Reform of Ordinance 1284 (Height Limits)

By Gary Fleming

I propose that we REFORM Ordinance 1284 to be more citizen-friendly, Council-friendly, and encouraging of new investment in San Bruno. By providing additional alternatives to the City Council, the citizens of San Bruno will have more input and say about future development in San Bruno.

In San Bruno, Ordinance 1284 requires that construction exceeding 3 stories or 50 feet or including a multi-level parking garage must receive voter approval prior to the City being allowed to review and approve the project. The original intent of Ordinance 1284 was to assure citizens approval prior to allowing review of the project by the Planning Commission and City Council. This is, in effect, an automatic referendum prior to the project being designed by the developer and reviewed by the City. Ordinance 1284 plays an important role in San Bruno but there have been some unintended consequences that have developed from this ordinance. The Ordinance has turned into a "no growth" initiative that pits the City Council against the citizens.

It is time to reform Ordinance 1284. Ordinance 1284 can be reformed to allow the citizens to have a significant level of input while also allowing the City to consider projects above 3 stories or 50 feet or multi-level parking garages without a vote of the citizens. I recommend that the City be provided with an alternative that allows the formation of a citizens' advisory committee and the development of a specific plan for the project. If the City utilizes a legitimate citizens' advisory committee, develops a specific plan, holds a required number of public meetings, and provides a required amount of public notification, the plan should not be required to go to the voters. However, the mechanism to force the issue to the voters would be set at a reasonably low standard. Should the City follow the procedure outlined and any person in the City feels the procedure was inadequate, a simple petition of 500 registered voters presented to the City Council within 3 weeks of adoption of the specific plan would force the City Council to place the issue on the ballot. Further, the City Council would need to have voter approval to modify the specific plan created by the citizens' advisory committee. If there is no organized opposition, the plan should not have to go before the voters and the developer should be allowed to proceed with the normal planning process. Should the City choose not to utilize a citizens' advisory committee then the matter would automatically go before the voters.

In 1999 I wrote the Argument Against in the Voter's Pamphlet and led the campaign to defeat Measure C. Measure C would have allowed the developer of the Navy site to build any type of land use they wanted with minimal input from the citizens of San Bruno. Had Measure C passed, there most likely would have been a citizen-led Referendum regarding the project, had the height limits and intensities allowed by Measure C actually been proposed by the developer. At the Town Hall Meeting regarding Measure C I called for the citizens to vote no on Measure C and to have the City Council come back with a ballot measure based on a specific plan. After the defeat of Measure C, I called for the City to form a citizens' advisory committee to draft a specific plan for the site. The City did eventually form a citizens' advisory committee and developed a good plan, though still containing certain land uses that I did not feel were appropriate for the location. However, as a member of the committee I was willing to accept the outcome of the process. I also felt that in this particular situation, the City Council should have allowed the Navy Site Citizens' Advisory Committee to review any proposed changes to the Specific Plan and to review the ballot measure (Measure E) prior to placing it on the ballot. The process did provide the opportunity for citizen input, a good exchange of ideas between the citizens and the developer and a final document that was available for citizen review. All large projects should go through this same level of rigor to garner citizen review and support.

The reform of Ordinance 1284 recommended above encourages the City and developers to positively interact with the citizens of the City. Should the proposed project not get approval from the citizens' advisory committee the matter can still easily go to the voters for approval, i.e. collection of 500 signatures from registered voters. It would also encourage the City Council to give more preference to citizen demands before overruling the recommendations of the advisory committee. Should the City Council appoint a Citizens' Advisory Committee that is not reflective of the general population, i.e. appointing only their supporters on the committee, then any citizen of the City can collect the required number of signatures to place the issue on the ballot.

Should the City Council choose to continue with the acrimony and the vilification of citizens that have a view disparate from their own, they can continue to have the matter go before the voters. Should the City Council choose to follow the citizen-friendly, developer-friendly, Council-friendly procedures listed above they can gain citizen support while relieving the need to pay for a costly election that inherently creates political enemies and divisiveness.