Agenda, regular meeting — San Bruno City Council, August 22, 2023 (part 1 of 2)

"The City With a Heart"
Rico E. Medina, Mayor
Tom Hamilton, Vice Mayor
Sandy Alvarez, Councilmember, District 1
Marty Medina, Councilmember, District 4
Michael Salazar, Councilmember
AGENDA
SAN BRUNO CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
August 22, 2023
7:00 PM
City Councilmembers and members of the public may attend in person at the San Bruno Senior Center, or by teleconference, via Zoom or telephone.

IN PERSON* MEETING LOCATION
San Bruno Senior Center
1555 Crystal Springs Road
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/82865655749?
pwd=UnFyTnBmTExMTWF2d0p4cEVxbUhuZz09
Phone Line: 16465588656
Webinar ID: 828 6565 5749
Webinar Password: 645342
*Teleconference participation is offered in the meeting via Zoom as a courtesy to the public. If no members of the City Council are attending the meeting via teleconference, and a technical error or outage occurs on the teleconference
feed, the City Council will continue the meeting in public in the San Bruno Senior Center.

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. Virtual attendees can comment by using the “Raise Hand” feature in Zoom to request to speak. For dialin comments press *9 to “Raise Hand” and *6 to unmute. 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. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

4. PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
Individuals allowed three minutes. It is the Council’s policy to refer matters raised in this forum to staff for investigation and/or action where appropriate. The Brown Act prohibits the Council from discussing or acting upon any matter not agendized pursuant to State Law.

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

5. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PRESENTATIONS
Public comment will be requested after each topic in this section a. September 9, 2023 marks 13 years since the natural gas pipeline explosion and fire in the Crestmoor Neighborhood. We will never forget the lives that were lost and residents that were affected by that evening. Our community’s resiliency continues to this day. We will never forget. To learn more about this moment in our City’s history, visit www.sanbruno.ca.gov/TenYearsLater
b. As the Summer Concert Series comes to an end, Movies in the Park begins. Each Friday night in September, join friends and neighbors for Movies in the Park! Movies start at 8 PM near the tennis courts in San Bruno City Park. Visit sanbruno.ca.gov/Movies for a full list of the movies that will be shown
c. Issue Proclamation Declaring the Month of September 2023 as Recovery Happens Month d. Issue Proclamation Declaring the Month of September 2023 as Suicide Prevention Month e. Issue Proclamation Honoring Former San Bruno Resident Harry Costa f. Receive Presentation from the San Bruno Delegation on their trip to Narita, Japan as part of the Sister City Cultural Exchange Program

6. CONSENT CALENDAR
All items are considered routine or implement an earlier Council action and may be enacted by one motion; there will be no separate discussion, unless requested. There will be a single public comment period for all items in this section unless a Councilmember requests to pull an item for a separate vote. a. Approve the Draft Special Meeting Minutes for the Meetings of June 7, 2022 and June 14, 2022 and Regular Meeting Minutes for the Meeting of April 25, 2023 b. Approve Accounts Payable for July 24, 2023, July 31, 2023, and August 7, 2023. c. Accept Payroll for July 16, 2023 and July 30, 2023
d. Approve Investment Report and Reconciliation of General Ledger to Bank Report Dated e. Approve City of San Bruno Response Letter to the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report “Accessory Dwelling Units: Affordable Housing’s Panacea or Prevarication?” f. Approve City of San Bruno Response Letter to the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report “Bike Safety in San Mateo County: Making Bicycling Safer in the County” g. Consider Adoption of a Resolution Approving the Newspaper Rack and Enclosure Models and Locations and Determining the Project is Exempt Under the California Environmental Quality Act
h. Consider Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Amendment to the Agreement with CCI Catering, dba Creekside Grill to Provide Catering Services for the San Bruno Senior Center Congregate Nutrition Lunch Program in the Amount Not to Exceed $100,000.
i. Consider Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to:
• Execute an Agreement Amendment with Caltrans for the Project Initiation Document Phase in an Amount Not to Exceed $10,000;
• Execute Caltrans Cooperative Agreements for the Project Approval/Environmental Document; Plans, Specifications, and Estimates; and Contract Administration and Construction Phases; • Execute Grant Agreements and Documents for the Acceptance of a Federal Grant; and • Execute an Agreement Amendment for Consultant Services with HDR for Design Support on the Regional Stormwater Capture Project at I280 and I380 in an Amount Not to Exceed $1,685,856.53 after the Federal Grant Agreements have been Executed j. Consider Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the MultiYear Purchase and Use of Axon Body Worn Cameras, Axon Fleet InCar Cameras, and Evidence.com Digital Evidence Management Solution from Axon Enterprise Inc in an Amount Not to Exceed $615,000 2 of 675
Bruno Senior Center Congregate Nutrition Lunch Program in the Amount Not to Exceed $100,000.
i. Consider Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to:
• Execute an Agreement Amendment with Caltrans for the Project Initiation Document Phase in an Amount Not to Exceed $10,000;
• Execute Caltrans Cooperative Agreements for the Project Approval/Environmental Document; Plans, Specifications, and Estimates; and Contract Administration and Construction Phases; • Execute Grant Agreements and Documents for the Acceptance of a Federal Grant; and • Execute an Agreement Amendment for Consultant Services with HDR for Design Support on the Regional Stormwater Capture Project at I280 and I380 in an Amount Not to Exceed $1,685,856.53 after the Federal Grant Agreements have been Executed j. Consider Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the MultiYear Purchase and Use of Axon Body Worn Cameras, Axon Fleet InCar Cameras, and Evidence.com Digital Evidence Management Solution from Axon Enterprise Inc in an Amount Not to Exceed $615,000 k. Consider Adopting a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Agreement Amendments with Group 4 Architecture, Griffin Structures, Ninyo & Moore, and Consor PMCM, Inc. for the Recreation and Aquatics Center Project in Amounts Not to Exceed $80,000 for Each Agreement Amendment, for a Total Amount Not to Exceed $320,000

7. PUBLIC HEARING(S)
Public comment will be requested after each topic in this section a. Hold Public Hearing and Consider Adoption of a Resolution to Select One Commercial Cannabis Operator Permit Application

8. STUDY SESSION
Public comment will be requested after each topic in this section a. Conduct a Study Session and Provide Feedback on Draft Regulations Relating to Paid On and OffStreet Parking Areas in the Downtown and El Camino Real Corridor

9. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORT OUT
Public comment will be requested after each topic in this section

10. COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS
Public comment will be requested after each topic in this section a. Councilmember M. Medina
Hold a discussion to explore the City Council sending a letter to the various transportation agencies in San Bruno to request these agencies to better maintain their properties with a scheduled maintenance program and to specifically provide alternatives to address homeless encampments. Review options for unresponsiveness.

Hold a discussion to receive input from our community regarding SB 403. https://calmatters.org/politics/2023/07/castediscriminationcalifornia2/#

11. ADJOURNMENT – The next Regular City Council Meeting Will be Held on September 12, 2023 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 August 18, 2023, by 5:00 p.m. 3 of 675
4 of 675
5 of 675
Rico Medina, Mayor
Linda Mason, Vice Mayor
Tom Hamilton, Councilmember
Marty Medina, Councilmember
Michael Salazar, Councilmember
“The City with a Heart”

MINUTES

SAN BRUNO CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
June 7, 2022
5:00 p.m.

1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 5:02 p.m.

2. ROLL CALL
Councilmembers Hamilton, Medina, Salazar, Vice Mayor Mason and Mayor R. Medina were all present.

3. PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
No members of the public wished to speak under Public Comment.

4. CONSENT CALENDAR
a. Adopt Resolution Activating Level 2 of the San Bruno Water Shortage Contingency Plan.

No members of the public wished to speak under Consent Calendar M/S Hamilton/Salazar to approve the consent calendar. The motion passed unanimously.

5. CONDUCT OF BUSINESS
a. Receive Presentation on the 2022 San Bruno Revenue Measure Feasibility Survey.

City Manager Grogan gave an overview of the item to the City Council.

Consultant Bryan Godbe with Godbe Research presented a portion of the item to the City Council.

Consultant Jared Boigon with Props & Measures also presented a portion of the item to the City Council.

No members of the public wished to speak on this item.

No action was taken or direction given, this item was for discussion only.

6. PUBLIC HEARING
a. Conduct First Public Hearing Regarding Proposed City Charter and Commercial Real Property Transfer Tax.

City Manager Grogan presented the item to the City Council.

Mayor R. Medina opened the public hearing.

No members of the public wished to speak on this item.

M/S Hamilton/M. Medina to close the Public Hearing. The motion passed by a majority vote of Councilmembers Hamilton, M. Medina, Vice Mayor Mason, Mayor R. Medina – voting aye and Councilmember Salazar – voting no
No action was taken this item will be brought back to the City Council at a future date. 6 of 675
City Council – Special Meeting Minutes
June 7, 2022

Page 2 of 2 ends

7. STUDY SESSION
a. Receive Presentation and Provide Direction on Potential November 2022 Ballot Measures Regarding the Elected Mayor System and Enact Term Limits to the Elected Mayor and Council Offices.

City Manager Grogan presented the item to the City Council.

No members of the public wished to speak on this item.

M/S Mason/M. Medina to bring this item back to the City Council at a future date for action with the clarification toto limit service on the City Council to consecutive terms of no more than 12 consecutive years or as Mayor to consecutive terms of no more than 12 consecutive years. Direction was also given to staff to not work any further on the possibility of the Mayor’s seat being changed to an annual rotation and remaining elected. The motion passed by a majority vote of Councilmembers Hamilton, M. Medina and Vice Mayor Mason – voting aye and Councilmember Salazar and Mayor R. Medina – voting no b. Receive Presentation and Provide Direction on the Possibility of an Infrastructure Bond on November 2022 Ballot.

City Manager Grogan presented the item to the City Council.

M/S Mason/Medina directed staff not to work any further on the possibility of an infrastructure bond on the November 2022 Ballot

8. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 8:11 p.m. The next Regular City Council Meeting will be held on Tuesday, June 14, 2022 at 7:00 p.m.

These City Council meeting minutes were prepared by Vicky Hasha, Deputy City Clerk, and presented to the City Council for approval at the regular meeting of August 22, 2023. ______________________________ ______________________________ Vicky S. Hasha, Rico E. Medina
Deputy City Clerk Mayor
7 of 675

Rico Medina, Mayor
Linda Mason, Vice Mayor
Tom Hamilton, Councilmember
Marty Medina, Councilmember
Michael Salazar, Councilmember
“The City with a Heart”

MINUTES

SAN BRUNO COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
June 14, 2022
4:30 PM

1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 4:30 p.m.

2. ROLL CALL
Councilmembers Hamilton, M. Medina and Salazar, Vice Mayor Mason and Mayor R. Medina were all present.

3. PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
No members of the public wished to speak under Public Comment.

4. CLOSED SESSION
a. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL EXISTING LITIGATION
(Paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9)
Name of case: John JB Doe v. Doe 1, CA Local Public entity, et al. (San Mateo County Court Case No. 20CIV01379)
b. Conference with Labor Negotiators Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6 Agency Designated Representatives: City Manager
Employee Organizations: San Bruno Management Employees Association, Mid Management Unit
There was no reportable action taken.

5. ADJOURNMENT – The meeting adjourned at 5:19 p.m. The next Regular City Council Meeting will be held on June 14, 2022 at 7:00 p.m.

The City Council meeting minutes were prepared by Vicky Hasha, Deputy City Clerk, for approval at the regular meeting of August 22, 2023.
______________________________ ______________________________ Vicky S. Hasha, Rico E. Medina
Deputy City Clerk Mayor

8 of 675

"The City With a Heart"
Rico E. Medina, Mayor
Tom Hamilton, Vice Mayor
Sandy Alvarez, Councilmember, District 1
Marty Medina, Councilmember, District 4
Michael Salazar, Councilmember

MINUTES

SAN BRUNO CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
April 25, 2023
7:00 PM

1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:03 pm

2. ROLL CALL
Councilmembers Alvarez, M. Medina, Salazar, Vice Mayor Hamilton and Mayor R.

Medina were all present

3. PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
Member of the Public John Barrelier – spoke in opposition of Proposition 19 Member of the Public Nancy Foreman – thanked the Parks & Recreation department, for providing soil, plants, and clearing planters. Also thanked Emily Vaneck, Mayor Medina, Vice Mayor Hamilton and his daughter, Councilmember Medina, Mike and Norma of Grand Leader, and the whole adopt a planter family.

Member of the Public Tom Garcia – thanked City officials of San Bruno for having this meeting.

Member of the Public Jen – spoke in opposition of Proposition 19

4. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PRESENTATIONS
a. Recology San Bruno and the City of San Bruno Have Partnered to Offer a Community Cleanup (Drop Off) Event Scheduled for Saturday, April 29, 2023 From 8:00 A.M. To 11:00 A.M. This Event Will Be Held at 975 Sneath Lane, and Participants Will Have an Opportunity to Unload up to 3 Cubic Yards of Waste, Including:
• Bulky Items
• E-Waste
• Appliances
• Latex Paint (Other Paint and Chemicals Will Not Be Accepted, Call to Schedule an Appointment (650) 372-6200)
• No Dirt, Rock, or Concrete
For Questions, Please Contact Recology San Bruno at (650) 583-8536. b. Issue Proclamation Declaring the Month of May 2023 as Mental Health Month Recipient San Mateo County Behavioral Health Commissioner Yoko Ng thanked San Bruno and spoke about Mental Health Month
c. San Bruno is Offering the Summer Access Scholarship Through the San Mateo County Summer Enrichment Program. Grants Are Available to San Bruno Children in Need to Attend Summer Camp in 2023. Learn More and See if Your Family Qualifies at sanbruno.ca.gov/SummerScholarship.
9 of 675
City Council – Minutes
April 25, 2023

Page 2 of 2 ends

d. Receive Informational Update From the San Bruno Park School District on the Children’s Day, Book Day/Día de Los Niños, Día de Los Libros Celebration San Bruno Park Elementary School District Board Trustee Jennifer Blanco spoke about the item and shared a video of last year’s event
No members of the public wished to speak under Announcements/Presentations.

5. CONSENT CALENDAR
a. Approve Accounts Payable for April 3, 2023 and April 10, 2023 b. Accept Payroll for April 9, 2023
c. Consider Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Amendment to the Agreement With Tanner Pacific, Inc. for Construction Management and Inspection Services in the Amount Not to Exceed $92,685 for the Spyglass Drive Storm Drain Improvements Project
d. Consider Adopting a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Construction Contract With United Storm Water, Inc. for the 2023 Trash Capture Device Installation Project in the Amount of $177,425.85, Approving a Construction Contingency of $20,000, and Determining the Project is Exempt Under the California Environmental Quality Act
e. Consider Adoption of a Resolution Accepting the Senior Center Parking Lot Overlay and Trash Enclosure Project as Complete, Authorizing the Filing of Notice of Completion With the San Mateo County Recorder’s Office, and Authorizing Release of the Construction Contract Retention in the Amount of $19,746.34 f. Consider Adoption of a Resolution Directing Staff to Initiate the Property Owner Notice, Hearing, and Protest Process as Required by Proposition 218 for the Proposed Sewer Rate Increases for FY 2023-24 Through 2027-28 g. Receive Written Update on the City’s Response Efforts to the Late 2022 to 2023 Winter Storms
No items were pulled for a separate vote.

No members of the public wished to address the City Council under Consent Calendar.

M/S Salazar/Hamilton to approve the consent calendar. The motion passed unanimously.

The City Council Meeting recessed at 7:34 p.m. and reconvened at 7:41 p.m.

6. CONDUCT OF BUSINESS
a. Consider Adopting a Resolution Approving Various Curb Marking Changes to Install No Parking Red Zones on Darby Place and Oxford Lane and Determining the Project is Exempt Under the California Environmental Quality Act
Item 7a: Vice Mayor Hamilton recused himself due to the location of his home causing a conflict of interest.

Public Works Director Matthew Lee, Fire Marshal Gage Schlice, Public Works Traffic Engineer Harry Yip and Acting Police Chief Jeremy Brandenburg presented the item to the City Council and answered questions.
10 of 675
City Council – Minutes
April 25, 2023

Page 2 of 2 ends

The following members of the public spoke regarding this item:

Member of the public Christine Lee – submitted written opposition via email.

Member of the Public Jeremy Butler – spoke in opposition of the item.

Member of the Public Carmen Caban – spoke in opposition of the item.

Member of the Public Mike Gutierrez – spoke in opposition of the item.

Member of the Public Carol Gutierrez – spoke in opposition of the item.

Member of the Public Geo Aguilar – spoke in opposition of the item.

Member of the Public Faris Zumot – spoke in opposition of the item.

Member of the Public Chris Obermeyer – spoke in opposition of the item.

Member of the Public Tom Garcia – spoke in opposition of the item.

Member of the Public (name unknown) – spoke in opposition of the item.

Member of the Public Robert Marcellino – spoke in opposition of the item.

Member of the Public Kristen La Rosa – spoke in opposition of the item.

Member of the Public Bella Forester – spoke in opposition of the item.

Member of the Public Michael Albertin – spoke in opposition of the item.

Member of the Public Nisreen – spoke in opposition of the item.

Member of the Public Leann Minkel – spoke in opposition of the item.

Member of the Public Sierra – spoke in opposition of the item.

Member of the Public Brian Maldoni – spoke in opposition of the item.

Member of the Public Lou Nasser – spoke in opposition of the item.

M/S Salazar/Alvarez to approve the modified resolution with input from staff to implement in phases with safety being the priority. The motion passed with a majority vote of Councilmembers Alvarez, M. Medina, Salazar, and Mayor R. Medina voting yes and Vice Mayor Hamilton recused.

The City Council Meeting recessed at 9:47 p.m. and reconvened at 9:57 p.m.

7. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORT OUT
Vice Mayor Hamilton
• Attended 2023 San Mateo County Progress Seminar. Focus topics included preparing for zero carbon future challenges faced by workers and employers and how can make impact on the housing crisis in region.

Mayor R. Medina
• April 19th Mayor and Councilmember Salazar attended the Recreation & Aquatic Center Committee meeting. Important for PG&E to keep the May 16 appointment in order to continue the project and not have delays.
• Progress Seminar provided opportunity to speak to representative from PG&E to express the importance for the community and all. Mayor and Councilmember Salazar attended ribbon cutting ceremony on April 15 for completion phase 2 of Whipple to I-380.
• April 20th Commute.org met on the board and needed to finalize their TDM. • Finance and Administration Committee for the Emergency Services there are five jurisdictions, SB being on of them, went over the Hazmat Contract Services for the county, annual cost for each municipality.

8. COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS
11 of 675
City Council – Minutes
April 25, 2023

Page 2 of 2 ends

Councilmember M. Medina
• Grocery Distribution at Belle Air Elementary School tomorrow from 2-4 pm. If interested in volunteering, please be at Belle Air Elementary School, 450 Third Avenue by 1:45 pm
Vice Mayor Hamilton
• If in need of groceries can sign up for program on-site as you receive groceries. If in need of groceries come out tomorrow and to volunteer. • Thanked resident and “planter queen” Nancy Foreman for her work and dedication with the adopt a planter program.
• Monthly Pancake Breakfast at the American Legion this Saturday from 9-11 am.

Mayor R. Medina
• Attended Parks & Recreation Commission meeting, Mark Eschen received 2023 Community Recognition Award. He’s done decades of service for the scouts at various levels. Congratulated and gave thanks.
• Attended 04/15/2023 cert graduation, congratulations to those that achieved that to be prepared to serve the community, their families and neighborhoods if and when necessary.

9. ADJOURNMENT
This meeting adjourned at 10:04 p.m. to the next Regular City Council Meeting on Tuesday, May 9, 2023 at 7:00 p.m.

These City Council meeting minutes were prepared by Lupita Huerta, City Clerk, and presented to the City Council for approval at the regular meeting of August 22, 2023. ______________________________ ______________________________ Lupita Huerta
City Clerk
Rico E. Medina
Mayor
12 of 675
13 of 675
14 of 675
15 of 675
16 of 675
17 of 675
18 of 675
19 of 675
20 of 675
21 of 675
22 of 675
23 of 675
24 of 675
25 of 675
26 of 675
27 of 675
28 of 675
29 of 675
30 of 675
City Council Agenda Item
Staff Report

CITY OF SAN BRUNO
DATE: August 22, 2023
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Peter Gilli, Community Development Director Ashley Crociani, Management Analyst
SUBJECT: Approve City of San Bruno Response Letter to the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report “Accessory Dwelling Units: Affordable Housing’s Panacea or Prevarication?”
BACKGROUND:

On June 12, 2023, the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury released a report entitled “Accessory Dwelling Units: Affordable Housing’s Panacea or Prevarication?” The purpose of the report is to determine if communities in San Mateo County are misusing Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) to avoid the construction of multifamily low-income housing over the next eight years. Within the report, the Grand Jury developed seven total findings and six total recommendations.

The Grand Jury requests responses from the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors, County Sheriff, and all 20 cities and towns’ governing bodies for each finding and recommendation. By law, responses must be submitted within 90 days and must meet the following requirements:

Response to Findings. For all findings made by the Grand Jury, the City shall indicate the City “agrees” with the finding, “wholly disagrees” or “partially disagrees”, and specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and include an explanation for the reasons.

Response to Recommendations. For all recommendations made by the Grand Jury, the City shall report one of the following actions:

1. The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action;

2. The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation;

3. The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion. This time frame shall not exceed six months; or

4. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or reasonable, with an explanation.

Responses to Grand Jury Reports are filed with the Superior Court and are placed on the Grand Jury website. The City of San Bruno’s responses to this Grand Jury Report is due by September 10, 2023.
31 of 675
Item 6.e.

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
August 22, 2023

Page 2 of 2 ends

DISCUSSION:

The Grand Jury Report “Accessory Dwelling Units: Affordable Housing’s Panacea or Prevarication?” calls for County jurisdictions to modify their approach to the Housing Element as it relates to ADUs until monitoring and verification programs are developed. The draft response letter is provided in Attachment 1, and the Grand Jury Report is Attachment 2.

The seven findings are referenced as F1 through F7 in the Grand Jury Report, and cover statements about State laws, the Housing Element Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process, jurisdiction’s work with the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). The draft response agrees with four findings, wholly disagrees with two findings, and has no comment for one finding that has no relevance to the City of San Bruno.

The six recommendations are referenced as R1 through R6 in the Grand Jury Report, and call for the City to immediately stop using ADUs to meet RHNA, develop monitoring and verification systems for how ADUs are developed, adopt incentives for ADUs, develop new formulae for projecting ADU affordability, and that all County jurisdictions work cooperatively on a monitoring system.

The draft response includes varied responses, with recommendations that are required by law or applicable to the City being implemented at some point, recommendations that are not applicable to the City, and recommendations that are not warranted that will not be implemented.

In summary, staff agrees with the Grand Jury’s high-level concern that jurisdictions act responsibly to fulfill their Housing Element commitments, particularly the RHNA targets. The City is diligently working with HCD to achieve appropriate monitoring and reporting, which will implement the spirit of the Grand Jury Report.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no new fiscal impact associated with preparing this response to the Grand Jury Report.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:

The approval of a response letter to a Grand Jury Report is not considered a “Project” per CEQA Guidelines and therefore no further environmental analysis is required.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve the City of San Bruno Response Letter to the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report “Accessory Dwelling Units: Affordable Housing’s Panacea or Prevarication?” ALTERNATIVES:

Approve a modified version of the response letter.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Response of the City of San Bruno to the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report

2. San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report
32 of 675
City Council Agenda Item
Staff Report

CITY OF SAN BRUNO
Rico E. Medina OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
Mayor
August 23, 2023
Honorable Nancy L. Fineman
Judge of the Superior Court
c/o Bianca Fasuescu
Hall of Justice
400 County Center; 2nd Floor
Redwood City, CA 94063-1655
Subject: Response of the City of San Bruno to the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report “Accessory Dwelling Units: Affordable Housing’s Panacea or Prevarication?” Dear Judge Fineman,
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the Grand Jury Report entitled “Accessory Dwelling Units: Affordable Housing’s Panacea or Prevarication?” The City of San Bruno’s response to the findings and recommendations of the report are listed below.

Response to Findings:

F1. Due to recent changes in California ADU-related laws, local governments cannot condition ADU permits in San Mateo County on complying with affordability monitoring and verification.

Response: Agree.

F2. San Mateo County and most of its municipalities rely on ADUs to meet their affordable housing commitments in their RHNA-6 plans.

Response: Wholly disagree. If the finding read “San Mateo County and most of its municipalities include ADUs to meet their affordable housing commitments in their RHNA-6 plans,” then the City of San Bruno would agree with the finding.

The City of San Bruno is required to plan for a housing allocation of 3,165 units.

The City of San Bruno’s adopted Housing Element plans for 3,662 units. The portion of the City’s housing allocation that consists of ADUs is 240. If circumstances result in no ADUs being built in the planning period, the City could still meet its required housing allocation at all income levels. 33 of 675
Attachment 1
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
August 22, 2023

Page 2 of 5 ends

F3. Atherton, Hillsborough, Portola Valley, and Woodside rely on ADUs to meet as much as 80 percent of their affordable housing commitments in their RHNA-6 plans.

Response: No comment.

F4. HCD has instructed San Mateo County jurisdictions to monitor and verify future ADU production and affordability every two years but has yet to specify how to verify whether very low-, low- or moderate-income households are occupying the ADUs as planned.

Response: Agree. For clarity, HCD requires all California jurisdictions to monitor and report on all housing production.

F5. Other than Brisbane and Redwood City, San Mateo County and its jurisdictions have yet to articulate how they will monitor and verify ADU production or affordability.

Response: Agree. The City of San Bruno received the HCD comment related to ADU reporting, in addition to several other comments. The City of San Bruno has not completed its revisions to respond to HCD’s comments, which is tentatively scheduled to be resubmitted to HCD in August or September 2023.

The City of San Bruno is committed to provide reasonable ADU monitoring and reporting to HCD’s satisfaction.

F6. Without effective ADU monitoring and verification, it will be impossible to evaluate whether the jurisdictions are meeting their RHNA-6 obligations for low-, very-low, and moderate-income housing units.

Response: Wholly disagree. As noted previously, the City of San Bruno includes 240 ADUs as part a total 3,662 unit plan that fulfills the required 3,165 unit allocation. Theoretically, the City of San Bruno can still fully meet its RHNA obligations for every affordability category without a low-income ADU being provided. As noted previously, the City of San Bruno is committed to provide reasonable ADU monitoring and reporting to HCD’s satisfaction.

F7. ADU affordability and occupancy could be monitored by agencies such as HIP Housing which has proven systems and processes to verify occupancy of deedrestricted rental properties in San Mateo County.

Response: Agree. For a cost, ADU affordability and occupancy could be monitored. The question facing jurisdictions that do not have a high proportion of ADUs in their housing allocations is how much of the limited public funds available should go toward monitoring of a small number of units, or toward efforts that can have a greater impact for more lower-income households. 34 of 675
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
August 22, 2023

Page 3 of 5 ends

Response to Recommendations:

R1. San Mateo County and each City should immediately stop using ADUs to meet their State-mandated very low-, low-, and moderate-income housing targets in their Housing Element submissions until they have also proposed an effective monitoring system that verifies how newly developed ADU’s will be used.

Response: The recommendation will not be implemented because, as written, it is not warranted or is not reasonable. The City of San Bruno will monitor and report on all housing types, including ADUs, in a manner that meets HCD’s satisfaction. However, this recommendation is not warranted because HCD will not certify a Housing Element submission until that Housing Element includes monitoring and reporting to HCD’s satisfaction. HCD may require less detailed monitoring and reporting of ADUs for City’s that have a low percentage of ADUs when compared to City’s with high percentage of ADUs. HCD’s decision is based on their expertise and understanding of State law, and also their experience reviewing hundreds of Housing Elements for a wide range of California jurisdictions.

R2. By February 1, 2024, San Mateo County and each City should develop, adopt, and implement a verification system capable of monitoring and verifying how newly developed ADU’s are being used.

Response: The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. The City of San Bruno will establish a monitoring and reporting system for all housing types, to HCD’s satisfaction, in a timeframe that is acceptable to HCD.

R3. By February 1, 2024, San Mateo County and each City should develop and adopt incentives for ADU owners which could be offered in exchange for deed restrictions that would include requirements for ADU tenants to participate in independent monitoring.

Response: The recommendation requires further analysis, and may not be implemented because annual reporting may show additional incentives are not necessary or warranted to achieve the City’s RHNA. The City will monitor and report on all types of new housing production, to HCD’s satisfaction. If the City’s housing production does not keep pace to meet the RHNA, as evidenced through the City’s annual reporting to HCD, the HCD will require the City will have to take additional steps to reduce governmental constraints on housing production. That could include incentives for certain housing types, such as ADUs, if the City has a need for producing more ADUs. However, it is also possible the City can achieve its RHNA without a significant number of lower income ADUs, therefore establishing incentives for ADUs may not be warranted and those resources would be assigned to other areas of housing needs.
35 of 675
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
August 22, 2023

Page 4 of 5 ends

R4. By February 1, 2024, San Mateo County and each City should track the intended use of ADUs – rented or non-rented – during the permitting process and offer incentives in exchange for deed restrictions that require ADUs to be used as rentals.

Response: The first part of this recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. The City will establish a system for monitoring and reporting on new housing production, including ADUs, to HCD’s satisfaction. The timing of this implementation will be subject to the City’s continued work with HCD. The second part of this recommendation regarding incentives requires further analysis, as noted in the response to R3, and may not be implemented because it may not be warranted.

R5. By April 1, 2024, San Mateo County and each City should develop and adopt a new ADU affordability distribution formula specific to each jurisdiction to the extent they are used for meeting the very low-, low-, and moderate-income housing requirements in their RHNA housing elements.

Response: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable. The City of San Bruno will work with HCD to ensure compliance with housing laws. If HCD accepts the ABAG affordability assumptions for ADUs, then the City of San Bruno intends to utilize those assumptions. The ABAG assumptions are based on a UC Berkeley study that surveyed thousands of homeowners statewide with repeat mailing and the data was aggregate to reduce the margin of errors. There is also no evidence in the data to suggest significant variation from city to city. The recommendations for an affordability distribution of 30/30/30/10 (very low/low/moderate/above-moderate) had a significant cushion built in to ensure cities did not accidentally underproduce the amount of housing needed.

Since ADUs are a relatively small portion of the City’s allocation, and since there are finite resources available to put towards housing, the City reserves the right to focus resources on efforts that will have the greatest impact, within the law.

R6. San Mateo County and each City should consider working together to address Recommendations 2 and 3.

Response: The recommendation has been implemented, as San Mateo County jurisdictions work collaboratively through 21 Elements to develop, adopt, and implement a range of policies and programs in the county, including housing issues.

This response was approved by the San Bruno City Council at a public meeting on August 22, 2023.

Sincerely,
36 of 675
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
August 22, 2023

Page 5 of 5 ends

Rico E. Medina
Mayor
37 of 675
38 of 675
Attachment 2
39 of 675
Accessory Dwelling Units:

Affordable Housing’s Panacea or Prevarication?
Release Date: June 12, 2023
2022-2023 San Mateo County Grand Jury
40 of 675
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 1
“You can always count on Americans to do the right thing – after they’ve tried everything else.” Winston Churchill
“Every man must decide whether he will walk in the light of creative altruism or in the darkness of destructive selfishness.” Martin Luther King, Jr. 41 of 675
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 2
ISSUE
Are some San Mateo County communities misusing Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) to avoid the construction of multifamily low-income housing over the next eight years?

SUMMARY
Anointed the “epicenter of America’s housing dysfunction” by Harvard Business Review this year, the San Francisco Bay Area has faced an acute housing shortage at all levels for decades, especially for those who have the least.

And it is no longer news that many of the workers that San Mateo County communities depend upon daily – first responders, teachers, nurses, city employees, gardeners, and housekeepers, to name just a few – cannot afford a decent place to live and raise their families close to their jobs.

To address the issue, the State Legislature in 1969 passed the Housing Element Law, which says all California cities, towns, and counties, every eight years, must plan for the housing needs of all their residents regardless of income, which effectively requires development of affordable housing. Many changes and additions have been made to the law over the years, most recently eliminating zoning restrictions governing ADUs – small homes or apartments that share a single-family lot of a larger primary residence – and allowing communities to count them as affordable housing in their Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) plans.

At issue:
● Although their intentions have been good, the State has neglected to include any form of regulation to ensure low-income tenants ultimately use these ADUs as planned. ● Because owners often rent their ADUs to family and friends, they can exacerbate patterns of segregation and exclusion.1
● And perhaps most importantly – counting ADUs as affordable housing will likely result in cities issuing permits for fewer deed-restricted low-, very low-, and moderate-income apartments and homes.

Without accountability through oversight and regulations, low-, very low-, and moderate-income housing now planned in some San Mateo County jurisdictions may end up existing solely on paper and never in operation.

This problem is most acute in Atherton, Hillsborough, Portola Valley, and Woodside, where some residents are up in arms over the State-mandated housing requirements, and the city governments, trying to appease them, are proposing counting on ADUs to meet as much as 80 percent of their affordable housing targets.

1 Association of Bay Area Governments, “Final Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Plan, San Francisco Bay Area, 2023-2031”, accessed May 27, 2023, https://abag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2021- 12/Final_RHNA_Allocation_Report_2023-2031-approved_0.pdf 42 of 675
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 3
Assembly Bill 72 (2017) gives the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) enforcement capability on local government’s land use, planning, and zoning requirements. In the current RHNA-6 (2023-2031) planning cycle, HCD demands that San Mateo County jurisdictions monitor and verify ADU affordability every two years. However, HCD has not specified how to prove the ADUs are rented to very low-, low- or moderate-income households, leaving it to the communities to find a solution.

So far, jurisdictions have yet to do so, even though local independent agencies such as HIP Housing have systems and services in place, which they use to verify affordability of deed-restricted affordable housing, and that could be adapted Countywide to monitor and verify ADUs’ affordability and occupancy in a manner that adheres to fair housing guidelines.

California needs to build 2.5 million homes by 2030 to meet current housing demands, according to the HCD. But the State averages only about 125,000 new homes annually – a shortfall by nearly two-thirds.

ADUs can, indeed, provide affordable housing. And to many citizens of affluent communities, they are an appealing alternative to multi-family, deed-restricted affordable housing projects. However, just because the law makes it possible to count ADUs as affordable housing, it does not exempt cities and towns from credibly planning for badly needed affordable housing.

BACKGROUND
One of the State’s long-standing priorities has been to increase the availability of affordable housing for all economic segments.

HCD – the California Department of Housing and Community Development – focuses on making this happen by working with local jurisdictions to create rental and homeownership opportunities for all Californians, including individuals and families who are experiencing homelessness.

Beginning in 1969, the State mandated that all California cities, towns, and counties must plan for the housing needs of all Californians, regardless of income. They meet this mandate by developing and updating a Housing Element, part of a local jurisdiction’s General Plan, which shows where they will allow new housing and describes the policies and strategies necessary to support building new housing.

The process of updating the Housing Element involves HCD working with various Councils of Governments (COG) to develop a RHNA plan that includes the Regional Housing Needs Determination (RHND), which assigns the number of housing units that each county and city are expected to facilitate being built in the subsequent eight years to accommodate projected growth.

In the case of the Bay Area, this Council of Governments is the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), which represents all nine Bay Area counties, including San Mateo County and its 20 cities and towns. Components that ABAG considers in determining each Bay Area county’s and city’s allocation of housing units include population, employment potential, proximity to transportation centers, open space, inclusivity, and diversification, all of which are becoming increasingly important to the State, according to ABAG reports.
43 of 675
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 4
Multiple bills in both houses of the State Legislature have been proposed over the years to change the process and increase the amount of State control over housing development. Particularly significant changes occurred during the 2017 legislative session when senators and assembly members proposed approximately 150 housing bills. That year the Governor ultimately signed a package of 15 bills related to funding for housing, streamlining development approvals, and increasing accountability for meeting the requirements of the Housing Element Law. These included bills that significantly changed the RHNA process, requiring additional outreach and reporting, modifying how to calculate the RHND to reflect unmet housing needs better, increasing the number of topics to be considered in the allocation methodology, and giving HCD, on behalf of the State, the ability to sue individual counties or cities for not meeting requirements.

Updating the Housing Element every eight years is an iterative process involving HCD, the regional COGs, the State Department of Finance (DOF), and local jurisdictions. (See Appendix D.) But the ultimate authority for approval of the RHNA, the RHND, and the associated Housing Elements resides with HCD.

The current approved RHNA plan developed by ABAG is known as RHNA-6, which spans 2023 to 2031.

HCD requires each jurisdiction to submit its completed Housing Element for review and approval by a specific date. For RHNA-6, the due date for San Mateo County and its cities was January 31, 2023.

Before the due date, the jurisdictions were able to send their draft Housing Elements to HCD for preliminary review and comments and make necessary modifications that HCD highlights. Any jurisdiction which fails to meet the deadline for submission of their completed Housing Element is subject to a potential “builders remedy” action that forces a city to allow building projects regardless of whether they meet most of the local zoning restrictions.

Once Housing Elements are approved, HCD monitors the progress of approved RHNA plans by requiring each jurisdiction to report its building permit activities annually. If progress is below expectations, the jurisdiction must develop alternative strategies for review and approval by HCD.

During the RHNA-5 (2015-2023) progress reviews submissions, cities began including ADUs as part of the overall housing inventory in their annual reports because State legislation (Government Code section 65852.150) that became effective in January 2017 stated that ADUs are a valuable form of housing in California, which also "provide housing for family members, students, the elderly, in-home health care providers, the disabled, and others, at below market prices within existing neighborhoods." Numerous Senate and Assembly bills were enacted in 2018 and 2020, requiring local jurisdictions to streamline and allow for ease of ADU production to increase housing for all income categories. With these encouragements, ADUs being deemed a viable housing option, and facing stringent RHNA-6 requirements of approximately three times more housing units than in the RHNA-5 cycle, a few affluent San Mateo cities have proposed using ADUs to satisfy most of their plans to meet the required number of housing units in the various income categories.
“ADUs are not a panacea, but they’re a good tool in the toolbox,” said a planning consultant working for a San Mateo County city. “Most land on The Peninsula is single-family homes. ADUs are opening land that was not open before. But higher density housing near transit is better.” 44 of 675
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 5
Added a city manager: “I think they (ADUs) are a piece of the solution, but not all of it. I think ADUs are an important way to provide opportunities for other things – where people want multigenerational living onsite, for caretakers, or other folks – they can reside in an ADU even if they’re not paying rent.”

DISCUSSION
While HCD-approved RHNA Housing Elements do not require the cities and counties to build affordable housing, the jurisdictions must adjust zoning ordinances, issue permits to allow construction of affordable housing, and initiate programs that incentivize such construction.

However, as shown in Chart 1 below, significant portions of San Mateo County's affordable housing in RHNA-5 (2015-2023) plans did not materialize – most likely due to a lack of permit applications.

With RHNA-5’s significantly lower targets, the less-than-expected performance during the RHNA-5 cycle foreshadows the enormous challenge the County’s cities and towns now face in meeting the RHNA-6 goals for the next eight years, which are approximately three times larger, as shown in Chart 2 below.

Chart 1: RHNA-5 Affordable Housing Required vs. Permitted 45 of 675
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 6
Chart 2: RHNA-5 Affordable Housing Allocations vs RHNA-6 Besides increasing affordable housing targets by nearly 300 percent, the State has made other significant changes in the ADU laws to address the current housing crunch.

Law Year Impact
AB671 2019 Through Housing Elements, HCD to promote ADUs for affordable rent AB670 2019 Any local covenants and restrictions on new housing are void AB587 2019 Deed-restricted sale of ADU is allowed separately from the main house AB 68 2019 Removes local restrictions on minimum size, requirement of owner occupancy, parking requirements for garage conversion, and any impact fee.

AB 3182 2020 Permitting process within 60 days
SB9 2021 Facilitates lot split and allows more than1 ADU per property AB 345 2021 Allows owners to sell ADUs separately
AB 2221 2023 Pre-specific time permit frame for approval of ADU applications SB 897 2023 Increases the ADU height limit to 18’ and allows retro permitting of previous unauthorized ADUs.

The net effect of these changes was to minimize municipal-level regulations on ADUs – such as parking requirements, property line setbacks, height limits, or the number of ADUs on one property – and make 46 of 675
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 7
ADUs an acceptable means to meet affordable housing obligations. Given these changes, namely high mandatory targets for affordable housing, enthusiastic support by the State of ADUs as affordable housing, and requiring zero land use rezoning for ADUs, nearly all San Mateo County cities and towns include ADUs in their RHNA-6 Housing Elements.

The issue, however, is that for every ADU included in a Housing Element – regardless of whether the ADU is built and rented to very low-, low-, or moderate-income tenants – one verifiable, deed-restricted affordable housing unit will not be built in that jurisdiction by a developer.

So, How Did We Get Here?
California cities and counties can now use ADUs to help satisfy their RHNA requirements. But calculating how many ADUs to put into a Housing Element and how to distribute them into each income category, differ from other housing options.

ABAG instructs San Mateo County jurisdictions that the standard method is first to estimate the number of ADUs that homeowners will build in a planning period, which is 2023 through 2031 for RHNA-6.

In its technical memo “Using ADUs to Satisfy RHNA,” ABAG advises members that the estimate should be based on the average number of ADU building permits issued each year, multiplied by eight, because there are eight years in a housing element cycle.
“Most cities base their determination of annual ADU permits by averaging the building permits approved each year since 2019 when State law made it easier to construct the units,” the technical memo explains:
“There is a small amount of flexibility in the calculations,” the memo continues. “If numbers were low in 2019 but were high in 2020, 2021, and 2022, a jurisdiction could potentially use 2020-2022 as the baseline. This rationale would be bolstered if there was a logical explanation for the change, e.g., the jurisdiction further loosened regulations in 2020. Projecting a higher number of ADUs than what has been demonstrated through permit approvals in recent years may be possible, but more challenging. A slightly larger number may be warranted if a robust, funded, and clear plan to increase production has been put in place. However, you are strongly encouraged to coordinate with HCD before deviating from the standard methodology.”
Once cities complete their estimate, they must distribute those units into each income category.

To help its members, ABAG analyzed ADU affordability. Using data from a 2020 statewide survey of homeowners who had constructed ADUs in 2018 or 2019, ABAG concluded that the assumptions in the chart below are generally applicable in most jurisdictions. Many Bay Area jurisdictions chose to use these numbers instead of conducting their own affordability analysis.

Percent Income Category
30% Very Low Income
30% Low Income
30% Moderate Income
10% Above Moderate
47 of 675
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 8
“UC Berkeley Terner Center did a statewide survey of ADU affordability, and they worked with ABAG to adjust it for the Bay Area specifically,” said a San Mateo County planner. “So those (numbers) are based on surveys and data analysis of actual ADUs that have been produced, and the rents that are being offered to tenants. We are just accepting their analysis as is.” San Mateo County jurisdictions have almost unanimously adopted ABAG’s 30-30-30-10 formula.

However, a 2021 report and recommendations for RHNA-6 prepared by ABAG’s Housing Technical Assistance Team, titled “DRAFT Affordability of Accessory Dwelling Units,” says that although ADUs are often affordable, jurisdictions should be cautious about relying on them too heavily because of fair housing concerns:
“Many ADUs are affordable to lower and moderate-income households because they are rented to family and friends of the homeowners,” the report states. “If minorities are underrepresented among homeowners, the families and potentially friends of the homeowners will be primarily white. Therefore, relying too heavily on ADUs could inadvertently exacerbate patterns of segregation and exclusion.” The report also acknowledges that ADUs often do not serve large families, another critical fair housing concern.

And while ADUs accomplish an essential fair housing goal by adding new homes in parts of the municipality that are more likely to be areas of opportunity, the report recommends that jurisdictions with fair housing concerns "may want to use more conservative assumptions based on open market rentals, excluding units made available to family and friends," as summarized below:

Percent Income Category
5% Very Low Income
30% Low Income
50% Moderate Income
15% Above Moderate
So far, 16 San Mateo County cities have chosen the 30-30-30-10 formula, implying there are no fair housing concerns in their jurisdictions.

Only two cities – San Carlos and San Mateo – use ABAG’s more conservative formula of 5-30-50-15 in their plans. One city – Belmont – used its own judgment.2 And one – Colma – does not use ADUs in their plans at all to meet State requirements.

But in all cases, these statistical estimates may not reflect the actual usage of constructed ADUs.

Determining that would require actual verification by each local jurisdiction.

2 City of Belmont, “General Housing Element Draft 2023-2031”, p. 25, accessed May 27, 2023, https://www.belmont.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/21721/637968613354630000 48 of 675
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 9
ADUs planned in RHNA-6
(May 11, 2023)
City Very Low Low Moderate Above
Moderate
Total ADUs Total
RHNA-6
Requirement
Atherton 56 56 56 112 280 348
Belmont 0 0 80 0 80 1785
Brisbane 12 12 12 4 40 1588
Burlingame 50 50 50 17 167 3257
Colma - - - - 0 202
Daly City 151 151 151 50 503 4838
East Palo Alto 35 34 34 12 115 829
Foster City 7 7 7 3 24 1896
Hillsborough 84 84 84 28 280 554
Menlo Park 26 25 26 8 85 2946
Millbrae 34 34 33 11 112 2199
Pacifica 56 56 56 19 187 1892
Portola Valley 28 28 28 8 92 253
Redwood City 152 152 152 50 506 4588
San Bruno 72 72 72 24 240 3165
San Carlos 10 61 102 30 203 2735
San Mateo 22 132 220 66 440 7015
South San
Francisco
113 113 113 38 377 3956
Unincorporated
San Mateo
107 107 107 36 357 2833
Woodside 36 36 36 12 120 328
(This table includes all San Mateo County jurisdictions that have submitted Housing Element plans to HCD for review. As of June 1, 2023, Half Moon Bay and Daly City have not submitted RHNA-6 plans for HCD review.) Accordingly, if HCD approves cities and towns' current Housing Elements, San Mateo County may end up with many affordable housing units that exist only on paper because they are counted as affordable units by the State but never made available or occupied by people who need affordable housing:
“BMR (below market rate) unit displacement is a legitimate issue,” said a city planning consultant. “RHNA looks at (the number of) units, not the number of people being housed. For the State, they’re all counted the same – an ADU or three-bedroom apartment, five vs. one or two people. In the eyes of the State, they’re all the same.”
49 of 675
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 10
Finally, the cities and towns relying primarily on ADUs to meet their RHNA-6 housing targets do not meet the overall objectives required by HCD and RHNA of:
● Increasing the housing supply and mix of housing types, tenure, and affordability ● Promoting infill development and socioeconomic equity, protecting environmental and agricultural resources, and encouraging efficient development patterns ● Promoting an improved intraregional relationship between jobs and housing ● Balancing disproportionate household income distributions ● Affirmatively furthering fair housing
Housing and Community Development Pushes Back
Four San Mateo County municipalities – Atherton, Hillsborough, Portola Valley, and Woodside – rely heavily on ADUs to meet low-income housing requirements in their RHNA-6 Housing Elements.

May 17, 2023
While HCD does not single out those four cities for their heavy reliance on ADUs to meet their affordable housing needs, throughout the process of submission and review of draft RHNA-6 plans, HCD consistently instructed San Mateo County cities and towns that they must monitor and verify ADU production and affordability at least every two years but has not specified an acceptable process for verifying the affordability level of ADUs as planned.

Should San Mateo County and its cities seek outside help on this issue, there are a handful of independent non-profit agencies and for-profit real estate management companies operating today in the Bay Area that have established systems and processes for monitoring and verifying rented occupied housing for continued affordability and adherence to fair housing guidelines while maintaining tenant and owner privacy – which was an issue continually raised by City Managers and other officials during Grand Jury interviews.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
ADUs as Percent of RHNA6 Affordable Housing
50 of 675
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 11
ADU Affordability Monitoring Emphasized in HCD Review Letters to Jurisdictions Atherton (4-4-23)
Program 3.812 (New Construction of Affordable Accessory Dwelling Units): While the element was revised to include timing of each action, it is unclear how affordability will be established. The program should be revised to clarify actions to establish and track affordability.

East Palo Alto (4-25-23)
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU): As noted in the prior review, the element should include a program that commits to frequent monitoring (every other year) for production and affordability, and specific commitment to adopt alternative measures such as rezoning or amending the element within a specific time (e.g., six months) as needed.

Foster City (4-24-23)
Program H-D-4-h (ADU Monitoring): While the program commits to evaluating alternative actions by the end of 2026, it must commit to specific alternative actions and monitor production and affordability of ADUs more than once in the planning period (e.g., every two years).

Hillsborough (1-10-23
This analysis should specifically address whether the ADU strategy to accommodate lower-income households contributes to continued exclusion and disparities in access to opportunity and how the strategy promotes housing choice for a variety of households including lower-income households, and large families.

To support assumptions for ADUs in the planning period, the element should reduce the number of ADUs assumed per year and reconcile trends with HCD records, including additional information such as more recent permitted units and inquiries, resources and incentives, other relevant factors, and modify policies and programs as appropriate. Further, programs should commit to additional incentives and strategies, frequent monitoring (every other year), and specific commitment to adopt alternative measures such as rezoning or amending the element within a specific time (e.g., six months) if ADU production assumptions are not being achieved.

Millbrae (1-24-23)
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU): To support assumptions for ADUs in the planning period, programs should commit to additional incentives and strategies, frequent monitoring (every other year) of production and affordability and specific commitment to adopt alternative measures such as rezoning or amending the element within a specific time (e.g., 6 months) if needed.

Depending on the analysis, the element must commit to monitor ADU production and affordability throughout the planning period and implement additional actions if not meeting target numbers within a specified time period (e.g., within six months).

Redwood City (7-8-22)
Programs must be expanded to include incentives to promote the creation and affordability of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs).

Examples include exploring and pursuing funding, modifying development standards and reducing fees beyond State law, increasing awareness, pre-approved plans and homeowner/applicant assistance tools. In addition, given the city’s assumptions for ADUs, the element should include a program to monitor permitted ADUs and affordability every other year and take appropriate action such as adjusting assumptions or rezoning within a specified time period (e.g., 6 months).

San Bruno (3-29-23)
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU): While the element revised the ADU assumptions, Program 4-P must be revised to commit to additional incentives and strategies, frequent monitoring (every other year) and specific commitment to adopt alternative measures such as rezoning or amending the element within a specific time (e.g., 6 months) if needed. The element must also address affordability assumptions for ADU projections.

San Mateo (3-27-23)
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU): Program 1.4 must commit to also monitoring affordability of the ADU units that are permitted as well as provide additional incentives or identify additional sites if production and affordability assumptions are not met.

County of San Mateo (4-20-23)
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU): Further, programs should commit to additional incentives and strategies, frequent monitoring for production and affordability (every other year) and specific commitment to adopt alternative measures such as rezoning or amending the element within a specific time (e.g., 6 months) if needed. The element must also address affordability assumptions for ADU projections, by clarifying what ABAG assumptions are utilized.

South San Francisco (3-30-23)
The element should include a commitment to reconcile trends with reported units within the Cities submitted annual progress report. Further, as Stated in the previous review, programs should commit to additional incentives and strategies, frequent monitoring (every other year) and specific commitment to adopt alternative measures such as rezoning or amending the element within a specific time (e.g., six months) if number and affordability assumptions are not met.

Woodside (10-14-22)
Depending on the analysis, the element must commit to monitor ADU production and affordability throughout the planning period and implement additional actions if not meeting target numbers within a specified time period (e.g., within six months).

51 of 675
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 12
In their HCD approved housing plans, Brisbane and Redwood City aren’t definitive about how they will monitor ADU affordability but imply they will use surveys to comply with HCD instructions.

Redwood City plans to collect ADU rental data during its permitting process. And Brisbane says, if available, it will participate in a regional forgivable ADU construction loan program in exchange for limiting rentals of the ADUs to extremely low-income households for 15 years. Brisbane said it is also exploring a possible city forgivable loan program if the regional program doesn’t materialize. “We can’t force people to report to us or to be honest with us,” said one jurisdiction’s planner.

Another city’s chief planner concluded that a deed restriction – any limitation on a property that affects the ability of the property owner to utilize the property as they wish, such as a requirement to verify a tenant’s income and rent charged – “is the best way to (enforce) affordability.” Alternatively, one city planning official suggested the formation of a Countywide nonprofit to income-qualify and match renters to available ADUs, thereby monitoring and enforcing affordability because the smaller towns and cities don't have the resources to perform that function on their own.

Finally, a fourth city planner offered an alternative view: “We’re not a city hiding behind ADUs. ABAG gave us a formula. We plopped it in. If the State said you can’t count ADUs at all, that would be fine.” A Long, Long Way to Go
The Superior Court of California requires all San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury investigation reports to be completed and published by June 30 annually.

And although the law required San Mateo County cities and towns to submit their housing plans by January 31, 2023, as of June 1, Daly City has yet to adopt and submit a draft plan to HCD for review and approval.

Meanwhile, plans from Foster City, Half Moon Bay, Millbrae and Pacifica are now under HCD review.

So far, HCD has reviewed and rejected plans from 14 jurisdictions: Atherton, Belmont, Burlingame, Colma, East Palo Alto, Hillsborough, Menlo Park, Portola Valley, San Bruno, San Carlos, San Mateo, South San Francisco, Woodside, and San Mateo County, which is responsible for unincorporated areas.

As of the publication of this report, only Redwood City and Brisbane had completed the process and received the green light from HCD to proceed.

One reason cited for the delay is most San Mateo County cities and towns don’t have a large enough staff to manage the workload that RHNA planning represents, so they outsource. And many could not find timely help because the consultants were busy preparing RHNA-6 plans for Southern California cities, which were due before San Mateo County municipalities. That caused many communities here to fall behind and are now out of compliance with the timing of their Housing Element submissions.

These delays, coupled with citizen objections to multifamily housing in their communities, almost guarantee RHNA-6 disputes will end up in the courts and remain unresolved for many years to come and postpone the building of sorely needed affordable housing indefinitely. 52 of 675
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 13

FINDINGS
F1. Due to recent changes in California ADU-related laws, local governments cannot condition ADU permits in San Mateo County on complying with affordability monitoring and verification.

F2. San Mateo County and most of its municipalities rely on ADUs to meet their affordable housing commitments in their RHNA-6 plans.

F3. Atherton, Hillsborough, Portola Valley, and Woodside rely on ADUs to meet as much as 80 percent of their affordable housing commitments in their RHNA-6 plans.

F5. Other than Brisbane and Redwood City, San Mateo County and its jurisdictions have yet to articulate how they will monitor and verify ADU production or affordability.

F7. ADU affordability and occupancy could be monitored by agencies such as HIP Housing which has proven systems and processes to verify occupancy of deed-restricted rental properties in San Mateo County.

RECOMMENDATIONS
R1. San Mateo County and each City should immediately stop using ADUs to meet their Statemandated very low-, low-, and moderate-income housing targets in their Housing Element submissions until they have also proposed an effective monitoring system that verifies how newly developed ADU’s will be used.

R2. By February 1, 2024, San Mateo County and each City should develop, adopt, and implement a verification system capable of monitoring and verifying how newly developed ADU’s are being used.

R6. San Mateo County and each City should consider working together to address Recommendations 2 and 3.
53 of 675
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 14

REQUEST FOR RESPONSES
Pursuant to Penal Code Section 933.05, the Civil Grand Jury requests responses from San Mateo County and all 20 cities’ governing bodies for each and every Finding and Recommendation.

The governing bodies should be aware that their comments or responses must be conducted subject to the Brown Act's notice, agenda, and open meeting requirements.

RESPONSE REQUIREMENTS
California Penal Code Section 933.05 provides: For purposes of subdivision of Section 933, as to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following:
(1) The respondent agrees with the finding.
(2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding; in which case the response shall specify the portion of the disputed finding and shall include an explanation of the reasons.

For purposes of subdivision of Section 933, as to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions:
(1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has yet to be implemented but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation.
(3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall be at most six months from the Grand Jury report's publication date.
(4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore.

METHODOLOGY
The San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury used numerous approaches to develop this report. ● Preliminary Research
The Grand Jury studied RHNA-5 historical information and RHNA-6 Housing Elements submitted to HCD by the cities and towns in San Mateo County as they became available.

Before conducting in-depth research, the Grand Jury studied ABAG's reports on RHNA-6 housing allocations, introducing numerous issues and a means to understand how jurisdictions establish housing allocations. Additionally, the Grand Jury reviewed a 2021 ABAG report on ADU affordability for RHNA-6 and RHNA-5 annual progress reports to understand history. 54 of 675
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 15
The Grand Jury also reviewed a report on ADUs titled “A Solution on the Ground: Assessing the Feasibility of Second Units in Unincorporated San Mateo County, Implementing the Backyard Revolution: Perspectives of California's ADU Owners,” April 22, 2021, Karen Chapple, Dori Ganetsos, Emmanuel Lopez, UC Berkeley Center for Community Innovation.

An additional resource for Preliminary Research has been the press. Particularly following the January 31, 2023 deadline for RHNA-6 submissions, nearly 60 articles provided insights and analysis the Grand Jury could not find elsewhere.

For a complete list of sources, see the Bibliography below. ● Survey
After conducting its Preliminary Research, the Grand Jury sent an eight-question survey in October 2022 to the city managers of the 20 San Mateo County cities and towns and the San Mateo County planning and building department responsible for the County's unincorporated areas.

See Appendix A for survey results.
● Interviews
Much of the time spent by the Grand Jury on this investigation was in more than 30 interviews with 21 city managers and planning managers, five heads of nonprofit housing entities in San Mateo County, and executives at ABAG, HCD, and several other government bodies. ● Continued Research
Because RHNA-6 submissions and HCD replies are ongoing, the Grand Jury has continued to monitor the status of RHNA-6 submissions and HCD responses.

This report reflects submissions received prior to the report's due date of June 30, 2023.

GLOSSARY
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
An accessory dwelling unit (ADU) is a legal and regulatory term for a secondary house or apartment that shares the building lot of a larger primary home. The unit is often used to provide additional income through rent or to house a family member. For example, an elderly parent could live in a small unit and avoid having to move to an assisted living facility. (Source: Investopedia) Affordable Housing: Very Low Income; Low Income; Moderate Income; Above Moderate Income Affordable housing is generally defined as housing on which the occupant is paying no more than 30 percent of gross income for housing costs, including utilities. (Source: www.hud.gov) 55 of 675
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 16
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)
The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) is the Council of Governments (COG) for the ninecounty Bay Area. One of California’s earliest COGs, ABAG was founded to protect regional assets from State control. ABAG continues to serve the Bay Area by providing a regional venue for collaboration and problem-solving. ABAG’s work program includes management over key regional assets, such as the San Francisco Estuary and the Bay Trail Project. It also offers a variety of cost-effective member services programs such as Pooled Liability Assurance Network (PLAN) Corporation (offering affordable liability, property insurance, claims management, risk management, and bond coverage to 30 municipalities) and financial services (offering tax-exempt capital financing for the acquisition, construction, and rehabilitation of affordable multifamily housing, health care facilities, schools, and other community facilities). ABAG POWER Natural Gas Pool conducts pooled purchasing of natural gas on behalf of 38 local governments and special districts. ABAG is also the COG that allocates the regional housing needs assessment (RHNA). (Source: CALCOG)
Below Market Rate (BMR)
A BMR unit is a housing unit that is priced to be affordable to households that are of moderate income or below. These housing units are often built by local government, nonprofits, or as a requirement of the developer (Inclusionary Affordable Housing Ordinance). As a result, these homes have certain deed restrictions recorded on the property, ensuring the home remains affordable for future generations. (Source: County of San Mateo)
California Department of Finance (DOF)
The California Department of Finance is a state cabinet-level agency within the government of California.

The Department of Finance is responsible for preparing, explaining, and administering the state's annual financial plan, which the Governor of California is required under the California Constitution to present by January 10 of each year to the public. The Department of Finance's other duties include analyzing the budgets of proposed laws in the California State Legislature, creating, and monitoring current and future economic forecasts of the state, estimating population demographics and enrollment projections, and maintaining the state's accounting and financial reporting systems.

California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) develops housing policy and building codes (i.e., the California Building Standards Code), regulates manufactured homes and mobile home parks, and administers housing finance, economic development, and community development programs. (Source: https://www.hcd.ca.gov/about-hcd)
56 of 675
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 17
Council of Governments (COG)
Councils of Governments (COGs) are voluntary associations representing member local governments, mainly cities, and counties, that seek to provide cooperative planning, coordination, and technical assistance on issues of mutual concern that cross jurisdictional lines. (Source: WRCOG) Deed Restrictions
A deed restriction is a term widely used in real estate to refer to any limitation on a property that limits the ability of the property owner to utilize the property as they wish. (Source: CA Realty Training) General Plan
State law requires every city and county in California to prepare a General Plan for its future growth and development. A General Plan covers land use, transportation, housing, open space, natural resources, and public services. Local General Plans have been mandatory in California since the 1950s. State law also requires the cities and counties to periodically update their General Plans in response to changing conditions. Each General Plan includes maps expressing the community's vision of how and where it will grow and change. The General Plan typically has a time horizon of about 20 years. Once a General Plan is adopted, it is used by the City Council, local commissions, and City Staff as they make day-to-day decisions about the community's future. (Source: City of San Rafael) Housing Element
Since 1969, California has required that all local governments (cities and counties) adequately plan to meet the housing needs of everyone in the community. California's local governments meet this requirement by adopting housing plans as part of their General Plan (also required by the State). General Plans serve as the local government's blueprint for how the city or county will grow and develop and include eight elements: land use, transportation, conservation, noise, open space, safety, environmental justice, and housing. California's Housing Element Law acknowledges that, for the private market to address Californians' housing needs and demand, local governments must adopt plans and regulatory systems that provide opportunities for (and do not unduly constrain) housing development. As a result, housing policy in California rests mainly on the effective implementation of local General Plans and, in particular, local Housing Elements. (Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development)
Jurisdiction (city, town, or county)
1: the power, right, or authority to interpret and apply the law; a matter that falls within the court’s jurisdiction
2: a: the authority of a sovereign power to govern or legislate b: the power or right to exercise authority: CONTROL
3: the limits or territory within which authority may be exercised (Source: Merriam-Webster) Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
Every eight years, ABAG develops the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) plan approved by HCD and used to assign each city and county in the Bay Area their fair share of new housing units to build. These housing units are intended to accommodate existing needs and projected growth in the region. The RHNA process is critical because it requires all cities and counties to plan for the region's housing needs, regardless of income, to prepare for future growth and ease the California's acute housing crisis. (Source: ABAG)
57 of 675
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 18
Regional Housing Needs Determination (RHND)
The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) identifies the total number of homes each region in California must plan to meet the housing needs of people at all income levels. They base the number on population projections produced by the California Department of Finance and adjustments incorporating the region's current housing needs. The jurisdictions separate the total number of housing units from HCD into four income categories that cover everything from housing for very lowincome households to market-rate housing. ABAG is responsible for developing a methodology to allocate a portion of this housing need to every local government in the Bay Area. (Source: ABAG)

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Government Agencies
● Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Policy Development and Research. “U.S Accessory Dwelling Units: Case Study”. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/publications/adu.pdf. June 2008
● U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. “Glossary of Terms to Affordable Housing”. https://archives.hud.gov/local/nv/goodstories/2006-04-06glos.cfm. August 18, 2011 ● Department of Housing and Community Development Division of Housing Policy. “ADU Law Amendments Memorandum”. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housingelement/housing-element-memos/docs/Accessory-Dwelling-Unit-Legislation.pdf. May 29, 2018 ● California Legislative Information. “Assembly Bill No. 68”. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB68. 2019-2020 ● OpenStates. “California Senate Bill SB 13”. https://openStates.org/ca/bills/20192020/SB13/. 2019- 2020
● 21 Elements. “Second Units and Junior Second Units”. http://www.21elements.com/second-units. 2020
● Department of Housing and Community Development Division of Housing Policy. “Local Agency Accessory Dwelling Units, Memorandum”. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housingelement/docs/ADU_TA_Memo_Final_01-10-20.pdf. January 10, 2020 ● Department of Housing and Community Development Division of Housing Policy. “Final Regional Housing Need Determination”. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housingelement/docs/ABAGRHNA-Final060920(r).pdf. June 9, 2020 ● Association of Bay Area Governments. “Housing Element Law. Changes from 1969 to the Present”. https://abag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/rhna_background.pdf. August 1, 2020 ● California Legislative Information. “Assembly Bill No. 3182”. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB3182. September 28, 2020
58 of 675
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 19
● Southern California Association of Governments. “SCAG Regional Accessory Dwelling Unit Affordability Analysis”. https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/fileattachments/adu_affordability_analysis_120120v2.pdf?1606868527. December 1, 2020 ● Association of Bay Area Governments. “DRAFT Affordability of Accessory Dwelling Units”. http://21elements.com/documents-mainmenu-3/housing-elements/rhna-6-2022-2030/1327-draft-aduaffordability-report-sep-8-2021-1/file. September 8, 2021 ● California Legislative Information. “Assembly Bill No. 345”. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB345. September 28, 2021
● Association of Bay Area Governments. “Using ADUs to Satisfy RHNA”. https://abag.ca.gov/technicalassistance/using-adus-satisfy-rhna. March 10, 2022 ● Auditor of the State of California. “Regional Housing Needs Assessments”. https://www.auditor.ca.gov/pdfs/reports/2021-125.pdf. March 17, 2022 ● California Department of Housing and Community Development. “Accessory Dwelling Unit Handbook”. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-07/ADUHandbookUpdate.pdf. July 2022 ● Association of Bay Area Governments. “Final Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Plan: San Francisco Bay Area, 2023-2031”. https://abag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2022- 12/Final%20RHNA%20Methodology%20Report%202023-2031_update_11-22.pdf. November 2022 ● State of California Department of Justice. “Attorney General Bonta Puts city of Huntington Beach on Notice That Its Proposed Ordinance Violates State Housing Law”. https://oag.ca.gov/news/pressreleases/attorney-general-bonta-puts-city-huntington-beach-notice-its-proposed-ordinance. February 13, 2023
● Department of Housing and Community Development Division of Housing Policy Development. “RE:

Town of Atherton’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Adopted Housing Element”. https://www.dropbox.com/home/Grand%20Jury%202022%20-%202023/Committees/ADUs/ADU%20- %20research%20materials/Housing%20Elements/Pending?preview=Atherton_HCD_Letter40423.pdf.

April 4, 2023

Grand Jury Reports
● San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury. “Second Units: Adding New Housing In The Neighborhood”. https://www.sanmateocourt.org/documents/grand_jury/2019/second_units.pdf. 2019-2020 Independent Agencies
● UC Berkeley. “A Solution on the Ground: Assessing the Feasibility of Second Units in Unincorporated San Mateo County”. https://smcrecovery.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/UC-Report-on-ADUfeasability.pdf. January 2017 ● Ramsey-Musolf, Darrel. “Accessory Dwelling Units as Low-Income Housing: California’s Faustian Bargain”. https://www.mdpi.com/2413-8851/2/3/89. September 18, 2018 59 of 675
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 20
● AARP. “The ABCs of ADUs”. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/adu-guide-websingles.pdf. 2019 ● California YIMBY (Yes in My Back Yard). “AB 881”. https://cayimby.org/ab-881/. October 9, 2019 ● Center of Community Innovation. “The ADU Scorecard: Grading ADU Ordinances in California”. https://www.aducalifornia.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/ADU-Scorecard-InterimReport-200201-

1.pdf. February 1, 2020
● UC Berkeley Center for Community Innovation. “Implementing the Backyard Revolution: Perspectives of California’s ADU Owners”. https://www.aducalifornia.org/wpcontent/uploads/2021/04/Implementing-the-Backyard-Revolution.pdf. April 22, 2021 ● Terner Center for Housing Innovation, UC Berkely. “First Ever Statewide ADU Owner Survey Shows Growth, Room for Improvement”. https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/blog/cci-adu-survey/. April 22, 2021
● University of California, Berkeley. “California ADU”. https://www.aducalifornia.org/. August 16, 2021 ● Colburn, Gregg. Aldern, Clayton. “Homelessness is a Housing Problem”. https://homelessnesshousingproblem.com/. 2021-2022
● Sumner, Scott. “California housing prices and homelessness”. https://www.econlib.org/californiahousing-prices-and-homelessness/. May 23, 2022 ● Williams, Paul. “Carving out a Path for Public Developers”. https://housingchronicle.substack.com/p/carving-out-a-path-for-public-developers. July 14, 2022 ● Terner Center for Housing Innovation, UC Berkeley. “ADUs for All: Breaking Down Barriers to Racial and Economic Equity in Accessory Dwelling Unit Construction”. https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/research-and-policy/adu-equity-barriers/. August 4, 2022 ● Bertolet, Dan. “Washington Bill Would Boost In-Law Apartments Throughout the State”. https://www.sightline.org/2023/01/21/washington-bill-would-boost-in-law-apartments-throughout-theState/. January 21, 2021 ● Ohanian, Lee. “California’s Failed Soviet-Style Housing Mandates Should End Now”. https://www.hoover.org/research/californias-failed-soviet-style-housing-mandates-should-end-now.

February 7, 2023
● Hamilton, Emily. “Learning from Houston’s Townhouse Reforms”. https://www.mercatus.org/research/policy-briefs/learning-houstons-townhouse-reforms. April 11, 2023 60 of 675
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 21

APPENDICES
● A: Survey Results
● B: Timeline of Important Legislative Events
● C: ADUs: An American Tradition
● D: Housing Elements Are an Iterative Process
61 of 675
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 22

APPENDIX A
Survey Results
Who responded to the survey
Survey responses
62 of 675
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 23
63 of 675
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 24
64 of 675
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 25
65 of 675
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 26
66 of 675
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 27
67 of 675
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 28
68 of 675
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 29
69 of 675
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 30
70 of 675
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 31
71 of 675
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 32

APPENDIX B
Timeline of Important Legislative Events

1. 1970 — the Legislature directed HCD to develop guidelines for housing element preparation on one and five year cycles. SB 1489 (Moscone), emphasized housing need, passed in 1971, and ABX 1 of 1971 established more standards. The California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA), which also assisted communities in providing affordable housing, was created in 1975. The legislation authorized HCD to review local housing elements for conformity to its guidelines.

2. 1976 — Fair-share was added to the guidelines by HCD. The COGs are now given the responsibility by HCD to distribute shares of low-income and moderate-income housing. The local housing element had to include these income requirements — whether or not communities wanted them. HCD also was given responsibility to review local housing elements. Statewide hearings in 1977 brought out a number of positions on housing elements and HCD requirements.

3. Mid 1980’s — AB 2853 (Roos), provided for faster permit processing and higher densities, and allowed the housing element to meet State goals and be reviewed by HCD. COGs would continue to formulate the fair share for each community, but HCD had final approval of the numbers and each community was to revise its Housing Element every five years.

4. 1990s — Cities and counties looked at housing elements, if certified, as providing protection against lawsuits. In addition, this decade also created the concept of regional allocation “sharing burdens of lower- income households among geographic areas,” without mandated goals.

5. 1993 — The Senate Committee on Local Government held hearings on housing element progress and heard concerns that communities were not doing enough and that housing elements were despised by local governments. Bills changed the cycle timeframe, including AB 2172 (Hauser), SB 1703 (Costa) and SC 320 (Committee). Main topics for discussion by the Committee on Housing and Land Use hearings in 1995 were the housing allocations and the Department of Finance (DoF) projections. A common complaint was that the DoF projections were not complete enough for communities to develop appropriate allocations. The COGs projections also were criticized.

6. 1998 — AB 438 (Torlakson), allowing for the creation of sub-RHNA areas, looked at how housing units were counted. 2001 — SB 910 (Dunn) would have included imposing fines on jurisdictions not complying; and would have tied RHNA to transportation planning on a six year cycle. However, this bill did not pass. 2002 — SB 423 (Torlakson) created a jobs and housing balance incentive program, also known as Workforce Housing Incentive Program. In 2003, at HCD’s request, a working group of stakeholders met to make recommendations, which included:
● Develop more transparency in determining fair shares
● Clarify land inventories of building sites
● Ensure inventories were buildable
● Increase HCD review consistency of local elements
● Explore city self-certification
● Devise better housing element enforcement that would penalize non-compliance.

7. 2004 — AB 2348 (Mullin) clarified the relationship between the land inventory and adequate sites requirement, provided guidance on the content of adequate land inventory, and provided greater development certainty. AB 2158 (Lowenthal) revised the process for determining allocation from just 72 of 675
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 33
DoF to include transportation planning numbers and created a review process.

8. 2005 — AB 1233 (Jones) assured that unmet need from previous RHNA cycles was added into the next cycle.

9. 2017 Housing Legislative Package
Approximately 150 housing bills were submitted in 2017. Fifteen relating to funding, streamlining and accountability, were signed by the governor. These bills significantly changed how RHNA is conducted, requiring additional outreach and reporting, increasing the number of factors included, and the ability of HCD to sue individual cities for not meeting requirements.

SB 2 (Atkins) Building Homes and Jobs Act is projected to generate hundreds of millions of dollars annually for affordable housing, supportive housing, emergency shelters, transitional housing, and other housing needs via a $75 to $225 recording fee on specified real estate documents.

SB 3 (Beall) Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond Act of 2018 places a $4 billion general obligation bond on the November 2018 ballot to fund affordable housing programs and the veterans homeownership program (CalVet).

SB 35 (Wiener) streamlines multifamily housing project approvals, at the request of a developer, in a city that fails to issue building permits for its share of the regional housing need by income category.

SB 35 city approval of a qualifying housing development on a qualifying site is a ministerial act, without need for CEQA review or public hearings.

AB 73 (Chiu) streamlines the housing approval process by allowing jurisdictions to create a housing sustainability district to complete upfront zoning and environmental review in order to receive incentive payments for development projects that are consistent with the ordinance.

SB 167 (Skinner), AB 678 (Bocanegra), and AB 1515 (Daly) are three measures that were amended late in the 2017 legislative session to incorporate changes to the Housing Accountability Act (HAA).

The HAA significantly limits the ability of a jurisdiction to deny an affordable or market-rate housing project that is consistent with existing planning and zoning requirements.

AB 1505 (Bloom) allows a jurisdiction to adopt an ordinance that requires a housing development to include a certain percentage of rental units affordable to and occupied by households with extremely low, very low, low or moderate income.

AB 879 (Grayson) expands upon existing law that requires, by April 1 of each year, general law cities and charter cities to send an annual report to their respective city councils, the State Office of Planning and Research (OPR) and HCD that includes information related to implementation of the General Plan.

AB 1397 (Low) makes numerous changes to how a jurisdiction establishes its housing element site inventory.

AB 72 (Santiago) provides HCD broad new authority to find a jurisdiction’s housing element out of substantial compliance if it determines that REGIONAL the jurisdiction fails to act in compliance with 73 of 675
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 34
its housing element and allows HCD to refer violations of law to the attorney general.

10. 2018 — SB 828 (Wiener) changed the way HCD determines each region’s RHND, adding a number of new factors for consideration and accounting for “unmet need” in the existing housing stock by applying “adjustment factors” to a region’s total projected households, not just the incremental housing growth.

11. 2018 — AB 1771 (Bloom) and AB 686 (Santiago) strengthened the mandate for regions and local governments to combat discrimination, overcome historic patterns of segregation, and create equal access to opportunity through housing planning and decision-making, in other words, to “affirmatively further fair housing.” AB 1771 (Bloom) added to RHNA an enhanced focus on racial equity with an explicit mandate that COGs’ housing distribution plans affirmatively further fair housing and required COGs to survey jurisdictions on their fair housing activities, to identify regional barriers to furthering fair housing, and to recommend strategies or actions to overcome those barriers. AB 686 (Santiago) created a mandate that local jurisdictions plan and administer housing and community development programs and activities in a manner that affirmatively further fair housing.

12. 2019 — AB 1486 (Ting) strengthened the Surplus Lands Act (SLA), which requires that local agencies provide right of first refusal to affordable housing developers when disposing of surplus land by expanding the scope of land subject to the right of first refusal requirement, updating the mechanics of the surplus land disposal process, extending HCD’s enforcement mandate to include the SLA and establishing financial penalties for violation of the act.

AB 1487 (Chiu), authorized ABAG and MTC to place on the ballot regional housing measures to help fund affordable housing and established 3 REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION the Bay Area Regional Housing Authority. The 2019-20 State Budget also included significant new resources to support housing planning, including $250 million for local governments and COGs for planning activities. The Bay Area is receiving approximately $50 million in combined funds, split between ABAG and local jurisdictions.

SB 330 (Skinner) made further revisions to the HAA, establishing new criteria for housing approvals at the local level, including prohibiting a local agency from subjecting a project to new ordinances, rules or fees after an application is submitted and limiting the number of hearings on a project to five. The bill also prohibits a local agency from lowering the allowed residential density below that level in effect on January 1, 2018 in high rent, low-vacancy areas, as defined. The bill’s provisions sunset in five years.

AB-881, “Accessory dwelling units,” and AB-68, “Land use: accessory dwelling units”: Makes many of the current restrictions that cities place on ADUs obsolete. It also provides for a streamlined process for approvals.

These bills require permits for ADUs added to single-family and multifamily homes to be approved or denied faster. Current law permits these decisions to take 120 days, but this new law requires decisions within 60 days. These approvals or denials must be issued ministerially, so that way, there are fewer potential issues to encounter. Cities and counties may establish minimum and maximum ADU size requirements, but the maximum size cannot be less than 850 square feet for a one-bedroom ADU or 1,000 square feet for more than one bedroom.
74 of 675
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 35
Most importantly, these bills prohibit any lot coverage, minimum lot size, etc. requirements that municipalities have. Cities have enacted these laws to have the effect of making it impossible to build an ADU. Cities cannot require the correction of nonconforming zoning conditions as part of the approval process.

SB-13 Accessory dwelling units are similar to AB-881 and AB-68 with a couple of significant differences. Before this bill, local agencies could require that the person applying for the ADU occupy either the primary residence or the proposed new structure. This bill exempts from these requirements all proposed ADUs until Jan. 1, 2025. Additionally, this bill removes the impact fee for ADUs smaller than 750 square feet. Even for ADUs larger than that, the impact fees assessed must correlate with the square footage of the primary residence.

SB-13 makes building ADUs cheaper and also removes an essential regulation. Now, landlords who rent their properties out can apply for an ADU for their rental properties.

AB-670, “Common interest developments: accessory dwelling units,” makes it easier for people within HOA complexes to construct ADUs. Specifically, it prevents banning or unreasonably restricting on single-family lots on the construction of these units. Presently, many HOAs have CCRs ("conditions, covenants and restrictions") that prevent people from building ADUs. HOAs may worry about the uniformity of the properties if one has an ADU on it, or they might be concerned that they don't know who is and who isn't renting from an ADU. Regardless, HOAs now need to have a way for people to construct ADUs if they so choose.

HOAs will likely challenge this bill, at least to some degree, in court, but for now, if you live in an HOA complex with single-family homes, you can construct an ADU.

AB-671, “Accessory dwelling units: incentives," requires that general plans incentivize homeowners in some way to construct these ADUs and make them available for low-to-moderate-income households to rent. While it doesn't specify what these incentives will be, it does require local agencies to think about financial incentives and construct a plan.
75 of 675
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 36

APPENDIX C
ADUs: An American Tradition
76 of 675
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 37

APPENDIX D
Housing Elements Are an Iterative Process
77 of 675
City Council Agenda Item
Staff Report

CITY OF SAN BRUNO
DATE: August 22, 2023
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Peter Gilli, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Approve City of San Bruno Response Letter to the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report “Bike Safety in San Mateo County: Making Bicycling Safer in the County”
BACKGROUND:

On July 10, 2023, the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury released a report entitled “Bike Safety in San Mateo County: Making Bicycling Safer in the County.” The purpose of the report is to determine what can be done to improve bicycle safety in San Mateo County. Within the report, the Grand Jury developed nine findings and seven recommendations.

Response to Recommendations. For all recommendations made by the Grand Jury, the City shall report one of the following actions:

1. The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action;

2. The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation;

4. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or reasonable, with an explanation.

Responses to Grand Jury Reports are filed with the Superior Court and are placed on the Grand Jury website. The City of San Bruno’s responses to this Grand Jury Report is due by October 8, 2023.
78 of 675
Item 6.f.

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
August 22, 2023

Page 2 of 2 ends

DISCUSSION:

The Grand Jury Report “Bike Safety in San Mateo County: Making Bicycling Safer in the County” calls for expanded education and enforcement to improve bicycle safety for County residents. The draft response letter is provided in Attachment 1, and the Grand Jury Report is Attachment 2.

The nine findings are referenced as F1 through F9 in the Grand Jury Report, and cover the need for reporting, metrics, education, enforcement and creating or updating bicycle plans. The draft response agrees with seven findings, partially disagrees with one finding, and wholly disagrees with one finding.

The seven recommendations are referenced as R1 through R7 in the Grand Jury Report, and call for expanded reporting of incidents, greater enforcement, education programs, creating or updating a bicycle plan, obtaining a report from a third party, and meeting with other jurisdictions about regional efforts. Two of the recommendations are already implemented. Staff suggests that two recommendations not be implemented because they are not warranted or are not reasonable. One recommendation has two parts, the first has been implemented, and the second staff recommends not be implemented. Two require further analysis, which staff recommends be handled by the C/CAG Technical Advisory Committee.

In summary, staff agrees with the Grand Jury’s high-level concern that bicycle safety is important, but disagrees with some of the recommendations due to legal concerns, effectiveness, resource availability and funding.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact associated with preparing this response to the Grand Jury Report.

Implementing all Grand Jury recommendations would result in an unknown fiscal impact, as the cost and benefit of the recommendations have not been determined.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve City of San Bruno Response Letter to the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report “Bike Safety in San Mateo County: Making Bicycling Safer in the County” ALTERNATIVES:

Approve a modified version of the response letter.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Response of the San Bruno to the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report

2. San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report
79 of 675

CITY OF SAN BRUNO
Rico E. Medina
Mayor
567 El Camino Real, San Bruno, California 94066-4299
Voice: (650) 616-7060 ∙ Fax: (650) 742-6515
www.sanbruno.ca.gov
August 23, 2023
Honorable Nancy L. Fineman
Judge of the Superior Court
c/o Bianca Fasuescu
Hall of Justice
400 County Center; 2nd Floor
Redwood City, CA 94063-1655
Subject: Response of the City of San Bruno to the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report “Bike Safety in San Mateo County: Making Bicycling Safer in the County"
Dear Judge Fineman,
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the Grand Jury report entitled “Bike Safety in San Mateo County: Making Bicycling Safer in theCounty.” The City of San Bruno’s response to the findings and recommendations of the report are listed below.

Response to Findings:

F1. Bicycle policy and the approach to ensuring/improving bicycle safety is not consistent across San Mateo County due, at least in part, to:
a. Topography
b. Urban vs. suburban environments
c. Types of bicyclists (commuter, recreational)
d. Varying levels of enforcement of bicycle laws
e. Differing knowledge of bicycle laws and safe practices.

Response: Agree, but we question why the finding does not include funding, since funding was specifically mentioned in the background section of the report.

F2. Bicycle ridership as an alternative means of transportation (e.g., commuting to work, school, or transit hubs, running errands) is not increasing due, at least in part, to perceived safety issues.

Response: Partially Disagree. The Grand Jury Report does not necessarily prove that bicycle ridership is not increasing. References are made to dated surveys, and a statement is made that because municipalities’ bike plans show ridership levels about the same as the dated surveys. Factoring in rounding, the 80 of 675
ATTACHMENT 1
Response to San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report “Bike Safety in San Mateo County: Making Bicycling Safer in the County"
August 23, 2023

Page 2 of 5 ends

567 El Camino Real, San Bruno, California 94066-4299
Voice: (650) 616-7060 ∙ Fax: (650) 742-6515
www.sanbruno.ca.gov
statistical significance of the surveys involved, and margins of error, it is difficult to make any conclusion based on the referenced data. This is not meant to discount the importance of bicycle safety, only to call into question the particular finding as written by the Grand Jury.

F3. Bicycle accidents and incidents (such as near misses) are underreported, if reported at all.

Response: Agree, anecdotally we believe this is true.

F4. Only bicycle accidents or incidents that trigger a 911 call are consistently logged in the State (SWITRS) database and law enforcement agencies do not log bicycle accident data consistently.

Response: Wholly Disagree. At the San Bruno Police Department, all vehicle collisions occurring in our jurisdiction that qualify for entry into SWITRS following investigation are entered accordingly regardless of how they are reported to the department (911, non-emergency lines, in-person, etc.). We are not clear on what is meant by the finding that “law enforcement agencies do not log bicycle accident data consistently.”
F5. The amount of enforcement of laws, as they pertain to bicyclists and how motorists and bicyclists interact, is inconsistent due to other priorities (e.g., criminal enforcement and general automobile traffic) and the requirement that a citation can generally only be written if the violation is witnessed by an officer.

Response: Agree.

F6. There is no official metric in San Mateo County and its cities to evaluate how safe it is to ride a bicycle.

Response: Agree.

F7. Bicycle safety education, for the bicyclist, pedestrians and motorists, is not consistently offered across San Mateo County.

Response: Agree.

F8. Communication between various entities with responsibility for bicycle safety, including Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committees (BPACs), Law Enforcement, City Transportation Planning, and Public Works departments, is not formalized, resulting in inefficiencies, and missed opportunities (e.g., funding for improvements, shared bike safety education, or improving signage).
81 of 675
Response to San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report “Bike Safety in San Mateo County: Making Bicycling Safer in the County"
August 23, 2023

Page 3 of 5 ends

567 El Camino Real, San Bruno, California 94066-4299
Voice: (650) 616-7060 ∙ Fax: (650) 742-6515
www.sanbruno.ca.gov
Response: Agree.

F9. City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plans or Active Transportation Plans, have not been adopted/created by all SMC cities.

Response: Agree.

Response to Recommendations:

R1. By December 2023, all law enforcement agencies and the County Sheriff should submit bicycle related data to SWITRS monthly, and regularly post and update their websites with all reported bicycle accident data.

Response: The first part of this recommendation has been implemented and the second part will not be implemented because it is not warranted or reasonable.

The San Bruno Police Department (SBPD) already reports appropriate bicyclerelated collision data via SWITRS as each report is completed and ready for transmission. SBPD does not regularly post collision data to its website and does not possess the resources to begin doing so.

R2. By December 2023, all law enforcement agencies should begin sending warning letters to motorists for violations of the 3 ft. law.

Response: This recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or reasonable. While it is not expressly stated in the recommendation, it seems clear that the intention here is to have the police department send violation warning letters to motorists based solely on reports by civilians. The practice of allowing civilians to report traffic infractions not witnessed by sworn peace officers, thus prompting some action by the police department is unprecedented and would require substantial evaluation prior to any implementation. There are potential concerns involving legality, liability, rules of evidence, resource limitations, and potential abuses that need to be considered prior to implementing a change like this. It is also important to note that if this practice is appropriate for infractions related to bicycle safety, why would it not also be applicable for countless other violations? If civilians were able to submit complaints about all sorts of traffic infractions (speeding, cellphone use, stops signs, red lights, etc.), thus creating the expectation that the police department author and mail out warnings in all cases, this would be completely untenable from a resource perspective and could result in substantial abuses. In cases where sufficient evidence is provided, and the investigating officer believes that sending a warning notice is appropriate, SBPD will do so. 82 of 675
Response to San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report “Bike Safety in San Mateo County: Making Bicycling Safer in the County"
August 23, 2023

Page 4 of 5 ends

567 El Camino Real, San Bruno, California 94066-4299
Voice: (650) 616-7060 ∙ Fax: (650) 742-6515
www.sanbruno.ca.gov
R3. By June 3, 2024, all law enforcement agencies should provide a means for citizens to report bicycle-related incidents that are not currently reported to law enforcement, similar to the SMC Sheriff’s Department Online Crime Reporting portal.

Response: This recommendation has already been implemented. SBPD provides several means by which civilians can report virtually anything to the police department, including bicycle-related incidents (in-person, phone, email, Internet, web application). Whether or not the public reports incidents that “are not currently reported to law enforcement” is beyond our control.

R4. By June 3, 2024, each city, town, and unincorporated SMC should offer a bike safety education program for riders and motorists about the laws and safety facts related to bicycles on the road.

Response: The recommendation requires further analysis to determine the resources necessary to implement this recommendation. Improving education could be beneficial, but having each jurisdiction, which varies in size, staffing and funding, dedicate staff resources and funding is arguably unrealistic. Without identification of the staff resources and funding necessary for this, the City will likely not undertake this. To best implement the Grand Jury’s finding for consistent education, the recommendation should call for a County agency, perhaps County Public Health, Sheriff's Department or County Office of Education, to establish and fund such a program for all jurisdictions in the County.

R5. By June 3, 2024, each city, town, and unincorporated SMC should update or generate a new Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (or Active Transportation Plan) if their current plan is older than five years; consistent with the 2021 C/CAG San Mateo County Comprehensive Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan.

Response: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not reasonable. The City of San Bruno’s plan is from 2016 and was the result of significant public engagement, therefore an update is expected to be a significant effort that will take at least 18 months. The City Council has not budgeted for an update to the plan, nor has identified as a future initiative. Therefore, a revised bike plan could not occur by the recommended completion date. However, many identified bicycle improvements from the 2016 plan and the 2021 C/CAG plan are underway as part of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Other projects will be added to the CIP as funding becomes available.

R6. By June 3, 2024, each city, town, and the county should apply (or reapply) online to generate the Bicycle Friendly Community Report Card.
83 of 675
Response to San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report “Bike Safety in San Mateo County: Making Bicycling Safer in the County"
August 23, 2023

Page 5 of 5 ends

567 El Camino Real, San Bruno, California 94066-4299
Voice: (650) 616-7060 ∙ Fax: (650) 742-6515
www.sanbruno.ca.gov
Response: The recommendation requires further analysis to determine the resources necessary to implement this recommendation. Without identification of the staff resources and funding necessary for this, the City will likely not undertake this.

R7. By February 1, 2024, the County should meet with cities within the County that are willing to participate, to consider establishing a regional effort that integrates the cities’ bicycle plans and to discuss how the cities and County could work together to apply for grant opportunities as a region.

Response: The recommendation has been implemented. The City regularly meets with other jurisdictions in the region to improve bicycle safety through direct communications and collectively via the C/CAG Technical Advisory Committee. This committee can lead the further analysis necessary for R4 and R6.

This response was approved by the San Bruno City Council at a public meeting on August 22, 2023.

Sincerely,
Rico E. Medina
Mayor
84 of 675
Bike Safety in San Mateo County
Making Bicycling Safer in the County
Release Date: July 10, 2023
2022-23 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury
85 of 675
ATTACHMENT 2
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 1
“Biking is one of the few activities that checks all the boxes at once — it’s active, practical, social, sustainable, stress-relieving, fun, and is a great family activity. Biking has the unique ability to elevate the mundane — it turns errands into adventures. More people on bikes keeps our streets safer, our air cleaner and our communities better connected.” Sonia Elkes, 2021 Bike Champion of the Year for San Mateo County Bay Area Bike to Work Website “I often drive up Alpine Road near the Stanford golf course and I believe I would have a head-on crash with oncoming cars if I left a 3-foot margin between my car and the thoughtless bikers who ride out partially in the road. What is the best advice for that situation?” Comment on Bicyclists Can Now Report 3’ Rule Violations Online in The Almanac 5/12/2023. “On the afternoon of Monday, April 10, bicyclist Lester Legarda was fatally struck by a driver on Cañada Road, a rural route popular among walkers, equestrians, and bicyclists. Details of the crash scene suggest that the collision speed was high. One solution to prevent future tragedies along Cañada is tantalizingly simple — reduce the 50-mph speed limit. Sure, drivers will likely continue to exceed the speed limit. But just like the paint on the road that defines where drivers are supposed to drive, posted speed limits set expectations for acceptable driver behavior.” Reduce the speed limit on Canada Road San Mateo Daily Journal 04/20/23. 86 of 675
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 2
Bike Safety in San Mateo County: Making Bicycling Safer in the County ISSUE
As bicycle riding has become an ever more meaningful form of transportation, especially with the popularization of eBikes, the demand by County residents for safe micro-mobility solutions has soared. Are San Mateo County and its municipalities positioned to respond to safety concerns and meet those demands?

SUMMARY
Whether for commuting or recreational purposes, residents in every jurisdiction of San Mateo County (SMC), as well as from the surrounding Bay Area counties, use bicycles. Because bicycles are widely available, for some the only mode of getting to and from work and jobs, and ridden in every jurisdiction, bicycle safety has become an increasingly important issue for SMC and its cities and towns. Without greater focus on bike safety, the number of riders will remain low, because people will avoid bicycling when they don’t feel safe. The benefits of increasing bicycle riding are important to all residents of San Mateo County: reducing motor vehicles, healthy lifestyle and an inexpensive form of transportation. Accordingly, San Mateo County, and its cities and towns have a responsibility to make it safe for drivers and pedestrians, as well as bicyclists.

Due to differences in terrain, population density, and existing infrastructure, the 20 different municipalities and the unincorporated portions of the County have differing bicycle safety needs and requirements. Some cities are very hilly, making commuting to work, school, or transit stations nearly impossible. Others are more urban and accommodate many more commuting bicyclists. The County also has some areas that are primarily recreational biking destinations and areas that accommodate both commuting bicyclists and recreational bicyclists. As a result, each community also assigns a different level of importance to bicycle safety relative to other issues, such as crime, motor vehicle safety and public works improvement projects. And education and enforcement about bicycle laws varies from one jurisdiction to another.

Despite the differences among the jurisdictions, there are several commonalities. One is that cities and law enforcement do not consistently maintain records about bicycle near misses, accidents, or complaints; data is neither broadly available nor consistently maintained. Another commonality is that government entities focused on bicycling and/or improving bicycle safety do not communicate and collaborate with each other often enough, if at all. This makes it difficult to get accurate information on the number and severity of incidents and gauge how safe it is to bicycle in San Mateo County. Without data, and communication among the municipalities, San Mateo County and its cities and towns lose out on available state and local funding to improve bicycle safety through physical improvement projects.
87 of 675
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 3
To improve bicycle safety and thereby increase ridership, San Mateo County and its cities and towns need to:

1. Create effective ways to educate bicycle riders and motorists about bicycle rules of the road to enhance predictability.

2. Develop consistent communications among government organizations responsible for bike safety (e.g., between law enforcement and public works).

3. Conduct enforcement details in each jurisdiction to ensure enforcement leads to education.

4. Collect accurate data about accidents and incidents that is crucial to supporting and justifying grant applications and funding from State and local agencies for physical improvements to infrastructure for bicyclists (e.g., connectivity of bicycle routes from one city to another), needed signage, and other engineering improvements.

BACKGROUND
Why is bike safety an important topic?
Statistically, the safer a person feels riding a bike, the more likely they will use it as regular transportation; both as a commuter and a recreational user.

Fifty-three percent of Americans worry about being hit by a motor vehicle when riding a bicycle; 47% say they would be more likely to ride a bike if pathways were physically separated from motor vehicles.1
However, bicycle accident statistics, though better than in 1998, averaged 231 fatalities and injuries over the last ten years. The average was 203 fatalities the last three years, but the drop includes the pandemic shutdown and more people working from home. The source of the recent data is the California Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS2) database, managed by the California Highway Patrol. All law enforcement agencies are required to submit accident data to the database on a regular basis.

A 2002-2003 SMC Civil Grand Jury titled, Bike Safety in San Mateo County3, questioned whether San Mateo County and the cities adequately consider and support safe bicycle travel? At that time, it was estimated that 46% of Americans bicycle for pleasure and 300,000 County residents bicycle at least occasionally. Commuting by bicycle was less than 1% in the County.

That year’s Grand Jury found that bicycle infrastructure for safe travel needed improvement, but funding was an issue. It also found that communication and planning between the county and the cities on bicycle projects and safety could be improved. And that throughout SMC, bicycle safety was not a high priority. The primary recommendation of the report was the county, and all cities should develop a long-term strategic bicycle and safety plan.

1 People for Bikes: https://www.peopleforbikes.org/news/building-for-tomorrow 2 https://iswitrs.chp.ca.gov/Reports/jsp/logout.do
3 https://www.sanmateocourt.org/court_divisions/grand_jury/2002reports.php?page=02SMC-Bicycle.html 88 of 675
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 4
A few things have changed since then.

Over the years, the focus of cities and the county on improving bike and pedestrian forms of transportation has increased:
● Bicycle maps and routes are now generally available online. ● The City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) updated their San Mateo County Comprehensive Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan in 20114and 20215. ● California enacted Assembly Bill 1358, California Complete Streets Act of 20086, requiring all cities and counties to include complete streets policies as part of any substantial revision to the circulation element of their general plans; and cities and the County have adopted these complete streets policies, noting these policies in their Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plans, or Active Transportation Plans. ● SMC and most of its municipalities have created and consistently upgraded their Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plans.
● Unincorporated San Mateo County has created an Active Transportation Plan7(Active Transportation is a term often used to cover walking, bicycling, and other motorized devices as a primary mode of transportation).
● C/CAG, Unincorporated SMC and some cities have created Bike and Pedestrian Advisory Committees to address active transportation improvements, safety issues, and other citizen related requests.

Meanwhile, the number of bicyclists in San Mateo County has not increased since 2002, according to the California Household Travel Survey, which is regularly used for data on the number of bicyclists in a community, but is restricted to commuting.

The 2002 and 2012 surveys showed only 1% of SMC’s population rides bicycles as a form of transportation. Looking at the various municipalities’ Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plans, and the surveys and counts discussed in the plans, bicycle commute ridership still hovers at approximately 1% within SMC.

It is important to note that the number of people in SMC using bicycles in lieu of a car has not increased in 20 years. This is in contrast to the estimated number of recreational bicyclists (46%) in SMC, who also use streets and bicycle paths and expect a safe ride8.

4 https://ccag.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/CBPP_Main-Report__Sept2011_FINAL.pdf 5 https://ccag.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/6_A1_San-Mateo-County-Comprehensive-Bicycle-andPedestrian-Plan-Update-Final-Plan.pdf 6 http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_1351-1400/ab_1358_bill_20080930_chaptered.pdf 7 https://www.smcsustainability.org/livable-communities/active-transportation/unincorporated-smc-activetransportation-plan/ 8 https://ccag.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/6_A1_San-Mateo-County-Comprehensive-Bicycle-andPedestrian-Plan-Update-Final-Plan.pdf 89 of 675
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 5
However, even with roadway and signage improvements over the past 20 years, there is much San Mateo cities and the county can do to improve bicycle safety.

DISCUSSION
The merits of bicycle riding may seem self-evident, but a wide range of research reveals often surprising benefits to local economies, personal health, the environment, traffic congestion, and pedestrian safety that are unique to bicycle friendly communities.

Health Benefits
Bicycle riding contributes to both physical and mental health. Regular exercise such as cycling can help prevent heart issues9such as stroke, heart attack, high blood pressure, and may also help prevent and manage type 2 diabetes.10 Riding a bicycle is good for cognitive health and emotional well-being and can ease feelings of stress, depression, or anxiety.11 All in all, bicycling for only 30 minutes a day reduces a person’s chances of diabetes, dementia, depression, colon cancer, cardiovascular disease, anxiety and high blood pressure by 40 percent or more.12
The World Health Organization has found that “If every adult EU citizen walked or cycled for 15 extra minutes per day, we’d have 100,000 fewer people dying prematurely, each year.”13 Environmental Benefits
Among the most obvious benefits of cycling is its benign effects on the environment. A solo driver in an average car releases about 1.1 pounds of CO2 per mile.14 A standard compact to midsize car that travels 12,000 miles will emit 11,000 pounds of CO2.15 The average car produces about 1.3 billion cubic yards of polluted air over the course of its lifespan plus worn tire particles, brake wear, and the emissions from other materials in the car also contribute to air pollution.16 Recent research in Europe found that traveling by bicycle instead of by car once a day decreases your transportation carbon footprint by 67%.17

9 https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/wellness-and-prevention/exercise-and-the-heart 10 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4942105/ 11https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/minding-the-body/201505/bicycling-can-sharpen-your-thinking-and-improve-yourmood 12 https://www.exerciseismedicine.org/assets/page_documents/EIMFactSheet_2014.pdf 13 https://ecf.com/news-and-events/news/walking-and-cycling-reduce-congestion 14 https://www.sharetheroad.ca/what-are-the-environmental-traffic-congestion-benefits-of-cycling--s16223 15 https://www.treehugger.com/cars-are-causing-air-pollution-we-breathe-new-study-finds-4856825 16 https://www.scholaradvisor.com/essay-examples-for-college/bicycle-helps-reduce-air-pollution/ 17 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1361920921000687 90 of 675
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 6
Traffic
As active transportation choices like walking and bicycling gain attention and popularity, researchers are beginning to investigate the role these travel modes can play in reducing traffic congestion.18 Studies show that measures taken to promote bicycling and walking have a positive effect on congestion.

Research in Washington, DC identified a causal effect of the presence of a bike-share station on traffic congestion. The result is a 2-to-3% reduction in traffic congestion that can be attributed to the bike-share station within the sample.19
Economic Benefits
Among the more surprising findings is the positive economic impact from an increase in bicycle usage but studies show that the bicycle-related economy creates jobs, economic activity, and cost savings.20
Bicycle trails and facilities have a positive, statistically significant impact on home values; a 2006 study in Minneapolis found that the median home values rose $510 for every quarter mile they were located closer to an off-street bikeway.21
Indianapolis’ Cultural Trail, an 8-mile network of separated bike and pedestrian lanes, has reinvigorated a number of struggling business districts and sparked a whopping $1 billion in increased property values.22
And in an era when streets and sidewalks across the county are in various states of disrepair, bicycle projects can significantly reduce the cost of maintaining and expanding our transportation systems.23 Even protected bicycle lanes are “dirt cheap to build compared to road projects,” says Gabe Klein, a partner at Fontinalis, a venture capitalist firm founded by Ford Motor Co. Chairman Bill Ford. Cities everywhere need to be more efficient about the money they spend to move people. "We need to get more use from the streets we already have.” Research indicates that investments in cycling infrastructure generate more jobs per dollar spent than investments in road-only infrastructure; cycling projects create a total of 11.4 local jobs for each $1 million spent while road-only projects create 9.6 jobs per $1 million.24

18 https://kawarthanow.com/2019/01/17/reduce-traffic-congestion-bikes-can-do-that 19 https://www.resources.org/archives/commentary-does-bicycle-infrastructure-reduce-traffic-congestion/ 20 https://railyards.com/blog/7-benefits-of-bike-friendly-communities 21 https://smartcity.press/bicycle-infrastructure-in-smart-city/ 22 https://indyculturaltrail.org/2015/07/23/economic-impact-figures-released/ 23https://www.aarp.org/livable-communities/getting-around/info-2016/why-bicycling-infrastructure-is-good-for-people-whodont-ride-bikes.html 24 https://www.sharetheroad.ca/what-are-the-environmental-traffic-congestion-benefits-of-cycling--s16223 91 of 675
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 7
Bicycle friendly communities are important to millennial job seekers and functional bicycle infrastructures help companies attract talent. “States and cities are competing for the most mobile generation ever and so the job creators and the innovators are really pushing for these amenities.”25
Safety
The most comprehensive study of bicycle and road safety to date finds that building safe facilities for cyclists is one of the biggest factors in road safety for everyone. Bicycling infrastructure -- specifically, separated and protected bike lanes -- leads to fewer fatalities and better road-safety outcomes for all road users.26
Davis, CA was the first city to gain “platinum” status by the League of American Bicyclists and is often referred to as the “bicycle capital of America.” From 1996 to 2007, Davis only had nine fatal road crashes. Despite having the largest percentage of bike commuters in the United States, none of these accidents involved a bicyclist. With a fatal crash rate of less than 1.5 per 100,000 residents, far fewer people are killed on Davis’ roads than in the U.S. as a whole, which averaged

14.5 fatalities per 100,000 residents.

Portland, OR, another platinum bicycling city, saw a nearly 50% decrease in road fatalities as it increased its bicycle mode share from 1.2% in 1990 to 5.8% in 2000. Bike friendly communities are safer for all road users, no matter what type of transportation is being used.

Social Benefits
Finally, bicycle riding as an alternative to car travel is associated with a number of social benefits, including increased social interaction, social networks, and social capital.27 A bicycle rider has a completely different relationship with their environment than those who are cocooned in their cars.

When communities invest in bicycle infrastructure, everyone benefits. Overall, bicycle commuters are healthier and bicycle-friendly streets are safer for everyone on the road. Bicycle friendly communities reap economic benefits including more retail activity and increased home values. The evidence is clear: bicycling brings big benefits to communities who embrace it.

Status Today
Twenty years after the first San Mateo Grand Jury report, significant gaps remain in jurisdictions’ approach to bicycle safety:

25 https://railyards.com/blog/7-benefits-of-bike-friendly-communities 26 https://www.cnu.org/sites/default/files/marshallw_cnu18.pdf 27 https://www.peoplepoweredmovement.org/benefits-of-biking-walking/ 92 of 675
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 8
● San Mateo County and its municipalities’ characteristics make it difficult to create a consistent approach to bicycle safety.
● The use of bicycle safety education as a tool to increase safety for bicyclists and motorists is underutilized Countywide.
● Communication and coordinated planning across city lines is the exception, rather than the norm. Reporting of bicycle-related incidents is inconsistent throughout the county. ● Enforcement of bicycle laws, for motorists and bicyclists, is inconsistent and not prioritized.

Bicycle Safety in San Mateo County Cities
Each city and town in San Mateo County is unique and has a different relationship with bicycle use and safety. These variations include:
● Topography
● Objectives and priorities re bicycles and ridership
● Safety Perception
● Infrastructure
● Impact of eBikes
● Role of enforcement in bicycle safety.

For example:

Woodside and Portola Valley: Woodside and Portola Valley are hill communities with narrow roads. Woodside has a very active Circulation Committee which keeps a close eye on large bicycling events in the community and Portola Valley is focused on managing bicyclists on the weekend. But in both cases, the communities concentrate on ensuring quality of life for residents. They both see mostly recreational bicyclists.

Woodside has invested as much as $1 million to ensure a “safe route to school” for the children. However, the communities don’t make a strong effort to track riders or accidents. In both communities the Sheriff’s Office, which is their policing arm, enforces rules at some problem locations, but not regularly.

Hillsborough: Hillsborough is a relatively insular community by nature of its location and topography. It has no commercial districts and is, to a large degree, rather hilly. The view on bicyclists is very much a neighborhood view: meaning the expectation is that if there are problems with bicyclists they are brought up by members of the neighborhoods.

The primary focus on any kind of organized bicycling safety activity is efforts to teach children bicycle safety and safe routes to school at the beginning of the school year.

Belmont: Until quite recently, the City has been completely focused on ensuring that the community is comfortable for single family dwellings. However, areas close to El Camino Real are more commercial and have denser housing. The community now has both recreational and commuting bicyclists using the roads. While Belmont does have a bicycle master plan and holds an annual bike safety program for children and teenagers, 93 of 675
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 9
more needs to be done. The City needs to obtain funding from external Federal, State and County sources to do more.

Half Moon Bay: Possibly more than any other community in San Mateo County, Half Moon Bay has a sophisticated, complex relationship with bicyclists. On the one hand, Half Moon Bay attracts many visitors -- both vacationers and visitors from other Bay Area communities; and on the other hand, it has a robust population of residents who use their bicycles to get to work, school, and stores. Moreover, while Half Moon Bay has many surface streets, it is dominated by Highways 1 and 92 which have many challenging safety issues. As a result, the community has a bicycle master plan that focuses on bicycle safety and traffic planning. Despite this very proactive approach, the City deals with sometimes devastating safety issues. However, it appears that concern for bicycle safety is shared by many of the participants in the community.

San Mateo: The City of San Mateo updated its bicycle master plan in 2020. As a result, the City has focused on a variety of contemporaneous issues. These include working to develop a roadway network which could accommodate both bicycles and other types of active transportation. The City believes that it still skews toward recreational bicycling but is finding that more people want to use bicycles as a way of getting around. The master plan covers some education issues such as safe routes to school and safe bicycling for seniors. The plan does not talk about safety per se but addresses it from the vantage point of education. Though the City is focused on these matters it still recognizes that there's more education to be done about the rules of the road for bicyclists.

Unincorporated San Mateo County: Large areas of San Mateo County are small towns, private land, and open space, bisected, primarily, by two lane roads and highways. To address bicycle safety in these areas, the county created the Unincorporated San Mateo County Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee. Though there is no explicit Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, they do contribute to the SMC Active Transportation plan. The Committee makes recommendations regarding bicycle and pedestrian related grants, but expressed frustration with money not being shared equitably. Additionally, the Committee inputs bicyclist’s feedback. They are concerned with the number of incidents between motorists and bicyclists that are not addressed by law enforcement. The Committee has been working with the County Sheriff to address the problem.

These are just a few examples of San Mateo County and its municipalities' approach to bicycle safety. But because the communities are so diverse, thinking about bicycle safety needs to be broad-minded.

Bicycle Safety Education in SMC: Not just for cyclists
Since bicycle safety is crucial to encouraging bicycle usage, it follows that bicycle safety education is an essential component of the bicycle safety equation. 94 of 675
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 10
According to the US Department of Transportation: “Educating people about safe bicycling and walking, enforcing laws that make it easier and safer for people to bicycle and walk, and encouraging people to bicycle and walk, may help increase walking and bicycling activity, especially when combined with infrastructure improvements.”28 Moreover, as noted on the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s Bicycle Safety web page, “A large percentage of crashes can be avoided if motorists and cyclists follow the rules of the road and watch out for each other.”29
In San Mateo County, much of the focus on bicycle safety and bicycle safety education is focused on ensuring safe routes to schools for children. Several communities, as detailed below, have much more comprehensive approaches to bicycle safety education in their Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plans. Here are some examples:
● Burlingame (Excerpt from the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan) Policy 11: Educate people walking, bicycling, and driving, and the general public about roadway safety and the benefits of bicycling and walking.

11.1: Support the continuation and expansion of bicycle safety education programs such as those taught by Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition and the San Mateo County Office of Education.

Policy 12: Encourage Burlingame public schools to participate in the Safe Routes to School program organized by the San Mateo County Office of Education. ● Brisbane’s Master Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan examples:
“Policy 4.A.5: Provide support for programs that educate drivers, bicyclists and pedestrians about their rights and responsibilities, as well as traffic education and safety programs for adults and youth.”
“Programs support bicycling and walking by providing encouragement to those considering bicycling and walking, education for motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians about safe and appropriate sharing of streets and roads, and enforcement of traffic laws that help ensure the safety of vulnerable road users.”
● County Sheriff:

The San Mateo County Sheriff’s office publishes a pamphlet, Bicycle Safety30, on the California Vehicle Code sections related to bicycle safety. One City, Woodside, references this document, which could be used by all cities, schools and police

28 https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/ped_focus/docs/fhwasa17050.pdf 29 https://www.nhtsa.gov/road-safety/bicycle-safety
30 https://www.woodsidetown.org/sites/default/files/fileattachments/community/page/33495/bicycle_safety.pdf 95 of 675
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 11
departments to improve bicycle safety education. However, the document is not available on the SMC Sheriff website.
● City of San Mateo:

San Mateo has some support for bicycle use and safety on its City website. The pages are listed in the table below.

EXISTING
Support Program Description Webpage
Bicycle Webpage There is brief text about bike
routes and using a bike with
public transport on the City’s
webpage
http://www/cityofsanmateo.org/
2125/Parking-andTransportation
Bicycle Education
Events
The city’s Public Works
Department hosts an annual
bike rodeo
http://www.cityofsanmateo.org/
3736/Bike-Rodeo
Moving to Excellent Bike Safety Education in all SMC Cities Overall, the approach to bicycle safety education in SMC communities is inconsistent. Several of the master plans recognize that bicycle safety education is about teaching motorists and cyclists of all ages about the guidelines for bicycle safety. Other communities either don’t focus much on education or are focused exclusively on “Safe Routes to School”.

Nonetheless, there are a handful of programs identified in the table below that creatively address bicycle safety, which San Mateo County and its municipalities should consider adopting. 96 of 675
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 12

RECOMMENDED FOR ALL SMC CITIES
Support Program Description Webpage
Establish child and
adult education
programs
Identify and implement
education programs for
children and adults that build
bicyclists’ confidence, done
in coordination with the Parks
and Recreation Department,
Police or Local Schools.
https://www.portlandoregon.go
v/transportation/article/565224
http://www/cityofsanmateo.org/
2125/Parking-andTransportation
Establish Safe
Routes to School
Funding
Establish a stable funding
source for Safe Routes to
School programming
https://www.metro.net/projects/
sr_ts/fund-your-program
Implement and
promote
demonstration
projects
Implement short-term, highvisibility bicycle
demonstration or ‘pop-up’
projects to serve as models
that can be applied throughout
the city. Market bicycle
safety.
https://transportation.bellevuew
a.gov/UserFiles/Servers/Server
_4779004/File/Transportation/P
ublications/PBII_Demo%20Bik
eway%20Brochure_20180205.
pdf
Provide safety
education program
for users of all
modes
Provide safety education
programs or communications
campaigns for people driving,
bicycling, walking, and using
micro mobility devices that
encourage safe travel
behaviors.
http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/
Create a robust
bicycling webpage
Develop and maintain a
content rich mobility
webpage(s) on the
County/City website and
communicate how to reach
city destinations by bike, on
foot or on micro-mobility
devices. Include information
on these transportation
options.
https://www.metro.net/riding/g
o-bike
http://www/cityofsanmateo.org/
2125/Parking-andTransportation
97 of 675
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 13
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plans and Advisory Committees: Planning Across the County The 2002 SMC Grand Jury Report recommended that all municipalities create Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plans. As a best practice, the municipalities were encouraged to form Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committees.

To date, almost all San Mateo County jurisdictions or cities have Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plans, or Active Transportation Plans. Most, if not all of these plans, align with recommendations from the 2011 C/CAG’s San Mateo County Comprehensive Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. The 2021 update of C/CAG’s plan enhances and adds to the 2011 C/CAG San Mateo County plan, but most of the cities and towns have not updated their plans to be consistent with the 2021 plan. (See Appendix D for a complete list of San Mateo County’s Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plans.)
The cities’ bicycle and pedestrian master plans help each city by identifying strategies to improve bicycle and pedestrian safety. The plans recommend improvements for roadway connectivity for bicyclists and pedestrians, within each city as well as with neighboring cities.

Numerous plans reference the Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition and the League of American Bicyclists (LAB) as organizations that have certified instructors for bicycle safety education. At least several of the plans also discuss the LAB Bicycle Friendly Community Report Card to which five SMC cities and San Mateo County belong. The plans list potential State and Federal funding for projects that improve safety and roadway connectivity and make clear the importance of annually evaluating and tracking progress against objectives.

However, in SMC, County committees and municipalities do not always work together to generate consistent plans that meet C/CAG’s goal for a Countywide bicycle backbone. Though C/CAG does have an advisory committee which includes representatives from municipalities, it does not have control over what individual municipalities decide to do regarding grant applications, infrastructure projects for better bicycle and pedestrian safety and education initiatives. If the municipalities endeavored to work together to prioritize projects and programs that are consistent with C/CAG’s priorities, it would benefit all of San Mateo County, especially with respect to providing north-south connectivity between municipalities.

Metrics: If you don’t measure it, you can’t improve it.

One important measure of bicycle safety is arriving safely at a destination. This is usually reflected in the negative; that is, the number of fatalities and injuries during a calendar year versus the number of successful bicycle trips.

In San Mateo County, the cities and county rely heavily on data supplied to the California Highway Patrol (CHP) to state the number of fatalities and injuries. The CHP then maintains a database, SWITRS (California Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System), which is accessible 98 of 675
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 14
to the public. And, UC Berkeley maintains a website, TIMS31 (Transportation Injury Mapping System), which can further refine the raw data from SWITRS.

However, relying on this data to evaluate Bicycle Safety is problematic.

Law enforcement agencies in the County submit their bicycle accident data to SWITRS based on incidents that result in fatality or injury. However, there are bicycle accidents resulting in injury which don’t make it into SWITRS because law enforcement is not called. Some examples are bicyclists being forced off the road by motor vehicles, collision near misses and, of course, bicyclist error. Consequently, the actual number of bicycle accidents is underreported and, more importantly, the list of accident locations is not complete. Cyclists that have an incident that does not involve either the police or the fire department do not have a consistent means to log their experience. That data goes unreported. And this goes both ways; there is no means for a motorist to complain about bicycle riders’ unsafe behavior.

Countywide there is no uniform metric to measure Bicycle Safety. Without such a measure, it’s impossible to assess progress while building infrastructure, enforcing laws, and educating everyone in safety principles.

An obvious metric is bicycle accidents as recorded by SWTRS and online reports, but there is another metric which evaluates the complex equation that results in safe bicycling: Bicycle Friendly America Certification32.

The League of American Cyclists is a national organization dedicated to creating “safer roads, stronger communities and a Bicycle Friendly America for everyone.” This is a grassroots organization dedicated since 1880 to protecting the right to safe and enjoyable bicycling. A valuable achievement of this organization is establishing the Bicycle Friendly America (BFA) certification for cities and counties. This consists of a very detailed application33 that a city or county official fills out to get a comprehensive rating of bicycle safety. BFA defines bicycle safety using 5 E’s:
● Equity and Accessibility: A bicycle-friendly America for everyone ● Engineering: Creating safe and creative places to ride and park ● Education: Giving people of all ages and abilities the skills and confidence to ride ● Encouragement: Creating a strong bike culture that welcomes and celebrates bicycling ● Evaluation and Planning: Planning for bicycling as a safe and viable transportation option [Note that Enforcement, a common element in the 5 E’s of safety, is not included in the BFA definition.]

31https://tims.berkeley.edu/summary.php?showArea=city&expandTables=false&injury=3&yearRange=3&showMap =crashes
32 https://bikeleague.org/bfa/
33 https://bicyclefriendly.secure-platform.com/a/organizations/main/home 99 of 675
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 15
The application covers the BFA 5 E’s and investigates what it calls the 10 building blocks of a Bicycle Friendly Community (BFC). Finally, the rating includes steps to reaching the next level of excellence. Oakland in 2022, for example, received a GOLD rating Report Card34 having been BRONZE in 2010 and SILVER in 2014. The following cities and SMC have received the following ratings:
● Menlo Park35: GOLD: 2017
● Redwood City36: BRONZE: 2016
● San Carlos37: BRONZE: 2016
● San Mateo38: BRONZE: 2016
● South San Francisco39: BRONZE: 2018
● San Mateo County40: BRONZE: 2016
The BFC Report Card is a valuable metric that all cities and the County should make use of. If SMC cities develop the information necessary to answer objective and comprehensive questions about bicycle safety, each jurisdiction would have a consistent metric that can be used to measure bicycle safety progress across the County.

Law Enforcement and Bicycle Safety
Laws regarding the operation of bicycles are in the California Vehicle Code (CVC), but in general, bicycles are governed by the same rules of the road as motor vehicles.

SMC law enforcement organizations are concerned that there is currently no way for them to track bicycle, pedestrian, and vehicle accidents, from near misses to actual contact, that did not require police involvement. And, even if an incident or infraction is reported, an officer may or may not go out to speak with the complainant.

Other than the initial report, there is no single repository in SMC to store and retrieve information regarding bicycle-related citations or enforcement of bicycle law so it can be used in the future.

And perhaps most importantly, the enforcement of laws, regarding motorists and bicyclists, is inconsistent due to competing priorities and the requirement that a citation requires an incident be witnessed by an officer.

34 https://bikeleague.org/sites/default/files/bfareportcards/BFC_Fall_2022_ReportCard_Oakland_CA.pdf 35 https://bikeleague.org/sites/default/files/bfareportcards/BFC_Fall_2017_ReportCard_Menlo_Park_CA.pdf 36 https://bikeleague.org/sites/default/files/bfareportcards/BFC_Spring_2016_ReportCard_Redwood_City_CA.pdf 37 https://bikeleague.org/sites/default/files/bfareportcards/BFC_Fall_2016_ReportCard_San_Carlos_CA.pdf 38 https://bikeleague.org/sites/default/files/bfareportcards/BFC_Fall_2016_ReportCard_San_Mateo_CA.pdf 39https://bikeleague.org/sites/default/files/bfareportcards/BFC_Fall_2018_ReportCard_South_San_Francisco_CA.p df
40https://bikeleague.org/sites/default/files/bfareportcards/BFC_Spring_2016_ReportCard_San_Mateo_County_CA.p df
100 of 675
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 16
Conflicting Priorities
Law enforcement prioritizes assets based on the needs of the community, as well as their operating budget, when it comes to providing services. While public and political prioritization of bicycle safety issues may come up from time to time, calls for service are always prioritized.

This results in minimal officer resources dedicated to bicycle safety.

Police forces will:
● Focus resources or staff on bicycle safety, if there is an uptick in accidents at a particular location, citizen requests/calls, or requests from a jurisdiction’s public works or traffic departments to focus on certain locations; or
● Provide teams to schools and special events for bicycle safety education ● Much less often, assign their police officers to bicycle safety duty exclusively (some police departments do have officers that patrol on bicycles).

In addition, law enforcement agencies do not always enforce eBike laws, but this is mostly due to the popularity of eBikes being ahead of law enforcement policies.

Because of these conflicting priorities, and limited staff, enforcement of bicycle laws pertaining to motorists as well as bicyclists appears to be underreported.

Policing Bicycles and eBikes
Law enforcement departments in the county are very aware of the importance of bicycle safety.

Common sense says people generally want the streets to be safe for motor vehicles which translates to most officer resources going to motor vehicle enforcement.

It’s possible that safer bicycle riding could lead to fewer cars and free up police resources for more pressing issues.

The New 3’ Law for Motorists and Bicycles
In January 2023, California amended the California Vehicle Code (CVC). The new law (AB. 1909) requires all motorists to give a bicyclist three feet of clearance when passing on the lefthand side of the bicyclist or (depending on the width of the road) reduce speed appropriately, when passing. (See CVC: 21750 (b) (c) (d)). This is particularly crucial on narrow two-lane roads where there are many reports of bicyclists being forced off the road or hit by motor vehicles.

Hampering the situation is the requirement that a citation can only be written if the incident is witnessed by the officer. With the advent of helmet-worn cameras, cyclists have attempted to record these incidents with the hope that the recording can be used as “visual evidence”. But this evidence, post incident, cannot be used to issue a citation.

The San Mateo County Sheriff’s Department recently announced it will allow the public to submit these incidents on the Sheriff’s website.41 These reports have since resulted in the

41https://www.almanacnews.com/news/2023/05/12/bicyclists-can-now-report-3-foot-rule-violations-online-in-sanmateo-county 101 of 675
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 17
department sending a violation letter to the offending motorist; this is not a citation. However, only incidents that occur in unincorporated San Mateo County, Woodside, Portola Valley, San Carlos, Half Moon Bay, and Millbrae can use this online resource.

Citations vs. Reprimands for Education Purposes:

It is at the officer’s discretion, when addressing a law infraction, to issue a citation or give a reprimand. One advantage of a reprimand is that it creates an opportunity to educate. With officers focusing on education, these brief encounters, cumulatively, can do a lot to improve bicycle safety, for bicyclists and motorists. But only if these reprimand stops are recorded officially can an accurate picture of bicycle safety be established.

FINDINGS
F1. Bicycle policy and the approach to ensuring/improving bicycle safety is not consistent across San Mateo County due, at least in part, to:
a. Topography
b. Urban vs. suburban environments
c. Types of bicyclists (commuter, recreational)
d. Varying levels of enforcement of bicycle laws
e. Differing knowledge of bicycle laws and safe practices.

F2. Bicycle ridership as an alternative means of transportation (e.g., commuting to work, school, or transit hubs, running errands) is not increasing due, at least in part, to perceived safety issues.

F3. Bicycle accidents and incidents (such as near misses) are underreported, if reported at all.

F4. Only bicycle accidents or incidents that trigger a 911 call are consistently logged in the State (SWITRS) database and law enforcement agencies do not log bicycle accident data consistently.

F5. The amount of enforcement of laws, as they pertain to bicyclists and how motorists and bicyclists interact, is inconsistent due to other priorities (e.g., criminal enforcement and general automobile traffic) and the requirement that a citation can generally only be written if the violation is witnessed by an officer.

F6. There is no official metric in San Mateo County and its cities to evaluate how safe it is to ride a bicycle.

F7. Bicycle safety education, for the bicyclist, pedestrians and motorists, is not consistently offered across San Mateo County.

F8. Communication between various entities with responsibility for bicycle safety, including Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committees (BPACs), Law Enforcement, City Transportation Planning, and Public Works departments, is not formalized, resulting in inefficiencies, and missed opportunities (e.g., funding for improvements, shared bike safety education, or improving signage).
102 of 675
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 18
F9. City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plans or Active Transportation Plans, have not been adopted/created by all SMC cities.

RECOMMENDATIONS
R1. By December 2023, all law enforcement agencies and the County Sheriff should submit bicycle related data to SWITRS monthly, and regularly post and update their websites with all reported bicycle accident data.

R2. By December 2023, all law enforcement agencies should begin sending warning letters to motorists for violations of the 3 ft. law.

R3. By June 3, 2024, all law enforcement agencies should provide a means for citizens to report bicycle-related incidents that are not currently reported to law enforcement, similar to the SMC Sheriff’s Department Online Crime Reporting portal.

R4. By June 3, 2024 each city, town, and unincorporated SMC should offer a bike safety education program for riders and motorists about the laws and safety facts related to bicycles on the road.

R6. By June 3, 2024, each city, town, and the county should apply (or reapply) online to generate the Bicycle Friendly Community Report Card.

REQUEST FOR RESPONSES
Pursuant to Penal Code Section 933.05, the Civil Grand Jury requests responses from the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors, County Sheriff and all 20 cities and towns’ governing bodies for each Finding and Recommendation.

The governing bodies should be aware that their comments or responses must be conducted subject to the Brown Act's notice, agenda, and open meeting requirements.

RESPONSE REQUIREMENTS
California Penal Code Section 933.05, provides (emphasis added):
(a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following:
103 of 675
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 19
(1) The respondent agrees with the finding.
(2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding; in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons, therefore.
(b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions:
(1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action.
(2) The recommendation has not been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation.
(3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report.
(4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation, therefore.
104 of 675
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 20

METHODOLOGY
The Grand Jury used a variety of tools to obtain information regarding bicycle riding and safety in San Mateo County:
● Documents: The Bike and Pedestrian Master Plans that cities use to explain approaches to planning, prioritizing projects, and re-engineering their communities to make riding and walking easier and safer. These documents came with a variety of titles:
o Bike and Pedestrian Master Plans
o Active Transportation Plans
o Micro-Mobility Plans
o Transportation Plans
● Internet: Almost all the historical and current information (including the availability of documents) regarding bicycle safety came from internet searches. Information from those searches was verified.
● Survey: The Grand Jury sent a survey in December 2022 using Google Forms to understand whether the cities believe eBikes were an issue in their communities. The results helped in defining the broader issue of bicycle safety. o The survey questions and results are in Appendix A.
o Participants: The survey was sent to all the cities in SMC and, specifically, the City Managers. Many chose to have the chief of police of their city fill out the survey. Two cities did not respond to the survey.
● Interviews: The survey helped the Grand Jury develop a list of individuals for interviews. The questions for the interview came as a result of the investigation’s pivot to the state of bicycle safety in San Mateo County as a general topic. o Participants:
▪ Cities: Belmont, Daly City, Half Moon Bay, Hillsborough, Pacifica, Portola Valley, San Mateo, Woodside
▪ Unincorporated San Mateo County
▪ Police Departments: Burlingame, Foster City, Hillsborough, Redwood City, South San Francisco
▪ Sheriff of SMC
▪ BPACs: CCAG, Unincorporated SMC
▪ CyclistVideoEvidence.com: Craig Davis
105 of 675
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 21

GLOSSARY
3 ft. Rule – Motorists must yield at least 3 feet between their vehicle and a bicyclist on all roadways. This rule was amended by State legislation through Assembly Bill 1909, approved by the Governor in 2022, and commencing January 2024. Additionally, this bill requires a vehicle that is passing or overtaking a vehicle to move over to an adjacent lane of traffic, as specified, if one is available, before passing or overtaking the bicycle.

Active Transportation - A means of getting around that is powered by human energy, primarily walking and bicycling.

BFA – Bike Friendly America. A program sponsored by the League of American Bicyclists to evaluate communities with respect to their support for bicycling. As of December 2022, 501 communities are certified.

BFC – Bike Friendly Community. A Bike Friendly Awards Report Card that is given to a community that applies for a ranking (i.e., Bronze, Silver, Gold, Platinum).

BPAC – Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee
CATSIP – California Active Transportation Safety Information Pages. An online resource for improving pedestrian and bicycle safety in California. This site is administered by UC Berkeley Safe Transportation Research and Education Center (SafeTREC)42. Funding for this program was provided by a grant from the California Office of Traffic Safety43, through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

C/CAG – City County Association of Governments of San Mateo County Bicycle Roadways
● Bike paths (Class I): also termed shared-use or multi-use paths, are paved rights-of-way for exclusive use by bicyclists, pedestrians and those using non-motorized modes of travel. They are physically separated from vehicular traffic and can be constructed in roadway rights-of-way or exclusive rights-of-way. Bike paths provide critical connections in the city where roadways are absent or are not conducive to bicycle travel. ● Bike lanes (Class II): are defined by pavement striping and signage used to allocate a portion of a roadway for exclusive or preferential bicycle travel. Bike lanes are one-way facilities on either side of a roadway. Whenever possible, bike lanes should be enhanced with treatments that improve safety and connectivity by addressing site-specific issues, such as additional warning or wayfinding signage.
● Bike routes (Class III): provide shared use with motor vehicle traffic within the same travel lane. Designated by signs, bike routes provide continuity to other bike facilities or designate preferred routes through corridors with high demand. Whenever possible, bike

42 http://safetrec.berkeley.edu/
43 http://www.ots.ca.gov/
106 of 675
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 22
routes should be enhanced with treatments that improve safety and connectivity, such as the use of "Sharrows" or shared lane markings to delineate the road as a shared-use facility.
● Cycle tracks (Class IV): Also referred to as protected bikeways, are exclusive bike facilities that combine the user experience of a separated path with the on-street infrastructure of a conventional bike lane. A cycle track is physically separated from motor traffic and distinct from the sidewalk. The separation may be in the form of posts, parked cars or a combination of both.
eBike – motorized bicycle that comes in three different classes:
● Class I: Bicycle equipped with a motor that aids only when pedaling and ceases when 20 mph is reached.
● Class II: Same capability as a Class 1 eBike with a throttle-actuated motor. No pedaling required when operated with the throttle.
● Class III: Bicycle equipped with a motor that aids only when pedaling and ceases when 28 mph is reached.

GJ – Grand Jury
MTC – Metropolitan Transportation Commission is the transportation planning, financing, and coordinating agency for the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area.

SHARROW – Sharrows are pavement markings that have been installed on city streets to provide guidance for both bicyclists and vehicles on roadways when sharing the road.

SMC ATP: San Mateo County Active Transportation Plan is a comprehensive framework to guide the development of active transportation projects and programs for walking, bicycling, and other forms of human powered movement for people of all ages and abilities throughout unincorporated County communities.

SWITRS – California Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System.

TIMS – Transportation Injury Mapping System developed by the Safe Transportation Research & Education Center at the University of California, Berkeley.

TR-INST Form – Notice to Appear form used by law enforcement for law infractions. 107 of 675
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 23
APPENDIX A: Bicycle Safety Best Practices
Bicycle Education Best Practices
There are two excellent examples of California communities that are investing in Bike Safety education: Davis and San Diego.

San Diego Bike Coalition:

This is an excellent reference tool to see all the kinds of bicycle safety education that can be offered and the resources that can be used to teach those courses. Again, the classes range from those for a variety of ages of bicyclists, basic bicycling, bicycle friendly motorist safety, and others.
https://sdbikecoalition.org/our-work/education/
Davis, California:

The City of Davis, CA, which is one of the leading bicycle communities in the US, has several pages of information about bike safety education on its website. https://www.cityofdavis.org/city-hall/public-works-engineering-and-transportation/bikepedestrian-program Two Cities Committed to Bicycling: Portland, Oregon and Davis, California Portland and Davis have become famous for their commitment to supporting bicycling, not only as recreational, but also as a true commuter alternative to motor vehicles and public transportation. Both have received the Platinum rating for a Bicycle Friendly Community from The League of American Bicyclists, while being quite different communities.

Portland is a large city of 622,000 residents with similar topography to the linked San Mateo County cities along El Camino Real: hilly and flat lands, urban centers, urban neighborhoods, suburbia, and major freeways. Portland advertises itself as “Bicycle Friendly” and claimed the highest percentage of bike commuters in US large cities in 2019 at 6% (Portland does annual bike ride census counts). Portland started investing in bicycle infrastructure with the acceptance of the 1973 Portland Bike Plan and the formation of a Bicycle Advisory Committee within the City Transportation Department. Since then, it has created:
● 385 miles of bikeways
● 36 miles of protected bike lanes
● A pedestrian and bicycle only bridge over the Willamette River and protected bike lanes on other bridges
● Intersections with bicycle specific traffic signals
108 of 675
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 24
● Bicycle boxes44 at intersections to raise the visibility for motorists turning right ● A Safe Routes for Schools serving 100 schools
● 6500 bike racks to meet increased demand for safe stow of bicycles ● 3 bicycle plans over 40 years that establish policy, goals and a bikeway network ● $60 M spent to 2008 on bicycle infrastructure (one mile of installed freeway costs $60M) Portland’s safety record is very good for a large city: 4.3% of all traffic injury accidents from 2015-2019 are bicycle related. In comparison, San Francisco’s number is 14% for the same period. Portland also does better than San Mateo County (8%) and a representative city, Redwood City (10%).

Davis in California is a small city between San Francisco and Sacramento with a population of 66,800. It has earned a nationwide reputation for supporting bicycles in its community (there is a bicycle on the city logo). The topography of Davis could not be flatter and more conducive to bicycle riding. The current statistics indicate that 20% of Davis’s population commutes on bicycles. In 1967, Davis was the first community in the US to develop dedicated bicycle lanes (a total of 4!). The origins of this project were a couple that had visited the Netherlands, often cited as the most bicycle friendly nation in the world. They were so impressed with the bicycle infrastructure that they started a grassroots movement in Davis to promote safe bicycle riding.

The group had to overcome CA law that did not support bike lanes on city streets, but once the law was revised, Davis proceeded to create bicycle infrastructure throughout the City:
● 63 miles of pathways
● 102 miles of bike lanes
● 75% of roads have a posted speed limit of 25 mph
● Of the 169 miles in the road network, 140 miles of roads are posted at 25 mph or less., 21 miles of roads are posted at between 25 mph and 35 mph, and 8 miles of roads posted over 35 mph
● 1 mile of bicycle boulevards
● 1 mile of cycle track
● 4 miles of buffered bike lanes
● 4,300 bike racks within the City and over 2,000 bike racks downtown ● 25 grade separated crossings. Four overpasses and 21 underpass crossings. Gradeseparated crossings are used to move people on bikes and pedestrians over and under barriers like railroad tracks, busy roads, and the freeway.

Davis’s bicycle accidents with injury (and fatalities) are high for a city of its size. However, the number of total accidents with injury is also very low compared to cities of comparable size. For

44 https://nacto.org/publication/urban-bikeway-design-guide/intersection-treatments/bike-boxes/ 109 of 675
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 25
example: in 2019 there were 60 bicycle accidents with injury and 221 total vehicle injury accidents resulting in 27% of all vehicular accidents involving a bicycle. Redwood City’s number is 4.8%, but their number of bicycle commuters is less than 1%. If you look at the percentage of accidents with respect to the biking population for 2019, Davis’s percentage is .4% and Redwood City’s percentage is 2.4%. Davis’s safety statistics are very good, given the number of bicycle riders.

Both Portland and Davis are renowned environments for bicycle riders because they committed early to bicycle infrastructure and consistently improved it over the years. The city government and the school systems actively support bicycle education. Both cities conduct counts to determine bicycle use. They are both advocates of the Vision Zero policy to reduce accidents and fatalities. They use the Bicycle Friendly Community evaluation process to assess their progress towards their bicycle plans and goals.

Disclosure: Portland, beginning in 2020, noted a decline in bicycle commuter percentages.

Thinking it was an aberration of the pandemic shutdown, it continued to do annual bike counts.

As of 2022, its percentage had gone down to 3.1%. The current theory of why there has been a decline is assumed to be the increase of work from home. Regardless, Portland continues to make improvements to its bicycle infrastructure and safety. 110 of 675
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 26
APPENDIX B: San Mateo County Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan List Jurisdiction Year Name of Report Link to Report
Atherton Jul 2014 Town of Atherton Bicycle
and Pedestrian Master Plan
https://www.ci.atherton.ca.us/Docume
ntCenter/View/1381/AthertonBPMP_Proposed-Final-July2014?bidId= Belmont Nov 2016 City of Belmont
Comprehensive Pedestrian &
Bicycle Plan
https://www.belmont.gov/home/show
publisheddocument/14951/636179086
799900000
Brisbane Feb 2017 Brisbane Pedestrian and
Bicycle Master Plan
https://www.brisbaneca.org/sites/defa
ult/files/fileattachments/public_works/
page/149/bikepedmasterplanappendic
es.pdf
Burlingame Dec 2020 City of Burlingame Bicycle
and Pedestrian Master Plan
https://www.burlingame.org/business
_detail_T54_R154.php
Colma Feb 2021 Colma El Camino Real
Bicycle and Pedestrian
Improvement Plan
https://www.colma.ca.gov/documents/
ecr-improvement-plan/
111 of 675
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 27
Jurisdiction Year Name of Report Link to Report
Daly City Feb 2020 Walk Bike Daly City; City of
Daly City Pedestrian and
Bicycle Master Plan 2020
https://dalycity.org/1106/Daly-CityPedestrian-and-Bicycle-MasterEast Palo Alto Oct 2017 2017 East Palo Alto Bicycle Transportation Plan
https://www.cityofepa.org/sites/defaul
t/files/fileattachments/planning/page/2
801/reso_4905_adopting_2017_bicycl
e_transportation_plan.pdf
Half Moon Bay Sep 2019 City of Half Moon Bay
Bicycle and Pedestrian
Master Plan
https://www.half-moonbay.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/224 3/Bicycle-and-Pedestrian-MasterPlan-Final?bidId=
Menlo Park Nov 2020 City of Menlo Park
Transportation Master Plan
https://beta.menlopark.org/Governme
nt/Departments/PublicWorks/TransportationDivision/Bicycling Millbrae 2021/2022 City of Millbrae Active
Transportation Plan
https://www.ci.millbrae.ca.us/home/sh
owpublisheddocument/25807/637787
902014030000
112 of 675
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 28
Jurisdiction Year Name of Report Link to Report
Pacifica Feb 2020 City of Pacifica Bicycle &
Pedestrian Master Plan
https://www.cityofpacifica.org/depart
ments/publicworks/engineering/bicycle-pedestrianmaster-plan Redwood City July 2018 Redwood City Moves, A
Comprehensive Assessment
of Transportation with
Redwood City
San Bruno Jul 2016 City of San Bruno Walk 'n
Bike Plan
https://sanbruno.ca.gov/DocumentCen
ter/View/1733/Adopted-San-BrunoWalk-n-Bike-Plan-PDF
San Carlos Jun 2020 City of San Carlos Bicycle
and Pedestrian Master Plan
Final
https://www.cityofsancarlos.org/home
/showpublisheddocument/8139/63815
5282314370000
San Mateo Apr 2020 San Mateo Bicycle Master
Plan April 2020 Final
https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/Docu
mentCenter/View/85445/2020-BikeMaster-Plan_Final_Updated62021?bidId= 113 of 675
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 29
Jurisdiction Year Name of Report Link to Report
South San
Francisco
Mar 2022 Active South City: South San
Francisco's Bicycle and
Pedestrian Master Plan Draft
https://activesouthcity.com/wpcontent/uploads/2022/03/SSFActiveSouthCity_PublicDraft_31Mar ch2022_plan_only.pdf
San Mateo
County
2021 2021 C/CAG San Mateo
County Comprehensive
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
https://ccag.ca.gov/wpcontent/uploads/2021/06/San-MateoCounty-Comprehensive-Bicycle-andPedestrian-Plan-Update-FinalPlan.pdf 114 of 675
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 30
APPENDIX C: Survey Questions and Results
This is a summary of the responses:

1. Cities and law enforcement do not track bicycle and eBike accident statistics separately; in fact, most respondents did not track eBike specific data at all (94%).

2. Complaints on Class I Bicycle Roadways include speeding and not yielding to pedestrians.

3. Complaints on Class II and III Bicycle Roadways include speeding, improper signaling, mixed use of bikes/eBikes and violation of the 3 ft. Rule.

4. Of 361 citations issued, only 11 were specifically for eBikes. It is impossible to know if there were more eBikes in violation as there is no requirement to ID the type of bicycle when filling out the form.

5. Class 3 eBikes are more powerful machines and have specific laws regarding usage. Only 50% of the respondents were enforcing the Class 3 eBike laws.

6. Complaints and incidents regarding bicycles (from riders or others) come mostly through police reports, but also from input to City Halls, Redwood City’s “app”, city planning, parks and recreation.

7. 1/3 respondents said there has been an increase in complaints regarding bicycles in the last three years (speeding, underage use, reckless behavior, vehicular code).

8. 2/3 of respondents said there had not been an increase in complaints regarding eBikes and 25% said they didn’t know.

9. Civilian bicycle complaints are generally not available to the public (over 50% of respondents).

10. 44% of respondents said they don’t provide bicycle safety education.

11. Enforcement of bicycle-related law is done where appropriate, with discretionary authority. Effort is made to educate at the time of the infraction. Additional enforcement is budget driven.

12. Future planning for the regulation of bicycles and eBikes varies greatly in the responses (see Question II-16 in Appendix A).

List of responses to questions (on the next page):
115 of 675
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 31
Number of bicycle accidents in 2022? 212
Number of bicycle accidents in 2020 to the end of 2021? 307 116 of 675
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 32
How many Bicycle citations were issued in the last year? 361 How many eBike Citations were issued in the last year? 0 [Comments: this information is not tracked]
117 of 675
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 33
If you are enforcing bicycle/eBike law, how is it accomplished? ● Nothing too specific. Enforcement during routine patrol if violations are witnessed. The PD has done a few details and targeted patrols in our downtown area specifically looking for bicycle violations (riding on sidewalks, helmet violations, reckless behavior, etc.). ● The Police Department enforces all laws as appropriate and with necessary and legal discretionary authority.
● Education and Enforcement
● All officers are trained to enforce Vehicle Code and Municipal Code law on bicycles and eBikes.
● On view and by complaint.
● On view and calls for service which result in Education or Enforcement. ● Traffic enforcement resulting in citations and/or verbal warnings/ education to the public. ● Through proactive patrols, directed enforcement and calls for service. ● Most bicycle stops are made for violations occurring on roadways, not on trails or sidewalks. Most bike stops result in education and not citations as evidenced by our low citation numbers.
● Primarily through education and warnings.
● We have not enforced the Bicycle/eBike law because we have not received any comments to date that have triggered the Police Department to enforce. 118 of 675
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 34
● By Sheriff patrol.
● We can’t enforce much because of limitations in light of funding and staffing needs 119 of 675
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 35
120 of 675
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 36
Does your city/town have any future plans regarding the regulation of bicycles and eBikes? ● Not at this time.
● Yes. Additional and improved bike lanes.
● Policies in the newly adopted General Plan supporting alternative modes of transportation, including bikes.
● Awaiting the results of the County-wide eBike pilot to determine best practices to implement.
● Not at this time.
● Not at this time. There have not been complaints/concerns regarding eBikes. ● Not at this time.
● Not that I am aware of.
● No, unless we start receiving complaints.
● Yes, The City of South San Francisco's Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. ● No
● As the Town begins to understand various micro-mobility issues going forward, eBikes being part of that growth pattern, we will plan to prepare plans and outreach material to help educate the bike populations on eBike protocols and safety. ● With the growing development, more bike facilities are being provided for the general public. Public outreach and programs to help educate both current/new users are currently 121 of 675
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 37
being implemented citywide. Buildout of Bike & Pedestrian master plan is underway.

Alameda de Las Pulgas and Ralston 4 designs are underway. Creation of a transportation master plan is also underway. Parks & Recreation Department is developing a Master Plan that also includes implementation of eBikes policies on open space trails. ● Yes
● Nothing specific regulatory changes planned at this time. ● City is currently drafting ordinance language to address the increasing number of electric mobility devices that are present on trails and paths. Many conversations have occurred at BPAC and council (among other committees and commissions) and will continue in 2024.
122 of 675
City Council Agenda Item
Staff Report

CITY OF SAN BRUNO
DATE: August 22, 2023
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: Consider Adoption of a Resolution Approving the Newspaper Rack and Enclosure Models and Locations and Determining the Project is Exempt Under the California Environmental Quality Act
BACKGROUND:

At the July 25, 2023, Regular Council Meeting, City Council pulled the consent item 6.m. for questions and discussions. The staff report with attachments is provided as Attachment 2, The agenda item was continued by City Council to the August 22, 2003, regular City Council meeting so that Staff could respond to the questions posed.

DISCUSSION:

City Council Response
On July 25, 2023, staff presented to City Council a resolution approving the newspaper rack and enclosure models and locations. Several questions were presented by City Council and via public comment; therefore, the City Council continued the agenda item to August 22, 2023.

Below are the questions posed, followed by responses.
1, What legal requirements does the City have to provide newspaper racks? Newspaper racks on public sidewalks are a means of distributing speech that is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. This is reflected in the City’s regulation of newspaper racks in Chapter 8.32 of the San Bruno Municipal Code. Specifically, Section

8.32.010 states that “The streets, sidewalks and public rights-of-way are historically associated with the sale and distribution of newspapers and other publications, and that access to and use of these areas for such purposes is not to be denied except where such use unreasonably interferes with the use of these areas by pedestrians or traffic, or where such use presents a hazard to persons or property.” Thus, the City is legally required to permit newspaper racks in a manner consistent with the Ordinance and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Municipal Code governs the permitting, design, placement, standards, maintenance, abatement of violation, and amortization requirements. These regulations promote the public health, safety and welfare and the aesthetic qualities of the City by controlling the placement, size, construction, and appearance of news racks. 123 of 675
Item 6.g.

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
August 22, 2023

Page 2 of 4 ends

City staff recommends the installation of four fixed pedestal newspaper racks in the currently permitted locations where demand appears to be the highest based on the current vendors and the types of businesses at these locations. Staff recommends adding two additional bins to be included in the new newspaper racks to allow for an increase in additional permitted vendors who may seek to distribute their publication in San Bruno. Thus, the City could better meet additional demand without having to make any further installations and modifications to the newspaper racks and enclosures.

2. Confirm active list of newspaper rack vendors and their restocking frequency.

City staff confirmed that the current vendors are:
• San Mateo Daily Journal - Daily
• SF Examiner – Staff reached out to this publication to confirm activity and restocking frequency but did not receive a response. Observation of current newspaper racks indicates that this publication likely is restocked each weekend. • SF Chronicle – Staff reached out to this publication to confirm activity and restocking frequency but did not receive a response. Observation of current newspaper racks indicates that this publication likely is restocked each weekend. • El Reportero – Weekly
In addition, there are two previous vendors, SF Evergreen and Bay Classifieds, that no longer appears to be in business based on internet research and observation of current newspaper racks.

3. Can the bins at 500 and 501 San Mateo Avenue (across the street from one another) be consolidated since they host the same permitted vendor? In July it was determined that the singular bin at 500 San Mateo Avenue hosted the San Mateo Daily Journal (free bin) and the singular bin at 501 San Mateo Avenue hosted the SF Chronicle (coin-operated bin). In early August it was identified that the newspaper rack location at 500 San Mateo Avenue was consolidated with the 501 San Mateo Avenue location, and the two singular bin racks were placed side-by-side from one another.

4. Is there a direct correlation between number of bins and installation cost? Installation cost is fixed and is not divisible by the quantity of newspaper racks/enclosures that we install because of certain economies of scale. For example, equipment rentals have fixed mobilization and demobilization costs. Another example is coordination work is mostly a fixed cost as well.

5. Can business owners can have the same news rack vendors on both sides of the street which the City cannot prevent because it is on their easement? Is there anything in the Municipal Code addressing this? Can we stop this situation if it’s on the public right-of-way? The Municipal Code regulates newspaper racks in the City’s rights-of-way, by requiring vendors to obtain a City permit and to adhere to certain placement, design, and maintenance standards.

The City’s regulations cannot be a restraint on speech protected by the First Amendment. If the City receives an application for a newspaper rack permit, it must process that application pursuant to the City Municipal Code and in compliance with the First Amendment. Any limits on the location of a newspaper rack cannot be a prohibited restraint on protected speech and must be related to proper placement, design standards, and priority of placement for multiple 124 of 675
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
August 22, 2023

Page 3 of 4 ends

vendors, as specified in the Municipal Code. Newspaper companies are well aware of their rights to use news racks to distribute papers, as found in a local advertisement in the Daily Post, which is provided as Attachment 3.

6. Can the material be ceramic coated?
The newspaper racks will have a black polyester powder coating, which is the only type of finish provided by the manufacturer. According to the manufacturer: “Polyester powder coating is the most common of the powder coatings—and for good reason. It provides excellent impact resistance and flexibility; good mechanical resistance; and good chemical resistance. It also has a low curing temperature, and is therefore suitable for sensitive components. It provides UV resistance, which means it’s a good choice for a variety of indoor and outdoor applications.

Plus, UV protection isn’t the only reason to choose polyester powder coating for outdoor applications—it also offers excellent protection from rain, wind, and other damaging elements.

In addition to being practical, polyester powder coating is attractive. It comes in a vast array of colors and gloss levels, and is thus perfect for situations where aesthetics matter.” Staff’s recommendation for the newspaper rack enclosure design and material is compatible and in alignment with the San Mateo Avenue Conceptual Streetscape Plan’s1(Plan) preferred design characteristics of “simple”, “elegant”, and “unique” and preferred furnishing material of “stainless-steel or silver-colored metal (e.g., aluminum or powder coated steel)”. Staff’s recommendation is that the enclosures are stainless steel to align with the design characteristics described above, in addition to Streets Staff confirming that this material would hold up better over time than silver-colored metal.

7. Is spacing between the racks adequate? Should anything change with how the racks are currently configured along downtown San Mateo Avenue?
The spacing between the racks appears adequate based on current demand by the vendors and are located near key corners and downtown businesses including eating and drinking establishments whose customers are seeking out newspapers.

Final Recommended Newspaper Rack Configuration
The number of newspaper racks has been reduced from five to four, leaving four sets of newspaper racks to be replaced, as follows, at the following locations:
1) 424 San Mateo Avenue – 2-bin rack
2) 466 San Mateo Avenue – 2-bin rack
3) 487 San Mateo Avenue – 4-bin rack
4) 501 San Mateo Avenue – 4-bin rack
In total, these four locations provide twelve bins. This includes two empty additional bins for potential future vendors, which ensures that future requests can be accommodated with the City’s newspaper racks. The removal of the additional rack location is estimated to save approximately $10,000 from this project.

FISCAL IMPACTS:
1 https://www.sanbruno.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1688/San-Mateo-Avenue-Conceptual-Streetscape-Plan-PDF 125 of 675
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
August 22, 2023

Page 4 of 4 ends

The cost (design, material, tax, shipping, and installation) to replace the four newspaper racks with the addition of the four newspaper rack enclosures is below the total budget of $106,433 that is currently available based on the adopted CIP Project #60027: Downtown Trash Receptacles & Newspaper Racks & Enclosures as part of the City’s Adopted Fiscal Year 2023- 24 Operating and Capital Improvements Program (CIP) Budgets2. No additional costs are anticipated in order to purchase and install the newspaper rack and enclosures. All contracts for the purchase and installation of the newspaper racks and enclosures are within the approval authority of the City Manager and the Public Works Director.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:

RECOMMENDATION:

Consider adopting a resolution approving the newspaper rack and enclosure models and locations and determining the project is exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act.

ALTERNATIVES:
1) Direct staff to terminate the proposed purchase of newspaper racks and newspaper rack enclosures and investigate alternative designs and options. 2) Do not proceed with this project.

ATTACHMENTS:
1) Resolution
2) July 25, 2023 Staff Report 6.m. for Newspaper Racks and Enclosures 3) Newspaper Advertisement about Newspaper Rack’s and First Amendment Rights 2 https://www.sanbruno.ca.gov/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/160 126 of 675
RESOLUTION NO. 2023 - ___

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF SAN BRUNO APPROVING

THE NEWSPAPER RACK AND ENCLOSURE MODELS AND LOCATIONS AND

DETERMINING THE PROJECT IS EXEMPT UNDER THE CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
WHEREAS, the City of San Bruno’s (City) San Mateo Avenue Conceptual Streetscape Plan (Plan), adopted in 2019, provides design guidance for the public right-of-way to support the City’s goals of beautifying the public realm, supporting local businesses, spurring investment within the downtown core, enhancing the downtown’s character, and increasing the attractiveness of the downtown as a destination; and

WHEREAS
, the Plan includes a condition assessment of the current San Mateo Avenue streetscape, which was categorized by the community as “run down” with “…precast- concrete trash receptacles that are unsightly and do not provide for recycling, as well as several mismatched trash receptacles, newspaper racks that are in disrepair…”.; and WHEREAS, staff prepared a proposal for a near-term project within the Plan that could be completed prior to the overall streetscape implementation which included the replacement of trash receptacles and the installation of enclosures around the newspaper racks on San Mateo Avenue within the downtown corridor; and WHEREAS, the trash receptacles were replaced in Spring 2022; and
WHEREAS, staff worked with a professional design firm to create custom design options for the newspaper rack enclosures and engaged the community to vote for their preferred design; and WHEREAS, staff recommends replacing the existing newspaper racks due to poor condition and lack of modern security features such as locking bins; and WHEREAS, staff recommends the newspaper rack enclosure design option in alignment with the community’s preference and the newspaper rack model in alignment with the design recommendations in San Bruno Municipal Code Section 8.32.040; and WHEREAS, there is sufficient budget in the adopted CIP Project #60027: Downtown Trash Receptacles & Newspaper Racks & Enclosures as part of the City’s Adopted Fiscal Year 2023-24 Operating and Capital Improvements Program (CIP) Budgets; and WHEREAS, the contracts for the purchase and installation of the newspaper racks and enclosures are within the approval authority of the City Manager and the Public Works Director; and WHEREA
S, this action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(c), existing facilities which exempts minor alterations of existing streets, sidewalks, gutters, bicycle and pedestrian trials, and similar facilities. This project will not cause an expansion of an existing use of the streets. 127 of 675
ATTACHMENT 1
2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby approves the newspaper rack and enclosure models shown in Exhibit A, to be installed at the locations shown in Exhibit B, with such modifications as deemed appropriate by the City Manager. ---oOo---
I hereby certify that foregoing Resolution No. 2023 - ______ was introduced and adopted by the San Bruno City Council at a regular meeting on ___________, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers:

NOES: Councilmembers
ABSENT: Councilmembers:

Lupita Huerta, City Clerk
Exhibit A: Newspaper Rack and Enclosure Models
Exhibit B: Location Map
128 of 675
Newspaper Rack Model:

Sho-Rack 49H 4-Bin Rack
Note: Newspaper rack color will be black to
match enclosures.

Newspaper Rack Enclosure Model:
129 of 675
130 of 675
City Council Agenda Item
Staff Report

CITY OF SAN BRUNO
DATE: July 25, 2023
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: Consider Adoption of a Resolution Approving the Newspaper Rack and Enclosure Models and Locations and Determining the Project is Exempt Under the California Environmental Quality Act
BACKGROUND:

The 2009 General Plan
1 envisions and promotes the San Mateo Avenue downtown area as “the symbolic heart of the city.” Specific design and implementation policies were set in place to “provide the residents with a pleasant and economically vital commercial and entertaining destination.” Such policies include improving the visibility of the downtown, expanding the streetscape amenities and upgrading and enhancing the downtown appearance. Further, building upon the implementation policies of the General Plan, the 2013 Transit Corridors Plan 2 (TCP) focuses on articulating the community's vision for a revitalized commercial corridors in proximity to the San Bruno Avenue Caltrain Station. The vision includes fostering dynamic architecture and welcoming gateways, convenient transportation connections, pedestrianoriented “green” streets, and additional housing, jobs, retail, and restaurants, while maintaining a sense of the City's history. The TCP identifies San Mateo Avenue, the Central Business District/Downtown, as one of the five character areas for public realm improvements. The TCP also identifies San Mateo Avenue streetscape improvements as a short-term implementation project to enhance the Central Business District.

In recognition of these guiding policies, the San Mateo Avenue Conceptual Streetscape Plan (Plan) was adopted by the City of San Bruno (City) City Council in October 2019 3 . The objective
of this Plan is to provide design guidance for the public right-of-way to support the City’s goals of beautifying the public realm, supporting local businesses, spurring investment within the downtown core, enhancing the downtown’s character, and increasing the attractiveness of the downtown as a destination. Some of the Plan’s specific street design recommendations includes more attractive and functional sidewalks; well-marked and decorative crosswalks; widened sidewalks and corners at some locations; improved directional and wayfinding signage to public parking lots; integrated and attractive modern-style street furniture; and roadways that accommodate multiple modes of transportation such as bicycles, pedestrians and automobiles.

The Plan also includes a condition assessment of the current San Mateo Avenue streetscape, 1 https://www.sanbruno.ca.gov/629/General-Plan 2 https://www.sanbruno.ca.gov/634/Transit-Corridors-Plan 3 https://www.sanbruno.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1688/San-Mateo-Avenue-Conceptual-Streetscape-Plan-PDF 131 of 675 94 of 246 Item 6.m.

ATTACHMENT 2
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
July 25, 2023

Page 2 of 5 ends

which was categorized by the community as “run down” with “…precast-concrete trash receptacles that are unsightly and do not provide for recycling, as well as several mismatched trash receptacles, newspaper racks that are in disrepair…”.

In direct response to this assessment, staff prepared a proposal for a near-term project within the Plan that could be completed prior to the overall streetscape implementation; namely, replacing the trash receptacles and installing enclosures around the newspaper racks on San Mateo Avenue within the downtown corridor. The proposal detailed the design criteria for the new trash receptacles which was informed by the Plan, staff, and the City’s solid waste hauler:

Recology San Bruno. Additionally, the proposal included staff’s recommendation for the newspaper rack enclosure design and material, which was not included as part of the Plan, but was compatible and in alignment with the Plan’s preferred design characteristics of “simple”, “elegant”, and “unique” and preferred furnishing material of “stainless-steel or silver-colored metal (e.g., aluminum or powder coated steel)”. Staff presented a variety of design recommendations to the Architectural Review Committee on January 14, 2021, who expressed that all design options were acceptable. The design recommendations were then presented to City Council on March 9, 2021, for feedback and direction. Councilmembers provided their feedback on both the trash receptacle and the newspaper rack enclosure design options.

Specific to the newspaper rack enclosures, several Councilmembers expressed a preference for a custom heart pattern design if it were a cost-effective option.

In March 2021, this project was added as a Fiscal Year 2020-21 City Council Strategic Initiative as a short-term downtown improvement project4.

Due to impending steel price increases at the end of May 2021, an expedited decision was necessary for the trash receptacle portion of this project prior to May 31, 2021. Therefore, on May 11, 2021, staff presented to City Council a resolution authorizing the City Manager to purchase the new trash receptacles for San Mateo Avenue and a request for an allocation of $130,000 from the Solid Waste/Recycling Fund (AB939) towards their replacement. The presentation included further details on receptacle design options based on feedback received at the March 9, 2021, meeting, and recommendations on installation locations which included strategically placing six Big Belly trash and recycling receptacles along high trash use locations and thirty-three dual trash and recycling units at the remaining locations along San Mateo Avenue. The City Council approved this agenda item with the direction that the newspaper rack enclosure portion of this project would be brought forward to City Council for consideration at a future meeting.

This project was added as a capital improvement project in the City’s Adopted Fiscal Year 2021- 22 Operating and Capital Improvements Program (CIP) Budgets5. By Spring 2022, staff completed the purchase and installation of the various trash receptacles along San Mateo Avenue’s downtown corridor.

As staff continued working on the newspaper rack enclosure portion of the project, three abandoned newspaper racks on San Mateo Avenue were identified as needing to be removed.

In Summer 2022, Public Works and Code Enforcement worked jointly to remove the three abandoned newspaper racks and in June 2023, one additional abandoned newspaper rack was identified and removed, leaving the downtown corridor with five newspaper racks that still needed either partial (2) or full (3) enclosures at the following locations (Attachment 2). 4 https://www.sanbruno.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/2426/FY-20-21-Strategic-Intiatives-Update-3-12-21?bidId= 5 https://www.sanbruno.ca.gov/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/52 132 of 675 95 of 246
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
July 25, 2023

Page 3 of 5 ends

1) 424 San Mateo Avenue – 2-bin rack
2) 466 San Mateo Avenue – 2-bin rack
3) 487 San Mateo Avenue – 4-bin rack
4) 500 San Mateo Avenue – 1-bin rack
5) 501 San Mateo Avenue – 1-bin rack
In total, these five locations provide for ten distinct bins, which are utilized by permit from the City. Based on current City records these permitted vendors are: Bay Classifieds, San Francisco Chronicle, San Mateo Daily Journal, and San Francisco Examiner. The City also provides additional bins for potential future vendors.

DISCUSSION:

Since the May 11, 2021, City Council meeting, staff continued their assessment of the remaining five newspaper racks in need of enclosures and worked with a professional design firm to create six custom heart design options for said enclosures, to present to City Council at a future meeting. Staff initiated a community engagement process to obtain feedback on these designs. Staff also recommends that the five existing newspaper racks be replaced due to poor condition and lack of modern security features such as locking bins. The proposed newspaper rack replacements would be in alignment with the design recommendations in San Bruno Municipal Code Section 8.32.0406.

Community Engagement
To promote accessibility and equitability in the community voting process, the six newspaper rack enclosure designs were printed on a large voting board placed at City Hall’s main public lobby during regular business hours from June 16, 2023, to June 23, 2023. To encourage community engagement, staff promoted the voting process via social media and also displayed the voting board alongside staff in downtown San Mateo Avenue on the afternoon of June 22, 2023. The results of the community voting process are shown in Attachment 3. The community’s preferred enclosure design choice is Option 5, shown in closeup in Attachment 4.

Final Design Recommendations
For the newspaper rack enclosures, staff reviewed the six custom design options in addition to analyzing costs and design compatibility with the aesthetics in the Downtown. Staff recommends Option 5 in alignment with the community’s preference.

For the newspaper racks, staff recommends Sho-Rack 49H7 (see Attachment 5 for an example of the proposed 4-bin rack), which is in alignment with the design recommendations in San Bruno Municipal Code Section 8.32.0405. Should this rack not be available or have the design features required by the City, staff will procure an equivalent per the Municipal Code.

The replacement newspaper racks will provide for fourteen distinct bins as follows (Attachment 6):
1) 424 San Mateo Avenue – 2-bin rack
2) 466 San Mateo Avenue – 2-bin rack
3) 487 San Mateo Avenue – 4-bin rack
4) 500 San Mateo Avenue – 2-bin rack
5) 501 San Mateo Avenue – 4-bin rack
6 https://library.qcode.us/lib/san_bruno_ca/pub/municipal_code/item/title_8-chapter_8_32?view=all#title_8-chapter_8_32-8_32_040 7 https://www.mernewsrack.com/model-49-newspaper-rack/
133 of 675 96 of 246
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
July 25, 2023

Page 4 of 5 ends

This will allow for the existing permitted newspaper vendors to continue utilizing the City’s newspaper racks, while still providing additional bins for potential future vendors. This plan is based on current demand. Should a need arise for additional bins, the City would install additional newspaper racks as needed.

Maintenance
To encourage the use of the newspaper rack bins solely for publications and prevent misuse, all bins will be lockable. To complement the aesthetics of the downtown corridor of San Mateo Avenue, in addition to minimizing the appearance of wear and tear, both the newspaper racks and their enclosures will be black.

The newspaper racks will be maintained in compliance with San Bruno Municipal Code Section

8.32.0808. The newspaper rack enclosures will be similarly maintained as part of the San Mateo Avenue daily cleaning schedule, which will include debris removal around, under, and inside the enclosures. Graffiti on either of the newspaper bins and/or racks will be removed by the City’s power washing contractor, Zero Turn Power Washing, at no additional cost. If City staff need to address a vandalized bin or rack, each instance of graffiti is estimated to cost approximately $70.00, which includes the cost of labor and materials. Depending on the extent of the vandalization, the enclosures could also be replaced as needed, however, due to their custom design, production lead time for a replacement panel or other parts would require a minimum of 3-5 weeks from order to delivery.

Timeline
The lead time for the newspaper racks is approximately 6-8 weeks from purchase and the lead time for the custom designed newspaper rack enclosures is approximately 12 weeks. Therefore, if City Council accepts staff’s recommendation to proceed with this project as described above, the replacement of the 5 newspaper racks and the addition of the 5 newspaper rack enclosures is estimated to be completed by Winter 2023.

FISCAL IMPACTS:

The cost (design, material, tax, shipping, and installation) to replace the 5 newspaper racks with the addition of the 5 newspaper rack enclosures is within the total budget of $106,433 that is currently available based on the adopted CIP Project #60027: Downtown Trash Receptacles & Newspaper Racks & Enclosures as part of the City’s Adopted Fiscal Year 2023-24 Operating and Capital Improvements Program (CIP) Budgets6. No additional costs are anticipated in order to purchase and install the newspaper rack and enclosures. All contracts for the purchase and installation of the newspaper racks and enclosures are within the approval authority of the City Manager and the Public Works Director.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:

This action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(c), existing facilities which exempts minor alterations of existing streets, sidewalks, gutters, bicycle and pedestrian trials, and similar facilities. This project will not cause an expansion of an existing use of the streets. 8 https://library.qcode.us/lib/san_bruno_ca/pub/municipal_code/item/title_8-chapter_8_32?view=all#title_8-chapter_8_32-8_32_080 134 of 675 97 of 246
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
July 25, 2023

Page 5 of 5 ends

RECOMMENDATION:

Consider adopting a resolution approving the newspaper rack and enclosure models and locations and determining the project is exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act.

ALTERNATIVES:
1) Direct staff to terminate the proposed purchase of newspaper racks and newspaper rack enclosures and investigate alternative designs and options. 2) Do not proceed with this project.

ATTACHMENTS:
1) Resolution
2) Photographs of Existing Newspaper Racks
3) New Newspaper Racks and Enclosure Screens Voting Board 4) Option 5 Design
5) Recommended Sho-Rack 49H 4-Bin Rack
6) Location Map
135 of 675 98 of 246

THIS RESOLUTION HAS

BEEN SUPERCEDED
SEE ATTACHMENT 1

FOR CURRENT

RESOLUTION
136 of 675
424 SAN MATEO AVENUE 466 SAN MATEO AVENUE 487 SAN MATEO AVENUE 500 SAN MATEO AVENUE 501 SAN MATEO AVENUE 103 of 246
ATTACHMENT 2
137 of 675
104 of 246
ATTACHMENT 3
138 of 675
105 of 246
ATTACHMENT 4
139 of 675
Note: Newspaper rack color will
be black to match enclosures.
106 of 246
ATTACHMENT 5
140 of 675
107 of 246
ATTACHMENT 6
141 of 675
Advertisement in the Daily Post, August 3, 2023
142 of 675
ATTACHMENT 3
City Council Agenda Item
Staff Report

CITY OF SAN BRUNO
DATE: August 22, 2023
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Damian Sandholm, Acting Community Services Director SUBJECT: Consider Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Amendment to the Agreement with CCI Catering, dba Creekside Grill to Provide Catering Services for the San Bruno Senior Center Congregate Nutrition Lunch Program in the Amount Not to Exceed $100,000.

BACKGROUND:

The City of San Bruno Senior Center operates a Congregate Nutrition Lunch program which is federally funded by the Older Adults Act Grant and managed through the County of San Mateo.

The San Bruno Nutrition Lunch Program serves lunch to approximately 120 participants daily Monday through Friday.

With the departure of the Food Services Coordinator last May, the City has utilized catering services to continue to provide meals for the congregate nutrition lunch program. The catering services are essential to ensure no interruption in lunch program meal services while the recruitment continues. The City Manager entered into a contract with Creekside Grill to provide meals for July and August 2023 while there is an active recruitment for the vacant Food Services Coordinator position.

DISCUSSION:

City Staff solicited quotes to continue with the catering services for the Senior Center Congregate Nutrition Lunch Program while the recruitment to fill the vacant Food Services Coordinator position continues. Staff received quotes from several catering companies to provide meals for the Congregate Meal program. Quotes were received from the following companies: • CCI, dba Creekside Grill - $11.75 per meal • Peninsula Volunteers - $12.00 per meal • JC Bruno - $13.00 per meal • Vienna Catering – $15.75 per meal Creekside Grill was selected because they were the lowest price, based on their per meal price of $11.75. The Senior Center offers 120 meals per weekday for the Congregate Meal program. 143 of 675
Item 6.h.

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
August 22, 2023

Page 2 of 2 ends

FISCAL IMPACT:

CCI Catering, dba Creekside Grill’s original approved agreement was $66,623.39 for July and August 2023 services. This amendment request for $100,000 results in a total revised agreement amount of $166,623.39. The costs for the San Bruno Senior Center Congregate Nutrition Lunch program is included in the approved operating budget for the Community Services Department. This will provide funding for operations in September and October 2023, and November 2023 if needed. If the Food Services Coordinator position is filled during this period, there would be fund savings in the agreement.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:

There is no environmental impact with this item. 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:

Consider adoption of a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute an amendment to the agreement with CCI Catering, dba Creekside Grill to provide catering services for the San Bruno Senior Center Congregate Nutrition Lunch Program in the amount not to exceed $100,000.

ALTERNATIVES:

Do not authorize the agreement amendment with CCI Catering, dba Creekside Grill and request staff to seek other consultant services to provide meals for the San Bruno Senior Center Congregate Nutrition Lunch Program.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution
144 of 675
RESOLUTION NO. 2023 – ___

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AMENDMENT TO THE

AGREEMENT WITH CCI CATERING, DBA CREEKSIDE GRILL TO PROVIDE CATERING

SERVICES FOR THE SAN BRUNO SENIOR CENTER CONGREGATE NUTRITION LUNCH PROGRAM IN THE AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $100,000
WHEREAS the City of San Bruno operates a Congregate Nutrition Lunch program which is federally funded by the Older Adults Act Grant and managed through the County of San Mateo; and WHEREAS, the City Council has appropriated funds for the operating expenses for the congregate nutrition lunch program in the Approved FY2023-24 Operating Budget. City Staff solicited quotes to continue with the catering services to ensure no interruption in lunch program meal services for the Senior Center Congregate Nutrition Lunch Program while the recruitment to fill the vacant Food Services Coordinator position continues; and
WHEREAS the City desires to retain CCI Catering, dba Creekside Grill to provide catering services for the San Bruno Congregate Nutrition Lunch Program. They were selected because they offer the lowest price; and
WHEREAS adequate funding is available in the project to fund the requested amendment to the agreement.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the San Bruno City Council authorizes the City Manager to execute an amendment to the agreement with CCI Catering, dba Creekside Grill to provide catering services for the San Bruno Senior Center Congregate Nutrition Lunch Program in the amount not to exceed $100,000.
-oOoI, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2023-___ was introduced and adopted by the San Bruno City Council at a regular meeting on _________________ by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers:

NOES: Councilmembers:

ABSENT: Councilmembers:
___________________________________
Lupita Huerta, City Clerk
145 of 675
ATTACHMENT 1
City Council Agenda Item
Staff Report

CITY OF SAN BRUNO
DATE: August 22, 2023
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Matthew Lee, P.E., Public Works Director
Hae Won Ritchie, City Engineer/Deputy Public Works Director SUBJECT: Consider Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to:
• Execute an Agreement Amendment with Caltrans for the Project Initiation Document Phase in an Amount Not to Exceed $10,000; • Execute Caltrans Cooperative Agreements for the Project Approval/Environmental Document; Plans, Specifications, and Estimates; and Contract Administration and Construction Phases;
• Execute Grant Agreements and Documents for the Acceptance of a Federal Grant; and
• Execute an Agreement Amendment for Consultant Services with HDR for Design Support on the Regional Stormwater Capture Project at I-280 and I-380 in an Amount Not to Exceed $1,685,856.53 after the Federal Grant Agreements have been Executed
BACKGROUND:

The Regional Stormwater Capture Project at I-280 and I-380 is envisioned to collect, treat, detain and potentially infiltrate into the ground, stormwater and is located in open space area in the Caltrans right-of-way between the I-280 and I-380 interchanges. The project would intercept stormwater from the storm drain system that serves portions of the Rollingwood, Crestmoor, Portola Highlands, and Pacific Heights neighborhoods of San Bruno. A project such as this would advance the City’s ability to achieve State Water Board goals for pollutant removal from the San Francisco Bay and has the added benefit of attenuating the stormwater that flows through the downstream pipelines and culverts.

On March 9, 2021, City Council adopted a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement for consultant services with WRECO (since acquired by HDR) for pre-design support on the Regional Stormwater Capture Project at I-280 and I-380 in an amount not to exceed $996,240.58 and execute a Caltrans cooperative agreement for the Project Initiation Document (PID). The pre-design support from HDR consisted preparing the PID and commencing the Project Approval and Environmental (PA&ED) phase. The PA&ED work was phased to be consistent with available funding. The PID phase has been completed and HDR has commenced the PA&ED work.

The project is located within State and federal highway systems and requires Caltrans oversight, which includes the Project Initiation Document (PID) phase; Project Approval/Environmental Document (PA&ED) phase; design – Plans, Specifications, and 146 of 675
Item 6.i.

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
August 22, 2023

Page 2 of 4 ends

Estimates (PS&E); advertisement; and contract administration and construction. The City entered into a cooperative agreement with Caltrans for the PID phase at a cost of $170,000, which was paid for with grant funding. Caltrans provided multiple rounds of review of the PID and attended recurring project development team meetings with the City and its consultant. The cooperative agreement that covered the PID phase has been expended and requires an additional approximately $10,000 to pay for the remaining oversight costs. Caltrans has indicated the future PA&ED and PS&E phases will be at no cost to the City, which is a substantial project cost savings. The project may need to cover the cooperative agreements costs for advertisement and contract administration and construction phases. For budgeting purposes, Caltrans typically recommends reserving 10% for oversight costs.

The City secured $200,000 of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) grant funds and $913,333 of California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA) grants funds for a total project budget of $1,133,333. These funds were utilized for the consultant agreement, Caltrans cooperative agreement for the PID phase, and City staff costs. The EPA grants have been fully expended and approximately $420,000 of the CNRA grant funding remains.

DISCUSSION:

A project on the scale of the Regional Stormwater Capture Project at I-280 and I-380 will require regional efforts and funding for design and construction, as well as operation and maintenance. In 2019, the Flood and Sea Level Rise Resiliency District (OneShoreline) was established in San Mateo County to form a coordinated, cross-jurisdictional collaborative to face impending coastal erosion, sea level rise, and flooding threats. Comprised of the 20 incorporated cities, City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG), and the County of San Mateo. The purpose of OneShoreline is to create a unified voice, to costeffectively implement resilient infrastructure to face these challenges. The City will look toward San Mateo County and the District for continued financial and future operational support.

Due to the regional significance of the project, the City and C/CAG have actively pursued grant funding to further advance the project. C/CAG advised the City that it was successful in obtaining $2.4 million in federal funding for the project from the 2023 Consolidated Appropriations Act, assisted by U.S. Representative Jackie Speier and expected to be awarded and available in late 2023. A local match of up to 20% of the total project cost, or up to $600,000, is required for the federal grant. C/CAG and the City are confirming whether the CNRA grant funding can serve as the local match, and whether those local match funds can be expended prior to the federal fund expenditures or if they must be expended concurrently. Should local, non-grant funding be required as the local match, staff will return to the City Council for consideration of additional fund appropriation.

HDR’s original total cost proposal was $2,631,134.72 and consisted of two phases. Phase I consisted of the PID and PA&ED phases totaling $996,240.58, with optional tasks in the amount of $225,214.39 to assist with the search of additional grant funding and preparation of certain studies. Phase II consisted of PS&E, permitting, and bid and construction support in the amount of $1,409,679.75. The prior project budget supported Phase I of the proposal, the PID phase and a portion of the PA&ED phase, excluding the optional tasks. However, with the additional federal funding, the City is able to retain HDR for remaining portion of Phase I, Phase II and the optional Phase I tasks. HDR’s support has already been utilized for grant application preparation during Phase I. The City requested updated fees for the optional tasks and Phase II from HDR as two and half years have lapsed since the original proposal was submitted. The 147 of 675
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
August 22, 2023

Page 3 of 4 ends

adjusted cost of the optional tasks is $237,750.14 and Phase II is $1,448,106.39. An agreement amendment in the amount of $1,685,856.53 will be necessary to retain HDR for Phase II and the optional services. The grand total not to exceed amount will be $2,682,097.11.

The agreement amendment will not be executed until the federal grants have been accepted and appropriated and local match funding requirements have been satisfied.

To expedite the acceptance of the federal grant funds from the 2023 Consolidated Appropriations Act, City staff requests that Council authorize the City Manager to execute the grant agreements and documents to effectuate the grant. As discussed above, the City is seeking to leverage the existing project grant funds to serve as the local match; however, if this request is denied, staff will need to return to Council for consideration of additional fund appropriation. Upon acceptance, sufficient funds would be available to complete the PA&ED and PS&E phases.

The City will need to enter into cooperative agreements with Caltrans for oversight. Caltrans has indicated the PA&ED and PS&E phases will be at no project cost to the City. The project may need to cover Caltrans’ cooperative agreements costs for advertisement and contract administration and construction phases. Construction funding is not yet identified but the City and C/CAG are pursuing grant funds. Sufficient grant funds levels will sought to cover the Caltrans oversight costs. The City is required to enter into cooperative agreements for each phase. Staff requests authorization for the City Manager to execute these cooperative agreements.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The original total project budget was $1,113,333, consisting of a $200,000 EPA grant and $913,333 State CNRA grant. HDR’s work on the PA&ED was phased to accommodate for Caltrans’ cooperative agreement cost for the PID. Therefore, adequate funding is available to execute an agreement amendment with Caltrans for $10,000 for their remaining work on the PID. The Caltrans cooperative agreements for the PA&ED and PS&E phases are at no added project cost. The cooperative agreement for the advertisement and contract administration and construction phases are not known yet but anticipated to be approximately 10% of the construction cost.

The acceptance of the 2023 Consolidated Appropriations Act grant funding would provide an additional $2,400,000. Should the CNRA grants funds be allowed to serve as the 20% local match, the total project budget would be $3,513,333. These would provide sufficient funds to enter into an agreement amendment with HDR for $1,685,856.53 for the remaining portion of Phase I, Phase II and optional tasks.

Should additional funds be required to provide for the local match on the federal grant, staff will return to Council for this consideration. Any additional local match appropriation would add to the total project budget.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:

The City Council’s actions relate to grant funding and pre-design and design support, and are not subject to CEQA. As Caltrans is the lead agency on the project, the City will be involved in a support role in future phases of the project that include environmental analysis. 148 of 675
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
August 22, 2023

Page 4 of 4 ends

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to:
• Execute an agreement amendment with Caltrans for the Project Initiation Document Phase in an amount not to exceed $10,000;
• Execute Caltrans Cooperative Agreements for the Project Approval/Environmental Document; Plans, Specifications, and Estimates; and Contract Administration and Construction Phases;
• Execute grant agreements and documents for the acceptance of a federal grant; and • Execute an Agreement Amendment for Consultant Services with HDR for design support on the Regional Stormwater Capture Project at I-280 and I-380 in an amount not to exceed $1,685,856.53 after the federal grant agreements have been executed.

ALTERNATIVES:

1. Do not authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement amendment with HDR nor accept and execute grant agreements and documents, thereby rejecting up to $2.4 million in federal grant funding. Discontinue work on the project and return any remaining funds to the granting agencies. Doing so will make achieving upcoming regulatory requirements more challenging.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution
149 of 675
RESOLUTION NO. 2023- ___
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO:
• EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT AMENDMENT WITH CALTRANS FOR THE PROJECT INITIATION DOCUMENT PHASE IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $10,000; • EXECUTE CALTRANS COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS FOR THE PROJECT APPROVAL/ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT; PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, AND ESTIMATES; AND CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION AND CONSTRUCTION PHASES; • EXECUTE GRANT AGREEMENTS AND DOCUMENTS FOR THE ACCEPTANCE OF A FEDERAL GRANT; AND
• EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT AMENDMENT FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES WITH HDR FOR DESIGN SUPPORT ON THE REGIONAL STORMWATER CAPTURE PROJECT AT I280 AND I-380 IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $1,685,856.53 AFTER THE FEDERAL GRANT AGREEMENTS HAVE BEEN EXECUTED.

WHEREAS, the City of San Bruno’s Capital Improvement Program includes an approved capital project, Regional Stormwater Capture Project at I-280 and I-380, envisioned to collect, treat, detain and potentially infiltrate into the ground, stormwater at an open space in the Caltrans right-of-way between the I-280 and I-380 interchanges; and WHEREAS, on March 9, 2021, City Council adopted a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement for consultant services with WRECO (since acquired by HDR) for pre-design support on the Regional Stormwater Capture Project at I-280 and I-380 (project) in an amount not to exceed $996,240.58 and execute a Caltrans cooperative agreement for the Project Initiation Document (PID); and WHEREAS, the pre-design support from HDR consisted of preparing the PID and commencing the Project Approval and Environmental (PA&ED) phase; and WHEREAS, the project is required to have Caltrans’ oversight due to the project being on Caltrans right-of-way; and
WHEREAS, the City entered into a cooperative agreement with Caltrans for the PID phase at a cost of $170,000, and requires an additional approximately $10,000 to pay for the remaining oversight costs; and
WHEREAS, the City secured $200,000 of Environmental Protection Agency grant funds and $913,333 of California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA) grants funds for a total project budget of $1,113,333; and
WHEREAS, City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County advised the City that it was successful in obtaining $2.4 million in federal grant funding for the project from the 2023 Consolidated Appropriations Act, which requires a 20% local match up to $600,000; and
WHEREAS, acceptance of the federal grant funding would require execution of grant agreement and documents to effectuate the grant; and
WHEREAS, the addition of federal grant funds would allow for sufficient funding to execute an agreement amendment in the amount of $1,685,856.53 with HDR for the design 150 of 675
ATTACHMENT 1
2 support for the remainder of the PA&ED phase, Plans Specifications, and Estimates (PS&E); advertisement, contract administration and construction; and optional tasks; and WHEREAS, Caltrans requires the City to enter into cooperative agreements for each phase of the project; and
WHEREAS, the current project budget is approximately $1,113,333 and the addition of $2,400,000 in federal grant funding will fund the project through PA&ED and PS&E; and WHEREAS, the existing project CNRA grant funds may potentially serve as the local match and, if not, staff will return to Council for the consideration of appropriation of additional funds for the local match; and
WHEREAS, City Council’s actions are not considered a “Project” per CEQA Guidelines and therefore no further environmental analysis is required.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager to:
• Execute an agreement amendment with Caltrans for the Project Initiation Document Phase in an amount not to exceed $10,000;
• Execute Caltrans Cooperative Agreements for the Project Approval/Environmental Document; Plans, Specifications, and Estimates; and Contract Administration and Construction Phases;
• Execute grant agreements and documents for the acceptance of a federal grant; and • Execute an agreement amendment for consultant services with HDR for design support on the Regional Stormwater Capture Project at I-280 and I-380 in an amount not to exceed $1,685,856.53 after the federal grant agreements have been executed. ---oOo---
I hereby certify that foregoing Resolution No. 2023 - ______ was introduced and adopted by the San Bruno City Council at a regular meeting on August 22, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers: ___________________________________________ NOES: Councilmembers: ___________________________________________ ABSENT: Councilmembers: ___________________________________________ Lupita Huerta, City Clerk
151 of 675
City Council Agenda Item
Staff Report

CITY OF SAN BRUNO
DATE: August 22, 2023
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Ryan Johansen, Police Chief
SUBJECT: Consider Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the Multi-Year Purchase and Use of Axon Body Worn Cameras, Axon Fleet In-Car Cameras, and Evidence.com Digital Evidence Management Solution from Axon Enterprise Inc. in an Amount Not to Exceed $615,000
BACKGROUND:

Police Department staff previously examined and evaluated body-worn cameras, in-car video systems and digital evidence management solutions. Staff determined that the Axon Body Worn Cameras, Axon Fleet In-Car Cameras, and Evidence.com Digital Evidence Management Solution, best meet the needs of the department.

On July 11, 2017, the City Council authorized the City Manager to execute a multi-year contract with Axon Enterprise Inc. for the purchase of Axon Body Worn Cameras, Axon Fleet In-Car Cameras, and Evidence.com Digital Evidence Management Solution and authorized an expenditure authority in the amount of $485,231 over a five-year span. In 2017, the City entered into an evergreen agreement with Axon Enterprise Inc. that became effective August 1, 2017 and is an ongoing multi-year contract until terminated by either party. The core equipment/services renewal is managed in five-year increments and is included in the Police Department’s annual budget preparation process.

The annual budget appropriation for this program is approved each year in the Police Department’s asset forfeiture account / equitable sharing budget, at approximately $150,000.

Given recent supply chain issues, the October 2022 equipment was delayed to 2023 and was budgeted in that respective operating budget. The most recent appropriation is included in the Police Department’s Fiscal Year 2023-24 operating budget.

DISCUSSION:

The City Council is being requested to authorize the five-year program expenditure authority in the amount not to exceed $615,000. The annual allocation will be included in the operating budget. The Adopted Fiscal Year 2023-24 Operating Budget approved approximately $150,000 from the asset forfeiture / equitable sharing account for the body worn cameras program. The proposed amount of $615,000 will cover expenditure authority for future years of the program cost, and the appropriation for each year will be included in the annual operating budget. 152 of 675
Item 6.j.

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
August 22, 2023

Page 2 of 2 ends

There will be no changes to the current agreement terms between Axon Enterprise Inc and the City of San Bruno.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There are sufficient funds allocated in the Adopted FY2023-24 Operating Budget to pay for this year’s expenditure. Approximately $150,000 is currently budgeted in the asset forfeiture / equitable sharing account. The annual budget appropriation in the amount of approximately $150,000 will be included in the operating budget process for future years to appropriate the annual funds. No additional appropriations of funds are needed at this time.

The breakdown of the five-year plan is as follows:

Year Est. Subtotal Est. Tax Est. Total
1 (Oct 2022) 123,732.66 5,194.72 128,927.38
2 (Oct 2023) 115,794.51 5,194.72 120,989.23
3 (Oct 2024) 115,794.51 5,194.72 120,989.23
4 (Oct 2025) 115,794.51 5,194.72 120,989.23
5 (Oct 2026) 115,794.51 5,194.72 120,989.23
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:

Consider Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the Multi-Year Purchase and Use of Axon Body Worn Cameras, Axon Fleet In-Car Cameras, and Evidence.com Digital Evidence Management Solution from Axon Enterprise Inc in an Amount Not to Exceed $615,000.

ALTERNATIVES:

1. Do not authorize the amendment.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution
153 of 675
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MULTI-YEAR PURCHASE AND USE OF AXON BODY WORN CAMERAS, AXON FLEET IN-CAR CAMERAS, AND EVIDENCE.COM DIGITAL

EVIDENCE MANAGEMENT SOLUTION FROM AXON ENTERPRISE INC IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $615,000
WHEREAS, on July 11, 2017, the City Council authorized the City Manager to execute a multi-year contract with Axon Enterprise Inc. for the purchase of Axon Body Worn Cameras, Axon Fleet In-Car Cameras, and Evidence.com Digital Evidence Management Solution and authorized an expenditure authority in the amount of $485,231 over a five-year span; and WHEREAS, this is an evergreen (ongoing) contract and the budget appropriation is approved annually in the budget; and
WHEREAS, the Adopted FY2023-24 Operating Budget approved approximately $150,000 from the Police Department’s asset forfeiture / equitable sharing account for the body worn cameras program. This amount is sufficient to cover this year’s cost.

WHEREAS, the amount of $615,000 will cover expenditure authority for future years (2022-2026) of the program cost, and the appropriation for each year will be included in the annual operating budget; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby authorizes the multi-year purchase and use of axon body worn cameras, axon fleet in-car cameras, and evidence.com digital evidence management solution from Axon Enterprise Inc. in an amount not to exceed $615,000.
---oOo---
I hereby certify that foregoing Resolution No. 2023 - ______ was introduced and adopted by the San Bruno City Council at a regular meeting on __________, by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers:

NOES: Councilmembers
ABSENT: Councilmembers:

Lupita Huerta, City Clerk
154 of 675
ATTACHMENT 1
City Council Agenda Item
Staff Report

CITY OF SAN BRUNO
DATE: August 22, 2023
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Matthew Lee, P.E., Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Consider Adopting a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Agreement Amendments with Group 4 Architecture, Griffin Structures, Ninyo & Moore, and Consor PMCM, Inc. for the Recreation and Aquatics Center Project in Amounts Not to Exceed $80,000 for Each Agreement Amendment, for a Total Amount Not to Exceed $320,000
BACKGROUND:

The City’s Recreation and Aquatic Center (RAC) project is a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) project to construct a new facility that will be a two-story, 49,500 square foot facility replacing the former Veterans Memorial Recreation Center located at 251 City Park Way. The new facility will operate as the City’s aquatic, recreation, and community center with a maximum occupancy of 2,400 people and will include an indoor/outdoor pool, multi-use gymnasium, indoor elevated track, community hall, conference rooms, multi-function rooms, classrooms, and staff offices.

On March 28, 2023, City Council adopted a resolution allocating an additional $1,500,000 from the San Bruno Community Foundation (SBCF) Funds to the Recreation and Aquatic Center (RAC) contingency funds and authorizing the City Manager to execute an amendment to the SBCF Grant Fund Agreement. This action was taken to ensure that the RAC had sufficient funds to complete construction as the project previously had a contingency amount of 10.9% when projects of this magnitude typically have a contingency amount of up to 15%. The action brought the contingency for the remaining work to 14%.

The project previously authorized, utilizing non-SBCF funds, the implementation of additional scope, including (i) tree removal on Crystal Springs Road, (ii) Beckner Shelter Road Repaving (iii) construction of the Desoto Way sidewalk (iii) a temporary water line bypass, and (iv) class II soil disposal. One more recent change utilizing SBCF funds would be including broadcasting capabilities, PG&E design changes, etc. In addition, the weather delays from severe winter storms experienced between December 2022 and May 2023 has impacted the schedule. With these past actions and events, the additional allocation in March 2023 was for the purpose of ensuring contingency to complete the project.

DISCUSSION:

The professional services for the RAC consists of the following consultants to support delivery of the project:
155 of 675
Item 6.k.

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
August 22, 2023

Page 2 of 3 ends

1. Designer: Group 4 Architecture

2. Project Manager: Consor PMCM, Inc.

3. Construction Manager: Griffin Structures

4. Geotechnical Engineer/Testing/Special Inspection: Ninyo & Moore Professional services that provide construction support have contract durations that typically coincide with anticipated construction completion by the contractor. The delivery of the physical construction timeline is the responsibility of the contractor. The construction support is to ensure that the physical structure is built per the design and that the contractor adheres to the contractual schedule to the extent possible. Due to this framework, when project completion dates are extended, construction support contracts may require an amendment. The original contracts anticipated completion in June 2023, when construction on the RAC began in September 2021. However, given the additional scope work authorized throughout construction and weather delays due to the severe winter storms, the project is anticipating substantial construction completion by the end of 2023. Authorizing the agreements would extend the consultants’ work to ensure consultant support is available through the end of the project. The project team is anticipating that no all of the contracts will need the requested amount to support the contract to completion and will work within their ability to be prudent with the amendments.

Section 2.44.100 (Change Orders) of the San Bruno Municipal Code, gives the City Manager authority to amend agreements by the issuance of a change order, provided the change is reasonably related to the scope of the original contact and within the City Manager’s authority limits. The limit in the City’s purchasing policy is the authority to enter agreements for $75,000 or less, as authorized by the City Council in Resolution No. 2019-08.

The City has an administrative policy, which would be the City’s Purchasing Policy. The Purchasing Policy limit in the City’s purchasing policy is tied to the approved expenditure authority to enter agreements for $75,000 or less. To further clarify the administrative policy, staff intends to update the document to add: “The City Manager may approve an agreement amendment in an amount of $75,000 or less, provided that the amendment is reasonably related to the original scope of work.”
FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact to the overall CIP budget and there is no additional funding being requested to be appropriated. The amendments to existing agreements are for amounts not to exceed $80,000 for each agreement, for a total amount not to exceed $320,000. These amendments will be funded out the Recreation and Aquatic Center Capital Improvement Program Project (Project #51009) project contingency.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:

City Council’s actions are not considered a “Project” per CEQA Guidelines and therefore no further environmental analysis is required.
156 of 675
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
August 22, 2023

Page 3 of 3 ends

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends authorizing the City Manager to execute agreement amendments with Group 4 Architecture, Griffin Structures, Ninyo & Moore, and Consor PMCM, Inc. for the Recreation and Aquatics Center Project in amounts not to exceed $80,000 for each agreement amendment, for a total amount not to exceed $320,000.

ALTERNATIVES:

1. Do not authorize the City Manager to execute some or all of the agreement amendments with consultants. The impact would be loss of certain specialized professional services the Project will require Project Support Services on as the construction completes for the RAC. Without project support services, the project is at greater risk of not completing, or completing over budget, and/or beyond the projected schedule.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution
157 of 675
RESOLUTION NO. 2023- ____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BRUNO

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT AMENDMENTS WITH GROUP 4 ARCHITECTURE, GRIFFIN STRUCTURES, NINYO & MOORE, AND CONSOR PMCM, INC. FOR THE RECREATION AND AQUATICS CENTER PROJECT IN AMOUNTS NOT TO EXCEED $80,000 FOR EACH AGREEMENT AMENDMENT, FOR A TOTAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $320,000
WHEREAS, the new Recreation and Aquatic Center (RAC) will be located at 251 City Park Way, replacing the former Veterans Memorial Recreation Center, and will be a modern, 2- story, 49,500 square foot facility that will operate as the City’s aquatic, recreation, and community center; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted the following project budget appropriations:

WHEREAS, on June 8, 2021, the City Council adopted a resolution approving the FY2021-22 Budget that included an overall $50,000,000.00 commitment to the City for the RAC project funded by 8 grants from the San Bruno Community Foundation (SBCF); and WHEREAS, on June 8, 2021, the City Council adopted a resolution that executed a contract with Lathrop Construction, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $43,031,000.00 and approved an additional construction contingency of $4,687,046.00 (10.9% of the construction contract amount); and
WHEREAS, on February 8, 2022, the City Council adopted a resolution authorizing the City Manager to appropriate a not-to-exceed amount of $1,039,456.00 from construction contingency to fund the project’s soft costs, reducing the construction contingency from $4,687,046.00 to $3,647,590.00 (8.5% of the original construction contract amount); and WHEREAS, on January 24, 2023, the City Council adopted a resolution to transfer $201,600.00 from the construction contingency to fund the tree removal on Crystal Springs, reducing the RAC’s construction contingency of $3,647,590.00 to $3,445,990.00 (8% of the original construction contract amount); and
WHEREAS, approved change orders in the contract, including Design Discrepancy Resolution (DDR) and Unknown and Unforeseen (UU) circumstances; Public Safety & Convenience (PS&C); Owner Request; and Value Engineering, amounted to $2,095,714.69, reducing the construction contingency budget from $3,445,990.00 to $1,624,322.40 (3.77% of the original construction contract amount); and
WHEREAS, staff anticipate additional change orders in the amount of $1,018,922.00, reducing the construction contingency from $1,624,322.40 to $605,400.75; and WHEREAS, staff recommends replenishing the construction contingency with SBCF funds in the amount of $1,500,000.00, increasing the overall total construction contingency to $4,945,990.00 (11.5% of the original construction contract amount); and WHEREAS, approximately $15,000,000.00 worth of work remains, and the additional $1,500,000 will supplement the forecasted $605,400.75 remaining construction contingency balance, increasing the remaining total to $2,105,400.75 (14% of the remaining work); and 158 of 675
ATTACHMENT 1
WHEREAS, the Beckner Shelter Road and Parking Lot Repaving improvements was a project previously identified as an ancillary project to the RAC, allowing for funds from the Beckner Shelter Road and Parking Lot Repaving Project (Project #51022) to be shifted to the RAC project without utilizing additional SBCF funds; and WHEREAS, on March 28, 2023, the City Council adopted a resolution authorizing the City Manager to appropriate an additional contingency of $1,750,000.00, with $1,500,000.00 funded from available SBCF funds, along with a $250,000.00 fund transfer from the General Fund Capital Reserve; and
WHEREAS, staff seek to use a portion of the March 28, 2023 City Council approved contingency to amend and increase current professional services agreements with four firms, in amounts not to exceed $80,000 for each firm, for the following services: Group 4 Architecture for architectural design; Griffin Structures for construction management; Ninyo & Moore for geotechnical engineering, testing, and inspection; and Consor PMCM, Inc. for project management; and
WHEREAS, as these professional service agreement amendments will be funded from existing RAC project contingency, no additional funding is requested to the existing City Council approved project budget of $62,290,228.00; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby adopts a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute consultant services agreement amendments with Group 4 Architecture, Griffin Structures, Ninyo & Moore, and Consor PMCM, Inc. for the Recreation and Aquatics Center Project for an amount not to exceed $80,000 for each agreement amendment, for a total amount not to exceed $320,000. ---oOo---
I hereby certify that foregoing Resolution No. 2023 - ______ was introduced and adopted by the San Bruno City Council at a regular meeting on ___________, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers:

NOES: Councilmembers
ABSENT: Councilmembers:

Lupita Huerta, City Clerk
159 of 675
City Council Agenda Item
Staff Report

CITY OF SAN BRUNO
DATE: August 22, 2023
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Peter Gilli, Community Development Director Eliseo Amaya, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: Hold Public Hearing and Consider Adoption of a Resolution to Select One Commercial Cannabis Operator Permit Application
BACKGROUND:

On September 27, 2022, the City Council introduced commercial cannabis ordinances to amend the Municipal Code to permit certain cannabis operations, and those ordinances were adopted by City Council on October 11, 2022. Also on October 11, 2022, the City Council adopted the City of San Bruno Application Procedures and Guidelines for Commercial Cannabis Operator Permits (CCOP) (see Attachment 2).

The Procedures and Guidelines describe the five phase process, and this agenda item represents Phase IV:

1. Phase I – Determination of Eligibility

2. Phase II – Application Completeness Determination

3. Phase III – Application Evaluation and Scoring

4. Phase IV – Selection by the City Council

5. Phase V – City Final Determination and Issuance of CCOP License The Procedures and Guidelines describe “review criteria” that each application must respond to split into the following categories: • Business Plan • Labor and Community Benefit Plan • Neighborhood Compatibility & Odor Control Plan • Safety and Hazardous Materials Plan • Security Plan • Location and Site Plans On January 24, 2023, the City Council directed staff to further amend the Municipal Code to reduce the number of allowed cannabis businesses to a maximum of two CCOPs for retail and/or distribution operations, with no more than one of the two permits for retail sales. The milestones for the revised regulations were:
160 of 675 Item 7.a.

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
August 22, 2023

Page 2 of 4 ends

• February 21, 2023 – Planning Commission public hearing to provide City Council with a recommendation of the proposed changes;
• March 28, 2023 – City Council public hearing to introduce an ordinance amending the Municipal Code to reduce the number of CCOPs;
• April 11, 2023 – City Council adoption of the ordinance; and • May 11, 2023 – Effective date of the ordinance.

The application window for the CCOPs was open from May 15 to June 30, 2023. The City of San Bruno received three cannabis retailer applications, and the Municipal Code limits the number of retail CCOPs to one. The City received no distribution applications.

DISCUSSION:

The City received retail applications from the following applicants, listed alphabetically by the store name:
• Embarc San Bruno – 120-124 El Camino Real (see Attachment 3) • MMD Shop – 115 El Camino Real (see Attachment 4)
• SB Golden – 197 El Camino Real (see Attachment 5)
Application materials for each submittal is provided as an attachment. Please note that the financial and security information in these plans have been removed or redacted. For each attachment, staff prepared a cover page with a summary table for each application. The table lists quantifiable items staff collected from each application that could inform the City Council’s selection.

The applications were reviewed by staff from the Community Development, Fire and Police Departments to confirm each application provides a complete business plan, labor plan, neighborhood compatibility plan, safety plan, and security plan. Consistent with the City Council adopted procedures and guidelines, each application being presented to the City Council for its consideration has been assigned a “Pass” status.

The City Council may select one of these qualified applications to proceed into Phase V, which includes additional review through a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) process that will ultimately be acted on by the City Council after a recommendation from the Planning Commission.

Next Steps – Phase V – Conditional Use Permit
The application selected by City Council will proceed to Phase V, which will include the review of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) application for their location. As part of the CUP process, staff will carefully examine the property, the surrounding land uses, and identify potential issues that may arise from the selected application. Conditions of approval will be established to minimize any such incompatibilities, as well as ensure operational commitments by the applicant are met, including but not limited to safety, security, and odor control.

One of the primary reasons the City Council adopted the commercial cannabis regulations was for revenue generation to fund essential public services. The revenue projections provided by the applicants are based on their projected area-wide demand, their projected number of customers served per day based on that demand, and an average transaction value. Staff views 161 of 675
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
August 22, 2023

Page 3 of 4 ends

these projections as potential maximums and suggests City Council not assume such revenues will be fully achieved:
• Comparison. The City of Redwood City has approved six retail locations, and estimates annual tax income from their 4% cannabis tax to be up to $750,000 combined.

If it was assumed that San Bruno has equivalent market conditions, and if it was assumed that the City’s single retailer could serve the full demand of the San Bruno area, the City’s 6% annual cannabis tax theoretically could generate 1.5 times what Redwood City projects (up to $1.1 M). Proximity to the airport is one factor that may make San Bruno a stronger market than Redwood City, which could strengthen revenues.
• Customer Volume. Management of customer volume will be an issue analyzed in the CUP process, which may lead to conditions that limit customer traffic (through appointments or other methods) to minimize impacts on local streets, sidewalks and surrounding properties. Managing customer volume will reduce the selected applicant’s capacity for achieving the maximum potential revenue projections.

After staff’s analysis of the CUP application is complete, staff will present the CUP, with recommended conditions of approval, to the Planning Commission for consideration at a noticed public hearing. Typically, the Planning Commission is the final decision maker for a CUP, but the commercial cannabis ordinance requires the City Council to take the final action on the CUP. A refined revenue projection will be provided at that time. If the City Council approves the CUP, the final step would be for the City Manager to administratively issue the CCOP to the applicant.

If the City Council selects an application as part of this agenda item, and that applicant promptly submits a complete application for the CUP, staff is optimistic that the Planning Commission meeting would be scheduled in Fall 2023, with the City Council final action before the end of the calendar year. Issuance of building permits would be expected in early 2024, with potential opening estimated to be near the start of the next fiscal year on July 1, 2024.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no direct fiscal impact from this agenda item. Selection of a cannabis retailer will allow one applicant to enter Phase V, which will include the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and the CCOP license. If approved, when open the cannabis retailer will result in tax revenues to the City.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:

The City Council selection of up to one cannabis retail business is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Environmental review will occur through the Conditional Use Permit process.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council one of the three CCOP applicants to proceed to Phase V and the Conditional Use Permit process.
162 of 675
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
August 22, 2023

Page 4 of 4 ends

ALTERNATIVES:

1. The City Council can request additional information and continue the item; or

2. The City Council can choose to not select any of the applicants and close this application process
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution

2. City of San Bruno Application Procedures and Guidelines for Commercial Cannabis Operator Permits

3. Embarc Application Materials with Staff Cover Sheet

4. MMD Application Materials with Staff Cover Sheet

5. SB Golden Application Materials with Staff Cover Sheet 163 of 675
RESOLUTION NO. 2023 –

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BRUNO SELECTING

ONE COMMERCIAL CANNABIS OPERATOR PERMIT APPLICATION TO PROCEED

TO PHASE V OF THE COMMERCIAL CANNABIS APPLICATION PROCESS WHEREAS, on October 11, 2022, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1930 for Commercial Cannabis regulations and Resolution No. 2022-96a to adopt the City of San Bruno Application Procedures and Guidelines for Commercial Cannabis Operator Permits (Procedures), and on April 11, 2023, adopted Ordinance No. 1937 amending Commercial Cannabis regulations; and
WHEREAS, on June 30, 2023, the application window for Commercial Cannabis Operators Permits was closed, and the City received three applications for retail operators: Embarc San Bruno (San Bruno Responsible & Compliant Retail LLC); MMD Shops (C4TP Retail A); SB Golden (SB Golden, LLC); and
WHEREAS, the three applications were issued a “pass” based on Section

4.70.100 of the Municipal Code after review by the Community Development, Fire and Police Departments determined the applications were complete based on the Procedures; and
WHEREAS, the Section 4.70.100 and the Procedures call for the City Council to select one application to proceed to the next phase of the Commercial Cannabis application process, and the City Council held a public hearing on August 22, 2023, to review the application materials and receive public comment; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the San Bruno City Council hereby selects [Embarc San Bruno (San Bruno Responsible & Compliant Retail LLC); MMD Shops (C4TP Retail A); SB Golden (SB Golden, LLC)] to proceed to Phase V of the Commercial Cannabis application process.
--oOo—
I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution No. _____ was introduced and adopted by the San Bruno City Council, at a regular meeting on August 22, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers:

NOES: Councilmembers:

ABSENT: Councilmembers:
________________________________
Lupita Huerta, City Clerk
164 of 675
ATTACHMENT 1

CITY OF SAN BRUNO

APPLICATION PROCEDURES AND GUIDELINES FOR

COMMERCIAL CANNABIS OPERATOR PERMITS
Information regarding the Commercial Cannabis Operators Permit (CCOP) Application process for Storefront Sales or Distribution uses can be found on the City’s Cannabis Regulations and Permitting website at https://www.sanbruno.ca.gov/884/Cannabis-Regulations-Permitting and includes the following: ▪ California state regulations and resources ▪ Application Procedures and Guidelines
▪ San Bruno Municipal Code (SBMC) ▪ Commercial Cannabis Operators Permit Application
▪ Background check application and Live
Scan form(s)
The application period to apply for a CCOP in San Bruno will open on May15, 2023, and will close at 4:00 p.m. on June 30, 2023. Applications will be available from the Planning Division website or at the Planning Division located at 567 El Camino Real, San Bruno, CA 94066. Applications must be submitted to Planning Division prior to the deadline. Incomplete and late applications will not be accepted.

Applicants should monitor the City’s web page for any additional information, FAQ’s, or updates. It is the responsibility of the Applicant to stay informed of this information.

APPLICATION INQUIRIES AND APPOINTMENTS
City staff will not be meeting with applicants or their representatives prior to the application deadline. All questions related to application submission, or the review process should be submitted in writing to the Planning and Housing Manager via email at [email protected]. Please also consult the information posted on the City’s cannabis website.

CITY’S RESERVATION OF RIGHTS
The City reserves the right to reject any and/or all applications in accordance with the San Bruno Municipal Code (SBMC) and these procedures and guidelines. The City may modify, postpone, or cancel the application period or review process for CCOP applications without liability, obligation, or commitment to any party, firm, or organization. In addition, the City reserves the right to request and obtain additional information from any applicant. Late or incomplete applications at the time of application closing will be rejected. Furthermore, an application RISKS BEING REJECTED for the following reasons: • It is not fully responsive to this request for a CCOP application. • If the application fails to respond to the Review Criteria as noted in the SBMC and this application packet.
• The issuance ofa CCOP at the proposed location would be inconsistent with State law, or other applicable provisions of the SBMC.
165 of 675 ATTACHMENT 2

APPLICATION PROCESS
Before submitting, review your application in its entirety to ensure that it is complete and accurate. Review the information regarding the CCOP application on the City’s Cannabis Regulations and Permitting website: https://www.sanbruno.ca.gov/884/Cannabis-RegulationsPermitting The following procedures outline the application evaluation and selection process, required materials, and other information necessary to apply for a permit to operate a CCOP in San Bruno.

CCOP APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
All required CCOP Application materials must be submitted together prior to the application deadline. Applicants must hand-deliver one (1) signed original CCOP Application and one (1) USB flash drive containing a scanned copy of the complete, signed CCOP Application (PDF format).

Please Note: All materials must be submitted in both hard copy and on a USB flash drive in a PDF format, broken down into five PDF files, based on the following file organization:
• PDF File #1 – CCOP Initial Application with authorized signatures • PDF File #2 – Review Criteria responses
• PDF File #3 – Background Check documentation (All required documents for each owner; Board of Directors; and person(s) who will control, direct, or manage the operations of the facility). Upon submission of the online background check application, applicants will receive an email confirmation. This confirmation needs to be printed, scanned, and included within PDF File #3.
• PDF File #4 – Proof of Capitalization (All bank statements, loan documents, promissory notes, and, financial and commitment letters)
• PDF File #5 – A signed and notarized Property Owner Consent form, Lease Agreement, or a “Letter of Intention” to Lease.

BACKGROUND CHECK
Each Owner, as defined in the San Bruno Municipal Code, must undergo a criminal history background check to demonstrate that they are not precluded from holding a permit pursuant to San Bruno Municipal Code Section 4.70.160. Owners who do not meet the criminal history eligibility requirements of SBMC will be disqualified. In addition, each successful applicant/owner will be asked to submit to a Live Scan prior to permit issuance in order to complete the background check process. This will require the owner(s) to submit fingerprints to the city. The process will be conducted by the San Bruno Police Department, which will submit the Live Scan to the DOJ/FBI to review for criminal offender record information (CORI). The CORI reports will be provided to the City for the sole purpose of determining eligibility for a CCOP. Each applicant/owner’s primary contact will be notified by email with the instructions on how to schedule the Live Scan appointment after the City determines which applicant(s) will be awarded a CCOP. There will be a fee for a provisional background check. Successful applicants will also be subject to a separate Live Scan fee.
166 of 675
FEES
All applicants will be required to submit a deposit based on the current Master Fee Schedule for the City of San Bruno for each CCOP application. As of November 10, 2022, the initial deposit is $11,161. Time spent by City staff and any City consultant reviewing applications and administrating the application process will be tracked and charged against this amount. All direct costs including legal and public notices will be charged to the applicant. The deposit amount is based on the preliminary cost estimates analysis; however, applicants are advised that they may be required to post an additional deposit, if necessary, for the City to complete the application review processes. Any remaining deposit balance that is unused at the end of the application process will be returned to the Applicant.

A separate background check fee will be required and is due when requesting a criminal background check through the City. Background check application fees are non-refundable. 167 of 675

APPLICATION REVIEW, SCORING AND SELECTION PROCESS SELECTION PROCESS PHASE I: DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY
Applications must be submitted in their entirety, no later than June 30, 2023, at 4:00 p.m. LATE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED. Upon receiving a complete application, the City will review the application in its entirety using the Application Submittal checklist on Page 1 of the CCOP Application. Applications that meet the minimum eligibility requirements will proceed to Phase II (Application Completeness Determination). If the City determines in the initial screening that an application does not meet minimum eligibility requirements including but not limited to the background check and, zoning requirements, and distance requirements from sensitive uses, the applicant shall be notified in writing that the application has been denied.

Any appeal of that decision must comply with San Bruno Municipal Code section 4.70.160.

PHASE II: APPLICATION COMPLETENESS DETERMINATION
Applications will be reviewed by City staff to determine if the application submittal package is complete. If the application is determined to be incomplete, the City shall provide written notice to the applicant and owner advising what information is required. The applicant shall have fourteen (14) days from the date of the City’s notice to file the required information. Failure to provide the required materials within this timeframe shall result in the City’s disqualification of the CCOP application from further consideration in the application review.

PHASE III: APPLICATION EVALUATION AND SCORING
Applications will be reviewed by the City, and based on the criteria explained below. As instructed, responses to the Review Criteria must be saved in PDF File #2. See APPENDIX A for a description of the Review Criteria:
1) Business Plan
2) Labor and Community Benefit Plan
3) Neighborhood Compatibility Plan & Odor Control Plan
4) Safety and Hazardous Materials Plan
5) Security Plan
6) Location and Site Plans
Applicants will not be allowed to resubmit information that is determined to be missing or deficient during the Phase III review. Those applications which are determined to provide complete information which address all health and safety concerns in Phase III will move on to Phase IV of the application process.

PHASE IV: SELECTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL
Those CCOP Applications that have been cleared as part of Phase III process will be forwarded to the City Council for review and consideration. The City Council will hold a publicly noticed meeting to initially select up to one (1) CCOP applicant for a commercial cannabis distribution facility and one (1) commercial cannabis retailer (storefront sales) or commercial cannabis distribution facility. If there are less than two (2) initial selections, the City Council may open the CCOP process again at any time in the future.
168 of 675
PHASE V: CITY FINAL DETERMINATION AND ISSUANCE OF CCOP LICENSE Operators selected by the City Council will be eligible to receive a CCOP after receiving Planning Commission and City Council approval of a Conditional Use Permit.

However, the City reserves the right to award a lesser number of CCOP or to award no permits at all.

CONTACT
If you have any questions, please contact the Planning Division at: [email protected]. 169 of 675
APPENDIX A: DESCRIPTION OF REVIEW

CRITERIA
All of the following information must be submitted on a USB flash drive in PDF format (please do not submit any documents in Word format) when the application is initially filed for consideration.

Responses to the Review Criteria shall be limited to 300 pages.

REVIEW CRITERIA

1. BUSINESS PLAN

1.1. Owner qualifications. Resumes are not to exceed two (2) pages per owner.

1.2. A budget for construction, operation, and maintenance, compensation of employees, equipment costs, utility cost, and other operation costs.

1.3. Proof of capitalization in the form of documentation of cash or other liquid assets on hand, Letters of Credit, or other equivalent assets.

1.4. Proof of corporation status.

1.5. Tax compliance.

1.6. Proof of insurance (required prior to City approval of the CCOP).

1.7. Financial pro forma and budget for at least three years of operation.

1.8. Fully describe hours of operation, and opening and closing procedures.

1.9. Describe the day-to-day operations per license type:

1.9.1. Additional criteria for Storefront Sales applications only:
a. Describe customer check-in procedures.
b. Identify location and procedures for receiving deliveries during business hours. c. Identify the name of the point-of-sale system to be used and the number of point-of-Sale locations.
d. Estimate the number of customers to be served per hour/day. e. Describe the proposed product line to be sold and estimate the percentage of sales of flower and manufactured products.
f. If proposed, describe delivery service procedures, number of vehicles and product security during transportation.

2. LABOR AND COMMUNITY BENEFITS PLAN

2.1. Describe whether the CCOP holder is committed to offering employees a living wage.

2.2.Briefly describe benefits provided to employees such as health care, vacation, and medical leave, to the degree they are offered as part of employment.

2.3. Describe compensation to and opportunities for continuing education and employee training.

2.4. Describe the extent to which the CCOP holder will be a locally managed enterprise whose owners and/or managers reside, own a commercial business, or operate a nonprofit within the City of San Bruno.

2.5. Describe the expected number of employees, title/position, and their responsibilities.

2.6. Describe any other proposed community benefit programs or provisions (which may include, though not be limited to, donation of equipment and supplies to San Bruno youth programs, provision of park equipment, etc.) related to the proposed commercial cannabis operation.
170 of 675

3. NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY PLAN (AND ODOR CONTROL PLAN)

3.1. Describe how the CCOP holder will proactively address and respond to complaints related to noise, light, odor, litter, and, vehicle and pedestrian traffic and on-site and/or on-street parking.

3.2. Describe how the CCOP holder will be managed so as to avoid becoming a nuisance or having impacts on its neighbors and the surrounding community.

3.3. Describe odor mitigation practices.

3.4. Identify potential sources of odor and odor mitigation practices.

3.5. Describe odor control devices/equipment and techniques employed to ensure that odors from cannabis are not detectable beyond the licensed premises.

3.6. Describe all proposed system maintenance.

3.7. Describe the waste management plan. This should include handling and disposal of any unused or unsold cannabis products.

4. SAFETY AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS PLAN

4.1. The Safety Plan should consider all possible fire, medical, and hazardous situations, and shall be prepared and/or assessed by a professional fire prevention and suppression consultant. Complete policy/procedures manuals are not required with the initial application materials but may be requested by the City during the application evaluation process. Please describe each of the following:

4.1.1. Types, amounts, use and storage/transport details for any hazardous material to be used as part of project operations.

4.1.2. Accident and incident reporting procedures.

4.1.3. Evacuation routes.

4.1.4. The location of fire extinguishers and other fire suppression equipment.

4.1.5. Procedures and training for all fire and medical emergencies.

5. SECURITY PLAN*

5.1. The Security Plan should consider all access control, inventory control, cash handling procedures, and shall be prepared and/or assessed by a professional security consultant. Complete policy/procedures manuals are not required to be submitted with the initial application materials but may be requested by the City during the application evaluation process. Please describe each of the following:

5.1.1. Premises (Security) Diagram. Applicants shall submit a premises diagram (or site plan) which focuses on the proposed security measures and how they relate to the overall business. (This is identical to the state requirement for such a diagram contained in CCR Title 16, Division 42, § 5006. Premises Diagram). a. The diagram shall be accurate, dimensioned and to scale (minimum scale ¼”).

The scale may be smaller if the proposed location exceeds more than a 1/2-acre parcel but must not be printed on larger than an 11” x 17” sheet of paper. (Blueprints and engineering site plans are not required to be submitted with the initial application materials but may be requested by the City during the application evaluation process)
b. The diagram must be drawn to scale and clearly identify property boundaries, entrances, exits, interior partitions, walls, rooms, windows, and doorways, as well as lighting plans for proposed exterior and interior lighting that will be used to help in providing necessary security lighting for the site. The activity in each room and 171 of 675
the location of all cameras must be identified in the diagram. c. The diagram must describe cannabis activity that will be conducted in each area of the premises. Commercial cannabis activities that must be identified on the diagram/site plan include the following, if applicable to the business operations:
storage areas, batch sampling areas, loading/unloading of shipment areas, packaging and labeling areas, customer sales areas, training areas, employee break room areas, extraction areas, infusion areas, processing areas, and testing areas.
d. The diagram must include limited-access areas, defined as areas in which cannabis goods are stored or held and only accessible to the permittee, or its employees or contractors and areas used for video surveillance monitoring and storage devices.

5.1.2.Number, types and locations of all video surveillance cameras.

5.2. Identify the intrusion alarm and monitoring system including the name and contact information for the monitoring company (if the company has been selected).

5.3. Briefly describe cash handling procedures.

5.4. Discuss whether the CCOP holder will utilize the services of on-site security guards.

Include in the discussion:

5.4.1. Number of guards.

5.4.2. Hours guards will be on-site.

5.4.3. Locations at which they will be positioned.

5.4.4. Guard roles and responsibilities.
* Security Plans will not be made public. (See Government Code Section 6254(f)).

6. LOCATION AND SITE PLANS

6.1. The application shall include a thorough description of the proposed CCOP holder location, including but not limited to the overall property, building, and floor plan.

6.2. The application shall include at least one (1) photograph of the building frontage or street view of the vacant parcel.

6.3. Premises (Site) Diagram for each proposed location. In addition to the Premises (Security) Diagram, applicants shall submit a premises/site and building floor plan diagram that focuses on the overall property and building(s). This diagram should show the parcel and adjoining or neighboring buildings that may be affected by the CCOP holder.

6.3.1. A Premise (Site) Diagram must be accurate, dimensioned and to-scale (minimum scale of ¼”). The diagram shall provide a detailed description of all available/shared parking spaces, driveway locations, and auxiliary buildings on the parcel. (Blueprints and engineering site plans are not required to be submitted with the initial application but may be requested by the City during the application evaluation process. Security features are not required for this section.) 172 of 675
173 of 675
ATTACHMENT 3
174 of 675
175 of 675
176 of 675
177 of 675
178 of 675
179 of 675
180 of 675
181 of 675
182 of 675
183 of 675
184 of 675
185 of 675
186 of 675
187 of 675
188 of 675
189 of 675
190 of 675
191 of 675
192 of 675
193 of 675
194 of 675
195 of 675
196 of 675
197 of 675
198 of 675
199 of 675
200 of 675
201 of 675
202 of 675
203 of 675
204 of 675
205 of 675
206 of 675
207 of 675
208 of 675
209 of 675
210 of 675
211 of 675
212 of 675
213 of 675
214 of 675
215 of 675
216 of 675
217 of 675
218 of 675
219 of 675
220 of 675
221 of 675
222 of 675
223 of 675
224 of 675
225 of 675
226 of 675
227 of 675
228 of 675
229 of 675
230 of 675
231 of 675
232 of 675
233 of 675
234 of 675
235 of 675
236 of 675
237 of 675
238 of 675
239 of 675
240 of 675
241 of 675
242 of 675
243 of 675
244 of 675
245 of 675
246 of 675
247 of 675
248 of 675
249 of 675
250 of 675
251 of 675
252 of 675
253 of 675
254 of 675
255 of 675
256 of 675
257 of 675
258 of 675
259 of 675
260 of 675
261 of 675
262 of 675
263 of 675
264 of 675
265 of 675
266 of 675
267 of 675
268 of 675
269 of 675
270 of 675
271 of 675
272 of 675
273 of 675
274 of 675
275 of 675
276 of 675
277 of 675
278 of 675
279 of 675
280 of 675
281 of 675
282 of 675
283 of 675
284 of 675
285 of 675
286 of 675
287 of 675
288 of 675
289 of 675
290 of 675
291 of 675
292 of 675
293 of 675
294 of 675
295 of 675
296 of 675
297 of 675
298 of 675
299 of 675
300 of 675
301 of 675
302 of 675
303 of 675
304 of 675
305 of 675
306 of 675
307 of 675
308 of 675
309 of 675
310 of 675
311 of 675
312 of 675
313 of 675
314 of 675
315 of 675
316 of 675
317 of 675
318 of 675
319 of 675
320 of 675
321 of 675
322 of 675
323 of 675
324 of 675
325 of 675
326 of 675
327 of 675
328 of 675
329 of 675
330 of 675
331 of 675
332 of 675
333 of 675
334 of 675
335 of 675
336 of 675
337 of 675
338 of 675
339 of 675
340 of 675
341 of 675
342 of 675
343 of 675
344 of 675
345 of 675
346 of 675
347 of 675
348 of 675
349 of 675
350 of 675
351 of 675
352 of 675
353 of 675
354 of 675
355 of 675
356 of 675
357 of 675
358 of 675
359 of 675
360 of 675
361 of 675
362 of 675
363 of 675
364 of 675
365 of 675
366 of 675
367 of 675
ATTACHMENT 4
368 of 675
369 of 675
370 of 675
371 of 675
372 of 675
373 of 675
374 of 675
375 of 675
376 of 675
377 of 675
378 of 675
379 of 675
380 of 675
381 of 675
382 of 675
383 of 675
384 of 675
385 of 675
386 of 675
387 of 675
388 of 675
389 of 675
390 of 675
391 of 675
392 of 675
393 of 675
394 of 675
395 of 675
396 of 675
397 of 675
398 of 675
399 of 675
400 of 675
401 of 675
402 of 675
403 of 675
404 of 675
405 of 675
406 of 675
407 of 675
408 of 675
409 of 675
410 of 675
411 of 675
412 of 675
413 of 675
414 of 675
415 of 675
416 of 675
417 of 675
418 of 675
419 of 675
420 of 675
421 of 675
422 of 675
423 of 675
424 of 675
425 of 675
426 of 675
427 of 675
428 of 675
429 of 675
430 of 675
431 of 675
432 of 675
433 of 675
434 of 675
435 of 675
436 of 675
437 of 675
438 of 675
439 of 675
440 of 675
441 of 675
442 of 675
443 of 675
444 of 675
445 of 675
446 of 675
447 of 675
448 of 675
449 of 675
450 of 675
451 of 675
452 of 675
453 of 675
454 of 675
455 of 675
456 of 675
457 of 675
458 of 675
459 of 675
460 of 675
461 of 675
462 of 675
463 of 675
464 of 675
465 of 675
466 of 675
467 of 675
468 of 675
469 of 675
470 of 675
471 of 675
472 of 675
473 of 675
474 of 675
475 of 675
476 of 675
477 of 675
478 of 675
479 of 675
480 of 675
481 of 675
482 of 675
483 of 675
484 of 675
485 of 675
486 of 675
487 of 675
488 of 675
489 of 675
490 of 675
491 of 675
492 of 675
493 of 675
494 of 675
495 of 675
496 of 675
497 of 675
498 of 675
499 of 675
500 of 675
501 of 675
502 of 675
503 of 675
504 of 675
505 of 675
506 of 675
507 of 675
508 of 675
509 of 675
510 of 675
511 of 675
512 of 675
513 of 675
514 of 675
515 of 675
516 of 675
517 of 675
518 of 675
519 of 675
520 of 675
521 of 675
522 of 675
523 of 675
524 of 675
525 of 675
526 of 675
527 of 675
528 of 675
529 of 675
ATTACHMENT 5
530 of 675
531 of 675
532 of 675
533 of 675
534 of 675
535 of 675
536 of 675
537 of 675
538 of 675
539 of 675
540 of 675
541 of 675
542 of 675
543 of 675
544 of 675
545 of 675
546 of 675
547 of 675
548 of 675
549 of 675
550 of 675
551 of 675
552 of 675
553 of 675
554 of 675
555 of 675
556 of 675
557 of 675
558 of 675
559 of 675
560 of 675
561 of 675
562 of 675
563 of 675
564 of 675
565 of 675
566 of 675
567 of 675
568 of 675
569 of 675
570 of 675
571 of 675
572 of 675
573 of 675
574 of 675
575 of 675
576 of 675
577 of 675
578 of 675
579 of 675
580 of 675
581 of 675
582 of 675
583 of 675
584 of 675
585 of 675
586 of 675
587 of 675
588 of 675
589 of 675
590 of 675
591 of 675
592 of 675
593 of 675
594 of 675
595 of 675
596 of 675
597 of 675
598 of 675
599 of 675
600 of 675
601 of 675
602 of 675
603 of 675
604 of 675
605 of 675
606 of 675
607 of 675
608 of 675
609 of 675
610 of 675
611 of 675
612 of 675
613 of 675
614 of 675
615 of 675
616 of 675
617 of 675
618 of 675
619 of 675
620 of 675
621 of 675
622 of 675
623 of 675
624 of 675
625 of 675
626 of 675
627 of 675
628 of 675
629 of 675
630 of 675
631 of 675
632 of 675
633 of 675
634 of 675
635 of 675
636 of 675
637 of 675
638 of 675
639 of 675
640 of 675
641 of 675
642 of 675
643 of 675
644 of 675
645 of 675
646 of 675
647 of 675
648 of 675
649 of 675
650 of 675
651 of 675
652 of 675
653 of 675
654 of 675
655 of 675
656 of 675
657 of 675
658 of 675
City Council Agenda Item
Staff Report

CITY OF SAN BRUNO
DATE: August 22, 2023
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Ryan Johansen, Chief of Police
SUBJECT: Conduct a Study Session and Provide Feedback on Draft Regulations Relating to Paid On and Off-Street Parking Areas in the Downtown and El Camino Real Corridor
BACKGROUND:

The purpose of the study session is to receive Council’s feedback on the draft regulations relating to paid on and off-street parking areas in the downtown and El Camino Real corridor.

Background of Downtown Parking Meters and Enhanced Parking Enforcement Project The City completed Downtown Parking Management Plan
1 (Plan) in 2019. This Plan served to
implement the City’s General Plan (2009) and Transit Corridors Plan (2013) and to support the City Council’s on-going efforts and interests in development and revitalization of San Bruno’s downtown. The Plan identifies appropriate supply, distribution, and management of parking within the downtown to meet current and future parking demands and minimize spillover into residential areas.

The Plan existing conditions analysis included an occupancy and duration survey of parked vehicles within the study area, to establish a baseline understanding of current parking conditions. Overall, the study found that parking facilities on and near San Mateo Avenue are well used during the day on both weekdays and weekends, while the residential street blocks are more heavily used in the evenings and overnight, with total overnight parking occupancy close to capacity. A detailed analysis of occupancy and duration by time of day and location, along with the methodology for data collection, are described in the Plan. Specifically, the Plan analysis found: • On-street parking on San Mateo Avenue in the downtown is heavily used during the weekday midday, but other areas are well below capacity at this time. On the weekend, midday parking occupancy is heavier and is sustained throughout the afternoon along both San Mateo Avenue and nearby side streets;
• Off-street parking supply in the downtown experiences extended periods of occupancies above the 85% target capacity level on both the weekdays and weekends; • In the evening on both weekdays and weekends, including the overnight count, off-street parking in residential areas is near or over capacity, implying that there is very high demand for residential parking;
1 https://www.sanbruno.ca.gov/628/Downtown-Parking-Management-Plan 659 of 675
Item 8.a.

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
August 22, 2023

Page 2 of 5 ends

San Bruno City CouncilAugust 22, 2023

San Bruno City Council
August 22, 2023