Agenda packet — Brisbane City Council, October 1, 2026 (part 4 of 5)

City of Brisbane Page 1-7
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
or charge is scheduled to be completed. Prior to this amendment, the only stated purpose of such an audit was to determine whether such a fee or charge exceeds the amount reasonably necessary to cover the cost of any product, public facility or service provided by the local agency.

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

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

Although it is not mandatory, this study adopts the nomenclature used in the Impact Fee Nexus Study Templates prepared by the Terner Center for Housing Innovation at UC Berkeley to describe impact fee calculation methods. Those templates were prepared for The California Department of Housing and Community Development pursuant to Section 50466.5 of the Health and Safety Code and are cited in AB 602.

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

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

System Plan Method. With this method, impact fees are calculated so that new development pays for its share of the cost of an integrated system of facilities serving both existing and new development. To calculate the cost per unit of demand, the value of existing facilities plus the

Page 366 of 517 ends

City of Brisbane Page 1-8
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
cost of planned facilities is divided by the combined demand associated with both existing development and planned development.

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

Consequently, this report does not calculate a schedule of impact fees for ADUs. The formula for calculating proportional ADU impact fees is:

Primary unit impact fee X (ADU square feet / Primary unit square feet) Facilities Addressed in this Study
Impact/in-lieu fees for the following types of facilities are addressed in this report:
▪ Libraries
▪ General Government Facilities
▪ Police Facilities and Vehicles
▪ Fire Department Facilities, Apparatus and Vehicles
Each of those facilities is addressed in a separate chapter of this report, beginning with Chapter

3. Chapter 2 contains data on existing and future development used in the impact fee analysis.

Page 367 of 517 ends

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

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

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

Development Types
The development types for which impact fees are calculated in this report are discussed below.

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

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

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

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

3. That other policies in the fee structure support smaller developments or otherwise ensure that smaller developments are not charged disproportionate fees.

Page 368 of 517 ends

City of Brisbane Page 2-2
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
The proportionality requirement in Section 66016.5(a)(5)(A) is often interpreted to mean that impact fees must have a linear relationship to unit square footage. That means the fees must increase by the same amount for every added square foot of unit size. Such a fee structure results in impact fees that are necessarily five times as high for a 3,000 square-foot single-family unit as for a 600 square apartment. That type of fee structure is justified only if the actual impact of a 3,000 square-foot unit is five times greater than the impact of a 600 square-foot unit.

Otherwise, the impact fees could violate the “rough proportionality” requirement set forth in the U. S. Supreme Court in Dolan v. Tigard [512 U. S. 374 (1994)]. The recent U. S. Supreme Court decision in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado [601 U. S. __ (2024)] made clear that Dolan applies to all impact fees, whether they are applied ad hoc or legislatively adopted.

This study uses several attributes of development, including added population, added police calls for service per year and added fire calls for service per year, to represent the impact of new development on different types of City facilities. We use those attributes to represent the demand created by various types of development for public services and the capital facilities and other capital assets needed to support those services.

What we see in analyzing patterns of service demand is that the relationship between unit size and service demand doesn’t 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.

It is not feasible to get specific data on police and fire calls by unit size, but in our experience, the difference in the average number of police and fire calls-per-unit-per-year generated by singlefamily as opposed to multi-family residential units does not justify a flat impact fee per square foot. So, a fee structure that results in large units paying five times as much as small units would appear disproportionate to the actual demand created by units of different sizes for some types of facilities.

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

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

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

Page 369 of 517 ends

City of Brisbane Page 2-3
Public Facilities 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.

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

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

Public Facilities, Public Schools and Parks. In addition to the development types listed above, the development tables presented later in this chapter include public (government) facilities, public schools and parks. The City does not impose impact fees on those uses, either because of legal constraints or because it would be imposing the fees on itself, which serves no purpose.

However, those uses do create measurable impacts on some services, including law enforcement and fire protection/emergency medical services, and they are included in the impact fee analysis so that the impacts associated with those exempt uses can be distinguished from demand associated with fee-paying development types. However, no impact fees are calculated for those development types.

Page 370 of 517 ends

City of Brisbane Page 2-4
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
Other types of Development. The development types for which impact fees are calculated in this study will encompass most new development in the City, but there may be some development projects that don’t fit very well within any of the established fee categories. In such cases, it is possible for City staff to calculate a project-specific impact fee at the time a project is approved.

For example, to calculate a customized police impact fee, it would be necessary to estimate the number of police calls for service per year that will be generated by the project, based on the number of calls generated by similar existing uses in the City. Then, that number would be multiplied by the cost per call calculated in this study to arrive at the police impact fee for the project. Customized impact fees for other facility types could be calculated in a similar manner.

Demand Variables
To calculate impact fees, the relationship between facility needs and development must be quantified in cost allocation formulas. Certain measurable attributes of development (for example, added population) are used as “demand variables” in those formulas to represent the impact of different types of development on various types of facilities.

Demand variables are selected either because they directly measure the service demand created by various types of development, or because they are reasonably correlated with that demand.

For example, the need for parks in a community is typically defined in terms of the relationship between population and acres of parks. As population grows, more parks are needed to maintain that relationship. Logically, then, the increase in population related to new residential development is an appropriate yardstick, or demand variable, for use in measuring the impact of development on the need for additional parks.

Demand variables have specific values for each type of development defined in this study. Those values may be referred to as “demand factors.” So, if the demand variable used to calculate impact fees for a particular type of facility is added population, the demand factor for a specific category of residential development would be the population per dwelling unit for that category.

Demand variables used in this study are discussed below. Specific demand factors can be found in Table 2.3.

Population. Population is used in this study as a component of service population rather than as a standalone demand variable. Population per unit factors are converted into service population per unit factors for use in calculating impact fees for residential unit-size categories. The population per unit and service population per unit factors used in this study are shown in Table

2.3 Table 2.1, below, shows the estimated average population per unit for each residential unit-size category. The unit-size categories shown in Table 2.1 are based on the number of bedrooms per unit, as shown in American Community Survey (ACS) Table B25041, which also shows the number of units in each category. Average population per unit is assumed to increase with unit size. The estimated population per unit factors are adjusted using the overall average population per unit and total population as controls. The results are cross-checked against ACS Table B25001 which shows the mix of household sizes in the City.

Page 371 of 517 ends

City of Brisbane Page 2-5
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
Service Population. Many types of City facilities are impacted by both residential and nonresidential development so population alone does not represent all of the impacts of development on those facilities.

Service population is a composite variable that includes both residents of the City and employees of businesses in the City. Resident population is included to represent the impacts of residential development. Employees are included to represent the impacts of non-residential uses, such as commercial, office and industrial development.

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

Service population is intended to approximate the number of people creating the demand for service on an average day. It is difficult to estimate that number precisely for several reasons.

Some residents work in the City, some residents commute to work outside the City, and some residents don’t work at paid jobs. In addition, non-residents may be pre-sent in the City for work, shopping, recreation, or any number of other reasons.

In this study, residents are assigned a weight of 1.0. Our estimate of the average number of hours per week that residents spend in the City is based in part on an analysis of Census Bureau data on how many residents work in the city and how many commute to work outside the City. In addition, we assume the average resident spends eight hours a week outside the City for activities like shopping and recreation. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) data for 2022 show that about 60% of Brisbane residents aged 16 and over are employed, and that about 78% of employed residents work outside the City.

Assuming that out-commuters spend 47.5 hours a week (9.5 hours per day) outside the City for work and commuting, and that all residents spend an average of eight hours a week outside the City for shopping and recreation leads us to the conclusion that out- commuters spend an Table 2.1. Population per Unit by Unit Size
Unit Size No. of No. of % of Pop at 2.25 Est Pop Adjusted in Sq Ft 1
Bedrms Units 2Units per Unit 3
per Unit 4Pop 5
<800 0 or 1 557 26.3% 1,253 1.00 557
800-1,200 2 646 30.5% 1,454 1.95 1,260
>1,200-2,100 3 634 30.0% 1,427 2.95 1,870
>2,100 4+ 279 13.2% 628 3.95 1,102
Total/Average 2,116 100.0% 4,761 2.26 4,789
1 Estimated square-feet-per-unit ranges based on number of bedrooms 2 Distribution of units by number of bedrooms from American Community Survey (ACS) Table B25041, 2022 1-Year estimates
3 Population for all units in each square-footage range if all units were occupied by the overall average of 2.25 persons per unit
4 Estimated population per unit by NBS
5 Adjusted population = number of units X estimated population per unit Page 372 of 517

City of Brisbane Page 2-6
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
average of 112.5 (168 - 47.5 - 8 = 112.5) hours per week in the City. Assuming other residents spend 160 (168 - 8 = 160) hours per week in the City, the weighted average for all residents is 141.5 hours per week in the City. Dividing that number by 168 hours per week gives us a weight of 0.842 for all residents (population) of the City.

Service population weights for employees associated with different types of development are based on estimates of the number of hours per week businesses of a certain type are in operation. This study assumes that retail and service commercial businesses operate 12 hours a day, 7 days a week (84 hours). For professional offices, industrial uses and public facilities, that number is estimated to be 45 hours (9 hours a day, 5 days a week). The weights assigned to employees of businesses associated with various types of non- residential development are based on the hours per week of operation divided by 168 total hours per week. The hours per week for each development as well as the weighting factor for each type of development are shown in Table 2.2, below. It should be noted that since all students in the K-12 Schools category are assumed to be residents of the City, the non-residential service population weight for that category is zero.

The service population weights shown in Table 2.2 are intended to allow a balanced allocation of costs among non-residential development types.

Finally, for simplicity, all of the service population base weights are normalized by dividing them by residential base weight of 0.842 so that the normalized weight for population equals 1.0 and weight for each of the non-residential components is increased proportionately. The resulting service population weights are shown in Table 2.2. Service-population-per-unit factors based on the normalized service population weights are shown in Table 2.3.

Police Calls for Service. Demand for police services is impacted by both residential and nonresidential development in the City. In this study, the number of police calls for service per unit per year is used to represent the demand for police services by various types of development. The calls-for-service factors used in this study are based on analysis by NBS of a random sample of all Table 2.2: Service Population Weights
Development Avg Hrs Total Hrs Base Svc Pop Normalized
Type per Wk 1per Week Weight 2Svc Pop Wt 3
Residential 141.5 168.0 0.842 1.000
Commercial/Retail 84.0 168.0 0.500 0.594
Hotel/Motel 84.0 168.0 0.500 0.594
Office 45.0 168.0 0.268 0.318
Life Science/R&D 45.0 168.0 0.268 0.318
Industrial 45.0 168.0 0.268 0.318
Warehouse 45.0 168.0 0.268 0.318
Public Facilities 45.0 168.0 0.268 0.318
1 Expected average hours per week of business operation 2 Base service population weight = average hours per week / total hrs per week 3 Service population weight normalized to residential service population weight = base population weight / residential base service population weight Page 373 of 517

City of Brisbane Page 2-7
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
calls for service received by the City of Brisbane Police Department for a one-year period from April 1 2023 to March 31 2024.

During that period, the City of Brisbane Police Department logged about 15,500 calls. A random sample of 600 calls was classified by development type based on address or location. Calls that could not be associated with a particular type of development were excluded from the analysis.

The percentage of sampled calls associated with each type of development defined in this study was applied to the one-year count of calls to get the number of calls generated by each type of development for the year. The number of calls for each type of development was divided by the number of existing units for that type of development to arrive at the average number of calls per unit per year for that category.

Because it is not possible to determine individual call rates for residential units by square footage in the analysis of police calls for service, the overall average calls per unit per year for all residential units is used as the midpoint in estimating calls-for-service factors for the residential unit size categories used in this study and the factors are scaled up and down from that midpoint relative to unit size. The overall range of call rates from the smallest to the largest units is adjusted for consistency with the extent of differences in call rates for single-family and multi-family units.

Police calls per unit per year for each type of development defined in this study is shown in Table

2.3. Fire Authority Calls for Service per Year. Fire protection, emergency medical response and other services are provided in the City by the North County Fire Authority (NCFA), which also serves Daly City and Pacifica. Demand for the services provided by NCFA is impacted by both residential and non-residential development. In this study, the number of calls for service per unit per year from Brisbane to NCFA is used to represent the demand for fire protection and emergency response services by various types of development in the City. The calls-for-service factors used in this study are based on analysis by NBS of a random sample of all 2023 calls for service from the City of Brisbane to NCFA.

In 2023, NCFA logged about 600 calls for service in Brisbane. As part of this study, NBS analyzed a random sample of 400 of those calls and classified them by development type based on address.

Calls that could not be associated with a particular type of development were excluded from the analysis.

The percentage of sampled calls associated with each type of development defined in this study was applied to the total number of 2023 calls to get the full number of calls generated by that type of development for the year. Then, the number of calls per year was divided by the number of existing units for each type of development to arrive at the average number of calls per unit per year.

Because it is not possible to determine individual call rates for residential units by square footage in the analysis of fire calls for service, the overall average calls per unit per year for all residential units is used as the midpoint in estimating calls for service factors for the unit size categories used in this study. The factors are scaled up and down from that midpoint relative to unit size. The overall range of call rates from the smallest to the largest units is adjusted for consistency with

Page 374 of 517 ends

City of Brisbane Page 2-8
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
the extent of differences in call rates for single-family and multi-family units. Fire calls-per-unitper-year for each type of development defined in this study are shown in Table 2.3.

Demand Factors
Table 2.3 shows the values of demand factors used in this study for each type of development.

Existing and Future Development
Tables 2.4 through 2.6, beginning on the next page, present summaries of existing and future development by development type in Brisbane. Table 2.4 shows estimated existing development as of January 1, 2024.

Table 2.3: Demand Factors
Development Dev Pop per Employees Svc Pop PD Calls Fire Calls Type Units 1Unit 2
per Unit 3per Unit 4per Unit 5per Unit 6
Residential <800 Sq. Ft. Unit DU 1.00 1.00 0.70 0.120
Residential 800-1,200 Sq. Ft. Unit DU 1.95 1.95 1.10 0.140 Residential 1,200-2,100 Sq. Ft. Unit DU 2.95 2.95 1.50 0.160 Residential >2,100 Sq. Ft. Unit DU 3.95 3.95 1.90 0.180 Commercial KSF 1.72 1.02 17.11 0.256
Hotel/Motel Room 1.00 0.59 4.34 0.106
Office KSF 3.23 1.03 0.33 0.022
Life Science/R&D KSF 2.86 0.91 0.58 0.070
Industrial KSF 2.00 0.64 4.98 0.018
Warehouse KSF 1.00 0.32 1.01 0.034
Public Facilities KSF 3.00 0.95 4.78 0.105
Public Schools Students 1.36 0.006
Parks Acres 72.17 0.333
1 Units of development: DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area; Room = guest room or suite
2 See Table 2.1
3 Employees per unit provided by the City of Brisbane Community Development Department 4 Service population per unit estimated based on residents and employees weighted by factors in Table 2.2 5 Police Department calls for service per unit per year based on analysis of a random sample of all 2023 calls; calls for service rates for residential unit size categories based on the range of actual rates for single-family, multi-family and mobile home units
6 Fire Department calls for service per unit per year based on analysis of a random sample of all 2023 calls; calls for service rates for residential unit size categories based on the range of actual rates for single-family, multi-family and mobile home units Page 375 of 517

City of Brisbane Page 2-9
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
Table 2.5, on the next page, shows projected future development in Brisbane to buildout.

Table 2.4: Existing Development as of January 2024
Development Dev Existing Existing Existing Existing Existing Existing Types Units 1Units 2Pop 2Empl 3
Svc Pop 4PD Calls 5Fire Calls 6
All Residential DU 2,076 4,645 4,645 3,414 323
Commercial KSF 125.1 216 128 2,140 32
Hotel/Motel Room 387 387 230 1,681 41
Office KSF 695.4 2,243 713 253 15
Life Science/R&D KSF 561.0 1,603 510 358 39
Industrial KSF 756.6 1,513 481 2,776 14
Warehouse KSF 4,356.4 4,356 1,385 3,237 148
Public Facilities KSF 85.3 256 81 408 9
Public Schools Students 337 459 2
Parks Acres 12.0 866 4
Total 4,645 10,574 8,174 15,592 627
1 Units of development: DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area; Room = guest room or suite;
2 Existing residential units and population from the California Department of Finance (DOF) 2024 E-5 report; existing hotel/motel rooms provided by the City of Brisbane; existing non- residential units provided by the Brisbane Community Development Department 3 Existing employees = existing units X employees per unit from Table 2.3 4 Existing service population = existing units X service population per unit from Table 2.3 5 Existing police department calls for service per year by development type based on analysis by NBS of a random sample of 2023 Brisbane Police Department calls for service 6 Existing fire department calls for service per year by development type based on analysis by NBS of a random sample of 2023 Brisbane Police Department calls for service Page 376 of 517

City of Brisbane Page 2-10
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
Table 2.6 on the next page shows projected total development in Brisbane at buildout.

Table 2.5: Forecasted Future Development to Buildout
Development Dev Added Added Added Added Added Added
Types Units 1Units 2Pop 3Empl 4Svc Pop 5PD Calls 6Fire Calls 7 All Residential DU 3,003 6,607 6,607 4,474 480
Commercial KSF 140.0 241 143 2,395 36
Hotel/Motel Room 1,408.0 1,408 836 6,116 149
Office KSF 2,770.6 8,937 2,842 914 61
Life Science/R&D KSF 5,366.5 15,333 4,876 3,113 376
Industrial KSF (69.4) (139) (44) (346) (1)
Warehouse KSF 1,156.0 1,156 368 1,168 39
Public Facilities KSF 121.2 364 116 579 13
Public Schools Students 478.5 652 3
Parks Acres 17.0 1,230 6
Total 6,607 27,300 15,743 20,295 1,161
1 Units of development: DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area; Room = guest room or suite;
2 Added units estimated by the Brisbane Community Development Department; estimates include buildout of the Baylands Specific Plan Area; future units for Public Facilities, Public Schools and Parks assumed to increase at the same rate as population 3 Added population assumes an average of 2.2 occupants per added residential unit 4 Added employees = added non-residential units X employees per unit from Table 2.3 5 Added residential service population = added population; added non-residential service population = added non-residential units X service pop per unit from Table 2.3 6 Added Police Dept calls for service per year = added units X PD calls per unit from Table 2.3; added residential calls per year based on an average of 1.49 calls per unit 7 Added Fire Department calls for service per year = added units X Fire calls per unit from Table 2.3; added residential calls per year based on an average of 0.16 calls per unit Page 377 of 517

City of Brisbane Page 2-11
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
The numbers presented in Tables 2.4 through 2.6 indicate that projected growth in the City between 2024 and buildout will represent large percentage increases of 142% in population and 258% in employment, mostly as a result of development in the Baylands Specific Plan Area. The impact fees calculated in this report are intended to pay for capital facilities and other capital assets needed by the City to serve that additional development.

Table 2.6: Buildout Development
Development Dev Buildout Buildout Buildout Buildout Buildout Buildout Types Units 1
Units 2Pop 2Empl 2Svc Pop 2PD Calls 2Fire Calls 2
All Residential DU 5,079 11,252 11,252 7,888 803
Commercial KSF 265.1 457 271 4,535 68
Hotel/Motel Room 1,795.0 1,795 1,066 7,797 190
Office KSF 3,466.0 11,181 3,556 1,167 76
Life Science/R&D KSF 5,927.5 16,936 5,386 3,471 415
Industrial KSF 687.2 1,374 437 2,430 12
Warehouse KSF 5,512.4 5,512 1,753 4,405 187
Public Facilities KSF 206.5 620 197 987 22
Public Schools Students 815.5 1,111 5
Parks Acres 29.0 2,096 10
Total 11,252 37,875 23,917 35,887 1,789
1 Units of development: DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area; Room = guest room or suite;
2 Figures in this table = the sum of the corresponding figures from the Tables 2.4 and 2.5 Page 378 of 517

City of Brisbane Page 3-1
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
Chapter 3. Library
This chapter calculates library impact fees for the City of Brisbane. The City’s existing Brisbane Library is part of the San Mateo County library system. The existing library is located at 163 Visitacion Avenue. It was funded by a number of sources including the City’s general fund, donations from library supporters, and a loan from the County.

Methodology
This chapter calculates impact fees using the existing inventory method discussed in Chapter 1.

With that method, impact fees are based on the existing level of service so that the impact fees will provide the funding needed to maintain the existing level of service as the City grows.

Service Area
Brisbane’s existing and future libraries will serve all residents of the City. The impact fees calculated in this chapter are intended to apply to all development in the City unless the fees for a project are limited by statute or established by a development agreement.

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

As discussed in Chapter 2, service population is used to reflect demand from both residential and non-residential. The residential component of service population is the resident population of the City. The non-residential component of service population is based on the number of employees associated with various types of non-residential development, but those employee numbers are weighted as discussed in Chapter 2. The service population per unit factors are shown in Table 2.3 and are used in Table 3.3 to calculate impact fees per unit for general government facilities
Level-of-Service Standard
The level-of-service standard used in this study to calculate impact fees for libraries is the existing level of service. That level is defined as the replacement cost of the City’s existing library divided by the existing service population, which results in a cost per capita of service population. To calculate an impact fee per unit, that cost per capita is multiplied by the service population per unit for type of development defined in this study.

In 2021, Section 66016.5 was added to the Mitigation Fee by Act AB 602. That section requires, after January 1, 2022, that the level of service used in an impact fee study must be compared with the existing level of service.

Page 379 of 517 ends

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

Existing Library Facility
Table 3.1 shows key data about Brisbane’s existing library, including its current replacement cost which is combined with the land value of the library site to arrive at the impact fee cost basis.

The current principal balance of the loan from San Mateo County is deducted from the impact fee cost basis to reflect the City’s current equity in the library.

Table 3.2 divides the City’s net impact fee cost basis for the library by the City’s existing service population to calculate the existing level of service in terms of a cost per capita of service population.

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

Table 3.1: Existing Library Facilities
Building Site Facility Land Impact Fee
Facility Sq Feet 1
Acres 2Repl Cost 3Value 4Cost Basis 5
Brisbane Library 7,629 0.29 $ 8,977,520 $ 1,015,000 $ 9,992,520 Outstanding Balance on Loan from San Mateo County as of April 2025 $ (963,333) Total $ 9,029,187
1 Building square feet provided by the City of Brisbane 2 Site acres provided by the City of Brisbane
3 2020 construction cost provided by the City of Brisbane escalated 38% to 2024 cost using the California Construction Cost Index
4 Land value based on $3,500,000 per acre
5 Impact fee cost basis = facility replacement cost + land value Table 3.2: Library Existing Level of Service
Impact Fee Existing Service Cost per
Cost Basis 1 Population 2 Capita 3
$9,029,187 8,174 $1,104.625
1 See Table 3.1
2 See Table 2.4
3 Cost per capita of service population = impact fee cost basis / existing service population Page 380 of 517

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

Projected Revenue
Table 3.4 projects potential revenue from the library impact fees. That projection is based on the cost per capita from Table 3.2 and the added service population from Table 2.5.

The projected revenue shown in Table 3.4 assumes that future development in the City will occur as forecasted in Chapter 2. It does not account for limits on impact fees set by development agreements for some future projects.

Table 3.3: Impact Fees per Unit - Library
Development Cost per Svc Pop Impact Fee
Type Units 1 Capita 2 per Unit 3 per Unit 4
Residential <800 Sq. Ft. Unit DU $1,104.62 1.00 $ 1,104.62 Residential 800-1,200 Sq. Ft. Unit DU $1,104.62 1.95 $ 2,154.02 Residential 1,200-2,100 Sq. Ft. Unit DU $1,104.62 2.95 $ 3,258.64 Residential >2,100 Sq. Ft. Unit DU $1,104.62 3.95 $ 4,363.27 Commercial KSF $1,104.62 1.02 $ 1,130.60
Hotel/Motel Room $1,104.62 0.59 $ 655.75
Office KSF $1,104.62 1.03 $ 1,133.21
Life Science/R&D KSF $1,104.62 0.91 $ 1,003.70
Industrial KSF $1,104.62 0.64 $ 702.59
Warehouse KSF $1,104.62 0.32 $ 351.29
1 Units of development: DU = dwelling unit
2 See Table 3.2
3 Service population per unit; see Table 2.3
4 Impact fee per unit = cost per capita X population per unit Table 3.4: Projected Revenue - Library Impact Fees
Development Added Cost per Projected
Type Svc Pop 1
Capita 2Revenue 3
All Development 15,628 $1,104.62 $ 17,262,631
1 Added service population excluding public facilities; see Table 2.5
2 See Table 3.2
3 Projected revenue = added population X cost per capita Page 381 of 517

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

Updating the Fees
The impact fees calculated in this chapter are based on estimated current replacement costs for the for the existing library. We recommend that the fees be reviewed annually and adjusted as needed using the most current cost estimates. The City will be required to update the nexus study at least every eight years, per Government Code Section 66016.5(a)(8).

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

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

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

Purpose of the Fee: The purpose of the impact fees calculated in this chapter is to provide additional library facilities to maintain the existing level of service for libraries in Brisbane.

Use of the Fee. Impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to pay for additional library facilities described in the City’s Capital Improvement Plan to serve new residential development in the City.

Reasonable Relationship between the Use of the Fee and the Development Type on Which It Is Imposed. The impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to pay for additional library facilities needed to serve additional residential development in Brisbane at the currently existing level of service in terms of the relationship between facility cost and population.

Page 382 of 517 ends

City of Brisbane Page 3-5
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
Reasonable Relationship between the Need for the Facilities and the Type of Development on Which the Fee Is Imposed. Added population associated with new residential development will increase the need for library facilities in Brisbane. The library impact fees will provide funding for additional library facilities needed to maintain the existing level of service for libraries in Brisbane.

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

Page 383 of 517 ends

City of Brisbane Page 4-1
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
Chapter 4. General Government Facilities
This chapter calculates impact fees for general government facilities in Brisbane, including City Hall, the City Hall Annex and the corporation yard.

Methodology
This chapter calculates impact fees using the existing inventory method discussed in Chapter 1.

With that method, impact fees are based on the existing level of service so that the impact fees will provide the funding needed to maintain the existing level of service as the City grows.

Service Area
Brisbane’s general government facilities serve all development in the City. The impact fees calculated in this chapter are intended to apply to all new development except new public facilities, unless the fees for a project are limited by statute or established by a development agreement.

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

The residential component of service population is the resident population of the City. The nonresidential component of service population is based on the number of employees associated with various types of non-residential development, but those employee numbers are weighted as discussed in Chapter 2. The service population per unit factors are shown in Table 2.3 and are used in Table 4.3 to calculate impact fees per unit for general government facilities.

Level-of-Service Standard
The level-of-service standard used in this study to calculate impact fees for general government facilities is the existing level of service. That level is defined as the replacement cost of the City’s existing general government facilities divided by the existing service population, which results in a cost per capita of service population. To calculate an impact fee per unit, that cost per capita is multiplied by the service population per unit for each development type defined in this study.

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

Page 384 of 517 ends

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

Existing General Government Facilities
Table 4.1 shows key data about Brisbane’s existing general government facilities, including their current replacement cost which is combined with the land value of the general government facilities sites to arrive at the impact fee cost basis. Outstanding debt related to existing facilities is deducted from the impact fee cost basis so that it reflects only the City’s equity in those facilities.

Table 4.2, on the next page, divides the City’s net impact fee cost basis for the general government facilities by the City’s existing service population to calculate the existing level of service in terms of a cost per capita of service population.

Table 4.1: Existing General Government Facilities
Building Site Facility Land Impact Fee
Facility Sq Feet 1
Acres 2Repl Cost 3Value 4Cost Basis 5
City Hall 18,025 1.04 $ 18,025,000 $ 3,634,750 $ 21,659,750 City Hall Annex 5,260 1.55 $ 5,500,000 $ 5,425,000 $ 10,925,000 Corp Yard Office/Shops/Storage 10,800 2.00 $ 5,158,000 $ 5,158,000 Outstanding Debt on City Hall/Police Building (City-Hall Share = 72%) $ (2,264,400) Outstanding Debt on City Admin Office Annex $ (5,170,000) Total 34,085 4.59 $ 28,683,000 $ 9,059,750 $ 30,308,350 1 Building square feet provided by the City of Brisbane is the share of the combined City Hall/Police building occupied by City Hall
2 Site acres provided by the City of Brisbane; City Hall share of site for combined City Hall/Police building estimated by NBS at 67% of the total 1.55 acre site 3 Facility replacement cost provided by the City of Brisbane 4 Land value based on $3,500,000 per acre
5 Impact fee cost basis = facility replacement cost + land value; outstanding debt from City Hall/ Police Station remodeling/expansion = City Hall portion (72%) of principal balance on 2014 bonds; City Hall share of debt based on share of building square feet; outstanding debt on City Hall Annex renovation = principal balance on 2023 bonds; outstanding debt provided by the City of Brisbane Finance Department
Table 4.2: Existing Level of Service - General Government Impact Fee Existing Service Cost per
Cost Basis 1 Population 2Capita 3
$30,308,350 8,174 $3,707.90
1 See Table 4.1
2 See Table 2.4
3 Cost per capita = impact fee cost basis / existing service population Page 385 of 517

City of Brisbane Page 4-3
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
In the next section, the cost per capita from Table 4.2 is used to calculate impact fees per unit for general government facilities for each type of development defined in this study.

Impact Fees per Unit
Table 4.3 shows the calculation of impact fees per unit for general government facilities. Those fees are calculated using the per-capita cost from Table 4.2 and service population per unit factors from Table 2.1.

Projected Revenue
Table 4.4 projects potential revenue from the general government impact fees. That projection is based on the cost per capita from Table 4.2 and the added service population from Table 2.5.

Table 4.3: Impact Fees per Unit - General Government Facilities Development
Type Units 1
Cost per
Capita 2
Svc Pop
per Unit 3
Impact Fee
per Unit 4
Residential <800 Sq. Ft. Unit DU $3,707.90 1.00 $ 3,707.90 Residential 800-1,200 Sq. Ft. Unit DU $3,707.90 1.95 $ 7,230.41 Residential 1,200-2,100 Sq. Ft. Unit DU $3,707.90 2.95 $ 10,938.31 Residential >2,100 Sq. Ft. Unit DU $3,707.90 3.95 $ 14,646.22 Commercial KSF $3,707.90 1.02 $ 3,795.10
Hotel/Motel Room $3,707.90 0.59 $ 2,201.16
Office KSF $3,707.90 1.03 $ 3,803.84
Life Science/R&D KSF $3,707.90 0.91 $ 3,369.12
Industrial KSF $3,707.90 0.64 $ 2,358.38
Warehouse KSF $3,707.90 0.32 $ 1,179.19
1 Units of development: DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area; Room = guest room or suite
2 See Table 4.2
3 Service population per unit; see Table 2.3
4 Impact fee per unit = cost per capita X service population per unit Table 4.4: Projected Revenue - General Gov't Impact Fees Development Added Svc Cost per Projected
Type Population 1Capita 2Revenue 3
All Development 15,628 $3,707.90 $ 57,945,959
Total $ 57,945,959
1 See Table 2.5; added service population in this table does not include added service population generated by public facilities 2 See Table 4.2
3 Projected revenue = added service population X cost per capita Page 386 of 517

City of Brisbane Page 4-4
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
The projected revenue shown in Table 4.4 assumes that future development in the City will occur as forecasted in Chapter 2. It does not account for limits on impact fees set by development agreements for some future projects.

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

Updating the Fees
The impact fees calculated in this chapter are based on estimated current replacement costs for the City’s existing general government facilities. We recommend that the fees be reviewed annually and adjusted as needed using the most current cost estimates. The California Cost Index, published by the Department of General Services and the Engineering News Record Building Cost Index (BCI) can be useful for indexing construction costs over time. The City will be required to update the nexus study at least every eight years, per Government Code Section 66016.5(a)(8).

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

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

Purpose of the Fee: The purpose of the impact fees calculated in this chapter is to provide additional general government facilities to maintain the existing level of service for general government facilities in Brisbane.

Use of the Fee. Impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to pay for additional general government facilities described in the City’s Capital Improvement Plan to serve new development in the City.

Page 387 of 517 ends

City of Brisbane Page 4-5
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
Reasonable Relationship between the Use of the Fee and the Development Type on Which It Is Imposed. The impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to pay for additional general government facilities needed to serve additional development in Brisbane at the currently existing level of service in terms of the relationship between facility cost and service population.

Reasonable Relationship between the Need for the Facilities and the Type of Development on Which the Fee Is Imposed. Added service population associated with new development will increase the need for general government facilities in Brisbane. The general government facilities impact fees will provide funding for additional general government facilities needed to maintain the existing level of service in Brisbane.

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

Page 388 of 517 ends

City of Brisbane Page 5-1
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
Chapter 5. Police Department Facilities
This chapter calculatesimpact fees for Police Department facilities in Brisbane. Brisbane currently has one police station which shares a building with City Hall.

Methodology
This chapter calculates impact fees using the existing inventory method discussed in Chapter 1.

With that method, impact fees are based on the existing level of service so that the impact fees will provide the funding needed to maintain the existing level of service as the City grows.

Service Area
Brisbane’s Police Department facilities serve all development in the City. The impact fees calculated in this chapter are intended to apply to all new development except for public facilities, unless the fees for a project are limited by statute or established by a development agreement.

The police calls-per-unit-per-year factors used to calculate impact fees for police facilities are shown in Table 2.3 in Chapter 2 and are used in Table 5.4 in this chapter to calculate impact fees per unit for each type of development defined in this study.

Level-of-Service Standard
The level-of-service standard used in this study to calculate impact fees for Police Department facilities is the existing level of service. That level is defined as the replacement cost of the City’s existing Police Department facilities divided by the existing number of calls per year, which results in a cost per call. To calculate impact fees per unit, by development type, that cost per call is multiplied by the number of calls per unit per year for each development type defined in this study.

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

Page 389 of 517 ends

City of Brisbane Page 5-2
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
Existing Police Department Facilities
Table 5.1 shows key data about Brisbane’s existing police station, including its current replacement cost which is combined with the land value of the Police Department’s share of the City Hall/police station site to arrive at the impact fee cost basis. The police station’s share of outstanding debt related to existing facilities is deducted from the impact fee cost basis so that it reflects only the City’s equity in the existing facility.

Table 5.2 shows an inventory of the Brisbane Police Department’s vehicle fleet. The replacement cost of those vehicles will be included in the cost basis for the impact fees calculated in this chapter. Leased vehicles are not considered in this analysis.

Table 5.1: Existing Police Department Facilities
Building Site Facility Land Impact Fee
Facility Sq Feet 1Acres 2Repl Cost 3Value 4
Cost Basis 5
Police Facility 7,056 0.51 $ 7,056,000 $ 1,790,250 $ 8,846,250 Outstanding debt on City Hall/Police Station (Police Bldg share = 28%) $ (915,195) $ 7,931,055
1 Building square feet provided by the City of Brisbane is the share of the combined City Hall/Police building occupied by the Police Department 2 Site acres provided by the City of Brisbane; Police Dept share of site for combined City Hall/Police building estimated by NBS at 33% of the total 1.55 acre site 3 Facility replacement cost provided by the City of Brisbane 4 Land value based on $3,500,000 per acre
5 Impact fee cost basis = facility replacement cost + land value; outstanding debt from City/Hall Police Station remodeling/expansion = Police Station portion (28%) of the principal balance on the 2014 bonds; Police Station share of debt based on share of building square feet; outstanding debt provided by the City of Brisbane Finance Dept.

Table 5.2: Existing Police Department Vehicles and Equipment No. of Model Repl Cost Impact Fee
Units Year Make Model Assignment per Unit 1Cost Basis 2 3 2020 Chevrolet Tahoe Patrol $ 84,040.00 $ 252,120.00
1 2015 Ford Explorer Patrol $ 76,551.00 $ 76,551.00
2 2017 Ford Explorer Patrol $ 76,551.00 $ 153,102.00
1 2023 Chevrolet Tahoe Patrol $ 87,314.00 $ 87,314.00
1 2020 Ford Explorer Chief $ 56,164.00 $ 56,164.00
1 2019 Ford F150 CSO $ 69,761.00 $ 69,761.00
2 2021 Harley Road King Traffic Motor $ 39,786.00 $ 79,572.00 16 Sworn Officer Personal Safety Equipment $ 6,041.00 $ 96,656.00 Total $ 871,240.00
1 Vehicle cost per unit includes equipment
2 Impact fee cost basis = number of units X replacement cost per unit Page 390 of 517

City of Brisbane Page 5-3
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
Table 5.3 divides the combined impact fee cost basis for Police Department facilities and vehicles by the number of existing calls for service to calculate the existing level of service in terms of a cost per call for service per year.

In the next section, the cost per call from Table 5.3 is used to calculate impact fees per unit for Police Department facilities for each type of development defined in this study.

Impact Fees per Unit
Table 5.4 shows the calculation of impact fees per unit for Police Department facilities. Those fees are calculated using the per-capita cost from Table 5.3 and calls-per-unit-per-year factors from Table 2.3.

Table 5.3: Existing Level of Service - Police Facilities Impact Fee Existing Calls Cost per
Cost Basis 1 for Service 2Call 3
$8,802,295 15,592 $564.54
1 Impact fee cost basis = sum of impact fee cost basis from Table

5.1 and Table 5.2
2 See Table 2.4
3 Cost per call = impact fee cost basis / existing calls for service per year
Table 5.4: Impact Fees per Unit - Police Facilities
Development
Type Units 1
Cost per
Call 2
Calls
per Unit 3
Impact Fee
per Unit 4
Residential <800 Sq. Ft. Unit DU $564.54 0.70 $ 395.18
Residential 800-1,200 Sq. Ft. Unit DU $564.54 1.10 $ 620.99 Residential 1,200-2,100 Sq. Ft. Unit DU $564.54 1.50 $ 846.81 Residential >2,100 Sq. Ft. Unit DU $564.54 1.90 $ 1,072.62 Commercial KSF $564.54 17.11 $ 9,657.19
Hotel/Motel Room $564.54 4.34 $ 2,452.17
Office KSF $564.54 0.33 $ 186.30
Life Science/R&D KSF $564.54 0.58 $ 327.43
Industrial KSF $564.54 4.98 $ 2,811.41
Warehouse KSF $564.54 1.01 $ 570.18
1 Units of development: DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area; Room = guest room or suite
2 See Table 5.3
3 Police calls per unit; see Table 2.3
4 Impact fee per unit = cost per call X calls per unit Page 391 of 517

City of Brisbane Page 5-4
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
Projected Revenue
Table 5.5 projects potential revenue from the police impact fees. That projection is based on the cost per call from Table 5.3 and the calls per unit per year from Table 2.5.

The projected revenue shown in Table 5.5 assumes that future development in the City will occur as forecasted in Chapter 2. It does not account for limits on impact fees set by development agreements for some future projects.

Updating the Fees
The impact fees calculated in this chapter are based on estimated current replacement costs for the City’s existing Police Department facilities. We recommend that the fees be reviewed annually and adjusted as needed using the most current cost estimates. The City will be required to update the nexus study at least every eight years, per Government Code Section 66016.5(a)(8).

The California Cost Index, published by the Department of General Services and the Engineering News Record Building Cost Index (BCI) can be useful for indexing construction costs over time.

The City will be required to update the nexus study at least every eight years, per Government Code Section 66016.5(a)(8).

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

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

Identify the purpose of the fee;
Identify the use of the fee; and,
Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between:
a. The use of the fee and the development type on which it is imposed; Table 5.5: Projected Revenue - Police Impact Fees
Development Added Calls Cost per Projected
Type For Service 1Call 2
Revenue 3
All Development 17,834 $564.54 $ 10,068,024
Total $ 10,068,024
1 See Table 2.5; added calls for service in this table do not include calls generated by public facilities, public schools or parks 2 See Table 5.3
3 Projected revenue = added calls for service X cost per call Page 392 of 517

City of Brisbane Page 5-5
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
b. The need for the facility and the type of development on which the fee is imposed; and
c. The amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development project.

Purpose of the Fee: The purpose of the impact fees calculated in this chapter is to provide additional Police Department facilities and vehicles to maintain the existing level of service for those facilities in Brisbane.

Use of the Fee. Impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to pay for additional Police Department facilities and vehicles described in the City’s Capital Improvement Plan to serve new development in the City.

Reasonable Relationship between the Use of the Fee and the Development Type on Which It Is Imposed. The impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to pay for additional Police Department facilities and vehicles needed to serve new development in Brisbane at the currently existing level of service in terms of the relationship between facility cost and calls for service per year.

Reasonable Relationship between the Need for the Facilities and the Type of Development on Which the Fee Is Imposed. Added calls for service associated with new development will increase the need for Police Department facilities and vehicles in Brisbane. The police impact fees will provide funding for additional Police Department facilities and vehicles needed to maintain the existing level of service in Brisbane.

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

Page 393 of 517 ends

City of Brisbane Page 6-1
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
Chapter 6. Fire Department Facilities
This chapter calculates impact fees for Fire Department facilities, apparatus and vehicles in Brisbane. Fire protection and emergency response services in Brisbane are provided by the North County Fire Authority (NCFA). Brisbane currently has one fire station which is owned by the City and operated by NCFA. The City and NCFA are planning to construct one additional fire station to serve future development in the City.

Methodology
Unlike the other impact fees calculated in this report, the fire impact fees are calculated using the planned facilities method discussed in Chapter 1. With that method, impact fees are based on the cost of providing additional facilities, apparatus and vehicles needed to serve new development.

The reason that the fire impact fees are calculated using the planned facilities method instead of the existing inventory method used to calculate other impact fees in this study is that impact fees based on the existing inventory method would generate impact fee revenue in excess of the cost of the planned future fire station with its new apparatus and vehicles. NBS also calculated fire impact fees based on the system plan method and found the same to be true in terms of projected impact fee revenue exceeding the cost of planned improvements.

Service Area
Brisbane’s Fire Department facilities serve all development in the City. The impact fees calculated in this chapter are intended to apply to all new development except for public facilities, unless the fees for a project are limited by statute or established by a development agreement.

The fire calls-per-unit-per-year factors used to calculate impact fees for Fire Department facilities in this chapter are shown in Table 2.3 in Chapter 2 and are used in Table 6.4 in to calculate impact fees per unit for each type of development defined in this study.

Level-of-Service Standard
The level-of-service standard used in this study to calculate impact fees for Fire Department facilities is the relationship between the estimated cost of the City’s planned new fire station and its associated apparatus and vehicles and the number of additional calls for service per year that will be generated by future development in the City to buildout. That level of service is defined as a cost per call for service, calculated by dividing the estimated cost of the new fire station and

Page 394 of 517 ends

City of Brisbane Page 6-2
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
associated assets by the projected number of calls for service per year to be generated by new development between 2025 and buildout of available land in Brisbane.

This level of service standard is consistent with the use of the planned facilities method discussed in the Methodology section above
In 2021, Section 66016.5 was added to the Mitigation Fee by Act AB 602. That section requires, after January 1, 2022, that the level of service used in an impact fee study must be compared with the existing level of service.

Although the cost per unit of new development based on the planned facilities method discussed above is less than the expenditure required to serve the existing service population in terms of cost per call for service, the level of service for new development will be equivalent with the level of service for the existing service population and appropriate since it will provide the City and NCFA with sufficient resources to respond to the new calls for service from new development in a manner equivalent with the level of service provided to the existing service population. The cost per call shown in Table 6.3 on the next page is $21,759.45, whereas the cost per call for the existing level of service based on the value of existing assets and existing calls for service would be $31,080.39.

Planned Fire Department Facilities
Table 6.1 shows key data about Brisbane’s planned future fire station, including estimated cost costs for land and construction. The impact fee cost basis in Table 6.1 is the sum of the land and construction costs.

Table 6.2 lists the new apparatus and vehicles that will be needed to equip the new fire station.

The cost of the additional apparatus and vehicles will be included in the cost basis for the impact fees calculated in this chapter. Table 6.2 also includes the cost of firefighter personal protective equipment for additional firefighters needed to staff a second fire station.

Table 6.1: Planned Future Fire Department Facilities
Building Site Facility Land Impact Fee
Facility Sq Feet 1Acres 2
Constr Cost 3Cost 4Cost Basis 5
Baylands Station 12,000 1.50 $ 14,400,000 $ 5,250,000 $ 19,650,000 1 Building square feet provided by North County Fire Authority 2 Site acres provided by North County Fire Authority
3 Facility construction cost based on $1,200 per square foot 4 Land value based on $3,500,000 per acre
5 Impact fee cost basis = facility replacement cost + land value Page 395 of 517

City of Brisbane Page 6-3
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
Table 6.3 divides the combined impact fee cost from Tables 6.1 and 6.2 by the projected increase in fire calls for service per year to arrive at a cost per call for service per year.

In the next section, the cost per call from Table 6.3 is used to calculate impact fees per unit for additional Fire Department facilities and other capital assets needed to serve projected future development in Brisbane. Impact fees are calculated for each type of development defined in this study.

Impact Fees per Unit
Table 6.4 showsthe calculation of impact fees per unit for planned new Fire Department facilities, apparatus and vehicles. Those fees are calculated using the cost per call from Table 6.3 and fire calls-for-service-per-unit per year factors from Table 2.1.

Table 6.2: Future Fire Station Apparatus, Vehicles and Equipment Replacement Impact Fee
Units Description Cost per Unit 1Cost Basis 3
1 Ladder Truck $ 3,000,000 $ 3,000,000
1 Type 1 Engine $ 1,700,000 $ 1,700,000
2 Administrative Vehicle $ 100,000 $ 100,000
18 Personal Protective Equipt $ 45,662 $ 821,916
Total $ 5,621,916
Table 6.3: Cost per Call per Year - Planned Fire Dept. Facilities/Equipment Cost Impact Fee Added Calls Cost per
Component Cost Basis 1 for Service 2Call 3
Planned Facilities $ 19,650,000 1,161 $ 16,918.91
Future Station Apparatus, Vehicles, Equipt $ 5,621,916 1,161 $ 4,840.54 Total $ 25,271,916 1,161 $ 21,759.45
1 See Tables 6.1 and 6.2
2 See Table 2.5
3 Cost per call = impact fee cost basis / added calls for service per year Page 396 of 517

City of Brisbane Page 6-4
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
Projected Revenue
Table 6.5 projects potential revenue from the fire impact fees. That projection is based on the cost per call from Table 6.3 and the calls per unit per year from Table 2.5.

The projected revenue shown in Table 6.5 is equal to the estimated cost of the planned new fire station and its associated apparatus and vehicles. The projected revenue calculation assumes that future development in the City will occur as forecasted in Chapter 2. It does not account for limits on impact fees set by development agreements for some future projects.

Updating the Fees
The impact fees calculated in this chapter are based on estimated costs for the City’s planned future Fire Department facilities, apparatus and vehicles. We recommend that the fees be reviewed annually and adjusted as needed using the most current cost estimates. The City will Table 6.4: Impact Fees per Unit - Fire Department Facilities Development
Type Units 1
Cost per Call
2 Fire Calls
per Unit 3
Impact Fee
per Unit 4
Residential <800 Sq. Ft. Unit DU $21,759.45 0.12 $ 2,611.13 Residential 800-1,200 Sq. Ft. Unit DU $21,759.45 0.14 $ 3,046.32 Residential 1,200-2,100 Sq. Ft. Unit DU $21,759.45 0.16 $ 3,481.51 Residential >2,100 Sq. Ft. Unit DU $21,759.45 0.18 $ 3,916.70 Commercial KSF $21,759.45 0.26 $ 5,565.97
Hotel/Motel Room $21,759.45 0.11 $ 2,305.27
Office KSF $21,759.45 0.02 $ 478.71
Life Science/R&D KSF $21,759.45 0.07 $ 1,523.16
Industrial KSF $21,759.45 0.02 $ 391.67
Warehouse KSF $21,759.45 0.03 $ 739.82
1 Units of development: DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area; Room = guest room or suite
2 See Table 6.3
3 Fire Calls per unit; see Table 2.3
4 Impact fee per unit = cost per call X calls per unit
Table 6.5: Projected Revenue - Fire Impact Fees
Development Added Calls Cost per Projected
Type for Service 1
Call 2Revenue 3
All Development 1,140 $21,759.45 $ 24,808,440
Total $ 24,808,440
1 See Table 2.5; added calls for service in this table do not include calls generated by public facilities, public schools or parks 2 See Table 6.3
3 Projected revenue = added service population X cost per capita Page 397 of 517

City of Brisbane Page 6-5
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
be required to update the nexus study at least every eight years, per Government Code Section 66016.5(a)(8). The California Cost Index, published by the Department of General Services and the Engineering News Record Building Cost Index (BCI) can be useful for indexing construction costs over time. The City will be required to update the nexus study at least every eight years, per Government Code Section 66016.5(a)(8).

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

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

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

Purpose of the Fee: The purpose of the impact fees calculated in this chapter is to provide additional Fire Department facilities apparatus and vehicles needed to maintain serve future development in Brisbane.

Use of the Fee. Impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to pay for additional Fire Department facilities, apparatus and vehicles described in the City’s Capital Improvement Plan to serve new development in the City.

Reasonable Relationship between the Use of the Fee and the Development Type on Which It Is Imposed. The impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to pay for additional Fire Department facilities, apparatus and vehicles needed to serve new development in Brisbane.

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

Page 398 of 517 ends

City of Brisbane Page 6-6
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
The fire impact fees will provide funding for those additional Fire Department facilities, apparatus and vehicles needed to serve planned future development in Brisbane.

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

Page 399 of 517 ends

City of Brisbane Page 7-1
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
Chapter 7. Implementation
This chapter of the report summarizes requirements for adoption and administration of impact fees, calculated in this study. It was not prepared by an attorney and is not intended as legal advice.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Section 66022 (a) provides a separate procedure for challenging the establishment of an impact fee.

Such challenges must be filed within 120 days of enactment.

Collection of Fees. Section 66007, as amended by SB 937 in 2024, provides that, with some exceptions, a local agency shall not require payment of impact fees by developers of residential development projects prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy, or first temporary certificate of occupancy, whichever occurs first. That provision does not apply if construction of the

Page 400 of 517 ends

City of Brisbane Page 7-2
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
residential development does not begin within five years of the date upon which the building permit is issued.

An exception that allows utility service fees to be collected when an application for service is received, is now limited to the cost of “connection activities.” Local agencies may require payment of fees prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy under certain conditions, including if the fees are to reimburse the agency for expenditures previously made, unless the project reserves at least 49% of residential units for occupancy by lower income households. For such projects, the local agency may require posting of a performance bond or letter of credit from a federally insured depository institution to guarantee payment when the fees are eligible for collection.

In cases where the fees are not collected upon issuance of building permits, Sections 66007 (d) (1) and (2) provide that the City may require the property owner to execute a contract to pay the fee, and to record that contract as a lien against the property until the fees are paid. The local agency may not charge interest or other fees on any amounts deferred pursuant to Section 66007.

If a residential development contains more than one dwelling, the local agency may determine whether the fees or charges described shall be paid on a pro rata basis for each dwelling when it receives its certificate of occupancy, on a pro rata basis when a certain percentage of the dwellings have received their certificate of occupancy, or on a lump-sum basis when all the dwellings in the development receive their certificate of occupancy.

Statutory restrictions on the time at which fees may be collected do not apply to non-residential development.

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

The language of the law is not clear as to whether depositing fees "with other fees for the improvement" refers to a specific capital improvement or a class of improvements (e.g., street improvements). Common practice is to maintain separate funds or accounts for impact fee revenues by facility category (i.e., streets, park improvements), but not for individual projects.

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

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

Page 401 of 517 ends

City of Brisbane Page 7-3
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
In some cases, an agency may desire to voluntarily waive or reduce impact fees that would otherwise apply to a project as a way of promoting goals such as affordable housing or economic development.

Such a waiver or reduction is within the discretion of the governing body but may not result in increased costs to other development projects. So, the effect of such policies is that the lost revenue must be made up from sources other than impact fees.

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

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

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

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

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

2. The amount of the fee;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Five-Year Findings and Refunds under the Mitigation Fee Act. Prior to 1996, The Mitigation Fee Act required that a local agency collecting impact fees was required to expend or commit impact fee

Page 402 of 517 ends

City of Brisbane Page 7-4
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
revenue within five years or make findings to justify a continued need for the money. Otherwise, those funds had to be refunded. SB 1693, adopted in 1996 as an amendment to the Mitigation Fee Act, changed that requirement in material ways.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For a useful discussion of the foregoing requirements, see “The Mitigation Fee Act’s Five-Year Findings Requirement: Beware Costly Pitfalls” by Glen Hansen, Senior Counsel, Abbott and Kindermann, and Rick Jarvis, Managing Partner, Jarvis, Fay and Gibson, presented at the 2022 League of California Cities City Attorneys Spring Conference.

Audit Requests. Section 66023 provides that any person may request an audit to determine whether any fee or charge levied by a local agency exceeds the amount reasonably necessary to cover the cost of any product, public facility, as defined in Section 66000, or service provided by the local agency. The legislative body of the local agency may retain an independent auditor to conduct the audit but is not required to conduct an audit if an audit has been performed for the same fee within the previous 12 months.

The agency shall retain an independent auditor to conduct an audit only if the person who requests the audit deposits with the local agency the amount of the local agency’s reasonable estimate of the cost of the independent audit. At the conclusion of the audit, the local agency shall reimburse unused sums, if any, or the requesting person shall pay the local agency the excess of the actual cost of the audit over the amount that was deposited.

However, if the local agency fails to comply with the annual report requirement of Section 66006 following the establishment, increase or imposition of a fee, but requires payment of that fee in

Page 403 of 517 ends

City of Brisbane Page 7-5
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
connection with the approval of a development project for three consecutive years, the agency shall not require a deposit for the independent audit and shall pay the cost of the audit.

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

Requirements Imposed by AB 602
This section repeats information about AB 602 which is also included in Chapter 1. In 2021, the California Legislature passed AB 602 and the Governor signed it into law. AB 602 creates some new requirements for impact fees that went into effect in 2022. The new law amends Government Code Section 65940.1 and adds Section 66016.5 to impose the following requirements:
1) A city, county or special district that has an internet website shall post on its website:
a) A current written schedule of fees, exactions and affordability requirements applicable to a proposed housing development project, and shall present that information in a manner that identifies the fees, exactions and affordability requirements that apply to each parcel and the fees that apply to each new water and sewer utility connection b) All zoning ordinances and development standards and specifying the zoning, design and development standards that apply to each parcel
c) A list of the information that will be required from any applicant for a development project, as specified in Government Code Section 69540
d) The current and five previous annual fee reports required by Government Code Section 66006 and Subsection 66013 (d).
e) An archive of impact fee nexus studies, cost of service studies or equivalent conducted on or after January 1, 2018.
2) The above information shall be updated within 30 days of any changes 3) A City or County shall request from a development proponent, upon issuance of a certificate of occupancy or final inspection, the total amount of fees and exactions associated with the project for which the certificate is issued. That information must be posted on the website and updated at least twice a year.
4) Before adoption of an impact fee, an impact fee nexus study shall be adopted. 5) When applicable, the nexus study shall identify the existing level of service for each public facility, identify the proposed new level of service and explain why the new level of service is appropriate

Page 404 of 517 ends

City of Brisbane Page 7-6
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
August 5, 2026
6) If a nexus study supports the increase of an existing fee, the local agency shall review the assumptions of the nexus study supporting the original fee and evaluate the amount of the fees collected under the original fee.
7) A nexus study adopted after July 1, 2022, shall calculate a fee imposed on a housing development project proportionately to the square footage of the proposed units of the development. A local agency that imposes a fee proportionately to the square footage if the proposed units of the development shall be deemed to have used a valid method to establish a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the development. A nexus study is not required to comply with this requirement if the agency makes certain findings outlined in the statute.
8) Large jurisdictions as defined in Section 53559.1 (d) of the Health and Safety Code (counties of 250,000 or more and cities in those counties) shall adopt a capital improvement plan as part of a nexus study.
9) All studies shall be adopted at a public hearing with at least 30-day's notice, and the local agency shall notify any member of the public that requests notice of intent to begin an impact fee nexus study of the date of the hearing.
10) Studies shall be updated at least every eight years, beginning on January 1, 2022.

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

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

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

Page 405 of 517 ends

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

City of Brisbane
September 2, 2026
SF24-1354

Page 406 of 517 ends

This page was intentionally left blank.

Page 407 of 517 ends

Table of Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1 Background .................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Approach ........................................................................................................................................ 2 District Structure ........................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Fee Categories ............................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Population and Employment Rates ...................................................................................................................................... 4 Land Use Inputs ............................................................................................................................................................................ 5 Trip Generation ............................................................................................................................................................................. 8 Infrastructure Inputs ................................................................................................................................................................... 8 Nexus Analysis and Fee Calculations ........................................................................................ 17 Cost Estimates .............................................................................................................................................................................17 Existing Deficiencies ..................................................................................................................................................................17 Cost Attribution ..........................................................................................................................................................................18 Fee Calculations and Application ........................................................................................................................................18 Fee Calculation Methodology .......................................................................................................................................19 Summary of Required Program Elements ................................................................................ 24 Fundamental Nexus Requirements .....................................................................................................................................24 Additional Elements ..................................................................................................................................................................25 Attachments
Attachment A: Project Cut Sheets
Attachment B: Bayshore Boulevard Cost Attribution Calculations Attachment C: Guidance for Future Updates of the Transportation Impact Fee

Page 408 of 517 ends

List of Figures
Figure 1: Study Area ............................................................................................................................................................................ 3 List of Tables
Table 1: City of Brisbane Household and Employment Projections, excluding Baylands Specific Plan ............. 5 Table 2: Land Use Projects Approved Since 2015 .................................................................................................................. 6 Table 3: Brisbane Land Use Growth within TIF Districts ........................................................................................................ 7 Table 4: PM Peak Hour Trip Generation for TIF Land Use Categories ............................................................................. 8 Table 5: Transportation Impact Fee Capital Improvement Plan ..................................................................................... 11 Table 6: Allocation of TIF-Eligible Project Costs by District .............................................................................................. 20 Table 7: Land Use Trip Generation and District Cost Allocation Inputs ....................................................................... 21 Table 8: Maximum Fee Calculation by TIF District and Land Use................................................................................... 22

Page 409 of 517 ends

Brisbane Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) Nexus Study
August 2026
1 Introduction
The City of Brisbane (City) expects significant population and employment growth that requires transportation capital improvements to meet the demands of new development. The City hired Fehr & Peers to create the Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) Nexus Study to study cost sharing of the needed transportation capital improvements. In collaboration with the City of Brisbane, transportation capital improvement projects necessary to accommodate anticipated growth were identified, along with their estimated costs. The study identifies fees for transportation improvements across the city for each land use type expected to be built.

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

Page 410 of 517 ends

Brisbane Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) Nexus Study
August 2026
2 Approach
District Structure
The nexus analysis in Brisbane is structured with a district approach that groups infrastructure projects according to the specific development areas most responsible for the need. This approach contrasts with a citywide approach which would be agnostic to the locations of infrastructure and land development projects within the City. City staff preferred a district approach because new development and corresponding infrastructure improvements are concentrated in discrete areas of the City.

The TIF is structured into the following three districts:
• Baylands
• Sierra Point
• West Brisbane
Figure 1 displays the general location of these districts. Any future expansion of the Recology site that occurs within Brisbane would be included within the Baylands area. For the purposes of calculating fees, Guadalupe Quarry is included in the West Brisbane TIF District although the site is not currently within the city limits of Brisbane. Fees on development within Guadalupe Quarry would only be charged if the Quarry is incorporated within the City and the TIF in the future. In addition to its TIF obligations, the Guadalupe Quarry project would be solely responsible for constructing site access improvements as a part of the project description or mitigation measures/conditions of approval, including on Quarry Road, secondary access drive, and multi-modal improvements on South Hill Drive; as a result, it is not anticipated that additional transportation improvements would need to be added to the TIF when the Quarry area is incorporated into the City.

Page 411 of 517 ends

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

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

Page 412 of 517 ends

Brisbane Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) Nexus Study
August 2026
4 Fee Categories
Based on the City’s input and the types of land uses anticipated per the City’s General Plan and available Specific Plan documents, the fee categories for this TIF study are:
• Office
• Life science / R&D
• Hotel
• Industrial
• Warehouse
• Residential
• Retail
Traffic generated by new residential uses is accounted for in the nexus analysis and proportional allocation of fees; however, based on direction from staff, impact fees will not be levied for residential uses outside of the Baylands TIF District. This will result in an impact fee program that is not fully funded (i.e., the total amount in collected fees will not fully pay for the improvements assumed in the impact fee program), because the proportion of costs attributable to new residential development outside of the Baylands TIF District will need to be covered through other funding sources. This study has calculated the number of trips anticipated to be generated by new residential land uses outside of the Baylands TIF District and found it to be less than 10 percent of the total future trips generated by new growth in the City.

Population and Employment Rates
We used population and employment rates from the Brisbane Baylands Transportation Impact Assessment (“Baylands TIA”, Fehr & Peers, 2024) and Fiscal Impact Analysis of The Baylands Specific Plan (Economic & Planning Systems, Inc., 2022) to estimate demand allocation among the various land use categories.

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

Page 413 of 517 ends

Brisbane Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) Nexus Study
August 2026
5 • Industrial = 500 square feet per employee3
• Warehouse = 1,000 square feet per employee4
• Residential = 2.23 persons per dwelling unit5
• Retail = 580 square feet per employee
The Baylands TIA references the ITE Trip Generation Manual land use code 710 per employee rate for all employment uses, which has the largest dataset for employment-based uses. Therefore, ITE land use code 710 is appropriate to represent the trip generating characteristics of employees for the employment land uses presented above (note that it excludes residential and hotel land uses).

Land Use Inputs
This section summarizes the anticipated land use growth within the City of Brisbane that results in the need for the infrastructure improvements included in the TIF Nexus Study. Table 1 presents Brisbane’s General Plan household and employment projections between 2015 and 2050 used in the cumulative impact analyses for the Baylands Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (Baylands EIR). The growth projections in Table 1 exclude the Baylands Specific Plan as described further in Table 3. The Baylands Specific Plan was incorporated into the General Plan via an amendment through Measure JJ in 2018.

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

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

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

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

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

Page 414 of 517 ends

Brisbane Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) Nexus Study
August 2026
6 Table 2: Land Use Projects Approved Since 2015
Development TIF District Residential
Uses (Units)
Commercial Uses
Quantity
(1,000 sf)
S.F. per
Employee Employees
The Shore at Sierra Point (Biotech) Sierra Point 0 540 350 1,543 The Shore at Sierra Point (Retail) Sierra Point 0 15 580 26 Genesis Marina Sierra Point 0 422 350 1,206
3750-3780 Bayshore Boulevard West
Brisbane 30 0 -- 0
25 Visitacion Ave. Mixed-Use Project West
Brisbane 2 0.734 580 1
213 Visitacion Ave. Mixed-Use Project West
Brisbane 4 0.283 580 1
18 Visitacion Ave. Mixed-use Project West
Brisbane 2 0.400 580 1
Subtotal – Approved Projects -- 38 978 -- 2,778
Brisbane General Plan Buildout
(from Table 1) -- 803 -- -- 4,400
Total – Remaining General Plan
Buildout not yet Approved -- 765 -- -- 1,622
Notes: sf = square feet; rate per residential unit is assumed to be 2.23 persons per household Source: Metis, Fehr & Peers. From Brisbane Baylands Transportation Impact Assessment (June 2024), Appendix B.4 Baylands EIR Master Cumulative Project List.

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

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

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

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

Page 415 of 517 ends

Brisbane Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) Nexus Study
August 2026
7 Table 3: Brisbane Land Use Growth within TIF Districts Development TIF District Residential
Uses (Units)
Commercial Uses
Quantity
(1,000 sf or
rooms)6
S.F. per
Employee or
Employees per
Room
Employees
Baylands Specific Plan1 Baylands 2,200 7,000 -- 19,480
Residential Baylands 2,200 -- -- --
Office Baylands -- 6,397.8 -- 18,503
Retail Baylands 0 102.2 580 177
Hotel6 Baylands 0 800 1 800
Other Pipeline Projects
Sierra Point Towers2 Sierra Point 0 853.22 -- 2,373
Sierra Point Hotel and Life
Sciences3 Sierra Point 0 1,165.62 -- 2,526
Life Science / R&D Sierra Point 0 328.81 400 822
Office Sierra Point 0 328.81 300 1,096
Hotel Sierra Point 0 608 1 608
Guadalupe Quarry4 West Brisbane -- 1,322 1,000 1,322
Total Pipeline Projects -- 0 3,340.84 -- 6,221
Remaining General Plan
Buildout after Other
Pipeline Projects5
West Brisbane 765 -- -- 0
Total (City of Brisbane w/
Quarry) -- 2,965 10,341 -- 25,701
Total (City of Brisbane
w/o Quarry) -- 2,965 9,019 -- 24,379
Notes: s.f. = square feet

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

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

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

4. Guadalupe Quarry square feet per employee represents the upper range of potential employees for a warehousing use at the project site based on information provided by the project applicant as a part of the 2025 Draft EIR. A separate application was withdrawn and a new application was filed in 2026 for advanced manufacturing uses. If the project is approved and annexed into the City with a specific development plan that results in a different number of employees than assumed in this study, the applicable TIF fee would need to be recalculated based on the approved development program.

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

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

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

Page 416 of 517 ends

Brisbane Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) Nexus Study
August 2026
8 Trip Generation
Once the land use assumptions were established, the trip generation associated with those land uses was calculated. The PM peak hour trip rates for each land use category were used since this period typically represents the highest trip generation of the day. Vehicle trip rates for the Brisbane Baylands EIR, Sierra Point project EIRs, and Guadalupe Quarry EIR will be used for those projects to reflect trip making behavior within the City of Brisbane, accounting for the TDM measures required by Brisbane Municipal Code 10.52. When updating the TIF Nexus Study, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip rates should be used for other land use categories if no locally appropriate trip rates are available.

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

Table 4: PM Peak Hour Trip Generation for TIF Land Use Categories Land Use
Baylands Sierra Point West Brisbane
Quantity Trip Rate Trips Quantity Trip Rate Trips Quantity Trip Rate Trips Residential 2,200 du 0.30 661 - - - 765 0.36 275
Office 6,397.8 ksf 0.55 3,519 1,182 ksf 0.85 1,008 - - - Retail 102.2 ksf 5.39 551 - - - - - -
Hotel 800 rooms 0.43 344 608 rooms 0.59 359 - - -
Life science /
R&D - - - 328.81 ksf 0.85 281 - - -
Warehouse - - - - - - 1,322 ksf 0.16 205
Total - - 5,075 - - 1,648 - - 480
Notes: du = dwelling unit; ksf = 1,000 square feet
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2025. Vehicle trip rates derived from the Brisbane Baylands EIR, Sierra Point project EIRs, and Guadalupe Quarry EIR.

Infrastructure Inputs
Consistent with AB 602, the infrastructure projects included in the Transportation Impact Fee Program have been identified based on performance objectives that reflect the City's adopted transportation goals and planned transportation network. The text of AB 602 uses the term "level of service" to refer to performance objectives that are used to define the need for capital improvements included in an impact fee program. It is important to note that, in this context, the phrase “level of service” refers to the transportation performance objectives used in the fee program and does not refer to the traffic engineering metric called LOS that measures vehicular delay at intersections.

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

Page 417 of 517 ends

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

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

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

A list of major transportation improvement projects in the City of Brisbane evaluated as part of the TIF is included in Table 5. These projects were identified based on review of past studies and coordination with the City of Brisbane, and align with the performance objectives described above. Attachment A includes cut sheets that summarize key attributes for each transportation improvement project that would be included in the TIF, including:
• Project ID
• Project name
• Project description
• Concept plans if available
• TIF district
• Total project cost estimate
• Assumed TIF contribution (which is further described in the table footnotes and in the subsequent section of this report on Nexus Analysis and Fee Calculations) The transportation improvement projects are generally organized by complexity and how they relate together. The most complex is the Candlestick Interchange (also known as Harney Interchange) due to the shared regional funding agreements outlined in the 2013 Bi-County Study.6 This project is significant in scope and will require funding sources from multiple agencies. Further, the design and cost estimate for the Candlestick Interchange is over a decade old and subject to change. Therefore, the current TIF fee 6 https://www.sfcta.org/projects/bi-county-transportation-study

Page 418 of 517 ends

Brisbane Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) Nexus Study
August 2026
10 calculations include the Candlestick Interchange based on the cost estimate and Brisbane cost allocation identified in the 2013 Bi-County Study. Because the interchange design and cost estimate are expected to be updated in the future, Attachment C provides supplemental fee calculations that exclude the Candlestick Interchange and that could be used as a baseline for a future update to the TIF once a revised interchange scope and cost estimate are available. The Geneva Avenue Extension and other transportation changes were also included in the 2013 Bi-County Study but are not included in this TIF as they are either part of project descriptions (e.g., the Geneva Avenue Extension is a part of the Baylands) or may no longer be required. Information supporting the assumed fee requirements of the nexus study is contained in Table 7.2 Cumulative Projects List of the Baylands Specific Plan EIR.

Page 419 of 517 ends

Brisbane Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) Nexus Study
August 2026
11 Table 5: Transportation Impact Fee Capital Improvement Plan ID Name Description Total Project Cost Assumed TIF Contributio n
TIF
District(s)
Time of
Availability Existing Condition
Planned Condition/
Performance
Objective1
1 Candlestick Interchange Reconfiguration
The Candlestick Interchange Reconfiguration would address deficient conditions that would arise with land use growth in both San Mateo and San Francisco counties, and thus will require significant coordination among several jurisdictions, including the cities of Brisbane, Daly City, San Francisco, and Caltrans. $195,000,0002 $42,344,516
Baylands,
West
Brisbane,
Sierra Point
2035
Existing facilities were
designed under prior
roadway standards and
development patterns
that primarily
emphasized vehicle
throughput and do not
fully support the City's
current multimodal
transportation objectives
.

Modernized interchange
and roadway network
supporting safe
multimodal travel,
improved connectivity,
accommodation of
planned growth, and
implementation of
contemporary
transportation design
practices and Complete
Streets principles.
2a Bayshore Mobility Plan
The Bayshore Mobility Plan sets forth the design plan for Bayshore Boulevard required by Program C.1.b of the City of Brisbane General Plan.3 $10,000,000 $5,504,2654
Baylands,
West
Brisbane,
Sierra Point
2035
Existing corridor was
designed primarily for
regional vehicle
circulation and lacks the
multimodal elements
defined in current City
plans and policies.

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

Page 420 of 517 ends

Brisbane Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) Nexus Study
August 2026
12 ID Name Description Total Project Cost Assumed TIF Contributio n
TIF
District(s)
Time of
Availability Existing Condition
Planned Condition/
Performance
Objective1
2b
Bayshore Boulevard / San Bruno Avenue Signalization
The Bayshore Boulevard and San Bruno Avenue Intersection Improvement is part of the greater Bayshore Boulevard Mobility Plan (see Project 2a), to accommodate traffic and land use growth in West Brisbane. $850,000 $850,000 West Brisbane 2035 See Project 2a.
3a
Sierra Pt Pkwy / Lagoon Road / US 101 Southbound Ramp Roundabout As documented in the Brisbane Baylands Transportation Impact Assessment, a roundabout is the preferred configuration for the rebuilt intersection of Sierra Point Parkway, Lagoon Road, and the U.S. 101 Southbound Ramp Terminal to reduce offramp queues from extending back onto the mainline with the addition of traffic generated by the Baylands Specific Plan and land use growth in Sierra Point.5 $1,025,000 $1,025,000 Baylands, Sierra Point 2035
Existing intersection
configurations were
developed under prior
roadway standards and
do not provide the level
of multimodal safety and
accessibility defined in
current City policies.

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

Page 421 of 517 ends

Brisbane Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) Nexus Study
August 2026
13 ID Name Description Total Project Cost Assumed TIF Contributio n
TIF
District(s)
Time of
Availability Existing Condition
Planned Condition/
Performance
Objective1
3b
Sierra Point Bay Trail Gap Closure
As documented in the Brisbane Baylands Transportation Impact Assessment, with the addition of the Bay Trail segment north of Lagoon Road and the change in land uses proposed by the Baylands Specific Plan and in Sierra Point would create demand for walking and bicycling travel along this segment of Sierra Point Parkway. $1,715,000 $1,715,000 Baylands, Sierra Point 2035
Existing bicycle and
pedestrian
network contains gaps
that limit continuous
and convenient
multimodal travel.

Continuous active
transportation facilities
connecting regional
destinations and
supporting walking,
bicycling, recreation, and
reduced vehicle trips.
4a
Sierra Pt Parkway / Marina Blvd (West) / Shoreline Court Roundabout Operational and safety improvements to the intersection Sierra Point Parkway / Marina Boulevard (West) / Shoreline Court to support the increase in multi-modal travel associated with the increased density of Sierra Point. $3,280,000 $3,280,000 Sierra Point 2035 See Project 3a.

Page 422 of 517 ends

Brisbane Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) Nexus Study
August 2026
14 ID Name Description Total Project Cost Assumed TIF Contributio n
TIF
District(s)
Time of
Availability Existing Condition
Planned Condition/
Performance
Objective1
4b
Sierra Pt Parkway / Marina Blvd (East) / Shoreline Court Roundabout Operational and safety improvements to the intersection Sierra Point Parkway / Marina Boulevard (East) to support the increase in multi-modal travel associated with the increased density of Sierra Point. $2,000,000 $2,000,000 Sierra Point 2035 See Project 3a. 4c
Sierra Point Parkway Terminus Roundabout
Operational and safety improvements to the terminus of the Sierra Point Parkway at the Brisbane Marina driveways to support the increase in multimodal travel associated with the increased density of Sierra Point and facilitate vehicle access to 9000 Marina Boulevard. $2,000,000 $2,000,000 Sierra Point 2035 See Project 3a. 4d
Sierra Point Internal MultiUse Pathway
Safety improvements to connect other proposed Class 1 pathways to provide a complete internal network for multimodal travel in support of the increased density of Sierra Point. $4,000,000 $4,000,000 Sierra Point 2035
Existing
transportation network
lacks a complete
multimodal circulation
system connecting
destinations within
Sierra Point.

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

Page 423 of 517 ends

Brisbane Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) Nexus Study
August 2026
15 ID Name Description Total Project Cost Assumed TIF Contributio n
TIF
District(s)
Time of
Availability Existing Condition
Planned Condition/
Performance
Objective1
5 Parkside Precise Plan: Park Lane
Implement Park Lane street section of the Parkside Precise Plan to accommodate land use changes. $1,200,000 $1,200,000 West Brisbane 2035
Existing roadway
facilities were not
designed to
accommodate planned
future land use patterns
or current multimodal
design objectives.

Transportation facilities
designed to support
multimodal mobility,
safety, accessibility,
network connectivity,
and implementation of
current City
transportation policies.
6 Parkside Precise Plan: Old County Road
Implement Old County Road street section of the Parkside Precise Plan to accommodate land use changes. $100,000 $100,000 West Brisbane 2035 See Project 5.
7 Valley Drive Improvements
Implement Valley Drive bicycle and pedestrian improvements per the 2017 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan and the findings from the Crocker Park Technical Assistance Panel. $3,000,0006 $3,000,000 West Brisbane 2035 See Project 5. 8 BPMP Improvements
General fund for bicycle and pedestrian improvements as identified in the BPMP. Specific locations to be identified as part of further study. $1,132,0006 $1,132,000
Baylands,
West
Brisbane,
Sierra Point
2035 See Project 5.

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

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

Page 424 of 517 ends

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

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

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

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

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

5. A signal or roundabout were identified as mitigation for land use growth in Sierra Point and Baylands to reduce vehicle queues from extending onto U.S. 101. Therefore, the full cost of this improvement is included in the TIF and assigned to development in these two TIF districts.

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

Source: Fehr and Peers, 2026.

Page 425 of 517 ends

Brisbane Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) Nexus Study
August 2026
17 Nexus Analysis and Fee Calculations
Cost Estimates
Individual project costs in Table 5 are presented in current year (2025) dollars. Once the fee program is adopted, inflation will be accounted for by escalating the individual fee rates annually per the Engineering News-Record’s Construction Cost Index. This is an industry standard approach for determining fee escalation and is used for other similar impact fee programs. For projects with prior mitigation contributions, amounts previously collected for the same improvement will be accounted for as credits against the applicable project cost to avoid recovery of costs already funded through prior development obligations.

Existing Deficiencies
One of the key functions of a fee program is to charge fees to new development to fund new development’s proportional share of transportation improvements that are needed to serve the demand generated by new development. The purpose of an impact fee is not to correct existing deficiencies.

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

To determine whether there exist any deficiencies within the facilities contained within the list of transportation improvement projects, available traffic operations analysis for each facility presented in Table 5 was compared against the local performance threshold. The traffic operations analyses are contained within recent EIR documents, including the Bayshore Baylands EIR and the Sierra Point Towers EIR. Based on our review of these documents, all facilities within the list of transportation improvement projects currently operate acceptably and there are no existing deficiencies that need to be accounted for in this nexus analysis.

Beyond the question of existing deficiencies, the available planning documents indicate that autooriented infrastructure within the Sierra Point TIF District is anticipated to become deficient in the future as the planned land use changes will increase multi-modal travel beyond what can be supported by the existing infrastructure. Automobile travel to and from Sierra Point will be constrained by the existing ramp terminal and the two-lane segment of Sierra Point Parkway under US 101; the multi-modal improvements included within this study will provide a complete network of low-stress bicycle and walking facilities, in addition to shuttle stops, to allow for travel by multiple modes into and out of Sierra Point. For this reason, intersections along Sierra Point Parkway that were originally planned to be signalized are now being designed to have roundabouts, and the cost difference between these planned improvements is assumed in this TIF study.

Page 426 of 517 ends

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

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

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

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

Fee Calculations and Application
The project cost estimates attributable to the TIF in Table 5 are distributed to individual TIF districts. The following projects have costs shared across multiple TIF districts:
• Project 1, the Candlestick Interchange Reconfiguration Project, has costs allocated to all three TIF districts per the proportional cost allocation in Table ES-3 of the 2013 Bi-County Study. • Project 2a, the Bayshore Mobility Plan, has its TIF-eligible costs allocated to all three TIF districts based on the number of trips generated by each TIF district in the 2040 Baylands Cumulative Plus Project PM submodel of the CCAG travel demand model. This information was obtained from the model using a “select link” procedure to track the usage of each facility by travelers crossing TIF district boundaries as presented in Attachment B. This project is not fully funded through the TIF because other regional pass-through trips account for a share of the future trips that benefit from this project.

Page 427 of 517 ends

Brisbane Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) Nexus Study
August 2026
19 • Project 3a, Sierra Point Parkway / Lagoon Road / US-101 Southbound Ramp Roundabout, has the full costs allocated between the Baylands and Sierra Point TIF districts as this project is called out as a mitigation measure in the EIR’s for development in these two districts to address intersection operations and queuing impacts. The project has its fee split 50% / 50% between the Baylands and Sierra Point TIF districts. This reflects a shared benefit of the proposed improvements for Baylands residents and Sierra Point employees.
• Project 3b, the Sierra Point Bay Trail Gap Closure, has its fee split 50% / 50% between the Baylands and Sierra Point TIF districts. This reflects a shared benefit of the proposed Class I bike facility for Baylands residents and Sierra Point employees. The Baylands project will roughly double the number of residents living in Brisbane, meaning the employers in Sierra Point will draw a substantial number of their local employees from the Baylands area, and the residents, employees, and visitors of both districts will benefit from closing the gap in this regional trail.

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

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

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

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

Page 428 of 517 ends

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

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

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

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

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2026.

Page 429 of 517 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 430 of 517 ends

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2026.

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

Page 431 of 517 ends

Brisbane Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) Nexus Study
August 2026
23 When comparing the fees across TIF districts, the fees in the Baylands TIF District are lower than those in the other districts because the Baylands TIF district contains significantly more development across which to distribute costs and has lower trip rates given the walking, biking, transit-oriented nature and internalization of trips within the project. It should be noted that the Brisbane Baylands project is also responsible for directly funding several additional infrastructure improvements beyond those included in this TIF Nexus Study, such as the Geneva Avenue Roadway Extension and the Sierra Point Roadway Improvements.

The fees described in this report reflect maximum fees the City could adopt as part of the TIF. The City may choose to adopt fee amounts that are less than the maximum fees shown in this report; this may require additional funding sources to cover the costs for the projects in this nexus study.

Page 432 of 517 ends

Brisbane Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) Nexus Study
August 2026
24 Summary of Required
Program Elements
This report provides a detailed discussion of the elements of the City of Brisbane Transportation Impact Fee program and explains the analytical techniques used to develop this nexus study. The report addresses the following fee program elements required by the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Section 66000 et seq), as summarized below.

Fundamental Nexus Requirements
Section 66001 contains several fundamental requirements that an agency must document when establishing or imposing an impact fee.

1. Identifying the purpose of the fee
The TIF program is established for the purpose of supporting local public infrastructure improvements and facilities needed to mitigate the traffic-related impacts of new development in the City of Brisbane.

2. Identifying how the fee will be used and the facilities to be funded through the fee The fee is used to help fund capital improvement projects that will accommodate future transportation needs throughout the City of Brisbane. Table 5 identifies the projects eligible to be funded through the fee.

3. Determining a reasonable relationship between the fee’s use and the type of development on which the fee is imposed
As described in this report, different types of development generate traffic with different characteristics. The maximum fee calculations presented in Error! Reference source not found. account for these characteristics by calculating the travel-related characteristics of different land use types. These considerations account for the differential impacts on the transportation system generated by different development types.

4. Determining a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facility and the type of development on which the fee is imposed
The need for the facilities listed in Table 5 has been established through local and regional planning processes prepared by the City of Brisbane and member agencies of the Bi-County Study.

Page 433 of 517 ends

Brisbane Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) Nexus Study
August 2026
25 5. Determining a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility (or portion of facility) attributable to new development This report describes the calculations applied to determine the cost of the public facility that is attributable to new development in the City of Brisbane, accounting for the effects of existing deficiencies. Thus, a reasonable effort has been made to quantitatively establish the relationship between the fees charged in the TIF program and the costs of public improvements attributable to new development within the City of Brisbane.

Additional Elements
Due to recent changes in state legislation, Section 66016.5 now defines several additional elements beyond the fundamental nexus requirements that have historically been part of the Mitigation Fee Act.

These additional elements include the following:
• If a nexus study supports the increase of an existing fee, review the assumptions of the nexus study supporting the original fee and evaluate the amount of fees collected under the original fee.

This Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) Nexus Study is the first in the City of Brisbane. Future updates should review its assumptions and evaluate the fees collected under the original fee. • Calculate a fee imposed on a housing development project proportionately to the square footage of proposed units of the development, or explain why that would not be an appropriate metric for calculating fees.

The nexus study fees on housing developments use one fee level for all unit types. Trip rates used to estimate trips generated from residential developments are based on the Baylands Environmental Impact Reports and its analysis which was conducted by Fehr & Peers. The average trip rate from the Baylands EIR assumes an average of 2.23 residents per unit, as allowed by the City of Brisbane’s Measure JJ (2018), which allows a maximum average population density of 2.23 residents per unit for the Baylands project.

The Mitigation Fee Act requires that there be a demonstrated relationship between the fee being charged to a new development and the level of demand that development places on public facilities and services. As described previously, the calculations presented in Error! Reference source not found. account for these characteristics by calculating the travel-related characteristics of different land use types. These considerations account for the differential impacts on the transportation system generated by different development types in different TIF districts. There is no available reference document that directly links trip generation rates to the square footage of a housing unit. Given the lack of readily available reference data about how the size of a housing unit might be related to the demand that unit would place on the transportation system, some agencies in California have undertaken statistical analyses to attempt to better understand that relationship.

Page 434 of 517 ends

Brisbane Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) Nexus Study
August 2026
26 Several of these recent statistical analyses have found limited information available from which to derive conclusions. The analyses cite some sources of information that link trip generation rates to the number of people living in a housing unit, although those sources often present values that are averaged over large geographic areas and the results can differ substantially; for example, some analyses cite the 2017 National Household Travel Survey which indicates that a 4-person household in California generates 12.6 daily trips, while others cite a 2012 national report on Travel Demand Forecasting: Parameters and Techniques that indicates a 4-person household generates 16.1 daily trips. These analyses then estimate the relationship between the number of people living in a house and the square footage of the house using US Census data, and then combine those factors to estimate trip generation rates by house size.

An alternative approach has been taken in Western Riverside County, where an analysis was done based on actual trip generation rates and house size data collected from residential neighborhoods throughout that region. This locally-specific analysis found that single-family house size explained approximately one-half of the variation in trip generation rates, while the other half of the variation was related to other economic and demographic factors such as household income, number of residents with jobs, number of school-age children in the household, number of vehicles owned by the residents, and other factors. In addition, the relationship between single-family house size and trip generation rates was found to hold only for houses up to 2,500 square feet; for larger houses, the statistical relationship was much less strong.

No statistically significant relationship was found for multi-family developments.

In light of the lack of consistent and available sources of data to support conclusions about how housing units of varying sizes affect the transportation system, the Brisbane Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) Nexus Study has determined that square footage is not currently an appropriate metric to use in calculating fees on residential developments in the City, nor is there substantial evidence that the current method of calculating fees is disproportionate to a residential development’s effects on the transportation system.
• In large jurisdictions, adopt a capital improvement plan as a part of the nexus study.

For this purpose, a large jurisdiction is defined as a county with a population of at least 250,000 and all the cities within that county, so the City of Brisbane would meet the definition of a large jurisdiction. The City of Brisbane regularly prepares a capital improvement program (CIP) to guide the expenditure of funds on capital improvements in the City. Before a particular project receives any funds from this TIF program, that project should be included in the City’s CIP and the amount of TIF funds allocated to the project should be identified. Table 5 constitutes the capital improvement plan required under the Mitigation Fee Act for the TIF program. The capital improvement plan will be adopted by the City Council prior to approval of the TIF fees and will be updated annually by the City Council.
• Nexus studies must be updated at least every eight (8) years. This nexus study and associated fee calculations will need to be updated by 2034.

Page 435 of 517 ends

Attachment A:

Project Cut Sheets

Page 436 of 517 ends

Candlesঞ ck Interchange Reconfi guraঞ on

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

The Candlesঞ ck Interchange Reconfi guraঞ on would address defi cient condiঞ ons that would arise with land use growth in both San Mateo and San Francisco counঞ es, and thus will require signifi cant coordinaঞ on among several jurisdicঞ ons, including the ciঞ es of Brisbane, Daly City, and San Francisco and Caltrans. The project includes a reconfi guraঞ on of the exisঞ ng US-101 interchange at Candlesঞ ck Park/Harney Way to accommodate the extension of Geneva Avenue by the Baylands Specifi c Plan from its current terminus at Bayshore Boulevard, over Caltrain, and to a new access point from US-101 to Harney Way.

A 2013 Project Study Report (2013 PSR) by Caltrans and a 2015 Genera Avenue Interchange/Extension Baylands Direct Connector Study by Biggs Cardosa include the following components:
• Southbound ramps converge on exisঞ ng intersecঞ on, off -ramp is new structure and on-ramp footprint remains the same
• Northbound ramps converge on new intersecঞ on, off -ramp uses exisঞ ng footprint and on-ramp has a new structure
• BRT enters around southbound ramps
• Bridge over US-101 towards Bea y Ave (confi guraঞ on not described) The project was evaluated in the Bi-County Transportaঞ on Study (2013) lead by the SFCTA and in partnership with several agencies from both sides of the San FranciscoSan Mateo county line, as a potenঞ al transportaঞ on improvement needed to address signifi cant current and anঞ cipated land use growth. The project has also been considered during the planning of the Candlesঞ ck Point-Hunters Point Shipyard and Schlage Lock (now Baylands North) master plans in San Francisco and Baylands in Brisbane. Conceptual designs of the project have been preapred as part of these studies and projects; however, given the ঞ me elapsed since prior studies, the interchange design would need to be updated to refl ect the current land uses and design standards.

As further described Bi-County Transportaঞ on Study (2011), the funding strategy determined “fair-share” contribuঞ ons from public and private enঞঞ es involved in the study area. The project’s total esঞ mated cost is $195,000,000, with Baylands responsible for $35,880,000, other proposed Brisbane TIF districts responsible for $21,840,000, and the remaining $137,280,000 shared across other jurisdicঞ ons, development projects, and stakeholders. Given the ঞ me elapsed since these esঞ mates were prepared, updated cost esঞ mates are recommended for the revised interchange design noted above.

Source: Geneva Ave Interchange/Extension Baylands Direct Connector Study (2015), Biggs Cardosa Associates, Inc.

WEST BRISBANE SIERRA PT

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

KEY INFORMATION

Page 437 of 517 ends

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

The Bayshore Mobility Plan sets
forth the design plan for Bayshore
Boulevard required by Program C.1.b
of the City of Brisbane General Plan.

General Plan Policy C.1 calls for the
City’s roadway system to be designed
“to emphasize mobility for Brisbane
residents and businesses, accommodate
bicycle and pedestrian in addiঞ on to
vehicular movement, and provide for
comfortable and safe travel within the
community to shopping, employment,
and recreaঞ on, as well as to transit and
the Highway 101 freeway.” General
Plan Policy C.4 further calls for planning
an addiঞ onal east-west corridor to
redirect non-desঞ naঞ on traffi c away
Source: Bayshore Mobility Plan (2024), Fehr & Peers

BAYLANDS WEST BRISBANE SIERRA PT

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

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

Page 438 of 517 ends

TIF District
West Brisbane
Locaঞ on
Bayshore Boulevard / San Bruno
Avenue
Total Project Cost Esঞ mate
$ 850,000
Assumed TIF Contribuঞ on
$ 850,000 - West Brisbane
The Bayshore Boulevard and San Bruno Avenue Intersecঞ on Improvement is part of the greater Bayshore Boulevard Mobility Plan (see Project 2a), to accommodate traffi c and land use growth in West Brisbane. The project could be funded as part of Project 2a or could be funded separately as an interim improvement prior to implementaঞ on of the enঞ re plan (with a credit applied to the rest of Project 2a). The mast arm at Bayshore/San Bruno was already completed as indicated in the TIF Contribuঞ on.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

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

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

Page 439 of 517 ends

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

As documented in the Brisbane Baylands Transportaঞ on Impact Assessment, a roundabout is the preferred confi guraঞ on for the rebuilt intersecঞ on of Sierra Point Parkway, Lagoon Road, and the U.S. 101 Southbound Ramp Terminal to reduce off -ramp queues from extending back onto the mainline with the addiঞ on of traffi c generated by the Baylands Specifi c Plan and land use growth in Sierra Point. A roundabout would replace the traffi c signal required as a part of TRAF-1 P3RE MMRP, with a credit for the $1,025,000 for design and construcঞ on costs already paid by the Sierra Pt LLC applicant .

A roundabout at this locaঞ on will be completed in tandem with the realignment of Lagoon Road as proposed in the Baylands Specifi c Plan. The roundabout will require Caltrans approval and is expected to include the following features based on the Brisbane Baylands Transportaঞ on Impact Assessment:
• Two le[ turn lanes from westbound U.S. 101 Southbound Off -Ramp to southbound Sierra Point Parkway
• Two right turn lanes from northbound Sierra Point Parkway onto the U.S. 101 Southbound On-Ramp
• Taper down to one-lane in each direcঞ on on Sierra Point Parkway south of the roundabout
• One lane in each direcঞ on on Lagoon Road (west leg) and Sierra Point Parkway (north leg)
• Class 1 trail crossings for the Bay Trail across the north and west legs would include features that meet the design standards outlined in the Brisbane Baylands Transportaঞ on Impact Study: Supplemental Design Guidelines, which are based on Caltrans and Bay Trail standards.

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

BAYLANDS

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

KEY INFORMATION

SIERRA PT

Page 440 of 517 ends

TIF District
Baylands and Sierra Point
Locaঞ on
Sierra Point Parkway between Lagoon
Road and Marina Boulevard
Total Project Cost Esঞ mate
$ 1,715,000
Assumed TIF Contribuঞ on*
$ 1,715,000
$ 857,500 - Baylands
$ 857,500 - Sierra Point
* The Sierra Point Bay Trail Gap
Closure, has its fee split 50% / 50%
between the Baylands and Sierra Point
TIF districts. This refl ects a shared
benefi t of the proposed Class I bike
facility for Baylands residents and
Sierra Point employees.

As documented in the Brisbane Baylands Transportaঞ on Impact Assessment, with the addiঞ on of the Bay Trail segment north of Lagoon Road and the change in land uses proposed by the Baylands Specifi c Plan and in Sierra Point would create demand for walking and bicycling travel along this segment of Sierra Point Parkway. With these land uses changes, this segment would represent a 1.2 mile defi cient gap in the “all ages and abiliঞ es” network for people walking and bicycling, as idenঞfi ed by MTC’s Acঞ ve Transportaঞ on Network and Bay Trail Plans, between the proposed pathways in Baylands and Sierra Point. A Bay Trail compliant Class I mulঞ -use pathway on this segment would close this network gap and would allow commuter and recreaঞ onal travelers to walk or bike safely between Bay Trail pathways at Sierra Point and the rest of the City of Brisbane and other nearby communiঞ es.

This Bay Trail segment would connect in the north to the proposed Class 1 mulঞ -use pathways included in the Baylands Specifi c Plan south of Lagoon Road and east of the Sierra Point Parkway extension north of Lagoon Road. This connecঞ on is idenঞfi ed in the San Mateo County Comprehensive Bicycle Plan’s Backbone Network. In the north, the Bay Trail would cross Sierra Point Parkway and Lagoon Road on the north and west legs of the intersecঞ on, as described for Project 3a. In the south, the Bay Trail would travel under the U.S. 101 underpass on the west / south side of Sierra Point Parkway and connect to the Bay Trail and other mulঞ -use pathways on the south and east legs of the U.S. 101 Northbound Ramp Terminal. Class 1 trail crossings would include features that meet the design standards outlined in the Brisbane Baylands Transportaঞ on Impact Study:

Supplemental Design Guidelines, which are based on Caltrans and Bay Trail standards.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

KEY INFORMATION
Sierra Point Bay Trail Gap Closure 3b BAYLANDS SIERRA PT Source: The Baylands Specifi c Plan (2023), Universal Paragon Corporaঞ on The Bay Trail Gap Closure would occur on
the west side of Sierra Point Parkway and
connect to other Bay Trail Segments and Class I
pathways.

Page 441 of 517 ends

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

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

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

Source: City of Brisbane

SIERRA PT

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

KEY INFORMATION

Page 442 of 517 ends

Sierra Pt Parkway / Marina Blvd (East) /
4b Shoreline Court Roundabout
TIF District
Sierra Point
Locaঞ on
Sierra Point Parkway and Marina
Boulevard (East)
Total Project Cost Esঞ mate
$ 2,000,000
Assumed TIF Contribuঞ on
$ 2,000,000 - Sierra Point
The Sierra Point Sub-Area includes operaঞ onal and safety improvements to the intersecঞ on Sierra Point Parkway / Marina Boulevard (East) to support the increase in mulঞ -modal travel associated with the increased density of Sierra Point. The project includes the installaঞ on of a single-lane roundabout to replace the exisঞ ng all-way stop sign with four lane approaches on Sierra Point Parkway and Marina Boulevard. The roundabout and associated reducঞ on from four to two lanes on Sierra Point Parkway and Marina Boulevard approaching the intersecঞ on would reduce vehicle speeds and crossing distances for people walking and bicycling. These would enhance the comfort and safety for people walking and bicycling within Sierra Point and thus encourage the replacement of vehicle trips with walking and bicycling trips. New Bay Trail connecঞ ons would be provided through the roundabout on the north leg to connect Project 5 (Sierra Point Internal Mulঞ -Use Pathway) with the pathway through the 9000 Marina Boulevard property to Project 4C (Sierra Point Parkway Terminus Roundabout). Class 1 trail crossings would include features that meet the design standards outlined in the Brisbane Baylands Transportaঞ on Impact Study: Supplemental Design Guidelines, which are based on Caltrans and Bay Trail standards.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2024

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

KEY INFORMATION

SIERRA PT
See Project 4c

Page 443 of 517 ends

TIF District
Sierra Point
Locaঞ on
Sierra Point Parkway at Brisbane
Marina
Total Project Cost Esঞ mate
$ 2,000,000
Assumed TIF Contribuঞ on
$ 2,000,000 - Sierra Point
The Sierra Point Sub-Area includes operaঞ onal and safety improvements to the terminus of the Sierra Point Parkway at the Brisbane Marina driveways to support the increase in mulঞ -modal travel associated with the increased density of Sierra Point and facilitate vehicle access to 9000 Marina Boulevard. The project includes the installaঞ on of a single-lane roundabout to replace the exisঞ ng all-way stop sign with right-turn channelized slip lanes. The roundabout, reducঞ on from four to two lanes on Sierra Point Parkway, and reconfi guraঞ on of driveway access into the Brisbane Marina would simplify vehicle access while allowing vehicles to use the roundabout to access the proposed driveway and loading zones for 9000 Marina Boulevard. Reduced crossing distances for people walking and bicycling and a designated Class 1 connecঞ on would provide conঞ nuous access all the way from the Sierra Point Gateway to the Brisbane Marina and Bay Trail segment. These would enhance the comfort and safety for people walking and bicycling throughout Sierra Point and thus encourage the replacement of vehicle trips with walking and bicycling trips.

Class 1 trail crossings would include features that meet the design standards outlined in the Brisbane Baylands Transportaঞ on Impact Study: Supplemental Design Guidelines, which are based on Caltrans and Bay Trail standards.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

KEY INFORMATION
Sierra Point Parkway Terminus Roundabout 4c SIERRA PT
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2024
See Project 4b

Page 444 of 517 ends

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

Supplemental Design Guidelines. This would enhance the comfort and safety for people walking and bicycling throughout Sierra Point and thus encourage the replacement of vehicle trips with walking and bicycling trips.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

KEY INFORMATION

SIERRA PT

Page 445 of 517 ends

TIF District
West Brisbane
Locaঞ on
Park Lane between 145 Park Lane and
Old County Road
Total Project Cost Esঞ mate
$ 1,200,000
Assumed TIF Contribuঞ on
$ 1,200,000 - West Brisbane
Implement Park Lane street secঞ on of the Parkside Precise Plan to accommodate land use changes:
• Maintain established street alignments.
• Within exisঞ ng public rights-of-way, narrow the travel lanes and medians to allow excess width to be converted into bike lanes and/or sidewalks according to fi gure above
• Maintain exisঞ ng curb edges and stormwater fl owlines unless otherwise authorized by the City Engineer.
• Add bulb-outs along parking lanes. Landscaping bulbs in the parking lane may be considered at key locaঞ ons if the adjacent parkway does not provide suffi cient width for appropriate landscaping.
• Plant trees in the Brisbane Approved Street Tree List along all roadways to help arঞ culate the street edge and open areas, provide pedestrians with a buff er from motorized traffi c, and off er shade and wind protecঞ on along sidewalks and pathways • Require a clear, unobstructed conঞ guous, minimum eight-footwide ADA accessible boarding and unboarding area at all transit shelters
Source: Parkside Precise Plan (2017), City of Brisbane

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

KEY INFORMATION
Parkside Precise Plan: Park Lane
5 WEST BRISBANE

Page 446 of 517 ends

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

KEY INFORMATION
Parkside Precise Plan: Old County Road 6 WEST BRISBANE
Implement Old County Road street secঞ on of the Parkside Precise Plan to accommodate land use changes:
• Maintain established street alignments.
• Within exisঞ ng public rights-of-way, narrow the travel lanes and medians to allow excess width to be converted into bike lanes and/or sidewalks according to fi gure above
• Maintain exisঞ ng curb edges and stormwater fl owlines unless otherwise authorized by the City Engineer.
• Add bulb-outs along parking lanes. Landscaping bulbs in the parking lane may be considered at key locaঞ ons if the adjacent parkway does not provide suffi cient width for appropriate landscaping.
• Plant trees in the Brisbane Approved Street Tree List along all roadways to help arঞ culate the street edge and open areas, provide pedestrians with a buff er from motorized traffi c, and off er shade and wind protecঞ on along sidewalks and pathways • Require a clear, unobstructed conঞ guous, minimum eight-footwide ADA accessible boarding and unboarding area at all transit shelters
The Class II Bicycle Lanes are planned to be included in an upcoming repaving project, and therefore will be removed from the total cost (~$80,000).

Source: Parkside Precise Plan (2017), City of Brisbane

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Page 447 of 517 ends

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

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

KEY INFORMATION
Valley Drive Improvements 7

WEST BRISBANE

Page 448 of 517 ends

Attachment B:

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

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

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

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2026.

Page 449 of 517 ends

Attachment C:

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

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

Error! Reference source not found. presents the maximum fee rates for each land use category and TIF district, exclusive of the Candlestick Interchange Project. These fee rates are significantly lower than those presented in Table 8 because they exclude the Candlestick Interchange project, which represents the largest cost of the projects included in this TIF. For purposes of the illustrative update methodology below, Table 9 provides a baseline from which the effect of an updated cost for the Candlestick Interchange Project can be evaluated.

Page 450 of 517 ends

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

To update the maximum fee values, use the values in Table 10 to perform the following calculations:

1. Determine each TIF District’s share of Candlestick Interchange costs: allocate the total cost (i.e., dollar value) of the Candlestick Interchange project to each Brisbane TIF district (Baylands, Sierra Point, West Brisbane).

2. Calculate the percentage of growth: Calculate the percentage of growth (e.g., ratio) for each TIF district that results from adding the fees for the Candlestick Interchange in Step 1 to the baseline total costs for each TIF district below. These values would replace the values presented in Table 7, and sum to the total cost for all projects excluding the Candlestick Interchange. ▪ Baylands: $4,644,004
▪ Sierra Point: $13,919,415
▪ West Brisbane: $7,242,845
Calculate the percentage growth as:

𝑁𝑒𝑤 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡 − 𝐵𝑎𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡
𝐵𝑎𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡 × 100

3. Adjust all fee categories in each TIF district: Apply the percentage of growth for each TIF district in Step 2 to all fee categories in the TIF district. For each fee category in the table (e.g., Residential, Office), apply the percentage growth calculated in Step 2. Multiply each fee by:
(1 + 𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝐺𝑟𝑜𝑤𝑡ℎ)
Example: If the percentage growth is 10%, a $100 fee would increase to $110.

Page 451 of 517 ends

The steps above illustrate how changes to a transportation project cost or allocation can be incorporated into the TIF calculation. A similar approach may be applied to other transportation project updates, with the specific allocation methodology based on the nexus established for the affected project. As previously stated, the fees described in this report reflect maximum fees the City could adopt as part of the TIF. The City may choose to adopt fee amounts that are less than the maximum fees shown in this report; this may require additional funding sources to cover the costs of the projects included in the nexus study.

Page 452 of 517 ends

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

Page 453 of 517 ends

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

Page 454 of 517 ends

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

Page 455 of 517 ends

Page 456 of 517 ends

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

Page 457 of 517 ends

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

Page 458 of 517 ends

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

Page 459 of 517 ends

City Council Staff Report
Meeting Date: October 1, 2026
From: Noreen Leek, Parks and Recreation Director
Subject: Update to the Cooperative Agreement between the City of Brisbane and the Brisbane School District
Recommendation
Staff recommend approval of an amended and restated cooperative agreement between the City of Brisbane and the Brisbane School District for the shared use of public facilities and programs.

Background
The cooperative agreement for the shared use of public facilities and programs between the City of Brisbane and the Brisbane Elementary School District was established in 2000 with the first amendment in 2010, and renewed agreements in 2017, and 2021. The agreement is subject to review at each five (5) year anniversary of the initial effective date. The agreement encompasses use of classrooms and spaces within school buildings, athletic fields, the swimming pool, tennis courts, and the BES lower field restroom.

The City of Brisbane and the Brisbane School District have remained collaborative partners to ensure adequate service delivery to residents and students. The cooperative agreement has allowed for shared infrastructure and operating costs of recreational facilities and programs to meet the needs of the community. As recreational and educational needs and trends shift, it is essential for both parties to reconvene to ensure that the agreement remains current.

Discussion
The 2x2 Committee comprised of two City Councilmembers and two school board members met on August 13, 2026, to review the cooperative agreement for the shared use of public facilities and programs. The 2x2 Committee, along with City and District staff proposed amendments and discussed continuation of the agreement into the future. Modifications to the agreement include minor language revisions, an updated cost contribution schedule, and an updated reflection of the current use of facilities by both parties. The full scope of proposed edits can be viewed in Attachment 1; however, noteworthy revisions include the following:

1. Language incorporated regarding the Extended Learning Opportunities Program (ELOP).

2. The District requested that the City take over scheduling of the BES and Lipman fields to external parties. As such, the City would receive 75% of the revenue collected to

Page 460 of 517 ends

support maintenance needs.

3. Given the recent expansion of the ClubRec Afterschool program to accommodate demand, the District is allowing the City use of the BES multi-purpose room on a daily basis. During the school year, custodial responsibilities of the multi-purpose room will be absorbed by the District. However, custodial expenses during the Summer, as a result of the City’s use of the multi-purpose room for camps, will be the responsibility of the City.

4. Adjustments to the cost contribution schedule to reflect restructured amounts.

On September 9, 2026, the BSD School Board voted to approve the MOU as proposed.

Fiscal Impact
Under the terms of the previous agreement from 2021-2026, the City paid the District $86,101 annually. Under the terms of this proposed agreement and revised cost contribution schedule, the City would pay the District $90,000 annually which would be offset by revenue collected for field reservations and contributions by the District for the Extended Learning Opportunities Program (ELOP). Although that figure cannot be quantified at this time, staff are happy to provide an annual report to the Council to analyze and demonstrate the true fiscal impact.

Attachments

1. BSD_Restated Cooperative Agreement_2026_DRAFT
City Manager Approval
Jeremy Dennis, City
Manager
09/24/2026

Page 461 of 517 ends

Rev.8 -1-

AMENDED AND RESTATED

COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR THE SHARED

USE OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND PROGRAMS
THIS AGREEMENT, effective as of June 3, 2021 ("Effective Date"), by and between THE CITY OF BRISBANE ("City"), and THE BRISBANE SCHOOL DISTRICT ("District") is made with reference to the following facts:

A. City and District entered into a certain Cooperative Agreement for the Shared Use of Public Facilities, effective as of July 1, 2000 (the "Cooperative Agreement") providing for the shared use of various public facilities owned and operated by City and District, for the allocation between the parties of responsibility for maintenance and repair of such facilities and payment of various expenses pertaining thereto, and for the shared cost of operating certain programs jointly sponsored by City and District.

B. The Cooperative Agreement was amended by a First Amendment dated November 13, 2001 (the "First Amendment"). The Agreement was further amended dated May 5, 2017. The Agreement was further amended and dated June 3, 2021.

C. The parties desire to further modify the terms and provisions of the Cooperative Agreement by the execution of this agreement. This Amended and Restated Agreement, referred to herein as "this Agreement," is intended as a complete amendment and restatement of all terms and provisions of the Cooperative Agreement and the First Amendment thereto, and the provisions of this Agreement shall supersede and cancel the Cooperative Agreement and the First Amendment in all respects.

NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed as follows:

ARTICLE I

DESCRIPTON OF FACILITIES AND PROGRAMS

1.01. Facilities and Programs to be Shared.

City and District each own various public facilities which they desire to make available for shared use by students attending the District schools, persons participating in recreation programs sponsored by City or District, City's recreation department staff, and members of the general public. City and District also jointly sponsor certain programs conducted for the benefit of District's students. These facilities and programs include the following:
(a) Outdoor Facilities:
(1) The City-owned swimming pool and related facilities located adjacent to Lipman School.

Page 462 of 517 ends

Rev.8 -2-
(2) The tennis courts at Lipman School.
(3) The playing field at Lipman School (the "Lipman Field") (4) The upper playing field at Brisbane Elementary School (the "BES Upper Field") and the lower playing field at Brisbane Elementary School (the "BES Lower Field"). Note: the District is planning to add a 2-classroom building on the BES Upper Field. During and after construction, the upper field will no longer be available for use. (5) The restroom facility at the BES Lower Field.
(6) The outdoor basketball courts at BES.
(7) The playgrounds at BES.
(b) Indoor Facilities:
(1) The multi-purpose room at Lipman School (the “Ray Conti Gymnasium)
(2) Restrooms and other facilities at Lipman and BES.
(3) The modular building on the BES campus.
(4) The multi-purpose room cafeteria at BES.
(c) Programs:
(1) The after-school homework center at Brisbane Elementary School (the “BES Homework Center”).
(2) The after-school homework center at Lipman School (the “Lipman Homework Center”).
(13) The Club Lipman afterschool program, which includes homework support.
(2) The after-school homework center at Brisbane Elementary School (the “BES Homework Center”).
(3) The City of Brisbane’s afterschool program at Brisbane Elementary School for which the District may send students as part of the Extended Learning Opportunities Program, a grant program managed by the California Department of Education.

Page 463 of 517 ends

Rev.8 -3-
(4) The City of Brisbane’s summer camps for which the District may send students as part of the Extended Learning Opportunities Program.
(5) The City of Brisbane’s preschool program at the BES modular. (d) Heavy Equipment either party may borrow from the other for temporary use, such as maintenance equipment, specified vehicles and assorted tools.

1.02. Definitions.

For the purposes of this Agreement, the following terms shall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them by this Section:
(a) Regular school hours. The term “regular school hours” means the period of time during a weekday when school classes are in normal session during the regular school year and does not include extracurricular activities that may occur either before or after the conduct of regularly scheduled classes. (Note: summer school is not considered part of the regular school year.)
(b) CPI. The term “CPI” means the Consumer Price Index for the San Francisco-Oakland Metropolitan Area, all items, as published by the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Page 464 of 517 ends

Rev.8 -4-

ARTICLE II

SHARED USE, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

2.01. Swimming Pool.
(a) Ownership and Maintenance of Swimming Pool. The swimming pool is, and shall remain a City-owned facility, and City shall be responsible for the performance of all maintenance and repairs on the pool and related facilities at City's own expense. (b) Access Easement Granted to City. District has granted to City a nonexclusive access easement over a strip of land as shown on Exhibit "A" attached hereto, on which City has constructed a paved roadway. City shall be responsible for all maintenance and repair of such roadway. The easement shall be used by City solely for the purpose of access to the maintenance building for the pool facility. City shall make reasonable efforts to limit vehicular traffic on this roadway while students are arriving or leaving Lipman School and when students are using Lipman Field.
(c) Use of Pool Facilities by District Students. City will encourage District's use of the pool by making the facility, including lockers and other pool-related amenities, available for use by District, at no cost to District or its students, during regular school hours for at least six (6) weeks in the Spring between April 1st and June 1st, and at least six (6) weeks in the Fall, beginning September 10th, unless the parties mutually agree in writing to modify this schedule. District acknowledges that use of the pool by District will not be exclusive and other persons may be using the pool at the same time.

2.02. Tennis Courts.
(a) Ownership. The tennis courts at Lipman School are and shall remain a District-owned facility.
(b) Use by City and General Public. District shall have preferential use of the tennis courts during regular school hours. Members of the general public shall also be allowed to use the tennis courts during regular school hours if the courts are not then being used by District. During times of the day which do not constitute regular school hours, District will allow the tennis courts to be used by City for park and recreation activities and for general use by the public if the courts are not otherwise needed for scheduled afterschool programs. During non-regular school hours, scheduling of the tennis courts shall be coordinated and supervised by the City; provided, however, it is understood that the City shall not schedule any instruction or other activity on the tennis courts that conflicts with District's scheduled use.
(c) Maintenance. The tennis courts shall be maintained by City, at its sole expense. City shall use its best efforts to schedule its maintenance work to minimize interference with use of the tennis courts by District. By executing this Agreement, District grants to City a right of entry upon the tennis courts and the surrounding area to the extent required for the proper performance of its maintenance responsibilities hereunder.

When maintenance of the courts is deemed excessive, beyond general routine maintenance, City and District shall convene to determine appropriate course of action.

Page 465 of 517 ends

Rev.8 -5-

2.03. Athletic Fields.
(a) Use by District, City and General Public. District shall have exclusive use of the Lipman Field (including use of the parking area), the BES Upper Field, and the BES Lower Field (collectively, the "Athletic Fields") during regular school hours. During times of the day which do not constitute regular school hours, District shall have preferential, non-exclusive use of the Athletic Fields but District shall use its best efforts to accommodate City’s use of these facilities. City’s use of District’s use of athletic fields should be coordinated through the CityDistrict office.
(b) Maintenance of Athletic Fields. City will be responsible for maintenance of the Lipman Field (including the bleachers), the BES Upper Field, and the BES Lower Field. Maintenance work will be performed to the same standard established by City for maintenance of playing fields at public parks and will be scheduled to minimize interference with regular use of the Athletic Fields by District. District shall make an annual cash contribution to City toward the cost of maintenance work for the Athletic Fields, as set forth in the Cost Contribution Schedule attached hereto. District shall have responsibility for maintenance of the hillside above Lipman Field, at its own expense. When maintenance of a field is deemed excessive, beyond general routine maintenance, City and District shall convene to determine appropriate course of action. (c) Alterations. City shall not make any changes to the design features of the Athletic Fields, or construct any capital improvements thereon, without the prior written consent of District.
(d) Scheduling. The City will take administrative responsibility for scheduling activities and collecting fees for the Athletic Fields outside of regular school hours. The City will receive 75% of the fees to compensate the City for field maintenance and scheduling and transfer the remaining fees to the District on a quarterly basis.

2.04. Restroom at BES Lower Field.
(a) Ownership. The restroom facility is and shall remain a City-owned facility, and City shall be responsible for maintenance and repairs at City’s own expense. (b) The restroom facility may be used by District during regular school hours and during after-school activities conducted by District.
(c) In the event the restroom facility located upon the license area is removed by City, the license shall automatically terminate.

2.05. Ray Conti Gymnasium
(a) Shared Use. During times of the day which do not constitute regular school hours, the Ray Conti Gymnasium shall be used for volleyball, basketball and other team sports that are jointly sponsored by District and City. It is expressly understood by City that District may continue to sponsor such team sports on its own if City should suspend its sponsorship of such team sports for whatever reason. District will also allow the Ray Conti Gymnasium to be used by City’s Recreation Department during non-regular school hours

Page 466 of 517 ends

Rev.8 -6-
for compatible activities if the room is not otherwise needed for District activities; provided, however, that City shall reimburse District within forty-five (45) days after receipt of an invoice for repairs of any damage to the Ray Conti Gymnasium that occurs during City’s non-jointly sponsored activities or for excessive cleaning required after a City activity.

City’s use of the gymnasium should be coordinated through the District, . and the City will provide support to the District, in the manner the City deems appropriate, with regard to the technical aspects of facilities scheduling."

(b) Cost Contribution. City shall make an annual cash contribution to District toward the cost of maintaining the Ray Conti Gymnasium, as set forth in the Cost Contribution Schedule attached hereto.

2.06. Indoor Restrooms and Other Facilities at Lipman and BES.

In the event City desires to open either Brisbane Elementary School or Lipman School to allow use of the restrooms during activities which are not co-sponsored by District, or City desires to use any room(s) within the school building for the conduct of a public meeting or other public purpose, District agrees to make the facilities available to City for such use pursuant to the District’s Civic Center Act policy, provided the activity does not conflict with District's own use of the same facilities, and provided further that City shall perform all of the following responsibilities:
(a) City shall notify the school principal in advance, indicating the nature of the activity and the time when availability of the restrooms or other area is desired;

(b) City shall provide supervision for the area used;
(c) If the use involves a public meeting, City shall set up chairs and otherwise arrange and equip the room as may be needed for conduct of the meeting and shall replace all items at the end of the meeting in their proper place; (d) City shall secure the building and reset the alarm when finished. In the event District is charged for false alarms or emergency calls resulting from City's failure to properly secure the building, City shall reimburse District for such charges within forty-five (45) days receipt of an invoice showing such charges.
(e) Custodial. The District will take responsibility for custodial services in these instances during the regular school year. The City will take responsibility for custodial services in these instances related to all Summer Programming by the City.

2.07. Modular Space at BES.
(a) Ownership and Maintenance of Modular. The modular unit on the BES Campus was paid for and installed by the City. It shall remain a City-owned facility, and City shall be responsible for the performance of all maintenance and repairs on the modular at City’s own expense. As the property owner, the District is billed annually for the Fire Alarm monitoring contract in the amount noted on the Cost Contribution Schedule. City shall reimburse the District annually for said cost.

Page 467 of 517 ends

Rev.8 -7-

2.08. BES Homework Center
(a) Operation of Program. District operates the BES Homework Center. The Center will be staffed by personnel selected by District and will operate on Mondays through Fridays between the hours of 2:30 p.m. and 5 p.m. The City’s Parks and Recreation Department may send students to the Center on any day. Furthermore, it is expressly understood by the parties that the BES staff teachers assigns some students to the Center directly. (b) Cost Sharing. City shall make an annual cash contribution to District toward the cost of the BES Homework Center, as set forth in the Cash Contribution Schedule attached hereto. District shall contribute the balance of costs required for payment of salaries, and any costs pertaining to the facility, such as custodial, utilities and room maintenance.

2.09. Club Lipman Afterschool Program.
(a) Operation of Program. District operates the Club Lipman Afterschool Program. The Center will be staffed by one staff member to be selected bythe District. The Center will operate as may be agreed upon by the parties from time to time; provided, however, that District and City shall hold a meeting at least once each year in May to review and establish hours of operation should the District wish to change the operating hours (currently after school until 5pm) for the following school year. (b) Cost Sharing. City shall reimburse District for one-half (½) of the actual direct cost of providing one staff member staff for the Club Lipman Afterschool Program, not to exceed a maximum annual cost as set forth in the Cost Contribution Schedule attached hereto. District shall furnish a statement to City showing the cost incurred by District for providing one staff memberstaff for the Club Lipman Afterschool ProgramHomework Center during the preceding fiscal year and City shall pay either the amount shown on such statement or the maximum annual cost, whichever is less. All other costs pertaining to the operation of the Club Lipman Afterschool Program, including equipment maintenance and upgrade, custodial, utilities, and room maintenance, shall be paid by District. If the District receives third-party funding by grant to support the Club Lipman Afterschool Program it will meet with the City to review the terms, conditions and amount(s) of said grant(s) with the intent that the District and City share the remaining costs of operating the Club Lipman Afterschool Program equally.

2.10. Heavy Equipment.

From time to time, either party may loan heavy mechanical equipment, vehicles or tools ("Equipment") to the other party for such other party's temporary use. It is agreed that any borrowing of Equipment by one party from the other shall be subject to the following conditions:

Page 468 of 517 ends

Rev.8 -8-
(a) Requests to borrow Equipment shall be made at least 24 hours in advance of needing the Equipment, except in the case of emergency. The Equipment owner shall have no obligation to loan any item.
(b) The Equipment shall only be used by the authorized representatives of the borrowing party and shall not be given to any other person or agency except for the purpose of making necessary repairs on District or City property, in which event, such repair work shall be performed by a person who is qualified to do so. (c) It shall be the responsibility of the borrowing party to inspect the Equipment prior to any use to determine whether it is in proper working condition. All Equipment shall be loaned in "as is" condition and the lending party shall not be deemed to have made any representations or warranties to the borrowing party concerning the nature or condition of the Equipment or its suitability for the borrower's intended use. The borrower expressly assumes all risk of loss, damage, or injury resulting from the borrower's use of the Equipment.
(d) The borrowing party shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the lending party, and its officers, officials, employees and volunteers, from all claims, demands, costs, expenses, or liabilities, arising during and from the use of the Equipment by the borrowing party or any of its officers, officials, employees, or volunteers. (e) The borrowing party shall promptly repair any damage to the Equipment resulting from such party's use. Ordinary maintenance shall be the responsibility of the Equipment owner. above.

ARTICLE III

GENERAL PROVISIONS

3.01. General Priority for Children’s Programs.

The parties agree that in making and coordinating their respective schedules, the activities for children on District property will be given priority over programs for adults.

3.02. Prohibited Activities on District Property.
(a) Prohibitions. No alcohol, smoking, or dogs shall be permitted upon or within any of the District facilities covered by this Agreement while the same are being used by City, or during the course of any activities or programs sponsored by City. City shall also make reasonable efforts, including the posting of signs, to have these prohibitions observed by members of the general public and will, at the request of District, adopt suitable ordinances if such action is deemed necessary and appropriate for enforcement purposes. All District property shall remain drug free zones during periods of City use and will be posted as such in the manner provided by law.

Page 469 of 517 ends

Rev.8 -9-
(b) Excessive Use. City will limit or restrict the activities under its own control in order to avoid undue stress or damage to the Athletic Fields (e.g., golf) or other facilities owned by District and maintained by City (e.g., golf balls hitting windows).

3.03. Dispute Resolution.
(a) Dispute Resolution. In the event of any disagreement between the parties, the matter will be referred to the City Manger of City and the Superintendent of District, who shall meet and attempt to resolve the dispute. If they are unable to agree, the City Council shall appoint two of its members and the District Board of Trustees shall appoint two of its members and these representatives shall meet as a 2x2 Committee for the purpose of considering the matter(s) in controversy. The decision by the 2x2 Committee shall be final and binding on both parties. If, and only if, the 2x2 Committee is unable to arrive at a final decision, they shall retain the services of an independent mediator who shall thereafter preside over the Committee meetings and attempt to facilitate a settlement of the disputed matter. The cost of the mediator shall be divided equally between the parties. It is agreed that neither party shall initiate any claim or lawsuit for breach or default under this Agreement alleged to have been committed by the other party without the matter having first been submitted to mediation and all efforts toward arriving at a negotiated settlement as described hereunder have been exhausted.

3.04. Mutual Indemnification.
(a) Indemnification of City. In accordance with Government Code Section 895.4, District shall fully indemnify, defend, and hold City, and its officers, officials, agents, employees and volunteers harmless from all claims, suits or actions of every name, kind and description, including but not limited to reasonable attorney's fees and other costs of defense, resulting from the negligent acts or omissions of District, its officers, agents, employees or invitees in the performance of this Agreement, or any breach by District of its obligations under this Agreement.
(b) Indemnification of District. In accordance with Government Code Section 895.4, City shall fully indemnify, defend, and hold District, and its officers, officials, agents, employees and volunteers harmless from all claims, suits or actions of every name, kind and description, including but not limited to reasonable attorney's fees and other costs of defense, resulting from the negligent acts or omissions of City, its officers, agents, employees or invitees in the performance of this Agreement, or any breach by City of its obligations under this Agreement.
(c) Concurrent Negligence. In the event of concurrent negligence of District, its officers, officials, agents or employees, and City, its officers, officials, agents or employees, then the liability for any and all claims, suits or actions of every name, kind and description arising out of this Agreement shall be apportioned between the parties under the established California rules of comparative negligence with each party bearing its own attorney’s fees and costs.

3.05. Insurance.

Page 470 of 517 ends

Rev.8 -10-
City and District shall each maintain comprehensive general liability insurance or self insurance, generally at levels currently in effect for each agency, insuring against all liability of City and District and their authorized representatives arising out of and in connection with City’s and District’s use of the facilities under this Agreement.

3.06. Notices.

Any notices required or permitted to be given to the other party under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be either personally delivered to the other party or sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, addressed to the other party as follows:

TO CITY: City of Brisbane
Attention: City Manager
50 Park Place
Brisbane, CA 94005
TO DISTRICT: Brisbane Elementary School District
Attention: Superintendent
1 Solano Street
Brisbane, CA 94005
Either party may change its address by providing notice to the other party as set forth above.

3.07. Excuse of Performance.

Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement to the contrary, any failure by City or District to perform any duty or obligation set forth in this Agreement shall not be deemed a breach of or default in the performance of this Agreement if such failure to perform is caused by fire, earthquake, flood, hurricane, the elements, acts of God or the public enemy; actions, restrictions, limitations or interference of other governmental authorities or their agents; enforcement of applicable provisions of federal, state or local law; war; invasion; insurrection; rebellion; riots; strikes or lockouts; or inability to perform which is beyond the reasonable control of City or District.

3.08. Periodic Review; Termination of Agreement.
(a) This Agreement shall be subject to review at each five (5) year anniversary of the initial Effective Date (the "Anniversary Date"). The parties shall meet and confer at least 120 days prior to each Anniversary Date to review the status and implementation of this Agreement and determine whether any amendments are appropriate. The review shall be deemed completed upon either: (i) a determination by the parties that no amendments are required and the then existing agreement should be continued without change; or (ii) the adoption by both parties of such amendments to the agreement as mutually agreed upon.

Page 471 of 517 ends

Rev.8 -11-
(b) This Agreement may be terminated, in whole or in part, at any time by mutual agreement of the parties, and may be terminated, in whole or in part, by either party upon giving written notice of termination to the other party. In the event of a termination by either party, the following prior written notice shall be required, depending upon the nature of such termination:
(1) Entire Agreement: 360 days.
(2) Swimming Pool: 180 days.
(3) Tennis Courts: 180 days
(4) Athletic Fields: 180 days.
(5) Ray Conti GymnasiumLipman Multi-Purpose Room: 180 days. (6) Indoor Restroom and Other Facilities at Lipman and BES: 180 days. (7) Modular building and cafeteria space at BES: 180 days (8) BES Homework Center: Notice by March 15 of any year; termination to be effective as of June 30 of that year.
(8) BES Homework Center: Notice by February 15 of any year; termination to be effective as of June 30 of that year.
(99) Club Lipman Homework Center: Notice by February March 15 of any year; termination to be
effective as of June 30 of that year.
(10) Afterschool teen enrichment program at Lipman School: Notice by February 15 of any year; termination to be effective as of June 30 of that year. (1011) Heavy Equipment: 30 days.

In the event of termination relating to a facility for which City or District has made an annual contribution toward the cost of operating such facility, the contribution shall be prorated as of the effective date of termination and any unearned portion shall be refunded to the contributing party.

3.09. Miscellaneous Provisions.
(a) Authorization and Amendment. Each party represents and warrants to the other that the persons signing this Agreement have been duly authorized to do so by the party's governing body. This Agreement can only be amended by a written amendment duly executed by each of the parties pursuant to further authorization conferred by the governing body of each party; provided, however, that any amendment that requires an

Page 472 of 517 ends

Rev.8 -12-
expenditure of less than $5,000 may be entered into by the City Manager and the Superintendent and is so authorized by each party’s governing body by entering into this Agreement.
(b) Entire Agreement. This Agreement represents the entire agreement between the parties concerning the subject matter hereof and supersedes and cancels all prior agreements and understandings, whether written or verbal, including the original Cooperative Agreement and the First and Second Amendments thereto.

(c) Effective Date. This Agreement shall become effective as of the date when the governing body of each party has approved the form and content of this Agreement and authorized its representatives to execute this document on its behalf. Such date shall thereupon be inserted at the beginning of this Agreement. (d) Waiver. The failure of either party to enforce any provision of this Agreement shall not be deemed a waiver of that provision, section, or any portion thereof unless such party acknowledges in writing that it is waiving that provision, section, or any portion thereof under this Agreement.
(e) Severability. In the event any provision of this Agreement is deemed unenforceable, it may be severed from the Agreement and the remainder of the Agreement shall be deemed fully enforceable and binding upon the parties. (f) Additional Actions. The parties acknowledge that it is impractical in a transaction of the nature of this Agreement to provide for, or anticipate, every action by City or District that may be required to fully implement the Agreement. Therefore, City and District agree to cooperate in good faith, and to take any such additional actions that may be necessary to fully implement the Agreement.
(g) Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original.
(h) Time of the Essence. Time is of the essence in the performance of the terms and conditions of this Agreement.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement to be effective as of the day and year first above written.

THE CITY OF BRISBANE
By: __________________________________
Approved as to form: Karen Cunningham Coleen
Mackin
Mayor

Page 473 of 517 ends

Rev.8 -13-
__________________________________ Attest: _______________________________ Michael RoushSamantha Zutler Ingrid Padilla ,
Legal Counsel City Clerk

THE BRISBANE ELEMENTARY

SCHOOL DISTRICT
By: __________________________________
_____________________,
Approved as to form: Board President
__________________________________ Attest: _______________________________ _______________________ Ronan Collver Michael Milliken
District Counsel Superintendent

Page 474 of 517 ends

Rev.8 -14-

COST CONTRIBUTION SCHEDULE
District shall make annual cash contributions to City and City shall make annual cash contributions to District for the cost of maintaining facilities used by one party which are owned by the other. For the fiscal year of July 1, 20261 through June 30, 20272, such contributions shall be as follows:

Contributions by District: Amount:

Athletic Fields - Section 2.03(b): $ 10,00075% of field use fees Afterschool program Participation fees of “ELOP” grant eligible students Summer camp program Participation fees of “ELOP” grant eligible students

Contributions by City: Amount:

Lipman Ray Conti Gymnasium– Section 2.05(b): $1815,000
BES Modular – Fire Alarm System Monitoring $2,0008,826
BES Homework Center—Section 2.08(b) $20,000
Lipman Afterschool Program $50,000
The respective cost contributions to be made by each of the parties, as set forth above, shall be adjusted annually based upon the percentage increase, if any, in the CPI published on the nearest date prior to July 1st, as compared with the CPI for the same date of the preceding year.

On or before April 1st of each year, District shall furnish to City an Invoice showing the respective contributions to be made by each of the parties for the next fiscal year, as adjusted for any CPI increase. City shall pay the net amount owed to District, as shown by such Invoice, not later than June 30th.

Page 475 of 517 ends

Rev.8 -15-
EXHIBIT "A"
Access Easement
Granted by District to City

Page 476 of 517 ends

Rev.8 -16-
EXHIBIT "B"
License For Restroom Facility
Granted by District to City

Page 477 of 517 ends

City Council Staff Report
Meeting Date: October 1, 2026
From: Mollie Brown, Management Analyst, Christina
Fernandez, Assistant City Manager
Subject: Approve Final Design by Chris Granillo for Artful Bench Program
Recommendation
Staff recommend the City Council approve the final designs of artist Chris Granillo for benches along the Bay Trail at the Marina as a part of the Public Art Advisory Committee’s Artful Bench Program.

Background
The Public Art Advisory Committee aspired to establish an artfully designed bench program that would combine public seating with site-specific artwork, enhancing both the functional and aesthetic value of public spaces throughout the community. This program provides opportunities for local artists, increases civic engagement, complements the City’s age-friendly goals, and contributes to a more vibrant and welcoming streetscape. The Committee selected locations and directed staff to draft an RFP and solicit prospective artists.

In November 2025, the City Council approved the Public Art Committee’s recommendation to publish an RFP soliciting proposals for artfully designed benches. The RFP was published in November 2025 and a total of fifty-two (52) responsive proposals were received. Proposals were reviewed by the Public Art Advisory Committee in January and February 2026. The Committee evaluated proposals based on alignment with Brisbane’s public art mission as well as the six Brisbane-specific public art criteria that were developed during the master planning process. At their February 24, 2026, meeting, the Committee ranked proposals and established a short-list of artists to be considered for three locations including Mission Blue, the Dog Park, and the Marina.

In March, 2026, the Committee affirmed staff’s approach for soliciting community feedback on the preferred artists for all three locations as well as the timeline for next steps. Public voting through the City’s Engage platform went live on 3/25/2026 and remained open through 4/14/2026. To maximize awareness and encourage participation, staff implemented a comprehensive outreach campaign that included promotion through the City Manager’s eBlast and the City’s social media channels, including Facebook and Instagram. Printed flyers with a QR code linking directly to the voting page were distributed throughout the community at locations such as the Community Center, Mission Blue, Library, Pool, City Hall, and public facilities. Staff also conducted direct outreach by sharing information through City programs (e.g. childcare), informing senior lunch participants, encouraging front-line staff to notify

Page 478 of 517 ends

customers about the opportunity to vote, and included the voting link in Parks and Recreation staff email signatures.

In April 2026, the Committee reviewed the community voting results and discussed their recommendations for preferred artists for each of the three locations. They were unanimous in recommending AnT Sculpture and Design for the Dog Park, Chris Granillo for the Marina, and Luminous Waveforms for Mission Blue. Each of their respective proposals, cost estimates, and draft artist agreements were brought to City Council and were approved at the May 21, 2026 meeting.

Discussion
The artist Chris Granillo has been working directly with the Public Art Advisory Committee and staff during the past several months to finalize designs for each of the six benches, which were approved at their meeting on September 21, 2026. If final design is approved by City Council at their October 1 meeting, painting can begin promptly thereafter and continue as weather permits, with a targeted completion date before December 30, 2026.

Fiscal Impact
The total projected cost for this project is $50,000. Funds to support this project are available within the Public Art Fund (Fund 275). There is no impact to the general fund.

Attachments

1. C. Granillo Final Design Proposal 09 21 26

2. C. Granillo Benches Budget FINAL 09 21 26

3. C. Granillo Bench Timeline 09 21 26
City Manager Approval
Jeremy Dennis, City
Manager
09/24/2026

Page 479 of 517 ends

Page 480 of 517 ends

Page 481 of 517 ends

Page 482 of 517 ends

Page 483 of 517 ends

Page 484 of 517 ends

Page 485 of 517 ends

Mural Proposal: The Wonders of Waterfront Wildlife
City of Brisbane

PROJECT BUDGET AND EXPENSES
Category Item Amount Description
Materials,
Equipment &
Supplies
Anti-moisture exterior sealant primer ($ 200.00)
Golden or Nova acrylic mural paint ($ 1,000.00)
Painting Supplies ($ 2,000.00) paint rollers, fine art paint brushes, palettes, rolling trays
Protective Gear and Supplies ($ 350.00) tarps, safety cones, reflective safety vest, nitrile gloves, knee pads
Clean-up Supplies ($ 100.00) acetone, rags, wire brushes, shop towels, etc World's Best Graffiti Coating ($ 200.00) anti vandalism coating; two coats each on six benches
Mural Shield Varnish ($ 300.00) UV weather resistant varnish; two coats each on six benches
Paint sprayer ($ 30.00)
Power Washer ($ 150.00)
Materials,
Equipment &
Supplies Totals
($ 4,330.00 )
Insurance &
Licensing
Liability Insurance ($ 500.00) indemnifying City of Brisbane, bonded up to $1,000,000
City of Brisbane Business License ($ 50.00)
Insurance &
Licensing Totals
($ 550.00 )
Contingency Totals Contingency Budget ($ 415.00 ) 10% of supplies and equipment totals Artist Fees Chris Granillo - Lead Artist ($ 44,705.00) $7450 per bench inclusive of design, surface preparation, installation, coating, and area cleanup
Artist Fees Totals ($ 44,705.00 )
Total Project Costs ($ 50,000.00 )

Page 486 of 517 ends

Page 487 of 517 ends

City Council Staff Report
Meeting Date: October 1, 2026
From: Jeff Franco, Parks and Recreation Coordinator, Noreen Leek, Parks and Recreation Director
Subject: Lions Club Fun Run and Pumpkin Patch Cosponsorship Application
Recommendation
Approve the Lions Club Fun Run & Pumpkin Patch Application for Event Cosponsorship.

Background
The City of Brisbane has a long-standing tradition of supporting local non-profit organizations by co-sponsoring community events and waiving facility rental and staffing fees. These partnerships expand access to programs that enrich residents’ lives while strengthening civic connections. The City of Brisbane helps nonprofits deliver cultural, recreational, educational, and social services that might otherwise be inaccessible to many community members. This collaborative approach maximizes public resources, increases engagement, encourages volunteerism, fosters inclusivity, and activates our public spaces in meaningful ways.

Discussion
The Brisbane Lions Club, formed in 1947, is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization committed to serving the Brisbane community. Lions Clubs bring individuals together to donate their time towards improving their communities, and the world. The organization helps our local community with access to vision and hearing resources and equipment, scholarships for students in Brisbane, and more.

The Lion’s Club Fun Run & Pumpkin Patch will be held on Saturday, October 17th, 2026, from 9:00am-2:00pm at the Brisbane Community Park Gazebo, Picnic Area 3, and Lawn Area 2. The event includes a pumpkin patch, organized fun run, and BBQ. Meeting the Group II facility rental requirements with the event open to the general public qualifies the club for free use of the facilities and waives the deposit requirements.   It should be noted that the Lion’s Club is also requesting the City’s support with promotion and marketing of the event.

Fiscal Impact
The total amount requested by the Brisbane Lions Club to support this event is $1,367, which is summarized in the table below.

FINANCIAL IMPACT SUMMARY BASED ON APPLICATION

Page 488 of 517 ends

Hourly Rental of Gazebo $672 (including set up and clean up) Daily Rental of Picnic Area 3 $137
Daily Rental of Lawn Area 2 $308
Rental Deposits $250 (Typically refundable absent
damages)
Attachments

1. Lions Club - Cosponsorship Application
City Manager Approval
Jeremy Dennis, City
Manager

Page 489 of 517 ends

a. Brisbane Non-Profit Organization
b. Non-resident, Non-Profit Organization (Outside of Brisbane) c. School District, School, or School Affiliated Group (ex. PTO) d. Private Group, Club, or Organization
What year did your organization begin serving the Brisbane community? 1947 How has your organization contributed to the Brisbane community in the past 2 years? We have provided over $125,000 in scholar awards to 81 brisbane students. we have provided financial support to various community member s in need. We have also helped a family rebuild their home after the mud slides in 2023. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ What is your organization’s mission and/or purpose? To Serve the community of Brisbane. Our Lions club motto is "We Serve". _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ This application must be submitted to the Parks & Recreation Department at least (90) working days prior to the requested event.

Phone: 415-508-2140 | Email: [email protected] | Office: 50 Park Place, Brisbane, CA 94005 City of Brisbane

CO-SPONSORSHIP APPLICATION

APPLICANT INFORMATION
Name of Contact Person: _Lion Sharon Contact Person’s Phone: 650.280.8468 Contact Person’s Email: [email protected]
Name of Organization: Brisbane Lions Club Organization’s Website: BrisbaneLions.org Organization’s Address or P.O. Box: P.O. Box 317, Brisbane, CA, 94005 Circle ONE of the following items below that best describes your organization.

EVENT DETAILS
Name of Event: The Fun Run and Pumpkin
Patch
(mm/dd/yy): 10/17/2026
Event Day of Week: Saturday
Event Set-up Start Time: 8:00am
Event Start Time: 9:00am
Event Close Time: 2pm
Event Location: Community Park: Specifically the Gazebo in case of Rain. The Grass Area out in Front of the Gazebo Area. The Picnic table Areas.

Reservation Permit Number (if applicable): _________________________ Describe what can be expected from this event? (ex. Performance, shopping, activities, etc.) Lions BBQing Hot Dogs, Hamburgers and Veggie Burgers for the fun run. The Lions Pumpkin patch out in the grass area. The Check in for the Fun Run at the picnic table area. BBQing will take place in the Picnic Bench area.

Will there be any fundraising at this event? Yes If yes, what will the funds raised be used for? Brisbane Community Member Needs Are there any admission fees for this event? No If yes, please list them here:
______________________________________________________________________________________________ If this event is NOT open to the general public, what are the restrictions for who may attend? (ex. Age, membership, residency, etc.) Page 1/2

Page 490 of 517 ends

City Staff must be present to accommodate the use of any of our indoor facilities. The following schedule will be used to ensure some-one will be available when you need access. (If you are not requesting indoor facility use, you may skip to the next section) Date of Facility Access (mm/dd/yy):___________________ Opening Time: 3pm___________ Closing Time: 9pm__________ Date of Facility Access (mm/dd/yy):___________________________ Opening Time: ______________ Closing Time: ______________ Date of Facility Access (mm/dd/yy):___________________________ Opening Time: ______________ Closing Time: ______________

INDOOR FACILITY ACCESS REQUEST

PERMITS
Food & Beverage Permits
Will any food or non-alcoholic beverages be sold at your event? No If yes, this permit is required smchealth.org/food-program Will alcoholic beverages be served or sold at your event? NO If yes, you must attach a copy of an Alcoholic Beverage Permit *Full Liquor Liability: If beer or wine is available for consumption and money is transacted in any form (i.e. for donation, for a ticket, for a meal, for entry to the event, for the beverage) then full liquor liability premiums are necessary.

Traffic Permits
Will this event require any street or parking closures? NO If yes, you must obtain a Brisbane Encroachment Permit It would be great if the city would block off parking on San Francisco St so we can park the trailer and truck there the night before
Amplified Sound Permits
Do you wish to use amplified sound at this event? ____ If yes, you must submit an Brisbane Amplified Sound Permit Application

EQUIPMENT USE REQUEST
<Insert Equipment Use Liability Notice>
Indicate the equipment you wish to borrow for this event.

Bluetooth Speaker? ______ with Microphone? ______
Projector & Screen? (Mission Blue Only) Yes
Theater Risers? (Mission Blue Only) ______
Theatrical Lighting? (Mission Blue Only) ______ Lighting Technician? _______ Other: ____________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL SUPPORT
Quantity: Item:
____________ 6ft Long Rectangle Tables
____________ 5ft Diameter Round Tables
____________ Chairs
____________ 10ft x 10ft Canopy/Pop-up Tent
____________ Weighted Sandbags
Do you need any promotional support for this event?
Signboards?
Digital Graphics / Flyers?
Other: ____________________________

USE AGREEMENT & LIABILITY RELEASE

Page 2 ends

Social Media?
Programs?
To the fullest extent allowed by law, I agree to indemnify and defend the City of Brisbane, its directors, officers, agents, employees and volunteers and hold them harmless from and against any and all loss, liability, expense, claims, costs, suits, and damages, including attorneys’ fees, arising out of the use or occupancy described in this application. I agree to waive all rights of subrogation against the City, its elected or appointed officers, officials, agents and employees for losses paid under the terms of any policy which arise from the use or occupancy described in this application.

Applicant Signature______________________________________ Date 09/04/2026

Page 491 of 517 ends

City Council Staff Report
Meeting Date: October 1, 2026
From: Maz Bozorginia, Public Works Director
Subject: Adopt a Resolution Authorizing Submittal of an Individual Grant Application for the CalRecycle
Rubberized Pavement Grant Program
Recommendation
Staff recommends the City Council consider adopting Resolution No. 2026-xx, "Resolution of the City of Brisbane Authorizing Submittal of an Individual Grant Application for the Rubberized Pavement Grant Program"
Background
CalRecycle's Rubberized Pavement Grant Program promotes markets for recycled-content paving materials made from California waste tires by reimbursing first-time or limited users of rubberized asphalt concrete and rubberized chip seal. The City last used this program approximately five years ago to offset pavement maintenance costs on Sierra Point Parkway.

On September 8, 2026, the City applied for funding for a rubberized chip seal on Valley Drive between Bayshore Boulevard and West Hill Drive, covering approximately 42,036 square yards.

At $1.00 per square yard, the eligible reimbursement is $42,036.

Discussion
The attached resolution, based on CalRecycle's template, authorizes the application and designates the Director of Public Works or designee as Signature Authority for five years.

CalRecycle requires its adoption by October 20, 2026.

The Valley Drive project is planned pavement maintenance that will proceed regardless of the grant outcome, and the grant would offset a portion of the cost. As maintenance of an existing roadway, the project is categorically exempt from CEQA under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Class 1, Existing Facilities).

Fiscal Impact
The engineer's estimate is $250,000. If the grant is awarded, it will offset $42,036 of that cost.

The remainder will be funded with Measure A Sales Tax and State Gas Tax revenues, the City's primary funding sources for street maintenance and pavement rehabilitation.

Attachments

1. Resolution CalRecycle Grant

Page 492 of 517 ends

City Manager Approval
Jeremy Dennis, City
Manager
09/24/2026

Page 493 of 517 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 2026-xx

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF BRISBANE AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF AN

INDIVIDUAL GRANT APPLICATION FOR THE RUBBERIZED PAVEMENT GRANT

PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the California Public Resources Code authorizes the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) to administer various Grant Programs; and
WHEREAS, in furtherance of this authority, CalRecycle is required to establish procedures governing the administration of the Grant Programs; and WHEREAS, CalRecycle grant application procedures require, among other things, an applicant’s governing body to declare by resolution certain authorizations related to the administration of CalRecycle Grants.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Brisbane is authorized to submit an application to CalRecycle for the rubberized pavement grant program.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Director of Public Works or their designee, are hereby authorized as Signature Authority to execute in the name of the City of Brisbane all grant documents, including but not limited to, applications, agreements, amendments, and requests for payment, necessary to secure grant funds and implement the approved grant project.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that these authorizations are effective for five years from the date of adoption.

Coleen Mackin, Mayor
City of Brisbane
* * * *
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2026-xx was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Brisbane on the 1st day of October 2026 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

Ingrid Padilla, City Clerk
City of Brisbane

Page 494 of 517 ends

City Council Staff Report
Meeting Date: October 1, 2026
From: Nicole Houghton, Parks and Recreation Supervisor, Noreen Leek, Parks and Recreation Director
Subject: Receive Age-Friendly Action Plan Update
Recommendation
Staff recommend the City Council receive an update regarding the Age-Friendly action plan.

Background
On June 20, 2023, the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) and the World Health Organization (WHO) formally designated the City of Brisbane an Age-Friendly City. The framework for age-friendly cities emphasizes the importance of involving older adults in the planning and decision-making to ensure their voices are heard, and their needs are addressed.

The overarching goal of age-friendly cities is to create environments where older adults can thrive, maintain independence, and continue contributing to their communities. By addressing the diverse needs of an aging population, cities enhance the quality of life for older residents and create a more meaningful and inclusive community for people to age in place with grace and dignity.

Over the course of two years, a resident-driven Age-Friendly task force worked alongside City staff and the Center for Age Friendly Excellence (CAFE) to develop an Age-Friendly action plan.

Brisbane’s Age-Friendly action plan develops projects, programs, and policies that demonstrate evidence-based solutions based on nine domains. The domains include:

1. Outdoor Spaces and Buildings

2. Transportation

3. Housing

4. Social Participation

5. Communication and Information

6. Respect and Social Inclusion

7. Civic Participation and Employment

8. Community Support and Health Services

Page 495 of 517 ends

9. Emergency Services
The Age-Friendly Action Plan establishes a community-informed, data-driven framework to foster an inclusive and supportive environment where older adults can thrive, maintain independence, and safely age in place. Designed as a dynamic and evolving roadmap, the Plan integrates Age-Friendly principles into the City’s existing policies, capital planning, and community programming. Rather than functioning as a standalone initiative, it serves as a guiding lens across departments—strengthening coordination, advancing inclusivity, and positioning the City to sustain momentum, pursue grant opportunities, and ensure that residents can age with safety, activity, and dignity.

Discussion
Following adoption of the Age-Friendly Action Plan by the City Council in January 2025, the Council subcommittee convened on March 3, May 27, July 1, and August 25, 2025, to review strategies and action items, identify priorities, and provide direction to staff. Representatives from the Age-Friendly Task Force and members of the public participated in these discussions, after which staff initiated next steps to advance implementation.

City staff utilized a web-based platform, Notion.com, to establish boards for each domain providing a centralized and transparent way to track initiatives, action items, responsible parties, timelines, and progress. This public-facing dashboard captures a project's status while creating accountability and celebrating accomplishments. They can be found at: Age-Friendly City | Brisbane, CA.

The following highlights summarize Age-Friendly accomplishments over the past two years, with an emphasis on initiatives that have been completed, are underway, or continue to provide opportunities for growth.

Community Visibility, Connection & Intergenerational Engagement The City has continued to increase visibility of Age-Friendly initiatives and create opportunities for older adults to participate, connect, and share their experiences with the broader community.
• Age-Friendly “Grand-Stand” Booth: The City hosted an Age-Friendly Grand-Stand booth at Day in the Park (October 2025) and the Mental Health Walk (May 2026), inspired by Mike Matthews’ 2012 “Grandma Stand” project. Older adults volunteered in 30–45-minute shifts to share wisdom, advice, and lived experience with community members. Volunteers received lunch vouchers in appreciation of their participation.
• Veterans Day: Brisbane's annual Veterans Day Flag-Raising Ceremony honored Staff Sergeant Yuen Hop and provided an opportunity for resident Janice Au-Young to share the story of her uncle who went missing during World War II. The ceremony

Page 496 of 517 ends

highlighted the importance of preserving and sharing the stories and contributions of older generations.
• Light Up Your Life: Brisbane Age-Friendly Workshop: On November 12, 2025, hosted the Center for Age-Friendly Excellence’s (CAFE) final workshop of the year at the Mission Blue Center. The event brought together City staff, elected officials, residents, volunteers, youth, and regional partners to discuss the importance of social connection, intergenerational engagement, and age-friendly community design. Speakers and participants included representatives from CAFE, San Mateo County Aging and Disability Services, Stanford University, San Mateo County Libraries, Brisbane, Daly City, South San Francisco, Burlingame, San Mateo, and San Carlos. The event was made possible through the leadership of CAFE, including Ann Keighran and Karen Cunningham, and volunteers.
• Age-Friendly Event Access: Age-Friendly seating has continued to be designated at major community events, including Day in the Park and the Festival of Lights. • Volunteer Recognition: Hermann Reiss, a member of the Age-Friendly Task Force, was formally recognized as Volunteer of the Year 2025 for his contributions to the community.
• Public Art and Community Spaces: The Artful Bench Program, initiated by the Public Art Advisory Committee, is underway. The Parks and Recreation Department also launched a Memorial Bench Program, providing accessible community spaces to honor loved ones. Age-Friendly Task Force volunteers contributed recommendations for potential bench locations throughout Brisbane.
• Parcel R: Planning and construction discussions for Parcel R have included strategies to encourage multi-generational use and community engagement. • Waymo Demonstration (March 2026): The City provided opportunities for residents to learn about emerging transportation technology through a Waymo demonstration led by their team and offered rides to experience the driverless vehicles in action.
• Sunrise Newsletter: The Youth Advisory Committee launched the Sunrise Newsletter, designed specifically for older adults. The newsletter provides a multigenerational connection by featuring poetry, upcoming events, San Mateo County Alert registration information, brain games, and other community resources. Three editions have been published and can be found on the City’s Age Friendly website, with future editions being planned.

Home Safety, Emergency Preparedness & Accessibility
Several initiatives have focused on helping older adults remain safe, independent, and connected to essential resources.
• AARP HomeFit: The City applied for and received a $2,500 AARP Community Challenge microgrant to support HomeFit modifications and educational workshops.

The August 31, 2026, informational meeting introduced older adults and families to

Page 497 of 517 ends

strategies for improving home safety and connected them with affordable home modification and repair resources. An additional workshop is planned for October 2026. The program is informed by the AARP HomeFit Guide, with support from the RL Mace Universal Design Institute. Event attendees were equipped with small modifications, motion detecting lights and non-slip carpet pads, to make immediate safety improvements to their homes. The City has also shared “No Fall Autumn” resource reminders through social media.
• Marina Emergency Preparedness: The City acquired solar-powered Jackery generators for use by elderly live-aboards at the Marina who may experience power loss due to high tides, inclement weather, or flooding. The generators can support essential needs such as lighting, refrigeration, cooking, heating, and charging phones and other devices. This initiative complements the City's broader Age-Friendly and emergency preparedness efforts.
• Pedestrian Safety and Accessibility: Staff are partnering with the Complete Streets Safety Subcommittee (CSSC) to conduct a citywide audit of sidewalks, crosswalks, and tree-related visibility obstructions, helping to identify opportunities for improved accessibility and pedestrian safety.
• ADU’s: They City’s Community Development Department maintains a list of housing resources and services on the City’s website, although a current ADU inventory is not presently available. Staff are in the process of updating the ADU informational compendium to provide homeowners with clear, accessible guidance on the ADU development process and to ensure the information remains consistent with recent changes to state law. In addition, staff recently promoted a fair housing training opportunity for landlords and conducted outreach directly to property owners by sending letters informing them about the workshop, which covers landlords’ rights and responsibilities as property owners.

Communication & Resource Awareness
The City has continued to strengthen communication channels and improve access to information and services for older adults and their families. • Library Partnership: Staff have increased cross-promotion of Age-Friendly events and services with the Brisbane Library and have expanded digital literacy programming through this partnership by offering hours at the Sunrise Room as well as the Brisbane Library.
• AARP Educational Resources: The City continues to share information about AARP educational webinars covering topics such as housing solutions, community impact tools, and innovation strategies.
• City Communications: Staff continue to work with the City's Communications team to expand awareness of Age-Friendly resources through the City's website, social media, STAR, and newsletters.
• Help at Home Resources: Help at Home booklets, published by the San Mateo

Page 498 of 517 ends

County Commission on Aging, remain available at the Sunrise Room, City Hall, and the Library. The guide provides information on resources including adult day care, grocery and meal delivery, medical equipment, home care, and transportation.

Spanish and Chinese versions are also available throughout San Mateo County.

Parks and Recreation Programs and Activities:
• The Parks and Recreation Department continues to release seasonal activity guides online and provides printed copies at the Sunrise Room, City Hall and Community Pool.
• In-person meals are provided weekly on Wednesdays with delivery and pick up options available on Mondays thanks to an ongoing partnership with Samaritan House.
• Age-friendly activities continue to be offered at the Sunrise Room, Community Center, Community Pool and Mission Blue Center.

Volunteer Opportunities & Community Participation
The City continues providing opportunities for residents of all ages to contribute to the community through BrisbaneCARES, including:
• Red curb painting and hydrant restoration
• Document scanning
• Community clean-up events
• Senior activities, including walking groups and lunch deliveries These opportunities support community connection while encouraging residents of various ages to contribute their time and skills.

Cross-Department Collaboration
Implementation of the Age-Friendly Action Plan continues to be a collaborative, citywide effort.

Representatives from Community Development, Police, Public Works, Marina, the City Manager's Office, and North County Fire have contributed to the work, along with community partners including the San Mateo County Library Brisbane Branch, the Age-Friendly Task Force, youth representatives, volunteers, and regional organizations. Together, these efforts reflect Brisbane's continued commitment to creating a community where residents of all ages can remain connected, engaged, safe, and supported.

The Council and community are encouraged to stay informed about the status and progress of projects and initiatives through the City’s Notion boards here. The initial Action Plan covers the 2025–2028 period, and many of the identified efforts remain ongoing. Staff will continue to update the Notion boards as project milestones are reached and new information becomes available, providing an accessible and transparent resource for tracking implementation of the

Page 499 of 517 ends

Action Plan. AARP will conduct a progress evaluation in late 2028. Following that evaluation, the City would subsequently develop an action plan 2.0 for years 2028-2031.

This is an informational update for the Council, and no action needs to be taken at this time.

Fiscal Impact
n/a
Attachments
None
City Manager Approval
Jeremy Dennis, City
Manager
09/23/2026

Page 500 of 517 ends

City Council Staff Report
Meeting Date: October 1, 2026
From: Samantha Zutler, City Attorney, Jeremy Dennis, City Manager, Christina Fernandez, Assistant City Manager
Subject: Consider Adoption of an Urgency Ordinance Establishing a Temporary Moratorium on Data Center Development
Recommendation
Staff recommend adoption of an urgency ordinance establishing a temporary moratorium on data center development pursuant to California Government Code Section 65858.

Background
At its September 17, 2026 Council meeting, the City Council received an update on Planning Issues Subcommittee data center discussions. As a part of these discussions, the Subcommittee directed staff to bring the issue before the City Council for discussion and further direction.

Staff provided Council with a synopsis of the Planning Issues Subcommittee meetings held on July 21, 2026 and August 25, 2026 regarding data centers. As a result, staff presented the Council with various policy options, including taking no action, imposing a moratorium, imposing a citywide ban, revision of definitions of data centers, imposing development standards, amending the zoning code to allow for data centers as a conditional use in certain zones, and allowing data centers to be used by right in specified zones. The Council directed staff to return to a future Council meeting with an urgency ordinance establishing a temporary moratorium on data center development in the City. For additional background details, please see the September 17, 2026 staff report (Attachment 1).

Discussion
The City Attorney has drafted an urgency ordinance (Attachment 2) for review and consideration. Passage of a temporary moratorium with urgency findings requires a four-fifths Council vote. The initial period of the moratorium is 45 days with extensions up to an additional 22 months and 15 days, as needed.

Fiscal Impact
There is no known fiscal impact to passage of this ordinance.

Attachments

1. Data Center Staff Report 09.17.26

2. Interim Urgency Ordinance - Data Centers
City Manager Approval

Page 501 of 517 ends

Jeremy Dennis, City
Manager
09/24/2026

Page 502 of 517 ends

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

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

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

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

Page 503 of 517 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 504 of 517 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 505 of 517 ends

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

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

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

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

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

Page 506 of 517 ends

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

Page 507 of 517 ends

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

Page 508 of 517 ends

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

Page 509 of 517 ends

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

Attachments

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

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

Page 510 of 517 ends

4912-2250-9522 v3
ORDINANCE NO. _____

AN INTERIM ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BRISBANE AS AN URGENCY

MEASURE ESTABLISHING A TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ON THE SITING,

CONSTRUCTION, CONVERSION, AND/OR OPERATION OF NEW DATA

CENTERS WITHIN THE CITY OF BRISBANE
WHEREAS, as a general law city, the City of Brisbane (“City”) is authorized by its police power to make and enforce within its jurisdiction all laws and regulations not in conflict with general laws and to enact regulations for the public peace, morals, and welfare of the City pursuant to California Constitution Article XI, Section 7; and WHEREAS, the City is further authorized to adopt ordinances that, among other things, regulate the use of buildings, structures and land to ensure compatibility between land uses, protect the public’s health, safety and welfare, address infrastructure limitations and public service capacities, preserve natural, scenic, and agricultural resources, and other purposes within the City; and
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65858 authorizes the City Council, without following the procedures otherwise required prior to adoption of a zoning ordinance, to adopt as an urgency measure an interim ordinance, effective immediately upon a four-fifths vote of the City Council, to protect the public health, safety, and welfare, prohibiting any uses that may be in conflict with a contemplated general plan, specific plan, or zoning proposal that the City is considering or studying or intends to study within a reasonable time, to be in effect for a period of forty-five (45) days, unless extended pursuant to the Government Code; and
WHEREAS, “data center” is currently defined as a “business providing for the storage of computer systems and associated components” in Section 17.02.187 of the Brisbane Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, Brisbane Municipal Code Chapters 17.20 and 17.21 allow data centers as a permitted use in both the M-1 Manufacturing District and the TC-2 Southeast Bayshore Trade Commercial District , respectively; and

Page 511 of 517 ends

4912-2250-9522 v3
WHEREAS, there are currently no data centers located in the City nor any pending applications for data centers to be located in the City; and WHEREAS, there have been widespread efforts throughout the country in San Mateo County and neighboring counties of Santa Clara County and the City and County of San Francisco, to construct new data centers or to convert existing facilities into data centers; and
WHEREAS, City staff requires time to study and develop appropriate regulations, policies and land use controls regarding the siting, construction, conversion, and/or operation data centers in the City; and
WHEREAS, this Ordinance is enacted pursuant to the authority conferred upon the City Council by Government Code Section 65858, and may be introduced and adopted at the same meeting, and will be effective immediately upon adoption if passed by a four-fifths vote of the City Council.

NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Brisbane, California ordains as follows:

SECTION 1: INCORPORATION OF RECITALS.

The City Council determines the foregoing recitals to be true and correct and incorporates them herein.

SECTION 2: PUBLIC SAFETY, HEALTH AND WELFARE FINDINGS.

The City Council hereby finds that this Ordinance is necessary to protect the public safety, health or welfare. The facts supporting this finding, in addition to the findings set forth above, are:

A. California’s cities already face significant constraints on energy supply, grid reliability, water availability, and wastewater capacity. Data centers place uniquely heavy and sustained demand on all four. The City’s energy, water, wastewater and other infrastructure systems cannot absorb unrestrained, substantial demand

Page 512 of 517 ends

4912-2250-9522 v3
without study, and unregulated development could disrupt service on which residents and existing businesses already rely.

B. The City’s land use and zoning regulations do not currently include adequate provisions to ensure that the siting, construction, conversion, and/or operation of data centers are sufficiently regulated to avoid harm to the public health, safety and welfare of the City. Data centers, as currently defined, are permitted as of right in certain districts but, currently, the City has no discretion to condition a data center approval. Approving such a use by right could impact health and safety by straining the infrastructure described above.

C. The City Council finds a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, and welfare from the potential siting, construction, or operation of a data center under the City’s existing zoning regulations. This finding is supported by the facts stated above and herein, the staff report accompanying this Ordinance, and the record before the City Council at its October 1, 2026 meeting.

D. The City requires time to study potential impacts of data centers on the City, including on its infrastructure, ability to deliver vital services to its community, the character of the city, and the quality of life of its residents and to develop zoning regulations that address these impacts.

SECTION 3. CEQA
Adoption of an Ordinance establishing a temporary local moratorium on the siting, construction, conversion and/or operation of new data centers in the City does not require review under the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21000 et seq. (“CEQA”)) and the CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations §§ 15000 et seq.) based on the following:
(i) Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(c)(2), adoption of this Ordinance will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and under CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(c)(3), adoption of this Ordinance is not a “project” as

Page 513 of 517 ends

4912-2250-9522 v3
defined in Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly. Accordingly, adoption of this Ordinance is not a “project” subject to CEQA.
(ii) Even assuming the adoption of this Ordinance were a “project” subject to CEQA, it is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15308 of the CEQA Guidelines as a regulatory action taken by the City pursuant to its police power and in accordance with Government Code Section 65858 to assure maintenance and protection of the environment pending the evaluation and adoption of contemplated local legislation, regulation, and policies for the siting, construction, conversion and/or operation of data centers in the City.

SECTION 4. AUTHORITY AND EFFECT.

Government Code Section 65858 expressly authorizes the City, in order to protect public safety, health, and/or welfare, to adopt an Ordinance prohibiting a sues that is in conflict with a contemplated general plan, specific plan, or zoning proposal that the legislative body, planning commission, or planning department is considering or studying or intends to study within a reasonable time, provided that the measure shall require a four-fifths vote of the legislative body for adoption, and shall be of no further force and effect 45 days from adoption, unless extended pursuant to the Government Code.

SECTION 5: MORATORIUM
In accordance with Government Code Section 65858, during the effective period of this Ordinance, including any lawful extensions or amendments, the siting, construction, conversion, and/or operation of any new data center is prohibited in every zoning district of the City. The filing, acceptance, processing, or approval of any permit application for any land use entitlement to site, construct, convert, and/or operate any data center in the City is also prohibited.

Page 514 of 517 ends

4912-2250-9522 v3
SECTION 6: SEVERABILITY.

If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase, or word of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unenforceable by the decision of a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, phrases, or words of this Ordinance.

SECTION 7: EFFECTIVE DATE.

Pursuant to Government Code Section 65858. this Ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. The Ordinance shall be in effect for forty-five (45) days unless extended in accordance with Government Code Section 65858(a). Not later than ten (10) days prior to the expiration of this Ordinance, the City Council shall issue a written report as required by Government Code Section 65858(d).

SECTION 8. PUBLICATION.

The City Clerk is hereby ordered and directed to cause publication of this Ordinance in accordance with State law.
* * * * * *

Page 515 of 517 ends

4912-2250-9522 v3
ORDINANCE NUMBER: _____
The foregoing Ordinance was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Brisbane held on the ________ day of October, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

Councilmembers:

NOES:

Councilmembers:

ABSENT:

Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN:

Councilmembers:

Mayor Coleen Mackin

Page 516 of 517 ends

Brisbane City CouncilOctober 1, 2026

Brisbane City Council
October 1, 2026