Agenda, first session — San Bruno City Council, March 24, 2026

"The City With a Heart"
Rico E. Medina, Mayor
Sandy Alvarez, Vice Mayor
Tom Hamilton, Councilmember, District 2
Michael Salazar, Councilmember, District 3
Marty Medina, Councilmember, District 4
AGENDA
SAN BRUNO CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
March 24, 2026
5:30 PM
IN PERSON* MEETING LOCATION
San Bruno Recreation and Aquatic Center, Community Room 251 City Park Way
San Bruno, CA 94066
*Please turn off all electronic devices before the start of the meeting to prevent disruptions*
**Zoom Link
https://sanbrunocagov.zoom.us/j/81890016124?
pwd=X8ECMDkbZTDJKzQPHhGuf0i4jtz1yN.1
Phone Line: 16465588656
Webinar ID: 818 9001 6124
Webinar Password: 681751
*Broadcast of the meeting is offered via Zoom as a
courtesy to the public.
**No public comment accepted via Zoom.

PUBLIC COMMENT: In person attendees who want to provide public comment, will be asked to fill out a speaker card and turn it into the City Clerk. Public comment may also be emailed to [email protected] . Comments received via email will not be read
aloud during the meeting.

ACCESSIBILITY: In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, individuals requiring special accommodations or modifications to participate in this meeting should contact the City Clerk’s Office 48 hours prior to the meeting at (650) 6167061 or [email protected] .
*Any disclosable public writings related to an open session item on a regular meeting agenda and distributed by the City to at least a majority of the City Council less than 72 hours prior to that meeting are available for public inspection at the City Clerk's Office at City Hall located at 567 El Camino Real, San Bruno, California during normal business hours. In addition, the City may also post such documents on the City’s Website at sanbruno.ca.gov/AgendaCenter .

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. ROLL CALL

3. STUDY SESSION
Public comment will be requested after each topic in this section a. City Council Strategic Initiative for Downtown Beautification Planning b. Receive a Presentation and Provide Direction on the Proposed Scope of the FY202627 City Council Initiative: Street Sweeping Program Analysis c. Safe San Bruno Council Initiative Traffic Safety and Crime Hotspot Improvement Program

4. ADJOURNMENT – The next Regular City Council Meeting will be held on March 24, 2ns in the city limits of San Bruno, on March 20, 2026, by 5:00 pm. 1 of 26
POSTING: I declare a copy of this agenda was posted at City Hall, 567 El Camino Real, San Bruno, among other locations in the city limits of San Bruno, on March 20, 2026, by 5:00 pm.

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. ROLL CALL

4. ADJOURNMENT – The next Regular City Council Meeting will be held on March 24, 2ns in the city limits of San Bruno, on March 20, 2026, by 5:00 pm. 2 of 26

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City Council Agenda Item
Staff Report

CITY OF SAN BRUNO
DATE: March 24, 2026
TO: Honorable Mayor, Members of the City Council
FROM: Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Peter Gilli, Community Development Director Travis Karlen, Community Services Director
Matthew Lee, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: City Council Strategic Initiative for Downtown Beautification Planning BACKGROUND:

On February 10, 2026, the City Council adopted Strategic Initiatives for the FY27 budget. City Councilmembers proposed several initiatives that related to improving downtown, ranging from examining allowed uses, how storefronts are maintained, leveraging façade improvements, issues with signage, adding street lighting, upgrading paseos and the marquee sign along El Camino Real.

One of the City Council’s selected initiatives was “Downtown Beautification Planning”, seeking to identify ways to enhance the beauty of San Mateo Avenue using the 2019 San Mateo Avenue Streetscape Plan (Plan). At the February meeting, staff requested clarification from City Council, and the direction staff received was to return with a recommendation on downtown improvements for FY27.

San Mateo Avenue Streetscape Plan
The Plan was adopted by City Council in 2019 following extensive community engagement, including community and stakeholder meetings, workshops and review by the Planning Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, Culture and Arts Commission and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee.

The Plan was built off the policy foundation of the Transit Corridors Plan (TCP) adopted by City Council in 2013, and the General Plan update adopted by City Council in 2009. Downtown improvements are a major priority of each of these plans due to the strong community support for a stronger downtown, a sentiment that continues to be identified as a priority in recent community surveys.

Goals
The Plan has six goals: Activation, Greening, Beautification, Safety, Wayfinding, and Identity.

Addressing all six goals is necessary to put the City in the best position to have a vibrant, active downtown. As such, if the City Council intent for this initiative is to implement the Plan, staff 3 of 26 Item 3a.
suggests City Council retitle this initiative to “Downtown Improvement Initiative” instead of “Downtown Beautification Planning” because beautification is only one of the six goals of the Plan.

Implementation
The Plan includes a priority implementation list with four Tiers:
 Tier 1 consists of improvements the Plan considers “the bare minimum, lowest cost project that would provide the highest value.” In reviewing the Plan, Tier 1 was intended to represent the foundational improvements to be implemented as a single, comprehensive project.

Tier 1 involves:
o Replacement of sidewalk and ramps
o Installation of bus-stop improvements
o Planting of street trees (in the ground) with grates
o Replacement and addition of street lights
o Seatwalls
o Trash and recycling receptacles, benches, bike racks, wayfinding signage o Planting and irrigation
o Water line relocation; and
o Demolition and earthwork
 Tier 2 is called the “second-highest priority” that “support key goals of the project”. Tier 1 and 2 represent the “baseline streetscape project”.

Tier 2 includes:
o Permeable paving for sidewalks
o Curb realignment and trees along Jenevein Avenue
o “Suspended” pavement for street trees
o Gateway and paseo monuments
o Roadway striping
o Planting and irrigation at existing bulbouts
o Paseo improvements; and
o Art installation
 Tiers 3 and 4 consist of improvements that are either adjacent to, but technically outside of the Plan area, such as Centennial Plaza and Posy Park, or are purely aesthetic in nature such as artistic lighting, crosswalks paving, seatwalls and benches, or provide additional environmental benefit such as bioretention and permeable vehicular pavement.

Twenty-nine improvements are listed in the four Tiers, estimated to be a total of $19 million in 2019 dollars including contingency. In 2026 dollars, the total cost would exceed $31.5 million. 4 of 26
Improvements to Date
Five of the improvements listed in the Plan have been completed or are underway:
 Trash and recycling receptacles (2021) (Tier 1)
 Planting and irrigation (2026) (Tier 1)
 Planting and irrigation at existing bulb-outs (2026) (Tier 2)  Centennial Plaza improvements (2024) (Tier 3)
 Posy Park improvements (2026) (Tier 4)
In addition, newspaper racks (2024) and banners (2025) were installed, while not specifically listed as an improvement in the Plan, these installations further the goals of the Plan. The total cost of these improvements exceeds $3 million.

DISCUSSION:

The Scope and Purpose section of the Plan describes how, as a concept plan, the Plan’s purpose is to guide the next steps in the design process. The Plan recognizes much of the implementation measures will require schematic design, design development, and construction documentation before expected scopes and costs can be known.

Developing the design for the Tier 1 streetscape improvements should arguably have been the first step taken after the Plan’s adoption in 2019. Instead, the City has attempted to make individual improvements independent of a comprehensive design. While this has resulted in limited positive improvements occurring, there comes a point where the foundational design work should be done to ensure a short-term improvement does not complicate or conflict with the future improvements called for in the Plan.

Staff understands the premise of this City Council Strategic Initiative is to continue to demonstrate improvements in Downtown, as opposed to only preparing supporting documents for future improvements. As such, staff recommends the Downtown Improvement Initiative for FY27 include a combination of short-term actions delivered in FY27 and specific design preparation that can lead to major improvements in future years:

1. Zoning Adjustments. Several City Councilmembers suggested initiatives that involved adjusting zoning regulations related to allowed uses, storefronts, signage, and façade improvements to improve Activation and Beautification of downtown. Staff committed to a joint study session with the City Council and Planning Commission, tentatively scheduled for May or June 2026, with projected hearings on zoning ordinance adjustments in fall 2026. While staff noted the scale of these adjustments are not considered large enough to be an initiative, these efforts should be accounted for as part of a larger downtown initiative.

2. Murals. The Plan encourages artistic expression, which can include murals. Community Services has launched a mural program, which furthers the Plan’s goals of Beautification and Identity. San Bruno Improvement Group was the first applicant for a private mural as part of the program. The City is issuing a call to artists for Centennial Plaza in the upcoming months for execution in FY27. While this work is already planned, staff 5 of 26
believes it is important to include it in the initiative since it is about Downtown improvement.

3. Building upon the Streetscape Plan. As noted previously, the Plan itself recognizes that the concepts in the Plan are illustrative and conceptual, and that further design efforts are necessary before implementation of many of the improvements. Staff recommends City Council consider from the menu of items below for further design development of the Plan:
a. Prepare Tier 1 and 2 Design. The Plan identifies that Tiers 1 and 2 represent the “baseline streetscape project,” and that many of the Tier 1 improvements are foundational and the “bare minimum, lowest-cost project that would provide the highest value” intended to be implemented as a single, comprehensive project.

The Plan recognizes that actual implementation of the illustrations and concepts in the Plan need additional design before most improvements can be made. Advancing the full design of all Tier 1 and 2 improvements will ensure scalability, maintain consistency, and allow for effective coordination of utilities, grading, drainage, and streetscape elements for much of the Tier 1 improvements, avoiding increases in overall project costs from the expected conflicts, inefficiencies, and future redesign if continued improvements are implemented without a comprehensive design.

Some aspects of Tier 1 can be done independent of others without significant issues.

This includes surface level items that do not involve foundations or groundwork such as receptacles, benches, bike racks or wayfinding signage.

But improvements that do involve groundwork or foundations should not be done until after a full design is prepared to avoid potential conflicts and added costs in the future. Improvements that require further design are sidewalk and ramp replacement, installation of bus-stop improvements, planting of street trees (in the ground) with grates, new streetlights, seatwalls, water line relocation, demolition and earthwork.

A Councilmember noted a desire to have additional streetlights installed, which is part of the Tier 1 project. The Plan calls for replacement of all existing streetlights with new light standards spaced closer together (60 feet) and providing 1.2 footcandles, which will further the goals of Safety and Activation.

If City Council desires to accelerate foundational improvements of Tier 1 and 2, staff recommends:
 Providing $4.3 million for Public Works to hire one dedicated Project Manager (1.0 FTE), possibly limited term, to oversee project delivery and to retain a qualified professional consultant to develop the full design of Tier 1 improvements and a feasibility study for Tier 2 improvements, including the study of the El Camino Real and San Mateo Avenue intersection realignment, and
 This will include evaluation of constructability, utility conflicts, right-of-way constraints, and cost estimates to support future design and implementation.

This effort will include public outreach and stakeholder coordination, 6 of 26
environmental review and permitting, preparation of coordinated design and construction documents, evaluation of utilities, grading, drainage, and streetscape elements, and development of cost estimates to support implementation. o Prepare for Downtown Activation Events. The Plan identifies regular special events, which the Plan refers to as “street fairs”, with the street closed off to vehicular traffic as an activation opportunity. Staff believe this investment would create a high-impact downtown activation, driving increased foot traffic, supporting local businesses, that will benefit the Avenue corridor and build community pride for the area. Advancing programming and activation initiatives offers a near-term, high-impact opportunity to energize the downtown, and would require:
 A projected $2 million in one-time funds for Public Works to determine, acquire and install infrastructure for street closures to allow special events in the street. The expectation is manual bollards would be installed. The actual costs may change based on final scope, limits, and requirements.  $225,000 ongoing Arts and Events Manager (1 FTE) for Community Services to program downtown special events, activate public art and coordinate street closures. Absent staff support for maximizing success of events, the investment in the bollards may not be justified.  $130,000 annually to fund four (4) midsize City Produced Events includes staffing, security, bands, activities, materials, and road closures and six (6) First Thursday Events (Staff are recommending these events from April – September due to the weather in the fall and winter season). b. Branding. Provide $125,000 (one-time) for Community Development to secure a consultant to develop branding for the Avenue with limited community engagement, or up to $200,000 with significant community engagement, and the themes of the branding will inform improvements in future years such as:
 El Camino Real entrance. The Transit Corridors Plan and the Streetscape Plan call for the removal of the marquee sign and realignment of the intersection to improve pedestrian crossings and turning movements. The intersection realignment is likely not to occur until Grand Boulevard improvements are made along El Camino Real, which is not anticipated in the near future. A short-term solution is to replace of aged marquee sign with an artistic piece marking the El Camino Real entrance to downtown, with the theme of the art based on the branding efforts. This would be funded by the City Art Fund and managed by Community Services. The art piece would be highly visible and further the Beautification and Identity goals of the Plan, and could be designed in a manner to allow signage for downtown and local community groups. Such an art piece would be designed to be relocated to the future plaza that is created with the realignment of the El Camino Real and San Mateo Avenue intersection.
7 of 26
 Wayfinding. Develop wayfinding signage based on the branding themes, which would be a highly visible Tier 1 improvement that furthers the Wayfinding goal.
 Gateway Monuments. Develop designs for gateway monuments based on the branding themes, which would be a highly visible Tier 2 improvement that furthers Beautification and Identity goals of the Plan. Since these monuments will have substantial foundations, they should not be fully designed until after the Tier 1 design is completed.
c. Focused Update of the Plan. Provide $50,000 (one-time) for Community Development to do a focused plan update for 2026 and beyond, identifying what’s been accomplished, new trends since 2019, and revising priority rankings. This will inform future staff recommendations and decisions by City Council. This is especially important since City actions have not aligned with the Plan, which can cause confusion for interested members of the public, future Councilmembers, and future staff.

The recommended initiative will require resources from Community Development, Community Services and Public Works. Recommendations were focused on what can have the greatest impact, further many goals of the Plan, be as visible as possible, but it is recognized that the Building upon the Streetscape Plan options include some high-cost items, but these are considered required investments for allow for future actions.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no direct fiscal impact with this agenda item, but the selection of items for this initiative by City Council will result in one-time and/or ongoing impacts to City funds including the General Fund, which will be incorporated into the proposed FY27 budget.

Even though many modern Downtowns do not have strong retail sales tax revenues with the shift to online purchasing, an active downtown can be an economic development asset as an attraction for businesses to the community and attraction of a wider range of residents to a community, which can have indirect fiscal benefits.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:

This agenda item is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Outcomes of this initiative will be reviewed under CEQA, many of which are expected to be exempt from additional review, but that will be determined when the improvement is designed.

RECOMMENDATION:

Retitle the initiative to “Downtown Improvement Initiative” to be included in the FY27 budget, to include mural installation, zoning adjustments and any Building upon the Streetscape Plan menu options the City Council selects.
8 of 26
City Council Agenda Item
Staff Report

CITY OF SAN BRUNO
DATE: March 24, 2026
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Matthew Lee, P.E., Public Works Director
Ana Morales, Management Analyst
SUBJECT: Receive a Presentation and Provide Feedback on the Proposed Scope of the FY2026-27 City Council Initiative: Street Sweeping Program Analysis
BACKGROUND:

The San Bruno City Council has proposed a Street Sweeping Program Analysis as a desired FY2026–27 City Council Initiative.

Like most cities, street sweeping in the City of San Bruno (City) is a longstanding program that has evolved over time in response to physical infrastructure conditions, operational needs, and community input. As the program has been revisited over multiple decades, questions related to effectiveness, enforcement, and community impacts have continued to surface. Parking restrictions for street sweeping were piloted in 1981, established by City Council in 1982, and expanded and modified at various points throughout its over 40-year history.

To provide context for this effort, the following timeline summarizes key City Council actions, policy decisions, and program modifications that have shaped the program as it exists today. This historical overview provides the foundation for understanding how the program has developed over time and informs the evaluation approach discussed in the following section. 1979–1983: Program Development and Initial Implementation Prior to the early 1980s, the City maintained a street sweeping program without widespread parking restrictions. In early 1981, the City initiated a review of the program in response to complaints and City-conducted field surveys, which found that parked vehicles were consistently limiting the street sweeper’s ability to effectively access and clean the gutters, even during later morning hours when fewer vehicles were present. Staff also reported that prior efforts to obtain voluntary cooperation from residents and merchants—such as mailing street sweeping schedules with utility bills—had achieved only minor success. Based on those findings, staff recommended that the City Council consider trial no-parking zones for street sweeping.

In response, in 1981, City Council approved a trial no-parking program on Hensley Avenue, Easton Avenue, and Green Avenue between San Bruno Avenue and Sylvan Avenue. Staff identified this area as having persistent street sweeping problems, including narrow street widths, limited setbacks, and heavy debris accumulation associated with mature trees, which limited effective curb access.
9 of 26 Item 3b.
2 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
March 24, 2026

Page 2 of 10 ends

In 1982, City Council advanced parking restrictions for street sweeping in areas identified as being prone to flooding. These areas were primarily located east of El Camino Real and were characterized by lower elevation, negative gutter slopes, narrower streets, and higher concentrations of vegetation. The purpose of these restrictions was to ensure the street sweeper could effectively access the curb line—where debris and pollutants accumulate. Because street sweeping is most effective when the curb line is accessible, these restrictions were necessary to allow the sweeper to remove debris, reduce storm drain blockages, and mitigate localized flooding.

By late 1983, the program was implemented and expanded in the City’s older residential areas generally east of El Camino Real, including: (1) residential streets bounded by San Mateo Avenue and El Camino Real and by Forest Lane and Sylvan Avenue, except Montgomery and Walnut; (2) all residential streets east of Huntington Avenue; (3) residential streets bounded by San Mateo Avenue and the southern City limits and by Huntington Avenue and El Camino Real; and (4) streets bounded by Angus Avenue and the southern City limits and by El Camino Real and Acacia Avenue. This expansion established the foundational structure of the City’s signed street sweeping program.
1990–1992: Expansion and Program Review
In 1990, the City Council received correspondence regarding possible expansion of the signed street sweeping program, including requests related to Summit Road and Acacia Avenue. In response, Public Works, with input from the Police Department, prepared a status report reviewing the program’s history, benefits, operational challenges, fiscal impacts, and tentative expansion concepts. The report confirmed that the signed program was then limited to residential streets east of El Camino Real, while the remainder of the City was swept on the same twice-monthly schedule without signage. It also concluded that Summit Road did not meet the City’s criteria for inclusion in the signed program, while Acacia Avenue met most of those criteria.

In early 1992, following resident concerns regarding the selective nature of street sweeping parking enforcement, the City Council directed the Traffic Safety and Parking Committee and Permit Parking Sub-Committee to review the program and make a recommendation. Their review included the area bounded by El Camino Real, Decima Allen School (Angus Avenue), Acacia Avenue, and the southern City Limit, and both bodies recommended expanding signed enforcement into that area.

After receiving that recommendation, City Council directed staff to conduct public outreach to residents within the affected area before acting. When the issue returned later in 1992, the Council did not expand the signed program. Instead, in response to public concerns, the Council directed staff to pursue a pilot effort focused on voluntary vehicle movement and enhanced public information, including test areas bounded by Jenevein Avenue, San Bruno Avenue, El Camino Real, and Cherry Avenue, and by San Bruno Avenue, I-280, Niles Avenue, and Cherry Avenue. As outlined in the subsequent program update, this approach was intended to test whether increased public information, voluntary vehicle movement, and coordination with garbage collection days where feasible could improve curb access for street sweeping. There were no identified Council actions during this timeframe implementing broader program changes based on that pilot effort. 2002: Shelter Creek Request and Policy Confirmation
In early 2002, the City received a request from the Shelter Creek Condominium Owners Association to install street sweeping signage along Shelter Creek Lane. Staff reported that, although Shelter Creek Lane was already included in the City’s bi-monthly sweeping schedule, 10 of 26
3 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
March 24, 2026

Page 3 of 10 ends

parked vehicles were frequently limiting curb access for the sweeper, resulting in debris accumulation along the gutter and storm drain inlets. Staff further noted that the area historically had not been signed, but that the conditions on Shelter Creek Lane were similar in some respects to those that had supported signed enforcement in other parts of the City.

In February 2002, the Traffic Safety and Parking Committee reviewed the request and concurred with staff’s recommendation to forward the matter to City Council for consideration.

City Council considered the request but did not authorize immediate implementation of a formal street sweeping parking restriction program on Shelter Creek Lane. Instead, Council deferred the matter for further deliberation and directed it back to the Traffic Safety and Parking Committee for additional outreach and input from both Shelter Creek residents and surrounding neighborhoods.

The City also scheduled a preliminary meeting with Shelter Creek representatives, staff, and Committee members to clarify objectives and evaluate feasible options. Accordingly, while the 2002 request prompted formal review, the City Council did not expand the signed program at that time.
2012–2013: Comprehensive Review and Operational Modifications In 2012, City Council revisited the street sweeping program in response to questions about why certain streets were subject to parking restrictions for street sweeping while others were not. In June 2012, City Council directed staff to prepare an informational review of the program, and in July 2012, staff presented the historical basis for the City’s signed street sweeping areas. That review reaffirmed that parking restrictions had historically been concentrated primarily east of El Camino Real because those areas were more prone to flooding, had lower elevations, negative gutter slopes, narrower streets, and higher concentrations of parked vehicles and vegetation, all of which limited effective curb access for the street sweeper. Staff also noted that every street in the City was swept twice monthly, but that parking restrictions were applied only where those physical and operational conditions made them necessary.

Following that review, City Council directed staff to further evaluate whether those same conditions still existed, whether the current parking restriction program remained effective and necessary, and whether changes should be considered. Staff then analyzed the existing program, reviewed practices in neighboring cities, and presented the following four alternatives to the City Council in November 2012: (1) leave the current parking restrictions as is, (2) expand parking restrictions citywide, (3) extend parking restrictions to selected streets west of El Camino Real—approximately the Hazel/Cypress area between Angus and Santa Lucia—or (4) modify the street sweeping program to enhance route schedules, cleaning frequency, and sweeping times.

Rather than expand the signed program citywide or into additional west-side areas at that time, City Council directed staff to proceed with operational modifications to the existing program. In November 2012 and January 2013, Council directed staff to modify street sweeping route times and frequency for residential, commercial, and major arterial areas. The approved changes included shifting residential street sweeping to later morning hours, beginning at 9:00 a.m. rather than 7:00 a.m., to provide residents with additional time to move their vehicles prior to sweeping operations. Also, increasing sweeping frequency in commercial and industrial areas from twice per month to four times per month, updating posted parking restriction times in signed neighborhoods, and implementing a broad public outreach program that included website notices, mailed flyers, Cable TV announcements, on-vehicle notices, sign decal updates, and a City Council status update. These operational changes were scheduled to take effect in February 2013. 11 of 26
4 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
March 24, 2026

Page 4 of 10 ends

2013–2014: Targeted Expansion – Shelter Creek Lane
In 2013, the City revisited Shelter Creek Lane following renewed interest from the Shelter Creek Condominium property manager after City Council’s broader 2012–2013 review of the street sweeping program. In September 2013, staff presented the matter to the Traffic Safety and Parking Committee, which considered alternatives including adding Shelter Creek Lane to the signed program, expanding restrictions to surrounding streets, or maintaining the existing approach. The review also identified related considerations such as parking displacement, enforcement needs, and community outreach.

In contrast to the 2002 review, the 2013–2014 review led to a targeted expansion of the signed street sweeping program. In February 2014, City Council formally approved the installation of a two-hour time-limited parking restriction zone along Shelter Creek Lane to improve street sweeping access.
2024: Regulatory Compliance Review
In response to questions raised at the February 2, 2024, City Council Retreat, staff prepared a memorandum dated May 7, 2024, regarding the City’s regulatory obligations to operate and maintain a street sweeping program. With assistance from EOA, Inc., staff reviewed the City’s Municipal Regional Permit (MRP) obligations and the role of street sweeping in supporting trash reduction and broader stormwater compliance efforts and concluded that, although no State or County law specifically required the City to operate a street sweeping program, street sweeping remained an important stormwater Best Management Practice that supported the City’s trash load reduction and broader water quality compliance efforts. The memorandum also noted that any reduction or elimination of the current program would require additional study to evaluate potential compliance risks and operational impacts.

FY2026-27 Street Sweeping Program Analysis
In response to these factors, the City Council has identified a Street Sweeping Program Analysis as a FY2026–27 City Council Initiative through the City Council goal setting session in January 2026. Through this effort, the City will conduct a comprehensive reassessment of the street sweeping program, building upon the historical progression outlined above. This next phase of evaluation will also incorporate a structured equity analysis to evaluate how historic program decisions have influenced current conditions across neighborhoods and highlight and develop solutions to address parts of town that are disproportionately affected. This effort is to inform a more consistent, effective, and equitable street sweeping program citywide moving forward.

DISCUSSION:

The historical development of the City’s street sweeping program, together with current operating conditions and enforcement patterns, indicates that a more comprehensive evaluation is warranted currently. The following discussion summarizes additional contextual information, including current program conditions and peer agency practices, and outlines the proposed framework for the FY2026–27 Street Sweeping Program Analysis.

Current Conditions
Consistent with the historical factors that informed the development of the City’s street sweeping program, recent data continues to reflect variations in debris accumulation across different areas of the community. According to the San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program’s 12 of 26
5 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
March 24, 2026

Page 5 of 10 ends

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

Figure 1: San Bruno Trash Generation (2025)
The current distribution of regulatory street sweeping signage and associated parking enforcement also remains primarily concentrated in areas east of El Camino Real, as shown in Figure 2. This distribution is consistent with the historical implementation of the program, which targeted areas where operational constraints and environmental conditions limited the effectiveness of street sweeping without parking restrictions. As a result, parking restrictions and enforcement are more prevalent in these areas of the City and continue to play a significant role in how the program operates. Figure 2 also shows that many of the areas subject to street sweeping parking enforcement overlap with lower-resource areas of the City.

13 of 26
6 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
March 24, 2026

Page 6 of 10 ends

Additionally, since November 2023, following the transition to LAZ Parking for enforcement services, the City’s Police Department has issued 16,629 citations and 871 warnings related to street sweeping violations (Figure 3), representing approximately $800,000 in citation value.

Because enforcement occurs where street sweeping parking restrictions are posted, the burden of citations is concentrated in the same neighborhoods where the signed program operates. Where those neighborhoods overlap with lower-resource areas of the City, the financial impact of citations may be experienced disproportionately. This enforcement data therefore provides an additional indicator of how the current program may have created an unintended impact to a particular area of town.
14 of 26
Figure 2: Street Sweeping Parking Enforcement Map
7 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
March 24, 2026

Page 7 of 10 ends

Figure 3: Street Sweeping Citations Heat Map
These existing conditions, together with current enforcement data, provide important context for evaluating how the program is currently structured and how service needs, enforcement practices, and community impacts align across neighborhoods. Collectively, they also reinforce that neighborhoods east of El Camino Real continue to experience a disproportionate share of street sweeping restrictions and related enforcement compared to other areas of the City.

Neighboring City Comparison
As part of the City’s preliminary review, staff also considered current street sweeping practices used by nearby jurisdictions. This review indicates that local agencies use a range of approaches based on community conditions, operational priorities, and regulatory needs. 15 of 26
8 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
March 24, 2026

Page 8 of 10 ends

City Approach
Burlingame
 Mixed approach;
 Parking restrictions in the downtown area, with other areas swept every other week from April to September and weekly from October to March
Daly City
 Broad parking restriction approach;
 Parking restrictions appear to be applied citywide, with Mission Street swept five days per week and islands and other city streets swept weekly
Millbrae
 Mixed approach;
 Parking restrictions in some areas, with sweeping generally occurring weekly or twice per month
San Carlos
 No parking restrictions;
 Sweeping frequency varies by location, including weekly, twice per month, and once per month
San Mateo
 Mixed approach;
 Program adjusted to align sweeping frequency and restrictions with trash generation levels and stormwater compliance needs South San Francisco
 Mixed approach;
 Parking restrictions in some areas, with generally weekly sweeping
This range of local practices suggests that there is no single model for administering a street sweeping program. Rather, peer city experience indicates that program structure, sweeping frequency, and the use of parking restrictions may be calibrated differently depending on street conditions, operational constraints, trash generation, and policy priorities. This context supports the City’s proposed evaluation by confirming the value of a comprehensive review that considers not only the current structure of San Bruno’s program, but also whether alternative approaches or updated service models may better align with the City’s present-day operational, regulatory, and community needs.

To successfully implement the intent of this City Council Initiative (Initiative), City staff will undertake a comprehensive and structured evaluation of the existing street sweeping program.

Building upon the historical context outlined above, this effort is designed to assess current program performance, identify areas for improvement, and develop data-driven recommendations that support operational effectiveness, regulatory compliance, and reflect community needs.

As demonstrated through prior Council actions and program evaluations, the City has periodically refined the street sweeping program in response to changing conditions. While these efforts have focused primarily on operational performance and regulatory requirements, the current Initiative represents a more comprehensive and modernized approach. Specifically, this evaluation will examine the program across four key areas:

1. Regulatory compliance,

2. Parking enforcement and regulatory signage,

3. Operational efficiency, and

4. Community feedback, including a structured equity analysis. 16 of 26
9 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
March 24, 2026

Page 9 of 10 ends

Building on this expanded framework, a key feature in the current evaluation is the formal integration of a comprehensive equity analysis, which has not been a structured component of prior program reviews. By incorporating an equity-focused assessment process developed by the San Mateo County Office of Diversity and Equity—alongside traditional operational and regulatory analysis—the City aims to better understand neighborhood-level experiences and perspectives, and to develop recommendations that result in a more consistent, effective, and equitable street sweeping program citywide, while continuing to achieve the original goals of the program.

Scope of Analysis
To support this effort, the City will conduct a comprehensive analysis across the following four areas:

1. Regulatory Compliance
This area of analysis would build upon the prior review completed by EOA, Inc. regarding the City’s Municipal Regional Permit (MRP) obligations and trash reduction requirements, as presented in the May 7, 2024 memorandum to City Council. The analysis would provide a broader understanding of how the street sweeping program supports the City’s regulatory and environmental compliance responsibilities and would help inform how potential program changes may affect those considerations.

2. Parking Enforcement and Regulatory Signage
This area of analysis would examine the relationship between parking restrictions, regulatory signage, enforcement practices, and overall program implementation. The review would consider how the current enforcement and signage framework functions across different parts of the City and identify broader policy or operational considerations related to consistency, effectiveness, and community impact.

3. Operational Efficiency
This area of analysis would focus on how effectively the current street sweeping program is functioning from an operational standpoint. The review would consider existing routes, schedules, service delivery conditions, and other factors that influence the City’s ability to achieve the intended purpose of street sweeping, while also allowing for consideration of potential improvements or alternative approaches.

4. Community Feedback and Equity Analysis
This area of analysis would incorporate community perspectives and evaluate how the street sweeping program is experienced across neighborhoods. The review would include consideration of fairness, burden, and unintended disproportional impact associated with the current program structure, and would support the development of recommendations that are informed by both community input and other considerations.

The findings from this comprehensive historical, operational, regulatory, and equity-focused evaluation will inform future recommendations to the City Council regarding the structure, administration, and potential modification of the street sweeping program. These recommendations may include a range of options, such as maintaining the current program, expanding street sweeping signage or enforcement to additional areas or citywide, modifying operational practices, or identifying other approaches to improve program outcomes. The evaluation is also intended to recognize that unintended impacts may not be addressed through street sweeping alone but may instead involve a combination of considerations related to parking enforcement, regulatory signage, operations, and other factors identified through the analysis. Ultimately, this effort is 17 of 26
10 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
March 24, 2026

Page 10 of 10 ends

intended to provide a transparent and data-driven basis for determining how the program can continue to meet its original purpose while advancing more consistent, effective, and equitable outcomes citywide.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The estimated cost to complete the Street Sweeping Program Analysis is approximately $600,000.

This effort will require coordination with multiple external consultants to support the various components of the proposed scope, including regulatory compliance analysis, operational assessment, parking enforcement and signage evaluation, and equity analysis.

The final cost and level of effort will ultimately depend on the scope and direction provided by the City Council.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:

The action is not a project subject to CEQA. City Council’s action is not considered a “project” per CEQA Guidelines and therefore no further environmental analysis is required.

RECOMMENDATION:

Receive a presentation and provide direction on the proposed scope of the FY2026-27 City Council Initiative: Street Sweeping Program Analysis.

ALTERNATIVES:

1. Provide alternative direction on the scope, priorities, or approach for the proposed Street Sweeping Program Analysis.

2. Direct staff to pursue a more limited or phased evaluation, focusing on specific components of the program (e.g., operational efficiency, regulatory compliance, or targeted geographic areas).

3. Decline to include the Street Sweeping Program Analysis as a FY2026–27 City Council Initiative and maintain the existing program without further evaluation at this time. 18 of 26
City Council Agenda Item
Staff Report

CITY OF SAN BRUNO
DATE: March 24, 2026
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Matthew Lethin, Police Chief
Matthew Lee, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Study Session: Safe San Bruno Council Initiative - Traffic Safety and Crime Hotspot Improvement Program
BACKGROUND:

The San Bruno City Council has identified the Safe San Bruno Council Initiative – Traffic Safety and Crime Hotspot Improvement Program as a desired FY 2026-27 City Council initiative. As currently conceived, the initiative is intended to respond to community concerns related to roadway safety, particularly speeding and unsafe traffic conditions, as well as concerns regarding crime and quality-of-life issues occurring at recurring locations throughout the city.

Although these concerns are both rooted in public safety, they are not identical in nature and do not rely on the same operational tools. Traffic safety improvements are generally addressed through roadway engineering, education, and traffic enforcement, while crime hotspot reduction requires a different approach that relies on crime analysis, environmental design, place-based interventions, and targeted enforcement. For that reason, this study session is intended not only to provide background information, but also to help clarify the scope of the proposed initiative and the level of service Council would like staff to pursue as part of the FY 2026-27 budget and priority-setting process.

Staff’s perspective is that improving roadway safety and reducing crime at hotspot locations should be approached through a coordinated and data-informed model that integrates engineering, education, and enforcement. At the same time, staff believe it is important to clearly define the intended outcomes of this initiative before committing substantial resources. In its current form, the concept reflects a broad policy interest, but additional direction is needed to determine whether the City’s goal is to accelerate existing work, establish a new coordinated safety program, or pursue more targeted improvements in selected locations.

With respect to crime hotspots, such locations may involve property crime, violent crime, nuisance activity, or other quality-of-life issues. These locations may occur on City property, private property, or land controlled by outside agencies such as Caltrans or Caltrain. The nature of the location affects both the tools available to the City and the complexity of implementing improvements. Best practice in this area generally combines education, environmental design, and enforcement. Engineering responses are often guided by Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED), which focuses on improving visibility, natural surveillance, territoriality, and access control to reduce opportunities for crime. While lighting may be a 19 of 26 Item 3c.

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

Page 2 of 8 ends

possible improvement, it is not always the most effective or appropriate intervention, depending on the specific conditions at a site.

With respect to traffic safety, the City’s work is already guided by the established framework of engineering, enforcement, and education. This framework recognizes that traffic safety outcomes are shaped both by the built environment and by driver, bicyclist, and pedestrian behavior. The City has already adopted a Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP), which prioritizes roadways and intersections based on severe and fatal collision history and identifies improvement strategies intended to reduce risk. Public Works has also continued to process neighborhood traffic calming requests and implement corridor and intersection improvements as funding and staffing capacity allow. Currently, staff prioritize implementing improvements on the high-injury roadway segments and intersections in the LRSP to maximize the reduction in fatal and severe injury collisions. Traffic engineering staff time is also reserved to respond to other traffic concerns.

As reflected in the staff report, staff have completed and advanced several meaningful projects that support traffic safety objectives. Completed or ongoing efforts include the San Bruno Avenue and Cherry Avenue Intersection Improvements Project, the Huntington Avenue–San Antonio Avenue Bicycle Corridor Project, improvements under the San Bruno Avenue Transit Corridor program, red curbing adjustments, signal timing modifications, the Huntington Avenue Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements Project Segment 2 cycle track installation, the Bayhill Drive and El Camino Real Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements Project, Safe Routes to School high-priority improvements, and additional improvements associated with the Bay to Trail gap closure.

These efforts demonstrate that the City already has active traffic safety work underway; however, they also highlight that the City is operating within an existing workload and staffing structure that limits how quickly additional requests and new program elements can be delivered.

The purpose of this study session is therefore to provide Council with a clearer framework for decision-making. Specifically, staff seek direction regarding the intended scope of the initiative, the balance between traffic safety and crime hotspot work, the City’s desired level of service, and whether Council wishes staff to develop a phased or comprehensive implementation approach for FY 2026-27.

DISCUSSION:

Problem Definition
The principal issue before the City Council is not whether traffic safety and crime hotspot concerns are important, as they clearly are. The issue is how the City should structure a realistic, outcome-oriented initiative that aligns community expectations with available staffing, funding, and implementation capacity.

At present, the City addresses traffic safety concerns through existing efforts by the Public Works and Police Departments, including the implementation of the LRSP, Safe Routes to School Plan, and Traffic Calming Program, targeted enforcement, staffing of the Complete Streets Committee, and public outreach. Similarly, the Police Department responds to crime hotspots through crime analysis, patrol operations, enforcement activity, and coordination with 20 of 26
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
March 24, 2026

Page 3 of 8 ends

other departments or outside property owners when place-based conditions contribute to recurring problems. However, these efforts are not currently organized under a single formal initiative with dedicated staffing, defined performance metrics, or a common prioritization framework that incorporates both data and community input.

As a result, the City is not starting from zero but is operating in a largely reactive manner constrained by available staff time. Staff is at capacity and meaningful expansion of services will require additional resources. If Council wishes to accelerate traffic safety improvements, improve responsiveness to neighborhood concerns, deploy and maintain new equipment, conduct more formal crime hotspot analysis, and establish a stronger public-facing safety program, those expectations will require additional staffing and operational support. Equipment alone will not produce the intended results unless the City also has capacity to deploy it strategically, maintain it, analyze the resulting information, and adjust operations over time.

For that reason, staff believe the initiative should be understood as a service level and capacity decision. The City can continue its current pace of work and supplement it with additional support and equipment, but that approach will yield only incremental changes. If Council desires a more visible, coordinated, and outcome-driven program, then additional staffing and ongoing program management will be needed.

Approach
Staff believe it is important to establish clearer expectations for what this initiative is intended to accomplish. In the staff’s view, a refined FY 2026-27 initiative should aim to achieve four core outcomes. First, the City should establish a transparent prioritization process that incorporates both objective data and community input in determining where safety interventions should occur. Second, the City should identify and monitor a set of priority traffic safety corridors, intersections, and crime hotspots to ensure that resources are directed where the need is greatest. Third, the City should define performance measures that allow Council and the public to evaluate whether the initiative is producing results over time. Finally, the City should align the initiative’s scope with realistic staffing and funding assumptions to sustain the program beyond a single fiscal year.

In practical terms, those outcomes could include better tracking of traffic calming requests, clearer public visibility into LRSP implementation progress, a more systematic process for hotspot identification and CPTED-based review, improved coordination between Public Works and Police, and more strategic deployment of speed feedback signs, message boards, lighting trailers, or surveillance equipment where appropriate. Depending on the Council’s direction, the City could also establish regular reporting on implementation status and results as part of future work plans or budget updates.

Options
To help frame the Council’s decision, staff have organized the initiative into three possible implementation approaches.

Option 1 – Comprehensive Education, Engineering, and Enforcement Program Under this option, the City would establish a comprehensive, multi-year public safety program designed to accelerate traffic safety improvements, improve responsiveness to neighborhood 21 of 26
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
March 24, 2026

Page 4 of 8 ends

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

For traffic safety, this option would fund full implementation of San Bruno’s 2023 Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) and provide staffing to advance related efforts such as the Traffic Calming Program and Safe Routes to School improvements. Rather than continuing to implement these programs incrementally as staffing and funding allow, this option would create a more proactive and coordinated delivery model. To support implementation, this option would include a $15 million capital budget over a multi-year effort to construct improvements identified in the LRSP, along with a limited-term Project Manager for two to three years to lead implementation of the LRSP and related traffic safety programs. This position would coordinate priority safety projects, track implementation progress, align work across departments and consultants, and support delivery of Council-prioritized traffic safety improvements. This option would also include an additional $500,000 annually to support the installation of traffic-calming measures, such as speed humps, on up to four streets per year and to deliver other traffic-calming improvements in a more predictable, programmatic manner.

This option would also add a Management Analyst to support traffic safety outreach, data analysis, community engagement, performance tracking, and interdepartmental coordination.

This position would help establish a more formal, transparent, and measurable safety program and would support public communication regarding implementation progress, neighborhood concerns, and prioritization of efforts.

For the crime hotspot initiative, this option would include the Police Department staffing and equipment identified in the staff report, including a dedicated Traffic and Crime Prevention Officer and equipment such as lighting trailers, surveillance cameras, variable message boards, and other deployable public safety tools. These resources would support targeted enforcement, hotspot response, public education, and coordination of safety interventions. Unlike a more limited equipment-only approach, this option would provide the staffing capacity needed to deploy and manage those tools effectively.

The Management Analyst would also support the crime hotspot component by working with Police, Public Works, and other departments to review data, identify recurring hotspot locations, evaluate contributing site conditions, and support development of a coordinated response strategy. That work may include outreach, operational changes, CPTED-based assessments, and coordination with property owners or partner agencies when site-specific conditions contribute to recurring issues. This option would not assume that lighting alone is the appropriate solution in every case. Instead, hotspot locations would be evaluated using a broader problem-solving framework to determine the most appropriate intervention based on the type of activity, property ownership, and environmental conditions. If those assessments identify built-environment improvements on City property, or City participation in such improvements, staff would return to the City Council with recommendations, scope, and funding needs for consideration.

The management analyst would also work with a consultant to implement an online dashboard to track the city’s efforts in traffic safety and crime prevention[HR1] . There will be a one-time implementation cost of $50,000.

Overall, this option would move the City from a largely reactive and capacity-constrained model to a coordinated implementation program with dedicated staff, ongoing funding, and clearer public safety outcomes. It is the most robust option and the one best positioned to deliver 22 of 26
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
March 24, 2026

Page 5 of 8 ends

visible, measurable progress on both traffic safety and crime-hotspot concerns.

The total cost of this option would include the $15 million capital budget for LRSP improvements, the limited-term Project Manager, the Management Analyst ($180,000 ongoing), the ongoing $500,000 annual traffic calming allocation, the Police Department position ($262,000 ongoing), and approximately $150,000 in equipment. Final staffing and operating costs would need to be refined through the FY2027 budget process. Total estimates are presented in the table below.

Option 2 – Enhanced Evaluation Program
Under this option, the City would establish an intermediate public safety program that advances the same overall initiative framework as Option 1, but without accelerated delivery of the capital improvement projects identified in San Bruno’s 2023 Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP), nor an increase in the Traffic Calming Program budget or staffing. This option would continue to support traffic safety and crime hotspot work through additional staffing, ongoing traffic-calming funding, and Police Department resources and equipment, but it would do so within the City’s existing pace of capital project delivery.

For traffic safety, this option would continue implementation of the LRSP, the Traffic Calming Program, and Safe Routes to School improvements using existing capital planning and delivery capacity. Unlike Option 1, this option would not include dedicated additional capital funding to accelerate construction of LRSP improvements, nor would it include the limited-term Project Manager proposed to lead that accelerated work. As a result, priority traffic safety capital projects would continue to compete with other Public Works priorities and available staffing resources, limiting the City’s ability to expedite the delivery of LRSP recommendations. This option would, however, retain the proposed Management Analyst to support traffic safety outreach, data analysis, community engagement, performance tracking, and interdepartmental coordination. This position would help formalize the program, improve transparency, and support the development of a clearer and more measurable traffic safety work program.

For the crime hotspot initiative, this option would include either a full-time or part-time Community Services Officer (CSO), depending on Council direction and preference, rather than a dedicated full-time sworn Traffic and Crime Prevention Officer. The full-time CSO, compared with the part-time position, would create additional capacity to conduct related efforts. The CSO would support hotspot response, public education, coordination with Public Works and other departments, and deployment of equipment such as lighting trailers, surveillance cameras, variable message boards, and other deployable public safety tools. This approach would provide added support beyond current capacity, but it would be more limited than Option 1 because a CSO would not provide the same level of dedicated enforcement or sustained operational coverage as a full-time sworn position.

The Management Analyst would also support the crime hotspot component by working with the police and other departments to review data, identify recurring hotspot locations, evaluate contributing site conditions, and support the development of a coordinated response strategy.

That work may include outreach, operational changes, CPTED-based assessments, and coordination with property owners or partner agencies when site-specific conditions contribute to recurring issues. This option would not assume that lighting alone is the appropriate solution in every case. If assessments identify needed built-environment improvements on City property, or City participation in such improvements, staff would return to the City Council with recommendations, scope, and funding needs for consideration. 23 of 26
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
March 24, 2026

Page 6 of 8 ends

Overall, this option would provide a meaningful expansion of the City’s traffic safety and crime hotspot initiative by adding program support, annual traffic-calming funding, and limited police support capacity, but it would stop short of accelerating major LRSP capital improvements or providing a full-time, dedicated enforcement position. As a result, the City would gain better coordination, outreach, analysis, and neighborhood-level implementation capacity, while continuing to face limitations in expediting larger traffic safety capital projects and sustaining hotspot response at the level available under Option 1.

The total cost of this option would include the Management Analyst ($180,000 ongoing), the CSO (full-time at $140,000 or part-time at $42,000 ongoing), and approximately $150,000 in equipment. Final staffing and operating costs would need to be refined through the FY2027 budget process.

Option 3 – Limited Enhancements
Under Option 3, the City would purchase additional traffic safety and crime prevention equipment but would not add new staff. Existing Public Works and Police staff would continue to coordinate and implement work as time permits. This approach would likely yield incremental benefit, particularly where equipment can be deployed to raise awareness or address specific conditions. However, because no new staffing capacity would be added, this option would not materially change the City’s ability to analyze hotspots, accelerate project delivery, sustain public engagement, or manage an expanded program on an ongoing basis. In effect, this option would maintain the City’s current service model with additional tools, but without the organizational capacity needed to transform those tools into a comprehensive program. Option 3 will include developing a traffic safety dashboard. There would be a one-time $50,000 cost in implementing the dashboard.

Summary
Option 1 is estimated at $16.2 million for one-time capital and equipment expenses and includes adding two new full-time staff members: a management analyst and a sworn officer. Option 2 is estimated at $422,000-$520,000 (depending on Council‘s decision for the CSO position) for one-time equipment costs and includes one new management analyst and a CSO position.

Option 3 is estimated at $200,000 and includes equipment only.

While these figures provide a reasonable starting point for policy discussion, staff notes that final costs would need to be refined through the FY 2026-27 budget development process, including any assumptions related to personnel classification, training, deployment model, and whether consultant support may be needed for specialized crime analysis, CPTED review, or program development.

From a policy perspective, staff believe the strongest direction Council can provide is not simply which option appears most attractive, but what level of outcome Council expects from this initiative. If the Council’s objective is to create a visible, coordinated, and measurable public safety initiative, staff would need direction to develop a program with dedicated capacity, defined performance measures, and a structured implementation plan. If Council’s objective is instead to make targeted improvements within existing operational limits, staff can refine a narrower initiative focused on transparency, the deployment of selected equipment, and continued progress under the LRSP and existing Police operations. 24 of 26
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
March 24, 2026

Page 7 of 8 ends

A summary of the three options, costs, and cost components of the options is provided below.

Table 1 – Summary of Options, Costs, and Cost Components Option Description Cost Cost Components
1 Comprehensive
Education,
Engineering, and
Enforcement Program
$16.2M
($15.2M
one-time
and
$1M on-
going)
· Accelerated Implementation of LRSP (3-
year Term Limited Project Manager paid for
by projects) - $15,000,000 (One-time)
· Increased Traffic Calming - $500,000 (On-
going)
· Management Analyst - $180,000 (On-
going)
· Traffic and Crime Prevention Officer -
$262,000 (On-going)
· Equipment - $150,000 (One time)
· Online Dashboard - $50,000 (One time)
2 Enhanced Outreach,
Dashboard and
Equipment Program
$422,000-
$520,000
($200,00
one-time
and
$222,000-
$320,000
on-going)
· Management Analyst - $180,000 (On-
going)
· Either
o Full-Time CSO - $140,000 (On-going)
o Or Part-time CSO - $42,000 (On-going)
· Equipment - $150,000 (One time)
· Online Dashboard - $50,000 (One time)
3 Dashboard and
Equipment
$200,000
(one-time)
· Equipment - $150,000 (One time)
· Online Dashboard - $50,000 (One time)
FISCAL IMPACT:

The total cost for this program is dependent on direction from City Council, and it would require dedicated funding in the involved departments’ budgets.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:

The action is not a project subject to CEQA.

RECOMMENDATION:

Receive the presentation and provide direction to staff regarding the preferred scope and approach for the Safe San Bruno Council Initiative so that staff may refine it for consideration as part of the FY2027 City Council priority setting and budget preparation process.

ALTERNATIVES:
25 of 26

1. Provide alternative direction regarding the scope or priorities of the proposed Safe San Bruno Council Initiative.

2. Direct staff to explore a more limited initiative focused solely on traffic improvements or solely on crime hotspot reduction strategies.

3. Decline to pursue the initiatives as a FY 2026-27 City Council priority. 26 of 26

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

San Bruno City CouncilMarch 24, 2026

San Bruno City Council
March 24, 2026