Planning Commission begins study of land-use map changes; debate centers on heights, airport-noise overlays and ballot strategies

San Bruno planning staff led a study session on potential land-use map amendments, framing the meeting as an ideation exercise to identify concepts the commission might want council to explore later this summer.

Staff prefaced the discussion by saying the session was intended to stay at a high, conceptual level: “This is the ideation phase,” the staff member said, asking commissioners to jot down areas and ideas worth examining before any formal general‑plan amendments or environmental review are pursued.

The discussion covered several recurring themes. Commissioners and staff reviewed an inset map focused on the transit corridor and El Camino Real corridor and discussed potentially allowing greater heights near transit to encourage housing and economic development. Staff noted that changing land use or adding density in some areas could require a general-plan amendment and environmental review, and that certain changes could trigger voter approval depending on the nature of the amendment.

Airport-noise contours and the airport land-use plan were a central point of debate. Staff said the city council can adopt an override to allow housing in noise-affected areas, as it did previously for the housing element, but cautioned there are trade-offs and mitigation requirements. “The council is able to do that, and they did that for the housing element to allow housing at the Tanfran site,” the staff member said, noting other cities have pursued similar approaches with modern construction techniques to protect indoor noise levels.

Commissioners discussed strategic approaches to changing local rules, including the possibility of repealing local ordinance 12-84 (which imposes local height and related limitations). One commissioner characterized repeal as a straightforward option: “Repealing feels very uncomplicated,” the commissioner said, while staff and other commissioners emphasized the need for polling, public engagement and careful packaging of potential ballot measures to maximize voter support and reduce the risk of defeat.

Policy and regulatory options explored included form-based code approaches, single-stair (single stair‑access) building types to enable more housing on small lots, rezoning certain vacant or underused public sites, and pairing height or density changes with performance standards and design controls. Commissioners pointed to examples in other cities and discussed infrastructure impacts, the need for community engagement, and sequencing with other programs such as the housing-element implementation and transit-oriented communities compliance work.

Staff said any formal changes would likely be brought to council later in the summer and could be combined with a fiscal/ballot strategy for 2028 if voters must decide; staff stressed that this meeting was a first of many, and that future meetings would refine options and scope environmental review. The commission agreed to continue the conversation as needed and to provide direction about topics they want staff to research further.

No formal action was taken at the study session; staff will return with refined options, supporting analysis and public‑engagement plans if the commission requests further work.