San Bruno looks to turn development stagnation around

But for the city to catch up to neighbors like Redwood City, Millbrae and South San Francisco and bolster housing density, retail occupancy and job growth, a more large-scale change to Ordinance 1284 is likely necessary, staff told the City Council during a special meeting July 22.

That’s particularly important as statewide laws now allow affordable housing development to bypass city regulations in some cases, creating, for example, a 10-story housing development in a San Bruno area regulated for only five stories.

Economic development doesn’t have those same statewide incentives, Community Development Director Peter Gilli said during the meeting, where an assessment of the Transit Corridors Plan was explained to councilmembers.

Thus, the question of changing height limitations and incentivizing development in San Bruno is also a question of the city’s long-term fiscal health, as it receives much of its revenue from hotel, business and sales taxes.

“Housing has its way to get past 1284,” he said. “Economic development does not. We have to change those rules if we want to allow those things.”

Established in 1977 as a result of a voter initiative, Ordinance 1284 was intended to preserve the existing character of San Bruno by requiring voter approval for high-rise developments, increased density in existing neighborhoods and projects encroaching upon scenic corridors and open spaces.

A change to the ordinance would require a ballot measure, Gilli said. Changing the scope — like applying it only to certain residential areas, and giving the City Council authority over most development zones — could be put on a 2026 ballot.

Raising height limits in the existing transit corridor would take longer and require a longer environmental impact report. Voters could ostensibly see that on a 2028 ballot. Gilli emphasized that any effort to change height regulation ordinances would require substantial community buy-in, and conversations with property owners and residents would need to begin eminently.

A presentation from Economic and Planning Systems consultant Jason Moody underscored that San Bruno is underperforming neighboring cities in key development areas. While the situation is exacerbated by an unfavorable economy and San Bruno’s declining population, there are signs for growth, Moody said.

One positive sign is that San Bruno’s rental market prices are comparable with other cities in San Mateo County.

“When you do build something, you can get good strong market performance,” Moody said. “While slightly worse than your neighboring cities, you’re not in bad shape.”

Aside from amending the city’s density and height policies, San Bruno could also pursue a variety of other methods to make development more fiscally feasible and incentivize builders — including a community facilities district tax or statewide community infrastructure program.

Other development incentives could include fee waivers and reductions, relaxing inclusionary requirements and pursuing private-public partnerships.

City Manager Alex McIntyre emphasized that any successful, long-term strategy to turn the city’s development prospects around would take time.

“There’s not one thing up there that’s going to be a quick silver bullet,” he said. “This is going to be one of those things where the package makes all the sense in the world. We have a lot of moving parts.”