On the agenda: San Bruno meeting — surveillance camera (Mar 24)

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

"The City With a Heart"

AGENDA
SAN BRUNO CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
March 24, 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/81890016124?
pwd=X8ECMDkbZTDJKzQPHhGuf0i4jtz1yN.1
Phone Line: 1­646­558­8656
Webinar ID: 818 9001 6124
Webinar Password: 681751
*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.

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

a. City Council Strategic Initiative for Downtown Beautification Planning
b. Receive a Presentation and Provide Direction on the Proposed Scope of the
FY2026­27 City Council Initiative: Street Sweeping Program Analysis
c. Safe San Bruno Council Initiative ­ Traffic Safety and Crime Hotspot Improvement
Program
4.

ADJOURNMENT – The next Regular City Council Meeting will be held on March 24,
2ns in the city limits of San Bruno, on March 20, 2026, by 5:00 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 March 20, 2026, by 5:00 pm.

1 of 26

c. Safe San Bruno Council Initiative ­ Traffic Safety and Crime Hotspot Improvement
Program
4.

ADJOURNMENT – The next Regular City Council Meeting will be held on March 24,
2ns in the city limits of San Bruno, on March 20, 2026, by 5:00 pm.

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

2 of 26

City Council Agenda Item
Staff Report
CITY OF SAN BRUNO

DATE:

March 24, 2026

TO:

Honorable Mayor, Members of the City Council

FROM:

Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager

PREPARED BY:

Peter Gilli, Community Development Director
Travis Karlen, Community Services Director
Matthew Lee, Public Works Director

SUBJECT:

City Council Strategic Initiative for Downtown Beautification Planning

BACKGROUND:
On February 10, 2026, the City Council adopted Strategic Initiatives for the FY27 budget. City
Councilmembers proposed several initiatives that related to improving downtown, ranging from
examining allowed uses, how storefronts are maintained, leveraging façade improvements,
issues with signage, adding street lighting, upgrading paseos and the marquee sign along El
Camino Real.
One of the City Council’s selected initiatives was “Downtown Beautification Planning”, seeking
to identify ways to enhance the beauty of San Mateo Avenue using the 2019 San Mateo Avenue
Streetscape Plan (Plan). At the February meeting, staff requested clarification from City
Council, and the direction staff received was to return with a recommendation on downtown
improvements for FY27.
San Mateo Avenue Streetscape Plan
The Plan was adopted by City Council in 2019 following extensive community engagement,
including community and stakeholder meetings, workshops and review by the Planning
Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, Culture and Arts Commission and the Bicycle
and Pedestrian Advisory Committee.
The Plan was built off the policy foundation of the Transit Corridors Plan (TCP) adopted by City
Council in 2013, and the General Plan update adopted by City Council in 2009. Downtown
improvements are a major priority of each of these plans due to the strong community support
for a stronger downtown, a sentiment that continues to be identified as a priority in recent
community surveys.
Goals
The Plan has six goals: Activation, Greening, Beautification, Safety, Wayfinding, and Identity.
Addressing all six goals is necessary to put the City in the best position to have a vibrant, active
downtown. As such, if the City Council intent for this initiative is to implement the Plan, staff

3 of 26

Item 3a.

suggests City Council retitle this initiative to “Downtown Improvement Initiative” instead of
“Downtown Beautification Planning” because beautification is only one of the six goals of the
Plan.
Implementation
The Plan includes a priority implementation list with four Tiers:
• Tier 1 consists of improvements the Plan considers “the bare minimum, lowest cost
project that would provide the highest value.” In reviewing the Plan, Tier 1 was intended
to represent the foundational improvements to be implemented as a single,
comprehensive project.
Tier 1 involves:
o Replacement of sidewalk and ramps
o Installation of bus-stop improvements
o Planting of street trees (in the ground) with grates
o Replacement and addition of street lights
o Seatwalls
o Trash and recycling receptacles, benches, bike racks, wayfinding signage
o Planting and irrigation
o Water line relocation; and
o Demolition and earthwork
•

Tier 2 is called the “second-highest priority” that “support key goals of the project”. Tier
1 and 2 represent the “baseline streetscape project”.
Tier 2 includes:
o Permeable paving for sidewalks
o Curb realignment and trees along Jenevein Avenue
o “Suspended” pavement for street trees
o Gateway and paseo monuments
o Roadway striping
o Planting and irrigation at existing bulbouts
o Paseo improvements; and
o Art installation

•

Tiers 3 and 4 consist of improvements that are either adjacent to, but technically outside
of the Plan area, such as Centennial Plaza and Posy Park, or are purely aesthetic in
nature such as artistic lighting, crosswalks paving, seatwalls and benches, or provide
additional environmental benefit such as bioretention and permeable vehicular
pavement.

Twenty-nine improvements are listed in the four Tiers, estimated to be a total of $19 million in
2019 dollars including contingency. In 2026 dollars, the total cost would exceed $31.5 million.

4 of 26

Improvements to Date
Five of the improvements listed in the Plan have been completed or are underway:
• Trash and recycling receptacles (2021) (Tier 1)
• Planting and irrigation (2026) (Tier 1)
• Planting and irrigation at existing bulb-outs (2026) (Tier 2)
• Centennial Plaza improvements (2024) (Tier 3)
• Posy Park improvements (2026) (Tier 4)
In addition, newspaper racks (2024) and banners (2025) were installed, while not specifically
listed as an improvement in the Plan, these installations further the goals of the Plan. The total
cost of these improvements exceeds $3 million.
DISCUSSION:
The Scope and Purpose section of the Plan describes how, as a concept plan, the Plan’s
purpose is to guide the next steps in the design process. The Plan recognizes much of the
implementation measures will require schematic design, design development, and construction
documentation before expected scopes and costs can be known.
Developing the design for the Tier 1 streetscape improvements should arguably have been the
first step taken after the Plan’s adoption in 2019. Instead, the City has attempted to make
individual improvements independent of a comprehensive design. While this has resulted in
limited positive improvements occurring, there comes a point where the foundational design
work should be done to ensure a short-term improvement does not complicate or conflict with
the future improvements called for in the Plan.
Staff understands the premise of this City Council Strategic Initiative is to continue to
demonstrate improvements in Downtown, as opposed to only preparing supporting documents
for future improvements. As such, staff recommends the Downtown Improvement Initiative for
FY27 include a combination of short-term actions delivered in FY27 and specific design
preparation that can lead to major improvements in future years:
1. Zoning Adjustments. Several City Councilmembers suggested initiatives that involved
adjusting zoning regulations related to allowed uses, storefronts, signage, and façade
improvements to improve Activation and Beautification of downtown. Staff committed to
a joint study session with the City Council and Planning Commission, tentatively
scheduled for May or June 2026, with projected hearings on zoning ordinance
adjustments in fall 2026. While staff noted the scale of these adjustments are not
considered large enough to be an initiative, these efforts should be accounted for as part
of a larger downtown initiative.
2. Murals. The Plan encourages artistic expression, which can include murals. Community
Services has launched a mural program, which furthers the Plan’s goals of Beautification
and Identity. San Bruno Improvement Group was the first applicant for a private mural as
part of the program. The City is issuing a call to artists for Centennial Plaza in the
upcoming months for execution in FY27. While this work is already planned, staff

5 of 26

believes it is important to include it in the initiative since it is about Downtown
improvement.
3. Building upon the Streetscape Plan. As noted previously, the Plan itself recognizes
that the concepts in the Plan are illustrative and conceptual, and that further design
efforts are necessary before implementation of many of the improvements. Staff
recommends City Council consider from the menu of items below for further design
development of the Plan:
a. Prepare Tier 1 and 2 Design. The Plan identifies that Tiers 1 and 2 represent the
“baseline streetscape project,” and that many of the Tier 1 improvements are
foundational and the “bare minimum, lowest-cost project that would provide the
highest value” intended to be implemented as a single, comprehensive project.
The Plan recognizes that actual implementation of the illustrations and concepts in
the Plan need additional design before most improvements can be made. Advancing
the full design of all Tier 1 and 2 improvements will ensure scalability, maintain
consistency, and allow for effective coordination of utilities, grading, drainage, and
streetscape elements for much of the Tier 1 improvements, avoiding increases in
overall project costs from the expected conflicts, inefficiencies, and future redesign if
continued improvements are implemented without a comprehensive design.
Some aspects of Tier 1 can be done independent of others without significant issues.
This includes surface level items that do not involve foundations or groundwork such
as receptacles, benches, bike racks or wayfinding signage.
But improvements that do involve groundwork or foundations should not be done
until after a full design is prepared to avoid potential conflicts and added costs in the
future. Improvements that require further design are sidewalk and ramp
replacement, installation of bus-stop improvements, planting of street trees (in the
ground) with grates, new streetlights, seatwalls, water line relocation, demolition and
earthwork.
A Councilmember noted a desire to have additional streetlights installed, which is
part of the Tier 1 project. The Plan calls for replacement of all existing streetlights
with new light standards spaced closer together (60 feet) and providing 1.2
footcandles, which will further the goals of Safety and Activation.
If City Council desires to accelerate foundational improvements of Tier 1 and 2, staff
recommends:
• Providing $4.3 million for Public Works to hire one dedicated Project Manager
(1.0 FTE), possibly limited term, to oversee project delivery and to retain a
qualified professional consultant to develop the full design of Tier 1
improvements and a feasibility study for Tier 2 improvements, including the
study of the El Camino Real and San Mateo Avenue intersection realignment,
and
• This will include evaluation of constructability, utility conflicts, right-of-way
constraints, and cost estimates to support future design and implementation.
This effort will include public outreach and stakeholder coordination,

6 of 26

environmental review and permitting, preparation of coordinated design and construction
documents, evaluation of utilities, grading, drainage, and streetscape elements, and
development of cost estimates to support implementation.
o

Prepare for Downtown Activation Events. The Plan identifies regular special
events, which the Plan refers to as “street fairs”, with the street closed off to
vehicular traffic as an activation opportunity. Staff believe this investment would
create a high-impact downtown activation, driving increased foot traffic,
supporting local businesses, that will benefit the Avenue corridor and build
community pride for the area. Advancing programming and activation initiatives
offers a near-term, high-impact opportunity to energize the downtown, and would
require:
▪ A projected $2 million in one-time funds for Public Works to determine,
acquire and install infrastructure for street closures to allow special events
in the street. The expectation is manual bollards would be installed. The
actual costs may change based on final scope, limits, and requirements.
▪ $225,000 ongoing Arts and Events Manager (1 FTE) for Community
Services to program downtown special events, activate public art and
coordinate street closures. Absent staff support for maximizing success
of events, the investment in the bollards may not be justified.
▪ $130,000 annually to fund four (4) midsize City Produced Events includes
staffing, security, bands, activities, materials, and road closures and six
(6) First Thursday Events (Staff are recommending these events from
April – September due to the weather in the fall and winter season).

b. Branding. Provide $125,000 (one-time) for Community Development to secure a
consultant to develop branding for the Avenue with limited community engagement,
or up to $200,000 with significant community engagement, and the themes of the
branding will inform improvements in future years such as:
• El Camino Real entrance. The Transit Corridors Plan and the Streetscape
Plan call for the removal of the marquee sign and realignment of the
intersection to improve pedestrian crossings and turning movements. The
intersection realignment is likely not to occur until Grand Boulevard
improvements are made along El Camino Real, which is not anticipated in the
near future. A short-term solution is to replace of aged marquee sign with an
artistic piece marking the El Camino Real entrance to downtown, with the
theme of the art based on the branding efforts. This would be funded by the
City Art Fund and managed by Community Services. The art piece would be
highly visible and further the Beautification and Identity goals of the Plan, and
could be designed in a manner to allow signage for downtown and local
community groups. Such an art piece would be designed to be relocated to
the future plaza that is created with the realignment of the El Camino Real
and San Mateo Avenue intersection.

7 of 26

•

Wayfinding. Develop wayfinding signage based on the branding themes,
which would be a highly visible Tier 1 improvement that furthers the
Wayfinding goal.
• Gateway Monuments. Develop designs for gateway monuments based on
the branding themes, which would be a highly visible Tier 2 improvement that
furthers Beautification and Identity goals of the Plan. Since these
monuments will have substantial foundations, they should not be fully
designed until after the Tier 1 design is completed.
c. Focused Update of the Plan. Provide $50,000 (one-time) for Community
Development to do a focused plan update for 2026 and beyond, identifying what’s
been accomplished, new trends since 2019, and revising priority rankings. This will
inform future staff recommendations and decisions by City Council. This is especially
important since City actions have not aligned with the Plan, which can cause
confusion for interested members of the public, future Councilmembers, and future
staff.
The recommended initiative will require resources from Community Development, Community
Services and Public Works. Recommendations were focused on what can have the greatest
impact, further many goals of the Plan, be as visible as possible, but it is recognized that the
Building upon the Streetscape Plan options include some high-cost items, but these are
considered required investments for allow for future actions.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no direct fiscal impact with this agenda item, but the selection of items for this initiative
by City Council will result in one-time and/or ongoing impacts to City funds including the General
Fund, which will be incorporated into the proposed FY27 budget.
Even though many modern Downtowns do not have strong retail sales tax revenues with the
shift to online purchasing, an active downtown can be an economic development asset as an
attraction for businesses to the community and attraction of a wider range of residents to a
community, which can have indirect fiscal benefits.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
This agenda item is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Outcomes of this initiative will be reviewed under CEQA, many of which are expected to be
exempt from additional review, but that will be determined when the improvement is designed.
RECOMMENDATION:
Retitle the initiative to “Downtown Improvement Initiative” to be included in the FY27 budget, to
include mural installation, zoning adjustments and any Building upon the Streetscape Plan
menu options the City Council selects.

8 of 26

City Council Agenda Item
Staff Report

CITY OF SAN BRUNO
DATE:

March 24, 2026

TO:

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council

FROM:

Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager

PREPARED BY:

Matthew Lee, P.E., Public Works Director
Ana Morales, Management Analyst

SUBJECT:

Receive a Presentation and Provide Feedback on the Proposed Scope
of the FY2026-27 City Council Initiative: Street Sweeping Program
Analysis

BACKGROUND:
The San Bruno City Council has proposed a Street Sweeping Program Analysis as a desired
FY2026–27 City Council Initiative.
Like most cities, street sweeping in the City of San Bruno (City) is a longstanding program that has
evolved over time in response to physical infrastructure conditions, operational needs, and
community input. As the program has been revisited over multiple decades, questions related to
effectiveness, enforcement, and community impacts have continued to surface. Parking restrictions
for street sweeping were piloted in 1981, established by City Council in 1982, and expanded and
modified at various points throughout its over 40-year history.
To provide context for this effort, the following timeline summarizes key City Council actions, policy
decisions, and program modifications that have shaped the program as it exists today. This
historical overview provides the foundation for understanding how the program has developed over
time and informs the evaluation approach discussed in the following section.
1979–1983: Program Development and Initial Implementation
Prior to the early 1980s, the City maintained a street sweeping program without widespread
parking restrictions. In early 1981, the City initiated a review of the program in response to
complaints and City-conducted field surveys, which found that parked vehicles were consistently
limiting the street sweeper’s ability to effectively access and clean the gutters, even during later
morning hours when fewer vehicles were present. Staff also reported that prior efforts to obtain
voluntary cooperation from residents and merchants—such as mailing street sweeping schedules
with utility bills—had achieved only minor success. Based on those findings, staff recommended
that the City Council consider trial no-parking zones for street sweeping.
In response, in 1981, City Council approved a trial no-parking program on Hensley Avenue, Easton
Avenue, and Green Avenue between San Bruno Avenue and Sylvan Avenue. Staff identified this
area as having persistent street sweeping problems, including narrow street widths, limited
setbacks, and heavy debris accumulation associated with mature trees, which limited effective curb
access.

9 of 26

Item 3b.

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
March 24, 2026
Page 2 of 10
In 1982, City Council advanced parking restrictions for street sweeping in areas identified as being
prone to flooding. These areas were primarily located east of El Camino Real and were
characterized by lower elevation, negative gutter slopes, narrower streets, and higher
concentrations of vegetation. The purpose of these restrictions was to ensure the street sweeper
could effectively access the curb line—where debris and pollutants accumulate. Because street
sweeping is most effective when the curb line is accessible, these restrictions were necessary to
allow the sweeper to remove debris, reduce storm drain blockages, and mitigate localized flooding.
By late 1983, the program was implemented and expanded in the City’s older residential areas
generally east of El Camino Real, including: (1) residential streets bounded by San Mateo Avenue
and El Camino Real and by Forest Lane and Sylvan Avenue, except Montgomery and Walnut; (2)
all residential streets east of Huntington Avenue; (3) residential streets bounded by San Mateo
Avenue and the southern City limits and by Huntington Avenue and El Camino Real; and (4)
streets bounded by Angus Avenue and the southern City limits and by El Camino Real and Acacia
Avenue. This expansion established the foundational structure of the City’s signed street sweeping
program.
1990–1992: Expansion and Program Review
In 1990, the City Council received correspondence regarding possible expansion of the signed
street sweeping program, including requests related to Summit Road and Acacia Avenue. In
response, Public Works, with input from the Police Department, prepared a status report reviewing
the program’s history, benefits, operational challenges, fiscal impacts, and tentative expansion
concepts. The report confirmed that the signed program was then limited to residential streets east
of El Camino Real, while the remainder of the City was swept on the same twice-monthly schedule
without signage. It also concluded that Summit Road did not meet the City’s criteria for inclusion in
the signed program, while Acacia Avenue met most of those criteria.
In early 1992, following resident concerns regarding the selective nature of street sweeping parking
enforcement, the City Council directed the Traffic Safety and Parking Committee and Permit
Parking Sub-Committee to review the program and make a recommendation. Their review included
the area bounded by El Camino Real, Decima Allen School (Angus Avenue), Acacia Avenue, and
the southern City Limit, and both bodies recommended expanding signed enforcement into that
area.
After receiving that recommendation, City Council directed staff to conduct public outreach to
residents within the affected area before acting. When the issue returned later in 1992, the Council
did not expand the signed program. Instead, in response to public concerns, the Council directed
staff to pursue a pilot effort focused on voluntary vehicle movement and enhanced public
information, including test areas bounded by Jenevein Avenue, San Bruno Avenue, El Camino
Real, and Cherry Avenue, and by San Bruno Avenue, I-280, Niles Avenue, and Cherry Avenue. As
outlined in the subsequent program update, this approach was intended to test whether increased
public information, voluntary vehicle movement, and coordination with garbage collection days
where feasible could improve curb access for street sweeping. There were no identified Council
actions during this timeframe implementing broader program changes based on that pilot effort.
2002: Shelter Creek Request and Policy Confirmation
In early 2002, the City received a request from the Shelter Creek Condominium Owners
Association to install street sweeping signage along Shelter Creek Lane. Staff reported that,
although Shelter Creek Lane was already included in the City’s bi-monthly sweeping schedule,

10 of 26
2

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
March 24, 2026
Page 3 of 10
parked vehicles were frequently limiting curb access for the sweeper, resulting in debris
accumulation along the gutter and storm drain inlets. Staff further noted that the area historically
had not been signed, but that the conditions on Shelter Creek Lane were similar in some respects
to those that had supported signed enforcement in other parts of the City.
In February 2002, the Traffic Safety and Parking Committee reviewed the request and concurred
with staff’s recommendation to forward the matter to City Council for consideration.
City Council considered the request but did not authorize immediate implementation of a formal
street sweeping parking restriction program on Shelter Creek Lane. Instead, Council deferred the
matter for further deliberation and directed it back to the Traffic Safety and Parking Committee for
additional outreach and input from both Shelter Creek residents and surrounding neighborhoods.
The City also scheduled a preliminary meeting with Shelter Creek representatives, staff, and
Committee members to clarify objectives and evaluate feasible options. Accordingly, while the
2002 request prompted formal review, the City Council did not expand the signed program at that
time.
2012–2013: Comprehensive Review and Operational Modifications
In 2012, City Council revisited the street sweeping program in response to questions about why
certain streets were subject to parking restrictions for street sweeping while others were not. In
June 2012, City Council directed staff to prepare an informational review of the program, and in
July 2012, staff presented the historical basis for the City’s signed street sweeping areas. That
review reaffirmed that parking restrictions had historically been concentrated primarily east of El
Camino Real because those areas were more prone to flooding, had lower elevations, negative
gutter slopes, narrower streets, and higher concentrations of parked vehicles and vegetation, all of
which limited effective curb access for the street sweeper. Staff also noted that every street in the
City was swept twice monthly, but that parking restrictions were applied only where those physical
and operational conditions made them necessary.
Following that review, City Council directed staff to further evaluate whether those same conditions
still existed, whether the current parking restriction program remained effective and necessary, and
whether changes should be considered. Staff then analyzed the existing program, reviewed
practices in neighboring cities, and presented the following four alternatives to the City Council in
November 2012: (1) leave the current parking restrictions as is, (2) expand parking restrictions
citywide, (3) extend parking restrictions to selected streets west of El Camino Real—approximately
the Hazel/Cypress area between Angus and Santa Lucia—or (4) modify the street sweeping
program to enhance route schedules, cleaning frequency, and sweeping times.
Rather than expand the signed program citywide or into additional west-side areas at that time,
City Council directed staff to proceed with operational modifications to the existing program. In
November 2012 and January 2013, Council directed staff to modify street sweeping route times
and frequency for residential, commercial, and major arterial areas. The approved changes
included shifting residential street sweeping to later morning hours, beginning at 9:00 a.m. rather
than 7:00 a.m., to provide residents with additional time to move their vehicles prior to sweeping
operations. Also, increasing sweeping frequency in commercial and industrial areas from twice per
month to four times per month, updating posted parking restriction times in signed neighborhoods,
and implementing a broad public outreach program that included website notices, mailed flyers,
Cable TV announcements, on-vehicle notices, sign decal updates, and a City Council status
update. These operational changes were scheduled to take effect in February 2013.

11 of 26
3

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
March 24, 2026
Page 4 of 10
2013–2014: Targeted Expansion – Shelter Creek Lane
In 2013, the City revisited Shelter Creek Lane following renewed interest from the Shelter Creek
Condominium property manager after City Council’s broader 2012–2013 review of the street
sweeping program. In September 2013, staff presented the matter to the Traffic Safety and Parking
Committee, which considered alternatives including adding Shelter Creek Lane to the signed
program, expanding restrictions to surrounding streets, or maintaining the existing approach. The
review also identified related considerations such as parking displacement, enforcement needs,
and community outreach.
In contrast to the 2002 review, the 2013–2014 review led to a targeted expansion of the signed
street sweeping program. In February 2014, City Council formally approved the installation of a
two-hour time-limited parking restriction zone along Shelter Creek Lane to improve street sweeping
access.
2024: Regulatory Compliance Review
In response to questions raised at the February 2, 2024, City Council Retreat, staff prepared a
memorandum dated May 7, 2024, regarding the City’s regulatory obligations to operate and
maintain a street sweeping program. With assistance from EOA, Inc., staff reviewed the City’s
Municipal Regional Permit (MRP) obligations and the role of street sweeping in supporting trash
reduction and broader stormwater compliance efforts and concluded that, although no State or
County law specifically required the City to operate a street sweeping program, street sweeping
remained an important stormwater Best Management Practice that supported the City’s trash load
reduction and broader water quality compliance efforts. The memorandum also noted that any
reduction or elimination of the current program would require additional study to evaluate potential
compliance risks and operational impacts.
FY2026-27 Street Sweeping Program Analysis
In response to these factors, the City Council has identified a Street Sweeping Program Analysis
as a FY2026–27 City Council Initiative through the City Council goal setting session in January
2026. Through this effort, the City will conduct a comprehensive reassessment of the street
sweeping program, building upon the historical progression outlined above. This next phase of
evaluation will also incorporate a structured equity analysis to evaluate how historic program
decisions have influenced current conditions across neighborhoods and highlight and develop
solutions to address parts of town that are disproportionately affected. This effort is to inform a
more consistent, effective, and equitable street sweeping program citywide moving forward.
DISCUSSION:
The historical development of the City’s street sweeping program, together with current operating
conditions and enforcement patterns, indicates that a more comprehensive evaluation is warranted
currently. The following discussion summarizes additional contextual information, including current
program conditions and peer agency practices, and outlines the proposed framework for the
FY2026–27 Street Sweeping Program Analysis.
Current Conditions
Consistent with the historical factors that informed the development of the City’s street sweeping
program, recent data continues to reflect variations in debris accumulation across different areas of
the community. According to the San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program’s

12 of 26
4

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
March 24, 2026
Page 5 of 10
2025 Trash Generation Map (Figure 1), moderate to high trash generation areas are more heavily
represented east of El Camino Real. This distribution generally corresponds with the types of
conditions identified in earlier program evaluations, including flooding susceptibility, street width
constraints, debris accumulation, and the need to maintain access to the curb line to support
effective street sweeping operations.
Figure 1: San Bruno Trash Generation (2025)

The current distribution of regulatory street sweeping signage and associated parking enforcement
also remains primarily concentrated in areas east of El Camino Real, as shown in Figure 2. This
distribution is consistent with the historical implementation of the program, which targeted areas
where operational constraints and environmental conditions limited the effectiveness of street
sweeping without parking restrictions. As a result, parking restrictions and enforcement are more
prevalent in these areas of the City and continue to play a significant role in how the program
operates. Figure 2 also shows that many of the areas subject to street sweeping parking
enforcement overlap with lower-resource areas of the City.

13 of 26
5

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
March 24, 2026
Page 6 of 10
Figure 2: Street Sweeping Parking Enforcement Map

Additionally, since November 2023, following the transition to LAZ Parking for enforcement
services, the City’s Police Department has issued 16,629 citations and 871 warnings related to
street sweeping violations (Figure 3), representing approximately $800,000 in citation value.
Because enforcement occurs where street sweeping parking restrictions are posted, the burden of
citations is concentrated in the same neighborhoods where the signed program operates. Where
those neighborhoods overlap with lower-resource areas of the City, the financial impact of citations
may be experienced disproportionately. This enforcement data therefore provides an additional
indicator of how the current program may have created an unintended impact to a particular area
of town.

14 of 26
6

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
March 24, 2026
Page 7 of 10
Figure 3: Street Sweeping Citations Heat Map

These existing conditions, together with current enforcement data, provide important context for
evaluating how the program is currently structured and how service needs, enforcement practices,
and community impacts align across neighborhoods. Collectively, they also reinforce that
neighborhoods east of El Camino Real continue to experience a disproportionate share of street
sweeping restrictions and related enforcement compared to other areas of the City.
Neighboring City Comparison
As part of the City’s preliminary review, staff also considered current street sweeping practices
used by nearby jurisdictions. This review indicates that local agencies use a range of approaches
based on community conditions, operational priorities, and regulatory needs.

15 of 26
7

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
March 24, 2026
Page 8 of 10
City
Burlingame

Daly City

Millbrae

San Carlos

San Mateo

South San Francisco

Approach
• Mixed approach;
• Parking restrictions in the downtown area, with other areas
swept every other week from April to September and weekly
from October to March
• Broad parking restriction approach;
• Parking restrictions appear to be applied citywide, with Mission
Street swept five days per week and islands and other city
streets swept weekly
• Mixed approach;
• Parking restrictions in some areas, with sweeping generally
occurring weekly or twice per month
• No parking restrictions;
• Sweeping frequency varies by location, including weekly, twice
per month, and once per month
• Mixed approach;
• Program adjusted to align sweeping frequency and restrictions
with trash generation levels and stormwater compliance needs
• Mixed approach;
• Parking restrictions in some areas, with generally weekly
sweeping

This range of local practices suggests that there is no single model for administering a street
sweeping program. Rather, peer city experience indicates that program structure, sweeping
frequency, and the use of parking restrictions may be calibrated differently depending on street
conditions, operational constraints, trash generation, and policy priorities. This context supports the
City’s proposed evaluation by confirming the value of a comprehensive review that considers not
only the current structure of San Bruno’s program, but also whether alternative approaches or
updated service models may better align with the City’s present-day operational, regulatory, and
community needs.
To successfully implement the intent of this City Council Initiative (Initiative), City staff will
undertake a comprehensive and structured evaluation of the existing street sweeping program.
Building upon the historical context outlined above, this effort is designed to assess current
program performance, identify areas for improvement, and develop data-driven recommendations
that support operational effectiveness, regulatory compliance, and reflect community needs.
As demonstrated through prior Council actions and program evaluations, the City has periodically
refined the street sweeping program in response to changing conditions. While these efforts have
focused primarily on operational performance and regulatory requirements, the current Initiative
represents a more comprehensive and modernized approach. Specifically, this evaluation will
examine the program across four key areas:
1. Regulatory compliance,
2. Parking enforcement and regulatory signage,
3. Operational efficiency, and
4. Community feedback, including a structured equity analysis.

16 of 26
8

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
March 24, 2026
Page 9 of 10
Building on this expanded framework, a key feature in the current evaluation is the formal
integration of a comprehensive equity analysis, which has not been a structured component of
prior program reviews. By incorporating an equity-focused assessment process developed by the
San Mateo County Office of Diversity and Equity—alongside traditional operational and regulatory
analysis—the City aims to better understand neighborhood-level experiences and perspectives,
and to develop recommendations that result in a more consistent, effective, and equitable street
sweeping program citywide, while continuing to achieve the original goals of the program.
Scope of Analysis
To support this effort, the City will conduct a comprehensive analysis across the following four
areas:
1. Regulatory Compliance
This area of analysis would build upon the prior review completed by EOA, Inc.
regarding the City’s Municipal Regional Permit (MRP) obligations and trash reduction
requirements, as presented in the May 7, 2024 memorandum to City Council. The
analysis would provide a broader understanding of how the street sweeping program
supports the City’s regulatory and environmental compliance responsibilities and would
help inform how potential program changes may affect those considerations.
2. Parking Enforcement and Regulatory Signage
This area of analysis would examine the relationship between parking restrictions,
regulatory signage, enforcement practices, and overall program implementation. The
review would consider how the current enforcement and signage framework functions
across different parts of the City and identify broader policy or operational
considerations related to consistency, effectiveness, and community impact.
3. Operational Efficiency
This area of analysis would focus on how effectively the current street sweeping
program is functioning from an operational standpoint. The review would consider
existing routes, schedules, service delivery conditions, and other factors that influence
the City’s ability to achieve the intended purpose of street sweeping, while also allowing
for consideration of potential improvements or alternative approaches.
4. Community Feedback and Equity Analysis
This area of analysis would incorporate community perspectives and evaluate how the
street sweeping program is experienced across neighborhoods. The review would
include consideration of fairness, burden, and unintended disproportional impact
associated with the current program structure, and would support the development of
recommendations that are informed by both community input and other considerations.
The findings from this comprehensive historical, operational, regulatory, and equity-focused
evaluation will inform future recommendations to the City Council regarding the structure,
administration, and potential modification of the street sweeping program. These recommendations
may include a range of options, such as maintaining the current program, expanding street
sweeping signage or enforcement to additional areas or citywide, modifying operational practices,
or identifying other approaches to improve program outcomes. The evaluation is also intended to
recognize that unintended impacts may not be addressed through street sweeping alone but may
instead involve a combination of considerations related to parking enforcement, regulatory
signage, operations, and other factors identified through the analysis. Ultimately, this effort is

17 of 26
9

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
March 24, 2026
Page 10 of 10
intended to provide a transparent and data-driven basis for determining how the program can
continue to meet its original purpose while advancing more consistent, effective, and equitable
outcomes citywide.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The estimated cost to complete the Street Sweeping Program Analysis is approximately $600,000.
This effort will require coordination with multiple external consultants to support the various
components of the proposed scope, including regulatory compliance analysis, operational
assessment, parking enforcement and signage evaluation, and equity analysis.
The final cost and level of effort will ultimately depend on the scope and direction provided by the
City Council.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
The action is not a project subject to CEQA. City Council’s action is not considered a “project” per
CEQA Guidelines and therefore no further environmental analysis is required.
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive a presentation and provide direction on the proposed scope of the FY2026-27 City
Council Initiative: Street Sweeping Program Analysis.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Provide alternative direction on the scope, priorities, or approach for the proposed Street
Sweeping Program Analysis.
2. Direct staff to pursue a more limited or phased evaluation, focusing on specific components of
the program (e.g., operational efficiency, regulatory compliance, or targeted geographic areas).
3. Decline to include the Street Sweeping Program Analysis as a FY2026–27 City Council
Initiative and maintain the existing program without further evaluation at this time.

18 of 26
10

City Council Agenda Item
Staff Report

CITY OF SAN BRUNO

DATE:

March 24, 2026

TO:

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council

FROM:

Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager

PREPARED BY:

Matthew Lethin, Police Chief
Matthew Lee, Public Works Director

SUBJECT:

Study Session: 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

19 of 26

Item 3c.

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
March 24, 2026
Page 2 of 8

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

20 of 26

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
March 24, 2026
Page 3 of 8

other departments or outside property owners when place-based conditions contribute to
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

21 of 26

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
March 24, 2026
Page 4 of 8

concerns, and create dedicated capacity to address crime hotspots through education,
engineering, and enforcement.
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[HR1] . 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

22 of 26

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
March 24, 2026
Page 5 of 8

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 FY2027 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,
or City participation in such improvements, staff would return to the City Council with
recommendations, scope, and funding needs for consideration.

23 of 26

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
March 24, 2026
Page 6 of 8

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 FY2027
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 position.
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,
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.

24 of 26

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
March 24, 2026
Page 7 of 8

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
1

Description
Comprehensive
Education,
Engineering, and
Enforcement Program

Cost
$16.2M

2

Enhanced Outreach,
Dashboard and
Equipment Program

3

Dashboard and
Equipment

$422,000$520,000
($200,00
one-time
and
$222,000$320,000
on-going)
$200,000
(one-time)

($15.2M
one-time
and
$1M ongoing)

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

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.
25 of 26

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

26 of 26