San Bruno advances 3 ballot measures for November election

At the Tuesday City Council meeting — where upcoming ballot measures were discussed — residents largely attended to talk fireworks. San Bruno is one of only two cities in San Mateo County to allow fireworks sales, alongside Pacifica, and it’s become both tradition and an opportunity for nonprofits to make money off yearly fireworks booths.

“Without fireworks, the American Legion is going to be out of business,” Steve Arden, representing the veterans’ association American Legion Post, said in defense of their sale.

Councilmembers emphasized that they weren’t implementing a ban, only offering the choice to voters for the first time since 2005, however, concerns around revenue loss from fireworks-related safety enforcement and fire danger were highlighted. It also won’t impact firework sales this year and would go into effect for future years if passed by a simple majority.

“I understand all the fundraising parts of it, and I love fireworks,” Councilmember Marty Medina said. “But 20 years have passed and we have severe [fire] zones that can’t be overlooked. We need to be responsible. It’s up to our voters to decide if they want to live in a city that allows fireworks.”

Before state law capped cost recovery efforts for firework enforcement at 7% of gross sales, the program was financially net neutral for the city. After that program implementation, however, San Bruno has had to spend an additional $15,000 on enforcement and cleanup.

Although a vote to move forward on the measure passed unanimously, Councilmember Michael Salazar did acknowledge pro-fireworks arguments that it’s illegal fireworks, not safe and sane fireworks, causing most of the public safety concerns. Illegal fireworks, of course, are not on the ballot and may well continue even if the safe-and-sane ban is put in place.

“This really does nothing to address our problem with the illegal fireworks,” he said. “Without the added [nonprofit] revenue to do more enforcement, or having to support that from the general fund to do the additional enforcement, leaves us at a bit of a disadvantage.”

Height restrictions

The City Council also decided unanimously to move forward with asking voters to repeal Ordinance 1284, which requires voter approval for all projects beyond three stories or 50 feet in height. A 2014 accession allows for buildings between four and seven stories in its transit corridor, a 155-acre stretch that includes El Camino Real, San Bruno Avenue and San Mateo Avenue.

Even with the transit corridor allowance, the city has struggled to incentivize development in comparison to its neighbors and sees the height restrictions as a major culprit.

Although state law permits affordable housing to move forward in the city regardless of local regulation, revenue-generating businesses don’t receive those same privileges and may often choose to build elsewhere, staff said, citing YouTube’s decision to not continue its development plan at the Bayhill campus.

Councilmembers decided to ask voters to remove Ordinance 1284 entirely, not just in specific sections of the city. While the measure would require only a simple majority of voters to pass, a survey poll showed it would be close, with 53.2% of those polled supporting it being rescinded entirely and 51.4% supporting it being rescinded in targeted industrial and mixed-use areas.

“This ordinance has been an albatross hanging around San Bruno’s neck since 1978, and I’m hoping that the voters will realize that and hope us to get rid of it,” Councilmember Tom Hamilton said.

Raising business license fees

As the city deals with a looming budget deficit, councilmembers were also in agreement that San Bruno could increase its immediate revenue by asking voters to restructure its business license tax structure, which is currently regressive — the more money a business makes, the less it’s paying.

“I am in favor of moving ahead with a business license tax,” Hamilton said. “A big reason is the inequity. That was a big learning for me, learning how our structure is regressive and frankly, not fair.”

Councilmembers were in favor of a model that assigned a $75 flat rate fee, plus differing rates per thousand dollars in income for different types of businesses. General and retail businesses would pay $1 per thousand, services and contractors would pay $2 per thousand, and professional and property rentals would pay $3 per thousand.

While this would increase annual business license revenue — which currently sits at $2.7 million — by a whopping $9.2 million, it would also make the city’s business licenses substantially more expensive than neighbors like San Carlos, South San Francisco and Burlingame. The other potential business license tax model would have assigned all businesses a $75 flat fee and $1 per thousand in income, regardless of business type, and made the city an additional $3.7 million annually.

Staff also presented the option of a parcel tax on commercial and residential buildings with five or more units, which would have brought in $5.6 million annually for fixing roads and 911 calls and required a two-thirds majority of voter support to pass.

Because the parcel tax was polling at around 70%, a slim margin for the 66% voter approval required to pass it, Salazar felt the business licensing tax, which requires only a simple majority, would be a safer option. No polling has been conducted on how voters feel about that measure.

“It did have a lot of appealing aspects to it, including the fact that it has a very low threshold we need to meet, and it addresses an existing inequity,” he said.

The business license tax may be brought back to council with revisions so it does not inordinately hurt larger businesses, staff said.

In total, the combination of the three ballot measures, plus races for mayor and City Council positions, will cost San Bruno anywhere from $165,000 to $198,000.