Council reviews feasibility study for 70 Old County Road; asks ad hoc committee to broaden scope

Kevin Gardner of Good City Company told the Brisbane City Council on Nov. 19 that the city-owned 70 Old County Road site — a 1.27-acre former Bank of America branch bought in 2022 — is most likely to be developed successfully as an affordable mixed-use project, but that doing so will probably require additional subsidy and careful design to fit housing, parking and any commercial space on the small lot.

"The most feasible in terms of just getting a project off the ground would be the mixed-use, particularly if it's an affordable mixed-use development," said Kevin Gardner, summarizing feedback from six stakeholder interviews and a feasibility analysis performed for the city.

Good City presented the outreach and analysis that underpinned the feasibility report: an initial open house, pop-up events at the farmers market and concert-in-the-park, a community survey with 233 respondents, six developer interviews, six comparative case studies and a site open house. Survey respondents ranked mixed-use retail with housing first, followed by a small commercial center and a community center.

Developers who spoke to the consultant described typical affordable projects on small urban parcels as ranging from about 40 to 80 units; Gardner said 50–80 units would be a realistic target for an affordable development on a site of this size, which generally implies a three- to five-story building and raises community concerns about height and massing. Market-rate developers told the consultant the parcel is small for a market-rate project but one market-rate interviewee pointed to a San Bruno example that worked on a similar footprint.

The consultant stressed constraints that affect feasibility: parking demand for both commercial tenants and residents; higher construction costs for podium or multi-story structures; and the difficulty of financing ground-floor commercial tenant improvements within affordable housing subsidy programs. "You can't necessarily include the development of a commercial space within an affordable housing financing," Gardner said, noting that additional public subsidy or creative lease terms would likely be required to make a mixed-use option work.

Finance staff told the council the city has spent roughly $4.9 million on acquisition and carrying costs to date (rounded to $5.0M in the presentation) and that about $4.1 million in loan principal remains. Staff said interest paid so far totals about $550,000 and total interest over the loan term would be about $1.85 million. Council members repeatedly returned to those figures during the question-and-answer sequence.

During public comment, speakers expressed a range of priorities. Linda Salman urged the council to "make it a park," citing the site's history of flooding and concerns about sea-level rise and soil/contaminant exposure; Michael Barnes noted the city's Parkside plan and said a high-density housing proposal could conflict with the plan's 28-units-per-acre guideline and risk fiscal waste.

Council debate reflected competing priorities. Several council members argued that affordable housing is an urgent need and that the property is well situated for transit-accessible residential development; others urged caution given the small parcel size and the financial exposure the city has already taken on. Multiple council members and consultants suggested that assembling additional adjacent parcels — or getting the cooperation of the adjacent Brisbane Village shopping center — would improve the site's viability.

After discussion the council directed an existing ad hoc committee to work with Good City Company and city staff to develop a broader-area strategy that could include the city parcel, the adjacent shopping center and other nearby land. Council also authorized staff to reach out to property owners to gauge interest and report back. The council asked the ad hoc committee and staff to return with options and a status update in the coming months so council can set next steps.

What happens next: staff said work will include refining design options, CEQA screening, considering RFP/RFI approaches and identifying funding gaps for mixed-use or affordable proposals. Any formal development would require later council approvals and — if the city transfers the land or partners with a developer — attention to state rules such as the Surplus Land Act when applicable.

Councilors and staff emphasized that the feasibility study is a step in the planning process, not a decision to build. The council left open both a development path (with public subsidy and careful design) and non-development alternatives (including a permanent park) while directing the ad hoc committee and staff to pursue a more comprehensive vision for the area.