Minutes, study session — Burlingame City Council, September 21, 2026

1 BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL
Approved Minutes
City Council Study Session on September 21, 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 5:30 p.m.

2. ROLL CALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Brownrigg, Pappajohn, Stevenson, Thayer MEMBERS ABSENT: Colson

3. REPORT OF REMOTE PARTICIPATION
There were none.

4. PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no public comments.

5. STUDY SESSION
a. BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE ALTERNATIVES AND SHORELINE CONCEPT DESIGN

DISCUSSION
CDD Zayer stated that the study session would be split into two parts:
• Land use alternatives
• Conceptual designs for the Bayfront, Bay Trail, and shoreline open space Raimi + Associates Principal Christopher Sensenig began by reviewing the community engagement on the Bayfront Specific Plan:
• Phase 1 – Background Analysis and Visioning (2026)
o Stakeholder and property owner meetings (April through June 2026) o City Council Study Session on May 4, 2026
o Meeting with Community Advisory Committee (“CAC”) on April 27, 2026 2 o Community meeting on June 10, 2026
• Phase 2 – Develop and Analyze Options for the Plan Area (2026) and where the project currently is o CAC meeting on September 3, 2026
o City Council Study Session on September 21, 2026
o Community meeting and community survey to be held in December 2026 through January 2027
• Phase 3 – Pick a Preferred Option and Prepare the Plan (2027) o CAC meeting
o Stakeholder and property owner meetings
o Joint Planning Commission and City Council Study Session o City Council Study Session
• Phase 4 – Environmental Analysis and Plan Adoption (2028) o Community open house
o Planning Commission adoption hearing
o City Council adoption hearing
Mr. Sensenig discussed the ideas that came out of the meetings with the key stakeholders and City Council:
• Public Space and Resilience
o Short-term and long-term plan for a continuous, accessible Bay Trail o Public gathering spaces along the waterfront with seating and public art, surrounded by cafes and restaurants
o Expanded public space from Bayside Park towards the waterfront o Levee protecting the bay side
• Land Use
o Mixed views on housing
 Some support for a commercial mixed-use district to work, play, enjoy restaurants and small businesses
 Some support for residential mixed-use pockets
o Event center for conferences and indoor sports
o Preserved Innovation Industrial area with indoor recreation, gathering spaces, and creative uses integrated over time
• Transportation and Connectivity
o Improved bike and pedestrian connections across 101 and within the plan area o Local shuttle route connecting to Millbrae Station, Broadway, and Downtown Burlingame Mr. Sensenig discussed takeaways from the first community workshop:
• Public Space and Resilience
o Expand tree planting
o Expand open space
o Overall beautification
o Address flooding
• Land Use
o Cultural and entertainment destination
3 o Recreation as a major priority
o Mixed-use district with housing
o Relocation of less desirable uses
• Transportation and connectivity
o Prioritize completion of the Bay Trail
o New pedestrian and bicycle connections across Highway 101 and the rail tracks o Improve transit access by restoring Broadway station service and providing local shuttles Mr. Sensenig discussed the 2019 General Plan which divided the area into two principal land use districts:

1. Bayfront Commercial (“BFC”)
o “creating a welcoming environment for Burlingame residents and tourists alike to visit, shop, eat, bike and walk, and enjoy nature.”
o “office and research and development, as well as both local and tourist commercial uses…” o “prioritize public access to the waterfront”

2. Innovation Industrial (“I/I”)
o “light industrial and logistics centers, with complementary commercial businesses.” o “indoor recreation facilities should be minimized”
o “creative and design related businesses”
Mr. Sensenig reviewed recent and planned development since the adoption of the General Plan in 2019:
• Recent Projects
o The Landing
o TopGolf
o Bay Park Plaza
o Meta Reality Labs
• Planned Projects
o 1499 Bayshore Highway – 0.3M SF
o 1200-1340 Bayshore Highway – Peninsula Crossing – 1.46M SF o 777 Airport Boulevard – 0.4M SF
o 620 Airport Boulevard – Burlingame Waterfront – 0.48M SF o 410 Airport Boulevard (Bay Rise Park)
Mr. Sensenig reviewed three land use alternatives for the Bayfront:

Alternative 1:
• Housing – only as allowed per State law
• Bayfront Commercial (“BFC”) District – reduce FAR maximum and change areas of the district west of Airport Boulevard to Innovation Industrial
• Innovation Industrial (“I/I”) District – reduce FAR maximum for office/R&D and expand to areas west of Airport Boulevard
Mr. Sensenig noted that the plan retains and expands the I/I District west of Old Bayshore and Airport Boulevard. This is done to focus new development along the shoreline. He showed depictions of this including Oyster Point in South San Francisco.
4 Alternative 2:
• Housing – permitted use in most of the BFC District
• New Bayfront Mixed Use District to allow housing
• BFC District – change most of the district to new “Bayfront Mixed Use” District • Maintain I/I
Mr. Sensenig stated that this alternative is called the market-responsive option. It changes the Bayfront Commercial District into Bayfront Mixed-Use, allowing housing by-right. He added that it would allow the market to determine the highest and best use across the whole area. He showed examples of this including Mission Bay, San Francisco.

Alternative 3:
• Housing – permitted use in two clusters – along Old Bayshore Highway and Airport Boulevard • New Bayfront Mixed-Use District to allow housing and restrict office/R&D in two clusters • BFC District – change two clusters to new “Bayfront Mixed-Use” district • Maintain I/I
Mr. Sensenig stated that the third alternative allows housing but only in clusters to try and create distinct residential neighborhoods. He showed examples of this including the Brooklyn Basin in Oakland.

Mr. Sensenig stated that they studied the potential for a convention/event center. He noted that this could have a positive effect on the hospitality industry in the plan areas. However, he explained that there are some constraints including that there is pretty much only one site in the plan area that meets the size requirement of a convention/event center. He added that the other major constraint is that convention and event centers are almost always publicly financed.

Mayor Brownrigg said prior councils had looked at a convention center when considering repurposing the landfill. He noted that the public-financing requirement weighted against other pending city obligations made it hard to advance. CDD Zayer replied in the affirmative.

Vice Mayor Pappajohn asked about the community input on the idea of a convention center. CDD Zayer replied that interest came primarily from the hoteliers. She added that there had been discussion regarding the underutilization of the San Mateo Event Convention Center. She discussed the possibility of partnering with the County regarding the Convention Center and the City’s hotels.

Councilmember Stevenson asked about the breakdown of viewpoints regarding uses for the Bayfront. He specifically wanted to know about who advocated for housing versus a convention center. Mr. Sensenig replied that the early meetings were general listening sessions with no surveying. He added that a survey on the alternatives would come next.
5 Mr. Sensensig reviewed the three alternatives and their trade-offs:

Alternative One Alternative Two Alternative Three
Pros Potential for more
office/R&D and
hospitality development
which would create
economic and fiscal
benefits for the City
Most flexible option
which creates the
potential for more
development and
activation of the area
and has the potential to
help address housing
needs
Clustering housing
creates the potential
development of
cohesive neighborhoods
that could support
neighborhood-serving
retail and other uses
and the potential to
help address housing
needs
Cons Lower potential for new
housing with a risk of
less development and
activation of the area
Less local control over
location and types of
development with
potential conflicts
between uses
Less local control over
amount of development
with potential traffic
and infrastructure
capacity issues
Less flexible option with
risk of less development
and activation of the
area
Mayor Brownrigg requested an Alternative Zero to act as a baseline, showing what happens if nothing is done. Mr. Sensenig replied that Alternative One differs slightly because the baseline has no caps beyond the 3.0 and 2.7 FARs.

Mr. Sensenig reviewed the next steps:
• Economic Analysis
o Fiscal impact analysis of existing and potential future uses o Market and feasibility considerations
o Financial strategies for sea level rise infrastructure, both public funding sources and development-based tools
• Land Use and Urban Design
o Height and density analysis
o Development standards
• Transportation Analysis
o Land use sensitivity and gateway capacity
Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment.

The following individuals spoke: Kirby Altman, Amy Chung, Kirk Sym, and Git. 6 Mayor Brownrigg closed public comment.

Councilmember Stevenson stated that he strongly supports the Bayfront Specific Plan. He noted that housing is the hardest element to evaluate because the City already has a specific housing plan targeting transit-oriented locations and is on top of its RHNA requirements. He added that the challenge with Bayfront housing is the supporting infrastructure such as schools, fire, safety, and transportation.

Vice Mayor Pappajohn concurred with Councilmember Stevenson. She said that recreation came through as a major theme and emphasized the importance of preserving open space, gathering space on the Bay Trail, and Bay views as priorities. She raised transit connectivity concerns, noting the limited access from Broadway.

Councilmember Thayer concurred with Mayor Brownrigg that differences between Alternative One and the baseline should be highlighted. She discussed the event center and stated that she is unsure about a true convention center due to public financing. She added that the Bayfront’s uniqueness is that one road – Bayshore/Airport Boulevard – connects everything, contrasting with Mission Bay, which has Third, Fourth, and Sixteenth Street, plus a new road over the railroad tracks.

Mayor Brownrigg requested four factual items for the next iteration:

1. SFO’s demand forecast for ten and twenty years as a correlate to visitor volume, plus a hotel demand forecast

2. The approximate population tipping point at which a new school is needed

3. A cheat sheet on biosafety levels 1 to 4, their meanings and risks, noting a potential biotech lab developer is concerned about nearby residential uses limiting him to below Level 3 or 4; and

4. A bullet list of state housing laws that apply regardless of local zoning changes CDD Zayer outlined the next steps, stating that they would run all three alternatives through analysis covering traffic, financing, market conditions, infrastructure, police, fire, and schools. Based on this analysis and public input, they would select a preferred alternative for CEQA and detailed regulation including biotech and adjacency questions.

CMG Landscape Architecture Founding Partner Chris Guillard stated that with clear direction and policy, the waterfront can become:
• Resilient – address current and future coastal flood risk • Connected – increases public access and recreational value • Economically Dynamic – creates a place that leverages the waterfront as an economic engine • Ecological – improves ecological health and habitat value • A Place – brings people together to connect with each other and the bay Mr. Guillard discussed proposed criteria for the waterfront open space planning:
• Shoreline Adaptation
o Shoreline protection elevations
7 o Buildings and critical infrastructure
o Waterfront setbacks
o Bay trail requirements
o Open space guidelines
o Public amenities and destinations
• Shoreline Access
o Set at parcel boundaries
o Guidelines for development
Mr. Guillard discussed the proposed strategy of breaking the shorelines into zones for:
• Passive recreation that includes: flood protection, shoreline access, nature-based solutions where possible
• Nodes of activity that connects to Old Bayshore Highway • Destinations on the waterfront, focusing land use and development guidance around those areas Mr. Guillard stated that most of the northern portion of the Bayfront area is located within the FEMA 100- year flood plain and is already facing flooding issues, particularly during King Tide events. He added that without adaptation measures, these areas could experience regular flooding or permanent inundation later in the century. He explained that OneShoreline’s project proposes to build a levee up to a grade of 16 to 17 feet. The proposed phasing of the project is as follows:
• Fall 2026 – Draft EIR set to be released for public comment • Winter 2026 – San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC boards) • Summer 2027 – Final EIR
Mr. Guillard showed examples of waterfront open space projects in San Francisco: China Basin Park, Bayfront Park, Cityside Park, and Crane Cove Park. He noted waterfront amenities that could be included:
• Public access connectors
• Overlooks and steps
• Enhanced coastal edges
• Picnic areas
• Structures
• Public art
• Bay trail amenities
• Signage and wayfinding
Mr. Guillard showed depictions of different waterfront open space strategies.

Councilmember Thayer stated that a lot depends on what OneShoreline produces and gets approved. She appreciated the built-in flexibility. She added that she likes the plan because it delivers for residents by making the Bay Trail more accessible and expanding open space options. 8 Vice Mayor Pappajohn praised the passive zones, nodes, and key destinations as creative and varied. She asked Mr. Guillard to explain the risks of the scenario in which property owners develop before OneShoreline. Mr. Guillard replied by citing Peninsula Crossing as the model. The development team and City addressed the relevant issues.

Councilmember Stevenson asked how far along OneShoreline is on financing, noting the patchwork of ownership and the historical assumption that the City produces design and vision while individual developments implement it. He also asked who owns the landfill if it extends into the Bay. CDD Zayer replied that the financing is extremely complex, that neither OneShoreline nor the City have figured it out, and that the referenced precedents – Mission Bay and Treasure Island – had single property owners.

Whereas, in Burlingame, it is uncharted territory with hundreds of owners and renderings that sit on private property. She said next steps are a concept plan, conversations with all property owners, and discussions with regulators including BCDC and the Army Corps.

Mayor Brownrigg proposed arranging a deeper dive or working session on financing within the next month or two. CDD Zayer replied that this conversation would be essential but is premature. She recommended having this conversation after the economic analysis of the preferred alternative is conducted.

Burlingame City CouncilSeptember 21, 2026

Burlingame City Council
September 21, 2026