"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
October 13, 2026
6:00 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*
TELECONFERENCE MEETING CONNECTION
Zoom Link
https://sanbrunocagov.zoom.us/j/88318274784?
pwd=sYWquwGPGU9bhDN5B6HPwkpbXUm2B1.1
Phone Line: 16465588656
Webinar ID: 883 1827 4784
Webinar Password: 962105
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. Under the Brown Act, the City is only obligated to allow public comment on topics that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the City Council. If a speaker is commenting on a topic that is not within the City Council’s subject matter jurisdiction, the City reserves the right to pause the timer and ask the speaker to comport his or her comments consistent with the Brown Act’s requirements. If a speaker is unable to do so, the City reserves the right to consider the speaker disruptive and remove them from 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].
PUBLIC RECORDS: Any public writings related to an open session item on a special meeting agenda and distributed by the City to at least a majority of the City Council less than 24 hours prior to this 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 item in this section a. Receive Information on the Crestmoor Fields Improvement Project and LongTerm Financial Sustainability, and Provide Feedback on Staff's Recommendation to Halt the Project
4. ADJOURNMENT – The next Regular City Council Meeting will be held on October 13, 2026 at 7:00 pm.
POSTING: I declare a copy of this agenda was posted at City Hall, 567 El Camino Real, San Bruno, among other locations in the city limits of San Bruno, on October 8, 2026, by 8:00 pm. 1 of 6
City Council Agenda Item
Staff Report
CITY OF SAN BRUNO
DATE: October 13, 2026
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Travis M. Karlen, Community Services Director SUBJECT: Receive Information on the Crestmoor Fields Improvement Project and Long-Term Financial Sustainability, and Provide Feedback on Staff's Recommendation to Halt the Project
BACKGROUND:
The Crestmoor Fields project would develop a 5.3-acre multi-use sports field facility on parkland that Toll Brothers is dedicating to the City as part of the 155-unit Crestmoor subdivision at 300 Piedmont Avenue, the site of the former Crestmoor High School.
At the July 28, 2026 Special Meeting, staff reported that it is expected that construction costs will rise from the authorized $8,552,400 to more than $10 million. Additionally, annual operations and maintenance (O&M) costs nearly doubled to $175,000 annually. Staff recommended establishing a turf replacement reserve, estimated at the time at $180,000 per year, to fund replacement of the synthetic turf at the end of its useful life, and reported that current fees could not recover these costs.
At the August 25, 2026 Regular Meeting, the City Council authorized a Reimbursement Agreement with Toll Brothers, not to exceed $305,000, so the stormwater basin could be built ahead of the wet season. The City Council did not act on the Field Improvement Agreement and directed staff to return with updated usage data, refined fee modeling, and an analysis for reducing the City’s long-term General Fund exposure. This report responds to that direction.
Based on the factors and financial impacts outlined in this report, staff is recommending that the project be put on hold indefinitely.
DISCUSSION:
Since the July 28 meeting, staff engaged with the City’s Youth Sports Organizations to replace earlier estimates with actual participation figures:
• 2,200 playable hours per year (down from the 2,500-hour planning assumption) • 568 Recreational program participants (previously estimated at 200) • 400 Club Sports participants (previously estimated at 450; not including outside clubs) • 968 total participants, about 49% more than the 650 previously assumed • About 46% of participants live outside San Bruno (32% of Recreational and 65% of Club Sports participants)
More participants improve the revenue picture. As shown below, they do not change the conclusion.
2 of 6
Item 3a.
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
October 13, 2026
Updated Field Operations and Cost Recovery Modeling
Staff engaged Callander Associates to refine the estimate for turf replacement in 10 years. The updated figure, based on inflation and trends in material costs is approximately $2,340,510 (up from $1,800,000), which would require a $234,000 annual reserve. Added to the $162,500 O&M midpoint, the Year 1 cost to operate the fields is $396,551, rising about 3% a year to roughly $517,000 by Year 10.
Staff modeled two fee structures: Blended (a per-player fee plus an hourly rate) and Hourly-Only (no per-player fee). Each was tested at market-comparable rates and at the rates needed for full cost recovery, with and without a possible $2,000,000 endowment (a 4% draw, or about $80,000 a year).
Fee Model Basis Year 1
Revenue
Cost
Recovery
Year 1 City
Subsidy
Current fees $11 resident / $18 nonresident per player ~$27,000 ~7% ~$370,000 User-group rate (HourlyOnly) $80/hour, no per-player fee ~$176,000 ~44% ~$221,000 User-group rate + $2M
endowment $80/hour + ~$80,000 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 + ~$80,000
draw ~$233,000 ~59% ~$163,000
Market rates, Hourly-Only +
$2M endowment
Same rates + ~$80,000
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
A subsidy remains in every realistic scenario
The most favorable case combines an $80/hour rental rate with a $2 million endowment. User groups have verbalized that they could pay $80/hour, but the rate has not been confirmed. Even this best case leaves a Year 1 gap of roughly $141,000. Operating costs are projected to rise faster than fee revenue, so the gap widens each year. Across the realistic scenarios, the City's total subsidy would range from approximately $1.8 million to $3.3 million over 10 years.
Full cost recovery is not realistic
Closing the gap would require per-player fees of $133–$166 (compared with $11–$18 today) plus $103–$133 per hour; even with an endowment, $104–$130 per player plus $81–$111 per hour. A per-player fee alone would need to be about $410. Fees at these levels would likely reduce or eliminate participation, which would widen the gap further. 3 of 6
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
October 13, 2026
Toll Brothers Mobilization and Timing Considerations
Toll Brothers has advised that once its crews demobilize after completing the residential development and stormwater basin, returning later to build the fields may have an added cost.
However, design is still 6–8 months from completion, therefore staff expects a remobilization of workers and equipment will be needed regardless of the City Council’s decision. The cost advantage of building while Toll Brothers may be already lost and should not drive the decision to proceed.
The Field Improvement Agreement Draft Includes a Built-In Pause Point If the City Council chose to move forward with the Field Improvement Agreement, the developer would complete design and obtain bid pricing. Staff would then return to the City Council with more refined construction cost estimates, and the Council could decide whether to proceed to construction or stop. No construction commitment would be made before that review.
Advancing to design would use approximately $560,000 in fee credits. More precise construction estimates would not change the operating gap described above, which comes from ongoing costs exceeding fee revenue, not from construction pricing. For that reason, staff does not recommend spending $560,000 on design for a project the City cannot sustain over the long term.
Is a Public/Private Partnership the Path Forward?
Under a full public-private partnership, a private entity could fund construction and operate the facility. The City could negotiate a contractual guarantee of defined access for the City’s Youth Sports Organizations; however, it may be limited. Operating, maintenance, and turf replacement costs would shift to the operator. This model removes the City’s ongoing financial exposure, and it would free City funds for deferred maintenance elsewhere in the park system.
The trade-offs are real: the City would give up significant control over design, scheduling, and fees, and would need to negotiate and enforce durable youth sports access. A partner has the most influence while design is at about 30%, and current interest may not last. Halting the Cityfunded project does not rule out this option; if the City Council wishes, staff can return separately to test partner interest.
Broader Context: Existing Deferred Maintenance Obligations The Parks Assessment identified a substantial backlog of deferred maintenance across the City’s existing parks and facilities that is equivalent to approximately $60 million with about $19 million that carry certain liabilities. Crestmoor Fields would add a high-intensity facility with ongoing turf, lighting, irrigation, scheduling, and staffing demands, competing for the same limited staff time and General Fund dollars needed to care for what the City already owns. 10-Year Cost of Ownership Summary
Including construction, operations, and turf replacement, the estimated 10-year cost of ownership is $12.5 million to $14.0 million.
10-Year Cost of Ownership Component Estimated Cost
Capital construction (including lighting) $8,552,400 – $10,000,000+ Annual operations & maintenance (×10 years, ~$1,625,000 midpoint) ~$1,625,000
Turf replacement (end of cycle) $2,340,510
ESTIMATED 10-YEAR TOTAL $12.52M – $13.97M+
4 of 6
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
October 13, 2026
Would Natural Grass Be a Better Option Financially?
No. Natural grass costs less to install but more to maintain, and a grass field typically supports only 800–1,200 hours of play a year before wear outpaces recovery. Matching the 2,200 hours planned for Crestmoor would require two to three times the land available on the site.
If the City Does Not Proceed: Preserving the Parcel as Park or Open Space The parcel will be dedicated to the City as parkland regardless of the City Council’s decision.
Halting the fields project does not free the site for other uses or end the City’s maintenance obligation; it changes the question to what kind of park or open space the City can sustainably maintain. Two lower-cost alternatives are outlined below. Neither has been fully costed and the financial impacts are rough estimates only, and staff would return with analysis if directed. • Undeveloped Open Space. Grade, seed, fence, and irrigate the site to a basic standard, without fields or lighting. This avoids construction and field operating costs, although basic upkeep of 5.3 acres would still require General Fund support. With monitoring, the City could also consider a walking path through a natural landscape.
This cost is estimated at approximately $20,000 annually for mitigation and tree care. Over a 10-year period, this would equate to approximately $200,000 in maintenance costs.
• A Basic Park. Develop a lower-intensity park with lawn, walking paths, and basic amenities, potentially within the fee credits already available. Ongoing maintenance is estimated at approximately $125,000 per year with no annual turf reserve. Over the same 10-year period, the estimated overall costs to the City including construction are approximately $4 million.
Over time, both options cost far less than the fields project, though neither adds lighted athletic field capacity.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The Crestmoor Multipurpose Fields Project has already incurred approximately $160,000 in costs related to design, staff time, and legal fees. Other than staff time, there is no fiscal impact from receiving this report and providing direction. Halting the project avoids committing approximately $560,000 in fee credits to design and an ongoing operating subsidy. The stormwater basin Reimbursement Agreement (not to exceed $305,000) is unaffected. Any future use of the parcel would be returned to the City Council with specific costs and funding sources.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
The action of receiving a presentation and providing direction is not a project subject to CEQA.
City Council's action at this time is not considered a “Project” per CEQA Guidelines and therefore no further environmental analysis is required.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff present this analysis to give the City Council a complete and current picture of Crestmoor Fields' costs, revenue potential, and long-term financial exposure, consistent with the direction 5 of 6
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
October 13, 2026
given on July 28 and August 25. The stormwater basin work is proceeding as authorized and is unaffected by this recommendation.
The City faces a number of competing priorities that bear directly on this decision. The City's Parks Assessment identified a $60 million backlog of deferred maintenance across San Bruno's park system. Operating a major new facility like Crestmoor Fields would require significant, ongoing staff time. Fee revenue may also fall short. Even a fee structure set at levels user groups say they can afford carries real risk of not covering costs. Regardless of fees or philanthropic support, the City would take on a long-term financial liability for this facility.
Weighing these factors together, the Executive Team collectively recommends that the City Council place the Crestmoor Fields Multi-Use Fields Project on hold indefinitely. Consistent with this recommendation, staff does not propose advancing the Field Improvement Agreement to design at this time.
Staff will also return at a later date to explore options on what to do with the Crestmoor land for future use.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Direct Staff to return with the Field Improvement agreement to proceed with design using the built-in pause point. This alternative utilizes approximately $560,000 in fee credits, and the City would still face a significant annual subsidy if the fields are built dependent on the fee model.
2. Pursue a public-private partnership. This is the only option that removes the City's ongoing costs, but the City gives up control, a partner isn't guaranteed and opportunities for youth sports may be reduced.
3. Direct Staff to work with Toll Brothers on an agreement to develop the parcel as a basic park or open space.
6 of 6