Question: If a City adopts performance standards, are there any State or Federal laws that would prevent us from adopting such standards? That is, is there a floor or ceiling established that we could not exceed or go below? There are federal and state legislative proposals to impose new regulatory restrictions and reporting requirements on data centers, particularly regarding energy usage, but none of these proposals would expressly preempt local performance standards from being imposed on data centers as land use and zoning regulations. Federal and state levels generally establish a floor rather than a ceiling regarding the regulatory restrictions imposed on a project, beyond which a local jurisdiction may impose more restrictive land use requirements.
Question: Can the City prohibit all data center development? Are there legal risks associated with banning data centers?
Yes, the City could ban data centers from being developed in the city by amending the City’s zoning ordinance. The legislative amendments could remove data centers as a permitted use within TC-2 and M-1 zones (the only two zones which presently allow data centers), or the City could go further by adding a new provision to establish data centers as an expressly prohibited use throughout the city. Both approaches would have the effect of no longer permitting data center use within any zoning district of the city.
Even if the City were to adopt a data center ban after receiving a project application, the legal challenge to that ban would be unlikely to prevail unless the ban deprives the property of all its economically beneficial use, or the project applicant acquires vested rights in its data center project. Generally, vested rights for development projects may be obtained in one of three ways: (1) executing a development agreement with the City; (2) submitting a complete application for a vesting tentative map; or (3) receiving final permit approvals for a data center project and incurring costs in reliance of such approvals. To date, no data centers currently exist in the City, nor have any project applicants acquired vested rights in data center development projects.
The City has expansive legal authority to change zoning and land use regulations in ways that impact future property uses throughout its jurisdiction. A data center ban in Brisbane is not likely to deprive any property of its entire economic value or implicate any vested rights in a data center project at this time, and therefore, the risk of legal challenges is relatively low.
Question: What is the City’s authority to regulate land use and make land use decisions? As discussed, cities have broad authority to regulate land use under their police powers to protect public health, safety, and welfare. For data centers, that authority can support allowing them by right, requiring discretionary approval with conditions, limiting them to specified districts, imposing performance standards, and prohibiting new facilities in some or all areas of
the city. The decisions generally must be grounded in written planning findings, follow required public hearing and noticing procedures, and remain consistent with state law.
Question: Could a data center be permitted in a zoning district where data centers are not allowed if it is proposed under a different name or classification? Data centers are not allowed in any districts other than those which expressly allow data centers as a permitted use. The zoning ordinance is permissive, meaning that if a use is not explicitly listed as permitted or conditionally permitted it is considered disallowed or prohibited (See BMC Section 17.01.080). Data centers are currently listed as allowed uses by-right in the TC-2 (Southeast Bayshore) and M-1 (Manufacturing) zoning districts. They are not permitted in any other district.
Question: What mechanisms does the City have in place to ban data centers in the City? There are two primary methods for amending the zoning ordinance to ban data centers across the City: either by legislative action of the City Council to amend the zoning ordinance, or by the electorate’s approval of a data center ban by voter initiative. Chapter 17.50 of the Brisbane Municipal Code establishes the legislative process for zoning text amendments enacted by the City Council. Under Chapter 17.50, a zoning text amendment may be initiated by resolution of the City Council or the Planning Commission, or by a petition submitted by affected property owners or their authorized agents on the City's required form and accompanied by the applicable fee. Once a petition or resolution initiating the amendment is received, the Planning Commission must schedule a public hearing within 60 days and provide public notice in accordance with Chapter 17.54 of the Municipal Code.
Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission is required to prepare findings and a recommendation regarding the proposed amendment. The Commission's report must include a summary of the evidence and testimony presented, a list of people who testified, the Commission's findings, and any supporting maps, documents, or other materials submitted in connection with the amendment. The report and recommendation must be transmitted to the City Council within 90 days after the first notice of hearing, unless an extension is agreed to by the City Council or the applicant. If the Planning Commission does not submit its report within the required period, the amendment is deemed approved by the Commission. Any recommendation of the Planning Commission must be approved by a majority vote of its voting members.
Upon receipt of the Planning Commission's recommendation, or upon expiration of its 90-day review period, the City Council must conduct its own public hearing with notice provided pursuant to Chapter 17.54. Following the hearing, the City Council may adopt the proposed zoning text amendment, or any portion of it, by ordinance within one year. If the City Council
proposes modifications that were not previously considered by the Planning Commission, those changes must first be referred back to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation, although an additional Planning Commission public hearing is not required.
The Planning Commission has 40 days, or a longer period established by the City Council, to report on the proposed modifications; failure to do so is deemed approval of the modifications.
The City Council may then proceed with final adoption of the amendment by ordinance.
Alternatively, amendments to the zoning ordinance by voter initiative must follow the procedures set forth in Sections 9200 through 9226 of the Elections Code. A zoning amendment may be proposed through the voter initiative process in the Elections Code by filing a notice of intent and the text of the proposed ordinance with the city elections official, obtaining a ballot title and summary, and then circulating petitions to collect the required number of voter signatures. The initiative petition must be signed by a sufficient number of registered voters within the city and submitted for verification by the elections official. Once the signatures are certified as sufficient, the proposed ordinance is transmitted to the city council for consideration.
After receiving a certified initiative petition, the city council generally must either adopt the proposed ordinance without alteration or submit it to the voters at a municipal election. The council may first direct staff to prepare a report analyzing the measure's effects, but this review does not prevent the initiative from ultimately being adopted by the council or placed on the ballot. If submitted to the electorate, the proposed zoning amendment becomes law upon approval by a majority of voters. Unlike the standard zoning amendment process under Chapter
17.50, the voter initiative procedure allows a zoning ordinance to be enacted directly through the electoral process rather than through the Planning Commission recommendation and City Council hearing process ordinarily applicable to zoning amendments.
Question: If Brisbane bans data centers, could we change our mind in the future? Yes. If the City wished to change its mind it would need to amend the zoning ordinance via the same process by which the ban was originally enacted. In other words, if the data center prohibition was enacted by the City Council, a legislative reversal of the ban would follow the process set forth in Chapter 17.50 of the Brisbane Municipal Code. If the data center ban was enacted by voter initiative, any repeal or amendment to the ban would require the electorate’s approval again by following the same initiative process set forth in the Elections Code as outlined above.
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 to Council with no recommendation or with a potential ordinance regulating data centers.
A moratorium is an interim urgency ordinance authorized by State law which allows a city to prohibit land uses that may conflict with a contemplated general, specific plan, or zoning proposal that the City is studying within a reasonable time. Adoption of a moratorium requires four-fifths vote of the City Council and requires findings that it is necessary to address a current and immediate threat to public health, safety, or welfare. A moratorium is initially effective for 45 days from adoption; however, it may be extended up to an additional 22 months and 15 days.
Fiscal Impact
There is no fiscal impact to receiving this report.
Attachments
None
___________________________________
Jeremy Dennis, City Manager
City Council Staff Report
Meeting Date: September 17, 2026
From: Angel Ibarra, Administrative Management Analyst,
Christina Fernandez, Assistant City Manager, Jeremy
Dennis, City Manager
Subject: Receive Annual Report on Short Term Rentals
Recommendation
Staff recommend the City Council receive an informational report regarding the City of Brisbane's shortterm rental program and provide direction regarding potential program monitoring, enforcement, permitting, and policy priorities.
Background
The City Council adopted Urgency Ordinance No. 656 on June 18, 2020, establishing permitting requirements and operational standards for short-term rentals (STR). The regulations were subsequently made permanent through Ordinance No. 655, codified in Chapter 17.35 of the Brisbane Municipal Code.
The City's Housing Element also identifies implementation of the City's STR ordinance as a housingrelated program intended to prevent conversion of housing units to short-term residential rentals of less than 30 days.
The City currently maintains an online STR program page containing permit information, regulations, tax requirements, renewal procedures, supporting documents, and violation-reporting information.
Current Short-Term Rental Regulations
The City of Brisbane permits a limited form of short-term residential rentals (STRs) within owneroccupied single-family residences, subject to City approval and extensive operational requirements.
Under the City's regulations, a short-term rental generally consists of the rental of one or more rooms within a single-family dwelling for fewer than 30 consecutive days. The City does not permit unhosted or entire-home short-term rentals. STRs are also prohibited in apartment buildings, accessory dwelling units (ADUs), and certain properties containing qualifying ADUs.
The City's current program emphasizes:
• Owner occupancy and hosted rentals;
• A maximum of two rentable rooms;
• Neighborhood compatibility and noise controls;
• Parking and occupancy requirements;
• Fire and life-safety standards;
• Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) collection;
• Permit and renewal requirements;
• Administrative enforcement and escalating fines; and
• Periodic inspection and compliance review.
The City has also continued to refine administration of the program. In February 2026, the City Council discussed annual fire and life-safety inspections and directed staff to ensure STR inspections are coordinated with permit renewals.
Permit Renewals and Compliance
The City's permit structure provides for an initial permit period followed by subsequent renewals.
A renewed permit generally may be issued for a two-year period, although the City may shorten the renewal period based on compliance history, notices of violation, or suspensions.
The City may also require an audit of TOT payments during renewal as well as requiring the host to provide:
• STR advertisement/listing URLs;
• Evidence of rental revenue;
• Platform screenshots or transaction history;
• Bank statements or comparable records; and
• A digital signature.
These requirements provide the City with an additional mechanism for verifying that reported rental activity and tax payments correspond with actual STR operations.
In December of 2024, the City of Brisbane signed an annual agreement with Deckard Technologies to utilize their platform RentalScape to monitor online STR listings placed on hosting platforms (e.g.
AirB&B, VRBO). This gives the City the ability to screen unpermitted STRs and verify the number of days a property has rented their homes against the days self-reported by the property owner.
Currently, the City has 4 licensed and permitted STRs. There are about 8 properties who currently host long-term rentals (30-plus consecutive days).
Screen Shot of RentalScape
Discussion
Fiscal Impact
Based on the City’s financial data, the City has collected $66,139.20 in Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) and STR Business Licenses.
Fiscal Amount
2022-2023 $4,777.78
2023-2024 $18,030.05
2024-2025 $23,094.49
2025-2026 $20,236.88
Total $66,139.20
Attachments
None
City Manager Approval
Jeremy Dennis, City
Manager
09/09/2026
City Council Staff Report
Meeting Date: September 17, 2026
From: Samantha Zutler, City Attorney
Subject: Consider Introduction of an Ordinance Amending Brisbane Municipal Code Section 2.02.010 Related to
City Councilmember Compensation
Recommendation
Staff recommend introduction, for first reading, by title only and waiving further reading of the text, Ordinance No. XXXX amending Section 2.02.010 of the Brisbane Municipal Code.
Background
On June 29, 2023, Governor Newsom signed Senate Bill 329, which increases the maximum salary that Councilmembers may receive. SB 329, codified at Government Code § 36516, went into effect on January 1, 2024. Compensation increases cannot be effective until a new or incumbent Council Member is seated so, at the earliest, December 2026.
Discussion
SB 329 amends Government Code § 36516 to increase the authorized maximum salary for each Councilmember. The permitted increases are tied to population. For Brisbane, which has a population of approximately 4,800, SB 329 allows Councilmembers to receive up to $950 per month. Brisbane Councilmembers currently receive $400 per month. The last time the Council adjusted its salary was in 2015. The attached Ordinance would increase compensation to $950 per month for each Councilmember.
Any increases in compensation for Councilmembers must be enacted by Ordinance. Increases do not take effect until a new or incumbent Councilmember is seated. If Councilmembers have staggered terms, the change in compensation may apply to the entire Council when any Councilmember begins a new term. Two Brisbane Councilmembers are up for election in November 2026, so the increases will be effective in December 2026.
Alternatives
The City Council could decline to introduce the ordinance, or direct staff to revise the draft presented.
Fiscal Impact
The proposed Ordinance would increase Council Member compensation from $400.00 per month to $950.00 per month.
Attachments
1. 2026 Council Compensation Ordinance
City Manager Approval
Jeremy Dennis, City
Manager
09/11/2026
4925-4512-2511 v1
Attachment 1
ORDINANCE NO. ______
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
BRISBANE AMENDING SECTION 2.02.010 (SALARIES) OF
TITLE 2 (ADMINISTRATION AND PERSONNEL) OF THE
BRISBANE MUNICIPAL CODE
WHEREAS, Brisbane Municipal Code Section 2.02.010 (Salaries) sets the salary for each city council member at $400 per month, exclusive of any reimbursement for expenses; and WHEREAS, Councilmember salary was most recently adjusted by ordinance in 2015; and
WHEREAS, California Government Code Sections 36516 and 36516.5 permit Councilmembers to receive a monthly salary for their service; and WHEREAS, the Government Code previously permitted an increase in the monthly compensation for City Councilmembers by an amount equal to five percent (5%) multiplied by the number of years since the last adjustment; and
WHEREAS, in 2023, the State Legislature passed and the Governor signed into law Senate Bill 329; and
WHEREAS, Senate Bill 329 was adopted to “reset” Councilmember compensation to reflect the importance of the work of Councilmembers, address the impacts of inflation, and encourage more community members to consider service on the City Council; and WHEREAS, SB 329, since codified at Government Code Section 36516, sets maximum compensation for Councilmembers based on the size of the population that the Councilmembers serve. Because Brisbane has a population of under 35,000, Section 36516(a)(2)(A) sets the maximum compensation at $950 per month per Councilmember.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRISBANE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Findings.
The above referenced recitals are true and correct and material to the adoption of this Ordinance.
Section 2. Compliance with CEQA.
Adoption of this Ordinance is not a “project” pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq., including without limitation California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sections 15378(b)(4) and 15061(b)(3), as it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the adoption of this Ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment. This Ordinance revises compensation for City Councilmembers, which is an administrative activity and does not involve any commitment to any project which may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment.
4925-4512-2511 v1
Section 3. Amendment of Brisbane Municipal Code.
Title 2 (Administration and Personnel), Chapter 2.02 (City Council), Section 2.02.010 (Salaries) of the Brisbane Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows. Deletions are shown as strikethrough and additions are underlined.
The salary of each city council member shall be four hundred dollars ($400.00) nine hundred and fifty dollars ($950) per month. Such salary shall be exclusive of any amounts payable to each city council member as reimbursement for actual and necessary expenses incurred by each council member in the performance of official duties for the city.
Section 4. Severability.
If any provision of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the Ordinance and the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby, and to this end the provisions of this Ordinance are declared to be severable.
Section 5. Codification.
This Ordinance shall be codified in the City of Brisbane Municipal Code.
Section 6. Effective Date.
This Ordinance will be effective thirty (30) days after passage by the City Council. Compensation increases will become effective for all Councilmembers when one or more Councilmembers begins a new term of office.
Section 7. Publication.
The City Clerk is directed to publish this Ordinance as required by State law.
CITY of BRISBANE
Council Subcommittee Update
From August 29th, 2026, to September 11th, 2026
1. Report Out on Subcommittees/Committees
A. Bayshore School District & City 2x2 Subcommittee 9/1 Davis, Lentz The subcommittee met with Bayshore School District Board President Rudolph, Board Vice-President Kristie Leong, and Superintendent Bhavna Narula to discuss the District’s anticipated school needs on the Baylands. As the City continues to work with the Baylands development team on the Specific Plan and Development Agreement, it is important for the City to understand the District’s plans and priorities as the development moves forward.
Bayshore indicated that it anticipates utilizing the 5–7 acres identified in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for a future middle school. However, the District would prefer a school site located closer to the proposed housing and parks to facilitate student access and create opportunities for integration with surrounding community amenities. The District also expressed concern about potential wind-tunnel effects if the school were located directly across from Geneva Avenue.
The District noted that if the City is interested in incorporating joint-use facilities, such as ballfields or other recreational amenities, the 5–7-acre site identified in the EIR may not be sufficient to accommodate both the school and shared facilities. This may require the City and District to further evaluate the size and configuration of the school site and the potential for shared-use facilities as part of the Specific Plan and Development Agreement discussions.
Bayshore also anticipates that the Midway project, which is expected to include approximately 555 affordable housing units, will generate additional students who would attend schools within the Bayshore School District.
District representatives indicated that accommodating students from both the Baylands development and the Midway project would not be an issue.
Next Steps 1: The Subcommittee will meet again in October.
To view the agenda online:
https://brisbaneca.portal.civicclerk.com/event/6963/files B. Infrastructure Subcommittee 9/2 Lentz, O’Connell
In 2023, the City completed a comprehensive Water and Sewer Rate Study to evaluate the costs of providing water and sewer services and establish rates sufficient to support the ongoing financial needs of each utility. As outlined in the City’s 2023 Proposition 218 Notice and related rate study materials, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2023-17, establishing revised water and sewer rate structures and authorizing annual rate adjustments through June 15, 2027. With the current rate adjustments scheduled to conclude in 2027, staff have begun planning for the City’s next comprehensive Water and Sewer Rate Study.
To initiate this process, staff have prepared a draft Request for Proposals (RFP) to solicit proposals from qualified financial consultants to conduct the next Water and Sewer Rate Study. The study will evaluate the financial requirements of both utilities, including operating and maintenance costs, capital improvement needs, reserve requirements, revenues, and projected wholesale water and wastewater costs.
An additional consideration for the study is the City’s approach to the Proposition 218 rate-setting process, including whether to incorporate procedures established under AB 2257. AB 2257 provides an administrative process for considering challenges to proposed water and sewer rates before they are adopted and establishes additional noticing and procedural requirements. Although this process may require additional time and steps during rate adoption, staff are considering its use because it would provide an opportunity to address ratepayer objections through an administrative process and could potentially reduce the City’s exposure to subsequent legal challenges.
Staff requested direction from the subcommittee regarding issues that should be considered before the RFP is released and specific areas the consultant should evaluate as part of the study. Among the topics discussed was the potential to place water and sewer charges on the property owner’s property tax roll, as several other cities have done. This approach could provide the City with a more consistent collection mechanism by shifting the responsibility for collecting the charges to the County, while potentially reducing the City’s administrative and collection costs.
The subcommittee also requested that the next rate study provide greater clarity regarding the City’s current compliance status, including the extent to which the City may be out of compliance with applicable requirements and the steps, costs, and timeline necessary to return the City to compliance and restore its eligibility to issue bonds. In addition, the subcommittee discussed the differences between the Proposition 218 and AB 2257 processes and requested an evaluation of which approach would be most appropriate for the City.
Finally, the subcommittee asked the consultant to identify and evaluate alternative funding options that may be available to the City if traditional bond financing is not feasible.
Next Steps 1: Staff will work on the Finances to clarify how far off the City is regarding compliance.
Next Steps 2: Staff will research other ways to fund aging infrastructure if a bond is not feasible.
Next Steps 3: The Subcommittee will meet again in October.
To view the agenda packet online:
https://brisbaneca.portal.civicclerk.com/event/6962/files/agenda/12556
2. Upcoming Subcommittees:
3. Proposed Subcommittees:
Does any councilmember wish to propose any items for a subcommittee to discuss?