On the agenda: San Bruno meeting — surveillance camera (Apr 14)

"The City With a Heart"

Rico E. Medina, Mayor
Sandy Alvarez, Vice Mayor
Tom Hamilton, Councilmember, District 2
Michael Salazar, Councilmember, District 3
Marty Medina, Councilmember, District 4

AGENDA
SAN BRUNO CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
April 14, 2026
5:30 PM
IN PERSON* MEETING LOCATION
San Bruno Recreation and Aquatic Center, Community Room
251 City Park Way
San Bruno, CA 94066
*Please turn off all electronic devices before the start of the
meeting to prevent disruptions*

**Zoom Link
https://sanbruno­ca­gov.zoom.us/j/81643549334?
pwd=FJt5I8qbekJLNjtQbKM6ZAfNrhFQKh.1
Phone Line: 1­646­558­8656
Webinar ID: 816 4354 9334
Webinar Password: 868676
*Broadcast of the meeting is offered via Zoom as a
courtesy to the public.
**No public comment accepted via Zoom.

PUBLIC COMMENT: In person attendees who want to provide public comment, will be asked to fill out a speaker card and turn it into
the City Clerk. Public comment may also be emailed to [email protected]. Comments received via email will not be read
aloud during the meeting.
ACCESSIBILITY: In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, individuals requiring special accommodations or
modifications to participate in this meeting should contact the City Clerk’s Office 48 hours prior to the meeting at (650) 616­7061 or
[email protected].
*Any disclosable public writings related to an open session item on a regular meeting agenda and distributed by the City to at least a
majority of the City Council less than 72 hours prior to that meeting are available for public inspection at the City Clerk's Office at City
Hall located at 567 El Camino Real, San Bruno, California during normal business hours. In addition, the City may also post such
documents on the City’s Website at sanbruno.ca.gov/AgendaCenter.

1.

CALL TO ORDER

2.

ROLL CALL

3.

CLOSED SESSION
Public comment will be requested after each topic in this section

a. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—EXISTING LITIGATION
(Paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9)
Name of case: San Bruno v. California Department of Tax and Fee Administration, et
al. (San Mateo County Superior Court Case No. 23­CIV­05021)
b. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
Agency designated representatives: City Manager
Employee Organizations: Teamsters Local 856, IBT Police; Teamsters Local 856,
IBT Public Safety Mid​­Management
4.

STUDY SESSION
Public comment will be requested after each topic in this section

a. Safe San Bruno Council Initiative ­ Traffic Safety and Crime Hotspot Improvement
Program
1 of 9

5.

ADJOURNMENT – The next Regular City Council Meeting will be held on April 14,
2026 at 7:00 pm.

b. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
Agency designated representatives: City Manager
Employee Organizations: Teamsters Local 856, IBT Police; Teamsters Local 856,
IBT Public Safety Mid​­Management
4.

STUDY SESSION
Public comment will be requested after each topic in this section

a. Safe San Bruno Council Initiative ­ Traffic Safety and Crime Hotspot Improvement
Program
5.

ADJOURNMENT – The next Regular City Council Meeting will be held on April 14,
2026 at 7:00 pm.
POSTING: I declare a copy of this agenda was posted at City Hall, 567 El Camino Real, San Bruno,
among other locations in the city limits of San Bruno, on April 9, 2026, by 8:00 pm.

2 of 9

City Council Agenda Item
Staff Report

CITY OF SAN BRUNO

DATE:

April 14, 2026

TO:

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council

FROM:

Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager

PREPARED BY:

Matthew Lethin, Police Chief

SUBJECT:

Safe San Bruno Council Initiative - Traffic Safety and Crime Hotspot
Improvement Program

BACKGROUND:
The San Bruno City Council has identified the Safe San Bruno Council Initiative – Traffic Safety
and Crime Hotspot Improvement Program as a desired FY 2026-27 City Council initiative. As
currently conceived, the initiative is intended to respond to community concerns related to
roadway safety, particularly speeding and unsafe traffic conditions, as well as concerns
regarding crime and quality-of-life issues occurring at recurring locations throughout the City.
Although these concerns are both rooted in public safety, they are not identical in nature and do
not rely on the same operational tools. Traffic safety improvements are generally addressed
through roadway engineering, education, and traffic enforcement, while crime hotspot reduction
requires a different approach that relies on crime analysis, environmental design, place-based
interventions, and targeted enforcement. For that reason, this study session is intended not only
to provide background information, but also to help clarify the scope of the proposed initiative
and the level of service Council would like staff to pursue as part of the FY 2026-27 budget and
priority-setting process.
Staff’s perspective is that improving roadway safety and reducing crime at hotspot locations
should be approached through a coordinated and data-informed model that integrates
engineering, education, and enforcement. At the same time, staff believe it is important to
clearly define the intended outcomes of this initiative before committing substantial resources. In
its current form, the concept reflects a broad policy interest, but additional direction is needed to
determine whether the City’s goal is to accelerate existing work, establish a new coordinated
safety program, or pursue more targeted improvements in selected locations.
With respect to crime hotspots, such locations may involve property crime, violent crime,
nuisance activity, or other quality-of-life issues. These locations may occur on City property,
private property, or land controlled by outside agencies such as Caltrans or Caltrain. The nature
of the location affects both the tools available to the City and the complexity of implementing
improvements. Best practice in this area generally combines education, environmental design,
and enforcement. Engineering responses are often guided by Crime Prevention Through
Environmental Design (CPTED), which focuses on improving visibility, natural surveillance,
territoriality, and access control to reduce opportunities for crime. While lighting may be a

3 of 9

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
April 14, 2026
Page 2 of 7

possible improvement, it is not always the most effective or appropriate intervention, depending
on the specific conditions at a site.
With respect to traffic safety, the City’s work is already guided by the established framework of
engineering, enforcement, and education. This framework recognizes that traffic safety
outcomes are shaped both by the built environment and by driver, bicyclist, and pedestrian
behavior. The City has already adopted a Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP), which prioritizes
roadways and intersections based on severe and fatal collision history and identifies
improvement strategies intended to reduce risk. Public Works has also continued to process
neighborhood traffic calming requests and implement corridor and intersection improvements as
funding and staffing capacity allow. Currently, staff prioritize implementing improvements on the
high-injury roadway segments and intersections in the LRSP to maximize the reduction in fatal
and severe injury collisions. Traffic engineering staff time is also reserved to respond to other
traffic concerns.
As reflected in the staff report, staff have completed and advanced several meaningful projects
that support traffic safety objectives. Completed or ongoing efforts include the San Bruno
Avenue and Cherry Avenue Intersection Improvements Project, the Huntington Avenue–San
Antonio Avenue Bicycle Corridor Project, improvements under the San Bruno Avenue Transit
Corridor program, red curbing adjustments, signal timing modifications, the Huntington Avenue
Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements Project Segment 2 cycle track installation, the Bayhill
Drive and El Camino Real Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements Project, Safe Routes to School
high-priority improvements, and additional improvements associated with the Bay to Trail gap
closure.
These efforts demonstrate that the City already has active traffic safety work underway;
however, they also highlight that the City is operating within an existing workload and staffing
structure that limits how quickly additional requests and new program elements can be
delivered.
The purpose of this study session is therefore to provide Council with a clearer framework for
decision-making. Specifically, staff seek direction regarding the intended scope of the initiative,
the balance between traffic safety and crime hotspot work, the City’s desired level of service,
and whether Council wishes staff to develop a phased or comprehensive implementation
approach for FY 2026-27.
DISCUSSION:
Problem Definition
The principal issue before the City Council is not whether traffic safety and crime hotspot
concerns are important, as they clearly are. The issue is how the City should structure a
realistic, outcome-oriented initiative that aligns community expectations with available staffing,
funding, and implementation capacity.
At present, the City addresses traffic safety concerns through existing efforts by the Public
Works and Police Departments, including the implementation of the LRSP, Safe Routes to
School Plan, and Traffic Calming Program, targeted enforcement, staffing of the Complete
Streets Committee, and public outreach. Similarly, the Police Department responds to crime
hotspots through crime analysis, patrol operations, enforcement activity, and coordination with
other departments or outside property owners when place-based conditions contribute to

4 of 9

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
April 14, 2026
Page 3 of 7

recurring problems. However, these efforts are not currently organized under a single formal
initiative with dedicated staffing, defined performance metrics, or a common prioritization
framework that incorporates both data and community input.
As a result, the City is not starting from zero but is operating in a largely reactive manner
constrained by available staff time. Staff is at capacity and meaningful expansion of services will
require additional resources. If Council wishes to accelerate traffic safety improvements,
improve responsiveness to neighborhood concerns, deploy and maintain new equipment,
conduct more formal crime hotspot analysis, and establish a stronger public-facing safety
program, those expectations will require additional staffing and operational support. Equipment
alone will not produce the intended results unless the City also has capacity to deploy it
strategically, maintain it, analyze the resulting information, and adjust operations over time.
For that reason, staff believe the initiative should be understood as a service level and capacity
decision. The City can continue its current pace of work and supplement it with additional
support and equipment, but that approach will yield only incremental changes. If Council desires
a more visible, coordinated, and outcome-driven program, then additional staffing and ongoing
program management will be needed.
Approach
Staff believe it is important to establish clearer expectations for what this initiative is intended to
accomplish. In the staff’s view, a refined FY 2026-27 initiative should aim to achieve four core
outcomes. First, the City should establish a transparent prioritization process that incorporates
both objective data and community input in determining where safety interventions should
occur. Second, the City should identify and monitor a set of priority traffic safety corridors,
intersections, and crime hotspots to ensure that resources are directed where the need is
greatest. Third, the City should define performance measures that allow Council and the public
to evaluate whether the initiative is producing results over time. Finally, the City should align the
initiative’s scope with realistic staffing and funding assumptions to sustain the program beyond a
single fiscal year.
In practical terms, those outcomes could include better tracking of traffic calming requests,
clearer public visibility into LRSP implementation progress, a more systematic process for
hotspot identification and CPTED-based review, improved coordination between Public Works
and Police, and more strategic deployment of speed feedback signs, message boards, lighting
trailers, or surveillance equipment where appropriate. Depending on the Council’s direction, the
City could also establish regular reporting on implementation status and results as part of future
work plans or budget updates.
Options
To help frame the Council’s decision, staff have organized the initiative into three possible
implementation approaches.
Option 1 – Comprehensive Education, Engineering, and Enforcement Program
Under this option, the City would establish a comprehensive, multi-year public safety program
designed to accelerate traffic safety improvements, improve responsiveness to neighborhood
concerns, and create dedicated capacity to address crime hotspots through education,
engineering, and enforcement.

5 of 9

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
April 14, 2026
Page 4 of 7

For traffic safety, this option would fund full implementation of San Bruno’s 2023 Local Roadway
Safety Plan (LRSP) and provide staffing to advance related efforts such as the Traffic Calming
Program and Safe Routes to School improvements. Rather than continuing to implement these
programs incrementally as staffing and funding allow, this option would create a more proactive
and coordinated delivery model. To support implementation, this option would include a $15
million capital budget over a multi-year effort to construct improvements identified in the LRSP,
along with a limited-term Project Manager for two to three years to lead implementation of the
LRSP and related traffic safety programs. This position would coordinate priority safety projects,
track implementation progress, align work across departments and consultants, and support
delivery of Council-prioritized traffic safety improvements. This option would also include an
additional $500,000 annually to support the installation of traffic-calming measures, such as
speed humps, on up to four streets per year and to deliver other traffic-calming improvements in
a more predictable, programmatic manner.
This option would also add a Management Analyst to support traffic safety outreach, data
analysis, community engagement, performance tracking, and interdepartmental coordination.
This position would help establish a more formal, transparent, and measurable safety program
and would support public communication regarding implementation progress, neighborhood
concerns, and prioritization of efforts.
For the crime hotspot initiative, this option would include the Police Department staffing and
equipment identified in the staff report, including a dedicated Traffic and Crime Prevention
Officer and equipment such as lighting trailers, surveillance cameras, variable message boards,
and other deployable public safety tools. These resources would support targeted enforcement,
hotspot response, public education, and coordination of safety interventions. Unlike a more
limited equipment-only approach, this option would provide the staffing capacity needed to
deploy and manage those tools effectively.
The Management Analyst would also support the crime hotspot component by working with
Police, Public Works, and other departments to review data, identify recurring hotspot locations,
evaluate contributing site conditions, and support development of a coordinated response
strategy. That work may include outreach, operational changes, CPTED-based assessments,
and coordination with property owners or partner agencies when site-specific conditions
contribute to recurring issues. This option would not assume that lighting alone is the
appropriate solution in every case. Instead, hotspot locations would be evaluated using a
broader problem-solving framework to determine the most appropriate intervention based on the
type of activity, property ownership, and environmental conditions. If those assessments identify
built-environment improvements on City property, or City participation in such improvements,
staff would return to the City Council with recommendations, scope, and funding needs for
consideration.
The management analyst would also work with a consultant to implement an online dashboard
to track the city’s efforts in traffic safety and crime prevention. There will be a one-time
implementation cost of $50,000.
Overall, this option would move the City from a largely reactive and capacity-constrained model
to a coordinated implementation program with dedicated staff, ongoing funding, and clearer
public safety outcomes. It is the most robust option and the one best positioned to deliver

6 of 9

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
April 14, 2026
Page 5 of 7

visible, measurable progress on both traffic safety and crime-hotspot concerns.
The total cost of this option would include the $15 million capital budget for LRSP
improvements, the limited-term Project Manager, the Management Analyst ($180,000 ongoing),
the ongoing $500,000 annual traffic calming allocation, the Police Department position
($262,000 ongoing), and approximately $150,000 in equipment. Final staffing and operating
costs would need to be refined through the FY 2026-27 budget process. Total estimates are
presented in the table below.
Option 2 – Enhanced Evaluation Program
Under this option, the City would establish an intermediate public safety program that advances
the same overall initiative framework as Option 1, but without accelerated delivery of the capital
improvement projects identified in San Bruno’s 2023 Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP), nor
an increase in the Traffic Calming Program budget or staffing. This option would continue to
support traffic safety and crime hotspot work through additional staffing, ongoing traffic-calming
funding, and Police Department resources and equipment, but it would do so within the City’s
existing pace of capital project delivery.
For traffic safety, this option would continue implementation of the LRSP, the Traffic Calming
Program, and Safe Routes to School improvements using existing capital planning and delivery
capacity. Unlike Option 1, this option would not include dedicated additional capital funding to
accelerate construction of LRSP improvements, nor would it include the limited-term Project
Manager proposed to lead that accelerated work. As a result, priority traffic safety capital
projects would continue to compete with other Public Works priorities and available staffing
resources, limiting the City’s ability to expedite the delivery of LRSP recommendations. This
option would, however, retain the proposed Management Analyst to support traffic safety
outreach, data analysis, community engagement, performance tracking, and interdepartmental
coordination. This position would help formalize the program, improve transparency, and
support the development of a clearer and more measurable traffic safety work program.
For the crime hotspot initiative, this option would include either a full-time or part-time
Community Services Officer (CSO), depending on Council direction and preference, rather than
a dedicated full-time sworn Traffic and Crime Prevention Officer. The full-time CSO, compared
with the part-time position, would create additional capacity to conduct related efforts. The CSO
would support hotspot response, public education, coordination with Public Works and other
departments, and deployment of equipment such as lighting trailers, surveillance cameras,
variable message boards, and other deployable public safety tools. This approach would
provide added support beyond current capacity, but it would be more limited than Option 1
because a CSO would not provide the same level of dedicated enforcement or sustained
operational coverage as a full-time sworn position.
The Management Analyst would also support the crime hotspot component by working with the
police and other departments to review data, identify recurring hotspot locations, evaluate
contributing site conditions, and support the development of a coordinated response strategy.
That work may include outreach, operational changes, CPTED-based assessments, and
coordination with property owners or partner agencies when site-specific conditions contribute
to recurring issues. This option would not assume that lighting alone is the appropriate solution
in every case. If assessments identify needed built-environment improvements on City property,

7 of 9

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
April 14, 2026
Page 6 of 7

or City participation in such improvements, staff would return to the City Council with
recommendations, scope, and funding needs for consideration.
Overall, this option would provide a meaningful expansion of the City’s traffic safety and crime
hotspot initiative by adding program support, annual traffic-calming funding, and limited police
support capacity, but it would stop short of accelerating major LRSP capital improvements or
providing a full-time, dedicated enforcement position. As a result, the City would gain better
coordination, outreach, analysis, and neighborhood-level implementation capacity, while
continuing to face limitations in expediting larger traffic safety capital projects and sustaining
hotspot response at the level available under Option 1.
The total cost of this option would include the Management Analyst ($180,000 ongoing), the
CSO (full-time at $140,000 or part-time at $42,000 ongoing), and approximately $150,000 in
equipment. Final staffing and operating costs would need to be refined through the FY 2026-27
budget process.
Option 3 – Limited Enhancements
Under Option 3, the City would purchase additional traffic safety and crime prevention
equipment but would not add new staff. Existing Public Works and Police staff would continue to
coordinate and implement work as time permits. This approach would likely yield incremental
benefit, particularly where equipment can be deployed to raise awareness or address specific
conditions. However, because no new staffing capacity would be added, this option would not
materially change the City’s ability to analyze hotspots, accelerate project delivery, sustain
public engagement, or manage an expanded program on an ongoing basis. In effect, this option
would maintain the City’s current service model with additional tools, but without the
organizational capacity needed to transform those tools into a comprehensive program. Option
3 will include developing a traffic safety dashboard. There would be a one-time $50,000 cost in
implementing the dashboard.
Summary
Option 1 is estimated at $16.2 million for one-time capital and equipment expenses and includes
adding two new full-time staff members: a management analyst and a sworn officer.
Option 2 is estimated at $422,000-$520,000 (depending on Council‘s decision for the CSO
position) for one-time equipment costs and includes one new management analyst and a CSO.
Option 3 is estimated at $200,000 and includes equipment only.
While these figures provide a reasonable starting point for policy discussion, staff notes that
final costs would need to be refined through the FY 2026-27 budget development process,
including any assumptions related to personnel classification, training, deployment model, and
whether consultant support may be needed for specialized crime analysis, CPTED review, or
program development.
From a policy perspective, staff believe the strongest direction Council can provide is not simply
which option appears most attractive, but what level of outcome Council expects from this
initiative. If the Council’s objective is to create a visible, coordinated, and measurable public
safety initiative, staff would need direction to develop a program with dedicated capacity,

8 of 9

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
April 14, 2026
Page 7 of 7

defined performance measures, and a structured implementation plan. If Council’s objective is
instead to make targeted improvements within existing operational limits, staff can refine a
narrower initiative focused on transparency, the deployment of selected equipment, and
continued progress under the LRSP and existing Police operations.
A summary of the three options, costs, and cost components of the options is provided below.
Table 1 – Summary of Options, Costs, and Cost Components
Option

Description

Cost

Cost Components

1

Comprehensive
Education, Engineering,
and Enforcement
Program

$16.2M

2

Enhanced Outreach,
Dashboard and
Equipment Program

$422,000-$520,000
($200,000 one-time
and
$222,000-$320,000
on-going)

3

Dashboard and
Equipment

$200,000 (one-time)

· Accelerated Implementation of LRSP (3-year
Term Limited Project Manager paid for by
projects) - $15,000,000 (One-time)
· Increased Traffic Calming - $500,000 (Ongoing)
· Management Analyst - $180,000 (On-going)
· Traffic and Crime Prevention Officer $262,000 (On-going)
· Equipment - $150,000 (One time)
· Online Dashboard - $50,000 (One time)
· Management Analyst - $180,000 (On-going)
· Either:
- Full-Time CSO - $140,000 (On-going)
- Or Part-time CSO - $42,000 (On-going)
· Equipment - $150,000 (One time)
· Online Dashboard - $50,000 (One time)
· Equipment - $150,000 (One time)
· Online Dashboard - $50,000 (One time)

($15.2M one-time
and
$1M on-going)

FISCAL IMPACT:
The total cost for this program is dependent on direction from City Council, and it would require
dedicated funding in the involved departments’ budgets.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
The action is not a project subject to CEQA.
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive the presentation and provide direction to staff regarding the preferred scope and
approach for the Safe San Bruno Council Initiative so that staff may refine it for consideration as
part of the FY2027 City Council priority setting and budget preparation process.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Provide alternative direction regarding the scope or priorities of the proposed Safe San Bruno
Council Initiative.
2. Direct staff to explore a more limited initiative focused solely on traffic improvements or solely
on crime hotspot reduction strategies.
3. Decline to pursue the initiatives as a FY 2026-27 City Council priority.

9 of 9