1 BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL
Approved Minutes
Regular City Council Meeting on April 7, 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 7:02 p.m.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by local students.
3. ROLL CALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Brownrigg, Colson, Pappajohn, Stevenson, Thayer* MEMBERS ABSENT: None
* Councilmember Thayer appeared remotely from San Diego, after it was properly noticed on the agenda.
4. REQUEST FOR AB 2249 REMOTE PARTICIPATION
There was no request.
5. REPORT OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION
There was no closed session.
6. UPCOMING EVENTS
Mayor Stevenson reviewed upcoming events in the city.
7. PRESENTATIONS
There were no presentations.
8. PUBLIC COMMENTS
2 There were no public comments.
9. APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Stevenson asked the Councilmembers and the public if they wished to remove any item from the Consent Calendar. Vice Mayor Brownrigg pulled item 9f, and Councilmember Colson pulled item 9g.
Councilmember Pappajohn made a motion to adopt items 9a, 9b, 9c, 9d, and 9e; seconded by Vice Mayor Brownrigg. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0.
a. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR THE MARCH 12, 2025 FY 2024-25 MID-YEAR
BUDGET STUDY SESSION
City Clerk Hassel-Shearer requested Council approval of the City Council meeting minutes for the March 12, 2025 FY 2024-25 Mid-Year Budget Study Session.
b. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR THE MARCH 17, 2025 CLOSED SESSION
City Clerk Hassel-Shearer requested Council approval of the City Council meeting minutes for the March 17, 2025 Closed Session.
c. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR THE MARCH 17, 2025 REGULAR CITY
COUNCIL MEETING
City Clerk Hassel-Shearer requested Council approval of the City Council meeting minutes for the March 17, 2025 Regular City Council Meeting.
d. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTIONS AWARDING A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO T&S INTERMODAL MAINTENANCE, INC., DBA T&S WEST COSNTRUCTION, IN A NOT-TO-EXCEED AMOUNT OF $194,210.32, FOR THE CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT (CCFD) FIRE STATION 36 BATHROOM REMODAL AND ACCESSIBILITY UPGRADE, CITY PROJECT NO. 87090, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY
MANAGER TO EXECUTE A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) WITH CCFD FOR PROJECT
COST REIMBURSEMENT
DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 024-2025 and Resolution Number 025-2025.
e. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO LEVY BROADWAY AREA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025-26; SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR MAY 5, 2025; AND APPROVING THE DISTRICT’S ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2024-25
Finance Director Yu-Scott requested Council adopt Resolution Number 026-2025.
3 f. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AWARDING A TURNKEY SERVICES CONTRACT TO 1ST LIGHT SALES CORP. IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,658,557, FOR THE DESIGN, PROCUREMENT, AND INSTALLATION OF THE SOLAR PANEL PHOTOVOLTAIC CELLS PROJECT, CITY PROJECT NO. 87040, AND AUTHORIZING
THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE CONTRACT
Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that staff’s recommendation is to borrow money to install solar panels because there would be sufficient energy savings to repay the loan and generate a return on investment.
However, he noted that the staff report did not include an analysis of this recommendation, and therefore he was unable to assess the risk.
DPW Murtuza stated that the interest rate that the City is receiving from the California Energy Commission is 1%, and it is a 20-year loan.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that the City is forecasting a ten-year return on investment. He explained that this seems like a smart thing to do. He discussed the fact that the City is electing not to put solar panels on the wastewater treatment plant because those panels will require a lot of permitting from Bay protection agencies. He stated that he finds it frustrating that the City would need to jump through so many hoops in order to take a sustainable action.
Councilmember Colson discussed the importance of moving forward with this expeditiously due to the current political climate regarding green energy.
Mayor Stevenson opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 027-2025; seconded by Councilmember Pappajohn. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0.
g. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO AMEND THE CITY OF BURLINGAME MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FOR THE 2025-26 FISCAL YEAR AND SET THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR SUCH AMENDMENT FOR MAY 5, 2025, AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE CITY OF BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS Councilmember Colson reviewed some of the items from the proposed Master Fee Schedule for FY 2025-26 that she had concerns with including:
• Heat pump water and heat pump air conditioning systems are zero dollars to permit. She suggested zeroing out the permitting cost of installing electric appliances to incentivize going electric. • Demolition fee for commercial and residential is the same. • Two different fees for insufficient funds on a return check (one is $25 and the second is what the bank charges).
• False alarms – clarification on the costs
• Lane Room rental is $175 without a set time limit and no difference between residents and non- residents.
• Community Center room rentals are by hour and broken up by resident and non-resident.
4 • Field use fee for residents is increasing from $20 to $25, but non-resident fee is staying the same • Arborist fees are by the hour. She asked that it be noted that the minimum charge is an hour.
Councilmember Colson stated that she would send these concerns to Finance Director Yu-Scott.
The Council discussed incentivizing installing electric devices by zeroing out the permit fees.
CDD Zayer stated that currently the City charges an electric permit fee, which covers the cost of staff time conducting an electric review. The cost is $99, with a proposed increase to $102. She noted that if Council waives this fee, then the City would be subsidizing this cost.
Councilmember Colson stressed the importance of incentivizing the community to go electric. She asked how many electric permits the City receives a year. CDD Zayer replied that there weren’t a lot of stand- alone electric permits. She explained that instead it is usually covered by the general building permit fee, which is charged during a remodel.
The Council agreed with Councilmember Colson’s suggestion regarding zeroing out the cost of electric permits.
Councilmember Colson asked about the resident versus non-resident fees for park permits. Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad thanked Councilmember Colson for finding a typo as the cost went up for both residents and non-residents.
Mayor Stevenson opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke.
Councilmember Colson made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 028-2025 with direction; seconded by Councilmember Pappajohn. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0.
10. PUBLIC HEARINGS
a. PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ADJUSTING THE STORM DRAINAGE FEE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025-26 BY 2.0% BASED ON THE CPI – SAN FRANCISCO AREA AS PUBLICHSED ON MARCH 12, 2025
Finance Director Yu-Scott stated that this is the annual rate setting for the storm drain fee. She explained that in 2009, Burlingame voters approved Ordinance Number 1836, which determined the methodology for adjusting the annual storm drainage fee. She stated that the City is allowed to increase the fee by the consumer price index not to exceed 2% each year. Therefore, this year, because the CPI is 2.7%, staff recommends increasing the storm drainage fee to the maximum level of 2%. She explained that this increase will bring in an additional $66,300, for an estimated total revenue of $3.4 million in fiscal year 2025-26.
Mayor Stevenson opened the public hearing. No one spoke.
5 Vice Mayor Brownrigg made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 029-2025; seconded by Councilmember Colson. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0.
11. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
a. MURCHISION DRIVE, TROUSDALE DRIVE, AND DAVIS DRIVE BICYCLE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
UPDATE AND CITY COUNCIL DIRECTION
Senior Transportation Engineer Andrew Wong began by discussing the extensive public outreach that staff undertook regarding bicycle improvements for Murchison Drive, Trousdale Drive, and Davis Drive:
• Four community meetings with opportunity to provide feedback • Online surveys
• Emailed notices to interested parties who provided email contact information at previous meetings • Collaboration with the City of Millbrae
• Worked with BIS and Franklin Elementary for student body distribution • Additional notifications via eNews and NextDoor
Mr. Wong reviewed the project development timeline:
• 2020 – Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
• April 2022 – Call for TDA Grant
• September 2022 – RFP
• Winter 2022 – Preliminary Design
• May 2023 – First Community Meeting
• October 2023 – Online Surveys
• Winter 2023 – Design Revisions
• June 2024 – Community Meeting Number 2
• December 2024 – TSPC Meeting
• March 2025 TSPC and Final Community Meeting
• April 2025 – Council Meeting
• July 2025 – Finalized Design
• December 2025 – Contract and Award
• July 2026 – Project Completion
Mr. Wong showed slides depicting the existing conditions of Murchison Drive and then the two alternatives:
Alternative 1 (Staff Recommended Concept)
• Description – 64 feet curb to curb with the following breakdown on each side o 8-foot parking lane
o 2-foot buffer
o 6-foot bike lane
o 3-foot buffer
6 o 10-foot travel lane
• Key Benefits
o No change to vehicles capacity
o Buffered lanes provide lower stress for bicyclists
o Parking loss of eleven spaces
• Considerations
o Vehicles need to cross bike lane to enter/exit parking o Smaller buffer between bike lane and travel lane
o Less direct driveway access
Alternative 2
• Description – 64 feet curb to curb with the following breakdown on each side o 6-foot bike lane
o 3-foot buffer
o 9-foot parking lane
o 10-foot travel lane
• Key Benefits
o No change to vehicles capacity
o Protection for bicyclists
• Considerations
o Potential loss of parking at driveways
o Parked vehicles may encroach into buffer
o Less direct driveway access
o Emergency vehicle turning impacts at intersections
o Limits driver’s ability to pull over during an emergency o Parking loss of 21 spaces
Mr. Wong next reviewed the proposed improvements for Davis Drive:
• Quick-build bulbout with high-visibility crosswalks with pedestrian sign • White edgelines on both sides of the street from Quesada to Albemarle • Green-backed sharrows
Mr. Wong reviewed slides depicting the existing conditions of Trousdale Drive and then the three alternatives. He explained that this street sees between 11,000 and 12,000 vehicles each day Alternative 1
• Description – 64 feet curb to curb with the following breakdown on each side o 8-foot parking lane
o 5.5-foot bike lane
o 3-foot buffer
o 10-foot travel lane
o 11-foot center turn lane
• Key Benefits
7 o Striped buffer provides increased separation between moving vehicles and bicyclists • Considerations
o Reduced vehicle capacity
o Increased delay at Quesada in morning peak from LOS C to LOS F (school traffic) o Due to emergency services’ need for the existing dual westbound left-turn lanes into Mills- Peninsula Hospital, this alternative cannot be implemented between El Camino Real and Magnolia Avenue
o Parking loss of 18 spaces
Alternative 2
• Description – 64 feet curb to curb with the following breakdown on each side o 5-foot bike lane
o 2-foot buffer
o 10-foot travel lane
o 10-foot left turn lane
• Key Benefits
o Turn lanes would reduce delay
o Protection for bicyclists
• Considerations
o There is not enough street width to implement this alternative between El Camino Real and Magnolia Avenue due to emergency services’ need for the existing dual westbound left-turn lanes into Mills-Peninsula Hospital
o Parking loss of 146 spaces
Alternative 3
• Description – 64 feet curb to curb with the following breakdown on each side o 7-foot parking lane
o 5-foot bike lane
o 10-foot travel lane
o 10-foot travel lane
• Key Benefits
o No change to vehicle capacity
o Includes Class II bicycle facilities
• Considerations
o Increased traffic stress for bicyclists; travel lanes, bike lanes, and parking strip reduced to minimum widths
o There is not enough street width to implement this alternative between El Camino Real and Magnolia Avenue due to emergency services’ need for the existing dual westbound left-turn lanes into Mills-Peninsula Hospital
o Parking loss of 18 spaces
Mr. Wong reviewed staff’s proposals:
8 • Murchison Drive – proceed with Alternative 1 (buffered bicycle lanes) with Class III on Ogden Drive between Murchison and Trousdale
• Davis Drive – proceed with phased approach starting with green-backed sharrow, roadway edgelines, in-street pedestrian signs, quick-build bulbouts, and a high-visibility crosswalk. No speed cushions at this time.
• Trousdale Drive – do not proceed at this time, except for the portion between California Drive and El Camino Real with a Class II bike facility
• Monitor the above improvements and take necessary steps accordingly and re-evaluate installation of bike lanes on Trousdale in the future as a separate project
Councilmember Colson asked if the City worked with Millbrae on this project since half of Murchison is in Millbrae. Mr. Wong replied in the affirmative. He explained that Millbrae staff would be presenting suggested improvements to its BPAC later in the week.
Councilmember Thayer asked if there was a reason Ogden Drive was chosen instead of Sequoia to connect Murchison to Trousdale. Mr. Wong replied that he would look into it and get back to her with this answer.
Councilmember Pappajohn asked if the City had projections about what the increased density to areas like North Rollins would do to the number of vehicles per day on Trousdale. Mr. Wong replied that he would need to get back to Councilmember Pappajohn with this number.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg explained that bicycle lanes were installed on California Drive not only to encourage more cycling but also to slow down traffic. He asked if there was a speed/safety problem on Trousdale Drive. Mr. Wong replied in the negative.
Mayor Stevenson opened the item up for public comment.
Angelina, a fifth grader from Franklin Elementary School, encouraged the City Council not to put bicycle lanes on Trousdale Drive.
Jennifer Samuelson encouraged the City Council not to put bicycle lanes on Trousdale Drive due to the traffic flow to schools like BIS, the need for parking for apartments, and the number of cars that use Trousdale.
Ms. Harris stated that the Council shouldn’t put bicycle lanes on Trousdale due to the need for emergency vehicles to have access to the Mills-Peninsula Hospital.
Brian Benn stated that the Council should approve bicycle lanes on Trousdale in order to encourage more cycling.
Mike Swire voiced disappointment that staff wasn’t recommending moving forward with bike lanes on Trousdale Drive.
9 Al Harris asked the Council not to install bike lanes on Trousdale Drive.
Ryan Glass, a seventh grader, discussed biking every day to BIS and how unsafe he feels. He added that he liked the alternative on Trousdale without parking.
Gino asked the Council not to install bike lanes on Trousdale Drive.
Manito Velasco encouraged the Council to move forward with installing bike lanes on Trousdale Drive.
Mayor Stevenson closed public comment.
Councilmember Pappajohn stated that she agreed with TSPC’s recommendations for Murchison and Davis.
She added that she agreed with staff regarding the difficulty of putting bicycle lanes on Trousdale Drive.
She stated that she believed that the City should wait to see how the increased density would affect Trousdale Drive before putting bike lanes in. She also voiced concerns about ensuring that ambulances aren’t squeezed trying to get to Mills-Peninsula Hospital.
Councilmember Thayer stated that she liked Alternative 1 on Murchison but didn’t think a left turn lane should be added. She explained that she believed it would invite more conflicts with bicyclists. She also thought that staff should look into adding bicycle lanes to Odgen Drive in order to get as close to BIS as possible. She voiced support for moving forward with staff’s recommendations for Davis Drive.
Councilmember Thayer stated that as much as she would like to have bicycle lanes on Trousdale Drive, she understood that there are a lot of different needs on that street. She added that if Council went ahead with staff’s recommendations of only having bike lanes on Trousdale between California and El Camino Real, then the City needs to think about crossings at El Camino Real and California.
Councilmember Thayer stated that the City did need to prioritize Trousdale Drive for pedestrian updates.
Councilmember Colson thanked the students for coming to the Council meeting to give their input about bike lanes. She voiced support for staff’s recommendations. She discussed why bike lanes were installed on California Drive and how it has worked to slow traffic and save lives.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg discussed the need to teach motorists to look out for cyclists by encouraging more people to bike. He voiced concern about installing bike lanes on Trousdale due to the large hill. He noted that because traffic safety wasn’t a goal of the project, he understood staff’s recommendation on Trousdale.
Mayor Stevenson stated that he believed that staff’s recommendations were a step forward for the City.
Mayor Stevenson thanked staff for the presentation and noted that the Council was in support of moving forward with staff’s recommendations. He added that the Council would also like staff to look into pedestrian improvements on Trousdale and whether bike lanes could be added to Odgen.
10 b. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION TO TERMINATE FURTHER WORK ON THE BROADWAY SPECIFIC PLAN
PROJECT
CDD Zayer stated that she was last before the Council on this topic in February 2025 to discuss the emerging framework and the public engagement regarding a Broadway Specific Plan. She noted that the engagement included discussions with the Planning Commission, a community workshop, and pop-ups at the Downtown Farmers Market and on Broadway in front of Walgreens. She added that approximately 120 participants came to the various events and provided feedback.
CDD Zayer explained that from these meetings, common concerns emerged including:
• Given the uncertainty of the grade separation project at Broadway and California and the future of the Broadway Caltrain station, no changes to the development regulations for the area should be made
• The Broadway corridor is narrow and constrained and takes a high volume of traffic during the commute times in the morning and evening
• The on-street parking on Broadway is heavily used and needed.
She added that in general, the community sentiment was not to change the existing regulations and streetscape design of the Broadway corridor.
CDD Zayer stated that in March 2025, the City Council discussed the grade separation project and considered various redesign options presented by Caltrain to lower the cost of the project, including the removal of the station. She noted that given the general community feedback received in February 2025, and the direction from Council on March 3 to redesign the grade separation project to remove the Broadway Caltrain Station, staff recommends discontinuing work on the Broadway Specific Plan. She added that MTC has determined that the remainder of the funding from the grant can be used to work on the implementation of TOC policies around the Downtown Burlingame Caltrain Station and/or on North Rollins Road around the Millbrae Transit Station.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked if he was correct that if the train station is closed at Broadway, then the City would not have to implement TOC policies. CDD Zayer replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Colson asked if the City would need to return funds if the Council approves terminating the project. CDD Zayer replied that the City wouldn’t need to return funds, and MTC is open to spending the remaining balance on MTC policies elsewhere in the city.
Councilmember Pappajohn asked if she was correct that a specific plan wouldn’t be needed if the City wanted to move forward with murals or wayfinding signage. CDD Zayer replied in the affirmative. She noted that the City would need funding and direction on how to move forward with those concepts.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that he reached out to businesses on Broadway. He explained that he heard a concern about commercial vitality and what the potential solutions might be. He asked if the Broadway
11 Specific Plan could be switched to focus more on commercial vitality over housing. CDD Zayer replied that specific plans are land use regulatory documents. She explained that this didn’t mean the City couldn’t explore some type of program to help increase commercial vitality on Broadway. However, she noted that specific plans are about increasing density.
Councilmember Thayer discussed using the specific plan to look at office space or mixed use in the blocks next to the Broadway corridor. CDD Zayer replied that the new General Plan, adopted in 2019, increased the types of land use allowed in the Broadway area. She added that mixed use is allowed.
Councilmember Colson asked if the Broadway BID was involved in the discussions regarding the Broadway Specific Plan. CDD Zayer replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Colson stated that there was a lot of discussion around parallel parking versus angled parking. She noted that this was done on Burlingame Avenue with the cooperation of the property owners and that all contributed to the project. She asked if she was correct that a specific plan wouldn’t be needed to alter how cars park on Broadway to give way to more pedestrian walkway. CDD Zayer replied in the affirmative. She added that during the outreach, there was no request to change the current parking.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked if Broadway Grade Separation occurs, would it increase Broadway’s commercial vitality. CDD Zayer replied in the affirmative. She explained that she believed it would create a better flow of traffic, which would allow people to more easily run quick errands on Broadway.
Councilmember Colson asked if there was a train station at Broadway, does State law compel the City to have denser housing. CDD Zayer replied in the affirmative.
Mayor Stevenson opened the item up for public comment.
Ross Bruce encouraged the City to continue working on a Broadway Specific Plan or a similar plan in order to future proof Broadway.
Brian Benn stated that he supported increased housing and keeping the train station open at Broadway.
Mayor Stevenson closed public comment.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked what the height limits currently are on Broadway. CDD Zayer replied that she believed the 2019 General Plan increased the heights to three stories, and changed it to commercial, office, and residential. She noted that with State density bonus laws, a developer could increase the height further.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that he was torn. He explained that he felt some remorse in terminating the specific plan. He compared it to being on the committee for Downtown Burlingame and how he noted that if the City wanted redevelopment, they had to allow for greater heights. However, he noted that it would be hard to redevelop Broadway with the limited amount of parcels.
12 CDD Zayer stated that she reviewed the regulations of the Broadway Mixed Use District in the General Plan.
She explained that it allows heights of 35 feet, up to 46 feet with a special permit, a density of 50 dwelling units per acre, and an FAR of two.
Councilmember Colson stated that this doesn’t include the State density bonus. CDD Zayer replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Thayer asked about the heights and the mixed use allowed off the corridor. CDD Zayer replied that the blocks adjacent to the corridor are zoned R3, which is the medium high density residential, and they also have a density of 50 dwelling units per acre.
Councilmember Thayer stated that there were a lot of things that came out of the work that was done on the Broadway Specific Plan. She hoped that if the plan didn’t go forward that the City looked at common themes and worked on how to incorporate them.
Mayor Stevenson made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 030-2025; seconded by Councilmember Thayer. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0.
12. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
There were none.
13. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
There were none.
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 9:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer
City Clerk