Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Density Transfer topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission studies expanding Brisbane acres density‑transfer rules to other districts
Summary
At a Nov. 13 workshop commissioners reviewed a staff proposal to allow density‑transfer receiving sites outside the Brisbane acres (targeting R2, R3, Parkside/PAOZ and ST1) to preserve sensitive upper‑acre land while adding housing near infrastructure; staff said site‑specific biological review and permit approvals would still be required.
The Brisbane Planning Commission met Nov. 13 for a study session on whether to amend the city’s density‑transfer ordinance so development potential from environmentally sensitive parcels in the Brisbane acres could be concentrated on receiving parcels outside the RBA (Brisbane acres).
Staff opened the workshop by saying the study responds to Housing Element program 2G1 and is intended as a first pass to identify which districts commissioners might consider as receiving sites, what standards would apply and whether the program should allow sending sites from the lower acres as well as the upper acres. "The purpose of tonight's workshop is to discuss a potential amendment to the zoning ordinance that would change the density transfer provisions for the Brisbane acres," staff said.
Under the current ordinance, transfers move development potential from upper‑acre parcels that the city seeks to preserve to receiving sites inside the Brisbane acres. Staff explained the baseline density in the Brisbane acres is one unit per 20,000 square feet and outlined an illustrative calculation showing how sending 60,000 square feet of development potential could result in four units concentrated on a smaller receiving parcel. Staff also stated the smallest lot that could be allowed through density transfer is 5,000 square feet, noting the transcript contains a possible typographical confusion between "50,000" and "5,000." All transfers would remain subject to use permits and design permits and to the city’s findings.
Staff described procedural mechanics: a use permit application for a density transfer would go first to the Planning Commission and then to City Council; the sending site would transfer to the city for open‑space dedication without the city purchasing the land; and owners would fund required biological assessments through a deposit from which the city would hire a consultant. Staff noted that any biological study would be reviewed consistent with the San Bruno Mountain habitat conservation plan and by county, state and federal wildlife agencies as appropriate.
Commissioners asked how many properties might be eligible; staff estimated "about eight or ten" upper‑acre properties could qualify but said no definitive count was available. Commissioners also pressed whether the city should undertake a broad reassessment of the open‑space mapping, and staff replied that the 2001 open‑space plan is a high‑level characterization and that individual site studies are required for permit decisions.
The planning staff presented a table of possible receiving‑district candidates (R2, R3, Parkside/PAOZ, ST1 along Beayshore Boulevard) and preliminary ideas about density levels in those zones. Commissioners discussed likely benefits and limits: expanding receiving sites could increase the number of parcels the city could convert to open space and steer additional housing to areas with existing infrastructure, but staff and commissioners said take‑up may be limited in small‑lot residential zones (R2/R3) and that design and lot‑size realities can constrain yields.
Several commissioners asked staff to return with street‑level examples and built precedents illustrating what different densities look and feel like in Brisbane (unit sizes, building form and parking implications). Staff offered to bring visuals to a follow‑up workshop and said a more detailed workshop could be scheduled in 2026 if commissioners want to pursue expansion.
Why it matters: expanding receiving sites could let the city preserve environmentally sensitive upper‑acre land while enabling housing in better‑served areas, but changes would require careful permit findings, site‑specific biological review and ultimately City Council approval.
Next steps: staff said it will take commissioners' direction to City Council and return with more detailed examples and proposed code language if the commission favors further study.
