Over the past three years, developer Mike Ghielmetti did everything he was supposed to do to get a 425-unit housing project approved on El Camino Real in San Bruno.

It seemed the city of 43,000, home to BART and Caltrain stations, was ready to welcome housing. Some other Peninsula cities have fought residential development for decades. In contrast, San Bruno officials and voters recently embraced rezoning a swath of the city’s downtown for transit-oriented housing. They asked developers to come up with projects as part of a plan that called for 1,600 new homes, as well as shops and restaurants.

Ghielmetti, president of Signature Development Group, answered the city’s call. He followed the city’s transit corridor plan — approved by nearly 70% of voters — and spent $3 million on the approval process, repeatedly altering the project at 601-611 El Camino Real at the behest of residents and city staff.

He agreed to add car and bike parking, a 40,000-square-foot “upscale” grocery store, 64 affordable units, street improvements and a community meeting space. He also pledged to pay $10 million into the city’s general fund to offset the increase in demand for public services from the new residents.

But none of that mattered July 10 when, after a six-hour hearing, a no vote by a single San Bruno council member killed the Mills Park Plaza development, a project that supporters argue would have revived 5 acres of land near BART, Caltrain and the city’s downtown.

The project’s rejection was held up by housing advocates as an example of a broken housing approval process in California. Even when cities say they want housing — and developers meet the community’s every demand and whim — decisions driven by fear of growth can kill projects after millions of dollars and years of energy have been sunk into them.

The rejection comes as San Bruno, like much of the Peninsula, is rapidly adding jobs — but little housing. Between 2010 and 2015, San Mateo County added 72,000 jobs and 3,844 housing units, about 19 jobs for every new home. More jobs are likely on the way. YouTube, which is based in San Bruno, is planning a 2.4 million-square-foot expansion, which could also include some housing.

Even in a county where housing projects are regularly stalled or killed, the San Bruno vote stood out, said Rosanne Foust, president of the San Mateo County Economic Development Association.

“When I heard the news, my stomach just hit bottom,” she said. “If you can’t get a beautiful project like that passed, I don’t know what you can get passed. This was quality. ... This would have set San Bruno apart.”

The circumstances of the vote on July 10 were unusual, as two of the five members of the San Bruno council had to recuse themselves because they own property within 1,000 feet of the proposed development. The project needed all three remaining votes.

Two of the three voted yes — council members Laura Davis and Mayor Rico Medina — while Marty Medina — no relation to the mayor — voted no.

At the meeting, Marty Medina echoed concerns that multiple Mills Park residents brought up during public comment — that the project would make parking and traffic worse and that it was out of scale with the neighborhood of mostly single-story ranch homes.

“We have unfortunately a project that is located in the midst of a lot of traffic,” he said, “and the size of the project with this additional traffic will just make it amazingly difficult.

One nearby resident, Linda Freitas, said the project “needs to be reduced in size, period,” and argued that new housing should be spread around the city, rather than being concentrated in her neighborhood. Gary Pollek said “traffic and parking are already idiotic” in the neighborhood and that “the infrastructure can’t handle it.”

By the numbers 119 Number of units of housing built by San Bruno since 2016 1,036 Number of units that San Bruno needs to build by 2023 to meet its state-mandated goal 72,000 Number of jobs created in San Mateo County between 2010 and 2015 3,844 Number of housing units created in San Mateo County between 2010 and 2015 — about 19 jobs for every new home

Read More

The vote comes as San Bruno, like most of its Peninsula neighbors, lags well behind its Regional Housing Needs Assessment allocation, which the state requires every town and city to set. San Bruno has built 119 units since 2016, despite a state goal of 1,155 units, which means it would need to produce another 1,036 homes before 2023 to meet its goal.

“We are three years in and have only issued 10% of the permits,” said Community Development Director Darcy Smith. “We do have some ground to make up.”

Isabella Chu, founder of the pro-housing group Sustainable San Mateo, said the project’s rejection was “incredibly frustrating,” demonstrating why state lawmakers are increasingly looking to take planning control away from local jurisdictions.

“This stuff is going on all over the Peninsula,” she said. “What it really shows is that as long as development decisions are made locally, there is not the political will to allow housing to be built. I have come to equate local control with housing obstruction. It’s so hard to build housing and so easy to obstruct housing.”

Resident Alexander Melendrez, who grew up in San Bruno and works for the San Mateo Housing Leadership Council, said he was surprised by the no vote and predicted it will “become an example of why state intervention is needed.” Melendrez lives with his parents and two siblings because he can’t afford his own place in a county where rents average $3,230 for a one-bedroom.

“As a resident, I am extremely disappointed,” he said. “This was a classic example of a proposal that goes above and beyond. You hear about Cupertino and Palo Alto, but this was a bad example that there is still so much anti-growth and anti-development sentiment in cities like San Bruno, too.”

Richard Koenig, a San Bruno resident and business agent of Sheet Metal Workers Local 104, said the city is home to “several hundred” union construction workers who would love to be putting up apartment complexes in their own backyard.

“When it comes to housing, San Bruno has been late to the game,” he said. “That project would have helped alleviate the housing crisis in San Bruno. We need to get with the program before the state steps in to mandate what is going to happen.”

City Manager Jovan Grogan said he was disappointed by the vote against “a project with immense public benefits.” But he called the the rejection a “hiccup” created by the unusual council recusals. He pointed to other projects that the council approved, including 83 units at 111 San Bruno Ave. and the 64-unit Aperture at 400 San Mateo Ave., which opened May 1 and is 80% leased, according to the leasing office. One-bedroom apartments there rent for $3,350 a month.

Ghielmetti, the developer, said he was “very surprised” by the vote.

“We have complied with everything they have asked us to do over the last three years, and then some,” said Ghielmetti, who spent years battling a lawsuit to get his massive Brooklyn Basin project in Oakland under way. “Here you have a city that is massively behind (its housing goals), and here was a project that followed all the rules and regulations set forth by the city and by the voters.”

While the proposal could be brought back before the council in a year, he said, “The project is dead.

“It was an excruciating meeting and a heartbreaking result,” he said.

J.K. Dineen is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: jdineen@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @sfjkdineen