Agenda packet — Brisbane City Council, November 20, 2025

- 1 -
CITYof BRISBANE
Thursday, November 20, 2025 at 6:30 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. The City Council may take action on any item listed in the agenda.

TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL

IN PERSON
Location: Community Meeting Room 50 Park Place, Brisbane, CA 94005 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 via Zoom Webinar. Aside from commenting personally while in the Zoom Webinar, you can also use the call in number. The public comments received will be noted for the record during Oral Communications 1 and 2 or during an agenda item. We encourage you to email comments on or not on agenda items in advance of the meeting to [email protected]. That email address, however, will not be monitored during the meeting and emails received during the meeting will not be responded to or brought to the attention of the City Council during the meeting.

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 November 20, 2025 - 2 - 6:30 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 distributed to the Council and made available for public inspection at the front lobby and on the internet the day after the meeting (brisbaneca.org/meetings). 6:30 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
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS NO. 1

CONSENT CALENDAR
B. Approve Minutes of City Council Meeting of November 6, 2025 C. Approve Minutes of City Council Closed Session Meeting of November 6, 2025 D. Adopt Ordinance, Waiving Second Reading, to Adopt the 2025 California Building Standards Code with Local Amendments and to Find That This Ordinance Categorically Exempt from Environmental Review Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15308, Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment
E. Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the Submittal of Applications for all CalRecycle Grant and Payment Programs, Changing the Signature Authority from the Public Works Director to the City Manager

NEW BUSINESS
F. Study Session- 70 Old County Road Planning Program
(Staff recommends that the Council provide direction to staff and consultants regarding a preferred development concept scenario to be studied further.) 2 November 20, 2025 - 3 - 6:30 PM
G. Discuss and Provide Direction on Reestablishing a Sister City Relationship with Brisbane, Australia

STAFF REPORTS
H. City Manager’s Report- City Updates and Upcoming Activities

MAYOR/COUNCIL MATTERS
I. City Council Meeting Schedule and Recruitment Update J. Countywide Assignments and Subcommittee Reports
i. Report Out on Subcommittee Meetings
ii. Upcoming Subcommittee Meetings
K. Written Communications
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS NO. 2

ADJOURNMENT
3 File Attachments for Item:

B. Approve Minutes of City Council Meeting of November 6, 2025 4 BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL

ACTION MINUTES

CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2025
HYBRID MEETING, 50 PARK PLACE, BRISBANE, CA 94005
6:30 P.M. CALL TO ORDER – PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Lentz called the meeting to order at 6:31 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 requests were made under Roll Call Item A.

Councilmembers Present: Councilmembers Davis, Kern, Mackin, O’Connell and Mayor Lentz Councilmembers Absent: None
Staff Present: City Manager Dennis, Assistant City Manager Fernandez, City Clerk Padilla, City Attorney McMorrow, Community Development Director Swiecki, Parks and Recreation Director Leek, City Engineer Bozorginia, Human Resources Director Partin, Finance Director Yuen, Deputy Fire Chief Wittner and Admin Management Analyst Ibarra

ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Councilmember Mackin made a motion, seconded by Councilmember O’Connell, to adopt the agenda as it stands. The motion passed unanimously by all present.

Ayes: Councilmembers Davis, Kern, Mackin, O’Connell and Mayor Lentz Noes: None

Absent: None
Abstain: None

REPORT OUT OF CLOSED SESSION
City Attorney McMorrow reported that on the Closed Session Meeting of October 28, 2025, Councilmembers 5 B.

City Council Meeting Minutes
November 6, 2025

Page 2 ends

provided direction to staff on the litigation item. He also reported that Councilmembers provided direction to staff on the Liability claim Item D and the Anticipated Litigation Item E. .

AWARDS AND PRESENTATIONS
B. Native American Heritage Month Proclamation
Mayor Lentz proclaimed November 2025 as Native American Heritage Month and to encourage all residents to share the history of the indigenous peoples of California, including the Ohlone of San Mateo County.

Community members Amanda Parker-Govea and Philip Govea accepted the proclamation and thanked the Council for the recognition. Mrs. Parker-Govea is a descendant of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy. Mr.

Govea, a member of the Lakota Sioux tribe and staff member at the Native American Health Center shared a song of peace following the proclamation acceptance.

C. Volunteer of the Year and Youth Volunteer of the Year 2025 Mayor Lentz declared that after many years of dedicated volunteering, Council would like to express their gratitude to Hermann Reiss for his tireless spirit, selflessness, and dedication to serving others. He congratulated Hermann Reiss on being named the 2025 Volunteer of the Year.

Hermann Reiss thanked the Council for acknowledgement.

Mayor Lentz then expressed his gratitude to Sebastian Bousquet for his leadership at school and in his community. He congratulated Sebastian Bousquet on being named the 2025 Youth Volunteer of the Year.

Sebastian Bousquet thanked the council and the community members who mentored his throughout the years.

ORAL COMMUNICATIONS NO. 1
Emmett Cunningham asked council to review the fees and fines for illegal dumping.

Dan Carter agreed with Emmett Cunningham and stated that there is a lot of illegal dumping in Brisbane because there’s a dump down the road.

Chris Florkowski appreciated the Native American Heritage Month recognition and commented that we should also protect the land particularly finding a way to protect the land during the Quarry Road Development.

Michael Barnes shared pictures of the new park in South San Francisco facing Sierra Point and asked Council to build a park at Parcel R and have a vision.

CONSENT CALENDAR
D. Approve Minutes of City Council Meeting of October 16, 2025 E. Approve Minutes of City Council Closed Session Meeting of October 16, 2025 F. Approve Minutes of City Council Closed Session Meeting of October 28, 2025 6 B.

City Council Meeting Minutes
November 6, 2025

Page 3 ends

G. Accept Investment Report as of September 2025
H. Approve Resolution to Amend the Master Pay Schedule to Meet the New Minimum Wage Requirement
I. Introduce Draft Ordinance, Waiving First Reading, Adopting the 2025 California Building Standards Code with Local Amendments and Finding That This Ordinance Categorically Exempt from Environmental Review Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15308, Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment
J. Authorize the Publication of the Artful Bench Program Request for Proposals to Prospective Artists (The Request for Proposals denotes a “Not to Exceed” budget of $125,000, which will be allocated to the artists selected.)
Councilmember O’Connell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Davis, to adopt Consent Calendar Item D-J. The motion passed unanimously by all present.

Ayes: Councilmembers Davis, Kern, Mackin, O’Connell and Mayor Lentz Noes: None

Absent: None
Abstain: None

NEW BUSINESS
K. Receive an Update—Bond Rating Discussion
Finance Director Yuen reported that In September 2025, S&P notified the City that the bond ratings would be removed for the 2015 Utility bond as well as for the City’s 2014 general bond as a result of financial statements not being available for fiscal year 2023. The City would have to apply to have the bond ratings reinstated after financial statements became available for fiscal years 2023 and 2024. The withdrawal of the bond rating limits the City’s funding options as issuing bonds would be prohibitive until the rating can be reestablished.

Finance Director Yuen added that there were a variety of reasons for the delay in finalizing the audited financials for fiscal year 2023, but following are the primary root causes:
• Budget software issues
• Staffing
• Operational conflicts
• Scheduling
The following steps are being implemented to restore the City’s bond rating and prevent a recurrence of this issue:
• Audit Completion: Fiscal Year 2023 financials are in final draft and expected in November. Once the 2023 financials are issued, the auditors can reconvene to complete reviews of the Fiscal Year 2024 records which already started with their interim field.
7 B.

City Council Meeting Minutes
November 6, 2025

Page 4 ends

• Engagement with S&P: Ongoing dialogue with analysts to keep them informed and prepare for re-evaluation.

The City will request reinstatement of ratings no later than Quarter 1-2026. • Technology: A change in budget software was made in 2025 to automate the budget process going forward, limiting manual spreadsheets which promotes a simplified data integration with the accounting system • Staffing: Improvements in audit readiness by expanding cross-training and refining Finance Department position responsibilities.
• Transparency: continued updates with City management and City Council to review progress.

Finance Director Yuen added that while this rating withdrawal is a setback, it is also an opportunity to strengthen our financial reporting processes. We are committed to full transparency and to restoring the City’s credit standing as swiftly as possible.

After council questions, no public comment, and council discussion, staff was directed to provide an update on the progress January 2026.

L. Consider Submitting the Quarry Road Recreational Trail Project for a Priority Conservation Area Grant
Assistant City Manager reported that, as advised by the Open Space and Ecology Committee, the Quarry Road Recreational Trail Project was found to be the most competitive for the Priority Conservation Area Grant. This grant is funded by the One Bay Area Grant Program and administered by the San Francisco Estuary Partnership
The Quarry Road Recreational Trail Project (Quarry Road Trail) would provide a safe route to school and focus on including easier bicycle access. It connects to Crocker Trail and provides access to nearby transit and shuttle stops. The Quarry Road Trail provides a walking route connecting Central Brisbane to Crocker Industrial Park and the Northeast Ridge. It also provides trail access by connecting with Army Road and leads to Buckeye and Owl Canyon trailheads.

The Quarry Road Recreational Trail Project addresses water drainage, flooding, and stormwater issues. It also would include planting of natives and addressing dying Monterey pine trees. The project would retain roadways for emergency access to the mountain and the school and would assist with erosion control. The Quarry Road Recreational Trail project would protect the wildland-urban interface. It would also include adding benches to make paths age friendly. The proposals full scope of work would be produced in collaboration with the City’s Department of Public Works, Community Development, and Parks & Recreation.

After council question with staff, Chris Florkwoski asked if the grant included the community garden and recommended to include improved integration of the community garden in the Grant.

After council discussion, Councilmember O’Connell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Davis, to submit the Quarry Road Recreational Trail Project for a Priority Conservation Area Grant. The motion passed unanimously by all present.

Ayes: Councilmembers Davis, Kern, Mackin, O’Connell and Mayor Lentz Noes: None
8 B.

City Council Meeting Minutes
November 6, 2025

Page 5 ends

Absent: None
Abstain: None

STAFF REPORTS
M. City Manager’s Report- City Updates and Upcoming Activities City Manager Dennis reported on upcoming City events and activities in November.

MAYOR/COUNCIL MATTERS
N. City Council Meeting Schedule and Interviews for Commission/Committee Recruitment City Clerk reported that 20 applications were received for open seats in the City’s commissions and committees, but no applications were submitted for the Community Garden steward recruitment.

Staff was directed by Council to mail a letter to community members who have a community garden plot to advertise the community garden steward opening. They also directed staff to reach and determine whether they are still interested in having a garden plot.

Council directed staff to schedule interviews on December 1st and December 2nd as well as December 9th for a special meeting to discuss best practices.

O. Countywide Assignments and Subcommittee Reports
i. Report Out on Subcommittee Meetings
Councilmembers reported on their subcommittee activities and countywide meetings. Councilmember Mackin noted for the record that the ad hoc committee had settled on a consultant to perform the City Manager evaluation.
ii. Upcoming Subcommittee Meetings
Councilmember Davis made a request for the History Subcommittee to meet before the end of the year. iii. Housing Subcommittee Temporary Alternate Selection – Conflict of Interest Issue regarding review of Visitacion Gardens Management RFP
HEART submitted a proposal for the Visitacion Gardens Management RFP. Mayor Lentz is a HEART board member and cannot review the proposal. Councilmember Kern volunteered to be the Housing Subcommittee’s Temporary alternate section for the Visitacion Garden’s Management RFP.

P. Written Communications
Written communication was received from the following members of the public:

St. John (10-27-25) Police Protection Against ICE Harassment Florkowski (10-26-25) Old County Road Bike Lane Implementation Ebel (10-25-25) Tis a Pity
9 B.

City Council Meeting Minutes
November 6, 2025

Page 6 ends

Stevensen (10-30-25) Quarry
Matschke (11-4-25) Nor Cal Carpenters Union Position Letter Conway (11-1-25) ACA Has An Absolute Bombshell Hidden in It and Dems Can Take Advantage Of It ORAL COMMUNICATIONS NO. 2
No member of the public wished to make public comment.

ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Lentz adjourned the meeting at 8:31 P.M.

Ingrid Padilla
City Clerk
10 B.

File Attachments for Item:

C. Approve Minutes of City Council Closed Session Meeting of November 6, 2025 11 BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL

ACTION MINUTES

CITY COUNCIL CLOSED SESSION MEETING AGENDA
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2025
HYBRID MEETING, 50 PARK PLACE LARGE CONFERENCE ROOM,
BRISBANE, CA 94005
6:00 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: Bhandal, pursuant to Government Code, section 54956.95 E. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Government Code, Section 54956.9 (d). Number of Cases: One Mayor Lentz called the meeting to order at 6:01 P.M.

Councilmember O’Connell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kern to approve the Closed Session Meeting agenda as it stands. The motion passed unanimously by all present.

Ayes: Councilmembers Davis, Kern, Mackin, O’Connell and Mayor Lentz Noes: None

Absent: None
Abstain: None
There was no public comment. Mayor Lentz adjourned the meeting into Closed Session.

REPORT OUT OF CLOSED SESSION
City Attorney McMorrow reported that Councilmembers provided direction to staff on the Liability claim Item D and the Anticipated Litigation Item E.

ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:27 P.M.
12 Ingrid Padilla, City Clerk
C.

File Attachments for Item:

D. Adopt Ordinance, Waiving Second Reading, to Adopt the 2025 California Building Standards Code with Local Amendments and to Find That This Ordinance Categorically Exempt from Environmental Review Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15308, Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment
13 Ordinance Adoption Page 1 of 1

CITY COUNCIL MEMO
Meeting Date: November 20, 2025
From: Ingrid Padilla, City Clerk
Subject: Adopt Ordinance, Waiving Second Reading, to Adopt the 2025 California Building Standards Code with Local Amendments and to Find That This Ordinance Categorically Exempt from Environmental Review Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15308, Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment
The Ordinance listed above was introduced at the City Council Meeting of November 6, 2025. It is on this agenda for consideration of adoption.

Attachment: Staff Report from the City Council Meeting of November 6, 2025 1 14
D.
2025 California Building Standards Codes Ordinance

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: November 6, 2025
From: John Swiecki, Community Development Director
Subject: Introduce draft ordinance adopting the 2025 California Building Standards Code with local amendments and finding that this Ordinance categorically exempt from environmental review under CEQA Guidelines Section 15308, Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment.

Recommendation
Staff recommend introduction of the ordinance adopting the most recent version of the California Building Standards Codes (Code of Regulations, Title 24 or CBC) and the International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC), including local amendments to the CBC, readopting previous reach codes, and amending the Brisbane Municipal Code (BMC).

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 BMC. A city may also adopt local modifications to these codes based on certain findings. Whether or not a city elects to adopt the State codes by local ordinance, the State codes automatically become effective January 1, 2026.

The last Code adoption cycle was in 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 also amended other chapters within Title 15 of the BMC to adopt local “reach codes” pertaining to fire protection, building electrification, and electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure.

This draft ordinance was prepared collaboratively between the Planning, Building, Public Works and Fire Departments and in consultation with the City Attorney.

Discussion
Building Code and Property Maintenance Code Adoption: The proposed ordinance would adopt the following construction codes by updating BMC Chapter 15.04, Adoption of Construction Codes:

1. 2025 California Administrative Code, Title 24, Part 1. 2 15
D.
2025 California Building Standards Codes Ordinance

2. 2025 California Building Code, Volumes 1 and 2, based on the 2024 International Building Code (ICC), Title 24, Part 2, including Appendix G Flood Resistant Construction, Appendix I Patio Covers, and Appendix J Grading.

3. 2025 California Residential Code, based on the 2024 Edition International Residential Code (ICC), Title 24, Part 2.5, including Appendix BF Patio Covers, Appendix BO Existing Building and Structures, Appendix BG Sound Transmission, and Appendix CI Swimming Pool Safety Act.

4. 2025 California Electrical Code, based on the 2023 Edition National Electric Code with California Amendments as published by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), Title 24, Part 3.

5. 2025 California Mechanical Code, based on the 2024 Uniform Mechanical Code as published by the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials (IAPMO), including all appendix chapters, Title 24, Part 4.

6. 2025 California Plumbing Code, based upon the 2024 Uniform Plumbing Code as published by the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials (IAPMO), including all appendix chapters, Title 24, Part 5.

7. 2025 California Energy Code, Title 24, Part 6.

8. 2025 California Wildland-Urban Interface Code, Title 24, Part 7

9. 2025 California Historical Building Code, Title 24, Part 8.

9. 2025 California Fire Code, Title 24, Part 9, and modifications thereof, see Chapter

15.44 of this title.

10. 2025 California Existing Building Code based on the 2024 International Existing Building Code Edition, published by the International Code Council, together with those omissions, amendments, exceptions and additions thereto as amended in Part 10 of the California Building Standards Code, California Code of Regulations Title 24.

11. 2025 California Green Building Standards Code, Title 24, Part 11.

12. 2025 California Referenced Standards Code, Title 24, Part 12.

Additionally, in order to keep current with property maintenance provisions, it is recommended that the 2024 International Property Maintenance Code be adopted to replace the 2021 edition.

As indicated above, adoption of the above referenced codes would allow the City to enforce these codes under the authority of the BMC.

Energy and Reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reach Codes: To supplement the updated State codes noted above, it is proposed that the City maintain previously adopted local modifications, known as “reach codes”, to address local fire hazards as well as energy efficiency and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The table below identifies the City’s existing reach codes related to energy and GHG reductions and summarizes staff’s proposed action. 3 16
D.
2025 California Building Standards Codes Ordinance
Recent state legislation (AB 130) limits cities’ abilities to enact new reach codes applicable to residential structures, but readoption of existing reach codes or modifications that are substantially equivalent to codes in effect prior to September 30, 2025 are permitted.

Reach Code Recommended Action
2024 New Buildings Energy
Performance (BMC Ch 15.83)
Retain/readopt with minor updates to compliance
margins (building efficiency scores) at a future date
(updates expected in Q1 2026)
2019 EV Charging Infrastructure
(BMC Ch 15.84)
Retain/readopt with no modifications
BMC Chapter 15.83 - New Buildings Energy Performance: This reach code is still considered a reasonable prescriptive reach code, however, new, updated compliance margins will not be released until 2026, therefore no action is required at this time and an update is not a part of the draft ordinance.

The City adopted BMC Chapter 15.83 in the summer of 2024 as part of a mid-cycle update to the 2022 CBC. It increased the required score of specific energy metrics that are calculated for every new building under the California 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 costeffectively achievable through the energy code’s performance pathway without requiring appliances that exceed federal efficiency standards.

This reach code amends the Energy Code (Part 6 of the CBC), requiring the City to file an application to the California Energy Commission to demonstrate that any local amendments are cost effective and would save more energy than those required by the State. This is done by submitting a detailed cost effectiveness study to the State. The City’s application in 2024 was approved by the Energy Commission and it is expected the State will again approve the City’s local amendments to the 2025 California Energy Code.

BMC Chapter 15.84 - EV Charging Infrastructure: This reach code is still considered a reasonable prescriptive reach code (see Section 1 of the draft ordinance).

The City readopted BMC Chapter 15.84 during the last cycle in 2022 and made a minor update to it in 2024. It requires specific EV chargers and EV parking spaces in new development projects. This reach code remains stronger than the new 2025 CBC and consistent with EV reach codes proposed by the Bay Area Reach Codes Coalition. This reach code is recommended to be retained and readopted without revision.

Fire Code, BMC Chapter 15.44: Since 2007, the City has adopted local modifications to the Fire Code that address items such as automatic fire sprinklers on certain structures, fire access turnarounds on dead end roads, removal of combustible materials from property, limitations on storage of explosives and flammable liquids, and other provisions. Local modifications to the 4 17
D.
2025 California Building Standards Codes Ordinance
Fire Code are again proposed in BMC Chapter 15.44 of the attached draft ordinance. In this cycle, there are no substantive changes to the previously approved modifications. Fire Code amendments are included as Section 5 of the draft ordinance.

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.

In the past, the City has made such findings for local modifications to the Fire and Building Codes based on Brisbane’s heavily vegetated hillsides; narrow, steep public streets and private access-ways; proximity to the San Andreas Fault; exposure to strong winds; and location immediately adjacent to protected habitat conservation areas subject to wildland fires. While the findings for our reach codes have been made in past years, they must be repeated again as part of this Ordinance;. These findings are presented in Section 1 of the draft ordinance.

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
Attachments

1. Draft Ordinance adopting the 2025 California Building Standards Code with local amendments
___________________________________ ___________________________________ John Swiecki, Community Development Director Jeremy Dennis, City Manager 5 18
D.
11/6/2025 City Council Meeting ATTACHMENT 1

Page 1 of 18 ends

ORDINANCE NO. _____

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BRISBANE
TO AMEND BRISBANE MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 15 - BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION, CHAPTER 15.04 - ADOPTION OF CONSTRUCTION CODES AND
CHAPTER 15.44 - FIRE PREVENTION CODE, ADOPTING THE 2025 CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS CODES AND THE 2024 INTERNATIONAL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, WITH CERTAIN LOCAL MODIFICATIONS.

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

SECTION 1: The City Council finds and determines that:

A. The 2025 Edition of the California Building Code (CBC) becomes effective state-wide on January 1, 2026 and City’s adoption of the CBC is necessary in that it allows for enforcement of the CBC under existing and subsequently adopted enforcement provisions of the Brisbane Municipal Code.

B. The City adopted a Climate Action Plan on September 17, 2015, which includes the goal of reducing carbon emissions from fossil fuels to help curb global warming. Methods include increasing substituting renewable energy for fossil fuel energy sources. The following are primary means to reduce fossil fuel emissions:

1. Building electrification versus use of fossil fuels.

2. Power generation via solar energy.

3. Reduction in the fossil fuel emissions from transportation C. California Health and Safety Code Sections 17922, 17958, 17958.5, 17958.7, and 18941.5 authorize the City to make local amendments to the provisions in the California Building Standards Code upon express findings that the local amendments are reasonably necessary due to local climatic, geological, topographical, and/or environmental conditions.

D. California Health and Safety Code Section 17958(b), amended June 30, 2025, prohibits a city or county from making changes or modifications applicable to residential units in the provisions pursuant to Section 17922 and published in the California Building Standards Code or the other regulations thereafter adopted pursuant to Section 17922 or make changes or modifications in those requirements upon express findings pursuant to Sections 17958.5 and 17958.7, unless one of six specific criteria is met. The following is noted:

1. This ordinance contains reach codes and local amendments to the CBC that are applicable to residential units.

2. The City has previously adopted local amendments and reach codes applicable to residential units that were in effect prior to September 30, 2025.

3. There are no significant or substantive changes to the City of Brisbane’s previously adopted local amendments and reach codes applicable to residential units contained within this ordinance.

4. Pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 17958(b)(1), the changes or modifications contained within this ordinance are substantially equivalent to local amendments that were previously adopted and filed by the City of Brisbane City Council, were in effect prior to September 30, 2025, and therefore may be readopted. 6 19
D.
11/6/2025 City Council Meeting ATTACHMENT 1

Page 2 of 18 ends

E. By reason of the following climatic, geological, topographical, and environmental conditions, summarized in Exhibit A attached and incorporated to this ordinance, it is necessary to adopt certain local amendments to the CBC in order to provide a high level of fire, health, and life safety for all persons who live and work within the City of Brisbane and to adequately protect both public and private property within the City:

1. The City of Brisbane is located along the eastern slope of San Bruno Mountain, immediately adjacent to a protected habitat conservation area which is subject to wildland fires due to existing vegetation and a temperate climate with dry summer months. These factors create a substantial safety hazard to nearby residences and the natural environment.

The City’s existing development and vacant sites along eastern slope of San Bruno Mountain may be subject to slope movement resulting in potential hazards related to slope stability.

2. The City regularly experiences strong winds, with average velocities ranging from approximately 15 to 25 miles per hour and reaching high velocities of 70 miles per hour and these winds may significantly contribute to the spread of fire and increase the difficulty of fire suppression in the City or otherwise impact structures, such as patio covers.

3. 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.

4. Certain hillside areas of the City contain narrow, winding streets, with steep grades and congested parking and traffic, making access difficult for fire apparatus and equipment in the event of an emergency. Numerous dwellings located within the upper hillsides can only be reached by means of private access ways which may not be adequately constructed or maintained for access by Fire Department vehicles.

5. Brisbane’s small residential lots on steep hillsides pose hazards of accidents associated with swimming pools due to the close proximity between the swimming pools and residences.

6. Brisbane has a predominance of small lots, with many being in range of 2,500 to 5,000 square feet, and sound transmission from one lot can readily impact neighboring lots. The close proximity of the lots on steep topography could also exacerbate the impacts in the event of a structural or grading failure.

7. The City’s topography, combined with its proximity to U.S. Interstate 101, which runs through its eastern edge, and its proximity to San Francisco International Airport (SFO), located approximately 2 to 3 miles to the south, results in sound transmission from these sources throughout the City.

8. Brisbane has a large number of existing older buildings and structures, many of which were built without the benefit of building codes being in effect at the time, and the specific climatic, geological, and topographic conditions combine to create hazardous conditions to these structures.

9. 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. Construction of energy efficient 7 20
D.
11/6/2025 City Council Meeting ATTACHMENT 1

Page 3 of 18 ends

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.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. Electricity supplied by Peninsula Clean Energy is exceedingly clean and will become cleaner over time as the broader grid meets more stringent Renewable Portfolio Standard requirements and translate the clean energy benefits to electric vehicles and all-electric buildings.

F. In 2024, Brisbane adopted an energy and GHG emissions reach code, which included provisions for energy performance standardsin new construction, known as the City of Brisbane New Building Energy Performance Reach Code (Ordinance # 691), and the following is noted:

1. The City of Brisbane New Building Energy Performance Reach Code amended the 2022 California Energy Code.

2. 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.

3. Scientific evidence has established that natural gas combustion, procurement and transportation produce significant greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warming and climate change.

4. This Reach code is 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.

5. 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.

6. 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 8 21
D.
11/6/2025 City Council Meeting ATTACHMENT 1

Page 4 of 18 ends

performance of electrical systems and the project can take full advantage of avoided costs and space requirements from the elimination of natural gas piping and venting for combustion air safety.

7. By reason of express findings summarized in Exhibit A, it is necessary to reaffirm adoption of Brisbane’s 2024 New Building Energy Performance Reach Code again, as soon as new performance standards are released.

8. Pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 17958(b)(1), the changes or modifications contained within the City of Brisbane New Building Energy Performance Reach Code are substantially equivalent to local amendments that were previously adopted and filed by the City of Brisbane City Council, were in effect prior to September 30, 2025, and therefore may be readopted.

G. In 2019, Brisbane adopted an energy and GHG emissions reach code, which included EV charger and EV parking regulations for new development projects, known as the City of Brisbane Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Ordinance. It was readopted in 2022 (Ordinance #675) and minor amendments were made adopted in 2024 (Ordinance # 691); the following is noted:

1. 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.

2. The provisions within Brisbane’s EV Infrastructure Ordinance exceed the EV infrastructure provisions required by the 2025 California Building Standards Code as well as the latest EV infrastructure reach codes proposed by the Bay Area Reach Codes Coalition.

3. By reason of express findings E.13 and E.14 noted above, it is necessary to reaffirm adoption of Brisbane’s amended 2019 Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Ordinance again in 2025.

4. Pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 17958(b)(1), the changes or modifications contained within the City of Brisbane Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Ordinance are substantially equivalent to local amendments that were previously adopted and filed by the City of Brisbane City Council, were in effect prior to September 30, 2025, and therefore may be readopted.

SECTION 2: Section 15.04.010 of the Brisbane Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:

15.04.010 Purpose and authority.

The purpose of this chapter is to adopt by reference the 2025 Edition of the California Building Standards Code, Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations. This chapter is also adopted to provide minimum requirements and standards for the protection of the public safety, health, property and welfare of the City of Brisbane. This chapter is adopted under the authority of Government Code Section 38660 and Section 50022.2 and Health and Safety Code Section 18941.5.

SECTION 3: Section 15.04.040 of the Brisbane Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:

15.04.040 Adoption of construction codes.
9 22
D.
11/6/2025 City Council Meeting ATTACHMENT 1

Page 5 of 18 ends

A. Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, 2025 Edition of the California Building Standards Code, is hereby adopted by reference and incorporated in this code, including the following parts:

1. 2025 California Administrative Code, Title 24, Part 1.

4. 2025 California Electrical Code, based on the 2023 Edition National Electric Code as published by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), Title 24, Part 3.

7. 2025 California Energy Code, Title 24, Part 6.

8. 2025 California Historical Building Code, Title 24, Part 8.

9. 2025 California Wildland-Urban Interface Code, Title 24, Part 7

10. 2025 California Fire Code, Title 24, Part 9, and modifications thereof, see Chapter 15.44 of this title.

11. 2025 California Existing Building Code based on the 2024 International Existing Building Code Edition, published by the International Code Council, together with those omissions, amendments, exceptions and additions thereto as amended in Part 10 of the California Building Standards Code, California Code of Regulations Title 24.

12. 2025 California Green Building Standards Code, Title 24, Part 11.

13. 2025 California Referenced Standards Code, Title 24, Part 12.

B. The 2024 International Property Maintenance Code is hereby adopted by reference and incorporated in this code.

SECTION 4: Section 15.04.043 of the Brisbane Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:

15.04.043 Amendments to the California Building Standards Code The 2025 California Building Code (CBC), California Residential Code (CRC), and the 2024 International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC) are hereby amended as follows:
(Subsections A through J, no change).

SECTION 5: Chapter 15.44. of the Brisbane Municipal Code is amended by deleting the existing text and replaced with the following:

Chapter 15.44 FIRE PREVENTION CODE
10 23
D.
11/6/2025 City Council Meeting ATTACHMENT 1

Page 6 of 18 ends

15.44.010 Adoption of fire prevention code.

The Fire Prevention Code for the City of Brisbane shall be the 2024 Edition of the International Fire Code and the 2025 Edition of the California Fire Code, including Appendices B, C, D, F, and L (collectively, hereinafter referred to as the "Fire Code"), as promulgated by the International Code Council, and the same is hereby adopted and incorporated herein by reference, subject to the modifications as contained in this Chapter 15.44. Two (2) copies of the fire code have been filed for use and examination by the public, one copy being located at Brisbane City Hall and the other copy being located at the fire administration office.

15.44.020 Title of chapter.

This chapter shall be known as the "fire prevention code of the city" for the administration and enforcement of the fire code.

15.44.030 Section 104.3 amended—Applications and permits.

Section 104.3 of the fire code is amended by adding the following paragraphs at the end of said section:

Except as otherwise determined by the Fire Marshall, plans submitted in support of an application for a building permit to construct all buildings or structures within the City of Brisbane shall be submitted to the Fire Department for review and approval to determine conformance with applicable fire and life safety requirements.

No portion of any equipment intended to be covered by earth or by enclosure within permanent portions of a building or structure shall be enclosed until inspected and approved by the Fire Marshal, or appointed Fire Department staff. An inspection shall be requested prior to covering or enclosing of any such equipment. Such request shall be made not less than forty-eight (48) hours prior to the estimated time of the desired inspection.

15.44.040 Section 105.6.26 added—Permit fees.

Section 105.6.26 is added to the fire code, to read as follows:
105.6.26 Permit fees. The Fire Department shall be authorized to charge such fees and costs for services performed pursuant to the Fire Code as may be established from time to time by ordinance or resolution of the City Council.

15.44.050 Section 503.2.5 amended—Dead ends.

Section 503.2.5 of the fire code is amended by adding the following paragraph to the end of said section:

Dead-end fire apparatus access roads in excess of one hundred fifty feet (150′) in length shall be provided with a minimum turnaround clear radius of fifty-two feet (52′), or other turnaround as approved by the Fire Marshal.

15.44.060 Section 503.3 amended—Marking.

Section 503.3 of the fire code is amended by adding the following paragraph to the end of said section:

Where fire lanes on private property have been designated by the Fire Marshal, curbs shall be painted red on the side or sides of the street or access route where parking is prohibited and no parking signs or other appropriate notice prohibiting obstructions, as approved by the Fire Marshal, shall be provided and maintained by the owner. No parking signs shall read as follows:

FIRE LANE
11 24
D.
11/6/2025 City Council Meeting ATTACHMENT 1

Page 7 of 18 ends

NO PARKING OR STOPPING
CVC SEC. 22500.1

PARKED VEHICLES MAY BE TOWED

AT VEHICLE OWNER'S EXPENSE

15.44.070 Section 507.5.7 added—Fire hydrants and water supply.

Section 507.5.7 is added to the fire code, to read as follows:
507.5.7 Hydrants. All new fire hydrants shall be UL listed, or equivalent, wet barrel type having a minimum of two 2 ½" and one 4 ½" outlets, all equipped with national standard threads (Clow 860, or approved equivalent). The minimum fire service main size permitted is six inches (6").

15.44.080 Section 903 amended—Automatic sprinkler systems.

Section 903 of the fire code is amended in its entirety to read as follows:
903 Automatic fire extinguishing systems.
(a) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this code or any other code or ordinance of the City of Brisbane, automatic fire sprinkler systems, approved by the fire marshal, shall be installed in the following buildings and structures that are classified as new construction:

1. For all occupancies except R-3 occupancies: Any new building or structure, regardless of size, except stand alone, uninhabitable buildings, garages and sheds having a floor area of less than four hundred (400) square feet.

2. For all R-3 occupancies: Any new single-family or duplex structure, excluding any detached accessory structure that does not constitute habitable space having a floor area of less than four hundred (400) square feet.
(b) When additions or alterations made to an existing building fall within the requirements under Brisbane Municipal Code Chapter 15.10, an automatic fire sprinkler system shall be provided for the entire building.
(c) Other Areas. An automatic fire sprinkler system shall be installed in all garbage compartments, rubbish and linen chutes, linen rooms, incinerator compartments, dumb waiter shafts, and storage rooms when located in all occupancies except Group R, Division

3. An accessible indicating shut off valve shall also be installed. (d) Condominium Conversions. An automatic fire sprinkler system shall be installed for all condominium conversions.
(e) Where automatic fire sprinkler systems are required to be installed, the following additional requirements shall also be satisfied, as applicable:

1. A minimum of three (3) copies of plans and specifications for automatic sprinkler installations, plus water supply calculations, shall be provided to the fire department for review and approval prior to commencement of the installation work.

2. All required automatic sprinkler systems shall be approved by the fire department.

3. All acceptance tests and such periodic tests as required by the fire marshal or pursuant to NFPA Pamphlets No. 13, 13D, 13R and/or Subchapter 5, Title 19, California Code of Regulations, shall be conducted and, where applicable, witnessed by a representative of the fire department.
12 25
D.
11/6/2025 City Council Meeting ATTACHMENT 1

Page 8 of 18 ends

4. An approved exterior visual fire alarm device may be required for buildings that have numerous fire department connections (FDCs). Type and locations will be determined by the fire department. Such visual alarm devices are not to replace the exterior audible device, but to assist fire suppression personnel as to location(s) of systems which require pumping operations.

15.44.090 Section 5608.1 amended—Fireworks prohibited.

Section 5608.1 of the fire code is amended by adding the following paragraph to the end of the first paragraph:

The possession, storage, sale, use or discharge of fireworks including California State Fire Marshal approved "safe and sane" fireworks are prohibited within the City of Brisbane.

15.44.100 Section 904.2 amended—Where required.

Section 904.2 of the fire code is amended by adding the following subsection after subsection 904.2.2 Commercial hood and duct systems:
904.2.3 Floor markings. The location(s) of all cooking appliances that are protected by an approved automatic fire extinguishing system shall be permanently identified either by a wall mounted "approved" appliance floor plan or marked on the floor in a manner approved by the Fire Marshal.

15.44.110 Section 907.8.1 amended—Maintenance required.

Section 907.8.1 of the fire code is amended by adding the following paragraph at the end of said section:

Owners and operators of group R-1 occupancies shall provide documentation to the Fire Department, such as annual inspection forms, which confirm that all smoke detection devices and equipment within apartment units are installed and are in good operating condition.

15.44.120 Section 304.1.5 added—Removal of invasive species, waste materials and combustible vegetation.

Section 304.1.5 is added to the fire code, to read as follows:
304.1.4 Removal of invasive species, waste materials and combustible vegetation. (a) For purposes of this Section 301.1.5, the following definitions apply:
"Invasive species" means any plant species that is non-native to the ecosystem under consideration and whose introduction causes, or is likely to cause, economic or environmental harm to human health.
"Person" shall mean an owner of any property within the City of Brisbane excepting the City of Brisbane, the Successor Agency of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Brisbane and the Brisbane Housing Authority.
"Well maintained" means property that is maintained in such a way as to prevent a fire from rapidly spreading including, but not limited to, appropriately watered lawns, ground cover plants, and ornamental shrubbery and trees that are sufficiently spaced, pruned, and free of all dead or dying material.
(b) Notice to Remove. The Division of Fire Prevention is authorized to notify any person owning property within the City of Brisbane or its jurisdiction, or the agent of such person, to properly dispose of invasive species and such wastepaper, hay, grass, straw, weeds, litter, combustible or flammable waste, brush, waste petroleum products, blackberry vines and other growth or rubbish of any kind located on such person's property which is dangerous 13 26
D.
11/6/2025 City Council Meeting ATTACHMENT 1

Page 9 of 18 ends

to public safety, health or welfare or is deemed a fire hazard by the Division of Fire Prevention. Such notice shall inform the person or the person's agent that should the invasive species, wastepaper, hay, grass, straw, weeds, flammable vegetation, brush, litter, combustible or flammable waste, waste petroleum products, blackberry vines and other growth or rubbish of any kind not be removed as required, then it will be removed by the City and the cost of said removal shall in accordance with this chapter be assessed as a lien on the property, to be collected with the next regular tax bill.

Such notice shall be by certified mail, addressed to the person owning the property at the person's last known address, as revealed by the tax rolls, and such additional address as may be known by the Division of Fire Prevention.
(c) Action Upon Non-compliance. Upon failure, neglect or refusal of any person owning property or the person's agent so notified to properly dispose of invasive species and such wastepaper, hay, grass, straw, weeds, litter, combustible or flammable waste, brush, waste petroleum products, blackberry vines or other growth or rubbish of any kind dangerous to the public health, safety and welfare within fifteen (15) days after receipt of written notice provided for in subsection (b) above, or within fifteen (15) days after the date of such notice in the event the same is returned to the Division of Fire Prevention because of its inability to make delivery thereof, provided the same was properly addressed to the last known address of such person or agent, as provided in subsection (b) of this section, the Division of Fire Prevention is hereby authorized to refer this non-compliance to the City Manager to have the City pay for disposing of such invasive species, wastepaper, hay, grass, straw, weeds, litter, combustible or flammable waste, brush, waste petroleum products, blackberry vines and other growth or rubbish that endangers property or is liable to be fired. (d) Charge Included in Tax Bill. When the City has effected the removal of dangerous or hazardous conditions from property as noted in subsection (b) or has paid for its removal, the actual cost thereof, plus accrued interest at the rate of ten percent (10%) per annum from the date of the completion of the work, if not paid for by such person prior thereto, shall be charged to the person owning such property on the next regular tax bill forwarded to such person, and said charge shall be due and payable by said person at the time of payment of such bill.
(e) Property Including Buildings, Structures and Acreage Maintained.

1. Any person who owns, leases, controls, operates or maintains any building or structure in, upon, or adjoining any mountainous area or forest-covered lands, brush-covered lands or grass covered lands, or any land covered with flammable material shall maintain around and adjacent to such building or structure a fire break for a distance of not less than thirty (30) feet or to the property line, whichever shall be less.

2. Any person who owns unimproved acreage that is two acres or less shall maintain a one hundred (100) foot fire break around the perimeter of such acreage. Any person who owns unimproved acreage that is more than two acres, but less than four acres shall maintain a one hundred (100) foot clearance along each property line and a one hundred (100) foot crosscut break such that there is one hundred (100) feet of clearance around every three acres, Any person who owns unimproved acreage four acres or greater shall maintain a one hundred (100) foot clearance along each property line and a one hundred (100) foot crosscut break every three acres. Trees within the 100-foot clearance or within the crosscut break (i) that are less than six feet in height shall be removed entirely from the acreage, (ii) that are ten feet in height or greater must be limbed such that the lowest limb is not less than six (6) feet from the ground, and (iii) that are dead shall be removed completely from the acreage. 14 27
D.
11/6/2025 City Council Meeting ATTACHMENT 1

Page 10 of 18 ends

3. Within the areas described in paragraph 2 of subsection (e), dead or dying grass shall be mowed to a maximum of four inches in height, brush shall be cut to within several inches of the surface and vegetation shall be well maintained. (f) The Fire Chief or the Fire Chief's designee has the discretion to direct the maintenance requirements of subsection (e) or to modify the requirements of subsection (e) due to terrain or environmental concerns.
(g) Notwithstanding that a person has taken action to remove the flammable materials described in subsection (b), if flammable materials re-occur on the property, such person shall remove such materials as provided in this section. (h) Remedies Cumulative. The remedies set forth in this section are in addition to any other remedies available to the City as set forth in its ordinances and resolutions and the statutes of the State of California.
(i) Other Regulations. In addition to the remedies set forth herein, the City Council may adopt such other additional, appropriate resolutions and ordinances establishing procedures and regulations for the regulation, control and abatement of invasive species, waste materials, weeds and other matters constituting a fire and/or safety hazard. The City Manager or the City Manager's designee may promulgate regulations to implement and carry out the purposes of this Ordinance, Other regulations concerning vegetation management and fire prevention apply to properties within the San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan Area, including the need for a person engaging in vegetation management and fire prevention to obtain a permit from the County of San Mateo before engaging in such activity."

15.44.130 Section 710 added—Roof coverings.

Section 710 is added to the fire code, to read as follows:
710 Roof coverings. Roof coverings on all buildings shall be fire retardant non-wood materials and shall comply with the standards of the California Building Code, Class A or B, prepared or builtup roofing. Re-roofing of existing buildings which occurs within any twelve (12) month period shall comply with the foregoing requirement if the re-roofing involves fifty percent (50%) or more of the roof area in the case of a non-wood roof or ten percent (10%) or more of the roof area in the case of a wood roof.

15.44.140 Section 5301.1 amended—Scope.

Section 5301.1 of the fire code is amended by adding the following paragraph at the end of the first paragraph:

The storage of compressed natural gas is prohibited in all areas of the City except for the following subareas as identified in the General Plan for the City of Brisbane: Northeast Bayshore, Southeast Bayshore, Crocker Park, Beatty, and the Baylands when the storage container or tank is located at least 200 (two hundred) feet from the closest property line of a property occupied by a residence or school. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Fire Marshal may grant a permit for storage of compressed natural gas in other areas of the City if the Fire Marshal determines, in each case, that the storage is required for the conduct of a lawful use upon the property, will not constitute a safety hazard, and will otherwise comply with all applicable provisions of this Code and all other ordinances, rules and regulations of the City. The Fire Marshal may impose such conditions and requirements upon the issuance of the permit as the Fire Marshal deems necessary or appropriate.

15.44.150 Section 5601.2 amended—General.
15 28
D.
11/6/2025 City Council Meeting ATTACHMENT 1

Page 11 of 18 ends

Section 5601.2 of the fire code is amended by adding the following paragraph at the end of said section:

The storage of explosives and blasting agents is prohibited in all areas of the City, except that the Fire Marshal may grant a permit to allow such storage if the Fire Marshal determines, in each case, that the storage is required for the conduct of a lawful use upon the property, will not constitute a safety hazard, and will otherwise comply with all applicable provisions of this Code and all other ordinances, rules and regulations of the City. The Fire Marshal may impose such conditions and requirements upon the issuance of the permit as the Fire Marshal deems necessary or appropriate.

15.44.160 Section 5704.1 amended—General.

Section 5704.1 of the fire code is amended by adding the following paragraph at the end of said section:

The storage of flammable or combustible liquids in outside aboveground tanks is prohibited in all areas of the City except for the following subareas as identified in the General Plan for the City of Brisbane: Northeast Bayshore, Southeast Bayshore, Crocker Park, Beatty, and the Baylands when the storage container or tank is located at least 200 (two hundred) feet from the closest property line of a property occupied by a residence or school. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Fire Marshal may grant a permit for such storage in other areas of the City if the Fire Marshal determines, in each case, that the storage is required for the conduct of a lawful use upon the property, will not constitute a safety hazard, and will otherwise comply with all applicable provisions of this Code and all other ordinances, rules and regulations of the City. The Fire Marshal may impose such conditions and requirements upon the issuance of the permit as the Fire Marshal deems necessary or appropriate.

15.44.170 Section 6104.2 amended—Maximum capacity within established limits.

Section 6104.2 of the fire code is amended by adding the following paragraph at the end of the first paragraph of said section:

The aggregate storage of liquefied petroleum gas at any one installation in excess of five hundred (500) gallons (1893 L) is prohibited in all areas of the City except for the following subareas as identified in the General Plan for the City of Brisbane: Northeast Bayshore, Southeast Bayshore, Crocker Park, Beatty, and the Baylands when the storage container or tank is located at least 200 (two hundred) feet from the closest property line of a property occupied by a residence or school.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Fire Marshal may grant a permit for such storage in other areas of the City if the Fire Marshal determines, in each case, that the storage is required for the conduct of a lawful use upon the property, will not constitute a safety hazard, and will otherwise comply with all applicable provisions of this Code and all other ordinances, rules and regulations of the City. The Fire Marshal may impose such conditions and requirements upon the issuance of the permit as the Fire Marshal deems necessary or appropriate.

15.44.180 Section 914.3.9 added—Firefighter breathing air replenishment system.

Section 914 of the fire code is amended by adding the following paragraph:

Section 914.3.9 Firefighter breathing air replenishment system. All Group B and Group R occupancies, each having floors used for human occupancy located more than seventy-five feet (75') above the lowest level of fire department vehicular access, shall be equipped with an approved rescue air replenishment system as per Appendix L. Such a system shall provide an adequate pressurized fresh air supply through a permanent piping system for the replenishment of portable life sustaining air equipment carried by fire department, rescue, and other personnel in the performance of their duties. Location and specifications or access stations to, and the installation of, such air replenishment systems shall be in accordance with the requirements of the fire chief. 16 29
D.
11/6/2025 City Council Meeting ATTACHMENT 1

Page 12 of 18 ends

15.44.190 Section 903.2.22 added—Sprinkler protection of car stackers.

Section 903.2.22 of the fire code is added to read:

Sections 903.2.22 Purpose: To establish requirements for sprinkler protection of car stackers not specifically addressed in NFPA 13.

Section 903.2.22 - Car Stackers
Parking garage areas containing car stackers shall be protected by an automatic wet-pipe sprinkler system designed to Extra Hazard Group 2. In addition, non-extended coverage standard sidewall sprinklers listed for Ordinary Hazard shall be provided under each parking level, including the bottom level if the stacker is provided with a pit. Each sidewall sprinkler shall cover an area of 80 sq. ft. or less.

The area of application may be reduced from the required 2500 sq. ft. to as low as 1500 sq. ft. if

1. 1-hour fire rated walls are provided to separate the car stacker areas from the standard parking stalls,

2. The car stacker areas are divided up into 1500 sq. ft. areas via 1-hour fire rated walls, and

3. One-hour fire rated walls are provided to separate the car stacker areas from any other areas in the garage.

One-hour fired rated walls are not required in the driveway areas. For the hydraulic calculation, flow from all sprinklers, upright or pendent sprinklers at ceiling and all sidewall sprinklers at all levels, located in the area of application shall be included in the calculation.

15.44.193 Amendment to Appendix D of Section D101—Definition—Fire apparatus access road.

Appendix D of the Fire Code is amended by adding Section D101.2 to read as follows:

D101.2—Definition Fire Apparatus Access Road. A road that provides fire apparatus access from a fire station to at facility, building or portion thereof. This is a general term inclusive of all other terms such as but not limited to fire lane, public street, private street, parking lot lane, access roadway and driveway.

15.44.197 Amendment to Appendix D of Section D102—Access road exceptions.

An Exception is added to Appendix D of Section D102 of the fire code to read as follows:

Exception: When a fire department access road cannot be installed due to location on the property, topography, waterways, nonnegotiable grades, or other similar conditions the authority having jurisdiction shall be authorized to require fire protection features in addition to those already required.

15.44.200 Section D102.2 added—Access to exterior door.

Section D102.2 of the fire code is added to read as follows:

Section D102.2 Fire department access shall extend to within 50 feet (15 m) of at least one exterior door that can be opened from the outside and that provides access to the interior of the building.

15.44.210 Section D102.3 added—Large building access.

Section amendment Appendix D Section D102.
17 30
D.
11/6/2025 City Council Meeting ATTACHMENT 1

Page 13 of 18 ends

Section D102.3 of the fire code is added to read as follows:

Large Buildings—Fire department access roads shall be provided such that any portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the first story of the building is located not more than 150 ft. (46 m) from fire department access roads as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building or facility.

15.44.220 Section D102.4 added—Access road clearance.

Section amendment Appendix D Section D102.

Section D102.4 is added to read as follows:

Fire department access roads shall have an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 ft. 6 in. (4.1 m.).

15.44.230 Reserved.

15.44.240 Reserved.

15.44.250 Amendment of Appendix D, Section D103.7 added—Marking.

Appendix D of the fire code is amended by adding Section D103.7 to read:

D103.7—Marking. Where fire lanes on private property have been designated by the Fire Marshal, curbs shall be painted red on the side or sides of the street or access route where parking is prohibited and no parking signs or other appropriate notice prohibiting obstructions, as approved by the Fire Marshal, shall be provided and maintained by the owner.

15.44.260 Violations of fire code—Penalties.

The violation of any of the provisions of the fire code adopted by this chapter, or any permit issued thereunder, shall constitute a misdemeanor, punishable by the fines, penalties and enforcement provisions set forth in Chapters 1.14, 1.16 and 1.18 of this code.

SECTION 6: 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, 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 7. The City Council finds and determines that the adoption of this Ordinance is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15308, Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment.

SECTION 8: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect when the 2025 Edition of the California Building Code becomes effective state-wide on January 1, 2026. * * *
The above and foregoing Ordinance was regularly introduced and after the waiting time required by law, was thereafter passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Brisbane held on the ________ day of ____________________, 2025, by the following vote:
18 31
D.
11/6/2025 City Council Meeting ATTACHMENT 1

Page 14 of 18 ends

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
_____________________________
Mayor Cliff Lentz
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________
City Attorney
19 32
D.
11/6/2025 City Council Meeting ATTACHMENT 1

EXHIBIT A

Page 15 of 18 ends

Exhibit A
Findings Supporting Local Amendments to Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, 2025 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.

Pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 17958(b)(1), the changes or modifications specified below are substantially equivalent to local amendments that were previously adopted and filed by the City of Brisbane City Council, were in effect prior to September 30, 2025, and therefore may be readopted.

Code: California Building Code
Section(s) Title Add Delete Amended Justification
(see Key)
102.6.3 Buildings or structures moved into
city
X B, C
102.7 Additions, Alterations, and Major
Rebuilds to Existing Buildings
X B, C
1505.1.2 Roof coverings within all other
areas other than Fire Hazard
Severity Zones or Wildland-Urban
Interface
X B, C
Appendix G Flood Resistant Construction X B, C
Appendix I Patio Covers X B, C
Appendix J Grading X B, C
Code: California Residential Code
Section(s) Title Add Delete Amended Justification
(see Key)
Appendix BF Patio Covers X B, C
Appendix BO Existing Buildings and Structures X B, C
Appendix BG Sound Transmission X C
Appendix CI Swimming Pool Safety Act X B, C
Code: California Fire Code
Section(s) Title Add Delete Amended Justification
(see Key)
104.3 Application and permits X B, C
105.6.26 Permit fees X B, C
503.2.5 Dead ends X B, C
503.3 Marking X B, C
507.5.7 Fire hydrants and water supply X B, C
20 33
D.
11/6/2025 City Council Meeting ATTACHMENT 1

EXHIBIT A

Page 16 of 18 ends

Code: California Fire Code
Section(s) Title Add Delete Amended Justification
(see Key)
903 Automatic sprinkler systems X B, C
5608.1 Fireworks prohibited X B, C
904.2 Floor markings X B, C
907.8.1 Maintenance required X B, C
304.1.5 Removal of invasive species, waste
materials and combustible
vegetation
X C
710 Roof coverings X B, C
5301.1 Scope (storage of compressed
natural gas)
X B, C
5601.2 General (storage of explosives and
blasting agents)
X B, C
5704.1 General (storage of flammable or
combustible liquids in outside
aboveground tanks)
X B, C
6104.2 Maximum capacity within
established limits
X B, C
914.3.9 Firefighter breathing air
replenishment system
X B, C
903.2.22 Sprinkler protection of car stackers X B, C
D101 Fire apparatus access road
(definition)
X B, C
D102 Access road exceptions X B, C
D102.2 Access to exterior door X B, C
D102.3 Large building access X B, C
D102.4 Access road clearance X B, C
D103.7 Marking X 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. 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.
21 34
D.
11/6/2025 City Council Meeting ATTACHMENT 1

EXHIBIT A

Page 17 of 18 ends

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.

Encouraging all-electric construction without gas infrastructure will reduce the amount of GHG emissions produced in Brisbane.

B. Geological
The local amendments are justified on the basis of local geological conditions in Brisbane. The City is located near the San Andreas Fault and is subject to seismic activity that could result in ground shaking and damage to structures, via shaking, slope failure, and liquefaction and potentially ignite fires throughout the City. A powerfully damaging earthquake similar to the 1906 earthquake or 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake is rare but likely to occur in the next 30 years. Smaller magnitude earthquakes are also likely to occur, potentially producing significant local damage. The reduction of natural gas infrastructure in new buildings would reduce the hazards associated with gas leaks during seismic events.

C. Topographical
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 and is approximately 2 to 3 miles north of the San Francisco International Airport (SFO). The City has both existing development and vacant development sites in flood prone areas as well as areas that may be subject to slope movement in steep areas of the City. Many of the City’s existing residential lots are small, with many being in range of 2,500 to 5,000 square feet, and located on steep hillsides.

The City’s topography and location, adjacent to the San Francisco Bay, San Bruno Mountain U.S.

Interstate 101, which runs through its eastern edge, and SFO, combined with it small residential lots present a number of hazards that include, but is not limited to flooding, slope stability, increased exposure to noise, and accidents associated with swimming pools due to the close proximity between the swimming pools and residences.

Furthermore, the City’s hillside areas are constructed on the eastern slope of San Bruno Mountain which is immediately adjacent to a protected habitat conservation area subject to wildland fires due to existing vegetation, particularly chaparral, and a temperate climate with dry summer months. These wildland areas pose substantial risk to nearby residences and the natural environment. Brisbane also regularly experiences strong winds, with average velocities ranging from approximately 15 to 25 miles per hour and reaching high velocities of 70 miles per hour. These winds may significantly contribute to the spread of fire and increase the difficulty of fire suppression in the City or otherwise impact structures, such as patio covers.

The reduction of natural gas infrastructure in new buildings and the transition to electric appliances in existing residential buildings would reduce fire hazards in buildings near highly combustible wildland areas. Furthermore, these areas contain narrow, winding streets, with steep grades and congested parking and traffic, making access difficult for fire apparatus and equipment in the event of emergency. Numerous dwellings located within the upper hillsides can only be reached by means of private access ways which may not be adequately constructed or maintained for access by Fire Department vehicles.

D. Environmental
22 35
D.
11/6/2025 City Council Meeting ATTACHMENT 1

EXHIBIT A

Page 18 of 18 ends

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;
• Increase the energy efficiency of new and existing structures; • 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 23 36
D.

File Attachments for Item:

E. Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the Submittal of Applications for all CalRecycle Grant and Payment Programs, Changing the Signature Authority from the Public Works Director to the City Manager
37 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: November 20, 2025
From: Dolores De La Cruz, Sustainability Fellow
Christina Fernandez, Assistant City Manager
Subject: Transition of Signature Authority for CalRecycle grants and payment programs
Recommendation
Staff recommends adoption of a resolution authorizing the submittal of applications for all CalRecycle grant and payment programs for which the City is eligible, changing the signature authority from the Public Works Director to the City Manager.

Background
The Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) administers various grants and oversees the state’s waste management, recycling, and waste reduction programs. In addition to regulatory actions, CalRecycle also provides funding for program implementation.

The City is a beneficiary of CalRecycle’s SB 1383 Local Assistance Grant as well as the annual Beverage Container Recycling City/County Payment Program.

The authority of the Sustainability Department has transitioned from the Department of Public Works to the City Manager’s Office. The proposed resolution will be used for both grants and payments for the next five years, the maximum allowable, and updates the signature authority to the City Manager for ease of administration.

Discussion
Adoption of this resolution will allow the City to continue to apply for CalRecycle grants, which have been successful in the past.

Attachments

1. CalRecycle Grant and Payment Resolution
1 38
E.
___________________________________ ___________________________________ Christina Fernandez, Assistant City Manager Jeremy Dennis, City Manager 2 39
E.

RESOLUTION NO. XXX

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRISBANE

AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF APPLICATION(S) FOR ALL CALRECYCLE

GRANT AND PAYMENT PROGRAMS FOR WHICH CITY OF BRISBANE IS

ELIGIBLE
WHEREAS, Public Resources Code sections 48000 et seq., 14581, and 42023.1(g), authorize the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) to administer various grant and payment programs in furtherance of the State of California’s (state) efforts to reduce, recycle and reuse solid waste generated in the state thereby preserving landfill capacity and protecting public health and safety and the environment; and
WHEREAS, in furtherance of this authority, CalRecycle is required to establish procedures governing the administration of the payment programs; and administration of the application, awarding, and management of the grant programs; and
WHEREAS, CalRecycle’s procedures for administering payment and grant programs require, among other things, an applicant’s governing body to declare by resolution certain authorizations related to the administration of the payment and grant program.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brisbane as follows:

1. The City Council authorizes the submittal of application(s) to CalRecycle for any and all grant and payment programs offered.

2. The City Manager, or his/her designee is hereby authorized and empowered to execute in the name of the City of Brisbane all documents, including but not limited to, applications, agreements, amendments and requests for payment, necessary to secure funds and implement the approved grant or payment project.

3. These authorizations are effective for five (5) years from the date of adoption of this resolution.
___________________
Cliff Lentz, Mayor
City of Brisbane
3 Attachment 1
40 E.

File Attachments for Item:

F. Study Session- 70 Old County Road Planning Program
(Staff recommends that the Council provide direction to staff and consultants regarding a preferred development concept scenario to be studied further) 41 70 Old County Road Study Session

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: November 20, 2025
From: John Swiecki, Community Development Director
Subject: Study Session- 70 Old County Road Planning Program Recommendation
Staff recommends the Council provide direction to staff and consultants regarding a preferred development concept scenario to be studied further.

Background
The City acquired the site at 70 Old County Road in 2022 in order to gain control of a key gateway site to the city. In September 2024, the City Council approved a multi-phase planning program (Attachment 1) to determine an appropriate long-term vision for the site in alignment with community priorities and market realities. The program undertaken by Good City Company under contract to the City, consists of community engagement, conceptual planning, feasibility evaluation and implementation strategy development.

To date, community engagement has included the following:
• Open House #1, March 8, 2025: An Open House held at the Brisbane Library Community Room staffed by Good City Company and the Planning Department to advertise the upcoming planning process, make initial connections with the community, and provide educational messaging to inform and collect feedback and ideas from members of the community; • Pop- Up Workshop #1, May 15, 2025: An interactive “pop-up” community workshop held at the Brisbane Farmer’s Market to showcase six vision concepts of land use options for the 70 Old County Road property, which were developed to reflect input received from the Community from the Open house #1. Attendees engaged one-on-one with city staff and consultants on the six vision concepts;
• Vision Concept Survey, June 30, 2025: A survey was conducted from May 14 – June 30, 2025 to obtain feedback from the community to rank preferences between the six vision concepts. 233 responses were received. Survey respondents indicated a preference for the community center, commercial strip center, and mixed-use residential concepts; • Pop- Up Workshop #2, July 25, 2025: An interactive “pop-up” community workshop held at Brisbane’ Concert in the Park event to share project updates, present survey results and collect community feedback to help refine land use options for the site; • Open House #2, September 6, 2025: An Open House held at the 70 Old County Road property to encourage interactive feedback on the top three most preferred vision concepts, share results of the community survey, and allow attendees to become more familiar with the features of the site.

Summaries of public engagement events are attached to this report (Attachment 2). 42 F.
70 Old County Road Study Session
Discussion
With conclusion of the initial community engagement phase, consultants Good City Company completed a high-level feasibility analysis of the top three preferred vision concepts. The attached Feasibility Evaluation Report (Attachment 3) assesses the feasibility of each concept given physical site constraints, infrastructure considerations and market conditions. The report incorporates stakeholder feedback and engagement relative to each of the top three development concepts and includes relevant case studies to help inform realistic development outcomes. The purpose of the report is to help the City Council and community better understand the feasibility of potential land use approaches as it considers land use options for the site.

The report concludes the following:
• The affordable or mixed-income, mixed-use residential concept represents the most viable nearterm path for redevelopment of the 70 Old County Road property, provided the City contributes land and potentially gap financing.
• The commercial/retail scenario is likely to succeed only if paired with a strong anchor tenant that is identified in advance, or incorporated into a broader, multi-parcel redevelopment plan. • The community center scenario would impose high public costs with limited utilization and is not recommended as a standalone use.

Next Steps
As set forth in the planning program (Attachment 1), the next steps are for the Council to identify a preferred development concept for the property. Direction provided by City Council will help focus consultant work and future community engagement on the preferred concept, which will include project details such as site layout, parking, architectural design, and other project-specific elements. Further refined plans will be subject to additional public and City Council review. The direction provided by the City Council at this juncture is not a final decision and does not commit the City to any specific action in the future. Good City estimates that remaining planning work, including final approval of a preferred development concept, CEQA clearance, and completion of an implementation strategy, will occur by the end of March 2026.

Fiscal Impact
Selecting a preferred development concept for the 70 Old County Road site and further study of such concept is budgeted for in the approved work program for the 70 Old County Road community visioning project. The overall budget amount for the project approved by the City Council in 2024 was $150,000.

Approximately $82,000 remains in the contract to complete the remaining authorized scope of work.

Attachments

1. September 19, 2024 City Council agenda report with planning program

2. Community Engagement Deliverables
a. Open House #1 Summary
b. Pop-Up Workshop #1 Summary
c. Vision Concept Survey Results
d. Pop-Up Workshop #2 Summary
43 F.
70 Old County Road Study Session
e. Open House #2 Summary

3. Feasibility Report prepared by Good City Company
___________________________________ ___________________________________ John Swiecki, Community Development Director Jeremy Dennis, City Manager 44 F.
70 Old County Rd. Sole-Source Contract Page 1 of 2

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: September 19, 2024
From: Community Development Director
Subject: 70 Old County Road Planning Program Sole-Source Contract with Good City Co.

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 planning process for the 70 Old County Road (former Bank of America) City-owned property.

Recommendation
Authorize the City Manager to execute a professional services agreement with Good City Co. for the 70 Old County Road planning program, including the scope of work, budget, and schedule described in the submitted proposal.

Background
On July 18, 2024 the City Council considered a preliminary scope of work for the community engagement and planning program for 70 Old County Road and authorized staff to negotiate a sole-source contract with Good City Co. The July 18, 2024 agenda report is attached for reference. Based on Council’s authorization, staff released a Request for Proposal (RFP) to Good City Co. in August. Good City Co. submitted a proposal on September 9, 2024.

Discussion
Staff finds the submitted proposal to be responsive to the RFP. The proposed budget of $150,000 addresses Phases 1 and 2 of the project as described in the City’s RFP for community engagement and identification of preferred alternatives for the site. The third phase, implementation, is to be determined based on the outcome of the planning process and is not scoped or budgeted at this time. Good City proposes a 15-month schedule concluding in December 2025, which staff thinks is reasonable considering other planning issues slated for the community and Council’s consideration in 2025.

Optional tasks include Parkside Plan updates, which may not be required and if required may be able to be performed by City staff. The proposal includes budget for 4 ATTACHMENT 1
45 F.
70 Old County Rd. Sole-Source Contract Page 2 of 2
meetings with City Council and Planning Commission as directed. Additional meetings would be out of scope and would require additional compensation on a time and materials basis.

As noted above the third project phase- implementation- is not scoped or budgeted as staff believes it is too speculative to include at this time. Depending on the outcome of Tasks 1 and 2 staff may be able to address implementation in-house. A key deliverable of the proposal is an Implementation Strategy, which will outline necessary steps to move development of the site forward as envisioned by the community. Staff anticipates using this strategy to evaluate whether consultant services will be necessary for implementation and to inform future budget proposals for Council’s consideration, as appropriate.

Fiscal Impact
As noted the proposal includes a budget of $150,000. The $150,000 is the amount budgeted in the 2024-25 budget.

Measure of Success
Execution of a consultant contract enabling the City to move forward with the community visioning and planning program for the 70 Old County Road site.

Attachments

1. Good City Co. Proposal dated 9/9/2024

2. July 18, 2024 City Council agenda report
_____________________________ ____________________________ John Swiecki, Community Development Director Jeremy Dennis, City Manager ATTACHMENT 1
46 F.

Proposal for the Preparation of a
70 Old County Road Planning Program
for the City of Brisbane
September 9, 2024
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
47 F.

ATTACHMENT
1 48
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 3

TABLE OF

CONTENTS

1. Project Approach.................................................................................................... 6

2. Scope of Work ........................................................................................................ 7

3. Project Budget...................................................................................................... 11

4. Project Timeline.................................................................................................... 13

5. Meet the Team...................................................................................................... 14 ATTACHMENT 1
49 F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 4
Julia Ayres
Principal Planner
City of Brisbane
via email to [email protected]
RE: Proposal for the Preparation of a Planning Program for 70 Old County Road in Brisbane
Dear Ms. Ayres,
Good City Company (Good City) is pleased to submit this proposal to prepare a planning program for the 70 Old County Road site in Brisbane.

Headquartered in Redwood City, Good City's technical expertise in current and advance planning, zoning code updates, objective design standards, and executive management is built upon decades of close collaboration with our local jurisdiction clients across the greater Bay Area. Based on our experience with similar projects, Good City is well qualified to prepare a planning program for the 70 Old County Road site. For this project, we have assembled a staff team skilled in planning, urban design, economic development, and community development. We are confident in our team's ability to deliver high-quality work that meets the unique needs of the City.

Aaron Aknin will serve as the Principal in charge and Kevin Gardiner, AICP will serve as the primary point of contact for this proposal. Lisa Costa Sanders, Good City Principal, will be available to provide additional support as needed. Jacob Garcia, Senior Planner, will support with project management and outreach. Noa Kornbluh, Economic Development Associate, will provide input on economic feasibility. Other team members will provide expertise in analysis and site design.

ATTACHMENT 1
50 F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 5
We look forward to the opportunity to work with the City of Brisbane on this interesting and important endeavor. Please contact me if you have any questions or need additional information. I can be reached at (415) 845-8344 or [email protected].

Sincerely,
Aaron Aknin, Partner
Good City Company
ATTACHMENT 1
51 F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 6

1. PROJECT APPROACH
Good City has prepared a work plan that responds to the City Council’s objectives for the 70 Old County Road planning effort:
» Community Engagement – The work plan provides 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. Good City proposes a combination of on-site engagement activities, at least one online survey, and at least two “pop-up” events and two open house events.
» Planning – Based on the community input, Good City will develop a schematic development plan (or up to three plans, as applicable) for the site. Each development alternative for the site will be capable of being implemented on a standalone basis, recognizing the physical limitations established by surrounding existing private development.
» Vision for the Surroundings – The work plan will also address the potential future redevelopment of the adjacent shopping center that promotes compatible development across multiple sites. Furthermore, planning will also factor the proposed redesign of Bayshore Boulevard to incorporate traffic calming measures.

ATTACHMENT 1
52 F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 7

2. SCOPE OF WORK
The following work plan follows the Scope of Work provided by the City in the RFP, with additional elaboration and detail.

PHASE 1: COMMUNITY VISIONING
1A Community Engagement and Brainstorming
Good City will lead a robust series of community engagement and brainstorming activities using creative and varied means to collect public feedback and ideas. There will be a combination of on-site engagement activities, at least one online survey, and at least two “pop-up” events and two open house events, with both in-person/analog and digital means of participation. Good City will leverage resources provided by Go Vocal (formerly CitizenLab) throughout the engagement process to collect, evaluate, and analyze community feedback through digital means. Good City will prepare a Community Engagement Plan for review and approval by staff. 1B Educational Messaging
In coordination with the Community Engagement and Brainstorming activities, Good City will prepare educational messaging for the public and decision-makers to 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. Educational materials may include examples of development types, technical information such as building heights and parking standards, and market demand matters. Educational messaging will be nuanced and not perceived as limiting the brainstorming process.
1C Meeting with Decisionmakers and Stakeholders
Meetings with City decision-makers and stakeholders, including:
» At least one interview with individual City Council members (five meetings total) ATTACHMENT 1
53 F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 8
» Meetings or other means of outreach targeted to advisory bodies, e.g. City Council subcommittees and/or other appointed commissions or committees (to be determined). Five meetings are included in the base budget, and additional meetings shall be provided at a range from $1,245 to $1,660 per meeting (depending on length of meeting and attendance).
1D Community Engagement Summary
Good City will prepare a Community Engagement Summary which will include a broad level analysis of ideas shared by the community.
1E Vision(s)
Identify primary vision (or suite of alternatives) for community review and City Council consideration.

Deliverables
» Draft and Final Community Engagement Plan
» Draft and Final Educational Materials
» Draft and Final Community Engagement Summary
» Draft and Final Vision(s) Summary
PHASE 2: CONSENSUS AND ADOPTION OF VISION
2A Schematic Concept Plan(s)
Good City will develop up to three schematic concept plans reflecting the community vision for City Council consideration. Each concept plan will include a site plan showing building and parking layouts, building section diagrams, and a three-dimensional massing diagram prepared in SketchUp. While the primary detailed focus will be the 70 Old County Road site, some concepts may also include approaches for potential changes to the adjacent shopping center (to the extent that alternatives identified by the community rely on or would have synergy with changes at the shopping center). » The City will contract separately with transportation consultants to refine circulationrelated elements of the plan or alternatives as needed. Good City will coordinate with the transportation consultant as needed.
» Artistic renderings are not included, but can be commissioned as an additional service if desired.

ATTACHMENT 1
54 F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 9
2B Feasibility Evaluations
In response to input received from the community, Good City will evaluate various ideas against the market and other considerations at a high level to test feasibility. Evaluation will include interviews or focus groups with sources with knowledge of market feasibility, as well as identification of relevant case studies.
2C Development Plan
Based on City Council direction, Good City will refine a preferred schematic concept plan into a development plan for the site that is sufficient to allow for completion of project level environmental review. This will include refinement of the site plan, floor plans, and massing diagrams. An illustrative site plan will be provided that is comparable in graphic standards to the site plan in the Parkside Plan.
2D Parkside Plan Update (Optional)
As an optional task, Good City will assist in an update of the Parkside Plan to reflect:
» The development plan for the 70 Old County Road site. » The preferred vision for the adjacent shopping center should land use changes at the shopping center factor into the preferred vision for the subject property. 2E California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Clearance For the purposes of this proposal, it is assumed that a project-level CEQA infill exemption clearance of a development plan will be appropriate for the project. Good City will prepare a draft of the infill exemption.
» Should a more substantial environmental review be required such as an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND), Environmental Impact Report (EIR), or EIR Addendum be required, Good City can subcontract with an environmental review consultant as an additional service.
2F Implementation Strategy
Good City will provide a memorandum that established a roadmap/strategy for the 70 Old County Road project implementation, depending on the approved development plan. The strategy will identify components necessary for the City to issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) for development of the site, as well as other relevant technical issues needing to be resolved for the project.

ATTACHMENT 1
55 F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 10
2G Planning Commission and City Council Meetings
Good City will attend up to four meetings with the Planning Commission and/or City Council during Phase 2. Additional meetings shall be provided at a range from $1,245 to $1,660 per meeting (depending on length of meeting and attendance).

Deliverables
» Schematic Concept Plans – up to 3
» Draft and Final Feasibility Memorandum
» Development Plan
» Parkside Plan Update (Optional – if applicable)
» CEQA Clearance Document
» Draft and Final Implementation Strategy Memorandum
» Planning Commission/City Council Meetings (4)
PHASE 3: POST-ADOPTION SUPPORT
3A Post Adoption-Support
Good City will provide post-adoption support based on the preferred vision for the project. This may include assistance with preparing a Request for Proposals (RFP) for site development, assistance with Surplus Lands Act requirements should the City opt to transfer fee title to another entity, etc. Accordingly, Good City will submit an updated proposal for the City’s consideration following completion of Phase 2 of the process.

ATTACHMENT 1
56 F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 11

3. PROJECT BUDGET
The Good City team proposes a not-to-exceed budget of $150,000 for Phases 1 and 2 of the work scope, including expenses.

For optional services, or services without a defined limit (e.g., advisory body meetings), flat rates per meeting/service have been provided.

ATTACHMENT 1
57 F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 12
Good City prides itself on being a cost-effective solution for public sector agencies. Staff retains detailed timesheets and works efficiently to ensure the client is getting the best value for the services.

TITLE HOURLY RATE
» Principal/Partner $260
» Planning Director $230
» Principal Planner/Planning Manager $195
» Economic Development Director $230
» Public Policy Manager $225
» Chief Building Official $170
» Senior Planner/Project Manager $170
» Senior Economic Development Planner $170
» Housing Services Consultant $170
» Public Policy Lead $170
» Associate Planner $140
» Economic Development Associate $140
» Assistant Planner $130
» Planning Technician $100
» Marketing Specialist/Graphic Designer $100
» Administrative Specialist $90
Subconsultant Contracts Direct Billing + 10% oversight fee. Reproduction Costs Direct Billing. Rates subject to adjustment January 1st of each year (typically 3-7% increase).

Mileage is reimbursed at the IRS rate. Travel within 30 miles of Redwood City offices will not be billed. Beyond 30 miles from the Redwood City Office, travel will be billed on an hourly basis at 50% of the above-listed rates.

ATTACHMENT 1
58 F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 13

4. PROJECT TIMELINE
Good City proposes a 15-month timeline for the 70 Old County Road planning program, per the timeline shown below.

ATTACHMENT 1
59 F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 14

5.MEET THE TEAM
For this project, we have assembled a staff team skilled in planning, architectural and urban design, economic development, and community development. We are confident in our team's ability to deliver high-quality work that meets the unique needs of the City.

Team resumes are on the following pages.

ATTACHMENT 1
60 F.

OUR TEAM
1/2

EDUCATION
B.A., Urban Studies, San
Francisco State University
M.A., Public Policy, Cal State
Northridge

MEMBERSHIPS
American Institute of
Certified Planners
American Planning
Association
International City/ County
Manager Association

AARON AKNIN, AICP
Principal, Owner Good City Company

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Aaron Aknin, AICP, is a Principal and Co-Owner of Good City Company. He has nearly two decades of Bay Area municipal experience, including serving in an executive capacity for several different Peninsula cities. He is a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP) and the American Planning Association. Aaron has frequently spoken at regional events, as well as served on panels at national conferences on topics related to development, downtown planning, transportation, parking, affordable housing, and related issues.

Most recently, Aaron was the Assistant City Manager and Community Development Director with the City of Redwood City. In this capacity, he oversaw a 70+ member department, which included the Planning, Housing, Engineering, Transportation, Front Counter Services, and Code Enforcement divisions. As the Assistant City Manager, he led key Citywide initiatives and also served as Interim City Manager in 2015.

Aaron was in Redwood City during a time of unprecedented growth and community involvement (2014-2019). During his half-decade with the City, the City reviewed and processed over 4,000 new housing units, as well as several million square feet of office space. In addition, Aaron oversaw the implementation of the Redwood City Downtown Precise Plan, including several key amendments to the plan. Aaron helped shape a first of its kind community benefits program (“Partnership Redwood City”), adoption of several key affordable housing initiatives including an inclusionary housing ordinance, an Airbnb affordable housing tax and renter protections, and the adoption the Citywide Transportation Plan.

Aaron was also deeply involved in economic development issues and served on the Redwood City Community Improvement Association (RCIA) Board.

Aaron continues to serve on the RCIA Board and was recently appointed to the Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors. Finally, one of Aaron’s key focuses in Redwood City was improving the process, both for residents participating in policy making, as well as applicants, business owners and developers who chose to invest in the City.

Prior to coming to Redwood City, Aaron was with the City of Palo Alto in 2012- 2014. He served as both the Assistant and Interim Director of Planning and Community Environment. In this capacity, he led the Planning and Transportation Divisions within the City. Key projects included the formation of the first Downtown Residential Permit Program (RPP), leading the downtown ATTACHMENT 1
61 F.

OUR TEAM AARON AKNIN, AICP
2/2
development cap process, providing direction related to the Comprehensive Plan (General Plan), being the Planning Commission liaison, and overseeing several Stanford related developments.

Prior to coming to Redwood City, Aaron was with the City of Palo Alto in 2012-2014. He served as both the Assistant and Interim Director of Planning and Community Environment. In this capacity, he led the Planning and Transportation Divisions within the City. Key projects included the formation of the first Downtown Residential Permit Program (RPP), leading the downtown development cap process, providing direction related to the Comprehensive Plan (General Plan), being the Planning Commission liaison, and overseeing several Stanford related developments.

During his time in Palo Alto, Aaron focused much of his efforts on transparency by increasing the amount of available (and understandable) public information and building a connection within the community.

Aaron “grew up” as a local government professional within the City of San Bruno. He began his career in San Bruno in 2002 as an Assistant Planner, and left in 2012, after spending the last 5 years as the Community Development Director. As Community Development Director, he was in charge of the Planning, Building, and the Code Enforcement divisions in the City. He also staffed the Planning Commission and managed their agendas. During his time in San Bruno, the Shops at Tanforan mall was renovated for the first time in generations, and over 1,500 residential units were constructed citywide. This included over 1,000 units at “The Crossing” (former Navy Base) which included 315 affordable units. During Aaron’s tenure as Director, the first General Plan in 25 years was adopted, and the draft Transit Corridor Plan was released.

Most importantly, Aaron served as the Plan Section Chief during the PG&E Pipeline Explosion and worked closely with property owners during the immediate aftermath and in the months and years following the disaster.

Aaron grew up in the Peninsula, spent much of his adult life in San Francisco, and moved back to San Carlos in 2012. He lives there with his wife Cindy, and two kids.

PROJECT EXPERIENCE HIGHLIGHTS
» Caltrain at Diridon, Project Manager/City Laison, Caltrain » Harbor Industrial Area Specific Plan, Principal-in-Charge, Belmont » Scotts Valley Town Center Specific Plan, Principal-in-Charge, Scotts Valley
» North Fair Oaks Community Plan, Principal-in-Charge, County of San Mateo
» Redwood City Precise Plan Implementation, Lead, Redwood City* *Work completed at a previous place of employment
ATTACHMENT 1
62 F.

OUR TEAM
1/2

EDUCATION
B.S., City and Regional
Planning, California
Polytechnic State University
San Luis Obispo

MEMBERSHIPS
American Planning
Association

LISA COSTA SANDERS
Principal, Owner Good City Company

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Ms. Costa Sanders has been with the firm since 1992. Her experience and specialties include interdepartmental project management, current, and long-range planning, solid waste and recycling management, budget preparation, and economic development and housing program implementation. She also has extensive experience in design review, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Subdivision Map Act and worked on permit streamlining and permit tracking systems. Ms. Costa Sanders manages staff and processes large complex development projects.

Serving as Principal Planner for the City of San Carlos, Ms. Costa Sanders provides staff assistance for larger complex Planning and Economic Development projects. She was the Project Planner for the Wheeler Plaza Development and Landmark Hotel Development. She also assisted with property acquisition for economic development, managed city-owned properties including lease negotiations and managed the City’s affordable housing programs. Ms. Costa Sanders also assists with General Plan and Zoning Code updates and amendments.

Ms. Costa Sanders also served as the Acting Assistant City Manager for the City of San Carlos. In that capacity, she prepared the Mayor’s State of the City presentation, managed the City’s annual Strategic Plan update, reviewed all City Council staff reports and attended several regional meetings on behalf of the City Manager’s office.

As Town Planner for the Town of Atherton, Ms. Costa Sanders manages all current and long-range planning and presents projects to the Planning Commission and City Council. Ms. Costa Sanders also prepares ordinance amendments, General Plan updates and amendments, works on annexations and subdivisions.

Ms. Costa Sanders is currently assisting the City of South San Francisco with its comprehensive General Plan update, preparation of the Environmental Impact Report and Zoning Code Update.

As Contract Principal Planner for the City of Redwood City, Ms. Costa Sanders managed larger complex development applications including the Harbor View Place development, Rocketship Charter School, multi-family development at 150 El Camino Real, mixed-use development at 557 E.

Bayshore and 610 Walnut Street, Sandpiper School expansion and the City’s new water tank project.

ATTACHMENT 1
63 F.

OUR TEAM LISA COSTA SANDERS
2/2
Previously as the Acting Planning Manager for the City of San Bruno, she was the project planner for the Tanforan Remodel Project, Crossing 350-unit housing development, Pacific Bay Vistas, 308 unit multi-family development, Merimont 70 new home development, Skycrest 24 new home development, and Cedar Mills 14 new home development. She also assisted the Public Services Director with preparing reports to the City Council, managing sustainability projects, managing grant programs and served as the Assistant Project Manager for the San Bruno Grade Separation project.

PROJECT EXPERIENCE HIGHLIGHTS
» Tanforan Shopping Center Redevelopment Project Manager, San Bruno, CA
» Lindenville Specific Plan Project Manager, South San Francisco, CA » San Carlos East Side Innovation District Plan Strategic Advisor, San Carlos, CA
» Northeast Industrial Specific Plan Strategic Advisor, San Carlos, CA » Wheeler Plaza Lead Planner, San Carlos, CA
» Alexandria Campus Development Lead Planner, San Carlos, CA » Concord Passages Shopping Mall Redevelopment Lead Planner, San Mateo, CA
» Bay Meadows Specific Plan Project Manager, San Mateo, CA ATTACHMENT 1
64 F.

OUR TEAM

EDUCATION
B.A., Environmental Design,
University of California
Berkeley
M.Arch., University of
California Berkeley Master of
City and Regional Planning,
University of California
Berkeley Degree and
Insititution

MEMBERSHIPS
American Institute of Certified
Planners
American Planning Association
Congress for the New
Urbanism
Urban Land Institute

KEVIN GARDINER, AICP
Director of Advance Planning

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Kevin Gardiner, AICP, has a background in planning and architecture, with nearly three decades of experience in both public service and private consulting. He is involved in all aspects of planning, with a specialization in long-range plans and urban design. He understands the complex relationships between planning policy, design, community input and market issues, and can respond with a range of creative approaches to allow informed decision-making.

Kevin is a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners, the American Planning Association, the Congress for the New Urbanism, and the Urban Land Institute. He is a skilled public speaker and regularly speaks at events and conferences on topics related to community planning, zoning regulations, housing, and climate adaptation.

Most recently, Kevin was the Community Development Director for the City of Burlingame. The position included oversight of Planning, Building, Economic Development, and Housing divisions. During his tenure he oversaw the city’s first comprehensive update of its General Plan in 50 years, the complete rewrite of the city’s zoning code, and the update of its Housing Element. He also managed a new transit-oriented specific plan for an emerging mixed-use neighborhood and led a pilot community engagement initiative focused on housing called “Burlingame Talks Together About Housing.” Working with the county flood control and sea level rise district, he also oversaw a sea level rise risk assessment, leading to one of the first examples of zoning regulations focused on sea level rise resilience in the Bay Area.

Prior to coming to Burlingame, Kevin was with a series of planning consulting firms, including his own firm Kevin Gardiner & Associates. His work included downtown plans for the Cities of Burlingame and Napa, as well as Scottsdale, AZ; form-based zoning for the City of Palo Alto; re-use plans for two different high-tech districts in Mountain View, California; a conceptual transit-oriented development plan for Eugene, Oregon; and a comprehensive plan for a small town in Indiana.

PROJECT EXPERIENCE HIGHLIGHTS
» Burlingame General Plan Update, Project Manager, Burlingame » Burlingame Housing Element Update, Project Manager, Burlingame » Site Feasibility Studies, Palo Alto
» South Whisman Precise Plan, Mountain View
ATTACHMENT 1
65 F.

OUR TEAM
1/1

EDUCATION
B.S., Environmental Science,
Technology and Policy,
California State University,
Monterey Bay
Masters in Urban Planning
with a certificate in Real
Estate Development, San
Jose State University

MEMBERSHIPS
American Planning
Association (APA)

JACOB GARCIA
Senior Planner

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Jacob Garcia is a Senior Planner with a background in land use planning, natural resource planning, and Geographic Information Systems (GIS). He has been with Good City Company since 2019 and provides contract planning services to the City of San Carlos, City of Pacifica, City of Belmont and the Town of Portola Valley.

Jacob currently manages development projects throughout the entitlement process. As such his duties include current planning assistance, design review and Zoning conformance review, and preparing and presenting staff reports before various design review boards, planning commissions and city councils.

He assists jurisdictions with zoning amendments and policy research and implementation. He takes pride in providing excellent customer service and serving as a liaison to community groups and residents on behalf of cities and their various committees.

Jacob also has experience supporting the management of sustainability programs, staffing cities’ environmental committees, and facilitating wet weather construction site inspections and annual stormwater reporting.

Before joining Good City, Jacob worked for multiple public and private land management agencies providing natural resource and conservation planning services such as public outreach, data collection, data analysis, and research.

PROJECT EXPERIENCE HIGHLIGHTS
» Stanford University, Belmont Campus, Conceptual Development Plan (CDP), Belmont, CA
» Willow Commons, Supportive Housing and Density Bonus Project, Portola Valley, CA
» Fairmont Shopping Center, Master Use List, Zoning Amendment, Pacifica, CA
» Monitoring Urban Wildlife Corridors in San Diego County, Center for Natural Lands Management (CNLM), CA*
» Ten Mile Canyon ACEC Draft Watershed Management and Monitoring Plan, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Moab Field Office, UT* ATTACHMENT 1
66 F.

OUR TEAM
1/1

EDUCATION
B.A., Political Economy,
University of California
Berkely
M.S., Local Economic
Development, London
School of Economics &
Political Science

NOA KORNBLUH
Economic Development Associate

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Noa has spent her career supporting communities in creating sustainable, resilient local economies. She has over eight years in community economic development working for state and local government, as well as non-profits.

Noa has a background in community outreach and engagement, strategic planning, and building entrepreneurial ecosystems.

Most recently, she worked as an assistant field manager in community and economic development at the Rural Community Assistance Corporation (RCAC) providing training and technical assistance to low-income rural and indigenous communities across the Western United States. Prior to RCAC, she worked for local Bay Area governments. She served as a Community Development Analyst for the City of El Cerrito, helping to facilitate business permitting, and as an Economic Development Specialist for the City of Milpitas, developing business retention and attraction programs.

Noa is a Bay Area local. She grew up in the city of Palo Alto and completed a bachelor's degree from the University of California, Berkeley. She then went on to receive a master’s degree in Local Economic Development from the London School of Economics and Political Science, followed by a year as an AmeriCorps Vista working for the State of Delaware’s Main Street Program.

PROJECT EXPERIENCE HIGHLIGHTS
» North Fair Oaks Community Plan Review Project, San Mateo County, CA » Small Business Technical Assistance Program, San Mateo County, CA » Economic Development Strategy and Program Implementation, Campbell, CA
ATTACHMENT 1
67 F.

ATTACHMENT
1 68
F.
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.

ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 1
69 F.
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 ATTACHMENT 1
70 F.

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
ATTACHMENT 1
71 F.
70 Old County Road Preliminary Work Scope

Page 2 of 3 ends

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
ATTACHMENT 1
72 F.
70 Old County Road Preliminary Work Scope

Page 3 of 3 ends

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)
ATTACHMENT 1
73 F.

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
ATTACHMENT 1
74 F.

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 ATTACHMENT 1
75 F.
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)
ATTACHMENT 1
76 F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 1
70 Old County Road Planning Program
Community Open House #1 – March 8, 2025
Event Summary
The Community Open House for the 70 Old County Road Community Visioning project was held on March 8, 2025 from 10:00 am to noon in the community room of the Brisbane Library.

The open house was designed to encourage interactive feedback, allowing attendees to engage one-on-one with staff or with other attendees, or in small groups to discuss specific areas of interest. As the first community engagement event in the planning program, the open house materials provided an overview of the project site and planning program timeline, and presented an opportunity to gather initial input on a land use program for the site. Informational boards showcased various land use options for the 70 Old County Road property, including residential, commercial, mixed-use, and community/civic uses (see Appendix B). Some boards included relevant data points to provide context for the specific land use option. Attendees were invited to share their thoughts by writing comments on post-it notes and placing them on the corresponding ATTACHMENT 2A
77 F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 2
boards. There was also a video display showing drone flyovers of the 70 Old County Road site and showing informational slides based on the informational posters.

The open house was publicized through the STAR, City message boards, weekly BLAST email notification, and the City’s social media channels. Approximately 50 people attended over the course of the two hours.

Consolidated Summary
This section presents a consolidated summary of the written comments gathered from all of the boards during the event. The particular comments for each topic area can be found in Appendix C of this report.

General Community Sentiment and Concerns
» Preserving Brisbane's Scale and Character: There was a strong and recurring desire to maintain Brisbane's unique "small-town character." A common theme was ATTACHMENT 2A
78 F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 3
the preference for development that is not "massive". Height limitations were frequently mentioned, with limits of two or three stories being suggested. » Traffic and Infrastructure: Traffic congestion and parking shortages were raised as concerns. There were also considerations about the suitability of the land for development due to issues like liquefaction and sea level rise. » Economic Development and Retail Viability: There was a desire to stimulate the local economy, support small businesses, and attract more retail options. However, concerns were raised about the current vacancy of businesses and the viability of retail in the area.
» Planning Approach: Comments emphasized the need for comprehensive planning that considers various factors and integrates different land uses. There were suggestions to have a more comprehensive plan that would involve the coordinated development and/or redevelopment of properties nearby.

Desired Amenities and Uses
» Retail/Commercial: Specific retail and commercial establishments were frequently requested, indicating a desire for more shopping and dining options. These include:
o Trader Joe's
o A "nice grocery store"
o Peet's Coffee
o Pharmacy
o Credit Union
o Commercial recreation (gym, indoor sports)
o Other desired businesses including banks, ATMs, a 1950s style diner, a beer garden, and In-N-Out Burger.
» Community Spaces: A wide range of community uses were suggested, reflecting a desire for more public amenities and gathering places:
o Theater and performing arts center
o Arts centers and studios
o Teen center
o Community rooms and meeting spaces
o Community or botanical garden
o Park/open space
ATTACHMENT 2A
79 F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 4
o Other suggestions included a community center for activities like foosball and pinball, workshops, and exercise stations
» Housing:
o The need for diverse housing options was acknowledged, with discussions around:
 Affordable housing
 Senior housing
 Workforce housing
 First-time buyer housing
o There were suggestions for combining housing with other uses, such as retail.
o Concerns about the scale, density, and impact of housing development were also present, with some advocating for smaller units, shared spaces (co-op style), and innovative solutions like 3-D printed homes. o Specific concerns included traffic, safety, and the impact on community character.
» Interim Uses: A number of temporary or interim uses were suggested, which would allow the property to become active and serve a purpose until ready to be redeveloped:
o City overflow parking lot
o Diner
o Beer garden
Development Preferences and Opposition:

The boards included an opportunity for community members to indicate what they did not want to see on the property. These comments do not necessarily represent a consensus among attendees:
» Undesirable Development Characteristics: Participants voiced a strong sentiment against development that would mimic the look and feel of El Camino Real or areas of South San Francisco. Residents expressed a desire to maintain Brisbane's ”smalltown character”, particularly as they commented on housing and scale of development.

ATTACHMENT 2A
80 F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 5
» Specific "No's": Certain types of development were explicitly opposed by participants:
o Gas stations
o Fast food restaurants and drive-throughs
o "Giant box" retail
o Asphalt and "ugly" parking lots
o "Boring chains"
» Opposition to Specific Types of Housing: There was opposition to:
o "Giant housing complexes"
o Condos
o High-rise buildings
» Financial Concerns: Questions about how development will be paid for and the City's role in the process were raised.

Additional Considerations:
» Interim Uses: The importance of interim uses for vacant land was mentioned. » Community Input: Comments highlighted the importance of community engagement and incorporating resident feedback into the planning process. » Environmental Concerns: There were desires to preserve natural beauty of the site, protect views, and consider environmental factors like sea level rise and liquefaction.

Some suggested restoring the site to marshland.
» Transportation: Improving transportation options and addressing parking shortages were key considerations.
» Sale of the Property: A few individuals suggested the City sell the property and not become involved in the development business.

In summary, the comments emphasized the importance of a balanced approach—one that fosters economic growth and provides essential amenities while preserving the town’s unique character and meeting residents' needs.

ATTACHMENT 2A
81 F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 6
Appendix A
Event Flyer
ATTACHMENT 2A
82 F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 7
Appendix B
Presentation Boards
ATTACHMENT 2A
83 F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 8
ATTACHMENT 2A
84 F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 9
ATTACHMENT 2A
85 F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 10
ATTACHMENT 2A
86 F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 11
ATTACHMENT 2A
87 F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 12
ATTACHMENT 2A
88 F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 13
ATTACHMENT 2A
89 F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 14
ATTACHMENT 2A
90 F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 15
ATTACHMENT 2A
91 F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 16
ATTACHMENT 2A
92 F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 17
Appendix C
Presentation Board Comments
This appendix lists the individual comments affixed to each board, exactly as written on the post-it notes.

Comments that show an x in parentheses (such as “(x2)”) indicate the same comment on more than one post-it note.

ATTACHMENT 2A
93 F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 18
Housing Board Comments
 We should consider housing. Would any developer consider?  Bay shore + teen center, site should not be compatible, Not a good use of taxpayer dollars"
 Consultants should work on a comprehensive plan that includes Bayshore properties and the teen center, Center City.
 Housing Ok but, but not on this lot/not safe too much traffic  Need lots of housing
 Families, Work Force Housing, and bringing income to the city should be prioritized on more senior housing
 If we can't get a developer to build Parkside, why would they build on busy Bayshore?
 100% loans for Brisbane 1st time homebuyers
 "Some Inspiration Culdesac.Com
 High units are better for views
 James Wines’ style environmental architecture, solar facing UNIQUE  6 story minimum apts super views
 Small units
ATTACHMENT 2A
94 F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 19
Affordable Housing Board Comments
 No Such Thing As Affordable Housing
 Housing FOR All Budgets
 For years we preserved Small-Town Character - until now?  Say goodbye to small town character
 IS THIS SMALL-TOWN CHARACTER?
 Affordable Housing: is best on the Xmas tree Lot, adjacent on S.F.Street, not to the hill, not B of A site
 Affordable Housing: Best located in the Industrial Park or other 3 sites of Bayshore owned by the city
 Senior Housing
 Small Affordable
 Housing for all budgets
 3-D PRINTED Homes
 Transitional units
 THINK DIFFERENT- Smaller units shared spaces (co-op style)  Entry to City
 open space
 LESS PARKING = more housing, study possibility to removed parking min req ATTACHMENT 2A
95 F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 20
 Affordable Housing for Brisbane city workers, Brisbane teachers, with retail on the Be Harn -Diner -Teen Center
 WE WANT CHAIN STORES
 Council rejected Mid Pen partnership on this site. Indicating no interest in affordable housing. How would this be financed? How high must land be raised?  Entry to the city needs beauty and open space/ not more traffic. Not safe for housing.
 Let the free market solve the housing crisis
 100% affordable housing apartments for city workers, teachers, mail carriers, ground floor retail
 Think of the next generation’s needs, housing
 Affordable how
Retail and Mixed Use Board Comments
 TRADER JOE'S
 PEETS Coffee
 Credit UNION
 BANK
 Wells Fargo ATM
ATTACHMENT 2A
96 F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 21
 IN and OUT Burger
 Montera Credit Union (x2)
 STARBUCKS (x2)
 Nice Grocery
 Trader Joe’s or similar with housing on top
 Chase Bank/Starbucks combo
 B of A ATM
 We can't even occupy the storefronts we have at the mall on Visitacion. Not a great idea
 Retail won’t work; look at shopping centers and SF. Mixed-use won’t work; look at San Bruno. How will this be paid for? The city is not the developer and is not sensitive to the market.
 Buy the shopping center and make a beautiful project
 All the business at 70 County Road is half empty. Stimulate the economy for Brisbane small business. Trader Joe’s is the solution.
 Love the example of the hanger in Scotts Valley, add housing on above  Drive-Thru Restaurant
 PEETS Coffee
 Moller's
 Gas Station
 Battery Swapping stations
 A REAL nice Grocery Store (x3)
 Pharmacy (x3)
 50's Diner Idea and/or Family Friendly Beer Garden
 Medical building
 Medical clinic
 Food Trucks
 Trader Joe’s or similar with housing above it (x3)
 Montera Credit Union/ trader joes combo
 Create jobs
 What happens to the Christmas tree lot?
ATTACHMENT 2A
97 F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 22
Community Uses Board Comments
 Theater for Events
 Cultured Arts Center- reuse existing building
 Small stage for performances
 Gallery, artist studios
 Exercise stations, rings, pull up, dip, step up, (small space)  Gymnasium (x3)
 Gym with indoor track
 Adult Children Programming
 Community Room
 Meeting Room
 Party Room
 Teen Center (x3)
 Multi-use/Gathering Space
 Performing Arts Center-see Mission Blue -performing arts  Classroom Spaces (x2)
 Senior Recreation/Activity Space for when sunrise room is closed  Ceramics Studios for all ages
 Community Garden
 Brisbane gym (x2)
ATTACHMENT 2A
98 F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 23
 Workshop rooms
 Keep existing building and reuse it
 Better walking connection to B of A location
 Police dept annex
 Indoor sports like pickle ball, basketball, Ping pong, badminton, with outdoor area  Interim Uses?
 Community center for foosball, pinball machines, ping pong, bring the community together
 Maintain the creek for natural values
 No Parking shortages, parking for all
 Consider sea level rise, a former swamp
 Relocate police station, free up the city hall
 Tie into the Parkside plan keep consistent
 Park
 Natural Beauty
 Sell for private development use a revenue for city purposes  Open Space
 Open Space with trees
 Outdoor Open Space
 Archway over Old County "Welcome to BRISBANE - CITY OF STARS"  Kinetic Workspace, game room, physical, activity space, games like pool, ski ball, chess
 Consider the View Shed of the Bay & Lagoon from Brisbane  BACA Station RINGE PULL UP DIP STEP LIP SMALL SPACE
 Supplement Park & Ride Parking at least in the meantime  Restore to marshland
 Botanical garden
 Weekend plant store
 Community gateway, use for the entire community
 Free multiuse space for the community; indoor archery, badminton, pickleball, etc.  Brisbane star installation, community art
 Art area, ceramics, surfboard shaping
 Consider the view shed of the bay & lagoon
 Do not move THE Community center
 Currently we should use for overflow parking for park and village  Best Use- Restore Native Marsh lands for park, people and birds  Beauty/ Open Space
 Maintain values
ATTACHMENT 2A
99 F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 24
“What Don’t You Want to See” Board Comments
 Don't want this site to look like El Camino, nor South San Francisco (x2)  I hate what they have done to SSF and El Camino Real
 Don't fill up every inch (x2)
 No 3+ Stories on B of A site. Tall structures more suitable on other sites owned by city.
 No Gas Station (x5)
 Traffic
 Nothing Massive
 No higher than 2 Stories
 No Drive through
 Office buildings
 No Fast Food
 No Asphalt
 No Parking Lot – Ugly
 No Boring Chain
 No Giant Box Anything
 No wasted opportunities
 No “Family Size” units
 Stupid low-density designs
ATTACHMENT 2A
100
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 25
 Hi Rise (x2)
 No Giant housing complex
 No Condos (x2)
 Don't let go fallow
 No gun or smoke shops
 Land subject to liquefaction, not safe for housing
 Sea Level
 Tall structures are more suitable on the other 3 sites owned by the City  Open Space
 GIANT BOX ANYTHING
 High-Rise P's
 Big housing complexes
ATTACHMENT 2A
101
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 1
70 Old County Road Planning Program
Farmer’s Market Pop-Up – May 15, 2025
Event Summary
The Farmers’ Market Pop-Up for the 70 Old County Road Community Visioning project was held on May 15, 2025, from 3:00 pm to 6:00 pm in a booth at the Farmers’ Market in the Community Park in Brisbane.

The Pop-Up was designed to encourage interactive feedback, allowing attendees to engage one-on-one with staff and consultants. As the most recent community engagement event in the planning program, the pop-up displays provided an overview ATTACHMENT 2B
102
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 2
of the project site and community input to date, as well as an opportunity to gather further input to refine the land use program options for the site. Informational boards showcased six different “visions” of land use options for the 70 Old County Road property, including stand-alone housing, destination commercial, small commercial center, mixed-use, and both community and teen centers. The visions had been developed to reflect input from the community open house held on March 8, 2025. The visions were intended to reflect a range of options considered feasible within the site’s physical and market conditions.

Attendees were invited to share their preferences by placing dots on their three favorite land use visions, which were illustrated by reference photos of similar built development types and a basic conceptual line drawing. Also, conversations were encouraged to collect further anecdotal information from participants.

The event was publicized through the STAR, City message boards, weekly BLAST email notifications, the City’s project e-notification subscription list, and the City’s social media channels. Approximately 41 people interacted with staff over the course of the three ATTACHMENT 2B
103
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 3
hours to share their opinions. Most visitors voted for their top three visions by placing stickers on the boards.

A “Vision Concepts” survey presenting the same material and featuring the same images as presented on the presentation boards was launched on the same day as the pop-up.

Those who were not able to participate in the pop-up dot exercise were encouraged to provide input through the survey at their convenience.

ATTACHMENT 2B
104
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 4
Presentation Boards
ATTACHMENT 2B
105
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 5
ATTACHMENT 2B
106
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 6
ATTACHMENT 2B
107
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 7
ATTACHMENT 2B
108
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 8
ATTACHMENT 2B
109
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 9

ATTACHMENT 2B
110
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 10
Summary
This section presents a summary of the input gathered from the boards during the event.

Farmers’ Market Dot Counts – May 15, 2025
Number of participants: At least 41
Participants represented a range of ages and backgrounds. Although demographics were not formally tracked in the pop-up, conversations with participants indicated:
 A large number of Brisbane residents, most of which were very familiar with the site
 Some employees of Brisbane businesses
 Some individuals who did not identify as being either residents or employees  A range of ages, including seniors, teenagers, and children with their parents Attendees were invited to share their preferences by placing dots on their three favorite land use visions. Dot counts are listed below:

Vision Dot Count

1. Small Commercial Center 18

2. Destination Commercial 19

3. Stand-Alone Housing 15

4. Mixed-Use Retail + Housing 41

5. Community Center 44

6. Teen Center 23
In summary, the visions with the most support were the Community Center vision and the Mixed-Use Retail + Housing vision. Both visions received similar levels of support.

Because of wind conditions during the pop-up, participants were not able to provide written comments on post-it notes as they were able to at the March open house.

However, the project team met subsequently to share comments they heard from participants.

ATTACHMENT 2B
111
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 11
Conversations Highlighted at the event
» Great Place for Housing: There was a strong and recurring commentary that many participants thought 70 Old County Road would be a good housing site. » Terrible Place for Housing: Conversely, some individuals thought the property would not be a good housing site, due to proximity to Bayshore Boulevard and traffic. At least two individuals expressed a strong desire to avoid any new housing on the site.
» Positive feedback on Mixed Use with Housing: A majority of participants gave general positive feedback on housing as a part of a mixed-use development. There appeared to be more support for housing as part of a mixed-use development rather than a stand-alone residential project..
» Mixed-Use with Community Center: Several people commented that they would like to see a consideration for a mixed-use development that includes a community center below housing.
» Retail/Commercial: Specific retail and commercial establishments were frequently requested, indicating a desire for more brand-name shopping and dining options.

These included:
o Trader Joe's
o Peet's Coffee or Starbucks Coffee
o In-N-Out Burger
» “All of the Above”: A few individuals said that they liked all of the uses shown, and wanted to vote “all of the above.” This may explain some of the interest and support for the mixed use vision.
» Feasibility: A few individuals commented that they were not convinced that a community center or teen center was possible, given funding concerns. Some asked how many teens were in Brisbane, and whether the number was sufficient to support a teen center.

ATTACHMENT 2B
112
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 12
Appendix A
Photos of Vision Boards with Dots
ATTACHMENT 2B
113
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 13
ATTACHMENT 2B
114
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 14
ATTACHMENT 2B
115
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 15
ATTACHMENT 2B
116
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 1
70 Old County Road Planning Program
Community Survey Summary
A survey was conducted from May 14 – June 30, 2025 to obtain feedback from the community on potential uses of the 70 Old County Road property.

The survey was publicized through the STAR, City message boards, weekly BLAST email notifications, the City’s project e-notification subscription list, and the City’s social media channels. The survey was offered in both online and hard copy formats. 233 responses were received.

The survey provided an overview of the project site along with six distinct land use “visions” for the property. These included stand-alone housing, destination commercial, a small commercial center, mixed-use development, and both community and teen centers. The concepts were shaped by input from the March 8, 2025 community open house and were designed to represent a range of options considered feasible based on the site’s physical characteristics and market potential. Survey participants were asked to rank their top three preferences among the six visions and were invited to explain their choices and identify key considerations for each.

ATTACHMENT 2C
117
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 2
Survey Responses
Survey Question: From the six vision concepts shown below, please select your top three favorite ideas for how this site could be redeveloped. You may rank them 1st, 2nd, and 3rd.

Rankings
Based on the numbers of first choice votes, the vision concept with the strongest support was the Mixed Use Retail + Housing vision, followed by the Small Commercial Center vision and the Community Center vision.

ATTACHMENT 2C
118
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 3
Vision Concept #1: Small Commercial Center
Vision Concept #2: Destination Commercial
This means 61 people
chose this as their
first choice
ATTACHMENT 2C
119
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 4
Vision Concept #3: Stand-Alone Housing
Vision Concept #4: Mixed-Use Retail + Housing
ATTACHMENT 2C
120
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 5
Vision Concept #5: Community Center
Vision Concept #6: Teen Center
ATTACHMENT 2C
121
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 6
“Tell Us More” Responses
As an optional question, respondents were invited to tell why they made their choices and what would be important considerations for each choice.

Many respondents expressed a strong desire for new commercial amenities, especially a small grocery store (such as Trader Joe’s), a pharmacy, health food options, a bakery, and diverse restaurants (e.g., Thai, Sweetgreen). There was also interest in revitalizing the neighboring shopping center and attracting new businesses to improve the area’s vibrancy.

A significant number of comments highlighted the need for a modern community center or recreation hub, noting that current facilities are outdated, lack ADA compliance, and do not meet the needs of all age groups. Respondents emphasized the value of having a central space for classes, programs, and social gatherings, particularly for teens and families who currently travel outside Brisbane for activities. There was also mention of the previous teen center becoming neglected and a suggestion to consider a community garden instead.

Opinions on housing were mixed. Some respondents opposed new housing at this site due to concerns about traffic, aesthetics, and proximity to major roadways, while others supported mixed-use development that includes both housing and community space.

Some also noted the importance of ensuring any new development provides financial benefits to the city rather than being a financial drain.

Overall, the most common themes were the desire for new commercial amenities (especially food-related), a modern and inclusive community center, and careful consideration of housing and financial impacts.

All responses are provided in Appendix B.
“Other Ideas to Share” Responses
As an optional question, respondents were invited to describe other options that might not have been shown in the six visions that were presented.

Many respondents emphasized the need for community-oriented spaces, with several suggesting an exercise facility, or intergenerational gathering place that supports both social and physical activities. There was also notable interest in creating more green, interactive outdoor spaces—particularly those usable by children and for community gardens.

ATTACHMENT 2C
122
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 7
Some respondents expressed concerns about adding housing to the area, citing potential issues with increased traffic and parking difficulties, and preferred retail or restaurant options to bring vibrancy without permanent population growth. However, there was also support for a combination of community center and housing, rather than retail-focused development.

A few responses highlighted the desire for practical amenities such as a grocery store, gas/charging station, and bike rental/fix stations with local history exhibits. There was also mention of mixed-use spaces that combine parks with places to eat and shop.

Overall, the most common themes were a strong preference for community gathering spaces (especially those that are intergenerational and support health/wellness), more green and interactive outdoor areas, and some concern about the impact of additional housing on traffic and parking.

All responses are provided in Appendix C.

ATTACHMENT 2C
123
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 8
Demographics
233 people responded to the survey. Gender, age, and place of residence responses are indicated below:

ATTACHMENT 2C
124
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 9
Appendix A
Survey Document
ATTACHMENT 2C
125
F.
10 70 Old County Survey - Building on the March 8 Open House Instructions
Write as clearly as you can— these forms might be scanned Write your answers in the same language as this form
ATTACHMENT 2C
126
F.
11 70 Old County Road Survey
In 2022, the City of Brisbane purchased the former Bank of America site at 70 Old County Road, a 1.27-acre parcel located at a key entrance to the city. This acquisition allows the City and community to proactively plan how this land should be redeveloped. The community has the opportunity to create something that truly benefits the community—whether that's housing, retail, community services, or something else.

As part of the planning process, the City is gathering community input to help shape the future of this important site.

To learn more about the project, please visit brisbaneca.org/70OldCounty A community open house was held this past March to gather input from the community on potential uses for the 70 Old County Road property. Broad themes that emerged from the input included:

Preserving Brisbane's Scale and Character: There was a strong and recurring desire to maintain Brisbane's unique "small-town character." A common theme was the preference for development that is not "massive". Height limitations were frequently mentioned, with limits of two or three stories being suggested.

Traffic and Infrastructure: Traffic congestion and parking shortages were raised as concerns. There were also considerations about the suitability of the land for development due to issues like liquefaction and sea level rise.

Economic Development and Retail Viability: There was a desire to stimulate the local economy, support small businesses, and attract more retail options.

However, concerns were raised about the current vacancy of businesses and the viability of retail in the area.

Planning Approach: Comments emphasized the need for comprehensive planning that considers various factors and integrates different land uses. There were suggestions to have a more comprehensive plan that would involve the coordinated development and/or redevelopment of properties nearby.

Community members had a wide range of suggestions for potential uses of the property:

ATTACHMENT 2C
127
F.
12 Retail/Commercial: Specific retail and commercial establishments were frequently requested, indicating a desire for more shopping and dining options.

These included a grocery store such as Trader Joe's, a pharmacy, commercial recreation such as a gym or indoor sports, or a restaurant.

Community Spaces: A wide range of community uses were suggested, reflecting a desire for more public amenities and gathering places. These included a theater or performing arts center, teen center, community rooms and meeting spaces, and park/open space.

Housing: Suggestions for diverse housing options were provided, with discussions around affordable housing, senior housing, workforce housing, and homes for first-time buyers. There were suggestions for combining housing with other uses, such as retail or community uses.

Based on the community input, six different “visions” have been developed for the 70 Old County Road site. These visions reflect a range of options considered feasible within the site’s physical and market conditions. While not every community suggestion is represented — some were not economically viable — the visions aim to capture a broad spectrum of possibilities.

Each vision includes a sketch to illustrate potential layouts and building footprints.

These are not formal design proposals, however. More detailed designs will be presented in the upcoming “Concept Plans” phase.

Survey Question
From the six vision concepts shown below, please select your top three favorite ideas for how this site could be redeveloped. You may rank them 1st, 2nd, and 3rd.

1. Small Commercial Center - A compact commercial hub with strong roadway visibility, marketable retail spaces, and convenient parking. Regional Examples:

Chess Drive Commercial Center (Foster City)
ATTACHMENT 2C
128
F.
13 The Hangar (Scotts Valley)
Destination Commercial - A stand-alone, single-tenant business that draws customers from beyond Brisbane. Regional Examples:

ATTACHMENT 2C
129
F.
14 Starbucks (Palo Alto)
Maverick Jack’s (Burlingame)
ATTACHMENT 2C
130
F.
15 Stand-Alone Housing - A residential development that is either 100% affordable or a mix of market-rate and affordable housing. Regional Examples:

Firehouse Square Apartments (Belmont)
ATTACHMENT 2C
131
F.
16 Arbor Rose Townhomes (San Mateo)
Mixed-Use Retail + Housing - A development with ground-floor retail and residential units above. Regional Examples:

ATTACHMENT 2C
132
F.
17 City Center Plaza (Redwood City)
Broderick Place (San Francisco)
ATTACHMENT 2C
133
F.
18 Community Center - A public facility for meetings, events, and recreation, accessible to all residents. Regional Examples:

South San Francisco Parks & Rec Center
ATTACHMENT 2C
134
F.
19 Southeast Community Center (San Francisco)
Teen Center - A dedicated place where teens can relax, study, and participate in youth-focused programs. “The Vibe” (Foster City)
ATTACHMENT 2C
135
F.
20 ATTACHMENT 2C
136
F.
21 “The Vibe” (Foster City)

1. Please rank your top 3.

Please rank your top three choices below (1 = Most Preferred, 2 = Second, 3 = Third Please write a number from 1 (most preferred) and 6 (least preferred) in each box.

Use each number exactly once.

Small Commercial Center
Destination Commercial
Stand-Alone Housing
Mixed-Use Retail + Housing
Community Center
Teen Center
ATTACHMENT 2C
137
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 22
Appendix B
“Tell Us More” Responses
As an optional question, respondents were invited to tell why they made their choices and what would be important considerations for each choice.

Question text: If you’d like, please tell us why you made your choices and what would be important considerations for each choice.

All responses (unedited) (101)
Need pharmacy
Small Commercial - would love a Sweetgreen, a bakery, a Thai restaurant. Would prefer building to be two stories or less.

A small grocery store (eg Trader Joe’s) or some other retail/restaurant establishment would bring some welcomed business to that end of town without taking away from our beloved ‘small town’ vibe.

Income source for the city plus additional housing. Some options are just a pure financial draw on the city, that's bad
The current "community center" is outdated and lacking ADA requirements. The community has expressed more interest for classes and programs-- this would be a perfect space to host more gatherings and social settings for those of all ages.

While more housing is generally a good thing, I believe that a site next to a major roadway with significant truck traffic is not the right place for housing, especially considering that the Baylands (hopefully) will be developed into hosting a lot of new housing. All other choices (teen/community center or commercial space) have similar ranking with no one standing out as a clear winner
Brisbane is great to live in, however during the rainy months there is little to do. We rely on our good weather, but that isn't what we always have. Teens have very little to do here, which is a big problem for them. Community Center would allow ALL of the population to be involved though.
housing would be an eyesore and cause traffic issues. not a great spot for living.

Recreation programs are vital to the Brisbane community and there is currently no central community hub in Brisbane.

We tried the teen center before, and it is now a dilapidated building eyesore with weeds growing all over. Maybe we could make that area another community garden.

Brisbane families drive our kids all over for activities that could be held in a dedicated space that others could also use. So many BES, Lipman and High School families supplement their kids' education, musical, artistic, athletic talents and wellATTACHMENT 2C 138
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 23
being. I think there is real potential for a community center or similar facility to be a dedicated space to help families stay local and buy dinner in the plaza afterwards. We would safe so much time and travel if we could just stay in Brisbane. A concerted effort needs to be made to refurbish the dingy brown plaza, get new businesses there (like that boarded up Martial Arts place) and make the vegetation more inviting.

Thinking more wholistically about 70 Old County would help the board. Thank you! Mixed used housing and community center would be my first choice.

I'm not sure there are commercial operations that want to use the space-- since there is the commercial space next door it seems redundant. Of all of these options, the community center adds something new to our city. A combination of community center and housing would be ideal-- adding new housing stock is always needed. health food grocery or similar, farmers market with more options We have a significant need for space for our older children in our community. As a small isolated town we need additional resources for those who can not easily leave Brisbane during the day. This includes primarily children and young teens, but additionally adults. We need a space similar to what Mission Blue provides but within walking distance to the schools and majority of houses in our community.

Now is the perfect time for our town to invest in more community spaces. Creating places where we can all connect safely - family, teens, singles, older folks too - will bring us closer together. (And we really need unity right now with the way the world is going!) Not only will this support local businesses and help our economy grow, but it’ll give everyone, regardless of background, a space to feel welcome. These spaces could host events and opportunities that celebrate our community and bring people together make our town a healthier place to live. Let’s take this opportunity to create a space where everyone can thrive and feel a sense of belonging.

I wish this survey could provide info about the relative revenue the city might gain from each option.

Provide green areas with trees. Prioritize walking, biking, people over vehicles.

An in-house audience is always useful to help retail. Not convinced there is a single retail merchant/restaurant that will draw enough people.

We need housing! Mixed use would be best because it will spur business which would benefit the whole city. Even just stand-alone housing would spur business at the Brisbane Village Shopping Center nearby. And this isn't even that much housing so it will still preserve Brisbane's small town feel. We already have plenty of space in Brisbane for teens and community gathering (the skate park, basketball courts, Library, Community Center on Visitacion, Mission Blue Center, the Community Park).

We don't need more of that. The purely commercial options waste so much space on surface parking and would likely just lead to the same fate as the Bank of America: an eventually vacant storefront. Please, build housing. As much as the NIMBY's might ATTACHMENT 2C
139
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 24
protest, it is what is best for Brisbane's future and would actually benefit everyone in our city.
given the central location of the property, the most optimal use would be mixed use residential and commercial. it likely generates the most tax revenue per acre and requires little maintenance compared to other options.

Whatever it is, just don’t make it look like a strip mall.

I actually don't care what goes there, but your survey is forcing me to rank the concepts above. Please consider not making answers mandatory if you really want to engage the community. I just want the city to recover the money that's been spent on this property. With the exception of standalone housing (assuming the community supports the denisty required, which I doubt), none of those concepts seems likely feasible. How does the city get back the money spent on this purchase with a Community or Teen Center? Where is the data for these concepts? Where are the numbers that show any of the retail/restraurant options would attract greater numbers of people than other cities? While we meet the 20,000 daily trips, other cities have a lot more, so there's no financial incentive for a retail/restraurant to locate in Brisbane. A similar study was already done for the Parkside Precise Plan with a much more detailed economic analysis of this area and clearly showed why retail/restraurants were likely not feasible here. Mixed use was also deemed not likely because Brisbane is against the density required to make it work. 1 San Bruno is great example of failed mixed use - no retail. The Parkside Precise Plan reflected what the community wanted, but not what the market will support, and this is why nothing has been developed there. The city is following the same failed process which will also lead to something not feasible, but in this case we will have something sitting vacant that the city will be paying for. And just one last comment. Regarding Teen Centers, I've raised a teenager, and they aren't interested in an adult supervised space. The skatepark/basketball courts are the Teen Center.

I like the "The Hangar (Scotts Valley)" style of small commercial, not the generic strip mall. Something quaint to match our small town. I was going back and forth between just small commercial and the mixed-use retail/housing. More housing would be good, but would that be the right spot for it? A Community Center at the entrance of town would be nice, but do townsfolk even use our current community center? No on destination commercial as we are close to a lot of those places already. I believe there are more non-teens than teens, so dedicating a whole space/center to them might not be the best use, but maybe a part of the mixed-use could be for teens.

If we made some affordable housing here, maybe we could revitalize the business spaces in the adjacent strip mall...which sits empty a lot of the time.

Bonus that it is across from shopping and the park.

Wendy's, bookstore, color me mine, art supply, coffee shop ATTACHMENT 2C
140
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 25
Only care for having a store there. In N Out Burgers, Chick Fil A are always bus. Site has enough parking. Great source of income for the city. Wouldbe a great job for high schoolers.

I don't think people should live down there. Too close to the water. A Trader Joe's would put Brisbane on the map, bringing people into town to our restaurants and businesses. Brisbane folks would have a place to shop without needing to drive.

I would like to see a 2-3 story building with apartments for seniors. Commercial on the ground floor (restaurant or market) and a meeting or community room.

There's limited parking at the two centers now.

None of the above. I would like the Community Park to be extended to this space.

Remove the current building, plant more trees, etc, and have it open so it welcomes peple to the shopping plaza and the park.

The vacancy rate at the existing "shopping center" should tell you all you need to know about additional retail, and putting a Trader Joe's or Starbucks or something similar is a pipe dream. Brisbane needs affordable and senior housing.

I also like the idea of a teen center but have no idea where that would fit in.

The hangar concept from SV would be ideal as well as to have perhaps a combo of small retail footprint with a teen center space as well a nice and safe outdoor eating spaces with trees and shade.

I had to rank these but mixed use retail and housing is the only one I think we should pursue. Urban density is the what makes a city more walkable and bike-able: having attractive places to live, work and do business within walking distance is key. You have to have something compelling to walk/bike to.

Any low density / single story residential or commercial project represents a poor use of space.

Whatever this development is, it also needs to be carbon neutral from day one.

Putting in any new fossil fuel infrastructure of any kind would be a poor financial decision, and is not aligned with the city’s 2040 net zero goals. not a good place for housing. it's noisy and there are a lot of vehicle fumes.

Housing would support retail already in Brisbane.

Brisbane needs to attract more business, adding a commercial hub next to the current one may help attract other business
We already have a local retail center that can barely stay rented, so more retail is out of the question. I think a community center like SSF would be a great addition to the entrance to Brisbane, as long as it is no more than 2-3 stories high.

We need housing and this would be a great location, not causing more traffic for the rest of Brisbane. Mixed use would be great - and housing would help create foot ATTACHMENT 2C
141
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 26
traffic for the businesses.

For the 16+ years we've lived here, we've been told we don't have enough people for a grocery store (Trader Joe's, Lunardi's, Rainbow, etc) -- could a 'destination' retail be userful?
Whatever you do, please make sure there's ample parking. And, we don't need more strip malls! That era is over.

Finally, as a mom of teenagers, I can safely say the Teens Will Not Use the Space enough to justify the opportunity cost of all of these other great ideas.

Please try to get as close to Parkside as you can. Bay Area needs more housing and this is the easiest and most environmentally friendly way (ie not Baylands, not Acres) to have more housing while retaining the charm of Brisbane ... and maybe more housing will help us improve our restaurant scene.

Thank you!
More housing is a must. BUT I would hate to not also have some kinds of first floor extras there (either community space or commercial) since that’s such a central location.

The location is along a very busy very loud road. Not a good place for any housing nor community center. I would like to see something welcoming that will draw people in. A business/commercial center can do that.

I would also like to see a Chase or Wells Fargo Bank there. That would be my 2nd choice.

Perfect location for a well know commercial food source or BLT expansion. This could draw traffic into Brisbane from Bayshor.

The city has not been able to provide significant housing opportunities regularly prioritizing industrial space which detracts from the community growth. Small businesses struggle as there is not sufficient patronage of what is in place currently so that leads me to conclude that any retail should fall second to housing.

Easy access from SF and Peninsula, and lots of parking makes it super attractive.

Need a sit-down restaurant in the area, Starbucks would also be great Affordable housing is critical to our community. Should include a few 2 -3 bedroom for a few families to continue to live in town. Priority for current residents in town.

Seniors and those with disabilities could also be on list. Perfect for those who rely on transportation or have no car.

Demand for housing is ever present; loation is excellent for retail opportunity Affordable senior housing not run by bridge
ATTACHMENT 2C
142
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 27
I want a bank.

For this community, I don't know that there is an enclosed center for emergency evacuations due to fire or Earthquake. As many of us age we will require use of things like oxygen, CPAP, motorized wheelchairs that need to be charged, etc. There should be a place designated for folks with those needs in case of devastating fire or earthquake.

The city already has a community center (another one does not make sense); commercial is okay but as you stated - Brisbane does not have enough of a catchment area to support destination commercial
I’m hoping we put something in this location that broadly benefits Brisbane residents (vs only impacts a limited number of families), creates a welcoming entrance to the town, some sense of cohesion with the community park, and hopefully encourages some improvement in the foot traffic and owner upkeep of the larger commercial building on site. While there are a few restaurants in there working very hard that are usually busy, everything else is empty storefronts or pretty sad.

In-fill housing, right in the town center next to public transportation options (although few) and walk-able to most services in town, is very important to me. I would prefer it to be ALL affordable housing, based on a variety of incomes. I am really pissed off that the Park Place housing was never built because people wanted to keep "that small town feel". Well now we've got the Baylands shoved down our throats instead. If we do more of these in-fill projects, we can meet the state requirements of building our share of housing without building on the goddamn dump.

Brisbane needs an affordable grocery store and pharmacy (Trader Joe’s, walgreens, etc), especially if it adds housing. The current options are crazy expensive! Who could afford to shop there?
Not everyone has the money for a car or gas to easily drive to the current grocery options that are ridiculously far away, currently an hour each direction on public transit!
The town of Brisbane is so small that promoting walking and bike riding would be easy!
The merchant would also be able to supplement the small scale of business provided by Brisbane with the traffic from Bayshore Blvd and all of the nearby businesses with warehouses full of employees who are also looking for healthier meal options located within a closer proximity to work, as shifts rotate 24/7. While I don’t expect Brisbane to approve a grocery store to be open 24 hours a day, Trader Joe’s specifically closes at 9pm, around the same time as other businesses in the strip mall nearby. Trader Joe’s would fit right in, here in Brisbane!
Creating as many jobs as possible with the project would really benefit Brisbanes residents, building opportunities to earn and eat for years to come.

ATTACHMENT 2C
143
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 28
A Starbucks or drive through coffee place would be the best choice, but a restaurant would probably not, the restaurants in town are barely surviving and many have closed since covid, even in the plaza next door...

Prefer a locally-owned small grocery store (e.g., Spangler’s in El Granada or Gus’ Grocery in Portola) or a Trader Joe’s.
4-6 doesn’t preserve and will bring more of the things that residents do not want or are afraid the Baylands will bring. We need more spaces where residents and particularly the younger generation and gather and do activities and not just the library after school.

This location would be perfect as a location for senior housing. Many elderly people live in the hills. Providing this type of housing would allow them to stay in Brisbane when they can no longer drive/walk safely in the hills. Adding shopping and restaurants would be a benefit for them, as well as the entire town.

I live in Brisbane because it’s a small community. Also, there’s a reverence for nature.

Brisbane is unique and it feels like a small town. People who live here love the environment and arts and they’re very laid-back. We want to keep it feeling like a small town, a hidden gem. WitWith that said, it would be nice if we had a bank, a Painton postal center, a pharmacy. Our own gas station and ATM machines.

I already submitted a survey, so this might be a duplicate, but definitely the small town feel and respect for local ecology. We don’t want Brisbane to become crowded with challenging parking issues. I’d be nice if we had a high school here. Even if it’s just an independent study center so a teen center/maybe homeschool check in place.

I believe it would be useful if Brisbane had access to a good quality grocery store that could make food shopping more easy and accessible for those in town, or a small store like Walgreens for good and affordable items.

A pharmacy or grocery store would be great. The most inconvenient thing about living in Brisbane is needing to drive to other cities for essentials.

We already have many buildings in the industrial park that have been empty for years.

Why not use this space for commercial or housing? Use what we already have. Keep our open space open.

We already have a mall there, which is ugly. Fix the clock and remove the plastic fence.

If anything, a small building, one story only with open trees and a park around. No housing.

The first two add a little retail variety without taking up valuable parking spaces. The last two are too big for the lot and would increase traffic and parking congestion.

If we want to attract customers, then the businesses should be located closer to the road. Teen/Community Centers and housing can be put in other places. The existing square needs a facelift -- hardie board siding, fresh paint, updated signage, and more ATTACHMENT 2C
144
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 29
diverse businesses. Then, the old bank area might attract more people. I think we need to consider going to two stories, IF this would give customers views of the water/mountain. So lovely in that area.

Having a Trader Joe’s would be amazing! It seems like we have enough small commercial spaces. If the space isn’tbig enough, maybe having one where garage is on ground floor and store is level above, and housing above that? We need something to invite people i to Brisbane And I think a stand alone has the best chance of doing that
Ideal spot for transit rich housing and small local businesses. Pls, no Starbucks Priority for commercial development in a space that is already adjacent to a shopping center and a location that is easily accessible for residents and visitors from outside Brisbane. The city needs economic drivers like an anchor business; a Trader Joe's or Dean's Grocery would be ideal!
A community center for Brisbane residents is our first and only choice. The other choices only invite more traffic/congestion for which we already lack parking areas.

I don't believe retail/restaurants are a viable option in that location due to the several empty storefronts already in the neighboring shopping center.

Having a big housing complex there will be an eyesore more non-asian food or retailers would be great or in my view something the community can use I do like the idea of the library being expanded and community center for EVERYONE not just the few or teens.

Teen center only serves a fraction of the population, please not. Need to bring in more people for the neighboring shopping to survive. Seems too far from freeway for destination commercial. Will more small commercial survive?? Brisbane needs more housing, but also more places for residents to dine and hang out (which will also generate tax revenue for the city). Retail space on the lower floor, preferably known entities to ensure success (restaurant, coffee shop (like Starbucks, Peets) and housing on upper floors would meet that goal. Add a little outdoor courtyard with benches, nice landscaping/trees, and parking.

Having more accessible grocery stores would be a wonderful quality of life improvement for all Brisbane residents
Our teens have been deprived of space, programs, and joy these last 10 years.

I think commercial attraction is a must for the space having multiple small shops would be fantastic. Residential is a bonus if it can be achieved efficiently.

Housing is my first priority, because Brisbane needs to do more to help people who work in town also be able to live here. My favorite idea is a Trader Joe's on the ground floor, with ownership homes above. The housing should be prioritized for first-time homeowners, as well as workforce housing (police/fire, teachers, city staff) for people who already work in Brisbane.

ATTACHMENT 2C
145
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 30
If a Trader Joe's isn't possible, I would like to see retail/commercial space on the ground floor that serves the community. We already have a lot of vacant retail space in town, so it would be good to figure out what is missing, and what the market actually wants.

It would be great to have more options for places to go in Brisbane and some place that could also host celebrations with a little outdoor seating. Something that would attract people and also offer more parking for the lunchtime crowds.

Would love to see a real market here. Trader Joe’s, Whole Foods, etc Brisbane is a grocery store dessert, with the closest option at least a 15 minute drive.

A retail center with a grocery option like Whole Foods, Safeway, Trader Joe’s etc. is much needed.

1. Who doesn't love coffee. Not another coffee shop for miles along Bayshore.

2. Be convenient to have other places to shop.

3. Always short of housing.

Brisbane needs a community or teen center where people can go to take classes or have events.

What the city needs is stand-alone housing. With so much vacant store front, the city doesn't need more commercial or mixed housing/commercial.

I agree that it is important to keep the small town feel and charm of Brisbane. I think that more accessible housing would be important, but also it wouldbe nice to have easier to access grocery
Definitely need more housing; don’t need more strip malls; don’t need community/ teen centers that will only serve a small group of people and remain underutilized most of the day.

This lot is adjacent to a very busy road (Bayshore) and intersection. It is noisy and polluted (air). Commercial activity is the best used of this site. A teen or community center, as well as housing, are not compatible with this location.

I love the idea of a community center with art galleries and meeting/event space.

Perhaps a dance studio to replace the run down old library facilities. To serve as a community center, it needs to be very different from the Mission Blue though-- can it be open all the time and constantly hosting events/classes? I rated teen center lower, as it feels like a new investment in this space would serve such a narrow portion of residents. I do think a teen center could be beneficial in town, why not in the old library? I'd place mixed use housing/retail high, as it allows for both needs.

We need to be building new housing anywhere we can in the Bay Area, and developing a mixed-use housing site with appealing retail options would provide a great example of how European-style walkable urbanism can be done here in the ATTACHMENT 2C
146
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 31
area. Such developments have extremely high levels of happiness and satisfaction for their residents and one there would be an excellent addition to Brisbane.

Our opportunity to add meaningful value!
Mixed use housing and retail would provide economic benefits in Brisbane, much needed homes, and a welcoming entry point to the city.

The BofA site is an opportunity for Brisbane to build something that brings pride to our community. Having a commercial and retail development while upgrading the existing shopping mall. Bringing a grocery store such as Trader J or Sprouts. Upgrade and Attract other businesses like a bakery, gourmet restaurants and other quality businesses would be ideal. We should stay ahead of other cities and provide the best for our community and visitors
Reason for my first choice is because Brisbane lacks places for teens to hang out at after school. I frequently see teens using the library as a hangout spot which is not ideal because the library is not big.

For my second choice, we need a new community center in the ‘old’ part of Brisbane and not at Mission Blue because Mission Blue is quite far, especially for anyone who doesn’t drive. Maybe it’s time to renew the community center that is currently below the old library?
For my third choice, I chose this because we can use more housing AND commercial space in this part of Brisbane and not just housing.

I didn’t care for the choice of a commercial center since we already have one.

I just can’t picture people coming to Brisbane a destination commercial spot some there are so many bigger and better retail near us (i.e. Serramonte).

I am a brisbane resident and have been looking to move out of a 1 bedroom to a bigger place for my family of 4 and it has been impossible. There is nothing on the market and the few that have gone on zillow disappeared 2 days later. I would love to stay in Brisbane and continue to be apart of such a wonderful community.

As busy mom of 2 I would also like to see more options for grocery stores in town.

With the structure already there, it’s easy to add with minimal destruction either a popular coffee spot(dutch bros) or a reputable food shop to the area. "NO" housing near the plaza. Does not suit a small downtown area. Too much congestion!
Tables/umbrellas for people to sit, talk, and have lunch or a treat (ice cream, pastry, tea + coffee). Brisbane residential is "easily accessible" to the plaza. In addition, there could be more parking, trees for shade, and flowers! We've got the weather! All we need is an outdoor space to enjoy!!
I prioritized in order of what we don’t have already in Brisbane I strongly oppose a corporate chain in this location like Starbucks.

ATTACHMENT 2C
147
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 32
Indoor play ground for kids
Living in Brisbane, I would love another nice restaurant or bar close to home as currently the options are limited. I’d be happy with the convenience of a small pharmacy or something going into the commercial space. I’m interested in bringing people from outside the community to support our businesses. Also, I believe in adding more housing to make overall housing more affordable- I think every community needs to do their part. I think we have enough community spaces (Maybe just renovate Mission Blue please?). It seems that if the city acquires it as a community space, it is going to cost money to run instead of making money. Teen center sounds nice - but who is going to run it? It’s doesn’t seem like Brisbane Parks and Rec is resourced enough to keep enough programs going. community We need more housing but I'd love to see it mixed use to support the opportunties for local businesses that the community would welcome.

ATTACHMENT 2C
148
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 33
Appendix C
“Other Ideas to Share” Responses
As an optional question, respondents were invited to describe other options that might not have been shown in the six visions that were presented.

Question text: As noted at beginning of survey, there were many creative ideas that the community put forward at the open house that are not shown here because these six scenarios are the most feasible. However, we want to hear if you are passionate about other options that aren’t shown here so these can be conveyed to the City Council.

All responses (unedited) (56)
Maverick Jacks
An actual grocer such as Safeway or other
Housing in that center would add issue to the already populated streets and parking.

We would have more difficulty navigating Visitacion with that section of the town potentially having a great amount more commuter cars in its midst. Highly fond of a small retail establishment or restaurant that would bring vibrancy instead of housing permanency.

Community Center Exercise facility to enable the seniors to stay physically fit and mobile. PT and OT services could be nearby to assist. Working out is important for young and old, thus it would be intergenerational from Teens to elderly. We need a place to go regularly where we don't need to ingest calories for a meeting space such as boba or sweets.

I left an idea in the previous box, I think another community garden might fulfill the Old Empty building next to the Ace hardware, that used to be a teen center.

Combination community center and housing-- instead of retail and housing. Brisbane isn't like any of the examples shown-- the businesses shown in the examples wouldn't build there. We lost Bank of America from that spot-- why are the plans for that spot banking on businesses when they come and go based on what works for them and not for our community. A community center and housing are both needed here.

Gas Station/Charging Station
Bike rental with trail maps and historic exhibits of early Brisbane and the Ohlone tribe that resided here originally.

Bike rental/fix station with trail maps, Brisbane & Ohlone history, and points of interest.

The representations above are all heavily covered in cement. I think it is more in line with the values of our community if final designs include more green usable outdoor ATTACHMENT 2C
149
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 34
space. Not landscaped space, but space that can be interacted with, especially by children.

Brisbane has a unique opportunity to create a space that fosters a connected, resilient, and engaged community that is both welcoming but also protective of its values. I haven't had the opportunity to voice my preferences yet, so thank you so much for all the effort to hear each and every one of us.

I would love to see a dedicated space for socializing, creativity, and personal growth...a diverse open space plan that allows physical activity and socialization, artistic expression, creative workshops, maybe an outdoor exercise station, a meditation/education/nature hub to commemorate the mountain and its protection....

We could offer essential resources for mental and physical health, empowering our residents to thrive. It has the potential to set Brisbane at the forefront of innovative, people-centered development, creating a model for other cities to follow. Let's build a future where all are invited to feel safe, supported, and connected! https://culdesac.com
A mixed use space that includes a community park is ideal since it offers many reasons to come to the area — a place to eat, shop, and hang out How about a large maker space - similar to The Crucible in Oakland. It emphasizes innovation, creates possibilities for both adult and youth classes, and generates employment opportunities for the instructors and staff. Could possibly combine as mixed use with housing.

Sell it ASAP. The market, not the community, will decide what goes there, and it's likely that whatever is feasible by the market is not going to be what the community wants anyway. If the city builds what the 'community' wants (which I highly doubt is housing based on the fact the state had to force Brisbane to approve housing on a vacant site 3 mi away), it will likley sit vacant for years. This was a completey irresponsible purchase by 4 City Council Members because they were afraid of what the market would support - not a great strategy. I find it laughable that some of concepts show chain restraurants (Habit for example) when one of the council members that voted for the purchase was afraid that if the city didn't buy the property there would be an In and Out at that spot.
'- Pop-Up Business Space: Small modular kiosks or booths for startups, food trucks, or seasonal vendors. Designed to support local entrepreneurs and create vibrancy. - Town Co-Op Market Flex Space: Sell local produce, crafts, and goods in a shared storefront or open market with a green plaza
- Incorporate solar and battery storage, sustainability Might be nice to house the police station here. Easy access to Bayshore and would be a reminder for criminals that might have to pass on their way into town.

How about Hawaiian BBQ
Hydrogen station
ATTACHMENT 2C
150
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 35
Have we considered a mixed use retail + housing scenario that also treats the parking as an EV charging hub with solar canopy and storage?
This would be a forward thinking way to maximize the utility of the parking area, providing shade, a new revenue stream from the charging itself, and a captive audience looking to waste a little time at the local businesses while they charge. Put charging in the kinds of places people want to go anyway – not the parking lots of mostly empty or otherwise unattractive buildings.

Companies like Rove (https://www.rovecharging.com/) are doing interesting things with this concept. I think this type of setup could work quite well in this location given its proximity to Bayshore Blvd and 101.

One other idea I had along the lines of the community center – what if the complex was primarily mixed use retail with housing above but there was a small multipurpose space used to make produce from local farmers, vendors and small businesses available more often than just our once weekly farmers market? Maybe it could be run like a small coop? I know I would shop there!
It could also be structured along the lines of Japanese ‘Michi-no-eki’ : a place for travelers from all over to stop, recharge, be exposed to local foods, arts and culture, support the local economy and get back to their journey. https://www.japan.travel/en/guide/michi-no-eki/
offices for community groups
New retail shouldn't compete with already-existing retail (e.g. Mad House) It will be great if we can attract a grocery store to open up in Brisbane.

My son wants a small soccer field -- could do multipurpose athletic (pickeball, futsal) in the same site with residential.

I don’t mind height. I do mind my kids not being able to afford a home near me. I’m nervous that anti-builders are louder than people who want more housing availability for future generations.

I think a restaurant from the BLT owners would be successful and a benefit for the city.

A park or parking lot.

Include an emergency Shelter for our citizens for disaster relief, including what I said above and a space to store sleeping cots, blankets and other emergency supplies.

Definitely don't want any more housing right at the entrance to town.

Prefer we use the old library as a starting point for a community/teen center.

ATTACHMENT 2C
151
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 36
We need more healthy restaurants. Restaurant options and grocery store are very limited here. I personally have gluten allergy and I have to drive out of Brisbane to get what I need. Also we don’t have a good drugstore here. Madhouse is such a nice hangout place to meet your friends. We need more community base places like that.

Or we can sit around outside have lunch or a smoothie or something affordable options that are healthier.

We need healthy food options. A grocery store. I’ve been on the waitlist for the community garden for three years. I would love to have more community garden space in Brisbane and a nice drugstore. The hard word store in post office are closed while I’m off of work. It would be nice if there were places I could do my shopping on the evenings and weekends.

While not very popular, the city could use a quality automobile service station that includes gas and common repair services.

We are missing views of the water in our area. This isn't necessarily connected to this survey, but we have areas on the lagoon and bay that could provide restaurants with views. There is nothing special like this until you get to Burlingame. An idea! Our downtown has too much housing on the main street. Senior Centers and housing can be put in other areas to create a more vibrant small town feel. I think our seniors should have a center that has lovely views! They deserve it! Thank you for asking for our feedback!
High school
Gas station
Brisbane residents often use the ambiguous "small town character" description to describe how they want the city to be shaped. This is often a red herring for their true underlying no-growth and no-change mentality. Brisbane has grown over the years despite this, like the Ridge development. But retail in town has been waning.

Visitacion Ave, for example, should be a quaint and vibrant retail row, but is instead is a somewhat depressing strip of mostly closed storefronts and our beautiful new library. And while the generation that wishes to preserve a city that no longer exists (and hasn't since the 60s), a new generation needs places to live and work, and access to transit. Just across Bayshore from 70 Old County Rd, for example, is a perfect location for a truly Brisbane Caltrain stop. We need to have imagination and not stay stuck in an outdated view of the "small town" city. We have amazing opportunities to be a vibrant and innovative little community.

The only other idea we have is for another bank. It's nice to have a bank right in town that can cooperate with the San Mateo Credit Union ATM.

WE NEED A CALTRAIN STATION AT OUR FRONT DOOR this property could help with parking if no other is available. WHY IS BRISBANE not trying to get Caltrain to San Francisco and San Jose right here instead heading to the ghetto and dust zone of a garbage heap calling that our station? We need leaders that take city planning ATTACHMENT 2C
152
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 37
seriously, been here 12 years and NO ONE has thought to put good public transit instead we get a disgusting SamTrans bus or a commuter van that is dangerous to the safety of its riders?
Senior housing would create jobs for young people and help some people that have lived here for some time and love the environment.

Groceries are key in our opinion
Leverage the commercial spaces as a rotating starter space for short term pop-ups that can serve as a feeder program to establish permanent location along empty Visitacion storefronts. Offer subsidies to setup for a short term lease and if the business takes off encourage permanence further in town.

Central Brisbane needs a community center/public gathering space--but I think that should be located at the old library (250 Visitacion), not at the edge of town on busy Bayshore Blvd.

I don't like the idea of only adding commercial without also adding housing. People living onsite adds 'eyes on the street' which keeps the area safer. It is also located right across the street from the bus stop (and not far from CalTrain), which makes it transit-served for people who don't drive.

In addition to a grocery store, a mixed retail configuration with space for a bar or restaurant to act as a community hub where neighbors can share food and drinks is lacking. Virtually all other towns on the peninsula offer mid-tier or upscale bars and restaurants which Brisbane doesn’t have. A bar or brewery with outdoor space good for gatherings and families would really attract people in our community.

City needs more housing!
Whatever is done, it is very important that entry and exit to/from Old County Road are designed in a manner that safe.

Gas statio
Some affordable housing with small boutique hotel with some commercial integrated into it. This is the entrance to the city so must be inviting. The boutique hotel would integrate traveller's with permanent residents.

One thought that I didn’t add to survey is that it would be a great opportunity for the City to allow the property owners of 23&25 Visitacion as well as the 23 Club parking lot on San Bruno Ave to trade for the old Bank of America property, allowing them to build the units that have been approved on the 23 club parking lot .The properties in the center of town as well as the old Teen center site would be a great opportunity to build our new community center , teen center and senior center which is a much needed necessity for our community !Thank you , Paul Bouscal As part of this project, consider adding a grocery such as Trader Joe’s or Sprouts.

Additionally, upgrade the rest of the other stores in the shopping mall across from the ATTACHMENT 2C
153
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 38
BofA site. A lot of the stores are empty and those remaining need to be switched out for high quality businesses.

Maybe became a large spot where vendors can lease out booth size spots for retail (i.e. local artisanal goods, art) and food (i.e. local creamer, coffee)? Like they have in Europe?
I am a small food business owner and a resident of Brisbane for 10 years. I would like to see a Commercial Kitchen Nonprofit just like La Cocina in SF , whjch offers a commercial kitchen spaces and programming at an affordable rate to working-class entrepreneurs. We desperately need one in San Mateo County.

We need a restaurant that serves a minimum of breakfast - "traditional" eggs, bacon, sausage, potatoes, toast. Lunch - hamburgers, sandwiches, salads, desserts.

Remember the "Brother's Four" - Everyone Loved It!!
Trader Joe’s, in-n-out, performing arts center, community center European Piazza style center with a mix of options for teens, spaces for music, art, batting cages, small community center, a restaurant.

Teen center
Community center
ATTACHMENT 2C
154
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 1
70 Old County Road Planning Program
Concert in the Park Pop-Up – July 25, 2025
Event Summary
The City of Brisbane hosted a Pop-Up booth at the Concert in the Park event on July 25, 2025, as part of the ongoing community engagement effort for the 70 Old County Road Community Visioning project. The purpose of the Pop-Up was to share project updates, present preliminary land use concepts, present survey results and collect community feedback to help refine land use options for the site.

ATTACHMENT 2D
155
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 2
The event was promoted through several City communication channels, including:
• The STAR publication
• City message boards
• Weekly BLAST email updates
• The City’s project e-notification subscription list
• City social media platforms
Despite broad outreach, adverse weather conditions—including high winds and cold temperatures—contributed to a low turnout at both the concert and the project booth.

Twelve attendees engaged with City staff and project consultants during the two-hour event.

ATTACHMENT 2D
156
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 3
The Pop-Up featured informational displays highlighting:
• General Information
• Purpose and Timeline
• Survey Results
• Top Picks
• What do you think?
• Next Steps
The presentation boards and the feedback received are summarized below.

ATTACHMENT 2D
157
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 4
Presentation Boards
The first two boards provided background on the 70 Old County Road property and provided an overview of the planning initiative.

ATTACHMENT 2D
158
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 5
The question of “how can this property benefit the community” was included on the second board. Possible ideas at the initiation were housing, stores and restaurants, or community uses.

ATTACHMENT 2D
159
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 6
The third board provided an overview of the community survey, and the purpose of finding the top picks from community input. There were 233 responses to the survey, with respondents evaluating six vision concepts that had been developed from earlier engagement processes such as the Open House in March and the Farmers’ Market PopUp in May. Participants in the survey were asked to pick their top three favorite Vision Concepts, and were invited to explain their choices.

ATTACHMENT 2D
160
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 7
The next board included excerpts from survey responses. The intention was to highlight a range of opinions.

ATTACHMENT 2D
161
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 8
The next board highlighted the three Vision Concepts that received the most support from the survey. Some visitors confirmed they had taken the survey, and they were interested in the results. A few people place dots on the “Top Picks” board to further affirm the vote they had cast. Others took a survey summary handout and quickly moved along.

The dots counts were:
• Mixed-Use Retail: three dots
• Small Commercial Center: four dots
• Community Center: three dots
Some of the participants came to the booth and placed a dot on the option they thought best. Others put dots on particular photos, indicating they preferred one architectural style over the other, particularly for mixed-use retail & housing. Some participants mentioned how the community center examples were too big for the site, especially the South San Francisco example, so would not be realistic for the 70 Old County Road site.

ATTACHMENT 2D
162
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 9
The next board was titled “What do you think?” Attendees were invited to respond to the material using Post-it notes. Due to limited attendance, written feedback was limited. Most visitors opted to provide feedback through informal conversation rather than written input, so only two written comments were submitted on the board:
• Mixed Use- go for it! I love the Mission Style Architecture. It’s like what has been here before!
• Bring back a bank or a credit union.

ATTACHMENT 2D
163
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 10
ATTACHMENT 2D
164
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 11
ATTACHMENT 2D
165
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 12
A “Next Steps” board was also provided to outline the remaining phases of the planning process and upcoming opportunities for community involvement.

ATTACHMENT 2D
166
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 13
Conclusion
Although attendance was limited, the feedback received was generally consistent with the survey results and the earlier Farmers’ Market pop-up. In conversations with the project team, most attendees reaffirmed their own choices and explained the reasons behind them.

ATTACHMENT 2D
167
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 1
70 Old County Road Planning Program
Community Open House #2 – September 6, 2025
Event Summary
The Community Open House for the 70 Old County Road Community Visioning project was held on September 6, 2025 from 10:00 am to noon at the 70 Old County Road site. This was the second open house for the project.

The open house was designed to encourage interactive feedback, share results of the community survey, and allow attendees to become more familiar with the features of the site.

Attendees engaged one-on-one with staff, compared ideas with neighbors, and joined smallgroup conversations by topic. A self-guided walking tour of the property was offered to highlight existing conditions and site context.

As the final community engagement event in the planning program, the open house materials provided an overview of the project site, the remaining planning program timeline and invited input on the “top picks” of the land-use program for the site. Informational boards presented ATACHMENT 2E
168
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 2
the three concepts that had received the most support from the community survey—mixed-use, small commercial, and a community center—each with a brief feasibility summary and key data points (see Appendix B). Participants shared comments on Post-it notes and placed them on the boards wherever they had comments.

The open house was publicized through the STAR, City message boards, weekly BLAST email notification, and the City’s social media channels. Approximately 35 people attended over the course of the two hours.

ATACHMENT 2E
169
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 3
Consolidated Summary
This section presents a consolidated summary of the written comments gathered from all of the boards during the event. Also included are the anecdotal verbal comments that the staff heard while talking to attendees.

Most attendees were familiar with the project and had been previously engaged through prior events and/or the survey. There were a couple of first-time participants as well. Comments and questions included:
» Planning Context
o Consider the site together with the adjacent shopping center; evaluate both properties in a single planning effort.
o Step back for a broader, downtown-wide/specific-plan approach (not just this parcel).
o Coordinate early with shopping center owners; timing and phasing are important. o Begin a strategic planning process that acknowledges recent Prologis purchases. o Revive/revisit the Parkside Plan as a reference.
» City Investment & Operations (Fiscal/Ownership)
o Concern about City resources tied to the purchase, loan payments, and ongoing maintenance, but no stated preference for the final site program. » Housing and mixed-use concepts (support expressed by some but not others; see constraints Environmental & Sites Constraints comments below). o Retail anchor interest (e.g., grocery such as Whole Foods or Trader Joe’s). o A Public market concept: year-round farmer’s market in a distinctive commercial building inspired by one individual’s traveling experience in Mexico. o Fitness uses (e.g., a gym).
o Community center with a flexible, convertible space (gymnasium/large event hall) and optional residential above or in a separate building. (This was also discussed in the context of the Old Library building needing refurbishments.) o Open space alternative: “Why not make it a park?”
» Commercial Viability & Activation
o Concern about the ability to fill and sustain new commercial spaces. o Desire to integrate with and strengthen the neighboring shopping center. » Community Facilities & Services
o Request for a police satellite office (visible signage; on-site presence).

ATACHMENT 2E
170
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 4
o If adding community space, consider reusing the old library first; note existing Mission Blue Center and libraries and limited revenue potential of yet another community facility.
» Mobility & Regional Connectivity
o Idea to connect the site to the Baylands using autonomous vehicles, either ongrade or via an elevated connection. » Urban Design, Built Form & Gateway Identity
o Strong desire for a “nicely designed,” welcoming project befitting a key city gateway.
o Height and views: preference from some to limit buildings to no more than three stories to avoid blocking Bay/Lagoon views from higher streets in the “bowl.” » Environmental & Site Constraints
» Study whether the site is affected by sea-level rise and a high water table; concern raised regarding potential drainage/flooding issues.
o Additional concerns previously noted as being concern for housing: traffic exposure, noise, diesel matter, and related health/environmental factors. » Implementation & Coordination
o Communicate project milestones and timing of engagement. o Align all discussions and decisions with the shopping center ownership and include the broader downtown vision.

In summary, while opinions varied on the final land use program, ideas ranged from housing and mixed-use to a grocery anchor, public market, fitness center, community facilities, or even a park. Concerns included the City’s financial commitments, the viability of sustaining new commercial space, and the need to reuse existing facilities where possible. Participants stressed high-quality urban design befitting a key gateway, sensitivity to height and view impacts, and attention to environmental constraints such as flooding and traffic exposure. Mobility connections to the Baylands and coordination with shopping center ownership were also seen as important, alongside clear communication of project milestones. Finally, it was suggested that planning for the site should be integrated with the adjacent shopping center and framed within a broader downtown vision.

ATACHMENT 2E
171
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 5
Appendix A – Walking Tour
Attendees were invited to go on a self-guided walking tour around the site to become more familiar with its features and reflect on redevelopment matters. A handout had a map of the site on one side, and “Things to think about” items on the back. The form had room for people to take notes.

Flyer with walking tour on the front and “Things to think about” on the back Signs were posted at three locations on the site, with the “Things to think about” items on the sign.

ATACHMENT 2E
172
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 6
Walking tour signs
Three people filled out while they walked the site. Others walked the area but did not utilize the tour notes. One form was returned with just a Post-it note reading “Bank Branch ATM.” Walking Tour Responses (Note: Not all participants provided responses to each question) Notes from Walking Tour Form #1

1. Bayshore Boulevard and Oak Grove Considerations:

1. Is traffic noise greater or less than you might have expected? Normal

2. How could the oak trees be retained and incorporated into a redevelopment of the site?

3. How might this portion of the site change if the right-turn slip lane from Bayshore Boulevard onto Old County Road is eliminated, and the site is allowed to expand onto that land?

4. Other Considerations? No Highrise, 3 story max

2. Shopping Center Considerations:

1. How might new development on the 70 Old County Road property interface with the existing shopping center? Full-service grocery or bakery and deli.

2. The driveway of the 70 Old County Road property alongside the shopping center is a recorded easement that needs to be maintained to provide access to both properties.

How should traffic circulation work for both properties? Seems to function

3. Other Considerations? Public restrooms at greeting

3. Park Connections Considerations:

1. How should buildings on the 70 Old County Road property be oriented to the park? Entire area needs to be considered as a district
ATACHMENT 2E
173
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 7

2. What would be a good way to provide a connection between 70 Old County Road and the park? Light at the crosswalk.

3. Other considerations?
Notes from Walking Tour Form #2

1. Bayshore Boulevard and Oak Grove Considerations:

1. Is traffic noise greater or less than you might have expected? On a Saturday pretty quiet.

I think new building materials exclude sound better than older materials.

2. How could the oak trees be retained and incorporated into a redevelopment of the site?

3. How might this portion of the site change if the right-turn slip lane from Bayshore Boulevard onto Old County Road is eliminated, and the site is allowed to expand onto that land?

4. Other Considerations?

2. Shopping Center Considerations:

1. How might new development on the 70 Old County Road property interface with the existing shopping center? I don’t see how two shopping centers would be in competition.

Maybe the mixed-use/ Residential provides two ‘zone’ or a separation.

2. The driveway of the 70 Old County Road property alongside the shopping center is a recorded easement that needs to be maintained to provide access to both properties.

How should traffic circulation work for both properties?

3. Other Considerations?

3. Park Connections Considerations:

1. How should buildings on the 70 Old County Road property be oriented to the park?

2. What would be a good way to provide a connection between 70 Old County Road and the park?

3. Other considerations? I’ve crossed at the cross walk- adding lights? Raised crosswalk? I don’t think a raised overpass is necessary.

Notes from Walking Tour Form #3

1. Bayshore Boulevard and Oak Grove Considerations:

1. Is traffic noise greater or less than you might have expected? About Equal

2. How could the oak trees be retained and incorporated into a redevelopment of the site? Oak Trees could be incorporated in small green areas or meadows, ATACHMENT 2E
174
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 8

3. How might this portion of the site change if the right-turn slip lane from Bayshore Boulevard onto Old County Road is eliminated, and the site is allowed to expand onto that land? I could allow for more parking which is very important (eliminating the slip lane)

4. Other Considerations?

2. Shopping Center Considerations:

1. How might new development on the 70 Old County Road property interface with the existing shopping center? If it is residential box sandwiched between retail I think it would improve the old shopping center.

2. The driveway of the 70 Old County Road property alongside the shopping center is a recorded easement that needs to be maintained to provide access to both properties.

How should traffic circulation work for both properties?

3. Other Considerations?

3. Park Connections Considerations:

1. How should buildings on the 70 Old County Road property be oriented to the park? Entrances should likely be towards the park and shopping center.

2. What would be a good way to provide a connection between 70 Old County Road and the park?

3. Other considerations?
ATACHMENT 2E
175
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 9
ATACHMENT 2E
176
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 10
ATACHMENT 2E
177
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 11
ATACHMENT 2E
178
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 12
ATACHMENT 2E
179
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 13
ATACHMENT 2E
180
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 14
ATACHMENT 2E
181
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 15
ATACHMENT 2E
182
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 16
Appendix B
Presentation Boards
ATACHMENT 2E
183
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 17
ATACHMENT 2E
184
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 18
ATACHMENT 2E
185
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 19
ATACHMENT 2E
186
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 20
ATACHMENT 2E
187
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 21
ATACHMENT 2E
188
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 22
ATACHMENT 2E
189
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 23
ATACHMENT 2E
190
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 24
ATACHMENT 2E
191
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 25
ATACHMENT 2E
192
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 26
ATACHMENT 2E
193
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 27
ATACHMENT 2E
194
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 28
ATACHMENT 2E
195
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 29
ATACHMENT 2E
196
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 30
ATACHMENT 2E
197
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 31
Appendix C
Presentation Boards and Comments
This appendix lists the individual comments affixed to each board, exactly as written on the Post-it notes.

ATACHMENT 2E
198
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 32
ATACHMENT 2E
199
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 33
Overview Board Comments
 We should communicate the timing of discuss items with the shopping center owners and look at the entire site. It is about timing.
 Let’s look at all of downtown in a united manner- a plan including the PO Lot, Shopping Center, Etc.
 Begin a strategic plan process, considering the Prologis purchases ATACHMENT 2E
200
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 34

ATACHMENT 2E
201
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 35
Timeline Board Comments
 How about a gym?
ATACHMENT 2E
202
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 36
ATACHMENT 2E
203
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 37
“What They are Saying” Board Comments
 Revive the Parkside Plan
 Yes, we need housing, but this side is NOT safe or suitable for housing. Lead, Sea-Level rise, diesel fumes noise, traffic
 Why not make it a park?
ATACHMENT 2E
204
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 38
ATACHMENT 2E
205
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 39
Small Commercial Opportunities and Constraints Board Comments  Grocery Store such as Whole Foods or Trader Joes
ATACHMENT 2E
206
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 40
ATACHMENT 2E
207
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 41
Community Center Opportunities and Constraints Board Comments  Mixed: Community Center with a convertible area that can serve as a gymnasium or large meeting area for events, residential overhead and or a separate building.  More community space is always welcomed but we should utilize our old library space first.
 We have a Mission Blue Center, new and old libraries already. No or little income would come from another community center, (though a community building is a nice idea) ATACHMENT 2E
208
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 42
ATACHMENT 2E
209
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 43
Next Steps Board Comments
 Resident: J. Sotomayor: Whatever is decided, have a police satellite office w/ outdoor sign, for at least one officer to be present for response and presence. Office i.e. REPORTS etc.
 Please take a step back to consider the larger plan for downtown  Create a united plan for downtown Brisbane.

Unattached Post-it Notes
 Include an ATM in the new building
ATACHMENT 2E
210
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 1
70 Old County Road Planning Program
Feasibility Evaluation
Prepared for the City of Brisbane
by Good City Company
November 7, 2025
ATTACHMENT 3
211
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Project Overview............................................................................................................................................ 3 Description of Vision Concepts................................................................................................................ 5 Stakeholder Interviews................................................................................................................................ 9 Case Studies ..................................................................................................................................................13 Feasibility Evaluations................................................................................................................................26 ATTACHMENT 3
212
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 3

PROJECT OVERVIEW
In 2022, the City of Brisbane purchased the approximately 1.27 acre property at 70 Old County Road which had been occupied for decades by a Bank of America branch. This property sits at the main gateway to Central Brisbane at the intersection of Bayshore Boulevard, Old County and Tunnel Roads. The City's strategic purchase of this important site allows the community to control and proactively plan for redevelopment of the site.

Community Engagement
The City Council launched an extensive community planning process starting in March 2025 to determine the appropriate community serving uses of the property and establish a site development plan based upon that vision. The engagement process unfolded in phases, beginning with community brainstorming to generate ideas, followed by a “vision” phase that presented concept options shaped by public input.

Input was received through two open houses, two pop-ups at community events, and a community survey.

Based on input received in the first open house, six concepts were developed for the vision phase:

1. Small Commercial Center
A compact commercial hub with strong roadway visibility, marketable retail spaces, and convenient parking.

2. Destination Commercial
A stand-alone, single-tenant business that draws customers from beyond Brisbane.

3. Stand-Alone Housing
A residential development that is either 100% affordable or a mix of market-rate and affordable housing.

4. Mixed-Use Retail + Housing
A development with ground-floor retail and residential units above.

5. Community Center
A public facility for meetings, events, and recreation, accessible to all residents.

6. Teen Center
A dedicated place where teens can relax, study, and participate in youth-focused programs.

ATTACHMENT 3
213
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 4
A community-wide survey then helped gauge which options had the strongest support.

Additional outreach through pop-up events and an open house provided further opportunities for feedback, helping to narrow the range of alternatives for detailed feasibility analysis.

The survey asked respondents to select their top three favorite ideas for how the site could be developed, ranking the preferences 1st, 2nd and 3rd.

Vision Number of First Choice Votes
Mixed-Use Retail + Housing 73
Small Commercial Center 61
Community Center 43
Destination Commercial 30
Teen Center 14
Stand-Alone Housing 12
Based on the numbers of first choice votes, the vision concept with the strongest support was the Mixed Use Retail + Housing vision, followed by the Small Commercial Center vision and the Community Center vision. Those vision concepts were then further developed for additional community feedback, as described in the next section of this report.

ATTACHMENT 3
214
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 5

DESCRIPTION OF VISION CONCEPTS
Of the six options presented, the survey indicated the community had the greatest support for the Mixed-Use Retail + Housing and Small Commercial Center options (nearly equal support), followed by the Community Center option. These options are further described below.

Mixed-Use
The mixed-use scenario proposes a multi-story development featuring ground-floor retail with housing above, typically 3–4 stories in height. Parking for residents would be provided in a structured garage. Community uses could be considered for the ground floor in lieu of retail.

Two sub-options have been illustrated:

Concept A: Three-story building with 3–5 storefronts and two levels of housing, plus a separate four-story residential building behind.

Concept B: One-story retail front building with 3–5 storefronts and a five-story residential building to the rear.

ATTACHMENT 3
215
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 6
Commercial/Retail
The commercial/retail scenario proposes a small neighborhood-scale retail cluster with 3–5 storefronts designed for local shops, restaurants, or services, emphasizing visibility from the street and easy parking access.

Two sub-options have been illustrated:

Concept A: A row of contemporary storefronts with parking behind and parallel parking on Old County Road.

Concept B: A more rustic aesthetic with an anchor restaurant or retail space and 2–3 smaller shops.

ATTACHMENT 3
216
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 7
Community Center
The community center scenario proposes a community building with flexible spaces for meetings, recreation, cultural events, or performances, paired with adjacent parking.

However, based on the feasibility constraints discussed below in this report, more illustrative concepts were not provided for this alternative. A discrete communityATTACHMENT 3 217
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 8
serving ground floor use may be incorporated into the mixed-use residential concept, as discussed further in this report.

Shared Site Design Elements
Across the concepts, recurring features include:
» Preservation of existing mature oak trees and landscaped open space along Bayshore Boulevard.
» Proposed removal of the right-turn slip lane on Bayshore Boulevard to improve pedestrian access and provide more useable site area.
» Integration of parking areas behind buildings to maintain an active street frontage. » Architectural design that serves as a gateway to the community, while accommodating the functional needs of various development programs.

ATTACHMENT 3
218
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 9

STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS
Good City Company conducted stakeholder interviews in order to better assess both the development and market feasibility of potential future uses for the 70 Old County Road site. Emphasis was on the development concepts preferred in the community engagement, specifically mixed-use residential, and small commercial. The feasibility of market-rate mixed-use development with housing was discussed in multiple interviews, including with commercial developers and those specializing in mixed-use residential development.

Good City Company identified and interviewed six qualified professionals with expertise in commercial development, market rate and affordable housing, and mixed-use development projects. The stakeholder group included three affordable housing developers and three private developers specializing in commercial and mixed-use projects:
» Co-President of Development and Managing Partner of a market-rate residential and commercial developer with projects on the Peninsula and throughout the Bay Area » Partner in a market-rate commercial, residential, and industrial development firm with projects on the Peninsula and throughout the Bay Area » Director of a market-rate residential and mixed-use developer with projects on the Peninsula and throughout the Bay Area
» Vice President of Business Development of a non-profit affordable housing developer with projects on the Peninsula and throughout the Bay Area » Vice President, Real Estate Development, of a non-profit affordable housing developer with projects on the Peninsula and South Bay
» Vice President of Development of the Northern California division of a for-profit affordable housing developer with projects throughout the Bay Area Commercial Developers Summary
Stakeholders with experience in commercial and mixed-use projects noted that the 70 Old County Road site benefits from high visibility and a strategic location at a gateway to Brisbane but faces several challenges for new retail/commercial development. The local retail market is limited based on population, and new commercial space could compete with existing neighborhood-serving businesses.

Stakeholders were also concerned with the vacancies and physical conditions of the adjacent shopping center. It is unclear whether the vacancies are an indication of limited ATTACHMENT 3
219
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 10
retail demand, or inactive management (or both). In either case, the condition of the shopping center would serve as a disincentive to develop new commercial space on 70 Old County Road, and would make it more difficult to attract tenants.

Two of the commercial stakeholders suggested that a coordinated redevelopment approach involving adjacent properties, including nearby retail and industrial parcels, may be necessary to create a cohesive and active town center environment consistent with the City’s long-term planning vision. The third commercial stakeholder thought the size of the 70 Old County Road site was adequate, but ideally would integrate with the adjacent shopping center and possibly have a reciprocal shared parking arrangement that would benefit both properties.

Residential/Mixed-Use Developers Summary
Market Rate
Across these interviews, two stakeholders concluded that market-rate housing on the 70 Old County Road site is unlikely to be financially viable under current market conditions due to the relatively small parcel size, and the cost of construction in relation to local market rents. They suggested that if the adjacent shopping center were included in a future redevelopment, there would be adequate site area for a viable development. Two acres were suggested as the minimum for a viable mixed-use market-rate residential development.

However, one stakeholder suggested that the size of the site could be adequate to accommodate market-rate housing, but including a ground floor retail component would be difficult to accommodate given the need to fit parking for both the retail and the housing on the site.

Stakeholders noted that podium-style construction would be required to achieve the density typically needed for market-rate apartments, but the site’s limited size and current local market rent levels would make such a project difficult, if not infeasible. One interviewee referenced a recent Peninsula project that faced similar challenges on a small parcel, and ultimately the property was developed with affordable housing with the support of city, county, and tax credit funding.

Stakeholders had varying opinions on how tall a mixed-use residential building would need to be in order to be feasible. Two of the stakeholders suggested four stories of housing above one or two levels of parking, for a total of five to six stories. Technically, the parking and retail level(s) would be constructed of concrete as a podium, and the ATTACHMENT 3
220
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 11
residential units constructed in wood frame on top of the concrete podium. In the trades, four stories of wood frame residential construction on top of one story of concrete parking is referred to as “four over one” building. A “four over two” building would indicate two levels of concrete podium parking. All stakeholders indicated four levels of residential would be needed to be viable, at least for portions of the development.

In all interviews, stakeholders anticipated that new housing units would be rental apartments, rather than for-sale condominiums. In the current economic and regulatory environment, new condominium construction is extremely challenging due to liability, construction costs, and insurance costs. This is a statewide issue, rather than being specific to the local market, and legislators have indicated interest in addressing these issues in a future session.

Affordable Housing
Affordable housing developer stakeholders expressed greater interest in the site than market-rate housing stakeholders, and generally viewed it as suitable for an affordable or mixed-income project, provided that the City maintains ownership of the land or provides the land at no cost. Stakeholders suggested that a Request for Proposals (RFP), Request for Qualifications (RFQ), and/or a Request for Information (RFI) could be utilized to attract a developer that would align the City’s development and design objectives.

The site’s location and visibility were viewed as strong attributes that could support an architecturally distinctive affordable project serving as a gateway to the community.

Development scenarios discussed during interviews ranged from approximately 50 to 100 units total in a four- to five-story configuration. In all instances, stakeholders indicated that at minimum 40 to 50 units would be required to be operationally efficient and financially feasible, but that more units could make the project more competitive for financing and further serve to address local need. Most but not all stakeholders identified surface parking as the most feasible option, noting that podium would be too costly and subterranean would not be financially feasible. One stakeholder suggested a mix of podium and surface parking. A one-to-one parking ratio was considered reasonable, with flexibility to reduce parking for a senior project.

Ground-floor commercial or community uses could be considered, but stakeholders indicated that such spaces are not typically fundable through affordable housing financing sources. If the City desires these uses, it would likely need to provide financial participation, such as direct subsidies, a master lease, and/or tenant improvement ATTACHMENT 3
221
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 12
assistance. The most likely scenario is that the developer would build out the commercial space as an empty “shell,” and the city would provide funding to finish the space so that it could be leased to tenants. All stakeholders expressed concern that it would be difficult to lease ground floor commercial space, given their experience with other projects.

Stakeholders suggested that community-oriented ground-floor uses such as a senior center or child-care facility could be an alternative to ground-floor commercial space.

These types of uses could open access to additional funding sources or partnerships, but would likely still require City participation or financial support to achieve overall project feasibility.

Funding for affordable housing is competitive, but the affordable housing developer stakeholders were optimistic that the site could attract some funding. Competitive funds are allocated on a rotating basis, and some cycles have more applicants than others, so it may take a few cycles to obtain adequate funding. One stakeholder recommended preparing a Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) scoring form to evaluate the site’s competitiveness for state or federal funding.

In addition to having the land offered at no cost, additional financial contributions or gap funding may be required to support construction and operations. City contributions could improve competitiveness for state and federal funding programs as part of a “local match.” Contributions beyond the value of the land could include fee waivers or direct funding to close financing gaps and strengthen applications for tax credit allocations.

ATTACHMENT 3
222
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 13

CASE STUDIES
Mixed Use – Affordable Case Studies
Firehouse Square, Belmont
Firehouse Square is a mixed-use affordable housing development located at 1300 El Camino Real on the site of a former city-owned parking lot in Belmont, California. It is one of the examples shown in the community outreach.

Completed in 2022, the project includes 66 affordable rental apartments for families and individuals, including residents with supportive housing needs. The 0.72-acre infill site is situated along Belmont’s downtown corridor and within walking distance of Caltrain.

The development consists of a three- and four-story residential building organized around the ground floor of community-serving and retail spaces. The design incorporates the preserved façade of Belmont’s historic firehouse into a new Missionstyle structure, blending the city’s architectural heritage with a contemporary residential form. The adaptive reuse of the firehouse façade creates a visual landmark while reinforcing the project’s connection to local identity and history.

The project was the product of a long-term planning and visioning process by the City of Belmont and MidPen Housing Corporation, supported through collaboration with Sares Regis and regional funding partners. MidPen Housing served as the developer, with MidPen Property Management Corporation overseeing operations. The project was ATTACHMENT 3
223
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 14
part of a larger redevelopment of a city-owned parking lot that also included marketrate townhomes.

Project Features and Design
» 0.72-acre site (for the affordable housing portion)
» Integration of the historic firehouse façade into new construction » Three- and four-story residential structure with Mission-style design » 66 affordable units including studios, one-, two-, and three-bedroom apartments » 3,783 square feet of ground-floor retail space
» 1,095-square-foot community room within the rehabilitated firehouse structure » 47 below-grade parking spaces and 30 bicycle spaces
Funding and Partnerships
The project was financed through a mix of local, county, and state funding sources, including:
» City of Belmont and County of San Mateo contributions » California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (CTCAC) and California Debt Limit Allocation Committee (CDLAC)
» Union Bank permanent financing
ATTACHMENT 3
224
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 15
Relevance to 70 Old County Road
Firehouse Square illustrates the feasibility of developing high-quality affordable housing within a compact, infill site by leveraging strong partnerships and mixed-use design. Key lessons applicable to 70 Old County Road include:
» The benefit of integrating active ground-floor uses and community-serving spaces in downtown contexts.
» The importance of resident services and programming in supporting family stability and long-term community success.
» The use of layered funding and partnerships between city, county, and state agencies to achieve deep affordability on high-cost urban land.
» Leveraging city-owned land to generate other funding sources.

Colma Veterans Village
Colma Veterans Village is a 66-unit affordable housing community serving formerly homeless veterans. Completed in 2020, the three-story development sits on a 2.2-acre site located along Mission Road between Cypress Lawn and Holy Cross Cemeteries. The project combines new construction with adaptive reuse, preserving the site’s historic pump house and repurposing it as a community space for residents. Developed by Mercy Housing California through a 99-year ground lease from the Archdiocese of San ATTACHMENT 3
225
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 16
Francisco, the project provides a replicable model of affordable, service-enriched housing within a constrained and contextually sensitive site.

The design emphasizes livability, community interaction, and historic preservation. Two large courtyards, a resident garden and orchard, and a fenced dog run offer a variety of outdoor spaces that support wellness and social engagement. The rehabilitated pump house serves as a common gathering space and is complemented by a community hall, craft area, and bicycle storage. A public interpretation plaza was also integrated to celebrate the history of the site and surrounding cemeteries.

Residents receive case management and supportive services from the Department of Veterans Affairs and Brilliant Corners, helping tenants maintain housing stability and access health care and employment support. Mercy Housing Management Group oversees property management, ensuring coordination between building operations and service delivery.

Project Features and Design
» 2.2-acre site ground leased from the Archdiocese of San Francisco, » Three-story residential structure
» 66 one-bedroom apartments, with 58 units reserved for veterans » 69 parking spaces in surface lots
ATTACHMENT 3
226
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 17
» Renovated historic pump house to be used as common area » Spacious community garden and resident courtyards
» Public interpretation plaza which displays the area’s history Funding and Partnerships
The project was financed through a mix of local, county, and state funding sources, including:
» Veterans Housing and Homelessness Prevention (VHHP) funding: $10 million » HUD-VASH vouchers and Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) » Major financing partners: Silicon Valley Bank, County of San Mateo, State of California
» Archdiocese ground lease
» DVBE utilization: 8.27%
Relevance to 70 Old County Road
For 70 Old County Road, this case study highlights the feasibility of delivering a midscale affordable development with community-serving amenities and integrated services within a constrained urban site, aligning with local and regional housing priorities.

ATTACHMENT 3
227
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 18
Eagle Park Apartments, Mountain View
Eagle Park is a 67 unit affordable housing development on a 0.49 acre site in Mountain View completed in 2019. Included amenities are three common roof decks, a community room, lounge, subgrade parking and bicycle storage, and resident storage lockers for each unit. Property management and supportive services are provided on site.

The entry plaza welcomes residents into the lobby with a distinctive architectural element and geometric raised planters. The rear open space includes seating, gathering areas, outdoor fitness equipment, and gardening to encourage casual social interactions.

While not a mixed-use development, the lobby and community room incorporate storefront-style windows that provide transparency and visual interest on the ground floor.

ATTACHMENT 3
228
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 19
Project Features and Design
» 0.49-acre site
» Four-story building with a fifth story stepped back to reduce appearance of mass » 67 studio and one-bedroom apartments, with 30 units reserved for veterans » Below-grade parking
» Entry plaza
» Community room
Relevance to 70 Old County Road
For 70 Old County Road, this case study provides and example of a five-story building that is carefully designed to appear less massive, with upper-floor stepbacks and a highly-articulated façade. It is an example with a community use on the ground floor rather than commercial/retail space.

ATTACHMENT 3
229
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 20
Mixed Use – Market Rate Case Study
Aperture Apartments, San Bruno
Aperture is an 83-unit mixed-use market-rate residential and retail development on 0.95 acres that serves as a gateway to Downtown San Bruno at the corner of El Camino Real and San Mateo Avenue. Completed in 2019, it was the first multi-family residential project to come online after the City adopted the San Bruno Transit Corridors Specific plan. There are 106 parking spaces for the residences.

The ground floor includes 6,775 sq. ft. of retail space. However, the space has never been leased. There is no on-site parking for the retail, which may partly explain part of the challenge, though on-street parking is available. The developer indicated that given the relatively small size and unusual shape of the site, it was difficult to accommodate parking for both the residential units and retail spaces on the site. The vacancies may also indicate market weakness, but is also partly the result of restrictive zoning, as a prospective restaurant tenant was prevented from occupying the space early on.

The building has three- and four-story elements. The fourth stories are comprised of the upper levels of two-story, three-bedroom townhouse-style units.

ATTACHMENT 3
230
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 21
Relevance to 70 Old County Road
Whereas some of the developers interviewed indicated a one-acre site would be too small for a market rate development (not to mention mixed-use), Aperture is a local example of a development that is able to accommodate a mixed-use residential program on a site comparable in size to 70 Old County Road. The three- and four-story massing is also unusual for a recently-built mixed-use development, as most recent examples are at least one or two stories taller. The inclusion of three-bedroom, twostory townhouse-style units is notable, as recent mixed-use developments have tended to feature smaller units. One caveat is that this project was developed during a period of low interest rates and high rents, which is different from current conditions.

ATTACHMENT 3
231
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 22
Commercial/Retail Case Studies
1297 Chess Drive (Chess Retail Center), Foster City
The Chess Retail Center is located on a 1.53-acre parcel at 1297 Chess Drive in Foster City. The project consists of a one-story 11,830 square foot restaurant and retail building with 550 square feet of outdoor dining space and 105 parking spaces. The project was completed in 2017, and was designed to accommodate a combination of restaurant and/or retail uses as driven by market conditions. It is one of the examples shown in the community outreach.

Tenants include Habit Burger & Grill, Panera Bread, and FedEx Office Print & Ship Center. There is currently one vacant storefront, previously occupied by MOD Pizza.

The project was constructed in conjunction with an adjacent 121-room extended-stay hotel. The parking areas of the retail center and hotel are designed to be shared, so that either can accommodate overflow parking if necessary.

Project Features and Design
» 1.53-acre site
» 11,830 square foot restaurant and retail building, divided into four storefronts » 105 parking spaces (ratio 1:112, or 8.93 spaces per 1,000 square feet), with overflow parking allowed at an adjacent hotel
ATTACHMENT 3
232
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 23
Relevance to 70 Old County Road
1297 Chess Drive represents a relatively straightforward one-story restaurant/retail development on a site of similar size to 70 Old County Road. » Designing the project to accommodate a combination of restaurant and/or retail uses, as market demand and conditions are uncertain.
» Tenant spaces sized and designed to accommodate contemporary tenant requirements.
» Parking appears to be adequate for the current uses. If an agreement could be reached, overflow parking might possibly be arranged with the adjacent shopping center, similar to the arrangement with the hotel in Foster City.

ATTACHMENT 3
233
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 24
The Hangar, Scotts Valley
“The Hangar” commercial development project is located on a 1.51-acre parcel in Scotts Valley. It consists of a 13,318 square foot commercial building with retail space and a restaurant/brew pub (The Hangar), and a 2,412 square foot drive-through Starbucks.

There is a shared common parking area between the two buildings. It is one of the examples shown in the community outreach.

The restaurant is 4,773 square feet and includes a large outdoor patio and serves as an anchor for attracting customers beyond the local area. The remainder of the building is divided into three storefronts. Both buildings have a modern design, with design evoking the site’s historical use as an airport. A shared common parking area with 69 parking spaces is located between the two buildings.

The design of the project is unique, and most of the tenants had been secured prior to finishing the design, rather than being built “on spec” without a committed buyer or tenant in place. Furthermore, the provision of a Starbucks drive-through deal played a significant role in the financial feasibility of the project.

Project Features and Design
» 1.51-acre site
» 13,318 square foot restaurant and retail building (one restaurant and three storefronts), and 2,412 square foot drive-through Starbucks. » 69 parking spaces (ratio 1:228, or 4.39 spaces per 1,000 square feet) ATTACHMENT 3
234
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 25
Relevance to 70 Old County Road
The Hangar is a unique, “bespoke” commercial development, with an anchor restaurant tenant that draws customers beyond the local area. Provided an anchor tenant could be secured, it could allow for the development to draw from a broader area, which could improve financial viability.
» The unique design is part of the appeal, serving as a local landmark and draw. » The Starbucks provides financial feasibility to the project, but the provision of a drive-through may be at odds with local preferences.
» Parking and circulation are reported to be challenging. Parking is provided at only half the ratio of the 1297 Chess Drive example.

ATTACHMENT 3
235
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 26

FEASIBILITY EVALUATIONS
Mixed-use Residential Scenario (Market Rate or Affordable) Overview
The mixed-use residential scenario envisions a multi-story development featuring ground-floor retail or community-serving space with residential units above. The feasibility evaluation below draws upon stakeholder interviews, comparable case studies, and current market and construction conditions.

Site Context and Opportunity
The 1.27-acre property at 70 Old County Road occupies a prominent location at the intersection of Bayshore Boulevard, Old County Road, and Tunnel Avenue, serving as a key entry to Central Brisbane. Its visibility and ownership by the City create a unique opportunity for a community-guided redevelopment. However, the site’s limited size and adjacency to an aging shopping center with vacancies constrain its standalone development potential and diminish its ability to support extensive ground-floor commercial uses.

Key Data Points
“By the Numbers” data points for mixed-use residential development, as presented in community outreach:

If affordable housing, minimum number
of units needed to be operationally and
financially feasible:
50-80 units
(depending on Low Income Housing
Tax Credit / LIHTC financing)
70 Old County Road acreage: 1.27 acres
Typical number stories needed to
accommodate 50-80 units on 1.27 acres:
3 -5 stories (including one level of
parking)
Market and Physical Feasibility
Stakeholder interviews indicate that new mixed-use development on sites smaller than two acres is difficult to execute due to high per-square-foot construction costs, circulation inefficiencies, and limited economies of scale. Podium construction—required to accommodate both housing and parking—was consistently cited as cost-prohibitive under current Brisbane rent levels. Developers noted that four to five stories of ATTACHMENT 3
236
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 27
residential use above a one- or two-level podium (“four-over-one” or “four-over-two”) would be required for feasibility, but the resulting density and parking needs would likely exceed what can comfortably fit on the 1.27-acre parcel.

A fully affordable mixed-use project would therefore face a significant financing gap without City assistance or land assembly. By contrast, a purely residential project, or one combining residential use with limited community-serving ground-floor space, could be more achievable within the existing site envelope.

Market-Rate Feasibility
Interviews with private developer stakeholders found limited interest in pursuing a market-rate mixed-use project. Small-parcel podium development may be difficult depending on achievable rents in Brisbane’s rental market.

The nearby Aperture project in San Bruno, completed on a similarly sized parcel, was cited as an instructive case: it successfully delivered 83 apartments with ground-floor retail, but the retail space has remained largely vacant since completion, reflecting the challenges of sustaining commercial uses on small, infill mixed-use sites. Furthermore, the Aperture project accommodated parking in a below-grade garage, but 70 Old County Road is situated on bay fill, which would inhibit excavation due to cost and engineering challenges. Lastly, it is noted that the Aperture project was developed at a time when interest rates were lower and rents higher than current conditions.

Pursuing a market-rate mixed-use development for 70 Old County Road would require finding a developer that would be amenable to working with the relatively small site.

Parking would need to be accommodated in an at-grade parking level, with residential units constructed above a concrete podium. If parking for ground-floor retail uses could not be fit onto the site, consideration could be given to providing parallel parking spaces along the Old County Road frontage, as illustrated in the vision concepts that were shared with the community.

Affordable or Mixed-Income Feasibility
Affordable housing developer stakeholders expressed strong interest in the site for a potential 100-percent affordable or mixed-income residential development, particularly if the City retains or contributes the land at no cost. Stakeholders indicated that 50–100 units could be accommodated within a four- to five-story configuration, achieving operational efficiency and competitive scale for tax-credit financing. Generally, affordable developments are more feasible on smaller sites such as 70 Old County Road ATTACHMENT 3
237
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 28
given the greater range of funding options available to underwrite construction costs compared to market-rate development.

Surface or limited podium parking was viewed as the most viable approach, with parking ratios ranging from one space per unit to less for senior or special-needs housing. Most stakeholders advised against ground-floor commercial space, which is typically ineligible for housing program funding and would require direct City support.

However, one stakeholders recognized the importance of ground-floor commercial space to many communities, and offered that it could be included in a development if the City could provide funding support. Alternatively, community-oriented uses such as child care or a senior center could strengthen the project’s competitiveness for certain funding sources.

With layered financing—combining Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC), County and State programs, and City contributions—an affordable or mixed-income development at 70 Old County Road is considered financially and operationally feasible.

Opportunities and Constraints
Opportunities:
» Housing would help satisfy Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) obligations. » Highly visible location suitable for an architecturally distinctive gateway project. » Potential eligibility for State, County, and regional funding if an affordable housing development.
» Strong housing demand; uncertain retail demand (which adds risk). » Dual income streams from residential rents and retail leases, provided retail space is leased successfully.
» Potential synchronicity with the downtown commercial district and city park.

Constraints:
» Limited site area restricts parking and mixed-use configuration. » Weak local retail demand and adjacent shopping center vacancies reduce commercial viability.
» High construction cost due to multistory building and podium construction costs – may exceed achievable market rents.

ATTACHMENT 3
238
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 29
» Affordable housing funding is competitive and may require multi-year pursuit. » If affordable units, would require at least 50 units, which would imply 4-5 stories on at least a portion the site.
» Higher complexity in management and maintenance compared to single-use commercial or residential development.
» Retail presents greater exposure to market risks compared to a development with only housing.

Commercial/Retail Scenario
Overview
The commercial/retail scenario envisions a small neighborhood-serving retail cluster or destination restaurant node at 70 Old County Road. Two conceptual sub-options were presented during community engagement: a row of 3–5 storefronts with parking behind, and an anchor restaurant or retail space with smaller supporting shops. Both concepts emphasize active frontages, local-serving businesses, and pedestrian-friendly design.

Site Context and Market Setting
The property’s location at the city’s primary gateway provides excellent visibility from Bayshore Boulevard and convenient vehicular access. However, the surrounding market context presents significant challenges for new commercial construction. The adjacent shopping center shows prolonged vacancies and dated conditions, creating uncertainty about the area’s ability to support additional retail supply. Stakeholders noted that it remains unclear whether these vacancies stem from weak retail demand, inactive property management, or both.

The limited residential population base within a 1-mile distance (which is a key factor for retail feasibility) further constrains the market for everyday retail and dining uses. While Brisbane residents value small-scale, independent businesses, the spending base is insufficient to support significant new retail square footage without drawing customers from beyond the city limits. However, the large traffic volumes on Bayshore Boulevard offer a potential market strength that could partly counter the relatively small local-area population.

ATTACHMENT 3
239
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 30
Key Data Points
“By the Numbers” data points for commercial/retail development, as presented in community outreach:

Minimum population within 1 mile to
attract retail and restaurant vendors:
12,000 - 18,000
Population within 1 mile of 70 Old
County Road:
5,000 residents
Average daily vehicle trips to attract
retail and restaurant vendors:
20,000 trips per day
Average daily vehicle trips on Bayshore
Boulevard:
approximately 20,000 trips per day
Market and Financial Feasibility
Interviews with developer stakeholders experienced in commercial and mixed-use projects consistently indicated that new ground-up retail on a smaller parcel such as 70 Old County Road is difficult to justify financially. Construction and tenant improvement costs may exceed achievable lease rates in small local markets such as Brisbane.

Most small-scale retail developments rely on one or more of the following factors to achieve feasibility:
• Co-location with larger anchor tenants that would draw customers from a larger radius, and/or complementary uses (e.g., hotel, grocery, or entertainment). • Strong pre-leasing from credit tenants willing to commit prior to construction.

Absent these conditions, speculative retail construction is considered high risk.

Developers emphasized that “building on spec” without committed tenants—particularly restaurant tenants—would be difficult in the current lending environment.

Opportunities and Constraints
Opportunities:
» High visibility and gateway identity can attract limited destination uses such as restaurants or cafes.
» Modest sales tax potential; lease income from small tenants.

ATTACHMENT 3
240
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 31
» Low to moderate development costs.
» Simple site fit with minimal infrastructure upgrades. » Higher quality, contemporary spaces more likely to lease compared to older spaces in adjacent shopping center.

Constraints:
» Weak/uncertain demand.
» Retail market volatility and vacancy risks.
» Relatively weak retail market fundamentals and limited customer base. » Small site size restricts parking capacity and circulation efficiency. » Adjacency to aging shopping center diminishes site appeal to prospective tenants. » Construction and fit-out costs may exceed achievable local lease rates. » Difficulty attracting tenants without anchors or complementary uses nearby.

Community Center Scenario
Overview
The community center scenario envisions redevelopment of the 70 Old County Road site as a civic or community-serving facility, such as a multipurpose meeting and recreation space accessible to all residents. However, it presents distinct financial and operational challenges because such a facility would not generate revenue sufficient to offset its construction or ongoing maintenance costs. It could also divert resources from other community uses and programs.

Site Context and Role
Located at the intersection of Bayshore Boulevard, Old County Road, and Tunnel Avenue, the 1.27-acre site offers excellent visibility for a civic building that could serve as a gateway landmark for Brisbane. Its location, however, is physically separated from most residential neighborhoods and schools, limiting its convenience for everyday community access. The site’s gateway position favors uses that project civic identity rather than daily programmatic activity, suggesting that if pursued, a community center should have strong architectural presence and be designed for special events, cultural programs, or partnerships rather than routine recreation use.

ATTACHMENT 3
241
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 32
Market and Financial Feasibility
Unlike mixed-use or commercial concepts, a community center would not yield lease or sales revenue to offset construction and operational costs. Because the City purchased the property using general funds, its cost basis would remain entirely in the public domain, and redevelopment as a community center would prevent recovery of any portion of that investment.

Typical funding sources for civic facilities—such as local general obligation bonds, development impact fees, or state grants—are highly competitive and often require a broader community facilities plan to demonstrate need and long-term sustainability.

Given the site’s small size and separation from residential areas, the location may not score highly in such evaluations.

Operational costs also represent an ongoing obligation. Based on comparable facilities in similarly sized cities, staffing, utilities, and programming costs for a multipurpose community center typically range from $300,000 to $600,000 annually (depending on hours of operation and program offerings), as well as servicing long-term debt obligations. These costs would need to be fully subsidized by the City’s General Fund or offset through user fees, which are unlikely to cover the total amount.

Design and Program Considerations
If pursued, a community center on the site could include a flexible hall for events and performances, smaller meeting rooms, and a landscaped plaza or forecourt to complement its gateway setting. Parking could be accommodated in a surface lot behind the building. However, due to the site’s limited size, programming options such as gymnasiums or extensive recreational facilities would not be feasible.

Partnerships with nonprofit, educational, or cultural organizations could enhance program diversity and share costs. For example, joint-use models have been successful when cities collaborate with local arts groups or child-care providers to manage portions of the facility. Such partnerships would be essential to sustain operations over time.

Opportunities and Constraints
Opportunities:
» City ownership provides flexibility for civic investment and long-term control. » Gateway location offers visibility for a landmark public building and potential integration with open space.

ATTACHMENT 3
242
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 33
» Potential to pursue grant funding for arts, youth, or senior programs. » 1–2 story building fits site.
» Parking can be accommodated in parking lot; does not require enclosed parking.

Constraints:
» No revenue generation to offset construction, operations, or debt servicing. » High annual operating costs relative to available funding. » Location less convenient for most residents than downtown or neighborhood sites. » Small parcel size limits programming options and on-site parking capacity. » Higher cost to construct a new facility, compared to renovating the former community center on Visitacion Avenue.

Overall Findings
Among the three scenarios, an affordable or mixed-income residential development of approximately 50–90 units in a four- to five-story structure, potentially incorporating a small ground-floor space for retail or community uses represents the most viable near-term path for redevelopment of the 70 Old County Road property. Some level of public subsidy from the City and/or the Brisbane Housing Authority would be required.

The City could consider issuing a Request for Qualifications/Proposals (RFQ/RFP) to select a qualified affordable housing developer and explore complementary funding partnerships with San Mateo County and State agencies. The RFP/RFQ can specify project requirements, such as the provision of ground floor uses, preservation of site features such as the oak grove, and architectural approach.

Standalone commercial/retail development on the 70 Old County Road parcel would be challenging without pre-leased anchor tenants or a broader redevelopment partnership. The City could pursue opportunities to attract a destination restaurant or café through an RFP or broker partnership, emphasizing the site’s visibility and gateway character. However, a more strategic approach would be to retain flexibility for eventual mixed-use redevelopment in coordination with adjacent properties. A consolidated redevelopment area of two or more acres would improve design efficiency, parking integration, and long-term economic viability. In the interim, the City could consider interim uses—such as food trucks, community markets, or temporary pop-up retail—to activate the site while exploring long-term partnerships.

ATTACHMENT 3
243
F.

Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 34
Redevelopment of the site as a full-scale community center is not financially feasible given land costs, construction expenses, and long-term operations expenses. The concept would require full public subsidy and would compete for funds with higherpriority City capital needs. If the City desires to maintain a civic presence on the property, a scaled-down joint-use or partnership facility could be explored—potentially as a ground-floor community space within a future mixed-use or affordable housing project. The Chan-Zuckerberg community space in downtown Redwood City is an example of this approach.

With any scenario, the City may pursue coordination with adjacent property owners to enable a larger, cohesive mixed-use gateway district consistent with Brisbane’s community vision for Central Brisbane. This could include zoning amendments that would accommodate the re-use of 70 Old County Road, but also encourage adjacent properties to improve or redevelop.

ATTACHMENT 3
244
F.

File Attachments for Item:

G. Discuss and Provide Direction on Reestablishing a Sister City Relationship with Brisbane, Australia
245

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: November 20, 2025
From: Jeremy Dennis, City Manager
Subject: Reestablishing a Sister Cities Partnership with the City of Brisbane, Queensland (AUD)
Recommendation
Staff recommends Council receive a report on potentially reestablishing a formal Sister Cities relationship with the City of Brisbane, Queensland (AUD).

Background
The cities of Brisbane, California and Brisbane, Australia have long been connected in bonds of friendship:
• In 1963, Betty Miller, a pilot from Santa Monica, flew from California to Australia, becoming the first woman to fly solo across the Pacific Ocean. In her plane, Mrs. Miller carried a silver plate, a gift from the City of Brisbane to its Australian namesake. Mrs.

Miller presented this gift to Clem Jones, then Lord Mayor of Brisbane, Australia. • In August 1963, the Brisbane City Council invited Betty Miller to a banquet in her honor at the 23 Club. During the festivities, a trans-Pacific radio-telephone conversations between Jim Williams, mayor of Brisbane, California, and Clem Jones. This began the start of an on-going sister-city relationship.
• Since 1965, there have been a number of informal visits by city officials, beauty queens, and citizens between the two cities. In 1974, Mayor Anja Miller and her husband were invited by Clem Jones to be guests at the Warana Spring Festival. The visit included 10 speeches, two appearances on television talk shows, three formal balls, an art show opening, several concerts, and a visit to a wildlife preserve.

City records show a formal partnership dating back as far as 1975 when the cities were paired as Sister Cities through Sister Cities International (SCI), whose mission is to, “Promote peace through mutual respect, understanding, cooperation- one individual, one community at a time.” Sister Cities International was founded by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1956 to promote peach through people-to-people diplomacy. SCI has established thousands of partnerships between U.S. cities and cities worldwide. SCI serves as the national membership organization for sister city programs in over 400 communities with over 1,800 partnerships in more than 140 countries. The City’s files show that the cities were members through 2006.

More recently, in October 2025, the City hosted Peter and Annabelle Johnstone in the City of Brisbane. Peter is the CEO of the Clem Jones Group. During their visit, Peter informed the City 1 246
G.
of his desire to promote economic connectivity, cultural exchanges, and strengthening the bonds between the cities’ respective Lions Clubs. Additionally, Peter suggested that the City consider its potential role in the promotion of the 2032 Olympics, to be held in Brisbane, QLD.

Discussion
While the City maintains an informal sister-city relationship with the City of Brisbane, QLD, Mayor Lentz expressed a desire to look at reestablishing a formal Sister City relationship. Given the historical ties between the two cities, and the desire to potentially reestablish a relationship with the City of Brisbane, QLD, staff requests direction on whether to pursue reestablishing a formal relationship through Sister Cities International. Should Council desire to reestablish a formal relationship with the City of Brisbane, QLD, Mayor Lentz has drafted a letter to Lord Mayor Schrinner, expressing our interest in re-establishing a sister city relationship between the two cities. Staff would also work to reestablish the relationship through Sister Cities International, which includes a Planning Process, a Research Phase, Development of a Partnership Agreement, a Signing Ceremony, and Implementation/Evaluation. More detailed information on the SCI process may be found as Attachment 2.

Fiscal Impact
Should the City wish to pursue a formal relationship through SCI, membership costs are based on population size. For cities with populations of less than 5,000, the cost of membership is $190 annually. These costs exclude potential costs of exchange visits between the two cities.

Attachments

1. Draft letter from Mayor Lentz to Lord Mayor Schrinner

2. Quick Guide to Establishing a Sister City Toolkit
___________________________________
Jeremy Dennis, City Manager
2 247
G.

November 6, 2025
Cr Adrian Schrinner
Lord Mayor
Brisbane City Council
City Hall, Adelaide St
Brisbane QLD 4000
Dear Lord Mayor Schrinner,
On behalf of the City of Brisbane, California, I write to express our sincere interest in re-establishing the sister city relationship that once united our two Brisbanes – one a city just south of San Francisco, and the other a thriving economic and cultural metropolis in Queensland.

The connection between our cities dates back to the 1960s and 1970s, during the tenure of former Lord Mayor Clem Jones. On a visit to the United States, he made a special side trip to visit our city and instantly fell in love with our residents and small-town charm. Whenever he would visit San Francisco, he would always make an effort to visit Brisbane, CA.

In 1974, at the invitation of Lord Mayor Jones, former mayors Anja and Ray Miller visited Brisbane on a ten-day cultural exchange visit. They brought back great stories of their trip that included attending the Warana Spring Festival (the precursor to the Brisbane Festival), concerts and other cultural events.

More recently, through the visits of Peter Johnstone, CEO of The Clem Jones Group, we have been reminded of the enduring goodwill between our two cities. His presence has reignited local enthusiasm to reconnect formally and celebrate the friendship that Clem Jones helped establish decades ago.

Peter has been keen on promoting economic connectivity, cultural exchanges, and strengthening the bond between our two Lions Clubs. We’ve also talked about the possibility of having Brisbane, CA be a part of the Olympic Torch process, as we celebrate Brisbane’s amazing opportunity to host the 2032 Olympics.

City of Brisbane
50 Park Place
Brisbane, CA 94005-1310
(415) 508-2120
3 Attachment 1
248
G.

We would be honored to welcome you to our Brisbane, should your travels ever bring you to the United States. Our community would be delighted and honored to host you and showcase our beautiful city.

I look forward to hearing from you and exploring ways to renew our sister city bond and foster new opportunities and friendships between our two Brisbanes.

With warm regards and in friendship,
_____________________________________
Cliff Lentz, Mayor of Brisbane, California
4 249
G.

QUICK GUIDE TO ESTABLISHING A SISTER CITY TOOLKIT
Overview
A sister or friendship city relationship is formally created when the mayors or highest elected or appointed officials from two communities sign an Agreement or Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) establishing the partnership. However, this is usually the result of a long process that involves the local sister city organization along with the municipality and other local institutions. While the process can also be very different for each community and can vary from culture to culture, this guide can serve as a point of reference in guiding communities through the process.

The steps
• Planning process: The first step in developing a new sister city relationship is to ensure everyone is in agreement.* This would include the local sister city organization and the highest elected/ranking official, provided this individual approves and formalizes the partnership. The contact information for local sister city organizations may be found by visiting the Sister Cities International website at http:// www.sistercities.org/. • Research phase: Sister city relationships are strategic, long-term partnerships that should be mutually beneficial. Identifying potential partners is the foundation to developing a successful relationship. If you don’t already have a potential sister city in mind, below is a list of data points that communities should look for similarities when identifying potential partners:
- Population size: Some variance in city sizes is natural, but choosing a sister city of a similar size usually ensures good symmetry between municipal governments, community groups, private organizations, as well as similar challenges/opportunities - Geography: Similar geographic qualities, whether it’s ports, deserts, lakes, mountains, climate, etc. often means that cities will be able to share valuable knowledge related to the respective challenge or opportunity associated with each quality - Industries: Potential commerce and trade partnerships - Academic institutions: High school and university exchanges, which are often a part of any relationship, require similar counterpart institutions that should be identified early in the process
- Cultural institutions: This may include museums, music venues, community centers - Preexisting Relationships: This may include, but is not limited to: mayoral relationships, trade relationships, expatriate/diaspora communities, faith-based groups, and personal experiences ranging from study/work abroad to marriages - Historical or ancestral connections: Ethnic and/or cultural links *Many communities have developed criteria or policies to guide their research or to evaluate inbound inquires, whether from cities abroad or local residents, in order to manage the volume of requests as well as ensure that potential relationships are both appropriate and sustainable. If you are interested in developing such a policy please email [email protected] for more assistance as part of our Governance and Policy Services. 5 Attachment 2
250
G.
• Develop lines of communication: The next step in the process is to develop a line of communication with the prospective sister city community may start by sending a letter of introduction from one mayor to the other. This letter should introduce your community, identify why you are interested in developing a sister city relationship, identify potential program/exchange opportunities, and identify a point of contact for this initiative. This is when international protocol should be followed in order to ensure a positive experience. Provided symmetry is a key aspect of international protocol, if your local sister cities organization operates through the work of community volunteers it is good practice to identify a volunteer contact as well as a contact within the mayor’s office. If you need assistance in targeting appropriate contacts within the international community, please contact [email protected]. • Correspondence phase: Once the letter has been received by the perspective sister city and a line of communication has been established, the next several months should be focused on learning more about the each other’s communities, identifying program/exchange opportunities, discussing local involvement, and developing a work plan that establishes short and long term goals for the partnership.

Many cultures will recommend a physical exchange during this phase, but often various means of technology is used to effectively communicate. This period is also a great opportunity to implement a program to “test the waters.” This program could include a youth pen pal exchange, municipal/professional best practice, or other knowledge-sharing exchange, among many other opportunities. Many communities may send non-mayoral delegations during the correspondence and planning stages-whether that be the city manager, council members, local business professionals, or volunteers.
• Develop partnership agreement: Both communities have decided to move forward and formalize the relationship. In order for a sister city, county, or state partnership to be recognized by Sister Cities International, the two communities must sign formal documents which clearly endorse the link. The partnership agreement can range from the ceremonial, with language focusing on each city’s commitment to fostering understanding, cooperation, and mutual benefit to the precise, with particular areas of interest, specific programs/activities, or more concrete goals related to anything from numbers of exchanges to economic development. Sister Cities International has developed a toolkit and template that will assist in creating this document and can be found under the toolkits and templates section of the SCI Member Area.
• Signing ceremony: Once the partnership agreement has been developed and both communities have approved the document, the two highest ranking officials will sign the document, which is often done during a formal signing ceremony. This ceremony is usually an in-person event, but can be virtual. While it is important to tailor these ceremonies to fit your specific communities, Sister Cities International has developed a guide to this process and can be found under the toolkits and templates section of the SCI Member Area. Once the agreement has been signed, please send an electronic copy of that agreement to Sister Cities International at [email protected]. • Implementation and evaluation: It is time to implement programs and plan exchanges outlined in the cooperative plan developed during the early months of this process. It is a good practice to set a date, whether within the next six months to two years, to evaluate the partnership and make adjustments if needed. If you ever come across any issues, concerns, or are looking for program ideas, please do not hesitate to contact Sister Cities International.
6 251
G.

File Attachments for Item:

I. City Council Meeting Schedule and Recruitment Update 252
COUNCIL MEETING SCHEDULE 2025
(Subject to change)
All Meetings Begin at 6:30 PM on Thursdays unless otherwise noted December 1 and 2, 2025 Special Meeting Interviews from 5-8pm December 4, 2025 Regular Session Plus Special meeting for Reorg Discussion December 9, 2025 Special Meeting for Best Practices
December 11, 2025 Special Meeting for Reorganization
December 18, 2025 Cancelled
COUNCIL MEETING SCHEDULE 2026
(Subject to change)
All Meetings Begin at 6:30 PM on Thursdays unless otherwise noted January 1, 2026 Cancelled
January 15, 2026
February 5, 2026
February 19, 2026
March 5, 2026
March 19, 2026
April 2, 2026
April 16, 2026
May 7, 2026
May 21, 2026
June 4, 2026
June 18, 2026
July 2, 2026 Cancelled
July 16, 2026
253
I.

File Attachments for Item:

J. Countywide Assignments and Subcommittee Reports
i. Report Out on Subcommittee Meetings
ii. Upcoming Subcommittee Meetings
254
CITY of BRISBANE
Council Subcommittee Update
From November 1st, 2025, to November 14th, 2025

1. Report Out on Subcommittees/Committees
None during this time

2. Upcoming Subcommittees:

Public Art Advisory Committee 11/17 5:15pm Davis, O’Connell Sea Level Rise Subcommittee 11/18 3:30pm Kern, Mackin
Liaison to P&R Commission Subcommittee 12/8 5:30pm Davis, Kern Housing Subcommittee 12/15 3:30pm Davis, Kern (Alt)
Emergency Preparation Subcommittee 12/16 4:30pm Davis, Kern

3. Proposed Subcommittees:

Does any councilmember wish to propose any items for a subcommittee to discuss? 255
J.

Brisbane City CouncilNovember 20, 2025

Brisbane City Council
November 20, 2025