Bruno Avenue
Signalization
$850,000 Single-district project - - $850,000
3a Sierra Point Pkwy /
Lagoon Road / US
101 SB Ramp
Roundabout1
$1,025,000 Shared benefit; 50/50 split $512,500 $512,500 - 3b Sierra Point Bay Trail
Gap Closure1
$1,715,000 Shared benefit; 50/50 split $857,500 $857,500 - 4a Sierra Point Pkwy /
Marina Blvd (West)
Roundabout
$3,280,000 Single-district project - $3,280,000 -
4b Sierra Point Pkwy /
Marina Blvd (East)
Roundabout
$2,000,000 Single-district project - $2,000,000 -
4c Sierra Point Parkway
Terminus
Roundabout
$2,000,000 Single-district project - $2,000,000 -
4d Sierra Point Internal
Multi-Use Pathway
$4,000,000 Single-district project - $4,000,000 -
5 Parkside Precise Plan:

Park Lane
$1,200,000 Single-district project - - $1,200,000
6 Parkside Precise Plan:

Old County Road
$100,000 Single-district project - - $100,000
7 Valley Drive
Improvements
$3,000,000 Single-district project - - $3,000,000
8 BPMP Improvements $1,132,000 District share of PM peak-hour trips
$797,572 $259,015 $75,413
Total $68,150,781 - $40,524,004 $19,099,464 $8,527,313
Notes:

1. Project 3a and 3b have its fee split 50% / 50% between the Baylands and Sierra Point TIF districts. This reflects a shared benefit of the proposed ramp terminal upgrades and Class I bike facility for Baylands residents and Sierra Point employees.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2026.

Page 191 of 303 ends

Brisbane Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) Nexus Study
August 2026
21 The total TIF-eligible project costs assigned to each district in Table 6 are allocated among the land use categories within each TIF district based on the proportion of PM peak-hour vehicle trips generated by each land use. The calculation uses the anticipated development quantities and applicable trip generation rates to determine the number of PM peak-hour trips generated by each land use category.

For each land use category, its share of district trip generation is calculated as follows:

𝐿𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑈𝑠𝑒 𝑆ℎ𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝐷𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑡 𝑇𝑟𝑖𝑝𝑠 ൌ
𝐿𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑈𝑠𝑒 𝑃𝑀 𝑃𝑒𝑎𝑘 𝐻𝑜𝑢𝑟 𝑇𝑟𝑖𝑝𝑠
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑃𝑀 𝑃𝑒𝑎𝑘 𝐻𝑜𝑢𝑟 𝑇𝑟𝑖𝑝𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑇𝐼𝐹
Table 7 presents the development quantities, trip generation rates, and resulting trip shares used to allocate the district costs.

Table 7: Land Use Trip Generation and District Cost Allocation Inputs Land Use
Category
Development
Quantity
PM Peak-Hour
Trip Rate
Land Use PM
Peak-Hour Trips
District Total PM
Peak-Hour Trips
Share of
District Trips
Baylands
Residential 2,200 du 0.3005/du 661.00 5,075.00 13.02%
Office 6,397.8 ksf 0.5500/ksf 3,519.00 5,075.00 69.34%
Retail 102.2 ksf 5.3914/ksf 551.00 5,075.00 10.86%
Hotel 800 rooms 0.4300/room 344.00 5,075.00 6.78%
Sierra Point
Office 1,182.03 ksf 0.8533/ksf 1,008.58 1,648.13 61.20% Hotel 608 rooms 0.5905/room 359.00 1,648.13 21.78%
Life Science /
R&D 328.81 ksf 0.8532/ksf 280.55 1,648.13 17.02%
West Brisbane
Residential 765 du 0.3594/du 274.95 479.86 57.30%
Warehouse /
Quarry 1,322 ksf 0.1550/ksf 204.91 479.86 42.70%
Source: Fehr & Peers 2026.

The trip share calculated in Table 7 is applied to the total TIF-eligible project cost assigned to the applicable district in Table 6 to determine the amount of district cost attributable to each land use category:

𝐿𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑈𝑠𝑒 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝐴𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 ൌ 𝐷𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑡 𝑇𝐼𝐹 𝐸𝑙𝑖𝑔𝑖𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡 ∗ 𝐿𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑈𝑠𝑒 𝑆ℎ𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝐷𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑡 𝑇𝑟𝑖𝑝𝑠 The resulting cost allocation is then divided by the anticipated development quantity for that land use category to calculate the maximum fee per dwelling unit, square foot, or hotel room:

Page 192 of 303 ends

Brisbane Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) Nexus Study
August 2026
22 𝑀𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚 𝐹𝑒𝑒 ൌ
𝐿𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑈𝑠𝑒 𝐴𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
𝐷𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑙𝑜𝑝𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑄𝑢𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑡𝑦
For land uses reported in thousands of square feet in Table 7, the development quantity is converted to square feet when calculating the final fee per square foot.

As described in the Fee Categories section, residential trip generation is included in the nexus analysis and proportional cost allocation for all applicable TIF districts. However, based on direction from City staff, residential uses outside of the Baylands TIF District will not be charged the TIF. As a result, the maximum residential fee calculated for West Brisbane is shown for purposes of demonstrating the nexus and proportional allocation of costs, but the City does not intend to impose that fee. The associated share of project costs would therefore need to be covered through other funding sources.

Table 8 presents the resulting cost allocation and maximum fee calculation for each land use category.

Table 8: Maximum Fee Calculation by TIF District and Land Use Land Use
Category
District TIFEligible Cost Share of
District Trips
Cost Allocated to
Land Use
Fee Calculation
Quantity Maximum Fee
Baylands
Residential $40,524,004 13.02% $5,278,102 2,200 du $2,399.14/du Office $40,524,004 69.34% $28,099,305 6,397,800 sf $4.39/sf Retail $40,524,004 10.86% $4,399,749 102,200 sf $43.05/sf Hotel $40,524,004 6.78% $2,746,849 800 rooms $3,433.56/room Sierra Point
Office $19,099,464 61.20% $11,687,959 1,182,030 sf $9.89/sf Hotel $19,099,464 21.78% $4,160,295 608 rooms $6,842.59/room Life Science /
R&D $19,099,464 17.02% $3,251,210 328,810 sf $9.89/sf
West Brisbane
Residential $8,527,313 57.30% $4,885,968 765 du $6,386.89/du¹ Warehouse /
Quarry $8,527,313 42.70% $3,641,345 1,322,000 sf $2.75/sf Note:

1. The West Brisbane residential fee represents the maximum fee calculated through the nexus analysis. Based on direction from City staff, residential uses outside of the Baylands TIF District will not be charged the TIF.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2026.

The calculations shown in Tables 7 and 8 provide the quantitative connection between the project costs assigned to each TIF district in Table 9 and the resulting maximum fee rates.

Page 193 of 303 ends

Brisbane Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) Nexus Study
August 2026
23 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 and has lower trip rates given the walking, biking, transit-oriented nature and internalization of trips within the project. It should be noted that the Brisbane Baylands project is also responsible for directly funding several 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.

Page 194 of 303 ends

Brisbane Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) Nexus Study
August 2026
24 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 Error! Reference source not found. 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.

Page 195 of 303 ends

Brisbane Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) Nexus Study
August 2026
25 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 Error! Reference source not found. 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.

Page 196 of 303 ends

Brisbane Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) Nexus Study
August 2026
26 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 in the City, 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. Table 5 constitutes the capital improvement plan required under the Mitigation Fee Act for the TIF program. The capital improvement plan will be adopted by the City Council prior to approval of the TIF fees and will be updated annually by the City Council.
• Nexus studies must be updated at least every eight (8) years. This nexus study and associated fee calculations will need to be updated by 2034.

Page 197 of 303 ends

Attachment A:

Project Cut Sheets

Page 198 of 303 ends

Candlesঞ ck Interchange Reconfi guraঞ on

BAYLANDS
1 TIF District
Shared - Baylands (primary), West
Brisbane, Sierra Point
Locaঞ on
US-101 Candlesঞ ck Park Interchange
Total Project Cost Esঞ mate
$ 195,000,000 (from 2013 Bi-County
Study)
Assumed TIF Contribuঞ on (from 2013
Bi-County Study)*
$ 42,344,516
$ 35,880,000 - Baylands
$ 1.284,467 - West Brisbane
$ 5,180,049 - Sierra Point
* Allocaঞ on of assumed TIF
contribuঞ on is based on proporঞ onal
cost responsibility per Table ES-3
“Cost-Parঞ cipaঞ on Percentages
and Amounts, by Automobile Trip
Generaঞ on Method” in the Bi-County
Transportaঞ on Study.

The Candlesঞ ck Interchange Reconfi guraঞ on would address defi cient condiঞ ons that would arise with land use growth in both San Mateo and San Francisco counঞ es, and thus will require signifi cant coordinaঞ on among several jurisdicঞ ons, including the ciঞ es of Brisbane, Daly City, and San Francisco and Caltrans. The project includes a reconfi guraঞ on of the exisঞ ng US-101 interchange at Candlesঞ ck Park/Harney Way to accommodate the extension of Geneva Avenue by the Baylands Specifi c 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 exisঞ ng intersecঞ on, off -ramp is new structure and on-ramp footprint remains the same
• Northbound ramps converge on new intersecঞ on, off -ramp uses exisঞ ng footprint and on-ramp has a new structure
• BRT enters around southbound ramps
• Bridge over US-101 towards Bea y Ave (confi guraঞ on not described) The project was evaluated in the Bi-County Transportaঞ on Study (2013) lead by the SFCTA and in partnership with several agencies from both sides of the San FranciscoSan Mateo county line, as a potenঞ al transportaঞ on improvement needed to address signifi cant current and anঞ cipated land use growth. The project has also been considered during the planning of the Candlesঞ ck 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 ঞ me elapsed since prior studies, the interchange design would need to be updated to refl ect the current land uses and design standards.

As further described Bi-County Transportaঞ on Study (2011), the funding strategy determined “fair-share” contribuঞ ons from public and private enঞঞ es involved in the study area. The project’s total esঞ mated 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 jurisdicঞ ons, development projects, and stakeholders. Given the ঞ me elapsed since these esঞ mates were prepared, updated cost esঞ mates 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

Page 199 of 303 ends

Bayshore Corridor Mobility Plan 2a
TIF District
Shared - Baylands, West Brisbane,
Sierra Point
Locaঞ on
Bayshore Boulevard (Brisbane)
Total Project Cost Esঞ mate
$ 10,000,000
Assumed TIF Contribuঞ on*
$ 5,504,265
$ 2,476,433 - Baylands
$ 2,017,432 - West Brisbane
$ 1,010,400 - Sierra Point
* Allocaঞ on of assumed TIF
contribuঞ on is based on proporঞ onal
contribuঞ on of traffi c volumes from
each district.

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 addiঞ on to
vehicular movement, and provide for
comfortable and safe travel within the
community to shopping, employment,
and recreaঞ on, as well as to transit and
the Highway 101 freeway.” General
Plan Policy C.4 further calls for planning
an addiঞ onal east-west corridor to
redirect non-desঞ naঞ on traffi c away
Source: Bayshore Mobility Plan (2024), Fehr & Peers

BAYLANDS WEST BRISBANE SIERRA PT

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

KEY INFORMATION
from Bayshore Boulevard. The Bayshore
Mobility Plan could consist of a road
diet, improved local access, and road
safety improvements consistent with
the conceptual plans presented in the
Bayshore Mobility Plan memorandum
included as an appendix to the Brisbane
Baylands Transportaঞ on Impact
Assessment Report. The Bayshore
Mobility Plan would address defi cient
condiঞ ons that would occur due to
the growth in demand for mulঞ -modal
travel resulঞ ng 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 traffi c generated from each
district on Bayshore Boulevard. The
northern porঞ on of this project would
be implemented in tandem with the
Baylands Specifi c Plan, which includes
access changes along Bayshore
Boulevard between Geneva Avenue in
the north and the future Campus Drive
intersecঞ on in the south. Bayshore
Mobility Plan could be implemented
with or without the road diet if this
component of the Mobility Plan is not
adopted by Brisbane City Council.

Page 200 of 303 ends

TIF District
West Brisbane
Locaঞ on
Bayshore Boulevard / San Bruno
Avenue
Total Project Cost Esঞ mate
$ 850,000
Assumed TIF Contribuঞ on
$ 850,000 - West Brisbane
The Bayshore Boulevard and San Bruno Avenue Intersecঞ on Improvement is part of the greater Bayshore Boulevard Mobility Plan (see Project 2a), to accommodate traffi c 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 implementaঞ on of the enঞ re 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 Contribuঞ on.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

KEY INFORMATION
Bayshore Boulevard / San Bruno Avenue Signalizaঞ on
2b

WEST BRISBANE
Source: Bayshore Mobility Plan: Concept Design Recommendaঞ ons (2024), Fehr & Peers Note: Figure shows the signal with Bayshore Mobility Plan in place.

Page 201 of 303 ends

Sierra Pt Pkwy / Lagoon Road /
US 101 Southbound Ramp Roundabout 3a
TIF District
Baylands and Sierra Point
Locaঞ on
US-101 Southbound Ramps, Sierra
Point Parkway, and Lagoon Road
Total Project Cost Esঞ mate
$ 1,025,000
Assumed TIF Contribuঞ on*
$ 1,025,000
$ 512,500 - Baylands
$ 512,500 - Sierra Point
* The project has its fee split 50%
/ 50% between the Baylands and
Sierra Point TIF districts. This refl ects
a shared benefi t of the proposed
improvements for Baylands residents
and Sierra Point employees.

As documented in the Brisbane Baylands Transportaঞ on Impact Assessment, a roundabout is the preferred confi guraঞ on for the rebuilt intersecঞ on 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 addiঞ on of traffi c generated by the Baylands Specifi c Plan and land use growth in Sierra Point. A roundabout would replace the traffi c signal required as a part of TRAF-1 P3RE MMRP, with a credit for the $1,025,000 for design and construcঞ on costs already paid by the Sierra Pt LLC applicant .

A roundabout at this locaঞ on will be completed in tandem with the realignment of Lagoon Road as proposed in the Baylands Specifi c Plan. The roundabout will require Caltrans approval and is expected to include the following features based on the Brisbane Baylands Transportaঞ on Impact Assessment:
• Two le[ 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 direcঞ on on Sierra Point Parkway south of the roundabout
• One lane in each direcঞ on 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 Transportaঞ on Impact Study: Supplemental Design Guidelines, which are based on Caltrans and Bay Trail standards.

Source: The Baylands Specifi c Plan (2023), Universal Paragon Corporaঞ on

BAYLANDS

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

KEY INFORMATION

SIERRA PT

Page 202 of 303 ends

TIF District
Baylands and Sierra Point
Locaঞ on
Sierra Point Parkway between Lagoon
Road and Marina Boulevard
Total Project Cost Esঞ mate
$ 1,715,000
Assumed TIF Contribuঞ on*
$ 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 refl ects a shared
benefi t of the proposed Class I bike
facility for Baylands residents and
Sierra Point employees.

As documented in the Brisbane Baylands Transportaঞ on Impact Assessment, with the addiঞ on of the Bay Trail segment north of Lagoon Road and the change in land uses proposed by the Baylands Specifi c 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 defi cient gap in the “all ages and abiliঞ es” network for people walking and bicycling, as idenঞfi ed by MTC’s Acঞ ve Transportaঞ on Network and Bay Trail Plans, between the proposed pathways in Baylands and Sierra Point. A Bay Trail compliant Class I mulঞ -use pathway on this segment would close this network gap and would allow commuter and recreaঞ onal travelers to walk or bike safely between Bay Trail pathways at Sierra Point and the rest of the City of Brisbane and other nearby communiঞ es.

This Bay Trail segment would connect in the north to the proposed Class 1 mulঞ -use pathways included in the Baylands Specifi c Plan south of Lagoon Road and east of the Sierra Point Parkway extension north of Lagoon Road. This connecঞ on is idenঞfi ed 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 intersecঞ on, 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 mulঞ -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 Transportaঞ on 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 Specifi c Plan (2023), Universal Paragon Corporaঞ on 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.

Page 203 of 303 ends

Sierra Pt Parkway / Marina Blvd (West) /
4a Shoreline Court Roundabout
TIF District
Sierra Point
Locaঞ on
Sierra Point Parkway and Marina
Boulevard (West)
Total Project Cost Esঞ mate
$ 3,280,000
Assumed TIF Contribuঞ on
$ 3,280,000 - Sierra Point
The Sierra Point Sub-Area includes operaঞ onal and safety improvements to the intersecঞ on Sierra Point Parkway / Marina Boulevard (West) / Shoreline Court to support the increase in mulঞ - modal travel associated with the increased density of Sierra Point.

The project includes the installaঞ on of a dual-lane roundabout to address defi cient future traffi c operaঞ ons with the build out of land uses in Sierra Point. This project replaces a previous proposal to signalize the intersecঞ on from the prior Sierra Point EIR (TRAF3 P3RE MMRP), with a credit for the $1,540,000 for design and construcঞ on costs already paid by the Sierra Pt LLC applicant .

The roundabout would improve traffi c fl ow and mulঞ -modal safety compared to the previously proposed signalized intersecঞ on by reducing vehicle speeds and crossing distances for people walking and bicycling. New Bay Trail connecঞ ons would be provided through the roundabout to connect the exisঞ ng Bay Trail segments in Sierra Point to the northwest and southeast of the intersecঞ on, Project 3b (Sierra Point Parkway Bay Trail Gap Closure), and Project 5 (Sierra Point Internal Mulঞ -Use Pathway). Class 1 trail crossings would include features that meet the design standards outlined in the Brisbane Baylands Transportaঞ on Impact Study: Supplemental Design Guidelines, which are based on Caltrans and Bay Trail standards.

Source: City of Brisbane

SIERRA PT

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

KEY INFORMATION

Page 204 of 303 ends

Sierra Pt Parkway / Marina Blvd (East) /
4b Shoreline Court Roundabout
TIF District
Sierra Point
Locaঞ on
Sierra Point Parkway and Marina
Boulevard (East)
Total Project Cost Esঞ mate
$ 2,000,000
Assumed TIF Contribuঞ on
$ 2,000,000 - Sierra Point
The Sierra Point Sub-Area includes operaঞ onal and safety improvements to the intersecঞ on Sierra Point Parkway / Marina Boulevard (East) to support the increase in mulঞ -modal travel associated with the increased density of Sierra Point. The project includes the installaঞ on of a single-lane roundabout to replace the exisঞ ng all-way stop sign with four lane approaches on Sierra Point Parkway and Marina Boulevard. The roundabout and associated reducঞ on from four to two lanes on Sierra Point Parkway and Marina Boulevard approaching the intersecঞ on 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 connecঞ ons would be provided through the roundabout on the north leg to connect Project 5 (Sierra Point Internal Mulঞ -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 Transportaঞ on 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

Page 205 of 303 ends

TIF District
Sierra Point
Locaঞ on
Sierra Point Parkway at Brisbane
Marina
Total Project Cost Esঞ mate
$ 2,000,000
Assumed TIF Contribuঞ on
$ 2,000,000 - Sierra Point
The Sierra Point Sub-Area includes operaঞ onal and safety improvements to the terminus of the Sierra Point Parkway at the Brisbane Marina driveways to support the increase in mulঞ -modal travel associated with the increased density of Sierra Point and facilitate vehicle access to 9000 Marina Boulevard. The project includes the installaঞ on of a single-lane roundabout to replace the exisঞ ng all-way stop sign with right-turn channelized slip lanes. The roundabout, reducঞ on from four to two lanes on Sierra Point Parkway, and reconfi guraঞ on 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 connecঞ on would provide conঞ nuous 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 Transportaঞ on 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

Page 206 of 303 ends

Sierra Point Internal Mulঞ -Use Pathway
Sierra Point Parkway
Bayshore Freeway
Shoreline Court
Bayshore Boulevard
Marina Boulevard
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
Locaঞ on
Sierra Point District
Total Project Cost Esঞ mate
$ 4,000,000
Assumed TIF Contribuঞ on
$ 4,000,000 - Sierra Point
The Sierra Point Sub-Area includes safety improvements to connect other proposed Class 1 pathways to provide a complete internal network for mulঞ -modal travel in support of the increased density of Sierra Point. This project includes the installaঞ on of a class 1 pathway around the central parcel of Sierra Point Parkway in coordinaঞ on with the Sierra Point Towers project and high-visibility crosswalks with crossing enhancements consistent with those outlined in the Brisbane Baylands Transportaঞ on 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

Page 207 of 303 ends

TIF District
West Brisbane
Locaঞ on
Park Lane between 145 Park Lane and
Old County Road
Total Project Cost Esঞ mate
$ 1,200,000
Assumed TIF Contribuঞ on
$ 1,200,000 - West Brisbane
Implement Park Lane street secঞ on of the Parkside Precise Plan to accommodate land use changes:
• Maintain established street alignments.
• Within exisঞ ng 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 fi gure above
• Maintain exisঞ ng curb edges and stormwater fl owlines unless otherwise authorized by the City Engineer.
• Add bulb-outs along parking lanes. Landscaping bulbs in the parking lane may be considered at key locaঞ ons if the adjacent parkway does not provide suffi cient width for appropriate landscaping.
• Plant trees in the Brisbane Approved Street Tree List along all roadways to help arঞ culate the street edge and open areas, provide pedestrians with a buff er from motorized traffi c, and off er shade and wind protecঞ on along sidewalks and pathways • Require a clear, unobstructed conঞ guous, 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

Page 208 of 303 ends

TIF District
West Brisbane
Locaঞ on
Old County Rd between San Francisco
Ave and Bayshore Blvd
Total Project Cost Esঞ mate
$ 100,000
Assumed TIF Contribuঞ on
$ 100,000 - West Brisbane

KEY INFORMATION
Parkside Precise Plan: Old County Road 6 WEST BRISBANE
Implement Old County Road street secঞ on of the Parkside Precise Plan to accommodate land use changes:
• Maintain established street alignments.
• Within exisঞ ng 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 fi gure above
• Maintain exisঞ ng curb edges and stormwater fl owlines unless otherwise authorized by the City Engineer.
• Add bulb-outs along parking lanes. Landscaping bulbs in the parking lane may be considered at key locaঞ ons if the adjacent parkway does not provide suffi cient width for appropriate landscaping.
• Plant trees in the Brisbane Approved Street Tree List along all roadways to help arঞ culate the street edge and open areas, provide pedestrians with a buff er from motorized traffi c, and off er shade and wind protecঞ on along sidewalks and pathways • Require a clear, unobstructed conঞ guous, 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

Page 209 of 303 ends

TIF District
West Brisbane
Locaঞ on
Valley Drive from Bayshore Blvd to
Silverspot Dr
Total Project Cost Esঞ mate
$ 3,000,000
Assumed TIF Contribuঞ on
$ 3,000,000 - West Brisbane
Implement Valley Drive bicycle and pedestrian improvements per the 2017 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan and the fi ndings from the Crocker Park Technical Assistance Panel. Improvements include the following:
• Install Class II bike lanes from Bayshore Blvd to Silverspot Dr • Extend exisঞ ng median islands and pedestrian cages at Crocker Trail and City Hall
• Add median islands, pedestrian cages, and yield teeth at two exisঞ ng locaঞ ons
Source: Crocker Park Technical Assistance Panel (2014), City of Brisbane

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

KEY INFORMATION
Valley Drive Improvements 7

WEST BRISBANE

Page 210 of 303 ends

Attachment B:

Bayshore Boulevard Cost Attribution
Calculations
Table 9 presents a select link analysis prepared using the VISUM subarea travel demand model prepared for the Baylands TIA. The select link analysis presents all the PM peak hour trips traveling to and from the land uses within each land use district on the segment of Bayshore Boulevard between Valley Drive and Guadalupe Canyon Parkway, which is located the middle of the approximately two mile long corridor. The scenario analyzed is the cumulative plus Baylands project scenario including the full Bayshore Mobility Plan evaluated as a part of the Baylands TIA. This scenario includes all the anticipated development for Brisbane included in the Land Use Inputs section as well as other reasonably foreseeable regional development that is anticipated to occur by 2040. This scenario also includes other planned or reasonably foreseeable infrastructure improvements, including the US 101 Candlestick Interchange, Geneva Avenue Extension, and other infrastructure projects described in the Infrastructure Inputs section. While the Bayshore Mobility Plan analyzed in the TIF includes a road diet component, the City Council could ultimately adopt a final plan that does not include the road diet while implementing the remaining components to improve roadway safety and accessibility.

Table 9: Contributions to Bayshore Boulevard (Project 2a, PM Peak Hour) Street Name Total
Volumes
Baylands Project Central Brisbane Sierra Point Total Attributable to Brisbane
Volume Share Volume Share Volume Share Volume Share
Northbound
Bayshore
Boulevard 1,630 370 23% 280 17% 230 14% 880 54%
Southbound
Bayshore
Boulevard 820 220 27% 190 23% 50 6% 460 56%
Average 25% 20% 10% 55%
Notes:

1. Roadway volumes were pulled from Visum Sub-Area model and rounded to the nearest 10.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2026.

Page 211 of 303 ends

Attachment C:

Guidance for Future Updates of the
Transportation Impact Fee
Attachment C provides guidance for future updates to the Transportation Impact Fee if substantive changes occur to the transportation improvement program. The example included in this attachment illustrates the types of adjustments that may be appropriate under certain circumstances. The same general approach should be applied to other future changes, as appropriate, to maintain consistency between the development assumptions, transportation improvements, cost allocations, and resulting fee calculations used in the TIF program.

Changes to the cost, scope, funding responsibility, or district allocation of a transportation improvement included in the TIF may require the maximum fee rates to be recalculated. The Candlestick Interchange is used below as an illustrative example of how such an update could be performed. Because the Candlestick Interchange is allocated across all three TIF districts, this report also provides fee calculations that omit the current Candlestick Interchange contribution to provide a baseline for evaluating a future project update.

Error! Reference source not found. 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. For purposes of the illustrative update methodology below, Table 9 provides a baseline from which the effect of an updated cost for the Candlestick Interchange Project can be evaluated.

Page 212 of 303 ends

Table 10: Maximum Fee Calculations Without the Candlestick Interchange Project Land Use Category Baylands Sierra Point West Brisbane
Residential (Dwelling
Unit) $274.94 - $5,424.83
Office (SF) $0.50 $7.21 -
Retail (SF) $4.93 - -
Hotel (Room) $393.48 $4,986.78 -
Warehouse/Quarry (SF) - - $2.34
Life Science (SF) - $7.21 -
Source: Fehr & Peers
The following steps illustrate how the maximum fee rates could be updated if the Candlestick Interchange cost estimate or cost allocation changes. A similar approach may be applied to other transportation projects, with the specific allocation methodology depending on the nexus basis for the affected project.

To update the maximum fee values, use the values in Table 10 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: $13,919,415
▪ West Brisbane: $7,242,845
Calculate the percentage growth as:

𝑁𝑒𝑤 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡 − 𝐵𝑎𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡
𝐵𝑎𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡 × 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 + 𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝐺𝑟𝑜𝑤𝑡ℎ)
Example: If the percentage growth is 10%, a $100 fee would increase to $110.

Page 213 of 303 ends

The steps above illustrate how changes to a transportation project cost or allocation can be incorporated into the TIF calculation. A similar approach may be applied to other transportation project updates, with the specific allocation methodology based on the nexus established for the affected project. 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 of the projects included in the nexus study.

Page 214 of 303 ends

1 Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Capital Improvement Projects Project Name Description
Total
Project
Cost
Assumed Impact
Fee Contribution
Impact Fee
Category
Available
Expansion of Community
Garden
Expand 0.25-acre community
garden at 399 San Francisco
Avenue
$150,000 $150,000 Park
Improvements
FY 2031
Bocce Ball Courts Project
Install bocce ball courts at
Community Park, 11 Old County
Road
$75,000 $75,000 Recreation
Facilities
FY 2031
New Restroom & Storage
Buildings
Construct restroom and storage
buildings at Lipman School
Athletic Field, 132 Humboldt
Road
$200,000 $200,000 Recreation
Facilities
FY 2031
Lipman Tennis Court Lighting
Install new lighting at Lipman
Middle School Tennis Courts, 1
Solano Street
$140,000 $140,000 Recreation
Facilities
FY 2031
Mission Blue Sports Complex
Amenities
Install improvements including
sunshades and batting cages at
475 Mission Blue Drive
$100,000 $100,000 Recreation
Facilities
FY 2031
Bankshot Basketball Court
Install new bankshot basketball
courts at 22 San Bruno Avenue
$125,000 $125,000 Recreation
Facilities
FY 2031
Exhibit C

Page 215 of 303 ends

2 Project Name Description
Total
Project
Cost
Assumed Impact
Fee Contribution
Impact Fee
Category
Available
Community Park &
Playground Improvements
Update play structures at
Community Park, 11 Old County
Road
$1,000,000 $1,000,000 Recreation
Facilities
FY 2031
Tot Lot Playground Upgrades
Upgrade tot lot playground at 4
Solano Street
$700,000 $700,000 Recreation
Facilities
FY 2031
Quarry Road Park
Improvements
Trail and landscaping
improvements at Quarry Road
Park, 399 San Francisco Avenue
$100,000 $100,000 Open
Space/Trails
FY 2028
Mission Blue Field Lighting
Upgrade
Install new field lighting at
Mission Blue Field, 475 Mission
Blue Drive
$50,000 $50,000 Recreation
Facilities
FY 2027
Mission Blue Center Facility
Improvements
Facility improvements, including
a new kitchen, at 475 Mission
Blue Drive
$400,000 $400,000 Recreation
Facilities
FY 2030
Sierra Point Open Space/Park
Development
Improvements to Sierra Point
Open Space and Park
Development
$2,000,000 $2,000,000 Park
Improvements
FY 2031

Page 216 of 303 ends

3 Project Name Description
Total
Project
Cost
Assumed Impact
Fee Contribution
Impact Fee
Category
Available
Community Pool
Improvements
Improve pool infrastructure,
including sunshades and
electrical upgrades, at 2 Solano
Street
$600,000 $600,000 Recreation
Facilities
FY 2031
Silverspot Facility
Improvements/Expansion
Improvements and expansion of
the existing Silverspot Facility, 4
Solano Street
$100,000 $100,000 Recreation
Facilities
FY 2036
Citywide Trail Development
Trail development at Quarry
Road Trail, San Bruno Mountain,
Firth Canyon, and Costanos
Canyon Park
$1,000,000 $1,000,000 Open
Space/Trails
FY 2036
Crocker Trail Master Plan
Implementation
Implementation of the Crocker
Trail Master Plan and related
improvements
$4,000,000 $4,000,000 Open
Space/Trails
FY 2031
Sierra Point Fitness Station
Improvements
Improvements to the Sierra Point
Fitness Station
$100,000 $100,000 Recreation
Facilities
FY 2028
New Park in Central Brisbane
Acquire 0.25–1.0 acre of
parkland for public recreation in
Central Brisbane
$2,000,000 $2,000,000 Park Land FY 2036

Page 217 of 303 ends

Page 218 of 303 ends

5 Public Facilities Impact Fee Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Project Name Description
Total Project
Cost
Assumed Impact
Fee Contribution
Impact Fee
Category
Available
City Entryway
Improvements
Improvements to City entrances,
including signage, landscaping, and
hardscape
$500,000 $500,000 General
Government
FY 2032
Stairway: Santa Clara
to Tulare Avenue
Create a pedestrian walkway between
Santa Clara and Tulare Street
$500,000 $500,000 General
Government
FY 2030
Stairway: Santa Clara
to Alvarado
Create a pedestrian walkway between
Santa Clara and Alvarado
$282,500 $282,500 General
Government
FY 2030
Crocker Trail Lighting
Improvements
Install new lighting improvements
along Crocker Trail
$600,000 $600,000 General
Government
FY 2028
City Hall Emergency
Services Generator
Upgrade
Install a new backup generator at City
Hall, 50 Park Place
$60,000 $60,000 Police FY 2028
Bayshore/San Bruno
Intersection
Improvements
Intersection improvements and
installation of a new traffic signal at
Bayshore and San Bruno Avenue
$550,000 $550,000 General
Government
FY 2035
Traffic Controller
Improvements
Upgrade traffic controllers $400,000 $400,000 General
Government
FY 2035

Page 219 of 303 ends

6 Project Name Description
Total Project
Cost
Assumed Impact
Fee Contribution
Impact Fee
Category
Available
Humboldt Road to
Kings Road Pedestrian
Path
Create a new pedestrian path
connecting Humboldt Road to Kings
Road
$470,134 $470,134 General
Government
FY 2035
San Francisco Avenue
to Old County Road
Pedestrian Path
Create a new pedestrian path from San
Francisco Avenue to Old County Road
at Bayshore
$400,000 $400,000 General
Government
FY 2035
Marina Facilities
Improvements
Facility improvements, including
addition of a new bathroom at 400
Sierra Point Parkway
$500,000 $500,000 General
Government
FY 2028
Parcel R Park
Development
Implement Phase II of the Parcel R
Park Development Project
$1,000,000 $1,000,000 General
Government
FY 2032
Community Center
Improvements &
Expansion
Improvements and expansion of the
Community Center at 250 Visitacion
Avenue
$500,000 $500,000 General
Government
FY 2032
Additional Fire Station –
Baylands Development
Develop an additional fire station to
meet the service needs associated
with Baylands development
$40,000,000 $40,000,000 Fire FY 2035
Central Brisbane Fire
Station Relocation
Relocate and construct a new
Central Brisbane Fire Station
$25,000,000 $25,000,000 Fire FY 2035

Page 220 of 303 ends

7 Project Name Description
Total Project
Cost
Assumed Impact
Fee Contribution
Impact Fee
Category
Available
response-time needs associated with
new development
Library Facility
Improvements
Improve existing library facility to
address impacts associated with new
development
$2,000,000 $2,000,000 Library FY 2035

Page 221 of 303 ends

H.
? IS CITf COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date:

From:

Subject:

January 15, 2025
Christina Fernandez, Assistant City Manager
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. 45 Impact Fees

Page 222 of 303 ends

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 Q.uimby 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 46 Impact Fees

Page 223 of 303 ends

H.
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:

Brisbane Commercial Linkage
Fee Nexus Analysis
Affordable Housing
Development Impact Fee for
Commercial Development
Housing
47 Impact Fees

Page 224 of 303 ends

Parks and Recreation Impact
Fee Study
Brisbane Transportation
Impact Fee (TIF) Nexus Study
Public Facilities Impact Fee
Study
Parks and Recreation
Facilities Development
Impact Fee
Transportation Development
Impact Fee
Public Facilities Development
Impact Fee
Parks & Recreation
Transportation
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. Sin Ie Famil 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.
48 Impact Fees

Page 225 of 303 ends

Single. Family Residential- 2^00 sq. ft.
$140, 808
$129, 000
$180, 080
& $88, 000
^ $60, 809
$40, 088
$20, 008
$e
Brisbane . Max.

Just Fee
risbaneRe mmended
] CenETaI Gmt
1 Public Safety
SanBiuno
Housing
iTianspoitation
Millbrae
Library
Utilities
South San
Francisco
Emeryville Burtinsame DalyChy
. Parks S See.
.Cverall Average

2. Multifamil 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 DIP for General Government at $10,257, 482. 49 Impact Fees

Page 226 of 303 ends

Multi-Family180 units: 180, 000 sq. ft. -Total Impact Fees $14,
$12,
$10, t/1 y'~<
&; $8,
S. S6,
S4,
Sz
808, 080
eee, eee
800, 089
888, 989
886, 8B8
868, 988
088, 008
SB
isbaire-Ma
Just Fee
isbaneR ommendedSanBnino
Gene''af Covt
1 Public Safely
Housing
Tranbportatiun
Millbrae
Library
Utilities
South San
Francisco
Parks
.Overall Average
Emeryville Burtingame
«Child care
DalyCity

3. Research & Develo ment 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 DIP making up the majority of those fees at $876,000.

Research and Development - Total Impact Fees
$i6, eee,
$14, see,
$i2, eee,
S $ie, eee,
S $s, eea
$6, eee
S4, 980,
$2, eee,
088
eec
see
009
898
eae
888
eee
S9
Brisbane - Max.

Just Fee
General Covt
Public Safety
Brisbane -
Recommended
San Biuno Millbrae South San
Francisco
Housing
Transportation
Library
1 Utilities
Childcaie
.Overall Average
Emeryvitte Burtinganne
Parks & Rec
Oaiy City
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, 50 Impact Fees

Page 227 of 303 ends

H.
$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.

Hotel (!ZO rooms; 7i>,000 sq. ft.) - lotal Impact hees
szs. we. aee -
Sze. eeB. aee
S $15, see, gee
sie. eea. eee
ss. wa. ew
$9
Millbrae Sou* San Francisco Emeiyiille Buriingame OalyChy uenefrt uovi ^ Housing Library - childcare Parte & Hec «. Public safeii,' ^ I ransportation ^ Utilittes .-Uveisli Averege Briabnne-Mm. Brisbane- SanBruno
Just. Fee Recommcrtdcd

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, Emeryvilte, 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.

Industrial - 60,000 sq. ft. - 1ota\ impact fees
Me.
$35.

S36,
£»5.
re'
£Sl5,
Sia,
$5,
We. 888
eee. BM
BBB. eaa
BflB. BBB
988, 986
we.eae -
690. 888 -
ese. eee
Sa
Brisbane-Max BrisbaneJutl, Fee Recommended
Gensral Govt ^«i Housing Ubrary
SsnBruno Milltoae South San Francisco Emeffville Buflinganne Dalydly iChMcare Parks tRec -PuUic Safety -Transportatiai - Utilities --Oiwal Avars ge 6^ Commercial or Retail Develo ment:
51 Impact Fees

Page 228 of 303 ends

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.

Cortirntirci^l or R&Ifjil 3,SOO*<<^ ft.
s?, ega, Bee
$1, 863, 888
Si. eea. BBe
$i, 48B, BBS
S! 51, 289, 988
S S1, 9, 988
^ $886, 909
S6ee, eee
$4B8, B88
Briebane - Ma. Britbane - San Bruno
Just. fee fiecommended
1 General Govt «^ Housing Library iChlldcare
Milibrae South San Francfsco Emeryvitte Buriingame
Parks&Rec PublicSafety -1 Transportation -Ulillties '
Daly City
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 Above Below Below Below Below
Average Average Average Average Average Average
Multifamily
Residential
Above Above Below
Average Average Average
Average Below
Average
Below
Average
R&D/Office Above Below Above Below Average Below
Average Average Average Average Average
Hotet Above Below Average Below Above Below
Average Average Average Average Average
Industrial Average Below Above Average Below Average
Average Average Average
52 Impact Fees

Page 229 of 303 ends

Commercial/Retait Above Below Above Below Below Below
Average Average Average Average Average 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 futuredevelopment. Input from the Council is essential to determine how competitively the City wants to establish development impart 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
Z>>&ttH^
Jerem Dennis, City Manager
53 Impact Fees

Page 230 of 303 ends

Page 231 of 303 ends

K.
> IS CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
?v
or
Meeting Date:

From:

Subject:

February 19, 2026
Christina Femandez, 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.
44 Impact Fees (Continued)

Page 232 of 303 ends

K.
. 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?
45 Impact Fees (Continued)

Page 233 of 303 ends

K.
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 46 Impact Fees (Continued)

Page 234 of 303 ends

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
Z^ejtM^
Jerem Dennis, City Manager
47 Impact Fees (Continued)

Page 235 of 303 ends

s 1}
A
>>^^^^
OlCity Council Staff Report
Meeting Date: March 5, 2026
From: Christina Fernandez, Assistant City Manager
Subject: Development Impact Fees Workshop
Recommendation
Staff recommends 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
The 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 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 and February 19, 2026 staff reports.

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 copy of those questions and responses is included in the February 19, 2026 staff report (Attachment 1).

At the February 19, 2026 City Council meeting, Council had additional questions for staff (listed

Page 236 of 303 ends

below).

For what purpose may these funds be used?(e.g. Mission Blue kitchen, elevator, expansion,etc)
o Impact fees may only be used to fund capital improvements needed due to new development and must have a reasonable relationship to the development. While impact fees may be used for example, to expand an existing facility, such fees may be used only when new development necessitates the need for the expansion. Impact fees may not be used for general operations or services.

To what development projects will these fees likely impact? o These impact Fees will likely impact very few projects in Brisbane. Only certain projects are at the scale that would require the imposition of development impact fees. Minor home remodels or tenant
improvements that do not increase square footage would not be subject to impact fees.

May the Council rank the individual fees (parks, facilities, transit, housing?) o Yes, see the matrix. While the focus of staff has been the total impact fee charged per development type, the matrix provides the opportunity for Council to indicate which range a particular fee be set.

May impact fees be imposed overtime??
o Impact fees are one-time fees. Ongoing maintenance costs need to be funded in another way.

How defensible are impact fees?
o Impact fees are very defensible when backed with the appropriate nexus studies.

Fee Setting
For purposes of scheduling a public hearing at which time Council will make a final decision as to whether to adopt any or all of the DIFs and the amount(s) thereof, staff requests feedback from Council on where to set the development impact fees per development type. The matrix in the previous packet has been modified to include a ranking of various development fees per

Page 237 of 303 ends

development type.

It is important to acknowledge that where rates are set will impact the amount of development in Brisbane and this is inherently a policy decision for a governing body. The collected funds will accumulate over time and the Council's ability to expend funds on capital improvements or affordable housing projects may be constrained if the accumulated funds are inadequate. It is also important to note that impact fees may serve as a baseline from which to negotiate fees in a Development Agreement.

For each development type, please indicate whether the Council's preference is for a low, an average, or an above average fee. For instance, in looking at a range of fee amounts, if Council prefers a low transportation impact fee for single family residential developments, please assign a '1' to that cell. Staff will compile this data and bring forward a recommendation based on this feedback at a subsequent City Council meeting.

City of Brisbane -
Development Impart
Fee Matrix
Development Type Transportation Parks & Commercial Public Overall Notes Recreation Linkage* Facilities Score
Single Family
Residential
Multifamily
Residential
Hotel
Industrial
R&D/Office
Commercial / Retail
x
x
*Commercial
Linkage applies to
commercial
development only

Page 238 of 303 ends

Legend:

Rank 1- Low Impact
Fee
Rank 2 - Average
Impact Fee
Rank 3 - High Impact
Fee
Fiscal Impact
The fiscal impact varies depending on the number and type of development projects in the pipeline and the level at which the fees are set.

Attachments

1. Impact Fee Staff Reports & associated attachments - 01/15/26 and 2/19/26

2. Revised Matrix for Council Use
City Manager Approval
Jeremy Dennis, City
Manager
02/27/2026

Page 239 of 303 ends

City Council Staff Report
Meeting Date: September 17, 2026
From: Noreen Leek, Parks and Recreation Director
Subject: Silverspot One Year Check in
Recommendation
Staff recommend the City Council receive an update from Silverspot Cooperative Nursery School regarding their program.

Background
Silverspot Cooperative Nursery Preschool is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization that was established in 2002. Silverspot is a parent-run cooperative nursery school committed to fostering a supportive community centered on learning, growth, and meaningful engagement for children and their families. Silverspot’s program is designed to provide children with a safe, healthy, and nurturing environment where they can learn and develop through a play-based curriculum. The school is an active member of the California Council of Parent Participation Nursery Schools and serves children ranging in age from two years through five years and eleven months. Through its cooperative model, parents play an active role in supporting the school’s operations and creating a strong sense of community among participating families. For more than 23 years, Silverspot has operated its preschool program on City-owned property located at 4 Solano Street. Over that time, the organization has become an established part of the local community and has continued to provide early childhood education and programming to Brisbane families.

Discussion
In late 2025, the City Council considered an amendment to and extension of Silverspot’s lease agreement to allow the organization to continue operating its preschool program on Cityowned property at 4 Solano Street. Following its consideration, the City Council approved a two-year extension of the lease agreement. As part of that action, the City Council requested that Silverspot return to the Council after one year to provide an update on the organization’s operations, enrollment, financial condition, and overall program health. The purpose of the requested update is to provide the City Council with an opportunity to assess the continued viability of the program, understand any significant changes or challenges affecting the organization, and ensure that Silverspot remains well-positioned to fulfill its mission while operating on City property.

Fiscal Impact
There is no fiscal impact associated with receiving this update.

Page 240 of 303 ends

Attachments

1. Silverspot annual report 2026-27
City Manager Approval
Jeremy Dennis, City
Manager
09/11/2026

Page 241 of 303 ends

SILVERSPOT NURSERY SCHOOL
4 Solano Street, Brisbane CA 94005
415-657-0142 | info@ silverspotcoop.org | www.silverspotcoop.org Report to the City of Brisbane
Silverspot Nursery School
September 1, 2026
Dear Jeremy Dennis:

This is a report of activities at Silverspot Nursery School required by our lease with the City of Brisbane. It has the current enrollment information as of September 2026. Below is a breakdown of our current enrollment and Tuition Assistance numbers per the reporting requirements requested by the Brisbane City Council.

Enrollment
Silverspot has begun our 2025/26 school year with 8 new students. We graduated 7 students this past July. Three went on to kindergarten and four moved on to transitional kindergarten (TK). We currently have 2 part time morning spots available and will continue to have on going tours for prospective families.

Here is a breakdown of our current enrollment numbers as of September 2026:

Total enrollment: 22 Students (20 Families)
Brisbane residents: 11 Students
Employed in Brisbane: 0 Families
Non-residents: 11 Students
Non-resident families come mainly from the southern neighborhoods of San Francisco (e.g., Visitacion Valley, Portola, Mission, Bernal Heights and Potrero Hill), as well as San Bruno and South San Francisco.

Our enrollment this year consists of 14 returning students, 2 families with siblings, and 5 new Brisbane families and 1 new non-resident. We were able to continue offering extended hours as well as four different schedules and families chose to participate with full time or part time schedules. We are currently open Monday thru Friday from 8am-5pm.

Page 242 of 303 ends

SILVERSPOT NURSERY SCHOOL
4 Solano Street, Brisbane CA 94005
415-657-0142 | info@ silverspotcoop.org | www.silverspotcoop.org Tuition Assistance
There are currently 2 families (both residents of Brisbane) on Tuition Assistance. We are subsidizing at $1100 a month. Most years, in addition to the monies we would have paid the city in rent ($1000 per month) that we set aside to fund this program, we have budgeted extra funds each month to cover the tuition assistance needs of Silverspot families. Additionally, we offer this assistance to our community all throughout the school year in case we have families that incur a sudden financial change.

Advertising to Brisbane Residents
We were kindly asked by the Brisbane School Board to join their Back to School event this year. Our board members set up a lemonade stand and made it an outreach opportunity. We will be participating in this year’s “Day in the Park” in October and will also be offering a “Photo with Santa” booth at the BDW Craft Fair in December. We will continue to have a beverage table at this year’s “Festival of Lights”. In addition to our many community driven fundraising, we have added an outreach program at the Farmer’s Market 2 times a year. We are grateful that our best form of advertising is still “word of mouth” from our alumni families and the community. Our enrollment for the following 2027-2026 school year will start in the spring and our Open House event will be in February 2027.

Conclusion
I hope this report answers any questions you may have about our enrollment, tuition assistance, and advertising activities for the upcoming school year. Should you have any questions about this report, or Silverspot Nursery School in general, please feel free to contact me at 415-657-0142 or via email at [email protected].

Thank you for your continued support of Silverspot Nursery School! Kindest regards,
Diana Ji
Director/Teacher
Alumni Parent

Page 243 of 303 ends

City Council Staff Report
Meeting Date: September 17, 2026
From: Maz Bozorginia, Public Works Director
Subject: Consider Approval of an Amendment to a
Reimbursement Agreement with Parties who
Constructed San Francisco Avenue Extension
Recommendation
Staff recommend the City Council consider approving the First Amendment to the Reimbursement Agreement and authorize the City Manager to execute the document on behalf of the City.

Background
The owners of the properties at 90 Santa Clara Street and 29 San Francisco Avenue submitted plans in the early 2000s to construct new single-family dwellings. As a condition of approval, the Department of Public Works required the streets to be widened to connect with San Francisco Avenue. The required street improvements were driven by development conditions, including access and safety considerations consistent with applicable fire and roadway standards at the time.

The completed road widening also benefits the adjacent undeveloped property at 80 Santa Clara Street, which will not be required to construct similar improvements when it develops.

Therefore, the owners entered into a Reimbursement Agreement with the City to establish a mechanism for recovering a proportionate share of improvement costs from future benefiting development within a 20-year term.

The original Reimbursement Agreement was recorded on June 19, 2007, and an Addendum to the Agreement was recorded on January 9, 2008. Reimbursement agreements of this type are a common mechanism used by local agencies when public improvements are constructed by one property owner but provide a benefit to other parcels. Similar agreements have been utilized in Brisbane, including examples such as Kings Road and San Diego Court. Historically, these agreements have included terms ranging from 20 to 25 years, and the duration of such agreements is ultimately at the discretion of the City Council.

The First Amendment to the Reimbursement Agreement was initially presented to the City Council on July 17, 2025. At that meeting, the City Council continued the item to a future date to allow for additional consideration of the request, including questions related to precedent, typical duration, and the City’s authority to extend the term.

The item was returned to the City Council on September 3, 2026, and was continued by the

Page 244 of 303 ends

Council to the September 17, 2026, meeting for further consideration. The term of the Reimbursement Agreement is currently set to expire on May 9, 2027.

Discussion
The reimbursement obligation established under the Agreement runs with the benefiting property and is not tied to an individual property owner. As such, any future development of the benefiting parcel at 80 Santa Clara Street would be subject to the reimbursement provisions of the Agreement.

Because the remaining benefiting property has not yet developed, the parties who funded the roadway extension have requested that the City extend the term of the Agreement for an additional ten years. The proposed extension would preserve the existing reimbursement framework and provide additional time for the benefiting property to develop and participate in the cost sharing.

The proposed First Amendment does not modify the reimbursement methodology or cost allocation. The substantive change would extend the duration of the Agreement from May 9, 2027, to May 9, 2037. The amendment also includes minor cleanup and clarification, including adding the benefiting property as an exhibit to the Agreement.

Whether to extend the term of the Reimbursement Agreement is at the discretion of the City Council. The Council may approve or deny the requested extension based on its consideration of the circumstances and information presented.

Fiscal Impact
None to the City as a result of approving this amendment.

Attachments

1. Draft First Amendment

2. Recorded Reimbursement Agreement_2007
City Manager Approval
Jeremy Dennis, City
Manager
09/11/2026

Page 245 of 303 ends

Recording requested by and
After recording, return to:

City of Brisbane
50 Park Place
Brisbane, CA 94005
No fee required: Government Code,
Section 27383

FIRST AMENDMENT TO REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT

AND ADDENDUM TO REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT
This First Amendment to Reimbursement Agreement and Addendum to Reimbursement Agreement (“First Amendment”) is made September , 2026 between the City of Brisbane, a Municipal Corporation (“City”) and Hamdi A. Nijem, Hana H. Nijem, Maher H. Nijem, and Rabah M. Nijem (collectively, the “Owners”). The Owners are sometimes each referred to individually by name in this First Amendment.

Recitals
A. Owners are the owners of certain real property in the City of Brisbane, County of San Mateo, California, commonly known as 29 San Francisco Avenue (APN 007-241-010), as more particularly described as “Parcel 1” in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (“Parcel 1”).

B. Hamdi A. Nijem and Hana H. Nijem are the owners of certain real property in the City of Brisbane, County of San Mateo, California, commonly known as 90 Santa Clara Street (APN 007-233-220), as more particularly described as “Parcel 2” in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (“Parcel 2”).

C. Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 shall be collectively referred to herein as “the Properties”.

D. In 2007, Owners submitted applications to the City to develop single family residences on the Properties, and as a condition for approval of such development, the City required Owners to widen and extend certain portions of Santa Clara Street and San Francisco Avenue between the Properties (the “Street Improvements”).

E. As a result of the Street Improvements, the City determined the owner of the property located at 80 Santa Clara Street (APN 007-233-230) as more particularly described in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (“Benefitted Property”), would benefit from the Street Improvements because development of such Benefitted Property would otherwise be subject to a similar condition of approval requiring the owner of the Benefitted Property to widen the adjoining street but for the completion of the Street Improvements by the Owners.

F. City and Owners entered into that certain Reimbursement Agreement dated October 3, 2005, and recorded on October 26, 2005 as Instrument Number 2005-187366 in the

Page 246 of 303 ends

Official Records of San Mateo County (“Official Records”), as superseded in its entirety by that certain Reimbursement Agreement by and between the City and Owners dated May 9, 2007, and recorded on June 19, 2007 as Instrument Number 2007-093855 in the Official Records (collectively, the “Reimbursement Agreement”), for the purpose of allocating a proportionate share of the cost of the Street Improvements between the Owners and the owner of the Benefitted Property, and providing for reimbursement to the Owners of such proportionate share from the owner of the Benefitted Property should development of the Benefitted Property occur during the term of the Reimbursement Agreement.

G. Section 5 of the Reimbursement Agreement provides that the term of the Reimbursement Agreement shall expire twenty years from May 9, 2007.

H. Following the construction of the Street Improvements, the City and Owners entered into that certain Addendum to Reimbursement Agreement dated December 3, 2007, and recorded as Instrument No. 2008-002538 in the Official Records (the “Addendum”), for the purposes of (i) the City’s certification of the total cost of the Street Improvements in the amount of Four Hundred Thirty-Nine Thousand Three Hundred Forty-Four and 25/100 Dollars ($439,344.25) (the “Final Improvement Cost”), and (ii) the City’s determination that 66.7% of the Final Improvement Cost, equivalent to Two Hundred Ninety-Three Thousand Forty-Two and 61/100 Dollars ($293,042.61), was to be allocated to Owners and the remaining 33.3% of the Final Improvement Cost, equivalent to One Hundred Forty-Six Thousand Three Hundred One and 64/100 Dollars ($146,301.64), was to be allocated to the owner of the Benefitted Property. The Reimbursement Agreement and the Addendum shall be collectively referred to herein as the “Agreement.”
I. The Benefitted Property has not been developed, and it is not certain when such development will occur.

J. Owners have requested that the term of the Agreement be extended for an additional ten (10) years so that Owners may be reimbursed pursuant to the Agreement in the event that the owner of the Benefitted Property submits an application to develop the same before May 9, 2037.

K. It is fair and equitable to Owners to extend the Agreement as requested.

NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed as follows:

1. Extension of Term. The term of the Agreement is hereby extended by ten (10) years and shall continue until 11:59pm on May 8, 2037, unless otherwise extended or terminated pursuant to the provisions of the Agreement.

2. Agreement in Full Force and Effect. All terms, conditions, and requirements of the Agreement shall remain unmodified and in full force and effect, except as modified by this First Amendment.
[Signatures on next page]

Page 247 of 303 ends

IN WITNESS THEREOF, the parties have executed this First Amendment on the date first written above.

CITY OF BRISBANE OWNERS
_____________________________ ____________________________ Jeremy Dennis, City Manager Hamdi A. Nijem
___________________________
Hana H. Nijem
___________________________
Maher H. Nijem
___________________________
Rabah M. Nijem
Approved as to form:
_____________________________
Samantha Zutler, City Attorney

Page 248 of 303 ends

EXHIBIT "A"
Legal Descriptions of the Properties
PARCEL 1:

Owner: MAHER H NIJEM, RABAH M NIJEM, HAMDI A NIJEM, and HANA HNIJEM Property: 29 San Francisco Avenue; Assessor's Parcel No.007-241-010 All that certain land situated in the State of California, County of San Mateo, City of Brisbane, described as follows:

LOTS 31 AND 32, IN BLOCK 38 AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN MAP ENTITLED "AMENDED MAP OF SUBDIVISION ONE, TWO AND THREE” OF THE CITY OF

VISITACION, COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP DATED OCTOBER 14, 1908, AND RECORDED IN BOOK 6 OF MAPS AT PAGE 45 RECORDS OF

SAN MATEO COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
PARCEL 2:

Owner: HAMDI A NIJEM and HANA H NIJEM
Property: 90 Santa Clara Street; Assessor's Parcel No.007-233-220 All that certain land situated in the State of California, County of San Mateo, City of Brisbane, described as follows:

LOTS 23 AND 24 IN BLOCK 38, AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN MAP ENTITLED "AMENDED MAP OF SUBDIVISION ONE, TWO AND THREE” OF THE CITY OF

VISITACION, COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP DATED OCTOBER 14, 1908, AND RECORDED IN BOOK 6 OF MAPS AT PAGE 45 RECORDS OF SAN MATEO COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

Page 249 of 303 ends

EXHIBIT “B”
Legal Description of the Benefitted Property
Owner: THO A LY and NANCY LY TRINH
Property: 80 Santa Clara Street; Assessor’s Parcel No. 007-233-230 All that certain land situated in the State of California, County of San Mateo, City of Brisbane, described as follows:

LOTS 25 AND 26 IN BLOCK 38, AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN MAP ENTITLED “AMENDED MAP OF SUBDIVISION ONE, TWO AND THREE” OF

THE CITY OF VISITACION, COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP DATED OCTOBER 14, 1908, AND RECORDED IN BOOK 6 OF MAPS AT PAGE 45 RECORDS OF SAN MATEO COUNTY, STATE

OF CALIFORNIA

Page 250 of 303 ends

Page 251 of 303 ends

Page 252 of 303 ends

Page 253 of 303 ends

Page 254 of 303 ends

Page 255 of 303 ends

Page 256 of 303 ends

Page 257 of 303 ends

Page 258 of 303 ends

Page 259 of 303 ends

Page 260 of 303 ends

Page 261 of 303 ends

Page 262 of 303 ends

Page 263 of 303 ends

Page 264 of 303 ends

1 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: September 17, 2026
From: Jeremy Dennis, City Manager
Christina Fernandez, Assistant City Manager
Julia Ayres, Community Development Director
Jake Whitney, Planner
Sam Zutler, City Attorney
Subject: Data Centers
Recommendation
Staff recommend the City Council receive an update on the Planning Issues Subcommittee data center discussions regarding data centers and provide direction to staff.

Background
On July 21, 2026, the Planning Issues Subcommittee, consisting of Mayor Mackin and Councilmember Kern, discussed data centers, prompted by growing concerns about their environmental, infrastructure, and community impacts. Currently, data centers are permitted only in specific manufacturing and commercial districts within Brisbane, but the Municipal Code’s definition is outdated and does not reflect modern facilities, especially those focused on artificial intelligence and hyperscale operations. Other California cities have enacted moratoriums or bans to address issues such as water use, air pollution, noise, and land use compatibility, while some cities are developing policy frameworks to ensure community benefits and mitigate negative impacts.

Modern data centers typically require substantial amounts of energy and water, generate significant noise and air pollution, and often have large, windowless footprints that can disrupt neighborhoods. While they provide short-term construction jobs and tax revenue, their operational workforce is limited. State legislation is pending to strengthen oversight of water use and require data centers to finance infrastructure upgrades. Local governments, including Brisbane, can regulate these facilities through land use controls, impact fees, and development agreements, requiring compliance with environmental standards and community investment.

Staff informed the subcommittee of various options afforded to municipalities, including updating the Municipal Code’s definition, making data centers a conditional use, and setting standards for water, energy, air quality, noise, and sustainability. The City could also adopt a

Page 265 of 303 ends

2 temporary moratorium, which would require urgency findings and a four-fifths Council vote, to allow additional time and analysis for comprehensive policy development.

The Planning Issues Subcommittee had additional questions regarding environmental impacts, construction impacts, economic development, and land use policies. Council directed staff to return to a future subcommittee meeting with additional information. For additional details regarding this Subcommittee meeting, please see Attachment 1.

At its August 25, 2026, meeting (its second meeting on the topic this summer), the Planning Issues Subcommittee reviewed questions and concerns raised about data centers, focusing on environmental, infrastructure, and economic impacts. Topics included water and sewer usage, noise and air quality, energy demand and grid impacts, job creation, construction effects, community benefits, and land use policies. Staff provided detailed responses, noting that data centers use significant water for cooling, and require careful management of noise, emissions, and energy demand. Cities can regulate these impacts through conditional use permits, performance standards, and development agreements, ensuring that data centers fund necessary infrastructure improvements and minimize strain on local resources.

The Subcommittee also discussed economic and community impacts. While data centers generate substantial temporary construction jobs and local tax revenue, their operational workforce is limited, and they may displace local businesses or drive up rents. Construction impacts can be substantial, requiring specialized infrastructure and potentially causing traffic and noise disruptions. Environmental health concerns include air pollution from backup generators, water consumption, continuous noise, and hazardous byproducts.

Brisbane has broad authority to regulate or ban data centers through zoning amendments.

Requiring data centers to obtain a conditional use permit would provide the City with discretion to approve or deny a particular application based on health, safety, and welfare findings.

Performance standards can be imposed locally, as federal and state laws generally set minimum requirements but do not preempt stricter local regulations.

The Subcommittee directed staff to bring the topic of Data Centers to Council without a Subcommittee recommendation. For additional details regarding this Subcommittee meeting, please see Attachment 2.

Discussion
As a follow-up to the Planning Issues Subcommittee meeting in August, the Subcommittee directed staff to provide Council with additional information regarding the potential benefits of data centers to cities.

Page 266 of 303 ends

3 Infrastructure Improvements
Cities may require data centers to fund infrastructure improvements, including grid improvements needed to serve their projects. This may require cities to impose land use approval conditions requiring confirmation from PG&E or the CPUC that upgrades will be funded by the applicant. Cities may also negotiate development agreements that secure funding for local reliability projects such as solar and battery installation, home electrification, EV charging, and virtual power plant participation. Development agreements may also require data centers to procure new clean energy, install on-site battery storage in excess of the state’s building code requirements, and participate in demand response programs during peak periods and extreme weather events.

Economic Benefits
As mentioned previously in Planning Issues Subcommittee staff reports, there are a number of potential economic benefits for cities who host data centers. Data centers often pay for necessary infrastructure upgrades, including electrical substations, grid improvements, water system enhancements, and transmission upgrades.

Cities may also negotiate community benefit agreements that ensure investments in local workforce programs, residential energy upgrades, clean energy procurement, and other community priorities.

Data center developments have the potential of creating hundreds, if not thousands, of temporary construction jobs depending on the facility size. This provides a short-term boost to local economies.

Data centers may also provide additional revenue streams to cities. At a previous planning issues subcommittee meeting, it was requested that staff bring forward more detail on the potential for data centers to increase city revenues. Staff is providing information below in response to that request.

Data centers may provide economic benefits, including significant local tax revenue, for cities.

The City of Santa Clara reports that their 55 data centers account for approximately 13 percent of their General Fund revenue. The City has three additional data centers in the pipeline. That contribution is delivered through three primary channels: Silicon Valley Power’s utility transfer tax, property taxes, and sales taxes tied to data center activity. Within that mix, the utility transfer tax has become the City’s third largest revenue source and has already surpassed the hotel tax. For the 2025-26 fiscal year, total transfer tax revenue is reported at 37.3 million dollars, with data centers responsible for 24.6 million dollars of that amount, around 60 percent. City officials note that this contribution has grown by 95 percent since 2017-18. Those funds are used for parks, public safety, libraries, and infrastructure projects. It is important to note that Santa Clara owns its own power utility, Silicon Valley Power, which has lower electricity rates than PG&E. Santa Clara also has a strong fiber optic network near the Central

Page 267 of 303 ends

4 Expressway, where most of the data centers are located, making it easier for data to travel faster. Silicon Valley Power’s growth and expansion is driven by data centers with the utility reporting a recent request for 500 MW of load.

The City of San José does not own its own utility and uses a utility users tax (UUT) and property tax to capture data center revenue. San José estimates that fully operational data centers may generate approximately $3.4 million to $6.8 million annually per facility in City utility and property taxes. San José estimates that a 99 MW facility generates $5.6 million in UUT annually.

The City of Gilroy provided an analysis of a planned data center. The initial phase would generate approximately $1.6 million in first-year revenue, additional phases would generate $3 million annually, and at full buildout would generate approximately $6 million annually. The City estimates 30% of the revenues would come from property tax and 70% from its 5% utility users tax.

The City of Pittsburg provided an independent analysis of its Perseus data center and estimated an approximately $2 billion investment. The development is projected to generate $13.4 million annually in new local tax revenue going to all local tax entities once stabilized, with about $2.6 million per year going to the City of Pittsburg. Local tax revenues would increase to approximately $13.4 million per year. The development is estimated to provide more than 1,000 construction jobs and approximately $131.5 million in ongoing annual economic output for Contra Costa County.

Policy Options
There are several policy options that are within the City’s control. Those options are listed in the matrix below.

Page 268 of 303 ends

5 Action Benefits Costs Steps Required
No Action None Data centers would be
permitted in M-1
(Manufacturing District)
and TC-2 (Southeast
Bayshore Trade
Commercial District)
None
Moratorium Temporarily pauses any data center
development and allows the City
time to study potential development
impacts, update its land use
regulations and develop
comprehensive policy direction;
temporarily prevents any negative
environmental impacts associated
with data centers; avoids
immediately locking in the City to
any longer-term policy decision
Not a permanent solution;
may lose opportunities for
prospective data center
developments; pauses
revenue-generating
potential and private
investment interest; may
incur administrative costs
of performing additional
studies and analyses prior
to adopting longer term
policy actions
Adopt a temporary moratorium with urgency findings
(requires four-fifths Council vote); conduct analysis
and return with long-term regulatory framework;
may extend moratorium up to an additional 22
months and 15 days, as needed
Ban Data Centers
Citywide
Prevents any future data center
development; resolves land use
conflict concerns; eliminates
environmental, infrastructure, and
community impact risks
Loss of potential revenue,
jobs, and negotiated
development benefits; may
limit long-term economic
diversification; requires full
zoning amendment process
Amend zoning ordinance to remove “data centers” as
a permitted use from all zoning districts; conduct
required public hearings; obtain Planning Commission
recommendation prior to adoption by majority vote
of Council

Page 269 of 303 ends

6 Action Benefits Costs Steps Required
Revise Zoning Code
definition of “Data
Center”
Update outdated Municipal Code
definitions to reflect modern AI,
hyperscale, and mid-size facilities;
improves clarity for applicants and
staff; allows tailored regulations for
different facility types; ensures data
center uses are not mischaracterized
under land use regulations
Requires staff time ; may
prompt industry interest
earlier than desired
Draft revised definitions; incorporate stakeholder
input ; analyze zoning districts potentially affected,
if any; initiate zoning text amendment proceedings,
subject to zoning amendment process above
Impose development
standards,
performance
standards, impact
fees, and other
regulatory
requirements on all
data center projects
Establishes limits on size, footprint,
water use, energy demand, noise, air
quality, and other operational
impacts; strengthens environmental
protections; mitigates adverse
development impacts; enables
predictable standards for all
applicants
Could reduce feasibility for
developers if overly
restrictive or costly; requires
detailed technical studies
Prepare environmental and infrastructure analyses;
develop performance standards (water, energy,
noise, air quality) and development standards
(height, footprint, etc.); amend zoning ordinance
subject to zoning amendment process above; adopt
impact fees by ordinance in accordance with state
law
Amend Zoning Code
to allow data centers
as a conditional use
in certain zones
subject to the use
permit process
Retains City’s discretionary authority
over data center development on a
case-by-case basis; enables the City
to impose conditions of approval to
limit potential adverse impacts of
data centers; garners the potential
economic benefits of data centers;
use permit may be revoked for
noncompliance
May still result in adverse
environmental,
infrastructural and
community impacts
associated with data
centers; restrictive
conditions of approval may
disincentivize prospective
data center projects; less
predictable than mandatory
standards applied to all data
center projects
Determine which districts to allow data centers as a
conditional use; amend zoning ordinance to allow
data centers as a conditional use in specified zoning
districts, subject to zoning amendment process
above; also consider negotiating development
agreements
Amend Zoning Code
to allow data centers
as permitted use by
Maximizes opportunity for any
potential economic benefits of data
centers
Exposes City to greatest
risks of adverse
environmental,
Determine which new districts to allow data centers
as a permitted use; amend zoning ordinance subject
to the zoning amendment process above

Page 270 of 303 ends

7 right in specified
zones
infrastructural and
community impacts
associated with data
centers; restricts City’s
discretionary authority to
approve or deny data center
project applications

Page 271 of 303 ends

8 Fiscal Impact
There is no fiscal impact to receiving this report. The financial impacts of the policy options above are unknown.

Attachments

1. Planning Issues Subcommittee Staff Report – July 21, 2026

2. Planning Issues Subcommittee Staff Report – August 25, 2026 ________________________
Jeremy Dennis, City Manager

Page 272 of 303 ends

1 CITY COUNCIL PLANNING ISSUES SUBCOMMITTEE AGENDA
REPORT
Meeting Date: July 21, 2026
From: Jeremy Dennis, City Manager
Sam Zutler, City Attorney
Christina Fernandez, Assistant City Manager
Julia Ayres, Community Development Director
Subject: Data Centers
Recommendation
Staff recommend the Planning Issues Subcommittee receive a report on data centers and provide direction to staff regarding whether to return to the Planning Issues Subcommittee for further study of this issue or to proceed to Council with a potential ordinance regulating data centers.

Background
At the May 7, 2026 City Council meeting, Mayor Pro Tem Davis requested the topic of data centers be brought forward as a potential future City Council item. Staff determined it was appropriate that information regarding data centers first go to a Planning Issues Subcommittee.

Chapter 17.02.187 of the Brisbane Municipal Code defines data centers as “a business providing for the storage of computer systems and associated components.” Per the Municipal Code, data centers as currently defined are allowed as a permitted use in the M1 Manufacturing District and the TC-2 Southeast Bayshore Trade Commercial district.

Upon adoption of the Baylands Specific Plan, the M-1 district will be eliminated. The definition of modern-day data centers is not reflected in our municipal code’s definition.

No other zoning districts in Brisbane permit data centers. The Municipal Code does not apply specific development standards regarding data centers in Brisbane. There are currently no active data center business or applications for a data center development in Brisbane.

Modern-day data centers are infrastructure that keep digital services like cloud-based tools and artificial intelligence (AI) to financial systems, logistics, and government platforms running. The infrastructure runs 24 hours a day, seven days a week and must

Page 273 of 303 ends

2 meet high reliability standards. There is a great deal of need for large amounts of energy, which generates a lot of heat necessitating large cooling systems. This may equate to a need for large amounts of water and energy.

Data centers are categorized into four segments based on their workloads. Each has distinct implications for electricity demand, cooling requirements, and siting. The table below categorizes data centers by workload.

Modern data centers with the highest energy impacts are AI training facilities and non-AI hyperscale centers. AI training facilities are large facilities that continuously process data, use the most energy, and have the highest cooling demands. Non-AI hyperscale centers are also very large and continuously operated facilities used for cloud computing, storage, and enterprise work. They require less energy than AI training facilities. Moderate impacts are seen with AI inference facilities which are smaller facilities for specific tasks. They require less power but need to be closer to users. The lowest impacts are seen with Colocation Facilities which are multi-tenant sites with variable energy and cooling needs.

Source: Bloomberg Energy Finance
Almost all data centers developed before 2020 were non-AI hyperscale and colocation facilities. The number of new AI inference and training facilities is growing rapidly with these types of data centers expected to represent over one third of total data center power demand by 2035. New data centers are AI focused and do not reflect the definition of data centers in our municipal code.

Page 274 of 303 ends

3 Small-scale facilities do not reflect current modern AI or hyperscale centers and require .03 to .12 acres of land and 1,000-5,000 square feet of building area. These small-scale data centers may fit into existing commercial or office footprints. Midsize data centers are facilities dedicated to cooling and critical operations and require 5-20 acres and 10,000- 50,000 square feet. Large or Hyperscale centers are known as modern AI-oriented data centers. There may be a single large building that sits on 20-50 acres and a multi-phase hyperscale campus that requires 200-1,000 acres. The acreage may include a substation and switchyard, generators and cooling plants, water infrastructure, security berms and setbacks, future expansion pads, internal circulation and fire access.

California is currently home to at least 292 data centers and in 2024, data centers supported more than 665,000 jobs in California and generated $14.1 billion in state and local taxes. Meta, Microsoft, Amazon, and Alphabet are expected to spend a combined $700 billion on data centers globally by the end of 2026. In the Bay Area, cities such as San Francisco, San Jose, Santa Clara, Palo Alto, and Oakland have data centers located in their cities.

Facing public concern over energy and environmental impacts, some California cities and counties have placed temporary moratoriums on data centers, while others have passed permanent bans. Examples of some of those policies are listed below.

California Cities with Data Center Moratoriums or Bans
Monterey Park
In June 2026, voters in Monterey Park, California approved Measure NDC with over 88.35% approving a permanent ban on data centers in the city, becoming the first city in the U.S. to do so. A previously planned 247,000 square foot data center caused significant public backlash causing the City Council to unanimously vote to place the measure before the voters and to extend an existing 45-day moratorium on data centers. The developer subsequently withdrew plans for the center.

Oakley
The City of Oakley became the first city in the Bay Area to pause new data center proposals. Oakley adopted a 45-day moratorium on new data center applications in April 2026 and extended the moratorium to 2027 to allow time to review environmental, infrastructure and health impacts. This prevents the city from processing or approving new data center land use applications while the moratorium is in place.

Page 275 of 303 ends

4 Imperial County
Imperial County’s Board of Supervisors passed a 45-day moratorium on new and pending data center permits citing concerns about water use, air pollution, environmental review, and local infrastructure. This came one day after a data center developer sued the Imperial Irrigation District for access to 260 million of gallons of Colorado River water each year.

Imperial County is a heavy user of water given its agriculture industry base.

Other Southern California cities to enact temporary moratoria include Montebello, El Monte, and Baldwin Park. The City of Alhambra has a pending ballot measure that, if passed, would prohibit data centers in the city.

Data Centers Currently Under Construction
Cities planning for data centers are working towards drafting policy frameworks to ensure that community concerns over energy, water, noise, and other impacts are addressed.

Cities are also working towards ensuring community benefits are captured.

The City of San Jose recently voted to direct staff to draft guidelines for data centers. San Jose is currently home to at least 20 centers, with six more data centers under construction, and five in the entitlement review process. In San Jose, a single new data center can generate up to $7 million annually in general fund revenue. In neighboring Santa Clara, approximately 60 data centers have generated an estimated $45 million in General Fund revenue during Fiscal Year 2025.

San Jose hopes that establishing a clear local framework will “address the unique challenges associated with data center growth while providing greater predictability for residents, applicants, and decision makers.”
In August 2025, San Jose entered into an agreement with PG&E regarding data centers. The agreement tasks PG&E with providing power and making grid improvements for 12 projects by 2030. PG&E will also agree to fund six city staff positions to coordinate and streamline projects. San Jose staff are creating uniform guidelines to mitigate against environmental impacts, provide a process for community engagement, and support cleaner infrastructure.

Further south, a new data center project broke ground in the City of Gilroy in December 2025. The project is being constructed in two phases and comprises two data center buildings and one security building totaling 438,500 square feet. Other improvements include a substation, offsite transmission upgrades to the existing PG&E transmission and

Page 276 of 303 ends

5 distribution system, a potential Battery Energy Storage System of up to 50 MW, and other utility connections. Phase I includes a 218,000 square foot single store data center and requires 49 MW connection to PG&E service. Phase II includes a single story, 35-foot-high data center building of 218,000 square feet.

As data center development continues to accelerate across the United States, local governments are faced with the challenges that come with large capital investments and associated demands on electricity, water resources, and land use.

Climate and Energy Impact Considerations
Energy & Water
Data Centers have high infrastructure demands that require large, immediate electricity loads. Hyperscale centers use between 20-100 MW, the equivalent of servicing between 16,000 and 82,000 households and millions of water per day. Data center cooling systems utilize a combination of air, water, or liquid refrigerants and can be a significant driver of electricity consumption water use. Cooling systems that use less water have higher energy demands.

Noise
Equipment at data centers may cause noise levels that lead to disruptions to sleep quality and have cardiovascular effects and hearing impairment. The noise generated varies by the type of cooling system and equipment used.

Air Quality
Data Centers rely on backup power to cover outages on the grid. Most data centers rely on fossil fuel generators for backup power which are usually diesel powered and emit PM2.5, NOx, and ultrafine particles. Increased particulate exposure has been linked to asthma, ER visits, cardiovascular diseases, and premature mortality.

Land Use
Data centers typically have large footprints with no street activation. Many facilities are large, windowless industrial buildings surrounded by security fencing, electrical substations, and cooling equipment.

Page 277 of 303 ends

6 Jobs
Data centers generate short-term construction jobs and a limited number of permanent jobs in operations.

Tax Revenue
Data centers can generate significant property, sales, and income tax revenue.

Community Investment
Through community benefits agreements and other agreements, data centers can bring additional investments for community priorities such as local jobs, energy and water infrastructure, residential energy upgrades, and schools.

State Legislation
AB 2469, authored by California State Assemblymember Diane Papan, seeks to strengthen the oversight of data center water use and safeguard local water supplies. The bill requires applicants to complete a water supply assessment and develop a water scarcity plan as a part of the permitting process. The bill also requires data centers to fully finance new infrastructure needed to support data center operation. This bill is pending in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

AB 2619, also authored by Assemblymember Papan, establishes a statewide water reporting requirement for data center operators, using the existing business license process. When applying for a business license, a company must disclose its projected water demand. Upon annual renewal of its license, the company must disclose its actual annual consumption. This bill is pending in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

Discussion
Some policy considerations for local government include questions around land use regulation, electricity rates, water use, air and noise pollution, economic development and community investment.

One of the biggest tools cities have in development is regulating land use. Cities may plan for sites that are compatible with surrounding areas and efficiently use scarce land and may adopt regulations that help reduce the environmental and community impacts by reducing noise, heat, water consumption, air pollution, and impacts on surrounding

Page 278 of 303 ends

7 neighborhoods. Cities may also adopt regulations relating to the existing infrastructure capacity, aiming to ensure adequate water and water treatment capacity, and that data center projects minimize GHG emissions, prioritize reuse or adaptive redevelopment.

Cities do not have direct control cost over electricity rates; however, cities may require data centers to pay for new infrastructure or upgrades required to serve their development.

This may include new generation, substations, feeders, and transmission upgrades so that these costs are not passed on to consumers. Cities may also require, as a condition of approval or through a development agreement, data centers to purchase or contract for new clean energy. Similarly, and depending on the particular application, cities may further require on-site battery storage and measures that reduce the strain on the grid during peak demand.

It is important to note that Brisbane’s Building Efficiency Program requires all buildings over 10,000 square feet to report on their energy and water use annually. Any potential development, data center or otherwise, would be subject to this requirement.

Since Brisbane operates its own water utility, it can regulate water use and system impacts. For example, the City could require a conservation plan with the project’s water application. The City’s water utility may also integrate data center water use into master and asset management plans. The updates would be based on real-time monitoring and annual reporting. Lastly, the City could require the data center to pay for any upgrades or new construction of water and wastewater infrastructure required by the project.

Cities may condition project approvals to minimize impacts of noise and air pollution.

Cities may mandate developers utilize the cleanest feasible backup power technologies, advanced noise controls, and design strategies. Cities should also clearly define noise limits and conditions capping pollution generated by the project that are measurable and enforceable. Cities may also impose limits on noise during nighttime hours throughout the City.

As explained above, cities may regulate data centers using their regulatory authority, by requiring data centers to comply with existing regulations or, if necessary, adopting more stringent regulations. Cities may also impose conditions and impact fees linked to the burdens a specific project creates. Cities may also negotiate additional benefits, such as funding for local infrastructure (beyond that required by the project), commitments to hire locally, community investment, or standards that exceed requirements, via development agreements with project applicants. While the City cannot require developers to enter into a development agreement for a particular project, the City could make data centers

Page 279 of 303 ends

8 conditional (rather than permitted) use, which would significantly increase the City’s negotiating power.

Next Steps
Staff recommend the Planning Issues Subcommittee receive a report on data centers and provide direction to staff regarding whether to return to the Planning Issues Subcommittee for further study of this issue or to proceed with a potential ordinance regulating data centers.

Options to consider for an ordinance regulating data centers include:
• Updating the BMC definition of “data center”;
• Allowing data centers as a conditional use, rather than a use allowed by right, in limited zones;
• Requiring specific standards for water usage, energy, air quality, noise, and sustainability.

The City could also implement a temporary moratorium on data centers, while it continues to study the issue. A moratorium is an urgency ordinance, requires a four-fifths vote of the Council, and requires findings that it is necessary to address a current and immediate threat to public health, safety, or welfare. It is in place for 45 days and may be extended for a limited time.

Fiscal Impact
There is no impact to receiving this presentation.
________________________
Jeremy Dennis, City Manager

Page 280 of 303 ends

Page 1 of 2 ends

PLANNING ISSUES SUBCOMMITTEE AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: August 25, 2026
From: Jeremy Dennis, City Manager
Christina Fernandez, Assistant City Manager
Julia Ayres, Community Development Director
Jacob Whitney, Associate Planner
Adrienne Etherton, Sustainability Manager
Connor Kratz, Burke, Williams & Sorenson, LLP
Subject: Data Center Discussion Follow-Up
Recommendation
Staff recommend that the Planning Issues Subcommittee receive a report on data centers in response to questions raised during its July 21, 2026 meeting and provide guidance on next steps. Potential actions include returning to the Subcommittee for additional discussion, including further review of processes related to implementing a moratorium or other regulatory approaches; directing staff to prepare a moratorium or ban for City Council consideration; or forwarding the item to the City Council for review without a formal recommendation.

Background
On July 21, 2026, the Planning Issues Subcommittee, consisting of Mayor Mackin and Councilmember Kern, received a staff report from staff on the development of data centers in California and its potential impacts on cities, as well as a summary of how the City currently regulates data centers. Several questions pertaining to environmental impacts, construction impacts, economic development, and land use policies were raised at the meeting. This staff report is in response to those questions.

Discussion
Several questions were raised related to a variety of environmental, construction, and economic impacts. Staff have categorized the questions based on topic including:
• Water & Sewer
• Noise & Air Quality
• Energy Demand & Grid Impacts
• Jobs & Economic Impact
• Development and Construction Impacts
• Environmental & Health Impacts
• Community Be nefits
• Land Use, Zoning, & Legal Process

Page 281 of 303 ends

Page 2 of 3 ends

Water & Sewer
Question: What type of water may be used in a data center? Could saline or recycled water be used versus potable? Does the recycled water have to be treated? Data centers use water for cooling the heat generated by servers, which run constantly and produce substantial thermal loads. Cooling systems remove this heat either through evaporative cooling, where water absorbs heat and then evaporates, or through closed-loop systems, where water circulates in sealed pipes to transfer heat without being consumed. In some cases, centers also use recycled or reclaimed water, treated on-site to remove minerals and contaminants. Water is used to keep equipment from overheating and maintain reliable operations.

Potable water has traditionally been used for cooling but due to growing pressures on water demand and the growth of data centers the focus has increasingly been on recycled water. Typically, municipal treatment facilities process community wastewater to nonpotable standards suitable for irrigation and general industrial use. The treated water is transported via “purple pipes” to the data center where it is often processed through an on-site Reverse Osmosis (RO) loop or micro-filtration setup to remove silica, residual magnesium, and suspended solids that could foul cooling tower pads or cause scaling on internal heat exchangers. The purified recycled water is typical cycled through several times until the mineral concentration gets too high, at which point it is discharged for final municipal recycling or treatment. Examples include a Microsoft facility in Quincy, Washington and Amazon facilities in Virginia and California with expansion efforts underway in Georgia and Mississippi.

Saline water can be used for data center cooling, but it requires highly specialized infrastructure to manage severe corrosion, mineral scaling, and heavy biofouling. Data centers generally use saline water in one of two ways: either directly via once-through ocean cooling or indirectly by treating brackish water with on-site desalination. Real-world saline water cooling examples such as the Google Data Center in Hamina, Finland and Nautilus Data Technologies which has floating deployments at Port of Stockton and Port of Los Angeles, seem to primarily be oncethrough systems in open water.

The recycled water used needs to be treated, but not necessarily to drinking-water standards.

The treatment needed depends on the water source, cooling system and local reuse regulations, mainly to prevent scaling, corrosion, and biological fouling.

Closed-loop water systems recirculate the same water through a cooling cycle rather than consuming new water with each pass, significantly reducing overall water demand compared to traditional evaporative systems. These systems can operate using treated recycled water, which is repeatedly filtered to remove minerals and contaminants that would otherwise cause scaling

Page 282 of 303 ends

Page 3 of 4 ends

or corrosion, but they still require periodic discharge (“blowdown”) when mineral concentrations build up. The main advantages are dramatically lower water consumption, greater predictability of water needs, and reduced pressure on municipal supplies in water-stressed regions. However, closed-loop systems can involve higher energy use, increased treatment complexity, and chemical laden blowdown that must be managed carefully to avoid wastewater impacts. Overall, while closed-loop cooling helps mitigate the substantial water requirements of large data centers, there are trade-offs in energy demand, treatment needs, and wastewater management.

Question: How would a data center impact water costs for residents? What about sewer costs? If recycled water is used, then resident potable water rates are unlikely to be affected.

However, if potable water is used at scale, costs could be impacted if new infrastructure is required. If major pipeline upsizing, booster pumps, or storage are needed to supply peak cooling flows this could raise costs, however, under the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Sections 66000 et seq.) new developments could be required to pay for their proportional share of capital improvements.

Noise & Air Quality
Question: How would cities manage noise? What specific noise regulations are appropriate to data centers, what performance standards should apply- examples from other communities?
Many community ordinances use about 45 to 55 dBA at property line boundaries, with stricter nighttime limits near housing. A common approach is lower nighttime thresholds, such as 50 dBA at night in residential areas, because data-center noise is often 24/7. Potential ordinances may not rely only on overall dBA, but also tonality and low-frequency noise because a steady hum or tonal component can be more disturbing than decibel reading. Temporary noise from construction, test runs, and generator testing should have separate, time-limited standards.

Question: How might the City regulate noise given Brisbane's "parabolic bowl" effecti.e., noise amplifying or carrying beyond the property plane and reflecting off the mountain to sensitive receptors (residents, schools)?
The City may consider implementing a discretionary conditional use permit process to determine compatibility with surrounding sensitive receptors, require site specific noise studies on a project-by-project basis, and facilitate opportunities for public input.

Question: How do we regulate and minimize emissions from diesel generators? Diesel backup generators are regulated by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and regional air quality management districts, in our case the Bay Area Air District. Any stationary

Page 283 of 303 ends

Page 4 of 5 ends

diesel emergency standby engine rated at 50 brake horsepower (bhp) or larger requires a local air district permit to operate. New and replacement engines must meet strict federal and state emission tiers (such as EPA Tier 4 Final), limiting particulate matter and nitrogen oxides (NOx). Routine testing and maintenance are typically restricted to 20 to 50 hours per year, depending on the specific air district rules and engine certification tier. True emergency operations, including unexpected grid failures and Public Safety Power Shutoff (PSPS) wildfire mitigation events—have no cap on running hours. Operators must maintain logbooks tracking all run times, specifying whether hours were for routine testing, maintenance, or actual emergency use.

While state and federal rules act as a baseline, cities and counties wield significant authority over local development and land use and can use building codes, zoning ordinances, and financial incentives to restrict diesel generators and accelerate clean energy alternatives.

Energy Demand & Grid Impacts
Question: What strategies have cities used or could use to require data centers to minimize reliance on the grid?
The grid serves an important role in balancing energy generation and demand and utilizing available grid capacity during times when demand is low could actually help to reduce electricity rates. The aim should be to minimize demand on the grid during peak hours and avoid the need for new fossil fuel generation or the extension of life of existing fossil fuel power plants that would otherwise be retired. At the same time, data centers should also be encouraged to develop on-site energy generation capacity that does not require use of fossil fuel generators for extended periods of time
To that end, the City may require that a data center builds, purchases or contracts for new clean energy on the same regional grid. If possible, they should match generation and consumption hourly (24/7 carbon-free energy) rather than relying on Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) from existing clean sources.

Data Centers may also include on-site battery storage, participate in utility demand-response programs, and incorporate flexible and interruptible load capabilities into their operations to reduce strain on the grid during peak demand, extreme weather, and other contingency events.

Question: What strategies have cities used or could use to require data centers to fund grid Improvements (and other energy-related community benefits)? Cities can require data centers to fund grid improvements and infrastructure needed to serve their projects and to provide related community energy benefits by using different strategies, including:

Page 284 of 303 ends

Page 5 of 6 ends

• Imposing land-use approval conditions requiring confirmation from PG&E or the CPUC that required upgrades, including new substations, feeders, and transmission-level work, will be funded by the applicant, along with reviews of peak-load and reliability impacts.
• Negotiating development agreements that secure funding for local reliability projects, solar and battery installations, home electrification, EV charging, and virtual power plant participation. The development agreements may also require data centers to procure new clean energy, install on site battery storage in excess of California Building Code requirements, and participate in demand response programs to reduce grid strain during peak periods and extreme events.

Question: Is it possible to pass on 100% of costs of grid improvements to a data center applicant so that residents don't bear the brunt?
Typically, grid improvements for new developments are paid for through a combination of direct developer-paid connection fees governed by California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) rules and broader utility ratepayer cost-recovery mechanisms. PG&E has also handled requests from large transmission-level customers on a case-by-case basis which was slow and resource intensive. While not a data center, here is a recent example of an “exceptional case” agreement for a Genentech project in South San Francisco.

In July 2025, the CPUC approved PG&E’s proposal for interim Electric Rule 30 which enables faster deployment when applicants agree to pay for necessary transmission infrastructure work upfront. There is a CPUC proceeding underway (Application 24-11-007) to determine the final rules. This article discusses some of the agreements adopted or under consideration under these rules.

The City could negotiate community benefits agreements that require developers to contribute to or fully finance grid upgrades that improve local reliability and support broader electrification goals, including solar PV and battery storage, heat pumps, home retrofits, and EV charging infrastructure, and participation in virtual power plants. Alternatively, the City could condition land use approval on: written confirmation from PG&E or the CPUC that required grid upgrades will be funded by the project under cost-causation principles and will not be recovered from other ratepayers; evaluation of the project’s impact on peak load, local reliability, distribution constraints; additional renewable procurement; on-site storage, flexible load and/or participation in demand response programs.

Question: Could facility run off on-site solar during day and battery at night? Is there sufficient on-site battery storage capacity to operate fully during outages?

Page 285 of 303 ends

Page 6 of 7 ends

Technically, yes, facilities may run off of on-site solar during the day and on-site battery at night. However, the energy demands and 99.999% uptime requirement of a large data center would require solar and battery storage installations at scales that may not be physically or financially feasible.

There can be sufficient on-site battery storage capacity to operate fully during outages for a limited duration. While an on-site solar-and-battery storage system can typically handle a 2 or 4-hour grid outage, it cannot reliably sustain a data center through an extended, multi-day blackout. This differs from utility scale renewable generation and battery storage projects, which have much greater capacity. A typical data center roof can only hold enough solar panels to power 5-10% of the peak server load. If a grid outage is caused by a massive winter storm, a hurricane, or prolonged wildfire smoke, solar production can drop by 80% to 90%. Because solar and batteries have a finite limit during extended emergencies, modern data centers do not rely on on-site solar energy and battery storage systems exclusively. Instead, they build hybrid microgrids that combine clean energy with traditional mechanical backups (i.e. gas or diesel generators) to achieve 100% reliability.

Question: Can on-site solar + battery fully power normal operations outside of outages? As previously mentioned, the energy generation and storage capacity of on-site solar and battery systems is generally limited. Rather than going completely off-grid with just on-site solar and battery power, large tech companies are increasingly employing three alternative energy strategies to power data centers:
• Virtual 100% Green Model (Grid-Tied PPAs): This is the current industry standard. Hyperscalers build massive solar farms and battery storage banks tied directly into the public electrical grid via Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs). They pull stable power from the utility grid 24/7 but inject an equivalent amount of clean solar energy back into the wider grid during the day to offset their carbon footprint. • Distributed Residential Micro-Compute: Companies like Sunrun and NVIDIA are piloting "distributed data centers". Instead of one giant building, small AI computing nodes are placed inside thousands of residential homes that already feature rooftop solar and home batteries.
• Diversified Clean Energy Microgrids: For true on-site, self-sufficient data center campuses, developers pair solar and batteries with a third, continuous clean energy source such as Small Modular Nuclear Reactors (SMRs), geothermal wells, or hydrogen fuel cells to provide 24/7 baseline power. (Note that many facilities are also doing hybrid energy microgrids with other base energy sources such as natural gas.)

Page 286 of 303 ends

Page 7 of 8 ends

Jobs & Economic Impact
Question: What data is there on job creation, both construction + operational/ongoing? Jobs created by data centers are split into construction (temporary) and operations (permanent). Construction jobs range depends on the size of the build. The operating model also matters given the extent of the use of contractors for security, maintenance type jobs.

Data Center Building
Size
Typical construction
period
Peak Construction
Jobs
Permanent Jobs once
operating
100,000 SQ FT 18-30 months 500-1,000 50-75
150,000 SQ FT 18-30 months 750-1,500 75-100
250,000 SQ FT 24-30 months 1,250-2,500 100-150
500,000 SQ FT 24-36 months 2,500-4,000 200-300
800,000 SQ FT 24-36 months 4,000-5,000+ 400-500
Question: What are some concerns of local businesses for data centers to potentially impact life, property, and financial health of citizens.

The creation of data centers may have negative impacts on local businesses as it relates to construction impacts such as traffic, road closures, noise, dust, parking impacts, utility work, and reduced visibility or access. Data centers may also consume large parcels of land and may drive up rents. This may in turn lead to higher rents and displacement of local businesses. Also, as previously discussed, data centers also provide limited permanent employment opportunities. A large facility may occupy a large parcel but employ relatively few people once operations. Relatedly, data centers generate minimal foot-traffic for purposes of stimulating commercial activity and attracting customers for neighboring businesses. The economic benefit per acre may be significantly less than mixed use commercial development.

Development and Construction Impacts
Question: What type of construction impacts are associated with data centers? Data center construction impacts are more intense than standard commercial warehouse construction in several ways. The high energy demand can require dedicated electrical substations or high voltage transmission lines, and high-density conduits deep underground may be needed to route power and fiber to the building. The “speed-to-market" models many developers operate under can lead to 24/7 construction schedules and an influx of specialized contractors with resulting traffic impacts. The dense heavy equipment requires thick, heavily reinforced building foundations and specialized cargo deliveries with oversized equipment which can accelerate roadway degradation. The commissioning phase, where engineers must

Page 287 of 303 ends

Page 8 of 9 ends

simulate peak computing heat and stress and test failure scenarios, can take months and spike air and noise pollution.

Question: If the Cow Palace is a potential data center, how could it impact Brisbane? Any large development at the Cow Palace site regardless of its use will impact Brisbane as it relates to traffic and congestion; potential contamination; water use and infrastructure pressure; transportation network and noise, lighting, and visual impacts. Assuming a discretionary permit process, a data center in a neighboring jurisdiction would likely trigger preparation of an environmental document of some kind under the California Environmental Quality Act which would study physical impacts of a project. If an Environmental Impact Report was prepared, the City and members of the public would have the opportunity to participate in project scoping (sharing feedback on what impacts should be studied in the EIR) and in reviewing and commenting on any environmental documents.

Environmental Health Impacts
Question: What are some potential environmental health impacts associated with data centers?
Reports and independent analysis have shown that data centers can contribute to significant environmental health impacts, including air pollution from diesel backup generators that emit particulate matter linked to asthma and cardiovascular disease, substantial water consumption and wastewater discharge from cooling systems that can strain local supplies, continuous noise from mechanical equipment that can disrupt sleep and affect heart health, thermal pollution and heat island effects caused by high waste heat output, and hazardous byproducts such as e-waste, PFAS chemicals, refrigerant leaks, and chemically concentrated cooling tower blowdown all of which collectively pose risks to community wellbeing and disproportionately affect already burdened areas.

Community Benefits
Question: What are some potential benefits to cities that allow data centers in their communities?
Data centers can offer economic benefits, including significant local tax revenue for cities, as seen in places like San Jose and Santa Clara where individual facilities generate millions annually. Data centers may mean modest job creation primarily, through large temporary construction employment. Cities may also see infrastructure investment, such as upgraded substations, grid improvements, and water or wastewater system enhancements, which may be financed directly by developers. Additionally, data centers can bring community benefits

Page 288 of 303 ends

Page 9 of 10 ends

through negotiated agreements that fund local workforce programs, residential energy upgrades, and other community priorities.

Land Use, Zoning, & Legal Process
Question: Describe process to deny a Use Permit with findings required.

If the zoning ordinance were amended to allow data centers in specified districts as a conditional use subject to a Use Permit, the City would retain significant discretion to deny or approve a data center project, and to regulate any approved data center project with conditions of approval, on a project- and site-specific basis.

A Use Permit is administrative permission for uses not allowed as a matter of right in a zone, but which may be permitted subject to approval by the planning commission. Approval of a Use Permit is a discretionary action, not a right, that is considered in accordance with the procedures and review standards set forth in the municipal code. Local ordinances typically provide standards to guide and limit the exercise of discretion in issuance of Use Permits, however California courts have held that very general and subjective zoning standards (e.g., “consistent with the general health, safety, and welfare”) may be sufficient for evaluating use permit approvals, except in cases involving First Amendment rights (in which case standards must be narrowly tailored), or in cases of housing developments and residential uses where discretionary review is limited by state law.

BMC Section 17.40.060 requires the Planning Commission to make the following findings before issuing a Use Permit:
(1) establishment, maintenance or operation of the use applied for will not be detrimental to the health, safety, comfort and general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use; and
(2) the proposed use will not be injurious or detrimental to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the city.

The Planning Commission shall also consider and give due regard to (i) the nature and condition of all adjacent uses and structures, and (ii) consistency with the general planning and any specific plan applicable to the area in question. See BMC Section 17.40.060(A).

These broad and subjective use permit standards provide the City considerable discretion to determine whether a proposed conditional use does or does not satisfy the required findings for approval. The zoning ordinance also expressly requires the Planning Commission to consider the consistency of the proposed use with surrounding uses and the general plan and zoning for the property as further bases for approval or denial.

Page 289 of 303 ends

Brisbane City CouncilSeptember 17, 2026

Brisbane City Council
September 17, 2026