1 BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL
Approved Minutes
Regular City Council Meeting on March 3, 2025
1. CALL TO ORDER
A duly noticed meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date in person and via Zoom at 7:03 p.m.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
The pledge of allegiance was led by Washington Elementary students and the AYSO UG 12 Red Parrots Team.
3. ROLL CALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Brownrigg, Colson, Pappajohn, Stevenson, and Thayer MEMBERS ABSENT: None
4. REQUEST FOR AB 2249 REMOTE PARTICIPATION
There was no request.
5. REPORT OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION
a. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION, PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(d)(1)
1.1 MICHAEL MITCHELL, ET AL. V. CITY OF BURLINGAME, ET AL., SAN MATEO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CASE NO. 22-CIV-01964
1.2 CHENGGUO, DONG, ET AL. V. CITY OF BURLINGAME, ET AL., SAN MATEO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CASE NO. 21-CIV-05900
1.3 ETZEL WILLIAMS, III ET AL. V. PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY, AKA CALTRAIN, CITY OF BURLINGAME, ET AL., SAN MATEO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CASE NO. 22-CIV-03763
1.4 KUONG LE V. CITY OF BURLINGAME, ET AL., SAN MATEO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CASE NO. 24-CIV-07931
1.5 PAPERS & PETALS V. CITY OF BURLINGAME, SAN MATEO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CASE NO. 24-CIV-08273
2 1.6 BOURI V. CITY OF BURLINGAME, SAN MATEO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CASE NO. 24-CIV- 06602
1.7 DOMINICK J. CRISAFI, ET AL. V. JAMES P SARGENT, CITY OF BURLINGAME ET AL., SAN MATEO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CASE NOS. 355462, 341895
City Attorney Guina stated that direction was given, but no reportable action was taken.
2 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION, PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(d)(2)
2.1 CLAIM OF RAYMOND WU-BU-1437
2.2 CLAIM OF RAYMOND WU AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO THE ESTATE OF BENA CHIWA NG-BU- 1437b
2.3 CLAIM OF RAYMOND WU AS SURVIVIING SPOUSE OF DECEDENT BENA CHIWA NG – BU-1437c
2.4 CLAIM OF WOO KWAN NG AS SURVIVING FATHER OF DECEDENT BENA CHIWA NG – BU-1437d
2.5 CLAIM OF LAI CHU NG AS SURVIVING MOTHER OF DECEDENT BENA CHIWA NG – BU-1437e
2.6 CLAIM OF THOMAS CHI YAN NG AS SURVIVING BROTHER OF DECEDENT BENA CHIWA NG – BU-1437f
2.7 CLAIM OF CHAI SAEPHAN – BU-1437g
2.8 CLAIM OF WILSON CHUN, DOUGLAS HWA, VICKI LEE, JUSTIN SEETO, OLIVER WONG, KELLY ZHEN, NICHOLAS ZHEN AND CLINTON ZHEN – BU-1437h
2.9 CLAIM OF BALFOUR BEAUTY INFRASTRUCTURE, INC. – BU-1611
2.10 CLAIM OF LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY – BU-1612
2.11 CLAIM OF BRIAN PATRICK WYNN – BU-1597
City Attorney Guina stated that direction was given, but no reportable action was taken.
6. UPCOMING EVENTS
Mayor Stevenson reviewed upcoming events in the city.
7. PRESENTATIONS
a. AYSO RECOGNITION
Mayor Stevenson and the Council recognized the under 12 girls Red Parrots on their success in making the Western States Tournament.
8. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Mr. Lee discussed speed bumps on Adeline, Alvarado, and Carmelita.
9. APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR
3 Mayor Stevenson asked the Councilmembers and the public if they wished to remove any item from the Consent Calendar. No items were pulled.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg made a motion to adopt the Consent Calendar; seconded by Councilmember Pappajohn. The motion passed by roll call vote, 5-0.
a. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR THE FEBRUARY 18, 2025 CLOSED SESSION
City Clerk Hassel-Shearer requested Council approval of the City Council meeting minutes for the February 18, 2025 Closed Session.
b. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR THE FEBRUARY 18, 2025 REGULAR CITY
COUNCIL MEETING
City Clerk Hassel-Shearer requested Council approval of the City Council meeting minutes for the February 18, 2025 Regular City Council Meeting.
c. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE EMERGENCY GENERATOR SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH EDWARD R. BACON COMPANY, INCREASING THE CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $55,000, FOR A NOT-TO-EXCEED AMOUNT OF $201,010
DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 016-2025.
d. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH GROUP 4 ARCHITECTURE TO PROVIDE ARCHITECTURAL AND RELATED SERVICES FOR TENANT IMPROVEMENTS AT 1440 CHAPIN AVENUE FOR AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $793,000; TRANSFERRING $800,000 FROM THE GENERAL FUND UNASSIGNED FUND BALANCE TO THE CAPITAL PROJECT FUND; AND APPROPRIATING $800,000 IN
THE CAPITAL PROJECT FUND FOR THE AGREEMENT AND RELATED ACTIVITIES
Assistant to the City Manager Kirshner requested Council adopt Resolution Number 017-2025.
e. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH SHERRY L. LUND ASSOCIATES, INC. TO PROVIDE PERFORMANCE
EVALUATION SERVICES FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY AND CITY MANAGER, FOR A MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $95,805
City Manager Goldman and City Attorney Guina requested Council adopt Resolution Number 018-2025.
10. PUBLIC HEARINGS
a. CALL FOR REVIEW OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR
COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT, VARIANCE, AND
4 AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A NEW 16,319 SF ATHLETIC CENTER AND RECONSTRUCTION OF AN OUTDOOR SWIMMING POOL AT MERCY HIGH SCHOOL LOCATED AT 2750 AND 2300 ADELINE DRIVE IN THE R-1 (LOW DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL) ZONING DISTRICT
Vice Mayor Brownrigg excused himself from the Council for this item as he was part of the appellant group.
Mayor Stevenson gave a brief background of the item stating that the Planning Commission approved an application for Commercial Density Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, Variance, and Amendment to the Conditional Use Permit for the construction and operation of a new 16,319 square foot athletic center and reconstruction of an outdoor swimming pool at Mercy High School. He explained that after approval by the Planning Commission, Vice Mayor Brownrigg in his capacity as a Councilmember filed a timely call for review of the decision.
Mayor Stevenson stated that after filing a timely call for review, Vice Mayor Brownrigg requested an opinion from the Fair Political Practices Commission (“FPPC”) as to whether or not he had a conflict of interest based on his home’s proximity to the project site. The FPPC determined that a conflict did exist; therefore, Vice Mayor Brownrigg was recused from this item. He explained that as a result, Vice Mayor Brownrigg would be presenting evidence and arguments in this hearing as a private citizen and not in his official capacity as a Councilmember.
Mayor Stevenson reviewed the order of procedures for the public hearing.
Mayor Stevenson asked his colleagues to disclose ex-parte communications on this item.
Councilmember Colson stated that she spoke with the leadership at Mercy High School.
Councilmember Pappajohn stated that she spoke with the leadership at Mercy High School, former Mayor Ann Keighran, Vice Mayor Brownrigg, TSP Commissioner Lynn Israelit, and Michael Collins. She noted that her child went to Mercy and later transferred. However, she explained that she was an unbiased decision maker.
Councilmember Thayer stated that she didn’t speak with anyone.
Mayor Stevenson stated that he spoke with Vice Mayor Brownrigg and the leadership at Mercy High School.
CDD Zayer introduced Senior Planner Erica Lewitt, who would be giving the presentation on this item.
Ms. Lewitt stated that the project site, located at the southwest corner of Adeline Drive and Hoover Avenue, was annexed from the County of San Mateo into the city. She explained that the site is composed of two parcels, with the larger parcel (2300 Adeline Drive) owned by the Sisters of Mercy and the smaller
5 lot (2750 Adeline Drive) owned by Mercy High School. She noted that the project site is surrounded by single-unit residential dwellings within San Mateo County and the city.
Ms. Lewitt explained that the proposed Mercy High School project went to the Planning Commission in 2023, and the Planning Commission approved the project in October 2024. She reviewed the scope of the project:
• Class 14 Categorical Exemption CEQA
• Demolish existing tennis courts and pool, build new 16,319 square foot gymnasium and regulation- size pool
• Add ADA pedestrian walkway
• Repave Grassilli parking lot and add 15 parking spaces • Add emergency vehicle access road required by Fire regulations • Remove 20 trees of protected size
• Revised Conditional Use Permit (“CUP”) so hours for after-school activities match existing end times for the Kohl Mansion.
Ms. Lewitt explained that subsequent to the approval of the project at the October 15, 2024, Planning Commission hearing, then-Councilmember (now Vice Mayor) Brownrigg filed a timely letter on October 25, 2024, requesting a call for review of the Planning Commission approval of the project. She stated that the call for review contained five items:
1. Request to protect existing walking path onsite – Ms. Lewitt noted that the path is on private property, and access to private property is not required under the City’s municipal code. She added that the path access had never been memorialized in any documents in the site’s existence.
2. Emergency access road not used for pedestrian access – Ms. Lewitt explained that the access lane is required by CCFD to provide emergency access. She stated that the approved plans reviewed by CCFD showed that the road will have a locked gate that can only be opened by CCFD or the school.
She added that there is also signage by the locked gate that prohibits parked cars or access.
3. Third-party rental of the gymnasium – Ms. Lewitt explained that the Planning Commission discussed the condition of limiting third-party rental of the gymnasium but determined that it was unnecessary give that:
a. Mercy High School is similar to other schools in Burlingame b. The project doesn’t propose to increase the number of students or staff c. The existing Conditional Use Permit limits guests on the entire site to 300 individuals
4. Assurance that guests do not park in the neighborhood - Ms. Lewitt explained that there are existing conditions that require guest parking on site. She added that there is an overflow lot with 114 parking spaces.
5. Ensure 7% of Mercy High School students shuttle to school - Ms. Lewitt stated that Mercy High School is contracting with several companies for shuttle services.
Ms. Lewitt reviewed the options before the Council:
• Uphold the Planning Commission’s approval of the application • Deny the application
6 • Adopt additional conditions of approval that may address issues or concerns related to and/or other than the subject of the call for review
• Remand the application to the Planning Commission for reconsideration
Councilmember Colson asked if the walking path is presently open to the public 24/7. Ms. Lewitt replied that this would be a better question for the applicant.
Councilmember Colson acknowledged further ex-parte communication by stating that she used to live at 2616 Hale and had a number of neighbors reach out to her about this matter.
Councilmember Pappajohn asked whether there was a study done on any impacts of additional traffic if third-party rentals were allowed. Ms. Lewitt replied in the negative. She explained that the traffic analysis that was submitted by the applicant and reviewed by the City only looked at the primary use of the gym.
She added that this study found that there was no substantial impact to the community.
Mayor Stevenson asked if there was any discussion about enforcement of parking restrictions for Mercy High School at the Planning Commission. He also asked if there was any discussion about signage about parking restrictions. Ms. Lewitt replied that Conditional Use Permits are enforced upon complaint.
Councilmember Colson asked if there are any residential parking permit programs in the surrounding area.
Ms. Lewitt replied in the negative.
Councilmember Thayer asked if there was a certain level of noise that is allowed per the Zoning Code. Ms.
Lewitt replied in the affirmative. She explained that the property must keep noise below 60 decibels at the nearest property line. She added that a noise study was done, and it found that Mercy High School would come in occasionally at 50 decibels.
Councilmember Pappajohn stated that Mercy High School currently rents out Kohl Mansion and asked how it would be similar if the gym is rented out. Ms. Lewitt replied that the 300-person maximum applies to the Mercy High School campus, gym, and Kohl Mansion collectively. She added that the Sisters of Mercy and Mercy High School work together to coordinate events.
Mayor Stevenson next invited the appellants to present their position.
Michael Brownrigg explained that he didn’t feel that this item was handled fairly by the Planning Commission on October 15. He stated that this is especially true regarding the question of third-party rentals. He noted that Mercy High School did not request the ability to undertake third-party rentals, but this right was granted to them by the Planning Commission. He added that this is in spite of the fact that the City already regulated third-party rentals for Kohl Mansion.
Mr. Brownrigg stated that the appeal of the Planning Commission decision was not due to the construction of the gymnasium, as everyone was in favor of the high school obtaining one for their students. Instead, he voiced concern about traffic issues and third-party rentals.
7 Lynn Israelit stated that all the neighbors are supportive of Mercy High School building a gym. She noted that the neighbors are concerned about renting out the gym to outside parties. She explained that Mercy High School regularly assured the neighbors that they wouldn’t be renting out the gym. However, she stated that the Planning Commission made the decision to allow for third-party rentals. She voiced concern that the Planning Commission did not come across as unbiased due to their connections to Mercy High School or their concern for the lack of funding for Catholic schools.
Ms. Israelit discussed traffic safety issues in the neighborhood that are connected to living near Mercy High School. She noted that by allowing third-party rentals, there would be more traffic congestion and parking issues in the neighborhood.
Ms. Israelit discussed options for how to make third-party rentals work within the neighborhood:
• Gym rentals counting towards the Kohl Mansion limit of 125 events per year • Gym rentals being required to end earlier
• Gym rentals limited to the summer when school is out of session
Mayor Stevenson asked what the neighborhood experience has been with Kohl Mansion’s events. Ms.
Israelit replied that because Kohl Mansion costs $15,000 to rent, the mansion is never rented out to its maximum of 125 events per year. She added that the neighborhood can handle the Kohl Mansion events as they often happen on the weekends.
Mayor Stevenson next invited the applicant to present their side.
Mercy High School Head of School Natalie Cirigliano Brosnan discussed the importance of working with the community. She showed a map of the Mercy High School property within the Sisters of Mercy property.
She added that Kohl Mansion is on Mercy High School property. (It had previously been noted that it was on the Sisters of Mercy property.)
Ms. Brosnan reviewed the need to build the gymnasium:
• Mercy High School is the only Catholic high school in the arch dioceses of Oakland, San Francisco, San Jose, and Santa Rosa without a gymnasium
• Mercy High School’s pool is not regulation, requiring student-athletes to drive up to 22 miles for a home facility
• Mercy High School does not have an indoor facility that can house the entire school community • A lack of facilities is a detriment for schools in today’s competitive climate • Mercy High School is doing everything it can to protect the historical educational landscape of all- girls’ education in the Bay Area
• Mercy High School wants to be able to offer the same facilities as its competitors and to help correct an inequality for high school young women
8 Ms. Brosnan discussed the request from the appellants for a pedestrian walkway path. She noted that the majority of the property is on Sisters of Mercy property. She added that from a security standpoint, Mercy High School needs to protect access.
Ms. Brosnan next discussed the appellants’ concerns regarding the emergency road access. She explained that CCFD required a new emergency vehicle access road. She stated that per the Planning Commission decision, non-emergency vehicles are not permitted to pull into or to park on the access road at any time, and the road will have a gate to prevent non-emergency vehicles from entering.
Ms. Brosnan discussed the appellants’ concerns regarding third-party rentals. She explained that Mercy High School has historically wanted to support the community when local needs arise. She stated that renting Kohl Mansion will always be the priority because of the funding that it brings to the high school.
Ms. Brosnan discussed the appellants’ concerns regarding shuttle usage. She explained that currently 10% of Mercy High School’s student body uses the shuttle program, with many more being part of carpools.
Councilmember Colson stated that from her understanding, Catholic schools don’t have activities on Sundays. She asked if this would be the main day that third-party rentals would occur at the gym. Ms.
Brosnan replied that the main focus of potential rentals would be if a community need arose.
Councilmember Colson asked if she was correct that the gym would mainly be rented for sports-related activities. Ms. Brosnan replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Colson asked if there are other sports that have to be played off campus. Ms. Brosnan replied that every sport is currently played off campus.
Councilmember Thayer asked about summer school and sports camps at Mercy High School and whether they happen now and if in the future, they would happen in the gym. Ms. Brosnan replied that they do happen now and would be in the gym in the future.
Councilmember Thayer noted that the summer sessions are restricted to Monday through Friday, 8:15 am to 3:15 p.m. Ms. Brosnan replied that those are the guidelines for summer camp. She explained that pursuant to the Conditional Use Permit, both Kohl Mansion and the gym could be rented until 11:00 p.m.
Councilmember Thayer asked if there was a public calendar that outlined events at the Mercy High School property. Ms. Brosnan replied in the affirmative.
Mayor Stevenson asked what type of materials the school talked about for noise prevention in the gym.
Ms. Brosnan replied that there is a lobby before the gym to keep the noise inside. She added that currently the school has pep rallies outside, and therefore the gym will decrease the noise levels for the community.
Mayor Stevenson opened the public hearing.
9 Michael Collins stated that while he supported Mercy High School building a gym, he did have concerns about traffic controls, parking concerns, and third-party rentals.
Shirin Coleman voiced concern about allowing third-party rentals as it was not asked for by Mercy High School and instead was granted by the Planning Commission.
Holly Daley discussed traffic concerns related to allowing third-party rentals at the gym.
Chris Denten stated that he has always found parking at Kohl Mansion and Mercy High School events.
Ginny Wright stated that while she supported Mercy High School building a gym, she was worried that the Conditional Use Permit was too open ended as it allows third-party rentals until 11:00 p.m.
Tom Wootten stated that he is a teacher at Mercy High School and was excited about Mercy High School having its own gym.
Rebecca Galler stated that she never experienced bad traffic due to Mercy High School. She added that Mercy High School has always proven to be a great community partner.
Isis Ordaz stated that she is student body president at Mercy High School and encouraged the Council to uphold the Planning Commission decision. She discussed the positive impacts of Mercy having its own gym.
Nels Delander encouraged the City to uphold the Planning Commission decision and noted that the gym would be built by unions.
Brian Lee read a comment from his sister, who voiced concern about the Planning Commission decision.
Jeb Gibney voiced concern about the decision to allow third-party rentals until 11:00 p.m.
Kevin Baker voiced concern about the decision to allow third-party rentals.
David Greene stated that his only objection is the ability of Mercy High School to rent out their gym until 11:00 p.m., seven days a week.
Minji Lee voiced concern about allowing third-party rentals at Mercy High School.
Michael Brunicardi stated that for this project to be successful, the gym needs to be cleared out by 10:00 p.m., no third-party outside rentals, and a law enforcement officer should be at the night events to ensure it is cleared out at 10:00 p.m.
Anya McKissick stated that she is a student at Mercy High School and asked the Council to approve the Planning Commission decision.
10 Valerie Teele voiced concerns about the traffic and noise that would be created as a result of third-party rentals.
Rick Lechleitner discussed his experience with third-party rentals at another private school and stated that it has not been a problem. He encouraged the City to approve the Planning Commission decision.
Ann Keighran voiced her support for the Mercy High School gym.
Jamie Lechleitner voiced her support for the Mercy High School project.
City Clerk Hassel-Shearer interrupted the public comment section to note that the City received over 60 emails from community members by the 4:00 p.m. deadline. She added that the emails were sent to the Council and posted on the City’s website.
Sandy Comaroto discussed the importance of approving the Planning Commission decision.
Brett Teele voiced concern about the increased traffic that would be created as a result of third-party rentals.
John Schmid, as a Planning Commissioner, discussed the Planning Commission’s decision to allow third- party rentals.
Peter Comaroto stated that the Planning Commission decision should be upheld by the City Council.
Joe Nezwek stated that Mercy High School is an incredible neighbor and asked the Council to allow third- party rentals with the restriction that events must end by 10:00 p.m.
Penny Alexander asked the City Council to uphold the Planning Commission decision.
Mayor Stevenson closed the public hearing.
Mayor Stevenson gave the appellants five minutes for a rebuttal.
Mr. Brownrigg asked the Council to either adhere to the original application that didn’t include third-party rentals or put guardrails on third-party rentals. He discussed how the City put limits on the number of events that Kohl Mansion can have.
Mayor Stevenson gave the applicant five minutes for a rebuttal.
Ms. Brosnan thanked the community for coming out and discussed the importance of Mercy High School building a gym.
Mayor Stevenson asked his colleagues for any comments they had.
11 Councilmember Pappajohn asked if she was correct that the City commissioned a traffic study that showed that even if Mercy High School rented out their gym to third parties, there was no significant impact. Ms.
Lewitt replied that the applicant submitted a traffic and circulation study that looked at using the gym for school activities and not third-party rentals.
Mayor Stevenson asked if the Mercy High School pool can be rented out to third-parties. Ms. Lewitt replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Pappajohn stated that after talking to people, it became clear that Mercy High School has always been a great neighbor. She discussed the importance of treating all the schools consistently and therefore thought that Mercy High School should be able to rent their gym in the same manner as Burlingame High School.
Councilmember Thayer thanked the community for attending and commenting. She noted that she leans into the fact that restrictions for third-party rentals don’t occur at other schools. However, she explained that she understood the community’s concerns.
Councilmember Colson stated that it seemed that many of the original concerns were dispensed with including:
1. Access to a walking path
2. Emergency road access
3. Commitment to 7% of Mercy High School students taking shuttles
4. Parking restrictions in the neighborhood
Councilmember Colson stated that in regard to third-party rentals, there is a need for more space. She discussed the Washington Park campout that goes all night long. She explained that she would like to allow Mercy High School the opportunity to undertake third-party rentals. She thought that it could be re-visited in a few years to see how it is going.
Mayor Stevenson stated that Burlingame is a city built on neighborhood schools. He explained that the best way forward is for community schools to engage with their neighbors. He added that it seems to come down to the issue of third-party rentals. He explained that it seemed that the space would lower noise issues as it would move activities indoors.
Mayor Stevenson stated that he agreed with Councilmember Colson about reviewing the status of third- party rentals at Mercy High School in a few years.
CDD Zayer stated that Conditional Use Permits run with the land. She explained that if the Conditional Use Permit is approved, Mercy High School would be able to allow third-party rentals until 11:00 p.m. in perpetuity. She stated that if Mercy High School violates its Conditional Use Permit, then it could be brought back to the Council for revocation. She explained that a six-month review of the Conditional Use
12 Permit wouldn’t allow the City to revoke their permit if they aren’t in violation. She noted that this is the time to put parameters around third-party rentals if that is important to Council.
Councilmember Colson stated that her inclination is to uphold the Planning Commission decision.
Councilmember Pappajohn and Councilmember Thayer concurred with Councilmember Colson.
Mayor Stevenson stated that it is difficult to put additional parameters on this matter. He explained that if there is an issue, he thought it would occur within one of the existing conditions that is attached to the Conditional Use Permit.
Councilmember Pappajohn made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 019-2025; seconded by Councilmember Thayer. The motion passed by roll call vote, 4-0-1. (Vice Mayor Brownrigg was recused from voting on this item).
Mayor Stevenson thanked the public and staff for their work on this item.
11. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
a. BROADWAY GRADE SEPARATION PROJECT UPDATE AND REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL DIRECTION
DPW Murtuza stated that once staff heard that the price of the project skyrocketed, staff began working very closely with Caltrain on potential solutions.
Caltrain Manager of Government and Community Affairs Navi Dhaliwal reviewed the recent and ongoing safety improvements at the Broadway Burlingame Crossing:
• Caltrain implemented Rail Sentry at the Broadway-Burlingame Crossing. This technology uses LIDAR and cameras to observe and mitigate collisions between train, vehicular, pedestrian, and other objects.
• Caltrain installed solar-powered markers to clearly outline the road and prevent cars from turning too far onto the tracks.
Ms. Dhaliwal stated that additional safety enhancements the community can expect to see include:
• Updated paint striping
• New signage
• Installation of flexible, reflective delineator posts to reduce speeds and help drivers safely navigate this intersection
She added that Caltrain is actively partnering with tech companies including Google, Apple, and Waze to ensure improved instructions around tracks to prevent strike incidents at each crossing.
Ms. Dhaliwal reviewed the project partners for the Broadway Grade Separation:
• Caltrain – lead implementing agency
13 • Burlingame – project sponsor
• Transit Authority – funding partner
Ms. Dhaliwal reviewed the project features:
• Grade separation at Broadway
• Elevated Broadway Station with center boarding platform • Street access north and south of Broadway
• Temporary two-track electrified shoofly
• Relocations at Easton and Sanchez creeks required to construct
Caltrain Chief of Rail Design and Construction Robert Barnard stated that as the Broadway Grade Separation project advanced from 35% to 65% design, three estimates were done by three design professionals:
• July 2019 at 35% design - $237 million
• January 2022 at 35% design - $233 million
• December 2022 at 65% - $269.8 million
He explained that the estimated costs were similar and assumed that given that the project was number one on California’s Public Utility Commissions grade crossing priority list, it would be fully funded and in construction by 2024. However, he stated that grants applied for were not received, and prior approved funding was delayed.
Mr. Barnard explained that the Broadway Grade Separation is a complex project due to the fact that seven bridges need to be built, and it is located near six creeks.
Mr. Barnard reviewed the progress that has been made on the project:
• October 2023 – SMCTA Board and City allocated funds for a Construction Manager – General Contractor
• December 2023 – Caltrain awarded a contract to Kelly McNutt Consulting to provide contractor- style estimates
• February 2024 – Construction Manager – General Contractor contract was awarded to Flatiron – Herzog JV
• August 2024 – initial commercial pricing was received from both Kelly McNutt Consulting and Flatiron-Herzog JV. The pricing ranged from $527 million to $590 million for construction only
Mr. Barnard reviewed the construction cost estimate drivers:
• Environmental and operational constraints – construction has been extended 19 to 30 months due to strict environmental regulations and the need to work around live electrified infrastructure, leading to increased costs and schedule delays
• Impact of delayed groundbreaking – 17 to 27 months delay as compared to designer’s estimate assumption
14 • Mismatch between design and construction realities – design changes between 2022 and 2024; differences between designer’s schedule, scope, and cost forecasting versus the initial commercial industry professional’s construction estimates; design estimate assumed 5% cost escalation in 2022, but in 2024, the cost escalation was 9.4%
• Post-pandemic construction and labor cost escalation – post-pandemic economic volatility introduced unpredictable cost increases across the industry
Mr. Barnard explained that due to the increased costs, the project partners agreed to undertake value engineering (VE):
• Optimize to reduce durations and costs
o Minimize construction near electric infrastructure to increase production rate o Minimize work in or near the creek
o Develop optimized construction phasing to minimize overall project duration o Explore early right-of-way activities to minimize overall project duration • Reduce design footprint
o Evaluate side platforms
o Reduce platform length from ten cars to seven cars
o Explore shoofly track alternatives
o Revised maximum allowable grade
• Modify Broadway Station
o Alternative design concepts and phasing
o Cost analysis of station removal
o Reduction of the ROW
o Pedestrian tunnels removal
Mr. Barnard explained that with the value engineered concepts, four conceptual packages were developed and estimated:
Package One – Center Platform – retains the current design concept with a center platform:
• Total project time – 5 to 5.5 years
• Project cost - $889 million
Mr. Barnard reviewed the key considerations of package one:
• Environmental impacts to creeks and wetlands
• Extensive utility relocations required
• Impacts five parcels
• Requires extensive shoring near shoofly tracks, increasing complexity • Limited opportunities for additional VE cost reductions • Center platform design improves ridership experience
Package Two – Side Platform – modifies the design to side platforms, reducing track footprint:
• Total project time – 4 years
15 • Project cost - $679 million
Mr. Barnard reviewed the key considerations of package two:
• Cost savings of $147 million in construction costs
• Key benefits
o Minimizes environmental impacts to creeks and wetlands o Fewer utility relocations required
o Footprint reduced on the five required parcels
o Narrower embankment improves access and lowers costs
• Key challenges:
o Redesign may cause additional delays and require more outreach o Side platform design impacts ridership experience
Package Three – Side Platform/Deferred Station – side platforms reduce track footprint and defer station construction:
• Total project time – 4 years
• Project cost - $638 million
Mr. Barnard reviewed the key considerations of package three:
• Cost savings of $34 million in construction costs
• Key benefits
o Flexibility for future station construction
o Simplified scope reduces risk
o Safer work areas near tracks
• Key challenge
o Potential delays from environmental permitting
Package Four – No Station:
• Total project time – 4 years
• Project cost - $615 million
Mr. Barnard reviewed the key considerations of package four:
• Cost savings of $50 million in construction costs
• Key benefits
o Improved Caltrain travel times
o Simplified scope reduces risks
o Safer work areas near tracks
• Key challenge
o Potential delays from environmental permitting
Mr. Barnard stated that in the next several months, a decision is necessary regarding which package the City would like to focus on. He reviewed the projected cost escalation for the four packages:
16 Item Start Date
2026
Start Date
2027 (3.5%)
Start Date
2028 (3.5%)
Start Date
2029 (3.5%)
Start Date
2030 (3.5%)
Start Date
2031 (3.5%)
Package 1 $889 million $920 million $952 million $986 million $1.02 billion $1.056 billion
Package 2 $679 million $703 million $727 million $753 million $779 million $806 million Package 3 $638 million $660 million $683 million $707 million $732 million $758 million Package 4 $615 million $637 million $659 million $682 million $706 million $730 million
Mr. Barnard reviewed funding and expenditures to date:
Phase SMCTA City of Burlingame Total
Project Study Report $1 million $1 million
Preliminary Engineering $4.05 million $500,000 $4.55 million PE Paralleling Station $1.025 million $1.025 million
Project Study and
Environmental
$20,638,000 $1.7 million $22,338,000
TOTAL $26,713,000 $2.2 million $28,913,000
Remaining $2,481,408
Mr. Barnard reviewed next steps:
• March 4 – SMCTA Community Advisory Committee Meeting
• March 6 – SMCTA Board Meeting
• Project next steps, if funding request approved:
o Redesign to 65%
o Enable ROW activities
o Environmental permits
• Caltrain will continue to evaluate and install supplemental safety measures as part of its rail crossing safety program
Mr. Barnard reviewed the current funding needed to advance the updated alternative to 65%:
Item Percentage Amount
CM/GC Pre-Construction $2.8 million
Designer $9.3 million
Caltrain $2 million
Enabling ROW Activities $2 million
Consultant Services $1.25 million
Internal Cost Allocation Plan 4% $700,000
TOTAL $18,050,000
Contingency ~10% $1,805,000
Funding Need $19,855,000
17 Councilmember Colson stated that she and Mayor Stevenson reviewed this presentation on two prior occasions and have asked hundreds of questions. She voiced her disappointment in the increased price tag. She stated that staff has been discussing for ten years why the grade separation should happen before electrification. She also explained that funding for this project will be very difficult.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that under the new packages, the City would have to come up with $150 to $200 million. He asked Mr. Barnard for his perspective on where the City was going to find this funding.
Mr. Barnard replied that the City and Caltrain should establish an ad-hoc committee to create a funding plan.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that as far as he knew, there were no additional sources of funding that weren’t available a year or two ago. He voiced frustration about Caltrain’s role in this process and the doubling of price. He explained that if an individual he worked with was off by this much in his professional career, he would fire them.
Mr. Barnard stated that he understood the Vice Mayor’s frustration. He explained that this is a complex project, and he believes that with a contractor being brought in, it will help to drive decision making.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg explained that he didn’t understand how this could go forward if the City doesn’t think it can find $200 million.
Mr. Barnard stated that the region needs to determine first if they want to move forward with the project.
If they do, then the question becomes how they can obtain funding.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that he didn’t believe that there would be a source to fund this increase, and was unsure that Caltrain could deliver.
Councilmember Colson discussed the paralleling station. She noted that Caltrain informed the City that things needed to happen within 24 hours. She explained that the cost of the paralleling station was $17 million, and it would be located next to the necessary grade separation. She stated that when she pressed Caltrain about building the paralleling station before the grade separation, she was told that Caltrain would tear it down when it came time to undertake grade separation.
Councilmember Colson stated that Caltrain’s thought process on the paralleling station told her that either Caltrain never planned on building the station, or Caltrain was foolish enough to think they could waste taxpayer money. She explained that the City put the paralleling station on its own property in order to not have to tear down a $17 million paralleling station. She added that this project didn’t break ground for two years.
Councilmember Colson discussed the proposed cost of the redesign. She explained that if it was mapped out, it would be $20 million for 9 months for a team of full-time staff. She stated that this sounded absurd.
18 Councilmember Pappajohn asked if the City could wait until hearing from the Transit Authority about potential funding.
Councilmember Colson stated that the City needed to select a package in order for the Transit Authority to move forward.
Councilmember Pappajohn stated that she believed it would be irresponsible to not move forward with the project due to the health and safety of the public. She added that she favored package four due to the subcommittee recommendation.
Councilmember Thayer stated that the funding seemed difficult and was concerned if there was even a viable option. She explained that if she had to choose between package three and four, she would go with package three in order to have the option to reopen the Broadway Station.
Mayor Stevenson expressed frustration over Caltrain’s leadership on the project. He added that he believed that if the City saw this project as viable, the only option was package four.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked if there was an option besides for Caltrain to handle design work for this project. Mr. Barnard replied that an RFP was put out, and Mark Thomas was selected to undertake design.
However, he explained that as a result of electrification, redesign would be necessary.
Mayor Stevenson opened the item up for public comment.
Ross Bruce discussed the importance of reopening the Broadway Station.
Mayor Stevenson closed public comment.
Councilmember Colson stated that the Community Development Department had been conducting public meetings regarding a Broadway Specific Plan. She asked what staff heard from the community. CDD Zayer replied that through the workshops and popups, staff heard loud and clear that the residents and businesses want things to remain the same.
Councilmember Colson asked how the community’s request is handled if the City continues to have the Broadway Station. CDD Zayer replied that MTC’s TOC policy requires existing zoning to be intensified, and parking maximums are instituted.
Councilmember Colson stated that if the Broadway Station remains open, the City would need to finish the TOD Plan. CDD Zayer replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Thayer asked if she was correct that creating a TOD wouldn’t force change; it would instead give the private landowners the option to build under new regulations. CDD Zayer replied in the affirmative.
19 Councilmember Pappajohn asked about a dedicated shuttle from Broadway to the other stations. Mr.
Barnard replied that there is a shuttle that runs during the weekdays from the Broadway Station to the Millbrae Train Station.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked if the Council is being asked to make a financial commitment tonight if they select a package. DPW Murtuza replied in the negative. He explained that at the subcommittee meeting, Caltrain was asked to review the $20 million redesign cost. He added that before the City commits to funding, Caltrain would need to retool that number, and it would be brought back to Council for discussion.
He stated that the Council isn’t being asked to make a commitment on cost at this meeting. Instead, he explained that the Council is being asked if the project is viable and which package they prefer.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that package three with the option for a future station is the path he would suggest following.
Mayor Stevenson asked what material difference is there in the construction of package three and package four. Mr. Barnard replied that package three would include building space for a future seven-car platform.
Councilmember Colson stated that she thought only package four was a viable option. She noted that she thought the City could assist in creating a robust shuttle service, and individuals could use the Burlingame Train Station.
Councilmember Pappajohn asked if the money that the City saves by going with package four over three could be supplemented by Caltrain. Mr. Barnard replied that this is a local project, and the money that Caltrain gets is to improve service.
Mayor Stevenson discussed potentially having only a few of the cars open on the platform, and therefore it wouldn’t require a seven-car platform. Mr. Barnard replied that he would need to get back to Council on whether this is a viable option.
Councilmember Thayer asked if it had been considered to separate the station from grade separation and move the train station to a different location. Mr. Barnard replied that he was unsure.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that Councilmember Colson makes a compelling argument for package four as it is the least expensive option. He added that this is not the hard decision; the hard decision is in the future regarding whether the City will spend funds.
Councilmember Colson stated that in the future, the City will have more information from the Transit Authority on what their funding level for this project would be.
Mayor Stevenson stated that the direction from Council is package four. He added that the City would like more information on the cost of the redesign.
20 12. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
a. COUNCILMEMBER COLSON’S COMMITTEE REPORT
13. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
Councilmember Colson asked for a presentation on the SMC Alert. Council agreed to agendize this discussion.
14. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The agendas, packets, and meeting minutes for the Planning Commission, Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission, Beautification Commission, Parks & Recreation Commission, and Library Board of Trustees are available online at www.burlingame.org
.
15. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 11:43 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer
City Clerk