Agenda packet — Brisbane City Council, October 1, 2026 (part 3 of 5)

EXHIBIT J
Job Classification Hourly Grade
A
Hourly Grade
B
Hourly Grade
C
Hourly Grade
D
Hourly Grade
E Monthly Fixed Hourly Hourly Range Effective Date Bargaining Group FLSA Status Accounting Assistant I $ 32.04 $ 33.66 $ 35.34 $ 37.11 $ 38.97 7/13/2026 General Employees Non-Exempt Accounting Assistant II $ 35.28 $ 37.05 $ 38.91 $ 40.84 $ 42.89 7/13/2026 General Employees Non-Exempt Accounting Systems Analyst $ 48.45 $ 51.00 $ 53.55 $ 56.22 $ 59.04 7/13/2026 General Employees Non-Exempt Administrative Assistant $ 42.39 $ 44.51 $ 46.73 $ 49.07 $ 51.53 7/13/2026 General Employees Non-Exempt Administrative Management Analyst $ 53.96 $ 56.64 $ 59.49 $ 62.45 $ 65.59 7/13/2026 Confidential Employee Exempt Administrative Services Director $ 108.94 $ 114.38 $ 120.11 $ 126.10 $ 132.42 7/13/2026 Confidential Management Exempt Assistant Engineer I $ 49.36 $ 51.84 $ 54.43 $ 57.15 $ 60.00 7/13/2026 General Employees Non-Exempt Assistant Engineer II $ 54.30 $ 57.00 $ 59.86 $ 62.85 $ 65.99 7/13/2026 General Employees Non-Exempt Assistant City Manager $ 125.28 $ 131.54 $ 138.13 $ 145.02 $ 152.29 7/13/2026 Confidential Management Exempt Assistant to the City Manager $ 83.48 $ 87.65 $ 92.05 $ 96.63 $ 101.48 7/13/2026 Executive Management Exempt Assistant Fire Marshal $ 93.71 $ 98.39 $ 103.31 $ 108.48 $ 113.90 7/13/2026 Brisbane Fire Management Exempt Associate Civil Engineer $ 64.65 $ 67.87 $ 71.27 $ 74.84 $ 78.59 7/13/2026 Mid-Management/Professional Exempt Associate Planner $ 57.12 $ 59.99 $ 62.99 $ 66.13 $ 69.45 7/13/2026 General Employees Non-Exempt Building Permit Technician $ 43.26 $ 45.41 $ 47.69 $ 50.07 $ 52.57 7/13/2026 General Employees Non-Exempt Cashier $ 18.61 $ 19.54 $ 20.52 $ 21.54 $ 22.62 7/13/2026 Unrepresented Non-Exempt C/CAG Stormwater Program Director $ 85.41 $ 89.68 $ 94.17 $ 98.88 $ 103.82 7/13/2026 Mid-Management/Professional Exempt City Clerk $ 83.43 $ 87.60 $ 91.98 $ 96.59 $ 101.40 7/13/2026 Executive Management Exempt City Manager $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 166.17 7/13/2026 Unrepresented Exempt Code Enforcement Officer $ 46.06 $ 48.37 $ 50.78 $ 53.32 $ 55.99 7/13/2026 General Employees Non-Exempt Communications Coordinator $ 43.26 $ 45.41 $ 47.69 $ 50.07 $ 52.57 7/13/2026 General Employees Non-Exempt Communications Manager $ 63.11 $ 66.42 $ 69.92 $ 73.60 $ 77.47 7/13/2026 Mid-Management/Professional Exempt Community Development Director $ 105.35 $ 110.62 $ 116.16 $ 121.97 $ 128.07 7/13/2026 Executive Management Exempt Community Development Technician $ 43.26 $ 45.41 $ 47.69 $ 50.07 $ 52.57 7/13/2026 General Employees Non-Exempt Community Services Officer $ 37.71 $ 40.15 $ 42.15 $ 44.26 $ 46.47 7/13/2026 General Employees Non-Exempt Council Member $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 400.00 7/13/2026 Elected Position Crossing Guard $ 18.61 $ 19.54 $ 20.52 $ 21.54 $ 22.62 7/13/2026 Unrepresented Non-Exempt Deputy City Clerk/Executive Assistant $ 50.79 $ 53.32 $ 55.99 $ 58.81 $ 61.73 7/13/2026 Confidential Exempt Deputy Director of Public Works $ 95.42 $ 100.19 $ 105.21 $ 110.47 $ 115.98 7/13/2026 Mid-Management/Professional Exempt Deputy Finance Director $ 85.41 $ 89.68 $ 94.17 $ 98.88 $ 103.82 7/13/2026 Mid-Management/Professional Exempt Director of Marina/Aquatics Services $ 69.93 $ 73.43 $ 77.10 $ 80.96 $ 85.00 7/13/2026 Executive Management Exempt Engineering Technician $ 47.58 $ 49.96 $ 52.46 $ 55.06 $ 57.83 7/13/2026 General Employees Non-Exempt Executive Administrative Assistant $ 43.94 $ 46.12 $ 48.43 $ 50.86 $ 53.40 7/13/2026 General Employees Non-Exempt Facility Attendant $ 21.81 $ 22.89 $ 24.04 $ 25.25 $ 26.50 7/13/2026 Unrepresented Non-Exempt Finance Director $ 104.27 $ 109.47 $ 114.95 $ 120.71 $ 126.72 7/13/2026 Confidential Management Exempt Financial Services Manager $ 73.77 $ 77.45 $ 81.33 $ 85.41 $ 89.68 7/13/2026 Mid-Management/Professional Exempt Fire Captain $ 51.52 $ 54.08 $ 56.80 $ 59.63 $ 62.62 7/13/2026 IAFF Local 2400 Non-Exempt Fire Prevention Officer $ 60.36 $ 66.69 $ 70.02 $ 73.51 $ 77.19 7/13/2026 IAFF Local 2400 Non-Exempt Fire Trainee $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 30.02 7/13/2026 IAFF Local 2400 Non-Exempt Firefighter $ 43.11 $ 45.26 $ 47.53 $ 49.89 $ 52.38 7/13/2026 IAFF Local 2400 Non-Exempt Firefighter II $ 47.42 $ 49.79 $ 52.28 $ 54.87 $ 57.62 7/13/2026 IAFF Local 2400 Non-Exempt Firefighter/Paramedic $ 43.11 $ 45.26 $ 47.53 $ 49.89 $ 52.38 7/13/2026 IAFF Local 2400 Non-Exempt Fire Engineer Operator $ 47.42 $ 49.79 $ 52.28 $ 54.87 $ 57.62 7/13/2026 IAFF Local 2400 Non-Exempt Geographic Information System Manager $ 67.21 $ 70.74 $ 74.46 $ 78.38 $ 82.51 7/13/2026 Mid-Management/Professional Exempt Habitat Restoration Lead Worker $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 17.40 1/1/2027 Unrepresented Non-Exempt Harbormaster $ 59.49 $ 62.45 $ 65.58 $ 68.86 $ 72.31 7/13/2026 Mid-Management/Professional Exempt City of Brisbane Master Pay Schedule
Approved per Resolution No. 2026-XX

Page 241 of 517 ends

Job Classification Hourly Grade
A
Hourly Grade
B
Hourly Grade
C
Hourly Grade
D
Hourly Grade
E Monthly Fixed Hourly Hourly Range Effective Date Bargaining Group FLSA Status City of Brisbane Master Pay Schedule
Approved per Resolution No. 2026-XX
Head Lifeguard $ 26.14 $ 27.46 $ 28.82 $ 30.28 $ 31.78 7/13/2026 Unrepresented Non-Exempt History Project Asst $ 44.25 $ 46.46 $ 48.79 $ 51.22 $ 53.79 7/13/2026 Unrepresented Non-Exempt Human Resources Administrator $ 87.15 $ 91.51 $ 96.09 $ 100.90 $ 105.94 7/13/2026 Confidential Exempt Human Resources Director $ 102.32 $ 107.44 $ 112.81 $ 118.45 $ 124.37 7/13/2026 Confidential Management Exempt Human Resources Technician $ 43.26 $ 45.41 $ 47.69 $ 50.07 $ 52.57 7/13/2026 General Employees Non-Exempt Information Technology & Systems Administrator $ 65.04 $ 68.29 $ 71.70 $ 75.29 $ 79.06 7/13/2026 Mid-Management/Professional Exempt Intern $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $17.40 - $23.00 1/1/2027 Unrepresented Non-Exempt Lifeguard $ 19.84 $ 20.83 $ 21.87 $ 22.97 $ 24.10 7/13/2026 Unrepresented Non-Exempt Management Analyst (Part-time) $ 48.93 $ 51.39 $ 53.95 $ 56.64 $ 59.47 7/13/2026 Unrepresented Non-Exempt Marina Maintenance Worker I $ 37.09 $ 38.94 $ 40.89 $ 42.93 $ 45.09 7/13/2026 General Employees Non-Exempt Marina Maintenance Worker II $ 40.80 $ 42.82 $ 44.98 $ 47.21 $ 49.58 7/13/2026 General Employees Non-Exempt Marina Maintenance Worker I ( Part-time) $ 37.82 $ 39.71 $ 41.69 $ 43.80 $ 45.98 7/13/2026 Unrepresented Non-Exempt Marina Maintenance Worker II ( Part-time) $ 41.59 $ 43.71 $ 45.84 $ 48.12 $ 50.57 7/13/2026 Unrepresented Non-Exempt Marina Services Director $ 65.36 $ 68.63 $ 72.07 $ 75.66 $ 79.45 7/13/2026 Executive Management Exempt Office Assistant $ 34.00 $ 35.64 $ 37.42 $ 39.29 $ 41.28 7/13/2026 General Employees Non-Exempt Office Assistant (Part-Time) $ 34.62 $ 36.34 $ 38.15 $ 40.08 $ 42.08 7/13/2026 Unrepresented Non-Exempt Office Specialist $ 39.85 $ 41.83 $ 43.94 $ 46.12 $ 48.43 7/13/2026 General Employees Non-Exempt Office Specialist (Part-Time) $ 40.66 $ 42.67 $ 44.81 $ 47.05 $ 49.41 7/13/2026 Unrepresented Non-Exempt Park/Beach/Recreation Commissioner $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 100.00 7/13/2026 Appointed Position Parks & Recreation Director $ 100.46 $ 105.49 $ 110.76 $ 116.28 $ 122.11 7/13/2026 Executive Management Exempt Parks/Facilities Maintenance Worker I $ 37.09 $ 38.94 $ 40.89 $ 42.93 $ 45.09 7/13/2026 General Employees Non-Exempt Parks/Facilities Maintenance Worker I (PartTime) $ 37.82 $ 39.71 $ 41.69 $ 43.80 $ 45.98 7/13/2026 Unrepresented Non-Exempt Parks/Facilities Maintenance Worker II $ 40.80 $ 42.82 $ 44.98 $ 47.21 $ 49.58 7/13/2026 General Employees Non-Exempt Payroll/Utility Billing Technician $ 43.26 $ 45.41 $ 47.69 $ 50.07 $ 52.57 7/13/2026 General Employees Non-Exempt Planning Commissioner $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 100.00 7/13/2026 Appointed Position Police Chief $ 122.95 $ 129.09 $ 135.53 $ 142.33 $ 149.43 7/13/2026 Police Chief Exempt Police Captain $ 110.84 $ 116.38 $ 122.21 $ 128.32 $ 134.73 7/13/2026 Police Commander Exempt Police Officer $ 56.33 $ 59.15 $ 62.10 $ 65.21 $ 68.47 7/13/2026 Brisbane Police Officers Association* Non-Exempt Police Officer - 40 hour shift
(Detective/SRO) $ 59.15 $ 62.10 $ 65.21 $ 68.47 $ 71.89 7/13/2026 Brisbane Police Officers Association* Non-Exempt Police Corporal $ 61.96 $ 65.06 $ 68.32 $ 71.73 $ 75.32 7/13/2026 Brisbane Police Officers Association* Non-Exempt Police Sergeant $ 67.87 $ 71.26 $ 74.82 $ 78.57 $ 82.49 7/13/2026 Brisbane Police Officers Association* Non-Exempt Police Trainee $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 41.69 7/13/2026 Unrepresented Non-Exempt Pre-School Teacher $ 21.93 $ 23.05 $ 24.19 $ 25.42 $ 26.69 7/13/2026 Unrepresented Non-Exempt Principal Analyst $ 75.47 $ 79.26 $ 83.22 $ 87.36 $ 91.74 7/13/2026 Confidential Exempt Principal Planner $ 80.39 $ 84.40 $ 88.63 $ 93.06 $ 97.72 7/13/2026 Mid-Management/Professional Exempt Program Manager - SMCWPPP $ 79.51 $ 83.50 $ 87.67 $ 92.06 $ 96.66 7/13/2026 Mid-Management/Professional Exempt Public Service Aide $ 19.52 $ 20.51 $ 21.51 $ 22.58 $ 23.73 7/13/2026 Unrepresented Non-Exempt Public Works Director/City Engineer $ 111.88 $ 117.47 $ 123.34 $ 129.50 $ 135.99 7/13/2026 Executive Management Exempt Public Works Inspector $ 60.87 $ 63.92 $ 67.11 $ 70.46 $ 73.99 7/13/2026 General Employees Non-Exempt Public Works Lead Maintenance Worker $ 48.96 $ 51.41 $ 53.96 $ 56.67 $ 59.49 7/13/2026 General Employees Non-Exempt Public Works Maintenance Worker I $ 37.09 $ 38.94 $ 40.89 $ 42.93 $ 45.09 7/13/2026 General Employees Non-Exempt Public Works Maintenance Worker I (Part-time) $ 37.82 $ 39.71 $ 41.69 $ 43.80 $ 45.98 7/13/2026 Unrepresented Non-Exempt Public Works Maintenance Worker II $ 40.80 $ 42.82 $ 44.98 $ 47.21 $ 49.58 7/13/2026 General Employees Non-Exempt Public Works Superintendent $ 79.13 $ 83.08 $ 87.24 $ 91.61 $ 96.18 7/13/2026 Mid-Management/Professional Exempt Public Works Supervisor $ 60.48 $ 63.51 $ 66.68 $ 70.01 $ 73.52 7/13/2026 Mid-Management/Professional Exempt

Page 242 of 517 ends

Page 243 of 517 ends

City Council Staff Report
Meeting Date: October 1, 2026
From: Abby Partin , Human Resources Director
Subject: Adopt a Resolution to Reclassify and Update the Current Police Commander and Firefighter II Job Descriptions
Recommendation
Staff recommend the City Council adopt a resolution to reclassify and update the current Police Commander and Firefighter II Job Descriptions.

Background
As part of recent labor negotiations, the City and the respective employee representatives negotiated changes to the classification structure for certain public safety positions.

Two of the negotiated changes include the creation of a Fire Engineer/Operator classification through the reclassification of the current Firefighter II position and the reclassification of the existing Police Commander classification to Police Captain.

These changes are intended to provide greater clarity within the City’s public safety career structures, better define roles and responsibilities, and improve consistency with classifications used by comparable agencies.

Discussion
Fire Engineer/Operator
The proposed reclassification of the current Firefighter II position will establish a distinct Fire Engineer/Operator classification between the Firefighter and Fire Captain positions within the Fire Department’s career structure.

This change is driven by several factors, including concerns regarding how CalPERS has historically categorized the Firefighter II position, the need for greater alignment with other North County Fire Authority (NCFA) agencies, and consistency with Cal OES payment structures. Establishing clear roles and responsibilities will also support operational effectiveness and improved service delivery.

The proposed classification provides a clearer career progression:

Firefighter → Fire Engineer/Operator → Fire Captain
This structure more accurately reflects the increasing responsibility, technical expertise, and operational duties associated with operating and engineering fire apparatus. The proposed job

Page 244 of 517 ends

description reflects these responsibilities and incorporates input from departmental subject matter experts and the appropriate employee representatives.

Police Captain
The second proposed change is the reclassification of the existing Police Commander classification to Police Captain.

The title of Police Commander is an older classification title and is less consistent with the terminology commonly used by other law enforcement agencies in San Mateo County.

Changing the title to Police Captain will provide greater consistency with neighboring jurisdictions and more accurately align the City's classification structure with comparable public safety organizations.

The proposed change is a reclassification of the existing position title and does not represent the creation of a new organizational level. The updated job description will reflect the responsibilities and expectations of the classification while establishing a title that is more consistent with comparable agencies.

The change was negotiated as part of the City’s labor negotiations, and both the IAFF and Police Commander groups have approved of the proposed changes.

Fiscal Impact
There is no fiscal impact associated with updating the job descriptions. The proposed changes do not modify the compensation of the positions which are already budgeted for in the current and upcoming fiscal years.

Attachments

1. Resolution 2026-XX Job Descriptions
City Manager Approval
Jeremy Dennis, City
Manager
09/23/2026

Page 245 of 517 ends

RESOLUTION NO 2026-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRISBANE AMENDING RESOLUTION 2001-11 TO INCLUDE THE AMENDMENT TO THE

CLASSIFICATIONS OF POLICE COMMANDER AND FIREFIGHTER II IN THE

CLASS SPECIFICATION MANUAL
WHEREAS, on February 13, 2001, the City Council approved Resolution 2001- 11 establishing the Classifications and Pay Plan and approving the class descriptions included in Exhibit “A” of said resolution for development of the Class Specification Manual; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager has established the need for the amendments in the classifications of Police Commander And Firefighter II; and WHEREAS, the class descriptions amendments for Police Commander And Firefighter II were developed in cooperation with and have been approved by the City Manager; and
WHEREAS, both the International Association of Firefighters Local 2400 and Police Commander groups have approved the proposed changes; and WHEREAS, this newly developed class descriptions for Police Commander And Firefighter II to Police Captain and Fire Engineer Operator meet the requirements established Rule 6.02b of the City of Brisbane Personnel Rules and Regulations for the Class Specification Manual.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Brisbane resolves as follows:

The class descriptions for the classifications of Police Captain and Fire Engineer/ Operator in Exhibit “A” is approved for inclusion in the Class Specification Manual.Section 1. Resolution Number 2000-04 is
_________________
Coleen Mackin, Mayor
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2026-XX was duly and regularly adopted at a regular meeting of the Brisbane City Council on October 1, 2026, by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent: None
Abstain: None

Page 246 of 517 ends

_____________________
Ingrid Padilla, City Clerk

Page 247 of 517 ends

CITY OF BRISBANE

FIRE ENGINEER OPERATOR
Definition
Under general supervision to be responsible for the operation and driving of fire apparatus, to engage in firefighting and fire prevention activitiesin protecting life and property, to keep records related to apparatus and equipment assigned; to be familiar with the water and hydrant system of the City; and to do related work as required.

Class Characteristics
The Fire Engineer/Operator is a specialized operational classification within the Fire Department’s career series. In addition to performing the full range of firefighter duties, the position has specialized responsibility for the safe operation, inspection, maintenance, and readiness of fire apparatus and related equipment.

The Fire Engineer/Operator is distinguished from the Firefighter by the additional technical knowledge, skills, and responsibility required to operate fire apparatus, pumps, water supply systems, and related equipment during emergency and non-emergency operations. The position is distinguished from the Fire Captain in that it does not have primary responsibility for company-level supervision, personnel management, or incident command.

The Fire Engineer/Operator works under the general supervision of a Fire Captain and is expected to exercise sound judgment and technical proficiency in the operation of fire apparatus and equipment, particularly during emergency incidents.

Examples of Duties (Illustrative Only)
• Safely drives and operates fire engines, pumpers, aerial apparatus, rescue vehicles, and other emergency vehicles as assigned.
• Positions fire apparatus at emergency scenes to support effective fire suppression, rescue, emergency medical, and other operations.
• Operates pumps, valves, aerial devices, hydraulic systems, generators, and other apparatus systems and equipment.
• Establishes and maintains appropriate water supply and pressure for fire suppression operations. • Applies principles of hydraulics, water supply, friction loss, pump operation, and fireground water management.
• Operates and monitors pump panels, gauges, controls, communications equipment, and other apparatus systems.
• Drives and operates apparatus during emergency responses, training exercises, inspections, maintenance activities, and other department assignments. • Performs firefighter duties including fire suppression, rescue, salvage, overhaul, emergency medical response, hazardous materials response, and other emergency operations. • Assists with the placement and operation of hose lines, ladders, portable pumps, generators, rescue equipment, and other firefighting equipment.
• Inspects assigned apparatus, vehicles, equipment, hose, tools, and related systems to ensure operational readiness.
• Performs preventive maintenance and minor repairs on apparatus and equipment within the scope of training and authorization.
• Identifies mechanical, electrical, hydraulic, or operational deficiencies and promptly reports equipment requiring repair or further evaluation.

EXHIBIT A

Page 248 of 517 ends

Page 2 of 4 ends

Fire Engineer Operator
• Maintains apparatus, equipment, tools, hose, and related materials in a clean, safe, and operational condition.
• Conducts and documents routine apparatus and equipment inspections and readiness checks. • Maintains familiarity with the City's streets, hydrants, water distribution system, fire hazards, buildings, and other locations relevant to emergency response. • Assists in the inspection, testing, and maintenance of fire hydrants and related water supply infrastructure.
• Participates in fire prevention inspections and activities as assigned. • Participates in public education, community outreach, and fire prevention programs. • Responds to emergency calls and provides appropriate emergency medical care consistent with training, certification, and department protocols.
• Receives and transmits radio communications and maintains effective communications during emergency operations.
• Participates in drills, training programs, exercises, and continuing education to maintain and improve technical and operational skills.
• Assists in training other department personnel in the safe operation of apparatus, pumps, equipment, and related systems.
• Assists with the evaluation and testing of apparatus and specialized firefighting equipment. • Maintains accurate records concerning apparatus inspections, maintenance, equipment condition, hose, vehicle movements, fuel, and other operational matters. • Completes reports and documentation related to emergency responses, equipment, apparatus, inspections, and maintenance.
• Assists with the maintenance of fire stations, grounds, equipment, and facilities. • Performs other related duties as assigned.

Qualifications
Knowledge of:
• Modern fire suppression, prevention, rescue, and emergency response practices and procedures. • Operation, maintenance, and safe use of modern fire apparatus and firefighting equipment. • Operation and capabilities of fire pumps, pump panels, valves, aerial devices, hydraulic systems, and related apparatus equipment.
• Principles of hydraulics, water supply, pump operation, friction loss, and fireground water management.
• Firefighting methods, techniques, equipment, and procedures. • Emergency medical response and first aid practices consistent with required certifications. • Fire prevention principles, practices, and applicable safety requirements. • Department rules, policies, procedures, and operational practices. • Applicable federal, state, and local laws, regulations, codes, and standards relating to fire suppression, emergency response, and occupational safety. • Local geography, streets, hydrants, water systems, major fire hazards, and other features affecting emergency response.
• Proper inspection, care, maintenance, and storage of firefighting apparatus and equipment. • Principles and practices of safe vehicle and emergency apparatus operation. • Radio and emergency communications procedures.
• Occupational health and safety practices applicable to emergency response operations.

Page 249 of 517 ends

Page 3 of 4 ends

Fire Engineer Operator
Skill in:
• Safely and effectively operate and drive fire apparatus under emergency and non-emergency conditions.
• Operate fire pumps, aerial devices, valves, hydraulic systems, and related apparatus equipment. • Apply hydraulic principles and perform calculations necessary for effective fire suppression operations.
• Analyze emergency situations and take appropriate action quickly and effectively. • Perform physically demanding firefighting, rescue, emergency medical, and related activities under hazardous conditions.
• Inspect apparatus and equipment and identify conditions that may affect operational readiness or safety.
• Perform preventive maintenance and minor repairs within the scope of training and authorization. • Operate effectively in stressful and rapidly changing emergency situations. • Follow oral and written instructions and department policies and procedures. • Exercise sound judgment and make appropriate decisions within established procedures. • Work effectively as a member of a firefighting company and within a larger incident management organization.
• Communicate clearly and effectively, both orally and in writing. • Maintain accurate records and prepare clear and complete reports. • Establish and maintain effective working relationships with coworkers, supervisors, other public safety personnel, other agencies, and members of the public. • Maintain required certifications, licenses, knowledge, and technical skills. • Demonstrate mechanical aptitude and an understanding of fire apparatus and related systems. • Work independently when assigned technical apparatus and equipment responsibilities while recognizing when supervisory assistance is required.
• Maintain regular and consistent attendance and perform assigned duties reliably.

Education and Experience:

Experience: Two years of full-timeexperience in the permanent paid rank of firefighter.

Education: Graduation from high school or equivalent and completion of 12 units of Fire Science Courses.

License:
• Possession of a valid Class C California Driver’s License with a firefighter endorsement • Possession of a valid Emergency Medical Technician-1 (EMT-1) Certificate Working Conditions:

Physical Demands:

The employee must be able to perform strenuous physical activity under emergency conditions, including standing, walking, running, climbing, balancing, kneeling, crouching, crawling, reaching, lifting, carrying, pushing, pulling, and working in confined or elevated spaces.

The employee may be required to lift and carry equipment and materials weighing substantial amounts and work for extended periods under physically demanding and hazardous conditions.

Work may involve exposure to smoke, heat, fire, hazardous materials, infectious materials, chemicals, extreme weather, noise, heights, confined spaces, traffic, and other potentially hazardous conditions.

Page 250 of 517 ends

Page 4 of 4 ends

Fire Engineer Operator
Approved Date: October 1, 2026
Resolution: 2026-XX
Revised Date:

Resolution:

Bargaining Unit: International Assoc. of Firefighters, Local 2400, AFL-CIO Resolution: 2001-26
Former Titles:

Abolished:

Page 251 of 517 ends

CITY OF BRISBANE

POLICE CAPTAIN
Definition
Under direction of the Chief of Police, the Police Captain plans, schedules, organizes, oversees, coordinates, and manages the staff and operations of the Police Department, including non-sworn and sworn staff; trains sworn staff and provides for the professional development of all personnel; develops and implements specific departmental operational programs; provides complex administrative and budgetary support to the Chief of Police and acts for the Chief on a relief or assigned basis; and performs related work as required.

Class Characteristics
This is a management classification responsible for planning patrol and public service activities and for assisting the Chief in various administrative areas. organizing and managing staff, operations, and the activities of the Police Department. Incumbents are responsible for performing diverse, specialized, and complex work involving significant accountability and decision-making responsibilities, which include budget administration, program evaluation and recommendation and implementation of policies, procedures, goals, objectives, priorities related to law enforcement work. Assists the Chief in various administrative areas. While the incumbent may respond to calls for service, the primary responsibilities are managerial, including the coordination of activities with those of other City departments and law enforcement agencies. Responsibilities include the development of specialized programs, such as community-oriented policing, traffic, canine, code enforcement, bicycle and management responsibility for the Police Department. Performance of the work requires the use of considerable independence, initiative, and discretion within broad guidelines. This class is distinguished from the Chief of Police in that the latter has overall management responsibility for all police programs, functions, and activities, and for developing, implementing and interpreting public policy.

Supervision Received and Exercised
Receives general directions from the Chief of Police.

Supervises Police Sergeants, Corporals, Police Records staff, Community Services Officer and Code Enforcement Officer.

Examples of Important and Essential Duties - the duties described below are provided as examples and are not to be considered as exclusive or all inclusive:
• Functions as a member of the City management team, participating in City-wide policy development, administrative planning, risk management, and safety and loss prevention. • Plans, schedules, organizes, assigns, reviews and evaluates the work of sworn and non-sworn staff; ensures coverage of staff for all shifts and assignments; provides for the training of staff in work procedures and for their professional development. • Recommends selection, disciplinary and other personnel decisions; counsels employees and administers discipline as required.
• Interprets laws, codes, policies and procedures to staff; ensures legality and consistency of application.
• Assists with the development of goals, objectives, policies, procedures and work standards for the department; assists with development and administration of the budget; prepares and reviews grant requests and assists in the administration of grant funds. • Oversees sworn personnel selection procedures, including conducting interviews and background investigations.

Page 252 of 517 ends

• Develops cooperative working relationships and mutual aid agreements with representatives of other local public safety departments; monitors contracts with the County for dispatch, booking, incarceration and investigative services, as required. • Monitors legal, regulatory, technological and societal changes and court decisions that may affect the work of the department; recommends equipment acquisition, training programs and procedural changes to ensure retention of qualified staff and the provision of services to the community in an effective, efficient and economical manner. • Investigates and resolves problems with requests for services or complaints regarding police misconduct.
• Prepares a variety of correspondence, staff reports to City Council, and other written materials. • Maintains and directs the maintenance of departmental files. • Oversees Dispatch services from San Mateo Police Department. • Oversee Internships or other volunteer programs.
• Represents the City in meetings with members of other public and private organizations, business, educational and community groups and the public. • Responds to emergency or unusual situations; performs the full range of patrol, investigative and related duties of an officer and assumes a command role as appropriate; may oversee and coordinate the work of multi-agency task forces or committees. • Develops and maintains effective working relationships with the community, particularly the specific clients to which assigned, such as business owners or school-aged youth. • Provides and coordinates mutual aide to other law enforcement agencies in accordance with departmental policy.
• Acts for the Chief of Police on a relief or as assigned basis. • Performs other duties as assigned.

Qualifications
Knowledge of:
• Administrative principles and practices, including goal setting, program development, implementation and evaluation.
• Principles and practices of work organization, staff supervision, training, professional development and work review and evaluation.
• Functions, services and funding sources of a full-service municipal police department. • Law enforcement principles, practices and techniques related to patrol, traffic enforcement, crime scene control and investigation, protection of life and property, pursuit, apprehension and transport of suspects.
• Rules of evidence regarding search and seizure and the preservation of evidence. • Investigation and identification techniques and equipment. • Courtroom procedures and techniques for testifying.
• Applicable laws, codes, ordinances and court decisions. • Safety practices and equipment related to the work, including safe use and proper care of firearms.
• Principles and practices of budget preparation and administration. • Principles and practices of team building and leadership. • Computer applications related to work.
• Modern management practices, especially those effective in promotion a positive, healthy work environment.
• Methods and techniques of public relations.

Page 253 of 517 ends

Ability to:
• Represent the City in a positive and professional manner. • Establish, maintain and foster cooperative working relations with others from diverse backgrounds, including elective officials, co-workers and the public effectively and with courtesy, in person, via email and over the phone.
• Plan, schedule, assign, supervise, review and evaluate the work of swornand non-sworn staff. • Train staff in work procedures and providing for their professional development. • Assist in performing departmental administrative duties, such as budget development and administration and policy and procedure development.
• Interpret, apply and explain complex laws, codes, regulations and ordinances • Exercise self-control and independent and sound judgment in evaluating situations and in emergency/hazardous situations and make quick, effective and reasonable decisions. • Communicate effectively, both orally and in writing by using proper English grammar, spelling and punctation.
• Prepare clear, accurate and grammatically correct reports, records and other written materials.
• Make sound, independent decisions as a shift leader and in emergency situations. • Identify and demonstrate responsiveness to community issues, concerns and needs. • Develop and coordinate effective training programs.
• Develop long-range strategic plans for the department. • Select, supervise, evaluate, reward and discipline staff. • Prepare accurate and timely staff reports.
• Establish and maintain effective working relationships with those contacted in the course of the work.
• Apply information system technology to the police function.

Education and Experience: Any combination of experience and training that would provide the required knowledge, skills, and abilities would be qualifying. A typical way to obtain the knowledge, skills, and abilities would be:

Education:

Bachelor of Science or Art Degree from an accredited college required.

Experience: Two years of supervisory experience in the police service equivalent to the level of Sergeant or above. Additional supervisory experience can be substituted for the education on a year-for-year basis to a maximum of two years.

Licenses/Certificates:
• P.O.S.T. Advanced Certificate
• P.O.S.T. Supervisory Certificate or equivalent
• California Driver’s License, which must be maintained as a condition of employment as well as a satisfactory driving record.
• Maintain firearms qualification.

Working Conditions: Must be willing to pass a detailed background investigation. Must be willing to work extended shifts or be called back in emergency situations and work with exposure to difficult circumstances, including exposure to dangerous situations, hazardous materials and all weather conditions.

Page 254 of 517 ends

Physical Demands: Must maintain P.O.S.T. physical standards, including mobility and physical strength and stamina to respond to emergency situations and apprehend suspects, to work in a standard office setting and to operate a motor vehicle; vision to maintain firearms qualification and to read printed materials and a computer screen; and hearing and speech to communicate in person and before groups.

Approved Date: October 1, 2026
Resolution: 2026-XX
Revised Date:

Resolution:

Bargaining Unit: Police Captain
Resolution: 2026-XX

Page 255 of 517 ends

City Council Staff Report
Meeting Date: October 1, 2026
From: Mario Garcia, Commander
Subject: Response to 2025-2026 Civil Grand Jury Report, “Is Our Flock of ALPR Cameras Properly Tended?” and Update
Recommendation
Staff recommend approval of the attached response to the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury and authorize its submission following approval at a public meeting.

Background
On August 3, 2026, the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury released a report examining whether Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) operators in San Mateo County comply with applicable California law and whether their practices align with their adopted ALPR policies.

The Grand Jury directed the Brisbane City Council to respond to Findings F1, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, and F8, and Recommendations R1, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, and R8. Under Penal Code section 933.05, the City must state whether it agrees or disagrees with each finding and identify the status of each recommendation. The governing body’s response is due within 90 days after submission of the final report and must reflect approval at a public meeting.

Discussion
The Grand Jury report identified concerns regarding conspicuous posting of ALPR policies, documentation of monthly audits, vendor contract protections, and the approval of in-state ALPR network-sharing relationships. Staff reviewed the report, the Department’s current ALPR practices, Policy 470, monthly Flock Safety audit records, and the City’s existing agreement with Flock Group, Inc.

The proposed response reflects the specific circumstances associated with each Grand Jury finding. In some instances, the City agrees with the finding; in others, the City partially agrees or disagrees where the Department’s practices or the underlying facts differ from the characterization contained in the report. The response also clarifies that the university recipient appearing in Brisbane’s sharing network is the University of California, Berkeley Police Department, rather than a private university security company. The Department will obtain and retain a written legal and factual determination supporting any continued sharing relationship and will terminate access if a lawful basis cannot be verified.

The Department has implemented or is implementing several enhancements, including conspicuous posting of the current ALPR policy, enhanced monthly audit documentation,

Page 256 of 517 ends

written approval procedures for network-sharing relationships, annual review and termination criteria, and California-specific vendor contract protections at renewal or through an amendment. These measures build upon the Department’s existing ALPR program and provide an opportunity to update the City Council and community on how the system continues to support public safety while protecting privacy.

In considering the Grand Jury’s recommendations, the Department has distinguished between requirements that were already established by law or Department policy and additional practices recommended to further strengthen the program. Where an existing requirement applied, such as the monthly audit required by Policy 470, the Department had an established practice in place. The Grand Jury review identified opportunities to more clearly document, retain, and demonstrate completion of those activities. Other recommendations provide additional structure, documentation, or safeguards that the Department is adopting as enhancements to the existing program.

Importantly, the Grand Jury review did not identify misuse of Brisbane’s ALPR system, nor has the Department identified improper or unauthorized use through its monthly audits. No policy violation involving the use of ALPR information has been identified through those reviews. The Department’s agreement, partial agreement, or disagreement with individual findings therefore reflects the specific facts and requirements associated with each finding and should not be interpreted as evidence that the system had been misused.

ALPR PROGRAM UPDATE
Since its implementation, Brisbane’s Flock Safety ALPR system has remained focused on the purpose for which it was acquired: providing officers and investigators with timely, objective vehicle information to support legitimate investigations and help protect the community. The system was not intended to serve as a blanket surveillance or unrestricted information-sharing tool. Its use has remained limited to Brisbane’s public-safety needs, with access restricted to authorized personnel and governed by Department policy, California law, and established retention requirements.

ALPR technology, along with the laws and standards governing its use, continues to develop.

The Department welcomes enhancements that provide clearer guidance, stronger documentation, and additional safeguards for the public. The improvements described in this report support the responsible growth of the program while preserving the Department’s longstanding focus on legitimate public-safety use and protection against misuse.

The Department’s ALPR program coordinators routinely review system settings, authorized users, and search activity at least weekly and often daily. This hands-on review helps ensure that access remains appropriate and that the system continues to be used only for legitimate investigative and public-safety purposes. Brisbane does not maintain a direct ALPR datasharing relationship with any federal law-enforcement agency and does not authorize direct

Page 257 of 517 ends

federal access to its ALPR system.

The system has also provided benefits beyond routine criminal investigations and stolenvehicle recoveries. It has helped investigators locate missing and endangered persons and establish timelines, last-known locations, and directions of travel for individuals experiencing mental-health crises. In time-sensitive situations, this information can help officers focus their efforts, locate a person more quickly, and connect that individual with appropriate assistance.

Reported stolen vehicles also declined from 30 incidents in 2021 to eight incidents in 2023.

Currently, for this year, two stolen vehicles have been reported. Although no single technology can be credited as the sole cause of that reduction, the Department believes ALPR alerts and investigative leads have contributed to vehicle recoveries, earlier intervention, and the deterrence of related criminal activity.

The Department understands that continued public support for this technology must be earned through careful use, openness, and meaningful safeguards. Staff remains committed to listening to the community, protecting individual privacy, maintaining clear documentation of its audit practices, and keeping the program no more expansive than reasonably necessary to meet Brisbane’s public-safety needs. As the technology and applicable standards continue to evolve, the Department will continue to evaluate the program and welcome improvements that help preserve both community safety and public trust.

Fiscal Impact
No immediate fiscal impact is anticipated. Any future contract amendment or legal review will be completed within existing departmental and City Attorney resources unless additional costs are identified during implementation.

Attachments

1. Brisbane_ALPR_Grand_Jury_Response_Attachment
City Manager Approval
Jeremy Dennis, City
Manager
09/24/2026

Page 258 of 517 ends

ATTACHMENT 1

RESPONSE OF THE CITY OF BRISBANE
TO THE 2025-2026 SAN MATEO COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT “IS OUR FLOCK OF ALPR CAMERAS PROPERLY TENDED?”
Approved by the Brisbane City Council at a public meeting on October 1, 2026.

Pursuant to Penal Code section 933.05, the City of Brisbane provides the following responses to the findings and recommendations directed to the Brisbane City Council.

Finding F1
Grand Jury Finding: The ALPR operator’s ALPR policy was not posted in a manner that appears consistent with the California Attorney General’s guidance on “conspicuous” posting.

Response: The City disagrees with the finding.

The Department’s ALPR usage and privacy policy was publicly available on the City’s website during the period reviewed by the Grand Jury. The City recognizes that California law requires an ALPR policy to be conspicuously posted on the operator’s website. However, neither the applicable statute nor the Attorney General’s guidance establishes a specific webpage location, number of navigation steps, font size, or other prescribed method for determining whether a posting is sufficiently conspicuous.

Accordingly, the City does not agree that the manner in which the policy was posted constituted a failure to satisfy the posting requirement. The policy was available to the public and could be accessed through the City’s website.

Nevertheless, in response to the Grand Jury’s recommendation and as an additional enhancement to public accessibility and transparency, the Department has made the ALPR policy more prominently and directly accessible on its website and has established a recurring process to confirm that the current policy remains readily available to the public.

These changes are intended to make an existing publicly available policy even easier to locate and should not be interpreted as an acknowledgment that the Department previously failed to maintain or publicly post its ALPR policy
Finding F3
Grand Jury Finding: The ALPR operator shared ALPR information with private university security entities but did not establish that the receiving entity was a “public agency” as defined in Civil Code section 1798.90.55(b), or that the sharing was otherwise permitted by law within the meaning of Civil Code section 1798.90.55(b).

Response: The City partially disagrees with the finding.

The City agrees that the records produced did not include a written legal and factual determination establishing the recipient’s status and the lawful basis for sharing. The City disagrees with the characterization of the recipient as a private university security entity. The account identified in Brisbane’s ALPR sharing network is associated with the University of California, Berkeley Police Department, a lawenforcement component of The Regents of the University of California. The Department will nevertheless complete and retain the written verification described in its response to Recommendation R3 and will terminate the relationship if a lawful basis cannot be established.

Page 259 of 517 ends

Finding F4
Grand Jury Finding: The ALPR operator did not produce records demonstrating that audits required by its ALPR policy had been conducted.

Response: The City partially agrees with the finding as to the records produced to the Grand Jury.

The Department had an established monthly audit process, and the monthly audits were being conducted to identify any improper or unauthorized use of the system. Those audits did not identify misuse.

Historically, in an effort to protect sensitive community information, the Department did not retain the underlying audit data because those materials contained historical information such as license-plate data.

Enhancements to the audit capabilities within the system now allow the Department to retain the information necessary to document completion of the audit while continuing to appropriately protect sensitive ALPR information. Although the audits were being conducted, the materials available during the Grand Jury investigation did not fully demonstrate completion of the audits required by Policy 470. The Department has therefore formalized its Audit Completion Attestation and secure record-retention process so that each monthly audit can be readily substantiated.

Finding F5
Grand Jury Finding: The audit reports produced by the ALPR operator were insufficient to substantiate compliance with applicable California law and the operator’s published ALPR policy.

Response: The City partially agrees with the finding.

Consistent with the City’s response to Finding F4, the Department was conducting the monthly audits required by Policy 470 and was operating in accordance with the audit requirements contained in Department policy at the time of the Grand Jury review. The Department’s monthly audits were conducted to review ALPR activity for improper or unauthorized use, and no misuse was identified through those reviews.

The City agrees that the historical audit materials produced to the Grand Jury did not contain the level of documentation necessary to independently demonstrate the full scope and results of each monthly audit.

The City does not agree, however, that the limitations of the retained documentation establish that the Department was not complying with Policy 470 as it existed at the time.

Following the Grand Jury review, the Department enhanced Policy 470 and its existing monthly audit process to include more formal documentation and retention requirements. The current process documents the audit period, inquiries reviewed, applicable compliance criteria, findings, and any identified exceptions or corrective actions. The Department has also implemented an Audit Completion Attestation and secure record-retention process so that completion and results of each monthly audit can be readily substantiated.

These enhancements build upon the Department’s existing audit practices and provide a clearer record demonstrating compliance going forward. They should not be interpreted as an acknowledgment that the Department’s prior audit practices were inconsistent with the policy requirements in effect at the time.

Finding F6
Grand Jury Finding: The ALPR operator’s Flock Safety contract does not include provisions specifically requiring compliance with applicable California ALPR laws.

Response: The City agrees with the finding.

Page 260 of 517 ends

Although the existing agreement contains general data-ownership, confidentiality, retention, and use restrictions, it does not contain California-specific ALPR compliance language as comprehensive as the provisions identified by the Grand Jury. The City will pursue a controlling California-specific addendum at renewal, as described in its response to Recommendation R6.

Finding F7
Grand Jury Finding: The operator’s ALPR policy described a process requiring written requests and executed agreements for ALPR data-sharing relationships; however, the records produced did not substantiate that this process was followed or that the required agreements were obtained.

Response: The City agrees with the finding.

The Department’s policy language did not accurately distinguish an individual request for ALPR information from approval of an ongoing network-sharing relationship, and the records produced did not substantiate use of the stated process for each existing relationship. Policy 470 has been revised to require documented written review and approval before a network-sharing relationship is activated.

Finding F8
Grand Jury Finding: The operator’s ALPR policy did not establish criteria governing the approval of instate ALPR data-sharing requests or the termination of existing network-sharing relationships.

Response: The City agrees with the finding.

Prior to the Grand Jury review, the Department evaluated in-state ALPR sharing based on an identified investigative nexus and operational need. Access was not granted simply to expand another agency’s sharing network; rather, sharing relationships generally developed where Brisbane had an investigative need to access another agency’s system and reciprocal access supported that purpose. These criteria were applied in practice but were not formally documented in policy.

The Department has since developed written approval, denial, annual review, suspension, termination, and documentation criteria for in-state ALPR network-sharing relationships. These criteria have been incorporated into Policy 470 and applied to existing relationships.

Recommendation R1
Grand Jury Recommendation: The ALPR operator should conspicuously post the current version of their ALPR Policy as required by Civil Code sections 1798.90.51(a)-(b).

Response Status: The recommendation has been implemented.

Consistent with the City’s response to Finding F1, the Department maintains that its ALPR policy was publicly available on the City’s website during the period reviewed by the Grand Jury. Nevertheless, in response to the Grand Jury’s recommendation and to further enhance public accessibility and transparency, the Department has made the current version of Policy 470 more prominently and directly accessible.

On September 18, 2026, the Department updated its public ALPR webpage to ensure that the current version of Policy 470 is displayed through a conspicuous, clearly labeled link near the top of the webpage.

The webpage identifies the document as the Department’s current ALPR Usage and Privacy Policy, references California Civil Code section 1798.90.51, and links the policy through the Department’s ALPR Transparency Portal.

Page 261 of 517 ends

To ensure the current policy remains readily accessible, the ALPR Administrator will verify the public posting whenever Policy 470 is revised and during the Department’s annual ALPR program review.

Documentation of each verification will be retained.

The Department’s implementation of this recommendation is intended to further improve the visibility and accessibility of an existing publicly available policy and should not be interpreted as an acknowledgment that the Department’s prior posting failed to satisfy the applicable posting requirement.

Recommendation R3
Grand Jury Recommendation: The ALPR operator currently identified as sharing ALPR data with private university security entities should obtain and retain a written legal and factual determination that the recipient is a “public agency” under Civil Code section 1798.90.5(f), or that the sharing is otherwise permitted by law; if no lawful basis exists, the operator should terminate the sharing relationship.

Response Status: The recommendation will be implemented no later than February 3, 2027.

The Brisbane Police Department agrees that every agency receiving access to Department ALPR information must qualify as a public agency under Civil Code section 1798.90.5(f), and that sharing must otherwise be permitted by law as required by Civil Code section 1798.90.55(b).

The Department respectfully clarifies that the university entity identified in its ALPR sharing network is the University of California, Berkeley Police Department, not a private university security company.

Nevertheless, public-agency status alone does not authorize every form of ALPR information sharing.

1. Confirm the complete legal name and organizational identity associated with the UC Berkeley account in the Department’s ALPR system.

2. Verify that access is provided directly to UC Berkeley Police Department or another authorized component of The Regents of the University of California, and not to a private security company, contractor, or other third party.

3. Obtain and retain a written legal and factual determination addressing the recipient’s status as a public agency and the lawful basis for the sharing relationship.

4. Confirm that access is limited to authorized personnel and legitimate, legally authorized lawenforcement purposes.

5. Retain the supporting agency identification, policies, approval records, system-access documentation, and written legal determination.

6. Immediately disable or terminate the sharing relationship if the Department cannot verify publicagency status or another lawful basis.

Implementation of this recommendation is intended to formalize and retain the legal and factual basis for the sharing relationship and should not be interpreted as an acknowledgment that the Department previously shared ALPR information with an unauthorized private entity or without a legitimate lawenforcement purpose. The Department’s response reflects a documentation and verification enhancement intended to provide a clearer record of the basis for continued sharing.

The Department will complete this review and retain the required documentation no later than February 3, 2027, which is six months after release of the Grand Jury report. If the review determines that the relationship does not satisfy California law, access will be terminated without further delay.

Recommendation R4
Grand Jury Recommendation: The ALPR operator should prepare audit reports in accordance with the frequency stated in the operator’s published ALPR policy.

Response Status: The recommendation has been implemented.

Page 262 of 517 ends

Brisbane Police Department Policy 470.8 requires an audit of ALPR detection-browsing inquiries at least once during each calendar month. The policy requires random selection and review of at least 10 inquiries, documentation of the audit, identification and correction of errors, review by the Chief of Police or designee, and secure retention of the audit documentation.

At the conclusion of each calendar month, the Administration Commander or the Chief of Police’s designee retrieves an audit report from the Flock Safety system covering ALPR searches and user activity. At least 10 detection-browsing inquiries are randomly selected and reviewed to determine whether each inquiry was conducted for an authorized law-enforcement or public-safety purpose and complied with Department policy and applicable law.

Following the review, the auditor prepares a written Audit Completion Attestation for review by the Chief of Police. The underlying Flock report and attestation are securely retained, and any error or compliance concern is documented and addressed through corrective action. This process will continue each month.

Implementation of this recommendation formalizes the documentation and retention of the Department’s existing monthly audit process and should not be interpreted as an acknowledgment that the required audits were not previously being conducted. As reflected in the City’s response to Finding F4, the Department had an established monthly audit practice in place; the enhancements described above provide a clearer and readily verifiable record that those audits have been completed.

Recommendation R5
Grand Jury Recommendation: The audit reports produced by the ALPR operator should substantiate compliance with applicable California law and the operator’s published ALPR policy.

Response Status: The recommendation has been implemented.

The Department has enhanced its monthly audit documentation to substantiate compliance with applicable California law and Policy 470. The audit includes a random review of at least 10 ALPR inquiries and verifies the date and time of access, query information, identity of the user and affiliated agency, stated purpose, and whether the inquiry was conducted for an authorized law-enforcement or public-safety purpose.

The audit also documents review of user authorization and training, data-security and access controls, retention and deletion requirements, data-sharing restrictions, and any identified errors, unauthorized access, policy exceptions, or corrective actions. The documentation identifies the audit period, scope, methodology, findings, and disposition of exceptions.

The supporting Flock Safety audit report, completed compliance documentation, and signed Audit Completion Attestation are securely retained and reviewed by the Chief of Police or designee. This process will continue monthly.

Recommendation R6
Grand Jury Recommendation: Upon contract renewal, the ALPR operator should incorporate contractual language requiring vendor compliance with applicable California law and prohibiting vendors from disclosing ALPR data to unauthorized third parties. Operators should consider provisions similar to those contained in the Town of Colma contract with Flock.

Response Status: The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented upon renewal of contract on December 2027.

The City and Police Department agree with this recommendation. The existing agreement with Flock Group, Inc. contains data-protection provisions, including City ownership and control of ALPR data, a 30-

Page 263 of 517 ends

day retention period, confidentiality requirements, restrictions against sale of ALPR data, and limitations requiring legitimate law-enforcement use.

However, the agreement does not expressly require Flock and its subcontractors to comply with California Civil Code sections 1798.90.5 through 1798.90.55, nor does it contain an express and controlling prohibition against disclosure of Brisbane ALPR data to unauthorized third parties. The City will coordinate with the City Attorney and Flock to incorporate a California-specific data-protection addendum.

1. Require Flock and its subcontractors to comply with California Civil Code sections 1798.90.5 through 1798.90.55 and all other applicable law governing ALPR information.

2. Prohibit access, use, transmission, or disclosure of Brisbane ALPR information to any third party unless expressly authorized by the City, permitted by California law, or compelled by valid legal process.

3. Prohibit independent federal, out-of-state, private-entity, nationwide, statewide, or other networksharing access without the City’s express written authorization and a lawful basis.

4. Flow the same restrictions to subcontractors, hosting providers, and other vendors, with Flock responsible for their compliance.

5. Require prompt notice of actual or suspected unauthorized access, search, disclosure, or security breach.

6. Require access to disclosure and audit information necessary for the City to verify compliance.

7. Authorize suspension, termination, and an appropriate prorated refund for material violations.

The addendum will control over inconsistent standard terms, online policies, system settings, platform changes, or later vendor documents. The Department will submit proposed provisions to the City Attorney and Flock within 60 days after City Council approval of this response. The City will require the addendum as a condition of the next renewal, December 2027.

Recommendation R7
Grand Jury Recommendation: The ALPR operator should update its ALPR policy to accurately reflect the process used to approve ALPR data-sharing relationships.

Response Status: The recommendation has been implemented.

The Department reviewed Policy 470 and determined that the prior language adequately described responses to individual requests for ALPR information but did not sufficiently distinguish that process from approval of ongoing network-sharing relationships.

Policy 470 has been revised to require a written request identifying the agency, authorized representative, purpose, intended use, requested scope, and anticipated duration. The ALPR Administrator must verify legal eligibility, lawful purpose, consistency with California law and Department policy, and appropriate safeguards. Written approval by the Chief of Police or authorized designee is required before activation in the vendor platform.

The Department maintains documentation identifying each approved agency, authorized purpose and scope, approval date, approving official, and review status. Electronic approval within the vendor platform does not replace the Department’s written review and approval.

Recommendation R8
Grand Jury Recommendation: The ALPR operator should include in their ALPR policies written criteria governing the approval, denial, periodic review, and termination of in-state ALPR network-sharing relationships.

Response Status: The recommendation has been implemented.

Page 264 of 517 ends

The Department agrees with this recommendation and has developed written criteria governing approval, denial, periodic review, suspension, termination, and documentation of ongoing in-state ALPR networksharing relationships.

Approval will require verification that the recipient is legally eligible, the purpose is legitimate and authorized, the requested access is no broader than necessary, appropriate policies and safeguards are maintained, and there is no unresolved history of misuse or material noncompliance. Denial will be required when eligibility or lawful purpose cannot be established, safeguards are inadequate, the requested scope is excessive, or approval would create an unreasonable legal, privacy, security, or operational risk.

Every approved relationship will be reviewed at least annually or as needed and upon a material change or compliance concern. Continuation will require written recertification. Suspension or termination will be required when eligibility or operational need ends, sharing becomes legally impermissible, misuse or unauthorized disclosure occurs, safeguards become inadequate, or the recipient fails to cooperate with review or correct a deficiency.

Consistent with the City’s response to Finding F8, implementation of this recommendation formalizes in writing the criteria the Department had historically applied when evaluating in-state ALPR sharing relationships. Those relationships were based on an identified investigative nexus and legitimate operational need and were not approved simply to expand another agency’s sharing network. The absence of previously written criteria should not be interpreted as an absence of review or as an indication that sharing relationships were approved without a legitimate law-enforcement purpose. The Department’s audits have not identified misuse or unauthorized use of ALPR information associated with these sharing relationships.

The Department will maintain a current written register of approved, denied, suspended, and terminated relationships and will review existing relationships under the new criteria.

Page 265 of 517 ends

City Council Staff Report
Meeting Date: October 1, 2026
From: Samantha Zutler, City Attorney
Subject: Pass an Ordinance Regarding Council Compensation Recommendation
Pass an ordinance amending Section 2.02.010 of the Brisbane Municipal Code concerning Councilmember compensation.

Background
On September 17, 2026, the City Council introduced, for first reading only, an ordinance amending Section 2.02.010 of the Brisbane Municipal Code. Council salaries were last adjusted in 2015 and are currently $400 per month. Senate Bill 329 adjusted maximum salary levels consistent with the population of the city. Given Brisbane's population of 4,800, SB 329 allows Councilmembers to receive up to $950 per month. Increases do not take effect until a new or incumbent Councilmember is seated. Two Brisbane Councilmembers are up for election in November 2026, so increases will be effective in December 2026.

Discussion
Council introduced the Ordinance at the September 17 Council meeting; passage requires a second vote at a subsequent Council meeting.

Fiscal Impact
The recommended Ordinance increases Council compensation by $36,097 annually.

Attachments

1. Council Compensation Staff Report 09.17.26

2. Council Compensation Ordinance
City Manager Approval
Jeremy Dennis, City
Manager
09/24/2026

Page 266 of 517 ends

Page 267 of 517 ends

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.

Page 268 of 517 ends

Attachments

1. 2026 Council Compensation Ordinance
City Manager Approval
Jeremy Dennis, City
Manager
09/11/2026

Page 269 of 517 ends

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.

Page 270 of 517 ends

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.

Page 271 of 517 ends

City Council Staff Report
Meeting Date: October 1, 2026
From: Christina Fernandez, Assistant City Manager
Subject: Pass an ordinance amending Municipal Code Chapter

16.24 and adding Municipal Code Chapter 15.90 to
establish and update procedures for implementing
development impact fees.

Recommendation
Staff recommend the City Council pass an ordinance amending Municipal Code Chapter 16.24 and adding Municipal Code Chapter 15.90 to establish and update procedures for implementing development impact fees.

Background
A public hearing was held at the September 17, 2026 City Council meeting. The City Council approved the first reading of an ordinance amending Municipal Code Chapter 16.24 and adding Municipal Code Chapter 15.90 to establish and update procedures for implementing development impact fees; and approved a resolution adopting and establishing the development impact fees and supporting nexus studies and capital improvement plans to support the development impact fees to fund: (1) Public Facilities for Library, Fire Department, Police Department, and General Government Facilities, (2) Park Land, Park Improvements, Recreation Facilities, Open Space and Trails, and (3) Transportation Facilities.

For detailed background information, please refer to the September 17, 2026 staff report (Attachment 1).

Discussion
Fiscal Impact
If approved, impact fee revenue is dependent on the type and number of development projects approved by the City.

Attachments

1. Impact Fee Staff Report 09.17.26

2. Impact Fee Ordinance

3. Impact Fee Ordinance - Ordinance Exhibit A (2)

Page 272 of 517 ends

4. Impact Fee Ordinance - Ordinance Exhibit B

5. Impact Fee Resolution

6. Impact Fee Schedule Resolution - Exhibit A

7. Impact Fee Resolution - Exhibit B (Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Nexus Study)

8. Impact Fee Resolution - Exhibit B (Public Facilities Impact Fee Nexus Study)

9. Impact Fee Resolution - Exhibit B (Transportation Impact Fee Nexus Study)

10. Impact Fee Resolution - Exhibit C
City Manager Approval
Jeremy Dennis, City
Manager
09/24/2026

Page 273 of 517 ends

City Council Staff Report
Meeting Date: September 17, 2026
From: Jeremy Dennis, City Manager, Christina Fernandez, Assistant City Manager, Julia Ayres, Community
Development Director, Samantha Zutler, City Attorney
Subject: Introduction of the First Reading of an ordinance amending Municipal Code Chapter 16.24 and adding
Municipal Code Chapter 15.90 to establish and update
procedures for implementing development impact fees;
and approve a resolution adopting and establishing the
development impact fees and supporting nexus studies
and capital improvement plans to support the
development impact fees to fund: (1) Public Facilities for Library, Fire Department, Police Department, and
General Government Facilities, (2) Park Land, Park
Improvements, Recreation Facilities, Open Space and
Trails, and (3) Transportation Facilities.

Recommendation
Staff recommend the City Council approve the first reading of an ordinance amending Municipal Code Chapter 16.24 and adding Municipal Code Chapter 15.90 to establish and update procedures for implementing development impact fees; and approve a resolution adopting and establishing the development impact fees and supporting nexus studies and capital improvement plans to support the development impact fees to fund: (1) Public Facilities for Library, Fire Department, Police Department, and General Government Facilities, (2) Park Land, Park Improvements, Recreation Facilities, Open Space and Trails, and (3) Transportation Facilities.

Background
In September and October 2023, staff provided Council with information on the City’s legal authority to impose impact fees. The report specified the requirements of identifying and establishing the need, benefit, and proportionality to impose impact fees. Council agreed that new development should contribute to capital improvements caused by new developments.

Council directed staff to prepare several nexus studies to establish the need, benefit, and proportionality of the proposed impact fees. The studies included:
• Development Impact Fee for Parks and Recreation
• Development Impact Fee for Affordable Housing imposed on new commercial development
• Development Impact Fee for Transportation

Page 274 of 517 ends

• Development Impact Fee for Public Facilities
Council directed staff to complete the four nexus studies concurrently and to move forward with a feasibility study to ensure that the City remains competitive when compared to similar municipalities. In 2024, a commercial linkage feasibility analysis was completed to accompany the commercial linkage fee nexus analysis completed in September 2023.

In late 2025, staff engaged Matrix Consulting Group (Matrix) to provide a comparative, or benchmarking, survey to help guide the City in setting the fees at an appropriate level. The survey shows what fees nearby and comparable cities are charging developers. Brisbane’s maximum justifiable fees were compared with cities including San Bruno, Millbrae, South San Francisco, Emeryville, Burlingame, and Daly City. Five of the six cities are in San Mateo County and have similar growth patterns and urban forms.

On January 15, 2026, staff brought forward the comparative study done by Matrix. Included in the discussion were nexus studies related to housing, parks & recreation facilities, transportation, and public facilities. These nexus studies provided the maximum justifiable fee for each of the proposed fees from which the benchmarking survey was derived. Staff provided Council with an overview of the fees and how they compared to the other cities studied.

Council continued the discussion to a future meeting.

On February 19, 2026, Council continued their discussion on impact fees with the purpose of providing staff with additional feedback and direction on the setting of the fees. Staff also provided responses to follow-up questions from January’s Council meeting.

On March 5, 2026, staff brought impact fees back to Council with the purpose of receiving feedback on setting of fees and working towards scheduling a public hearing. Staff underscored the importance of fee setting as rates may impact the amount of development in the City and fee setting is inherently a policy decision for a governing body. An updated matrix worksheet was provided to the Council to guide the fee setting discussion on whether to set fees below, at, or above the averages provided by the comparative survey. Council provided staff with feedback on fee setting, which staff have applied in setting fees at appropriate levels.

Shortly thereafter, staff learned of updates to State law known as the Mitigation Fee Act, which regulates how cities calculate and impose fees on new development to offset the costs of providing public facilities, as well as a recent decision of the United States Supreme Court that focuses on the need to justify fee amounts based on the essential nexus and rough proportionality between impacts of the projects and benefits from the public facilities. To ensure compliance, staff and legal counsel worked with nexus study consultants to accordingly update the nexus studies. Some of those changes included creation of a Development Impact Fee Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). The City Manager’s office in coordination with the City Attorney’s office, Department of Public Works, and the Parks and Recreation Department

Page 275 of 517 ends

worked to provide an impact fee capital improvement plan that meets the needs of the City due to future development. While this development impact fee CIP serves a different legal purpose than the CIP a city would approve as a part of its budget process, staff aligned the development impact CIP with the CIP incorporated in the budget.

Revisions of the Parks and Recreation Nexus Study, Public Facilities Nexus Study, and Transportation Impact Fee Nexus Study are included as attachments. The fourth nexus study, known as the Commercial Linkage Fee Nexus Study and Analysis, or Affordable Housing Nexus Study, prepared in 2023 by ECONorthwest, will be updated in 2027.

Staff determined that the Commercial Linkage Study is outdated and in need of comprehensive update given evolving State law and judicial precedents noted earlier. Staff are currently under contract with consultants Strategic Economics and CP3, to undertake a comprehensive new study, taking advantage of an ongoing countywide effort to do the same at significant cost savings. Once complete, staff will return to Council with the study’s findings for consideration of a commercial linkage fee.

Discussion
Given impacts of recent legislation and the ever-changing development landscape, staff felt it prudent to bring forward the nexus studies complete with a recommended fee schedule for Parks and Recreation, Public Facilities, and Transportation.

Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study (Parks and Recreation Nexus Study) The City of Brisbane’s Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study, prepared by NBS Government Finance Group, analyzes the impacts of new development on parks, recreation facilities, open space, and trails, and calculates legally compliant impact fees to fund capital improvements needed to maintain service levels as the city grows. Using a methodology that considers both residential and non-residential development, the study establishes tiered fees based on unit size and service population, ensuring proportionality and compliance with the California Mitigation Fee Act and recent legislation. The fees are intended to cover only capital costs (not operations or maintenance) and are structured to reflect the actual burden imposed by different types of development. The study calculates impact fees based on that analysis and divides the analysis into various chapters including (1) Impact Fees for Park Land and Park Improvements, (2) Impact Fees for Recreation Facilities, and (3) Impact Fees for Open Space and Trails. A copy of the Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study is attached for reference.

Public Facilities Impact Fee Study (Public Facilities Nexus Study) A comprehensive Public Facilities Impact Fee Study, prepared by NBS Government Finance Group, analyzes the effects of new development on city capital facilities including libraries, general government, police, and fire departments and calculates proportional impact fees in compliance with federal and California legal requirements. The study uses both existing inventory and planned facilities methods to determine fees, with residential fees structured by tiered unit-size categories to ensure compliance with recent legislation. The resulting fees are

Page 276 of 517 ends

designed to recover only the share of costs attributable to new development, supporting facility expansion without funding existing deficiencies, and are intended to maintain service levels as the city grows. A copy of the Public Facilities Impact Fee Study is attached for reference.

Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) Nexus Study
The Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) Nexus Study prepared by Fehr & Peers addresses the infrastructure needs arising from anticipated population and employment growth. The study identifies capital improvement projects and calculates proportional fees for new development across three districts (1) Baylands, (2) Sierra Point, and (3) West Brisbane to ensure compliance with California’s Mitigation Fee Act. Fees are based on trip generation rates for various land uses, with costs allocated according to each district’s share of projected trips. The TIF program funds multimodal transportation improvements, such as roadway upgrades, roundabouts, bike and pedestrian paths, and mobility plans, while excluding costs for existing deficiencies and project-specific obligations. The study details the methodology for fee calculation and outlines fee rates for each land use and district. The Transportation Impact Fee Nexus Study is attached for reference.

In compliance with the Mitigation Fee Act (AB 1600), the completed nexus studies establish a clear connection between new development and the need for development impact fees related to parks, parks and recreation facilities, transportation, and public facilities. They 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.

Fee Schedule
As discussed at depth in the background section of this report, based on comparative/benchmarking survey data, staff received Council feedback on fees in January, February, and March of 2026. Based on that past direction from Council and the technical analysis in the nexus studies, staff have prepared the table of recommended development impact fees identified below that comply with the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act. The recommended fees represent a reasonable estimate of the proportionate cost of providing public facilities needed to serve new development at a level of service equivalent to what the City provides to existing residents and businesses.

It should be noted that the City follows the requirements of State law regarding any charge of an impact fee on an accessory dwelling unit (“ADU”). In general, an impact fee is not imposed on any ADU that is less than 750 square feet. However, for an ADU that is 750 square feet or more, the City is generally authorized to impose an impact fee that is charged proportionately to the square footage of the primary dwelling.

The following fees are recommended for adoption:

Page 277 of 517 ends

Parks and Recreation Development Impact Fees
Development Type Unit of
Measurement
Fee Comparative Average**
Residential
<800 sq. ft. unit Per unit $7,944 Average–Low
800–1,200 sq. ft. unit Per unit $10,259 Average-Low
1,200–2,100 sq. ft. unit Per unit $15,688 Average-Low
>2,100 sq. ft. unit Per unit $15,688 Average-Low
Non-Residential
Commercial Per KSF* $8,103 Average
Office Per KSF $8,182 Above Average
Life Science/R&D Per KSF $7,229 Above Average
Industrial Per KSF $5,084 Average
Warehouse Per KSF $2,542 Average
Hotel
Hotel Per room $932.27 Average
* KSF = thousand square feet.
** “Comparative Average” characterizes the fee amount recommended for Brisbane compared to a similar fee in the comparable jurisdictions reviewed in the benchmarking/survey data.

The Parks and Recreation Development Impact Fees are set below average for residential development types. The fees were set at the average for the commercial, industrial, warehouse, and hotel development types. The Parks and Recreation Development Impact Fees were set above average for Life Science/R&D and Office development types. Based on feedback received in previous City Council meetings, and the technical analysis in the nexus studies, staff have prepared the table of recommended development impact fees identified below that comply with the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act.

Public Facilities Impact Fees
Development Type Unit of
Measurement
Fee Comparative Average**
Residential
<800 sq. ft. unit Per unit $7,819 Average-Low
800–1,200 sq. ft. unit Per unit $13,052 Average-Low
1,200–2,100 sq. ft. unit Per unit $14,279 Average-Low
>2,100 sq. ft. unit Per unit $14,279 Average-Low
Non-Residential
Commercial Per KSF* $11,409 Average
Office Per KSF $5,602 Above Average

Page 278 of 517 ends

Life Science/R&D Per KSF $6,223 Above Average
Industrial Per KSF $5,011 Average
Warehouse Per KSF $2,840 Average
Hotel
Hotel Per room $807.07 Average
* KSF = thousand square feet.
** “Comparative Average” characterizes the fee amount recommended for Brisbane compared to a similar fee in the comparable jurisdictions reviewed in the benchmarking/survey data.

The Public Facilities Impact Fees are set below average for residential uses above 800 square feet per unit and are set at the average for units under 800 square feet. The Public Facilities Impact Fees are set at the average for commercial, industrial, warehouse, and hotel development types. Office and Life Science/R&D development types are set above average. Based on feedback received in previous City Council meetings, and the technical analysis in the nexus studies, staff have prepared the table of recommended development impact fees identified below that comply with the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act.

Transportation Impact Fee
District / Area Land Use
Category
Fee / Unit Comparative Average***
Baylands
Residential $2,399.14/
DU**
Average-Low
Office $4.39/SF* Average–Above Average
Retail $12.66/SF Average-Low
Hotel $2,487.37/
room
Average
Sierra Point
Office $9.89/SF Average–Above Average
Hotel $2,487.37/
room
Average
Life Science/R&D $9.89/SF Average–Above Average
West Brisbane
Residential $4,046/DU Average-Low
Warehouse/
Quarry
$2.75/SF Average
* SF = square foot.
** DU = dwelling unit.
*** “Comparative Average” characterizes the fee amount recommended for Brisbane compared to a similar fee in the comparable jurisdictions reviewed in the benchmarking/survey

Page 279 of 517 ends

data.

Transportation Impact Fees are divided by transportation land use district. The three main areas are Baylands, Sierra Point, and West Brisbane. In the Baylands District, TIFs for residential and retail development types are set below average. Fees for hotel development types are set at the average and at slightly higher than average for office developments.

In the Sierra Point transportation district, hotel development types are set at the average, and office and life science/R&D are set at above average. In the West Brisbane District, TIFs for residential development types are set at slightly below average. Transportation Impact Fees are set at the average for warehouse/quarry development types.

According to previous Council feedback, the majority of the fees are set at average or slightly below average for all development types with the exception of office and life science. The preference for both of those development types was above average. As indicated in the chart, there are some fees that are set at the maximum per the nexus study but remain below the average of the comparative survey. Parameters for fee setting include ensuring that the fees were legally justifiable per the nexus studies and aligned with policy preferences.

Administration
If approved, an ordinance is effective 60 days after adoption. Generally, the City may collect impact fees from non-residential projects at the time of issuance of a building permit.

However, for residential projects, the Mitigation Fee Act generally limits cities collecting impact fees prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy, unless the City makes findings for earlier collection at the time of approving the project. It is also important to keep in mind that state law exempts from payment of impact fees any development of an accessory dwelling unit (“ADU”) of less than 750 square feet.

The Mitigation Fee Act also mandates that fees be deposited into separate capital facilities accounts to avoid commingling of the fees and other revenues and funds. Any interest earned on fee revenues must also be placed in the capital account and used for the same purpose.

In addition, the Mitigation Fee Act requires that the City make available to the public an annual report which includes information about the type of fee, any money expended and the amount of expenditures on each improvement including the percentage funded by fees, descriptions of any inter-fund transfers and loans, and any refunds. The annual report must be made available within 180 days of the close of the fiscal year.

The Mitigation Fee Act (see California Government Code§66016.5, amended by AB 602 (2021)) requires cities, counties, and special districts to update all impact fee nexus studies at least every eight years.

Next Steps
To move impact fees forward, the City must adopt by resolution the impact fee program, and

Page 280 of 517 ends

its corresponding nexus studies and capital improvement plans. This includes adoption and establishment of the development impact fees in amounts for each development type per the fee schedule.

If approved, the resolution becomes effective 60 days from the date of adoption. The City would work to publish the final impact fee schedule, final nexus studies, and the impact fee capital improvement plans in compliance with the Mitigation Fee Act. Staff would set up required financial systems, including creating separate capital facility accounts, ensuring that all interest stays in the same fee fund, and staff would set up fee collection timing rules to ensure compliance with the Mitigation Fee Act. Staff would also work on internal alignment to ensure training regarding fee applicability, collection timing, credits/reimbursements, and the new municipal code. Staff would also update application checklists and fee disclosure requirements and ensure applications and tentative maps are reviewed for fee applicability.

Staff recommend the City Council adopt a resolution approving the adoption of development impact fees to fund (1) Public Facilities for Library, Fire Department, Police Department, and General Government Facilities, (2) Park Land, Park Improvements, Recreation Facilities, Open Space and Trails, and (3) Transportation Facilities; and adopting nexus studies and capital improvement plans to support the development impact fees.

Fiscal Impact
If approved, impact fee revenue is dependent on the type and number of development projects approved by the City.

Attachments

1. Impact Fee Ordinance

2. Impact Fee Ordinance - Ordinance Exhibit A

3. Impact Fee Ordinance - Ordinance Exhibit B

4. Impact Fee Resolution

5. Impact Fee Schedule Resolution - Exhibit A

6. Impact Fee Resolution - Exhibit B (Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Nexus Study)

7. Impact Fee Resolution - Exhibit B (Public Facilities Impact Fee Nexus Study)

8. Impact Fee Resolution - Exhibit B (Transportation Impact Fee Nexus Study)

9. Impact Fee Resolution - Exhibit C

10. Impact Fees - Previous Staff Reports
City Manager Approval

Page 281 of 517 ends

Jeremy Dennis, City
Manager
09/11/2026

Page 282 of 517 ends

Page 1 of 3 ends

23 ORDINANCE NO.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRISBANE, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING BRISBANE MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 16.24 AND ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 15.90

TO UPDATE AND ESTABLISH PROCEDURES AND INITIATING PROCEEDINGS FOR ADOPTING

AND IMPLEMENTING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FOR PARK AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES,

TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES, AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS, AND OTHER PUBLIC

FACILITIES INCLUDING LIBRARY, GENERAL GOVERNMENT, POLICE DEPARTMENT, AND FIRE

DEPARTMENT FACILITIES
The City Council of the City of Brisbane hereby ordains as follows:

SECTION 1: The City Council finds and determines that:

A. The City is authorized to establish development impact fees to offset the proportionate cost of providing public facilities to serve development projects, and to impose those fees on the owners of those development projects, in accordance the City’s authority under California Constitution Article XI, Section 7, and in accordance with the requirements of the “Mitigation Fee Act” (California Government Code Sections 66000 - 66025); and B. The City is authorized to require the dedication of land or the payment of fees in lieu of dedication, or a combination of both, for park or recreational purposes as a condition of approval of a tentative map or parcel map for a development project, in accordance with the City’s authority under California Constitution Article XI, Section 7, and in accordance with the requirements of the “Quimby Act” (California Government Code Section 66477); and C. The City previously implemented the Quimby Act through Brisbane Municipal Code Chapter 16.24 to establish requirements for both dedication of land or payment of fees; and the City now intends by this ordinance to amend Chapter 16.24 to rely on the Quimby Act solely for the purpose of requiring the dedication of land, and the City will rely on the Mitigation Fee Act when establishing and imposing fees on subdividers or owners who do not dedicate land under the Quimby Act; and D. The provisions of this ordinance are intended to establish the procedural framework for the City’s establishment and imposition of development impact fees, and land dedication for park or recreational purposes under the Quimby Act; however, the actual calculation of development impact fees are analyzed in accordance with nexus studies prepared as required by the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Section 66016.5); and
E. The City engaged consultants to prepare the required nexus studies under the Mitigation Fee Act to analyze the proportionate impacts from development projects on the City’s public facilities, as well as the proportionate benefits received by development projects from the City’s public facilities, and those nexus studies included: (1) Transportation Impact Fee Nexus Study dated February 14, 2025, prepared by Fehr & Peers; (2) Public Facilities Impact Fee Study dated October 10, 2025, prepared by NBS Government Finance Group; (3) Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study dated October 10, 2025, prepared by NBS Government Finance Group; (4) Commercial Linkage Fee Nexus Study Analysis and Maximum Fee Calculations dated September 1, 2023, prepared by ECONorthwest; and (5) on or about October 2, 2025, the City entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the County of San Mateo and cities in the County to prepare a MultiJurisdictional Inclusionary Housing and Non-Residential Linkage Fee Study with a scope of services for preparation of a nexus study by Strategic Economics; and

Page 283 of 517 ends

Page 2 of 3 ends

23 F. The City hereby initiates proceedings in accordance with Government Code Section 66474.2 to establish the ordinance, policies, and standards by which the City will require the payment of development impact fees in accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act for the public facilities described in Section 1(E) of this ordinance.

SECTION 2: Chapter 15.90, with Sections 15.90.010 through 15.90.070, of the Brisbane Municipal Code is hereby added to read as set forth on Exhibit “A,” attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.

SECTION 3: Chapter 16.24, with Sections 16.24.010 through 16.24.060, of the Brisbane Municipal Code (related park in-lieu fees) is hereby amended to read as set forth on Exhibit “B,” attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The City does not intend to amend Brisbane Municipal Code Section 16.24.070 (Bay access).

SECTION 4: If any chapter, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance, is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision will not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this ordinance, and each chapter, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions thereof be declared invalid or unconstitutional
SECTION 5: The City Council hereby finds that the adoption of this Ordinance is not subject to CEQA review pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15378(b)(4), which provides that the creation of government funding mechanisms or other government fiscal activities that do not involve any commitment to any specific project are not projects subject to CEQA review.

SECTION 6: This ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its passage by the City Council.

SECTION 7: The City Clerk is authorized and directed to cause this Ordinance to be published within fifteen (15) days after its passage in a newspaper of general circulation and circulated within the City in accordance with Government Code Chapter 36933(a) or, to cause this Ordinance to be published in the manner required by law using the alternative summary and pasting procedure authorized under Government Code Chapter 39633(c).
* * *
The above and foregoing Ordinance was regularly introduced and after the waiting time required by law, was thereafter passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Brisbane held on the day of __________, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Mayor Coleen Mackin
ATTEST:

Page 284 of 517 ends

Page 3 of 3 ends

23 City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

City Attorney

Page 285 of 517 ends

Page 1 of 5 ends

Ordinance No. ____, Exhibit “A”
EXHIBIT “A” TO ORDINANCE NO. ____
Chapter 15.90 Development Impact Fee Program

15.90.010 Authority
This chapter is enacted under the authority of California Constitution Article XI, Section 7 and the Mitigation Fee Act (California Government Code Title 7, Division 1, Chapters 5 through 9, Sections 66000 through 66025).

15.90.020 Purpose and intent
A. The purpose of this chapter is to establish the procedures by which the City will: (1) calculate and adopt development impact fees to be imposed on and collected from Owners of development projects, (2) spend revenue from development impact fees to fund public facilities that offset impacts from and provide benefits to development projects, and (3) account for and report development impact fee revenue and expenditures in accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act.

B. The intent of this chapter is to require Owners of development projects that create impacts on public facilities and receive corresponding benefits from public facilities to pay the City development impact fees established pursuant to this chapter to cover or offset the proportionate share of the cost of those public facilities needed to serve those development projects.

C. Except as specifically provided herein, the development impact fees established under this chapter are in addition to (and do not replace) any: (1) separate obligations imposed as exactions or mitigation measures required to address site-specific impacts of a development project; (2) other regulatory, development and processing fees; (3) fees imposed by separate governmental agencies (such as school impact fees); (4) utility capacity charges or connection fees; (5) charges required pursuant to a development agreement; (6) charges imposed pursuant to a separate agreement for amounts that may separately benefit the Development Project; or any other required taxes, assessments, or generally applicable fees.

15.90.030 Definitions
“Development Impact Fee” means a monetary exaction that is calculated and imposed on an Owner in accordance with this chapter in connection with approval of a development project for the purpose of defraying all or a portion of the proportionate cost of the public facilities that serve the development project. A “Development Impact Fee” shall only include City charges on Owners that are within the definition of “fee” under Government Code Section 66000(a). “Development Project” means any project undertaken for the purpose of developing or improving real property that increases demands or impacts on any public facilities, including a

Page 286 of 517 ends

Page 2 of 5 ends

Ordinance No. ____, Exhibit “A”
project involving the issuance of a permit for new construction or reconstruction of an existing structure that increases demands or impacts on public facilities. “Mitigation Fee Act” means California Government Code Title 7, Division 1, Chapters 5 through 9, including Sections 66000 through 66025.
“Owner” means the legal owner(s) of real property upon which a development project is proposed. An owner may provide to the City a written delegation of authority for an authorized representative(s) to act on the Owner’s behalf in accordance with the requirements of this chapter. To the extent an Owner delegates authority to a “representative” or “developer” or “applicant” or “subdivider” to pay fees on behalf of the Owner, the Owner shall be jointly and severally liable for payment of required fees.
“Public Facilities” means any public improvement, public services, or community amenities (as defined by Government Code Section 66000(d)) to the extent those facilities are funded by development impact fees in accordance with this chapter. Public Facilities shall specifically include any “Capital Improvement” identified in a capital improvement plan adopted in accordance with Government Code Section 66016.5, and the costs of Public Facilities funded in all or in part by development impact fees shall include acquisition of land, design, construction management, construction, equipping and installing, and related costs such as administration, financing, and legal services.

15.90.040 Establishment of Development Impact Fees
Any development impact fee under this chapter shall be effective only after approved by resolution of the City Council to identify the public facilities to be funded with the fee revenue, the amount of the fee imposed on each Owner (categorized by type of development project), and addressing the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act and this chapter. In particular, consistent with the requirements of Government Code Sections 66001 and 66016.5, the resolution shall include the adoption of a capital improvement plan and a nexus study to describe the purpose of the fee, the use to which the fee is to be put, the reasonable relationship between the fee’s use to fund public facilities and the benefits received by development projects, the reasonable relationship between the impacts from development projects and the public facilities to be funded by development impact fees, and an explanation of the appropriateness of the levels of service for the funded public facilities.

15.90.050 Payment of Development Impact Fees
A. Amount. The amount of development impact fees to be paid for each development project shall be the amount of the fee in effect at the time that payment is made to the City, unless otherwise required by State law, including limitations imposed by Government Code Section 66007.

B. Timing. The fee for each parcel or unit within a development project shall be paid in-full prior to issuance of a building permit, unless otherwise required by State law, including

Page 287 of 517 ends

Page 3 of 5 ends

Ordinance No. ____, Exhibit “A”
limitations imposed by Government Code Section 66007. If the development impact fees for a development project are not paid in full prior to the issuance of a building permit for any portion of the project, the City may require the Owner to: (1) execute a contract to pay the development impact fees as a condition of issuance of the building permit, and (2) record the contract against the development project property. Any such contract shall require the development impact fees to be paid no later than the final inspection, or the date the certificate of occupancy is issued, whichever occurs first, and the contract may include payment on a pro rata or lump-sum basis, in accordance with Government Code Section 66007. The City Manager or their designee is authorized execute any such contracts. For any Owner that owes a development impact fee for a development project, if the fee is not paid prior to the final inspection, or the date the certificate of occupancy is issued, whichever occurs first, the Owner shall pay the required fee no later than thirty days after written demand from the City.

C. Exceptions. The following types of development projects (for reconstruction, rehabilitation, or remodeling of an existing structure) are not subject to development impact fees (in whole or in part) to the extent that the Owner establishes to the satisfaction of the City that: (i) the development project does not increase the demand or impacts on public facilities, as compared to the demand or impacts from the pre-existing structure on the property (as it existed prior to being damaged, destroyed, rehabilitated, or remodeled); and (ii) either: (x) a development impact fee for the relevant public facility was paid for the pre-existing structure, or (y) the pre-existing structure was in existence at the time the City last updated a nexus study for the relevant public facilities:

1. Reconstruction of a structure damaged or destroyed by fire or other natural causes.

2. Rehabilitation or remodeling of an existing structure.

D. Fee Protest. If an Owner desires to protest the imposition of development impact fees on the development project, the Owner shall file the written protest with the City Clerk, in compliance with the procedure provided in Government Code Section 66020.

E. Refund. To the extent an Owner pays a development impact fee for a development project prior to issuance of a building permit, and if the building permit expires without commencement of construction of the permitted building, the Owner may submit a written request for a refund in accordance with this paragraph. Any Owner who submits a timely written request for refund in accordance with this paragraph shall be entitled to a refund, without interest, of the development impact fees paid, if any, for the development project, except that the City may charge an administrative fee, in an amount established by resolution of the City Council, to offset the City’s costs of processing the requested refund. The Owner must submit a written request for a refund to the City Manager within 30 calendar days of the expiration of the building permit. Failure to timely submit the required application for refund shall constitute a waiver of any right to the refund.

15.90.060 Accounting and Use of Development Impact Fees

Page 288 of 517 ends

Page 4 of 5 ends

Ordinance No. ____, Exhibit “A”
The City shall establish separate accounts for each category of development impact fee established by the City Council and deposit development impact fees collected into the appropriate account. The money deposited into these accounts, and any interest earnings thereon, shall be used solely for the public facilities for which the development impact fees were imposed; provided, however, the City Council may authorize by resolution an interfund loan (consistent with Government Code Section 66006(b)(1)(G)). Development impact fees may be used to pay the principal, interest and other costs of bonds, notes and other obligations issued or undertaken by or on behalf of the City to finance such public facilities. The City shall annually report the revenue from development impact fees and actual and planned expenditure of that revenue in accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act.

15.90.070 Credits and Reimbursements
A. Credits. An Owner who provides public facilities may receive a credit against the corresponding development impact fee otherwise owed for the development project only if the Owner submits a timely written request and obtains approval from the City through a credit agreement. The Owner shall submit a written request for any such credit no later than concurrently with submitting improvement plans for the public facilities. The Owner and the City must enter into a credit agreement prior to the issuance of a building permit for the development project for the Owner to receive a credit against the applicable development impact fees. Failure to enter into a credit agreement prior to the issuance of a building permit shall be deemed a waiver of any request or claim for credit. The credit agreement shall include a clause by which the agreement shall be cancelled, and the Owner shall pay the development impact fees, in the event that the Owner does not provide the public facilities to the satisfaction of the City by a specified date.

B. Reimbursements. An Owner who provides public facilities may receive a reimbursement for the costs of the public facilities that exceed any credit amount approved in accordance with Section 15.90.070 only if the Owner submits a timely written request and obtains approval from the City through a reimbursement agreement. The terms of a reimbursement agreement may be combined into a credit agreement. The Owner shall submit a written request for any such reimbursement no later than concurrently with submitting improvement plans for the public facilities. The Owner and the City must enter into a reimbursement agreement prior to the issuance of a building permit for the development project for the Owner to receive a reimbursement. Failure to enter into a reimbursement agreement prior to the issuance of a building permit shall be deemed a waiver of any request or claim for reimbursement. Reimbursement will be made only after the City has accepted the public facilities as complete. The City shall not reimburse an Owner out of the City’s General Fund or any other City funds other than the subject Development Impact Fee fund.

C. Maximum Credit and Reimbursement. Any agreement for credit or reimbursement under this section must estimate the cost of constructing the public facilities, the schedule for the completion of the public facilities, a requirement that the public facilities be constructed to City standards, and such other terms and conditions as deemed necessary by the City. Any

Page 289 of 517 ends

Page 5 of 5 ends

Ordinance No. ____, Exhibit “A”
credit agreement or reimbursement agreement that implements this section shall document the maximum amount of credit and/or reimbursement available to the Owner which shall not exceed the City’s reasonable estimate of the City’s cost of providing the public facilities.

D. Credit and Reimbursement Policy. The City Council may, from time to time, adopt by resolution a development impact fee credit and reimbursement policy implementing the provisions of this section.

E. Execution of Agreements. The City Manager may approve and sign any agreements authorized by paragraphs A through C of this section, provided the agreement is consistent with this section any policy adopted by the City Council pursuant to paragraph D of this section.

Page 290 of 517 ends

EXHIBIT “B” TO ORDINANCE NO. ____
Chapter 16.24 Park Improvements – Bay Access

16.24.010 - Dedication of land for park and recreational purposes.

A. The subdivider shall provide for adequate and appropriate p a r k a n d recreational facilities for the subdivision by the dedication of land in the subdivision, in accordance with the conditions and requirements of this section; provided, however, that the requirements of this section may be satisfied by either: (a) a development agreement between the subdivider and city approved by ordinance of the city council identifying alternative methods for the subdivider to satisfy park and recreational facilities obligations, or (b) the City Manager or designee determines that a particular subdivision is not physically suited to support the dedication of land for public recreational facilities in accordance with relevant policies of the general plan or applicable specific plan. Any dedication of land under this chapter shall be used only for the purpose of developing new or rehabilitating existing neighborhood or community park or recreational facilities to serve the subdivision.

B. To the extent the subdivider dedicates land or enters into a development agreement in accordance with Paragraph A of this section, the subdivider shall be entitled to a credit against the obligation to pay a development impact fee for park and recreational facilities, in accordance with chapter 15.90 of this code

16.24.020 - Amounts of area to be dedicated.

Where there are more than fifty (50) lots to be established in the subdivision or when a condominium project, stock cooperative, or community apartment project exceeds fifty (50) dwelling units even though the number of parcels may be less than fifty (50), and where the City Manager or designee determines that land therein can be properly located for public recreational facilities in accordance with the policies and standards for parks and recreation facilities contained in the general plan or applicable specific plan, the subdivider shall dedicate an area for such purposes on the basis of three (3) acres dedicated for each one thousand (1,000) population within the subdivision to be developed.

16.24.030 – Smaller projects not subject to this chapter.

Where there are fifty (50) lots or less in the subdivision or fifty (50) units or less in a residential condominium project, stock cooperative, or community apartment project, the subdivider shall not be subject to the land dedication requirements of this chapter. A residential condominium project, stock cooperative, or community apartment project with more than fifty (50) units may be required to dedicate land, even though the number of lots may be less than fifty (50).

16.24.040 - Dedication credits for park and recreational improvements and for private open space.

Page 291 of 517 ends

A. A subdivider that constructs parks and recreational improvements may receive a credit against the obligation to dedicate land under this chapter only if the subdivider submits a timely written request prior to approval of a tentative map and obtains approval from the City through a credit agreement.

B. If a condominium project or other common interest development provides private open space within the development which is usable for active recreational uses, the subdivider shall be entitled to a credit against the obligation to pay a development impact fee for park and recreational facilities, in accordance with chapter 15.90 of this code.

16.24.050 - Dedication timing of determination.

A. At the time of application for a tentative map, the subdivider shall identify how it intends to address any requirement to dedicate land in accordance with this chapter. At the time of approval of the tentative map, the approving agency shall determine pursuant to this chapter a n y land to be dedicated by the subdivider. At the time of filing of the final map or final parcel map, the subdivider shall dedicate the land as previously determined, except as provided below.

B. Open space covenants for private park or recreational facilities shall be submitted to the City upon the filing of the final subdivision or parcel map and shall be recorded contemporaneously with such map.

C. For land dedicated to the City in accordance with this chapter, at the time of approval of the final map, the approving agency shall specify when development of park and recreational facilities on that land shall be commenced.

D. Any waiver of a tentative and final subdivision map or parcel map pursuant to Section 16.12.025 or Section 16.12.050 shall nevertheless be subject to dedication of land, and/or recordation of open space covenants as required by this chapter.

16.24.060 - Exemptions.

The provisions of Sections 16.24.010 through 16.24.050 shall not apply to the development projects set forth in this section 16.24.060, below; provided that, to the extent any development project does not dedicate land in accordance with Sections 16.24.010 through 16.24.050, a condition of approval of a tentative parcel map, bui lding permit, or other development entitlement may require the payment of fees as required by chapter 15.90 of this code:

A. Subdivisions containing less than five (5) parcels and not used for residential purposes; B. Condominium projects or stock cooperatives that consist of the subdivision of airspace in an existing apartment building that is more than five (5) years old when no dwelling units are

Page 292 of 517 ends

added;
C. Commercial or industrial subdivisions;
D. Condominium projects restricted so as to be affordable to households with very-low or lowincomes, subject to restrictions approved by the City and recorded with the County of San Mateo, for which outdoor areas are provided in compliance with Section 17.30.030; E. Condominium projects designed and restricted to use by households with one or more members who are sixty-two (62) years of age or older, subject to restrictions approved by the City and recorded with the County of San Mateo.

Page 293 of 517 ends

Page 1 of 4 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 2026-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRISBANE,

CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES TO FUND
(1) PUBLIC FACILITIES FOR LIBRARY, FIRE DEPARTMENT, POLICE DEPARTMENT, AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT FACILITIES, (2) PARK

LAND AND PARK IMPROVEMENTS, RECREATION FACILITIES, OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS PUBLIC FACILITIES, AND (3) TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES; AND ADOPTING NEXUS STUDIES AND CAPITAL

IMPROVEMENT PLANS TO SUPPORT THE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT
FEES
WHEREAS, the City is authorized to establish development impact fees to offset the proportionate cost of providing public facilities to serve development projects, and to impose those fees on the owners of those development projects, in accordance the City’s authority under California Constitution Article XI, Section 7, and in accordance with the requirements of the “Mitigation Fee Act” (California Government Code Sections 66000 - 66025); and WHEREAS, the City engaged consultants to prepare the required nexus studies under the Mitigation Fee Act to analyze the proportionate impacts from development projects on the City’s public facilities, as well as the proportionate benefits received by development projects from the City’s public facilities, and those nexus studies included: (1) Public Facilities Impact Fee Study dated August 5, 2026, prepared by NBS Government Finance Group; (2) Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study dated August 5, 2026, prepared by NBS Government Finance Group; and (3) Transportation Impact Fee Nexus Study dated September 2, 2026, prepared by Fehr & Peers (hereinafter referred to together as “Nexus Studies,” attached hereto as Exhibit “B” and incorporated herein by reference); and WHEREAS, the Nexus Studies identify the bases upon which the City has calculated development impact fees as identified on the 2026 Impact Fee Schedule attached hereto as Exhibit “A,” labeled as Public Facilities Impact Fee, Parks and Recreation Impact Fees, and Transportation Impact Fee Impact Fees (collectively “Development Impact Fees” or “DIF”), in compliance with the Mitigation Fee Act, particularly Government Code Section 66016.5; and
WHEREAS, concurrently with the preparation of the Nexus Studies, the City prepared the “Capital Improvement Plan” as required by Government Code Sections 66002 and 66016.5(a)(6) which includes: (a) for the Transportation Impact Fees, the Capital Improvement Plan is incorporated into the corresponding Nexus Study (see Table 5 and Attachment A); and (b) for the Public Facilities Impact Fees and the Parks and Recreation Impact Fees, the Capital Improvement Plan is attached hereto as Exhibit “C” and incorporated herein by reference. The Capital Improvement Plan for each impact fee established by this resolution identifies the approximate location, size, time of availability, and estimated costs for the public facilities to be financed with Development Impact Fees; and.

Page 294 of 517 ends

Page 2 of 4 ends

WHEREAS, the Nexus Studies document the findings, incorporated herein by reference, by which the City has determined that imposing fees on residential development projects based on square footage is not required since the alternative identified basis bears a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden imposed by the project, and the fee structure established by this resolution supports smaller development projects; and these findings are set forth in: (a) the Public Facilities Impact Fee Nexus Study identifies the rationale for imposing Public Facility Impact Fees per a tier of unit sizes (less than 800 square feet, 800 - 1,200 square feet, 1,200 - 2,100 square feet, and greater than 2,100 square feet) at Nexus Study Chapter 2; (b) the Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Nexus Study identifies the rationale for imposing Parks and Recreation Impact Fees per a tier of unit sizes (less than 800 square feet, 800 - 1,200 square feet, 1,200 - 2,100 square feet, and greater than 2,100 square feet) at Nexus Study Chapter 2; and (c) the Transportation Impact Fee Nexus Study identifies the rationale for imposing Traffic Impact Fees per unit of residential development in the Section labeled “Summary of Required Program Elements” “Additional Elements”; and WHEREAS, concurrently with the preparation of the Nexus Studies, the City undertook a review of the underlying procedures for implementing development impact fees, and on September 17, 2026, the City Council also adopted an ordinance to be codified at Brisbane Municipal Code Chapter 15.90 to establish City policies and procedures for establishing and implementing development impact fees in accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act, and the requirements of that Chapter apply to the Development Impact Fees adopted by this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the findings set forth in the Nexus Studies for each of the Development Impact Fees identify the bases for concluding that the proposed Development Impact Fees satisfy the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act; those findings are incorporated herein by reference; and, for each Development Impact Fee, those findings: (1) identify the purpose of the fee; (2) identify the use of the fee; (3) 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 public facility and the type of development on which the fee is imposed, and (c) the amount of the fee and the public facility cost attributable to the development type; and (4) identify and explain any differences between existing levels of services provided by public facilities compared to new levels of service supported by Development Impact Fees (in compliance with Government Code Sections 66001(a) and 66016.5; and WHEREAS, the City has provided required notices of the public hearing at which this Resolution will be considered for adoption by the City Council, in accordance with Government Code Sections 6062a, 66004, 66015, 66016.5(a)(7), and 66018 NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Brisbane does hereby resolve as follows:

Section 1. The above recitals are true and correct, are material to the adoption of this Resolution, and are incorporated herein by reference.

Page 295 of 517 ends

Page 3 of 4 ends

Section 2. The City Council hereby adopts: (a) the Nexus Studies, as set forth on Exhibit “A,” and (b) the Capital Improvement Plan (as defined in the recitals to include the Traffic Improvement Fee Nexus Study and Exhibit “C,” attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference).

Section 3. The City Council hereby adopts and establishes the Development Impact Fees in the amounts for each Development Type as set forth on Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The City Council hereby finds that the Development Impact Fees comply with the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act, as documented in this resolution and the supporting documents, including the Nexus Studies. The attached Development Impact Fees include:
(a) Public Facilities Impact Fee (1) Library; (2) General Government Facilities; (3) Police Department Facilities; and (4) Fire Department Facilities; (b) Parks and Recreation Impact Fee (1) Park Land; (2) Park Improvement; (3) Recreation Facilities; (4) Open Space; and (5) Trails;
(c) Transportation Impact Fee;
Section 4. The City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager, or authorized designee, to make adjustments to the amount of Development Impact Fees to account for inflationary impacts, provided that: (a) the amount of the adjustment shall be in accordance with the criteria set forth in the Engineering News Record (“ENR”) building cost index (“BCI”) and construction cost index (“CCI”), San Francisco area; (b) there shall be no more than one adjustment per fiscal year, beginning September 17, 2027; (c) there shall be no such adjustment after September 15, 2034, without obtaining Council approval in accordance with Government Code Section 66016.5(a)(8); (d) each such adjustment shall be approved in writing with an identification and calculation of the particular dollar amounts of each updated fee, and an identification of the effective date of the adjustment; and (e) the updated fees shall be posted on the City’s website.

Section 5. The City Council finds that this Resolution is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080(b)(8), and CEQA Guidelines Section 15273(a) since this is an establishment of Development Impact Fees as a charge on new development to obtain funds for public facilities which are capital projects necessary to maintain public services within the City’s existing service area encompassing the new development.

Section 6. This Resolution shall be effective immediately upon adoption. The Development Impact Fees shall be effective on November 16, 2026, in accordance with Government Code Section 66017.
________________________________
Coleen Mackin, Mayor
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2026-xx was duly and regularly adopted at a regular meeting of the Brisbane City Council on September 17, 2026, 2026 by the following vote:

Page 296 of 517 ends

Page 4 of 4 ends

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:
________________________________
Ingrid Padilla, City Clerk
EXHIBIT A – 2026 IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE
EXHIBIT B – Public Facilities Nexus Study; Parks & Recreation Nexus Study; and Transportation Impact Fee Study
EXHIBIT C – Mitigation Fee Act Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)

Page 297 of 517 ends

1 Parks and Recreation Development Impact Fees
Development Type Unit of Measurement Fee
Residential
<800 sq. ft. unit Per unit $7,944
800–1,200 sq. ft. unit Per unit $10,259
1,200–2,100 sq. ft. unit Per unit $15,688
>2,100 sq. ft. unit Per unit $15,688
Non-Residential
Commercial Per KSF* $8,103
Office Per KSF $8,182
Life Science/R&D Per KSF $7,229
Industrial Per KSF $5,084
Warehouse Per KSF $2,542
Hotel
Hotel Per room $932.27
* KSF = thousand square feet.

Public Facilities Impact Fees
Development Type Unit of Measurement Fee
Residential
<800 sq. ft. unit Per unit $7,819
800–1,200 sq. ft. unit Per unit $13,052
1,200–2,100 sq. ft. unit Per unit $14,279
>2,100 sq. ft. unit Per unit $14,279
Non-Residential
Commercial Per KSF* $11,409
Office Per KSF $5,602

Page 298 of 517 ends

2 Development Type Unit of Measurement Fee
Life Science/R&D Per KSF $6,223
Industrial Per KSF $5,011
Warehouse Per KSF $2,840
Hotel
Hotel Per room $807.07
* KSF = thousand square feet.

Transportation Impact Fee
District / Area Land Use Category Fee / Unit
Baylands
Residential $2,399.14/
DU
Office $4.39/SF
Retail $12.66/SF
Hotel
$2,487.37/
room
Sierra Point
Office $9.89/SF
Hotel
$2,487.37/
room
Life Science/R&D $9.89/SF
West Brisbane
Residential $4,046/DU
Warehouse/
Quarry $2.75/SF
DU = dwelling unit. SF = square foot.

Page 299 of 517 ends

Revised Final Report
Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026

Page 300 of 517 ends

Executive Summary.................................................................................................. S-1 Organization of the Report .......................................................................................... S-1 Development Data ....................................................................................................... S-1 Impact Fee Analysis ...................................................................................................... S-2 Impact Fee Summary.................................................................................................... S-3 Chapter 1. Introduction ............................................................................................ 1-1 Purpose......................................................................................................................... 1-1 Legal Framework for Impact Fees ................................................................................ 1-1 Recent Legislation ........................................................................................................ 1-5 Impact Fee Calculation Methodology .......................................................................... 1-7 Facilities Addressed in this Study ................................................................................. 1-8 Chapter 2. Development Data .................................................................................. 2-1 Study Area .................................................................................................................... 2-1 Time Frame ................................................................................................................... 2-1 Development Types...................................................................................................... 2-1 Demand Variables ........................................................................................................ 2-4 Demand Factors ........................................................................................................... 2-6 Existing and Future Development ................................................................................ 2-7 Growth Potential ........................................................................................................ 2-10 Chapter 3. Park Land and Park Improvements .......................................................... 3-1 Service Area .................................................................................................................. 3-1 Methodology ................................................................................................................ 3-1 Demand Variable .......................................................................................................... 3-1 Existing Level of Service ............................................................................................... 3-1 Cost Per Capita ............................................................................................................. 3-3 Impact Fees per Unit .................................................................................................... 3-3 Projected Revenue ....................................................................................................... 3-4 Updating the Fees ........................................................................................................ 3-5 Nexus Summary............................................................................................................ 3-6 Chapter 4. Recreation Facilities ................................................................................ 4-1 Service Area .................................................................................................................. 4-1 Methodology ................................................................................................................ 4-1

Page 301 of 517 ends

Demand Variable .......................................................................................................... 4-1 Existing Level of Service ............................................................................................... 4-1 Existing Level of Service - Cost Per Capita .................................................................... 4-2 Impact Fees per Unit .................................................................................................... 4-2 Projected Revenue ....................................................................................................... 4-3 Updating the Fees ........................................................................................................ 4-3 Nexus Summary............................................................................................................ 4-4 Chapter 5. Open Space and Trails ............................................................................. 5-1 Service Area .................................................................................................................. 5-1 Methodology ................................................................................................................ 5-1 Demand Variable .......................................................................................................... 5-1 Existing Level of Service ............................................................................................... 5-1 Existing Level of Service - Cost Per Capita .................................................................... 5-2 Impact Fees per Unit .................................................................................................... 5-2 Projected Revenue ....................................................................................................... 5-4 Updating the Fees ........................................................................................................ 5-5 Nexus Summary............................................................................................................ 5-5 Chapter 6. Implementation ...................................................................................... 6-1 Adoption ....................................................................................................................... 6-1 Administration .............................................................................................................. 6-1 Requirements Imposed by AB 602 ............................................................................... 6-5 Training and Public Information ................................................................................... 6-7

Page 302 of 517 ends

City of Brisbane Page S-1
Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
The City of Brisbane has retained NBS Government Finance Group to prepare this study to analyze the impacts of new development on the City’s parks, recreation facilities, open space and trails and to calculate impact fees based on that analysis. The methods used in this study are intended to satisfy all legal requirements of the U. S. Constitution, the California Constitution and the California Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Sections 66000 et seq.).

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

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

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

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

Chapter 6 contains recommendations for adopting and implementing impact fees, including a discussion of findings required by the Mitigation Fee Act.

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

Table 2.1 in Chapter 2 shows the population per unit for residential development and employees per unit for various types of non-residential development, as well as service population per unit for all types of development defined in this study. Table 2.4 shows estimates of existing development in terms of units, population and employees. Table 2.5 shows a forecast of future development to buildout, and Table 2.6 shows a forecast of total development at buildout. The data in those tables is used to calculate impact fees and to project potential revenue for impact fees calculated in this report.

Page 303 of 517 ends

City of Brisbane Page S-2
Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
To comply with recent amendments to the Mitigation Fee Act, residential impact fees are calculated in this study for unit size ranges in square feet, rather than by unit type (e.g., single-family or multi-family) which was common practice in the past.

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

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

Chapter 3 - Impact Fees for Park Land and Park Improvements. Chapter 3 of this report calculates impact fees for both park land acquisition and park improvements.

The City has an existing Quimby Act ordinance that requires dedication of park land or payment of fees in lieu of dedication by residential subdivisions. Based on direction from City staff, this report assumes that the park land acquisition impact fees calculated in Chapter 3 will be applied to residential subdivisions as well as to new residential development that does not involve a subdivision or parcel map and to all new nonresidential (e.g., commercial and industrial) development in Brisbane.

The impact fees for park improvements calculated in Chapter 3 are intended to apply to all new residential and non-residential development in the City, including residential subdivisions.

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

Service population is used in impact fee calculations in this study to represent the impact of development on the need for parks, recreation facilities, open space and trails. Service population is a weighted composite of resident population and employees working in Brisbane. Residents are included to represent the demand created by residential development and employees are included to represent the demand created by nonresidential development. See Chapter 2 for a detailed discussion of service population.

Page 304 of 517 ends

City of Brisbane Page S-3
Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
See Chapter 3 for detailed analysis and calculation of impact fees for park land and park improvements. Table S.1, later in this Executive Summary shows the amounts of the impact fees calculated in this report.

Chapter 4 – Impact Fees for Recreation Facilities. Chapter 4 calculates impact fees for Brisbane’s recreation facilities. Impact fees for recreation facilities calculated in this report are based on the existing level of service. For recreation facilities, that level of service is defined in terms of the replacement cost of existing facilities per capita of existing service population. See Chapter 2 for a detailed discussion of service population.

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

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

Chapter 5 - Impact Fees for Open Space and Trails. Chapter 5 of this report calculates impact fees for both open space land acquisition and trail improvements. Impact fees for open space and trails calculated in this report are based on the existing level of service.

For open space land acquisition and trail improvements, that level of service is defined in terms of the replacement cost of existing facilities per capita of existing service population.

As discussed in previous sections, service population is a weighted composite of resident population and employees working in Brisbane. Residents are included to represent the demand created by residential development and employees are included to represent the demand created by non-residential development. See Chapter 2 for a detailed discussion of service population.

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

Impact Fee Summary
Impact fees per unit calculated in this report are summarized in Table S.1 on the following page.

Page 305 of 517 ends

City of Brisbane Page S-4
Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
The impact fees calculated in this report are intended to represent the maximum amounts justified by the data and analysis presented in this report. The City Council may choose to adopt no fees, or any fees up to the amounts shown in the table above.

Findings
As discussed in Chapter 1 of this report, the Mitigation Fee Act (Govt. Code Section 66001) requires that in any action establishing, increasing, or imposing a fee as a condition of development approval, the local agency must do all of the following:

1. Identify the purpose of the fee.

2. Identify the use to which the fee is to be put (a capital improvement plan is now required for that purpose).

3. Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the fee’s use and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed.

4. Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facility and the type of development on which the fee is imposed.

5. When the fee is imposed as a condition of approval on a development project, determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility or portion of the public facility attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed.

In addition, as discussed in Chapter 2, we recommend that the City Council adopt the following findings pursuant to Government Code Section 66016.5(a)(5)(B) to justify the use of tiered square footage ranges for residential development in this study rather than a fixed fee-per-square-foot approach:

1. A fixed fee-per-square-foot approach would not reflect the actual impact of different-sized residential units on the facilities addressed in this study and would not meet the rough proportionality standard set forth in Dolan v. Tigard.

Table S.1: Summary of Proposed Citywide Impact Fees
Development
Type Units 1
Park
Land
Park
Imprvmts
Recreation
Facilities
Open Sp/
Trails Total
Residential <800 Sq. Ft. Unit DU 5,110$ 840$ 1,479$ 515$ 7,944$ Residential 800-1,200 Sq. Ft. Unit DU 9,965$ 1,637$ 2,884$ 1,004$ 15,490$ Residential 1,200-2,100 Sq. Ft. Unit DU 15,075$ 2,477$ 4,364$ 1,519$ 23,434$ Residential >2,100 Sq. Ft. Unit DU 20,185$ 3,316$ 5,843$ 2,034$ 31,377$ Commercial KSF 5,212$ 856$ 1,509$ 525$ 8,103$
Hotel/Motel Room 3,015$ 495$ 873$ 304$ 4,687$
Office KSF 5,263$ 865$ 1,524$ 530$ 8,182$
Life Science/R&D KSF 4,650$ 764$ 1,346$ 469$ 7,229$
Industrial KSF 3,270$ 537$ 947$ 330$ 5,084$
Warehouse KSF 1,635$ 269$ 473$ 165$ 2,542$
1 DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area; Room = guest room or suite

Page 306 of 517 ends

City of Brisbane Page S-5
Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026

2. The use of tiered square footage ranges rather than a fixed fee per square foot approach better reflects the relationship between the fees charged and the actual burden imposed by various types of development.

3. Calculating impact fees for tiered square footage ranges rather than a fixed fee per square foot still ensures that smaller developments are not charged disproportionate fees because that approach allows the impact fees to be tailored to the actual impacts created by smaller developments, while protecting larger units from excessive fees.

Page 307 of 517 ends

City of Brisbane Page 1-1
Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
Purpose
The purpose of this study is to analyze the impacts of development on the need for parks and recreation facilities provided by the City of Brisbane and to calculate impact fees based on that analysis. This report documents the approach, data and methodology used in this study to calculate impact fees.

The impact fees calculated in this report are intended to satisfy all legal requirements governing such fees, including provisions of the U. S. Constitution, the California Constitution and the California Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Sections 66000- 66025).

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

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

In two cases dealing with exactions, the U. S. Supreme Court has held that when a government agency requires the dedication of land or an interest in land as a condition of development approval or imposes exactions as a condition of approval on a development project, the agency must demonstrate an "essential nexus" between such exactions and the interest being protected (See Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 1987) and make an “individualized determination” that the exaction imposed is "roughly proportional" to the burden created by development (See Dolan v. City of Tigard, 1994).

In April 2024, the U. S. Supreme Court ruled that Impact fees, even legislatively adopted impact fees, are subject to Nollan and Dolan.

Defining “Nexus.” The nexus required to justify exactions and impact fees can be thought of as having the three elements discussed below. We think proportionality is logically included as one element of that nexus, even though it was discussed separately in Dolan v. Tigard. The elements of the nexus discussed below mirror the three “reasonable relationship” findings required by the Mitigation Fee Act for establishment and imposition of impact fees.

1. Need or Impact. An agency imposing impact fees must demonstrate that a development project subject to those fees will create a need for the facilities to be funded by the impact fees. All new development in a community creates additional demands on

Page 308 of 517 ends

City of Brisbane Page 1-2
Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
some or all public facilities provided by local government. If the capacity of facilities is not increased to satisfy the additional demand, the quality or availability of public services for the entire community will deteriorate. Impact fees may be used to recover the cost of development-related facilities, but only to the extent that the need for facilities is related to the development project subject to the fees.

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

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

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

3. Proportionality. An agency imposing impact fees must demonstrate that the amount of those fees is proportional to the impact created by development projects subject to the fees. Proportionality in impact fees depends on properly identifying developmentrelated facility costs and calculating the fees in such a way that those costs are allocated in proportion to the facility needs created by different types and amounts of development. The section on impact fee methodology, below, describes methods used to allocate facility costs and calculate impact fees that meet the proportionality standard.

California Constitution. The California Constitution grants broad police power to local governments, including the authority to regulate land use and development. That police power is the source of authority for local governments in California to impose impact fees on development. Some impact fees have been challenged on grounds that they are special taxes imposed without voter approval in violation of Article XIIIA. Impact fees calculated in this report do not exceed the cost of providing facilities needed to serve new development and, thus, are not special taxes requiring voter approval pursuant to Article XIIIA.

Page 309 of 517 ends

City of Brisbane Page 1-3
Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
Articles XIIIC and XIIID, added to the California Constitution by Proposition 218 in 1996, require voter approval for some “property-related fees,” but exempt “the imposition of fees or charges, as a condition of property development.” Thus, impact fees are exempt from those requirements.

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Identify the purpose of the fee

2. Identify the use of the fee; and

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

4. Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the facility and the type of development on which the fee is imposed

Page 310 of 517 ends

City of Brisbane Page 1-4
Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
In addition, Section 66001 (b) requires that in any action imposing a fee as a condition of approval of a development project by a local agency, the local agency shall determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility or portion of the public facility attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed.

The requirements outlined above are discussed in more detail below.

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

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

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

However, a new provision in Section 66016.5(a)(6), which was added by AB 602 in 2021, requires that large jurisdictions adopt a capital improvement plan as part of an impact fee study. That requirement applies to impact fee nexus studies adopted after January 1, 2022. “Large jurisdiction” means a county of 250,000 or more or any city within that county. Section 66002 (a) states that the capital improvement plan shall indicate the approximate location, size, time of availability and estimates of cost for all facilities or improvements to be financed with the fees. That amendments contained in AB 602 appears to override the original language of Section 66001(a)(2), so that a capital improvement plan (CIP) is no longer optional. A CIP is now required for all new impact fee nexus studies adopted by large jurisdictions. The annual update requirement for the CIP appears to remain in effect.

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

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

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

Page 311 of 517 ends

City of Brisbane Page 1-5
Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026

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

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

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

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

Section 66001(g) also states that impact fees “may include the costs attributable to the increased demand for public facilities reasonably related to the development project in order to (1) refurbish existing facilities to maintain the existing level of service or (2) achieve an adopted level of service that is consistent with the general plan.” (Emphasis added.)
Impact Fees for Existing Facilities. Impact fees may be used to recover costs for existing facilities to the extent that those facilities are needed to serve additional development and have the capacity to do so. In other words, it must be possible to show that fees used to pay for existing facilities meet the need and benefit elements of the nexus. As a practical matter, such fees are difficult to implement unless the fees are needed to repay outstanding debt related to the facilities in question.

Recent Legislation
Several new laws enacted by the State of California since 2019 to facilitate development of affordable housing bear on the implementation of impact fees calculated in this study.

Below are brief overviews of some key bills passed since 2019.

SB 330 – The Housing Crisis Act of 2019. SB 330 (amended and clarified in 2021 by SB 8) contained a variety of amendments designed to promote affordable housing. Among them was a provision in Government Code Section 65589.5 that prohibits the imposition of new approval requirements on a housing development project once a preliminary application has been submitted. That provision applies to increases in impact fees except when the resolution or ordinance establishing the fee authorizes automatic, inflationary adjustments to the fee or exaction. These provisions will remain in effect until January 1, 2030.

AB 1483 – Housing Data: Collection and Reporting (2019). AB 1483 added Section 65490.1 to the Government Code, and requires that a city, county or special district must post on its website a current schedule of its fees and exactions, as well as associated nexus studies and annual reports. Updates must be posted within 30 days.

Page 312 of 517 ends

City of Brisbane Page 1-6
Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
SB 13 – Accessory Dwelling Units (2019). SB 13 amended Government Code Section 65852.2 to prohibit the imposition of impact fees on accessory dwelling units (ADUs) smaller than 750 square feet and to require that impact fees for ADUs of 750 square feet or more must be proportional to the square footage of the primary dwelling unit. The proportionality requirement means that impact fees for ADUs of 750 square feet or more must be calculated on a case-by-case basis during the approval process.

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

AB 602 – Amendments to the Planning and Land Use Law and the Mitigation Fee Act (2021). AB 602 adds Section 65940.1 to the Planning and Land Use Law requiring cities, counties and special districts that have internet websites to post schedules of fees, exactions and affordability requirements, annual fee reports, and an archive of nexus studies on that website, and to update that information within 30 days after any changes.

AB 602 also adds Section 66016.5 to the Mitigation Fee Act imposing several new requirements for impact fees that went into effect in 2022, including:
 A nexus study must identify the existing level of service for each facility, identify the proposed new level of service (if any), and explain why the new level of service is appropriate.
 If a nexus study supports an increase in an existing fee the local agency shall review the assumptions of the nexus study supporting the original fee and evaluate the amount of the fees collected under the original fee.  Large jurisdictions (counties over 250,000 and cities within those counties) must adopt a capital improvement plan as part of the nexus study.  All impact fee nexus studies shall be adopted at a public hearing with at least 30 days’ notice, and the local agency shall notify any member of the public that requests notice of intent to begin and impact fee nexus study of the date of the hearing.
 Nexus studies shall be updated at least every eight years, from the period beginning on January 1, 2022.
 A nexus study adopted after July 1, 2022, shall calculate a fee imposed on a housing development project proportionately to the square footage of proposed units in the development. A nexus study is not required to comply with this requirement if the local agency makes certain findings specified in the law. A local agency that imposes a fee proportionately to the square footage of units in the development shall be deemed to have used a valid method to establish a

Page 313 of 517 ends

City of Brisbane Page 1-7
Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the development.
 Authorizes any member of the public, including an applicant for a development project, to submit evidence that impact fees proposed by an agency fail to comply with the Mitigation Fee Act, and requires the legislative body of the agency to consider such evidence and adjust the proposed fee if deemed necessary.

AB 516 – Amendments to the Mitigation Fee Act (2023). AB 516, which took effect on January 1, 2024, amends Government Code Section 66006 to add certain requirements to the annual reports mandated by that section. Specifically, Section 66006 now requires that:
 Annual reports indicate whether construction on public improvements identified in previous annual reports began on the approximate date shown in the previous annual report; and,
 If a project failed to start construction on schedule, the annual report must explain the reason for the delay and provide a revised approximate date when construction will begin.

AB 516 also amends Section 66023 to provide that when a person requests an audit of a fee or charge levied by a local agency, that audit may address when revenue generated by that fee or charge is scheduled to be expended, and when the public improvement to be funded by that fee or charge is scheduled to be completed. Prior to this amendment, the only stated purpose of such an audit was to determine whether such a fee or charge exceeds the amount reasonably necessary to cover the cost of any product, public facility or service provided by the local agency.

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

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

Although it is not mandatory, this study adopts the nomenclature used in the Impact Fee Nexus Study Templates prepared by the Terner Center for Housing Innovation at UC Berkeley to describe impact fee calculation methods. Those templates were prepared for

Page 314 of 517 ends

City of Brisbane Page 1-8
Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
The California Department of Housing and Community Development pursuant to Section 50466.5 of the Health and Safety Code and are cited in AB 602.

Planned Facility Method. With this method, impact fees are calculated so that new development will pay for the planned expansion of facilities at the future standard attributable to new development. To calculate the cost per unit of demand, the cost of planned facilities is divided by the amount of demand that will be created by new development. The impact fees depend on the cost of planned future facilities and a plan for future development, so the fees should be recalculated if facility plans or development plans change.

Existing Inventory Method. With this method, impact fees are calculated so that new development will fund expansion of facilities at the same standard currently used to serve existing development. To calculate the cost per unit of demand, the value of existing facilities is divided by the amount of demand associated with existing development. This method allows impact fees to be calculated without a list of planned facilities, but such a list is required by AB 602 as part of a Capital Improvement Plan that must be adopted with any new impact fee nexus study. This approach can be used to calculate impact fees for many types of public facilities but is usually not appropriate for facilities such as transportation improvements or water, wastewater or drainage systems where improvement needs must be determined by engineering analysis.

System Plan Method. With this method, impact fees are calculated so that new development pays for its share of the cost of an integrated system of facilities serving both existing and new development. To calculate the cost per unit of demand, the value of existing facilities plus the cost of planned facilities is divided by the combined demand associated with both existing development and planned development. This approach is especially appropriate for impact fees for fire protection and EMS facilities because new facilities must be planned to integrate geographically with existing facilities.

Impact Fees for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
SB 477, enacted in 2024, relocated and consolidated California’s ADU laws into a new Government Code Chapter (Chapter 13, Division 1, Title 7). Recent amendments to ADU law provide that impact fees may not be imposed on ADUs smaller than 750 square feet and establish the following requirement for impact fees imposed on ADUs of 750 square feet or more:
“Any impact fees charged for an accessory dwelling unit of 750 square feet or more shall be charged proportionately in relation to the square footage of the primary dwelling unit.”
The proportionality requirement depends on the square footage of both the primary unit and the ADU, which necessitates that impact fees for ADUs be calculated on a case-by-case basis. Consequently, this report does not calculate a schedule of impact fees for ADUs. The formula for calculating proportional ADU impact fees is:

Page 315 of 517 ends

City of Brisbane Page 1-9
Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
Primary unit impact fee X (ADU square feet / Primary unit square feet) Facilities Addressed in this Study
Impact/in-lieu fees for the following types of facilities are addressed in this report:
 Park Land and Park Improvements
 Recreation Facilities
 Open Space and Trails
Each of those facilities is addressed in a separate chapter of this report, beginning with Chapter 3. Chapter 2 contains data on existing and future development used in the impact fee analysis.

Page 316 of 517 ends

City of Brisbane Page 2-1
Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
This chapter presents data on existing and future development that will be used to calculate impact fees in subsequent chapters of this report. The information in this chapter may be used to establish levels of service, analyze facility needs, and/or allocate the cost of capital facilities between existing and future development and among various types of new development.

Study Area
The study area for the City of Brisbane (City) in this study is the planning area defined in the City’s current General Plan which was adopted in 1994. That area encompasses both the existing City and the small Sphere of Influence consisting primarily of open space.

Time Frame
Planned future development in this study is forecasted to buildout of the remaining developable land in the City. The methods used to calculate impact fees in this study do not depend on the timing of future development.

Development Types
The development types for which impact fees are calculated in this report are discussed below. Impact fees calculated in this report are intended to be applied based on actual land uses rather than zoning or general plan land use designations. For mixed use development projects, impact fees should be applied to each type of development within the project, consistent with the number of units of development of each type within the project.

Residential Development. Traditionally, impact fees for residential development are based on the type of unit, e.g., single-family, multi-family or mobile home. However, Government Code Section 66016.5(a)(5)(A) which was added to the Mitigation Fee Act by AB 602 in 2021 contains the following requirement:
“A nexus study adopted after July 1, 2022, shall calculate a fee imposed on a housing development project proportionately to the square footage of proposed units of the development. A local agency that imposes a fee proportionately to the square footage of the proposed units of the development shall be deemed to have used a valid method to establish a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the development”
But that requirement is not absolute. Section 66016.5(a)(5)(B) provides that a nexus study is not required to comply with Section 66016.5(a)(5)(A) if the local agency makes a finding that includes all of the following:

1. An explanation as to why square footage is not the appropriate metric to calculate fees imposed on a housing development project.

Page 317 of 517 ends

City of Brisbane Page 2-2
Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026

2. An explanation that an alternative basis of calculating the fee bears a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden imposed by the development.

3. That other policies in the fee structure support smaller developments or otherwise ensure that smaller developments are not charged disproportionate fees
The proportionality requirement in Section 66016.5(a)(5)(A) is often interpreted to mean that impact fees must have a linear relationship to unit square footage. That means the fees must increase by the same amount for every added square foot of unit size. Such a fee structure results in impact fees that are necessarily five times as high for a 3,000 square-foot single-family unit as for a 600 square apartment. That type of fee structure is justified only if the actual impact of a 3,000 square-foot unit is five times greater than the impact of a 600 square-foot unit.

Otherwise, the impact fees could violate the “rough proportionality” requirement set forth in the U. S. Supreme Court in Dolan v. Tigard [512 U. S. 374 (1994)]. The recent U. S.

Supreme Court decision in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado [601 U. S. __ (2024)] made clear that Dolan applies to all impact fees, whether they are applied ad hoc or legislatively adopted.

This study uses several attributes of development, including added population and added employees to represent the impact of new development on City parks, recreation facilities, open space and trails. We use those attributes to represent the demand created by various types of development for the capital facilities addressed in this study.

What we see in analyzing patterns of service demand is that the relationship between unit size and service demand doesn’t necessarily conform to a linear model. While the potential for added population may be five times as great for the largest residential units compared with the smallest units, that increase is not linear. In the real world, population per unit does not increase in a tiny increment for each added square foot. It increases in a stairstep fashion, jumping from one person to two persons to three persons per unit and so on.

This study breaks down residential development into tiered square-feet-per-unit ranges and calculates an impact fee for each range or category. That approach allows impact fees to be graduated by unit size while avoiding the distortions that result from a rigid, fixed fee per square foot approach, and while respecting the need for rough proportionality between the fees and the impact of development as set forth in Dolan v. Tigard.

Based on the foregoing discussion, we propose that the City of Brisbane City Council adopt the following findings pursuant to Government Code Section 66016.5(a)(5)(B) to justify the use of tiered square footage ranges for residential development in this study rather than a fixed fee-per-square-foot approach:

Page 318 of 517 ends

City of Brisbane Page 2-3
Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026

4. A fixed fee-per-square-foot approach would not reflect the actual impact of different-sized residential units on the facilities addressed in this study and would not meet the rough proportionality standard set forth in Dolan v. Tigard.

5. The use of tiered square footage ranges rather than a fixed fee per square foot approach better reflects the relationship between the fees charged and the actual burden imposed by various types of development.

6. Calculating impact fees for tiered square footage ranges rather than a fixed fee per square foot still ensures that smaller developments are not charged disproportionate fees because that approach allows the impact fees to be tailored to the actual impacts created by smaller developments, while protecting larger units from excessive fees.

As discussed above, residential development categories are defined in this study by ranges of unit sizes rather than by unit types (e.g., single-family or multi-family) as is the case for the City’s existing impact fees. Unit-size ranges used to define residential development in this study are listed below.
 Residential <800 Square Feet per Unit
 Residential >800-1,200 Square Feet per Unit
 Residential <1,200-2,100 Square Feet per Unit
 Residential >2,100 Square Feet per Unit
Each of these unit-size ranges is typical of units with a certain number of bedrooms, ranging from studio and one-bedroom apartments up to single-family units with four or more bedrooms.

Non-Residential Development. Non-residential development types used in this study are:
 Commercial
 Hotel/Motel
 Office
 Life Science/R&D
 Industrial
 Warehouse
The impact fees calculated in this report are intended to be applied to development projects, or portions of projects, based on the actual type of development being constructed. Except for the Hotel/Motel category, which is measured in terms of guest rooms, the non-residential development types listed above are measured in terms of gross leasable floor area in thousands of square feet (KSF).

Public Facilities, Public Schools and Parks. In addition to the development types listed above, the development tables presented later in this chapter include public (government) facilities, not including public schools or parks. Public schools are not included on the assumption that public school students are already accounted for as

Page 319 of 517 ends

City of Brisbane Page 2-4
Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
residents of the City. Parks are not included because parks themselves do not create a need for parks, recreation facilities, open space or trails.

The City does not impose impact fees on public facilities, either because of legal constraints or because it would be imposing the fees on itself, which serves no purpose.

However, like other employees in the City, employees associated with public facilities uses may create a demand for parks, recreation facilities, open space and trails.

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 non-residential development projects that are not compatible with any of the established fee categories. In such cases, it is possible for City staff to calculate a projectspecific impact fee at the time a project is approved.

To calculate customized impact fee for parks recreation facilities and trails, it would be necessary to estimate the number of additional employees associated with the project.

Then, that number would be multiplied by the appropriate normalized service population weight from Table 2.2, later in this chapter and then by the cost per capita for the relevant facility type.

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.

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 service population, the demand factor for a specific category of residential development would be the service population per unit for that category.

The demand variable used in this study is discussed below. Specific demand factors can be found in Table 2.3.

Service Population. Service population is used in this study as the demand variable for parks, recreation facilities and trails. Service population is intended to approximate the number of people using those facilities 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 present in the City for work, shopping, recreation, or any number of other reasons.

Page 320 of 517 ends

City of Brisbane Page 2-5
Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
Service population includes both resident population and employees of businesses in the City. Residents and employees are weighted differently in the service population. Each added resident is given a weight of 1.0, while the weight of an added employee varies for different types of businesses. Employee weights are all less than 1.0, as shown in Table

2.2, below.

Population per Unit. Table 2.1 shows the estimated average population per unit for each residential unit-size category. The unit-size categories shown in Table 2.1 are based on the number of bedrooms per unit as shown in American Community Survey (ACS) Table B25041, which also shows the number of units in each category. Average population per unit is assumed to increase with unit size. The estimated population per unit factors are adjusted using the overall average population per unit and total population as controls.

The results are cross-checked against ACS Table B25001 which shows the mix of household sizes in the City.

Service Population Weighting. In this study, residents are assigned a base weight that reflects the average number of hours per week that residents spend in the City. The base weight is established by an analysis of Census Bureau data on how many residents are employed, how many 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 outcommuters spend an average of 112.5 (168 - 47.5 - 8 = 112.5) hours per week in the City.

Table 2.1. Population per Unit by Unit Size
Unit Size No. of No. of % of Pop at 2.25 Est Pop Adjusted in Sq Ft 1
Bedrms Units 2Units per Unit 3
per Unit 4Pop 5
<800 0 or 1 557 26.3% 1,253 1.00 557
800-1,200 2 646 30.5% 1,454 1.95 1,260
>1,200-2,100 3 634 30.0% 1,427 2.95 1,870
>2,100 4+ 279 13.2% 628 3.95 1,102
Total/Average 2,116 100.0% 4,761 2.26 4,789
1 Estimated square-feet-per-unit ranges based on number of bedrooms 2 Distribution of units by number of bedrooms from American Community Survey (ACS) Table B25041, 2022 1-Year estimates
3 Population for all units in each square-footage range if all units were occupied by the overall average of 2.25 persons per unit
4 Estimated population per unit by NBS
5 Adjusted population = number of units X estimated population per unit

Page 321 of 517 ends

City of Brisbane Page 2-6
Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
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 nonresidential 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.

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 residential population equals 1.0 and the 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.

Demand Factors
Table 2.3 shows the service-population-per-unit factors used in this study for each type of development.

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 322 of 517 ends

City of Brisbane Page 2-7
Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
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
Type Units 1
Unit 2per Unit 3per Unit 4
Residential <800 Sq. Ft. Unit DU 1.00 1.00
Residential 800-1,200 Sq. Ft. Unit DU 1.95 1.95
Residential 1,200-2,100 Sq. Ft. Unit DU 2.95 2.95
Residential >2,100 Sq. Ft. Unit DU 3.95 3.95
Commercial KSF 1.72 1.02
Hotel/Motel Room 1.00 0.59
Office KSF 3.23 1.03
Life Science/R&D KSF 2.86 0.91
Industrial KSF 2.00 0.64
Warehouse KSF 1.00 0.32
Public Facilities KSF 3.00 0.95
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 Dept. 4 Service population per unit based on population per unit and employees per unit X the normalized service population weights from Table 2.2

Page 323 of 517 ends

City of Brisbane Page 2-8
Parks and Recreation 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
Types Units 1Units 2Pop 2Empl 3Svc Pop 4
All Residential DU 2,076 4,645 4,645
Commercial KSF 125.1 216 128
Hotel/Motel Room 387 387 230
Office KSF 695.4 2,243 713
Life Science/R&D KSF 561.0 1,603 510
Industrial KSF 756.6 1,513 481
Warehouse KSF 4,356.4 4,356 1,385
Public Facilities KSF 85.3 256 81
Total 4,645 10,574 8,174
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 Finance Dept.; existing non-residential units provided by the City of 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

Page 324 of 517 ends

City of Brisbane Page 2-9
Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
Table 2.6 shows projected total development in Brisbane at buildout.

Table 2.5: Forecasted Future Development to Buildout
Development Dev Added Added Added Added
Types Units 1Units 2Pop 3Empl 4Svc Pop 5
All Residential DU 3,003 6,607 6,607
Commercial KSF 140.0 241 143
Hotel/Motel Room 1,408.0 1,408 836
Office KSF 2,770.6 8,937 2,842
Life Science/R&D KSF 5,366.5 15,333 4,876
Industrial KSF (69.4) (139) (44)
Warehouse KSF 1,156.0 1,156 368
Public Facilities KSF 121.2 364 116
Total 6,607 27,300 15,743
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 average 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
Table 2.6: Buildout Development
Development Dev Buildout Buildout Buildout Buildout
Types Units 1Units 2Pop 2Empl 2Svc Pop 2
All Residential DU 5,079 11,252 11,252
Commercial KSF 265.1 457 271
Hotel/Motel Room 1,795.0 1,795 1,066
Office KSF 3,466.0 11,181 3,556
Life Science/R&D KSF 5,927.5 16,936 5,386
Industrial KSF 687.2 1,374 437
Warehouse KSF 5,512.4 5,512 1,753
Public Facilities KSF 206.5 620 197
Total 11,252 37,875 23,918
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 325 of 517 ends

City of Brisbane Page 2-10
Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
Growth Potential
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.

Page 326 of 517 ends

City of Brisbane Page 3-1
Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
This chapter calculates impact fees for both park land acquisition and park improvements.

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

Code Section 66477) which is part of the Subdivision Map Act. Based on direction from City staff, this report assumes that the park land impact fees calculated in this chapter will be applied to residential subdivisions that do not dedicate park land, rather than in-lieu fees calculated pursuant to Chapter 16.24. City staff has proposed an amendment to Chapter 16.24 to reflect this revised approach.

This chapter calculates separate impact fees for park land and park improvements. Impact fees for park land and park improvements, as well as for other facilities addressed in this report are governed by the Mitigation Fee Act.

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

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

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.

Demand Variable
A “demand variable” is a quantifiable attribute of development that is used in impact fee calculation formulas to represent the impact of development. The demand variable used to calculate park impact fees in this chapter is service population. See chapter 2 for a detailed discussion of service population.

Existing Level of Service
In 2021, AB 602 added Section 66016.5 to the Mitigation Fee Act. That section requires, after January 1, 2022, that the level of service used in an impact fee study must be compared with the existing level of service. The impact fees calculated in this chapter are based on the existing level of service as shown in Table 3.2 on the next page. Those impact

Page 327 of 517 ends

City of Brisbane Page 3-2
Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
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.

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

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

Table 3.1: Existing Parks
Park City-Owned Improved
Name Location Park Acres 1Park Acres
Community Center Park 250 Visitacion Avenue 0.12 0.12
Community Park 5 Old County Road 2.82 2.82
Brisbane Dog Park 50 Park Place 0.54 0.54
Firth Park and Canyon 201 Glen Park Way 0.27 0.27
Fisherman's Park @ Brisbane Lagoon 0.25 0.25
Mission Blue Complex 475 Mission Blue Drive 4.95 3.85
Quarry Road Park 399 San Francisco Ave 0.20 0.20
Tot Lot Playground/Park 4 Solano Street 0.25 0.25
Marina Park Sierra Point Parkway 3.00 3.00
Skatepark Old County Rd & Park Ln 0.12 0.12
Basketball Courts (2) Old County Rd & Park Ln 0.16 0.16 Tennis Courts (2) 1 Solano St School Land 0.34
Total 12.67 11.91
Source: City of Brisbane Parks and Recreation Department; acreage shown for the Mission Blue Complex excludes the site of the Mission Blue Center 1 "School land" means that a facility was constructed by the City on land owned by a school district
Table 3.2: Existing Level of Service - Parks
Total Improved
Park Acres 1
Existing Service
Population 2
Existing Acres
per Capita 3
Existing Acres
per 1,000 4

11.91 8,174 0.00146 1.46
1 See Table 3.1
2 See Table 2.4
3 Existing acres per capita of service population = existing improved park acres /existing service population
4 Existing acres per 1,000 service population = existing acres per capita X 1,000

Page 328 of 517 ends

City of Brisbane Page 3-3
Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
Cost Per Capita
Table 3.3 calculates the cost per capita of service population for park land acquisition and park improvements based on the existing acres per capita from Table 3.2 and the estimated cost per acre for park land and park improvements.

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

Impact Fees per Unit
Park Land Acquisition. Table 3.4 on the next page shows the calculation of park land impact fees per unit of development, by development type. Those fees are calculated using per-capita costs for park land acquisition from Table 3.3 and service population per unit from Table 2.3 in Chapter 2.

Table 3.3: Cost per Capita - Park Land and Park Improvements Fee Type
Acres per
Capita 1
Cost per
Acre2
Cost per
Capita3
Park Land Acquisition 0.00146 3,500,000$ 5,110.00$
Park Improvements 0.00146 575,000$ 839.50$
1 See Table 3.2
2 Park land acquisition cost per acre based on recent land purchase by the City; park improvement cost per acre estimated by the City 3 Cost per capita = acres per capita X cost per acre
Table 3.4: Impact Fees per Unit - Park Land Acquisition Development
Type Units 1
Cost per
Capita 2
Service Pop
per Unit 3
Impact Fee
per Unit 4
Residential <800 Sq. Ft. Unit DU $5,110.00 1.000 5,110.00$ Residential 800-1,200 Sq. Ft. Unit DU $5,110.00 1.950 9,964.50$ Residential 1,200-2,100 Sq. Ft. Unit DU $5,110.00 2.950 15,074.50$ Residential >2,100 Sq. Ft. Unit DU $5,110.00 3.950 20,184.50$ Commercial KSF $5,110.00 1.020 5,212.20$
Hotel/Motel Room $5,110.00 0.590 3,014.90$
Office KSF $5,110.00 1.030 5,263.30$
Life Science/R&D KSF $5,110.00 0.910 4,650.10$
Industrial KSF $5,110.00 0.640 3,270.40$
Warehouse KSF $5,110.00 0.320 1,635.20$
1 Units of development: DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 square gross square feet of building area; Room = guest room or suite
2 See Table 3.3
3 See Table 2.3
4 Impact fee per unit = cost per capita X service population per unit

Page 329 of 517 ends

City of Brisbane Page 3-4
Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
Park Improvements. Table 3.5 shows the calculation of park improvement impact fees per unit of development, by development type. Those fees are calculated using per-capita costs for park improvements from Table 3.3 and service population per unit from Table

2.3 in Chapter 2.

Projected Revenue
Potential revenue from park land impact fees is projected in Table 3.6. Because we are unable to forecast the number of new units that will be constructed in each residential unit size category, potential revenue is projected in Table 3.6 on the basis of added service population and the cost per capita of service population. Note that the negative revenue number for industrial development in Table 3.6 reflects credits that would be applied to impact fees for new development that replaces existing industrial development.

Table 3.5: Impact Fees per Unit - Park Improvements
Development
Type Units 1
Cost per
Capita 2
Service Pop
per Unit 3
Impact Fee
per Unit 4
Residential <800 Sq. Ft. Unit DU $839.50 1.000 839.50$
Residential 800-1,200 Sq. Ft. Unit DU $839.50 1.950 1,637.03$ Residential 1,200-2,100 Sq. Ft. Unit DU $839.50 2.950 2,476.53$ Residential >2,100 Sq. Ft. Unit DU $839.50 3.950 3,316.03$ Commercial KSF $839.50 1.020 856.29$
Hotel/Motel Room $839.50 0.590 495.31$
Office KSF $839.50 1.030 864.69$
Life Science/R&D KSF $839.50 0.910 763.95$
Industrial KSF $839.50 0.640 537.28$
Warehouse KSF $839.50 0.320 268.64$
1 Units of development: DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 square gross square feet of building area; Room = guest room or suite
2 See Table 3.3
3 See Table 2.3
4 Impact fee per unit = cost per capita X service population per unit

Page 330 of 517 ends

City of Brisbane Page 3-5
Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
Potential revenue from park improvement impact fees is projected in Table 3.7. Because we are unable to forecast the number of new units that will be constructed in each residential unit size category, potential revenue is projected in Table 3.7 on the basis of added service population and the cost per capita of service population. Note that the negative revenue number for industrial development in Table 3.7 reflects credits that would be applied to impact fees for new development that replaces existing industrial development.

Planned Improvements
Details regarding planned expenditure of park land and park improvement impact fees can be found in the City’s Impact Fee Capital Improvement Plan.

Table 3.6: Projected Revenue - Park Land Impact Fees
Development Added Cost per Projected
Type Service Pop 1Capita 2Revenue 3
All Residential 6,607 $5,110.00 33,761,770$
Commercial 143 $5,110.00 730,730$
Hotel/Motel 836 $5,110.00 4,269,916 $
Office 2,842 $5,110.00 14,520,576$
Life Science/R&D 4,876 $5,110.00 24,916,360$
Industrial (44) $5,110.00 (224,840)$
Warehouse 368 $5,110.00 1,880,480$
Total 15,627 79,854,992$
1 See Table 2.5
2 See Table 3.3
3 Projected revenue = added service population X cost per capita Table 3.7: Projected Revenue - Park Improvement Impact Fees Development Added Cost per Projected
Type Service Pop 1Capita 2Revenue 3
All Residential 6,607 $839.50 5,546,577$
Commercial 143 $839.50 120,049$
Hotel/Motel 836 $839.50 701,486$
Office 2,842 $839.50 2,385,523$
Life Science/R&D 4,876 $839.50 4,093,402$
Industrial (44) $839.50 (36,938)$
Warehouse 368 $839.50 308,936$
Total 15,627 13,119,034$
1 See Table 2.5
2 See Table 3.3
3 Projected revenue = added service population X cost per capita

Page 331 of 517 ends

City of Brisbane Page 3-6
Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
Updating the Fees
The impact fees calculated in this chapter are based the current estimated cost of park land and improvements. We recommend that the fees be reviewed annually and adjusted as needed using local cost data or an index such as the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index (CCI). See the Implementation Chapter for more on indexing of fees.

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

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

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

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

Use of the Fee. Impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to provide additional parks described in the City’s Capital Improvement Plan to mitigate the impacts of new development in the City. As provided by the Mitigation Fee Act, revenue from impact fees may also be used for temporary loans from one impact fee fund or account to another.

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

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

Page 332 of 517 ends

City of Brisbane Page 3-7
Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
Reasonable Relationship between the Amount of the Fee and the Facility Cost Attributable to the Development Project. The amount of the park impact fees charged to a development project will depend on the increase in service population associated with that project. The fees per unit of development calculated in this chapter for each type of development are based on the estimated average service population per unit for that type of development in Brisbane. Thus, the fee charged to a development project reflects the impact of that project on the need for parks in the City.

Page 333 of 517 ends

City of Brisbane Page 4-1
Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
This chapter calculates impact fees for recreation facilities needed to maintain the existing level of service in Brisbane as the City grows.

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

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 recreation facilities in this chapter is service population. See chapter 2 for a detailed discussion of service population.

Existing Level of Service
In 2021, AB 602 added Section 66016.5 to the Mitigation Fee Act. That section requires that, after January 1, 2022, the level of service used in an impact fee study must be compared with the existing level of service. The impact fees calculated in this chapter are based on the existing level of service as shown in Table 4.2 below. Those 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.

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

Page 334 of 517 ends

City of Brisbane Page 4-2
Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
Existing Level of Service - Cost Per Capita
Table 4.2 calculates the existing level of service in terms of a cost per capita of service population for the City’s existing recreation facilities.

In the next section, the per-capita costs from Table 4.2 are used to calculate impact fees per unit of development.

Impact Fees per Unit
Table 4.3 shows the calculation of recreation facilities impact fees per unit of development, by development type. Those fees are calculated using per-capita costs from Table 4.2 and service population per unit from Table 2.3 in Chapter 2.

Table 4.1: Existing Recreation Facilities
Park Site Land Building Facility Impact Fee
Name Location Acres 1Value 2Sq Feet 3Repl Cost 4Cost Basis 5 Brisbane Community Pool 2 Solano St 0.62 2,169,421$ 3,066 2,085,698$ 4,255,119$ Childcare Modular 500 San Bruno Av School Land 0$ 1,920 400,000$ 400,000$ Community Center/Library 250 Visitacion Av 0.11 385,675$ 5,449 2,077,660$ 2,463,335$ Mission Blue Center 475 Mission Blue Dr 0.65 2,275,000$ 7,200 1,981,290$ 4,256,290$ Silverspot Cooperative 4 Solano St 0.06 216,942$ 2,700 498,582$ 715,524$ Total 1.44 5,047,039$ 17,269 7,043,230$ 12,090,269$
1 Site acres provided by the City of Brisbane Parks and Recreation Department; "In Park" means the facility is located in a park on acreage already covered by the park land impact fees; "School Land" means the facility was constructed by the City on land owned by a school district
2 Site value = site acres X park land acquisition cost per acre from Table 3.3 in Chapter 3 3 Building square feet from the City's insured property schedule or the Parks and Recreation Department 4 Facility replacement cost includes both the fixed asset value and furniture, fixtures and equipment from the City's insured property schedule, where applicable
5 Impact fee cost basis is the sum of the land value and the facility replacement cost Table 4.2: Existing Level of Service - Recreation Facilities Impact Fee Cost
Basis 1
Existing Service
Population 2
Cost per
Capita 3
$12,090,269 8,174 $1,479.17
1 See Table 4.1
2 See Table 2.4
3 Cost per capita = impact fee cost basis / existing service population

Page 335 of 517 ends

City of Brisbane Page 4-3
Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
Projected Revenue
Table 4.4. projects potential revenue from the recreation facilities impact fees based on the cost per capita of service population and service population per unit.

Planned Improvements
Details regarding planned expenditure of the recreation facilities impact fees can be found in the City’s Impact Fee Capital Improvement Plan.

Table 4.3: Impact Fees per Unit - Recreation Facilities Development
Type Units 1
Cost per
Capita 2
Service Pop
per Unit 3
Impact Fee
per Unit 4
Residential <800 Sq. Ft. Unit DU $1,479.17 1.000 1,479.17$ Residential 800-1,200 Sq. Ft. Unit DU $1,479.17 1.950 2,884.38$ Residential 1,200-2,100 Sq. Ft. Unit DU $1,479.17 2.950 4,363.55$ Residential >2,100 Sq. Ft. Unit DU $1,479.17 3.950 5,842.72$ Commercial KSF $1,479.17 1.020 1,508.75$
Hotel/Motel Room $1,479.17 0.590 872.71$
Office KSF $1,479.17 1.030 1,523.55$
Life Science/R&D KSF $1,479.17 0.910 1,346.04$
Industrial KSF $1,479.17 0.640 946.67$
Warehouse KSF $1,479.17 0.320 473.33$
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 See Table 2.3
4 Impact fee per unit = cost per capita X service population per unit Table 4.4: Projected Revenue - Recreation Facilities Impact Fees Development Added Cost per Projected
Type Service Pop 1Capita 2Revenue 3
All Residential 6,607 $1,479.17 9,772,876 $
Commercial 143 $1,479.17 211,521$
Hotel/Motel 836 $1,479.17 1,235,994$
Office 2,842 $1,479.17 4,203,209$
Life Science/R&D 4,876 $1,479.17 7,212,433$
Industrial (44) $1,479.17 (65,083)$
Warehouse 368 $1,479.17 544,335$
Total 15,627 23,115,285$
1 See Table 2.5
2 See Table 4.3
3 Projected revenue = added service population X cost per capita

Page 336 of 517 ends

City of Brisbane Page 4-4
Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
Updating the Fees
The impact fees calculated in this chapter are based the current estimated cost of recreation facilities. We recommend that the fees be reviewed annually and adjusted as needed using local cost data or an index such as the Engineering News Record Building Cost Index (BCI). See the Implementation Chapter for more on indexing of fees.

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

Purpose of the Fee: The purpose of the impact fees calculated in this chapter is to mitigate the impact of new development on the need for recreation facilities in Brisbane.

Use of the Fee. Impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to provide additional recreation facilities described in the City’s Capital Improvement Plan to mitigate the impacts of new development in the City. As provided by the Mitigation Fee Act, revenue from impact fees may also be used for temporary loans from one impact fee fund or account to another.

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

Reasonable Relationship between the Need for the Facilities and the Type of Development on Which the Fee Is Imposed. New development will increase the need for recreation facilities to maintain the existing level of service, as described earlier in this chapter. Without additional recreation facilities, the increase in service population

Page 337 of 517 ends

City of Brisbane Page 4-5
Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
associated with new development in the City would result in a reduction in the level of service provided to the entire City.

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

Page 338 of 517 ends

City of Brisbane Page 5-1
Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
This chapter calculates impact fees for open space land acquisition and trail improvements needed to maintain the existing level of service in Brisbane as the City grows.

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

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 recreation facilities in this chapter is service population. See chapter 2 for a detailed discussion of service population.

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

Page 339 of 517 ends

City of Brisbane Page 5-2
Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
Existing Level of Service - Cost Per Capita
Table 5.2 calculates the existing level of service in terms of a cost per capita of service population for the City’s existing open space land and improved trails.

In the next section, the per-capita costs from Table 5.2 are used to calculate impact fees per unit of development.

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

Those fees are calculated using per-capita costs from Table 5.2 and service population per unit from Table 2.3 in Chapter 2.

Table 5.1: Existing Open Space and Trails
Park Open Space Open Space Trail Trail Trail Square Trail Name Acres 1
Land Value 2Length (LF) 3 Width (Ft) 4Feet 5Impr Cost 6 Costaños Canyon 1.01 80,800$ 416 10.0 4,160 83,200$
Crocker Trail 5.45 436,364$ 11,880 12.0 142,560 2,851,200$ Firth Canyon 1.68 134,400$ 0$
Quarry Road Trail 1.19 95,200$ 2,640 10.0 26,400 528,000$ Total 9.33 $ 746,764 $3,462,400
1 Open space acres provided by the City of Brisbane Parks and Recreation Department 2 Open space land based on $80,000 per acre
3 Trail length in linear feet
4 Trail width in feet
5 Trail improvements in square feet provided by the Brisbane Parks and Recreation Department 6 Trail improvement cost = square feet of trail improvements X $20.00 per square foot Table 5.2: Existing Level of Service - Open Space and Trails Cost
Component
Impact Fee Cost
Basis 1
Existing Service
Population 2
Cost per
Capita 3
Open Space Land 746,764$ 8,174 91.36$
Trail Improvements 3,462,400$ 8,174 423.60$
1 See Table 5.1; impact fee cost basis = existing land value for open space land and trail improvement cost for trails
2 See Table 2.4
3 Cost per capita = impact fee cost basis / existing service population

Page 340 of 517 ends

City of Brisbane Page 5-3
Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
Impact Fees per Unit – Trail Improvements. Table 5.4 shows the calculation of trail improvement impact fees per unit of development, by development type. Those fees are calculated using per-capita costs from Table 5.2 and service population per unit from Table 2.3.

Table 5.3: Impact Fees per Unit - Open Space Land Acquisition Development
Type Units 1
Cost per
Capita 2
Service Pop
per Unit 3
Impact Fee
per Unit 4
Residential <800 Sq. Ft. Unit DU $91.36 1.000 91.36$
Residential 800-1,200 Sq. Ft. Unit DU $91.36 1.950 178.15$ Residential 1,200-2,100 Sq. Ft. Unit DU $91.36 2.950 269.51$ Residential >2,100 Sq. Ft. Unit DU $91.36 3.950 360.87 $ Commercial KSF $91.36 1.020 93.19$
Hotel/Motel Room $91.36 0.590 53.90$
Office KSF $91.36 1.030 94.10$
Life Science/R&D KSF $91.36 0.910 83.14$
Industrial KSF $91.36 0.640 58.47$
Warehouse KSF $91.36 0.320 29.24$
1 Units of development: DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 square gross square feet of building area; Room = guest room or suite
2 See Table 5.2
3 See Table 2.3
4 Impact fee per unit = cost per capita X service population per unit Table 5.4: Impact Fees per Unit - Trail Improvements
Development
Type Units 1
Cost per
Capita 2
Service Pop
per Unit 3
Impact Fee
per Unit 4
Residential <800 Sq. Ft. Unit DU $423.60 1.000 423.60$
Residential 800-1,200 Sq. Ft. Unit DU $423.60 1.950 826.02$ Residential 1,200-2,100 Sq. Ft. Unit DU $423.60 2.950 1,249.62$ Residential >2,100 Sq. Ft. Unit DU $423.60 3.950 1,673.22$ Commercial KSF $423.60 1.020 432.07$
Hotel/Motel Room $423.60 0.590 249.92$
Office KSF $423.60 1.030 436.31$
Life Science/R&D KSF $423.60 0.910 385.48$
Industrial KSF $423.60 0.640 271.10$
Warehouse KSF $423.60 0.320 135.55$
1 Units of development: DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 square gross square feet of building area; Room = guest room or suite
2 See Table 5.2
3 See Table 2.3
4 Impact fee per unit = cost per capita X service population per unit

Page 341 of 517 ends

City of Brisbane Page 5-4
Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
Projected Revenue
Projected Revenue – Open Space Land Acquisition Impact Fees. Table 5.5. projects potential revenue from the open space land acquisition impact fees based on the cost per capita of service population and service population per unit.

Projected Revenue – Trail Improvement Impact Fees. Table 5.6. projects potential revenue from the open space land acquisition impact fees based on the cost per capita of service population and service population per unit.

Planned Improvements
Details regarding planned expenditure of the open space and trails impact fees can be found in the City’s Impact Fee Capital Improvement Plan.

Table 5.5: Projected Revenue - Open Space Land Impact Fees Development Added Cost per Projected
Type Service Pop 1Capita 2Revenue 3
All Residential 6,607 $91.36 603,616$
Commercial 143 $91.36 13,064$
Hotel/Motel 836 $91.36 76,340$
Office 2,842 $91.36 259,609$
Life Science/R&D 4,876 $91.36 445,471$
Industrial 0 $91.36 0$
Warehouse 368 $91.36 33,620$
Total 15,671 1,431,721$
1 See Table 2.5
2 See Table 5.2
3 Projected revenue = added service population X cost per capita Table 5.6: Projected Revenue - Trail Improvement Impact Fees Development Added Cost per Projected
Type Service Pop 1Capita 2Revenue 3
All Residential 6,607 $423.60 2,798,725$
Commercial 143 $423.60 60,575$
Hotel/Motel 836 $423.60 353,960$
Office 2,842 $423.60 1,203,702$
Life Science/R&D 4,876 $423.60 2,065,474$
Industrial (44) $423.60 (18,638)$
Warehouse 368 $423.60 155,885$
Total 15,627 6,619,682$
1 See Table 2.5
2 See Table 5.2
3 Projected revenue = added service population X cost per capita

Page 342 of 517 ends

City of Brisbane Page 5-5
Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
Updating the Fees
The impact fees calculated in this chapter are based on the current estimated value of the City’s existing open space parcels and the current estimated replacement cost for trail improvements. We recommend that the fees be reviewed annually and adjusted as needed using local cost data or an index such as the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index (CCI). See the Implementation Chapter for more on indexing of fees.

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:

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

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

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

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

Reasonable Relationship between the Need for the Facilities and the Type of Development on Which the Fee Is Imposed. New development will increase the need for

Page 343 of 517 ends

City of Brisbane Page 5-6
Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
open space and trails to maintain the existing level of service, as described earlier in this chapter. Without additional open space and trails, the increase in service population associated with new development in the City would result in a reduction in the level of service provided to the entire City.

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

Page 344 of 517 ends

City of Brisbane Page 6-1
Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
This chapter of the report summarizes requirements for adoption and administration of impact fees, calculated in this study. It was not prepared by an attorney and is not intended as legal advice.

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

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

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

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

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

Notices and Statute of Limitations. Section 66006 (f) provides that a local agency, at the time it imposes a fee for public improvements on a specific development project, "... shall identify the public improvement that the fee will be used to finance." The required notification could refer to the capital improvement plan that must now be adopted with each new impact fee nexus study.

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

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

Page 345 of 517 ends

City of Brisbane Page 6-2
Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
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 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 lumpsum 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 nonresidential 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.

Page 346 of 517 ends

City of Brisbane Page 6-3
Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
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.

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. As provided in the Mitigation Fee Act (Gov’t Code Section 66000), any contribution by a developer toward the cost of public facilities pursuant to a development agreement is exemptfrom the requirements of the Act
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;

Page 347 of 517 ends

City of Brisbane Page 6-4
Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026

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 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

Page 348 of 517 ends

City of Brisbane Page 6-5
Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
must, within 180 days of that determination, identify an approximate date by which construction of the public improvement will be commenced (Section 66001 (e)). If the agency fails to comply with that requirement, it must refund impact fee revenue in the account according to procedures specified in Section 66001 (d).

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

Page 349 of 517 ends

City of Brisbane Page 6-6
Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
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
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.

Page 350 of 517 ends

City of Brisbane Page 6-7
Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
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 351 of 517 ends

Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
Revised Final Report
August 5, 2026

Page 352 of 517 ends

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ S-1 Organization of the Report...............................................................................................S-1 Development Data ...........................................................................................................S-1 Impact Fee Analysis........................................................................................................... S1 Impact Fee Summary........................................................................................................S-3 Findings ............................................................................................................................S-4 Chapter 1. Introduction ......................................................................................................1-1 Purpose.............................................................................................................................1-1 Legal Framework for Impact Fees....................................................................................1-1 Recent Legislation ............................................................................................................1-5 Impact Fee Calculation Methodology ..............................................................................1-7 Impact Fees for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) ...........................................................1-8 Facilities Addressed in this Study .....................................................................................1-8 Chapter 2. Development Data.............................................................................................2-1 Study Area ........................................................................................................................2-1 Time Frame.......................................................................................................................2-1 Development Types..........................................................................................................2-1 Demand Variables............................................................................................................2-4 Demand Factors ...............................................................................................................2-8 Existing and Future Development....................................................................................2-8 Chapter 3. Library ...............................................................................................................3-1 Methodology ....................................................................................................................3-1 Service Area......................................................................................................................3-1

Page 353 of 517 ends

Demand Variable..............................................................................................................3-1 Level-of-Service Standard ................................................................................................3-1 Existing Library Facility .....................................................................................................3-2 Impact Fees per Unit........................................................................................................3-3 Projected Revenue ...........................................................................................................3-3 Planned Improvements....................................................................................................3-4 Updating the Fees ............................................................................................................3-4 Nexus Summary................................................................................................................3-4 Chapter 4. General Government Facilities...........................................................................4-1 Methodology ....................................................................................................................4-1 Service Area......................................................................................................................4-1 Demand Variable..............................................................................................................4-1 Level-of-Service Standard ................................................................................................4-1 Existing General Government Facilities ...........................................................................4-2 Impact Fees per Unit........................................................................................................4-3 Projected Revenue ...........................................................................................................4-3 Planned Improvements....................................................................................................4-4 Updating the Fees ............................................................................................................4-4 Nexus Summary................................................................................................................4-4 Chapter 5. Police Department Facilities...............................................................................5-1 Methodology ....................................................................................................................5-1 Service Area......................................................................................................................5-1 Demand Variable..............................................................................................................5-1 Level-of-Service Standard ................................................................................................5-1 Existing Police Department Facilities...............................................................................5-2

Page 354 of 517 ends

Impact Fees per Unit........................................................................................................5-3 Projected Revenue ...........................................................................................................5-4 Updating the Fees ............................................................................................................5-4 Planned Improvements....................................................................................................5-4 Nexus Summary................................................................................................................5-4 Chapter 6. Fire Department Facilities..................................................................................6-1 Methodology ....................................................................................................................6-1 Service Area......................................................................................................................6-1 Demand Variable..............................................................................................................6-1 Level-of-Service Standard ................................................................................................6-1 Planned Fire Department Facilities..................................................................................6-2 Impact Fees per Unit........................................................................................................6-3 Projected Revenue ...........................................................................................................6-4 Updating the Fees ............................................................................................................6-4 Planned Improvements....................................................................................................6-5 Nexus Summary................................................................................................................6-5 Chapter 7. Implementation.................................................................................................7-1 Adoption...........................................................................................................................7-1 Administration..................................................................................................................7-1 Requirements Imposed by AB 602...................................................................................7-5 Training and Public Information.......................................................................................7-6

Page 355 of 517 ends

City of Brisbane Page S-1
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
Executive Summary
The City of Brisbane retained NBS Government Finance Group to prepare this study to analyze the impacts of new development on several types of City capital facilities and to calculate impact fees based on that analysis. The methods used in this study satisfy all legal requirements of the U. S. Constitution, the California Constitution and the California Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Sections 66000 et seq.).

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

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

Chapters 3 through 6 analyze the impacts of development on specific types of facilities and calculate impact fees for those facilities. The facilities addressed in this report are listed by chapter below:

Chapter 3. Library
Chapter 4. General Government Facilities
Chapter 5. Police Department Facilities and Vehicles
Chapter 6. Fire Department Facilities, Apparatus and Vehicles Chapter 7 contains recommendations for adopting and implementing impact fees.

Development Data
Chapter 2 of this report presents estimates of existing development in Brisbane and a forecast of future development through buildout. Chapter 2 also establishes values for factors such as population per unit, service population per unit, and police and fire calls per unit that are used in the impact fee calculations.

It is important to note that because of some provisions of AB 602 that were incorporated into the Mitigation Fee Act, effective in 2022, impact fee categories for residential development in this study are defined in terms of unit-size categories, broken down by square footage ranges.

Prior to the adoption of AB 602 it was common practice to base residential impact fees on unit type categories (e.g., single-family or multi-family units).

Impact Fee Analysis
The impact fee analysis for each type of facility addressed in this report is presented in a separate chapter. In each case, the relationship, or nexus, between development and the need for a particular type of facility is defined in a way that allows the impact of additional development on facility needs to be quantified.

Page 356 of 517 ends

City of Brisbane Page S-2
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
The impact fees are based on capital costs for facilities and other capital assets needed to mitigate the impacts of additional development. Impact fees may not be used for maintenance or operating costs. Impact fees calculated in this study are intended to recover only new development’s proportionate share of the cost of facilities. Costs for correcting existing deficiencies in City facilities must be funded by non-impact fee funds.

The following paragraphs briefly discuss the methods used to calculate impact fees for each of the facility types addressed in this study.

Library. Impact fees for library facilities in Chapter 3 are calculated using the existing inventory method discussed in Chapter 1, which means that the library impact fees are based on the existing level of service for those facilities in Brisbane. The existing level of service is defined as the replacement value of existing library facilities per capita of existing service population.

To calculate that cost per capita, the estimated replacement cost for the existing library is divided by the existing service population. That cost per capita is then multiplied by the estimated service population per unit for each type of development defined in this study to get an impact fee per unit for each type of development.

General Government. Impact fees general government facilities in Chapter 4 are calculated using the existing inventory method discussed in Chapter 1, which means that impact fees for general government facilities are based on the existing level of service for those facilities in Brisbane. The impact of development on the need for those facilities is represented by the added service population associated with new development in the City. The existing level of service is defined as the replacement cost of existing facilities per capita of existing service population.

To calculate that cost per capita, the estimated replacement cost for existing general government facilities is divided by the existing service population. That cost per capita is then multiplied by the estimated service population per unit for each type of development defined in this study to get an impact fee per unit for each type of development.

Police Facilities and Vehicles. The police impact fees in Chapter 5 are calculated using the existing inventory method discussed in Chapter 1, which means that impact fees for police facilities and vehicles are based on the existing level of service for those assets in Brisbane. The existing level of service is based on the replacement cost of the Police Department’s existing capital assets.

The impact of development on the need for those assets is represented by the added calls for service per year associated with various types of new development in the City. The replacement cost of existing Police Department capital assets is divided by the existing calls for service per year to get a cost per call for service per year.

As part of this study, NBS analyzed the distribution of Police Department calls for service for a full year to determine the average number of calls per unit per year generated by different types of development. The impact fees are calculated as the cost per call for service multiplied by the calls per unit per year associated with each type of development defined in this study.

Fire Department Facilities Apparatus and Vehicles. Unlike the other impact fees calculated in this study, which use the existing inventory method, the fire impact fees in Chapter 6 are calculated using the planned facilities method. That method bases the impact fees on a forecast

Page 357 of 517 ends

City of Brisbane Page S-3
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
of future development to buildout along with the estimated cost of additional facilities, apparatus and vehicles needed to serve that future development.

The impact of new development on Fire Department facilities, apparatus and vehicles is represented in this study by the number of Fire Department calls for service per year generated by development in the City. As part of this study, NBS analyzed the distribution of fire calls for service for a full year to determine the average number of calls per unit per year generated by different types of development.

A cost per call for service per year is calculated by dividing the estimated cost of planned new Fire Department facilities, apparatus and vehicles by the projected number of calls for service per year generated by new development in the City to buildout. Then, an impact fee per unit is calculated by multiplying that cost per call by the number of calls for service per unit per year generated by each category of development defined in this study.

The reason that the fire impact fees are calculated using the panned facilities method is that the projected revenue from those fees is exactly equal to the cost of the new assets. In this case, impact fees calculated by either the existing inventory method or the system plan method would result in projected impact fee revenue that would exceed the cost of the new assets needed to serve future development.

Impact Fee Summary
Table S.1 shows the impact fees calculated in this report. Blank areas in the table indicate that some impact fees are not calculated for non-residential development.

Because Brisbane has no existing impact fees, there is no need to compare the proposed impact fees with any existing impact fees.

The impact fees calculated in this report are the maximum amounts justified based on the data and analysis contained in this report. The City Council may choose to adopt impact any of the proposed impact fees at any level up to the amounts shown in Table S.1.

Table S.1: Summary of Proposed Impact Fees
Development
Type Units 1Library
General
Gov't Police Fire Total
Residential <800 Sq. Ft. Unit DU $ 1,105 $ 3,708 $ 395 $ 2,611 $ 7,819 Residential 800-1,200 Sq. Ft. Unit DU $ 2,154 $ 7,230 $ 621 $ 3,046 $ 13,052 Residential 1,200-2,100 Sq. Ft. Unit DU $ 3,259 $ 10,938 $ 847 $ 3,482 $ 18,525 Residential >2,100 Sq. Ft. Unit DU $ 4,363 $ 14,646 $ 1,073 $ 3,917 $ 23,999 Commercial KSF $ 1,131 $ 3,795 $ 9,657 $ 5,566 $ 20,149 Hotel/Motel Room $ 656 $ 2,201 $ 2,452 $ 2,305 $ 7,614
Office KSF $ 1,133 $ 3,804 $ 186 $ 479 $ 5,602
Life Science/R&D KSF $ 1,004 $ 3,369 $ 327 $ 1,523 $ 6,223 Industrial KSF $ 703 $ 2,358 $ 2,811 $ 392 $ 6,264
Warehouse KSF $ 351 $ 1,179 $ 570 $ 740 $ 2,840
1 DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area; Room = guest room or suite Page 358 of 517 City of Brisbane Page S-4
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
Findings
As discussed in Chapter 1 of this report, the Mitigation Fee Act (Govt. Code Section 66001) requires that in any action establishing, increasing, or imposing a fee as a condition of development approval, the local agency must do all of the following:

1. Identify the purpose of the fee.

2. Identify the use to which the fee is to be put (a capital improvement plan is now required for that purpose).

3. Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the fee’s use and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed.

4. Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facility and the type of development on which the fee is imposed.

1. A fixed fee-per-square-foot approach would not reflect the actual impact of differentsized residential units on the facilities addressed in this study and would not meet the rough proportionality standard set forth in Dolan v. Tigard.

Page 359 of 517 ends

City of Brisbane Page 1-1
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
Chapter 1. Introduction
Purpose
The purpose of this study is to analyze the impacts of development on the need for certain capital facilities and other capital assets provided by the City of Brisbane and to calculate impact fees based on that analysis. This report documents the approach, data and methodology used in this study to calculate impact fees.

1. Need or Impact. An agency imposing impact fees must demonstrate that a development project subject to those fees will create a need for the facilities to be funded by the impact fees.

All new development in a community creates additional demands on some or all public facilities provided by local government. If the capacity of facilities is not increased to satisfy the additional demand, the quality or availability of public services for the entire community will deteriorate.

Page 360 of 517 ends

City of Brisbane Page 1-2
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
Impact fees may be used to recover the cost of development-related facilities, but only to the extent that the need for facilities is related to the development project subject to the fees.

3. Proportionality. An agency imposing impact fees must demonstrate that the amount of those fees is proportional to the impact created by development projects subject to the fees.

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

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

The Mitigation Fee Act. California’s impact fee statute originated in Assembly Bill 1600 during the 1987 session of the Legislature and took effect in January 1989. AB 1600 added several

Page 361 of 517 ends

City of Brisbane Page 1-3
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
sections to the Government Code, beginning with Section 66000. Since that time, the impact fee statute has been amended from time to time, and in 1997 was officially titled the “Mitigation Fee Act.” Unless otherwise noted, code sections referenced in this report are from the Government Code.

The Mitigation Fee Act does not use the term “mitigation fee” except in its official title. Nor does it use the common term “impact fee.” The Act simply uses the word “fee,” which is defined as “a monetary exaction, other than a tax or special assessment…that is charged by a local agency to the applicant in connection with approval of a development project for the purpose of defraying all or a portion of the cost of public facilities related to the development project ….” To avoid confusion with other types of fees, this report uses the widely accepted term “impact fee” which should be understood to mean “fee” as defined in the Mitigation Fee Act.

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

1. Identify the purpose of the fee

2. Identify the use of the fee; and

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

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

The requirements outlined above are discussed in more detail below.

Identifying the Purpose of the Fees. The broad purpose of impact fees is to protect public health, safety and general welfare by providing for adequate public facilities. The specific purpose of the

Page 362 of 517 ends

City of Brisbane Page 1-4
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
fees calculated in this study is to fund acquisition or construction of certain capital assets that will be needed to mitigate the impacts of planned new development on District facilities, and to maintain an acceptable level of public services as the District grows.

That amendments contained in AB 602 appears to override the original language of Section 66001(a)(2), so that a capital improvement plan (CIP) is no longer optional. A CIP is now required for all new impact fee nexus studies adopted by large jurisdictions. The annual update requirement for the CIP appears to remain in effect.

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

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

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

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

Section 66001(g) also states that impact fees “may include the costs attributable to the increased demand for public facilities reasonably related to the development project in order to (1)

Page 363 of 517 ends

City of Brisbane Page 1-5
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
refurbish existing facilities to maintain the existing level of service or (2) achieve an adopted level of service that is consistent with the general plan.” (Emphasis added.) Impact Fees for Existing Facilities. Impact fees may be used to recover costs for existing facilities to the extent that those facilities are needed to serve additional development and have the capacity to do so. In other words, it must be possible to show that fees used to pay for existing facilities meet the need and benefit elements of the nexus. As a practical matter, such fees are difficult to implement unless the fees are needed to repay outstanding debt related to the facilities in question.

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

SB 13 – Accessory Dwelling Units (2019). SB 13 amended Government Code Section 65852.2 to prohibit the imposition of impact fees on accessory dwelling units (ADUs) smaller than 750 square feet and to require that impact fees for ADUs of 750 square feet or more must be proportional to the square footage of the primary dwelling unit. The proportionality requirement means that impact fees for ADUs of 750 square feet or more must be calculated on a case-by-case basis during the approval process.

Page 364 of 517 ends

City of Brisbane Page 1-6
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
AB 602 also adds Section 66016.5 to the Mitigation Fee Act imposing several new requirements for impact fees that went into effect in 2022, including:
▪ A nexus study must identify the existing level of service for each facility, identify the proposed new level of service (if any), and explain why the new level of service is appropriate.
▪ If a nexus study supports an increase in an existing fee the local agency shall review the assumptions of the nexus study supporting the original fee and evaluate the amount of the fees collected under the original fee.
▪ Large jurisdictions (counties over 250,000 and cities within those counties) must adopt a capital improvement plan as part of the nexus study.
▪ All impact fee nexus studies shall be adopted at a public hearing with at least 30 days’ notice, and the local agency shall notify any member of the public that requests notice of intent to begin and impact fee nexus study of the date of the hearing. ▪ Nexus studies shall be updated at least every eight years, from the period beginning on January 1, 2022.
▪ A nexus study adopted after July 1, 2022, shall calculate a fee imposed on a housing development project proportionately to the square footage of proposed units in the development. A nexus study is not required to comply with this requirement if the local agency makes certain findings specified in the law. A local agency that imposes a fee proportionately to the square footage of units in the development shall be deemed to have used a valid method to establish a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the development.
▪ Authorizes any member of the public, including an applicant for a development project, to submit evidence that impact fees proposed by an agency fail to comply with the Mitigation Fee Act, and requires the legislative body of the agency to consider such evidence and adjust the proposed fee if deemed necessary.

AB 516 – Amendments to the Mitigation Fee Act (2023). AB 516, which took effect on January 1, 2024, amends Government Code Section 66006 to add certain requirements to the annual reports mandated by that section. Specifically, Section 66006 now requires that:
▪ Annual reports indicate whether construction on public improvements identified in previous annual reports began on the approximate date shown in the previous annual report; and,
▪ If a project failed to start construction on schedule, the annual report must explain the reason for the delay and provide a revised approximate date when construction will begin.

Page 365 of 517 ends

Brisbane City CouncilOctober 1, 2026

Brisbane City Council
October 1, 2026