Brisbane council advances circulation study for Parkside 2 but asks for revised consultant scope

Brisbane Mayor Matkin and the City Council on June 4 authorized staff to pursue a scaled traffic circulation study for the Parkside 2 area but asked for a revised consultant proposal before work proceeds.

The subcommittee and staff framed the study as a first step to determine whether reconfiguring the town entrance and combining contiguous public parcels could create a larger, more viable footprint for retail or housing. Assistant City Manager Christina Fernandez presented the proposal and said public works had procured a consultant proposal from Farron Pierce to analyze circulation and turning‑movement capacity and to supplement older datasets with on‑the‑ground counts scheduled for the fall school term.

Why it matters: councilmembers and residents said the study could shape whether the city keeps or redeploys its 70 Old County Road parcel (the former Bank of America site) and whether the city can present a feasible development vision to potential partners or buyers. Several councilmembers warned the study could significantly affect property values and community expectations even before any development decision.

Council members pressed staff on technical and policy points. Council member Kern raised concerns about the consultant’s planned baseline data, noting much of the proposal relies on 2019–2022 datasets that include COVID‑era traffic anomalies; public works staff said the proposal supplements those data with counts from early 2026 and targeted AM/PM counts when school resumes. The public works director also said the Bayshore segment at issue lies inside Brisbane’s right of way and therefore would not require Caltrans approval for the configuration described, though coordination with regional agencies (CCAG and a 'smart‑corridor' program) would be necessary.

Residents and councilmembers questioned safety and long‑term risk. Michael Barnes, a Brisbane resident, said the plan appeared to broaden the project scope beyond the original goal of resolving the Bank of America building’s future and warned that acquiring additional land for a new roadway could add years and costs. Michelle Salmon urged the council to include sea‑level rise, current traffic pattern changes and AM/PM inbound counts in any study, calling the presented configuration “an absolute mess.”

Council debate centered on sequencing: some members said a narrow circulation feasibility study is the sensible first step, while others wanted parallel analysis of alternative concepts that would preserve Old County Road and examine housing‑focused options on city‑owned parcels. Council member Davis said the council’s responsibility is ultimately to produce housing and asked the subcommittee to bring multiple, actionable alternatives when the consultant returns with results.

Action and next steps: a subcommittee member moved to proceed with a circulation study on a tightened scope and for staff to return with a revised Farron Pierce proposal that removes optional public‑meeting invoicing if the study is infeasible. Council directed staff to seek a sharper scope and to schedule targeted traffic counts in late summer; the item was continued to a future meeting and no final development decision was made.

What remains unresolved: the consultant scope, the exact fee to be paid, the level of public outreach to include in the contract and whether adjacent private owners (including the shopping‑center owner and Prologis) will participate. The council asked staff to return with alternative packages—options that conserve Old County Road, options that enlarge the developable footprint, and options that rely only on city‑owned land—so members can compare tradeoffs alongside the consultant’s circulation findings.