Crestmoor fields spark development debate in San Bruno

But with the potential to build homes stunted by the fields — which cover over half of the site’s developable area, the high school district is arguing the general plan’s wording should allow the fields to be preserved by building them at another location in the city. 

“The high school district views the redevelopment of the site as a tremendous opportunity for the city of San Bruno and its residents,” Peter Hanley, the school board’s president, said. “An interpretation of the city’s general plan that takes away about half of the area … will all but ensure that the tremendous potential [of the site] cannot and will not be met.”

The school district last month approved an $85 million purchase agreement with residential developer SummerHill Homes. A $125 million sale with another developer with plans to construct as many as 200 single-family homes on the site fell through last year. 

Councilmember Marty Medina said the council’s resolution would not prohibit the school district and city from coming to an agreement on the matter, a sentiment echoed by Councilmember Michael Salazar.

“What this does is establish a baseline from which we can negotiate and make our position, and the position that we’ve heard echoed in our community in terms of wanting to preserve the soccer fields,” Salazar said. “From here, we can begin in earnest some negotiations.”

The school district, however, contended the resolution goes beyond the scope of the existing general plan by introducing new language. Harold Freiman, legal counsel for this district, called the move “both unnecessary and unlawful” arguing the action constitutes a general plan amendment, something that would require the city to notify the property owner, which did not happen. 

“We believe that this resolution you’re adopting will have no legal force or affect whatsoever and we plan to move forward accordingly,” he said.

The city’s resolution states the general plan requires the “dedication … at the former Crestmoor High School” of “approximately 12 acres” of fields. But according to Freiman, those stipulations were absent from the original document. The changes could constitute an “unconstitutional taking” of the district’s property, and further, could violate the state’s housing accountability act by not applying objective standards the state law requires of the general plan, he said.

“We do not believe the city’s reading fits anything like an objective standard … the [general plan] doesn’t provide an objective standard,” he said. “It’s our hope that the city does not fall prey to the same error that a number of other cities around the state have made, including the city of San Mateo who was successfully sued over the issue.”

He emphasized that in any event the school district would ensure a plan for development would “include appropriate solutions to play field problems.” 

The school district stated its intent to use proceeds from the sale to provide housing for its staff at a different location. 

Hanley pointed also to the development’s ability to usher in “much needed” housing within the city along with an influx of tax revenue that would benefit both the high school and elementary school districts and the city. Additionally, he said the development would provide a “long-term solution to some of the city’s playing field needs” that would be “far superior to the substandard and outdated fields now located at Crestmoor.”

Apart from the city-maintained fields, the site has been vacant after the Peninsula Alternative High School moved out in 2019. The prior occupant, the Crestmoor High School, closed in 1980. The district first expressed interest in selling the site in 2019. 

corey@smdailyjournal.com

(650) 344-5200, ext. 105