1 BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL
Approved Meeting Minutes
Regular City Council Meeting on July 6, 2026
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 7:04 p.m.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by former Mayor Terry Nagel.
3. ROLL CALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Brownrigg, Colson, Pappajohn, Stevenson*, Thayer MEMBERS ABSENT: None
* Councilmember Stevenson appeared at the meeting remotely from Sunriver, Oregon, as noticed on the agenda.
4. REPORT OF REMOTE PARTICIPATION
There were none.
5. REPORT OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION
a. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54957.6 AGENCY DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVES: CITY MANAGER LISA K. GOLDMAN, CITY ATTORNEY
MICHAEL GUINA
EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATIONS: AFSCME LOCAL 829 ADMINISTRATIVE UNIT, AFSCME LOCAL 829
MAINTENANCE UNIT, BURLINGAME ASSOCIATION OF MIDDLE MANAGERS (BAMM)
City Attorney Guina stated that no reportable action was taken.
6. UPCOMING EVENTS
Mayor Brownrigg reviewed upcoming events in the city.
2 7. PRESENTATIONS
a. UPDATE FROM CALTRAIN ON BROADWAY GRADE SEPARATION
Caltrain’s Deputy Executive Director Sherry Bullock stated that the purpose of the presentation was to:
• Provide an update on the Broadway Grade Separation Project • Outline the project’s next steps
• Answer questions and receive input
Ms. Bullock reviewed the following timeline of the Broadway Grade Separation Project:
• January 2017 – project study report approved
• October 2020 – preliminary engineering and environmental completed • January 2021 – design phase initiated
• January 2024 – Construction Manager/General Contractor (“CMGC”) awarded contract • March 2025 - updated cost estimate prompting joint reassessment; City Council agreed to “no station” option
• August 2025 – City/Caltrain MOU for 65% redesign approved
Ms. Bullock stated that the key changes in the redesign included:
• No station at Broadway
• No temporary shoofly (temporary tracks used for construction)
Ms. Bullock discussed the status of the 65% redesign. She stated that it was submitted in June of 2026 and includes the following:
• Refined track, roadway, structures, utilities, and drainage designs • Refined property impacts
• Developed landscaping design and aesthetic options
• Continued fiber and utility relocation coordination
• Continued geotechnical analysis for structural design
Ms. Bullock stated that after the 65% design phase is completed, they will need to look at what remaining pre-construction work is needed including:
• Finalize design plans, specifications, and costs
• Finalize constructability reviews
• Monitor risk management
• Conduct community engagement
• Submit and obtain all necessary permits
• Finalize construction document package
• Progress property acquisition activities (e.g. assessments, appraisals, and plat maps) • Progress utility relocation agreements
3 Ms. Bullock reviewed the final design phase cost:
Type Role Cost
Caltrain (includes staff and
consultant support)
• Oversight of scope, schedule, and budget
• Oversight of design, cost, and risk management
• Support property acquisition activities
• Conduct community engagement
$8 million
Designer • Develop final design plans and specifications $10 million Construction Manager/General
Contractor
• Refine cost estimate
• Conduct constructability reviews
$4 million
SUBTOTAL $22 million
Contingency Approximately 10% of cost $2 million
TOTAL FINAL DESIGN PHASE
COST
$24 million
Ms. Bullock stated that they are estimating that the cost of property acquisition activities (including environmental assessments, property appraisals, mapping, and purchases) is $26 million.
Ms. Bullock stated that in March of 2025, the project was estimated to cost $615 million. Caltrain will need to bring back an updated number to Council, as this number was based on an assumed construction start date of 2026.
Ms. Bullock reviewed recent funding activities for the project:
• $3 million federal community project funding
• SMCTA Board has
o Programmed and allocated - $21.6 million for final design o Programmed contingent on the receipt of a Federal Railroad Administration Railroad Crossing Elimination Grant (“FRA RCE”) - $273.6 million for Right of Way (“ROW”) and construction
• Pursuing $90 million FRA RCE grant for construction – Caltrain, SMCTA, and the City submitted this grant together
Ms. Bullock discussed the project’s top risks:
• Funding
o Actively pursue grants
o Burlingame joint ad hoc funding committee
o Funding and advocacy roadmap
• Tenant relocation schedule
o Start tenant relocation
o Optimize relocation terms and conditions
• Third party utility relocation
o Establish relocation agreements
4 • Construction work windows
o Operational analysis
Ms. Bullock discussed the project’s next steps:
• July 2026
o Complete 65% redesign
o Complete refined project delivery cost estimate
o Develop engagement approach and schedule
• August 2026
o Approval of $2.4 million of City contribution to proceed with final design phase o Provide refined total project cost estimate
o Review public engagement approach and schedule
• September 2026
o Action: JPB Approval of Final Design MOU
o Execute Final Design MOU
o Start Final Design development
Mayor Brownrigg stated that for a long time, the City was told that the project would cost $300 to $400 million. He explained that the City believed it was one major federal grant away from achieving full funding for that scale. However, subsequently, Caltrain returned and informed the City that the project cost was closer to $800 million. He stated that in response Caltrain:
• Shifted to a CMGC model
• Involved industry experts in value engineering
• Asked the City to drop its Broadway Station component to reduce the construction cost
Mayor Brownrigg noted that the elimination of the shoofly is a positive development. He stated that he didn’t feel like a lot of new information was gained from the presentation and asked that in August, Caltrain come to Council with a revised and realistic budget number.
Councilmember Colson thanked Burlingame staff and their regional partners for pushing this project forward. She expressed hope that the City would secure funding to move forward.
Councilmember Thayer stated that the SMCTA set aside a very large sum of money for this project contingent on the federal grant. She noted that those funds could have been used for other projects.
Councilmember Stevenson thanked Caltrain for coming back to Council with a more realistic cost for the project. He added that he believes the project is on the right path and that transparency is greater than before.
Vice Mayor Pappajohn voiced support for beginning property acquisition and utility negotiations sooner rather than later.
5 Councilmember Colson asked questions regarding the cost estimates and, if there is a funding shortfall, does the project continue or is it put on pause. Caltrain Chief of Staff Casey Fromson stated that Ms.
Bullock has been integral to delivering on large complex projects. She explained that in an ideal world, agencies would have all the money in hand before proceeding. However, funding often comes in increments and must be matched carefully to the project’s progress.
Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment.
John Hutar discussed the economic costs of not fixing the Broadway intersection. He urged the Council to keep this project as a top priority.
Mayor Brownrigg closed public comment.
Mayor Brownrigg stated that his main worry for this project is the sheer magnitude of the cost. He asked that in the future, Caltrain’s slides focus on the cost and how this cost will be met.
b. UPDATE FROM SAN MATEO COUNTY AND HORIZON TREATMENT SERVICES REGARDING THE
MAHLER ROAD PROPERTIES
Mayor Brownrigg stated that this presentation was an update from the County on the acquisition of property on the Bayfront and hosting Horizon Treatment Services (“Horizon”) at this site.
County Executive Officer Callagy introduced Horizon CEO Jaime Campos to give an overview of the services they provide.
Mr. Campos stated that Horizon has operated in the Bay Area for nearly 50 years. He explained that their focus is on substance use disorder treatment and “helping and healing”. He noted that Horizon has a local presence as they are the long-time operator of the Palm Avenue Detox in the City of San Mateo.
Mr. Campos stated that like many California communities, San Mateo County faces a growing challenge of how to respond to substance use crises in a way that protects public safety and maximizes community well- being. He noted that currently, people with acute substance use crises are often taken to emergency rooms or local jails. He explained that the problem with this is that those settings are not designed for appropriate stabilization or long-term care. He added that this places a strain on hospitals, law enforcement, and public resources.
Mr. Campos stated that Horizon Recovery Center was designed to address the above discussed gaps with an integrated facility providing:
• Sobering center services
• Detoxification services
• Residential treatment services
6 Mr. Campos stated that in October 2025, his organization submitted an application to the California Department of Health Care Services (“DHCS”) for a Behavioral Health Continuum Infrastructure Program (“BHCIP”) Grant. He explained that Horizon was selected for funding to establish a 69-bed behavioral health facility including sobering, detox, and residential treatment. He stated that originally, the awarded site was 101 North El Camino Real in the City of San Mateo. However, subsequently the County identified the Mahler Road site in Burlingame as an alternative.
Mr. Campos stated that Horizon performed extensive due diligence to determine whether the DHCS grant can be transferred to the Mahler site. He added that Horizon is working with the County to structure a lease-to-acquisition arrangement for the Mahler site.
Mr. Callagy stated that the following day he would be asking the Board of Supervisors to enter into an MOU with Horizon and structure a lease of the Mahler property with the intention that Horizon purchases the property later. He noted that previously, the Mahler site was operated as a sobering station for 11-years.
Mr. Callagy stated that some community members may feel that the decision was rushed. He explained that the County’s long-standing practice when it first considers purchasing a property is to notify the host city. He noted that the proposed purchase of the Mahler site did not leave extensive time for robust public outreach. However, the County held a meeting with hoteliers, general managers, and some community members. He added that he remains open and willing to meet further, be transparent, and engage with the public.
Mayor Brownrigg asked Mr. Callagy to explain how much authority Burlingame has, or does not have, over how the County uses the Mahler property. Mr. Callagy replied that the County, as a government entity, has authority to develop its own property for government uses without being bound by local zoning. He added that while the County seeks collaboration and alignment, formally the City’s zoning and specific plans do not control the County’s use of the land. He noted that the County’s immunity exists because government must provide essential public services across jurisdictions.
Mayor Brownrigg asked whether the County ever considered acquiring the City of San Mateo property, 101 North El Camino Real, and preempting the City of San Mateo’s zoning powers. Mr. Callagy replied that the County looked at many mid-Peninsula properties, including those in the City of San Mateo, but some did not work for various reasons. He explained that 101 North El Camino Real didn’t work because police officers from multiple cities would need to navigate through a busy downtown and intersection to reach the facility. He added that traffic on Friday and Saturday nights is heavy, and this made that site a suboptimal sobering center. He explained that the advantage of the Mahler site is that it is centrally located and accessible for agencies from Daly City to East Palo Alto.
Vice Mayor Pappajohn stated that several hoteliers expressed concern about what happens when clients are released from treatment and whether clients will be in the surrounding neighborhood during or after treatment. She asked that if the County finalizes an agreement with Horizon, that it expressly include:
• Understandings and requirements that clients be escorted upon departure • Enforceable operational practices to avoid unsupervised clients in nearby hotel/airport corridors
7 Mayor Brownrigg asked Horizon to address how they decide when someone can leave the campus, how they handle differences between sobering and detox clients, and how they prevent individuals who are still impaired from wandering the surrounding area. Additionally, he asked whether the County can ensure such operational parameters are codified in their agreement with Horizon. Mr. Campos replied that he understood the City’s concerns. He introduced Jeff Essex, Program Manager at Palm Avenue Detox, to explain Horizon’s day-to-day practices. Mr. Essex stated that as program manager, he takes both internal facility and external neighborhood security seriously. He added that one cannot maintain a safe, drug-free detox environment, if the surrounding environment is unsafe.
Mr. Essex discussed how the three different elements: sobering station, detox center, and residential treatment program, operate.
1. Sobering Station - Clients arrive via law enforcement, and the clients are informed about their minimum stay requirements. If clients want to leave before they fulfill their minimum stay requirement, Horizon staff notifies the relevant law enforcement agency.
2. Detox Center - Clients are generally there voluntarily and are there because they want to detox and pursue recovery. These clients are not in the facility due solely to law enforcement mandate. Staff meets with clients frequently throughout each day to engage in continuous dialogue. If a client decides to leave early, staff talks with them about their decision and prepares a safe plan. Staff will offer transportation to ensure safe travel away from the facility to Caltrain, BART, or another suitable transit hub.
3. Residential Treatment Program - This is the highest level of care proposed at Mahler. In this program, clients have completed initial stabilization at a 3.5 ASAM-level facility (clinically managed high-intensity residential service) and are then undertaking a 90-day residential program. If a client wants to leave, staff engages with them similarly to detox clients and plans their next steps.
Mr. Callagy stated that the County has a long-standing rule that if someone leaves the sobering station early, the law enforcement agency that originally brought them is responsible for returning to pick them up and taking them to jail if necessary. He explained that this was his experience when he was an officer for the City of San Mateo. He added that Horizon staff would be expected to follow anyone leaving early and ensure that they don’t walk into traffic or wander into hotels and update local police on the individual’s whereabouts.
Mr. Callagy stated that during recent meetings with hotel general managers, he heard for the first time of certain issues surrounding the former sobering station. He explained that he was previously unaware of these concerns and stated that the County would have acted if they had known.
Councilmember Thayer discussed how at public discussions regarding the original San Mateo site, it was stated that these facilities have better outcomes in residential or community-embedded locations. She asked how the Mahler site, which is in a more industrial/airport adjacent location, fits into Horizon’s clinical model. Horizon Chief Program Officer Derya Ozes replied that research has shown that people heal faster when in residential-like settings. She explained that the Mahler site is not extremely distant from places
8 that offer healing-supportive environments. She added that Horizon can design clinical programming that incorporates supervised walks along the Bayfront.
Mayor Brownrigg asked Horizon to confirm that clients utilizing the Bay Trail would be accompanied by Horizon staff. Ms. Ozes replied in the affirmative.
Mayor Brownrigg stated that the decision to purchase the Mahler site appeared rushed. He explained that this is Burlingame’s first public meeting regarding the purchase of this site, yet the County is preparing to act the next day. He asked Horizon to explain any state-imposed deadlines that have driven this timeline.
Mr. Campos replied that Horizon submitted a request to DHCS about 1.5 months ago asking them to consider transferring the BHCIP grant to Mahler. He explained that DHCS asked for a feasibility analysis including a budget neutral evaluation and construction risk profile of the Mahler site. He added that DHCS imposed a deadline of Wednesday (two days after this meeting) by which Horizon must submit an affirmative decision on whether the Mahler site is feasible and supporting documentation on costs and design.
Mr. Campos stated that Horizon’s preferred site remained the North El Camino Real site if all three service lines could be co-located there. However, the emergence of Mahler as a probable sobering station changed the calculus. He explained that if the sobering station is at Mahler, then the integrated 69-bed three service line model funded by DHCS would be broken up. He added that DHCS strongly prefers integrated service delivery. Therefore, while the North El Camino Real site has strengths, from a BHCIP grant perspective, the Mahler site now makes more sense.
Mayor Brownrigg asked Mr. Campos whether Horizon repeatedly expressed to the County that it preferred that the site remain the North El Camino Real location. Mr. Campos replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Colson stated that Burlingame is historically a welcoming and cooperative city. She voiced frustration that Burlingame was given very little time to react and was being treated differently than the City of San Mateo. She noted that she called Mr. Callagy and the Supervisors at 7:00 a.m. when she realized that the purchase of the Mahler site was going to the Board of Supervisors without any public hearing in Burlingame. She voiced appreciation that the County continued this item so that Burlingame could have this meeting. However, the process felt confusing and rushed for Burlingame residents and businesses.
Councilmember Colson stated that Burlingame was a big supporter of StarVista. She explained that Horizon is stepping into a legacy of service that Burlingame supports. She noted that there were several meetings regarding the purchase of the site in the City of San Mateo where concerns about the safety of the neighborhood and the distance between the proposed site and schools were discussed. She added that the County previously voiced concerns about Horizon as an entity, its operations, and issues of trust and possible “operating malfeasance.” She asked what had changed in the past two weeks that now such concerns appear to be resolved. Mr. Callagy replied that his concerns with the North El Camino Real site were not about the safety of residents or children. He noted that the County has experience operating a
9 detox center at Palm Avenue near a school. He explained that his concerns were operational about the North El Camino Real site. He noted that the site’s location is in a busy downtown at a problematic intersection. He added that it would require officers to drive through congested areas, especially on busy evenings.
Mr. Callagy stated that when the Mahler site became available, it was simply a better operational fit, not a safety-driven change.
Councilmember Colson asked whether County staff spoke with the superintendent and principal of the continuation high school across from the Mahler site. Mr. Callagy replied that he did speak with the superintendent and they had a frank conversation. He remains confident based on experience that such treatment and sobering facilities do not lead to clients going on school campuses and harassing students.
Councilmember Colson discussed another County contracted facility in Burlingame where the local ombudsman contacted her about over 150 citations including allegations of elder abuse and sexual assault on residents. She stated that the local ombudsman reported months of unsuccessful attempts to reach the County. She asked that the County assure Burlingame that the same slow response will not occur at the Mahler site. Mr. Callagy replied that he will go one step further and give his personal cell phone number to the hoteliers. He urged them to call him if there was any problem. He added that the County is committed to being a great neighbor and collaborator.
Councilmember Colson stated that she is concerned that if litigation arises over the County’s actions on the Mahler site, the City would be named in those suits. She asked if the County would be willing to indemnify the City for all legal proceedings and costs arising from the County’s use of the Mahler site. Mr. Callagy replied that he can’t commit to that indemnification at this meeting, but will discuss with County Counsel.
Councilmember Stevenson stated that hotels are an important revenue source for the City. He added that hotel business is very sensitive to reputation and safety incidents. Therefore, if even one incident goes viral involving a Horizon client, it could affect airline and major client contracts. He stated that Horizon’s operating model involves voluntary clients (except for the law enforcement mandated sobering station), which appears relatively “laissez-faire” compared to the level of guarantee hotels might desire. He asked for more explicit and robust assurance about how Horizon will protect the community, especially hotel corridors. Mr. Campos replied that he plans to engage directly with neighboring businesses to ensure that they have direct contact information for Horizon staff and can quickly reach Horizon if they have concerns.
Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment.
Hyatt Regency SFO General Manager Kevin Kretsch stated that he is supportive of addiction treatment services, but his concern is about location and process. He explained that the Mahler site did not receive the level of community engagement and outreach that the North El Camino Real site received.
SFO Marriot General Manager Lisa Kershner stated that she was disappointed with the lack of transparency and communication on the matter.
10 Embassy Suites Burlingame Waterfront General Manager Sam Kim stated that the hotel community is not opposed to treatment services, but their concern is about site compatibility and impacts.
The San Francisco Peninsula CEO John Hutar discussed how the Bayfront is not zoned for residential use.
He added that the City has been working on a specific plan and sea level rise. He stated that adding a residential recovery center could encumber or limit future development possibilities.
Ellen Wang stated that she strongly supports a sobering/detox/recovery center operated by Horizon and would like it at the original site. She added that the North El Camino Real site met resistance from a small but noisy and poorly informed minority.
John Ebnetter expressed strong opposition to the Mahler site given that critical healthcare facilities should not be placed in areas vulnerable to sea level rise.
Carol Eldridge stated that she believed the only reason for the shift from the City of San Mateo to Burlingame was due to political pushback from a group of well-connected City of San Mateo residents who didn’t want such a facility near their homes.
Teresa Gee expressed support for addiction treatment and recovery but worried about the impact the Mahler site would have on its neighbors.
Supervisor Corzo stated that she had been involved in the process of finding a site for Horizon from the beginning. She noted that addiction affects all segments of the community and discussed the importance of granting people access to treatment. She pledged to remain a resource and participant in the decision- making process moving forward.
Former Millbrae Mayor Schneider voiced support for treatment services but discussed concerns about the Mahler site having regional impacts.
Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County representative Ken Chan stated that HLC’s preference remains the North El Camino Real site due to its central location and accessibility.
Taso Zografos voiced support for the Mahler site.
Mayor Brownrigg closed public comment.
Mr. Callagy stated that if the Board of Supervisors authorizes the purchase of the Mahler site, a monthly community advisory committee should be formed to include:
• Hotel representatives
• School representative from Peninsula High
• Nearby businesses and residents
11 He added that he would attend the meetings and ensure any concerns are addressed quickly.
Mayor Brownrigg stated that he believes there may be a better site in Burlingame but due to tight DHCS deadlines and short notice, there was no time for Horizon to evaluate other sites. He explained that his main regret is being forced into a sub-optimal outcome by time pressure rather than local choice.
Councilmember Stevenson expressed support for the intent of providing treatment and sobering services.
However, he expressed deep disappointment with the process. He noted that the original site in the City of San Mateo was more clearly aligned with Horizon’s clinical model and evidence-based healing environment.
Councilmember Thayer voiced concern that the City of San Mateo residents had months of meetings and deeper engagement, while Burlingame had only one public meeting on the eve of the County’s decision.
However, she noted that she gained confidence in Horizon’s professionalism through watching San Mateo City Council meetings and the Board of Supervisors’ hearings. She added that she still believes the original site in the City of San Mateo is the best clinical model, but Burlingame can’t prevent the County’s decision.
Councilmember Colson stated that Horizon was placed in a difficult situation balancing the DHCS grant requirements with County property limitations and the neighborhood opposition in San Mateo. She expressed disappointment that Burlingame did not get the chance to welcome and partner with Horizon under a more inclusive process. She expressed gratitude to Supervisor Noelia Corzo for consistently engaging with Burlingame and treating the City as a partner.
Vice Mayor Pappajohn stated that she found the compressed timeline deeply problematic and that it did not give her enough time to answer residents’ questions and fully understand and evaluate options.
Mayor Brownrigg thanked all for attending the presentation.
c. COUNCILMEMBER THOUGHTS ABOUT AMERICA’S 250
TH ANNIVERSARY
Mayor Brownrigg stated that this item would be moved to a later date due to the robust conversations on the previous two presentations.
8. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Caroline Rafferty talked about the importance of volunteering at senior living facilities. She discussed how she is a regular visitor and plays her guitar there. She asked that the Parks and Recreation website include signs up to be volunteer musicians at local senior facilities.
Former Mayor Terry Nagel discussed her request for a complete ban on glyphosate use in the city.
Judy discussed the importance of SB 707 and remote public comment.
12 9. APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Brownrigg asked the Councilmembers and the public if they wished to remove any item from the Consent Calendar. No items were pulled.
Councilmember Colson made a motion to adopt the Consent Calendar; seconded by Councilmember Thayer. The motion was approved unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0.
a. SECOND READING AND ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 15.07 OF THE
BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE TO INCLUDE THE PROHIBITION OF THE IRRIGATION OF CERTAIN NON-FUNCTIONAL TURF WITH POTABLE WATER (CEQA DETERMINATION: EXEMPT PURSUANT TO STATE CEQA GUIDELINES SECTIONS 15378 AND 15061(b)(3))
Environmental Regulatory Compliance Manager Craney requested Council adopt Ordinance Number 2051.
b. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING NEW JOB CLASSIFICATIONS AND APPROVING THE
CITY OF BURLINGAME PAY RATES AND RANGES (SALARY SCHEDULE)
HR Director Saguisag-Sid requested Council adopt Resolution Number 094-2026.
c. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AWARDING A $181,440 CONTRACT FOR A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS TO PIPE AND PLANT SOLUTIONS FOR THE FY 2026-2029 STORM DRAIN INLET CLEANING PROJECT,
AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE CONTRACT
DPW Lamm requested Council adopt Resolution Number 095-2026.
d. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTIONS AWARDING A $996,364 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS TO BRANNON CORPORATION FOR THE FY 2026-2029 CREEK AND CHANNEL CLEANING PROJECT AND APPROVING A $247,171 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS WITH WRA, INC. FOR ENVIORNMENTAL PERMITTING, BIOLOGICAL
MONITORING, AND REPORTING SERVICES RELATED TO THE PROJECT
DPW Lamm requested Council adopt Resolution Number 096-2026 and Resolution Number 097-2026.
e. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF A
CONSTRUCTION INSTALLMENT SALE AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL
BOARD FOR THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY DIGESTER IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, CITY PROJECT NO. 86580, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT
DPW Lamm requested Council adopt Resolution Number 098-2026.
f. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF BURLINGAME’S COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
13 COOPERATION AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO TO CONTINUE PARTICIPATION IN THE SAN MATEO COUNTY URBAN COUNTY PROGRAM FOR FEDERAL FISCAL YEARS 2027, 2028, AND 2029
CDD Zayer requested Council adopt Resolution Number 099-2026.
g. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A LEASE AGREEMENT WITH GIGI’S CAFÉ, LLC, FOR THE LEASE OF THE GREYHOUND BUS DEPOT FOR AN
INITIAL TERM OF FIVE YEARS, WITH TWO ADDITIONAL FIVE-YEAR OPTIONS, FOR A MAXIMUM OF 15 YEARS
Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad requested Council adopt Resolution Number 100-2026.
h. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE PURCHASE OF LIBRARY MATERIALS FROM INGRAM LIBRARY SERVICES ON AN AS-NEEDED BASIS, WITH A NOT-TO-EXCEED LIMIT OF $220,000 FOR FY 2025-26, AND AN ADDITIONAL $1,110,000 FOR A THREE-YEAR TERM ENDING JUNE 30, 2029, FOR A TOTAL NOT-TO-EXCEED AMOUNT OF $1,330,000
City Librarian McCulley requested Council adopt Resolution Number 101-2026.
i. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO RESPOND ON BEHALF OF THE CITY
COUNCIL TO THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION (CAL FIRE)
WRITTEN RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE DRAFT COMMUNITY SAFETY ELEMENT
CDD Zayer requested Council adopt Resolution Number 102-2026.
j. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A REVOCABLE
LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH THE SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
DPW Lamm requested Council adopt Resolution Number 103-2026.
10. PUBLIC HEARINGS
There were no public hearings.
11. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
a. CONSIDERATION OF TWO APPOINTMENTS TO THE LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES
City Manager Goldman stated that the impending vacancies on the Library Board of Trustees are due to the expiring terms of Trustees Jill Goldsmith and Mark Lucchesi. She explained that the City received four applications by the May 22, 2026, deadline. The Council interviewed Bobba Venkatadri, Jill Goldsmith, and Mark Lucchesi on June 18, 2026. The fourth applicant did not attend the interview.
14 City Manager Goldman stated that the appointee terms will be for three years, ending on June 30, 2029.
Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke.
City Clerk Hassel-Shearer collected and tallied the Council’s votes.
Congratulations to Jill Goldsmith and Mark Lucchesi on their reappointments!
b. SECOND READING AND ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE TO PLACE A TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX REVENUE MEASURE ON THE NOVEMBER 2026 BALLOT TO INCREASE THE CITY’S TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX RATE FROM TWELVE PERCENT TO FIFTEEN PERCENT; ADOPTION OF A
RESOLUTION CALLING AN ELECTION IN THE CITY OF BURLINGAME TO PLACE A TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX ON THE NOVEMBER 3, 2026, BALLOT; AND CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTING A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO DRAFT AND SIGN THE BALLOT ARGUMENT AND
REBUTTAL OR TO RECRUIT ALTERNATIVE SIGNATORIES
City Manager Goldman stated that this was the second reading of a proposed ordinance that would place a Transient Occupancy Tax Revenue Measure on the ballot. She explained that the proposal would be to increase the City’s TOT from 12% to 15%.
City Manager Goldman discussed the difference between a general tax and a special tax:
• General Tax – requires 50%+1 to pass, revenue goes to general government purposes, and cannot legally include a binding expenditure plan in the measure text • Special Tax requires two-thirds approval to pass, can specify exactly how money will be spent
City Manager Goldman stated that the City last increased its TOT in 2009 from 10% to 12%. She added that the City’s 12% rate is lower than 11 of 16 cities in the County with TOT rates. She noted that the highest TOT rate in the County is Menlo Park at 15.5%. She explained that Burlingame has approximately 3,500 hotel rooms plus short-term rentals (such as Airbnb and VRBO).
City Manager Goldman stated that pre-pandemic, the City’s TOT revenues peaked at $29.4 million. In FY 2020-21, the City’s TOT revenue dropped to $5.7 million. She added that for FY 2026-27, the City is expected to generate $23 million in TOT, which is still $6 million less than the peak pre-COVID.
City Manager Goldman stated that if the measure passes, the City Council will hold a study session in January 2027 to discuss expenditure priorities for the incremental revenue. She added that the increase from 12% to 15% would generate approximately $5.7 million annually.
Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment.
Andrew Peicemer voiced transparency concerns regarding the measure.
15 Hyatt Regency SFO General Manager Kevin Kretsch voiced support for the principal goal of raising revenue for civic priorities. He asked that if approved, the Council consider enhancing the Bay Trail.
Embassy Suites Burlingame General Manager Sam Kim voiced support for the TOT measure as a tool to support City services and tourism.
The San Francisco Peninsula CEO John Hutar voiced support for the measure and noted that the City could have increased TOT earlier but held off so hotels could recover from COVID.
Mayor Brownrigg closed public comment.
City Manager Goldman stated that the City is investing significantly in the Bayfront by undertaking a Bayfront Specific Plan, implementing the Old Bayshore Highway Complete Streets project, and requiring the Divco project to restore missing segments of the Bay Trail.
Vice Mayor Pappajohn made a motion to adopt Ordinance Number 2052; seconded by Councilmember Colson. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0.
Councilmember Thayer made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 104-2026; seconded by Councilmember Stevenson. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0.
Councilmember Colson and Councilmember Thayer volunteered and were appointed to draft the primary argument in favor of the measure and the rebuttal if necessary.
c. UPDATE REGARDING THE HISTORIC RESOURCE EVALUATION OF THE EXISTING CITY HALL
City Manager Goldman stated that the City retained Environmental Science Associates (“ESA”) to conduct a Historic Resource Evaluation (“HRE”) of City Hall at 501 Primrose Road. She noted that the site is zoned R-4 (High-Density Residential) but allows for:
• Residential uses
• Government uses
• Open space
City Manager Goldman stated that in February 2025, the Council authorized agreements for the new City Hall at 1440 Chapin Avenue. She noted that tenant improvements are underway, and staff anticipates moving sometimein September.
City Manager Goldman explained that the existing City Hall building needs substantial capital investment for:
• Seismic retrofits
• Asbestos removal
• HVAC modernization
16 She added that prior estimates from staff were that it would cost approximately $35 million over ten years just to keep the building functioning. She explained that Council created an ad hoc subcommittee of Councilmember Stevenson and Councilmember Colson to work on the new City Hall project. This subcommittee requested an analysis of whether the current city hall qualifies as a historic resource and a description of what such a designation would mean for potential sale or reuse.
City Manager Goldman reviewed ESA’s findings. She stated that under State criteria and Burlingame’s local historic resources chapter, the building:
• Qualifies as a historic resource for purposes of CEQA • Meets National Register Criterion 3 (distinctive characteristics of a type, period, method of construction, work of a master, high artistic values).
City Manager Goldman stated that the current city hall was designed by architect William Whifler.
According to the ESA report he is considered a master architect, and 501 Primrose is believed to be his only non-residential building. She explained that he later founded the architecture program at the College of San Mateo.
City Manager Goldman stated that in accordance with the local register criteria, ESA found that the building meets eight of the eleven criteria:
• The existing City Hall is visually prominent and located at a major intersection • The design is consistent with the low-rise, mixed-use character of Downtown Burlingame • The existing City Hall represents the center of civic activities and, like many Bay Area cities, is located near the City’s downtown
• The existing City Hall represents civic, late modernist architecture, designed by master architect William A. Whifler, which clearly influenced Burlingame’s “heritage” • The existing City Hall represents the development of local government • The building retains its original integrity, even with some repairs and additions • The existing City Hall contains distinctive characteristics of late modernist architecture, without many other examples in Burlingame, so it is unique
• The existing City Hall is 55 years old, over the required 50 years
City Manager Goldman stated that the building is not currently listed on any state, federal, or local historic register. However, it qualifies as a historic resource under CEQA which means:
• Any future project on the site (demolition, major alteration, new construction, etc.) must analyze potential substantial adverse change to a historic resource • CEQA review would be required as part of any disposition/redevelopment She noted that ESA stated that this could be challenged by other consultants, but it is the City’s current professional evaluation.
Councilmember Colson discussed concerns about 501 Primrose being “land-banked” by a buyer and left fenced and blighted for a decade. She voiced interest in strategies that encourage timely, high-quality reuse, while respecting historic elements.
17 Mayor Brownrigg discussed the disposition of the post office in downtown Burlingame. He recalled that the City ultimately held the historic covenant on the building and worked with the State Historic Preservation Office to:
• Preserve key elements
• Allow demolition/redevelopment of the rear sections
Mayor Brownrigg suggested considering a “Request for Proposals” approach to invite various adaptive reuse concepts consistent with zoning and CEQA.
Councilmember Colson suggested considering whether a non-profit or community entity could one day acquire or steward the site using local fundraising or a parcel tax.
Councilmember Stevenson asked about the estimated annual cost to simply hold the building in a vacant state after staff moves out. City Manager Goldman replied that she would ask facilities to develop an estimate.
Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke.
Mayor Brownrigg thanked the City Manager for the report.
12. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Councilmembers reported on their various committees and activities.
13. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
Council asked for a discussion to be agendized on former Mayor Terry Nagel’s glyphosate ban proposal.
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 Brownrigg adjourned the meeting at 10:45 p.m. in memory of Mary Herman.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer
City Clerk