- 1 -
CITYof BRISBANE
Thursday, July 18, 2024 at 7:30 PM ● Hybrid Meeting 50 Park Place, Brisbane, CA The public may observe/participate in City Council meetings using remote public comment options or attending in person. City Council members shall attend in person unless remote participation is permitted by law. The City Council may take action on any item listed in the agenda.
TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL
IN PERSON
Location: 50 Park Place, Brisbane, CA 94005, Community Meeting Room Councilmember Lentz will participate by Teleconference at New Chitose Airport Business Service Facility Domestic 4F, Bibi, Chitose, Hokkaido Prefecture 066-0012 Masking is not required but according to the California Department of Public Health guidelines, people at higher risk for severe illness should consider masking. To help maintain public health and safety, we respectively request that people not attend in-person if they are experiencing symptoms associated with COVID-19 or are otherwise ill and likely contagious (e.g., respiratory illnesses).
To address the City Council on any item – whether on the posted agenda or not – please fill out a Request to Speak Form located in the Community Meeting Room Lobby and submit it to the City Clerk. Speakers are not required to submit their name or address.
REMOTE PARTICIPATION
Members of the public may participate in the City Council meeting by logging into the Zoom Webinar listed below. City Council meetings may also be viewed live and/or on-demand via the City’s YouTube Channel, youtube.com/brisbaneca, or on Comcast Ch. 27. Archived videos may be replayed on the City’s website, brisbaneca.org/meetings. Please be advised that if there are technological difficulties, the meeting will nevertheless continue if remote participation is available.
The agenda materials may be viewed online at brisbaneca.org at least 72 hours prior to a Regular Meeting, and at least 24 hours prior to a Special Meeting.
Remote Public Comments:
Remote meeting participants may address the City Council. We also encourage you to submit public comments in writing in advance of a meeting. Aside from commenting personally while in the Zoom Webinar, the following email and text line will be also monitored during the meeting and public comments received will be noted for the record during Oral Communications 1 and 2 or during an agenda item.
Email: [email protected] or Text: (628) 219-2922
Join Zoom Webinar: zoom.us (please use the latest version: zoom.us/download) brisbaneca.org/cc-zoom
Webinar ID: 991 9362 8666
Call In Number: 1 (669) 900-9128
Note: Callers dial *9 to “raise hand” and dial *6 to mute/unmute.
City Council Meeting Agenda
1 July 18, 2024 - 2 - 7:30 PM
SPECIAL ASSISTANCE
If you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at (415) 508- 2113. Notification in advance of the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.
WRITINGS THAT ARE RECEIVED AFTER THE AGENDA HAS BEEN POSTED Any writings that are received after the agenda has been posted but before 4pm of the day of the meeting will be available for public inspection at the front lobby in City Hall and on the internet (brisbaneca.org/meetings). Any writings that are received after 4pm of the day of the meeting will be available on the internet at the start of the meeting (brisbaneca.org/meetings), at which time the materials will be distributed to the Council.
7:30 P.M. CALL TO ORDER – PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
A. Consider any request of a City Councilmember to attend the meeting remotely under the “Emergency Circumstances” of AB 2449
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
AWARDS AND PRESENTATIONS
B. Designating July as Parks and Recreation Month
C. Presenting Brisbane Marina Harbormaster Rehberg and Public Works Maintenance Worker Redfield with Lifesaving Commendation Award
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS NO. 1
CONSENT CALENDAR
D. Approve Minutes of City Council Closed Session Meeting of June 20, 2024 E. Approve Minutes of City Council Meeting of June 20, 2024 F. Accept Investment Report as of May 2024
G. Approve Annual Military Equipment Report per AB 481
H. Adopt a Resolution “Adopting the Countywide and City of Brisbane Local Roadway Safety Plan and accompanying Vision Zero Goal”
(This Resolution is exempt from CEQA because it is not a project (CCR Title 14 §15378 (b) (2))
2 July 18, 2024 - 3 - 7:30 PM
I. Adoption of Urgency Ordinance amending the Brisbane Municipal Code sections concerning Electrical Vehicle Infrastructure and adding a new Chapter 15.83 Energy Performance Reach Code
(This Ordinance is categorically exempt from environmental review under CEQA Guidelines Section 15308, Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment.)
J. Authorize City Manager to Solicit Proposal and Negotiate Sole-Source Contract from Good City Co. for 70 Old County Road Community Engagement and Planning Project K. Authorize the City Manager to sign the Construction Agreement for Alvarado to San Benito Stairway Project
(This work is categorically exempt from CEQA per CCR Title 14 §15301.)
PUBLIC HEARING
L. City of Brisbane Local Stormwater Program Fees
1. Open the Public Hearing and take public comment. Close the Public Hearing, and if appropriate, overrule any objections to the imposition of fees related to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
2. Consider adoption of a Resolution, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Brisbane Imposing Charges for Funding the Local Brisbane Stormwater Program, Authorizing Placement of Said Charges on the 2024-2025 County Tax Roll and Authorizing the County Tax Collector to Collect Such Charges.” M. Sierra Point Landscaping and Lighting District
1. Hear Statement of Engineer of Record, Read Mayor’s Statement, Hear City Clerk Statement, Open Public Hearing to hear any testimony, Close Public Hearing
2. Consider adoption of Resolution overruling protests and ordering the improvements and confirming the diagram and assessments for Fiscal Year 24/25
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
N. Consider Introducing an Ordinance Approving a Zoning Text and Map Amendment 2024- RZ-1, Overlay to R-1 Residential District and the R-BA Brisbane Acres Residential District in Entirety
(It is being recommended to introduce an ordinance approving a zoning text and map amendment 2024-RZ-1 amending regulations within Title 16 and 17 of the Brisbane Municipal Code to add the R-TUO residential two unit overlay district as new chapter
17.05 and related amendments; and finding that this project is exempt from 3 July 18, 2024 - 4 - 7:30 PM
environmental review under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15061(b)(1) & (3), Section 15183.
This item was continued from the City Council Meeting of June 6, 2024.) O. Consider Introducing an Ordinance Approving a Zoning Text Amendment 2024-RZ-2, City-wide
(It is being recommended to introduce an ordinance approving omnibus zoning amendments to modify the development standards for multifamily and residential mixed use zoning districts consistent with California Senate Bill SB 478 (“housing opportunity act”) and as provided in the 2023-2031 Housing Element; and finding that this project is exempt from environmental review under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15061(b)(3), Section 15183. This item was continued from the City Council Meeting of June 6, 2024.)
OLD BUSINESS
P. Consider Adoption of Resolution Approving an Agreement for the Purchase and Sale of Vacant City Property in Crocker Park (28,000 square feet +/-) and Authorizing the City Manager to Sign the Agreement and All Other Documents Necessary to Carry Out the Sale
(This action is not subject to further environmental review as it is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act. CEQA Guidelines, Section 15378 (b) (4).) Q. Election Issues
i. Consider Adoption of a Resolution to Place on the November 5, 2024 Ballot an Ordinance To Establish Term Limits For City Council Members ii. Discuss whether to place on the November 5, 2024 Ballot an ordinance by which City Council will appoint the Mayor and the Mayor Pro Tempore
STAFF REPORTS
R. City Manager’s Report on Upcoming Activities
MAYOR/COUNCIL MATTERS
S. Countywide Assignments and Subcommittee Reports
T. Written Communications
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS NO. 2
ADJOURNMENT
4 File Attachments for Item:
D. Approve Minutes of City Council Closed Session Meeting of June 20, 2024 5 BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL
ACTION MINUTES
BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL CLOSED SESSION MEETING
THURSDAY, JUNE 20, 2024
HYBRID MEETING, 50 PARK PLACE LARGE CONFERENCE ROOM,
BRISBANE, CA
7:00 P.M. CLOSED SESSION
A. Approval of the Closed Session Agenda
B. Public Comment. Members of the public may address the Councilmembers on any item on the closed session agenda
C. Adjournment into Closed Session
D. Liability Claim: Claimant Towle and Towle, pursuant to Government Code, section 54956.95 E. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—PENDING LITIGATION
Government Code, Section 54956.9 (d) (1). Number of Cases: One • City of Brisbane v. CA High-Speed Rail Authority (Superior Court of Sacramento County, Case No. 80004010)
Mayor O’Connell called the meeting to order at 7:03 P.M. Councilmember Davis made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Mackin, to approve the Closed Session Meeting agenda as it stands. The motion passed unanimously by all present.
Ayes: Councilmembers Davis, Lentz, Mackin, and Mayor O’Connell.
Noes: None
Absent: Councilmember Cunningham
Abstain: None
There was no public comment. Mayor O’Connell adjourned the meeting into Closed Session.
REPORT OUT OF CLOSED SESSION
Interim City Manager Holstine reported that Councilmembers took action on Liability Claim D.
Councilmembers were also provided an update on the Pending Litigation Item E and direction was provided to staff.
6 D.
City Council Minutes
June 20, 2024
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:25 P.M.
______________________
Ingrid Padilla, City Clerk
7 D.
File Attachments for Item:
E. Approve Minutes of City Council Meeting of June 20, 2024 8 BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL
ACTION MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
THURSDAY, JUNE 20, 2024
HYBRID MEETING, 50 PARK PLACE, BRISBANE, CA 94005
7:30 P.M. CALL TO ORDER – PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor O’Connell called the meeting to order at 7:44 P.M. and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL
A. Consider any request of a City Councilmember to attend the meeting remotely under the “Emergency Circumstances” of AB 2449
No Councilmembers made a request under the Emergency Circumstances of AB 2449.
Councilmembers present: Councilmembers Davis, Lentz, Mackin, and Mayor O’Connell Councilmembers absent: Councilmember Cunningham
Staff Present: Interim City Manager Holstine, City Clerk Padilla, City Attorney McMorrow, Finance Director Yuen, City Engineer Breault, Human Resources Director Partin, Assistant to the City Manager Cheung, Economic Development Director Bull, Police Commander Garcia, Police Chief Macias and Administrative Management Analyst Ibarra
REPORT OUT OF CLOSED SESSION
Interim City Manager Holstine reported that Councilmembers took action on Liability Claim D.
Councilmembers were also provided an update on the Pending Litigation Item E and direction was provided to staff.
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Councilmember Mackin made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Lentz, to adopt the agenda as it stands.
The motion passed unanimously by all present.
Ayes: Councilmembers present: Councilmembers Davis, Lentz, Mackin, and Mayor O’Connell Noes: None
9 E.
City Council Meeting Minutes
June 20, 2024
Absent: Councilmember Cunningham
Abstain: None
AWARDS AND PRESENTATIONS
B. Recognize City Manager Clay Holstine for More than 25 Years of Service to the City of Brisbane Mayor O’Connell and Councilmembers Cunningham (via her proxy Emmett Cunningham), Davis, Lentz, and Mackin read a City Proclamation recognizing Clay Holstine on his retirement from the City of Brisbane after nearly 26 years of service as City Manager.
After a brief break for reception and technical difficulties. The following members of the public recognized Clay Holstine for his service and leadership:
• Saúl Miranda, representing California State Senator Becker’s Office and California State Assemblymember Papan’s Office
• San Mateo County Supervisor David Canepa
• Stephanie Shakofsky, Baylands Development Inc.
• Michele Salmon
• Clarke Conway
• Sherry Smith
• Lee Panza
• Mitch Bull
• Prem Lall
• Ingrid Padilla
Councilmembers praised outgoing City Manager Holstine for his dedication to the City of Brisbane. Outgoing City Manager Holstine thanked his family, his mentors, City Staff, and all the Councilmembers he served under for their support.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS NO. 1
Dana Dillworth commented on the need for more public information and outreach on the continued public hearing items from the City Council Meeting of June 6, 2024.
CONSENT CALENDAR
C. Approve Minutes of City Council Meeting of June 6, 2024 D. Approve Minutes of City Council Closed Session Meeting of June 6, 2024 E. Approve a Resolution Authorizing the Office of the Controller of the County of San Mateo to Place National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Compliance Fees on Commercial Properties Within an Identified Study Area on the Property Tax Rolls
10 E.
City Council Meeting Minutes
June 20, 2024
F. Adopt Resolution Calling a General Municipal Election to Be Held on Tuesday, November 5, 2024 and Adopting Procedures Pertaining to the Conduct and Administration Of Such Election Including Requesting the San Mateo County Clerk-Recorder to Provide Specified Election Services G. Adopt an Ordinance, Waiving Second Reading, Amending Section 8.44.180 of the Brisbane Municipal Code Requiring That Tobacco Retailers Be Inspected At Least Twice Every 12 Months to Ensure They Are Complying with the Tobacco Retailer Permit Ordinance Councilmember Mackin made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Lentz, to approve Consent Calendar Items C-G. The motion passed unanimously by all present.
Ayes: Councilmembers present: Councilmembers Davis, Lentz, Mackin, and Mayor O’Connell Noes: None
Absent: Councilmember Cunningham
Abstain: None
NEW BUSINESS
H. Best Practices Ad Hoc Subcommittee Update
Interim City Manager Holstine reported that the Council appointed a subcommittee to work to draft a Best Practices Guideline. The subcommittee suggests that a resolution be drafted to memorialize a protocol regarding Councilmember best practices in interacting with land use and/or zoning applicants and that each council member be requested to sign the resolution to acknowledge and agree to these guidelines.
After Council questions, Michele Salmon made a comment on the need to have a true code of conduct between councilmembers and citizens and future developers.
During Council discussion, staff was directed to hold a future City Council workshop for best practices, research examples of Codes of Conduct for City Councilmembers from cities in San Mateo County and the Institute of Local Government and incorporate the Ethics Training as the foundation of Brisbane’s Code of Conduct for City Councilmembers.
OLD BUSINESS
I. Election Issues Update
Interim City Manager reported the subcommittee, as an alternative to a directly elected Mayor, drafted language regarding Mayoral rotation. He added that the Council may adopt this language by resolution and/or refer it to the voters for ratification. The former could be amended by the City Council at any time through a revised resolution. The latter would require voter approval to change.
Secondly, he reported that the subcommittee met and is recommending that terms limits be submitted to the voters for approval. Term limits would be for 3 terms or 12 years maximum. If a Councilmember assumed a term that was not full, they would still be limited to 3 terms (which may be less than 12 years).
Once the 12-year, 3 term limit is met, a Councilmember will be required to have a 2-year break, at which 11 E.
City Council Meeting Minutes
June 20, 2024
time they could run again and be limited to the 12 years, 3 term limit. By function of law the commencement of the 12 years, 3 term limit comes into effect after voter approval of term limits. Any terms prior to that time do not count against the limit.
After Council questions, the following members of the public made comments:
Nancy Lacsamana commented on the need for citizens to weigh in on the important issues of term limits and elections by district.
Paul Bouscal commented that the voters should have a say on term limits.
Michele Salmon advocated for no elected mayor and no districts.
CMF was concerned that the electorate is not involved.
Sher Gianini (sent via text and read by City Clerk Padilla) commented that district based elections is not needed in our small town.
Dana Dillworth agreed with the term limits, but not to district based elections. She also commented that mayor rotation should be tied to code of ethics.
Councilmember Davis made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Lentz, to extend the meeting until 11:00 p.m. The motion passed unanimously by all present.
Ayes: Councilmembers present: Councilmembers Davis, Lentz, Mackin, and Mayor O’Connell Noes: None
Absent: Councilmember Cunningham
Abstain: None
During Council discussion, City Staff members were directed to bring back to a Council Meeting an amended language for the Ballot Measure for Term Limits. Councilmembers wanted to change the language from 3 terms or 12 years maximum to full three-year terms. Councilmembers also directed staff to bring back the Mayoral rotation issue to a future meeting but in the context of being tied to the code of ethics.
Lastly, Interim City Manager reported that the subcommittee met with our demographer Douglas Johnson of NDC on June 6th for his report. This issue will be a lengthier process. Some of the key findings included the following:
• 37% of total population is Asian/Pacific Islander.
• 18% of total population is Hispanic/Latino.
• Asian-American and Pacific Islander population is concentrated in the west side of the city, off West Hill Drive. Locally we refer to this area as the Northeast Ridge. • There are no large geographic concentrations of Latino.
After council questions, the following members made public comment:
Nancy Lacsamana commented that it is important that we continue this process.
Michele Salmon wanted to know the criteria of the demographer and commented that district-based elections is divisive.
12 E.
City Council Meeting Minutes
June 20, 2024
STAFF REPORTS
J. City Manager’s Report on Upcoming Activities
Interim City Manager reported on the latest City news and events.
MAYOR/COUNCIL MATTERS
K. Countywide Assignments and Subcommittee Reports
Councilmembers reported on their countywide assignments and subcommittee meetings.
L. Written Communications
Councilmembers received the following written communication between June 7 through June 20, 2024:
Molina (06-13-2024) District
SMCGOV (06-13-2024) Tobacco Prevention Program
Dillworth (06-20-2024) Election Issue
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS NO. 2
No member of the public wished to make public comment.
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor O’Connell adjourned the meeting at10:55 p.m.
_______________________
Ingrid Padilla
City Clerk
13 E.
File Attachments for Item:
F. Accept Investment Report as of May 2024
14 FACE CARRY MARKET COUPON
INVESTMENT DATE OF VALUE OF VALUE OF VALUE OF INTEREST MATURITY RATING/ NAME OF DEPOSITORY TYPE INVESTMENT INVESTMENT INVESTMENT INVESTMENT RATE % DATE COLLATERAL WELLS FARGO Checking A/C $ 3,208,069 $ 3,208,069 $ 3,945,095 0.000 110% collateral STATE FUND (LAIF) Deposit on call continuous $ 1,580,260 $ 1,580,260 $ 1,580,260 4.300 on call no rating Other Investments
FHLB 7/26/2022 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 996,950 3.350 07/26/2024 Wells Fargo Bank 9/23/2022 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 248,641 3.750 09/23/2024 American Express 9/21/2022 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 248,608 3.750 09/24/2024 FHLB 12/31/2021 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 985,510 1.000 09/30/2024 FHLM 12/13/2022 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 997,970 5.140 12/13/2024 FHLB 3/24/2022 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 974,310 2.000 03/24/2025 FHLB 4/22/2022 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 977,560 2.750 04/22/2025 FHLB 7/28/2022 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 988,710 4.050 07/28/2025 FHLB 12/31/2021 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 952,190 1.300 09/30/2025 FHLB 10/27/2022 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 997,720 4.750 10/27/2025 FFCB 9/12/2022 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 983,740 4.125 12/12/2025 FHLM 9/29/2022 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 980,390 4.150 09/29/2026 FHLM 10/30/2023 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 999,030 5.550 10/30/2026 FFCB 12/1/2023 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 998,310 5.060 12/01/2026 FHLB 3/25/2022 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 940,670 2.600 03/25/2027 FHLB 5/26/2022 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 984,460 4.000 05/26/2027 FHLB 5/26/2022 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 968,860 3.750 05/26/2027 FHLB 9/30/2022 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 993,660 5.000 09/30/2027 BNY Mellon Treasury Obligations continuous $ 8,886,856 $ 8,886,856 $ 8,886,856 5.230 on call 110% collateral Sub-total $ 25,386,856 $ 25,386,856 $ 25,104,144
U.S. Bank 2014 BGPGA Bond (330) Improvements Fed Treas Obl $ - 10031 Reserve Fund Fed Treas Obl $ 1 10032
Revenue Fund Fed Treas Obl $ 1 10034
Expense Fund Fed Treas Obl $ - 10035
Principal Fed Treas Obl $ 1 10036
Interest Fund Fed Treas Obl $ 0 10037
U.S. Bank 2015 Utility Capital (545) Improvements Fed Treas Obl $ - 10031 Reserve Fed Treas Obl $ 105 10032
Expense Fund Fed Treas Obl $ - 10035
BNY Mellon 2023 BGVMIDFA Bond (328) Improvements Fed Treas Obl $ 33 10031 Reserve / Project Fed Treas Obl $ 4,174,770 10032
Expense Fund Fed Treas Obl $ - 10035
Principal Fed Treas Obl $ - 10036
Interest Fund Fed Treas Obl $ - 10037
PARS OPEB Trust Trust Cash Investments $ 4,104,010 13050 PARS Retirement Trust Trust Cash Investments $ 1,595,942 13050 Sub-total Cash with Fiscal Agents $ 9,874,862
Total other investments $ 35,261,718 $ 35,261,718 $ 25,104,144 TOTAL INVESTMENTS & CASH BALANCES $ 40,050,047 $ 40,050,047 $ 30,629,499 Outstanding Loans to Department Heads
Date of loan Amount Amount Remaining Interest Rate
Stuart Schillinger 4/1/2002 318,750 $ 318,750 Variable, LAIF + 1% FFCB - Federal Farm Credit Bank
FHLB - Federal Home Loan Bank
FHLM - Federal Home Loan Mortage Corporation
FNMA -Federal National Mortgage Association
Two year Treasury 4.89%
Weighted Interest 3.77%
Weighted maturity 1.14 Years
TREASURER'S CERTIFICATE
These are all the securities in which the city funds, including all trust funds and oversight agencies funds, are invested and that (excluding approved deferred compensation plans) all these investments are in securities as permitted by adopted city policy.
It is also certified that enough liquid resources (including maturities and anticipated revenues) are available to meet the next six months' cash flow.
Carolina Yuen
CITY TREASURER
CITY OF BRISBANE
CASH BALANCES & INVESTMENTS
SOURCE OF FUNDING
May 31, 2024
15 F.
File Attachments for Item:
G. Approve Annual Military Equipment Report per AB 481
16 Assembly Bill 481 Page 1 of 4
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: July 18, 2024
From: Lisa Macias, Police Chief
Subject: Approve the Annual Military Equipment Report per California Assembly Bill 481
Recommendation:
City Council approve the Annual Military Equipment Report per California Assembly Bill 481.
Background:
On September 30, 2021, Assembly Bill 481 (AB481) was codified in Government Code Sections 7070- 7075, requiring the governing body of law enforcement to adopt a “Military Equipment Use:” policy.
The Brisbane Police Department presented a policy to the City Council, which was adopted by ordinance on March 3, 2022.
AB481 also requires law enforcement agencies to prepare an annual report containing information for the preceding year. Staff has prepared a Military Equipment Annual Report (Attachment 1) which summarizes the required information including a description of the purpose of the equipment and how it was used; any complaint received; the results of any internal audits; the cost of the equipment possessed, and if the agency intends to acquire additional equipment in the next year.
Discussion:
To meet the requirements of the Report pursuant to AB 481, a review was conducted of the Brisbane Police Department’s military equipment policy. The Brisbane Police Department does not possess any tactical equipment that it has obtained from the military, nor does it possess any equipment that was designed for military use.
During the calendar year of 2023, no complaints related to military equipment were received by the Police Department. The Department conducted an internal audit and determined that there were no violations of the military equipment use policy. No new items of military equipment were acquired in the last year.
Fiscal Impact:
There is no fiscal impact associated with this action.
Attachments:
Military Equipment Report
_____________________________ __________________________________ Lisa Macias, Chief of Police Jeremy Dennis, City Manager 17 G.
Assembly Bill 481 Page 2 of 4
Attachment 1
MILITARY EQUIPMENT INVENTORY 2023
Qualifying Equipment / Owned by the Brisbane Police Department:
18 G.
Assembly Bill 481 Page 3 of 4
Qualifying Equipment known to be owned and/or utilized by law enforcement units with which the Brisbane Police Department collaborates and/or participates for law enforcement purposes 19 G.
Assembly Bill 481 Page 4 of 4
20 G.
File Attachments for Item:
H. Adopt a Resolution “Adopting the Countywide and City of Brisbane Local Roadway Safety Plan and accompanying Vision Zero Goal”
(This Resolution is exempt from CEQA because it is not a project (CCR Title 14 §15378 (b) (2)) 21 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: July 18, 2024
From: Karen Kinser, Deputy Director of Public Works
Subject: Resolution to Adopt a Local Roadway Safety Plan and accompanying Vision Zero Goal
This Resolution is exempt from CEQA because it is not a project (CCR Title 14 §15378 (b) (2)).
Community Goal/Result
Safe Community
Purpose
To align with San Mateo City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) in adopting a Local Roadway Safety Plan and accompanying Vision Zero Goal; this action is consistent with the community’s goal that residents and visitors experience a sense of safety.
Recommendation
Adopt a resolution “Adopting the Countywide and City of Brisbane Local Roadway Safety Plan and accompanying Vision Zero Goal”.
Background
A Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) identifies and systematically analyzes roadway safety needs and develops a prioritized list of safety countermeasures. An LRSP offers a proactive approach to addressing safety needs and demonstrates an agency’s responsiveness to safety challenges through local agency partnerships and collaboration. The completion and adoption of the countywide LRSP renders jurisdictions in the County eligible for grant funding from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) OBAG 3 County & Local Program, and future funding for the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Highway Safety Improvement Program and US Department of Transportation Safe Streets for All (SS4A).
C/CAG has recommended, upon their adoption on June 13th, that local jurisdictions adopt the attached local resolution cosigning the Countywide LRSP, noting agreement with the vision/goals, countywide High Injury Network, prioritization method, and relevant proposed actions that pertain to local agencies. This serves as an interim measure to meet grant requirements.
Discussion
Together, C/CAG, its 21 local jurisdictions, and partner agencies will work to:
• Identify safety improvements, strategies, and programs using the Safe System Approach to eliminate fatalities and severe injuries on local roads. 1 of 44
22 H.
• Enhance the existing roadway network in a cost-effective manner that promotes traffic safety and social equity, meets the needs of the community, and enriches the lives of residents.
• Promote a culture across agencies and communities that puts roadway safety first in all actions.
C/CAG will lead, coordinate, and support each of its 21 local jurisdictions in achieving their respective vision and goals to reduce or eliminate fatalities and severe injury crashes across all public roadways.
Fiscal Impact
There is no fiscal impact at this time. Minor recommended improvements can be implemented using the city’s operating budget. Any larger capital improvements requiring direct funding or grant match funds will be brought back to Council for approval.
Measure of Success
Adoption of a Local Roadway Safety Plan
Environmental Review
Adoption of this resolution does not need further environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as it is general policy and procedure making not applied to a specific instance and therefore it is not a “project”(California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Article 20, §15378 (b) (2)).
Attachments
1. Proposed Resolution
2. C/CAG Local Roadway Safety plan (linked)
3. City of Brisbane Appendix to County LRSP
Karen Kinser, Deputy Director of Public Works
Randy Breault, Director of Public Works Jeremy Dennis, City Manager 2 of 44
23 H.
Resolution 2024-xx
RESOLUTION NO. 2024 - xx
RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE COUNTYWIDE AND CITY OF
BRISBANE LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN AND
ACCOMPANYING VISION ZERO GOAL
WHEREAS, according to data from the California Strategic Highway Safety Plan, 17,317 people have been killed in traffic collisions in California from 2013 through 2017, for an average of 9.5 people per day; and WHEREAS, from 2018 to 2022, a reported 12 crashes resulted in severe, lifechanging injuries on non-freeway roadways in the City of Brisbane, an average of 2 per year; and
WHEREAS, vehicle collisions can be significantly reduced through roadway safety planning, and the City of Brisbane is dedicated to strategies that aim to reduce and eliminate deaths and serious injuries on streets in all jurisdictions countywide; and
WHEREAS, seniors, children, people of color, people with disabilities, people in low-income communities, people walking, and people bicycling face a disproportionate risk of traffic injuries and fatalities; and WHEREAS, the City of Brisbane Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) identifies pedestrian and bicyclist safety, nighttime/low light safety, unsignalized intersections on arterial/collector roadways, safety for youth and aging populations, speed-related roadway crashes, roadways with posted speeds of 35 mph or higher, and impaired driving as emphasis areas for safety improvement; and
WHEREAS, Vision Zero is a public health-based traffic safety strategy to reduce and eventually eliminate traffic deaths and serious injuries using a data-driven, multi- disciplinary, and Safe System approach that also increases safe, healthy, equitable mobility for all; and
WHEREAS, the Safe System Approach recognizes that while human error will always occur, a system of redundant engineering and non-engineering solutions can reduce crashes and can prevent crashes from causing death or severe injuries; and WHEREAS, the Federal Highway Administration has made a commitment to eliminating fatalities and serious injuries on the nation's roadways using a Safe System approach to achieve the goals of Vision Zero; and WHEREAS, the Federal Highway Administration and the State Department of Transportation (Caltrans) grant funding for improving safety requires the preparation and implementation of a systematic approach to improve safety as presented in the Countywide and City of Brisbane LRSP (Exhibit A); and
WHEREAS, Caltrans has adopted the goal of moving “toward zero deaths” by incorporating the Safe System Approach and using proven effective strategies and countermeasures; and
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) passed a Vision Zero policy in 2020 that identified actions to support agencies like the City of Brisbane; and
3 of 44
24 H.
Resolution 2024-xx
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Brisbane adopts Vision Zero as its guiding principle for transportation planning, in conjunction with the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (“C/CAG”) adopting this vision at the County level; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City of Brisbane shall pursue the recommended near-and long-term policy, program, and guidelines recommendations identified in the LRSP, with the overriding goal of eliminating traffic-related fatalities and serious injuries; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City of Brisbane shall refer to the prioritized locations in the Countywide and the City of Brisbane LRSP sections when considering safety improvements, which locations were prioritized including considerations of social equity; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City of Brisbane shall participate in an inter-jurisdictional Transportation Safety Advisory Committee (TSAC) led by C/CAG, to include staff from constituent jurisdictions along with partner agencies identified in the LRSP; and which will be used to implement the LRSP and integrate the Safe System approach into all aspects of transportation planning and engineering; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City of Brisbane adopts the Countywide Local Roadway Safety Plan and the City of Brisbane Local Roadway Safety Plan Appendix thereto that summarizes specific recommendations and action items to be taken by the City of Brisbane and partner agencies that will address the listed emphasis areas; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the LRSP will be implemented in an equitable manner, accounting for historic inequities in transportation and safety investments across the county; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City of Brisbane shall develop an annual update and a 3-5 year report on progress toward the Vision Zero goals, tracking process and outcome metrics, and shall present these updates to the City Council.
Terry O’Connell, Mayor
City of Brisbane
* * * *
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2024-xx was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Brisbane on the 18th day of July, 2024 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
______________________________
Ingrid Padilla, City Clerk
City of Brisbane
4 of 44
25 H.
City of
Brisbane
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN
FINAL DRAFT
MAY 2024
5 of 44
26 H.
/ City of Brisbane
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
C/CAG Project
Management Team
Jeff Lacap
Eva Gaye
Advisory Group Members
LOCAL JURISDICTION
REPRESENTATIVES
Robert Ovadia, Town of Atherton
Matt Hoang, City of Belmont
Tracy Scramaglia, City of Belmont
Karen Kinser, City of Brisbane
Tomas Santoyo, City of Brisbane
Andrew Wong, City of Burlingame
Abdulkader Hashem, Town of Colma
Richard Chiu, Jr.; City of Daly City
Irene Chiu, City of East Palo Alto
Humza Javed, City of East Palo Alto
Anwar Mirza, City of East Palo Alto
Justin Lai, City of Foster City
Francine Magno, City of Foster City
Amy Zhou, City of Foster City
Maz Bozorginia, City of Half Moon Bay
Jonathan Woo, City of Half Moon Bay
Paul Willis, Town of Hillsborough
Matthew Hui, City of Menlo Park
Sam Bautista, City of Millbrae
Lisa Peterson, City of Pacifica
Howard Young, Town of Portola Valley
Malahat Owrang, City of Redwood City
Hae Won, City of San Bruno
Harry Yip, City of San Bruno
Hanieh Houshmandi, City of San Carlos
Steven Machida, City of San Carlos
Bethany Lopez, City of San Mateo
Azalea Mitch, City of San Mateo
Jeff Chou, City of South San Francisco
Matthew Ruble, City of South San Francisco
Yazdan Emrani, Town of Woodside
Sindhi Mekala, Town of Woodside
Diana Shu, County of San Mateo
PARTNER AGENCY REPRESENTATIVES
Mackenzie Crouch, California Highway Patrol
Greg Currey, Caltrans
Joel Slavit, County of San Mateo Sustainability
Department
Bryan Redmond, Metropolitan Transportation
Commission
Jessica Manzi, SamTrans
Theresa Vallez-Kelly, San Mateo County Office of
Education
Liz Sanchez, San Mateo County Health
Anthony Montes, Silicon Valley Bicycle Commission
6 of 44
27 H.
/ City of Brisbane
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Consultant Team
KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Mike Alston
Matt Braughton
Laurence Lewis
Grace Carsky
Michael Ruiz-Leon
Doreen Gui
SAFE STREETS RESEARCH &
CONSULTING
Rebecca Sanders
Brian Almdale
CIRCLEPOINT
Stacey Miller
Ivy Morrison
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Countermeasures are engineering infrastructure improvements that can be implemented to reduce the risk of collisions.
Emphasis Areas represent types of roadway users, locations, or collisions with safety issues identified based on local trends that merit special focus in the City’s approach to reducing fatal and severe injury collisions.
Local Roadway Safety Plans, or LRSPs, are documents that provide local-level assessments of roadway safety and identify locations and strategies to improve safety on local roadways.
Crash Severity is defined by the guidelines established by the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC, Fifth Edition) and is a functional measure of the injury severity for any person involved in the crash. Fatal Collision [K] is death because of an injury sustained in a collision or an injury resulting in death within 30 days of the collision.
Severe Injury [A] is an injury other than a fatal injury which results in broken bones, dislocated or distorted limbs, severe lacerations, or unconsciousness at or when taken from the collision scene. It does not include minor laceration.
Other Visible Injury [B] includes bruises (discolored or swollen); places where the body has received a blow (black eyes and bloody noses); and abrasions (areas of the skin where the surface is roughened or blotchy by scratching or rubbing which includes skinned shins, knuckles, knees, and elbows). Complaint of Pain [C] classification could contain authentic internal or other non-visible injuries and fraudulent claims of injury. This includes: 1. Persons who seem dazed, confused, or incoherent (unless such behavior can be attributed to intoxication, extreme age, illness, or mental infirmities). 2. Persons who are limping but do not have visible injuries; 3. Any person who is known to have been unconscious because of the collision, although it appears he/she has recovered; 4. People who say they want to be listed as injured do not appear to be so.
Property Damage Only [O] Collision is a noninjury motor vehicle traffic collision which results in property damage.
Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is one of the nation’s core federal-aid programs. Caltrans administers HSIP funds in the state of California and splits the state share of HSIP funds between State HSIP (for state highways) and local HSIP (for local roads). The latter is administered through a call for projects biennially. 7 of 44
28 H.
/ City of Brisbane
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Primary Collision Factors (PCFs) convey the violation or underlying causal factor for a collision. Although there are often multiple causal factors, a reporting officer at the scene of a collision indicates a single relevant PCF related to a California Vehicle Code violation.
Safe Streets for All (SS4A) is a federal discretionary grant program created by the 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law with $5 billion in appropriated funds for 2022 through 2026.
Safe System Approach is a layered method for roadway safety promoted by the FHWA. This approach uses redundancies to anticipate mistakes and minimize injury. For more, visit https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/zerodeaths/docs/FHWA_SafeSystem_Brochure_V9_508_200717.pdf.
Safety Partners are agencies, government bodies, businesses, and community groups that the City can work with to plan, promote, and implement safety projects.
Strategies are non-engineering tools that can help address road user behavior, improve emergency services, and build a culture of safety.
Systemic safety defines an analysis and improvement approach based on roadway and environmental factors correlated with crash risk (rather than targeting locations solely on documented crash history). The approach takes a broad view to evaluate risk across an entire roadway system. 8 of 44
29 H.
/ City of Brisbane
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction .............................................................................................................................................................................. 3 Contents ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 3 Vision & Goals...........................................................................................................................................................................4 Plan Development ...................................................................................................................................................................4 Existing Safety Efforts............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 4 Safety Partners .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5 Community Engagement and Input ........................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Engagement Timeline and Events........................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Online Map Survey ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Phase 2 Community Engagement Feedback .................................................................................................................................................. 8 Crash Data & Trends .............................................................................................................................................................. 11 Emphasis Areas ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 11 Countywide High Injury Network ................................................................................................................................................................................... 15 Project Identification & Prioritization ................................................................................................................................. 17 Methodology .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 17 Social Equity ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 19 Results ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 19 Improvements – Engineering, Policy & Programs ......................................................................................................... 24 Project Scopes .........................................................................................................................................................................................................................24 Engineering Countermeasure Toolbox....................................................................................................................................................................25 Proposed Policy, Program, and Guidelines Recommendations ............................................................................................................ 30 Policy Categories ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 30 Long-Term or Ongoing Actions .............................................................................................................................................................................. 30 Implementation & Monitoring............................................................................................................................................ 34
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. A pop-up event held at the Brisbane Farmers’ Market ................................................................................................................... 6 Figure 2. Online Map Survey Tool........................................................................................................................................................................................ 8 Figure 3. Webmap Comments in Brisbane ............................................................................................................................................................... 10 Figure 4. Countywide HIN within the City of Brisbane ......................................................................................................................................... 16 Figure 5. Pedestrian Prioritization Factor/Criteria Weighting (Sum to 100 Percent)........................................................................ 17 9 of 44
30 H.
/ City of Brisbane
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 2
Figure 6. Bicycle Prioritization Factor/Criteria Weighting (Sum to 100 Percent) ............................................................................... 18 Figure 7. Motor Vehicle Prioritization Factor/Criteria Weighting (Sum to 100 Percent) ................................................................ 18 Figure 8: Brisbane Priority Locations ............................................................................................................................................................................. 23
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. City of Brisbane Safety Policies, Plans, Guidelines, Standards, and Programs .................................................................. 4 Table 2. C/CAG Public Engagement Events................................................................................................................................................................ 6 Table 3. Countywide HIN Segments in Brisbane .................................................................................................................................................... 15 Table 4. Priority Locations ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 19 Table 5. City of Brisbane Policy and Program Recommendations .......................................................................................................... 30 Table 6. City of Brisbane Goals and Measures of Success ............................................................................................................................ 34 10 of 44
31 H.
/ City of Brisbane
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 3
INTRODUCTION
This chapter serves as a standalone local roadway safety plan (LRSP) for the City of Brisbane. It was developed concurrently with the Countywide LRSP; therefore, some discussion will refer back to the Countywide LRSP to avoid redundancy.
However, because every community has unique safety challenges, this LRSP includes individually tailored emphasis areas, crash trends, prioritized project lists, project scope recommendations, Safe System-aligned recommendations, and implementation/monitoring recommendations. A living document, this LRSP is designed to be flexible and responsive to evolving community needs. The City will revisit and update this LRSP at least every five years.
The City of Brisbane has a 2023 population of 4,648 per California Department of Finance. The city has 26 total centerline miles per Caltrans 2022 California Public Road Data. From 2018 through 2022, there were 69 reported crashes on surface streets in the City and 12 fatal/severe injury crashes. In that time period, pedestrians were involved in 12 percent of all reported crashes and 50 percent of fatal/severe injury crashes. Bicyclists were involved in 7 percent of all reported crashes and 17 percent of fatal/severe injury crashes. The LRSP provides Safe System-aligned strategies tailored to Brisbane’s crash history and local priorities, as well as performance measures to evaluate progress.
This LRSP was informed by technical analysis as well as from input from key stakeholders and the general public. The following sections describe the plan development and recommendations.
Contents
This LRSP provides the following:
Upon Council adoption and affirmation of the plan’s vision and goals in 2024, this plan will be posted online by the City for public viewing.
A vision and associated goals
Crash data and trends
Engagement and coordination activities
Policies, plans, guidelines and standards
Safe System – aligned recommendations
Implementation and tracking
Prioritized projects and social
equity considerations
11 of 44
32 H.
/ City of Brisbane
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 4
VISION & GOALS
The City of Brisbane’s vision for roadway safety is:
• Reduce fatal and severe injury crashes to zero by 2040. • Promote a culture of roadway safety in Brisbane’s departments, businesses, and residents.
To support this vision, the City has established the following goals:
1. Work with Brisbane Police Department to review crash history and community needs on a semi-annual basis to identify and prioritize opportunities to reduce crash risk for roadway users of all ages and abilities.
2. Utilize existing plans, such as the Brisbane Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, to implement safety countermeasures systemically and as part of all projects to target emphasis areas and underserved communities
3. Provide opportunities for community engagement to identify issues and inform safety solutions across the community.
4. Embrace the Safe System approach to promote engineering and non-engineering strategies in the community.
5. Identify opportunities to incorporate social equity into safety improvements.
6. Monitor implementation of the Brisbane LRSP to track progress towards goals.
PLAN DEVELOPMENT
Existing Safety Efforts
This LRSP relies on Brisbane’s solid foundation of plans, policies, and programs that support safe, equitable mobility in the city. For a list of the City of Brisbane’s existing initiatives and ongoing efforts to build a Safe System, see Table 1:
Table 1. City of Brisbane Safety Policies, Plans, Guidelines, Standards, and Programs Program Name Program Description Safe System
Elements
San Mateo C/CAG
Safe Routes to
School (SR2S)
Program Guide
The SR2S program works to make it easier and safer for
students to walk and bike to school. C/CAG partners with the County Office of Education to increase biking and walking and safe travel to school. Annual reports summarize schools’ participation.
Safe Roads
Safe Speeds
Safe Road Users
2017 Bicycle
Pedestrian Master
Plan
The key goals of the plan are to support efforts to increase the rate of walking and bicycling, as well as to support adopted policies that are aimed at providing complete
streets.
Safe Roads, Safe
Speeds, Safe Road
Users
12 of 44
33 H.
/ City of Brisbane
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 5
Program Name Program Description Safe System
Elements
Complete Streets
Safety Committee
This citizen council advises the City Council on issues of roadway safety and Complete Streets development.
Safe Roads, Safe
Speeds, Safe Road
Users, Safe Vehicles
Complete Streets
Policy
The City’s commitment to creating and maintaining
Complete Streets that provide safe, comfortable, and
convenient travel for all users.
Safe Roads, Safe
Road Users, Safe
Speeds, Post-Crash
Care, Safe Vehicles
SafeTREC Complete
Streets Safety
Assessment
The Complete Streets Safety Assessment, offered through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, saw a team of safety experts conduct a study for roadway safety in the City. The assessment included a phone consultation and
field study, and concluded with a summary of findings and suggestions for roadway focus areas.
Safe Roads, Safe
Road Users, Safe
Speeds, Post-Crash
Care, Safe Vehicles
Safety Partners
A variety of agency staff and community partners were involved throughout the development of this LRSP and played an integral role in identifying priorities, providing local context, and reviewing the existing conditions analysis. Many of the strategies identified in this plan will require coordination with these partners and their support of the City of Brisbane’s effort to create a culture of roadway safety. While additional partners may be identified in the future, those involved in development of the LRSP include:
• City/County Association of Governments of San
Mateo County (C/CAG)
• County Public Health
• Sustainability Department
• San Mateo County Office of Education (SMCOE)
• San Mateo County Transportation Authority
(SMCTA)
• California Highway Patrol
• Metropolitan Transportation Commission
(MTC)
• Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition
• Caltrans
• Brisbane Police Department
13 of 44
34 H.
/ City of Brisbane
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 6
Community Engagement and Input
This LRSP includes community members’ experiences and concerns gathered from project team hosted pop-up events and an interactive webmap.
ENGAGEMENT TIMELINE AND EVENTS
The project team hosted a series of public engagement events countywide to support the concurrent development of the Countywide LRSP and of the City’s plan. These events focus on jurisdiction-specific issues and on countywide concerns. The table below lists the events, organized by themed engagement phases, and is followed by the community input themes we heard.
Table 2. C/CAG Public Engagement Events
Date Event Location
August 10, 2023 Countywide Virtual Kickoff
Meeting: Shared the purpose and
timing of the plan
Virtual meeting (recorded and
posted to plan website)
August 16, 2023 East Palo Alto
Figure 1. A pop-up event held at the Brisbane Farmers’ Market 14 of 44
35 H.
/ City of Brisbane
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 7
Date Event Location
August 19, 2023 Phase 1 Pop-up/Tabling Event:
Shared crash data analysis;
received input on locations and
safety concerns
Half Moon Bay Farmers Market
August 20, 2023 Foster City Summer Days
August 27, 2023 San Carlos Block Party
August – September, 2023 Phase 1 Concurrent Online Input Online webmap (countywide input)
December 17, 2023 Phase 2 Pop-up/Tabling Event:
Shared draft prioritized locations
and types of engineering
recommendations; received
comments on locations and
votes/input on types of
treatments and desired locations
Belmont Farmers’ Market
December 20, 2023 Woodside Public Library
January 9, 2024 Colma BART Station
January 16, 2024 Atherton Library
January 18, 2024 Brisbane Farmers’ Market
February 7, 2024 Portola Valley Bicycle, Pedestrian,
& Traffic Safety Committee
March – April 2024 Phase 3 Draft Plan
Share the draft plan publicly on
the project website, through
electronic distribution channels,
and with presentations to C/CAG
Committees and the Board.
Various
ONLINE MAP SURVEY
The project team made an online countywide webmap tool and survey available during August and September 2023 for the public to provide comments and respond to questions to guide the plan’s development (see Figure 2). Respondents were able to record location-specific feedback, associate a travel mode, and leave a detailed comment pertaining to a safety concern.
Countywide, there were a total of 528 comments recorded by 352 respondents. There were 14 comments made within the City of Brisbane. The comments included the following:
Biking Concerns/Requests
• Add new bike infrastructure such as protected bike lanes and separated bike lanes. • Provide a more connected bike network: continuous bike lanes (especially through intersections) and the Bay Trail.
• Concerns regarding conflicts with motor vehicles including high traffic volumes and congestion, vehicle speeds, right of way issues, parking, and turning conflicts at intersections. • Requests to install leading bicycle intervals at signalized intersections. 15 of 44
36 H.
/ City of Brisbane
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 8
Pedestrian Concerns/Requests
• Add new pedestrian infrastructure or upgrade existing infrastructure such as building new sidewalks, widening existing sidewalks, and high visibility crosswalks. • Concerns regarding conflicts with motor vehicles including high traffic volumes and congestion, speeding, and running STOP signs.
Traffic Enforcement Concerns
• Multiple concerns regarding running STOP signs and red lights. • Concerns regarding speeding observed especially on Bayshore Boulevard.
Roadway Infrastructure/ Traffic Operations Concerns
• Clear sight triangles to improve visibility on intersection approaches. • Requests to design roadway infrastructure for large vehicles (safe turning places at intersections).
The location and modal emphasis of comments in Brisbane is presented in Figure 3. The comments received are provided in Appendix A. The project team also identified common themes in the responses made countywide which may be relevant to the City. Those are presented in the Community Engagement section of the Countywide LRSP.
PHASE 2 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT FEEDBACK
The project team held an event at the Brisbane’s Farmers’ Market in January as part of Phase 2, which provided the project team with input on specific location concerns, general traffic safety/behavioral concerns, and opinions on specific engineering treatments or strategies. The comments received are provided in Appendix B.
The following themes were identified:
Pedestrian Comments
• Desire for sidewalks, especially in school zones
• Desire for larger or additional signage to mark pedestrian crossings, especially in school zones Figure 2. Online Map Survey Tool
16 of 44
37 H.
/ City of Brisbane
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 9
• Concerns that areas are not pedestrian friendly due to drivers speeding and running stop signs, specifically on San Benito Road, San Bruno Avenue, Sierra Point Road, Kings Road, Bayshore Boulevard, and the intersections of San Bruno Avenue / Mendocino Street, Humboldt Road / Placer Way, and Visitacion Avenue / Monterey Street
Bicycle Comments
• Desire for separated bicycle facilities throughout the City, especially on Bayshore Boulevard, Valley Drive, and Tunnel Road
Motor Vehicle Comments
• Desire to lower speed limits on narrow roads, especially in the hills • Desire for traffic calming treatments, such as speed bumps and stop signs, to encourage slower speeds, especially along Glen Park Way and Alvarado Street
• Desire for additional lighting to increase visibility along roadways and at intersections, specially at Valley Drive, Bayshore Boulevard, the Sierra Point Road / San Benito Road intersection, and the Old Country Road / San Francisco Avenue / Visitacion Avenue / San Bruno Avenue intersection • Concerns about sign visibility and site distance issues due to tree cover, parked cars, and curved roadways, specifically along US-101, San Bruno Avenue, Tunnel Road, and the Old Country Road / San Francisco Avenue / Visitacion Avenue / San Bruno Avenue intersection • Concerns that curb bulbouts make turning difficult, specifically along Visitacion Avenue and Mariposa Street
Countermeasure Comments
• Desire for signs that encourage slower speeds on roadways • Desire for additional stop signs
• Desire for additional lighting / flashing lights at intersections, especially for pedestrian crossings • No desire for curb extensions or pedestrian refuge islands, especially on narrow roads 17 of 44
38 H.
/ City of Brisbane
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 10
Figure 3. Webmap Comments in Brisbane
18 of 44
39 H.
/ City of Brisbane
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 11
CRASH DATA & TRENDS This section provides an overview of the five years of crash data used for this analysis. The data were downloaded from the Transportation Injury Mapping System1 (TIMS) Crash database representing the full years 2018 through 2022. TIMS is a commonly used data source for safety plans. This analysis includes only crashes for which some level of injury is reported and excludes property damage only (PDO) crashes. We removed crashes along grade-separated freeways from the dataset, but we retained crashes that occur along at-grade State Highway facilities and those that occurred within the influence area of freeway ramp terminal intersections.
The crash records used provide the best available data for analysis but do not account for crashes that go unreported or for near-miss events. This plan includes recommendations that would improve jurisdictions’ ability to capture one or both of those elements and enhance future crash analyses.
The discussion that follows provides a high-level overview of crash trends that informed the plan recommendations. For a more complete description of trends and findings, refer to Appendix C.
Emphasis Areas
The project team analyzed crash data in Brisbane and compared countywide trends to establish emphasis areas. Emphasis areas are crash dynamic, behavioral, or road user characteristics that the City can focus on to maximize fatal and severe injury reduction on local roads.
A review of crash data and input led to the development of the following emphasis areas for the City of Brisbane:
1. Pedestrian and bicyclist safety. Countywide, pedestrians were involved in 13 percent of injury crashes but 23 percent of fatal/severe injury crashes, showing a disproportionate involvement in the most severe outcomes. Similarly, bicyclists were involved in 13 percent of injury crashes but 20 percent of fatal/severe injury crashes. In Brisbane, pedestrians and bicyclists were involved in 50 percent and 17 percent of the 12 reported F/SI—higher than their overall share of all injury crashes (12 percent and 7 percent, total).
2. Nighttime/low light safety. Countywide, crashes occurring in dark conditions—especially in dark, unlit conditions--are more severe than those that occur in daylight. Motor vehicle crashes in dark, unlit conditions have about double the average severity when they occur compared to crashes in daylight. In Brisbane, four of the six fatal/severe injury pedestrian crashes (67 percent) and two of the four fatal/severe injury motor vehicle crashes (50 percent) occurred in dark conditions.
3. Unsignalized intersections on arterials/collectors. Countywide, crashes for all modes most frequently occurred at the intersection of higher order and lower order roadways – most commonly along arterial and collector roadways. Pedestrian and bicyclist crashes most frequently occur at unsignalized intersections.
4. Vulnerable age groups (youth and aging). Countywide across all modes, crash victims between the 15 to 34 years old are more likely to be injured including F/SI as a result of traffic safety than other groups.
Victims between the ages 50 – 69 and 75 to 84 are also more likely to be severely injured than other groups. In Brisbane, 3 or 4 percent of all reported injury crashes involve at fault drivers who are under 30 years old.
5. Motor vehicle speed related roadway segment crashes. Countywide, motor vehicle crashes were more severe along roadway segments than at any other location type; unsafe speed was the most commonly 1 Transportation Injury Mapping System, http://tims.berkeley.edu 19 of 44
40 H.
/ City of Brisbane
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 12
cited primary crash factor (27 percent of injury crashes and 23 percent of fatal/severe injury crashes). In Brisbane, “Too fast for conditions” was the top-cited violation among motor vehicle crashes (in 20 percent of injury crashes).
6. High speed roadways (35+mph). Countywide, crashes on roadways with posted speeds 40mph or higher had an average crash severity per mile 13 times higher than along roadways with posted speeds of 25 mph or less.
7. Alcohol involvement. Countywide, one in ten (10 percent) of motor vehicle injury crashes and one in five F/SI motor vehicle crashes (19 percent) involved alcohol. In Brisbane, 14 percent of all reported injury crashes involve impaired driving.
The next pages present summary findings from a crash data review that compares the City of Brisbane to countywide trends in these emphasis areas. It includes summary statistics related to the above-cited emphasis areas but also shows:
• The share of local crashes that occurred on or at a State Highway facility compared to Countywide levels. • The most frequently reported local crash types compared to Countywide levels. • The share of bicyclist and motor vehicle crashes among all injury crashes and among F/SI crashes.
Countywide and locally, bicyclist crashes account for a higher share of F/SI crashes than among all injury levels.
• The share of local and Countywide crashes occurring in dark conditions for crashes of all injury levels and for F/SI crashes (organized by mode).
• Reported pedestrian and bicyclist crashes summarized by the most common preceding movements countywide, with a comparison of those movements’ share of local crashes to Countywide shares. • The local and Countywide share of crashes involving drugs or alcohol and involving drivers under the age of 30.
20 of 44
41 H.
16%
(9)
Brisbane—Crash History
Most Frequent Collision Types
12%
(787) 30%
(1,908)
10%
(607)
25%
(14)
9%
(5)
21%
(12)
29%
(16)
Broadside, rear-end, head-on, and hit-object crashes were the most common crash types in the region. Here is how
Brisbane compares:
Brisbane Countywide 14% 4% (3)
of reported collisions
in Brisbane involved
drugs or alcohol
of reported collisions
in Brisbane involved
young drivers1
(10)
29%
(1,858)
Local
100% (69)
Total Crashes
In Brisbane, 69 fatal and injury crashes were reported on at-grade facilities between 2018 – 2022, where:
Local
57% (5,756)
State Highway
43% (2,712)
Brisbane Countywide
Broadside
Rear end
Head on Other
Hit object
Mode Involvement
Pedestrian Crashes (8)
Brisbane
Brisbane
Brisbane
Bicycle Crashes (5)
Motor Vehicle1
Crashes (56)
Fatal/all injury crashes
Fatal/all injury crashes
Fatal/all injury crashes
Fatal/severe injury crashes
Fatal/severe injury crashes
Fatal/severe injury crashes
17% (2)
33% (4)
12% (8) 50% (6)
7% (5)
Countywide
Countywide
Countywide
13% (1,073)
13% (1,067)
75% (6,324)
23% (208)
20% (176)
57% (515)
81% (56)
1. Motor crashes include motor vehicles and motorcyclists.
2. Young driver crashes are crashes that involve at fault drivers who are under 30 years old.
Compared to the countywide total, where
5% (472) of reported collisions involved
young drivers2
Compared to the countywide total,
where 8% (625) of reported collisions
involved drugs or alcohol
8%
(625)
5%
(472)
21 of 44
42 H.
Brisbane—Crash History
Brisbane
Brisbane
Share of Pedestrian Crashes in Dark Conditions (4)
Share of Motor Vehicle Crashes in Dark Conditions (14)
All Injury Crashes (56)
All Injury Crashes (8)
Fatal/Severe Injury Crashes (4)
Fatal/Severe Injury Crashes (6)
67% (4)
Countywide
Countywide
25% (14) 50% (2)
Dark Conditions
Crashes reported in nighttime conditions were found to be more severe—especially in dark, unlit conditions. Here is how Brisbane compares to Countywide crashes:
50% (4)
Reported Pedestrian Crashes (8)
Pedestrian Crossing
at Intersection
Predestrian Crossing
Not at a Crosswalk
Agency Countywide
13%
(1)
15%
(163)
Motorist proceeding
straight
25%
(2)
25%
(2)
Motorist proceeding
straight
34% (363)
26% (1,674)
47% (98)
34% (173)
22 of 44
43 H.
/ City of Brisbane
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 15
Countywide High Injury Network
In addition to the systemic analysis findings, the analysis included countywide spatial analysis to identify a countywide high injury network for each travel mode (pedestrians, bicyclists, and motor vehicles). The countywide HIN results were folded into the subsequent regional and local prioritization (described in the next section). Additionally, the characteristics of the HIN and crashes along them were identified as risk factors and incorporated into emphasis areas and into a systemic portion of the prioritization process. Table 3 and Figure 4 show the HIN segments identified within the City.
Table 3. Countywide HIN Segments in Brisbane
Roadway name All County Jurisdiction(s)
including this HIN Roadway
Total Length, all
jurisdictions
included (mi)
Motor
Vehicle
HIN
Bicyclist
HIN
Pedestrian
HIN
Sierra Point
Pkwy
Brisbane 1.4 X
Guadalupe
Canyon Pkwy
Daly City, Brisbane,
Unincorporated
2.5 X
Bayshore Blvd South San Francisco, Daly City,
Brisbane
2.9 X X
23 of 44
44 H.
/ City of Brisbane
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 16
Figure 4. Countywide HIN within the City of Brisbane
24 of 44
45 H.
/ City of Brisbane
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 17
Ped Crash Severity
Score, 16.7% Ped HIN Presence, 16.7%
C/CAG Active
Transportation Equity
Focus Areas, 8.3%
MTC Equity Priority
Communities, 8.3%
USDOT Historically
Disadvantaged
Communities, 8.3%
USDOT Areas of
Persistent Poverty, 8.3%
≤250 ft
from
transit stop, 5.6%
≤1/4 mile
from school, 6.7%
Arterial or Collector,
7.2%
Posted speed
35mph+, 7.0%
Unsignalized
intersection, 6.8%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Crash
History
Social
Equity
Systemic
Criteria
Factors
PROJECT IDENTIFICATION
& PRIORITIZATION
Methodology
Using the results of the crash data analysis and adding a focus on social equity, the project team identified priority locations for the City to target for future safety improvements. The prioritization used three equally weighted factors to prioritize locations for safety projects:
• Crash history – used to identify the locations with the highest reported five-year crash frequency and severity.
• Social equity – used to identify locations where projects would benefit disadvantaged populations and align with future grant funding opportunities that emphasize social equity. • Systemic factors – used to identify locations that have roadway and land use characteristics associated with crash frequency and severity. Using systemic factors emphasizes a proactive rather than purely reactive approach. Each factor was weighted relative to the other factors based on the average severity of relevant crashes (for example, if pedestrian crashes on arterials/collectors were overall twice as severe as pedestrian crashes at unsignalized intersections overall, then the former would be weighted twice the latter).
Each factor is comprised of multiple criteria and overlaid on jurisdictions’ roadway data to identify locations for future safety projects. The prioritization process was conducted three times, one for each travel mode. The weighting scheme for each mode is presented in the three figures below (Figure 5, Figure 6, and Figure 7).
Figure 5. Pedestrian Prioritization Factor/Criteria Weighting (Sum to 100 Percent) 25 of 44
46 H.
/ City of Brisbane
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 18
Figure 6. Bicycle Prioritization Factor/Criteria Weighting (Sum to 100 Percent) Figure 7. Motor Vehicle Prioritization Factor/Criteria Weighting (Sum to 100 Percent) Bike Crash Severity
Score, 16.7%
Bike HIN Presence, 16.7%
C/CAG Active
Transportation Equity
Focus Areas, 8.3%
MTC Equity Priority
Communities, 8.3%
USDOT Historically
Disadvantaged
Communities, 8.3%
USDOT Areas of
Persistent Poverty, 8.3%
≤1/4 mile
from school, 8.0%
Arterial or Collector,
8.6%
Posted speed
35mph+, 6.8%
Unsignalized
intersection, 9.9%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Crash
History
Social
Equity
Systemic
Criteria
Factors
MV Crash Severity
Score, 16.7% MV HIN Presence, 16.7%
C/CAG Active
Transportation Equity
Focus Areas, 8.3%
MTC Equity Priority
Communities, 8.3%
USDOT Historically
Disadvantaged
Communities, 8.3%
USDOT Areas of
Persistent Poverty, 8.3%
Arterial or Collector,
8.1%
Posted speed
35mph+, 16.0%
Unsignalized
intersection, 9.3%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Crash
History
Social
Equity
Systemic
Criteria
Factors
26 of 44
47 H.
/ City of Brisbane
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 19
Social Equity
Social equity is a critical factor for project prioritization, and emphasizing social equity within a project prioritization process helps to promote infrastructure spending and improvements in disadvantaged and/or disinvested neighborhoods. We considered and included multiple local, regional, and national datasets for social equity prioritization to reflect different measures available and because available funding opportunities use different indicators. The prioritization included measures accounting for all of the following indicators:
• C/CAG Active Transportation Equity Focus Areas
• MTC Equity Priority Communities
• USDOT Historically Disadvantaged Communities
• USDOT Areas of Persistent Poverty
Layering in these four indicators allows the prioritization to identify more locations that may meet the criteria for just one of these indicators while still elevating locations that show up in multiple or all indicators. The raw scoring data also equips the City to understand which locations meet which measures.
Results
The prioritization resulted in the following top locations. For more details (including the scores of each location), consult Appendix D. Figure 8 also shows the locations.
Table 4. Priority Locations
ID Location Corridor/
Intersection
State
Highway?
Motor Vehicle
Emphasis
Bicycle
Emphasis
Pedestrian
Emphasis
1 Bayshore Blvd and Main
St
Intersection No X X X
2 Bayshore Blvd and San
Bruno Ave
Intersection No X XX X
3 Bayshore Blvd and Tunnel
Ave
Intersection No X X
4 Sierra Point Pkwy and
Lagoon Rd
Intersection No X
5 Beatty Rd and Tunnel Ave Intersection No X
6 Alana Way and Beatty Rd Intersection Yes X
7 Sierra Point Pkwy 101 NB
Hwy and NB 101 Sierra
Point Pkwy Hwy
Intersection Yes X
8 Tunnel Ave and Lagoon
Rd
Intersection No X
9 Bayshore Blvd and Valley
Dr
Intersection No X X
27 of 44
48 H.
/ City of Brisbane
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 20
ID Location Corridor/
Intersection
State
Highway?
Motor Vehicle
Emphasis
Bicycle
Emphasis
Pedestrian
Emphasis
10 Guadalupe Canyon Pkwy
and Hill Dr
Intersection No X
11 Bayshore Blvd and
Industrial Way
Intersection No X X
12 Guadalupe Canyon Pkwy
and Bayshore Blvd
Intersection No X
13 Valley Dr and Park Ln Intersection No X X
14 Park Pl and Valley Dr Intersection No X X
15 San Bruno Ave and
Mendocino St
Intersection No X X
16 Cypress Ln and Valley Dr Intersection No X X
17 Hill Dr and Silverspot Dr Intersection No X
18 San Francisco Ave and
Old County Rd
Intersection No X
19 San Bruno Ave and
Mariposa St
Intersection No X
20 Old County Rd and Park
Ln
Intersection No X
21 Klamath St and Visitacion
Ave
Intersection No X
22 Santa Clara St and San
Bruno Ave
Intersection No X
23 San Bruno Ave and
Alvarado St
Intersection No X
24 Glen Pkwy and San Bruno
Ave
Intersection No X
25 Lake St and San Bruno
Ave
Intersection No X
26 San Bruno Ave and Tulare
St
Intersection No X
27 Monterey St and San
Bruno Ave
Intersection No X
28 Ross Way and Glen Pkwy Intersection No X
29 San Francisco Ave and
Plumas St
Intersection No X
28 of 44
49 H.
/ City of Brisbane
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 21
ID Location Corridor/
Intersection
State
Highway?
Motor Vehicle
Emphasis
Bicycle
Emphasis
Pedestrian
Emphasis
30 Park Pl and Park Ln Intersection No X
31 San Francisco Ave and
Inyo St
Intersection No X
32 Mariposa St and
Visitacion Ave
Intersection No X
33 Visitacion Ave and
Monterey St
Intersection No X
34 Mariposa St and Inyo St Intersection No X
35 Sierra Point Rd and
Humboldt Rd
Intersection No X
36 Solano St and Mendocino
St
Intersection No X
37 Solano St and San
Francisco Ave
Intersection No X
38 Mariposa St and Solano
St
Intersection No X
39 Sierra Point Rd and
Lassen St
Intersection No X
40 Mono St and Klamath St Intersection No X
41 Visitacion Ave and
Mendocino St
Intersection No X
42 Humboldt Rd and Lassen
St
Intersection No X
43 Humboldt Rd and Lake St Intersection No X
44 Solano St and Humboldt
Rd
Intersection No X
45 Main St and Hill Dr Intersection No X
46 Gladys Ave and San
Bruno Ave
Intersection No X
47 Klamath St and San
Bruno Ave
Intersection No X
48 San Bruno Ave and
Thomas Ave
Intersection No X
49 Sierra Point Rd and Ross
Way
Intersection No X
29 of 44
50 H.
/ City of Brisbane
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 22
ID Location Corridor/
Intersection
State
Highway?
Motor Vehicle
Emphasis
Bicycle
Emphasis
Pedestrian
Emphasis
50 Humboldt Rd and Glen
Pkwy
Intersection No X
51 Sierra Point Rd and Glen
Pkwy
Intersection No X
52 Humboldt Rd and Kings
Rd
Intersection No X
53 Humboldt Rd and Sierra
Point Rd
Intersection No X
54 Humboldt Rd and San
Diego Ct
Intersection No X
55 Mariposa St and Plumas
St
Intersection No X
56 Alvarado St and
Visitacion Ave
Intersection No X
57 Alvarado St and Monterey
St
Intersection No X
58 Alvarado St and
Mendocino St
Intersection No X
59 William Ave and San
Bruno Ave
Intersection No X
60 Humboldt Rd and Annis
Rd
Intersection No X
61 Lake St and Glen Park
Way
Intersection No X
62 Bayshore Blvd, Geneva
Ave to S city limits
Corridor No X X X
63 Valley Dr, Bayshore Blvd
to Hills Dr
Corridor No X X X
64 Tunnel, N city limit to
Bayshore Blvd
Corridor No X X
30 of 44
51 H.
/ City of Brisbane
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 23
Figure 8: Brisbane Priority Locations
31 of 44
52 H.
/ City of Brisbane
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 24
IMPROVEMENTS – ENGINEERING,
POLICY & PROGRAMS
This section presents Safe System-aligned recommendations that can create levels of redundancy for traffic safety in the City of Brisbane. First is a table of engineering countermeasures proven to reduce fatal and severe injury crashes. The countermeasures align to the crash types as listed in the table. Complementing those countermeasures is a holistic set of policy and programmatic recommendations that will help align City departments and partners in pursuit of the plan’s vision and goals.
Project Scopes
With the development of this plan the project team worked with the City to identify two project locations or two groups of project locations to apply safety treatments. We worked from the list of priority project locations and used potential benefit-to-cost ratio to identify a suite of treatments the City could consider at these locations.
The City can move forward with further project development and community engagement to advance solutions at these locations. They may also consider bundling some of the treatments identified with the same treatments at other, similar locations identified in this plan, for a systemic approach.
The project scopes were developed exclusively from a list of City-approved engineering countermeasures, which are presented as an engineering toolbox in the next section. The team prepared a suite of treatments to reduce crashes at the project locations. For each treatment, the list presents a planning-level cost of the treatments as recommended and the crash reduction benefit.
The scoped project locations include:
Bayshore Blvd to Guadalupe Canyon Pkwy. Recommended improvements include:
o Improvements to signal hardware (lenses, backplates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number)
32 of 44
53 H.
/ City of Brisbane
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 25
o Installation of advance stop bar before crosswalk (bicycle box) o Modified signal phasing with a leading pedestrian interval Bayshore Blvd and Main St. Recommended improvements include:
o Installation and/or upgrading of larger stop signs and other intersection warning or regulatory signs o Pavement markings
o Dynamic/variable speed warning signs
For more information on the location, cost, and crash diagnostics of these project scopes, see Appendix E.
Engineering Countermeasure Toolbox
Table 5. City of Brisbane Countermeasure Toolbox
Countermeasure Name Applicable
Location(s)1
Crash Types
Applicable
Crash
Reduction
Factor (If
Available)
Cost (if
available)2
Systemic
Opportunity?
Lighting* All Nighttime 0.4 Medium
Improve signal hardware:
lenses, back plates with
retroreflective borders,
mounting, size, and
number*
SI Signalized
local/arterial
intersections
0.15 $ Very High
Install left-turn lane and
add turn phase*
SI Signalized
local/arterial
intersections
0.55 $-$$$ Low
Convert signal to mast
arm (from pedestal
mounted)*
SI Signalized
local/arterial
intersections
0.3 $-$$$ Medium
Install raised median on
approaches*
SI Signalized
local/arterial
intersections
0.25 $-$$$ Medium
Create directional median
openings to allow (and
restrict left turns and Uturns (signalized
intersection)*
SI Signalized
local/arterial
intersections
0.5 $-$$ Medium
Install raised pavement
markers and striping*
SI Wet, night, all 0.1 $ High
33 of 44
54 H.
/ City of Brisbane
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 26
Countermeasure Name Applicable
Location(s)1
Crash Types
Applicable
Crash
Reduction
Factor (If
Available)
Cost (if
available)2
Systemic
Opportunity?
Install flashing beacons
as advance warning (SI)*
SI Rear end,
broadside
0.3 $-$$ Medium
Centerline hardening or
continuous raised median
SI All crashes 0.46 $ Medium
Install pedestrian
countdown signal heads*
SI Pedestrian
crashes,
signalized
local/arterial
intersections
0.25 $ High
Install pedestrian
crossing*
SI Pedestrian
crashes,
signalized
local/arterial
intersections
0.25 $ High
Install advance stop bar
before crosswalk (bicycle
box)*
SI Pedestrian
crashes,
signalized
local/arterial
intersections
0.15 $ High
Modify signal phasing to
implement a Leading
Pedestrian Interval (LPI)
SI Pedestrian
crashes,
signalized
local/arterial
intersections
0.6 $ High
Install painted safety zone SI Pedestrian
crashes,
signalized
local/arterial
intersections
N/A $ High
Install Protected
Intersection Elements
SI Pedestrian
crashes,
signalized
local/arterial
intersections
N/A $-$$$ Low
34 of 44
55 H.
/ City of Brisbane
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 27
Countermeasure Name Applicable
Location(s)1
Crash Types
Applicable
Crash
Reduction
Factor (If
Available)
Cost (if
available)2
Systemic
Opportunity?
Convert to all-way STOP
control (from two-way or
Yield control)*
UI All crashes 0.5 $ Low
Install signals* UI All crashes 0.3 $$$ Low
Convert intersection to
roundabout (from all-way
stop)*
UI All crashes Varies $$$ Low
Convert intersection to
roundabout (from stop or
yield control on minor
road)*
UI All crashes Varies $$$ Low
Covert intersection to
mini-roundabout*
UI All crashes 0.3 $$ Low
Create directional median
openings to allow (and
restrict) left turns and Uturns (unsignalized
intersections)*
UI All crashes 0.5 $-$$ Medium
Install raised medians
(refuge islands)*
UI Pedestrians
and bicycle
0.45 $ Medium
Install pedestrian
crossings (signs and
markings only)*
UI Pedestrians
and bicycle
0.25 $-$$$ High
Install pedestrian
crossings (with enhanced
safety features)*
UI Pedestrians
and bicycle
0.35 $-$$$ Medium
Install/upgrade larger or
additional STOP signs or
other intersection warning
or regulatory signs*
UI Turning
crashes
related to
lack of driver
awareness
0.15 $ High
35 of 44
56 H.
/ City of Brisbane
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 28
Countermeasure Name Applicable
Location(s)1
Crash Types
Applicable
Crash
Reduction
Factor (If
Available)
Cost (if
available)2
Systemic
Opportunity?
Upgrade intersection
pavement markings*
UI Turning
crashes
related to
lack of driver
awareness
0.25 $ High
Install flashing beacons at
stop-controlled
intersection*
UI Broadside,
rear end
0.15 $$$ High
Install pedestrian signal or
pedestrian hybrid
beacon*
UI Pedestrian
and bicycle
0.3 $$$ High
Install splitter islands on
the minor road
approaches*
UI All crashes 0.4 $ Medium
Road diet (Reduce travel
lanes from four to three,
and add a two-way, leftturn lane and bike lanes)*
R All crashes 0.35 $ Medium
Install edge line rumble
strips/stripes*
R All crashes 0.15 $-$$$ High
Install separated bike
lanes*
R Pedestrian
and bicycle
0.45 $-$$ High
Install/upgrade
pedestrian crossing (with
enhanced safety
features)*
R Pedestrian
and bicycle
0.35 $$-$$$ Medium
Install raised pedestrian
crossing*
R Pedestrian
and bicycle
0.35 $ Medium
Remove or relocate fixed
objects outside of clear
recovery zone*
R Hit object 035 $-$$ High
Install delineators,
reflectors, and/or object
marker*
R All crashes 0.15 $ High
36 of 44
57 H.
/ City of Brisbane
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 29
Countermeasure Name Applicable
Location(s)1
Crash Types
Applicable
Crash
Reduction
Factor (If
Available)
Cost (if
available)2
Systemic
Opportunity?
Install/upgrade signs with
new fluorescent sheeting
(regulatory or warning)*
R All crashes 0.15 $ High
Install dynamic/variable
speed warning signs*
R Driver
behavior
0.3 $ High
Extend pedestrian
crossing time
SI Pedestrian N/A $ High
Pedestrian phase recall SI Pedestrian N/A $ High
Extend green time for
bikes
SI Bicycle N/A $ High
Extend yellow and all-red
time
SI All crashes N/A $ High
Lane narrowing R All crashes N/A $-$$ Low
Bicycle crossing (solid
green paint)
UI Bicycle N/A $ Medium
Bicycle signal/exclusive
bike phase
SI Bicycle N/A $-$$ Low
Curb extensions UI All crashes N/A $-$$ Low
ADA-compliant
directional curb ramps
and audible push buttons
SI Pedestrian N/A $-$$ Low
Splitter islands UI, SI All crashes N/A $$ Medium
Roadside design features All All crashes N/A $-$$$ Low
*Indicates countermeasure is eligible for California HSIP funding as of the most recent funding cycle 1: UI = Unsignalized Intersection; SI = Signalized Intersection; R = Roadway segments; All = All of the above 2: $ = ≤$50,000; $$ = $50,000 - $200,000; $$$ = > $200,000 37 of 44
58 H.
/ City of Brisbane
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 30
Proposed Policy, Program, and Guidelines
Recommendations
POLICY CATEGORIES
In addition to the engineering countermeasures and projects recommended above, the City aims to promote policies, programs, and standards that foster a culture of safety. The table below defines several policy and program recommendations organized into thematic categories. Implemented in cooperation with partners, these recommendations will deepen the dedication to safety shared throughout the community and round out the City’s Safe System Approach.
Table 5. City of Brisbane Policy and Program Recommendations Category Near-Term Recommendations Long-Term or Ongoing Recommendations Local Culture Shift
(LCS)
LCS1: Transportation Safety
Advisory Committee participation
LCS2: High-Visibility Media Campaign
LCS3: Communication Protocol
LCS4: Implement Car-Free Zones
Local Enforcement
Coordination (LEC)
LEC2: Speed Monitoring Awareness Radar Trailer
Local Funding (LF) LF2: Equitable Investment
LF3: Prioritize Investments
Local Education /
Outreach (LEO)
LEO1: Roadway Safety Education in Schools
LEO2: Engagement Accessibility
LEO3: Educational Materials for New Facilities
LEO4: Transportation Safety Campaign
LEO5: Safe City Fleets
Local Planning/
Evaluation (LPE)
LPE1: Annual Update
LPE2: Plan Update
LPE3: Safety and Equity Impacts Evaluation
LPE4: Safe Routes to School
NEAR-TERM ACTIONS
LCS1: Transportation Safety Advisory Committee Participation Actively participate in the newly-formed County Transportation Safety Advisory Committee (TSAC). Bring agenda items as relevant, including but not limited to:
• Safety project updates with every step along the project development process (studies initiated / under way /complete, funding identified, design phases initiated / under way / complete) • Annual updates to the TSAC regarding implementation progress that may be relevant for C/CAG annual monitoring reporting (e.g., projects on identified priority locations and/or the regional High Injury Network, community engagement efforts and summaries, safety funding applied for / received) • Opportunities for cross-jurisdiction coordination (e.g., roadways or intersections shared with adjacent jurisdictions or Caltrans)
38 of 44
59 H.
/ City of Brisbane
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 31
• Requests for trainings / best practices that could be provided through the TSAC Lead agency: City of Brisbane Public Works
LONG-TERM OR ONGOING ACTIONS
LCS2: High-Visibility Media Campaign
Coordinate with County Public Health and the Brisbane Police Department to implement a local high-visibility media campaign pertaining to one or more emphasis areas identified in this plan. Dedicated law enforcement with media supporting the enforcement activity to ensure public awareness. Potential communication tools:
• Bus ads • Social media • Text messages
Lead agency: County Public Health
Coordinating partners: County Sheriff’s Office, California Highway Patrol, Sustainability Department, SMCOE, City of Brisbane Police Department, City of Brisbane Public WorksLCS3: Communication LCS3: Communication Protocol
Adopt and develop safety-related communication protocols in coordination with the TSAC. The protocols will promote consistent public communication regarding language usage and statements related to transportation safety. Encourage language in line with Vision Zero and Safe System principles that acknowledges mistakes are inevitable but death and severe injury are preventable. For example, promote use of the word crash rather than accident.
Lead agency: C/CAG
Coordinating partners: City of Brisbane Public Works
LCS4: Implement Car-Free Zones
More effectively target resources to pedestrian crash problems in a limited geographic area. Realizing these zones requires upfront analysis and planning, countermeasure development, and implementation.
Implementation can focus on addressing particular problems or on increasing general safety in specific areas during windows of peak pedestrian activity. (For example: Friday nights in commercial districts, Sundays on recreational routes/areas, etc.)
Lead agency: City of Brisbane Public Works
LEC2: Speed Monitoring Awareness Radar Trailer
Coordinate with Brisbane PD to deploy a trailer to monitor speeds on streets and to raise awareness of speeding. It can be deployed long term along HIN and other arterials, or short term in neighborhoods. Use the priority locations and data in this plan to identify locations and schedule for deployment.
Lead agency: City of Brisbane Police Department
Coordinating partners: City of Brisbane Public Works
LF2: Equitable Investment
Prioritize citywide safety investments in disadvantaged communities. Use the presence of disadvantaged communities (as identified with C/CAG Equity Focus Areas, MTC Equity Priority Communities, USDOT Historically Disadvantaged Communities, and/or USDOT Areas of Persistent Poverty) as a factor to elevate funding for certain projects or other safety-related programs.
Lead agency: City of Brisbane Public Works
39 of 44
60 H.
/ City of Brisbane
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 32
LF3: Prioritize Investments
Use the priority locations identified in this plan to determine safety project opportunities to advance for further project development and to identify funding. Identify pathways for improvement for the locations on the list.
Continue to engage the community to refine the priorities within the list of identified sites.
Lead agency: City of Brisbane Public Works
LEO1: Roadway Safety Education in Schools
Continue School Travel Fellowship Program to provide the following:
• Technical assistance to schools and planners to implement demonstration projects • ATP Project Specialist to work with educators to provide technical assistance (bike rodeos, parent engagement workshops and resources, walk and bike audits, and additional support for walk/bike to school encouragement events) to schools in EPCs
Lead agency: SMCOE
Coordinating partners: County Public Health, Sustainability Department, SVBC LEO2: Engagement Accessibility
Plan community engagement efforts to be tailored for vulnerable road users and all travel modes. Make outreach materials available in accessible formats and multiple languages.
Lead agency: City of Brisbane Public Works
LEO3: Educational Materials for New Facilities
Develop and distribute educational materials and/or videos demonstrating how to navigate and interact with newer active transportation facilities (e.g., bike boxes, Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons, separated bike lanes, etc.) Include information about the purpose and goals of this infrastructure.
Lead agency: City of Brisbane Public Works
LEO4: Transportation Safety Campaign
Run education campaigns and outreach to foster community awareness of a shared responsibility for road safety. Use the emphasis areas highlighted in this plan as focus areas and target groups for a campaign.
Lead agency: City of Brisbane
Coordinating partners: C/CAG, County Public Health
LEO5: Safe City Fleets
Provide educational materials for City staff who drive City vehicles and integrate safety awareness training into contracting process with vendors who provide City services. Other measures include installing safety features (such as pedestrian/obstacle detection and speed tracking) on City vehicles and reporting on correction plans against unsafe driving.
Lead agency: City of Brisbane Public Works
LPE1: Annual Review
Provide an annual review of plan implementation progress. This review includes an update and presentation to City Council as well as a written update to the TSAC so that C/CAG may compile county plan implementation status.
Lead agency: City of Brisbane Public Works
LPE2: Plan Update
Update the plan within five years of publication. The plan update will revise actions to reflect current crash trends and will integrate technological advancements and changes in best practices as needed.
Lead agency: City of Brisbane Public Works
40 of 44
61 H.
/ City of Brisbane
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 33
LPE3: Safety and Equity Impacts Evaluation
Fund a study to address traffic injury and enforcement inequities to inform policies, projects, programs, and needed data quality improvements. Solicit feedback on the report’s equity analysis from groups representing equity priority communities. Topics for the study may include injury related to homelessness, race/ethnicity, language, income, and immigration status, citations by demographics, citation type, and location.
Alternately, coordinate with the TSAC to participate in a countywide version of the same that can include the City as part of its scope.
Lead agency: C/CAG
LPE4: Safe Routes to School
Continue to participate in school safety assessments at all public and private schools, develop implementation plans for improvements up to one quarter mile from the schools.
Develop a plan and timeline to include all schools in the City.
Lead agency: SMCOE
Coordinating partners: City of Brisbane Public Works
41 of 44
62 H.
/ City of Brisbane
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 34
IMPLEMENTATION & MONITORING A key part of achieving Brisbane’s vision is consistently evaluating roadway safety performance and tracking progress towards the goals. The City of Brisbane will develop a process to regularly collect data and information around the performance measures that can be used to assess changes city-wide and at the top priority locations.
Implementation actions are organized by plan goals and grouped by time: near-term actions, which Brisbane can initiate immediately, and longer-term actions, which may require coordination and additional staff time.
This section identifies recommendations for Brisbane and other county-level safety partners to implement the plan. These are aligned with the Safe System Approach and include a framework to measure plan progress over time.
Table 6. City of Brisbane Goals and Measures of Success
GOAL MEASURE OF SUCCESS
1. Work with Brisbane Police Department to
review crash history and community needs
on a semi-annual basis to identify and
prioritize opportunities to reduce crash risk
for roadway users of all ages and abilities.
2. Utilize existing plans, such as the Brisbane
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, to
implement safety countermeasures
systemically and as part of all projects to
target emphasis areas and underserved
communities
• Number of LRSP project locations advanced through
project development, reported at the agency level
• Annual and three-year total reported crashes,
fatal/severe injury crashes, crashes by mode, and
crashes by emphasis areas identified
3. Identify opportunities to incorporate social
equity into safety improvements.
4. Provide opportunities for community
engagement in roadway capital
improvement projects to identify safety
solutions.
• Community engagement included as part of all
C/CAG-funded safety project development activities
• Number of engagement touchpoints and number of
community member interactions citywide for safety
plans or projects.
• Report-backs to the City Council and TSAC regarding
community engagement, including information about
outreach to disadvantaged communities where
applicable
• Distribution at the jurisdiction level for safety projects within equity focus areas (C/CAG EFAs or MTC EPCs)
versus outside these areas
• Expansion of SRTS and Roadway Safety Education in
Schools programs to more schools within the City
• Implementation of a high-visibility media campaign
42 of 44
63 H.
/ City of Brisbane
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 35
GOAL MEASURE OF SUCCESS
5. Embrace the Safe System Approach to
promote engineering and non-engineering
strategies in the community.
• Percent of school district participation in SRTS and
roadway safety education opportunities
• Number of trainings city staff have participated in
regarding Safe System elements, available tools, or
practices
• Improved data availability or maintenance to enhance
safety analysis and practice
6. Monitor implementation of the Brisbane LRSP
to track progress towards goals.
• See above in this table
43 of 44
64 H.
/ City of Brisbane
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 36
Appendix A
Webmap Comments
City of Brisbane
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
44 of 44
65 H.
File Attachments for Item:
I. Adoption of Urgency Ordinance amending the Brisbane Municipal Code sections concerning Electrical Vehicle Infrastructure and adding a new Chapter 15.83 Energy Performance Reach Code
(This Ordinance is categorically exempt from environmental review under CEQA Guidelines Section 15308, Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment.) 66 Urgency Ordinance | 2024 Reach Codes Page 1 of 5
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: July 18, 2024
From: John Swiecki, Community Development Director
Subject: Urgency Ordinance amending the Brisbane Municipal Code sections concerning Electrical Vehicle Infrastructure and adding a new Chapter 15.83 Energy Performance Reach Code and finding that this Ordinance categorically exempt from environmental review under CEQA Guidelines Section 15308, Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment.
Community Goal/Result
Ecological Sustainability - Brisbane will be a leader in setting policies and practicing service delivery innovations that promote ecological sustainability.
Purpose
To amend the electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure requirements to align with state minimum standards which became effective on July 1, 2024, and add Energy Performance requirements for new buildings to replace unenforceable all-electric requirements.
Recommendation
Adopt the attached draft ordinance on an urgency basis.
Background
Every three years a new set of construction codes is published by the State. Local adoption of these codes allows the City to enforce them under the authority of the Brisbane Municipal Code (BMC). In addition, the State may adopt “intervening codes”, which recently occurred with Electric Vehicle Infrastructure requirements which became effective on July 1, 2024.
Public Resources Code Section 25402.1(h)(2) and Section 10-106 of the Building Energy Efficiency Standards establish a process that allows local adoption of energy standards that are more stringent than the statewide standards, known as “reach codes.” Under this process, the California Energy Commission (CEC) requires any local amendments to the California Energy Code that affect energy use in regulated buildings to be cost effective and use less energy than the standard requirements contained in Title 24, Part 6. In addition to the required submission of cost-effectiveness studies to the CEC, these studies can demonstrate to the public that amendments to the code are financially responsible and do not represent an unreasonable burden to the residential and nonresidential building owners and occupants.
The last Code adoption cycle was in November 2022 when the City amended Chapter 15.04 of the BMC to adopt the 2022 Edition of the California Building Standards Code. At the same time, the City amended other chapters within Title 15 of the BMC to adopt local reach codes pertaining to fire protection, on-site energy generation, all-electric new buildings, and electric 1 of 31
67 I.
Urgency Ordinance | 2024 Reach Codes Page 2 of 5
vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure. Minor amendments to the City’s EV charging infrastructure code were made in June 2023.
The City of Berkeley adopted regulations in 2019, similar to Brisbane’s, requiring electric appliances in new construction, which regulations were challenged by the California Restaurant Association in federal district court. Although the federal district court upheld the Berkeley regulations, in April 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision and held that the federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) preempted the City of Berkeley’s all-electric ordinance. In January 2024, the Ninth Circuit denied Berkeley’s petition for rehearing and issued a modified opinion affirming that Berkeley’s regulations are preempted by federal law. Berkeley announced it would not pursue further review by the United States Supreme Court; the Ninth Circuit’s ruling is now final. As a result, Brisbane’s existing all-electric ordinance, first passed in 2019 and amended in 2022, is unenforceable. Additional details on the legal landscape are provided in Attachment 2.
Discussion
The proposed Ordinance affects only new construction (not existing buildings) and includes several parts:
1. Repeal of the existing All Electric requirements for new buildings (BMC 15.04.043 Sections J through L) due to legal proceedings noted above and detailed in Attachment
2. 2. Addition of Chapter 15.83 – New Building Energy Performance Reach Code to continue to encourage highly efficient and/or all-electric buildings a. Sets a performance standard which requires new buildings to be more efficient than the State’s minimum code while maintaining cost-effectiveness b. Requires electric readiness for new buildings with natural gas appliances
3. Amendment of Electric Vehicle Infrastructure requirements to meet or exceed the new state intervening code, ensuring applicants aren’t required to interpret two overlapping requirements
Energy Performance Standard
The proposed reach code would increase the required score of specific energy metrics which are calculated for every new building under the energy code, resulting in a decrease in energy use and emissions from newly constructed buildings. The enhanced performance requirements would apply equally to mixed-fuel (i.e. natural gas and electric) and all-electric buildings and are cost-effectively achievable through the energy code’s performance pathway without requiring appliances that exceed federal efficiency standards. Attachment 2 provides detail on the energy metrics, performance thresholds for different building types (Table 2), the practical effect of the reach codes on building design, available resources for lower-cost all electric buildings, and a summary of the performance and benefit-to-cost ratio for different building types (Table 4).
Electric Ready Requirements
The proposed reach code would add to the current 2022 California Energy Code requirements for “electric ready” components in buildings, including electric outlets near natural gas 2 of 31
68 I.
Urgency Ordinance | 2024 Reach Codes Page 3 of 5
appliances, appropriate ventilation for future heat pump appliances, and reserved and labelled breakers in the electrical panel for future electric appliances. A summary of changes is detailed in Table 3 of Attachment 2.
EV Infrastructure Requirements
The proposed EV infrastructure requirements include new definitions, and requirements that EV charging infrastructure in multi-family developments shall be connected to the unit’s electrical panel, with certain exceptions. In addition, slight increases in the number or level of charging infrastructure are included, with the following resulting requirements:
Building Type EV Requirements
New single-family residences,
duplexes, townhouses, and new
garages at existing
At least one Level 2 EV Ready Circuit and one Level 1
EV Ready circuit, except where only one parking space
is required, carports without electrical service, or
where infeasible
New multifamily dwellings • Minimum of 1 Level 2 EV Ready Circuit Parking Space per unit
o Minimum of 10% w/ Level 2 EVSE
• Minimum 50% guest parking spaces EVCS
• Overall minimum 40% parking EV Ready or EVSE
New Non-Residential Building Uses
with Lower Parking Turnover Rates
(longer dwell times, i.e. offices,
hotels)
10 or more parking spaces - 50% EV:
• 15% Level 2 EVCS
• 35% at least Low Power Level 2 EV Ready Circuits
9 or fewer parking spaces: at least one Level 2 EV
Ready Circuit Parking Space or EVCS
New Non-Residential Building Uses
with Higher Parking Turnover Rates
(shorter dwell times, i.e.
restaurants, retail)
10 or more parking spaces - 25% EV:
• 15% Level 2 EVCS
• 10% at least Low Power Level 2 EV Ready Circuits
9 or fewer parking spaces: at least one Level 2 EV
Ready Circuit Parking Space or EVCS
Cost Effectiveness
The CEC requires any local amendments to the California Energy Code that affect energy use in regulated buildings (e.g., reach codes) to be cost effective and to use less energy than the standard requirements. The CEC requires the local agency to adopt a determination that the energy standards are cost effective at a public meeting, and the determination subsequently be submitted for CEC approval.
In support of reach code development, the California Energy Codes and Standards Statewide Utility Program, which includes the State's Investor-Owned Utilities (PG&E, SDG&E, and SCE, under the auspices of the California Public Utilities Commission) developed and published the following studies:
• 2022 Cost-Effectiveness Study: Single Family New Construction Study and the associated cost-effectiveness data;
3 of 31
69 I.
Urgency Ordinance | 2024 Reach Codes Page 4 of 5
• 2022 Cost-Effectiveness Study: Multifamily New Construction Study and the associated cost-effectiveness data; and
• 2022 Cost-Effectiveness Study: Non-residential New Construction Reach Code Costeffectiveness Study and the associated cost-effectiveness data.
Based on these studies, staff finds the proposed local amendments to the 2022 California Energy Code to be cost-effective and consume less energy than otherwise permitted by Title 24, Part 6. In short, the proposed amendments save more than they cost to implement.
Additional detail is included in Table 4 of Attachment 2.
Express Findings Required for Local Amendments
Section 17958 of the California Health and Safety Code provides that a local jurisdiction may make changes to the provisions within the State’s uniform codes that are published in the California Building Standards Code. Sections 17958.5 and 17958.7 of the Health and Safety Code require that for each proposed local change to those provisions in the uniform codes and published in the California Building Standards Code which regulate buildings used for human habitation, the City Council must make findings supporting its determination that each such local change is reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological, topographical, or environmental conditions.
1. Brisbane, like the Bay Area and the state of California, is already suffering impacts of climate change in the form of droughts, air pollution, extreme heat, lowland flooding, wildfires and stagnating smoke, and these impacts will grow more severe if global greenhouse gas emissions are not significantly reduced.
2. Failure to address and significantly reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions could result in rises in sea level, including in San Francisco Bay, that could put at risk City homes and businesses, public facilities, and Highway 101 (Bayshore Freeway), particularly the mapped Flood Hazard areas of the City.
3. The burning of fossil fuels in gas appliances within buildings contributes to climate change and GHG emissions as well as poor air quality. All-electric new buildings benefit the health, safety, and welfare of Brisbane residents. Encouraging all-electric construction will reduce the amount of GHG emissions produced in Brisbane.
4. The combustion of gas inside homes produces harmful indoor air pollution, specifically nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitric oxide, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and ultrafine particles. These odorless and undetectable gas combustion pollutants can cause respiratory diseases, including increased risk of childhood asthma.
5. Use of fossil fuel vehicles is a primary contributor to transportation emissions and availability of EV charging infrastructure is a critical component to EV adoption over the continued use of fossil fuel reliant vehicles. Additionally, provision of EV charging infrastructure is most cost effective as part of new development projects versus existing building/site retrofit projects.
6. Electricity supplied by Peninsula Clean Energy is exceedingly clean and will become cleaner over time as the broader grid meets more stringent Renewable Portfolio 4 of 31
70 I.
Urgency Ordinance | 2024 Reach Codes Page 5 of 5
Standard requirements and translate the clean energy benefits to electric vehicles and all-electric buildings.
7. Construction of energy efficient buildings and installation of renewable energy systems protects the public health and welfare by reducing air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, average and peak energy demand, and adverse impacts from power outages.
8. The City is located near the San Andreas Fault and is subject to seismic activity that could potentially result in ground shaking and damage to structures, via shaking, slope failure, and liquefaction and potentially ignite fires throughout the City. The reduction of natural gas infrastructure would reduce fire hazards in buildings near highly combustible wildland areas and hazards associated with gas leaks during seismic events.
Ordinance to be Adopted on an Urgency Basis
This Ordinance is proposed for adoption on an urgency basis because the intervening cycle of the California Building Code went into effect Statewide on July 1, 2024 and it is in the community interest of public health, safety and welfare for the City’s reach code provisions to be in full force and effect as close as possible to the provisions of the state code. If the Ordinance were not adopted on an urgency basis, the local amendments would not be in effect until mid-October due to the City Council’s meeting schedule, leading to a conflict between the State adopted provisions and the local provisions. Furthermore, the repeal of All Electric requirements is necessary due to recent legal proceedings; they are replaced with Energy Performance requirements to implement the City’s Climate Action Plan and Climate Emergency Declaration and intended to reduce carbon emissions from fossil fuels to limit climate change. A four-fifths vote of the City Council is needed to adopt the Ordinance on an urgency basis.
CEQA Determination
Adoption of the Ordinance is not subject environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in that it is categorically exempt under the CEQA Guidelines, Section 15308, Actions by Regulatory Agencies to Protect the Environment.
Fiscal Impact
None
Measure of Success
Application of updated standards to meet minimum requirements of State law and implementation of measures to help meet the City’s climate goals.
Attachments
1. Draft Urgency Ordinance - Energy Performance and EV Infrastructure Reach Code
2. Additional Context on Energy Performance Reach Code
___________________________________ ___________________________________ John Swiecki, Community Development Director Jeremy Dennis, City Manager 5 of 31
71 I.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN URGENCY ORDINACE OF THE CITY OF BRISBANE TO TAKE EFFECT IMMEDIATELY UPON ITS ADOPTION AMENDING SECTION 15.04.043 OF THE BRISBANE MUNICIPAL CODE, ADDING TO THE BRISBANE MUNICIPAL CODE A NEW CHAPTER 15.83 (ENERGY PERFORMANCE REACH CODE), AND AMENDING SECTIONS 15.84.050, 15.84.060, 15.84.070, AND 15.84.070 OF THE
BRISBANE MUNICIPAL CODE CONCERNING ELECTRICAL VEHICLE INFRASTRUCTURE WHEREAS, California Health and Safety Code section 17958 requires that cities adopt building regulations that are substantially the same as those adopted by the California Building Standards Commission and contained in the California Building Standards; and WHEREAS, the California Energy Code is a part of the California Building Standards which implements minimum energy efficiency standards in building through mandatory requirements, prescriptive standards, and performance standards; and
WHEREAS, California Health and Safety Code Sections 17922, 17958, 17958.5, 17958.7, and 18941.5 provide that the City may make changes or modifications to the building standards contained in the California Building Standards based upon express finding that such changes or modifications are reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological or topographical conditions; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of Brisbane finds and determines that the 2022 City of Brisbane Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Ordinance, as amended to coordinate with the intervening code, exceeds the EV infrastructure provisions required by the 2022 California Building Standards Code and are reasonably necessary by reason of the express findings noted Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the Brisbane finds that each of the amendment, additions, and deletions to the California Energy Code contained in this ordinance are reasonably necessary because of the local climatic, geological, topographical, or environmental conditions summarized in Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, Public Resources Code Section 25402.1(h)2 and Section 10-106 of the Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Standards) establish a process which allows local adoption of energy standards that are more stringent than the statewide Standards, provided that such local standards are cost effective and the California Energy Commission finds that the standards will require building to be designed to consume no more energy than permitted by the California Energy Code; and
WHEREAS, on or about September 20, 2016, the State of California enacted Senate Bill (SB) 32, which added Health and Safety Code Section 38566 to require greenhouse gas emissions to be reduced to 40 percent below 1990 levels by no later than December 31, 2030; and 6 of 31
ATTACHMENT 1
72 I.
WHEREAS, on September 17, 2015, the Brisbane City Council adopted the City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) which included the goal of reducing carbon emissions from fossil fuels to help curb global warming; and
WHEREAS, consistent with the CAP, the local amendments to the 2022 California Building Codes, including the California Green Building Code, establish requirements for single-family (e.g., townhomes), multifamily, and nonresidential structures which will reduce demands for local energy and resources, reduce regional pollution, and promote a lower contribution to greenhouse gases emissions; and
WHEREAS, staff has reviewed the cost effectiveness studies prepared by the California Statewide Codes and Standards Reach Code Program and associated study data and find them sufficient to illustrate compliance with the requirements set forth under California Administrative Code Chapter 10-106; and
WHEREAS, the modifications will result in building designs that consume less energy than they would under the 2022 State Energy Code, as demonstrated in the California Statewide Codes and Standards Reach Code Program’s cost effectiveness analyses; such analyses are required by the California Energy Commission for the local amendments to the California Energy Code contained in this ordinance, and which analyses are hereby incorporated by reference; and WHEREAS, based upon these analyses, the City Council of the City of Brisbane finds that the local amendments to the California Energy Code contained in this Ordinance have at least one cost effective pathway and will require buildings to be designed to consume no more energy than permitted by the California Energy Code; and
WHEREAS, scientific evidence has established that natural gas combustion, procurement and transportation produce significant greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warming and climate change; and
WHEREAS, this Ordinance is also reasonably necessary because of health and safety concerns as City residents suffer from asthma and other health conditions associated with poor indoor and outdoor air quality exacerbated by the combustion of natural gas; and WHEREAS, using electric heating and cooling infrastructure in new buildings fueled by less greenhouse gas intensive electricity is linked to significantly lower greenhouse gas emissions and is cost competitive because of the cost savings associated with all-electric designs that avoid new gas infrastructure; and
WHEREAS, the most cost-effective time to integrate electrical infrastructure is in the design phase of a building project because building systems and spaces may be designed to optimize the performance of electrical systems and the project can take full advantage of avoided costs 7 of 31
73 I.
and space requirements from the elimination of natural gas piping and venting for combustion air safety; and
WHEREAS, it is the intent of the City Council to eliminate natural gas emissions in new buildings where all electric infrastructure may be most practicably integrated, thereby reducing the environmental and health hazards produced by the consumption and transportation of natural gas.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRISBANE ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: Section 15.04.043 of the Brisbane Municipal Code is amended as follows:
Section 15.04.043 Amendments to the California Building Standards Code The 2022 California Building Code (CBC) California Residential Code (CRC) and the California Green Standards Code (CALGreen) are hereby amended as follows:
(Subsections A through I, no change.)
Subsections J through L are deleted in their entirety.
SECTION 2: Chapter 15.83 of the Brisbane Municipal Code is added to read as follows:
“Chapter 15.83 – New Building Energy Performance Reach Code
15.83.010 – Adoption of Energy Performance Reach Code
Brisbane adopts California Building Energy Efficiency Standards, 2022 Edition, Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations in its full form with the local amendments contained in this Chapter 15.83.
15.83.020 – Section 100.1(b) amended—Definitions and Rules of Construction.
Section 100.1(b) is amended to add the following:
ELECTRIC HEATING APPLIANCE. A device that produces heat energy to create a warm environment by the application of electric power to resistance elements, refrigerant compressors, or dissimilar material junctions, as defined in the California Mechanical Code.
NET FREE AREA (NFA) is the total unobstructed area of the air gaps between louver and grille slats in a vent through which air can pass. The narrowest distance between two slats, perpendicular to the surface of both slats is the air gap height. The narrowest width of the gap is the air gap width. The NFA is the air gap height multiplied by the air gap width multiplied by the total number of air gaps between slats in the vent.
15.83.030 – Section 120.2 amended – Required Controls for Space-Conditioning Systems 8 of 31
74 I.
Subchapter 3 is amended to add Section 120.2(l) to read as follows:
(a) – (k): Subsections 120.2(a) – (k) are adopted without modification. (l) HVAC Hot Water Temperature. Zones that use hot water for space heating shall be designed for a hot water supply temperature of no greater than 130 °F.
15.83.040 – Subchapter 3 amended by adding subsection (k) to Section 120.6 – Mandatory Requirements for Covered Processes
Subchapter 3 is amended to add Section 120.6(k) to read as follows:
(a) – (j): Subsections 120.6(a) – (j) are adopted without modification. (k) Mandatory requirements for commercial kitchens. Electric Readiness for Newly Constructed Commercial Kitchens shall meet the following requirements:
1. Quick-service commercial kitchens and institutional commercial kitchens shall meet all of the following requirements:
a. Include a dedicated branch circuit wiring and outlet that would be accessible to cookline appliances.
b. The branch circuit conductors shall be rated at 50 amps minimum. c. The electrical service shall have a capacity not less than 800 amps.
2. Main electrical service panel shall be sized to accommodate at least two additional 50 amp breakers.
15.83.050 – Subchapter 4, Section 130.0 amended—Lighting Systems and Equipment, and Electrical Power Distribution Systems—General
Subchapter 4 Section 130.0 is amended to read as follows:
a. The design and installation of all lighting systems and equipment in nonresidential and hotel/motel buildings, outdoor lighting, and electrical power distribution systems within the scope of Section 100.0(a), shall comply with the applicable provisions of Sections 130.0 through 130.6.
NOTE: The requirements of Sections 130.0 through 130.6 apply to newly constructed buildings. Section 141.0 specifies which requirements of Sections 130.0 through 130.6 also apply to additions and alterations to existing buildings.
15.83.060 – Subchapter 4 amended by adding Section 130.6 —Electric Readiness Requirements for Systems Using Gas or Propane
Subchapter 4 is amended to add Section 130.6 to read as follows:
9 of 31
75 I.
130.6 Electric Readiness Requirements for Systems Using Gas or Propane Where nonresidential systems using gas or propane are installed, the construction drawings shall indicate electrical infrastructure and physical space accommodating the future installation of an electric heating appliance in the following ways, as certified by a registered design professional or licensed electrical contractor.
a. Branch circuit wiring, electrically isolated and designed to serve all electric heating appliances in accordance with manufacturer requirements and the California Electrical Code, including the appropriate voltage, phase, minimum amperage, and an electrical receptacle or junction box within five feet of the appliance that is accessible with no obstructions. Appropriately sized conduit may be installed in lieu of conductors; and b. Labeling of both ends of the unused conductors or conduit shall be with “For Future Electrical Appliance”; and
c. Reserved circuit breakers in the electrical panel for each branch circuit, appropriately labeled (e.g. “Reserved for Future Electric Range”), and positioned on the opposite end of the panel supply conductor connection; and
d. Connected subpanels, panelboards, switchboards, busbars, and transformers shall be sized to serve the future electric heating appliances. The electrical capacity requirements shall be adjusted for demand factors in accordance with the California Electric Code; and
e. Physical space for future electric heating appliances, including equipment footprint, and if needed a pathway reserved for routing of ductwork to heat pump evaporator(s), shall be depicted on the construction drawings. The footprint necessary for future electric heating appliances may overlap with non-structural partitions and with the location of currently designed combustion equipment.
15.83.070 – Subchapter 5, Section 140.0 amended—Performance and Prescriptive Compliance Approaches
Subchapter 5 Section 140.0 is amended to read as follows:
Nonresidential and hotel/motel buildings shall comply with all of the following:
a. The requirements of Sections 100.0 through 110.12 applicable to the building project (mandatory measures for all buildings).
b. The requirements of Sections 120.0 through 130.6 (mandatory measures for nonresidential and high-rise residential and hotel/motel buildings). c. Either the performance compliance approach (energy budgets) specified in Section 140.1 or the prescriptive compliance approach specified in Section 140.2 for Climate Zone 3.
d. NOTE to Section 140.0(c): The Commission periodically updates, publishes and makes available to interested persons and local enforcement agencies precise descriptions of 10 of 31
76 I.
the Climate Zones, which is available by zip code boundaries depicted in the Reference Joint Appendices along with a list of the communities in each zone.
NOTE to Section 140.0: The requirements of Sections 140.1 through 140.9 apply to newly constructed buildings. Section 141.0 specifies which requirements of Section 140.1 through 140.9 also apply to additions or alterations to existing buildings.
15.83.080 – Section 140.1 amended—Non-Residential Performance Approach: Energy Budgets
Section 140.1 is amended to read as follows:
A building complies with the performance approach provided that:
1. The time-dependent valuation (TDV) energy budget calculated for the Proposed Design Building under Subsection (b) is no greater than the TDV energy budget calculated for the Standard Design Building under Subsection (a), and
2. The source energy budget calculated for the proposed design building under Subsection (b) has a source energy compliance margin, relative to the energy budget calculated for the standard design building under Subsection (a), of at least seven (7) percent for all nonresidential occupancies.
EXCEPTION 1 to 140.1 item 2: A source energy compliance margin of 0 percent or greater is required when nonresidential occupancies are designed with single zone space-conditioning systems complying with Section 140.4(a)2.
EXCEPTION 2 to 140.1 Item 2. Due to conditions specific to the project, it is technically infeasible to achieve compliance, the Building Official may reduce the compliance margin for a newly constructed building.
(a) – (c): Subsections 140.1 (a) – (c) are adopted without modification.
15.83.090 – Subchapter 7, Section 150.0 amended—Single-Family Residential Buildings— Mandatory Features and Devices
Subchapter 7 Section 150.0 is amended as follows:
Single-family residential buildings shall comply with the applicable requirements of Sections 150(a) through 150.0(v).
NOTE: The requirements of Sections 150.0 (a) through (rv) apply to newly constructed buildings. Sections 150.2(a) and 150.2(b) specify which requirements of Sections 150.0(a) through 150.0(r) also apply to additions or alterations. The amendments to sections 150.0 (t) do not apply to additions or alterations.
(a) – (s): Subsections 150.0(a) – (s) are adopted without modification. 11 of 31
77 I.
(t) Heat pump space heater ready. Systems using gas or propane furnace to serve individual dwelling units shall include the following:
1. A dedicated 240 volt branch circuit wiring shall be installed within 3 feet from the furnace and accessible to the furnace with no obstructions. The branch circuit conductors shall be rated at 30 amps minimum. The blank cover shall be identified as “240V ready.” All electrical components shall be installed in accordance with the California Electrical Code.
2. The main electrical service panel shall have a reserved space to allow for the installation of a double pole circuit breaker for a future heat pump space heater installation. The reserved space shall be permanently marked as “For Future 240V use.”
3. A designated exterior location for a future heat pump compressor unit with either a drain or natural drainage for condensate.
(u) – (v): Subsections 150.0(u) – (v) are adopted without modification.
15.83.100 – Section 150.1 amended—Performance and Prescriptive Compliance Approaches for Single Family Residential Buildings
Section 150.1 is amended to read as follows:
(a) Section (a) is adopted without modification
(b) Performance Standards. A building complies with the performance standards if the energy consumption calculated for the proposed design building is no greater than the energy budget calculated for the standard design building using Commission-certified compliance software as specified by the Alternative Calculation Methods Approval Manual, as specified in sub-sections 1, 2 and 3 below.
1. Newly Constructed Buildings. The Energy Budget for newly constructed buildings is expressed in terms of the Energy Design Ratings, which are based on source energy and time-dependent valuation (TDV) energy. The Energy Design Rating 1 (EDR1) is based on source energy. The Energy Design Rating 2 (EDR2) is based on TDV energy and has two components, the Energy Efficiency Design Rating, and the Solar Electric Generation and Demand Flexibility Design Rating. The total Energy Design Rating shall account for both the Energy Efficiency Design Rating and the Solar Electric Generation and Demand Flexibility Design Rating. The proposed building shall separately comply with the Source Energy Design Rating, Energy Efficiency Design Rating and the Total Energy Design Rating.
A building complies with the performance approach if the TDV energy budget calculated for the proposed design building is no greater than the TDV energy budget calculated for the Standard Design Building AND Source Energy 12 of 31
78 I.
compliance margin of at least 9, relative to the Source Energy Design Rating 1 calculated for the Standard Design building.
EXCEPTION 1 to Section 150.1(b)1. A community shared solar electric generation system, or other renewable electric generation system, and/or community shared battery storage system, which provides dedicated power, utility energy reduction credits, or payments for energy bill reductions, to the permitted building and is approved by the Energy Commission as specified in Title 24, Part 1, Section 10-115, may offset part or all of the solar electric generation system Energy Design Rating required to comply with the Standards, as calculated according to methods established by the Commission in the Residential ACM Reference Manual.
EXCEPTION 2 to Section 150.1(b)1. A newly constructed building with a conditioned floor area less than 1,500 square feet shall achieve a Source Energy compliance margin of 4 or greater, relative to the Source Energy Design Rating 1 calculated for the Standard Design building.
EXCEPTION 3 to Section 150.1(b)1. If a newly constructed building with a conditioned floor area less than 625 square feet demonstrates that due to conditions specific to the project it is technically infeasible to achieve compliance, the Building Official may reduce the compliance margin for a newly constructed building.
2. Additions and Alterations to Existing Buildings. The Energy Budget for additions and alterations is expressed in terms of TDV energy.
3. Section (b)(3) is adopted without modification.
(c) Section (c) is adopted without modification.
15.83.110 – Subchapter 10, Section 160.4(a) removed—Mandatory Requirements for Water Heating Systems
Subchapter 10 Multifamily Buildings-Mandatory Requirements is amended to remove subsection (a) of Section 160.4 Mandatory Requirements for Water Heating Systems. Sections (b) to (f) are adopted without amendments.
15.83.120 – Section 160.9(d) – (f) added—Mandatory Requirements for Electric Ready Buildings
Section 160.9 Sections (a) to (c) are adopted without amendments. Sections (d) through (f) are added as follows:
(d) Individual Heat Pump Water Heater Ready. Systems using gas or propane water heaters to serve individual dwelling units shall include the following components and shall meet the requirements of Section 160.9(f):
13 of 31
79 I.
1. A dedicated 125 volt, 20 amp electrical receptacle that is connected to the electric panel with a 120/240 volt 3 conductor, copper branch circuit rated to 30 amps, within 3 feet from the water heater and accessible to the water heater with no obstructions. In addition, all of the following:
A. Both ends of the unused conductor shall be labeled with the word “spare” and be electrically isolated; and
B. A reserved single pole circuit breaker space in the electrical panel adjacent to the circuit breaker for the branch circuit in A above and labeled with the words “Future 240V Use”.
2. A condensate drain that is no more than 2 inches higher than the base of the installed water heater, and allows natural draining without pump assistance.
3. The construction drawings shall indicate the location of the future heat pump water heater. The reserved location shall have minimum interior dimensions of 39”x39”x96”.
4. A ventilation method meeting one of the following:
A. The location reserved for the future heat pump water heater shall have a minimum volume of 700 cu. ft.
B. The location reserved for the future heat pump water heater shall vent to a communicating space in the same pressure boundary via permanent openings with a minimum total net free area of 250 sq. in., so that the total combined volume connected via permanent openings is 700 cu. ft. or larger. The permanent openings shall be:
i. Fully louvered doors with fixed louvers consisting of a single layer of fixed flat slats; or
ii. Two permanent fixed openings, consisting of a single layer of fixed flat slat louvers or grilles, one commencing within 12 inches from the top of the enclosure and one commencing within 12 inches from the bottom of the enclosure.
C. The location reserved for the future heat pump water heater shall include two 8” capped ducts, venting to the building exterior.
i. All ducts connections and building penetrations shall be sealed. ii. Exhaust air ducts and all ducts which cross pressure boundaries shall be insulated to a minimum insulation level of R-6.
iii. Airflow from termination points shall be diverted away from each other. (e) Central Heat Pump Water Heater Electric Ready. Central water heating systems using gas or propane to serve multiple dwelling units shall include the following:
14 of 31
80 I.
1. The system input capacity of the gas or propane water heating system shall be determined as the sum of the input gas or propane capacity of all water heating devices associated with each gas or propane water heating system.
2. Space reserved shall include:
A. Heat Pump. The minimum space reserved shall include space for service clearances, and air flow clearances, and shall meet one of the following:
i. If the system input capacity of the gas water heating system is less than 200,000 BTU/HR, the minimum space reserved for the heat pump shall be
2.0 square feet per input 10,000 Btu/ HR of the gas or propane water heating system, and the minimum linear dimension of the space reserved shall be 48 linear inches.
ii. If the system input capacity of the gas water heating system is greater than or equal to 200,000 BTU/HR, the minimum space reserved for the heat pump shall be 3.6 square feet per input 10,000 Btu/ HR of the gas or propane water heating system, and the minimum linear dimension of the space reserved shall be 84 linear inches.
iii. The space reserved shall be the space required for a heat pump water heater system that meets the total building hot water demand as calculated and documented by the responsible person associated with the project.
B. Tanks. The minimum space reserved shall include space for service clearances and shall meet one of the following:
i. If the system input capacity of the gas water heating system is less than 200,000 BTU/HR, the minimum space reserved for the storage and temperature maintenance tanks shall be 4.4 square feet per input 10,000 BTU/HR. of the gas or propane water heating system.
ii. If the system input capacity of the gas water heating system is greater than or equal to 200,000 BTU/HR, the minimum physical space reserved for the storage and temperature maintenance tanks shall be 3.1 square feet per input 10,000 BTU/HR. of the gas or propane water heating system. iii. The space reserved shall be the space required for a heat pump water heater system that meets the total building hot water demand as calculated and documented by the responsible person associated with the project.
3. Ventilation shall be provided by meeting one of the following:
A. Physical space reserved for the heat pump shall be located outside, or B. A pathway shall be reserved for future routing of supply and exhaust air via ductwork from the reserved heat pump location to an appropriate outdoor location. Penetrations through the building envelope for louvers and ducts shall be planned and identified for future use. The reserved pathway and penetrations through the building envelope shall be sized to meet one of the following:
i. If the system input capacity of the gas water heating system is less than 15 of 31
81 I.
200,000 BTU/HR, the minimum air flow rate shall be 70 CFM per input 10,000 BTU/HR of the gas or propane water heating system and the total external static pressure drop of ductwork and louvers shall not exceed 0.17 inches when the future heat pump water heater is installed.
ii. If the system input capacity of the gas water heating system is greater than or equal to 200,000 BTU/HR, the minimum air flow rate shall be 420 CFM per input 10,000 BTU/HR of the gas or propane water heating system and the total external static pressure drop of ductwork and louvers shall not exceed
0.17” when the future heat pump water heater is installed. iii. The reserved pathway and penetrations shall be sized to serve a heat pump water heater system that meets the total building hot water demand as calculated and documented by the responsible person associated with the project.
4. Condensate drainage piping. An approved receptacle that is sized in accordance with the California Plumbing Code to receive the condensate drainage shall be installed within 3 feet of the reserved heat pump location, or piping shall be installed from within 3 feet of the reserved heat pump location to an approved discharge location that is sized in accordance with the California Plumbing Code, and meets one of the following:
A. If the system input capacity of the gas water heating system is less than 200,000 BTU/HR, condensate drainage shall be sized for 0.2 tons of refrigeration capacity per input 10,000 BTU/HR
B. If the system input capacity of the gas water heating system is greater than or equal to 200,000 BTU/HR, condensate drainage shall be sized for 0.7 tons of refrigeration capacity per input 10,000 BTU/HR
C. Condensate drainage shall be sized to serve a heat pump water heater system that meets the total building hot water demand as calculated and documented by the responsible person associated with the project.
5. Electrical.
A. Physical space shall be reserved on the bus system of the main switchboard or on the bus system of a distribution board to serve the future heat pump water heater system including the heat pump and temperature maintenance tanks. In addition, the physical space reserved shall be capable of providing adequate power to the future heat pump water heater as follows:
i. Heat Pump. For the Heat Pump, the physical space reserved shall comply with one of the following:
A. If the system input capacity of the gas water heating system is less than 200,000 BTU/HR, provide 0.1 kVA per input 10,000 BTU/HR B. If the system input capacity of the gas water heating system is greater 16 of 31
82 I.
than or equal to 200,000 BTU/HR, provide 1.1 kVA per input 10,000 Btu/HR
C. The physical space reserved supplies sufficient electrical power required to power a heat pump water heater system that meets the total building hot water demand as calculated and documented by the responsible person associated with the project.
ii. Temperature Maintenance Tank. For the Temperature Maintenance Tank, the physical space reserved shall comply with one of the following:
A. If the system input capacity of the gas water heating system is less than 200,000 BTU/HR, provide 1.0 kVA per input 10,000 BTU/HR B. If the system input capacity of the gas water heating system is greater than or equal to 200,000 BTU/HR, provide 0.6 kVA per input 10,000 BTU/HR
C. The physical space reserved supplies sufficient electrical power required to power a heat pump water heater system that meets the total building hot water demand as calculated and documented by the responsible person associated with the project.
(f) The building electrical system shall be sized to meet the future electric requirements of the electric ready equipment specified in sections 160.9 a – e. To meet this requirement the building main service conduit, the electrical system to the point specified in each subsection, and any on-site distribution transformers shall have sufficient capacity to supply full rated amperage at each electric ready appliance in accordance with the California Electric Code.
15.83.130 – Subchapter 11, Section 170.1 amended—Multifamily Buildings—Performance Approach
Subchapter 11 Section 170.1 is adopted with amendments as follows:
A building complies with the performance approach if the TDV energy budget calculated for the proposed design building under Subsection (b) is no greater than the TDV energy budget calculated for
the Standard Design Building under Subsection (a). Additionally:
A. The energy budget, expressed in terms of source energy, of a newly constructed lowrise multifamily building (less than four habitable stories) shall be at least ten percent (10%) lower than that of the Standard Design Building.
EXCEPTION 1 to Section 170.1.1. Due to conditions specific to the project, it is technically infeasible to achieve compliance, the Building Official may reduce the compliance margin for a newly constructed building.
17 of 31
83 I.
B. Newly Constructed high-rise multifamily buildings (greater than four habitable stories) shall be at least four percent (4%) lower than that of the Standard Design Building.
EXCEPTION 1 to Section 170.1.2. Due to conditions specific to the project, it is technically infeasible to achieve compliance, the Building Official may reduce the compliance margin for a newly constructed building.
Sub-sections (a) to (d) are adopted without amendments.” Section 3. Sections 15.84.050, 15.84.060, 15.84.070, and 15.85.070 of the Brisbane Municipal Code are amended to read as follows:
“15.84.050 – Coordination with state codes
This chapter does not replace the most recent edition of the California Building Code, Title 24, as adopted by the City in Chapter 15.04 of this code. This chapter 15.84 amends the state code, to place additional requirements on new residential and nonresidential development projects.
To the extent the provisions of this chapter conflict with any current or subsequently adopted state code provisions, then the most stringent provisions shall supersede and control.
15.84.060 - Definitions:
For the purposes of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply:
(Current subsections A and B, no change.)
C. Low Power Level 2 EV Parking Space. “Low Power Level 2 EV Ready Parking Space” means a parking space served by a complete electric circuit with two hundred eight/two hundred forty (208/240) volt, twenty-ampere capacity including electrical panel capacity, overprotection device. The following shall be addressed in designating a Low Power Level 2 EV Ready Parking Space.
1. It is to be a minimum one inch diameter raceway that may include multiple circuits as allowed by the California Electrical Code.
2. Wiring shall be included and either:
a. A Receptacle labeled “Electric Vehicle Outlet” with at least a one-half inch font adjacent to the parking space; or
b. Electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) with a minimum output of fifteen (15) amperes.
(Current Subsections C and D no change but re-letter to subsections D and E.) 18 of 31
84 I.
F. Electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE): “Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment (EVSE)” means the conductors, including the ungrounded, grounded and equipment grounding conductors and the electric vehicle connectors, attachment plugs, personnel protection system, and all other fittings, devices, power outlets or apparatus installed specifically for the purpose of transferring energy between the premises wiring and the electric vehicle.
(Current subsections E and F no change but re-letter to subsections G and H.) I. Unassigned or Common Use Parking: “Unassigned or Common Use Parking” means parking spaces in a residential parking facility that are not reserved for or assigned to a specific living unit within the building or residence, including guest, staff, or other nonresident parking.
15.84.070 Residential Requirements
New residential construction shall comply with the following:
A. New single-family residences, duplexes, townhouses, and new garages at existing single-family residences, duplexes, and townhouses.
1. Electric Vehicle (EV) Standards:
a. For each dwelling unit where two (2) or more parking spaces are required, at least one Level 2 EV Ready Circuit and one Level 1 EV Ready circuit is to be installed.
b. Where only one parking space is required per dwelling unit as provided in Chapter 17.34, only one Level 2 EV Ready circuit shall be required to be installed.
2. Exceptions: The following exceptions apply, subject to building official approval:
a. Carports without electrical service.
b. A reduction in the EV standards may be allowed if requested in writing by the applicant based on demonstration that the provisions of this section would render the development project infeasible due to associated utility costs. Documentation is to take into account short term and long term cost analysis to the satisfaction of the building official.
B. New multifamily dwellings. The following shall apply to multifamily developments whether parking spaces are assigned or unassigned to individual units:
1. EV Standards:
a. A minimum of one (1) Level 2 EV Ready Circuit Parking Space per unit shall be provided; and
19 of 31
85 I.
b. A minimum of ten percent (10%) of the spaces required in paragraph a above shall be equipped with Level 2 EVSE; and
c. A minimum of fifty percent (50%) of required guest parking spaces shall be EVCS parking spaces.
d. In no case shall less than forty percent (40%) of the total parking spaces provided be EV Ready or EVSE.
2. Receptacle power source. EV charging receptacles and EVSE in multifamily facilities shall be provided with a dedicated branch circuit connected to the dwelling unit’s electrical panel, unless determined as infeasible by the project builder or designer and subject to concurrence of the local enforcing agency. a. Exceptions: Unassigned or guest parking spaces and areas of parking facilities served by lifts, including but not limited to automated mechanical-access open parking garages as defined by the California Building Code; or parking facilities otherwise incapable of supporting electric vehicle charging.
3. Rounding. Calculations for the required minimum number of spaces equipped with Level 2 EVSE and EVCS parking spaces shall all be rounded up to the nearest whole number.
4. Exceptions: The following exceptions apply, subject to building official approval:
a. Where less than one parking space per unit is required as provided in Chapter 17.34, the Level 2 EV Ready Circuit parking space requirements shall apply only to the parking required as provided in Chapter 17.34. This subparagraph does not alter the required minimum number of parking spaces as provided in Chapter 17.34.
b. When more than twenty (20) multifamily dwelling units are constructed, load balancing systems may be installed. In such cases, the panel capacity must average a minimum of sixteen (16) amperes per EV space. Load balancing systems may be installed to increase the number of EV chargers or the amperage or voltage beyond the minimum required. c. A reduction in the EV standards may be allowed, if requested in writing by the applicant based on demonstration that the provisions of subsection B would render the development project infeasible due to associated utility costs. However, the maximum feasible amount of EV infrastructure shall be provided. Documentation is to take into account short term and long term cost analysis to the satisfaction of the building official.
15.84.080 Non-Residential Requirements
20 of 31
86 I.
New nonresidential construction shall comply with the following provisions:
A. Building Uses with Lower Parking Turnover Rates: For buildings designed for primarily low parking turnover uses, such as administrative office, R&D, industrial, hotels and school uses, the following provisions apply to construction of new buildings, as determined by the building official. These building uses typically have longer average parking durations as compared to those included in Section 17.84.080.B.
1. EV Standards:
a. When ten (10) or more parking spaces are required, a total of 50% of the parking spaces required per Chapter 17.34 shall be EV, as follows:
i. Fifteen percent (15%) of the required parking spaces on site shall be equipped with Level 2 EVCS;
ii. An additional thirty-five percent (35%) of the required parking spaces on site shall be provided with at least Low Power Level 2 EV Ready Circuits.
b. When nine (9) or fewer parking spaces are required, at least one Level 2 EV Ready Circuit Parking Space or EVCS must be provided. c. Rounding: Calculations for the required minimum number of spaces equipped with Level 2 EVCS and Low Power Level 2 EV Ready spaces shall all be rounded up to the nearest whole number.
2. Exceptions: No change
B. Building Uses with Higher Parking Turnover Rates: The following provisions apply to construction of new buildings designed for the primary uses of restaurant, retail, meeting halls, gyms, commercial recreation, professional office and similar, as determined by the Building Official. These building uses typically have shorter average parking durations as compared to those included in Section 17.84.080.A.
1. EV Standards:
a. When ten (10) or more parking spaces are required, a total of twenty-five percent (25%) of the parking spaces required per Chapter 17.34 shall be EV, as follows:
i. Fifteen percent (15%) of the required parking spaces on site shall be equipped with Level 2 EVCS;
ii. An additional ten percent (10%) shall be at least Level 2 EV Ready. b. When nine (9) or less parking spaces are required, at least one Level 2 EV Ready Circuit Parking Space or EVCS must be provided.
21 of 31
87 I.
c. Rounding: Calculations for the required minimum number of spaces equipped with Level 2 EVCS and Level 2 EV Ready spaces shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number.
2. Exceptions: No change.”
Section 4. Adoption of this Ordinance is not subject to further environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in that it is general policy and procedure making activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes to the environment. CEQA Guidelines, Section 15378 (b)(3) and (b)(5).
Section 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance is adopted on an urgency basis, to take effect immediately upon its adoption and the reasons for adopting it on an urgency basis are several fold. Concerning electrical vehicle infrastructure amendments, the intervening cycle of the California Building Code went into effect State wide on July 1, 2024 and it is in the community interest of public health, safety and welfare for the City’s reach code provisions to be in full force and effect as close as possible to the provisions of the California Building Code; if the Ordinance were not adopted on an urgency basis, the local amendments would not be in effect until mid-October due to the City Council’s meeting schedule, leading to a conflict between the State adopted provisions and the local provisions. Concerning the new electrical reach codes, those amendments are necessary in order to implement the City’s Climate Action Plan and the City’s Declaration of a Climate Emergency Declaration, the intent of which is reduce carbon emissions from fossil fuels to help curb global warming; one critical method to accomplish that is by limiting the installation of new fossil fuel infrastructure and appliances.
The above Ordinance was adopted on an urgency basis (a 4/5 vote) at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Brisbane held on July 18, 2024, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mayor of the City of Brisbane
22 of 31
88 I.
ATTEST:
Ingrid Padilla, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Thomas R. McMorrow, City Attorney
23 of 31
89 I.
Exhibit A
Findings Supporting the City of Brisbane Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Ordinance By reason of the express findings noted in A and C below, it is necessary to amend the provisions of Brisbane’s Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Ordinance.
Findings Supporting Local Amendments to Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, 2022 Edition of the California Building Standards Code
Section 17958 of the California Health and Safety Code provides that the City may make changes to the provisions in the uniform codes that are published in the California Building Standards Code. Sections 17958.5 and 17958.7 of the Health and Safety Code require that for each proposed local change to those provisions in the uniform codes and published in the California Building Standards Code which regulate buildings used for human habitation, the City Council must make findings supporting its determination that each such local change is reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions. Similar findings must be made to adopt model code appendices. Amendments to provisions not regulating buildings used for human habitation, including amendments made only for administrative consistency, do not require findings.
Code: California Energy Code
Section(s) Title Add Delete Amended Justification
(see Key)
100.1(b) Electric Heating Appliance X A, B, C
102.2(l) Required Controls for SpaceConditioning SystemsX A, B, C 102.6(k) Mandatory Requirements for
Covered Processes
X A, B, C
130.0 Lighting Systems and Equipment,
and Electrical Power Distribution
Systems—General
X A, B, C
130.6 Electric Readiness Requirements
for Systems Using Gas or Propane
X A, B, C
140.0 Performance and Prescriptive
Compliance Approaches
X A, B, C
140.1 Non-Residential Performance
Approach: Energy Budgets
X A, B, C
150.0 Single-Family Residential
Buildings—Mandatory Features
and Devices
X A, B, C
24 of 31
90 I.
Section(s) Title Add Delete Amended Justification
(see Key)
150.1 Performance and Prescriptive
Compliance Approaches for Single
Family Residential Buildings
X A, B, C
160.4(a) Mandatory Requirements for
Water Heating Systems
X A, B, C
160.9(d) –
(f)
Mandatory Requirements for
Electric Ready Buildings
X A, B, C
170.1 Multifamily Buildings—
Performance Approach
X A, B, C
Key:
A. Climatic
The local amendments are justified on the basis of a local climatic conditions in Brisbane.
Failure to address and significantly reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions could result in rises in sea level, including in San Francisco Bay, that could put at risk City homes and businesses, public facilities, and Highway 101 (Bayshore Freeway), particularly the mapped Flood Hazard areas of the City. Electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure and elimination of the burning of fossil fuels used in gas appliances for the heating of buildings are key components in reducing GHG emissions.
EV charging installations can help the City of Brisbane reduce its share of the GHG emissions that contribute to climate change and contribute to the reduction of GHG emissions by supporting the demand for EVs and the associated charging infrastructure. Provision of EV charging infrastructure is most cost effective as part of new development projects versus existing building/site retrofit projects. Furthermore, electricity will become cleaner over time as utilities achieve more stringent Renewable Portfolio Standard requirements and translate the clean energy benefits to electric vehicles.
Natural gas combustion and gas appliances emit a wide range of air pollutants, such as carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx, including NO2), particulate matter (PM), and formaldehyde, which according to a UCLA study, have been linked to various acute and chronic health effects, and additionally exceed levels set by national and California-based ambient air quality standards. The burning of fossil fuels used in gas appliances for the heating of buildings contributes to climate change and GHG emissions. All-electric new buildings benefit the health, safety, and welfare of Brisbane residents. Requiring all-electric construction and limiting gas infrastructure in new construction will reduce the amount of GHG emissions produced in Brisbane.
B. Topographical
25 of 31
91 I.
The local amendments are justified on the basis of local topographic conditions in Brisbane. The City of Brisbane is located at the western edge of the San Francisco Bay and along the eastern flanks of San Bruno Mountain. The City has vacant development sites in flood prone areas as well as areas that may be subject to slope movement in steep areas of the City.
The City’s topography and location, adjacent to the San Francisco Bay and San Bruno Mountain, present a number of hazards that include, but is not limited to flooding and slope stability. The reduction of natural gas infrastructure in new buildings and the transition to electric appliances in buildings would reduce fire hazards in buildings in hazards areas.
C. Environmental
The local amendments improve the public health and welfare by promoting the environmental and economic health of the City through the design, construction, maintenance, operation and deconstruction of buildings and sites by incorporating green practices into all development. The local amendments are consistent with the goals of the Green Building Code and help achieve the following goals:
• Reduce the use of natural gas in buildings which improves indoor environmental quality and health;
• Reduce the use of natural gas which will reduce the natural gas infrastructure and fire risk over time;
• Promote the health and productivity of residents, workers, and visitors to the city; and • Increase electric vehicle charging infrastructure to encourage electric vehicle adoption which in turn reduces greenhouse gas emissions and improves air quality. 26 of 31
92 I.
Attachment 2: Additional Context on Energy Performance Reach Code Legal Landscape
The City of Berkeley had adopted regulations requiring electric appliances in 2019, which was subject to an unsuccessful challenge from the California Restaurant Association in federal district court that the federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) preempted Berkeley’s all-electric ordinance. However, on April 17, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (“Ninth Circuit”) reversed a district court’s decision and ruled that the EPCA preempted the City of Berkeley’s all-electric ordinance. The EPCA (42 U.S.C. § 6297(c)) states that “no State [or local] regulation concerning the energy efficiency, energy use, or water use, of [a] covered product shall be effective with respect to such covered product.” In response to the Ninth Circuit’s ruling, Brisbane temporarily suspended implementation of the all-electric requirement for new buildings.
On January 2, 2024, the Ninth Circuit denied the City of Berkeley’s petition for rehearing and issued a modified opinion affirming that Berkeley’s regulation is preempted by federal law. The City of Berkeley subsequently announced that it would not pursue an appeal of the Ninth Circuit ruling, effectively solidifying the Ninth Circuit’s ruling on April 17, 2023 as final law.
The California Restaurant Association v. City of Berkeley ruling limits how the City can reduce emissions from new buildings and adds new context for what constitutes as a preemption to federal appliance regulations. Staff have identified increased building energy performance requirements via local amendments to the California Energy Code (i.e. “reach codes”) as the preferred alternative approach that will not conflict with EPCA under the most recent ruling.
The California Energy Code establishes whole-building efficiency requirements, which account for a building’s water heater, HVAC (heating, ventilation, and air conditioning) system, solar generating system, and insulation, among other design elements. The California Energy Code includes both a prescriptive option and performance option per building type. The proposed reach code primarily amends the performance pathway of the California Energy Code and does not regulate cooking equipment, laundry dryers, or other energy uses not addressed by the performance path of the California Energy Code.
EPCA has a specific exemption, referred to as the 7-factor test, which allows policies to require energy efficiency without pre-empting EPCA. The CEC has used this exemption for several code cycles, most recently through the use of the Energy Design Rating in the current Energy Code.
Table 1 below references several of the factors from the 7-factor test and explains the technical aspects of the Energy Performance Approach in reference to the factor. 27 of 31
93 I.
Table 1. 7-Factor Test for Pre-Emption Compared to the Energy Performance Approach EPCA Requirements Energy Performance Approach
Permit a builder to […] select items
whose combined energy efficiency
meet an overall building energy
target.
Instead of regulating appliance fuel infrastructure, the Energy Performance Approach sets a target energy
score using the EDR1/Source Energy margin (used in
the California Energy Code performance option).
Not specifically require any EPCAcovered appliance to exceed federal standards.
This approach sets the Source Energy target energy
score assuming federally required minimum
equipment efficiencies.
Offer options for compliance, on a
1-for-1 equivalent energy use or
equivalent cost basis.
This approach sets a common Source Energy target
energy margin for both mixed-fuel and all-electric
buildings.
Energy Performance
The California Energy Code provides different metrics for different types of buildings:
1. Single-Family Residential: A new single-family residential building must meet or exceed all “Energy Design Ratings” (EDR). There are three EDR categories:
o EDR1 (Source Energy) – EDR1 is a score representing a building’s energy efficiency expressed in terms that serve as a proxy for greenhouse gas emissions. o EDR2 (Efficiency) – EDR2 is a score representing a building’s energy efficiency expressed in terms of the value and cost of energy consumed at different times of the day and year.
o EDR Total (Total Energy Design Rating) is a score representing the building’s total energy expressed in terms of the value and cost of energy consumed at different times of the day and year while factoring in solar and energy demand flexibility.
2. Multi-Family Residential: A new multi-family residential building must meet or exceed a standard that combines the value and cost of energy consumed at different times of the day and year (referred to as Time Dependent Valuation of energy, or TDV), and the emissions from the building’s energy source. The 2022 Source Energy metric is new and was added to support decarbonization and electrification policy goals.
3. Non-Residential: A new non-residential building must also meet or exceed a standard that uses TDV energy and Source Energy emissions scores.
The proposed Reach Code would increase the required EDR1 score for single family residential buildings and the required Source Energy scores for all other buildings. Source Energy acts as a proxy for carbon emissions. By increasing these requirements, the result is a decrease in energy use and emissions from newly constructed buildings. Table 2 below shows the performance requirement for different building types.
28 of 31
94 I.
Table 2. Proposed Improved Energy Performance Standards Building Type Performance Requirement
Single Family Residential Buildings Exceed the standard EDR1 requirement by at least 9
Multi-Family Residential (Low-rise, ≤ 3
stories)
Exceed the standard Source Energy
requirement by 10%
Multi-Family Residential (High-rise, ≥ 4
stories)
Exceed the standard Source Energy
requirement by 4%
Non-Residential Exceed the standard Source Energy
requirement by 7%
Because of how the EDR1 and Source Energy scores are calculated in the 2022 California Energy Code, the higher standards proposed in the Reach Code would allow new buildings to include electric appliances and/or mechanical systems, or allow the use of mixed-fuel appliances and systems which would include additional energy efficiency measures, PV systems, and/or a battery. The enhanced performance requirements would apply equally to mixed-fuel and allelectric buildings and are cost-effectively achievable through the energy code’s performance pathway without requiring appliances that exceed federal efficiency standards.
Electric Ready Requirements
Table 3 represents the current 2022 California Energy Code requirements and those proposed to be added in the reach code.
Table 3. Electric Ready Infrastructure
Building Type Current Energy Code Proposed Reach Code
Single-Family
Residential
o Gas-fueled furnaces
o Gas-fueled water heaters
o Gas-fueled clothes dryers
o Gas-fueled cooktops
o No additions
Multifamily
Residential
o Gas-fueled furnaces
o Gas-fueled water heaters
(Excludes central water-heating
systems)
o Gas-fueled clothes dryers
o Gas-fueled cooktops
o Gas-fueled water heaters
(Includes central waterheating systems)
Nonresidential o No current requirements o Commercial kitchens o Control for HVAC hot water
temperature
o Any other systems using gas
or propane
29 of 31
95 I.
Practical Effect of the Energy Performance Reach Code
Because the City is working within the confines of the California Energy Code, the description of the proposed approach above is inherently technical. This section illustrates the practical effect of the proposed approach by providing a simplified example of how a single-family home designer would comply with the proposed Reach Code.
Under the current California Energy Code, a building designer working on a single-family home built to the code minimum would likely include high efficiency LED lighting, rooftop solar, an electric heat pump hot water heater, a natural gas furnace, insulated walls, an insulated attic, and efficient windows, among other design elements that are similar to the prescriptive pathway in the California Energy Code. The designer would input the proposed building design into a computer building simulation model and estimate its energy performance. The energy modeling software would provide standard reporting metrics, including an EDR1. The designer would then calculate the compliance margin by subtracting the standard design building’s EDR1 rating from the proposed designed building’s EDR1. In this case, the proposed designed building’s EDR1 score would be equal to the standard design building’s EDR1 score, resulting in a compliance margin of 0, which meets the compliance requirement for that part of the California Energy Code.
With the proposed reach code in place, the designer would now need to achieve a compliance margin of 9. That means that the EDR1 of the proposed designed building needs to be 9 or more points better than the standard design building. If this building designer replaced the gas furnace with a commonly available heat pump HVAC system, the building would achieve a score that is 9 EDR1 points better than the code minimum standard design and would be consistent with the proposed Reach Code requirements. Alternatively, the building designer could keep the gas furnace and install a battery storage system, which would also result in an increase of more than 9 EDR1 points. The building designer also has the option to develop a package of efficiency and solar measures; so long as the measures lead to an increase of 9 or more EDR1 points better than the code minimum standard design, it is consistent with the reach code.
This illustrative example for single family homes is similar for the other building types where the proposed compliance margins reflect the designer selection of either installing electric heat pump equipment or gas equipment alongside some package of additional solar capacity, battery storage systems, and efficiency measures.
Available Resources for Lower Cost All-Electric Buildings For projects that chose to go all-electric, the state of California and regional entities are providing technical assistance, substantial rebates, and incentives for all-electric new buildings.
Current programs include:
• California Electric Homes is provided by the CEC and provides base incentives for allelectric new market rate residential buildings including $3,000 for single-family homes, $1,750 per multi-family residential unit, $1,750 per accessory dwelling unit, and $6,000 per modular or manufactured home. Program participation is capped at $1.5 million per builder and includes additional incentives for items like induction cooktop and beyond code efficiency measures.
30 of 31
96 I.
• The Building Initiative for Low-Emissions Development (BUILD) Program is provided by the CEC and includes technical support and incentives for all-electric new affordable housing including approximately $3,399 per multifamily unit and $5,500 per singlefamily home. • Peninsula Clean Energy’s EV Ready Program provides incentives for the installation of Electric Vehicle charging. While the program is primarily for existing buildings, new multi-family developments are eligible for $1000-$2500 per port/outlet depending on type with higher incentives for affordable housing.
Cost Effectiveness
Table 4. Summary of Cost-Effectiveness
Building Type Performance
Requirement
All Electric Building w/
Efficiency Measures
Mixed-Fuel w/ Efficiency
Measures, Additional Solar &
Battery System
Performance
Achieved
Benefit-toCost Ratio1Performance
Achieved
Benefit-toCost Ratio1
Single Family
Residential
EDR1 margin 9+ 11 >1 12.8 1.1
Low-rise
Multi-Family
Source Energy
savings 10+%
10% 9.8 17% 1.5
High-rise
Multi-Family
Source Energy
savings 4+%
7% 2.4 4% 3.5
NonResidential2Source Energy
savings 7+%
7+% >1 7+% >1
1 A benefit-cost value of “1” or greater illustrates that the measures save more than they cost and are therefore “cost effective.”
2 varies by building type, some non-residential building prototypes are exempt 31 of 31
97 I.
File Attachments for Item:
J. Authorize City Manager to Solicit Proposal and Negotiate Sole-Source Contract from Good City Co. for 70 Old County Road Community Engagement and Planning Project 98 70 Old County Road Planning Project Page 1 of 2
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: July 18, 2024
From: John Swiecki, Community Development Director
Subject: Authorize City Manager to Solicit Proposal and Negotiate Sole-Source Contract from Good City Co. for
70 Old County Road Community Engagement and
Planning Project
Community Goal/Result
Community Building – Brisbane will honor the rich diversity of our city (residents, organizations, businesses) through community engagement and participation Fiscally Prudent - Brisbane's fiscal vitality will reflect sound decisions which also speak to the values of the community
Purpose
To commence the community engagement and planning process for the 70 Old County Road (former Bank of America) City-owned property by negotiating a sole-source contract with Good City Co.
Recommendation
Authorize the City Manager to solicit a proposal and negotiate a scope of work and budget with Good City Co., urban planning consultants, with the final contract subject to City Council approval in the fall.
Background
On May 2, 2024 the City Council directed staff to move forward with a community engagement and planning effort to establish a land use program for the City owned site at 70 Old County Road. The City Council specified that the planning effort should focus on 70 Old County Road and allow for it be developed on a standalone basis. The Council further noted that consideration also be given to establishing a future vision for the potential redevelopment of the adjacent shopping center site to promote long-term compatibility between adjacent properties.
The Economic Development Subcommittee (Mayor Pro-tem Cunningham, Councilmember Lentz) met on May 30, 2024 to review a preliminary scope of work prepared by staff and provide direction on how to move forward with consulting services for the project. A revised preliminary scope of work is attached (Attachment 1). The Economic Development subcommittee staff report is also attached to this report as Attachment 2.
99 J.
70 Old County Road Planning Project Page 2 of 2
Discussion
The Economic Development subcommittee supported the staff recommendation that the City pursue a sole-source contract with Good City Co., an urban planning consulting firm that the City currently contracts with for several current planning projects and previously completed the community engagement and implementing zoning for the Objective Design and Development Standards (ODDS) project. A sole-source contract negotiation would expedite the launch of community engagement for the revisioning project starting in the fall of 2024, compared to a competitive Request for Proposals (RFP) process which would likely delay commencement until early 2025.
Fiscal Impact
The City Council’s adopted FY 24-25 budget included a placeholder budget for this effort of $150,000. This amount was not based on a final scope of work and the agreement to be presented in the fall will include actual cost subject to Council approval.
Measure of Success
A robust community engagement and planning program for 70 Old County Road that identifies the community’s vision for this key site and establishes planning direction to implement the community’s vision.
Attachments
1. Preliminary scope of work
2. May 30, 2024 Economic Development Subcommittee Meeting Agenda Report ____________________________ ____________________________ John Swiecki, Community Development Director Jeremy Dennis, City Manager 100
J.
Draft
CityofBrisbane
70 OldCountyRoadPlanningProgram
Work Scope
Background and Purpose
In 2022, the City of Brisbane purchased an approximately 1.27 acre property at 70 Old County Road, Brisbane, the site of a former Bank of America branch (“subject property”). The subject property is located in the primary gateway to the City at the northwestern corner of the intersection of Bayshore Boulevard with Old County and Tunnel Roads. This strategic purchase allows the community to control and proactively plan for redevelopment of this site at a key entrance to Brisbane. The City Council intends to undertake a robust community dialogue to determine the appropriate community serving use(s) of this site and establish a site development plan based upon this vision. Housing, commercial and/or public uses have preliminarily been identified for consideration as potential land uses for this site.
Relevant Planning Considerations
The subject property is zoned Neighborhood Commercial- Brisbane Village (NCRO-2) and is located within the 25-acre Parkside at Brisbane Village Precise Plan (“Parkside Plan”) area. The Parkside Plan was adopted in 2017, at which time the subject property was owned by Bank of America and operated as a bank branch out of an approximately 40-year old portable trailer. The Parkside Plan envisioned the subject property being redeveloped with two adjacent properties (the Brisbane Village Shopping Center and 125 Valley Drive; together the “Commercial Vision Area”) as a connected retail center and park/plaza. This vision serves as an aspirational illustration, it was not codified through the adoption of land use policies and/or zoning regulations.
Other planning efforts in the vicinity include the Brisbane Baylands Specific Plan easterly of Bayshore Boulevard, which is undergoing environmental review. The City is also considering a redesign of Bayshore Boulevard to incorporate traffic calming measures. Additionally, a Light Maintenance Facility for the CA High Speed Rail project is proposed within the Baylands subarea and contemplates reconfiguring the four-way Bayshore/Old County/Tunnel Ave intersection fronted by the subject property into a three-way intersection (eliminating the easterly leg of the Tunnel Avenue/Bayshore Boulevard intersection). All these potential projects should be considered to the extent they would impact site access, visibility, and land use alternatives on the subject property.
Objectives
The City Council’s objectives in the 70 Old County Road planning effort are:
Community Engagement
- Engage in a meaningful and robust community engagement process to obtain community input in developing a land use program (or alternative programs) that the City should pursue, as well as important design features /components to be incorporated into subsequent site development plans.
ATTACHMENT 1
101
J.
70 Old County Road Preliminary Work Scope
Planning
- Based on the community input, develop schematic development plan or plans for the site.
All development alternatives for the site must be capable of being implemented on a standalone basis recognizing the physical limitations established by surrounding existing private development.
- A secondary objective of the planning effort is to establish a vision for the future redevelopment of the adjacent shopping center that promotes compatible development across multiple sites. This planning effort shall ultimately result in the establishment of final site and development plans for the 70 Old County site.
Work Scope
1. Community Visioning
a. Robust community education, engagement and brainstorming using creative and varied means to collect public feedback and ideas. A combination of on-site engagement activities, surveys, “pop-up” events should be proposed. The City recently contracted with Go Vocal (formerly CitizenLab), which should be leveraged throughout the engagement process to collect, evaluate, and analyze community feedback. The educational component should ensure the community process is informed by market, economic, technical, design and other considerations that will influence the feasibility of future site development and long term viability
b. Evaluating ideas against the market and other considerations at a high level to test feasibility, including interviews with developers, commercial landlords and leasing agents, and/or others sources with knowledge of market feasibility. c. Identify primary vision (or suite of alternatives) for community review and City Council consideration
2. Planning
a. Develop a schematic concept plan (or alternatives) reflecting the community vision for City Council consideration.
b. Based on City Council direction refine the schematic concept plan into a development plan for the site that is refined to a level sufficient to allow for completion of project level environmental re
c. view
d. Update the Parkside Plan as needed to reflect the development plan for 70 Old County Road
e. Update the Parkside Plan as needed to include the preferred vision for the adjacent shopping center should land use changes at the shopping center factor into the preferred vision
f. Obtain project-level CEQA clearance for the Parkside Plan revisions as applicable. g. Establish a Roadmap/strategy for 70 Old County Road project implementation
3. Post-Adoption Support
102
J.
70 Old County Road Preliminary Work Scope
a. TBD depending on vision (e.g., assistance with preparing a Request for Proposals for site development, assistance with Surplus Lands Act requirements should the City opt to transfer fee title to another entity)
103
J.
MEMORANDUM
DATE: 30 May 2024
TO: City Council Economic Development Subcommittee
FROM: John Swiecki
Community Development Director
SUBJECT: 70 Old County Road Planning Update
BACKGROUND
On May 2, 2024 the City Council directed staff to move forward with a community engagement and planning effort to establish a land use program for the City owned site at 70 Old County Road. The City Council further specified that the planning effort should focus on 70 Old County Road and allow for it be developed on a standalone basis. The Council further noted that consideration also be given to establishing a future vision for the potential redevelopment of the adjacent shopping center site to promote long term compatibility between adjacent properties.
DISCUSSION
Staff has prepared the attached preliminary draft scope of work for the subcommittee’s review and comment. The scope of work will be incorporated into a Request for Proposal (RFP) to solicit a proposal from a qualified planning consultant to assist in the City’s planning efforts. It would be staff’s preference to sole source the RFP to Good City, a local planning consulting firm that is currently under contract with the City to provide EIR management for several City EIRs now under preparation. City staff has a good working relationship with Good City and believes they have a solid understanding of land use issues in Brisbane and the technical ability to provide the necessary services in a timely way. Moving forward with Good City is predicated on their response to the RFP being responsive to the City’s needs in a financially responsible manner.
Any agreement with Good City would be subject to the approval of the full City Council. As an alternative the City would send the RFP to a more extensive list of qualified planning consultants and go through a more formal and consultant selection process.
ATTACHMENT
Preliminary Draft Scope of Work -70 Old County Road Planning Program ATTACHMENT 2
104
J.
Preliminary Draft
City of Brisbane
70 Old County Road Planning Program
Work Scope
Background and Purpose
In 2022, the City of Brisbane purchased an approximately 1.27 acre property at 70 Old County Road, Brisbane, the site of a former Bank of America branch (“subject property”). The subject property is located in the primary gateway to the City at the northwestern corner of the intersection of Bayshore Boulevard with Old County and Tunnel Roads. This strategic purchase allows the community to control and proactively plan for redevelopment of this site at a key entrance to Brisbane. The City Council intends to undertake a robust community dialogue to determine the appropriate community serving use(s) of this site and establish a site development plan based upon this vision. Housing, commercial and/or public uses have preliminarily been identified for consideration as potential land uses for this site.
Relevant Planning Considerations
The subject property is zoned Neighborhood Commercial- Brisbane Village (NCRO-2) and is located within the 25-acre Parkside at Brisbane Village Precise Plan (“Parkside Plan”) area. The Parkside Plan was adopted in 2017, at which time the subject property was owned by Bank of America and operated as a bank branch out of an approximately 40-year old portable trailer. The Parkside Plan’s envsioned the subject property being redeveloped with two adjacent properties (the Brisbane Village Shopping Center and 125 Valley Drive; together the “Commercial Vision Area”) as a connected retail center and park/plaza. This vision serves as an aspirational illustration, it was not codified through the adoption of land use policies and/or zoning regulations.
Other planning efforts in the vicinity include the Brisbane Baylands Specific Plan easterly of Bayshore Boulevard , which is undergoing environmental review. The CIty is also considering a redesign of Bayshore Boulevard to incorporate traffic calming measures. Additionally, a Light Maintenance Facility for the CA High Speed Rail project is proposed within the Baylands subarea and contemplates reconfiguring the four-way Bayshore/Old County/Tunnel Ave intersection fronted by the subject property into a three-way intersection (eliminating the easterly leg of the Tunnel Avenue/Bayshore Boulevard intersection). All these potential projects should be considered to the extent they would impact site access, visibility, and land use alternatives on the subject property.
Objectives
The City Council’s objectives in the 70 Old County Road planning effort are:
Community Engagement
- Engage in a meaningful and robust community engagement process to obtain community input in developing a land use program (or alternative programs) that the City should 105
J.
pursue, as well as important design features /components to be incorporated into subsequent site development plans.
- Planning
- Based on the community input develop schematic development plan or plans for the site.
All development alternatives for the site must be capable of being implemented on a standalone basis recognizing the physical limitations established by surrounding existing private development . A secondary objective of the planning effort is to establish a vision for the future redevelopment of the adjacent shopping center that promotes compatible development across multiple sites. This planning effort shall ultimately result in the establishment of final site and development plans for the 70 Old County site. -
Work Scope
1. Community Visioning
a. Robust community education, engagement and brainstorming using creative and varied means to collect public feedback and ideas. A combination of on-site engagement activities, surveys, “pop-up” events should be proposed. The City recently contracted with CitizenLab, which should be leveraged throughout the engagement process to collect, evaluate, and analyze community feedback. The educational component should ensure the community process is informed by market, economic , technical, design and other considerations that will influence the feasibility of future site development and long term viability
b. Evaluating ideas against the market and other considerations at a high level to test feasibility .
c. Identify primary vision (or suite of alternatives) for community review and City Council consideration
2. Planning
a. Develop a schematic concept plan ( or alternatives) reflecting the community vision for CIty council consideration.
b. Based on CIty Council direction refine the schematic concept plan into a development plan for the site that is refined to a level sufficient to allow for completion of project level environmental review
c. Update the Parkside Plan as needed to reflect the development plan for 70 Old County Road and vision for the adjacent shopping centershdhould land use changes at the shopping center factor into the preferred vision, updates to the Parkside Plan and projectlevel CEQA clearance would be required. d. Establish a Roadmap/strategy for 70 Old County Roadc project implementation
3. Post-Adoption Support
a. TBD depending on vision (e.g., assistance with preparing a Request for Proposals for site development, assistance with Surplus Lands Act requirements should the City opt to transfer fee title to another entity)
106
J.
File Attachments for Item:
K. Authorize the City Manager to sign the Construction Agreement for Alvarado to San Benito Stairway Project
(This work is categorically exempt from CEQA per CCR Title 14 §15301.) 107
6.E
Alvarado San Benito Stairway
(Project No. 9I11) Page 1 of 2
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: July 18, 2024
From: Karen Kinser, Deputy Director of Public Works
Subject: Authorize the City Manager to sign the Construction Agreement for Alvarado to San Benito Stairway Project
This work is categorically exempt from CEQA per CCR Title 14 §15301.
Community Goal/Result: Safe Community
Purpose
Enhance safety for pedestrians, including the schoolchildren and the elderly in Brisbane.
Recommendation
Authorize the City Manager to sign the construction Agreement with the low, responsive and responsible bidder on the city’s behalf, subject to the City Attorney’s review and approval of entering into the contract.
Background
The Alvarado to San Benito Stairway project will utilize a 12’ wide city property to extend the improved Central Brisbane alleyway/stairways from Alvarado Street at the lower end to San Benito Avenue at the upper end. Council, the Complete Streets Safety Committee, staff and the public have identified this unimproved steep property as a priority to install a stairway with handrail and bollard lighting.
Staff applied for Transportation Development Act Article 3 grant funds, which are administered by C/CAG, in 2017, 2019, and again in 2021 for the project. With the third application in 2021, the city was successful in obtaining this state grant funding for construction. Funded improvements will include concrete steps as well as a prefabricated steel stair section where required at the top, drainage, handrail and bollard lighting.
There will be minimal traffic impacts, except that the unimproved walkway/easement will be closed to the public during the length of construction, including overnight and on weekends during non-work hours, for safety reasons. Working hours will be between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m.
Discussion:
In late 2022, Staff received the grant award letter and worked with CSG Consultants to complete the design of the stairway. A condition precedent to installation of the stairway is the protective lining of the existing water main, which will have restricted access when the stairway is complete. The water main preservation work is underway, and bidding of the stairway 108
K.
6.E
Alvarado San Benito Stairway
(Project No. 9I11) Page 2 of 2
project has been timed to allow construction once the water main effort is complete. Final receipt and review of contractors’ bids will occur in the summer period during Council’s recess.
Staff has therefore requested that Council authorize the City Manager to sign the construction agreement. Assuming the contract is executed during summer recess, the matter will be brought back to Council in the fall for ratification.
Fiscal Impact
Funds are programmed as follows for this project:
Transportation Development Act Article 3 grant funds $240,000 Local Match (General Fund) $60,000
Total $300,000
The engineer’s estimate for this project is $294,147, including contingencies.
Measure of Success
Opening of the project to competitive bids that will enable the City to select a qualified contractor for the construction work.
Environmental Review
This work is categorically exempt from provisions of CEQA in that the proposal is to alter an existing facility without expanding existing uses (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Article 19, §15301 “Class 1 – Existing Facilities”). A Notice of Exemption was prepared for this work on July 8, 2024
Attachments
_____________________________________
Karen Kinser, Deputy Director of Public Works
______________________________________ ______________________________ Randy Breault, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Jeremy Dennis, City Manager 109
K.
File Attachments for Item:
L. City of Brisbane Local Stormwater Program Fees
1. Open the Public Hearing and take public comment. Close the Public Hearing, and if appropriate, overrule any objections to the imposition of fees related to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
2. Consider adoption of a Resolution, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Brisbane Imposing Charges for Funding the Local Brisbane Stormwater Program, Authorizing Placement of Said Charges on the 2024-2025 County Tax Roll and Authorizing the County Tax Collector to Collect Such Charges.”
110
City of Brisbane Local Stormwater Program Fees
1 of 3
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: July 18, 2024
From: Dolan Shoblo, Regional Compliance Program Manager Subject: City of Brisbane Local Stormwater Program Fees This Resolution is exempt from CEQA because it is not a project (CCR Title 14 §15378 (b) (2)).
Community Goal/Result: Ecological Sustainability
Purpose
To provide a public hearing and consider imposition of annual tax roll charges that fund Brisbane's Local Stormwater Program, which minimizes discharge of pollutants to San Francisco Bay in accordance with federally mandated permit requirements.
Recommendation
1. Open the Public Hearing and take public comment. Close the Public Hearing, and if appropriate, address any objections to the imposition of fees related to the Local Stormwater Program.
2. Adopt a resolution, “Imposing Charges for Funding the Local Brisbane Stormwater Program, Authorizing Placement of Said Charges on the 2024-2025 County Tax Roll, and Authorizing the County Tax Collector to Collect Such Charges.”
Background
In 1987, the Environmental Protection Agency, under amendments to the 1972 Clean Water Act, imposed regulations that mandate control and reduction of pollutants in stormwater runoff through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting program. In the Bay Area, under the authority of the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board) issues and enforces municipal stormwater NPDES permits.
A revised Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (MRP 3.0) that applies to all municipalities throughout San Mateo, Santa Clara, Alameda, and Contra Costa counties, as well as the cities of Fairfield, Suisun City, and Vallejo, was approved by the Water Board in late 2022. This permit mandates specific actions, implementation levels, and reporting requirements that each municipality must meet. Failure by municipalities to comply with these new permit requirements may result in significant enforcement action by the Water Board.
111
L.
City of Brisbane Local Stormwater Program Fees
2 of 3
Discussion
There are two programs that fund stormwater management locally; the City of Brisbane's Local Stormwater Program and the Countywide Stormwater General Program (which assesses Basic Fees and Additional Fees) overseen by the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG).
The recommended Resolution imposes charges only for the City of Brisbane Local Stormwater Program, and authorizes the County Tax Collector to place such charges on the property tax roll.
The total fee assessment (charges) per the 2024 Engineer’s Report is approximately $52,000. The annual charge per parcel is not changed from previous years.
The Basic Fees of the Countywide Stormwater General Program are collected from the property tax rolls by the San Mateo county flood Control District, pursuant to authorization by City Council Resolution 2005-29
The Additional Fees of the Countywide Stormwater General Program are paid by the city to C/CAG. (Since its inception, the Additional Fee amount increases annually based on the Consumer Price Index; this year’s amount is expected to be approximately $11,884) For detailed information on both of these overall programs, including the calculation of charges, please see the 2024 Engineer's Report, included as Attachment 2. Note that this report is calculated based on draft data and minor corrections may be made by staff after adoption of the resolution if final county assessor data received differs from draft data.
Fiscal Impact
The city’s recommended local NPDES program budget for 2024-2025 is: $597,683 The 2024 Engineer's Report for Stormwater Management Fees estimated a previous years’ actual property tax revenue for the City's Local Stormwater Program of approximately: $52,000
Revenues from solid waste franchise fees $100,000
(designated for trash capture activities, both increased street cleaning and sweeping and maintenance of trash capture devices)
Anticipated revenues from Measure M ($10 vehicle registration fee) $22,000 New Commercial Fee adopted by Council on June 20, 2024 $244,000 The budget shortfall for this program is therefore: $179,683 The City’s costs to maintain compliance with the various NPDES clean water requirements have increased significantly since the Water Board’s 2022 issuance of the Municipal Regional Permit (MRP 3.0). The following general description reveals the large number of city employees who
112
L.
City of Brisbane Local Stormwater Program Fees
3 of 3
participate both in daily/weekly activities to comply with the MRP, and who also attend regular meetings with C/CAG to address permit requirements:
• Director of Public Works/City Engineer – overall permit compliance, illicit discharge control, construction controls, serves as Chairperson of C/CAG Stormwater Committee • Regional Compliance/Maintenance Program Manager – facilities inspections, trash capture program, corporation yard site controls, and new MRP 3.0 requirements such as PCB and mercury regulations, green infrastructure requirements, unsheltered populations and additional cost and asset management reporting.
• Senior Planner – new development controls, copper controls, PCB controls • Deputy Director of Public Works (Utilities) – monitoring potable water discharges, storm drain maintenance
• Deputy Director of Public Works – street sweeping
• Team Leader (Buildings & Grounds) – pesticides toxicity control • Team Leader (Utilities) – trash capture device cleaning, potable water discharge monitoring • Public Works Inspector – construction controls
• Administrative Assistant – assists with overall permit compliance, public information and outreach, compiles annual report
Measure of Success
Approval of the Engineer’s Report will allow for the ongoing compliance with the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board’s Municipal Regional Permit.
Environmental Review
Approval of this resolution does not need further environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as it is general policy and procedure making not applied to a specific instance and therefore it is not a “project”(California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Article 20, §15378 (b) (2)).
Attachments
1. Resolution No. 2024-XX
2. 2024 Engineer’s Report for Stormwater Program Management Fees __________________________
Dolan Shoblo, Regional Compliance Program Manager
__________________________ __________________________
Randy Breault, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Jeremy Dennis, City Manager
113
L.
1 Resolution No. 2024-__
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-__
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRISBANE IMPOSING
CHARGES FOR FUNDING THE LOCAL BRISBANE STORMWATER PROGRAM, AUTHORIZING PLACEMENT OF SAID CHARGES ON THE 2024-2025 COUNTY
TAX ROLL, AND AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY TAX COLLECTOR TO COLLECT
SUCH CHARGES
WHEREAS, the Environmental Protection Agency, under the 1987 amendments to the Federal Clean Water Act, imposed regulations that mandate local governments to control and reduce the amount of storm water pollutant runoff into receiving waters; and WHEREAS, under the authority of the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, the State Water Resources Control Board has delegated authority to its Regional Water Quality Control Boards to invoke permitting requirements upon counties and cities; and WHEREAS, in 1993 and 1999, the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board issued countywide National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater permits to all municipalities within San Mateo County; and
WHEREAS, in fall of 2022, the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board issued a new NPDES stormwater permit, the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit MRP 3.0 that applies to all municipalities within San Mateo County and other portions of the Bay Area; and WHEREAS, the efforts for the control of stormwater pollution under the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit require a Local Brisbane Stormwater Program; and WHEREAS, Section 5471 of the California Health and Safety Code and Section 13.06.060 of the City’s Storm Water Ordinance authorize imposition of charges for a Local Brisbane Stormwater Program; and
WHEREAS, said Local Brisbane Stormwater Program has been submitted to the City Council pursuant to the 2024 Engineer's Report for Stormwater Management Fees, which includes mandated tasks and associated costs, and an estimated amount to be collected of $52,000; and WHEREAS, the City held a public hearing to consider imposition of annual tax roll charges that fund the Local Brisbane Stormwater Program; and
WHEREAS, the San Mateo County Tax Collector has agreed to place such charges on the 2024- 2025 County Tax Roll.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT
1. The City Council of the City of Brisbane hereby adopts the 2024 Engineer’s Report for Stormwater Management Fees as filed with the City Clerk and overrules any objections or protests to the Engineer’s estimate of costs and user fee structure, or to the implementation of the stormwater management program described therein.
2. The County Controller is hereby authorized to place the City of Brisbane Local Stormwater Management Fees on the fiscal year 2024-2025 County Tax Roll, and that the County Tax Collector be and hereby is authorized to collect such charges in the same
114
L.
2 Resolution No. 2024-__
manner, by the same person, and at the same time as, together with and not separately from, the general taxes applicable to real property in the City of Brisbane, as follows:
Single Family (R-1&2) $9.48
Multi Family (R-3) $21.64
Commercial/Industrial (1) $19.94
Commercial/Industrial (2) $254.20
Vacant Land (3) $18.34
Vacant Land (4) $55.16
Vacant Land (5) $212.18
Vacant Land (6) $927.80
(1) Land use designation generally within Central Brisbane and Southwest Bayshore. (2) Land use designation generally within all other areas except areas included in (1). (3) Vacant land with an area less than 1 acre.
(4) Vacant land with an area greater than 1 acre but less than 5 acres. (5) Vacant land with an area greater than 5 acres but less than 20 acres. (6) Vacant land with an area greater than 20 acres.
3. The cost for such service, $1.35 per parcel, is hereby authorized to be retained by the County from such collections, the balance of which is to be remitted to the City of Brisbane.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby directed to forward a copy of this Resolution to the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors.
________________________________
Terry O’Connell, Mayor
* * * *
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Brisbane held on the eighteenth day of July, 2024, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
________________________________
Ingrid Padilla, City Clerk
115
L.
ATTACHMENT 2
2024 ENGINEER'S REPORT
for
STORMWATER PROGRAM MANAGEMENT FEES
Purpose
The purpose of this report is to define the City of Brisbane stormwater management program and the method utilized in determining the user fee structure to be applied by Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) and to appear on the County Tax Roll for Fiscal Year 2024-2025.
History
The Environmental Protection Agency, under the 1987 amendments to Section 402(p) of the Clean Water Act, imposed regulations mandating local governments manage stormwater discharges as a means of reducing pollution in public bodies of water. The California State Water Resources Control Board delegated enforcement authority to the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB) to ensure compliance with the Clean Water Act. The San Francisco Bay RWQCB, under Section 13370 et seq of the California Water Code, requires the City of Brisbane and all other municipal stormwater dischargers in San Mateo, Santa Clara, Alameda, and Contra Costa counties, as well as the cities of Fairfield, Vallejo, and Suisun City to control significant sources of stormwater pollution as co-permittees under a Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit 3.0, referenced as Order R2-2015-0049 and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No. CAS612008.
As a condition of the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit, the City of Brisbane and other municipal stormwater dischargers are required to meet specific requirements in a variety of program areas that address the multiple potential pollutant sources that can impact a municipal storm drain system. Compliance efforts in San Mateo County are implemented in two ways:
those that have countywide benefit or significance are implemented by the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG) through its San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program (Countywide Program), and those that are specific to a local jurisdiction are implemented through municipality-specific programs. Administration of Brisbane's local program is primarily managed by the City's Public Works Department.
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Background Information
The process of urbanization increases rainwater runoff. As trees and grass are cleared, pervious ground cover is frequently replaced by impervious concrete, asphalt, or brick. Rainwater can no longer seep into the ground. If this stormwater is not properly managed, flooding may result.
Often, municipal drainage systems are designed for flows resulting from pre-development runoff, and become undersized when impervious area is increased by building structures, driveways, and parking lots. Further, increased stormwater runoff makes areas not covered by
116
L.
impervious materials more susceptible to erosion, and as a result, sediment may discharge to the storm drain system.
Stormwater runoff flowing over man-made surfaces such as roads and parking lots can also contribute to water quality degradation. The natural purification that occurs when water flows through the subsurface is lost. As rainwater flows over impervious surfaces, it can pick up pollutants such as engine oils, pesticides, fertilizers, and trace metals like lead, copper, or zinc.
These contaminants are frequently toxic to humans and aquatic life.
Stormwater pollution can come from point and non-point sources. Point sources are attributable to a distinct point of discharge, such as a pipe into a water body. Point source pollution can include illegal storm drain connections at industrial facilities or cross connections between sanitary and storm sewer systems. Non-point source pollution, such as overland flow or sheet runoff, is not attributable to a distinct point of discharge, and is a major contributor to water quality degradation in California. Problems that magnify non-point source pollution include channel erosion, sedimentation due to construction and land development, hydrologic modification, physical habitat alteration, excessive or poorly timed application of pesticides and fertilizers, natural or engineered agricultural subsurface drainage, septic systems, livestock grazing, and urban runoff. Oil and grease from parking lots and driveways, nutrients, littering, animal waste, accidental spills, soil erosion and air pollution all contribute to non-point source discharges in urban areas. Urban runoff is the focus of stormwater pollution prevention regulations in Brisbane.
Program Structure
The Municipal Regional Permit requirements implemented at both the Countywide Program and municipality-specific levels fall into seven main program areas, the central focus of each being summarized as follows:
1. Municipal Government Maintenance Activities - Ensure development and implementation of appropriate Best Management Practices by all municipalities to control and reduce nonstormwater discharges and polluted stormwater to storm drains and watercourses during operation, inspection, and routine repair and maintenance activities of municipal facilities and infrastructure.
2. New Development and Construction Controls – Use planning authorities to include appropriate source control, site design, and stormwater treatment measures in new development and redevelopment projects to address both soluble and insoluble stormwater runoff pollutant discharges and prevent increases in runoff flows from new development and redevelopment projects. This goal is to be accomplished primarily through the implementation of low impact development techniques. Municipalities also implement a construction site inspection and control program at all construction sites, with follow-up and enforcement consistent with an enforcement response plan, to prevent construction site discharges of pollutants and impacts on beneficial uses of receiving waters.
3. Industrial, Commercial, and Illicit Discharge Controls
117
L.
A. Industrial and Commercial Site Controls – Implement an industrial and commercial site control program at all sites which could reasonably be considered to cause or contribute to pollution of stormwater runoff, with inspections and effective follow-up and enforcement to abate actual or potential pollution sources consistent with an enforcement response plan to prevent discharge of pollutants and impacts on beneficial uses of receiving waters.
B. Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination – Implement illicit discharge prohibitions and ensure illicit discharges are detected and controlled. Municipalities shall develop and implement an illicit discharge program that includes an active surveillance component and a centralized complaint collection and follow-up component to target illicit discharge and non-stormwater sources.
4. Public Information and Outreach – Increase the knowledge of the target audiences regarding the impacts of stormwater pollution on receiving water and potential solutions to mitigate the problems caused, change the waste disposal and runoff pollution generation behavior of the target audiences by encouraging implementation of appropriate solutions, and involve various citizens in mitigating the impacts of stormwater pollution.
5. Water Quality Monitoring – Perform water quality monitoring activities to address specific management questions related to the health of San Francisco Bay and local receiving waters, including status and trends monitoring and pollutants of concern/long-term trends monitoring. Additional specific monitoring projects are required, including projects addressing water quality stressor/source identification, Best Management Practices effectiveness evaluations for stormwater treatment or hydrograph modification control, and geomorphic analyses to identify how and where creeks can be restored or protected to costeffectively reduce the impacts of pollutants, increased flow rates, and increased durations of urban runoff.
6. Pollutants of Concern
A. Pesticides Toxicity Control – Implement control programs to prevent the impairment of urban streams by pesticide-related toxicity. The control programs addresses municipalities' and others' use of pesticides within municipal jurisdictions that pose a threat to water quality and have the potential to enter the municipal storm drain system. Pesticides of concern include organophosphorus pesticides, pyrethroids, carbamates, and fipronil.
B. Trash Load Reduction – Implement control measures and other actions to reduce trash loads from municipal storm sewers by 100% trash load reduction or no adverse impacts to receiving waters from trash by 2025. This includes developing and implementing Short and Long Term Trash Load Reduction Plans, which includes installation and maintenance of trash capture devices within the storm drain system, enhanced street sweeping and targeted On-Land Cleanups and cleanup and abatement progress on trash hot spots.
118
L.
C. Mercury and Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) – Initiate control programs for mercury and PCBs to implement the urban runoff requirements of the San Francisco Bay mercury and PCBs Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) and reduce mercury and PCB loads to make substantial progress toward achieving the urban runoff load allocations established in the mercury and PCBs TMDLs. These programs include pilot projects to investigate and abate mercury and PCB sources in drainages, including public rights-of-way, and stormwater conveyances with accumulated sediment that contain elevated mercury and PCB concentrations, to evaluate and enhance municipal sediment removal and management practices, to evaluate on-site stormwater treatment via retrofit, and diversion of dry weather and first flush flows to publicly owned treatment works.
D. Copper Controls – Implement control measures identified in the Regional Water Quality Control Board's Basin Plan to support approved copper site-specific objectives for San Francisco Bay. Control measures include managing waste generated from cleaning and treating copper architectural features, managing discharges from pools, spas, and fountains that contain copper-based chemicals, engage in efforts to reduce copper discharged from automobile brake pads to surface waters via urban runoff, and ensuring proper management of copper by industrial sources.
E. Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers (PBDEs), Legacy Pesticides, and Selenium – Implement programs to gather concentration and loading information for PBDEs, legacy pesticides, and selenium to identify, assess, and manage controllable sources of these pollutants in urban runoff, if any.
7. Exempted and Conditionally Exempted Discharges – Implement programs to ensure discharges to the storm drain system with minimal pollutant concern, such as uncontaminated groundwater, diverted stream flows, and pumped groundwater from foundation drains are properly managed and monitored to eliminate adverse impacts to receiving waters.
COUNTYWIDE PROGRAM
The Countywide Program centrally manages the efforts that provide overall benefits to the County and all cities and towns within the county involved with implementation of the Municipal Regional Permit requirements. The seven permit components described above delineate work tasks to be undertaken and completed during the 2024-2025 fiscal year.
The 2024-2025 NPDES Countywide Program Budget was adopted by C/CAG in June, 2024 in the amount of $3,944,693. The City of Brisbane is required to contribute proportionate funding to the Countywide Program. This per-parcel funding is divided into two categories, the Basic and the Additional Fees. The Basic Fee was established to fund the original Countywide Program activities when the NPDES permit was first adopted. The Additional Fees were established to fund additional Countywide Program activities required by the Regional Board subsequent to establishment of the Basic Fees.
119
L.
The Basic and Additional Fees are calculated as follows:
Basic Annual Charges:
• Single Family Residence: $3.44/parcel
• Miscellaneous, Agriculture, Vacant and Condominium: $1.72/parcel • All Other Land Uses: $3.44/parcel for the first 11,000 square feet plus $0.32 per 1,000 additional square feet of parcel area
Additional Annual Charge (Adjusted Annually by Consumer Price Index):
• Single Family Resident: $4.16/parcel
• Miscellaneous, Agriculture, Vacant and Condominium: $2.08/parcel • All Other Land Uses: $4.16/parcel for the first 11,000 square feet plus $0.38 per 1,000 additional square feet of parcel area
The Countywide Program’s Basic and Additional Fees for 2024-2025 that will be charged to the City of Brisbane are estimated at approximately $9,400 and $12,302.72, respectively. The City of Brisbane has historically authorized the Countywide Program to assess and collect the Basic Fees directly through separate property tax assessments, whereas the Additional Fees are paid to C/CAG out of the City’s General Fund. This approach prevents the Additional Fees from being billed to property owners.
CITY OF BRISBANE LOCAL STORMWATER PROGRAM
City Facilities
The City of Brisbane is responsible for all public drainage facilities within its jurisdiction that collect stormwater and convey it to San Francisco Bay. Brisbane’s facilities include the City's streets, curbs and gutters, catch basins, pipelines, culverts, and open channels.
Stormwater is collected from private property and public streets in two open channels; the Guadalupe Valley Municipal Improvement District (GVMID) Basin Channel and the Bayshore Storm Drain Basin Channel. This stormwater is generally conveyed through these channels to underground box culverts which ultimately outfall to the Bay. The GVMID Basin Channel outfall delivers stormwater via the Lagoon box culvert. This outfall receives water from most of Central Brisbane as well as the Guadalupe Valley and discharges this water into the Lagoon.
Stormwater that enters the Lagoon eventually flows to the Bay through two box culverts under US 101. The Bayshore Storm Drain Basin Channel receives stormwater mainly from the undeveloped land in northern Brisbane as well as portions of Daly City and discharges this water to the Bay through a single box culvert under US 101. Stormwater from Sierra Point generally outfalls to the Bay through multiple culverts located along the perimeter of the Sierra Point Peninsula.
During normal rainfall, flooding potential in Brisbane is low. During heavy rains, however, localized flooding can and has occurred in some areas. Some trunk lines, drain pipes, catch basins and other structures are undersized, and additional catch basins are needed. The City’s
120
L.
2003 Storm Drainage Master Plan proposed Capital Improvement Projects to address these issues.
Local Program Elements
The following is a description of City-specific actions that will be implemented to meet the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit requirements that were generally described previously in this report. These descriptions detail the City-specific efforts that will be performed to address these requirements. Following this description is a summary of the City's stormwater budget for 2024-2025.
1. Municipal Government Maintenance Activities - This program is intended to prevent pollution of stormwater runoff through improvements in municipal government maintenance activities and associated programs. This program focuses on preventing nonstormwater discharges or polluted stormwater associated with street and road repair and maintenance activities, sidewalk/plaza maintenance and pavement washing, bridge and structure maintenance and graffiti removal, and implementing management measures at the City corporation yard. This program includes contractual street sweeping services, development and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan for the corporation yard, management of the City's maintenance contractors, and participation in Countywide Program subcommittees and activities related to municipal maintenance.
2. New Development and Construction Controls – This program focuses on controlling stormwater pollution from construction sites, new developments, and redevelopment areas. Tasks include developing and implementing planning, inspection, and enforcement procedures, developing and implementing requirements for post-construction controls, inspecting stormwater treatment measures to ensure proper operation and maintenance, and providing education and training to construction site operators. The Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit require municipalities to ensure applicable new and redevelopment projects manage stormwater runoff using Low Impact Development techniques, primarily focused on harvesting and use, evapotranspiration, and infiltration to groundwater. This program includes implementation of planning procedures to ensure all applicable projects incorporate appropriate site design, source control, and stormwater treatment measures.
3. Industrial, Commercial, and Illicit Discharge Controls a. Industrial and Commercial Site Controls – This element of the program is designed to control pollutants discharged to municipal storm drains from commercial and industrial facilities. Specific focus is placed upon facility inspection, providing information and assistance to facility managers about reducing pollutants in stormwater from these facilities, and implementing escalating enforcement responses for instances of non-compliance. This program includes staff participation in Countywide Program subcommittees and compliance with the requirements to develop and implement an
121
L.
information/inspection program, in coordination with existing County Health department commercial/industrial inspection programs.
b. Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination – This program element focuses on identifying and eliminating illicit discharges to the storm drain system by identifying major outfalls, conducting inspections of the storm drain system, identifying and eliminating illicit connections, inspecting for evidence of illegal dumping and tracking illicit discharges to their sources, providing information to the public about proper disposal alternatives, and implementing an effective enforcement response plan. This program includes staff participation in Countywide Program activities, City staff monitoring of illicit discharges in coordination with County Hazardous Waste Inspectors, and compliance with inspection procedures and enforcement activities.
4. Public Information and Outreach – This program is intended to inform the public about sources of stormwater pollution, how it reaches local waterways, types of common activities that contribute to stormwater pollution, its effects on receiving waters, and to encourage public involvement in reducing the amount of pollutants entering the City's storm drain system. The public information component of this program overlaps with other program elements described below. This program includes participation in Countywide Program activities, dissemination of educational materials, including the preparation of periodic notices to be placed in the local media, and the planning and implementation of local community volunteer activities.
5. Water Quality Monitoring – This element of the program on the City level is to support Countywide Program staff in performing required monitoring activities as part of a Regional Monitoring Collaborative with other Bay Area stormwater permittees. This program element includes participation in Countywide Program activities and providing input to Countywide Program staff on proposed monitoring activities and programs.
6. Pollutants of Concern
a. Pesticides Toxicity Control – This element of the program includes implementation of the City's adopted Integrated Pest Management resolution and ensuring less toxic methods of pest control in all City operations, including activities performed through contractors. City staff also provides outreach materials on less-toxic methods of pest control to the public. This program element includes participation in Countywide Program activities and supporting the Our Water Our World program implementation in local retailers selling pest control materials.
b. Trash Load Reduction – This element of the program includes developing and implementing Short and Long-Term Trash Load Reduction plans, identification and annual cleanup/assessment of one trash hot spot, and implementation of various control measures to reduce trash loadings in the City's storm drain system.
122
L.
This program also includes participation in Countywide Program's trash control subcommittee.
c. Mercury and Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) – This program element includes providing support to Countywide Program staff on implementation of the required programs and pilot projects for addressing mercury and PCBs. These program elements are primarily managed at the Countywide Program level; however, this program element includes funding for City staff participation in relevant Pollutant of Concern subcommittees and activities. The City will investigate opportunities for Green Infrastructure installations to meet our portion of San Mateo County’s mercury reduction goals.
d. Copper Controls – This program element includes participation and support of Countywide Program efforts directed at regional copper management issues, such as the statewide Brake Pad Partnership, and implementation of local planning, inspection, education, and enforcement efforts to address stormwater discharges from any permitted architectural copper installations or pool, spa, and fountain discharges containing copper algaecides. This program includes City participation in Countywide Program subcommittees and activities related to copper controls.
e. Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers (PBDEs), Legacy Pesticides, and Selenium – This program is primarily managed at the Countywide Program level and includes City staff participation in relevant Countywide Program subcommittees and activities.
7. Exempted and Conditionally Exempted Discharges – This program element includes management and oversight of exempted and conditionally exempted discharges to the City's storm drain system to ensure compliance with permit conditions. This includes City staff implementing management measures for potable water discharges to the storm drain system and ensuring appropriate conditions of approval on new and redevelopment projects to properly manage any exempted or conditionally exempted discharges. This program includes City participation in Countywide Program subcommittees and activities related to exempted and conditionally exempted discharges.
8. Establish Program and Collect Fees – Implementation of the program requires the City’s Finance Department to manage the NPDES Fund and the County Flood Control District to collect the City's Local Program fee in the same manner as the Countywide Program fee.
This program includes the Additional Annual Fee collected by C/CAG and funded from the City’s General Fund.
Summary of Budget Department 6140 (NPDES)
1. Salaries and Benefits $ 363,386
2. Services and Supplies (excluding anticipated Additional Fees) $ 86,198
3. Annual C/CAG NPDES Additional Fees (from General Fund) $ 12,303
123
L.
4. Indirect Costs $ 135,796
TOTAL $ 597,683
USER FEE FORMULA
Method
The City of Brisbane developed a formula for calculating stormwater fees that remains unchanged since it was first utilized after stormwater fees were authorized by the Council in July 1994. The user fee formula is based on two distinct concepts: (1) an administrative fee should be shared equally by all parcels to cover program administration costs; and (2) an assessment fee should be charged in proportion to the storm drainage service utilized and the amount of pollutants or sediment generated by each type of parcel. Average parcel square footage and assumptions explained below regarding the types of land uses for each zone were used to develop an equitable assessment fee structure.
Generally speaking, residential properties contribute equal amounts of water to the storm drain system. For this reason, the formula charges single-family residential properties a uniform user fee based on estimated runoff from an average single-family property. This practice is common in other cities and is equitable because these properties benefit equally from City-wide services such as public streets, sidewalks and parking.
On average, 50% impervious cover per parcel is generally accepted as the typical impervious area for a single-family residential dwelling. Using an average single-family parcel area of 4,823 square feet and 50% impervious cover, a standard impervious area of 2,411 square feet was defined as an Equivalent Single-family Unit (ESU). In determining the assessment portion of the stormwater user fee for the various parcels in the City, the following formula is used:
User Fee = Single Family Fee x (Number of ESUs)
The impervious area for non-residential properties and vacant land was devised by use of runoff area and general land characteristics and use. As shown on Exhibit A, entitled “Storm Drain Program Rate Analysis,” small commercial and industrial land uses are estimated to have approximately 100% runoff area, large commercial and industrial land uses are estimated to have approximately 80% runoff area, and vacant land is estimated to have 20-50% runoff area, as opposed to single family residential properties, which are estimated to have approximately 50% impervious area. These estimates, along with the other land use runoff area estimates on the attachment, are all consistent with the general runoff coefficients used in standard engineering practices.
For the storm drain user fee formula, current land use classifications are generally consolidated into the following four categories and further broken down to group commercial/industrial and vacant land by average lot size:
1. Single-Family Residential (R-1 and R-2) - This classification is based upon 50% impervious area which equate to a runoff coefficient of 0.5.
124
L.
2. Multi-Family High Density (R-3) - All the remaining residential classifications are based upon the assumption that the higher density properties, which generally consist of the apartments along San Bruno and Visitacion Avenues and the trailer park, have approximately 100% impervious surface area, as opposed to 50% for single-family properties. This 100% impervious surface area equates to a runoff coefficient of 1.0.
3. Commercial/Industrial (1) & (2) - These classifications are based upon the assumption that most small commercial/industrial land uses in Brisbane (Commercial (1)) have a 100% impervious surface area and larger commercial/industrial land uses, (Commercial (2)) have an 80% impervious surface area, as opposed to 50% for single-family properties. These impervious surface areas equate to runoff coefficients of 1.0 for Commercial (1) and 0.8 for Commercial (2).
4. Vacant Land (3), (4), (5) & (6) - Vacant Land (3) accounts for smaller lots with an area less than 1 acre and with increased runoff coefficients. Vacant Land (4) accounts for mid-sized lots with an area greater than 1 acre but less than 5 acres. Vacant Land (5) accounts for larger lots with an area greater than 5 acres but less than 20 acres. Vacant Land (6) accounts for larger lots with an area greater than 20 acres. These classifications are based upon the assumptions that the smaller parcels have higher runoff coefficients based upon their size and proximity and the larger parcels have little or no impervious surfaces and a typical runoff coefficient of 0.2 to 0.5, as opposed to 0.5 for single-family properties.
In developing the total ESUs, the following uses were designated exempt from fee collection:
City Government Activities, Federal and State Government Activities, and Unclassified.
As previously indicated, the City’s user fee formula remains unchanged from inception. The charges per parcel include an administrative fee of $4.50 and the additional fee per ESU of $4.98. The following table details the total annual charges per parcel based on land use type, which remain unchanged from previous years:
ESU Annual Charge
Per Parcel**
Single Family Residential 1.00 $9.48
Multi-Family High Density Residential 3.44 $21.64
Commercial/Industrial (1) 3.10 $19.94
Commercial/Industrial (2) 50.14 $254.20
Vacant Land (3)* 2.78 $18.34
Vacant Land (4)* 10.17 $55.16
Vacant Land (5)* 41.70 $212.18
Vacant Land (6)* 185.40 $927.80
(1) Land use designation generally within Central Brisbane and Southwest Bayshore (2) Land use designation generally within all other areas except areas included in (1) (3) Vacant land with an area less than 1 acre.
(4) Vacant land with an area greater than 1 acre but less than 5 acres. (5) Vacant land with an area greater than 5 acres but less than 20 acres.
125
L.
(6) Vacant land with an area greater than 20 acres.
* Additional vacant land designations were added to equally distribute charges based upon land area and runoff generated. The vacant land areas were divided into groups so that the average parcel size more closely reflected the parcel area and distribution within that designation.
This was done by creating new limits as identified in notes 3 through 6 inclusive so that a parcel in the “Acres” was not charged the same as a parcel in the Baylands or in Northwest Bayshore sub-areas.
** Annual charge includes an administrative fee of $4.50 per parcel.
Please note annual charges have been rounded by $0.01 in some cases to allow fees to be evenly divided into semi-annual tax bills received by property owners.
Fee Summary
Exhibit A, entitled "User Classification Fee Summary," presents the anticipated fees to be collected for fiscal year 2024-2025. These fees remain unchanged from previous years. As shown, the anticipated income from special assessments is $51,660.86.
126
L.
CATEGORY # OF TOT. AREA AVG. AREA RUNOFF RUNOFF ESU PER PARCELS (ACRES) (SF) COEFF. AREA (SF) CATEGORY
SINGLE FAMILY 1,562 109.15 3,044 0.5 1,522 1.00
RESIDENTIAL (R-1)
MULTI-FAMILY 45 6.48 6,273 1.0 6,273 3.44
RESIDENTIAL (R-3)
COMMERCIAL/ 172 23.46 5,941 1.0 5,941 3.10
INDUSTRIAL (1)
COMMERCIAL/ 72 238.45 144,262 0.8 115,410 50.14
INDUSTRIAL (2)
VACANT LAND (3) 108 24.29 9,797 0.5 4,898 2.78
VACANT LAND (4) 36 37.76 45,690 0.4 18,276 10.17
VACANT LAND (5) 13 71.73 240,351 0.3 72,105 41.70
VACANT LAND (6) 8 277.95 1,513,438 0.2 302,688 185.40
TOTALS 2,016 789.27
CATEGORY # OF ADMIN. ESU TOTAL ASSMT/ ASSMT. TOT. FEE/ TOTAL PARCELS FEE ESUs PARCEL FEE TOT. PARCEL FEES
SINGLE FAMILY 1,562 $7,029.00 1.00 1562.00 $4.98 $7,778.76 $9.48 $14,807.76 RESIDENTIAL (R-1)
MULTI-FAMILY 45 $202.50 3.44 154.80 $17.14 $771.30 $21.64 $973.80 RESIDENTIAL (R-3)
COMMERCIAL/ 172 $774.00 3.10 533.20 $15.44 $2,655.68 $19.94 $3,429.68 INDUSTRIAL (1)
COMMERCIAL/ 72 $324.00 50.14 3610.08 $249.70 $17,978.40 $254.20 $18,302.40 INDUSTRIAL (2)
VACANT LAND (3) 108 $486.00 2.78 300.24 $13.84 $1,494.72 $18.34 $1,980.72 VACANT LAND (4) 36 $162.00 10.17 366.12 $50.66 $1,823.76 $55.16 $1,985.76 VACANT LAND (5) 13 $58.50 41.70 542.10 $207.68 $2,699.84 $212.18 $2,758.34 VACANT LAND (6) 8 $36.00 185.40 1483.20 $923.30 $7,386.40 $927.80 $7,422.40 TOTALS 2,016 $9,072.00 $42,588.86 $51,660.86
TOTAL FEES = $51,660.86
CARRY OVER (estimated) = $0.00
ADMIN. FEE / PARCEL = $4.50
ASSMT. FEE / ESU = $4.98
EXHIBIT A to 2024 ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FEES
USER CLASSIFICATION FEE SUMMARY
(1) LAND USE DESIGNATION GENERALLY WITHIN CENTRAL BRISBANE, AND SOUTHWEST BAYSHORE (2) LAND USE DESIGNATION GENERALLY WITHIN ALL OTHER AREAS EXCEPT AREAS INCLUDED IN (1) (3) VACANT LAND WITH AN AREA LESS THAN 1 ACRE
(4) VACANT LAND WITH AN AREA GREATER THAN 1 ACRE BUT LESS THAN 5 ACRES (5) VACANT LAND WITH AN AREA GREATER THAN 5 ACRES BUT LESS THAN 20 ACRES (6) VACANT LAND WITH AN AREA GREATER THAN 20 ACRES
127
L.
File Attachments for Item:
M. Sierra Point Landscaping and Lighting District
1. Hear Statement of Engineer of Record, Read Mayor’s Statement, Hear City Clerk Statement, Open Public Hearing to hear any testimony, Close Public Hearing
2. Consider adoption of Resolution overruling protests and ordering the improvements and confirming the diagram and assessments for Fiscal Year 24/25 128
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: July 18, 2024
From: Karen Kinser, Deputy Director of Public Works
Subject: Public Hearing on Imposition of Fiscal Year 2024-2025 Tax Roll Charges for the Sierra Point Landscaping and Lighting District Community Goal/Result - Economic Development
Purpose - To complete the process via a public hearing for the imposition of annual tax roll charges that fund Sierra Point's Landscape and Lighting Assessment District, which provides for maintenance of the landscaping, irrigation and lighting installed in 1989.
Recommendation - The following procedures and actions are recommended:
1. Statement of the Engineer of Record as to the nature of the project.
2. Mayor's statement and declaration that the Public Hearing is open (see Attachment 1).
3. Statement by the City Clerk verifying that the Certificate of Posting and the Resolution of Intention is on file (see Attachment 2), followed by the reading of any written protests by the City Clerk.
4. Hearing of oral testimony and comments.
5. Closure of Public Hearing.
6. By motion, adoption of the proposed Resolution Addressing Objections and Ordering the Improvements and Confirming the Diagrams and Assessment for Fiscal Year 2024- 2025 for the Sierra Point Landscaping and Lighting District.
Background
At its June 6th meeting, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2024-16, a Resolution of Preliminary Approval of Engineer's Report, and Resolution No. 2024-17, a Resolution of Intention to Order the Levy and Collection of Assessments Pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, pertaining to the Sierra Point Landscaping and Lighting District, Fiscal Year 2024-2025. The fiscal year 2024–2025 Engineer’s Report maintains the previous year’s total assessment amount.
In accordance with state law, joint notice of both the public meeting and the public hearing was mailed to all affected property owners and was posted at City Hall, Brisbane Community 1 of 18
129
M.
Center, Brisbane Public Library and Mission Blue Center. The preliminarily approved Engineer's Report is attached. As of July 9, 2024, no written protests had been received.
Discussion
In addition to the routine maintenance provided within the district, the revenue funds nonannual projects such as deep root watering trees in drought years. In the coming fiscal year, aging and rusting street light poles will continue to be replaced and/or repaired.
Minor corrections to the Engineer’s Report may be made by staff after adoption of the resolution if final county assessor data received after this action differs from draft data.
Fiscal Impact
This is an annually occurring process that provides the funding mechanism for the work completed within the landscaping and lighting district. If the Council declines to order and levy the collection of assessments, there will be no identified revenue source for the work scheduled in this District. The FY 24-25 budget adopted by Council for Department 6035 (Sierra Point Landscaping and Lighting District) is in the amount of $519,719, and the assessments to be collected via the recommended action are also $591,719.
Measure of Success
Continuing acceptable maintenance levels in the Sierra Point Landscape and Lighting District.
Attachments
1. Opening Statement by the Mayor of the City of Brisbane
2. Clerk’s Statement
3. Proposed Resolution Addressing Objections, Ordering the Improvements and Confirming the Diagrams and Assessment for Fiscal Year 2024-25
4. Engineer’s Report, including Zone 1 and Zone 2 Assessment Diagrams __________________________
Karen Kinser, Deputy Director of Public Works
__________________________
Randy Breault, Director of Public Works
_________________________
Jeremy Dennis, City Manager
2 of 18
130
M.
OPENING STATEMENT BY THE MAYOR
OF THE CITY OF BRISBANE
JULY 18, 2024
SIERRA POINT LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT
This is the time and place set for hearing on the Engineer’s Report and the levy and collection of the proposed assessment for Fiscal Year 2024-2025 for the Sierra Point Landscaping and Lighting District. These proceedings were undertaken pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972.
The Engineer’s Report prepared by the Engineer of Work consists of the proposed improvements, the boundaries of the Assessment District and any zones therein, the proposed diagram, the estimate of cost thereof and the proposed assessments upon assessable lots and parcels of land within the District. Any one of these items may be the subject of protests or endorsements.
You are asked to clearly identify yourself and the property owned by you so that your statements may be correctly recorded.
The hearing is declared open and I will ask the City Clerk to report on the various notices given in connection with the hearing.
3 of 18
131
M.
CLERK’S STATEMENT
JULY 18, 2024
SIERRA POINT
LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT
Notices have been mailed and posted as required by the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972. Proofs of mailing and posting are on file in my office. A copy of the Engineer’s Report prepared by the Engineer of Work was filed in my office on May 28, 2024 and has been open to public inspection since that time.
4 of 18
132
M.
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-XX
A RESOLUTION OVERRULING PROTESTS AND ORDERING THE IMPROVEMENTS
AND CONFIRMING THE DIAGRAM AND ASSESSMENTS
FISCAL YEAR 2024-2025
SIERRA POINT
LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT
RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Brisbane, California, as follows:
WHEREAS, the Engineer’s Report for Fiscal Year 2024-2025 for the Sierra Point Landscaping and Lighting District Pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 was duly made and filed with the Clerk of said City, whereupon said Clerk presented it to the City Council for its consideration;
WHEREAS, said Council thereupon duly considered said report and each and every part thereof and found that it contained all the matters and things called for by the provisions of said Act, including (1) plans and specifications of the existing improvements and the proposed new improvements; (2) estimate of costs; (3) diagram of the District; and (4) an assessment according to benefits; all of which were done in the form and manner required by said Act;
WHEREAS, said Council found that said report and each and every part thereof was sufficient in every particular detail and determined that it should stand as the report for all subsequent proceedings under said Act, and thereby Preliminarily Approved said report via Resolution 2024-16; whereupon said Council, pursuant to the requirements of said Act, appointed Thursday, the 18th day of July, 2024, at the hour of 7:30 p.m. of said day in the Brisbane Community Meeting Room, 50 Park Place, Brisbane, California, 94005 as the time and place for hearing protests in relation to the levy and collection of the proposed assessments for said improvements, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, for Fiscal Year 2024-2025 and directing said Clerk to give notice of said hearing as required by said Act; WHEREAS, it appears that notices of said hearing were duly and regularly mailed, published and posted in the time, form and manner required by said Act, as evidenced by the Affidavits and Certificates on file with said Clerk, whereupon said hearing was duly and regularly held at the time and place stated in said notice; WHEREAS, persons interested, objecting to said improvements, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, or to the extent of the assessment district, or any zones therein, or to the proposed assessment or diagram or to the Engineer's estimate of costs thereof, filed written protests with the Clerk of said City at or before the conclusion of said hearing, and all persons interested desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard, and all matters and things were pertaining to the levy and 5 of 18
133
M.
collection of the assessments for said improvements, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, were fully heard and considered by said Council; and NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY FOUND, DETERMINED and ORDERED, as follows:
1. That protests against said improvements, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, or to the extent of the assessment district or any zones therein, or to the proposed assessment or diagram, or to the Engineer's estimate of costs thereof, for Fiscal Year 2024-2025 be, and each of them are, hereby overruled.
2. That the public interest, convenience and necessity require and said Council does hereby order the levy and collection of assessments pursuant to said Act, for the construction or installation of the improvements, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, more particularly described in said Engineer's Report and made a part hereof by reference thereto.
3. That the Sierra Point Landscaping and Lighting District and the boundaries thereof benefited and to be assessed for said costs for the construction or installation of the improvements, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, are more particularly described by reference to a map thereof on file in the Office of the Clerk of said City. Said map indicates by a boundary line the extent of the territory included in said district and of any zone thereof and the general location of said District.
4. That the plans and specifications for the existing improvements and for the proposed improvements to be made within the assessment district or within any zone thereof contained in said report, be, and they are, hereby finally adopted and approved.
5. That the Engineer's estimate of the itemized and total costs and expenses of said improvements, maintenance and servicing thereof, and of the incidental expenses in connection therewith, contained in said report, be, and it is hereby, finally adopted and approved.
6. That the public interest and convenience require, and said Council does hereby order, the improvements to be made as described in and in accordance with said Engineer's Report, reference to which is hereby made for a more particular description of said improvements.
7. That the diagram showing the exterior boundaries of the assessment district referred to and described in said Resolution No. 2024-17, and also the boundaries of any zones therein and the lines and dimensions of each lot or parcel of land within said District as such lot or parcel of land is shown on the County Assessor's maps for the fiscal year to which it applies, each of which lot or parcel of land has been given a separate number upon said diagram, as contained in said report, be, and it is hereby, finally approved and confirmed.
6 of 18
134
M.
8. That the assessment of the total amount of the costs and expenses of the said improvements upon the several lots or parcels of land in said District in proportion to the estimated benefits to be received by such lots or parcels, respectively, from said improvements, and the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof and of the expenses incidental thereto contained in said report be, and the same is hereby, finally approved and confirmed.
9. That said Engineer's Report for Fiscal Year 2024-2025 be, and the same is, hereby finally adopted and approved as a whole.
10. That the City Clerk shall forthwith file with the Auditor of San Mateo County the said assessment, together with said diagram thereto attached and made a part thereof, as confirmed by the City Council, with the certificate of such confirmation thereto attached and of the date thereof.
11. That the order for the levy and collection of assessment for the improvements and the final adoption and approval of the Engineer's Report as a whole, and of the plans and specifications, estimate of the costs and expenses, the diagram and the assessment, as contained in said Report, as modified, as hereinabove determined and ordered, is intended to and shall refer and apply to said Report, or any portion thereof, as amended, modified, revised or corrected by, or pursuant to and in accordance with any resolution or order, if any, heretofore duly adopted or made by this Council.
12. That the San Mateo County Controller and the San Mateo County Tax Collector apply the Sierra Point Landscaping and Lighting District assessments to the tax roll and have the San Mateo County Tax Collector collect said assessments in the manner and form as with all other such assessments collected by the San Mateo County Tax Collector.
7 of 18
135
M.
_____________________________
Terry O’Connell, Mayor
City of Brisbane
* * * *
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2024-xx was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Brisbane on the 18th day of July, 2024 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
______________________________
Ingrid Padilla, City Clerk
City of Brisbane
8 of 18
136
M.
CITY OF BRISBANE
SIERRA POINT
LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT
ENGINEER'S REPORT
on the
Levy of an Assessment
for the
2024 - 2025 Fiscal Year
Prepared by
Karen Kinser, P.E.
Deputy Director of Public Works
July 9, 2024
9 of 18
137
M.
I. BACKGROUND
In 1983, the Brisbane City Council determined to undertake proceedings under the provisions of Division 15, Part 2, of the California Streets and Highways Code, entitled “Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972”, for the formation of an assessment district for the purpose of constructing, installing, maintaining and servicing the following facilities within said district:
a) Public landscaping, including trees, shrubs, grass, other vegetation, and irrigation facilities.
b) Public lighting facilities, including standards, poles, and electric current or energy.
The proposed district was designated the “Sierra Point Landscaping and Lighting District”.
This report was prepared as part of an annually occurring process to detail the assessment charges and district expenses covering the 2024 - 2025 fiscal year.
II. PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
The original plans and specifications for this assessment district have been separately bound but are incorporated herein by this reference thereto.
III. ESTIMATE OF COSTS
The costs of this assessment district for the 2024 - 2025 fiscal year are estimated to be as follows:
ZONE l & 2 CONSTRUCTION & MAINTENANCE COSTS
FY 23/24
Employee costs 123,189
Supplies and services 377,150
Administrative costs 91,380
TOTAL ZONE 1 & 2 $591,719
Supplies and services includes safety clothing, maintenance of vehicles and equipment, small tools and supplies, landscape and irrigation maintenance including materials, electricity, and water.
Administrative charges are indirect, overhead costs to manage the district. 10 of 18
138
M.
A detailed breakdown of these costs is available to assessees upon request.
Costs associated with this assessment district for the 2024 - 2025 fiscal year are to be paid as follows:
ZONE l & 2 FUNDING SOURCES
FY 24/25
Assessment charges 591,719
TOTAL ZONE 1 & 2 $591,719
IV. DIAGRAM
The assessment diagrams for Zones 1 and 2 are attached hereto and are a part of this report.
V. ASSESSMENT
The assessments to be made against the assessable lots and parcels of land within this assessment district are attached hereto and are a part of this report.
Respectfully submitted,
Dated ____________________ __________________________
Karen Kinser, P.E.
Deputy Director of Public Works
11 of 18
6/25/24
139
M.
Filed in the office of the City Clerk of the City of Brisbane, San Mateo County, California, this __________ day of _________, 2024.
_____________________________
Ingrid Padilla
City Clerk
Filed in the office of the County Controller-Auditor of the County of San Mateo, California, this _________ day of ____________________, 2024.
_____________________________
Juan Raigoza
County Controller
12 of 18
140
M.
ASSESSMENT ROLL
ASSESSMENT ASSESSOR'S PARCEL PARCEL
NUMBER NUMBER AREA, AC. ASSESSMENT
ZONE l
A 1 007—165—210 4.41 $24,570
A 2 007—165—230 8.97 49,976
A 3 007—165—110 3.44 19,166
A 4 007—165—050 6.13 34,153
A 5 007—164—020 5.66 31,534
A 6 007—164—010 10.20 56,828
A 7 007—165—130 9.78 54,488
A 8 007—165—140 7.13 39,724
A 9 007—165—150 5.93 33,038
A 10 007—163—030 3.52 19,619
A 11 007—163—040 3.08 17,160
A 12 007—165—120 4.56 25,406
C l 015—011—090 Note1 0
C 2 015—011—100 6.92 38,554
C 3 015—011—130 8.57 47,747
C 4 015—011—120 8.56 47,691
C 5 015—011—140 2.41 13,427
Subtotal Zone 1 99.28 $553,074
1 Although previously assessed, this parcel is owned by California State Lands Commission, which is exempt from local assessments.
13 of 18
141
M.
ZONE 2
B l None (placeholder only) -0-
B 2 005—162—430 (Ptn) 15.2 7,190
B 3 005—162—300 66.5 31,455
B 4 005—162—400 (Ptn) Note2 -0-
B 5 005—162—410 (Ptn) 0.23 -0-
B 6 005—162—390 Note4 -0-
B 7 005—162—420 (Ptn) Note4 -0-
Subtotal Zone 2 81.7 $ 38,645
Total 180.99 $591,719
METHOD OF ASSESSMENT SPREAD
The amounts to be assessed against the parcels of property to pay the costs and expenses of the work and improvements shall be based on the estimated benefits to be derived by the various properties within the assessment district.
Construction and maintenance costs shall be segregated by zone, and then spread to the parcels within each zone in proportion to the area of the benefited parcels within the zone.
Incidental expenses shall be spread proportional to the area of benefited parcels within the assessment district.
Due to the County Auditor's requirement that individual parcel assessments be rounded to the nearest even cent, the total of said individual assessments may not exactly equal the total estimate of costs.
2 This portion of this parcel is private land over which the public has been granted access for use as the street, Tunnel Avenue.
3 No assessment has been imposed for a value less than $100. 4 B6 and B7 are publicly owned portions of Tunnel Avenue. 14 of 18
142
M.
NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF OWNERS
ASSESSMENT
NUMBER
APN
NUMBER ASSESSEE
A-1 007-165-210 BP3 SF4 1000 Marina LLC
4380 La Jolla Village Dr. Suite 230
San Diego, CA 92122
A-2 007-165-230 BP3 SF5 3000 3500 Marina LLC
4380 La Jolla Village Dr. Suite 230
San Diego, CA 92122
A-3 007-165-110 SNH Brisbane Ca LLC
255 Washington St
Newton, MA 02458
A-4 007-165-050 Grand Sierra Properties, Inc.
150 Executive Park Blvd. #4000
San Francisco, CA 94134
A-5
A-6
007-164-020
007-164-010
HCP Life Science REIT, Inc.
1920 Main St, Suite 1200
Irvine, CA 92614
A-7
A-8
A-9
007-165-130
007-165-140
007-165-150
Slough Brisbane LLC
1920 Main St. Suite 1200
Irvine, CA 92614
A-10 007-163-030 Summit Hospitality 114 LLC
12600 Hill Country Blvd., #R-100
Austin, TX 78738
A-11 007-163-040 Bre Sh Brisbane Owner LLC
PO Box A-3956
Chicago, IL 60690-3956
A-12 007-165-120 PPF OFF 7000 Marina Blvd LP
C/O Morgan Stanley Real Estate Advisor
555 California St. 21st Floor
San Francisco, CA 94101
15 of 18
143
M.
B-2
B-3
B-4
B-5
005-162-430
005-162-300
005-162-400
005-162-410
Oyster Point Properties, Inc.
150 Executive Park Blvd. #4200
San Francisco, CA 94134-3332
B-6
B-7
005-162-390
005-162-420
City of Brisbane
50 Park Place
Brisbane, CA 94005
C-1 015-011-090 State of California
C/O State Lands Commission
Attn: Title Unit
100 Howe Ave., Ste. 100
Sacramento, CA 95825
C-2 015-011-100 HCP Life Sciences REIT, Inc.
3000 Meridian Boulevard #200
Franklin, TN 37067
C-3 015-011-130 DW LSP 5000 Shoreline LLC
C/O Divco West Real Estate Group
Attn: Sam Hamilton
PO Box 130667
Carlsbad, CA 92013
C-4 015-011-120 DW LSP 5000 Shoreline LLC
C/O Divco West Real Estate Group
Attn: Sam Hamilton
PO Box 130667
Carlsbad, CA 92013
C-5 015-011-140 GNS Shoreline LP
C/O Altusgroup USINC/Ventas #6904
PO Box 71970
Phoenix, AZ 85050
16 of 18
144
M.
8.97 Ac
007-165-230
007-165-110
3.44 Ac
007-165-050
007-164-020 6.13 Ac
5.66 Ac
007-164-010
10.20 Ac
007-165-210
4.41 Ac
007-165-130
9.78 Ac
007-165-140
7.13 Ac
007-165-150
5.93 Ac
3.08 Ac
007-163-040
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
' '
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
' '
'
007-163-030
3.52Ac
015-011-140
2.41 Ac
6.92 Ac
015-011-100
8.57 Ac
015-011-110
2.98 Ac
015-011-090
8.56 Ac
015-011-120
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SOUTHERN PACIFIC
'
007-165-120
4.56 Ac
'
'
LEGEND
DISTRICT BOUNDARY
PARCEL BOUNDARY
ASSESSMENT NUMBER
SPECIFICATIONS
The construction or installation, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, of public landscaping trees, shrubs, grass or other vegetation.
The construction or installation, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, of public lighting facilities, including standards, poles and electric current or energy.
ASSESSORS PARCEL
NUMBER AS OF MAP DATE
COUNTY RECORDER’S STATEMENT
Filed this ____ day of ________, 2024 at ___ a.m./p.m. in Book ______ of Assessment Maps, at page (s) _________, at the request of Ingrid Padilla, City Clerk of the City of Brisbane.
Mark Church, San Mateo County Recorder
File No.:_____________ By: ____________________Fee: ________________ Deputy Recorder ZONE 1
ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM
MARINA PARCEL
CITY OF BRISBANE SAN MATEO COUNTY CALIFORNIA
FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF
BRISBANE, CALIFORNIA, THIS ______ DAY OF
_________________________ OF 2024.
____________________________________
CITY CLERK, CITY OF BRISBANE
AN ASSESSMENT WAS LEVIED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF BRISBANE, CALIFORNIA, ON LOTS, PIECES AND
PARCELS OF LAND SHOWN ON THIS DIAGRAM ON THE
________ DAY OF__________________ OF 2024, BY ITS
RESOLUTION NO. 2024 -____.
CITY CLERK, CITY OF BRISBANE
____________________________________
FOR FISCAL YEAR 24-25
Sheet 1 of 2
17 of 18
145
M.
PARCEL "B"
GUADALUPE CANAL A
BRISBANE LAGOON
R/W BAYSHORE FREEWAY ROUTE 101
LAGOON WAY
SBE8724123U49
SBE 872 41 23U 51
SBE 872 41 23U 50
B3
B1
B2
B4
B5 B7
B6
005-162-400
(PTN.)
005-162-300
005-162-430 (PTN.)
005-162-420 (PTN.)
005-162-410 (PTN.)
005-162-390
ZONE 2
ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM
SIERRA POINT
LANDSCAPING & LIGHTING DISTRICT
CITY OF BRISBANE SAN MATEO COUNTY CALIFORNIA
FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF
BRISBANE, CALIFORNIA, THIS ______ DAY OF
_________________________ OF 2024.
____________________________________
CITY CLERK, CITY OF BRISBANE
AN ASSESSMENT WAS LEVIED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF BRISBANE, CALIFORNIA, ON LOTS, PIECES AND
PARCELS OF LAND SHOWN ON THIS DIAGRAM ON THE
________ DAY OF__________________ OF 2024, BY ITS
RESOLUTION NO. 2024 -____.
CITY CLERK, CITY OF BRISBANE
____________________________________
FOR FISCAL YEAR 24-25
Sheet 2 of 2
LEGEND
DISTRICT BOUNDARYPARCEL BOUNDARY
ASSESSMENT NUMBER
SPECIFICATIONS
The construction or installation, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, of public landscaping trees, shrubs, grass or other vegetation.
The construction or installation, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, of public lighting facilities, including standards, poles and electric current or energy.
ASSESSORS PARCEL
NUMBER AS OF MAP DATE
COUNTY RECORDER’S STATEMENT
Filed this ____ day of ________, 2024 at ___ a.m./p.m. in Book ______ of Assessment Maps, at page (s) _________, at the request of Ingrid Padilla, City Clerk of the City of Brisbane.
Mark Church, San Mateo County Recorder
File No.:_____________ By: ____________________Fee: ________________ Deputy Recorder 18 of 18
146
M.
File Attachments for Item:
N. Consider Introducing an Ordinance Approving a Zoning Text and Map Amendment 2024-RZ1, Overlay to R-1 Residential District and the R-BA Brisbane Acres Residential District in Entirety (It is being recommended to introduce an ordinance approving a zoning text and map amendment 2024-RZ-1 amending regulations within Title 16 and 17 of the Brisbane Municipal Code to add the R-TUO residential two unit overlay district as new chapter 17.05 and related amendments; and finding that this project is exempt from environmental review under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15061(b)(1) & (3), Section 15183. This item was continued from the City Council Meeting of June 6, 2024.)
147
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: July 18, 2024
From: John Swiecki, Community Development Director
Subject: Zoning Map and Text Amendment 2024-RZ-1 – zoning text and map amendment 2024- RZ-1 amending regulations within Title 16 and 17 of the Brisbane Municipal Code to add the RTUO residential two unit overlay district as new chapter 17.05 and related amendments; and finding that this project is exempt from environmental review under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15061(b)(1) & (3), Section 15183; City of Brisbane, applicant.
SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT
COMMUNITY GOAL/RESULT
Safe Community - Residents and visitors will experience a sense of safety.
PURPOSE
To amend the zoning ordinance to establish regulations for urban lot splits and two-unit developments consistent with the requirements of Senate Bill SB 9.
RECOMMENDATION
Introduce the ordinance amending the zoning text and zoning map to establish the R-TUO Residential Two Unit Overlay district and related code amendments, as provided in Attachment
4. BACKGROUND
On June 6, 2024, City Council continued the public hearing on this matter to allow for additional time for the public review. The City Council further directed staff to provide additional background information and explanation of the proposed amendment, and to increase the level of public awareness and engagement.
The June 6, 2024 agenda report and previous Planning Commission workshops and hearing reports are provided in Attachment 5 for reference and include detailed information regarding the proposed ordinance.
148
N.
July 18, 2024 Meeting
DISCUSSION:
As directed by City Council, staff has prepared informational webpages for SB 9, including graphics which illustrate buildout examples. The July Star included a front-page article summarizing the proposed amendment as well as a hyperlink to the new web pages. See the hyperlink to a new draft ordinances webpage, Draft Ordinances | City of Brisbane, CA (brisbaneca.org) , and the SB 9 specific webpage, 2024-RZ-1 | City of Brisbane, CA (brisbaneca.org) Information regarding the proposed amendment was also included in the July 3 Brisbane Blast and on the City’s social media platforms. As part of the Blast, the City included a link to a new community outreach platform “Engage Brisbane”, which allows community members to provide responses to questions on the objective standards that are included in the ordinance. Also, although this item was continued to tonight’s date specific, new public notices were posted on July 5th. The City’s electronic sign boards at the Community Park and the Northeast Ridge have also been utilized to advertise tonight’s public hearing. Since the June 6th public hearing to the time of this writing, no written comments have been received. If any comments are received prior to the July 18th meeting, they will be provided separately to City Council.
The new webpages include substantial information on a number of issues associated with the requirements and implications of SB 9 and answers some key questions that have been raised.
These are addressed through frequently asked questions (FAQs) on the webpage referenced above. The FAQs also contain the graphic illustrations requested by Council. See weblink 2024- RZ-1 | City of Brisbane, CA (brisbaneca.org) for additional information.
Key considerations include:
• SB 9 became effective statewide in January 2022, including Brisbane. The City is obligated under state law to process applications that demonstrate compliance with SB 9, whether or not the City adopts an ordinance. Since SB 9 took effect in 2022, owners on a total of 4 lots within Brisbane have applied for SB 9 developments, although no development permits have been approved.
• Development under SB 9 allows for property owners to either add an additional unit on their lot (two-unit development) or subdivide their lot into 2 lots (urban lot split), subject to certain restrictions. This is applicable to the R-1 Residential District (R-1) and the R-BA Brisbane Acres Residential District (R-BA). Currently, without using SB 9, lots within these districts may be developed with a single family dwelling, an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) and a junior accessory dwelling unit (JADU), for a maximum of (3) units total. Although many variations on development under SB 9 can be achieved, it allows for no more than a total of four (4) units within the original lot area. This represents one more unit than 149
N.
July 18, 2024 Meeting
allowed under current zoning regulations. Attachments 1 and 2 illustrate several theoretical SB 9 development scenarios.
• Concerns have been raised about the applicability of SB 9 to the R-BA zoning district.
While SB 9 theoretically applies to the R-BA district as a whole, there are several SB-9 eligibility criteria that could limit its applicability to any given lot within the district.
Specifically, lots containing endangered butterfly habitat are not eligible for SB 9 development. Additionally, SB 9 allows that a public agency may deny a project that would have a specific adverse impact upon public health and safety that cannot be mitigated. Consistent with that provision, to promote public safety, Brisbane Municipal Code Section 17.01.060 does not allow for development of new dwelling units on lots that do not have public infrastructure. Therefore, lots within the R-BA district which lack access to public roadways and infrastructure would be ineligible for SB 9 development.
As a result of these criteria, it is likely that many existing R-BA zoned lots would not be eligible for SB 9 development. Any lot in the R-BA zone applying for an SB 9 development would need to demonstrate that all criteria for SB 9 eligibility have been met. Lastly, many lots within the upper Acres have been acquired by the City for open space purposes (see Attachment 3), further reducing the number of lots in the R-BA District with development potential.
• Adoption of the proposed ordinance allows the City to impose objective standards on SB 9 developments. The draft ordinance includes objective standards restricting the height of buildings within the state’s allowable setback areas and on R-BA ridgeline lots. The draft ordinance also requires that the minimum of one off-street parking space per primary unit be uncovered or within a carport, to help ensure these spaces are used for parking. Garage spaces may be provided in addition to the minimum uncovered or carport spaces. It also allows for shared driveways to help preserve on-street parking. • If the draft ordinance is not approved, property owners will still have the right to proceed with SB 9 developments subject to state regulations. The City will be unable to apply any other development standards.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
MEASURE OF SUCCESS
To provide clear provisions in the BMC in compliance with SB 9 (2021). 150
N.
July 18, 2024 Meeting
ATTACHMENTS
1. Webpage excerpts - Selected graphic illustrations and FAQs
2. Website hyperlinks (including additional illustrations):
a) Draft Ordinances | City of Brisbane, CA (brisbaneca.org) b) 2024-RZ-1 | City of Brisbane, CA (brisbaneca.org)
3. R-BA City Ownership Map
4. Draft Ordinance - Text and Map Amendment
5. City Council Agenda Report, June 6, 2024
(includes links to Planning Commission reports and minutes) ______________________________ ___________________________________ John Swiecki, Community Development Director Jeremy Dennis, City Manager 151
N.
ATTACHMENT 1
Website Excerpts
Selected Graphic Illustrations & FAQs
For FAQs and additional illustrations, see 2024-RZ-1 | City of Brisbane, CA (brisbaneca.org) Selected R-1 Buildout Scenarios
From left to right:
1. Single family dwelling (blue) on standard R-1 lot, per district regulations
2. Single family dwelling, accessory dwelling (yellow) and junior accessory dwelling (red), per district regulations.
3. SB 9 two unit development with second primary dwelling unit (purple)
4. SB 9 urban lot split with second primary dwelling unit (purple).
R-1 District Site Plan Views:
152
N.
ATTACHMENT 1
R-1 District Axonometric Views
Frequently Asked Questions
153
N.
ATTACHMENT 1
2024-RZ-1 | City of Brisbane, CA (brisbaneca.org)
Why should the City adopt a local ordinance to address SB 9? In 2021 the Governor signed SB 9, which became effective for jurisdictions state-wide in January 2022 and the City is currently processing applications pursuant to SB 9.
Through adoption of a local ordinance the City may include objective development standards, as long as those standards wouldn’t preclude development that would otherwise be compliant with the provisions of SB 9. Objective standards are including in the draft ordinance for 1) parking and 2) building heights within setbacks and on ridgeline lots, as further described below. A local ordinance would provide for clarity in the City’s implementation of SB 9 provisions. The draft ordinance would also commit the City to providing an informational notice to the owners of neighboring properties upon approval of a development project under SB 9.
SB 9 refers to urban lot splits and two unit developments. What’s the difference between the two?
“Two unit developments” generally refers to the development of two primary dwelling units on a an existing lot, or on a lot created through an urban lot split.
An "urban lot split" is a ministerial split of one single family residential lot into two lots pursuant to the provisions of SB 9. Each resultant lot may have a two unit development or a combination of primary dwelling units and JADUs or ADUs. In any case, the maximum development that may occur over the original lot area is 4 dwelling units. That’s one more than may otherwise be permitted.
The draft ordinance is proposed as an overlay district. What does this mean? An overlay district does not alter the underlying district standards. The overlay district (RTUO Residential Two Unit zoning district) standards would only apply to those properties that apply for a permit pursuant to the provisions of SB 9 and are approved for development consistent with SB 9.
Which properties in Brisbane are subject to SB 9?
SB 9 only applies to single family zoning districts, which in Brisbane are the R-1 and R-BA zoning districts. These districts are shown in yellow on the zoning map excerpt (see also our Interactive Zoning Map):
154
N.
ATTACHMENT 1
What development is currently allowed within the R-1 zoning district and what does SB 9 allow?
The current lot size standard in the R-1 zone is 5,000 sq ft, although a number of smaller lots are recognized as legal lots, generally in the range of 2,500 sq ft to 5,000 sq ft based on older lot size standards. The R-1 zoning allows for one single family dwelling unit, one attached junior accessory dwelling unit (JADU) and one accessory dwelling unit (ADU) on a lot, irrespective of size, assuming the applicable development standards are met.
SB 9 allows for one additional dwelling unit on that same lot area, either following an “urban lot split” or as a “two unit development” on the existing lot, subject to a number of qualifying criteria and restrictions. An urban lot split is a ministerial division of one legal lot into two lots and a two unit development allows for two primary dwelling units, such as two single family dwellings or a duplex on a lot. Regardless of whether SB 9 is implemented by an urban lot split or by a two unit development on the existing lot, the total dwelling unit count for the original lot area may not exceed four units, including accessory dwelling units, versus three units under the current zoning for both districts. There are various potential buildout configurations and comparison examples for:
1. what may be developed under the R-1 zoning without SB 9;
2. a two unit development; and
3. an urban lot split.
These are theoretical examples based on a maximum buildout. Additional examples based on a maximum buildout are available at this link.
What development is currently permitted in the R-BA zone and what will SB 9 allow? 155
N.
ATTACHMENT 1
The lot size standard in the R-BA zone is 20,000 sq ft. The R-BA zoning currently allows for one single family dwelling unit, one attached junior accessory dwelling unit (JADU) and one accessory dwelling unit (ADUs) on a lot. SB 9 allows for one additional dwelling unit on that same lot area, either following an “urban lot split” or as a “two unit development” on the existing lot, subject to a number of qualifying criteria and restrictions.
One such qualifying criteria is that the lot may not have endangered species habitat. The R-BA district as a whole is within the San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan area and a number of the properties, especially in the upper reaches of the district are likely to contain habitat for endangered butterfly species and would therefore be excluded. Another is that the lot must have infrastructure access for safety and utilities. Many of the lots do not currently have such access or utilities. Since this cost is borne by the property owner for development, this will likely continue to prove to be cost prohibitive, especially for those properties that are distant from existing infrastructure and on steep terrain.
Are there any other limitations on when SB 9 applies?
The endangered species and infrastructure restrictions are applicable to much of the R-BA district, but there are a number of other requirements and restrictions that may apply to either the R-1 and R-BA. Some of these are as follows:
• The lot does not contain wetlands;
• The lot may not be in a very high fire hazard severity zone; • The lot may not contain habitat for protected species; • The lot may not be on lands under a conservation easement; • The lot has not previously been subdivided via urban lot split; • For urban lot splits, prior to a lot split being recorded, the property owner(s) shall sign an affidavit stating that the owner, or a member or members of the owner’s immediate family, intends to occupy one of the dwelling units as the person’s principal residence for a minimum of three years; and
• Development may not result in demolition of a dwelling unit that has been occupied by a tenant in the last three years and other tenant displacement protections.
What is the net increase in the number of housing units that may be developed on a given lot using the SB 9 provisions versus what may currently be developed without using SB 9? The net increase in dwelling units on a given lot is one (1) unit. Currently a lot of record in either the R-BA or the R-1 district maybe developed with a single family dwelling (SFD), an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) and a junior accessory dwelling unit (JADU) without invoking SB 9 provisions. SB 9 provides for one more unit as a primary dwelling unit. That may be as a detached unit (resulting in a two unit dwelling group) or as a duplex. If the lot is split, as an urban lot split under the SB 9, the mix of units between the two resultant lots may range from 1 to 3 units, but the total across both resultant lots may not exceed 4 units.
How many units might be developed city-wide as a result of SB 9? 156
N.
ATTACHMENT 1
This is unknown. Since SB 9 took effect in 2022, owners on a total of 4 lots have applied for SB 9 development via two unit development or an urban lot split, although no development permits have yet been approved. For reference, case studies on three of these projects as provided on the City's website. Also, while there are approximately 880 lots in the R-1 district, lot size, topography, existing construction and other constraints could make SB 9 developments impractical or infeasible. Access and habitat constraints would also likely reduce the feasibility of SB-9 development throughout the R-BA zone.
What permits would be required for a two unit development or urban lot split? For a two unit development without a lot split, a property owner would need to obtain a building permit, which would include documentation on eligibility.
For an urban lot split, prior to obtaining the building a lot split would be required, via separate planning application.
As part of the above referenced permits, a deed restriction would be recorded on the property, identifying the property as being developed through SB 9 and subjecting it to certain development and use restrictions, as provided in the ordinance.
Whether the development under SB 9 is a two unit development on the existing lot, or the owner chooses to apply for an urban lot split, prior to submitting for a building permit, the applications require ministerial approval by the City, as long as they meet all of the requirements of SB 9.
Additional information related to the process in Brisbane for Urban Lot Splits & Two-Unit Developments is available on the City's website. Urban Lot Splits & Two-Unit Developments in Single-Family Zones | City of Brisbane, CA (brisbaneca.org) In an urban lot split, do the two resultant lots need to be the same size? No, but they must be close in size. Pursuant to state law, the allowable size ratio between two resultant lots must be in the range of 40:60 to 50:50. For a 5,000 SF lot, that would be resultant lots in the range of 2,000 SF and 3,000 SF, to 2,500 SF and 2,500 SF, respectively.
Is there a maximum size of the dwelling units that may be permitted under SB 9? The underlying district floor area limits would apply. For the R-1 district that floor area ratio is
0.72, or 3,600 sq ft on a 5,000 sq ft lot, except that the City must allow for primary dwelling units of at least 800 sq ft. An owner may voluntarily develop a smaller unit subject to California Building Code requirements. For the R-BA district, the maximum FAR is also 0.72, except that the total floor area may not exceed 5,500 sq ft.
What development standards apply to units developed under SB 9 provisions? 157
N.
ATTACHMENT 1
SB 9 provides that a jurisdiction may not require more than a 4 foot building setback from the side or rear lot lines. Comparing this to the current R-1 district standards, the minimum side setbacks range from 3 to 5 feet, depending on the lot width, and the rear setback requirement is 10 feet. In the R-BA district, the minimum rear setback is also 10 feet and the side setbacks range from 5 to 15 feet, depending on the lot width.
Following the Planning Commission’s workshops and public hearing on the draft ordinance, the Commission recommended an objective standard, that the area between the zoning district’s standard setback area and the state’s 4 foot allowance, the building height may not exceed 25 feet. The current standard in the R-1 district is 28 to 30 feet depending on the slope.
Additionally, the 25 foot limit would apply to ridgeline lots within the R-BA district. The current height limit for buildings in the R-BA district is 35 feet. (Note, under the draft ordinance 2024-RZ-2 a height limit of 36 feet has been proposed for both the R-1 and R-BA districts.)
Also, per SB 9 provisions, the City may not require more than one parking space for each primary dwelling unit. Following the Planning Commission’s workshops and public hearing on the draft ordinance, the Commission has recommended an objective standard, that the parking requirement may only be met by off-street uncovered parking or by parking covered by a carport. While garage spaces may be provided, as an owner’s option, they would not count towards the minimum requirement. This proposed standard stemmed from a concern over the common practice of use of garages for storage other than parking.
It has also been proposed that shared driveways should be permitted. This would be to allow for fewer driveway curb-cuts, to help minimize impacts to existing street parking.
Note that, where the R-1 or R-BA zoning district standards are not specifically superseded by the standards provided through SB 9, the underlying zoning district standards would apply.
How are accessory dwelling units or junior accessory dwelling units affected by SB 9? The development provisions for ADUs and JADUs are contained in BMC Chapter 17.43. These provisions would not be changed by the ordinance. That is with the exception that, the use of a property for an ADU or JADU might be superseded by development of a primary dwelling unit through SB 9, but where an ADU or JADU is allowed, the provisions of Chapter 17.43 would still apply.
Since there was a lawsuit over SB 9 in southern California, how will this affect Brisbane? A recent ruling by a Los Angeles Superior Court judge’s overturning SB 9 applied to five charter cities in Southern California. The City’s Legal Counsel indicated that the decision has no effect on other trial courts or other cities. Also, the cities in question are charter cities, not general law cities, such as Brisbane, and the decision hinged on SB 9 conflicting with the land use authority of those cities under their charters. As such, the decision is not relevant to SB 9 as it applies to the City of Brisbane.
Are there some buildout examples?
158
N.
ATTACHMENT 1
Subject to certain restrictions, SB 9 allows for two-unit developments and urban lot splits in the R-1 Residential District and R-BA Brisbane Acres Residential District. No more than two primary units may be built on a single lot, whether before or after a lot split, and no more than 4 units (including ADUs and JADUs) may be built across the original lot area.
Consistent with SB 9, the draft ordinance provides tables showing the possible scenarios. A few of the many possibilities have been illustrated on the City's website, based on a 5,000 sq ft lot in the R-1 district and a 20,000 sq ft lot in the R-BA district.
Click here for sample scenarios of Two Unit Developments and Urban Lot Splits and three Brisbane case studies.
159
N.
ATTACHMENT 2
Website hyperlinks:
a) Draft Ordinances | City of Brisbane, CA (brisbaneca.org) b) 2024-RZ-1 | City of Brisbane, CA (brisbaneca.org)
160
N.
San Benito Rd
King
s
Rd
Humbo
Margaret Ave
Ma
rg
aret
Ave
Radio Rd
San Benito Rd
Sierra Point Rd
Sierra Point Rd
BRISBANE
ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL
Kings Rd
Humboldt Rd
Humboldt Rd
Humboldt Rd
S
ierra
P
oint Rd
Arthur D
r
FIRTH PARK
Radio Rd
Radio Rd
San Bruno Ave
Thoma
s Av
e
Southeast
Bayshore
San Bruno Ave
Humboldt Rd
Lake St
Annis
R
d
McLain
Rd
Gladys
Ave
Ha rold Rd
Bayshore
Blvd
Southwest
Bayshore
Radio Rd
Van Waters&Rogers Rd
Bayshore Blvd
Radio Rd
Bayshore
Blvd
26 83
79 77
78 82
85 84 A
87 86
66 67
65 64
63 68
70 71 &
71 A
72 73 74
75 75 A
76 89
90 91
94 96
97 98
55 56
57 58
59 60
69 61
62 35
36 37
100
30 38
51 52
54 53
25 101
27 105
104
103
103
102
39 40
41 42
43 44
45 46
50 49
48 47
29 29
28 City Owned Parcels Acquired for Open Space Purposes in the R-BA District and Funding Sources ¯
07/09/2024
Esri Community Maps Contributors, County of San Mateo, California, California State Parks, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS, Sources: Esri, Airbus DS, USGS, NGA, NASA, CGIAR, N Robinson, NCEAS, NLS, OS, NMA, Geodatastyrelsen, Rijkswaterstaat, GSA, Geoland, FEMA, Intermap, and the GIS user community Other Means -
Donations, Lawsuit, Density Transfer
US Fish & Wildlife Funded
Coastal Conservancy Funded
Water Tank Sites
City Funded
City Owned Properties
& Funding Sources
Parcels
Priority Preservation Area 2023
Other Layers
R-BA
R-1
Zoning Layers
ATTACHMENT 3
161
N.
ATTACHMENT 4
DRAFT ORDINANCE NO.___
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BRISBANE
AMENDING BRISBANE MUNICIPAL CODE TITLES 16 AND 17 – TO ADD CHAPTER 17.05 RESIDENTIAL
OVERLAY TO PROVIDE FOR URBAN LOT SPLITS AND TWO-UNIT DEVELOPMENTS IN SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES AND TO AMEND SECTION 17.02.235 TO ADD A DEFINITION FOR “PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT” OR “MAIN DWELLING” AND TO MODIFY SECTIONS 17.02.120 AND 17.02.220
DEFINING CARPORTS AND DRIVEWAYS AND TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP TO ADD THE R-TUO
RESIDENTIAL TWO UNIT OVERLAY DISTRICT
Now, the City Council of the City of Brisbane hereby ordains as follows:
SECTION 1. Section 16.12.040 - Tentative and final parcel map—Exceptions to requirements is amended as follows:
16.12.040 - Tentative and final parcel map- Exceptions to requirements A tentative parcel map and final parcel map shall not be required in the following cases:
A. Where the subdivision is created by a short-term lease, terminable by either party on not more than thirty (30) days' written notice, of a portion of the operating right-of-way of a railroad corporation, as defined by Section 230 of the Public Utilities Code;
B. Where land is conveyed to or from a government agency, public entity or public utility, or to a subsidiary of a public utility for rights-of-way, unless a showing is made in individual cases that public policy necessitates a parcel map.
C. Where an urban lot split is proposed, see Chapter 17.05 of Title 17 of this Municipal Code. *****
SECTION 4. Section 17.02.120 - Carport is amended, as follows:
17.02.120 - Carport. "Carport" means an accessory structure or a portion of a main structure designed for the storage of motor vehicles having a roof or other solid covering and enclosed on no more than two (2) sides.
*****
SECTION 5. Section 17.02.220 - Driveway is amended, as follows:
17.02.220 - Driveway. "Driveway" means a private roadway which provides access to off-street parking or loading spaces, and the use of which is limited to persons residing on the site, their invitees, or persons working on the site. A driveway may be shared, to serve two or more lots, by access easement across one or more of the affected lots. This does not include private streets as defined in Section
17.02.750.
*****
162
N.
SECTION 2: Section 17.02.230 - Duplex is hereby deleted in its entirety. *****
SECTION 3. Section 17.02.235 - Dwelling is amended to add a definition for “Duplex dwelling” and “Primary dwelling unit” or “Main Dwelling”, as follows:
17.02.235 - Dwelling.
"Dwelling" means a place that is used as the personal residence of the occupants thereof, including transitional housing as defined in California Health and Safety Code Section 50675.2(h) and supportive housing as defined in California Health and Safety Code Sections 50675.14(b)(2) and (3). The term includes factory-built or manufactured housing, such as mobile homes, but excludes trailers, campers, tents, recreational vehicles, hotels, motels, boarding houses and temporary structures.
A. "Duplex dwelling" means a building containing two dwelling units totally separated from each other by a wall, floor or ceiling; provided, however, that a building containing a single-family dwelling and a lawful accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit shall not be deemed a duplex.
B. "Dwelling group" means a group of two (2) or more detached buildings located upon the same site, each of which contains one or more dwelling units.
C. "Dwelling unit" means a room or group of rooms including living, sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation facilities, constituting a separate and independent housekeeping unit, designed, occupied, or intended for occupancy by one family on a permanent basis. Permanent residency shall mean continuous occupancy of the dwelling unit for a period of thirty (30) days or more.
D. "Multiple-family dwelling" means a building or site containing three (3) or more dwelling units (also see "duplex"). The term includes single-room-occupancy dwelling units, typically comprised of one or two (2) rooms (which may include a kitchen and/or a bathroom, in addition to a bed), that are restricted to occupancy by no more than two (2) persons.
E. "Accessory dwelling unit" means a separate dwelling unit created upon a site that contains a single-family dwelling, duplex, or multiple-family dwelling. Subject to the restrictions of this title, the accessory dwelling unit may be within, attached to, or detached from the single-family dwelling, duplex, or multiple-family dwelling. An accessory dwelling unit shall include permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation. The term "secondary dwelling unit" shall have the same meaning throughout this title.
F. "Junior accessory dwelling unit" means a dwelling unit that is no more than five hundred (500) square feet in size and contained entirely within a single-family dwelling. A junior accessory dwelling unit may include separate sanitation facilities, or may share sanitation facilities with the single-family dwelling. Junior accessory dwelling units are distinguished from accessory dwelling units in that they: (1) must include the conversion of existing, legally permitted floor area within an existing single-family dwelling; (2) must be owner occupied, or the main dwelling be owner occupied; and (3) are subject to unique standards that are not applicable to accessory dwelling units, as specified in Chapter 17.43 of this Title.
G. “Primary dwelling unit” or “Main Dwelling” means a dwelling unit that is not an accessory dwelling unit or a junior accessory dwelling unit.
163
N.
H. "Single-family dwelling" means a dwelling unit constituting the only principal structure upon a single site (excluding any lawfully established accessory dwelling unit that may be located within the same structure on upon the same site). The term includes employee housing for six (6) or fewer persons, residential care facilities, licensed by the state to provide twenty-four-hour nonmedical care, serving six (6) or fewer persons (not including the operator, the operator's family or persons employed as staff) in need of supervision, personal services, or assistance essential for sustaining the activities of daily living or for the protection of the individual. Also see "Group care home" for seven (7) or more persons.
*****
SECTION 6. Section 17.04.010 - Establishment of Districts is amended to add the “R-TUO Residential two unit overlay district” as follows:
The districts into which the city is divided are hereby established and designated as follows:
A. R-1 Residential district.
B. R-2 Residential district.
C. R-3 Residential district.
D. R-BA: Brisbane acres residential district.
E. R-TUO Residential two unit overlay district.
F. C-1: Commercial mixed use district.
G. NCRO: Central Brisbane commercial district.
H. HC: Beatty heavy commercial district.
I. SCRO-1: Southwest Bayshore commercial district.
J. SP-CRO: Sierra Point commercial district.
K. TC-1: Crocker Park trade commercial district.
L. TC-2: Southeast Bayshore trade commercial district.
M. MLB: Marsh Lagoon Bayfront district.
N. O-S: Open space district.
O. P-D: Planned development district.
P. PAOZ: Parkside overlay district.
Q. R-MHP: Residential mobile home park district.
*****
Section 7. Chapter 17.05 Residential Two Unit Overlay District is added to Title 17 as follows:
17.05 Residential Two Unit Development Overlay District.
17.05.010 Purpose. The purpose of this Chapter is to allow no more than two detached or attached primary dwelling units on one lot of record, establish objective standards for the District, and regulate certain subdivisions of a lot of record in single-family zoning districts, in accordance with State law. This Chapter shall be implemented and interpreted in conjunction with California Government Code Sections 65852.21 and 66411.7, as may be amended, and applicable objective standards and procedures set forth in Chapters 17.06, 17.12, 17.43, 16.12, 16.16, and 16.20 of the Brisbane Municipal Code. 164
N.
17.05.020 Applicability and Relation to Other Sections. This Chapter is provided as an overlay district to the R-1 and R-BA residential districts, to comply with State law, and to carry out the purpose of Section 17.05.010, and, unless specifically addressed within this Chapter, the R-1 and R-BA district standards shall apply, as applicable. This Chapter also allows for ministerial approval of urban lot splits in conjunction with Chapter 16.16 and 16.20 of this Code.
This chapter shall not supersede the provisions of Section 17.01.060 - Requirement For Lot of Record and Infrastructure Improvements-- but applications shall be considered in concert with the provisions of that Section.
This chapter may be applied to a substandard lot, as further described in Section 17.47.030- Exceptions – Lot Area, Lot Dimensions and Lot Lines, if the substandard lot is a lot of record, as defined in Section
17.02.490.
17.05.030 Definitions
For the purposes of this Chapter, the following definitions apply. Terms not defined herein shall be based upon the definitions in Chapter 17.02.
A. “Access Corridor” means an access easement or the “pole” of a flag lot that provides vehicular access to the public right-of-way, that is free of features that obstruct ingress/egress to a lot.
B. “Acting in Concert” means the property owner, or a person as an agent or representative of the property owner, knowingly participating with another person in joint activity or parallel action toward a common goal of subdividing an adjacent parcel.
C. “Car Share Facility” means one or more parking space(s) that have been designated permanently for car share vehicles, where the vehicles are leased for short periods of time, often by the hour.
D. “Department” means the Community Development Department.
E. “Existing Exterior Structural Wall” means and constitutes the original bottom plate and original top plate in its existing position, original studs (with the exception for new window framing), and capable of standing without support
F. “Flag or Panhandle Lot” means a parcel which includes a strip of land that is owned in fee that is used primarily for vehicular access from a public or private street to the major portion of the parcel.
G. “High Quality Transit Corridor” means a corridor with fixed bus route service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours, or as defined in State law.
H. “Major Transit Stop” means a site containing any of the following: (i) an existing rail or bus rapid transit station; (ii) a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service; or (iii) the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service intervals of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods, or as defined in state law.
I. “Primary Dwelling Unit” or “Primary Unit” means the same as defined in section 17.02.235.G.
J. “Specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date an application was deemed complete.
K. “Two-unit Development” means a proposed housing development that contains two primary dwelling units on a single lot.
165
N.
L. “Urban Lot Split” means a subdivision of an existing lot of record in a single-family zoning district into no more than two separate legal lots, which subdivision satisfies all of the criteria and standards set forth in this Chapter and Government Code Section 66411.7.
17.05.040 Eligibility.
A. To be eligible for a two-unit development or urban lot split as specified in this Chapter, the application shall meet all of the following criteria:
1. The lot is a lot of record and is located within the R-1 Residential zoning district or the R-BA Brisbane Acres Residential zoning district.
2. The owner(s) of the lot has not exercised the owner’s rights under Government Code Chapter 12.75 (commencing with Section 7060) of Division 7 of Title 1 to withdraw accommodations from rent or lease within 15 years before the date that the application has been submitted.
3. The lot is not within a historic district or property included on the State Historic Resources Inventory, as defined in Section 5020.1 of the Public Resources Code, or within a site that is designated or listed as a city or county landmark or historic property or district pursuant to a city or county ordinance.
4. The lot does not contain any of the site conditions listed in Government Code section 65913.4, subdivision (a)(6)(B-K), or successor provisions or as amended, which includes, but is not limited to, lands within wetlands, a very high fire hazard severity zone, a special flood hazard area subject to inundation by the 1 percent annual chance flood (100-year flood), habitat for protected species, and lands under a conservation easement.
5. The lot has not previously been subdivided under this Chapter, or under Government Code section 66411.7.
6. For urban lot splits, Prior to a lot split being recorded, the property owner(s) shall sign an affidavit stating that the owner, or a member or members of the owner’s immediate family, intends to occupy one of the dwelling units as the person’s principal residence for a minimum of three years. This requirement shall not apply to an applicant that is a “community land trust,” as defined in clause (ii) of subparagraph (C) of paragraph (11) of subdivision (a) of Section 402.1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, or is a “qualified nonprofit corporation” as described in Section 214.15 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.
17.05.050 Anti-displacement/Eligibility Criteria.
A. Development under this Chapter shall not result in displacement of tenants from:
1. A lot that is subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and families of moderate, low, or very low income.
2. A lot that is subject to any form of rent or price control through the City’s valid exercise of its police power.
B. Development under this Chapter shall not result in:
1. Demolition or alteration as defined in Section 15.10.040.A or B of a dwelling unit that has been occupied by a tenant in the last three years.
2. Demolition of a building, or alteration as defined in Section 15.10.040.A or B, when the building is occupied by a tenant.
166
N.
17.05.060 Permitted Uses. The following uses, defined in Chapter 17.02 - Definitions, are permitted in this overlay zoning district in accordance with the development standards and are added to the permitted uses provided in Chapters 17.06 - R-1 Residential District and 17.12 - R-BA Brisbane Acres Residential District of this title:
A. Duplex dwellings.
B. Dwelling groups of two primary dwelling units per lot.
17.05.070 Two Unit Developments without an Urban Lot Split. A Two Unit Development on a lot of record that has not been split under the urban lot split provisions of this Chapter shall comply with the development standards provided in this section.
A. Development Standards. Where not expressly stated, the R-1 and R-BA zoning district development standards, set forth in Chapters 17.06 and 17.12, and ADU and JADU development standards set forth in Chapter 17.43, shall apply. For urban lot split development standards see Section 17.05.080.C.
1. Number of dwelling units. Development of up to four dwelling units may be built in the same lot area typically used for a single-family residence, without an urban lot split, as follows:
Development
Scenario Options
on a Single Lot
without Urban
Lot Split
Single Family
Dwelling
Duplex
Dwelling
(two
attached
primary
units”)
Two-unit
Dwelling
Group
(two
detached
primary
units”)
ADU JADU Total
Dwelling
Units
Type A. NA 2 2
Type B. NA 2 2
Type C. NA 2 1 3
Type D. NA 2 1 3
Type E. NA 2 2 4
Type F. NA 2 2 4
Type G. NA 2 1 1 4
Notes:
1. NA: Not applicable. Development of a single-family dwelling on a lot of record may be permitted per the zoning district standards, provided in Chapter 17.06 and 17.12, without invoking the two unit overlay provisions.
2. See Chapter 17.43 for applicable development regulations for ADU’s or JADU’s..
3. Four units are the maximum that may be permitted on a lot.
4. If Types A through D are initially developed, one or two ADUs may later be added up to the maximum allowed, Types E or F, subject to the provisions of this Chapter.
2. Primary Dwelling Unit Size. Each of the primary dwelling units shall be permitted to be at least 800 square feet in floor area, regardless of the zoning district’s lot coverage and floor area ratio (FAR) limits. For primary dwelling units over 800 square feet, the zoning district floor area standards shall apply; provided, however, this shall not preclude the option to construct smaller primary dwelling units in compliance with the state building code. The minimum floor area for each unit shall be as permitted by the state building code. 167
N.
3. Lot coverage. The R-1 or R-BA district lot coverage limit shall apply except where it would preclude development of new primary units of 800 square feet, or retention of the lot coverage of an existing primary unit or addition of accessory dwelling unit, in compliance with the provisions of this Chapter and Chapter 17.43 of this Title.
4. Side and Rear Setbacks. Minimum side and rear setbacks for the primary dwelling units shall be 4 feet, except for the following:
(a) Where the underlying district development standards allow for a lesser setback, the district standards shall apply.
(b) No setback shall be required for an existing legal non-conforming structure, or a replacement structure constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as an existing legal non-conforming structure.
5. Height of Primary Dwelling Units.
(a) Where a primary dwelling unit utilizes the 4-foot side or rear setback allowance, for a reduced setback versus the district’s setback, no portion of the building that is located in the area between the 4-foot setback and the district’s setback minimum shall exceed 25 feet in height.
(b) The maximum height of any primary dwelling unit on a ridgeline lot within the R-BA district, as defined in Section 17.02.695, shall be 25 feet, except for (i) an existing legal non-conforming structure, (ii) a replacement structure constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as an existing legal non-conforming structure, or(iii) as approved by design review permit per Section 17.12.040.L.
6. Off-Street Parking.
(a) A minimum of one standard size, off-street parking space (uncovered or carport) for each primary dwelling unit shall be required (refer to Chapter 17.34 for parking space design standards). Garage parking space(s) shall not count towards meeting the minimum parking requirements.
(b) Shared driveways may be permitted to serve more than one dwelling unit, subject to approval by the City Engineer, based on finding that a shared driveway will not pose a hazard to public safety. See the definition of driveway in Section 17.02.220 of this title. (c) Notwithstanding the parking requirements indicated above, no off-street parking shall be required if:
(i) The lot is located within one-half mile walking distance of either a transit stop located in a high-quality transit corridor, as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21155(b), or a major transit stop, as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21064.3; or (ii) There is a designated parking area for one or more car-share facilities within one block of the lot.
17.05.080 Urban Lot Splits. The City may approve a parcel map for an urban lot split ministerially, subject to the procedures, requirements and development standards provided in this section. 168
N.
A. Ministerial Parcel Map Procedures. The parcel map shall be prepared following the tentative map form and procedures provided in Chapter 16.16 - Tentative Map Procedures and Chapter 16.20- Final Map Procedures, except that the parcel map shall be approved by the City Engineer. The City Engineer shall have authority to waive specific requirements provided in Chapter 16.16 and Chapter 16.20, if the City Engineer deems the requirements inapplicable, given the site location or other characteristics.
B. Ministerial Parcel Map Requirements. A parcel map for an urban lot split shall meet the requirements of Chapter 16.16 and 16.20 of the Municipal Code, as deemed applicable by the City Engineer, and all of the following requirements:
1. The parcel map subdivides an existing lot of record to create no more than two legal lots of record of approximately equal lot area provided that one lot shall not be smaller than 40 percent of the lot area of the original lot of record proposed for subdivision.
2. Both newly created lots of record shall be no smaller than 1,200 square feet.
3. The zoning district lot width and depth dimension minimums shall not apply.
4. Flag lots may be approved. The flagpole portion, whether part of the flag lot or an easement on the flag lot, shall have a minimum width of 12 feet to accommodate a driveway, unless a lesser width is approved by the City Engineer. The location and dimensions of driveways are subject to approval by the City Engineer as set forth in Section 12.24.015.
5. Both parcels resulting from the urban lot split shall have access to, provide access to, or adjoin the public right-of-way through right-of-way frontage or recorded access easements.
6. The approved parcel map shall include a notation that the parcels were created using the Urban Lot Split provisions of this Chapter and the resulting parcels cannot be further subdivided under this Chapter.
7. The urban lot split conforms to all applicable objective requirements of the Subdivision Map Act, except as otherwise expressly provided in this Chapter.
8. The parcel being subdivided was not established through prior exercise of an urban lot split as provided for in this Chapter.
9. Neither the property owner of the parcel being subdivided nor any person acting in concert with the property owner has previously subdivided an adjacent parcel using an urban lot split as provided for in this Chapter.
C. Development Standards for Urban Lot Splits. Development on lots that have been split under this Chapter shall comply with the development standards provided in this section. Where not expressly stated, the R-1 and R-BA zoning district development standards, set forth in Chapters 17.06 and 17.12, and ADU and JADU development standards set forth in Chapter 17.43, shall apply.
1. Number of dwelling units. With an urban lot split, development of no more than four dwelling units may be built in the same lot area that would otherwise be used for a single-family residence, as shown in Tables a and b provided below. Note that Tables a and b are to be used together to detail possible development scenarios following an urban lot split. Table a provides various development scenarios that are possible on a single lot, following a lot split, as Types A through I. Table b shows how the scenario types may then be combined for the two resultant lots. For example, if one resultant lot is developed with three units (Types F, G, H or I), the second resultant lot may only be developed with a single family dwelling (Type A), for a maximum of four units on the two resultant lots.
169
N.
a. Number and Types of Units- With Urban Lot Split
Development
Scenario Options
for Each
Resultant Lot
Following Split
Single
Family
Residence
Duplex Two-unit
Dwelling
Group
ADU JADU(2) Total
Units per
lot
Type A 1 1
Type B 1 1 2
Type C 1 1 2
Type D 2 2
Type E 2 2
Type F 1 1 1 3
Type G 2 1 3
Type H 2 1 3
Type I 2 1 3
Notes:
1. Urban lot splits may utilize a combination of buildout types A – H, provided that all of the following conditions are met: a) the total number of units does not exceed four across the two lots, b) each of the two lots is to be developed with at least one primary dwelling unit, and c) development of ADUs and JADUs shall comply with Chapter 17.43.
2. JADU’s are not permitted as a part of building that contains 2 or more units (i.e. duplex). b. Lot Split - Resulting Lot Buildout Scenarios. The following table shows the total units that may be achieved by applying the development scenario options from Table 17.05.080.C.1.a to the two resultant lots.
RESULTANT LOT 1 (Housing Unit Totals)
RESULTANT
LOT 2
(Housing
Unit Totals)
Buildout
Type
(units)
Type A
(1)
Type
B
(2)
Type
C
(2)
Type
D
(2)
Type
E
(2)
Type F
(3)
Type G
(3)
Type H
(3)
Type
I
(3)
Type A (1) 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4
Type B (2) 3 4 4 4 4 NP NP NP NP
Type C (2) 3 4 4 4 4 NP NP NP NP
Type D (2) 3 4 4 4 4 NP NP NP NP
Type E (2) 3 4 4 4 4 NP NP NP NP
Type F (3) 4 NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Type G (3) 4 NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Type H (3) 4 NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Type I (3) 4 NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Note: NP: Not Permitted for the buildout scenario. Buildout scenario may not exceed four units. 170
N.
2. Primary Dwelling Unit Size. Each of the primary dwelling units shall be permitted to be at least 800 square feet in floor area, regardless of the zoning district’s lot coverage and floor area ratio (FAR) limits. For primary dwelling units over 800 square feet, the zoning district floor area standards shall apply; provided, however, this shall not preclude the option to construct smaller primary dwelling units in compliance with the state building code. The minimum floor area for each unit shall be as permitted by the state building code.
3. Lot coverage. The zoning district’s lot coverage limit shall not apply where it would preclude development of new primary units of at least 800 square feet, retention of the lot coverage of an existing primary unit or addition of accessory dwelling unit, in compliance with the provisions of this Chapter and Chapter 17.43 of this Title.
4. Side and Rear Setbacks. Minimum side and rear setbacks for the primary dwelling units shall be four feet, except for the following:
(a) Where the underlying zoning district development standards allow for a lesser setback, the district standards shall prevail.
(b) No setback shall be required for an existing legal non-conforming structure, or a replacement structure constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as an existing legal non-conforming structure.
5. Height of Primary Units.
(a) Where a primary dwelling unit utilizes the 4-foot side or rear setback allowance, for a reduced setback versus the district’s setback, no portion of the building that is located in the area between the four 4-foot setback and the district’s setback minimum shall exceed 25 feet in height.
(b) The maximum height of any primary dwelling unit on a ridgeline lot within the R-BA district, as defined in Section 17.02.695, shall be 25 feet, except for (i) an existing legal non-conforming structure, (ii) a replacement structure constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as an existing legal non-conforming structure, or(iii) as approved by design permit per Section 17.12.040.L.
6. Off-Street Parking.
(a) A minimum of one standard size, off-street parking space (uncovered or carport) for each primary dwelling unit shall be required (refer to Chapter 17.34 for parking space design standards). Garage parking space(s) shall not count towards meeting the minimum parking requirements.
(b) Shared driveways may be permitted to serve more than one lot, subject to approval by the City Engineer, based on finding that the driveway will not pose a hazard to public safety. See the definition of driveway in Section 17.02.220 of this title. (c) Notwithstanding the parking requirements indicated above, no off-street parking shall be required if:
171
N.
(iii) The lot is located within one-half mile walking distance of either a transit stop located in a high-quality transit corridor, as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21155(b), or a major transit stop, as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21064.3; or (iv) There is a designated parking area for one or more car-share facilities within one block of the parcel.
7. Deed Restriction. A property owner utilizing the provisions of this Chapter shall record a deed restriction, in a form acceptable to the City, that does the following:
(a) Where applicable, documents that the lot split complies with the provisions of this Chapter and restrictions provided in Government Code section 66411.7. (b) Expressly prohibits any rental of any dwelling unit on the property or properties for a term of 30 days or less.
17.05.090 Requirement for a Building Permit
Demolition, alteration or construction of any building shall require building permit(s). All construction shall be in conformance with the most recent edition of the California Model Codes with any applicable Brisbane amendments.
17.05.100 Notices
Upon issuance of a building permit for a two unit development under Section 17.05.070 or a building permit following an urban lot split under Section 17.05.080, the City shall provide an informational notice to the property owners adjacent to and directly across the street from the subject site(s). The notice shall provide a brief description of the project and information on how to view approved plans.
17.05.110 Condominiums
Condominiums may be established for primary dwelling units in accordance with Chapter 17.30 - Condominiums. Establishment of condominiums shall be subject to ministerial approval by the Community Development Director, based on conformance with the applicable provisions of this chapter and Chapter 17.30.
17.05.120 Findings of Denial. The City may deny a two-unit housing development or urban lot split, based upon a preponderance of the evidence, that the proposed housing development would have a specific, adverse impact, as defined in Section 17.05.030.J. *****
SECTION 8: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Brisbane hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each section, 172
N.
subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases may be held invalid or unconstitutional. *****
SECTION 9: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty days after its passage and adoption.
_____________________________
Terry O’Connell, Mayor
* * *
The above and foregoing Ordinance was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Brisbane held on the _________ day of ________________, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
_____________________________
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________ _____________________________ City Clerk City Attorney
173
N.
TC-2
TC-1
SP-CRO
SCRO-1
R-MHP
R-BA
R-3
R-2
R-1
PD
PAOZ-2
PAOZ-1
O-S
NCRO-2
NCRO-1
MLB
M-1
HC
C/P-U
C-1
R-TUO
0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2
Miles
P r o p o s e d N e w Z o n i n g D i s t r i c t
C I T Y O F B R I S B A N E C A L I F O R N I A
Parcel and HCP GIS data provided by San Mateo County
Zoning GIS data provided by City of Brisbane
04/25/2024
Baylands San Francisco Bay
HWY 101
Northeast Ridge
Crocker Park
Brisbane
Lagoon
Sierra Point
Marina
Quarry
Central Brisbane
Brisbane Acres
NE Bayshore
Southeast
Bayshore
VALLEY DR BAYSHORE BLVD
VISITACION AVE
TUNNEL AVE
LAGOON WAY
SAN BRUNO AVE
GUADALUPE CANYON PKWY
HWY 101
HWY 101
Beatty
Brisbane Parcels
TC-2
TC-1
SP-CRO
SCRO-1
R-MHP
R-BA
R-3
R-2
R-1
PD
PAOZ-2
PAOZ-1
O-S
NCRO-2
NCRO-1
MLB
M-1
HC
C/P-U
C-1
Commercial/Public Utilities District
Heavy Commercial District
Manufacturing District
Marsh Lagoon Bayfront District
Brisbane Village Neighborhood Commercial District
Downtown Brisbane Neighborhood Commercial District
Open Space
Parkside Overlay District - Clustered Housing
Parkside Overlay District - Multi-Family Housing
Sierra Point Commercial District
Commercial Mixed-Use District
Planned Development District
Residential District
Residential District
Residential District
Brisbane Acres Residential District
Residential Mobile Home Park District
Southwest Bayshore Commercial District
Crocker Park Trade Commercial District
Southeast Bayshore Commercial District
HCP Habitat Conservation Plan Area
Airbus,USGS,NGA,NASA,CGIAR,NCEAS,NLS,OS,NMA,Geodatastyrelsen,GSA,GSI and the GIS User Community E x i s t i n g L a y e r s / Z o n i n g D i s t r i c t s P r o p o s e d N e w Z o n i n g D i s t r i c t
R-TUO Residential Two Unit Overlay District
174
N.
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: June 6, 2024
From: John Swiecki, Community Development Director
Subject: Zoning Map and Text Amendment 2024-RZ-1 – zoning text and map amendment 2024- RZ-1 amending regulations within Title 16 and 17 of the Brisbane Municipal Code to add the RTUO residential two unit overlay district as new chapter 17.05 and related amendments; and finding that this project is exempt from environmental review under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15061(b)(1) & (3), Section 15183; City of Brisbane, applicant.
COMMUNITY GOAL/RESULT
Safe Community - Residents and visitors will experience a sense of safety.
PURPOSE
To amend the zoning ordinance to establish regulations for urban lot splits and two-unit developments consistent with the requirements of Senate Bill SB 9.
RECOMMENDATION
Introduce the ordinance amending the zoning text and zoning map to establish the R-TUO Residential Two Unit Overlay district and related code amendments, as provided in Attachments 1 and 2.
BACKGROUND
California Senate Bill SB 9 (2021) was codified as Gov’t Code Sections 65852.21(j) and 66411.7(n).
These regulations became effective on January 1, 2022 and require jurisdictions statewide to permit two-unit primary dwellings in the single-family residential zoning districts on lots where one single-family dwelling would normally be permitted, or for single-family lots to be split into two lots, subject to certain restrictions. For Brisbane, this is applicable to the R-1 Residential District and the R-BA Brisbane Acres Residential District. It does not apply to multifamily zoning districts.
Property owners may invoke the provisions of SB 9, absent a City ordinance. Since January 2022, the City has had four such applications submitted, two for urban lot splits and two for two unit 1 110
Q.
175
N.
June 6, 2024 Meeting
developments. Although SB 9 may be invoked without City regulations, the revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (Housing Element) includes a program for Brisbane to update its zoning ordinance to implement SB 9. That is:
“Program 2.A.6: Adopt implementing ordinance for ministerial duplex conversions and single-family lot splits as provided by Government Code Sections 65852.21 and 66411.7.” State law also allows jurisdictions to adopt objective standards through local ordinance, so long as they would not preclude two unit developments that would otherwise comply with the law.
The Planning Commission held workshops in 2023 to early 2024 on the proposed regulations, then a held a public hearing on May 9, 2024. The Planning Commission, by a vote of 4-0, recommended that City Council adopt the proposed ordinance. The Planning Commission resolution, draft minutes and agenda report are provided in Attachments 4, 5 and 6. Public correspondence is provided in Attachment 7.
Correspondence and the Planning Commission’s discussion referenced a recent ruling by a Los Angeles Superior Court judge’s overturning SB 9 as it applies to five charter cities in Southern California and its potential applicability to Brisbane. The City’s Legal Counsel indicated that the decision has no effect on other trial courts or other cities. Also, the cities in question are charter cities, not general law cities, such as Brisbane, and the decision hinged on SB 9 conflicting with the land use authority of those cities under their charters. As such, the decision is not relevant to SB 9 as it applies to the City of Brisbane.
DISCUSSION:
SB 9 allows for owners of certain eligible lots within the single-family zoning districts to either split an existing lot of record to two lots, or to keep the lot as-is and develop it with two primary units where one single family dwelling would otherwise be permitted. Note that a primary dwelling unit is a housing unit that is not a junior accessory dwelling unit (JADU) or accessory dwelling unit (ADU). Primary dwelling unit is a broad term that, for the purposes of the proposed overlay district, may include single family dwellings, duplex dwelling units and two-unit dwelling groups. In multifamily zoning districts a primary unit may also refer to units within a multifamily development.
State law and Brisbane code also allows for JADUs and ADUs, both on lots with single family dwellings and those established through SB 9. There are various ways that development under SB 9 could be accomplished, but in essence the maximum number of units that could be permitted by invoking SB 9 is four units and the maximum without SB 9 is three units. Note that per SB 9, the permitting process would be ministerial, whether the development is as a two unit development on an existing lot, or by urban lot split.
2 111
Q.
176
N.
June 6, 2024 Meeting
Specific provisions, as required by SB 9, allow for the following:
• Primary dwelling units of 800 square feet in floor area must be allowed, regardless of the underlying district’s floor area ratio (FAR) maximums. Note that JADU and ADU sizes are provided in BMC Chapter 17.43, consistent with state law, and these would not change. • The district’s lot coverage limits may not be used to prevent development that would otherwise comply with the development standards.
• Required side and rear setbacks shall not exceed 4 feet. • No more than 1 off-street parking space per primary dwelling unit may be required by the City.
• For urban lot splits, the two resultant lots must each be at least 1,200 square feet and the size difference between the lot must be in the proportion range of 50:50 to 40:60, so they would be near the same size.
Additional provisions proposed in the draft ordinance are outlined below, with further discussion on the next page:
• In cases where the 4 foot setback would be less than the underlying district setback, a height limit of 25 feet is proposed as discussed below. The existing district setback standards range from 3 to 5 feet for the side and 10 feet in the rear in the R-1 district and 5 to 15 feet for the side and 10 feet in the rear in the R-BA district. • Each primary dwelling unit would be required to have a minimum of one standard size off-street parking space, as indicated above, and that parking may be either uncovered or covered by a carport. Garage parking may also be provided, as an owner’s option in addition to the minimum parking, but it may not count toward meeting the required parking.
• Shared driveways may be permitted.
Height Limit: The 25 foot height limit is proposed for that portion of a primary dwelling that is located between the underlying district setback and the 4 foot setback allowed by SB 9. For example, the rear setback for structures in the R-1 district is 10 feet minimum from the rear lot line, whereas SB 9 reduces that setback to a 4 feet minimum. The 25 foot height limit would apply to that portion of a structure located between the 10 foot and 4 foot setbacks.
The height of 25 feet is proposed as it is the same as recently adopted state law for ADU heights, which may also have 4 foot setbacks. This same objective standard would apply to any primary 3 112
Q.
177
N.
June 6, 2024 Meeting
unit on an R-BA ridgeline lot, since the design permit provisions for ridgeline lots would not apply in the case of a two unit development using the overlay standards. This would be a reduction from the current district height limit of 35 feet in the R-BA district and the 30 height limit in the R-1. (Note that the draft ordinance 2024-RZ-2, which is also on the agenda for tonight, would raise the underlying district heights to 36 feet, but the 25 foot limit would apply to that portion of a structure that’s within the normal setback area.)
Parking & Shared Driveways: As noted above, each primary dwelling unit would be required to have a minimum of one standard size off-street parking space. That may be uncovered or covered by a carport. Garage parking may also be provided, as an owner’s option in addition to the minimum parking, but it may not count toward meeting the required parking. The provision of not counting garage parking toward the minimum requirement is proposed as a result of Planning Commission concerns raised about the use of garage spaces for other uses besides parking, such as storage, and the limited number of on-street parking spaces in many of the R-1 residential neighborhoods. Note that JADU or ADU off-street parking generally is not required, with some exceptions depending on distance to public transportation, and this would not be changed through this ordinance.
Shared driveways may also be permitted, given the proposed amendment to the driveway definition, but where parking is required for the different units, they must be independently accessible (i.e. not in tandem with another unit). Note that the amendment to allow for shared driveways would be within Chapter 17.02 - Definitions, so it would extend beyond the overlay zoning district.
The Planning Commission recommended an additional provision following the public hearing, that an informational notice to be sent to adjacent property owners upon issuance of a building permit approval, for projects approved utilizing the overlay provisions. That has been included in the draft ordinance as Section 17.05.100 - Notices.
Correspondence received prior to the Planning Commission hearing was duly considered by the Commission and is provided for reference in Attachment 7.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
MEASURE OF SUCCESS
To provide clear provisions in the BMC in compliance with SB 9 (2021). 4 113
Q.
178
N.
June 6, 2024 Meeting
ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Ordinance Establishing the R-TUO Zoning District
2. Draft Zoning Map Amendment Showing the Proposed R-TUO District
3. Redlined Draft Ordinance
4. Planning Commission Resolution 2024-RZ-1
5. Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, May 9, 2024
6. Planning Commission Agenda Report, May 9, 2024
7. Correspondence
______________________________ ___________________________________ John Swiecki, Community Development Director Clay Holstine, City Manager 5 114
Q.
179
N.
ATTACHMENT 3
REDLINED DRAFT ORDINANCE
Note: Red text indicates proposed as new or strikeout amendments to the Brisbane Municipal Code (BMC).
Section 16.12.040 - Tentative and final parcel map—Exceptions to requirements is amended as follows:
16.12.040 - Tentative and final parcel map- Exceptions to requirements A tentative parcel map and final parcel map shall not be required in the following cases:
A. Where the subdivision is created by a short-term lease, terminable by either party on not more than thirty (30) days' written notice, of a portion of the operating right-of-way of a railroad corporation, as defined by Section 230 of the Public Utilities Code;
B. Where land is conveyed to or from a government agency, public entity or public utility, or to a subsidiary of a public utility for rights-of-way, unless a showing is made in individual cases that public policy necessitates a parcel map.
C. Where an urban lot split is proposed, see Chapter 17.05 of Title 17 of this Municipal Code.
Section 17.02.120 - Carport is amended, as follows:
17.02.120 - Carport. "Carport" means an accessory structure or a portion of a main structure designed for the storage of motor vehicles having a roof or other solid covering and enclosed on no more than two (2) sides.
"Carport" means an accessory structure or a portion of a main structure designed for the storage of motor vehicles having a permanent roof and not enclosed on two (2) or more sides.
Section 17.02.220 - Driveway is amended, as follows:
17.02.220 - Driveway. "Driveway" means a private roadway which provides access to off-street parking or loading spaces, and the use of which is limited to persons residing on the site, their invitees, or persons working on the site. A driveway may be shared, to serve two or more lots, by access easement across one or more of the affected lots. This does not include private streets as defined in Section
17.02.750.
on a single site, the use of which is limited to persons residing or working on the site and their invitees, licensees and business visitors.
Section 17.02.230 - Duplex is hereby deleted in its entirety. 19 128
Q.
180
N.
Section 17.02.235 - Dwelling is amended to add a definition for “Duplex dwelling” and “Primary dwelling unit” or “Main Dwelling”, as follows:
17.02.235 - Dwelling.
"Dwelling" means a place that is used as the personal residence of the occupants thereof, including transitional housing as defined in California Health and Safety Code Section 50675.2(h) and supportive housing as defined in California Health and Safety Code Sections 50675.14(b)(2) and (3). The term includes factory-built or manufactured housing, such as mobile homes, but excludes trailers, campers, tents, recreational vehicles, hotels, motels, boarding houses and temporary structures.
A. "Duplex dwelling" means a building containing two dwelling units totally separated from each other by a wall, floor or ceiling; provided, however, that a building containing a single-family dwelling and a lawful accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit shall not be deemed a duplex.
B. A. "Dwelling group" means a group of two (2) or more detached buildings located upon the same site, each of which contains one or more dwelling units.
C. B. "Dwelling unit" means a room or group of rooms including living, sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation facilities, constituting a separate and independent housekeeping unit, designed, occupied, or intended for occupancy by one family on a permanent basis. Permanent residency shall mean continuous occupancy of the dwelling unit for a period of thirty (30) days or more.
D. C. "Multiple-family dwelling" means a building or site containing three (3) or more dwelling units (also see "duplex"). The term includes single-room-occupancy dwelling units, typically comprised of one or two (2) rooms (which may include a kitchen and/or a bathroom, in addition to a bed), that are restricted to occupancy by no more than two (2) persons.
E. D. "Accessory dwelling unit" means a separate dwelling unit created upon a site that contains a single-family dwelling, duplex, or multiple-family dwelling. Subject to the restrictions of this title, the accessory dwelling unit may be within, attached to, or detached from the single-family dwelling, duplex, or multiple-family dwelling. An accessory dwelling unit shall include permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation. The term "secondary dwelling unit" shall have the same meaning throughout this title.
F. E. "Junior accessory dwelling unit" means a dwelling unit that is no more than five hundred (500) square feet in size and contained entirely within a single-family dwelling. A junior accessory dwelling unit may include separate sanitation facilities, or may share sanitation facilities with the single-family dwelling. Junior accessory dwelling units are distinguished from accessory dwelling units in that they: (1) must include the conversion of existing, legally permitted floor area within an existing single-family dwelling; (2) must be owner occupied, or the main dwelling be owner occupied; and (3) are subject to unique standards that are not applicable to accessory dwelling units, as specified in Chapter 17.43 of this Title.
G. “Primary dwelling unit” or “Main Dwelling” means a dwelling unit that is not an accessory dwelling unit or a junior accessory dwelling unit.
H. F. "Single-family dwelling" means a dwelling unit constituting the only principal structure upon a single site (excluding any lawfully established accessory dwelling unit that may be located within the same structure on upon the same site). The term includes employee housing for six (6) or fewer persons, residential care facilities, licensed by the state to provide twenty-four-hour nonmedical care, serving six (6) or fewer persons (not including the operator, the operator's 20 129
Q.
181
N.
family or persons employed as staff) in need of supervision, personal services, or assistance essential for sustaining the activities of daily living or for the protection of the individual. Also see "Group care home" for seven (7) or more persons.
Section 17.04.010 - Establishment of Districts is amended to add the “R-TUO Residential two unit overlay district” as follows:
The districts into which the city is divided are hereby established and designated as follows:
A. R-1 Residential district.
B. R-2 Residential district.
C. R-3 Residential district.
D. R-BA: Brisbane acres residential district.
E. R-TUO Residential two unit overlay district.
F. E. C-1: Commercial mixed use district.
G. F. NCRO: Central Brisbane commercial district.
H. G. HC: Beatty heavy commercial district.
I. H. SCRO-1: Southwest Bayshore commercial district.
J. I. SP-CRO: Sierra Point commercial district.
K. J. TC-1: Crocker Park trade commercial district.
L. K. TC-2: Southeast Bayshore trade commercial district.
M. L. MLB: Marsh Lagoon Bayfront district.
N. M. O-S: Open space district.
O. N. P-D: Planned development district.
P. O. PAOZ: Parkside overlay district.
Q. P. R-MHP: Residential mobile home park district.
Chapter 17.05 Residential Two Unit Overlay District is added to Title 17 as follows:
17.05 Residential Two Unit Development Overlay District.
17.05.010 Purpose. The purpose of this Chapter is to allow no more than two detached or attached primary dwelling units on one lot of record, establish objective standards for the District, and regulate certain subdivisions of a lot of record in single-family zoning districts, in accordance with State law. This Chapter shall be implemented and interpreted in conjunction with California Government Code Sections 65852.21 and 66411.7, as may be amended, and applicable objective standards and procedures set forth in Chapters 17.06, 17.12, 17.43, 16.12, 16.16, and 16.20 of the Brisbane Municipal Code.
17.05.020 Applicability and Relation to Other Sections. This Chapter is provided as an overlay district to the R-1 and R-BA residential districts, to comply with State law, and to carry out the purpose of Section 17.05.010, and, unless specifically addressed within this Chapter, the R-1 and R-BA district standards shall apply, as applicable. This Chapter also allows for ministerial approval of urban lot splits in conjunction with Chapter 16.16 and 16.20 of this Code. 21 130
Q.
182
N.
This chapter shall not supersede the provisions of Section 17.01.060 - Requirement For Lot of Record and Infrastructure Improvements-- but applications shall be considered in concert with the provisions of that Section.
This chapter may be applied to a substandard lot, as further described in Section 17.47.030- Exceptions – Lot Area, Lot Dimensions and Lot Lines, if the substandard lot is a lot of record, as defined in Section
17.02.490.
17.05.030 Definitions
For the purposes of this Chapter, the following definitions apply. Terms not defined herein shall be based upon the definitions in Chapter 17.02.
A. “Access Corridor” means an access easement or the “pole” of a flag lot that provides vehicular access to the public right-of-way, that is free of features that obstruct ingress/egress to a lot.
B. “Acting in Concert” means the property owner, or a person as an agent or representative of the property owner, knowingly participating with another person in joint activity or parallel action toward a common goal of subdividing an adjacent parcel.
C. “Car Share Facility” means one or more parking space(s) that have been designated permanently for car share vehicles, where the vehicles are leased for short periods of time, often by the hour.
D. “Department” means the Community Development Department.
E. “Existing Exterior Structural Wall” means and constitutes the original bottom plate and original top plate in its existing position, original studs (with the exception for new window framing), and capable of standing without support
F. “Flag or Panhandle Lot” means a parcel which includes a strip of land that is owned in fee that is used primarily for vehicular access from a public or private street to the major portion of the parcel.
G. “High Quality Transit Corridor” means a corridor with fixed bus route service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours, or as defined in State law.
H. “Major Transit Stop” means a site containing any of the following: (i) an existing rail or bus rapid transit station; (ii) a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service; or (iii) the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service intervals of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods, or as defined in state law.
I. “Primary Dwelling Unit” or “Primary Unit” means the same as defined in section 17.02.235.G.
J. “Specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date an application was deemed complete.
K. “Two-unit Development” means a proposed housing development that contains two primary dwelling units on a single lot.
L. “Urban Lot Split” means a subdivision of an existing lot of record in a single-family zoning district into no more than two separate legal lots, which subdivision satisfies all of the criteria and standards set forth in this Chapter and Government Code Section 66411.7.
17.05.040 Eligibility.
22 131
Q.
183
N.
A. To be eligible for a two-unit development or urban lot split as specified in this Chapter, the application shall meet all of the following criteria:
1. The lot is a lot of record and is located within the R-1 Residential zoning district or the R-BA Brisbane Acres Residential zoning district.
2. The owner(s) of the lot has not exercised the owner’s rights under Government Code Chapter 12.75 (commencing with Section 7060) of Division 7 of Title 1 to withdraw accommodations from rent or lease within 15 years before the date that the application has been submitted.
3. The lot is not within a historic district or property included on the State Historic Resources Inventory, as defined in Section 5020.1 of the Public Resources Code, or within a site that is designated or listed as a city or county landmark or historic property or district pursuant to a city or county ordinance.
4. The lot does not contain any of the site conditions listed in Government Code section 65913.4, subdivision (a)(6)(B-K), or successor provisions or as amended, which includes, but is not limited to, lands within wetlands, a very high fire hazard severity zone, a special flood hazard area subject to inundation by the 1 percent annual chance flood (100-year flood), habitat for protected species, and lands under a conservation easement.
5. The lot has not previously been subdivided under this Chapter, or under Government Code section 66411.7.
6. For urban lot splits, Prior to a lot split being recorded, the property owner(s) shall sign an affidavit stating that the owner, or a member or members of the owner’s immediate family, intends to occupy one of the dwelling units as the person’s principal residence for a minimum of three years. This requirement shall not apply to an applicant that is a “community land trust,” as defined in clause (ii) of subparagraph (C) of paragraph (11) of subdivision (a) of Section 402.1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, or is a “qualified nonprofit corporation” as described in Section 214.15 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.
17.05.050 Anti-displacement/Eligibility Criteria.
A. Development under this Chapter shall not result in displacement of tenants from:
1. A lot that is subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and families of moderate, low, or very low income.
2. A lot that is subject to any form of rent or price control through the City’s valid exercise of its police power.
B. Development under this Chapter shall not result in:
1. Demolition or alteration as defined in Section 15.10.040.A or B of a dwelling unit that has been occupied by a tenant in the last three years.
2. Demolition of a building, or alteration as defined in Section 15.10.040.A or B, when the building is occupied by a tenant.
17.05.060 Permitted Uses. The following uses, defined in Chapter 17.02 - Definitions, are permitted in this overlay zoning district in accordance with the development standards and are added to the permitted uses provided in Chapters 17.06 - R-1 Residential District and 17.12 - R-BA Brisbane Acres Residential District of this title:
A. Duplex dwellings.
23 132
Q.
184
N.
B. Dwelling groups of two primary dwelling units per lot.
17.05.070 Two Unit Developments without an Urban Lot Split. A Two Unit Development on a lot of record that has not been split under the urban lot split provisions of this Chapter shall comply with the development standards provided in this section.
A. Development Standards. Where not expressly stated, the R-1 and R-BA zoning district development standards, set forth in Chapters 17.06 and 17.12, and ADU and JADU development standards set forth in Chapter 17.43, shall apply. For urban lot split development standards see Section 17.05.080.C.
1. Number of dwelling units. Development of up to four dwelling units may be built in the same lot area typically used for a single-family residence, without an urban lot split, as follows:
Development
Scenario Options
on a Single Lot
without Urban
Lot Split
Single Family
Dwelling
Duplex
Dwelling
(two
attached
primary
units”)
Two-unit
Dwelling
Group
(two
detached
primary
units”)
ADU JADU Total
Dwelling
Units
Type A. NA 2 2
Type B. NA 2 2
Type C. NA 2 1 3
Type D. NA 2 1 3
Type E. NA 2 2 4
Type F. NA 2 2 4
Type G. NA 2 1 1 4
Notes:
1. NA: Not applicable. Development of a single-family dwelling on a lot of record may be permitted per the zoning district standards, provided in Chapter 17.06 and 17.12, without invoking the two unit overlay provisions.
2. See Chapter 17.43 for applicable development regulations for ADU’s or JADU’s..
3. Four units are the maximum that may be permitted on a lot.
4. If Types A through D are initially developed, one or two ADUs may later be added up to the maximum allowed, Types E or F, subject to the provisions of this Chapter.
2. Primary Dwelling Unit Size. Each of the primary dwelling units shall be permitted to be at least 800 square feet in floor area, regardless of the zoning district’s lot coverage and floor area ratio (FAR) limits. For primary dwelling units over 800 square feet, the zoning district floor area standards shall apply; provided, however, this shall not preclude the option to construct smaller primary dwelling units in compliance with the state building code. The minimum floor area for each unit shall be as permitted by the state building code.
3. Lot coverage. The R-1 or R-BA district lot coverage limit shall apply except where it would preclude development of new primary units of 800 square feet, or retention of the lot coverage of an existing primary unit or addition of accessory dwelling unit, in compliance with the provisions of this Chapter and Chapter 17.43 of this Title.
4. Side and Rear Setbacks. Minimum side and rear setbacks for the primary dwelling units shall be 4 feet, except for the following:
24 133
Q.
185
N.
(a) Where the underlying district development standards allow for a lesser setback, the district standards shall apply.
(b) No setback shall be required for an existing legal non-conforming structure, or a replacement structure constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as an existing legal non-conforming structure.
5. Height of Primary Dwelling Units.
(a) Where a primary dwelling unit utilizes the 4-foot side or rear setback allowance, for a reduced setback versus the district’s setback, no portion of the building that is located in the area between the 4-foot setback and the district’s setback minimum shall exceed 25 feet in height.
(b) The maximum height of any primary dwelling unit on a ridgeline lot within the R-BA district, as defined in Section 17.02.695, shall be 25 feet, except for (i) an existing legal non-conforming structure, (ii) a replacement structure constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as an existing legal non-conforming structure, or(iii) as approved by design review permit per Section 17.12.040.L.
6. Off-Street Parking.
(a) A minimum of one standard size, off-street parking space (uncovered or carport) for each primary dwelling unit shall be required (refer to Chapter 17.34 for parking space design standards). Garage parking space(s) shall not count towards meeting the minimum parking requirements.
(b) Shared driveways may be permitted to serve more than one dwelling unit, subject to approval by the City Engineer, based on finding that a shared driveway will not pose a hazard to public safety. See the definition of driveway in Section 17.02.220 of this title. (c) Notwithstanding the parking requirements indicated above, no off-street parking shall be required if:
(i) The lot is located within one-half mile walking distance of either a transit stop located in a high-quality transit corridor, as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21155(b), or a major transit stop, as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21064.3; or (ii) There is a designated parking area for one or more car-share facilities within one block of the lot.
17.05.080 Urban Lot Splits. The City may approve a parcel map for an urban lot split ministerially, subject to the procedures, requirements and development standards provided in this section.
A. Ministerial Parcel Map Procedures. The parcel map shall be prepared following the tentative map form and procedures provided in Chapter 16.16 - Tentative Map Procedures and Chapter 16.20- Final Map Procedures, except that the parcel map shall be approved by the City Engineer. The City Engineer shall have authority to waive specific requirements provided in Chapter 16.16 and Chapter 16.20, if the City Engineer deems the requirements inapplicable, given the site location or other characteristics. 25 134
Q.
186
N.
B. Ministerial Parcel Map Requirements. A parcel map for an urban lot split shall meet the requirements of Chapter 16.16 and 16.20 of the Municipal Code, as deemed applicable by the City Engineer, and all of the following requirements:
1. The parcel map subdivides an existing lot of record to create no more than two legal lots of record of approximately equal lot area provided that one lot shall not be smaller than 40 percent of the lot area of the original lot of record proposed for subdivision.
2. Both newly created lots of record shall be no smaller than 1,200 square feet.
3. The zoning district lot width and depth dimension minimums shall not apply.
4. Flag lots may be approved. The flagpole portion, whether part of the flag lot or an easement on the flag lot, shall have a minimum width of 12 feet to accommodate a driveway, unless a lesser width is approved by the City Engineer. The location and dimensions of driveways are subject to approval by the City Engineer as set forth in Section 12.24.015.
5. Both parcels resulting from the urban lot split shall have access to, provide access to, or adjoin the public right-of-way through right-of-way frontage or recorded access easements.
6. The approved parcel map shall include a notation that the parcels were created using the Urban Lot Split provisions of this Chapter and the resulting parcels cannot be further subdivided under this Chapter.
7. The urban lot split conforms to all applicable objective requirements of the Subdivision Map Act, except as otherwise expressly provided in this Chapter.
8. The parcel being subdivided was not established through prior exercise of an urban lot split as provided for in this Chapter.
9. Neither the property owner of the parcel being subdivided nor any person acting in concert with the property owner has previously subdivided an adjacent parcel using an urban lot split as provided for in this Chapter.
C. Development Standards for Urban Lot Splits. Development on lots that have been split under this Chapter shall comply with the development standards provided in this section. Where not expressly stated, the R-1 and R-BA zoning district development standards, set forth in Chapters 17.06 and 17.12, and ADU and JADU development standards set forth in Chapter 17.43, shall apply.
1. Number of dwelling units. With an urban lot split, development of no more than four dwelling units may be built in the same lot area that would otherwise be used for a single-family residence, as shown in Tables a and b provided below. Note that Tables a and b are to be used together to detail possible development scenarios following an urban lot split. Table a provides various development scenarios that are possible on a single lot, following a lot split, as Types A through I. Table b shows how the scenario types may then be combined for the two resultant lots. For example, if one resultant lot is developed with three units (Types F, G, H or I), the second resultant lot may only be developed with a single family dwelling (Type A), for a maximum of four units on the two resultant lots.
26 135
Q.
187
N.
a. Number and Types of Units- With Urban Lot Split
Development
Scenario Options
for Each
Resultant Lot
Following Split
Single
Family
Residence
Duplex Two-unit
Dwelling
Group
ADU JADU(2) Total
Units per
lot
Type A 1 1
Type B 1 1 2
Type C 1 1 2
Type D 2 2
Type E 2 2
Type F 1 1 1 3
Type G 2 1 3
Type H 2 1 3
Type I 2 1 3
Notes:
1. Urban lot splits may utilize a combination of buildout types A – H, provided that all of the following conditions are met: a) the total number of units does not exceed four across the two lots, b) each of the two lots is to be developed with at least one primary dwelling unit, and c) development of ADUs and JADUs shall comply with Chapter 17.43.
2. JADU’s are not permitted as a part of building that contains 2 or more units (i.e. duplex). b. Lot Split - Resulting Lot Buildout Scenarios. The following table shows the total units that may be achieved by applying the development scenario options from Table 17.05.080.C.1.a to the two resultant lots.
RESULTANT LOT 1 (Housing Unit Totals)
RESULTANT
LOT 2
(Housing
Unit Totals)
Buildout
Type
(units)
Type A
(1)
Type
B
(2)
Type
C
(2)
Type
D
(2)
Type
E
(2)
Type F
(3)
Type G
(3)
Type H
(3)
Type
I
(3)
Type A (1) 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4
Type B (2) 3 4 4 4 4 NP NP NP NP
Type C (2) 3 4 4 4 4 NP NP NP NP
Type D (2) 3 4 4 4 4 NP NP NP NP
Type E (2) 3 4 4 4 4 NP NP NP NP
Type F (3) 4 NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Type G (3) 4 NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Type H (3) 4 NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Type I (3) 4 NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Note: NP: Not Permitted for the buildout scenario. Buildout scenario may not exceed four units. 27 136
Q.
188
N.
2. Primary Dwelling Unit Size. Each of the primary dwelling units shall be permitted to be at least 800 square feet in floor area, regardless of the zoning district’s lot coverage and floor area ratio (FAR) limits. For primary dwelling units over 800 square feet, the zoning district floor area standards shall apply; provided, however, this shall not preclude the option to construct smaller primary dwelling units in compliance with the state building code. The minimum floor area for each unit shall be as permitted by the state building code.
3. Lot coverage. The zoning district’s lot coverage limit shall not apply where it would preclude development of new primary units of at least 800 square feet, retention of the lot coverage of an existing primary unit or addition of accessory dwelling unit, in compliance with the provisions of this Chapter and Chapter 17.43 of this Title.
4. Side and Rear Setbacks. Minimum side and rear setbacks for the primary dwelling units shall be four feet, except for the following:
(a) Where the underlying zoning district development standards allow for a lesser setback, the district standards shall prevail.
(b) No setback shall be required for an existing legal non-conforming structure, or a replacement structure constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as an existing legal non-conforming structure.
5. Height of Primary Units.
(a) Where a primary dwelling unit utilizes the 4-foot side or rear setback allowance, for a reduced setback versus the district’s setback, no portion of the building that is located in the area between the four 4-foot setback and the district’s setback minimum shall exceed 25 feet in height.
(b) The maximum height of any primary dwelling unit on a ridgeline lot within the R-BA district, as defined in Section 17.02.695, shall be 25 feet, except for (i) an existing legal non-conforming structure, (ii) a replacement structure constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as an existing legal non-conforming structure, or(iii) as approved by design permit per Section 17.12.040.L.
6. Off-Street Parking.
(a) A minimum of one standard size, off-street parking space (uncovered or carport) for each primary dwelling unit shall be required (refer to Chapter 17.34 for parking space design standards). Garage parking space(s) shall not count towards meeting the minimum parking requirements.
(b) Shared driveways may be permitted to serve more than one lot, subject to approval by the City Engineer, based on finding that the driveway will not pose a hazard to public safety. See the definition of driveway in Section 17.02.220 of this title. (c) Notwithstanding the parking requirements indicated above, no off-street parking shall be required if:
28 137
Q.
189
N.
(iii) The lot is located within one-half mile walking distance of either a transit stop located in a high-quality transit corridor, as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21155(b), or a major transit stop, as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21064.3; or (iv) There is a designated parking area for one or more car-share facilities within one block of the parcel.
7. Deed Restriction. A property owner utilizing the provisions of this Chapter shall record a deed restriction, in a form acceptable to the City, that does the following:
(a) Where applicable, documents that the lot split complies with the provisions of this Chapter and restrictions provided in Government Code section 66411.7. (b) Expressly prohibits any rental of any dwelling unit on the property or properties for a term of 30 days or less.
17.05.090 Requirement for a Building Permit
Demolition, alteration or construction of any building shall require building permit(s). All construction shall be in conformance with the most recent edition of the California Model Codes with any applicable Brisbane amendments.
17.05.100 Notices
Upon issuance of a building permit for a two unit development under Section 17.05.070 or a building permit following an urban lot split under Section 17.05.080, the City shall provide an informational notice to the property owners adjacent to and directly across the street from the subject site(s). The notice shall provide a brief description of the project and information on how to view approved plans.
17.05.110 Condominiums
Condominiums may be established for primary dwelling units in accordance with Chapter 17.30 - Condominiums. Establishment of condominiums shall be subject to ministerial approval by the Community Development Director, based on conformance with the applicable provisions of this chapter and Chapter 17.30.
17.05.120 Findings of Denial. The City may deny a two-unit housing development or urban lot split, based upon a preponderance of the evidence, that the proposed housing development would have a specific, adverse impact, as defined in Section 17.05.030.J. *****
29 138
Q.
190
N.
RESOLUTION 2024-RZ-1
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BRISBANE RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF ZONING TEXT AND MAP AMENDMENT 2024-RZ-1 AMENDING BRISBANE MUNICIPAL CODE TITLES 16 AND 17, TO AMEND SECTION 16.12.040 - TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP- EXCEPTIONS TO REQUIREMENTS, ADD CHAPTER 17.05
RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY, TO PROVIDE FOR URBAN LOT SPLITS AND TWO-UNIT DEVELOPMENTS IN SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES, AND TO AMEND SECTION 17.02.235, TO ADD A DEFINITION FOR “PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT” OR “MAIN DWELLING”, AND TO AMEND SECTIONS 17.02.120 AND
17.02.220 DEFINING CARPORTS AND DRIVEWAYS
WHEREAS, Senate Bill 9 (“SB 9”), which amended Section 66452.6 of the Government Code and added Sections 65852.21 and 66411.7 to the Government Code, to allow for streamlined ministerial approval of two-unit development and urban lot splits within single-family zoned areas, was signed by the Governor of California on September 16, 2021; and
WHEREAS, these changes to the Government Code became effective on January 1, 2022; and WHEREAS, SB 9 requires cities and counties, including the City of Brisbane, to ministerially approve a parcel map for an urban lot split and/or a proposed housing development containing a maximum of two primary residential units within a single-family residential zone, if the proposal meets certain statutory criteria; and
WHEREAS, SB 9 specifies that proposed projects and subdivisions cannot be proposed in prohibited locations under Government Code Section 65913.4(a)(6)(B)-(K) such as lands within an earthquake fault zone, federally designated flood plan, historic district or property, and high fire hazard severity zone as defined under state law; and
WHEREAS, SB 9 further restricts the standards and regulations that local agencies, including the City of Brisbane, may impose to only objective zoning, subdivision, and design standards that do not conflict with the statue and where those standards must not physically preclude a unit size of at least 800 square feet or qualifying urban lot split; and
Whereas, no parcel within the overlay district is located within one-half mile walking distance of either a high-quality transit corridor, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 21155 of the Public Resources Code, or a major transit stop, as defined in Section 21064.3 of the Public Resources Code, or within one block of a car share facility.
WHEREAS, the City seeks to regulate development pursuant to SB 9 through the implementation of regulations concerning duplex residential developments and urban lot splits; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 65852.21(j) and 66411.7(n) of the Government Code, a local agency may adopt an ordinance to implement SB 9; and
WHEREAS, City Council adopted the revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (Housing Element) on May 18, 2023, which was subsequently certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development; and
30 139
Q.
191
N.
WHEREAS, the Housing Element includes Program 2.A.6, “Adopt implementing ordinance for ministerial duplex conversions and single-family lot splits as provided by Government Code Sections 65852.21 and 66411.7”, and
WHEREAS, the draft ordinance attached as Exhibit A to this resolution proposes amendments to Title 16 and Title 17; and
WHERAS, Exhibit B to this resolution proposes amendment to the zoning map to establish a new R-TUO Residential Two Unit Overlay District, to overlay the R-1 Residential District and the R-BA Residential Brisbane Acres District; and
WHEREAS, on May 9, 2024, the Planning Commission conducted a hearing of the application, publicly noticed in compliance with Brisbane Municipal Code Chapters 1.12 and 17.54, at which time any person interested in the matter was given an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the staff memorandum relating to said application, and the written and oral evidence presented to the Planning Commission in support of and in opposition to the application; and WHEREAS, adoption of this ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to California Government Code Section 15061(b)(1) & (3), Section 15183 relating to the implementation of the Housing Element, and because it involves code amendments pursuant to California Government Code Section 65852.21(j) and Section 66411.7(n) relating to the implementation of SB 9; and
NOW, THEREFORE, based upon the evidence presented, both written and oral, the Planning Commission of the City of Brisbane hereby RECOMMENDS that the City Council adopt the attached ordinance.
ADOPTED this ninth day of May, 2024, by the following vote:
AYES: Funke, Lau, Patel, and Sayasane
NOES: NA
ABSENT:Gooding
_____________________
PAMALA SAYASANE, Vice Chairperson
for ALEX LAU, Chairperson
ATTEST:
________________________________________
JOHN SWIECKI, Community Development Director
31 140
Q.
192
N.
DRAFT
BRISBANE PLANNING COMMISSION
Action Minutes of May 9, 2024
Hybrid Meeting
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Funke, Lau, Patel, and Sayasane
Absent: Gooding
Staff Present: Director Swiecki, Senior Planner Johnson, Associate Planner Robbins
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Lau called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
A motion by Commissioner Sayasane, seconded by Commissioner Funke to adopt the agenda.
Motion approved 4-0.
CONSENT CALENDAR
A motion by Commissioner Funke, seconded by Commissioner Sayasane to adopt the consent calendar. Motion approved 4-0.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
There were none.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Chairperson Lau acknowledged written correspondence pertaining to New Business Items A and B
NEW BUSINESS
A. PUBLIC HEARING: Zoning Text and Map Amendment 2024-RZ-1, R-1 Residential District and the R-BA Brisbane Acres Residential District in entirety; recommendation to City Council on zoning text and map amendment 2024-RZ-1 amending regulations within Title 16 and 17 of the Brisbane Municipal Code to add the R-TUO residential two unit overlay district as new chapter 17.05 and related amendments; and finding that this project is exempt from environment review under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15061(b)(1) & (3), Section 15183; City of Brisbane, applicant.
Senior Planner Johnson presented staff report to the Commission. 32 141
Q.
193
N.
DRAFT
Brisbane Planning Commission Minutes
May 9, 2024