Crestmoor Fields Study Session
TRAVIS M. KARLEN
COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
OCTOBER 13, 2026
1. Respond to Council’s August 25 direction: updated usage data, refined fee modeling, and options to reduce long-term General Fund exposure
2. Present the updated cost of ownership and cost recovery scenarios
3. Review the alternatives: design with a built-in pause point, a publicprivate partnership, or a basic park or open space
4. Receive direction on the Executive Team's recommendation to halt the project indefinitely
2 OBJECTIVE
PROJECT BACKGROUND
3 Toll Brothers: Developing the former Crestmoor High School site as a 155-unit residential subdivision
6.9 acres dedicated; 5.3 acres for sports fields, remainder for parking and paths October 2023: City Council provided direction on the Crestmoor Fields Multi-Use Master Plan
Original 2023 estimate: $9.2 – $11.2 million, with 10% annual construction inflation January 2025: Council directed a reduced Phase 1 scope, valued at approximately $6.6 million
4 Project Background
December 9, 2025: Council authorized an Improvement Agreement with Toll Brothers, not to exceed $6.6M; SBCF lighting funds ($1,952,400) later raised the budget to $8,552,400 July 28, 2026: Staff reported construction costs exceeding $10M, O&M nearly doubling to $175K/year, the need for a turf replacement reserve, and fees unable to recover costs August 25, 2026: Council authorized the stormwater basin Reimbursement Agreement (not to exceed $305,000)
Council did not act on the Field Improvement Agreement and directed staff to return with updated usage data, refined fee modeling, and options to reduce General Fund exposure 5 Council Actions to Date
WHAT’S CHANGED
SINCE JULY
6 Actual figures from Youth Sports
Organizations
2,200 playable hours per year (down from the
2,500-hour planning assumption)
968 total participants, about 49% more than
the 650 previously assumed
About 46% of participants live outside San
Bruno
More participants improve the revenue
picture. They do not change the conclusion.
7 Updated Participation Data
Participants by Program
Recreational: 568 (was 200), 68% resident
Club Sports: 400 (was 450), 35% resident
Operations & Maintenance
December 2025 estimate: $85,000
July 2026 estimate: $150,000–$175,000
Modeling uses the $162,500 midpoint
Year 1 Cost to Operate
$396,551 in Year 1 (O&M + turf reserve)
3% increase/year to roughly $517,000 by
Year 10
8 Annual Operating Costs
Turf Replacement Reserve
Updated estimate $2,340,510 in
10 years (increased from $1.8M)
Requires a $234,000 annual
reserve
Year 1: ~$397K, rising to ~$517K by Year 10
Estimated 10-year cost of ownership: $12.5M–$14.0M
9 Total Cost of Ownership
10-Year Project Total
Construction incl. lighting: $8.55M–$10M+
10 years of O&M: ~$1.625M
Turf replacement: $2.34M
Annual Components – Recurring
Operations & maintenance: $150K–$175K
Turf replacement reserve: $234,000
Staffing 0.5 FTE (included in O&M)
FIELD USE REVENUE — CAN FEES
COVER COSTS?
10 11
Cost Recovery Scenarios – Year 1
Fee Model Basis Year 1
Revenue
Cost
Recovery
Year 1 City
Subsidy
Current fees $11 resident / $18 non-resident per player $22/Hour – Field Lighting Fees ~$39,000 ~10% ~$359,000
User-group rate (Hourly-Only) $80/hour, no per-player fee ~$176,000 ~44% ~$221,000 User-group rate + $2M endowment $80/hour + ~$80K draw ~$256,000 ~65% ~$141,000 Market rates, Blended $45–$56/player + $35–$65/hour ~$153,000 ~39% ~$243,000 Market rates, Hourly-Only $35–$74/hour ~$113,000 ~28% ~$284,000 Market rates, Blended + $2M endowment Same rates + ~$80K draw ~$233,000 ~59% ~$163,000 Market rates, Hourly-Only + $2M endowment Same rates + ~$80K draw ~$193,000 ~49% ~$204,000 Full cost recovery, Blended $133–$166/player + $103–$133/hour $396,551 100% $0 Full cost recovery, Blended + $2M endowment $104–$130/player + $81–$111/hour $396,551 100% $0 Endowment scenarios assume a $2M endowment at a 4% draw (~$80,000/year). User groups have verbalized $80/hour; the rate is not confirmed. • A subsidy is inevitable
• Best case: $80/hour plus a $2M endowment, still leaves a ~$141,000 Year 1 gap • Operating costs rise faster than fee revenue: Gap widens each year • 10-year City subsidy across realistic scenarios: ~$1.8M to $3.3M • Full cost recovery requirement
• $133–$166/player plus $103–$133/hour
• Per-player fee alone would be ~$410
12 What the Modeling Shows
TIMING, OPTIONS
& ALTERNATIVES
13 Advancing to design uses ~$560,000 in fee credits
How the pause point works
Developer completes design and obtains bid pricing
Staff returns with refined construction cost estimates Council decides whether to proceed to construction or stop No construction commitment before that review
Why staff does not recommend it
Better construction pricing does not change the operating gap The gap comes from ongoing costs exceeding fee revenue 14 Alternative to Move forward Design
Potential Benefits
Entity funds construction and operates the facility
Operating, maintenance, and turf replacement costs shift to the operator Removes the City’s ongoing financial exposure and frees funds for deferred maintenance Trade-offs
City gives up significant control over design, scheduling, and fees Youth sports access must be negotiated and enforced, and may be limited A partner has the most influence at ~30% design; current interest may not last 15 Public-Private Partnership
Parks Assessment: ~$60M deferred maintenance backlog across existing parks and facilities
About $19M carries certain liabilities
Crestmoor Fields adds a high-intensity facility with ongoing demands:
Turf, lighting, and irrigation maintenance
Field scheduling, permitting, and fee collection
User-group agreements and management
Multiple new outdoor facilities already onboarded with no additional resources Competes for the same limited staff time and General Fund dollars needed to care for what the City already owns
16 Deferred Maintenance Backlog
The parcel will be dedicated to the City as parkland regardless of Council’s decision Both options cost far less over time, though neither adds lighted athletic field capacity Estimates are preliminary; staff would return with full analysis if directed 17 If the City Does Not Proceed
Basic Park
Lawn, walking paths, and basic amenities
Potentially within fee credits already
available
~$125K/year maintenance, no turf
reserve
~$4M over 10 years, including
construction
Undeveloped Open Space
Grade, seed, fence, and irrigate to a
basic standard
Optional walking path through a natural
landscape
~$20K/year for mitigation and tree care
~$1M over 10 years, including
construction
• Place the Crestmoor Fields Multi-Use Fields Project on hold indefinitely • Do not advance the Field Improvement Agreement to design at this time • Avoids committing ~$560,000 in fee credits to design and an ongoing operating subsidy
• Stormwater basin work proceeds as authorized and is unaffected • Basis: a $60M deferred maintenance backlog, significant ongoing staff time, fee revenue risk, and a long-term liability regardless of fees or philanthropic support
18 Staff Recommendation
QUESTIONS
19 Narita 2026
Sister Cities Update Presentation
City Council Meeting – October
13, 2026
1 Agenda •About the
program
•2026 Overview •Student
testimonials
2 About the program
Learning a little more about Narita
3 The Program • Started in 1989 with first
student exchange in 1990
• San Bruno Students learn
basic Japanese and are
exposed to another culture
• Provides leadership and
cultural opportunities for
students welcoming Narita
• Supports cultural and
learning activities for the
broader community
4 Narita, Japan • Inside Chiba Prefecture, which
is on the main island of Japan
(Honshu) and 37 miles due
east of Tokyo
• Home to Narita International
Airport (NRT)
• Mascot is an eel with jet wings
called Unari-kun
5 Notable Narita Sites and Bites
• Narita Wholesale Market
• Aviation Sciences Museum
• Sakura Mountain
• Narita-san Temple
• Calligraphy Art Museum
• Eel, i.e. unagi, unajuu
restaurants
• Nagomi Yoneya Flagship Store
6 2026 in review
Outlining activities from this Spring and Fall
7 Summary • Received 10 student and 4
adult delegates from Narita
• Sent 10 student and 3 adult
delegates to Narita
• Hosted two community
engagement activities
• Partnered with the San Bruno
Education Fund to raise
money for the program’s fiscal
future
8 March 2026 Reception / Welcoming
•City hosted an Ikebana
(flower arrangement)
workshop
9 March 2026 Reception / Welcoming, contd.
• Delegation arrived Wednesday,
March 25 and departed on the
morning of Monday, March 30.
• They attended various classes
at Parkside Intermediate
School, toured YouTube,
visited several City
departments, went to the
Exploratorium, and attended a
community Taiko performance
by the RAC.
10 11
12 July 2026 Visit • Delegation departed
July 8 and returned on
July 14
• Activities including a
visit to Daijionji Temple
and Tokyo, shadowing
at a junior high school,
and a hands-on
excursion with the
Narita Fire
Department
13 14
15 Student Testimonials
Hear from the students who represented San Bruno at home and abroad 16 17
18 19
San Mateo Countywide
Transportation Plan
Update
A JOINT EFFORT LED BY:
City of San Bruno | October 13, 2026
C/CAG and SMCTA Countywide Transportation Plan Update
Agenda
01 CTP Process & Update
Vision, Goals &
Framework
02 03 Draft Project List
04 Draft Initiatives
05 Next Steps
CTP
PROCESS
& UPDATE
SECTION 01
Purpose of CTP
Create a vision for
the future of
transportation in
San Mateo County.
C/CAG and SMCTA Countywide Transportation Plan Update
Set C/CAG and
SMCTA priorities,
and guide decisionmaking.
Inform planning,
funding, and delivery
of local and regional
transportation
improvements.
CTP Process
Define Vision
and Goals for
CTP Update
Winter
2025/6
Develop Policy
Framework
Spring
2026
Winter
2026/7
Draft
Plan
Spring
2027
Final
Plan
Generate Draft
Project and
Initiative List
- Review with
Cities
Summer/
Fall 2026
Engagement Touchpoints
Round 1 Outreach Efforts
C/CAG and SMCTA Countywide Transportation Plan Update
To validate existing
travel trends
observed in the data
On transportation
needs and challenges
On community
transportation
priorities for the next
decade
On Draft CTP Goals
We sought input
Roadshow
presentations to city
transportation and
countywide
committees
23 Prior countywide
outreach efforts
reviewed for
relevance to the CTP
15 CBO
Interviews
6 Continuously
accessible website
1 C/CAG and SMCTA Countywide Transportation Plan Update What We Heard from Community Members
Need… Safety & Comfort Improvements
Senior Mobility
AVs & E-Bikes …More Frequent Transit
…support for School Trips
…Highway 1 & El Camino Real Improvements
Successful Caltrain Electrification!
…to close Network Gaps …Better Coastal Access
…more Caltrain/BART Connections
…More Attention to Non-Work Trips
Text size reflects the number of input sources (Committees, CBO Interviews, Plan & Data Review) in which the theme was raised
Today we are looking for feedback on…
• Vision and Goals: do these resonate with you?
• Project List: are these the right local projects?
• Initiatives: does this mix of countywide initiatives address your key transportation concerns between now and 2050?
• What’s missing: anything you’re not seeing in this update that you think the CTP should address?
C/CAG and SMCTA Countywide Transportation Plan Update
Vision,
Goals, &
Framework
SECTION 02
CTP Vision
The San Mateo CTP envisions a county where
residents, workers, and visitors can travel safely,
reliably, and with convenient choices across all modes.
People easily connect to daily needs via streets, trails, transit service, and highways that are resilient and
endure for generations.
CTP Goals
C/CAG and SMCTA Countywide Transportation Plan Update
New Equity Definition for
Funding Decisions
C/CAG Countywide Transportation Plan Update
map
• Simplified definition based on income,
race, vehicle ownership, and rental
cost burden
• By introducing tiers, we now consider
more of the county in equity-based
planning and funding decisions (49%
of households covered, up from 21%)
SECTION 02
SECTION 03
PROJECTS
AND
INITIATIVES
What is a Regionally Significant Project?
Meets any one of the following:
• Expands or reduces capacity of major roadways
• Expands or reduces rail network or stations
• Adjusts transit service levels
• Changes cost of transportation system (e.g. tolling or transit fares) • Total estimated cost over $250 million
C/CAG and SMCTA Countywide Transportation Plan Update
How are most other projects captured?
Programmatic Funding Categories
• Covers smaller transportation efforts that are not regionally significant • Most local jurisdiction projects fall within these categories rather than being listed individually
• Categories include: Categories include: TDM, Grade Separation, Highway, Multimodal, Pedestrian & Bicycle, Shuttle Program, Transit C/CAG and SMCTA Countywide Transportation Plan Update
Why generate a project list?
C/CAG and SMCTA Countywide Transportation Plan Update
Better Understanding of Local Priorities
Identify Projects and Programmatic Categories that
Need Additional C/CAG or SMCTA S upport
Position Projects for Regional Funding Success
How the list will inform Plan Bay Area 2060
The CTP list is unconstrained
MTC will ask for a financially constrained list
Each county gets a total projected budget
MTC will share regional goals and project priorities
These goals will be used to pare down the CTP list
How the list will inform the CTP
City of San Bruno Priority Projects
1. Safe Routes to School High-Priority Improvements
2. San Bruno Avenue Multimodal Safety & Congestion Relief Project (El Camino Real to McDonnell Road)
3. SFO Bay Trail Gap Closure Project – Transit Connector Trail
4. El Camino Real/San Bruno Avenue & El Camino Real/Euclid Bicycle/Pedestrian Crossings
5. San Bruno Avenue Bicycle Lanes (El Camino Real to Skyline Boulevard) Additional Regionally Significant Project(s)
• South Linden Avenue and Scott Street Grade Separation • El Camino Real Multimodal Improvements (Grand Boulevard Initiative) • I-280/I-380 Interchange Weaving Improvements
• I-380/El Camino Real Interchange Improvements
C/CAG and SMCTA Countywide Transportation Plan Update
Note: Bold projects are Regionally Significant
Draft CTP Initiatives
Intelligent
Transportation
Systems
Established
Initiatives Safe Routes to
School
Shuttles Transportation
Demand
Management
Community-Based
Transportation Plans
& Benefits
Emerging
Initiatives Autonomous
Vehicle
Integration
E-Devices &
Bikeshare
Green Streets &
Climate Resilience
Mobility for Older
Adults
NEXT STEPS
SECTION 05
Today we are looking for feedback on…
• Vision and Goals: do these resonate with you?
• Project List: are these the right local projects?
• Initiatives: does this mix of initiatives address your key transportation concerns between now and 2050?
• What’s missing: anything you’re not seeing in this update that you think the CTP should address?
C/CAG and SMCTA Countywide Transportation Plan Update
Upcoming milestones and schedule
• Website live now with draft project and initiative lists https://ccag.ca.gov/programs/countywide-transportation-plan/ • Focus groups and CBO engagement through the Fall
• Roadshow is touring through December 2026
• Draft Public Review CTP in Winter 2027
C/CAG and SMCTA Countywide Transportation Plan Update
SENIOR NUTRITION AND
TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS
Recommended Independent Service Model
Meghan Rosin, Senior Services Manager
Travis M Karlen, Community Service Director
San Bruno City Council Meeting
October 13, 2026
OBJECTIVE
2 Provide City Council with the Senior Advisory
Board recommendation for a sustainable,
City-operated model that preserves access to
the nutrition and transportation services while
improving local control and fiscal stability; and
receive approval to move forward with the new
program effective December 1, 2026.
PROGRAM OVERVIEW & SNAPSHOT
How the Programs Work Together
3 Separate programs, one continuum: transportation helps residents reach the nutrition program and other Senior Center activities. Both require eligibility verification, documentation, reporting, safety procedures, and ongoing staff oversight.
Congregate Nutrition Program
• Hot & healthy lunch
• 25,000 meals served annually
• Suggested donation basis for eligible adults 60+
No one is turned away for inability to contribute
• More than a meal
Transportation Program
• Reservation-based rides for Residents
• 3,000+ one-way rides annually
• Removes a significant barrier to meals, programs, services, and social connection
Current participant contributions
• $6 suggested contribution per regular meal for adults age 60+ • $2 suggested contribution per one-way trip for residents age 60+ • $10 required regular meal fee for non-seniors
Current fiscal structure
• Up to $198,491 in annual OAA reimbursement
• $785,658 in annualized program expenditures
• Subsidy projected to exceed $750,000 by 2030 due to rising costs
DECISION BEFORE COUNCIL
Adopt a long-term service model effective December 1, 2026 Senior Advisory Board Recommendation
• Independent, City-operated program
• Required fees for residents and non-residents
• Offer reduced fees for qualifying low-income residents • Continue serving residents and non-residents, with
resident priority when capacity is limited
• Continue transportation for residents age 60+
Why the Board Recommends This Model
• Most residents can pay the nominal fees
• Reduced fees preserve access for residents with
limited means
• Required fees create more predictable revenue
• The model balances affordability, fiscal responsibility, and long-term program continuity
Council action tonight will determine the final fees and authorize the transition. 4 Developed following Council direction, staff and ad hoc subcommittee review, County coordination, and Senior Advisory Board action.
INDEPENDENT PROGRAM ELEMENTS
Local Control
City controlled fees, eligibility, and
operations.
County Grant
Funding through November 30, 2026.
Meal Service
Retain catered model with stringent
standard.
Transportation
Continue service.
Residency
Use existing City documentation
standards.
Annual Review
Review fees in Spring 2027 and
annually thereafter.
Program flexibility will support alternate service delivery during the anticipated Senior Center renovation closure. 5
RECOMMENDED REQUIRED FEES
Senior Advisory Board recommendation
Residents and non-residents pay required fees; qualifying low-income residents receive reduced rates.
Service Residents aged 60+ Qualifying low-income
residents aged 60+ Non-resident or ages 59 and younger
Regular meal $6 required $4 required $12 required
Party meal $12 required $8 required $15 required
One-way ride $2 required $2 required Not eligible
Resident Priority
Residents aged 60+ receive priority when program capacity is limited.
Predictable Revenue
Required fees support cost recovery and reduce the estimated annual General Fund subsidy by approximately $116,000.
Transportation remains limited to San Bruno residents aged 60+. 6
LOW-INCOME ACCESS AND ASSISTANCE
Preserving access while strengthening fiscal sustainability Eligibility Pathway 1
• Use income criteria and verification methods applied
to other San Bruno residential low-income programs
Eligibility Pathway 2
• Accept verified enrollment in CalFresh or a comparable assistance program, consistent with the City’s current
recreation scholarship process
Additional Assistance Strategies
• Dedicated scholarship fund supported by donations or a portion of program revenue • Community or corporate sponsorships
• Potential redirection of Nutrition Site Council MOU funding to the scholarship fund, subject to an amended MOU • Detailed administrative procedures completed with the Master Fee Schedule update Reduced fees keep the program accessible to residents with limited means. 7
FISCAL IMPACT AND GENERAL FUND SUBSIDY
FY 2026/27 projections
Category
(Yearly Meals)
Current County Grant
Model
(25,008 meals)
Required Fee-Based
Model
(20,006 meals)
Expenditures
Annual Catered Meals $294K $235K
Produce & Misc. $200K $160K
Personnel $292K $171K
Total Expenditures $786K $566K
Revenues
Required Fees $0 $181K
Cash Donations $69K $0
Meal Booklets $88K $70K
OAA Grant $198K $83K / $0K
Total Revenue $355K $334K / $251K
General Fund Subsidy $431K $232K / $315K
Notes: Estimate includes an anticipated 20% decrease in overall program participation for the proposed fee-based model due to the program changes and the upcoming Center improvements. The Fee-Based model shows the revised OAA grant awarded for service July 1, 2026 – November 30, 2026. Both models exclude approximately $75,000 in annual Nutrition Site Council contributions. 8 Key Takeaway
The required feebased model lowers
the projected
General Fund
subsidy, even after
ongoing County
grant funding ends.
TRANSITION AND SPRING EVALUATION
Preparing for a smooth December 1 Implementation
County and Regional
Coordination
• County grant funding continues
through November 30, not to exceed
$82,677.
• Coordinate notice, reporting closeout,
and service transition
• Daly City, South San Francisco, and
Millbrae were informed
Participant and Staff Readiness
• Participant education and registration
update events
• Residency and fee-assistance
verification events
• Staff and volunteer training
• New payment, registration, and checkin procedures built and tested Spring 2027 Evaluation
• Anticipated initial participation
decrease of 10% to 20%
• Review participation, revenue,
assistance use, workload, and regional
impacts
• Reassess fees and the service plan
near the Senior Center closure
The transition plan is designed to minimize interruption to meals and transportation services. 9
COUNCIL ACTION
Consider adoption of the resolution
Recommended Action
• Approve the Senior Advisory Board's recommended required fee-based service model • Authorize an independent, City-operated Nutrition and Transportation Program • Establish an effective date of December 1, 2026
• Determine the action is exempt under CEQA because it does not involve a direct or reasonably foreseeable physical change to the environment Staff recommends adoption of the resolution.
10 THANK YOU
QUESTIONS
11 In Memory of